The Trish Regan Show - CHAOS at CBS as New Owner FIRES STAFF, SPIKES 60 Min Report Hours Before Air!

Episode Date: December 22, 2025

🔥 CBS News is unraveling in real time—and Donald Trump is at the center of it. The anchors of the CBS Evening News have signed off, 60 Minutes is in open revolt, and internal chaos is spilling into public view as the network struggles to survive relevance in the Trump era. At the heart of the latest meltdown: a 60 Minutes story pulled after failing to include a comment from the Trump administration—igniting fury among CBS reporters and producers already furious with new leadership and Paramount’s direction. Today, Trish Regan breaks down the harsh reality facing legacy media: the power has shifted — and they know it. Meanwhile, Democrats are watching their numbers crater as Trump’s polling surges. The contrast couldn’t be clearer. It’s also getting uncomfortable for the left as weekend shows scramble to explain Bill Clinton’s name (and photo) appearing repeatedly in newly released FBI documents. Plus — Trump’s economic team says $2,000 tariff rebate checks could become a real possibility in 2026. And a Florida congressman calls for Ilhan Omar to be expelled from Congress as the massive Minnesota fraud scandal explodes toward an estimated $9 billion. Join Trish Regan LIVE for these stories—and much more. SUBSCRIBE for daily, no-nonsense analysis. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Things are really imploding, shall we say, over at one CBS News at this hour. Whoa. I mean, it's getting testy. He thought it was bad when Scott Pelley was calling out his bosses. Now we get the rank and file going wild, wild because Barry Weiss said, you know what? We might want to include something from the administration. You know, maybe you just need the other side on this one. Welcome to the program, everyone.

I do hope you subscribe, share, like. I am Trish Riegan. is the Trish Regan Show. Do subscribe. I hope you're watching live on YouTube. You can also catch me on Spotify. We've got a lot, as I said, going on at this moment in time. The absolute collapse of the mainstream media. I don't think any of these people quite realize how irrelevant they've become, but nonetheless, we're here to remind them. All right, CBS, in total meltdown at this hour. We've got chaos, because new management is spiking a story over its 60 Minutes. It was supposed to have aired last night. It is on the prison that has become rather

infamous. Seacot, as you know it, and some Venezuelans were scooped up in these raids, and they were sent down to this prison. And so the idea of 60 Minutes was going to report on how horrible this was. And, well, you know, the new boss said, gee, I think you might want to hear from somebody else on it. Like, I don't know, Stephen Miller. And the media's all worked up about this amazingly. You actually have Mika and Joe taking the side of CBS. Let's watch. White House's use of the infamous El Salvador Super Prison Seacote. The decision was abruptly announced last night in this short social media post. The final call to shelve the report for now, reportedly came from newly installed CBS News editor-in-chief Barry Weiss.

Barry! How dare you? How dare you? How dare you? you ask for the other side. I mean, don't you know, this is CBS News. We only have one side. Legacy media has only one side to this story. You don't go looking for anything else, anything else at all. She's going to find this out the hard way I have a feeling. You know, the whole thing is just going to go up in smoke, up and smoke, because one, nobody watches them, two, nobody trusts them. And three, the place is so riddled with a lot of old time folks, you know, left over from the Vietnam era, you know, you're just not going to be able to change that.

I'm sorry, Barry. I know that you and Allison have really, really big plans, and I admire you for it, but I want you to know what you're up against. And it's a lot. Okay. So you get people getting fired, for example, these two guys, Tuttle Numb and Tuttle D. You know, I never even noticed their newscasts that they were, does anybody even watch? And I say this, by the way, as somebody who used to be a correspondent on the CBS evening news.

You know when I was a little kid, I used to watch ABC World News Tonight because I lived in New Hampshire, and we only had one network there in New Hampshire, WMUR TV. So we would watch ABC World News Tonight, Ted Cople, you know, that whole, that whole crew, Peter Jennings. And so growing up, I wanted to be, if I was going to be a reporter, I wanted to work in network news. Yeah, that, that, I did, I did. Ben there, done that, right?

So then these guys, the one on the right, I guess his mom had been a producer at CBS Evening News, so he had kind of grown up in the system, the one on the left, Maurice Dubois. He used to be a local anchor on the NBC, forgive me, the CBS station there. So they then graduated him to the evening news, but it didn't really work because like nothing works because I hate to break it to y'all, but nobody watches this stuff anymore. Guess what? You can come right over here. Get to watch a live show where there's no scripts. And funny things happen all the time, right? Because it's live, baby, it's live. And we don't have to deal with any mental management. We don't have to deal with any big management. We just have to be,

you and me together on our own and you, you know, get to hear it all. Sometimes more than you want, right? But it's a totally different medium. So you get everybody getting fired. You get the two guys that were on the evening show that you never watched. And then, oh, here's the morning show that that nobody watches either, but it turns out that Oprah Winfrey's bestie, Gail King, she hosts that show and the ratings are so abysmal and so bad that they're ready to pull the plug on her. And so she just got the news rather unceremoniously a couple of months ago, as reported in Variety Magazine that she was out, and she's not too happy about that. And then, lo and behold, 60 minutes, well, they've been mad for a while. Okay, so the team in 60 minutes

is really, really mad, so mad that the guy is the executive producer on the show. Well, he resigned and disgust, right? Except his talent, like the guy that he had brought up through the ranks and that he had worked for for years and years. That would be one Scott Pelly. He's not giving up his paycheck. Not any time soon, I guess. So he's stuck on. Although he had some snide things to say on the air, we don't have to go back and watch it, but suffice it to say. He basically said, you know, there was all this stuff going on and they settled that lawsuit with Donald Trump over their really wild editing. I mean, and I'm telling you, it's wild. That editor of the Kamala Harris interview, he deserved or she deserved an Emmy just for that amazing editing because anybody

who can make Kamala Harris look smart deserves an Emmy. I'm just saying, okay? So there was a lot of editing involved in that one. It was the Bill Whitaker piece. And consequently, the guy who ran the whole show he decided to step down and it was a big to do and there have been sort of like, you know, rumblings ever since. Nobody's happy. They think that everybody's bending over for Donald Trump. They're all afraid to get sued. Well, yeah, you might want to be afraid of that after the, what, reported 20 million, some estimates of 30 million because they had to do some make goods and advertising and that kind of thing. Also, they had to promise that they were going to try and be more fair. Now, don't you think it might be fair? Just saying, like if you're doing a report,

on this prison that these Venezuelan illegals that are in the country that may have committed crimes are getting exported to. Don't you think it might be fair to maybe talk to somebody in the administration about it? I mean, in the interest of, say, journalism with a capital J, here's Barry Weiss's comments brought to you by MSNBC. NBR reports, Weiss refused to let the peace air with the... out an on-the-record comment from the administration. I mean, is that asking for much? Don't you think that if you're going to air a hit job on the administration

that you might actually want to hear from them? Just saying, right, in the interest of let's represent all sides, but apparently not. So here's the deal. Ms. Weiss, Barry Weiss, and I told you, I told you in the beginning, like, I don't know how she's going to do this. I really think she has her work cut out for her, and it's in part just because of the newsroom itself and all the people. that are there. I mean, maybe she can just clean house and fire them all, but she's still going to actually

put a product on the air every day. So she has her work cut out for her, trust me. One of Ms. Weiss's suggestions after having reviewed the piece, and apparently this went back to like Thursday and Friday when they were in the editing room and she was looking at it. She saw it and she said, she suggested they include a fresh interview with one Stephen Miller. You know Stephen Miller. He's the architect of this whole policy. Yeah, he's the architect. Here you go, in the New York Times. the Trump immigration crackdown or a similarly high-ranking Trump official, they're saying. She did even go so far as to provide the contact information for Stephen Miller to the 60-minute staff because apparently they don't have it, which is a little bit odd.

Just saying, I mean, you are 60 minutes, right? Anyway, Ms. Wise also questioned the use of the term migrants to describe the Venezuelan men who were deported, noting that they were in the U.S. illegally. Okay, so I guess we just call them illegals then. I'm getting kind of confused because at one point you couldn't even call them migrants. Like, that was bad. They were undocumented. Undocumented immigrants was the terminology we were telling you had to go with.

And I thought I was like taking a walk on the wild side, but calling them migrants. Illegals is what they are. Okay, but you're not allowed to say that. And she just kind of said maybe we should. Call them what they are. Oh, oh, boy, Barry, how dare you? How dare you ever suggest such a thing? Now there is complete chaos.

