Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis: Weekend Edition – April 26, 2025

Host: Bill O’Reilly

1. Border Control and Drug Seizures

Key Discussion: Bill O’Reilly opens the episode with a significant focus on U.S. border control, highlighting a substantial decrease in border crossings under the Trump administration compared to the previous Biden administration. Despite the reduction in illegal crossings, illicit drug seizures have paradoxically increased.

Notable Points:

• Border Crossings Decline: The number of illegal crossings dropped to 673 per day in March 2025, a 94% decrease from 5,673 daily under Biden. This achievement is attributed to stricter law enforcement and Mexico deploying troops to the northern border.

  "Border lowest in history now. Amazing achievement by the Trump administration... 5,673. 94% lower because Trump's just enforcing the law." [00:31]

• Rise in Drug Seizures: Contrary to expectations, drug seizures have risen. Brian Townsend, a former DEA special agent from Springfield, Missouri, explains that cartels are highly adaptive, using sophisticated methods like tunnels, drones, and leveraging legal entry points to smuggle drugs.

  "These cartels... they're highly adaptive. They're going to respond to our movement on the border... to overwhelm our resources." [03:21]

• Substance Abuse Crisis: The U.S. faces a severe substance abuse problem, with 49 million Americans involved and 27 million drug addicts. Annual expenditures to combat this issue amount to $46 billion, with 86,000 overdose deaths and 178,000 deaths from excessive drinking each year.

  "86,000 died from overdoses in the latest stats. 178,000 died from excessive drinking... that's a year that's horrendous." [01:35]

Insights and Conclusions: O’Reilly argues that stopping drug importation is unfeasible due to rampant corruption and the immense demand for drugs in the U.S. He contrasts this with Singapore’s approach, which focuses on reducing demand through mandatory rehabilitation, although he acknowledges its impracticality in the American context.

"You're not going to win the importation war. It's just too much corruption, too much money... almost 30 million Americans wanting to buy it on a daily basis." [05:11]

2. Harvard Funding and Ideological Bias

Key Discussion: Bill shifts focus to higher education, particularly the Trump administration's financial disputes with Harvard University. He criticizes Harvard for its perceived ideological bias, asserting that funding taxpayer money to an institution dominated by liberal faculty defeats the public good.

Notable Points:

• Funding Freeze: The Trump administration froze $2.3 billion in federal funding to Harvard, prompting the university to sue, claiming the freeze impacts students, faculty, and research.

  "Harvard’s going to lose that from the federal government... They filed a lawsuit to halt the funding freeze because it is unlawful and beyond the government's authority." [11:15]

• Ideological Composition: According to O’Reilly, 82% of Harvard’s faculty are liberal or far-left, leading to an environment that promotes ideological agendas over practical outcomes.

  "82% of the Harvard faculty is liberal or far left. That’s how you get an ideological college." [11:15]

• Guest Perspective: Anson Fredericks, president of Strive Asset Management and Harvard Business School alumnus, agrees but suggests that historically, federal funding was more impactful. He advocates for shifting incentives toward the private sector rather than relying on government funds.

  "Should the federal government, should your tax dollars be going to fund universities in the first place?... Today, the government's spending over $60 billion a year." [14:02]

Insights and Conclusions: The debate centers on whether taxpayer money should support higher education institutions, especially when perceived ideological biases may influence academic and research outcomes. Fredericks emphasizes the need for private sector involvement and performance-based accountability.

"We need to incentivize more private companies...because they have performance clauses." [15:31]

3. Bud Light Campaign Controversy

Key Discussion: The conversation shifts to corporate America, focusing on Anheuser-Busch’s controversial marketing campaign involving a transgender individual, Dylan Mulvaney, which led to significant backlash against Bud Light.

Notable Points:

• Marketing Misstep: Anheuser-Busch’s decision to feature Dylan Mulvaney in a Bud Light campaign aimed at diversifying their consumer base backfired, resulting in a decline in sales and brand reputation.

  "You hire a trans person, Dylan Mulvaney... America goes, no, we're going to punish Bud Light." [16:30]

• Corporate Ideological Alignment: Fredericks attributes the failure to European ownership (InBev), which promotes stakeholder capitalism, pushing companies to engage in social and political issues rather than focusing solely on shareholder profits.

  "InBev... believes in more of this stakeholder capitalism philosophy where businesses are supposed to get involved in social and political issues." [19:03]

• Loss of Traditional Branding: The shift from traditional, unifying marketing (e.g., Clydesdales) to politically charged campaigns alienated long-time consumers who preferred the brand’s previous focus on bringing people together.

  "When you had this ideological capture, a lot of companies...putting social issues into their campaigns became a problem." [19:22]

Insights and Conclusions: O’Reilly criticizes the strategic misalignment between corporate actions and consumer expectations, suggesting that abandoning traditional, non-political branding in favor of ideological stances can harm profitability and brand loyalty.

"Why would the board of directors...allow something that could backfire so badly?" [19:45]

4. Cybercrime and Phishing Scams

Key Discussion: The episode concludes with a segment on the escalating issue of cybercrime, particularly phishing scams, which have resulted in substantial financial losses for individuals across the United States.

Notable Points:

• Prevalence of Cybercrime: In 2023, the FBI received approximately 900,000 complaints related to internet crimes, totaling over $12.5 billion in losses. California ranked as the worst state, with 80,000 complaints and $2 billion in losses.

  "2023, the FBI received about 900,000 complaints about crimes on the Internet, losses exceeding $12.5 billion." [25:09]

• Phishing Tactics: Clayton Cranford from Cybersafetycop.com explains that phishing involves sending fraudulent emails or texts that mimic legitimate institutions to steal sensitive information. The strategy relies on alarming recipients into immediate action.

  "They send you something that is urgent... they want you to panic a little bit and... click on that link." [24:19]

• Prevention Measures: O’Reilly and Cranford discuss practical steps to avoid falling victim to phishing, such as not responding to unsolicited communications, verifying sender authenticity, and maintaining secure online practices.

  "I never respond to anything that I don't know... when I get something like that, I just deleted immediately." [25:09]

  "Listen to that voice... feel like something's not quite right, you need to hit the brakes and look at it." [27:33]

Insights and Conclusions: The discussion emphasizes the importance of vigilance and education in combating cybercrime. With the surge in phishing attempts, especially targeting vulnerable populations like the elderly, the need for robust cybersecurity measures and public awareness is critical.

"This is happening... at epidemic rates... more elderly people who maybe aren't as Internet savvy." [24:05]

Final Notes

Throughout the episode, Bill O’Reilly engages with experts to dissect contemporary issues ranging from border security and substance abuse to higher education funding biases, corporate marketing strategies, and the pervasive threat of cybercrime. The discussions underscore the complexities of policy-making, corporate responsibility, and the evolving challenges in safeguarding both national interests and individual well-being.

Key Quotes Recap:

• "You're not going to win the importation war... almost 30 million Americans wanting to buy it on a daily basis." [05:11]
• "82% of the Harvard faculty is liberal or far left... you get an ideological college." [11:15]
• "They send you something that is urgent... they want you to panic a little bit." [24:19]

For a comprehensive understanding and further analysis, listeners are encouraged to visit BillOReilly.com and explore additional content and premium membership options.