Will Cain Country - President Trump Rages Over Middle East Chaos, Plus Michael Malice on Media Lies and MAGA's Future (ft. Senator James Lankford & Michael Malice)

Episode Date: June 24, 2025

Story #1: The last 24 hours have been a whirlwind of activity, having gone from peace via ceasefire to more chaos. As an angry President Donald Trump comes down on Israel and Iran saying they "don’t know what the f*** they're doing," Will explains why America finally has the leader it needs in charge.   Story #2: Will is joined by Senator James Lankford (R-OK) to further break down what the next possible steps are as Iran allegedly suspends inspections of their nuclear facilities by the IAEA? Will President Trump be able to achieve peace between Iran and Israel? Story #3: Michael Malice, Author of ‘Not Sick Of Winning: A History Of President Trump’s First 100 Days’ and Host of “YOUR WELCOME” sits down with Will to discuss if President Trump is the most consequential modern president, the shifting of the Right & the Republican Party's direction, rewriting the rules of political and media engagement, and much more. Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Subscribe to Will Cain Country on YouTube here: Watch Will Cain Country! Follow Will on X: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One, minute by minute, surrounded by doubters. From both the left and the right, Donald Trump pushes Israel and Iran toward peace. Two, Senator James Langford of Oklahoma on the remarkable events in the world over the last 24 hours. Three is Donald Trump, a Mount Rushmore-Level president with the author of Not Sick of Winning. Michael Mallis here on Will King Country. It is Will Kane Country. on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. Terrestrial radio, some three dozen markets across this great United States of America,

but always on demand by subscribing at Apple or on Spotify. We'll hope you hang out with us by heading over to YouTube or Facebook, finding the Will Kane Country page, and subscribing, setting a reminder, and hanging out with us every Monday through Thursday at 12 o'clock Eastern time. But you only get the Friday, Canaan Sports. edition and this week we're going to be breaking down the great hope of dallas we're going to breaking down the number one overall pick in the nba draft this friday canaan sport subscribe at apple or spotify we'll be talking about cooper flag what amazing turn of events in the world

yesterday it was hard to keep up with as it was basically playing out on truth social surrounded by doubters, surrounded by ideologues, surrounded by missiles. President Donald Trump pushes the world toward peace. There have been people that have already forwarded the idea that he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. And we don't want to get ahead of our skis because in the world of war, you never know when the next bomb may drop. But at this point, I'm very comfortable saying that Donald Trump is a. Mount Rushmore level president. In fact, I'm going to have that conversation a little bit later here today with Michael Malice, the author of a brand new book, Not Sick of Winning. But let's get into

what happened overnight and yesterday with story number one. Yesterday, Iran launched roughly one dozen missiles towards a U.S. air base in Qatar. Those missiles were intercepted by missile defense efforts at Al UDD Air Force Base in Qatar. They fell harmlessly to the ground or blew up over the skies. Almost immediately, there was two reactions. One, heart-clinching fear of the advent of World War III. Those that doubted military intervention in Iran thought, this is it. This is the moment where the world descends into nuclear health.

Secondarily, was this the white flag of surrender from Iran? Fairly flaccid attack appeared a face-saving measure, not unlike what they did after the assassination of General Soleimani. With the need to proffer some response, some face-saving measure, some saber-rattling for the domestic audience at home, had Iran done all they would do after seeing their nuclear facilities bombed over the weekend by the United States of America? Well, President Trump took to truth social, and he said at that time that, in fact, Iran had given warning to the United States. He thanked Iran and said now he would push vigorously for peace, not just with Iran, but with Israel.

Within two hours of that post, it appeared that Donald Trump had pushed both sides, Iran and Israel, toward peace. That was just the beginning, though, of the story. He posted first, congratulations to everyone. It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a complete and total ceasefire in approximately six hours when Israel and Iran have wound down and completed their in-progress final missions for 12 hours, at which point the war will be considered ended. Officially Iran will start ceasefire, and upon the 12th hour, Israel will start the ceasefire.

And upon the 24th hour, an official end to the 12-day war will be saluted by the world. During each ceasefire, the other side will remain peaceful and respectful on the assumption that everything works as it should, which it will. I would like to congratulate both countries, Israel and Iran on having the stamina, courage, and intelligence to end what should be called the 12-day war.

This is a war that could have gone on for years and destroy the entire Middle East, but it didn't, and never will. God bless Israel, God bless Iran, God bless the Middle East, God bless the United States of America, and God bless the world. He went in not long after to explain how this peace process came together. He posted, Israel and Iran came to me almost simultaneously and said peace. I knew the time was now. The world in the Middle East are the real winners. Both nations will see tremendous love, peace, and prosperity in their futures. They have so much to gain and yet so much to lose if they stray from the road of righteousness and truth.

The future of Israel and Iran is unlimited and filled with great promise. God bless you both. At that point, it left many people seemingly waving in the wind. who were these people? The people that sought to influence Donald Trump, extreme, in maximalist positions, one way or another. On the right, there were push and calls for regime change in Iran from the likes of Senator Lindsey Graham and many in the Commentariat, and there was disappointment that what we were experiencing here was a ceasefire. Also on the right, There were those that feared this would inevitably end and made predictions that it would result in World War III.

Donald Trump's real politic strategizing, prioritization of America first led him towards something that no one thought possible and an incredible amount of time. He's the perfect president for the moment, and the moment may not yet be over. we all discuss this with the level of humility because every enemy gets a vote and that happened almost immediately after this call for a ceasefire although he warned it appeared that Israel and Iran could scuttle that almost immediately Israel continued its bombing campaign after these posts at which point Donald Trump took to truth social and said Israel do not drop those bombs if you do it is a major violation bring your pilots home now Donald J. Trump, president of the United States. Iran, in response to continue bombing, did then continue to send missiles towards Israel. Donald Trump this morning, in speaking to the press, was upset at these two sides not appearing to move towards peace. And he said it in very blunt terms in front of the press. watch 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 have we basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the they're doing do you understand that And he walks away to Marine One. It is very clear that Donald Trump is in charge. That doesn't mean he's in charge of the world. That doesn't mean that Iran and Israel obey every command. But it is very clear that we have a presence of the United States that prioritizes America's needs first

and is blunt and clear that he is in charge. if you want the support of the United States. Then he went to Truth Social and posted. Israel is not going to attack Iran. All planes will turn around and head home while doing a friendly plane wave to Iran. Nobody will be hurt. The ceasefire is in effect.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Donald J. Tunk, President of the United States. Just an absolutely incredible TikTok of events over the last 18 hours from the missiles launched from Iran at Al-U-D Air Force Base in Qatar to a peace agreement, a ceasefire between Israel and Iran.

