Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis - No Spin News - Weekend Edition - July 25, 2026

Episode Date: July 25, 2026

Listen to this week's No Spin News Talking Point Memos and guest interviews. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You know that moment when everything feels in sync? That's Bacardi's vibe. Canada's number one white rum, a rum born from a rhythm, set to a soundtrack of laughs, loud music, and looks that say stay a little longer. Because weather pouring an ice-cold majito or a classic Bacardi and Coke, you're opening the door to the party that lives in everyone. So, consider this your invite. Bienvenido at La Fiesta.

Bacardi, do what moves you. Tap the banner to shop now. Live passionately. Drink responsibly. Recently, our company's softball team lost the big game by one run. Then Dale tried to console us with the quote, Winning isn't everything. Well, Dale and I are very different.

I get early payout from Bed 365. If my team goes up big, I get paid out instantly, even if they blow the lead later. Sound familiar, Dale? Thanks, Beth 365. Must be 19 or older Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or the gambling of someone close to you,

please go to Connectiontoreo.c.com. Welcome to the No Spin News Weekend Edition. Our big problem in the USA right now, we have two big problems. People and their money and Iran. And everything else is fairly calm. But those big problems are vexing, word of the day, vexing. And that is the subject of this evening's talking points memo. So the World Cup is a big success.

And it was a great display of American society. And think about it, it's almost a miracle, nothing terrible happened. No terror attacks, no brutal crimes, no scandals, really. So somebody was watching out for us on the World Cup stage. And these images are broadcast all over the world makes it hard for the American and haters to counter those images. I was talking to a friend of Monon in Kansas City, and he just said,

not only did the area make a lot of money, but they had a lot of friends, and everybody was buoyant, okay, about the World Cup. Now, the only controversy that the anti-Trump people could gin up was that he was booed, MetLife Stadium in New Jersey when he was introduced on Sunday. Donald Trump, of course, went to the game. Now, I watched it six times. Now, I'm watching television broadcasts on Fox, six times. I didn't hear a lot of booze. I heard some, but not overwhelming. If I were out there, I would

have gotten more. Then I asked my staff, which has better hearing, and I said, look, canvass it around. See if you can find a cascade of booze sustained and let me know because they don't want to look like an idiot here. But all of these anti-Trump organizations are saying he was booed and humiliated. Is that true? It is not true. Now, we could not ascertain how much booing there was. We don't have a little meter. And there was very loud music, too, accompanying the president on the field. area that is debatable is Sports Illustrated magazine. They hate Trump. And they somehow got some kind of video which shows he was heavily booed. It might have been in the men's room someplace on

level six. Nobody knows. But overall, everybody on the field after the game, with the exception of some Argentinian players, were very respectful. I think that's an accurate statement. And the Spanish players were great. And I don't even like Spain now, but they were great. If we're American players up there, some of them would have hot shot at it. And you know that. Some of them would have ran out and, oh, I'm not going to do it.

Yeah, not the Spanish. Young guys, they all put the medal on there. they would respect. Every one of them was respectful. Okay, so then you had the head of the soccer commission, the president, then exeter president, Claudia Scheinbaum, the president of Mexico. And then after him, the prime minister, Canada, at Kearney. Now, they were there because they had games. Canada and Mexico had games. But it was a nice moment to see the president with Scheinbaum and Carney. We need less confrontation now as a country for a while.

I mean, bad things are going to happen. We're going to have to do that, I know. But less confrontation is better for everybody. And I'm going, you know, whoever put that together, very smart. Very smart. Okay, so we liked all of that. As for the game itself, I fell asleep. I'm an old guy.

And I've been running around like you would not believe over the last couple of weeks. I mean, I don't have any idea how I do it. But I fell asleep. One nil was the final. Nil means nothing. I like nil. And I didn't want to fall asleep. I didn't try to fall asleep.

I didn't take relaxium. I just conked. So it might have been because I was listening to the medical. game while driving back from the eastern Long Island. So that I might have set to stage. But anyway, I didn't sleep a long time, but I fell asleep turning. I got to be honest, okay. Anyway, the next World Cup is Spain, Portugal, and Morocco, and I can guarantee you that's

going to be chaos. Number one, it's going to be 110 degrees in those places. They don't have dome stadiums. Morocco, hey, good luck. nice country but able to manage crowds like that, no. And that takes place July 8th, June 8th to July 21st, 2030. Okay, so that's four years away. And that's a memo.

You're listening to the No Spin News Weekend Edition. So Trump gives a speech. It's simple. He believes that the American election process is compromised, that in many places, California leaves the league, you don't have a fair vote anymore. And so he produces a whole bunch of declassified information to back this up. The main contention is that China and Russia interfered and began interfering with our elections, after Trump was elected the first time.

And it reached this height in 2020. So what they did was they swooped data, they hacked. Trump makes the accusation that they bought journalists to write bad articles about him. That wasn't backed up with any names or any names in what was declassified, okay? Which, for me, I would have put the names out there.

If it's in the memo, I would have put them out there. Okay, so I knew, you knew, anybody who's seeking information, who understands happening in this country, no matter what President Trump said that Democrats and the anti-Trump press were not going to believe him. That's it. Okay? And as exactly what happened. Exactly. So declassified information that says China was intruding, that's a fact. That's in writing. It's in stone. Now, the press has changed it now to fraud accusations. There are some primarily driven by President Trump that there was fraud in Michigan. and California and other selected places, Georgia, that manipulated the vote.

But overall, the national intelligence people, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, gave the president memos and said, China is hacking us, trying to get information roles, and Russia is doing other things, the Hunter Biden situation. Okay, all of that. So I'm reading it. Now I'm going, okay, all right, this is logical. And the one fact that stood out was almost 300,000 names were on the rolls, or probably many of them still are, by people who are dead or not living where they said that we're living, or in this country illegally or whatever may be, 300,000. Okay, that's not going to overwhelm an election, but it's a lot.

