← Real America’s Voice
Real America’s Voice
Just the News No Noise with John Solomon and Amanda Head, February 19th, 2026
00:50:01
Loading summary
Transcript82 lines
- [00:00]
Christina Rasmussen
This is an iHeart podcast.
- [00:02]
Abercrombie & Fitch Advertiser
Guaranteed human take the scenic route in Abercrombie's new spring collection, designed for weekend getaways full of layers like sweaters, dresses and matching sets that take you from happy hour straight to a weekend upstate. The piece on everyone's radar is their new reversible trench coat. It's navy on one side and a coastal plaid on the other. The perfect spring staple. Get your closet ready for spring plans. Shop Abercrombie in the app online and in stores.
- [00:55]
John Solomon
Good evening, America. Happy Thursday and welcome to the latest edition of JUST THE news. No noise. I'm your host John Solomon reporting to you as always from the nation's capital, where we have some breaking news. But first, a quick programming note. My co host, the Amazing Amanda head on vacation. She'll be back next week, so don't worry. We'll have her back in the chair in time to break some big news ahead of the State of the Union. Right now, some breaking news that just happened. Just a few moments ago, the president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, announced that Iran has just 15 days left to make a deal with the United States or face unfortunate consequences. The clock is now ticking. The date is now set. There is a deadline. Iran will not be able to string this along for two and three years like it is tried in many other negotiations over the last three or four decades since the mullahs took over that country. Donald Trump has set a ticking time clock and he means it. You can tell today from his statement. Meanwhile, over in Great Britain, the British people have been asking, will the former Prince Andrew, the brother of King Charles iii, would he ever face any consequences for his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein? Well, the answer this absolutely. Why? Because British authorities arrested the former prince, the former royal who was stripped of all of his titles as a result of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, on charges of potential public corruption. The allegations stem from documents that Pam Bondi's Justice Department released in the last couple weeks that showed that he may have been feeding secrets from his job as a trade representative in the British government to people like Epstein and others. Police arrested him. They held him for several months. They searched several of his properties. They did let him go, but they also confirmed that there is an investigation. Prince Charles, or, excuse me, King Charles, responded along with the British prime minister, both men saying they'll have to let the law take its course when it comes to Andrew. We'll see. I have a lot more of that over atjust the news.com meanwhile, some really important news here in Washington and I want to get to you, but a quick tour down to Texas. The antifa terror cell that last summer attacked a group of ICE agents in an ICE outpost in Texas, wounding people with guns. This was a lethal gun attack on officers. They had their trial begun and almost instantly there was a mistrial declared. Why? One of the defense lawyers for these terrorists wore a politically messaged shirt, which the judge ruled to be inappropriate. The jury selection was stopped. A new trial will restart Friday, Monday. And I have a funny feeling that lawyer is going to have a very different wardrobe. We'll have a lot more on that in the next few days. That's such an important case. Finally, a little news on the accountability front. When it comes to the weaponization of government, we're long waiting for real justice. There are signs that the federal prosecutors in Miami who are running a grand jury in Fort Pierce, Florida, looking at the last decade of weaponization, are definitely zeroing in on the former CIA director. He had John Brennan's lawyers acknowledge he got some subpoenas and thinks he's a target of the investigation. But in the last few days, just the news has confirmed that the prosecutors in Florida working for the Miami U.S. attorney's office have sent a secret request to the Senate. It's rare this happens, very seldom asking for Congress to turn over evidence it has about an executive branch official, that official, John Brennan. What they're looking for are the testimonies that John Brennan gave about Russia collusion and Russia assessments from 2016, 17 and 18. Now, why is that significant? There's two reasons to look for it. The first is John Brennan's been saying all along that I know Jim Jordan referred me for prosecution as my testimony doesn't seem to match my documents. But the Senate, the way I talk to the Senate will exonerate me. Well, obviously, those prosecutors want to get every record of what he told the Senate to see if it has any exonerating effect on the case. The second is another important sign. When Jim Jordan, the House Committee Chairman for Judiciary, referred John Brennan for prosecution, he cited his 2023 testimony, which claimed he didn't really try to get the discredited Steele dossier into an intelligence product that said that Russia helped Donald Trump win the election. Well, we know from his emails that Don Brennan did. Well, that Testimony is from 2023. It's within the statute of limitations. What was requested of the U.S. senate, according to our sources over@justednews.com is from 2016 and 17 and 18 outside of the statute of limitations. Why should that be significant? Because it's a clear sign that as we've been reporting and as FBI Director Kash Patel first urged the Justice Department a year ago, they're looking at a conspiracy case, a case that can go back outside of the statute of limitations, like acts in 16, 17 and 18 and charge those as overt acts connected to crimes that occurred inside the statute of limitations. We've described that strategy a lot on the show, talk to a lot of lawyers about it. This is one of the clearest cases. Asking the Senate for almost decade old testimony means that they're looking at that testimony as a potential overt act of a criminal conspiracy. So more on that tomorrow morning when you wake up. All the details on this will be over@justthenews.com, but you got it first here because of your loyalty. Here to America's Voice and Justin News. All right. Our first guest today is pretty special. He's trending. Even though he's in Congress, he's trending on X right now for alongside of some pretty darn good looking dogs. And the answer to how that all happened is tied up in an amazing yarn. He is a great congressman for the state of Florida. Randy Fine Congressman, good to have you on the show today. Thanks for having me. Okay, so I want to get to your remarkable trending moment in social media. But before I do, pretty serious moment. A very clear red line drawn in the sand tonight by President Trump. Iran has 15 days. He's not going to wait six months and let them do their normal rope a dope of negotiation. How insignificant is it that we have a deadline, a date and a clear delimiter for Iran to meet?
