← Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis
Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis
Does Trump Know Best?, Bill's Solution to Illegal Immigration, Anthony Esposito Breaks Down the Jerome Powell Investigation & Debating the "Don-roe" Doctrine With Randall Woods
00:36:18
Loading summary
Transcript41 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign. Bill O'Reilly here. Welcome to the no Spin News. Tuesday, January 13, 2026. Stand up for your country. Before we get to our usual Rock Em Sock em news analysis, I want to go over again President Trump's worldview. It has changed in his second administration from his first. It's important for everybody to know how the president is processing the amazing amount of information that he gets every day. First of all, Mr. Trump believes the executive branch now has to be the most powerful and the most impactful part of the United States government. And that is because Congress is so partizan, so divided, it acts so slowly that literally nothing would get done if the president didn't sign executive orders and take the lead into trying to do what he wants to do. So just deferring to Congress, nothing's going to happen. They can't even pass a spending bill so that Mr. Trump has kind of diminished Congress. And I think he's pretty much correct there. You're going to throw it into Congress. You're not going to get anything. It's going to take forever. Secondly, the world in Mr. Trump's eyes is divided. Very simply, you're either pro America or you're anti America. If you're pro America, we'll try to help you. If you're anti America, we're going to hurt you. That's what it is. Now, there are some places that he doesn't care about, all right, it's just a minor thing and doesn't pay attention to, but it's a very simplistic view of the world. Now, he's also a man who tries to convince and he will make deals with people that he doesn't particularly like. And he does that in his mind to improve America, America first. That's what that all about. And third, President Trump firmly believes that he knows best. What are you going to do? I mean, the man's brilliant. You have to admit it. Nobody else has come close to him as far as elevating from a business portfolio into the most powerful man in the world. Two term President Ma, you got to give him the credit for accomplishment. So he thinks he knows best. Even when I spoke, when I speak with him, I don't try to outdo him or top him. I do try to convince him by giving him, you know, a perspective that is easily understood. I don't weigh him down with a million details, but I know and everybody else knows that if Donald Trump decides something very hard to persuade him otherwise. So I'm happy to give you his worldview if you have any questions about it? Bill@billoriley.com Here's a talking points memo. A new approach to control illegal immigration. So yesterday I just scorched 10 states who are in rebellion against the federal government. So if you are a premium or concierge member on billoriley.com you watch our show and get a transcript anytime you want. All right? And that is a very big convenience if you are a seeker of knowledge. So we went over that. This is a rebellion. And my column is up on billowrally.com that tells you which the states they are and what they're doing. And it's ironic because it happened 157 years ago. I believe it was Andrew Jackson. Same thing with South Carolina. And Jackson took care of South Carolina. You can't be in rebellion against the federal government. Well, anyway, I am now going to put forth to you a, I think a pretty good solution. Not a 100% solution, but something that would work. So we have a 1952 immigration law. 1952 has not been upgraded because both parties don't want to upgrade it. They both use it for political advantage. There's no drive to have a new immigration bill or law, set of new laws. None. So 1952, and President Truman vetoed that bill, but his veto was overridden by Congress. The reason that Truman vetoed it was he didn't believe the bill had enough non white opportunities for people to come to the United States. It was almost all white people that were allowed in here. That's why Truman vetoed it. Anyway, as everybody knows, Joe Biden let everybody in. No restraints. And according to the Migration Policy Institute, pretty good. They're pretty good. 14 million foreign nationals crashed in here under Biden. 14 million. Now there's a lower number put forth by Pew Research, 11 million. But it's still a colossal amount of people. Out of those 14, 11, whatever number you want to take, 10 to 15% are criminals, people who will hurt you. And that is a colossal number too, that you add the foreign criminals to the domestic criminals and you have a wave. And we've seen it all right now. Biden didn't care. The Democratic Party doesn't care. They, in fact, the radical end of the Democratic Party continues to want an open border. That's what you're seeing in Minnesota, these people screaming about ICE and impeding ice. They don't want any restrictions and they don't want to hunt down the criminals. That's who they are. It's hard to believe, but that's who they are. And you got to accept it, okay? So you can't surrender to it. And if I was on a Hannity radio program today, you might want to listen to that. I said, if I were the president, I'd have the FBI interviewing mayors and governors who will not enforce immigration law. By interviewing, I mean, you go in, the feds go in, you sit them down and you say, why are you not doing X, why are you not doing Y? When you know that federal law trumps your state law. By federal law, you know that in the Constitution. That's what I've been doing now, because if you're going to rebel against the United States and you are leading the rebellion, you're in trouble. So that's, that has to be built. But that's not the solution. Here's the solution. So by executive order again, Congress would never vote, you never get it into the Senate. Okay. By executive order, President, President Trump signs a proclamation that