Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

"We're Not Talking About This"; Belichick's "Creative Muse" Makes Waves At UNC; Could Public Funds Go To Religious Charter Schools? Consumers Now Face "Tariff Surcharges" For Some Goods. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired May 03, 2025 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:40]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: We're not talking about this. Oh, yes, we are. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia. Those five words were spoken this week by Jordon Hudson, someone you'd probably never heard of until last Sunday. That's when she injected herself into a book launch interview that legendary coach Bill Belichick did for CBS. And by now, you've probably seen the clip, or at least read about it. The greatest NFL coach of all time, the stoic, enigmatic man of few words, flanked off camera by a woman a third his age who was quick to jump in and take control. To some, it was awkward, maybe uncomfortable to watch, but to most all, it was kind of irresistible and, dare I say, unifying. Maybe you can blame it on President Trump.

Tariffs, Ukraine, immigration, DOGE, not to mention the existential threat of climate change amidst the silent tide of artificial intelligence seeping into every corner of life before we've agreed on the rules of the shore. By the way, AI wrote that last line. Pretty good. Pretty scary.

The point is this. We all need a diversion. And this one is so compelling that I find myself interested in the Miss Maine competition for the first time in my Life. That's because 24-year-old Jordon Hudson announced on Instagram she'll be competing in this year's pageant, which is one week from tonight. But of course, she's not just making headlines for her crown ambitions. She's the girlfriend of 73- year-old legendary NFL coach and now UNC head coach Bill Belichick.

If she were dating one of his college players, nobody would bat an eye. But it's the new math, 73 plus 24 equals trouble. Since going public, Hudson has been a fixture at Belichick's side. Not just on the beach in complimentary Halloween costumes, but also on the sidelines at Tar Heels practice. And now viral TikTok shows her on the field at the spring game headset on directing players. The caption, Bill Belichick's girlfriend helping out at UNC football spring game in Kenan Stadium.

In his new book, Belichick calls her his creative muse. But in Chapel Hill, that muse has been raising eyebrows. Local media have been, well, let's say skeptical. The Raleigh News and Observer asked point blank, what is Jordon Hudson's role at UNC? She's not on the payroll. She's not a contracted vendor, but reports say she's been CCing herself on Team emails and referring to herself as the COO of Belichick Productions.

Local sports columnist Luke de Kock warned on a podcast that UNC's brand could take a hit if the football program starts looking more like a Jordon Hudson management project. Well, according to realtor.com, her management skills might not be that bad. In the 18 months since dating Coach Belichick, she's reportedly amassed an impressive $8 million real estate portfolio, picking up a swath of multifamily homes in the greater Boston area.

Those management skills also on display during that CBS Sunday Morning interview, which led Patriot royalty Julian Adelman and Gronk to come to the rescue. On their Dudes-on-Dudes podcast, the two Patriot legends showed solidarity with their former coach and defended Hudson's role.

Adelman said that Hudson was just acting as coach's representative. Gronk was, well, Gronk. There hasn't been this much conjecture in Patriot land since the Brady Roast, and somewhere Robert Kraft is just relieved it's not a relationship of his that is generating all the attention.

Now to those of you who are clutching your pearls and wondering when I'm going to get to Mike Waltz's reassignment, the defunding of NPR and PBS, or Trump's planned birthday celebration complete with 6,000 troops, fear not. We have 1,358 more days of Trump 2.0 to talk about all of that.

This isn't a case of America losing its moral compass. It's a breather, a respite from the fatigue of the first 103 completed days of Trump 2.0. It doesn't mean we're ignoring the front page, only that every once in a while, it's kind of nice to have a story where your opinion isn't dependent upon whether your jersey is red or blue, because after all, the Patriots wear both. It's one of those issues where we can all discuss it around the water cooler, if only were all not working remotely.

[09:05:00]

And Belichick isn't just a football coach. He's a cultural figure, a symbol of discipline, stoicism, and control. And now, suddenly, we're watching him navigate a very public, very odd relationship with a woman who refers to herself as his muse. No game plan, no hoodie to hide behind. Just Bill, lovestruck and off script.

