Ep. 1564 - This Insane Hearing Is Evidence That State Media Should Be Immediately Eliminated

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Republicans in Congress interrogated the left-wing political hacks who run NPR and PBS at a hearing yesterday. Is it finally time to remove all federal funding from these activist groups posing as news organizations? Of course it is.
We'll talk about it. Also, Donald Trump outrages trans activists with his speech marking Women's History Month.
And feminists are angry at a woman who expressed gratitude to her husband for helping to care for their baby. Is gratitude in marriage a bad thing, as these feminists claim? My answer won't shock you.

We'll talk about all that

and more today

on the Matt Wall Show. gratitude to her husband for helping to care for their baby.
Is gratitude in marriage a bad thing,

as these feminists claim? My answer won't shock you. We'll talk about all that and more today

on The Matt Walsh Show. As we celebrate the victory of our 47th president, there's no better way than to introduce the 4547 Patriot Edition American Whiskey produced by the team at Wise Spirits right here in our hometown of Nashville.
Their masterfully handcrafted American whiskey pays homage to the very essence of our great nation, celebrating its rich history and vibrant culture. Each batch is carefully selected from the finest barrels with each drop representing a testament to precision and quality.
The best part is this whiskey is made by patriots for patriots and embodying the spirit of the American dream. I've had the pleasure of enjoying 4547 whiskey, and let me tell you, it hits hard with a strong taste and a clean finish.
You can tell this isn't some cheap bottom shelf stuff. It's the kind of drink that makes you want to lean back in your chair and have another.
Experience the 4547 Patriot Edition whiskey, where every sip tells a powerful story of heritage, craftsmanship, and indomitable spirit. Here's to freedom, to tradition, and to the spirits of America.
4547 Patriot Edition, American Whiskey crafted with honor, inspired by courage, crafted by Wise Spirits, Nashville, Tennessee. Please drink responsibly.
4547 Premium American Whiskey, 46% alcohol by volume. Copyright 2025, Wise Spirits Incorporated, Nashville, Tennessee.
Must be 21 or over. It's always been the case that state media, no matter what country it's in, tells you an awful lot about the state.
Listen to North Korean state media for five minutes, and inevitably, the strict-looking anchorwoman will communicate a very clear message, which is that no criticism of dear leader is allowed, and they might even pan to a crater or two just to demonstrate what happened to the last guy who broke that rule. Tune into Canada's state broadcaster, meanwhile, and before long, they'll inform you that thousands of children are buried underneath Christian schools in Ontario, even though none of that is true.
They'll also complain about Donald Trump a lot and tell you how great their new prime minister is, even though he's barely ever lived in Canada in the past decade. And the message to reasonable people watching this, of course, is that Canada is a self-loathing post-national globalist blob that despises anyone who believes that the government is not God.
Again, whether they realize it or not, state media tells you everything you need to know about the state. So with that in mind, what do NPR and PBS tell us about this country? By any definition, these organizations are state media.
They were created by the state. And for more than half a century, these two outlets have relied on funding from the federal government to survive.
They couldn't peddle Washington's propaganda without taxpayer cash. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes funds to state media outlets like NPR and PBS, now receives more than half a billion dollars from the American taxpayer every single year.
Yes, they take in half a billion dollars every year, which is not an overstatement. Now, you often hear from outlets like NPR that federal funding isn't a big part of their budget, but that is a lie.
Now, it's true that they don't directly receive most of that money, but the Corporation for Public Broadcasting does receive the money. And in turn, it distributes the funds to member stations of organizations like NPR.
So in other words, if the federal funding is gone, then so are these outlets, which is why they will defend the funding to the death. So what have they been doing with the money that they desperately fight for, even as they claim they don't really need it? What I'm about to play is an actual segment that aired on NPR recently, and this is just an example of what they're spending our money on.
Listen to this. Dinosaurs are back on the big screen.
Jurassic World Dominion is now in theaters. Young kids always seem to love dinosaurs, and maybe we do as we crowd into natural history museums to see them in all their bony glory.
But did you know that the dino emoji is beloved in LGBTQ plus online communities? So they're talking about transgender dinosaur emojis on a show called All Things Considered, which is one of the premier programs at NPR. And this kind of content wasn't out of the ordinary.
NPR also posted this insight on social media, for example, quote, some white people may choose a yellow thumbs up emoji because it feels neutral. But some academics argue opting out of a whiter looking thumbs up emoji signals a lack of awareness about white privilege akin to society associating whiteness with being raceless.
Close quote. This is so that they've done a lot of reporting on emojis, basically.
They're really on the emoji beat with all that federal funding. This is all very unserious race baiting, obviously.
No one who doesn't suffer from 10 different serious psychological comorbidities would take any of this seriously. But you could make the case that it's actually more clever than that.
By acting like buffoons who are transfixed with emojis, NPR might come off as harmless to most people. They certainly don't seem like carefully calculating political operatives, but that's exactly what they are.
And that's why when the New York Post broke the Hunter Biden laptop story, NPR posted this image. And you can see it there if you forget.
It's from a man named Taron Samuels, who served as NPR's managing editor for news at the time. And he said, quote, we don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories.
And we don't want to waste the listeners and readers time on stories that are just pure distraction. Close quote.
So in other words, NPR was explicitly participating in the Democrat Party's efforts to bury a story about the fact that the Democrat candidate for president was taking money from foreign adversaries. And what happened to Terrence Samuels after he made this call? Was he terminated for gross incompetence on the job? Well, of course not.
He did exactly what he was supposed to do, so he was promoted. NPR made him their top editor before he went on to become the editor-in-chief of USA Today.

His career did not suffer at all.

In fact, it helped his career.

Terrence Samuels even started doing lectures on disinformation at American University, if you can believe it.