And apparently China got access to that, according to these memos. All right, you're with me so far? So anybody watching even if you don't like Trump goes, it's interesting. You know, we got two of our adversaries trying to interfere with our election. we should all band together and take that seriously. No way. Not going to happen. Corey Booker, a senator from New Jersey, he opens it up.

Go. Donald Trump's speech was full of outright lies, dangerous disinformation, and yet again, his attempts to undermine and subvert our democracy. Now he knows he's headed toward midterm losses, and his only hope is to undermine the validity and trust in our elections. Unfortunately, Booker says that Donald's speech was, quote, full of outright lies. Like what? Like what?

He doesn't say Newsom in California. Go. Foreign interference in our elections, that's a real thing. Nothing about what you watch tonight, though, was real. It's make-believe. He wants to rig the election in 2026. What's make-believe? Now, he's a governor of his state newsome.

He does not have access to U.S. intelligence. He's not a federal official. What was not real? What? Give me one. Nothing. Can't do it. And the press just sits there.

So let's this stuff go. Third one, Mark Warner, Senator from Virginia. along with Chris Murphy, Senator from Connecticut, are the two biggest Trump haters in the Senate. Roll Warner. As an American, I'm embarrassed. I'm embarrassed that the President of the United States tried to speak to the whole nation with a whole series of falsehoods. Like what?

Series of falsehoods. Like what? Okay, we call Warner's office. Couldn't get through. we're going to invite him on do it live I'm going to the whole rest of the month

I'm going to invite him on every day he'll never come on because all I got to do is say all right you told the nation that President Trump's speech was a quote whole series of falsehoods

give me one do you think that man can do it he can't yet the press Yes. Okay. Now, I'm going to harken back to Neville Roy Singham, a story that we broke in conjunction with others last January. Now, he is working for Beijing, and he has pumped $300 million into getting information and organizing anti-American demonstrations. This guy lives in Shanghai. His name again is Neville Roy. Roy Singham. It's a huge scandal. There is a federal grand jury seated now investigating all of this.

So if you're doubting that China tried to interfere with our election, all you got to do is go over to Neville Roy Singham, $300 million at least, okay, trying to undermine our society. So you're telling me that China's not trying to mess around with our election? That does makes no sense whatsoever. None. Then you have stats. So Trump says China illegally acquired 220 million U.S. voter files. That means they know where you live, they know where I live, or whatever. 220 million. It's 350 million people in a country. But when you're born, you get a Social Security number. That's what China was after. Okay. So Trump says, we have Intel. That says 220 million were compromised.

You know what the answer to that is? Well, you can buy that information. You can go to North Dakota and get that information. I don't know whether you can or can't, because each state is different. But if a foreign nation wants to get a voter profile on everybody in the country, is the reason. Okay? This is just crazy.

This is insane. And Trump also says, this is what's going on since mid-2018. second year of his first term. And it took the Intel services a while to figure out what was going on. All right. Then he makes accusation. China wanted him to lose and 20 and on and on and on and on. Then he points to Michigan where there was a FBI raid that was attached to this.

Then he points to the journalistic community. but this was kind of flimsy. I'd like more information. It says China paid journalists to write bad things about Trump. I'd like more on that. I need to know how that worked. Okay?

And that the Biden Department of Justice after 2020 election, they just threw it away. They didn't bother with it at all, which I believe, but, you know, I can't prove that, but I believe it. All right, so I would. wrote the column and the column is truth be told and here's what i believe all right that a number of

anti-trump people within the intel services look at james combe for example try to play down all of this information trump himself says he didn't get a lot of these briefings i believe that i do believe it okay could be wrong but i believe it um vote bundlers in states like california have pressed the system to its limit. So they go to house to house, apartment to apartment, homeless camp to homeless camp. They give people $5 that people sign their vote for the Democrat and they walk away with a big bundle of votes

and drop them off. I believe that is happening. I don't think there's any doubt it's happening. There isn't a tsunami of foreign nationals voting here, but they do vote, particularly in California. California is ground zero for all of this. And Trump is not going to get, in my opinion, the State of America Act passed,

which is why he gave the speech in the first place. It's not going to go for it. The Senate will never put the 60 up to put it on the floor. Not going to happen, unless the Republicans win in the midterms. joining us now from Newark, New Jersey is Isaac Saul. You may know him. He runs realtangle.com, independent subscriber-supported newsletter, which I read, which is why he's on a program. All right, where am I going wrong here, Isaac?

Bill, you're so good at what you do, man. There's a lot there that I'm interested in parsing. I mean, look, I actually think you did an excellent job summarizing it because you were careful with your words and you were careful to talk about exactly what the president said, which I think is more than what most people in the press are doing right now. I mean, to me, if I had to point to one qualm that I have with maybe the way you summarized it or what the president actually said, it's just that the context for this is that he obviously believes the 2020 election was stolen from him. And in his speech, he said, you know, we can never watch another election be stolen again. So he's on national TV again linking all of this to the idea that he lost the 2020 election because it was stolen or rigged. And interestingly, none of the documents that he put forward support that particular notion. I think, as he said.

Not specifically. But everybody knows that. Everybody knows that Donald Trump believes he got a jobbed in 2020 and that the election was rigged. So if you don't know it, then you're just not on the planet. Would you have, would you have if you were running NBC and ABC carry the speech? I absolutely would have carried it. I think when the president of the United States gives it an address from behind the Oval Office elector and everybody should tune in and listen, he's the president.

