Trump's New World Order, the White House's Three Big Concerns, Colby Hall Debates Bill on the President's Actions & Sanctuary Cities Under Threat of a Federal Funding Freeze

Summary

Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News: Episode Summary

Episode Title: Trump's New World Order, the White House's Three Big Concerns, Colby Hall Debates Bill on the President's Actions & Sanctuary Cities Under Threat of a Federal Funding Freeze
Date: January 15, 2026
Host: Bill O’Reilly
Guest: Colby Hall (Mediaite columnist)

---

1. Episode Overview

This episode of No Spin News zeroes in on President Trump’s aggressive, unilateral approach to governing in his new term: what O’Reilly dubs a “new world order” focused on unapologetic American strength and decisive action, domestically and globally. O'Reilly frames the episode around three high-stakes issues currently defining the Trump administration—Iran, ICE and protests/rebellion against ICE, and the escalating crisis around Denmark and Greenland. Key legal, political, and ethical debates are explored, particularly regarding the limits of presidential authority and implications for US democracy.

O’Reilly is later joined by Mediaite columnist Colby Hall for a robust debate over presidential overreach, executive power, and the line between legitimate national security action and undermining democratic checks and balances.

---

2. Key Discussion Points & Insights

A. President Trump’s “New World Order” Style of Governance

• O’Reilly asserts that Trump is ruling in a “non-collaborative way,” convinced of a voter mandate to decisively undo Biden-era policies, particularly at the southern border.
  • “Trump wants to go fast, and he has in his first year. He doesn’t want Congress to be deliberating for five months, and he doesn’t want it.” ([01:30])
• Trump’s intention is to project US global power in a way “so powerful that few will defy it,” arguing Congress and the courts are just obstacles.

B. Three Major White House Concerns

• O’Reilly identifies the three crises currently confronting Trump:
  1. Iran: The Pentagon is poised for military engagement, awaiting only Trump’s order. O'Reilly claims to have advised Trump personally against military action unless it’s a “tipping point,” but is confident the “mullahs are done.”
     • “[Trump] believes he has a mandate…to clean this mess up and I’m going to clean it up. In addition, I’m going to impose a new world order…” ([00:50])
     • “[T]he actions have been drawn up. We don’t know when, where, we don’t know. And it could happen at any time.” ([03:55])
  2. ICE & Domestic Protests: Protests against ICE are described as orchestrated by far-left groups, not “organic.” Emphasis is placed on the killing of Ms. Good in Minneapolis by an ICE agent and the notion that 10 states are in “rebellion,” refusing to enforce federal law.
     • “These are very well organized, far left generated protests…This is a rebellion. It’s not a protest. There is a big difference.” ([05:02])
  3. Denmark & Greenland: Viewed by O’Reilly as the most dangerous crisis for Trump, because any real move to “invade” Greenland would fracture NATO, alienate Congress and even the GOP, and threaten Trump politically.
     • “This is the most dangerous story. Denmark, not ICE, not Iran, Denmark and Greenland. That’s the most dangerous for him.” ([05:44])

C. Presidential Authority and National Security

• O’Reilly and Colby Hall debate the legal grounds and ramifications of Trump’s use of national security as a pretext for decisive, sometimes unilateral actions (e.g., removing foreign leaders, authorized killings, sanctioning ICE crackdowns).
  • O’Reilly: “Under national security…you can do it without congressional approval, and that’s what [Trump’s] doing.” ([06:12])
  • Hall worries this “might makes right” philosophy is antithetical to true democracy and dangerously normalizes unchecked executive power.
    • “Under an executive branch that…literally acts…with zero checks and balances, [it’s] really sort of reinforces ‘might makes right,’ which is a philosophical construct that we long moved past. And it’s not really democratic.” ([13:39])
• O’Reilly maintains that courts have still provided checks (e.g., blocking National Guard deployments), and ultimate constraint will come only from the Supreme Court.

