Bonus Episode: Daily Review with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton
01:02:57 Share

Welcome in the Clay Travis Buck Sexton show. Buck and I working late into the evening last night in Nashville. Buck now back in Miami. I am still here in Nashville. I spent my morning. Thank you to my son's fourth grade class at career day. Um,

fun time going in for career day. Lots of the parents are listeners, by the way, so appreciate all of you. I don't know that we have very many fourth grade listeners, but if we do, we love all of you and you're all very smart. Thank you for listening. We got a lot to dive into. We're going to be joined by Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas in the third hour. Just FYI, lots of senators wanting to come by and talk with all of you about a variety of different issues that are going on out there. But

Buck, I wanted to start with what seems like a clear identity crisis in the Democrat Party. They spent all morning fighting the censure of Al Green, a 70-some-odd-year-old man

who was kicked out of the speech Tuesday night that Trump gave and has now been censured by the House. But really, he just looked like a doddering old man kind of waving his cane randomly and haphazardly in the well of the House of Representatives.

And this morning I wake up and as I'm getting ready to go talk to the fourth graders at my son's elementary school, I saw a video that I thought was satire, but it's actually a bunch of Democrat Congresswomen, including AOC, pretending that they are actually boxers ready for the fight and saying,

The amount of just cringe-worthy videos that I have seen from the Democrat Party as they attempt to connect with, I presume, young voters is the idea of what they're trying to get into.

I just I they are lost. And I thought that this was a good representation of the loss. Tim Walls, who is, I would say, a middle aged lesbian woman's idea of a man that will appeal to men. Is that fair? But doesn't Tim Walls look to you like a lesbian middle aged woman would be like, this is a guy that's really going to speak to men. Your analysis is always as astute, sir.

Tim Walls, a middle-aged lesbian's idea of a masculine man, is asked who is the leader of the Democrat Party, and this is what it sounded like on CNN. Enjoy. Sir, who do you think the leader of the Democratic Party is right now?

I think the voting public right now is what I would say. And I keep telling that we're not going to have a charismatic leader ride in here and save us from this. And I would argue that the Tea Party, as it arose out of the ACA, well, where was that charismatic leader? It was John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and a whole bunch of angry folks at town halls that had members of Congress like myself answering questions. So when people are looking around, where's the leaders or whatever, they are going to organically step up.

Okay, Buck, the pause was telling. He eventually said the leader is the American public because they picked their... Okay, but I think the silence was telling there, Buck, because he didn't say Kamala Harris, which I think would have been an easy answer. And he could have just said, look, she was the nominee for president in 2024. She got 75 million votes. She's the most popular Democrat politician right now. Joe Biden and Barack Obama are retired now.

Kamala would have been an easy answer here. It's not a crazy question to expect that you might get. What is your take on Tim Walz eventually saying, oh, the American people are the leader? And what does it say about the Democrat Party right now?

I think if you ask Tim Walz a really simple and straightforward question, you're unlikely to get a particularly intelligent answer. So to ask him something for which I think, to be fair, there really isn't a good answer right now. Yes. Puts him on the spot. To me, it's more about the obvious state of the Democrat Party than it is how Walz answered the question one way or the other. Because to say Kamala...

would be to steer right into more of the defeat that they've already been suffering the aftermath of. So I think that's not where they would want to go. And the real answer, I mean, the smart answer would be to say, oh, we have, and this, the Democrat Party, until a minute ago, would have answered it this way. Oh, we have a deep bench. Remember, they used to love to say that. We have a deep bench. And they would...

rattle off a bunch of names. Say Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer and Kamala Harris, and I can't even... And it's up to the Democrat voter who's going to lead in the next election, but we have so many...

Instead, he looks completely flabbergasted. And I think that a big part of that is any of the people that would come to mind as the names for the Democrat leadership right now, even among Democrats, could be a liability in just a few months. It could become very clear that this isn't or you don't know when it will become clear that this is not a person that you actually think the Democrats consider.

can rally behind and can do anything meaningful to bring their party out of the nosedive that it is still going through. So, yeah, I think that when you look at Democrat leadership, you're going to have to see some of these individuals who I just named,

Presenting themselves to unfriendly media, which will be very interesting. I think they're going to have to go outside of the usual left wing ideological bubble zones just in order to make them seem normal.

The problem the Democrats have fundamentally is that they became a party led by and led on behalf of weirdos. That doesn't look good. And Tim Walz, of course, tried the J.D. Vance is weird. J.D. Vance is maybe the least weird politician I've ever seen in my life. That was not a good attack. Also, to me, the answer says Tim Walz may be thinking that he is the answer and that he's planning on running for president.

And because if he says someone else, then maybe it's a little bit harder to fundraise. Maybe it's a little bit harder to actually argue that you should be the face of the Democrat Party. To me, when he's saying, oh, it's the people, he's then going to claim, oh, I can go be the voice of the people. I think he thinks that he has a future in the Democrat Party.

And I think the challenge for him is Tim Walls is not going to appeal to men. And we can maybe get into Gavin Newsom, who I think is trying to come back out of the California wildfire debacle and reassert himself as a national spokesperson for Democrats.

And, Buck, what is Gavin Newsom trying to claim? That he's actually a moderate, middle-of-the-road, centrist Democrat, which suggests to me that he is aware of just how toxic the left wing of his party has been and that having a fight with them is not necessarily the worst thing that could happen for his political future. I think the problem is...

do you really believe that, one, Democrats want to put forward a white guy? Maybe they do. But, two, that Gavin Newsom coming from California, given what just happened to Kamala Harris, is a California Democrat really on the national stage damaged by what happened with Kamala Harris? Or do you think, Buck, Kamala is her uniquely owned character, and so her background doesn't really matter, right?

Because she's got to figure out what her next step is, too, which is its own funny story as well. Well, I think you can only have one alpha dog in any state in American politics right now of the same party. Right. So I think that Gavin Newsom is very clearly trying to I know he just launched his podcast.

