Speaker 1: Welcome. It is Verdict with Center. Ted Kruz.
Speaker 2: Nice to have you with us on this Wednesday morning,
Speaker 2: and we get to start with good news center, and
Speaker 2: that is there are three different rulings that have come
Speaker 2: down from the Supreme Court, all in favor of the
Speaker 2: Trump administration.
Speaker 3: Well, that's right, and it's very encouraging. You know, we've
Speaker 3: talked about at length on this podcast how the law
Speaker 3: fair that is unfolding against the Trump administration. The pattern
Speaker 3: of nationwide injunctions has in the last three months exceeded
Speaker 3: what has happened in the last twenty years. It's exceeded
Speaker 3: what happened in the entire twentieth century in terms of
Speaker 3: the number of nationwide injunctions issued against the Trump administration. Well,
Speaker 3: the good news is, in the last couple of days,
Speaker 3: we've had not one, not two, but three Supreme Court
Speaker 3: victories for the Trump Department of Justice against these nationwide injunctions.
Speaker 3: We're going to break down all three of them, and
Speaker 3: layout we've talked about on this podcast, how the principal
Speaker 3: check on this abuse of power that's going to be
Speaker 3: effective is the appellate process and the Supreme Court. It's encouraging.
Speaker 3: Now we have three victories. We're also going to talk
Speaker 3: about a new report from DOGE that over four million
Speaker 3: social Security numbers were given to illegal aliens, people who
Speaker 3: are not US citizens. And finally, we've seen the growing
Speaker 3: pattern of men competing in women's sports. This past week,
Speaker 3: it went viral a woman competing and fencing faced a man,
Speaker 3: a man identifying as a woman, and she declined to compete.
Speaker 3: The woman took a knee and ended up being disqualified.
Speaker 3: Disqualified because she declined to compete against a biological man.
Speaker 1: That was wrong.
Speaker 3: That was an abuse of power. And as the chairman
Speaker 3: of the Senate Commerce Committee, I am holding USA fencing
Speaker 3: to account. We're going to explain all of that and
Speaker 3: what the consequences are.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that story is truly shocking. The details are going
Speaker 1: to have for you.
Speaker 2: Make sure you take this podcast and you share it
Speaker 2: wherever you are on social media because these stories are
Speaker 2: ones that the media is not covering and we need
Speaker 2: your help getting it out there. I also want to
Speaker 2: take a moment and tell you about the IFCJ. Israel
Speaker 2: is still under attack right now. Missile fire has resumed
Speaker 2: from the houthis from Hesblah and from Hamas and enemies
Speaker 2: that are seeking israel destruction is unfortunately what Israel's having
Speaker 2: to deal with every day here in America. We cannot
Speaker 2: imagine living under constant threat of terrorism and rocket attacks.
Speaker 1: Well, this is the reality in Israel.
Speaker 2: Parents taking their children to school, falling to the ground
Speaker 2: to lay on top of their small children, trying to
Speaker 2: comfort them as the sirens blair. The next attack against
Speaker 2: Israel is happening now with little time to prepare, And
Speaker 2: that's why I'm asking for your help. That is also
Speaker 2: why it's so important that you know about the International
Speaker 2: Fellowship of Christians and Jews. They provide life saving aid
Speaker 2: and security essentials, and your urgently need a gift today
Speaker 2: will help provide security essentials like bomb shelters, flat jackets,
Speaker 2: and bulletproof vests for the first responders. They also provide
Speaker 2: armored security vehicles, armored ambulances, and so much more. So
Speaker 2: join me and stand with Israel. You can make a
Speaker 2: donation by calling eight eight eight four eight eight IFCJ
Speaker 2: that's eight eight eight four eight eight four three two five,
Speaker 2: or go online to support IFCJ dot org one word
Speaker 2: support IFCJ dot org center. This is a big deal
Speaker 2: that these rulings that you mentioned in the in the
Speaker 2: lead in there in the show, because it's not just one,
Speaker 2: not two, but three victories for the Trump administration and
Speaker 2: no one's covering this.
