Daily Review With Clay and Buck - Jun 17 2025

Trump's Big Decision President Donald Trump faces a pivotal decision regarding Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Broadcasting solo from Washington, D.C., Clay Travis unpacks breaking developments in the Middle East, emphasizing the United States’ strategic position and military superiority. The hour centers on whether the U.S. should provide Israel with advanced “bunker-busting bombs” to eliminate Iran’s deeply buried nuclear facilities—specifically the fortified Fordo site—and whether the U.S. should support or tacitly approve Israel’s potential move to remove Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah. Clay highlights President Trump’s recent statement asserting “complete and total control of the skies over Iran,” signaling deep U.S.-Israeli coordination. The show features analysis of satellite imagery and intelligence reports, underscoring the technical challenges of neutralizing Iran’s nuclear infrastructure without U.S. assistance. Clay argues that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is a rational strategy for regime survival, likening the situation to North Korea’s nuclear deterrent. He uses a compelling “antibiotic” analogy to stress the urgency of acting decisively now to prevent a more dangerous future. The hour also includes a robust discussion of the geopolitical implications of regime change in Iran, with Clay advocating for the removal of the Ayatollahs, citing their authoritarian rule and destabilizing influence across the Middle East. He draws a sharp contrast between past U.S. interventions, like the Iraq War, and the current situation, emphasizing that this is not about nation-building but about eliminating a clear and present nuclear threat. TX Senator Ted Cruz Texas Senator Ted Cruz joins the program to offer his perspective, strongly supporting Israel’s right to defend itself and warning of the catastrophic risks if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. Cruz confirms that while he opposes U.S. boots on the ground, he supports providing Israel with the necessary military tools to succeed, including bunker-busting munitions. He also discusses the broader implications for U.S. national security and the safety of American troops in the region. Listeners call in to share their views, with opinions split on the best course of action. Some caution against escalation, while others echo Clay’s call for decisive military support to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. KY Senator Rand Paul KY Senator Rand Paul urges President Donald Trump to avoid direct military involvement and emphasizing constitutional limits on war powers. Paul critiques the potential consequences of U.S. intervention, including the risk of accelerating Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the dangers of regime change. The conversation shifts to the “Big Beautiful Bill,” where Senator Paul voices strong concerns about the national debt, criticizing the bill’s weak spending cuts and the proposed $5 trillion debt ceiling increase. He calls for fiscal responsibility and outlines his conditional support for the bill, contingent on separating the debt ceiling from tax reform. Paul also reflects on his complex relationship with President Trump, highlighting mutual respect despite policy disagreements. FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr Brendan Carr, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, joins the show to discuss media fairness, spectrum policy, and digital censorship. Carr addresses the imbalance in political coverage by legacy media outlets like ABC, CBS, and NBC, and outlines the FCC’s efforts to empower local broadcasters and investigate potential violations by NPR, PBS, and CBS’s “60 Minutes.” He also discusses the importance of restoring spectrum leadership to support emerging technologies like autonomous vehicles and AI, and defends free speech in the digital age, warning against government-corpora

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
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.

Speaker 2 (00:23):
You hanging out with us.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
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

(00:46):
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

(01:08):
and manufactured stuff. Nobody does it better. Keyword there to me,
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

(01:29):
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 way
in because you may disagree with the take that I'm

(01:50):
about to give you. Let me also let you know
we got some great guests coming your way. Couple of
Senators Ted Cruz at the bottom of this hour from Texas,
at the top of the third hour, two pm eastern,
Senator Rampaul of Kentucky. And then in studio with me
here in Washington, d C. At two thirty eastern, the

(02:14):
Chairman of the FCC, Brendan Carr. So we're gonna 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 and I will play audio of I

(02:35):
will play audio of this discussion. But we do not
have meaning, we do not have the ability to stay
completely out of that 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

(02:59):
of a mountain, and in order to reach that location,
we need to use United States bunker busting bombs that
would require us to get involved. Let me play this
from CNN Caitlin Collins explaining exactly what would be necessary
in order to once and for all destroy Iran's nuclear

(03:22):
weapons capabilities.

Speaker 3 (03:23):
Cut seven tonight the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Azania, who
says strikes in Iran have set its nuclear program back,
and I'm 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.

(03:44):
The Ford out 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 forty five mountain layer,
and it's believed that hundreds of centrifuges places nearly three
hundred feet under the ground, are working to enrich uranium

(04:06):
that could be ultimately used for nuclear bombs.

