This is a rush transcript of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on June 10, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Good evening and welcome to TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT. 

In January, Israel became one of the first countries in the world to give the new coronavirus vaccine to young people. At the time, Israel’s Education Ministry said the vaccine was necessary so that students could sit for in-person exams. So, schools mandated the shot, kids got it. What happened next? 

This week we found out. Israeli health officials released a report showing that vaccinated young people, particularly young men, were developing a potentially fatal complication, a heart inflammation called myocarditis, and they were developing it at extremely high rates. 

Researchers determined that the incidence of myocarditis in vaccinated young men was fully 25 times the usual rate, some of them died. 

In Canada, at least one public health official observed the same thing. Dr. 

Peter Lu is the Chief Scientific Officer at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute. He’s an expert in myocarditis. Lu began to notice heart inflammation in patients who had received the vaccine. “It is more than coincidental,” he said. 

In Germany, authorities concluded the same thing. The German government just announced that healthy young people should avoid the vaccine. It’s too dangerous. This is a serious development for us in the United States. If statistical trends observed in Israel hold here, as many as 150,000 young Americans will develop a potentially fatal heart disorder because of the COVID vaccines. 

That’s not alarmism. It’s not some kind of anti-vaxxer conspiracy theory. 

It’s real. 

Just this afternoon, the C.D.C. confirmed what appear to be dangerous side effects. The country’s two biggest vaccine monitoring systems, the Biden administration’s Vaccine Adverse Reporting System known as VAERS and the C.D.C.’s Vaccine Safety Datalink both show strikingly high rates of myocarditis in young people who have been vaccinated. 

“We clearly have an imbalance there,” a C.D.C. official announced today. 

Imbalance is one way to put it, potential emergency is another way. 

Given these numbers, it is possible that healthy young people in this country will be much more likely to be harmed by the vaccine than by COVID itself. That would be a disaster, in fact, it would be the definition of a preventable disaster. 

How are institutions responding to these new numbers? Well, mostly by ignoring them completely. In fact, in just the last week, many American colleges and universities have announced they will require proof of vaccination, an official vaccination card, before they allow students to return to campus. At some schools, the mandate applies only to students. 

For reasons no one has explained or could possibly defend, it does not apply to faculty and staff. They are not required to be vaccinated. 

As for the huge number of young people who have already recovered from COVID, and therefore, likely have robust immunity, at least as robust as they could get from any vaccine, they will be required to get the shot, too. 

These are big numbers. They’re close to 20 million college students in this country. And in the end, most will have no choice, but to take a drug that other governments have concluded is dangerous for them to take. 

Yesterday, Virginia State University system announced that vaccine exemptions will be nearly impossible for students to get. An exemption, quote, ” … will not be granted based on a philosophical, moral or conscientious objection.” In other words, your conscience is irrelevant. 

Personal autonomy means nothing. It is no longer your body, it is no longer your choice. 

When it comes to this vaccine, there is no escape. 

You wonder watching this how it could happen in a free country, it’s hard to believe it is happening. As a medical decision, it is reckless. What are the long term effects of forcing these drugs on millions of young people, many of whom don’t need it? Well, we don’t know the answer. We don’t know what the long term effects are. Anyone who claims he does know is lying. At this point, there’s literally no way to tell. 

Just today, the F.D.A.’s advisory panel met to discuss the rise in cardiac emergencies in healthy young people who have received the vaccine. So far, the rate of myocarditis is more than twice what authorities anticipated. As one Tufts Medical School Professor who sits on the panel put it, quote, “Before we start vaccinating millions of adolescents and children, it is so important to find out what the consequences are.” Well, you think it would be important to find out, but Joe Biden doesn’t want to wait. Biden promised universal vaccination whether we need it or not and he plans to get it done. Here he is last week telling you to shut up and take the shot. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You know some people have questions about how quickly vaccines were developed. They say, they’ve been developed so quickly, they can’t be that good. 

The bottom line is this. I promise you, they are safe. They are safe. And even more importantly, they are extremely effective. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON: “I promise you, they are safe. They are safe.” If the numbers out of Israel turn out to be real and applicable to this country, our population, the clip you just saw will live forever as one of the most destructive things a sitting President has ever said from the podium. 

Maybe the worst part is the administration should have known this could be coming. Pfizer’s own clinical trials of the vaccine showed disturbing effects on young people, you’re seeing some of the results on the screen right now. 

