Bonus: Daily Review With Clay and Buck - Jun 17 2025
01:02:08 Share

This is an iHeart Podcast.

Welcome to today's edition of the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show podcast. Welcome in Tuesday edition, Clay Travis, Buck Sexton Show. Appreciate all of you hanging out with us.

Buck still on the French Riviera as he will be all week. I am in Washington, D.C., and I will be with you solo all week long. Appreciate all of you hanging out with us. We have got a lot to discuss. In particular, the decision that now looms for President Trump.

As he has to decide what involvement, if any, should the United States undertake to help Israel when it comes to taking away the nuclear weapon option once and for all from Iran.

The president just put up this message. We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran. Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment and plenty of it, but it doesn't compare to American-made, conceived, and manufactured stuff. Nobody does it better.

Keyword there to me, we. We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran, suggesting that the United States is consulting with Iran at least enough for the royal we to be used there in some context. There are a lot of different stories out there. I would say Russia withdrawing support for the Islamic Republic,

is pretty significant. And I'm going to open up phone lines and let you guys weigh in because you may disagree with the take that I'm about to give you. Let me also let you know we got some great guests coming your way. A couple of senators, Ted Cruz at the bottom of this hour from Texas,

At the top of the third hour, 2 p.m. Eastern, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. And then in studio with me here in Washington, D.C., at 2.30 Eastern, the chairman of the FCC, Brendan Carr. So we're going to have some interesting conversations with those guests. But right off the top, President Trump has a very important decision to make.

According to reports out there, and I will play audio of this discussion, but we do not have, meaning...

We do not have the ability to stay completely out of this conflict if we want to eliminate Iran's ability to have nuclear weapons going forward. In particular, Iran has buried much of their nuclear material deep inside of a mountain. And in order to reach that location, we need weapons.

to use united states bunker busting bombs that would require us to get involved let me play this from c_n_n_ caitlin collins explaining exactly what would be necessary in order to once and for all destroy iran's nuclear weapons capabilities cut seven tonight israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu says strikes on iran has that it's nuclear program back and quoting him now a very long time

But based on CNN analysis of one of the secretive Iranian nuclear facilities, eliminating the program altogether could prove incredibly difficult without more time, larger bombs and assistance from the United States. The Fordow plant, the nuclear plant, has been a key target of Israel's over the last several days. And we have new satellite images that show just how hard

it could be to take out and why. If you look at this, you see there's a security perimeter protecting what appears to be a heavily fortified mountain layer. And it's believed that hundreds of centrifuges placed nearly 300 feet under the ground are working to enrich uranium that could be ultimately used for nuclear bombs.

OK, so that is the background on why we may have the ability to do something that Israel does not when it comes to the technology and power of our bombs that they do not have. Now, the decision that Trump is going to have to make.

is should we use American assets, bombs, to once and for all eliminate Iran from being able to get nuclear weapons? Secondarily, should we okay or not in some way assent

towards Israel's desire to take out the Ayatollah Khomeini and once and for all remove the Ayatollahs from leadership of Iran, which they have had since the 1979 revolution. Here is Benjamin Netanyahu, cut 12, talking about assassinating the Ayatollah. U.S. officials tell us that the president flatly rejected the

a plan, an opportunity that you, that the Israelis had to take out the Supreme Leader. Do you understand his concern? My understanding is his concern is that this would escalate the conflict beyond where it is already. It's not going to escalate the conflict. It's going to end the conflict. We've had half a century of conflict spread by this regime that terrorizes everyone in the Middle East, has bombed the Aramco oil fields in Saudi Arabia, is spreading terrorism and subversion and sabotage everywhere.

That's the forever war is what Iran wants. And they're bringing us to the brink of nuclear war. In fact, what Israel is doing is preventing this, bringing an end to this, this aggression. OK, so the double question that Trump has to answer as we sit here today is, should we give up?

assistance in the way basically of these bunker busting bombs that would wipe out nuclear capabilities of iran that are deeply buried underground and reportedly israel does not have the ability to do it based on the weaponry that they control second should we in any way nod assent or maybe even potentially be involved in the removal of the ayatollahs

This is split very reasonable, very rational people on both the left and the right.

J.D. Vance just put out a long piece saying that I'll read to you at some point, but essentially saying President Trump should be trusted to make this decision and that Trump has been consistent that Iran can never get a nuclear weapon. And anything that he does related to that will be in his decade long career as a politician, further echoing the comments that he has made throughout that Iran can't get a nuclear weapon. Here's my answer.

I think we should, once and for all, wipe out Iran's ability to have nuclear weapons. I think that if that requires us using our bunker bombs to wipe out that capability, I think we should do it. Second, I think the Ayatollahs have to go. Now,

Those may be controversial opinions. Some of you may disagree. 800-282-2882. We will take your calls to agree or disagree. You can also talk back. We know, and let me lay out why I believe this is necessary. Every time that we have negotiated with Iran, especially with the deal that Obama struck with Iran...

the Iranians have been unwilling to accede to the agreements. They always cheat. They always try to get nuclear weapons. I don't blame them because the Ayatollahs see nuclear weapons in the same way that Kim Jong-un and North Korea did, which is once they have them, the danger of trying to take them out becomes so pronounced that they will be in power effectively forever.

I understand why Iran wants nuclear weapons. It's a rational decision for the Ayatollahs to pursue them. It's why I don't believe that Iranian Ayatollah leadership is ever going to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons.

There is no doubt that they are pursuing them. There is no doubt that they have an incentive to one day have them because it increases the overall power and stability of the Ayatollahs. So to me, this is a bit like starting to treat an infection for antibiotics and then you stop.

Iran is right now on the precipice of having the ayatollahs thrown out of control of the country and also of never being able to have nuclear weapons for the life of anyone listening right now. I think we have the ability to ensure that. If we do not do it now, I think using my antibiotics example, if you start to take antibiotics and you have an infection,

and then you stop, you can actually strengthen the infection because you didn't do enough to knock it out.