And I think it's important to add context to the stuff that he said and claimed on national TV, which you can do after the speech is over. So I think it looks bad for those networks not to carry it. But I think what you said, just to put a fine point out, I think what you said is true. And what the president said is true that we can improve our election systems. They are vulnerable. And there are bad actors out there who want to interfere in our elections and do serious damage. I don't think they have done that damage, but I think they definitely want to, and they have the capability to, which is an important thing that we should all be worried about. Okay, there's a reasonable statement.

There isn't any overwhelming evidence that shows the state of Georgia, for example, or any other state that the president points to, would have turned out differently. They should investigate it. The next question is, the people that I ran, Kari Booker, Warner, Newsome, they're not going to believe anything that Trump says for political reasons. So they're not serving their people. They're just rejecting it across the board. Or am I wrong? No, I don't think you're wrong. I mean, Senator Mark Warner was on the Intelligence Committee that released the report in 2021.

which basically said all of the things Trump said on national TV last night, which is that China collected a bunch of voter data, or excuse me, on Thursday night, that China collected a bunch of voter data that China considered interfering in the election, that China didn't want Trump to win in 2020. I mean, Mark Warner oversaw a report that was released. Then why would you say the president's speech a bunch of lies? Because I think the thing that Democrats want to attack is the idea that the 2020 election was stolen, or that the 2026 and 2028 elections aren't secure.

I think he wants people to have faith in and believe in the elections is my most charitable read on that. But also, you know, I think Trump sort of, he himself blurs the lines. Again, he said in the speech that a previous election was stolen, all the things he said not on national TV and had been saying for six years about 2020 are the context for this. So if you're a Democrat and you want American voters to show

up and believe their vote is being cast and counted fairly, then you don't want them to buy what Trump is selling in this Thursday night address. So I understand that. I mean, I think the important thing for people to understand is the president and the intelligence community did not present any evidence that any vote in an American election was altered, changed, corrupted by foreign power. What they presented on Thursday night was that that could happen in the future if we don't make changes now. And I think that distinction is more than that. There was an attempt to make it happen. And the other thing was, well, no, they said, the document by China, an attempt by Russia on a different track, okay, to get involved with our election. That's why I brought up

Singham. Okay. There's an attempt. They want to manipulate our system to get the result. They want in Beijing or Moscow. And I think Trump made a good point in getting that out there and saying, hey, this is reality. So we have to pass the Save America Act because that was the driver for the speech, which infuriates the Democrats because they don't want anything to do with the Save America Act. They don't care whether people have phony IDs or shouldn't be voting because they weren't born in this country. They don't care about that, in my opinion. I think the distinction that I would make is much like we heard all this about Russia meddling in the election in 2016. And then what we ended up, the evidence we ended up were presented was that Russia was creating fake Facebook groups and trying to get people, you know, sway public opinion against Trump.

What China did in 2020 and what the intelligence community said they did was they tried to sway public opinion against Trump. And the documents the president released that he declassified, which I downloaded and read immediately, because I think they're really important. The intelligence community assessment actually says that China made the calculation interfering in the election in 2020 was not worth the risk. They didn't want Trump to win, but they were scared about getting caught by actually trying to, you know, hack a particular voting system or corrupt some kind of vote. So instead, they took the route that Russia did in 2016, which was they tried to sway public opinion. against the president. And those two things are different. By bribing journalists, I'd love to know who those journalists are. I know, Andy, you made a great point. We should get some names there. The thing that the report said was that

China was flying journalists into China and giving them these like all expenses, paid vacations, basically, and high speaking fees to come visit, hoping to coax them into this sort of pro-China. Yeah, I love that. Oh, those people were. Me too. Me too. I wish they revealed the names. I'm upset they didn't. Okay. So what we have now, though, and the most important thing, as the midterms approach, is that there is a big segment of the American electorate who don't care about really what's happening. They either love Trump or they hate Trump. In the middle, they don't want to hear about it. I love them or I hate them. I don't know if that's healthy for the country. I don't think it's healthy. I mean, I can tell you from my own work, speaking to a lot of independent voters and a lot of swing voters, I get the sense there are people who are just tuned out,

you know, they're just exhausted. They're having trouble consuming the news, keeping up. And so they've kind of thrown their hands up and walked away, which is dangerous because, you know, it's important that the electorate passed judgment on this Congress and this president and do it with their vote. I think that's a very American thing to do. And people don't know what the This is happening. They don't know. Because as soon as, you know, you got two major networks saying, ah, you know, a bunch of live, we're not going to do.

You know, people like, what? So it's all harmful. Isaac, thanks very much for helping us out. Really appreciate it. Nice of you to do it. We'll talk again soon, I hope. Isaac's website, again, if you would like to check it out, is readtangle, one word.com.

Wendy's 99 cent frosty is. back and Frosty farmers couldn't be happier. Made with Canadian dairy, they grow up cool, creamy, and mighty thick. It's farm to Frosty. Get a small 99 cent Frosty until longest second and participating Wendy's Texas Extra. My name is

