Donald Trump's DOGE Defunding Rampage

Hey everybody, today on the Charlie Kirk Show, the constitutional question that looms in front of us, the importance of Doge and the 100-year fight that we are involved in. Mark Halperin also joins the program.
Email me, as always, freedom at charliekirk.com and subscribe to our podcast. Open up your podcast application and type in Charlie Kirk Show and get involved with Turning Point USA at tpusa.com.
That is tpusa.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 here.

Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor

of The Charlie Kirk Show,

a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you can protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com.
That is noblegoldinvestments.com. It's where I buy all of my gold.
Go to noblegoldinvestments.com. Happy Monday.
There is a lot happening. We're not going to lead with the Super Bowl news, which was largely unwatchable.
And I think we all agree that halftime show was awful. It was terrible.
The Super Bowl, I'm curious to see the viewership numbers, but I can't imagine that it was good yeah Blake says in the chat Charlie that was extremely watchable I enjoyed watching every second of that I don't know if he's talking about the game or if he's talking about the halftime show both is what he said yeah not not oh he slept through halftime I look it's good for the Kansas City faithful to be tumbled a little bit. Just good for a little bit of humility.
That's enough. I mean, winning three Super Bowls in a row.
Look, us Bears fans, we get to a Super Bowl once every 30 years. We get to a Super Bowl.
Last time the Bears were in a Super Bowl, I think Blake proved me wrong on this. I think it was 2008.
No, no, we were in a Super Bowl. We lost to the Indianapolis Colts.
We won a Super Bowl in 1985. Bears folklore, it's 2006 season.
Thank you, Blake. We're living on the energy of the 1985.
Still, if you look at Super Bowl commercials, they still have Ditka, you know, like dressed up. I mean, it's just living on the fumes of 1985, I could say.
So we're not going to talk too much about the Super Bowl. Instead, I want to zero in on what's happening with Doge and whether or not it's popular.
Doge is forcing a major constitutional issue. Now, I wouldn't call it a crisis, but it certainly is forcing front and center whether or not the executive branch has the power to allocate resources of their choosing, to faithfully exercise the laws, the vesting clause.
Now, the Article II supremacists, which we have been mentioning many times on this program, are not happy with this. People like Chris Murphy, people like Ilhan Omar, they live to protect the federal bureaucracy.
They exist to protect the standing army. The federal bureaucracy has so many separate and different components.
It is far more entrenched than people realize. It is the technocratic class.
No one elected these people. No one knows who they are.
They are unaccountable and they have unchecked amounts of power. So the question remains, do we have any ability to rein them in or do we serve at the pleasure of the bureaucracy? Dwight D.
Eisenhower warned about this in his exit address. And most people think about the military industrialindustrial complex, but that was only one component of Dwight D.
Eisenhower's farewell address. Dwight D.
Eisenhower, of course, was the head of the Allied forces. The Allied Supreme Forces also warned extensively of a unelected technocratic scientific elite running the country.
Who is sovereign is the fundamental question.

Ilhan Omar believes that we're in the midst of a constitutional crisis,

and she isn't totally wrong.

I wouldn't use the word crisis,

but it is the greatest constitutional question since Woodrow Wilson.

We are in this question of what constitutes the federal government? How many branches? Who is in charge? Who gets the consent of the governed? Who is the sovereign? Let's play cut 12. Yeah, I mean, what we are witnessing is a constitutional crisis.
We are seeing an executive branch that has decided that they are no longer going to abide by the Constitution in honoring Congress's role in the creation of the agencies in their role in deciding where money is allocated. You see, this is Article I supremacy.
We have been hypnotized to believe that only the legislative branch has power. No, it is designed so that there's tension

between the branches. The executive branch can tell the first branch to go pound sand,

and then the third branch will hopefully reconcile the differences.

Here is Chris Murphy saying, this is one of those constitutional crises the country's ever faced.

