Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis - No Spin News Special: Political Players

Episode Date: May 28, 2025

Bill O’Reilly spoke with some of the most influential figures impacting our country. Watch as he interviews Rep. Ro Khanna, Tom Homan, and Mike Pompeo. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This MailChimp-Ferrific jingle is brought to you by MailChimp. MailChimp, you're marketing with AI and more. Advanced automations to connect to your store. MailChimp, you're marketing and booster clicks. Multi-channel campaigns now with SMS. That's lit. MailChimp, your marketing today with the number one AI-powered email marketing and automation platform, Intuit MailChimp.

Number one, based on publicly available data on competitors' customers. Plans vary. SMS available as ad-on. Visit MailChimp.com. So, Congressmen, what are the two biggest problems right now facing the American people? Economic stagnation in factory towns. We took a bet on technology and finance. It did great, but we hollowed out manufacturing in this country and left a lot of

of people without economic security. And the second is the deep division we have in this country, the deep anger between people who represent bluer areas like mine and people who represent red areas. Okay. Let's stay on the economy first. There are plenty of jobs. Anybody who wants to work can get a job in this country. Unemployment is about 3%. So why are you concerned about the workplace. People are in jobs, but they're not in high-paying jobs. They're not in stable jobs. And a lot of communities don't have wealth generation.

They're doing a lot of service jobs, but they don't have an industry that's bringing in wealth into their towns. The extreme people in the Democratic Party get all the attention. It doesn't seem to, you know, if you go out on the street, Congressman, you say, Who are the moderate Democrats? Nobody knows. I mean, it's all the Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren. These are the faces of your party.

I think that hurts you. Well, look, I identify as a progressive. I'll tell you where they tap into something, which is the massive income inequality in the country. We've gone from 53rd in the world in income inequality to 128. Now, the difference is, I think. to deal with that income inequality. You know, you and I will probably disagree.

I think, yes, you need to have higher taxes on the billionaires in my district. But you also need to have economic growth. You also need to build things. And my view is, let's argue with Donald Trump on who is going to be better at actually getting factories, who's going to be better at getting businesses there. And let's give him credit for one thing. He was right about two fundamental things. He was right that we were getting too much of our business going to China and that we

had had two soft departments. policy on China. And it was right that people in the Midwest, the heartline should be, were angry that their jobs had left. And I think the Democratic Party can say, you know, it was right about certain things. And we have a better vision of how we're going to build the future in these communities. I don't believe the most Americans are jealous of billionaires, and they don't think they're oligarchs, and they don't think that they've made their money illegally, and they don't think Elon Musk is a terrorist who's trying to come and take their home. But the Democratic Party constantly overstates and sells this division between the rich and the poor.

You say you're progressive. That's a progressive tenant. You on board with that? Well, look, I represent probably the place that is the most billionaires in the world. I mean, it's the hardest Silicon Valley. I've got $13 trillion of a market cap. I was the one I said, look, don't vandalize Tesla. Don't share for any American company's stock to go down. One more question for you, though. You're an honest man, and we're happy to have you here.

The open border was really why the Democrats lost the election. Yes, the economy, but under Biden the last two years, the stock market was good. He could never get the prices under control because he wasn't running the government anyway, as you may know. Biden was not running it.

But the open border was embraced by your party. Nobody came up and said, this is insane. And the American people said, No. And that is what killed you guys in the last election. Am I wrong? We made a mistake on the border. We let in 8 million people and in the Biden administration. A long mistake. Four years. A long mistake. I think that we've got to be for Forest Gird. And then we've got to tell the story of people like my parents who came to this country to study.

They were an engineered teacher. I grew up at Bucks County, Patoia. I was born in Philadelphia, 1976. Let me tell you the biggest thing, Bill, that the party needs to make it clear. This country was founded in 1776, not 1619. This is the greatest country in the world. It gave the son of Indian immigrants like me, someone born of Hindu faith in a 99% white community in Bucks County, every chance possible. Today, it represents Silicon Valley. It's an amazing country. We need to celebrate it and have more people at the opportunities I do.