Peter Parker, but I'm also Spider-Man. This Thursday, we're faced with a threat. That can be anyone. The world may have forgotten Peter Parker. I'm just a neighbor, friendly neighbor. But he hasn't forgotten them. Sometimes Spider-Man has to do

hard thing. That's my responsibility. Dr. Banner? I didn't know you could get that big. Spider-Man, brand new day in theaters Thursday. This is the No Spin News Weekend Edition. So the gap

between Americans who live in the big cities and those who live in rural areas or the suburbs is getting wider. That is the key to voting in the future. There's a different point of view in the countryside than there is in Miami,

in San Francisco, in LA, Chicago, New York, Boston, on and on. Very different. And it's hurting the Democratic Party and helping Donald Trump and the Republicans. So we're going to into that a little here tonight with facts because we just don't bloviate about stuff unless we know what we're talking about. So the progressives are now firmly entrenched in about 15 states, and that is the subject of this evening's Talking Points memo. One of the most shocking situations is Minnesota. So over my life, I've been there many times. I used to take a few days up in rainy lake on the boundary waters and go fishing and jump in the lake. And, you know, Minnesota was always a very nice place to visit. Now it's Loonville. And I know there are good

people in Minnesota. I know that you're not all crazy. But your government is crazy. And the majority of Minnesotans elected them. So there are 10 electoral votes in Minnesota. There are 3.8 million registered voters there. Big immigrant community, a lot of Somalis, as you know, from the recent criminal action. But the problem in Minnesota is political correctness and lack of perspective. That is the problem. And I'm not privy to why it's happening. I suspect it's the school. So let's start with the governor's state, Tim Walz. He was almost vice president. So Kamala Harris picked him as a running mate. He didn't do well in a campaign.

He's not a very smart man. But he's an ideologue. I mean, he's a far left progressive ideologue. So there was a guy who was convicted of a heinous crime in Minnesota, 42-year-old Tolu Vang. And he, for years, abused a 10. 10-year-old girl. He was convicted of first-degree sexual conduct, criminal conduct. Now, his case then became up for parole. If you can believe this, the guy should have been put away for life,

but in Minnesota they were going to parole him. And Wall supported that, and they did parole the man. If you can believe this, just step back. Step back. No emotion. So the governor's state and the parole board said, we don't care that this guy did this horrible thing. We're going to let him out on the streets of Minnesota. Didn't have to.

It's unwarranted. They did it anyway. Okay? Now, we reported on this extensively yesterday. So Secretary St. Marco Rubio swoops in. He says, no, you're not. Gets the Laotian, deports him back to Laos, and there we believe he'll spend whatever horror of his life is left.

So you would think that this would be an embarrassment for the state of Minnesota, right? Wouldn't you be embarrassed if somebody in your family member did this and wasn't held accountable? to the full extent of the law. So the big newspaper there is the Minneapolis Star Tribune, crazy left, going out of business. You know, they're not a powerhouse anymore, but they used to be. So to Star Tribune headlines,

cheers to Governor Tim Walz. Cheers for letting this man out of prison. And then they run a column by a, a person named Rochelle Olson. Quote, Vang's actions 20 years ago were awful, but so were the violent protests at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. And those folks received presidential pardons.

Of the deportation, Wall said, and just by picking them up and taking them out with no due process, it just seems unfair. Cheers to Walls for standing behind the pardon. This is printed in the Minneapolis paper. So first of all, this woman does the what aboutism, which when you get somebody doing that, means they have no argument.

So what about January 6th? There's no comparison between raping a 10-year-old girl and invading the Capitol building. None on the moral chart. None. If you don't know that, you are a so-called loon. Now, you can argue Trump's pardons all day long. I wouldn't have done it. I would have taken a case by case.

Okay, because some of those guys were bad guys in that capital. Okay? There are anarchists. They wanted to overthrow the system. Unacceptable. But none of them were as horrendous as Vang. None of them. And for this woman to put that out is outrageous.

And then due process? Well, he had due process, lady. He was convicted, okay, of child rape. That's due process. So Minneapolis Star Tribune disgraces itself. Now, Minnesota. So you know about the Somali fraud, 110 individuals arrested. They won't give us a breakdown ethnically, they, the state of Minnesota.

They're not all Somalis and most of them are. So they ran a Ponzi scheme of $9 billion where they applied for COVID relief saying that they wanted to open food distribution centers. And there's no evidence they ever did that. They stole the money. Okay. And the whole case wasn't cracked by Minnesota. It's cracked by a journalist. Okay.

And now you have how many convicted here? Okay. That's 66 convicted. Down guilty. 66. All right. 110 charged. That's a lot.

Now, walls and the rest of the legislature in Minnesota, are they repentant? No. They blame ICE. What about us them? Or what about ICE? Okay. Now, Minnesota joins California, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, Oregon, Washington State, and a bunch of others, as progressive looms. Places that have no perspective aren't interested in justice at all, and their conduct's appalling.

Rational people know this. Irrational people don't. They believe what they want to believe? What about is them all day long? Whatever it may be. They don't care. but rational people, and I believe most Americans are, they know there's something very wrong with this,

and it's tied into the Democratic Party. So they may not like the voters, Trump, or the policies, but they're not going to vote for the Democrats who are this extreme. And that's a memo. You're listening to the No Spine News Weekend Edition. Trump and the corporate media. So the war continues there. It's never going to end.

Talk about a war there won't end. Even after the president leaves office, still going to be. It'll be sued. He'll be this. He'll be that. You just wait and see. So he flies, the president does last week on Air Force One. The new plane given to us.

by the country of Qatar, he flies to Turkey from D.C. And the, I guess, Secret Service find that the plane, the GIF plane, doesn't have the security measures they need to protect the president. So he flies back to the USA from Ankara on a regular Air Force One. The New York Times prints all lives. This is national security stuff. When a president has to change planes for security reasons, that's a big story. Now Trump wants to know who leaked the information that the plane from Qatar was not properly outfitted with protective measures.