Clay, are you going to go on the Gavin Newsom podcast? I haven't been invited, but I would. I mean, I'll go and talk to anybody as long as it's not edited. Like, I don't want to talk to somebody for an hour and have them clip six minutes randomly of it. As long as it's the full conversation, I'll go on anyone that has a substantial, by the way, substantial audience. I don't want to go on you and your brother's podcast that you just started. But yes, I'm busy. Yes, I would do it. Would you?

I would go on you and your brother's podcast. I think Clay is being very mean. I don't have time to go on you and your brother's podcast, unless it was the Kelsey brothers, maybe. They have a big podcast. Apparently they have a huge following, which is amazing to me. I don't understand that at all, because I don't think they have anything interesting to say at all, but evidently it works. Would you do Gavin Newsom's podcast? Oh, absolutely. I think, look, I'm...

It's funny because they asked if I would go on Fox this afternoon, Clay, and they have a former Obama guy who we're going to have some debate or something. I mean, it'll be three minutes long. We'll both get to talk one and a half times probably. But, you know, I'll make my points. He'll make his points.

It's interesting, though, because Fox News for a while was, as you know, frozen out by Democrats. They refused to go on, really, generally. The only Democrats who would go on were clay pigeons. They were there to get blown to smithereens on air and, you know, for the amusement of the audience.

And I think that that's changing now because they have to they have to just switch things up that they can't continue on with the current trajectory because it's not only that their party lost, it's that they don't have the same control of the information ecosystem that they used to.

So they can't just rely on the New York Times, CNN axis of evil to propagate all kinds of nonsense all over the country because people aren't watching and people don't care. They don't have the same gravitas that they even were managing, I think,

Up until this election. So you're going to see more Democrats crossing over into unfriendly media because they have to, which will expose them, by the way, because most of them are actually not up to the task and not up to the challenge of making their arguments. Tim Walls certainly isn't. I mean, Tim Walls got so schooled by J.D. Vance in the debate. I almost started to feel kind of bad for him, you know. But then I then I remind myself that he had a snitch line over covid. I'm like, nope, nope. He deserves it.

But the Democrats don't have anybody right now who I think is particularly adept in that form of presentation and exchange of ideas on the political side. I don't think they have a particularly strong team on the media side either right now. So...

I sit here and I keep looking for worthy adversaries on the left, and all I see are people who insist on pretending that men don't actually have an advantage over women in sports, etc., etc. It's sad out there right now for the Democrats, which is why Trump's got to hit the accelerator and keep going. Yeah, not only that, but I really think, I know next year is the midterm, and a lot will happen between now and the midterms.

But if you look at the battlegrounds, Trump won Nevada, Trump won Arizona, Trump won Georgia, Trump won Michigan. Just those four. They all have double Democrat senators. If Trump can win that state, then to me, a really good, solid Republican candidate in those states should be able to win, too. That's eight seats, Buck.

That's 18. It's not even counting Fetterman. It's not even counting the Wisconsin. Other states that Trump won that have Democrat senators. I'm just saying, like, at a minimum, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, and Georgia should have at least one Republican senator based on the fact of how Republicans have done. And I think that's setting up for a disaster potentially going forward for Democrats.

The big goal here, because I think that there has been a sense that the best that Trump is going to have for a wide open field is the next 18 months, which I believe is likely to be the case. People are starting to talk about 60 Senate seats now. I know.

And that's now you're talking about anything the Republicans really want to get done. They'd be in a position to do if they got 60 Senate seats. I know that the midterms feels like it's a long way off now. We just finished this election. But why not have that goal? Right. Why not look at it as instead of, oh, we're going to lose some seats in the midterms, which tends to be.

the historical trajectory, why not say keep the pressure on, keep the executive orders going, keep Doge flowing, keep it all happening, and maybe we can get to 60 Senate seats as the goal, and then you can really transform things. And you can do it without Trump having to even face a re-election, which means things could get... If you think his executive orders are interesting, just wait until we get to 60 Senate seats and a majority in the House, although we've got to get there first.

60 Senate seats would truly allow transformative outcomes in the United States. As we talked to Senator Thune, the majority leader, that's the number you have to get to to really be able to get things moving in a rapid fashion in the Senate because otherwise they'll hold it up. Now, Republicans have never had 60 seats in the Senate, have they?

I don't know historically if the Republicans have ever had 60 Senate seats.

I don't think it's ever happened in anybody listening's recent, like in the last 40 or 50 years, it certainly hasn't ever happened. That's a good question. That's why it would be so transformative. Again, we're not talking about simple majority. We're talking about a basically filibuster proof majority, which would be extraordinary. Yeah, I think the last time the GOP had 56 seats back in 1929. So that's the high watermark 100 years ago?

I believe so. I mean, that's just me going fast here with Google. I got to start using Grok more. Have you seen what people are pulling with Grok? Oh, have I seen it? I'm like, yeah, yeah. You are what they're pulling with Grok. Yeah, totally. That's fair.

We will dive into more of this in a second here. I also want to take some of your calls. 800-282-2882. So I've got it right here in my hand, Chalk Daily. And it's a good name for it because this is the chalk that I take daily. Boost free and total testosterone. Contains 500 milligrams of Prima V Shilajit.

and supports lean muscle mass. I've been on a health journey for six months. I feel better. I'm sleeping better. I'm in better shape. I'm stronger, faster, all those good things. Now, diet and exercise, huge part of that. Don't ever forget. We all know that. But proper supplementation for the energy, for the drive and the focus to get through your day and to get the most benefit from the work that you're putting in, whether it's on the gym, on the track, wherever.

That's where our friends at Chalk come in. Chalk has a male vitality stack set of supplements with a leading ingredient that replenishes diminished testosterone levels in guys. That's your body's natural source of energy. When your testosterone levels are low, and that's evident in more guys than ever these days, just turn on CNN, Chalk's male vitality stack can replenish it by up to 20% in just three months' time.