So the guy who buried the biggest story of the 2020 election on the fraudulent grounds that it was disinformation when it really wasn't is now teaching students how to spot disinformation. So you really can't script this kind of stuff.
For decades, state media outlets got away with this kind of thing. Republicans would, you know, register their complaints, but they never actually hauled these executives before Congress and seriously threatened to remove their funding.
But that changed yesterday when the Doge Committee in Congress questioned the chief executives of both NPR and PBS. And maybe the most remarkable moment in the hearing came when Congressman Brandon Gill questioned the head of NPR, a woman named Catherine Marr.
Specifically, Gill went through Marr's tweets over the past few years. And in response to Gill's questions, Marr repeatedly dodged and lied under oath to the point that it seemed almost like a comedy routine.
Watch. Do you believe that America is addicted to white supremacy? I believe that I tweeted that.
And as I've said earlier, I believe much of my thinking has evolved over the last half decade. It has evolved.
Why did you tweet that? I don't recall the exact context, sir, so I wouldn't be able to say. Okay.
Do you believe that America believes in black plunder and white democracy? I don't believe that, sir. You tweeted that in reference to a book you were reading at the time, apparently, The Case for Reparations.
I don't think I've ever read that book, sir. You tweeted about it.
You said you took a day off to fully read the case for reparations.

You put that on Twitter in January of 2020.

Apologies, I don't recall that I did.

Do you think that white people should pay reparations?

I have never said that, sir.

Yes, you did.

You said it in January of 2020.

You tweeted, yes, the North, yes, all of us, yes, America,

yes, our original collective sin and unpaid debt, yes, reparations, yes, on this day. I don't believe that was a reference to fiscal reparations, sir.
What kind of reparations was it a reference to? I think it was just a reference to the idea that we all owe much to the people who came before us. That's a bizarre way to frame what you tweeted.
Okay, how much reparations have you personally paid? Sir, I don't believe that I've ever paid reparations. Okay, just for everybody else.
I'm not asking anyone to pay reparations. Seems to be what you're suggesting.
Now, you could not distill the 2020-era affluent liberal woman stereotype any more perfectly than this. She asked about a tweet that she wrote concerning an article she claimed to have read during the BLM hysteria.
She said she took the whole day off to read it, but now she admits that she didn't read any of it. So I had to go back and check that this is real, and it was.
Here's what Catherine Marr said at the time. Quote, America begins in black plunder and white democracy.
I appreciate the day off today to finally fully read the case for reparations. I grew up feeling superior.
Ha, how white of me, because I was from New England, and my part of our country didn't have slaves, or so I've been taught. Close quote.
Now she has no idea about any of this. She took the day off to read it.
Now she says she didn't read it at all. So what were you doing with your time off? And she also pretends not to understand that she previously called for reparations, even though she clearly did in writing, like explicitly as possible.
Yes, reparations. That's what she said.
But when she said yes, reparations, she actually meant no reparations. As the questioning went on, Marr continued to deny things that she had posted publicly that we can all see because she said it.
She also defended some of NPR's most deranged programming at the same time. Watch.
Do you believe that looting is morally wrong? I believe that looting is illegal and I refer to it as counterproductive. I think it should be prosecuted.
Do you believe it's morally wrong, though? Of course. Of course.
Then why did you refer to it as counterproductive? It's a very different way to describe it. It is both morally wrong and counterproductive, as well as being illegal.
You tweeted, it's hard to be mad about protests in reference to the BLM protests not prioritizing the private property of a system of oppression. You didn't condemn the looting.
You said that it was counterproductive. NPR also promoted a book called In Defense of Looting.
Do you think that that's an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars? I'm unfamiliar with that book, sir, and I don't believe that was at my time at NPR. You tweeted that you read that book, but...
I don't believe that I did read that book, sir. Your health advisor at NPR also stated in an interview that, quote, fear of fatness is more harmful than actual fat.
Would you like to explain how fear of fatness is more harmful than actual fat? That's directly, that's an editorial at NPR. I am not familiar with the editorial, and I don't believe that was published during my time here.
It's called Diet Culture is Everywhere. Here's how to fight it.
Do you think that that's an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars? I think any reporting on health is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars, yes. Do you think that basic accommodations like doorways or seatbelts represent, quote, latent fat phobia? I don't have an opinion.
It's also from NPR. Do you think civility is racist? No, sir.
No. Your outlet ran an article entitled, quote, when civility is used as a cudgel against people of color.
That was on All Things Considered. Would you like to explain? I'm not on the editorial side, sir.
I'm not familiar with that story. Now, there are about a million more posts from this woman that are obviously disqualifying.
Every single one of them is proof that NPR should not receive another dime of taxpayer money. For example, here's some of Mars posts from shortly after Joe Biden was declared the winner in the 2020 election.
She writes, she writes, quote, I can't stop crying with relief. It's so strange to be called a Biden supporter.
I'm a supporter of human rights, dignity, and justice. Oh God, we have so much work to do.
I can't wait. So by her own admission, she's floored by the idea of Joe Biden winning the presidential election to the point that she can't contain her emotions.
And at the same time, she's claiming that she's qualified to run a news organization that, you know, receives taxpayer money. There was one moment during the hearing when Catherine Marr attempted to address some of these tweets,

and it came when Congressman Tim Burchett

read Marr's post about how Donald Trump

is a horrible, racist, fascist dictator.

And again, it'd be extremely depressing to watch

if it didn't have any comedic value at all.

Fortunately, it does have some comedic value.

Watch.

...failed to do that.

Let me ask you,

why did you call President Trump a fascist and a deranged racist sociopath in 2020? Congressman, I appreciate the opportunity to address this. I regret those tweets.
I would not tweet them again today. They represented a time where I was reflecting on something that I believe that the president had said rather than who he is.
I don't presume that anyone is a racist. Which you don't believe anyone is a racist.
I don't start by presuming anyone is a racist. Now, she begins by saying that she appreciates the opportunity to address her past tweets, which, you know, is code for a PR company told me how to respond to this question.
And they told me that the first step is to claim that I'm not actually on the defensive. So it's a very common tactic in PR intended to diffuse the accusation by demonstrating at the outset that the person being questioned isn't fazed by the question,

even though it's obviously damning and extremely humiliating. But in this case,

Catherine Marr botches it. She states that she wasn't actually talking about who Donald Trump

is. Instead, she claims that she was merely talking about what he says.