So the Justice Department is issuing subpoenas to... force the New York Times people and some of their relatives to give them their phone records. Of course, the journalists aren't going to do that. We've seen this play out many, many times. But it's just another one. In the end, the Trump administration probably will not win it. But, you know, there's a slight chance that other things could arise that would make it more, they'll make it easier for the federal courts to say, you know, we can't have national security secrets being slipped out to any media organization. The law says that the television networks, the three, are beholden to the federal government. This is the FCC's Ballywick. And in addition to the subpoenas, the subpoena's, the

The Trump administration is threatening NBC and ABC, the companies, because they didn't run Trump speech last Thursday. It's threatening to take away their licenses. Here's what it says. Subject to the provisions of this section, the commission, that's the FCC, shall determine in the case of each application filed with it, to which section 30A to the title applies, whether the public interest convenience and necessity will be served by granting or extending

some of these applications, right? Just because the government owns the airwaves. Okay, so you can't fly in U.S. airspace without permission. That's airspace. Interesting enough. Sea space is 12 miles, as we've explained. So, again, now the court's going to have to be involved to see if NBC and ABC are serving the public interest or they might get their license yanked. I don't think that will happen, but it could. Joining south of Washington is Thomas Berry. He's the director of constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.

So did I frame both of these stories accurately in your own? opinion. I think you did, but I think the big additional point is the First Amendment and what role does that have to play here? So you're exactly right that the statute says pretty vaguely that broadcasters need to serve the public interest and that the government can pick who gets particular parts of the spectrum of the airwaves based on the public interest. But the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has consistently held, doesn't allow the government to play favorites it's based on viewpoint. So if a president doesn't like a particular broadcast station because it's not airing either his own speeches or speeches favorable to him, and it turns out that's the

reason why a license renewal was denied, I think a court would likely strike down that action as violating the First Amendment, even if it's consistent with the statute. What about national security? If you have a reporter printing or broadcasting information that might put the president of the United States at risk, okay, does that enter into the First Amendment debate? It certainly does, and that would be a more difficult factor that the courts would really have to get into the facts of seeing what level of danger did this actually risk.

There have been a lot of famous cases going up to the Supreme Court, like the Pentagon Papers case, for example, where the court had to balance the interests of news gathering and news reporting on matters of vital, public concern with national security concerns. And sometimes national security concerns do win out. Just recently, the Supreme Court upheld the law banning TikTok 9 to 0 because the government had claimed that TikTok at the time raised national security concerns due to connections to potential Chinese ownership. So it's really a fact-bound matter, but understandably, courts have to look for

real evidence, not just claims. And I think it's a lot better of courts behind close. doors evaluate potentially classified evidence rather than simply assuming what the government claims is correct? Of course. I mean, you want the jurists to make their decisions based upon reality, not political propaganda. We all know that President Trump believes that he doesn't get a fair shake from the network news and a lot of the cables, but the cables operate in different rules.

So we don't have the, we don't have the free airwave system. stuff because people pay to get our product, whereas the networks are free, and that's the difference. So you're sitting there and you're watching this war between the President of the United States and the corporate media. That's pretty much what the war is. Who's winning in your opinion? I think in the long run, free speech is winning because we have more sources of news than we ever have before. A lot of these doctrines about spectrum scarcity, about the FCC's control over the broadcast networks, those were decisions from the 40s, 50s, and 60s, the old era where you had three broadcast stations that had kind of a monopoly of television news.

Now you have cable, now you have the internet, you have talk radio. There are many, many sources where people can go for conservative viewpoints. in the media. And I think that conservatives and Republicans should be embracing that fact, that we have a better free market of speech than we've ever had before. And I think it's concerning and eventually could well backfire if the FCC is overly aggressive here and tries to create a new standard that a president can, by coercion, force broadcast networks to carry a president's speech. Just four years ago, many networks decided not to air President Biden's speech about elections and democracy shortly before the midterms. They similarly thought,

thought it was more political than newsworthy. That should be a call that each of them makes on an individual basis. I wouldn't want to force Fox broadcast networks to carry Biden when they don't want to, and I wouldn't want to force ABC to carry Trump when they don't want to. If people want to watch Trump speeches, there are plenty of outlets on cable and online where they can do so. But there's an extension of that, and that is that the corporate media ignored the Hunter-Biden Dossier story by and large, which had an effect on the vote. between Trump and the Democratic Party. Biden wound up not running, but the networks, ABC, NBC, and CBS actively downplayed an important piece of news that might have influence votes.

And I don't know how that could ever be described as being in the public interest, Mr. Berry. I think what we've seen is a big reaction to that, and in many ways, a counterreaction that's been helpful. So Twitter similarly suppressed that news story, and as a result, Elon Musk buys Twitter, and now, if anything, it's more favorable to the president than any other big social media site. And similarly... Yeah, but I understand what you're saying here. But that was a calculation based on business. This is a government's role.

So if you add, look, it's totally possible in the next 10 years that the communist movement in America gets even stronger than it is now and becomes a player under the guise of democratic socialism, whatever they call on themselves today, there is a possibility that would happen. And if the network news and most of the corporate media buy into, I don't think they will, but it's possible, let's be communists, the whole thing blows up. Last word. I think that we should totally change the paradigm. Sell have auctions so that companies have to pay billions of dollars for the rights to these important spectrums. That would be a huge boon to the Treasury. It would be a win-win, a hole in one. David Sacks, president's advisor, had suggested that. Get rid of the amorphous public interest standards and treat it like private property,

like real estate, billboards, everything else in media. But the highest bidder wins the networks, and they're all, in my opinion, pretty much against the Republicans and the conservative movement. All of them. I have faith in a free market. The right-wing conservative talk radio flourished in the 16th, 70s and 80s, despite a lot of FCC attempts to suppress them, especially under John F. Kennedy. In the long run, the more power you give to the government to pick winners and losers in the speech marketplace, often conservatives are losers.

All right, Mr. Berry. Thanks very much for debating us. We really appreciate it. This is the No Spin News Weekend Edition. Okay. The Talking Points memo is my appearance on, Chris Cuomo's News Nation show last night. I hope you watch that.

