Ep. 1494 - The Supreme Court Showdown That Could End Child Mutilation Forever
01:03:00 Share

Today on The Matt Walsh Show, the fight to protect children from gender transition mutilation will finally make it to the Supreme Court next week. We'll talk about how we got here and what happens next. Also, the mayor of Denver says that he's willing to go to jail to stop deportations. The new border czar says he's perfectly happy to put him there. And new details have emerged about the sexual assault allegation against Pete Hegseth. Every new detail just makes it all the more clear that this is Brett Kavanaugh 2.0. We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.

If you haven't heard yet, our best deal of the year is happening right now. Get 50% off new annual memberships, no code needed. Go to dailywire.com slash blackfriday to join now. Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes that we're endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts with purpose.

GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote human flourishing and create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come. By honoring your career calling, you impact your family, your friends, and your community. Change the world for good by putting others before yourself to glorify God. Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal, and professional goals.

With 350 academic programs, as of June 2024, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams. The pursuit to serve others is yours. Let it flourish. Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University, private, Christian, affordable. Visit gcu.edu.

It's tempting to get jaded when you spend any amount of time covering politics or commenting on politics. Very often you'll weigh in on a particular issue, you'll spend a lot of time developing arguments and presenting them. You might break some news, you might call your congressman or write a comment on social media, and then nothing will happen. The people in power might pretend to listen to you, but in the end you'll be ignored. And that happens time and time and time again.

That's why when the reverse happens, when we actually succeed in bringing about meaningful and substantial change, we should note it and celebrate it, call attention to it. And then we should carefully consider what to do next. We should think about how to capitalize on what we've achieved. And that's the case right now as a fight we've been waging for several years.

is about to produce what could very well be one of the most important Supreme Court rulings of our generation. One of the most important moments in this fight came in the fall of 2022 when I posted the results of our investigation into the transgender clinic at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. As you probably remember, my team and I uncovered evidence that Vanderbilt viewed so-called gender affirming procedures as a money-making operation by their own admission.

They said it on tape. We also proved that Vanderbilt had boasted about giving irreversible hormone drugs to children as young as 13, about performing double mastectomies on adolescent girls, all in the name of gender-affirming care, quote-unquote. These were procedures that, for the most part, people didn't even realize at the time were happening. Children were being sterilized and butchered, and very few people had any idea that it was going on. And that's why immediately after we reported on Vanderbilt's practices—

Millions of people living in Tennessee and around the country called for these quote unquote gender clinics to be shut down. We held our rally to end child mutilation here in Nashville. Many of you showed up, thousands of people showed up. That was the rally when several Tennessee lawmakers announced plans to end these practices. That's exactly what happened. Within months, in response to our reporting, a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers in the Tennessee legislature passed a law called SB1.

And this law made it a crime to administer puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to children for the purposes of affirming the child's alleged gender identity. Surgeries were also banned.

Just a year earlier, you know, that kind of swift, decisive action from state lawmakers would have been pretty unthinkable. Gender ideology was a topic that very few politicians wanted to get involved in, even in Tennessee's legislature. At the time, circa early 2022, it was easy for many conservatives, especially conservative politicians, to just sort of accept the left's framing of the issue and move on.

But some conservatives didn't move on. Instead, they decided to defend the truth and basic biology and the well-being of Americans, particularly children. Marsha Blackburn, for example, asked Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson to define the word woman during her confirmation hearing. It became an iconic moment. This should have been the single easiest question ever asked in the history of confirmation hearings. But infamously, Jackson, of course, couldn't answer it.

And then my film, What is a Woman, was released shortly after that. And once again, self-described gender experts couldn't answer the question. Became one of the most watched documentaries of all time, in part because people were eager to see this deranged ideology being exposed. In other words, the culture shifted, but it didn't shift by accident. Many of us in this fight, we made it shift.

And this company, and more importantly, the people who subscribe to us and support our work, were a major part of that. So now, two years after the investigation into Vanderbilt, the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in a case called the United States v. Scermetti.

The arguments will take place next Wednesday. That's when they start. In the end, this case could very well turn out to be a Dobbs-style earthquake in the fight to protect children in this country. Now, the name Scrimetti in this case refers to Jonathan Scrimetti. He's the attorney general of Tennessee. He'll be arguing in defense of Tennessee's ban on child mutilation, or SB1.

In his brief before the Supreme Court, Scrimetti repeatedly cites the Daily Wire's reporting on Vanderbilt as a catalyst for SB1. He says voters reacted to our reporting and that it would be unconstitutional to override what voters want, which of course it would be.

He'll be arguing against the Biden DOJ along with trans activists at the ACLU. They're taking the state of Tennessee to court over SB1, and their argument is that it's unconstitutional somehow to ban child sex changes. They're claiming that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. Essentially, they're alleging that doctors and parents

have a constitutional right to castrate, sterilize, and mutilate gender-confused kids. So this is not about the constitutional rights of the kids, at least from their perspective. They're saying that the doctors and parents have a constitutional right to do this to children. Whereas us over here on Team Sanity are saying that children have a constitutional right, a human right, and that means that they should be protected from this kind of treatment.

Now, before I get into the specifics of US v Scrametti and the ramifications of it, I need to point out that bringing this case will be one of the last official acts of the Biden administration. And they're the ones who filed an appeal to the Supreme Court demanding that they hear this case after the Sixth Circuit upheld SB1.

So to put this in context, after suffering a crushing defeat in the last election, an election in which an overwhelming majority of Americans made it clear that they reject gender ideology, especially as it relates to children. But in light of that, the Biden administration is pressing on. They're continuing to argue in court for child castration and sterilization, even after it's abundantly clear that these procedures are barbaric. Very few Americans actually support them. This is what the Biden administration wants its legacy to be.