I think it is the greatest constitutional question in 100 years. But it is all based

on this idea that there is a small group of elites that know what is better for you than you do, that there is a technocratic class, the managers, the desk workers, and they will remain permanent regardless of who is in control. They will remain in power regardless of who is elected.
They want to turn the presidency into a ceremonial job that cuts ribbons, takes pictures, gets people that win Super Bowls to come and visit the White House. Thanks so much for playing.
That's it. That's what they want the presidency to be.
Ceremonial in nature. Let's play cut 13.
Listen, I think this is the most serious constitutional crisis the country has faced, certainly since Watergate. The president is attempting to seize control of power and for corrupt purposes.
The president wants to be able to decide how and where money is spent so that he can reward his political friends. He can punish his political enemies.
That is the evisceration of democracy. Well, hold on a second.
The American people voted for Donald Trump and the presidency, the executive branch, is an equal branch to your branch, Chris Murphy. So he can tell the legislative branch, no, I'm not going to spend this.
And then the Empowerment Act issue comes front and center. And that is why Russ's vote matters so much.
And the Supreme Court is going to have to think deeply about this is can the executive branch say no to appropriated money? What are the limitations of that? I don't even know the answer. The impoundment act is this question, which I think we need to just put down a flag.
And this needs to be the fight in front of us. It is the existential question in front of us.
Is that can the executive branch, the presidency, challenge and send money back to Congress if they don't want to spend it? I want you to think about if the answer is no. If the answer is no, then the presidency is subservient to the House and the Senate senate we have been telling our kids our entire life they are equal branches they are equal branches Stephen Miller perfectly addressed this in his interview with Maria Bartiromo play cut 40 what we continue to see here is the idea that rogue bureaucrats who are elected by no one, who answered to no one,

who have lifetime tenure jobs, who we would be told can never be fired, which of course is not

true, that the power has been cemented and accumulated for years, whether it be with the

treasury bureaucrats or the FBI bureaucrats, the CIA bureaucrats or the USAID

bureaucrats, with this unelected shadow force that is running our government and running our country.

Donald Trump is engaging in the most important restoration of democracy

in over a century by saying that we are going to restore power to the people

through their elected president and his appointed officers.

That is the only way we can have true democracy in this country.

This is exactly right. When Chris Murphy says democracy, he means technocratic oligarchy.
When Stephen Miller says it again, I don't like the word democracy, but let's just play it out for what it means. He means will the will the American people that consent to the governed.
He means that you are in charge of your government. He means that you get to call the shots.
That's what Stephen Miller means. And he's exactly what the people want, the people get.
Now, if Chris Murphy and Ilan Omar are correct, I want you to play that out to its furthest possible conclusion. It means that we have one branch of government, not three.
It means that Article 2 means absolutely nothing. There are supposed to be fights between the branches.
There are supposed to be feuds between the branches. The founders spoke about this.
And we have weakened the executive branch so significantly. We have dulled the impact of the executive branch tremendously.
And it is the will of the people that matters most. We are seeing in great detail this constitutional question finally play out.
And they also are arguing that the fourth branch of government is superior, a branch not even outlined in the Constitution.

And they're saying that the fourth branch, which isn't in the Constitution, is in charge of the president, which is in the Constitution.

This, everybody, is the most exciting, high stakes constitutional fight in a century.

President Trump is saving the idea of the will of the people, saving we the people.

Hey, Charlie Kirk here. Ever see your dog slowing down or having health issues and wonder what can I do to make them better? Well, my friend, add Rough Greens to your dog's food for 90 days and you'll see changes that will amaze you, guaranteed.
Invented by naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black, Rough Greens wants to invite you and give your pup the Rough Greens 90-Day Challenge.
In the first 30 days, you'll see shinier coats and increased energy. By day 60, your dog will have a stronger immune system, less shedding, and improved joint function, all due to live nutrients you've added to their diet.
And at 90 days, better digestion, reduced inflammation, improved heart health, and you might even have reduced their cancer risk. Fetch a free jumpstart trial bag for your dog today.
Go to ruffgreens.com. Just use promo code Charlie.
That is ruffgreens.com, promo code Charlie, and just cover shipping. You don't have to change your dog's food.
To improve your dog's health, just add a scoop of ruffgreens is RUFFGreens.com. Understand that at the height of what they call democracy is to make elections irrelevant.

Real democracy is bureaucrats calling all the shots, what they say, because they're experts.

By democracy, they mean give us power and you guys sit down and shut up.

The last time a federal purge was tried was actually during the Eisenhower administration. And they said, oh, you're purging all these communists.
So they're trying to reckon back to this. But it was Eisenhower in his farewell address who warned about this.
Now, people know about the military industrial complex component of this speech. What you forget about is the unelected technocratic scientific elite.

This is Dwight D. Eisenhower who warned us,

and his warning has now come to surface.

