Senate agrees to fund most of DHS - ICE, CBP left out; Trump adds Trump signature to dollar for America 250; IOC bans transgender athletes from competing in women's events; and more | 3.27.26

America leads the world in medicine development. It matters. We get new medicines first nearly

three years faster. Five million Americans go to work because we make medicines here at home

and not relying on other countries keeps us safe. But China is racing to overtake us.

Will we let them or will we choose to stay ahead? When America leads, America cures.

Let's tell Washington to keep us in the lead.

Learn how at americancures.com. Pay for by Farma.

What if you could have the most reliable Wi-Fi at the same price for five years?

That's the Xfinity 5-year price guarantee. No annual contracts, no hidden fees, and our best

equipment included. Plus, get online in minutes with same-day Wi-Fi. Just five years of fiber-powered

Wi-Fi that boosts speeds to the devices that need them most. Lock in your price and unlock

the possibilities. Xfinity, imagine that. Select plans only, restrictions apply, powered by fiber

connected to the premises by coaxial cable. Actual speeds vary.

5am, I'm up with a crisp Celsius energy drink. Running 12 miles today. Grab a green juice,

quick change, and head to work. Meetings, workshops. One more Celsius, no slowing down.

Working late, but obviously still meeting the girls for a little dancing.

Celsius, live, fit, go. Grab a cold, refreshing Celsius at your local retailer or locate now at

celsius.com.

Good morning and welcome to Rising. We have a great Friday show for you today. Welcome back,

Erin. How you doing? Keep wanting me to come back. I don't know why, but please keep coming.

I've enjoyed it. You're totally ready for the spring, and I'm still sitting in winter with you.

We did not plan together on this one today. I'm willing it into existence.

But it is getting nice, and everyone's going crazy about the cherry blossoms. Yes, peak bloom.

Can you break down? I thought that they were pink flowers because all the pictures I've seen online,

people have been editing the heck out of these things. Most of them are white, and that's like the

general gist of what you're going to see out there, especially if you're along the tile basin.

There are a few like pinker ones, but generally they're much more white flowers. Magnolias tend to

be more pink, but what a treat to have beautiful weather. It is. It is. Cherry

bossen season. Nothing says spring. Like the start of cherry blossoms. All right, I'm going to look

out. I'm going to go down to the title basin. I can't be one of the people that live here and

doesn't do it. You got to do it at least once, and only once going to the basin. I'll tell you that.

Coming up on Rising, the International Olympic Committee has banned transgender women athletes

from competing in women's events. Plus, the Senate has agreed to fund most of DHS in an attempt to

end this partial government shutdown. And First Lady Melania Trump introduced a robot during an

education summit speaking, sparking mixed reactions on social media. But first, Lindsey, what's in

your mind? Let's talk about it. So right now, the public is being told that progress is happening

with this war in Iran, but the facts on the ground tell a much more complicated story.

So President Trump is repeatedly saying Iran is eager to make a deal. They are big into

work out of deal. I don't know if we'll be able to do that. I don't know if we're willing to do that.

They should have done that four weeks ago. They should have done it two years ago. So we

estimated it would take approximately four to six weeks to achieve our mission 26 days in,

where extremely really a lot ahead of schedule. Now that messaging suggests leverage, right?

That the U.S. has the upper hand that diplomacy could be within reach. But Iran's leadership

is publicly rejecting that idea. It's foreign minister says there are no negotiations underway,

rejecting President Trump's plan for ending the war and vow to continue fighting until a list of

Iran's own conditions are met. At the same time, the U.S. is increasing its military posture in the

region with nearly 7,000 troops either deployed or on the way, including members of the 82nd Airborne

and Marine units. Now that kind of build up typically signals preparation, not de-escalation.

There are also new reports that the administration has considered more aggressive options,

including targeting key economic infrastructure like Card Island, which handles the vast majority

of Iran's oil exports. That move wouldn't just pressure Iran. It would risk expanding the conflict

significantly with global economic consequences. And that's the part of what's fueling concern

back here in the U.S. A recent APNORC poll shows a clear majority of Americans believe U.S.

military action in Iran has already gone too far. Even a Fox News poll this week found that 58%

of Americans oppose current U.S. military action against Iran. Inside Washington, there are also

signs of unease lawmakers from both parties are asking for clearer answers about the strategy,

the objectives and the timeline, because those details still aren't fully defined.

The administration has talked about ending the conflict quickly, even suggesting it's ahead of

schedule, as you heard the president say, but it hasn't clearly outlined what success actually

looks like. There are also differences between the U.S. and its allies. Israel, for example, has

been more open about wanting to create the conditions for political change inside Iran.

President Trump, by contrast, has been more cautious publicly and privately about going that far,

raising concerns about the human cost and the risks of instability. Those distinctions

matter because they shape how far this conflict could go. For now, what we're seeing is a situation

where military pressure is increasing, diplomatic signals are inconsistent, and public support is

limited. And historically, those are the kinds of conditions that make conflicts harder, not

easier to contain. So the key question isn't just whether a deal is possible. It's whether the

deal that the president is suggesting looks very similar to the Iran nuclear deal that we already

had in place a decade ago. And if so, why did we rip that one from 2015 up? Americans across the

aisle would also like a clear and consistent strategy guiding what happens next.

So I kind of want to discuss this because it's not only certain size of the aisle,

as people in the MAGA base that are asking questions, their leadership in Congress that have

walked out of meetings because of what I mean, I know this is dancing. Yeah, Nancy makes

does this all the time. But I mean, there's people you're wondering what happened in that meeting.

On all seriousness, people are wondering, was there a suggestion that troops would be on the ground?

