January 14, 2026 • 29 mins
Sean breaks down fresh Supreme Court arguments over West Virginia and Idaho bans on transgender athletes in women's sports, including exchanges with Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Katanji Brown-Jackson, and Sam Alito. Alliance Defending Freedoms Kristen Wagoner and collegiate runner Mary-Kate Marshall join to discuss how the cases affect female competitors and the intent of Title IX. He plays key moments from the courtroom, including questions to attorney Kathleen Hartnett about defining sex and equal protection. Later, Sean examines congressional stock trading and Nancy Pelosi's reported returns with House Administration Chairman Brian Stile, who outlines a bill to bar members from buying individual stocks and discusses blind trusts. The hour also tracks developing stories on Iran, immigration, and other headlines while taking listener calls.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
All right, news round up, information overload hour. Here's our
(00:02):
toll free telephone number. If you want to be a
part of the program. It's eight hundred and ninety four
to one Sean if you want to join us. So,
the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday involving two
cases with transgender athletes in women's sports. One report out
and I brought this up with Riley Gaines on television
(00:22):
last night, has over eight hundred and ninety instances that
they've chronicled in one study that shows that female athletes,
that women in sports, you know, lost medals and championships
because of biological men playing women's sports. And she said, no, no, no,
(00:44):
it's much higher than that. She says, that's only the
cases that are reported. The arguments went forward. It's always
hard and I put this caveat out there to interpret
Supreme Court justices comments questions that they make. But I
think it's certainly worth playing some of it for you.
Some people were a little surprised, for example, by Justice
(01:06):
amy Cony Barrett's comments referring to biological boys as trans girls.
This is what she said.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
There are no six year olds in the state to
whom the statute applies because there are no school sponsored does.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Why it was a hypothetical okay, right.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
Yes, like they would be the normal intermediate scrutiny analysis.
And are we saying it applies only to six year
olds or to everybody across the Well, I'm just trying.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
To give you a hype.
Speaker 3 (01:31):
I mean, yours is driven by testosterone levels and differences
in athletic capability. So I'm asking you what if you
try to take that out of the equation and you're
just drawing the line based on biological sex and saying
that trans girls can't be on the girls team in
an age group that's prepubescent.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
All right, So she's just trying to get to the
heart of the argument. I don't interpret it the way
some others have. Justice Kotanji Brown Jackson is actually suggesting
it's not important to even define what a woman is
if it's talking about Title nine women's sports. Yes, it is.
Speaker 4 (02:07):
Listen, you have the overarching classification. You know, everybody has
to be play on the team that is the same
as their sex at birth. But then you have a
gender identity definition that is operating within that meaning a
distinction meaning that for cis ginger girls they can play
(02:33):
consistent with their gender identity. For transgender girls, they can't.
This is really just about the definition of who we
accept that you can accept separate boys and girls. And
we are now looking at the definition of a girl
and we're saying only people who were girl assigned at
(02:53):
birth qualify.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Okay, and I'm not exactly sure you know have that's relevant,
but but put that aside for a second. Sam Alito
pressed the lawyer for trans athlete Kathleen Hartnett on the
definition of a woman. This got interesting.
Speaker 5 (03:14):
Listen, and what is that definition for equal protection purposes?
What does what does it mean to be a lawyer
or girl or a man or a woman?
Speaker 6 (03:22):
Sorry, I MI centers to your question. I think that
the underlying enactment, whatever it was, the policy, the law,
we'd have to have an understanding of how the state
or the government was just understanding that term to figure
out whether or not someone was excluded. We do not
have a definition for the court, and we don't take
issue with the We're not disputing the definition here. What
we're saying is that the way it applies in practice
(03:43):
is to exclude birth sex males categorically from women's teams,
and that there's a subset of those birth sex males
where it doesn't make sense to do so according to
the state's own interest.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
Well, okay, now it gets more interesting when Justice Alito
asked part Net how a court can determine discrimination on
basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal
protection purposes? This is I know, I don't think any
of these justices ever thought that this case would be
(04:15):
before them, But you know, we got two cases here.
Speaker 5 (04:17):
Listen, how can a court determine whether there's a discrimination
on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means
for equal protection purposes?
Speaker 6 (04:29):
I think here we just knowed. We basically know that
the that they've identified, pursu into their own statute, Lindsay
qualifies as a birth sex male, and she's being excluded
categorically from the women's teams as the statute. So we're
taking the statues definitions as we find them, and we
don't dispute them. We're just trying to figure out do
they create an equal protection problem?
Speaker 1 (04:50):
All right? Now in both these cases. Now we're looking
at West Virginia and Idaho. The ADF, the Alliance Defending
Freedom served as council with both West Virginia and Idaho,
defending these states and their ban on transgender athletes competing
in women's sports. The CEO of the Alliance Defending Freedom
(05:11):
and President is Kristin Wagonero joins US. Also joining US
is Mary Kate Marshall. Now, Mary Kate invested like any
young athlete, female athlete in this case. You know, if
you want to be a D one athlete, you got
to work awfully hard. I know because both my kids
were D one athletes, all right, But she invested years
(05:33):
in becoming, you know, the great runner that she is.
Felt a thrill when she finished a race that was
swept away when she and teammates were displaced by a
male athlete during a first college cross country race. She
also raced against a biological male and lost. Anyway, welcome
(05:53):
both of you to the program. Thanks for being with us. Kristin,
let me start with you. How did you feel arguments
went yesterday? I mean, it gets into a rather it
just I don't think I ever heard a case quite
like this, To be honest, I would agree.
