Emily and Saagar discuss DHS Secretary robbed, Trump floats incentives to increase birthrates, Harvard sues Trump admin, free speech org goes off on Trump.
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of this show.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media, and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 4 (00:33):
News broke yesterday that Homeland Security Secretary Christy Nome had
three thousand dollars worth of cash stolen out of her
purse at a restaurant here in downtown DC. We could
put that first element up on the screen. This is
a report from CNN.
Speaker 5 (00:49):
That lays out exactly what happened.
Speaker 4 (00:51):
I'm just going to read from the story Department of
Homeland Security Secretary Christinomes fell victim to a thief while
eating dinner at a downtown DC restaurant Sunday night. The
secretary confirmed Monday, Gnome, who has asked about the theft
at the Easter egg roll, acknowledged the incident and said
the matter has not been resolved. The thief got away
with Nom's driver's license, medication, apartment keys, passport, DHS access badge,
(01:16):
makeup bag, blank checks, and about three thousand dollars in cash.
Speaker 5 (01:22):
Now.
Speaker 4 (01:23):
A DHS spokesperson explained this to CNN by saying her
entire family was in town, including her children and grandchildren.
She was using the withdrawal, referring obviously to the three
thousand dollars of cash to treat her family to dinner
activities and Easter gifts. Now, I do want to also
(01:43):
put the next element up on the screen. This is
a post from Susan Crabtree, who is one of the
best reporters on the White House Beat period. She says
this appears to be yet another significant Secret Service failure.
The agent's protecting Noome allowed a man in a medical
mask to walk by her table and snatch her purse
(02:03):
with three thousand dollars in it. Susan goes on to
say the detailed leader of nome secret service team should
have been sitting within ten feet of her one or
two tables away according to USSS protocol. Why aren't we
hearing that a Secret Service agent tried to intervene or
at least chased the man down, Sager, This is such
(02:26):
a bizarre story. I don't know if you've ever been
to the restaurant. This is Capital Burger, So it's by
the Convention Center, across from the Apple Store that's walked by.
Speaker 5 (02:35):
The Carnegie Library.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Turned, I know exactly what we're talking about.
Speaker 5 (02:38):
You know, it's actually a pretty good restaurant.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
But all right, shoutout Capitolah.
Speaker 5 (02:41):
Shoutout Capitol Burg.
Speaker 4 (02:42):
But so bizarre that you have a cabinet secretary sitting
to dinner with Secret Service having her purse snatch. Now
there's another layer of weirdness by the fact that you
had three grand in CAP's a lot of money, and
her passport on her weird to perhaps to get into
the White House even though you're a cabinet secretary, may
(03:04):
still need something like that. I have no idea, but
it's extremely weird that Secret Service should be sitting within
ten feet of her. Yes, again, this is a presidential
candidate was shot in the head not even a year ago.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
I mean, she's a top law enforcement officer in the county.
I don't think people understand this insane. You literally is
the boss of the largest law enforcement agency in the
United States.
Speaker 5 (03:24):
Homeland Security.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
They can't secure the Secretary of Homeland Security in the
nation's capital about five blocks from the White House.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
I mean, look, maybe she was targeted because maybe she
was targeted because of her notorious like flashy taste. So
we were, by the way, for watch nerds, she was rockin'
ofx a solid gold Rolex Daytona, which is for anybody
familiar with watches, you're like, whoa, I mean, that's a
(03:55):
minimum of twenty five fifty thousand dollars.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
That's got to be one of them.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
That is one of that is the ultimate rich guy
flex is a Rolex Daytona. And then yeah, even the
women's ones, they can really climb up there in price.
So she's previously worn a Rolex Daytona.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
I think no, I mean just traditionally women's watches.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
Are not worth this much because people they don't they're
no idiots like me, We're willing to pay. But anyways,
kars No is Karsy nome top law enforcement officer in
the country. The whole thing is just bizarre because it's,
like you said, she has a protection detail which is
supposed to be immediately within her vicinity, three thousand dollars
(04:31):
in cash, driver's license, and apartment keys stolen while she's
eating dinner at the downtown. You also have the department
there where there's you know, theoretically, if you think about it,
like there's tons of classified information on her phone or
possibly in her purse, like notes, other access keys. All
cabinet secretaries have like this specific type of phone. I
(04:55):
forget the name. I used to know what the name
of it is, but it's like a name. It's a
phone SPECI typically, which can have like your it's like
your outlook for classified information.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
But it's heavily restricted.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
Like there's only like fifty or sixty of these phones
in the whole US government. It's literally only for top
cabinet secretaries and I think like one or two other officials.
So that I think it's called high side.
Speaker 1 (05:15):
That's what it is.
Speaker 5 (05:15):
Well, maybe that was taken and we don't know.
Speaker 4 (05:17):
Maybe they're not calling in the press, so we're relying
on them to tell us what was storn.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
Yeah, so the high side is that's like the communication apparatus.
And by the way, that's what these people were supposed
to be using instead of signal.
Speaker 5 (05:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
I was just going to see actually, and that they're like,
so this is in your high side email. That's what
I'm talking about here, That's what the high side is.
So you can see that clearly there's like a major
security like breach that happened here. But I mean, just broadly,
it's one of those where the veneer every time of
like the veneer of the protection around these individuals gets pierced.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
I think is really bad.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
That was what we really saw with the Trump attempted assassination,
where you're like, dude, like this guy got this close
to the president and only by Trump turning his head
does his head not explode on line live television. And
then you know, we had previous incidents in the Obama
administration where people jump the fence and there's just this
mystery and like hollywoodization about the professionalism of a lot
(06:15):
of the people who protect these people. But then in reality,
you know, of average thief is able to just tell
your purse when you're going and you're like, uh, in
front of Secret Service well, don't forget this. Jake Sullivan,
the National Security Advisor under Joe Biden, was in his
house working at three am in the morning and a
guy broke into his house and was in his kitchen
(06:38):
completely passed the Secret Service detail, and Sullivan, only because
he was awake, came downstairs and he's like, who are you?
He's like, what's going on here? I had to call
his own detail to come and get this guy out
of there. I mean, that's extraordinary breach. This is just
a number of these types of incidents where people get
incredibly close to these individuals and you're just like, well,
(06:58):
I mean, what's going to happen right as a result.
And it's not a joke obviously, because as the top
law enforcement officer in the country, you also have I mean,
there's so many different figures like this, who are all
about Washington. I just saw a picture of a I
saw a video of Kennedy yesterday walking out of Martin's
stee with Martin's with the Saratoga water bottle. So a
little bit too on the nose for me personally, but yeah,
(07:21):
so like he's obviously a very hye profile figure. His
father was literally assassinated. I mean, what is the like,
what you know, what is the protocol around protecting these individuals.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
It's really dangerous.
Speaker 4 (07:32):
It's so dangerous. And this is in the middle of
a reckoning period for Secret Service. I mean, remember after
the Trump assassination attempt, they were hauled in front of
Congress and gave all of these testimonies and pledged.
Speaker 5 (07:43):
First of all, they blamed local.
Speaker 4 (07:45):
Police, but then also pledged to put in reforms and
be better. And how this is not this is less
than a year from a presidential candidate being shot in
the head on live television. Christineolman was not at a rally.
She was at a restaurant with Secret Service at least
supposed to be within ten feet of her. And it
sounds like from the news report that they didn't know
(08:07):
her purse was stolen until they reviewed the security camera footage,
that they literally had to go back look at the
footage to notice that someone swiped the Homeland Security Secretary's
purse in the middle of a busy restaurant when the
entire purpose of Secret Service is to have eyes on
her and her belongings. Another thing to mention is that
during Signalgate, one of the points. I think it was
(08:29):
Jeffrey Goldberg who made this and loathesion to say it,
he's completely correct. One of the problems with signal is
that someone gets your phone. If someone took Jeffrey Goldberg's phone,
he would have had these signal messages on it. If
someone took Pete Hecceas's phone, he would have had these,
or Susie Wilds's phone, they would have. Then if they
stole their purse and they had a phone in it,
(08:50):
for example, they would have had access to the signal
messages about the strikes. Like if you are a bad
actor who wants to penetrate the circle of the president,
of the decision makers of the US government, of our military,
and you see the Homeland Security Secretary having her passport
lifted at a freaking Burger restaurant five blocks from the
(09:12):
White House, I mean, this is an embarrassment there should
be to your point. Is the last thing I'll say
about this. This social fabric can be disrupted very very severely,
very quickly by security breaches that they could be assassinations,
they could be close brushes with assassinations, they could be
access to the classmen.
Speaker 5 (09:32):
Whatever it is.
Speaker 4 (09:33):
The country already feels like it is teetering on the
edge of something.
Speaker 5 (09:37):
Very very dark.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
I totally agree, it's insane. You're right, top cabinet officials
and all that. I mean, who just think about the
consequences of a security breach and all. We came close
with the Trump attempted assassination, and yeah, ever since then,
it's just been a spotlight in this organization.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
You would think that they would tighten.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
Things up, but it really looks more as if it's
because not because of their competence, but because of you know,
like nothing has just happened all of that yet.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
So anyway, all right, tell us about motherhood. What's happening?
Speaker 4 (10:11):
Yes, as the only childless host of breaking points, I
thought it would be a not for me to handle.
Speaker 3 (10:16):
Still technically childless, I guess, well, it's cooking. It's still
got you know, one or two more days. By the way,
I would like for it to go ahead and hurry out,
but it is what it is.
Speaker 5 (10:26):
You get that, right, Yeah?
Speaker 1 (10:27):
Yeah, all right.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
So let's turn to this big story in the New
York Times yesterday that laid out exactly what the Trump
administration is planning to do in order to make good
on Donald Trump's pledge to create a quote baby boom
in the United States of America. We can put this
first element up on the screen. The New York Times
published a big feature yesterday digging into exactly how the
administration is approaching this. You can see the headline is
(10:50):
White House assesses ways to persuade children to have just
persuade women to have more children. Emma Waters from the
Heritage Foundation is featured in the pho there.
Speaker 5 (11:00):
I think we both know we her.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
Yeah, old friend of mine.
Speaker 4 (11:02):
Yeah, as a real actually really interesting thinker. First graph
of the story. The White House has been hearing out
a course of ideas in recent weeks for persuading Americans
to get married and have more children. And early sign
that the Trump administration will embrace a new cultural agenda, which,
by the way, I took issue with that line in
the story.
Speaker 5 (11:17):
By the way, a quote.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
Early sign that the Trump administration will embrace a new
cultural agenda.
Speaker 5 (11:21):
Are you kidding me? There's been so many signs that.
Speaker 4 (11:23):
The Trump administration will embrace this new cultural agenda. One
proposed one proposal shared with AIDS, would preserve thirty percent
of scholarships for the Fulbright program for applicants who are
married or have children. Another would give a five thousand
dollar cash quote baby bonus to every American mother after delivery.
A third calls on the government and this is saga
(11:43):
where I know you have all kinds of thoughts and
are excited to weigh in to fund programs that educate
women on their menstrual cycles.
Speaker 5 (11:51):
Sager specifically pitched the story.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
Yeah, that's right, that was what I NO.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
I wanted to discuss it with you because we've both
been involved in some of these discussions now for quite
some time pro natalism, and you know, I think it's
difficult for me to It's difficult because I think four
or five years ago when I started to hear this
stuff and policy like in Hungary right where they're like, oh,
we'll pay off your mortgage if you have four kids,
(12:15):
you don't have to pay any tax and no income tax.
And I was like, wow, this is fantastic. Here's the truth,
though it hasn't worked Hungary. It just it didn't work.
And by the way, this is not a knock on Hungry.
It's a noble effort. But the truth is is it
doesn't work in any form that it takes. It's in
every developed country in the world, even with socialized medicine,
(12:36):
better health care and childcare than we could ever imagine,
it doesn't work. It's like a product of industrial capitalism.
It's like industrial capitalism itself is the is the main
engine of this. Yeah, I mean, if you really want
me to put my red hat on right now, but.
Speaker 5 (12:53):
I mean, even then, let's talk about the Soviet.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
Union, like we saw the destruction there of birth rates
and of you know, were talking about for example, can.
Speaker 5 (13:01):
We put the next element up on the screenplase?
