Ep. 1521 - Trump Wages All Out War On DEI

Today on The Matt Wall Show, Trump's full-scale assault on DEI has begun and it is glorious. Also speaking of DEI, a female cop accidentally shoots a civilian with his own gun. The Canadian politician turns the tables on a news anchor who tries to corner him on gender ideology. And the media, as expected, has been fighting back against Trump's border enforcement operation with images of crying illegal immigrants. So far, it's not having the effect that they intended. We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.

America's Golden Age is just getting started. Be here with us for every moment. There's never been a better time to join Gailuar Plus. Use code 47 now for 47% off your new annual membership.

Do you wish that you could have invested in the stock market last year when investors scored the highest profits in decades, but between your mountain of bills and credit card debt, you had nothing left over? Well, it's time to stop letting debt hold you back. Let me tell you how done with debt can help. They have a brilliant new strategy designed to tackle your debt and put cash back in your pocket so you can save, invest, and build a life you've been wanting. Done with debt negotiates directly with credit card and loan companies. Their team of negotiators and legal experts worked to significantly reduce your bills, eliminate interest, and erase penalties.

It's freeze up cash to invest while the stock market is strong. Done with debt helps transform financial burden into opportunity. But since these strategies are time sensitive, don't delay. Start building the life you deserve. Visit donewith debt.com and talk with one of our strategists. It's free. Go to donewith debt.com. That's donewith debt.com.

For those who are fans of DEI, yesterday will go down in infamy. It was, you might say, the DEI Pearl Harbor. At 5 PM, all DEI offices within the federal government closed down. Employees were put on leave as the first step towards mass layoffs. The DEI section of every major federal website went offline. The heads of every DEI office in the federal government were rounded up, chained to giant boulders, and tossed into the sea.

That last part didn't happen, unfortunately, but a man can dream. Back in reality, however, the Office of Personnel Management sent out a notice to the head of every federal agency, instructing them to ask employees, quote, if they know of any efforts to disguise DEI programs or personnel in the federal government, employees have 10 days to disclose any disguised DEI programs or personnel that they're aware of.

And almost immediately, one of these disguises became pretty apparent. It was visible to anyone who checked out the leadership page of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or ATF. And specifically, there was an unusual change to the title of one senior official at the ATF. Here's how the Bureau's leadership page looked at the beginning of the week. You can see it there.

And as you can see, there's a woman named Lisa T. Boykin, who's listed as the chief diversity officer at the ATF. Now, why does the ATF need a chief diversity officer? What was this person doing every day? Well, who knows? She was collecting a paycheck, at least. We know that.

And now that's supposed to change. But the only change the ATF actually made was in the meaningless title they gave this person. So sometime in the last 48 hours, the page changed. And here's what the ATF's leadership page looks like now. Now Lisa Boykin is merely a, quote, senior executive. She's no longer the chief diversity officer.

Overnight, she has been graced with a much more generic and inconspicuous title. There was no press release about it, there was no explanation, they just changed it. Check back tomorrow, the ATF will probably put fake glasses and a mustache on Lisa Boykin and claim her name is really Larry Soykin or something. So these DEI activists aren't completely out of ideas, but very soon they will be completely out of the federal government. At least that's the plan.

As recently as a few months ago, a purge like this seemed pretty difficult to imagine, and it was particularly hard for people on the left to imagine.

When we filmed MI racist, the DEI activists we spoke to from Robin D'Angelo on down were overconfident to the point of absurdity. That's one of the reasons we were able to make the film. People always ask how we managed to get the race hustlers and DEI scammers in the room with us. Well, the answer is that we use their own egos and their false sense of security against them. They just couldn't imagine that anyone would ever challenge them or try to embarrass them because that's the bubble that they were living in. And now,

It's safe to say that that bubble has been pretty well popped. Now, in fact, their entire industry is crashing down, and not just in the government. The executive orders that Donald Trump has signed are broader than that. One of the orders, for example, is entitled ending illegal discrimination and restoring merit-based opportunity

And this order explicitly applies to DEI in the private sector as well. Quote, I further order all agencies to enforce our longstanding civil rights laws and to combat illegal private sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities. Each agency

Agencies shall identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large nonprofit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of $500 million or more, state and local bar and medical associations, institutions of higher education with endowments over $1 billion. In other words,

The federal government is gearing up to launch investigations into private sector entities, whether they're universities or hospitals or corporations that are engaging in discriminatory DEI practices. According to the order, that includes any organization that employs, quote, dangerous to meaning an immoral race and sex-based preferences.

The order goes on to revoke an executive order signed by President Lyndon Johnson, which required that federal contractors and the federal government take affirmative action to boost certain candidates based on race, color, religion, and national origin. This has been the law of the land for generations, and no Republican president until now has even considered the possibility of ending it.

But this time around, the second Trump administration came prepared. It's one of the very first things they got rid of. And the importance of the decision cannot be overstated. I mean, for decades, the requirement that federal contractors practice affirmative action has forced companies to compare their workforce with the demographic composition of the surrounding community. And then they had to alter their hiring practices to try to find more so-called minority candidates, regardless of whether those people were the most qualified.