Charles Barkley, never one to mince words, says he's concerned. And that lands differently coming from Chuck, a guy who's made a career out of being brutally, even affectionately, honest. His concern isn't cruel. It's human. And it mirrors what a lot of people are thinking. Is this Belichick being happy or Belichick being controlled and unmoored? Some see Stockholm syndrome.

But here's the deeper truth. We're not obsessed with this story because we care all that much about Bill Belichick's love life. We're obsessed because we're exhausted by the weight of everything else. The Trump trials and the Supreme Court showdowns, the cultural wars. Sometimes we just want something that feels lighter, even if it isn't.

By the way, Bill Belichick's first game at North Carolina will be at home against the TCU Horned Frogs on Aug 30th. I don't know why I find that amusing.

So, yes, his relationship, it's a distraction. And no, that doesn't make us shallow. It just makes us human. And maybe, just maybe, it's okay to admit that we sometimes prefer a love triangle to a constitutional crisis. It all brings me today's poll question@smerconish.com.

Is Bill Belichick's relationship with Jordon Hudson a matter of public concern? And you're saying, wait a minute, Michael, that's confusing. Do you mean, should we mind our own business? Or do you mean is there something going on here about which the public needs to be concerned for Belichick?

I don't know. Make of it what you will. Just go vote, please.

Joining me now, the co-hosts of the sports gossip show podcast, Madeline Hill and Charlotte Wilder. Okay, ladies, you bill yourselves as the foremost experts on this relationship. How so?

CHARLOTTE WILDER, CO-HOST, "THE SPORTS GOSSIP SHOW" PODCAST: Well, Michael, first of all, I want to say that your line about the Patriots jersey was an absolute banger. You know, we --

SMERCONISH: Thank you.

WILDER: This is sort of a story that was made for us. I've been a sports journalist for 10 years, grew up in the Boston area, big Patriots fan. I know way too much about everybody involved in the Patriots dynasty over that 20-year span. Madeleine has a master's degree in sociology, studying how celebrities use social media.

And so, in October, we started the show in September, in October, when we saw that Bill had joined social media, which, as a Patriots fan, I mean, talk about clutching your pearls. This was a man who had referred to Instagram as Insta Face for decades, if it's been around that long.

And we also knew that he was dating this young woman, and he was doing very advanced things like accepting collaboration posts. And she appeared to be using this new platform that we had a hunch, maybe she built for him for, you know, amplifying her own social channels. And so, we just -- our antennas went up, and we've been following the story since. Not to brag. I think we were onto something.

SMERCONISH: So in your March 18 episode, one or the other of you said, this is bigger than two people. It exposes the current gender dynamics in the U.S. How so? What's the big picture view?

MADELINE HILL, Yes. I mean, I think one hand, a lot of people are talking about the age gap being at the center of this story. But I think what is more interesting here is the power dynamics at play. As you mentioned, Bill Belichick is one of the best college football coaches, well, about to be a college football coaches, NFL coaches in history. And here he is seemingly being controlled maybe in some degree, by this young woman, Jordon Hudson. And what's interesting here is that I think it has broader implications not only for Bill's career, but also for the career of the people that he's employed and also the students who have been recruited by him to go play for him at UNC. And that's the bigger story here than even just the age gap.

SMERCONISH: Is it possible? Is it possible we are selling short her competence? I mean, wasn't it appropriate for that interview to be interrupted when she interrupted the interview, if, in fact, the ground rules were, let's focus on the book and focus on football? And something else relative to those emails.

I went back and I read the emails that were released by some equivalent of a Freedom of Information act request. And the PR advice that she was giving to UNC was, when media members are saying it's nepotism for Bill to hire one of his sons, let's not release photographs of the two of them together? And I thought to myself, that makes sense. That's the kind of thing that, like Lanny Davis, the crisis manager, would have advised. Your thoughts?

WILDER: Sure. But I think that to say that before anything had been put together about Bill hiring his son Steve, which he worked for Bill on the pat, it's pretty obvious. If you're a professional, she was saying things that's like, don't lead with the fact that he's Bill's son. Which is also like, do you think people don't know he's his son? They have the same last name.