And if people believe you're a true patriot, and they can tell that, they can tell that, you know, it's not rhetoric. If they believe you believe in this country, they'll give you a lot of latitude on whether they agree on this policy or that policy. I agree with that. You should run for president. So, Mr. Holman, I've noticed when you appear on the network news and some cables that the questioning is often hostile to you. It's not neutral questioning. It's like, hey, what are you doing? How many people did you throw out today? And I'm sure you noticed that, too.

And I'm saying to myself, why? Do you have any idea why that so many, so many of the American press corps are antagonistic to you? Well, I think it's because I served President Trump. I mean, you know, when I work for, I was a third in command of ICE under Barack Obama. We had over 409,000 removals and they weren't hostile then. So I think working for President Trump makes me hostile anybody that serves President Trump. But look, I'm proud to work for President Trump. I think he's the greatest president in my lifetime.

And especially when it comes to border security and immigration enforcement and national security. So they don't bother me. Look, if I can deliver their heads rent free, I'm okay with that because I'm going to keep telling the truth, whether they like it or not. My talking points never change. I don't care if I'm talking to a conservative or talking to a liberal. They're going to hear the same thing because what I give them is facts. They can like it or not like it, but they're going to hear the truth. Okay, but they don't like it.

Now, when you were working for President Obama who deported more undocumented people than any other president in history, all right? And most of those were at the border that got kicked back fast, and they didn't have this asylum con that they rose up under President Biden. When you were working for Barack Obama, in my research on him, from my book, Confronting the President's, he didn't want an open border. He didn't want chaotic immigration. Am I correct there? Well, his first term, like I said, we removed a lot of people in the first term, and largely because we're accounting board patrol removals with ice removals, and that's how come the number got so big, but he was pushing for that. He was pushing for more removals. But under the second term, the Obama term, we pretty much got shut down.

I mean, once he got the named Deporter-in-Chief, operations really slowed down. And that's one of the reason at the end of that administration that I decided to retire because after four years doing that, I was tired of it. But in the beginning, he was about securing the border. In the last four years, he was not. And you think it was political pressure, obviously, from the left that caused that? Absolutely. Okay. Now, one of the beefs against Homeland Security is they are not, they are deporting non-criminal migrants along with the criminals.

And I believe that's true to some extent because how could you possibly know when you go sweep a whole bunch of people, say you're a criminal migrant married to a person who isn't a criminal, stuff like that? How valid is that criticism that ICE is now deporting people quickly without due process that aren't criminals? Well, they all get due process. I mean, the non-criminals, where does most of non-criminals get arrested? Sanctuary cities. And I've said this for two months. Sanctuary cities are going to get exactly what they don't want, more agents in their communities and more collateral arrests. Because if we can't arrest a bad guy in the county jail, one agent arrest, one criminal alien, and they're going to release them.

Like the major cities, this country, Sanctuary Cities. You're going to release them back in the community? Okay, fine. We're still going to do our job, which means we're going to go to the community, and we're going to find him. And when we find them, most likely they're with others. Others that are illegally in the United States, but not a criminal. Well, we're not going to tell ICE agents, forget the oath we took,

ignore the immigration law, walk away from these people. No, they're going to come too. So when you look at the collaterals and non-criminals, most of them are arrested in sanctuary cities because they forced us in that position. We're going to arrest them. That's an important point. So when you do a sweep, if you find a non-criminal migrant, that person gets taken into custody, correct?

Yeah, to be clear, when we do a target enforcement operation, we know exactly who we're looking for, and we're most likely we're going to find him. And when we go to that location and look for that target, that criminal target, many times, most times he's with others, especially if you're at a work site, they're coming to. They're coming to. So sanctuary cities are forcing us into that situation. So if you, I've said this many times, let us in the jail. That means less agents in the neighborhood. That means less collaterals, but they refuse to assist ICE, so we're going to keep doing what we're doing. Just to be clear, when you do an enforcement sweep, it is based upon information provided about criminal aliens. Is that correct?

Local, state, federal information, right? That's the sweeper. Okay, stop, stop. I want to call it a sweep, Bill. I call it a target enforcement operation. We have a target, we've got a sheet, who's the alien's name, what's his immigration record, what's his criminal record? We're most likely when we find them, and it has to be approved by supervisors. We go on the street, look for somebody, we have a whole frigid operation sheet that details who this person is we're looking for.