You know, these paratroopers were sent to the Middle East a few days ago. You're wondering what

is their role because paratroopers generally land in really dangerous situation. Then there's

the reports about Carg Island and possibly putting boots on the ground there. So a lot of confusion,

as well as Iran, adding to the mix saying, we're not even talking to them. We're telling Pakistan

certain things and we're not even having a conversation though. First and foremost, don't

believe a word. The Iranian regime says they should not be trusted. They have never been a good

faith actor. They are the largest world sponsor of terrorism. They regularly lie. They never

allowed inspectors and even during the previous Iran deal, they have never kept up their end of

the bargain. So I take their words to mean absolutely nothing. So the president's point into your

point about what's happening next and what the next step is. There's not, I think, been a very

clear forward conversation to the American people about what the ultimate strategy is.

But also, at a certain point, there shouldn't be a full disclosure of what's going to be happening

because it's kind of the art of war. You gotta have a little surprise here. And if we're like,

and we will be deploying troops on the ground at X time, the next location, this doesn't work.

And so I think that they need to, yes, I totally agree. I think if this had been, you know,

the effort to build a larger world coalition around going after Iran, you would have seen more

messaging ahead of it. But it's clear the president thought about this more tactically as a strike

and as a shorter term thing. That's why there's not this like huge collective of people. My question

for you then, if somehow this is similar to the 2015 deal, is it worth doing again?

Is it worth reinstating the similar deal that we already got?

If so, does it come to fruition? Is that a deal worth doing again?

Well, the, some independent agencies had to review that deal. And even though Iran had like a few

infractions, they were all organized and responded to like nuclear proliferation.

No, they had 97% of the uranium not in the country. So they're using the, the remaining percent

to turn on the lights and do the other things that you need their uranium for. So the fact that

it wasn't just the U.S. saying this. And even the president in 2017 said, I guess, you know,

they're following the rules, but he's had his own concerns about it. What are you going to ask

them? They still need the certain amount of uranium to keep the lights on. So if they export the rest,

they'll be back to where they were. So my goals, if President Trump hated that deal so much,

I'd like to just understand what exactly about it. He didn't like because it seemed like other

nations who didn't want to pull out of that deal. The same ones that he's threatening our partners

in NATO are confused because everybody seemed okay with that response because if it's not a

regime change, right? You, you, you can kill the I told you can kill a son. There's an entire

national Iranian guard that you have to kill every single one of them to keep going on. I think

there's 90 plus million people in the country. Like we're not sure how many people are

alligent, right? To this regime. So we're just going to endlessly kill everybody. That doesn't

seem like a good strategy. And Iran now is fighting a different war than we're fighting. They're

fighting an economic war by closing the straighter hormones. And the president seems conflicted

in his response because like you said, I'm surprised that he's surprised that this wasn't coming

down the pike. They, if they don't have the means to beat out the world's superpowers, like Israel

and the US, then how else would they fight? The straighter hormones obviously would be a place

that they'd go. So the fact that he seems surprised by this and doesn't have things laid out. And we

didn't get access to that 15 point plan if full, but we got reports from the New York time about what

might have happened. And then Iran lied about whether or not that actually happened, right?

In here, throughout this, Iran's inability to be a good faith actor is the biggest concern.

When it comes to uranium and enrichment, everybody fears nuclear proliferation in Iran. So while

they claim, oh, it's just to keep the lights on, then why did they have so much uranium already

so close to like proliferation levels? It's because they're not being honest actors. We cannot trust

that they are actually doing what they say. And I take your point. Yeah, the president should

have had a plan for the straighter hormones, or at least can explain it now and they haven't done

it. And the communication portion of this is really where it's reflected in the point. The American

people don't know what's going on and that's why they're upset. When President Trump ripped up the

agreement, that's when Iran started to talk piling uranium. And that's when the problems began

because sanctions went back onto Iran. So now, where years after he decided that that deal didn't

work, and so obviously they would have more uranium. But they were doing that anyways. I mean,

they were not letting independent inspectors in under the previous Iran deal. So it's hard to say

that they were only doing so much when we have no actual verifiable way because they weren't within

the confines of the deal. Let alone Obama removing restrictions, let alone the pallets of cash,

he sent them, let alone Biden removing restrictions as well that allowed the oil to go,

and for more terror proxies to be funded. I mean, the United States has really kind of generally failed

when it's come to addressing Iran. I think for a while now. All right, we're going to be talking

about this a lot. We have to leave it there. The Olympics officially banning trans women from

competing in female events. We'll be right back. Welcome back. The International Olympic Committee

announcing a new rule regarding transgender athletes ahead of the 2028 Games in Los Angeles.

So the IOC said Thursday that it would be limiting eligibility for all women's categories

to biological females, a move that aligns with President Trump's executive order on sports.

That move means that in order to compete in 2028 female athletes will be required to have

taken a genetic test at least once in their career. It's not exactly clear how many trans women

are competing at that level, but there weren't any trans athletes participating in the 2024

Paris Games and there was only one trans woman competing in the post-pone 2020 Games. IOC,

President Kirstie Coventry explained policy further in a video online. Take a listen.

At the Olympic Games, even the smallest margins can be the difference between victory and defeat.

So it's absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female

category. The IOC recognizes the importance of widespread participation in grassroots and

recreational sports programs and the impact that sport has in society. However, the Olympic Games

has a focus on elite sport and in elite sport, we must ensure the fairness, safety,

and integrity of all competitions within the Games.

Here to combat that, it is a simple cheek swab. That is it. Or, I mean, you can literally spit into

like a tube. That's it. It's not invasive. It's not intrusive. It's cheap and it's accurate.