Speaker 1 (04:10):
Okay, 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

(04:35):
Iran from being.

Speaker 2 (04:36):
Able to get nuclear weapons.

Speaker 1 (04:38):
Secondarily, should we okay or nod in some way assent
towards Israel's desire to take out the Ayatola Kamini and
once and for all remove the Ayatolas from leadership of Iran,
which they have had since the nineteen seventy nine revolution.

(04:59):
Here is Benjamin Yahoo cut twelve talking about assassinating the Ayatola.

Speaker 4 (05:05):
US officials tell us that the president flatly rejected a plan,
an opportunity that you that the Israelis had to take
out the supreme leader.

Speaker 2 (05:15):
Do you understand his concern?

Speaker 4 (05:16):
My understanding his concern is that this would escalate the
conflict beyond where it is already.

Speaker 2 (05:22):
It's not going to escalate the conflict. It's going to
end the conflict.

Speaker 5 (05:24):
We've had half a century of conflict spread by this
regime that has terrorized as everyone in the Middle East
is 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.

Speaker 1 (05:49):
Okay, So the double question that Trump has to answer
as we sit here today is should we give assistance
in the way basically of these bunker busting bombs that
would wipe out nuclear capabilities of Iran that are deeply

(06:11):
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 a sent or maybe
even potentially be involved in the removal of the Ayatolas.
This is split very reasonable, very rational people on both

(06:33):
the left and the right. Jade 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

(06:54):
decade long career as a politician, further echoing the comments
that he is made throughout that Iran can't get a
nuclear weapon.

Speaker 2 (07:02):
Here's my answer.

Speaker 1 (07:04):
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

(07:26):
controversial opinions. Some of you may disagree eight hundred and
two eight two two eight eight two. 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

(07:46):
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 eyeola 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

(08:09):
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 iotolas to
pursue them. It's why I don't believe that Iranian Iotola
leadership is ever going to give up the pursuit of

(08:32):
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 iotolas. So to me, this is
a bit like starting to treat an infection for antibiotics

(08:52):
and then you stop. Iran is right now on the
precipice of how having the iotola is 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

(09:16):
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

(09:39):
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. To me, if
you believe that Aaron wants nuclear weapons and has been

(10:00):
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 twenty some odd
years ago, because to me, it never made sense to

(10:24):
connect Saddam Hussein to nine to eleven, 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

(10:50):
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

(11:11):
that the Iranian people might well support their royal family,
which was deposed and kicked out of the country in
the nineteen seventies. 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 he jobs

(11:33):
and burkas, women were walking around in high heels and skirts.

Speaker 2 (11:37):
This was a.

Speaker 1 (11:38):
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 think economically, this is what I

(12:02):
love about what Trump is doing. He's not focusing on religion,
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

(12:23):
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,

(12:46):
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 Ayatola's gone. They actually support Israel and the United States.
If we make this decision, it's going to be a

(13:08):
hard one. It's going to be a difficult one. We'll
talk about this. I'll certainly talk about it with Ted
Kruz and Senator Ran Paul, who are both going to
be on this program and will 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

(13:30):
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 Ayatolas 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,

(13:54):
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 how to ensure that we are safe. And I
do not believe that if we allowed Iran to ever

(14:15):
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 zelic crazy people, to
have a nuclear weapon. We have seen what happens when religious,

(14:39):
zelic crazy people from the Middle East decide to trade
their focus on us. It's nine to eleven. I believe
that the Ayatola is not just chancing death to America
and leading those chants in Iran because he wants a
few good viral moments. I think he hates America and

(15:00):
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 US based restoration specialists will fix it guaranteed or

(15:21):
you'll get your money back. You can get your online
identity protected before it's too late.

Speaker 2 (15:26):
Join now.

Speaker 1 (15:27):
Use my name Clay for forty percent off your first year.
That is LifeLock dot com. My name Clay for forty
percent off your first year one eight hundred LifeLock. You
can go online to LifeLock dot com use my promo
code Clay for forty percent off. That's LifeLock dot com.
Promo code Clay for forty percent off. We're going to

(15:53):
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 cleaned up for the backside.
Our friends at Tunnel to Towers do incredible work and
unfortunately nine to eleven still taking lives today. We remember

(16:14):
the twenty nine hundred and seventy seven people lost on
nine to eleven, including many first responders. But since then
many have died from nine to eleven related illnesses, and unfortunately,
there's a whole generation of kids growing up that don't
know much about nine to eleven. That's why the Tunnel
of the Towers nine to eleven Institute is helping to
fix that by instructing kids in grades K through twelve

(16:37):
with nonfiction stories surrounding what happened on nine to eleven
first person accounts, the Discovering Heroes book series nine to
eleven Speakers Bureau to never forget. We must educate future
generations help our nation keep its val Join me in
donating eleven dollars a month to Tunnel to Towers at
t twot dot org. That's t the number two dot org.

