B (3:55)

Well, there's no doubt that our military has been incredibly effective. You know, I will say, as we're now just about a week into the attack on Iran, there are people who are asking, what is our objective? And it has been less than transparently clear to a fair number of folks what it is we're trying to accomplish. I want to be very clear what it is that we're trying to accomplish. Iran is a profound national security threat to the United States. The regime in Iran for 47 years has been the number one state funder of terrorism in the world. For 47 years, Iran has provided 90% of the funding to Hamas, 90% of the funding to Hezbollah, 90% of the funding to the Houthis. They have killed, to date, nearly 1,000Americans. The Ayatollah, when he was still alive, would lead mobs chanting death to America. The ayatollah twice hired hitmen to try to murder President Donald Trump. The president on Saturday made the decision to go in. To go in with overwhelming force and to take out the Ayatollah, to take out this regime. What's the objective? Let me be very clear. The objective is regime collapse. It is taking this government out. The Ayatollah was eliminated the first day. Much of his National Security Council, the top leadership was eliminated the first day they were meeting together. Israel took them out with a targeted bombing, and they're gone. Moving forward, our objectives likewise are taking out Iran's short range and medium range missiles and their drone capacity. Now, right now, Iran. We just had a very lengthy classified briefing this week. So I, I heard from the senior administration officials on all of these issues. Iran has been producing roughly 100 missiles a month. And one of the reasons that the administration acted now is you look. So today we have six US Servicemen and women who've been killed. If we had delayed. Iran was building so many missiles, Iran was building so many drones, that an attack at a later date would have likely resulted in substantially more U.S. casualties. Yeah.

A (6:42)

And I think a lot of people didn't understand how close they were to actually doing that.

B (6:45)

Yeah, listen, Iran, in the course of the nuclear negotiations, had told our negotiators that they had uranium, enriched uranium sufficient to produce 11 nuclear bombs. And their intention, I believe, was to develop nuclear weapons. And to be honest, look, they wanted nuclear weapons. I think if they had had nuclear weapons, they would have used nuclear weapons. The risk was unacceptable. That the Ayatollah, when the guy routinely screams death to America. If there's one principle of geopolitics, it's when someone tells you they want to kill, you believe them.

A (7:30)

Yeah.

B (7:31)

The Ayatollah and the Ayatollah Khamenei, by the way, his predecessor was the Ayatollah Khomeini. Their names are really similar. They're different dudes. They're both theocratic lunatics who hated American.

C (7:44)

Yep.

B (7:46)

And they both have killed vast numbers of America. Americans. They have been waging war against us for 47 years. And as you know, I spent virtually the entire day on Friday right before this war launched with President Trump. I was on Air Force One with him. I was in the beast riding one on one with him. And we spent most of that time talking about Iran. It was right before he issued the go order. And I was urging him, I said, this regime has never been more fragile, never been more vulnerable. Do not let this opportunity pass. Take them out now. Because there is very little, if anything, we can do on the global stage that will improve U.S. national security more. Taking out the Iranian regime. This will make Americans safer. Donald Trump agreed, and he acted.

D (8:48)

I want to be honest with you for a second about how an act of compassion really feels.

A (8:54)

A couple of years ago, I made

D (8:55)

the choice to partner with an amazing organization called Compassion International. Why? Because I wanted to sponsor a child in need. It was a nice idea, sure, but I had no idea just how much that simple act would change my life as well. I sponsored Nadia and got to watch her Life change right in front of my eyes. Going from starving literally alone on, on the streets to getting the health care and education she needs to reach her God given full potential. I got to be a part of that change. And the light of that compassion not only illuminates in her, it illuminates now in me. That is the power of compassion. The light of Christ shines on all of us. Feel it for yourself and change literally a child's life. Change the world and you also change yourself. You can sponsor child today. Visit compassion.com that's compassion.com

A (9:58)

Senator, I want to get back into what we're talking about with Iran a moment ago. The objective question has been a really important one and an important response. There are a lot of conservatives are worried about getting into a never ending war. There's a lot of people that will never forget my generation of that, you know, evidence that was put before the UN about why we should go into Iraq. And we found out that intelligence was, well, basically crap. And there's people that worry that we're gonna get into another situation like that. I'm not worried about that. I think the President's been very clear about his objective here and I want you to talk more about it because I think there's a lot of people that have those questions for good reason.

