How to Test Negative for Stupid, page 18
Some cities, like Chicago, buried stop-and-frisk under paperwork to make cops stop using it. Crime didn’t take the hint. It kept going up. Let me be clear: I’m not calling for racial profiling. I’m not calling for rights to be violated. I’m calling for trained, accountable officers to be allowed to use a legal, effective practice that’s been around for half a century.
Crime is stealing the soul of our communities. It’s robbing families of peace, safety, and opportunity. We can turn things around, but only if our leaders stop putting politics ahead of public safety. If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.
China
In the fall of 2023, I was in the reading room just off the Senate floor—the one to the east of the chamber. I call it the Bordello Room, because it’s covered in red and gold and looks like a place where Hemingway might have lost a weekend of his life. I was catching up on reading between votes when I got a call from Senator Chuck Schumer.
He asked me to join him on a trip to China to meet with President Xi Jinping. Xi was planning to visit California in November to meet with President Biden, and someone—either the State Department or the Chinese themselves—decided a warm-up meeting with a bipartisan group of senators might be useful. Chuck was bringing three Republicans and three Democrats. He picked me, Bill Cassidy, and Mike Crapo. On his side it was Maggie Hassan, Jon Ossoff, and himself. I didn’t ask how or why I made the cut.
These diplomatic trips are called CODELs, short for “congressional delegations.” I’d been on two before to China. One was with the very able senator Steve Daines (a total baller), who invited me because he used to work in China in the private sector. On that trip we went to Tibet. I think we were the last American lawmakers allowed in. I love the Tibetan people. They’re sweet folks. All they want to do is worship the Dalai Lama and take care of their yaks. Of course, they also eat their yaks—yak meat, yak yogurt, yak milk, yak everything. It’s hard to describe. The Chinese government took us to what was obviously a Potemkin village, a fake community of Tibetans meant to show us how great things were. It didn’t work. The Tibetan people are cruelly oppressed. There simply aren’t any civil rights in China as Americans know them. You can’t even take your iPad or phone into China. The Communist Party bugs everything, including your hotel room. And you are followed everywhere you go.
When we travel on these CODELs, we fly on a U.S. Air Force jet. This isn’t some bumpy cargo plane—it’s a scaled-down version of Air Force One, and it’s nice. Our spouses are allowed to come along, and they get to do the sightseeing. We spend our days in meetings from breakfast until bedtime. A ten-day CODEL will wear you out.
So I went to China with Schumer’s group. We met over two days with President Xi’s top advisors—his defense minister, his economic advisor, and others. Then we met with President Xi himself for about an hour and a half. The Chinese made one request ahead of time: Don’t embarrass Xi. Be firm, but polite. Honestly, we didn’t need to be told that.
The meeting looked just like you’d expect if you’ve ever seen a summit on TV. Two long tables facing each other, each side lined with officials. Water, tea, or some local drink in front of you. Our meeting took place in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, which is spectacular. When we walked in, Xi wasn’t there yet, probably to establish his dominance. Then he entered grandly. We all stood, shook hands, took a photo, and sat down.
Xi is not how he appears on television. He’s quite overweight—you wouldn’t notice because his suits are tailored to hide it—and he had a twitch in his right arm. His expression never changed, like he was playing poker for his life. He barely spoke. But you could tell who he listened to: his defense minister. That man didn’t leave his side.
Nicholas Burns, our ambassador to China, and his wife, Elizabeth, helped us prepare. They are absolute pros—experienced, effective, and totally nonpartisan. We also got briefings from CIA Director Bill Burns and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan before we left. The message from all of them was the same: Be firm. Be clear. Be polite. But don’t bubble-wrap it.