(17:01):
While we wait on Senator Ted Cruz to join us,
several of you wanting to weigh in, Let's go to
James in Texas, which guy.

Speaker 6 (17:10):
James, Yeah, play. I would like to both applaud exampt
and applaud your your anti bonic thought on.

Speaker 2 (17:26):
Yeah, thank you. I think he was breaking up there
a little bit.

Speaker 1 (17:28):
He was using the antibiotic analogy to say that he
agrees by the way I told you, I would read this.
I'm gonna go back to calls in a sec here,
but let me hit you with what jd 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.

Speaker 2 (17:45):
Again, this is JD. Vance.

Speaker 1 (17:46):
So I wanted to address directly some things on the
Iran issue. First, Trump has been potus has been amazingly
consistent over ten years that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
Over the last few months, he's in kur urge the
foreign policy team to reach a deal with Iran to
accomplish this goal. Presidents make clear Iran cannot have uranium enrichment,

(18:07):
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 militaries focus on protecting our
troops and protecting our citizens. He may decide he needs
to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. That decision

(18:30):
ultimately belongs to the president. And of course people are
right to be worried about foreign entanglement. After the last
twenty five 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.

(18:55):
That is Jade Vance, Greg Import, Saint Luci Florida. What
you got for us.

Speaker 7 (19:02):
AV A listener?

Speaker 8 (19:03):
How are you so?

Speaker 7 (19:05):
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 some bombs. I don't think sending in
a major bunker busters a great idea. We've got to
remember there was the interview back in ninety four with

(19:27):
Dick Cheney during the whole desert storm and Kreate situation.
We were asked, you know, why didn't we take out
some dam at the time because he said the word
that would be a bad idea, because I think he
destabilize the Middle East, all right, as much of the
dictator as he is, you destabilize it.

Speaker 1 (19:43):
Okay, I understand that argument, but let me go back
to the bomb. What would you do? Do you believe
that Ron wants nuclear weapons?

Speaker 7 (19:53):
I do absolutely believe that they want nuclear weapons.

Speaker 1 (19:57):
Okay, so I don't think why I sorry, let me
just ask them. Yeah, But so if it is required
to stop them from getting nuclear weapons that we use,
because they have buried much of their their production way
underground to try to prevent it from being reached by bombs,
and if only the United States has the technology and

(20:19):
the bomb making ability to reach that, would you leave
it alone and let Iron continue to try to produce
a nuclear weapon.

Speaker 7 (20:28):
No, I'm not saying leave it alone. I'm seeing right now,
we know that the Atola is extremely his health is
beginning to fade. He's just eighty seven years old. Okay.
We know that the regime's getting ready to collapse, especially
with all the you know Israeli you know strikes and
everything we see that. You know, they're getting ready to fall. Okay,

(20:49):
the leadership is collapsing. You know, it's just not good.
So let's just blow out all of the tunnels and
anything that leads down into there. Still 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

(21:10):
think we should allow the region to deal with this issue.
I think, you know. I'm just a carpenter from you know,
a small town of Pennsylvania. Originally I removed for Saint
Lucy about a decade ago. All right, but we're tired
of the doom and gloom and the constant shelling in
the Middle East.

Speaker 1 (21:29):
Okay, thank you for the thank you for the call,
Thank you for the call. I'm going to go to
work 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

(21:53):
use the antibiotic example. If you've got a sickness 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

(22:16):
don't take out Iran once and for all. Right now,
Ken and Southeast Michigan. Ken, what you got for us?

Speaker 9 (22:22):
Well, I think it's the essential that we don't underestimate
how to vote. The leaders of our 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 non believer. This is their funnel

(22:44):
metal belief system. They will use the weapons. 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.

Speaker 2 (23:00):
Thank you for the call.

Speaker 1 (23:01):
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
Iotolas believe that, much like Kim Jong un, that will
keep them from ever being replaced.

