Verdict with Ted Cruz

Copyright: 2026 iHeartMedia, Inc. © Any use of this intellectual property for text and data mining or computational analysis including as training material for artificial intelligence systems is strictly prohibited without express written consent from iHeartMedia

Latest Episodes:

Bonus: Daily Review with Clay and Buck - Apr 30 2026 Apr 30, 2026

Show notes

Meet my friends, Clay Travis and Buck Sexton! If you love Verdict, the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show might also be in your audio wheelhouse. Politics, news analysis, and some pop culture and comedy thrown in too.

Here’s a sample episode recapping four takeaways. Give the guys a listen and then follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

Getting Fat on Fraud

Clay and Buck discuss the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on Temporary Protected Status for migrants from Syria and Haiti. The hosts frame the case as a straightforward question about whether the federal government can end a program explicitly labeled temporary. They criticize attempts to turn the issue into a racial debate and argue that U.S. immigration policy often punishes American generosity by transforming short‑term protections into long‑term residency expectations.

From immigration, the discussion moves into a detailed critique of SNAP benefits, welfare spending, and Medicaid. Clay highlights that SNAP recipients can receive roughly $800 per month in food assistance, totaling nearly $10,000 per year, and compares this to average annual income in countries like Iran. The hosts argue that the scale of U.S. welfare programs has created powerful incentives for migration and dependency, while also noting that Medicaid is the largest driver of state‑level debt without producing measurable improvements in health outcomes. They share examples from listeners and former caseworkers describing how individuals with substantial assets can still qualify for full benefits under current rules.

DEI Discriminates Against Whites

Clay and Buck discuss a Supreme Court case involving Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and immigration law, where the hosts analyze exchanges about how race is defined in legal arguments. This evolves into a broader critique of DEI policies, affirmative action, and identity politics, with Clay and Buck arguing that racial classifications used in public policy are inconsistent and difficult to define in practice. They extend this discussion into Democratic Party strategy, suggesting that identity-based politics plays a dominant role in candidate selection and could shape future election cycles, including speculation about Vice President Kamala Harris’s political trajectory.

The hour also features significant listener engagement, including calls discussing interstate migration trends, particularly individuals leaving states like Virginia and New York for Florida. Callers cite factors such as infrastructure, governance, cleanliness, and overall quality of life, reinforcing a recurring theme of population shifts driven by political and economic differences between states. Another caller introduces a conversation about race relations in South Africa, prompting the hosts to discuss broader global examples of racial politics and societal tension.

Saritha Wants to Save NYC

An interview with Republican candidate Saritha Komatireddy, who is running for New York Attorney General. The discussion focuses heavily on crime, public safety, and legal policy in New York State. Komatireddy criticizes current Attorney General Letitia James, arguing that political priorities have detracted from core responsibilities like enforcing the law and keeping residents safe. The conversation covers issues such as repeat offenders, subway crime, homelessness, and prosecutorial policies, with Komatireddy outlining plans to strengthen enforcement, create specialized crime units, and restore what she describes as accountability in the legal system. The hosts frame the race as competitive, pointing to voter dissatisfaction and concerns about rising crime.

FL Gov. Ron DeSantis

A wide-ranging interview with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, covering redistricting, population migration, tax policy, and national political comparisons. DeSantis discusses Florida’s updated congressional map, arguing that it corrects prior constitutional issues related to racial gerrymandering and results in more compact, legally sound districts. He also addresses the ongoing population boom in Florida, noting that migration from other states has strengthened, rather than weakened, Republican political advantage.

The conversation expands into housing affordability, insurance reform, and infrastructure challenges, with DeSantis outlining steps taken to stabilize insurance markets, reduce premiums, and accelerate major road and infrastructure projects to support rapid population growth. A key policy discussion centers on property tax reform, including a proposal that could lead to eliminating property taxes on homesteaded primary residences. DeSantis frames this as a major effort to return financial control to homeowners and limit government revenue expansion.

The interview also touches on national political strategy, comparing Florida’s governance model with states like California, and positioning Florida as a blueprint for conservative policy success. DeSantis addresses speculation about his political future while also discussing his involvement in efforts to reform college athletics, particularly around NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) policies, pointing to growing momentum in Congress for legislation that would bring structure and stability to college sports.

Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8

For the latest updates from Clay and Buck: https://www.clayandbuck.com/

Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton on Social Media:

X - https://x.com/clayandbuck

FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/

IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/

YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck

Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck

TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuck

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

BONUS POD: MUST SHARE-Kenyans Told "Venture West to Minnesota & Fleece Taxpayers w Fraud" Apr 30, 2026

Show notes

1. Scope of Fraud

The testimony describes large‑scale, systemic fraud within Minnesota’s Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP).
Individual childcare centers allegedly billed hundreds of thousands to over $1 million annually, often with no real children present.

2. Organized and Long‑Running Scheme

Fraud was not isolated or accidental; it showed characteristics of a loosely organized criminal enterprise operating for years (at least 2014–2019).
Some perpetrators reportedly learned about the scheme before arriving in the U.S., indicating cross‑border knowledge of vulnerabilities in the system.

3. Common Fraud Methods

Billing for nonexistent children and extended hours (e.g., multiple shifts, 7 days a week).
Operating “paper” childcare centers that closed immediately once payments were stopped.
Kickback arrangements involving parents, co‑owners, or employees.
Reusing addresses and reopening under new business names after enforcement actions.

4. Evidence Gathered by Investigators

Physical surveillance showed centers operating without children or staff.
Electronic evidence (texts, phones, computers) revealed admissions of fraud and intent to profit.
Investigations led to multiple felony convictions, including at least one federal case with prison time and restitution exceeding $1 million.

5. Overwhelming Volume of Fraud

Investigators received so many credible tips that they had to prioritize only the highest‑dollar cases.
Centers billing less than ~$700,000 often could not be addressed due to limited resources.

6. Internal Resistance and Obstruction

According to the whistleblower, senior DHS officials discouraged, undermined, or obstructed investigations once fraud became large and visible.
Actions alleged include:
- Attempts to alter or suppress information sent to the Legislative Auditor
- Harassment and intimidation of investigators
- Organizational changes that reduced investigators’ authority
- Procedural delays that significantly reduced investigative capacity

7. Retaliation Against Whistleblowers

Investigators who pushed fraud cases reportedly faced:
- Threats and bullying
- Negative performance actions
- Loss of decision‑making power
The whistleblower ultimately resigned, stating he would not be complicit.

8. Failure of Oversight

The testimony suggests institutional tolerance of fraud, contrasting sharply with standards enforced in law enforcement agencies.
The whistleblower emphasizes that minor theft would not have been tolerated in his prior roles, while millions in losses were allowed to continue at DHS.

9. Federal Intervention

Federal agencies (FBI, IRS‑CI, HHS‑OIG) eventually became involved due to the scale and nature of suspected crimes.
Raids, indictments, and convictions occurred after years of state‑level warnings.

Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast and Verdict with Ted Cruz Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening

X: https://x.com/benfergusonshow

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

King Charles in America plus FBI Raids 22 Somali Fraud Locations Apr 29, 2026

Show notes

1. King Charles III’s Visit to the U.S.

King Charles addresses a joint session of Congress, becoming only the second British monarch to do so (after Queen Elizabeth II in 1991).
The visit is symbolic of deep historical and constitutional ties between the U.S. and the U.K., especially as America approaches its 250th anniversary.
- Shared Anglo-American legal traditions (Magna Carta, English Bill of Rights, John Locke).
- The irony of honoring a British monarch given America’s revolutionary origins.
King Charles is portrayed as:
- Surprisingly humorous and personable, using dry British wit.
- Well-received across party lines, including Democrats who previously opposed “monarchy symbolism.”
President Trump is quoted praising the King’s speech and leveraging the visit to reinforce themes of heritage, liberty, and national identity.