Pfizer gave the vaccines to one group of children between the ages of 12 and 15. The rest got a placebo, as is common. Among children who received just the first dose of the vaccine, rates of serious symptoms were higher across the board, including symptoms consistent with myocarditis. 

Just few weeks ago, though, the F.D.A. approved the vaccine for 12 to 15- year-olds anyway. And now the age threshold for vaccination may be dropping. “The New York Times” is reporting that drug makers, including Pfizer and Moderna are gearing up to vaccinate children as young as six months old this fall. 

As a scientific question, none of this is necessary. Studies in medical journals around the world, “The Lancet,” for example, as well as “The Journal of the American Medical Association,” have shown that COVID is not a grave threat to children and that young people do not play a significant role in spreading COVID. 

But that has not stopped the Biden administration. Here’s Joe Biden’s personal COVID adviser demanding that all college students in addition to millions of other people get the shot. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

DR. ZEKE EMANUEL, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: There are clearly places where you’re congregating people that we should have mandates. Students in universities, my university, for example, faculty and staff; healthcare facilities, every healthcare worker ought to be vaccinated. I shouldn’t have to worry, has my doctor been vaccinated? Has that nurse been vaccinated? 

And I think employers ought to take this very seriously and consider mandating and requiring their workers to get vaccinated, especially if they’re going to come back to the office. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON: You must get vaccinated. Okay, what’s the risk? It tells you something that no one in authority ever seems to assess that or even mention the potential downside of vaccination. Every drug has potential side effects, every drug from Advil to chemotherapy. That doesn’t mean we don’t take them. It does mean, however, that we have a right to know exactly what those drugs could potentially do to us. 

Transparency is the essence of medical ethics. 

So, what is the harm rate from the COVID vaccines? What’s the harm rate? 

You’re not allowed to ask? Have you noticed that? They’ll shout at you if you ask. 

Several weeks ago, we quoted numbers from the administration’s own reporting system, VAERS, that showed a massive increase in deaths from this vaccine. Now, even if you believe the VAERS system is profoundly flawed, and it seems to be flawed, it’s hard to explain the jump in fatalities in relative terms — same system, different results. 

Between July 1st, 1997 and the end of 2013, that’s five and a half years, there were 2,149 deaths reported in the U.S. for all vaccines combined on the VAERS system. Yet, in just six months, the last six months, there have been more than 5,160 deaths associated with the COVID vaccines as reported to VAERS. That’s more than double the number of deaths in less than one- tenth of the time. 

What does that mean? How do you explain that? Oh, but those numbers are wrong, said the usual liars with maximum hysteria. Okay, let’s say they are wrong. What are the real numbers? How many people have been killed or injured by the COVID vaccines? Does anyone know the answer? 

More to the point, is anyone in authority making a good faith effort to find the answer? To figure out who is being hurt and how? Would they tell us if they knew? 

Honestly, it is outrageous. If you’re going to force people to take a drug, you have a moral obligation, an absolute moral obligation to understand exactly what the effects of that drug might be, and then be honest about what they are. But they’re not doing that. We can say that conclusively. 

The people closest to these decisions have a pretty good sense of what’s going on. They know transparency when they see it. They also know lying when they see it. 

You may have noticed the other day that the heads of N.I.H. and the C.D.C. 

admitted that up to half of their employees have not been vaccinated. Why is that exactly? You would think that people who work at N.I.H., or the C.D.C. would be first in line. Why aren’t they? It’s not because they’re ignorant. Maybe it’s the opposite. 

In Texas, one group of healthcare workers, these are some of the most informed patients in America are revolting in public at the thought of being forced to take this vaccine. Watch. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): Houston Methodist Hospital requiring all staff members to get vaccinated for COVID-19 or be fired. 

JENNIFER BRIDGES, HEALTHCARE PROVIDER. HOUSTON METHODIST, BAYTOWN: Right off the bat, I pretty much decided like I was not going to do it. Everybody in America should have the right to decide what they put into their body. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): Jennifer Bridges has worked at Houston Methodist in Baytown more than six years. 

BRIDGES: I planned on staying with Methodist for the rest of my life. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): She spent the last year and a half treating coronavirus patients and even got sick herself. 

