June 22, 2025 • 30 mins
Arynne Wexler and Clay discuss the situation in Iran, the potential for Israel to take military action against Iran, and the broader implications for US national security and foreign policy. The discussion covers topics such as the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, the role of the Iranian people, and the debate within the US over how to approach the Iran issue.
Clay also interviews FCC Chairman Brendan Carr about how do we empower the local broadcasters to serve the public interest and allow them to get some distance from the national programmers that are really just generating content in Hollywood and New York.
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:
FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/
IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Team forty seven with Clay and Buck starts. Now, I
do think, as the situation in Iran has deteriorated over
the past several decades of the Ayatola's leadership, that their
pursuit of nuclear weapons does, in my opinion, directly impact
many of our safety and security here in the United States.
(00:23):
And Aaron Wexler has made a persuasive case that that
is correct. So let me start with a tough one
for you, Aaron, I asked Dave Rubinis in the second hour,
do you think that Israel should take out the Aya Tolas?
Should they go ahead and finish the job or do
you cross your fingers and hope that the Iranian people
(00:44):
rise up against the Aya Tolas and if they don't
have to negotiate with them going forward. What's the right
result now that the raids that the attacks have.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Begun, Well, I think the also great to be great
to do with you play, but I think the only
options or Israel is to decisively win what they have now.
It has now not what they've started, but the attacks
against Ron need to be conclusively, decisively finished. And so yes,
I do believe it means taking the Iatola is out.
I do not think that pinky promises from the Iatola
(01:15):
of not building and not expanding their nuclear program is
something we should be trusting. And to the point of
the Iranian people rising up, I mean, we've seen for
decades that they have protests, that they have risked their lives.
But it is difficult to overthrow a government, and so
I think the only option really is to cut the
head off the snake.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
Okay, So people out there who may be listening to
us and disagreeing, they would say, why do we think
that who we replace, that is, let's say that the
Iotolas get swept out, why do we think that what
replaces the Iotolas will be better?
Speaker 2 (01:50):
It's hard to get much worse than where we are
right now. But I would say when it comes to
the Iranian people, these are deeply pro Western people. Of course,
you are going to have Iranian people who are sympathetic
to the IRGC, But in general, we have seen you know,
I would put up a lot of leftists in America
for people in Iran. These women are brave, they show
(02:11):
their hair, they get beaten in the street and a
lot oftentimes killed. So I think we have seen a
resilience in the Iranian people, and you know, the Persian
culture is something that is very elevated and very motivated,
and I think we could see a real flourishing in
the Middle East if the Iranian people could be who
they were before the Ietolas.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
Okay, so I agree with a lot of that, but
I'm going to keep pushing you with tough questions because
you're smart and I think you're going to have good answers,
but also because again, a lot of these are criticisms
that I would be hearing from people who are listening
right now. A lot of people, I would say, are
adopting an isolationist America first philosophy, and they say, why
should I care at all what happens in the Middle East.
(02:54):
This is not America's battle. We shouldn't be involved in
any way. You would respond how, I would.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Say, I'm also America first, but I think there's a
real myopia happening right now with what America first means.
Somehow we've decided that America first means America alone, and
I don't know how we came to that definition, and
there's something incredibly simplistic about that, but there seems to
be a major reaction that's simply because another country has
(03:21):
an interest, we must automatically oppose that interest as if
we cannot have aligning, aligning interests with other countries. That
makes no sense to me that that's not compatible with
so much of our history. And in this case, because
it happens to the Israel and there's a lot of
sentiment against Israel and the country right now, people have
decided that Iran is the good guy. That is where
we are in this logic. So, you know, the idea
(03:43):
of America First, we've we've seen President Trump have to
take it back and almost redefine it back to what
he meant it to be originally. So a lot of
this movement that's, you know, spamming the internet with America First,
no New Wars. They're actually directly at ODZ what President
Trump defines that to be. And so, yes, America First
(04:04):
should not mean America alone. And I very much believe
that a country that chance in their parliamentary session and
when their presidents are sworn in, when they chance death
to America, when this is what they teach their children
on children's programs, when we have seen through the decades
that they will attack American soldiers. How is this not
anti American when they call us big Satan. I don't
(04:28):
understand how not wanting those types of people with nuclear capability.
I do not see how that is not America.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
First truth of the matter is this, there's a segment
of the right that is anti Semitic. There is a
big segment of the left that is anti Semitic. This
has led to rise in anti Semitism the likes of
which many of us have not seen. One of the attacks.
I'm sure it's in my mentions right now. Aaron, we're
talking to Aaron Wexler. Encourage you to go follow her. Aaron,
(04:57):
one of the attacks that will be in my mentions
right now, I bet as I'm talking talking to you,
is that the Jews own me. I am not Jewish,
by the way, in case any of you are aware, Aaron,
do you think that the Jews own me, or own buck,
or in any way are influencing our opinions based on money?
This is an anti Semitic attack, but I think it's
important I'll put it out there. Do you believe it?
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Do I think you are owned by the Jews? No,
that would be incredibly convenient for us. I love when
people would love to say that we control the media,
the media that loves to hate us. I mean, I
think the press around the Jews would be so much
better if you were actually in control. So no, that
is absolutely crazy. And I would say that Katari money
(05:40):
is what people think Jewish money is in America.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
It's an interesting argument. And look, I feel fortunate I've
said this before, but I do think some people say,
I don't know why, just for people out there, why
you would say that you have wealth. I'm talking about myself.
