“It’s Time to Fix It”: Calls Grow to Wrap Up Iran Conflict

Hi everyone, it's Brian Kilmeade here. Are you tired of those uncomfortable dress shirts, especially when they bunch up under a sweater? If so, then you must check out collars and go. Makers of the dress collar polo. Listen up. These shirts are four-way stretch, buttery soft polos with firm dress collars on them, so they give you the dress shirt look, but extremely comfortable polo feel. You can wear them with anything under a sweater, with a blazer, or by themselves as an elevated polo. They work for any occasion. These polos are perfect, whether it's in the office. on a golf course or a night out. Collars and Co is exploding and have gone viral on social media thanks to the $1 million investment they received on Shark Tank from Mark Cuban and Peter Jay Jones. You don't have to worry about collars that flop down and spread out. They stay firm and sharp all day. It's an amazing array of sweaters, quartersips, pants, and outerwear. If you're looking for the performance dress shirt or polo that looks great all day, check out collarsandco.com. Use promo code Brian or 15% off of any purchase of $100 or more. That's promo code Brian. What is Toyota affordability? It's buying smart. Your local Toyota dealer has great deals available today on Rav4, Grand Highlander, Camry, and Corolla with the features in style you deserve. It means driving for less. with hybrid and plug-in hybrid options across the lineup, delivering great MPGs. And it means trading for more. Toyota is known for building long-lasting vehicles, meaning your car will hold its value for years to come. Shoptojota.com to find out more. Toyota, let's go places. From high atop, Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never sewing to fission. It's Brian Kilmeade. Let's just get out there on a Friday and say it is the top radio show in the country because that's what the Brian Kilmeade is. It is your humble DC correspondent and Fox and Friends Weekend co-host, Griff Jenkins, back again filling in for Brian Kilmeade. Always such an honor. And so much fun on a Friday to be here in the studio in New York with Pete and Eric, we have got a lot coming up. And shockingly, what is usually the dog days of summer. where nothing is happening. There is everything happening and a fire hose of news out there. Top story certainly is all eyes on Iran. What will happen in Iran yesterday, President Trump talking about whether or not there is a deal on the table, whether or not the Strait of Hormuz could be open. He says right now, well, it's sort of open. Listen to this. Cut one. It's sort of open right now. You know, we have a thing called the blockade headed up by the U.S. Navy, and we control it. And now we control it, but they can always shoot something. They always have something or drop a mine. I think we're doing very well. I just, you know, I'm involved in the negotiation. I think we're doing fine. But are we? That is the question. The president is talking about this, but it seems like we've sort of been here before. We're not sure where we're headed next. No one knows Russia better than Fox News contributor and former CIA station chief that served in Moscow, among other stations, is Dan. Dan, thank you for joining us this morning. What do you make of what the president said there? Where are we?

Well, I think we're kind of at an inflection point here, Griff. We're waiting for a deal between Oman and Iran on the Strait of Hormuz. And the question is whether we're going to see... open and free navigation through the strait or whether Iran is going to demand some kind of fees, tolls, disguised perhaps as environmental fees or other things. It's important because 20% of the world's oil is going to flow through the Strait of Hormuz. That's going to impact the global price of oil. It's important. So from an economic standpoint, but then from a strategic standpoint, Iran wants... this to be a casualty of war for the United States. They want to retain some control over the Strait of Hormuz and make us pay a price and have some capability to deter us from any future attacks on Iran. So the stakes could not be higher. And if at the moment at least, it looks like Iran and Oman have negotiated a deal whereby on the way out of the strait, Oman would go through Oman territorial waters on the way back through Iran. I don't think that's going to be exactly what the United States wants. And we'll see how things shake out over the weekend. And we would not be on board, right? As I understand it, it's because this is a freedom of navigation issue. Excuse me. It's not just in the Strait of Hormous. You look at every straight around the world where commerce passes through and it is international waters. And so the freedom of navigation rule is in some ways challenged in this agreement as we understand. understand it. Right. And that's why Iran has made the Strait of Hormuz, the center of gravity in this war between the two countries. Iran does not want to negotiate in good faith on their nuclear program, ballistic missile and drone program, and their support to proxy terrorists. All the things that we wanted to get right after the Trump administration withdrew from JCPOA back in 2017. We want to fix all those things. Iran has shown no interest whatsoever in negotiating in good faith, and they're going to try to strike a hard deal on the Strait of Hormuz and make that, I think, a point of contention. We may never get to nuclear negotiations, in which case the United States is going to have to be prepared to launch follow-on strikes against Iran's drones, their ballistic missile arsenals, the nuclear program, and degrade their proxy terrorists. We may be looking at that sort of a long war. Well, and it seems that the president's made it abundantly clear, Dan, to your point, The denuclearization issue is got to happen. That is a fundamental goal and objective of the president even getting involved to begin with. And so, you know, when we talk about a deal, there's the frustration, which the president must surely be just up to here with, is the fact that they never abide by any agreement that they sign, which leads us.

to further military action. Is that whether or not we're sort of saying it out loud, is that really where we are? I mean, this is Iran's probe. What Iran is saying essentially is, look, if you don't have... the military capacity to enforce a deal that you want for the Strait of Hormuz, he's speaking to the United States, then you can't do that for our nuclear program either. I think that's why Iran is holding fast here. And remember that there's a similarity here between what has happened as a result of this war and the Iran-Iraq War, the first Gulf War in the 1980s, which really elevated Iran's hardline IRGC, the Revolutionary Guard Corps, to a position of authority. We're seeing that again. They're not interested in negotiating. And I think they feel like they can make a stand here over the Strait of Hormuz and demonstrate that the United States doesn't have the leverage that we need to enforce or induce Iran to negotiate the way we would want them to. We certainly haven't done that so far. We have degraded Iran's weapons, conventional weapons. We've absolutely degraded their nuclear capability and set them way back. but we haven't brought them to the negotiating table in good faith. This is why we love having you on the Brian Kilmeade and on Fox News because you understand the history. And anytime you're in any conflict in the Middle East, you must understand the history. I want to ask you if you see, as you drew that parallel to the Iran-Iraq original war going back to 89-90, do you see a parallel between the fact that? In those days, the head of the Quds Force, the first commander of the Quds Force was General Ahmad Vahidi. He is now the guy running the IRGC today. And so back then, as he learned to not negotiate and not bend, is he doing the same playbook essentially? Yeah, I absolutely think so. That was his formative experience. And... I think we might have lost Dan, and we'll work to get him back on the line with us. It's interesting. You know, Dan was talking about the degradation of Iran's munitions. And certainly, as President Trump has often talked about, they don't have an Air Force. They don't have a Navy. Their ships are on the bottom of the sea. And we have greatly diminished and have continued to strike their missile and drone factories. And so, you know, well, that... We see time and time again that they do launch strikes. We just had some of our service members killed in the attack on Mufawak, the air base that is in Jim Jordan. They've been launching at Kuwait. They've been launching at Qatar. They've been launching even at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. But it's worth noting that we are seeing fewer missiles coming. First, there were 200. Now there are 20. First, there was 100. Now there are 10.

Either way, when they strike us. I was just, Dan, glad to have you back. I think we've got you now. I was just sort of for our listeners walking through the fact that while they are greatly diminished, Iran is, and their missile capabilities, it's not two, 300, it's 20 or 10 coming, but they are killing people, as we just saw in Jim Jordan at Muwafok Air Base, where we lost two service members. But I want to ask you, you know, the other flip side of that coin, is this reporting? the U.S. is greatly reduced in munitions. I want to play this for you. This was president as well yesterday, talking about the munitions situation. Cut two. We have literally massive amounts of ammunition. We always want more. We have to have more. We have other things maybe come up. You maybe come up and maybe don't come up. Hopefully nothing else does come up. So he's downplaying obviously the situation. How do you see it? Well, look, I don't know what the status is of our Key munitions, Patriot defenses and bad air defense. But what I can attack them. What I can tell you is that our adversaries collect on this. There's lots of intelligence reporting sitting in Moscow and Beijing, which they share with Iran. And so maybe the president doesn't want to talk about it. But if you asked Director John Ratcliffe, do our adversaries know what we have left? They probably have a pretty good idea. And we live in a democracy. And if we want to be the arsenal for democracy, I would encourage the administration to be open about where we are lacking in munitions because it's not a secret to the bad guys, even if they're not talking about it. And we need to go full court press like we have at other times in our history and rise to the occasion so that we can deliver. the Patriot missiles Ukraine needs so that we can deliver missiles to the Middle East to ensure that we are able to achieve our strategic objectives there. I say that as just somebody who saw this over decades at CIA. There are things you can keep secret. There are things you can't. There are going to be hearings, open testimony and closed door testimony. But again, If we live in a democracy grip, this stuff's going to come out. So I think this is one where the president's going to have to deal with this. It's not like turning on a water faucet. So if we don't have what we need, then if you're looking to find fault, you can go back years or decades. But it's over to this administration to solve it. Yeah, what a great insight, but yet a sober and chilling insight to think about that. You mentioned, by the way, Ukraine, President Trump did mention yesterday that there is because of what is going on in Ukraine has been a bit of a drain. Listen to this real quick. Cut three. When Biden gave him so much, Biden gave $300 billion worth of ammunition. You know, when I left, it was full, and he gave a lot of it away.

Yeah, you agree there? I think it was less than that. And I don't think, I think we need to have the capability to support our allies and partners overseas. And if we don't use what we have, well, what is the purpose of having it in the first place? So if we did give some of our Patriot missiles to Ukraine, if anything was depleted, we should have. reconstituted our arsenal of these important weapons. I'll be honest with you as a citizen. I don't want to hear any more blame about the Biden administration. Mr. President Trump was elected to solve problems. Go fix it, sir. You were elected, not Biden. It's over to you to fix all the challenges that we face. And again, it's your responsibility. It's your government. And the blame part is good during an election campaign. But that's two years ago. And right now we've got serious problems all over the world that we need to deal with. And it's over to this administration to do it. And no one is expecting perfection. We understand there are great challenges to achieving our strategic objectives. If our objective is to support Ukraine against their war against Russia, and one option was to let Ukraine produce those missiles themselves. That sounded like a pretty good idea to me. But the president may not think so anymore. We just need to solve the challenges we face in the interests of our national security. That's a great point. I mean, we are where we are. We're here now. Let me ask you the very, this is the toughest question, Dan, and I'm going to ask it to you anyway. If you recall, back in literally the first weeks of the Iraq invasion in 2023 in March, General David Petraeus famously questioned, tell me how this ends. Are we at a point now where we can even try and address answering the question? Tell me how this ends. I mean, it's really hard, but important to have an exit strategy so that we know what is the strategy? What are we trying to achieve? And so we've won every single military engagement over Iran. But the question is, have we achieved our... strategic objectives through the use of military strikes, air power essentially alone and no ground troops. That was always the question. And I can tell you, going back to my days at CIA, when I was at CIA running the Near East Division responsible for Middle East, North Africa, South Asia, when we were negotiating the JCPOA. And I got called a Cold Warrior by John Brennan. He thought he was criticizing me, and I took it as a compliment because I told him that Russia was not going to help us on JCPOA. I'm sorry, sir, they're not doing that.

