The Brian Kilmeade Show

Late night bites with friends already hard to beat. That first too hot bite of fries you couldn't wait for, followed by ice-cold Pepsi.

Now that hits different. Suddenly, the energy kicks back in, the night goes longer, and the laughs don't stop. because Pepsi brings out more flavor, more fun, and more of the moment. Food deserves Pepsi. Grab a Pepsi Zero Sugar today.

From high atop. Fox News headquarters in New York City. Always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Killmead. This is the Brian Killmead Show, your humble DC correspondent and Fox and Friends weekend co-host Griff Jenkins filling Brian's shoes.

And for those of you watching us on the stream, I have got in my hands, so I've been Killmead Maxing. When I do the TV show in the radio show, I call it Killmead Maxing. I don't see, he's like some sort of superhuman. I work a lot of hours, but to do this every day, it's remarkable. But I learned the secret is he drinks some fruity drink called the Butterfly Refresher that has boba balls in the bottom of it.

It's from Starbucks, but it's gigantic. I've been working on this for three hours. I'm not even halfway through because it's very sweet and tastes like a pina colada, virgin pina colada. Joining me now, my co-host on the weekend, Charlie Hurt. Did you try this, by the way?

No, no, no. Thank you very much. I've had all the sugar I need in my lifetime. And I don't need any more of that. I really don't know how Brian is not 400 pounds.

I think maybe he is. You think maybe he just wears a girdle to work every day? It's really hard. It looks disgusting. It looks like a Gatorade.

Every sip, it's sweet. Yeah. And it gets sweet. It looks like it goes through varying color changes. And look, it's boba.

Yeah. The bottom is just 100% diabetes. 100%. But somehow it keeps him running like the Energizer Bunny. I know.

The hardest man working man in show business. The guy, it's amazing. And then add on top of that, the amount of caffeine the guy drinks. Yeah. It's incredible.

I don't think, I don't, it's superhuman. And, you know, just the sugar part. I mean, when I get on a train this afternoon to go back to D.C., I'm going to have the hardest sugar crash known to man. Yeah, you're going to need a couple of cold pops to balance that out for you. Hey, so let's talk.

You and I have been talking on the TV show this morning, but, you know, you and I have been talking in private as well about the socialist surge we've seen pop in to mainstream Democratic politics down in Florida. That was the next test. And the socialist train almost got stopped in the House races. Oliver Larkin came up short along with Elijah Manning. But you did see Angie Nixon, a former state representative, that handily.

Yeah. Handily won her race by the 13 points against Colonel Vinman. Yeah. And we got some sound from her last night on that MS Now show. Here's a little bit of what she had to say.

Cut one. Our campaign knew we were going to win because we've been putting in the work and we realize that all across the state of Florida and this nation, people are demanding change. They are tired of the billionaire and corporations running this country. They are ready for hardworking everyday people to get to decide what their economies and communities look like. And so I'm super excited as a community organizer and a union organizer to actually help lead the way here in the state of Florida.

Look like, what is she talking about? I have no idea what she's talking about. One caveat to all of this: Establishment did pick up a couple of wins in Florida, as you mentioned. Jared Moskowitz won handily against his DSA challenge. Also, Debbie Wasserman Schultz beat McCormick, who is under investigation for massive fraud of stealing federal money, COVID money.

And so, those are very good wins for the Establishment Party. But obviously, the big thing is the Vinman's massive, monstrous loss after spending tens and tens of millions of dollars over his opponent. And obviously, she vows to replace Chuck Schumer. It's going to be a massive headache for the establishment. But, you know, we've been talking about this all.

About how we thought that these DSA candidates, the socialist candidates, were only going to be playing in certain parts of the country.

Well, they're playing everywhere, including a ruby red now, ruby-red state like Florida, where you have I think the general is going to be a blowout. It's going to be a 20-point loss. You would think, you would think. I think, you know, from a party standpoint, There's got to be some serious head scratching going on for Democratic leadership because. When you look at the Nixon-Vinman race, right, Vinman was openly backed by Chuck Schumer.

Yeah. The Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer. Whereas you had Elon Omar and Rashida Tlaib were actively campaigning for Dixon. And you know what's really funny about that is that Alex Vinman, who has absolutely no experience whatsoever, has no particular background to sort of launch a campaign on, except that he was part of the Trump impeachment. And he became a heartthrob hero of Democrats who have been afflicted with Trump derangement syndrome.

And so it's so funny to sit there and realize.

So the Democrat establishment put all of their eggs in the basket behind Alex Vinman, and they give him all the money that he needs. And he goes out there. But again, the only reason he has any purchase whatsoever in the Democrat Party is that he was part of one of the failed. Failed impeachments against Donald Trump. And so then this guy gets absolutely smeared by Angie Nixon, despite having all the backing, all the money, everything.

I think there is some sweet poetic justice in watching Vinman lose that badly. Right. And, you know, on the show, TV show this morning, you were making a very good point because you were talking about how when we saw the Republican Party go through a metamorphosis of sorts with the rise of the Tea Party, more populists, more America first, central. Ultimately, it led to giving us Donald Trump. And the Republican Party is in a very different place than it was when you and I first were working in D.C.

in the 90s. Gone are the days of John Boehner and George W. Bush. But, you know, when you see, when you try and compare it to what's happening in the Democrat Party, it's a very different thing. It is obviously populist-led, but you're watching Hakeem Jeffries on the TV the other day going, No, no, no, no, I'm not with the DSA platform.

I don't want Medicare for all. I don't want to abolish entirely ice, but we're a big 10 party. You see really almost a hostile takeover. Yeah. No, it really is interesting to, you know, when we watched the crackup of the Republican Party through the Tea Party 15 years ago, starting 15 years ago, and it ultimately led to Donald Trump because of the deep, profound frustration that voters felt.

They wanted something dramatically different. They wanted something new. And they wound up getting it in the form of Donald Trump. And we always waited for the crackup, that same crackup to hit the Democrat Party because it's not based just on frustration. It's also fueled by social media and the fact that the gatekeepers in the media losing their ability to shape the narrative because everybody has their own Twitter account, their own social media messaging ability that gives all these other people all this power.

They're no longer the gatekeepers. And so when you have that, you have enormous upheaval in politics. And so we've been waiting for this to hit the Democrat Party. And I always believed that when it would hit the Democrat Party, it was going to hit far worse than it hit the sort of stodgy conservative Republican Party. It didn't happen for a long time because Democrats had Barack Obama, and Barack Obama was so good at sort of keeping them together, papering over the differences.

You know, famously, of course, he lost over a thousand seats. Democrats lost over a thousand seats under him, but he was okay, and he kind of kept people together. And then, when he left the stage, you had the big, bad orange man, Donald Trump, who also kind of kept Democrats together, and it kept them from like really going after one another.

Well, now that's kind of bled off a little bit, and now Democrats are left with this idea that, like, we've got to bring people together, and their whole race thing about identity politics is kind of coming apart at the seams. It's no longer working. And so they're really at a loss. They have no like noticeable leader. You know, my belief is that the best leader they have is AOC, and she doesn't know jack about squat, she didn't know anything, and she and she.

comes off and so it's not based on issues it's just kind of they're trying they're grappling for a figure and so I think that this meltdown this crackup in the Democrat Party is it's worse and as you point out it's the the DSA is dragging the party instead of the Tea Party dragging Republicans back towards the sensible constitutional grounds firm grounds the DSA is dragging Democrats over the cliff to the freaking social communism are you kidding me you're so spot on you're so spot on particularly about the Obama stuff but I would argue that it also had something to do with Nancy Pelosi yes she also ruled with Margaret Thatcher and if you look back and remember back in the day we used to talk about the Republican Party was the party of Ronald Reagan I think it's fair to say today that the Democrat Party is the party of Bernie Sanders yeah because remember the DSA had less than 9,000 people across the country they were nobody in 2015 2016 they see Bernie Sanders Gaining in the presidential run. And they were like, I can hook my wagon up to this guy. He's enough like us to get there. And now you are seeing obviously this massive takeover. And I think that the AOCs and the Ilan Omars and Rashida Tlaibs knew they had to wait till the queen, Nancy Pelosi, was out to make their move.

And now they are. This is, I want to get to this because this is fascinating.

So Angie Nixon won. But she made a comment last night that not only are Democrats turning that way, she thinks the whole state of Florida is running to join the socialist utopian bandwagon. Listen to this, cut to. We have actually, it's not about Democrat or Republican or progressive or moderate. What's the movie?

I have been able to get folks who were MPAs and Republicans to change their party affiliation to vote for me in this primary, as well as donate on a campaign and volunteer on a campaign. And that's because I have a proven track record here in the state of Florida of fighting for Floridians as well as delivering. I've been able to get legislation across the finish line that would expand access to early childhood education for low-income and hardworking families. And that is what people care about, policies that help improve their quality of life. She's converting Republicans.

Yeah. Yeah, it's so funny because, you know, you look at the trend of Florida, much like we've talked about with Michigan. It's moved. Donald Trump has moved the state very much from being the ultimate swing state into being a pretty hardcore Republican conservative state. And instead of Democrats moving towards the center or moderating or trying to appeal to the other side, they're going full-blown socialists.

They're going in the exact wrong direction from where you'd think you'd want to go when the state is so dramatically trending in that direction. You know, going back to what you just said, though, about Bernie Sanders, and I think it's a great point. You know, one of the things that puzzles me about Bernie Sanders is that he got screwed over by his party, not twice, not once, not twice, but three times. The party rigged their primaries against him, and yet he still comes back like a little choir boy and tries to participate with their games, which I think is really, really funny. To be such a fighter, the fact that he just takes He takes his lumps like a wimp, it's just kind of amazing to me.

And the other thing, talk about Nancy Pelosi, such an important figure in sort of the grand arc of all this. Remember when we first started covering. Congress. Nancy Pelosi was this crazy left-wing, far-left, San Francisco liberal that every single Republican anywhere in the country could run against her, even if they weren't actually running against her. They would just invoke her name because she was crazy, left-wing, liberal.

