Will Cain Country - Is Taking On Iran 'America First?' (ft. David Hookstead)

Episode Date: June 17, 2025

Story #1: What does the escalation and potential American involvement in the Iran/Israel conflict mean for 'America First?' Will says the answer depends on two key questions: Does it help us, and what's the cost to America? Story #2: David Hookstead, Reporter at OutKick and Host of ‘American Joyride,’ joins Will to further break down the Iran/Israel conflict, and discuss California Democrats trying to ban masks for law enforcement and the Trump Administration refocusing its efforts on illegal immigration. Story #3: When College Football inevitably breaks up and the powerhouse schools form a new College Football Super League, who will be in and who will be out? Will and The Crew debate if your team will be on the outside looking in.  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 X: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Why just survive back to school when you can thrive by creating a space that does it all for you, no matter the size? Whether you're taking over your parents' basement or moving to campus, IKEA has hundreds of design ideas and affordable options to complement any budget. After all, you're in your small space era. It's time to own it. Shop now at IKEA.ca. One, civil war, online, on the right. Is it America first to attack Iran? Two, the left's attacks on law enforcement now require, or attempting to require in the state of California law enforcement ice agents to take off their masks. Three, the settlement.

for NCAA sports, sets up a transition period for college football where the inevitability is, almost certainly a super league. Who's in, who's out, college football super league? It is Will Kane Country, streaming live at Fox News. on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page every Monday through Thursday at 12 o'clock Eastern time. Subscribe at YouTube to Will Cain Country. Set a reminder.

Jump into the comment section. Crown yourself, a member of the Wilicia. And if you're listening on Terrestrial Radio in some two dozen marks across this great United States of America, just hit subscribe at Apple or on Spotify. We've got a big show for you today with big news on the horizon. The United States of America repositioning aircraft carriers and Air Force assets from the South Pacific into the Middle East, suggesting it could be inevitability. It could be an inevitability that the United States will participate in military operations offensively against Iran. That leads to the big question of the day.

Is it America first for America to militarily get involved in a regime change? effort in Iran. We got two a days, Dan, we got tin foil pat, and we have that up for you today as a poll question for the Wallitia. Two days, Dan has some of the results here as we kick off the show. I'd love to check the results, both before and after, I make my case. I give you my answer on whether or not is America first to attack Iran. I've always wanted to host a debate program. At one time, I sort of toyed around with the idea of creating a WWE-style league for debate. My idea was it wouldn't even matter who is in the debate. It doesn't have to be Douglas Murray versus Dave Smith. It could really almost be anybody. In fact, I thought about

allowing people to play characters. Like if you want to go in as, you know, a Mexican wrestler with a mask on or you want to go in as the great Kabuki, I don't care. Anonymity being the key to debate and lean into performance. I'm talking dry ice and smoke. I'm talking about fireworks, but underneath all of the entertainment, real substance in the debate. But the key, the key to the entire league, the competition, the winners and losers of the debate, is you have to have the audience vote before the proposition and after the proposition. It isn't simply a majority wins. the question, the talent, the win is in how you move the audience. So if we have a very unpopular position, say, the great Kabuki is debating on behalf of a 10% proposition. He wins the

debate if the post-debate poll shows 12% now agrees with him. He gained two points. The man who took the easy side, the 90% proposition loses if he comes out at just 88. So I want to ask the Willisha at the beginning. What do they think? Is it America first to intervene in Iran? Two days. Where do we stand right now with the Willisha? So the poll question was, does the war with Iran fit America first? Majority of people, we have about 400 votes. 250 of those votes are yes. It does fit America first to go to war with Iran. About 70 people are no, and about 50 people are undecided. So majority, yes. You gave them an option. You gave them the option for undecided.

Okay, so going in, it is the popular position that it actually is America first to intervene in Iran. So let's do this. Let's make our case. And let's open that up for a moment as well to our first guest of the day, which will be outkicks David Hookstead. Let's get to it with story number one. Civil war. It's broken out on X. Civil War, on the right, within MAGA.

Has President Donald Trump betrayed Make America Great Again? Has he betrayed the proposition of America first? Has he done so by indulging the potentiality of America's involvement with Iran? Donald Trump spoke yesterday where he said quite clearly, the proposition is no way. nooks for Iran. Watch. Remember, Iran cannot have

any nuclear weapons. Very simple. You don't have to go too deep into it. They just can't have a new weapon. Audio quality is somewhat lacking there from the press gaggle on Air Force One, but he said quite clearly, they can't have them. No nukes for

Iran. Now, there are many, many, many right now in the right on the online right that have started to suggest that Donald Trump has betrayed make America great again that he's betrayed the proposition of America first their argument reads that Donald Trump promised to be the peace president the no new wars president the no forever war the no new war in the Middle East Donald Trump does have a track record of criticizing America's interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. And there are those that said they voted for him in 2020 and in 2024 on the promise

that he would not serve as a president or a mouthpiece to the neocon right. They look at the influence or the seemingly rhetorical win for someone like Senator Lindsey Graham and they say what has happened to Donald Trump. I think it starts, by the way, this entire enterprise with defining America first. Let me start with what I think. This is my opinion of what it is not.

These things are not America first. It was never, in my mind, about America being isolationist. It wasn't pacifist. It certainly wasn't buying into the idea that is increasingly popular

in some circles of the online left and right, the United States is always the bad guy in every intervention or skirmish or conspiracy on the world stage. It was never about the idea that anything that extended beyond our borders couldn't serve the interest of Americans. It was about prioritizing the interest of Americans, which would inherently in my mind prioritize the domestic issues and needs of the American people. Yes, we need to deal with illegal immigration.

Yes, we need to prioritize stopping the flow of things. fentanyl. Yes, we need to find purpose for our young men and our younger generation that seem to be lost to the abuses of drugs, depression, increasing rates of suicide. Yes, we need to figure out how to grow our economy in an increasingly turbulent future where AI threatens not 10% of the jobs, but perhaps 50% of the jobs. If you're raising a kid today, it's one of the scariest questions you have to try to answer. What should I encourage them to pursue in their life? What kind of education? What kind of work? These are all at the top. of the list when it comes to serving the interest of Americans.