[09:10:10]

You know, it felt very obvious. It felt like someone, something, someone who is not trained in PR would do. I also think that CBS put out a statement saying that with Bill's book publisher, there were no parameters set, even though Bill said that there were. And you cannot make yourself the story, which Jordan has done, and expect no one to ask you about it.

And so there are a lot of double standards here in terms of how she's dealing with the media. She's also very anti-media. You know, she -- it's Bill and Jordan against the world. And we found some, you know, things she had posted on her personal Facebook insinuating she's always had a deep distrust of the media.

So it's sort of taps into a lot of the questions and problems we're dealing with in America as a whole.

SMERCONISH: You know, the whole college football recruitment game has become so much more sophisticated because of the portal in the last couple of years. And something that I've been wondering as I've watched this story, and I'm sure you'll have an opinion, how does this impact recruiting?

Like, if I'm some blue-chip prospect out there, middle America, looking at where I want to go play my college ball, am I more or less psyched to go to UNC as we're discussing all these issues?

HILL: Yes. I mean, I think for these young players, it is something to be concerned about. You know, one of the reports that came out a few months ago is that Jordon Hudson was instrumental in getting the Hard Knocks documentary series axed, which would have been a documentary series that follows these players, could have potentially brought more nil dollars to some of these players who maybe ended up being the star of this documentary. And so, if they don't have that and the story is about their coach and not about the players and their performance on the field, that's something that I would be concerned about if I was a student athlete.

WILDER: Yes, I think, Michael, you know, in your poll, you said, should we be concerned? And I think the question is, concerned for whom? You know, you can be concerned about Bill, but Bill's, you know, he's had a great career. He has a lot of money. To me and to Madeleine, the way that we've been looking at this is. This is a question of where that power ladder goes down. And if you follow it's the people who work for Bill at UNC.

It's the student athletes that he has recruited. If I were the parent of a student athlete and I saw a coach whose public narrative is completely out of control, I would ask, why are you the guy who can then guide my children through this program?

Okay, but can I have a final thought on this? Because we're kind of treating him like he's Patty Hearst, you know, that he's in the clutches of the Symbionese Liberation Army. I'm sure that dates me to tell the two of you that line, but he looks happy.

I mean, why are we so harsh on Belichick? This is his relationship. You know, God bless, be happy, and hope you win some games. You two get the final word. You can each take 30 seconds.

HILL: Yes. Yes. I mean, I think, yes, he's a grown man. He can do what he wants. He can date who he wants. But that's not what we're concerned about. What we're concerned about is how his actions and, frankly, inactions at times, by letting her sort of control his own public Persona and his career have implications and consequences for his employees and the student athletes, and the people who go to UNC. That, to us, is the main concern here. It's not who he's dating.

Like we said, it's not about the age gap. He can date who he wants, but it's about what the implications are of who he's dating that are having on.

WILDER: These other people, especially Michael. Because Jordan is not hired by the University of North Carolina, he has brought her in, and he said in a statement, I am involved with Jordon in a professional. A personal and professional capacity, which opens up a lot of questions. What is she doing for you? How. If she is not working for the university, why is she cc'd on all these emails?

It's a lack of transparency, I think, and, you know, it's something that can have broad implications for UNC in the sports world more generally. SMERCONISH: Madeline, Charlotte, nicely done. Thank you both.

Appreciate you.

WILDER: Thank you, Michael.

HILL: Thanks for having us.

SMERCONISH: What are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media. I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program from the world of X. If the genders were reversed. Oh. Oh, P.J. Yes. If the genders were reversed, how would this play? What would we then be saying?

Hey, how about to my point, my overall point, which is to say, and I know so many of you are like, oh, my God, he's talking about Bill Belichick. It's all related. I'm doing the weave now, but remember, my weaves actually do lead somewhere, unlike some other weaves that we're familiar with.

It's all related to the politics that we usually discuss at the outset of the program. It's because of the heavy nature of the politics that I think a lot of people are just looking for a little escapism. And this story provides that.