And it's led to an enormous amount of fraud and waste and inefficiency. And that's not even getting into how unethical and immoral and unconstitutional it was. But that's all gone now, or at least it's supposed to be at the federal level. Trump's order forbids the federal government from, quote, allowing or encouraging federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin.

On top of that, all federal agencies have to require every grant recipient to quote, certify that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable federal anti-discrimination laws.

Within 120 days, the Attorney General will also outline requirements for colleges and universities concerning their own DEI programs. So this is obviously a sweeping order, one that affects hundreds of billions of dollars in government spending. And it's very bad news for universities like Harvard and other bastions of left wing Orthodoxy. It's the kind of order that you'd expect would lead to a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth on the left.

And certainly that is happening to some extent. But there's also been kind of an interesting wrinkle amid all of this. And it is early, it's still early, this is all just happening. There might be some amount of shell shock on the left as well, I'm sure that's true. But Chris Rufo reported something interesting yesterday, he reported this. Tech executives are telling me that Silicon Valley companies will respect President Trump's ban on discriminatory DEI. Many feel relieved that they don't have to pretend anymore.

Resistance here is basically dead. And that was quoting his source within one of these tech companies. So in other words, according to Rufus reporting, these executives were

experiencing a kind of Stockholm syndrome for the past several years. They knew that DEI was destructive to their business. They wanted it to go away, but they felt they had no choice but to endorse it because on top of the legal requirements, they didn't want to upset left wing activists and the corporate media. They lacked the spine to stand up for their own business interests. And they felt trapped, so they just went along with it. And this may sound like convenient excuse making,

But it may sound like, well, the claim is that these people were victims. That's not the case at all. It's not an excuse, but the scenario here sounds very plausible. After all, tech companies care the most about making money. I mean, you don't become a tech billionaire without understanding how to turn a profit and without prioritizing profits.

And DEI is obviously and self-evidently bad for business because it forces you to hire people who are not qualified for the job. It actually makes perfect sense that these companies would be relieved to be done with it. But it's not an excuse. I mean, if anything, it just makes them look worse. DEI proliferated not because all these companies believed in it, but because they were all cowards who didn't have the gumption to speak out, even for the sake of their own economic self-preservation.

It would be better for them, I think, and make them look better if they actually believed in this stuff and now are having some kind of awakening moment. The truth is they knew it was nonsense the whole time and they just did it anyway. So it's worth asking whether that response applies to the left more broadly.

I mean, one of the most fascinating things about Trump's full-scale assault on gender ideology and DEI in government is the relative lack of left-wing hysteria over it. Certainly, there has been plenty of whining and scolding about it. But we haven't seen protests in the street or widespread panic. The outrage from my vantage point hasn't quite reached the fever pitch that you would have expected, that I expected.

I mean, even the media from what I can tell seems to be relatively muted by their standards in their reactions. So here, for example, is a decidedly kind of low energy segment from MSNBC the other day. I mean, you'd think they'd be grabbing their pitchforks because of the return of fascism in America, but instead, this is what they came up with, watch.

Can we just drill down on this DEI initiative's piece for a moment? Because there's research that shows diversity is a strength. It makes organizations stronger, whether federal or private. So what's the argument behind the scenes for getting rid of the DEI initiatives? Is it just for getting rid of woke?

Yeah, I think that that frankly is the argument. I mean, I think that you know as well as I do that there are a few things that President Trump said in those rallies more than that he would get rid of the woke ideology and he would get rid of DEI practices and instead put back what they call meritocracy type style governments where people are where basically it's race blinds, right? People are promoted by their own merits, they say. And so they believe that this is a fulfillment of those promises that Trump made on the stage.

Okay, so they certainly don't approve of Trump's policies, but you wouldn't call that a hysterical meltdown exactly. The anchor cites that fake McKinsey study about how DEI supposedly improves companies, which we talked about a debug many times before. Then the reporter says conservatives want to take us back to colorblind, married-driven societies, if that's a bad thing.

But it is again a bit low energy. I mean, you contrast that with the hysteria in the days after Trump's first inauguration, there's really no comparison. Back then, everything Trump did was part of a Russian plot to destroy American democracy. Everything was a cause for panic. Everything was a five alarm fire.

And yet this has been kind of the response to most of Trump's executive orders, from his order ending DEI at the FAA to his order declaring that indeed there are only two genders and that gender ideology is dead. This is the most far reaching executive assault on left wing ideology ever launched by any president ever. There's not even a close second.

We've never seen anything like this, even from Trump in his first term, truly unprecedented. And yet the left's reaction hasn't matched the moment exactly, especially by, again, their normal standards of hysteria. Why is that? It's worth asking. Now, there are multiple facets to this. The lack of mass protests in the street may be easy enough to explain.

It's very cold outside. And we know that left-wing activists are dedicated to their causes as long as that dedication doesn't require them to endure even the slightest bit of physical discomfort. Also, you probably have to pay the protesters more than their usual rates, given the weather conditions. And maybe it's just more than George Soros is willing to shell out. But that's probably part of it. But that's not the whole story.

There's also, as we discussed this week, a kind of emotional burnout happening. The left has been screaming hysterically about Trump for 10 years, and it's just not possible to keep up that level of performative outrage indefinitely. Eventually, you lose a bit of steam. And on top of that, the left is an organizational and ideological disarray. They have no clear leader, no clear agenda, no clear political identity. And all of that serves to mute the response to these moves by Trump.