And where do you get that information? From the states, from the locals, where does that come from? Do various databases that we use at ICE. I can't tell you all of them for the law enforcement sensitive, but we do targeting based on criminal databases. We use all sorts of social media. We use a lot of things I don't want to discuss here, but we create those target bases. So you get this stuff, and if there's an undocumented alien who is not a criminal, they get swept up. They get deported sometimes, and it depends on the process.

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

Actually, you're the first show where I can make this announcement. So as I promised at Seaback, I was going to go to Boston. I'm going to bring hell with me. And we did. I was in Boston last Tuesday. I started an operation with ICE, HSI, ERO, FBI, ATF, D-E-A, U.S. Marshals, and the State Department. And in a five-day operation, we arrested 370 illegal aliens in Boston and the surrounding communities in Massachusetts.

And 205 of those were significant public safety threats, including four murderers, child rapists, armed robbers, a couple Interpol, Red Notice Arrest. We arrested a lot of bad people in the last five days in Massachusetts, many of them in Boston. We just put the numbers again today. You're the first show I've actually been able to talk about this. The numbers just got put out today, Bill. Excellent. But Ms. Wu is defiant even in the face of those incredible stats. And they are incredible if you know the city of Boston.

It's not New York City. It's not nearly that large. So I'm wondering whether the next step for the Justice Department, it wouldn't be, it would be the Attorney General Bondi, is going to go after people like Michelle Woeh for violating some tenant of federal law. Do you believe that will happen? I hope it will happen. I know Pam Bonney's already put sanctuercities on notice. I know she's there already sued a couple. I sent that report to Pam Bond this morning

and who we arrested in Boston in the surrounding area and the public safety threat that we had to take off the street because if we got to go to the street and rest people like this, the job of ICE is already dangerous but to go arrest an aggravated felon

murder public safety threat in the general public not only puts the officer at risk it puts the community at risk so I sent the numbers this morning to DOJ so I think Pam Bonnie would take action and do what she can do but she's already started soon in Sanctuary City

So, you know, God bless Pam Bondi. I think she's going to do the right thing, and I think she's going to try to hold these sanctuary cities accountable in courts. All right. So it'll be civil litigation, not criminal litigation, correct? I'll leave that out to Pam Bondi. We'll see what happens. But it would be amazing to see, you know, a big city mayor or a state governor,

like Pritzker in Illinois, or even, you know, here, Hokel and New York, she plays a double game. The damage that the Biden administration did to the country, and I know this is a political question, but it has troubled me from the very beginning, seems to me to be incalculable as far as the Treasury is concerned, crime is concerned, social upheaval is concerned. Do you have any idea why Joe Biden opened that border for three and a half years? Do you have any idea why that man did that? No, I can only guess, and I've said many times.

I work for six presidents starting Ronald Reagan. Even when Clinton Obama took steps, as we discussed, to try to take action and secure the border. No one did more than President Trump. He was unprecedented in his success. We had the most secure border in my lifetime. But Joe Biden's the first president in my lifetime who came in office and unsecured the border on purpose.

That wasn't mismanagement. It wasn't incompetence. He knew exactly what he was doing, along with Alejandro Mayorkan. But there must be chat, though. There must be chat in Homeland Security and in the Border Patrol precincts about the why of all this.

What did he think he was accomplishing? I think they saw future political benefit and let millions of people into this country. Remember, when he did everything to secure the border, what else did he do? He overturned the Trump census rule, which means millions of people released in sanctuary cities who recount the next census,

which will lead to more seats in the house for the dams. I think they saw a future political benefit by releasing millions of people in sanctuary cities in this country. That is my belief. Final question. California is 50% of the undocumented migrants. Newsom is now backpedaling, as you know. But L.A. and San Francisco are still sanctuary cities.