Speaker 7 (06:10):
You know, we've had a number of cases about twenty
before the Court in the last ten years. And I
have to say that that was probably the first argument
that I have been a part of that I came
away exceptionally disturbed. But it wasn't about the outcome, because
I feel confident that we're going to win. It was
the fact that we had to be there and that
(06:31):
I didn't hear more about the girls affected. You know,
Mary Kate is actually a party in the case, and
there was so much focus on the boys, the boys
who are identifying as the girls and their right to
be able to take the girls' spots, and that that
might be okay. The other thing I'd say is it
was a parent from the argument yesterday that the Acou
(06:55):
is running away as fast as they can from the
arguments that they've made in the lower courts and around
the nation. And I think that was also a very
positive development.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
You know, Mary Kate, let me. Let me get to
your story. And I've gone into great specificity in detail
with Riley Gaines and her story. Riley Gaines would get
up at four in the morning and go swimming before school.
Then she'd swim after school, and she did this for
years and years and years in her life and in
the case with Leah Thompson. She even tied in that race,
(07:29):
and then they decided, you know, not to give both
of them the goal, you know, the number one prize,
the gold medal, whatever where, whatever the prize was at
the time. And I mean, and she found it devastating,
and she said it was beyond traumatic to be in
a locker room with biological men. I don't know if
people really appreciate how hard you have to work to get,
(07:52):
you know, to be a top athlete like you are.
Speaker 8 (07:57):
Yeah, people don't realize that the years of that comes
with with running and sports. It starts in high school,
you know, developing our bodies, getting to the point where
we can be competitive, and then to bring in a
male and have to race against them is demoralizing. I mean,
scholarships help women succeed in life, and that's that's how
(08:18):
I got to the point where I'm in. And so
to put a male into a race and make us
compete against them, it's it definitely takes away the integrity.
Speaker 9 (08:27):
Of women's sports.
Speaker 1 (08:28):
You were quoted in one article of saying that that
you felt different about losing to a male than losing
to another woman, and that when you lost to a man,
you said you felt completely different. You said, it's defeating
because no matter how hard sheat, you would try, hard
work and effort didn't matter. And you know, Caitlin Jenner,
(08:53):
who I've interviewed many times in the past, said that
it doesn't matter what testosterone levels are when somebody's at
the collegiate level or when they're older and they're playing
at that high level competitive sport, it matters to puberty
and even in those cases. Now, explain the feelings that
(09:19):
you had because you experienced this yourself. How many times
does this happen to you?
Speaker 8 (09:24):
For me, I raced against a male twice. Some of
my other teammates raced against him more. One of my
teammates was actually pushed off the podium by this male athlete.
And you know, we spend hours together, so to see
our hard work just plush down the drain by a
male athlete who clearly clearly has biological differences than women. Yeah,
(09:46):
it's demoralizing. I mean, what is that thing to women
and girls out there who who have dreams out there
that can just be crushed because a man wants to run.
Speaker 6 (09:56):
With the girls.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
You know, Title nine has has been around for a
long time. Kristen, and it basically allows the same number
of scholarships for men and women, and it's been widely
viewed as fair. And I think this if people are that,
I guess, I guess, if they're that passionate about this,
(10:21):
shouldn't they really be championing a whole different category of
collegiate athletics or athletics in general, you know.
Speaker 7 (10:31):
I think that's the fairest way of best, although I
think the actual answer is that men should compete in
the men's category no matter how they identify it, because
gender identity is irrelevant to what's happening on the athletic field.
All that matters are the biological differences between men and women,
and there's no amount of testosterone suppressants or pubity blockers
(10:51):
that take away that advantage. The science shows it, but
we also know from our own eyes what we see.
In the case here Virginia, there was a male athlete
who said he been on puberty blockers, never went through puberty,
and yet displaced four hundred and twenty some girls eleven
hundred times and took fifty seven medals away from those girls.
(11:15):
So again, this is about sex, because sex is what
matters on the athletic field. It's also what matters in
the locker room.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
The question is, you know, I don't think most people,
even myself included, knew how widespread this has become and
how many examples, how many have you been able to
chronicle in terms of women competing with with biological males
that lose The one study I refer to eight hundred
(11:43):
and ninety Briley Gaden says is way higher than that.
What numbers do you have.
Speaker 7 (11:47):
Well, there are some reports that suggest, you know, girls
have been displaced more than ten thousand times. There are
you know a number of different websites and those who
are engaging in the day to la Kenana closely, and
you know, even one girl pushed off the podium is
too many. As just as Kavanaugh said yesterday, this is
a zero sum game. I want to tell you about
(12:09):
Adelaie across Sean. She was on the track team in
that West Virginia case, and that male athlete was a
year behind her. She was finishing in the top three spots.
And as you know, in track, there's a limited number
of spots for competition, there's a limited number of lanes
you get to run in and a limited number of
you know, people that can compete and attract met he
(12:30):
bumped her out all together, and then of course he's
sexually harassed her in the locker room itself, which would
make no girl want to continue to be able to
participate in athletics.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
And there's so much of these young women, people like
Mary Kate. How many hours a day would you train
to get to the level you've gotten to, Mary Kate, Yeah,
I'd have.
Speaker 8 (12:55):
To say seven days the worth a week at least
five hours between my school works, between going to the gym,
between runs, between you know, eating, ride and stretching and
keeping my body where I need to compete at a
high level.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
Unbelievable. I mean, the sacrifice is incalculable, and you give
up a lot of your childhood to do this, to
be a D one athlete than a professional athlete if
you get to that level. Anyway, I agree with your assessment,
Kristen Wagner. I think that this is going to come
out favorably. Although I'd never like to interpret oral arguments,
(13:36):
but I think I don't see any other outcome here.
Congratulations on the great work, Mary Kate. We wish you
all the best. You sound like a great young woman
and all success in your life. I hope, I hope
great things are in your future.