Reminder. I want to know what you think. Go to that very deliberately, vaguely worded poll question today@smerconish.com is Bill Belichick's relationship with Jordon Hudson a matter of public concern? Go vote. I'll give you the results later.

[09:15:00]

Up ahead, a Catholic virtual school in Oklahoma could rewrite the rules for public education in America. Religious curriculum, state funding, and a Supreme Court that's already shifted the balance. Is this the beginning of publicly funded religious charter schools?

Please make sure you're signing up for the smerconish.com daily newsletter. When you vote on the poll question, check out what Rob Rogers just drew for us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: The Supreme Court just heard arguments in a potentially landmark case that could open the door to publicly funded religious charter schools at the center, St. Isidore of Seville, a proposed Catholic virtual charter school in Oklahoma planned and operated by the local archdiocese. The school wants to teach Catholic doctrine while receiving state money, something never before allowed in the charter system. Conservative justices appeared sympathetic, framing the case as a matter of religious freedom, saying religious groups shouldn't be treated as, quote, "second class".

[09:20:05]

Chief Justice Roberts could cast the deciding vote. He asked whether Oklahoma's heavy oversight of charter schools makes this different from past cases. And here's the twist. Oklahoma's own Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a practicing Christian, is leading the fight against the school. He argues this violates the First Amendment's ban on government-sponsored religion and that it threatens to undermine the entire charter school system.

So what's really at stake here? Are we about to redefine public education in America? Joining me now is Kristen Waggoner, CEO, President, General Counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom. ADF represents the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, one of the plaintiffs in the case who admitted the religious online school into the charter program. And one of ADF's attorneys argued the case before SCOTUS this week.

Kristen, nice to have you back. This is bigger than Oklahoma, right? Because if the Supreme Court rules for the school, then all federal, all state charter laws would be unconstitutional insofar as they require a nonsectarian approach.

KRISTEN WAGGONER, CEO, PRESIDENT, GENERAL COUNSEL OF ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM: No, that's not at all true. Actually. What matters here are the individual requirements of the program itself. So, if we look at the Oklahoma charter school program, it's undisputed that the program was opened up by government officials, it's a public program, and that they have refused to allow religious groups to enter that program simply because they're religious. It's a categorical bar.

States may choose to set up their programs different than how Oklahoma has set up theirs, which may lead to different results.

SMERCONISH: Okay, can we agree on this right now? There are no religious charter schools in America, and perhaps that's about to change.

WAGGONER: I think what we can agree on is that three times in the last eight years, the Supreme Court has rightly said that if you're going to open up a program or for example, you're going to enter into a contract with private groups, you can't tell the religious groups they need not apply. In terms of the religious --

SMERCONISH: Kristen, Kristen, play ball with me here. Can you name one religious charter school in the United States? The answer is no. There are none. I'm trying to educate my audience that the ramifications of this case extend to all 50 states and will impose fundamental change on that. We can agree, right?

WAGGONER: I don't think that I can't agree with you on the last part of your statement. What I kind of --

SMERCONISH: Name a religious charter -- name a religious charter school in the United States. Just please identify one, and then we can move forward.

WAGGONER: I agree with you there. It's the last half of what you said that I disagree with, which is that it's not changing the law in all 50 states. But let me tell you what I'm thinking on this because I think that parents are entitled to more educational options. And these are privately run schools.

Oklahoma has traditional public schools. They'll continue to have traditional public schools. But when Oklahoma wants to engage with privately run entities, then it's okay to have schools that are emphasizing Native American culture, which they do. It's okay to have schools that are going to emphasize environmental stewardship, which they do to bar Catholic schools or religious schools simply because they're religious denies parents equal opportunities and denies religious schools and constitutional rights.

SMERCONISH: I heard you, I heard you say that on CBS. So let's go there because I was going to ask about it anyway. You said, hey, they're already having charter schools in Oklahoma, to your point, that celebrate Native American culture, performing arts and nature. That was the soundbite that I heard.