I don't have to work. I think that matters. I
think it was beneficial for Trump because it's harder to
buy people who don't have to work. I mean, this
(06:06):
is the reality. Elon Musk came out and actually addressed
it directly. People said, oh, you're being bought and paid for,
and he said, actually, no one can afford to buy
and pay me enough because he's so wealthy. Now I'm
not Elon Musk wealthy, but I can say comfortably for
everybody out there, there is no one who can afford
to pay me because I don't have to work now.
(06:28):
But I do think that arguments out there, the way
that you pivoted on. It is significant. There's substantial money
out there rolling in from Middle East, from Jewish interest,
from Saudi Arabian interest, from Katari interest. I mean that's
how frankly, I think Katar got the World Cup was
they bought it. Saudi Arabia's got the World Cup in
twenty thirty six, they bought it. But I actually think
(06:51):
it's an interesting angle here the thing that actually should
unite us. And I'm curious if you would buy this, Aaron,
and I think this is why Trump has had some
success in the Middle East is he's not leading with religion.
He's leading with commerce and capitalism and the idea of
business first, for all the Muslims in the Middle East,
for all the Jews in the Middle East, to the
(07:12):
extent that there is much of a Christian population in
the Middle East. The ability to embrace capitalism and have
more successful economic liberation lifts everyone without getting into the
nuance of the difference in religion. I think that's why
Trump has had some success.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Do you buy that, Yes, I think that's definitely part
of it. Also, to your point on not being bought,
we saw a risk between Donald Trump and Elon Musk
the wealthiest man in the world who at some parts
of his tweets essentially was insinuating, I peede a lot
for you to win the presidency. I would like to
be listened to. And Donald Trump said, I'm sorry, I
(07:51):
cannot be bought. And actually, and this is something I
wrote about in an article on my substats, which is
subac dot com. Blush Aaron Wesler. Actually sorry, plash Aaron.
That was my I want to say. But you can
find me also on Twitter at Aaron Weckler and I
have this spread there. I talk about the fact that
even the left knows that Trump cannot be bought. That's
actually why they hate him so much, because Donald Trump
cannot be bought. So everything the man is doing right
(08:14):
now in office is because that's what he wants to do,
that's what he believes. And right now we're seeing a
massive splintering I think, probably the first major splintering within
the MAGA movement since its inception, over everything that's happening
with Iran. Because Donald Trump promised us we would not
have a nuclear Iran. That will not be his legacy
and that is why he is helping his role right now.
Speaker 1 (08:34):
Yeah, and I think this is actually important. First of all,
Trump has said publicly, nobody else can define what America
First means because I'm the leader, and I decided like
I've made the arguments about America First. But I do
think to the extent that there is a disagreement or
splintering in some way on the right about how Iran
should be handled. Do we want and this is my
(08:56):
argument I just tweeted about it. In an ideal world,
we would have kept Kim Jong un in North Korea
from getting a nuclear weapon. It is the danger, I
would argue, is of anybody that has nuclear weapons leaving
a side terrorist getting them or something like that. A
state having nuclear weapons. Kim Jong Un is the most
dangerous right now, person with access to nuclear weapons. I
(09:19):
think most people out there, regardless of politics, would agree
with that. Do we want Kim Jong Un in the
Middle East with a religious focused fervor underpinning the desire
to have nuclear weapons? That seems like a really bad
idea to me for America and the rest of the world.
And that is why, on a purely rational basis, I
(09:41):
think it is in direct American interest to keep a
crazy religious group from having access to nuclear weapons. That
seems like an easy argument to make. I'm surprised so
many are missing it.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
Yeah. Well, I'd like to say two things so that
The first is on the comparison with Kim jong un.
Kim Jong Un is poor. He is poor. Okay, they
do not have money in North Korea. Iran has oil.
They have money from themselves, from Qatar, from Joe Biden.
They actually have There's a lot of damage that they
can inflict if they have nuclear disabilities. That's one thing.
(10:13):
The second thing I want to address is and this
is something I'm seeing from a lot of people on
these SO calls right where they love talking about the
price of oil if we go to war. They love
talking about what it looks like if Israel strikes by
the way Israel stroke and the world is still spinning,
and oil, you know, gas isn't twenty dollars a gallon,
and all the things they warned us about probably being
paid by guitar or to posts have not happened. But
(10:36):
none of them can describe to us what does it
look like if Iran actually gets nuclear weapons? What does
it look like for America? What does it look like
for gas? What does it look like for trade? What
happens to the Strait of Hormuz if Iran has nuclear weapons,
right the oil choke point of the world. You want
a nuclear Iran in charge of the oil choke point
of the world. That is astutely preposterous. And I have
(10:58):
not seen a thing personality and I'll call it personality
not authority on Twitter actually explaining what it looks like
if that happens.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
Yeah, I think that's super important. I also would just
point out that twenty four years ago they flew planes
into our buildings based on a misguided, bastardized version of
what religion should look like according to these crazy Muslim terrorists,
right the Ayatola's having nuclear weapons, the idea that they're
(11:34):
going to in some way be rational in the way
that they use them. Based on the history of what
we have seen when it comes to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism,
it's crazy to me that anybody would even be arguing, Hey,
it's going to be okay, we should just stay out
of this and let them get nuclear weapons.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
Yes, well, well, this assumption that's coming from so much
of the right right now is assuming that it's possible
for us to negotiate with good faith astors as if
they're you know, Putin's an evil gye. He is, he's
rational and predictable. And you know, when you talk about
international security and like all those theories right, like you're
(12:14):
actually dealing with a highly rational actor. When we talk
about iron. There is a fanaticism, a radicalism with religion
that I think a lot of Americans really just can't understand.
