America v. Canada, Germany v. Free Speech

Hey everybody, the Charlie Kirk Show. Oh, Canada? Oh, no.
A big fight breaks out between USA Hockey and Canada. America is back.
And then how much power does the president actually have, Professor Yu, in a very insightful conversation? If you guys like to dive deep on the topics, this is a great, great, great interview with Professor Yu. Become a member today.
It's members.charliekirk.com. That is members.charliekirk.com.
to stay engaged.

That's members.charliekirk.com.

Email me as always, freedom at charliekirk.com. Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks. I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country.
He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives.
And we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why We are back.
America is back. It feels that way, doesn't it? We are back having a border.
We're getting the economy roaring. We're cutting regulation.
We're signing executive orders. We're ending unnecessary wars.
And also, the machismo of the 1980s is back. If you want further evidence that America is back, look no further than an extraordinary nugget of cultural news that happened over the weekend.
Over the weekend was a hockey game. Now, it is All-Star weekend in the NHL, except instead of the All-Star game, the NHL is reviving an international competition.
They're holding a miniature four-nation tournament of NHL players from different countries. Two of those countries, naturally, are from the United States and Canada.
The U.S. and Canada played their game

over the weekend in Montreal. Now, as you might have heard, America and Canada are having a little bit of a tiff right now.
Trump has menaced Canada with tariffs because of their subpar border security. And he's totally bullied Justin Trudeau.
And he's talked about making Canada the 51st state, which is some master grade A trolling.

So during the game last night, Canadians booed the American National Anthem, and they didn't just boo it. I mean, they went hard.
This is a little unseemly for Canada. I thought Canadians were known to be nice.
Canadian nice, very pleasant. No, no, no, no.
They're not so much. These are the Canadians booing the American national anthem.
Play cut 27. Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light what so proudly we hailed At the twilight's last gleaming Whose broad stripes and bright stars Through the perilous fight O'er the ramparts we watched We're so gallantly streaming Just for the record, do you have another example of America booing the Mexican National Anthem or the Canadian National Anthem when there was reciprocal type of sports games at that kind of ferocity? So you could see the American men, those American hockey players.
They said, oh yeah, you're going to boo the American national anthem? Now mind you, this is in Montreal. This is their national sport.
Americans are catching up to the Canucks in this. You could just see it on the faces of these American men.
We are not going to allow the American flag, the American national anthem be desecrated by Canada. No, that dog is not going to hunt.
And so within the first nine seconds of the game, it took nine seconds and three fights broke out. Now in hockey, fights are allowed.
It's part of the game. It's actually part of the sport.
This is a minute-long montage of the whole hockey game. Now before I get into that, not only were there three fights, it was nine seconds, you guys can see this on stage, and I just love this spirit of the Americans on enemy territory.
The Canadians boo our national anthem. I'm sorry.
That's not good. We're not going to put up with that, actually.
You see, the old way of looking at things, the old way of operating is that Americans would have bent the knee and allowed our national anthem be booed. They would have participated.
The way of operating under Joe Biden and Barack Obama is no national pride. We're not going to put up with it.
The American spirit of defending your nation is back. Trump should bring these guys to the White House.
And I just love it because Canada cares far more about hockey than we do. We embarrassed the Canadians on their home turf, their national sport.

The equivalent would be if there was an international football game

and it was the NFL versus the Canadian Football League and they came and beat us.

Not only did we beat them by fighting them,

we beat them in the actual sport, 3-1, on their home turf. Or dare I say not turf, on their home ice.
And it just goes to show that the alpha male is ascendant in this country. Canada, get out of the way.
I don't know what you think you are, what you're doing. You guys are a small, subservient nation to the United States.
Now, I don't want to take you over. I think that's whatever, right? Why would I want a bunch of libs and French people as part of America?

But you guys don't hold any water to the United States of America.

Not in hockey, not culturally, not economically.

Ooh, I feel so tough because I'm booing America.

Be very careful because you might just awaken a beast that humiliated you in Montreal.

Play cut 26.

We're going to drop the gloves right away.

Yep.

Sam Bennett.

