Transcript

Bill O'Reilly (0:00)

Foreign Bill O'Reilly here. Let's get started. Unfortunately, we're speaking about Minnesota, Minneapolis, two dead Americans and very distressing. I think most fair minded people don't want any of this, the ideologues divided into political stuff. But it's really, we want to get immigration under control. We want the bad guys to be rounded up. We don't want dead protesters. And we go through that and we go through it in a very fair way. But what disturbs me is the law enforcement in Minneapolis. Now, my grandfather was an NYPD. Okay. He was a war hero in World War I. He came back, signed up. 20 years on the force here in New York. And I respect law enforcement. Everybody knows that. I got plaques all over the place. I'm a big law enforcement booster because I understand what they do and what they're up against. Not a blind booster. I'm a big booster. Now, you got a guy in Minneapolis running the PD there. His name is Chief Brian o'. Hara. He's a Jersey guy and he looks to be a very honest guy. He worked his way up in the Newark Police Department and now he works for radical leftists. So if he doesn't toe the radical left line, then he's not going to be police Chief. So unfortunately, Mr. O' Hara is doing that. He's not telling the American people what is actually happening in his city, Minneapolis. He's not telling them. He is misleading. Roll the tape.

Katie (1:46)

The vice president and Secretary Noem said Minneapolis is uniquely chaotic, but they also pointed to some sanctuary city policies and said that if those policies weren't in place, these are policies that prohibit you from assisting federal immigration operations, that none of this would really be happening. How do you respond to that claim that because of these sanctuary city policies you are being forced into this position?

Bill O'Reilly (2:13)

Well, there's policies and laws that have been the case here for decades and it's not on the Minneapolis police department or local law enforcement, you know, to hand folks over that are in jails. The city police do not operate a jail that's at the county level and the prisons are at the state level. So we are complying with the law as we have been for many years. And I don't know what else could possibly be asked of this very, very, you know, understaffed and overstretched police department. No, they're not. Okay. If ICE issues a detainer, then your force is obligated under law to detain whatever the federal government wants, detained whomever. And then when I show up, you hand it to them that's federal law. But in Minneapolis, they don't recognize that law. They recognize something called separation ordinance. Okay? This is a local law that basically says no cops can cooperate with federal on any immigration issue whatsoever. Nothing. Zero. Now, Harris should have said that, because that's exactly the truth. In Minneapolis, the police have been ordered by an ordinance, local ordinance, not to cooperate with the federal government on anything but what o' Hara does in that interview. All right, On Face the Nation with the very liberal Margaret Brennan, who doesn't know enough to challenge the chief and couldn't care less. Okay? What he says is, oh, it's not the cops. We can't tell the jails and the prisons what to do.

Summary

Podcast Summary

Podcast: Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis
Episode: NEW: O'Round the World - February 1, 2026
Date: February 3, 2026
Host: Bill O'Reilly
Guests/Contributors: Sid Rosenberg, John Catsimatidis (“John Katz”), Stephen A. Smith, Chris Cuomo, Katie
Episode Theme:
A deep-dive, multi-guest discussion of recent immigration-related unrest in Minneapolis, the political and legal fallout, law enforcement responses, media coverage, alleged foreign interference, and the broader implications for American governance and unity.

Episode Overview

This wide-ranging episode centers on the violent unrest in Minneapolis, which resulted in two American deaths, and dives into the roles of state/local officials, law enforcement, the federal government—and the media—in the ongoing conflict over immigration enforcement and so-called “sanctuary” policies. Key threads include O’Reilly’s argument that Minnesota is in a state of rebellion against federal law, the debate over what truly constitutes “insurrection” (contrasting Minnesota with January 6), revelations of foreign funding for protest movements, and heated debates with media figures Christopher Cuomo and Stephen A. Smith. The discussion further critiques U.S.-EU relations, late night media culture, and the future for right-leaning broadcast voices.

Key Discussion Points & Segments

1. Minneapolis Unrest and Policing (00:00–07:45)

Bill O’Reilly’s Introduction and Concerns (00:00–04:03)
- O’Reilly expresses distress over the deaths of two Americans in Minneapolis linked to immigrant protests.
- Criticizes both partisan ideologues and failures in local law enforcement leadership.
- Claims the Minneapolis Police Department is hamstrung by “separation ordinances” that bar cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
  - Quote: “In Minneapolis, the police have been ordered by an ordinance... not to cooperate with the federal government on anything but what O'Hara does in that interview... is, ‘Oh, it's not the cops.’” – Bill O’Reilly (02:13)
- Critiques local police chief Brian O’Hara for misleading the public, alleging his position depends on compliance with “radical left” city leadership.
Media & Accountability (04:03–07:45)
- Accuses national media, especially Margaret Brennan and CBS, of ideologically skewed reporting, failing to challenge official narratives.
- O’Reilly pledges to invite Chief O’Hara for a direct interview.