Use my name, Buck, as your promo code to get a good-sized discount on any Chalk subscription for life. Go online to Chalk.com, C-H-O-Q.com. Use my name, Buck, for that massive 2025 discount on any subscription for life. I'm going to take my Chalk daily as soon as we go into the commercial break here. So in the meantime, go to Chalk.com, C-H-O-Q.com, and use my name, Buck, while you're making your purchase. You ain't imagining it.

The world has gone insane. Reclaim your sanity with Clay and Buck. Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back in. Clay Travis, Buck Sexton Show. Appreciate all of you hanging out with us. We are rolling through the Thursday edition of the program. Buck, I asked you as we went to break in the last segment, certainly Scott Jennings, who we've had on this show I think a couple of times,

has been doing a really good job on CNN as their token Republican defender. And they have an entire panel of Democrat morons who try to argue with them. And he often slices and dices them.

That plays well on social media. It hasn't really cut through if you look at the ratings. I saw when Brett Baier interviewed Zelensky, his numbers were out. They were just massive for Brett Baier, like all-time highs. I saw for the president's address on Tuesday, and some of you keep saying, it was an address to Congress, not a State of the Union. Okay, all right.

I appreciate it. The president's basically State of the Union, which is a little bit different because we have the election that happens and it doesn't happen until March. But 10 million people watched Fox, 1.9 million watched CNN, 1.9 million watched MSNBC. We're talking about Fox regularly now posting 70% share on cable news. Do you think there's a market?

For actual debate. Which would actually be going back in time. Remember Tucker Carlson used to be on the show Crossfire. You would have a legitimate head-to-head discussion. On CNN. That was the way they covered it back. Even Hannity used to be on with Crossfire.

Was it Combs? Combs. Oh, I was an avid Hannity and Combs watcher back when I was in college. So, yeah, I remember that. So those don't really rate and exist now. Is there a market for that for real debate in your mind, or does it only work on social media clipped versions? You can take it all the way back to Firing Line with William F. Buckley and William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal.

There used to be real debates out there. And other than like Bill Maher, where you can get a smart, sometimes smart Republican-ish person and a smart Democrat-ish person, there aren't real debate shows other than what CNN's trying with Scott Jennings. What I think happened with the Democrat media ecosystem, which we used to call the mainstream media, but I think rightly people abandoned that term because why give them the...

of calling them the mainstream media. Why are they mainstream? So I agree with that. But the corporate Democrat media, legacy media, however you want to describe it,

They used to control so much of the piping, if you will, that the content could be whatever they wanted it to be, and there wasn't really much in the way of an infrastructure on the other side for competition, exceptions being, of course, Rush, Talk Radio, Fox News. But those were relatively recent. I mean, when you start to compare this to The New York Times, I mean, when you compare this to some of the outlets recently,

uh that the democrats have been able to rely on they they've been running this game for a long time you go all the way back to uh

What's his name? Cronkite. And you go back to the days when there were only a handful of TV news anchors that had tremendous sway over public opinion. They were libs, by the way, but not libs in the current context, libs back then. And I would just say what's happened, Clay, is that the social media gave them a big jolt of control all over again. And then they became these echo chambers of insanity.

where you could just start promoting the craziest ideas from college campuses. I don't know, I want to say maybe in the early 2000s, you start to see this maybe toward the end or middle to end of the Bush administration bubbling up more and more. Obama administration comes along, and all of a sudden you have the mainstreaming of socialism, left-wing radical ideas, extremely poisonous democracy,

and race politics, and all of this gets completely injected into the American body politic for eight years of Obama. But then things just got crazier and crazier, and under Biden... Well, under COVID, really, and then for Biden's term, I think they just reached...

I don't know if you know, there's like terminal velocity. Isn't that when you're you jump out of a plane and you go to the absolute fastest speed that your mask can travel? I think that's terminal velocity. It was there was a bad movie in the 90s based on that's what immediately comes to mind is the movie. But yeah, I think that's terminal velocity. I think Democrats under Biden politically have reached terminal insanity.

They got about as crazy as they could be, and now they're dealing with the backlash from a majority of the American people of, you guys can't just be totally insane. You can't have a dementia puppet as the president, and we all then see it, and we all know it, and you don't suffer political consequences. The Democrats deeply deserve the pathetic and ignominious reaction

Post election party that they are mired in right now, it is exactly what they should have. They earned this. They own this. So let them wallow a bit. Let them be sad.

They don't make good arguments, and to a large extent, they don't make good arguments because they don't have to grapple with the other side's argument. Because when you have convinced yourself that your opponent is Adolf Hitler, your argument doesn't have to be that good, right? I mean, I think that's, in their mind, what we saw. Even Gavin Newsom, who I think is a relatively intelligent Democrat...

Ron DeSantis wiped the floor with him when Sean Hannity hosted their debate about a year and a half ago or whatever it was. You remember that? It basically came down to COVID leadership. Of course. But on the Hitler comparison, which we used to talk about here with some frequency in the lead of the election because it was daily programming at MSNBC. He was Hitler. He was Hitler. And it's...

You really how can you think you're a serious person worthy? How could you think of yourself as a public intellectual or however they want to a pundit, whatever, however you want to describe yourself. If you're going to say that a a recent American president who is leading your candidate in the polls is.

who also happens to be by far the choice of the entire state of Israel. If they were able to, we all know this, I think Trump is, outside of America, probably more popular in Israel than any other country in the world. Trump is popular in Israel like he's popular in West Virginia or Wyoming, states that he won by the largest-ish margins in the 2024 election. That contextualizes it. Yes.

And I just think if you were trying to be at all a serious person, you'd have to say, I don't think the guy who has the overwhelming support of the entire population of the Jewish state is Hitlerian. Yes. I don't think you could be a serious person. And I...

