Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis - No Spin News - Weekend Edition - March 28, 2026

Episode Date: March 28, 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

Welcome to the No Spin News Weekend Edition. Iran's the subject of the Talking Points memo once again. You can't get away from it because it affects every American and mostly every person around the world. So today, President Trump ordered a postpone of draconian action against the Iranian oil fields. He's going to blow them all up. And he's not going to do that for five days, he says. Because they had a call yesterday, they being the United States, with Koff is the main negotiator, and somebody in Iran.

We don't know who. Okay? Nobody knows who's in charge. The Mueller's kid who got elected, nobody's seen him. So somebody's talking, but we don't know. But Trump says it was a very good call. They're making a lot of progress. So I'm going to back away for five days, see if we can get a deal, which is what Trump

wanted from the very beginning, as I have reported. And how do I know that? Because I was on the phone with the man for half an hour talking about the negotiation. This was before there was military action. Okay. So again, the conversation between Iran and Whitkoff, and they're, you know, you know, it's by phone. And there are other people in the room with Whitkoff, of course,

took place yesterday, Sunday, March 22nd. That happened. Iran says it didn't happen. Okay. What do you expect them to say? They're not going to admit weakness. They're not going to say they came to the USA wanting a deal. Ever.

All right. Two weeks ago, here's what I predicted. go. So the Iranians obviously are getting a hell kicked out of them. And this is a threat to them. And then they wouldn't be in power if they didn't kill 30,000 of their own countrymen. Okay. And so they'll probably open talks and then Trump will impose what he wants. Now, whether Iran accepts that or not, I think they will, because they really know how much of a choice now, you know, talk the cliche. is bombing them back to the Stone Age, that's what they're doing. But one thing changed, the difficulty in a strait of Hormuz, which is strangling some oil

flow out to the rest of the world, most importantly to China. China, the big part of this, okay, but it gets no publicity. But China gets an enormous amount of oil from Iran. In fact, 80% of all the oil Iran sells goes to China. Just keep that in mind. Now, a deal is going to look something like this. The mullahs are not going to be removed from power. All right.

So regime changed. It's already changed because the Israelis killed all the first leadership. So we're on the second and third tier now. But they'll remain. Okay, that's number one. Number two, Western weapons inspectors, nuclear people, probably from the UN, but there's got to be some EU people in there, will be admitted to make sure that the Iranians are not enriching uranium. Iranians are going to back away from that.

They're going to say, all right, we won't do it now. Which is what this whole thing's all about. All right? They have to, because Trump's not going to sign any deal. It doesn't include that. Ballistic missiles, they only have like eight of them left, so Iran doesn't, that's not a big factor, but they'll say we're not going to make any more, we're going to destroy the ones we have, or whatever they'll say.

But, and I'm not naive, Iran will cheat on all this, but you got to get the agreement first. Okay. And then in return, the Trump administration will lighten up some of the sanctions, economic sanctions against Iran. They'll be able to take their oil and sell it to China and that kind of thing. That's probably the way it's going to shake down. Now, how long will that take? I can't see it going more than two more weeks because every day there's another attack on Iran's infrastructure. And if they are disrespectful or if they lie about this pause, Trump will come back with more ferocity against them.

And, you know, every day it's going to take Iran that much longer to rebuild whatever infrastructure they're going to have left. Okay. So that's, these are my predictions of what's going to happen. Now, the war is going to cost the American taxpayer about $200 billion. dollars. A lot of money. All right. And Europe's not going to help. No one even give us a dime. All right. Israel doesn't have any money. They're totally dependent on the USA. How is the Trump administration going to make that back? I don't know. But it'll probably be through some kind of

oil deals. This is the only way I can see that we're going to get back anything out of this whole campaign against Iran. So that, you know, is significant. Now, the Department of War, Hague said, oh, we got a trillion dollar. Look, let's not do that. We are spending ourselves into oblivion in this country, $39 trillion debt.

You need to tighten this up. And then individually, I do expect, prices to come down pretty significantly pretty fast why because if they don't the Trump administration Department of Energy is going to investigate the American oil companies and they don't want that they don't want to be investigated because they're gouging us so I expect that to come down is it enough to keep the USA out of a recession I don't know I don't know I don't Is it enough for the Republicans to keep the midterms?

Hard to say. All right. That's the memo. You're listening to the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. Now, most Americans are getting their information from the media, which is always now dangerous. It didn't used to be, but now it is. Because the media is not going to tell you the truth. I'm talking generally.

will. New CBS poll, 3,335 U.S. adults. That doesn't mean these people know anything. They're not registered voters, they're not likely voters, just adults. That means they just sweep them in. We don't know anything, whatever. First question, what is your impression of the military conflict by the Iran? Going well, 43 percent, somewhat or very badly, 57. percent. That is media driven. Okay. Second question, do you think Americans would be willing or not willing pay more for gas during the U.S. military conflict with Iran? Willing 33, not willing 67. That's a frightening number. So if you'd rather have Iran in possession of a nuclear weapon, then pay a little bit more for your gasoline, I don't know what to tell you. Okay. Now, the media,

itself is divided on this. Conservative media backs Trump. Okay. Liberal media, some of the not progressives, understand the big picture. The progressives totally against it. They hate Trump people. Trump's worse than the mullahs in their eyes. All right. Now here is the con. So the network news and the cables, MS and CNN, only book guests that hate Trump, with a few exceptions. They're trying to wise up a little. They got to get maybe one or two. But they're outnumbered like 20 to one.