We have to, in my opinion, and I know it's a tough call, and this is why presidents age so much when they're in office, because making tough calls is the ultimate job. And there are good people arguing on both sides of this issue from a variety of different perspectives. I think reasoned, articulate, logical cases can be made for either decision, but

To me, if you believe that Iran wants nuclear weapons and has been pursuing them for a long time, which I do, then you have to, in my opinion, wipe them out once and for all. Now, some of you out there are saying, well, this sounds too similar to Iraq. And we will talk about it during the course of this program. I oppose the Iraq war back in the day, 20 some odd years ago.

Because to me, it never made sense to connect Saddam Hussein to 9-11. And we were the aggressor going into Iraq and the attempt to build a new Iraqi government and the trillions of dollars that we spent and the loss of men and the loss of

Basically, everything without much benefit to me felt very similar to Afghanistan. So what would later happen in Afghanistan? I do not believe that the United States should take the next step of having boots on the ground and trying to pick who the leaders of Iran are going to be going forward.

There seems to be some optimism that the Iranian people might well support their royal family, which was deposed and kicked out of the country in the 1970s. And again, if you go back and watch those YouTube videos, they're up. You can go check them out. Iran, for a Middle Eastern country, used to be quite free. Instead of walking around in hijabs and burqas, women were walking around in high heels and skirts.

This was a jewel of Middle Eastern economy. They have fallen behind. Saudi Arabia has passed them. Qatar has passed them. All of these other countries that used to look up to Iran have now ended up surpassing Iran. Persians, proud people that live there. I think economically, this is what I love about what Trump is doing. He's not focusing on religion anymore.

He's focusing on economic opportunity. That doesn't mean there's something wrong with the religious focus, but Christians, Jews, and Muslims have struggled to get along, as you well know, in the Middle East for a very long time.

trying to reconcile those religions can be challenging. Instead, to me, what Trump seems to have been successful in doing is saying, hey, let's focus on commerce. Let's focus on capitalism. Let's focus on growing everybody's economy together. And that seems to have been received very favorably. Trump has done a phenomenal job, in my opinion, and his team on Middle Eastern relationships, building them.

The Middle Eastern countries by and large, Saudi Arabia, the largest and most powerful of them, they want the Ayatollahs gone. They actually support Israel and the United States if we make this decision. It's going to be a hard one. It's going to be a difficult one. We'll talk about this. I'll certainly talk about it with Ted Cruz and Senator Rand Paul, who are both going to be on this program. And we'll take some of your calls and some of your talkbacks on this decision.

But to me, this is a hard decision. But presidents are elected to make hard decisions. Trump, in my opinion, should wipe out the nuclear capabilities once and for all. And I think should quietly assent to the idea from Israel of taking out the Ayatollahs who are persecuting authoritarians.

who do not have, I don't believe, substantial support inside of Iran. I think that what replaced them, while potentially uncertain, would be better and safer for all of us than what is there now. America first does not mean America alone. We have to make rational decisions in the larger world about Iran.

how to ensure that we are safe. And I do not believe that if we allowed Iran to ever have a nuclear weapon, that would make the world safer. We've already got one crazy man, Kim Jong-un, with nuclear weapons. I don't think it's a good decision to allow Iran, run by, frankly, religious, zealot, crazy people,

to have a nuclear weapon. We have seen what happens when religious, zealot, crazy people from the Middle East decide to train their focus on us. It's 9-11. I believe that the Ayatollah is not just chanting death to America and leading those chants in Iran because he wants a few good viral moments. I think he hates America and would do us ill, and therefore we have to prepare for it.

Even the most tech-savvy companies have a hard time keeping their customer databases safe from cyber attack. That's what is the point of LifeLock. They monitor millions of data points a second for risk to your identity. And if you become a victim of identity theft, a dedicated U.S.-based restoration specialist will fix it, guaranteed, or you'll get your money back. You can get your online identity protected before it's too late. Join now.

Use my name, Clay, for 40% off your first year. That is lifelock.com. My name, Clay, for 40% off your first year. 1-800-LIFELOCK. You can go online to lifelock.com. Use my promo code, Clay, for 40% off. That's lifelock.com. Promo code, Clay, for 40% off.

Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes we're endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. GCU believes in equal opportunity and 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. You can 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 over 340 academic programs as of September 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.

The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration in the United States. Recipients have done the improbable, showing immense bravery and sacrifice in the name of something much bigger than themselves. This medal is for the men who went down that day. It's for the families of those who didn't make it. I'm J.R. Martinez. I'm a U.S. Army veteran myself.

And I'm honored to tell you the stories of these heroes on the new season of Medal of Honor, Stories of Courage from Pushkin Industries and iHeart Podcast. From Robert Blake, the first black sailor to be awarded the medal, to Daniel Daly, one of only 19 people to have received the Medal of Honor twice. These are stories about people who have distinguished themselves by acts of valor going above and beyond the call of duty. You'll hear about what they did.

We're going to be joined by Senator Ted Cruz in a moment. I believe he is voting right now.

on the Senate floor. So let me go ahead and hit you with this off the top so we're cleaned up for the backside. Our friends at Tunnel to the Towers do incredible work. And unfortunately, 9-11 is still taking lives today. We remember the 2,977 people lost on 9-11.

including many first responders. But since then, many have died from 9-11-related illnesses. And unfortunately, there's a whole generation of kids growing up that don't know much about 9-11. That's why the Tunnel to the Towers 9-11 Institute is helping to fix that by saying,

instructing kids in grades k through 12 with non-fiction uh stories surrounding what happened on 9-11 first person accounts the discovering heroes book series 9-11 speakers bureau to never forget we must educate future generations help our nation keep its vow join me in donating 11 a month to tunnel the towers at t2t.org that's t the number two t.org while we wait

on Senator Ted Cruz to join us. Several of you wanting to weigh in. Let's go to James in Texas. What you got, James? Yeah, Clay, I would like to both accept and applaud your antibiotic spot on.

