May 28, 2025 • 37 mins
In Hour 2 of The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show, Buck Sexton is joined by journalist and Substack author Alex Berenson for a deep-dive discussion on the latest developments in public health policy, pharmaceutical industry trends, and higher education accountability. This hour delivers critical insights into the CDC’s recent decision to remove the COVID-19 vaccine from the immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women—a move Berenson argues is long overdue but still insufficient. The conversation critiques the FDA and CDC’s cautious approach, highlighting the political and institutional resistance to acknowledging past missteps in pandemic-era health guidance. Berenson also explores the broader implications of vaccine efficacy, particularly for adults under 65, and the lack of rigorous new clinical trials. He emphasizes the need for a complete reevaluation of mRNA vaccine protocols, citing the European model as a more scientifically grounded approach. The discussion touches on the role of public figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and new FDA leadership in pushing for reform, while also addressing the backlash from entrenched public health officials. The hour transitions into a compelling critique of the pharmaceutical industry’s evolution. Berenson outlines how the “golden age” of drug discovery—marked by affordable, effective small-molecule drugs like statins and blood pressure medications—has given way to an era dominated by expensive biologics with limited efficacy. He uses examples like Keytruda and GLP-1 drugs (e.g., Ozempic) to illustrate how Big Pharma now focuses on niche, high-cost treatments for complex conditions like cancer and autoimmune diseases, rather than broad-impact medications. Buck and Berenson also discuss the potential of emerging technologies like CRISPR and AI in drug development. Despite the hype, Berenson remains skeptical, noting that breakthroughs in gene editing and artificial intelligence have yet to deliver transformative results for complex diseases such as schizophrenia or autism. In the final segment, Buck shifts focus to the Trump administration’s push to cut federal funding to Harvard University. He argues that elite institutions like Harvard have become bastions of left-wing ideology and unconstitutional racial discrimination, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling against affirmative action. Buck defends the move as a necessary step to hold universities accountable for their admissions practices and ideological bias, especially in light of recent antisemitism controversies on campus. He draws parallels to NPR and other federally funded institutions, asserting that taxpayer dollars should not support organizations that defy constitutional principles.
Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8
For the latest updates from Clay and Buck, visit our website https://www.clayandbuck.com/
Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton:
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
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 (00:06):
So how do we ununk?
Speaker 1 (00:08):
You get more people to subscribe to our YouTube channel.
At least that's to what my kids tell me.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
That's simple enough. Just search the Klay Travis and Buck
Sexton Show and hit the subscribe button.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Takes less than five seconds to help ununk me.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
Do it for Clay, do it for freedom, and get
great content while you're there. The Clay Travisen Buck Sexton
Show YouTube channel. Second hour of Clay and Buck kicks
off now, and we're joined by our friend Alex Berenson.
Go check out Unreported Truths on substack, which is.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Where he does a lot of his great work.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
Also his various books, which I think particularly these days
in retrospect.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
We'll see.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
Wow, got a lot of important things, right, mister Berenson.
Good to have you back on the show.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
Good to talk to you, Buck. How are you I'm going?
Speaker 3 (00:52):
I'm on the men, my friend. A little little touch
of the neuro virus, I think a couple of days.
Speaker 4 (00:56):
Ago, So talk to You're sick?
Speaker 3 (01:00):
You know what I gotta tell you, I'm pulling long hours.
I got a baby. You know, there's a lot of
things going on over here. It's pretty crazy. So tell
me speaking of sick COVID vaccine for healthy children, healthy
pregnant women remove from CDC immunization schedule.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
I had to kind of laugh because.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
On the front page, so the CDC removes it from
the schedule, and I think it was the New York
Times on the front page today was should they be
removing this from the schedule. I'm like, I remember when
the notion of the CDC should be questioned was a
horrible crime against humanity?
Speaker 2 (01:34):
What do you think?
Speaker 4 (01:36):
I mean? I'm actually I'm actually frustrated, and I really
want to write about this today on the stack, but
I'm working on a like a story that's in some
I think is even more important. But I think, you know,
I think that the FDA, you know that the you know,
the new guys in charge are they're very serious, uh,
(01:59):
you know, the CDC and you know, and also Robert
Kennedy and Jay Bonataria, who's at an age. I think
I think it's a good new regime and I think
they want to do the right things. But I feel
like in this case, they didn't go nearly far enough, right.
I mean, this is what they should be worried about,
(02:21):
is whether the COVID vaccine works for anybody, and certainly
whether it works for essentially any adult under sixty five.
And so what did they do last week? The FDA said, Well,
we're going to require new trials that effectively are going
to mean the vaccine is not going to be available
for healthy adults under sixty five because the companies are
never going to run these new trials. Okay, that sounds
(02:44):
like a big move, but then you see how they
defined healthy and at least eighty percent of the American
population maybe maybe seventy five, maybe eighty percent probably doesn't
fit as healthy under the categories. So they didn't really
do anything to reduce vaccine avail ability because none of
those people, the people in the healthy category were getting
it anyway. And the CDC is more of the scene.
(03:06):
And Okay, so you want to say they took a
small step, and it's a small tip in the right
re direction. I agree with that. The problem is look
at the pushback that they've gotten today and that they
got last week. The FDA got last week, the CDC
is getting today. They do nothing, almost nothing. They take
the smallest possible step, the most scientifically valid step, and
(03:28):
you have these people screaming as if they're throwing babies
off a bridge. It's it's they cannot win, so they
should have done the right thing, which has gone a
lot further.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
This is amazing.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
I mean I'm even seeing here, like like Jerome Adams,
I'm seeing some others here on Twitter who are seeming
to take the you know he's an MD, right, seeming
to take the position, yeah, the serge in general, seeming
to take the position that the little tiny step that
(04:00):
you that you've said that you've laid out here is
somehow controversial.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Is that?
Speaker 3 (04:06):
So here's my feeling on this, Alex the same way
that I think there has been an oh my gosh,
and that's one way of putting it cause on radio
and oh my, you know whatever bleep it moment or
a holy cow moment about the cover up of Biden's
dementia by what we consider the kind of establishment d
(04:30):
C press corps. Right, you know, if you were a
stat if you were AP New York Times good on
the list, you just kind of went along with this
whole thing and didn't care CNN the whole thing, and
now they realize, wow, this is if we actually just
go forward with this and everyone figures this out, or
rather everyone knows this and we've admitted it, that could
really hurt our long term credibility. I wonder if some
of these people in what I would consider institutional medicine
(04:53):
places like the cd not even medicine, kind of health
policy right, places like the CDC, if they feel like
their only choices to dig in because what happens to
these places if everyone finally says, oh, wow, they were
wrong about it and officially wrong about it.
Speaker 4 (05:09):
Right. But here's so again, like I knew there was
going to be pushback just because there are people out
there who just don't I mean a lot of people
out there in the public health community who don't want
to admit the truth, who aren't close to admitting the truth,
you know. And again we're talking about policies that don't
go nearly as far the new policies as the Europeans
(05:31):
have been for two or three years. Okay, these are
not radical policies. A radical policy would be these vaccines
are canning pull until we run a new trial with
the situation as it is now, where everybody has had
COVID already, where amicron appears to be milder, and where
we don't know the results of long term repeated mRNA
(05:52):
doostinc That's what I would do, Okay, I would have
done that for everybody, including people over seventy five. I
would have said, at this point, we have what's called
quinn go equipoise, where where we just don't know if
these things work at all, and that justifies a totally
new clinical trial for everybody. Okay, they didn't do anything
like that, And there are people would have gone even
(06:13):
further th than you know, like, let's basically take it
all the way back to face one for these and
do the proper preclinical studies on animals that were you know,
never done it were rushed back in twenty twenty. Okay,
they don't do any of that, and and and they
don't get any credit for standing you know, sort of
in the middle. So if I'm RFK, like I don't
(06:35):
expect anything different from public health. If I'm if I'm
Vina Prosade, who's the new top vaccine regulator at the FDAY,
And I know Vina and he's very smart and he
and he uh you know, does not have a lot
of confidence in the MR. And as I would say,
I mean, you know, he may think that they're that
they're decent for older people, but he's not. He doesn't
(06:57):
have blinders on about how well they work. Okay, they're
just afraid of the pushback. And since they got all
the pushback anyway, they might as well have done the
right thing. And so that you know, again, I expect
nothing from the public health people who could We've seen
how they've behaved for the last five years. But I
would hope that the people we elected to fix this
(07:19):
would push them a little bit harder.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
Alex also on the regulatory issues and when when you
look at big pharma and where RFK Junior is going
to play into this, and obviously you know FDA, CDC,
these different agencies all have some rule or some some
say I think in the trajectory of some of the
big health programs and health discovery projects that are out there.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
I thought this was really interesting.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
You pointed out on Twitter that that the glps, which
are amazing drugs, and you hear all these stories are
not just about people with weight loss but also it
helps with gambling addiction and helps with alcohol. It's essentially
a it can curb the biochemistry in somebody that leads
to over consumption, which is a primary cause of most
(08:09):
of our really.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Bad diseases in this country.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
I mean that that's just the truth, right, I mean
the obesity epidemic and and and heart disease and all
these things that's all tied in, but that that's an
old drug that they did the right way, and that lately,
you know, are are the farmer companies not doing the
same kind of discovery and the same kinds of new
drug uh, you know, finding that we've hoped that they've
(08:33):
been doing all along.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
I mean, where do you come down on that?
