Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to Victor Davis Hanson’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes. Jack Fowler: Most Americans don’t care about women’s basketball. We do here in Connecticut—you know, University of Connecticut women’s basketball, Geno Auriemma. All my kids went to UConn, so it’s kind of a religion in the state.  But a few things. You know, she did really well, for whatever reason. [Caitlin Clark] has revived this sport. She’s straight, she’s white, she is Catholic. I think she’s not religious religious, but she’s somewhat religious. So she’s anathema to much of this league, which is Black, lesbian, and, I guess, irreligious.  But nevertheless, when she came to town, she was putting butts in the seats. They were filling out the arenas. So, right, you called her the golden goose.   That said, in 2024, she should have been on the Olympic team. These old hags in the league would not let her on. The league just put out its 30th anniversary, so they put out a big poster with 30 stars on it. She’s not one of them. I mean, even the league itself hates her.  And then, you know, this incident last week where she was knocked down, and people talk about the fist on the neck. But there was also an attempt by that same woman to turn around and stomp on her, but she had rolled over.   Victor Davis Hanson: I saw that. I saw that. And at one point it was almost like a George Floyd thing with a knee, and the fist to the jugular vein was really scary. And then the referees didn’t do anything, and then the next day they gave a slap on the wrist—one day. And then immediately they started to turn around.  The girls involved said we’re victims. We’re getting racist comments. Well, welcome to the club. If you’re in the public square, I can tell you that I’ve had some of the worst threats in my life on online comments and emails. But they made her the aggressor.  And then I think it was the New York Post, or maybe—I don’t know—somebody sent, in a news aggregate, they listed everything they have done to her for the last three years.   Jack Fowler: Yes. Fox News has done an article on that.   Victor Davis Hanson: Yes. And they ruptured her eardrum. They hit her back. They kicked her. It’s just flagrant violence.  You know what she should do? I really believe that she should do this. She should just announce that she’s quitting this corrupt league and go to Europe and play basketball there. And she would do to European basketball…you would have Americans interested in it. It would be televised. They’d get a global audience. And just give up on these people, because they’re never going to accept her.  And the reason that people come out and see her is that she’s a multifaceted athlete. It’s not just because she’s white or straight. She can shoot three-pointers, and she’s huge—tall and gangly—but she’s tall. She can rebound. She can pass. She’s a composite player, and she’s not just a muscle person.  And I think it’s gotten to a point where they’re going to try to kill her. I really do believe that. Whether it’s going to be intentional, I don’t know, but they’re going to try to hurt her permanently, and they think it’s cute, because the perpetrator posted something, I think, right afterwards—Do you want that?—and then she took it down.  And then when you see the Karmelo Anthony, the whole commentary—you know, I wish I had killed his twin brother and all this—and everybody’s just supposed to say, you know what? This is because of slavery or something. I don’t know.  Jack Fowler: Somebody made an image where they had three white basketball players beating up a black player. Can you imagine what would have happened in that situation?   Victor Davis Hanson: I know what would happen because a great athlete was Jackie Robinson, and he was treated terribly by a lot of white players. But unlike this condition, there were a lot of white—Pee Wee Reese, for example, on the Brooklyn Dodgers was wonderful—and there were a lot of white players, and Branch Rickey, all those people supported Jackie Robinson.  And he was like Caitlin Clark. He kept cool. He didn’t strike back at them, but he didn’t back down. And it really shamed people to see that there were people in Major League Baseball who were racist.  And so now it’s completely flipped. You now have a black-dominant league, and you have very few white players. And one of the arguments was that the Major Leagues, this was all white, and you had 12%, 10% at that time, of Black America, and they had talented athletes, and they were not letting the 10% participate.  And now people are saying, well, women’s basketball is 75% to 80% black women, and now you have a very tiny minority of the majority of the country—which is 65% to 70%—and the so-called majority accepts that it’s a meritocratic enterprise. That we don’t want quotas, we don’t want set-asides, we don’t want DEI, we don’t want affirmative action.  But it is a predominantly black and, to a large degree, black lesbian league, and it doesn’t represent the demography of America, to use the leftist terms. There is no diversity. There is no proportional representation. That’s the terms that they use, not me. And they say when there’s not proportional representation, and there’s not diversity, it’s because of systemic racism.  It isn’t, I don’t think. I think it’s because of cultural trends or  whatever—emphases of different cultures in different areas of expertise.  But my point is that if they’re going to treat, if that league—and its coaches, referees, and owners—want to establish the principle that any brilliantly talented white girl who goes there and has a following that transcends race… because a lot of it, I looked at the stats, some of the clips show she has Mexican American, Asian, everybody type fans, black fans. There have been a lot of black people who have come out and deplored what happened to her.  If they don’t want that type of person in there, and they’re going to try to hurt them permanently to get rid of them, then I think people should do a left-wing boycott. They shouldn’t watch it. I don’t think they should watch it. I think they should go after the sponsors that sell ads during the broadcast. They should go after the broadcast itself.  They should do just what the left does—tit for tat—and say, you know what? This is an endemically, systematically racist enterprise. And you know what’s going on.   