- [06:56]
Randy Fine
Well, I think it's very significant. Look, Donald Trump doesn't mess around. And so he's now laid out a timeframe for when he expects a deal to be cut. It is clear that Iran cannot have two things. They cannot have a nuclear weapon and they cannot have a delivery system in order to deliver that nuclear weapon to the United States, an intercontinental ballistic missile. Those two things cannot happen. And Donald Trump's given them 15 days. They're either going to give it up and they're going to work with us or he's going to go in and take care of it. And if the world has learned something over the last year, it's when Donald Trump says he's going to do something, he goes and he gets it done.
- [07:34]
John Solomon
Yeah, I think that that's exactly right. There's a lot of hardware in the Middle east right now, perhaps the largest assemblage of American might in the Middle east that we've seen since the second Gulf War. The capabilities are all there for the President. One thing that I've heard some people talking about is that you could have a prelude to a military attack just creating a blockade and strangleholding Iran's export of oil or import of food and money and water and things that it needs. Is that a potential step in between a direct attack on the mullahs and where we are today?
- [08:08]
Randy Fine
Well, it's certainly an option that the President has, and again, I trust his judgment, but we have clamped down on a lot of those things. Iran is not selling a lot of oil these days because of all the embargoes. Could we tighten things even more? I'm sure that we could, but I think for now we've done a lot. I think he's very clear. Two weeks. We either get the job done one way or we're going to get the job done another way.
- [08:33]
John Solomon
Yeah, important. And I think the American people want to see a resolution. The Iranian people, I think, are praying for a resolution. So it's going to be pretty interesting to see. Our BEF is not with the Iranian people. It's with their mothers who've governed for 40 years with such tyrannical consequences. When you look out over the horizon, the work that occurred in Venezuela, the removal of Maduro, the flipping of that government to a more pro American stance, it seems to have opened up a lot of opportunity for us, including identifying the shadow fleets that were running energy and oil to Cuba, to, to and from Russia and to and from Iran. That seems like Venezuela was more than just Venezuela. We got a lot of other benefits against some of our other enemies and frenemies. Is that likely strengthening President Trump's hands with all three of those countries?
- [09:23]
Randy Fine
Absolutely. Look, there are three real threats in the world today as nation states. They are Russia, China, and Iran. But Iran is the one that is most kinetically active towards hurting America. They've killed hundreds of our soldiers going all the way back to Beirut. They were behind all of that. You know, obviously the war in Gaza over the last two years where many Americans were killed there as well. They fund evil all over the world. They're the largest state sponsor of terror all over the world. And if we simply allowed the Iranian people to have the government they want, if we made Persia great again, it would transform the world because first, it would clean up all these problems in the Middle East. Second, it would create a new source of oil. You could get rid of the sanctions that would help the entire world economy, and they would rejoin and become the kind of country and the kind of culture they were before their Muslim cleric leaders took over in 1979. So making this change is an unambiguous good for the world. It would be transformative and yet one more legacy setting event for Donald Trump.
- [10:34]
John Solomon
Yeah. And while the ominous potential consequences for Iran are, on one hand, there's a carrot just across the street from it, because today the Board of Peace Met started to put touches on a really ambitious American effort to rebuild Gaza, to give the Palestinian people and the Israelis who live there real economic hope and opportunity and engagement that they've been denied by radical leaders for a long time. Is that the carrot that when Iran looks over the way, they say, hey, my friends are abandoned me because they like that deal better?
- [11:04]
Randy Fine
Well, I don't know that it's a carrot for Iran because Iran has not been destroyed in the same way that Gaza has. The carrot has always been there. The carrot is a wealthier, prosperous country. I mean, Iran should be a rich nation. They have massive oil reserves. And so were they willing to give up the crazy Islamic terror and all of the other stuff that they do and just become a normal friend of the world? I think the country would be incredibly prosperous and successful. It'd be great for their people. It'd be great for the world. So this is one of those instances where a relatively small number of people, the Muslim clerics who run Iran, not only hurt the world, but they hurt their own people. And if Donald Trump can get that problem fixed, everybody wins. The Iranian people, the Middle east, the United States, and frankly, the entire world.
- [11:56]
John Solomon
Yeah, man. No doubt. It could be a history changing event offing for us. All right. A few people in New York are also making a lot of people uncomfortable. In fact, the Big Apple feels more like the mediocre Apple since Mamdani took over. But over the weekend, a Democratic activist, Muslim activist who's aligned with Mandani, suggested that maybe some Muslims would like to take dogs away from those in New York. You weighed in on the side of dogs, which, as a dog lover, I know is an important thing. Your words have been twisted by a lot of people. Tell us what happened, what you really meant, and what's happened online. Because you have a fan club, the greatest fan club of dog lovers I've ever seen. Maybe even bigger than the Kennel Club.