2. FBI Raids on Alleged Somali Fraud Operations

The FBI conducts 22 raids in Minnesota, reportedly targeting childcare centers accused of defrauding federal programs.
Allegations include:
- Billing for childcare services not provided.
- Large-scale misuse of taxpayer funds.
- Claims that some funds were diverted abroad (including alleged terrorism links—presented as accusations, not proven facts).
Specific political figures (e.g., Ilhan Omar, Governor Tim Walz) are accused by the speakers of:
- Ignoring, enabling, or benefiting politically from the alleged fraud.
Ben and the Senator praise the Department of Justice and Trump administration for aggressive enforcement, framing it as overdue accountability.
- Welfare recipients owned luxury vehicles (Tesla, Porsche, Lamborghini, Ferrari, etc.).
- Exploited eligibility loopholes like Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE).
- Weak identity and asset verification enabling fraud.
The welfare system is:
- “Fraud by design,” incentivized to maximize dependency rather than enforce eligibility.
- Poorly monitored by Democratic-led states.
The narrative argues for tighter controls, asset checks, and stricter enforcement.

Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz

X: https://x.com/tedcruz

X: https://x.com/benfergusonshow

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

BONUS POD: A Billion Reasons to Worry — Who’s Really Running America’s Schools Apr 28, 2026

Show notes

Teachers’ Unions as Political Power Brokers
- Major teachers’ unions (e.g., NEA, AFT) have contributed over $1 billion to left‑wing political causes over the past decade.
- This funding overwhelmingly supports Democratic candidates, progressive activism, and ideological causes unrelated to education.
Education System as Ideological Indoctrination
- Unions have shifted from focusing on education (reading, writing, math) to political indoctrination of students.
- Declining academic performance is linked to this ideological focus rather than educational reform.
Coerced Union Participation
- Teachers are forced to contribute union dues and face professional consequences if they dissent, framing this as coercive or unethical.
Link Between Education, Ideology, and Political Violence
- Left‑leaning control of education has normalized hatred of conservatives, Christians, and Donald Trump.
- There is a direct causal line between:
  - union political spending,
  - ideological education,
  - polling data suggesting some Democrats justify political violence,
  - and alleged assassination attempts on Donald Trump.
Normalization of Political Violence
- 25% of Democrats believe political violence can be justified.
- This reflects a broader cultural shift allegedly driven by education and political messaging.
Democratic Strategy Framing
- Democrats deliberately pursued a “long game” by controlling education from elementary school through universities to shape future voters.
- Education institutions are culture‑shaping tools rather than neutral public services.
Call to Parental Action
- This is a warning to parents for continued and increased involvement in school boards.
- This activism is a response to loss of trust, lack of accountability, and ideological overreach.

X: https://x.com/benfergusonshow

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

THIRD Assassination Attempt on President Trump...while Democrats Rhetoric Fuels the Fire Apr 27, 2026

Show notes

A Third Assassination Attempt:
This is the third attempted assassination against President Donald Trump, crediting the Secret Service and law enforcement for stopping the suspect.
Attribution of Responsibility to Political Rhetoric:
Violent acts are being fueled by inflammatory rhetoric from Democrats, left‑leaning media figures, and progressive commentators, who are normalizing or encouraging political violence.
Focus on Specific Statements and Figures:
Remarks by Democratic leaders, media personalities, and online commentators that are endorsing or joking about violence, using these examples to argue that such language has real‑world consequences.
Characterization of the Suspect:
The alleged attacker is described as ideologically motivated rather than mentally ill, portrayed as a “radicalized” individual influenced by left‑wing ideology, academic environments, and media narratives about Trump and Republicans.
Praise of Trump’s Response:
President Trump acted with restraint and leadership after the incident, calling for unity, peaceful resolution of differences, and respect for free speech, even while enduring hostile questioning from the media.
Criticism of Media Conduct:
Media outlets and journalists are irresponsibly repeating accusations from the attacker’s manifesto and reinforcing narratives that the speakers believe contribute to further radicalization.
Broader Warning About Political Climate:
Escalating rhetoric, ideological indoctrination, and tolerance of violent language are creating a dangerous environment where political figures and public events increasingly require heightened security.

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz

X: https://x.com/tedcruz

X: https://x.com/benfergusonshow

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Qatar’s Billion‑Dollar Influence Machine, Clarence Thomas Challenges Progressivism & the Liberal Heckler’s Veto Playbook Week In Review Apr 25, 2026

Show notes

1. Allegations of Qatar’s Influence Campaign in the U.S.

Qatar spends billions of dollars funding U.S. universities to influence American public opinion and academic culture.
Qatar hires Washington, D.C.–based PR and lobbying firms to “whitewash” its image, particularly regarding claims of support for extremist groups.
Qatar’s status is the largest foreign funder of U.S. universities, surpassing countries like China, and suggests this funding correlates with campus political activism.
Specific universities (e.g., Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon) are highlighted as major recipients of foreign funds.
Financial relationships will limit criticism of foreign governments, citing an example of a U.S. university campus in Qatar allegedly restricting speech about the Qatari regime.