Do you expect anything to change in California? I can tell you, ICE is going to, we'll be going to L.A. and San Francisco very soon. In sanctuary cities, we can't arrest it back. guy in jail, we'll double the man force in those cities, but we're going to do our job, sanctuary not. If you're a sanctuary where you want to step aside and watch us and protect your communities, then have that it. Just don't get in the way. Don't cross that line of ignoring harboring, concealing, illegal animal. Don't cross that line of impeding us or there will be consequences. But we're coming. We're going to do this job. President Trump promised

American people we're going to do this. American people giving a mandate. This is the number one issue. We're going to keep President Trump's promise. We're going to be going to every sanctuary city and arresting public safety threats, because that's what the American people want. All right, unless the court, Supreme Court, says you can't do a certain thing, you're not going to defy the federal court order, correct? No, we're not going to do that. We're not the Biden administration who ignored the courts on forgiveness of a student loan. They told me he couldn't do it.

He did it, and he fought him every step of the way on that. No, this is a law and order administration. We're going to do the right thing. Let's go to Ukraine. So my hypothesis, let me use that word, but it's not really a hypothesis because I know President Trump, as you know pretty well, and I do talk to him. So he doesn't want to alienate Putin. He wants to soften Putin up so he gets him to a ceasefire discussion.

And that's why you're not seeing call Putin names and do all that kind of stuff. He also wants to tamp down Zelensky's arrogance, which we saw. Is this the wrong strategy on Ukraine? Well, Bill, what you're describing are the personal interactions, right? So that's a very personalized view of this. I think both of those are correct. There's no reason for the Commander Chief of the United States to mock or call names for any leader. You remember with Chairman Kim, he'd say, we exchanged love letters.

He talked about Xi Jinping in glowing terms. from time to time. That was the personal. Same with Zelensky in that sense. I think you're right. I think he was trying to make sure Zelensky understood without U.S. support. They were going nowhere. And I'm untroubled by either of those. The real proof is what's the policy? What's the outcome that President Trump's seeking? And from my vantage point, President Trump has always been someone who understood winning. And in this case, can't be the case that Putin can be. be perceived of having one, whatever the outcome, whatever the geography, whatever the disposition in the end, we can't, that kind of aggression can't be rewarded because it'll get you more of it.

And if there was one thing I'm proud of from our first four years, Bill, is we were pretty good at deterring the bad guys from doing exactly what they did to President Biden and invading Europe. We're pretty good at convincing folks like Hamas not to invade Israel on our watch. President Trump's pretty good at deterrence, and that's what he's going to try to get back. I'm counting on it. Okay, but you're going to have to let Putin save a little face. He's not going to surrender because he doesn't care about how many people are dead or anything like that. He just cares about himself.

So you've got to give him an exit ramp off. I think Putin wants the ramp, but you're dealing with an evil man here. He's just flat out evil. Do you believe that there will be a ceasefire? See, I said once Trump was elected, I think that ceasefire is going to happen. Do you believe it? Yeah, there'll be a ceasefire, but the interesting question is really the one that you pose, which is you have an evil dictator like Vladimir Putin who has, to date, evidenced nothing

that suggests he's actually looking for that off-ramp that you described. Maybe he is, but he's been pretty good at masking any willingness to concede a single thing. In the end, Bill, what I think, how I think, this ends up to call it face-save and call it what you will. I think he wants to be back in the global world, his economy back connected to the global international system. There's the solution, is that you find a mechanism by which to permit Russian activity back in the economic system. We rebuilt Japan, right? There's a long history when these wars end, we allow these economies, the people of those countries to engage in the world again. That's what I think Putin

desperately needs for his own political stability back home, but also that's the take. to give him something to say, look, look what I got us back. Yeah, and if you give them that ticket, you've got to have European peacekeepers in there. So you've got to give the Ukrainian some assurance. I mean, Trump was smart not to sign a document saying Putin breaks the seeds fire. United States is going to go in with troops.

You can't do that. But you can negotiate a deal where the UN or the EU would put, and you call them rebuilding, you know, security to rebuild. And it'd be good if Putin kicked in a couple of billion too um which you'll make easily by you know having the sanctions lifted on the oil stuff so you you know Putin pretty well a lot of people just think that he is uh some kind of crazy guy i don't see him that way i just think he's flat out evil not crazy and i've been criticized for saying he's actually pretty shrewd and while he uh while he screwed this up he thought he'd

get to Kiev. He thought he'd get victory on the ground. Terrible strategic mistake, no doubt about it. He's not crazy. He is evil, and the rationality flows from that. I don't think there's any doubt that his intentions were even greater than that. In my judgment, he wasn't fearing NATO was going to attack him for goodness. Like, that's just nutty. He was trying to begin the revisit of something greater for Russia. Yeah, just like Georgia and Belarus. He was trying to duplicate that. That's it. And he didn't get it.