I mean, we're all once a week with Cuomo. I like Cuomo. I like him personally. I like him on television. He's talented. He is a confirmed Democrat. Nothing wrong with that. His whole family is Democrat,

his father, Mario Cuomo is a Democratic governor in New York. I don't wrong with it. Okay? But he and I see the world much, much different. And this was a fascinating shootout we had last night. Okay. So the prevailing wisdom among the Democratic Party and the progressive left is that ICE, Homeland Security, is the devil.

There's no shortcut for saving time, but saving money is simple. Just combine your car and home insurance with Bel Air Direct and save. Get a quote at bellairdirect.com. The Hulu original series Furious is coming to Disney Plus. Starring Emmy Rossum, Furious follows FBI agent Alice Black on the hunt for a mysterious and calculating serial killer. Both walk their own paths toward justice, and as their lives start to intertwine, the line between right and wrong begins to blur. Don't miss the three-episode premiere of the Hulu original series Furious on July 27th, only on Hulu on Disney Plus. They are abusers. They are fascists. It's a terrible agency heard.

hurting Americans. Six people, three U.S. citizens, have been killed by ICE this year. And it is getting to the fact, to the point, I should say, where it's influencing elections in Maine. Okay. Now, I am a pretty good judge of effectiveness in government. I've been doing this a long, long time. Here's what I said on January 12th. Go. Now the federal government at this point has a couple of obligations. Has to enforce the law. Has to. But they can de-escalate violent confrontations. So if ICE agents see that there's a person like Ms. Good impeding their investigation with a automobile, the vehicle, then you do escalate that.

And that advice stands. Now, last night, because Cuomo was whaling on ice, and okay, but a news nation are responsible enough to bring on an opposing point of view of me. You don't see that much on cable anymore. I made my whole career off debate on Fox News. Now, the hosts or anchors, whatever you want to call them, they don't like the debate. They just bring on people to agree with them.

You know that. That's why it's boring. And it's across the board. Okay. So we started out, I started out, criticizing Cuomel for his monologue. in that monologue at the top of the program, he was citing human rights watch as an agency

that was defining ICE. Now, human rights watch, you don't get more left wing than they are. You don't, and I'll prove it to you in a moment. And I'm going, wait, if that's what you're using to base your analysis on, that's not fair. Roll the tape.

You made a big journalist mistake today. What did I do? And it was by basing your monologue on human rights watch. Now, the mistake is this. Human rights watch, just like the Southern Poverty Law Center, is an agenda-driven organization. Now, I don't mind you quoting them, but you have an obligation to quote a counterpoint not to put up human, rights watch as the benefactor of the truth. That's a journalistic mistake. Sorry to bring it to your attention.

It's a journalistic mistake. I'm older than you, I've been in a business longer. It's a journalistic mistake if there is a salient counter to what they said. We don't have one because this administration won't be transparent about what it found when it reviewed the complaints. Because you don't make sure reportage. on an agency that has an agenda.

That's why? Their agenda is human rights. I'm going after people who violate them. Okay, I got it. The ACLU's agenda is freedom of speech, right? So the ACLU, human rights, watch, in the Southern Poverty Law Center, are the three biggest drivers of progressive thought.

And if you are going to base any of your fact-based analysis on them, you're not being fair. That was my point. So we want everybody to go to Human Rights Watch website. And here is what you will see. First of all, there's a big quote. It says, we expose abuses against border communities, migrants, and a asylum seekers and call for policy changes to meet humanitarian needs. We advocate for the fair policies that respond to migrants' various rights, base rationales for seeking to enter the United

States, including hoping for protection, responding to the effects of climate change, finding work, returning to locations where their communities have resided for many years, and reuniting with family members, unquote. That's an open border policy. If you don't like the climate where you live, you come here illegally? Come on. Come on. You know, this is Loonville.

Okay? That's where they are. Human rights watch. But it's not just in migrants. It's everything. Here's another quote from their website. racial justice considerations inform all our work, which includes research and advocacy to secure reparations for the enslavement of black people in the U.S. and its continuing impact protect immigrants and borders rights. Okay. So you can see with your own eyes how radical, how progressive human rights watch is.

To their credit, they don't lie about it. They're not members of the Democratic Party that lie. They don't lie. We're radical left. We want open borders. We want to give immigrants rights. Under our Constitution, if you're not an American citizen, you don't have any rights. Okay?

Now, when you come to the United States and you stand on our soil, then the constitutional rights kick in. But theoretically, people who live in Peru don't have American rights until they get here, which is why don't want to come here? Okay. So if you're a journalist, you've got to know this, but they don't care. And I don't know about Cuomo, whether he cares or not. But I do know that he does not want Homeland Security and ICE to be hunted. down criminal aliens. Go. You are not bullish on hunting down criminal aliens. That's not true. That is a fact of every blank and person who watches the show. I don't like the idea of hunting down

misdemeanors, okay? You want to hunt down a killer? No, no, not misdemeanors. But that's not who they're getting, Bill. Their own numbers, which are obviously cooked, show that it's barely 50-50. It's way less than 50-50, okay, as far as taking people into custody who don't have credentials to be here. Now, I am going to mention there, and I'm going to give you the government stats, which is shaky. The federal government should be doing a better job informing we the people of exactly what ICE is doing. Cormo's got a legitimate point there. All right, now, Now, according to Harvard Poll, Harvard Harris, 55% of Americans want all migrants, all of them deported. 45 don't. Criminal migrants, 79% want them out. 21% do not. And the Democratic Party does not. And I use the word

hunt down because that's what it is. See, the problem is that ICE goes in looking for the rapist, the gang member, the bank robber, whoever it may be, and then around that person, inevitably are other migrants who may not be committing crimes, but they're in association with the criminal. So they're all swept in. You know, they don't sort them out. Well, you stay, you don't, you say, they all come in, which is the only person. policy possibly have. So we went to Homeland Security, asked for the data, and they haven't released data in a while. In fact, if you go there and you ask for it, you'll get a server error message. Not good. Okay. In December, last December, 2025, their website had 35,000 criminal illegal aliens

arrested. Those are not people who just crossed the border, as Chris Cuomo was implying. Those are people who came here and committed felonies or have a rap sheet in their home country. Okay? So 35,000 in December was the number. More than 600,000 migrants have been taken in. for not having the credentials to be here. Now, most of those are deported, but the press will have you believe that they're abused, they're beaten, they're whatever it may be.