And I said to myself as I watched you, that's true. But none of them involve a First Amendment where the First Amendment says, hey, we can't establish a religion. You know, if there's a nature inspired charter school, there's no religious implication. So I didn't think that was apples to apples.

SMERCONISH: Well, you can think what you want, but we both know what the Constitution says. And what we know is that it is not a violation of the Establishment Clause to treat people of faith and treat religion neutrally. Especially when we're looking at this particular issue where Oklahoma is ranked second to last in the United States. The fact that they want to empower parents and have the money go where the child goes, that's good for all people that are religious and people it or not.

SMERCONISH: You say, I guess that the exercise portion of the First Amendment trumps the establishment portion of the First Amendment.

WAGGONER: I say that government endorsement doesn't occur when the government is neutral and religious bigotry is not okay. And that's what's happening here. And I also want to point out that the Attorney general that was in place prior to General Drummond actually agreed with the board's decision because the Supreme Court precedent is clear in this respect.

SMERCONISH: Right?

SMERCONISH: There were 200 --

SMERCONISH: And then he lost. And then he lost the Republican primary and a new Republican Attorney General, you correct me where I'm wrong, because I'm not.

A new Republican Attorney general, similarly self-described as a Christian, he came in and said we can't have this because it violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

[09:25:06]

WAGGONER: Well, that's actually not exactly what he's arguing. What he's arguing is that he doesn't like certain religions, and he doesn't want them to have schools. But what I want to emphasize here is 200 families immediately signed up for this program, and they want educational options. And the Constitution says that the government has to be neutral.

Think about the soup kitchens, Michael, or the homeless shelters, or the foster and adoption agencies, all that are entering into private contracts. If we start saying that they are all a part of the government, none of those services will be as good as they are right now.

SMERCONISH: The problem that I, by the way, I'm completely supportive of a parochial education, an education that's in line with any particular religion. I'm cool with that. I think they do a wonderful job in many instances. I want to make that clear.

The issue here is whether taxpayer dollars, I mean, you know the hypotheticals that I'm going to raise. What happens now if that new charter school with a religious flair says we're not hiring any gay faculty? What if they say we want to teach creationism? What about the example that was raised by Justice Kagan where maybe now it's a New York City-based charter school, and they say we want to teach Yiddish and be based on the Talmud, and federal tax dollars are going for that?

WAGGONER: Well, first of all, this program is focusing on state tax dollars. And state tax dollars are already going to all kinds of things that taxpayers don't like.

The money follows the children, and that's a good thing. It's a result of par choice. It's not a result of the government's choice, vouchers, tax credits. This is already happening. It's been happening for years. And it's what fosters innovative educational approaches. Let the parents decide.

SMERCONISH: But those vouchers -- but those vouchers. Come on. Those vouchers can be used, therefore in a parochial school, in some other religious influenced school. This is different because charter schools are public schools that are run privately. That's why my first question to you was to say this would be precedent-setting. This would completely change the dynamic of public education across the country. I'll give you the final word. Go ahead.

WAGGONER: Families deserve more educational options, not fewer. It doesn't change the dynamic in this respect. Parents know what is best for their children, and they deserve educational options like St. Isidore, which has 100 percent graduation rate and a 98% acceptance rate in college.

This would open up educational opportunities to students that never otherwise would be able to afford them. It's a good thing. And religious discrimination violates the Constitution.

SMERCONISH: But in some areas, that charter school is the only game in town. In some parts of Oklahoma. There's specific one --

WAGGONER: That's not true. That's not true.

SMERCONISH: That's what was argued by the attorney general of Oklahoma in this case this week.

WAGGONER: And he knows it's not true. There is a statute that says every Oklahoma school district has a traditional public school in it.

SMERCONISH: Okay. We can agree that he said that to the Supreme Court of the United States. Right. Those arguing on behalf of the attorney general.

WAGGONER: We can agree that there were some statements made to the court that didn't accurately represent what the law is.

SMERCONISH: Okay. Okay. Just trying to meet you halfway on the things we can agree with.

WAGGONER: I love it. I love it.