They refuse to acknowledge it. Really, it just makes no
sense for them to assume that we can deal with
someone as if rail politique is something that is possible
(12:34):
within that conversation. They will not be pragmatic. It will
not work with the Ayatolas.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
I think that's right. I appreciate the time. I want
people to be able to follow your work because you're smart, funny,
and I think connecting with many different people out there
who may not be connecting with your sort of rational
thought unfortunately on Instagram or TikTok or wherever else it is.
So let me give you those channels, and why do
you think it's so important to be speaking on those channels.
(13:01):
A lot of people millions listening to this radio show,
A lot of people watch Fox News, but traditional media
otherwise for younger people very much. Is collapsing.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
Yeah, no, I appreciate that, Clay, thanks for having me on.
Everyone can find me at. Aaron Westler is a tough name.
It is Aryne w x l E R. I did
not come up with my first name. I've actually had
it in first, so I can't take credit or and
you can't blame me for that spelling.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
Do you blame your parents for spelling Aaron that way?
Is this a unique Jewish spelling of Aaron? I've never
seen it before.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
God, it's like, let's have a therapy session for twenty seconds. No,
my parents wanted to name me Erin for some reason.
Aaro Owen is a boy's name. Ern is Catholic, and
they thought that's confusing. What I guess they didn't think
was confusing was naming me but giving me a spelling
that looks like the Aryan race as a Jewish woman.
So I get hated by everyone and I confuse everybody.
And some people also think it's a kind of black spelling,
(13:53):
which is also fun. So I confuse the less because
they think I'm ethnic and they can't really say anything
against me. So hopefully that donation will help you all
remember how to sell it, which is Rynny and Yeah,
I think it's really important to speak, especially to people
who are on Instagram and Twitter, which are my main platforms,
because most people have TikTok bring these days a lot
like you mentioned. I mean, I don't even have table
(14:16):
news in my own house. So a lot of people
in my generation are not watching mainstream media, and it's
important that we still make sure they are seeing seeing
fast and getting other opinions other than the left.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
Thank you Eric. By the way, I was with a
friend group over the weekend and I was sitting with
a dad. He had his twenty one year old daughter
and his seventeen year old daughter there, so we had
a big table and she asked me how she could
find the show. She had never listened to a show
only was I mean, I just thought it was It
(14:49):
was really crazy. But I understand for people out there
who are listening to us right now, you've been listening
to radio your whole life. This twenty one year old girl,
college girl, was like, so, how does that work exactly?
She doesn't have a car, she rides around in ubers
by and large like the idea of how to get radio.
It was I was having to explain. I just anyway,
there are a lot of people out there like that
that are super active on TikTok, super active on Instagram,
(15:13):
but are not necessarily going to be listening to a
show like this.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
So thank you, Ari, thanks so much. Play agres of Bear.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
Team forty seven with Clay and Buck. We are joined
now by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. 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
(15:43):
think now that President Trump is in office, it's fair
to say that we have seen maybe a little bit
of unfairness from ABC, CBS, NBC, among others. They have
with a government responsibility based on the fact that we
have given them a license as a country. How fair
(16:04):
now that we're through the election season, do you think
news coverage has been What could occur 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
(16:25):
that ABC, NBC, and CBS are providing in some way
fair and balanced news coverage.
Speaker 3 (16:30):
Yeah. Thanks, so what. It's great to be with you.
Speaker 4 (16:31):
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
(16:54):
away completely from enforcing that public interest obligation, and I
don't think we're better off. For 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.
Speaker 3 (17:16):
And frankly that's not just my opinion.
Speaker 4 (17:18):
If you look at 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 op ed 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. We talk
(17:38):
about the actual local broadcast TV stations, the ones that
actually hold the license by the FCC when they run programming,
it's actually really trusted by local communities.
Speaker 3 (17:46):
So the biggest policy that we're running.
Speaker 4 (17:48):
At the FCC in terms of media right now is
how do we empower the local broadcasters to serve the
public interest and allow them to get some distance from
the national programmers that are really just generating content in
Hollywood in New York and sort of force feeding it
out through. So I think there's actually a lot the
FCS can do that addresses this issue. And again focusing
(18:09):
on that unique public interest obligations that TV channels.
Speaker 1 (18:13):
Have, that is super interesting because I think most people
out there listening to us right now when there is
a major thunderstorm, for instance, and they are at home.
They trust their local news to provide them accurate coverage
about danger, tornadoes, everything else, but they certainly don't trust
the national news to provide them. So I hadn't really
thought about that dichotomy. It's interesting in PRPBS we have
(18:35):
seen the vote barely get passed in the House to
take away their funding as it pertains to government dollars.
I've always thought it's crazy. To my knowledge, we don't
get a massive amount of government support. We compete within PR.
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
(18:58):
kind of optics does the FCC have on those issues?
Speaker 3 (19:01):
It really wasn't that long ago.
Speaker 4 (19:03):
If you looked at a cross section of the listeners
and viewer to NPR and PBS, you'd get a pretty
decent cross section of the country as a whole. And
at some point not that long ago, things changed dramatically,
and it appears that NPR and PBS have been appealing
to a very narrow bespoke, almost a sella hoard or
portions in the country, and you can do that right
(19:23):
as 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. And to your point, recently recisions package past
the House that would save about a billion dollars from
(19:46):
that funding. The FCC we've launched actually an investigation into
NPR and PBS.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
And here's why they are.
Speaker 4 (19:53):
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.
Speaker 3 (20:02):
But as a consequence, they can't run advertising.
