Ep. 1534 - Trump Goes To War Against Fake Science

Have you checked lately to see if your home's title is still in your name?

With one forged document, scammers can steal your home's title and its equity.

But now you can protect yourself from this crime.

Home Title Lock's million-dollar triple lock protection gives 24-7 title monitoring,

urgent alerts to any changes, and if fraud does happen,

they'll spend up to a million dollars to fix fraud and restore your title.

Get a free title history report and access your personal title expert,

a $250 value when you sign up at hometitlelock.com and use promo code DailyWire. That's hometitlelock.com promo code DailyWire.
Today on the Matt Wall Show, millions of dollars have been wasted funding political propaganda masquerading as scientific research. It's fraud, plain and simple, and the Trump administration is trying to put an end to it.
Also, why were taxpayers funding Sesame Street in Iraq? A Democratic senator says this was necessary for the sake of national security.

We'll listen to his argument and discuss. And the army releases its first effective

recruitment ad in many years. We'll talk about all turned the tide in the battle for the soul of America.
Donald Trump has been elected and is beginning the Herculean task of pushing back against the forces of wokeism in America. Many businesses are beginning to mothball their DEI, CRT, and ESG programs and focus on serving customers, all customers, rather than political interests.
What about you? Have you joined the movement of Americans who are using their investments to hold companies accountable for their ethical behavior? If you'd like to join other patriotic citizens by aligning your investments with your conservative values, go to ConstitutionWealth.com slash Matt for a free consultation. Constitution Wealth is a registered investment advisor.
You should review Constitution Wealth's disclosures at ConstitutionWealth.com to understand their services and fees. All investing involves risks, including the risk of loss.
This is a paid endorsement, and I am not a client of the firm. Just a couple of years ago, if you can believe it, leading scientists from all over the country held a symposium in Washington, along with federal officials from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Now, according to a senior director at the NIH, the point of the symposium was to address a defining issue of the current era. So the A-team was going to tackle one of the most difficult and pressing matters in the entire field of scientific and medical research.
Hearing that, you might conclude that these scientists were going to discuss, say, a cure for cancer or a major breakthrough in gene editing. or if nothing else, they might talk about the development of the 50th COVID booster or something like that.
Surely at a minimum, they would discuss a topic that had some kind of relevance to the fields of health or science or technology. Those would all seem to be safe assumptions.
And yet, at the risk of spoiling the symposium for you, in case you were hoping to catch a rerun, that didn't happen. In fact, that didn't even come close to happening.
Instead, here's what they came up with at this symposium full of leading medical and scientific experts in Washington. The first speaker in this clip is a professor at Notre Dame.
The second one is from the National Institutes of Health. Just see for yourself.
LGBTQ plus students are more likely to leave STEM majors in favor of non-STEM majors by the end of their fourth year of college. There are STEM specific challenges here that we need to be understanding and addressing.
We can't simply say that queer populations are underrepresented in STEM because they struggle broadly academically. Actually, no, they're crushing it academically.
They're just being systematically funneled out of STEM and within STEM being mistreated. So hence the importance of the rest of the research that we'll be hearing from.
In D&I, I have two roles in that one is to like increase the engagement of SGM people. And so I'm meeting with them, talking to them, finding out what they need, what we need as communities.
It's pronouns, if someone's in a lab and being misgendered or if someone's going through the gender affirmation process, I'm there, I'm the one that does that, right? I'm the one that does the safe zone trainings quarterly. I'm the one that does it.
If the IC is having an issue, I'm brought in to have these conversations. And I feel like, so that's one role

that's really geared towards members

of the community itself.

But the other is to have these conversations

that are very hard with people

who are transphobic or homophobic

and I have to hear horrible things and I'm trans myself.

Oh, it's good thing you clarified that he's trans themselves

because we would have never known.