And they know when they book a hate Trump guess, what the guess is going to say. Roll the tape. President Trump thought he could get a better deal than the Obama administration did. He failed to get that better deal. And he went off and launched a war without planning, without being ready for even some of the most basic things. This is the second time this century that the United States has made a drastically bad mistake in terms of engaging in conflict in the Middle East.

The first one was in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. And that ushered in then years and years of chaos and violence and tourism. I just came from a two-hour closed-door classified briefing. on the war. Just confirmed to me it's totally incoherent. We are not going to be able to achieve any of our stated objectives. Okay.

So all three of those men, they hate Trump. They never say anything good about them ever, or would they? In a million years, why bother having them on? Why bother? Because the network news, and two out of the three main cables are invested in ruining Trump. That's why.

All right, joining us now from Florida is our media go-to guy, Bernie Goldberg, who is the purveyor of bernardgoberg.com, which has a sensational special, we'll tell you about at the end of the interview. So you go there and absorb Bernie's wisdom. Okay, now Bernie has so much wisdom that you have to absorb it kind of,

gradually, or you'll be overwhelmed by the wisdom. All right, where am I going wrong here, Goldberg? And I want to make a comment about your rarely happening wisdom. That's a joke. You nailed it how they portray negative news. They bring people on who say all these negative things, and then they say, well, it's not us. Right.

It's just the people will bring it on. Anyway, I wrote a column on the website that you mentioned, bernard gobert.com. This is what I said. If Democrats were ventriloquists, journalists would be the little dummy sitting on their laps. So if Democrats are against the war and they are, liberal journalists will also be against the war.

Now, you and I, Bill, come from a hard news background, so I know you'll agree with this. journalists should not be cheerleaders for this or any other war. They should ask hard questions. They should be skeptical of what the government tells them. But they've crossed a very bright line with their partisanship. I won't give me just 30 seconds to read a very brief passage from an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, not by a MAGA Republican wearing a red hat, but by Mark Penn, who was an advisor.

of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Andrew Stein, who was the former New York City Council President, obviously a Democrat. Very short passage. Journalists have a right and a duty to report bad news and to question polyana-ish reports from the U.S. government. But many seem to be going beyond that and rooting for America to fail. Let that sink in. Very short end. What seems to be driving the coverage is repritorial partisanship and the Democrats' determination to oppose this president no matter what he does. Bingo, that's what it's all about. Democrats want to oppose him no matter what he does, so their media allies do the same thing. And I think you've got to give the New York Times credit for running that op-ed, but it's outnumbered.

No, Wall Street Journal. Well, oh, it was a Wall Street Journal. I read the op-bed. I just didn't remember the source of it. Okay, and all of that is true across the board. But here's a real frightening part, because I did use that word, introducing the CBS poll,

that a lot of Americans, maybe most of us, don't pay attention. They don't know really what's happening. They just hear things. And when the media is overwhelmingly against a president, they're going to just hear things that aren't true, that are slanted, whatever it may be, and then make their opinion based on the things they are hearing. I'm seeing more and more of that. How about you? No, I think you're right.

You're on a roll today, Bill. I think you're right about that, too. Let's use this as an example. Liberal Democrats and their allies in the media are trashing Donald Trump. This is one of their big reasons for their opposition to the war, because there was no imminent threat they say. But for argument's sake, and only for argument's sake, let's say they're right. There was no imminent threat. Would it be better if he had waited until there was an imminent threat?

because if he waited until there was a woman in threat, Iran may have had a nuclear device, nuclear bomb, and they could have hit London, Paris, Berlin, Tel Aviv, even New York or Washington, possibly. So you know what would happen then, Bill? The same media that is trashing Donald Trump for going to war when there was no imminent threat would be trashing him because he waited too long before there was an imminent threat.

So heads they win, tails he loses, the system is rigged. Now, interesting you brought that up because right after you, I'm going to run a clip of Lindsey Graham where I did an interview on our new long form, which did discuss in very micro detail of the imminent threat. Okay. So you have a basically dishonest media here. I don't think there's any question. Fair-minded people understand that. Do you believe? The New York Post has been delivering impactful headlines for over two centuries, and every weekday morning I'll bring them straight to you. I'm Caitlin Becker, host of the New York Postcast. From Washington to Wall Street, if it matters to you, you'll hear it here. And it wouldn't be the post without the stories other outlets like to ignore.

So ask your smart speaker to play the NY Postcast. Listen and subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. The actual people running these companies, making the calls, are dishonest? I think they're acting like business people and not news people. I think they know who their audience is and they say we're going to give them what. Isn't that dishonesty, though, because they're supposed to be presenting objective news? That's right, Bill. I'm going to break some bad news to you.