Speaker 4 (08:36):
So so so yeah, I mean this is something something
I really want to write a back. This is one
who is you know, I want to write a book about,
you know, sort of addictive behaviors and drugs. I want
to write h for another John Well, I want to
write a book about this too, and I don't know
that I will ever have time to, but it is
an incredibly important issue. And that is it's not that
the companies. I think if you run a drug company,
(08:59):
you hope to find good drugs, okay. You hope to
find drugs that help people that don't have terrible side effects,
that you know, treat the condition that you're aiming. Okay,
and in a perfect world, you hope that those are
not too expensive. I mean, obviously the companies want to
make money. But so in the like from about nineteen fifty,
(09:20):
in nineteen sixty through about two thousand, what you would
call the golden age of pharma and of small molecule
drug discovery. These were simple chemicals. Okay, you put them.
They were usually taken in pill form. They were they
did things that were relatively straightforward. I'm going to reduce
your blood pressure. I'm going to reduce your cholesterol. You know.
(09:42):
Some sometimes it was a little more complicated, like I'm
going to reduce you know, influence predates that, but I'm
going to help your pancreates work better and make more influence. Okay,
these these are these are you know, they're complicated, but
a reasonable person can understand how a drug like that
works in you know, in a pretty straightforward way. And
(10:03):
then the drugs would go off patent and they and
they were pails, right, and a million or two million
or five million Americans would take them, and they cost
a few dollars a day. So if a thousand bucks
a year, and if you know, three million people take that,
that's three million dollars a year. That's decent. That's good money. Okay,
those drugs have all been found. They've all pretty much
(10:27):
been found for the drugs that work the way I'm
talking about it, And in some ways, the glps are
actually the last of these drugs where it's a pretty
straightforward receptor and you just need to figure out how
to activate it. And you can actually see the companies
are trying to find drugs that won't be injectable but
will do the same thing at the at the injectable
glps like ozempic do. What they're stuck with now is
(10:53):
far more complicated. They're stuck with autoimmune diseases. They're stuck
with cancer, I mean, and those are really a big two,
and those are smaller patient populations. They tend to be
pretty sick. And the drugs are usually what are called biologics,
which means they're actually grown oftentimes now sells, and they
(11:13):
have like a specific protein that interacts with a very
you know, with a complicated receptor that that a small
molecule just won't work on. So these are really complicated drugs.
They're really expensive, the conditions they treat are really complicated,
and they tend not to really work that well or
they you know, they have big side effects. So even
(11:34):
there's a drug called Cotruda, which is now the biggest
selling drug in the world merk cells thirty billion dollars
a year. Okay, it's an oncology drug. It's a drug
for cancer. Does it work, yes, it works, Okay, it
will help people prolong life, but cancer is still incredibly lethal. Okay.
And and if you get a couple of extra years
(11:56):
out of Coatruda, you're doing well. And that's a good thing.
I wouldn't deny that to somebody. But this is a
drug that costs one hundred thousand dollars a year, and
it is the best example of any of these drugs.
So we have an industry now where all the easy
stuff has been found. And guess what, the companies don't
want to go away. They're big companies. There lots of
(12:19):
people working for them. They pay their executives a lot
of money, so they're doing what they have to do.
Which is trying to find stuff for these really complicated
conditions that's really expensive. But unfortunately, as a society, what
it means is that we're paying now almost a half
trillion dollars a year. We half trillion for drugs that
are pretty much marginally efficacious that only a few people
(12:43):
are getting. If I showed you the list, and this
is really the simplest way to look at this, if
I showed you the list of the top selling drugs
in two thousand and four, you would know the names
of those drugs. It's like lippotour or prozag Do you
know what those drugs were?
Speaker 3 (12:57):
Okay, and those drugs work, by the way, I mean,
you know, lipitour is really important for people who need it.
Speaker 4 (13:02):
Yeah, that's right. The statins really work. Okay, they work
the best of I think of all the major big
drug categories that we've invented in the last fifty years.
But if you look now, unless you have like pariasis,
and those drugs are pretty heavily advertised, a lot of
the drugs are psoriasis drugs, or you have cancer, I
mean sariasis are other autoimmune diseases like like arthritis. If
(13:25):
you unless you have one of those diseases. You've never
heard of any of these drugs, and we as a
society now are spending more and more on drugs that
are for a tiny fraction of the population and.
Speaker 3 (13:36):
A couple things Alex, because we are we're going to run.
I just want to ask you about this. You got
that going no, no, no, I look, I find this fascinating.
I think the audience probably does too, because this really
matters to all of us in our long term health.
But Crisper technology AI do these things offer ways forward
that can break what feels like this loggame. I mean,
you're talking to something. I have Celiac disease and I
(13:57):
actually used to follow a few companies that were doing
trials on how to cure because it's really annoying and
it actually creates a lot of like long term challenges
and problems for people, even if you do the gluten
free thing, because you can never do it perfectly and anyway,
and they just it's just total fail Like every every
company has tried, every company so far try to do anything.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
It's like nothing, zero efficacy. Whatsoever does AI do?
Speaker 3 (14:19):
Does Crisper technology, which is gene editing for to modify
DNA sequences. Does that offer a breakthrough to the logjam?
Speaker 4 (14:27):
I don't. I don't think so. And we'll see, I mean,
I hope so. Okay, but but you know we we
we uh we figured out the human genome over twenty
years ago, okay, and we are just at the beginning
after a massive investment of getting drugs that are really
for this or gene editing for the simplest of these diseases,
(14:47):
which are essentially single uh you know, uh modifications, right,
But to do this, you know, a disease like schizophrenia
or auto them, these diseases that are very complicated to
have genetic and environment factors, Like there's not one gene
you can swap out and say everybody's better. Now, that's
not how this works. And so the you know, AI
is even more it's like, well, we're going to make
(15:09):
something that hits the receptor just right and doesn't have
any off target side effects. You know, wake me when
it actually happens, because it has not happened yet.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
Well, I think you got to write a book on this, Alex.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
Go check out Unreported Truths on substack and Alex always
appreciate you making the time for us.
Speaker 4 (15:24):
Look, thanks for having me. Sorry, I get you got
me going.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
No, it was good. I just we have to do
a commercial. I got to pay the bills over here.
Thank you so much. The pure Talk team believes every
service member who has faithfully served this country deserves to
proudly fly an American flag, one that's made at America.
And that's why pure talk is on a mission to
give an Allegiance flag, the highest quality American flag, to
at least a thousand veterans.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
You can participate too.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
Just switch your cell phone service to pure Talk this month,
and a portion of your monthly rate will go to
provide these high quality.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
Flags to veterans.
Speaker 3 (15:56):
With plans from just twenty five dollars a month for
unlimited talk, text and plenty of data, you can enjoy
America's most dependable five G network while cutting your cell
phone built in half. The average family saves over one
thousand dollars a year. Just dial pound two fifty say
the keywords Clay and Buck, and Puretalk's US customer service
team will get you switched hassle free in as little
(16:16):
as ten minutes. Again, dial pound two five zero say
Clay and Buck to support veterans and switch to America's
wireless company.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
Pure talk.
Speaker 3 (16:32):
We're gonna talk about this feued is battle between the
Trump administration and Harvard that continues to play out. And
I like this, and not just because I went to Amherst,
which is a different school in which a lot of
people say Amherston Williams is where you go if you
don't get into Harvard, Princeton or Yale. That was always
the mean joke that they would say. But I think
(16:53):
they should, you know, they should feel free to do
this to Amherst as well. I don't care all of
these schools that get any kind of federal research money.