Speaker 4 (13:03):
So the producers made this great graphic just sort of
talking about the specifics of what has been proposed by
people in these circles. So we talked about the five
thousand dollars cash baby bonus to every American mother after delivery,
fund programs that educate women on their mentrual cycles and
parts so they can better understand when they're ovulating and
able to conceive. And let me just briefly pause on
(13:24):
that point. The idea behind that is to basically undercut
the power of birth control, which people in the circles believe.
I think it's a pretty good argument, actually has affected
women's fertility. Women get married later, meaning they're on birth
control for longer and longer periods of their life, which
makes it harder to ultimately conceive when they want to
(13:45):
because they've married later in their thirties and that's already
harder off the bat. So that's the idea behind it.
You know, is it going to be a tough sell. Absolutely?
Is it the role of the federal government. That is
a different conversation that we can have, but just to
sort of explain some of the.
Speaker 5 (14:00):
Thinking, that's where it comes from.
Speaker 4 (14:02):
And then three, this gets to what Soccer was just
talking about, bestowing a special mother a medal, a special
medal on mothers of six or more children.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
So basically all the Mormons.
Speaker 4 (14:12):
Yeah, well all the Mormons, and this you were about
to elude because you were talking about how the Soviet
Union looked at policies like these, and particularly that policy.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
Yes, the metal like the hero of the Soviet Union,
if you had more than four more children, and guess
what didn't worry if anything, Actually, the fertility rate fell
off a cliff even more after the decline of the
Soviet Union and the ushering in of their nineteen nineties
like disaster capitalism, so have a run in front of
me of all of the programs which have even been
(14:42):
moderately successful.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
So France's highest.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
Birth rate in all of Western Europe one point eight,
so still not above replacement. They have up to three
years of paternity leave, a parental leaf up to three years.
They have monthly child allowances which are not means tested.
They have huge tax bet fits. They have massively subsidized childcare,
which is actually good like people who are very well
(15:06):
trained and they give them very nutritious food. They have
a quote cultural normalization of working mothers. They're still only
at one point eight and a lot of that, let's
be honest, is because of the immigration pop population number
two the Swedish, Swedish and Nordic countries. These places have
universal childcare, job security protection. They have parental lead that
(15:28):
you're like required to basically take culturally for a year.
Guess what doesn't work parentally hungary? Probably the thing like
the one country which threw everything massive cash incentives thirty
thousand eurolone for young couples who are for partially forgiven
per child, lifetime income tax tax exemption from mothers of
(15:50):
four kids, home buying subsidies, free IVF slight increase, only
a one point six in the overall birth right need
two point two just to be above like I can
go on forever. Russia, same thing they tried in twenty fifteen.
It's actually declined so far. War doesn't help. Actually, again,
the only country developed in the world that hasn't above
(16:11):
replacement fertility rate is Israel, even amongst even amongst their
secular Jewish population. Nobody really knows why. I mean, look,
they do have a lot of policies, like they've got
norms exclude the orthodoxyg.
Speaker 5 (16:25):
It's there's an existential fear.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
Yeah, there's like existential yes, yeah, that's a good point.
It's literally like a civilization. That's like if we do
not reproduce, where our land will be taken away from us.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
Right, But they have the same thing.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
They have state funded IVF, they have generous family allowances,
they have universal health care, they've got big you know,
cultural norms favoring shows the favor good to Israel's kids everywhere.
Speaker 6 (16:47):
Right.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
But my point just on all of us is it's
not policy, it's just culture. And I hate to say that.
I wish if it were a policy problem, we could
fix it, but at best you can squeeze. He's like
a point three or a point four. I mean that's
a lot, exactly, But I mean even then, you have
to rewrite the social contract of the entire United States. Now,
(17:08):
I'll also be clear, I would be in favor of
many of these policies even if it only did point
three point four. It is because it makes life easier
for even when you have one or two children. I mean,
going through this process right now, Oh, five thousand dollars. Thanks,
I'll consider covering a portion of my deductible, which.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
Is just gonna be just for childbirth. Right.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
I really appreciate you cover it even though I pay
like five hundred dollars a month.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Awesome, dad, soccer.
Speaker 4 (17:31):
Is gonna be so much fun. I'm to be so
much money. It's just like already an old mess.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
This is part of my blue magat turn. It's like,
oh great, now my strollers more expensive. The car seat
is going to be more expensive. I'm lucky I bought
all this stuff before the tariffs.
Speaker 5 (17:44):
But there's a lot of people out there.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
They don't have any money.
Speaker 5 (17:46):
Those are investments, right, Yeah, you can flip those.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
And oh this shit only lasts for six months. Great,
now I have to go Actually a good point. I
should probably buy my infant strollers steep right now before
the tariffs and all of that go up, because I
was gonna wait, guess I can't.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
Now I'm just saying, like.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
Already getting grumpy text messages from Socger. But the cost
of shit, that's true, that's true. You should you know berries.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
I mean, these kids, they're like Barry machines the amount
that they're buying there, and drum For wants to put
a ten percent tariff on them.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
I could go on forever joking.
Speaker 3 (18:15):
My point is just looking at these policies, I think
they're very noble. I think it's a good idea. However,
it is not a magic bullet.
Speaker 1 (18:23):
It's just not.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
And the truth is is that every developed society in
the world just has a low birth rate. And there's
just something about the comfort of industrial capitalism, of the
lack of like need for you know, of the lack
of like rural you know, area community and all these
other things. The truth is is like even here in America,
the poorest people have the most kids. It's one of
the most like it's the craziest thing is that the
(18:46):
people who are the most impacted by it, but who
largely have not yet absorbed like all of the cultural
milieu of like the middle class lifestyle and vacations and
all these other things, are the people who are having
the most children. The moment that you assimilate to the
higher shuns of American society, you have less children.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
The only exception is.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
When you reach the extreme end of the wealth spectrum
of like zero point one percent.
Speaker 5 (19:10):
Oh yeah, they don't.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
They love to get married and.
Speaker 3 (19:13):
To have children, But that's because they've genuinely exited like
US society. It's everybody else in between that You're like, well,
people are like, yeah, but I want to go to
Disneyland or whatever. I'm like, oh, do you have five
thousand bucks if you have four kids?
Speaker 1 (19:25):
Hope you do? And you're going to be driving? You
know you're not. You can't even fly.
Speaker 4 (19:28):
And to be honest, I don't even think a lot
of the economic constraints affect the question of whether people
end up going above replacement rate. I think it's genuinely
just that when you have a career centric society, you
just like that's it's very hard to have three children
and that's where we see I think one of the saddest,
one of the saddest things that Limonstone has researched, He's
(19:51):
quoted in this article with Institute for Family Studies, is
that American women actually say that they have.
Speaker 5 (19:56):
Fewer children than they want.
Speaker 4 (19:58):
Yeah, that's true, and it's it's because they start later
they want in order to have well, not that they want,
but they start later so late that they don't end
up being able to have as many children as they want.
And that's genuinely one of the sadder things. And it's
not really a policy at least not in the structure
of the policy structure of the American economy right now
or in the American government right now. That's not really
a policy question. It's much more of a cultural aquation.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
It's a huge cultural question. It's also about what do
you even want? Right like?
Speaker 3 (20:22):
Yeah, I mean, this gets to the whole two income
trap and a lot of the problems with the consumption
economy and the driving up of the overall consumptive rate
of the average family, which necessitates a two person household
that has to work. But there are realities here, I mean,
but the counter to what I'm saying, is the Swedish
model in all these where.
Speaker 1 (20:44):
They have everything every benefit.
Speaker 3 (20:47):
That an American could possibly want to make their life easier,
leave money, you know, cultural norms and all that, and
they still don't have a lot of kids.
Speaker 4 (20:57):
Well, so this is really interesting because this is where
both the left and the right are predicating their solutions
on materialism. That's right, right, So the right solution is
a little bit more money. Left solution is a little
bit more money, a little bit more childcare. And those
things can be good policies totally, whether or not they
help the birth rate. They can be good policies, Like
a five thousand dollars baby bonus is probably a good policy.
Speaker 5 (21:16):
But is it actually going to help the birth rate?
Speaker 4 (21:18):
No, because these are not primarily material concerns, they're cultural ones.
And just to wrap this all up, Ross Daufa reacted
to the New York Times article by posting it on
ACX and saying, of course, you know, I think it's
good for the administration to consider pronatalist ideas, but right now,
nothing would be more pronatalist than avoiding an unnecessary recession.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
Yeah, that's right, exactly what we're looking at.
Speaker 4 (21:38):
Six months down the road is a Trump administration coming
up with a five thousand dollars baby bonus into a
horrible economy for families where to your point, they can't
buy bananas for their babies. Yes, and or they can
buy bananas, they're just exceedingly expensive in their aren as,
many of them in stock. So yeah, this is it's
on a collision course for the Trump administration.
Speaker 6 (21:57):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
Yeah, I just looked it up.
Speaker 3 (21:59):
Birth rate lapsed from class five point five just in
two thousand and nine from two thousand and eight. Yeah,
just to show you what a recession can do. At
the same time, there is an extraordinary showdown with Harvard
going on right now between the Trump administration, which is
not only putting immense financial pressure on them, basically trying
to tell them how to run the university. But it
(22:21):
all apparently stems back to a massive mistake inside of
the bureaucracy which kicked this entire thing off. This was
broken down in a recent CNN segment and yes, I
know it's CNN, but they actually did a decent job
this time around.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
Mu's take a listen.
Speaker 6 (22:35):
Okay, So the White House's position is it was malpracticed
by Harvard to not realize that this letter was so
outrageous it probably wasn't true. I mean that letter came
from I mean, I think that statement actually just sort
of gives away the whole game. Essentially. The argument that
we're hearing there from may mailman at the White House
(22:56):
is they should have known. They should have known there
was something wrong. They should have picked up the phone
and said to us at the White House, hey, guys,
this looks like a mistake. I think it's pretty obvious
where the fault was, though.
Speaker 7 (23:05):
I mean, Elli, could you imagine if Harvard had responded
to this letter by saying, Okay, we'll meet these demands
and actually that they had been sent in error to them.
Speaker 6 (23:15):
Yeah, I mean exactly. Look, this is serious stuff. I mean,
this is a major showdown that is escalating by the day.
You know, if Harvard had acquiesced these demands, that it
would have changed the institution and compromised the institution forever.
But I'm interested to see now what happens books now,
does the White House withdraw this or do they sort
of decide, whoops, where we're po permitted now and we're
(23:38):
going to have to have this fight through to the ends.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
So to recap this entire showdown with Harvard is because
let's put this up there on the screen. An official
on the quote Anti Semitism Task Force told the university
that a letter of demands has was actually now one
that was sent without authorization from the government. So the
university basically published the letter and said, no, we're not
(24:04):
going to agree to these demands. Days later, that Trump
administration is like, well, screw you or actually gonna cut
off your funding. But by the way, that letter was
actually unauthorized and sent by the Acting General Counsel of
the Department of Health and Human Services on the Anti
Semitism Task Force, and it was sent in era error.
So the letter arrived when Harvard said they still believe
(24:26):
they could have prevented a confrontation. Then they get this
fake letter and they're like, no, we're not going to
do it. And so then now quote, it was malpracticed
on the side of Harvard's lawyers not to pick up
the phone and call the members of the Anti Semitism
and Task Force who they had been talking to for weeks. Instead, quote,
Harvard went on a victimhood campaign that is a direct
quote from the White House. Instead So Harvard's position, as
(24:49):
that guy just laid out, or the government's position is
that Harvard is stupid because it took a letter that
it got from the United States government and then responded
to I cannot blame a.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
Position in defending Harvard.
Speaker 3 (25:00):
This is pain painful to sit here and to defend
this ridiculous institution.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
But their position is.
Speaker 3 (25:09):
That they should have realized that this was a fake letter.
And now nonetheless, despite the fact that it was faked
by the government.
Speaker 5 (25:16):
Signed, but it was always signed.
Speaker 4 (25:18):
This is Harvard's stand, like it was.
Speaker 3 (25:21):
I mean, listen to if I get a letter from
the government and what I'm going If I got a
learn from.
Speaker 6 (25:24):
The I R S.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
I call the I R S and be like, hey, guys,
this is a real letter. Or should just do whatever
they tell me to do?
Speaker 5 (25:28):
Why are they signing draft?