There's no tooth fairy and there's no Santa Claus and there's no Easter Bunny either. Of course, they're dishonest. They're doing this for business. They don't call it the news business for nothing. It's a business, and they should be doing, they should be reporting the truth without partisanship. But they're trying to stay in, they're desperately trying to stay in business in this new media landscape by telling the audience precisely what they think the audience wants to hear. Do you believe? That's corrupt, by the way.

Yeah, there's no doubt in my mind. Do you believe that the corruption that began in 2016, when Trump came on the stage and started to succeed, has destroyed the television news industry in particular? Or it was inevitable with social media and all it was inevitable, they were going to decline. It might have been inevitable, but. But they're getting worse and worse and worse. I mean, if Joe Biden or Barack Obama had launched this war, do you think the coverage would be the same? Of course not.

And the infantile questions, how long is the war going to? Do you get as angry as I do? I'm sitting there. How long is it? How would anybody know that? No, it's that you're absolutely, I don't know what you've been drinking, but you're absolutely right about that too. Here's the thing.

If this same journalistic bunch were covering D-Day on January 6th, 1944, when 2,500 Americans and 4,400 ally troops were killed in one day, they would be calling for the impeachment of Franklin Roosevelt and they would try to get White Eisenhower thrown into prison. I mean, you can't count any American death in uniform, any American in uniform who dies, it's a tragedy not just for their families, but for all of us. But they count every single one as if you see what's happening

and this war is not going to go on. It's not going to end tomorrow. When is it going to end? These are questions without answers. and they know what they're doing, and they're doing it to turn their audience, to appeal to their audience, who already doesn't like it

because of what their audience is hearing from other newspeople. It's a vicious circle. Yeah, but with one goal, get Trump. That's the beginning, the middle, and the end. All right, tell me about bernardgover.com March, madness special. What do you got about? I want to say two things.

First of all, it's a half price sale off of already very low prices. But here's the thing, Bill. We're a small website and we're trying to stay relevant. And your audience, the people I'm talking to now, and thank you for letting me do it, are important to our survival, to be perfectly honest about it. We need your audience, we like your audience, and we appreciate you for letting me say these things to your audience. Now, you have a half price going forward, and it's a pittance.

Yeah. And I'm saying not in a derogatory way, but if you want to add to your frame of reference, which really is what this is all about, I mean, when you have a colossus, corporate media that's being blatantly dishonest across the board. And you can't discount the right wing networks either because they're feeding the same kind of, absolutely, absolutely. Quote, unquote, information, but it's tailored to people who want to believe a certain thing. So the only hope is us. We're the only hope. That's what I was about to say. If somebody wants, their views given back to them 100% of the time. Don't waste your time coming over to bernard goberd.com.

I can't do that. Bill and I have been hard news reporters for many years. That's our foundation, that's our basis. We give opinions, but they're based on fairness. At least I hope they are. In my case, they are, and in Bill's case they are. And you'll agree with us a lot of times. You won't agree with us.

You won't agree with us or you won't agree with me all of the time. That's the way I do it. I try to give you my honest opinion, but it's only an opinion. But that's healthy. And that's what the founding fathers wanted, that kind of vibrant, robust debate with no personal animus or greedy money factor in it. Let me say this to your audience. You know how Bill knows that?

Thomas Jefferson told him that person. That's right. Goldberg, look, you are older than me. And based upon this shot that's going all over the world now, people can see that with their own eyes. All right, Bernardgoburg.com. March Madness, check it out. Appreciate it, Bernie.

Thank you, Bill. I need your help. This is the No Spin News Weekend Edition. So the president of Pakistan, man. Shabash Sharif is offered to hold peace talks in Islamabad between the United States, and I would assume Israel would be in on those talks to some extent, all right, but not a major player, and the government of Iran. The Guardian, that's a newspaper that is not reliable, reports that Vice President Vance would be the chief negotiator, not Steve Whitkoff or Jared Kushner,

who had been doing the negotiating before the military action. Again, the Guardian is not reliable, so I can't give you anything other than that's what this newspaper says. The government of Iran predictably says, oh, no, no, we don't want to talk. Yeah, okay. That's like, you know, they don't want to lose faiths in the Arab world, in the Muslim world, and with their own people, but they'll show up if there are talk schedule. Now, Reuters reports, the talks may begin this weekend. Royders is so-so, okay? I'm just giving you what we have. I can't say with certainty that any of this is going to happen. I can just tell you that the Trump administration would like it to happen.

Okay. About 2,200 Marines are either in or on their way to the Persian Gulf. We don't know why. And the Pentagon is not going to tell anybody why. Why would you do that? So we have ground forces available if certain missions, not occupation, but missions need to be done. But the, you know, the Defense Department,

the Department of War, whatever they are, they're not going to say, hey, this is where the Marines are, is what are we're going to do? Come on. But the reporters keep asking, okay, a Pentagon official says that due to security situations, we can't answer any questions. That's legitimate.