The great bladed her victory party. Yeah. And then fast forward to the end, and then she's like the conservative center, like wise old hand of her party. And then when she leaves the stage, obviously the lunatics take. It's such a great point.

Do you have a few minutes? Can I hold you for five more minutes? All right, let's take a break here. You got Charlie Hurd here joining me on the Brian Killmead Show. Griff Jenkins will be right back.

Learning something new every day on the Brian Killmead Show. Nearly home. Isn't home where we all want to be? Reba here for Realtor.com, the pro's number one most trusted app. If you're hearing me, I'm going to assume you're awake.

And if you aren't, Because while you're snoozing, someone else might be finding your dream home. That's where realtor.com comes in. With over 500,000 new real listings straight from the pros every month, that's a lot of chances to find the place you've been dreaming of. Whether you're searching for a two-story mid-century with a pool or a little extra space with a spa-inspired bathroom, Realtor.com can help you find it today.

So quit hitting that snooze button. Realtor.com isn't sleeping on finding your dream home, and neither should you. Download the Realtor.com app today, cause you're nearly home. Make it real with Realtor.com. Pro's number one most trusted app based on August 2024 proprietary survey.

Over 500,000 new listings every month based on average new for-sale and rental listings, February 2024 through January 2025. If you're interested in it, Brian's talking about it. You're with Brian Killmead. And we're interested as well. Griff Jenkins filling in for Brian Killmead today with my weekend.

Fox and Friends co-host Charlie Hurt sitting in with me. Hey, so you know, it's fascinating to have heard all three of these socialist candidates out of Ford. Of course, Angie Nixon won, Oliver Larkin lost, and so did Elijah Manley, your buddy. I had to kind of, well, we had an interesting interview on Sunday. It was interesting.

Here's a little bit of how it went. Listen. Morning. Thank you for joining us. Thank you so much for having me, Grace.

You know, the number one priority for my campaign is: I think that's an unfair way to frame it, Grace. We are still going to enforce immigration laws in our country. This is an unfactional idea. Grace, no amount of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who, of course, was once. The leadership, and now you're part of the pushback.

Thank you, Elijah. Awesome. Thank you, Chris. Ha ha ha ha.

So I close, I mean, I kind of feel insulted that he actually got Martha's name right, because then on Monday he does an interview with Martha.

Well, but and what was funny about that, because I didn't, if I had had a clicker while it was going on, I would have definitely been clicking. But I was laughing hysterically every time he called you. And I couldn't tell whether it was, it sounded like griss, but then later it seemed to kind of switch over to grace. And I was like, how did you get griss? I've never even heard of gris unless he couldn't really see.

And he thought it was G-R-I-S-S, because, of course, it's F-F. And maybe, maybe he just, maybe he's a Cyrillic writer. And so when he saw your name, he thought the F's were constitutional Cyrillic S. That had given him far too much credit. And Eric did such a great job, our producer, and putting that together with the dings.

But you know, this. You and I. We interview people all the time on the weekends, and we are told often that we somewhat sound similar. And if you're a guest that we're interviewing and they're in a remote location, or they don't have the return feed where they're seeing the interview they're participating in, and sometimes they might confuse it. That's one thing.

But like deliberately calling me a girl's name when he knows my name is anytime somebody mistakes me for you, I never correct them. I don't either. You probably do correct them. I don't correct because I want them to think I'm you.

So whatever stupid thing I say, it lands on you. Exactly. Or they'll take me more seriously because they'll be like, oh, it's the smart one. When I don't know about him, I have a hard time imagining. It was either totally intentional and he was trying to play a game with you, which I don't know.

He just didn't strike me as being that bright. No. But he certainly wasn't bright when it came to the facts. Exactly. And so, and so I ended up just thinking that he had maybe just like a reading problem, reading comprehension problem.

He saw the G-R-I-F-F and thought it was something else. I mean, just to give you the full disclosure, to tell the whole story, so Charlie and I are having dinner on Saturday night, the night before, every Saturday night, we kind of have dinner and some fans came up to us and wanted to take a picture and tell us how much they love the show. And it was very wonderful. And at the end, when we were leaving, the husband decided that we needed to drink a tequila shot, which Charlie got out of because he doesn't drink. And Adam Klotz and I were under serious peer pressure.

So I'm like, ah, what the heck? You just do one. At six o'clock going to bed. Never have I been happier that I had quit drinking. Lordy goodness, I had a bit of a slower morning going just by one tequila shot, but I was in no mood.

Elijah Manley's my first guest, and we start off and he's calling me Chris and Grace, and he's giving me some narrative about ICE being thugs, shooting people in the streets. And I was like, I'm not having it. I'm not having any of this. Yeah, that wasn't a tequila shot. That was more like a tequila, like five-finger.

That bartender knew what he was doing because we were there alive. He's like, let me make this guy suffer. But I pushed through. Yes, you do. As always, you're surrounded by the bread.

It was actually easier to drink the tequila than this dragonfly fruity drink that killed me drinks. Charlie Hurt, great as always. Thank you, brother. This is the Brian Killmeat Show. We'll be back.

Thank you, Grace. The perfect lunch combo. That first bite of your favorite sub, followed by ice-cold Pepsi. Add a couple of friends, and now that's next level. Suddenly, the laughs get louder, the stories keep flowing, and the food tastes better.

Because Pepsi brings out more flavor, more fun, and more of the moment. Food deserves Pepsi. Grab a Pepsi Zero Sugar today. Radio that makes you think. This is the Brian Kilmead Show.

This is the Brian Kilmead Show. We do make you think I'm Griff Jenkins filling in for Brian today, living the whole Kilmead experience from TV to radio. Great to be here with you. And what a pleasure to bring in our next guest, one of the smartest people I know, professor of law at George Washington University and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley to talk a little bit about a couple of big cases, starting with Meta, the social media company. Jonathan, thanks for joining us.

Thank you so much, Griff. Good to be with you.

So, you've seen a lot of trials, but you must be as shocked as any as a law professor because this is really a landmark case insofar as. The sort of limits in putting social media companies like Meta on the hook for whether or not they intentionally built an addictive platform. I've got. Children that are in their 20s, two daughters. And as teens, I've described myself as the guinea pig parent set, the first sort of generation of parents that raised kids when everybody had to have a phone.

Everybody had to be on social media. Then those teenagers at the time during COVID got thrust into isolation. And I would submit to you, the addictions only were more intensified.

Now you've got all of these attorney generals trying to hold meta to the fire by basically trying to determine not whether they're protected from content on their platforms, like Section 230 is traditionally protected companies like this, but whether or not the platform itself is harmful and addictive. I want to play one quick soundbite from Russell Coleman, who is the attorney general from Kentucky. This is cut 31. Listen here. What is crystal clear is today in a courtroom, Here in the United States, half of the states in our country represented, over half, represented by their attorneys general, will be sitting in a courtroom across from Meta seeking to hold this company responsible.

When I say Meta, we're talking Facebook and Instagram, responsible for damaging the mental health of a generation of our kids, holding them responsible for monetizing technology that was simply unsafe. Professor, what's your read on this case?

Okay.

Well, Griff, I share your experience. I'm the father of four in the same generation that grew up with the explosion of social media. And there's no question that this was harmful for many kids, and it became obsessive. And yes, it became addictive. But the question is how to define that legally.

I've taught torts for over 30 years, and I think that this may be the most consequential case in my area in my lifetime. it's very hard to see where the lines are drawn here. What the states are claiming to be an addictive platform, others can simply note it's a very popular platform. The line between an addiction and popularity is very hard. The adults and children both like social media because it is a breakthrough technology.

It penetrates society in a way that very few products have done historically. But the question is, is the company liable for that? You know, there's a different question as to has the company taken reasonable steps to protect children from predators and other problems of that kind? That's fair game. That's always been an issue on the Internet.

It's the subject of regulations as well as litigation. But this case goes further and suggests that, well, your whole concept, your whole product could be defective, could be addictive. your algorithms and your scrolling systems.

Well, those are very much part of social media. Those algorithms are largely directing people to content that they likely want to see. It's one of the benefits that some people have in social media. It sort of tailors to your interests. But that obviously can magnify the problem for young people.

You know To that point about such an interesting point about, you know, where is the line drawn on liability? I thought it was interesting. We had, I believe it was yesterday, that a former Instagram employee that has left since left the company raising concerns about what they were seeing. And, you know, you wonder whether there is a question of negligence on Meta's part about did they see things, whether it was unintentional or intentional to be addictive in harming and causing these problems like anxiety and depression. Is there a negligence in this that they refused to see it because of the success and profits they were making?

Well, I think part of the issue here, Griff, when we look at Whether this was an unreasonable response of the company is that you're looking at the product itself, which is So appealing to so many people. And yes, like any product, it can become addictive if people don't impose certain limitations.

Now, the first witness in the trial was a very strong witness to start with. He said, look, I flagged this issue. I said, we need to do a better job. in trying to fence off children here and to protect children. And he said the company was not responsive.

Now that's that's a legitimate issue that looking at what reasonable steps could have been taken. What bothers me about the case is that it strikes me as a challenge to the technology itself, that the reason you have these injuries is because the technology is so popular and so useful. You know, telephones also were popular and useful. Telephones also conveyed things that were harmful to children.

So the question is, how do we separate the technology from these types of supplemental efforts to fence off fence off children. I think the case likely goes too far. I am worried. You know, social media companies are under attack. In Europe, they're under attack by the Digital Services Act, which is a real censorship system imposed by the EU.

They're hitting social media with massive fines that have a real impact on free speech.

Now you've got this attack in the United States. But what is that issue? It's a technology that most of the world wants. And it is so popular that it can become overwhelming for some people. When you hear the comparisons that we've heard since this trial has started, that this is starting to feel like what we saw with the tobacco companies decades ago.

Do you see that? Parallel? Yes, and this is a real dinner gong for plaintiffs' lawyers and for states. They made a huge amount of money on the settlement against big tobacco. And the liability of tobacco, though, I think, is a little different.