This is the fight that he predicted.

Is it the people or is it the technocrats?

Is it the people or is it the scientific elite?

Is the same people that said six feet to slow the spread,

the same people that tried to require you to take a vaccine that you didn't need? Play cut 39. Yet in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces,

new and old, within the principles of our democratic system,

ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

I mean, this is so prescient. He saw this entire fight coming.
He saw the forces that were gathering beneath the surface. This was a largely subterranean threat.
And with every new department that we approved, Department of Education, Health and Human Services, we strengthened this unelected scientific managerial elite. It is the cult of the managers, mid-level managers.
They're not overly imposing when you meet them. You'll never know their names.
They don't work necessarily very hard, but they slow down the spirit of America. they waste a lot of money.
And I'm not even saying they're evil people. The Fauci's of the world are a separate category.
But these are the enforcers of the regime. And it really makes you wonder who won the Cold War.
This is a very Soviet style way of running your government. Bureaucratic, entrenched, centralized, lethargic.
It is the malaise of the bureaucratic class. And for decades, we have ignored this problem.
For decades, we've acted as if we've had a president and we didn't. And that is why when Joe Biden was basically brain dead the last two years of his presidency,

things continued to move on because he didn't actually have duties or responsibilities.

It was senior White House staff.

It was middle management workers.

People would say, who was running the country?

It's never been the president.

Donald Trump tried to exert this power in his first term.

And as you

remember, he was attacked from every possible direction for that. Barack Obama was a ceremonial president and he enjoyed it.
He was able to do his March madness picks. He was able to kind of go to the Oscars, be a popular guy.
That's what they want the presidency to be. Celebrity, nice smile, good to the media, say a couple things, not an ultimate decision maker.
They want to turn the presidency into the King of England. Has a lot of history, but no actual power.
They want to turn the presidency into the monarchy of Europe. Oh, remember when the queen or the king ruled over these lands.
And instead, their version is the Cass Sunstein model of government. Is that there will be conference rooms of people that know better than you.
And by definition, this belief system, this version of government minimizes the citizen. The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen, as Dennis Prager would always say.
But you can't have big government without big bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is the middle fat of government.
It is the beer belly. It's very hard to get rid of.
It is sluggishly annoying against all of your aims and your ambitions. And it works against what Alexander Hamilton would talk about in the Federalist Papers.
I think Federalist 70, if I'm not mistaken, the energetic executive. If you want a executive with energy and spunk and vigor and spirit and vitality, how are you supposed to do that if you have this permanent bureaucracy? And the permanent bureaucracy, which we used to call the deep state, but it is better described as the administrative state, is against almost every single objective of the current administration.
And the example this weekend was from the Treasury Department. An activist judge granted more power to the bureaucracy than actually Scott Besson.
Who is in charge is the fundamental question. Who is sovereign? This is why citizens, we need to step up and continue to stay in the game.
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 Mark Halperin, political reporter of Mark Halperin's Wide World of News, which we just became a paid subscriber of. I encourage you guys to do the same.
And also Two-Way TV. That is twoway.tv.
Mark, welcome back to the program. Very nice to be here.
Although, Charlie, I got to admit, I almost canceled for two reasons. Do you want to know what they are? Yes, you do.
Oh, boy. Here we go.
Number one, you still haven't come on Two-Way. And number two, there is a new glowing profile of you in the fake news New York Times today.
So how can I trust you when you are like giving unlimited access to the New York Times? Very questionable. People seem to like that article.
But anyway, so Mark, yes, thank you, Mark, for that.

And so, Mark, I have several questions.