D. Detailed Debate: Bill O’Reilly & Colby Hall ([13:18–21:45])

• Executive Overreach: Hall challenges what he sees as growing lawlessness in the Trump administration—especially the idea that everything can be justified under “national security,” and the open, public nature of actions like extracting foreign leaders.
• Checks & Balances vs. Pragmatism: O’Reilly insists that national security powers are well-grounded in post-9/11 legal precedent, and that debating or notifying Congress about secret military operations is impractical and dangerous.
  • Hall: “The whole point of the Constitution is checks and balances. You can’t simply say, ‘I’m going to avoid checks and balances if…[they] won’t give me what I want.’” ([19:03])
  • O’Reilly: “There’s precedent about national security after 9/11, all of that changed. All of it changed.” ([19:21])
• ICE Protests & State “Rebellion”: O’Reilly labels refusal of “10 states” to comply with federal law as “rebellion.” Hall criticizes this as an excessive narrative, invoking the history of “states’ rights.”
  • O’Reilly: “You’re in rebellion, are you not?” ([17:31])
  • Hall: “Rebellion is a narrative that oversteps considerably…I remember when states’ rights were a big talking point on the right. And now that’s gone away.” ([18:08])
• Public Sentiment: Hall points out that only 28% of people polled felt the ICE agent in the Good shooting was justified ([20:04]), while O’Reilly predicts this could shift if more details on the agent’s injuries emerge.

E. Sanctuary Cities and Federal Funding

• Trump is quoted vowing to cut all federal funds from sanctuary states and cities as of February 1st, blaming them for “protecting criminals at the expense of American citizens.” O’Reilly explains the legal and practical limitations of this threat.
  • O’Reilly: “Congress is the authority about where US tax dollars go…[Trump] can hold up some block grants, [but] it’s very complicated legally, but that’s why I’m here.” ([22:48])

F. Foreign Policy: Davos and America First

• Upcoming Trump speech at Davos is expected to reinforce the administration’s “America First” doctrine.
  • “The president expected to be America. What’s good for America is good for all you guys, which in a way is true.” ([24:48])

---

3. Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• O'Reilly on Trump’s Governance:
  “There's no question President Trump is governing in a non collaborative way. All right? That means his way or the highway.” ([00:21])
• On Denmark & Greenland:
  “If the United States invades Greenland with troops...I think this would fracture the NATO alliance. You can’t do that. Putin would be a winner because all the European NATO countries will turn against the United States.” ([08:09])
• Colby Hall’s Critique:
  “Under an executive branch that literally acts without impunity or with impunity, with zero checks and balances, is acting in a way that really sort of reinforces ‘might makes right,’ which is a philosophical construct that we long moved past. And it’s not really democratic.” (Colby Hall, [13:39])
• On National Security vs. Law:
  Hall: “The whole point of the Constitution is checks and balances. You can’t simply say, I’m going to avoid checks and balances if…I know that a constitutional or congressional check and balance is not going to give me what I want.”
  O’Reilly: “You do. If you have national security concerns behind you.” ([18:44–18:49])
• Public Views on ICE Shooting:
  “When it comes to ICE, only 28% of the people are sort of agreeing with the narrative that the ICE agent was justified in shooting.” (Colby Hall, [20:04])
• O’Reilly on Sanctuary Cities:
  “Congress is the authority about where US tax dollars go. They have 100% control over the budgetary process. So a president can’t say, I’m not going to send any money to Minnesota.” ([22:48])

---

4. Timestamps for Important Segments

• Opening Monologue: Trump’s Mandate & New World Order ([00:13–03:15])
• Three Big Stories: Iran, ICE, Denmark/Greenland ([03:18–09:49])
• National Security Justifications ([06:10–07:50])
• Colby Hall’s column & debate ([12:51–21:38])
• Federal Funding Threats to Sanctuary Cities ([22:48–24:30])
• Davos & International Policy Preview ([24:32–25:19])

---

5. Final Thoughts & Tone

The debate is spirited but largely respectful, with O’Reilly representing a pragmatic—somewhat combative—defense of presidential hard power, and Hall pleading for constitutional process and the dangers of unchecked authority. O’Reilly’s tone is confident and often sardonic, stressing “I live in the real world and I know what’s going to happen,” ([19:53]) while Hall expresses concern over erosions of American democratic traditions.

