Kurt Mills (3:33)

Yeah, sure. So, I mean, more surprises, more art of the deal. I think all things considered, since the bombing campaign started in mid March, this was the absolute best case scenario of what could have occurred. Trump accepted the Houthi offer that was extended, you know, sort of informally last month. And it looks like ahead of Trump's trip to the Gulf next week, you know, it's, it's safe for the president, you know, all things considered, in a dangerous part of the world to travel to. And, you know, this, this is a resumption of the sort of that was going on in the transition when special envoy Wyckoff negotiated a cease fire between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And, you know, hopefully it all holds.

Natalie Winters (4:18)

And just broaden this out. Obviously, there's been a lot of back and forth perhaps leading to firings and leak investigations and all that jazz over it over at the Pentagon, that's at least been sort of one of the potential explanations. But where you think we see stand on maybe the best way to do it, the sort of factions that you think you've seen emerge, particularly in the, you know, never ending quest to start a war with Iran, where we sort of stand in that, in that horse race right now.

Kurt Mills (4:46)

Yeah, I mean, it's interesting that you said the factions are not necessarily the factions within the administration. I mean, this platform is as important as almost any government, cabinet or bureau at this point. So, you know, it's a huge vortex for President Trump's attention. But, you know, the effective battle lines are this, those who want to take the wars that were inherited from President Biden and resolve them this year in Trump's first 360 days, and those who want to see expansion of the theaters, either whether it be in Ukraine or the Middle East, The Middle east one seems like its front burner right now. We could have an Iran deal as soon as this month. They're already into technical negotiations. So the negotiations with the Iranians are further along than they have been at any time since the, the secession of the JCPOA on the American side in 2018. They're further along than they ever were under Biden. And so, I mean, the prospect of a Trump Iran deal is very live, one that would take the nuclear option for the Iranians off the table for the foreseeable future and, you know, hopefully result in peace in the Middle East. There are those sort of hawkish Bush wing Republicans, you know, the sort of Nikki Haley types, the Pompeo types, the Wall Street Journal types who want to see a new offensive. You know, this is very related to Yemen. They argue that the Houthis are a direct proxy of Iran. It's far more complicated than that. But regardless, it is increasingly set up as a binary. Does want Trump, Mr. President Trump want a new war in the Middle east or does he want to be a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize?

Natalie Winters (6:27)

I think the jive we can always hear from our audience is, you know, well, with whatever's going on in Ukraine or whatever is maybe potentially, you know, calming down a bit in the Middle east, they're now looking for their sort of new forever war. Do you think that that's a valid paradigm to evaluate what's going on in Iran through, or is this sort of. I mean, I would probably think it's a longer drawn out thing. There's been more effort and investments made to make this into a potential forever war type type conflict. John Bolton just, you know, comes to mind naturally. But your thoughts on that sort of critique?

Kurt Mills (7:03)

Yeah, I mean, look, say what you will for former national security Adviser Bolton, Ambassador Bolton, he's very honest and it's what it, that's what a maximal sort of neocon hawk, Republican worldview looks like. It looks like the US overextended and every theater forever and ever. And you know, that's, he doesn't really make any apologies for that. There's not much nuance there, I think. You know, yes, Iran and Ukraine are separate theaters, but the hawks so often sort of link them. You know, they'll say, oh look, you know, the Ukrainian, sorry, the Russians are using Iranian shahed drones. That's, you know, how it's all one fight. The world is breaking up into axis of autocracies versus, you know, the Western democracies. This, this sort of inevitable unavoidable fight is very redolent frankly of, of the World War I where the pre World War I environment where these, you know, endless series of alliances tripped us into a huge world war. And that's why I think these sort of all unquestioned, unambiguous and lockstep, even with some of our closest partners are, should be evaluated and are pretty dangerous.

Natalie Winters (8:17)

I see it happen a ton with China whereby these neocons sort of co opt the PRC issue and you know, I think accurately estimate the threat that it is existentially, geopolitically. But then they use that not really to actually take on the ccp, but just to justify the what newly minted trillion dollar defense budget. And in some ways I think you see the bolstering of a lot of these enemies, you know, to justify that continued spending at a, you know, exponentially, if not logarithmically increasing rate. I'd love to get your thoughts on the, I believe I'm correct, the you know, trillion dollar defense budget, the sort of reorientation, putting more measures and just preparation into the sort of anti China front. Do you find meaning in that or do you think that it's, you know, regrettably just sort of, you know, Washington politics as usual. Forget who the President is. No matter what, you're going to see defense spending balloon.