You know, you can't afford groceries. Violent crime is rampant. The world's falling apart all around you, but at least you can castrate your child. That's kind of the pitch that Biden is making to the voters now. Now, the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the Biden administration will be assisted by the ACLU's lead transgender attorney who uses the name Chase Strangio. Yes, Strangio.

is the name that this person uses. Now when I say that Chase Strangio is the ACLU's lead transgender attorney, I mean that in two senses. First, Chase Strangio herself identifies as transgender. She's very clearly a woman trying to pass as a man. And secondly, Chase Strangio is supposedly one of the ACLU's foremost experts in the field of trans-related law. She's currently slated to deliver oral arguments next Wednesday at the Supreme Court when this case begins.

And that's not because Strangio is a compelling orator or anything remotely like that. Quite the opposite, in fact. So for a preview of what these oral arguments will look like, here is Strangio explaining her view of Tennessee's bill banning child castration. This is what the nine justices of the Supreme Court can expect to hear next week. This is what they have to look forward to.

If you've never felt pity for Supreme Court justices before, then after you hear this, maybe you'll feel a little bit at least. Here it is.

Tennessee, in its briefing before the Supreme Court, very much wants to cast this case as a case about the federal government displacing the state government. But what this case really is about is about the state of Tennessee government displacing the decision making of families and doctors. So it is the government of Tennessee that has come in and said that you parents who have

loved your children since birth, who have cared for them, who have recognized in them deeply painful experiences of distress for years and found medication that you

your child and you and your doctors all agree is necessary. And the government is coming in and saying, we know better. We are taking this option off the table. For example, our client, John Doe, started asserting himself and recognizing himself as a boy when he was two years old. He is only known as a boy in all aspects of his life. And he has been relying on this medication for years. And after, you know, six,

six years of mental health treatment after multiple specialists, after parents who themselves struggled and researched. And then you have the government of Tennessee acting like these are rash choices being made by individual eight-year-olds when that could not be further from the truth. And that is the story of these families that we are bringing before the Supreme Court. Yeah, it's not a rash decision being made by an eight-year-old. No, this child made the decision when he was two. It's even better.

It's decisions being made by a two-year-old, is what Chase Strangio says. Even though, of course, these decisions are not being made by a child at all. They're being made by the parents. Look, I don't want to predict. I don't want to get ahead of ourselves. I don't want to spike the football before you get into the end zone or anything like that. But I just, and I haven't always agreed with what the Supreme Court has decided on various issues. But

I cannot believe that they are gonna listen to an argument like that and be persuaded by it. I cannot believe that the Supreme Court in its current makeup will hear an argument about, well, this two year old recognized quote himself as a boy from birth. I can't believe that they'll be persuaded by that, I just cannot.

So this is what we can expect for around 15 to 20 minutes during oral arguments next Wednesday. A woman pretending to be a man will pretend with maximum indignation that it's an overreach by the federal government to protect children from castration. The government, she says the government doesn't know better than parents. How could the state government think that it knows better than parents?

Well, actually, sometimes it does. Sometimes it does. In a case where the parents think it's a good idea to abuse their child, in that case, yeah, that is a case where the government should know better. There are, in fact, situations where a parent can do something wrong to a child. Guess what? Sometimes, oh, but a parent chose to do it. Yeah, well, sometimes they can choose to do really bad things to their kids, okay? And those are cases where, yes, you want the government to step in and say, no, you can't do that.

But I want to, I think it's right. I don't care what you wanna do. We know you wanna do that to your child, okay? But you can't. Now, of course, these are people who would love to see the federal government set the price of groceries, raise your taxes in order to pay the living expenses of illegal aliens, throw the leading presidential candidate in prison so you can't vote for him, was the plan. But when there's the possibility that the government might intervene to stop child butchery, suddenly they become small government libertarians.

They ask, how could the government possibly interfere in what private citizens want to do? As if that doesn't happen all the time? As if that's not what every law on the books already is by definition? Well, in this case, it's pretty simple, actually. Chase Strangio answered her own question in that video you just saw. The idea that we should honor the wishes of a two-year-old who, quote, asserts herself and recognizes herself as a boy is, quote,

to every reasonable person completely insane. It insults the intelligence of anyone who's ever been around a two-year-old, much less raised one. It's not uncommon for two-year-olds to assert themselves as superheroes or dinosaurs or household pets or any number of other things. That's particularly true if an adult has planted that idea in their head in one way or another. That doesn't mean that we should tell these children that they're actually dinosaurs and then pump their bodies full of dinosaur-affirming hormones, as we know.

And this shouldn't need to be explained. It's common sense. And as you heard, Strangio's argument at the Supreme Court will be that an alleged consensus among experts should override your common sense, along with the democratic will of the people, by the way. This is an argument that in his brief that was submitted to the Supreme Court, Scarametti demolishes for about a dozen reasons. For one thing, even if you agree for some reason that experts are entitled to some degree of deference, they're still a problem.

And that problem is that we have clear evidence that various experts in this area have been compromised for political reasons, not to mention financial reasons. We saw that in the Vanderbilt investigation. For example, in his filings with the Supreme Court, Scrimetti cites evidence that Rachel Levine, the trans-identifying HHS assistant secretary for health, pressured the organization that sets the guidelines for so-called trans healthcare in order to lift all age limits for these gender procedures.

And I've previously outlined the sordid and disturbing history of this organization, which is called WPATH. These are quacks who have no place in medicine whatsoever, no expertise of any kind in medicine. No hospital should be paying attention to anything they say. In internal documents, WPATH admits that it has no idea what it's doing, as Michael Schellenberger documented in the leaked WPATH files. But on top of that, WPATH is an explicitly political enterprise.

In communications with WPATH, Levine stated that WPATH's initial failure to lift all age restrictions on gender affirming procedures for children was, quote, proving a barrier to optimal policy progress. So WPATH relented because that's what they're concerned about. Optimal policy progress. You notice what Levine didn't say anything about? The well-being of children doesn't factor in.