Speaker 1: No, that's exactly right.
Speaker 3: And let's start with the most prominent one, which is
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court on Monday lifted a judge's order that
Speaker 3: had blocked the deportation of suspected Venezuela and gang members
Speaker 3: to a to a prison in l Salvador. And it
Speaker 3: was the true Trump administration was removing these gang members
Speaker 3: under an eighteenth century law known as the Alien Enemies Act.
Speaker 3: And you'll recall a district judge, James Boseberg, had ordered
Speaker 3: the halt of the removals under the Act, and in fact,
Speaker 3: President Trump had called for Judge Boseberg's impeachment as a
Speaker 3: result of that. Well, the Court issued a five to
Speaker 3: four decision that blocked the judge's order stopping the deportation.
Speaker 3: The vote was five to four, so it was close,
Speaker 3: five to four. It was a procureum decision. In the
Speaker 3: majority were the Chief Justice Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch,
Speaker 3: and Brett Kavanaugh, and a whole lot of attention has
Speaker 3: been focused on the fact that amy Cony Barrett voted
Speaker 3: with the liberals on this, and so it was a
Speaker 3: five to Ford decision. Nonetheless, it's a victory in that
Speaker 3: what the court concluded was that if you wanted to
Speaker 3: challenge the deportation, that you could not do so in
Speaker 3: d C, which is where they filed the case. Instead,
Speaker 3: you had to file it as a habeas corpus petition.
Speaker 3: What is a habeas corpus petition? It Habeas corpus is
Speaker 3: a Latin term. It means produced the body, and habeas
Speaker 3: corpus is a civil avenue to justify someone's unlawful detention.
Speaker 3: But the court said, look, these individuals, these gang members
Speaker 3: were detained at the time the case was filed in
Speaker 3: South Texas. They said, the right place to file the
Speaker 3: case is in South Texas, not d C. They weren't
Speaker 3: being held in DC, they were being held.
Speaker 1: In South Texas.
Speaker 3: So the right avenue to challenge this was to file
Speaker 3: a habeas corpus petition in South Texas. And they said
Speaker 3: you shouldn't do so as a class action on behalf
Speaker 3: of everyone, which is what had been done here. Rather
Speaker 3: each individual defendant if you have a claim. So look,
Speaker 3: if you've been detained, if you're getting ready to be deported,
Speaker 3: and they say you're a Venezuelan gang member, if you
Speaker 3: have a claim that I'm not a Venezuelan gang member,
Speaker 3: the facts are wrong. They said, the avenue to do
Speaker 3: that is go and file a hevieas corpus petition in
Speaker 3: the location where you're being detained. That was five to four.
Speaker 3: I wish it had been nine to zero. That was
Speaker 3: clearly right now. The court did say that anyone who
Speaker 3: is being detained and being deported, they should have reasonable
Speaker 3: notice under due process to have the challenge to the
Speaker 3: opportunity to challenge their detention and deportation. But this victory
Speaker 3: is a big, big victory in what had been I
Speaker 3: think in egregious order from the district court trying to
Speaker 3: stop the deportation of really, really dangerous criminals.
Speaker 2: Well, let me ask you a question because you mentioned
Speaker 2: it there, and I think it'd be crazy if I
Speaker 2: didn't ask it, because there's some of you asking why
Speaker 2: was there a what many would consider a conservative justice
Speaker 2: go with the Democrats in this decision. As an aside
Speaker 2: here that was obviously part of the headline that we
Speaker 2: saw on social media.
Speaker 3: Yeah, look, I don't have a good answer. I think
Speaker 3: it is unfortunate. I disagree with her decision on that.