Kurt Mills (9:14)

Yeah, I mean look, the, the budget put forward by omb, you know, last week was you know, on the second derivative positive, but it was still an increase. And yet the sort of hawks on the Hill very much anchored around the Senate Armed Services Chairman Roger Wicker, complained that it wasn't enough. And so I, you know, it shows that I think oftentimes there's this sort of perspective like well, we should just, you know, it's a big tent, we should try to balance all these factions, etc. Etc. But the reality I think is that the neoconservatives and the hawks, it's never enough. I mean even, even if the US were to do a regime change war in Iran, the next thing that would be asked would be to do a regime change war in Turkey. Same thing with, you know, the Pentagon budget. If you give them $200 billion more, they'll ask for $500 billion more. I just view it as a far more of a trade off as the China question rather directly. I think it's always very curious that those who would want to hike the Pentagon budget most prodigiously are often the ones who have long records of wanting to trade with the Chinese openly. Right. So I mean, how rational is this? We're talking about increasing the Pentagon budget for this allegedly existential threat that we need to know sink more and more resources into while the country's industrial capacity sort of withers away. The average American thinks the country is going in the wrong direction. And on the other hand, you know, you can't have any question about the tariff regime and more lack thereof on the prc. I think it's just an entirely failed sort of globalist cast of mind that has been the default architecture of decision makers in Washington since at least the 80s.

Natalie Winters (10:55)

Kurt Mills, always an honor to have you on. I know the audience loves keeping up to date with your your writings, your Twitter. As Steve would say, you're always coming in hot. Where can people go to follow you and keep up to date with everything that you're working on?

Kurt Mills (11:10)

For sure. Please help the magazine the American Conservative.com you can subscribe and then often you can also see my work on X just at Curt Mills, you know I'm out there.

Natalie Winters (11:24)

Kurt Mills, thank you as always for joining us. And I believe we are joined now by Mike Howell. Mike, I know you're always a feisty guest. We're honored to always have you here in the war room. But but I want to trigger you a little bit. So Denver, we're going to roll the extended interview with war rooms, I guess target metaphorically of the moment, Thom Tillis. So Denver, let's roll it.

Mike Howell (11:52)

He is I don't believe he's being advanced to the markup. And I met with Mr. Martin. He seems like a good man. Most of my concerns related to January 6th. And he built a compelling case on some of the 1512 prosecutions that were pro heat of the moment, bad decisions. But where we probably have a difference is I think anybody that reached the perimeter should have been in prison for some period of time, whether it's 30 days or three years is debatable. But I have no tolerance for anybody who entered the building on January 6th, and that's probably where most of the friction was.

Kurt Mills (12:29)

I see. So he disagreed with you on that.

Mike Howell (12:32)

Well, now I have to say that Mr. Martin did a good job of explaining how there were people that probably got caught up in it, but they made the stupid decision to come through a building that had been breached and that the police officers and others were saying stay away. So the difference wasn't that they should be charged in my estimation, it's by how much. That's an argument I'm willing to have, but we have to be very, very Clear that what happened on January 6 was wrong. It was not prompted or created by other people to put those people in trouble. They made a stupid decision and they disgraced the United States by. By absolutely destroying the Capitol. And I can't have any patience.

Steve Bannon (13:15)

It sounds like your concerns were not appreciated.

Mike Howell (13:17)

But let me be very clear though. Mr. Martin did a good job of explaining the one area that I think he's probably right, that there were some people that were over prosecuted, but there were some two or 300 of them that should have never gotten a pardon. And he agreed with that. But the disagreement there had more to do. If Mr. Martin were being put forth as a U.S. attorney for any district except the district where January 6th happened, the protest happened, I'd probably support him. But not in this district.

Kurt Mills (13:50)

When you say he's not being advanced.

Natalie Winters (13:51)

To the markup, was he operating under that understanding that he's not being advanced through to him?

Mike Howell (13:55)

Well, I think Mr. Martin, I'm sure they're looking through it. I mean, be clear, some of the deadline has to do with the length of time he can operate, his acting and the administration can work through that if they want to have more time and potentially work them through. But at this point, I've indicated to the White House I wouldn't support his nomination.

Natalie Winters (14:19)

Now, Mike Howell, I have had my chance to tee off on this guy in the 5:00pm I love this man who can find, you know, more grace and nuance for the illegal aliens that he wants amnesty for or Zelensky, who he thinks we need to be thanking despite, I mean, canceling elections, I think is a little worse than what, debating three days verse three years. Apparently he can't find that same, shall we say, consideration for Ed Martin. That's how you know this guy is, I was gonna say a rhino, but maybe just political hack bought and paid for by donors who don't want Ed Martin substantially and significantly investigating the crimes that have gone on in D.C. maybe that's a better way to put it. But I will stop there. I will let you sort of walk our audience through what you guys have been doing over at your the new spun off of Heritage Oversight Project. But your thoughts on this sort of whole Ed Martin debacle, which I don't know about you, I'm kind of getting PTSD and deja vu from all these just horrific, feckless Republicans not even doing nothing but actively sabotaging President Trump's agenda.