As the New York Times reports, quote, the draft guidelines released in late 2021 recommended lowering the age minimums to 14 for hormonal treatments, 15 for mastectomies, 16 for breast augmentation or facial surgeries, and 17 for genital surgeries or hysterectomies. The proposed age limits were eliminated in the final guidelines outlining standards of care. That's what they wanted to do. So WPATH did what the Biden administration wanted, which is to tell hospitals that child butchery is acceptable at any age.

And that decision matters a great deal because many major hospitals right now rely on WPATH's guidelines. So when you hear about the experts, that's what we're talking about. These are the experts. In their brief, Tennessee went on to provide other evidence that WPATH has compromised. At one point, for instance, WPATH commissioned Johns Hopkins to produce some evidence backing their guidelines. But they gave up on that after the Johns Hopkins review found, quote, little to no evidence about children and adolescents benefiting from these alleged treatments.

Now that highlights another problem for the Biden administration and the ACLU, which is that it's not even true that there's a consensus among experts on this topic. Like leaning aside the fact that many of these so called experts are not experts and are totally fraudulent. There's not even a consensus. In fact, there's nothing even approaching a consensus. Health officials in the UK, Norway, Finland, Sweden have all concluded that gender interventions on children, quote, poses significant risks with unproven benefits.

That there's your consensus. Various groups in this country, including the American College of Pediatricians, have come to the same conclusion. Another problem here, one that Tennessee is going to bring up at the Supreme Court, is that there's recently been an unexplained and very drastic change in the patient population of alleged transgender individuals. And just the past few years, the percentage of children identifying as trans has doubled from 0.7 percent to 1.4 percent.

Meanwhile, the percentage of trans-identifying adults has remained constant at about 0.5% of the total population. Now, by some estimates, Scrimetti notes the number of children presenting with gender dysphoria has tripled in just four years, from 2017 to 2021. And these children are now overwhelmingly adolescent girls, when historically, trans-identifying patients were typically adolescent and adult males.

So we're dealing with a patient population that's rapidly changing in ways that can only be explained by a social contagion. And rationally, the solution to a social contagion isn't to pump children full of sterilizing hormones. The treatment is to take a step back and address the social contagion. When I say take a step back, I mean take a step a million miles away from anything related to hormones and never even approach that. But what you should be addressing is the social contagion.

And one way to do that is to immediately ban the butchery and sterilization of children, which is what voters in Tennessee and many other states have decided to do. The fundamental legal issue in this case is whether these bans on child butchery somehow violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. And to make that argument,

The ACLU is saying that Tennessee's ban discriminates against certain patients on the basis of their sex. This is an argument that makes very little sense because Tennessee's bill doesn't classify anyone based on sex or any other protected characteristic, quote unquote. Instead, the law sets age-based restrictions on procedures like castration, sterilization, and surgery. And that is, we ban certain medical procedures based on age all the time. This is a very common thing.

That was the legal basis that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals used in order to uphold Tennessee's law last year. They concluded that there was no sex-based discrimination at all and therefore no need to apply any heightened standard of review to the law. That ruling was a devastating blow to the trans agenda, as I explained at the time. It was a complete takedown of the idea that SB1 violates the Equal Protection Clause. As the Sixth Circuit explained, the point of the ban is to protect every child equally, whether they are boys or girls.

If the Supreme Court denies this challenge by the ACLU and the DOJ on the same grounds, they would give the legal all clear, not just to all the states to pass their own bills, but also to Congress to do something it should have done a long time ago, which is to pass a national ban on so-called gender transitions for children. This is not a state's rights issue. This is a human rights issue. Children have the human right to be protected from castration and mutilation, period.

Now, as best I can tell, Republicans haven't introduced any kind of legislation that would ban these procedures on children at a nationwide level. Last year, before he became Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, other Republicans floated the possibility of a nationwide ban, but they haven't followed through yet. Well, it's time to change that before any more children are harmed. A national ban on this barbarism

would prevent the gross human rights abuses like the one I described yesterday in the case of Jeff Younger. It would obviously protect many, many kids. But even aside from all of that, okay, this is also a winning political issue.

There's no reason not to do it. Exit polls that were commissioned by Democrats showed that among swing voters who voted for Trump and ultimately decided the election, Kamala Harris's ridiculous stance on gender ideology was the single most important issue in their minds. So what does that tell you? It tells you people are tired of this. So there's no reason we shouldn't press the issue. It's a moral necessity. It's a constitutional necessity. It's also a political win,

It's a win, win, win across the board. And in the meantime, you're forcing Democrats to come out and make the argument for castrating 12 year old boys. Force them to do it. Force them to come out and explain why they're in favor of that. See how that works for them. I'll tell you this right now, and this I'm sure of. No Democrat in Congress, not one, not even the trans one in Congress right now. None of them want this fight. None of them do.

Other than activists like Chase Strangio and the last remnants of the Biden administration like Levine and those types. All the rest of them, they know how crazy it makes them sound to oppose a ban like this, to come out in favor of chemically castrated children. They know that. This is why they don't wanna have this fight. It's the last thing they want. And if they don't want the fight, that's all the more reason to give it to them. Basic rule of politics,

Try to think about what your enemies don't want you to do and do exactly that thing. I'll tell you right now, the Democrats in Congress are praying to the God they don't believe in that Republicans will not come out, will not make an issue out of this and will not come out with some kind of ban because they don't want to have to get in front of cameras, you know, and start and start talking about this.

With this case before the Supreme Court and conservative control of the entire federal government, we're closer than we've ever been to dealing a crushing and total defeat against the gender cult. All Republicans need to do now is follow in Tennessee's footsteps at the national level. Tell all of these activists, doctors, and butchers that they will never again sterilize or castrate another child, period. Banish this insanity from the country so decisively and so thoroughly that it never returns.