Speaker 4 (20:04):
But what it looks like they've been doing is running
programs that appear to be very close, if not to
advertisements themselves. So we've launched an inquiry at the FCC
to make sure that they're not violating the law, because
really you can't have it both ways. You can't be
getting you know, public funding and claiming that you're you know,
non commercial and then potentially the same time running commercial.
So we're looking at as well. Right now, CBS News
(20:26):
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
(20:46):
to Skydance. I believe where is all of that from
your perspective? Yeah, right before January twentieth, In fact, think
read around January tenth I believe the prior administration, the
Biden FCC summarily dismissed a news story worsh complaint that
have been filed against sixty Minutes based on claims of
editing around that answer to Kamala Harris in the sixty
(21:07):
Minutes episode. They dismissed it without actually doing any real inquiry,
without doing any due diligence. And so one of the
very first things that we did was we restored that
complaint against CBS. We've put it out for public comment,
and to your point, we obtained the unedited transcript in
video of that interview. We've put it all out there.
I think sunlight is the best disinfected. So right now
the American people are participating in this process. We haven't
(21:28):
made a final decision, but we are weighing whether in
fact it is a news distortion or not, and that's
under active investigation at the FCC. Separate from that, we
do have a transaction before the FCC where the owners
of CBS are looking to sell and as of right
now we're just running our normal course review on that
and no significant update as to where we are on that.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
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 weeymo. I felt
like I was in the future.
Speaker 4 (21:58):
Before all the way most started getting before all the way.
Ye're good, get out of that clay.
Speaker 1 (22:02):
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. Is there enough
to be able to handle all the technology coming? What
(22:25):
would be beneficial in your mind? As you look at
the auctions of this spectrum and the utilization of the spectrum.
Speaker 4 (22:31):
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, do 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 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
(22:56):
is just like a hockey stick through the roof.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
And right now China has.
Speaker 4 (22:59):
Leaked out to a really significant lead over the US.
Didn't used to be this way. If you match 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
(23:21):
recently has articulately that he wants the US to lead
again and we're gonna do it. So one of the
things that the One Big Beautiful Bill does is it
restores the FCS authority to free up these airwaves which
lapsed during the Biden years. Senator Cruz. Chairman Cruz has
been phenomenal in leading on this. But we are hundreds
of megahertz behind where China is right now, and to
your point, our commercial sector needs it, DoD uses it
(23:44):
as well. But I think ultimately right now where we're
short is commercial spectrum for high power use. President Trump
and Chairman Cruise 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 (24:00):
Your job, to a large extent, I would think, and
you can correct me if I'm wrong, is to try
to allow the marketplace of ideas to work at the
best of its manner and ensure that the government is
not putting a hand or a finger on the scale
to allow one side to have an advantage. How fair
do you think the overall media environment is from your
(24:21):
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 4 (24:36):
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.
(24:57):
Silicon Valley was deciding whether you got to day on
the digital town square what you could say. And the
evidence also shows that the Biden administration was effectively colluding
with a lot of these social media companies to shut
down free speech. And it didn't just happen here in
the US, it's spreading globally. In Brazil, there's this Justice
Day Moray, this government official there that's been censoring social media.
(25:17):
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,
(25:38):
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
(25:59):
we'll find on turning the tide on that.
Speaker 1 (26:01):
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
(26:22):
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 Rand 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
(26:42):
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 (26:59):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:59):
Absolutely.
Speaker 4 (26:59):
One of things I've focused a lot on is this
concept of user empowerment. Like, 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. 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 ye the show. But we need to
(27:20):
sort of get those decision making, the 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 know, one idea we've talked about is should we
have content filters that you can choose, Like, let's say
you want the Reasons that Escape Me, but you want
MSNBC to filter your feed for you.
Speaker 3 (27:38):
Okay, plug that in and do it.
Speaker 4 (27:39):
If you want, you know, this show to have one, great,
If you want Fox News to do it, great, But
let's 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.
Speaker 3 (27:52):
Are very serious.
Speaker 4 (27:52):
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 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 by Laptop story
(28:15):
that is on the.
Speaker 1 (28:16):
Last question for you. AI is taking off at a
rapid rate, and we have fun with AI. Memes that
people will post of me playing the flute 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
(28:39):
one thing to restrict something that we know is real,
but how in the world do we have the ability
to let people know what is true and what is
false and what someone's actually said and not said.
Speaker 4 (28:49):
Yeah, if you've seen these AI general videos of the
podcasters that are in the Baby.
Speaker 1 (28:54):
Yeah, yeah, they're hilarious.
Speaker 4 (28:55):
Yes, those are the very, very fun I don't if
they've had any of those use of you or not, but.
Speaker 1 (28:58):
I think they may think I'm a baby, are ready?
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (29:00):
I felt out a meme hole at one time looking
at all those I thought they were hilarious.
Speaker 3 (29:03):
I mean, look, I think we'd be very careful here.
Speaker 4 (29:05):
During the last administration, President Biden had the FCC proposed
putting labels on political speech political ads that were generated
in any way with AI content, And really it just
became a way of sort of slowing down the use
of AI because they viewed it as in my view,
Republicans were being more successful in the mem wars than
they were. So I think there is some harm, as
(29:27):
you noted, but I think we have to be very
careful that we don't stifle this early on, because ultimately
it can start to look a lot like censorship. So
I do think that people need to be vigilant and
we need to educate people. And it's I think it
easier for younger folks. Think older people can get you know,
fooled a little more easily. Well if you just step Mack,
look at online scams in general. But I think this
area we have to proceed very cautiously, and I'd be
very skeptical of regulation at this point.