Sam Faddis (15:23)

That's ultimately what this is about. It's whether Trump can make his hiring decisions or not. And then the outcome of that is if the Senate effectively gets turned over to Durbin, Schiff and Schumer, with the assist from Senator Tillis or others, it's about ending the forward progress of the Senate and executing President Trump's mandate. So this is really not just about U.S. attorney Martin. It's about President Trump. And if you take a look and listen to Tills his comments, you have to wonder, why don't they apply to President Trump or Cash or Bondi or anyone else in the Cabinet? Why pick Ed martin over January6 at this moment? And so it's really a criticism of President Trump. And that's what I see Senator Tillis saying. Lucky for him, he's not voting for January six, he's voting for Trump's U.S. attorney. And so hopefully he can put his concerns aside, because U.S. a Martin's record on these issues as U.S. attorney is terrific. No one's gone harder at people who go after cops than USA Martin. No one's gone harder for law and order in Washington, D.C. than Martin. And so it really doesn't make sense. And I'm hoping why Senator Tillis laying out that reasoning, he eventually can be reasoned with. Because this is not a vote to condone whatever his view on January 6th is. It's a vote of whether he supports President Trump's decision to put his people in the spots where he thinks they can serve the country best. And I don't know what's going on with Senator Tillis and President Trump, but this is a highly unfortunate fight for the senator to pick at a really critical time. And I think we're all hoping that he can get to yes on this.

Natalie Winters (17:03)

Critical post and walk us through maybe the other, shall we say, sleeper cells of potential opposition. We know people like Norm Eisen and Mark Elias have come out in very staunch opposition to Ed Martin. I'd ask Thom Tillis why he finds himself on the same side of any issue as people who have declared war, open season on this wonderful republic. But of the 12 members of the Judiciary Committee, which I believe we need unanimous support from to actually not have, you know, Judge Boasberg, like I said, the only man who physiognomy based off of physiognomy probably looks more concerning than Senator Tillis and apparently likes illegal alien criminals to stay in this country. But do you think that there could be any other potential defectors among the existing Republicans, those that have not, you know, explicitly come out and supported him?

Sam Faddis (17:56)

No. No, I don't. I think there's Actually, a groundswell of support for Martin. Right now. I call it Martin Mania. I have not seen this enthusiasm for a U.S. attorney ever. It's. The entire base is behind him. All of the groups are lining up. Senators are standing up. Senator Rand Paul sent a letter to all of his colleagues today. Senator Lee and Tuberville have been really out there. There's many more I'm not naming. And so what's really happening here is starting, you know, a month or so ago, Schumer, Durbin and Schiff started shopping oppo around, trying to peel people off, and they basically had a bunch of smears. They accused Martin of being anti Semitic. That was so bogus, it actually ended up getting him a ton of Jewish support from main leaders and groups coming out. They accused him of not having the experience or the support. And then what happened was all the law enforcement groups came out to support Martin and then all the state attorneys generals came out to support him. So he's got support far wide and deep. But this is all reaction to the opposite shot by Schumer and co. And you can't let it work, because if it works, in the unprecedented event of Trump losing his guy were to pass, you might as well hand over control of the Senate to the Democrats. And you don't want to do that before reconciliation or any of the other major items. We're barely over 100 days in. We have all, you know, the presidency, the House and Senate. Let's not give it over to Schumer. Humor. And if you humor me for a second, a little black book with some notes in it, why, I think we can get to yes. Here are the people that Senator Till has voted for in the Biden administration. Anthony Blinken, Yellen Vilsack, Raimondo, Granholm, Cardona McDonough, Monaco, Merrick Garland, Matthew Graves. If you're telling me those people can pass muster for Senator Tillis, I think he can get to yes if his concerns are reasoned with. And I think, I think they are easily dispensed of. Voting for Ed Martin will not change a thing about January six.

Kurt Mills (19:52)

It is over.

Sam Faddis (19:53)

We are moving on. President Trump has taken a position to pick a fight on that issue right now is to pick a fight with President Trump at a critical time. And I don't think anybody, when they sit down and their tempers cool, wants to take out Trump's favorite U.S. attorney. It would be unprecedented. It would be a disaster. And the sequence of events that follows don't work out well for anyone.

Steve Bannon (20:13)

1.

Natalie Winters (20:14)

Well, and also, I mean, I'm sorry too. We'll take what he said at face value. I mean, even say what Senator Tillis said about, oh, his little, you know, checkered record when it comes to some January6 defendants. Again, you know, our position in the war, and we call it the Fed direction. We think people use the term January six or two woke. But even granting him that, I don't know about you, but last time I looked around the state of this country, we need people who are fighters. And even if you might have some ideological differences, is with him on January 6th. Senator Tillis, I would much rather have someone who's willing to throw down and actually understands what accountability means as opposed to what some weak fed sock type who has no lived reality or lived experience and actually bringing about accountability outside of the confines of, you know, having worked on the Hill for several decades, having accomplished virtually nothing. So it's just a fundamental mismatch too, I think, of understanding the state of the country, the state of the battle, the war that we are in. And I mean, I guess it's people like Senator Tillis who got us here in the first place. It's no wonder why we have to have AG Ken Paxton on the show earlier today, not just also supporting Ed Martin, but talking about how wonderful policies that Senator Tillis has allowed to manifest and metastasize in this country leading to the Chinese Communist Party overtaking data, farmland and I guess politicians too. Maybe. Maybe we'll need to investigate Senator Tillis on that from front. Mike Howell, you always call it how it is. And I know last time we were on, we were talking, I believe, about the deportations where we stand there. You mentioned how Judge Boasberg would be the man that would choose Ed Martin's replacement should Senator Tillis want to have, maybe we'll call it his John McCain moment on this, this vote. Where do you think we stand now on the deportation stuff? Are you a fan of the $1,000 stipend proposal?