That's what voters in both parties are asking for. And it's time Republicans gave it to them. Now let's get to our five headlines. You know, we talk a lot about putting our money where our values are. Well, let me tell you about my cell phone company, Pure Talk.

and why I made the switch. Pure Talk is veteran-led, and they don't just talk about supporting our veterans. They actually do something about it. They already have alleviated $10 million in veteran debt. Every month, they donate tens of thousands of dollars to prevent veteran suicide. They just gave $50,000 to MicroWorks to help veterans learn trades after serving our country. Meanwhile, what exactly are Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile doing with your money? Pure Talk,

gives you the exact same coverage, America's most dependable 5G network for half the cost. You get better service, better values, and you're helping our veterans. It's that simple. And right now, Pure Talk has an incredible offer for my listeners. When you switch your service to Pure Talk on a qualifying plan, you get one year of Daily Wire Plus Insider completely free, where you can stream my new film, Am I Racist? But remember...

This deal is exclusive. The only way to get it is by going to puretalk.com slash Walsh. Support Pure Talk, a wireless company who wants to be a wireless company and nothing more. And remember, it takes courage to stand for your values and takes even more to stand against those who try to silence you. puretalk.com slash Walsh. That's puretalk.com slash Walsh.

Daily Wire reports, Denver Democratic Mayor Mike Johnson said there would be mass public resistance if President-elect Donald Trump implemented a mass deportation effort of illegal immigrants from federal forces. Liking it to Tiananmen Square, Tiananmen Square moment, even said that he would be willing to get arrested to stop it from happening. So we've heard this kind of rhetoric from Democrat mayors and governors in recent days and weeks.

as they prepare for the mass deportation event that should be coming, that better be coming. Let's listen to this clip of the mayor talking about this. Trump's new borders are Tom Homan has said that he is willing to arrest leaders like yourself for standing in the way of these policies that they want to enact.

would you be willing to go to jail for these things? Yeah, I'm not afraid of that. And I'm also not seeking that. I think the goal is we want to be able to negotiate with reasonable people how to solve hard problems. Republican and Democratic presidents in the past have all tried to find solutions to these problems. President Reagan helped people get access to work so they could stay and support themselves.

Biden and Harris worked on restricting entry at the border to close down. There are a lot of ways to approach this problem. We don't think it has to come to this. But yeah, I think when you look at, you know, Ralph Carr has always been one of my heroes. He was the governor who in the middle of the internment of Japanese Americans said this was the wrong thing to do. And he stood up. It was unpopular. People were mad at him about it. That was the middle of wartime. If the president or any of his actors are going to do things that we think are illegal or immoral or unethical, we'll stand up against them. So everything you just heard there is incoherent.

Starting with, and this has become the kind of standard Democrat talking point now. They used to say, I mean, I'm old enough to remember six months ago when the standard Democrat talking point was that all forms of border enforcement were, are inhumane, unjust, human rights violations, right? Build bridges, not walls. Okay. That sort of nonsense.

Well, they know that that's a total losing political position now. And so they've tried to moderate to some extent, but they've ended up in a place that makes even less sense. Because now they say, well, there are other solutions to this problem. Border enforcement and all that, we should do that, but we shouldn't deport people. Well, but-

Then what kind of message is that? So what you're saying is, so if you allegedly want there to be border enforcement, that means you're trying to prevent people from coming in illegally. But then you're also saying that, hey, we're going to try to prevent you from coming in. But if you make it in any way, you get to stay. So it's like some kind of game. It's like Red Robin or it's a playground game. It's a fun challenge.

But hey, we're gonna try to stop you, but if you break through, you get to stay cuz we can't kick you out. That doesn't make any sense. And also, if it's not inhumane and unjust to stop them from coming, then how is it inhumane and unjust to make them leave if they manage to come? If we can prevent them from entering in the door, and that's not a problem, that's not immoral, then how could it be immoral to kick them out if they sneak through the door

against our wishes. So that doesn't make any sense at all, of course. He says that deportations is like Japanese internment. Yeah, it's just like Japanese internment camps, except for the fact that it's nothing like that at all. The only similarity is that in both cases, groups of people were being told to go somewhere they don't wanna go. Okay, that's the only, there are many examples of that kind of thing in history where you have groups of people being made to go somewhere they don't wanna go.

There are cases where it was unjust and it was terrible. There are cases where it's not. It really depends on who the people are, where they're being told to go, and why they're being told to go there. Those are questions we need to fill in before. So if you came to me and said, hey, well, they're rounding up a group of people and making them go somewhere. Isn't that terrible? I would say it might be. Who are these people and where are they making them go and why? Is it Japanese internment?

Okay, are we rounding up random people? And is it they just pass a law that says that everybody with a last name that starts with A through F has to be thrown into the ocean? I mean, is it some random thing? In that case, yeah, I'm against it. But the major difference here is that in the case of the illegal immigrants, they are being, will be, hopefully,

rounded up and forced to go to their own homes where they lived before they came here illegally. That's what's happening. These are not American citizens who are being rounded up and detained somewhere. These are non-citizens that are being forced to return to their own homes or really anywhere else. I mean, we can't, you kick them out, they can go to their own homes. They could go anywhere else. I mean, they could, the world's their oyster.

They're not being forced to stay there the entire globe, the entire rest of the globe, you can go anywhere. Go back to your home, go hop a ship, go to Europe if you want. I mean, they'll take in anybody. Go to Antarctica, I mean, you could go anywhere you want. So it's very much the opposite of throwing people in a camp or something like that. The mayor says that there's no reason why it has to come to this. Well, I can think of a reason.