It's not cheerleading, it's not pom-pom waving. It's not partisan. To say at this point, congratulations, Donald Trump. That is, worthy of a Novel Peace Prize that could only have been accomplished by someone who does not see the world

through the lens of ideology, whether libertarian or progressive, who does not see every moment as a maximum-most position for regime change, like the neocons, but strategically plays the hand that is dealt, as is the case, always in world events.

Perhaps we should consider that the President of the United States has more information and more influence than those of us with accounts on X. Perhaps the President of the United States has better judgment than those of us with microphones. Perhaps the President of the United States is more faithful to serving America First and those of us who look to accumulate audience. perhaps we should trust in Donald J. Trump and then and then and then there's the left

Jasmine Crockett is taking to Twitter. She's taking to video right before we air I saw a video of Jasmine Crockett saying that she should be the one that gets to vote on war. She's referencing the power of Congress. She's referencing the war powers

resolution, the War Powers Act. And that currently is the favorite conversation of the dumbest people in politics and media. I give you once again the view. He bypassed Congress, potentially violated the war powers resolution. I believe this is certainly a clear violation of international law at the very least. Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries accused the president of misleading the country as to his intentions. What do you think are the possible ramifications that, President Trump could face for arguably overstepping his authority?

Well, look, constitutionally only Congress has the power to declare war. The War Powers Act would make it seem very clear you need to have congressional approval on this. But president after president after president has launched military action without the approval of Congress. And Congress, under Democratic and Republican leadership, has complained the president is violating the War Powers Act. this is not new. The War Powers Act does require an act of Congress to declare war. War was not declared. Was war waged?

What's the timeline that is required under the War Powers Act? What they demand today if Donald Trump has not been demanded of any president since, oh, say, the 1940s. Not Joe Biden, not Barack Obama, who bombed, how many countries dropped how many bombs not george w bush who did things repeatedly and extensively and broadly through the authorization of military force passed in 2002 not bill clinton when he used nato to bomb yugoslavia in the 1990s no president since world war two has really gone to congress for a declaration of war but today

that's the left's favorite phrase and fear not it'll be gone again tomorrow not just because Donald Trump has pursued peace between Israel and Iran but because in their schizophrenic incoherent nature tomorrow they're once

even talking about something else chickens with their heads cut off looking to find anything to stick to their great enemy no not those who disagree with them simply and only and always Donald Trump and if Donald Trump is simply and only and always your enemy.

One day you end up in the streets, wave an Iranian flag, trying to figure out the other side to argue when it comes to peace. Let's talk about this with Oklahoma Senator James Langford and the author of Not Sick of Winning Michael Malice when we come back on Will Kane Country. Fox News Audio presents Unsolved with James Patterson.

Every crime tells the story, but some stories are left unfinished. Somebody knows. Real cases, real people. Listen and follow now at Foxtruecrime.com. Listen to the all-new Brett Bear podcast featuring Common Ground, in-depth talks with lawmakers from opposite sides of the aisle, along with all your Brett Bear favorites, like his All-Star panel, and much more. Available now at Fox Newspodcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts. President Trump just posted on truth social, hilarious takedown of both AOC and Jasmine. Crockett, low IQ, lion Chuck Schumer, and the state of the Democrat Party.

It's Will Cain Country Streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News. YouTube channel on the Fox News, Facebook page, always available by subscribing at Apple or on Spotify. Let's break down these world events a little bit deeper with Oklahoma Senator James, Langford, who joins us now on Wilcane Country. First of all, congratulations, Senator. Oklahoma Thunder, Oklahoma City Thunder, NBA Finals champion. That's big. It is absolutely parade day today.

I don't know when the last time you got something like that. There's Parade Day in the Oklahoma City today. And it's a very big deal. The entire community is all out, enjoying the moment and getting a chance to be able to celebrate the national champion NBA, Oklahoma City Thunder. So, yeah, 17 years in the making, glad to be able to have it. I'm afraid, and I mean afraid, you're going to have a lot more of these in the future to celebrate. That team is built to last. That team is built to be a dynasty.

It is one of the youngest teams in the NBA just won the NBA championship. So that's a big deal on it. And we're looking forward to having everybody back and let's just do it again. I think you might. I think you might. Hopefully Cooper flag and Dallas Mavericks will have something to say about that. But let's talk about some of these world events. First of all, it's been.

incredible 24 hours that ranged in emotion analysis as we watched Iran launch missiles at Al-Udeed Air Base in Qatar. But I think it was pretty obvious from Jump that that looked more like the white flag of surrender than it actually looked like the beginning of World War III. It was flaccid and it was meant as a face-saving measure for a domestic audience. And it was forewarned, according to President Trump to the United States of America. And from there, we begin the process of a peace negotiation and a ceasefire. The question, though, now is, does it hold?

President Trump has been frustrated in the early hours of this ceasefire at both Iran and Israel. And so the question now is, does it hold this peace? Yeah, there's no way to be able to actually predict that. And it is pretty clear in Qatar that Iran gave us a heads up before that attack happened. Qatar closed its airspace down hours and hours before that happened. Several other countries in the region closed their airspace down. They evacuated the air base

and then a few hours later they start launching missiles. So this is clearly Iran saying, I'm going to launch things at you. Brace yourself. I'm going to launch things at you. And then we shot them down and then Iran literally put out on their state media. We destroyed the American air base

in Qatar, which was completely false. And so they can say we launch missiles against them. We did this or that. any of the Iranian people that were able to actually get real news are able to really find out what's happening with their regime. That is the real challenge now, is getting real information into Iran and then get a chance to be able to push back. And then after the ceasefire was done, announced, then Iran immediately after that launched missiles to kind of say, we had the last word. And Israel obviously is trying to push back and say you intentionally fired missiles after the ceasefire was over to be able push back. end of the day, we need to be able to have a peace settlement agreement,