I want to start with this CBS report that shows that President Trump's approval rating seems to be rather significant for him and for other presidents. How does this compare with his first term? And can you give us some presidential history and perspective? How do approval ratings tend to trend the first six months, 100 days of a presidency? Give us some perspective, because from my recollection, they start high and then they tend to taper.
Yeah. Look, this is Donald Trump's high point in most polls compared to his first term.
But this is such an unusual situation. It's in some ways a second term, but of course, in some ways, it's the first term.
The energy, the mandate, the fact that he won the popular vote this time, but not the first time. Most people who run for president and win twice do worse the second time.
Trump did better the second time. Okay? So more of a mandate, four years off to think about how to do the job, more activity.
You think about the early days of the second Obama term or the second Bush term or the second Biden term or second Clinton term. It wasn't like this at all.
So when I talk to Democrats, strategists about why Donald Trump is doing well, why the voters like him, where I look at the data, it's pretty clear he's being active. He's being authentic and he he's getting very much of the attention, the three A's.
So I'm not surprised his numbers are where they are. I wonder if they can go higher or if he's at his ceiling.
But I think the key to why he's doing well, compared to a lot of second-term presidents, is something that the press, it's probably the thing the press has gotten the most wrong about Donald Trump for a decade now. His agenda is popular.
Not everything, but most of what he's done for the first three weeks, has 70-30. It's very popular.
If people were just going on his policies, his approval rating would be even higher. So I'm not surprised.
And again, it's such, it's apples to tangerines compared to a normal second term that it's hard to put these numbers in context. But we can say is they're higher than most second term presidents at this phase.
And they're certainly higher than Donald Trump was in term one. So and this is an important point.
What typically starts to crater approval ratings? Biden started pretty high and then it just went down and never recovered. The economy is obviously a major one or one could say a scandal.
President Trump is operating at such a rapid pace. Even for him, it's hard to even be able to have the media apparatus or his opposition emphasize and focus.
Let me ask it this way, Mark. Have his critics decided on the best way to define and oppose this now three-week-old presidency? Right.
So Biden's numbers went down after Afghanistan had never recovered. You could call that a scandal or just an example of mass incompetence.
And it was in the context of what people were already sensing about the incompetence of the wrong-handed policy on immigration. I think the Democrats have not settled on three things.
You say, have they decided how to respond? I think there are three elements to responding. One is, who are the people? Who are the personalities? You can't fight a personality like Donald Trump with Ken Martin, the new chair of the Democratic Party, right? It's going to have to be one or two big personalities.
Second is, what are the issues? There's a rough consensus, I think, that people think the best issue for them is cuts in programs that benefit the middle class and working class people at the expense of tax cuts for the wealthiest. I think that's the theme they want.
But there's a number of complexities with that from a practical point of view we can talk about. And the last thing is, where is it going to be, right? You'd think, well, the DNC, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, maybe some of the prominent Democratic governors.
But what I heard this weekend in my reporting, and I wrote about this a little bit in the newsletter today, is the grassroots says, you know what? We can't rely on those institutions. They have no clue what they're doing.
They don't have the energy or the vitality or the verve to go after Donald Trump. So they're thinking, where's our tea party? And I say this again, and sometimes I kid you, I'm not kidding about this.
Where's our Charlie Kirk? Where's our guy or gal who's on email and texting every minute, who has a huge platform and a huge megaphone, but also is out there engaging like voter registration and organizing and activism? They're trying to find that. And you hear that from some of the donors too.
They're saying, why should I write a check to the DNC or to Cory Booker when I don't think those folks have an idea of how to stop Trump? Where's my Charlie Kirk of the left that I can write a check to, to start something that's got energy and newness and digital vitality? I will accept that praise and thank you. And I don't want to dive too deep into that.
But it does seem as if from an ecosystem standpoint, there has been a lack of, let's just say political entrepreneurs on the left. I don't know if that's the right way to word it.
Is that a fair assessment? I mean, again, I don't I don't want to get too high on my own supply. Yeah, no, I know you don't.
And I'm speaking objectively. In the New York Times story, I joked about it.
It validates what some people on the left are now seeing, which is you. And, you know, Steve Bannon could be put in this category.
There are some others. It's a different model.
You think about Rachel Maddow, or you think about those, what are those bros called? Pod Save America. Pod Save America.
They're doing a content, and they're doing events to make money. You do those two things too, but they're not doing the other stuff you do, and Steve does, and some other folks on the right do.
And that's not a small thing. It's the combination.
Entrepreneurship is the right word, I think.

And they don't have that.

And the other problem they have is

you all have a huge head start.

