Piers Morgan Uncensored - “Act of TREASON” Trump’s State of The Union + Epstein Files | Call For King Charles To Step DOWN

Episode Date: February 25, 2026

President Trump delivered the first State of the Union of his second term as a deeply unpopular leader, at least according to the polls. But he didn’t sound like a man on the back foot - and he didn’t give any indication that he’s about to change course. It was the longest speech in the 236-year history of the President’s annual message. And is now so often the case, the amateur dramatics will be remembered better than anything the president actually said. There were standing ovations for the heroic US Olympic hockey team, for Charlie Kirk’s widow Erika, and for a Venezuelan prisoner reunited with his niece after Maduro’s arrest. The only mention of the Epstein Files, unsurprisingly, came from heckling Democrats - for whom the president had strong words. Joining Piers Morgan to discuss the latest in the world of US politics is co-host of Steve Bannon’s War Room, Natalie Winters, host of Gains For Girls on Outkick, Riley Gaines, host of No Lie, Brian Tyler Cohen and mayor of Newark City Ras Baraka. Piers also speaks to Colorado Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert and Princess Diana’s former butler Paul Burrell. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens. What is an American? It's whatever you want to be. That's an act of treason. If you can't even pledge allegiance to your own nation, that's a total act of betrayal. And for people to characterize you as a criminal or an illegal alien, it's just wrong. It's absolutely disgusting. This was one of the last conversations that I had with Charlie Kirk.

Excuse me, did you just like groan? Yeah, I said, God, help us. Andrew was obnoxious, entitled, spoiled, greedy, and he thought was untouchable. I think Andrew has brought the royal family to its knees. I think the royal family are in crisis. President Trump delivered the first day of the union of his second term as a deeply unpopular leader,

at least according to the polls. But he didn't sound like a man on the back foot, and he didn't give any indication that he's about to change course. this was the longest speech in the 236-year history of the President's annual message, and is now so often the case, the amateur dramatics would be remembered better than anything the President actually said. Texas Democrat Al Green was kicked out of last year's presidential address for refusing to sit down.

This time it's for brandishing a sign marked Black people are not apes in reference to the infamous meme. There were standing ovations for the heroic US Olympic hockey team for Charlie Kirk's widow Erica and for a Venezuelan prisoner reunited with his niece after Maduro's arrest. The only mention of the Epstein files, unsurprisingly, came from heckling Democrats, when the president had strong words. No state can be allowed to rip children from their parents' arms and transition them to a new gender against the parents' will.

Who would believe that we've been talking about me? We must ban it, and we must ban it immediately. Look, nobody stands up. These people are crazy. telling you. They're crazy. We're lucky we have a country. With people like this, Democrats are destroying our country, but we've stopped it just in the nick of time, didn't we? And in a classic Trump trap, skillfully crafted for endless use in TV attack ads, the president did this. If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support.

The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not Illegal aliens. A clear win for the president, as evidenced by his Cheshire Cat grin, for the Democrats who remained firmly rooted to their seats. But he's unlikely to have won the day on the biggest issue for most voters as America heads to the midterms, which is, as so often, the economy. For all the fury over ice and war in Iran, most voters really care about feeling a bit richer and a bit more comfortable.

And at the moment, they simply don't. President Trump's big message is essentially that people don't realize how good they've got it, and that everything is better than the... they think. Well, that was Joe Biden's message too, and we know how that worked out. Joining me to discuss all of this is Natalie Winters, co-host of Steve Bannon's Warroom, Riley Gaines, host of the Riley Gaines Show, Brian Tyler Cohen, host of No Lie, and Raz Baraka, the Democratic Mayor of New York. Well, welcome to all of you. Natalie Winters, you know, a few things can be true at once. It was a pretty barnstorming speech by Trump for his base.

If you like him, I think you really like the speech. of people online who like Trump and support him saying it's the greatest speech they've ever seen. Conversely, all those that hate Trump, it wouldn't have moved the needle at all. But with the midterm elections coming pretty soon now in November, the economy remains the big, I think, Achilles heel, which is odd because it's in really good shape. But the average American isn't feeling it. And if I was a Republican, it would be that that really concerns. me. Well, look, I think this state of the union address was certainly a mixed bag. I think from the state of the union perspective, President Trump presented a wonderful vision of America. He talked about

the tax cuts, what they're doing on energy. I would have wanted to hear a little bit more about what they're doing to get spending down, both from a deficit and debt perspective. I think when you talk about affordability in the economy, the idea of what Doge was doing was something that really resonated with Americans on that messaging front. I mean, I know we've been hearing a lot about DHS, ICE agent, CBP funding. I'm glad that the Democrats have finally admitted that they literally just don't care about a border that I guess they view themselves

as representing illegal aliens. I think that's really powerful. I know President Trump talked a lot about immigration, but I think if you look at this address from sort of a state of the Republican Party, state of MAGA, I didn't hear the word mass deportation. I didn't hear the word China. I would have liked to have heard both of those

and I would have liked to have not seen the administration, I think, continuing to make a mistake, which was going soft on the depotation. and I think critically failing to link the issue of immigration, legal and illegal, to the affordability crisis. Brian Tully Cohen, you know, the moment that would really concern me as a Democrat, I think, in terms of something that could be used against the Democrats over the next few months up to the midterms is the moment when Donald Trump asked the assembled gathering to recognize