You got the correspondent who's actually a pretty good reporter. I've known her for years and a lovely, lovely, lovely person. But, you know, she's grown up through the ranks there. And I guarantee you she was probably very wedded to this story. It happens, right? You'll work on something for a couple of months. You're really invested in it. You've been through five rounds of legal compliance and this.

that and the other. You think you get a perfect story. They're promoting it all over social media and on the air. And you think you're coming out with a big one, right? And then all of a sudden, Barry Weiss, who is she, this woman who's like quasi-conservative, to get in there and say, hey, I think this thing isn't ready. I think you need to have something on record from Stephen Miller. And then all hell breaks loose. Billionaires are compromising the most important journalistic institutions we have left in this country. The game is obvious. And in this case, Barry Weiss, who is, by the way, not a reporter, not a journalist, is cosplaying as one, and is poisoning the well of one of the last bastions of investigative reporting that gets funded.

Excuse me. So Barry's not, not a journalist? Well, I mean, you know, I take issue with the New York Times, too, from time to time, right? I could question whether anybody over there is actually a quote-unquote journalist, but she was an editor at the New York Times. and she did start the free press, and she does report for the free press, and she does recruit all these other reporters to report for the free press. By the way, that thing's no joke.

It got sold to David Ellison, who now runs Paramount, which is the Barron Company of CBS, for $150 million. So I'm sorry, buddy boy, I don't know who you are on MSNBC, but she's not cosplaying as anything. You might be. I mean, you might actually think you're a television. commentator. God help us. You know, they really picked the winners over there on MSNBC. I think they have a certain type. If you're a woman, you can't wear too much makeup. If you're a man,

you can't get enough of it. Anyway, Sharon Lofonzie. Again, lovely, lovely person. I can't say enough good stuff about Sharon. So I was disappointed to see that she was caught up in this. And the only explanation I can bring you is that maybe sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees after a while because you work on something so hard and it's like, okay, this is my story, this is my baby, I'm rolling with this thing. And then all of a sudden, who's Barry to come in and say, well, I think we need another side in here because, you know, sometimes you need that fresh set of eyes. Sharon's quote was, you know what, they had had all these people looking at it, right? And so how is it that Barry has the ability to say, well, we need something else at the last minute

in her note because she wrote a note and emailed to all the other correspondence. Yeah, you see, I told you, the MHA are running the asylum. Barry doesn't stand a chance because, you know, you got Leslie Stahl and you got Scott Pelly and you've got, and whoever else is over there, I don't really know, do you? Because, you know, 60 Minutes is the brand, not the correspondence. And that in and of itself is actually kind of a problem because you never really know where the correspondence stand until things like this happened. And then you find out, wait, they weren't willing to put the other side.

in there? Again, she's great. I love her. But this, to me, oh, how did Susie Wilde say it the other day about Pam Bondi? And I'm assuming she likes Pam Bondi a lot more than I like Pam Bondi. She called it a whiff. This to me is a bit of a whiff, okay? Because... Convierte your passion in a new business with Shopify and batter records of with the form of of the pay with a better conversion of the world.

You've heard well. The incredible system of Pago Shopify facilita the services on your

website, in the social and in the world. That is music for your ears.

No, you'll be more your business will be a super-exit with Shopify.

Empeas your period of trial for a year at shopify at

records. You need something from the White House in there. The White House absolutely positively refuses to talk to you after you've repeatedly gone down every path. Okay, then I get it.

You don't have a choice. You have to say, look, we ask them, we ask them, we ask them, we ask them, and they wouldn't provide Stephen Miller to us. I think Stephen would do the interview. I'm going to tell you, Sharon. I think he would do it because, you know what? He's all bummed out. He can't even get on CNN right now.

He went on Hannity show the other night and was complaining that they won't book him on CNN. So I have a feeling, just a little feeling that if you had asked him, he might have been willing to come on. Granted, you know, with a 24-hour time horizon right around the holidays, it might make it a little bit tricky, and that may be one of the things that they ran into here. Anyway, this is what she said, quote, if the administration's refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a kill switch for any reporting

they find inconvenient. Okay, fine. That's true. If it's true, though. Because if you just went to him, like on Friday and said, hey, hey, we're going to run this thing on Sunday and we need an answer now. now, now, now, and we want you on camera. I don't know as they could have facilitated that. It's not clear to me. I think you've been working on this for a couple of months,

knowing 60 minutes because they spend months and months and months and months on everything. Again, this is why reporters get so invested in their story. And as a result of that, you know, you should have been in there way earlier asking the White House for the interview. Quote, we have been promoting this story on social media for days, Ms. Alfonzi added. are expecting it. When it fails to air, without a credible explanation, the public will correctly identify this as corporate censorship. We are trading 50 years of gold standard reputation for a single week of political quiet. I hate to break it to you. You traded that a long time ago, a very long time ago, and Sharon, it had nothing to do with you and everything

to do with your predecessors. 60 minutes is not what it was. There's no reason for 60 minutes to really exist today. I mean, if you want to get in-depth, long-form reporting, you can get that from a variety of different magazines, both on the left and on the right. But do we really need a television show that drags out the way it does? Oh my goodness, they speak in slow motion. That in and of itself is a turnoff, right? I mean, the show's done. Nobody needs it. And nobody wanted to see this stupid piece. I'm sorry, but like, you know what? It was reported a couple of months ago in the New York Times. Barry Wace was right. She's like, there's nothing new here. Like, what are we doing? Everybody's already reported on this. So how is this new? And you don't even

have the other side. 60 minutes correspondent Sharon Alfonzi criticized the decision in an email to colleagues yesterday that was obtained by several news organizations. She said her team had reached out to the administration for comments several times and said the call to hold the story was, quote, not an editorial decision. It is a political one. Weiss responded in a statement writing in part, holding stories that aren't ready for whatever reason, that they lack sufficient context, say, or that they are missing critical voices, happens every day in every newsroom. I look forward to airing this important piece when it's ready. Okay. So there you have it. an adult in the room. And the kids are going crazy. And they're throwing a temper tantrum.

How can this be? I mean, my gosh. So this is total meltdown. Total mutiny. I mean, you get two anchors that were fired. You get Gail who's about to be fired. You get a whole bunch of 60 men that are probably going to be fired. Because you get a bunch of Pramadonnas running around that don't believe that they actually have to have another side of the story. So what might Miller have said. Well, he might have said these people are here illegally in the country and they have committed crimes and I have no interest in doing anything other than deporting them. Because Joe Biden really screwed this thing up. I mean, I don't know what he would have said. But we should have heard it, right? If you're going to air the story, then you need both sides. This is

journalism 101. You know what? You don't work in cable. Oh, we'll get to that because if you worked in cable, you might have gotten away with that. So go take Rachel Maddo's job. Lord knows they need some help on ratings. Not that anybody from 60 minutes could save them. Again, that ship is sailed. But here's Miller on Hannity recently with what he might have said. This was not a loophole. The Biden administration, Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, devised a scheme to fly illegal aliens into the country and then to escort them in mass across the border by the millions and to give them something known as parole, which gives them a work permit, which gives them a social, which gives them a social security number,

which gives them access to the voting booth. This was the plan all along to get them here illegally so they can get free government benefits, get hooked to welfare, and be able to participate in American elections. This was an attack on democracy by the Democrat Party. It's the same attack that we see, Sean, when you have California, a sanctuary state that is refusing to turn over even illegal alien criminals to ICE. So these are illegal aliens in California who have been arrested by California police, by California law enforcement for serious crimes.

They are refusing to hand these criminal illegal aliens over to ICE. Instead, they're freeing them back into the cities to offend and offend again. By any definition, what California is doing is criminal. It is a violation of our laws. It is one of the most heinous things that I have seen. Yeah, that's just a little sampling.

I mean, it might have been even better. And you know what? I'm going to tell you something else. Hey, 60 minutes, it might have actually been good for your ratings. Imagine that. Like, it might have actually helped your ratings because then you have the other side, for goodness sake. You just can't live in this world where there's only one side and you're repeating it at

Najam, and by the way, it's stuff we've all already heard before. You know? create some controversy. Take a page out of Cables book, for goodness sakes, right? I'll tell you. I mean, they just had a field day with this one on Morning Joe. This story is promoted on Friday. And then it is...

So, of course, if you promote it, you're going to run it, right? Spiked on Saturday because the White House decides they're not going to give a comment. That's never stopped an article before, where you go, We reached out to the White House. They refuse to offer comment. That line features in a number. You probably can't reach out on Friday, okay, for a Sunday story, like 60 minutes. That was probably not a good move, if that's the case.