And I guarantee you,

if there were some liberal entrepreneur,

Charlie Kirk analog on the left,

I guarantee you that that person

would face a lot of scrutiny

and a lot of friction

and tax on the sidewalk in front of them as they tried to get a running start. It's very difficult.
Nobody really impeded the Tea Party on the left. They didn't see it coming.
They didn't take it seriously. So they face a challenge not only to identify the people who have the multidisciplinary abilities that you have.
And again, I happen to be talking to you, but I would say this to anyone. I just said it on two way a few minutes ago.
I'd say it to anybody. They don't have that person.
And again, launching is quite difficult. And part of the challenges, you know, as a student of this, they still have CBS news.
They still have the Washington Post, even though those places are diminished. And even though those places are in some ways being a little bit fairer to the right than they've been historically, it's very difficult to find the incentives that you found and others found to rise up and say, we need all new forms of things.
And of course, Rush Limbaugh and Talk Radio did this before you did. You stand on their shoulders.
It's easier to get that energy, that vitality, that determination, and to find a market when you see out there, well, half the country's got their market. It's a supposedly fair media, and they're there.
So if you're trying to launch Charlie Kirk of the left, you're competing with the Washington Post, and that's the hard thing to compete with because they've got a big head start. That's a really smart point.
And it's something that Rush would talk about, may he rest in peace, a lot, which is where is left-wing talk radio? And one of his theories was that I got nothing but content because I just criticized the media all day long. He says I'm just – I'm responding to their stuff all day long.
And so I guess there could be a left wing equivalent that responds to shows like ours. And

there are people that try to do that. But it just doesn't it doesn't have the same sort of fly, because, again, you're responding to kind of upstart grassroots types, whereas we know we're responding to palatial regime, multi billion dollar media.
Is that right? Yeah. Yeah.
With declined, but still huge audiences,

and whose corruptness is manifest to tens of millions of Americans because of the combination of bias and denial. And again, the same organizations that denied for many years Joe Biden's loss of mental acuity, who denied the plain as a nose on your face reality of Biden Inc.
Those same organizations are covering the Trump White House. Those same organizations are covering the fights on Capitol Hill.
Not just the same organizations, many of the same people. And so you cannot be, it is not a symmetrical thing.
They have some asymmetrical advantages because they've got the establishment media, what I call the dominant media. But the right has some asymmetrical advantages because as you said, you all as Rush did can play off of it.
And that's an extremely valuable thing. So Mark, I want to get into another element of the story here and first compliment you.
You were one of the few people that said that Trump was likely to have his entire cabinet confirmed. And you've said that for the entire time, that it was advantaged Trump and people said, no way is Bobby Kennedy to get through.
So I don't want to pop the champagne yet from our side, but it looks as if this is almost a certainty. Why do you think that is? Why do you think that he was successful in this, even though he chose some rather unconventional picks by Washington, D.C.
standards? Three things, fidelity to President Trump and a belief that he must get off to a fast start. He's entitled to his picks.
Two is the tactical strength of the teams around the controversial nominees, whether it's Hegseth or Gabbard or Kennedy, very good teams of so-called Sherpas, communications, inside politics, knowing that you and others could pressure these wavering senators in a way, once you were activated, that would really impact them. And then lastly is the performance of the nominees themselves.
I think Hegseth in particular saved himself by going out there and making the case. And I think Kennedy and Gabbard did as well.
So I'd say those three reasons. Everyone check out Two Way TV and also your newsletter.
What is the name of the newsletter again? Is it the Wild World of Politics? It's called Wide World of News Concierge Coverage. I've got two sub stacks, but you want the concierge coverage one as a daily newsletter.
With President Donald Trump now back in the White House, we're all excited about big changes ahead, which will make America great again. But even with the defeat of their supporters last November, Big Pharma is still threatening to derail the Trump agenda, oppose Bobby Kennedy Jr.'s upcoming reforms, and they want to block competition and keep drug prices too high.
Big Pharma sets the price of drugs, and already this year, they raised the price on more than 575 of them. Their anti-competitive practices block competition so they can keep prices high.
And they spend billions of dollars on ads pushing their high-priced brand-name drugs on working Americans. But Big Pharma wants more.
Now they're urging Congress to undermine incentives in the private health care market that help American employers and families secure savings on prescription drugs. Conservatives for lower health care costs warns that Big Pharma is no friend to the Trump agenda or the pocketbooks of the American people.
They opposed solutions to lower drug prices in the

president Trump's first term. And they are after a huge money grab at the expense of everyone else.