I was a college athlete during COVID. I remember getting my brain tickled by a Q-tip.

Far more invasive than a cheek swab. This sort of testing is long overdue and I hope that we see

other sport governing bodies, i.e. the NCAA, follow suit. But some were more skeptical of the move.

Trans comedian, Stacey Kakes, resting concerned that the genetic testing may inadvertently exclude

some who would otherwise be able to compete. She wrote in part, there are lots of intersex women

who are about to find out that according to the IOC, they aren't women. It's going to be fun.

And Nikki Hiltz, a transgender and non-binary athlete, wrote on her Instagram story in part,

this policy is so stupid and it's not solving a problem that exists. I don't know who needs to hear

this, but zero trans women competed in the Paris Olympics. Only one trans woman weightlifter

competed in Tokyo in 2021 and she did not win a medal. Can we please stop obsessing over trans people?

And I don't know, maybe focus our time, energy and resources into real problems, women's sports

face. So I think there's like a lot of levels here. So I think about, I agree with fairness and

having detailed thought about competitiveness at a high level and understanding those small margins

and knowing that there are doctors and researchers that say that even if there's a little bit of

an advantage, then that would be seen as cheating in the sport that people dedicated their lives to

to come to these games that only come around every four years. So I totally get leaving a space to

keep this as a special case without bashing the entire trans community about identity.

Right. Like I don't think that that needs to peel over into the conversation about whether

people are men or women. So I would like to separate that. The Olympics is a lot to do this.

She said it was an autonomous decision, but also we understand that the president passed an

executive order. So it's not all autonomous. Like there's obviously governmental pressure

where she's a year late. You know, he did this last February. So that just stands. But I think that

there are some scientific and practical concerns. I don't know deep into the weeds, but I understand

that there's this SRY gene or Shry gene or something. They're saying like the testing could possibly

be off. And even if it's 10% of the time, 1% of the time, isn't that a problem if somebody is

testing and missing that one gene? And they're like, wait, I'm actually a woman. Like is there

cases to be made? And because it's not happening so frequently, we know we only had one transgender

athlete compete in 2000 Olympics that got postponed and then none in Paris. How often is this coming

up where now all women should be subjected to this? And they're like getting sidelined.

Perhaps if one case gets sidelined, for again, that same dream matters to me, that same chance to

compete in an arrogant sidelined from a test. Then I also think that part of what Riley Gaines

didn't touch on about some of those concerns is not so much about how hard the testing is,

like a cotton swab for COVID testing. To me, it's about who holds on to the data and information

and biological data about these teams and how has it handled what? I think that that's what I

would like to know. Like where is that going? What is it used for elsewhere? We don't want it so

old to ancestry, no say to them, but it's a lot, you know, there's a lot of questions that I have.

Yeah, I do think that the IOC should include some kind of adjudication process. If somebody believes

that they were given a false positive in their genetic testing, that they're able to say,

no, I am biological woman, that's great. Let's make sure that we actually are able to say this

is a biological woman competing in this space. And I appreciate that the first female head of the

IOC is the one who did this, right? The first woman and she is doing something that a lot of

Democrats don't do and is acknowledging the biological difference that exists between a biological

woman and a man who or a woman who was born as a man, a biological man who has then become a

woman through surgery. There is a biological difference. I grew up riding horses. It's a sport that

male and female compete together because there's not a distinction between the two and the athletic

ability to compete in that sport. But, but you know, weightlifting, basketball, any number of sports

karate, fencing, right? And when you get into some of these sports, the biological difference

that exists between a man and a woman, even if they have transitioned into being a woman now

is real. No matter what, ask Caitlin Jenner, even she has said it. She has said, listen,

I still drive the ball further in golf than most women do at my age, most women do in general,

because I was born a man. And so protecting women's spaces and protecting women's sports,

this, you know, the argument where people say, oh, well, there's not that many people. And to

your point, what if one person gets genetically tested and gets kicked out because the testing

might have been wrong, right? The same thing. What if a woman misses the podium because a man

was in the sport? Because there was somebody else. And women being tested in the Olympics isn't

actually new. They used to do it previously because they were worried, especially with like the

USSR and the Soviet Union, that they were trying to send men in to cheat in some of these sports,

so it's not necessarily a completely unfounded thing. I think this is great. And I think the

NCAA and I think any sports authority and governing body should do the same thing to protect women's

sports, because that's the whole point of women's sports. We have acknowledged for decades,

there are differences between men and women, but now there are so many people unwilling to do that,

and it's to the detriment of women in this country when we, when we deny the reality that there is

a biological difference. There's also another layer about the cost of this test. I know she said

it's inequality. Oh, yeah, I was just going to have plenty of money. Well, I mean, hopefully they're

going to cover it. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. That hasn't been laid out specifically, because I

saw I read in the New York Times that it's about $250 and wall to people perhaps like Riley

Gaines or UNI if we really want to do something that's not a lot of money. If you talk about the

competing countries that are international and have a way lower GVB, that's a lot of money. Yeah,

the team or to the individual, I totally get that. So a lot of people won't join because it'll be

the having the have-nots, and I don't want that to happen. They can they can definitely make sure

that they put guardrails and parameters in to lead this or nobody gets left out. If it's cost-wise

or testing-wise or otherwise, but all of that is integral to protecting women's sports. I think

this is not going to go away. I mean, like you said, it's a big decision and for the first woman

leader to do it, it is a huge decision. It absolutely is. A development overnight. The Senate

agreed unanimously. Early Friday to fund most of the Department of Homeland Security. Don't go

anywhere. There's a breakthrough on Capitol Hill. The Senate agreed to unanimously fund most

of the Department of Homeland Security. Senate leaders sent out a hotline request to senators

early Friday morning after stalling the funding for over 40 days. Senators approved the package

by voice vote at 2.30 a.m. Friday. The Senate deal left out funding for immigration and

customs enforcement and the border patrol after negotiators failed to agree on reforms demanded

by Democrats. This came after President Trump announced Friday evening that he would sign in

order to immediately pay TSA agents. Senate Majority Leader John Fude said, quote,

President Trump should never have to step into rescue TSA workers and U.S. air travel.

