No Spin News Special: Bill O'Reilly vs. the Elite Players

Summary

Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News Special: Bill O'Reilly vs. the Elite Players

Date: January 2, 2026
Host: Bill O'Reilly

---

Overview

In this “No Spin News” special, Bill O’Reilly convenes a packed panel representing GOP, Democratic, media, and security perspectives to dissect the current U.S. political landscape in the wake of Trump’s electoral victory. The episode’s central theme revolves around the shift in power dynamics, the unraveling of both traditional party structures, the crisis at the U.S. border, the future of Ukraine and Russia, and growing distrust in mainstream media. Notable figures include Congressman James Comer, Tom Homan (former ICE Director), a Democratic Congressman, a Republican strategist, a leading former Defense official, and renowned media/political commentators.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Ukraine, Russia, and Trump’s Foreign Policy

• O’Reilly and a Republican strategist discuss the deteriorating situation in Ukraine, Putin’s prospects, and how Trump might approach a deal with Russia.
  • Strategist: Believes Trump will condition any concessions to Russia with ironclad security guarantees for Ukraine.
  • (00:58) "Putin is going to regret doing what he did... The deal will be very simply, okay, you get X, Y and Z. You never get another inch..." – Republican Strategist
• Trump is described as a dealmaker who creates chaos to strengthen negotiating positions with adversaries, signaling toughness to Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.
  • (04:37) "He is a check your watch, not your calendar kind of president. And that’s what we've needed..." – Republican Strategist

2. Greenland, China, and Strategic Resources

• O’Reilly jokes about Trump’s approach to Greenland, using it as a window into broader U.S.-China competition over critical minerals (especially lithium).
  • (03:10) Republican strategist clarifies: "If you speak fluent Trump... he's taking what is a very complicated deal and putting it in words that everyone can understand."
  • The U.S. wants to counter China’s monopoly over lithium by increasing ties with Greenland, indicating a shift toward resource-driven foreign policy.

3. Democratic Party Infighting and Election Losses

• Discussion with a moderate Democratic Congressman about the party’s leftward shift, ineffectiveness in confronting the extreme base, and the Republican party’s success at framing Democrats as extremists.
  • (05:26) "Both parties are prone to being hijacked by their extreme bases. In the case of the Democratic Party, Joe Biden is not the greatest messenger..." – Democratic Congressman
• O’Reilly challenges the Democrat on immigration policy, Biden’s approach, and the delayed executive action on border security.
  • (06:36) "Joe Biden is a creature of the Senate... he thinks to make long lasting change, you got to negotiate a deal..." – Democratic Congressman

4. Biden Family Finances and Allegations

• Congressman James Comer details alleged financial misconduct by Joe Biden and family, describing money flows from Chinese and domestic sources through shell companies, ending up as undisclosed payments to Biden.
  • (13:55) Comer traces $5 million from China, through Hunter and various shell entities, with a final $40,000 check to Joe Biden.
  • (16:18) "It was a check that was deposited into his... checking account. Then there was another payment... $200,000... laundered through a series of shells..." – Rep. Comer
• O’Reilly presses Comer: If true, the IRS could swiftly make a felony case, comparing the situation to Al Capone’s prosecution for tax evasion.
  • (21:27) "They all filed joint tax returns. That’s why they did that. So they had to..." – O’Reilly

5. Media Distrust and Fragmentation

• Media analyst discusses the rapid decline in influence and trust of mainstream media, driven in part by partisanship and audience fragmentation.
  • (58:30) "The mainstream media... has definitely lost influence... it doesn't mean it's powerless... but just doesn't have anything like the sort of influence that it once had..." – Media Analyst
• O’Reilly attributes this to overt hostility towards Trump, which has alienated fair-minded viewers.
  • (61:21) "I think Trump destroyed the media and he did it passively, not actively..." – O’Reilly

6. Immigration Enforcement and Sanctuary Cities

• Tom Homan describes ramped-up operations in sanctuary cities and criticizes Biden for purposefully “unsecuring” the border for potential political gain.
  • (38:39) "In five day operation we arrested 370 illegal aliens in Boston... 205 of those were significant public safety threats..." – Tom Homan
  • (41:41) "Joe Biden’s the first president in my lifetime who came into office and unsecured a border on purpose." – Tom Homan
• Discussion about tactical enforcement and why non-criminal migrants are sometimes swept up in operations due to sanctuary city policies.

7. Economic Policy, Tariffs, and Fiscal Responsibility

• Senator Jack Reed debates O’Reilly on Trump’s approach to the deficit, emphasizing that tariffs alone cannot resolve the debt.
  • (66:36) "Yes. Hate to say it... tariff revenue over the next 10 years will be about $2.8 trillion... that compares to a $22 trillion deficit." – Sen. Jack Reed
• Reed stresses the need for broad-based spending discipline and reform beyond one-off bills.

8. The Democratic Party’s Identity Crisis

• Commentary highlights the vacuum of resonant leadership within the Democratic Party and contrasts it with Trump’s populism.
  • (25:17) "I do something that the Democratic Party doesn't do... I resonate. It’s really that simple." – Political Commentator/Host
  • (30:09) O’Reilly: "Joe Biden destroyed the party. He destroyed..."

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Putin and Ukraine:
  • (00:58) "The payment he's going to have to make for that is... a structure that guarantees Ukraine ironclad security..." – Republican Strategist
• On immigration enforcement:
  • (38:39) "We arrested 370 illegal aliens in Boston... 205 of those were significant public safety threats..." – Tom Homan, breaking the news first on O’Reilly’s show.
• On partisan media:
  • (61:21) "Trump destroyed the media and he did it passively, not actively." – Bill O’Reilly
  • (62:08) "There really is this sense on the part of some, they are so angry at Trump all the time that they... can't do what they're supposed to do in a remotely objective way." – Media Analyst
• On the Democratic Party’s future:
  • (25:17) "I'm not saying that to brag on myself. I'm saying that to highlight the desolate state of affairs that exist within the Democratic Party." – Political Commentator/Host
  • (31:20) "Joe Biden was supposed to be a transitional president... and then was feeling himself when the midterms wasn’t a red wave... basically betrayed the party..." – Political Commentator/Host
• On the Biden family finances:
  • (16:42) "No, that's a felony." - Rep. Comer, on Biden not declaring payments on his tax returns
  • (21:44) "Bank records don't lie. People can cheat on their taxes. The way taxes are set up, they're set up to be manipulated. But you cannot lie on bank records." – Rep. Comer
• On ICE operations in Boston:
  • (38:39) "We arrested 370 illegal aliens... including four murderers, child rapists, armed robbers, couple Interpol Red notice arrest. We arrested a lot of bad people..." – Tom Homan

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 00:12 – 05:06: Ukraine, Russia, and the Trump approach
• 05:06 – 12:26: Democratic Party’s struggles, Biden’s record, border issues
• 13:55 – 24:49: Biden family financial investigations and IRS implications
• 25:17 – 32:13: Democratic Party’s identity crisis, media roles, James Carville
• 32:58 – 43:38: Tom Homan on immigration, sanctuary cities, and ICE enforcement
• 44:02 – 54:55: Deeper dive into Ukraine, Russia, China; Trump’s foreign policy team
• 58:30 – 64:19: The decline of traditional media, media bias, and corporate media strategies
• 64:29 – 68:57: Fiscal debates—spending, tariffs, and the sustainability of current economic policy

---

Tone and Style

The episode maintains a punchy, confrontational, and deeply skeptical tone on the centers of political and media power, with O’Reilly frequently challenging his guests, while still allowing substantive dialogue and revealing admissions from both right and left. Language is direct and occasionally combative, with rhetorical flourishes such as, “No Spin. Just Facts,” echoing throughout the broadcast.

---

Summary

This episode offers a sweeping post-election analysis, moving from the granular tactics of international negotiation, through the intricacies of legislative gridlock, to explosive allegations about the Biden family, and the demise of mainstream news. While the panel is varied, the general consensus leans toward deep skepticism of both entrenched party leadership and corporate media. Listeners come away with a broad but detailed view of the challenges facing the incoming Trump administration, the future of the Democratic Party, immigration enforcement realities, and a media landscape in flux.