BRIDGES: I just had an antibody test like a week ago, I still have antibodies in my system. But it doesn’t count for them. It doesn’t work. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): More than a hundred coworkers have joined Jennifer with this lawsuit against the hospital. It claims Methodist is forcing its employees to be human guinea pigs. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON: The most basic questions of civil liberties are in the balance here, and at some point, they will be resolved. At some point, the courts will decide whether it is legal under American law to force adults to take medicine they don’t want to take. 

But for millions of college students, time is running out. They don’t have the luxury of waiting for a court decision because in just weeks, they will have to show their vaccine passports or they will be barred from school. 

What should they do? How should their parents respond? 

Dr. Hooman Noorchashm is a surgeon and a scientist who has taught at Harvard Medical School. He’s thought deeply about these questions and assembled a lot of science to bring to bear on. He joins us now. 

Doctor, thanks so much for coming on. 

DR. HOOMAN NOORCHASHM, PHYSICIAN: Thanks, Tucker. 

CARLSON: So, I want to ask you specifically about college students, because I know that you have a number of children, including some I believe in college, but also because you’ve done work on the question of vaccinating people who have recovered from the virus and have high levels of antibodies in their system. 

Does it, from a medical perspective makes sense, to force kids, young people to get the vaccine when they have already recovered from COVID? 

NOORCHASHM: Well, Tucker, that’s a really great question. You know, I think in the recent months, and most recently, in the past week, it’s becoming increasingly clear that people who are COVID recovered are equally protected from SARS-CoV-2 infections as compared to people who are vaccinated. And this is obviously something that many of us were predicting, even before the evidence emerged. 

So no, I believe, as we’ve discussed before extensively, that vaccinating people who are COVID recovered in this emergency situation where we’ve basically very rapidly approved this new vaccine is a colossal error in public health judgment. 

I mean, you know, we’re basically overriding the principles of medical necessity. So, in other words, if a person does not need or stand to benefit from a vaccine, or any medical treatment, they should not be given it because it only opens the door to harm. 

In addition, we’re doing something unprecedented during this pandemic, which is that we’re vaccinating people in the middle of an outbreak where a lot of people are either asymptomatically infected or have had recent infections. And that’s just a recipe for disaster as the data is bearing out. 

CARLSON: So, as someone who has studied this extensively, and I think has the credentials to speak authoritatively on it, how strongly do you feel about this? I mean, if you were a parent without getting into your own specific situation, but if you were a parent of a child, who had recovered from COVID, and had high levels of antibodies present as measured by blood test, how would you respond to the demand that that child has to get the vaccine before returning back to campus? Would you allow that? 

NOORCHASHM: I’ll tell you that I’m happy to share my own personal experience with you. In fact, I’m exactly in that position, I have two kids who are going to college, one of them is going to be going to a great college in Boston, starting this fall. She had no antibodies, so she went ahead and got the Moderna vaccine, uneventfully, and now has good antibody levels. 

My son who is a sophomore at the University of Chicago, well, you know, he had COVID in November, and he has a really a whopping amount of antibodies. 

And so we are in the process of asking for a vaccine exemption on the basis of medical necessity and potential harm. 

I mean, you know, I think this is really, you know, from a medical perspective, and from a medical ethical perspective is a no brainer. And frankly, you know, if we start forcing these kids at risk of loss of their educational opportunities and opportunity to be in-person to get vaccinated, then they get end up getting harmed, you know, this is the liability that the institutions will have to absorb. 

You know, I mean, this is really not an approved vaccine. We’re rushing this through very fast in an unprecedented situation where many people are already naturally infected. It’s a horrible idea and I think it’s a colossal error. 

CARLSON: I’ve got ask you — I think you make a compelling case. Very quickly, if you don’t get — if I can be personal for a second, if you don’t get that medical exemption, if your son doesn’t, what then? 

NOORCHASHM: Well, it’s a good question. You know, we will cross that bridge when we get to it, but you know, I certainly plan on having his serologies measured again, and I would not be opposed if his antibody levels drop, to recommending that he get a booster shot. Now, a part of this is also going to be his own decision because he is an adult, but you know, yes, he has been following my recommendations so far. 

CARLSON: I think they’re pushing the population into a difficult spot here, a lot of parents like you, Dr. Noorchashm, thanks so much for coming on tonight. I appreciate it. 

NOORCHASHM: My pleasure. 

CARLSON: So, a new study on hydroxychloroquine, the forbidden drug has just been conducted by researchers at St. Barnabas Medical Center in New Jersey. 

They found that hydroxychloroquine actually can increase survival rates from COVID by up to 200 percent. 