He didn't get it. So now you've got to get him a push out, but you can't hammer him between the eyes like the idiot Democrats are trying to do it. You say to them, well, if you do that, you'll never get a ceasefire, and they have no answer. Let's go to China. So China's slap tariffs on the USA today.

That situation seems to be deteriorating. Is it? I think it is. And I know some will want to blame President. President Trump for that, I think this is all Xi Jinping, this challenge that's being faced by the entire world. And by the way, it's connected to Russia. We shouldn't forget for a second that the primary consumer of Russian energy today is the Chinese Communist Party getting discounted crude oil and gas out of Russia. China is a huge beneficiary of this war continuing in Ukraine, in Europe. But I think it's deteriorating because Xi Jinping now believes that he's got a place where he can actually exert influence.

and shape things in a way that his predecessors didn't believe. The old, this is a rough translation from Mandarin Bill, you'll have to forgive me. But the old motto was, hide your power and bide your time. And Xi Jinping's no longer hiding his power. He's showing it full force and it's going to require a real American response. Well, when you say a response, everybody gets nervous. Is that going to be a military response? Can't do that, right?

Well, Xi Jinping's going to, we're not going to attack China militarily. Right. But Xi Jinping is already running into ships in the Philippines, the South China Sea. He's circling. You have the last five years, though. As long as he doesn't touch Taiwan, then the U.S. is going to allow some of that to happen. But I see it this way, and maybe I'm wrong. I think that China's economy is really wobbling, just like Russia's. But China is more intense.

and she, like Putin, probably at this point in history, would want a better economic situation, and he would be willing to deal for that. Am I wrong? I think you're wrong. I think Xi Jinping has concluded that this is the moment. So you've heard some of our generals talking about 2027, and I can't put a marker down as for time. but I think she is willing to sacrifice an awful lot of economy to gain a global advantage to get closer to the political hegemony that he seeks. It's going to be really hard. I agree. They've got

huge long run demographic problems. Their real estate industry is way worse than anybody even knows, over levered. So there are many, many challenges. But I think she has concluded that it's no longer time to supplicate to the United States on the economic front. And so he's going to push and push and push until the United States pushes back. And I think you see President Trump, Well, he pushed back. 25% is a pushback. But if your opinion is correct, why didn't she move under Biden, who is extremely weak? Why, why did he live four years of Biden? And he didn't really do anything that catastrophic. Yeah, I don't think, Bill, I don't think for a second he's going to invade Taiwan. I don't, the military invasion there, I think he believes is unnecessary. He's going to get. His view is he's going to get Taiwan through propaganda politics, same way he took Hong Kong, right, force, choke them off, make their economy more difficult. Eventually, the people will come to see, they, hey, you know, why fight this?

And so I think this is a longer march for him. And I think he made real progress on that in the Biden administration, in the Pacific Islands, in Africa. You saw what's gone on in Panama under President Biden, where the Chinese got a foothold on our doorstep. I think this is a determined strategic effort, not a huge. Xi Jinping military takeover. He knows he can't actually win that. The United States would, in the end, crush him. The press, the American press, portraying Donald Trump over the world as a villain.

That hasn't stopped. And then they point to Trump denying Kiev U.S. intel, and then Trump saying to NATO, we're not going to do any military exercises. Let's take them one by one. as you know better than anybody. The reportage on the intel is just flat out ridiculous because British intelligence gets everything we have and they just give it to Kiev.

So it doesn't matter what, and you know, the former CIA chief, doesn't matter what Trump said, well, we're not gonna give anything. The Brits have it all, and they'll give it to them. Am I wrong there? I think that reporting is highly hyped. I always joke, Bill, that if I watch the BBC,

I wouldn't like America either. Right, right. So, but it's such a, most people don't understand that. They don't understand how it works. Okay, you do, because you were in there, and I do because I've been around for so long. The second military exercise thing, I didn't quite get why Trump did that. Do you know? No, I don't know.