Transcript

[Bill O'Reilly]

Let's shift over to your expertise here. So I think the situation in Ukraine is worsening for Keith, and that's an advantage to Putin, unfortunately, because Putin doesn't care how many Russians are dead. He does care about the ruble collapsing and his economy in shambles. He cares about that, but didn't care about the dead. So Trump has now got a more difficult problem with Putin than he would if the battle was a stalemate, which it isn't. And Trump knows that. He actually said that to me. He said, you know, Russia's. When I said, I know they're winning, but you have to make it painful for them to win. But now the spectre of more economic sanctions against Russia, that's what Trump came out last week and said. How do you see this going down?

[Republican Strategist/Commentator]

I actually think Putin is going to regret doing what he did for the simple reason that if he winds up at Donald Trump's pleasure by retaining any amount of Ukraine that he was able to take since the invasion, and I don't know if that's going to be the case or not, but let's assume that it is. The payment he's going to have to make for that is is a structure that guarantees Ukraine ironclad security. If that's short of joining NATO, it'll be some kind of a NATO compact umbrella. But the deal will be very simply, okay, you get X, Y and Z. You never get another inch. And if you take one more inch in the future, all bets are off and we go toe to toe immediately with the United States and NATO all in with Ukraine.

[Bill O'Reilly]

So you're lying over when is that deal? Are they going to go to Iceland and me? Do you have any scenario that might happen in the next month or so?

[Republican Strategist/Commentator]

I think it's going to happen very quickly because I think President Trump believes it's his personal duty to stop the bloodshed.

[Bill O'Reilly]

He sort of promised, absolutely. That's one of his big signature items to try to get something there. And then he might get the Nobel Peace Prize if he does at least nominate it. All right, so that's all conjecture. We can, we can just guess at that. Greenland. So this is another thing. I wrote a message of the day on billoriley.com where I was making fun of the Gulf of Mexico being the Gulf of America now and Greenland, they're going to change the name to Mara Caldo because it's, you know, but there is the lithium, and that's what this is all about, because China has the lithium market worldwide to make the machines and the United States want the world dependent on China, and so we need the lithium there. But instead of negotiating a deal, which you could do, I think you could probably do in a week with the Danes, you know, he goes, ah, we might take it over. Is that the right way to do it?

[Republican Strategist/Commentator]

Well, look, if you speak fluent Trump speak, what you realize is he's taking what is a very complicated deal and putting it in words that everyone can understand. He doesn't mean it literally when he says we're going to buy Greenland. It doesn't mean he's going to write a check and they're going to hand us a deed to Greenland. What it really means is we're going to get in bed with Greenland more than we've ever been in terms of military.

[Bill O'Reilly]

I know that and you know that, but the folks, the average person doesn't understand that. They don't know. And the Danes are running around. I mean, it's certainly that's the first thing that's awakened them since November. So cold over there. But I think it shows me that.

[Republican Strategist/Commentator]

Meta Frederickson does not know how to manage Trump the way Georgia Maloney of Italy knows how to manage him, whatever it may be.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Americans don't care. We just don't want conflict. I think that'll work it out. I think they'll work out something economically, right?

[Republican Strategist/Commentator]

Oh, they're already, they're already talking. Absolutely.

[Bill O'Reilly]

That's what I think. Panama is the same thing. That guy down there is going to give Trump what he wants. But Trump goes in and says, hey, we're going to take it. So I don't know if I actually had a conversation with the President long about this. I said, you don't have to humiliate. The guy's going to do what you want. But it seems like Donald Trump wants to create that chaos. He feels it's easier to get a deal out of that once he creates this hysteria. Am I wrong?

[Republican Strategist/Commentator]

Well, there's something, there's something else going on here as well. He's showing our adversaries our true adversaries. And none of these people are our adversaries. They're actually our friends. He's showing Russia, China, North Korea, Iran particular that he is not effing around. When he says something, he means it and he plans to take immediate action. He is a check your watch, not your calendar kind of president. And that's what we've needed for the last four years.

[Bill O'Reilly]

I got some questions for you. Number one, your party was hijacked by far left people Under Biden, there's no doubt about that. That's why Trump won. How did that happen? You're not a far left guy. How did your party get hijacked by the far left?

[Democratic Congressman]

I think that both parties are prone to being hijacked by their extreme bases. Both parties. In the case of the Democratic Party, Joe Biden is not the greatest messenger in the world. I think he did a lot of good stuff, but he's not the greatest messenger in the world. And too many people are intimidated to speak up against their extreme base. And as a result, I think the Republicans effectively weaponized the extreme elements of our party. To say like, you're all for defund police, you're all for open borders, you're all for all this extremist stuff. And it worked. There are plenty of extremists in the Republican Party, you know, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert and Matt Gaetz. But we did not effectively weaponize that. And the bigger spokesman was Donald Trump. So you couldn't paint them with that brush. It was just the message he was selling as opposed to.

[Bill O'Reilly]

But I still don't understand. If you're a president of the United States and you go into office and open the border and 14 million foreign nationals come in unattended, that's a far left play. Do you have any idea why that man Biden did that? Any idea at all?

[Democratic Congressman]

My belief, I genuinely believe this bill. Joe Biden is a creature of the Senate and he thinks that, you know, to make long lasting change, you got to negotiate a deal in the Senate and to come up with a compromise. And he worked on trying to do a compromise for years. Ultimately they came up with this, this compromise in February 2024 was too late. And he did an executive order in June of 2024. I sent him a letter along with a Republican, Brian Fitzpatrick, asking him to seal off asylum applications in between the ports of entry. And he did it. And the numbers are down from what they were when it was really bad back in end of 2023. But it just waited too long. And as a result, but he too.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Long is three years of damage.

[Democratic Congressman]

The first year was not that bad because we were still having the COVID hangover and there were not that many.

[Bill O'Reilly]

People crossing the, you know how bad it was. You said it in your campaign that it was wrong.

[Democratic Congressman]

There's no question my campaign, you said it.

[Bill O'Reilly]

So why did he do it? Why did he do it for three years?

[Democratic Congressman]

I think he was focused on other stuff and he did other stuff. Look, it Was a major issue.

[Bill O'Reilly]

He rams. He ran the state.

[Former Defense Official]

I don't.

[Democratic Congressman]

Give me Covid, Bill.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Baloney.

[Democratic Congressman]

Covid was a major issue when he first came into office.

[Bill O'Reilly]

What does Covid have to do with an open border? Nothing. And then he rams through regulation. Wait, listen to me. He rams through regulation after regulation on the energy industry rocketing inflation so everybody suffers. And then two years in, he takes that off. Takes him two years to figure out you can't strangle the fossil fuel industry and not have inflation. And he takes it out and he drills like crazy. This is Biden. So he is. Well, he's the second worst president ever, in my opinion. And I know what I'm talking about. But let's advance it. You're the co chair of the Problem Solvers Caucus, right? In the house, correct?

[Democratic Congressman]

Yeah. 25 Democrats, 25 Republicans regularly try to find common ground.

[Bill O'Reilly]

But here's the problem with that. The most powerful guy in the House is Hakeem Jeffries. He's a far left guy.

[Democratic Congressman]

He's not far left.

[Bill O'Reilly]

How are you gonna get anything done?

[Democratic Congressman]

He's not far left.

[Former Defense Official]

But.

[Democratic Congressman]

I'm working for the people I represent. And I'm going to work to try and find common ground on the border. I'm going to work to try and find common ground on inflation and high costs. I'm going to work to find common ground on public safety. I'm going to work to find common ground on something the President talked about in his speech, about chronic disease and protecting children. And there's a lot of things the President has done and said already that I don't like. But I'm not going to focus on the things I don't like. I'm going to focus on where can we find common ground to actually solve the problems we've been facing for the past 30 years. All right, so we now.

[Bill O'Reilly]

You wrote an article in the New York Times. Good article. I actually texted you that it was a good article and about Trump. And you just said on this broadcast there are a lot of things I don't like that he's done in a week.