Harvard is the big target on this. Should this should
be the reckoning that we have been waiting for a
long time. I'll dive into this in a moment and
make my case to you for why this actually makes
(17:14):
a lot of sense and it's important. There's there is
a need to shake things up to change things here
with these universities. And when you understand how important this is,
remember anything that you do that is good that the
left hates, they're going to scream and kick about, and
they're certainly doing that with this. Also, here's a fun talkback.
(17:36):
Clay is in Orlando and Jeff is in Orlando. Our
listener here.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
This is what he says, AA talkback.
Speaker 5 (17:42):
Play it Hey, Clay and Bucket, It's Jeff and Orlando.
Over the weekend, I was listening to some blues Government
Mule the deepest end, listening to a song thirty two
to twenty blues, and at the end of that song
was an incredible flute solo. I could have swe that
was Clay.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
Well, if you see somebody maybe dressed as a mind
playing a flute in Disney World or wherever Clay is today,
it could be could be playing a mean.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Flute out there on the streets of Orlando or wherever
we may see.
Speaker 3 (18:18):
The Western Conference NBA Finals wrap up tonight, and then
there's another possible outcome on Thursday too. Look, I've been
watching my beloved Knicks. It has been painful lately, especially
since that first game. I've actually been watching this because
it's bringing back a lot of memories from my childhood
and Prize Picks lets you have a lot more fun
watching these games. At least, then you can have fun
(18:39):
that you could win even when your team loses. Prize
Picks like what happened to me. Prize Picks is up
their game with great offerings to go with this playoff action.
It's not just about the teams, about the players. You
choose more or less on two to six player projections
for your shot to win up to two thousand dollars.
I'm sorry two thousand times your cash. Prize Picks are
the best way to get action on sports and more
than thirty states, including California, Texas, and Georgia. Withdrawals are fast,
(19:04):
safe and secure, with some hitting your account in as
little as fifteen minutes. Download the Prize Picks app today.
Use my name Buck as your code. Get fifty dollars
instantly after you play your first five dollars lineup. That's
code Buck. You get fifty dollars instantly after you play
your first five dollar lineup. And I'm gonna have to
bet against the Knicks because it at least emotionally hedges,
because I think they're gonna lose.
Speaker 4 (19:28):
Show.
Speaker 3 (19:30):
As I sit here with all of you still in
recovery from my little stomach bug, I know that yesterday,
to the degree I was able to follow the news
or pay attention to anything that there was the announcement
about the Trump administration trying to end all federal funding
(19:51):
the remaining federal funding to Harvard, And I.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
Know there are people.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
Here's the way this argument seems to go out there
with some people. And I see this particularly on x
formerly known as Twitter, or you'll have people say, but
what about when they want to do this to a
conservative college? And then I always want to say, are
you paying attention? What is the conservative college that's getting
(20:18):
hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government doesn't exist?
Speaker 2 (20:22):
So you know this is it's so funny. There's this assumption, Oh,
but they'll do stuff to us too. No, no, no,
They've already been doing this stuff. That's the point.
Speaker 3 (20:32):
It's a little bit like Trump's approach to China on trade.
People go, no, you can't do anything to China. What
if they start doing bad things to us on trade?
In response, they're already doing bad stuff to us as
much as they really can on trade. It's just a
question of are we willing to do something back so
that they stop, or that there's at least some cost
(20:54):
to this. That's the attitude, that's the mentality people should have.
Certainly the right about what's going on with Harvard And also,
I mean understand this, like why did Barack Obama go
to Harvard Law School and was the editor of Harvard
Law Review, even though I don't think he ever wrote
(21:15):
anything at Harvard Law Review, or if he did, it
was like one thing, so they just you know, he
was a figurehead after going to Occidental College for undergrad
for a while, and then he's transferred to Columbia.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
Anyway, I remember the Obama bio pretty well, why do
you go to Harvard when he went to Harvard?
Speaker 3 (21:31):
Because the whole point is you go there and you're
supposed to be really smart and the.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
Elite and in charge. Right.
Speaker 3 (21:38):
Well, Harvard had created over a long period of time,
and I think Harvard used to be I'm sure a
great place, but over I would say the last forty
years or so, in the affirmative action era and the
era of the left wing ascendancy on campus that it's
not I know, there's always been left wing stuff on campus.
(21:58):
People say, what about the sixties, tests Well, it turned
into everything became left. I mean, I haven't really spent
any time on a college campus since I was an
undergrad myself twenty years ago.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
But you know they were. They were constantly comparing Bush
to Hitler. That was the thing.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
People forget this now they compare Trump to Hitler now,
but they used to actually say, because of Afghanistan and
Iraq Wars, that Trump was Hitler. These people are nuts.
But the left wing completely overran these campuses and there
was really nothing left. And they enforced doctrine with the
(22:38):
zeal of the Stazi in East Germany. I mean, they
really make it so that if you say things that
are unapproved, they just make your life really uncomfortable.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
They kick you off campus.
Speaker 3 (22:49):
So there's already they're doing the bad stuff. Here is Trump.
By the way, I'll continue on with this line of argument.
Here's Trump. This is cut twenty three talking about the
Harvard fight.
Speaker 4 (23:01):
Play it.
Speaker 6 (23:01):
Hey, look, Harvard has been a disaster. They've taken five
plus by the way, five billion dollars plus five billion.
Nobody knew that they were making this cut. If we
didn't do this, nobody would have. We would have never
found this out. Pamp they're taking five billion dollars and
I'd rather see that money go to trade schools. And
by the way, they're totally anti Semitic. At Harvard, as
(23:23):
you know, and some other colleges to an all fairness
to them, and it's been exposed, very exposed.
Speaker 3 (23:30):
It's more specifically on the college campuses on that issue
of the anti Semitism, as I've been saying all along,
and I think this has now become something that we discuss,
and and this show is somewhat known for putting out there.
I'd never heard anyone else make the argument before I
made it here on this program talking with Clay on
the air about how the American left views Israel Palestine
(23:55):
as a race conflict essentially, and that all the stuff
about ohnineteen forty eight and nineteen sixty seven and UN
resolution two four two and three three eight and the
Bow four Declaration, all these things that you can no, no, no,
it's white people are pressing brown people. That's what the
campuses think. And that's why you have all these groups
that know nothing and care nothing about the Middle East
(24:17):
that are so very you know, they get to be
super sanctimodious, super self righteous. The virtue signaling can be
off the charts, and the other people talking about, you know,
how much they care about Gaza. I would note I've
seen some left, some left wing media types in the
last few days. Bring you've seen this bringing up Sudan.
(24:37):
Where have you heard where have you heard that talked
about other than on this program? Right, just saying we're
ahead on a lot of this stuff. We were saying
here that the left views the Israel Palestine or you know,
Hamas Israel thing as a race conflict because that fits
into the very neat boxes that they set up in
(24:58):
their minds of how these even though that's I mean,
it's wrong on the facts, it's just it's absurd, but
that's how they view it, and that's why they feel
so morally superior, even when they know nothing about it,
and they they just inherently think non white means oppressed.
That's that's just their view. That's what they've been because
on campus, that's what you're told, non white oppressed doesn't matter.
(25:21):
You could be one of the richest athletes in the world,
you could be a president of the United States. Non
white oppressed. That is a the really the I think
the central ethos that holds the.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
Left together and the Democrat Party overall.
Speaker 3 (25:38):
That is the thing that you know, collectivism, moral relativism,
and uh, you know and this whole notion of what
is not what is non white or who those who
are non white are inherently oppressed.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
So that's that's a big part of.
Speaker 3 (25:57):
What you see going on on the Harvard camp is
that is a all these college campuses, is a major
aspect of it. But then I also get back to
this because people say, well, why.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
You know, what's Harvard supposed to do? Trump's gon.
Speaker 3 (26:10):
Trump is not saying, you know, you better start teaching
things in that Shakespeare one on one class the way
I want you to, or else. This school by our
own Supreme Court's ruling, which look directly at Harvard, I
might add, that's why Harvard is in the crosshairs. This
(26:31):
school is engaged in racial discrimination.
Speaker 2 (26:36):
That is what is going on.
Speaker 3 (26:37):
It is clear as day if Harvard said, as a
matter of policy, we will no longer take anybody.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
Who is you know, Hispanic. Let's just put that out
there for a second.
