The Trish Regan Show - Trump Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize After Securing Ceasefire, BUT Will They Actually Give It to Him?!

Episode Date: June 25, 2025

President Trump has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize after helping secure a ceasefire—now the world watches to see if the committee will follow through. This is a CLIP from the LIVE Trish Regan Show episode 162 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There is talk of a Nobel Peace Prize. How do you like this? In fact, he was just nominated by a gentleman. Let me pull this up for you when the team member is just sending this on a nice letter. In a letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Donald Trump has been officially nominated as a result of the Israel-Iran ceasefire. So it represented Buddy Carter out of Georgia, recommended Donald Trump for the prestigious prime. quote, in recognition of his extraordinary and historic role in brokering an end to the armed conflict between Israel and Iran and preventing the world's largest state sponsor,

terror from maintaining the most lethal weapon on the planet. President Trump's influence was instrumental in forging a swift agreement that many believe to be impossible, impossible, you know. So, but it's not done yet because there is a little snuffoo this morning and both Israel and Iran violated that ceasefire and Donald Trump wasn't having it. He was kind of angry. I've seen him this way before. This did not surprise me, but I was like, Israel, okay, watch out.

You know, you sign on to a ceasefire with Trump and he expects you to abide by the agreement. Iran, same deal. Watch. I got to get Israel to calm down now. Okay. He's going to get him to calm down because, well, there's this. Yeah, I do. They violated it, but Israel violated it too. Israel, as soon as we made the deal, they came out and they dropped a load of bombs,

the likes of which I'd never seen before. The biggest load that we've seen, I'm not happy with Israel. You know, when I say, okay, now you have 12 hours, you don't go out in the first hour, just drop everything you have on them. So I'm not happy with them. I'm not happy with Iran either. But I'm really unhappy if Israel's going out this morning because of one rocket that didn't land that was shot, perhaps by mistake, that didn't land. I'm not happy about that. You know what? We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fucking doing.

Do you understand that? Did you like my little arpeggio in there? It's clean it up. you know, but you know what he said. I know what he said. He was not happy this morning. That was like first thing in the morning. He's on, ah, you know what?

But he'll get what he wants here and what he wants his peace. And that's really good for the world, okay, guys? And that's why I can tell you this all day long. But in moments like this, given all the sensitivity, I think it's helpful to look at what the markets are telling us and what the investor class around the world is telling us, and they are telling us they like this very, very much, and that it is going to mean lower oil prices in the future, and it means good things for our economy and the stock market ahead. That is encouraging. He also

spoke about the possibility of regime change. Now, I've got to just say this has been brilliantly played, all extremely well played, and as transparent as he is, sometimes I think, you know, he's saying one thing, but perhaps doing another, in a way that's helpful, helpful to the world. I mean, it's kind of like, you know, they sent the, they sent the B-52s one way and, you know, they were the decoys, but actually they had these going the other way. It almost feels as though there were certain things in motion before any of this went down. So as much as some will say, oh, it was all ad hoc. I don't think it was ad hoc at all.

I even wonder if having Tulsi as head of DNI saying, oh, you know, they don't have a weapon, if that was part of a decoy move as well because it left some thinking, perhaps, by Iran, that there was nothing that would happen, even saying, oh, I'm going to give them two weeks, but he didn't give them two weeks. Well, now he's talking about the possibility of regime change. He's indicated maybe he's open to it. Maybe he's not. He really is kind of reserving a lot of wiggle room there.

I want to show you what he just said moments ago on Air Force One. Here we go. Do you want to see regime change in Iran? No, if there was, there was. But no, I don't want it. I'd like to see everything calm down as quickly as possible. Regime change takes chaos. And ideally, we don't want to see so much chaos.

So we'll see how it does. You know, the Iranians are very good traders, very good business people. And they got a lot of oil. They should be fine. They should be able to rebuild and do a good job. They're never going to have nuclear. But other than that, they should do a great job. So he's not wrong.