[Democratic Congressman]

Give me one the pardons. You know, I'll just talk about one pardon from the 1600 from January 6th. This guy, Daniel Rodriguez was there when they were beating up a police officer, Capitol Police officer. He's on the ground. Some guys are saying, kill him, kill him. And Daniel Rodriguez takes a Taser and sticks it in the police officer's neck, Tasers him. The police officer has a heart attack and has traumatic brain injury. As a result, this guy, Daniel Rodriguez texted his friends and said, you wouldn't believe the stuff I just did and I got away and I tased the. You know what, out of the blue, he pled guilty, he got 12 year sentence and he was included in the blanket pardons. And there's a lot of examples of that from.

[Bill O'Reilly]

All right, that's a legitimate, that's legitimate. I don't think any fair minded American, we disagree with you. Give me a policy thing though. So we've had a lot of policy in eight days. Give me one policy thing that you object to.

[Democratic Congressman]

The one thing that I disagree with is the complete effort to eradicate a lot of the climate change stuff. You know, I have a difference with the President on that stuff. I take climate change much more seriously than he does. He doesn't look at it the same way. And I'm all for, you know, all the above and utilizing the natural gas reserves we have in our.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Why do you think. And that breach will never be. You'll never reach Daytonic on it. Never.

[Democratic Congressman]

Yeah, I know that.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Why do you think most Americans have now turned against the climate change zealots?

[Democratic Congressman]

I think it's been very effectively weaponized. You know, I think that the Republicans and President Trump specifically have done a much better job of navigating the fractured media landscape. You know, it's not the traditional media that you and I grew up with with, you know, your local paper and your local news stations and cable news. It's now podcasts like yours. It's, it's like social media. It's, it's, it's a so much more fractured environment. And he and his team have done a very effective job of taking anything that they disagree with and blowing it up into a painting of the whole party being a wreck. So, you know, we got to figure out how to combat that and how to make our argument.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Well, we'll give you an open invitation. Come here. And also your peer, Laura Gillen, who's a Democrat, who's the south shore of Long Island. I was telling you I ran into Congresswoman Gillen at the Islander game on Friday. And you're both moderate people. I mean, I've known you guys for a while. You're not loons. But I'll tell you what, Congressman, the power in the Democratic Party still lies in the left wing zealots. And if you don't break that down, J.D. vance will be the next person.

[Democratic Congressman]

I don't believe in defund the police.

[Bill O'Reilly]

No, I know that. But the powerful people and to say, Hakeem Jeffries isn't a far left guy. All you have to do is look at his record and, and look at his public statements, look at the, look at how he categorized. Wait, just do this, because this will. You're a guy. You went to the same high school I went to. You know, we have a lot in common. When those rioters in New York got out of control, you look at what Hakeem Jeffries said. That's all you need to see. I'm a little skeptical here because I follow you very closely and your hearings, and I have not seen the cliche smoking gun. If it went into his pocket, Biden didn't put it on his tax returns. You know that. I don't know where that money would have wound up. Can you tell me?

[Congressman James Comer]

I can. So there were two payments that went directly to Joe Biden from the influence peddling schemes. Both payments came through through a laundered process. The money from China started out as the $5 million wire. That was the wire where Hunter Biden sent the WhatsApp message, where he said, my father sitting beside me, it was just weeks after he left the vice presidency and said, we expect those commitments to be fulfilled. So there was evidence of Hunter with his father, according to Hunter, sitting beside him, demanding that the Chinese comply with whatever deal they made while Joe Biden was vice president. Days later, a $5 million wire went through a series of shell companies. One company that I said was not a shell, but it was a corrupt company was Hunter's law firm. Even though he didn't practice law, it was his professional llc. That LLC then took a fee out of, out of that, that $5 million transaction. That fee was for $400,000. And then money, that $400,000 started going down through a series of money laundering. And the bank suspicious activity reports flagged them as, this is a money laundering scheme. There's money being laundered through shell companies. And it ends up being the last incremental payment goes to Joe Biden for $40,000. That, ironically, is 10% of Hunter's $400,000. Now, Tony Bobulinski is the one that said 10% for the big guy. Tony Bobulinski came in for both a deposition and a committee hearing. And in the committee hearing, he cited that $40,000 payment. And he said that was the, the 10%. That was what that deal was supposed to be. He said, but what I learned, what Tony Bobin Linsky learned, was it wasn't a legitimate business deal when he signed up. To be a part of that. He thought it was really a deal. A real energy company in China. But what he realized was there was no deal. It was just a bribe. That's what Tony Bobulinski said under oath. A bribe to Joe Biden.

[Bill O'Reilly]

But where did the money go? All right, so Biden gets 40k in his suitcase in cash. You put it under his bed. Where'd it go?

[Congressman James Comer]

It was a check that was deposited into his Joe Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. Checking account. Then there was another payment, bill.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. So he puts a check in the payment in his checking account. The IRS is flagged on that. Anything over 10K. All right, so it goes in. Biden doesn't have that on his tax return, does he?

[Congressman James Comer]

No, no, that's a felony. He disclosed his taxes. We subpoenaed the bank records. Not of Joe Biden. We couldn't get those because he was sitting president, United States. But we subpoenaed the bank records of the shell companies and of Jim Biden. So the next payment came from a scheme called AmeriCorps Health. This was a Jim Biden deal. That $40,000 that ended up in Joe's account was from the China deal through Hunter. The next one, which was a larger one, was for $200,000. It was a scheme through a domestic scheme called AmeriCorps Health through Jim Biden. And it was supposedly a loan from AmeriCorps Health, a loan made to Jim Biden for $600,000, a loan that he never repaid, he never paid any interest on.

[Media Analyst/Commentator]

And.

[Congressman James Comer]

And you know, the loan was made right before the company filed bankruptcy. So the. Of that 3 of that $600,000, it was laundered through a series of shells to. It went to Jim and Sarah Biden, who both got pardons, their personal account. And then they turn around and write Joe Biden a check for $200,000. And it says in the memo line, loan repayment. Well, we caught this, and the media said, oh, it was a loan. It was a loan repayment. I was like, how do you know it's a loan repayment? They said, because it says it on the memo line, loan repayment. But, Bill, if I loan you $200,000 and you pay me back $200,000, you should have evidence that I first loaned you $200,000. The original never produced any evidence. And he tried to say both payments were loan repayments, that he.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Or what, though? I mean, look, it's got to be a contract. And there's no, there was no contract. Wait, wait, wait, wait. But let me stop you there. So now you're on the committee now, and you're not going to walk away from this. You're still investigating. All you got to do is hand this over to the irs, because as I said, none of this appears on Joe Biden's tax returns. All right? So if he gets 40k in his personal account and doesn't declare it as income, that's a felony. If he gets a repayment of a loan that wasn't even made, that's fraud.

[Congressman James Comer]

That's fraud.

[Bill O'Reilly]

So the IRS is the. And you know, you know that under the Biden administration, that got investigated, but now under the Trump investigation, it doesn't seem like a complicated process. You hand over that to the irs, they do due diligence for a month or two, and. And then you go. The FBI goes to the Biden house in Delaware and arrests them. Where am I going wrong?

[Congressman James Comer]

No, you're absolutely right. And because of the investigation, those two Irish whistleblowers came forward, Joseph Ziegler and Gary Shapley. They knew about a lot of this because they were investigating the entire Biden family.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Sure. But that's all I want to move it ahead. We know Garland and the IRS under Joe Biden, they're not going to do any of this. Now, I don't know if Donald Trump has a heart for this. I don't know. He's been asked a couple of times, look, are you going to go after Joe Biden criminally on these situations, but understanding what Trump himself went through in the whole process of everybody coming after him, number one, the press is, if you ever did that, the IRS ever charged Joe Biden, the press go nuts. It's Trump. It's Trump's vengeance. You know what the thing. Thing would be. Okay, but have you spoken with the President about this? Do you know if he's going to aggressively go after Biden on these criminal charges?

[Congressman James Comer]

I struggle. I saw President Trump at Mar a Lago. There were some other committee chairs there a couple of weekends ago, and he talked. He came up to me and started talking about the investigation and said, you did a great job exposing the fraud in the schemes and all that. And I said, well, Mr. President, you know, the investigation's been done. I strongly encourage your administration to follow through and hold these people accountable. I said, you know, at the time, he had only pardoned Hard Hunter. I said, I fully expect him to pardon Jim Biden.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Now.