So let's pull that tweet up. Here's what Marr wrote at the time.
Quote,

what is that deranged racist sociopath ranting about today? I truly don't understand. Now, looking at that with my admittedly untrained eye, it doesn't seem like she's talking about Donald Trump's words.
Instead, it looks a lot like she's talking about how Donald Trump is a, quote, deranged racist sociopath because that's what she said. In fact, it seems like Catherine Maher is committing perjury if she's trying to say anything else under oath.
In fact, it seems like she's committed perjury multiple times during this hearing already from what we've seen. So there are now two problems here.
First, the head of NPR is clearly a low IQ, highly emotional partisan hack. And two, she is lying under oath about what she has said in the past.
Each of these problems, independent of one another, is disqualifying.

Either one of these issues should result in the immediate termination

of all funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

But as the hearing went on, things got somehow even worse for Catherine.

Jim Jordan brought up the allegations from an NPR whistleblower named Yuri Berliner,

which were first published in the Free Press.

Berliner won some of the most prestigious awards in all of journalism, and he worked at NPR for more than 25 years. Watch this.
Is NPR biased? Congressman, I have never seen any instance of political bias determining editorial decisions, no. Well, Mr.
Berliner, in his story last year, wrote, in the D.C. area, editorial positions at NPR, he said he found 87 registered Democrats, zero Republicans.
Is that accurate? We do not track the numbers or the voter registration, but I find that concerning. Was award-winning journalist who worked 25 years at NPR, Mr.
Berliner, was he lying when he wrote that? I am not presuming such. I just don't have, we don't track that information about our journalist.
87 to zero. And you're not biased.
I think that is concerning if those numbers are accurate. How about this story? October 2020, New York Post had the Hunter Biden laptop story.
And one of those editors, I guess one of those 87 Democrat editors, said this. We don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories.
We don't want to waste the listeners' and readers' time on stories that are just pure distractions. Was that a pure distraction story? Our current editorial leadership believes that that was a mistake, as do I.
Yeah, the whole country knows that was a mistake. Now, if you're inclined to give Catherine Marr the benefit of the doubt, for some reason, if you thought that maybe she's just another inept bureaucrat who's in over her head, it's important to revisit what she said publicly many times about the concept of the truth.
And we've talked about this before, but in the context of this hearing, it helps explain some of her answers.

And we remember the video where she explains in two different speeches that the truth is less important than getting things done. And she also claims, bizarrely, that multiple people have different truths, which we've heard, of course, from the left many times.
Now, the fact that Marr was named as the head of NPR even after those videos surfaced, where she professed to basically not believe in the concept of truth,

is proof, again, that nobody at NPR, even after those videos surfaced, where she professed to basically not believe in the concept of truth, is proof again that nobody at NPR is actually concerned about accurate reporting. They don't even think that it's possible to report accurately because there's really no such thing as truth.
So NPR as an organization is focused entirely on achieving certain political outcomes. And there's nothing wrong with that in principle.
Plenty of media organizations, including the Daily Wire, seek to achieve certain political outcomes. In fact, every media organization in the history of media has.
Everybody has a bias. Everyone has a thing that has a point of view.
The problem is that NPR, together with other organizations like it, rake in half a billion dollars per year from taxpayers. The problem is that taxpayers are forced to support these organizations, whether they agree with them or not.
That's the issue here. At no point during yesterday's hearing did the executives from NPR or PBS explain why we should continue to fund them.
Instead, they continued to plead ignorance. Congressman Pat Fallon, for example, tried to question Marr, as well as the head of PBS, about their coverage.
And in both cases, one after the other, they claimed, again, ignorance, like they had no idea what she was talking about. Listen.
How many times did you all interview Adam Schiff about the Russia collusion? I'm sorry, sorry, I don't have that number. It was 25 times.
You know how many times NPR interviewed chairman of this committee, oversight committee, Jamie Comer,

about the Biden impeachment inquiry for the Hunter Biden tax evasion and illicit business dealings

of the Biden family? I'm sorry, sorry, I don't know. I believe that's zero, so it's 25 to zero.

Ms. Kerger, you're aware there's a political spectrum.
It goes all the way from the far right

to the far left and everywhere in between. Would it trouble you to hear that for six months,

Thank you. You're aware there's a political spectrum.
It goes all the way from the far right to the far left and everywhere in between. Would it trouble you to hear that for six months there was an analysis done on PBS's NewsHour from June to November of 2023 where they found that far right, that term, was used 162 times and far left was only used six times? Do you find that troubling? I don't know the study that you're referring to.

And I'd love I'd be very interested in seeing it and understanding how they came up with those numbers.

Now, separately, Marjorie Taylor Greene, who was chairing this hearing, played footage of a male drag performer who PBS promoted as part of its children program, children's programming.

And this appeared on the Web site for a show that targeted children between the ages of three and eight years old before PBS took it down and took it down because of the public outrage because they were forced to. But let's see it again.
This again is for kids ages three to eight. Watch.
So get your singing voices ready. And we're going to start with our hips.
The hips on the drag queen go swish, swish, swish, swish, swish, swish. The shoulders on the drag queen go shimmy, shimmy, shimmy, shimmy, shimmy, shimmy, shimmy, shimmy, sh blah, blah Blah, blah, blah Blah, blah, blah And the mouth of the drag queen goes Blah, blah, blah All through the town So just a male cross-dresser Singing to three-year-olds about his various body parts Who could possibly have a problem with that? Well, Catherine Marr apparently didn't.
And when they're shown footage like this, along with the clear evidence of bias from both NPR and PBS, it's clear that the vast majority of taxpayers are going to want their money back. There's obviously no reason that we should be funding this garbage.
It's not just uninteresting, it's actively harmful to the country, and in this case to children. But in the interest of fairness, as always, I will present the other side of the debate.
And that means, once again, you're going to have to see another clip of Representative Jasmine Crockett on this show. Yes, that's the same Jasmine that we've canceled a dozen times this year.
Jasmine Crockett is now putting out demented, unintelligent soundbites at a rate that far exceeds even AOC.