Speaker 1 (29:48):
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, 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 soon. Yeah,
good be with you. Thanks for sure, Thanks for listening
to Team forty seven with Clay and Buck
Team forty seven with Clay and Buck starts. Now, I
do think, as the situation in Iran has deteriorated over
the past several decades of the Ayatola's leadership, that their
pursuit of nuclear weapons does, in my opinion, directly impact
many of our safety and security here in the United States.
(00:23):
And Aaron Wexler has made a persuasive case that that
is correct. So let me start with a tough one
for you, Aaron, I asked Dave Rubinis in the second hour,
do you think that Israel should take out the Aya Tolas?
Should they go ahead and finish the job or do
you cross your fingers and hope that the Iranian people
(00:44):
rise up against the Aya Tolas and if they don't
have to negotiate with them going forward. What's the right
result now that the raids that the attacks have.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Begun, Well, I think the also great to be great
to do with you play, but I think the only
options or Israel is to decisively win what they have now.
It has now not what they've started, but the attacks
against Ron need to be conclusively, decisively finished. And so yes,
I do believe it means taking the Iatola is out.
I do not think that pinky promises from the Iatola
(01:15):
of not building and not expanding their nuclear program is
something we should be trusting. And to the point of
the Iranian people rising up, I mean, we've seen for
decades that they have protests, that they have risked their lives.
But it is difficult to overthrow a government, and so
I think the only option really is to cut the
head off the snake.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
Okay, So people out there who may be listening to
us and disagreeing, they would say, why do we think
that who we replace, that is, let's say that the
Iotolas get swept out, why do we think that what
replaces the Iotolas will be better?
Speaker 2 (01:50):
It's hard to get much worse than where we are
right now. But I would say when it comes to
the Iranian people, these are deeply pro Western people. Of course,
you are going to have Iranian people who are sympathetic
to the IRGC, But in general, we have seen you know,
I would put up a lot of leftists in America
for people in Iran. These women are brave, they show
(02:11):
their hair, they get beaten in the street and a
lot oftentimes killed. So I think we have seen a
resilience in the Iranian people, and you know, the Persian
culture is something that is very elevated and very motivated,
and I think we could see a real flourishing in
the Middle East if the Iranian people could be who
they were before the Ietolas.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
Okay, so I agree with a lot of that, but
I'm going to keep pushing you with tough questions because
you're smart and I think you're going to have good answers,
but also because again, a lot of these are criticisms
that I would be hearing from people who are listening
right now. A lot of people, I would say, are
adopting an isolationist America first philosophy, and they say, why
should I care at all what happens in the Middle East.
(02:54):
This is not America's battle. We shouldn't be involved in
any way. You would respond how, I would.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Say, I'm also America first, but I think there's a
real myopia happening right now with what America first means.
Somehow we've decided that America first means America alone, and
I don't know how we came to that definition, and
there's something incredibly simplistic about that, but there seems to
be a major reaction that's simply because another country has
(03:21):
an interest, we must automatically oppose that interest as if
we cannot have aligning, aligning interests with other countries. That
makes no sense to me that that's not compatible with
so much of our history. And in this case, because
it happens to the Israel and there's a lot of
sentiment against Israel and the country right now, people have
decided that Iran is the good guy. That is where
we are in this logic. So, you know, the idea
(03:43):
of America First, we've we've seen President Trump have to
take it back and almost redefine it back to what
he meant it to be originally. So a lot of
this movement that's, you know, spamming the internet with America First,
no New Wars. They're actually directly at ODZ what President
Trump defines that to be. And so, yes, America First
(04:04):
should not mean America alone. And I very much believe
that a country that chance in their parliamentary session and
when their presidents are sworn in, when they chance death
to America, when this is what they teach their children
on children's programs, when we have seen through the decades
that they will attack American soldiers. How is this not
anti American when they call us big Satan. I don't
(04:28):
understand how not wanting those types of people with nuclear capability.
I do not see how that is not America.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
First truth of the matter is this, there's a segment
of the right that is anti Semitic. There is a
big segment of the left that is anti Semitic. This
has led to rise in anti Semitism the likes of
which many of us have not seen. One of the attacks.
I'm sure it's in my mentions right now. Aaron, we're
talking to Aaron Wexler. Encourage you to go follow her. Aaron,
(04:57):
one of the attacks that will be in my mentions
right now, I bet as I'm talking talking to you,
is that the Jews own me. I am not Jewish,
by the way, in case any of you are aware, Aaron,
do you think that the Jews own me, or own buck,
or in any way are influencing our opinions based on money?
This is an anti Semitic attack, but I think it's
important I'll put it out there. Do you believe it?
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Do I think you are owned by the Jews? No,
that would be incredibly convenient for us. I love when
people would love to say that we control the media,
the media that loves to hate us. I mean, I
think the press around the Jews would be so much
better if you were actually in control. So no, that
is absolutely crazy. And I would say that Katari money
(05:40):
is what people think Jewish money is in America.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
It's an interesting argument. And look, I feel fortunate I've
said this before, but I do think some people say,
I don't know why, just for people out there, why
you would say that you have wealth. I'm talking about myself.
I don't have to work. I think that matters. I
think it was beneficial for Trump because it's harder to
buy people who don't have to work. I mean, this
(06:06):
is the reality. Elon Musk came out and actually addressed
it directly. People said, oh, you're being bought and paid for,
and he said, actually, no one can afford to buy
and pay me enough because he's so wealthy. Now I'm
not Elon Musk wealthy, but I can say comfortably for
everybody out there, there is no one who can afford
to pay me because I don't have to work now.