Sam Faddis (22:13)

Yeah. So real quick, just on January 6th, because I got it, I'm passionate about this. People need to understand that is the fulcrum point by which the left weaponized the entire law enforcement apparatus. They use January6 as the justification to go after everything ranging from Catholics, you know, praying at Mass to school board parents. That is where the rot stems from. It provided them just like a war on terror. That was their one event where they said, we can do anything we want after this in the name of January6 and let the January6 committee, etc. It was that abuse that original sin of the weaponization after it, why people receive pardons and the much needed correction to the system. And so I think there's a lot of revisionist history happening by people taking these, these stands now and trying to relitigate the event that day. And it's highly unfortunate, particularly when it's going to threaten what everyone just voted for. On mass deportations, I want, want commas, you know, I want numbers in the eight digits. That's what we were promised Eisenhower levels which were 1.3 million, you know, however long ago when there was only a few million illegal aliens in the country. That means we need to be in the millions per year. And to that end we're looking at a reconciliation bill which funds about up to a million removals a year. So that alone won't get us there. And so you got to think, how do we add up, you know, the other millions that we need? And that means, means every tool needs to be on the table to get people out. I think there's a lot more that can be done. I think we need to revisit illegal aliens being in public schools. I think it's outrageous that we're paying to, you know, crowd our classrooms and make our children speak, you know, two languages in the school. Reminds me of when I went to elementary school. We had so much mass immigration, they just rebranded it as Spanish immersion and pretended it was a good thing that everyone had to speak Spanish all day. I did Spanish for about 14 years. I still can't speak a lick because the just flood of mass illegal immigration. So everything all at once, homeward bound. That's what I think we should be doing. We need to get commas of people out here fast.

Natalie Winters (24:13)

Mike Howell, give us a minute and talk about how you spun off the oversight project, which people know I had you on a ton when, when Steve was in prison. But you, I think long predate his four month sentence. You guys have always been ahead of the curve. We've got about a minute talk about what you guys are doing now and just how you kind of pivoted off of Heritage.

Sam Faddis (24:35)

Yeah, so we started Heritage in 2022 because when Kevin Roberts took over, he invigorated the place and we wanted to sue people, go on offense, launch these massive investigations. While we need to grow, we need to get out in the states and we need to be more overtly political and say what needs to be said regardless of, you know, know, IRS C3 issue. So we reorganized ourselves as a 501 C4 organization and kind of restructured our bones so that we could be very active in the states and have a more national presence because it is those blue states where everyone's trying out for president as a governor, you know, whether it's Pritzker, Newsom, Westmore here in Maryland, wherever. And so we needed to restructure the operation so we can nimbly go after and sue in those areas and then talk about it the right way. And so with the support of Dr. Roberts and Heritage, we basically got, you know, a starter amount to get rolling and we're going to just rock and roll. We're going to be doing. We sued Biden 100 times. The governors have no idea what's coming. We're, we're turning this machinery throughout the country because we think it's a huge missing ingredient in the fight to retake the U.S.

Natalie Winters (25:41)

Mike Howell, as always, thank you so much for joining us one more time. If people want to follow you and stay up to date with everything you're working on, where can they go to do that?

Sam Faddis (25:50)

Right. So the oversight project can be found is at itsyourgov on X and it's your gov.org and that's because it's your government is our slogan. Because I think people forget that it actually is our government and they view the government as like a management company that we just have to tolerate. No, they work for us. And so that's what we want to remind people of. If you want the more PG13 tweets, follow my personal account at MHOW tweets.

Natalie Winters (26:15)

We always keep it PG13 here. I think in the war maybe we're on our own, our own grading scale. Maybe that's why we're, we're banned on YouTube and Spotify. Quite, quite proudly at that. Mike Howell, thank you so much for joining us. We will have you back on soon.

Sam Faddis (26:30)

Thanks for having me.

Natalie Winters (26:32)

Of course. And Warren Posse, we have another jam packed second half of the show so make sure you stay but in the meantime, Patriot Mobile, that's the one we're gonna go with. It's patriotmobile.com Bannon or you can call 972-patriot. You can get a free month of service. I love the guys down in Texas, the great state of Texas, they're lucky to live under AG Ken Paxton, if you didn't watch that interview, make sure you go and see what he's doing to make sure that the Chinese are not stealing your data. Much like Patriot Mobile, it's nice to not have China, whether it's Alibaba, Huawei Take your pick. All these companies is embedded and infiltrating this country. Patriot Mobile actually takes a stand and pushback pushes back. We will be right back after this short break.

