SCOTUS Tariff Ruling

The Supreme Court has struck down President Trump’s emergency‑based tariff authority in a 6–3 ruling. Clay and Buck remind listeners that they predicted this outcome weeks ago after oral arguments, noting that the Court appeared skeptical of the legal foundation for the tariff program. They walk through how the ruling centers on the idea that tariff‑setting is a power reserved for Congress, and that the statute Trump used last year was not the proper legal vehicle — even though other, older trade statutes could theoretically empower the president to take similar action. The hosts discuss how this decision could open the door to companies seeking refunds for previously paid tariffs, potentially setting off a wave of litigation involving hundreds of billions of dollars.

Clay predicts that President Trump will almost certainly re‑issue tariffs under a different statutory authority and effectively “run out the clock” on legal challenges, much like previous administrations have done on controversial executive actions. The two compare this to how both Barack Obama and Joe Biden implemented policies they openly acknowledged would later be struck down, simply because the slow legal process allowed the policies to remain in effect for months or years.

IN Gov. Mike Braun

Indiana Governor Mike Braun, who had just been at the White House when President Trump learned of the Supreme Court’s decision striking down his earlier tariff authority. Governor Braun recounts that Trump received the news during a governors’ meeting, appeared visibly irritated, and abruptly cut the session short to address the press. The hosts then ask Braun for his broader assessment of the tariff era, and he argues that tariffs were a necessary corrective after decades of non‑reciprocal trade deals, massive deficits, and foreign economic advantage rooted in post‑World War II arrangements. From his perspective, tariffs helped the United States force overdue trade realignments without the economic doomsday outcomes many predicted.

A major portion of the interview focuses on the explosive story that the Chicago Bears may relocate to Indiana after years of gridlock with Illinois leadership over building a new stadium. Braun says negotiations have been underway for months, Indiana has cleared regulatory and legislative pathways, and the deal is nearly at the finish line barring any last‑minute surprises. Clay and Buck highlight the situation as a prime “red state vs. blue state” contrast, arguing that Chicago’s political dysfunction is driving out an iconic franchise while Indiana’s streamlined governance is attracting it.

The conversation then moves to Indiana’s redistricting controversy. Braun criticizes establishment Republicans in his state legislature for resisting mid‑decade redistricting despite aggressive gerrymandering in deep‑blue states. He says Indiana could have gained additional Republican congressional seats but internal GOP resistance blocked action, leaving the state as an outlier compared to places like Massachusetts or Virginia.

A Detransitioners Story

An in‑depth interview about the firsthand account from 23‑year‑old detransitioner Soren Aldaco, Independent Women ambassador and detransitioner. Soren recounts how, at just eleven years old, she stumbled into online chat communities through her handheld Nintendo device—spaces that had nothing to do with sex or gender but became early gateways for predators and online influencers who groomed and manipulated her. She describes how her teenage unhappiness, combined with a turbulent home life, made her vulnerable to adults who encouraged her to believe she was “a boy in a girl’s body.” By 15, a psychiatrist affirmed a transgender diagnosis instead of addressing the real roots of her distress. At 17, she was prescribed testosterone after a 30‑minute conversation with a nurse practitioner without parental consent. And by 19, she underwent a double mastectomy—meeting the surgeon for the first time only one week before major, irreversible surgery that was approved and paid for by insurance as “medically necessary.”

Her post‑surgery experience was harrowing: severe complications, blood pooling, wounds reopening, and surgical teams who disappeared when she desperately needed follow‑up care. The final blow came not from the physical pain, but from the economic realization—after seeing how dismissively she was treated—that the gender‑transition industry is a highly profitable, lifelong‑patient model rather than legitimate medical care. She began detransitioning at 19 and is now married and rebuilding her life, but faces permanent physical consequences.

Clay presses the legal implications, especially as Sore

960 WELI