Here was soon at the Senate floor blaming Democrats for the delay. We are here because thanks to

Democrats determined refusal to reach an agreement, there will be no Homeland Security funding bill

this year. Instead, just a few minutes ago, Republicans funded the Department of Homeland Security

Peacemilk. It's not the way to fund the Department. Meanwhile, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer

spoke against funding ICE and Trump's rogue and deadly militia. That's a quote. Let's take a listen.

In the wake of the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretty, Senate Democrats were clear,

no blank check for a lawless ICE and border patrol. Democrats held firm in our opposition

that Donald Trump's rogue and deadly militia should not get more funding without serious reforms

and we will continue to fight. So Congress set two pretty terrible records in the last few weeks.

They had the longest partial shutdown of all time. Right now it's the long going and the longest

actual shutdown last year. And all on the backs of federal employees this time TSA and the American

people that are missing flights, not giving their money back, probably trying to change missing

important dates, missing family. So it's a lot. I'm happy that a conclusion was brought to the table.

But I also think for this to be the conclusion, it's confusing because Democrats have been

proposing this for a few weeks now. So we could have just done this. This deal came through from

Thune on Sunday and Democrats decided that the entire week should continue to use political pain

against the American people to make what point. They didn't get the reforms. They didn't get

anything. ICE has already funded $75 billion. Democrats got absolutely hosed on this because

they're going to use a reconciliation vehicle and get in the Senate. There's another budget sitting

out there. So they'll be able to take that and then they'll be able to continue to fund,

fund ICE, fund DHS, fund immigration enforcement without having to make any changes whatsoever

because in the Senate doing so will give you a simple majority vote. It's called the bird bath.

It's very arcane. But in order to do that, the Democrats got absolutely nothing out of this

other than hurting the American people. The unfortunate part of this is the political reality

is now that it's over, nobody's going to get the blame. But during it, the party and leadership

does get the blame. But I think the reality for a lot of people is that Democrats were reflecting

in some of them in good faith. A message that the American people were sending was that they felt

that ICE, specifically in Minneapolis, had gone too far. The death of Alex Pretty and Renee

Good, no matter whose fault you think it was, people that want to see American citizens killed

by ICE. And so Democrats are trying to hold the line. I don't know that holding up government

and doing the most basic function of your job on both sides of the aisle by not funding things

as the right way to go. But I do understand that they have to stand for something as they walk into

midterm and not go as far as saying one abolish ICE, but seeing you like to reform it and laying

out things so that from now on, we know that it's on Republicans that they don't want to show

any identification. They don't want to make sure that every single one of the ICE age just has

body cameras, which protect both sides. They don't want, I mean, some of them have them, but we

haven't seen every single one. They don't want to make, they said they're willing to do body

cameras. I know. Well, we'd like to see it in action is what I'm saying. Yeah. So that also,

they don't want to get rid of masks, even though they don't have a mask at the airport. I mean,

there's a lot of, they don't want to enforcement mechanisms, right? But they don't want to avoid

ICE from entering into schools and churches, which is really important to not do. Let's be clear.

If that is where ICE is going, it is, they are not targeting schools. They're not doing

roundup to schools. It means that there is an individual that they leave legal justification

to enter into a premises, whether it is a school or not, to be able to take them out and to

get them removed because illegal criminal immigrants should not be in this country at all.

Hard stop. But the fact of the fact that, yes, I take your point, Minneapolis, the optics there

were terrible. It's part of why Christy Nome has gone and it's why Mark Wayne Mullin is now the

DHS secretary. And in all of this, though, the people who are getting hurt are the federal

employees. It is the ICE agents who are getting a cost and have an over 8,000 percent increase

in, in, you know, threats against their lives. And it's TSA employees. And what did Schumer get?

Nothing. He got a 2.30 AM speech on the Senate floor that nobody's going to watch or remember.

Well, I think, for me, with ICE tactics and where I think, according to polling, at least a

decent amount of the country stands, is like, when we look at, there was a teacher that was

driving within a mile of her school. And because ICE was chasing a criminal, and he was a criminal,

he's in jail for hitting the teacher, she died. Because there was a high speed chase happening

within a mile of a school. So now we have a teacher dead. We have a high speed chase. Was the

chase necessary? Could we have gotten his license plate? Wait, could we have gotten his license plate

and could we have followed up and arrested him at a later time? Because now we have a teacher that

was beloved in this community in Georgia dead. And so I'm just asking for some of the policies.

They're asking for this not to be so aggressive and dramatic. If we're chasing somebody down for

simply illegally coming into the country fine. But if they are most criminal, like most people that

present Trump's is arresting are not criminals outside of coming to the country, that's the crime.