But it doesn't mean in my mind that you never have an interest overseas. You never have an interest on the world stage. It's not a chicken or an ostrich with its head in the sand ignoring foreign policy. I think America First requires the answer to two questions on any debate about whether or not there's a worthy American intervention. one what is in it for the United States

two is that worth the cost a president Donald Trump has said that he has always held the proposition that Iran should not have nukes

well D&I Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard just a few months ago put out a report that said Iran is not close to having news. In March of 2025, she wrote, the United States intelligence community continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.

And the Supreme Leader Cominay has not authorized nuclear weapons program that he's suspended in 2003. That has been the line of American intelligence for quite some time. It is not in line with most intelligence agencies around the world. In fact, most intelligence agencies say Iran has been pursuing a nuclear weapon. And the International Energy and Atomic Commission has said that Iran has enriched uranium to the level of 60%. Vice President J.D. Vance took to X this morning, and he said, no one denies Iran's ability to use civilian nuclear power, but that only requires enrichment to 3%. They have well exceeded any civilian use of nuclear power. They have enriched uranium to 60. percent. What's needed to get to a nuclear bomb? 90 percent. Most intelligence assessments

suggest you can go from 60 to 90 and 90 to bomb at a fairly short pace. Suggesting Iran may be close. We should have a healthy level of skepticism because we've heard that for well over 30 years that Iran is on the doorstep of a nuclear weapon, but suggesting that Iran could very quickly get to a nuclear weapon, but more importantly, revealing the goals of the Mullahs and the Ayatollah to actually get a nuclear weapon. And Donald Trump has said that's the case. He doesn't care what was said by Tulsi Gabbard. This is also an Air Force one. Mr. President, you've always said that you don't believe Iran should be able to have a nuclear weapon. But how close do you personally think that they were to getting one? Because Tulsi Gabbard,

you testified in March that the intelligence community said Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon. I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to happen. He said he didn't care what Tulsa Gabbard said. They're very close to getting a nuke. So it's what Donald Trump's saying and what he's prepared to do in line with America first. I return to my two questions. What is in it for the United States? And is it worth the cost?

I'm a firm believer that we serve the interest of Americans. And that, in my mind, does not mean we fight a war for Israel. We do not serve with our military or with any other. element of our might at the benefit of any ally, including Israel. So I will tell you, I don't actually appreciate when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says things like this about the threat to America. It's Tel Aviv. Tomorrow, it's New York. Look, I understand America first.

I don't understand America dead. That's what these people want. They chant death to America. So we're doing something that is in the service of mankind, of humanity, and it's a battle of good against evil. America does, should and does stand with the good. That's what President Trump is doing, and I deeply appreciate his support. I find these arguments uncompelling. Today, it is Tel Aviv, tomorrow it is New York.

That seems to me a pretty clear play to fear mobilize the people of America. I also don't find it compelling to have the world described in terms of good and evil. even if at times it can clearly be accurate. I need a more, I need a more cynical answer. I need a colder answer. I need an answer that describes the self-interest of the United States of America. I think these two questions, how does it serve the United States and what does it cost? It's never been answered in Ukraine.

I think it simply hasn't. And that's why I think it's been right for many on the right to question the investment in an ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia. but I don't think it's hard to answer these two questions when it comes to Iran. Iran has been, and Netanyahu is correct, a self-avowed enemy of the United States for the better part of four decades. They have chanted death to America, but it hasn't just been rhetorical. They have funded terrorism around the world. Some people suggest the number of American soldiers killed by Iranian proxies, Iranian weapons, or Iranians,

over the last couple of decades has been in the thousands. They have been a relatively overt enemy of the United States. It would seem to serve our interests to take out the Mullahs, the Ayatollah, the religious zealots who run Iran. I think there's portions of the right, by the way, that have carried this idea of America first into not just isolationism, but the idea that America is always the malevolent actor and sometimes sympathetic towards those against whom we would act. I am not skeptical of a war between Ukraine and Russia because I'm sympathetic to Russia.

Oh, I can be a rational actor and say, yeah, as NATO creeps closer to the borders of the former Soviet Union, there's going to be a rational reaction from the Russians. I think that's a rational way to look at the world, which the world works transactionally. The world works through self-interest. it doesn't work ideologically or through philosophy. It doesn't work through the prism of seeing everyone as good and evil. And it doesn't work through exporting democracy and freedom. And I think Russia would have a valid fear, a rational fear,

about the creeping borders of NATO on its borders, meaning then its actions would be explicable in the pursuit of self-interest. Our response should equally answer, what is the United States self-interest in defending Ukraine or expanding the borders of NATO? Again, I don't think that has been answered adequately. But when it comes to Iran, I think there's a pretty rational and clear answer that how it would serve America to take out the leadership of Iran. Now we inject some humility into our analysis. What comes after the Mullahs?

What comes after the Ayatollah? Look back of the envelope. Do I think Iran is a more sophisticated, secular advance? society than Afghanistan and Iraq? I do. Do I think the people of Iran would possibly replace the religious zealots with a more secular and advanced member of the world community? I do. But I have learned the lessons of the last 25 years that you should have some humility in replacing regimes from Libya to Afghanistan. We should have that humility. It doesn't have to paralyze us and keep us in a constant state of inaction,

but it has to be part of our calculus. As Philip Seymour Hoffman said in Charlie Wilson's war, you have to be able to see what comes next. We'll see. But I think we can pretty clearly answer of how it will serve the American interest to intervene, even militarily, and possibly offensively, in Iran,

taking us to question number two, what is the cost? if the cost is simply B-2 bombers dropping bunker-busting bombs on the Fordo nuclear facility buried underneath a mountain in Iran, you're talking about a pretty low cost of investment and risk financially and through our blood in accomplishing the goals of serving America first. If it requires boots on the ground, if it spirals out of control into a more metastasized war, into World War III, which I do not think it would, but again, I say that with humility. I don't think Russia and China mobilized to the side of Iran. I don't know that Iran has a lot of military might, that it's squirreling away in its

back pocket, ready to unleash on Israel and the United States, but I have to consider those outcomes, and it could spiral out of control, but if it does, that raises the prospect of cost. As does the United States commitment to nation building after destruction. The United States military is built for destruction. That's what it is. It is a weapon for defense, not for creation, for destruction, not for nation building. If it requires us to build the new regime in Iran, you're raising the cost. You're raising our investment.

