What effect do hormone suppressing drugs have on transgender children?

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," April 11, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, you may have seen was arrested this morning in London, dragged from his longtime refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy there and thrown into a police pen.

Assange's arrest is a remarkable new development in a long and fascinating story. One that tells you a lot about our leaders and their priorities. We will have that story for you in just a minute.

But first tonight for details on what exactly happened to Assange today, we're joined by Fox's chief intelligence correspondent, Catherine Herridge.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Well, thanks, Tucker. This seven-page Virginia indictment was filed in March 2018 and unsealed earlier today as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested in London after Ecuador withdrew asylum.

Assange spent seven years in their embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden on a rape allegation. The indictment alleges that Assange engaged in a bride conspiracy with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst for the U.S. Army to access classified information on Defense Department computers.

WikiLeaks eventually posted thousands of classified defense and State Department records. Assange's lawyer issued a statement this morning defending his client as a reporter and publisher quote, "The U.K. courts will need to resolve what appears to be an unprecedented effort by the United States seeking to extradite a foreign journalist to face criminal charges for publishing truthful information."

Former U.S. government officials and legal experts predict a protracted legal battle for Assange and the Justice Department over a host of issues including extradition that may go well beyond the Trump presidency, Tucker.

CARLSON: Thanks a lot, Catherine, for that summation. Appreciate it. Well, if you watch a lot of the coverage of this story today on television, you likely came away with the understanding that Julian Assange is some kind of Russian spy who is in trouble tonight because he stole classified documents from the U.S. government. That is not true. It's factually incorrect and saying so it's not a defense of Assange, we're not here to promote him or excuse any number of things he said over the years that we disagree with quite a lot.

But just so it's clear, whatever his sins, Assange did not steal documents from the United States government. He did not hacked the DNC servers. He didn't break into John Podesta's Gmail account. There is no proof that he is working for the Russian government or ever has worked for the Russian government. Assange has never been charged with any of that and wasn't today, no matter what they tell you.

If you're upset about the theft of classified documents from the U.S. government, and there is reason to be, we already know who did that. A 22- year-old army private named Bradley Manning, now called Chelsea Manning. In 2013, Manning pleaded guilty to stealing secret material and got 35 years in prison for it. Shortly after that Barack Obama commuted Manning's sentence, this allowed Manning to leave jail decades early, go back on television as a commentator, and then run for political office.

So if your real concern is America's national security, you have someone to be angry at -- Barack Obama. And yet strangely, nobody is. Instead they're furious at Julian Assange for printing the documents that other people stole. Quote, "Julian Assange has long been a wicked tool of Vladimir Putin and the Russian intelligence services," wrote professional moralizer Ben Sasse who also serves in the U.S. Senate. "He deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison." Wicked? The rest of his life in prison? Idi Amin ate people and never faced this kind of scorn. Not even close, nor for the record was Amin ever extradited. He died at 78 years old in his own bed leaving behind 43 loving children.

So what's going on here? A couple of things. First, Julian Assange embarrassed virtually everyone in power in Washington. He published documents that undermined the official story on the Iraq War and Afghanistan. He got Debbie Wasserman-Schultz fired from the DNC. He humiliated Hillary Clinton by showing that the Democratic primaries were in fact rigged. Pretty much everyone in Washington has reason to hate Julian Assange.

Rather than just admit that straightforwardly, he made us look like buffoons, so now we're sending him to prison. Instead, they're denouncing him as, you guessed it, a Russian agent. Watch Senator Richard Blumenthal explain.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, D-CONN: Justice should come to Julian Assange for his role in Russian meddling in our election and the sooner the better.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Okay, so once again, just to be totally clear, no one has ever shown that Julian Assange is a Russian agent. The indictment against him today does not say that, it doesn't mention Russia at all. But that has not stopped virtually every politician in Washington from repeating Senator Blumenthal's line including many Republicans.

Robert Mueller nearly killed the Russia collusion hoax. Julian Assange is allowing them to keep it alive. You think journalists would say something about this. Assange is after all, one of them. What do you call a man who publishes news for a living? Assange is no sleazier than many journalists in Washington, he's definitely not more anti-American. He's broken stories the "New York Times" would have won Pulitzers for, and yet many of his colleagues have disowned him.

"Oh, please," wrote Alexia Campbell of Vox, "Assange is no journalist. We know who he works for," meaning Russia. "Julian Assange is not a journalist," explained Jelani Cobb of "The New Yorker" without actually explaining. Ken Dilanian of NBC who doesn't so much cover the national security state as he write memos on its behalf noted that quote, "Many believe that if Assange ever was a journalist, those days ended a long time ago." At NBC when they tell you many believe something, it means they believe it.