Usually the government digers, and it doesn't want to. answer questions here in a battle front situation, that's legitimate. In Ukraine, Zelensky says he has irrefutable proof that Russia is providing intelligence to Iran. That is likely an accurate situation. Putin is a master of evil. That's why he's on the cover confronting evil right next to the Ayatollah Al-Mahe. All right. So I'm sure that Russia's doing bad things, trying to make it more difficult for the United States. So I believe that report. The United Nations UNICEF, which is a children's arm of it, says that 324 children have been killed so far in a conflict. 206 in Iran, 118 in Lebanon, four in Israel, one in Kuwait. Now the Lebanon's thing is interesting because Lebanon got involved. at the behest of Iran, and it's Hezbollah. It's not the government of Lebanon.

So terror group Hezbollah. It's the same thing with Hamas. So they start firing rockets at Israel, civilians. What do you think Israel's going to do? So they fire rockets back. Now, I'm not justifying anything. I'm just telling you that perspective is needed in covering the story.

So the kids are caught in the middle, just like Hamas. Civilians were caught in Gaza because Hamas hid behind them. We all understand. I hope so. So how did the UN get those numbers? It's impossible to get them. So they took them from the various governments, which then you say, okay, you've got to be skeptical. But be that as it may, children, women, civilians, everybody's suffering.

World will be a lot better place. We didn't have any of this, right? It's so simple. So summing up, I think that they're over the weekend, this weekend coming, stuff is going to happen. And I'm hoping good stuff for the country's sake. could be wrong, and that's the memo. You're listening to the No Spino News Weekend Edition. Joining South of Washington, U.C. is Mick Mulvaney.

You know him. He was President Trump's chief of staff for 15 months at the end of Mr. Trump's first term. He is now the co-chair at Actum, and he's on CNBC. and News Nation. So my question is very simple. I'm a simple man as you know, Mick. Is President Trump the same leader? We'll talk about him as a human being in a minute.

But is he the same leader now than he was when you were chief of staff? Yeah, it's a really interesting question. I'm going to try to give you a little nuanced answer. And the answer is, yeah, some places in some places he's different. Keep in mind, I was chief, what, seven years ago now. And I don't think any of us are exactly the same person or same leader that we would have been seven years ago. I see some similarities, Bill, and I see some differences. The big differences that I've seen is that in the first term, I really think Trump valued having people around him who aggressively disagreed with him,

maybe not publicly, but certainly privately. Look, he hired me. I was one of the most fiscally conservative members of the Republican Budget Committee on the Hill. And Donald Trump is is not the world's most fiscally conservative person. He hired Gary Cohn, the former president of Goldman Sachs, to advise him on economic issues. And Gary, he's a free trader. Donald Trump is clearly not a free trader. He welcomed those types of disagreements in the first term.

In fact, he sort of cultivated it. He wanted to see people fight with each other. I remember going to trade meetings, and he used to put the free traders, you know, me and Gary on one side of the room and the protectionist, Peter Navarro and Bob Lighthizer on the other side of room. Watch us argue. He liked that.

That's how he chose. to manage. I see a little bit of that in this term. I know for, oh, by the way, and don't forget, he hired John Bolton, the, you know, the most neo-conservative person you can to be national security advisor, and Donald Trump is not a neo-conservative. In this term, I get the sense that he doesn't have as much interest in doing that. It's still some. Russ vote, who runs the OMB, work for me, probably more fiscally conservative than I am, and he's still on the team and very highly regarded. But generally speaking, I'm just not, I don't get the sense that he wants that same sort of active and aggressive disagreement that he wanted in the first term. So yeah, there's some

similarities. There's some differences, probably to be expected with the passage of time. He's a different person in the country's a different place. So I don't think that's necessarily bad. It's just different. Is it true that he's more confident in his second term because he learned some very hard lessons in his first term? Not sure if it's the first lessons. I think he's confident right now in the military. I think the actions in Venezuela, the action six months ago in in Iran at the Nantan's nuclear facility gave him a certain level of confidence. We didn't see that.

We didn't do any of that in the first term by choice. And I think maybe that's a new data point for him that he thought he could use the military in a way that what didn't really occur to us in the first term. I don't think Donald Trump has any interest, as you mentioned in your introduction,

of putting troops on the ground in Iran on a permanent or semi-perman invasion type of basis. And he didn't want that in the first term either. But this sort of what I call Tomahawk diplomacy, the strategic sort of stuff, the standoff weapons, that was something we didn't even consider using the first term. And clearly he's not shy about using it now. It is true that a lot of people that he has hired have been sick offense and just say, yes, him to death and whatever he wants is fine. But is that understandable because he got burned by a lot of people in his first term? Kelly, people like that.

They turned on them. They burned them. There were a lot of leaks. Remember, the leaks all over the place. And he then became very distrustful of the swamp. Yes and no. And again, that's the second time I'm trying to give you a nuanced answer. But these are complicated questions.

Yeah, he got burned in the first term. There's no question. I mean, James Mattis was actively working against Donald Trump. John Kelly, my predecessor's chief of staff, was actively working against him. many of the people saw themselves as the so-called adults in the room there to protect the country against the president. That's a fundamentally wrong position for any member, an unelected member of staff to take. And if Trump sort of felt burnt by that, you can't blame him. That being said, there were people that he that he trusted and knew and worked well with in the first administration who did disagree with him from time to time.