- [12:39]
Randy Fine
Yeah, look, I don't know that my words were taken out of context, but here's what happened. AKEEM HAMDANI ADVISER and obviously, we can see Sharia coming to New York in multiple ways, in terms of the people he's putting in office, the way he's talked about immigration policy. Now the call to prayer is being played. Muslims plan to occupy Times Square because apparently praying in their mosque isn't good enough. So we've seen Sharia come full force in New York. And one of his advisors over the weekend said the following. Finally, Islam is coming to New York City. Dogs are unclean, and they should not be indoor pets. She called on a ban for us to have dogs as pets. Now, look, if people want to come to the United States, we can talk about that, but you don't get to move here and then demand how we change how we live. So I made a pretty simple statement. I said, if people like this lady, if they're going to make us choose between dogs and people who are unwilling to live with dogs, I'm going to choose dogs. It's not a difficult choice. And the left went crazy, because what we've learned is this. They used to say, if you don't want unfettered illegal immigration, if you don't want anybody to come here for any reason, if you're against that, you're a racist. And then they said, well, it's not enough that they come here. We have to give them everything they want for free. Food stamps, housing, health care, education. And if you're not willing to give them everything they want for free, you're a racist. Now what they're saying is, after they've come, after we've given them everything for free, if we aren't willing to change how we live, if we aren't willing to give up what it means to be an American, that we're racists. And they've gone crazy because I've said, it's pretty simple. In America, we love dogs. We're going to keep our dogs, and if they don't like it, they can leave.
- [14:31]
John Solomon
Yeah, that's all he meant. You were never trying to equate that a Muslim person is a lesser creature than a dog. Some people have suggested that. That's not what you were suggesting, right?
- [14:41]
Randy Fine
Not in any way. I don't know how you could interpret that from my
- [14:45]
John Hart
choose.
- [14:46]
Randy Fine
I didn't say one is better than the other, you know. But, but I also. But I don't think that. And the key point of my comment was, if they make us choose, I'm Jewish, right? Jews generally don't eat pork, but you don't See us demanding that barbecue joints go out of business because barbecue. What it means to be American. And that's the difference is you're allowed to practice your faith in privacy and in freedom. But it ends when you tell me what I have to believe. You don't get to do that in America. There are 57 countries in the world where you can go be Sharia compliant and not have a dog. It's my job to make sure we don't become number 58. And with a guy like Mamdani, we have to be worried about that.
- [15:36]
John Solomon
The outpouring of support from dog lovers, including in Congress. A lot of your colleagues have some funny, funny posts that I've been watching, but it's been just a tsunami of support among dog owners saying, thanks for coming to our defense.
- [15:50]
Randy Fine
Oh, yeah, because this is a, you know, this is as American as it gets. It amazes me, you know, this is not an 8020 issue about dogs in the United States. This is like a 99 one. And what's extraordinary is as dozens and dozens and dozens of Democrats in Congress have lost their minds, said, I should resign, I should be censured. All of these things. By the way, they don't. They're not bothered by democrats who steal $5 million. They're not bothered by Democrats who sell ICE agents. That doesn't bother on them. But as they say, I should get in trouble. Not a single one of them has said, I disagree with what Randy Fine said, but I'll fight like hell to make sure those who want Sharia can't take away your dog. Not a single one of them, not one, not one has said, I will make sure you can keep your dog. Which is, by the way, I have introduced just today the Protecting Puppies from Sharia act, which would defund any city and any state. Anyone. I don't know if the post is out yet, but the bill is filed. Any city or any state that says you can't own a dog. And we can laugh because it's insane to think about, but the fact of
- [17:03]
John Solomon
the matter is it's a serious solution.
- [17:05]
Randy Fine
Doesn't like dogs. I'm not criticizing it. They just don't like dogs. You know, I mean, that's okay, they're allowed, but they just can't tell me I can't have a dog.
- [17:15]
John Solomon
Yeah, that's an important piece. Look at that. Some breaking news right here. Some new legislation has a lot of common sense support all around America. Congressman, we always enjoy you on the show. You give us a lot to think about and you're always clear. You say what you mean and you mean what you say. Great to have you on. Thanks so much, sir.
- [17:30]
Randy Fine
Good to see you.
- [17:32]
John Solomon
Yeah, you as well. What a fun interview. All right, folks, we'll take a quick commercial break when we come back. I've been telling you about cases to watch that are election integrity setters. One is Louisiana and racial gerrymandering. Second is Mississippi and counting ballots after election day, which potentially could be outlawed. The third is coming out of the state of Missouri. It deals with census and counting illegal aliens. The attorney general of that great state is going to join us and tell us about her fight to stop census from counting legal aliens for apportionment and representation. Big scoop coming up next right after these measures.
- [18:10]
Valspar Advertiser
When you're a pro, you gotta do a little bit of everything.
- [18:12]
John Solomon
A little,
- [18:15]
Valspar Advertiser
a little and even a little. And it helps to have something that works as hard as you do. That's why Valspar has durable high coverage paint for every job, every time made. For more Valspar pros. Head to Lowe's today and talk to a pro rep about saving time and money on your next job with Valspar Signature paint exclusions apply. See valsparpro.com for details.
- [18:47]
John Solomon
Welcome back, America. We've been talking on this show for quite some time that one of the democratic strategies for electioneering in America is to make sure that illegal aliens count in the census because then they account for apportionment which assigns federal funds and then they account for representation in Congress. A lot of people have long felt that was unfair. And by the way, Donald Trump changed it in 2020 only to have Joe Biden change it back in time for the 2020 Census. Joining us now is the attorney general from the great state of Missouri who has gone to court to challenge the notion that we should be assigning apportionment in representation based on illegal aliens. She is Attorney General. Katherine Hanaway. Attorney General, great to have you on today.