Now, you aren’t allowed to say that last year for reasons that aren’t exactly clear, but apparently it’s true. Alex Berenson likely knew that all along. He is the author of “Unreported Truths about COVID-19 and the Lockdowns, Part 4: Vaccines.” He joins us now. 

Alex, I want to ask you about hydroxychloroquine. But very quickly, what do you make of these numbers out of Israel, the response by Germany, the notations by physicians in Canada and now, our own C.D.C. that suggests that young men taking this vaccine might be at risk for heart inflammation, how big a story is this? 

ALEX BERENSON, AUTHOR: It’s an enormous story, Tucker. It has enormous public health implications. It has enormous political implications. And it has enormous implications for parents and kids. And I think we should remember, it was barely a month ago that the C.D.C. said kids 12 to 15 could get this vaccine. 

Now, we don’t have very much data on that population yet, but there have already been two cases of myocarditis after the second dose. And remember, you can’t have gotten the second dose more than a few days ago, if you’re in that population. 

So the fact that there are already two cases popping up is worrisome. And the other thing that’s very, very clear, when you look at the data is this is totally age-stratified. If older people do not seem to have an excess risk for myocarditis after they get the vaccine, younger people do and the risk appears to get worse the younger kids are, and so why you would push

12 to 15-year-olds to be vaccinated when we know worldwide when you look, the risk of death from COVID in healthy people under the age of 18 is so low, you almost can’t measure it, okay. 

In a lot of countries, it looks like it’s like one per a million. And so, there is a real — I don’t understand what the public health authorities were thinking and are thinking, but the one thing I’ll say it seems good to me right now that the C.D.C. seems genuinely concerned about this. They’ve called for this emergency meeting next week, and we’ll see what they say. 

But you know, you and I, and other, you know, sort of voices in the wilderness have been warning about this, just the way we were talking about the lab leak last year and nobody wanted to listen. And now the chickens are really coming home. 

CARLSON: Scary, and at great cost to people and their kids. Tell me about hydroxychloroquine. We haven’t been allowed to use that word for some time. 

I think it was illegal. Now, what is it now? What do we know? 

BERENSON: Very quickly. I mean, I think this is just part of this bigger puzzle where, you know, Donald Trump last year, you know, liked hydroxychloroquine, so you weren’t allowed to say anything positive about it. 

The study you’re talking about out of New Jersey, it’s an interesting study. It’s observational. It’s what you’d call hypothesis generating. In other words, it should be confirmed if it’s true with bigger studies that are actually randomized controlled, which they haven’t done. They did make one very interesting observation, which is that maybe hydroxychloroquine was under dosed in heavy people. And so if you dose them higher, you might have a better chance of showing the results that, you know, that you’d like to show, that the drug actually has benefit, which we really haven’t done yet. 

But here’s what you really should remember about HCQ. We don’t know at this point, I would say whether this drug works or not. What we know is that the medical establishment last year once Donald Trump said he, you know, liked it was on a Jihad to destroy it. And “The Lancet” published a paper that it had to retract. That’s how much it wanted to prove that hydroxychloroquine didn’t work. 

And so this is another piece with the vaccines. I mean, I will say if Donald Trump were President right now, and we were talking about the Trump vaccines, I can promise you the medical establishment would be looking much harder at what they should have been looking at for the last six months. 

CARLSON: Oh, man, we’ve shut down previous vaccines with a much smaller reported harm rate. I mean, tiny fraction of what VAERS is showing now, so yes, no, I think you’re absolutely right. Alex Berenson, I appreciate your coming on. Thank you. 

BERENSON: Tucker, it’s a pleasure. 

CARLSON: So, for a White House that stands on the side of women — women — it’s interesting to note that the Biden administration has now banned the word “women” and “mother,” that’s totally out. Mothers are now “birthing people.” 

I am not making this up. We’ve obtained a new document from the administration that illuminates all the different words being banned from the English language, and you might want to write them down for when they become illegal. We will be right back. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) 

CARLSON: They used to say it’s as American as mom and apple pie, can’t say that anymore. Both are banned. We first noticed this a few weeks ago when maybe the single dumbest Member of Congress, a member from St. Louis called Cori Bush used the term “birthing people” rather than mothers, that sounds like something out of a dystopian science fiction novel. 

But now, in just a few weeks, it’s gone mainstream. Now, the term “birthing people” has the endorsement of the White House. 