I was one of those. I never turned on Trump, but I did have the confidence to go and close the door and tell him something that, maybe I disagreed with. So I don't think you need to go as far as just firing everybody or not putting people in there who would disagree with you at all. There are ways to get there who can give you. But he's chosen people for loyalty as one of the top considerations. I think a lot of this turned, and I'm looking at it from a historical point of view now,

on January 6th. So he had a close relationship with Pence, his vice president, and I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they lunched a couple of times a week and Pence gave him fairly candid advice, correct? Did. Okay. So that relationship was pretty strong until January 6th, all right, when Pence wouldn't go in and challenge the, vote. And so Pence was out the door, and then a more loyal guy, in Donald Trump's opinion, Vance took his place. And then you saw that in the Department of War with Hegsef, who is a patriot.

I mean, I would never argue that. He's served his country well, but certainly very inexperienced, and another loyalist. And it just looks down the line like that's what he did. He wanted to get any chances with people and the January 6th thing hardened him. Would I be wrong there? No, but I cringe when I hear people say, oh, my goodness, this president hired loyalists. They all do. Eric Holder was not disloyal to brought the opposition. That's true. That's true. The question is, is not loyalty.

I was loyal to the president. In fact, I was so loyal to the president, I decided to give him honest opinions, when he asked me about questions. That's what you're looking for. You had a falling out with him over January 6th. Yeah, that's right. I did. Not to the same extent that Mike Pence did, but that's sure.

If your question is this, is he getting good advice? I think that's really what we're talking about. Is he getting good advice from people? And I think the answer is generally yes. I do hope that behind closed doors, there are people who are saying, Mr. President, this might not be such a good idea. My fear, Bill, my fear is this.

Is that instead of giving them those honest opinions, There's people, especially more junior people in the White House. You know, we talked about the cabinet here, but the junior people who are around the president all the time are goading him on. Oh, Mr. President, I think it would be a great idea if we put your name on the Kennedy Center. I don't think Donald Trump came up with that. I think that was some obsequious junior staffer trying to get in good with the president. And I don't think that serves him well generally in the long run. That's maybe not the best example.

But that's the most powerful guy in a White House right now is Stephen Miller. and Miller is more militant about everything than Donald Trump is. But I think that Miller still has the presidency, or would I be wrong on that? No, he absolutely does. You're not wrong at all. The one thing about Stephen is that it's a constant. Stephen was just as adamant and militant about this in the first term. He just is. I think one of the differences is that Trump really, really did latch on to, immigration as one of the key issues in the 2024 election. That's not to say that it wasn't like that in 2006, excuse me, 2016, but clearly him not being Hillary Clinton was also a big part of 2016. And it worked. And Trump liked success and Miller can take success. Now, I have been in a few candidates.

And I'm sorry to interrupt, but they have fixed a fundamental underlying issue of the security of the Southern border. Right. But it got him elected. That's correct. I got them elected. I mean, you know, that pounding of this is insane and hurting a country, and I'm going to fix it, which you did. Now, as a civilian, I don't work for anybody but myself. I've been in some cabinet meetings. Serious stuff, invited by President Trump, because I believe he, like you, he knows that I'm not going to tow any party line or ideological line or anything. When he asked me a question, I give me an honest answer. I never insert myself without being asked, ever. I don't call him.

I don't do any of that. He's got to come to me. But when I was in those cabinet meetings, those guys in a White House were not happy to see me. They were not pleased because I would go out of the box. And I would say, I'm writing about it in my book, which will be out in September confronting America. I spill it out pretty vividly,

but I'll give you one example, Panama. And it was early on, and you remember the rattle in the cage and we're going to go down there and to take over the canal. Well, I was in that meeting, and I said, you don't have to do any of this. You know, here's what you can do. You'll get everything you want. And it absolutely happened. The whole thing happened, the way that I had.

drawn it out because I covered wars in Central America. I know the turf. All right. I know how it goes. Well, those guys didn't like that at all. The advice, and I understand. I mean, here's this O'Reilly guy coming in from God knows where sitting with us and he's given, and the president's listening to him. They didn't like it. So I got a little taste of the office politics. I don't remember. Were you doing that when I was the chief of staff, but other people did. And here's how I would respond to it. I get the concern because a lot of folks who come into those meetings from the outside, whether it's a cabinet meeting or just an Oval Office meeting,

aren't familiar with all the work that has been done up to that point of arriving at a certain conclusion, or at least getting to someplace along the line on making a decision. So I get that little level of frustration. But to me, it was more important, number one, did the president like it? And was it good information number two? That's what we're looking at. He made fun of me. I don't know whether he liked it or not, but it evolved the way that I laid it out.

I was at Harvard two weeks ago, giving a little seminar to the pinheads at the Kennedy School, my alma mater. And, you know, they don't like Trump, generally speaking, in that school. And they were asking me questions about my interactions with the president. And what I said to them was, look, what you're hearing from the media isn't true, generally speaking. So they're shading it negative toward Trump. I can tell you that in every single conversation I have had, and I did the first interview with him in 216 when he announced, in every single conversation. Number one, he never lied to me.