I don't know if we put that piano music in the background or if the NIH did. Either way, it's pretty funny.
Now, for a second, try to ignore the fact that these people are making up fake complaints about the plight of LGBTQ people in STEM. Pretend they're not talking like a dime a dozen panelists on MSNBC instead of actual scientists.
That's not actually the worst part of the footage. The worst part is that already you could tell that everyone at this symposium is saying the same thing.
There's no debate. This whole event was an extended struggle session in which only one point of view was allowed.
And that point of view is that for some reason, gay people are being forced out of math classes. They're being systemically funneled out of math and science somehow.
Now, it should go without saying that this is a complete bastardization of everything scientists should be doing. They're supposed to be asking questions, using the scientific method, and finding evidence to support every single one of their conclusions.
This is supposed to come naturally to them. I mean, it is their job.
Instead, they spent the entire event explaining why it's important to think the exact same way about this particular issue, even though every sane person knows that their theory makes absolutely no sense. For example, as the symposium goes on, one researcher with a nonprofit attempts to articulate why it's so important to hold these kinds of struggle sessions.
And then a senior official at the National Science Foundation offers his take on it. Listen.
Oftentimes I get asked this question of, if you ask about these questions, aren't you creating division where there isn't any? This doesn't matter to science. Science is objective.
And so why are we asking these questions? And the reality is that when we don't ask these questions, we live under the myths that these matters don't matter. And that actually science is such a pure meritocracy that us, we don't need to check and see our certain groups being equitably served.
It's important because, you know, the data changes the conversation from just being opinion-based to evidence-based. And I agree with you.
We shouldn't have to wait on the data. We know we got an issue.
We should just be like Nike. Just do it.
So every speaker is somehow more unbelievable than the last one. The first guy is trying desperately to explain why they're holding this symposium at all.
The best he can come up with is, quote, when we don't ask these questions, we live under the myths that these matters don't matter. This is the kind of word salad that you have to produce when you know that, in fact, these matters do not matter, and that all of these concerns are completely made up, and also, anyway, have nothing to do with science.
And then the official from the National Science Foundation comes in and pretty much makes that point as explicitly as he can. He says that, quote, we shouldn't have to wait on the data because we know we've got an issue.
So like Nike, we should just do it. That's science for you.
Don't wait on the data. Just do it.
In other words, who cares about facts and data when you have a narrative to push? All he knows is that we need DEI and affirmative action in science and medicine. He doesn't care if there's no reason whatsoever to justify any of this.
Doesn't matter if there's data. Doesn't matter if there's evidence.
He just knows that it needs to happen. Now, for a long time, the National Science Foundation, along with the NIH and many other federal agencies, have all operated like this.
They rake in billions of dollars worth of tax revenue with the promise of funding scientific advancements that benefit America. And they're squandered.
They've squandered it to advance a political agenda. And to be clear, I'm not cherry-picking soundbites here or taking anything out of context.
This is something we can quantify. The Senate Commerce Committee just released a report documenting precisely how much money the National Science Foundation or NSF has wasted in recent years.
And again, this is an agency of the federal government we're talking about here. It's a Daily Wire report says, quote, the Senate committee found that one in 10 grants awarded by the National Science Foundation between January 2021 and April 2024 had to do with oppression, social or environmental justice, gender or race.
In other words, one in 10 grants have been completely fraudulent, which isn't to say that the other nine out of 10 were not fraudulent, but this one in 10, we know for sure were. There's no reason we should have been funding any of this.
But the Biden administration made sure that we did. They kickstarted a lot of this fraudulent spending.
The Senate report found that in 2021, the first year of the Biden administration, less than 1% of grants from NSF were focused on DEI initiatives, which is still too much. But by 2024, after three years of the Biden administration, more than a quarter of new grants to the NSF pushed far left perspectives, quote unquote.
Now, the Daily Wire has a searchable database of these grants right now on the website. You can page through around 3,000 grants from the National Science Foundation that involved DEI.
For example, in 2022, NSF gave Columbia University more than $4 million so they could study ways to decolonize geoscience. Meanwhile, a professor at Northwestern received a million dollars in 2023 so that he could put together story work for racial equity in STEM, featuring insights from Karl Marx.
Over at the University of Pittsburgh, a professor received

a million dollars to argue that artificial intelligence should not be neutral because

that, quote, only serves the capitalist, racist, heteronormative, patriarchal, et cetera society.

I love the et cetera there. So even they don't feel the need to list all the stuff,

you know, homophobic, racism, et cetera. You know, all the stuff we always say.