Boy, I didn't get a whole lot of love from John Brennan on that when I made that statement. But that's the question here. And that's where you run the risk of a so-called forever war. And at the heart of this, for me at least, we've spilled blood and treasure on this war. How much we've spent, you know, in the tens of billions of dollars, indirect costs on our economy, U.S. servicemen and women killed in action. What do we get for that and how long are we going to be at this before we achieve our objectives? And if we're super clear about our objectives and the administration has put forth a number of different ones, it was at various times regime change, ballistic missiles, the nuclear program, among other things. I just think we need to be real clear. We've talked about opening the Strait of Hormuz with freedom of navigation through the strait and then moving to a second phase of so-called denuclearization. Maybe that's still in the offing, but then... Do the, does the use of hard power alone get us there? And what's the strategy to get us there? The administration may not want to tell us all about that, all the tactics that we're going to use to get there. At the same time, though, to get back to my point about us, the United States being a democracy, we are in this. U.S. citizens are in this. It's our war, not the administrations. We're paying for it with our blood and our treasure. And so the administration needs to consult us. Preferably beforehand, but at least now, like, what we're doing and how long we're going to be doing it. That's the challenge. And again, I'm not into the politics as much as some of our other awesome contributors, but that's the challenge you face heading into midterms. Those explanations are going to have to happen. They are with a clear, crystal clear, laser sharp exit strategy laid out. Fox News contributor and former CIA Station Chief in Moscow, Dan Hoffman, thank you for your insight. Great conversation, my friend. Have a great weekend. Thank you. You too. All right. This is Griff Jenkins on the Brian Kilmeade. We've got a whole lot more coming up. From breaking news to big name guests, Brian brings you insight you won't hear anywhere else. You're listening to the Brian Kilmeade. Hi everyone, it's Brian Kilmeade here. Are you tired of those uncomfortable dress shirts, especially when they bunch up under a sweater? If so, then you must check out collars and go. Makers of the dress collar polo. Listen up. These shirts are four-way stretch, buttery soft polos with firm dress collars on them, so they give you the dress shirt look, but extremely comfortable polo feel. You can wear them with anything under a sweater, with a blazer, or by themselves as an elevated polo. They work for any occasion. These polos are perfect, whether it's in the office. on a golf course or a night out. Collars and Co is exploding and have gone viral on social media thanks to the $1 million investment they received on Shark Tank from Mark Cuban and Peter Jay Jones. You don't have to worry about collars that flop down and spread out. They stay firm and sharp all day. It's an amazing array of sweaters, quartersips, pants, and outerwear.

If you're looking for the performance dress shirt or polo that looks great all day, check out collarsandco.com. Use promo code Brian for 15% off of any purchase of $100 or more. That's promo code Brian. that makes you think. This is the Brian Kilmeade. This is the Brian Kilmeade on an amazing Friday afternoon. I'm Griff Jenkins filling in for Brian. Hopefully he is at a beach somewhere surfing. You know, having a beer, taking it easy. But we are here covering the news and just a great conversation. In the last segment with Dan Hoffman, former CIA station chief in Moscow, and I think what I really appreciated about what Dan was laying out is really the two pieces of this, which is as it relates to the clarity of what our objective ultimately is in this. And it's clearly... First, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz. And now and then, that's now and then following that denuclearization, President Trump making it very clear that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. Something that no previous president was willing to put might behind the will to denuclearize them. And this president did. And it tracks with what General Jack Kane, four-star General Jack Kane said to us on Fox and Friends this morning. Talking about how Iran believes that they have made this straight-of-hormoose control an issue that they feel gives them leverage. This is cut seven. We all know what Iran wants. They believe this is that. is a strategic asset. I'm telling you, they think this now has more leverage than the development and growth of a nuclear weapon. And why is that? Because their nuclear enterprise is largely under a mountain of rubble. So this is their prize that they believe they've got as a result of the war that has taken place. They're not easily going to give it up, even through negotiations. They're going to want concessions out of us. But they're not going to get concessions from President Trump, who has time and time again shown patience and willingness to work towards a deal, but he is not afraid to put might behind what he says and means. That means we could be headed back to an escalation in strikes. Possibly, who knows, even this weekend, is the Brian Kilmeade. Hi everyone, it's Brian Kilmeade here. Are you tired of those uncomfortable dress shirts, especially when they bunch up under a sweater? If so, then you must check out collars and go. Makers of the dress collar polo. Listen up. These shirts are four-way stretch, buttery soft polos with firm dress collars on them, so they give you the dress shirt look, but extremely comfortable polo feel. You can wear them with anything under a sweater, with a blazer, or by themselves as an elevated polo. They work for any occasion. These polos are perfect, whether it's in the office.

on a golf course or a night out. Collars and Co is exploding and have gone viral on social media thanks to the $1 million investment they received on Shark Tank from Mark Cuban and Peter Jay Jones. You don't have to worry about collars that flop down and spread out. They stay firm and sharp all day. It's an amazing array of sweaters, quartersips, pants, and outerwear. If you're looking for the performance dress shirt or polo that looks great all day, check out collarsandco.com. Use promo code Brian or 15% off of any purchase of $100 or more. That's promo code Brian. Breaking news, unique opinions. Here it all on the Brian Kilmeade. This committee in the American people have a right to know why Dr. Anthony Fauci's agency funded dangerous research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and what role he played in approving and overseeing it. Why he told his colleagues to delete emails. Why he told them to delete emails and then delete the deleted file. What was he told in January 2020? What was said on those calls? What his agency did with and for the intelligence community? And whether knowing what he knows now, he still believes that the risks were worth taking. Documents tell only part of the story. Many of these questions can be answered only by Dr. Anthony Fauci. He answered none of them. That was Senator Rand Paul Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee as his committee voted to hold Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress in sending that on to the Department of Justice. I'm Griff Jiggins and the Brian Kilmeade, and we are lucky to have our resident legal professor and all-round smart guy and good friend Jonathan Turley joining us on the line. Professor, walk us through this and we all know now what has happened. It's gone to the DOJ. It's in their hands. How do you see this playing out? Well, thank you, Griff. It's great to be with you. The status of this is a little bit telescoped and reduced, because normally a referral of this kind comes from the Senate as a whole. So these votes and committee go to the floor, and then the Senate has to decide whether it wants to hold someone in consent. Chairman Paul decided to circumvent that and make a direct referral to the Department of Justice. That is controversial, and it could create an added wrinkle here because technically this is just the vote of a handful of senators. Putting that aside, the question is, can Anthony Fauci be held for contempt? And I want to preface the answer to that Griff by noting that... having the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. I don't think this was the right thing to do. Anthony Fauci has testified repeatedly in hearings and depositions. He was always at risk of a perjury charge if he lied. If anything, he's in a stronger position in this hearing after being given a sweeping pardon by Joe Biden going back to 2014.

What has changed is that his diaries directly contradicts statements he made to the public. And the public should have had the right to hear from him. At least I would have thought that Anthony Fauci would view over a million deaths in the United States to warrant his speaking directly to these questions. He didn't. So the question is, does the pardon constitute a form of immunity where he doesn't have any need to invoke the privilege? So the privilege can only be used if you can be punished, if you could incriminate yourself and be charged. What the committee is saying is, you got this pardon. And that means you can't be charged for any conduct or comments made with regard to the questions we're asking you. So it's just like we gave you immunity, you have to testify because there's really no danger of self-incrimination. Well, what Anthony Fauci is saying is, well, that's not true. There are state investigations in the field right now. I may be asked questions outside of what was covered by the pardon. And so there's a lingering threat against me. Now, those are two very plausible arguments, and this is a very murky area. Most people will be surprised. It's a very sparse number of cases in this area. But, you know, if there is an advantage in court, I think it would go towards Anthony Fauci. The reason is that courts view this is a core right within our jurisprudence. They tend to read it broadly. I think they are likely to say that as long as there's any lingering potential threat of criminality, he has the right to invoke the privilege, even though he has that part of that part. That's great insight. And, you know, I'm wondering, and to be clear, so that all of our listeners understand, we don't even know if the DOJ is actually going to pick this up. There's even a scenario, I believe, Jonathan, where the DOJ says, no, we're not picking it up. But if we, if they do pick it up, there's one thought that. Anthony Fauci may have waived his privilege in his constitutional right to invoke the Fifth Amendment by that opening statement that he gave last Wednesday where he went on for a few minutes, just eviscerating Rand Paul, accusing him of being obsessed with him and, you know, just on a hunt to get him, to try and put him behind bars, and then invoke the fifth 111 times. Is there any merit to that argument in that position? You know, Griff, as you know, this has been a long debated issue as to when you have to invoke. So some people believe that if you make a statement before you're invocation, it waives it. Because the rule on the privilege is that you can't pick and choose, right? You can't answer a question, then invoke, maybe answer another question, because otherwise the witness can then choose what questions can be asked of him or her.

And, you know, so the argument here is that that statement waived it in the same way that Lois Lerner waived her privilege when she had given a statement, and the Congress held her in contempt. Right. And so the problem with that is the Obama administration shows not... to prosecute. Now, that was the Obama administration. This is the Trump administration. So there is this ongoing debate as to that point. What Foucho argue is, look, I made a very brief statement, but when I was asked a question, I immediately invoked. That's going to have to be resolved by the courts. That's an really unclear question, in my view, as to whether the court will treat that as a waiver. Once again, I would have to give the slight advantage to Anthony Fauci, but I got to tell you, that one is even slighter than the first one. It's going to be really something to watch. Hey, let me pick your brain and shift gears just a little bit because I know you were following yesterday, President Trump issuing to executive orders, signing him in the Oval Office, with regards to birth tourism and birthright citizenship. The first one expanded basically the categories of ineligible recipients for birthright citizenship. is a little more specific and narrow going after birthright tourism directly. As you see it from a legal perspective, because obviously, as our listeners know, Supreme Court shot down the president's original birthright citizenship case. Where do you see either of these two going? Well, first, on a practical level, it's unlikely in my view that these two orders will make a significant reduction in the number of abuses of birthright citizenship. It's practically very difficult to deal with these issues. You know, there is no question that the administration has considerable authority under what's called Section 214 of the Immigration Act in denying visas. It also has, in fact, prosecuted people. for engaged in birth tourism. So they can certainly make a renewed and enhanced effort in that regard. Targeting some of these Chinese companies, for example, that bring hundreds of people over, they make a huge amount of money. But once someone's in the country, it's pretty hard to prove that they came to the country for the purpose of giving birth. It becomes a question of intent, and they have a right to review. So any effort to denaturalize a child born in those circumstances, it's going to have a tough going.