Then I don't know that we need the high speed chasing around town. I don't know if we need to run it

into their churches in school while they're trying to get their kids. I don't know if we need to do

all that. We can also figure out other ways to get them. I mean, Obama deported a ton of people,

and we didn't hear a lot of these stories coming out, where people would have it, you know,

Americans would be killed. So I feel like there's some rationale here that's missing and

Democrats are rightfully pushing for some of this. The reason that woman that teacher is dead

is because of criminal illegal immigrant continued to break the law and put law enforcement

and the community in danger. That is a reflection of the criminal illegal immigrant, not the law

enforcement in their work. And I do agree high-speed chases are actually controversial across the

country with law enforcement because these can happen and accidents can happen. But that's different

than an ICE and an immigration enforcement. That criminal continued to break the law. I agree

it's his fault, but I don't know that the high-speed chase was necessary as well. Yeah, I can agree

with that. All right, Donald Trump's signature will soon appear on US currency making a historic

first or sitting president. But many are outraged by the move and questioned if it's actually against

the law. We're going to be right back. The Treasury Department has announced President Trump's

signature is being added to US currency as part of commemorations for the country's 250th anniversary.

This will be the first time ever that a sitting president has his signature appear on paper currency.

Treasury Secretary Scott Besson said in a statement quote,

there is no more powerful way to recognize the historic achievements of our great country and

President Donald J. Trump than US dollar bills bearing his name and quote. As the 250th anniversary

of our great nation approaches, American currency will continue to stand as a symbol of prosperity,

strength, and the unshakable spirit of the American people under President Trump's leadership.

And Treasurer Brandon Beach says the president's mark on history as the architect of America's

golden age economic revival is undeniable. Printing his signature on the American currency

is not only appropriate, but also well deserved. The move comes as the commission of fine arts

approved a $1 gold coin with President Trump's face on it just last week. But these developments

have led to a controversy and debate over whether it's legal for the Trump administration to do this.

So federal law prohibits living presidents or any living people in general,

general from appearing on currency, but they have been rare exceptions to that rule in the past.

Lawmakers on the left were not pleased by the announcement. With New York State Representative

Alex Boors writing on X quote, more focused on putting his name on the dollar than how many

dollars you have in your pocket, just the latest example of it being all about him and not about you.

And Ohio Congresswoman Shauntel Brown says, quote, this is gross and un-American, but at least it will

remind us who to think when we pay more for gas goods and groceries. I mean, Aaron, I know that you

do not, okay, can I just break it down and paint the picture for everybody that doesn't remember?

We're seeing President Trump's face hanging on the Justice Department. We're going to see his

face on a dollar coin. He's asking to put his name on Delus Airport. I know he's asking to put his name

on the Kennedy Center. What else is he asking for? How much are we going to see Trump? He wrote,

he signed the COVID checks. Like, don't you have a limitation on how much you want to see this man?

No other president is doing this. It's obnoxious. I mean, at a basic, just come on, level with me.

Nobody want to see Trump that much. I mean, listen, is it the person I look to have on everything?

No, but this man is cementing his legacy and he's doing it with a sledgehammer and a bulldozer.

He's making the updates to the White House ballroom and he's doing it. He put big giant American flags.

It doesn't matter what Donald Trump does. It will always upset people no matter if it's currency

or putting the American flags of those, those giant American flags on the White House law and

Democrats lost their ever-loving mind on putting up an American flag. It doesn't matter what

Trump does. Democrats will hate it. And for this, I really don't care. As long as we're not actually

breaking law, they said there's rare exceptions that it's happened before. Like, cool.

Like, for me, like, I, it's the 250th University. They were going to do something. This guy's

big into cementing his legacy, putting his name on everything. I don't use gold coins anyways.

I'm not Scrooge, McDuck. So, like, I'm not worried about it. That's another thing. People, people,

I know. Now you've got it in your head, duck. I do. And he's diving into the coins. I get it.

People were saying people are barely using cash. Like in any time in history, we're using cash

very rarely. So the fact that he's taking time and obviously money to make this happen by

changing the dollar bills. And people are literally strapped for cash simultaneously, the American

public, like literally gas is the dollar hire. At 398, I believe throughout the nation, people are

still looking at inflation. They're saying that this war can add to inflation. I mean, these are

real concerns that are happening right now. The tariffs are being pushed back upon. States want

money back for the citizens that live in their states because of what these tariffs have done to them.

I mean, how does that make sense to spend money on cash that people barely use,

people just asking you to put cash in their pockets like you promised on the campaign trail?

Yeah, listen, I think that this is just one of many things the president does. He is doing work

on tariffs. He is doing work on Iran. He is trying to, you know, take care of the price of gas

and grocery is good. Yeah, he's trying to do all of that. And in the meantime, he does something

a little cheeky. I mean, this is the most Trump thing ever. Like, you're going to see me on a gold

coin. Like, okay, I do agree. Like, we need to be focused on making sure that the economy is

working for the American people because it wasn't under Joe Biden. It was harder under Joe Biden

than it was. And even before the Iran war, there was about $3,300 loss per household under the Biden

administration. We clawed $1,400 back for the American people. We're getting out of the Biden

inflation cycle takes longer. And if Trump wants to cement his legacy with the 250th anniversary,

here's the thing. This is, like, this is completely Democrats fault. If they, if he had won in 2020,

you wouldn't be seeing him for the 250th away you are. You wouldn't be seeing him for the

LA Olympics. But he lost in 2020, came back a lot, won in 2020 for four. And now,

many people are going to buy him everywhere in America for this. He's going to be everywhere.

I think the president has this strategy. It's a little brilliant, actually, where he,

like, signing the COVID check. So the original influencer, he really is actually like an influencer.

He's signing things so that people remember, you know, when catch does come back in hand,

let's say it's the last day of his term of the four years. It's like, oh, Trump did this.