Speaker 8 (13:53):
Thank you for having us.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
You know, it's one of the more ironic things in
the world, I think, one of the funniest things, but
it's also sad simultaneously, is that there are people every
member of Congress, they have to file financial disclosure reports,
and that includes what money they invest in. And if
you look at Nancy Pelosi and her husband, they have
(14:18):
one of the greatest return on investments in terms of
stocks of anybody in the history of investing in the market. Now,
a lot of people might suspect that would be called
insider trading, but the fact that there are there's a
website and groups of people that take these financial disclosure forms,
(14:40):
and whatever Nancy Pelosi invests in, they invest in because
they figure, ah, he's got information in a pretty darn
good track record. I forget, you know, like a two
thousand percent return, crazy numbers that nobody else gets in
any traditional investment. And I think that is very revealing
in and of itself. Now, if you take a trip
(15:02):
down memory lane, Nancy Pelosi was confronted by sixty minutes
and Steve Croft at the time on the issue of
these allegations that have gone on now for years of
insider trading.
Speaker 9 (15:13):
Was it to ask you why you and your husband
back in March of two thousand and eight accepted and
participated in a very large IPO deal from Visa at
a time there was major legislation affecting their credit card
companies making its way through the to the House. And
did you consider that to be a conflict of interest?
Speaker 1 (15:36):
I don't know what your point is of your question.
Is there some point that you want to make with that.
Speaker 10 (15:41):
The fact is your basic premise is a false one
and it's no use of respect.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
I don't understand.
Speaker 9 (15:46):
Why is it false you participated in the IPO at
the time you were Speaker of the House.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
Yeah, Speaker of the House and everyone gets these massive
returns on investment, and she just happens to invest in
all the right stock. Had nothing to do with knowledge
she has as the Speaker of the House and a
member of Congress. I mean, it's absolutely insane. If if
you look at the actual numbers, I mean, it should
(16:13):
take everybody's breath away. It should be incredible long term
returns over decades. The portfolio stored estimates suggesting profits of
over one hundred and thirty million dollars, a huge increase
from initial holdings. She's been outperforming the market. Reports from
twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four highlight returns OH
(16:37):
significantly higher than the SMP, some sources claiming gains of
fifty four percent to seventy percent in twenty twenty four,
compared to the SMP's only twenty five percent. Why would
you ever want to, you know, follow the market? Anyway,
Nancy Pelosi posted up to a staggering sixteen thousand, nine
(16:57):
hundred and thirty percent return on investment, beat the market
by five hundred and eighty one percent and a bunch
of big wins. Anyway. Chairman Bryan Style of Wisconsin is
the on the Committee for the House Administration and anyway.
It's his first interview following the hearing that took place
this week in Congress on congressional trading, and he said,
(17:21):
we're here today because no member of Congress, regardless of
party or seniority, should be profiting off of insider information.
I mean, was she just lucky, congressman? Or is this
you know the norm?
Speaker 11 (17:34):
Well, no member is, as you just read, should be
able to profit off of insider information. If you want
to day trade, there's a place for that. It's called
Wall Street. You shouldn't be allowed to trade stocks if
you're coming to Capitol Hill. The legislation we introduced, we
passed out of my Committee on House Administration earlier today,
bands members of Congress from being able to profit off
(17:54):
of insider information. It does a couple of things. It
says you can't go in and buy stocks in your
member of Congress. If you have stackson you arrive, you
can hold them. You got to provide seventies advance notice
so the public can see exactly what's going on. And
it's got real teeth to it, because the answer is
the end of the day, the American people deserve to
know their member of Congress is not in Washington to
(18:16):
profit themselves, that they're actually working for the American people.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
Let me let me go to Yahoo Finance and they
wrote an article about this, and the headline is Nancy
Pelosi posted up a staggering sixteen nine hundred and thirty
percent return on investment, beat the market by five hundred
and eighty one percent. And then it goes through her
five biggest wins, and The New York posted an analysis
(18:41):
of this. And you know her and her husband had
initially reported in nineteen eighty seven the net worth of
between six hundred and ten thousand and seven hundred and
eighty five thousand. Now it's over one hundred and thirty
three million dollars as of today, And I mean, that
is a staggering sum of money. Nobody gets that kind
(19:02):
of return. What would you do, well, I mean, what
do you she bet on healthcare for example, And go
through all the other examples of where she Microsoft another example,
Broadcom another example. All have connections to government. NA Video
is another one. Google is another one. I mean, is
(19:26):
she just lucky or do you think that she had
insider information?
Speaker 11 (19:30):
Well, no members should be buying individual stocks in the
first place. In my opinion, insider trading cases are incredibly
hard to prove. On occasion, you can get people and
actually get them locked up and arrested. That's happened to
a member of Congress, That's happened to other people in
the public that people know, but it's hard to actually prove.
(19:51):
For the Department of Justice, That's why I think the
legislation that we're moving forward today is so important. It
just simply comes in and says you can't buy stocks
if you're an elected member of Congress. If you do that,
you prevent members of Congress from being even in the
position in the first place where they could benefit themselves
off of the insider information that's available on Capitol Hills.
Speaker 1 (20:14):
Well, what about a blind trust? Do you believe in
them or no?
Speaker 11 (20:19):
If you fully structure a blind trust, it can be
done correctly. Those are expensive and a lot of members
don't want to be in them, And so if you're
in a blind trust, that's a separate animal. That can
make sense if you do it correctly and you put
the actual structure in place. It's incredibly expensive. If you're
outside of a blind trust and you actually can see
what you're buying and selling, you shouldn't be allowed to
(20:42):
buy individual shares of stocks.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
I've never shared this publicly, but I'm going to share
it with you now. And I'm not sure why this
has just become a little bit of a phenomenon in
the last year, but they're a very well known wealthy
country that have repeatedly reached out to me with the
highest ranking officials in these countries wanting to meet with me,
(21:08):
and my answer is always the same, No. I suspect
that there is something the farious behind their motives, and
I always say no, I'm not interested in their money.
I can't be bought, and I just I'm concerned. Well,
I will ask, what do you want to meet with
me about? Oh, no, we just want to talk. Uh, Okay,
(21:31):
that doesn't sound It doesn't pass the smell test to me.