[Congressman James Comer]

I was surprised that he pardoned the Spouses. Because, Bill, the only place you will find the name of the spouses involved in the scheme is in my book. And I think whoever read. They read my book, the Biden legal team, and encourage Joe Biden to issue the pardons for the spouses, too. Because there were 10 family members, including Joe Biden.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Well, they all filed joint tax returns. That's why they did that. So they had to, because all of this money wasn't declared. And that's the crime. That's like Al Capone. They got him a tax evasion. It's the same exact thing. All right?

[Congressman James Comer]

And Bill, I come from a banking background, from a bank, a family that was involved in banking. I was the director of a bank for many years. And tax returns don't tell the true story. Bank records do. Bank records don't lie. People can cheat on their taxes. The way taxes are set up, they're set up to be manipulated. But you cannot lie on bank records. And the bank records showed where they were laundering money, and the banks caught them. So the private banks did everything wrong.

[Bill O'Reilly]

They signaled it. Look, the case is overwhelming at this point. The problem is whether the Trump IRS is gonna go after like they did go after Hunter. All right, Now, Hunter's pardoned. They had him. The IRS got him. But the irs, it seems to me if all of the things that you have written in your book, and I'm gonna mention it again, because if you want the details, Congressman Comer has them. All the President's Money by James Colmer. If the IRS goes after President Biden, even though these offenses were committed while he was vice president, Allegedly committed. All right. It's a. It's not a hard case to make, is it? No.

[Congressman James Comer]

No, it's not. And the Irish investigators, when they came forward, we had our committee hearing.

[Bill O'Reilly]

From walking barefoot in the snow to hiking for miles for a view, it feels good to connect with our simpler side. Simplifying your wellness with Cachava's all in One Nutrition Shake feels good, too.

[Democratic Congressman]

With 25 grams of protein, 6 grams of fiber.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Greens, adaptogens and more.

[Democratic Congressman]

No fillers, no nonsense, just the highest quality ingredients.

[Bill O'Reilly]

New customers get $20 off an order of two bags or more now through January 31st when they go to Cachava. Can K A C H A V.

[Democratic Congressman]

A dot com and use code news.

[Senator Jack Reed]

I usually ask potential criminals to have.

[Bill O'Reilly]

A seat, but now I'm asking you to join me, Chris Hansen, for my new series, have a seat with Chris Hansen.

[Senator Jack Reed]

Guests each week are fascinating personalities who.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Are grabbing headlines Making waves or changing our lives for the better.

[Senator Jack Reed]

Have a seat with Chris Hansen, available wherever you get your podcasts.

[Congressman James Comer]

They said they wanted to question Joe Biden because obviously the money was coming because of Joe Biden.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Yeah, sure, but he was never going to do that. But now he's stripped of all protection.

[Congressman James Comer]

Right. And you got a new Irish commissioner, Billy Long. And, you know, I hope that they do this, because if you look at what Hunter Biden was charged with in tax evasion, Bill, the IRS let a bunch of statute of limitations expire on some other tax charges.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Right. But this one, no, you're. It's in the zone. But anyway, keep us posted here. And if you don't think the Trump administration is doing what it should, you gotta let me know. I mean, because we're looking out for the country. You can't have a vice president or a president taking bribes.

[Congressman James Comer]

That's right.

[Bill O'Reilly]

So over the past few weeks, the Washington Post, the New Yorker magazine, the New York Times, Athletic, the New York Post, Fox News, News Nation, have all done features on you about your political future, in their estimation. It's not like you've said anything exactly like that. Why do you think that is? Why are you getting so much attention in this area?

[Political Commentator/Host]

Because I do something that the Democratic Party doesn't do at this particular moment in time. I resonate. It's really that simple. And I'm not saying that to brag on myself. I'm saying that to highlight the desolate state of affairs that exist within the Democratic Party. They haven't been very, very impressive, collectively speaking, of course. And I think that when you see the election and what the election results revealed, Donald Trump gets 77 million votes. He wins the popular vote. He wins the Electoral College vote. He wins every swing state. He's up in like 50 counties. He gave her a run for her money in New York. They improved in California, and obviously they won the Senate, they won the House, and they maintained, you know, their stake in the House. I'm sorry, in the Senate, they won Senate and they maintained their stake in the House as well. You take all of those things into account, and there's just no question that the Democratic Party is in dire straits right now. And so when you hear me pointing out some of the things that I pointed out, I'm not one of those guys, Bill, who believes that because you think differently than me. You're a racist. You're anti black.

[Bill O'Reilly]

No, you don't play. I've never heard you play that far.

[Political Commentator/Host]

I don't play that Game.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Why do you think Carville gets so upset about this? What is it that you're doing that annoys him?

[Political Commentator/Host]

Well, you know this better than me because you're the veteran in politics over the last 50, 60 plus years. 50 years plus. I'm not gonna go the 60 route. Cause you're not that old. But here's the deal. In the end, when you look at a guy like James Carville, who came across as a bit truculent, to say the least, I think that, you know, first of all, he misquoted me. I did not say there was no talent in the Democratic Party. I said there was no one who was resonating. They did not have a voice. I happen to know Wes Moore, the governor of Maryland. He's a friend of mine. I mean, I like him a great, great deal. We become friends. I have. I enjoyed my interview with Josh Shapiro, the Governor of Pennsylvania. I just finished interviewing a few minutes ago, Minority Leader of the house, Mr. Hakeem Jeffries. So it's not like the Democratic Party is devoid of talent. That's not what I said. But they are devoid of a voice. They are devoid of somebody who resonates on a national level. And I think James Carville took exception to that primarily because he forgot that he was the one saying it, too. Which is why on my show, when I clapped back at him, I played some clips of him saying the same damn thing that I said because he had been lamenting that. And I think that when you're in.

[Bill O'Reilly]

You ought to get Carville on your podcast, which is very successful.

[Political Commentator/Host]

I'm going on his.

[Bill O'Reilly]

I'm going on his. Yeah, good.

[Political Commentator/Host]

Yeah.

[Bill O'Reilly]

There's a couple of things in play. Number one, there is no leader of the Democratic Party. Now would be my first question. Carvel, who's the leader? Chuck Schumer. Come on. There's no leader. They don't have anybody. Kamala resurfaced at the naacp, didn't really make a dent. So that it's wide open. Number two, Trump opened the gates for populist candidates. And if you ever decided to get into politics, that's what you would be, a populist candidate. You would be going right to the people and say, look, I feel for you, and I'm going to. If you elect me, I'm going to try to solve some of your problems. That's what Trump did. And it's been very successful for Trump. But right now, the Democratic Party is in disarray, and Carville knows that. But it just seems to me he.

[Political Commentator/Host]

Was insulting and not listening to him. That's where his real frustration comes from. And I'm not. And please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they shouldn't listen to him. I think they should have listened to him. But I think that, as is the case in our society today, on a plethora of platforms and in industries where you've got youngsters on the come up and, and they sort of ease the elder statesman out of the mix because they want to run things themselves. I deal with that in sports too, where you have an abundance of individuals who were qualified and they couldn't get a job because the youngsters were placed at the helm and they didn't want to bring somebody in more knowledgeable than them. Take into account, you know, your sports a little bit. Bill O'Reilly, Bill Belichick couldn't get an NFL job. The man has won eight Super bowl championships, two as a defensive coordinator, six as a head coach. And when he got let go by the New England Patriots, he, he couldn't get a job. He had to go back to college at the University of North Carolina to.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Get a head coach. They didn't want to get a guy like that.

[Republican Strategist/Commentator]

I know that.

[Political Commentator/Host]

I know that. But what I'm saying is, what I'm saying is transitioning back to politics. You have people in positions of power within the Democratic establishment that clearly didn't want to listen to James Carville. So that could be a part of his frustration. But in the end, he came at the wrong person because I wasn't knocking him. I thought they should have listened to him. But when he clapped back at me, I'm like, wait a minute. You've been talking the same stuff that I've been saying. You must have forgot about that. Let me remind you. And that's about as far as if.

[Bill O'Reilly]

You want to cut through it all. And no Democrat has the courage to say this. Joe Biden destroyed the party. He destroyed.

[Political Commentator/Host]

Yes, I said that.