Yeah, thank you. I think he was breaking up there a little bit. He was using the antibiotic analogy to say that he agrees. By the way, I told you I would read this. I'm going to go back to calls in a sec here, but let me hit you with what J.D. Vance posted. I'm seeing this from the inside, and I'm admittedly biased.

But there's a lot of crazy stuff on social media. Again, this is J.D. Vance. So I wanted to address directly some things on the Iran issue. First, Trump has been, POTUS, has been amazingly consistent over 10 years that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.

Over the last few months, he's encouraged the foreign policy team to reach a deal with Iran to accomplish this goal. Presidents made clear Iran cannot have uranium enrichment, and he said repeatedly this would happen one of two ways, the easy way or the other way. Then there's an explanation of uranium enrichment.

And he says, continuing, the president shown remarkable restraint, keeping our military's focus on protecting our troops and protecting our citizens. He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the president. And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy.

But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue. Having seen up close and personal, I can assure you he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people's goals. Whatever he does, that is his focus. That is J.D. Vance. Greg, in Port St. Lucie, Florida, what you got for us?

Evan listener, how are you? So I'm going to have to disagree with you on behalf of dropping the bunker buster. I mean, if there's so many people that are just, you know, in the shadows that are quietly supporting this, then I think they need to help provide support.

I don't think sending in a major bunker buster is a great idea. We've got to remember there was the interview back in 94 with Dick Cheney during the whole Desert Storm and Kuwait situation. We were asked, you know, why didn't we take out Saddam at the time? Because he said that would be a bad idea because then you destabilize the Middle East. All right. As much of a dictator as he is, you destabilize it. Okay. I understand that argument. But let me go back to the bomb issue.

What would you do? Do you believe that Iran wants nuclear weapons? I do absolutely believe that they want nuclear weapons. Okay, so... I don't think... Why... Sorry, let me just ask...

Yeah, but so if it is required to stop them from getting nuclear weapons that we use because they have buried much of their production way underground to try to prevent it from being reached by bombs, and if only the United States has the technology and the bomb-making ability to reach that, would you leave it alone and let Iran continue to try to produce a nuclear weapon?

No, I'm not saying leave it alone. I'm saying right now we know that the Ayatollah is extremely – his health is beginning to fade. He's just 87 years old. Okay, we know that the regime is getting ready to collapse, especially with all the Israeli strikes and everything. We see that they're getting ready to fall.

fall. Okay. The leadership is, it's collapsing. You know, it's just not good. So let's just blow out all of the tunnels and anything that leads down into their, uh,

seal it off. All right. So that way they can't get down into it by that, by the time they're able to get access to that. Again, there's already going to be a regime change. Okay. I, I, I think we should allow the region to deal with this issue. I think, uh, you know, I'm just a carpenter from, you know, a small town in Pennsylvania. Originally I moved to Port St. Lucy about a decade ago. All right. But we're tired of the doom and gloom and the,

constant shelling in the Middle East.

Okay, thank you for the call. Thank you for the call. I'm going to go to more calls. My concern, candidly, is that if we don't end Iran's ability to undertake enrichment to try to produce nuclear weapons, if we don't end it once and for all now, we're going to be back at this exact same situation in the years ahead. And that's why I use the antibiotic example. If you've got a sickness and...

and you start to treat it with antibiotics and you actually don't fully wipe it out, you just take a couple of pills or for a few days, then the virus actually can come back much stronger than if you go ahead and wipe it out once and for all. Right. That's my analogy of what I'm concerned of if we don't take out Iran once and for all right now. Ken in southeast Michigan. Ken, what you got for us?

Well, I think it's essential that we don't underestimate how to vote the leaders of Iran are to their religious conviction. Yes, they will use the nuclear bomb the second they have it. They truly do believe.

Kill the infidel. Kill the nonbeliever. This is their fundamental belief system. They will use the weapon. They're not the Chinese. They're not the Russians. They're not the North Koreans. They will use it, and we must stop them no matter what it takes. Thank you for the call. That's my concern for people out there who say, okay, why do we care if Iran gets a nuclear weapon?

I understand why Iran wants a nuclear weapon, because the Ayatollahs believe that, much like Kim Jong-un, that will keep them from ever being replaced. That is a logical goal on their side. But also, we know that Muslim fundamentalists who are religiously motivated are not necessarily going to engage in rational behavior.

And they may decide at some point in time to actually fire a nuke and try to wipe out Israel. They may decide at some point in time to unleash that nuclear arsenal on other countries around the world. I'm nervous about Kim Jong-un doing it. I wish he didn't have nuclear weapons. I think America would be safer. I think the world would be safer. Senator Ted Cruz with us now. He's just coming off the Senate floor.

I know this is a tough call, and you may not have been expecting that this was going to emerge as the tough time that we have now to make this call. But what do you think America should do as it pertains to Iran, given what's going on right now?

To be honest, Clay, I don't think it's a tough call at all. I think we should stand unshakably with the state of Israel. I think Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon is the most acute national security threat facing the United States today.

And I think Israel acting decisively to take out Iran's capability to develop a nuclear weapon is overwhelmingly beneficial to America. It makes us safer because I think if the Ayatollah were to acquire a nuclear weapon, the risks are unacceptably high that the Ayatollah would use that weapon and potentially kill millions of Americans or millions of Israelis, and that's not a risk that we should allow.

I agree with that. In particular, we're diving into the decision that Trump may have to make. If you were president right now or if the president called and asked for your advice,

If we need, Israel does, if they need our bunker-busting bombs in order to get to some of these nuclear facilities, should we give that assistance to Israel, if asked in your mind? Second part of this, should the Ayatollahs be removed in some way, either allowing Israel to do it or potentially America being involved? How would you handle those two questions?

So let's break them down one at a time. So right now Israel is conducting the military strikes. The American military is not conducting them. We are assisting with intelligence. We're helping Israel with missile defense in Israel because Iran is firing ballistic missiles and trying to kill as many civilians as possible in Israel. And I would note there's a huge difference between Israel's attacks, which are targeted military attacks –

taking out the senior leadership of their military who are charged with conducting the war and also taking out their nuclear facilities. In contrast, Iran is trying to kill civilians, as many as possible.