So, you know, a lot of states don't want to be the state that doesn't get a chair when the music stops.

So they're all lining up and saying, we want our cut of the social media damages. But the difference between tobacco and this is tobacco had was a discernibly harmful product. It could be physically measured. It causes cancer. And the industry did cover up The research showing that.

Now, there is an allegation that social media sort of covered up some of this, but it's not really of the same, in my view, profile as with the tobacco companies. There's always been a public debate as to whether children should be engaged in social media. But this is definitely following the pattern of the tobacco case, the opiate litigation, and now the social media. This is part of what's called the multi-district. Panel system.

So you had so many lawsuits being brought by states that they were consolidated in one court. And that's why you are facing this massive number of damages that they want. You know, I'm glad you mentioned the opioid litigation because Kentucky's Attorney General Russell Coleman, who I just played, I have another soundbite I want to play for you because he's likening this to opioids. And he's talking about going after other social media companies in addition to Meta. Listen here, Cut 30.

We are going after the addiction machine that is TikTok, the preferred platform for predators that is Roblox or character AI. This is a narcissistic program that hurts our kids. Absolutely. We're going to go. We in law enforcement, Dana, we go to where the threats are.

And social media is the threat to our kids. It's the opioid fight. of our generation. Interesting. Do you agree?

Yeah, it makes me uncomfortable because what they're describing is the product itself. It is the content of the product that is popular. And so they're saying, you know, this is narcissistic and it's people like it too much. Teens go on TikTok. And they do these videos and it obsesses them.

Well, it's the question is where that limitation should be. There's no question that these companies need to move on predators and their presence on social media. That has long been an effort and it's long been the subject of regulation. What some of these comments go to is the fact that Kids love TikTok. They love to do these videos.

And to some extent, some of that regulation is going to happen have to happen on the home level, at the family level, to limit the time of these children. Otherwise, the question is, where does this take us? I mean, if the problem is that kids just can't put down making videos on TikTok, Does that mean you somehow prevent people from making videos on TikTok? I mean, it's a technology that people love. Uh and I just don't see where you draw that line.

Yeah, that's a great point. And, you know, we were the generation of guinea pig parents, and we'll see really what these companies do to help parents navigate that for people that have toddlers right now that will in the coming years be inundated, likely even more so. Can I change gears for just one second? Because I've only got a few minutes, but I do want to get your read. Have you followed the Lindsey Clancy case?

It's very interesting now with the defense starting to call their witnesses and experts. And the lead defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, is so far, from what I've watched, done really quite a remarkable job. Obviously, so that our listeners are clear, if they haven't followed it, this is Lindsay Clancy, who killed her three children. The defense not arguing that she did do it. Rather, they're saying that the frame of mind she was in, this is basically an insanity plea.

What's your read on that? And have you followed it?

Well, this is a very strong insanity plea because of the history that she has. It follows a profile of these postpartum sort of complications that some women have. And it has the same type of elements that we see in past cases, like the terrible Yates case in Texas, where she killed her children. The defense is putting on a very good case here. I think the prosecutors made a couple mistakes, particularly when they asked the mother, who is a devout Catholic, whether murder is a mortal sin.

I think that was a serious mistake, and the court was right to have a sidebar and then had the question removed. Uh so It's a very interesting case. I think that defense is doing a very good job here. Part of the issue here is that. When you have a mother that kills her children, most of us believe that there is obviously something seriously mentally wrong with that person.

It goes against every ounce that a parent has in their system to overcome in order to commit that heinous act. And so there is a presumption that there's something here. The question is whether that level of mental illness Reaches the point that you don't know the difference between right and wrong, that you're no longer able to control your conduct. That's what the prosecution is going to emphasize. That's what they were trying to get at with the mortal sin thing, saying, you know, yeah, maybe you have serious emotional issues.

But this is still you were you were taught this is a mortal sin.

So clearly you knew it was right or wrong. But it was it was a bad choice of a question. Yeah, I don't think that one landed the way the prosecution thought it would. It was interesting. This morning, Chanley Painter, our anchor and reporter up there outside the courtroom, caught Kevin Reddington going into the courthouse.

He talked about what he's going to do today. And then she asked him about the mortal sin question. And he said, I don't want to criticize anybody else's style. You know, I'll just let people do their own style. But there was perhaps a bit of a look in his eye that he knew a prosecution screwed up there.

Jonathan Turley, always great insight from you, my friend. Thanks for joining us. Great pleasure, Griff. Thank you for having me on. All right.

This is Griff Jenkins on the Brian Kilmead Show with a whole lot more coming. Diving deep into today's top stories, it's Brian Kilmead. The perfect lunch combo. That first bite of your favorite sub, followed by ice-cold Pepsi. Add a couple of friends, and now that's next level.

Suddenly, the laughs get louder, the stories keep flowing, and the food tastes better. because Pepsi brings out more flavor, more fun, and more of the moment. Food deserves Pepsi. Grab a Pepsi Zero Sugar today. Breaking news, unique opinions.

Hear it all on the Brian Kill Me Show. This is the Brian Kilniette Show, your humble DC correspondent Griff Jenkins, and weekend Foxy Friends co-host filling in for Brian today. Brian has the day off. I just want to, and you know, in our business, you try to give perspective and context and draw upon personal experience, but you try sometimes not to do too much of it. But this issue with meta in social media, as I was just talking with Professor Jonathan Turley, he obviously also understands well as a parent who went through this.

And my two children in their 20s now are girls. Both of them were teen girls. And we watched, and in full disclosure, fortunately, we didn't have any of these horrible repercussions, but we did see as parents, my wife and I, certainly the negative impacts it has and the addiction. And I thought it was very interesting when California's Attorney General Rob Bonta went into. Talking about how he saw, he has heard from whistleblowers that knew the impact he was having, particularly on teen girls.

Listen to this, cut 29. Between our investigation and disclosures from former insiders, whistleblowers, folks who used to work at Meta. We have proof that META knows META knows That Instagram is harmful to a significant percentage of teenagers, especially. Teen girls. Meta knows that.

Meta knows that more than thirteen percent of teen girls on Instagram. say the platform Makes thoughts of suicide and self-injury. Worse. Meta knows that. They know that seventy percent 17% say it makes eating issues.

worse. And thirty two percent say it makes body images worse. It's just unbelievable. And I can't wait to learn all of that information, which is why you get down to this fundamental, these fundamental questions, actually. One is what did they know?

And did they look the other way for whatever motivation, profit, popularity, or otherwise? And also, the real question that I think is at the core of this case, which is whether or not these platforms are intentionally And harmfully addictive. That's not been answered or even put directly on trial in some of the previous cases where we've seen these social media cases lose, by the way, over 500 million in New Mexico and a smaller one out in Los Angeles last year. But The question about whether or not they're intentionally addictive, harmfully addictive. Leads also to the point about parents, which is what else can the companies do?

Could bans or restrictions actually stop these kids? I'm afraid the hope that it will be is not great if you look at what Australia, the first country in the world, Australia, months ago launched a 16 and under ban on the top 10 leading platforms, not just Instagram and Facebook, but also Snapchat, TikTok, and the like. What happened to that? They have found so far 80%, 8 out of 10 kids found a workaround. And that doesn't bode well.

Parents are in a real fight here. I'm Griff Jenkins on the Brian Kilmead Show. The Perfect Lunch Combo. That first bite of your favorite sub, followed by ice-cold Pepsi. Add a couple of friends, and now that's next level.

Suddenly, the laughs get louder, the stories keep flowing, and the food tastes better. Because Pepsi brings out more flavor, more fun, and more of the moment. Food deserves Pepsi. Grab a Pepsi Zero Sugar today. From the Fox News.

Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan. It's the fastest growing radio talk show. Brian Kilmead. Not Brian Killmead today, but this is the great Brian Killmead show, your humble DC correspondent and Fox and Friends Weekend co-host Griff Jenkins, pinch hitting for Brian today, who has a day off. And I've been getting the full Killmead experience.

I call it Kill Mead Maxing when you do a TV show for three hours and a radio show for three hours. And man, what fun it is, but I don't see how he does it. You know, one of the things he is often talked about and followed closely, as is the country, and not particularly supporting it, looking at the polls, is the war in Iran. You know, for many Americans, it's starting to feel like a little bit of a sort of groundhog day effect, where we really haven't seen which direction it's going to go. We do know one thing is certain, and that is the leaders of Iran are sort of trying to buy time, watching what we're doing.

Here in America, they believe that the longer they draw this out, that they could in some way create domestic pressure for President Trump to end the war because of the midterms coming out. In fairness, President Trump has made it pretty clear on multiple occasions that he is not going to be bound by political pressure, whether it's midterms or otherwise. And General Jack Keen, a Fox contributor who is often weighing in on these things with great insight, is talking about the Wall Street Journal article that we have all read and shocked to see about Iran possibly having a secret plan to escalate the war here. Is what General Keene said. Cut 20, listen.

I take that article at face value because I sense myself as we get closer to the midterms, and they do focus on what's happening in the United States like a laser beam, to be frank about it. They paid lots of attention to it because they fundamentally understand war is about a test of wills and they want to weaken. The administration in terms of the political support and resolve of the American people here.

So if they can demonstrate as we get closer to the midterms that the war isn't being managed properly because Iran is taking offensive action, Then they believe, in their minds, there's a good chance that the Democrats will take control and maybe stop funding the war. That was General Jack Keene. We're lucky now to have another very insightful former retired Navy Vice Admiral Robert Harward joining us now. Vice Admiral, thank you for joining us. You just heard your colleague, General Keene, talking about Iran's plan, what they intend to do.

We did see in the last 24 hours Iran striking a couple of missile strikes on the UAE. What's your read on it, sir? We got Mexican standoff here. The President's convinced with the economic pressure he's putting on our ability to move oil while limited through the Straits and continue to move commerce, he thinks he's in the position of strength. The Iranians are focused on the midterms, as Jean-Waqin so eloquently stated, but The president's go way through that.