The stories that I write, that is common practice. What is uncommon is the chronology here. There's been really good media reporting, New York Times, Walser Journal, other places last night about this. I've talked to some people over at CBS, and they just say this is not how this goes. This piece was done. It's not how it works because we've never had to get the other side before. We've just kind of done what we wanted, and we always had one side and one side only. And ready.

You know, it's off in the administration doesn't have comment. This is something that was edited and promoted. The fact that video footage aired, that is so unusual that they would then pull this down. And Pablo, there was one reporting last night that Ms. Weiss there was, well, there needs to be on the record comment. and she provided Stephen Miller's direct contact information saying reach out to him. Yeah. What's wrong with that? They're acting like this is some kind of crazy thing that she actually said, hey, go get the other side.

That, of course, didn't happen yesterday. And they pulled this down. It is raised. It seems to be fulfilling a lot of the fears that have been raised about the ownership. And also, this is what the reporter wrote, our story, and this is in Michael Grimbaum's piece in the New York Times today. Our story was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and standards and practices. It is factually correct. And she said, if the standard for airing a story became the government agreeing to be interviewed, the network would cede editorial control.

Anybody ever think of this, that all of the screenings were done by people with only one point of view? In other words, they can't see the forest for the trees because they can only see what they can see. It doesn't even occur to them that maybe they should have Stephen Miller defending the program on the air or anybody else for that matter because in their eyes and in their view and they firmly believe this there is no defense therefore why do you even need anything else so sure they're lawyers their compliance people all looked at it and nobody sees what barry weiss is seeing who by the way is the new boss so get used to it guys go from an investigative powerhouse to a stenographer

And I've been there, and I've been there in those screenings personally. I work there. And they're a living hell. They are rigorous. It's rigorous. And it's embarrassing, right? When your story doesn't get picked up and the boss spikes it last minute. Yeah, they're tough.

But maybe they aren't as tough as they used to be. Why? Because there's only one side. And when you suffer from a severe case of TDS, when an entire network, suffers from a severe case of TDS. There's no need to represent anything other than what you personally believe. It's most difficult process. It is an important process.

And every freaking word, every frame of video is picked apart by editors to make sure it is correct. I mean, again, the editors all have their own biases. I mean, how else do you produce a Kamala Harris interview that winds up getting sued to smithereens, right? How do you produce that where she actually sounds decent? We don't have to go back and watch it, but you know, you know exactly what I'm talking about. We've seen it many times here. You know, not to mention ladies and gentlemen, they're trying to somehow say that, oh, this is all about David Ellison trying to do the deal right now. Paramount is the company that he owns and he bought CBS. He wants to do that deal with Warner Brothers Discovery. Sure he wants to do the

deal. And oh, maybe he's trying to curry favor with the administration because the Trump administration has said that Donald Trump would in some way, shape, or form be weighing in on it. He has made the point that whoever buys Warner Brothers Discovery really needs to pick up CNN because otherwise, you know, what's going to happen to CNN? CNN's going to float off into the abyss. And maybe that's actually an asset that's worthwhile and he'd like to see somebody pick it up. And so the thinking is that David Ellison with Paramount is in the lead slot to get that. And he wants to protect that. And he wants to protect that. And so their excuse on all of this is, oh, this is just business and this is just politics. And David Ellison, by way of Barry Weiss, is trying to carry favor with the Trump

administration. I'll tell you what's going to carry favor with not the Trump administration, but shareholders, because shareholders are the ones that are going to decide that. And I don't think that you're going to run into as much antitrust issue there as you might even with the Netflix, Warner Brothers Discovery Deal. And what's going to dictate it is price, okay? How much money Ellison is willing to pay, and he's willing to pay more than the other guys. So that's how that deal will get locked down. Meanwhile, something else to think about?

This is somehow gotten lost. Nobody thinks about this these days, whether it's Jimmy Kimmel or Stephen Colbert or 60 minutes, apparently. Nobody's even thinking about the responsibility that networks have. to the viewers and to the communities, courtesy of the 1934 Communications Act. So they have a different charter than cable or, say, podcasts, or streaming, completely different charter. They actually are governed by the FCC,

and the FCC works for the president of the United States of America. This came up in a recent hearing just last week where, Brendan Carr, who's pretty darn serious about this stuff, and he's like, hey, he's rolling up his sleeves, he's told ABC, he's told Bob Iger, guys, get with it, get with it, get with it. He's launched investigations into all three big broadcast networks because guess what? They falter his jurisdiction as do radio networks. And so thus, you have an obligation to be fair and to present both sides.

So again, if the 60 Minutes story was not presenting the other side, well, then that might run them a foul of one Brandon Carr. Thus, Barry Weiss is doing what she ought to do as an editor. But again, everybody seems to forget this. Maybe even including the people over at CBS, they're forgetting the reality that, you Yeah, the FCC has some jurisdiction. We know this congresswoman totally forgot Jackie something. She, oh, forgive me, she's not, she's a senator.

It's even scarier, right? Like, they have no clue what's going on. And Brandon just shot her down. I mean, this was like slam dunk. I mean, embarrassing for this lady. Go out and learn some communications law, would you? Watch. Here is the important distinction.

Will you commit to opening an investigation into Fox News for its deceptive editing of this clip. Again, yes or no, please, because I have questions for the other witnesses. No. No. So, you're an elected bureaucrat. You're deciding that some investigation should go on, and others shouldn't. And are you basing this solely on the target? Or are you basing this? What are you basing this on? Can you answer that question? This was clearly edited. Why is one edit fine? and one at it not in the middle of a presidential campaign. Senator, it's based on the law. The Fox News interview was on cable.

There's no public interest standard. There's no broadcast hoax rule. There's no news distortion. There's no role for the FCC there. Well, I think there is a rule for fairness and the American public understand what's fair and just. You think there's a broad fairness rule that we should apply at the FCC to cable companies? I'm going to go on to merger threats.

And Chairman Carr is there? Oh, that's just bad. I think she's just bad. She's just bad her job. And clearly ill-prepared. She's trying to once again make the mistake. There's so many, and by the way,

this is not like a Democrat thing because Ted Cruz keeps making the mistake too. Teddy, here's the deal. Okay, broadcast is one thing. Cable is another. And streaming is a party. So make sure that you subscribe, share, like all that good stuff.

It's really important. I'm in the pocket. We're over here in the Wild West. I love it. Like, I've never had so much fun. Anyways, 60 minutes. I'm sorry, the show's over. It's just over.

Like, who watches 60 minutes? Do you know anybody? I mean, other than, like, if there's a football game on and they come on on a Sunday night, I mean, I can't even tell you who's on the show. It's so passe. I don't know. Maybe they get some numbers, again, left over from a football game, but nobody's watching. Everything is like old news by the time they get to it because we're living in a really,

really fast culture. Really fast, right? Everything's on Twitter. Like here I am doing a podcast every day. And sometimes we're like, oh gosh, is it too late to do that? Because it just came out in the last six hours or in the last 12 hours. And they're waiting like months to get to stories. I guess because they get a package of them also brilliantly and beautifully. And I'm telling you don't need that, right? The packaging doesn't matter anymore. Think about that for a second. Because I think actually the rawness is something that viewers appreciate, right? You like it when my microphone goes down. Well, not really. But you'll put up with it a little bit, right? There's a rawness to this that you're not going to see, for example, in the likes of 60 minutes. And the reporting, I think,

as a result, feels more genuine. There's an opinion here that I wear on my sleeve, broadly. It's gotten me in trouble a lot of times over the years, but I don't care. I don't care. I'm willing to take that heat. I'm willing to stand up. And to a certain extent, I credit this reporter, Sharon, for saying, hey, you know, I'll take this heat and I'll stand up. I don't think I needed to have something on record from the administration. I would beg to differ, but at least show us your cards, right? Show us your hand. Let us know where you stand. Don't try and pretend you're one thing. Don't try and pretend you have no bias and then actually have enormous bias. That doesn't work from me. It doesn't work for America, which is why no one trusts the legacy media institutions anymore,

period. And Barry did the right thing. She said, hey, you know what, we're going to pull this until it's ready. Get over yourselves. It's the right thing to do. She's also making other changes, right? She's getting rid of the Tweedledum and Tweedle D duo because, well, they're not rating. and all they do is read little intros, and you pay them a ton of money to read like two sentences into a minute 30 package on who knows what with its own form of bias in there. And so these days are over, like things are changing in real time,

and either these networks catch up or they're left behind. I want to go to Barry speaking recently on the issue of how the news industry has to change. It's so boring. It's like, you know, I'd say watching paint dry. She said it's like eating tofu. That's a good one. Watch. One of the problems is a lot of people have tried to do centrist news.