Speaker 3: In this case, look the left, but both the Democrats
Speaker 3: and activist judges and left wing radical legal groups are
Speaker 3: challenging any deportation. The Trump administration relied on a law
Speaker 3: called the Alien Enemies Act, which is a law that
Speaker 3: was signed into law by in seventeen ninety eight by
Speaker 3: President John Adams. And what the Trump administration did is
Speaker 3: it classified a transnational criminal gang trender Aragua as an
Speaker 3: arm of a hostile government Venezuela. And based on that law,
Speaker 3: there are very broad legal authorities to deport those who
Speaker 3: are part of a hostile government waging war on the
Speaker 3: United States. That was the basis of the deportations. The
Speaker 3: district judge, Judge Boseburg, had tried to shut down all
Speaker 3: these deportations, and thankfully the Supreme Court, by a votified
Speaker 3: to four ended that and said, if you got an
Speaker 3: issue with a particular deportation, bring a case, but bring
Speaker 3: it in the location where the individual is detained. And
Speaker 3: they did say you got to give them a reasonable
Speaker 3: time to challenge it. And so that that presumably will
Speaker 3: slow down the deportation slightly, but I don't expect it
Speaker 3: will slow it down much. It may slow it down
Speaker 3: a matter of days rather than months.
Speaker 2: And to be clear, this is a victory because it
Speaker 2: allows the President to continue doing what he wanted to
Speaker 2: do when it comes to deportations. If this would have
Speaker 2: gone the other way, this could have been catastrophic.
Speaker 3: No, that's exactly right. Look, the election in November was
Speaker 3: a clear mandate to secure the border and to end
Speaker 3: the invasion at our southern border, and the Trump administration
Speaker 3: has been following through on that mandate and has been
Speaker 3: deporting vast numbers of criminal illealiens. The left is losing
Speaker 3: their mind, and that that is was the basis of
Speaker 3: this injunction. Thankfully the Supreme Court reversed that. Now there's
Speaker 3: another victory that occurred, which is another five to four
Speaker 3: decision where the Supreme Court concluded that it was okay
Speaker 3: to cancel six hundred million dollars in teacher training grants,
Speaker 3: sixty five million of that had yet to be distributed.
Speaker 3: And there you had a different majority. You had Clarence Thomas,
Speaker 3: Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsich, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Cony Barrett.
Speaker 3: So she was in the five to four. The Chief
Speaker 3: Justice joined the liberals. So in the Venezuelan case, Amy
Speaker 3: Cony Barrett joined the liberals. In the case about canceling
Speaker 3: the teacher training grants, it was the Chief Justice who
Speaker 3: joined the liberals. And what the court concluded in this
Speaker 3: other case is that that should have been brought in
Speaker 3: the Court of Federal Claims. That if you have a
Speaker 3: claim against money being given from the federal government, that
Speaker 3: the proper venue for challenging that is the Court of
Speaker 3: Federal Claims. Now, look, some might say, God, these decisions
Speaker 3: are narrow and technical, and they are. But that being said,
Speaker 3: they're nonetheless victories against district judges that are engaged in
Speaker 3: law fair that are trying to shut down the Trump
Speaker 3: administration's agenda and the agenda they were elected to implement
Speaker 3: by the American people.
Speaker 2: So when you look at this, these really these three
Speaker 2: big decisions, does this also empower the Trump team and
Speaker 2: administration to do their job now saying hey, we now
Speaker 2: know that when we go to court, we're going to
Speaker 2: be our site is going to be at least listened to,
Speaker 2: and it's not stacked against us, and we're doing the
Speaker 2: right thing within the law.
Speaker 3: So yes and no. No, we've only talked about two
Speaker 3: of the cases. Let me talk about the third one.
Speaker 3: The third one was there was an order from a
Speaker 3: district judge that was ordering the Trump administration to reinstate
Speaker 3: sixteen thousand federal employees that it had fired. Yeah, and
Speaker 3: that went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court
Speaker 3: actually by a voter seven to two, reversed it. And
Speaker 3: and and and they said, uh, that that the these
Speaker 3: federal employees did not have to be reinstated. The two
Speaker 3: liberal justices that dissented were Sonya Sotomayor and Katanji Brown Jackson.