He believes the pressure he's putting on Iran has a bigger impact on them internally.

So that's where we are in this Mexican standoff. And as the article indicated, Iran may be preparing to do some mass casualty events, something that can help influence the elections. But the President sees that as additional opportunities to eliminate any of their offensive power. And we know we've taken out that dramatically. Eighty-ninclair percent of it has been eradicated.

So they've got to be able to. Hit a boat every now and then, hit a target, show they still have some power and something to support their position, be it in negotiations. I think the president's passed negotiations, and it's just capitulation at this point. It's a great. Insight Vice Admiral.

And we have seen that Iran can actually hit some targets. We just lost two service members when they struck Muafak Air Base in Jordan. But A couple of questions for you here. One, Uh is do you believe that if this is the secret plan to escalate is actually forthcoming, can they do it without really getting the Houthis and Hezbollah and their proxies fully engaged in it?

Well, I think you've highlighted the dilemma Iran is in right now. Look, Hezbollah is under incredible pressure. They're losing funding because Iran doesn't have any money left anymore. The government of Lebanon is negotiating with Israel to try to disarm Hezbollah. The Houthis are coming under attack because many have weighed in with the Saudis and will support them should the Houthis continue to challenge the Bab al-Mendett.

So you're seeing across the board Iran, its surrogates, its ability to project power being eradicated. And I believe at the end of the day, that's the end state the president's looking for. It's not just opening commerce through the straits. It's not just about eradicating their nuclear program, but it's ensuring they cannot support those circuits. They cannot launch missiles and drones.

So you're slowly seeing all of that taking off the table, backed by this financial strangulation of Iran. And you'll see more and more political power brought to bear here. Can we get partner nations such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Turkey to help shut down borders? Can we shut down their airspace? There's a lot of steps still that the president could pull, and I think it's going in the right direction at this.

And I support his strategy. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here when I talk about this, but it can't not be talked about, which is the fact that Iran has is is currently doing what they have consistently done for decades with their tactics.

So are we to be surprised that this is how they're behaving now? No, not at all. It's been very consistent. And have you said throughout their history? What's different is you have a president who is willing to hit them, a president who now gave them an off-ramp, and they didn't take it.

And they never would because it's an existential threat to them.

So I think the state of the game is completely different. The table's been turned where time was always on Iran's behalf.

Now time is a real enemy to them. They've got to get their commerce back on step. And over the long term, this is really what's going to change the internal dynamics of Iran. And everyone recognizes that. At the end of the day, if there's not a government in Iran who renounces the policies and programs they've had for the last four decades, then you're not going to have an enduring solution.

Everyone recognizes that. This strategy that the president using whole of government, be it diplomatic, be it financial, military pressure to force them. Them and the regime into a position where they face an existential threat, not only externally, but internally, is a sound strategy. And I think it's moving with the speed of relevancy that Iran has to respond to now, not the U.S. And when you talk about an existential threat, certainly economically, Iran has never faced anything like this.

As you point out, President Trump is the first president, mind you, in an election year that had the guts and the backbone to actually take them on and. While we're trying to figure out what happens militarily, you're spot on because Operation Epic Fury is the military operation that began, but Operation Economic Fury that Secretary Besson and others are bringing is strangling economically that country. But you also give President Trump some credit for he has consistently made it very clear, even if the Iranians are hard of hearing on the messaging about the denuclearization. And he just again, excuse me, I believe it was on Monday, talked a little bit about his main goal here. This is cut 19.

Listen to this, Admiral. Are you any closer today to reaching a final deal to end Iraq's nuclear post-war?

Well, they want to make a deal, but they're not going to make the kind of a deal that I feel is necessary. Look, we're in there for one reason. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. You understand that. I red cannot have a nuclear weapon, and they won't have a nuclear weapon.

And that goal, that central issue, straight affords set aside for a moment, that stands to benefit not only the U. S. security, but also and particularly all of the Gulf allies around there. Your thoughts. It's beyond that.

It's not just the goal. This is important to everyone for two very strategic reasons. First and foremost, the evil empire. Iran somewhat is a surrogate of China and Russia. 90% of Iran's oil that they're able to get out in the market, and thank goodness now they're unable to do that, went to China.

It was a great support of So you're f uh of China and their financial objectives, their need for energy.

So one, you're battling that. You're you're battling the the The evil empires and for. And if you're able to take Iran, a country of $95 million and bring them into the global economy, bring them into commercialization, bring them into the markets, you change the dynamics for everyone. And then, second, the Israeli revolution and what they've done with their ideology to destroy the region, vis-a-vis Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen. That with footholds throughout Europe.

So the president knows on both of those levels how important this is and what the stakes at play is. And I think he has a strategy now to achieve those objectives. We've just got to let it play out. And again, Iran has very few options left on the table right now. They can do a few strikes.

They can try to continue to support their surrogates, but both those are unable to sustain them. without the resources they've had the last four or five decades. And that's why this strategy is so impactful. And I'm sure will meet those objectives top of the list of, as you said, the nuclear program. They will not be able to constitute it at the end of the day.

We will get control of that material. There's no doubt about it on those objectives. And that will be unbelievably history-making in and of itself. I want to, one last thing, Vice Admiral, because you're so great on this stuff, such good. Insight.

There was one moment that this week sort of, I guess, gave us a bit of a pause saying, what's that about? And it was when President Trump was talking about he would bomb the S out of Oman, threatening actually Oman. One of your fellow admirals, Mark Montgomery, reacting to that on America's newsroom. Listen to this. I want to get your reaction.

Cut 24. The two countries can speak to each other. They should not make some kind of deal where they control the Strait of Hormuz or they toll it. I'm not sure Oman is attempting to do that. Oman is a long-term ally or partner of the United States.

I think that they've been helpful for us in creating a southern transit, a very southern transit scheme through their waters over the last four months. But the president, I think his warning was overdone, but the president was attempting to remind them that they should adhere to international law when having any discussions with. Iran.

So obviously, we don't want Oman to make a bilateral direct deal with Iran. President may be reminding Oman of their strongest ally being the U.S. But real quick, what's your read on it? I think Mark and you've got it about right. Look.

This is important to everyone, and this is going to come down to that political power. We don't want anyone supporting Iran or taking their position. It's counter to our position.

So I think the president was just reinforcing that with Aman. You're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem. You can't be both.

So let's stay tied together. Let's speak with one voice and let's solve this problem for the long haul, not just for Oman, but for UAE, for Saudi, for Qatar, for Bahrain, and everyone else in the region and beyond.

So I think that's exactly what the president was talking about. I think market the point right on. And to add to that, on the back end of that, would be perhaps an expansion of the Abraham Accords. And that would certainly be, I think, legacy defining for President Trump. Vice Admiral Robert Harward, great insight.

Thank you for joining us on the Brian Kilmead Show. As always, we love having you. Thanks. Good to be with you.

Thank you. And this is the Brian Kilmead show: Griff Jenkins filling in for Brian. Don't go anywhere. From breaking news to big name guests, Brian brings you insight you won't hear anywhere else. You're listening to the Brian Kill Me Show.

The Perfect Lunch Combo. That first bite of your favorite sub, followed by ice-cold Pepsi. Add a couple of friends, and now that's next level. Suddenly, the laughs get louder, the stories keep flowing, and the food tastes better. because Pepsi brings out more flavor, more fun, and more of the moment.

Food deserves Pepsi. Grab a Pepsi Zero Sugar today. The fastest three hours in radio. You're with Brian Kilmead. Fast it is the Brian Kilmead show, Griff Jenkins filling in.

And as I often talk about, I'm your humble DC correspondent, and now we can co-host on Fox and Friends. But, you know, there's a story that I really wanted to put an exclamation point on as a correspondent because another correspondent who for some two decades was a pretty well-respected correspondent at ABC News. He was even the chief White House correspondent at one point for ABC News. That is Terry Moran. And we keep learning more and more about Fauci and the fact that he was writing one thing in his diaries and telling the country an entirely opposite thing when it came to the vaccines, the mask, and of course, the origins of COVID and whether or not there was a lab league.

Terry Moran going on a podcast. Called The Fifth Column. And he talked about actually when he was at ABC surrounding the issue of COVID and the lab league story, and Anthony Fauci felt the heavy hand of censorship. Cut 41. The one time that I did feel the heavy hand of censorship in my work at ABC News.

Early in 2021. Maybe January, February. I'm seeing online and elsewhere people that I thought were smart and serious, Jamie Menzel mostly, saying, and others, maybe this leaked from the lab. And I was like, well, that's interesting.

So I went to Nightline and I said, hey, you know, I'd like to do a story. And they were like, great, yeah, let's do it. And we kind of laid it out. The day that it's supposed to air, it gets reviewed and it comes back to me and it is incomprehensible. And I had never been angrier.

I'm in the booth. Booth lawyers? Lawyers' standards. And I was told, Fauci, I'm cursing and screaming in the booth. And this is day of.

Day of air. and I'm just absolutely livid beside myself. And when he said he was heard Fauci, that would intimate that possibly producers showed the script directly to Fauci, which is not done in any newsroom, let alone a premier main network. Real quick, let us not forget also the absolute scorn and disparaging that came to those in the early days that were even suggesting should we explore the lab leak. Terry Moran also on that cut 42.

There was an organized campaign by one of the guys who was funding the research, what was his name, DAZAC or whatever, to get scientists to sign on and say, there's no way there's a lab leak and anybody who says that this came from the lab is participating in racism or something. And that really silenced. I mean, our standards, ABC News' standards people, took that absolutely to heart.

So, to be clear, when we talk about Fauci, Moran went on to say he doesn't know directly. That the ABC producers gave the script to Fauci, who then in turn corrected it.

Somebody did. And it suggests, though, that there was some involvement with Fauci.

So here's how this business works. If I am doing an investigation about Fauci or the White House or whatever, we will often as correspondents send an email, whatever, talk to him and say, hey, this person in our story said this quote about you. We would like to have your view, your side of the story. Would you like to weigh in? That's called fair journalism.