but that means no more nuclear program inspectors going in, no centrifuges. If there's any centrifuges that weren't taken out with our strikes, they need to be removed. This needs to be the opportunity for a long-lasting peace. And to do that is not just an end of hostilities. It's actually an end of an opportunity for Iran to be able to create a nuclear weapon to be able to attack again and threaten the world. okay to be fair though i think we would have to say and president trump did say aloud that

israel unloaded hell on iran right up to the moment of the ceasefire so after the announcement of the ceasefire israel continued its bombing campaign and iran then would lend send missiles back in response i don't really want to have a debate about good guy versus bad guy i just want to have a conversation about what's real and what really allows us to accomplish peace and i think that comes down, Senator, to three questions. And those are the following. Number one, did we the United States of America accomplish our goals with our bombing campaign over the weekend? That stated goal is to destroy Iran's nuclear enrichment program. Did we accomplish that goal? According to President Trump and Secretary of Defense Hegset, the answer to that question is yes. I do think there is very

valid questions about where the uranium stockpiles still are, where they moved out of foredo, where are they in Iran? But that might be beside the point, according to Vice President J.D. Vance, if they have those stockpiles, but they don't have centrifuges. If we blew up the centrifuges, they don't have a way of taking it from 60% to 90% weapons-grade uranium. The second question, I'd love for you to go through this with me then, is did we accomplish those goals?

So the first is, what was our goal? second, did we accomplish our goal? And the third is, is our goal there in this conflict the same as Israel's goal? Because Israel has been very clear that they have pursued and want to pursue regime change in Iran. Now, that can change, and maybe they can have different goals at different times, but they have said that aloud. And if their goal is different than our goal, they want regime change, but we want to denuclearize Iran, then that doesn't give me hope about last. passing piece. Yeah.

So let me try to run through those. Great questions, by the way, Will, to be able to walk through. The number one issue on the centrifuges and do they have the capability is we don't know. We obliterated a great deal of their program, but we don't know if we took out all of their centrifuges and we don't know the current location of all that highly enriched uranium. They've got uranium up to 60 percent to be able to turn it up to the last 90 percent. They do have to get it onto a cascade and to be able to go from there. We know we did a tremendous amount of damage.

But we don't have Superman X-ray vision to be able to look down into the mountain that we actually dropped those munitions into to say, did we take out all the centrifuges or did some of the cascades still survive that? There's no way to know that would actually have putting eyes on the ground. So long term, we've got to get inspectors back into Fordo. We've got to be able to evaluate how much damage was actually done there. Did some cascades actually survive it? And to say no cascades can actually be there. They cannot have any centrifuges. and they definitely can't have them all connected to each other.

They can't have that. So that's the number one goal for us is to eliminate their nuclear program. Now we've got to actually get international inspectors on the ground again to be able to evaluate what's there, what's not there, and to be able to take possession of that nuclear material and to be able to get it out so they don't have that capability. Again, this has never been about power. If they want to have nuclear power, that's fine. They just can't highly enrich uranium and be working towards a nuclear weapons program. Okay, let me follow up there.

We'll keep walking down that decision tree and that series of questions together. But let me just stop you right there. So I hear some potential thorns and potential peace here. And those are, first of all, we've already heard that the Iranian parliament will not allow IAEA inspectors in. That's an interesting note. And listening to you, will that be a cause then, a reason for continued military interaction if we cannot inspect the extent? of our damage. Yeah, that's going to be an issue for us long term because, again, if we don't know what

we actually hit it, and again, we don't have the X-ray vision to be able to see in that. We can see the other buildings that are at the other locations. We know what we hit on it. Fordow is the hardest of all the targets. We hit it the hardest as well. But it's never been a weapon that's been used in a setting like that. We think it works, but we don't really know until we actually find out more information about it.

And that means people have got to be able to be on the ground on it. they've got to actually get a chance to put eyes on that material to be able to see what actually happened and what didn't happen. So we've got satellite images. We can track it. They start pulling trucks out and start pulling equipment out. We can see some of that. But actually, no, do the cascades exist or not? Well, what would we do?

In your mind, Senator, what would we do? What do you think is right to do if they don't let inspectors in? If we remain in the dark outside of intelligence when it comes to their nuclear capabilities? if they want any, any, any opportunity to be able to have sanctions relief on that, then they've got to actually allow inspectors to be able to come in because the sanctions are in on Iran for two reasons. One of them is they fund terrorism around the world. They've got to knock that off, obviously, and to be able to not use the money that they're

getting to be able to fund Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis and Shia militias in Iraq. So that's number one. Number two is if they have any hope of having sanctions coming off of them in their economy, actually growing again at some point, that that means they've got to allow international inspections to be able to come in and to be able to see they don't have a nuclear weapons program. If we're going to be serious about saying they can't have nuclear weapons program, then we've got to be able to make sure that's enforceable. The trust in verify has got to be there.

We don't trust them, and we're not able to verify right now. We've got to be able to do both. Okay. How concerned are you, Senator, about the stockpile of uranium, which we don't know where it is, sitting there at 60%. How concerned you are about that uranium stockpile? Yeah, the uranium stockpile at 60% is not the issue. It's the centrifuges and the cascades that they have to have to put together to be able to advance it.

That's the biggest issue to be able to move it. Now, I'm going to tell you, there is no civilian purpose for 60% uranium. 60% uranium is beyond what they do for testing. It's beyond what they do for medical. It's beyond what they do for nuclear power. It is only designed to be able to prepare it for weaponization. So it is a concern because anyone can take that and move it. But from what exactly, and from what I understand, 60% is not totally innocuous, though, either.

That 60% could be marshaled for something like a dirty bomb. Right, right. That's the focus. They could try to be able to move it towards that and to try to put it in the civilian population. Less likely on that because it doesn't have the bang that goes with a typical terrorist attack. But 60% is not just something you want to have leaving around in your kitchen either. Right. Okay, I'm moving towards question number three together with you here.

So here's my question. And it's going to be like a big one and it's going to feel pointed. It's not. And it's almost existential. Do you think Iran is a rational actor? I think the Iranian people are rational actors. I don't think the Iranian regime is. The Iranian regime has been a self-serving regime.