Okay, he's not wrong. I've actually spent a fair amount of times for studying the economy of Iran, and there are a lot of brilliant business owners that would love to be able to join the free world in terms of capitalism, right? But, you know, they get the problem with this regime that's very, very religious, the Ayatollah, etc. And so the question is, can you temper that enough so that the economy can expand? His thinking is if you get rid of the web, then maybe you have a shot at tempering it. As for whether or not you get actual regime change, maybe that comes down to the people themselves and the decisions they make. But all in all,

again, this has been strategic and brilliant and peaceful in that you're not seeing the death and destruction that would normally come with something like this. Obviously, there have been some unfortunate situations and we know of that given some of the targets in Israel, but I would just say overall, you're looking at hopefully, hopefully, and we'll see how it all plays out. I realize, what was it? Somebody wrote something yesterday. I should show you this. I just got a kick out of this. Oh, here it is. I actually, I made a note of it on my phone. So Nile Ferguson, really gifted sort of political historian, wrote something that I found compelling. He just reminded me of Kissinger often said because he was asking what comes next right after these surgical strikes and he

said as Kissinger often said every success in foreign policy is just an admissions ticket to the next crisis so I thought that was a good way of putting it so we want to we want to say okay there's peace but you know you got to kind of always keep your wits about you and know what's coming around the corner nonetheless lots of positivity I mean not Not from AOC. We'll get to that in a second. As long as she's around, she's never going to see anything because of the TDS, you know, on steroids that Donald Trump does is positive. But he's got quite a comeback for her. In the meantime, you have the senator from Alabama, Katie Brits saying, you know what, this president deserves, deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for this one. You look at what he's done with the Congo and Rwanda. You look at where he is with Pakistan and India and what he's done there. And then you look at this. what everyone talked about but no one thought was possible. He has brought peace to a region that needed stability.

He has shown what America First policy actually is. He's makes sure that he's preserving American lives at every single turn. Look, President Trump understands what we need. We need a president who is unafraid to act, and it stands firmly with the American citizens. That's what we saw today. And look, Democrats... To echo what she's saying, there were a lot of presidents that had an opportunity to do this that did not take this chance.

So this was a very bold move, and I do believe a very strategic move. And so there's an opportunity for sure. I mean, whether or not he gets it, because you know those Norwegians, they don't want to give him anything. They hate him, right? You know, this would kill him to have to give the Nobel Peace Prize. But gosh, darn it. I mean, between this and what we saw, I saw one of you guys in the chat, mentioning Pakistan and yes he's been nominated for that bringing peace to Pakistan and India so this

is this is very good again don't take my word for it because that could be viewed as political or politicized in some way look at what the market is telling you the market is telling you they like this but don't tell aOC aOC is getting roasted by the president of the united States for her little meltdown there. Oh, she's not the only one. Jamie Raskin's having a little meltdown. You got Jasmine Crockett. They're on the swear words out there in her little meltdown. And you've got Chuck Schumer, apparently lying. Ah, he just didn't pick up his phone. Hakeem Jeffries was called. Nobody picks up their phone when the president calls. What the heck is that about? Okay, we're going to talk about that. But first, you know, AOC. Never one to pass up an

opportunity to criticize the president of the United States, no matter how much the market thinks this is all good. She wrote, the president's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a great violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment. Okay, so she wants to go back there again. Well, Donald Trump has, something to say to her as well as Chuck Schumer. Let's get to Donald Trump's comment to AOC. This is pretty remarkable. I think some of you guys have seen this already. It just came out within the last hour or so he writes, stupid AOC. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in case you don't know,

one of the dumbest people in Congress is now calling for my impeachment, despite the fact, despite the fact that crooked and corrupt Dems have already done that twice before. Okay, that's fair, right? They love calling for impeachment. They've already impeached them twice. It's getting kind of old, right? He goes on to say, the reason for her rantings is all of the victories that the USA has had under the Trump administration. Oh my gosh, wasn't that what I was just saying? It's like win, win, win, win, win, win. The Democrats aren't used to winning, and she can't stand the concept of our country being successful again