Another study funded by the NSF to the tune of $500,000 determined that the concept of peer review was racist. Quote, the accepted values and practices in science can serve as roadblocks and barriers to the inclusion and advancement of minoritized scholars.
So again, there are thousands of grants like this. We're not talking about one or two examples.
This is systemic fraud. And the only way to deal with systemic fraud like this is to clean house at the National Science Foundation, which is exactly what the Trump administration is now doing.
And just because it feels appropriate, I'll read some reporting on this development from Politico, which is yet another organization that's just had its federal funding cut dramatically. Quote, one of the United States' leading funders of science and engineering research is planning to lay off between a quarter and half of its staff in the next two months, a top NSF official said Tuesday.
The comments by assistant director Susan Margulies came at an all-hands meeting of the NSF's engineering directorate. A large-scale reduction in response to the president's workforce executive orders is already happening, a spokesperson for the Office of Personnel Management said.
Now, as significant as this development is, it's important to keep in mind that NSF is just one small part of the much larger fraud that's been taking place in the government when it comes to research funding. The National Institutes of Health is a far bigger offender in terms of financial waste.
Dodes just found that the NIH had a contract worth more than $180 million for administrative expenses that didn't involve health care in any way. And that included, among many other things, a contract to build a Tony Fauci exhibit at the NIH museum, just for one example.
Now, the Trump administration has also found that the NIH spends vast amounts of its research budget on so-called indirect costs. And what does that mean? Well, last year, roughly $9 billion of the $35 billion the NIH spent on research ultimately went to these indirect costs, which is a fancy way of saying administrative overhead for universities and research institutions.
And for some institutions, these indirect costs amounted to more than 60% of their total grant funding. So what that means, in other words, in a million-dollar grant to conduct cancer research, more than $600,000 might be going to non-research expenses like office supplies and things like that.
Now, of course, in almost every case, there's no reason for this. There's no reason for Harvard or Yale to rake in huge amounts of money for non-scientific purposes when the grant is supposedly a scientific grant.
It's just a pure grift in every sense. So now the Trump administration is ending this practice.
They're capping these administrative payouts to around 15% of the total grant. Now, what you may not know is that this is not the first time Donald Trump has tried to do this.
As the New York Times reports, quote, in 2017, during Mr. Trump's first term, a similar proposal would have reduced the overhead payments to 10% of the award amount.
The effort faltered. Congress then acted to ward off a future effort and passed a budget bill that prohibited changing the fees for the levels that had been negotiated between federal officials and each research institutions.
In other words, the first Trump administration tried to cut waste at the NIH, but Congress shut him down. They actually passed an appropriations bill that prevented him from cutting the administrative funding.
And now, citing that appropriations law, a new lawsuit is trying to stop Trump again from cutting this waste. And so far, the plan is working.
The other day, a federal judge halted the NIH cuts with a preliminary injunction. And this has been happening constantly, as you may have noticed, individual federal judges have also blocked the Treasury Secretary's access to internal files, prevented Doge's buyout offer for federal workers from going through, and attempted to block the closure of USAID.
So it's clear that this will be a theme of the second Trump presidency, as it was in the first one. Judges are going to do everything they can to just overturn what voters want, which is for the executive branch to determine how the executive branch operates.
But already there are signs, most notably from J.D. Vance, that this administration recognizes that these judges are breaking the law and that their rulings may not be respected, which they shouldn't be.
In particular, Vance wrote, quote, if a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal.
Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power. Now, this is an approach that obviously shouldn't be necessary.
If we had judges who respected the separation of powers, there wouldn't be an issue. But increasingly, unelected judges are telling the executive branch how to spend money and who to employ.
That's not just unconstitutional. It's also unsustainable.
There is zero popular political support for continuing these expenditures to corrupt agencies like NSF and the NIH, which is why the Trump administration should just ignore these judges and do what they're going to do. The judges are acting lawlessly.
They have no actual authority to make these kinds of decisions. And, you know, we know all that because between these revelations at the NSF, everything that happened with COVID, the embrace of gender theory, mainstream science has just completely discredited itself in historic fashion.
So now when the public celebrates as scientists lose their funding and their jobs, the scientists will blame us for being anti-science. But our problem with them is precisely the opposite.
The people we've been paying huge sums of money to, we're talking about billions of dollars, have been spending it on political propaganda and social engineering. They've been doing this for decades on the assumption that nobody would ever notice or do anything about it.
But now, very abruptly, that has changed.

Everyone can see that many of these so-called scientists in the federal government were the ones who were actually anti-science all along. And now they're losing their jobs and

their infinite supply of taxpayer money. And the work of serious people, of actual scientists,

can finally begin. Now let's get to our five headlines.
The golden age of America is here, and with Jeremy's razor, so is the return of a damn good shave. Five blades of superior engineering built for men who still believe in merit, manliness, and the American dream.
No gimmicks, just sharp steel blades that give you an exceptionally close shave. Try yourself and see why over a quarter million men have made the switch.
Shave boldly, live freely. Order now at jeremysrazors.com.
I want to start with this because why not? Senator Chris Coons was on CNN a couple of days ago, and he was asked about USAID among its many, many, many other wasteful, fraudulent expenditures, apparently spending tens of millions of dollars in tax money funding a Sesame Street show in Iraq. And Koons was quite willing and eager to step up to the plate and go to bat for tax-funded Sesame Street in the Middle East.
And here's what he said in defense of it. Is funding Sesame Street a judicious use of soft power? Well, Michael, the way you put it is the way I hope folks considering your poll today will think about it.
This isn't just funding a kid show for children, millions of children, in countries like Iraq. It's a show that helps teach values, helps teach public health, helps prevent kids from dying from dysentery and disease, and helps push values like collaboration, peacefulness, cooperation in a society where the alternative is ISIS, extremism and terrorism.
And to your point, it's pennies on the dollar. The U.S.
Department of Defense has an annual budget of about $850 billion. USAID was spending about $30 billion.
It is a small proportion of our total federal spending. And as Joe Nye would often say, it's not just soft power, it's smart power.
Let me leave you with one other quote, Michael, if I could. Jim Mattis, who is a four-star Marine Corps general and Trump's secretary of defense in his first term, in a hearing back then said, if you slash development and aid spending, then I'm going to need more bullets for our troops.
Yes, you heard that correctly. Sesame Street was preventing people from joining ISIS.
This was a national defense strategy, you see. It's for national security that we need to fund Sesame Street.
Who needs a military, really, when you've got Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch? Chris Coons has a point. I mean, just think about how many times an Islamic militant was about to detonate his suicide vest, but then stopped and asked himself, what would Elmo do in this situation? And then he thought back to the Sesame Street episode where Bert was about to become a suicide bomber, but then Elmo talked him out of it by giving a speech about friendship and cooperation.
This is why we spent $20 million on Sesame Street in Iraq. And you hear about cases like this.
I mean, I heard about, this is actually a true story that I read about recently where there was a Taliban, I think it was a Taliban warlord in Afghanistan who was about to execute a man for trimming his beard. And then he remembered a Sesame Street episode where Oscar the Grouch was about to behead someone until Grover came along and was like, Oscar, why are you being such a grouch? Why are you being so grouchy? Beheading someone.
And then Oscar the Grouch thought better of it and didn't. And Taliban warlord remembered that.
And he still beheaded the guy, but he did it with a smile and he had fun. And that's the most important thing, really.
And these are the kinds of scenarios that a United States senator wants us to believe, I guess, are plausible.