[Bill O'Reilly]

But you're not, you know, you're not in the political arena. There's nobody in Congress or working in the Democratic precincts, no governor, nobody. Wes Moore, your buddy, when you talk to him and you ask him, did Joe Biden destroy the Democratic Party, he'll say no or he won't answer the question. Joe Biden destroyed it because he's the second worst president in our history. And it's not even close. I mean, you never beat James Buchanan because he let the Civil War happen. But Biden, if you read my message of the day on billorilly.com, the guy. That's why Trump is, you know, bouncing up and down like, you know, a 18 year old on speed, because he's trying to reverse all of this stuff in a, in that's hurting every American. But the Democrats won't acknowledge that. And they also won't acknowledge that woke culture has destroyed the fabric of the party. That's what the main thing is all about, right?

[Political Commentator/Host]

You and I. You're absolutely right. You and I have been on TV together and you know how I love to disagree with you, but when you're right, you're right, damn it, I got to concede it. And you're right on the money with that, you know, and so when, when you take into account, first of all, Joe Biden was supposed to leave, he's supposed to be a transitional president and then was feeling himself when the midterms wasn't a red wave in 2022. So he decides to stay in office, basically betrays the party, and then they got to come up with some elaborate scheme to get him up out of there. That's what I firmly believe. And it turned out to backfire on them. And when you look at the actions of Trump right now and people talk about him trying to undo so much that they have done, whether you like or dislike what Trump is doing, and there's plenty of people in the center and clearly on the left who do dislike what he is doing, it is no doubt he is trying to do exactly what he said he was going to do, which is also the antithesis of what Democrats at least every.

[Bill O'Reilly]

He'S.

[Political Commentator/Host]

Going to the bottom line, he is going further, going to be.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Nobody expected him to prop up Putin. But as I wrote in my column, this is why he's propping up Putin. So, Mr. Homan, I've noticed when you appear on the network news and some cables that the questioning is often hostile to you. It's not neutral questioning. It's like, hey, what are you doing? How many people did you throw out today? And I'm sure you noticed that, too. And I'm saying to myself, why do you have any idea why that so many, so many of the American press corps are antagonistic to you?

[Tom Homan, Former ICE Director]

Well, I think it's because I serve President Trump. I mean, you know, when I work for, I was a third in command ICE under Barack Obama, we had over 409,000 removals and they weren't hostile then. So I think working for President Trump makes the media hostile. Anybody that serves President Trump. But look, I'm proud to work for President Trump. I think he's the greatest president in my lifetime, and especially when it comes to border security and immigration enforcement and national security. So they don't bother me. Look, if I can live with their heads rent free, I'm okay with that because I'm going to keep telling the truth whether they like it or not. My talking points never change. I don't care if I'm talking to conservative or talking to a liberal. They're going to hear the same thing because what I give them is facts. They can like it or not like it, but they're going to hear the truth.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Okay, but they don't like it. Now, when you were working for President Obama, who deported more undocumented people than any other person in history, all right, and most of those were at the border that got kicked back fast, and they didn't have this asylum con that they rose up under President Biden. When you were working for Barack Obama. In my research on him from my book Confronting the President, he. He didn't want an open border. He didn't want chaotic immigration. Am I correct there?

[Tom Homan, Former ICE Director]

Well, his first term, like I said, we removed a lot of people in the first term, and largely because we're counting border patrol removals with ICE removals. And that's how come the number got so big. But he was pushing for that. He was pushing for more removals. But under the second term, the Obama term, we pretty much got shut down. I mean, once he got the name deporter in chief, operations really slowed down. And that's one of the reasons at the end of that administration that I decided to retire, because after four years doing that, I was tired of it. But in the beginning, he was about securing the border. In the last four years he was not.

[Bill O'Reilly]

And you think it was political pressure, obviously from the left that caused that?

[Tom Homan, Former ICE Director]

Absolutely.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Okay. Now, one of the beefs against Homeland Security is they are not. They are deporting non criminal migrants along with the criminals. And I believe that's true to some extent. Because how could you possibly know when you go sweep a whole bunch of people say you're a criminal migrant married to a person who isn't a criminal, criminal, stuff like that. How valid is that criticism that ICE is now deporting people quickly without due process that aren't criminals?

[Tom Homan, Former ICE Director]

Well, they all get due process. I mean, the non criminals, where does most non criminals get arrested? Sanctuary cities. And I've said this for two months, sanctuary cities gonna get exactly what they don't want more agents in their communities and more collateral arrest. Because if we can't arrest a bad guy in the county jail, one agent arrests one criminal alien. And they're gonna release them like, like the major cities this country, sanctuary cities. You're going to release them back in the community. Okay, fine. We're still going to do our job. Which means we're going to go to the community and we're going to find him. And when we find them, most likely they're with others. Others that are illegally United States but not a criminal. Well, we're not going to tell ICE agents, forget the ultra tech, ignore the immigration law, walk away from these people. No, they're going to come too. So when you look at the collaterals and non criminals, most of them arrested sanctuary cities because they forced us in that position. We're going to arrest them.

[Bill O'Reilly]

That's an important point. So when you do a sweep, if you find a non criminal migrant, that person gets taken into custody, correct?

[Tom Homan, Former ICE Director]

Yeah. To be clear, when we do a target enforcement operation, we know exactly who we're looking for and we're most likely we're going to find them. And when we go to that location, look for that target, that criminal target, many times, most times he's with others. Especially if they're at a work site, they're coming too. So sanctuary cities are forcing us into that situation. So if you, I've said this many times, let us send the jail. That means less agents in the neighborhood, that means less collaterals. But they refused to assist ice, so we're going to keep doing what we're doing.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Just to be clear, when you do an enforcement sweep, it is based upon information provided about criminal aliens, is that correct? Local, state, federal information, right?

[Tom Homan, Former ICE Director]

That's the exactly right.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Okay, stop, stop.

[Tom Homan, Former ICE Director]

I wouldn't call it a sweet bill, I call it a target enforcement operation. We have a target. We got a sheet. Who's the alien's name? What's his immigration record, what's his criminal record? Where most likely will we find him? And it has to be approved by a supervisor. So we go on the street looking for somebody. We have a whole fugitive operation sheet that details who this person is we're looking for.

[Bill O'Reilly]

And where do you get that information? From the states, from the locals. Where does that come from?

[Tom Homan, Former ICE Director]

Through various databases that we use at ice. I can't tell you all of them because the law enforcement sensitive but we do targeting based on criminal databases. We use all sorts of social media. We use, we use a lot of things I don't want to discuss here, but we create most target basis so.

[Bill O'Reilly]

You get this stuff. And if there is an undocumented alien who is not a criminal, they get swept up, they get deported sometimes and it depends on the process. Am I correct?

[Tom Homan, Former ICE Director]

Yes.

[Bill O'Reilly]

All right, now, Michelle Wu in Boston is heading for collision with Tom Holman who spoke, speaking to me right now again this weekend. She basically said we're not, we're not going to cooperate on any level. We want undocumented people in the city of Boston. And she's backed up by the Governor of Massachusetts, Maura Healey. Do you have any plans to take action against Mayor Wu and Governor Healy?

[Tom Homan, Former ICE Director]

Actually the first show where I can make this announcement. So as I promised at cpac, I was going to go to Boston. I want to bring hell with me. And we did. I was in Boston last Tuesday. I started an operation with ICE, HSI, ERO, FBI, ATF, DEA, US Marshals and the State Department. And in five day operation we arrested 370 illegal aliens in Boston and the surrounding communities in Massachusetts. And 205 of those were significant public safety threats, including four murderers, child rapists, armed robbers, couple Interpol Red notice arrest. We arrested a lot of bad people in the last five days in Massachusetts, many of them in Boston. We just, we just put the numbers again today. You're the first show I've actually been able to talk about this. The numbers just got put out today, bill.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Excellent. But Ms. Wu is defiant even in the face of those incredible stats, and they are incredible. If you know the city of Boston, it's not New York City, it's not nearly that large. So I'm wondering whether the next step for the Justice Department it wouldn't be, would be the Attorney General Bondi is going to go after people like Michelle Wu for violating some tenet of federal law. Do you believe that will happen?