The episode provides a comprehensive take on urgent 2026 U.S. political crises through the lens of executive action, law, and national security—giving listeners both hardline perspective and a cautionary liberal rebuttal.

---

For further analysis, visit BillOReilly.com or read Colby Hall’s original column at Mediaite.

Transcript

[A]

Foreign.

[B]

Here. Welcome to the no spin news. Wednesday, January 14, 2026. Stand up for your country. Well, here's something to think about. There's no question President Trump is governing in a non collaborative way. All right? That means his way or the highway. And if you don't like it, then you can take him to court or try to get Congress involved or whatever. But there is a method to use a cliche to the president's madness. So he believes he has a mandate. 77 million Americans voted for him to correct what the Biden administration screwed up, which is colossal if you are any kind of fair and analyst. Just the border alone is so catastrophic. And President Trump says, look, the American people elected me to clean this mess up and I'm going to clean it up. In addition, I'm going to impose a new world order on the globe. Foreign policy is going to be pro American. I am going to create a country that is so powerful that few will defy it. But I don't need Congress to do it and I don't need the courts, because you can litigate all day long, but it just holds it up. Trump wants to go fast, and he has in his first year. He doesn't want Congress to be deliberating for five months, and he doesn't want it. So the question then becomes, is he overstepping his authority? Is the president overstepping? And that will be debated this year. Okay, 2026, you're going to have a lot of definition there. But in the meantime, Donald Trump's going to do what he wants to do, full steam ahead on immigration, on foreign policy. And if he's blocked, he's blocked. Meanwhile, Congress is so partisan, it's really hard to get any alternatives out of them. As far as. Well, we have a better idea. We in the Senate have a better idea. No, you don't. If you do, it's a mystery. And I'm talking general across the board. All right, that not my talking points. That's just setting up my talking points because we have three major stories in play here. Iran, ICE and Denmark. And they're all very, very different. But President Trump's future hinges upon those three stories at this moment and the economy as well. Okay, Iran. So right now, the Pentagon has worked up a number of military engagements there. It's just a matter of Mr. Trump's order. I don't know what they are. Nobody does. It's top secret. They've walled it off. There's no leaks. We don't know. I did talk to the President personally on Saturday. And I said, in my opinion, because I was asked, okay, I wouldn't use military action unless it's a tipping point. You don't need to send any more messages. You already did that with the nuke bombing. But if you can get them out of there, Mr. President, the mullahs, if you can get them on that flight to Moscow by, say, wiping out the Revolutionary Guard headquarters, I do it in a heartbeat. Got to get them out. And I believe it will happen. I think the mullahs are done and that'll be a tremendous victory for the USA and the world. But I could be wrong. But anyway, the actions have been drawn up. We don't know when, where, we don't know. And it could happen at any time. Remember, Tehran, the capital of Iran, is 8 and a half hours ahead of us. And this is not going to be a daylight action. These are going to be under the cloak of darkness. And so I'm going to be on it for the next whenever it takes watching, I check it every 30 minutes because all hell could break loose at any time. But again, I do believe the mullahs are done, and I really hope that's true. Okay, the second is ice, which this is very interesting. The protests against ICE are not organic, as they say. It's not like everybody's running to the streets like Vietnam or anything like that. These are very well organized, far left generated protests. And the nexus, of course, is in Minneapolis, where Ms. Good was shot dead by an ICE agent last week. But this has not caught on across the country, even though there are 10 states in active rebellion against the federal government, which I write about in my column on billow reilly.com okay, this is a rebellion. It's not a protest. There is a big difference. Okay. They are refusing to obey the law. Now, the third one is Denmark. And I'm going to just take a little time at the end of the talking points to explain the danger for Donald Trump here. This is the most dangerous story. Denmark, not ice, not Iran, Denmark and Greenland. That's the most dangerous for him. Now, getting back to Iran, there are, even before any military action, liberal Americans, Democrats who say, well, you can't keep doing this. You can't keep going into Venezuela, grabbing a dictator there and then go and get the mullahs out of there. You need Congress to approve all this. And I debated Chris Cuomo on News Nation last night about that subject. Go. Let me ask you something else, though. Iran, I don't understand a legitimate basis in law for any president to say, ooh, this, this regime, they're bad.