Speaker 2 (23:15):
That is a.

Speaker 1 (23:16):
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

(23:38):
point in time to unleash that new 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 Kruz with us now. He's
just coming off the Senate floor. I know this is
a tough call, and he may not have been expecting

(23:59):
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.

Speaker 10 (24:13):
To be 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 it 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.

Speaker 11 (24:35):
Capability to develop a nuclear.

Speaker 10 (24:37):
Weapon is overwhelmingly beneficial to America. It makes us safer
because I think if the Iotola were to acquire a
nuclear weapon. The risks are unacceptably high that that that
the Iatola would use that weapon and potentially kill millions
of Americans or millions of Israelis.

Speaker 11 (24:57):
And that's not a risk that that we should allow.

Speaker 2 (25:00):
I agree with that.

Speaker 1 (25:02):
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 should we give that assistance to Israel if asked?

Speaker 2 (25:24):
In your mind?

Speaker 1 (25:25):
Second part of this, should the Ayatolahs be removed in
some way, either allowing Israel to do it or potentially
America being involved. How would you handle those two questions?

Speaker 11 (25:38):
So let's break them down one at a time.

Speaker 10 (25:41):
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 different between Israel's attacks, which are targeted military

(26:03):
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, i Ran 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

(26:24):
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 FORDAO, and FORDAO is built
into the base of a mountain, and it was deliberately

(26:45):
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 FORDAU, whereas America does. And
so that's the one aspect I think there is a
serious argument. I have a long arm argued that America
should be willing to provide those bunker busters because FORDAU
was designed to help Iran that's where they're conducting their

(27:07):
most sensitive nuclear research. And it was designed to help
them get a nuclear weapon, which which they intend I
believe UH to be able to use. And and the
Iotola chance death to America and death to Israel, and
I believe him, and and so I think it is
it is very worthwhile UH to to do what is

(27:27):
necessary to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon that
that could help them make death to America and death
to to to Israel much more of a reality, and
and and be used to commit UH murder on on
a massive scale. Now on the second question about regime change,
in my view, the world would be much better if

(27:48):
the Iotolas were no longer in charge of Iran. I
think the the Iotola is a theocratic zealot.

Speaker 11 (27:57):
Uh.

Speaker 10 (27:57):
He refers to Israel as the little say, he refers
to America as the great Satan. And unquestionably Iran would
be better, Israel would be better, America would be better
if the Iotola were not in charge. I don't think
that means we should invade Iran and try to topple
the Iotola, but I think we should use every tool
we have, in particular economic sanctions and pressure and indeed,

(28:19):
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 Iyatola, 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.

Speaker 1 (28:43):
If Natyahu asked for the ability to kill the Ayatola,
should Trump, in your mind give that nod, even if
we're not directly involved.

Speaker 10 (28:56):
You know, Look, that's a difficult question. I talked about
it on the latest episode of my podcast Verdict with
Ted Cruz, and when 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 the net and yah who wanted to target
the Iyatola, and the Trump White House asked them not to.

(29:17):
I don't have a reason to doubt or dispute that
that that reporting, And listen, I think it's a close call.
Generally in warfare, nations refrained from targeting heads of state.
It's also complicated by the Ayahtola being simultaneously a religious figure,
and taking out a religious figure that there are real
risks of that, there are risks of making him a martyr,

(29:39):
and and and inflaming things further.

Speaker 11 (29:42):
So I think it is a.

Speaker 10 (29:44):
Reasonable decision to say, rather than targeting the Iyatola himself,
who's a you know, an old man, that what they're
doing in Israel is doing it with amazing precision. Is
they're taking out the senior military leadership. They're taking out
take 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

(30:08):
that is number one in charge of waging.

Speaker 11 (30:10):
The terror war.

Speaker 10 (30:12):
Iran provides ninety percent of the funding to Hamas and
ninety percent of the funding to Hesbelah. 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

(30:34):
to wage war against Israel into 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 two and
three in the morning every night with with air rate

(30:55):
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 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

(31:18):
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 unequivocally clear to Iran
that if they attack and kill US servicemen and women,

(31:40):
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.

Speaker 11 (31:51):
That's what what Trump is doing.

Speaker 1 (31:53):
Senator Ted Cruz, we appreciate the time, know how busy
you are. Thanks for hopping on.

Speaker 10 (31:57):
Thanks my friend, God bless We'll continue.