Speaker 3: But the full court what happened in that case, It
Speaker 3: was an injunction that was issued by Judge William Alsop
Speaker 3: who was who's a district judge in San Francisco, and
Speaker 3: he required the reinstatement of probationary employments at multiple agencies
Speaker 3: that the Trump administration had sought to dismiss. Uh. The
Speaker 3: judge was appointed by Bill Clinton, and the judge concluded
Speaker 3: that the administration hadn't followed the proper procedures for the
Speaker 3: for the firing. Well the Supreme Court disagreed, and seven
Speaker 3: to they reversed that, which is yet another victory. So
Speaker 3: if you look at the combination of these, you have
Speaker 3: a victory for deporting violent criminal gang member illegal aliens.
Speaker 3: You have a victory for canceling grants that were given
Speaker 3: and grants that were given, in the Trump Administration's view, inappropriately.
Speaker 3: And you have a victory for dismissing sixteen thousand, primarily
Speaker 3: probationary employees from federal agencies. In all three of them,
Speaker 3: you had federal district judges that had stepped in and said, no,
Speaker 3: we're going to stop you from carrying out this agenda.
Speaker 3: And in all three of them, the Supreme Court, albeit
Speaker 3: on technical grounds, reversed or vacated the district court's orders.
Speaker 3: This is a very, very good development because it's exactly
Speaker 3: what we talked about the remedy for lawless decisions by
Speaker 3: district courts. The best remedy is the appellate process and
Speaker 3: the US Supreme Court. Now we've talked about on this podcast,
Speaker 3: how there are other remedies, how Congress could pass legislation
Speaker 3: limiting nationwide injunctions support that. In fact, i'm the co
Speaker 3: sponsor of legislation to do that, but the problem is
Speaker 3: the Democrats will filibuster that. It will never get sixty votes.
Speaker 3: Another possible remedies impeachment. It is possible the House of
Speaker 3: Representatives could impeach a district judge who had egregiously abused
Speaker 3: his power. That takes simply a majority vote in the
Speaker 3: House of Representatives two utter and eighteen. The Republicans could
Speaker 3: vote to do that. However, to convict a judge under
Speaker 3: the constitution takes two thirds of the Senate, which means
Speaker 3: we would need a lot of Democrats. We would get zero,
Speaker 3: So impeachment will not be an effective remedy either. That
Speaker 3: means we really are dependent on the pellet process of
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court. And I'm very encouraged to have three
Speaker 3: victories within just a couple of days.
Speaker 1: Yeah, these are big victories.
Speaker 2: And this is also, like you said, gonna encourage I
Speaker 2: think the Trump administration to continue to make bold moves
Speaker 2: and say, hey, you guys want to sue, go ahead,
Speaker 2: We'll see you in court and we'll see what happens there.
Speaker 1: Say about Patriot Mobile real quick.
Speaker 2: If you've got a cell phone and your cell phone
Speaker 2: is not with Patriot Mobile, then the question I got
Speaker 2: to ask you is why why have you not made
Speaker 2: the switch? Well, you should make the switch, and the
Speaker 2: deal is really easy. You get cutting edge technology. Switching
Speaker 2: has never been easier. There's no store visits, no hassles.
Speaker 2: You get to keep your same phone number you have
Speaker 2: right now. You get to keep your same phone you've
Speaker 2: got now or upgrade to a new one. And they
Speaker 2: have a one hundred percent US based team that can
Speaker 2: activate you literally in minutes. The other thing that I
Speaker 2: love about Patriot Mobile is this they have access to
Speaker 2: all three major networks, meaning you get exceptional nationwide coverage.