Speaker 3 (25:29):
Right?
Speaker 4 (25:29):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (25:30):
Good point?
Speaker 3 (25:30):
All right, So now you tell me, Emily, based on
all this, though, the government's position is still nonetheless, we
will still take all of your funding from you. So
let's put that up there on the screen. Quote what
would it even mean.
Speaker 1 (25:45):
For Trump to revoke Harvard's taxes and status?
Speaker 5 (25:48):
Well, which by the way, is different. I just want
to say this, Yeah, I know.
Speaker 3 (25:50):
You're right, You're right, but I'm saying this is all
a cascading part of this. So Harvard says no. So
the Trump administration goes, even though we sent you this
thing in error, we're cutting off two point two six
billion dollars in funding. And then a week later there
was all coming out that actually, we're going to revoke
your entire tax exempt status based.
Speaker 4 (26:09):
On all that.
Speaker 3 (26:09):
I mean, this is crazy shit, and it gets to
the tariff thing. Nobody hates Harvard more than me. Okay,
these people should lose their tax sub status. These people
should be paying massive amounts of taxes. They're a hedge fund,
they're not actually a real university. They admit less students
today than they did when the US population was one
hundred million less people. Okay, absurd, It's just complete credential washing, inflation,
(26:33):
student debt.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
I could go on forever, yep, for all of the
issues with that.
Speaker 3 (26:36):
But as we are going to talk about soon with Greg,
there needs to be a little bit of a process.
There needs to be a little bit of a principle here,
a little bit of an effort by the United States
government to say we're doing this because of what I
just laid out, Because you are bilking the federal government
for the under false pretenses for student loans. You're putting
your students in debt, not because of some fake anti
(26:59):
viscal case, quite literally, a fake anti Semitism demand.
Speaker 1 (27:02):
Of the government.
Speaker 3 (27:03):
So the whole thing is insane, and Harvard is now
countersuing the Trump administration. Every legal expert I see says
Harvard or the government has no chance in this case
right now. I mean, they may prevail in the long
run if they go through a proper process, but as
of where things start right now, Harvard is getting a
temporary restraining order like tomorrow based on the way that
this entire thing has happened.
Speaker 4 (27:24):
When I care obviously much more about the corruption and
degradation of higher education than I care about some idiot
bureaucrats and the Trump administration botching it. But do you
end up actually addressing the problem if you are too
incompetent to address it correctly and hurt your ability exactly
because you and I are actually probably sympathetic to the
argument that if you're making an omelet, you're gonna make
(27:46):
going to break a few eggs.
Speaker 5 (27:47):
The omelet is reforming higher ed.
Speaker 4 (27:49):
Yes, obviously the media is going to pick out a
few examples of really bad process work from the Trump
administration and blow them up into something that they're not.
Speaker 5 (27:59):
This actually is bad. It's no question. This is so stupid.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
This is not like common you know, it's like, this
is classic stupidity with a capital S, where it's embarrassing
to even have to be in a position to be
be like, yeah, well they kind of have a point,
and this is what they've done with everything, Terri. And
that's why I'm like, I'm done with Ri. I am
done with this bullshit. It's like this amount of stupidity
(28:27):
that you require people to debase themselves to defend your
it iscy is enough. Look, I know that you know
there's some mega memas or whatever they're going to stand
right or die forever. Fine, okay, you can have them.
But you know, for people out here who are actually
have to follow this stuff for a living and have
you know, actual acquaintance with competence and with people who
actually know what the hell they're doing, it's it's it's absurd.
(28:47):
It's an attack on intellect itself.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
You know, go ahead, Well.
Speaker 4 (28:51):
So I mean I think what's interesting here is that
we compare Trump one point zero and Trump two point
zero and say Trump one point zero was more haphazard.
They didn't have their ducks in a row. They hadn't
spent four years preparing this detailed policy agenda that they
could install immediately when a Republican president, whether it was
Trump or DeSantis, was in office. I think what we're
starting to see, whether it's the student deportations, this letter
(29:14):
to Harvard, or the tariffs, is that actually they did
plan directionally what they wanted to do. They planned who
they wanted to put in place, but they just lack
the know how to execute well.
Speaker 1 (29:28):
Actually, it's a huge dive. I've been thinking about this
a lot.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
It's a massive indictment of Project twenty twenty five and
all of the projects that were ostensibly to professionalize the
Trump administration.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
It's just not happened at all.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
Congratulations, you had some executive orders that were ready to
go on day one. Let's look at the actual result
of your flagship product dose two trillion to one trillion
to one hundred and fifty billion, which is the exact
amount that we're going to increase the Pentagon budget Okay,
so you didn't cought a single dollar of federal spend.
I'm judging you by your own by what you say
that you wanted to do. Yeah, dose, you failed. It's
a complete failure. Elon is leaving soon, right literally he
(30:01):
has to because of this.
Speaker 4 (30:02):
May actually yeah, no, probably if you let Russ Boat start,
who is a highly competent.
Speaker 3 (30:07):
But if you're a car so we'll look, we're only
hundre days in so do deportation. It's like, okay, yeah,
I mean you know, I said this previously yesterday. The
Bureau of Prison validates gang members every day, every single day.
The Bureau of Prisons has thousands of gang members in
the United States penitentiary system and knows exactly what they
look like and how they do tattoos and everything. Do
(30:30):
they make mistakes, I'm sure they do, but I guarantee
you it's a much more professional. So when they come
out they go, oh, we're sending these gang members to Salvador,
I'm like, oh, okay, you know it makes sense. Did
US Department's Justice No, It's like, oh, complete bullshit. The
way that you guys did this autism awareness tattooed Mak
Mukhali said, Oh, we're going after the student criminals.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
Right.
Speaker 3 (30:49):
I'm like, oh, okay, so the Hamilton Hall guy, right, No,
the guy who handed out a flyer, or this lady
who co authored an op ed, or the guy who's
married to a lady who's related to someone in Humma
what like, and that the tariffs. This fucking formula. It's
(31:11):
the same as the first time around. I mean, I
remember the census thing. I mean, this is the first thing.
This is the first thing I pissed me off of
the Trump administration. As people know, the census currently counts
illegal immigrants, which is insane, right, insane, because it basically
means that if you have enough illegals in your state
that you get more representation in Congress, what more electoral votes?
Speaker 1 (31:32):
Nonsense.
Speaker 3 (31:33):
Well, the administration had a plan in twenty eighteen to
get rid to basically change the senses. It only costs
US citizens, great, awesome, would have completely changed the electoral map. Well,
they did it in such an incompetent way. The Supreme
Court was like, we don't even disagree, but we are
striking this down because you did it so stupidly. And
then they're like, oh, the twenty twenty election was stolen.
(31:55):
I'm like, well, you know, also you can't do the
basic paperwork travel band. How many trivel bands do we
have in twenty seventeen do you remember maybe four?
Speaker 5 (32:04):
Five? Yeah, it was ridiculous. Actually, that's a really good parallel.
I hadn't even thought about that because it's so hard
to like pull all of these.
Speaker 4 (32:10):
Different references out because there's literally like hundreds of them.
That's actually a really good reference point. And I think
the difference really now that I'm thinking of it between
one point zero and two point zero here is that
two point zero to use someone violent metaphor. In one
point oh, nobody knew where to aim. In two point zero,
everyone spent years figuring out exactly where to aim, but
(32:31):
didn't train at shooting right.
Speaker 5 (32:33):
They weren't.
Speaker 4 (32:34):
They weren't going to the range, and they're not right
on the target. They know exactly what target to shoot at,
but they don't know how to hit the bull's eye.
And that's what's happening in this administration and in ways
that are probably undermining their ability to ultimately hit the target,
because people are going to pull them out of the
range right before they can figure out how to hit
the target.
Speaker 5 (32:54):
They really get the hell out of here. You don't
not use that gun, eddie.
Speaker 3 (32:56):
They're already I mean, how many days has it been
since January twentieth. Let's see, all right, January twenty first,
let's see it has been all right, chat cheept's not
working right now? All right, it's been eighty something eighty
or ninety days. You run out of political capital only.
They only have one piece of legislation they're going to
pass for the next two years, the tax cuts and
(33:18):
jobs ack.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
Good luck with that one.
Speaker 3 (33:19):
I hope it works out considering all the things that
you guys have said that you want to do.
Speaker 1 (33:23):
Well, by the way, you have to lift the debt ceiling.
Speaker 4 (33:25):
That's not rense and repeat from that. They're trying to
stuff a bunch of stuff in reconcization.
Speaker 5 (33:29):
It's not just re.
Speaker 4 (33:30):
Upping the tax cuts. It's actually stuffing a bunch of
other possible priorities.
Speaker 3 (33:34):
But I'm saying, you have one piece of legislation. That's
all you guys have left. You burned all your political capital.
You haven't deported that many people. If anything, you're actually
trailing the Obama and Clinton administration and you're roughly on
par with the Biden administration tariff policy disaster. Sorry, it's true,
there's been. I mean, maybe you'll get some benefit, you know.
Speaker 1 (33:53):
A few months from now.
Speaker 3 (33:54):
I'm genuinely doubtful as the I mean, it's this. This
is where I'm just going full Richard Hennen like, they
do not have elite human.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
Capital who are behind Its true.
Speaker 5 (34:04):
I don't agree with that.
Speaker 1 (34:04):
No, it's true. I don't see it. I don't see
a single I don't.
Speaker 4 (34:07):
Think anybody has the human capital to accomplish the goals
that they've set their sight. Maybe right, they're trying to
like radically transform a system that's built up over one
hundred years. And I don't think it's a matter of
the Trump people being I think there are absolutely some
idiots in the Trump administration.
Speaker 5 (34:22):
I think we could both say.
Speaker 1 (34:23):
More per capita personally.
Speaker 4 (34:25):
Okay, But yeah, it's because the Trump It is because
Republicans haven't trained up an army of bureaucrats over the
course of the last one hundred times Democrats have, and
now Republicans are trying to use this sort of like
haphazard like Lexington and conquered band of policy amateurs to
do something much more difficult than anyone's ever tried to
do in the policy space.
Speaker 3 (34:45):
Very fair counter and I actually think it's probably a
good place to leave it.
Speaker 1 (34:49):
So anyway, Harvard, that's what happened. Let's get to the
CEO of Fire, Greg Lukanoff.
Speaker 3 (34:54):
He's going to break down some of free speech attacks
for us, including some on Harvard.
Speaker 1 (34:57):
Let's get to it. Joining us now is Greg Lukianoff.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
He is the CEO of Fire, one of the most
principled free speech organizations in the United States, and we're
very excited to be joined by I'm Greg.
Speaker 1 (35:10):
It's great to see you. Thanks for joining the show.
Thanks for having me so.
Speaker 3 (35:13):
Greg, we wanted you to get sound off on some
of the extraordinary moves by the Trump administration. First of all,
you are the author of several books, and more recently
this one, let's put it up there on the screen,
the Canceling of the American Mind. But more recently you
might look at that and be like, oh, this is
a right wing guest or something. But Greg, you're unique
in that you really have stood up against a lot
(35:34):
of unprecedented attacks on free speech currently by the Trump administration.
We have a list that we can just put here
right now, assembled by your team. Let's put it up
there on the screen. Relevant in fact, some of the
Harvard discussion that we just had here on the show.
Why don't you break down for us why you see
this as an attack on free speech with the Harvard
situation and for a lot more.
Speaker 8 (35:55):
Oh yeah, I mean there is no small irony in
my taking so much eight mail of the moment for
defending Harvard, because Harvard finished dead last two years in
a row on our campus free speech ranking, and I
want to be very clear they earned that position. But
the answer cannot be the government wildly exceeding its power
to effectively nationalize Harvard using powers it doesn't have. And
(36:21):
I'm a civil libertarian, so like I'm concerned about left
wing authoritarianism, and I'm concerned about right wing authoritarianism, Like
I'm mostly afraid of the accumulation of power. And what
they're currently claiming is that because of the history of
anti Semitism at Harvard, which I'd say, like, that's a
real concern, they now can restrict what two point six
(36:41):
billion dollars in potential funding to Harvard unless Harvard meets
demands that control everything from certain departments to what is taught,
to who is admitted. And that's what I mean by
effectively nationalizing. It's micromanaging this massive company. And I think that, yeah,
(37:02):
could it Is it possible that if you had, if
you followed the procedures and did Title six hearings and
even Title nine hearings on the way Harvard has behaved
over the last five years, that Harvard might lose and
be in risk of losing its federal funding. I absolutely
that is absolutely a possibility. But the government does not
have the power to completely skip over that entire process
(37:24):
and just declare by you cause you know that essentially
you now have to do what the government says you
do because you receive any federal federal funding at all.