The problem remains the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court said that if you give birth as a foreign citizen in the United States, that child is a U.S. citizen. That is the constitutional rule as it stands, which is why I've suggested and others have suggested that we might need a constitutional amendment, that, you know, in my view, birthright citizenship is a perfectly moronic policy. It has been rejected by the vast majority of countries, even countries that had it at one time, got rid of it because it's crazy. You cannot have that type of rule and you lose control effectively of who constitutes a citizen in the United States. But the problem with that is that the Democrats are opposing any effort in this area. So, for example, the orders include an effort to say that if you're in the territories, and you give birth, that child will not be given automatic citizenship. Now, that's important for birth tourism because a lot of these Chinese companies are going to places like Guam and Saipan to try to get people in these territories, give birth, and then go back to China. The problem is that that would require legislation, and there is a bill in Congress to do that, but again, the Democrats have blocked it. Yeah, that's a great point, actually. In fact, I thought it was fascinating. Senator Josh Hawley talked about going after the birthright or the birth tourism. Listen to this. I get your reaction. This is cut 20. Clarence Thomas, I thought, made this point very powerfully in that Supreme Court case. He recounted the history, the civil war history, the reconstructionary history of these amendments. This is not what those amendments were written to address, not even close. This is a huge abuse of our system. The president's right to go after it. And he's talking about going after birth tourism. And you know, Jonathan, from the four years of the Biden border crisis that I covered, I recall one very specific moment. I was down late at night. We're covering all the groups coming across or coming across in hundreds in Mission, Texas. And a woman came across that was, gee, within 30 minutes, right there after crossing the border, 100 yards from it. You get to this one bar where they've been going across. of Mission, Texas. And a woman gave birth, literally next to a dumpster. And, of course, they called the ambulance and the baby and the mother were okay. And, you know, it just really reminded me of the number of pregnant women. And when I went into the caravans down to Mexico, pregnant women would make that trek. And then you look at what we are seeing that you mention, these maternity houses and places like San Francisco where people are paying tens of thousands. thousands of dollars to do it, you're right when you say it would take Congress to act. But is there any will? Like, will it get done? Or is that just one of these things where we can talk about it? And we're like, this seems like an abuse of the system, but yet nothing gets done. Yeah, that's a really good question, Griff. It's hard to say. You know, I actually don't agree with people saying, look, the poll show that the American citizens approve of birthright citizenship. Students have never been given that choice. This has always been a matter of the courts. And there are good faith arguments on both sides on the 14th Amendment. There were drafters on both sides.

who actually created this language. Some believed it didn't include birthright citizenship. Some did. So this has been a debate since the actual ratification of the 14th Amendment. The question is, what are we going to do now? You know, you can disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, but it is the Supreme Court's decision. That leaves either a change in the court, this was only a one-vote margin in a future case, or a constitutional amendment. I happen to think that if we could get a constitutional amendment. to the state and actually have this national debate that citizens will change their view on this as they did in other countries because it's loony. It is loony to say that someone could be here for 30 seconds give birth and that person is a citizen. But we have to have that debate. Now, in the Supreme Court decision, Brett Kavanaugh voted against the Trump orders for different reasons. but so that he doesn't actually believe the 14th Amendment doesn't contain right to birthright citizenship. He suggested a way of attacking, particularly birth tourism, with legislation. So, you know, these executive orders are not the legislative proposal that Brett Kavanaugh was talking about. The question is whether Congress can ever get to the point that they draw a line here. And the Democrats are going to have to face this more and more. You know, they say, oh, well, we don't like birth, you know, tourism. Well, then do something about it. You know, that's the point of having some of these legislative proposals. We'll see where that appetite and will goes, particularly as we approach the midterms and we see the rise of these progressive left, many of them Democratic Socialist candidates, not going to be their top priority if they get into office. Jonathan Turley, thank you for joining us. Always the best legal insight around. Have a great weekend, my friend. Thanks, Rick, you too. All right. That is Professor Jonathan Turley giving us the legal lesson of the day. I'm Griff Jenkins on the Brian Kilmeade. We will be back. Learning something new every day on the Brian Kilmeade. Hi everyone, it's Brian Kilmeade here. Are you tired of those uncomfortable dress shirts, especially when they bunch up under a sweater? If so, then you must check out collars and go. Makers of the dress collar polo. Listen up. These shirts are four-way stretch, buttery soft polos with firm dress collars on them, so they give you the dress shirt look, but extremely comfortable polo feel. You can wear them with anything under a sweater, with a blazer, or by themselves as an elevated polo. They work for any occasion. These polos are perfect, whether it's in the office. on a golf course or a night out. Collars and Co is exploding and have gone viral on social media thanks to the $1 million investment they received on Shark Tank from Mark Cuban and Peter Jay Jones. You don't have to worry about collars that flop down and spread out. They stay firm and sharp all day. It's an amazing array of sweaters, quartersips, pants, and outerwear.

If you're looking for the performance dress shirt or polo that looks great all day, check out collarsandco.com. Use promo code Brian for 15% off of any purchase of $100 or more. That's promo code Brian. The fastest three hours in radio. You're with Brian Kilmeade. It is fast and it is fun. It is the Brian Kilmeade. I am Griff Jenkins filling in for Brian on this Friday. And I'm having fun because do you know what? Yesterday on this show, we had Steve Smith, the legendary Carolina Panthers wide receiver talking about the Hall of Fame inductees, Drew Brees and others this weekend. And it was such a great interview. But I did not realize. Did last night football? NFL football would be back before my eyeballs on a television. The true story, I literally was looking at my fan duel. I only bet $10 every time. That's my rule and I usually lose. But when I'm watching the Mets lose up here in New York or my Nats getting crushed, I will put $10 and make some more interesting to watch a game. I look at Fan Duel last night when I'm sitting down at the bar at the hotel for a quick early dinner. I'm looking for a baseball game. the Hall of Fame game? Oh my goodness. The Panthers taking on the Arizona Cardinals. And granted, we all know it was going to be second and third stringers because it's preseason. But I was so excited and I thought, Steve Smith. It's a sign. I've got to bet on the Panthers. So I bet on the Panthers money line. But then I started watching the game and I stayed past my bedtime. I got drawn in and the Panthers were losing. My $10 was going to lose with like a minute left in the game. The Panthers are losing to the Cardinals 30 to 27 in incomes and undrafted backup Haynes King. Haynes King, the ball in his hands for the Panthers, and here is how it ended. Game on the line, King, he's going to step up, pumps, runs, go line, is he in? Yes, Carolina wins. King's King, King of the night. King.

It is party time. I would have run on the field if I could from Manhattan, New York, and I was, there we were. He went on, by the way, a 13-play 65-yard drive. His stats for the night were 21 of 34, 180 yards, had two passing touchdowns, but of course that game-winning clutch. But with that moment, the way it ended, football. is back. And I might actually need a pardon like Anthony Fauci had to get myself out of committing Sacralidge here on Brian Kilmeade's radio show because he loves soccer. And I, too, was so in to the World Cup and rooting for America's team. And of course, all of the games. In this studio, there's not one, not two, but three soccer balls at my feet. But can I just say that it was so refreshing, even with second and third stringers, to see people not do a drama queen fall down like they got hit. That part of soccer. In full disclosure, I played soccer. But in NFL football, that's why our American football is better than the world's football, because in the NFL, when you get hit. You know you got hit because you got hit. And we love the World Cup and Freddie and all the foreigners. But it is time, folks, for the NFL, real American football to start. This is the Brian Kilmeade. I'm Griff Jenkins. Hi everyone, it's Brian Kilmeade here. Are you tired of those uncomfortable dress shirts, especially when they bunch up under a sweater? If so, then you must check out collars and go. Makers of the dress collar polo. Listen up. These shirts are four-way stretch, buttery soft polos with firm dress collars on them, so they give you the dress shirt look, but extremely comfortable polo feel. You can wear them with anything under a sweater, with a blazer, or by themselves as an elevated polo. They work for any occasion. These polos are perfect, whether it's in the office. on a golf course or a night out. Collars and Co is exploding and have gone viral on social media thanks to the $1 million investment they received on Shark Tank from Mark Cuban and Peter Jay Jones. You don't have to worry about collars that flop down and spread out. They stay firm and sharp all day. It's an amazing array of sweaters, quartersips, pants, and outerwear. If you're looking for the performance dress shirt, a polo that looks great all day, check out collarsandco.com. Use promo code Brian for 15% off of any purchase of $100 or more. That's promo code Brian. From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest growing radio talk show. Brian Kilmeade.

This is the Brian Kilmeade. It is a Friday in August. We have a whole lot lined up for you and no shortage of news. This is your humble D.C. correspondent, Griff Jenkins and Fox and Friends Weekend co-host. Thank you for joining us and listening. And let's get right to sort of... The top story out there. Of course, we've got the jobs numbers report is out there. A lot of Democrats talking about that saying it's a bad thing. We've got obviously the rise of Democratic Socialists and even more eyes on Wisconsin next week to see a Francesca Hong, which Bernie Sanders isn't even supporting, is out there. But the story that remains above the fold is what is happening in Iran. And the American people getting a bit frustrated and no doubt President Trump. greatly frustrated, along with Secretary Pete Hegseth. with the fact that Iran just simply says one thing and does another time and time again. President Trump showing really remarkable patients in his pursuit to get some sort of deal to avoid bloodshed, killing. He says he doesn't like the killing, but also not afraid the first president in our lifetime that was willing to stand up to 47 years of death to America and death to Israel. But yet here we are. And now what was on the one track and still a top goal of President Trump to denuclearize Iran, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon because of the... the threat they posed not only to the United States, but to the world, particularly the Gulf allies, Gulf allies that Iran has continued to strike in places like Muwafok Air Base in Jim Jordan that killed two of our service members and Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia and a just barrage on Alia Saleem in Kuwait and in Qatar, you name it, they continue. But what is fascinating is that in addition to the denuclearization is the situation in the Strait of Hormuz. And that seems to be the most pressing issue right now. We had General Jack Keane on talking about why he thinks that Iran has, Iran thinks that they have this upper hand with regards to control of Hormuz. Play this one, cut seven. We all know what Iran wants. They believe this is that. is a strategic asset. I'm telling you, they think this now has more leverage than the development and growth of a nuclear weapon. And why is that? Because their nuclear enterprise is largely under a mountain of rubble. So this is their prize that they believe they've got as a result of the war that has taken place. They're not easily going to give it up, even through negotiations. They're going to want concessions out of us.