Speaker 2: I use Patriot Mobile and half for years. They can
Speaker 2: even put a second number on a different network on
Speaker 2: your phone. It's like carrying two phones in one. You
Speaker 2: can have a work number and a personal number. It's amazing.
Speaker 2: They have unlimited data plans, mobile hotspots, internet national roaming,
Speaker 2: Internet on the go devices, and home internet backup as well.
Speaker 2: You can get all of this from Patriot Mobile. So
Speaker 2: why are you waiting? Make the switch today? And by
Speaker 2: the way, when you pay your bill, you know that
Speaker 2: about five percent of that bill every month is going
Speaker 2: back to support conservative causes. Causes that stand for our
Speaker 2: First and our Second Amendment rights, the rights of unborn children.
Speaker 2: And they stand with our veterans, our first responders, our
Speaker 2: police and firemen, are EMTs and are wounded warriors. So
Speaker 2: make a difference with every call you make. Go to
Speaker 2: Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict or nine to seven to
Speaker 2: Patriot right now, use the promo code vertict. You'll get
Speaker 2: a free month of service. So switch to Patriot Mobile
Speaker 2: and defend freedom with every call in text you make.
Speaker 2: That's Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict or nine seven to
Speaker 2: Patriot Make the switch today, all right, Senata, Let's talk
Speaker 2: also about this other shocking news that's come out that's
Speaker 2: been exposed with DOGE, and that is that there were
Speaker 2: a whole lot of illegal immigrants that were receiving Social
Speaker 2: Security numbers right away. It made them eligible for a
Speaker 2: lot of government program government aid, and was costing American
Speaker 2: taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. And this was all
Speaker 2: done on purpose by the prior administration.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's exactly right. You know, there's a great story
Speaker 3: about this in the Daily Wire. It begins with quote,
Speaker 3: according to the latest numbers reported by the Department of Government, efficiency.
Speaker 1: Doge.
Speaker 3: Nearly four million non citizens were issued social Security numbers
Speaker 3: in the United States during former President Joe Biden's time
Speaker 3: in the White House. Stuart Varney broke down some of
Speaker 3: the details during Tuesday Mornings broadcast of his Fox Business show,
Speaker 3: showing how the numbers exploded from two hundred and seventy thousand,
Speaker 3: four hundred and twenty five in Biden's first year in
Speaker 3: office up to two million, ninety five thousand, two hundred
Speaker 3: and forty seven in his last year as president.
Speaker 2: And in fact, we've got that audio Stewart, I want
Speaker 2: to play it for everybody.
Speaker 1: Take a listen.
Speaker 4: Doze exposed our immigration asylum disaster. That was the tip
Speaker 4: of the iceberg.
Speaker 1: Now here's the story.
Speaker 4: Doze has found that Immigration gave a work authorization document
Speaker 4: to illegals just five months after they filed for asylum.
Speaker 4: That document allowed them to work while they waited to
Speaker 4: hear whether their asylum request of being accepted or denied.
Speaker 4: So they could work as an illegal. Knowing it would
Speaker 4: take years before their case was heard, the Immigration Department
Speaker 4: mailed them a social Security number, no interview, no proof
Speaker 4: of identity to put it in the mail. Here's your
Speaker 4: number in twenty twenty one. Does says two hundred and
Speaker 4: seventy thousand new aliens were issued social Security numbers five
Speaker 4: hundred and ninety twenty twenty two, nine hundred and sixty
Speaker 4: four thousand twenty twenty three, and two point one million
Speaker 4: in twenty four right before Biden left office. Dose also
Speaker 4: discovered that one point three million aliens are now receiving medicaid.
Speaker 4: Millions received driver's licenses, Some registered to vote, and Doe
Speaker 4: says some actually did vote. Try and square that against
Speaker 4: Democrat claims that Musk is destroying social security and cutting
Speaker 4: Medicaid is not destroying. He's weeding out people. Don't qualify
Speaker 4: who is really guilty of misinformation in this case, it
Speaker 4: is not Elon Musk.