Anna Zarutskin. She obviously is the mother of the murdered arena Zarutka, this young, Ukraine. who was murdered in brutal fashion on a train in North Carolina last year. And this is how this played out. Set free to kill in America came in through open borders. Mrs. Zaretska tonight, I promise you, we will ensure justice for your magnificent daughter, Irene. Now, I should preface this before I come to you, Brian, to say that Trump was inaccurate

when he said he came through because of an open border policy. In fact, the killer of Irene Zeritska was an American citizen, born in America, lived in America. They didn't come through an open border. However, and I think it's a really important, however, the optics of that were awful. If you're looking at that and you see the mother of a young Ukrainian woman, and you've got a lot of Democrats, by the way, wearing Ukrainian lapel badges and things to support the fourth anniversary of the war and to support Ukraine, if you can't get off your backside and just show her some basic human respect,

it's a terrible optic for the Democrats. And an illustration to me of just how partisan and tribal the state of the unions become, the Democrats would have done themselves so much good if they had all just risen to applaud her. Why didn't they? Look, I don't know why they didn't stand and applaud. I think that mostly they don't want to be pawns in Trump's attack.

in Trump's, you know, they don't want to be props or pawns in Trump's effort to turn this into a 2024 campaign redux where he just, you know, fearmongers about immigration or any of that issue. I think Democrats don't want to allow Donald Trump to make them turn into those kind of pawns. But more broadly, I think that I don't want to overstate the importance of the optics of the state of the union. I think we all know that for people who are focused on politics, it's a very important. a big thing. And for regular people, it's not a big thing. And it usually comes and goes in a day or so.

But I think more broadly, I mean, when looking at how Trump tried to frame all of this, he was more focused on trying to run back a 2024 election redux as opposed to talking about what people are contending with right now. In your opening, you mentioned how that is a dangerous spot for him, because he's not focused on the issue that the vast majority of Americans are focused on. So he can try and reframe the conversation as something about immigration. He can try and frame it as something about dangerous illegals like he always does. But that's not what Americans are focused on. Americans are focused on the one issue that he is pretending he's doing great on. And as we all know, that didn't really work out too well for Joe Biden and the Democrats in 2024.

I'll come back to the panel in one set. Just going to be joined briefly by Republican Congresswoman Lauren Bovitt. Thank you very much indeed for joining me back on our censor. What was your view of the speech last night? I did think that this was a very successful speech by President Trump. The State of the Union is always lively in one way or another. But also, I would like to contrast what some of your panelists there are saying, Mr. Cohen is saying that President Trump is focusing on the issues that Americans are not. I would argue that illegal immigration and illegal immigration are part of the affordability crisis

that we are seeing in America under Joe Biden. and the one-party Democrat rule, we had open borders that have absolutely decimated our economy, overrun our schools, overrun our hospitals, and is really siphoning and stealing so many hard-earned tax dollars that Americans are forced to pay each and every April 15th.

So this is an issue that is focused on affordability. President Trump came in and secured the southern border. No illegal aliens are coming in and he is working to deport those who are overrunning our system and who are committing fraud. It is a crime to be here illegally and then on top of it commit fraud to reap the benefits of the American taxpayer. So this will make things more affordable when we start getting these people who are taking advantage of our generosity in America and really overrunning these programs that are in place to help our most vulnerable.

Okay, so let me just do a quick Q&A with you. What is inflation? Well, inflation is when the price of things is over, is too expensive because of the federal government of really squandering the tax dollars. So you have the green news scam, hundreds of billions of dollars spent there to provide,

affordable energy, and it was not affordable. It was never free. It was never discounted. That money was taken from the American people and forced into the system. This wasn't a remarked decision. Yeah, so my follow-out question was this, though. We both agree America still has inflation. We both agree that that means prices are going up. And it seems to me the big problem President Trump has is that notwithstanding that the U.S. economy is in pretty good shape. the average American knows that prices aren't actually coming down. There's still inflation. They are still going up, not at the same rate they were going up,

but they are still rising. Do you think that is a problem here for the president? There is a saying that Ronald Reagan presented, saying that there is no such thing as a temporary federal program. There's nothing more permanent than a temporary federal program. And I think that same principle applies here. Yes, there are places that we had to raise prices to deal with this inflation under the previous administration. And it's hard to get those prices back down. Many, many companies, many small businesses are still trying to recoup from that.

But also, we still have a federal government that is spending far too much money. That's why I was a big supporter of the Doge cuts. And we did not cut near enough of what we could have. I think it would be great in the next term if Republicans keep the majority to have Elon Musk as Speaker of the House. That might be our only shot to actually cut spending. But this is a problem that we still have got to get under control. But tying that with the amount of people who are committing fraud, you heard President Trump mention the Somali pirates in Minnesota who are gouging our federal programs and those tax dollars, There are tens of billions, potentially hundreds of billions of fraud throughout our country with these leering centers and so many other programs that are meant to help Americans who need

assistance and they are just right-foot fraud. So there are issues that we need to tackle. President Trump is working to secure energy dominance, which will certainly help our economy. The tariffs were a great start at starting to bring in money. and tackle the federal government's debt issue that we have. But this has always been a priority for me to cut spending and to be a good steward of the American tax dollar. Yes, prices are still high, but also look at some of the states

where prices are high. In Colorado, there are so many regulations and fees, a fee as a tax that the citizens do not get to vote on, but it is forced upon them. And all of that makes it to expect. to live. We have multi-billion-dollar companies who are leaving Colorado and going to states where it's better to do business. And I've even had energy companies in my office just as recent as yesterday saying that the only way they can avoid double-digit rate increases is if the

federal government helps stop the regulations in Colorado. It's some of these state policies that are still hurting Americans and making it too expensive to live and unaffordable. President Trump is trying to make the affordability a possibility. Just finally, Lauren Bo, but if you were advising President Trump about how to try and avoid what many people think is going to be an inevitable beating in the midterms and losing the House, probably not the Senate, but losing the House, which as everybody knows in American politics, pretty much turns you into a lame duck president after that. What would that advice be? President Trump needs to continue doing what he's doing, but I would focus my remarks to the Speaker of the House and to the leader of the Senate, the majority leader, John Thune, and say we've got to start codifying what President Trump is putting out from the White House. If we do not codify those issues, if we do not end the standing filibuster and have a – or the filibuster and have a standing and speaking filibuster, then President Trump's term is over. We've got to do our job in Congress, but also we have got to pass the SAVE Act. Democrats cheat. There's so much fraud in our elections.