On top of all of those factors, I also have to wonder if at least some on the left are maybe, to some extent, even if subconsciously, sort of relieved to be done with DEI and gender ideology and all the rest. I mean, after all, these things are so absurd on their face that almost no one could have ever really truly believed in them. I mean, almost no one

wants to be actually wants to be in the position of having to defend some cross-dressing man who's crying because he can't disrobe in the women's changing room. That's not a guy that almost anyone actually wants to stand in front of and defend. Almost no one actually thinks it's a good idea. For example, prioritized diversity in air traffic control hiring.

Dei and gender ideology require a suspension of basic common sense that is so extreme that few people could ever achieve it. And everyone else was just pretending. We have suffered through an era in American history that is defined by millions of people pretending to believe the most absurd propositions ever put forward.

And now that the cultural tide has changed, the pressure to pretend has been greatly lifted. The true believers in DEI and gender ideology now are looking around and discovering that they are without allies. Trans activists and DEI race hustlers were holding a lot of people hostage. But the rights, political and cultural victories have taken away their ammunition and it's just hard to keep your hostages in line when they find out that your gun has no bullets.

So in other words, for some who ostensibly appear to be on the left on these issues, we are their liberators. That's just one. That's one theory that may explain one aspect of things. And I believe there's an element of this, at least for some on the left. I certainly think it's the case for business owners and corporate America. But regardless, all that said,

One thing we know for sure is that this somewhat eerie lull, it's not going to last, the true believers, and there are plenty of them out there, along with the powers that be on the left, are not going to abandon their agenda. They're not going to surrender to the right and just call it a day and say, never mind

will forget all of it, they're gonna regroup and probably come back eventually with something even crazier than DEI in gender ideology. That's what we can assume if history is our guide and it should be. And in the meantime, the fact is that pretty much everyone in this country, the vast majority of people, including anyone who flies on a plane who sends a child to college or applies for a job or a federal contract, is already benefiting from the Second Trump administration.

Whether they like it or not, they are. This is the swift restoration of sanity that a majority of Americans voted for. Common sense has made a comeback. Team sanity is winning for the moment, but team insanity will be back. And it's up to us to be ready for them. Now let's get to our fight.

Let's talk about it, something that affects all of us, those of us who are responsible, hardworking Americans, and that is taxes. Now that it's the new year in tax seasons upon us, are you prepared for what's coming? You owe back taxes? Are your tax returns still unfiled? Miss the deadline to file for an extension with the new year beginning and heading into the busy tax season, the IRS may be ramping up enforcement.

Let me tell you, they're not playing around. You could face wage garnishments, frozen bank accounts, or even property seizures if you haven't taken action yet. But here's the good news. There's still hope. Tax Network USA has been in this game for years, and they know exactly how to navigate the complex world of tax law.

They've helped taxpayers save over a billion dollars in tax debt and have filed over 10,000 tax returns. That's a billion with a B, folks. They specialize in helping hardworking Americans like you reduce their tax burdens. Look, I get it. Dealing with the IRS is about as fun as a root canal, but ignoring the problem won't make it go away. So here's what you got to do. For a complimentary consultation, call today at 1-800-958-1,000 or visit their website at tnusa.com. That's 1-800-958-1,000.

or visit their website at tnusa.com slash wall today. Don't let the IRS take advantage of you. Get the help you need with tax network USA. Speaking of DEI, here's a DEI in action. The New York Post reports a police department in Florida is moving to fire an officer after she accidentally shot a man with his own gun during a routine traffic stop last month. Officer Mindy Cardwell

was called to assist with a traffic stop on December 13th in Jacksonville. And this is after Jason Errington, 39, had been pulled over by an officer for running a red light. Errington was fully cooperating with all three officers, body camera shows, informed the cop who originally pulled him over. He did have a gun holster in his waistband. He was told to exit the car. And in fact, rather than describing the rest of this, we have the body cam footage. This picks up

This incident on December 13th, it picks up with the guy, Errington, already pulled over, and the female cop, this is her body cam, she shows up, the guy gets out, and we'll see how that plays out. Watch. He's very compliant. He does have a pistol on him.

So you see there, some fine police work, some very fine police work. The female cop is tasked with removing the gun

from Errington's holster and in the process shoots him in the leg. And in fact, if you take a look at this, it's still shot, there's still shot 25 seconds in. Take a look at this now. You can see she has two fingers, two fingers inside the trigger guard of the firearm while she's pulling it out of his waistband.

I mean, how do you make that mistake? You carry a firearm every day for your job. How do you not just instinctively keep your finger off the trigger? How do you end up with not one but two fingers on the trigger? I mean, this is firearm safety 101. This is before you even get to 101.

My sons have better trigger discipline with their BB guns than this police officer does. It's insane. And meanwhile, the guy, the victim, what makes this so unfortunate is that he did everything right. He pulled over, he cooperated, he informed the officer that he was carrying a weapon, which is what you're supposed to do. So he follows all the rules and he gets shot anyway with his own gun.