You're upping the ante and bringing to the table a bigger ask. And we have to measure that cost. Is it 20 years like in Afghanistan with nothing to show for it? is it 15 years like in Iraq with a lot of blood sweat and treasure expended to create something that doesn't resemble ISIS these have to be answered right now the ask is fairly low we have to give weight to right now what comes after right now right now the ask is fairly low when it comes to Iran so answering those two questions is it in the United States interest in what is the cost lends us towards, I believe, it is America first to potentially intervene in Iran.

But more so than that, I do have to tell you, I think you have the right president for the job. Not an ideologue. Not a pacifist. Not someone who is doctrinaire on no new wars. But someone who does think in terms of a deal and always a good deal. for America. And if intervention or negotiation is the path to a low cost deal that serves the interest of America, I think you have the right president to find that deal in President Donald Trump. That's my case. For the current state of play on how it satisfies for me the essential

questions on what is America first. Head back into the comments section. Register your vote. Register your voice. Let's see what you think of my case. And if it changed any of your opinion, we'll lay out those results in bringing David Huxed, your comment, the Wallycia, when we come back on the Wilcane show. find ourselves a little bit better on the other side listen and follow now at foxnewspodcast.com 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 dot fox then come back here to see how you did thank you for taking the quiz

Iran must not have a nuclear weapon, period, says Ryan Pullen on YouTube. It is the Will Cain country. Stream live at foxnews.com, Fox News.com, Fox News, YouTube, and Fox News, Facebook. Hit subscribe at Apple or Spotify, jump into the comments section. We want to hear from you as we ask the question, is it America first to intervene militarily in Iran? I want to register some of your comments here before we get to the poll results a little bit later in the show. See how you feel. First of all, some Chinese characters that I cannot read, that's the moniker over on YouTube, says it depends on how much the USA will pay for a war against Iran.

It may take a long time as the last war in Afghanistan. Knock Newt says, I'm a Republican. I think it's America first. And Charles Inman says, yes, it is for America's advantage. Two days, you said, there are some comments, though, out there who consider my case that I have made today a case of a warmonger. Yeah, Paul, Paul on YouTube said, send this warmonger over there as a response to your monologue. So that was one of them. Well, what I would say to that, Paul, is a couple of things.

the send me over their proposition suggests that the people that we would send over and there's nothing on the table that suggests we would put American troops in the line of fire on the ground, American pilots, flying over the skies that are apparently currently controlled by Israel is an all-volunteer military.

We are an all-volunteer military. And I can't speak for every soldier, but I can't speak for almost every soldier that I've ever met. they are ready, willing, and want to meet the fight. So the idea that we send people over there against their will with no skin in the game for those that offer up their opinion, I think, isn't an honest argument. I do think it's an interesting point sometime when it's made with politicians who easily

send their populace to war. But that is about not analyzing what I think are the two questions of serving America first. How does it serve our interest? one is it worth the cost two what more the accusation of being a war monger paul i would say as follows i don't look for war i'm not excited about war but if you believe that the american public much less the republican party much less mag or those who are american first are pacifists who suggest that any military action is warmongery you my friend i think i think i say this humbly are the one

vastly out of touch. America, this is my suspicion, is not afraid to whoop anyone's ass. In fact, I think America likes to whip some ass when it is required. But the question is, when is it required to serve the interests of America? Sage Riker says on YouTube, Israel may be our ally, but getting involved in this war is not our problem. I actually agree with that analysis, Sage, insofar as answering how it solves Israel's interest is not the same as answering America's interest. I've made no case to you today that relies on the interests of Israel, rather only the attempt to answer the question of how it serves America. Dan says, not our war, Israel started this. SFG says America first. Black Dragon says Israel can handle Iran

on their own. That seems somewhat possible, but currently the land suggests that they're going to need us to hit this Fordo nuclear facility. They don't have the bombers or the bombs to hit that deep into the earth. C.J.W. 007 says never voting R again if we go further in this war with Iran. And Josh says a Republican sent us on a nuclear goose chase in the Middle East last time, too. I think skepticism is very well-earned. But don't let skepticism simply be a reaction. It's just part of your analysis on answering whether or not it is America First. Let's talk about this with a columnist at Outkick.

It is David Hookstead, who joins us now, who, by the way, also is the host of American Joyride. What's up, David? Hey, good to see, Will. Happy to be here today. I don't know how long you've been tuned in listening to some of what I had to. say about making the case, attempting to analyze what I think is the most important question, does military intervention in Iran serve the, I think, appropriate prism of serving America first? And we've heard from some of the audience as well, the Wilicia. I'm curious what you think,

David. Does it serve America first? I think it's complex. I did listen to your monologue. I thought it was a very good monologue, specifically the part about what are the costs. If we can do this in a way where troops don't have to touch the sand in Iran, and we're just flying B2 stealth bombers and F-22 Raptor fighter jets through airspace that Iran appears who have already lost complete control of, that's one thing. And if we can eliminate this threat once and for all doing it that way, that's a very easy sell. But as you know, once you get on the escalation ladder, things can go sideways all the time. And if we end up with troops on the ground, I think you're going to see a lot of voters who did not want to see that. So again, it goes to cause.

it goes to risks, and if we keep it risk low, low risk, I think it's a good idea. We also have to factor in cost financially, and I think it's a very legitimate part of this analysis. We have incredible deficit in debt. We have issues at home that need our attention, not just our focus, but our financial attention. And I think that should be part of this analysis. But if that comes back as well, fairly relatively low cost, That should be part of the analysis. I just think that there is part of the right. And I'm not here to criticize necessarily.