when we examine her test scores let's pull out the SAT did you take that to get into BU AOC when we examine her test scores if there is such a thing we will find out that she is not

qualified for office but nonetheless far more qualified than crooked as a seriously low IQ individual or Ilhan Omar who does nothing but complain about our country yet the failed country that she comes from doesn't have a government is drenched in crime and poverty and is rated one of the worst in the world if it's even rated at all oh wow how dare the mouse tell us how to run the united states of america he's calling aOC the mouse is that her nickname

interesting she kind of looks a little mousey yeah i've never gotten the whole aOC is hot thing i'm sorry you know maybe my standards are just too darn high um gary thank you for the generosity let there be peace i agree and flourishing life. I am all for that. Anyway, he's calling her the mouse. Let her run the United States of America. We're just now coming back from the radical left experiment with Sleepy Joe, Kamala, and the autopen in charge. What a disaster it was. AOC should be forced to take the cognitive test that I just completed at Walter Reed Medical Center as part of my physical. As the doctor in charge said, President Trump aced it, meaning I got every answer right.

instead of her constant complaining, Alexandria should go back home to Queens, where I was also brought up and straighten out her filthy, disgusting crime, written streets in the district she represents and which she never goes to anymore. She better start worrying about her own primary before she thinks about beating our great

Palestinian senator crying. Chuck Schumer. Okay, that's a joke because he doesn't seem to care about Israel anymore, whose career is definitely on very thin ice. She and her Democrat friends have just hit the lowest poll numbers in congressional history, so go ahead and try and beeching me. Make my day! That's like one of his best ever, okay?

You got to admit, that was pretty funny. A lot of personality in that writing, make my day. AOC, he says, make my day, Chuck Schumer. Chuck Schumer's all bent out of shape because apparently he wasn't included. This was not a very inclusive operation. And so they're all worked up about that. Although, if you listen to Caroline Leavitt, apparently he was included, he just didn't pick up his darn phone.

You know, sometimes you get to pick up the phone, Chekie. Madam President, earlier today, we received reports that Iran has targeted U.S. military bases and U.S. service members in the Middle East, putting their lives, putting the lives of thousands of Americans at immediate risk. I join Americans. I pray for their safety. This afternoon, I asked the Trump. administration to immediately provide a classified briefing, laying out the full threat picture,

the intelligence behind Iran's retaliation, and the details scope and timeline of any U.S. response. More importantly, I've demanded they lay out exactly what measures they're taking right now to keep our service members safe. As I said Saturday night, Congress and the American people are owed answers. No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into war with erratic threats, no strategy, no explanation. That's why I've called on Leader Thune to hold a vote immediately to enforce the war powers resolution. The law requires the Trump administration to consult with Congress. The Constitution demands it, and the American people, especially the families of those in harm's way, deserve nothing less.

Confronting the Iranian regime's nuclear ambitions and stopping their campaign of terror demand strength, resolve, and strategic clarity. Yeah, Trump's not so impressed with him, right? I do believe he said, Brian Chuck Schumer, whose career is definitely on thin ice. He's not wrong about that, by the way. If you see the New York polls and we've looked at them, guys, wow, I mean, Chuck Schumer is in a lot of trouble, a whole lot of trouble. Like, trouble like Latisha James is in trouble too.