[A]

I don't like what they're doing to their people. I think I'll use the military and not have to go through Congress.

[B]

How can the president do that in Iran under the national security banner? Because Iran, and we saw that with Soleimani when Trump took him out with a drone. I wrote about that in my book Killing the Killers. Iran continues to fund worldwide terrorism and gives them billions of dollars. Billions with a B. That's a national security threat to the United States. So under national security, if you can neutralize somebody like Soleimani or isis, as Trump did with the assistance of Barack Obama, you can do it without congressional approval, and that's what he'll use. And that's true. So the Democrats can jump up and down, they can sue, they can do this, they can do that. The president has the authority, based upon what happened after 9, 11, to take out national security threats without getting permission. And he has. All right, that's what he's doing. It's all about national security. Drug dealing into the United States, massive amounts of narcotics. National security, okay? Mueller's funding, Hezbollah, Hamas, all the terror groups. National security. Courts aren't going to go against that. At the higher level, the partisan courts will, but not up in the Supreme Court or even the appeals courts. Okay, now let's get to Greenland. So today there's a meeting, closed door, and we don't have anything yet. And that might break. If it does, I'll tweet about it at billoriley. It's important you keep us on the band. So we don't know yet, but we know, obviously. A Harley meeting. Vice President Stair Vance and Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, are meeting with the Danish foreign minister and his Greenland counterpart. Now, I fully expect them to work out some kind of deal, because if the United States invades Greenland with troops, which is. I can't imagine that that would ever happen. I said that to President Trump. I think this would fracture the NATO alliance. You can't do that. Putin would be a winner because all the European NATO countries that turn against the United States, every single one of them. Maybe Hungary wouldn't, but that's it. You can't. And then the United States, American people don't want the US Military in Greenland. Every single poll shows that. And Republicans don't want it either. And then Congress, my God, they'll go crazy. And that would tilt it against the Republicans in the midterm. So there is a bill introduced by Lisa Murkowski who's supposedly Republican, but she's really not. And Senator Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire that says, you can't do this. You can't invade Greenland with U.S. troops. Now, that's going to pass the Senate. That bill is going to pass, and it might pass the House of Representatives. Now, Trump could veto it, but you can see the unbelievable deficit that President Trump would create for himself. And the Republican Party doesn't have to do it. You know, I'm a cocky guy. You guys all know that. I said, look, send me over to Copenhagen. I'll come back with any deal you want in 48 hours. And I would. It's not that hard to get military bases up there. Found them there in the past. Denmark's not going to object to that. Mineral rights. We can get them. We don't need to put military boots on the ground there. So, anyway, I expect the deal would be worked out. I'd be shocked if President Trump ever sends US Military to Greenland. This is his negotiating ploy. Huff and puff and blow the house down, and then we'll get a deal. That's what he always does. But this one, very dangerous. And that's a memo. All right, ice. There's not really anything new here other than there's a report today that the ICE agent who shot Ms. Good last week has internal bleeding. Now, it's sketchy. More will come out on it, but has been released. Now, that can only happen if the vehicle that Ms. Good was in hit him. But I'm not trying this on television. It's not right to do that. But you need to know what's surfacing here. So everybody took sides. I saw the video, I saw the bull. If it ever gets into a courtroom, and it won't, then you go frame by frame as I analyzed. And then you'd hear from the ICE agent and then witnesses, whatever. Okay. But I don't think any of that's going to happen. But if the man does have internal bleeding, that's pretty big. So that's the latest on that. That is a website called Media ITE deals with a lot of press stuff, and it's a good website. It used to tilt really far left, and they brought it back to left center. As a guy who created it, along with a few others, Dan Abrams, Colby hall, he writes a column, and a column's pretty good. Enough is enough. It's basically criticizing Donald Trump's overreach as President of the United States. I'll read you a portion here, and then we'll bring in Mr. Hall, quote, what distinguishes the current moment is not the impulse to push boundaries, but the scale, speed and brazenness with which these accumulated presidents are being exploited. Obama used drones and faced criticism, but operated within executive branch legal frameworks. Trump exacts, extracts foreign leaders and announces it as a fait accompli. At home, the same logic is playing out through federal law enforcement. ICE agents are defended reflexively before facts are known, before investigations are complete. Oversight is dismissed as obstruction. Questions are treated as attacks, powers insulated first, examined later, unquote. Colby hall joins us now from Brooklyn. So the mindset of the President of the United States is that his opposition is so entrenched that they don't care about what's good for the country. And so he has to cut through that so he can't go to Congress and say, I want to remove Maduro, and then Congress votes on it five months later because no Democrat will ever vote for anything that Trump wants. This is the President's mindset. Do you understand that?