I remember, you know, I when I had the the sit down, you mentioned Bill Maher and Bill was trying to be reasonable. And there were a couple of Democrats at that table. They were just shrieking about the same nonsense about racism and the insurrection and all this stuff. And they forgot that people actually care about what's happening in the country right now. That's reality to them. They care about the economy. They care about the border. They care about crime. They care about things that.

that are measurable and real, not just narratives that create emotionally destabilized zombies running around talking about the insurrection all the time. And so this is, I think it's, this is my way of saying, Clay, Democrats need this. It's like a cleansing of their souls that is going on right now. It's a reset that must occur because they really went insane. I think there's a lot of truth to that. And...

There is on social media a great demand for the intersection. We'll play some Gavin Newsom, and it seems to me that Gavin Newsom is trying to engage in some way with people on the other side of the aisle. I think there's a desperate demand actually for that. I'm not sure it translates on television because, Buck, you're going to do Fox News in a little bit, and I know Fox News has a massive audience, but from a social media perspective, it often feels like

Basically, television exists so that small segments of television can be clipped and shared on social media, whether it's TikTok, whether it's Instagram reels, whether it's Twitter. If you go on and look at oftentimes what is popular or what is trending, a huge percentage of the time, it's somebody taking a couple of minutes from video. It doesn't just have to be television, right? It could be a podcast version of video, whatever else.

that's popular on YouTube. It is just video that's pulled and then put to circulate on social media. So I guess one of the things I wonder about, because we're talking about Scott Jennings, is to what extent is what's popular on social media reflective of what would be popular on television today?

And in many ways, given the fact that television is running into video all over the Internet, what does television even exist and look like in the years ahead? What I do know is...

Democrats have lost the ability, if you look at that video they put up of all the women boxing and everything else, to connect with younger people on social media. They just look profoundly dorky and unfun, and that is not a good recipe for how to cut through in this current era. And I think it's emblematic of why Republicans have done so well with men,

Because men look at some of the stuff that's being put out by Democrats and just roll their eyes over the fact that they have gone completely insane. Yes, and I don't think it's going to get better for them any time soon. I think it's likely to continue as it is right now on the points about Democratic leadership. I mean, Harry Enten, this is cut five. He says that at the speech, the Democrats' reaction to Trump's speech, which we talked to you about earlier in the week,

shows just why the Democrat Party is really at its least popular has ever been. This is cut five. Play it. There's a reason why congressional Democrats have like a 20 percent approval rating. And even amongst their own party has like a 40 percent, the lowest Quinnipiac has ever measured. And I think last night and sort of what's been going on over the past few months is a gosh darn good illustration of that.

Clay, there's really nothing for them to point to right now that I think is positive for their party in a broad sense of trying to go into the midterms and the inevitable presidential campaign. I think, if anything, they may put themselves in a position where they're preparing to fight the last political war because all they've done now for 10 years is run against Trump. Unsuccessfully, in the end, I might add, right? When push came to shove, Trump beat them.

And their whole party turned into this anti-Trump. They have to go through a metamorphosis. There is a transformation that I think Democrats will have to. Now, it's not going to be on every... I'm not saying they're going to become a pro-life party or, you know, they're not going to change that kind of stuff. But in the way they present and in the way they focus on issues and fight the media war to try to sway that middle 3% to 5% of voters...

You know, which doesn't it's funny, isn't it? That's all we're really talking about. But they're going to have to change the way that they're presented, because there are a lot of people that will vote Democrat no matter what. We know that they just 75 million of them voted for Kamala, a quarter of a million people voting for Democrats over Republicans in a few in a handful of well in half a dozen states would have changed the election toward the Democrats. So.

It's not like we're sitting here saying the Democrats don't have a massive infrastructure and millions and millions of people who are voting for any Democratic candidate they put up. But how will they not have the same result going forward? And also, how will they avoid the public repudiation that comes every time they try to present their arguments now? I mean, you know, their stuff, the stuff they're saying is silly. They look silly.

I think there are two things that build out of that. One, they have not reached the look in the mirror and acknowledge that you have a bad message, and that's why people didn't vote for you, not because your message wasn't heard well enough. That's the debate that they're currently having. Second part of this, Buck, and this is where I think they're going to end up,

I think they will move from Trump is Hitler. Watch how fast this happens and clip this, save it for a couple of years in the future. As we get ready for 28, this pivot's going to happen. They're going to move from Trump is Hitler to Trump is a uniquely talented politician.

that Republicans cannot replicate, and that's why he won in 2016 and 2024. Initially, it was Russia. Then it's he's Hitler. All of his supporters are racist. Buck, get ready for this.

There's once he's out of the picture, they're going to start arguing how talented he actually was. And they're going to argue that Trump ism. The MAGA universe does not translate to J.D. Vance or whomever is seen as the successor. And they are going to struggle to produce the support that.

that Trump did, much like we've pointed out Obama, really didn't have very many coattails. He was a uniquely talented individual politician that was not able to bring his party that much success. They're going to start to argue that Trump is that. Get ready for it. They're going to go from Trump is Hitler, Russia is the only reason he won, to boy, he's really good at this, but it's not going to translate to the next Republican. That is, I think,

the cope that they will move towards in the wake of the midterm elections when Trump is coming off the ballot. Get ready for it. Next Wednesday, join me online for a special videotaped interview. It starts at 11 a.m. Eastern, an hour before this show. It's a conversation with my dad that you won't want to miss. See, I grew up in New York City, and my dad was a stockbroker, and he made his living researching and predicting the stock market. Look, if in his line of work your predictions come true, you're a hero, right?

All that is to say, next Wednesday, I'm hosting a video seminar with my dad where he's going to make a big prediction on the markets. Write this date down. March 12th at 11 a.m. Eastern, 8 a.m. on the West Coast. It'll be online in video form and super easy for you to register free of charge online. My dad created a name for himself on Wall Street by his huge predictions, including back in the day.

in 1987 when he called the crash, nailed it on TV 11 days in advance, but he's called the crash in 2009 as well. Has so many predictions, too numerous to go into here. Go check it out for yourself. Sign up for the free event. Go to disruption2025.com. That's disruption2025.com, paid for by Paradigm Press.