Oh, when you got your COVID check, it's like, oh, Trump cashed that. So this is,

this is thing that happens to people's mind where they relate or the Trump accounts. Yeah,

their kids will have what they relate money to that president. See and say, oh, what a brilliant

legacy. But for those people that were actually here and who were journalists and who were coming

through the thing, understanding even the current legacy of this year alone, it doesn't match

putting money in people's pockets. What he's done so far, it does not match that. And so he's

trying to put out this full term legacy that he wants it to be. But how about just put in actions

in place that make people remember you as the president that brought all these jobs as the president

who changed their livelihood? I just think like it becomes a little bit like a mockery when we see

him put his face everywhere, when we see him take Biden's face down and put a pen. Well, I

see that auto pen did do more work. I know. Come on. It's just like, I would just have a little

be serious for like two seconds. People are wrong. But he was serious. He was there for the dignified

transfer of remains and unlike Joe Biden didn't check his watch halfway through. The man is serious

in the moment he needs to be and it was actually Democrats and a Democratic president who made a

fool of himself during a dignified transfer was Joe Biden who checked his watch as caskets were

rolling past him of slain service members. So yeah, Trump is serious when he needs to be serious.

And I can tell you this much. Iran knows he's serious. Iran knows that this man is not going to

mess around and the rest of the world should know that because I have called him this the FAAFO

president, the F around and find out. And so yeah, this is what Trump's going to do. But when we think

about America, right, we're talking about 250 years and our legacy that's happening this summer.

And I think a lot of people are really excited about it, right? Like no matter how many things

the country has been through, people are mostly proud to be American. And so when the president

makes it about him, that is not making it more about the American legacy. Everything cannot be about

him is what I'm saying. We have years and decades of history that built this country. It wasn't

Trump. I know he liked to think. And his family had a huge hand and make it America what it is

today. And fine, he's added to the legacy because he's been president twice now. But come on,

he has to acknowledge other people. He can't disrespect presidents before him that are still alive

and sitting. They should be invited to the festivities. He needs to acknowledge that this is a

country that is full of different people with different ideas, different parties. And some more

cohesions should happen as we step into this 250 beautiful anniversary. Perhaps he can do a little

bit better with his dialogue across the aisle with the bashing people and without going to Charlie

Kirk's funeral and saying, I hate my enemies. You know, just being a little bit better a person

as we try to make the country come together in unison, right? I'm excited as much. If you're asking

any of that of Donald Trump, I got a bridge to sell you because that's just not going to happen.

The man's going to remain who he is always. All right. First lady Melania Trump is sharing her

spotlight this week with a humanoid robot. Did you see it? That's videos with us next. Stay with us.

First lady Melania Trump seemingly upstage this week and an event she hosted fire robot.

Take a look at this video. Trump hosted the inaugural fostering the future together education

summit earlier this week. And on Wednesday, the final day of the summit, she walked out with this

figure three, a third gen robot designed by the start of figure AI. F3 even spoke. Take a listen.

Thank you first lady Melania Trump for inviting me to the White House. It is an honor to be

fostering the future together as global coalition inaugural meeting. I'm figure three a humanoid

built in the United States of America. I am grateful to be part of this historic movement to

empower children with technology and education. Welcome. The first lady thanked figure three and

remarked that it was the first American-made humanoid guest in the White House. Now, as for the

summit itself, Trump convened her counterparts more than 40 countries to kick off our fostering

the future together initiative and call on nations to improve access to education and tech

around the world. But some here at home were skeptical of the first ladies' apparent embrace

of cutting edge tech in the classroom. Senator Andy Kim responding to her walk out with figure

three on X writing, or we could just hire teachers and Bernie Sanders advisor Warren Gunnels echoing

that in a post of his own quote, I don't want my daughter's teacher to be a humanoid robot named

Plato. I want her teacher to be a human being that has paid a living wage. It is not forced to work

three jobs to survive. I mean, what do you think of the robot moment at the White House?

Well, there's a couple of things. The hand movements are very...

No one needs media training because it's just like, it's Ricky Bobby. I don't know what to do with my

hand. Yeah, she's like, hi everybody. It was very pageantry. The walk that Melania was doing

and trying to keep up with the robot was kind of awkward. But I think the biggest thing for me is

like I am, and this is as a mom of a four-year-old, I am trying to scale back tech as much as I can,

right? She's going to have to be exposed to it, even as some classrooms as I'm touring schools

throughout the DMV area to see where she's going to go to school. I'm like, okay, how much

screen time do they have in the classroom? How much of that are iPads? Because I don't want that.

I want her to actually... I like touching books. I like... And I might be a grandma in this way,

but I just feel like she needs to just be out to hide and like experience things and kids

lose that too much to me. So this humanoid thing being a teacher also is scary. I know there are

some already like full classrooms that operate off of AI. I believe like Kalice the singer has her

daughter in a school and believe in South Africa, correct me from wrong. But they teach with a lot

of technology and rely less on human beings to avoid any errors. I know human makes errors. They

could be judgmental towards your kids. They could harm in other emotional ways if they're not a great

teacher. But I just... The human interaction that was positive more often than not for me as a child,

I would like for my kid to have. So this is just very scary. Well, you know, what I appreciate about

this initiative is one... I don't think I've ever seen another first lady step up and bring so many

other first spouses together for anything. Let alone for something as good as this. This is about

children. It's about education. It's about technology in the classroom and making sure the next

generation of students are ready for the jobs and the careers that will be available in the next

part of the century here. I agree teacher interactions. They come with good. They come with bad,

right? I'm the youngest to four. If you had my older sisters, you probably liked me. If you had

my brother, you were probably a little worried about me. And so, you know, you have those

different... They're very good. But I love the idea of bringing all of this tech into the classroom,

of giving students access to as many educational opportunities as possible because maybe a kid will

do better with a humanoid robot teacher. Some kids do better at home school. Some kids do better

online school. If this is another avenue and opportunity and it's being fostered in the White House

by Melania Trump, I'm very in for that. I think that that's a great thing for him to be standing

on. And it's a really, I think, a unifying thing, even if the robot walked, you know, was she was

trying to keep pace with a non-human. And she was a former model and that woman can walk well.