I do not believe under any circumstances we should see American boots on the ground. I don't think our military is needed to be on the ground here. I think Israel is capable of doing this. The one exception is the question you asked of bunker busters, and in particular most of the nuclear facilities Israel is taking out quite effectively right now. The one major exception is a facility that's called Fordow, and Fordow is built into the base of a mountain.

And it was deliberately built to make it very difficult to bomb, and Israel lacks the technical capacity. They don't have big enough bunker busters to bomb and hit Fordow, whereas America does. And so that's the one aspect. I think there is a serious argument. I've long argued that America should be willing to provide those bunker busters because –

Fordow was designed to help Iran. That's where they're conducting their most sensitive nuclear research, and it was designed to help them get a nuclear weapon, which they intend, I believe, to be able to use. And the Ayatollah chants, death to America and death to Israel –

And I believe him, and so I think it is very worthwhile to do what is necessary to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon that could help them make death to America and death to Israel much more of a reality and be used to commit murder on a massive scale.

Now, on the second question about regime change, in my view, the world would be much better if the Ayatollahs were no longer in charge of Iran. I think the Ayatollah is a theocratic zealot. He refers to Israel as the little Satan. He refers to America as the great Satan. And unquestionably, Iran would be better, Israel would be better, America would be better if the Ayatollah were not in charge.

I don't think that means we should invade Iran and try to topple the Ayatollah, but I think we should use every tool we have, in particular economic sanctions and pressure. And indeed, this military campaign directed at stopping the nuclear program, I think, is weakening the regime as well. And so we should certainly cheer if the Ayatollah, if the regime falls. But

Whether it does or not, the objective of Israel's attack here is not regime change, but it is to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. If Netanyahu asked for the ability to kill the Ayatollah, should Trump, in your mind, give that nod, even if we're not directly involved?

You know, look, that's a difficult question. I talked about it on the latest episode of my podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz, and we talked about it at some length. There has been reporting – I don't know if this is accurate. I don't know independently, but I've read the newspaper stories that say that Netanyahu wanted to target the Ayatollah and the Trump White House asked them not to. I don't have a reason –

to doubt or dispute that reporting. And listen, I think it's a close call. Generally in warfare, nations refrain from targeting heads of state. It's also complicated by the Ayatollah being simultaneously a religious figure and taking out a religious figure. There are real risks to that. There are risks of making him a martyr and inflaming things further. So I think it is a reasonable decision

to say rather than targeting the Ayatollah himself, who's an old man, that what they're doing, and Israel is doing it with a

amazing precision is they're taking out the senior military leadership. They're taking out the head of the IRGC and the chief of staff. And in fact, then the next chief of staff, they keep taking out the senior leadership of the military that is number one in charge of waging the terror war. Iran provides 90% of the funding to Hamas and 90% of the funding to Hezbollah. And

They're taking out the senior leadership that are directing the missile strikes on Israel, that are directing the nuclear program. They're also taking out the nuclear scientists. I think it makes sense for the attacks to be directed at removing their ability to wage war against Israel and to wage war against America. I will tell you also –

It is a dangerous time. It's a dangerous time for the people of Israel. I spoke with a friend of mine on Sunday whose mom is in Jerusalem, and he said his mom – like nobody's able to sleep because they wake up at 2 and 3 in the morning every night with air raid sirens going on, and they have to rush to the bomb shelter. So I mean it is intense when a civilian population –

is facing constant missile strikes, and there have been significant fatalities, and there may be substantially more. So the people of Israel are in harm's way. But Clay, also our servicemen and women. We have a large number of servicemen and women that are in the Middle East.

And I think it is exceptionally important. I spoke with President Trump on Sunday, and I called him just to say that I thought he was doing exceptionally well and standing with Israel and his leadership was really important. And I said in particular, thank you for making unimaginable.

unequivocally clear to Iran that if they attack and kill U.S. servicemen and women, that they will face very significant retaliation from the United States. I think that is protecting the lives of our servicemen and women, and that is what a strong commander-in-chief does. That's what Trump is doing. Senator Ted Cruz, we appreciate the time. Know how busy you are. Thanks for hopping on. Thanks, my friend. God bless. We'll continue to take your calls. 800-282-2882.

Hey, Buck, one of my kids called me an unk the other day. An unk? Yep, slang evidently for not being hip, being an old dude. So how do we un-unk you? Get more people to subscribe to our YouTube channel. At least that's what my kids tell me. That's simple enough. Just search the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show and hit the subscribe button. Takes less than five seconds to help un-unk me. Do it for Clay, do it for freedom, and get great content while you're there. The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show YouTube channel.

We're about to be joined by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. I am in Washington, D.C. Buck is on the French Riviera for the Big Can Advertising Conference. A lot of people want to buy into this show as the audience has continued to grow, and so Buck is over there. Senator Rand Paul with us now. We're following a lot of different stories.

ongoing uncertainty about exactly what the United States' actions and responses will be as it pertains to Iran. We'll talk about that with Senator Rand Paul right now. Also, continued fallout of the big, beautiful bill and where that is headed. But let's start with the number one question that is out there right now. Senator Rand Paul, if President Trump called you...

and he said, hey, what do you think I should do about the situation in Iran, your response would be what? You know, the president's had good instincts traditionally on this, and his instincts have been for restraint.

for thinking things through, and hopefully for not getting us involved in this war. I think it would be a bad idea for us to be involved directly in the war. I think the chance of negotiation pretty much goes out the window with the first U.S. bombs dropping, even as it is...

We're so closely linked with Israel, I think that it's almost depicted as a joint action now. But I think it is a step for the worse if we actually are involved actively with bombing. The other thing in our country is we have this thing called the Constitution that says you can't go to war with countries without permission. So if he did decide and he told me he's absolutely made the decision, I would recommend to him that he has to come before Congress, ask us for permission, and we'll have a vote the same night on whether or not to go to war with them.