[A]

I do. I think that's a generous description. And I'll say, first of all, thanks for having me on. Secondly, I agree with a lot of what you said during your talking points. Right. I find that we're pretty much aligned on a lot of this stuff, especially the concern with Denmark and Greenland, which is remarkably risky on a number of levels, not just politically. My column Enough Is Enough was really about how under an executive branch that literally acts without impunity or with impunity, with zero checks and balances, is acting in a way that really sort of reinforces might makes right, which is a philosophical construct that we long moved past. And it's not really democratic. And the actions of this president reveal a nation that increasingly doesn't look like the America that I grew up and I still love very, very much.

[B]

See, I don't have that. I don't have that perception. And I'm just about 25 miles from you in my dwelling. And when you say that Trump operates without any constraints, the courts ruled that the President could not send National Guard to LA and a few other cities because he didn't reach the bar of impending chaos. So he took him out. Trump took the troops, the National Guard, he withdrew him. So he's been constrained.

[A]

Constitutional Posse Comitatus basically says federal government cannot send in troops unless the governor of the state asks for it because of chaos. And that's what was wrong, the democracy, or he's flooding the Constitution, but he's obeying.

[B]

He's not running roughshod. Okay. But that's the way it always happens. Colby. Come on. You take an action and then there's a reaction. That's the way the government always runs.

[A]

Here's what I would say. You could defend the extraction of Maduro. The, the sort of way that that was defined as we can do whatever we want with Western hemisphere because it affects our national security. And we're going to use that as a pretext to now threaten to, you know, sort of bomb Iran and to then just sort of invade and take Greenland, like you said. That's, that really threatens and is very risky to our NATO alliance, to be clear. And I want to say this, I have given credit to the Trump administration where I feel like they've deserved it. And in particular, I think the way that the Trump administration has handled Iran vis a vis Israel was masterful and deserves a great deal of credit. I also give him an incredible amount of credit for the way that he cleaned up the abject horror that is the border. The worst thing that Biden ever did was just look away. And I think one can be for getting bad guys out cleaning up the border, but also be opposed to massed up ICE agents shooting protesters. And I don't think Renee Good should be dead as a result of trying to.

[B]

I don't either. But I think that doesn't mean, that doesn't mean that what the ICE agent did carries any criminal intent. Because I, I have said, and you know this, de escalate it when you have a life death situation. And some of my viewers don't like that. They don't want to hear that. Okay. But every law enforcement agency that I know of has a de escalation program when life and death is on the line. So I'm, I'm behind the law. But Trump is saying, and with absolute validity, I can't bring in Maduro to Congress. I can't bring in nuke bombing in Iran to Congress because they, the other side hates me so much, they're never going to support it. They, they'll drag their feet. We can't operate secretly in that regard. We can't do military operations with any kind of effectiveness if you're going to debate them for two months. And he's right. And when Noriega came out, that shattered that. And that'll never even get into the courts. Maduro is never going to get in. Okay. He'll be convicted in Brooklyn. You should go over and see him. He's right near your house. All right. And then he'll go to the penitentiary. In Colorado. And that's what's going to happen. And there's not going to be any court hearing about Maduro. I don't even think the ice age is going to be prosecuted. Now, do you agree with me that there are 10 states in open rebellion to the United States government because they fail to obey the law? It's okay to protest the law, no problem with that. But when you say, and that's what walls fry, all these people are saying, I'm not going to obey the law that has been passed by Congress, not Trump. I'm not obeying it. You're in rebellion, are you not?