2. Clarence Thomas’s Judicial Philosophy

Thomas is emphasizing:
- Judicial restraint and discipline
- Originalism and adherence to the Constitution’s original meaning
- The belief that rights come from God, not government, grounded in the Declaration of Independence
His personal background (raised by his grandfather, strict discipline, plainspoken style) is presented as shaping his judicial approach.
Thomas’s views with progressivism, which characterizes asserting that rights derive from government authority rather than natural or divine sources.
A Senate hearing anecdote is used to illustrate this ideological divide, portraying progressive views as mainstream within the modern Democratic Party.

3. Free Speech Conflicts on College Campuses

At UCLA Law School, protesters disrupted a talk by a Department of Homeland Security lawyer.
The disruption is a “heckler’s veto,” preventing speech rather than expressing dissent.
Similar past incidents at Stanford Law School are cited to argue that some law students’ conduct is incompatible with professional legal standards.
University administrations are failing to protect speech and enforce order during such events.

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz

X: https://x.com/tedcruz

X: https://x.com/benfergusonshow

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Southern Poverty Law Center FUNDS the Klan, plus UCLA Law Students Silence Conservatives Apr 24, 2026

Show notes

1. Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

The Southern Poverty Law Center:
- Was criminally indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice.
- Funded or financially supported extremist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazi organizations, and organizers of the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally.
- Engaged in wire fraud, money laundering, and donor deception.
The SPLC is operating a fraudulent fundraising model, allegedly exaggerating or manufacturing extremism to increase donations.
The SPLC funding of extremists is:
- Intentional
- Long‑term
- Central to its fundraising success
Corporate donors (Apple, JPMorgan, MGM, etc.) are cited as unwitting enablers, accused of donating for “virtue signaling.”

2. Media and Institutional Complicity

- Mainstream media ignored or covered up SPLC wrongdoing.
- Corporate America gave millions without oversight.
- Political and cultural elites protected SPLC due to ideological alignment.
Past warnings from commentators (e.g., John Stossel) are cited as evidence that concerns were longstanding.

3. Political Impact

The Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville is described as:
- Financially linked to SPLC funding, according to the show’s claims.
- Used politically to attack conservatives and Donald Trump.
The SPLC allegedly used extremist events to drive massive fundraising growth, citing revenue increases after major controversies.

4. Free Speech and Campus Controversies

- A UCLA Law School event where progressive students allegedly disrupted and silenced a conservative speaker from the Department of Homeland Security.
The behavior is a “heckler’s veto”, framed as:
- Antithetical to free speech
- A sign of ideological intolerance on the left
Comparisons are made to similar incidents at Stanford Law School.
Law students are criticized as being unfit for the legal profession if they engage in such conduct.

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz

X: https://x.com/tedcruz

X: https://x.com/benfergusonshow

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bonus: Daily Review with Clay and Buck - Apr 23 2026 Apr 23, 2026

Show notes

Here’s a sample episode recapping four takeaways. Give the guys a listen and then follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

Iran's Game Plan

Breaking news out of Virginia, where a state circuit court judge blocked certification of the voter‑approved redistricting referendum that would have shifted the state’s congressional map from a 6–5 split to a 10–1 Democratic advantage. The judge ruled the process unconstitutional, citing violations of Virginia’s constitutional requirements, improper use of a special legislative session, insufficient public notice, and what the court called a misleading ballot question. Clay and Buck explain why this ruling could derail the entire redistricting effort and force rapid intervention by the Virginia Supreme Court and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court. They emphasize that the legal uncertainty threatens election timelines, ballot preparation, and primary contests, turning Virginia into a potential national test case for how far courts will allow mid‑cycle redistricting to go.