I don't. They are self-serving. regime that they're all about preserving their own power and the rational parts of them is we want to exist we want to be here we want to be in power yeah but the r gc knows that's that that's rational though to me that's rational like okay survival the desire to be survival to survive and to be in power is a rational instinct that distinguishes them from for example a suicide bomber like ISIS. Correct. Correct. Which we still have ISIS that exists in Syria. There still are some actors. They're like that. And you're right. There are people you can deal with that are. The IRGC, they are all

about survival and about maintaining their power. They know they've committed so many crimes against their own people. If the regime ever falls, they're all vulnerable to both international courts that would prosecute them in a heartbeat and then also their own people that would actually hold them to account. So they're definitely rational in the sense that they want to be able to survive. I just think they're not rational in negotiating with because they just lie perpetually and they stall perpetually. If you ever try to be able to negotiate with this regime, it's not a rational actor to be able to negotiate with. I totally understand that. We're on the same page. But the reason I asked you about this rational actor state is I'm trying to look at the threat that the regime represents continued, including on that 60% uranium and the potential for a dirty bomb.

We've done the story. There's been 1,500 Iranian nationals come over the southern border in the last five years. half of those had been released into the American public. I'm concerned. I think a lot of people would be concerned. And if 60% uranium lends itself to a dirty bomb, which isn't necessary, by the way, you can commit terror with a gun. You can commit it now, as we know, very well with an SUV. But my point is, what would this regime do?

Would they unleash that uranium or anything on the American population? And I think, and I say this with humility, the answer is probably no. And I base that on what they did at the Air Base in Qatar, which was innocuous, and their rational actor status as wanting to continue to survive. In other words, if they did something in the United States, it would be a suicide pact. It would like being put on the vest. It would like, it would like be putting on the vest and walking into a crowded market. So I tend to think of them now as someone that will at least. respond to fear. And they did when it came to Donald Trump. Yep, they did. Absolutely,

absolutely true. Here's the challenge that we have with them is if the focus is they stay alive, they stay in power, they continue their nuclear program, five years from now, what does this look like, 10 years from now, what does this look like? Are we setting a clock like President Obama did when he did the JCPOA agreement with Iran to say, hey, we're going to give you 10 years where you can't do a nuclear weapon, and then you can then you're 11. We don't want to create that for the future of the American people as well. For our kids and grandkids, we don't want to set them up for destruction from Iranian terrorism and to be able to set up our ally, Israel up for destruction. The best thing that we can do is to say, what is it going to

take to actually have a reasonable actor that is in the Middle East that is Iran? We can do business with Bahrain. We can do business with UAE. We can do business with Saudi Arabia. We have differences of opinion in the way they actually run their country and some of their value systems, but we can do business with them and we have relationships with them and to say, let's do this. We can't with Iran because they're not rational in that area. And we want to be able to have long term a relationship, quite frankly, with Iran, whether they want to have a relationship with us or not, or at least not have them chanting death to America in training their kids to be able to kill our kids in the future. So best case scenario is that we're working to

something that's a long term good solution, not just a short term. They survive. We survive. okay well what does that mean working towards that solution that's that's our final question so um before we go here uh i think everybody be excited if there was a revolution on the streets of iran and they were a a good neighbor in the world in the region and in the world and not run by you know 86 year old iatollahs um but short of that revolution in the streets the question is do we pursue regime change now there's going to be guys like your fellow senator lindsay Graham who've said quite openly, the answer to that is yes. And there are others like President Trump who said, although he had that post on Sunday night,

who said the answer is no, that our goal was to denuclearize them. So if we're going to maintain peace, the question is, what does Israel want? Because they'll pursue this war. Do they want regime changed forced from the outside, not from the streets? Although there's a lot of stuff, I'm sure, going on surreptitiously, but from the outside through military intervention. Yeah, we do not need to pick the next leader of Iran and try to impose that on the Iranian people, but we do need to continue to say that government is not legitimate. The more that we negotiate with the Ayatollahs and with the IRGC, the more we tell the Iranian people that we

recognize these folks as the good leaders and we're going to continue to be able to negotiate with them and to be able to interact with them. We want to be able to say, I want somebody different. I've been pretty open about this. I'd love to see different leadership in Iran that's not chanting death to my children every day. That's what I would love to be able to see. I'd love to be able to see a leader in Iran, that allows the Iranian people to be able to travel freely, to be able to have a commerce, to be able to address how they want, to be able to do what they want on that, to have greater freedom. And I think the majority of the people of Iran would love to love that as well. The majority of the people in Iran are 30 years old and younger. I mean, we forget

how young of a country Iran really is. It's a very young population, and they are craving to get away from the oppression of their own leaders at this point to be able to experience the freedom that you and I have the opportunity to experience and that many people in the region have the opportunity to be able to experience. So for me, yep, I'd love to see different leadership there. Should the United States go and impose that? No, we should not go and impose that, but we should not fail to give an opportunity to allow the Iranian people to talk to each other and to determine their own destiny and to be able to put sanctions really strong on that regime and to say, we don't agree with you and we're not going to release our pressure on this regime.

All right. Senator James Lainford of Oklahoma, thank you for giving us your time today. Again, congratulations to your Oklahoma City Thunder. I'll take the congratulations. We got a lot of work to be able to do this week, but continue to pray for the nation. And by the way, thanks to the troops that did such a professional job this past weekend at the orders of the president. What they did is a remarkable feat and a million ways on it. And I just can't say thank you to that group in the intelligence community and the folks who work with them enough.

here here all right senator thanks for being with us but all right there you go senator james lankford of oklahoma it is the question though if we're going to maintain peace okay what was our goal denuclearize iran set back the program was the goal accomplished still in the assessment phase of that but i think the answer trends towards at least set them back significantly and then if we're hoping for continued peace between iran and israel israel's goal the same as ours because if Israel is pursuing regime change what does that mean about their future military interaction and what does that mean about continued war between those two nations i will say this everyone seems to agree and the Israelis are not stupid they're incredibly

sophisticated and everybody knows that we've seen the pager the pager um plan the pager explosions when it comes to Hezbo and Hamas. We've seen the drone attacks inside domestically with Iran. It would be interesting to note if Israel's goal were regime change in Iran to follow up with our conversation yesterday with Eric Prince. No government has ever been toppled exclusively through an aerial bombardment, except, in Eric Prince's estimation, the government of America. Imperial Japan in the 1940s after the nuclear bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Now, I do think there's something to be said about what happened in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, and I pressed Prince on that, and he said that Slobodan Milosevic blinked. He got scared, and he does not think that will happen with the Mullahs, with the Ayatollah. But if Israel, again, who is not stupid and is very sophisticated, understands all of these facts, how do you effectuate a regime change in a government through something that needs more than narrow bombardment campaign? And you would think that means spies, division, standing up domestic opposition, dividing the army, student groups, women's groups, protesting in the street, you would think it would mean helping that domestic revolution. And it's interesting to ask, why haven't you seen that?