I know this because I am like the target audience for those things. And the reason that they have all failed is it's like trying to force feed spinach down someone's throat. Right? It's felt very like tofu, oatmeal. It's like centrist news is choosing the midpoint between every single topic. It's felt like an absence of charisma. and identity in a moment of unbelievably low trust in all of our public institutions, especially the mainstream press. I don't think it's by pretending like we can go back to having

a view from nowhere. I think it's about who's in the room, right? I think it's about redrawing the lines of what falls in the 40-yard lines of acceptable debate and acceptable American politics and culture. Charisma. I don't think. see any charisma on 60 minutes, do you? I don't see any charisma on the evening news programs, do you? So yeah, you need a little personality, you need a little charisma, you need a little credibility, and you can't be hiding behind something, pretending you're one thing, that you're so fair and right down the middle of the center, right down the fair when you're not. Okay? But just call it what it is. Let us know your bias. Hey, people tune in to Rachel Maddo. People,

tune in to Hannity. People don't tune in to 60 minutes. They don't tune in to the CBS evening news. They don't tune in to the CBS morning show. And it's because they don't trust anyone. They don't know who they are. They don't like them very much. And why should they? Right. Like, you know, it's like having a, it's like having an avatar or a robot give you your news. Who needs that? Really? Who needs that? We're in a personality driven culture. Let us know who you are. I mean, I'll give you, you know what? she's got a ton of spunk. It's a great reporter with a great sense of humor. And I always thought she'd be like perfect on like Saturday Night Live. And I don't mean that in a derogatory way. I mean that actually because she's really funny. But none of that comes through. None of it. Like you don't really

know where people stand. And this is what has to change. If network news is going to succeed in the future, I need to know who these reporters are. I need to know that they have a personality and a pulse. I need to know that they can speak faster than you'd think. I'm, I mean, I'm trying to think of this. I've got a paragraph in front of me. In a major media shakeup, CNN's parent company, Warner Brothers Discovery, tells Paramount to walk away, signaling a possible a line. I'm not kidding. This is how they teach you to speak at CBS. I know I used to work there. They'd be like, slow down, slow down. I can't slow down. I got way too much to say. And not enough time to say it in.

Okay, like there's no slowing me down. Brandon Carr, he's just like on a roll, and he's out there with like a mission to explain the difference, again, between broadcast and cable. This came up with Kimmel recently. Jimmy Kimmel's like all apoplectic because he got taken off the air. Those big, bad conservative local stations that didn't appreciate his comments on Charlie Kirk. Just, you know, the guy was barely dead.

I mean, it was hours after the thing happened. And Jimmy Kimmel said some really crude, things and understandably the local stations were like hey hey wait a second and then you go back to the 1934 communications act where you have to ask is jimmy really there for the public good at this point it doesn't really feel like it jimmy's there for a political motivation he's like doing the democrat parties work for it and that has to end and this is what he told scott jennings on his radio show recently watch jimmy phallon and set mire's at nbc just wondering do you have comments on those shows and are they doing what Kimmel did Monday night and is it even worse on

those programs in your opinion? Well, if you can be unfunny, that's fine. And a lot of people are sort of saying that well, people are punishing Kimmel because they don't like a joke that he told. But, you know, we don't need to rehash it here. Valsy what he said was not a joke. It wasn't presented at all that way. But when you look at these other TV shows, what's interesting is the FTC does have a rule called the equal opportunity rule, which means, for instance, if you're in the run up to an election, you have one partisan elected official on,

you have to give equal time, equal opportunity to the opposing partisan politician. So far so good. But there's an exception to that rule called the Bonafide News exception, which means if you are a bona fide news program, you don't have to abide by to equal opportunity rule. And over the years,

the SEC has developed a body of case law on that and it suggested that most of these late-night shows, other than SNL, are bona fide news programs. And potentially, I would assume, you could make the argument that the View is a bona fide news show. But I'm not so sure about that. And I think it's worthwhile to have the FCC look into whether the view and some of these other programs that you have still qualify as bona fide news programs and therefore exempt from the equal opportunity regime that Congress has put in place. Got about 30 seconds. Bump, but um, okay. So that spells trouble for a show like Kimmel.

We already know there's trouble for Colbert. He's out. We know that there is trouble for the view, and we now know that there's trouble for 60 minutes. Now, you know, maybe their new manager will save them from themselves, or maybe the whole thing will just implode, because why pay all these salaries to all these anchors when you're really not getting anywhere, right?

Like, what is that getting you? How do you make any money? Like, I got to tell you, like, David Ellison is not a dumb guy. He bought Paramount, a source that I spoke to, very trusted source, that knows him and has heard him speak at length about sort of his plans for the future,

said, look, he's got the whole tech background, and he really is thinking about media in a very, very different way. And I wonder to a certain extent how much more is going to become citizen journalism, right? So can he actually have people making their own movies in the future? I mean, think about what you can do on AI right now already. And in terms of the news business, can you have like individuals, more sort of citizens, reporters helping out in that process?

Look at what YouTube has been able to do. It's actually really remarkable. And you look at the charts and YouTube is just killing everyone, right? And what did YouTube do? They said, we're going to open it up to everyone. So everyone can become a commentator. Everybody can become a reporter. We're not going to have this stodgy sort of institutional bias over who's in, who's not.

And so that's a whole different way of thinking about it. Maybe Ellison will take it in that direction. I don't know, but he's got to have some plan. I mean, especially if he wants to actually buy CNN. That's a whole other thing. But I do think as we move forward into 2026, you're going to look at shows like 60 minutes, the typical evening news shows right across the board, the view, Kimmel, the late night shows really and truly in jeopardy. And I don't know if 60 Minutes really lives in this new

environment because it's sort of just there. And it's become less and less relevant. Again, you know, it could change. I think that the reporter who was reporting this is, you know, somebody who's got a ton of spunk and a ton of personality. You don't see any of it. and it's high time that we start to know a little bit more about the journal, how we're supposed to trust them otherwise? Again, you know what? If she just came out and said, listen, this is my view, I don't care what the administration thinks.

We asked them for an interview. They couldn't give it to us quick enough. And, you know, like, at least then we'd have some respect for her, because we'd know, like, that's her opinion. That's her view. What's wrong with having an opinion? If you're going to try and actually be a journalist, then be fair for goodness sakes. You can't not have both sides.

Oh, the Democrats, boy, oh boy, they're getting humiliated in real time over these Epstein files that just came out hundreds of thousands of pages. I think we're up to 300,000 documents now. And Bill Clinton is prominently featured. Now, apparently Donald Trump was in a picture and they had taken it out and now it's back in. There was a whole thing. And the Democrats were trying to run with that saying, oh, you know, he wasn't in it. They deliberately did that. And as we now understand it, it was because there was some concern for the victims, et cetera,

and now it's back in there. So much ado about nothing. But I would tell you that the one you really ought to be worried about would be one, Mr. Bill Clinton, because there are a lot of pictures, like in swimming pools with young women. And this is awkward. I mean, just awkward. You should have seen Jamie Ruskin trying to explain this one away on CNN over the weekend. I got to show you because it'll kind of just, I know, it'll make your skin crawl,

but he, you know, he's trying to save face. And this is the most unbelievable, unbelievable place that he went. I'm going to share it now. We're a number of pictures of former president, Bill Clinton, with Jeffrey Epstein, with Elaine Maxwell, in a jacuzzi, swimming in a pool. How do you explain that connection? and are you comfortable with it? I mean, I have no idea.

This is why we want to get to the bottom of it and get all of the facts out to the public. I mean, that's what this is about. And, you know, look, there are clearly lots of people that are in photographs with Jeffrey Epstein. It was very much of a socialite. A socialite. All right, that's what we're going with.

Hey, you know, he was a socialite. A socialite with Dems, apparently. A lot of Dems. I don't see as many Republicans, but, you know, he had a lot of dem friends. So this is going to get awkward. It's going to get more and more awkward. But, hey, you guys asked for this, right? I do recall you demanded this.

You demanded, I mean, hey, you had what? Four years you could have gotten this stuff out in the open under Joe Biden, but you chose not to? Which, by the way, told me something. I mean, for goodness sakes, four whole years. If the Epstein files were that important and your ticket to take Donald Trump, down? You certainly tried everything else. Why didn't you give this one a whirl? Oh, because maybe I wouldn't have taken them down. Maybe it would have taken some people down that you didn't really want getting taken down. Right? The deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche,

was on NBC's weekend show, making an interesting point about this timing, shall we say. To be clear, releasing the files is not what President Trump has ever had an issue with. When he calls this a he's talking about the fact that there's this narrative out there that the Department of Justice is somehow hiding or protecting information about him, which is completely false, as evidenced by the fact that the Epstein files existed for years and years and years. And you did not hear a peep out of a single Democrat for the past four years. And yet we're supposed to believe that lo and behold, all of a sudden, out of the blue, Senator Schumer suddenly cares about the Epstein files.