B (10:38)

The objective is very simple, to collapse this regime, to take this regime out of power. Now, I will say the Trump administration has been a little bit cautious in articulating that. And I think the reason is they are reluctant to say the words regime change. And you just highlighted why. Because regime change brings back the Iraq war, brings back George W. Bush and a lot of bad experiences. Now, let me be clear. I think the Iraq war was a mistake. I've been very clear. I've been on the record for that for more than a decade, that the Iraq war was a mistake. That being said, the Iraq war was a mistake because we went in, Saddam Hussein, who was an evil dictator who was murdering his own people, he was killing terrorists. We came in, we toppled Saddam Hussein. The terrorists took over. They began killing Americans. It made America less safe. By, by the way, we did the same thing in Libya. Gaddafi was again an evil tyrant. He was murdering his own citizens, he was killing terrorists. We came in and toppled him. The terrorists took over, began killing Americans. I don't believe we should do something that results in more Americans being at risk. This is a qualitatively different situation. The ayatollah and the mullahs have effectively declared war on The United States, they have been waging war, actively killing Americans for 47 years. They have been funding terrorists, killing Americans for 47 years. And so removing radical theocratic, homicidal and genocidal maniacs from power makes America substantially safer. That's what the administration is doing. They haven't necessarily articulated that the objective is regime collapse. What they've talked about is they've said, we want to take out the short range missiles, the medium range missiles, the drones, the drone manufacturing capacity, the missile manufacturing capacity. All of that is right. But look, there are lots of countries on earth that have short range and medium range missiles. France has short range and medium range missiles. We're not bombing France right now. Why? Because France is not led by theocratic lunatics who want to murder us. The reason we're acting against Iran is the government, the Ayatollah who's no longer with us. Thank you. And I'm very glad he went to meet his 72 virgins.

A (12:59)

Amen to that.

B (13:01)

I'm sure he is deeply dismayed when he discovers that all 72 of his virgins are Nick Fuentes. I'm sure that is not what he anticipated. But the reason we are acting is because the leadership of this country has been trying to and has been in fact, killing Americans. And I want you to listen to President Trump when he talks about, number one, I want you to listen to President Trump when he talks about the successes we've had. Give a listen.

C (13:34)

And before we begin, I think I will say a few words about what's going on with respect to our operation in the country of Iran. The United States military, together with the wonderful Israeli partners, continues to totally demolish the enemy far ahead of schedule and at levels that people have never seen before. Actually, we're destroying more of Iran's missiles and drone capability every single hour, knocking them out like nobody thought was possible. As soon as they set off a missile, within 44 minutes, the launcher gets hit. They don't know what's happening. But we have the greatest military anywhere in the world. Their Navy is gone. 24 ships in three days. That's a lot of ships. Their anti aircraft weapons are gone. So they have no air force, they have no air defense. All of their airplanes are gone. Their communications are gone, Missiles are gone, Launches are gone. About 60% and 64% respectively. Other than that, they're doing quite well. I said, what's left? But they're tough and they want to fight and they're calling, they're saying, how do we make a deal? I said, you're being a little bit late. And we want to fight now more than they do. We've had 47 years, depending on the way you count it, but 47 years of horror with this group. And you know when you see somebody walking down the street without their legs, without the arms, whose face is so badly affected and hurt, it mostly came from 95% Soleimani and Iran. And we other presidents lived with it. I didn't live with it. And so our people are doing a great job. Again, the greatest military anyone's seen.

A (15:51)

Senator, I love that. He just is so proud of our military. But let's go back to the oil part as well, which is really important.

B (15:58)

So one of the critical pieces of this that many people don't realize is that between going after Maduro and Venezuela and going after Iran, in addition to taking out two very serious enemies of America, President Trump is also taking a serious step against China because both Venezuela and Iran have been sending vast amounts of oil to China. What percent of Iran's oil exports do you think have historically gone to China?

A (16:30)

I'm going to guess it's a significant amount because they desperately need them as an ally.

B (16:34)

Well, that was kind of a Weasley answer, but let me give you the more precise answer. That would be 87.2% of Iran's oil export have gone to China. What percent of Venezuela's do you think went?

A (16:46)

It's got to be, let's say, 60% plus.

B (16:49)

That's actually pretty good. 55.1%. So more than half of Venezuela's and nearly 90% of Iran's have gone to China. And so the effect of taking both of these leaders out has been not only to reduce the threats to America, but it has done a serious blow to China and their energy sources. That makes a big difference for America.