I'm here to talk it out together who is veered too far into that America first means isolationist. And I'd have never liked that word isolationist. That was thrown around by neocons for a long time at people that were skeptical of involvement in Ukraine, questioned our previous involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think it's been a cudgel, not an argument. it. However, that's because I believed in America first. Like, the analysis needs to be convinced the American people why it serves their interest to do what it is you want to do, Lindsey Graham. But it doesn't mean there's never a call to action out there.

And that's, I feel like, where we have veered. And not just that, there are some who said they voted for Donald Trump and now they regret that vote who seem to always see us as the malevolent force. And sometimes that's true. We have been in a malevolent force and deceived the American people. But we're not always the bad guy. We don't think of ourselves that way, and we're not that way. So if you go into everything going, here we go again, the United States meddling,

I think you have started with an idea and then are looking to justify that idea with current events. Oh, without question, 100% accurate. And when you're talking about people that throw out terms like isolationists or everything might turn into World War III if a single bullet gets fired, that, of course, is not realistic. I think people need to be explained to in the sense that, listen, Iran is our enemy. Now, do they have the capability to strike America here in the homeland? Absolutely not. And anyone who says they do, that's complete foolishness.

But they killed hundreds of American service members in the Middle East with suicide bombs, roadside IEDs. These are not good people. The Aitola hates us. He would happily kill anyone of our people that is within range of their missiles. They've done it before. And I think we just need to explain to people, if we can solve this problem

we do not want them to have nukes but we don't want to invade there is a middle ground that's what we can pursue and let's have a discussion about that and not go to the extremes one way or the other because as you know

when you go to the extremes you're just losing the plot and now we're not even really discussing anything sudden rage over on YouTube says thank you Will for being one of the only remaining voices of reason at Fox I truly appreciate your cliche to say

bravery and really absurd to even and use that objective. Thank you, Sudden Rage. At this point, I'm going to ask everybody in the audience to head on over to YouTube or Facebook, wherever two a days has the poll set up and register your vote and whether or not you think it is America first

to intervene in Iran. We have your votes at the outset of the show. You've heard from David. You've heard from me. You've heard from some of you out there in the audience. Now, register your vote. We want to see what you think at the back end of this. All right, David, I want to ask you about this measure

in California. It's pretty incredible. The way that the left, In my mind, David, has villainized law enforcement for years now. I mean, you could argue it started, well, it actually started probably with the social justice movements of the mid-2000s, Michael Brown, on and on, Brianna Keeler. The cops are always bad. Of course, that manifested into defund the police. Now it's ICE agents are the Gestapo.

I think that's literally the words of Minnesota Governor Tim Walts. And now California is looking to pass a law. I want to read this to you and to the audience here, where they're going to force ICE agents to take off their masks. Here it is. The California Democrat proposes legislation to ban face masks for law enforcement officers and not protesters or criminals. It's going to be called the No Secret Police Act

and ban law enforcement from covering their faces, David. The fact that they call it the No Secret Police Act, what they're trying to do is tie it right to Nazi Germany. The Gestapo, Hitler's thugs, rolling around, pulling people out of houses. They're using this terrifying imaging. And the reality is I would question what legality they have. ICE is a federal agency.

They're a state. Last time I checked, there's federal supremacy, which means the federal government's laws and rules supersede what states want to do. So I don't know what legal argument they would try to make. I understand why a federal law enforcement officer in a high-risk environment, a dangerous environment where they may be targeted might want their face cover. If you're going into a house in the middle of the night because you need to grab somebody, you want to go in stealthy, you want to go in low visibility, as they call in the military.

At the same time, do I think regular beat police, guys doing traffic stops, the guy walking your neighborhood should have his face covered, probably not because it's not a good look for the community. But when you're at that tip of the spear upper echelon, if it's tactically required and there's a good reason for it, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to do it unless someone can explain otherwise, and I'm missing it. Well, it also ignores the fact that ICE agents have been under threat over the last several months. We've heard stories, forget what state it came out of, where ICE agency, it was Tennessee, I believe, is Nashville, The mayor of Nashville doxed ICE agents publishing their names and thus their addresses.

The heightened tensions around ice you can see revealed at any of these number of protests, no Kings protest across the nation. My friend Buck Sexton, who I used to work with back in the day at the Blaze, who now host the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton show, said it's a pretty good indictment of your culture and society when the bad guys can go with their faces free and expressed to the public and the good guys are forced to mask up. Most of the time we were talking about that is talking about Mexico. Like the cops in Mexico have to cover their faces. Why? Because they're under threat if their identities are revealed when the bad guys are so bold as to walk around without that. And I think

that's the more accurate description of what ICE is dealing with than trying to look like stormtroopers on random police stops on the side of Highway 75? And the people who deserve the most blame for this are the weak politicians in states like California where they've handcuffed good police officers who wake up every morning. They just want to keep the community safe. They want to do their job.

They want to make sure kids are safe at school. And instead, if they get into a dicey situation, if they have to use force, even if it's a thousand percent justified, what happens? Someone takes a slightly edited or out of context video. They throw it in the media. and this cop who is probably oftentimes just doing their job

becomes villain number one. They come for everything he has. They want him thrown in prison. Blame the politicians. They're the people who've created this atmosphere, this culture, where the people who wear bulletproof vests and run towards the sound of gunfire to keep us safe, they've now turned them into the bad guys

while these politicians sit in their cushy offices, nowhere near the trouble. Let's take a quick break. In just a moment, we'll be back. For a limited time at McDonald's, Enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for $5.5 plus tax.

Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. Hey, we know you probably hit play to escape your business banking, not think about it. But what if we told you there was a way to skip over the pressures of banking? By matching with the TD Small Business Account Manager, you can get the proactive business banking advice and support your business needs. press play. Get up to $2,700 when you open select small business banking products. Yep, that's $2,700 to

turn up your business. Visit TD.com slash small business match to learn more. Conditions apply. Welcome back. So meanwhile, you've heard the hyperbole from, as you know, mentioned California politicians like Governor Gavin Newsom and others who've talked about, you know, fathers on Father's Day being swept up and not available there for their children. empty lunch pails at work sites where guys were absconded away. CNN headline reads, less than 10% of immigrants taken into ICE custody since October had serious criminal convictions, internal data shows.

Then Homeland Security put this out on X, fake news. Secretary Nome has unleashed ICE to target the worst of the worst, including gang members, murders, and rapists. In President Trump's first 100 days, 75% of ICE arrests were criminal, illegal aliens with convictions or pending charges. Quite a little fact dump here. 10% pretty different than 75%. Yeah, well, look, we know that these people can't be trusted as far as you can throw them. And as someone with a bad back, I can't throw them far to begin with. I don't want dangerous criminals anywhere

near this country. And all these people with their crocodile tears, if they love them so much, they can open their doors to the murderers, the rapists, the burglars, and let them sleep next to a bedroom with your kids in it and see how comfortable you are. Of course, we all know that's not going to happen. We have to get violent people out of this country. It might not look pretty. People might complain and scream about it. But at the end of the day, this is about keeping American citizens safe. This is America. This is a country for me, Will. This is a country for you. This is a country for your kids. This is a country for my family. We're citizens. We're the priority. And it's, quite frankly that simple so um i don't know if this is anything more than interesting well president

donald trump initially said he was going to stop raids on farms and so forth now he's reversed that and said they'll continue raids on farms and hotel workers and so so forth looking for illegal immigrants um this is according to golden sacks 2023 census data about 4.4% of the u.s workforce is in the U.S. illegally. It's pretty interesting to see how that breaks down as well. Goldman Sachs estimates 19% of those are in landscaping services, 17% in crop production, 16% in animal slaughtering and processing, and 13% in construction. Quick math, if I'm putting that all together.

You're somewhere just shy. It's about 70% of illegal immigrants working in the United States are in one of those. those for industries. Now, I actually think I trust it more than U.S. data coming from Goldman Sachs. 4.4% is a little lower than I would have anticipated, but those industries don't strike me as odd. Trump said he's going to keep focusing on cities for illegal immigrants. That would suggest, by the way, he's going to keep looking for criminals. It'll be interesting to see if these deportations do focus on these industries here, which To Trump's original point, you would feel. Now, I don't know. What happens in their absence? Are American workers ready to step into landscaping services, crop production, animal slaughtering, and construction? My suspicion is, yes, on some of it, probably no one others. But it's pretty fascinating to see if it will be pursued where there are actually illegal immigrants, non-criminales, working in the U.S.

Well, I think it goes to priorities, right? Like you're talking about the cities. That's where the criminals are. That's what they should prioritize. I 100% believe that the cities or wherever the criminals are should be prioritized, and you can work your way down the list. I actually grew up in a farming community. We had farms everywhere.

My family has farms. And we would always get migrant labor, not my family specifically, but a lot of the farms around us, they'd come in on those short-term work visas. They'd work the farming season. They'd get their money. They'd go back home. They'd come back, so forth and so forth. No problems with those people. They were great, but they were here legally for what it's worth.

What fries me is when you hear people say, well, Americans will never work farms. They'll never work construction. We built homes in this country for 100 plus years without illegal labor. My family has been farming for generations without illegal labor. My dad and all of his brothers did it. So I find it very hard to believe that all of a sudden there's no Americans that will do these jobs. They might have to get paid a little more. They might ask for more. But that has always offended me. My family did it. Every family I knew grew up for the most part did it. And they were all white American rural Midwestern men. I don't know why people think they're apparently incapable of that. I also think, and this is, here, let's see if I can put this up on my screen in studio.

This is data from Pew Research Center. We're not ready to have this conversation. It doesn't seem like we are ready to have this conversation in America. But there should be, In my mind, there should be a conversation as well about legal immigration. Pew Research shows that foreign-born workers in the United States now account for 19% of the total workforce, the labor force. If we're to believe 4.4% of that is illegal, what you're talking about then is a good 15% is illegal. I mean, is legal immigration, and, you know, we should be having a conversation about whether or not this serves the American interest. On one side, you have the argument about, you know, bringing you through breast and your brightest, and we give work visas, and we want people working whatever, in tech that are needed from different countries around the world. But that's the one I have a harder time with when I say, tell me Americans aren't ready to do these jobs, 19%, almost 20%.

watching on YouTube or Facebook, you can see the graph up from about 13% in 2000, up to just shy of 20% in 2024. You know, is this not something that we should have a discussion about as well? Give us your best and your brightest, but what about taking jobs away from American citizens that can certainly do these jobs? As we enter an economy that is increasingly, increasingly at threat from AI, we're going to have to focus on who we're creating jobs for. I'm all for brain-draining other countries of their smartest people so that they can come here and develop tech, weapons systems, engineering, all that.

Big difference between that and low-skill immigration, legal low-scale immigration, and say whatever you want about Bernie Sanders. I don't agree with that guy in virtually anything. But Bernie Sanders actually sounded the alarm on this a lot earlier than most Republicans did when he says, listen, the reason they're bringing in legal and illegal immigration is because it suppresses wages, right? These legal immigrants, they will work for less money, or that's the theory, and you have to stop that in order to protect wages for regular Americans. Bernie Sanders is wrong on 99% of what he says. I actually think Bernie Sanders is correct on that, because when you flood the country with a new workforce, it's going to inherently suppress wages. And who's going to hurt from that? Lower class, working class, American citizens.