At a hearing yesterday, the Deputy Director of Joe Biden’s Budget Office explained, you really have to be a bigot to use the term “woman.” 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

REP. JASON SMITH (R-MO): The budget request $26 million to reduce maternal mortality and eliminate race-based disparities and outcomes among, quote “birthing people.” I’ve never heard the term before, can you explain what it means? 

SHALANDA YOUNG, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET: 

Absolutely. There are certain people who do not have gender identities that apply to female or male. So, we think our language needs to be more inclusive and how we deal with complex issues. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON: This is maybe the least complex issue ever addressed. Mothers give birth, fathers don’t. Children are the product of the mother and the father. That’s not politics, it’s biology. And if you’re forcing the rest of us to deny it, then you are a totalitarian who seeks to control reality itself, which is beyond your purview, by definition. 

And it is not just the Budget Office that is doing this. This show has obtained a document from the Federal Reserve, the internal website at the Fed, its employees read, it’s a memo on bias-free language. But of course, it’s very biased. It instruct staffers not to use words and phrases that may be considered offensive. What’s offensive? Founding Fathers, manmade, and singular pronouns like he or her. 

Now, the Fed is controlling monetary policy. It is also totally destroying the economy, in case you haven’t noticed, but right or wrong, it is supposed to be apolitical. Why are they trying to control our language? 

Because they want to control our minds. But the Fed? 

Victor Davis Hanson, one of the few people we know smart enough to see what this really means. He is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and we’re honored to have him tonight. 

Professor, thanks so much for coming on. What should we take from this? 

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, SENIOR FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION: Thank you. 

Well, you know, I think it’s characteristic of all bureaucracies that when they can’t solve an existential problem, they always go to the triviality, as if they’ve done something. 

CARLSON: Right. 

HANSON: Because look at the Federal Reserve, you know, we may have six to seven percent inflation right now per annum, and we have 2.8 mortgage rates. That’s a gap. And what are they doing? They are looking at the pronouns. And the same thing is true with the O.M.B. 

CARLSON: Good point. 

HANSON: We have a $30 trillion deficit — debt and a trillion dollar annual deficit — they don’t have a clue how to handle that. But they do want to focus on these trivia. And you know, it’s also characteristic, I think, Tucker, of the left. They always want to be a cultural revolutionary. 

So, they want to go back in the past and cancel people out and rename streets and buildings and universities and topple statues, and change the language. That’s what the Soviet Union did. And then they think in the present, starting in Year Zero, and then here we go in the future according to our plans, so the Biden administration believes that after a thousand years of usage in the English language, they and their infinite genius, have invented new words that nobody ever thought of, and therefore, this is the beginning of a new — I don’t know, paradise or a utopia. 

It’s also, I think, Tucker, it’s sort of giving an answer for a question that doesn’t exist or a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist. It’s kind of like the Jussie Smollett syndrome. There is no victimization rampant, so they have to come up with these psychodramas, so they can feel that wow, we’re a polarized society and we’re not — we don’t have equity, or fairness. 

But these words were here for a reason. They’re specific, I think it’s very important that people realize that while the Founding Fathers, their achievement was not because they were male, but they transcended their sex. 

They weren’t just chauvinist or racist, they created ideas, all the Enlightenment, that meant that you would have the women’s suffrage or you would have Civil Rights, because that was the logic of all men are created equal. They didn’t have to do that. 

There’s nothing in the Constitution that mentions race, or gender, and so that they were male is, you know, incidental, but it is important to see how they did it. I think it’s important for us to not say that Queen Victoria or Queen Elizabeth, or Madame Curie or Helen Keller, was a woman, and that’s who she was. 

But I’d also think that it enriches history to know that they were women, and they transcended their situation. 

So, I don’t want to go and we create language, and then in an Orwellian fashion, and make us all just sort of nothing, collective blah, and that’s what they’re trying to do. And is there really a problem? Do we have a lot of transgender people, you know, pouring into hospitals that are pregnant and saying, you know what, I’m going to have a medical crisis if you get the wrong pronoun. 

Pronouns are helpful, they enrich the language, they distinguish reality. 

That’s what language is for. 

CARLSON: Quickly, do you find it interesting that they are so offended by fertility and nature and the idea that people reproduce and that’s okay. 

You know, that we — men and women come together and create new life, like the whole thing is repulsive to them. Why is that? 