- [19:25]
Katherine Hanaway
Thanks so much for having me on, John. I'm excited about this lawsuit and excited about winning Missouri's fair share of members of Congress and federal dollars.
- [19:37]
John Solomon
Yeah, this is historic. And you take this case alongside of what Louisiana is doing with their attorney general challenging race based districts. The way politics have been conducted the last few years or last few decades could be markedly altered for the future of this country. Tell us a little bit about how illegal aliens got to be part of the apportionment process, which I don't think any one of our founding fathers ever intended.
- [19:59]
Katherine Hanaway
You know, that's such a great question. And when you hear the answer, you'll say, oh, of course. That's what happened. So for the vast majority of our history, we did not count illegal immigrants in the census. And then along came Jimmy Carter. And Jimmy Carter decided, just completely unilaterally that we'd start counting illegal immigrants. And we continued to do so until President Trump was in office the first time he put an end to it. And, of course, Joe Biden almost immediately reversed that decision, which is why we sued. We are confident that the Census Bureau is going to start to plan for a census in 2030 where we don't count illegal immigrants. But we're going to get a new president in 2028, and we just can't be assured that he'll do the right thing. So if we have a court order, and I'm guessing this is going to go all the way to the U.S. supreme Court, we get that court order, then it'll be permanent.
- [21:00]
John Solomon
It's going to be important. Back in the time when this language is embedded in the Constitution, they just talked about counting the persons that were on U.S. soil. We didn't have an illegal immigration problem back then. But where we are today, the Democrats are going to say, well, persons means everybody. And we say no people lawfully on the ground. How do you think this will work its way through the courts on that definition of what our founding Fathers intended?
- [21:24]
Katherine Hanaway
Yeah. So there is a lot of case law interpreting what it means to be in the United States permanently. And we believe that the founding fathers and the court decisions interpreting those provisions since then intended it to be people who were legally, permanently in the United States. So that would mean anyone who's a citizen and anyone who is a permanent legal resident, meaning they have a green card. So it doesn't include people with temporary visas for work or for school, and certainly was never intended to include illegal immigrants. Just to give you some sense of the impact of this, Los Angeles alone has 2 million illegal immigrants. That's roughly 2 congressional districts. There's only 435. It's a math problem. You divide 435 by the number of people, or vice versa, number of people in the country by 435. And that tells you how big each congressional district needs to be. Well, if you take those 2 million away from Los Angeles, it decreases their representation in Congress and increases it other places, including Missouri.
- [22:38]
John Solomon
Yeah, a place that doesn't have sanctuary cities or a sanctuary state. They actually follow the law in Missouri. What a novel idea. I want to Turn. Yeah, it does. For the Democrats. It does seem to be novel these days. It's remarkable. I want to turn to some other great work you're doing. The first is obviously your predecessor, Andrew Bailey, now at the FBI. He sued China on behalf of the people of Missouri for the COVID 19 outbreak. He won a default judgment, $24 billion. China now fighting back. And you're not going to take any of that fight back. You're going right back. Adam, tell us the state of the China v. Missouri, Missouri v. China cases.
- [23:17]
Katherine Hanaway
Well, and John, I have great news. It actually goes back a little bit further. It was Attorney General Eric Schmidt who brought the suit originally against China. And the basis of the suit was that China had infected our state with COVID and caused us a lot of damage and then withheld personal protective equipment. Andrew Bailey won the case. And now we have a $23 billion judgment that we're seeking to enforce by seizing assets belonging to the Chinese. Obviously, this is a big international suit, and China sued us back for 50 billion in Wuhan province. And we've actually been in contact with the administration because we want to make sure that we're doing everything right and it doesn't hurt anyone else anywhere in the country. And we've actually learned that our lawsuit and Mississippi has a similar one have been important pieces of leverage in discussions with China over trade talks. And we're hopeful that we can get a settlement that's rationally into perhaps something that means more exports for the United States, particularly of agricultural products. So it's a big, big win for the United States and for the state of Missouri. And I'm not too worried. Let's just put it this way. I'm never going to China, so I'm not too worried about it. They have put a few bots after me and tried to damage my online reputation. But the real lives of Missouri is matter to me a lot more than my online reputation.
- [24:48]
John Solomon
Yeah, that's a great way of. That's a great way of brushing that off. That's the way it should be. So this as a potential leverage tool in whatever the tariff and trade deal between China is, Missouri can play a part in that. And then your citizens can benefit from that final settlement. Kind of a novel approach of how this will ultimately end up. You feel good that the Trump administration get the right deal for Missouri?
- [25:11]
Katherine Hanaway
100%. And I want to get it done during the Trump administration. I think that's going to be the key to doing it right.
- [25:19]
John Solomon
Yeah, that's an important one. We're going to be keeping a cosine. It's one of the most. Every time we write about that case, it's one of the most popular things on our site. People really, really care about it. Another place where you're winning that is the protection of our young children in this country. And Missouri passed a law banning sex change procedures for minors. It got challenged and you just won it. The Missouri Supreme Court. Huge, huge victory for the children of Missouri and probably a model for the rest of the country. Tell us about that a little bit.
- [25:47]
Katherine Hanaway
Yeah. So our General assembly did a great thing. They banned any future gender reassignment therapy surgery for minors. And it did get challenged all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court. We won that case. And so hopefully no child will ever be subjected to that kind of mistreatment again. And I'll mention one other thing. We also put out a regulation requiring that people confirm their age when going on pornographic sites. And the first thing that happened was pornhub pulled completely out of Missouri. So when you stand up and fight for kids and do it aggressively, good things happen.