Okay, heading back over to the Wallitia. here's what you have to say about America first and Iran. CW says this is insane America should not be involved in this conflict. Are we leaders or servants of a foreign regime? I think C.W. the question is

do you think that any potential American involvement only serves Israel or does it also serve the interest of America? Zishan Rana says Iran is not Hamas or Hezbollah. Iran is a sovereign country with a nuclear program. I'm not sure.

sure what that argument serves in terms of whether or not America should be involved in. And let's be honest at this point. I think it's pretty clear what we're talking about is regime change in Iran. And I only say that, not out of cheering or advocacy. I'm just trying to be clear-eyed and be honest. That's what everybody's talking about. They're not talking about simply setting back their nuclear program a couple decades. They're talking about changing the regime in Iran. Chris Paquette says, the thing is Iran has said it will, give its nukes to its proxies. Iran has said all kinds of things that make you, at least we should listen to what they have to say. Okay, go over to the comments section. There is a

poll up. We want to hear your vote, see your vote here in just a moment. Okay, last thing, I'm about to do this without you, David, but I'm sitting there watching you talk to me with two Wisconsin helmets behind you. I know you're a big fan. I know you're a college football fan. I was actually listening to local sports talk this morning. I mean, I don't think any, I think we, many people appreciate, but you almost, you cannot be hyperbolic and inflammatory enough about what's happening with college football to explain how radical it is. Like, it is over, it's over.

Whatever it is, you and I grew up with, whatever it is, everybody loves, I mean this, it's over. Now, that doesn't mean you won't love parts of whatever is to come, but whatever is to come, is going to be way different than what it is you have loved in the past. And on local sports talk radio, David, they were talking about this deal with the NCAA with the new salary caps and the NIL clearinghouse featuring Deloitte that will decide what deals are legit, not when it comes to marketing. You're just going to have it fall apart, like meaning college football is going to fall apart.

No more powerful conferences. You're going to have a divorce. with the biggest 40, 50, maybe 60 programs leaving. No more 133 Division I College Football Programs. And that leads to a really fascinating question about who's in and who's out of the inevitable college football super league. Do you feel safe, Wisconsin Badger? Well, we're one of the most profitable athletic departments in the country.

I think like about $150 million a year. We're coming off our worst football season in 22 years and still we're right around top 20 for most viewed games in the country. So even when we're down, we're still making money. I am not worried at all about whether or not we'll break it into the super conference. We're the only college football team in the whole state, a state that loves football. What I am worried about is to the point you just made, we're living in a different era. We're living in an era of my grandparents and my father and your grandparents and your father. If you told them this was coming, they would have laughed in your face.

And now we just have to figure out how we're going to wait. through this water because it's insanity on a lot of different levels. All right. I agree with you. Wisconsin would be safe. They're going to make a Super League, but who won't? We're going to answer that pretty soon here on Will Cain Country. All right, David Hoeksteaded outkick.

Check him out. American Joyride. We appreciate you having you on the show today. Thank you, David. Thanks, Will. Here's a question. Iowa State, Mississippi State, Kentucky. How do you feel?

Would you actually be included in a Super League? That and the results, your votes on is it America first to intervene in Iran? Coming up on Wilcane Country. This is Jason Chaffetz from the Jason in the House podcast. Join me every Monday to dive deeper into the latest political headlines and chat with remarkable guests. Listen and follow now at foxnewspodcast.com or wherever you download podcasts. 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 thequiz.com. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz. It's coming. Super League in college football is your program going to make the Super League? Toil cane country at foxnews.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page, hit subscribe at Apple or on Spotify.

We've got two days, Dan, we got tin foil patent, and we've got a question for the Willisha. The question has been of the day, is it America first to intervene in Iran? Now, I want to say one more time today that I actually, and I mean this, I respect almost everyone's opinion on this. There are those that are seemingly in favor of every American military intervention and whether or not we call them neo-conservative, warmonger. They've never seen a bomb they didn't like the idea of dropping. And I don't find them credible. And when they appear on my television set or on my scroll, I just don't find their arguments compelling and therefore not a lot to take away from what they have to say. equally i do feel like there is a reactionary opinion out there that is basically i don't know i don't know

if it's like always pacifist or only in defense what is defense attack on the homeland and even sometimes america's a malevolent force and these are the two sides that are arguing the most online there's also by the way another argument that i don't find compelling that whatever israel's interests are, that means they're the interest of the United States. I don't find that compelling either. Mine's really simple. Answer two questions. One, how does it serve the interest of the United States? Two, is it worth the cost of accomplishing that interest? If you can answer that question, you have served the prism of America first, and I happen to trust that Donald Trump is the right president to be the one answering those questions for America. Now, two days,

asked at the beginning of the program, and we want to ask again now to see how, if in any way, the Willisha has responded. So what was it when we started the show roughly about an hour ago? So to the poll question, does war with Iran fit America first? Earlier, we had about 400 votes. It was about 70 percent, yes, it does. About 20 percent no, and 10 percent undecided. We had to throw the undecided because some people just don't have an answer yet. Right now... Okay. Real quick. Since that time, I've made my case, and we've also heard from the audience, and most of the comments in the chat from the Willisha, seem to suggest it does not serve America first.

Most of the people commenting in the comment section have answered, no, it does not serve America first. But what do the votes reflect? Well, they seem to be a louder minority. Now we have about 3,500 votes. and yes is 50%, no is 36%, undecided is 14%. So 49, 36, 14.