And I'm the first to say usually when it comes to cases of alleged police brutality, I'm the first to say that, and I've said many times, that if you just cooperate and comply, and if you're a reasonable person and you're reasonable with police officers, you're almost certainly going to be fine. I mean, almost always when someone ends up getting shot or hurt during an interaction with the cops, it's because they went out of their way at every turn to turn the situation into something violent and dangerous when it didn't need to be.

There are exceptions to every rule. And here is the exception. And this is an exception made possible by, of course, a female police officer. And look, I know that there are plenty of male police officers who do dumb things and make mistakes. But this is still a kind of thing that you inevitably get when you start bringing women into the forest in the name of diversity and inclusion. I mean, this is

Like I said, DEI in action, this is what happens. And you can just tell, you can tell in that short clip from the body cam that this woman is very nervous handling the guy's firearm. So how does a woman who's nervous handling a gun end up on the damn police force of all things? How does a woman who doesn't understand the most basic principles of gun safety end up on the police force? Well, it happens through DEI.

which is why the eradication of DEI needs to go far beyond the federal government. I mean, it needs to trickle down to every level of both federal and state and local government and into the private sector, which is the plan, like we talked about in the opening. But we need to be done with this madness. And you can say, I know people will say, well, how do you know that she was hired because of DEI? You don't know that.

Well, I know because she's a woman who, by the department's own admission now, is incompetent. She was fired for incompetence. Well, how do incompetent women get jobs like this? They get it through DEI, right? That's how. So it's absurd. I mean, if we're being honest, female cops are absurd.

It's an absurdity. I'm sorry, it's just ridiculous. It's cartoonish. You've got cops on the force who can easily be overpowered by like 50% of the population. And not just 50% of the population, by the way, like the majority of people who end up getting arrested, the majority of people who will go to prison are men.

So it's not 50%, really. It's with a female cop, that means that the vast majority of the people that she is going to try to arrest during her career can easily overpower her easily. And that's why, when I have an interaction with the cops, I get pulled over, something doesn't happen very often.

But when it does, I'm only ever a bit nervous if the cop is a woman. And the reason that makes me nervous is because I know that the cop knows, because she's a woman, that I could easily overpower her if I wanted to. I know that she's aware of that. And I'm then worried that this fact is making her worried, even though I'm not doing anything to make it work. Like if that makes her jumpy, and if she's jumpy, then stuff like that happens.

And even if she's not jumpy, I'm also aware that she's only on the force because they lowered the standards to get her there. So that makes me a bit nervous too. So now you have an interaction where both the officer and the civilian who isn't doing anything wrong are kind of nervous. And that's not what you want. Nothing bad is gonna happen on my end. I'm not gonna freak out. I'll comply and be cooperative. So everything's gonna be fine on my end. But I don't know about her end.

And as we just saw in that interaction there, the guy he complied, he did everything right, ends up with a bullet hole in his leg. And now he's going to sue and he's going to probably be a rich man as he should be because of the lawsuit. I don't think suing is either enough. I mean, if any one of us in the course of our jobs accidentally shot someone, we would also go to jail.

I think there should be jail time for that. You don't get a oopsie daisy on something like that. Now, as you know, I'm the first to defend police officers when they deserve to be defended, which very often, very often when there's a viral controversy, they do deserve it. And I'll be the first to say that I give cops a lot of leeway when they're put into these life threatening situations.

because of what the suspect is doing, the suspect is acting in a way that is threatening, and now all of a sudden the cop is thrust in this life-threatening situation, I think we've got to give a lot of leeway. And it's easy to Monday morning quarterback after the fact. So that's whenever you have a cop that

someone's charging at him with a knife, and the cop shoots, and then everyone after the fax says, well, but you could have waited another two seconds before you shot him. But why didn't you shoot him in the leg or something dumb like that? No, in that case, I say that he did what he had to do in that situation, that his life is on the line, he's got seconds to react. That's one thing. But in a case like this, there's nothing life threatening is happening.

Okay, there's no, this is not a woman who was thrust into a life threatening situation. It became life threatening for the guy, because by the way, she could have hit an artery and killed him. It became life threatening for him because of her incompetence. So, this is just, we gotta be done with this.

Let's move to this and look, I've given Canada a hard time recently and it's all in good fun. I mean, I have called for the country to be conquered by force and all of its inhabitants sent to labor camps, but I never meant that in a bad way. They mean it, nothing personal. I mean, it has an insult.

So there's no reason for any Canadians to get upset about it. But the truth is that it's not all bad in Canada, and there are some bright spots. And one of them is Pierre Poliev, who appeared this week on a Canadian news show, and was asked whether as Prime Minister, he would follow, he would get in line with Trump's executive order when it comes to gender ideology, which is already an incoherent question because as Prime Minister of Canada,

until you actually are conquered by the United States. The executive orders signed by the president don't apply to you. But regardless, he was asked the question. I thought the way he fielded the question was quite brilliant. Let's watch.

First day on the job president, Trump signed an executive order. You know, the U.S. government only recognizing two genders, male, female, they're unchangeable. You know, if elected as prime minister, is that something that you're going to kind of walk in line with? Or what are your feelings on that executive order? Well, I don't know. Do you have any other genders that you'd like to name? Me, personally?