So why all the hostility to Julian Assange? Well, we'll let former Democratic staffer and current CNN anchor Jim Sciutto explain. Assange's real sin was preventing Hillary Clinton from becoming President.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: He is central to several cases. He is central to Russian interference in the election. The U.S. intelligence views him as a middleman, a cutout that he was in effect part of this interference. He's central to questions about what the Trump administration or Trump campaign, I should say, knew prior to the release of those materials, right? What were the communications between Roger Stone, et cetera? It's possible that this has something President Trump himself is not particularly excited about.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: It's remarkable to watch this. It's bewildering actually. There was a time not so long ago, really when reporters didn't applaud the arrest of other journalists for publishing information.

In 1971, "The Washington Post" and "The New York Times" published a trove of stolen classified documents about the Vietnam War. It was called the Pentagon Papers. Remember that? Liberals loved it. Books were written celebrating their bravery. As recently as 2011, "The Washington Post" saw the connection, quote, "A conviction of Julian Assange would also cause collateral damage to American media freedoms." A post op-ed said that year, quote, "It is difficult to distinguish Assange or Wikileaks from "The Washington Post." And that's true. But that was before the Trump election and the total war that followed, a war in which the media have definitively chosen a side.

Press Freedom? Sure, as long as we agree with your politics. The First Amendment? Well, that all depends, who did you vote for? The guardians of speech or now the enemies of speech. The people charged with policing power are now colluding with power. There's a reason you see John Brennan on NBC all the time. They're all on the same team now.

We're not saying any of this to defend Julian Assange. We just want to be absolutely clear about who hurts this country more, and it's not him.

Author and columnist, Mark Steyn joins us tonight. Mark, thanks a lot for coming on. Whatever you think of Julian Assange or the material that he published, is it a little strange to see journalists who laud "The New York Times" and "The Washington Post" for publishing stolen classified documents during Vietnam applaud his imprisonment?

MARK STEYN, AUTHOR AND COLUMNIST: Absolutely, Tucker. I mean, I agree 100 percent with what you've just said, but I hadn't seen that Jim Sciutto CNN clip, and I'm shocked at the idea that because he thinks somehow Julian Assange knows something about the Trump campaign in 2016 that gives the U.S. government the right to demand that London extradite an Australian to Washington to go to jail.

I mean, even if you take everything that Jim Sciutto said as true, there is absolutely no -- there is absolutely no basis for what the government is proposing to do to Assange, except that he made everyone in Washington look like chumps.

CARLSON: Is it a little odd to have a former Democratic official who worked in the Obama administration now on CNN with a microphone, telling us that we're immoral if we don't believe the pronouncements of the permanent bureaucracy here in Washington. Does it seem like an inside game a little bit?

STEYN: Yes, I think so. I think this is all an inside game. It's the duty -- basically, it's the duty of the government to keep its secrets, and if the most lavishly funded, quote, unquote, "intelligence community" on the planet, can't keep it secrets, the idea that it has the right to go to war against the people who publish those secrets is something that as you said, 20, 30, 40 years ago, the press would be up in arms about.

Now, to see the American media serving as lickspittles of the Deep State is a deeply bizarre transformation.

This is basically -- the stuff that Julian Assange published, this indictment is extremely weak. The idea that he somehow goaded and encouraged Manning to steal this stuff. The line he used was -- Manning tells Assange, "That's all I've got left to give to you." And Assange says, "Curious is never run dry in my experience."

The idea that a corrupt Federal criminal justice system could extradite and convict him a man on the basis of those words, or to disturb every American, actually, anyone who believes in liberty.

CARLSON: That's right. Spend 10 minutes reading about Chelsea Manning, then Bradley Manning, and ask yourself would any competent, same person give that individual access to classified information? Put that person in proximity of classified information? No one was ever held accountable for the recklessness of allowing Chelsea Manning to steal that information.

STEYN: No.

CARLSON: And I have to say, is it weird to see Republican office holders continue with the ludicrous lie that Russia is somehow the gravest threat America faces on the world stage?

STEYN: No, no.

CARLSON: That's insane.

STEYN: No, Assange is some goofy Australian internet lefty, he has got nothing to do with Putin. But your point is actually the critical one here. If this was a real and if this was an intelligent intelligence community, Bradley Manning - Chelsea Manning wouldn't been able to walk out with all that stuff, just download it and take it out.

There are four million people with top secret intelligence clearances in this country. That's a population the size of New Zealand. If you gave top secret clearances to four million people, you're not that intelligent an intelligence community in the first place.

CARLSON: No. I don't know why I'm laughing. So grim.

STEYN: No, it's tragic, Tucker.

CARLSON: It's so grim and true, but there's no one is ever held accountable for their incompetence or the recklessness with which they manage our country. And so they haul this guy off to jail and we're all supposed to feel safe, but I don't feel safe.

STEYN: No and you shouldn't feel safe and just -- I listened to Blumenthal and/or Ben Sasse saying this guy should be going to jail forever. Americans flip it the other way around. Americans would be up in arms if the government of Australia were demanding that London extradite a U.S. citizen to Australia for publishing Australian intelligence secrets.

You look at it the other way around, Americans would rightly see this as a gross infringement on the freedom of American citizens.

CARLSON: That's exactly right.