Speaker 3 (26:49):
If Harvard just said, sorry, we'll take everybody except the Hispanics,
or if we're gonna take Hispanics, they have to have
perfect SATs, perfect grades, and be in the like the
the one percentile to even consider getting in here. Of
all of our applicants, not like nationally, and that's the
(27:10):
way it's going to be. People would say, well, hold
on a second, that's not right. Why why have you
created a specific, a specific entry requirement for people based
on their ethnicity, their their skin color.
Speaker 2 (27:26):
That's wrong, and they they would be right.
Speaker 3 (27:29):
I think that it was this recognition back when I
was in high school and I had a kind of
unique experience because I was in a very academically rigorous,
scholarship high school where most of the students, you know,
I came from a comfortable background. I had a successful,
(27:49):
you know, Wall Street dad, but I was, you know,
not some super rich kid or anything. But a lot
of the kids there came from low income and sort
of lower middle income households, and a lot of them
were white. And this was the thing. And when they
would apply to schools, and because everybody knew too, it
was a very intense pressure cooker kind of a school academically,
(28:13):
and everyone knew who was like the top of the
class and who was you know, who was going to be.
It was one hundred and thirty kids, I would say
in my class, and you know, we knew who the
top ten kids were, and if you were a top
ten kid and you were white or Asian, we had
a lot of Filipinos, a lot of South Koreans because
(28:33):
you had to be Catholic to go, so not a lot,
no one really that I can remember from like mainland China,
but we had a lot of Filipinos, obviously a big
Catholic population. South Koreans as a robust Catholic population there too.
And I just remember if you were white or one
of the Asian kids, even if you were top ten
or top twenty in the whole class, which meant you
(28:54):
were you know, it had to be a national merit scholar,
no question, you know you you would have been the
top of any school anywhere in the country. I mean,
I think Regis has like the I don't know, I
mean it was the Stuyvesant kids always say they have
higher average SATs, but we were right there and Stuyvesant's
like number three in the country or something.
Speaker 2 (29:10):
So some sty people are probably listening, Yeah we beat you,
maybe you did.
Speaker 3 (29:17):
But if you were as if you were a Hispanic
or black and you were the number like fifty kid,
it was which ivy League school do you want to
go to? And I remember looking at that and recognizing
that phenomenon saying, that's just not right. It's very straightforward,
just not right. And people would say, oh, but what
about the legacy of slavery. Okay, well, first of all,
(29:38):
I still disagree that that means that today in you know,
the year twenty twenty five there, but put that aside
for a second.
Speaker 2 (29:45):
So why the Latino kids? Why are they?
Speaker 3 (29:48):
And this is explicitly by the numbers. Harvard does this.
Harvard discriminates on the basis of race.
Speaker 4 (29:57):
People say, what's Harvard supposed to do, how's Harvard supposed to.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
You know, make the concessions necessary to get more federal funding.
Stop being racist Harvard. They won't do it. They won't
do it. That's how much they It is worth hundreds
of millions of dollars to the people who run Harvard
to continue to tell some poor white kid from Appalachia
(30:23):
who has you know, is like the pride of his
town and you know, is the you know, he's got like.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
A one forty IQ and sixteen hundred set and everything.
Speaker 3 (30:31):
Yeah, I don't know, we have any space for you,
but we do have room for people who have far
lesser grades. And far lesser boards who are a different
skin color than you. That the fact that we had
to accept this as long as we did in this country.
Keep in mind, it is unconstitutional now. It is unconstitutional
(30:52):
to do this is not just now. I've been making
this argument pretty much my entire life, but certainly for
now fifteen years of doing media consistently, this is wrong.
This is wrong. They can't win this argument. And then
you get people playing all these games too. It's like, oh, well,
you know, my my grandmother is from Polynesia, so I'm
actually a I'm applying to school as like a Pacific islander.
(31:14):
I know somebody who did that to get into Stanford
just see it. And she got in. Not an impressive
student got in. Oh I'm a quarter Pacific islander.
Speaker 4 (31:22):
You know.
Speaker 3 (31:22):
It's like, by the way, I think her mom might
have even been from like Hawaii or so. It's just
the whole thing. It's a scam. It's a scam. It's
absurd and we all know it. And by the way,
this is true in the hiring process too. It's racist,
it's wrong. Supreme Court looked at this. Sorry, this is
the system. We have not allowed to do this anymore.
Harvard still wants to do it. They refuse to change.
(31:48):
So back to my initial premise of when someone's doing
bad things to you, if you do something in response,
you're not the cause of the problems. Harvard is unconstitutionally
discriminating and also teaching all of his kids to hate
America and also engaged in a lot of pandering to
the anti Semitic pro Hamas element on Kaid all these things.
(32:10):
Why should the administration. Remember the administration's not saying we're
sending in the you know, we're sending in the you know,
the Marines to shut down your campus. You're not like, no,
of course, First Amendment.
Speaker 2 (32:21):
But they're not entitled the hundreds of millions of dollars
of funds from the government. This is this is what
people you know, this is like the same argument with NPR. Well,
what is the.
Speaker 3 (32:30):
Argument the government's money. The government should have never been
giving this money, especially something to NPR. And now it says,
you know what, we're not going to give them money anymore.
They don't have so they have the discretion to give
the money, but not the discretion to stop. And you
I know there's already some judge who's like you can't
do this. Supreme Court's gonna have to step in once again.
But Harvard could make this whole thing a lot easier
(32:51):
on itself. But it is so important to them because
they they have built this whole edifice of self congrats
and smugness around DEI and around diversity is our strength
and all this other stuff. And they've first of all
engaged in discrimination to do this. But also so much
(33:13):
of what has been excellent in these institutions has been,
you know, just giving up in favor of this left
wing religious belief of DEI. And that's why they're so upset.
And that's what's going on. I say, keep this fight going,
keep this fight going. Trump is doing the right thing.
(33:34):
These schools, you know, they give their and I would say, well,
why did Obama go there? Because the whole point is
you get to go to one of these places and
you're inherently Harvey gets to pick and choose who the
elites are. Well to anyone who knows anything, by the way,
you should not be impressed. I mean, I see some
of these There's like a national security analyst who I
see on CNN sometimes and I used to know when
I was there who is like, teaches at Harvard in
(33:56):
one of the schools.
Speaker 2 (33:57):
It's just a dumbass. I mean truly a dumbass. And
you're like, oh, buck can you intersit down?
Speaker 3 (34:01):
You and her sit down a professor at Harvard in
like the Kennedy School or something, can you intersit down?
And let's do let's just do like an overall knowledge
test for the world in national security. She gets smoked
by the buckster smoked and I know this.
Speaker 2 (34:14):
Person teaches at Harvard, the Harvard professor. Yeah, give me
a break.
Speaker 3 (34:19):
Protecting your house from the effects of torential rain starts
with the gutters. That's the first place water collects, and
if those gutters are clogged, you'll eventually have water damage
within your house. That's why you want to rely on
leaf filter and their team of experts right now save
up to thirty percent off at leefilter dot com. Slash
clay and buck gutter clogs aren't just a nuisance. They
can cause extensive water damage. Let lee Filters Trusted pro
(34:41):
help protect your home from flooding, foundation issues, and more.
They'll clean out, realign and seal your gutters before installing.
Lee Filter's Award winning and patented technology. This is America's
number one gutter protection system. Schedule your free inspection in
get up to thirty percent off your entire purchase at
leefilter dot com slash clat buck that's leefilter dot com
(35:02):
slash clayand buck.
Speaker 2 (35:04):
See the representative for warranty details.
Speaker 3 (35:14):
Next hour, Senator Tuberville, perhaps soon to be Governor Tuberville
will be joining us from the great state of Alabama.
I will continue to hydrate with my water and gatorade mixture.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
So far so good. Team asked me.
Speaker 3 (35:29):
They said, was this harder or was doing the show
the first time you filled in for Rush with no
voice harder? Said, well, thanks to the steroids, because they
injected me with a cortizone steroid that first time around.
Not fun steroids, not like the ones that give you
big muscles, just the dealt with the inflammation. That was harder.
That was harder. I was able to do it thanks
to the court zone. But that was a more difficult
(35:49):
day this one. If I can get through the third
hour without smacking my face on the table from a dehydration, I'll.
Speaker 2 (35:55):
Feel like it's a win.
Speaker 4 (35:56):
So there we go.
Speaker 3 (35:58):
We're gonna talk big beautiful Bill. Also, will we come
back here in a few moments. Let's take this talk back.
Speaker 2 (36:04):
D D.