I'm just asking more so if you're in line with what he is saying, do you agree with what he's saying? Is that something that you would be lockstep with if elected as Prime Minister? Well, I'm not aware of any other genders than men and women. I mean, if you have any other that you want me to consider, you're welcome to tell me right now. Well, there's others.

Personally, I am a man. I am a people who say cis man. There are people there who, you know, they say they're gender neutral. You're a man, yes. There are people there who say they're gender neutral. Yeah, they say they're gender neutral. They're, you know, they're a trans person. Is that something that you would recognize here? Whereas in the States, at least with their US government, the way they're seeing it, there's only two.

I'm only aware of two, but if you come up with another list, then you're welcome to do that. But I'm aware of two. And as far as I'm concerned, we should have a government that just minds its own damn business and leaves people alone.

Now, very well done. And as you all know, I've been shouting this with rooftops forever. This is exactly how these questions should be handled. And I know that Pierre Poliav has been very good at this kind of thing for as long as he's been on the political scene. And this is key. Throw the ball back in their court, make them define their terms, make them answer the basic questions.

And if you do, you'll get hilarious meltdowns like what we just saw, which I mean, that moment was something straight out of what is a woman. I mean, I would have loved to have a moment like that. That's great comedy, just wonderful across the board. And I also agree with his answer, by the way, not the anchor, but Pierre Polioff, because he says that he believes that the government should mind its own business on this issue.

And I actually agree with it, because what does that mean? It means that the government will only officially recognize male and female, because that's just simple biological reality. We need to have a government that's rooted in reality. We can't have a government that exists in some kind of fantasy land, as we've had for the last four years. So now we see how that worked out. It didn't work out well. So the government only recognizes what is real.

And then, and that's it, but in your own private life, if you want to run around telling yourself that you're the opposite sex or whatever, nobody can stop you. In fact, if you want to run around telling other people that you're the opposite sex, I mean, the one can stop you from saying that. I mean, you could say that. You could say those words. If a man wants to quote unquote identify as a woman in the privacy of his own home, then

There's nothing we could do to stop that, nor would I be interested in trying to crack down on that, even if it was possible. That's fine. That's your personal life. What you can't do is force anyone in society to go along with it. You can't impose it on anyone. You can't require us to cooperate with it or to play into it or to play along with it. You can't indoctrinate children into it.

And you can't expect the government to officially recognize or in any way legally codify or respect this fantasy. That's what you can't do. So when I say, and I believe this is the case that probably Pierre Polia would say something similar, but I can't speak for him. But when I say, hey, that's your business. I mean, it's specifically in that way. It's keep it your business.

don't try to wrap anyone else into it. And if you do that, to keep everybody else out of it, well then, what can we, what is there for us, there's nothing for us to say. Which by the way, is one of the reasons, and this is why, you know, when you hear the trans activists, we'll say, well, trans people, quote unquote, have existed for, I mean, they'll claim that trans people have existed, trans identified people have existed for thousands of years, which is total nonsense.

because the concept of quote, unquote transgenderism is a modern phenomenon. But the concept has existed for decades. And for decades, it was basically a non-issue in mainstream culture. We didn't talk about it, we didn't debate it, it didn't come up. There weren't any executive orders about it, it didn't come up during presidential debates.

And that's because there was not this effort, this collective effort to force society, people in society to go along with it or play along with it or cooperate with it or affirm it. And it was just something that, you know, very small minority of people. It was something that they, it was a,

something that they had in their own minds and something that really they struggled with. And so that was something between them and their, you know, therapists really. It only became an issue once it was decided that everyone else has to affirm this. And once you do that, once you go to everybody else and you tell us we have to affirm it, okay, well, now it is our business. And it's our business because you forced it to be our business.

we would very much like to go back to a point where it's not our business anymore. When the left talks about what happens in my bedroom is my business. Yeah, I wish like actually keep it in your bedroom. That's best for all of us. That's what we want. Keep it in your bedroom and then great.

Let's stay for another moment on the transition. ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio is rather upset about these recent developments that are happening, as you would expect. And Chase Strangio is, as you'll be able to tell here in a moment, a female who identifies as a man. But there's one thing, there's one term used in this clip that's getting some attention. So listen,

In this one executive order, including this directive to HUD to issue proposed regulations to an essence exclude trans people from various forms of shelter system under the auspices that a trans person is an inherent threat to non-transgender women. Obviously, that just enhances the risk that transgender people face in society if we are deemed as a threat to others simply by existing.

Well, a few things. First of all, nobody thinks that trans people, quote unquote, are a threat simply by existing. Our whole point is that trans is a category error. You, in fact, do not exist as the sex you claim, but you do exist as a person. We acknowledge that.

But when a man who identifies as a woman says, oh, you think I'm a threat to women just because I'm a trans woman? Well, our answer is no. What we're saying is that you're not a woman and that's our whole point. You're potentially a threat to women because you're a male demanding access to the locker room and men who demand that they be allowed into private spaces with women are rightfully perceived as potential threats. It's got nothing to do with the fact that you call yourself trans. If a man who did not call himself trans,

did not identify as trans was demanding access to the women's bathroom, that they would be perceived as a threat as well. The point is that you're a male, how you perceive yourself is basically irrelevant in that scenario. And second, you notice the phrase that she used, she said, non-transgender women. Which is interesting because these people had invented the nonsense term cis women,

and cis men, right? And up until now, that's what they would call a, what is actually just a regular woman, a woman, an actual biological woman. But now apparently they've switched over to this new phrase of the non-transgender women.