[Tom Homan, Former ICE Director]

I hope it will happen. I know Pam Bondi's already put sanctuary cities on notice. I know she's already sued a couple. I sent that report to Pam Bonnie this morning on who we arrested in Boston and the surrounding area and the public safety threats that we had to take off the street. Because if we gotta go to the street and arrest people like this, the job of ICE is already dangerous. But to go arrest an aggravated felon, murder, public safety threat in the general public not only puts the officer at risk, it puts the community at risk. So I sent the numbers this morning to doj. So I think Pam Bonney would take action and do what she can do. But she's already started suing sanctuary cities. So, you know, God bless Pam. Bonnie. I think she's. I think she's going to do the right thing, and I think she's going to try to hold these sanctuary cities accountable in courts.

[Bill O'Reilly]

All right, so it'll be civil litigation, not criminal litigation. Correct.

[Tom Homan, Former ICE Director]

I'll leave that up to Pam Bondi. We'll see what happens.

[Bill O'Reilly]

But it would be amazing to see, you know, a big city mayor or a state governor like Pritzker in Illinois or even, you know, here, Hochul in New York. She plays a double game. The damage that the Biden administration did to the country, and I know this is a political question, but it has troubled me from the very beginning. Seems to me to be incalculable as far as the treasury is concerned. Crime is concerned, social upheaval is concerned. Do you have any idea why Joe Biden opened that border for three and a half years? Do you have any idea why that man did that?

[Tom Homan, Former ICE Director]

No. I can only guess. And I've said many times I worked for six presidents, down with Ronald Reagan. Even when Clinton Obama took steps, as we discussed, to try to take action to secure the border, no one did more than President Trump. He was unprecedented at his success. We're the most secure border in my lifetime. But Joe Biden's the first president in my lifetime who came into office and unsecured a border on purpose. That wasn't mismanagement, it wasn't incompetence. He knew exactly what he was doing, along with Alejandro Mayorkas.

[Bill O'Reilly]

But there must be chat, though. There must be chat in Homeland Security and in the Border Patrol precincts about the why of all this. What did he think he was accomplishing?

[Tom Homan, Former ICE Director]

I think they saw future political benefit and let millions of people into this country. Remember when he did everything to secure the border. What else did he do? He overturned the Trump census rule, which means millions of people released in sanctuary cities will be counted next census, which will lead to more seats in House for the Dems. I think they saw a future political benefit by releasing millions of people in sanctuary cities in this country. That is my belief.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Final question. California has 50% of the undocumented migrants. Newsom is now backpedaling, as you know, but LA and San Francisco are still sanctuary cities. Do you expect anything to change in California?

[Tom Homan, Former ICE Director]

I can tell you ICE is going to. We'll be going to LA and San Francisco very soon. In sanctuary cities, we can't arrest a bad guy in jail. We'll double the man force in those cities. But we're going to do our job. Sanctuary. Now, if you're a sanctuary, you want to step aside and watch us protect your communities, then have at it. Just don't get in the way. Don't cross that line of, nor any harboring, concealing, illegal alien. Don't cross that line of impeding us, because there will be consequences. But we're coming, we're going to do this job President Trump promised American people. We're going to do this. American people, give it a mandate. That's the number one issue. We're going to keep President Trump's promise. We're going to be going to every sanctuary city and arresting public safety threats, because that's what the American people want.

[Bill O'Reilly]

All right? Unless the court, Supreme Court, says you can't do a certain thing, you're not going to defy the federal court order, correct?

[Tom Homan, Former ICE Director]

No, we're not going to do that. We're not. The Biden administration, who ignored the courts on forgiveness of student loan. They told me he couldn't do it. He did it and he fought him every step of the way on that. Well, no, this law and order administration, we're going to do the right thing.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Let's go to Ukraine. So my hypothesis. Let me use that word, but it's not really a hypothesis, because I know President Trump, as you know pretty well, and I do talk to him. So he doesn't want to alienate Putin. He wants to soften Putin up, so he gets him to a ceasefire discussion, and that's why you're not seeing, call Putin names and do all that kind of stuff. He also wants to tamp down Zelensky's arrogance, which we saw. Is this the wrong strategy on Ukraine?

[Former Defense Official]

Well, Bill, what you're describing there are the personal interactions, right? So that's a very personalized view of this. I think both of those are correct. There's no reason for the commander in chief of the United States to mock or call names for any leader. You remember with Chairman Kim, he'd say we exchanged love letters. He talked about Xi Jinping in glowing terms from time to time. That was. That was the personal same with Zelensky. In that sense. I think you're right. I think he was trying to make sure zelensky understood. Without U.S. support, they were going nowhere. And. And I'm untroubled by either of those. The real proof is what's the policy? What's the outcome that President Trump's seeking? And from my vantage point, President Trump has always been someone who understood Winning, and in this case can't be the case that Putin can be perceived as having won. Whatever the outcome, whatever the geography, whatever the disposition, in the end, we can't. That kind of aggression can't be rewarded because it'll get you more of it. And if there was one thing I'm proud of from our first four years, Bill, is we were pretty good at deterring the bad guys from doing exactly what they did to President Biden and invading Europe. We're pretty good at convincing folks like Hamas not to invade Israel on our watch. President Trump's pretty good at deterrence, and that's what he's going to try to get back. I'm counting on it.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Okay. But you're going to have to let Putin save a little face. He's not going to surrender because he doesn't care about how many people are dead or anything like that. He just cares about himself. So you got to give him an exit ramp off. I think Putin wants the ramp, but you're dealing with an evil man here. He's just flat out evil. Do you believe that there will be a ceasefire? See, I said once Trump was elected, I think that ceasefire is going to happen. Do you believe it?

[Former Defense Official]

Yeah, there'll be a ceasefire. But the interesting question is really the one that you pose, which is you have an evil dictator like Vladimir Putin, who has to date evidenced nothing that suggests he's actually looking for that off ramp that you described. Maybe he is, but he's been pretty good at masking any, any willingness to concede a single thing. In the end, Bill, what, what I think, how. I think this ends up the, the call it face save and call it what you will, I think he wants to be back in the global world, his economy back connected to the global international system. There's the, there's. The solution is that you find a mechanism by which to permit Russian activity back in the economic system. We, we rebuilt Japan. Right. We've, we have. There's a long history. When these wars end, we, we allow these economies, the people of those countries to engage in the world again. That's what I think Putin desperately needs for his own political stability back home. But also that's the ticket to give him something to say. Look, look, look what I got us back.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Yeah. And, but if you give them that ticket, you got to have European peacekeepers in there, so you've got to give the Ukrainians some assurance. I mean, Trump was smart not to sign a document saying Putin breaks a ceasefire. United States going to go in with troops. You can't do that, but you can negotiate a deal where the UN or the EU would put. And you call them rebuilding, you know, security to rebuild. And it'd be good if Putin kicked in a couple of billion, too, which he'll make easily by, you know, having the sanctions lifted on the oil stuff. So you, you know Putin pretty well. A lot of people just think that he is some kind of crazy guy. I don't see him that way. I just think he's flat out evil, not crazy.

[Former Defense Official]

And I've been criticized for saying he's actually pretty shrewd. And while he. While he screwed this up, he thought he'd get to Kiev. He thought he'd get victory on the ground. Terrible strategic mistake. No doubt about it. He's not crazy. He is evil. And the rational. Rationality flows from that. I don't think there's any doubt that his intentions were even greater than that. In my judgment. He wasn't fearing NATO was going to attack him. For goodness sake. That's just nutty. He was trying to begin the revisit of something greater for Russia.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Yeah, just like Georgia and Belarus. He was trying to duplicate that.

[Republican Strategist/Commentator]

That's it.

[Former Defense Official]

And he didn't get it. It was a fail. And now he's got to find a way.

[Bill O'Reilly]

So now you got to give him a push out, but you can't hammer him between the eyes like the idiot Democrats are trying to do. You say to them, well, if you do that, you'll never get a ceasefire. And they have no answer. Let's go to China. So China slapped tariffs on the USA Today. That situation seems to be deteriorating. Is it?