SMERCONISH: There's some things we can agree with in this case. Thank you, Kristen. Appreciate it.

WAGGONER: I'm halfway a little bit next time. Nice to meet you. Nice to see you.

SMERCONISH: All right. Thank you for that.

Social media reaction to this case. Hello. What do we have? Religious schools will be a lot better than the government school system we have now. We retired Florida trucker Frank. We have religious schools. We have religious schools. And I agree with you that not uniformly, but many of them do a darn good job. What's different here is that these would be public schools with a religious influence.

Okay. That's what changes this. Because when I asked my guest respectively for the third time, it was made clear there are none. I was simply trying to establish. This is huge because now you could have religious charter schools in the United States and today there are zero. Why are there zero? Because they are perceived. We'll see what the Supreme Court says as being in violation of the Establishment Clause if in fact your tax dollars end up in a public school.

Still to come. Glad we cleared all that up. Still to come, your social media reaction today's program. And then the president thinks that he's sticking it to China with the tariffs. Right.

I'm going to talk to a small business owner who thought of a creative way to remind customers who's really responsible for the tariff pricing. Think you'll find that interesting. Plus, when Bill Belichick said that he was diving into a new chapter, we didn't think that it would involve a mermaid, but it does. Which leads me today's poll question@squirrekandish.com.

Is Belichick's relationship with Jordon Hudson a matter of public concern? Go vote. While you're there, sign up for my newsletter for which Jack Oman sketched this. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:34:27]

SMERCONISH: Hey, you can find me on all the usual social media platforms. Follow me on X, follow me on YouTube.

From Dede.S. You think Belichick looks happy? Really?

Well, Dede.S -- OK. Belichick -- Belichick never looks happy. I mean, if you've -- if you've watched the man throughout the course -- he never looks more unhappy than when he's speaking to the media. So, that's kind of typical.

But in the mermaid picture -- do we have the mermaid picture again or the balancing picture? I mean, look, at some of those images. Does he look happy? He looks -- how about this? He looks happy for Bill Belichick.

[09:35:01]

Look -- look at him. He just -- he just reeled in a big -- a big one. I don't know what else to say. OK. More social media reaction. Come on. Give me something else.

It shows he lacks moral judgement and should not be allowed to coach --

Oh, come on, Norman. Really? He lacks moral judgment because he has found the love of his life? One more. What else? Come on, we better get back to tariffs.

People who send their kids to private school can already afford it. School choice is code for stealing from public schools.

Susie, in some parts of the country -- in some parts of the country, like the charter school is the only game in town. OK? Look it up. My guest disagreed with me when I made that statement. So consequently, you're going to put some in a position -- families and kids in a position where it's not their religion. And yet all of a sudden, they're going to have to buy into that program. That's -- that's what troubles me.

I'm completely supportive of a -- you know, a religious based education, but not on the public dime -- but not on the public dime. What then happens if all of a sudden, with whatever religious foundation, maybe it's -- maybe it's a Muslim faith, maybe it's a Jewish faith, a Christian -- it doesn't even matter. And they say, hey, we want to teach, you know, creationism. Hey, we don't want any gay faculty members. Hey, we want to teach from the Talmud. Or we want the lesson to be in Hebrew.

I think it opens up a can of worms that -- be careful what you wish for, for those who are supportive. More social media reaction. What do we have? We're moving on? I was on a roll. OK. All right. I want to remind you, go to my Web site at Smerconish.com, answer today's poll question. Is Bill Belichick's relationship with Jordon Hudson a matter of public concern?

Can't wait to see how that turns out. Still to come, the true price of tariffs. Jeff Bezos might have backed down from listing tariff price increases on products, but I'm about to talk to a small business owner who is not bending and creatively reminding customers why they're paying more.

While you're there, make sure you're signing up for my newsletter, for which Scott Stantis sketched this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:41:30]

SMERCONISH: The White House has claimed foreign countries will pay for the new tariffs. But companies are saying, not so fast, consumers will pay for them. So, they're taking matters into their own hands and are essentially tariff shaming the president. Despite only considering breaking out tariff charges on its Amazon Haul site, that company was still denounced by the White House for the, quote, "hostile and political act."