But to show a script. To Fauci, who would then completely rework it to play down the lab leak is something unheard of. Every day we seem to learn something new that doesn't entrust us with our public officials when it comes to the next pandemic. I'm Griff Jenkins on the Brian Kilmead Show. The talk show that's getting you talking.

You're with Brian Kilmead. Oh, we're going to get talking all right, and we're going to talk about something you probably didn't think you were going to talk about. This is Griff Jenkins on the Great Brian Kilmead Show. And joining us now is a good friend and a real smart guy, editor of National Review, Rich Lowry. And Rich, before I give away the tease there about what our listeners are about to learn about, there's occasionally some unusual comments that come from President Trump.

It is very frequent, near daily moments when he addresses the press and takes questions at photo ops or in the Oval Office. One thing I did not have on my bingo card was this. Listen. I said, would you like to give us a little hand? We don't need help with a rent, but if you'd like, give us a hand with.

Iran, he said, no thanks. And they said, Where do we have? We have 39,000 soldiers over there guarding you from Kim Jong-un. Your next door neighbor? and you're not going to help us on a very easy military operation in Iran.

That's strange. No, no, we'd rather not get involved. And now it looks like the decades-long joint military operations we do with South Korea, one of our undeniable allies, that to what I I think I understand history correct, and my late father was a Marine in the Korean War.

South Korea owes us its entire existence to us. I mean, we we our own peril, we we gave that country its independence and protected it. But now what's going on with President Trump? Why is he blowing this up with South Korea?

Well, he's very unhappy, as he made it clear in the White House there about the South Koreans not helping at all with the Iran war. Not much the South Koreans can do to help in the Iran war, but they have missile interceptors. They could get to the Gulf states. They could maybe send a destroyer for a while to the Strait of Hormuz. There are other kind of symbolic things they could do.

And if I were the South Koreans, I would have done something like that just to avoid this kind of reaction. And they've actually chipped into most of our major military operations since the Vietnam War. And they chipped in a huge way in the Vietnam War. But the domestic politics is against it in South Korea. And they do have a bigger problem just north of their DMZ there.

So I would prefer if these kind of things were worked out in private, but that's not Trump's, that's not his MO. If he's upset with you, we're going to learn about Truth Social when he talks to reporters. Yeah, and you wrote a column, by the way, and this is why I got interested in it because I read your column in National Review about South Korea. Korea, the title Trump's South Korea Snub says strife with an ally again. And the again part is the perfect headline.

And here, President Trump is creating problems that I think we often call these things self-inflicted.

Now, we've long known that he does like this, you know, personality diplomatic approach, and he respects people of power, strongmen, if you will. But, you know, look, Kim Jong-un is not as charming as Seth Rogan made him out to be in that movie, The Interview, by any stretch of the means. In fact, by the way, if you go back to that 2014, I believe it was, movie with James Franco and Seth Rogan, where they're going to go do an interview and then it turns into the CIA making him kill him. North Korea got so pissed about it, they called it an act of war, and I believe. They thought there was a cyber attack directed at Sony, which made the movie.

Like, you know, this is not while we can joke about Kim Jong-un and a movie like that, like, you know, this is ruffling feathers. What is the saying? Leave a sleeping dog lie? Yeah, so so Trump is just weirdly enamored with this this guy who I I don't see the charm of him whatsoever.

Now, of course, like most rational people, I've never met him and hope never to meet him. But he he loves the idea of personal Diplomacy, but we got nothing the first time around except for a very dramatic meeting and some photo ops, and we would get nothing a second time around. And Kim Junglins made that very clear. You know, he said we have to give up our obsession with their nuclear program if negotiations are going to start, which we shouldn't do.

So sometimes there's a method to the madness to how Trump goes about this. He has rung more spending out of NATO countries, which I think is great because he's been so public in his criticisms. But sometimes the method is totally lost on me, and this is one of them.

Well, and so, you know, we did have, as you wrote about in your piece, we just had Defense Secretary Pete Exeth go over to South Korea last year talking about our alliance has never been stronger. Does this create a problem or is this quickly moved on from? I think it's probably quickly moved on from now. He said he ordered Hexeth to downgrade this joint exercise, which we've done literally for decades, joint military exercise with the South Koreans. It's not even clear.

whether that's going to happen or or how much it will be downgraded if we do downgrade it, I imagine this will be papered over and we'll move to to something else.

South Korea is hugely important. ally. They need us, you know, and they're helpful to us as well.

So I think that this this one is something hopefully will be forgotten two weeks from now. You know, I wanna, what's not gonna get forgotten about for two weeks, and obviously, this all, this flub up came out because of our asking South Korea. With respect to Iran, and you are a smart guy that understands these things and follows it, you know, I was just speaking in another segment with Vice Admiral Robert Harward, and he said, you know, I said, you know, does it feel like, and I think most of the American people feel that with respect to the war in Iran, that we're in like a groundhog day, he described it as a Mexican standoff. And it's not really going anywhere. It's pretty clear.

And the Wall Street Journal recently wrote about this secret, Iran has a secret plan to escalate, actually, particularly ahead of the midterms. The last 24 hours, we've seen Iran strike the UAE with missiles. That's not particularly out of the ordinary because we've been seeing this sporadically happen. But, you know, when we talk about the sort of, how do you describe where we are here? Because it is certainly this talks that's going to lead to threats.

It's going to lead to maybe a deal that goes back to missiles. And I think by and large, the American people are getting frustrated with it. What's your read on where we are? Yeah, I think Mexican standoff is pretty good. It's it's extraordinary that they're hitting Gulf states and hitting tankers and the straight up from moose, and we're now not hitting them back.

Now we have the blockade, and our calculation is whatever the pain they can impose For us, to us through disrupting the strait, you know, and gas prices are still elevated. I I I rarely see in my part of the world gas below $4 a gallon, you know, it's about a dollar higher than it was. That that that hurts, but we can hurt them more with the blockade. And we can hurt them more with the blockade. But the problem is they don't run in elections, right?

And they're fanatics, so they're willing to endure the pain.

So I would think certainly they're not going to give us anything before November, because they they want to hurt Trump in the elections and they hope the elections neuter them, neuter him. I think even if the elections go very badly, he's still going to be president of the United States and have a very free hand in foreign policy.

So that that they may be overplaying their hand in that regard. But we're not hitting them back because Trump doesn't want to escalate, doesn't want to go back to intense exchange of arms. And we do have this real issue of having depleted some of our stocks of important advanced missiles.

So we're going to sit on them with the blockade and hope something shakes loose. But nothing's going to shake loose soon. And the IRGC leaders, particularly General Ahmad Vahidi, who I've talked a lot about, because you know, you have to realize the history here. And when Ali Khamenei was the supreme leader, who we have now since killed, when he took over in the 90s, he literally started the Kudz Force. We hear so much: the fierce fighters, but the Quds Force's mission was twofold.

It was not only a security apparatus, but they were the ones to be the exporters of terrorism and to go out and stand up, Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, things like that. And the very first commander of the Kudz Force was a younger General Ahmad Vahidi. He then was replaced with Qasem Soleimani, who we also killed, President Trump killed in the first administration, and he was well known for that. But the guy that stood up the coups force was Vahidi, and now he is back in charge of the IRGC. And I make that point to illustrate the fact that we should not be surprised, I don't think, by any stretch of the means that not only are they following the same pattern of behavior, but also that they are not going to stop at anything.

Their will, to be fair, is pretty ironclad, and they're willing to take an enormous amount of pain.

So, you know, even if. President Trump continues to push this beyond the midterms. What hope do we have that we can break this Iranian will as we continue to inflict more pain, certainly as we watch today economically? That's very difficult.

Now, when an adversary has a fanatical will, and we are waging a total war against them, like the Nazis or Imperial. Japan, it matters that they have that will, but eventually we'll just crush them, right? And here the problem is we're not going to invade Tehran, right? Which we we we could win a war i in theory in in a week. We wanted to and we had the the political will, but we don't, right?

So it's a limited war. And when you get in a limited war against an enemy with fanatical will, that's where you get an asymmetrical advantage. In favor of the other side. We thought in the Korean War to some extent, aforementioned Korean war, I mean the amount of punishment that the North Koreans and the Chinese were willing to absorb in that conflict was unbelievable. Same thing with the North Vietnamese and the Vietnam War, and same thing here, right?

So we wouldn't be able to absorb for a week the kind of economic pain that they've sustained or the blows, military blows that they sustained, or losing the top hierarchy of their leadership in these targeted strikes. But they don't think the way we do, right? They're different. They are true religious fanatics, and it's hard to see just more economic pain getting the job done. Again, at least not in short order.

And, you know, you make a good point, Rich, about we're not invading Tehran anytime soon. Look, I was embedded with Lieutenant Colonel Ellen North during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. We went in to topple a regime, regime change, and ultimately we got lost in nation building. And the Colonel and I were there in 2003, 4, 5, 6, 7. I even went back in 2016 with him as well.

And this is different. But, you know, when President Trump continues to make statements like the one I'm about to play you about his primary fundamental goal of denuclearization, I have a question for you. Here's what he said in the Oval Office. This is cut 19. Listen to here.

Are you any closer today to reaching a final deal to end Iraq?

Well, they want to make a deal, but they're not going to make the kind of a deal that I feel is necessary. Look, we're in there for one reason. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. You understand that. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and they won't have a nuclear weapon.

And I applaud him for being the first president in history willing to stand up militarily to Iran, particularly in an election year, well knowing the difficulties he would face. But when he continues to make this goal, which is a goal that is a victory for the world, not just the U.S. and Israel and the Gulf states, for the world, you wonder, to your point, about invading Tehran, can you actually accomplish that goal without putting boots on the ground in some capacity? Certainly if it comes to having to go in and physically take centrifuges and materials out of places like Pickaxe Mountain. It is my belief that what fundamentally what's happened in terms of denuclearizing Iran has already happened.

It happened through Midnight Hammer. It happened through this military campaign. They're not enriching anymore. The first time in decades, they're not enriching. And if they decided they're going to enrich it again tomorrow, they have a very hard time doing it.