I believe that this last election was too big to rig, and I don't know if we're going to have that same enthusiasm now that we do have a secure southern border, now that the economy is starting to get better. There isn't that drive and motivation from average Americans to get out and vote because President Trump has had these successes. So I'm afraid of apathy or folks saying, well, it's not as important because that issue is gone and them not showing up. So we've got to pass a SAVE Act.

We've got to do our job in Congress to codify and make law what President Trump is doing in his executive orders. And we have got to secure our elections. So they cannot be rigged ever against one party. Lauren Bobin, I really appreciate you coming back. uncensored. Thank you very much. Thanks so much. Let's go back to the panel. Raz Baraka, welcome to your uncensored debut. You're the Democratic mayor of Newark. It seemed to me that the two moments, if I was a Democrat where I would in the morning be wincing, one is the one

I mentioned to Brian, where I thought it was really reprehensible of Democrats to not stand up and show some respect to Anna Zarutka. But secondly, of course, this whole moment that Trump clearly set everybody up for, specifically hoping for the result that he got, which was a question. And it's a question. I'll just ask you as a question, which is, do you believe the first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens? I think the first duty of any elected official is to uphold the constitution of the United States and uphold the constitution of the state that they're in.

That's what we swear to when we do our oath, when we are sworn in, any form of a form of government at any level to uphold the Constitution. And the Constitution clearly defines how our behavior is and how we should act. And who's protected? And everybody's protected based on our Constitution, based on the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, based on a fourth amendment, based on many amendments, is very, very clear who should be protected. And that's everyone who steps foot on the soil of our country. It's clear. Well, that's the way with respect, with respect. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor, with respect. That's not answering my question. The question is actually very straightforward.

It's a very straightforward answer. Okay, but the actual question is, do you believe the first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens not illegal aliens? It's not a difficult question. It's not difficult. I just don't agree with the context. So you're not going to force me into that context. First, I don't believe that people are illegal aliens. I think that all people are human beings and as a matter of a fact, being undocumented in America is a civil offense, it's not a criminal offense. I'm sure the children that they're arresting are not selling fentanyl or not head of cartels or any of that matter. So it's silly to even have that discussion.

But ultimately, you ask me what is our primary duty? And I said, my primary duty as an elected officialist to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Should we protect residents and citizens of this country? Absolutely. No one would agree with that, but to break it down and make it divisive in such a way that there's some people that should be protected and some people that should not. It's just wrong, and that's not what the Constitution states. And when I was sworn in, it says clearly that I should uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of New Jersey. But people who are in the country illegally, are there illegally? There have been people in this country whose status have been taking.

taken away. And the interesting thing is when everybody comes into the United States, they don't come into the United States as a citizen. No one comes in as a citizen. Not in the history of this country, you don't become a citizen then enter the United States. That's not how it works. You come here first and then apply for citizenship and go through process, which usually takes, unfortunately, a very, very, very long time because we do not have a streamlined process, a unified and uniform process here in this country. And which means that in anybody that is going through that process could be deemed at any point of violating some kind of policy, some kind of law, and be detained, whether you're 25, 35, 55, 65, or 10 in this country, which is

incorrect. And for people to characterize you as a criminal or an illegal alien, it's just wrong. I'm sure your ancestors and the ancestors of the folks who came before you who came from countries in Eastern Europe and Western parts of Europe and Southern Europe who showed up. here on the shores through Ellis Island and went through the process to become citizens, if they were stopped in the middle of that process, in the middle

of their hearing, and arrested and dragged through the streets and thrown out of the country and deported, people would think that that was wrong then, and I think it's wrong now. Okay, Riley Gaines, your response to that? Yeah, well, I guess just to provide a little color to that,

my husband is a legal immigrant. He came to the United States from England. Back in 2018, he did everything the right way. I would describe my husband, I mean, I guess fully Brit, although now has his green card in the process for citizenship. I would describe him as more American than a lot of Americans who are currently citizens. He loves this country. He understands the freedoms that we have. He sees the trajectory of England, quite frankly. He is so grateful to be here. To your point, I do think our legal immigration system certainly needs reform. I think that process needs to be

sped up and made more efficient. But my husband, he respects ICE officers. And President Trump, the address that we heard last night, you have to acknowledge the things that he said are the things that he campaigned on. It's the things that we voted for. So in talking about mass deportations or closing down the border, 77 million Americans turned out to the polls in November of 2024. That's what we voted for. So to see an entire political party, I mean, in terms of elected representation, and even how the mainstream media presents itself who is totally unwilling to concede in any former fashion to the point where they're not even able to say

that their main priority is to protect Americans, I don't understand how that's not a disqualifying statement by, again, federally elected members of Congress. It seems to me as if that's an act of treason. If you can't even pledge allegiance to your own nation, that's a total act of betrayal, in my opinion. Yeah, I mean, Brian, Brian, do you think if you're in the country illegally, you've committed a crime?