Speaker 3 (36:04):
Brad from Cincinnati listens on fifty five KRC radio.
Speaker 2 (36:08):
Let's play it.
Speaker 7 (36:13):
Mike King was valedictorian of his high school class. We
contacted Harvard and they weren't even interested remotely because he's white.
So as far as I'm concerned, I hope Trump runs
them out of business.
Speaker 4 (36:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (36:29):
I think Harvard has been engaged in discrimination, and I
don't just think so. The Supreme Court agrees with it,
and that's not okay. I thought we were anti racial
discrimination in this country. I thought we wanted a society
where everybody was, you know, continent of their character, not
color of their skin. The racial entitlement state is now illegal.
It is illegal. It is unconstitutional.
Speaker 4 (36:52):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (36:53):
And so these places that do it, they may think
that they have some and I don't know why, but
some weird reason that they get to ignore that. But
I'm pretty sure they're in America and they're getting federal dollars,
So we can cut off those federal dollars. They're not
entitled to government grants, just the same way that people
who are of a certain ethnicity or a certain background
(37:15):
background shouldn't be entitled to government grants in private industry,
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 (00:06):
So how do we ununk?
Speaker 1 (00:08):
You get more people to subscribe to our YouTube channel.
At least that's to what my kids tell me.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
That's simple enough. Just search the Klay Travis and Buck
Sexton Show and hit the subscribe button.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Takes less than five seconds to help ununk me.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
Do it for Clay, do it for freedom, and get
great content while you're there. The Clay Travisen Buck Sexton
Show YouTube channel. Second hour of Clay and Buck kicks
off now, and we're joined by our friend Alex Berenson.
Go check out Unreported Truths on substack, which is.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Where he does a lot of his great work.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
Also his various books, which I think particularly these days
in retrospect.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
We'll see.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
Wow, got a lot of important things, right, mister Berenson.
Good to have you back on the show.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
Good to talk to you, Buck. How are you I'm going?
Speaker 3 (00:52):
I'm on the men, my friend. A little little touch
of the neuro virus, I think a couple of days.
Speaker 4 (00:56):
Ago, So talk to You're sick?
Speaker 3 (01:00):
You know what I gotta tell you, I'm pulling long hours.
I got a baby. You know, there's a lot of
things going on over here. It's pretty crazy. So tell
me speaking of sick COVID vaccine for healthy children, healthy
pregnant women remove from CDC immunization schedule.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
I had to kind of laugh because.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
On the front page, so the CDC removes it from
the schedule, and I think it was the New York
Times on the front page today was should they be
removing this from the schedule. I'm like, I remember when
the notion of the CDC should be questioned was a
horrible crime against humanity?
Speaker 2 (01:34):
What do you think?
Speaker 4 (01:36):
I mean? I'm actually I'm actually frustrated, and I really
want to write about this today on the stack, but
I'm working on a like a story that's in some
I think is even more important. But I think, you know,
I think that the FDA, you know that the you know,
the new guys in charge are they're very serious, uh,
(01:59):
you know, the CDC and you know, and also Robert
Kennedy and Jay Bonataria, who's at an age. I think
I think it's a good new regime and I think
they want to do the right things. But I feel
like in this case, they didn't go nearly far enough, right.
I mean, this is what they should be worried about,
(02:21):
is whether the COVID vaccine works for anybody, and certainly
whether it works for essentially any adult under sixty five.
And so what did they do last week? The FDA said, Well,
we're going to require new trials that effectively are going
to mean the vaccine is not going to be available
for healthy adults under sixty five because the companies are
never going to run these new trials. Okay, that sounds
(02:44):
like a big move, but then you see how they
defined healthy and at least eighty percent of the American
population maybe maybe seventy five, maybe eighty percent probably doesn't
fit as healthy under the categories. So they didn't really
do anything to reduce vaccine avail ability because none of
those people, the people in the healthy category were getting
it anyway. And the CDC is more of the scene.
(03:06):
And Okay, so you want to say they took a
small step, and it's a small tip in the right
re direction. I agree with that. The problem is look
at the pushback that they've gotten today and that they
got last week. The FDA got last week, the CDC
is getting today. They do nothing, almost nothing. They take
the smallest possible step, the most scientifically valid step, and
(03:28):
you have these people screaming as if they're throwing babies
off a bridge. It's it's they cannot win, so they
should have done the right thing, which has gone a
lot further.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
This is amazing.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
I mean I'm even seeing here, like like Jerome Adams,
I'm seeing some others here on Twitter who are seeming
to take the you know he's an MD, right, seeming
to take the position, yeah, the serge in general, seeming
to take the position that the little tiny step that
(04:00):
you that you've said that you've laid out here is
somehow controversial.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Is that?
Speaker 3 (04:06):
So here's my feeling on this, Alex the same way
that I think there has been an oh my gosh,
and that's one way of putting it cause on radio
and oh my, you know whatever bleep it moment or
a holy cow moment about the cover up of Biden's
dementia by what we consider the kind of establishment d
(04:30):
C press corps. Right, you know, if you were a
stat if you were AP New York Times good on
the list, you just kind of went along with this
whole thing and didn't care CNN the whole thing, and
now they realize, wow, this is if we actually just
go forward with this and everyone figures this out, or
rather everyone knows this and we've admitted it, that could
really hurt our long term credibility. I wonder if some
of these people in what I would consider institutional medicine
(04:53):
places like the cd not even medicine, kind of health
policy right, places like the CDC, if they feel like
their only choices to dig in because what happens to
these places if everyone finally says, oh, wow, they were
wrong about it and officially wrong about it.
Speaker 4 (05:09):
Right. But here's so again, like I knew there was
going to be pushback just because there are people out
there who just don't I mean a lot of people
out there in the public health community who don't want
to admit the truth, who aren't close to admitting the truth,
you know. And again we're talking about policies that don't
go nearly as far the new policies as the Europeans
(05:31):
have been for two or three years. Okay, these are
not radical policies. A radical policy would be these vaccines
are canning pull until we run a new trial with
the situation as it is now, where everybody has had
COVID already, where amicron appears to be milder, and where
we don't know the results of long term repeated mRNA
(05:52):
doostinc That's what I would do, Okay, I would have
done that for everybody, including people over seventy five. I
would have said, at this point, we have what's called
quinn go equipoise, where where we just don't know if
these things work at all, and that justifies a totally
new clinical trial for everybody. Okay, they didn't do anything
like that, And there are people would have gone even
(06:13):
further th than you know, like, let's basically take it
all the way back to face one for these and
do the proper preclinical studies on animals that were you know,
never done it were rushed back in twenty twenty. Okay,
they don't do any of that, and and and they
don't get any credit for standing you know, sort of
in the middle. So if I'm RFK, like I don't
(06:35):
expect anything different from public health. If I'm if I'm
Vina Prosade, who's the new top vaccine regulator at the FDAY,
And I know Vina and he's very smart and he
and he uh you know, does not have a lot
of confidence in the MR. And as I would say,
I mean, you know, he may think that they're that
they're decent for older people, but he's not. He doesn't
(06:57):
have blinders on about how well they work. Okay, they're
just afraid of the pushback. And since they got all
the pushback anyway, they might as well have done the
right thing. And so that you know, again, I expect
nothing from the public health people who could We've seen
how they've behaved for the last five years. But I
would hope that the people we elected to fix this
(07:19):
would push them a little bit harder.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
Alex also on the regulatory issues and when when you
look at big pharma and where RFK Junior is going
to play into this, and obviously you know FDA, CDC,
these different agencies all have some rule or some some
say I think in the trajectory of some of the
big health programs and health discovery projects that are out there.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
I thought this was really interesting.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
You pointed out on Twitter that that the glps, which
are amazing drugs, and you hear all these stories are
not just about people with weight loss but also it
helps with gambling addiction and helps with alcohol. It's essentially
a it can curb the biochemistry in somebody that leads
to over consumption, which is a primary cause of most
(08:09):
of our really.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Bad diseases in this country.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
I mean that that's just the truth, right, I mean
the obesity epidemic and and and heart disease and all
these things that's all tied in, but that that's an
old drug that they did the right way, and that lately,
you know, are are the farmer companies not doing the
same kind of discovery and the same kinds of new
drug uh, you know, finding that we've hoped that they've
(08:33):
been doing all along.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
I mean, where do you come down on that?