Like far exceeds, which is a feat that was previously believed to be humanly impossible.

But here we are.

Behold Jasmine's highly lucid, grammatically correct, and totally convincing argument for why you should continue to pay for NPR and PBS against your will.

Listen.

Americans in rural communities would lack access to life-saving information and public safety alerts. That is correct.
So in your opinion, would eliminating funding for stations in rural America like WNGH, Channel 18, and the Chairwoman's District hurt Americans? It would hurt Americans, yes. In fact, Georgia Public Broadcasting serves as the official distributor of evacuation route information during state-ordered evacuations, and the chairwoman is here advocating to strip their funding.
In fact, I'm going to skip off real quick because they have tried to come for you, and I just want to clarify, you did not work for NPR when those statements were made, did you? That is correct, Madam Chair. And to be clear, free speech is not about whatever it is that y'all want somebody to say.
And the idea that you want to shut down everybody that is not Fox News is we need to stop playing because that's what y'all are doing in here. You don't want to hear the opinions in any of anybody else.
And the Constitution says Congress shall make no law respecting or establishing of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the free speech or press. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Of course, she had to read the First Amendment because she doesn't know it, and she apparently thinks that the First Amendment guarantees your right to not just say what you want but to be paid by the taxpayers taxpayers to say it, because that's what we're talking about here. But at least she announced

that she was going to skip off real quick. So that's a new one for Jasmine Crockett.

Normally, she doesn't provide any kind of warning before she starts vomiting random

words in the trashiest, fakest ghetto accent she can come up with. But in this case,

she gave everybody a heads up. It's like those disclaimers on the news

when they say, warning, this footage could be disturbing to some viewers. So that's appreciated.
And what's especially funny about this is that when she says Republicans want to shut down everyone who's not Fox News, she's inadvertently acknowledging that Fox is pretty much the only mainstream conservative news outlet. Everyone else, she's acknowledging from CNN to ABC to CBS MSNBC, and so on and so on, all skew left.

And taken together, they all have a much larger market share than Fox. And of course, the bigger problem here is that contrary to whatever Jasmine Crockett was barking about, nobody wants to shut down everyone who's not Fox News.
Republicans are not calling for the elimination of MSNBC or CNN or ABC or CBS. Instead, what we're calling for is the elimination of taxpayer funding for rabidly partisan organizations that pose as news outlets.
That is what Republicans have sought in one capacity or another for the better part of a century since NPR and PBS began seizing money from American citizens. What's different now is that because of this Doge subcommittee, Congress is maybe closer than it's ever been to achieving that goal.
And the more the Democrats like Jasmine Crockett skip off real quick, the more they're helping to make the case. America is a very different place than it was when NPR and PBS were founded.
Whether you think that founding NPR and PBS was a good idea or not, the fact remains that they no longer perform the fundamental function of all state media, which is to tell you something about the state. Instead, they stand in opposition to the United States and its progress.
And for that reason, especially after this debacle of a hearing, they must be eliminated. Now let's get to our five headlines.
Let me tell you about something that doesn't get enough attention. That is your liver.
This powerhouse organ is crushing it 24-7, handling over 500 different functions in your body. It's a hard job, and sometimes your liver just needs a little bit of support.
That's where Dose for Your Liver comes in. It's not some weak supplement.
This is hard-hitting, science-backed support for your body's most crucial filter. The results speak for themselves.
Clinical trials showed over 86% of people got major improvements in their liver enzyme levels. Want to know what makes this different? Well, one shot of dose packs the same punch as 17 shots of turmeric juice.
It's designed for peak performance, supporting energy levels, digestion, and overall liver function. No BS ingredients either.
It's clean, it's sugar-free, and engineered to deliver results. Start giving your liver the support it deserves.
Save 30% on your first month of subscription by going to dosedaily.co slash Walsh. We're entering Walsh at checkout.
That's D-O-S-E-D-A-I-L-Y dot C-O slash Walsh for 30% off your first month subscription. Donald Trump gave a speech marking the, marking Women's History Month, which I guess is in March.
And I'm not a fan of Women's History Month, which probably doesn't surprise you. I think it's pretty ridiculous to have a month set aside for celebrating the history of women, unless we're also going to have a month for the history of men.
But of course, no such month exists. And it would be considered sexist and misogynistic to have a month like that.
So this is a very obvious double standard here again. And also, by the way, there are like two or three different months for women and also like 20 different individual days set aside on the calendar for celebrating women.
How many do we need? How many is enough? And meanwhile, again, there are precisely no days at all set aside to celebrate men specifically, aside from Father's Day. So that's the only one that we have, I guess.
But anyway, all that said, a speech commemorating Women's History Month could be extremely cringe because the concept is pretty cringe. But Trump took it in

a very non-cringe direction. And this part in particular was pretty great.
Let's listen to it.

When day one, I made the official policy of the United States government that there are only two

genders, male and female. Is there anybody, seriously, is there anybody that disagrees with that in this room? I was thinking maybe somebody from the press might raise their hand.
I don't think so. There aren't too many people.
You know, it's amazing. It's got to be like a 98% issue, right? So what are they doing, Marjorie? What are they doing? They're fighting for a 2% issue.
That's good. Let them keep doing it.
No matter how many surgeries you have or chemicals you inject, if you're born with male DNA in every cell of your body, you can never become a woman. You're not going to be a woman.
And that's why last month I proudly signed a historic executive order to ban men from competing in women's sports. And it was very popular and very, very popular.
This is true, obviously, what he just said. It's the kind of truth that nobody should have to say.
The president of the United States in particular shouldn't have to say this, but it is necessary

to say it. And I want us all to appreciate the significance of the fact that Trump just said

what he said. And I don't mean the part about banning men from women's sports.
I mean, that's

important too. But that's one thing.
It's one thing to say that men shouldn't be women's sports.