In terms of being here illegally, I mean, as the mayor said, there are civil offenses versus criminal offenses. And I think that conflating the two is a major issue. I would respond to Riley's statement before. I don't understand what is with this conservative movement to qualify somebody's Americanist. Who are you to say that somebody is more or less American? because of their adherence to certain political issues. That is, isn't that inherently un-American? I guess my question for you is, then just that,

what is an American to you? It's whatever you want to be. We have freedom to do, to believe in, to say, to practice whatever religion we want to. And so it's so bizarre to me, would you to say, oh, my husband, my husband is more American because he salutes the flag and likes ICE officers.

Who are you? Who is your husband to determine whether somebody is more or less American because of who they support? If your definition to what is an American is anything you want to be, whoever says whatever they want to be can be an American, which is the exact same answer you guys give to the question, the very dreaded, controversial question of what is a woman, then are you saying that someone who currently resides in South Africa, who has never even been to America, who says they are an American, I guess by your definition, they qualify. This is such a bad faith reading of what I'm saying. My question for you is, you just said, you just said, you just said. Your husband is more American than somebody else because he supports ICE agents. So explain to me how supporting ICE agents makes you more American than somebody who doesn't support ICE agents. My husband has fully assimilated to Western culture. He loves the freedoms that we have here.

So it's assimilation. You have to assimilation. Otherwise, you're not American. According to Riley Gaines, if you didn't assimilate enough, you're not American. I think in terms of what it means to, principally. I'm not talking about legally. Of course, I understand the argument of you need your paperwork. You need to be a citizen to be an American. Actually, you know what? This was one of the last conversations that I had with Charlie Kirk. It was that infamous influencer retreat in the

Hamptons. Excuse me, did you just like groan to that, mayor? I don't understand that. I said, God help us. I am. Entiremen, entirely agree with you there. God, please help us. One of my last conversations I had with Charlie Kirk was he posed this question to a room full of us in the Hamptons asking, what is an American? And it left me kind of dumbfounded for a second because I didn't know, I'd never been asked this question. I didn't know how to answer this question. I never put thought into this question. But in thinking about it, yes, I believe my British husband is much more American than the people, the members of Congress last night who couldn't even stand up to applaud no tax on tips, who couldn't stand to applaud a hundred-year-old veteran who was being awarded a, Medal of Freedom or to applaud Arena Zarutka after being brutally and horrifically and graphically

murdered. The good thing about being an American is that you get to choose what it is that you believe your ideas. You could be a Democrat or Republican. Kind of like you get to choose what it means to be a woman. Right, right. Right. Right. The freedom of religion. You can choose these things. You, you don't have to stand on one side or the other to be a to be an American. People who I agree with that. That's called democracy and people who are against democracy in my mind are. anti-American. And what you're saying and what has been going on is anti-democratic and so it's anti-American in my estimation. You cannot tell people that you have to agree with me, you have to believe me, and you have to follow me. No, you're not listening to what I'm saying.

It's absurd. You're not like, my husband loves America because we have the freedom to choose. He loves that we have the freedom to our religion. We have the freedom to press. We have the free. No, it is exactly what I said. If you would listen, I said my husband loves the freedom. I mean, I mean, right, let me just jump in. Riley, I would say that in relation to him assimilating to Western culture, just to remind viewers, Britain is part of Western culture, obviously. So the assimilation is not normally difficult because he's British. Entirely. I agreed.

But I agree. We are a Western culture. I don't feel when I go to America that I'm entering some vastly different cavernous new culture. Natalie, let me bring you in here. This whole debate about whether people who are in the country illegally are breaking the law, I mean, it is a crime. I'm surprised to see a mayor of a major city trying to suggest that it's not a criminal offense to be in the country. It's not a criminal offense. I don't, it's not my suggestion.

It's actually the law. And might I just add, Mr. Mayor, that if you're a care about value that you care about is promoting and supporting democracy in the United States, a lot of these illegal aliens that you're, importing into this country the Democratic Party did for the last, I don't know, decades, about 10 million plus under Joe Biden, aren't exactly coming from countries that even have democracies, let alone some of them actually aren't even countries. Their failed states enter places like Somalia. I think we all know what happened in Minnesota. I've never heard a more verbose and rambling answer to what should be probably the most

simple thing that you could answer, that your primary duty is to defend American citizens. I've also never heard Democrats uncritically bring up, I don't know, the Constitution I thought you you guys hated that document, but here's the issue. And here's what I would say, Pierce. Here's how I would free a- The Constitution exists because it can be strong for it, particularly- this weaponization of what it means to be an American of immigration policy. We can all sit here and give our culture war definitions of what it means to be an illegal alien, immigration, legal terms, whatever. The point is the reason why people are fed up with immigration and illegal immigration is because it's not actually about immigration. It's about, it is a scam

that big businesses, all these donors that are funding all of those candidates and congressional members that you saw sitting at that state of the union address, they just want cheap labor. That's all they care about. I'm sure that's all your donors care about. And that's why you're seeing a degradation of American identity so corporations can suppress the wages of Americans. You're saying, wow, you should eat, you know what? Your party can't even stand up for Americans who are hit by trucks by illegal alien drivers.

You think you care about the affordability, the lived experience, the economic reality of Americans. You can't even stand for killed Americans. You are repeating a false statement. No, there's an illegal alien truck driver that hit a five-year-old girl. An illegal alien hit a five-year-old girl who was present at this state of the union. I could sit here for hours and give you the name of Americans who've been killed by illegal aliens. But you know what? The point is we don't just need to allow illegal aliens in this country because they're not criminals.