It turns out a lot of companies are now willing to be hostile and political. Major names like Peterbilt, Honeywell, Crestron Electronics and Micron Technology are adding tariff surcharges to their products.

Some places are getting creative about it. For instance, Dame Products, a company which deals in, quote, "sexual wellness," has added something special to their online shopping cart. A graphic of Trump's hairstyle to make it clear who's responsible for higher prices.

Trump supporters are saying tariffs will strengthen the economy in the long run. But while we're waiting for the long run, companies are saying, don't blame us. Do they have it right?

Joining us now is Alexandra Fine, the co-founder and CEO of Dame Products. Alexandra, nice to have you here. I asked my team to book a guest who sells widgets, and they came up with you. Go figure. What is your --

ALEXANDRA FINE, CO-FOUNDER AND CEO, DAME PRODUCTS: I always --

SMERCONISH: What is your thinking --

FINE: My thinking is I want to let --

SMERCONISH: Go ahead. Tell me your thinking behind this.

FINE: I want to let people know why -- what the cost is of these tariffs. Other countries aren't paying for it. I'm paying for it. Small business and large business owners are the people who are actually funding the bill for these tariffs. And then, of course -- SMERCONISH: So, are you forwarding that cost now to your customers or are you absorbing it yourself?

FINE: We're absorbing a lot of that cost, but we wanted to give customers the information so they understand what that additional cost is for us. So, it's $15.00 per product on average. That's quite a bit. And we wanted them to understand that that cost is something that we have to pay, and that we are passing some of that on to them.

SMERCONISH: I know that Forbes singled you out as, you know, one of the 30 under 30 and gave you that recognition, and that you're viewed as an innovator. So, I'm curious to know, don't you want to sell sneakers or in your case, sexual wellness to Republicans, too? Are you concerned that you're going to alienate a part of your client base?

FINE: Yes and no. And I think that was really interesting the way the government called Amazon hostile and political. I'm not trying to be political. I'm trying to be transparent and honest about how these policies are impacting my business.

So, our decision to use Trump's hairstyle was more to be clear. So, if we had just written surcharges, I don't think that would have -- people would have understood what those were.

It wasn't about being political. It was about helping consumers understand the implications of these policies, which, of course, are political.

SMERCONISH: So, the "Wall Street Journal" wrote about this issue and wrote about you. And I looked at the comments that were appended to the story. I'm going to put it up on the screen and I'll read aloud.

Somebody said, so a sex toy company is documenting how we are getting screwed by China. Priceless.

Somebody else said. Who says the "Wall Street Journal" readers have no sense of humor? This may be the funniest comment I've ever seen.

The point that I want to raise is this. The president says we're being treated unfairly by China. Yesterday, in the news came a report that maybe China is about to negotiate.

[09:45:03]

The markets were on fire yesterday. So, maybe Trump is right. What do you think about that?

FINE: Trump is right about -- about what?

SMERCONISH: About us being taken advantage of by the Chinese and by other governments, and that this leveling of the playing surface was a long time coming.

FINE: I don't think that the trade -- you know, I disagree with that. I don't think that if the idea was to move manufacturing back to the U.S., that is not what's happening. And if they come to the table, I'm not quite sure what it is that we plan on getting. If we have higher tariffs, those are still going to ultimately be passed on to the customers.

SMERCONISH: OK. I guess, what I'm saying is his argument is one of us having been historically treated unfairly and that this was necessary to open up U.S. manufacturers, to open up U.S. retailers to markets that have been closed to them. And at the same time, perhaps we're going to cut, I hope, the debt and deficit.

I'm just saying, if in the end he's right and there's a robust response to this from U.S. economy and our markets, as perhaps we saw yesterday, might you regret putting his image on your bills?

FINE: No, not at all. This is still his policy. And the way he is enacting it is irresponsible. It is existential for so many small businesses. Even after this moment, it's still going to have continued impact on small businesses.

So, no, I don't think that I'll regret it. And the markets aren't higher than they were. They are maybe going back to where they were.