That's the hoax. And that's the hoax that has existed for months. months and months and months. This isn't about whether we would release or not release the EPSC files. As a general matter, we do not release the files of criminal investigations and prosecutions. There's laws around that. There's laws that protect victims, that protect the innocent. So we're doing something here that is more transparent than we've done in any criminal investigation in the history of this country. Don't forget that. Yeah. So they're going out of their way to make sure all of this is coming to have.

Donald Trump actually thought that some people might not like having their names in there, the innuendo that's implied, and he wanted to make sure that people didn't get wrapped up in this unnecessarily so. He kind of was like trying to be a gentleman about it, but no, they didn't want, you know, then all of a sudden they turned around and said, well, you know, must be because he's somehow involved when it turns out it's them, it's them, and it was always them. And so I don't know how they're going to get away with excusing this with Bill Clinton, but it's certainly pretty darn embarrassing for Billy Boy. And here's the deal. deal before you guys say, oh, he has immunity. Guess what he doesn't? Okay, newsflash. This happened

after, after he was out of the Oval Office. So while, yes, the Supreme Court ruled that you could do a few things while you are in the Oval Office and not be held accountable for it, that you do have presidential immunity then, if you commit crimes after you've been president, then, then And, whoa, you know, it's open season, you're fair game. So Billy Boy could actually be in a whole lot of trouble now. And this is why he doesn't want to go in and testify, which opens him up to actually being thrown in jail in all seriousness, along with the wife.

I mean, Hillary could go. After all, you know, the orange pantsuit's going to make a comeback because they are insisting that they should not be testifying in the House inquiry into Epstein. But there are other people that said that they wouldn't testify, remember? Steve Bannon, for one, with J6, he wouldn't testify. And then there was Peter Navarro, who also chose not to testify then. And I actually didn't feel that bad for those guys at the time, because I'm like, you know,

you get called to testify, and unless you get somebody who's going to give you a get-out-of-jail-free card, you're kind of going to be in the slammer. because you're refusing to cooperate with Congress. I mean, you're going to be held in contempt, and that's that. All right, that's, that's, that's the rule. You didn't have Donald Trump to get you out. You didn't have anybody to help. You were going to go to jail.

And so Peter and Steve, they knew that. But what about Hillary and Bill? Again, no immunity. Don't tell me he has immunity. He doesn't. You know, this happened after. he was president. So he's going to have to testify. And if he doesn't, he's going to have to go to jail. I mean, I don't really, I don't see any other way around it. So, you know, Bill, Hillary,

I'd line up the lawyers and I'd start figuring out your story fast because those pictures aren't pretty. You definitely don't want to see him in a swimsuit, trust me. We can do without that, right? Anyway, Bill and Hillary are going to be facing a lot of trouble. Quick shout out for our friends over at Balance and Nature. I just wanted to mention they have something called the total health system, which is on sale right now. You can get the normal balance of nature fruits and veggies, which is what I take for 35% off with code word Trish. Or, you know, if you really want to get committed to your health, you can do what they call the whole health system there at Balance of Nature. It includes a whole variety of whole food ingredients and it's a

great way to work it into your routine. As I said, I take the fruits and veggies and I I get 16 different ones, but I'm actually eye on this one because it's 31 different fruits and vegetables, 31, which is just fantastic. The whole health system by balance of nature, the supplements are pretty versatile. The fiber spice supplement mixes pretty easily into your drinks and adds a nice warm sort of depth and spice, I think, to your blend. You can put that into your tea. You can also open your fruits and veggie supplements and mix the powder into a smoothie or sprinkle it on top of your food. Balance of nature's whole health system supplements feature ingredients like husk, flaxseed, cinnamon, turmeric, mango, pineapple, wild blueberry, stocky mushroom, spinach, kale,

and more. So you got 47, forgive me, did I say 31? I meant 47 ingredients of 100% real whole fruits, vegetables, vegetables, spices, and fibers, perfect for your daily routine, and you get 50% off. 50% off right now, the whole health system for life. It's a limited time offer. I want you to go to balance nature.com. type in my name, Trish, to claim this offer.

New and existing customers can lock in the whole health system at $79.99 per order for life. If you cancel in the future, you're going to lose that price. But anyway, balance in nature, really, really good stuff. It's important to take care of yourself, your health and your wealth, as I like to say. New poll, not very good for Dems, very, very good news for Donald Trump. This is very good to see. He's back up on top in this conservative poll. President Trump's approval ratings rose to 50% in a new RMG research poll, marking his strongest

showing by a pollster in more than a month. This is according to Newsweek. So great stuff to see. And you know, this differs a little bit from what we saw at Fox recently. Fox was talking about this erosion, if you would, in sort of how people were thinking about Donald Trump in terms of the economy. They were really getting frustrated and increasingly frustrated on the economy. And I've said all along, like, look, you know, miracles do not have. happen overnight. You got all the way up to 9.16% inflation on CPI, 10 point something on PPI, producer price index. But when prices are up, nearly 10% for consumers, and then they start coming down, they're up 7%. They're up 6%. All this stuff is cumulative. And we can't go back,

sadly. I mean, I wish we could, but you don't want deflation because then nobody's going to buy anything, right? You take somebody like me who likes a good sale. Clearance, as my dad taught me, Everything on clearance. Clearance, he would say, Trish, is the best brand. When I was a little kid, I thought it was like Chanel or something. Clarence. We shopped at Marshalls, and I only looked at the clearance rack. So if you know that it's going on clearance next month or the following month,

why would you buy it today? And that's sort of the thinking on the economy. You can't have total deflation because that's a hard cycle to break. So it is what it is, but he's totally leveled it off. We got 2.7%. It shocked everyone the other day. the CNBC reporter, I know I'm Steve Leesman. He nearly fell off his seat. He was like jumping out of his chair when he saw that number. 2.7 percent. That was really, really good and much less than people

thought. They thought we were going to get upwards of 3 percent. So that's all good. And I think people are coming around on the economy. But there was a rather weak Fox poll recently. And I think that that started to sort of switch around now. Up 50 percent, 50 percent strong approval rating there. Pretty good to see. So half the country is on. board can't say the same thing for the Dems. This was a bad one. Quinnipeak poll out this week showing, and this is per Washington Examiner, they've got a lovely picture of Kamala Harris, that they're looking at a 15% approval rating. 15% versus his at 50. 77% disapproving. Even a majority of Democrat voters disapprove of their own party by six percentage points.

I mean, I don't know what to tell them, but here I don't have to tell them anything. Let me Harry Enton tell them from CNN, because he has a way with words. And the minds of the American public are lower than the Dead Sea. What are we talking about here? Well, let's take a look. The net approval rating for Democrats in Congress. You said at Cape Baldwin, the lowest ever. Look at this.

Overall, they are 55 points underwater. Their approval rating is south of 20%. It's even worse when you look at independence. Look at this. Negative 61 points. That means that their approval rating is 61. points lower than their disapproval rating. Quinipiac has been polling this question for the better part of the 21st century.

They have never found Democrats, at least those in Congress, and we're shaped than they are right now. Took me a minute. My job was still on the floor. Wow. Wow. That is not a good look, Dems. It does not surprise me, in part because, one, you know, the Epstein files that weren't, and it turns out that they're sort of implicating, one, Bill Clinton more than anyone else.

And two, because of, well, the news that we just got out of Minnesota, and guys, like, this is getting worse by the day. We're going to get to that in a second. I want to also point out one other thing. I mean, it's like, you know, they just, this is shocking. They won't even release their own darn audit or autopsy, whatever you want to call it. And I think it might have something to do with the fact that they know Kamala Harris came off really, really bad in that, right? So they're looking at an all-time low in polls, and they don't

want to go back and even look at what killed them in 2024. But dare I say, I'm going to go out on a limb here, okay? Because I think I know what killed them in 2024. They're candidates. And their policies as well. But you know, let's just start with the candidates. You had one, Joe Biden, who feels like, I mean, how old is he now, guys, like 80-something? I mean, he feels like he's 90-something. And he was deteriorating in real-time really fast. And then you had the media trying to cover it up.