When, of course, in reality, I don't think it's too controversial to say that a kid who grows up in Iraq is, no matter how much Sesame Street they watch, is not going to have Western values. Okay, Sesame Street cannot, you've got the conditioning of the entire culture that the kid is living in, a culture that is rooted in that area going back centuries and centuries, thousands of years.
I don't think Sesame Street is going to be enough

to compete with that, I would say. And besides all of that, even if it could somehow work, we should not be attempting to instill values in foreign people in foreign countries.
And it is kind of amazing that here we are in the current year, 2025, and you still have politicians using this same line. It's the line that we heard all throughout the early 2000s and beyond to justify our many misadventures in the Middle East that cost us trillions of dollars.
And the line was always, well, we're spreading our values. That's not our job.
It's not our responsibility. It certainly is not the job of taxpayers to fund.
I actually don't really care what values somebody in Iraq has. That's their problem to figure out.
They can have, you know, they'll have their own values. They are their own culture.
which that's always

one of the many

I know values. They are their own culture, which that's always one of the many ironies of this sort of thing is that the people who would tell you, like Chris Coons, right? The people who would tell you, well, we need to spread our values.
We need to spend billions of dollars, right? Spreading our values across the world. The same people who would say that would also tell you that with a straight face that all cultures are equal and that we're in no position to judge any other culture and yet they want to spread our values.
So which is it? If all cultures are equal, and truth is relative,

and we all live our own truth, and they're living their truth,

and we're living ours, then that would be all the more reason

why are we trying to spread our values.

That's just our truth, man.

Now, I have kind of the opposite view.

I don't think that all cultures are equal, and I certainly don't think truth is relative or that we all have our own truth.

I think that there are cultures that can be inferior to others in pretty much every measurable way and also immeasurable ways.

But at the same time, I don't think we should be in the business of spreading our values.

Like, those two positions do not contradict. I can look at the culture in Iraq and say, yeah, they got some serious problems, some serious cultural problems.
So I can say that, but then also say, yeah, but we shouldn't be spending tens of millions of dollars funding Sesame Street to teach their kids Western values. So those two viewpoints do not clash.
But the view that, hey, their culture is equal to ours. We're in no place to judge.
Their culture is just as valid. That view does not mesh at all with, let's spend all this money to spread our values over there.
All right. The Army just released a short new recruitment ad, and Libs of TikTok posted this along with a stark comparison where you've got an old Army recruitment ad.
And when I say an old ad, I mean one from a few years ago that we've played before on this show. And then the new one, which was just released.
I think the Army just put it out a couple of days ago. So we'll play them both.
First, here's the old woke one. And then we'll do the new one.
But let's play the old one. Although I had a fairly typical childhood, took ballet, played violin, I also marched for equality.

I like to think I've been defending freedom from an early age.

When I was six years old, one of my moms had an accident that left her paralyzed.

Doctors said she might never walk again.

But she tapped into my family's pride to get back on her feet, eventually standing at the altar to marry my other mom. With such powerful role models, I finished high school at the top of my class and then attended UC Davis, where I joined a sorority full of other strong women.
But as graduation approached,

I began feeling like I'd been handed so much in life, a sorority girl stereotype. Sure,

I'd spent my life around inspiring women. I think we've seen enough of that to get the point.
What had I really achieved on my own? So that's the ad that was put out a few years ago.

And then just for comparison, here is the ad, very short ad, that the Army just released recently. Stronger people are harder to kill.
There you go. That's a 15-second ad that consists of a dude lifting heavy stuff and then saying stronger people are harder to kill.
So it's the simplest ad imaginable. And it's also easily the best army recruitment ad in, I don't know, 20 years.
Which says less about this ad and more about how bad the other ads were. Because I don't think anybody would look at that ad and say, well, that's a marketing genius.
It's the greatest ad anyone's ever seen. It's not that.
It's just the strategy for military recruitment has been so bad for so long that that stands out. And in the comparison of the two, you see, in essence, the two possible strategies for appealing to potential recruits.
And one is to tell them that the military is a place where small, petite women can follow their dreams and make their lesbian moms proud. That's one strategy.
And it's a strategy that the military has been using for a while. The other is to tell them that the army is a place for strong, badass dudes who want to kill the bad guys.
Those are the two pitches boiled down. And the first pitch will attract precisely none of the kinds of people that you need for a strong military.
The second will attract those kinds of people. And this has been the fundamental problem with military recruitment for a long time.
And the reason for the recruitment crisis, a crisis that seems to be turning around very recently. But a big part of what drove the crisis for as long as it was happening is that the military, or at least the people who design these recruitment ads, have been embarrassed of the military, essentially.
It's like the military is embarrassed of itself, embarrassed to talk about what the military actually is, which is an institution for tough men who want to defend their homeland and kill our nation's enemies. And once an institution becomes embarrassed of itself, it starts to collapse and die.
We've seen many other examples of this across the West. We've seen this in churches.
You've got many churches in Western society who are embarrassed to admit that they are churches. And so they wither and die.
They try to present themselves like something other than a church. And you see this from the way that the church services are conducted.
You see this from the way the buildings are built now. You could drive by a church these days, especially one of these mega churches, and you would have no idea from the outside that it's even a church.
It could look like a stadium or an arena or a mall or something. And then you go in, and you still might not be able to figure it out.
You could look at the church from the outside and then go in and sit through a service and still at the end of it be unsure if that was even a church. And the churches that do this end up dying because they don't attract people who actually want to go to a church.
And those are the only people who can keep a church alive. Same thing with the military.
If you're not bringing in the kinds of people who are interested in the military, not just interested in following their dreams and becoming a better version of themselves, like this is some sort of self-help seminar. But actually, they want to be in the military.
They want to do what the military does. If you don't bring those kinds of people in, then the institution dies.
And I think this short ad is an early indication that this might be turning around. I mean, not to belabor the point too much, but I was thinking about this,