Sometimes all you can do is laugh and they do a lot of it with the Sunday hang. Join Clay and Buck as they laugh it up in the Clay and Buck podcast feed on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back into Clay and Buck. Okay, we're marching our way through to

To get to exactly the heart of the matter. New York Times big headline today about Gavin Newsom breaking with his party. I don't think that's what happened, just based on what we've already heard. Clay heard the full clip before. I only seen a partial transcript, and I didn't hear a break with anything. I heard Gavin Newsom being...

unctuous, oleaginous Gavin Newsom. I did not hear any all of a sudden little hint of bravery coming from him. So, with that said,

Oh, and also I would just note, we thought today we might be talking about a big executive order that would shut down the Department of Education effectively. That has been delayed for now. We don't know. It is being reported that's not happening today. It was reported last night it would happen today. So we're on that. We're aware, but...

For now, that's not going to be a new story we're diving into because it hasn't happened yet. Okay, back to Newsome. Let's play now this clip because, Clay, from what I heard, it's funny, you heard the whole thing. I've just heard pieces. And just from the snippets, I'm going, I don't think this guy, Gavin Newsome,

is changing anything. I think he's playing games here. This is the continuation. He had our friend Charlie Kirk on. This is the continuation of that conversation. Play it. You right now should come out and be like, you know what? The young man who's about to win the state championship in the long jump in female sports, that's

That shouldn't happen. You as the governor should step out and say no. - No, and I appreciate. - But like, would you do something like that? Would you say no men and female sports? - Well, I think it's an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that. So that's easy to call out, the unfairness of that. There's also a humility and a grace

you know, that these poor people are more likely to commit suicide, have anxiety and depression. And the way that people talk down to vulnerable communities is an issue that I have a hard time with as well. So both things I can hold in my hand. How can we address this issue with the kind of decency that I think, you know, is inherent in you, but not always expressed? Now that I've heard this, Clay,

This is merely a tactical retreat back to what it used to be with this issue, which is what

What's the... It's about consideration. It's about... Let's just try to be more courteous to each other. So just use the preferred pronoun out of courtesy. Note, when they could, when they finally got what they wanted with the Democrats, it turned into use their preferred wrong pronoun or you'll lose your job. Now they're going back to, can we just be courteous to each other? That's what... That's the game he's playing. Now, I want...

I agree with you. I think he tried to create space without actually taking a stand. Yes. And that's why I shared on social media earlier today that exact clip we just played, and I just said, Gavin Newsom, yes or no, should men be able to compete in women's sports? Now.

It didn't even take him saying they shouldn't. This is from the leaders of the LGBTQ caucus in California. This just dropped, Buck. You left out the IA++, and I'm literally shaking right now. Literally shaking. Here's what they said. We woke up profoundly sickened and frustrated by these remarks.

All students deserve the academic and health benefits of sports activity. Until Donald Trump began obsessing about it, playing on a team consistent with one's gender has not been a problem since the standard was passed in 2013. That is the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus saying they are profoundly sickened and frustrated by the cut that we just played for you. Now, Buck.

The media is actually taking this. I think, I can't believe I'm saying this. They're a little bit taking Gavin Newsom out of context and saying that he basically opposed. I wish he had trust me, but he didn't really, he kind of played both sides. He listened to this question that Hakeem Jeffries just got on Capitol Hill. Uh,

About these comments. Listen to this, Buck. I want to ask about California Governor Gavin Newsom's comments saying that Democrats were in the wrong for allowing transgender athletes to compete in female and girl sports. What is your response to that after Democrats had opposed the women and girls in sports? I haven't seen his comments. What Democrats opposed was unleashing sexual predators against

on girls throughout the United States of America. Honest question. Honest question. Does he just have no idea what's going on? Is he a total moron? That's Akeem Jeffries. That's the House Minority Leader. Let me say this, Buck. The question...

Was actually wrong. The reporter said that Gavin Newsom said something he did not. Right? We just heard the clips. He didn't say. But that still doesn't explain the answer from Hakeem. What is he talking about? I have no idea. I have no idea what he's even trying to say. Who's talking about sexual predators with the high school sports thing?

I have no idea what he is even potentially trying to say in that answer. But this is how cooked, Buck, they are on this issue that they can't even respond. And by the way, let me say this. Hakeem Jeffries, I'm not sure what his athletic background is. Gavin Newsom was a college pitcher. He played college sports. Every single man in America.

that played high school or college sports, if you played sports after puberty in high school or college, you know what BS a grown-ass man deciding to identify as a woman is. Every single one of them. Hakeem Jeffries knows this.

Every black dude in America, every white dude in America, every Hispanic dude in America, every Asian dude in America, every single person who played high school or college sports knows this is complete BS. But woke mind virus buck is so powerful for them that they have to stand up there and lie and sound as crazy as Akeem Jeffries did in order so far to remain in good standing.

I'll give you another example of this. We had mentioned Bill Maher before, who I think is also more making tactical retreats than ideological conversions on issues, but he is...

You know, he is willing to say and has been before even this election that some of the stuff that his side is doing is just nuts and self-defeating. He doesn't like the school marm. You're not allowed to say this. You're not allowed to say that stuff. He's never like that. He the only place I think you would him cross over on this clay. I mean, I would I would largely agree with the two. He's he's pretty solid on the first amendment when it comes to free speech. That's about it. Right. And for a long time, I mean, but he's been very solid on that issue for a long time.

But here he is. He's talking to one of the pod save bros. These were some of the young Obama White House speechwriters. And they have a podcast that at one point had a big following. And it's gone down a lot from my understanding. But whatever. He's talking to him. And this is fascinating. There's a long study that was done, a 10-year-long study that was done about the outcomes for people that have trans surgeries.

And Bill Maher is pointing out that this study was intentionally withheld and hidden because the, guess what? The outcomes are bad.

This is not good because we're told all the time, if you don't give gender affirming care, people commit suicide, the worst kind of moral blackmail. In reality, the people who go through the, quote, gender affirming care, formerly known as a sex change operation. So we called it, you know, back in the 90s and even before a sex change operation have terrible long term outcomes. And they justify this hiding. This guy justifies a play clip 30.