And I did write I'm taking some flack for this
right now, but I take this, you know, very seriously.
The idea that, yes, Harvard has made a ton of mistakes,
and you know, I'm first in line and criticizing him,
canceling of the American mind. You know, Harvard does not
(37:46):
come out, that does not come out particularly well. But
the idea that we'd freeze a massive amount of science
funding for things that could actually be you know, groundbreaking.
I mean, this is the one thing that consistently cares
me is essentially that, in an effort to deal with
very real problems in higher ed we're going to destroy
(38:06):
our unique ability to push the frontiers of science, which
harms everyone, not just even in the United States and
the globe.
Speaker 4 (38:15):
Well. And we might disagree on this because I'm more
sympathetic to the idea of the federal government exercising some
power over federal funding.
Speaker 5 (38:23):
And to your point, Greg, I think also there's.
Speaker 4 (38:25):
There's Title nine, Title seven, like, all of this could
get pretty interesting in the courts, but I have seen
I'm curious what you make of this some really interesting
commentary on the question of viewpoint diversity. The federal government
asking Harvard to implement different measures to ensure there's viewpoint
diversity at Harvard or in its research, and all of
(38:48):
that that, I mean, it's the same thing with the
anti semitism definition that Fire has been really brave and
for years standing up against the overly broad definition of
anti semitism.
Speaker 5 (38:59):
Those are those seem like.
Speaker 4 (39:00):
Problematic answers to a problem in and of itself, And
could you just speak to the viewpoint diversity question. Because
you've been advocating for viewpoint diversity at the university level
for a long time, then when the federal government asks
about it, it becomes a different issue.
Speaker 8 (39:16):
Exactly, I want viewpoint diversity in higher ed And for example,
if Congress, you know, decided to make some of these
contingent on federal funding that they have, you have a
lot of power to decide what you tie federal funding
to in the first place. But you can't work backwards
and then say, oh, by the way, we've now decided
(39:37):
that federal funding is contingent on viewpoint diversity. That also
poses really serious First Amendment issues, because what you're saying
is a private institution has to basically have a political
at mis test to make sure that they have greater
viewpoint diversity. Now, I want schools to achieve viewpoint diversity,
and I think one of the ways they can do
that is to have more classes co taught by people
who disagree. I think this would be powerful on multiple levels,
(39:59):
and it could be a great way to introduce more
viewpoint diversity. But as a civil libertarians, when it's achieved
through government coercion, we're rightfully concerned about that.
Speaker 1 (40:10):
So definitely.
Speaker 8 (40:10):
And to be clear that the government does have power
to put strings on its federal funding, and they do
and we and that's why I made the point that essentially,
could they be found guilty of violating Title six, Title seven,
and Title nine. Yeah, I think that's a real possibility.
But you can't just do it without proving it, without
going through the procedural steps, because those really matter. That's
(40:33):
the difference between you know, a government a republic and
something that looks a lot more authoritari.
Speaker 3 (40:40):
Well, what you're really talking about here is process through
the legal courts, where you have to present evidence, where
you have to have a judge who is ruled here.
Let's put the next parts up there, guys on the screen.
Which Fire has also spoken out against some of the
deportation efforts here of students who have criticized Israel and
or participated in protests on college campuses. Can you just
(41:03):
tell us why again? You know, in this particular case,
the administration is justifying this as a violation of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, saying that they're expressing support here
for a terrorist organization and thus these students are eligible
for deportation.
Speaker 1 (41:18):
Fire has spoken out against us tell us why. Yeah,
And again people could point out some irony here.
Speaker 8 (41:25):
I don't really see it as irony because fire has
been one of the ones pointing out actually alone to
a degree, pointing out that pro Palestinian protesters are responsible
for all but essentially three of the highest number of
campus shoutdowns of speakers on record. It's been overwhelmingly a
pro Palestinian movement in some cases. I remember they did
(41:47):
a shoutdown, they shut down an event of someone who
was just there to talk about black holes, you know,
like it was it was ridiculous, and we called it
out all the time.
Speaker 4 (41:54):
Yeah.
Speaker 8 (41:55):
So I think that a lot of these protests have
been in some cases a disaster for free spee.
Speaker 1 (42:00):
She's not going to be freedom.
Speaker 8 (42:01):
However, again, you have to follow process and you have
to prove it. So when they first accused Mamood Khalil,
for example, I was like, well, you know, Colombia was
a disaster, and I'm willing to bet, not willing to bet.
I suspect they might actually have something more serious on him,
like he was involved in some of the vandalism, or
some of the anti Semitic harassment himself, or some of
(42:23):
the really bad in some cases criminal behavior that took
place at Harvard, or at least things that they could
have kicked him out of school for. But as the
case went on, We're like, the government's not making this argument.
They're basically pointing to flyers that a group that he
was loosely affiliated with circulated, and I'm like, Okay, that's
saying that you're kicking him out just for speech that
(42:44):
would be protected by an American citizen, and that's problematic
according to the law. There was a weird argument that
I keep on getting that people here on a green card,
and green card is, you know, one step away from
citizenship have no free speech rights, and that's absurd.
Speaker 1 (43:00):
Teen forty five.
Speaker 8 (43:00):
The Supreme Court was incredibly clear in a place called
in a case called Bridges y. Wickson, that resident aliens
do have First Amendment rights. Now, what the full parameters
of those rights are is the one remaining question. But
it certainly should not be that you can you can
be at a protest at a college campus where there
are ten protesters, all of it peaceful, all of it protected,
(43:24):
and all nine of those protesters are fine because they're
American citizens, but the tenth has to show as papers
and could be kicked out of the country for being
on the on the wrong side of it. So the
Mamoud Khalil case actually just got worse the longer it
went on, and the osterric case is even worse because
the only thing they're pointing at this tough students, is
that she wrote a op ed that was critical of Israel,
(43:46):
that was critical, and it was much more it was
much more mainstream that it was being presented as. And
this is the young woman that they actually, you know,
drove a van by and playing closed policemen, you know,
stuffer and take her away for deportation. That that's scary stuff.
And it's one of these things where you think about
all the great Americans that we are proud to have
(44:07):
come to this country and eventually became naturalized or didn't
in some cases, who would be horrified if they were deported.
I think of, you know, Christopher Hitchins. I don't think
Christopher Hitchins. He definitely was here on a green card
for a long time. I don't think he ever actually
became a citizen. And the idea or for that matter,
what I point this out to conservatives, what about oh
(44:28):
my god Peterson or Elon Musk, you know. So, I
think that I understand that people are concerned about what
happened at Columbia and a lot of these schools. I
am too passionately, so I think they shamed themselves during
this period. But that's not the same thing as saying
(44:49):
these students are responsible for it and that they should
be kicked out because of their opinion. That's much more dangerous.
Speaker 5 (44:56):
And Grid, you didn't just write Canceling of the American Mind.
That was a follow up to a really great book
you wrote as.
Speaker 4 (45:01):
Well, called The Coddling of the American Union with John Hyde,
and that's a really important book. I mean, I would
say that's like a landmark book in the way that
we've sort.
Speaker 5 (45:11):
Of come to view our culture.
Speaker 4 (45:13):
And the reason I want to ask you about that
is in the midst of this conversation about quote unquote
woke right, one of the things that as a conservative
I worried about sometimes pre twenty twenty four is that
there were cancels. There were cancelations that did see conservative
students being the victims of attacks on free speech. They
were really truly being victimized in some cases.
Speaker 1 (45:33):
And absolutely that fueled.
Speaker 4 (45:35):
Though, a really interesting sense of victimhood on the right,
which is something the right critiqued the left for sort
of being defined by for a very long time. And
I'm curious, as the author of Coddling and Canceling, if
you see that sort of instinct, instinctive illiberalism that comes
(45:55):
when you end up genuinely being a victim actually starting
to fuel right wing encroachments on speech.
Speaker 5 (46:02):
Is there something to that?
Speaker 8 (46:04):
Oh?
Speaker 1 (46:04):
No, I think there absolutely is.
Speaker 8 (46:05):
I think I'm reading Mussa Algarby's book We've Never Been Woke,
and he really kind of saw James Lindsay's term woke right,
you know, coming that essentially when you look at some
of the tenets of the right of the heart, the
authoritarian left and the authoritarian right, both of which I
very much oppose, they have.
Speaker 1 (46:26):
Very similar characteristics.
Speaker 8 (46:27):
And it goes so far as to have people like
Chris Rufo, you know, talking about their admiration for Graham,
Sheet and Lenin and like all of these monsters that
my family had to flee Russia to fight because they
were so good at manipulating the public, oftentimes with an
initial sense of grievance that called for centralization of power
(46:48):
on the basis of identity, that the woke right and
work left are more similar than they're comfortable with, even
to the point at which they're citing the same And
I'm going to show my own bias here historical monster
to justify their position.
Speaker 3 (47:02):
Yeah, and last part here is on these law firms.
This is one where I have not yet victims.
Speaker 5 (47:07):
Again, this is the victims.
Speaker 1 (47:08):
I had around this one.
Speaker 3 (47:09):
But go ahead, Greg, we're gonna put it up there
on the screen. We haven't even done a full segment
just because it is kind of convoluted in a way.
You're like, the president is like attacking a law firm
and thus saying that he had to do like pro
bono work for him personally.
Speaker 1 (47:25):
But why is that a free speech problem there?
Speaker 8 (47:27):
Oh my god, it's well, it's rob for a free
speech organization because we go into court to defend freedom
of speech. And we're all lawyers, not all of us.
I'm actually really glad that some of us are social
scientists as well. But what they're saying is, and it
went beyond just people who opposed the administration people, I mean,
but they're going after law firms for example. You know,
(47:47):
helped with the January sixth prosecutions or helped oppose some
of the attempts for the over the twenty twenty election,
the argument that who fought against the idea that the
election was stolen, which, by the way, it wasn't. And
what they're saying to some of these law firms now
is that because you opposed the administration on their position
(48:08):
on affirmative action, you know, for example, like that's word,
that's one of our justifications for targeting you. I'm like,
so wait. But here's the most important thing. The way
they're targeting them is one telling these law firms that
they're losing their security clearance, which as a DC lawyer,
that's you know, death sentence for some of these lawyers.
But more importantly and more horrifyingly, they're telling them that
(48:30):
they can't go into federal buildings. And guess what's a
really important federal building for lawyers a court. So like,
the idea that the federal government has power to say
that lawyers can't enter court rooms is an extraordinary addition
to power. And because Fire is currently in court with
with Donald Trump's personal lawyer in a case where he's
(48:52):
he's suing a polster for getting a poll wrong and
Seltzer back in Iowa. And because we're a nonprofit that
goes into court, we're very aware of the idea like,
how on earth are we supposed to do our advocacy
in this situation in which lawyers can be told that
they can't enter a courtroom if you oppose the administration?
Speaker 1 (49:10):
Wow, very interesting. Greg.
Speaker 3 (49:12):
We can always look to you and your organization. We
really really appreciate the work that you guys do over
here at breaking points, and we're just really happy to
have you on man, So thank you.
Speaker 1 (49:20):
Oh, we appreciate it.
Speaker 8 (49:21):
It can be it can feel like a really thankless
job to constantly be angering both sides the political spectrum.
But at least I've had a lot of practice.
Speaker 1 (49:28):
That's great.
Speaker 3 (49:29):
Well, there are a lot of people out there who
definitely see and appreciate the work that you guys do.
Speaker 1 (49:33):
So thank you very much, Greg, Thank you so much,
take care, Thank you.
Speaker 3 (49:36):
Guys so much for watching it. Emily, thank you for
being here. It was great fun. I hope the audience
got what it needed, what it deserved.
Speaker 1 (49:41):
Possibly all we do with dev huh, Yeah, that's where givers.
I'm a giver.
Speaker 3 (49:46):
I'm forgetting what movie you are from. Anyway, all right,
we will see You'll be on tomorrow with crystals.