I think it would take them years to stand it up again. That's the accomplishment. I don't think we're getting anything from them in terms of negotiations on the nuclear deal. Certainly, nothing worth having.

So I think the war now is just basically over the Strait of Hormuz. Will Iran continue to control it? Will it get opened up again? Et cetera. There could eventually be a deal over that, but I don't think we're getting any agreement to rip up their stuff and give it to us or have inspectors or any of that.

So I think whatever's been accomplished has been accomplished militarily, and now it's a fight over the strait. Last question, and that is: you can bet that Oman isn't going to be cutting a deal over. Over the strait with Iran. President Trump quickly tried to bring that back in line. Your quick thoughts on that?

Yeah, it's, you know, again, methods and madness sometimes, sometimes not. Kind of extraordinary that he threatened to bomb Oman, our ally, but, you know, have been talking to the Iranians about the straight of her moves, what the arrangement will be.

So if we're not going to take the straight doc militarily, it may be the best that you can have is some sort of arrangement between Iran and Oman about how it's going to work. That would not be my ideal solution, but in that scenario, they're part of the solution.

So maybe you jawbone them, but you don't want to bomb them. No, and that was a jawbone indeed. Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, longtime friend of this program and a friend of mine as well. Rich, great insight. Thanks, buddy.

Awesome. Thanks, Griff. All right. You listen to the Brian Kilmead Show. I'm Griff Jenkins.

Don't go anywhere. Coming to you on a need-to-know basis because, man, do you need to know? It's Brian Kilmead. Uh He's so busy, he'll make your head spin. It's Brian Killmead.

That ain't no lie. He is busy doing three hours of TV, three hours of radio, but I am so honored to be in for him. This is Griff Jenkins on the Brian Kilmead Show. You know, I travel to New York every weekend to do Fox and Friends weekend, and I don't keep a diary. Like Anthony Fauci did.

But if I did keep a diary, I would make notes about my travels to New York. And for instance, I would say things like, had to go to CVS near work and get some more toothpaste, had to wait five minutes for them to open up the locked box because of the crime here. I also would put in an entry: listen to Crazy Woman talking about something today. Actually, learned she's actually part of the local government. Listen here, cut 13.

Most of what we saw were crimes of poverty, people who were stealing things like. Toothpaste. People who are stealing things. like you know uh soap And that means if you're stealing those things. you need that.

And we are choosing to Pretend. Billion dollars companies like CBS and Walgreens Over. the people who are are struggling to get by. There are people who can be thrown in jail simply for having a biological need. A biological need.

So that is Emily Gallagher, a current member of the New York Assembly, the same place where, not the same seat, but same government local body that Zoron Mom Donnie was in before he was the mayor of New York City, suggesting that shoplifting is okay. And the last time I looked, while we feel, and I am Catholic, compassion towards the poor. Poverty is not a permission slip. to steal. And when Emily Gallagher says stuff like this, and then on the back end of allowing shoplifting, encouraging it if you're poor, she backs it up with blasting CVS and Walgreens as billionaires making poor people suffer.

That creates class warfare. Class warfare, and by the way, she is a democratic socialist, no surprise there. But this intentional creation of class warfare is not what this country needs. And it's not what the Bronx, where she is, needs, or New York, or any other city in America. And the fact that you have an elected official.

Excusing. really permissing. Shoplifting is beyond me. I just can't put my mind around it. I'm Griff Jenkins, and this is the Brian Killmead Show.

From high atop. Fox News headquarters in New York City. Always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Kilmead. This is the great Brian Kilmead show.

I'm Griff Jenkins, your humble DC correspondent and Fox and Friends Weekend co-host, filling in for Brian today, who has the day off. And it's really been all eyes on the sunshine state. A couple of primaries, three states had primaries yesterday, but everybody was watching Florida because there was not one, not two, but three socialist candidates running down there. And many people wondered whether or not the socialist dream of a communist utopia would be shared by Floridians. Turns out it wasn't totally shut down because in the Senate race, you had Angie Nixon, a democratic socialist that wants Medicare for all, abolishing ICE, and the whole litany of list of crazy progressive positions that we have gone through.

She won last night. And not only did she win, she. Makes the case that she converted even Republicans to come to her side. Here is a little bit of her after her victory cut two. We have actually, it's not about Democrat or Republican or progressive or moderate.

I have been able to get folks who were MPAs and Republicans to change their party affiliation to vote for me in this primary, as well as donate on a campaign and volunteer on a campaign. And that's because I have a proven track record here in the state of Florida of fighting for Floridians as well as delivering. I've been able to get legislation across the finish line that would expand access to early childhood education for low-income and hard-working families. And that is what people care about: policies that help improve their quality of life. And the record shows Nixon defeated Colonel Alex Venman, who you remember of Trump impeachment fame by more than 12 points.

Nobody better, I mean bar none, nobody better to weigh in and size up what the election results tell us today than my friend Carl Rove. Carl, thanks for joining us. Kind of a shocker that one of the three socialists won. What's your read in your top line today? Yeah, well, first of all, thanks for having me.

And where is Kill Meet? What luxurious resort is he at? But first, look, I want to apologize. I really want to apologize. For years, I have mangled your first name.

I kept calling you Griff. I had no idea your first name is actually Grace.

Okay.

Now, that's odd. All the Graces I know are girls. But you know what? Since your choice, Grace. Yeah.

Grace Jenkins. Oh, Carl, you are the best.

So what for our listeners who aren't familiar, I interviewed on Sunday one of those socialists, Elijah Manley, who was defeated by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. We had him on the show, and I get into this discussion. He launches off on this protester narrative about ICE shooting people in the streets. And I set him straight with some facts. But literally, Eric here on the show put together a clip.

I couldn't get the guy to get my name straight. Here, listen to this, Carl. This is what you're referring to. Morning. Thank you for joining us.

Thank you so much for having me, Grace. You know, the number one priority for my campaign is, I think that's an unfair way to frame it, Grace. We are still going to enforce immigration laws in our country. This is an unfaction. Grace, no amount of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who, of course, was once in the leadership.

Now you're part of the pushback. Thank you, Elijah. Awesome. Thank you, Grace. I don't know if the guy couldn't get your name straight, why should we think he could get any fact straight?

I mean, it was hilarious, it was unbelievable. Yeah. Unbelievable. Thanks for watching. All right.

So let's get your takeaway. I mean, I got to believe. That The fact that he will now run against incumbent Senator Ashley Moody, who has a track record, but not only does she have these crazy policies, you have such a large number of voters who are who have escaped places like Cuba and Venezuela and Nicaragua that have real-life, actual traumatic experiences with socialism, as well as in some southern Florida pockets, certainly a heavy Jewish population, which have got to be nothing short of alarmed by the aggressive way that these Democratic socialists have embraced anti-Semitism. But what's your take?

Well, first of all, I want to know who the genius was inside Senator Ashley Moody's campaign that helped foster this outcome because it changed her race from being mildly interesting to being completely dead and over. And then the nomination, I think you're absolutely right, the nomination of an avowed, openly practicing democratic socialist in a state where you have Cubanos and Venezuelans and Nicaraguans and lots of people, as you point out, who've had an experience in their lifetime and in their family with the effect of socialism is a big negative. And you would add on top of that the anti-Semitism of the DSA and their DSA adjacent candidates. And this is a, you know, this is. The state is trending red.

I mean, it was not too long ago that for the first time in its history, it had more registered Republicans than Democrats.

Now, the gap between the two is huge, and I think is only going to get bigger this year. And it's going to be a little bit difficult for the Democrats because they have a gubernatorial candidate who's a former Republican and more of a centrist. And now they have above him on the ballot a Democratic socialist as their Senate candidate, who A, is not going to raise that much money, and B, is not going to step away from her leftist views. She may try and paper it over by saying, as she did in that clip you had from her, that she has a proven record of delivering and she claims to have converted. I'd love to see those Republicans step forward and say, I was a Republican who's now supporting the Democratic Socialist.

I think that's a little bit of myth-making there. She at least recognizes it's a problem. Yeah, who is that? And you're spot on. I mean, I just don't see how Ashley Moody loses, but I do think.

And this is what I want to get your take on. There was a painful reality, I think, for Democratic leadership because, remember, when you look at the math, over $16 million that Vinman, Colonel Alex Vinman, brought into the race compared to Nixon had like $975,000 and she still won by 12 points. But also, the endorsements, Chuck Schumer was all in on Venman. That was his candidate. While you had Omar, Ilan Omar, and Rashida Talib backing Nixon.

Is there some real Monday morning quarterbacking for the Democrat establishment? People like Schumer, people like Hakeem Jeffries, saying there's something here we need to worry about. Yeah, look, and I was looking at it from a distance, so you got to take that into account. I was never impressed with him as a candidate. He seemed to me to be stiff, Unapproachable.

And look, he just recently moved to the state.

Now, look, granted, Florida has a lot of people moving in, but it's one thing to say, well, I've been here for five or eight or 10 years. It's another thing to say, well, I moved here two and a half, three years ago in order to run for the U.S. Senate.

So I thought he was a stiff. I don't think he was particularly effective on the campaign trail. He was showered with cash because, you know, sort of everybody who suffered from Trump derangement syndrome said he's the guy who's going to be able to take Trump on and he'll be able to sway people in Florida. But I never saw the political chops that was necessary to be a serious candidate, with all due respect to him. I mean, I know his twin brother is in the Congress from Virginia, but you know, it just struck me as really, really bad candidate selection.

And Schumer, Schumer, he can raise money. But he has not had a good track record this time around in finding candidates. He was the person who said, let's get the ancient governor of Maine to run, Janet Mills to run against Graham Plattner. And that fell flat. He was the one who said, let's all consolidate behind Stevens in Michigan.