There was a very big story this year. It was in the front page of the New York Times. A woman, I forget her name, and she had done like it was a 10-year study, did not release it on purpose because she said it would weaponize the argument from the other side.

So in other words, it came out not the way you wanted the study to come out. Not what you said. It is a mixed bag. That's true. Some people, yes, it's the right thing. But to take that risk at that age before you know about anything, yes, sometimes it's pretty obvious. It's a very hard call to make. And again, this was a very long study, very thorough, and they wouldn't release it because it came out with the wrong conclusion.

Well, also, I wish we had some of his response to it. But anyway, but the point is that guy didn't clay respond to do it. And he doesn't back down from this. He's like, yeah, I know. But you have to do that sometimes. The greater good is served by hiding the truth from the public on the trans issue. Look, the data reflects and I can't. Some of these issues Trump has been so smart on because they just come down to common sense.

No one under the age of 18 should be getting surgery to in any way alter their ability to have children one day. I say that as a parent. I can't imagine that any parent out there who is behaving in a rational fashion is looking at their kids and saying, you know what? This 12-year-old kid needs to make a choice that could keep them from ever being able to have a baby or ever being able to be a father.

I mean, that's crazy town. It actually should, I think, if you do something with your children voluntarily that keeps them from having the ability to have children, you should go to prison as a parent. I don't even think that's a difficult call. Let me repeat that because I think almost every parent out there will understand. Kid under 18, I'm not talking about when you're an adult and you get the opportunity to make your own life choices.

Sometimes 19-year-olds make awful decisions, but we have drawn the line at your age of majority begins at 18, right? But for anyone under the age of 18 to be permitted in any facet to have an elective surgery that would endanger in any way your ability to ever be a father or a mother,

to me, is criminal in nature, and the doctor that does it, and the parent that allows it, because parents have to sign off on minority surgeries, you should go to prison. That should be a felony. I would just point out that this is part of why the activists have pushed this so hard, so fast,

because they create a permanent army of parents who have done this and will never want to believe or accept that what they've done to their own children was the wrong thing to do. Yes. So for every parent who allows their kid to take puberty blockers and all of this, you now have somebody who for the next 40 years will absolutely go to the mat on you need to be able to trans kids.

You have to trans kids because they're never going to accept what they did to their own children because of the Democrat left and the medical establishment that have been co-opted by it.

Push them in this direction, very obviously. And this is why when you talk about long-term outcomes, yeah, they're just beginning to figure out what the long-term outcomes are because this whole thing is so new in nature that there have been no long-term studies. And so people say things like gender-affirming care. If you say that, you're a drone with no brain because this is a made-up term from just the last few years. Just the last few years.

Sex change operation is what it was called for decades. And the reason they don't call it that anymore is because they want to pretend that there's not a change. It's an affirmation of what's already there. And this is also why Democrats are so dug in on this, Clay, because if they can get you to agree to this, they can get you to agree to anything. If they can get you to agree to have your kids take puberty blockers at age 14, you'll do anything they tell you. They can force you to do anything.

And yes, you're right, because you're making the parents complicit, which is why, again, in my state of Tennessee, I think it should be a crime. And I think a lot of you out there remember when you were 15 or 16.

You did a lot of dumb things. You made a lot of poor choices. You may have grown up and had a ton of kids, and you thought to yourself when you were 15 or 16 that you didn't want to do that. As you age, you recognize that some of the choices you made when you were younger aren't the most advisable or the most desirable. That's what parents are for, is to try to protect children from making truly life-altering decisions. And here they're encouraging it.

And this is why there's also all kinds of age-related restrictions out there. We all know there's tons of different age-related restrictions, you know, alcohol, sexual activity, all kinds of things. You know, if you're 13 and you said, I want to get married, people might be like, hold on a second. Like, you can't do that. Like, that's illegal for a good, you know, there are reasons why you can't do this. But if you want to have your breasts removed...

As a girl? Because you think you're actually a boy? You can never change that. That's a surgery they can't undo. And with the puberty blockers with it. But that, you should be able to make the decision at 13. In fact, the state in some places says it should be hidden from parents. Hidden from parents. This is why I always go with the tattoos. My wife would murder me if I came home with a 14-year-old who got a tattoo.

You cannot get a tattoo for your minor child in many states, and the parent can be prosecuted for doing so to allow a permanent sterilization of your child. It all keeps. We got to go to a break here. Obviously, we get fired up about this topic. I just would say it all just keeps the circle of lies just keeps going because the reason they can't allow it to be an 18 and over thing, Clay, is because then it feels like a lifestyle choice.

Then it doesn't feel like an innate characteristic. And they know that for this to be a civil rights issue, it has to be an innate characteristic, even though it's completely based in psychology. Anyway, look, there are lots of nonprofits out there you could donate to, but there's only one that I know of that is saving the lives of tiny babies day in and day out. And that's pre-born. Pre-born operates clinics in communities nationwide where abortion rates are the highest per capita. And they do it specifically so they can interact with pregnant women deciding between life or abortion for their unborn child.

They've been at this for 20 years and have saved 300,000 plus lives to date. The team working at Preborn use your valuable donations in welcoming women who are pregnant and making such a serious decision. By introducing these women to the tiny life growing inside their womb, they are twice as likely to choose life for that baby. Little babies' lives are being saved day in and day out, and Preborn just does it with love, care, and your help. Without you, this doesn't happen at all.

You, the pro-life community, support pre-born. You've done it for decades. I've donated to pre-born. I would ask you to please consider a donation today because they have saved hundreds of thousands of babies, and they've brought beautiful families into this world, and I've visited the clinic, and I've met some of the moms, and they are so thankful, so eternally thankful that pre-born was there for them, and now they have a little boy or a little girl running around the office when I came to visit. It's a pretty amazing thing.