STEYN: I hope this English judge who has asked the Americans to put up the proofs by June, I hope when he sees what they put up in June that the English judge tosses this thing right out.

CARLSON: Yes, I don't think we want Assange in Washington because once he starts talking in open court, a lot of people are going to regret that he did that.

STEYN: No.

CARLSON: I think. Mark Steyn, great to see and we're going to see just a minute from now on "Final Exam" as a contestant. Good luck.

STEYN: Yes, I've been rehearsing. I'm pumped. I'm ready to go.

CARLSON: Good. Thank you. Well, the creepy porn lawyer could soon be the creepy porn prisoner. He's been hit with yet another indictment. This one is unbelievable, the details -- and it implicates CNN, too, so it's really got everything. It would be a shame if you missed it. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, the hits keep coming for the creepy porn lawyer. CNN's favorite guest was just hit with 36 new felony charges. He's been accused of fraud, bribery, embezzlement, and one case of robbing a paralyzed man. Trace Gallagher has the latest on this -- Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: And Tucker, for a guy who builds himself as a winner, he is on a losing streak to beat the band and in those 36 counts, you mentioned, several of them are for wire fraud. But wait until you hear what the alleged wire fraud entailed. Here's the California U.S. Attorney, watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NICOLA HANNA, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY: Wire fraud related to the theft of millions of dollars from five clients, including a paraplegic man who agreed to a multi-million dollar settlement, but has received only a fraction of the money despite the fact that Mr. Avenatti received the full settlement amount over four years ago.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Yes, the U.S. Attorney went on to point out that the government actually cut off the paralyzed man's disability payments because Stormy Daniels' former attorney would not even file paperwork saying that man was awarded a settlement. The indictment says Stormy's former lawyer also took another client's $2.5 million settlement and bought a private jet. Yesterday that plane was seized.

And so the man who had his eyes on the White House may have to settle for the big house. If convicted, Stormy's former lawyer is looking at 333 years in prison. Good behavior, maybe he's out in 100 and his response to all this is quoting, "For 20 years, I have represented Davids versus Goliaths and relied on due process and our system of justice. Along the way, I had made many powerful enemies, I am entitled to a full presumption of innocence, and I am confident that justice will be done once all the facts are known."

But don't forget, that's just his West Coast David versus Goliath battle. He is also facing Federal charges in New York of trying to extort Nike for $20 million -- Tucker.

CARLSON: It sounds like he may have fleeced a few David's along the way. Trace Gallagher, great to see you. Thank you.

Well, it's horrifying, of course in a car crash kind of way, but the continuing collapse of creepy porn lawyer is also a surprise really to no one, well, actually someone -- CNN's head media critic.

While the creepy porn lawyer and future creepy porn prisoner was robbing the disabled, this little guy was calling him a serious presidential contender. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Looking ahead to 2020, one reason why I'm taking you seriously as a contender is because of your presence on cable news.

MICHAEL AVENATTI, LAWYER: I've got 20 years of experience at a very high level. As an attorney, I understand how governmental regulations are passed, how laws are passed, how the Supreme Court works. I have an extreme depth of knowledge ...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: "I'm taking you seriously as a Presidential contender." Here's the best part, his show is called "Reliable Sources." Hilarious.

Well, every single House Democrat, except one is backing a bill that would require all high schools nationwide to let biological men compete on women's sports teams. Now, to most people that seems insane and to female athletes, it is of course grossly unfair. But now it's orthodoxy. Science and common sense are irrelevant, the orthodox will not be questioned.

Meanwhile, a taxpayer funded study sponsored by the NIH -- National Institutes of Health -- is allowing sex change hormones to be given to children as young as eight years old. So what are the effects of that? Do we know? Dr. Marc Siegel is Fox News medical contributor and he joins us tonight.

Doctor, thanks very much for coming on.

MARC SIEGEL, MEDICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Hi, Tucker.

CARLSON: So whenever you have an advancement in culture that nobody is allowed to question and then it bleeds over into science, it makes me nervous -- no matter what it is, whether I like it or not. I haven't heard a single person ask the obvious question, what is the effect of giving hormone suppressing drugs voluntarily to children?

SIEGEL: I think there's a long-term effect. First of all, puberty blockers which you start with like an anti-estrogen or an anti-androgen that followed by hormone therapy as they enter adolescence can lead to neurological problems, problems with bone growth and sterility later on. So that's just the physical issues. There's also the psychological impact and the neurological impact of having to transition someone that may decide later on that they want to go back the other way.

Of course, we should support transgender children. Of course, we should support a child's choice, and that's what the American Academy of Pediatrics says. But when they talk about giving these drugs, these hormones, I get very nervous. And I think to myself, "Who is super imposing their will here? Is it doctors or is it parents?" Because again, a child is someone that I want to watch develop? There's no reason to be questioning sexuality and sexual choice in a nine-year-old. We have to wait and see which way it goes.