Speaker 2: By the way, One of the things that he said
Speaker 2: there was we were mailing out these Social Security cards
Speaker 2: to people that had had no proof of who they were,
Speaker 2: no proof of identity. Just here you go, sign up
Speaker 2: and bam, will give you a bunch of govermin aide,
Speaker 2: including as he mentioned, their medicaid.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: No, it's an amazing quote. No interview, no proof of identity,
Speaker 3: just put it the mail. And the important thing to understand,
Speaker 3: this was not by accident. This is not because the
Speaker 3: Biden administration was incompetent. It's not because they're lazy. This
Speaker 3: was their intention. You don't go from two hundred thousand
Speaker 3: to two million in four years by accident. They made
Speaker 3: a conscious decision. Number one, the twelve million illegal immigrants
Speaker 3: that invaded this country under Joe Biden, they made a
Speaker 3: conscious decision, let's open up our borders. We want this
Speaker 3: to happen. Number two, the four million non citizens who
Speaker 3: got Social Security numbers. They made a conscious decision. We
Speaker 3: want every one of them. Look the reason why I've
Speaker 3: had people ask me why would the Democrats allow this
Speaker 3: horrific invasion. It hurt them politically, It hurt them badly.
Speaker 3: Don't any of them say, gosh, this is egregious and
Speaker 3: it's a simple political calculus. I believe the Democrats decided
Speaker 3: every illegal immigrant in America is a future Democrat voter,
Speaker 3: and so we'll take twelve million, even if it includes
Speaker 3: murderers and rapists and child molesters and gang members, because
Speaker 3: we want power, and so hand in hand with that
Speaker 3: is giving them so Security numbers. Even if it's fraudulent.
Speaker 3: They don't care and and this is yet another example
Speaker 3: of the abusive power we've seen over the last four years,
Speaker 3: in particular that is being exposed by Elon musk Andy
Speaker 3: by President Trump.
Speaker 2: So how do we turn this off? I mean, there's
Speaker 2: this many that are out there. And if you go
Speaker 2: back over the numbers that you that you mentioned and
Speaker 2: that Stuart mentioned there that the number of people that
Speaker 2: are that got these Social Security cards just in the
Speaker 2: fiscal year twenty twenty four over two million, about a
Speaker 2: million and twenty three five hundred or ninety thousand, almost
Speaker 2: six hundred thy twenty two and two hundred and twenty
Speaker 2: twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1: How do we turn those off?
Speaker 2: How do we say, no, you don't need this and
Speaker 2: you were given this was abusive power. No, we're not
Speaker 2: going to have you getting all this free garment. Aide
Speaker 2: is that where Congress has to step in and say, hey,
Speaker 2: we got to go back through all the son says
Speaker 2: and so security numbers that have been issued and connect
Speaker 2: the dots of those that were issued.
Speaker 1: Are you getting government aid?
Speaker 3: Yes, Congress should act, But at the same time, I
Speaker 3: think the Trump administration has ample authority to act, and
Speaker 3: I think Elon musk views that really is a very
Speaker 3: significant part of his mandate.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 3: One of the things Stuart Varney reported on he said,
Speaker 3: quote Doge also discovered that one point three million Aliens
Speaker 3: are now receiving medicaid. Millions received driver's licenses, some registered
Speaker 3: to vote, and Doge said some actually did vote. Try
Speaker 3: and square that against Democrat claims that Musk is destroying
Speaker 3: so security and cutting Medicaid. He's not destroying He's weeding
Speaker 3: out people who don't qualify. Who's really guilty of misinformation
Speaker 3: in this case, it's not Elon Musk. And that point
Speaker 3: I think is exactly right. That I think the Trump
Speaker 3: Adventists Station has a real mandate to go find waste fraud, abuse,
Speaker 3: and go find illegal immigrants that are wrongly receiving government
Speaker 3: benefits and cut them off. And I think Congress should
Speaker 3: back them up. But I also think the Trump administration
Speaker 3: is going to do so on its own, and I
Speaker 3: think that's fantastic.