HANSON: Well, I think it’s because it started with the feminist movement that they felt that that impaired a woman’s future, but I think it also reflects reality, Tucker, that the age when people are getting married, having children, buying a home, buying a house has gone from mid-20s to mid-30s. And our crisis right now is that we’re not reproducing ourselves, we’re about 1.8 rather than 2.1 or two. And we’re suffering from what — prolonged adolescence. 

These children or they have adult bodies, but they have the minds of children. They don’t want to grow up. AOC is a good example of a person who is suffering from prolonged adolescence. And she said she doesn’t want to have children because of climate change. So it’s a phenomenon. 

I don’t know if it’s because of $1.7 trillion in student debt or the economy, but they just don’t want to take off their training wheels and go out and experience life and its adventures and dangers. 

CARLSON: Yes, it’s sad, even sad for Sandy Cortez, you know, kind of missing the best part. The fun part. 

HANSON: It is. 

CARLSON: Victor Davis Hanson, I appreciate your coming on tonight. Thank you. 

HANSON: Thank you. 

CARLSON: So, Joe Biden has said he is going to investigate extremism in the military. It’s a hotbed of extremism. Now, we are learning who is in charge of that investigation. And of course, it’s extremists. Are you surprised? 

We’ve got details. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) 

CARLSON: It’s kind of weird that at the very moment that most of the country lives in terror that anything you say can be twisted into the “R word” and you get fired and canceled and never heard from again, we’re all exquisitely sensitive, trying to step over boundaries that change every day. Some small group of people seem to be able to attack anyone they want on the basis of their race and they’re celebrated for it. That’s accelerating. It’s getting more intense. 

Trace Gallagher has the latest example for us tonight. Hey, Trace. 

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey Tucker. For context, you should know the Dr. Donald Moss is an author and faculty member at both the New York Psychoanalytical Institute and the San Francisco Center for Psychoanalysis, where he tells his students that whiteness is contagious, and can be passed on by other infected people and that you are more prone to contract whiteness if you are white. 

So now, Dr. Moss has published a report that calls whiteness a quote “malignant parasitic-like condition” that enables the host to have, quote, “power without limit, force without restriction, violence without mercy,” 

and a drive to quote, “hate and terrorize” and quote “target non-white peoples.” 

But there’s good news bad news. Good news, parasitic whiteness is treatable, he says — phew — with quote, “psychic and social historic interventions,” including methods of redistribution and reparations. The bad news is whiteness has no cure. 

As you might imagine, some are calling this psycho nonsense quoting here, “How do my colleagues consider this scholarship? Anyone actually take this seriously?” And this quoting, “I was skeptical, so I looked it up and yes, this is real. And now I want to throw my Psychology degree in the garbage.” 

Not only is it real, Dr. Moss’s report was published in “The Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association,” one of the most trusted publications in Psychology, most trusted, essentially Tucker, it’s the CNN of psychoanalysis. 

CARLSON: An analogy we can all understand. Trace Gallagher, great to see you tonight. Thank you. 

GALLAGHER: You, too. 

CARLSON: Does anyone take that kind of stuff seriously? Yes. The answer is, yes. And if you keep talking like that, what are the consequences? How is this going to wind up? Where are we going exactly? 

It’s dangerous. That’s obvious. 

Well, in January, the new Secretary of Defense and a former defense contractor vowed to root out extremism in the military. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

LLOYD AUSTIN, THEN NOMINEE FOR U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: And if confirmed, I will fight hard to stamp out sexual assault, and to rid our ranks of racists and extremists. 

The job of the Department of Defense is to keep America safe from our enemies, but we can’t do that if some of those enemies lie within our own ranks. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON: Some of those enemies are within our ranks. Well, he’s right about that, probably thinking of a different group, though. We’re now learning that as part of its hunt for extremists, The Pentagon has partnered with Islamic activists, including one attorney who has called for the release of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. 

We’re also learning — the things we’re learning never really end — that a U.S. Army battalion commander at Fort Carson reportedly told troops and we’re quoting now, “white people are part of the problem.” Well, that’s healthy? Daniel Greenfield is an investigative journalist who’s been on these stories. He joins us tonight. 

Daniel. Greenfield, thanks so much for coming on. What picture of the U.S. 

military and its leadership does this paint would you say? 

DANIEL GREENFIELD, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST: It paints a very unpleasant one from the top down. Bishop Garrison who is running the CEWG, which is the Countering Extremism Working Group. This is the organization that Austin has set up in order to create a new definition of extremism, because there’s so much talk about extremism. How do you define extremism? 