D (17:11)

I want to be honest with you for a second about how an act of compassion really feels. A couple of years ago, I made the choice to partner with an amazing organization called Compassion International. Why? Because I wanted to sponsor a child in need. It was a nice idea, sure, but I had no idea just how much that simple act would change my life as well. I sponsored Nadia and got to watch her life change right in front of my eyes. Going from starving, literally alone on the streets, to getting the healthcare and education she needs to reach her God given full potential. I got to be a part of that change. And the light of that compassion not only illuminates in her, it illuminates now in me that Is the power of compassion. The light of Christ shines on all of us. Feel it for yourself and change, literally a child's life. Change the world and you also change yourself. You can sponsor child today. Visit compassion.com that's compassion.com.

A (18:19)

senator, there was a shakeup. You don't want to ever be the first one to be a cabinet secretary to get the boot. But it was pretty clear Kristi Noem got the boot this week. One of your colleagues is gonna take over at Department of Homeland Security. Mark Wayne Mullen. I want to get your take on all of that.

B (18:36)

Well, the president announced this week that he was removing Kristi Noem from Secretary of DHS and replacing her with. With Mark Wayne Mullen. I have to say, this was not much of a surprise to anyone watching closely. Kristi Noem testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week. I was part of that hearing. I questioned her on it. The questioning was bumpy. And she got. The Democrats, of course, went after her hard, but a number of Republicans went after her hard as well. And I have to say, one of those that was the most effective was. Was. Was my. My friend and colleague from Louisiana, John Kennedy. John has been on this podcast, and he's someone who's a good friend of mine. I want to play John Kennedy's cross examination of Kristi Noem because. Because this was. This proved very consequential cross examination. Give a listen.

E (19:34)

How do you square that concern for waste, which I share, with the fact that you have spent $220 million running television advertisements that feature you prominently?

F (19:58)

Sir, The President tasked me with getting the message out to the country and to other countries where we were seeing the invasion come from, with. With putting commercials out that told them that if they were in this country illegally that they needed to leave or we would detain them and remove them and they not get the chance to come back to America the right way. That has been extremely effective.

E (20:19)

Ask you to run these advertisements, Is that right?

F (20:23)

We had that conversation, yes. Before I was put in this position and sworn in and confirmed and since then as well.

E (20:31)

Okay. Did you. Did you bid out those. Those service contracts?

F (20:37)

Yes, they did. They went out to a competitive bid, and career officials at the department chose who would do those advertising commercials.

E (20:46)

And the people that you ended up picking were people who had formerly done your political work back in South Dakota, Is that right?

F (20:58)

No, that's not correct, sir. No, it's not, sir. We, the individuals who. I believe the careers who they chose were two different media firms. There's Been conversation about their subcontractors, but we have no legal authority to look into subcontractors on work like that.

E (21:17)

Okay. And you're saying that you're testifying that President Trump approved this ahead of time,

F (21:25)

Something I understand we had conversations about making sure that we were telling people

E (21:30)

no, ma', am, I'm asking you. Sorry to interrupt, but the President approved ahead of time you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently.

F (21:45)

Yes, sir. We went through the legal processes. Did it correct?

E (21:49)

Yes, he did.

F (21:51)

Yes.

E (21:52)

Okay.

F (21:54)

And one thing, Senator, I think would be helpful to know is how effective that communications has been that overwhelming effective

E (22:01)

in your name recognition. I mean, I personally just. I mean, to me it puts the President in a terribly awkward spot. And, and I just. I'm not saying you're not telling the truth. It's just hard for me to believe the President as I do that you said, Mr. President, here's some ads I've cut and I'm going to spend $220 million running them. That he would have agreed to that. I don't think Russ Vote at OMB would have agreed to that. It's something we have to defend. I'm on the Appropriations Committee. I mean my research shows that you did not bid them out. That you pick. In fact one of the people you picked. The strategy group. I'm sorry, Safe America Media was a company formed 11 days before you picked them. And that the strategy group got most of the money. And the head of that is married to your former spokesperson. Look, we all have friends who are qualified. I'm not quibbling with that. I'm just. It troubles me quarter fifth to a quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayer money when we're scratching for every penny and we're fighting over rescission packages. I just can't agree with Madam Secretary. You still running those ads, Senator?

F (23:42)

I did not have anything to do with picking those contractors. I know politicals at the Department of Homeland Security did.

E (23:49)

I understand.

F (23:50)

Are you sure officials followed the competitive bid process. Are you still running those ads? I think the ads are due to end here in March. I think within a week or so. I'm not sure the one that is running is focusing on angel families. Have you seen that? It is the one that's talking about. This is our why. This is why we work. Every day is for the angel families and their victims.