I mean, these people are definitely on thin ice politically speaking because they just seem to be on the wrong side of everything. But what's amazing here, what's amazing here is that apparently they were called. And so now you're like, what is in a thing? Chuckie, you're lying? You're lying to us? Is that the deal? By the way, just to give you a little bit of sort of background in terms of the Constitution

and what's allowed, the U.S. Constitution does actually grant Congress, right, the power to declare war, but be very careful here because war was not declared. Like, that was not, and he made a very specific point of saying this is not war. This was a strategic strike, but this is definitely not war. Anyway, so they're going on, okay, he's declaring war, and, you know, so they're going to Article 1, Section 8, and that would actually require, right, an act of Congress. However, however, there's something called the war powers resolution in 1973, and that does allow for the president to initiate military action in cases of what's considered, quote, a national emergency created maybe by an attack on the U.S.,

its territories or positions or its armed forces. He may argue in this case this was a national emergency because of the threat that was represented vis-a-vis a potential nuclear Iran. And so that's kind of what's going to come up, and they're going to try. try and trap them in the semantics here. But I'm telling you, he's swinging for the fences, right? Like really, really, really swinging for the fences. And so I don't think he cares.

I think he said, you know, I got a shot to make the world a safer place. And I'm going to take it. And they can sit there and do this all day long. But if you think about modern history, whether it's Obama in Afghanistan or Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan. You can think about whether it's George W. Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq. You have Bill Clinton making moves in Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, you had George H.W., Iraq, Afghanistan, you had Reagan in Libya and Granada. I mean, you can go on and on and on, right? Throughout modern history, we have seen presidents

take these moves. And the reason they do them so strategically and precisely is because if you actually decide to get an act of Congress gone, well, guess what? Then you alert the enemy. And so then your whole surprise is gone, right? You miss your opportunity. And so it doesn't always worked that way in practicality. But they're going to fight this, despite the fact that they've had Democrat presidents make similar moves. They're going to fight it all day long. Meanwhile, Chuck Schumer, I'm like, wait a second. Are you lying? You say you weren't consulted? Nobody told you? Madam President, earlier today, we received reports that Iran has targeted U.S. military bases and U.S. service members in the Middle East, putting the lives of thousands of Americans at

immediate risk. I join Americans. I pray for their safety. This afternoon, I asked the Trump administration to immediately provide a classified briefing, laying out the full threat picture, the intelligence behind Iran's retaliation, and the details, scope and timeline of many of the saying, you know, we don't know as you had any intelligence suggesting that there was actually a real nuclear threat there. But as Marco Rubio keeps pointing out, like, why the heck were they, you know, enriching uranium? Like, that must not be naive. Meanwhile, Caroline Levitt is suggesting that these guys are all just flat out liars. Watch this from this morning outside the White House, her speaking on Fox.

We did make bipartisan calls. Thomas Massey and the Democrats, he should be a Democrat because he's more aligned with them than with the Republican Party. We're given notice. The White House made calls to congressional leadership. They were bipartisan calls. In fact, Hakeem Jeffries couldn't be reached.

We tried him before the strike, and he didn't pick up the phone, but he was briefed after, as well as Chuck Schumer was briefed prior to the strike. So this notion that CNN ran with at the White House did not give a heads up to Democrats is just completely false. In fact, both Senator Schumer's office and CNN

had to retract that story last night because it was a blatant lie, and we showed them the timestamps from those phone calls, but I want to add something to Thomas Massey's false points. The White House was not obligated to call anyone because the president was acting within his legal authority under Article 2 of the Constitution as commander-in-chief of the president of the United States.

We gave these calls as a courtesy, and the Democrats are lying about this, because they can't talk about the truth of the success of that operation and the success of our United States military and the success of this president and this administration in doing something that past administrations, Democrats too, have only dreamed about. Right? I mean, it is winning, winning, winning, winning. And I'm just, I'm going to be cautious because I know there's a lot of sensitivity around this. And I think the most fair way of valuing this right now is to just look at the market, okay? Just look at the market. Whenever anybody says, like, oh, how do you think the market interpreted this as a win? Okay, a big freaking win. I can say freaking.