And number two, he knew what the doozy was talking about. He knew. Yeah. All right. So if you think that this guy is some, you know, bon vivant, shouldn't be there because he doesn't know, he doesn't know what he's doing. You're crazy. And he's straight up with me. And that silenced them because they couldn't challenge me on it because I've had more conversations with President Trump than any journalists in the country.

A lot of them are private, and I always honor that. Now, the man himself, I have seen a change in the man. I'm not ready to define it yet. Have you seen a change in him? I mean, look, he's what, almost 80 now. I guess he was 72 when I worked for him. So that's a big difference for everybody. Do I think he seems a little bit more tired sometimes?

Yes. But I know that people offer examples of his, you know, what he calls the weave as sign of mental decline. And I'm like, that's crazy. There's no mental decline. That's just, that's stupid. There's a great ESPN 30 for 30 from, I don't know, 40 years ago about the USFL. I encourage people to go back and watch it because the Donald Trump, when he was in his,

I don't know, late 30s, early 40s is the exact same Donald Trump you see today. So, no, I've not seen any mental decline yet at all. Does he look a little bit more tired of the overseas? Yeah, I mean, I would tell you that with certainty. However, he's less restrained in his statements, in my opinion. So when Mueller dies, he says, I'm glad he's dead. I don't know if you would have said that in his first four years. Yeah, he did.

He said the same thing about McCain. I mean, not this exactly. Yeah, I don't know if he criticized McCain. He criticized McCain, I remember that. But it wasn't that personal. Yeah, it wasn't that. That was a tough statement, which I understood, and I wrote a message of the day on Bill O'Reilly.com, about it because Mueller had attacked his family. And if you attack somebody's family, I mean, that changes everything. So you haven't seen a big change in Donald Trump, the man. Not really. Just on the stuff on the overseas trips. Look, those trips are brutal. And as you know, he doesn't sleep. He only sleeps about four hours a night anyway. The man's physical conditioning is just, It's outrageous.

I've known a couple of people who are able to do that. I couldn't do it. But at some point, it has to wear on you. You know, a 30-hour flight back from the Middle East is going to take its toll on everybody. How about being moody? No, I don't. I mean, I'm not with him day-to-day like I used to be. So my interaction with him is on television.

I just watched the interview that he gave today. I've not seen any large swings in that. He is, it's, it's, he is a little. little bit more willing to push back on the press, but that's, that's a degree. That was something he did in the first term anyway. I do think if there's, let me, let me see if I can make sense out of it this way, Bill. He's not restricted by having to run for office again. And when you're half, when you're the first term president, you're also the automatically on day one, a candidate for re-election. Everybody is, right? And so you're always in the back of your mind going, how is this going to

play in the next elections? And I think that's different this time. He doesn't have to, to do that. We watched the equity markets very, very closely in the first term because we knew it was a big deal for the voters. I don't think they're as restricted by that. They pay more attention now, for example, I think, to the bond markets than they do the equity markets. Equity markets is still done very well under Trump. Don't get me wrong. But I think that the flow of the day might be a little bit different because he's not running for reelection. But he has to win the midterms or two years going to be real rough. And I think that's an uphill battle. Listen, if gas is $4 a gallon in August and September, they've got a problem. Yeah, it shouldn't be, though. I think they're going to wrap this Iran thing in the next, in the short term, let's put it that way. And then gas prices will have to come down fairly rapidly. But the damage done, you'd ever know. You don't know if recession or overseas or what's going on.

Final question. Donald Trump's got a big thing coming up with China. And a lot of people don't understand his interactions with Putin, but they're different, my observation, they're different than he interacts with most other world leaders. Would I be wrong there? I don't think so. The way I try to describe it is that just because you get, get elected president doesn't mean you're not a human being. And he reacts the way that ordinary people would and under similar circumstances. Look, a lot of the European leaders when I was there

in the first term were not shy about showing their disdain for Donald Trump. And if I come on TV and I, you know, I clearly don't like you and I let it be known that I don't like you. And my body language is like that. My verbal language is like that. That's going to affect our relationship. And I think that was part of the difficulty he had, for example, with Justin Trudeau in Canada, Angela Merkel in Germany, et cetera. You can go down the list. Donald Trump does not pick his friends based upon their politics. He doesn't like conservatives more than liberals.

He likes people that he likes. And I think he just gets along with Xi. To a certain extent, he gets along with Putin. I do worry a little bit about the relationships. And at the end of the day, when Trump comes out and has these meetings, like he's supposed to go to China the end of this month. It's now been delayed. And says he's got a great personal relationship with Shee.

That's wonderful. But what I would tell him when we did this in the first time was Mr. President, that's great. But the American people don't care as much about your relationship with that leader as it is what that means to them. So we need to show them the benefits of that good relationship. Yeah, but he feels he can leverage deals with these guys if he has.

Let's see the deal. Yeah, if he has or you. Hey, Mick, thanks very much for helping us out. We really appreciate it. and hope we can talk again soon. This is the No Spin News Weekend Edition. So I was laying down, late last night, when the phone rang. And it was President Trump.