But again, it is up to the courts to decide who stays and who goes. Many of these 600,000 have... detainers on them because they didn't show up for a court case, or they didn't answer this complaint or that complaint. In fact, I will submit to you that most have a judge signed an order there to be deported. You'll never hear that from the media. ICE is bad. ISIS is the devil. Okay. According to DHS, 70% of ICE arrests are of ICE arrests are of, oh,

of criminal illegal aliens who have been convicted at charge of crime in the USA. But that's a little misleading, okay? So they're arresting these people for the first time. They're not taking into account the ones that have already been deemed to have criminal activity on their sheet with the judge's order for deportion. Okay, they're being deported. That should be in there. See how confusing this is?

most have to have a PhD in math. So Americans, I think many of us, are confused. We see the dead people, and that is something they have to see. I suggest, I continue to suggest, to Tom Homan and to Mullen, the head of the DHS, lighter, not as harsh, lighter. And they're going to say to me, hey, these guys are armed, they're dangerous, they're selling narcotics, they're murderers. We can't go in like Little Bo Peep. I got it. But if there's any doubt, you pull back because you don't want dead bodies in the street.

It doesn't help anybody. And that's the memo. You're listening to the No Spin News Weekend Edition. All right. The rise of socialism and communism is somewhat tied into open borders. And the movement, far-left movement, has gained traction, particularly in states like California and Arizona, because new voters are voting for entitlements and the Democrats are the party of entitlements. Okay. So, CNBC at a poll and a thousand voters. Okay, we're fine with that. Here's question number one.

Rate your feelings toward each. socialism. Positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative, very negative. Socialism. 28% positive in July of this year, big number. 19% neutral, that means they don't know what socialism is, negative 48%. And combining the negatives would be 67%. In January 2020, six and a half years ago, positive on socialism, was 19%. So they are up 9%. All right, 9%.

That's a pretty big leap. I have some other data, but I think that that's good data. I think the socialistic movement in America is up to about 25% of people who want stuff. They don't want to compete in capitalism. They like the socialism system, whatever it may be. Joining us now from Washington is Dr. Allen Amendid Hall. He's a senior advisor for the Heritage Foundation. So do you believe that the socialist slash Marxist, slash,

communist, slush, democratic social, all of these people, all right, are on the rise, or is it just a trend? In Toronto, every arrival is a statement, and nothing says it better than this. Cadillac Optic was the number one selling luxury EV in Canada for 2025. Find your rhythm across a seamless 33-inch display and an immersive 19-speaker AKG surround audio system. This city demands agility, and Optic delivers with precision to make every drive, extraordinary. Let's take the Cadillac. Find out more at Cadillac canada.ca. Luxury sales claim based on S&P Global Mobility

Canadian New Vehicle Total Registrations for calendar year 2025 for the Cadillac definition of luxury. Some things are better when they're kept simple, like simply lemonade made with real lemons and cane sugar, giving you a fresh, all-natural taste that shines through in every sip. It's the kind of drink that turns an everyday moment into something a little more special. Bright, refreshing.

and crafted for people who appreciate the real thing. Visit the Jill Juice Isle in your local grocery store today and say yes to Simple. Well, I think it's both. I think they're on the rise and it's a trend. So my background, Bill, is I'm a lawyer with a PhD in English. And I had to come up through all these humanities programs and had to read a lot of Marxism in order to get a PhD.

And obviously, I reject all this Marxism, but you look at the 19th century classical Marxism of Marx and Ingalls. and they're advocating for the proletariat to rise up against the bourgeois Z. But what happens, the workers don't rise up against the capitalist. So all these Marxist humanities figures in Europe basically convene and reformulate Marxism. So people like Gromsky and Ardorno and Marcusa and Eric Fromm and Al-Tuzay and Al-Tuzay has this theory of ideological state apparatuses.

Varaduses. And he says, look, the churches, the schools, the media, entertainment, corporations, all of these institutions condition people to believe in capitalism. They socialize people to believe in capitalism. And so these left-wing people say, look, we have to have a long march to the institutions. We have to capture these institutions in order to transmit our Marxist beliefs. So look at the Smithsonian today. You mentioned the Southern Poverty Lawsonor earlier. Well, you kind of teed me up there. The Southern Poverty Lawsoner's training materials are being used by the Smithsonian.

What are the Smithsonian's training materials teaching? Well, they're teaching that rugged individualism, the nuclear family, the scientific method, all of these are signals of nefarious white culture. And you should be aware, teacher, when you hear people promoting the scientific method that this is code for. for something that's white supremacist. And so if something like the Smithsonian can be captured ideologically,

then anything can be captured. People think that I exaggerate when I say, look, this is Marxism. And they say, that's just hyperbole. Well, look, I came up through these PhD programs where I had to read it, where I'm reading these theorists they're saying, this is what we have to do. And then I'm watching them actually do it.

And I say, well, this isn't hyperbole at all. This is actually the game player. But the question that becomes in six years, they've added nine, points to their roster of people who like that. Why are they adding, number one, is it about President Trump? Why are they adding? And number two, is there another factor in all this?

So it's not like the 1950s were in a Cold War with the Soviet Union and they were our enemy. Now the socialist, communist, communist movement are friendly people. we're going to give you things. And Mamdani is the best example. He's running the largest city in a country, and he's a communist and outright communist. There's no doubt about it. Means of production.