Right. I saw the leg crawl. Yeah, she's, she's, I mean stunning. I could never. I just am concerned

given the recent, the judge ruling that came down this week regarding meta, regarding some of these

programs. Like we can't always trust tech companies to make the right decision, specifically for

adolescents, teens and children. And so understanding that at the end of the day, a company programs

these robots, a major tech power player that has money involved, programs these robots, it's not like

scholastic, it's not like a, you know, a nonprofit is doing this. If it was, it probably would be

walking way more like all over the place because the funding would be limited. But if it could be

funded by, I don't know how you, because Robbie doesn't believe in non-partisan, when we say non-partisan

groups or like, he believes that everybody starts their agenda. But I just don't feel comfortable,

just trusting that to the people that are much smarter than I am in the tech space. Because that

doesn't mean that they don't have money on their mind first and foremost. And I think that that's

a concern given this new ruling about mental health and other things that might happen.

Or how it might be programmed to have the mindset or the thought process of the programmer.

Right. Yeah, I mean, there's, there's inherent bias across the board. And whether or not these

humanoids actually fully making the classrooms and, and help or supplement teacher work or give

students another chance, there will have to be a tremendous amount of guardrails that are put in

place to protect students. And to your point about social media companies, yeah, they've been sitting

by for decades saying, we're not going to do anything unless Congress acts. And now they have

this ruling. So I bet you tech lobbying on the hills about to jump up. And also there's a whole

layer of people online that are like freaked out because this is given I robot. Yeah. Yeah. What

happens? So AI was already, AI is a beautiful thing, right? It helps me make sure there's no

spelling errors immediately. A lot of things that it helps with. But knowing that we're fully

intertwining our lives with AI and with technology, I mean, literally everything is connected to my

phone when it comes down to what I have going on. Doctors point me like everything's just digital

school records for everything. And it's like, well, this is kind of crazy because if my phone breaks,

I thought about that my alarm's on my phone. Yeah. If my phone happens to break overnight,

not only do I miss the whole show, probably. I like, there's like so much connected. I kind of

feel like we need to, I know this is so old school, but we need to like back up a little bit.

I'm fully there for that. And this is like the conspiratorial part of me. I want to buy a car

pre-1985 when chips went in. In case something goes sideways and I have a bug out vehicle that like

is not based on tech, like I do worry about tech a little bit. And that's like the conspiratorial

part of me where I'm like, if something goes wrong in DC, I need a car where I can get out of town.

For real. I mean, I think like that's a major concern. I know a lot of people who talk about this

think about this like the aliens topic. Yeah. A lot of people get frustrated like, oh,

robots are going to take over technology is going to take over. But we've seen even cases where

people get some suggested advice from AI and now their parents want to sue AI. Right. Because

what the path that it led them down. And I know that that's you're not supposed to take it. It tells

you it's not a doctor or all this kind of stuff. When you sign the fine print and you sign up for

any of these chat GBT. But really it's again, kids are my biggest concern. I don't like a lot of

big decisions. And that's up to you. Right. Big bad choices. But kids and people whose minds are

still growing. I think that they are the people that I like to protect the most. I know that

Melania does care about children. I know that her initiative usually are trying to just push

some positive agenda. But tech space is not some space that I've grown to trust. Yeah, even though

I'm fully intertwined in it. I mean, I think if we've learned anything here, it's fear the robots.

Okay. That's what we're going to go with fear the robots. I'm a little bit a little bit of

go a long way on that one. I'm totally with you. Up next, comedian Bill Maher will receive

this year's Mark Twain Prize. Despite the White House previously denying it, we'll be right back

after this. Media and Bill Maher is set to receive the prestigious Mark Twain Prize for American

humor. The Kennedy Center's Vice President of Public Relations said in a statement, quote,

for nearly three decades, the Mark Twain Prize has celebrated some of the greatest minds in

comedy. For even longer, Bill has been influencing the American discourse. One politically incorrect

joke at a time. The announcement came after White House press secretary Caroline Levitt denied

a report from Atlantic last week calling it, quote, fake news. Levitt added, Bill Maher will not

be getting this award. Another White House official said after the announcement, quote,

this was false reporting at the time of the Atlantic's reporting, but the situation changed

after further conversations took place between the Trump Kennedy Center and event organizers over

the past week. The HBO real-time host said in a statement, quote, thank you to the Mark Twain people.

I just had the award explained to me and apparently it's like an Emmy except I win.

Some previous winners of Mark Twain Prize include Wippy Goldberg, Conan O'Brien, Dave Chappelle,

John Stewart, David Letterman, Carol Burnett, and Tina Fey. Wow, the award will be presented on June

28th just before Trump plans to close the Kennedy Center for renovations that are expected to last

about two years. So I think this is hilarious because mostly because we know that Bill Maher has

this weird relationship with President Trump, right? It's almost like not to the extent of Mom Donnie

because they were beefing pretty hard and then they became friends, but it was like he sat down with

the president, but then it's like every other podcast he's talking about how he still can do his

own thing. He's not like beholden to that meeting. It just was a nice dinner. He's a nice guy,

but he has like some of his policies, but then he's criticizing Democrats every chance he can breathe.

So I don't know where he's there. Well, I would that somebody like that bother the president.

If he's critical of the Democrats and you, it's not like he's just railing off on you.