Speaker 2 (32:00):
Take your calls.

Speaker 1 (32:00):
Eight hundred and two A two two eight A two.
Hey Buck, one of my kids called me an unk
the other day and unk yep slang evidently for not
being hip, being an old dude.

Speaker 2 (32:17):
So how do we ununk?

Speaker 7 (32:19):
You?

Speaker 1 (32:19):
Get more people to subscribe to our YouTube channel. At
least that's to what my kids tell me.

Speaker 12 (32:24):
That's simple enough. Just search the Klay, Travis and Buck
Sexton Show and hit the subscribe button.

Speaker 1 (32:29):
Takes less than five seconds to help ununk me.

Speaker 12 (32:32):
Do it for Clay, do it for freedom, and get
great content. While you're there the Klay, Travis and Buck
Sexton Show YouTube channel.

Speaker 1 (32:38):
We're about to be joined by Senator Ran 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 brow and so Buck is.

Speaker 2 (32:55):
Over there, Sinner Ram Paul with us.

Speaker 1 (32:57):
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 Ran Paul right now, also continued fallout of
the Big Beautiful Bill and where that is headed. But

(33:18):
let's start with the number one question that is out
there right now, Senator ram Paul. What if President Trump
called you and he said, hey, what do you think
I should do about the situation in Iran?

Speaker 2 (33:32):
Your response would be, what.

Speaker 5 (33:34):
You know?

Speaker 8 (33:35):
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 US bombs dropping. Even as it is, we're so

(33:57):
closely linked with Israel. I think that it's on 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

(34:19):
to come before Congress ask us for permission, and we'll
have a vote the same night on whether or not
to go to warm.

Speaker 1 (34:26):
Do you yourself, are you concerned about the idea of
Iran having nuclear weapons?

Speaker 2 (34:32):
Do you think that's a threat to the United States?

Speaker 8 (34:35):
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 to
get a nuclear weapon? You can say, well, they're destroying

(34:58):
their capability, or you could say that this is the
last straw from Oram's point of view, and Iran will
simply rush headlong into developing a weapon. They may well
have stockpiles of highly enricheranium we don't know about, and
once you have it, you can really hide a cupful
of highly enricheranium anywhere, and probably one couple is probably

(35:21):
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 you know, hang their head and say we're sorry,
we want to negotiate, or will they you know, have

(35:44):
this sense of nationalism, rally around their flag, put aside
their differences and really unify the sense of trying to
you know, come at an attack.

Speaker 1 (35:55):
I presume that since you wouldn't like to see United States,
you know, 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 US involvement in
any potential regime change of relating to the Ayatolas or
anything else. Your general proposition would be that we should

(36:16):
not get involved.

Speaker 8 (36:18):
Well, you know, we tried that. You know, we tried
it in Afghanistan and for twenty 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 waalting in
and you know, a matter of days taking over that government.

(36:41):
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 with it. Do I wish
they're people? Well, yeah, I would love to see their
people get rid of their government. Nobody wants to see
their people oppressed. You know, the women that have been
you know, snatched up off the street, eaton, and who
knows else, you know, simply for not wearing a face covering.

(37:04):
And you know, the young people of Iran are said
to be very pro western, very much more open than
where the Mullas are as far as you know, culture,
and it is sad to see what's happening. But you know,
our job really isn't to send armies everywhere and to
send our soldiers and that's the way people need to
think of this. Are you ready to send your son

(37:25):
or daughter, you know, to march in a trench and
you know, trench to trench in Iran? And it really
is not a word that we should be involved with.

Speaker 2 (37:34):
We're talking to Senator Ran Paul.

Speaker 1 (37:35):
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 the last week. What would you
tell us? What should we know about the current status

(37:56):
of the bill as you see it?

Speaker 8 (37:58):
You know, a lot of the bills cuts, which I'm for,
making the tax cuts permanent, which I'm for. I voted
for these tax cuts in twenty seventeen, most of them.
I 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

(38:21):
I'm for all of that. The spending cuts, I agree
with Ron Johnson. They're weak, their anemic, and they will
not materially affect our accumulation of debt. And this is
the thing people need to understand. Our deficit decision is
going to be two point two trillion if you believe
the numbers of the bill, which really probably are not
accurate in the first year or two, but that we're

(38:42):
going to cut spending one hundred and fifty billion. That
means instead of a two point two trillion, you'd have
a two point zero five trillion. So it's really not
materially changing the accumulation of debt, and probably in the
first couple of years the debt will grow because you
when you reduce tax rates, you do usually get less
revenue in the beginning. Now you tend to get economic

(39:03):
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 course 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 do you call that a cut when you get

(39:24):
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 twenty twenty six. So I think in
the first couple of years, the deficit does get worse.
But my biggest complaint really though, is the debt ceiling.