Each of us had four or five minutes to speak directly to Xi. I had written and memorized my remarks. Here, in part, is what I told him:
Thank you for your hospitality, Mr. President. Thank you for China’s recent help in securing the return of Travis King, a U.S. soldier who was detained in North Korea. All the American people and my government want is for the people of China to prosper—and you have. All we want is for China to act like a responsible member of a stable world order. But respectfully, it is not responsible for China to allow its companies to sell the chemical ingredients for fentanyl to criminals who smuggle the fentanyl into my country. It is not responsible for China to refuse to allow military-to-military communication with my country. That’s dangerous. It is not responsible for China to punish American companies like Micron and Apple for arbitrary reasons. And it is not responsible for China to forge a “no-limits” partnership with Russia while it invades Ukraine. Thank you again for your hospitality. You have a beautiful country.
I tried to be blunt but respectful. I could have said much more with additional time. Xi nodded and gave a short response, but it was clear from his questions that followed—and from the behavior of his ministers—that what really bothered them was our export controls on American technology. We’ve restricted China’s access to advanced computer chips, software, and chipmaking equipment, and we’ve convinced some of our allies—South Korea, Taiwan, Japan—to do the same. The Chinese are furious about it. They were also upset that American companies are pulling their investments out of China. I’m not sure what they expected. When you steal intellectual property, detain foreign citizens, and strong-arm businesses, don’t act surprised when they leave. It’s like a criminal pulling a gun on a cop and then crying foul when he gets arrested.
While we were there, Hamas attacked Israel. That threw our whole trip into disarray. We discussed China’s weak initial response to the Hamas atrocities with Xi, and shortly after our meeting, the Chinese Communist Party issued a slightly more censorious statement. I don’t know if that was a result of our pressure or their PR team catching up, but it was a small improvement. Later, back at the American Embassy, we also held a conference call with Isaac Herzog, the president of Israel (Benjamin Netanyahu is the prime minister), to offer condolences and support. I had no idea what the White House was going to do in response to the Hamas invasion, but I was relieved when President Biden gave a strong statement backing Israel. After that, he wobbled like a pelican on a power line.
At one point we started talking about cutting the trip short to get home. Schumer was leading the delegation, and he was a little indecisive about it. I suggested we wrap up and get back to the U.S. once our business in China was done. Eventually, that’s what we did. We made one short stop in South Korea to meet President Yoon Suk Yeol, since it was on the way home.
Here’s what sticks with me most about that trip: President Xi is a hard man. In America, when you lose your support, you get voted out. In China, when you lose your support, you get killed. Maybe that’s why Xi has shark eyes. They don’t show anger or violence. They also don’t show humanity. They don’t show anything. It was also evident from the subtle condescension of Xi’s aides that the Chinese Communist Party believes America is in decline. They think we spend our time debating silly stuff like whether mothers should be called “birthing people,” while they spend their time building warships and planning world domination.
The Chinese communists see weakness in Washington. They saw it in our Afghanistan withdrawal. They saw it when Biden told Putin that a “minor incursion” into Ukraine might be tolerable. They saw it when Biden removed America’s sanctions on Russia’s Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline. They saw it when America allowed Iran to start selling oil again. They saw it when Syrian President Bashar al-Assad crossed President Obama’s red line by using chemical weapons against his own people and Obama did nothing. They saw it when we allowed Putin to take Crimea and Georgia with impunity. They saw it when President Biden put obstacles in the way of Israel’s destruction of Hamas and Hezbollah. They saw it when we allowed China to take islands they didn’t own in the South China Sea. They saw it every time President Biden needed a GPS to make it across a stage.
It’s better now that Trump’s president. But it’s not well. Xi and the Communist Party of China play the long game, and they think they are ahead. They think they will win.
Based on the intelligence I’ve seen, China is tightly aligned with Vladimir Putin in Russia and the ayatollahs in Iran. They want a world divided into spheres of influence: Russia runs Central and Eastern Europe, Iran runs the Middle East, and China runs the Indo-Pacific. They want free rein in Africa, Latin America, the Arctic, and space. In short, they want to replace us.