Does it pass the smell test to you?
Speaker 11 (21:37):
No? And you see that all the time on Capitol Hill.
You have all sorts of people who are here trying
to meet with members. There's all sorts of information that's available.
There's a case where the chairman of the Senate Intelligence
Committee in the lead up to the COVID pandemic, when
information was becoming available on a confidential basis to members,
and that individual called his broker and sold every single
(21:59):
position except one. It ultimately lose his job, rightfully so,
and this is where the answer is to clean this
whole thing up, To begin the process of getting Washington
and draining the swamp, is to come in in place
a blanket prohibition against members from buying individual stocks once
they get elected.
Speaker 7 (22:19):
You see.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
Look, I actually am old fashioned. I think if you
decide to run for office, you are doing it. It's
it's an act of service. And look, I fully understand
that people have to maintain residences in d C. It's
not cheap and in their home district that you know.
I know a lot of members over the years that
(22:41):
live in their offices as a means of saving money
and being able to serve their communities. And I admire
them for that. And I'm sure it's not fun living
in your office. However, many people do it for many,
many years and it's just too expensive Washington, DC. You know,
rentals are not particularly cheap, and I respect that. I
(23:04):
don't think if you're in a position of service that
you should in any way shape manner form, you know,
be selling you know, stocks, but based on information that
you probably should you know, keep private.
Speaker 11 (23:20):
Being in Congress as of fiduciary duty, you owe your
duty to the American people to be working in their
best interests. In members who want to come in day
trade stocks and utilize the information that's available to them
on Capitol Hill to their own self interest is the
exact opposite of the trust that they need to have
with the American people. One of the reasons the American
(23:41):
people get so fed up in frustrated with Congress is
I think a lot of people that come to DC
are here for their own self interests. One way that
we can start to regain the trust of the American
people is to prevent members of Congress from profiting off
this insider information that's available. Ban members of Congress from
buying stoff, and put restrictions in place so that they
(24:02):
can't profit off of the insider information they have. We
got to get to a spot where Congress is beginning
to regain the trusted American people, and we got to
clean up Washington to do it.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
You know, I really don't have a problem. I mean,
we do have a global economy. I don't have a
problem with people doing business with foreign countries, especially countries
that are allies or countries that are transitioning to be
allies of the United States. I think the world is
being transformed and reconfigured right before our eyes. I think
(24:34):
we see it with Venezuela. I think we hopefully will
see it with Iran. We have certainly seen this with
the Middle East, and I was on the trip on
Air Force one with the President when he went to
riod in Saudi Arabia, and Cutter and the uae I
was with him in Abu Dhabi. And I think that
that's all a good thing. All in the hopes of
(24:55):
bringing peace in the region and eliminating Iran and eliminating
Iranian and hegemony in the region is going to be
best for everybody overall. However, if they're trying to gain
influence with people in power, I think it's a bad idea.
You would agree with.
Speaker 11 (25:10):
That, No, absolutely, You don't want people to be financially
dependent on a foreign country where they have a self
benefit if a foreign country does well, you want people
And this is why our legislation allows you to buy
in to what we would call diversified funds by the
whole s and P. Five hundred right along with all
the American people in every business in this country.
Speaker 1 (25:32):
Well said, that's fine.
Speaker 11 (25:34):
We want you to be focused in on the United
States doing well, not on any given foreign country.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
Pairman Brian's style Wisconsin on the Committee in the House Administration.
We appreciate your legislation and wish is the best with it.
We'll update people. Is it as it makes its way
through Congress. Thank you, sir, eight hundred nine four one.
Shawn is on number.
Speaker 10 (25:58):
You're on the Sean Hannity A place where free speech
and the First Amendment are still alive.
Speaker 1 (26:04):
And well, liberalism is a failed ideology.
Speaker 10 (26:08):
Get your dose of independence and liberty every weekday right
here with Sean Sean Hannity.
Speaker 1 (26:44):
Now, we played earlier in the program the President encouraging
the Iranian people to keep protesting and that help is
on the way. The President was asked a specifically what
the endgame with Iran might be, and let me play
for you that answer.
Speaker 2 (27:03):
Americans woke up this morning and they saw that you said.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
Help is on the way. Yeah, what do you mean
by that?
Speaker 12 (27:09):
Well, there's a lot of help in the way and
in different forms, including economic help from our standpoint and
not going to help Iran very much. And you know
we put I ran out of business within nuclear capacity.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
And this strong action. You're talking about, what's the endgame.
Speaker 10 (27:25):
The endgame is to win.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
I like winning. How do you define that win Iran?
Speaker 12 (27:29):
Well, let's define it in Venezuela. Let's define it with
al bag Daddy he was wiped out. Let's define it
with Solomoni and let's define it in Iran where he
wiped out their iren nuclear threat in a period of
about fifteen minutes once the B two's got there, and
that was a complete obliteration.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
Now there is other reports and we'll have a lot
more when we get on the air tonight nine Eastern
on Fox. The one claiming the Iranian Minister of Defense
and deputy commander of the Cuds forces fled the country
and surprise me, Pentagon now is in the process of
moving US military personnel out of the Mid East possible
targets of Iran if in fact, the President does act.
(28:13):
So we're watching that very closely. Some of European officials
are saying they think that there could be, you know,
a strike against Iran within the next twenty four hours.
The Islamic Republic TV came out with a video Butler
PA and this time the bullet won't miss in Persian.
That's not going to go over well with President Trump anyway.
(28:34):
So we're watching, We're monitoring a full coverage of all
of this tonight nine Eastern on the Fox News Channel.
Please tune in, always say your DVR so you never
ever ever miss an episode we'll get full reaction. Ted Cruz,
Pam Bondi is on tonight. Kristen Cinema is on tonight.