Do you yourself, are you concerned about the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons? Do you think that's a threat to the United States?

Well, you know, I think potentially. I think that it's more a threat to their regional neighbors. But I would say that I don't want them to have nuclear weapons. I don't think anybody does. But the question about every activity is, does it make it more or less likely? So I think you can argue both sides of, does Israel's bombing make it more or less likely that they get a nuclear weapon?

You can say, well, they're destroying their capability. Or you could say that this is the last straw from Iran's point of view, and Iran will simply rush headlong into developing a weapon. They may well have stockpiles of highly enriched uranium we don't know about. And once you have it, you can really hide a cup full of highly enriched uranium anywhere. And probably one cup full is probably enough for a decent-sized bomb.

And so they have the ability to enrich. I don't think the bombing gets rid of their knowledge of nuclear power, even though they killed many different scientists.

I hope they don't go this direction, but there's always a question. Will they passively come back and hang their head and say, we're sorry and we want to negotiate? Or will they have this sense of nationalism, rally around their flag, put aside their differences, and really unify in the sense of trying to combat an attack?

I presume that since you wouldn't like to see United States force bunker-busting bombs used, I think that would be your position based on the answer so far, that you also would want to have no U.S. involvement in any potential regime change relating to the Ayatollahs or anything else. Your general proposition would be that we should not get involved.

You know, we tried that. You know, we tried it in Afghanistan and for 20 years. And Afghanistan was a very, very tiny backwards country, no wealth and very few people compared to Iran. And we weren't very successful even in that backwater of trying to get, you know, a stable government. And the Taliban ended up waltzing in and, you know, a matter of days taking over that government. So I don't know that we're very good at nation building, nor do I think that's really what

we should be doing. So no, I'm not involved. Do I wish their people well? Yeah, I would love to see their people get rid of their government. Nobody wants to see their people oppressed, the women that have been snatched up off the street, beaten, and who knows else, simply for not wearing a face covering.

And the young people of Iran are said to be very pro-Western, very much more open than where the mullahs are as far as culture. And it is sad to see what's happening, but our job really isn't to send armies everywhere and to send our soldiers and troops.

That's the way people need to think of this. Are you ready to send your son or daughter to march in a trench, trench to trench in Iran? And it really is not a war that we should be involved with.

We're talking to Senator Rand Paul. All right, let's shift from Iran right now to what's going on with the so-called big, beautiful bill. Last week we had Senator Ron Johnson in. I think you and he share a lot of the same ideas on this bill not cutting spending enough. I don't know if things have changed since last week. What would you tell us? What should we know about the current status of the bill as you see it?

You know, a lot of the bill is tax cuts, which I'm for making the tax cuts permanent, which I'm for. I voted for these tax cuts in 2017. Most of them think they were largely responsible for the economic growth and prosperity in the first Trump administration with low historic unemployment. We were doing great until, you know, they shut the government down, shut the world down for the pandemic.

But I'm for all of that. The spending cuts, I agree with Ron Johnson, they're weak, they're anemic, and they will not materially affect our accumulation of debt. And this is the thing people need to understand. Our deficit this year is going to be $2.2 trillion.

If you believe the numbers of the bill, which really probably are not accurate in the first year or two, that they were going to cut spending $150 billion, that means instead of a $2.2 trillion, you'd have a $2.05 trillion. So it's really not materially changing the accumulation of debt, and probably in the first couple years,

the debt will grow because when you reduce tax rates, you do usually get less revenue in the beginning. Now, you tend to get economic growth and grow out of it, but for a year or two, that revenue will go down. They also have some fake pay-fors in there. They have a pay-for that says we're getting rid of the Biden forgiveness of student loans. Well, the courts ruled that illegal, and it never went into action, so they're going to get rid of something that isn't currently happening.

And only in Washington City do you call that a cut when you get rid of something that actually isn't occurring. But some of these things aren't real. Some of the real findings, like putting work requirements on Medicaid, don't start occurring until after the election in 2026. So I think in the first couple years, the deficit does get worse. So...

But my biggest complaint really, though, is the debt ceiling. Raising the debt ceiling $5 trillion when Congress, I think, is terrible with money. They're irresponsible. We've accumulated a $36 trillion debt. They show no signs of wisening up and actually spending cuts. And so I think to raise the debt ceiling $5 trillion is giving irresponsible people too much credit. So I'd give them three months.

And in three months, it's going to be the end of the fiscal year. You realize in three months, they're going to be coming back with a big, beautiful omnibus. And so that's going to be – we'll face that in September. And so if they're going to keep spending money the same way they have, I would say you get very little installments of debt ceiling. We vote on it every three months until we see if we can trust you with money.

What do you think the time frame is? You just laid out the debt ceiling. President Trump has said he'd like to have this done by July 4th. Ron Johnson said he didn't think that was very likely. When do you think the Senate might be able to vote on this bill? What does your horizon look like in that respect?

It all depends on, you know, how many people have courage. Four principled conservatives with courage could make this into a conservative bill. All it would take would be four of us to say that we don't want the debt ceiling on there, we're not voting for $5 trillion in debt, and they would have to change it. Right now, I think it's me and possibly Ron Johnson,

And then there may be one or two others out there, but I really haven't heard a lot that indicates to me that there are people you have to say you're going to be a no. You have to be steadfast and loud and you have to tell them why and you have to tell them what it takes to get to yes.

And that's why, despite getting some credit from some of the, you know, attack dogs at the White House, I've been very clear to the president. I like a lot of the bill. I like him personally. I support him and I'll support the bill. But they have to separate out the debt ceiling. They don't want to do that, but they will do it if I'm deciding vote. That's what I also told my supporters. You say, I can't believe you all vote for the tax reduction. I said, I will. I'm for it. And if I'm the deciding vote, I promise you I'll vote for it.