So it's gotten closer. Okay, but by the rules of the game and the will WWE debate league, I have lost. I have not been persuasive. I have failed to make my case. I did make the case, although I made a not impact,

case, which I think is the right way to make a foreign policy argument, not impassioned, but a not impassioned case, but a rather analytical case for why I do think it answers the question in the affirmative, that it does serve America first to intervene in a limited capacity as long as it serves the second question of what does it cost to intervene in Iran. We start out at 70 percent. I lost 14 percent, 14, 15 percent. I'm down to 50-something percent. I'm down to 50 something percent and the 20 percent grew to 36 percent so i am not any good at this not a good debate it was a good argument takeaway according to the audience yeah but those are the rules of the game that's that's the new w w debate league maybe next time if i come out and blow

green smoke out of my palm and shoot fireworks off behind me ramp up the entertainment factor what do you guys think about my debate league concept i'd watch it This is an idea I had like 10 years ago. I kind of think America's moved on. First of all, you're not going to get people on the left to participate. This is the problem with the modern American left. They will not participate in the debate. So they want to cancel you, ignore you,

but they certainly don't want to engage with you in a debate. Now, maybe if I let them dress up in a gimp costume and come out with a leash and a chain around their neck, they will under the guise of anonymity. I don't like that you went there first. I don't like that. Well, you know they live out their fantasy dreams that they only otherwise get to do when they're doing a parade down the middle of Main Street in June.

They get to debate in some butless chaps and a gimp mask. Maybe that will entice the left. Let them live, man. Let them live. I think Fox Nation's see dollar signs here. Yeah, Fox Nation already signed up as we're doing this segment. I know some people are Fox Nation. I wonder if I could present this.

Like in the beginning, I was like, do you get Douglas Murray versus Dave Smith? Do you get, you know, Ben Shapiro versus Tucker Carlson? And that's your debate lineup. And maybe. And you have a fight card, you know, not unlike a W.W.E or UFC, you've got your headliners and you got some undercards, right? And do you do it pay-per-view? Is that how you'd have to do it?

Like, what would you pay? And I'm less optimistic than I used to be on this idea. I like, oh, people pay $10 to $10 to $1 to $1. watch that. Not now. They can just scroll all these fights on X. But that's what X has become. That's what this entire Iranian-Israeli issue is for me. Like, I scroll. It's like, this guy hates this guy.

This guy's fighting with this guy. By the way, and at this point, it's not even about the issues much anymore. It's all like personal attacks on their motivations and so forth. It's they're getting it for free. Who are we talking about, though, like who would go against each other? Give me

example. Because I need to be sold on this. Well, I So as I evolved this idea, Dan, okay, if you're really just going to workshop this out, I don't think it needs to be Ben Shapiro versus Dave Smith. I don't think you need that, okay? Maybe in the beginning. But, you know, you develop your own talent roster, you know? They can be nobodies eventually, just like WWE.

You build them, and they can be whoever they want to be. They can be a character. I don't care as long as they're making the argument in a substantive way. Do you know what I mean? Like, and maybe people won't like that because they like authenticity in their argument. They want to believe that the person saying it does believe it. That's my thing. Like, that's what I'm doing here.

I'm not playing a character, right? It would be also interesting to say how many people in your public sphere are playing a character, you know, on your X feed, on your television set. How many are actually playing a character? playing a character. Yeah. So maybe just own that. Here, now you can play whatever character you want, and we can judge it based upon your argument.

Lots of victims out there. I still sort of like this idea. You need to put a separate poll up. You need to scour the comment section that people would watch this. We can do that tomorrow. Big. Oh, we're a little bit about, you know, kid rocks. Kid Rocks Rock and Rodeo.

You know, it's like Will Kane Raw debate league, unfiltered. Will Kane's dastardly debate. I think there's something here. I smell money. Speaking of leagues. Speaking of leagues and smelling money, college football smells money, and it could mean the end for college football.

I've seen people talking about this new settlement is ultimately going to separate the halves from the have-nots, the revenue behemoths from the also runs in Division I football, 133 teams. We've already talked about how this is going to tear apart NCAA sports like non-revenue-generating sports cannot coexist in the same ecosystem as football. They just can't. Gymnastics, water polo, can't exist. But you know what?

Honestly, neither can what. What? Name the program. I don't want to even be mean, so I'm trying to pick an obvious one. Rutgers. Okay. Dartmouth? Northwestern.

Northwestern. Northwestern cannot exist in the same football ecosystem as Ohio State. It can't, right? And then someone say, oh, every once in a while there's a year. Look at Vanderbilt right now. You could have picked Vanderbilt, and you might have picked Vanderbilt a few years ago. This is a decent program right now in football, you know? But can it sustain it over the long haul under the pressures of Ohio State,

having a $40 million budget, the University of Texas, whatever it may be and this $20 million salary cap just it's not going to hold it's just not going to hold so if the halves break off into a Super League from what I've heard you're talking about 40 50 maybe 60 of the 133 Division 1 programs breaking away okay easy for you to go well that means the San Jose states and the Fresno states don't go with the Texas A&Ms. However, if you're cutting it down like I just said, you're talking about a lot more, and you're cutting into the power four conferences.

So, take you, for example, tinfoil, scale of one to ten, 10 being 100% confident, one being a typical tinfoil Pat Cynic, how confident are you that Florida State makes the Super League? 10, 10. Like, it's absurd. We've won a national championship. Even after you got left out of the 14 playoff, undefeated? It's because we're in the ACC.

Once that's a race, we're on the same playing field. Come on. Like, our TV numbers are better than... I don't know. Maybe you're not the cynic that you play yourself out to be. Surred. It'd be the biggest gift to you in your life if Florida State were left out. Oh, yes.

You could be. be so salty for the rest of your life. Like you already are, but you could like really, really lean into your saltiness. I'll just quit. I mean, just not. You start your own Florida State podcast. I'm just not the interested now.

I thought you already quit. I did. I don't, I dealt, but don't even know what's going on. I don't even have any idea what's going on. Not a bit. Well, then you don't care then if Florida State's left out of Super Bowl. I'm confident. I'm not tracking any of this. I'm confident in my team.

Leave them out. Don't include them. All right. You want to hear, you want to run through a list that AI generated of the locks? The locks for the Super League? The locks, by the way, only come from the SEC and the Big Ten. Which makes sense. Makes sense.