Speaker 4 (08:36):
So so so yeah, I mean this is something something
I really want to write a back. This is one
who is you know, I want to write a book about,
you know, sort of addictive behaviors and drugs. I want
to write h for another John Well, I want to
write a book about this too, and I don't know
that I will ever have time to, but it is
an incredibly important issue. And that is it's not that
the companies. I think if you run a drug company,
(08:59):
you hope to find good drugs, okay. You hope to
find drugs that help people that don't have terrible side effects,
that you know, treat the condition that you're aiming. Okay,
and in a perfect world, you hope that those are
not too expensive. I mean, obviously the companies want to
make money. But so in the like from about nineteen fifty,
(09:20):
in nineteen sixty through about two thousand, what you would
call the golden age of pharma and of small molecule
drug discovery. These were simple chemicals. Okay, you put them.
They were usually taken in pill form. They were they
did things that were relatively straightforward. I'm going to reduce
your blood pressure. I'm going to reduce your cholesterol. You know.
(09:42):
Some sometimes it was a little more complicated, like I'm
going to reduce you know, influence predates that, but I'm
going to help your pancreates work better and make more influence. Okay,
these these are these are you know, they're complicated, but
a reasonable person can understand how a drug like that
works in you know, in a pretty straightforward way. And
(10:03):
then the drugs would go off patent and they and
they were pails, right, and a million or two million
or five million Americans would take them, and they cost
a few dollars a day. So if a thousand bucks
a year, and if you know, three million people take that,
that's three million dollars a year. That's decent. That's good money. Okay,
those drugs have all been found. They've all pretty much
(10:27):
been found for the drugs that work the way I'm
talking about it, And in some ways, the glps are
actually the last of these drugs where it's a pretty
straightforward receptor and you just need to figure out how
to activate it. And you can actually see the companies
are trying to find drugs that won't be injectable but
will do the same thing at the at the injectable
glps like ozempic do. What they're stuck with now is
(10:53):
far more complicated. They're stuck with autoimmune diseases. They're stuck
with cancer, I mean, and those are really a big two,
and those are smaller patient populations. They tend to be
pretty sick. And the drugs are usually what are called biologics,
which means they're actually grown oftentimes now sells, and they
(11:13):
have like a specific protein that interacts with a very
you know, with a complicated receptor that that a small
molecule just won't work on. So these are really complicated drugs.
They're really expensive, the conditions they treat are really complicated,
and they tend not to really work that well or
they you know, they have big side effects. So even
(11:34):
there's a drug called Cotruda, which is now the biggest
selling drug in the world merk cells thirty billion dollars
a year. Okay, it's an oncology drug. It's a drug
for cancer. Does it work, yes, it works, Okay, it
will help people prolong life, but cancer is still incredibly lethal. Okay.
And and if you get a couple of extra years
(11:56):
out of Coatruda, you're doing well. And that's a good thing.
I wouldn't deny that to somebody. But this is a
drug that costs one hundred thousand dollars a year, and
it is the best example of any of these drugs.
So we have an industry now where all the easy
stuff has been found. And guess what, the companies don't
want to go away. They're big companies. There lots of
(12:19):
people working for them. They pay their executives a lot
of money, so they're doing what they have to do.
Which is trying to find stuff for these really complicated
conditions that's really expensive. But unfortunately, as a society, what
it means is that we're paying now almost a half
trillion dollars a year. We half trillion for drugs that
are pretty much marginally efficacious that only a few people
(12:43):
are getting. If I showed you the list, and this
is really the simplest way to look at this, if
I showed you the list of the top selling drugs
in two thousand and four, you would know the names
of those drugs. It's like lippotour or prozag Do you
know what those drugs were?
Speaker 3 (12:57):
Okay, and those drugs work, by the way, I mean,
you know, lipitour is really important for people who need it.
Speaker 4 (13:02):
Yeah, that's right. The statins really work. Okay, they work
the best of I think of all the major big
drug categories that we've invented in the last fifty years.
But if you look now, unless you have like pariasis,
and those drugs are pretty heavily advertised, a lot of
the drugs are psoriasis drugs, or you have cancer, I
mean sariasis are other autoimmune diseases like like arthritis. If
(13:25):
you unless you have one of those diseases. You've never
heard of any of these drugs, and we as a
society now are spending more and more on drugs that
are for a tiny fraction of the population and.
Speaker 3 (13:36):
A couple things Alex, because we are we're going to run.
I just want to ask you about this. You got
that going no, no, no, I look, I find this fascinating.
I think the audience probably does too, because this really
matters to all of us in our long term health.
But Crisper technology AI do these things offer ways forward
that can break what feels like this loggame. I mean,
you're talking to something. I have Celiac disease and I
(13:57):
actually used to follow a few companies that were doing
trials on how to cure because it's really annoying and
it actually creates a lot of like long term challenges
and problems for people, even if you do the gluten
free thing, because you can never do it perfectly and anyway,
and they just it's just total fail Like every every
company has tried, every company so far try to do anything.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
It's like nothing, zero efficacy. Whatsoever does AI do?
Speaker 3 (14:19):
Does Crisper technology, which is gene editing for to modify
DNA sequences. Does that offer a breakthrough to the logjam?
Speaker 4 (14:27):
I don't. I don't think so. And we'll see, I mean,
I hope so. Okay, but but you know we we
we uh we figured out the human genome over twenty
years ago, okay, and we are just at the beginning
after a massive investment of getting drugs that are really
for this or gene editing for the simplest of these diseases,
(14:47):
which are essentially single uh you know, uh modifications, right,
But to do this, you know, a disease like schizophrenia
or auto them, these diseases that are very complicated to
have genetic and environment factors, Like there's not one gene
you can swap out and say everybody's better. Now, that's
not how this works. And so the you know, AI
is even more it's like, well, we're going to make
(15:09):
something that hits the receptor just right and doesn't have
any off target side effects. You know, wake me when
it actually happens, because it has not happened yet.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
Well, I think you got to write a book on this, Alex.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
Go check out Unreported Truths on substack and Alex always
appreciate you making the time for us.
Speaker 4 (15:24):
Look, thanks for having me. Sorry, I get you got
me going.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
No, it was good. I just we have to do
a commercial. I got to pay the bills over here.
Thank you so much. The pure Talk team believes every
service member who has faithfully served this country deserves to
proudly fly an American flag, one that's made at America.
And that's why pure talk is on a mission to
give an Allegiance flag, the highest quality American flag, to
at least a thousand veterans.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
You can participate too.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
Just switch your cell phone service to pure Talk this month,
and a portion of your monthly rate will go to
provide these high quality.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
Flags to veterans.
Speaker 3 (15:56):
With plans from just twenty five dollars a month for
unlimited talk, text and plenty of data, you can enjoy
America's most dependable five G network while cutting your cell
phone built in half. The average family saves over one
thousand dollars a year. Just dial pound two fifty say
the keywords Clay and Buck, and Puretalk's US customer service
team will get you switched hassle free in as little
(16:16):
as ten minutes. Again, dial pound two five zero say
Clay and Buck to support veterans and switch to America's
wireless company.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
Pure talk.
Speaker 3 (16:32):
We're gonna talk about this feued is battle between the
Trump administration and Harvard that continues to play out. And
I like this, and not just because I went to Amherst,
which is a different school in which a lot of
people say Amherston Williams is where you go if you
don't get into Harvard, Princeton or Yale. That was always
the mean joke that they would say. But I think
(16:53):
they should, you know, they should feel free to do
this to Amherst as well. I don't care all of
these schools that get any kind of federal research money.
Harvard is the big target on this. Should this should
be the reckoning that we have been waiting for a
long time. I'll dive into this in a moment and
make my case to you for why this actually makes
(17:14):
a lot of sense and it's important. There's there is
a need to shake things up to change things here
with these universities. And when you understand how important this is,
remember anything that you do that is good that the
left hates, they're going to scream and kick about, and
they're certainly doing that with this. Also, here's a fun talkback.
(17:36):
Clay is in Orlando and Jeff is in Orlando. Our
listener here.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
This is what he says, AA talkback.
Speaker 5 (17:42):
Play it Hey, Clay and Bucket, It's Jeff and Orlando.
Over the weekend, I was listening to some blues Government
Mule the deepest end, listening to a song thirty two
to twenty blues, and at the end of that song
was an incredible flute solo. I could have swe that
was Clay.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
Well, if you see somebody maybe dressed as a mind
playing a flute in Disney World or wherever Clay is today,
it could be could be playing a mean.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Flute out there on the streets of Orlando or wherever
we may see.