(06:28):
But I do think that arguments out there, the way
that you pivoted on. It is significant. There's substantial money
out there rolling in from Middle East, from Jewish interest,
from Saudi Arabian interest, from Katari interest. I mean that's
how frankly, I think Katar got the World Cup was
they bought it. Saudi Arabia's got the World Cup in
twenty thirty six, they bought it. But I actually think
(06:51):
it's an interesting angle here the thing that actually should
unite us. And I'm curious if you would buy this, Aaron,
and I think this is why Trump has had some
success in the Middle East is he's not leading with religion.
He's leading with commerce and capitalism and the idea of
business first, for all the Muslims in the Middle East,
for all the Jews in the Middle East, to the
(07:12):
extent that there is much of a Christian population in
the Middle East. The ability to embrace capitalism and have
more successful economic liberation lifts everyone without getting into the
nuance of the difference in religion. I think that's why
Trump has had some success.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Do you buy that, Yes, I think that's definitely part
of it. Also, to your point on not being bought,
we saw a risk between Donald Trump and Elon Musk
the wealthiest man in the world who at some parts
of his tweets essentially was insinuating, I peede a lot
for you to win the presidency. I would like to
be listened to. And Donald Trump said, I'm sorry, I
(07:51):
cannot be bought. And actually, and this is something I
wrote about in an article on my substats, which is
subac dot com. Blush Aaron Wesler. Actually sorry, plash Aaron.
That was my I want to say. But you can
find me also on Twitter at Aaron Weckler and I
have this spread there. I talk about the fact that
even the left knows that Trump cannot be bought. That's
actually why they hate him so much, because Donald Trump
cannot be bought. So everything the man is doing right
(08:14):
now in office is because that's what he wants to do,
that's what he believes. And right now we're seeing a
massive splintering I think, probably the first major splintering within
the MAGA movement since its inception, over everything that's happening
with Iran. Because Donald Trump promised us we would not
have a nuclear Iran. That will not be his legacy
and that is why he is helping his role right now.
Speaker 1 (08:34):
Yeah, and I think this is actually important. First of all,
Trump has said publicly, nobody else can define what America
First means because I'm the leader, and I decided like
I've made the arguments about America First. But I do
think to the extent that there is a disagreement or
splintering in some way on the right about how Iran
should be handled. Do we want and this is my
(08:56):
argument I just tweeted about it. In an ideal world,
we would have kept Kim Jong un in North Korea
from getting a nuclear weapon. It is the danger, I
would argue, is of anybody that has nuclear weapons leaving
a side terrorist getting them or something like that. A
state having nuclear weapons. Kim Jong Un is the most
dangerous right now, person with access to nuclear weapons. I
(09:19):
think most people out there, regardless of politics, would agree
with that. Do we want Kim Jong Un in the
Middle East with a religious focused fervor underpinning the desire
to have nuclear weapons? That seems like a really bad
idea to me for America and the rest of the world.
And that is why, on a purely rational basis, I
(09:41):
think it is in direct American interest to keep a
crazy religious group from having access to nuclear weapons. That
seems like an easy argument to make. I'm surprised so
many are missing it.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
Yeah. Well, I'd like to say two things so that
The first is on the comparison with Kim jong un.
Kim Jong Un is poor. He is poor. Okay, they
do not have money in North Korea. Iran has oil.
They have money from themselves, from Qatar, from Joe Biden.
They actually have There's a lot of damage that they
can inflict if they have nuclear disabilities. That's one thing.
(10:13):
The second thing I want to address is and this
is something I'm seeing from a lot of people on
these SO calls right where they love talking about the
price of oil if we go to war. They love
talking about what it looks like if Israel strikes by
the way Israel stroke and the world is still spinning,
and oil, you know, gas isn't twenty dollars a gallon,
and all the things they warned us about probably being
paid by guitar or to posts have not happened. But
(10:36):
none of them can describe to us what does it
look like if Iran actually gets nuclear weapons? What does
it look like for America? What does it look like
for gas? What does it look like for trade? What
happens to the Strait of Hormuz if Iran has nuclear weapons,
right the oil choke point of the world. You want
a nuclear Iran in charge of the oil choke point
of the world. That is astutely preposterous. And I have
(10:58):
not seen a thing personality and I'll call it personality
not authority on Twitter actually explaining what it looks like
if that happens.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
Yeah, I think that's super important. I also would just
point out that twenty four years ago they flew planes
into our buildings based on a misguided, bastardized version of
what religion should look like according to these crazy Muslim terrorists,
right the Ayatola's having nuclear weapons, the idea that they're
(11:34):
going to in some way be rational in the way
that they use them. Based on the history of what
we have seen when it comes to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism,
it's crazy to me that anybody would even be arguing, Hey,
it's going to be okay, we should just stay out
of this and let them get nuclear weapons.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
Yes, well, well, this assumption that's coming from so much
of the right right now is assuming that it's possible
for us to negotiate with good faith astors as if
they're you know, Putin's an evil gye. He is, he's
rational and predictable. And you know, when you talk about
international security and like all those theories right, like you're
(12:14):
actually dealing with a highly rational actor. When we talk
about iron. There is a fanaticism, a radicalism with religion
that I think a lot of Americans really just can't understand.