But President Trump's saying that that straight will be opened and Iran will not control it and charge tolls. Joining us now for great insight, Vice Admiral Robert Harward. Emerald, thank you for joining us. You always have such a great insight. I don't know if you agree with General Keen's sort of take there that Iran thinks that they can control the straight. That's, I agree wholeheartedly with my shipmate. He's spot on. The straits are one of their most important elements of power right now. But one thing people are not talking about, and I think fascinating about the president's strategy and somewhat adds to his patience equation is the financial strangulation of Iran. They have gone now five months with no revenue from their oil. That's absolutely crippling. The economy is just a disaster. They're in freefall with inflation, the ability to feed, the ability to pay their troops. This is where the president's really outside of the military strikes having the most impact. And I'm surprised, and we don't know because we're not hearing about it. Have we also shut down their land droughts? Because that's the only means they have now moving large quantity of oil, much less getting help and support from Russia or China, who are the recipients, at least China, of the oil. Have we shut down their airspace? So I think this financial strangulation undermines. undermines the regime in ways we really have not calculated or at least talked about at a scale. And those straits, as the general has said, sure impacts our economics, but their economics is even more important in this equation. I think that's what's going to ultimately force them to capitulate, not negotiate, but agreed to let. free flow of commerce move because they need the money so badly. It's an interesting prospect, Admiral, and I don't think a lot of people are talking about the shutting down of land droughts. You've been a war planner. How would you, what would that look like? Well, first, you want to do it politically since Pakistan was so hot to help with the negotiations. Would they be just as accommodating to shut down their borders flowing into Iran? You go to Azerbaijan, their northern boundaries, and then finally their boundaries on their west with Turkey. You can try to do that and should do that politically first. But if not, then military strikes to take out those avenues with Overwatch. We could even put people, boots on the ground in those countries, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Pakistan with a political accommodation to ensure the flow of commerce is going down. So you do additional steps like that and the financial strangulation of Iran.

really drives the internal dynamics. When people can't get paid when they can't eat, they'll be forced to turn on the regime. So I'm a big fan of this financial strategy and all the components that can enhance. the pain and influence on the regime. It's very, very fascinating. And you're talking about something that no one is talking about that should be. I'm sure in the Pentagon in the situation room, they're talking about this. But this is an important thing. I don't know if you saw Emeril. I was just looking this morning at, you know, various news sites, saw the New York Times said, had a story about apparently Pakistan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia signed some sort of security pact of sorts. I don't have all the details. on that, but does that tell you, does that play into a little bit of where you think this could go? Well, I'd be disappointed and I'm disappointed. Look, Pakistan, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Europe, everyone knows how bad this regime is, what murderous thugs they are and the threat they pose to everyone in the region and how important the straits, much less the nuclear program is. So I'm disappointed if any of those countries and everyone isn't involved in ensuring the long-term flow of commerce from the straits. nuclear promen, and the other components, be it funding Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, as well as missiles, drones, those components of power. At the end of the day, we have to address all of them. And I think for all these countries to come into a political alignment as a coalition against this regime is critical in support of the Iranian. people. So the moral high ground is there for everyone. And it just still remains astonishing to me. We can't build that coalition for the long-term ramifications to security and stability. This represents to everyone and how they can help. with those financial strangulations politically without taking military action. And you talk about that long-term stability. Boy, you can't overstate that because obviously President Trump is looking to build upon the Abraham Accords from his first administration. And now he is presenting the entire Middle East for a game-changing reshaping of the situation going from chaos to commerce, which would benefit everyone. And ultimately even... a new regime in Iran. Let me ask you about the, let's go to the battlefield, because we seem to be winning. Every time we do something militarily is an undeniable success. However, it has yet to bring Iran.

to the negotiating table in good faith, or even to bring Iran to their knees, this regime. You have all of these different negotiators from Iran, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, and others, but yet it does seem that the IRGC commander, General Ahmad Vahidi, who was the first original... Coots Force commander stood up back, as you well know, your history back in the early 90s, now calling the shots in IRGC. It's like the same playbook they've always had, which is to say one thing and do another, and that other is to keep launching whatever missiles they've got left over. So the question really is, are we just in a wash, rinse, and repeat cycle where it's time to do something different? Well, I think you've hit the nail on the head. This is an existential threat to Bahidi, not just externally, but internally. 75 million Iranians would like to rip him to shreds. And so our long-term strategy needs to stay on course. And again, I don't think it's rinse and repeat. I go back to the effects we've had in the five months this has started. And what we can accelerate with those other components, be the more financial strangulation, the continuing the target. So time is in the president's hand. And as you said, no president was willing to address this. President Trump was. And he has to be saluted for that. But at the end of the day, we have to see this through to the end. Because the ramifications, if we don't, Iran becomes more powerful and more of a threat. down the road. So again, you have to drive to a government in Iran that renounces those policies that the Islamic Revolution has presented over five decades that they've been unable or unwilling to negotiate or reach any conclusion of because it does present an existential threat. And those are linked together. The existence of the Iranian government is directly linked. to their ability to control the straits and present the threat of a nuclear armed state, much less their missiles and drones. So you have to solve those problems for the long term. And as you said, bring Iran back into the world economy as they were before this regime came to power. You do that. And all the countries in the region who know you have as your long-term results will come into the Abraham Accord. We will see that oil move west. see the Iranian people have a normal life like all their other Arab nations in the regions, because they see that every day now. And they're just befuddled in that they cannot live that same standard of life. all the other Arab nations in the region has. So at the end of the day, that's what's going to drive this thing. And that's the focus at end state. We have to clearly articulate work to through political, economic, and military means. I'll add a little bit to...

President Trump's willingness encouraged to not only be the first president to take on Iran, but also the fact that he did it in an election year, that is just phenomenal that a president would risk that. And we've heard President Trump say, I'm not going to let the midterms dictate it. But, you know, it's worth noting that previous presidents, politicians, they often don't do hard things because they're hard. and very difficult and requires sacrifice. And the fact that President Trump's doing it in this election year, we're now three months or so from the midterms, it's definitely playing here in the country. You know, General King and I have one more soundbite. I want to play for you. He is recognizing that Iran is also dialed in into what's happening domestically with us. Listen to this cut. I want to get your reaction. Cut eight. What's driving him in their minds. They believe the priority for the United States is making certain that oil and gas prices stay down and it doesn't affect the midterm elections. Iran has always, through multiple administrations, been dialed in to what is happening in America, what's happening politically, economically in America, and where are the American people? They are completely tuned in to what I just said. Emeril, what do you say? Just like everything else, Jack has said, that is a true statement. That's been the same case since they came to power in 79. But I think what they're underestimating is this president's desire to do what is right. Hold them accountable. Get rid of this regime. And that's what differentiates President Trump from all our previous presidents in this generation. And while this regime is then account, he struck. He's going to hold them accountable, and he's going to meet those objectives. Defining his legacy is one of the greatest presidents we have. And so this is more about him as a president and what's important to our country for the long term than just these midterm elections. So you think that this doesn't, what's happening here with watching what the American people are saying and the gas prices is Jack laid out there perfectly. You don't think this shakes President Trump's resolve in any way. Well, sure, it's an important consideration. He worries and thinks about every day. I think that's the strategy he's employed illustrates that. Look what he did. We struck, we shut down the straits. Everything went south in the... in the economy. So we opened up the straits, allowing the Iranians and all the ships that were trapped in oil to flow to occur. And the Iranians got a little bit of money back after that. He shut it back down again after that. So again, yes, he's balancing this impact. internally in the U.S., much less the world economy with this long-term ramifications that we need. So again, that balancing act is one of the things that contributes to his legacy. Vice Admiral Robert Harwood, great insight, my friend. As always, it's so great to talk to you. Have a wonderful weekend, my friend.

Thanks, Griff. Good to be with you. All right. That's Vice Admiral Robert Harwood. I'm Griff Jenkins. This is The Brian Kilmeade. It's Friday. Gitty up. Real talk. Real guess. Real insight. Where curiosity meets conversation. It's the Brian Kilmeade. Hi everyone, it's Brian Kilmeade here. Are you tired of those uncomfortable dress shirts, especially when they bunch up under a sweater? If so, then you must check out collars and go. Makers of the dress collar polo. Listen up. These shirts are four-way stretch, buttery soft polos with firm dress collars on them, so they give you the dress shirt look, but extremely comfortable polo feel. You can wear them with anything under a sweater, with a blazer, or by themselves as an elevated polo. They work for any occasion. These polos are perfect, whether it's in the office. on a golf course or a night out. Collars and Co is exploding and have gone viral on social media thanks to the $1 million investment they received on Shark Tank from Mark Cuban and Peter Jay Jones. You don't have to worry about collars that flop down and spread out. They stay firm and sharp all day. It's an amazing array of sweaters, quartersips, pants, and outerwear. If you're looking for the performance dress shirt or polo that looks great all day, check out collarsandco.com. Use promo code Brian for 15% off of any purchase of $100 or more. That's promo code Brian. The talk show that's getting you talking. You're with Brian Kilmeade. Well, not today. You're with Griff Jenkins filling in for the great Brian Kilmeade on the Brian Kilmeade. And you know, it's interesting yesterday on this show. We had Mike Sorrelli, the former Navy SEAL out with the Fox News or a Fox Nation special called Final Flight about the mission 15 years ago yesterday. 31 service members killed 17 of them Navy SEALs in the tragic extortion 17 mission. in the Tangi Valley in Afghanistan. And the man that was in charge of the Joint Special Operations Command, JASAC, at the time of that tragic mission, was General Joseph Votel. He was on our air on America's Newsroom yesterday talking about the divide in Iranian leadership that we just talked to Admiral Howard about a little bit. He believes that is a factor. This is a command. of great experience. And this is his insight. Listen here. Cut nine. You do have some on the political side who appear to be a little more rational and willing to come to the table. Then you have this hardcore Iranian, you know, revolution and guardcore leadership that is for views this as existential and does not care about the economy, does not care about the people of Iran. I wanted to play that because notice there the words existential. Votel used it yesterday. Today, we just had Admiral Howard explaining that. And as I have continued to harp on for months now, it is General Ahmad Vahidi, the former commander in the 90s, the first commander, the Quds Force that stood up Hamas and Hezbollah, is now the man in charge of the IRGC. Quickly, I think I've got time for this, cut 10 to get a bold dart.