Speaker 3 (18:18):
The Western Conference NBA Finals wrap up tonight, and then
there's another possible outcome on Thursday too. Look, I've been
watching my beloved Knicks. It has been painful lately, especially
since that first game. I've actually been watching this because
it's bringing back a lot of memories from my childhood
and Prize Picks lets you have a lot more fun
watching these games. At least, then you can have fun
(18:39):
that you could win even when your team loses. Prize
Picks like what happened to me. Prize Picks is up
their game with great offerings to go with this playoff action.
It's not just about the teams, about the players. You
choose more or less on two to six player projections
for your shot to win up to two thousand dollars.
I'm sorry two thousand times your cash. Prize Picks are
the best way to get action on sports and more
than thirty states, including California, Texas, and Georgia. Withdrawals are fast,
(19:04):
safe and secure, with some hitting your account in as
little as fifteen minutes. Download the Prize Picks app today.
Use my name Buck as your code. Get fifty dollars
instantly after you play your first five dollars lineup. That's
code Buck. You get fifty dollars instantly after you play
your first five dollar lineup. And I'm gonna have to
bet against the Knicks because it at least emotionally hedges,
because I think they're gonna lose.
Speaker 4 (19:28):
Show.
Speaker 3 (19:30):
As I sit here with all of you still in
recovery from my little stomach bug, I know that yesterday,
to the degree I was able to follow the news
or pay attention to anything that there was the announcement
about the Trump administration trying to end all federal funding
(19:51):
the remaining federal funding to Harvard, And I.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
Know there are people.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
Here's the way this argument seems to go out there
with some people. And I see this particularly on x
formerly known as Twitter, or you'll have people say, but
what about when they want to do this to a
conservative college? And then I always want to say, are
you paying attention? What is the conservative college that's getting
(20:18):
hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government doesn't exist?
Speaker 2 (20:22):
So you know this is it's so funny. There's this assumption, Oh,
but they'll do stuff to us too. No, no, no,
They've already been doing this stuff. That's the point.
Speaker 3 (20:32):
It's a little bit like Trump's approach to China on trade.
People go, no, you can't do anything to China. What
if they start doing bad things to us on trade?
In response, they're already doing bad stuff to us as
much as they really can on trade. It's just a
question of are we willing to do something back so
that they stop, or that there's at least some cost
(20:54):
to this. That's the attitude, that's the mentality people should have.
Certainly the right about what's going on with Harvard And also,
I mean understand this, like why did Barack Obama go
to Harvard Law School and was the editor of Harvard
Law Review, even though I don't think he ever wrote
(21:15):
anything at Harvard Law Review, or if he did, it
was like one thing, so they just you know, he
was a figurehead after going to Occidental College for undergrad
for a while, and then he's transferred to Columbia.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
Anyway, I remember the Obama bio pretty well, why do
you go to Harvard when he went to Harvard?
Speaker 3 (21:31):
Because the whole point is you go there and you're
supposed to be really smart and the.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
Elite and in charge. Right.
Speaker 3 (21:38):
Well, Harvard had created over a long period of time,
and I think Harvard used to be I'm sure a
great place, but over I would say the last forty
years or so, in the affirmative action era and the
era of the left wing ascendancy on campus that it's
not I know, there's always been left wing stuff on campus.
(21:58):
People say, what about the sixties, tests Well, it turned
into everything became left. I mean, I haven't really spent
any time on a college campus since I was an
undergrad myself twenty years ago.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
But you know they were. They were constantly comparing Bush
to Hitler. That was the thing.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
People forget this now they compare Trump to Hitler now,
but they used to actually say, because of Afghanistan and
Iraq Wars, that Trump was Hitler. These people are nuts.
But the left wing completely overran these campuses and there
was really nothing left. And they enforced doctrine with the
(22:38):
zeal of the Stazi in East Germany. I mean, they
really make it so that if you say things that
are unapproved, they just make your life really uncomfortable.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
They kick you off campus.
Speaker 3 (22:49):
So there's already they're doing the bad stuff. Here is Trump.
By the way, I'll continue on with this line of argument.
Here's Trump. This is cut twenty three talking about the
Harvard fight.
Speaker 4 (23:01):
Play it.
Speaker 6 (23:01):
Hey, look, Harvard has been a disaster. They've taken five
plus by the way, five billion dollars plus five billion.
Nobody knew that they were making this cut. If we
didn't do this, nobody would have. We would have never
found this out. Pamp they're taking five billion dollars and
I'd rather see that money go to trade schools. And
by the way, they're totally anti Semitic. At Harvard, as
(23:23):
you know, and some other colleges to an all fairness
to them, and it's been exposed, very exposed.
Speaker 3 (23:30):
It's more specifically on the college campuses on that issue
of the anti Semitism, as I've been saying all along,
and I think this has now become something that we discuss,
and and this show is somewhat known for putting out there.
I'd never heard anyone else make the argument before I
made it here on this program talking with Clay on
the air about how the American left views Israel Palestine
(23:55):
as a race conflict essentially, and that all the stuff
about ohnineteen forty eight and nineteen sixty seven and UN
resolution two four two and three three eight and the
Bow four Declaration, all these things that you can no, no, no,
it's white people are pressing brown people. That's what the
campuses think. And that's why you have all these groups
that know nothing and care nothing about the Middle East
(24:17):
that are so very you know, they get to be
super sanctimodious, super self righteous. The virtue signaling can be
off the charts, and the other people talking about, you know,
how much they care about Gaza. I would note I've
seen some left, some left wing media types in the
last few days. Bring you've seen this bringing up Sudan.
(24:37):
Where have you heard where have you heard that talked
about other than on this program? Right, just saying we're
ahead on a lot of this stuff. We were saying
here that the left views the Israel Palestine or you know,
Hamas Israel thing as a race conflict because that fits
into the very neat boxes that they set up in
(24:58):
their minds of how these even though that's I mean,
it's wrong on the facts, it's just it's absurd, but
that's how they view it, and that's why they feel
so morally superior, even when they know nothing about it,
and they they just inherently think non white means oppressed.
That's that's just their view. That's what they've been because
on campus, that's what you're told, non white oppressed doesn't matter.
(25:21):
You could be one of the richest athletes in the world,
you could be a president of the United States. Non
white oppressed. That is a the really the I think
the central ethos that holds the.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
Left together and the Democrat Party overall.
Speaker 3 (25:38):
That is the thing that you know, collectivism, moral relativism,
and uh, you know and this whole notion of what
is not what is non white or who those who
are non white are inherently oppressed.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
So that's that's a big part of.
Speaker 3 (25:57):
What you see going on on the Harvard camp is
that is a all these college campuses, is a major
aspect of it. But then I also get back to
this because people say, well, why.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
You know, what's Harvard supposed to do? Trump's gon.
Speaker 3 (26:10):
Trump is not saying, you know, you better start teaching
things in that Shakespeare one on one class the way
I want you to, or else. This school by our
own Supreme Court's ruling, which look directly at Harvard, I
might add, that's why Harvard is in the crosshairs. This
(26:31):
school is engaged in racial discrimination.
Speaker 2 (26:36):
That is what is going on.
Speaker 3 (26:37):
It is clear as day if Harvard said, as a
matter of policy, we will no longer take anybody.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
Who is you know, Hispanic. Let's just put that out
there for a second.
Speaker 3 (26:49):
If Harvard just said, sorry, we'll take everybody except the Hispanics,
or if we're gonna take Hispanics, they have to have
perfect SATs, perfect grades, and be in the like the
the one percentile to even consider getting in here. Of
all of our applicants, not like nationally, and that's the
(27:10):
way it's going to be. People would say, well, hold
on a second, that's not right. Why why have you
created a specific, a specific entry requirement for people based
on their ethnicity, their their skin color.
Speaker 2 (27:26):
That's wrong, and they they would be right.
Speaker 3 (27:29):
I think that it was this recognition back when I
was in high school and I had a kind of
unique experience because I was in a very academically rigorous,
scholarship high school where most of the students, you know,
I came from a comfortable background. I had a successful,
(27:49):
you know, Wall Street dad, but I was, you know,
not some super rich kid or anything. But a lot
of the kids there came from low income and sort
of lower middle income households, and a lot of them
were white. And this was the thing. And when they
would apply to schools, and because everybody knew too, it
was a very intense pressure cooker kind of a school academically,
(28:13):
and everyone knew who was like the top of the
class and who was you know, who was going to be.