says if you are in this country without proper documentation, you need to go to your post office where there will be a Homeland Security form that you have to fill out and the form will be your name, where you live, are you employed, how many children do you have, where did you come from? On and on and on. You fill it out, you put it back into the prepaid envelope and you send it to Washington to Homeland Security, which then enters your questionnaire into a database. Now you have 90 days to do it. That's fair. Three months to do it. If you don't do it, then you are subject to immediate detention and deportation. That's it, you're going. And I don't think there's a court in the law that would block that because that's national security. So then you separate the people and the thugs, the criminals are never going to answer the questionnaire, ever. So you put them in a category and then you have the so called law abiding migrants in another category and then you adjudicate them so it goes into immigration courts. You'd have to hire a lot more judges to do it. But they look at it and they say there are some people have claimed asylum, there are some people that are married to American citizens. On and on, what's your story? And then you get, the federal government sends you a conclusion. You have to appear at this point or you're okay for a year, whatever it may be. Okay. And you have to carry that card wherever you go. So if ICE stops you, you produce the card. I'm cooperating. Then ICE let you go unless you Commit a crime. Unless they're hunting you for a crime, of course. So that way you get an orderly basis of deportation. You get to know who's here. And again, the bad guys aren't going to cooperate. Make it a lot easier to get them out. You don't have that card. You can't produce it. Okay. It's like a license. Where's your id? You got to produce. It's part of your id. So what's the downside to that? The liberals will say privacy. Privacy. What are you talking about? You're not supposed to be here. It's a privilege to be here. You have to go through a process to be here. Privacy. I don't believe the courts, you know, on the state courts, in the rebellion places, of course, but federal courts are going to go. This makes sense. And this allows the federal government to step away and use a less heavy hand, which is good for the nation. All right. I can't do better than that. I've been thinking about this for a long time. And again, Bill, at billorilly.com Bill O'Reilly.com I'd like to know whether you support or oppose that. And that's the memo. All right, so Minnesota is now suing the Trump administration, trying to block ICE from enforcing federal law. It's nonsensical, ridiculous. They'll lose the lawsuit. Even the guy on cnn, Ellie Hunting, I believe his name, the legal analyst says case has no merit. Roll it.
- [10:55]
B
I've read both the Minnesota and Illinois lawsuits. They're really political diatribes masquerading as lawsuits. If you look at what both states are asking the courts to do, it's to kick ICE out of those states and cities and to bar ICE from carrying on federal law enforcement in Illinois and Minnesota. That's the top thing both states asked to do. And they cite zero precedent for that.
- [11:20]
A
Because there is no precedent for it. And I gave him credit for doing that. All right, because that's an honest assessment. He's correct. Illinois and ICE is surging in Minnesota, and this is Trump. Trump's not going to surrender to these states. All right? He's just going to jack it up. You're not surrendering. Another politician may, but not him. All right, so ICE is surging in there. And the Department of Homeland Security says it has seized 1500 migrants in Minnesota, many of them serious criminals. Okay. I don't know. This is what Department of Homeland Security puts out. I don't know what portion of the 1500 are criminal. What? They should break it down But I don't object to this at all. You got to hunt these people, these criminals down. And if you're not a criminal and you're hanging with the criminals, you're going to. You're going. All right. In Illinois, another of the rebellious states, I mean, they're suing for unlawful tactics. So they want to knock out roving patrols of ice. They don't want the feds to be scanning biometric information. It's just nonsensical. But that's Pritzker, all right. Pritzker and Walls, boy, I'd have FBI on them. I'm more bullish on this than Trump. It's another fail. Okay? Bill Clinton didn't show up, as we predicted. I never thought he would. But now the Justice Department, because of the convictions of Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, who didn't show up for subpoenas about January 6, and they went to prison. They can't let Clinton skate. Bill Clinton, a former president, so his lawyers told the House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer, who subpoenaed the whole House, subpoenaed the whole committee, subpoenaed Democrats, too, signed on to the subpoena. Okay, the whole committee. And Clinton said, I'm not. Not showing up to testify. It's about Epstein. All right, here's what the Mr. Clinton's lawyer said. Quote, as you know, absent a valid purpose, in light of the fact the president and Secretary Clinton have already shared information with the committee voluntarily, then the committee could obtain via the compulsory process to clear the speedings themselves. Any subsequent attempt to enforce him are nothing more than a ploy to attempt to embarrass political rivals, as President Trump has directed. President Rising from Senator Joseph McCarthy's abuse of congressional investigative powers in the 1950s and in other more recent contexts made clear the Constitution protects private citizens and former presidents alike from invalid and legally unenforceable subpoenas such as these. They're going to lose. Clintons are going to lose on that. They're going to have to go in now. They can take the Fifth they want, but they're going to lose on it. And here's what Congressman Comer said after that was released. Go.