They refuse to acknowledge it. Really, it just makes no
sense for them to assume that we can deal with
someone as if rail politique is something that is possible
(12:34):
within that conversation. They will not be pragmatic. It will
not work with the Ayatolas.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
I think that's right. I appreciate the time. I want
people to be able to follow your work because you're smart, funny,
and I think connecting with many different people out there
who may not be connecting with your sort of rational
thought unfortunately on Instagram or TikTok or wherever else it is.
So let me give you those channels, and why do
you think it's so important to be speaking on those channels.
(13:01):
A lot of people millions listening to this radio show,
A lot of people watch Fox News, but traditional media
otherwise for younger people very much. Is collapsing.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
Yeah, no, I appreciate that, Clay, thanks for having me on.
Everyone can find me at. Aaron Westler is a tough name.
It is Aryne w x l E R. I did
not come up with my first name. I've actually had
it in first, so I can't take credit or and
you can't blame me for that spelling.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
Do you blame your parents for spelling Aaron that way?
Is this a unique Jewish spelling of Aaron? I've never
seen it before.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
God, it's like, let's have a therapy session for twenty seconds. No,
my parents wanted to name me Erin for some reason.
Aaro Owen is a boy's name. Ern is Catholic, and
they thought that's confusing. What I guess they didn't think
was confusing was naming me but giving me a spelling
that looks like the Aryan race as a Jewish woman.
So I get hated by everyone and I confuse everybody.
And some people also think it's a kind of black spelling,
(13:53):
which is also fun. So I confuse the less because
they think I'm ethnic and they can't really say anything
against me. So hopefully that donation will help you all
remember how to sell it, which is Rynny and Yeah,
I think it's really important to speak, especially to people
who are on Instagram and Twitter, which are my main platforms,
because most people have TikTok bring these days a lot
like you mentioned. I mean, I don't even have table
(14:16):
news in my own house. So a lot of people
in my generation are not watching mainstream media, and it's
important that we still make sure they are seeing seeing
fast and getting other opinions other than the left.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
Thank you Eric. By the way, I was with a
friend group over the weekend and I was sitting with
a dad. He had his twenty one year old daughter
and his seventeen year old daughter there, so we had
a big table and she asked me how she could
find the show. She had never listened to a show
only was I mean, I just thought it was It
(14:49):
was really crazy. But I understand for people out there
who are listening to us right now, you've been listening
to radio your whole life. This twenty one year old girl,
college girl, was like, so, how does that work exactly?
She doesn't have a car, she rides around in ubers
by and large like the idea of how to get radio.
It was I was having to explain. I just anyway,
there are a lot of people out there like that
that are super active on TikTok, super active on Instagram,
(15:13):
but are not necessarily going to be listening to a
show like this.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
So thank you, Ari, thanks so much. Play agres of Bear.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
Team forty seven with Clay and Buck. We are joined
now by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. 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
(15:43):
think now that President Trump is in office, it's fair
to say that we have seen maybe a little bit
of unfairness from ABC, CBS, NBC, among others. They have
with a government responsibility based on the fact that we
have given them a license as a country. How fair
(16:04):
now that we're through the election season, do you think
news coverage has been What could occur 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
(16:25):
that ABC, NBC, and CBS are providing in some way
fair and balanced news coverage.
Speaker 3 (16:30):
Yeah. Thanks, so what. It's great to be with you.
Speaker 4 (16:31):
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
(16:54):
away completely from enforcing that public interest obligation, and I
don't think we're better off. For 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.
Speaker 3 (17:16):
And frankly that's not just my opinion.
Speaker 4 (17:18):
If you look at 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 op ed 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. We talk
(17:38):
about the actual local broadcast TV stations, the ones that
actually hold the license by the FCC when they run programming,
it's actually really trusted by local communities.
Speaker 3 (17:46):
So the biggest policy that we're running.
Speaker 4 (17:48):
At the FCC in terms of media right now is
how do we empower the local broadcasters to serve the
public interest and allow them to get some distance from
the national programmers that are really just generating content in
Hollywood in New York and sort of force feeding it
out through. So I think there's actually a lot the
FCS can do that addresses this issue. And again focusing
(18:09):
on that unique public interest obligations that TV channels.
Speaker 1 (18:13):
Have, that is super interesting because I think most people
out there listening to us right now when there is
a major thunderstorm, for instance, and they are at home.
They trust their local news to provide them accurate coverage
about danger, tornadoes, everything else, but they certainly don't trust
the national news to provide them. So I hadn't really
thought about that dichotomy. It's interesting in PRPBS we have
(18:35):
seen the vote barely get passed in the House to
take away their funding as it pertains to government dollars.
I've always thought it's crazy. To my knowledge, we don't
get a massive amount of government support. We compete within PR.
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
(18:58):
kind of optics does the FCC have on those issues?
Speaker 3 (19:01):
It really wasn't that long ago.
Speaker 4 (19:03):
If you looked at a cross section of the listeners
and viewer to NPR and PBS, you'd get a pretty
decent cross section of the country as a whole. And
at some point not that long ago, things changed dramatically,
and it appears that NPR and PBS have been appealing
to a very narrow bespoke, almost a sella hoard or
portions in the country, and you can do that right
(19:23):
as 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. And to your point, recently recisions package past
the House that would save about a billion dollars from
(19:46):
that funding. The FCC we've launched actually an investigation into
NPR and PBS.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
And here's why they are.
Speaker 4 (19:53):
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.
Speaker 3 (20:02):
But as a consequence, they can't run advertising.
Speaker 4 (20:04):
But what it looks like they've been doing is running
programs that appear to be very close, if not to
advertisements themselves. So we've launched an inquiry at the FCC
to make sure that they're not violating the law, because
really you can't have it both ways. You can't be
getting you know, public funding and claiming that you're you know,
non commercial and then potentially the same time running commercial.