And why do they prefer that term? Well, they prefer it because it goes even farther than the term cis women to make regular real women seem like they're the strange ones. So this is what they're doing. It's an attempt to make real women into just one category of women. And in this case, when you use the term non-transgender women,

You've turned actual women into not just one category of women, but you've turned them into a lesser, more obscure category of women. Because they're now the nonce, right? You have trans women and then you have non-trans women. So now women are defined by their relation to so-called trans women.

they are defined by their status of being not trans. So in this world of Chase Strangio, you're either trans or you're not trans. And so that's the rhetorical move that they're pulling now, which is quite desperate.

And we know that the trans activists have, they've gotten a lot of mileage out of these language games. I mean, they've gotten, they've, this has been their, not just their primary tool, but really their, their only rhetorical tool has been, of course there's emotional blackmail and there's threats and everything else. But when it comes to sort of presenting the argument, their only weapon there is just language games.

And they've typically been pretty good at staying one step ahead. But they come up with some term, and then people don't exactly know what that term even means. And then once we will start to understand that term is nonsense, then they just start using a different term. And they try to stay one step ahead. And that's what they're doing now. And I don't think it's going to be enough. I don't think it's going to work this time.

Let's get to the comment section. Something is horribly wrong when that person becomes a bishop. That bishop is the most blatantly obvious example of someone who has no actual faith and has somehow managed to be put in a position of influence and uses that influence for racists and nefarious purposes.

Right. I mean, she's almost certainly an atheist. And I think, and we talked yesterday about the Bishop of the Prayer Service, who's a far left radical. But yeah, it should also be said, along with being a far left radical, and this goes to the territory, she's almost certainly an atheist. And I think we'd be shocked if we could know the actual number of full-on atheists who are running churches and leading congregations in this country. I mean, there's no way to know

There have actually been done some studies on this and there have been different organizations that have usually like atheist organizations who present this information as a positive. So there are different claims about this. What is the actual number? What's the actual number of people who lead churches in any denomination who actually don't even have a faith at all?

Well, it's impossible to know what the actual number is, but the proof is in the pudding on this sort of thing. And I think we have reason to believe that the number is distressingly high.

Matt, don't let anybody put you in a suit and tie for your show. Even the backdrop of this show here is starkly beginning to morph into the same look the mainstream monkeys have. Keep it real, your content is always on point. Don't let anything change you from real. God bless you, your family in New York. We don't have to worry about that. There's no chance I'll ever start wearing a suit and tie for the show. I know I went on that whole rant against Federman because he didn't wear a suit to the inauguration. But the truth is I hate wearing suits.

And even more do I hate wearing a tie. Women don't understand. Women complain all the time about all the unique challenges and discomforts of being a woman. And I know there are some, but they don't understand some of the stuff that we deal with. And one of them is a tie, okay? We have to wear this thing as a noose around our neck. It's literally a noose around our neck. We have to wear it anytime we go to something formal. Could barely breathe.

They were partially suffocating the entire time. You don't realize that. But I still recognize that when you go to a formal event, that that's what you wear. And I'll respect that. So that's it.

I am saying, I think this gives more force to my my rebuke of Federman that I understand his desire to want to be casual all the time. I get that. But just because you want to be casual, you're more comfortable in casual clothes, it doesn't make it okay.

Matt, you're against remote work, but didn't you work remote from your car slash house for many years? I did. And this is another time where I think my own personal

experience actually lends some more weight to my point. Why do you think I'm so against remote work? Yeah, I did it myself. And my own experience with it is part of what made me so skeptical of it. And I can say in my own case that my own, I've seen this in my own personal experience, my own career really took off when I started working in an office with a team and we were all physically present.

I understand my job is different than other people's jobs, but everyone has their own unique situation. We're all different. I still think there are some basic principles that apply across the board. There are a lot of angry comments of the remote work conversation. I didn't say that if you are working remote, you're a bad person, or you should go to jail or something.

I mean, I wouldn't put it past me if I was dictator of the country, but as you know, I'm going to end up putting everybody in jail for something. So, you know, don't, again, don't take it personally. But that's not what I said. I just, I am very skeptical that in the final analysis, people are actually going to be more productive when they're working for mom. I'm very skeptical of that claim.

I understand the desire to land on Mars, but I think the money could be much better spent here at home. I would just shy of my eighth birthday when we landed on the moon. I'm 63 now. We've not utilized the moon in any productive capacity. Why waste the money time and effort? Well, I've explained why the money time and effort is not a waste. I think the demand that we utilize the moon or Mars is just very utilitarian, kind of a shallow way of looking at it, frankly.

Sure, if we can utilize it, great. If we can figure out how to mine the moon or Mars or asteroids for precious metals and other resources and get them back to Earth and do it in a cost-effective way, fantastic. We should do that. But even if we can't, the value in doing the thing is simply in doing the thing. The value of landing on the moon was that we land on the moon. The value of going to Mars is going to Mars. And so to me, it's a bit like

It's like saying that the Mona Lisa has no value because you can't use it for anything. Or maybe a better example, because you could say with artwork, well, we can place a monetary value on it. Yeah, but the monetary value we place on art is totally subjective. And it's still, what do you do with art? You just hang out on a wall. You don't do anything with it. It just sits there.