[Former Defense Official]

I think it is. And I know some will want to blame President Trump for that. I think this is all Xi Jinping, this challenge that's being faced by the entire world. And by the way it's connected to Russia. We shouldn't forget for a second that the primary consumer of Russian energy today is the Chinese Communist Party getting discounted crude oil and gas out of Russia. China is a huge beneficiary of this war continuing in Ukraine, in Europe. But I think it's deteriorating because Xi Jinping now believes that he's got a place where he can actually exert influence and shape things in a way that his predecessors didn't believe. The old. The old. This is a rough translation from Mandrel. You'll have to forgive me, but the old motto was hide your power and bide your time. And Xi Jinping is no longer hiding his power. He's Showing it full force. And it's going to require a real American response.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Well, when you say a response, everybody gets nervous. Is that going to be a military response? Can't do that. Right.

[Former Defense Official]

Well, Xi Jinping is going to, we're not going to attack China militarily.

[Congressman James Comer]

Right.

[Former Defense Official]

But Xi Jinping, Xi Jinping is already running into ships in the Philippines, the South China Sea.

[Bill O'Reilly]

He's doing that in the last five years though. So as long as he doesn't touch Taiwan, then the US Is going to allow some of that to happen. But I see it this way and maybe I'm wrong. I think that China's economy is really wobbling just like Russia's, but China is more intense and Xi, like Putin probably at this point in history, would want a better economic situation and he would be willing to deal for that. Am I wrong?

[Former Defense Official]

I think you're wrong. I think, I think Xi Jinping has concluded that this is the moment. So you've heard some of our generals talking about 2027 and I, I don't want, I can't put a marker down as for time, but I think Xi is willing to sacrifice an awful lot of as economy to gain a global advantage to get closer to the political hegemony that he seeks. It's going to be really hard. I agree. They've got huge long run demographic problems. Their real estate industry is way worse than anybody even knows over levered. So there are many, many challenges. But I think she has concluded that it's no longer time to supplicate to the United States on the economic front. And so he's going to push and push and push until the United States pushes back. And I think you see President Trump.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Well, he's pushed back 25% is a pushback. But if you're opinion is correct, why didn't she move under Biden who is extremely weak? Why, why did he live four years of Biden and he didn't really do anything that catastrophic?

[Former Defense Official]

Yeah, I don't think, Bill, I don't think for a second he's going to invade Taiwan. I don't, the military invasion there I think he believes is unnecessary. He's going to, his view is he's going to get Taiwan through propaganda politics same way he took Hong Kong. Right force, choke them off, make their economy more difficult and eventually the people will come to see that, hey, you know, what's that? Why fight this? And so I think this is a longer march for him and I think he made real progress on that in the Biden administration in the Pacific Islands, in Africa. You saw what's gone on in Panama under President Biden, where the Chinese got a foothold on our doorstep. I think this is a determined strategic effort, not a Xi Jinping military takeover. He knows he can't actually win, that the United States would, in the end, crush him.

[Bill O'Reilly]

The press, the American press portraying Donald Trump over the world as a villain. That hasn't stopped. And then they point to Trump denying Keev US intel and then Trump saying to NATO, we're not going to do any military exercises. Take them one by one. The, as you know better than anybody, the reportage on the intel is just flat out ridiculous because British intelligence gets everything we have and they just give it to Kiev. So it doesn't matter what any of the former CIA chief, doesn't matter what Trump said. Well, we're not going to give anything. The Brits have it all and they'll give it to them. Am I wrong there?

[Former Defense Official]

I think that reporting is highly hyped. I always joke, Bill, that if I watch the BBC, I wouldn't like America either.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Right, right. But it's such. Most people don't understand that. They don't understand how it works. Okay. You do because you were in there and I do because I've been around for so long. The second military exercise thing, I didn't quite get why Trump did that. Do you know?

[Former Defense Official]

No, I don't know. Look, we've been, we've been trying to help them with training for an awfully long time. When I was CIA director, we were helping the Ukrainians. It was President Trump who provided the Javelin missiles. Right. People forget President Trump did that. It was President Trump who put American energy in the front, making Vladimir Putin's resources worth less. I don't know why he chose that particular.

[Bill O'Reilly]

It might have to do with Putin in some phone calls.

[Democratic Congressman]

It might.

[Former Defense Official]

And by the way, I'm not privy to any of that. I'm not either trying to solve this.

[Bill O'Reilly]

But that's the only thing I can think of. All right? Now, a lot of people, including myself, believed that, that you would have been an asset to this Trump administration. But you weren't invited. Do you know why?

[Former Defense Official]

No, I, I, I don't know the particulars of why, but again, I give presidents lots of latitude to pick the team they want. He picked.

[Bill O'Reilly]

No, I, but you did a good job.

[Former Defense Official]

Picked entirely new team, Bill.

[Bill O'Reilly]

But he even said you did a good job. He told me you did a good job. So I worked hard. Yeah. I mean, I was surprised a Man of your experience and you know all of these players, I would have put you as Defense Secretary. I don't think Hegseth is the guy. I would have put you there. But you must have thought about it a little bit, Mr. Secretary, because it is a natural fit. You succeeded with Trump the first time around. Did you guys have a falling out of some kind of.

[Former Defense Official]

Oh, no. Look, I don't know why he chose the people he did. He went through a lot of folks, Bill. I'll leave to him the personnel choices. I had said before, if he asked me to go serve, whatever role, whether it was in the Defense Department, wherever, I'd happily go serve. And he just made a different decision.

[Bill O'Reilly]

I think he's gonna ask you. The holidays mean more travel, more shopping, more time online, and more personal info.

[Political Commentator/Host]

In more places that could expose you more to identity theft.

[Media Analyst/Commentator]

Theft.

[Bill O'Reilly]

But LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, our US based restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Don't face drained accounts, fraudulent loans or financial losses alone. Get more holiday fun and less holiday worry with LifeLock. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com podcast terms apply. I do. I think he's going to pull you back. Next time I see him, I'm going to get to the bottom of that because that surprised me. Because you know how.

[Former Defense Official]

You let me know, Bill.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Of course I'll let everybody know. You know, the President is unpredictable. I think that's an accurate word, right?

[Former Defense Official]

Yeah, that's fair.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Yeah. He goes by his gut. I agree with you that maybe he wanted a fresh look. I like Rubio because he's a good counterbalance to Trump. I think that's a fairly good play.

[Former Defense Official]

I agree. No, I agree. I think Secretary Rubio is going to do a very fine job.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Because when he picked Tillerson, the oil guy, who you saved his bacon, remember that? I went, well, what? That was a disaster. And then he brought you in because you're the pro. And then you guys straightened it out when Trump left office, when he was defeated in 20. The war was fairly stable then. I mean, it wasn't, as you pointed out earlier in this interview, there wasn't a lot of threats on the doorstep. Would that be accurate?

[Former Defense Official]

We had. We had things in a pretty good place if you think about what fell apart relatively quickly. Europe fell apart. The advancements that were the Abraham Accords in the Middle east were dead, stopped even before the massacres of October 7th. And then, you know, we, we had come close to delivering on President Trump's commitment to reducing our forces in Afghanistan to zero or near zero. And President Biden came in and pulled the plug. And we all know the calamity that followed there, not only the 13 dead and many, many injured, but I think much of the chaos that ensued in the final two and a half years of the Biden administration was a direct result of, of that epic failure in Afghanistan. None of that happened for our four years.

[Bill O'Reilly]

There's no doubt in my mind that that's true. So, number one question is the media, the linear media, corporate media, losing power in America?

[Media Analyst/Commentator]

Absolutely. That's an easy one. The mainstream media, the media that you and I grew up on, have, has definitely lost influence. It's lost viewers, it's lost its power. It doesn't mean it's powerless, still influential, but just doesn't have anything like the sort of influence that. That it once had. And I think, by the way, I think that applies to the Associated Press as well. I mean, AP used to, you know. You know, this. AP used to be the thing. Right. AP sends something out. It goes to everyone. Everywhere, all over the world. Well, now everything goes to everyone all over the world.

[Former Defense Official]

That's right.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Now, why are they losing power so rapidly? I know there's more competition with the social media, but I believe it has to do with partisanship that people. And all the surveys show this. They don't trust the media anymore. It's in business to preach to the choir, tell people what they want to hear. I think that's the main reason for the decline.