Please consider a donation today. $28 a month could be the difference between life and death for so many tiny babies right now. To donate securely, dial pound 250 from your phone and say the keyword baby. That's pound 250. Say baby or visit preborn.com slash buck. That's preborn.com slash B-U-C-K. Sponsored by Preborn.

Want to be in the know when you're on the go? The Team 47 Podcast. Trump highlights from the week. Sundays at noon Eastern in the Clay and Buck Podcast feed. Find it on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts. We're joined now on Capitol Hill, I believe, by Senator Roger Marshall from the great state of Kansas.

Senator, a lot to dive into with you, but earlier this week we talked with Majority Leader Thune, and we've been talking about Gavin Newsom and his potential attempts to walk back the idea of men identifying as women being able to compete in women's sports. Newsom today, Governor of California, called it completely unfair.

Yet every single Democrat senator voted to allow it earlier this week. How crazy is that? Were even you surprised that uniformly they were behind that idea?

Well, I wasn't surprised because they've been very consistently against this. They just seem to be wallowing in their own pig barn, I guess. And they can't get off of this issue. Look, this poll is more like 95 to 5 back home. 95 of Kansans don't think it's right.

boys to compete against girls. It's not an 80-20 issue. It's at least a 90-10 issue. And I think that's why you see Gavin Newsom, who thinks he's the next president of the United States, and saying, gosh, I got to walk away from this one. But our Democrats, I'm just going to say it, they've got a psychosis right now. Do not shake this Trump derangement syndrome. This should be a very easy issue to get off of for them. And they just, they can't stop. They're in this hole. They can't stop digging.

Senator, appreciate you being with us. It's Buck. I think first time we've got a chance to talk to you on the show. So Doge and what has been accomplished, what will be accomplished. I know you're looking into this. You're involved with and have had recent conversations with Elon Musk.

who's filled you in on what's going on with his team. Can you bring us up to speed? Because there's what has been reported, and then some of this stuff, some of the numbers get a little bit adjusted about what Doge has done thus far, and then what the plans are as you know them. And to the best of your ability, what's confirmed so far? What can we know is solid? Is the $100 billion of savings, is that rock solid? Bring us up to speed.

Yeah, but I think it's solid in the sense if the swamp will do what we've exposed. So look at it this way. Elon Musk is not out there looking at people's Social Security numbers. He's too busy for that. He has chosen some people that are now full-time employees of the federal government. They went through all that process you're supposed to, and they're in there shining a flashlight.

And so they find some fraud, waste, abuse, frankly, and confidence. They go back to those agency heads and say, hey, here's some money. Here's some opportunities. Why in the world we have 2 million federal employees but over 4 million credit cards?

Why in your agency you have 10,000 employees but 20,000 software subscriptions to the same company? So I think that those will come to fruition. But eventually we need to go back to a rescission process. And that's where the president makes a request to rescind this money. And you've seen these lists of things.

And then Congress gets to vote on those rescissions. And we'll see if the Democrats can stay together and continue to vote against some of this fraud, waste, and abuse. In speaking with Elon just yesterday, he truly believes that there's 15 to 25 percent of government spending as waste. I think...

More than that, I'll give you a quick example. The government accounting office, not Marshall, not Elon Musk, the government accounting office says last year the federal government issued $250 billion of improper checks. Not fraud, waste, or abuse, just improper checks, $250 billion. So we're trying to track down things like that. The sky's the limit here.

We're talking to Senator Roger Marshall. I think the last time we had you on, Senator, we were up in Milwaukee getting ready for the RNC. Appreciate you joining us again. Let's go into... We were just having a discussion, Buck and I were, about the decision to...

Have kids having surgeries that there's a new study out, the precipitating factor of discussion here, saying that under 18 surgeries that change the gender in some way, gender change surgery, is...

is actually incredibly destructive to kids and that they don't actually have better outcomes as adults. I bet in the state of Kansas, it's similar to my home state of Tennessee. If I took one of my boys, they're all under 18, to get a tattoo, in addition to their mom killing me, it would be a crime. I can't allow their skin to be altered because they're minors.

How in the world is this permissible for parents to sign off on and for doctors to do? I know you have a medical degree. Does this seem as crazy to you as it does to both Buck and I?

Well, Clay and Buck, this is absolutely a child abuse. Again, I'm an OB-GYN. I'm just not a doctor. I'm an OB-GYN. I've had to work on some young ladies, girls born with ambiguous genitalia. I won't go into the details, but it's a very painful surgery to try to fix things.

any type of surgery. Young ladies I've known and older women have had mastectomies. They have pain the rest of their life. They get lymphedema. The blood doesn't drain right. Any of these surgeries, anyone that's gone through enough surgeries knows that there's going to be chronic pain because of this. And my guess is it'll lead to many, many more surgeries. So I think just from a

from a child abuse standpoint, from a physician standpoint of doing no harm. I don't know why anyone can do this. I'm, I can't believe the governor of Kansas vetoed a bill that would have prevented this from happening as well. And then the middle anguish, look, I feel for these people that feel like they should be the opposite sex. I mean, there's something going on there. They need some help, but let's,

not let them do something that's irreversible. You know, a mom would bring in their teenage daughter to me and, you know, talking about, frankly, promiscuity and pregnancy, and I would just, I would talk to them both, look, you don't want this what I call permanent scar tissue. Once you get a tattoo, it never goes away. If you get an STD, you become infertile for the rest of your life. So these surgeries, they leave them infertile, obviously,

And the medical, the medicine they give them lots of times also causing infertility that's not reversible and a whole lot of other changes. There's nothing right about this. I just yet can't, anyone look me in the eye and say that they think this is a good idea. I don't know where it came from. Speaking to Senator right now out of, pardon me, Clay, take this for a second. I got a problem on my earpiece.

Senator Marshall from Kansas, as you look at the battle going forward over whether or not the budget priorities of President Trump are going to follow the Senate direction or the House direction, what can you tell us the latest on those proposals? Do you think it's going to be one bill? Do you think it's going to be multiple bills? What should we know about how this is going to end up being reconciled going forward and the time frame behind it?