This group is going to define that extremism. It is going to screen where recruits into the military. It’s going to punish them if they lie about their past activities. It’s going to be a point of contact for veterans warning them about extremism, and it’s obviously going to regulate who gets into what kind of national security positions. 

They’ve actually gotten 18 experts to come in and coordinate with this Countering Extremism Working Group on this definition. Only one of them has a military background, only two of them have a law enforcement background. 

The vast majority of them are partisan Democrats who have supported Biden. 

And then strangely enough, about a third of them are Muslim or from Islamist groups, two of whom appear not even be United States citizens but have worked with the United Nations. 

CARLSON: So these sound like political commissars to me. 

GREENFIELD: That’s very much the case. They are going to create a definition of extremism that fits a particular political agenda. Bishop Garrison has already said that we’re not going to have any tolerance for this ideology, then they quickly corrected themselves and he has corrected it to behavior. But you know, once you start talking about ideology, beliefs that people in the military can and can’t have, that is very much a political commissar. 

That’s the kind of thing that the left was accusing McCarthy of doing in the Army McCarthy hearings. They’re going to tell people in the military what kind of beliefs they can have, what they can think, not just what they can do. 

CARLSON: You know, maybe at some point, someone in the Congress can hold up the military budget over stuff like this, like you can’t have a politicized military. That’s the one thing you can’t have. 

In one sentence, have you heard of any Member of Congress who is like, no, you can’t have any more defective fighter jets if you keep talking like this. Is anybody pushing back? 

GREENFIELD: Or for that matter, defunding the actual money that’s going to all these critical race theory, diversity programs, because that’s really a huge financial center. 

CARLSON: Maybe Dick Cheney’s daughter can get on there. She cares about the troops. 

Daniel, I appreciate your coming on. Thank you so much. 

GREENFIELD: Thank you so much. 

CARLSON: So we talked about a lot of long term problems on this show, and probably some will be resolved, kind of on their own. Here’s one you might want to worry about — fertility rates, the reproduction of the species, declining dramatically in this country. No one is talking about why and what effect it is having on people. 

We will speak to someone who has taken a serious look at this, and she joins us next. 

Also, a new episode out tonight of our documentary series, “Tucker Carlson Originals” on foxnation.com right now and highly recommended. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) 

CARLSON: So, we have a documentary series called “Tucker Carlson Originals.” The newest episode is out tonight. It’s called “Hunting MS-13” 

on FOX Nation. We want to know what MS-13 is, why it’s such a threat to us here in this country, so we visited where it came from El Salvador and met with members of MS-13 who were being held in prison for murder and talked to them. 

Here is part of it. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON (voice over): To understand just how tough prison in El Salvador has become, we took a tour. 

CARLSON (on camera): We are Izalco Prison, an hour and a half outside San Salvador. This is part of the President’s anticrime effort. I think this is the first prison in the country to mix gang members in the same facility. 

Quite a controversial decision. We’re about to walk in with the Director of Prisons. 

You can tell by the radioactive stickers on the wall, this is some kind of high tech x-ray machine where you stand on a conveyor belt and are fully exposed. That was after going into the back room for a full forensic pat down. So, security here is pretty tight. 

(VIDEO CLIP ENDS) 

CARLSON: MS-13 is among other things, a product of our broken immigration policy, a direct result of it. We talked to the President of El Salvador, he said that MS-13 has grown into something bigger than a gang. It’s a threat to the integrity of the nation. 

(VIDEO CLIP BEGINS) 

CARLSON: How would you describe MS-13? 

NAYIB BUKELE, SALVADORAN PRESIDENT: Well, it’s an international crime organization. It’s not just a gang, like it was like most people will think. It’s not a gang, it is an international criminal organization. 

They have offices in New York and in Los Angeles, in Italy, in Australia, right here in Guatemala, and Honduras. I mean, this is a very big criminal organization comprised of hundreds of thousands of people. 

(VIDEO CLIP ENDS) 

CARLSON: Pretty amazing experience. The one thing you learn when you talk to people in MS-13 or being held in prison for murder, is that they joined it in LA. So, if you think our immigration policy doesn’t have consequences, you ought to watch it. 

By the way FOX Nation cannot be censored by the tech monopolies because they don’t own it. They don’t control it. It’s on foxnation.com. 