Why didn't you see that through the 12-day war? You saw nothing from the military standing up against the Ayatollahs. You saw no protests in the streets. So what's the plan if the plan is regime change for Israel? And maybe I'm wrong. Maybe that's not the plan from Israel. But it doesn't seem to be the plan for the United States. So we'll be able to maintain peace.

We'll talk about this. Plus the new right. And the first 100 days of the presidency of Donald Trump but whether or not he already is a Mount Rushmore-level president with the author of a brand new book, Not Sick of Winning. Michael Mallet's next on Will Cain Country. This is Jason Chaffetz from the Jason in the House podcast. Join me every Monday to dive deeper into the latest political headlines

and chat with remarkable guests. Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you download podcasts. It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at thequiz.com.

Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz. Does Donald Trump belong on Mount Rushmore? It is Will Cain Country. Streaming live at foxnews.com on the Fox News YouTube channel on the Fox News Facebook page. I don't ask that question facetiously. I'm not trolling and I'm not being hyperbolic.

I'm dead serious. And I put that question. and made the case yesterday at the Wilcane Show Studios in Dallas, Texas, too, author Michael Malice. Michael Malice is a very successful podcast host. He's written several books, including one entitled The New Right. He's analyzed the movement of the last decade plus of not just the left, which has been moving fluidly and rapidly, but also the right around and under Donald Trump.

So we wanted to have a conversation, yes, about this. Israel and Iran situation because it is divided the right. You've seen that. I'm sure you've seen it on your social media feeds. I'm seen it. I'm sure you've seen it as you scrolled X. It's divided the right with some very notable names going against other very notable names and a lot of very notable names going against Donald Trump, which I think blew up in their face with what he's pulled off in the last 24 hours. But it raises a deeper question about what is the future of MAGA? What's this position on foreign policy? What happens after Donald Trump? And we discussed that all with the author of a brand new book, Not Sick of Winning About the First 100 Days of the Presidency

of Donald Trump. Here is Michael Malice. Michael Malice, the author of a brand new book, Not Sick of Winning about the first 100 days of President Trump's presidency. Welcome to Will Kane Country. Thank you so much. It's a pleasure to be here. We're excited to have you, man. So let's talk first about your book. Let's talk about Not Sick of Winning. What inspired you to write about the first 100 days of this presidency? Well, I think during the campaign, a lot us were like, all right, is this going to be more of the same? He got his butt-handed by Fauci. Remember how Trump went out? It wasn't exactly like what we would have wanted, I think,

as Americans. And he's delivering all these promises, and I started a Twitter thread, and then every day it was like, holy crap. Judges are getting arrested and flouting the law. None of us saw that coming. All the people that he wanted to be nominated got through, despite some even Republican opposition. People did not see that coming. him freeing Ross Ulbricht on day two. A lot of us were hopeful that ended up happening. So every single day, I was like, holy crap, can this guy keep it up? And after 100 days, he did.

I think this was the, I don't, you and I are no spring chickens. And I think it's fair to say, I think it's fair to say, I have never in my lifetime or in yours seen a president over-deliver on their campaign promises like Trump two had. So, you know, the book Not Second Winning just goes through those 100 days and just shows every single day, it was just win after win after win. And to this day, I don't think his opponents really know how to fight him. They're still scrambling. Let me ask you a question that I've started to bring up somewhat trollishly, but also provocatively

and definitely earnestly. I hate trolling. I hate tro. With my friends at barbecues, to your point, do you think President Trump, based upon these first 100 days in the continuation, has really put himself in position to be a Mount Rushmore-level president? I contend that I think he's one of the most consequential presidents of at least the last half century, but I think you can expand that timeline much longer. And whether or not you hate President Trump or you love President Trump, he's consequential.

And I think that puts him on pace for some very, very distinguished company. Well, in all fairness, Jefferson didn't do crap as president, other than the Louisiana purchase. Teddy Roosevelt is someone I certainly would not want to have up there, if I had my druthers. And he's only up there because I think he was friends with the sculptor. He really didn't earn his place. very few people would say of the important presidents, Teddy's Roosevelt being number four. In terms of consequentialism, during the campaign, if I sat down with you and I said, Will, I've got this crystal ball, and when Trump comes into office, not only is he going to pardon

all the January 6 people, he's going to repealing Lyndon Johnson-era executive orders and eliminate DEI and a lot of these racialist programs in the government, you'd be like, okay, look, kid. It's nice that you think that, but let's be serious. That's how Washington works. So many things he did that weren't even on the table during the campaign. And what I'm most shocked about is after he's done it, you would think that the Democrats, who for like eight years have been an uproar, white supremacy, verified people all this nonsense, that they'd be like, holy crap, he's doing it, let's flip out. And they're kind of shrugging their shoulders.

There's a huge disconnect between the first and second term, because the first term, he wasn't really doing much on these issues, and they're acting like the sky's falling. And the second term, he's repealing things of decades of destructive policies in America. and they're just kind of looking around being like, yeah, what are you going to do? It's very baffling to me and kind of unprecedented. Well, I think they're trying, don't you think, Michael, but it's just all become so very impotent. It's as though they dulled that knife during Trump won. And probably even before Trump won, this all started, whatever happened here,

I would say roughly towards the tail end of President Obama's presidency, the racialism of everything in America, the accusations that anybody that disagrees with you is something phobic. It all just became a dull knife. And I think they're still trying to run out many of those same slurs. He's Hitlerian, he is an authoritarian, but it just doesn't cut. But I'm going to disagree with you a little bit, because if you're calling me Hitler one day and the next day I'm a king, that's really kind of a promotion. It's like kings are good often. So like talk about a retreat.