Steve Bannon (27:17)

This July there is a global summit of BRICS nations in Rio de Janeiro. The bloc of emerging superpowers including China, Russia, India and Persia are meeting with the goal of displacing the United States dollar as the global currency. They're calling this the Rio Reset. As BRICS nations push forward with their plans, global demand for US Dollars will decrease, bringing down the value of the dollar in your savings. While this transition won't not happen overnight, but trust me, it's going to start in Rio. The Rio Reset in July marks a pivotal moment when brics objectives move decisively from a theoretical possibility towards inevitable reality. Learn if diversifying your savings into gold is right for you. Birch Gold Group can help you move your hard earned savings into a tax sheltered IRA and precious metals claim your free info kit on gold by texting my name Bannon that's B A N N O N to 989-898 with an A plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and tens of thousands of happy customers led birchgold army with a free no obligation info kit on owning gold before July and the Rio Reset. Text Bannon B A N N O N to 989-898 do it today. That's the Rio reset. Text Bannon at 989-898 and do it today. There's a lot of talk about government debt, but after four years of inflation, the real crisis is personal debt. Seriously, you're working harder than ever and you're still drowning in credit card debt and overdue bills. You need Done with debt and here's why you need it. The credit system is rigged to keep you trapped. Done With Debt has unique and frankly brilliant escape strategies to help end your debt fast so you keep more of your hard earned money. Done With Debt doesn't try to sell you a loan and they don't try to sell you a bankruptcy. They're tough negotiators that go one on one with your credit card and loan companies with one goal to drastically reduce your bills and eliminate interest in raise penalties. Most clients end up with more money in their pocket month one and they don't stop until they break you free from debt permanently. Look, take a couple of minutes and visit donewithdebt.com talk with one of their strategists. It's free, but listen up. Some of their solutions are time sensitive so you'll need to move quickly. Go to donewithdebt.com that's donewithdebt.com Stop the anxiety, stop the angst. Go to donewithdebT.com and do it today. Are you a yo yo dieter? You diet, lose weight, but gain it all back, plus a few extra pounds for the effort. Then later you lose it again and regain it again and on and on and on. I think I resemble this. It's dangerous. Studies show that you can increase your risk of heart attack, stroke, type 2 diabetes and other health problems. Breaking free of your yo yo diet pattern is a main reason doctors created Lean. Lean is a supplement, not an injection, and you don't need a prescription. The science behind Lean is impressive. It studied natural ingredients target weight loss in three powerful ways. Lean helps maintain healthy blood sugar. It helps control appetite and cravings. And it helps burn fat by converting fat into energy. Listen, if you're tired of losing weight and gaining it back, if you want to lose meaningful weight at a healthy pace, Lean was created for you. You let me get you started with 20% off when you enter Bannon 20 that's B A N N O N 20@takelean.com that's code Bannon 20@takelean.com Bannon 20 that's two zero@takelean.com lose it and keep it off.

Hudson Crozier (31:25)

Foreign.

Stephen K. Bannon (31:34)

Here'S your host, Stephen K. Banner.

Natalie Winters (31:42)

Welcome back to the War Room. I'm honored, I think for the first time to have a great reporter for the Daily Caller. Hudson, I should have asked you in the break. Crozier. I'm going to hope I got that right. Joining us with what is a really wonderful story, Warren Posse. You know, we track all the sort of resistance verticals who's funding these groups. And though the Democratic Socialists for America might seem like a clown organization, a lot of these protests, they're often listed as sponsoring or co organizing, in some cases funding them. So the, you know, meme videos from their organizational conferences or I guess maybe their, their struggle sessions aside, I don't think this organization is is a total joke, at least ideology aside. But Hudson, you have a great new piece sort of walking through how a certain mayoral election could potentially lead to maybe a resurgence or a birth. Not implying that they're totally dead, but of the DSA here in the United States. I'd love if you could maybe walk the audience, just give us a little background on what exactly this organization is, but how it intersects with this campaign, potentially infusing it with kind of a new lifeblood on the American political scene.

Hudson Crozier (32:53)

Right. So thanks for having me on, Natalie.

Natalie Winters (32:55)

Right.

Hudson Crozier (32:55)

We've got a very important election coming up in New York City where the DSA is involved. A lot of people might know DSA from backing Bernie Sanders for president back in the day, but now they moved on to trying to install their own radical socialist as mayor of New York City. His name is Zoran Mamdani, and based on the polling, the Democrat primary for New York City mayor is pretty much becoming a two person race between him and Andrew Cuomo. And what you've got is this very interesting generational battle for the Democratic Party going on where Cuomo represents sort of the old guard and Mamdani represents the new, younger, more radical leftist crowd that's super against Israel and wants all these free programs and is skeptical of police and so on and so forth. And so, despite the DSA somewhat falling out of relevance in recent years, if they could install somebody as mayor of New York City, that would be a pretty huge deal.

Natalie Winters (33:59)

We refer to ourselves, I think, as a proud home of right wing populism here in the war room. And I'm just curious your thoughts if you see this as maybe a reflection of sort of the broader meta narrative that's been being pushed out, the idea that these AOC and Bernie rallies are so widely attended, that this more kind of strain of left wing populism may be taking over that party. In other words, is his potential ascent or rise being something that is, you know, championed or favored by the Democratic establishment? Or do you get the sense that this is, you know, sort of something that they want to suppress the establishment?