It was one hundred and thirty kids, I would say
in my class, and you know, we knew who the
top ten kids were, and if you were a top
ten kid and you were white or Asian, we had
a lot of Filipinos, a lot of South Koreans because
(28:33):
you had to be Catholic to go, so not a lot,
no one really that I can remember from like mainland China,
but we had a lot of Filipinos, obviously a big
Catholic population. South Koreans as a robust Catholic population there too.
And I just remember if you were white or one
of the Asian kids, even if you were top ten
or top twenty in the whole class, which meant you
(28:54):
were you know, it had to be a national merit scholar,
no question, you know you you would have been the
top of any school anywhere in the country. I mean,
I think Regis has like the I don't know, I
mean it was the Stuyvesant kids always say they have
higher average SATs, but we were right there and Stuyvesant's
like number three in the country or something.
Speaker 2 (29:10):
So some sty people are probably listening, Yeah we beat you,
maybe you did.
Speaker 3 (29:17):
But if you were as if you were a Hispanic
or black and you were the number like fifty kid,
it was which ivy League school do you want to
go to? And I remember looking at that and recognizing
that phenomenon saying, that's just not right. It's very straightforward,
just not right. And people would say, oh, but what
about the legacy of slavery. Okay, well, first of all,
(29:38):
I still disagree that that means that today in you know,
the year twenty twenty five there, but put that aside
for a second.
Speaker 2 (29:45):
So why the Latino kids? Why are they?
Speaker 3 (29:48):
And this is explicitly by the numbers. Harvard does this.
Harvard discriminates on the basis of race.
Speaker 4 (29:57):
People say, what's Harvard supposed to do, how's Harvard supposed to.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
You know, make the concessions necessary to get more federal funding.
Stop being racist Harvard. They won't do it. They won't
do it. That's how much they It is worth hundreds
of millions of dollars to the people who run Harvard
to continue to tell some poor white kid from Appalachia
(30:23):
who has you know, is like the pride of his
town and you know, is the you know, he's got like.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
A one forty IQ and sixteen hundred set and everything.
Speaker 3 (30:31):
Yeah, I don't know, we have any space for you,
but we do have room for people who have far
lesser grades. And far lesser boards who are a different
skin color than you. That the fact that we had
to accept this as long as we did in this country.
Keep in mind, it is unconstitutional now. It is unconstitutional
(30:52):
to do this is not just now. I've been making
this argument pretty much my entire life, but certainly for
now fifteen years of doing media consistently, this is wrong.
This is wrong. They can't win this argument. And then
you get people playing all these games too. It's like, oh, well,
you know, my my grandmother is from Polynesia, so I'm
actually a I'm applying to school as like a Pacific islander.
(31:14):
I know somebody who did that to get into Stanford
just see it. And she got in. Not an impressive
student got in. Oh I'm a quarter Pacific islander.
Speaker 4 (31:22):
You know.
Speaker 3 (31:22):
It's like, by the way, I think her mom might
have even been from like Hawaii or so. It's just
the whole thing. It's a scam. It's a scam. It's
absurd and we all know it. And by the way,
this is true in the hiring process too. It's racist,
it's wrong. Supreme Court looked at this. Sorry, this is
the system. We have not allowed to do this anymore.
Harvard still wants to do it. They refuse to change.
(31:48):
So back to my initial premise of when someone's doing
bad things to you, if you do something in response,
you're not the cause of the problems. Harvard is unconstitutionally
discriminating and also teaching all of his kids to hate
America and also engaged in a lot of pandering to
the anti Semitic pro Hamas element on Kaid all these things.
(32:10):
Why should the administration. Remember the administration's not saying we're
sending in the you know, we're sending in the you know,
the Marines to shut down your campus. You're not like, no,
of course, First Amendment.
Speaker 2 (32:21):
But they're not entitled the hundreds of millions of dollars
of funds from the government. This is this is what
people you know, this is like the same argument with NPR. Well,
what is the.
Speaker 3 (32:30):
Argument the government's money. The government should have never been
giving this money, especially something to NPR. And now it says,
you know what, we're not going to give them money anymore.
They don't have so they have the discretion to give
the money, but not the discretion to stop. And you
I know there's already some judge who's like you can't
do this. Supreme Court's gonna have to step in once again.
But Harvard could make this whole thing a lot easier
(32:51):
on itself. But it is so important to them because
they they have built this whole edifice of self congrats
and smugness around DEI and around diversity is our strength
and all this other stuff. And they've first of all
engaged in discrimination to do this. But also so much
(33:13):
of what has been excellent in these institutions has been,
you know, just giving up in favor of this left
wing religious belief of DEI. And that's why they're so upset.
And that's what's going on. I say, keep this fight going,
keep this fight going. Trump is doing the right thing.
(33:34):
These schools, you know, they give their and I would say, well,
why did Obama go there? Because the whole point is
you get to go to one of these places and
you're inherently Harvey gets to pick and choose who the
elites are. Well to anyone who knows anything, by the way,
you should not be impressed. I mean, I see some
of these There's like a national security analyst who I
see on CNN sometimes and I used to know when
I was there who is like, teaches at Harvard in
(33:56):
one of the schools.
Speaker 2 (33:57):
It's just a dumbass. I mean truly a dumbass. And
you're like, oh, buck can you intersit down?
Speaker 3 (34:01):
You and her sit down a professor at Harvard in
like the Kennedy School or something, can you intersit down?
And let's do let's just do like an overall knowledge
test for the world in national security. She gets smoked
by the buckster smoked and I know this.
Speaker 2 (34:14):
Person teaches at Harvard, the Harvard professor. Yeah, give me
a break.
Speaker 3 (34:19):
Protecting your house from the effects of torential rain starts
with the gutters. That's the first place water collects, and
if those gutters are clogged, you'll eventually have water damage
within your house. That's why you want to rely on
leaf filter and their team of experts right now save
up to thirty percent off at leefilter dot com. Slash
clay and buck gutter clogs aren't just a nuisance. They
can cause extensive water damage. Let lee Filters Trusted pro
(34:41):
help protect your home from flooding, foundation issues, and more.
They'll clean out, realign and seal your gutters before installing.
Lee Filter's Award winning and patented technology. This is America's
number one gutter protection system. Schedule your free inspection in
get up to thirty percent off your entire purchase at
leefilter dot com slash clat buck that's leefilter dot com
(35:02):
slash clayand buck.
Speaker 2 (35:04):
See the representative for warranty details.
Speaker 3 (35:14):
Next hour, Senator Tuberville, perhaps soon to be Governor Tuberville
will be joining us from the great state of Alabama.
I will continue to hydrate with my water and gatorade mixture.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
So far so good. Team asked me.
Speaker 3 (35:29):
They said, was this harder or was doing the show
the first time you filled in for Rush with no
voice harder? Said, well, thanks to the steroids, because they
injected me with a cortizone steroid that first time around.
Not fun steroids, not like the ones that give you
big muscles, just the dealt with the inflammation. That was harder.
That was harder. I was able to do it thanks
to the court zone. But that was a more difficult
(35:49):
day this one. If I can get through the third
hour without smacking my face on the table from a dehydration, I'll.
Speaker 2 (35:55):
Feel like it's a win.
Speaker 4 (35:56):
So there we go.
Speaker 3 (35:58):
We're gonna talk big beautiful Bill. Also, will we come
back here in a few moments. Let's take this talk back.
Speaker 2 (36:04):
D D.
Speaker 3 (36:04):
Brad from Cincinnati listens on fifty five KRC radio.
Speaker 2 (36:08):
Let's play it.
Speaker 7 (36:13):
Mike King was valedictorian of his high school class. We
contacted Harvard and they weren't even interested remotely because he's white.
So as far as I'm concerned, I hope Trump runs
them out of business.
Speaker 4 (36:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (36:29):
I think Harvard has been engaged in discrimination, and I
don't just think so. The Supreme Court agrees with it,
and that's not okay. I thought we were anti racial
discrimination in this country. I thought we wanted a society
where everybody was, you know, continent of their character, not
color of their skin. The racial entitlement state is now illegal.
It is illegal. It is unconstitutional.
Speaker 4 (36:52):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (36:53):
And so these places that do it, they may think
that they have some and I don't know why, but
some weird reason that they get to ignore that. But
I'm pretty sure they're in America and they're getting federal dollars,
So we can cut off those federal dollars. They're not
entitled to government grants, just the same way that people
who are of a certain ethnicity or a certain background
(37:15):
background shouldn't be entitled to government grants in private industry,
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com