So we're looking at as well. Right now, CBS News
(20:26):
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
(20:46):
to Skydance. I believe where is all of that from
your perspective? Yeah, right before January twentieth, In fact, think
read around January tenth I believe the prior administration, the
Biden FCC summarily dismissed a news story worsh complaint that
have been filed against sixty Minutes based on claims of
editing around that answer to Kamala Harris in the sixty
(21:07):
Minutes episode. They dismissed it without actually doing any real inquiry,
without doing any due diligence. And so one of the
very first things that we did was we restored that
complaint against CBS. We've put it out for public comment,
and to your point, we obtained the unedited transcript in
video of that interview. We've put it all out there.
I think sunlight is the best disinfected. So right now
the American people are participating in this process. We haven't
(21:28):
made a final decision, but we are weighing whether in
fact it is a news distortion or not, and that's
under active investigation at the FCC. Separate from that, we
do have a transaction before the FCC where the owners
of CBS are looking to sell and as of right
now we're just running our normal course review on that
and no significant update as to where we are on that.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
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 weeymo. I felt
like I was in the future.
Speaker 4 (21:58):
Before all the way most started getting before all the way.
Ye're good, get out of that clay.
Speaker 1 (22:02):
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. Is there enough
to be able to handle all the technology coming? What
(22:25):
would be beneficial in your mind? As you look at
the auctions of this spectrum and the utilization of the spectrum.
Speaker 4 (22:31):
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, do 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 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
(22:56):
is just like a hockey stick through the roof.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
And right now China has.
Speaker 4 (22:59):
Leaked out to a really significant lead over the US.
Didn't used to be this way. If you match 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
(23:21):
recently has articulately that he wants the US to lead
again and we're gonna do it. So one of the
things that the One Big Beautiful Bill does is it
restores the FCS authority to free up these airwaves which
lapsed during the Biden years. Senator Cruz. Chairman Cruz has
been phenomenal in leading on this. But we are hundreds
of megahertz behind where China is right now, and to
your point, our commercial sector needs it, DoD uses it
(23:44):
as well. But I think ultimately right now where we're
short is commercial spectrum for high power use. President Trump
and Chairman Cruise 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 (24:00):
Your job, to a large extent, I would think, and
you can correct me if I'm wrong, is to try
to allow the marketplace of ideas to work at the
best of its manner and ensure that the government is
not putting a hand or a finger on the scale
to allow one side to have an advantage. How fair
do you think the overall media environment is from your
(24:21):
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 4 (24:36):
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.
(24:57):
Silicon Valley was deciding whether you got to day on
the digital town square what you could say. And the
evidence also shows that the Biden administration was effectively colluding
with a lot of these social media companies to shut
down free speech. And it didn't just happen here in
the US, it's spreading globally. In Brazil, there's this Justice
Day Moray, this government official there that's been censoring social media.
(25:17):
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,
(25:38):
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
(25:59):
we'll find on turning the tide on that.
Speaker 1 (26:01):
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
(26:22):
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 Rand 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
(26:42):
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 (26:59):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:59):
Absolutely.
Speaker 4 (26:59):
One of things I've focused a lot on is this
concept of user empowerment. Like, 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. 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 ye the show. But we need to
(27:20):
sort of get those decision making, the 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 know, one idea we've talked about is should we
have content filters that you can choose, Like, let's say
you want the Reasons that Escape Me, but you want
MSNBC to filter your feed for you.
Speaker 3 (27:38):
Okay, plug that in and do it.
Speaker 4 (27:39):
If you want, you know, this show to have one, great,
If you want Fox News to do it, great, But
let's 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.
Speaker 3 (27:52):
Are very serious.
Speaker 4 (27:52):
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 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 by Laptop story
(28:15):
that is on the.
Speaker 1 (28:16):
Last question for you. AI is taking off at a
rapid rate, and we have fun with AI. Memes that
people will post of me playing the flute 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
(28:39):
one thing to restrict something that we know is real,
but how in the world do we have the ability
to let people know what is true and what is
false and what someone's actually said and not said.
Speaker 4 (28:49):
Yeah, if you've seen these AI general videos of the
podcasters that are in the Baby.
Speaker 1 (28:54):
Yeah, yeah, they're hilarious.
Speaker 4 (28:55):
Yes, those are the very, very fun I don't if
they've had any of those use of you or not, but.
Speaker 1 (28:58):
I think they may think I'm a baby, are ready?
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (29:00):
I felt out a meme hole at one time looking
at all those I thought they were hilarious.
Speaker 3 (29:03):
I mean, look, I think we'd be very careful here.
Speaker 4 (29:05):
During the last administration, President Biden had the FCC proposed
putting labels on political speech political ads that were generated
in any way with AI content, And really it just
became a way of sort of slowing down the use
of AI because they viewed it as in my view,
Republicans were being more successful in the mem wars than
they were. So I think there is some harm, as
(29:27):
you noted, but I think we have to be very
careful that we don't stifle this early on, because ultimately
it can start to look a lot like censorship. So
I do think that people need to be vigilant and
we need to educate people. And it's I think it
easier for younger folks. Think older people can get you know,
fooled a little more easily. Well if you just step Mack,
look at online scams in general. But I think this
area we have to proceed very cautiously, and I'd be
very skeptical of regulation at this point.
Speaker 1 (29:48):
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, 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 soon. Yeah,
good be with you. Thanks for sure, Thanks for listening
to Team forty seven with Clay and Buck
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
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!
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.