He wants to control it. That's what communists do, right, before they seize your private property. Okay? So I'm not sure whether the bump up in six years is just because the society has changed from passive, from mass, active to passive look when your whole life is lived here rather than on the street making a living

digging uh trenches or whatever when this is your whole life your psychology changes as well yeah bill i think a lot of it is unfortunately just ignorance among among young people i i taught in the university system for a long time and i remember this young student that was wearing this shay givara t-shirt and i had this conversation with him and I said how could you wear that t-shirt and he gave me sort of socialist talking points and I said are you aware that socialism and communism killed over a hundred million people in the 20th century over a hundred million people you wouldn't come in you wouldn't come into the school wearing an Adolf Hitler t-shirt

and we know that the Holocaust killed six million Jews over 11 million people and you wouldn't wear a shirt bearing his image and yet you're going to wear a shirt bearing the image of somebody that stands for the deaths of over 100 million people, why do you think that's okay? And it's because they don't know. They really just don't know. Was his answer, I don't know, I don't believe you. What was his answer? I think it was, uh, something like that. It was just a just sort of, you know, I don't know. But an entire political party is now under heavy influence from the Marxist faction. and that is new.

That has never happened, never happened in this country. That's new. That is new. You're right, that is new. Why is that happening? I think part of it is they're building off this vocabulary, rhetoric, and these concepts from residual Marxism, which frames, rather than framing it working class versus bourgeoisie, it frames everything in terms of the oppressor and the oppressed.

And it's very easy to start squeezing. raising racial categories, gender categories, theories of sexuality, into this oppressor-oppressed binary. And for whatever reason, young people who are frustrated and want to air grievances are attracted to this grievance culture. And so I think that's what pulls them in. They're upset, they're angry, they're frustrated, they find an ideology that sort of explains things to them, and they gravitate to it.

But what they have said about? I mean, we're the most affluent country in the world, outside of Switzerland maybe. Why are the younger people upset? When I graduated from grad school at Boston University, the first thing I did was get a job. And I got a job in Scrant, Pennsylvania. I had to go. I had to do it if I want a career. I wasn't thinking about the government filling my car up with gas or anything else.

So what is the difference? What is the mentality difference that we have now? Well, I think there's some illegitimate concerns and some legitimate concerns. I'll start with the legitimate concerns for these young people. A lot of them struggle to find housing. They're delaying family formation. The economy is difficult for young people. They have a tougher time finding jobs. That's all legitimate. Now, I will say, as somebody who taught a lot of young people, they can't read. They don't do the work. you know they struggle in the classroom they are dependent on artificial

intelligence in order to give their answers so there's stuff that is their fault but there is stuff that is not their fault that that that was sort of hoisted upon them without their choice so they have some legitimate grievances and then they have some problems that are of their own making and you know my advice to young people is look work hard get out there and find a job you don't have to have the cushiest job in the the world, take whatever you can get, do the best you can do in that position, and then doors will open. You'll find another job, but what you can't do is, I'm too good for this

position. That's why millions of people want to come here, because it is still a little bit of opportunity. But they don't have the will. Many of these Marxist people don't have the will to do that. They don't want to go to Scranton. They don't want to work hard. They just want to give it to them. And, man, Dami goes, I'm going to give you everything I can give you and take it away from the rich people. last word. Last word is you're right and I see a lot of these people getting paid to protest outside of this building all the time and they say some of the foulest things to people. It's it's stuff that you can't imagine one human being saying to another human being and these protesters

are getting paid to do it. It's disgusting. So you think this is a lasting movement and not just a trend, huh? Well, I'm hoping it's just a trend but it's definitely on the rise. Yeah. I can't predict it. Okay, doctor, thanks a lot for helping us out. We really appreciate it. This is the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. Okay, final thought. So 19 and a half years ago,

Haraldow and Vera and Bill O'Reilly went on the O'Reilly factor and shot it out, much like Chris Cuomo and I did last night on News Nation, shot it out over criminal illegal aliens. It was one of the most rambunctious interviews in the history of television news, 19 and a half years ago. And you can Google it. It's all over the place you can get it.

So what I decided to do tomorrow is to interview again, Ovaldo Rivera, to see if he has changed his point. point of view on anything in this subject matter. And he has. So that is our do it live, long form on YouTube. You go to bill o'Reilly.com and everything's there to make it easy for you. But boy, it's a fascinating interview. And we get into other stuff like the media and how it's changed and all of that. And so I really enjoy that. Because 19 and a half years, I can't believe it was that long ago. So that's on, and we'll drop it for premium members at noon. Everybody else in the world can see it at six Eastern Time tomorrow, and I hope you guys will watch it, and let me know what you think. Bill at Bill O'Reilly.com.

Bill at Bill O'Reilly.com. So Geraldo. And next week I understand we have Dr. Oz on the long form. We'll do it live. And I'm looking forward to talking to him, a lot of stuff he's involved with. So this thing is chug it along. And it's really worth your time to check it out. All right, so we're coming up at the end of July now.

And we want, as I recommended to President Trump, when everybody to kind of decompress a little bit, if you can. I mean, because it just gets overwhelming. You just get kind of foggy if it's just, if you don't have a break. And I'm going to cut back a little in August, but we're going to be here because of the Iran situation. I mean, you've got to watch that. Anything could happen at any time. And we have some very good stuff that we're going to bring to your attention.

All right, Sunday column, I'm already working it. You like it. Always check in with us over the weekend because we'll have the latest breaking stories, my analysis of those stories. I am Bill O'Reilly. We do thank you very much for watching No Spin News, and we'll see you soon. Thank you for listening to the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. 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.