And while she came close, I thought, again, there was a weak candidate. She had this weird affectation and voice on the campaign trail that I just thought a lot of Michiganders would probably be off-put by. But she came close. But, you know, Schumer is part of this effort to get, quote, independents running in Nebraska and Montana because the Democratic label was so bad in those states that he was afraid Democrats couldn't get elected. And so the gambit worked in Nebraska.

The Democrats put up a candidate who won the nomination and then withdrew, but they're not getting the independent candidate to get out, excuse me, the Democratic candidate to get out in Montana.

So bad political judgment. By Schumer, who used to have better chops and certainly retains an enormous ability to raise money. As we wait to see, now we're 70-something days away from the midterms. I want to get your take on the overall what happens with control. But before I do that, I want to stay in the center races because I can't bring you on, being from Texas, without addressing, as you well know, Fox's power rankings just moved that Tell Rico Paxton race into toss-up, which obviously we've heard for a long time that there was going to be, you know, Texas turning blue.

Bet O'Rourke was going to do it. Didn't happen. But now it is something to see Fox's power rankings moving the Tell Rico race into toss-up. What's your read and insight here? Yeah.

Well, first of all, it's Robert Francis O'Rourke, incidentally. It's not a phony nickname. Look, let's be clear. Ken Paxton blames me for his impeachment. I had nothing to do with it, but I'm not a favorite of his, and I'm not a fan of his.

But. He should win. But he's a terrible candidate, and Tallarico is a smart guy. He said a lot of goofy things. Look, I live in Austin, Texas.

I love the town, but let's admit it, it's a very liberal town. And so Democrats here say incredibly bizarre things because that's the nature of the local Democratic Party. And he has said a lot of crazy things. And a candidate who had money and was good on the stump could be creating havoc for him, but that's not happening. And Talrico is out there taking systematically all of the difficulties and the scandals surrounding our attorney general and starting to wrap him up in them.

And to me, the key is going to be that the Senate, before the Senate primary in Texas, the Senatorial, Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Republican Senate Leadership Fund, the major super PAC, both laid out their bets for the general election to sort of signal players where they were going to play and where they weren't. And they didn't say, we're playing in Texas. And the signal was: President Trump, if you decide to endorse Ken Paxton and he wins, we don't have the money to carry him across the finish line. And Paxton is a terrible fundraiser. I think he had something like $9 million in the last period since he started his campaign.

Talrico had 70, and I suspect the gap is even wider today.

So the key is going to be: can Paxton find help from President Trump's super PACs, MIGA, Inc. and Never Surrender? They're able to go up with the kind of advertising that will highlight the comments of Talrico and try and provide some kind of defense, if need be, on the personal scandals. And he needs to be on the campaign trail. The week before, the 4th of July, he was seen, he was in Washington the weekend before, no fundraising events that I can detect.

And then on Tuesday, he is photographed getting on a plane to Iceland with his latest girlfriend. And on July 4th, he's not celebrating the 4th of July in, you know, Tyler, Texas, or Comanche, Texas, or, you know, Almeda, Texas. He is celebrating the 4th of July in London, England. And, you know, that ain't smart. He's in the middle of a race in a big state where he has run traditionally behind the rest.

Of the Republican ticket by an average of 155,000 votes two years ago, excuse me, four years ago, and four years before that, he ran behind by about 175,000 votes. He was the bottom of the statewide Republican ticket, and he better get out on the campaign trailing campaign effectively every single day between now and the election day. That's what his victory is going to depend on. It's going to depend on that and having the MAGA super PAC, President Trump Super PAC, spend a bundle of money to try and drag him across the finish line. It's really remarkable to watch.

And, you know, I had forgotten until you reminded me, spending the 4th of July anywhere other than in Texas is just unbelievable for a candidate. Look, if he wanted to spend it in London, we got to London, Texas, in Northeast Texas. He could have gone to London and Northeast Texas, for God's sake. I mean, you know, and we can't promise anything close to Iceland. We are, after all, Texas, and it's the summer.

But you know what? You know, if you want to cool off, go down to Ranzas Pass and go out and get on cinnamon. Beach. I mean, for God's sake. That's right.

With a Shiner Bach in your hand. Last question, because we're almost out of time, and I'm not going to play the whole thing for the setup. You've probably seen CNN's data guys. I didn't pay you incidentally to make that local reference. It was a good one.

If I drank beer, I'd have a Shiner Bach. But I mean, Grace, I'm blown away with your local reference. Listen, you know, I've got ties to the Alamo, and of course, I spent four years courtesy of Joe Biden and his open border and border communities. And let me tell you, after a hot day in the sun and humidity in Texas, a cold Shiner Bach is about the best thing on the planet. There we go.

Last couple of seconds, I just want to get you a read. Harry Enton, the CNN data guys, just all in on the House, the Senate. The Democrats are going to run away. Do you think it's a foregone conclusion, particularly when it comes to the House, that Democrats will win? Or is it still an open question?

Well, I think it's an open question on the Senate. But look, the question on the House is: how many seats are the Republicans going to lose? And if you look at it, then this is a really rough measure. And if you look at the toss-up seats, That the Cook political report says in June, the party out of power wins about three-quarters of them. There were 18 seats, four Democrat and 14 Republican.

If the Democrats won 75 percent of those, they would take the House with about a four vote margin, two hundred and twenty two to two hundred and thirteen. Yeah. But You know, and I'm going to look at it again, looking at August, what is the pattern of August? It's now 19 seats, chos-up seats in the quick political report, of four of them, Democrat, 15 Republican. Let's just see how that keeps going.

But the Senate is a crapshoot now. It shouldn't be. Texas should be comfortably in the Republican column. But, you know, we got Maine. I think Susan's running a great race.

North Carolina, if Tillis was running again, we'd be in better shape. But he's not running, so it's an open seat. And they're running the one Democrat who could take the seat. Same thing in Alaska. Dan Sullivan's a personal friend of mine.

I think the world of him, the Democrats nominated the one Democrat who might be able to win. In Ohio, same thing. Houston is terrific. But at the end of the day, Michigan was a real plus for us having L CIE. It's crazy.

We got to leave it there. We're out of time for a commercial break. But Karl Roof, it's always great to talk to you, my friend. Griff, great to be with you, buddy. And if you want me to call you Grace, just let me know.

That sounds good. Carl, thank you as always, my friend. Great insight. Thank you, buddy. This is the Brian Killmeat Show.

I am Griff Jenkins, or Grace, as Carl and Elijah mainly call me, and we will be back. Thank you, Grace. Keeping you informed, engaged, and always a step ahead. It's the Brian Kill Me Show. Information you want, truth you demand.

This is the Brian Killmead Show. This is the Brian Killmead Show. I'm Griff Jenkins. One more note about the Florida race down there. Our buddy Byron Donalds running for governor down there.

He'll face off against David Jolly, once a Republican, now the Democrat governor, gubernatorial candidate, running against Byron Donalds. And Byron Donalds saying last night that Angie Nixon is going to be a help in his race. Listen to this: cut seven. Let's also look at the fact that you have Angie Nixon, somebody who's supported by the Democrat Socialists of America, who's now the Democrat nominee for the United States Senate against our United States Senator, Ashley Moody.

So the Democrat Party has a decision to make. Are they going to follow socialism or are they going to follow common sense? It's already clear that the Democrats do not support common sense. That's why more people in our state are choosing the Republican Party every single year. That's why we have a 1.5 million voter advantage over the Democrats in our state.

And he is going to use that socialism label as much as he can over the next 70-something days. We'll see where it goes. I'm Griff Jenkins here on the great Ryan Killmeat Show. From his mouth to your ears, it's Brian Kilmead. This is the great Brian Kilmead show, Griff Jenkins pinch hitting for Brian today.

And another day, another story in the WNBA.

Something, if you would have asked me on New Year's Eve, you know, give me the top five stories you're going to be talking a lot about this coming year in 2026. I did not have WNBA on my bingo card, or that you were going to see a league having trouble defining what the W in their name means. And we're lucky now to have Kim Slesser, who is the ambassador for the Independent Council on Women's Sports, joining us. And Kim, I understand you have a daughter. Brooke, who was a former co-captain of the San Jose State University women's volleyball team.

And I want to get into sort of your actual experience with this. I also know, I think I know, that you may be speaking at a rally tomorrow when the Indiana Fever travel to Dallas. Thank you for joining us. Yes, thank you so much for having me.

So I want to get to what you're going to be saying at the rally, but I noticed that you've got on the XXXY t-shirt on. And, you know, having recently seen the Minnesota Lynx head coach, Cheryl Reeve, wearing a trans kids belong t-shirt on the sideline in a game against the fever, I was shocked when this mother and daughter, Casey and Annie Thomason, were literally wearing simply, you know, shirts like your shirt right there and got all kinds of grief. They actually joined Laura Ingram this week, and because they were wearing the XXXY shirt, they were asked to cover them up. Here's a soundbite from that mother and daughter reacting. I want to play this for you and get your thoughts.

This is cut 34. He didn't know what was offensive about it. He said he didn't even understand. End, but since someone told on us and said that they were offensive, we had to, you know, cover up, put on our, you know, our Atlanta dream shirts instead of our XXXY. I was flabbergasted.

It's the first time I've ever experienced anything like that, and I just had no words except like. Who is offended by a t-shirt at this point? And who is offended by science? That's what we asked the security guard. And that mother got it spot on.

Who's offended by science? Your thoughts on this? Yes, that's you know, always where I come from with all of this, with everything we've been through with our daughter, Brooke. I just call it common sense science, you know, biblical. Truthful values.

It's very simple. It's just saying men and women are different and that men should not be in women's spaces, whether it's in the locker room or in the apartment, which is what my daughter experienced at San Jose State. And it's just expressing that we just want simple, you know, fair and safe spaces.

So let's talk so our listeners fully understand with your daughter Brooke. Walk us through your experience with this. Yes.

So Brooke was originally at another school and transferred to San Jose State. When she got there, she played on one of the top teams in the nation for volleyball for clubs.

So she was used to being around girls that were really good players. Uh, long story short, she got there and started noticing some things were a little bit different with one of the players, and then come to find out that this person is a male. Um, again, we just really come from a very simple, simplistic: this is a man, this is a woman, this is wrong. What can we do to change this? And of course.