- [26:27]
John Solomon
Yeah. A lot of people say it's not Missouri's not only the show me state, it's to show me how to do the right thing state. You guys are leading the way for so many states to exercise their rights even when the federal government was a little adrift under Joe Biden. I want to go back to where we started the conversation, and that is with the census lawsuit in the Louisiana reapportionment and the possibility that racial gerrymandering will be ended by the Supreme Court. If you were to prevail in the census, does it have any effect before 2030? Could you begin to challenge if you got a favorable ruling, could you challenge in the 28 and 30 elections or do you have to wait till the new census?
- [27:04]
Katherine Hanaway
No. So we have asked for relief that would go back and recalibrate the apportionment of congressional seats, electoral votes and federal money for 28 and 30. I don't know if we'll win on that. That will be difficult because the other census data will be 10 years old and there will have been shifts around the country. But if we win and Louisiana wins, this is going to be a decades long impact on elections in this country. It will have an impact on who controls Congress and who wins the presidency. We just, from our lawsuit alone, project that somewhere between 11 and 14 congressional seats will move from places like New York and California to places like Missouri, Tennessee and Georgia. This is a case that really could last for a couple of generations. And when you combine that with Louisiana, it can make all the difference in who's running this country.
- [28:06]
John Solomon
That's pretty amazing. Is there any potential that the Trump administration, since you're suing the U.S. government Census Bureau, that they settle rather than leave it to the judges to decide this?
- [28:15]
Katherine Hanaway
Well, I think that the Trump administration is smart enough to understand that their settlement might be reversed by a future administration. I think they might be sort of a friendly adversary that goes with us all the way to the Supreme Court. But if we could find some way to make that settlement binding, obviously we'd take the settlement.
- [28:38]
John Solomon
Yeah. Well, if not, the best way to make it binding is make sure the nine justices get it. That's always the best way. Attorney General Kathleen Henway, you are leading the way in so many things. I watched these last few stories. It's such a great honor to finally get you on the show. Thanks so much for joining us, John.
- [28:52]
Katherine Hanaway
Thank you so much. Really appreciate the opportunity to be with you.
- [28:56]
John Solomon
Yeah. These are great stories, important stories, life changing stories. So great to have you. All right, folks, quick commercial break. Coming up next, we take a look at what our friends for the Open Open the Books group. Man, they do such amazing work tracking how your tax dollars are spent, sometimes spent badly. They've uncovered some new stuff about federal spending during the COVID era. You're not going to be happy, but you'll be enlightened. We'll have that next right after these messages. Hey, folks, take a drive through any major city after sunset and you'll notice something strange. Dark windows, empty offices. Right now, one in five commercial buildings in America is sitting vacant. Even here in Washington, D.C. nearly $1 trillion in real estate loans are coming due this year. If those buildings stay empty, the banks take a hit. And those are the same banks where your retirement savings likely sit. There's a new free report called the Ghost Tower Index that breaks it all down. It uncovers 7 early warning signs that showed up before every major crash since 1929. And all seven are active again right now. This won't make the evening news, but it could help protect your savings from what's coming. Download it free at johnlikesgold.com or call 855-gold-340 to get your copy mailed to you. That's johnlikesgold.com or 855-gold340.
- [30:13]
Abercrombie & Fitch Advertiser
Take the scenic route at Abercrombie's new spring collection designed for weekend getaways full of layers like sweaters, dresses and Matching sets that take you from happy hour straight to a weekend upstate. The piece on everyone's radar is their new reversible trench coat. It's navy on one side and a coastal plaid on the other. The perfect spring staple. Get your closet ready for spring plans. Shop Abercrombie in the app online and in stores.
- [30:50]
John Solomon
Welcome back, America. We have a big question that we learned particularly because of the Minnesota fraud scandal that we started covering here back in 2024. Hard to believe it's been almost two years now. How much fraud goes on a year in the government? Some it goes to dead people. Some goes to illegal aliens. Some go to foreign fraudsters. The numbers are pretty astounding. Our next guest has put pen to paper, green shade to fact, and he has the latest. He's the CEO of one of my favorite groups, Open the Books, which has a good. Does a great job helping us all understand how our tax man spent. He is our good friend, John Hart. John, great to have you back on the show.
- [31:26]
John Hart
John, it's great to be on again. Thanks for having me.
- [31:33]
John Solomon
Yeah, yeah. Listen, this is an important conversation. The only way we're ever going to fix it is until people are so armed with the information, they actually make their lawmakers get it done. So you're, you're the front line of so much of the most valuable information on this. You've got a pretty stunning number of what's just lost to fraud in a year. Tell us what you found.