Right? No, but it makes sense because they will be one independent. Thank you, Dan. And the reason why their locks is because. the SEC and the Big Ten will be the hitters in this. They'll be the ones driving it. So that's why these... Money was.

Ready? Here we go. Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Florida, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, U.S.C., Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, Texas, A&M, Auburn, Notre Dame. Okay, so let's talk about who's left out there, right? Both Mississippi schools in the SEC, Arkansas. Now, these are just the locks. That's the locked, and it's only like what I name, like 20 teams, tops.

Obviously, your Vanderbilt, your Northwesterns, your Nebraska's. Okay, but it's not fair, so let's keep going. They say, ACC and Big 12 contenders, but you can put these contenders in. You've got to get to 30 or 40. Clemson, yes, Florida State, Miami, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia, Utah. Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Arizona. So who we left out now? Arizona State.

McKinness is so trash at football. You got to put Michigan State in there. All right. Well, here are your bubble teams. Michigan State, Iowa, Kentucky, South Carolina, North Carolina State, Baylor, TCU, Louisville, Colorado, Maryland, Stanford, Nebraska, Pitt, West Virginia, and UCF

I think UCF is the definition of a bubble program and here is your likely outs okay this is what everybody's waiting for right AI says you're not going to make it Wake Forest Vanderbilt

Indiana Boston College Duke Syracuse Washington State and Oregon State already out Cal Rutgers, Illinois, Arizona State. I don't think Arizona State.

It also says there are some programs. It also says there's some programs, by the way, who aren't, well, some of these are. SMU's Power Force. I don't know why it put in a different category. It says SMU would probably be in, San Diego State, Houston, and Memphis. I actually think Memphis would not make it.

I don't think Memphis would make it. And I don't know about Houston. But what about your Mississippi schools? What about Arkansas? I mean, if we give ourselves 50, we've got a little room here. But Kentucky's a bubble program, Iowa State. What about BYU? We're talking about a lot of programs.

If the Big Ten and the SEC are driving this, wouldn't both their conferences all automatically be in? So Vanderbilt's already in. You know, you're looking at 36 or 38 schools somewhere in there. I mean, they're not going to leave some of their schools out. At this point, it's about money. but it's about money though and they're already look you think Georgia Texas and Alabama like sharing money with Vanderbilt they do

they subsidize Vanderbilt now I'm talking about now so why would they sign up to do it again yeah they're doing it now so they're going to sign up to continue that to subsidize these programs that don't bring in the revenue they bring in I don't know I mean I'm saying like if they if they're not if they're already subsidizing them now not kick them out of the conferences now instead of like having to set up something brand new to do it in the first place like I think they're kind of going to be right or die well I think the next television contract is the pressure point the next big round of television contracts will be when this comes to a head and that will be the question does Vanderbilt get an equal chunk of the money

the SEC brings in as your hitters and if the answer is no do they continue and do they bring in those that do and create a new thing and by the way i think 40 or 50 is a lot like that's a lot of schools where your variance is pretty wide on the money makers and those that are not making so much money i mean it could be much rougher it could be 25 schools and then what happens to you know i mean what's the best school as a proxy for this is it iowa state like who's the who are we talking about it's like the way they've been raised the way they think of themselves, the way they celebrate on campus,

that all of a sudden you're minor leagues, you're not Super League? Like, who takes that the hardest? And the answer is probably a lot of schools. But there's a dividing line right there, and on the other side of that dividing line, it's going to be ugly for a lot of schools that consider themselves big time.

You know? I keep coming back to Iowa State. And what about Missouri, Missouri? Yeah, Missou. Also, O Miss. What does that second league look like? What is that, what is it, how do you, has that even work?

It's a great question. Why go there? And as you tear it, as you tear it, not that like, FCS, I always get this mixed up, FBS, FCS, FCS, but you're Montana, your Montana state, you're, that, that, that, that, that, level of football which is essentially the second division of football it becomes like a third or fourth division lower and like it would be awesome if we implemented some type of relegation and promotion if not at the super league beneath that but they're not going to they never will but you could argue the revenue side like i wonder how much Montana played who was it it was Montana it was

Montana State versus North Dakota State who won it all, right? And that. I wonder what the revenue and profit is of North Dakota State versus Northwestern is. Take out the television revenue that Northwestern gets from being a part of the Big Ten, right? If you take that television revenue out, which it would be out under these premises, what would be the divide there? And I would bet it's not gigantic. between those two. So my point is, whoever's on the other side

of the Super League might be closer in comp to some of those teams than they are actually to Ohio State or Michigan. I think Northwesterns had, they had a big stadium upgrade.

They've had a lot of capital improvements just because they're in the Chicago area. So I think, like, you know, their fan base and their alumni base is much bigger than division. Did you say Montana and Northwestern? Yeah.

North Dakota State. Oh, whatever. Pick your comp. Yeah, do Montana versus Northwestern. So football revenue, non-TV, Northwestern's about $43 million. Montana's $8 million. Allegedly. What is that in ticket sales, merchandising?

Yep, ticket sales. Sessions. Yep. Ticket sales, related, other related sources. Athletic budgets, yeah, are very different. And it's probably what for Ohio State? Closer to $100 million versus that $43 million for Northwestern? Let's see.

So my suggestion that it's closer to Montana than Ohio State. You might still be right. If I'm right. Yeah. Yeah, it's $64 million. Ohio State, Michigan. $64 million for Ohio State. Non-TV.

All right. Close. Non-TV revenue. Whatever it is, it really pushes it over. It's coming. It's coming. Your Super League.

All right, that's going to do it for us today here on the Will Cain show. We, or rather, Will Cain Country. Hit subscribe, Apple, Spotify. See you again right here tomorrow at YouTube or Facebook. We'll see you next time. Listen ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcast, and Amazon Prime members. You can listen to this show, ad-free, on the Amazon music app. 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.box forward slash TX flood relief to support relief and rebuilding efforts.