They depress the wages. They destroy the culture of this country. There's too many people. If you import tens of millions of people from other cultures, you no longer have a united States of America. Yes, you're seeing more than the GDP of Somalia be stolen from one state. You're seeing ethnic enclaves and Muslim enclaves be happening in the state of Michigan. Look at Dearborn. Dearborn is not America. The more she talks, the more racist it becomes. The fact that she's saying people come from countries. No, I care about your citizenship.

American nationalism and economic nationalism is about maximizing the value of being an American citizen. And you know what, Obama agrees. Because if you look at each other, because if you look at the studies that Obama put out about wages is black Americans who are the most negatively impacted by legal negotiations. Please don't talk over each other because I can't hear either of you. If you terrible at black Americans, you would want to deport the legales. I can't hear you. Well, you're both talking at the same time.

The viewers cannot hear either of you. Let me ask the mayor. So I'm defending myself. Please, Natalie, let the mayor, Mr. Mayor, explain why you think Natalie's being racist. Absolutely. I think that first of all, I, The fact that you mentioned people are coming from so-called failed states, people come here looking for democracy because they don't have it, looking for economic freedom because they don't have it. They're looking for, they're running from situations sometimes that are deadly, right?

And so they come to the United States for safety, for security, for democracy that we've advertised to the world. So that doesn't matter. There were people who fled other countries that were not all these countries she's talking about now years and years ago who came here. from Eastern Europe, from Western Europe, from all over the parts of the world. For her to identify Somalia, just like the President of the United States did, to me is racist. At the end of the day, there are immigrants who come to America from all over the world. They want to choose who gets to come here and who doesn't get to come here based on their nationality, based on the country they come from, based on the religion they practice,

based on the language that they speak. And she clearly identified by calling an ethnic enclave. This is ridiculous to be able to create a country that is devoid of anybody else in the world, except the people you choose. It is white supremacist to say that. It is racist to say that. And it needs to be pointed out. And they say it's culture.

The real culture war is the cleansing that these folks are doing, calling it immigration reform, when you're really just attacking black and brown people on the streets and shooting people in the face who understand and see that and are trying to defend the democracy that this country upholds itself to be. be. Okay, Mr. Mayor, I just want to clarify one thing. It's been rankling me since you said it, because I've just checked, you know, is entering the United States without authorization or inspection by an immigration officer a crime? Yes, first offense, a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine, or up to six months in prison. That's what I said. That's exactly what I said, Pierce. Yes, it's a civil offense. It is a misdemeanor. It is a, it's actually. It's actually. It's a, it's actually,

a crime, though. It is a crime. If it's a civil offense, it's a violation. It's a civil violation as opposed to a crime as a criminal offense. There are other types of immigration violations, which may be civil, but actually, the offense of trying to enter without authorization or inspection by an immigration officer is a federal crime. And it seems to me that this is a fundamental tenet of the law, right? If you try and come in without authorization or insuffer. it is a crime.

Well, we've acknowledged that it's a civil offense. The reality is there are people who are being targeted and attacked who are going through the process. There are folks that are being pulled out of hearings. There are people who have been outside of courthouses finishing their hearing and being arrested. There are children who are going back and forth to school who are being arrested and detained, right?

They're babies who are being detained and housed over periods of time. This has nothing to do with crime. In fact, as a mayor of a city, I can tell you clearly that if we solved for the immigrants in our city, our crime numbers would be extremely lower than they are now because most of the crime in our city are not created by immigrants. It's just not. In fact, they are more likely the victims of crime than they are the perpetrators of crime. And this idea that immigrants are taking money from cities and states is ridiculous. I mean, they're immigrants who not only pay taxes, but contribute to the economy daily by purchasing goods and services on the open market. That's very clear.

And to say otherwise, it's just not true. It's not proven. It's not true. It's just a talking point that Republicans and conservatives use to kind of stoke fear in division. But it's just not a fact. Okay. Let me ask Brian Tyler Cohen. As we head to the midterms, let's move ahead to that.

This was a very typical Trump speech, I thought. I thought he executed it pretty well, actually. And actually, for the first half of it, it was pretty positive, unusually, given his recent stump speeches and so on. But for the Democrats, the big challenge is going to be, well, who are you going to put up to actually win in 2028? And I still don't see that person. You know, Gavin Newsom, I just don't feel he's the frontrunner,

but I feel like he's out there shooting his mouth off. he's getting picked off, you know, AOC, that whole car crash over the Taiwan question and so on. No one to me is positioning themselves as someone that I think can actually win that election. Am I missing the person? Do you see the person? I'm not really concerned about 2028. I'm not really concerned about horse race politics. We have an election coming up in midterms. And frankly, if these off-year elections and special elections have shown us anything, it's that all of these Democrats and their respective races are quite effective at making the pitch to their constituents or their states. And we've seen the results. I mean, you know, Democrats are overperforming by 12, 14, 16,

18 points. We've seen the Latino population shift 50 points in certain jurisdictions. And so I think that we get through one election. We get through these midterms. And I think, as I said, the Democrats are making a pretty effective case to their voters in terms of the fact that their priority is going to taking care of their own constituents, bringing more affordability forward. And also, they've been really effective at making the case in spite of a Republican Party that has been doing nothing but lying about that exact thing for years and years and years. I mean, we saw Republicans do an entire 2024 election cycle where they promised affordability. And the second they got into office, what did they do? Launched a trade war that raised the cost of everything, cut health care,

whether it's Medicaid for 17 million Americans or ACA subsidies for 24 million Americans, cut food assistance to the tune of $186 billion. We're talking about affordability. Republicans are ushering in the least affordable America that we've had, and then at the same time thinking that Americans are going to reward them at the polls.