So the media that's supposed to be on your side, like all of a sudden everybody's like, oh, we don't trust them because they're covering up everything. Everything. I mean, think about all that they covered up, whether it be. Russia, Russia, Russia, whether it be, oh, I don't know that, that COVID virus that couldn't possibly have come from Wuhan, China, the mask situation? I mean, they acted like, you know, suddenly masks were the be-all-end-all, you need to start wearing three, even though Fauci told us, oh, masks, don't make a difference, but I guess he was lying them, but nobody bothered to call him out

except for, like, yours truly. I, you know, I was like, just in and out of hot water during that entire time. I'm like, wait, I can say, I can't say, oh my gosh, like it was mind-numbing, right? And look, I paid a price for it, but that's fine. Like, I'm willing to pay that price, and I'd pay it all over again and all worked out for the best for me, but the mainstream media in general, they're so scared and they won't pay a price for anything. And so they're just parroting whatever it is, the left wants them to parrot. So you had a nation that recognized Joe Biden for all his faults and all his challenges. And a nation, and a nation. that did not trust the cackling hyena that she was. Sorry. I mean, but, you know, that would have been

the first thing I did if I were her political consultant, which I never would be, but I would have said, get rid of the laugh. We need a new laugh. Somebody send her to laughing school because we cannot have that laugh debut on television anymore. Like, it's done. It's over. And can someone please teach her how to talk? Teach her to have a thought and then come out with it. But not to ramble on in this just extensive word salad that's nauseating to listen to and goes nowhere. She makes herself look really stupid. She may, in fact, be very stupid. I suspect she is.

But then again, what are you doing with her as the candidate? You should have primorate his, you know what? You should have gotten a decent candidate in there and you should have been ready to rumble. So it's your own fault. And then you spend too much money, way too much money. I mean, look, they don't want to admit any of this. though. So much so that when the Connecticut Senator went on to CNN on Friday and he was asked about it, he had no words, no words. He had to pivot. He did this little pirouette that's kind of funny. Watch.

Senator, you're Democrat. I don't need to tell you that in 2024, the Democrats didn't do well. They lost the presidential election. Didn't do particularly well with congressional races either. The Democratic National Committee did this so-called autopsy to figure out what went wrong and ordered this big report that was going to be made public, but just yesterday, the chair of the DNC basically decided not to go public with this release. John Fabro, who used to be a speechwriter for President Obama, now is on POD, Save America. He tweeted, unreal, the DNC's actual position that if the public knew more about what Democrats got wrong in the last election, it would hurt the party's chances in the next election.

Isn't part of fixing what went wrong, knowing what went wrong in the public? I'm always in favor of transparency, John, and greater knowledge about mistakes that may have been made. Frankly, my focus is on the future. I think we know what we have to do to win in 2026, including, by the way, making public more about what the president's doing in that Venezuelan strike. Okay. So my focus is on the future. I don't think we need to look past. We're not going to look back at our mistakes. No, no, I mean, who needs to learn from mistakes?

I tell my kids all the time, like, if you can't learn from your mistakes, you can't learn, all right? You actually have to own up to your mistakes, and our mistakes actually do make us better, and they make us stronger, and we should never really regret them. We just say, okay, you know, we're going to do better next time around. But this guy, he doesn't want to admit any mistakes. And instead of saying, okay, we need to do better next time around, we're going to look at it. He's like, no, no, no, no, we know that. We know. We're going to say, stay focused on the future. We're not going to look backwards. We're not even going to take a little look under the hood to see what could possibly have gone wrong because, well, in fairness,

maybe he really does know. They had lousy candidates, of which he also would be a lousy candidate, so I hope he doesn't have any ideas. Just saying, he goes straight to Venezuela. Venezuela, which, by the way, I mean, alleluia. I mean, we actually have a shot, you guys, of seeing this revolution throughout all of Latin America. You got Chile going conservative. You got Argentina going concertive. You got Bolivia, I mean, Ecuador, you name it, right? And now it looks like you may get a twofer. I'm talking Venezuela and Cuba, because there's a, you know, a naval blockade, basically. You see, oh, I know a lot about this. And I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole. But I've spent a lot of time covering Venezuela, reporting on Venezuela. I've been to

the Orinoco region. I used to hear Hugo Chavez speak many, many times because I was down there. Actually, while working for CBS News, trying to get an interview with him, and he'd say, manana, manana, and keep going and having to listen to these long, long speeches. By the time he finished, we never did have time for an interview. Anyway, I digress. The point is, that place has just deteriorated into a hellhole, an utter hellhole for the people that live there because of why? Socialism. And you know what they're doing?

They're disguising their boats. They're changing the flags on the boats when they try and send the oil out. or, you know, I guess Chevron has some deal to get a little bit of oil out. Well, Donald Trump has said, no, we've sanctioned you no more oil. No more oil going out of there, period. End of story. You can't change the flags. You can't have the Chevron boat going anywhere.

And that means Cuba doesn't get any oil. So now Cuba's been cut off. Venezuela's cut off. And that means, like I said, a two-fer. You're actually going to probably be able to take down both regimes simultaneously. And that'll be, ladies and gentlemen, that'll be. something because you know what, that's right here in our hemisphere. We don't need the likes of communist socialist dictatorships three hours from Miami. Thank you very much. Where the

likes of the Russians and the Chinese can hang out. Iranians too while we're at it. That has to change. And so go back to the Monroe Doctrine, invoke a little U.S. history there. Let's have some sovereignty in our hemisphere. And let's make sure we have friends in the right places, which means, yes, Maduro is going to have to find an exit strategy. My sources tell me he's very worried because he feels the minute he leaves, he will die. And so he and his family are quite literally dead, should he leave. So this is one where the administration might have to figure out some kind of something like they did with Marcos, right?

Remember the Marcos family, Ferando and Melda, the woman with all the shoes? I think they wound up living happily ever after in Hawaii. I don't know as Marco Rubio would like that for one Nicholas Maduro, but it may come down in terms of practicalities to finding some kind of solution for him to exit stage left and stay off in the wings for the long time future. Maria Carino Machado, somebody who was actually educated at Yale is a conservative, believes in capitalism is right there, ready, willing and able to take his slot. Don't forget, he lost the election last time around. Biden team, they didn't do squat. They didn't bother.

Like, they just didn't even bother. Even Warner out of Virginia. The senator admitted that they probably should have done a little bit more. They didn't. And thus, here we are today with Pete Hagsath, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump having to pick up the slack. Unbelievable, unbelievable, unbelievable. well, hey, you know what, we may get some rebate checks in the mail. That thing is still on the burner right now. Yeah, hot and front and center on the burner. You know, I think this could happen in 2026, but a lot of it's going to come down to Congress because it turns out you can't just write the blank check, right? Even if you're getting all the money in from the rebates through Treasury, you actually do need, and Bessent has articulated this, that, you know,

We've got to get Congress to sign off on this. So will Congress sign off on this? Here's my fear, okay? I'm going to level with you. They don't want. The Democrats in Congress do not want Donald Trump succeeding on the economy. They just don't want it. I mean, it's really sad because ultimately we should all be playing on the same team.

But they don't want him to be able to give anything to anyone for fear that that will basically gin up support. I mean, what do you think they were doing on the 1776 bonuses? $1,776 going in bonus checks to our one million service members around the globe working for the U.S. military, and they're poo-pooing this one like it's nothing. And he can promote 1776 costs all he want and giving out a check that worked for him the first time. 1776, that's less than a rent check in D.C. I don't even know what the impact of that is going to be long time. I want to bring.

Yeah, so they're already trying to kind of downplay that. And perhaps they're living up to the let them eat cake. Analogy I've often used when talking about Nancy Pelosi. I'll never forget the Talente ice cream that she was showing us, or was it Hogandus? I can't remember. But it was a freezer full of really expensive ice cream by the pint that she was showing off during those dark days of March 2020 when everybody had to hunker down and stay home. And she said, you can eat ice cream all the time.

Well, you know, easy for her to say, given the billions of dollars that she has, but for everyday Americans, it was a little bit harder. And for this girl, whoever she is, I don't know, on News Nation, claiming that $1,776 is not worth anything. You know, speak for yourself. There are a lot of Americans out there that could really use that right now. They could also use the $2,000 bonus checks, and this is what Donald Trump is fighting for.

It came up with Kevin Hassert on CNBC. Kevin Hasser, who very well may likely be the next head of the federal. Reserve, let's listen. What's more likely a $2,000 tariff rebate check or a 50-year mortgage? Well, you know, I think that they're both really good ideas. The fact is that we've got a big reduction of the deficit. And the interesting thing is that it's not just because of tariff revenue. We've had a big positive shock to income taxes as well because people's incomes are so much higher. And so back in the summer when we were saying that for now, let's think of the tariff revenue as something that reduces the deficit, there's more room even for deficit hawks to think

about rebate checks like the president talked about because we've actually done such a good job cutting spending and the supply side effects, the laffer curve effects of the tax cuts have actually made revenues go up. We're up about $200 billion relative to last year in revenue as well. Wow. I mean, that's amazing. 200 billion in revenue. So we're taking in more money. You heard him reference my friend Art Laffer, Art Laffer, you know, if you study Econ 1-1-1, you'll all about the art laffer curve. The laffer curve is it's known in economics. He drew it on a napkin for President Reagan when he was in his team. He said, listen, you actually, when you tax less, you get more out of the economy. You'll get more receipts, right? Because you'll increase GDP.