[A]

I think rebellion is a narrative that oversteps considerably. I remember, I'm old enough to remember when states rights were a big talking point on the right. And now that's gone away. Right? Like suddenly we don't care about states rights.

[B]

And there are depends on the issue. That's on the issue. If you want, if you want.

[A]

You are basically making situational decisions. Right? And I, and honestly, previously, what you just said, you just walked, you just basically said Trump doesn't want to take Maduro to Congress because he knows he won't get what he wants. I'm sorry, you don't get to pick and choose what the Constitution says.

[B]

You do. If you have national security concerns behind you. Yes, you do.

[A]

Well, yeah, but that, that's very subjective. And to say that there was a national security threat by Maduro, what, you know, I think is hyperbole at best. I think it's absurd.

[B]

Tons of narcotics are coming in here.

[A]

Far less drugs from other places. Please, let me finish. Look, the whole point of the Constitution is checks and balances. You can't simply say, I'm going to avoid checks and balances if I know that a Constitution or a congressional check and balance is not going to give me what I want. But you can call, you can, if.

[B]

There'S precedent about national security after 9, 11, all of that changed. All of it changed.

[A]

Well, I think. Well, so herein lies the gray area of this dialogue, and I appreciate the chance to describe it. I think there's overreach, and I think a lot of people feel that there's overreach. Honestly, in hindsight, I care less about the Maduro extraction because he's clearly a bad guy. And you know, this is very personal for me because my nephew is on USS Ford. He's a Naval intel officer, and he was very much a part of the whole growler part. And I'm, I'm extremely proud of him, but I'm also concerned about him.

[B]

And like, it's a good, it's an, it's a good debate, but I live in a real world and I know what's going to happen. And Trump is not going to lose any of these things at all because.

[A]

Of the national security when it comes to ice. When it comes to ice, only 28% of the people are sort of agreeing with the narrative that the ICE agent was justified in shooting.

[B]

Well, now, now if he has injuries, that, that polling is going to change. But, but even if it doesn't change, all right, Trump is basically saying this and I'll give you the last word on it. My job, I was elected to protect the American people and I'm going to do it. And I am not going to submit to some theoretical process when I believe I have the authority to take out people like Maduro, the Muellers, people who are threats to this country. And, and that's his mindset. And the only way you constrain it is the Supreme Court. That's the only way says no. And the courts, the federal court said no to guard in LA and other places, Oregon. All right. And Trump pulled them back. Last word.

[A]

I think you're being very generous if I don't think a lot of people feel like mullahs in Iran pose a direct threat to their lives. I think you're billions to terror groups.

[B]

Billions to terror groups.

[A]

I'm telling you, I think geopolitically they are a huge threat and they should be extracted. And you and I agree largely on the foreign policy there. I'm talking about politically. I don't think a lot of people in Overland Park, Kansas, where I grew up, see that as a perfect threat. I also think that a lot of people want immigrants who are illegals extracted from our nation, but they don't want to see mass ICE agents invading homes without a search warrant. They don't want to see protesters shut down.