Look, we've been trying to help them with training for an awfully long time. When I was the CIA director, we were helping the Ukrainians. It was President Trump who provided the javelin missiles, right? People forget President Trump did that. It was President Trump who put American energy in the front, making Vladimir Putin's resources worth less. I don't know why he chose that particular. It might have to do with Putin and some phone calls.

It might. By the way, I'm not privy to any of that. Right, I'm not either. But that's the only thing I can think of. All right. Now, a lot of people, including myself, believe that you would have been an asset to this Trump administration. but you weren't invited do you know why no i i don't know the particulars of why but again i give

presidents lots of latitude to pick the team they want he picked no i i know that but you did a good job he picked entirely new team bill he even said you did a good job he told me he did a good job um so i worked hard yeah i mean i was surprised the man of your experience and you know all of these players. I would have put you as Defense Secretary. I don't think Hegg Seth is the guy. I would have put you there, but you must have thought about it a little bit, Mr. Secretary, because it is a natural fit. You succeeded with Trump the first time around. Did you guys have a falling out of some kind? Oh, no. Look, I don't know why he chose the people he did. He went through a lot of folks, Bill. I'll leave to him the personnel choices. I had said before, if he asked me to go

serve, whatever role, whether it was in the Defense Department, wherever I'd happily go serve, and he just made a different decision. I think he's going to ask you. I do. I think he's going to pull you back. Next time I see him, I'm going to get to the bottom of that, because that surprised me. Because you know how... You let me know, Bill. Of course. I'll let everybody know. You know, the president is, unpredictable. I think that's an accurate word, right? Yeah, that's fair. Yeah.

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

Yeah, I agree. No, I agree. I think Secretary Rubio is going to do a very fine job. Because when he picked Tillerson, and the oil guy, who you saved his bacon. Remember that? I went, what? I do vividly. What? That was a disaster. And then he brought you in because you're the pro, and then you guys straightened it out. When Trump left office, when he was defeated in 20, the world was fairly stable then. I mean, it wasn't, as you pointed out earlier in this interview, there wasn't a lot of threats on the

doorstep. Would that be accurate? we had we had things in a pretty good place if you think about what fell apart relatively quickly europe fell apart the the advancements that were the abraham accords in the middle east were dead stopped even before the massacres of october 7th and then you know we had we had come close to delivering on president trump's commitment to reducing our forces in afghanistan to zero or near zero and president Biden came in and pulled the plug and we all know the calamity that followed there only the 13 dead and many, many injured, but I think much of the chaos that ensued in the final two and a half years of the Biden administration was a direct result of that epic failure

in Afghanistan. None of that happened for our four years. There's no doubt in my mind that that's true. I got some questions for you. Number one, your party was hijacked by far left people under Biden. There's no doubt about that. That's why Trump won. How did that happen? You're not a far left guy. How did your party get hijacked by the far left? I think that both parties are prone to being hijacked by their extreme bases, both parties. In the case of the Democratic Party, Joe Biden is not the greatest messenger in the world.

I think he did a lot of good stuff, but he's not the greatest messenger in the world. And too many people are intimidated to speak up against their extreme base. And as a result, I think the Republicans effectively weaponized the extreme elements of our party to say, like, you're all for defund police, you're all for open borders, you're all for all this extremist stuff, and it worked. There are plenty of extremists in the Republican Party, you know, Marjorie Taylor Green and Lauren Burburt and Matt Gates, but we did not effectively weaponize that. And the bigger spokesman was Donald Trump, so you couldn't paint them with that brush.

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

My belief, I genuinely believe his bill. Joe Biden is a creature of the Senate. And he thinks that, you know, to make long-lasting change, you've got to negotiate a deal in the Senate and to come up with a compromise. And he worked on trying to do a compromise for years. Ultimately, they came up with this compromise in February, 2024. It was too late.

And he did an executive order in June of 2024. I sent him a letter along with a Republican, Brian Fitzpatrick, asking him to seal off asylum applications in between the ports of entry. And he did it. And the numbers are down from what they were when it was really bad back in the end of 2023. but it just waited too long. And as a result... But too long, it's three years of damage.