But to your point, yeah, I made this point in 2016, I tweeted out to go, if you're calling someone to Hitler every day, where do you go from there? Like super mega Hitler? I mean, if everything's always untended, it's like kind of this Greta Thunberg idea of politics, that everything has to be a calamity, and it's an existential threat to the world, and it's happening right now, and if we don't stop it, blah, blah,

and then at the same time, there's some kind of surprise that people try to take a shot at the guy. Well, yeah, if you're saying someone's about bringing about the end of not only America, but the earth, it's incumbent on people to act on this. So there's chickens came home to roost, as we saw in Butler, Pennsylvania,

and I think for some Democrats, especially in the leadership, they took a step back, like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Like, this is going off the rails. And once violence starts getting introduced into the equation, no one's safe. It's not going to end up just being for Republicans at all. I don't see it as a promotion that they've moved from Hitler to King. I think it's just an illustration of their incoherence.

I think, to your point, the way that you have lathered up the public into this fearful state of psychosis, they're just grasping for any slur. Sure. Maybe they, too, feel that Hitler has been doled, and they're tired of it. saying that. They've got to find something new, but it's all going to be incoherent. But I don't think being a king's a slur. If someone calls me go off king, I'm not going to take a swing at them like if they call me Hitler. No, but they think it is. To your point, you may not think it is, but they think it is.

They think no kings is the same thing as saying Hitler. Well, did you see that when Trump's tweeted out? He goes, oh, congrats to everyone marching. I heard there was a movement to create a king, but thankfully you stopped it, and I'm still your president. So the fact that he can so humorously deflate their agenda, And also to the No King's thing, I think you and I agree, and ever at least this probably agrees, it seems very entirely astroturfed. This was not some kind of organic movement. This clearly seemed to be, if not Soros money, something like that. It just seemed, just happened very quickly from my own taste.

And it's also just bizarre to me, because Democrats, like Joe Biden, in the 90s, were very big on campaigning on a strong border and protecting the workers. And now it's like, we don't have an open border, but it's a good thing that we do. that speaks to what you were talking about with incoherence. And I think they're desperate to find a cudgel to hit the guy with, but after someone's been shot, it's really hard to follow that up with anything that's going to land. Well, let's return

a minute in a minute to President Trump, how consequential he is, where his place is in American history. But let's stay on this thread of the left for a moment. The incoherence seems to be its identifying trait at this point. Because the only tie that really binds the modern left is anti-Trumpism. That's right.

So wherever he goes, they find themselves pivoting in the opposite direction. To the point that you and I talked about a little bit earlier this week on television, waving Iranian flags. And we don't have to rewind the clock that long ago that you could have at least described a coherent ideology or set of policies

that define the left. Pro-Union. Sure. Yeah. Dovish on foreign policy. That's right. And today, none of those things apply. We'll also analyze together the right in a moment,

but the only thing that binds the left is hatred of Donald Trump, and it makes you wonder, where then do you go after Donald Trump? I think the Democrats took a big hit to their leadership class. Pelosi stepped down, Biden was driven out of office. Officer Harris got her ass and to her in the election. So it's like which way Western man, right?

So you have the AOC Bernie Sanders wing with a Democratic Socialist wing, and then you have that Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Wall Street, corporate Democratic hack wing. And they don't know which one is them is going to return them to power, which is the only thing they care about, obviously. But I also think they're in a good position for the midterms, because they're going to have a lot of good data there because they're going to run AOC-type candidates in some races. They're going to run these so-called moderates in other races. They can see which ones get the wins, and they can run in that direction in 2028. What do you take from the fact that

a Democratic socialist is currently, and it is ranked choice voting, but currently leading in the Democratic primary for the mayor race in New York City? Yeah, I have lived in New York all my life in 2021. I still haven't learned how to drive to the amusement of everyone on social media. And every time I go back to New York, like to do Godfell or something like that, it's like the knife gets twisted a little bit more, watching something I love not only be destroyed, but basically peed on in front of my face. It's very heartbreaking for those of us who have such affection for that city. I am, I mean, in all fairness, Andrew Cuomo is not exactly a strong candidate. So they really don't, it's just like you can't be someone with no one. I'm not shocked because I think the New York left is particularly fervent, and they have this hatred for that Hillary Clinton wing, which Andrew Cuomo certainly represents, that I think you and I can't really appreciate in the same way that it's like I think I'm Mitt Romney in certain conservative circles would just be run out of the room and they'll just take anyone over him. I think this is the equivalent.

And I mean, he's this kind of child of privilege as well. This isn't somebody who fought his way up through the streets. So what he would look like is mayor, I don't know, but I do know it would be very bad. I remember de Blasio, you know, who had been like literally a commie. He'd been the mayor for obviously eight years. And he, speaking of trolling, he did something hilarious. On Central Park South, it's called Billioners Row, because like the most expensive real estate, either in New York and the world, and you have these super skyscrapers. And in the name of equality, which is the base of communism, he wanted to put a homeless shelf there.

So even the billionaires had to equally share in the suffering that all that New Yorkers do, which you can appreciate on some level, but another level, it's like the amount of tax revenue from one of these high rises can pay for 50 homeless shelters. So, you know, this kind of idea of equalizing the suffering, if this guy gets in, I think it would also be very good for Eric Adams. Because I think a lot of people, in the same way Giuliani didn't win because everyone turned Republican, they just voted Republican, a lot of people would give Eric Adams another look. I think it also gives us some indication, but only a slight, some indication about the future of the Democrat Party. Oh, sure. To the point of whether or not they go the direction of the Hillary. Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Rahm Emanuel direction for 2028, or they go the AOC, Rashida Talib, and this guy in New York City's direction.

Again, it's New York, it's not the United States, but it's at least a piece of evidence of the future for Democrats. And New York also has a huge blue-collar population. So this is very much as kind of college-efeet, you know, doctrinaire leftist mindset, which is hard to sell to, like, white ethnics and other populations in New York. I think this guy would have a lot of time than people think looking on the outside. Okay, now that is a perfect place to now return to the right, which you've written about extensively. Yes.