[B]

I'll see that point. That ICE has to tighten it up a little bit and has to be more, give more of an explanation. All right, Colby, very good debate, very lively. I want everybody to read your column on media. Thanks for taking the time. Okay, be good, pins. Right? Or I'm good. Whatever. Be good. Right. So these are at the Golden Globes, which the ratings for the Golden Globes are catastrophically low. And that was expected, but there are the pins. So I said to my staff, where do these pins come from? You know, I can't like go to CVS and buy them, so they came from the aclu, of course, they did move on. Other far left organizations, they sent out blasts on their social media to the far left. People said, hey, we're going to be at certain Golden Globe events. We'll have the pins. You come over, you can get them. That's how it happened. And that's my point. This stuff isn't organic. This stuff is real well organized against ICE and President Trump. So the new anchor person for CBS Evening News, Tony Ducopo, I do not know him. He gets like a pretty good interview, I thought, with President Trump yesterday in Detroit. And of course, the good situation came up. Go. Well, I want to say to the father that I love all of our people. They can be on the other side, as you say, he might be on my side. He is on your side. And I think that's great. And I do, I think it's great. And I would bet you that she, under normal circumstances was a very solid, wonderful person. But, you know, her actions were pretty tough. Okay, I thought that was a decent answer. You know, we asked him, the father, of course, brokenhearted, his daughter is dead, but the father is a Trump supporter. All right, so the president is furious at sanctuary states and cities. And he says that beginning on February 1st, he's cutting off all four federal funding roll tape. Starting February 1st, we're not making any payments to sanctuary cities or states having sanctuary cities because they do everything possible to protect criminals at the expense of American citizens and it breeds fraud and crime and all of the other problems that come. So we're not making any payment to anybody that supports sanctuary cities. But there's a problem with that. And it goes back to the debate I had with Colby hall, is that Congress is the authority about where US tax dollars go. They have 100% control over the budgetary process. So a president can't say, I'm not going to send any money to Minnesota. What the president can do and probably will do is hold up some so called block grants. For example, most states get federal money to improve or buy things for law enforcement. State police, local police, big city police. New York City gets a bunch of money, block grants. If the president says that money's being misused, the block grant money misused, and that's Mr. Trump's argument that these people aren't enforcing the law. So that's a misuse of federal law enforcement funding. He block it all is very complicated legally, but that's why I'm here. The House Democrats say they want to block funding for ICE Roll that We want accountability and oversight. I know Donald Trump and Kristi Noem and their friends do not want accountability and oversight, but House Democrats want accountability and oversight to ice. Well, you're not going to get it because the House and the Senate aren't going to vote to block funding for ice. They're not, but you can try. But that's not going anywhere. So next week, president's going to Davos, Switzerland, which is a ski resort in the eastern part of that country, beautiful country, Switzerland, if you haven't been. And he's given a speech, big one to the World Economic Economic Forum, 64 heads of state, big economic show. Zelensky of Ukraine is going to be there. No Putin. Why? Because the international court grab him. Putin can't go. They grab him. He's a war criminal anyway. The president expected to be America. What's good for America is good for all you guys, which in a way is true. I mean, if we're prosperous and we're doing a lot of trading with everybody, despite the tariffs, everybody wins. But that's what I expect. All right. We got a final thought in a moment. So final thought of the day. I'm not going to be here tomorrow because I'm going to be on assignment in Florida. I know. I can hear it. I can hear it. Oh, yeah, you are. But it's true. I told you last week that we're doing some specials that would be special interviews. And I'm gonna be and these are gonna be important people, very interesting people. So I'm gonna do one in Florida. I'm not gonna tell you what it is now because we won't be surprised. So I gotta get down there. And not bad going to South Florida in January, I'll tell you that. And I'm doing other stuff. I'm doing a lecture. And you know, I got a whole bunch of stuff on the, on the sheet. But believe me, I am on this Iranian situation because this thing could pop anytime. So stay with us@bill o'reilly Is the tweet okay? Billorilly.com I'm gonna, if anything happens, I'll have a message up there within 15 minutes. And we get good messages every day. We have messages in the morning every day in different messages. You get a pop, pop, pop, pop, pop. Okay. So that's how we keep in touch. I will have a new column on Sunday and so many things going on. That's a problem. I wait till Saturday because it's breaking news, breaking news, breaking news. To write the column for Sunday. Thank you very much for watching and listening to the newsman news this evening. We will see you on Monday and check in with us across the weekend, please.