CARLSON: Yes, I mean, it almost sounds like Munchausen by proxy. I mean, it sounds like the parent is sort of displacing onto the kid maybe something that's going on with them or who knows, but it doesn't seem responsible at all, and it seems incredibly risky. It seems demented, to be honest with you.

Where are the adults standing up, and saying, "Well wait a second," you know, "These are --"

SIEGEL: Well, 1,100 adults wrote a letter saying, "We don't agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics," and by the way, your point about Munchausen by proxy, I think is excellent because I think parents have guilt. They think, "Wait a minute, maybe I'm not doing enough. Maybe we really aren't going --"

This is our culture now, right? We have to listen to every word. But I think our job as parents is to guide, to support, not to be mean or anything, but to support and watch development in progress.

CARLSON: Of course.

SIEGEL: I don't think we give drugs and I don't think we look for doctors that do our bidding for us. There's a long-term effect here.

CARLSON: So if you were to stand up at a medical conference and say what you just did, which strikes me as extremely moderate, you know, way more -- I mean, right? It doesn't seem controversial what you just said, how would you be received?

SIEGEL: It depends on the conference. You know, I have a feeling that the Democratic lawmakers are trying to pander to a certain group, but it depends. Doctors are varied on this issue, and I think a lot of doctors would agree with me, "Do no harm." We are not dealing with a disease, we're dealing with a developing child. Let them develop, support their psychological development.

And by the way, to your earlier point, when we're talking about athletics, I believe it's a competitive advantage to allow someone that is born a male, and then -- and had all these years of testosterone building up muscle, right, building up bone and then we allow them to compete with women -- that's giving them a competitive advantage. I call that juicing.

CARLSON: Well, of course it is. I mean, that's called biology, but it's being denied by the United States House of Representatives explicitly, and by the interest group that is pushing this and that's shocking to me. Anyway, doctor, thanks very much for clarity on that. Good to see you.

SIEGEL: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: A Democrat says his takeaway from the Jussie Smollett case is that all of the police are racist. We will explain what he said after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. BOBBY RUSH, D-ILL.: The FOP is the sworn enemy of black people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Keep in mind that Jussie Smollett paid men to pour bleach on him and put a rope around his neck and then blamed an entire ethnic group for doing it. He did that as part of a fake hate crime. He has gotten away with it due to the pretty obvious corruption of Prosecutor Kim Foxx.

Last week, police protested Foxx's corruption. Instead of joining them, Illinois Democratic Congressman, Bobby Rush, denounced the police. "They are racist," he said. They hate some people based on their skin color.

Kevin Graham is the President of the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police and he joins us tonight. Mr. Graham, thanks very much for coming on. So you have a sitting member of Congress ...

KEVIN GRAHAM, PRESIDENT, CHICAGO FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: ... dismissing the entire Chicago Police Department as racist. How do you respond to that?

GRAHAM: Well, first of all, I guess he is unaware that the Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department is black.

CARLSON: I noticed that.

GRAHAM: And 25 percent of the Chicago Police Department is also black, and there's about another 25 percent that is Hispanic. So I don't know where he gets the idea that Chicago Police are racist, but I think it makes her rhetoric and let's face it, he's a former Black Panther. He has never liked the police. He has made incendiary comments in the past. And you know, we stand against hatred. We are there to protect people and not to incite people. So I think he is speaking irresponsibly, and I hope that the Members of Congress take action.

CARLSON: Chicago is a big complicated city with a lot of disorder and violence and it needs a competent Police Department. Who is going to want to join the Chicago Police Department if when you do, you get called a racist on the basis of no evidence by some buffoon in the Congress?

GRAHAM: Well, you know, this is a very tough job. It's one of the toughest jobs in the country. Our city has gone through a lot problems. We are trying to make inroads. I can tell you this that the Fraternal Order of Police, three months -- two months ago brought a plan to the Superintendent about linking police officers with churches and we are trying to mend fences. We are trying to get out in the community to make sure that there is direct community and police involvement.

We're the ones that are doing that. We're the ones that are trying to make sure that people have confidence in the police and know that we're going to be there and protect them. And it certainly doesn't help when somebody makes irresponsible comments like Congressman Rush did.

CARLSON: But if -- I mean, look, you don't get rich being a cop. It's dangerous. And if in addition to those two things, you have office holders attacking your moral character, again, on the basis of no evidence, why would competent good people want to become cops at a certain point?

GRAHAM: Well, you're absolutely right. I mean, in July, we're going to be without a contract for two years. These officers haven't even had a raise. And the city doesn't seem to be interested in trying to settle a contract to try to help these, so yes, you're right. There's going to be problems with recruiting and they're going to wind up lowering the standards, and then they're going to have more problems.

So you know, it is going to be a Catch 22. And so the city and the Police Department need to work with the FOP to try and make sure that the people in the City of Chicago are protected. And they really need to get on board with us and make sure that we can protect the people of the city, and that seems to have been falling by the wayside, certainly at operation push with Congressman Bobby Rush.