You've helped popularize the term, the new right. Now, I said President Trump was consequential, and you talked about what he's been able to accomplish in office, notably during his second term. But I think his consequentialism is not just based upon these first hundred days of his presidency. It's the way that over a decade now, he has completely repositioned the Republican Party. That's correct, yes. And that in and of itself puts him in a discussion of only a handful of presidents. He has completely turned what it means to be a Republican. Has he turned what it means to be a conservative?

Might be a deeper conversation. But one that is concerned with the middle class, one that is concerned with blue collars, one that has trade barriers instead of NAFTA, one that even though we're sitting here today with a burgeoning war between Israel and Iran, seeks less interventionist foreign policy. And that in and of itself is massive for President Trump. And to your point, I think the level of hatred by Trump, many Trump supporters, towards the traditional Republican Party is worse than the hatred

of many Democrats for the traditional Republican Party. The hatred towards people like Mitch McConnell, Lisa Makowsky, Mitt Romney, and these types, who they regarded, quite understandably, as selling out both conservatism, republicanism, and Americanism, it's just through the roof. And I think he, one of the things that got him the nomination, as you and I remember very well, was when in 2015, 2016, during those debates, he basically, he basically, he basically, he basically, he basically, basically just slap the heck out of all those other candidates who had decades of experience between them.

And the audience just gave him standing ovations one after another because people had enough. There was a book by Phyllis Schlafly, which she wrote in 1964 when Goldwater got the nomination over the enormous opposition of the Republican establishment called The Choice on an Echo. And she's like, every four years, someone pretends to be conservative, and then when they campaign for the president's after they get the nomination, they say, me too, Thomas Dewey, Edison, Nixon and 60. She's like, we need a choice as Americans. And no matter what you say about Donald Trump, you can't say that he's a big choice versus Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. This

is not like Mitt Romney and Obama having a big Venn diagram of overlap in many ways, like in 2012. And one more thing that he did remake, he re-made politics in general, because for decades, the Republicans went after Democratic politicians while allowing agencies like the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN. MSNBC to take shots at them with impunity. Those were the people moderating the debates and making sure that the Republican candidate looked like a fool or as if even lying. And starting with New Gingrich when he ran for the presidency in 2012, and he took on the moderator

in CNN, the first debate, John Carlin, believe it was. Trump really made it normal. You see this JD Vance all the time with Ted Cruz now, ran Paul, to realize Nancy Pelosi isn't anywhere near as much your enemy as the New York Times. is because as old as she is, she's not as old as the New York Times, and her career won't last as long as they do. And people understand, even leftist, Nancy Pelosi is a Democrat, she's a partisan, she's a politician, but they think of the New York Times as honest, objective, but they're far more radical in

their thinking than she is and far more pernicious in their influence. To me, I think the difference is simply one between defense and offense. Sure, yes, yes. And so did George Bush think the New York Times was fair? No. Washington Post covered him accurately? Of course he did not. But the difference between he and President Trump was that President Trump was willing to say it out loud and play offense. And I do think there was a defining characteristic of Republican candidates for decades to always be on defense. Yes. Can I swear it? Can I say one bad word of the show? George W. Bush was caught on Mike referring to a New York Times reporter. I think he was Adam Clyburn was his name goes, there's Adam Clymer, Major League from New York Times. And he got caught and he apologized. If this was Trump, Trump would be like, well, here's why I called him that.

and he would have a list of reasons, and Trump would be right. So that is one great example how these people go on camera, call you Hitler, say you want to put trans people. Which they said about Bush. Sure, that's right. Yes, that's right, yes. They said about Bush. They called him a devil. They called him Hitlerian.

Why were Republicans so reluctant to ever play offense? Because they're without social media, which didn't really exist that much during the Bush years, they had a monopoly on the mic. If I have all the medias, then the hatred people had for. Fox News was because you had one alternative to all the other networks that didn't regard conservatives as subhuman. And this was the end of the world, because, oh my God, Fox News destroying everything. Yeah, because you don't need a majority, you need an alternative. If I have five people saying one thing, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC, and Fox saying something

else, all of a sudden I have a choice, and all of a sudden, I don't have a monopoly on the narrative. So once social media spread, and just like myself, any idiot with a microphone can have his point of you, all of a sudden you're looking at what is the person saying instead of who is saying it. And when you take away their gravitas of being New York Times reporter and you look at how they tweet or how they post on Facebook, you realize these are not impressive people. And for decades, this idea that Walter Cronkite is a great example, oh, he was honest and a man of integrity, and he's just this hardcore lefty hack. And now people kind of look back and realize, wait a minute, like we were bamboozled for decades.

You had the Fairness Doctrine, but their version of fairness between the left and the way, the right is like the difference between like an aOC and then you have like I don't know who the right Romney would be the the furthest version of the right it's just ridiculous oh they painted Romney as a oh that's right Romney too yeah yeah they did that to Romney yes and your point about Fox is well taken but Fox is only one in a linear line of progression of alternatives that were attacked starting with really Rush Limbaugh's right in the 90s on talk radio Fox which still remains sort of in the center of the bull's eye starting in the mid 2000s and then Elon Musk and X most

recently. Oh, yeah. And the thing is now there's so many targets. There's many right of center networks, both TV networks, podcast networks, things like that. They don't really know where to shoot their arrows. And they've kind of run out of them because at a certain point, if everyone's racist or everyone's this or that, the term loses all coherence. Okay, but we talked about this divide on the left. I want to talk about the divide on the right. Sure. And I don't know how accurate it is. To the point of social media and X, I do think it paints an inaccurate picture of reality often. I think it's important, but I think it also distorts reality. And there is a huge fight on X, on the right, over a lot of President Trump's policies, most noticeably taking

military action in Iran. With many on the right saying, this divides MAGA. This is it. This is the dividing line. I voted for no new wars. I voted for no forever wars. I voted for nothing in the Middle East. I voted for America first, not something that prioritizes Israel's interests. This is the debate raging on the right. You are someone who's always been right there. at the center of MAGA. What do you think about that debate and where President Trump stands today? Well, there's a great book called the, I forget the mic in the title, but the point the book makes is people define themselves by opposition. So the author describes that if you have a group of kids and adults, the kids see themselves as kids. And as soon

as the adults leave, they see themselves as boys and girls. They separate out, right? Because then they're not united anymore. They have to be opposed to something. The MAGA coalition was united by the premise of my book, then you write, by opposition to progressivism. And on X and many of the other social media spaces, this kind of woke leftism is completely DOA. It's just a non-starter. But once you take away that enemy, it's like, who are we? Now you're going to have to start that infighting.