Brady Kachuk.

What a tilt.

What a Miller.

And Miller dropped the gloves.

And Perico's going to answer. Brady Kachuk.
What a tilt. What a winner.

And Miller dropped the glove for Perico's going to answer.

And Perico... By the way, speeds Eichel into the zone.

Flipping it through.

Scores!

Game tied.

As Team USA has answered.

And away goes Larkin.

It's a 2-1.

Larkin scores!

Dylan Larkin and Team USA has the lead! Down the ice, Larkin with the open net, across to Gensel, scores! Jake Gensel's got his second! And a clincher here for Team USA. That's going to do it.
A hard-fought Team USA victory. Makes me so proud to be an American.
Do you understand how hard that is to go into another country? My only regret is I didn't even know any of this was happening. I mean, I would have watched this.
I just would have loved to see us go and humiliate the Canucks on their own ice. It makes you wonder 10 years ago, even when Biden was president, would this have happened? And by the way, we'll have a rematch soon.
Oh, this is going to be the start of a real rivalry in Boston of all places. And I have a feeling that the Americans are going to boo the Canadian national anthem.
You guys started it. And again, it's going to be somewhat friendly.
I don't know who these Canadians think they are though. Like what kind of national pride do they have in their nation? I mean, what, I just think they got to calm down a little bit.
We're America. You are not.
Get out of the way. And not a good fight to pick if you are Canada.
We just beat you at your own game. A game that honestly we don't really care that much about.
Look at that, those humiliated Canucks losers. Maybe you guys should get your own people in order.
We're going to boo America. It's only thanks to America does North America remain free as a free society.

Look, I don't want to try to pick a fight unnecessarily, but you picked the fight against us. And by the way, enjoy your tariffs, Canadians.
Enjoy not having a stable economy. I hope it's worth it.
Now, some of you might say, oh, who cares? Just a sport? No, it's not. Did it just, was it who cares when we beat the Soviets on ice? Sometimes sports are a very good mirror of the cultural temperature that we're in.
And God bless these young men. God bless them for having that kind of spirit.
No, we're going to throw it down with you. And yes, we're not, we don't want violence against people, but hockey allows fight.
And I kind of like it. It's a little bit of that good old-fashioned,

we're going to settle it in the public square.

And now the only requirement is that Justin Trudeau has to duel

the cabinet secretary by our choice.

We choose Pete Hegseth.

Good luck, Trudeau.

Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk, you remember that we vote every day

with our dollar. One of the best ways to support America is by buying from local farms and ranches.
Good Ranchers makes this easy by delivering 100% American meat to your door. When you shop with Good Ranchers, you're not just getting the best meat for your family, but you're also supporting American farmers and ranchers.
Instead of buying imported meat, support American agriculture and our local economy. I've used Good Ranchers meat for quite some time and they never disappoint.
Whatever your choice of protein is, you'll be pleased with Good Ranchers. Use code Kirk for $25 off your order and your choice of free chicken breasts, ground beef, bacon, or wild caught salmon for a year.
It's time to take a stand. Vote for American meat with Good Ranchers.
Your purchase helps keep American farms thriving and ensures you get the highest quality meat for your family. Visit GoodRanchers.com and use promo code Kirk today.
That is GoodRanchers.com, promo code Kirk. So 60 Minutes sat down with the Germans.
Boy, the Germans are making a lot of news lately. They got all uppity and full of attitude, very similar to the Canadians.
I don't know who these Germans think they are. Saying, you know, give us more money or else whatever.
You know, keep on subsidizing us to the tune of $100 billion. Those Germans, they cause problems.
Almost every bad idea over the last 150 years has emanated out of Germany. And it continues to be that way.
Germany is overcompensating, overcompensating for the evil that they offered in the 20th century. From the fall of war, both world wars, communism, the Reformation.
No, not the Reformation. Blake slid that one in there.
Nope, I'm very in favor of the Reformation for the record. Blake thinks the Reformation was bad.
I think it was essential. But yes, Germans are a bunch of troublemakers.
So, Janie. Vance last week threw it down in Munich.
He basically said there is no free speech in Europe. Why should we be subsidizing this failed European project? Very simple question.
If you guys want to censor your own citizens, why should we be subsidizing it? We've been saying for quite some time that Germany is becoming more and more

like the country of East Germany. Oh, you can't say that.
Why is it that we hold up