Clay Travis and Buck Sexton then pivot to Iran and global security, with extensive analysis of President Donald Trump’s statements on the situation in the Strait of Hormuz. The hosts examine Trump’s claim that the U.S. controls maritime traffic and is enforcing an effective blockade until Iran produces a deal, while also noting severe internal divisions inside Iran between hardliners, the IRGC, and civilian negotiators. Clay explains why Iran’s leadership crisis complicates diplomacy, while Buck lays out in detail how the blockade is inflicting devastating economic harm—particularly through Iran’s limited oil storage capacity and the long‑term damage caused by halting production.

Resistance Judiciary

Clay and Buck discuss the idea that the judiciary has become a de facto political actor, particularly during the Trump era. Buck describes what the hosts call a “resistance judiciary,” with judges using injunctions and procedural rulings to halt policy even when cases are likely to be overturned later. They contrast this trend with the Supreme Court’s role, warning that without a conservative majority, constitutional interpretation itself would become unrecognizable. The Virginia redistricting case is used as the most recent example of how a single judge can temporarily upend elections, legislative plans, and national strategy.

They then pivot into an extended and highly critical discussion of Spirit Airlines and the blocked JetBlue merger, which Clay describes as one of the clearest examples of judicial failure in recent years. Clay explains how Spirit agreed to a multibillion‑dollar acquisition by JetBlue, warned that bankruptcy was inevitable without the merger, and then saw the deal halted after the Biden administration sued on antitrust grounds. A federal judge sided with the government, rejecting Spirit’s warning—only for the airline to file for bankruptcy months later and now face another potential collapse. Clay argues that the ruling wiped out shareholders, endangered thousands of jobs, and may now force taxpayers to subsidize an airline that could have survived through private market solutions.

The Opposite of Reality

Rafael Mangual, head of research for the Manhattan Institute’s Policing and Public Safety Initiative, for an extended interview that anchors much of the hour. The discussion opens with encouraging national crime trends, as Mangual explains that serious violent crime—especially homicides and shootings—is declining across many U.S. cities, with especially sharp drops in places like Memphis and Washington, D.C., which have been targeted by Trump administration federal task forces. Those efforts, combining multi‑agency law‑enforcement deployments and National Guard support, have produced dramatic results, including a reported more‑than‑40 percent reduction in violent crime in Memphis.

Mangual and the hosts emphasize that crime reduction is not mysterious or unattainable but the product of consistent enforcement and public support for policing. Mangual contrasts the positive reception officers receive in high‑crime cities desperate for safety with hostility he says law enforcement faced in Minneapolis, illustrating how political culture and public messaging affect outcomes on the ground. The conversation then transitions into a frank, statistics‑based examination of homicide in America. Mangual outlines the typical profile of both homicide offenders and victims—young men, overwhelmingly Black or Hispanic, with extensive criminal histories and repeated prior arrests—arguing that the justice system already knows who the most dangerous individuals are but repeatedly releases them. He makes the case that serious habitual‑offender policies could cut the murder rate by another 50 percent, potentially saving roughly 10,000 lives per year, most of them in minority communities.

The hosts build on those findings by discussing the historical precedent: from 1990 to 2014, the U.S. already reduced homicides by half, a change that added a full year of life expectancy to the average Black male. Mangual argues that public fatigue with permissive criminal‑justice policies after the post‑2020 crime spike is driving a political shift, with progressive prosecutors losing elections and states rolling back earlier reforms. Hour 3 of the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show also digs into transit crime, highlighting how enforcement measures like fare gates and barriers on San Francisco’s BART system produced both a major revenue increase and a 41 percent drop in crime—evidence, the hosts say, that “broken windows”–style policies still work. This data‑backed approach is contrasted with proposals in New York to make buses free, which Clay and Buck argue would worsen safety and quality of life.

Class Warfare Backfires

Clay and Buck pivot to New York City politics and economics, focusing on Zohran Mamdani’s “tax the rich” agenda and a class‑warfare video targeting hedge‑fund billionaire Ken Griffin over his Manhattan penthouse. Clay and Buck criticize Mamdani for publicly singling out wealthy residents and businesses, arguing such rhetoric will accelerate capital flight, job losses, and long‑term fiscal damage. They highlight Griffin’s tax contributions, philanthropic giving, and job creation, warning that vilifying high‑income taxpayers risks hollowing out the city’s economic base and making New York less safe and less prosperous.

Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8

For the latest updates from Clay and Buck: https://www.clayandbuck.com/

Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton on Social Media:

X - https://x.com/clayandbuck

FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/

IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/

YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck

Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck

TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuck

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

BONUS POD: California’s Taxpayer‑Funded Illegal Migration Machine Apr 23, 2026

Show notes

Large-Scale Spending Allegation
- Claims California spent approximately $1 billion to bring or support 400,000 undocumented immigrants.
- Attributes these figures to a report allegedly from the Manhattan Institute.
Use of Public Funds
- Asserts state and federal tax dollars were directed to nonprofit organizations (e.g., Catholic Charities, Jewish Family Services, immigrant legal groups).
- Frames this funding as political kickbacks rather than humanitarian or service-based grants.
Political Organizing Accusations
- Claims immigrant-advocacy organizations function as political machines:
  - Organizing protests
  - Producing political messaging
  - Monitoring ICE activities
- Alleges coordination with Democratic political goals.
Social and Economic Impact Narrative
- Argues mass immigration:
  - Depresses wages
  - Increases housing costs
  - Strains public services
  - Drives longtime residents out of California
- Uses anecdotal housing examples to emphasize overcrowding and rent inflation.
Historical and Ideological Framing
- Compares modern Democratic immigration policies to 19th-century political machines (e.g., Tammany Hall).
- Frames migrants as:
  - Economic tools
  - Long-term welfare recipients
  - Future Democratic voters
- Uses language suggesting exploitation and dependency.
Criticism of Sanctuary Policies
- Strongly opposes sanctuary city laws.
- Frames limits on immigration enforcement as:
  - Encouraging illegality
  - Undermining public safety
  - Blocking federal authority

X: https://x.com/benfergusonshow

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ted's Brand-New Book—A Biography of Clarence Thomas, Telling his Incredible Life Story and his Historic Impact on our Nation Apr 22, 2026

Show notes

1. Purpose of the Book

The book aims to:
- Tell Clarence Thomas’s personal life story, especially his rise from extreme poverty.
- Explain his judicial philosophy and jurisprudence in plain, accessible language.
It is based on approximately 9.5 hours of exclusive, one‑on‑one interviews between Ted Cruz and Justice Thomas.
Cruz emphasizes that the book is written for non‑lawyers, including students and general readers.

2. Clarence Thomas’s Background and Life Journey

Grew up in severe poverty in Pin Point, Georgia, raised primarily by his grandfather.
Initially spoke a Gullah/Geechee dialect, not English.
Experienced racism, hardship, family conflict, and personal struggles, including anger and a period of heavy drinking.
Attended seminary with the intention of becoming a Catholic priest, later leaving due to disillusionment.
Educated at Holy Cross College and Yale Law School.
Underwent a major ideological transformation, moving from left‑wing Black Power activism to conservative principles over many years.

3. Professional Rise and Historic Achievements

Faced career obstacles due to perceptions surrounding affirmative action.
Worked under Republican Senator John Danforth, which became a turning point.
Served in:
- The Reagan administration
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
Appointed in 1991 as the second Black Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.
On track to become the longest‑serving Supreme Court justice in U.S. history (by 2028).

4. Judicial Philosophy (“Going Further”)

Thomas’s jurisprudence emphasizes:
- Originalism and the original meaning of the Constitution
- The belief that rights come from God/nature, not government
- A color‑blind Constitution
- Judicial restraint: judges should interpret and apply law, not create policy
His opinions are intentionally plain‑spoken and accessible, reflecting his background and respect for ordinary citizens.
The title Going Further reflects his tendency to push legal reasoning to its foundational principles rather than incremental change.

5. Confirmation Hearings and Public Attacks

The book examines the 1991 confirmation hearings, including:
- Allegations by Anita Hill
- Intense political and media attacks
Cruz draws parallels between Thomas’s hearings and later Supreme Court confirmations (e.g., Brett Kavanaugh).
Thomas is portrayed as enduring racialized hostility and vilification because of his conservative views.

6. Legacy and Moral Example

Clarence Thomas is presented as:
- A model of personal resilience, discipline, and principle
- Someone who maintained convictions despite decades of criticism
Cruz argues Thomas would be widely celebrated if he were liberal, but instead has been marginalized.
The book frames Thomas as a role model for principled living, not just for lawyers but for all Americans.