It's one thing to say that children should not be, quote unquote, transitioned into another gender. Those points are all important and all true, and we should be saying that, and we should be fighting against those forms of madness.
But both of those positions don't necessarily represent a fundamental rejection of trans ideology. It's possible to affirm trans ideology while also saying that we should wait until somebody is 18 for medical transitions and that quote unquote, quote unquote, trans women shouldn't be in women's sports.
I mean, it's possible to stake out those two positions while not necessarily repudiating trans ideology at its most fundamental level. And for a while, Republicans were just ignoring this issue entirely.
And then when they started to not ignore it anymore, they tried to do exactly this. They try to take a kind of moderate position where they said, yeah, I'll affirm an adult who says he's a woman and I have no issue with that, but leave the kids alone.
And hey, it's unfair with women's sports. So couching everything in kind of fairness and safety, again, all that's true.
Fairness is important. Safety is important.
But for a while while I think Republicans were trying Not to Repudiate Trans ideology at its core But the Women's sports issue and the child Transition issue, these are branches These are limbs, these are very big Important limbs, but they are limbs And you can chop off limbs, but that doesn't mean that you kill the tree. Just like if you're a trans-identified man, you can chop off your body parts.
It doesn't mean that you've changed who you are as a man. No, you kill the tree by ripping out the roots.
And what Trump just said there, that's an attack on the roots. And that's where our attacks should be directed.
You rip out the roots. So he's not just saying that men shouldn't play in women's sports.
He is rejecting here the very concept of transgenderism itself. If you have male DNA, you will never be a woman.
I mean, that is the argument. That's our point.
Which is why I've always said all the stuff about safety and fairness and all of that is downstream. I mean, we don't even need to really talk about that.
The fact that it's unfair to have or to talk about the competitive disadvantages that women suffer if they compete against men, that's not even really the point. because even if it was somehow, even if there was some transidentification,

identity, men, that's not even really the point. Because even if it was somehow, even if there was some trans-identified male who is a very middling athlete, even among women, and there are cases of this, even if it was a trans-identified male who wanted to, let's say, race against women in track, and he's so slow that he's going to come in last against the women in every single race.
And then you could say, well, he's not taking any opportunities away from women. He's not beating any of them.
He's not taking any medals away. They're all winning, so it's not unfair in that sense.
Would that be okay? Well, the answer is no, it still wouldn't be okay, because no matter where he's placing, no matter if he gets a gold medal or no medal, he's not a woman. That's the problem.
It's just, it's untrue to have him on the women's team. It is an untruth.
We are saying something that is not true. We are saying that he's a woman when he's not, and that is the problem.
And so this is what needs to happen. This is how you win the war.
Transgenderism is a category error. It is not a valid category.
So when the other side says, well, are you denying the existence of trans people? The answer needs to be unequivocally, yes. Yes, we are.
Now, we're not denying the existence of people who say they're trans. Those people exist.
Leah Thomas exists. Dylan Mulvaney exists.
Bruce Jenner exists. Whatever other example you can think of.
These people exist. we are denying the legitimacy of their claims.
We are denying the legitimacy of the claims that

they're making about themselves. We are saying that no one is actually trans.
They might say

that they are. they might identify as such, but you can't actually be that.
That is not a legitimate state of being that anyone can really claim for themselves. And I think with what Trump said there, you see this, obviously, at the highest levels now of the Republican Party, you have the top guy making precisely that argument.

On the same kind of topic, Lives with TikTok posted this video.

And according to Lives with TikTok, this person is named Zachary Sandry, a teacher at a school in Texas, a school in Red Oaks Independent School District to be exact. And here he is talking about his, quote unquote, gender euphoria.
So needless to say, this is a trans-identified person, a male identifying as female, talking about, he's very happy in this case, how happy he is to be affirmed by his students. Let's listen.
Hi, I'm Rosie, Texas English teacher and transgender goddess, here with just a couple of thoughts about some gender euphoria that I've been feeling today. So for those of you that don't know, gender euphoria is the feeling you get when you finally feel comfortable in your gender, when something good happens and it just brings you a lot of joy and calm.
And it's been happening to me a lot today. This morning when I stopped at the gas station for my morning energy drink, I got manned, which is so funny because I know that there are a lot of women who really don't like being called manned, but I like it a lot.
It's so new to me and it's so wonderful. And it was such a small thing to make me this happy.
And then at school today, I'm surrounded by kids. I teach sophomores and I have these 15, 16 year olds who are completely on board, who, when I told them I had changed my pronouns jumped right into it they call me man they call me miss they use my correct pronouns and know my correct name and it is incredibly affirming so i guess my message here is if you have any trans people in your life it is so easy to show them love so easy so we've talked about the progress that we've made on this issue.
We still have a long way to go, clearly. And the next step, one of the next steps, should be laws that ban people like this from teaching.
This person should be legally barred from teaching children. Now, if we're banning trans-identified people from the military, which is a policy I agree with, of course, but if we're doing that and we say, well, they're not, right, it would be a threat to national security to have them in the military if they're struggling with these kinds of very serious mental health issues.
Okay, I totally buy that argument. But then how in the hell are we allowing them to teach children? If it's a national security threat to have a trans-identified person in the military, then what kind of threat are we talking about if they're teaching kids? Because there are two ways of looking at this.
When you look at this video and you see this man, either he is confused about the basic facts of human biology, or he's not confused, but he enjoys acting out his fantasies in public. In the first case, clearly he would not be qualified to teach children.
In order to teach, you need to have, at a minimum, a basic grasp of the laws of physical reality. Whatever the subject is you're teaching.
You're teaching some subject that is based in reality, one would hope. And so if you don't understand really, really fundamental things like the fact that men can't have babies, if you don't understand that, then there's no possible way that you could be qualified to teach.
But in the other case, if this guy actually is not confused, if he actually understands perfectly well that men are men and women are women, then that means that this is a kind of role-play fantasy game that he's engaging in.