I don’t want the United States to be the world’s policeman. But I’ll be damned if I want the Chinese Communist Party to be either.
Transgender Americans and Women’s Sports
A small percentage of Americans have gender dysphoria. No one really knows how many, though the Pew Research Center estimates that 1.6 percent of U.S. adults are transgender. This means they think their gender is different from the biological sex assigned at birth based on their genitalia. I have genuine empathy for people who struggle with gender dysphoria. I hope they can find peace in their lives. I meant it when I said earlier that I don’t hate anyone. That includes transgender people. About 90 percent of my personal and political philosophy is don’t hurt someone else unless you have to defend yourself, don’t take other people’s stuff, and leave me alone. I’m very libertarian. In America, you are free to be whoever you want to be. But there are limits.
In the spring of 2024, I decided to write an op-ed about the issue of transgender athletes and women’s sports. My thesis was simple: The benefit of making transgender athletes feel included does not outweigh the costs that their inclusion imposes on women’s sports. I asked my staff to research the physical differences between male and female athletes. They did a first draft, but I heavily edited it. My intention was to show respect to those with gender dysphoria while making it very clear that I supported the integrity of women’s sports.
The issue boils down to how we balance the interests of making transgender Americans feel included with the changes to women’s sports that would inevitably result from allowing biological men—transgender women—to participate in them. Congress passed Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was enacted as part of the Education Amendments of 1972, to prohibit sex-based discrimination in any school or educational program that receives federal funding. One of its primary goals was to attempt to achieve parity in athletics for women.
Forget the politics. Forget the ideology. It is a scientific fact that the anatomy of males gives them an advantage over females when they compete in sports. Some activists say it’s a myth that transgender female, biologically male, athletes have a physical advantage over biological girls. That’s not true. Even before birth, baby boys develop different hormones and skeletal structures that help them outperform girls physically. Testosterone exposure in the womb alters brain development in boys—boosting motor skills and aggression, both assets in athletic competition. Boys experience a “mini-puberty” shortly after birth that helps them gain weight faster, contributing to their average height advantage later in life.
More divergence comes during puberty. Boys develop hearts that are 14 percent larger than girls’, and lungs that are 12 percent larger—allowing for better oxygen intake and blood flow. That translates directly into an edge in endurance sports. Girls, meanwhile, develop a wider pelvis, which reduces the amount of force they can exert while lifting, kicking, or pedaling. Boys gain broader shoulders, which support greater muscle mass. Men also have denser bones than women, even when they’re the same height.
It’s hard to think of a sport where a higher muscle-to-fat ratio and stronger frame wouldn’t help. That’s why top-ranked high school boys regularly outsprint female Olympians. In 2016, U.S. sprinter Allyson Felix won Olympic gold in the 400 meters. A year later, more than 285 American high school boys ran faster 400-meter times, according to a study from Duke University. In many Olympic events—track and swimming, for example—the female world-record holder wouldn’t even qualify to compete against men.
In strength-based sports like weight lifting, the gap is even wider. Men outperform women in the same weight class by as much as 30 percent. Strength and muscle mass are probably why University of Pennsylvania swimmer William Thomas—a biological male who now identifies as female Lia Thomas—was able to go from being the 554th-ranked man to one of the top-ranked women in the 200-yard freestyle.
Some argue these advantages disappear once a biological male begins hormone treatments. But that’s not true either. The biological differences that begin in the womb can’t be undone with hormone shots or surgery. Estrogen doesn’t shrink a man’s heart or lungs, or change the width of his pelvis or the shape of his bones. One study found that men on cross-sex hormones for two years could still run 12 percent faster and complete 10 percent more push-ups than women.