2. Insurrection or Individual Action? Minnesota vs. January 6 (07:46–19:00)

O’Reilly’s Definition of Rebellion (07:46–13:25)
- Argues that Minnesota officials—Governor Tim Walz, Mayor Jacob Frey, AG Keith Ellison—are openly refusing to enforce federal law, asserting this as a “rebellion” or “insurrection.”
- Contrasts this with January 6, which he frames as a “breakdown of individual emotion,” not organized, state-led insurrection.
  - Quote: “It was individual emotions, not elected people. They weren't rebelling against the election... There wasn't somebody in elected office saying... ‘We're going to storm the Capitol.’” – Bill O’Reilly (12:19)
Legal and Historical Analogies (13:25–15:45)
- Draws parallels with pre–Civil War Southern states’ defiance of federal authority.
- Argues state/local authorities are legally obligated to obey federal law, regardless of sanctuary ordinances or political beliefs.
  - Quote: “If you’re a state or local, you have to obey the federal law. ...It’s the Constitution.” – Bill O’Reilly (13:46)
Potential Legal Ramifications (15:45–19:00)
- Suggests Mayor Frey could be charged with conspiracy; mentions upcoming federal subpoenas.

3. Political and Media Reaction (19:01–26:55)

Dialogue with Sid Rosenberg & John Katz (19:01–26:55)
- Broad agreement that the media misrepresents the story, stokes division.
- John Katz claims that foreign and domestic money is fueling unrest, with European and Chinese financial interests seeking to “polarize the US Dollar.”
  - Quote: “I don’t care if you’re a Democrat, Republican, or Independent—America comes first... Do we want immigration? Yes, but we don’t want invasion.” – John Katz (21:53)
- O’Reilly notes pro-immigrant agitation in Minneapolis is supported by funds traced back to China.
  - Quote: “We trace money paid to agitators... to Shanghai, China. ...this is a very, very important story because it’s not what it appears to be.” – Bill O’Reilly (17:38)
- The group laments the decline of US-EU relations and criticizes European leaders for alleged weakness or ungratefulness toward American aid and defense.

4. Satire, Media Critique, and Late Night TV (32:43–36:04)

Comic relief as late night TV and prominent hosts are ridiculed for being overtly partisan and humorless.
- Quote: “Late night TV is over in the United States. All of them done.” – Stephen A. Smith (34:08)

5. Foreign Interference & Neville Roy Singham Story (37:01–48:53)

Unpacking the Neville Roy Singham Case (37:01–48:53)
- O’Reilly, Stephen A. Smith, and others discuss Neville Roy Singham: a US-born, Shanghai-based billionaire tech entrepreneur linked to Communist funding of radical movements in America.
  - Quote: “He is funneling millions... to these radical organizations who are then agitating professional people, Communists mostly... to go in and foster rebellion.” – Bill O’Reilly (46:29)
  - Asserts a clear line from Singham’s funds (with alleged knowledge/support of the Chinese regime) to unrest in Minneapolis through various activist groups.
  - Strongly criticizes corporate media for ignoring the foreign influence angle.
  - Quote: “This is a lot worse than George Soros... because the Beijing Communist government is in bed with this guy.” – Stephen A. Smith (39:23)

6. Insurrection Act Debate & Federal Response (48:54–66:00)

Trump, Insurrection, and Presidential Response
- O’Reilly argues for immediate federal intervention, particularly FBI investigations, and accuses state leaders (Walz, Frey) of violating federal criminal statutes.
- Pushes back on the view that Trump is “backing down.” Sees current administration as trying to “defuse” and avoid further escalation, while still enforcing the law.
  - Quote: “He’s not backing down. He’s trying to defuse. ...There is a man in Shanghai, China... funneling millions of dollars into the U.S. to try to destroy the government.” – Bill O’Reilly (46:29)
Heated Exchanges with Chris Cuomo (56:15–66:31)
- Cuomo challenges O’Reilly’s use of the term “insurrection,” arguing that local officials aren’t organizing violent resistance to overthrow the federal government, and that the Minneapolis unrest is largely organic.
- O’Reilly insists that refusal to enforce federal law—or to protect federal agents—is rebellion by the letter of the law.
  - Quote: “Their obligation is to obey federal law. They took an oath, both of them, to uphold the laws of the land. And federal law supersedes state and local law.” – Bill O’Reilly (72:51)
- Discussion of political “lawfare” and concerns about selective prosecution.