CARLSON: Yes, and Jussie -- so for example, really quickly, what is the starting salary for a cop in Chicago?

GRAHAM: It's about $40,000.00.

CARLSON: Yes, okay. And so you're getting lectured by people who fly in private planes all the time about how you are bad people, I mean, how does that make you feel?

GRAHAM: Well, it certainly that they're not in touch with reality. I mean, our guys go out there. Our police officers do an amazing job every day. They do everything they can. Now, I will tell you this, no situation is perfect. But our officers go out with -- and I had to answer a call from another officer just the other day about the lack of equipment in one of the districts. They're doing their best with what they have.

And certainly, we're trying to do our best to serve the people and I don't know where they're going to get police officers who are going to want this job.

CARLSON: Exactly. Who would want that? The only people who are going to want it are the people you're not going to want to be cops, and this is really a bad cycle that you're embarking on. Kevin, thank you very much, and Godspeed.

GRAHAM: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: Last week, the CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg wrote an op-ed calling for governments worldwide to band together to regulate free speech. Brendan Carr is an FCC Commissioner. He just wrote his own op-ed responding to Mark Zuckerberg and he joins us tonight. Brendan, thank you very much for coming on.

BRENDAN CARR, FCC COMMISSIONER: Thanks.

CARLSON: So the big tech companies would like free speech regulated by government. What could go wrong?

CARR: It's pretty remarkable actually. So if you think about it, Facebook has been under mounting scrutiny recently for a number of its practices -- how it protects your online data, how it shares that data, and most directly now, how it moderates online speech. Lawmakers and the public have been asking a lot of serious questions about what they let you say on the platform, and the posts they let you see on the platform.

In response to that pushback, Facebook has come up with a new idea that heads in a totally wrong direction. It wants the government to step in and start policing your online speech for it and look, outsourcing government censorship -- outsourcing censorship to the government isn't just a bad idea, it's a violation of the First Amendment, so I'm a no on that.

CARLSON: So, and Amen. And I'm glad that finally someone at the FCC -- I know there are others, but not enough -- is taking that very sensible constitutional position. But what about the original deal with the internet where we give these companies an exemption? They're not news companies. They are platforms, Congress has said that. And their job is just to let people say what they want as long as it's not illegal, they're not selling drugs, right? Or guns or peddling kiddie porn? Why don't we go back to that?

CARR: That's right. We want an approach that's going to promote a robust exchange of views. And what Facebook is talking about here is not targeting illegal content. What it described was harmful content. So this is content that is fully protected by the First Amendment. It's invited regimes, not just the government here in the U.S., but abroad to step in and start shutting down ideas that it doesn't like under the rubric of it being harmful speech.

One example that Mark Zuckerberg gave was speech on immigration. He said that speech on a divisive political issue, and if you're online advocating an issue position on immigration, the government should start regulating that speech.

And look, Mark Zuckerberg has a very loud platform, a big platform to express his own views on immigration and hot button issues.

CARLSON: Of course.

CARR: So then to step in and call for everyday Americans when they are advocating for those issues online, for the government to step in and police that, I think that's a bad idea.

CARLSON: But Mark Zuckerberg is one of the richest people in the world and he has paid to lobby for open borders, not just speak, but influence our lawmakers, but you aren't allowed to? I just wonder, taking three steps back, how did we get here? Zuckerberg grew up in the United States. Most of these people did. This is a constitutional republic. Number one in the Bill of Rights is freedom of speech. They seem totally unaware of that. Why?

CARR: What's interesting, I've been a regular at the FCC for a number of years, and I can tell you, when large corporations come in and start calling for greater government control, they're not doing it as an act of charity.

Facebook right now is a company that's worth a half a trillion dollars. It's got a leading position in the market. It didn't find religion and regulation until it established that dominant position.

CARLSON: Exactly.

CARR: They have 30,000 people right now. They're doing content and security review. So calling for this heavy-handed government regulatory regime is going to wreck an economic moat that only makes it harder for startups to compete in this space.

CARLSON: That's exactly right. This is the real protectionism right there.

CARR: Yes.

CARLSON: Thank you so much for that. Good to see you. Well, do you think America is the best country on earth? Do you say so out loud? Well, 20 years ago, if you did, you might get a fist bump; now, you'd be called a bigot. That's just a head.

Plus, time for "Final Exam." Mark Steyn and Pete Hegseth face off. Who has been paying closer attention to the news of the week? You'll find out after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: It's time now for "Final Exam" where top flight battle-hardened cable news professionals compete to see who has paid the closest attention to what is happening in this country, at least for the past seven days. This week's first contestant is "Fox and Friends" co-host, Pete Hegseth. He is also the host of "Battle in the Holy City," which you can watch on Fox Nation, also a friend of ours. His opponent, one of our favorite guests of the show, another friend, author and columnist, Mark Steyn.

This is a pairing that I had nothing to do with. I have no idea what's going to happen.

PETE HEGSETH, HOST: Put me up against this guy right here? The smartest man in the universe?