(39:46):
Raising the debt ceiling five trillion when Congress I think
is terrible with money. They're irresponsible. We've accumulated thirty six
dollars debt. They show no signs of wisening up and
actually spending cuts. So I think to raise the dead
ceiling five trillion is giving irresponsibility to irresponsible people too
much credit. So I'd give them three months and in

(40:08):
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.

Speaker 1 (40:29):
What do you think the timeframe is? You just laid
out the debt ceiling. President Trump has said he'd like
to have this done by July fourth. 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.

Speaker 8 (40:47):
All depends on how many people are have courage. Four
principal conservatives with courage could make this into a conservative bill.
All would take would be four of us to say
that we don't want the debt ceiling on there and
we're not voting for five trillion a debt, and they
would have to change it. Right now, I think it's
me and possibly Ron Johnson, and then there may be

(41:12):
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 critic from some of the attack dogs
at the White House, I've been very clear to the President.

(41:33):
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
a deciding vote That's what I also told my supporters
that I can't believe you will vote forever 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.

(41:54):
But if I'm the deciding vote, they're going to have
to negotiate, and they will, because that's why it works.
The only reason they're not negotiating with me over the
dead ceiling now is we don't have the four votes
to oppose him. If we had the four votes, we'd
have already separated ill at the dead ceiling, and I
would be a yes.

Speaker 1 (42:07):
Now, how frustrated you just mentioned it a little bit?
Do you think the president is with you.

Speaker 8 (42:16):
A little bit? You know, I've known him for quite
a while, and.

Speaker 1 (42:20):
But is your relationship with the president, sorry to cut
you off a little bit, is your relationship with the
president a little bit of a roller coaster? Because sometimes
it seems like you guys are thickest thieves, and then
other times it's like you're 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.

Speaker 8 (42:37):
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 twenty thirteen twenty fourteen.
I asked him to support some of my mission trips
when I did surgery in Guatemala and I believe it
was twenty thirteen or twenty fourteen, and then at Haiti.
He supported both trips, and so I've gotten to know
him over time and actually enjoy his company. I was

(43:01):
probably one of his biggest defenders on the impeachment, but
you know, there is a mercurial nature to it though that.
You know, I think those were very important things that
defense on that. I think this bill is just a
policy difference, and I'm not changing anything. I'm poor. I've
always been against raising massive raises of the dead ceiling,
whether it's Biden or anybody else. But I think some

(43:24):
of his attack dogs at the at the White House
simply you know, it's it's my way to the highway
kind of stuff. But the last time I talked to him,
we had a good conversation was after the big beautiful parade,
and he was in good spirits, and you know, I
reiterated what it would take and that my goal is
not to defeat the bill. My goal is to you know,

(43:44):
present a conservative bill that I can be happy to support.
And a lot of the bill I like, all you
got to do is separate off the dead ceiling or
shorten it and they could well get my vote. But yeah,
the relationships up and down. But I think a lot
of you know, respect on my part.

Speaker 1 (44:03):
I'm talking to Senator Rampaul. Last question for you. You know,
I know, looking ahead to twenty twenty eight is a
ways away. We still have to get past the midterms.
But there's a lot of talk about Andy Basheer 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

(44:26):
figure based on what you have seen of his leadership
in Kentucky.

Speaker 8 (44:31):
I've yet to see that he'll be any kind of
national figure.

Speaker 11 (44:33):
I don't.

Speaker 8 (44:34):
I think he lacks the you know, charisma, but he
also the things that he did to us in our state.
I mean, shutting down churches, shutting down Jim, shutting down
you know, 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

(44:54):
Democrats did too. Whittmer 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,
had 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 will be much of a force in

(45:16):
the Democrat primary.

Speaker 1 (45:17):
Senator ran Paul, we appreciate the time, happy to have
you on whenever and keep us updated on how the
bill goes. Thanks that is, Senator ran 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 two hundred and sixty two dollars. Insurance plan
called Ease for Everyone compared to Obamacare, Ease for Everyone affordable,

(45:40):
you get to keep your doctor, and you get free
unlimited virtual primary care.