They're not. That's why we're seeing these massive overperformance. I don't know what's going to happen in 2028. We've got plenty of time, but the election cycle that we have right in front of us is proving a disaster for Republicans because this is a party that is incapable of keeping their promises.

And can I add to that, please? Yes, you can. Can I add to that? Yeah, because in New Jersey specifically, all of the things that the president talked about at the state of the union about decreasing costs, all of these costs are increasing, whether you're talking about rent or housing or health care, the cutting Medicaid, health care costs increased in New Jersey over 100%. I mean, the inflation in New Jersey is higher than the national inflation. The definition of inflation that was said to us earlier was completely incomplete, by the way. But at the end of the day, all of these costs are rising for Americans in this country. So whether we could talk about all this other stuff you want to talk about,

but affordability is the issue because they have not solved for. Well, I know. I agree. Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I said this at the start when I was talking to Lauren Boba is the reason I grilled her about what inflation is. A lot of people seem to think if the rate of inflation comes down, prices drop. But they don't. the mere fact you have any inflation means prices are continuing to rise. And I think this is the disconnect between the state of the overall US economy, which is actually in good state, and the polling on it is quite positive.

But when you get to affordability and the trickle-down effect to average Americans, they're not feeling it because actually prices are rising. And this is the problem that Donald Trump has got, heading into the midterms. Ultimately, as we hear again and again, it's the economy stupid. You can tell people to your blue in the face, they are doing better. If they are not feeling it, and in fact, they're feeling the opposite,

because actually inflation still exists, I think it's a real problem for him. And the problem for the Republicans, and I'll come to you, Riley, with the same kind of question I put to Brian, but for the Republicans, is what follows Trump? You know, let's go forward to November, the midterms. Let's hypothetically assume the Republicans get a kicking, which is highly likely, historically, then Trump becomes, as every president would

in that position of any Republican or Democrat, a lame duck president. If you lost power of the House, for example, your ability to do stuff is massively reduced. And then the scramble becomes, well, who follows this unbelievably dominant character in American politics

and particularly Republican politics? You look at J.D. Vance, look at Marco Rubio, you look at maybe one of the Trump, children, whatever. What do you think? I mean, where do you see the future of the party after Donald Trump? Well, in terms of President Trump being a lame duck president, to be totally honest with you, I think he kind of has been the past year. That's not to take away from some of his executive orders and things that he has done out of his office, which are fantastic, but the reality is there's not a lot

of longevity there. Let's say someone like Gavin Newsom gets in the Oval Office in three years time, then those executive orders are overturned just as quickly as they were instated. We have not seen Congress move or act to codify those executive orders. So I believe he's in a sense been a bit of a lame duck president as it stands. Again, not to take away from the accomplishments and the victories and the wins and the success that we have seen. In terms of the future, I think Vice President J.D. Vance has done a fantastic job of keeping himself composed and very presidential, even watching him behind the president last night. I thought it was a very good visual.

I've been to several State of the Unions or even President Trump's joint address to Congress last February. And I can think back to the time when you have Nancy Pelosi back there ripping the paper. We didn't see that theatric from the visual standpoint of watching President Trump in his speech last night.

So I love the idea of seeing Vice President Vance as the president in 2028. But we'll see. I think, as you said, Marco Ruby, has done a fantastic job positioning himself. And one more quick thing to add about affordability. I think President Trump, again, he campaigned on this, is letting families keep more of what they earn.

And we have seen this, increasing the child tax credit. We've seen provided tax relief for small businesses and family enterprises, eliminating tax on tips. And overtime, we've seen social security benefits and all of that stuff. So I do believe he is keeping more money in the pockets of everyday Americans. You know, what could be a massive factor? Well, Brian, I was going to say to you, I was going to say one other thing we haven't touched on, but the jungle drums are beating ever louder for an attack on Iran of a large scale,

much bigger than what we saw last summer with these strategic attack on nuclear sites. If there was to be a large attack on Iran, you know, if you're a MAGA voter, and you're looking at that, you're thinking, well, I thought we weren't going to get involved in foreign wars. I thought that was the whole point of America first. If it was to unravel an attack on Iran, and once you start these kind of wars, it's very hard to predict the way they go. If it was to unravel, that alone could unseat Donald Trump.

If I could respond to that, peers, of course that is not going to serve as a red line for these Republicans, because they'll come in claiming that they want America first, and then Trump's saber rattles against Iran, which I thought five minutes ago, he just decimated their nuclear capability, and now five minutes later we have to do, we have to, we're in a situation where we're going to have to see the same exact thing. That didn't push, you know, some of these Republicans, including,

I'm sure my fellow co-panelists here away from Donald Trump, the fact that he went into Venezuela so that he could heap oil, so that he could heap oil onto American oil companies in a George W. Bush redux. That didn't push these Republicans away, say, rattling against Panama and Colombia and any other countries. Look, the reality is that Donald Trump will engage in these distractions, but he wouldn't need to engage in these distractions if, to your earlier point, he was able to deliver what he promised, which was a more affordable America. He's not. He is the sole impediment to delivering affordability because he wanted to engage in a trade war that serves as a consumption tax on Americans. He wanted to cut Medicaid and ACA subsidies that makes

health care more affordable in America. He wanted to cut food assistance that makes food more affordable in America. The thing standing in the way of Trump delivering his promises is Donald Trump himself. And so he'll engage in plenty of distractions, but the reality is that all of the foreign wars in the world, all of the wagging the dog in the world is not going to pull the wall over American's eyes when they were told that they were voting for something and instead got something entirely different. Okay, well, we're going to leave it there. It's going to be fascinating to see what happens. I appreciate you all joining me. Thank you very much. Thanks, Pierce.