STEYN: It's War of 1812, round two, Tucker. Canada -- so the President says, "Where are the guys who burned down the White House, and we're coming to get you."

CARLSON: That's a good point. Now, I would agree with you.

HEGSETH: That was their last win. That was their last win.

CARLSON: Mark Steyn is about the smartest person I've ever met.

HEGSETH: He is.

CARLSON: And these questions may rattle him, so we'll see.

HEGSETH: Tucker, this is Studio E though, your old "Fox and Friends" studio. I feel like I have a home field advantage.

CARLSON: It gives you an advantage. We'll see if you can press it successfully. You the rules, I want to repeat them anyway for our audience. Hands on buzzers. I ask the questions. First one to buzz in gets to answer the question. Critically you must wait until I finish asking it before answering it. You can answer once I acknowledge you by saying your name. Every correct answer gets you one point, a wrong answer detracts a point from your score. Best of five wins. Makes sense?

HEGSETH: Let's do it.

STEYN: Yes.

CARLSON: All right, semi. Question one is a multiple choice. You have to wait to hear the options. Here it is. Scientists had moved beyond creating useful robots are now building machines that do completely useless things. A robot unveiled in -- no surprise -- Japan has been trained to do something related to sports. Is it a hit A. Half-court shot? B. Ice skate? Or C. Throw a curveball?

HEGSETH: Oh, I thought I had it.

CARLSON: Mark Steyn.

STEYN: Ice skate.

CARLSON: Is it ice skate? Has the robot been trained to ice skate?

STEYN: Oh no.

HEGSETH: You know, you have Canadian bias.

CARLSON: It's not curling either.

HEGSETH: That is the old James Naismith.

CARLSON: It's the old -- the traditional Japanese sport of basketball.

CARLSON: Okay, question two. This one, another multiple choice. This week on the other celebrity quiz show, "Jeopardy," a contest and set a record for the most money won on a single episode. How much did he win? Was it A. $90,000.00? B. $100,000.00? Or C. 110 grand.

HEGSETH: A faulty buzzer.

STEYN: Come on.

CARLSON: Pete Hegseth, we're going to give it to you.

HEGSETH: Oh, I've got to press it -- oh, I've been dainty here. I'm going to go with C. 110,000 bucks.

CARLSON: A 110,000. Is Pete Hegseth correct?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KENNEDY, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK HOST: Congratulations are in order to a "Jeopardy" contestant who won a record amount of money on yesterday's show watch.

ALEX TREBEK, HOST, JEOPARDY: A new one-day record. $110,000.00.

KENNEDY: If he wins another $400,000.00, he could bribe his kids into UFC.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HEGSETH: That's true.

CARLSON: Good line and true.

HEGSETH: The power of a good guess.

CARLSON: All right, you been watching game shows to practice. Smart. Okay, yet another multiple choice question.

STEYN: Oh.

CARLSON: This is about a plane in Spain that could not take off in the rain. Also something -- it's like doggerel. Passengers were stuck in the tarmac because a bird was strutting down the runway. What type of bird was it? Was it A. A pigeon? B. A crane? Or C. A flamingo? Mark Steyn.

STEYN: I've got to go with a crane in Spain.

CARLSON: Was it a crane in Spain next to the plane?

HEGSETH: I don't think they have cranes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUAN WILLIAMS, HOST: Despite honking horns and impatient pilots, it took it sweet time sprinting down the tarmac, airport crew tried to scare it off and at one point it did fly away, but then it flew back in a matter of seconds. The flamingo finally left right before a team from the Wild Life...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HEGSETH: Oh no. Flamingo.

CARLSON: This goes to my theory. There's an inverse relationship between IQ and performance on the show.

STEYN: I was thinking too laterally and didn't -- I should have gone with flamingo.

HEGSETH: The old pun got you.

CARLSON: This is --

STEYN: I thought of a lawn ornament.

CARLSON: But it was good. It was worth losing. Okay, this is today's "Daily Double." It's a two point question per our judges. Question four. Some fans of Bernie Sanders are angry at him this week because he confessed to something they consider controversial. What did he confessed to? Pete Hegseth.

HEGSETH: Being a millionaire.

CARLSON: Being a millionaire.

HEGSETH: Yes.

CARLSON: Is that right?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator Bernie Sanders says he is a millionaire. The Vermont senator has denounced millionaires for years.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I wrote two books in recent years. One of them was a bestseller on the "New York Times" bestseller list, translated to five or six languages. It did very well. I made money on that book.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HEGSETH: Capitalism. Great for him.

CARLSON: Did he put his pinky to his mouth when he said "millionaire?"

STEYN: Yes, what languages did Bernie's book get translated into?

HEGSETH: One language. Green, Mark. Green.

CARLSON: Estonian. That was it. All right, final question. Also a multiple choice, here we go. Astronomers have captured the first ever image of a black hole. Some say it looks like a donut, others say it looks like a dragon's eye. How far away is this from Earth? Is it A. Two million light years away? B. Fifty million light years away? Or C. One hundred million light years away? Mark Steyn.