Speaker 2 (45:44):
With the ease for Everyone.

Speaker 1 (45:45):
You also have access to over four hundred prescription drugs
for free, not just at a lower cost, but at
no cost zero bucks.

Speaker 2 (45:52):
Ease for everyone.

Speaker 1 (45:53):
Created as a solution to the broken system that's complicated healthcare.
Go online to ease for everyone, slash clay to get started.
That's ease for everyone. Dot com slash clay. Get affordable
healthcare for as low as two hundred and sixty two
dollars a month today. That's ease for everyone. Dot com
slash clay. We are joined now by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr.

(46:25):
He's in studio with us here in Washington, DC. And
I know you got a ton of different things on
your plate, so I'm gonna 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

(46:48):
maybe a little bit of unfairness from ABC, CBS, NBC,
among others. They have with a government responsibility based on
the fact that we have given them a life as
a country. How fair now that we're through the election season.
Do you think news coverage has been what could occur

(47:09):
from your perspective, to make it fair er, 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.

Speaker 2 (47:29):
Yeah, thanks so much, great to be with you.

Speaker 13 (47:31):
You know, look, if you step back and you think
about speakers in this country, you've got, you know, the
guy in the soap box 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 interest. Now, if you step back, over the years,
the FCC and regulators in Washington, I think have walked

(47:53):
away completely from enforcing that public interest obligation, and I
don't think we're better off for it. To your question,
if you step back, I don't think the national programmers.
So if you look at ABC, CBS, NBC. They own
some stations, but in the mainly 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.

Speaker 2 (48:15):
That's not just my opinion. If you look at.

Speaker 13 (48:17):
Trust in that national programmers, again, focusing on ABC, CBS, NBC,
trust is at an all time low. And again, Jeff
Bezos of all people, did an obed 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, there's another side of
the coin when to talk about the actual local broadcast

(48:39):
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 policy 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

(49:00):
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.

Speaker 1 (49:13):
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 in PR PBS we have seen the vote

(49:35):
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 WITHINPR. 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

(49:58):
does the FCC have on those issues?

Speaker 2 (50:00):
It really wasn't that long ago.

Speaker 13 (50:02):
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 acella hoard or portions
in the country. And you can do that right as

(50:22):
a First Amendment matter. But if you are going to
Congress and saying I want you Congress to force 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.

Speaker 2 (50:38):
It's your point.

Speaker 13 (50:39):
Recently recisions package past 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
at commercial station, they're non commercial, which means they get
special benefits above and beyond those that regular broadcasters get.

(51:01):
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 are not violating the law, because really,
you can't have it both ways. You can't be getting,
you know, public funding and claiming that you're a non
commercial and then potentially the same time running commercial.

Speaker 1 (51:22):
So we're looking at as well right now, CBS News
in the news a lot. You got the transcript released
of sixty 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 sixty Minutes and how does
that impact the larger paramount idea they're trying to sell

(51:45):
to Skydance.

Speaker 2 (51:46):
I believe where is all of that from your perspective?

Speaker 13 (51:49):
Yeah, right before January twentieth inactink read around January tenth
I believe the prior administration, the Biden FCC summarily dismissed
a news distortion complaint that have been filed against sixty
Minutes based on claims of editing around that answer to
Kamala Harris in the sixty Minutes episode. They dismissed it
without actually doing any real inquiry, without doing any due diligence,

(52:12):
and 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 in video of that interview. We've put
it all out there. I think sunlight's 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,

(52:35):
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.

Speaker 1 (52:46):
When you look at the spectrum, and I know people
think about this a lot. I was out in San
Francisco recently, got to go in a weaymo. I felt
like I was in the future.

Speaker 13 (52:57):
For all the weyms started getting before. Yeah, good, get
out of that clay. We got out safely there doing
research on that. The amount of spectrum that's going to
be required for autonomous vehicles 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,

(53:19):
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 they pick up their smartphone or they hop into
a weaimo, they just assume it works. They don't know how.
Maybe they think it's magic or pixie dust. But it's

(53:42):
these invisible airways that you need to power everything. When
you look at the future of technology, whether it's autonomous vehicles,
whether it's arvr AI, the data demand to carry data
traffic wirelessly is just like a hockey stick through the roof.
And right now China has leaped out to a really
significant lead over the US. Didn't used to be this way.