One of somebody painted an extraordinarily beautiful picture, but never sold it or cashed in at all. So never got any money out of it, never used it for anything, never sold it, never traded it. Would you say that it was wasted time and effort? What have someone spent five years slaving away on a masterpiece of a portrait or a painting or a sculpture? And then they just kept it.

ever did anything with it? Is that wasted time and effort? Or would you be able to see that creating a beautiful piece of art is a valuable and worthwhile pursuit, even if you don't do anything with the final product, except put it on display to look at? I think the latter, I think you don't understand there's value in it because we're human beings. And we find value in things, even things we do not use.

is one of the many things that distinguishes us from the animals. I mean, for an animal, nothing has any value unless it's a resource or a food source for them. But we can see value in something that even transcends its usefulness. And I think a similar thing can apply too.

space exploration. The Daily Wire gave you front row seats to history during inauguration weekend covering everything from the pageantry to the political highlights. We were there to bring you the dawn of America's golden age while the Daily Wire is where politics and culture collide with live, uncensored, ad-free Daily shows from the most trusted voices in America to our growing catalog of premium entertainment that's reshaping culture. We are leading the charge. What we do matters, but we can't do it without you. Join Daily Wire Plus today and save 47% off with

with Trump.

We began the show by talking about the relative and rather bizarre lack of panic among some on the left in the wake of Trump's barrage of executive orders. But there is one area where the panic has been much more obvious and more to the scale of what you'd expect. And that relates to the Trump administration's efforts to fulfill one of his central campaign promises, which is to deport illegal aliens who are currently residing in the United States and to prevent more illegal aliens from entering into the United States.

In particular, Republicans in Congress have just passed the Lake and Riley Act with the support of dozens of Democrats. The point of law is to require that the Department of Homeland Security detain illegal aliens who commit crimes, including shoplifting, burglary, larceny, and so on, so that they can be deported immediately. As you may remember, Lake and Riley's killer was picked up for a variety of crimes, including shoplifting.

before he went hunting for women to rape and murder at the campus of the University of Georgia. But instead of being deported or detained, he was immediately set free, which is what enabled him to commit this horrific crime. So this is about as basic a law as you can imagine. It doesn't even give any new authority to federal immigration officials. Instead, it simply mandates that they do what was already their job.

when an illegal alien commits a crime. If anything, the law is too permissive. We should be requiring that federal authorities deport everyone who's here illegally, regardless of whether they commit an additional crime or not. But as it stands, it's just a baseline measure to ensure that no more women like Lake and Riley are murdered by people who obviously should have been deported a long time ago.

But Democrats don't see it that way. In fact, they've been having full blown meltdowns in Congress over this legislation and Donald Trump's plans more generally with immigration. So here, for example, is the astute scholar Rashida Talib.

is enough. It will separate families. It will lead again to continued discrimination. It's shameful that my colleagues are giving into racist fear mongering at the first opportunity to pass legislation to scapegoat our immigrant neighbors and fuel hate in our communities. I know what's going to happen. It won't just be undocumented. It will be people like my mother who will get stopped and profiled. She has to carry her U.S. passport around. Are we asking people loud to have documentation?

That's what you want to turn a neighborhood into is militarization. I yield the general aid in additional 30 seconds. I just ask all of you to truly understand what this will do to our communities. I urge our colleagues to please vote no on this divisive bill. And it's so important to understand what you're going to turn our communities and our neighborhoods into. We can't allow that to continue to happen with that I yield.

So bizarrely, she claims that her mother will be affected by this law, even though her mother apparently is not an illegal alien, and that raises an obvious question. Is Rashida Tlaib's mother a shoplister? I mean, that's the only way this complaint really makes sense.

The law doesn't establish any criteria to profile anyone. It just requires that illegal aliens who commit crimes get detained. According for legislation, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue a detainer for an alien described in paragraph 1E. And if the alien is not otherwise detained by federal, state, or local officials, shall effectively and expeditiously take custody of the alien.

Now, if you scroll down up to Paragraph 1E, it applies to illegal aliens who are, quote, charged with, arrested for, convicted of, admits having committed, or admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of any burglary theft, larceny, or shoplifting offenses.

So maybe Rashida Talib is trying to tell us something about her mother and her community. Maybe this is a cry for help, I don't know. Otherwise, it's all very confusing. Fortunately, we have AOC to shed some light on the matter. Here's her very well reasoned objection to the legislation.

If someone wants to point a finger and accuse someone of shoplifting, they will be rounded up and put into a private detention camp and sent out for deportation without a day in court, without a moment to assert the privilege of innocent until proven guilty, without being found guilty of a crime that will be rounded up.