STEYN: I'm going to go with two million light years away.

CARLSON: Two million. Twice as far as Bernie is rich. Is that correct?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... the most famous doughnut hole of all time that first image of a black hole.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I never believed that this black hole was as big as people said, until we saw that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: M87 is over 50 million light years away.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HEGSETH: Oh, it's 50.

STEYN: Oh, rub --

HEGSETH: I was wrong, but you took the risk.

STEYN: The black hole of my career after this performance, it's actually bigger than that.

CARLSON: You didn't only lose, Mark Steyn, you lost spectacularly floridly. You're in fuego in your loss and congratulations to you for doing so, so memorably. Pete Hegseth, you won.

HEGSETH: I've been waiting for a coveted Wemple mug.

CARLSON: We are putting an Erik Wemple mug from Jeff Bezos' website in the mail. May you treasure it. May fill it with bourbon.

HEGSETH: Forever.

STEYN: No, no. I don't mind losing to Lisa Boothe, but losing to this man that cries at "Titanic."

HEGSETH: I do.

STEYN: He is girlier than Lisa Boothe.

HEGSETH: Every time the "Titanic" plays, I cry.

CARLSON: It's so good.

HEGSETH: It's true.

CARLSON: It's going to be weeks before I can digest this segment. Thank you, gentlemen, both of you.

HEGSETH: Thanks, Tucker.

STEYN: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: That's it for this week's "Final Exam." Pay very close attention to weird things that happen all week. Come back Thursday to see if you can beat the experts. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, Democratic candidate, Julian Castro says that immigrants aren't a burden to this country, they're not a luxury, they are a necessity. "We have to have them," he claims because Americans aren't having their own kids.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JULIAN CASTRO, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is a little bit politically incorrect to say to some people, but we do need them. If we don't get this right, in 20 or 30 years, the United States is going to be begging for immigrants to come and make a youthful vibrant workforce. We need them today more than ever before.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Well, that's not an original thought, we'd be surprised if Castro ever had one of those. Instead, it is a constant refrain. You hear it from lawmakers and journalists and economists and college professors. They tell us we need massive amounts of immigration to replace the children that Americans aren't having.

For some reason, this is always taken as an immutable fact. Americans just don't want to have kids or they can't have kids. We need more abortion to assure they don't have kids. Well, here's something no one ever says, but it's worth suggesting. Why aren't we trying to help American citizens have kids? It's not that they don't want them, they want them. They want to be having more than they're having.

According to Gallup polling, the average American wants about three kids in a family. That figure is actually higher than it was 30 years ago. People are more pro-children than they were. The average American woman, though, is having fewer than two kids. Among those who reach their 40s without having any children, more than half regret it and wish they'd had at least one child.

So why isn't government trying to help Americans have the one thing they really want, which is children? It's not impossible. There are a lot of ways they could do that. Deflate the student loan bubble, reduce housing prices so young people can actually buy a home, give big tax cuts to bigger families so that middle class couples feel secure about having a third or fourth child. Other countries do it. It's not crazy. Is there anything more important? If so, what is it?

But none of this occurs to anybody in Washington. They look at an America where citizens are broke and depressed and killing themselves at record levels and therefore failing to reproduce the species. And they see only one option, only one answer to that. Import new children from Honduras and Bangladesh to satisfy the labor needs of Silicon Valley, big Ag and private equity. And by the way, if you disagree with that, you're the immoral one.

Well, not so long ago, it was considered normal for Americans to like America, why else would they be here? Imagine that. Now thinking that gets you denounced as a bigot, a xenophobe, a white nationalist, whatever that is. There's a new view in Washington. It has a simple ethos recently expressed by President Obama's former Attorney General, Eric Holder, "America was never a great country."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARI MELBER, ANCHOR, MSNBC: There's a lot of talk about America being a leader -- as a "democracy," quote, unquote, in the 1800s when women and African-Americans couldn't vote, what kind of democracy is that?

ERIC HOLDER, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL: No, that's exactly right. It's when I hear these things, "Let's make America great again." I think to myself, "Exactly, when did you think America was great?"

MELBER: Does that phrase echo as discrimination in your ears?

HOLDER: It takes us back to I think an American past that never, in fact really existed in this notion of greatness.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Jon Miller is the host of "The White House Brief," and we're happy to have him join us tonight. John, thanks very much for coming on.

JON MILLER, BLAZE TV HOST: It's great to be here, Tucker.

CARLSON: So simple question. If you don't like America, why are you running it?

MILLER: I don't know why you're running it. I don't even know why you're here. I mean, if you don't like America, if you don't think America is the greatest country, in the world, then you can get the hell out of here and go and let me know how it is in Caracas where you flip up the switch and the lights don't come on.

I mean, it's incredible to me. You said earlier in the show, 20 years ago, if you said America is great, you might get a fist bump. Just to give you some perspective as to how fast things are tumbling out of control.