Speaker 1 (49:50):
Right I go. We will see you all later.
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of this show.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media, and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 4 (00:33):
News broke yesterday that Homeland Security Secretary Christy Nome had
three thousand dollars worth of cash stolen out of her
purse at a restaurant here in downtown DC. We could
put that first element up on the screen. This is
a report from CNN.
Speaker 5 (00:49):
That lays out exactly what happened.
Speaker 4 (00:51):
I'm just going to read from the story Department of
Homeland Security Secretary Christinomes fell victim to a thief while
eating dinner at a downtown DC restaurant Sunday night. The
secretary confirmed Monday, Gnome, who has asked about the theft
at the Easter egg roll, acknowledged the incident and said
the matter has not been resolved. The thief got away
with Nom's driver's license, medication, apartment keys, passport, DHS access badge,
(01:16):
makeup bag, blank checks, and about three thousand dollars in cash.
Speaker 5 (01:22):
Now.
Speaker 4 (01:23):
A DHS spokesperson explained this to CNN by saying her
entire family was in town, including her children and grandchildren.
She was using the withdrawal, referring obviously to the three
thousand dollars of cash to treat her family to dinner
activities and Easter gifts. Now, I do want to also
(01:43):
put the next element up on the screen. This is
a post from Susan Crabtree, who is one of the
best reporters on the White House Beat period. She says
this appears to be yet another significant Secret Service failure.
The agent's protecting Noome allowed a man in a medical
mask to walk by her table and snatch her purse
(02:03):
with three thousand dollars in it. Susan goes on to
say the detailed leader of nome secret service team should
have been sitting within ten feet of her one or
two tables away according to USSS protocol. Why aren't we
hearing that a Secret Service agent tried to intervene or
at least chased the man down, Sager, This is such
(02:26):
a bizarre story. I don't know if you've ever been
to the restaurant. This is Capital Burger, So it's by
the Convention Center, across from the Apple Store that's walked by.
Speaker 5 (02:35):
The Carnegie Library.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Turned, I know exactly what we're talking about.
Speaker 5 (02:38):
You know, it's actually a pretty good restaurant.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
But all right, shoutout Capitolah.
Speaker 5 (02:41):
Shoutout Capitol Burg.
Speaker 4 (02:42):
But so bizarre that you have a cabinet secretary sitting
to dinner with Secret Service having her purse snatch. Now
there's another layer of weirdness by the fact that you
had three grand in CAP's a lot of money, and
her passport on her weird to perhaps to get into
the White House even though you're a cabinet secretary, may
(03:04):
still need something like that. I have no idea, but
it's extremely weird that Secret Service should be sitting within
ten feet of her. Yes, again, this is a presidential
candidate was shot in the head not even a year ago.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
I mean, she's a top law enforcement officer in the county.
I don't think people understand this insane. You literally is
the boss of the largest law enforcement agency in the
United States.
Speaker 5 (03:24):
Homeland Security.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
They can't secure the Secretary of Homeland Security in the
nation's capital about five blocks from the White House.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
I mean, look, maybe she was targeted because maybe she
was targeted because of her notorious like flashy taste. So
we were, by the way, for watch nerds, she was rockin'
ofx a solid gold Rolex Daytona, which is for anybody
familiar with watches, you're like, whoa, I mean, that's a
(03:55):
minimum of twenty five fifty thousand dollars.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
That's got to be one of them.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
That is one of that is the ultimate rich guy
flex is a Rolex Daytona. And then yeah, even the
women's ones, they can really climb up there in price.
So she's previously worn a Rolex Daytona.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
I think no, I mean just traditionally women's watches.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
Are not worth this much because people they don't they're
no idiots like me, We're willing to pay. But anyways,
kars No is Karsy nome top law enforcement officer in
the country. The whole thing is just bizarre because it's,
like you said, she has a protection detail which is
supposed to be immediately within her vicinity, three thousand dollars
(04:31):
in cash, driver's license, and apartment keys stolen while she's
eating dinner at the downtown. You also have the department
there where there's you know, theoretically, if you think about it,
like there's tons of classified information on her phone or
possibly in her purse, like notes, other access keys. All
cabinet secretaries have like this specific type of phone. I
(04:55):
forget the name. I used to know what the name
of it is, but it's like a name. It's a
phone SPECI typically, which can have like your it's like
your outlook for classified information.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
But it's heavily restricted.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
Like there's only like fifty or sixty of these phones
in the whole US government. It's literally only for top
cabinet secretaries and I think like one or two other officials.
So that I think it's called high side.
Speaker 1 (05:15):
That's what it is.
Speaker 5 (05:15):
Well, maybe that was taken and we don't know.
Speaker 4 (05:17):
Maybe they're not calling in the press, so we're relying
on them to tell us what was storn.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
Yeah, so the high side is that's like the communication apparatus.
And by the way, that's what these people were supposed
to be using instead of signal.
Speaker 5 (05:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
I was just going to see actually, and that they're like,
so this is in your high side email. That's what
I'm talking about here, That's what the high side is.
So you can see that clearly there's like a major
security like breach that happened here. But I mean, just broadly,
it's one of those where the veneer every time of
like the veneer of the protection around these individuals gets pierced.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
I think is really bad.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
That was what we really saw with the Trump attempted assassination,
where you're like, dude, like this guy got this close
to the president and only by Trump turning his head
does his head not explode on line live television. And
then you know, we had previous incidents in the Obama
administration where people jump the fence and there's just this
mystery and like hollywoodization about the professionalism of a lot
(06:15):
of the people who protect these people. But then in reality,
you know, of average thief is able to just tell
your purse when you're going and you're like, uh, in
front of Secret Service well, don't forget this. Jake Sullivan,
the National Security Advisor under Joe Biden, was in his
house working at three am in the morning and a
guy broke into his house and was in his kitchen
(06:38):
completely passed the Secret Service detail, and Sullivan, only because
he was awake, came downstairs and he's like, who are you?
He's like, what's going on here? I had to call
his own detail to come and get this guy out
of there. I mean, that's extraordinary breach. This is just
a number of these types of incidents where people get
incredibly close to these individuals and you're just like, well,
(06:58):
I mean, what's going to happen right as a result.
And it's not a joke obviously, because as the top
law enforcement officer in the country, you also have I mean,
there's so many different figures like this, who are all
about Washington. I just saw a picture of a I
saw a video of Kennedy yesterday walking out of Martin's
stee with Martin's with the Saratoga water bottle. So a
little bit too on the nose for me personally, but yeah,
(07:21):
so like he's obviously a very hye profile figure. His
father was literally assassinated. I mean, what is the like,
what you know, what is the protocol around protecting these individuals.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
It's really dangerous.
Speaker 4 (07:32):
It's so dangerous. And this is in the middle of
a reckoning period for Secret Service. I mean, remember after
the Trump assassination attempt, they were hauled in front of
Congress and gave all of these testimonies and pledged.
Speaker 5 (07:43):
First of all, they blamed local.
Speaker 4 (07:45):
Police, but then also pledged to put in reforms and
be better. And how this is not this is less
than a year from a presidential candidate being shot in
the head on live television. Christineolman was not at a rally.
She was at a restaurant with Secret Service at least
supposed to be within ten feet of her. And it
sounds like from the news report that they didn't know
(08:07):
her purse was stolen until they reviewed the security camera footage,
that they literally had to go back look at the
footage to notice that someone swiped the Homeland Security Secretary's
purse in the middle of a busy restaurant when the
entire purpose of Secret Service is to have eyes on
her and her belongings. Another thing to mention is that
during Signalgate, one of the points. I think it was
(08:29):
Jeffrey Goldberg who made this and loathesion to say it,
he's completely correct. One of the problems with signal is
that someone gets your phone. If someone took Jeffrey Goldberg's phone,
he would have had these signal messages on it. If
someone took Pete Hecceas's phone, he would have had these,
or Susie Wilds's phone, they would have. Then if they
stole their purse and they had a phone in it,
(08:50):
for example, they would have had access to the signal
messages about the strikes. Like if you are a bad
actor who wants to penetrate the circle of the president,
of the decision makers of the US government, of our military,
and you see the Homeland Security Secretary having her passport
lifted at a freaking Burger restaurant five blocks from the
(09:12):
White House, I mean, this is an embarrassment there should
be to your point. Is the last thing I'll say
about this. This social fabric can be disrupted very very severely,
very quickly by security breaches that they could be assassinations,
they could be close brushes with assassinations, they could be
access to the classmen.
Speaker 5 (09:32):
Whatever it is.
Speaker 4 (09:33):
The country already feels like it is teetering on the
edge of something.
Speaker 5 (09:37):
Very very dark.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
I totally agree, it's insane. You're right, top cabinet officials
and all that. I mean, who just think about the
consequences of a security breach and all. We came close
with the Trump attempted assassination, and yeah, ever since then,
it's just been a spotlight in this organization.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
You would think that they would tighten.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
Things up, but it really looks more as if it's
because not because of their competence, but because of you know,
like nothing has just happened all of that yet.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
So anyway, all right, tell us about motherhood. What's happening?
Speaker 4 (10:11):
Yes, as the only childless host of breaking points, I
thought it would be a not for me to handle.
Speaker 3 (10:16):
Still technically childless, I guess, well, it's cooking. It's still
got you know, one or two more days. By the way,
I would like for it to go ahead and hurry out,
but it is what it is.
Speaker 5 (10:26):
You get that, right, Yeah?
Speaker 1 (10:27):
Yeah, all right.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
So let's turn to this big story in the New
York Times yesterday that laid out exactly what the Trump
administration is planning to do in order to make good
on Donald Trump's pledge to create a quote baby boom
in the United States of America. We can put this
first element up on the screen. The New York Times
published a big feature yesterday digging into exactly how the
administration is approaching this. You can see the headline is
(10:50):
White House assesses ways to persuade children to have just
persuade women to have more children. Emma Waters from the
Heritage Foundation is featured in the pho there.
Speaker 5 (11:00):
I think we both know we her.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
Yeah, old friend of mine.
Speaker 4 (11:02):
Yeah, as a real actually really interesting thinker. First graph
of the story. The White House has been hearing out
a course of ideas in recent weeks for persuading Americans
to get married and have more children. And early sign
that the Trump administration will embrace a new cultural agenda, which,
by the way, I took issue with that line in
the story.
Speaker 5 (11:17):
By the way, a quote.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
Early sign that the Trump administration will embrace a new
cultural agenda.
Speaker 5 (11:21):
Are you kidding me? There's been so many signs that.
Speaker 4 (11:23):
The Trump administration will embrace this new cultural agenda. One
proposed one proposal shared with AIDS, would preserve thirty percent
of scholarships for the Fulbright program for applicants who are
married or have children. Another would give a five thousand
dollar cash quote baby bonus to every American mother after delivery.
A third calls on the government and this is saga
(11:43):
where I know you have all kinds of thoughts and
are excited to weigh in to fund programs that educate
women on their menstrual cycles.
Speaker 5 (11:51):
Sager specifically pitched the story.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
Yeah, that's right, that was what I NO.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
I wanted to discuss it with you because we've both
been involved in some of these discussions now for quite
some time pro natalism, and you know, I think it's
difficult for me to It's difficult because I think four
or five years ago when I started to hear this
stuff and policy like in Hungary right where they're like, oh,
we'll pay off your mortgage if you have four kids,
(12:15):
you don't have to pay any tax and no income tax.
And I was like, wow, this is fantastic. Here's the truth,
though it hasn't worked Hungary. It just it didn't work.
And by the way, this is not a knock on Hungry.
It's a noble effort. But the truth is is it
doesn't work in any form that it takes. It's in
every developed country in the world, even with socialized medicine,
(12:36):
better health care and childcare than we could ever imagine,
it doesn't work. It's like a product of industrial capitalism.
It's like industrial capitalism itself is the is the main
engine of this. Yeah, I mean, if you really want
me to put my red hat on right now, but.
Speaker 5 (12:53):
I mean, even then, let's talk about the Soviet.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
Union, like we saw the destruction there of birth rates
and of you know, were talking about for example, can.
Speaker 5 (13:01):
We put the next element up on the screenplase?