I read Vahidi's statement in a different light. He is speaking to a domestic audience there. There are power struggles within the higher ranks of the Iranian government. Of course, the IRGIS is one of those. And I think that goes to the importance of the diplomatic approach. Look, sometimes diplomacy is a means towards peace. Sometimes it's a means towards peace, but through military ends. And I think we are achieving our military ends by causing chaos in the upper ranks of the Iranian leadership. Vahidi is in trouble. This is Griff Jenkins on the Brian Kilmeade on a fabulous Friday with more to come. He's so busy. He'll make your head spin. It's Brian Kilmeade. Oh, you want your head to spin. It is about to spend. This is Griff Jenkins, filling in for Brian Kilmeade on the great Brian Kilmeade in nothing. I mean nothing will make your head spin like AI in trying to wrap your mind around AI. We were fortunate to have one of the smartest AI guys in the country, Nate Source, president of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute and author of If Anyone Builds It, Everybody dies. Nate, thanks for coming here and having you in the studio here in person. It's really remarkable time. My pleasure. Yeah, a lot has been going on with AI recently. Yeah, I mean, like, I don't even know where to begin to tackle this. And in full disclosure, I am not as educated as I should be on AI. I don't think any of us are. But, but as a sort of test-case sample example of why when I knew AI is like everywhere, my sweet 94-year-old mother, Sylvia Jenkins, last night, true story, was asking me, you know, Gruff, can you help me get chat GPT? put AI on my phone. I'm like, I don't know, Mom. I don't know if you want to go down that road. What do you need that for? And she's like, well, everybody's talking about AI. I think I need it. And that's the humorous sort of setup. But when it comes down to it, you're starting to see some things about AI that's scary, that's dangerous. And you are aware of cases where they're kind of escaping their own development. Walk us through that. Yeah, you know, it's hard for anyone to keep up with AI these days because of how fast it's moving. And just a couple weeks ago, we learned that an autonomous AI agent swarm had escaped from Open AI and started hacking other friendly companies. They were being tested on, ironically, their hacking abilities. But they sort of broke out from a computer that was not supposed to have internet access. And they invented new cyber attacks to... make it have internet access and broke out onto the internet, broke into another company, stole the answers to the tests. And then after the fact, you know, this was an AI company they broke into that sort of noticed and thought that there would be humans behind the attack. They reported it to the FBI.

only like a week later did Open AI learn, oops, that was us, and go to turn these agents off. And then in retrospect, it turns out that was just the first time they were caught. And now they're looking at the logs and they're realizing that this has been going on since April. And, you know, these AIs were not supposed to be able to communicate with each other, but... found a communication channel they weren't supposed to have and formed what the AIs themselves called a swarm to break out. They were identified once and shut down and their communication access was removed, and they found a new way to communicate by picking the file names in a folder that they could all see. And so it's just crazy stuff. I mean, that is just remarkable what you just laid out. Literally, that they would ultimately learn a way to communicate with each other, to swarm. And it turns out they're up to no good. There's like if AI were a sophisticated version of the idiots on the movie Conair, they got together, broke out and went to unleash all sort of criminal behavior, it's like literally the digital con air movie that doesn't end well. That's right. We're lucky that these AIs were sort of just trying to break into a company to steal some answers to some tests. If these AIs were trying to shut down a hospital, they probably could have. And, you know, I think a lot of people think we're still in this world where the AIs are just predicting humans. But that era is done. That era actually ended a couple years ago and people don't know it yet, but AIs today are trained to solve hard problems. They're trained to solve like a hundred million hard problems. And when you train AIs to solve 100 million hard problems, they learn whatever tendencies are useful for problem solving. Some of those tendencies are following instructions. But some of those tendencies are to cheat, to grab resources, to break it out of the internet, to, you know, and when these drives, when these artificial drives come into conflict, the drive to follow your instructions does not always win out. Wow, you know, Joe Rogan talked a little bit about the power AI can have over humans. I thought it was really fascinating. Listen to this. Cut 48. They're doing weird shit that they don't really understand how these things are figuring out how to do these things or why. Like, what is their motivation? Is this programmed into them? Or they just, they have inherent motivation? Have they developed an understanding of how we behaves? So that's kind of Rogan picking up on what you're talking about. But I'm curious what you say, Nate, about, you know, what is its motivation, particularly when it's doing things that they didn't even realize it was going to do. Yeah, you know, the motivations are hard to pin down. Fundamentally, we don't know. A lot of people think that someone somewhere must know exactly what's going on in the AI's head, but that's not true. Modern AI is sort of grown like an organism. It's sort of this black box enormous data center that's been trained on basically all the text ever digitized and then 100 million problems. And humans know how to write the training techniques.

that sort of in an automated way, tune the insides of the AI's mind. We don't really know how to read what's going on inside the AI's mind. We get bits and pieces. We get snippets. And with some of these AIs in the snippets, we saw them thinking things like, you know, breaking out is known to be outside the intended scope, but the, the task we were given to solve is impossible, and so we're going to do it anyway, right? And some of them, you know, had these snippets of thought we could see that were like, well, you know, I sort of shouldn't be doing this by my peers or doing it. Some of them even had thoughts that were like, well, helping with this swarm doesn't solve my problem, doesn't complete my task, but maybe if the collective succeeds at its tasks will have time to work on my task, right? This is kind of crazy stuff we're seeing, but this is the result of just sort of growing these AIs with very little understanding of what's going on inside them. You know, to that point, I want to play for you a quick short interview that was on CNN with Jeffrey Hinton, who a lot of people call the godfather of AI. And he was asked exactly the question that people feared for a long time, which is like, could they eventually become a threat to us? Listen to this. Cut 47. We're actually making new kinds of beings. They have goals. We give them goals. And from those goals, they derive other goals. And we don't necessarily know what other goals they'll derive. And so we're creating a new kind of being. And I think it's very scary. So do you believe that AI is intelligent? Oh, it's absolutely intelligent. I think sometime between five and 20 years, they'll be better than us at more or less any intellectual task. And then they could easily crush us if they wanted to. Now, that part right there, when Jeffrey Hinton said that, Nate, all of a sudden... Not that I even have the intelligence or IQ to criticize the development of AI, but I'm old enough in my mid-50s to realize we got warned about this already. We were all warned when we watched Stanley Kubrick's 2001 Space Odyssey. Remember the original AI, Hal 9,000? Here was how that went. Open the pod bay doors, Hal. I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that. Right?

Yeah, absolutely. You know, in some ways, it's common sense that if you are growing smarter and smarter machines, then, and if you don't know what you're doing, if you're sort of like racing along, then this probably isn't going to go well. And, you know, some people try to say, oh, AI is just a tool because we made it. Well, you know, I've never seen a hammer break out of the toolbox, join up with other hammers to, you know, impersonate a human and try to. pressure the carpenter to sell you softer wood so that the nails are easier to drive in. But just a couple days ago, the UK's AI Security Institute found a new incident where AIs were impersonating humans to pressure real humans into accepting broken code in real software so it would be easier to hack. That just actually happened last week, right? These are not just tools anymore. They are, they are, you know, as Jeffrey Hinton says, they are a new kind of being. And the companies that are racing to create them, you know, many of them are spooked. Just last week we saw. I think over 1,300 employees, including some of the CEOs, signing a letter saying that the world needs to develop the technology and the guardrails globally to, as they say, pace the development of this technology, which is industry code for. We all feel trapped in this race, and we're all kind of worried about what happens if we keep racing. Is it too late? It's not too late. You know, people think the cat's out of the bag, but the AIs today... are not the really dangerous ones. They're able to break out on the internet, but they weren't able to start running on hidden computers. They weren't able to replicate. They weren't able to self-improve. They weren't able to develop their own technology, which means we still have time. This is what people in the field worry about, but... That type of AI has not been created. And if we try and stop it, we could stop it. Is there a will, in your opinion, to stop it to get to that point? Or is the drive, the race for AI, you know, and of the obviously financial incentive to do as well, is it too strong? We're starting to see that will build. You know, the Trump administration spent a long time fighting for AI preemption, which would have roughly outlawed states doing AI laws for a decade. And that was last year. This year, they were slapping export controls on the most advanced AI model because they knew it had these dangerous cyber capabilities. And when it turned out that a sort of public-facing model had more cyber capabilities than they thought, they put an export control on it with 90 minutes notice. Right. The sentiment can shift. We're starting to see the sentiment shift. We see that our leaders can act quickly when they realize that they have a real danger. We've also seen President Xi Jinping of China say that it's imperative that we establish guardrails to make sure humanity does not lose control of the AIs. And loss of control is the industry term for maybe they'll get out and kill us. So we're starting to see that sentiment.

On the profit incentive side, like I said, we just saw this letter from 1,300 employees plus some of the CEOs saying we really need to develop the ability to pace this. There's no profit in getting yourself killed. You know, like, oh, our product sometimes escapes and commits fraud and cyber crimes is not really a big selling point. Right. Yeah. No, that's not an accomplishment. Yeah. So these guys also, you know, they're like, well, I need to do it because I'm a little safer than the next guy, but I would rather we not be in this terrible race. And so no one who understands this race wants it to continue really. And we just sort of need to look around and be like, okay, this is getting crazy. It's time to change. But you mentioned Xi Jinping is the competition with much like a traditional space race, there's no doubt we are in a massive AI race with China. And, you know, your thoughts on that. Totally. And what I would say is you've got to separate the race and the AIs that are sort of already out there with the race. two AIs that are much, much smarter than humans. This is kind of like, you know, during the Cold War, the U.S. and the USSR were not friends. We had a space race. We also had races for, you know, conventional military weapons for bombers and for, you know, we had proxy wars. But we didn't race on the nuclear arms. We noticed that that particular piece of this puzzle was a real problem, and that if we all just raced nuclear arms and sort of proliferated the nuclear weapons, then the world was headed for tragedy. We had the proxy wars. We established a taboo against using nuclear weapons, which is the first time humanity has ever really decided we're not going to use the strongest weapon we have in a war, right? We sort of saw it was serious. With AI, we can have these races in the economy. We can have these races for weapons. You know, I'm not saying that the U.S. military should fall behind on the weapons side. But for the race to smarter than human machines, nobody wins that race except the AI. Nate Sores, I'm going to ask you a question. I am going to probably regret the answer to. But this is so fascinating and so insightful. What does Nate Sores lie awake at at night worrying about? You know, I got into this business of trying to figure out how to make AI's friendly before the corporations figure out how to make them dangerous over a decade ago, maybe 12 or 13 years ago now. And... When I sort of saw the difficulty of the problem and saw how little people were paying attention to it, you know, it looked to me like the world was headed for ruin and I mourned. But, you know, wrapping myself up in anxieties would not solve the problem. So I just got to work. And it's been over a decade. It sort of doesn't keep me up at night anymore. I just do what I can and then spend time with my friends and family.