You know that this person is targeted because she’s white. And to a lesser degree, maybe she’s targeted because she’s heterosexual. You know the referees are not calling flagrant fouls as they should. You know the players are deliberately trying to hurt her. You know the coaches are helping them. And you know the owners won’t say a word because they’re terrified that the majority of their players feel this way.  And there’s no place in the United States for that. So people should just turn their backs and say, Caitlin, get out. Start your own league. Go to Europe. But don’t stay there, because they’re going to kill you. That’s the way I feel about it.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump said the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding birthright citizenship is “too bad for our country” and called on Congress to end the practice. “The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President, that has now been determined during this process,” Trump wrote Tuesday on Truth Social. “No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary!” He urged Congress to “start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship.” Birthright citizenship is the argument that, under the 14th Amendment, anyone born in the United States—even a child of illegal aliens—is automatically a U.S. citizen. It is Supreme Court precedent that dates back to 1898. The case involves Trump’s January 2025 executive order instructing federal agencies not to recognize citizenship for children born in the United States without at least one parent who is an American citizen. The court on Tuesday ruled against Trump on birthright citizenship, maintaining the status quo. The majority held that children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are citizens at birth under the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote for the majority, joined by Trump-appointed Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, as well as the trio of Democrat appointees, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Trump closely followed the case, and he even attended April 1 oral arguments at the Supreme Court in person. After the arguments concluded, Trump wrote in a social media post, “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” Fred Lucas contributed to this report.

Congressional conservatives are slamming the Supreme Court of the United States after it ruled to strike down a request from the president to redefine birthright citizenship. The 6-3 decision comes after President Donald Trump’s administration argued that the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applied to descendants of slaves in the 1800s, and not to the chain migration the United States has been subject to in recent decades. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Brett Kavanaugh concurs in part in the judgment and dissents in part. Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissent. “Neither the Founding Fathers, nor the authors of the 14th Amendment, nor the millions of Americans who fought and died for their country through the ages intended to establish a nation whose citizenship could so easily be purchased, whether through birth tourism of China’s communist party members or an invasion of millions enabled by faithless presidents,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told the Daily Signal. The clause in the 14th Amendment attracted controversy after U.S. births from noncitizens, especially illegal aliens, increased tremendously in recent years. The U.S. Center for Immigration Studies has estimated that in 2023 alone, between 225,000 and 250,000 births stemmed directly from illegal immigration. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, expanded on Lee’s remarks and told the Daily Signal that the “Supreme Court failed the American people.” “The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in no way stands for the proposition of creating a dangerous cottage industry of traveling to our soil to manufacture United States citizenship,” Roy continued. “The Supreme Court today should have said so explicitly and ended this damaging exploitation of our laws.” Roy has now called on Congress to “immediately do at least two things it should have done long ago,” which include “defin[ing] the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ very specifically to make clear that citizenship is tied to the citizenship of the parent, not the soil,” and “completely restrict[ing] funding from DHS or any other agency or state that provides documentation and status to anyone not subject to the ‘jurisdiction thereof.’” “In other words, Congress must act immediately and must not hide behind the fiction that it must amend the Constitution to fix this abuse of our laws,” Roy continued. “To do otherwise would be an abject failure of the United States Congress.” Justice Alito is correct — today's decision was a serious mistake by the Supreme Court.That's why Congress must fight to end birthright citizenship.The 14th Amendment was never meant to reward illegal aliens for breaking our laws. pic.twitter.com/hXKPWr8JxQ— House Freedom Caucus (@freedomcaucus) June 30, 2026 In a statement to the Daily Signal, Rep. Keith Self added that the ruling comes as a “catastrophic defeat” to “every American citizen, our national sovereignty, and the very future of our Republic.” Self added that “American citizenship is a sacred privilege—not a participation trophy handed out to those who violate our laws.” “The 14th Amendment was never meant to reward illegal aliens with the priceless gift of U.S. citizenship for breaking into our country,” he continued. The members remarks reflect those of the president. Prior to the decision, President Donald Trump advocated against birthright citizenship, writing on Truth Social that “we are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., agrees with the president’s remarks, and wrote on X that the decision comes as a call to action for conservative members of Congress to pass legislation that’ll align with their views on the 14th amendment, while preventing illegal immigration from exploiting the American immigration system. “Congress needs to respond,” Scott wrote. “We need to make sure illegal aliens don’t come into our country and EXPLOIT our immigration system.” “That means closing EVERY. SINGLE. LOOPHOLE.,” Scott continued. “I have a bill, the SAFE KIDS Act, to combat the exploitation of U.S. surrogacy laws for birthright citizenship.” “We also need to codify President Trump’s border actions so a future Democrat administration can’t undo them,” Scott added, calling on his colleagues to vote “on these EVERY WEEK until we provide the American people with an answer for this question.” This story will be updated with further congressional reaction.