So, total fertility last year in the United States mean the number of children Americans have was the lowest on record since the government began tracking it nearly a hundred years ago. 

Total births were at their lowest rate since 1979. This has massive implications for the country, for all of us who live here. What are they? 

Rebeccah Heinrichs is with the Hudson Institute. She just wrote a piece on this for “The American Mind.” We’re happy to have her on tonight. Rebeccah, thanks for coming on. 

REBECCAH HEINRICHS, NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST AND HUDSON INSTITUTE SENIOR

FELLOW: Thanks for having me, Tucker. 

CARLSON: So apart from the obvious biological implications will cease to exist if we don’t reproduce, what are the more subtle implications of a declining fertility rate? 

HEINRICHS: Well, most people point to the economy as the driver of the problem, people don’t have any kids because they can’t afford it. And I think there’s actually a cultural driver going on, Tucker. Really, there’s this cultural dogma that’s telling little girls that their greatest value in society is to the extent that they can maneuver to monetize their talents and abilities. 

You saw this over Mother’s Day weekend with prominent publications, prominent feminists, who were really denigrating motherhood, and extolling intentional childlessness. You can see it in the Biden plan to $225 billion to have nationalized daycare, to get bodies into the workforce. 

It’s essentially Tucker, you could say handmaids of capitalism that’s being pushed, when the truth of the matter is, women still want to be mothers. 

And they’re essentially cauterizing their hearts to put off having children, put off having more than one child to go into the workforce, establish their careers at first, and they run at a time. 

What we should be doing is the thrust of my piece is something that I tell young women is to get married, and have children, to continue to do good, continue to work, monetized or not. But to the extent that it works for your family, and that that’s where you’re going to find great happiness, and you’re going to have a healthier society if you do that. 

CARLSON: It’s such corporate propaganda. I mean, is there any one on his deathbed or her deathbed and thinks, man, you know, I’m just so glad about the raise I got at Citibank. Does anyone from the H.R. Department at Blackstone come visit us you’re dying? Like none of it means anything. It’s so hollow, why doesn’t anyone say that? 

HEINRICHS: It is hollow, but actually it, this is something that people on the right and the left are actually really bad at. People are afraid to affirm to their children that their time, talents and abilities, and education are never wasted on their children. 

And I love my work. I’m not saying that women shouldn’t work. What I am saying is that they should prioritize what is most important before time runs out, and not just having children, but having children takes time, nurturing children takes time, and the self-sacrifice rings out great joy, and that children aren’t just this burden on society, that this makes life worth living and the pursuit of happiness is constituted, is made in pouring into other people and relationships and self-sacrifice. It’s something that all of us need to be better at encouraging young women to do. 

CARLSON: Yes, it’s also super fun. I mean, I’m a man with a job and nothing I’ve ever done professionally means anything compared to having children. 

It’s like not even in the same category and wasting your life trying to boost the next quarterly report, that’s the saddest thing I’ve ever heard. 

Why can’t some Republican just say that? Are they all totally emasculated and just can’t tell the truth about life? 

HEINRICHS: We just haven’t really exercise those muscles. It’s all about GDP. But what is the point of a good GDP? The point of a good GDP is for a healthy society and polls show that more than 50 percent of married women prefer to have one person primarily at home for children when they’re under the age of five and one person being the primary breadwinner because they don’t just want to have children, they also want to be with them. 

And so a lot of the public policy actually they ignore this. Elites just think that we need to get bodies into the workforce. But really, again, it’s not just in producing widgets. It’s not even in breaking glass ceilings, which can be good, but it’s in these relationships. And so I mean, every grandmother, grandfather, mother, mentor, professor needs to be doing a better job of affirming this in women who do want to get married and have children and not to just waste their time. 

CARLSON: Yes, of course. Boy, we’ve really been sold a bunch of lies. No wonder everyone is so unhappy. Oh, Citibank. It’s so important. 

Rebeccah, great to see you tonight. Thank you so much. 

HEINRICHS: Thanks, Tucker. 

CARLSON: This show is not yet over, though, honestly, coming a little closer, but we’ll be right back. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) 

CARLSON: Look at that. We are out of time. I just kept talking and the clock ran out. 

But we’ll be back tomorrow. We will see you then. We’ll also see you on FOX Nation. We’ve got a brand new episode of our documentary series. Of course, we are very excited about this and for good reason. 

Sean Hannity takes over next. 

We will see you tomorrow. 

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc.  All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.