- [14:48]
C
One reason I think most Americans want President Clinton to answer some questions who are is because he visited the White House. Jeffrey Epstein visited the White House 17 times while Bill Clinton was president. I've been in Congress nine years. I think I've been to the White House nine times in nine years. Epstein was in the White House, double the amount of time that I was under one president. And then we know that Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's plane somewhere around 27 times after the presidency. So no one's accusing Bill Clinton of any wrongdoing. We just have questions. And that's why the Democrats voted along with Republicans, Republicans to subpoena Bill Clinton.
- [15:31]
A
All right, well, it's a drag on for quite some time, but I expect that Clinton will lose and have to show up. And same thing with Hillary. Hillary supposed to show up tomorrow, and she's not showing either. All right, so the Justice Department is investigating Jerome Powell, the Fed chair. Now, nobody cares about this, but I do. I'm one of the few that do. 72 years old, and Trump hates this guy. And so a lot of people say it's another revenge play by the president. Jerome Powell being investigated, but there's a little bit more here. So Powell had to testify in front of Congress about a $2.5 billion, 2.5 billion renovation of Fed headquarters in Washington. Now, how do you spend 2.5 billion on a building renovation? How is that possible? I like to know. It's my money, so I'm not real sympathetic to Powell. All right, I understand a personal animus here, but hey, 2.5 billion. Joining us now from Philadelphia, Anthony Esposito. He's a founder and CEO of Ascalon six Capital. Okay. So he follows all financial things, including the Fed. What's really going on here, in your opinion, Mr. Esposito?
- [17:00]
D
I think that Jerome Powell and Bill, thank you so much for having me. First of all, I think Jerome Powell has positioned himself in a really bad way with the president because he's done two things that President Trump despises. First, he's attacked America. Second. Second, he's attacked President Trump and he's done both of those things through his seat at the Fed and monetary policy.
- [17:21]
A
So how has he attacked America?
- [17:24]
D
He's attacked America with his use of interest rates. If you go back to Trump 1, and I've looked at this pretty in depth, if you go back to Trump 1, we had a strong economy. We had low inflation, sub 2%. And Jerome Powell decided that he needed to increase interest rates heading into the tail end of that election. The tail end of that term heading into the election. That made zero sense. Jerome Powell is consistently saying that he's data driven. There was no data at that time to support raising rates into a healthy economy with good employment and with low interest rates. Keep in mind his mandate is full employment and price stability. We were in that position. He was Raising rates. He then was told to cut rates by President Biden when he came into office. He cut 175 basis points in 10 days, which is unheard of in 2020, brought rates to basically zero. And then in 2021 into 22, jacked rates up as inflation was going ballistic. And we had 12, 13, 14% inflation rate under President Biden threw rates up and created a regional banking crisis. That was that scenario at that point. Then we have a point where he is, where it was steady in rates. We're coming into the election and he decides to cut rates again, 50 basis points heading into the election to be supportive of, or you can make a very strong argument to be supportive of Kamala Harris. Cuz there was really no reason to cut rates at that point.
- [18:50]
A
Okay, all right, so we got it. We got it. So Trump believes, and I think you're right, that number one, Powell is a deep state guy who favors the Democratic Party and was manipulating the US Economy to get Democrats elected. Correct. That's what Trump believes. Right.
- [19:07]
D
I think he pulls back the US Economy when he needs to under Trump, and I think he manipulates the rates to benefit the Democrats.
- [19:15]
A
Okay, but Powell's out of there, retiring in May. So why go after him on a Justice Department beef?
- [19:23]
D
Well, now I think you get to the point of the personal attack on President Trump. President Trump is taking this, in my opinion, as an attack on him. He's not only using the rates to hurt the economy and hurt the American worker, he's actually hurting Trump, whether it be downplaying or pushing back against an economy that's strong under term one, whether it be trying to influence voters heading into the election last year, I think that Trump at this point is not a fan of Powell. There's no hiding that. But I think when the. The Justice Department decides to investigate, or at least just ask the questions about what he said under oath in front of the Senate, I don't think President Trump is going to step up and say, I don't think that we should do that. He's a big boy. He should be able to answer questions.