Thanks. Thank you. Well, as I said earlier, there was no mention of the Epstein files in the Stere of the Union, or maybe one, and no mention of China, actually, while I'm at it. But the story remains at the top of the agenda for many, especially in the UK, as this country reels from the arrest of Andrew, Matt Batten, Windsor. Joining me now is Paul Burrell Butler to the late Diner of Princess of Wales. Paul, great to have you back on uncensored.

It's been a while. Wow, so much has happened with the Royal Family and the monarchy, hasn't it? it. You know, for the first time, and I remember, in all the time I've covered the royals, I can remember seismic moments, none more seismic than the death of the late Princess of Wales, Diana, which, you know, you felt like the monarchy itself was slightly teetering. But the royals came through that, just as they came through the abdication of Ed with the 8th and the whole Wallace Simpson scandal. I don't know why, but this one fills me with even more trepidation than what we saw with Diana, because this one involves a scandal which

is showing no sign of doing anything but gathering momentum. It's a true global scandal, and at the heart of it is a senior member of the royal family, albeit stripped of all his titles now and so on. And for that reason, it does feel like a very perilous moment for the monarchy if this is not handled correctly. What do you feel? I agree. I agree with everything you said. I think Andrew has brought the Royal Family to its knees. I think the Royal Family are in crisis. And I've never seen anything like this and you haven't either in the newsroom. You know, peers, this is, the perpetrator is a man, was a member of the Royal Family. And it affects everyone in the Royal Family. And the antidote for this, of course, is seeing William and Catherine

at the Baftas, behaving impeccably, doing what we want, our future king and queen. But I was thinking, watching that, are we going to get there? Because with all the crises that are coming, and we've just seen the tip of the iceberg, we don't know what's coming yet, and what will come will affect the shape of the monarchy. What I'm very saddened about is people pointing the finger at our dear lake queen and why did she give Andrew the money for his settlement? Well, you have to know the character of the person and I did because I lived with the royal family for 21 years and lived with the queen for 11.

And if you knew her, you did know her, you would say, well, she was a good, kind Christian woman and it's likely, peers, that she knew nothing of this scandal other than she wanted to protect her son. All she was doing was a mother and son relationship she wanted to look after him. And I don't think the blame should be laid at her doorstep. I think she served as well over her 70 years and I just hate people putting the blame to her.

Yeah, I mean, I would say, I would say, Paul to that. that I suspect Andrew lied to his mother in exactly the same way he lied to Emily Maitliss in the now infamous Newsnight interview. We know now from the Epstein files that most of what Andrew said to Emily Maitlis was a lie. You know, the timeline of his relationship with Epstein to Virginia Dufray, the veracity of that infamous picture, the fact that he had sex with her and so on. All of this has now come out in the wash of the elite files from the Epstein. Dump we had a couple of weeks ago. So that's why the heat is really on him now. Plus we have the added business scandal, right,

of him and his work as a trade envoy, when there were lots of rumours about him just using it as a bit of a gravy train. Well, now we have him looking like he's passed highly sensitive business information to a convicted paedophile financier. Who knows what Epstein did with that, but if he used that to make,

to enrich himself further and make millions, this is a primer face case I would have thought of of corruption in public office. In relation to the Queen, you know, I just think she may be an unwitting victim of her son's lies. Where it gets, again, perilous, I think, for her legacy and for also potentially for King Charles,

we don't know. But let's say the reports are accurate. 12 million pounds was paid to effectively silence that case with Virginia Joufrey. After Andrew said he wanted his day in court and to clear his name. You know, you have the monarch of the leader of the monarchy, paying a vast sum of money

to basically stop the truth coming out about a sex scandal involving her son. If it turns out the king, as was reported, I think, by the son last week, but was then denied, but not officially, just through palace sources, that the king himself put some money into that settlement. This becomes a really big deal, because you would then have the current monarch

and the last monarch, collectively getting together to pay millions to effectively get rid of a problem where the truth could have come out about Andrew, Virginia Dufray and Epstein. And that is why I think it is legitimate for the media to pursue it, and that's why I think it's potentially very dangerous. Yeah, well, I've always said the monarchy are only there for as long as the people want them to be there. And the latest poll shows that only 51% of the United Kingdom

support the monarchy. That's pretty low. We've never been as low as that. But you know that Andrew was obnoxious, entitled, spoiled, greedy, and he thought was untouchable. And until this time, all the members of the Royal Family

have been untouchable. So what we do need is, of course, transparency, and we do need to see more. Thankfully, William and Kate are untouchable at this moment in time, and our future King and Queen, and have no blemish. And if it comes to push and shove

and the king has to decide whether it's him as King Charles III or the monarchy, it has to be him. I mean, the monarchy has to be bigger than any one person. So it's in safe hands if it goes to William, but don't leave it too late because you know the palace moves at a snail's pace

and they have to be on top of this. You'd be on top of this if you were in the newsroom. The palace need to be on top of this inside those palace walls. They need to show the public that they care. They need to show the public that they are dealing with this. No more fluffing around and no more excuses. I really think it's time for decisive action with our monarchy. Otherwise, we'll lose it.

You know, it's pretty staggering to watch MPs yesterday in the House of Commons piling into a member of the royal family. I mean, Andrew may have lost his titles. He's sort of a member of the royal family. He's still eighth in line to the throne, getting absolutely buried with abuse in the House of Commons, completely unprecedented. We've never seen that happen.