and I don't know the answer to this, but I'd be very interested if there was any way to find out.

Maybe this would be a legitimate use of like chat GPT. I don't know.

When was the last time the word kill was used in a military recruitment ad?

Think about that. He says, stronger people are harder to kill.
And in this case, he's not saying kill the enemies, but he's talking about avoiding being killed yourself, but he's acknowledging killing, right? It's an acknowledgement in the ad that killing is involved in the military. When's the last time that any military, any branch of the military put out an ad that had the word kill in it? I would guess it's been, I mean, this is something that goes back a lot farther than the Biden administration.
It's probably been decades. And I actually did try to check and I, you know, and I didn't spend a lot of time on it, but I couldn't find a single instance this century of a US military recruitment ad that used the word kill.
Now, I did find military recruitment ads in other countries like China that did, but not here. Even though, and what's the significance of that? Well, obviously, it's that killing is the essential function of the military.
The military is a killing machine, or at least it's supposed to be. That is the job of the military.
Everything that the military does should have the ultimate end of more efficiently and effectively killing the enemy. That's what all of it is designed for.
And yet for so long, the recruitment strategy was to not acknowledge this. Just pretend that killing isn't even part of the equation at all.
and then again, what happens? Well, you don't end up attracting the kinds of men, young men, who actually want to go out and kill the bad guys. But for as long as there's been human civilization, you need young men like that.
They're the ones who defend your civilization. And you need to be able to go out and appeal to them.
So I do think this is a significant step. All right, Caitlin Collins from CNN is back on the late night show circuit.

And I have no idea why. You know, Caitlin Collins, I mean, generally people show up to these late night shows.
I haven't watched the late night shows in a long time because they're just, they're not funny or entertaining. But generally, I think people show up, at least historically, when I used to watch late night shows on occasion, people show up to the late night shows and they do an interview if they're celebrities with a fan base.
Well, what is the Caitlin Collins fan base? Like, who's going to hear that Caitlin Collins is going to be interviewed on one of these shows and go, oh man, I got to see that. Caitlin Collins, I'm a huge fan.
I got to see that interview. Who's saying that? I don't think anybody is.
Yet she gets these interviews anyway, and here she was interviewed by Seth Meyers. So these are maybe the two least interesting people in all of media and entertainment, and they're together in one room, creating like a black hole of boredom.
But here's how that conversation went. So you're doing this every day.
You're in D.C. The pace of the Trump administration seems to be moving pretty quickly.
How are you holding up? It is insane. And I think everyone is kind of like readjusting and re-remembering what it was like four years ago, pre four years ago.
I remember when when Biden first took office in January, the New York Times times wrote the story about how quiet the weekends were because for reporters every weekend had just been like another it was like a seven day work week and now we're back to that basically where it's just essentially non-stop every day you kind of wake up like not knowing what you're going to be doing what the schedule is i was walking to get breakfast one day this week i was like okay i'm gonna have a nice little breakfast where I go to work. And halfway there, they're like, Trump's doing a press conference in an hour.
And I physically ran back home so I could change and get ready. Oh, you physically ran back home? Did you, Caitlin? Physically? Not spiritually, not metaphorically? You weren't running back home in a poetic sense.

You ran with your legs physically?

Wow.

And notice how she also said that she's, I mean, I don't mean to get pedantic.

Yes, I do.

She says that she's re-remembering what it was like with the Trump administration the first time.

That's not re-remembering, Caitlin.

That's just remembering.