And that makes him even less qualified to teach children. Children in school should not be sucked into a teacher's role-play game.
Teachers should not be depending on children to give them a feeling of euphoria. I don't want teachers feeling euphoria in the classroom at all for any reason.
That's just bizarre. That's extremely weird.
What do you mean euphoria? Who the hell feels euphoria? And why are you feeling that in a classroom around a bunch of kids? I don't want my children to ever be in the same room as a grown adult man who feels euphoric around children. I mean, hell no.
Especially if that euphoria is tied to the fact that he's wearing women's clothes. And he's depending again on these children to somehow, he's showing a kind

of emotional codependency on these kids. And that's the most mild way of putting it.

But that alone, that alone makes him unqualified to teach. So this is the conversation we need to have next.
and I'd like to know which lawmakers are going to step up to the plate on this one. Because I'm telling you right now, it would have wide support among the voters.
Show that video to the average voter. Get 100 average voters in the room, representative sample, show them that video and ask them, do you think that this person should be allowed to teach kids? Would you want your child to be in that person's classroom? Yes or no? 100 average voters in the room.
How many do you think are going to say yes? Oh, yeah, I'd love to have. Yeah, oh, yeah.
Sign my kid up for that. Would you get 10 out of 100? You're not getting 20, I'll tell you that.
So this would have wide support among the voters. And I think this needs to be the next step.
I'll quickly mention this. The son of Snow White producer Mark Platt, Jonah Platt is the son's name.
He is speaking out publicly against Rachel Zegler and blaming her for the film's catastrophic failure at the box office. He wrote a comment on Instagram in response to someone who was upset that his dad reportedly reprimanded Zegler for her antics at some point before the movie came out.
And I just want to read this. The comment says, your dad flew to NYC to reprimand a young actress? Any word on this? Because that's creepy as hell and uncalled for.
People have the right to free speech. No.
Shame on your father. And then Jonah Platt, who's the son of the producer of the film, responded and said, you really want to do this? Yeah, my dad, the producer of enormous piece of Disney IP with hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, had to leave his family to fly across the country to reprimand his 20-year-old employee for dragging her personal politics into the middle of promoting the movie for which she signed a multi-million dollar contract to get paid and do publicity for.
This is called adult responsibility and accountability. Interactions clearly hurt the film's box office.
Free speech does not mean you're allowed to say whatever you want in your private employment without repercussions. Tens of thousands of people worked on that film and she hijacked the conversation for her own immature desires at the risk of all the colleagues and crew and blue-collar workers who depend on that movie to be successful.
Narcissism is not something to be coddled or encouraged.

Well, he's totally right. Now, of course, as we covered, the movie is terrible anyway,

in its own right. It was probably going to underperform regardless.
People are tired of

the soulless cash grab remake thing.

They're tired of all that.

The movie has all kinds of problems that could be pinned partly on the producer.

Like the producer did not do a good job.

Nobody who produced this movie did a good job.

And that's apart from all of the political controversy started by the actress.

So the movie had all kinds of problems creatively and conceptually.

But there's no doubt that she drove the final nail into this movie's coffin.

She probably drove the final two or three nails into the coffin.

And a lot of what you see with Zegler is really just this pretty common Gen Z mentality and approach to work.

That she believes that she should be able to express herself and speak her truth or whatever nonsense, regardless of the consequences to everybody else.

But in reality, you have a job. You're getting paid to do this job.
You signed on the dotted line. You took on the role.
You took the job. And that job comes with certain basic responsibilities.
And one of the most basic is the responsibility to control yourself and comport yourself a certain way publicly so that you don't harm the project and thereby harm all the hundreds of other people who are working on it. So a lot has been said about the fact that Rachel Zegler is a leftist fruitcake, and she is, but she's also just a spoiled, entitled, narcissistic brat who was perfectly willing.

Because she's not stupid. Well, she might be stupid.
But she's not so dumb that she didn't realize that by, for example, coming out and saying that all Trump supporters deserve to suffer. for, like, she's smart enough to know that, of course, that's going to upset a large portion of the potential audience for this project that I'm on.
But she knew that, and she didn't care because she has this mentality. She's not the only one.
It's kind of a common mentality that, hey, the only thing that matters is how I feel. It's the only thing that matters in the world.
And there are no obligations or responsibilities that I could possibly have that would outrank my own feelings. And I think that's really what this all comes down to.
If you own a handgun, you know the dilemma. You either keep it locked away somewhere secure but tough to access, or you compromise on security for quick access.
Neither option is ideal. That's why I've been using the Stopbox Pro for a while now.
It's 100% mechanical, no batteries to die at the worst possible moment, no keys to lose or to fumble with, just reliable access when you need it. What really sold me was testing it out at home.
The build quality is exceptional. It's durable.
It's well-built, and it should be since they make everything right here in the USA. Stopbox is creating American jobs while keeping our family safe.
I can access it quickly in the dark, which gives me real peace of mind while simultaneously making whoever is breaking and entering learn what regret feels like very rapidly. Plus, for those of you

who travel, it's TSA compliant, so you can actually fly with it properly secured and check baggage, because it turns out TSA is not a big fan of just throwing loose weapons in your bag. Don't do that.
For limited time only, my listeners are getting a crazy deal. Not only do you get 10% off your entire order when you use code MATTWALLSHOW at stopUSA.com, but they're also giving you buy one,

get one free for their Stopbox Pro. That's 10% off and a free Stopbox Pro when you use code MattWalshShow at StopBoxUSA.com.
Discover a better way to balance security and readiness with Stopbox. Well, the Matt Walsh Candle Collection is getting a new member.
I already spoiled the surprise off camera, but the new scent is called Waffles.

So it smells like a goat.

Is that the idea?

We got a goat.

Waffles after our new goat, which, you know, we don't need to go through that story again.

So it's a goat scented.