(54:02):
If you gotch the first Trump administration, China was ahead
of US early on, and President Trump stepped in, showed
strong leadership, and the US closed the gap. That's why
you saw four G and five G explode in the US.
Now President Biden stepped in and we just fell into
a deep malaise when it comes to freeing up spectrum.
And President Trump recently has articulately that he wants the
US to lead again, and we're gonna do it. So

(54:24):
one of the things that the One Big Beautiful Bill
does is it restores the FCS authority to free up
these airways 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

(54:45):
where we're short is commercial spectrum for high power use.
President Trump and Chairman Crews 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.

Speaker 1 (54:59):
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.

Speaker 2 (55:16):
How fair.

Speaker 1 (55:17):
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.

Speaker 13 (55:35):
I think there's still a significant ways to go in
terms of making sure that broadcasters in particular live up
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
acceleration of censorship in this country, and a lot of
it took place on social media and on big tech platforms.

(55:56):
Silicon Valley was deciding whether you got to stay on
the digital towns where 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 US, It's spreading globally. In Brazil, there's this Justice
Day Moray, this government official there that's been censoring social media.

(56:16):
In Europe, they're passing laws to sort of force US
technology companies to abide by their version of censorship, and
so to some extent, we are on the back side
of that, meaning as the government controls with COVID rescind,
we see free speech re emerge because you can't have both, right,
If you're gonna have massive government controls that came with
that came with COVID, you necessarily have censorship as well,

(56:37):
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 conduct that really amounted, in my view, to a
censorship cartel. There's still work to do, but I think

(56:58):
we're finally turning the tide up that.

Speaker 1 (57:00):
Yeah, And I'm sure a lot of people out there
listening right now listening to us on traditional radios, podcast
certainly still watching some news broadcast CBSABC, 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

(57:21):
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.
They would we just had Ran Paul on at the
top of the last at the top of the hour.
They wouldn't allow our interview with Rand Paul to be

(57:41):
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.

Speaker 2 (57:58):
Yeah. Absolutely.

Speaker 13 (57:58):
One of things that I focused 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 Rampaul, 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

(58:19):
of get those decision making this decisions back into the
hands of individual users and take it out of the
hands of the big corporations, for instance, on social media.
You one idea we've talked about is should we have
content filters that you can choose. Like, 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, you know, this show to

(58:40):
have one, great, if you want Fox News to do it, great,
But let's get that power back to individuals unless this centralized,
because when you make a mistake at a system wide
level like that, like, the consequences are very serious. Yeah,
people think about, wow, 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 nineteen, when you couldn't

(59:01):
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 sensors that we live through. Let alone, you know,
electoral consequences with a Hunter Bye laptop story.

Speaker 2 (59:14):
That this is on the last question for you.

Speaker 1 (59:17):
AI is taking off at a rapid rate, and we
have fun with AI memes that people will post of
me playing the flute like 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 really very difficult. Are
you concerned about that? Because it's one thing to restrict

(59:39):
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.

Speaker 13 (59:48):
Yeah, I've seen these AI general videos of the podcasters
that are in the baby Yeah, yeah, Yah, they're hilarious. Yes,
those are very very fun. I don't if they've had
any of those use of you or not, but I
think they may think I'm a baby already. Yeah, we
built out a meme hole at one time. Looking at
all those, I thought they were hlarious. I mean, look,
I think we'd be very careful here. During the last administration,
President Biden had the FCC proposed putting labels on political

(01:00:11):
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 I
think 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

(01:00:33):
people need to be vigilant and we need to educate people.
And it's I think it easier for younger folks. Think
older people can get you know, fooled a little more
easy well if you just step back online scams in general.
But I think this is an area we have to
proceed very cautiously, and I'd be very skeptical of regulation
at this point.

Speaker 1 (01:00:47):
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, I appreciate the time, appreciate you
coming in video, coming in studio with us sitting in
on video here and we hope talk to you against
So yeah, good be with you. Thanks for sure. Look
a lot of you out there right now, got all sorts.
We're 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?

(01:01:10):
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

(01:01:32):
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 of time,
carefully preserving your families most cherished memories. Visit legacy box
dot com slash clay right now unlock fifty percent off
when you do so. Legacybox dot com slash Clay fifty

(01:01:54):
percent off. Preserve your families memories for years and years
to come at legacy box dot com slash play