That's called remembering. What do you mean re-remembering? You talk for a living.
I was re-remembering what it was like. Remembering.
That's what remembering is, okay? Anyway, what I love about the clip is that Collins is admitting and complaining about the fact that Trump is getting a lot done, that he's not even taking weekends off. But we're supposed to, but this is Caitlin Collins and this is, so obviously we're supposed, this is not meant to be a compliment of Trump.
This is not meant to be a positive. We're supposed to hear this and I don't know, feel sorry for her or something.
But what she's actually saying is that this guy's not taking any time off and he's getting everything done. And also he's probably, what, 40 years older than her and he's moving at a pace that she cannot match.
Meanwhile, Joe Biden, by her own admission, was getting nothing done. It was boring because he wasn't doing anything.
Which, by the way, having a president who doesn't do anything could be, or doesn't do much, could be all right if the country was not facing multiple major crises. If everything was just kind of sailing along smoothly, well, then you don't want your political leaders to just find things to do.
But that's not the case. Got major crises on multiple fronts, a lot to do.
And yet Joe Biden was, they were bored. They were bored.
But Trump is, even by her own omission, working so hard that she can't keep up, which is a very different, you may remember that in the first Trump administration, the critique that you heard from the media all the time is that Trump was golfing all the time or whatever and wasn't paying attention,

just watching cable news, tweeting. You're not hearing that criticism this time.

Like they want the guy to go golfing a lot more. They're hoping that he does.

They're hoping that he picks up like the tweeting a lot more and is not getting as much done. But

I, for one, am very happy with this

pace, I will say. Let's get to the comment section.
The 13-year-old boy who was breaking

into Hal's story, that is the same county, the same sheriff, the same prosecutor that invented the novel legal theory to hold the Oxford school shooter Crumbly Parents responsible. There's no reason the same people shouldn't apply the same standard they invented.
I didn't even, when I talked about this and drew that comparison, I didn't even realize that. And I haven't looked this up myself, but that is, yeah, they were in Michigan, come to think of it.

So if that's true, then that's, I was more right than I even realized. That, as we talked about yesterday, they're holding these school shooter parents responsible for crimes their kids commit, which maybe you could support that.

Maybe you could agree with that if they apply that standard equally. And then when you've got a kid who's 13 years old and is a serial home invader, you also hold the parents responsible.
And yet they do one and not the other. What I didn't realize when I talked about it is that apparently this is the same people involved, which is pretty amazing.
Two things I learned from this podcast. One, Matt shops at Walmart.
Two, Matt buys great value products. Nothing wrong with saving money.
I do indeed shop at Walmart. If you live in Nashville, you might run into me at Walmart.
I'm there like twice a week. And great value products, of course.
Of course you buy the store brand stuff. That's just being a parent.
It doesn't matter where you are in the income bracket. When you're a kid, the store brand products are the bane of your existence.
And then when you become a parent, you're like, yeah, it's the same stuff. The only exception, I will say, so I'll buy the store brands for everything except cereal.
That is the one, I do think, that's the one holdover for my childhood. Because my parents would buy the store brand cereal for everything.
They'd buy the, brand Cheerios, store brand frosted mini wheats. And I always thought, they actually, they said, oh, it tastes the same.
I don't think it tastes the same. I actually think that the real stuff tastes better.
So that's the one thing. I don't subject my kids to that.
But aside from cereal, it's all store brand stuff. As a white South African from a farming family, thank you.
I would give anything to become an American citizen. Things are so scary here and I'm so tired.
I want better for my children. There's no future here.
There are a lot of comments like this. Anyone who doubts, we talked yesterday about the persecution of white farmers in South Africa, which of course is a story that the mainstream media has been hiding from, not acknowledging for many years now.
But anyone who doubts anything I said in that monologue or anything that anyone else has said about it, just read the comments under that video. There's many, like dozens of comments from people in South Africa saying, yeah, it's that bad here or worse.
As a woman who never went to college and worked in client positions in several industries, and now I'm successfully running my own business, I could fill a book with the amount of people who told me I couldn't do it and tried to stand in my way. They were 99% women.
Except I would never write a book about it, because if I spent time crying over how much people tried to get in my way, I wouldn't have got anywhere. I'm not saying there weren't men who acted inappropriately at times or perhaps underestimated my abilities.
Sometimes they were right to underestimate me. But what you do in that situation is put your head down and work.
We're not supposed to be the superheroes of our own comic books. The minute you make it about everyone who said you couldn't do it, it literally stops being about whatever you were doing in the first place, and you shouldn't be taken seriously.
You're exactly right. I'm not surprised that you're a successful business owner with that mentality.
That's the kind of mentality that you need to be successful in anything. I think you're exactly right.
Even aside from the issue of which sex is being critical, you're hitting on something important, which is that if you have grand aspirations, if you have real goals in life,

if you have grand aspirations, if you have real goals in life, if you intend to climb the ladder to some position that is much loftier than the one you're currently standing on, then yes, people are going to doubt you. And the truth is that most people, well, most people aren't thinking about you one