Speaker 1: Senator.
Speaker 2: There's also another important story that is one that is
Speaker 2: I think exciting for transparency but also frustrating at the
Speaker 2: same time. You have opened an investigation into US Fencing
Speaker 2: over their transathlete policy. Give us the backstory on this
Speaker 2: and why you're so involved.
Speaker 3: So USA Fencing has received widespread criticism for something that
Speaker 3: happened last week. Stephanie Turner, who's a female fencer. She
Speaker 3: refused to compete against a transgender opponent, a biological male
Speaker 3: who decided that he was a she. And what happened
Speaker 3: and is Stephanie Turner. Rather than compete against this biological mail,
Speaker 3: Stephanie Turner took a knee and as a result, she
Speaker 3: was disqualified from the tournament. She was given a black
Speaker 3: card and disqualified from the tournament. It was treated as forfeiting.
Speaker 3: And I saw this frankly. I saw this on X
Speaker 3: I saw this on Twitter, and I thought this was
Speaker 3: outrageous because women should not be forced to compete against
Speaker 3: men in sports. That's not right now. As you know,
Speaker 3: I am the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
Speaker 3: and Transportation. The Commerce Committee has massive jurisdiction, as jurisdiction
Speaker 3: over roughly forty percent of the US economy. One of
Speaker 3: the things we have jurisdiction over is sports. We have
Speaker 3: jurisdiction over collegiate sports, Olympic sports, and any kind of
Speaker 3: sports competition, and fencing is explicitly it is the vehicle
Speaker 3: through which the American fencing team in the Olympics has chosen.
Speaker 3: And so last week I launched an investigation and I
Speaker 3: sent an oversight letter to USA Fencing asking for the
Speaker 3: documents on what their policy is, how many transgender athletes
Speaker 3: have attempted to compete, how many women they have disqualified
Speaker 3: for decline and compete, how many injuries have occurred. Look,
Speaker 3: there are biological differences. Men are made differently than women,
Speaker 3: and we've seen in many other sports significant injuries from
Speaker 3: women being forced to compete against biological men. And at
Speaker 3: the end of the day, the Congress has a very
Speaker 3: direct remedy, which is we have the ability to cease
Speaker 3: the designation and of USA Fencing as the organization that
Speaker 3: chooses US Olympic athletes. And so this oversight is an effort.
Speaker 3: I want to get them to change their policy. I
Speaker 3: want to get them to protect women. I think women's
Speaker 3: sports matters, girls sports matters, and I don't think any
Speaker 3: women should be forced to compete against a man in sports.
Speaker 3: I don't think any girl should be forced to compete
Speaker 3: against a boy in sports.
Speaker 1: What does it look like if they're actually held accountable
Speaker 1: for this.
Speaker 3: What it looks like is they change their policies that
Speaker 3: that is my objective here, is to change the policy
Speaker 3: so that you don't end up having having women discriminated
Speaker 3: against and put in a position where they're competing unfairly,
Speaker 3: where they're put in a position where they're risking real,
Speaker 3: real injuries.
Speaker 2: It'll be very interesting to see what that injury report
Speaker 2: looks like. Is there a timeline for them getting back
Speaker 2: to you with this request?
Speaker 1: Sure?