Sarah Carter her first TV interview as Drugs Are She's
(28:54):
going to join us tonight. Clay Travis, Jonathan Turley Say
DVR nine Eastern on Fox
All right, news round up, information overload hour. Here's our
(00:02):
toll free telephone number. If you want to be a
part of the program. It's eight hundred and ninety four
to one Sean if you want to join us. So,
the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday involving two
cases with transgender athletes in women's sports. One report out
and I brought this up with Riley Gaines on television
(00:22):
last night, has over eight hundred and ninety instances that
they've chronicled in one study that shows that female athletes,
that women in sports, you know, lost medals and championships
because of biological men playing women's sports. And she said, no, no, no,
(00:44):
it's much higher than that. She says, that's only the
cases that are reported. The arguments went forward. It's always
hard and I put this caveat out there to interpret
Supreme Court justices comments questions that they make. But I
think it's certainly worth playing some of it for you.
Some people were a little surprised, for example, by Justice
(01:06):
amy Cony Barrett's comments referring to biological boys as trans girls.
This is what she said.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
There are no six year olds in the state to
whom the statute applies because there are no school sponsored does.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Why it was a hypothetical okay, right.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
Yes, like they would be the normal intermediate scrutiny analysis.
And are we saying it applies only to six year
olds or to everybody across the Well, I'm just trying.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
To give you a hype.
Speaker 3 (01:31):
I mean, yours is driven by testosterone levels and differences
in athletic capability. So I'm asking you what if you
try to take that out of the equation and you're
just drawing the line based on biological sex and saying
that trans girls can't be on the girls team in
an age group that's prepubescent.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
All right, So she's just trying to get to the
heart of the argument. I don't interpret it the way
some others have. Justice Kotanji Brown Jackson is actually suggesting
it's not important to even define what a woman is
if it's talking about Title nine women's sports. Yes, it is.
Speaker 4 (02:07):
Listen, you have the overarching classification. You know, everybody has
to be play on the team that is the same
as their sex at birth. But then you have a
gender identity definition that is operating within that meaning a
distinction meaning that for cis ginger girls they can play
(02:33):
consistent with their gender identity. For transgender girls, they can't.
This is really just about the definition of who we
accept that you can accept separate boys and girls. And
we are now looking at the definition of a girl
and we're saying only people who were girl assigned at
(02:53):
birth qualify.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Okay, and I'm not exactly sure you know have that's relevant,
but but put that aside for a second. Sam Alito
pressed the lawyer for trans athlete Kathleen Hartnett on the
definition of a woman. This got interesting.
Speaker 5 (03:14):
Listen, and what is that definition for equal protection purposes?
What does what does it mean to be a lawyer
or girl or a man or a woman?
Speaker 6 (03:22):
Sorry, I MI centers to your question. I think that
the underlying enactment, whatever it was, the policy, the law,
we'd have to have an understanding of how the state
or the government was just understanding that term to figure
out whether or not someone was excluded. We do not
have a definition for the court, and we don't take
issue with the We're not disputing the definition here. What
we're saying is that the way it applies in practice
(03:43):
is to exclude birth sex males categorically from women's teams,
and that there's a subset of those birth sex males
where it doesn't make sense to do so according to
the state's own interest.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
Well, okay, now it gets more interesting when Justice Alito
asked part Net how a court can determine discrimination on
basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal
protection purposes? This is I know, I don't think any
of these justices ever thought that this case would be
(04:15):
before them, But you know, we got two cases here.
Speaker 5 (04:17):
Listen, how can a court determine whether there's a discrimination
on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means
for equal protection purposes?
Speaker 6 (04:29):
I think here we just knowed. We basically know that
the that they've identified, pursu into their own statute, Lindsay
qualifies as a birth sex male, and she's being excluded
categorically from the women's teams as the statute. So we're
taking the statues definitions as we find them, and we
don't dispute them. We're just trying to figure out do
they create an equal protection problem?
Speaker 1 (04:50):
All right? Now in both these cases. Now we're looking
at West Virginia and Idaho. The ADF, the Alliance Defending
Freedom served as council with both West Virginia and Idaho,
defending these states and their ban on transgender athletes competing
in women's sports. The CEO of the Alliance Defending Freedom
(05:11):
and President is Kristin Wagonero joins US. Also joining US
is Mary Kate Marshall. Now, Mary Kate invested like any
young athlete, female athlete in this case. You know, if
you want to be a D one athlete, you got
to work awfully hard. I know because both my kids
were D one athletes, all right, But she invested years
(05:33):
in becoming, you know, the great runner that she is.
Felt a thrill when she finished a race that was
swept away when she and teammates were displaced by a
male athlete during a first college cross country race. She
also raced against a biological male and lost. Anyway, welcome
(05:53):
both of you to the program. Thanks for being with us. Kristin,
let me start with you. How did you feel arguments
went yesterday? I mean, it gets into a rather it
just I don't think I ever heard a case quite
like this, To be honest, I would agree.
Speaker 7 (06:10):
You know, we've had a number of cases about twenty
before the Court in the last ten years. And I
have to say that that was probably the first argument
that I have been a part of that I came
away exceptionally disturbed. But it wasn't about the outcome, because
I feel confident that we're going to win. It was
the fact that we had to be there and that
(06:31):
I didn't hear more about the girls affected. You know,
Mary Kate is actually a party in the case, and
there was so much focus on the boys, the boys
who are identifying as the girls and their right to
be able to take the girls' spots, and that that
might be okay. The other thing I'd say is it
was a parent from the argument yesterday that the Acou
(06:55):
is running away as fast as they can from the
arguments that they've made in the lower courts and around
the nation. And I think that was also a very
positive development.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
You know, Mary Kate, let me. Let me get to
your story. And I've gone into great specificity in detail
with Riley Gaines and her story. Riley Gaines would get
up at four in the morning and go swimming before school.