way or another, right? So you got these people that everyone doubted me. No one believed in me.
Well, yeah, actually most people like didn't care one way or another. They just weren't thinking about you.
Okay. The whole world isn't sitting around doubting you because they just don't, they have their own lives they're living.
They're not thinking about you one way or another. But most of the people who do give it some thought will probably be skeptical, right? If you've got big goals, like if you've got big things you want to achieve in life, which is good.
You should have those goals and aspirations. But if you do and you share them with someone, most people that hear them are going to be like, yeah, I don't know if you could do that.
And they should be skeptical. It's rational in many cases.
If you aspire to become extremely successful in whatever field or area of life, well, most people are not extremely successful in that field or area. So there's nothing irrational or especially mean about people doubting your ability to get there.
It doesn't mean they hate you or don't respect you. It's like, you know, it's like if you take any goal, it's like if somebody was, you know, comes along and you have someone who's kind of slow and out of shape and they come along and they say that their goal, their goal after some training is they want to run a mile under five minutes.
Well, you would probably doubt that they could do it. And if they told you about it and they wanted your opinion, you'd probably say, well, it's a good goal to have.
I'm not sure you could actually do it. And because you probably can't, but maybe you do, in which case, great.
But what are they supposed to say? What do you want people to say to you? You want people to just say, oh, yeah, I absolutely know you can achieve this very improbable thing. So, and I would say the same thing for myself.
I mean, there were a lot of people years ago who doubted me, but also, especially when I was younger, there was a lot of reason to, and I was kind of a screw-up. So it wasn't irrational.
And I think you're right that the thing that drives you to succeed cannot be this kind of petty, childish desire to prove the doubters wrong or whatever. It has to be a desire to achieve the thing itself because of the value that you see in achieving it.
Okay? You have to be driven to reach the mountaintop because you want to conquer the mountain for its own sake. If your whole goal is just to give a middle finger to the haters, then you'll probably never make it.

Because that's not enough to get you through the very profound struggles that you're going to face.

And even if you do achieve it, well, you'll have turned this great achievement into something sort of petty and small.

Because it was only ever about that for you.

So, yes, very good point. I like when there's good points made in the comments, which there very often are.
When you join Daily Wire Plus, it's not just a subscription, it's a statement, a refusal to be spoon-fed the nonsense shoved down your throat by the media, by Hollywood and every self-righteous blue-haired activist with a TikTok account. You've heard the lies, you've seen the manipulation, you know the game is rigged, and you refuse to be played.
Become a Daily Wire Plus member isn't just about access to content, it's about standing up for truth in a world that treats truth like a disposable inconvenience. It's about rejecting propaganda, it's about demanding facts, logic, and reality, when the culture wants you to be gaslit in submission.
So when you join, you know exactly what you're doing, backing a movement that doesn't just report on the culture, but reshapes

it. Every dollar you spend goes directly into building the future because America's future

won't build itself. Join the fight today at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Now let's get

to our daily cancellation. Today we cancel MSNBC host Chris Hayes.
Now I believe

the Daily Cancellation. Today we cancel MSNBC host Chris Hayes.
Now, I believe this is Chris Hayes' first appearance in Daily Cancellation since 2020, which means it's been five years, which means I've been doing this segment for five years. I'm not sure if I should be proud of that or depressed by it.
Maybe some strange combination of the two. But in any case, Hayes is making his daily cancellation comeback thanks to his interview this past weekend on Bill Maher's show.
The conversation turned to the subject of gender transitions for minors. I'm always interested to hear how prominent liberals defend their position on this issue since their position is so profoundly indefensible.
And I'm always then disappointed to discover that their way of defending it is to not defend it. Instead, they grasp for the most pathetic cop-outs they can grab hold of.
And that was Chris's strategy. But I also think at the same time, there is a message of what I would call like common sense, patriotic pluralism.
That is a majority message, which is like, if some father and mother

have health care for their kid lined up who's trans,

just stay the f*** out of their business.

Like, let them make that decision.

That's their decision to make.

And you don't have to make that for your family.

I'm not going to tell you what to do with your family.

Well, I mean, but the argument is whether the child should make the decision.

But the child is never making the decision. The parents always making the decision parents consent to medical care well here in california you're allowed to hide it from the parents if the kid it's yes thank you one person somebody knows that is the case i think in the vast majority we've been hearing from parents right now whose kids medical care has been been interrupted.
I think there's a way to talk about... Well, of course, they would say it's not medical care.
Sure. They would say it's disfiguring a child.
I think they should mind their own business. I really do.
I think they should mind their own business. And I think that's true about a lot of things.
I think there is this sense in which there was this sort of backlash politics, some of which I understood, some of which people I know felt that way. I don't think what people wanted was for the women CIA agents at the CIA to be told that they can't get together once a month to like celebrate former women spies.
I just don't, I think like fundamental parts of what we call in this country, the traditions of pluralism, which is what this country is. And pluralism is another word for diversity.
If we're not going to use that one, let's use pluralism. That fundamentally, there's a majority that understands that like we all come from different places.
And part of what

makes this country work is we acknowledge and we negotiate those differences. And that's a thing

that I think Democrats can win back a majority at message. Well, actually, Chris, most Americans

don't want female CIA agents getting together once a month to celebrate women spies. Why do you need to do that once a month? Well, like once a month, really? What exactly does a monthly female spy celebration consist of? What's the point of it? And more importantly, why should taxpayers fund that activity? If female CIA agents want to gather on their own time in their own homes to shout girl power or whatever, then they have every right to do it.
But that is, in fact, precisely the kind of pointless PC nonsense that Americans just voted against. And if you still don't understand that, it just means that your party is going to continue to make all the mistakes that put you in this position to begin with, which frankly is fine with me.
But Americans even more so voted against the castration, sterilization, and mutilation of minors. And Chris has a chance to present the affirmative case for giving children the same drug they use to castrate sex offenders.
He has the floor on a show with a large audience of people, many of whom disagree with that kind of so-called medical treatment.