- [31:54]
John Hart
Yeah, John, look, I think, you know, the reason, the reason I am hopeful is that you can't have accountability without visibility. And so it's, it's vital that we have transparency in our government. So that's what Open the Book's mission is, is to make sure every taxpayer has access to true information about where their money's going. So what we found in this latest study is we looked at something called improper payments. Now, improper payments, it's bigger than fraud. It's really an improper payment is a payment that shouldn't been made either as an overpayment payment to the wrong person. And a lot of it is fraud. And the biggest offender actually is cms, which we see a trend in. That's the center for Medicaid and Medicare Services. We see that all over the country, particularly in states like Minnesota and California. But, John, the number is really astonishing. So we really just kind of burn and throw away about $186 billion a year just on improper payments. And the Trump administration has made that number somewhat better. It really peaked during COVID where you had in some years $300 million or I'm sorry, billion or more just in improper payments. And to put that in perspective, we're talking about $1,400 per household, up to $2,000 per household during the COVID era. Just in other words, the average household is financing $2,000 or $1,400 just on improper payments. And that's really an astonishing number. And the reason, if we step back and really think about it, the reason this is happening, John, is that we have a federal government that is too big to succeed. We are entrusting way too much authority, way too much power in a centralized federal government when we should be devolving a lot of that power to the states. I have an op ed it just came out today with David Walker, who's a comptroller general, he's an independent, and he and I agree that one of the things we need to do is have a 21st century federalism approach and really rethink how we structure and organize the federal government. Because that's really why we have these eye popping numbers and we have these just nauseating cases of fraud that we see all over the country. In states like Minnesota, if you can
- [34:02]
John Solomon
afford to lose $186 billion a year and not whine about it, you must be too big because you're not noticing that level of money. It's just crazy. We had David Walker on in December. We'd spent a whole show on fraud prevention. He had this really great approach to what that 21st century federalism looks like. And it had some pretty easy things that have been on the table for years that no one gets done. Things like just make sure every federal agency checks the death database before they send out a payment, make sure that everybody checks that the contractors are still valid. Lots of things that would catch improper payments going out. Why is it that Republicans who say they're the fiscal conservatives haven't implemented these things? I mean, Congress hasn't done anything. The Doge thing came and went with no real measurable impact.
- [34:50]
John Hart
Yeah, I think they did do some things. I wish they would have done a lot more. But, but there, there has been progress made on get on really attacking the improper payments issue. You know, Senator Ernst, Senator Kennedy have done really good work to really slow and stop the payments that go to dead people, for instance. But you're right that not enough has been done. Because the truth, John, is that what happens in Congress is everybody wants to be kind of a TikTok star, wants to be in the media. And this is the nitty, gritty, difficult work that it really takes a lot of attention to detail to get it done right. And I describe it, it's kind of like what politicians want to do is they, they don't want to pull weeds, they want to mow the flower bed and claim credit for cutting spending. But actually doing it is very, very difficult. As you know, as my old boss, Senator Cockburn modeled, we cut spending very effectively during that era. And look, I think the reason it's so important to talk about this is this is a common sense, no brainer reform. I don't think there's a single person in the country that wants to see a dollar wasted on an improper payment. And I don't care if you're Republican or Democrat or what ideology you have, no one wants to see their money just, you know, gone, go up in flames through improper payments. And so I think there really ought to be a much more serious focus on both sides of the aisle to get, to get Congress's arms wrapped around this problem. But again, to do that, John, I think it really takes a comprehensive look at the massive size and scope of the administrative state. We have over 400 agencies and sub agencies when the Constitution really only said we should have four or five at the most. And that's the conversation that we need to have as a country is to figure out what do we want the federal government to do and what should the state governments do. And I think if we trust people of common sense, they'll make the right decision. And we just need a lot more common sense in Washington than we see right now.
- [36:42]
John Solomon
No doubt. All right. When I first came to town, there was an old Wisconsin senator by the name of Bill Proxburner, used to do the Golden Fleece Award. And he said that one of the greatest challenges that politicians face is that they love to cut other people's money, but not in my backyard. You had a good example of this recently. We have a lot of members of Congress that have been upset about wasteful spending in colleges, but when it comes to their own alma maters, they like setting up some more money for them, don't they?
- [37:08]
John Hart
They do, yeah. Like, we put a report out that showed that, you know, Congress has spent, we call it the Department of Me, where senators are sending, you know, over $600 million just on earmarks to their alma maters. And Senator McConnell, he was one of the worst offenders. But there's a lot on both sides of the aisle that have really, I think, really misused their position to direct this money. And look, you know, back in, you know, when we were fighting earmarks in the Senate, the argument we would make is, look, the effective senator or representative is not the one who sends money back to the district. The effective representative or senator is the one that prevents money from leaving the district. And that instead of celebrating ribbon cutting ceremonies hosted by politicians, we should understand that every dollar saved in Washington is a dream realized somewhere else in America and instead focus on expanding opportunity to give people the right to do ribbon cutting ceremonies in their own personal life. You know, to have the first, first child, the first job. Those are the moments that matter in life way more than some earmark to an alma mater. And every dollar we spend on these earmarks, to me or senators, it's a dollar that's not available to help a family pursue their dream and their ambitions.
- [38:28]
John Solomon
Every one of us are empowered to do some work on this. That's what you created with OpenTheBooks.com it's such an extraordinary thing. John Hart, great to have you on the show every day. Thank you again, my friend.
- [38:38]
John Hart
Thanks, Tom. Appreciate it.
- [38:39]
John Solomon
Yeah. All right, folks, coming up next, we'll take a quick look at what's being done to end the influence of DEI and gender ideology in medicine. It's a game of whack a mole. It really is. We're have a great conversation with Christina Rasmussen right after these messages. Welcome back, America. We spend a lot of time chronicling the impact, the negative impact that DEI has had in our education system, in our government, in our ideology and culture, and also in our medicine. Yes, there were places in this country where race was being used as a determinant about whether you would get the right care or not. That sounds insane. That's what DEI meant in the medicine world. Joining us now to bring us up to date on all the efforts to eradicate that mindset. And the game of whack a mole sometimes evolves and is the executive director of do no Harm, Christina Rasmussen. Christina, great to have you back on.
