Let’s cut straight to the point: “Screw you, Taylor Swift.” Those are the words Megyn Kelly chose to open her fiery exchange with Tucker Carlson as they discussed the latest controversy surrounding the pop star’s endorsement of Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. But Kelly wasn’t just upset about Swift’s political endorsement; she was more focused on the disturbing consequences of the policies Swift is supporting, particularly in relation to the state of Minnesota under Governor Tim Walz.
Swift’s Endorsement of Kamala Harris and the Dangerous Policies Backed by Tim Walz
Taylor Swift, one of the most famous and influential celebrities in the world, recently made headlines for endorsing Kamala Harris in the upcoming election, specifically citing the vice president’s position on LGBTQ issues. According to Swift, her support for Harris is rooted in the work Harris and her allies have done to support LGBTQ rights, particularly transgender rights.
But what Swift and many others may not realize is the impact of these policies on minors—especially in Minnesota, where Tim Walz’s administration has introduced laws that allow courts to take custody of children from parents who do not affirm their child’s gender identity. This is where the situation takes a dark turn, and Megyn Kelly is not holding back in her condemnation.
The Reality of Gender Affirming Care for Minors in Minnesota
Kelly explains that the policy endorsed by Tim Walz means children in Minnesota could be taken into state custody if their parents refuse to support their decision to transition. This includes providing minors with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and even surgical procedures like breast removal, all without parental consent. It’s a law that allows the state to overrule parents’ authority on the deeply personal and often life-altering decisions regarding their child’s gender identity.
According to Kelly, this creates a dangerous scenario for vulnerable young people who may not fully understand the ramifications of these choices. She gives a hypothetical example of a young girl, perhaps dealing with family issues like divorce or body insecurities, who becomes influenced by online ideologies and decides she is a boy. If this girl’s parents don’t affirm her decision, she can be taken from their custody and put into the system, where she could be subjected to medical procedures without her family’s input.
Kelly is outraged by the thought of children being manipulated into irreversible medical procedures like top surgery or hormone treatments at an age when they may not have the emotional maturity to fully understand the consequences. “This is not just an abstract political issue,” Kelly says. “This is about children’s lives.”
The Role of Taylor Swift in Endorsing These Policies
This is where Taylor Swift’s involvement becomes so problematic in Kelly’s eyes. By endorsing Kamala Harris and implicitly supporting the policies of Tim Walz, Swift is giving her platform to a dangerous agenda that could have long-lasting effects on young people. “This is what Taylor Swift just endorsed for your children,” Kelly emphasizes.
Swift’s support for Harris and Walz’s position on LGBTQ rights may have come from a place of good intentions, but Kelly argues that it’s deeply irresponsible for someone with Swift’s influence to back policies that undermine parental rights and expose children to irreversible medical treatments. She expresses outrage at the idea that a celebrity who enjoys the luxury of wealth and influence can push policies that affect families in such a profound way, without fully understanding the human cost involved.
The Hypocrisy of the Elites: Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce
Kelly’s frustration isn’t just with Swift’s endorsement of a political figure—it’s also with the hypocrisy of celebrities like Swift and her boyfriend, NFL star Travis Kelce. While these stars use their platforms to promote policies that they claim will make society more inclusive, they remain detached from the consequences their endorsements have on real families. As Kelly points out, Swift is living in a mansion, sipping drinks, while families are left to pick up the pieces when children make decisions that will impact them for the rest of their lives.
Moreover, Kelly brings up another layer of hypocrisy: Kelce, like Swift, has promoted the COVID-19 vaccine to young fans, many of whom are teenagers. This, Kelly argues, shows a pattern of celebrities pushing controversial medical decisions without considering the long-term consequences for the young people who follow them. She calls it out as irresponsible and self-serving.
The Broader Issue: A Generation of Lost Young People
Kelly’s broader point is about a culture that is increasingly detached from the reality of raising children and the long-term consequences of ideological positions. She explains that the people pushing these policies are often the ones with the most privilege, the most wealth, and the least connection to the struggles faced by ordinary families.
In the case of Taylor Swift, Kelly says, “She’s a billionaire, living in a mansion. Why isn’t she happy?” Swift has achieved everything many people dream of—success, fame, and financial independence—but Kelly suggests that Swift’s inability to find true fulfillment, especially in relationships, may have contributed to her pushing these damaging policies. “She’s never had a lasting relationship,” Kelly notes. “She’s made money off writing about failed relationships, but she’s never had the grounding, the family support, that many others have.”
This lack of grounding, Kelly suggests, might explain why Swift has chosen to meddle in the lives of everyday people, especially young girls, by endorsing policies that could harm them in the long run. “She’s clearly untethered,” Kelly concludes. “She’s lost and now she’s trying to make other people lost, too.”
A Call for Responsibility
What Megyn Kelly is ultimately calling for is personal responsibility from celebrities like Taylor Swift—people with immense influence who can shape public opinion and policy. Swift may have the right to endorse whichever candidate she pleases, but Kelly argues that with such power comes a responsibility to understand the real-world consequences of her actions. By promoting Tim Walz’s stance on transgender minors, Swift is endorsing a system where children can undergo life-altering treatments without their parents’ consent—something that Kelly finds deeply dangerous and morally wrong.
The bottom line, Kelly says, is that this is not just politics—it’s about children’s lives. And Swift, knowingly or unknowingly, is using her platform to support policies that are damaging to vulnerable kids. “Screw you, Taylor Swift,” Kelly declares, “because this is not something you should be endorsing.”
This powerful and emotional exchange between Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson highlights the dangers of celebrity influence on real-world issues, especially when it comes to vulnerable children and their futures. Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz’s policies may be well-intentioned, but as Kelly makes clear, it could lead to irreversible harm. The question remains: will celebrities like Swift take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, or will they continue to push agendas without fully understanding the impact?