[Media Analyst/Commentator]

I think it's. I think it's a combination. I think it is definitely the medium. It is the fact that people can get information elsewhere they don't have to turn on and be.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Why wouldn't you turn it on if you liked it?

[Media Analyst/Commentator]

Yeah, you might. But you might.

[Bill O'Reilly]

You liked it, you know.

[Media Analyst/Commentator]

Right.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Mine.

[Media Analyst/Commentator]

But you might prefer to hear more of what, you know, you want to hear on a daily basis. And I will say that the major loss for the mainstream media has been among conservatives. There is no doubt about that.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Well, wait a minute. There's two Networks that are 100% conservative, Fox and Newsmax.

[Media Analyst/Commentator]

Yes, correct. And I think that they, the, the ABCs and CBS is. And put aside cable for a moment. Right. The broadcast networks, the places that everyone used to get their news from, the folks who are on the right will now very often go to someone like Brett Baier on Fox News to get that quote, unquote newscast, or they'll go to folks like you, by the way, who are on their own independent, not beholden to a bigger entity and they'll say, you know What? I like O'Reilly. What does he have to say about this? I think people now have a lot more choices than they ever had before and I think that has made a huge difference in these guys used to be the gatekeepers. It was all about if you weren't, you know, you couldn't get someone to cover it. Ah, then the story faded. Now there's a whole host of opportunities and options to get someone to get a story your take, whatever it is out there.

[Bill O'Reilly]

I think Trump destroyed the media and he did it passively, not actively. Obviously this AP thing was active. He doesn't like them, he doesn't like NBC in particular, those two. But by hating Trump as much as msnbc, NBC News, cnn, by hating him viscerally hating him to this day, to this moment, fair minded Americans, not ideologues, makes us uneasy. Am I wrong?

[Media Analyst/Commentator]

I think you're right. I think you're right. Look, I think there is, you know, people use the term Trump derangement syndrome, right? And you know, either people on the right use it and say it with a sort of a smile and a snicker and people on the left say, ah, there's no such thing. But the truth is there is such thing.

[Former Defense Official]

There.

[Media Analyst/Commentator]

There really is this sense on the part of some, they are so angry at Trump all the time that they, that they just can't do what they're supposed to do in a remotely objective way. Now I will say this in defense of some of the folks on the left is that Donald Trump has gone into this, Trump 2, his second effort here, and has definitely taken more extreme measures and positions that than he did in Trump 1, and as a result, if you are someone who is object quote, there's no such thing as objectivity, pure objectivity, let's call it. So you're somewhere right of center, left of center right and the guy who's in power is taking positions that are pretty extreme in a lot of ways. You're going to be calling him out and as a result you're going to hear more criticism of Trump than you might have another Republican in that role. The same way, by the way, if you had AOC or Elon Omar and I'm not saying that they're out.

[Bill O'Reilly]

No, it wouldn't be at the same level though. It wouldn't be at the same level.

[Media Analyst/Commentator]

I think that's fair. I think you're right. It wouldn't be.

[Bill O'Reilly]

The corporate media tried to re elect the Biden administration through Kamala Harris. They tried everything. That 60 Minutes thing is a legitimate thing. They tried to help her.

[Media Analyst/Commentator]

Oh, come on. You think that 60 Minutes, I saw that transcript.

[Bill O'Reilly]

I saw how they edited it. And they did not have to edit it that way. They tried.

[Media Analyst/Commentator]

We know that they edited it. We know they edited it because they sell. They admit they put it out in two different forms. They had one, they put out the other. They didn't have to, what is a tease on Face the Nation. They put out the other on 60 Minutes. They were doing it because they just thought, oh, these are two, you know, different ways of getting the same thing.

[Bill O'Reilly]

How long did it take for 60 minutes to put that transcript out?

[Media Analyst/Commentator]

That was the mistake. The mistake was not released. But now that we've seen it. But now that we've seen it, it wasn't that big a deal. I've edited typical editing.

[Bill O'Reilly]

You and I have edited thousands of pieces. I never would have edited my piece that way in a million years.

[Media Analyst/Commentator]

I wouldn't, I didn't, I didn't find that editing to be that disturbing. I didn't find it to be disturbing at all.

[Bill O'Reilly]

But I think they absolutely. And then subsequently, every week on 60 Minutes, they just bash Trump Dispatch.

[Media Analyst/Commentator]

Well, that's every. That's true.

[Bill O'Reilly]

So I'm a simple man and I'm putting myself in your seat. I'm a senator, and here's my calculation, you're right. The federal government spending is wildly out of control and the waste is phenomenal and our system needs to be more disciplined. You're right. But we're in a crossroads in history here where the Democratic Party doesn't want any spending cuts, maybe a little in defense, but they don't want any. Okay, you know it. Everybody knows it. They want to increase it, in fact, more. They don't even want supervision of Medicaid, which we'll do tomorrow. They don't want any reform. They hated Musk. They hate Doge. They don't want anything. That's where you start. The Republican Party is the party of, of responsibility now fiscally. But if the Republican Party gets its butt kicked in 26, it's over and the gates open and you'll have way more spending than you have now. Is that true?

[Senator Jack Reed]

You're right. Listen, it's easy to be.

[Bill O'Reilly]

Okay, wait, wait, stop, stop.

[Senator Jack Reed]

Go ahead.

[Bill O'Reilly]

So I'm right. Okay? So what Trump has done, and I know this because I have access to the president, he says, I know this bill, Jack, spending. But my tariffs are going to bring down the deficit and debt. And as you know, the recent report, in one month, the tariffs have cut the deficit in half. So Trump says, I'm going to get my trade deals. We don't know whether he will or not. Okay. And then all the money coming into the treasury is going to bring this stuff down. So keep me in power with no tax rise and that'll start to come down because of the money coming in. Is the president wrong?

[Senator Jack Reed]

Yes. Hate to say it, I'm a big supporter of the President. But right now the White House is putting out a memo saying that tariff revenue over the next 10 years will be about $2.8 trillion. Again, that compares to a $22 trillion deficit. And by the way, if you extend the tax taxes, they admit that the baseline goes up to about $25 trillion. So it might reduce.

[Congressman James Comer]

Rev.

[Senator Jack Reed]

It might reduce the deficit by about 10% and it's still not adequate. And the tariff revenue is very problematic. It's being tested in the court whether President Trump really has this executive power. If the court decide he doesn't. And I think it, you know, again, I'm not a, not a legal scholar when it comes to this tariff law, but if they strike that down, I doubt that Congress is going to impose sweeping tariffs like that. So again, that, that revenue is very uncertain. And let me make a final point. I support President Trump because I want him to defeat the deep state. You don't defeat the deep state by continuing to fund it at President Biden's level. So for me, it is, it's spending, spending, spending.

[Bill O'Reilly]

We may disagree, but if you hold firm, if, if you hold firm center, and you vote against it and others do, Republicans do, then it all blows up. If you vote for it. I think there's a big possibility that if the, if the economy surges, that you'll have a much bigger majority going forward where you can revisit this whole thing without the razor thin majority in the House and the Senate. Now, you know, you can introduce new spending bills anytime you want to introduce them. And if you have the power of the party controlling the Senate and the House, you can revise this kind of thing. But if you have no power, then it's over. Last word.

[Senator Jack Reed]

Understand? So again, what I've been saying is I want a commitment to a reasonable pre pandemic level and a process, a really strong, robust process to achieve and maintain it. Now, that gives pretty wide latitude. Again, a one and done single bill in this Congress and that's what I find unacceptable. I'm more than willing to work with the administration. You know, what is that process? You know, what can we do to make sure that we don't do a one and done bill? So again, the game, not a game. The process has just begun here in the Senate and I'm just trying to make this a whole lot better.

[Bill O'Reilly]

All right. And that's your job already.

[Senator Jack Reed]

We would have already had the border funding, we would have already extended current taxes, take that tax increase off the table had we done it. My approach, President Trump decided one big beautiful bill. But again, if it's a one and done bill, we're really short changing ourselves here and we're really blowing a historic opportunity. There's no guarantee we'll have the House, the Senate and we'll have the presidency in 2027, but we can't count on having the majority in the other two chambers. So we've got to do it now.