- [39:36]
Christina Rasmussen
Thank you so much for having me.
- [39:39]
John Solomon
All right, before we get into all the great work and the updates, I don't think for people who haven't heard of do no Harm, you have such a powerful alliance with the medical community. Talk a little bit about who you are and who's part of you.
- [39:51]
Christina Rasmussen
So do no Harm is an organization that is focused on keeping identity politics away from the study and practice of medicine. If there's one thing that everyone can agree on is that when we walk into the emergency room. We don't really care what our doctor looks like. We just want someone who knows what they're doing, who can help us and our family members feel better. Unfortunately, identity politics were seeping into medical schools, much as they were undergraduate schools across the board. But do no Harm has had a lot of success, thanks in parts to our 50,000 members, in beating back some of these really dangerous trends.
- [40:30]
John Solomon
Yeah, that's so important. You've had an enormous amount of impact. All right, so a lot of places to say, all right, we're done with it. We got the message. We don't want to tangle the Trump administration. But then they just kind of rebranded. It seems more like a marketing exercise right now than a true effort to get rid of dei. Tell us some of the frustration or the rebranding that's gone on.
- [40:50]
Christina Rasmussen
Yeah, so we saw essentially medical schools across America wholeheartedly embrace DEI during the Biden years. The Trump administration comes in and says, no more. No more of this. Shut it down, otherwise you're going to lose funding. Some schools did comply. Some schools decided to get creative with the white out and just rebrand their DEI departments, where they had the same people with the same titles doing the same gosh darn thing. But that's why do no Harm is here, because we have tips that come in from across the country at our website, do no harm medicine.org and they'll say, hey, my school is still doing it. I thought we were supposed to stop it. Please help, and we can get in there and shine a light on it. And so our attitude is, leave no stone unturned. We are going to stop it wherever it is, because when lives are on the line, you cannot afford to prioritize anything other than merit. That is the only thing that should matter in medicine.
- [41:45]
John Solomon
Yeah. Hence the Hippocratic oath. Do no harm. That was the thing. We're not supposed to inject ideology. It's supposed to deal to the medicine. Your name is so powerful, your work is so powerful. And I think in the last couple of months, there have been some lasting changes. The Plastic Surgeons association and then the AMA both coming out saying, you know what, we were for this for a long time, but it's probably time to stop transgender surgeries on minors. That was a major U turn 1. Is it for real in your mind? And if it is, how impactful is it?
- [42:18]
Christina Rasmussen
Yeah, I think the tide really is turning on this one, particularly when it comes to kids. You know, a couple of years ago, when we decided to take on this issue Everyone, everyone felt they had to give lip service to this idea of medicalizing kids who felt gender distress. Now you see more and more doctors and nurses standing up and saying, hey, you know what? There's no evidence for this. It doesn't seem to lead to good outcomes. These kids are irreversibly changed. They have lifelong consequences. They can't consent to this. You know, maybe we should show a little caution, do no harm and help these children, but not with these irreversible surgeries. So it seems like this combined with the Trump administration going full court press every day, we see gender clinics turning off, saying, hey, we're not doing this anymore. We're going to shut down. It's just not worth it. The Trump administration has really gone hard within the Medicare and Medicaid systems, government health care programs that pay for a lot of hospitals saying, you're not going to get reimbursed for these procedures anymore, and if you do them at all, we might kick you out the entire Medicare Medicaid program. So I think the writing is on the wall. More doctors are speaking up and they're unafraid to say, hey, I've got reservations. We seem to be going down the wrong path. Let's rethink this.
- [43:33]
John Solomon
One of the things we've Learned about the 21st century medical profession is that there's been a lot of scientific proclamations that ended up not having any science behind it. Six foot distance between us during COVID Anthony Fauci made it didn't have any science behind it. Other mitigation circumstances, lockdowns clearly actually had more negative than positive effect. But in the transgender movement recently, the aclu, which was arguing in the case for protecting these procedures for minors, letting them continue on our children, had to admit that there was no evidence behind their claim that transgender surgeries were actually saving lives or ending the suicide or lowering the suicide capacity of gender confused children. That was a pretty significant moment in what, you know, normally is a technical legal argument. Another sign of a proclamation by the medical community that didn't have any science behind it.
- [44:25]
Christina Rasmussen
Yeah, and honestly, Europe figured this out before even we did. A lot of the European countries were very early on saying, ho, hold up. Here we're as tolerant as the next person. But something is really off here. And so we're playing catch up. But you know who else is playing catch up? The trial lawyers. There was recently a major medical med mail decision in favor of a person who went through the surgeries as a teenager saying, I could have never have consented to This, I was bullied into this. And, you know, when the trial lawyers smell money, it's game up. Right. And so we're going to see more detransitioners coming forward because they're still hurting, they're still in pain. And in a lot of cases, parents were bullied into this and signing up for this. And so I really do think both culturally, legally, politically, the tide is changing here. And that is good news. And it goes to show that, you know, if you have a little courage and speak up, you can make a world of difference and really save lives.
- [45:23]
John Solomon
Yeah. There's no true, no, no doubt in that. It's been proven in the last few years, including the great work that your group does. Christina, before we let you go, how do people stay in touch with your work or get involved in it if they are so inspired?