There are tens of millions of illegal immigrants in this country. That's the reason. If it hasn't come to this yet, then when would it come to this, by your estimation? I'd love for somebody to ask a question, that question to these people. Like, let's just take the kind of official corporate media estimates of the illegal alien population. And they say, last I checked, they say it's something like 12 million. Like 11.5, 12 million.

Now, I think that's almost certainly a significant undercount. We also don't know. There's no way to know that they're illegal. They came here. They came here illegally. So we don't know exactly how many of them there are. That's sort of the whole point. But and I think 12 million is a massive undercount. But let's just go with that. Let's just go with that for now. Let's go. Let's pretend it. Let's pretend it's just 12 million people who are here illegally. Well, 12 million is a lot. OK, that's a lot.

That's a lot of people. That's enough people where you would say you could certainly argue. In fact, if you're a rational person, you would argue that, yeah, it's come to this. What's this? Making them leave. You know, 12 million, 12 million is the entire population of Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Rhode Island, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire and Hawaii combined. OK, that's the entire population of 11 U.S. states combined.

And that's going with the conservative estimate of the illegal alien population. Now, if that's not a big enough number to necessitate deportations, then when is the number big enough? If 12 million, if we call it 12 million, isn't enough, if it hasn't come to this yet, do we need to have 20 million illegal aliens? Do we need to have 30 million, 50 million, 100 million? At what point would you, as the mayor of Denver-

Would even you say, okay, yeah, this is a bit much. This is a little bit too much now. If we get to the point where like a third of the US population is illegal aliens, then would you say that, yeah, it might be a bit, it's a little, you know, this is a little overboard at this point. Maybe we might need to thin the herd a bit here. Well, we know the answer actually is never. It'll never be too many aliens.

for these people because their goal is the destabilization and destruction of our country and our sovereignty. And that's the part that they don't say out loud, at least they don't often say out loud. But here's the good news. Tom Homan, the new border czar, had what I thought was just a spectacular answer to this mayor and his showboating about going to jail. Here's what Homan says.

You heard this mayor out there in Colorado. I want to get your reaction to it. And I want you to be clear about who has jurisdiction, the federal government or state and local governments. And if you're a sanctuary state or city, are you breaking the law? You're absolutely breaking the law. All you have to do is look at Arizona versus U.S. You'll see he's breaking the law. But look, me and the Denver mayor, we agree on one thing.

He's willing to go to jail. I'm willing to put him in jail because there's a statute. It's Title 8, United States Code 1324-III. And what it says is it's a felony if you knowingly harbor and conceal an illegal handling from immigration authorities. It's also a felony to impede a federal law enforcement officer.

So if we don't want to help, that's fine. He can get the hell out of the way. But we're going to go do the job. President Trump has a mandate for American people. We've got to secure this country. We've got to save American lives. And I find it shocking that any mayor of a city would say, and President Trump's made clear, we want to concentrate on public safety threats and national security threats. I find it hard to believe that any mayor or governor would say they don't want public safety threats

removed from their neighborhoods. I mean, I don't know what the hell is going on in Denver, but we're gonna go and we're gonna fix it. If you don't wanna fix it, if you don't wanna protect his communities, President Trump and ICE will. So that's a great, he's willing to go to jail and I'm willing to put him there. That's a great line. That is a great answer. And that's what we've been missing. You need a guy with exactly this kind of attitude in charge of something like this. Something like if you're gonna have a deportation program, you need somebody exactly like this heading it up. Somebody who

You know, usually what you'll hear is, well, you don't want to make a martyr. You don't want to make martyrs out of these people. The Denver mayor wants to be a martyr. He wants to martyr himself by going to jail. Want to make a martyr out of him? No, make a martyr out of him. Martyr in the sense of he wants to go to jail, then fine. If that's what he wants, he can go to jail. He can make a martyr of himself all he wants. But here's the difference.

Because you see this with left-wing activists all the time. They're very willing to go to jail. They're very willing to do things that will or should end with them going to jail. They're willing to do things that are against the law, whether that's you have government officials saying that they're going to defy federal law, harbor fugitive aliens, which is a federal crime, whether it's these eco-terrorists that are blocking highways and

dumping paint on works of art in museums, BLM rioters, of course, burning down buildings, all the rest of it. You have these left-wing activists that break the law all their time. They're very willing to do that. And sometimes you even hear conservatives that I think mistakenly, but sort of begrudgingly give the left-wing activists a little bit of credit. They're like, well, at least they're, hey, I don't agree with them, but they're really putting their money where their mouth is.

But they're actually not because here's the unspoken thing with all of these left-wing activists embracing their martyrdom by going to jail. They're always doing it with the implicit understanding that number one, they might not even get arrested at all in the first place. But if they do, nothing's really gonna happen to them. In their minds, they're not actually risking. Maybe they go to jail, maybe they spend a night in jail at most, probably not even that long.

And then they get to go and they get the photo op of them getting arrested. They get to go talk, they get to go brag about it. And that's what it is. That's what the martyrdom is for them. Now, if you made it clear that, yeah, we're gonna arrest you and we're gonna actually put you in prison. So go ahead, tough guy, go ahead. You wanna, I'm willing to go to jail, okay, but you're really gonna go. This is not just, this is not a photo op.

When we march you down and you spend two hours in a jail cell before you get bailed out, you never see the inside of a jail cell again. We're gonna actually prosecute you. We're gonna try to put you in prison for real, like years. Then we'll see. We'll see how tough you are then. And that goes for this mayor. It goes for the eco-terrorists. It goes for any of them. Now, I guarantee once you start doing that, you're not gonna find nearly as many left-wing activists. Antifa, another example.

All of them, all of them, all of this, it's all theater to them. Because it's always with the implicit understanding that they're not actually gonna suffer any real significant legal consequences. Once you start imposing real significant legal consequences, I think almost all of them back away. Cuz they're like, wait a minute, I don't wanna do it. The mayor of Denver, he doesn't wanna actually go to jail for, even if you put him in jail for six months, he doesn't wanna do that, six months.