I've been around goats enough now over the last few days to know that that's not a scent you want in your house. I don't know what we're doing.
It doesn't even smell like a goat. That's not a goat at all.
What is this? Oh. Maple syrup, nutmeg, and buttermilk.
That's not what goats smell like. Let me tell you right now.
Waffles is here for you to take home, which you won't regret like I do. It smells amazing, far better than my goats or the stench of my defeat.

Imagine happy little goats climbing mountains of waffles.

Go to thecandleclub.com slash waffles to get yours.

That's thecandleclub.com slash waffles.

Don't even buy this.

I'm actually recommending against buying this.

You don't want a candle that has a goat on the label right there. That's not the kind of message you want to send.
Now, let's get to our daily cancellation. Our daily cancellation today begins with a post on X from the very insightful conservative writer Inez Stettman.
She inadvertently sparked a controversy, even God forbid, a full-blown discourse on the platform this week with a post that was very simple and you would think quite unremarkable. And this is the way it so often goes.
You might post 10,000 interesting, incisive things on the internet, but it will be the simplest, most straightforward, most uncontroversial thing that creates all the controversy. That's the way it goes.
And for Inez, it was a post thanking her husband. And we all know that in the mind of a feminist anyway, there is nothing more divisive and provocative than that a woman can do than show a basic level of gratitude towards her husband.
So here's what Inez posted a couple of days ago, quote, this is by no means universal, so don't yell at me, but I'm starting to suspect that behind many of the complaints that dad doesn't help enough with the baby are women who are extremely finicky and inflexible about what caring for the baby looks like. Now she's right about that, but it was the follow-up post that really attracted the ire of the feminist hordes, because here's what she said next.
Get ready for this. Brace yourself.
Quote, anyway, shout out to my husband for taking care of the baby at 7 a.m. because I had a headache.
That's it. Oh no, a woman just thanked her husband for helping with the baby.
The feminist will not stand for that. There won't be any thanking of men allowed on this platform or anywhere else.
So I'm going to read just a very quick sample of the replies. There are hundreds of them that are all along the same lines.
They're very upset at that second tweet specifically. And it's worth talking about them because these women, who will read some of their comments, they represent an increasingly common point of view, and it's one that has destroyed many marriages and will destroy many more in the future.
In fact, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the replies I'm about to read represent one of the greatest threats to marriage in modern society. So here are just a few of those responses.
The first one says, that is literally his job. I never want to become this kind of mother or wife.
Another one says, girl, what do you mean shout out? Isn't that just the bare minimum of being a parent? Another says, giving a shout out to your husband for doing his job as a father is wild. Another comment says, women really out here be thanking fathers for being a father.
OMG, a father doing regular father things. So cool.
Round of applause for this man who did the bare minimum of fatherhood. Stop praising men for the bare minimum.
He's the father. You don't need to thank him since he shouldn't only take care of the baby when you're feeling bad.
Another says, it's his kid too. It's his responsibility too.
It's his job too. Finally get that through your thick heads.
Another says, does he give you a shout out every time you do the most basic stuff of parenthood? Why marry someone who needs a public parade for taking care of their own children? Another says, why would you shout out your husband for doing his job? It wasn't just you who made the baby. He had 50% in that as well.
He should be taking care of it too. And then here's my favorite response.
We've been divorced for a while at this point, but still every day I feel gratitude that the father of my children loves actually being a father. And I never once have had to thank him for simply participating in parenthood.
Now, there are many more comments, some quite a bit more vulgar and angry, but all of them are along these lines. And as I said, this is a very common attitude these days, which is why it's worth discussing.
All of these women agree that Inez's husband is doing, quote, the bare minimum, and that it's ridiculous to thank him for it. So they all concur with each other that thanking your husband for being helpful is outrageous.
And it's a sign that you're some sort of battered wife. And then there's that last comment from a woman named Charlotte who recommends not thanking your husband for things.
And you should take her advice on how to have a healthy marriage. After all, she's been divorced for quite some time.
and it has not occurred to Charlotte, apparently, that perhaps the reason why she's divorced is that she never once felt the need to express any kind of gratitude to her husband at all by her own testimony. So let me offer a few thoughts, a few things that these feminists might want to consider.
First of all, a father who helps with the baby at night or early in the morning is, in very many cases, doing a lot more than the, quote, bare minimum. Often the father has to get up and go to work in the morning, and that means that helping with the baby at night or in the morning represents a very real sacrifice on his part.
And these kinds of women, the ones who left the

comments, seem to think that if the dad is doing less than exactly 50% of the child care, then he's automatically doing the bare minimum. But none of the roles in a functional and happy household are going to be split down the middle 50-50 like that, which means their conception of what constitutes the bare minimum is completely off base.
If the man is earning 100% of the income that keeps a roof over everyone's head and food on the table, or even 80% or 70%, but then he's also doing, say, 20% to 25% of the childcare duties, is that still the bare minimum? Couldn't he just as easily flip it around and accuse her of doing the bare minimum, seeing as how she's doing 70 or 80% of the childcare, but contributing nothing or almost nothing to the family income? Now, I have no idea if this actually applies to Inez's household or not, but my point still stands either way. My point is that there's a lot of work that needs to be done constantly all the time to keep a household running and a family alive and fed and cared for and happy.
And for all of our talk about being a society that has moved beyond gender roles, the fact is that the man is still the primary breadwinner in a majority of American households. And the woman is the primary breadwinner in only a

small minority, 15 or 16 percent, last I checked. So all the feminist complaints about men not contributing enough to child care and to household duties just simply ignore this point entirely.
They treat the man's role of working every day and carrying the burden of supporting the family as if it's nothing, as if it doesn't matter at all. It doesn't count.
A man can carry the financial needs of the family on his shoulders alone, but if he changes fewer than 50% of the diapers, then he's still effectively a deadbeat. This is the attitude they have, and it's why almost all of them are single or divorced or married yet soon to be divorced.
Now, in the real world, almost, again, none of the roles in a family are going to be split 50-50. And any married couple that insists on portioning the responsibilities out that way will become very unhappy very quickly and almost certainly get divorced before long unless they grow up in a hurry because marriages with scorecards fall apart.
And this is true in like 100% of all cases. Lose the scorecard or lose your marriage.
And once you lose the scorecard, you realize that statements like he's doing the bare minimum are often incoherent because he might be contributing minimally in one specific area, but he might be contributing maximally in plenty of other areas. So how does it all average out? Who is doing more when you factor everything together? Well, if you're asking that question about your marriage, you're basically already halfway to divorce court.
And if you're asking that question about somebody else's marriage, you're simply a childish moron. And second point, putting all that aside, no matter who is doing what, no matter who's earning the money, no matter who's feeding the baby at 7 a.m., no matter who's changing the diapers, no matter what, one thing will always be true.