To me, even though he's my friend, and I've known over 35 years, it's the president of the United States. and it doesn't really matter what time it is. So anyway, we had our usual back and forth, a lot of it off the record. But I had to go on a record for a couple of things that I want to tell you about. Yesterday, we analyzed that a negotiation between Iran and the USA

might be led by Vice President Vance, but I cited the source for that, the Guardian newspaper, and I told you it is an unreliable publication. And that's exactly what it is. It's not going to be Vice President. That's taking the lead in the negotiation. It is going to be Whitkoff and Kushner. The two have been doing it all along.

Now, Iran has not agreed yet. I don't know whether they will. But U.S. authorities are ready to go to Pakistan or Turkey or wherever a negotiation might take place. The problem is that there's no one in charge in Iran right now. The president doesn't even know he's going to show up for a negotiation. Could be Omar the tentmaker. I mean, if you call over there, it says, well, line one, used to be so-and-so, but he's dead.

And I'm making fun of it, but it's true. So the upper echelons of the Iranian government, theocracy, they're all dead. And nobody really knows who's in charge. There are rumors, A, B, C, D, but it is so chaotic in Iran right now that there's no certainty. all. I'm going to get into in a few moments you might want to get a pen and paper because you're not getting honest information from the American media about disarrant action. I will give you

honest information. But I want to start with the dissent to the war in Iran. Okay. Now, I like dissent. I'm a maverick. I think dissent is really, really good. but it's got to be responsible. Can't be personal animus. And that's what we're seeing here. So on Saturday, there is a no-kings, the third no-kings demonstration all around the country.

And this is an anti-Trump. We hate Trump demonstration. Okay. We've seen it. We know what it is. There's no real difference. The grievances are, you know, sending mass agents into the streets,

terrorizing community. immigrant families terrorizing, no warrants, threats to overtake elections, getting health care, environmental problems, and education solved, rigging maps to silence vote. You know, it's the usual litany of progressive grievances. A few are legit, most are just made up fabrications. All right. I mean, there aren't people being detained without warrants. All right, there are judicial warrants signed by judges and then there are Homeland Security warrants signed by superiors in that organization. You got to have a warrant to take somebody in. It's a simple lie. All right. So No Kings is based this demonstration on Saturday is based

in ready Minneapolis, hello, and Bruce Springsteen's going to be there. So it's Bernie Sanders and Attorney General Keith Ellison and Jane Fonda. They trotten out Jane. Now, I'm mocking this because it means nothing. I mean, these people don't want to talk about legitimate issues. They want an open border. Progressives want an open border. Everybody comes in.

Everybody. And then they stay. That's amnesty. You want amnesty. So millions and millions and millions of people are absorbed. into our country. That's what they want. Say it. I respect you if you said it. Now, the funding of this is fascinating. So it comes from a group called Indivisible. That's from the Pledge of Allegiance, all right? Indivisible. And nobody knows anything about that organization. You can look it up,

but it's shadowy and mine. But the big money is coming from Soros, as usual. will. Sorrows pumped about 8 million into the No King protest, the two priors in this one. Soros behind it. ACLU, which is no longer a civil rights organization, it's a far left fanatical group. And Planned Parenthood. So they're in on it too. These are the big organizations behind it. And a lot of the money that comes in, and you'll see, see it, if you watch television coverage, there'll be plenty of it, of these old Kingston. You'll see the buses, you'll see the signs, you'll see the people organized. All that takes money, and it's dark money, because the commentators and the news reporters,

they don't know where the money comes from, and they don't care. As long as there's a big crowd, that's what they care about, as long as Trump looks bad. Okay, but the dark money component here is very, very disturbing. because money can undermine democracy. It's not hard to do it. So you will remember that on January 26th of this year, we broke a story about Neville Roy Singham. Okay, there he is.

He's a communist. He lives in Shanghai, China, very close ties to the Beijing government. Now, he is behind a lot of the dark money stuff. Okay? we reported that. That Singham has been in this arena for nine years. Ever since he sold his technology company called ThoughtWorks for about $800 million. Now, you would say, well, how can you live in a communist country if you have $800 million? Wouldn't the government take that away from you? No. As long as you're serving the government, there are a lot of

of billionaires in China. They serve the government. And so does Singham. Singham is American citizen. Can't come here. It sets one foot on our soil. He'll arrest him. Okay. But he is a real, real threat to every American. And 99% of Americans have no idea who the man is. This is what I said in January ago. His name is Neville Roy Singham. He's a billionaire tech guy. He lives in Shanghai, China. He works with the Chinese government.

He has a 501.3C in the United States called Breakthrough News, where he funnels money to places like the People's Forum in New York City and other, and Minnesota radical left organizations. He's deeply involved with the insurgency and the sedition against the federal government, this guy. We gave you all the information. He's the communist got. Well, now, Fox News Digital has launched the five-part series on Singham, and we congratulate them.

I'm not going to see that on CBS or CNN or ABC or NBC. They don't care. But Fox News Digital has come up with some very interesting information. About $300 million, seeing him is pumped into the following nonprofits. Code Pink, breakthrough media, Justice and Education Fund, People's Forum, people support, Foundation, Trans, Tri-Continental LTD.