Hell no. Six hours at most. So that has to be the follow-up. And I think Tom Allman would do that. Of course, he can't do that all on his own. The prosecuting part of it would have to be, you know, you need the Justice Department for that. But that's what's going to have to be necessary. All right. Daily Wire reports Trump Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth has broken his silence on the sexual assault accusation made against him back in 2017, which has resurfaced.

since President-elect Trump tapped Hegseth for the DOD position. A police report concerning the allegation against Hegseth was released last week in response to a public records request. An unnamed woman claims Hegseth sexually assaulted her in a hotel room following a conservative conference. Hegseth said the encounter was consensual and police decided against any further action. It's very simple, Hegseth told reporters. The matter was fully investigated. I was completely cleared and that's where I'm going to leave it.

An attorney for Hegseth told the New York Post on Monday that they're demanding a file from the Monterey County District Attorney's Office that they believe will show further exonerating details about the interaction. The memo the legal team is seeking outlines why the District Attorney's Office did not prosecute it. It allegedly details an earlier allegation of sexual misconduct made by Hegseth's accuser. As part of her investigation, we received credible information indicating that she may have made similar false allegations against another man in the past.

The DIA may have relied upon this as part of their determination in addition to other witnesses who contradicted her story. And the report goes on to say that there's also security camera footage of the witness going up to the hotel room with Hegseth, does not appear to be intoxicated, is locked arms with Hegseth, smiling.

as she goes up. Okay, so we went through this on Friday. This rape claim is obviously false, in my opinion, not even borderline, from my perspective, not even something that gives you pause and you have to think about for a second. This to me is clearly false, clearly a false allegation. This woman was out drinking with Pete Exeth late at night at a hotel with her husband and kids sleeping upstairs in their own rooms.

And she willingly went back to Hegseth Hotel Room. A few days later, she claims that she was raped after her husband starts asking questions. Again, it's not difficult to sniff out what's actually going on here. Not difficult to figure out the real motivation. This has all the markings of a case where a woman did a horrible thing, chose to do a horrible thing by cheating on her husband, then made up the rape claim in order to avoid accountability. It has all the markings of that. All signs point in that direction.

And now we learn from this latest update that this accuser potentially has another false claim under her belt as well. And if that's the case, then it really goes back to what I said last week, which is, and I've said plenty of times in the past, which is that there have to be punishments for women like this. If you have a serial false accuser, that is a person who is a danger to society. That is a dangerous sociopath. I mean, even before you get to the false accusation, the fact that she would do this to her husband...

is a reflection of a deeply horrible person. It's just, can you imagine being in the husband's shoes here? How must he be feeling right now? But sadly, he married a monstrous woman, a woman who will plunge a knife right into his gut, emotionally speaking, and think nothing of it. And again, that's without even considering the false allegation part of this. So without that, it's a horrendously evil thing. And let's be honest,

She's not the only woman like this. She's not in the majority, certainly. Not all women are like this, obviously. But this kind of woman exists out there in the world. And this kind of woman is the kind of woman who keeps the MGTOW movement, the men go their own way movement, keeps the kind of manosphere attitude of let's abandon marriage. Let's give up on the family because we can't trust women. It kind of keeps all that going. It's women like this. Because young men, they look at a story like this and they think, you know, my worst fear in life

is ending up with an atrocious, evil beast like this woman. That's my worst fear. Some woman who will just ruin my life, who will cut me open and destroy me. But the good news is, here's the good news, as I think I said yesterday, that these types of women are almost always very easy to identify. They're not evil geniuses for the most part.

They're the ones having sex with random dudes that they meet at hotels. That's your first clue. It's your first clue that something's wrong here. And you should be able to identify them. You should be able to identify a bad person. If you are perceptive, you should have them clocked within five minutes of meeting them. If you're a vaguely perceptive person, and we don't know who this woman is, but if you met her, whoever she is,

within five minutes, you would be able to identify like, this is not someone I want to be around. This is just not a good person. And certainly after several months of dating them, it should be clear. With rare exception, where maybe you do have someone who's a master of disguise, a master of presenting themselves a certain way, and then they flip on you. They tear the mask off as soon as you've walked down the aisle. That may happen. Rare, rare, rare occasion. But most people are not like that. Most people, men and women,

They're not very good at hiding. I mean, look at this woman. This apparent ploy to avoid accountability, it's incredibly obvious to everybody. So this is not exactly, again, not exactly an evil genius. And that's all without even considering the apparently false accusation. When you factor that in, and if there are more than one of them potentially, well, now you have a woman who is

morally identical to a serial rapist. This is like Bill Cosby, but younger and female. This is the younger female version of a Bill Cosby. Morally, she's that kind of person, if these are all false accusations. And also that kind of danger to society and should be in prison. If it's true that she committed multiple false accusations, she deserves to rot in prison for the rest of her life and never see her children again. I mean, she is a danger.

And we need to start treating people like this, like that. So, and by the way, I also wanted to note that it, this has been mentioned in a few of the reports, signed up kind of in passing, we heard in the Daily Wire report. But they met at some kind of conservative convention. I think I saw that it was Republican Women's Convention is where this all happened. At a Republican Women's Conference, you've got two people, one of them married, going up to a hotel room together.

Then the woman ends up trying to me too the guy, right? So some real conservative values on display there. And I have to tell you, as someone who's been in the conservative media business for a long time and been to my share of conservative conferences, the fact that this happened at a conservative conference is the least surprising detail of all. I hate to say. The fact that a woman brought her husband and children to a conservative conference to talk about, you know,

conservative family values and then turned around and had sex with another man that very night with her family in the hotel. That is, I'm afraid to say, incredibly unsurprising. I can't tell you how not shocked I am. There's a certain type of person in the conservative movement. And yeah, well, there are many different types like in any movement.