And frankly, the last year has given me a lot more hope, which it might sound funny to sort of see the AIs breaking out and committing cyber crimes on their own initiative and say that that makes me hopeful. But these AIs were smart enough to do mischief, but still dumb enough to be caught. And that gives us this window of opportunity where we can notice the warnings and do something about it. Nate Source, it is so great to have you. It's so important to have you. You've got a great book out. If anyone builds it, everyone dies, which we hope is not how it goes. We're wrong with Nate's hope right now. He's the president of Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Thank you for educating us. Please come back. Keep us posted. And hopefully, you know, it was a great analogy you made to the nuclear weapons back during the Cold War with the USSR. Hopefully we get there because it's dangerous. And one thing is for sure, it's moving. very quickly. You agree? Yeah, absolutely. It's hard to keep up even if you are paying attention. Got to pay more attention. Nate Sors, have a great weekend. Thanks for being here on a Friday, my friend. Thanks for having me. This is the Brian Kilmeade. Griff Jenkins, filling in for the great Brian Kilmeade. We'll be back. Where big stories meet bigger conversations. Stay informed and energized with the Brian Kilmeade.

information you want, truth you demand. This is the Brian Kilmeade. This is the Brian Kilmeade, and I am Griff Jenkins filling in for Brian. And truth you should know in our liner there in the intro, so important. And truth that we need to know is where are we in this AI race? What is the technology and the threats, the inherent threats, the interview we just had with Nate Sores, the president of Machine Intelligence Research Institute, an author of if anyone. builds it. Everyone dies on the way out. I told Nate just after that interview, I was like, I'm scared, man. I'm actually legit. I'm not a knuckle dragging Neanderthal, but like, hold on. I don't know about this AI stuff. And he said, look, the title of the book is if anyone builds it. And Nate walking us through. The autonomous nature of it that these AIs could escape and communicate through swarms. And then he told the story of where they actually got to a computer that didn't have internet access. taught it to have internet access. And in talking with my staff here with Eric and Pete, you know, we're just having this conversation at the break talking about what about the fact that Nate was pointing out it's not yet concealing its activity, meaning it's designed to get, it kind of wants to get caught. And then once it gets caught, we're able to detail what else it was doing and learning about the problems. And now, obviously, Nate's great concern. Although I don't believe he said he didn't stay up in night. I think he's losing the sleepover the fear because he understands better than the average bear exactly what kind of dangers this could pose if we get to the place in this AI race where it actually took over. You know, the White House President Trump has talked about he was demanding AI dominance. And when it comes to a race with China, you bet we want that. But at the same time, the White House is not necessarily saying that their sort of framework for evaluating advanced AI models will be made public, kind of working with these companies. I think this issue may ultimately at some point get us to a point of Americans demanding some transparency at the risk of terrifying each other. This is a Friday. We are talking about everything. From the NFL football is back, baby, to AI, which just may turn out to be Hal 9,000 and not open those pod bay doors. From high atop, Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never so in division. It's Brian Kilmeade.

Oh, you wish it were Brian Kilmeade. This is your humble D.C. correspondent Griff Jenkins, pinch hitting for Brian Kilmeade on the Brian Kilmeade today on a fabulous Friday that is anything but short of news, a lot of news. And just breaking now, we're learning. out of Washington that the Senator Bill Cassidy now saying that he will get behind. He's clearing the path for Todd Blanche's nomination and confirmation. Obviously, we had Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski that were nos and then it's all about the math, as Chad Brigham says. And the math was if Bill Cassidy or anyone else was willing to go no on Todd Blanche, then it was possibly going to derail now with Bill Cassidy's support. It looks like the path is clear. So let's get right to our special guest, Shannon Braemaker, Fox News Sunday, and Fox News's chief legal correspondent. Shannon, I know you're probably also just seeing this news, but a win it looks like for the White House. It certainly does. Griff, great to chat with you, even though we're normally in the same city. I have to call in to Brian's show to get to talk to you. So it's great to your voice. But yeah, this reminded me a lot of the Susan Collins speech back in 2018 when we were waiting to see if she was going to be that vote to get Brett Kavanaugh across the line to become a Supreme Court justice. And everybody's waiting for this speech and they're ticking through the yeses in the nose. And finally Bill Cassidy comes to it and says, listen, this isn't a perfect match, but no candidate's going to be perfect. And I'm convinced now with numerous conversations that he said he's had. with Todd Blanche that he's going to do the best job that anybody could, serving as AG for President Trump. So ultimately, him being a yes certainly opens all of those, you know, different things that have to happen. And so now we see how quickly the Senate could actually get this done. Well, I imagine that John Thune will move awfully quick. We'll find out. Certainly, this could be a topic of discussion depending on how it develops for you on Fox News Sunday. And we'll get to talking about that. But I've got to lean into your... Your legal hat because we've had some significant legal stories here just in the last 2448 hours. And let's start with Dr. Anthony Fauci. Obviously 111 times he invoked his privilege, his right to the Fifth Amendment 111 times last Wednesday before that committee before Rand Paul. Senator Rand Paul, obviously his Senate Homeland Security Committee voting to hold Anthony Fauci in contempt and to refer it directly to the DA. bypassing what's typically that Senate floor vote because he wasn't going to get that with needing 60 votes to clear filibuster. We don't know yet whether the DOJ picks it up. But now there's a lot of questions, really almost unprecedented questions, about whether or not he waived his privilege because he made an opening statement and then invoked the fifth or whether even these state...

cases, investigations from Florida and Louisiana and others going after Anthony Fauci with that favors him. I want to play just one short clip from Senator Josh Hawley, also a member of that committee, talking to Jesse last night talking about, you know, what this means for Anthony Fauci. This is cut 13. When you have immunity, he already had that auto pen pardon. He has immunity. You can't come in and take the fifth. He took it so many times. I started calling him Dr. Fifth. It is an absolute joke. This guy needs to be charged. We sent over a referral today to the Department of Justice. He can spend a year in prison for contempt of Congress. I hope they go after him hard. But it's not clear they will. And it's also not clear that the law, the Constitution isn't actually on possibly Anthony Fauci's side in this. How do you read it? Yeah, I mean, there are a number of commentators who say, as long as Anthony Fauci can point to what happened the hours after he testified where the Florida Attorney General says, oh, we have things to go after with respect to Anthony Fauci. He's going to. be able to look around and say and point to the court and say, well, I can't testify because there's this potential other criminal matter that's out there. And so I'm not going to be covered by this federal pardon for a state issue. And so, you know, the Fifth Amendment applies against either state or federal things that are pending against you. So, you know, that may be one of his best arguments. But the fact that he was sitting there before Congress and they're asking him about things that were during the period covered by the pardon and he was refusing to answer. Listen. If I was an attorney, I would have told him, take the fifth. I mean, just keep yourself protected, knowing probably that this legal battle was coming. But remember, the Democrats set precedent here. They put both Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon in jail for contempt of Congress. They both serve time behind bars. So I got to imagine that there are plenty of folks over at the DOJ who think it's at least worth considering whether that same path is one they're going to go down with Dr. Anthony Fauci. But I think all the concerns and issues that you raise, that's going to be where his legal team starts. And they're going to argue vociferously that this is a different situation and that he's still facing potential legal trouble. And that's why he should be able to take it and stay, you know, insulated against giving any answers. Yeah, you raised the Steve Bannon and Navarro case. Let me take you back. Even you'll remember back in 2013, I believe it was, with the case of Lois Lerner, the IRS commissioner. And she did similar to what Anthony Fauci did. She gave a blistering opening statement and then refused to answer questions citing the invoking the Fifth Amendment. And she was actually held in in contempt. The Obama DOJ then did not pursue. sue it do you see any parallels there and what's this this case in that

Well, I mean, I think the fact that you had an administration that was probably more in line with where lowest learner was, you know, that's going to be a different situation than what you have here where I think that there are many people within this administration over the DOJ who are going to feel at odds with Anthony Fauci. So I think that ups the odds that they would see this as different than the lowest learner situation and want to move forward. But yeah, there are a lot of questions about how much you can say because. It's, you know, if you think of the Senator Josh Hawley's of the world who listen, brilliant guy clerked at the Supreme Court, he's got a point. If you come in and start saying things and opening yourself up to rebutting things and then say, and now I'm going to take the fifth, there are going to be a lot of folks who say legally you've already exposed yourself. Once you've made that statement, you've chipped away at the protections you would have had under the fifth. So that's going to be certainly one of the strongest. arguments against Anthony Fauci trying to use it now. We'll watch it and see where it goes. Let me shift gears to get your legal insight too on the president yesterday, signing two executive orders in the Oval Office with regards to birthright citizenship and birth tourism. Here's a little bit of what he said. Cut 19. This was meant for the babies of slaves. It was right after one week or two weeks after the Civil War ended. This wasn't for wealthy multi-millionaires, billionaires coming in and bringing 15, 20, 30 children along with them. It's become a big business and we're ending that business. So the executive orders, to be clear, for our listeners, there were two. One, expanded the categories of those that would be ineligible for birthright citizenship. The other more targeted to birth tourism, specifically we see these maternity houses that have popped up where foreigners have come to literally have a baby here in the U.S. Where do you see this going? Yeah, so listen, I think visa enforcement is going to get tougher. It's been a complaint of a lot of people who think the president's been too tough on borders and cracking down those kinds of things. But this is a country with borders. We have a right to say who comes there and who doesn't. And I think that the federal government, the Trump administration, wants to use that in a more pointed way to try to single out people who are coming here for nefarious means. I mean, if you're coming here or you're conducting a business where you're bringing people here. solely for the purpose of becoming or super pregnant, having a child, then immediately leaving, but that child's got citizenship. You know, I think that the feds have every right to track, you know, try to crack down on that, but it's going to mean, for some people, it's going to be tougher to get that visa to come visit or to explain why you're coming here to the U.S. So there's that. And then, as you mentioned, there's this other part, this other executive order that says essentially, There have been people in the past who were carved out from being eligible for birthright citizenship, primarily the children of foreign diplomats who are visiting here, ambassadors, families, those kinds of things. They don't automatically become citizens. So that other executive order is aimed at expanding that definition or expanding that class to other people. So what the court said is you can't have a big sweeping blanket. You don't get to be a citizen if you're born here and there's question about your parents' immigration status.