Speaker 4 (13:03):
So the producers made this great graphic just sort of
talking about the specifics of what has been proposed by
people in these circles. So we talked about the five
thousand dollars cash baby bonus to every American mother after delivery,
fund programs that educate women on their mentrual cycles and
parts so they can better understand when they're ovulating and
able to conceive. And let me just briefly pause on
(13:24):
that point. The idea behind that is to basically undercut
the power of birth control, which people in the circles believe.
I think it's a pretty good argument, actually has affected
women's fertility. Women get married later, meaning they're on birth
control for longer and longer periods of their life, which
makes it harder to ultimately conceive when they want to
(13:45):
because they've married later in their thirties and that's already
harder off the bat. So that's the idea behind it.
You know, is it going to be a tough sell. Absolutely?
Is it the role of the federal government. That is
a different conversation that we can have, but just to
sort of explain some of the.
Speaker 5 (14:00):
Thinking, that's where it comes from.
Speaker 4 (14:02):
And then three, this gets to what Soccer was just
talking about, bestowing a special mother a medal, a special
medal on mothers of six or more children.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
So basically all the Mormons.
Speaker 4 (14:12):
Yeah, well all the Mormons, and this you were about
to elude because you were talking about how the Soviet
Union looked at policies like these, and particularly that policy.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
Yes, the metal like the hero of the Soviet Union,
if you had more than four more children, and guess
what didn't worry if anything, Actually, the fertility rate fell
off a cliff even more after the decline of the
Soviet Union and the ushering in of their nineteen nineties
like disaster capitalism, so have a run in front of
me of all of the programs which have even been
(14:42):
moderately successful.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
So France's highest.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
Birth rate in all of Western Europe one point eight,
so still not above replacement. They have up to three
years of paternity leave, a parental leaf up to three years.
They have monthly child allowances which are not means tested.
They have huge tax bet fits. They have massively subsidized childcare,
which is actually good like people who are very well
(15:06):
trained and they give them very nutritious food. They have
a quote cultural normalization of working mothers. They're still only
at one point eight and a lot of that, let's
be honest, is because of the immigration pop population number
two the Swedish, Swedish and Nordic countries. These places have
universal childcare, job security protection. They have parental lead that
(15:28):
you're like required to basically take culturally for a year.
Guess what doesn't work parentally hungary? Probably the thing like
the one country which threw everything massive cash incentives thirty
thousand eurolone for young couples who are for partially forgiven
per child, lifetime income tax tax exemption from mothers of
(15:50):
four kids, home buying subsidies, free IVF slight increase, only
a one point six in the overall birth right need
two point two just to be above like I can
go on forever. Russia, same thing they tried in twenty fifteen.
It's actually declined so far. War doesn't help. Actually, again,
the only country developed in the world that hasn't above
(16:11):
replacement fertility rate is Israel, even amongst even amongst their
secular Jewish population. Nobody really knows why. I mean, look,
they do have a lot of policies, like they've got
norms exclude the orthodoxyg.
Speaker 5 (16:25):
It's there's an existential fear.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
Yeah, there's like existential yes, yeah, that's a good point.
It's literally like a civilization. That's like if we do
not reproduce, where our land will be taken away from us.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
Right, But they have the same thing.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
They have state funded IVF, they have generous family allowances,
they have universal health care, they've got big you know,
cultural norms favoring shows the favor good to Israel's kids everywhere.
Speaker 6 (16:47):
Right.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
But my point just on all of us is it's
not policy, it's just culture. And I hate to say that.
I wish if it were a policy problem, we could
fix it, but at best you can squeeze. He's like
a point three or a point four. I mean that's
a lot, exactly, But I mean even then, you have
to rewrite the social contract of the entire United States. Now,
(17:08):
I'll also be clear, I would be in favor of
many of these policies even if it only did point
three point four. It is because it makes life easier
for even when you have one or two children. I mean,
going through this process right now, Oh, five thousand dollars. Thanks,
I'll consider covering a portion of my deductible, which.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
Is just gonna be just for childbirth. Right.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
I really appreciate you cover it even though I pay
like five hundred dollars a month.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Awesome, dad, soccer.
Speaker 4 (17:31):
Is gonna be so much fun. I'm to be so
much money. It's just like already an old mess.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
This is part of my blue magat turn. It's like,
oh great, now my strollers more expensive. The car seat
is going to be more expensive. I'm lucky I bought
all this stuff before the tariffs.
Speaker 5 (17:44):
But there's a lot of people out there.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
They don't have any money.
Speaker 5 (17:46):
Those are investments, right, Yeah, you can flip those.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
And oh this shit only lasts for six months. Great,
now I have to go Actually a good point. I
should probably buy my infant strollers steep right now before
the tariffs and all of that go up, because I
was gonna wait, guess I can't.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
Now I'm just saying, like.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
Already getting grumpy text messages from Socger. But the cost
of shit, that's true, that's true. You should you know berries.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
I mean, these kids, they're like Barry machines the amount
that they're buying there, and drum For wants to put
a ten percent tariff on them.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
I could go on forever joking.
Speaker 3 (18:15):
My point is just looking at these policies, I think
they're very noble. I think it's a good idea. However,
it is not a magic bullet.
Speaker 1 (18:23):
It's just not.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
And the truth is is that every developed society in
the world just has a low birth rate. And there's
just something about the comfort of industrial capitalism, of the
lack of like need for you know, of the lack
of like rural you know, area community and all these
other things. The truth is is like even here in America,
the poorest people have the most kids. It's one of
the most like it's the craziest thing is that the
(18:46):
people who are the most impacted by it, but who
largely have not yet absorbed like all of the cultural
milieu of like the middle class lifestyle and vacations and
all these other things, are the people who are having
the most children. The moment that you assimilate to the
higher shuns of American society, you have less children.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
The only exception is.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
When you reach the extreme end of the wealth spectrum
of like zero point one percent.
Speaker 5 (19:10):
Oh yeah, they don't.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
They love to get married and.
Speaker 3 (19:13):
To have children, But that's because they've genuinely exited like
US society. It's everybody else in between that You're like, well,
people are like, yeah, but I want to go to
Disneyland or whatever. I'm like, oh, do you have five
thousand bucks if you have four kids?
Speaker 1 (19:25):
Hope you do? And you're going to be driving? You
know you're not. You can't even fly.
Speaker 4 (19:28):
And to be honest, I don't even think a lot
of the economic constraints affect the question of whether people
end up going above replacement rate. I think it's genuinely
just that when you have a career centric society, you
just like that's it's very hard to have three children
and that's where we see I think one of the saddest,
one of the saddest things that Limonstone has researched, He's
(19:51):
quoted in this article with Institute for Family Studies, is
that American women actually say that they have.
Speaker 5 (19:56):
Fewer children than they want.
Speaker 4 (19:58):
Yeah, that's true, and it's it's because they start later
they want in order to have well, not that they want,
but they start later so late that they don't end
up being able to have as many children as they want.
And that's genuinely one of the sadder things. And it's
not really a policy at least not in the structure
of the policy structure of the American economy right now
or in the American government right now. That's not really
a policy question. It's much more of a cultural aquation.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
It's a huge cultural question. It's also about what do
you even want? Right like?
Speaker 3 (20:22):
Yeah, I mean, this gets to the whole two income
trap and a lot of the problems with the consumption
economy and the driving up of the overall consumptive rate
of the average family, which necessitates a two person household
that has to work. But there are realities here, I mean,
but the counter to what I'm saying, is the Swedish
model in all these where.
Speaker 1 (20:44):
They have everything every benefit.
Speaker 3 (20:47):
That an American could possibly want to make their life easier,
leave money, you know, cultural norms and all that, and
they still don't have a lot of kids.
Speaker 4 (20:57):
Well, so this is really interesting because this is where
both the left and the right are predicating their solutions
on materialism. That's right, right, So the right solution is
a little bit more money. Left solution is a little
bit more money, a little bit more childcare. And those
things can be good policies totally, whether or not they
help the birth rate. They can be good policies, Like
a five thousand dollars baby bonus is probably a good policy.
Speaker 5 (21:16):
But is it actually going to help the birth rate?
Speaker 4 (21:18):
No, because these are not primarily material concerns, they're cultural ones.
And just to wrap this all up, Ross Daufa reacted
to the New York Times article by posting it on
ACX and saying, of course, you know, I think it's
good for the administration to consider pronatalist ideas, but right now,
nothing would be more pronatalist than avoiding an unnecessary recession.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
Yeah, that's right, exactly what we're looking at.
Speaker 4 (21:38):
Six months down the road is a Trump administration coming
up with a five thousand dollars baby bonus into a
horrible economy for families where to your point, they can't
buy bananas for their babies. Yes, and or they can
buy bananas, they're just exceedingly expensive in their aren as,
many of them in stock. So yeah, this is it's
on a collision course for the Trump administration.
Speaker 6 (21:57):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
Yeah, I just looked it up.
Speaker 3 (21:59):
Birth rate lapsed from class five point five just in
two thousand and nine from two thousand and eight. Yeah,
just to show you what a recession can do. At
the same time, there is an extraordinary showdown with Harvard
going on right now between the Trump administration, which is
not only putting immense financial pressure on them, basically trying
to tell them how to run the university. But it
(22:21):
all apparently stems back to a massive mistake inside of
the bureaucracy which kicked this entire thing off. This was
broken down in a recent CNN segment and yes, I
know it's CNN, but they actually did a decent job
this time around.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
Mu's take a listen.
Speaker 6 (22:35):
Okay, So the White House's position is it was malpracticed
by Harvard to not realize that this letter was so
outrageous it probably wasn't true. I mean that letter came
from I mean, I think that statement actually just sort
of gives away the whole game. Essentially. The argument that
we're hearing there from may mailman at the White House
(22:56):
is they should have known. They should have known there
was something wrong. They should have picked up the phone
and said to us at the White House, hey, guys,
this looks like a mistake. I think it's pretty obvious
where the fault was, though.
Speaker 7 (23:05):
I mean, Elli, could you imagine if Harvard had responded
to this letter by saying, Okay, we'll meet these demands
and actually that they had been sent in error to them.
Speaker 6 (23:15):
Yeah, I mean exactly. Look, this is serious stuff. I mean,
this is a major showdown that is escalating by the day.
You know, if Harvard had acquiesced these demands, that it
would have changed the institution and compromised the institution forever.
But I'm interested to see now what happens books now,
does the White House withdraw this or do they sort
of decide, whoops, where we're po permitted now and we're
(23:38):
going to have to have this fight through to the ends.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
So to recap this entire showdown with Harvard is because
let's put this up there on the screen. An official
on the quote Anti Semitism Task Force told the university
that a letter of demands has was actually now one
that was sent without authorization from the government. So the
university basically published the letter and said, no, we're not
(24:04):
going to agree to these demands. Days later, that Trump
administration is like, well, screw you or actually gonna cut
off your funding. But by the way, that letter was
actually unauthorized and sent by the Acting General Counsel of
the Department of Health and Human Services on the Anti
Semitism Task Force, and it was sent in era error.
So the letter arrived when Harvard said they still believe
(24:26):
they could have prevented a confrontation. Then they get this
fake letter and they're like, no, we're not going to
do it. And so then now quote, it was malpracticed
on the side of Harvard's lawyers not to pick up
the phone and call the members of the Anti Semitism
and Task Force who they had been talking to for weeks. Instead, quote,
Harvard went on a victimhood campaign that is a direct
quote from the White House. Instead So Harvard's position, as
(24:49):
that guy just laid out, or the government's position is
that Harvard is stupid because it took a letter that
it got from the United States government and then responded
to I cannot blame a.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
Position in defending Harvard.
Speaker 3 (25:00):
This is pain painful to sit here and to defend
this ridiculous institution.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
But their position is.
Speaker 3 (25:09):
That they should have realized that this was a fake letter.
And now nonetheless, despite the fact that it was faked
by the government.
Speaker 5 (25:16):
Signed, but it was always signed.
Speaker 4 (25:18):
This is Harvard's stand, like it was.
Speaker 3 (25:21):
I mean, listen to if I get a letter from
the government and what I'm going If I got a
learn from.
Speaker 6 (25:24):
The I R S.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
I call the I R S and be like, hey, guys,
this is a real letter. Or should just do whatever
they tell me to do?
Speaker 5 (25:28):
Why are they signing draft?
Speaker 3 (25:29):
Right?
Speaker 4 (25:29):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (25:30):
Good point?