Then she'd swim after school, and she did this for
years and years and years in her life and in
the case with Leah Thompson. She even tied in that race,
(07:29):
and then they decided, you know, not to give both
of them the goal, you know, the number one prize,
the gold medal, whatever where, whatever the prize was at
the time. And I mean, and she found it devastating,
and she said it was beyond traumatic to be in
a locker room with biological men. I don't know if
people really appreciate how hard you have to work to get,
(07:52):
you know, to be a top athlete like you are.
Speaker 8 (07:57):
Yeah, people don't realize that the years of that comes
with with running and sports. It starts in high school,
you know, developing our bodies, getting to the point where
we can be competitive, and then to bring in a
male and have to race against them is demoralizing. I mean,
scholarships help women succeed in life, and that's that's how
(08:18):
I got to the point where I'm in. And so
to put a male into a race and make us
compete against them, it's it definitely takes away the integrity.
Speaker 9 (08:27):
Of women's sports.
Speaker 1 (08:28):
You were quoted in one article of saying that that
you felt different about losing to a male than losing
to another woman, and that when you lost to a man,
you said you felt completely different. You said, it's defeating
because no matter how hard sheat, you would try, hard
work and effort didn't matter. And you know, Caitlin Jenner,
(08:53):
who I've interviewed many times in the past, said that
it doesn't matter what testosterone levels are when somebody's at
the collegiate level or when they're older and they're playing
at that high level competitive sport, it matters to puberty
and even in those cases. Now, explain the feelings that
(09:19):
you had because you experienced this yourself. How many times
does this happen to you?
Speaker 8 (09:24):
For me, I raced against a male twice. Some of
my other teammates raced against him more. One of my
teammates was actually pushed off the podium by this male athlete.
And you know, we spend hours together, so to see
our hard work just plush down the drain by a
male athlete who clearly clearly has biological differences than women. Yeah,
(09:46):
it's demoralizing. I mean, what is that thing to women
and girls out there who who have dreams out there
that can just be crushed because a man wants to run.
Speaker 6 (09:56):
With the girls.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
You know, Title nine has has been around for a
long time. Kristen, and it basically allows the same number
of scholarships for men and women, and it's been widely
viewed as fair. And I think this if people are that,
I guess, I guess, if they're that passionate about this,
(10:21):
shouldn't they really be championing a whole different category of
collegiate athletics or athletics in general, you know.
Speaker 7 (10:31):
I think that's the fairest way of best, although I
think the actual answer is that men should compete in
the men's category no matter how they identify it, because
gender identity is irrelevant to what's happening on the athletic field.
All that matters are the biological differences between men and women,
and there's no amount of testosterone suppressants or pubity blockers
(10:51):
that take away that advantage. The science shows it, but
we also know from our own eyes what we see.
In the case here Virginia, there was a male athlete
who said he been on puberty blockers, never went through puberty,
and yet displaced four hundred and twenty some girls eleven
hundred times and took fifty seven medals away from those girls.
(11:15):
So again, this is about sex, because sex is what
matters on the athletic field. It's also what matters in
the locker room.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
The question is, you know, I don't think most people,
even myself included, knew how widespread this has become and
how many examples, how many have you been able to
chronicle in terms of women competing with with biological males
that lose The one study I refer to eight hundred
(11:43):
and ninety Briley Gaden says is way higher than that.
What numbers do you have.
Speaker 7 (11:47):
Well, there are some reports that suggest, you know, girls
have been displaced more than ten thousand times. There are
you know a number of different websites and those who
are engaging in the day to la Kenana closely, and
you know, even one girl pushed off the podium is
too many. As just as Kavanaugh said yesterday, this is
a zero sum game. I want to tell you about
(12:09):
Adelaie across Sean. She was on the track team in
that West Virginia case, and that male athlete was a
year behind her. She was finishing in the top three spots.
And as you know, in track, there's a limited number
of spots for competition, there's a limited number of lanes
you get to run in and a limited number of
you know, people that can compete and attract met he
(12:30):
bumped her out all together, and then of course he's
sexually harassed her in the locker room itself, which would
make no girl want to continue to be able to
participate in athletics.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
And there's so much of these young women, people like
Mary Kate. How many hours a day would you train
to get to the level you've gotten to, Mary Kate, Yeah,
I'd have.
Speaker 8 (12:55):
To say seven days the worth a week at least
five hours between my school works, between going to the gym,
between runs, between you know, eating, ride and stretching and
keeping my body where I need to compete at a
high level.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
Unbelievable. I mean, the sacrifice is incalculable, and you give
up a lot of your childhood to do this, to
be a D one athlete than a professional athlete if
you get to that level. Anyway, I agree with your assessment,
Kristen Wagner. I think that this is going to come
out favorably. Although I'd never like to interpret oral arguments,
(13:36):
but I think I don't see any other outcome here.
Congratulations on the great work, Mary Kate. We wish you
all the best. You sound like a great young woman
and all success in your life. I hope, I hope
great things are in your future.
Speaker 8 (13:53):
Thank you for having us.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
You know, it's one of the more ironic things in
the world, I think, one of the funniest things, but
it's also sad simultaneously, is that there are people every
member of Congress, they have to file financial disclosure reports,
and that includes what money they invest in. And if
you look at Nancy Pelosi and her husband, they have
(14:18):
one of the greatest return on investments in terms of
stocks of anybody in the history of investing in the market. Now,
a lot of people might suspect that would be called
insider trading, but the fact that there are there's a
website and groups of people that take these financial disclosure forms,
(14:40):
and whatever Nancy Pelosi invests in, they invest in because
they figure, ah, he's got information in a pretty darn
good track record. I forget, you know, like a two
thousand percent return, crazy numbers that nobody else gets in
any traditional investment. And I think that is very revealing
in and of itself. Now, if you take a trip
(15:02):
down memory lane, Nancy Pelosi was confronted by sixty minutes
and Steve Croft at the time on the issue of
these allegations that have gone on now for years of
insider trading.