You know, I was in college, probably -- I was in college not even 10 years ago and you could say -- I was at a very liberal school, probably one of the most liberal in the country. You could still chant "USA, USA" at parties. You could still even fly your colors. You can't do that anymore.

I mean, you do that, they're going to come after you. They're going to try to hang you in the streets for that.

CARLSON: I wonder why though. I mean, America is flawed. Sure. We do shows every night on America's flaws. But compared to what?

MILLER: I mean, it's the only alternative and it's flawed, but show me a better system.

CARLSON: Exactly.

MILLER: And show me a better country where people can do better for themselves. But I think it's cynical. I think that you know, I was vacillating for a while as to whether they actually were stupid enough to believe this nonsense, or whether they were just doing it to be because they don't have any other ideas, their tanks are empty. And I came to the conclusion that it was the latter when they started calling me a white nationalist. There's some logistical problems there.

CARLSON: Did you cop to it?

MILLER: Well, I put up a video on my Jon Miller YouTube page that was defending against Joe Biden's attacks on white men and defend -- I was defending, you know, European thought which has led to a great manifestation, which is America defending Western values, gosh, forbid, defending Western thought, and they were calling me a white supremacist and they just did that to Candace Owens, and you saw them do it this week to Candace calling her a white supremacist. Stephen Miller is not a white supremacist. He is actually a Nazi. Stephen Miller is a Jewish Nazi in the White House.

CARLSON: What's so interesting though, I mean, it's so absurd. It's hard to believe anyone takes it seriously, and yet we all sort of play along and do take it seriously.

MILLER: Yes.

CARLSON: We probably shouldn't. We shouldn't.

MILLER: We shouldn't.

CARLSON: But why is it that nobody ever says because I'm pretty open minded, you know, this system doesn't work, here is an alternative.

MILLER: Well, what is the alternative?

CARLSON: You know, here's another country where it's really working well. No one ever says that.

MILLER: Venezuela?

CARLSON: Well, exactly. So what is the impulse? Like what -- who is made happy by the idea that our country is terrible? Who does that excite?

MILLER: I think it's not meant to excite anyone. I think it's meant to get votes. I mean, that's what they're doing. And it's really cynical because you have someone who is a Trump supporter or maybe, you know, actually who has got and wears the "Make America Great Again" hat. I mean, Hillary Clinton says the Make America Great Again is a white nationalist slogan and she never lies.

So I mean, that's -- but you tell someone your neighbor is a white nationalist, that starts to be -- then you start to say, "Okay, well, you know, I don't want to be around that person." And it really divides the country when you think you are living amongst white supremacist and white nationalists and Nazis. It is dangerous and it's creating a lot of animosity and tearing us apart.

CARLSON: Well, it scares the hell out of people. It bothers me intensely and I am white and I think -- no, I'm serious. I don't want to -- I don't want to -- I mean, it's just -- first of all, it's so untrue. Americans are really nice. There are some weirdos out there, but there aren't many.

MILLER: No. And it's one of those things where you just wonder is their political agenda more important to them than the wellbeing of the country?

CARLSON: No, that is --

MILLER: I don't think it is.

CARLSON: That is nicely put. Jon Miller, great to see you. Thank you for that.

MILLER; Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, student loans are of course one of the biggest burdens holding back young people and prior generations, young adults who spend money, buying homes or raising kids. Now a lot of their money goes to paying off tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loan debt. Colleges benefit greatly from this, but the loans come from the U.S. government.

Ten years ago, the student loan industry was nationalized under Barack Obama. Almost all loans now come from the Feds. If we want to fix this problem, government action is necessary, but don't get your hopes up.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters of California chairs the House Financial Services Committee. She is the top financial regulator in the entire U.S. House of Representatives. Yesterday, Waters revealed that she didn't know the government control student lending. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF.: Last month, this committee received testimony that last year, one million student loan borrowers defaulted, which is on top of the one million borrowers who defaulted the year before. What are you guys doing to help us with the student loan debt? Who would like to answer first? Mr. Moynihan, big bank.

BRIAN MOYNIHAN, CEO, BANK OF AMERICA: We'd stopped making student loans in 2007 or so.

WATERS: Oh, so you don't do it anymore? Mr. Corbat?

MICHAEL CORBAT, CEO, CITIGROUP: We actually did student lending in 2009.

WATERS: Mr. Dimon?

JAMES DIMON, CEO, JPMORGAN CHASE: When the government took over student lending in 2010 or so, we stopped doing all student lending.

WATERS: Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: "When the government takeover student lending," why doesn't Washington ever seem to fix our problems? In this case, they don't even know they're causing their problems, and obviously, they don't care either or they would know.

We're out of time yet again, an hour. Who knew it could go so fast. But we will be back tomorrow night, 8:00 p.m. The show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. But don't go away -- a special surprise for you tonight. Tonight at 9:00 o'clock, Sean Hannity will host a full hour of compelling television.

It begins right now.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. 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 ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.