A (24:12)

Senator, it was not a good showing there for her and your colleague there, Senator Kennedy, asking questions. I think a lot of Americans care about. The president's also come out saying she did not run this by him. And the amount of money being spent either, that also didn't work well for her either.

B (24:32)

Well, and that's something that John Kennedy pointed out. He said in the aftermath. He said that President Trump was, quote, mad as a murder hornet that Noem claimed he approved the $200 million ADS contract. And listen, John is a good friend of mine. I talked to him today on the Senate floor and I just. The number of nominees that his cross examinations have taken out is quite remarkable. And I think it was John Kennedy's cross examination that was pivotal in the decision to shift from Christie. Look, I like Christie personally. I had dinner with her just a few weeks ago. And I do think that results of the Department of Homeland Security in terms of securing the border have been very effective. And so that is beneficial. I think John Kennedy's line of questioning here was fair and it was incredibly effective. I also think, and we've talked about this on the podcast before, that the messaging from the administration, particularly following the shooting of two different Americans in Minneapolis, that the messaging was wrong and it did real damage. That I think the messaging was, look, anytime an American citizen is killed in a confrontation with law enforcement, it's a tragedy. And we should see our officials acknowledging it's a tragedy. We should see our officials saying, listen, if there's an officer involved shooting, there's going to be an investigation where it examine what happened and determine what exactly caused it. And instead, the rhetoric immediately leaped to really aggressive rhetoric, calling both of the individuals using language like terrorists and seeking mass murder. And that was hard to square with the facts of what occurred. I think that rhetoric did damage to the administration, and I think it was one of the things that contributed to the decision of the President to shift from Kristi Noem as the leader of Homeland Security. Mark Wayne Mullen. Mark Wayne, I've served with him in the Senate. He's a good guy. He's someone the President trusts. I think he will be confirmed. I think it will be a party line vote in the Senate. We may get John Fetterman, but I would be surprised if any other Democrat votes for him. So my prediction is the vote on Mark Wayne Mullen will be 54 to 46. That 46 Democrats will vote now. And I think Mark Wayne, look, there are advantages to being an experienced elected official. He was a House member. He's been a senator. I'm hopeful that he will bring a level of professionalism and effectiveness. The results of DHS have been quite strong. But, but I do think, I do think that the testimony that Secretary Noem gave, it was not an easy day for her. And I think John Kennedy, Thom Tillis also lit into her really hard. But, but I think the Kennedy cross examination was more significant. There's been quite a bit of reporting that the president was unhappy that she said that he knew about the ad she had run. And I don't have independent knowledge of that, but I don't have reason to doubt that reporting. And so look, we need to secure our border. We've had an incredible success rate doing so so far. And I'm hopeful that Bark Wade Mullen coming in will continue with that success and continue to keep our family safe.

A (28:38)

It was election Day on Tuesday in America. It was a very big election day in Texas. There was certainly some upsets on the House side. There's a lot of people around the country watching Dan Crenshaw's race. He lost that race to someone that you endorsed. That was a big one. That was. I was on national TV talking about over and over again. And then there's obviously the Senate race that's happening as well, that's now gone into a runoff between two people that you know well, your colleague in the Senate and also Ken Paxton. So we're going to have to wait and see how that plays out as well. But then there's also the Democrat running against whoever wins that runoff. And this is a guy that Democrats are really excited about. He's talented, he's radical, he's extreme. But he comes across like a very moderate guy if you listen to him today.

B (29:28)

Well, we had primary day in Texas this week and it was highly consequential. Number one, there were a number of House candidates who I endorsed who prevailed. We had one, Jessica Steinman, who was my former regional director in Houston. She won decisively the Republican primary. She is going to be in all likelihood the next Republican congressmember from Houston. We had another Chris Gober, who's been my lawyer for 10 years. He won his primary decisively. He's going to be a new Republican congressman from Central Texas. We had another John Bonk, who I endorsed, who is a close friend. He is the son in law of one of my closest friends in the world, who's been my national finance chairman

A (30:16)

for years, by the way, that was a fun night. Let's take a moment, talk about how fun that was. So you were obviously in D.C. but I went to the victory party and it's fun to see someone that you and I know personally. And the smile on. On your dear friend Willie's face. And even Heidi was there as well, your wife. It was really a cool evening to see someone work hard and win. I know you had to have a really. That had to feel personal to you.