The first year, the first year was not that bad because we were still having the COVID hangover and there were not that many people crossed the... You know how bad it was. You said it in your campaign that it was wrong. No, no, there's no question. Am I campaign in... You said it.

So why did he do it? Why did he do it for three years? I think he was focused on other stuff and he did. Other stuff? Look, he was a major issue. He rams, he rams through, I don't give me COVID.

Bill, Bill. COVID was a major issue when he first came into office. So what does COVID have to do with an open border? Nothing. And then he rams through regulation. Wait, listen to me. He rams through regulation after regulation on the energy industry, rocketing inflation so everybody suffers.

and then two years in, he takes that off, takes them two years to figure out you can't strangle the fossil fuel industry and not have inflation. And he takes it out and he drills like crazy. This is Biden. So he's the second worst president ever, in my opinion, and I know what I'm talking about. But let's advance it. You're the co-chair of the Problem Solvers Caucus, right, in the House, correct? Yeah, 25 Democrats, 25 Republicans.

Okay. Regularly try to find common ground. But here's the problem with that. The most powerful guy in the house is Hakeem Jeffries. He's a far left guy. He's not far left. So how are you going to get anything done? He's not far left.

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

30 years. All right. Now, you wrote an article in the New York Times. Good article. I actually texted you that it was a good article. And about Trump. And you just said on this broadcast, there are a lot of things I don't like that he's done in a week. Give me one.

The pardons. You know, I'll just talk about one pardon from the 1600 from January 6th. This guy, Daniel Rodriguez, was there when they were beaten up a police officer, capital police officers on the ground. Some guys are saying, kill him, kill him. And Daniel Rodriguez takes a taser and sticks it in the police officer's neck, tases him.

The police officer has a heart attack and has traumatic brain injury as a result. This guy, Daniel Rodriguez, texted his friends and said, you wouldn't believe the stuff I just did and I got away, and I tased the you know what out of the blue. He pled guilty. He got 12-year sentence, and he was included in the blanket

pardon. And there's a lot of examples of that from... All right. And that's legitimate. That's legitimate. I don't think any fair-minded American would disagree with you. Give me a policy thing, though. So we've had a lot of policy in eight days. Give me one policy thing that you object to. The one thing that I disagree with is the complete effort to eradicate a lot of the climate change stuff. You know, I have a difference. I have a difference with the president on that stuff. I take it climate change much more seriously than he does. He doesn't look at it the same way. And I'm all for, you know, all the above and utilizing the natural gas reserves we have in our country. Why do you think, and that

breach will never be, you'll never reach Daytona on it. Now, yeah, I know that. Why do you think most Americans have now turned against the climate change zealots? I think it's been very effectively weaponized. You know, I think that the Republicans and President Trump specifically have done a much better job of navigating the fractured media landscape. You know, it's not the traditional media that you and I grew up with, with, you know, your local paper and your local news stations and cable news. It's now podcasts like yours. It's like social media. It's a so much more fractured environment. And he and his team

have done a very effective job of taking anything that they disagree with and blowing it up into a painting of the whole party being a wreck. So, you know, we've got to figure out how to combat that and how to make our argument. Well, I will

give you an open invitation to come here and also your peer Laura Gillen, who's a Democrat, who's the South Shore of Long Island. I was telling you I ran into Congresswoman Gillen at the Islander game on Friday. And you're both moderate people. I mean, I've known you guys for a while. You're not loons. But I'll tell you what, Congressman, the power in the Democratic Party still lies in the left-wing zealots. And if you don't break that

down, it'll be J.D. Vance will be the next president. I don't believe, I don't believe in defund the police. No, I know that. But the powerful people, and to say Hakeem Jefferson, Jeffreys isn't a far left guy. All you have to do is look at his record and look at his public statements. Look at the, look at how he categorized. Wait, just do this because this will, you're a guy, you went to the same high school I went to,

you know, we have a lot of coming. When those rioters in New York got out of control, you look at what Hakeem Jeffries said. That's all you need to see. To watch the full episodes of the No Spin News, Visit Bill O'Reilly.com and sign up to become a premium or concierge member. That's Bill O'Reilly.com. Sign up and start watching today.