Europe as a shining beacon of liberty? This clip is going to shock you. This is 60 minutes.
These are German prosecutors who say that you could be fined or be put in prison if you insult somebody online. If you insult them online.
Free speech is not a German value. totalitarianism is a german value and boy are they hearkening back to the fundamental roots of despotic totalitarianism listen to this and also understand this is what kamala harris would have wanted for the united states of america Play cut two.
Is it a crime to insult somebody in public?

Yes. And it's a crime to insult them online as well? Yes.
The fine could be even higher if you insult someone in the Internet. Why? Because in the Internet, it stays there.
If we are talking face-to-face, you insult me, I insult you, okay, finish. But in the Internet, if I insult you or a politician...
That sticks around forever. Yeah.
If somebody posts something that's not true, and then somebody else reposts it or likes it, are they committing a crime? In the case of reposting, it is a crime as well, because the reader can't distinguish whether you just invented this or just reposted it. That's the same for us.
How much tragedy and horror has been done with that accent? I mean, every time they've been talking the last hundred years, something terrible is happening. Oh, yes, no problem.
We censor you. Jeez.
Let me see this again. Is posting an insult a crime? Yeah.
Is it a crime to repost a lie? Jawohl. J.D.
Vance responds, insulting someone is not a crime and criminalizing speech is going to put real strain on European-U.S. relationships.
They're doing this to us. We should just cut off the money.
We should cut off the money. We're not going to subsidize Europe anymore if this stuff's going to continue.
Why would we subsidize our own censorship? Do you know the Charlie Kirk Show is censored in Germany, in the Eurozone? Do you know you can't access the Charlie Kirk Show podcast on Apple Podcasts? It is censored for hate speech. I've had people try all throughout Europe.
You cannot find our program on Apple Podcasts in Italy, in Germany. So why would we subsidize countries that censor our own citizens? And Germany is exactly what Kamala Harris would want.
This is the direction they want the United States of America to come to. Insulting somebody is not a crime.
They also do raids over this in Germany, just to be clear. They will raid your home.
And they call socialist parties center-left and the AFD is far-right extremists. By the way, I'm going to be going to Berlin in May with a very special guest.
I've been invited, where our goal is to push the boundaries on these laws. And if we get arrested, then that's Marco Rubio's thing to deal with.

Because if Germany is going to go gallivant around and act as if, oh, you know, give us more American money, we're going to cut off all the money.

You guys are becoming the totalitarian lunatics that we once fought.

Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here. If pain is affecting your life, I have the perfect New Year's resolution for you.
Make 2025 the year of feeling good again, the year of moving better, sleeping better, feeling more alive, and do it with Relief Factor. Relief Factor is a daily supplement that fights pain naturally.
Developed by doctors, it doesn't just mask pain temporarily, helps reduce or eliminate pain. Over a million people have turned to Relief Factor and feel the difference it can make in your life.
Give their three-week quick start a try. It's only $19.95, less than a dollar a day, and it just takes a phone call.
1-800-4-RELIEF. That is the number 1-800-4-RELIEF, and you could start feeling better in three weeks or less.
And every day you feel better is a day you live better. Whether you're hurting back, neck, joints, or muscles, make 2025 the year of feeling good again.
Try Relief Factors' three-week quick start today. Visit relieffactor.com or call 1-800-4-RELIEF.
That is 1-800-4-RELIEF. So check it out right now, relieffactor.com.
Joining us now is Professor John Yu, law professor from UC Berkeley. Professor, welcome to the program.
Please explain to us your opinion on what is occurring between Trump and all of these district courts and who is in the right. Charlie, it's great to be with you.
Great to see you. I think we hung out last in Las Vegas, and I won't tell you what we were doing there.
Yeah. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.
I just know you came away a richer man than I. That's right.
Exactly. And I also came away with a very strong theory of the unitary executive.
However, we will not mention those things. Well, I'm going to drag you through it again.
There you go. That's the answer.
That's the answer to your question. I think what people, why people are shocked by what they're seeing right now is we had four years of a comatose executive.
And now we are being reminded what, as Alexander Hamilton described it in the Federalist Papers, what energy in the executive means. The reason the founders put all the executive power into one person, the president, and doesn't really mention anyone else.
Everyone else in the executive branch is just under the constitution, an assistant who helps the president. The reason they did that is so that our government could act, and these are Hamilton's words, would speed, energy, decisiveness, sometimes secrecy.
Hamilton said that is the very definition of good government is to have energy in the executive. So right now, what you're seeing is President Trump has won a decisive electoral victory on a clear agenda to cut spending, to reduce the giant bureaucracy that's wasting billions and billions of our