B (30:42)

So Willie, who's John Bonk's father in law, is one of my two or three closest friends on planet Earth. And I love him. He's a good man. He's a principled man. He's a conservative. He's a godly man. He's someone who, frankly, I rely on for advice, for spiritual counseling. We pray together, we talk together. And John is very likely to win. He did not clear 50%, so unfortunately, there's going to be a runoff, but I think he's going to prevail. I actually did a rally for him just a week ago, and in the middle of the rally, Wallace had several hundred people there rallying for him. I got the chance to announce from the stage while I was up there that President Trump had endorsed him. That was a very cool moment. We knew it was likely to come. I thought there was a chance that Trump would call on the cell phone. If he had called, I would have put the cell phone up to the microphone and let him announce it to the whole crowd. Instead, I got to announce and the crowd went nuts. That was really gratifying to have three people who are two who are members of my team and have been employees and another who's a very close friend. To see three new likely members of Congress coming, that was a big deal. We also had Don Huffines, who I endorsed for comptroller in a statewide position in Texas that won decisively. That was a big victory. And then you noted Dan Crenshaw. Look, in my 14 years in the Senate, I almost never endorse against Republican incumbents. And there's a reason if you're serving in the Senate, if you're working in Congress, if you're endorsing against your colleagues, it makes it very hard to get anything done that makes lifelong enemies. And so you just have to be really reluctant to do so. I endorse in open races, but I almost never endorse in races against Republican incumbents. I've made two exceptions in 14 years. The first was Liz Cheney, because Liz Cheney lost her mind and became a radical leftist who hated President Trump. And so I endorsed her opponent, Harriet Hageman, who beat her and is getting ready to be the new senator from Wyoming now. And then I did it again for Dan Crenshaw. For much the same reason, because he had really lost his way. He had gotten angry with his constituents. There were multiple instances in which he yelled. There was one instance where he yelled at a 14 year old girl and just got angry. In this race, there's a very good friend of mine who's been a longtime supporter and close friend who was supporting Dan's opponent. And Dan decided to just light him up. This is a banker, a private citizen in Texas, and Dan decided to go after him personally. And I gotta say, that pissed me off. He's a close friend of mine and I didn't like Dan just attacking him directly. And so I endorsed his opponent, Steve Toth. Steve Toth has been a state legislator for a number of years. He's a very strong conservative. And it ended up that Steve Toth won and won decisively. Won by a big margin. And that was a little bit of a cannon shot. You know, I will say Dan also. Oh, a couple of months ago, we were on a plane landing in D.C. and in the Jetway, walking off, Dan began screaming and cursing at me. And it was really a little unhinged. And he was like, why are you coming after me? And I was like, well, I'm not. And he was mad that, that supporters of mine were supporting his opponents. And look, I don't control what my supporters do. They're individuals who have free choice. But he was literally screaming and cursing at me. And I told him at the time, I said, dan, if I come after you, I promise you, like, it will not be subtle, it will not be hidden, you will have full awareness of it. But I told him afterwards, I said, Listen, in 14 years in the Senate, you were the only House member who's ever screamed and cursed at me on an airplane. And that includes all the Democrats. And so it just pushed me beyond the edge. And the voters of Texas decided that he was not reflecting their conservative values. And so they've elected. Steve Toth, will be a great member of Congress, will be a strong conservative. Now we've got the Senate race, the Senate race. There is a runoff between John Cornyn, my colleague right now, and Ken Paxton, the Attorney general. Both of them I know very well, both of them are friends of mine. Both of them I've worked together closely with for years. I've endorsed both of them in the past. I've campaigned with both of them in the past. And I gotta say, this primary is bitter and nasty. Look, it is to date, the most expensive primary in American history.

A (35:55)

Yeah.

B (35:55)

And John and Ken really dislike each other. And so it is going to be brutal. It is going to be ugly. I don't know how it's going to resolve. President Trump tweeted out this week that he is going to make an endorsement. He is not yet. So we'll see what the president decides to do on this. But I will say at the same time, the Democrats nominated a guy named James Talarico as a state rep. And this guy is dangerous. He's an ordained minister. He's a radical. He's a hardcore leftist. And will in subsequent podcasts break down just how radical and extreme his record is. But what makes him dangerous is he sounds reasonable. He masks his radicalism in reasonable sounding, soft language. He masks it in the language of a pastor. It's incredibly deceptive and dishonest, but that makes it dangerous. And so we got a real fight in Texas and I don't know what the result will be.

A (36:54)

Yeah, we're going to cover it all. I can promise you that. Don't forget, Download Verdict with Ted Cruz wherever you get your podcasts and the center. I will see you back here on this radio station next week as well. This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.