Look, I think there could still be a second and third bite of the apple, but we need to focus right now on giving the president a win. What he's asking is to make his tax cuts permanent. If we don't, then it's going to mean thousands of dollars to hardworking families. If we don't make those tax cuts permanent, it'll mean trillions of dollars of lost income to America. So

We need to make the tax cuts permanent in this first big beautiful bill. So we're going to take the House bill and try to improve it. So we're going to try to make the tax cuts permanent. The House does a nice job of giving the president enough money to fund building the wall and all

to get rid of these criminal violent aliens that are in the country as well, plus up the military some as well. So I think we gotta take what we can get. President Reagan said this, take 80% if you can get it. I think this will get 90% of what we wanted and then we're gonna have to come back and hopefully find more cuts. Believe it or not, the Senate wants to cut more money than the House does. So we're trying to figure out if there's a way to cut more money and I talked about these recisions earlier. To me this is all one problem, they're all woven together.

What can we do to work towards a balanced budget? But we'll take the House bill and see if we can approve it over here on the Senate side, come back and take a second bite at the apple on some of those other issues that President Trump wants us to get at. Senator Marshall, I'm back, and now I'll be able to hear your answer. Sorry, earpiece came out there for a second. Don't want to have an interview where I can't hear the other side. Tell me what you think about the executive order that is supposed to come down imminently on –

I guess disassembling the Department of Education. It's not really clear to me what exactly is going to be in it because it hasn't been released, but I'm sure you're up on it. Is this going to happen? And why is it if it does happen? Why is it the right move?

Look, I think that most of us, especially conservatives, think that education should be controlled at the local level with parents and their local school board. Because the federal government is controlling so many of the dollars, they also have rules and regulations that go along with that. What I expect this executive order to do is to have Secretary McMahon present a plan to Congress to say this is how we disassociate

assemble the Department of Education. Now look, this is a sad day for me in the sense that President Eisenhower helped start this Department of Education, but it's out of control. President Eisenhower also said that he would rue the day when the federal government was giving money to universities and the schools there as well. So I think that she'll present a policy. I think there's limits to what he can do with it.

executive order, and then it's going to be up to Congress to act on this. But whatever he can do within the constitutional limits of his abilities as an executive branch, I think they're going to push everything they can to the state level. I think he can do school choice through an executive order, but I need to check that.

You were Tuesday in the House chamber for Donald Trump's speech. What did you think of the speech and what did you think of Democrat behavior based on being there in person? We're told it was even more egregious in person than it was for those of us watching on television.

Yeah, a couple of thoughts. You know, I can feel this momentum from back home that when the night Donald Trump was elected, you could just literally feel this big shift we call America turning in the right direction. I've never been more bullish on America than I am today, that our better days are ahead of us. And you saw, I think it's cabinet. Did you see the interaction between

the body language of his cabinet members up front. That's really different than any I've seen, and I've just been up here for eight years. But these people are godly men and women. They have their own Bible study. I mean, these folks are focused on America first. Now, let's contrast that to the Democrat side. This was rude. You know, I...

Suffered through four years of the first lady, Mrs. Biden is introduced. We stand up and politely applaud her. The people he's chosen that Biden chose to come and celebrate their lives. There were great stories, all of them, most of them. And we stood up and applauded them. But when the Democrats wouldn't get up and applaud for a young boy who survived brain cancer, the Secret Service was deputizing him.

Another young man, his life dream to go to West Point, and they announced that in front of everybody as well. You know, I understand that they don't like President Trump. They are mistaken on the policies, though. 80% of Americans, I'm going to back up, probably 70% of Americans, I don't want to exaggerate,

70% of Americans at least support President Trump's agenda. If you take them one at a time, 70% of America support those agenda items. The Democrats, again, are wallowing there in a pigsty, if you will, and they just can't get out. But it was an embarrassment. It was worse than what you saw on TV. Very petty to see these little signs flashed in front of us.

No doubt. Senator, we appreciate you, and we're happy to have you on any time. Keep up the good fight, and condolences on your Kansas City Chiefs going down. I know. Kansas City, I know you're a big Chiefs fan. That was a tough one for you.

Yeah, I appreciate that. And my Jayhawks and Wildcats, Kansas schools aren't doing very well either. We'll live to fight another day. Thanks for giving us a voice. My Kansans love listening to you guys. Thank you so much. Have a great day. Thank you, too. That's Senator Marshall. Great state of Kansas. Solid representative for the people there. And we appreciate the time. I want to tell you.

After we went off the air yesterday, President Trump met with eight freed Israeli hostages, including Omer Shem Tov, the son of the father we met with when we were in Israel last December with the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. The hostages there thanked President Trump for his efforts bringing them home, and Trump sent a strong message to the terrorists in Hamas of what would happen if the remaining hostages and the bodies, unfortunately, if some of those hostages aren't released immediately.

Very soon. I'll never forget the time that we spent there. The bomb shelters that we visited. The vehicles that had been rehabbed to allow people to safely try to protect so many people. The food shelter that we went to. We went all over the place so that the IFCJ's work could be seen in its full spectrum.

And as Israelis work hard to return to a life of normalcy, the IFCJ has continued to support those in the Holy Land, still continuing to face the lingering horrors of war and those in desperate need right now. Your ongoing monthly gift of $45 can provide critically needed aid to communities in the North and the South devastated by the ongoing war.

Visit supportifcj.org to show your support. That's one word, supportifcj.org, 888-488-IFCJ. That's 888-488-IFCJ. News and politics, but also a little comic relief. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton. Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.

Check engine light on? Take the guesswork out of your check engine light with O'Reilly Veriscan. It's free and provides a report with solutions based on over 650 million vehicle scans verified by ASE certified master technicians. And if you need help, we can recommend a shop for you. Ask for O'Reilly Veriscan today. Oh, oh, O'Reilly. Auto Parts. Woo!