Hudson Crozier (34:35)

I'm not sure. But the thing about New York city, much like D.C. it's kind of a place where all the political forces you could possibly imagine are converging on each other and fighting each other. And so whatever happens here, here is probably going to be a trendsetter for what's going to happen across the country. And so if DSA makes an example of somebody like Andrew Cuomo by installing someone as radical as Mamdani, it will really give legitimacy to these more radical socialist factions of the Democratic Party saying, okay, yeah, we should absolutely double down on this stuff. There are basically two schools of two major schools of thought in the Democratic Party right now since Trump won reelection. It's did we lose because we were too radical and we need to walk back on some things and be more centrist, or did we lose because the Democrat establishment is just incompetent and too milquetoast and we actually need to embrace a newer brand of politics or like you said, the populist left. That's what's at stake in this upcoming race.

Stephen K. Bannon (35:41)

Race.

Natalie Winters (35:42)

And is this the only DSA candidate who's, you know, having their seven minutes of fame right now, like being well received across other states? Are you seeing a similar uptick and not necessarily favorability but just reception towards their, their ideas, or do you think this is sort of an isolated incident going on in New York?

Hudson Crozier (36:04)

I haven't looked closely enough across the country to be able to tell, but this is definitely the biggest, most high profile candidate they're endorsing. Especially he's doing so well, I would say, defying expectations. He's, like I said, polling in second place. He's raising way more money than all the other candidates. Now, to be fair, some of that is because the other candidates are having procedural difficulties with getting their campaign funds. But nevertheless, he is defying expectations, for sure.

Natalie Winters (36:36)

Defying expectations and probably causing a lot of nightmares among our audience. Audience. Hudson, thank you so much for joining us. Really a great piece. You do great work. If people want to follow you and stay up to date with everything that you're working on, where can they go to do that?

Mike Howell (36:52)

Yeah, thanks.

Hudson Crozier (36:52)

I appreciate it. You can follow me on X, slash Twitter, slash whatever at. Just look up my name. Hudson Crozier. That's C R O Z I E R. But more importantly, be sure to check out the Daily Caller News foundation where I'm cranking out stories every day.

Natalie Winters (37:09)

Amazing. Thank you so much for joining us. We'll have you back on.

Hudson Crozier (37:12)

Thanks a lot. See you later.

Natalie Winters (37:16)

We are joined now by the one and only Sam Fatis. I have to say, every time I host this show from the DC studio, I get like deja vu, PTSD to Steve Bing in prison. And I know you were one of my go to guests, so I am eternally grateful for that. But I guess how things have changed. Never would. I thought I'd be sitting here asking you for your thoughts on what the heck is going on between India and Pakistan. It sounds like India is attacking to some extent. Can you sort of walk us through the audience? What is going on in that region?

Stephen K. Bannon (37:49)

Yeah. So in a nutshell, because we could spend the rest of the night talking this issue alone. The Indians and the Pakistanis have been fighting over the Kashmir area. The problem, the state of Kashmir for, well, since there's been an India and a Pakistan as independent nation nations disputing over who, who it should belong to. And the Pakistanis have been supporting Islamic terrorist groups that operate in Kashmir and fairly regularly staged attacks against the Indians. So there was relatively recently such an attack in Kashmir. The Indians are blaming the Pakistanis for it, have since it occurred, and they are now retaliating, staging what appears to be, as far as I can tell, airstrikes. But airstrikes with missiles, meaning the Indian aircraft didn't actually enter Pakistani airspace. They fired the missiles from their own airspace and hit a variety of targets that seem to all be, if the Indians are being straight, targets that were connected to Pakistani intelligence and special operations folks, in other words, the guys who would have been working with the terrorist group to carry this out, on balance, I would say right now looks like the Indians have done what they were compelled to do, which was strike back, but they have limited it. They're kind of given the Pakistanis a chance to step off the path to escalation and let it go. For the time being, we'll see if that works.

Natalie Winters (39:29)

And do you see any room or potential for, whether it's the, you know, eternally warmongering, neocon side of things to advocate for US Involvement here, or is this something that you think that is. Will blow over? Is it contained? Does it not, you know, directly affect us? How do you think this plays out from sort of, for lack of a better word, the America first worldview?

Stephen K. Bannon (39:51)

Yeah, well, there's always somebody in Washington who wants us to go to war someplace, right? So that's a gift given that they can never get enough of. You notice they never volunteer to go themselves, though, right? Now, if this plays the way I'm guessing the Indians wanted to go, which is, yeah, there'll be a lot of yelling, but this will die down and be like, let's, let's leave it alone. Then I, then I think we'll be fine. But. But the problem, of course, is that that assumes cooler heads and rational thought on both sides. In Pakistan and India, all it takes is somebody in Pakistan to say, hell no and do yet something, another stupid thing, and poke the Indians and compel them to ratchet this thing up, and then we're off to the races. I mean, with Pakistan and India, the chances for stuff to go sideways, it's always high.

Natalie Winters (40:54)

And I want to pivot to a little more broadly. We had Kurt Mills on earlier in the show talking about what was going on in Iran. President Trump announcing today that I guess the. The Houthis no longer want to engage in their attacks because of the strikes, allegedly. We'll see how that plays out. But your sort of broader assessment of what you see going on there. We described with Kurt as sort of perhaps the kind of internal factions within the Trump administration, the back and forth between the forever war mongering war in Iran, crazy people and those who even as you sort of saw, you know, I think in, I guess ironically the signal group chat, people who are a little more averse to getting involved. I guess maybe it's a Mearsheimer esque approach to things, but your thoughts on what we've seen unfolding there?