He did pump the money in through Goldman Sachs. Can you believe this? And he got tax breaks from the IRS to pump the money in, $300 million. Now, we call Goldman Sachs because we're fair people. You can come back to me here. We're fair people. And we got a guy named Tony Frato on the phone. He's a spokesman for Goldman.

And he says that they have terminated. Singham's fund, but they did it only last month. Okay? I'm sorry, February 2024, 13 months ago, 13 months ago. But Singham used Goldman Sachs and he had tax deductions to undermine the American government and system. All right. his main outfit now is the People's Forum located at 14th Street in Manhattan, New York City. They are the ones that funnel the money out locally.

And Code Pink, Answer, he's married, Singham is, to the co-founder of Code Pink, Jody Evans. And guess where they all showed up last week? Havana. They all showed up to, prop up the Cuban government, which is on the ropes. Now, the Justice Department, come on, come on, Cash Patel, hello, okay, you got to investigate this. This is subversion at the highest level using our system. And maybe there's an investigation, but nobody's telling us.

Justice Department is the only mechanism on the planet that can stop this and expose it. If you go out tonight and say, hey, you know this guy Roy Singham, nobody's going to know it. This is a suppression, very, very dangerous. And all the progressives, all these idiots out, no king. If you go up and you go, so how about Neville Roy Shingham? And, you know, he bought that sign for you. Who? Who?

No idea. This is bad. Now, we're proud that we broke the story in independent news agency, the NoSpin News, bill o'Reilly.com, you all know. And we applaud Fox News Digital. Picked it up. They picked it right up. Listen, if you watch Fox News, okay, and I don't have time to watch a lot of it,

and I don't really learn a lot there. But what we do, they monitor it very, very closely. And it's more to do that. Because what we say is true. And that's the memo. You're listening to the No Spinoos Weekend Edition. Okay, final thought, as we said, we'll do it live drops tomorrow. Okay, earlier for premium and concierge member, about noon.

And then late afternoon for everyone else. So the program, the Sopranos, still all over the world, a phenomenon. Unbelievable phenomenon. It began on January 10, 1999, not long ago, on the air for eight years. Okay, the center piece was James Gendelphini. Okay. He died at age 51 from a heart attack while vacationing in Rome, Italy. Now, all the castes very, very close.

Steve Sharippa, you know him. He was not only in the Sopranos, but in Blue Bloods. He never wanted to be an actor at all. But anyway, he was close to Gandalfini. Roll the tape. Jim was always a pro. People say, did you guys have fun on the set? Yeah, we had fun.

It was all business. was working 16 hours a day five days a week. And listen, a great guy, not without problems. I mean, that's common knowledge, right? But not on the sad, never when he was working. You saw none, there was none of that. Was he the leader of the gang? Absolutely.

Okay. In a positive way. So you can't come in and, you know, it was a good vibe. It really was like a family. We were close, very respectful. Nobody could come in and be disrespectful to one another. That wasn't flying any. All right. So Gandafini was kind of like the chief of police.

Yeah, when you use a bad. I mean, you know, but but but kind of by example, you know, I mean, he was the guy. But it was such an intense program. Do you guys have any laughs off camera? No, no, absolutely. We went out constantly. I mean, we enjoy every moment. I mean, those guys with Michael, Jim, were in their late 30s. I was my early 40s. We went out. We were like playing it for the Yankees. So sure it gives us all the inside stuff on the sprang. and Blue Bloods. And he's a little teed off. Blue Bloods got canceled by CBS. He was a pretty good explanation on why that happened.

So again, that is we'll do it live tomorrow, and we hope you check it out. The other one is a podcast I appeared on, Fly on the Wall with David Spade and Dana Carvey. Roll that. I feel like I'm on your show. Spade looks like he's in a bad cave. You look like you're in Bali.

Indonesia. You got to have plants and podcasts. Because most people your interview are potted plants anyway. Shots fired. Thanks for having me on, you guys. I really appreciate it. Very nice of you. You seem to have unlimited energy. Are you going to take a nap after this podcast? I may take a nap during the podcast. That's what most of the customers do. I wrote the book specifically for the church lady. She demanded that I write confronting evil to get all the evil out there. What the church lady commands I do. I talked to her before I came out. I can only paraphrase it.

Well, well, well, Mr. Bill O'Reilly writes a book about naughty people when he could have been writing about himself. So it goes on like that. You can catch fly on the wall on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube. That drops tomorrow. So you can see. And we'll have all this on Bill O'Reilly.com. We'll have all the links and all of that stuff.

I'm overexposed, I understand. But these stuff is entertaining and informative. That's the key. People learn stuff, but they have fun doing it. That's why we're so successful, because they don't take ourselves that seriously. Even, you know, sometimes we have to because they're terrible things happening.

But we like to bring in a value. And we have it this weekend. So we hope you check out, bill o'Reilly.com. Thank you for watching No Spin News tonight. We will see you again on Monday. Thank you for listening to the No Spin 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.