It is good to show gratitude to your spouse.

It is, in fact, necessary to show gratitude to your spouse.

Whether this was the first time Inez's husband ever got up with a baby in the morning or whether he gets up with a baby every morning, we don't know.

But in either case, it is good that she said thank you. Wives should show gratitude to their husbands.
They should show gratitude every day. Husbands should show gratitude to their wives.
They should show gratitude every day. A marriage without gratitude will die.
It can only die. Let's go back to our friend Charlotte's comment again, because I think it's instructive.
She said, we've been divorced for a while at this point, but still every day I feel gratitude that the father of my children loves being a father, and I never once had to thank him for simply participating in parenthood. I never once had to thank him.
She feels gratitude, she claims, but she never once thanked him. Never once.
And now she's divorced, and her children are the victims of a broken home, and she still hasn't put the pieces of this puzzle together. A lack of gratitude lies at the heart of almost every failed marriage.
I mean, you talk to any divorced person, talk to any unhappily married person, and they will almost always say some version of this. I was never appreciated.
She didn't appreciate me. He didn't appreciate me.
And in most cases, while they were busy feeling unappreciated, the other person in the marriage also felt exactly the same way. And keep something else in mind too.
If you're trying to judge how much work your spouse does and therefore how much gratitude you should have for them, which is entirely the wrong attitude, but if you are, remember that you don't see all of it or even most of it. You don't see all or even most of what your spouse is actually doing.
We hear a lot about the so-called emotional labor done by women. We hear this term emotional labor.
And I object to the term labor by definition cannot be done emotionally. Labor is something that you physically do.
But the point of the term is that women carry a lot of stress and a lot of emotional weight, especially if they're the primary caretakers of their children. And that's the emotional labor, so-called.
And I don't doubt that's the case. And it's yet another reason why men should be very grateful for their wives.
But you notice something? We never, ever hear anyone talk about the emotional labor done by men. This subject is never raised, ever.
When's the last time you heard the term emotional labor relating to men? I've never heard it. I've seriously never heard anyone even raise the point.
And that's because the people predisposed to use the term emotional labor, that being women of a feminist persuasion, they just assume that men have no emotional or mental burdens at all. That's really what they think.
They think men are walking around like blank slates in their heads. Just blissfully, you know, on cloud nine all the time.
Now, the fact that men are the majority of suicides should probably tell you otherwise, but they ignore that point because they refuse to acknowledge that men have unseen emotional depths just as women do. In fact, for men, the depths are even more unseen and more unheard and more unacknowledged because they're not acknowledged at all.
And this is especially true of men who are the primary or sole breadwinners in their homes. And again, there are still many more men in that position in our country than there are women by a wide margin.
So if you're a wife dealing with the stresses and burdens of being the primary caretaker, keep in mind that there are also enormous stresses and a huge, boulder-sized burden that your husband carries as the one who is mostly responsible for making sure that the family has a roof to sleep under and food to eat and medical care when they get sick. And if he fails, everyone he loves loses everything.
And this weighs on him every day, every single day, all the time. So if you're looking at your husband and thinking,

oh, he's not worried about anything, I have all the emotional labor, what's happening in his head is he's thinking to himself that if he fails, if he loses his job, if things don't work out for him, everyone he loves loses everything they have. That's actually what's in his head.
And he never forgets it. In fact, your husband might be dealing with an impending catastrophe right now.
He might be working hard to avert disaster at this very moment. There might be a disaster coming that he sees and he's trying to avoid and you don't even know it.
And he might successfully avoid the disaster and never tell you what almost happened. You know, he might be a step away from losing his job, and he's fighting like hell to keep it.
And again, that might be happening, and you don't even know it. He might be walking in that door at night, carrying a stress that is shaving years off of his life.
There's a reason why men die younger than women. He might have a stress on his mind right now that is killing him.
And yet, if you're one of these women in the comments, you look at him and think, he's doing the bare minimum. He's giving everything to his family, and yet you are convinced that he hasn't even done enough to warrant a thank you.
I mean, that is what kills a marriage in both directions. So yes, this may be scandalous for these feminists to hear, but yes, you should thank your husband.

It costs you nothing to show him gratitude. It takes no effort.
Like if you go up to him and give him a kiss and say thank you, just thank you. Thank you for everything he does.
Thank you for supporting the family. It takes 10 seconds of your time.
And what you get in exchange for that bare minimum on your part is a husband who feels appreciated and loved and respected and a marriage that is immeasurably strengthened. And as a bonus, he'll be even more inspired to do even more and help even more in the future.
And the same goes for husbands in the other direction. Like there's no downside here.
No marriage has ever suffered because of excess gratitude. No husband ever regretted being too appreciative of his wife and no wife ever regretted being too appreciative of her husband.
No divorced person ever said, yeah, you know, it just didn't work out. There was just too much gratitude.
We were constantly saying thank you to each other. It destroyed the marriage.
That has never happened. But people who follow the advice of the bitter, angry feminist screaming at Inez for thanking her husband, those people, on the other hand, will end up lonely and miserable.
All of them. Without exception.
Gratitude will definitely not hurt your marriage. A lack of gratitude will definitely kill it.
100% guaranteed. And that is why those bitter, angry feminists in

Inez's replies are, just like their hopes of ever being happily married, canceled.

That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening. Talk to you

tomorrow. Have a great day.
Godspeed.