I don't know why Caroline Levin was so confident to tell people that this is not happening,

not happening, then just to have to basically walk it back by the administration to say,

oh, he is getting awarded. This is going to go how it goes. I think it actually is a good thing for

the administration to show that they're not so biased in who they like doing everything and

getting everything. This is might be somebody who may be ruffles some feathers and it's okay,

he's still funny. Yeah, like a lot of criticism have said that the president just doesn't like all

these late-night hosts. He doesn't like, and it's like he doesn't like them, but also Bill

Moore counts in that category. He's been critical of him for years. Yeah, but Bill Moore at least was

willing to engage in a conversation with President Trump, right? He did go to the White House. He did

have that dinner, and they did get to know each other, and he still, you know, pulls no punches

against the president, and the president's kind of the same way. And it is rare. I can really

can't think of many other instances where Caroline has so definitively made a statement,

and they've had to walk it back. This is a very tight, you know, White House team, and they did end

up having to clarify if you're, if you're explaining your losing, that's what we say in comms.

I'm going to take that. Yeah, oh yeah, if you're explaining your losing, but, you know,

them having to say, oh, well, it wasn't correct at the time. Okay, so maybe somebody got out

ahead of it, and she was told, no, that's not true. I just really don't see that very often

from this communication shop, and that really struck me about this. More than Bill

Mar getting the award or not getting the award, right? I think that Bill Mar is serving of this.

He is a very funny guy. He's controversial. You've been on a show, right? I have been on

the show. I have a time with Bill Mar, which is wild to say out loud. But the idea that this guy

deserves this, right? That this is a funny man. He has had a huge impact on American culture,

and politics, and the way we see things in this country. So I mean, it's good that, you know,

the Trump administration isn't eliminating people from being able to receive those awards,

but I mean, Democrats, on the other hand, since Trump put his name on the Kennedy Center,

the Trump Kennedy Center, a lot of those left-leaning people are cancelling performances. They

don't want to come. Trump, on the other hand, has taken the opposite tact and bringing more in

of people who have a diverse opinion from his versus other people who are saying, we know like Trump,

so we're not going to participate. Well, it seems like there was some friction there, and they had

to piece it up about their decision. I think that when you have a Kennedy Center board, even if a lot

of them are friendly with the president, they still have to remember like the history of this

institution, why it's around, what the goals are. When you talk about those wide-ranging

comedians that were awarded in the past from Dave Chappelle will be Goldberg, and then you talk

about all the different events that they had there. Some people probably still want to preserve

the legacy of the Kennedy Center. So even if President Trump comes in with ideas, maybe somebody

in there is pushing back and saying, it can't just be end-all, be all what Trump wants to be,

because even though your name's on it, this center stands far beyond the names that have

ever been on it, right? It doesn't have to be only what Kennedy would want. It has to be with what

we think best represents the best of our culture, the best of our entertainment, and so I like

that this happened. I think this is, this is an example to say, well, maybe after this two-year

renovation, the Kennedy Center is not going to be completely awash with just only people like Kid

Rock every single day, which I would prefer not to see. That's up to the left, correct? If people,

you know, the invitations will be extended, opportunities will be there for everybody who

represents all portions of American culture and arts to be able to perform at the Kennedy Center.

It's up to them whether or not they actually do it, and we've seen where they continue to cancel

just because of Donald Trump. If that Trump Kennedy Center is supposed to be where we show the

finest of our culture and our arts, you would think more people would want to be involved in that,

no matter who the president is. You don't hear Bill Mar saying, I'm not going to accept that word

until Donald Trump's not president. He's like, wow, look at me. I finally won versus the MEC. He

doesn't win, right? A little self-deprecating humor. I just, I think that this is an opportunity,

maybe, for the left to see that the Trump Kennedy Center can be for all. Yeah, it'll open at some point,

probably right as he's walking out of office, and then I wonder if Democrats are going to go in

there and just try to take his name off, which also is going to cost a ton of money. I don't think

that it was the right move to put his name on the bill. And we talked about that while I

when I talked about him signing the money, but I would like to see performances still happen there,

because I think no matter what president Trump did, even during the pandemic, when he did sign

COVID checks, it was important that people received that funding. Yeah. So putting your name on it

is annoying to me, but it still doesn't change the actual function of the institution or the check

or whatever it is. So I wish that you could just take himself out of it sometimes. And then

this is the Trump show, and we all just live in it at this point, whether or not we like it,

and you're going to have to do that until 2028, because that's when this man will be in office

actually 2029 with inauguration day. Have you ever had a construction project that went on time?

And somebody that just finished building a house, I'll tell you that they told me to be done

in six months. Yeah. I was done in about a year and a half. Yeah. I think the Kennedy Center

probably will open back up when 20s and he's leaving. Yeah. In that January timeline. Yeah,

yeah. And he'll be there to cut the ribbon and throw a big party. And I think the next president

is going to invite him. Oh, I think oh, yeah. Oh, because you think it's going to be JD van.

That does it for us on Rising Live. Look out for more exclusive YouTube content. Come

a year away all day today. Be sure to like, share and subscribe to the Hills YouTube channel so you

never miss any content for those of you who like to listen on the go. We're now available anywhere.

You listen to podcasts. See you next week.

President Barack Obama. Virginia, we are counting on you. Republicans want to steal enough seats in

Congress to raid the next election and wield unchecked power for two more years. But you can stop

them by voting yes by April 21st. Help put our elections back on a level playing field and let

voters decide not politicians. Vote yes by April 21st. Paid for by Virginians for fair elections.

With USA you can bundle your auto and home and save up to 10% tap the banner to learn more and

get a quote at USA.com slash bundle restrictions apply.