Speaker 3 (25:30):
All right, So now you tell me, Emily, based on
all this, though, the government's position is still nonetheless, we
will still take all of your funding from you. So
let's put that up there on the screen. Quote what
would it even mean.
Speaker 1 (25:45):
For Trump to revoke Harvard's taxes and status?
Speaker 5 (25:48):
Well, which by the way, is different. I just want
to say this, Yeah, I know.
Speaker 3 (25:50):
You're right, You're right, but I'm saying this is all
a cascading part of this. So Harvard says no. So
the Trump administration goes, even though we sent you this
thing in error, we're cutting off two point two six
billion dollars in funding. And then a week later there
was all coming out that actually, we're going to revoke
your entire tax exempt status based.
Speaker 4 (26:09):
On all that.
Speaker 3 (26:09):
I mean, this is crazy shit, and it gets to
the tariff thing. Nobody hates Harvard more than me. Okay,
these people should lose their tax sub status. These people
should be paying massive amounts of taxes. They're a hedge fund,
they're not actually a real university. They admit less students
today than they did when the US population was one
hundred million less people. Okay, absurd, It's just complete credential washing, inflation,
(26:33):
student debt.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
I could go on forever, yep, for all of the
issues with that.
Speaker 3 (26:36):
But as we are going to talk about soon with Greg,
there needs to be a little bit of a process.
There needs to be a little bit of a principle here,
a little bit of an effort by the United States
government to say we're doing this because of what I
just laid out, Because you are bilking the federal government
for the under false pretenses for student loans. You're putting
your students in debt, not because of some fake anti
(26:59):
viscal case, quite literally, a fake anti Semitism demand.
Speaker 1 (27:02):
Of the government.
Speaker 3 (27:03):
So the whole thing is insane, and Harvard is now
countersuing the Trump administration. Every legal expert I see says
Harvard or the government has no chance in this case
right now. I mean, they may prevail in the long
run if they go through a proper process, but as
of where things start right now, Harvard is getting a
temporary restraining order like tomorrow based on the way that
this entire thing has happened.
Speaker 4 (27:24):
When I care obviously much more about the corruption and
degradation of higher education than I care about some idiot
bureaucrats and the Trump administration botching it. But do you
end up actually addressing the problem if you are too
incompetent to address it correctly and hurt your ability exactly
because you and I are actually probably sympathetic to the
argument that if you're making an omelet, you're gonna make
(27:46):
going to break a few eggs.
Speaker 5 (27:47):
The omelet is reforming higher ed.
Speaker 4 (27:49):
Yes, obviously the media is going to pick out a
few examples of really bad process work from the Trump
administration and blow them up into something that they're not.
Speaker 5 (27:59):
This actually is bad. It's no question. This is so stupid.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
This is not like common you know, it's like, this
is classic stupidity with a capital S, where it's embarrassing
to even have to be in a position to be
be like, yeah, well they kind of have a point,
and this is what they've done with everything, Terri. And
that's why I'm like, I'm done with Ri. I am
done with this bullshit. It's like this amount of stupidity
(28:27):
that you require people to debase themselves to defend your
it iscy is enough. Look, I know that you know
there's some mega memas or whatever they're going to stand
right or die forever. Fine, okay, you can have them.
But you know, for people out here who are actually
have to follow this stuff for a living and have
you know, actual acquaintance with competence and with people who
actually know what the hell they're doing, it's it's it's absurd.
(28:47):
It's an attack on intellect itself.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
You know, go ahead, Well.
Speaker 4 (28:51):
So I mean I think what's interesting here is that
we compare Trump one point zero and Trump two point
zero and say Trump one point zero was more haphazard.
They didn't have their ducks in a row. They hadn't
spent four years preparing this detailed policy agenda that they
could install immediately when a Republican president, whether it was
Trump or DeSantis, was in office. I think what we're
starting to see, whether it's the student deportations, this letter
(29:14):
to Harvard, or the tariffs, is that actually they did
plan directionally what they wanted to do. They planned who
they wanted to put in place, but they just lack
the know how to execute well.
Speaker 1 (29:28):
Actually, it's a huge dive. I've been thinking about this
a lot.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
It's a massive indictment of Project twenty twenty five and
all of the projects that were ostensibly to professionalize the
Trump administration.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
It's just not happened at all.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
Congratulations, you had some executive orders that were ready to
go on day one. Let's look at the actual result
of your flagship product dose two trillion to one trillion
to one hundred and fifty billion, which is the exact
amount that we're going to increase the Pentagon budget Okay,
so you didn't cought a single dollar of federal spend.
I'm judging you by your own by what you say
that you wanted to do. Yeah, dose, you failed. It's
a complete failure. Elon is leaving soon, right literally he
(30:01):
has to because of this.
Speaker 4 (30:02):
May actually yeah, no, probably if you let Russ Boat start,
who is a highly competent.
Speaker 3 (30:07):
But if you're a car so we'll look, we're only
hundre days in so do deportation. It's like, okay, yeah,
I mean you know, I said this previously yesterday. The
Bureau of Prison validates gang members every day, every single day.
The Bureau of Prisons has thousands of gang members in
the United States penitentiary system and knows exactly what they
look like and how they do tattoos and everything. Do
(30:30):
they make mistakes, I'm sure they do, but I guarantee
you it's a much more professional. So when they come
out they go, oh, we're sending these gang members to Salvador,
I'm like, oh, okay, you know it makes sense. Did
US Department's Justice No, It's like, oh, complete bullshit. The
way that you guys did this autism awareness tattooed Mak
Mukhali said, Oh, we're going after the student criminals.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
Right.
Speaker 3 (30:49):
I'm like, oh, okay, so the Hamilton Hall guy, right, No,
the guy who handed out a flyer, or this lady
who co authored an op ed, or the guy who's
married to a lady who's related to someone in Humma
what like, and that the tariffs. This fucking formula. It's
(31:11):
the same as the first time around. I mean, I
remember the census thing. I mean, this is the first thing.
This is the first thing I pissed me off of
the Trump administration. As people know, the census currently counts
illegal immigrants, which is insane, right, insane, because it basically
means that if you have enough illegals in your state
that you get more representation in Congress, what more electoral votes?
Speaker 1 (31:32):
Nonsense.
Speaker 3 (31:33):
Well, the administration had a plan in twenty eighteen to
get rid to basically change the senses. It only costs
US citizens, great, awesome, would have completely changed the electoral map. Well,
they did it in such an incompetent way. The Supreme
Court was like, we don't even disagree, but we are
striking this down because you did it so stupidly. And
then they're like, oh, the twenty twenty election was stolen.
(31:55):
I'm like, well, you know, also you can't do the
basic paperwork travel band. How many trivel bands do we
have in twenty seventeen do you remember maybe four?
Speaker 5 (32:04):
Five? Yeah, it was ridiculous. Actually, that's a really good parallel.
I hadn't even thought about that because it's so hard
to like pull all of these.
Speaker 4 (32:10):
Different references out because there's literally like hundreds of them.
That's actually a really good reference point. And I think
the difference really now that I'm thinking of it between
one point zero and two point zero here is that
two point zero to use someone violent metaphor. In one
point oh, nobody knew where to aim. In two point zero,
everyone spent years figuring out exactly where to aim, but
(32:31):
didn't train at shooting right.
Speaker 5 (32:33):
They weren't.
Speaker 4 (32:34):
They weren't going to the range, and they're not right
on the target. They know exactly what target to shoot at,
but they don't know how to hit the bull's eye.
And that's what's happening in this administration and in ways
that are probably undermining their ability to ultimately hit the target,
because people are going to pull them out of the
range right before they can figure out how to hit
the target.
Speaker 5 (32:54):
They really get the hell out of here. You don't
not use that gun, eddie.
Speaker 3 (32:56):
They're already I mean, how many days has it been
since January twentieth. Let's see, all right, January twenty first,
let's see it has been all right, chat cheept's not
working right now? All right, it's been eighty something eighty
or ninety days. You run out of political capital only.
They only have one piece of legislation they're going to
pass for the next two years, the tax cuts and
(33:18):
jobs ack.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
Good luck with that one.
Speaker 3 (33:19):
I hope it works out considering all the things that
you guys have said that you want to do.
Speaker 1 (33:23):
Well, by the way, you have to lift the debt ceiling.
Speaker 4 (33:25):
That's not rense and repeat from that. They're trying to
stuff a bunch of stuff in reconcization.
Speaker 5 (33:29):
It's not just re.
Speaker 4 (33:30):
Upping the tax cuts. It's actually stuffing a bunch of
other possible priorities.
Speaker 3 (33:34):
But I'm saying, you have one piece of legislation. That's
all you guys have left. You burned all your political capital.
You haven't deported that many people. If anything, you're actually
trailing the Obama and Clinton administration and you're roughly on
par with the Biden administration tariff policy disaster. Sorry, it's true,
there's been. I mean, maybe you'll get some benefit, you know.
Speaker 1 (33:53):
A few months from now.
Speaker 3 (33:54):
I'm genuinely doubtful as the I mean, it's this. This
is where I'm just going full Richard Hennen like, they
do not have elite human.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
Capital who are behind Its true.
Speaker 5 (34:04):
I don't agree with that.
Speaker 1 (34:04):
No, it's true. I don't see it. I don't see
a single I don't.
Speaker 4 (34:07):
Think anybody has the human capital to accomplish the goals
that they've set their sight. Maybe right, they're trying to
like radically transform a system that's built up over one
hundred years. And I don't think it's a matter of
the Trump people being I think there are absolutely some
idiots in the Trump administration.
Speaker 5 (34:22):
I think we could both say.
Speaker 1 (34:23):
More per capita personally.
Speaker 4 (34:25):
Okay, But yeah, it's because the Trump It is because
Republicans haven't trained up an army of bureaucrats over the
course of the last one hundred times Democrats have, and
now Republicans are trying to use this sort of like
haphazard like Lexington and conquered band of policy amateurs to
do something much more difficult than anyone's ever tried to
do in the policy space.
Speaker 3 (34:45):
Very fair counter and I actually think it's probably a
good place to leave it.
Speaker 1 (34:49):
So anyway, Harvard, that's what happened. Let's get to the
CEO of Fire, Greg Lukanoff.
Speaker 3 (34:54):
He's going to break down some of free speech attacks
for us, including some on Harvard.
Speaker 1 (34:57):
Let's get to it. Joining us now is Greg Lukianoff.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
He is the CEO of Fire, one of the most
principled free speech organizations in the United States, and we're
very excited to be joined by I'm Greg.
Speaker 1 (35:10):
It's great to see you. Thanks for joining the show.
Thanks for having me so.
Speaker 3 (35:13):
Greg, we wanted you to get sound off on some
of the extraordinary moves by the Trump administration. First of all,
you are the author of several books, and more recently
this one, let's put it up there on the screen,
the Canceling of the American Mind. But more recently you
might look at that and be like, oh, this is
a right wing guest or something. But Greg, you're unique
in that you really have stood up against a lot
(35:34):
of unprecedented attacks on free speech currently by the Trump administration.
We have a list that we can just put here
right now, assembled by your team. Let's put it up
there on the screen. Relevant in fact, some of the
Harvard discussion that we just had here on the show.
Why don't you break down for us why you see
this as an attack on free speech with the Harvard
situation and for a lot more.
Speaker 8 (35:55):
Oh yeah, I mean there is no small irony in
my taking so much eight mail of the moment for
defending Harvard, because Harvard finished dead last two years in
a row on our campus free speech ranking, and I
want to be very clear they earned that position. But
the answer cannot be the government wildly exceeding its power
to effectively nationalize Harvard using powers it doesn't have. And
(36:21):
I'm a civil libertarian, so like I'm concerned about left
wing authoritarianism, and I'm concerned about right wing authoritarianism, Like
I'm mostly afraid of the accumulation of power. And what
they're currently claiming is that because of the history of
anti Semitism at Harvard, which I'd say, like, that's a
real concern, they now can restrict what two point six
(36:41):
billion dollars in potential funding to Harvard unless Harvard meets
demands that control everything from certain departments to what is taught,
to who is admitted. And that's what I mean by
effectively nationalizing. It's micromanaging this massive company. And I think that, yeah,
(37:02):
could it Is it possible that if you had, if
you followed the procedures and did Title six hearings and
even Title nine hearings on the way Harvard has behaved
over the last five years, that Harvard might lose and
be in risk of losing its federal funding. I absolutely
that is absolutely a possibility. But the government does not
have the power to completely skip over that entire process
(37:24):
and just declare by you cause you know that essentially
you now have to do what the government says you
do because you receive any federal federal funding at all.