You'll increase the economy that much. But if you tax things too much, you actually start to see a repression in the amount of money that you would bring in because people don't work as hard because they're not incentivized to do so. And art has become a wonderful mentor to me over the years, and I kind of think back fondly. I remember it was a Harvard professor who wrote the textbook I used to use. Manku, I think, was the, and it was in there. It's in every textbook.

Another textbook I like to cite, and I actually usually have it handy on my desk, is my uncle, William McCackran, wrote an econ textbook that's used in universities all over the country. He's a good, good, strong conservative. a good Republican, as most economists are, right? Like, how can you be an economist and be a dem? We get a few of this.

They all went to work for Obama anyway. So I remember learning about the art Laffer Curve or Laffer Curve or Laffer Curve it's referred to, and it's a real thing, right? So now, because of all these great incentives, we're suddenly taking in more revenue. And the idea is you can pay down debt and you can give some of it back to the people. Donald Trump, I know this. Like, he's very, very concerned about giving the money back to the people. He wants the money in the hands of the people themselves.

This came up again with Kevin Hasser on CBS News over the weekend. The reporter there, again, she was once a very nice person, but she's getting kind of bitter these days. You can see it in her face on that Sunday show. It's like, what happened to you? What happened? I guess, again, the TDS thing is real, guys. It's real.

Anyway, I want you to see her question in Kevin about this $2,000 rebate check. It's a fair question, but listen to the Snyde response. Should Americans plan to receive those checks in 2026? That's going to depend on what happens with Congress. Congress is going to have to send those money to those people's. But the thing we can say is that since July, we've had a lot of positive news about the economy. We've had a couple of quarters of almost 4% growth. We've got a big government surplus, actually, running for a few months in a row.

the deficit relative to last year is down by $600 billion. And so in the summer, I wasn't so sure that there was space for a check like that. But now I'm pretty sure that there is. And so I would expect that in a new year, the president will bring forth a proposal to Congress to make that happen. So a new proposal for these, it's not necessarily coming from existing tariff revenue? Well, it could come from tariff revenue. But in the end, you know, we get taxes, we get tariffs, we get revenue from lots of places. places and then Congress decides how to spend those monies that's an appropriation.

So this would have to be money that would be an appropriation. So don't bank on it, in other words. Woo! Ouch! Wow! I mean, was that necessary? Look, I think her point is that it's going to get political. And by the way, that might be partly by design.

Don't kid yourself. I mean, this administration recognizes that you have Democrats that don't want to give any money to the people. I mean, the money goes to the illegals, right? Like, we can give them money all day. We can give them hotel rooms. We can give them hotel rooms with maid service. We can give them free food cards. Cell phones.

I mean, it's outrageous, right? But God forbid, the taxpayers might actually get a rebate. Think about that. Okay, they don't want that happening for whatever reason. Well, because then it might actually gin up a little bit more support for Donald Trump. and they don't want him having any support. They don't want him seeing any support with members in the military, any support among his own base,

or certainly amongst Democrats. Democrats who increasingly are saying, hey, you know, this system really hasn't worked for me. It's worked for the illegals that you brought in. It hasn't really worked for me, thank you very much. Reminder to subscribe, share, like, oh, it works for those fraudsters out in Minnesota. This thing is unbelievable.

They're now calling it industrial strength fraud. Seriously. And you've got a congressman saying, we need to get rid of Ilhan Omar. We've got to get her out of Congress. Let's have a vote. Let's get rid of her for good. I'm going to get to that story in just a moment. But first, a quick shout out to my own company that I started with all of you guys in mind.

You know, it's funny. I was on Jillian Roberts. Jillian Michaels. You know, she's the like workout queen, really, really athletic. She used to host that show, Greatest Loser, I think. She's just really into fitness. She's awesome, and I did her podcast, all like 75 minutes of it. That was a labor of love for me.

Anyway, I wanted to speak to her audience a little bit about personal finance, which is something that you don't hear enough of from me on this show because we're so talking about politics all the time, but I do have another channel called 76 Research, and I do have a firm called 76research.com. I encourage you to go there because it's all about investing the future. We have a piece coming out. later today or tomorrow on the amazing rise in gold and silver prices that, by the way,

we predicted from like day one when we started this project together, my colleague who ran mutual funds on Wall Street, stock picker for 20-some odd years, really, really successful stock picker and continues to be incredibly successful in picking stocks for us there at 76 research. So you can get it for a dollar a month. Use code word dollar for the first two months. It goes to $9.9.95 thereafter. you can get everything if you want to get the actual portfolios with the actual stocks that we are investing in ourselves. By the way, this is, I should be careful and clarify just a moment for you.

This is research. We don't take any of your money. To me, this is the purest, most simple way to do this. We just provide you with the tools, the research to make those decisions yourself. So go check it out. 76research.com today. And again, before I get to, Ilhan, Omar. I just think about all this craziness, right, that they have done in terms of what they provided to illegals, what they allowed for in terms of fraud. And it's kind of outrageous. And I even think about what went down, I mean, what went down in terms of the regulation in the banking industry that led to the closure of so many conservatives' bank accounts. I have friends who lost their bank accounts because there were regulators saying,

hey, you know what? We need to do this, that, and the other. And so I would just say that nobody should lose their bank account for political reasons. It's absolutely horrendous what happened. And the president has done a lot, and we commend him together, myself, and for freemarks.org. This is Americans for Free Markets. One of the sponsors here on the Trish Regan Show, we thank them for that as well. Their patronage.

But I would just say that there's absolutely no reason anything like this should have happened. And thankfully, the president has taken pretty decisive action there in terms of in making sure that debanking doesn't happen again, and he wants to ensure that Americans have fair nationwide access to banks. Americans for free markets thanks them for that. I thank them for that as well, but you know what? It's going to go further because we need Congress and regulators in there, basically building on this momentum so that we can enact some lasting, meaningful reform.

So this never happens again. I mean, executive order is one thing, but what happens if the next team comes in and undoes it all? Congress should be working with the administration right now to fix these out, laws and do it while you can because you want to increase transparency, you want to increase accountability in the financial system. Again, we need that. Lawmakers should also establish a national standard prohibiting any financial institution from denying services based on politics or religion. I keep saying, you know, for goodness sakes, God help you if you went to, in more ways

than one, mass in Latin, because you really had to target. The FBI was tracking you. Remember that story to protect the financial freedom of the American people. Americans for free markets is calling on Congress to advance these critical reforms alongside me, by the way. I think this is very important and strengthen President Trump's leadership on fair access to financial services. You can learn more. You can figure out how to pressure you're a congressperson. Go to forfreemarkets.org today. It's an important cause, believe me, a very, very important cause. You know what else is an important cause? getting rid of fraud. Getting rid of fraud that is so rampant in the state of Minnesota. We also found some in Massachusetts as well to the tune of $7 million. Some Haitian immigrants there are implicated in

that being called out by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Massachusetts just recently. But Ilhan Omar very much under the microscope at this moment because it looks like that fraud that was going on, like we were talking about a billion it's now morphed into nine billion and they're saying it wasn't just you know the feeding the future it was Medicaid and it's pretty gross and pretty disgusting and Fox News did a really good reporter this good reporter and he's like he's all over this I want to share with you a clip from his report talking about how this is now what the feds call industrial strength fraud. Okay, let's go to Fox News. Six new indictments and one guilty plea were announced yesterday as federal agents executed a search warrant on ultimate home health services, a Somali-owned home care agency.

The new indictment zeroes in on the autism program called early intensive developmental and behavioral intervention or EIDBI and zeroed in on. on housing stabilization programs. In the case of the housing stabilization programs, the assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson says, defendants claim to provide housing assistance to people with mental illness or drug and alcohol problems, and they say the defendant submitted claims, provided no service.