If there's a good argument in favor of it, well, now would be an ideal time to present it.

But there is no good argument in favor of it, or even a bad argument.

There is no argument at all.

Instead, Chris Hayes, the avowed far-left liberal, suddenly turns libertarian He says if parents want to castrate their kids, it's none of our business We should just butt out In fact, he abandons all at once any pretense that the quote-unquote trans child is leading his own transition He says it's all about the parents, the parents choose Well, there are two major problems with that, Chris First of all, the whole idea here, right, the alleged reason that we have child gender transition in the first place is that supposedly the child has identified some deep inner truth that tells him that he is really a girl or vice versa. The entire pro-trans argument rests necessarily on the idea that a person's transness is, while not visible to the outside world, somehow uniquely knowable to the trans person.
When a male says that he's really a female, nobody can confirm or disconfirm the claim. It is an inner truth that only he can know.
Now, this is, of course, nonsense. It is absolute incomprehensible hokum.
But this is the pro-trans logic, as illogical as it is, which means that according to that logic, the child is the one who chooses to undergo the transition. Both the parent and the medical provider are deferring to the child's own testimony about his inner opposite sex identity.
Again, according to the argument that Chris's side makes, only the child can actually know if he's trans, which means that the ultimate authority when it comes to his medical transition is not the parents or even the doctor. It is the child.
They are giving the child the drugs to make him into the opposite sex, which of course is impossible, purely because the child said he is the opposite sex. That is the one single fundamental thing that the whole case rests on.
But Chris knows that it's insane to give an 11 year old that kind of power and control over his own medical care. He knows he can't defend the idea that children are capable of consenting to life-altering medical procedures.
So he hides behind the let parents make the decision dodge. And the thing is, of course, that parents are the ones making the decision, right? All that stuff about a child recognizing his inner truth or whatever is total gibberish.
My only point is that this gibberish is what the

whole pro-trans side of the argument rests on. So if Chris is admitting that it's actually the parents guiding the ship, then he's admitting that transgenderism is in fact something being imposed on the child from the outside, which automatically delegitimizes the whole enterprise.
So there's really nothing else to say. If Chris Hayes is admitting, well, yeah, well, it's the parent really doing this.
Well, then what are we talking about? What are we even talking about at that? Of course, then it's wrong. Obviously.
But so, I mean, Chris Hayes has basically just abandoned his whole argument. So there's no reason to continue, but I'll continue anyway.
Bill Maher points out correctly that the other side, Team Sanity, would say, correctly, that this medical care is not really medical care, but it is, in fact, disfiguring a child. And Chris's only response to that is, and I quote, I think they should mind their own business.
What he's saying quite explicitly is that even if the parents are disfiguring their child, we should simply butt out and let it happen. It's none of our business.
Now, he says this now, but I guarantee he would be singing a very different tune if, let's say, some conservative parent in some sort of radical religious sect decided that they didn't want to give their child a life-saving blood transfusion because it's against God's wishes or whatever. Now, that would be a medical decision that the parents are making.
By Chris's logic, we should butt out and let the kid die unnecessarily, all in the name of respecting the privacy of the parents. But I feel fairly certain that Chris would not stick to his mind-your-own-business principles in that case.
And that's because his mind-your-own-business principles apply pretty much exclusively to this one issue. In fact,

we could come up with a million examples of things that parents might do to their children that even though it is a private decision made by the family in their own home, Chris Hayes would still object to and would want the government to step in and put a stop to it. Indeed, if you apply this mind your own business philosophy consistently, then that would mean we should abolish all laws against all forms of child abuse.
Because no matter what a parent is doing to a child, no matter what sort of harm they're inflicting, mind your own business. It doesn't concern you.
It doesn't affect you. That's the argument Chris Hayes is making.
Respect their privacy. Focus on your own issues.
And yet I will give

Chris Hayes the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is not that monstrously psychotic. He's only pretending to be for the sake of being a good little LGBT ally.
I bet that in almost every case, Chris Hayes would agree that when a child is being directly and intentionally harmed, the last thing we should do is mind our own business.

That is an approach that he has. that when a child is being directly and intentionally harmed, the last thing we should do is mind our own business.

That is an approach that he only adopts for this issue, well, and abortion.

So those are the two massive exceptions.

If a child is being castrated in middle school or dismembered in the womb, mind your own business.

But if he's being abused in any other way at any other point,

send in the cavalry and throw those parents in prison. That's Chris's position.
And it is, again, totally indefensible, which is why even while defending it, he doesn't really defend it. He knows better.
They all do. And that is what makes this so especially disgusting.

And that is why he is today canceled.

That'll do it for the show today.

Thanks for watching.

Thanks for listening.

Talk to you tomorrow.

Have a great day.