dollars. And he's being confronted by the people who lost in the system.
And notice, they're not fighting him in Congress. This is not an area where the president and Congress disagree.
This is because the people who are losing this political fight are trying to go to judges. And look, there's 900 federal district judges in the country.

So these losers in the system... the people who are losing this political fight are trying to go to judges.
And look, there's 900

federal district judges in the country. So these losers in the system, people receiving federal

grants, people who've received government contractors, federal employees, they're cherry

picking judges like in Boston or Rhode Island, Washington State, who they know are going to be

hostile to President Trump's agenda. And they're trying to get them to say, hold on, stop what President Trump is doing.
I hope and I believe that this will mean that these cases will get accelerated to the Supreme Court, because that's the Supreme Court's ultimate job, is to make sure that the federal judiciary speaks with one voice. And I think Trump's going to do a lot better at the Supreme Court than he's going to do before some retired trial judge, say, in Rhode Island or Washington state.
But ultimately, what President Trump is doing is that he's bringing back energy to the executive for the benefit of the American people. So there's so much there to unpack.
Let's start at the beginning. You said something rather astute that seems obvious, but is really the tension point here.
The vesting clause of Article 2 says that all power is vested within the President of the United States. Are you trying to tell me that the FBI and the Department of Justice are not independent agencies? Are you saying that all of the power under the executive branch is concentrated in a single human being? Yes.
It's not just me. Don't take my word for it.
Right. As you said, Charlie, the constitutional text, article two says the executive power of the United States is vested in the president.
And then it stops. There's no other personnel mentioned because of that, oh, then the Constitution says, and the president has, right, the responsibility to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
He has the powers to do this and that. But he's the only one mentioned as having those powers and those duties.
All the inferior, we call them inferior offices of the United States, they assist the president. What I was going to say, don't take my word for it.
This is the argument that George Washington made. This is the argument that Alexander Hamilton made.
It's even the argument that Thomas Jefferson, who was no fan of the earlier two, made. And it's the view of the Supreme Court.
So just two years ago, there were these cases that got to the Supreme Court where Congress tried, look, Congress doesn't like this. Congress doesn't want to have an energetic executive.
Congress often wants the executive branch to be split up, disorganized, because that increases Congress's power. So what Congress has tried to do has been to prevent the president from firing people in the executive branch.
And one of those cases got to the Supreme Court two years ago in a case called Seelah Law. And the Supreme Court said, no, just like Hamilton said, just like Washington said, just like Jefferson said, and Abraham Lincoln said, the president is the top.
All the powers you said, Charlie, is concentrated in that one person. And so to be able to make sure the entire executive branch follows his agenda, he must be able to fire anyone with any authority in the executive branch because they only just get it from him under the Constitution.
So do you believe it is constitutional for a random district court judge in the northern Mariana Islands or wherever to have veto power over the activity of a president? No, I don't. And that's another issue that's going to require the Supreme Court to intervene and stop this.
So district judge, I often say district judge is a king or queen of her, his courtroom. A plaintiff comes in and sees the government says the government owes me money, or the government shouldn't be doing this to me.
And the trial judge can say, okay, government, stop. What a trial judge I don't think can do is then say, not only do I say this individual plaintiff who's showing up in my court wins, I don't think a district judge then can turn around and say, and the government must stop nationwide.
I'm going to issue, and we call them universal injunctions that stop the entire government, not just the territory of my court. And so Justice Clarence Thomas has said there was a case a few years ago.
You might remember the initial travel ban back in 2017. The Supreme Court eventually agreed with President Trump.
That's exactly what happened back then. There were these trial judges in Hawaii, Washington State, not as far as the Mariana Islands, but almost as far, Charlie.
So you had this case where those district judges stopped the travel ban. Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with Trump and overruled all those district judges.
And Justice Clarence Thomas made the same point you did, Charlie. He said, how is it that a single trial judge from anywhere in the country can bring the whole government to a halt? So he said the Supreme Court is going to have to take that issue up and stop it.
And I think they're going to do that now. So I suppose the declarative decision needs to be made around what does Article 2 say and mean.
Here's my question. Has this not already been reconciled in previous administrations? I mean, I know that you guys did this under the Bush administration.
Why does it need to go back up to the U.S. Supreme Court is my question.