But if I'm the deciding vote, they're going to have to negotiate, and they will because that's the way it works. The only reason they're not negotiating with me over the debt ceiling now is we don't have the four votes to oppose them. If we had the four votes, we'd have already separated out the debt ceiling, and I would be a yes now. How frustrated, you just mentioned it a little bit, do you think the president is with you?

A little bit. You know, I've known him for quite a while. Is your relationship with the president, sorry to cut you off a little bit, but is your relationship with the president a little bit of a roller coaster? Because sometimes it seems like you guys are thick as thieves and then other times it's like you're kind of at each other a little bit. Do you feel like a little bit over the decade that you've been a roller coaster with the president? Well,

It's kind of funny because I personally like him, played golf with him a dozen times. I played golf with him before he was president, probably 2013, 2014. I asked him to support some of my mission trips when I did surgery in Guatemala, and I believe it was 2013 or 2014. And then in Haiti, he supported both trips. And so I've gotten to know him over time and actually enjoy his company. I was probably one of his biggest defenders on the impeachment process.

But, you know, there is a mercurial nature to it, though, that, you know, I think those were very important things to defense on that. I think this bill is just a policy difference. And I'm not changing anything. I'm for I've always been against raising massive raises of the debt ceiling, whether Biden or anybody else.

But I think some of his attack dogs at the White House simply, you know, it's my way or the highway kind of stuff. But the last time I talked to him, we had a good conversation. It was after the big, beautiful parade, and he was in good spirits. And, you know, I reiterated what it would take.

And my goal is not to defeat the bill. My goal is to present a conservative bill that I can be happy to support. And a lot of the bill I like. All I got to do is separate out the debt ceiling or shorten it, and they could well get my vote. But, yeah, the relationship's up and down. But I think still a lot of respect on my part.

We're talking to Senator Rand Paul. Last question for you. You know, I know we're looking ahead to 2028 as a ways away. We still have to get past the midterms. But there's a lot of talk about Andy Beshear in your state running for president.

He was one of the worst governors in America, certainly the worst governor, I would say, of a red state during COVID. Is it kind of staggering to you that he would be a national political figure based on what you have seen of his leadership in Kentucky? I've yet to see that he'll be any kind of national figure. I think he lacks the charisma, but also the things that he did to us in our state. I mean, shutting down churches, shutting down gyms, shutting down schools,

stores, you name it, limiting how many people can show up anywhere, banning travel. I mean, the authoritarian things he did in our state are what many other Democrats did, too. Whitmer did some of the same stuff in Michigan. But I don't think that'll be popular. I think he fools himself into thinking, well, he's a Democrat. He won in a Republican state.

All Democrats like that think they're going to be the next Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, and that's yet to be seen. But I kind of doubt it from what I've seen. I can't imagine that he'll be much of a force in the Democrat primary. Senator Rand Paul, we appreciate the time. Happy to have you on whenever, and keep us updated on how the bill goes. Thanks.

That is Senator Rand Paul. Look, if you're frustrated with the cost of your health insurance, you're not alone. You might want to consider a new plan available for everyone out there. Offers a monthly cost as low as $262 insurance plan called Ease for Everyone. Compared to Obamacare, Ease for Everyone affordable. You get to keep your doctor and you get free unlimited virtual primary care. With Ease for Everyone, you also have access to over 400 prescription drugs for free, not just at a lower cost, but at no cost. Zero bucks.

Ease for Everyone created as a solution to the broken system that's complicated healthcare. Go online to easeforeveryone.com slash clay to get started. That's easeforeveryone.com slash clay. Get affordable healthcare for as low as $262 a month today. That's easeforeveryone.com slash clay.

Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes we're endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. GCU believes in equal opportunity and 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. You can 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 over 340 academic programs as of September 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.

The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration in the United States. Recipients have done the improbable, showing immense bravery and sacrifice in the name of something much bigger than themselves. This medal is for the men who went down that day. It's for the families of those who didn't make it. I'm J.R. Martinez. I'm a U.S. Army veteran myself.

And I'm honored to tell you the stories of these heroes on the new season of Medal of Honor, Stories of Courage from Pushkin Industries and iHeart Podcast. From Robert Blake, the first black sailor to be awarded the medal, to Daniel Daly, one of only 19 people to have received the Medal of Honor twice. These are stories about people who have distinguished themselves by acts of valor going above and beyond the call of duty. You'll hear about what they did.

What it meant and what their stories tell us about the nature of courage and sacrifice. Listen to Medal of Honor on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

You're joined now by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. He's in studio with us here in Washington, D.C. And I know you've got a ton of different things on your plate. So I'm going to hit you with questions. You may try to dodge some of them just because I understand you guys are pretty good at that. So let's start off here. I think now that President Trump is in office –

It's fair to say that we have seen maybe a little bit of unfairness from ABC, CBS, NBC, among others. They have a government responsibility based on the fact that we have given them a license as a country.

How fair, now that we're through the election season, do you think news coverage has been? What could occur from your perspective to make it fairer? Because they're supposed to be, as a part of getting a license, you correct me if I'm wrong, not providing some form of biased news coverage. But I think most people that are listening to us right now

would really roll their eyes at the idea that ABC, NBC, and CBS are providing in some way fair and balanced news coverage. Yeah, thanks so much. Great to be with you. You know, look, if you step back and you think about speakers in this country, you've got, you know, the guy in the soapbox gets to say whatever he wants. You've got cable channels which are lightly regulated. When it comes to television stations, those are licensed by the FCC. Yes. And they are required by federal law to operate in the public space.