It is undeniable that biological males have substantial physical advantages over biological females. It just is. That means they’re more likely to win. It also means that the biological women who compete against them are more likely to get hurt. In May 2023, a high school female volleyball player in North Carolina sued her state’s athletic association after a transgender female spiked a ball in her face and gave her a serious concussion, along with long-term injuries. In February 2024, a girls’ basketball team in Massachusetts forfeited a game after a transgender female injured three players in a single night. They were worried more injuries would keep them from making the playoffs. A girl’s bones don’t care whether the person who broke them identifies as a woman.
Beyond the injury risk, there’s the scholarship issue. The NCAA limits the number of scholarships available in each sport. So if a scholarship goes to a transgender female, it doesn’t go to a biological female. The University of Washington recently offered the first Division I women’s basketball scholarship to a transgender female. That’s the first time a biological woman lost a scholarship for this reason—but it won’t be the last.
Then there’s the money. A lot of it. College athletes earned nearly $1 billion in sponsorship deals between July 2021 and June 2022. These “name, image, and likeness” (NIL) deals represent enormous financial opportunity. But female athletes won’t earn a penny if a biological male takes their spot. Chelsea Mitchell, a runner from Connecticut, missed out on championships and possibly scholarships because her state forced her to compete against biological boys. “When colleges looked at me,” she said, “they didn’t see a winner. They saw second or third place.”
There’s also the issue of privacy. Riley Gaines, a former NCAA swimmer, said she felt “extreme discomfort” having to share a locker room with a nude biological male. “We were not forewarned,” she said. “We were not asked for our consent. And we did not give our consent.” Riley and more than a dozen other female athletes sued the NCAA, claiming their Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily privacy was violated when they were forced to share a locker room with Lia Thomas.
If a high-achieving, well-educated adult like Riley Gaines was disturbed, imagine how it feels for a teenage girl in a junior high locker room. Imagine how helpless her parents feel when they can’t shield her from naked boys without also tanking her shot at sports. Should moms and dads be forced to choose between protecting their daughter’s privacy and preserving her athletic future?
This is why nearly 70 percent of Americans think only girls should compete in girls’ sports.
I do not believe we should sacrifice the physical safety of women—or their athletic, educational, or professional opportunities—in order to make transgender female athletes feel included. Young female athletes should not be required to change in front of biological boys, compete with biological boys on the soccer field, or smile through tears when a biological male walks away with the trophy they’ve spent years chasing.
And I don’t believe Title IX requires this. Nor does common sense. That doesn’t make me a bigot. That reflects a value judgment, made after balancing the costs and benefits—something lawmakers and Americans do every single day when they make decisions.
Anyway, after I finalized my op-ed opposing biological men in women’s sports and signed off on it, I left it to my communications team to submit it for publication. I didn’t ask where they were sending it. My first clue came when the publisher of The Advocate newspaper in Baton Rouge texted me. She said she had some problems with the piece and wanted to talk. I told my communications director to handle it. They had what you might call a sharp disagreement. The publisher later texted me that their conversation was “not productive,” and said she wouldn’t publish the op-ed unless I made substantial changes she approved. She said I was trying to “vilify” transgender young people.
Like all text messages I get from the publisher of The Advocate, I ignored it.
My comms director had already submitted the op-ed elsewhere. Next thing I knew, it was up in the Shreveport Times, Lafayette Advertiser, Houma Courier, Daily Comet (Thibodaux), Alexandria Town Talk, Monroe News-Star, Opelousas Daily World, and Gonzales Weekly Citizen—all Gannett-owned Louisiana papers under the USA Today umbrella. I didn’t think much about it. Those papers aren’t widely read, to be honest, and I remember thinking I wished we’d landed it in a larger outlet.
Then David Stokes, my total baller, rock star chief of staff, told me Gannett had pulled it down. The op-ed had been live for four days, and suddenly the links to it were severed. When you clicked, you got a message saying the op-ed didn’t meet Gannett’s editorial standards. David and my team called to ask what happened. We were told it was “under investigation.” When we followed up, they said it was pulled due to “inflammatory speech.”