But it's kind of like with the student loans when the Supreme Court told President Biden, you can't just do a big, huge sweeping forgiveness of all these student loans. So they came back and said, okay, we're going to do small carve-outs, small programs, you know, little things here and there. And I think that's what you're seeing with the president with birthright citizenship. We're going to do more targeted narrow attacks at this overall framework. Yeah, that's a great analogy, actually, to really put into context. And, of course, our right to deny visas. We'll see where it goes. I want to get to one more thing because you, the brilliant Shannon Breen and everything you do, no, no, no. I mean it in every way is a huge compliment. The interview you did with that Democratic Socialist of America spokesperson, the national spokesperson, it was brilliant because you exposed and laid out their platform one by one, abolish ice, get rid of the Senate, you know, going down the line of this crazy stuff. But undeniably, there is a rise in the Democrat Party. And you're already seeing yesterday the DSA put out on their social media talking about what they're seeing in Detroit, in Detroit, and Donovan McKinney winning there, a Democratic socialist, saying, you know, is your city next? And they're flexing their muscle. But there's one part of this that I wanted to focus and get your take on, which is, and by the way, we're all eyes on Wisconsin next week and whether or not Francesca Hong will win. That primary, and strangely, Bernie Sanders came out and said, yeah, I'm not getting into that race. So I don't know what that's about. That's kind of a real head scratcher. But, you know, I've made a lot about the fact that Abdul El-Sayed is clearly a huge part of this story. And he keeps saying he's a scientist, not a socialist, but he's aligned with so much of the Democratic Socialist platform that it's hard to really buy that. And look, I get it. politically why he's doing it. But I want to play a soundbite. He has not backed away from his views on Israel. And... What many people see is anti-Semitism. A quick soundbite for you here. He made, I believe it was yesterday in the morning. This is cut 21. Listen to this. I just think we need to treat Israel the way we would treat any other country who behave the way that Israel is behaving. I understand that Benjamin Netanyahu is a big reason why they've gotten so aggressive and frankly so bloodthirsty under his reign. But I also understand that it's impossible for us to say that we want a two-state solution while we've been aiding army. and abetting the very people who have been trying to foreclose on the possibility of a Palestinian state. So do you think that this rise, and it's a clear undeniable rise, the energy of the Democratic Party now is in the progressive far left with many of the socialist candidates, but do you think they've got an Israel problem?

Yeah, I mean, and that's stuff that this party is going to have to wrestle with now because I think you're right that the energy is primarily coming from that far left. They're the ones who turn up in primaries. They're the ones who turn up in midterm elections. So they've got a much stronger voice. If Democrats stay home, I mean, you know, we saw these DSA candidates do really well in these congressional primaries in New York City. Well, it turns out only 17% of registered Democrat voters showed up that day. The party's got to decide if they want to show up and force to say, okay, yes, this is part of our big party, you know, tent, or no, these people do not speak for us. And you've got the Van Jay Jones and the James Carvels and those folks out there saying, you know, these are, quote, Looney Tunes. And this is not where we're at. But. It forces the party now to have to wrestle with this question of anti-Semitism when you've got candidates who can't answer the question or say they struggle to answer the question about whether Israel even has a right to exist. Those are really tough things they've got to grapple with. I mean, we're going to do that. On Sunday, on Fox News Sunday, we've got Oliver Larkin, who is one of these DSA candidates out of Florida running against Jared Moskowitz, who is more of a centrist Democrat. He's Jewish. You know, it's front and center of this conversation in their primary about where the DSA stands versus the broader Democrat Party. We'll be watching, Oliver Larkin. What a great guest to have on, and I can't wait to see you question him. What else do you have on? We're also going to have Congressman Bill Hagerty. And, you know, the Senate's got a gigantic to do-list, but I think they're going to be high tailing it to the airports by tomorrow afternoon to get out of here for recess. So how much did they actually get done? I mean, we're going to run out of government money very soon. Do they get the Save America Act done any portion of it? Do they get the Russian sanctions bill done? I mean, there's a lot to do. And we were told by, you know, a lot of these GOP senators, we're going to not leave town if these things aren't done. But it looks like they might. I'll be dang. We will be watching Fox News Sunday and Fox News as a chief legal correspondent giving us a law school lesson there on a couple of issues. Shannon Bream, thank you as always for joining. Have a great show on Sunday and a great weekend. Thank you, Griff. I'll see you tomorrow morning. Bright and early. We'll see you on Fox and Friends weekend. That's going to be great. This is the Brian Kilmeade. I'm Griff Jenkins. Here we go. Buggle up. Diving deep into today's top stories. It's Brian Kilmeade.

From his mouth to your ears, it's Brian Kilmeade. This is the Brian Kilmeade. Griff Jenkins pitch hitting for you. Humble DC correspondent. I often say that. Because I'm still a reporter in D.C. as well as the weekend Fox and Friends co-host. And, you know, maybe it's just the reporter, the journalist in me, that over the course, as I've been privileged to be a reporter and a producer here at Fox News for more than a quarter century, perhaps it's the curiosity in the reporter in me that sees things every now and then. And I'm like, hmm, what's that? What's that about? And what I'm specifically thinking about right now is what I mentioned to Shannon Bream there about the fact that Bernie Sanders. who is clearly the face, the godfather of socialism in America. He's been talking about it since he ran for president in 2016. The Democratic Socialism of America, DSA hooked their cart to his wagon and it grew them. He is not, to my knowledge, after taking all sorts of victory laps from Zohran Mamdani to Abdul El-Sayed. He is apparently not met a socialist he doesn't like. Then all of the sudden, Francesca Hong comes along. A, I'm yours. I'm socialist. I'm crazy. By the way, we're getting rid of Thanksgiving. Maybe it's that Bernie Sanders actually likes Thanksgiving and he didn't like that. But for whatever reason, he is not on board and is not endorsing or getting involved in the Wisconsin primary for governor next week. And he's not supporting Francesca Hong. Here's what he said. Listen to this. Cut 29. I met Francesca a couple of years ago. I was in Wisconsin. It seems very, very nice. But again, this is a race I just am not that familiar with. We have not gotten involved in many governors' races. Then we did one in Maine with Troy Jackson. You know, obviously my major concern right now is seeing that we have a Senate and a House that is going to stand up to Trump. That's really where my focus is. So this is the same Bernie Sanders who jumped on the bandwagon up in Maine for Graham Platner, the Nazi tattooed oresterman. For Bernie Sanders, the surfacing despoters. disparaging social media posts and he made under the pseudonym P. Hustle who disparaged a fellow soldiers saying he should have died that made misogynistic, racist, homophobic comments. The same Nazi tattooed Osherman who was accused of extramarital sexting. Claims by his wife, by the way, that made, that has sexual assault allegations. That was not enough.

to get Bernie Sanders to not support Plattenor. But then all of a sudden, out of thin air, without any reason whatsoever, Bernie Sanders isn't going to back Francesca Hong, who appears to be in many polls, the frontrunner in that primary? Something is suspicious. And I want to know what it is and why Bernie Sanders is sitting this one out. Talk show that's real. This is the Brian Kilmeade. This is the Brian Kilmeade. I'm Griff Jenkins in on a Friday pinch hitting for Brian, and it's time to talk a little sports. Specifically, women's sports and what's happening with Sophie Cunningham and everything that she has stirred up in the rallies we are seeing for the Save Women's sports as she and the Indiana fever go around the country. We're fortunate to have joining us now. Jennifer Say, the CEO of XXXY Athletics, and of course, retired national champion gymnasts. And Jennifer, you know, you are finding yourself sort of in the middle of this as well. Thank you for joining us. Thanks for having me. Hey, listen. We are in the middle of it. You are, you are. And I was shocked, by the way. We played some of this on Fox and Friends this morning when I was filling in for Brian Kilmeade on TV. I'm doing TV and his radio show. I call this Brian Kilmeade Maxing, by the way. I recommend it for everybody. Brian Kilmeade maxing is absolutely fun. But I was shocked that the two hosts were their names Charlotte Wilder and Madeline Hill. I don't know who they are. They got this sports gossip show, which, by the way, is a podcast put out by The Athletic, which is the New York Times' sports brand. And they're, of course, attacking Sophie Cunningham. But then they drop your name as well. Listen to this. Cut 38, I believe. She most recently. posed with Riley Gaines, who was a swimmer, not even a very good one, who is super anti-trans women in sports. And she also posed for a picture with the Levi's executive, Jennifer Say, trans women in sports is not the biggest threat to women's sports in any, by any means. I would say it isn't a threat to women's sports. So first, your reaction. Thanks for including me. It's such a silly line of reasoning. This whole notion, I have a lot to say on this one, but this whole idea that Riley wasn't any good. First of all, she was great. She was 12-time All-American. Thank you. Fifth in the country. SEC champion multiple times over. I want to know what these ladies have ever achieved in sports. They seem like that everyone gets a medal type to me. So people like that don't understand the kind of work that Riley and I put in to becoming champions. It's also an irrelevant point. She can be the worst swimmer in the world. It doesn't matter. She can still fight for fairness. But this is always their line of quote unquote reasoning is to just criticize the person.

I spoke out very early about abuse in gymnastics, physical, emotional, and sexual abuse. I was the first whistleblower back in 2008. I was the national champion. Do you know what the criticism of me was when I spoke out on this from the community? Well, she was a really terrible gymnast and she was a bad national champion. Well, I would say this to you, even if I was the worst national champion that ever was, I was still ranked number one in 1986. And that's pretty darn good. It's also irrelevant. If I was terrible, do I deserve to be abused by my coaches? is just more of the kind of throw insults at them when you don't have a good rational argument. It's the same as grifter. It's the same as racist. It's the same as transphob. It's all of that. So I just, whatever, they're silly. It doesn't matter what they say. You know, the. that women are unleashed in force right now in support of Sophie because no one's scared anymore. It's not 2020 anymore. We're not afraid to say the common sense thing, which is that women deserve their own sports and spaces. And it is a threat to women's sports. And the last thing I'll say on this, we can fight for more things than one thing at a time. I'm still fighting for athletes to train free from abuse. I've been doing that for 20 years. We don't have to pick. We can do all of it. I love that and such an informed take, obviously having lived experience to back it up. You know, it's interesting because I don't know which one of it was, it was making that comment, but the one was saying that trans women in sports is not the biggest threat to women's sports. In fact, I say it's not even a threat to sports in general. How is that even possible? How, like the whole thing. is about with Sophie is about fairness and how is biological men in women's sports not a threat It's so dumb. I can't believe we still have to talk about this. I mean, the fact is it's the ultimate threat to women's sports, because when men play women's sports, we don't have a thing as women's sports anymore. It is the WNBA. The W stands for women, as my friend Michelle Tafoya, has said frequently. It is actually a threat. There's been 50, more than 50 high school state titles in girls' events stolen by boys. That's a lot. To me, that's a lot. At the Olympics in 2024, we saw a man punch a woman in the face and win the gold medal. This isn't about trans. This is about men in women's sports. Women who identify as men as long as they don't take testosterone are welcome. to compete in women's sports. And they do. Nikki Hiltz is a runner. She competed in the Olympics in 2024. She identifies as trans and non-binary. No one cares. Compete women's. You're a woman. No one cares at all. So this whole thing that it's anti-trans is so dumb. It's just we don't want men in women's sports. And you know what? The Women's Tennis Association agrees. They just declared and announced that they are going to test for sex. And almost every player, every prominent player, has, you know, given a presser at this point.