Stephen K. Bannon (41:43)

Look, I'm hoping that what we're seeing is, is real and that the President's characterization of it is real. And don't misunderstand me, I'm not suggesting the President is deliberately misrepresenting something. I'm hoping that what I'm saying is, I'm hoping that what the, what he's saying the Houthis have told us turns out to be legitimate. And the Houthis are serious and they stand behind their assurance because, yeah, in D.C. there's always somebody saying we should bomb somebody. They don't ever have a plan for where exactly that's going to take us or how it's going to resolve it, but they're always fired up for that and we've had way too much of that. So assuming the Houthis are for real and they really want to de escalate this and they've had enough, I'm 100% on board with the, let's see where this goes and see if we can, we can't ratchet this thing down. But the, you know, the, the, the, the issue is obvious there, though it implied by the way I phrased it. I mean, are the Houthis for real or not? We'll, we'll see. Is this is have they had enough and is this legit and are the Iranians poking them to make, you know, to, to walk this thing back or are they just going to catch their breath and then turn it around in a couple of days and do something dramatically different? Well, we will know, you know, pretty soon it's worth, most definitely worth seeing if we can't de escalate one of these things. Right. Instead of being in a hurry to start another war.

Natalie Winters (43:18)

And Sam, I'm curious. Steve and I were discussing on a show last week, I think it was first reported, I guess coincidentally in the Washington Post, talking about the Trump administration plans to fire some people from the CIA. The number that they gave was about 1200, they said maybe from some other agencies too. But if you really read the Sort of fine print. It wasn't actively firing anyone. It was essentially, you know, amplifying the speed of people who had already expressed or indicated that they wanted to retire. Certainly not, I think, the mass firings or, you know, change or cleaning house that maybe some people in our audience certainly believe is, is necessary. I mean, the fact they don't think there's just one person there that should be fired is a little wild to me. But I'd be curious your thoughts on those numbers, those estimates, what you think is going on on that front?

Stephen K. Bannon (44:15)

Well, as I understand it, we were talking somewhere in the neighborhood of like 1200 people and it was more or less like folks retiring early, this kind of thing. Do I think we should cut numbers? Yeah, I think we should cut numbers. Would I like to see the firing targeted more at the specific people we need to get rid of, like DEI hires, folks that were hired who are completely unqualified. Not helping the retired guy who's leave six months early. But let's fire the person who never should have been there in the first place. Let's fire the folks. And we can identify a number of them by name who were involved in efforts to prevent Donald Trump from ever getting in the White House the first time, destabilize his administration the first time, and then who worked throughout the Biden administration against him. I personally would like to see, if you will, more targeted firings. Let's get rid of the folks who are the problem. Not just say we'll get rid of 1200 people. Let experience go out the door and keep folks that should have never been there in the first place.

Natalie Winters (45:31)

And last question before I let you go. Obviously the Ukraine mineral deal, that was something that I think the war room posse, Steve and I were a little, shall we say, cagey about, just because it seems like a nice pretext to opening up the door for, you know, forever continued United States involvement. Maybe a little more euphemistically than a forever war. Sure, it's a more Marshall Plan esque in the spirit of rebuilding Ukraine, not the United States of America. But I'm just curious your thoughts on that deal and if you think that it could potentially snowball into something where we see, you know, heavy United States state's involvement or presence there, what that would sort of look like. Or maybe you have a different opinion, you think it's a good deal. I'm just curious your thoughts.

Stephen K. Bannon (46:19)

Well, I think the best way I characterize it as I have the same concerns, right. I mean, why we ended up in a war in Ukraine. And I'm not making excuses for Vladimir Putin. He's a thug. I've never, never sided with Putin and never will. But the point is, is it is our policy, the endless expansion of NATO, you know, constantly from Putin's standpoint, us getting closer and closer to Moscow and more and more threatening again from his worldview that, in my opinion, ultimately led to the Ukraine conflict. Again, that doesn't justify his invasion of the country. That's not where I'm going. I'm saying our strategy was very ill advised and we should have learned from that. And therefore we should not bring this conflict, try to bring this conflict to a close, but be even more entangled and more forward leaning. I mean, any Russian leader in Moscow is going to feel threatened by the idea that the Americans are on his doorstep. That's just, that's reality. Whether you want to, whether it should be or shouldn't be that way, that's the reality. We should have learned that lesson by now. Now a lot of people had to die for us to absorb that lesson. Let's not come out of this thing sort of back where we started from.

Natalie Winters (47:41)

Sam Faddis, I always appreciate you taking the time to join us here in the war room and I know the audience does as well. If people want to stay up to date with everything that you're working on, the books, the writing, the analysis, where can they go to do that?

Stephen K. Bannon (47:55)

Best place to go, go to and magazine, the magazine, online magazine my wife and I run. And magazine.substack.com myself, her and actually a number of other patriots who used to work in the intelligence community and actually still believe in ethics. Right there.

Natalie Winters (48:17)

Sam Pattis, thank you so much for joining us. I am sure we will have you back on soon.

Stephen K. Bannon (48:23)

Thank you, ma'am. Have a good evening.