Being in California and being San Jose State. It She was, you know, had a lot of pushback. And it's basically been her in the lawsuit now with Riley Yangs against NCAA, her own lawsuit with Icons against the Mountain West Conference. And we're going through that right now.

So for us, it's just very simple. People try to make it into more than it actually is. For us, you know, people can do, and we always want to present with love to everyone. But Do what you want to do outside of the sports, outside of our spaces, outside of the locker rooms. That's fine.

But once you get into the sports and you get into the locker rooms and you get into the restrooms, it's not okay. You know, there's a man and there's a woman. It doesn't matter what drugs you take to lower your testosterone. You know, you're a man and you shouldn't be in the space. And that's really all it's about for us.

Have you been surprised by the fact that the WNBA says now that they're going to take some time to review this for weeks or months before they come to it? When it's back to, it reminds me of the moment with the Supreme Court Justice Katanji Brown Jackson when she could not answer what the definition of a woman is when she was being pressed on that. But now, are you shocked by the reaction of the WNBA? Yeah. Sadly, no.

After everything we've been through, it was sadly what I expected from the WNBA. They don't want to admit they're wrong. They don't want to come out and say that this should be only women's faces, this should be only women's sports. And now, with the two XB NBA players saying that they want to be eligible for the 2027 draft, now they're being tested.

So we'll see what happens. I'm very curious to see what they end up with as their definition for a woman. If they ever get to one. And that's the shocking part of it.

So you are going to speak at a rally ahead of the Dallas game tomorrow. What are you going to talk about? What's your message?

So we're there to, first of all, to support Sophie and the message, a very simple message that she gave during her interview a week or two ago, and just to support her and to let all of the girls, even bigger than that, all of the girls that play sports that are behind Brooke and Sophie coming up, that the ladder's not going to be pulled up behind them. And that we're there to support you and to hopefully bring common sense back to sports. And you know, it's really remarkable, I think, how well Sophie Cunningham has handled this. And you have to keep, as she does, go back to her original statement. Where she said, I got nothing against the trans community.

I'm all about love. I'm all about inclusion. But when it comes to women's sports, in this case, women's basketball, there is a fairness to it. And, you know, it seems lost on the league, WNBA, that they should have from the get-go, they would have far less controversy, I would suggest to you, if early on they would have come to Sophie's defense. And rallied around her to say, listen, you know, she is being very fair to trans people, the trans community, but this is a fairness issue.

But they haven't. And now, and I want to get your take on it, Kim. It seems like that genie isn't going back in the bottle. No, it's definitely not. I really honestly, to be brutally honest, I have a very hard time wrapping my mind around it.

I don't understand. Where all this comes from, it's an ideology. It's In my opinion, a mental illness. But back to the WNBA. I don't know.

I really don't even know. I'm kind of speechless about it because it's just such, I'm a very commonsensical person. And so it's very black and white to me, sometimes to a fault because I have a hard time understanding the other side. I don't see the WNBA changing the way that I think they're going to come out. with the two guys that are making themselves eligible for The draft or the WNBA and say, Well, you've played men's professional sports before, so you're not eligible, or come up with something like that.

I'm like you, I really just don't see them coming around on this. I see them finding a loophole and not having to define what a woman is and not protecting the women's faces. I love Kim doing interviews on this topic with people like you because it's almost like you're in some way trepidacious about saying that it's common sense because it's biology. It's straight up biology. All the memes are just like to die for on social media with these things.

My favorite one of which that I'll paraphrase because I don't have the sound of it because I forgot to tell our producer Eric about it. But there was one person that played a Monty Python clip with John Cleese way back about this issue. I don't know if you remember where they're sitting. Around in the Roman Empire days, and John Cleese is saying, I want to be a woman. And the guy says, Why?

He said, Because I want to have babies. He said, You can't have babies. He said, Why not? I said, Because I'm not a woman. He's like, You haven't got a womb.

And then Brian Cleese is like, Don't oppress me. It's like they were ahead of their time decades in the making, and yet now there is some tab dancing around it, which is a biological fact of nature. Do you think that this just continues to grow, this push? Because we've seen, obviously, this issue coming up in other sports.

Now it's arrived at the WNBA, which also I like to add to the discussion that they are shooting themselves in the foot because all of a sudden you have a level of popularity the WNBA never enjoy with people like Sophie and Kaitlin Clark. Yeah, I just I really don't see it changing. I it's interesting you asked that. I see things getting better when it comes to our side, you know, when it comes to Santa Anni, as I say, I see it getting better. And I love the popularity of this, like you say, with the WNBA, but I don't want to bring the W NBA money, you know, because of what they stand for right now.

So it's kind of a hard one for me. Like I even had a friend the other day that I invited to come to the game in Dallas on tomorrow, which by the way, we are having the rally at four o'clock outside of the American Airlines Center.

Okay, good. And she basically said, I don't want to buy a ticket. And give the W NBA money. And because of them not standing. And she goes, I want to be there.

And we have some people that are actually coming to the rally that are doing that, but they don't want to participate in buying the tickets. For the WNBA, because of what they stand for. Aaron Ross Powell, and that's voting with your pocketbook, which is very effective. You know, you talk about hoping things are getting better. Jennifer Say, who is a big part of the XXXY movement, and I'm sure you know as well, she talked a little bit.

On Stu Varney's show about the groundswell of support behind your movement. I'll play this quick sound bite and get your thoughts. I'm going to guess you agree. Got 36. Corporate America, which includes the WNBA and the individual teams, and they don't realize that the public has moved on.

You know, I will say this: I'm hearing there was an article this morning in the SPN that people wearing pro-trans t-shirts were also told to cover them up. And I want to be clear: I'm not for that either. People can say whatever they want and wear whatever t-shirt they want. There's nothing mean about any of it, and no one should be censored. It's a t-shirt, for goodness sake.

And I think the new news, though, is that people are willing to stand up and support the protect women sports side of things. That's new, the grounds level support. And the more they try to censor us, the stronger our movement grows. I see you nodding your head, Kim. Your thoughts.

Yeah, you know, Jennifer's right. It's just craziness. It's basically suppressing free speech, you know, having your shirt covered up. And I also found it funny on another note that the biggest size. poster they'll let us have tomorrow inside the American Airlines Center for the game is like a sheet of paper, like a nine point five by eleven.

So yeah, it's interesting. It's because I'm sure they don't want any controversy. But no, I agree with her. The It's ridiculous that they had somebody come up. I did notice that the you know, surprisingly, that the WMBA came out and said that That was wrong, that they shouldn't have done that, and that whoever the guy was that told the girls to cut the mom and the girl to cover her shirts up shouldn't have done that.

Or, I think actually, no, I don't think it was the WNBA. Correct me. I don't think it was the WNBA. I think it was the team actually that said that. It wasn't the NBA.

So they weren't, they're not speaking on it from what I remember. Yeah. Yeah. Well, look, whether it is the team or the league sweeping an issue under the rug that they brought upon themselves is not going to work at all. And, you know, Charlie Hurd, my fellow co-host of Fox Friends Weekend, he and I have talked and joked a lot on the air that literally, because of Kaitlyn Clark and because of Sophie Cunningham, we even bothered watching WNBA games.

And I love sports. I love rooting for the Knicks. I love football, which is right around the corner. I've been watching baseball like crazy. But, you know, I will actually tune in, particularly when the Fever are playing.

That's the only games I'm watching right now. And you know. Turning away a viewer like me. is really you've got to think like in the pure money making business, if you want to keep your league in business, you need to attract more viewers and fans, not turn them away, right? Right, exactly.

You know, I feel the same way with you about at one point about the women's national soccer team with the Megan Urpino situation and the way she's feeling. I played soccer all through high school and was going to play in college toward my ACL, but I could not even watch the women's soccer team. I love soccer. I love it. And I just got a really bad taste in my mouth after the way that they speak up about it.

And I wouldn't even put it on the TV because I, again, don't want to support something that. Right. It just made me sad. I know, I know.

Well, listen, Kim Sluser, thank you for joining us. We got to leave it there. We got to take a commercial break. But good luck at the rally. Four o'clock tomorrow in Dallas at the arena.

Good luck. Thanks for joining us. Thank you. All right. This is Griff Jenkins, and this is the Brian Kilmead Show.

Both sides, all opinions. It's Brian Killmead. Uh A talk show that's real. This is the Brian Kilmead Show. The realest of the real talk shows, the Brian Kilmead Show, Griff Jenkins pinch hitting for Brian.

And I mentioned in the last segment with Kim Slesser a moment that has really defined this craziness with regards to fairness in women's sports, and that is the inability to define a woman. Let me take you back. The year was 2022, March, Supreme Court nomination for Katanji Brown Jackson, who is now an Associate Justice, asked by Senator Marsha Blackburn to simply define a woman, and mightily she struggled. Listen. Can you provide a definition for the word woman?

Can I provide a definition of that? I can't. You can't? Not in this context. I'm not a biologist.

The meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can't give me. A definition? And yet you had supporters of Brown Jackson saying that it was a politically charged line of questioning involving complex scientific intersections. What are we doing? How did we get here?

How can a member of the third branch of government, the judicial branch, a justice, Katanji Brown Jackson, can answer a simple biological question? And it has played out in multiple arenas, including professional sports, the latest in the WNBA.

Some days I look at things and I think, What is going on? But that's why we talk about these things on the Brian Kilmead Show. This is Griff Jenkins. And you never know what's going to come up next. Sponsored by Previgen.

Previgen made for your brain. Did you know Fox News has a wine shop? Did you also know you can get ahead and start on your Christmas shopping? That's right. Check one more gift off your list with the Fox News Wine Shop Advent Calendar, featuring 12 festive wines inspired by the holiday magic of Fox Square.

You can reserve yours for just a $19.99 deposit. We'll deliver it free right to your doorstep in time for the holiday season. Quantities are limited, so visit FoxNewsWineshop.com today.