And over the years I've met a ton of really good people in the conservative movement. People who believe deeply in the values that we fight for and in the cause. People who live according to the values that they fight for. Good, honest people. A lot of those kinds of people. Those are the people I like. The great people. But there is another type. And if you go to the conservative conferences and conventions and banquets and all that stuff, you meet this other type. And

you know, for them, they go to the conventions, they go to the conferences, they, they're involved, they're getting involved. They walk around with the lanyard around their neck, but you know, it's a social club to them. Um, they don't care at all about any of the issues. Uh, they'll, they'll go to like 20 conferences in a year, but they won't do anything besides that. Their version of fighting for the cause is going to conferences and that's it. And, uh,

And when I say it's a social club to these people, it's social club in the sense of like a sorority or a frat. I mean, that's how they treat it. And that's why you have these people, you know, hooking up in hotel rooms and all the rest of it. It's just, it's pathetic, the whole story, the whole thing.

You know what's interesting about holiday traditions? Every year, my family and I gather around to read a Christmas carol together. It's one of those moments that reminds you what really matters. But here's the thing about family traditions. They need to continue even when you're gone. That's where Policy Genius comes in. Look, I know life insurance isn't exactly the most thrilling topic, but protecting your family's future absolutely has to be a priority. And Policy Genius actually makes the whole process simple, which...

Let's be honest, it's rare in today's overcomplicated world. Here's what you need to know. With Policy Genius, you can find life insurance policies that start at just $292 per year for a million dollars of coverage. Some options are 100% online and let you avoid unnecessary medical exams. I appreciate that they're not trying to waste your time with bureaucratic nonsense.

Their licensed agents help you compare quotes from America's top insurers side by side, completely free, no hidden fees. And unlike dealing with some government agency, these people actually know what they're doing. They handle all the paperwork and advocate for you throughout the process. Even if you have life insurance through work, and I know many of you do, it might not be enough to protect your family's needs. It probably won't follow you if you leave your job. That's why

having your own policy matters. Secure your families tomorrow so you have peace of mind today. Head to policygenius.com slash Walsh or click the link in the description to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save. That's policygenius.com slash Walsh.

Our Daily Wire Plus Black Friday sale is live. Get 50% off new annual memberships right now. Normally, this is where I'd share a code, but not today. No code needed. Just head to dailywire.com slash blackfriday and claim your new Daily Wire Plus membership for 50% off. With Daily Wire Plus, you get it all, uncensored daily shows with limited ads, live breaking news, premium entertainment, reshaping culture from the decade's number one documentary, Am I Racist?, to exclusive series and hit movies. Daily Wire Plus offers it all and more

Your support makes this fight possible. So don't wait. Join the fight and save 50% off today. Go to dailywire.com slash Black Friday. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Today for our daily cancellation, I want to bring this full circle and return to the subject we opened the show with. I believe, as you know, that there needs to be a federal ban on gender transitions for children. Actually, I think there should be a federal ban on all gender transitions for everybody, children and adults alike.

It should not be legal for a doctor to sexually mutilate anyone, no matter how old they are. Doctors should be legally barred from performing Frankenstein medical experiments on their patients.

And it's especially evil to do when the patient is 13 years old, but it isn't suddenly okay or medically valid if the patient is 33 years old. However, I do believe in taking what you can get in any fight, working incrementally towards your ultimate goal. And all that means is that you have to choose the best available option at any given moment.

A full ban on medical transitions for everybody is not available right now politically. So we'll start with the most important thing, which is protecting children. On that end, I want to deal with the most common objection I still hear to my position and the position of all sane people that child gender transition should be banned across the board. And it's not even an objection really so much as essentially a delaying tactic. It's kind of an argument for stalling, for refusing to charge ahead and do the right thing.

I've heard this argument a lot. I anticipate that we'll probably hear much more of it. It'll be the main point of resistance from some Republican members of Congress to the idea of passing a federal ban. So I think it's worth addressing here again. And in order to address it, I'm going to use this tweet from somebody named David Crabb to frame the argument. He responded to me on Twitter yesterday with this point. I have no idea who this guy is. He's not anybody important. It doesn't matter. But he lays out the argument that I want to refute, if you can even call it an argument.

But again, hear this all the time. So here's what he says. Quote, right. Let's talk science, real science, not the ideological hand-waving Walsh's peddling. I've read the studies. I've seen the data. And here's the truth. The long-term effects of gender-affirming care on children are anything but settled.

That's the problem. Anyone pretending we have complete understanding of the consequences is lying to you. When it comes to irreversible interventions, hormone blockers, surgeries, or sterilization, we have a duty to stop and scrutinize before charging ahead. Protecting children means ensuring we don't sacrifice their future health, fertility, or mental well-being on the altar of ideology. Science demands caution, not dogma.

Gender dysphoria is real and deserves compassion and treatment, but pumping kids full of hormones or steering them towards permanent surgeries before they're even old enough to vote, that's not compassion, that's reckless. If Walsh were serious about protecting kids, he'd lead with nuance and evidence, not sensationalist rhetoric. Instead, his approach polarizes the debate and shuts down honest inquiry. So let me be clear. We're not saying never, but we are saying not now. Science should guide policy, and right now the science says slow down.

No, I'm saying never, David. I'm not saying slow down. I'm saying stop. I'm saying stop and never start again. That's what I'm saying. That's what those of us who are sane and have functional moral compasses are saying. What I just read is exactly the kind of attitude that put us in this position in the first place. This is precisely the reason why we're in a situation where we have to pass a federal ban on butchering children to begin with.