I mean, we are now on our 47th president.

Haven't we fully worked out with precedent that the president is in charge of Article 2?

Or does this need to, again, be elevated?

That's where I'm trying to understand is that this seems to be a

pretty settled topic, or at least it should be. I agree, Charlie.
If you were doing,

if people were doing what you were doing, reading the text of the Constitution,

thinking about how its structure worked, they would come to the right conclusion.

All of this, I think it was caused by Watergate. Until Watergate and President Nixon's resignation, not impeachment, but his resignation.
This is what presidents did. This is what courts and judges recognized.
But after Watergate, Congress passed a series of laws to try to tie down the presidency. And one way to understand the larger picture of what President Trump is doing, he's trying to free the presidency for the benefit of all future presidents.
And I think to the benefit of the country from what I think were these unconstitutional efforts by Congress to limit the presidency. So take, for example, what's going on right now.
President Trump is finding, thanks to this Doge Committee led by Elon Musk, billions of dollars of excess spending,

wasteful spending, hundreds if not thousands of employees who are not doing anything useful for

the country. President Trump is trying to go back to earlier presidents and their tradition of saying,

look, I don't have to waste money. What I should do is run the government efficiently.
I should try to save money and give it back to the Treasury. Whereas Congress is saying no.
Congress passed a law right after Nixon resigned saying, no, you have to spend every single dollar, even if it's wasteful. You have to hire every single employee we tell you to.
That law is called the Impoundment Control Act. It's never been examined by the Supreme Court.
I think the Impoundment Act is where we must plant a flag. Think about it.
If the executive branch can fulfill the duties for less money, why do they need to spend all the money that Congress appropriates? And I guess this begs the question, do we have equal branches or subservient branches? If the executive is a subservient branch, then fine, you have to spend whatever Congress says. But if it's an equal branch, then the tension is not just healthy, but it's necessary, isn't it, Professor? Yeah, that's a great point, Charlie, and that really returns us to how the founders thought the separation of powers would work.
They wanted a healthy tension between the president and Congress. They expected the president and Congress to fight.
And so, yeah, Congress could try to appropriate all this money to the president, but the president could say, here's a great example. What if Congress had built this bridge for $100 million and President Trump says the engineers say I could build it for $50 million? Does Trump really have to waste another $50 million? Does Trump have to burn $50 million in cash on the ground to live up to Congress's mandate? That's the constitutional question that's going to get forward.
But let me point out something, Charlie, which I think people are missing, which is this is not really a fight about the separation of powers because our Congress right now agrees with President Trump. Congress is not doing anything to stop President Trump.
In fact, the Congress is the same party as President Trump. There is no real conflict between the Congress and president.
That's why all these weak parties, the ones that are losing in the system, the Democrats, the progressives, they're going to court. That's their last stand.
But actually, I would say the separation of powers is working right now. The president and Congress agree that it's time to cut wasteful spending and close down agencies that aren't doing any good for the country.
Charlie Kirk here in this new year. It's going to be exciting.
2025 is bringing a regime change in America, a chance to reorder and make things right again in our country. Why not do the same thing for you and your family? Now's the time to hit your financial reset button.
And my friends, Andrew Delray and Todd Avakian with Sierra Pacific Mortgage are the only ones I trust to help you do that. Andrew and Todd are your friends in the mortgage business, like-minded individuals who can make your financial goals a reality.
They can help you reduce your overall monthly payments, pay off those high interest credit cards, and have money to fund that big project. And as a direct lender, they make it easy because they manage the entire process.
2025 is the year to make it happen. Activate your financial power now.
Click in the description at andrewandtodd.com or call 888-888-1172. I think the world of these two men, they've helped me with so many different issues and problems.
High integrity, Christian, they share our worldview. Go to andrewandtodd.com.
So, Professor, why can't President Trump just right now say to 50,000 employees you're fired? Why does he have to do this administrative leave thing? And is the fact that he can't do what he wishes with the employees of the executive branch, is it constitutional? It's just like the question you're asking last segment. If you look at the Constitution, if you read its text, and you just think about the structure it sets up, you would think that the president could fire everyone in the executive branch because all of them are supposed to be his assistants.
They're all supposed to be helping him carry out the law to protect the country, carry out foreign affairs, and so on. If you look at the Constitution, it's interesting.
It actually doesn't say anywhere the president has the power to order people to do anything. And so we've always thought from the very beginning, from George Washington on, that presidents must have the ability to fire anyone in the executive branch because that's the only way to get them to follow his orders.
It's either you carry out my view on how to interpret the Constitution or how to prosecute these cases, or you're relieved of duty. So what happened, it's again, the same story as with empowerment, the same story as with the president's powers.
Congress has tried to shield as many people as it can from being fired by the president because Congress over the years has wanted to expand its own control over the administrative state. Now, here, President Trump, you know, we're reading right now about this controversy with the prosecutors in New York City.
You're reading about President Trump firing people at the