And that, again, is a perilous slope to go down, I think, in terms of public opprobrium, coming from the heart of the establishment in that way, unprecedented. You've also got, I mean, you reference... Sorry. He shouldn't be eighth in line to the throne. you shouldn't. And of course, because he's the father of Beatrice and Eugenie, why are they still in light

to the throne? This has, we have to go through some kind of reform, peers, because otherwise, it won't stand the way it is now. It will stand with William's vision. It will stand with him as king and Catherine as queen. But we are still witnessing the end of a Victorian, Edwardian existence of a court that has no relevance to today. Well, we also have, of course, the renegade royals, you know, Harry and Megan, who are now right now in the middle of this unofficial royal tour, of course they were going to pop up doing something like this, exploiting a weak moment for the monarchy.

They're in the Middle East in Jordan with that World Health Organisation, and they're, you know, doing humanitarian stuff, whatever. what they're really doing is saying, we are a rival, royal entity here. And look at us. We're not involved in this disgusting scandal involving Andrew. I think it's very transparent what they're up to. I think it's pretty malevolent what they're up to.

And I think the damage they've done in the last few years to the mystique of the royal family and the monarchy has been incalculable. So the royal family's been hit by a lot of big stuff. You know, with the royal family lost Prince Philip. It then lost the queen. You had Harry and Megan trashing them and disappearing off to America, now running a rival royal court.

You've had the Andrew scandal exploding. King Charles is still battling cancer. William's wife, Catherine, is still battling cancer, albeit she seems to be in remission, which is great. But, you know, this is what I mean about it being perilous. If anything, God forbid, was to happen to William and Kate, and you look down the line of who follows it, well, their kids are too young.

Then you get to Harry. Then you get to Andrew. This is why I say this is a really perilous moment for the royal family. It is. But it has to be investigated, Piers. We have to get to the end of it. And if this means that Andrew has to go to prison, he has to go to prison. If he's broken the law, if he has passed on secrets to other people,

whilst he was in a public office, then he should be prosecuted. Everybody should. But what I can't understand is why. haven't they interviewed the PPO's, the personal protection officers who are with Andrew, both on public duty and in private, they witnessed everything in his life. They should.

They will do now. And Fergie. Yeah. Ferggy's in, she's up to the legroom. I'm sure you'll see them all get interviewed now because the gloves have been taken off. And I also think another reason it's so perilous is that now they've got access to all.

Andrew's computers, his phones, his personal papers and possessions and so on. Who the hell knows where that leads, right? Who the hell knows what he's been communicating to people? What royal stories do we not know about, which he does, which he may have been sharing with other rules? Who knows? I mean, I think once the police are into that kind of stuff with a senior member of the royal family, this is, again, completely unprecedented.

You know, in my lifetime, the only member of the royal family who's been in court, was Princess Anne over her dog behaving badly in Great Windsor Park and biting two kids. And she got fined on dangerous dogs at. She never got arrested. No one was in her house searching stuff. So this is a really, really unprecedented thing. You referenced the polling. This is what worries me.

In 1983, 86% of Brits said it was very important or quite important to continue having a monarchy. That's now down to 51%. So we're very nearly at a stage where the majority do not believe that. One final question, Paul. It was always said to me that the Queen would never abdicate and the Royals would never want to go down that path again because they believe in the natural line of succession. The moment you tamper with that,

you're open to nature, to the elements, to stuff happening that's out of your control and suddenly you could be in a spiral. Is there any possibility, given this current set of, circumstances that Charles decides to abdicate, to allow William to become a young modernising monarch. It's not in his DNA to do that. He believes the same as the Queen, that he should reign until he dies and then William will naturally succeed. But if the tables turn and this poll slips under 50% he may think for the sake of the monarchy, then the country would much prefer a younger king and

queen, two people who are unblemished by all of this scandal. What's happening right now is Charles is a caretaker king and he's looking after it until William has grown his young family because Charles knows as a father and a grandfather and as king that once William, takes to the throne, his private life will get smaller and smaller, and he'll spend less time with his children. So what the king is giving William is breathing space, and he will try and give him that for as long as possible. So let's hope that there are not too many more scandals coming out. I doubt it. I think this is the tip of the iceberg. I think the story will run and run. and as you say, I don't know where it's going to go

and who Andrew has been communicating with, we will have to watch this very carefully and watch the mood of the public because the public are unhappy. They're unhappy with the way it's unfolding. They're unhappy with the royal family right now. It's up to the raw family to turn this around. I think William and Kate can turn it around.

I'm a monarchist. I want to see King William and Queen Catherine. but it is debatable and it's in the public's gift. The public will decide. Yeah, that's true. And you know, Paul, it's 30 years since Princess Diana invited me to lunch

at Kensington Palace. Yes. And I went along and I sat there. I loved it. And I sat there with Princess Diana to my left, Williams, who was on an exeat from Eaton, aged 13 and a half in braces on his teeth. And you served as a lovely lunch.

I did. Life seemed a lot less complicated then with the royal family. If only Diana had lived, Harry would never have married Megan. She would still be here with her influence around the world. And it would be a better place to live in. But it's not. Yeah, it does feel that way, isn't it?

Paul, it's great to see you. And you're looking very well, by the way, very spelt. I can't help and noticing how fit you're looking. Well, you're not done too bad. Anything you want to share with me? Look after yourself, Pierce. With your hip and everything, just take care of it. Yeah, yeah, I'm getting there.

I'm getting there. Paul, great to see you again. It's good to see you. Take care. All the best. Thanks a lot. We should, of course, say that Anne. Andrew has always denied all criminal wrongdoing in relation to Geoffrey Epstein.

As the King himself said, though, the law must run its course. Pierce Morgan Unsensit is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If we enjoy our show, we ask only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Pierce Morgan Unsensored on Spotify and Apple Podcast. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. sense of media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it without you.