- [45:34]
Christina Rasmussen
We'd encourage everyone to find do no harm. At do noharmemedicine.org we have 50,000 members. Doctors, nurses, medical school students. But guess what? Patients, we are all patients at some point in our life. So if you are inspired by our mission, we would love to have you. Donoharmedicine.org It's a site I check often.
- [45:54]
John Solomon
You do such great work and our reporters benefit from it all day. Christina, thanks for joining us today and thanks for all the great work you're doing.
- [46:01]
Christina Rasmussen
Thank you.
- [46:02]
John Solomon
Yeah. All right, folks, I want to get back to the top of the show with a headline. We had ex Prince Andrew. Yep. The younger brother of King Charles iii. He's been released from custody, but he's in a, a heap of legal trouble connected to the Epstein scandal and specifically the documents the Justice Department released the last few weeks. Where you get more details on that next right after these. Welcome back, America. The shame of the Epstein documents, those that were put out by the Justice Department over the last couple months, beginning to move from shame to accountability. The biggest example today in Great Britain, where the former Prince Andrew was arrested in his home and authorities now acknowledging that they're looking at him for possible corrupt acts. When he was working as a diplomat, as a trade rep in his royal capacity, he was apparently passing along secret information to friends like Jeffrey Epstein. That's how they got him. Kind of like Al Capone was gotten by taxes, not mobster stuff when they ultimately got him. Joining us right now to bring us up to speed on secure law enforcement analyst and retired LAPD officer Erif Halaby. Erif, great to have you on.
- [47:18]
Erif Halaby
Great to have you. Great to be here. Thanks, John.
- [47:21]
John Solomon
Yeah, it's a pretty significant moment. It's kind of a unique investigation. They don't get him on the sex trafficking or the gory stuff that has long dogged him. They get him on being so friendly to his Jeffrey Epstein that he was sending him things he shouldn't have from his government job.
- [47:39]
Erif Halaby
Yeah, I will bet that they with the deep dive will find even more information that he was passing on. You don't just do something like this once, especially to curry favor or if there was the blackmail story of some of the hiding of his behavior. In addition to all of that, I think a lot of folks are going to look past some of the sexual abuse because a lot of the victims, except for Ms. Giuffre, a lot of the victims are afraid to come up and name their accuser. I want that to happen. A lot of them you see on TV and they hold this against President Trump or Pam Bondi and say why aren't they doing something, you know, make these names public. They can make these names public. There's nothing, there's no hold harmless agreement. There's no NDA that they have to adhere to now. So I think they should come out and name names and just be prepared to back it up with any kind of documents. But Prince Andrew is in a world of hurt.
- [48:32]
John Solomon
Yeah, it was a pretty remarkable moment and more I assume to be had. This is a potential model for people here who are frustrated that we didn't get the sort of justice that should have happened maybe back in the Bush Justice Department when they first caught Epstein and then gave him a non prosecution agreement. But there are other things in these documents that might be criminal that are still inside the statute even if they're not gotten for the sexcapades. You think that might happen hidden here in America a little bit too?
- [49:00]
Erif Halaby
Yeah, I think there's some statute of limitations issues on some things, but I do think that it's definitely the will of the people. And behind the scenes there's a lot of digging deep. Look, the Democrat Party is the one that has the most to lose. It's funny, they've been the ones to push, push, let's release it. But only under President Trump. Except President Trump was the one that removed Jeffrey Epstein and referred him to prosecution for prosecution away from from his Mar a Lago. You don't see this with Bill Clinton. What is it? More than a dozen times, even close to two dozen times Jeffrey Epstein visited the White House. That's disgusting. And the behavior of President Clinton, maybe he should be one that's also brought to justice.
- [49:45]
John Solomon
Yeah. And soon to be brought before Congress to give a sworn deposition. Going to be interesting to see what comes out of that moment. There is a lot of royal family dysfunction right now. Obviously the soon to be king, Prince William, doesn't have much fondness for Andrew. But Andrew's former wife, Sarah Ferguson, she hasn't been heard or seen from recently. What do we know about that?
- [50:11]
Erif Halaby
Yeah, she's been on the run. Now they'll say, no, not on the run, just in hiding. But their two, two daughters are also, I think, victims in this story. And to think about Prince Andrew doing things to those young women at the same age that his daughters were at the time are pretty darn close. It's pretty. The alleged issues anyway, pretty disgusting to think about. Fergie is on the run, some will say. Some will say she's in last seen in the United Arab Emirates. Some talk, and it's a bit more than just gossip and tabloid and that is that Prince Andrew might flee the country. They should have removed his passport. That's normally what you would do. And they would, well, at least in some cases, keep him away from the airports. But there's talk he might flee to the United Arab Emirates or China, both without any extradition to Great Britain.
- [51:04]
John Solomon
Extraordinary. Airf Hallaby, great to have you on and have your expertise. A lot of fun things to be looking forward in the near future. We're going to get some more news, I'm sure, on this every day. Great to have you on the show. Thanks for joining us.
- [51:14]
Erif Halaby
Thanks, John. Be well.
- [51:16]
John Solomon
Yeah, thank you. What a great conversation. All right, folks, that's all the time we got for you today. Be sure to check out just the news.com in the morning. We're going to have that John Brennan scoop. What we told you about the Senate and the signs that they're zeroing in on the former CIA director. Until then, have a great night. We're going to hand you off to the amazing Grant Stitchwell. You're good hands. For the next hour.
- [51:34]
Christina Rasmussen
This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.