Now, if you step back over the years, the FCC and regulators in Washington, I think, have walked away completely from enforcing that public interest obligation. I don't think we're better off for it. To your question, if you step back, I don't think the national programmers, if you look at ABC, CBS, NBC, they own some stations, but in the main, they program content that goes out through licensed stations. I don't think they've been fair at all if you step back and look at their coverage in terms of Republicans or President Trump. And frankly, that's not just my opinion. If you look at

trust in that national programmers again folks ABC CBS NBC trust is an all-time low in Jeff Bezos of all people did not bed not that long ago saying that these national media outlets have lost the thread when it comes to where the American public is but the good news is this is another side the coin

when you talk about the actual local broadcast TV stations, the ones that actually hold the license by the FCC, when they run programming, it's actually really trusted by local communities. So the biggest problem

that we're running at the FCC in terms of media right now is how do we empower the local broadcasters to serve the public interest and allow them to get some distance from the national programmers that are really just generating content in Hollywood, in New York, and sort of force-feeding it out there. So I think there's actually a lot the FCC can do that addresses this issue. And again, focusing on that

unique public interest obligations that TV channels have. That is super interesting because I think most people out there listening to us right now, when there is a major thunderstorm, for instance, and they are at home, they trust their local news to provide them accurate coverage about danger, tornadoes, everything else.

But they certainly don't trust the national news to provide them. So I hadn't really thought about that dichotomy. It's interesting. NPR PBS, we have seen the vote barely get passed in the House to take away their funding as it pertains to government dollars. I've always thought it's crazy.

to my knowledge, we don't get a massive amount of government support. We compete with NPR. This show does the premier networks all over the country. And it's always felt like an unfair competition that they get these dollars. We don't. What do you think? What kind of optics does the FCC have on those issues?

It really wasn't that long ago. If you looked at a cross section of the listeners and viewer to NPR and PBS, you'd get a pretty decent cross section of the country as a whole. And at some point, not that long ago, things changed dramatically. And it appears that NPR and PBS have been appealing to a very narrow, bespoke, almost a cella corridor portion of the country. And you can do that right as a First Amendment matter. But if you are going to Congress and saying, I want you, Congress, to force people

people to take money out of their pocketbooks, send it to Washington and then send it to subsidize that. I think it's entirely legitimate for people to be asking questions about that. And to your point, recently a rescissions package passed the House that would save about a billion dollars from that funding. The FCC, we've launched actually an investigation into NPR and PBS, and here's why.

They are unlike any other station like a station here, a commercial station. They're non-commercial, which means they get special benefits above and beyond those that regular broadcasters get. But as I said,

But as a consequence, they can't run advertising. But what it looks like they've been doing is running programs that appear to be very close, if not to advertisements themselves. So we've launched an inquiry at the FCC to make sure that they're not violating the law. Because really, you can't have it both ways. You can't be getting public funding and claiming that you're non-commercial and then potentially at the same time running commercial. So we're looking at that.

as well right now. CBS News in the news a lot. You got the transcript released of 60 Minutes, the interview that they did with Kamala Harris right before the election that was edited in many different ways, potentially beneficially to her. What can you tell us about the investigation into 60 Minutes and how does that impact the larger Paramount idea they're trying to sell to Skydance, I believe? Where is all of that from your perspective?

Yeah, right before January 20th, in fact, right around January 10th, I believe, the prior administration, the Biden FCC, summarily dismissed a news distortion complaint that had been filed against 60 Minutes based on claims of editing around that answer to Kamala Harris in the 60 Minutes episode. They dismissed it without actually doing any real inquiry, without doing any due diligence. And so one of the very first things that we did was we restored that complaint against CBS.

We've put it out for public comment. And to your point, we obtained the unedited transcript and video of that interview. We've put it all out there. I think sunlight is the best disinfected. So right now, the American people are participating in this process. We haven't made a final decision, but we are weighing whether, in fact, it is a news distortion or not. And that's under active investigation at the FCC.

Separate from that, we do have a transaction before the FCC where the owners of CBS are looking to sell. And as of right now, we're just running our normal course review on that and no significant update as to where we are on that. When you look at the...

spectrum and and i know people think about this a lot uh... i was out in san francisco recently got to go in a way more uh... i felt like i was in the future all the way most are getting more all the way back at that good uh... we got out safely there

Doing research on that, the amount of spectrum that's going to be required for autonomous vehicles is actually pretty extraordinary. The government, I'm sure a lot of people out there understand this may not, has control of the wireless spectrum universe out there.

Is there enough to be able to handle all the technology coming? What would be beneficial in your mind as you look at the auctions of this spectrum and the utilization of the spectrum? Yeah, this is a really important issue. It's a practical issue. It's a national security issue. Most people, when they pick up their smartphone or they hop into a Waymo, they just assume it works. They don't know how. Maybe they think it's magic or pixie dust, but it's these invisible airwaves that you need to power everything. And when you look at the future of technology, whether it's

autonomous vehicles, whether it's AR, VR, AI. The data demand to carry data traffic wirelessly is just like a hockey stick through the roof. And right now, China has leaked out to a really significant lead over the U.S. Didn't used to be this way. If you go back to the first Trump administration, China was ahead of us early on, and President Trump stepped in, showed strong leadership, and the U.S. closed the gap. That's why you saw 4G and 5G explode in the U.S. Now, President Biden stepped in, and we just fell into a deep,

when it comes to freeing up spectrum. And President Trump recently has articulated that he wants the U.S. to lead again, and we're going to do it. So one of the things that the One Big Beautiful Bill does is it restores the FCC's authority to free up these airwaves, which lapsed during the Biden years. Senator Cruz, Chairman Cruz, has been phenomenal in leading on this, but we are hundreds of megahertz behind where China is right now. And to your point,

Our commercial sector needs it. DOD uses it as well. But I think ultimately right now where we're short is commercial spectrum for high power use. President Trump and Chairman Cruz have been clear, but it's national security, it's economic growth, and it's bridging the digital divide because we use that spectrum to connect people, to connect communities. Your job to a large extent, I would think, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, is to try to allow the marketplace of ideas to work.