National Labor Relations Board and other agencies like the CFPB could go on and on, right? The president is making the decision. These people are not helpful to him to carry out the laws, to carry out his constitutional duties.
They're all, all these people are going to court, even as we speak, to say that they can't be fired because Congress gave them some kind of lifetime, not like they gave them tenure. Now, this time, again, President Trump's not fighting with the current Congress right now, which is all in favor of this.
And here, President Trump is actually going to be playing on the home court because the Supreme Court has made clear in a series of decisions over the last 10 years that, yes, the president's a chief executive. He carries out the law.
Everyone who carries out the law must be accountable to the president and is subject to being fired. So I think President Trump's going to win these cases, but that doesn't mean it's not going to be slowed down again by all these people who are losing, rushing to court.

One last point, the CFPB.

The CFPB is not even funded by Congress, not controlled by the president directly.

It's like its own branch of government.

Part of this is going to be a realignment constitutionally, is it not?

This is what the progressive mission was, is exactly what you pointed out.

They wanted to create a world where every agency was independent. And then they would hand over power to all these professionals, they thought, who would be immune and accountable to anyone in politics.
So the poster boy for the progressive vision of government would be Dr. Anthony Fauci.
All power over everything we did in life for two years was up to Anthony Fauci. He couldn't be fired.
He couldn't be controlled by any president. That's the progressive vision of government.
I agree with you. If President Trump succeeds and the court upholds what he's doing, you're going to see the return of government to the control of people who are accountable to us, people that we elect the president and Congress, rather than this huge mass of unaccountable, unresponsible bureaucrats.
Professor, finally, the New York Times even agrees that Trump might have a case on birthright citizenship. What case might that be? So the argument is the 14th Amendment says you're a citizen if you're born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
That phrase, what does subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean? Does that mean that your parents have to be citizens too? Or traditionally, as the Supreme Court has said, does it apply to narrow category, including Indians and diplomats and so on? I'm not sure. On this one, I'm not sure President Trump is going to win.
I have a hard time seeing Chief Justice Roberts, who's kind of becoming more and more moderate over the years, agreeing with President Trump. But President Trump has every right as the head of the executive branch to interpret the Constitution and push a case to the Supreme Court and try to persuade