Again, this is all nonsense. There's no provision in legislation where you get rounded up and put into a private detention camp and sent out for deportation. As soon as someone quote, points a finger and accuses you of shoplifting, that's not in there at all. And she's missing two important things. First of all, the law doesn't apply to you unless you're already in this country illegally, meaning you're already subject to immediate deportation. And secondly, random people can't just point a finger at these aliens. They have to be at a minimum charged by a prosecutor with an additional crime.

on top of being hairy legally. A lot of Democrats seem to struggle with understanding any of this. Over at CNN, for example, anchor Dana Bash was visibly stunned when Tom Holman explained that all illegal aliens are subject to deportation, even if they haven't committed an additional crime within our borders watch.

We're not going to strike, and this is a difference between the last administration and this administration. ISIS is going to force the immigration law. There's nothing in the INA and Immigration National Act that says you've got to be convicted of a serious crime in order to be removed from this country. So there's going to be more collateral arrests and sanctuaries because they forced us to go into the community and find the guy we're looking for.

Let me just make sure that I understand what you're saying, because at first you said that the first targets are those with criminal records. But you are also saying that those who are undocumented in the U.S. also who don't have criminal records, people who are working in their communities, maybe even have spouses who are American citizens, they could be swept up with ICE today as well. What I'm telling you is when we go find our priority target, which is a criminal alien,

If he's with others in the United States, totally, legally, we're going to take enforcement action against him. We're going to forest immigration law. One of the things that's great about Tom Holman is that he doesn't even pretend to care about sanitizing any of this. It's what he's been promising to do for months, and he's going to do it. Voters clearly want him to do it. They've got the mandate of the American people. So when the CNN anchor reacts with disbelief, he just doesn't care.

That's not going to stop the rest of the corporate press from relying on predictable emotional blackmail. Over the Washington Post, a reporter just uploaded a video of a sobbing foreign national, and her caption reads, quote, migrants who are waiting for their 1 p.m. CBP1 parole appointment learned 20 minutes ago that the app has shut down and those appointments are no longer valid. And here's the video that the reporter posted along with it.

There's going to be a lot of this kind of thing in the coming days. There's already been quite a bit of these videos of so-called migrants sobbing and crying. But this one is interesting. First of all, this person's pretty well dressed. She has an iPhone, apparently.

because she's checking the app and clearly not very good at planning ahead because she somehow didn't make the trip at any point in the last two months when it was obvious to everyone that Donald Trump was going to take over the White House. But despite all that, we're supposed to feel terrible that she's being turned away. In fact, we're supposed to be willing to forfeit our own sovereignty just so that this woman feels better. If somebody cries because they can't illegally access your home, you should just let them in. I mean, that's the idea.

Never mind the inherent incoherence of a less position on this. I mean, on one hand, they tell us that America is systemically racist. And now it's being run by a fascist dictator. And on the other hand, they expect us to see it as a great tragedy that Hispanic woman isn't allowed to come here. But by their logic, aren't we doing the woman a favor? Isn't she better off in her homeland? Shouldn't they be the ones on the border saying, no, don't come here, turn back, save yourselves.

Right, we should try to save her from our racist, xenophobic, fascist, Nazi, hellscape of a country. Now, for their part, Axios came up with another tactic. They decided that they were going to try to use Americans' faith against us. They reported, quote, Trump's flurry of orders restricting immigration and promising mass deportation violates core Christian principles of caring for the poor and needy.

So now the corporate press is reporting on God's assessment of America's domestic policy. They're channeling divine insight, and that insight just so happens to sound a lot like that fake bishop from the other day. It also contradicts everything that the press has been saying for months. As Aaron McIntyre pointed out, the same media outlets told us that Donald Trump was a Christian nationalist who wants to bring about a Christian theocracy

And now they're mad that Trump is supposedly ignoring Christian law, Christian principles, just to ruin the lives of all these innocent illegal aliens. Which is it? Never mind the fact that there's nothing remotely Christian about allowing your country to be overrun by violent criminals.

to the point that women and children are routinely dying horrific deaths. There's also nothing in Scripture that tells us that countries shouldn't have borders or that national sovereignty is an inherent evil. There is nothing that declares our right to break whatever law we don't agree with. In fact, Scripture says precisely the opposite. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's. That was Jesus Christ's command. Saint Paul tells us to obey governing authorities.

So the Bible is very clear that we cannot simply discard the laws we don't like. As long as man's law does not contradict the laws of God, as long as we are not being told to do things that are inherently immoral and unjust and in contradiction to our faith, as long as that's not happening, then we are obliged to respect the law and follow it, even if we don't like it, even if it's inconvenient, even if it causes us hardship,

The laws governing the border very much fall into the category of laws that we must follow as Christians. It's in fact the illegal aliens who are being unchristian in reality. And certainly all the people that are trying to facilitate their entry into the country.

So if the left wants to bring our Christian faith into it, well, that's what our Christian faith actually says. So none of these tactics will work. None of this emotional blackmail from Congress, from the media or anywhere else.

is likely to change very many people's mind about the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal aliens. Americans are fed up with the illegal conquest of our homeland. And we know that for every crying illegal alien they put on screen, there are a thousand crying Americans that they could show whose lives were destroyed by the crime and drugs and violence that these people have brought into our country. But they're not showing us those images.

And this time around, in a major contrast from the first Trump administration, everyone knows why. And that is why Democrats who have descended into panic about Donald Trump's decision to enforce immigration law are today. Cancel. I'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day.