7. Broader Context: Right-Wing Media, U.S.-Europe, and Public Perception (66:32–78:30)

O’Reilly Reflects on the Media Environment
- Praised as a rare “straight talker.” Laments the decline of “common sense” and media skew.
- Stresses the need for factual, transparent communication about government action—especially during crises.
- Concerns that the liberal tilt of major networks leaves conservative/independent platforms marginalized.
Debate on Threats to Democracy (69:46–76:00)
- Stephen A. Smith argues neither Minneapolis unrest nor January 6th is a true threat to democracy in itself, but both represent collective behavioral breakdowns.
- O’Reilly: enforcing federal law isn’t optional for states/cities—failure equals subversion.

8. The Need for Clarity, Accountability, and De-escalation (78:31–end)

Emphasis on Communication & De-escalation
- O’Reilly and guests agree: The Trump administration must not only enforce laws but communicate clearly and calmly, appointing visible, trustworthy spokespeople.
- Reiterates need for evidence-based investigations (including ICE and protester conduct).
- Warns that if officials like Frey are charged, “all hell will break loose,” but also says not prosecuting illegality may be equally damaging.

Memorable Quotes & Moments

“In Minneapolis, the police have been ordered by an ordinance... not to cooperate with the federal government on anything but what O'Hara does in that interview... is, ‘Oh, it's not the cops.’” – Bill O’Reilly (02:13)
“It was individual emotions... not elected people. They weren't rebelling against the election... January 6th was not organized by elected officials.” – Bill O’Reilly (12:19)
“If you’re a state or local, you have to obey the federal law. ...It’s the Constitution.” – Bill O’Reilly (13:46)
“It’s a rebellion against the federal government—and... not denied... they are disobeying federal law and that is a crime.” – Bill O’Reilly (10:45)
“This is a lot worse than George Soros... because the Beijing Communist government is in bed with this guy.” – Stephen A. Smith (39:23)
“Their obligation is to obey federal law. They took an oath, both of them, to uphold the laws of the land. And federal law supersedes state and local law.” – Bill O’Reilly (72:51)
“Late night TV is over in the United States. All of them done.” – Stephen A. Smith (34:08)
“The only way we do that is because of the folks. They, they made it possible... people who are authentic.” – Bill O’Reilly (29:28)

Timeline of Noteworthy Segments

00:00–07:45: Minneapolis, law enforcement, and media failure
07:46–19:00: “Insurrection” definitions: Minneapolis vs. January 6
19:01–26:55: Media reaction, foreign money, U.S.-EU and Canada relations
32:43–36:04: Satire, media critique, late night TV
37:01–48:53: Neville Roy Singham’s Chinese connection, foreign-funded protest
48:54–66:00: Federal response, Insurrection Act debate, fiery Cuomo debate
66:32–78:30: Right-wing media landscape, threats to democracy, broader concerns
78:31–end: Calm communication, need for de-escalation, calls for accountability

Tone and Style

The episode is direct, combative, and impassioned—marked by O’Reilly’s unapologetic, opinionated tone. Interactions with Chris Cuomo and Stephen A. Smith are intense and adversarial, but occasionally respectful and collaborative. Frequent references to historical precedent reflect O’Reilly’s self-styled role as a historian-commentator. Throughout, the show is highly critical of left-leaning politicians, mainstream media, and foreign influence—while urging law-based, transparent governance and better public communication.

Summary for New Listeners

In this episode, Bill O’Reilly frames the Minneapolis unrest as a test case for American federal authority, accusing state officials of insurrection, hammering the sanctuary city/federal cooperation divide, and calling for national media and government accountability. The show spotlights the overlooked role of foreign (notably Chinese) funding in American activism, debates what qualifies as rebellion, and stresses the need for honest, temperamentally moderate leadership and reporting. The result is a sweeping, often contentious but never dull, look at the intersection of law, politics, media, and national identity.