- [20:09]
A
And I think 2.5 billion is a lot of dollars.
- [20:12]
D
Sure is.
- [20:13]
A
You know, come on. All right, so there is a bit of retribution in your opinion, in the Justice Department, but there's enough legitimacy to make it not some kind of contrived situation, I would say.
- [20:30]
D
I don't think President Trump had anything to do with the subpoena, but I'm sure that he's not losing sleep over it.
- [20:36]
A
No, but he knew about it. I mean, how? It was a top down Washington run. He might not have known about it before it was issued, but certainly he's up to speed. All right, Mr. Esposito, thanks very much. Very kind of you to help us and we appreciate it very much. Mexico. So yesterday there was a call and it was between the Mexican President, Sheinbaum, Claudia Sheinbaum, who I've been researching. Sheinbaum looks like she's a very hardcore socialist. She really looks like she's out there on the left. And obviously the narcotic situation coming in is not abated. And we saw, you know, we blew the boats out of the water from Venezuela, but that was cocaine and cocaine is mixed with fentanyl and all that. But the majority of narcotics coming in, coming in because the Mexican drug cartels are out of control. And Trump wants to stop that also. And I did not know this. Mexico supplies almost all the oil to Cuba. And President Trump says he's going to allow that to happen to continue. And, and I suspect he's going to do that because they're close to a deal with Havana. I think that's what's going on anyway. So Sheinbaum wants the money. Not a lot of money involved, but she is a socialist, so she's going to be sympathetic to Havana. So they're going to still ship the oil there. But the cartels shouldn't want to cooperate. You know, Mexican sovereignty and all that. Hey, lady, you're hurting our country, so you better work it out. Okay. Maria Carino Machado, she is a Venezuelan who apparently won the last election, but Maduro wouldn't leave and she was booted and won a Nobel Peace Prize. She is going to meet with President Trump on Thursday. Now, I did talk to the President about this directly on the phone, and I'm glad this meeting is taking place. Okay. I think that he doesn't, he's not sure if there's anybody in Venezuela can run a country now. But I think the CIA is going to run it for the next year anyway. That's my opinion. And then you have a free election. But I think Ms. Machado should be treated with respect. And the President is going to do that tomorrow. Not tomorrow, Thursday. All right. Now, there's been a lot going on, foreign policy wise, in this hemisphere and we'll get to Iran in a moment. But there's a guy that we like, he's a professor of history at the University of Arkansas and he's got a book, John Quincy, A Man for the Whole people. And Adams is very involved with foreign policy because he was an ambassador overseas in the early part of our republic. And Randall Woods, Dr. Woods joins us now from Fayetteville, Arkansas. So you say apparently that John Quincy Adams would not have approved of Donald Trump trying to reshape this hemisphere to be more pro American. Is that correct? Do I have it correct? No.
- [24:06]
E
I think that he would approve efforts to recreate the Americas to suit our interest. I'm not sure he would have gone about it in exactly the same way. You know, the Monroe Doctrine was both expansionist and isolationist. A warning to Europe, the holy alliance to stay out of hemispheric affairs. But it was also a kind of statement that the hemisphere was going to be. We were going to be the hegemon in the hemisphere and not Europe.
- [24:41]
A
Right, but I would get an A in your class because my hand would go up and go, hey, Doctor, did you know that John Quincy Adams is Secretary of State under James Monroe? How about that? Okay, that's an A. So that when the Monroe Doctrine was forged, John Quincy Adams was standing right there going, yay. And now we have the Don Roe Doctrine, which isn't that much difference in the Monroe Doctrine. It's really not, is it?
- [25:09]
E
Yeah, it is. It's about the kind of threat, you know, the US Latin American relations is a history of US intervention in Latin America, from the Spanish American War when we converted Cuba into a protectorate, to Theodore Roosevelt's big stick and then Woodrow Wilson's missionary diplomacy.
- [25:36]
A
We intervened.
- [25:39]
E
In the 1930s because of the threat of Japanese and Nazi aggression, and then during the Cold War to combat Castroism and the threat of Sino Soviet imperialism. But I don't think there's the existential threat now.
- [25:56]
A
Well, let me challenge you on narcotics flooding into this country, killing millions of Americans over periods of time, and they're coming from nations in Central and South America. They. That's a national security threat, is it not?
- [26:13]
E
Nobody's forcing Americans to take drugs.