Thompson used the term fraud tourism, claiming two men from Philadelphia, learned there was easy money in Minnesota, so they flew into the state, set up shop, and started billing the government. As far as defrauding the autism programs, Thompson introduced one new case of a defendant recruiting parents, bogus documents for a diagnosis of autism for the child, the parents would then get a kickback

from the money intended to treat the autistic child. What we're seeing is programs that are just entirely fraudulent. These aren't companies that are providing some services but over billing Medicare or Medicaid. These are companies that are providing essentially no services. They're essentially shell companies created to defraud the program, create it to submit on a wholesale level. Now, the housing stabilization program for one was created with a prediction would cost $2.6 million annually. It ballooned to $21 million in 2021 and exploded to $104 million in 2020. Oh my gosh. Oh my gosh.

I need a bar chart for that. Look at that, you guys. 2.6 million to 21 million to 104 million. That's just another part of it, right? the housing stabilization program. Did you also hear his part about how they migrated to Minnesota because they realized the fraud was easier to do there? Unbelievable.

Four. All but a handful of the defendants thus far are part of the Minnesota Somali community. Oh. Okay, Ilhan, that would be your district. That would be your district. And it's not looking good for you. It's not looking good for Waltz. It's not looking good for Ellison.

Democrat, Minnesota politicians. Ilan Omar. Tim Walts, Attorney General Keith Ellison. We see a web of connections between them and those directly involved in the fraud. For example, Ilan Omar, alleged enabling introducing the 2020 Meals Act, which was ultimately subject to fraud. Held a campaign victory party at the Safari restaurant. That's where one of the men who run that restaurant has associations to the convicted individuals. And then there's Tim Walts.

House oversight investigation role in his role as governor. Keith Ellison, the Attorney General, his job is to enforce the law in Minnesota, but instead, he's getting donations after meeting with the feeding our future representatives, the feeding our future, the biggest known yet, part of this entire fraud. I think we need some serious audits. Yeah. And maybe we need to look at removing one Ilhan Omar, if she's in fact, all right, the innocent until proven guilty.

We need the audits, okay, guys, we really, really need the audits. And I guess my question keeps going back to this feeding the nation thing that it was, I mean, like multiples and multiples. It was 60-some-odd people all from her district, okay, were involved in. And it's amazing because on the day that she announced her marriage to Timmy, he's another Timmy. Timmy must be a really popular name in Minnesota. So Timmy, who left his wife Beth, that was a bad trade.

I've never even seen Beth, but I'm just guessing that was a bad trade, Timmy. Okay, so Timmy, who, well, I mean, he's making plenty of money, right? because now he works for her campaign and she pays them. Plenty. She's suddenly, she went from being worth $200,000 to being worth $30 million overnight. How's that for a gig? Yeah, you know, you pay hubby, Timmy kind of well, and there you go. So Timmy was the campaign manager and then it gets paid as a political consultant by her team

and then by other teams. He claims he's a private equity investor, but I looked at his website and that doesn't look like a private equity investor to me that looks like a political consultant. So, you know, they got one hand in the cookie job. They have her out there in Congress and then one hand in the cookie jar. You get Timmy doing all the other things right behind the scenes, right? So people are calling this into question. And it's just fascinating to me that on the day they announced their marriage,

she also debuted her big, fabulous bill feeding the future. And feeding the future wound up with basically costing U.S. taxpayers $250 million. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I mean, wow. So now you've got Randy, fine out of Florida telling Axios on Wednesday of last week that he is actively considering forcing a vote to expel Representative Ilhan Omar from Congress. Let's just get rid of her all together because she doesn't belong there because of some of the things that she has said

that let's face it, guys, are very anti-American, very anti-American. And now you couple on this old thing where it seems as though she was, well, I don't know. I want to be very, very careful with this. And this is why I want to see an audit. And I want to know if one single dollar went back to her, okay? Because this money was being fraudulently obtained in her district. And we do know that some of the people in her district were helping to bankroll her campaign. So, you know, you add one in one and I'm sorry, you get two. So she's, you know, by default, in some way, shape, or form implicated in this. And I don't think we should just look the other way. I think, that a real investigation, and I know the feds are doing this, it's just that Pam Bondi has a lot

on her plate, shall we say. And, you know, the locals there, the U.S. Attorney's Office is looking into this, and they're finding new stuff as we just went through every single day, right, with now the estimate being for $9 billion. I mean, unbelievable. This is what prosecutors are finding. So how much did she know? Did she profit from it? I realize that they're saying, oh, the money, some of it went back overseas, but you can't necessarily say it went direct to terror organizations. I'll tell you what I know, because I've done a lot of reporting on terrorist financing.

In fact, one of my documentaries was nominated for an Emmy Award. It dealt with money that was coming out of Latin America in sort of a no-man's land between Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil, known as Ciad de Leste in Paraguay. And there was all this money that was going straight back to Hamas and going back to Hassan Nasrullah. In fact, Nasrullah even at one point sent a thank you note to one of these known terrorist financiers after I did my story on CBS News, by the way. Interestingly, back in the day, the Treasury Department came out and named some of these very people as known terrorist financiers. And they were cut off from doing any kind of business.

They were sanctioned effectively from doing business. in the U.S. So I know a lot about this. And one of the things that you just have to be aware of is something called the Huala system. And this is what makes it very hard to trace some of this money laundering within the Middle Eastern culture. And specifically within the Middle Eastern culture that lends itself to terrorist financing because you don't have an easy paper trail. And that's where it gets really challenging. And the Treasury is having to roll up its sleeves and really dig in and figure this out. I know that Treasury Secretary Scott Brennan was on a couple weekends ago with Margaret Brennan on CBS News, and she was really pushing him,

and he's like, look, we just started. We just started this investigation. She's like, well, you have no leads to terror financing, right? He's like, we just started like a week ago. I suspect, just given what I know about the Huala system and that there's sort of a percentage taken off that goes to the cause, so to speak, right, to the cause. That goes to the cause. You would have to assume that, in fact, some of it did go back to these nefarious sources. And so, this is what's going to put one Ilhan Omar in a very, very, very bad spot. And the sooner, the sooner, the better on this lady, because she really does not belong there any, in my estimation, I mean, she's just a, you know, look, she's an elected official. I get it. She shouldn't be

elected. And if she's done something illegal, well, then that needs to get called out, period. Ends a story. It's pretty darn simple. Okay. Quick reminder, 76research.com, please go over there, check it out. We've got inflation, as I said, plunging to 2.7%. I love it, right? That's just such a huge win. It killed the networks to have to report on that, but it's a really, really good news story. Peace of my mind asking what happens if the Republicans lose the midterms? And I don't even want to think of that, right? Like, we can't think of that right now, but I'll tell you, it'll be bad. It will be bad. It will be bad, peace of my mind, because if they were to win, I think you're back into, a corrupt system where they take everything they can from the working population and they

redistribute it to people who aren't working and people that they want to bring here. You know, they open up the border once again. I don't think people will be too happy about that. And then they go, and what do they do? Oh, they'll, they'll impeach Trump again. I mean, we'll be right back where we started. So that is not a scenario. I don't think any of us want to welcome in any way, shape, or form. All the more reason. I saw one of you guys writing, and I just put it up on the screen, vote, vote, vote, vote in midterm. Ah, Danny, I'm glad you like the green.

You know, I'm doing the Christmas thing. I get the red bow. I get, I get green, I've got family coming into town today, so I'm so excited to see them and spend a little time. Oh, did I tell you, we had Christmas caroling on Friday night? And this was like the first time my voice, you know, normally I'm like, ah, I've got a little bit of a cold, this, that, and the other. So I let it all like hang out. I mean, I was, you know, oh, holy night. My kids were like, there she goes. I have a very high, very strong, very loud soprano voice. You know, you're taught as a classical singer because it's an old art form, right? You're taught to sing through a 40 piece orchestra. So I can sing through a 40 piece orchestra and then some, especially when we get into the high notes. I had a

last and I was on the piano. So I was playing the piano and now I'm having a bunch of people over for Christmas Eve, but I got my dad here this year and my dad is a great pianist. He was always my accompanist as a kid and we did a few holy nights in our time. So anyway, my dad is going to take over the piano, which really means I can let it rip. I got to get a little recording and maybe put it on the members only chat for you. But it was a lot of fun on Friday night. So thank you for those of you that did ask and for those of you that were aware, I was all decked out in my sparkly stuff. But I'm getting very Christmassy. In the mood, in the season, Merry Christmas to all of you. I will be here again tomorrow. We're going to be here most of the week. We may tape a show on

Friday. No, what am I saying? Friday. When is Christmas? That's 22nd already. I don't have much time. Anyway, I'm going to finish the Christmas shopping and the rest of the decorations. Thank you so much for being here. Make sure you subscribe, share, like all of that. It is so important. I can't tell you enough. We don't want the algorithm shutting us down. Let's do our part to keep it going. And I'll see you here live again tomorrow.