Speaker 9 (15:13):
Was it to ask you why you and your husband
back in March of two thousand and eight accepted and
participated in a very large IPO deal from Visa at
a time there was major legislation affecting their credit card
companies making its way through the to the House. And
did you consider that to be a conflict of interest?
Speaker 1 (15:36):
I don't know what your point is of your question.
Is there some point that you want to make with that.
Speaker 10 (15:41):
The fact is your basic premise is a false one
and it's no use of respect.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
I don't understand.
Speaker 9 (15:46):
Why is it false you participated in the IPO at
the time you were Speaker of the House.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
Yeah, Speaker of the House and everyone gets these massive
returns on investment, and she just happens to invest in
all the right stock. Had nothing to do with knowledge
she has as the Speaker of the House and a
member of Congress. I mean, it's absolutely insane. If if
you look at the actual numbers, I mean, it should
(16:13):
take everybody's breath away. It should be incredible long term
returns over decades. The portfolio stored estimates suggesting profits of
over one hundred and thirty million dollars, a huge increase
from initial holdings. She's been outperforming the market. Reports from
twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four highlight returns OH
(16:37):
significantly higher than the SMP, some sources claiming gains of
fifty four percent to seventy percent in twenty twenty four,
compared to the SMP's only twenty five percent. Why would
you ever want to, you know, follow the market? Anyway,
Nancy Pelosi posted up to a staggering sixteen thousand, nine
(16:57):
hundred and thirty percent return on investment, beat the market
by five hundred and eighty one percent and a bunch
of big wins. Anyway. Chairman Bryan Style of Wisconsin is
the on the Committee for the House Administration and anyway.
It's his first interview following the hearing that took place
this week in Congress on congressional trading, and he said,
(17:21):
we're here today because no member of Congress, regardless of
party or seniority, should be profiting off of insider information.
I mean, was she just lucky, congressman? Or is this
you know the norm?
Speaker 11 (17:34):
Well, no member is, as you just read, should be
able to profit off of insider information. If you want
to day trade, there's a place for that. It's called
Wall Street. You shouldn't be allowed to trade stocks if
you're coming to Capitol Hill. The legislation we introduced, we
passed out of my Committee on House Administration earlier today,
bands members of Congress from being able to profit off
(17:54):
of insider information. It does a couple of things. It
says you can't go in and buy stocks in your
member of Congress. If you have stackson you arrive, you
can hold them. You got to provide seventies advance notice
so the public can see exactly what's going on. And
it's got real teeth to it, because the answer is
the end of the day, the American people deserve to
know their member of Congress is not in Washington to
(18:16):
profit themselves, that they're actually working for the American people.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
Let me let me go to Yahoo Finance and they
wrote an article about this, and the headline is Nancy
Pelosi posted up a staggering sixteen nine hundred and thirty
percent return on investment, beat the market by five hundred
and eighty one percent. And then it goes through her
five biggest wins, and The New York posted an analysis
(18:41):
of this. And you know her and her husband had
initially reported in nineteen eighty seven the net worth of
between six hundred and ten thousand and seven hundred and
eighty five thousand. Now it's over one hundred and thirty
three million dollars as of today, And I mean, that
is a staggering sum of money. Nobody gets that kind
(19:02):
of return. What would you do, well, I mean, what
do you she bet on healthcare for example, And go
through all the other examples of where she Microsoft another example,
Broadcom another example. All have connections to government. NA Video
is another one. Google is another one. I mean, is
(19:26):
she just lucky or do you think that she had
insider information?
Speaker 11 (19:30):
Well, no members should be buying individual stocks in the
first place. In my opinion, insider trading cases are incredibly
hard to prove. On occasion, you can get people and
actually get them locked up and arrested. That's happened to
a member of Congress, That's happened to other people in
the public that people know, but it's hard to actually prove.
(19:51):
For the Department of Justice, That's why I think the
legislation that we're moving forward today is so important. It
just simply comes in and says you can't buy stocks
if you're an elected member of Congress. If you do that,
you prevent members of Congress from being even in the
position in the first place where they could benefit themselves
off of the insider information that's available on Capitol Hills.
Speaker 1 (20:14):
Well, what about a blind trust? Do you believe in
them or no?
Speaker 11 (20:19):
If you fully structure a blind trust, it can be
done correctly. Those are expensive and a lot of members
don't want to be in them, And so if you're
in a blind trust, that's a separate animal. That can
make sense if you do it correctly and you put
the actual structure in place. It's incredibly expensive. If you're
outside of a blind trust and you actually can see
what you're buying and selling, you shouldn't be allowed to
(20:42):
buy individual shares of stocks.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
I've never shared this publicly, but I'm going to share
it with you now. And I'm not sure why this
has just become a little bit of a phenomenon in
the last year, but they're a very well known wealthy
country that have repeatedly reached out to me with the
highest ranking officials in these countries wanting to meet with me,
(21:08):
and my answer is always the same, No. I suspect
that there is something the farious behind their motives, and
I always say no, I'm not interested in their money.
I can't be bought, and I just I'm concerned. Well,
I will ask, what do you want to meet with
me about? Oh, no, we just want to talk. Uh, Okay,
(21:31):
that doesn't sound It doesn't pass the smell test to me.
Does it pass the smell test to you?
Speaker 11 (21:37):
No? And you see that all the time on Capitol Hill.
You have all sorts of people who are here trying
to meet with members. There's all sorts of information that's available.
There's a case where the chairman of the Senate Intelligence
Committee in the lead up to the COVID pandemic, when
information was becoming available on a confidential basis to members,
and that individual called his broker and sold every single
(21:59):
position except one. It ultimately lose his job, rightfully so,
and this is where the answer is to clean this
whole thing up, To begin the process of getting Washington
and draining the swamp, is to come in in place
a blanket prohibition against members from buying individual stocks once
they get elected.