- [26:15]
A
No, no, that's true. But you have no. Nobody forces anybody. And I have been very harsh on drug addicts because they're helping these cartels. However, that doesn't negate the threat to the country because we have a bunch of idiots that want to get high. And these cartels and Machado, Maduro and the Colombian guy who's going to be neutralized very quickly soon. These are people making money off hurting our country. So President's supposed to just do nothing about it? Is that what you're saying? I'm not sure.
- [26:54]
E
That's a good reason. I think that Maduro was a bad actor. Is a bad actor.
- [26:59]
A
No, he's a corrupt guy. He's got indictments all over the place. Why don't we.
- [27:03]
E
There's a lot of other corrupt regimes around the world.
- [27:06]
A
You're doing a what about now? We'll knock them down one by one. You got Noriega out of there. It wasn't a scream policy then and it's the same thing with Maduro and now did you know that Maduro seized and along with chavez in Venezuela, $19 billion worth of US assets? And people are complaining about Trump seizing their oil or regulating their oil. What are you supposed to do? Just walk away, doctor of $19 billion in theft? Is that what you would do?
- [27:37]
E
Why did Donald Trump pardon the Honduran president?
- [27:40]
A
What? Say that again.
- [27:42]
E
Why did Donald Trump pardon a convicted drug dealer, the former president of Honduras?
- [27:50]
A
Well, he did that for political reasons inside of Honduras, as I explained on this broadcast. And it was about getting a pro American party elected. And this guy, this thug that we convicted is still popular down there. And that's why he did it was purely political move. So. But you can. What about all day long? I'm not saying that everything Donald Trump does is correct. I'm saying the overarch of challenging anti American countries, countries that are hurting the me, my children, my family is a legitimate way to use our power. Last word.
- [28:28]
E
Absolutely, I agree with you. I just think it's, there's a, there's a, there's a better way to do it.
- [28:33]
A
What better way than how would you start. Stop all the tons of narcotics coming in.
- [28:37]
E
Well, if you look at, if you look at the history of regime changes during the Cold War, they use the CIA.
- [28:43]
A
Well, that's what they use it now. The CIA ran that entire Venezuelan operation.
- [28:50]
E
The CIA is an alternative to armed and invented.
- [28:54]
A
The CIA designs the military operations, military action. The Pentagon carries them out anyway. Very provocative. The book is John Quincy Adams, A Man for the Whole people. And I'm sure you knew this doctor that John Quincy jumped naked into the Potomac river every day. You know, I don't know that had anything to do with his foreign policy, but absolutely you get a little brisk.
- [29:19]
E
Okay, thanks for your gathered crowd.
- [29:25]
A
Disappeared somewhere. All right, so Iran, it's tottering and we don't have great information because they blocked out all the Internet and everything like that. But we do know that there are bodies, that the mullahs are killing people and the army, but we don't know exactly What? And this is a lot like what happened last summer when Trump bombed the nuclear facility inside Iran. Anything could happen at any time. And when I was speaking to the president about this, I said, Just me, U.S. military, if you can tip it, I would do it in a heartbeat. But we don't need to have any displays of power. We've already done that. But if you can get them out of there by using military power, I would absolutely do it. They are awful. And they are still funding terrorism worldwide. Iran, I mean, 3 billion a Hezbollah in the last year. 3 billion. Come on. All right. So we're on this. We're watching it very, very closely. Final thought in a moment. Okay. Final thought. I was in Manhattan last night, business dinner, right? And you know, look, born and raised here. I know the city as well as anybody. It's out of control now, but you know, it's not. Nobody bothers me in the city. Everybody's very nice. So I go to this restaurant because that's where the business dinner was. The most expensive restaurant I've ever seen in my entire life. It was, prices are unbelievable. Unbelievable. I'm not paying. So I, but I didn't rack it up. Okay. I just had, I had an appetizer, some lobster bisque, fabulous. I'm not going to tell you the name of the restaurant. It's not fair. And then I had a steak, which I don't eat a lot of red meat anymore, but I hadn't had one. I needed some protein. So I had a steak. Anyway, Monday night, place is packed. And if you go to a restaurant like that in Manhattan, you look at 150 bucks just for you. Just for you. And that's maybe two drinks, maybe a little wine, a glass of wine and maybe something else. Coffee at the end, 150 bucks. And I'm going, look at this place on a Monday. So people got money and they're spending it. Thank you for watching and listening to the no Spin News. I'm Bill O'Reilly. We'll see you again tomorrow.