The Pacific Palisades fire tragedy was totally preventable. The failure to rebuild since that tragedy is inexcusable. Today, my new documentary exposes how California Gov. Gavin Newsom turned the California Dream into Newsom’s Nightmare. Under Newsom’s leadership, California has the highest poverty rate in America. Amazing places like Pacific Palisades burned to ashes because of his corruption and neglect. Since the inferno, there’s been almost zero movement on the rebuild due to the dysfunction of Newsom and his political allies. This short documentary takes you to the scene with vivid, startling images and on-the-ground reporting. Featured guests include Kurt Schlichter, Susan Crabtree, Lauren Gruel, and Kristina Irwin—some of the brightest minds exposing California’s wildfire crisis and political failures. The Pacific Palisades fire tragedy didn’t have to happen. The California wildfire crisis is a direct result of California mismanagement at the highest levels. And now, Newsom is gearing up for a presidential run in 2028—bringing his California misery to all of America. PARADISE LOSTGavin Newsom's California NightmareThe Pacific Palisades fire tragedy was totally preventable.The failure to rebuild, since that tragedy, is inexcusable.It’s ALL the fault of Gavin Newsom. He has turned the California Dream into Newsom’s Nightmare.Under… pic.twitter.com/XyXSrAEI5D— Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) June 30, 2026

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled, 6-3, in favor of a West Virginia law preventing men from competing in women’s sports. “The question before the Court is: Under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, may schools maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females? In other words, may schools determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex? The answer is yes,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh, an appointee of President Donald Trump, wrote in the majority opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett joined Kavanaugh’s opinion. Thomas and Gorsuch wrote concurring opinions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an appointee of President Barack Obama, wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined. Jackson, an appointee of President Joe Biden, wrote another opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. VICTORY FOR WOMEN'S SPORTSThe Supreme Court upholds West Virginia's right to protect the integrity of women's sports by preventing males from competing. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the 6-3 opinion. pic.twitter.com/8JIv0M50UB— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) June 30, 2026 The court’s decision applied to combined cases from Idaho and West Virginia. The cases of Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. will affect 25 states with laws preventing biological males from competing in women’s sports. Trump signed an executive order in 2025 to withhold federal funds from states that allow biological males to compete in women’s sports. In 2020, Idaho lawmakers enacted the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, banning men and boys from competing in women’s and girls’ sports across all ages and levels of competition.  Lindsay Hecox, a male athlete who identifies as female and who wanted to be on the women’s track and cross-country teams at Boise State University, sued the state, and lower courts sided with the athlete, including the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  In the West Virginia case, a middle school student who claimed to identify as transgender wanted to play on the female sports teams at his school. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled West Virginia’s law violates Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sexual discrimination in educational programs and school athletics.  Thomas’ Concurrence “A man does not have a legal right to compete against women just because he believes he is a woman,” Justice Thomas wrote in his concurrence. He wrote separately to focus on two points. Thomas wrote that “transgender status is not a suspect class requiring heightened equal-protection scrutiny.” Those who are described as “transgender” are more accurately considered people with gender dysphoria (the painful and persistent identifying with the gender opposite one’s sex), Thomas wrote. “Because ‘gender dysphoria’ is a mutable mental state that is the object of psychiatric treatment, it does not resemble the immutable characteristics on the basis of which our precedents have applied heightened scrutiny—race, sex, or national origin,” he added. “Instead, gender dysphoria resembles other characteristics on the basis of which legislatures may classify with a merely rational basis,” and “legislatures have many obvious rational bases to keep men who believe they are women out of teams and private spaces reserved for women.” Second, Thomas insisted that “men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women and girls, even if they believe that they are.” He noted that “sex is an immutable ‘biological’ characteristic; it is binary; and ‘man’ and ‘woman,’ ‘boy’ and ‘girl,’ are terms that correspond to adults and children of each sex.” “To use language to obscure reality—to show ‘indifference regarding the truth’—is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens ‘as equal[s],'” he wrote, ,citing Josef Pieper. Sotomayor’s Opinion Justice Sotomayor wrote that “an outstanding factual dispute should have prevented the court’s resolution” of B.P.J.’s case. She argued that the case should turn on whether athletes such as B.P.J. actually have an “athletic advantage,” as determined by the facts on a case-by-case basis. “The ban is absolute, so B.P.J. cannot practice on girls’ teams, even if she would not take anyone’s spot in an eventual competition, even if everyone who tries out for the team makes it, and even if having the chance to participate could aid immensely in treating B.P.J.’s gender dysphoria.” She wrote that the court’s majority was “moving the goalposts” to resolve “this important, divisive issue without knowing all the facts even though the validity of the means-ends fit depends on them.” Sotomayor agreed, however, that West Virginia’s law did not violate Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. This story is developing and may be updated.