Now, by seeking more government intervention in the private market, go to pharma windfall.com

to learn more about how conservatives can stop big pharma, prevent higher health care costs and

protect pay for performance in our private health care market. Congress can stop big pharma, and you can help.
Go to pharmawindfall.com today. So I love having Mark on the program because he has incredible historical context of a couple decades of covering this.
So Mark, have we ever seen anything in the modern era similar to Doge? And how do you think this is going to play out? I know that is a very difficult question. It's a speculative question.
But why don't you instead say, what are you seeing that might lead you to believe a certain conclusion is inevitable? Because we've never quite seen the world's richest man come in as an SGE, a special government employee, and deploy some of his super geniuses to fix the government. It's unlike anything I've ever seen.
Mark, your take on Doge. We could do three hours on the ways that it is unprecedented, not just Musk's involvement, but the way it's being done, the scope and scale of the ambition, the speed with which it's being done.
So there's lots that's unprecedented here. I think that it's great to talk about cutting spending.
And there's no doubt that it's irresponsible to future generations to run up debt and deficit like this. Here's some realities.
You can't either cut or tax your way out of debt and deficit. You have to have robust economic growth.
Three, four, five percent. Some people say that's impossible.
I say it better be possible. So that's the key is the policies that are going to lead to more growth if you want to reduce debt and deficit.
But spending cuts are important. I think Democrats have made a huge mistake saying, oh, it's only $25,000 or it's only $26 million.
I think taxpayers feel like every dollar is precious, particularly if it goes through things. I totally agree with that.
I think you're exactly right. If it goes for fancy subscriptions to something called Politico Pro or some sort of play, regardless of whether it's a topic they disagree with.
So I think they're on the right track there. But the reality is you cannot cut spending that doesn't affect people.
And I think they continue to talk about it as cuts as opposed to restraining the rate of growth. I think eventually they'll get around to doing that.
But where the money is, is in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. You could cut every bit of discretionary spending, even cut some defense spending, which most Republicans don't want to do.
You will not get to the point where you'll see significant deficit reduction. So I hope that Republicans and Democrats join together to say these programs are invaluable

and the way to save them, not destroy the programs, the way to save them is to find ways to make them

more efficient, to find cost savings, to do things like, say, really rich people maybe shouldn't get

the same Social Security benefits as other people. Those are the steps they haven't taken.
So while

it's great that they're looking to cut a little bit here and a little bit there, and I think that's

right, although there needs to be scrutiny about whether they're doing it legally and whether they're doing it in ways that might cut programs that are worthwhile, I think the big question is, can they actually make a dent in the deficit by going where the money is, which again is in these programs that President Trump has vowed not to touch? Let's talk about the political dynamic here as we close. Does it present an opportunity for more of the Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren wing of the party to say, look, this is the oligarchy we've been warning you about, to kind of have this left-wing populism have a resurgence within the Democrat party that has been quite muted since Joe Biden became president.
Again, as I said before, I think you're right that that theme could get more traction with certain parts of the country, but they don't want to be a party that only is as broadly as appealing as Elizabeth Warren, because that's not a majority party. That's a party with tens of thousands of really passionate people, but it's not a majority party.
And so I think what you're seeing is the Democrats trying to figure out how do you take those themes that might be subscribed to by the squad and might even be subscribed to by, you know, Mark Kelly and more moderate Democrats and have a spokesperson who can kind of knit it all together in a critique. They don't have that yet.
And they don't have the grassroots organization yet. They have the embers, the green shoots of that.
So I think there's no doubt that those themes are where the Democrats currently are putting their energy. But I think it's got it's going to have to be broader than Elizabeth Warren wing of the party, or it will not win, will not win the midterms.
My message to conservatives is we have to operate as if they're going to figure this out. They're going to figure it out.
They're not dumb. They'll adjust.
They might not be there yet, but we've got to step on the gas, and you have to act as if your opponent is going to be the most formidable. Yeah, they might be in the wilderness right now, and they might be disorganized.
They might be demoralized, but understand they have a lot of money, a lot of experience, a lot of former presidents. I think they're going to reorganize, and we have to act as if.
Mark, thank you so much. I'll just say real quick, one of your greatest strengths is you are actually not complacent, as opposed to faux not complacent.
That is correct. I will accept and receive that compliment.
Mark, thanks so much. I stepped on the promo.
Stepped on my own promo. That's all right.
Thank you, sir. It's all good.
I love it. Thank you, Mark, thanks so much for coming back anytime.
I stepped on the promo. Stepped on my own promo, that's right.

Thank you, sir.

It's all good.

I love it.

Thank you, Mark.

Thanks so much for listening, everybody.

Email us, as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.

Thanks so much for listening, and God bless.

For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.