Speaker 3: So here's what I said my letter. I wrote it
Speaker 3: to the chief executive officer of USA Fencing, and I said,
Speaker 3: dear mister Andrews, it has come to my attention that
Speaker 3: USA Fencing is still permitting men to compete in women's
Speaker 3: fencing in violation of federal law. I'm writing to ask
Speaker 3: why your organization is the recognized national governing body for
Speaker 3: fencing in the United States, but to remain so, it
Speaker 3: must comply with the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee
Speaker 3: rules and procedures, its statutory obligations to protect women, and
Speaker 3: President Trump's recent executive order on keeping men out of
Speaker 3: women's sports. If it does not and instead continues to
Speaker 3: put women at risk, Congress may be forced to terminate
Speaker 3: USA Fencing's NGB certification. Last week, Stephanie Turner, from the
Speaker 3: Fencing Academy of Philadelphia competed at the USA Fencing sanctioned
Speaker 3: Cherry Blossom Open Circuit at the University of Maryland. The
Speaker 3: young woman was set to face a man who now
Speaker 3: claims to be a transgender woman and a fencing bans However,
Speaker 3: at the start of the match, Miss Turner bravely took
Speaker 3: a knee and refused to compete against her male opponent.
Speaker 3: In response to this young woman's courage, tournament officials presented
Speaker 3: her with a black card and disqualified her from the
Speaker 3: entire tournament. USA's Fencing's Director of Communications, Brian Wendell, said
Speaker 3: the young woman's disqualification was quote the direct result of
Speaker 3: her decision to decline defense an eligible opponent, a supposed
Speaker 3: violation of the International Fencing Federation rules. He reiterated the
Speaker 3: USA Fencing's remains committed to inclusivity. USA Fencing's commitment to
Speaker 3: inclusivity is nothing less than a full throat of support
Speaker 3: for males competing in women's sports in violation of federal law.
Speaker 3: As the recognized MGB for Fencing. USA Fencing is required
Speaker 3: to provide quote support and encouragement for participation by women
Speaker 3: were separate programs for male and female end athletes are
Speaker 3: conducted on a national basis, as well as quote safe
Speaker 3: environments and sports. Failure to do so is grounds for
Speaker 3: the United States Congress to terminate USA Fencing certification as
Speaker 3: an MGB. And I go on to say that they
Speaker 3: have to comply with President Trump's executive order. And I
Speaker 3: point out that male fencers naturally possess inherent advantages over
Speaker 3: potential female competitors. Men tend to be taller, have greater
Speaker 3: muscle mass, and more testosterone, all advantages for fencing movements
Speaker 3: like lunges, jumping, or leg power measures. And I point
Speaker 3: out that under the rules of the Senate, the Commerce
Speaker 3: Committee has a duty and an authority to review and
Speaker 3: study on a continuing basis both sports and sports agencies
Speaker 3: such as USA Fencing, and so I ask, I ask
Speaker 3: a whole series of questions, and I want documents and
Speaker 3: answers by April twenty first, twenty twenty five, and it's
Speaker 3: documents about their transgender policy. How many men or transgender
Speaker 3: women currently compete in the women's division, in the last
Speaker 3: four years. How many bouts have occurred between transgender women
Speaker 3: and women? How many times did the female athlete prevail?
Speaker 3: How many times did the female athletes suffer an injury?
Speaker 3: Does USA Fencing comply with the President's executive order? And
Speaker 3: I have a whole series of additional questions, But this
Speaker 3: is an example of holding to account. And you've got
Speaker 3: throughout sports these radical associations, organizations that have embrace the
Speaker 3: woke ideology. There's no difference between men and women, and
Speaker 3: that is profoundly unfair to women and girls competing in sports.
Speaker 3: And I'm going to do everything I can to stop it.
Speaker 2: Admitted that will keep you up to in the story.
Speaker 2: Don't forget we did this show Monday, Wednesday and Friday,
Speaker 2: so hit that subscriber auto dowload button.
Speaker 1: Please write us a five star review if you would.
Speaker 2: Wherever you're listening to this podcast, it helps us turn
Speaker 2: tremendously when it comes to reaching new audience. And the
Speaker 2: most important thing you can do to get in the
Speaker 2: fight is to share this podcast with your family and friends,
Speaker 2: send it to him a text message, and the senat
Speaker 2: and I will see you back here on Friday morning.