Speaker 7 (22:19):
You see.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
Look, I actually am old fashioned. I think if you
decide to run for office, you are doing it. It's
it's an act of service. And look, I fully understand
that people have to maintain residences in d C. It's
not cheap and in their home district that you know.
I know a lot of members over the years that
(22:41):
live in their offices as a means of saving money
and being able to serve their communities. And I admire
them for that. And I'm sure it's not fun living
in your office. However, many people do it for many,
many years and it's just too expensive Washington, DC. You know,
rentals are not particularly cheap, and I respect that. I
(23:04):
don't think if you're in a position of service that
you should in any way shape manner form, you know,
be selling you know, stocks, but based on information that
you probably should you know, keep private.
Speaker 11 (23:20):
Being in Congress as of fiduciary duty, you owe your
duty to the American people to be working in their
best interests. In members who want to come in day
trade stocks and utilize the information that's available to them
on Capitol Hill to their own self interest is the
exact opposite of the trust that they need to have
with the American people. One of the reasons the American
(23:41):
people get so fed up in frustrated with Congress is
I think a lot of people that come to DC
are here for their own self interests. One way that
we can start to regain the trust of the American
people is to prevent members of Congress from profiting off
this insider information that's available. Ban members of Congress from
buying stoff, and put restrictions in place so that they
(24:02):
can't profit off of the insider information they have. We
got to get to a spot where Congress is beginning
to regain the trusted American people, and we got to
clean up Washington to do it.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
You know, I really don't have a problem. I mean,
we do have a global economy. I don't have a
problem with people doing business with foreign countries, especially countries
that are allies or countries that are transitioning to be
allies of the United States. I think the world is
being transformed and reconfigured right before our eyes. I think
(24:34):
we see it with Venezuela. I think we hopefully will
see it with Iran. We have certainly seen this with
the Middle East, and I was on the trip on
Air Force one with the President when he went to
riod in Saudi Arabia, and Cutter and the uae I
was with him in Abu Dhabi. And I think that
that's all a good thing. All in the hopes of
(24:55):
bringing peace in the region and eliminating Iran and eliminating
Iranian and hegemony in the region is going to be
best for everybody overall. However, if they're trying to gain
influence with people in power, I think it's a bad idea.
You would agree with.
Speaker 11 (25:10):
That, No, absolutely, You don't want people to be financially
dependent on a foreign country where they have a self
benefit if a foreign country does well, you want people
And this is why our legislation allows you to buy
in to what we would call diversified funds by the
whole s and P. Five hundred right along with all
the American people in every business in this country.
Speaker 1 (25:32):
Well said, that's fine.
Speaker 11 (25:34):
We want you to be focused in on the United
States doing well, not on any given foreign country.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
Pairman Brian's style Wisconsin on the Committee in the House Administration.
We appreciate your legislation and wish is the best with it.
We'll update people. Is it as it makes its way
through Congress. Thank you, sir, eight hundred nine four one.
Shawn is on number.
Speaker 10 (25:58):
You're on the Sean Hannity A place where free speech
and the First Amendment are still alive.
Speaker 1 (26:04):
And well, liberalism is a failed ideology.
Speaker 10 (26:08):
Get your dose of independence and liberty every weekday right
here with Sean Sean Hannity.
Speaker 1 (26:44):
Now, we played earlier in the program the President encouraging
the Iranian people to keep protesting and that help is
on the way. The President was asked a specifically what
the endgame with Iran might be, and let me play
for you that answer.
Speaker 2 (27:03):
Americans woke up this morning and they saw that you said.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
Help is on the way. Yeah, what do you mean
by that?
Speaker 12 (27:09):
Well, there's a lot of help in the way and
in different forms, including economic help from our standpoint and
not going to help Iran very much. And you know
we put I ran out of business within nuclear capacity.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
And this strong action. You're talking about, what's the endgame.
Speaker 10 (27:25):
The endgame is to win.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
I like winning. How do you define that win Iran?
Speaker 12 (27:29):
Well, let's define it in Venezuela. Let's define it with
al bag Daddy he was wiped out. Let's define it
with Solomoni and let's define it in Iran where he
wiped out their iren nuclear threat in a period of
about fifteen minutes once the B two's got there, and
that was a complete obliteration.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
Now there is other reports and we'll have a lot
more when we get on the air tonight nine Eastern
on Fox. The one claiming the Iranian Minister of Defense
and deputy commander of the Cuds forces fled the country
and surprise me, Pentagon now is in the process of
moving US military personnel out of the Mid East possible
targets of Iran if in fact, the President does act.
(28:13):
So we're watching that very closely. Some of European officials
are saying they think that there could be, you know,
a strike against Iran within the next twenty four hours.
The Islamic Republic TV came out with a video Butler
PA and this time the bullet won't miss in Persian.
That's not going to go over well with President Trump anyway.
(28:34):
So we're watching, We're monitoring a full coverage of all
of this tonight nine Eastern on the Fox News Channel.
Please tune in, always say your DVR so you never
ever ever miss an episode we'll get full reaction. Ted Cruz,
Pam Bondi is on tonight. Kristen Cinema is on tonight.
Sarah Carter her first TV interview as Drugs Are She's
(28:54):
going to join us tonight. Clay Travis, Jonathan Turley Say
DVR nine Eastern on Fox
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
Popular Podcasts
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.
iHeartOlympics: The Latest
Listen to the latest news from the 2026 Winter Olympics.
Milan Cortina Winter Olympics
The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan Cortina are here and have everyone talking. iHeartPodcasts is buzzing with content in honor of the XXV Winter Olympics We’re bringing you episodes from a variety of iHeartPodcast shows to help you keep up with the action. Follow Milan Cortina Winter Olympics so you don’t miss any coverage of the 2026 Winter Olympics, and if you like what you hear, be sure to follow each Podcast in the feed for more great content from iHeartPodcasts.