at the best of its manner, and ensure that the government is not putting a hand or a finger on the scale to allow one side to have an advantage. How fair do you think the overall media environment is from your perspective as FCC chairman when you look at it across the scope of all of the different arenas that you are monitoring right now? Do you think we have a fair system in place right now, or do you think there's still a lot of things that need to be done? Well, I think there's

still a significant ways to go in terms of making sure that broadcasters in particular live up to the public interest obligation. Again, the studies and survey in terms of lack of trust speak to that. But if you step back, particularly during COVID, we saw this massive increase

acceleration of censorship in this country. And a lot of it took place on social media and on big tech platforms. Silicon Valley was deciding whether you got to stay on the digital town square, what you could say. And the evidence also shows that the Biden administration was effectively colluding with a lot of these social media companies to shut down free speech. And it didn't just happen here in the U.S., it's spreading globally. In Brazil, there's this Justice Des Moires, this government official there that's been censoring social media. In Europe, they're passing laws to sort of force

U.S. technology companies who abide by their version of censorship. And so to some extent, we are on the backside of that, meaning as the government controls with COVID rescind, we see free speech reemerge. You can't have both, right? If you're going to have massive government controls that came with censorship, that came with COVID, you necessarily have censorship as well, because free speech is a check.

on those types of government controls. And President Trump has come in and very clearly said that he's going to restore free speech in this country. So whether it's the work of the FCC, the Federal Trade Commission is doing great work on this, the DOJ, we're looking to sort of break up that collusive contract

that really amounted, in my view, to a censorship cartel. There's still work to do, but I think we're finally turning the tide on that. Yeah, and I'm sure a lot of people out there listening right now, listening to us on traditional radios, podcasts, certainly still watching some news broadcast, CBS, ABC, NBC. But for my kids, they get almost all their news from TikTok and YouTube.

So to your point on the power of media, the dynamic has shifted in a big way. Like, I don't even know that my kids could find local news on television other than watching sports. They never watch it. Everything through YouTube, and I'll give you an example on this program. YouTube wouldn't allow our interview with President Trump to be posted.

We just had Rand Paul on at the top of the hour. They wouldn't allow our interview with Rand Paul to be posted because they said something that YouTube didn't like. But in an election universe, in a democratic universe, should it, at a bare minimum, everything that a political figure says be distributed as widely as possible and not restricted and censored? Yeah, absolutely. One of the things that I focus a lot on is this concept of user empowerment. Look, we don't want...

Any one single centralized authority, whether it's a Silicon Valley company or otherwise, deciding who can participate in the town square, what can they say in the digital town square. We need to empower individuals. So if you don't want to see Rand Paul, great. Don't follow him. If you don't want to see this video, okay, block or unfollow the show. But we need to sort of get those decision-making –

decisions back into the hands of individual users and take it out of the hands of the big corporations. For instance, on social media, one idea we've talked about is should we have content filters that you can choose? Let's say you want, for reasons that escape me, but you want MSNBC to filter your feed for you. Okay, plug that in and do it. If you want this show to have one, great. If you want Fox News to do it, great. But let's get that power back to individuals and less this centralized... Because when you make a mistake at a system-wide level like that...

The consequences are very serious. People think about, well, there's harm that comes from hate speech, which obviously is protected by the First Amendment. But think about the other side of it. Like when you couldn't talk about the origins of COVID-19, when you couldn't talk about the costs and benefits of masking young children who were trying to get speech development at that point in time. So there's very real harms that flowed from the censorship that we live through, let alone, you know, electoral consequences with a hundred by laptop story. No doubt. A last question for you.

AI is taking off at a rapid rate, and we have fun with AI memes that people will post of me playing the flute and all sorts of ridiculous things out there. But it's rapidly evolving to the point where I think being able to determine what's real and what's fake is going to become commonplace.

really very difficult. Are you concerned about that? Because it's one thing to restrict something that we know is real, but how in the world do we have the ability to let people know what is true and what is false and what someone's actually said and not said? Yeah. Have you seen these, uh, these,

AI-generated videos of the podcasters that are in the baby format. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Those are hilarious. Yes, those are hilarious. Very, very fun. I don't know if they've had any of those views of you or not. I think they may think I'm a baby already. Yeah, I fell down a meme hole at one time looking at all those. I thought they were hilarious. I mean, look, I think we'd be very careful here. During the last administration, President Biden had the FCC propose putting labels on political –

speech political ads that were generated in any way with ai content and really it just became a way of sort of slowing down the use of ai because they viewed it as in my view republicans were being more successful in the meme wars than they were so yeah there is some harm as you noted but i think we have to be very careful that we don't stifle this early on because ultimately it can start to look a lot like censorship so i do think that people need to be vigilant

And we need to educate people. And I think it's easier for younger folks. I think older people can get fooled a little more easily. Well, if you're just stepping back and looking at online scams in general. But I think this is an area where we have to proceed very cautiously. And I'd be very skeptical of regulation at this point. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, I appreciate the time. I appreciate you coming in studio with us, sitting on video here. And we hope to talk to you again soon. Yeah, good to be with you. Thanks. For sure. Look, a lot of you out there right now,

Got all sorts. We were just talking about all the different ways media can evolve. You got VCRs. You got old film reels. You got old photographs. How many of you have digitized those forever? Because the VCR wasn't made to last forever. Do you have the ability to share old movies with your family? Do you have old slides, old pictures digitized?

This is what Legacy Box does. They help you preserve and ensure that your family's history lives on long after all of us are gone. They've done it for a million and a half families, and they rely on Legacy Box to carefully handle saved photos, film, videos, and return them all with brand new digital files as well. They hand transfer everything, one videotape at a time, one photo at a time, carefully preserving your family's most cherished memories.

Visit LegacyBox.com slash Clay right now. Unlock 50% off when you do so. LegacyBox.com slash Clay. 50% off. Preserve your family's memories for years and years to come at LegacyBox.com slash Clay.

The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration in the United States. Recipients have done the improbable, the unexpected, showing immense bravery and sacrifice in the name of something much bigger than themselves. This medal is for the men who went down that day. On Medal of Honor: Stories of Courage, you'll hear about these heroes.

and what their stories tell us about the nature of bravery. Listen to Medal of Honor on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast. ♪