I'm in Live for your die New Hampshire. We say that here. Watch out. My New England accent may come out pretty soon. I'll be talking about putting something in the jaw and wearing my pocket. Now and then, it happens. It happens. Anyway, I digress because this is unbelievable, all right?

apparently they were alerted they didn't pick up their phones whatever but the point is is they didn't necessarily need to be alerted because again they're going to cite this powers war powers resolution in 1973 and the fact that the president is indeed the commander in chief article two section two and has the authority to direct military actions okay so i get it right like it's gotten a little murky i gave you the big laundry list of all the things bill clinton iraq serbia sedan afghanistan is you going to congress for all of those no Okay? It's just sort of Obama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan. Was he going to Congress for every single one? No. So I think you just kind of need to understand that, yes, the world has shifted a little bit.

You're going to try and impeach him over this? I mean, for goodness sakes, guys. Again, he has the power. Mike Johnson said it well. Let's listen. It is ridiculous for anyone to assert that the commander-in-chief, using his Article 2 power under the Constitution, should have to consult all the members of Congress or even all the leadership in Congress every time he has to make a decisive quick action. I mean, that would not be feasible. So the idea that they're saying that what he's done is somehow inappropriate or unconstitutional is nonsense. None of them ever complained when Barack Obama and Joe Biden used the same authority

to drop bombs all over the Middle East, all over the world. You know, it's entirely inconsistent with their previous actions, and I think we call them on that hypocrisy. There you go. Okay? But they're mad. They've been excluded. It's like, you know, the spoiled kids, they want to be included in everything. Jamie Raskin, siding with AOC, calling for impeachment.

Now, he may not have wanted to go down this path, but watch the MSNBC anchor. She leads him right there. Against a runaway president. Congressman, you had Representative Alexander Ocasio-Cortez calling the president's decision to bomb Iran without authorization. a grave violation of the Constitution saying it is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment. Just real quickly, do you agree? I couldn't read the whole thing, but it sounds like I agree with that, that it's an absolute violation of the Constitution.

It's the grounds for impeachment piece that I want you to weigh in on. Is that right there at the end? Well, without saying what anybody should do in any particular situation, undoubtedly a violation of the war powers of Congress, the use for patient of the war powers of Congress, would be an impeachable offense, would be a high crime and misdemeanor. I mean, you know, Israel said we've just, in what Israel did on its own, we set them back two or three years. So that's not an emergency.

Remember, the president can only assert the power to use military in a context in which there's an imminent threat to us. And that clearly wasn't there. So we can add this to a very long list of things where the president is violated. the spending power. I mean, the states brought an action because the president unilaterally imposed a spending freeze on laws passed by Congress, signed by the president, for a trillion dollars in spending. They wanted to hold up all of these federal public health programs, housing programs, local policing programs, just out of the blue. Where does he get the doctrine that he can just do that? He just pulls it out of a hat. Well, the court struck it down,

and gratefully, the states are there. But, Obviously, talk of impeachment today when we're in the minority, and we can't even get Republicans to vote with us on a single bill to try to restore sanity is somewhat hypothetical. But I'm with my friend AOC and saying we've got to keep a very strict catalog of all of the violations of the Constitution that are taking place. Congressman Jamie Ross in New Jersey, AG, Matthew Pluck. I'm sorry. Like, you know, you guys are trying to keep that little agenda going. And what happens? The Supreme Court keeps telling you're wrong.

Anyway, the White House said, and this is a statement made by President Trump, the United States took this necessary and proportionate action consistent with international law. The U.S. stands ready to take further action as necessary and appropriate to address further threats. So, look, I think they're sticking to their story here that they have the power. Again, if you go back to Article 2, Section 2, the President as Commander-in-Chief, does have the authority to direct military actions. And again, if you look at the historical precedent, whether it was Obama, George W, Bill Clinton on Iraq, Serbia, Sudan, Afghanistan, whether it was HW, Bush on Iraq and Panama, Reagan, Libya, and Grenada, I mean, it happens, okay? So they're making something out of nothing here because, again, I think the president's right. It's how I say, you know, they don't want to win. Like, we're winning, winning, winning.