And I did write I'm taking some flack for this
right now, but I take this, you know, very seriously.
The idea that, yes, Harvard has made a ton of mistakes,
and you know, I'm first in line and criticizing him,
canceling of the American mind. You know, Harvard does not
(37:46):
come out, that does not come out particularly well. But
the idea that we'd freeze a massive amount of science
funding for things that could actually be you know, groundbreaking.
I mean, this is the one thing that consistently cares
me is essentially that, in an effort to deal with
very real problems in higher ed we're going to destroy
(38:06):
our unique ability to push the frontiers of science, which
harms everyone, not just even in the United States and
the globe.
Speaker 4 (38:15):
Well. And we might disagree on this because I'm more
sympathetic to the idea of the federal government exercising some
power over federal funding.
Speaker 5 (38:23):
And to your point, Greg, I think also there's.
Speaker 4 (38:25):
There's Title nine, Title seven, like, all of this could
get pretty interesting in the courts, but I have seen
I'm curious what you make of this some really interesting
commentary on the question of viewpoint diversity. The federal government
asking Harvard to implement different measures to ensure there's viewpoint
diversity at Harvard or in its research, and all of
(38:48):
that that, I mean, it's the same thing with the
anti semitism definition that Fire has been really brave and
for years standing up against the overly broad definition of
anti semitism.
Speaker 5 (38:59):
Those are those seem like.
Speaker 4 (39:00):
Problematic answers to a problem in and of itself, And
could you just speak to the viewpoint diversity question. Because
you've been advocating for viewpoint diversity at the university level
for a long time, then when the federal government asks
about it, it becomes a different issue.
Speaker 8 (39:16):
Exactly, I want viewpoint diversity in higher ed And for example,
if Congress, you know, decided to make some of these
contingent on federal funding that they have, you have a
lot of power to decide what you tie federal funding
to in the first place. But you can't work backwards
and then say, oh, by the way, we've now decided
(39:37):
that federal funding is contingent on viewpoint diversity. That also
poses really serious First Amendment issues, because what you're saying
is a private institution has to basically have a political
at mis test to make sure that they have greater
viewpoint diversity. Now, I want schools to achieve viewpoint diversity,
and I think one of the ways they can do
that is to have more classes co taught by people
who disagree. I think this would be powerful on multiple levels,
(39:59):
and it could be a great way to introduce more
viewpoint diversity. But as a civil libertarians, when it's achieved
through government coercion, we're rightfully concerned about that.
Speaker 1 (40:10):
So definitely.
Speaker 8 (40:10):
And to be clear that the government does have power
to put strings on its federal funding, and they do
and we and that's why I made the point that essentially,
could they be found guilty of violating Title six, Title seven,
and Title nine. Yeah, I think that's a real possibility.
But you can't just do it without proving it, without
going through the procedural steps, because those really matter. That's
(40:33):
the difference between you know, a government a republic and
something that looks a lot more authoritari.
Speaker 3 (40:40):
Well, what you're really talking about here is process through
the legal courts, where you have to present evidence, where
you have to have a judge who is ruled here.
Let's put the next parts up there, guys on the screen.
Which Fire has also spoken out against some of the
deportation efforts here of students who have criticized Israel and
or participated in protests on college campuses. Can you just
(41:03):
tell us why again? You know, in this particular case,
the administration is justifying this as a violation of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, saying that they're expressing support here
for a terrorist organization and thus these students are eligible
for deportation.
Speaker 1 (41:18):
Fire has spoken out against us tell us why. Yeah,
And again people could point out some irony here.
Speaker 8 (41:25):
I don't really see it as irony because fire has
been one of the ones pointing out actually alone to
a degree, pointing out that pro Palestinian protesters are responsible
for all but essentially three of the highest number of
campus shoutdowns of speakers on record. It's been overwhelmingly a
pro Palestinian movement in some cases. I remember they did
(41:47):
a shoutdown, they shut down an event of someone who
was just there to talk about black holes, you know,
like it was it was ridiculous, and we called it
out all the time.
Speaker 4 (41:54):
Yeah.
Speaker 8 (41:55):
So I think that a lot of these protests have
been in some cases a disaster for free spee.
Speaker 1 (42:00):
She's not going to be freedom.
Speaker 8 (42:01):
However, again, you have to follow process and you have
to prove it. So when they first accused Mamood Khalil,
for example, I was like, well, you know, Colombia was
a disaster, and I'm willing to bet, not willing to bet.
I suspect they might actually have something more serious on him,
like he was involved in some of the vandalism, or
some of the anti Semitic harassment himself, or some of
(42:23):
the really bad in some cases criminal behavior that took
place at Harvard, or at least things that they could
have kicked him out of school for. But as the
case went on, We're like, the government's not making this argument.
They're basically pointing to flyers that a group that he
was loosely affiliated with circulated, and I'm like, Okay, that's
saying that you're kicking him out just for speech that
(42:44):
would be protected by an American citizen, and that's problematic
according to the law. There was a weird argument that
I keep on getting that people here on a green card,
and green card is, you know, one step away from
citizenship have no free speech rights, and that's absurd.
Speaker 1 (43:00):
Teen forty five.
Speaker 8 (43:00):
The Supreme Court was incredibly clear in a place called
in a case called Bridges y. Wickson, that resident aliens
do have First Amendment rights. Now, what the full parameters
of those rights are is the one remaining question. But
it certainly should not be that you can you can
be at a protest at a college campus where there
are ten protesters, all of it peaceful, all of it protected,
(43:24):
and all nine of those protesters are fine because they're
American citizens, but the tenth has to show as papers
and could be kicked out of the country for being
on the on the wrong side of it. So the
Mamoud Khalil case actually just got worse the longer it
went on, and the osterric case is even worse because
the only thing they're pointing at this tough students, is
that she wrote a op ed that was critical of Israel,
(43:46):
that was critical, and it was much more it was
much more mainstream that it was being presented as. And
this is the young woman that they actually, you know,
drove a van by and playing closed policemen, you know,
stuffer and take her away for deportation. That that's scary stuff.
And it's one of these things where you think about
all the great Americans that we are proud to have
(44:07):
come to this country and eventually became naturalized or didn't
in some cases, who would be horrified if they were deported.
I think of, you know, Christopher Hitchins. I don't think
Christopher Hitchins. He definitely was here on a green card
for a long time. I don't think he ever actually
became a citizen. And the idea or for that matter,
what I point this out to conservatives, what about oh
(44:28):
my god Peterson or Elon Musk, you know. So, I
think that I understand that people are concerned about what
happened at Columbia and a lot of these schools. I
am too passionately, so I think they shamed themselves during
this period. But that's not the same thing as saying
(44:49):
these students are responsible for it and that they should
be kicked out because of their opinion. That's much more dangerous.
Speaker 5 (44:56):
And Grid, you didn't just write Canceling of the American Mind.
That was a follow up to a really great book
you wrote as.
Speaker 4 (45:01):
Well, called The Coddling of the American Union with John Hyde,
and that's a really important book. I mean, I would
say that's like a landmark book in the way that
we've sort.
Speaker 5 (45:11):
Of come to view our culture.
Speaker 4 (45:13):
And the reason I want to ask you about that
is in the midst of this conversation about quote unquote
woke right, one of the things that as a conservative
I worried about sometimes pre twenty twenty four is that
there were cancels. There were cancelations that did see conservative
students being the victims of attacks on free speech. They
were really truly being victimized in some cases.
Speaker 1 (45:33):
And absolutely that fueled.
Speaker 4 (45:35):
Though, a really interesting sense of victimhood on the right,
which is something the right critiqued the left for sort
of being defined by for a very long time. And
I'm curious, as the author of Coddling and Canceling, if
you see that sort of instinct, instinctive illiberalism that comes
(45:55):
when you end up genuinely being a victim actually starting
to fuel right wing encroachments on speech.
Speaker 5 (46:02):
Is there something to that?
Speaker 8 (46:04):
Oh?
Speaker 1 (46:04):
No, I think there absolutely is.
Speaker 8 (46:05):
I think I'm reading Mussa Algarby's book We've Never Been Woke,
and he really kind of saw James Lindsay's term woke right,
you know, coming that essentially when you look at some
of the tenets of the right of the heart, the
authoritarian left and the authoritarian right, both of which I
very much oppose, they have.
Speaker 1 (46:26):
Very similar characteristics.
Speaker 8 (46:27):
And it goes so far as to have people like
Chris Rufo, you know, talking about their admiration for Graham,
Sheet and Lenin and like all of these monsters that
my family had to flee Russia to fight because they
were so good at manipulating the public, oftentimes with an
initial sense of grievance that called for centralization of power
(46:48):
on the basis of identity, that the woke right and
work left are more similar than they're comfortable with, even
to the point at which they're citing the same And
I'm going to show my own bias here historical monster
to justify their position.
Speaker 3 (47:02):
Yeah, and last part here is on these law firms.
This is one where I have not yet victims.
Speaker 5 (47:07):
Again, this is the victims.
Speaker 1 (47:08):
I had around this one.
Speaker 3 (47:09):
But go ahead, Greg, we're gonna put it up there
on the screen. We haven't even done a full segment
just because it is kind of convoluted in a way.
You're like, the president is like attacking a law firm
and thus saying that he had to do like pro
bono work for him personally.
Speaker 1 (47:25):
But why is that a free speech problem there?
Speaker 8 (47:27):
Oh my god, it's well, it's rob for a free
speech organization because we go into court to defend freedom
of speech. And we're all lawyers, not all of us.
I'm actually really glad that some of us are social
scientists as well. But what they're saying is, and it
went beyond just people who opposed the administration people, I mean,
but they're going after law firms for example. You know,
(47:47):
helped with the January sixth prosecutions or helped oppose some
of the attempts for the over the twenty twenty election,
the argument that who fought against the idea that the
election was stolen, which, by the way, it wasn't. And
what they're saying to some of these law firms now
is that because you opposed the administration on their position
(48:08):
on affirmative action, you know, for example, like that's word,
that's one of our justifications for targeting you. I'm like,
so wait. But here's the most important thing. The way
they're targeting them is one telling these law firms that
they're losing their security clearance, which as a DC lawyer,
that's you know, death sentence for some of these lawyers.
But more importantly and more horrifyingly, they're telling them that
(48:30):
they can't go into federal buildings. And guess what's a
really important federal building for lawyers a court. So like,
the idea that the federal government has power to say
that lawyers can't enter court rooms is an extraordinary addition
to power. And because Fire is currently in court with
with Donald Trump's personal lawyer in a case where he's
(48:52):
he's suing a polster for getting a poll wrong and
Seltzer back in Iowa. And because we're a nonprofit that
goes into court, we're very aware of the idea like,
how on earth are we supposed to do our advocacy
in this situation in which lawyers can be told that
they can't enter a courtroom if you oppose the administration?
Speaker 1 (49:10):
Wow, very interesting. Greg.
Speaker 3 (49:12):
We can always look to you and your organization. We
really really appreciate the work that you guys do over
here at breaking points, and we're just really happy to
have you on man, So thank you.
Speaker 1 (49:20):
Oh, we appreciate it.
Speaker 8 (49:21):
It can be it can feel like a really thankless
job to constantly be angering both sides the political spectrum.
But at least I've had a lot of practice.
Speaker 1 (49:28):
That's great.
Speaker 3 (49:29):
Well, there are a lot of people out there who
definitely see and appreciate the work that you guys do.
Speaker 1 (49:33):
So thank you very much, Greg, Thank you so much,
take care, Thank you.
Speaker 3 (49:36):
Guys so much for watching it. Emily, thank you for
being here. It was great fun. I hope the audience
got what it needed, what it deserved.
Speaker 1 (49:41):
Possibly all we do with dev huh, Yeah, that's where givers.
I'm a giver.
Speaker 3 (49:46):
I'm forgetting what movie you are from. Anyway, all right,
we will see You'll be on tomorrow with crystals.
Speaker 1 (49:50):
Right I go. We will see you all later.
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.