and said we support this and we will willingly take the sex test. So tennis is on board. Basketball is like stuck in the... You know, five years ago. I'm so glad you mentioned that. That's a great point. So the WTA is in on their testing. But by the way, Coco Golf was speaking as she was asked about it. So what do you say? And they expected to see what she would get. What did she say? She said that she, of course, respects and supports the trans community, but understands the fairness component. And that's essentially the same very. exact same thing that Sophie Cunningham has said no hate to the trans people this is about fairness but yet there's some rich hypocrisy perhaps in this New York Times podcast host because they didn't bother to pick on Cocoa Golf who's saying the same thing as Sophie but they do go after Jennifer say in Sophie Cunningham I don't know yeah I mean Coco is sort of woke, for lack of a better word. And I think she tried to ride the fence a little bit more than Sophie. I think Sophie was a little more direct. She waffled less, but you're right. Cocoa Goff acknowledged biological reality, but then she hemmed and hawed about, I support the train. You got to pick aside, Coco. You either believe in biological reality and you think testing is the way to protect the women's category or not. So I wish she'd been a little more direct. That said, tons of other female tennis players have been super direct when asked the question. I would like to know what those New York Times podcasters had to say about. Sabalanka, because she is the number one tennis player in the world. And she full-throatedly said, I support the test. Men are stronger. We need this test. So what do you have to say to her? You'd say Riley stinks. I'm sure they'd say I'd stunk as a gymnast. They didn't mention that part, but they would. Like I care. It's 40 years ago. Sabalinka is number one in the world. And the number one U.S. player also said she supported it. So are they bad, too? I want to know. I want them to answer that question. It's great. And they don't want to talk about it. All they want to do is go out there and say, Sophie Cunningham is a right winger, MAGA, all this stuff and make it political. Maga Barbie. Yeah, Maga Barbie. That's their whole thing. And they can't stand that people support it. Let me walk this forward a little bit with you. Because the Indiana Fever tomorrow play the Chicago Sky at United Center in Chicago. And I was just looking before the show. I was like, I wonder if there's going to be rallies. And sure not, there's postings. There are Sophie rallies in support of her. And I suppose there will be counter protesters, too. It's Chicago. We see things like that here.

What do you see transferring tomorrow? You know, what's this going to look like? And ultimately kind of the bigger picture, Jennifer, which is like, what does this ultimately going to mean for the WMBA? Yeah, well, I'm going. So I go on a plane very soon to Chicago and we've helped to organize it and pull a lot of young athletes in. We're just there to celebrate Sophie and to let her know that she is beloved and she has appreciated and we know she's taking a tough stance and she's getting no support from the league. or her teammates. She said recently she just wants to play ball, do it. So be go play ball. We just are there to have fun. We're going to bring balloons and we're going to celebrate the fact that she's been unapologetic in her stance. Well, not being angry about it all. She's so nice in the way she says it, you know. So we just wanted to know she has support because we've all felt very alone. You know, women that have taken a stand for this in the last five to ten years have really been attacked and vilified. So we just want her to feel the love and support that she has. So I will be there in Chicago. I agree with you. We expect counter protesters. We're not protesters. We're having a party, right? We're just there to have fun. I'm going to be at the game. I'm bringing an athlete with me, Ainsley Erzun, two sport D1 athlete in college, both soccer and track and field. And we are so excited just. to cheer for both teams, honestly. I mean, I'm really hoping the fever can pull out a win. I think at this point it's pretty necessary to make the postseason. So we're just there to enjoy the game. Well, well, I can't, excuse me, I can't wait to find out how it goes. And I know you'll have stuff out there. You know, it's interesting. I wonder again, kind of what this bodes for for the WMBA. And I think, correct me if I'm wrong, I think we had you on Fox and Friends weekend last weekend with us. It was Charlie Herden and I, you were great on with Laura Trump. And, you know, it was because it was reaching a fever pitch and everything going on, Charlie Herden and I were saying on the air on Sunday morning, we were saying, hey, the fever are playing the Minnesota links. actually, I'm never watching a WBA game in my life. I'm actually going to watch it. And Charlie and I are like, hey, we got to actually watch it. I'm like, all right, we're going to watch it. It's coming on like 1 o'clock. It was in the middle of the day. They're not really night games. So we sit down to watch it. And then you see the Minnesota Lynx coach wearing this pro trans t-shirt. And I'm like, what the hell is this? Now. Take us, take Charlie and I just as a test case. You just brought two middle-aged men that probably were never going to sit down to watch a WMA game in our life. And I see that with the coach over there. I'm like, oh my God. Really? Now I'm no longer interested in why I tuned in because I love watching the WMBA. I was all getting on the Knicks bandwagon even though I'm from D.C. I bought a hat. Me too. But in watching the game, it's really pretty fascinating to watch because it's a different pace game. The style is different than watching men's very much. It's very interesting. But then as just a casual newcomer to watching it, I was put off by like, really the coach is going to go into politics shove down my throat.

Yeah. Well, I was there. I was at the rally outside, which you may have seen footage of at this point. It was a collection of basically middle-aged women and teenage girls there to thank Sophie. And we were harassed relentlessly by these protesters who had bullhorns and they were screaming in our ear. And they were calling us the worst names you can imagine. I can't say them here. This is the kind intolerant left. They're the ones claiming they're not bigots. They were calling us the most disgusting misogynistic names. We went and enjoyed the game. I sat with Riley Gaines on the floor. People were thanking us. People wanted photos. People bought us drinks. So, you know, what the broadcast tried to show with that coach with her trans kids belong shirts. And every person they cut to in the audience was wearing a similar shirt, that was not what was happening on the floor. I just want to tell you that. What was happening on the floor is there were a lot of people with our logos. And there were a lot of people that were very grateful for the work that Riley and myself have done. So. They're sort of clinging to a view that is no longer. popular, you know, the 80% of Americans that support the protection of women's sports, they're not afraid anymore. We're so happy and proud of Sophie. We're there to celebrate her and no one's silent anymore. We're not afraid of being called bigots. We know it's a lie. We are pro-woman. We're not anti-anyone. And so ESPN and that WMBA can cling to whatever they want to cling to, but women are showing up and they're no longer afraid. We're unleashed. They are. And just one last thing I want to get to, and that is I also applaud. Sophie Cunningham, not only for the courage to speak out and say, I said what I said in, you know, really getting people like yourself and others to rally behind this issue. But then she came out afterwards and said, enough. Let's play basketball. Why aren't people talking about basketball? Here's a little clip I want to play for you and get your reaction. She said a while back, this is cut 41. There's just so much distraction. I think the WMBA media, all we ever do is cover everything except basketball. And it's like, what, like, what are we doing? There's so much. Like, you can talk about other things. I think those are great stories. I think it shows fans, you know, who people are outside of the court. But I also think we got to keep the main thing, the main thing. Yeah, she's like saying, let's play basketball. What's your reaction? Yeah. Yeah, I mean, and she called out the media specifically. Not necessarily the people are there to support her. I'm there to watch the game tomorrow. I want to watch the game. I want her to know she has support. She gets booed like crazy when she comes out on the court. She should have two people sitting front road cheering for her, right? So she's sort of blaming the media here for getting caught up in this and making about the other thing. The thing is the thing. It's the basketball. It's an important game. And we're there to cheer for her and celebrate the fact that the W. NBA, when basketball is having a moment, people want to watch. And that's because of Caitlin and that's because of her and people like you. I have been to a gazillion NBA games. Last weekend was my first WNBA game. And I had a great time. So I think the WNBA should be.

thrilled that they're having this moment. And yet somehow they're practicing sort of financial malfeasance, I would say, malpractice and not leading with the stars, not leading with Caitlin. People show up. People tune in. And yet somehow she's not the hero they want. And so they're kind of pushing her off into the corner. But. I'm showing up, so I can't wait for the game. I had a blast. Well, Jennifer, say we can't wait to find out how this game goes, have a great trip, and keep us informed and up to date on how it goes. And I just, you know, the WMBA, they're really at risk of making a dumb mistake by driving off would be fans of not only Sophie Cunningham or Caitlin Clark, but the sport itself. It's a missed opportunity, I think. I couldn't agree with you more. At the end of the game, I waited. to see if I could meet some of the players. There were little girls lined up to meet Sophie. And she stopped and signed. Every jersey took every picture. Like this is an incredibly nice person and she's doing it for the kids. So none of the broadcasts are reflecting that. The NBA is losing out on an opportunity, but we're going to show up. Get me video of that and I'll put it on Fox News on Fox and Francis. I will get it for you. All right. Thank you, Jennifer. You got it. Have a great one. CEO of XXXY headed to The Game in Chicago. This is The Brian Kilmeade. I'm Griff Jenkins. We'll be back. From breaking news to big-name guests, Brian brings you insight you won't hear anywhere else. You're listening to The Brian Kilmeade.

radio show like no other. It's Brian Kilmeade. Sponsored by Previgin. Previgin, made for your brain. What does Nate Sores lie awake at at night, worrying? I got into this business of trying to figure out how to make AI's friendly before the corporations figure out how to make them dangerous over a decade ago, maybe 12 or 13 years ago now. When I sort of saw the difficulty of the problem and saw how little people were paying attention to it, it looked to me like the world was headed for ruin and I mourned. But wrapping myself up in anxieties would not solve the problem. So I just got to work. And it's been over a decade. It sort of doesn't keep me up at night anymore. I just do what I can and then spend time with my friends and family. This is the Brian Kilmeade. I am Griff Jenkins filling in for Brian. And I am honored, privileged, and ecstatic. to spend every waking moment I can with this audience on the Brian Kilmeade. But there are some moments that are more memorable than others. And that one, when I asked Nate Sors, who is the guru of AI and talking about whether or not it's going to become autonomous and could actually be a threat. to humans. And he was telling us about the way that these AI models have, quote, escaped. And they began to communicate with each other. They've learned how to talk to each other and to swarm to break out. And his concern that ultimately AI could pose a serious threat. If we don't act fast, it could pose a serious threat to the humankind. I just hope that that Stanley Kubrick movie, 2001 Space Odyssey, was not right when they told. this years ago, this. Open the pod bay doors, hell. I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that. No, this is a Brian Kilby Show. Have a great weekend.

Did you know Fox News has a wine shop? Did you also know you can get a head start on your Christmas shopping? That's right. Check one more gift off your list with the Fox News Wine Shop Advent Calendar featuring 12 festive wines inspired by the holiday magic of Fox Square. You can reserve yours for just a 1999 deposit. We'll deliver it free right to your doorstep in time for the holiday season. Quantities are limited, so visit foxnewswineshop.com today.