It's not because of the radicals who are passionately in favor of sexually mutilating minors. Yes, they're the ones who actively push the agenda, but there aren't enough of them to accomplish anything. There aren't enough true believers in gender ideology. There are very few actual true believers in gender ideology. Only the most hopelessly deluded actually believe in the doctrines of gender ideology and therefore actively push it. They aren't numerous enough or powerful enough in order to get us here.

It required a lot of people with this guy's attitude. It required many, many people who should know better, but lack the spine, lack the common sense to say, no, absolutely not. This is not happening. We won't let you do this. Instead, so many people took this approach. They said, well, I don't know. I mean, I'm not sure about this. The science isn't settled. I think we need more studies. Let's slow down. Let's just see.

That is precisely the attitude that has allowed thousands of children to be permanently disfigured and physically destroyed. So let me say this, I don't care about what you call settled science or unsettled science, I don't care. What the hell does it mean for the science to be settled anyway? All it means in practice is that a bunch of billion dollar organizations with a financial stake in the issue have come out and all agreed that a certain thing is so or isn't so.

Science is settled, practically speaking now, by a majority vote of self-appointed experts who are financially incentivized to come to that conclusion. I don't care what they say is settled. And this is a real paradox for people who still want to trust the experts and talk about settled science and yet who at the same time

Want to take kind of the middle of the road approach here, the kind of slow down approach to gender butchery. The paradox is that the so-called experts, many of the major medical organizations, many of the largest and most allegedly reputable hospitals in the country, all came out within the last few years and said that, yes, it's a great idea to sterilize and castrate children. They didn't just say that it's a great idea. They've been doing it.

So if your position is that the science isn't settled and we should slow down and do more studies, then you are already contradicting the so-called experts. You are already in a position where you don't trust them. If you take any position other than, yes, let's start pumping chemicals into 10-year-olds who say they're the opposite sex. If you take any position other than that, you are now officially staking out ground in direct opposition to many of the organizations that claim to represent science.

And you should, because those organizations have destroyed their credibility in a way that can never be repaired. But what that means is that you can't then fall back on the let's do more studies thing, because who the hell do you think is doing the studies? Who's funding them? It's the very organizations and groups whose fundamental credibility you have already rejected, and for good reason.

Because by the way, we could talk about how well there is not really a consensus of the experts. There's plenty of organizations who don't agree with this and we talked about in the opening. But it's also true that especially in this country, a huge number of the once reputable, once we thought credible medical organizations have come out and endorsed this. We are disagreeing with a huge number of medical organizations and so called medical experts and hospitals. It's important to acknowledge that.

It's scary to acknowledge it because then you're acknowledging that, wow, these people are, we can't trust them about anything. I mean, they got this wrong. How could we, they think that there are scenarios where we should try to turn a boy into a girl. How could I listen to you about literally anything? I mean, if I go to you and you tell me I have the flu, how can I even trust that? Well, yeah, yeah. I mean, that's the situation we're in. Hate to tell you.

But none of that even matters anyway, because studies aren't necessary. I don't need any study to tell me that we shouldn't castrate and sterilize children. In order to study such a practice, we have to first do it to children and then wait around to see how it turns out. That's how you study it.

Children are not lab rats for medical experimentation. If you are a decent human being with a functioning brain, again, you understand intuitively that mutilating children is always wrong 100% of the time under any and all circumstances. The other side of this debate hasn't come up with an even halfway plausible reason why it would ever be medically necessary to inflict this treatment on children, even in theory.

Their entire argument is, hey, you know, maybe it will help kids in some unspecified way if we permanently disfigure them. Let's do it to thousands of them and find out. If I have to explain to you why that reasoning is deeply flawed, you are not a serious person and you're not even worth talking to. We got into this position in the first place because so many people were not willing to listen to the testimony of their own common sense. Maybe it's because they were too afraid. Maybe it's because they didn't care enough.

Because they weren't the ones being mutilated. Because something tells me that they would not have accepted this logic if it applied to them. If the medical establishment came to you and said, we think it'll benefit you if we lock you in a cage and feed you dog food for the next six months. Something tells me you would not say, well, okay, I mean, the science isn't settled on that yet. It might benefit me in some unknown way. Let's go ahead and do it and see how it turns out. More data is needed after all. You wouldn't say that.

You would say, no, what? I'm not doing that. Are you crazy? No. The medical establishment, now they might rightly point out to you that, well, you have no proof. You have no studies of your own. You can't prove that it won't benefit you to be locked in a cage and fed dog food. You can't demonstrate with data and research that such a procedure would be unhelpful. You've never even locked any other person in a cage and fed them dog. How do you know? They could make that point, but you would not be persuaded.

because your basic common sense tells you that there is nothing to be gained from something like that. You know ahead of time, with no data, with no research, with no studies, that a countless number of things are harmful and bad and shouldn't be done. There's countless, infinite number of things that you know without a shred of data, without one study, you still know it's bad. Have you ever read a study that proves it's a bad idea to bathe in gasoline?

Or to shave with a chainsaw? How much research has been done on those questions? The science isn't settled, folks! How can you know for sure? Well, you know because you aren't insane. Because you are a human being with a mind and a basic capacity for discernment. That's how you know. That's also how we know that chemically castrating and sterilizing children is an act of abject evil. We know it because we know it. Because to not know it is to be insane.

That's all we need to say or should have ever needed to say, if not for people like our friend David and the many people like him who are all today, unfortunately, canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.

Hate shopping for pants? You're not alone. Jack Archer's Jet Setter Tech Pants are basically the answer to every guy's closet struggles. With their customizable fit, wrinkle-free fabric sourced from Japan, and all-day comfort, these pants can take you from work to the weekend without missing a beat. Seriously, these might be the only pants you'll ever need. For a limited time, get 20% off when you use code DAILYWIRE at jackarcher.com. That's jackarcher.com, promo code DAILYWIRE.