Natalie Winters (48:26)

And Denver producer, will you appease me and play one more time my favorite 30 second Tom Tillis clip. Just for some fun. We'll roll it.

Mike Howell (48:38)

I met with Mr. Martin. He seems like a good man. Most of my concerns related to January 6th. I think anybody that breached the perimeter should have been in prison for some period of time, whether it's 30 days or three years is debatable, but I have no tolerance for anybody who entered the building on January 6th, and that's probably where most of the friction was. If Mr. Martin were being put forth as a U.S. attorney for any district except the district where January 6th happened, the protest happened, I'd probably support him, really.

Natalie Winters (49:10)

Senator Tillis, you have, quote, no tolerance for anyone who entered the. What was it, Wide open door building on January 6th. Well, that's quite funny because you were one of the primary authors of the bill that would have allowed for people who entered this country illegally to be granted. That's right, Citizenship and amnesty. That bipartisan, bipartisan border bill that we've all heard so much about. Yeah, the one that. What was it that also let 5,000 people in a day. Because that sounds really secure. You are such a joke. I mean, there's literally no other way to put it. The one issue that you will nitpick with Ed Martin, the reason why you cannot bring yourself to vote for it for him is because of a couple hundred cases that happened years ago. Now, don't get. Make no mistake, that burns in our memory every night here in the war room. But that is enough for you to not vote to confirm and hand over that position to someone who will be appointed by the radical pro illegal alien. I guess maybe you have that in common, Judge Boasberg. Totally kneecap the Trump agenda. You are okay with turning that over because you find it slightly debatable. I love that word. If you haven't told. I've really fixed on that one. Slightly debatable. It is such an interesting, tacit admission, if not outright Freudian slip. I'm aware that is oxymoronic that you didn't find anything debatable about Merrick Garland, Gina Raimondo, Lloyd Austin, Janet Yellen, Matthew Frickin Graves. There was nothing debatable on their record. Or you can shill for Zelensky on the Senate floor. You can overlook the fact that he's attacked Christians, laundered a ton of money, stolen your constituents, taxpayer dollars and freaking canceled elections. You think you're going to demand that the American people thank him? All of this to say that it's purely performative. His gripe with Ed Martin being some random January six cases. And I think Mike Benz laid out a very interesting case. And I think my case in terms of following the money, all of that conjoined. It leaves a lot of room for questioning. Senator Tillis, enjoy feeling like the smart one at the cocktail parties. MAGA wants nothing to do with you. In fact, I think you're actually censored by the North Carolina gop. Not too long ago, though that was for your votes on gay marriage, the wall, and a separate illegal alien amnesty bill. So it sounds like history repeats itself. Don't worry, there will be a lot more where that came from on. On Senator Tillis. I'm sure Steve will pick up the mantle on tomorrow morning's show. But until that, then make sure you're checking out birch.com bannon or texting bannon298-9898 if it's people like Senator Tillis who are helming the global financial markets and those are some of his biggest donors, if they don't want investigations into what's been going on in D.C. i don't know, maybe that's why gold has always been a hedge against these, as Ben Hartwell would say, sociopathic overlord lords. And I'm being nice in my characterization. I will leave it at that. Thank you, Warren Posse. Have a good one.

Steve Bannon (52:37)

You missed the IRS tax deadline. You think it's just going to go away? Well, think again. The IRS doesn't mess around and they're applying pressure like we haven't seen in years. So if you haven't filed in a while, even if you can't pay, don't wait and don't face the IRS alone. You need the trusted experts by your side. Tax Network USA. Tax Network USA isn't like other tax relief companies. They have an edge, a preferred direct line to the irs. They know which agents to talk to and which ones to avoid. They use smart, aggressive strategies to settle your tax problems quickly and in your favor. Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, Tax Network USA has helped resolve over $1 billion in tax debt and they can help you too. Don't wait on this. It's only going to get worse. Call Tax Network USA right now. It's free. Talk with one of their strategists and put your IRS troubles behind you. Put it behind you today. Call Tax Network USA at 1-800-958-1000. That's 800-958-1000 or visit visit Tax Network USA tnusa.com Bannon do it today. Do not let this thing get ahead of you. Do it today.

Trevor Comstock (53:58)

Hey war room. Hope you're all doing well. My name is Trevor Comstock. I'm one of the co creators of Sacred Human and I wanted to share just a little bit more about our brand. For those who may not know of us yet, but about six months ago we decided to launch Sacred Human with really the simple mix mission being to provide American made natural supplements without all the artificial nonsense. So unfortunately, as many of you know, a lot of these big corporate supplements will include things like preservatives, artificial ingredients and other additives that really aren't benefiting your health. So that's why we created Sacred Human really trying to fill this gap of quality supplements and of course the beef liver being our flagship products. For those who don't know, beef liver is loaded with highly bioavailable ingredients such as vitamin A, B12, zinc, CoQ10, etc. And because it is 100% grass fed and natural, your body is able to absorb these nutrients far better than taking any other synthetic multivitamin or any other synthetic vitamin in general. So we have some other amazing products, but if you'd like to check us out, you can go to sacredhumanhealth.com and cheers to your health.