So, it's not an improvement. It's us climbers -- climbing ourselves out of a hole.

SMERCONISH: Alexandra, thank you for being here. Appreciate it.

FINE: Great. Thank you, Michael. It's a pleasure.

SMERCONISH: Checking in on social media reaction. What thoughts do you have?

From the world of X. Obviously, price transparency is something this administration is afraid of. Wait until the pictures of empty shelves start appearing and they will be in full panic mode.

I get it, Karl. And I talked about this on radio this week, and I had a lot of callers who welcomed the idea of the tariff, you know, actually being listed on a bill so that they can see what it is. And then we wondered aloud, where might it lead and might there be pressure brought to bear on those retailers to show exactly what your profit margin is? I guess, in the category of be careful what you wish for, for some.

Still to come, Bill Belichick may be done coaching the Patriots, but he's still balancing a lot. The legendary coach and his 24-year-old girlfriend, Jordon Hudson, making headlines. Which leads us to today's vaguely worded poll question. Is Bill Belichick's relationship with Jordon Hudson a matter of public concern?

What does that mean to you? Go vote. Subscribe to the newsletter while you're there. Get exclusive editorial cartoons from the likes of Steve Breen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:52:21] SMERCONISH: OK, there's the result. Wow. Very lopsided. There's the result so far with more than 30,000 votes having been cast. Is Bill Belichick's relationship with Jordon Hudson a matter of public concern?

Eighty-nine percent say, no, it is not. Now, how did they interpret that question? Did they interpret it as, is it any of our business or matter of concern? Like do we need to be concerned for him? Roughly 90 percent say, no, it is not.

Keep voting if you haven't voted yet. Here are some social media reaction to today's program. What do we have?

Laugh out loud. This is basically elder abuse.

Laugh out loud. Is this basically elder abuse? Pat, he -- I said earlier in the program why all the concern that he's being so preyed upon? The guy -- for Belichick, looks as happy as we've ever seen him.

More social media reaction. What else do we have? Everybody wants to talk about this. Proving my point that it's great water cooler conversation.

If you asked a group of guys sitting around a table at a sports bar -- oh, I like this already. OK. I'm listening.

If you asked a group of guys sitting around a table at a sports bar having a beer, do you think Belichick's girlfriend is a problem for him? Most of them would say, right, if this is distress, please bring it on to me.

I get it. And by the way, William, to your point, let me say something about that, about the gathering at a sports bar. This was my whole premise. My whole premise is that this is one of those issues -- you see the outsized attention that it's getting, right? I think there's a reason for that. I think that so many are feeling the weight of the news in a 24/7 news cycle, and a lot of very serious issues.

Take your pick. It's the Middle East. It's Ukraine. It's the economy. It's the tariffs. It's DOGE. It's the downsizing of government.

There's just a lot of fear and concern out there. And now something like this comes along and you can have an opinion and you don't need to be a Republican or a Democrat. You can just weigh in with your friends. And it's a good conversation starter.

Dare I say, it's a good subject about which people are mingling and that's a good thing. OK. Next social media reaction. Remember, I don't see them in advance. Maybe you can tell.

What if it wasn't a Christian school? What if it was a Muslim school or a Jewish school? Or gasp, a school for atheists?

I mean, I -- those hypotheticals have all been part and parcel of the Saint Isidore discussion that was argued in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. In fact -- in fact, in the context of it being a Muslim school, what has been said is, what if it were a madrasa? And then others say, oh, that's Muslim -- anti-Muslim bias for you to even use that as an example.

[09:55:03]

Take your pick. Fill in the blank. If you have a sort of an area that only has a particular charter school, and now that charter school is going to be one with a religious influence, I think, it's problematic.

And I also think that it's -- it's directly at odds with the nature of what we get from a public education, where there's a great blending and not an established religion that is governing that school. If you want that kind of an education for your kids, God bless you, no pun intended, but go to private school instead of making a public school, which is what a charter school is, turn itself into.

OK, if you missed any of today's program, remember, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. We thank you so much for watching and see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)