And frankly, I'm glad it's infighting over issues as opposed to personalities or things like that. Because this is a big divide in the history of the right and the history of conservatism. Are we going to be an internationalist robust foreign power, or are we going to be more of reducing our forces elsewhere? and bringing the boys back home. And both of those strengths have been very prominent in right-wing thought for over a century.

Let's take a break, but continue this fascinating conversation with the author of a brand-new book, not sick of winning, Michael Malice, here on Wilcane Country. On July 18th, get excited. This is big! For the summer's biggest adventure.

I think I just smurf my pants. That's a little too excited. Sorry! Smurfs. Only dinner's July 18th. Hey, I'm talking. trade goutty host of the trade goutty podcast i hope you will join me every tuesday and thursday as we navigate life together and hopefully find ourselves a little bit better on the other side listen

and follow now at foxnewspodcast dot com welcome back we're still hanging out with the author of not sick of winning michael malice tell me if you agree with this i do think that many have also turned this into an ideological debate because that's what a lot of us do sure those of us in the commentariat, those of us who are journalists, we often think ideologically, a coherent set of ideas and principles that take us forward. And then we superimpose that on President Trump. So they were opposed to these wars or whatever military action because they internalized it ideologically. President Trump has always been, I think, consistently looking at things through the lens of America first. Yes. But that is strategic. That's not ideological. That could be on one

side of an issue at one moment and on the other side of the issue in another moment. I think that's what has to be understood. And it's not about being a water carrier, and it's not about being a pom-pom-waving cheerleader for President Trump, but have you elected a man, a leader, not an ideology, a man and a leader that you trust with that decision tree. Well, I hear your point, and I think there's something dangerous about social media because we're taught that any military conflict worldwide is either World War II or World War III. And I retweeted a few tweets from 2020 when Soleimani was killed January 3, 2020,

and everyone was saying, this is World War III, Iran's going to retaliate, this is going to be on the world, and they didn't do anything. So I think that speaks to a lot for those who are concerned these days, like what's going to happen as a result of these strikes, are we going to get into this escalation, where is this going to end? I'm glad, and I'm sure you are, that when Iran retaliated, they didn't go 100%. They kind of held back a little bit because no one in America, I'm sure, wants this kind of to escalate become out of control. It's something very scary, and I'm sure you agree. I do agree. But, you know, that's another thing. I agree, but I have to watch every single event and fact

play itself out. Sure. I'm not a pacifist. I'm not an isolationist. You know, and I do think some of the right has started to take on the trappings of pacifism. And my only calculation is, on anything, economically or militarily, is, does this serve America? That's what we elect representative for? I mean, the reason you got votes from Americans was to serve Americans, not illegal immigrants, not foreign nations, but to serve America. And so, again, to this point of like, I also think it's gone beyond passiveism Michael. I'm curious what you think, that there is a segment of the right that begins to see us as always the bad guy. Yeah, the CIA does a lot of things surreptitiously, and not all of them work out, and probably some of them

don't satisfy the analysis of America first, but we're not always the bad guy, or we shouldn't be seen as always the bad guy. If we have someone in charge who we trust to serve America first. Well, I don't trust the CIA, so I do not regard them as an us at all, especially after the stunts that they pulled before when Trump was a candidate and as president. But my biggest concern with what's going on in Iran is incentives, because a lot of these dictators maybe, excuse me, not maybe, certainly are very evil people, but they're not stupid and they're crazy.

And we can see how when Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-il's father, nuclearized North Korea, and he said, we're going to become like a hedgehog, meaning a small animal. with spines, nuclear missiles pointing every direction. And President Trump is shaking hands with his son in Singapore, calling him his friends. Gaddafi in Libya reduces his weapons of mass destruction program and ends up being brutalized to death. So I'm very concerned that this is going to encourage other dictators to want to get nuclear weapons, not in the sense of using them, but the sense of using them as leverage in terms of nuclear blackmail and getting respect from other countries, because that is a big power up for any small nation.

But in the same way that I view America first, I can't begrudge a North Korean thinking of North Korea or an Iranian thinking of Iran first. And so I have to live in a world of reality and play the chess game according to the way the table is set. And I do feel like the right for too long. Now I'm speaking of the old right, the one that saw everything through the lens of World War II. Painting it in always moral terms. Good guys, bad guys. Spread of democracy.

Everyone wants freedom. That's utopia. That's a fairy tale. Can I say something? Americans don't want freedom. This is something that was scary for me to learn during COVID. Because the number of people, if I right now, if a Democrat ran to return to those COVID restrictions, they would get a huge chunk of votes in the primary because there were a lot

of people on the left who wanted the cage, who were happier that way. And we see this in England right now, where people are getting arrested for Facebook posts and ex-posts, and British people are cheering this on, many of them, not all of them. So this idea that everyone wants freedom, if that would be. true if there was this freedom-loving majority, half of the stuff that they pulled off during the COVID years could never have happened. I totally agree. COVID was so revealing on what really motivates us. Yes. I don't think it's freedom. I don't even think it's ambition. I think those are motivators. I'm not saying they're not. But in sort of the Maslow's hierarchy of needs or hierarchy of emotions that drive people forward, it's pretty clear that number one is fear. And also status. So there's a book called Stajieland by Anna Funder, and she talked to an ex-secret police operative from East Germany. and how he got people to be recruited.

Because you think, okay, I get arrested, and they say, look, I'm going to torture you, Michael, unless you're turning Will, I love you, buddy, but I'm turning you in two seconds, because if they're going after you, my family, it's not going to be much of a choice, and vice versa. But what she learned talking to this recruiter, she goes, we didn't have to threaten or bribe them. These people just wanted to turn their neighbors because they were bored, because they were lonely, or because they wanted to feel like they had something over somebody else. And how many times do we see during COVID that Facebook post? that Twitter post, I got this person fired, I got this person kicked out of the store.

We saw it over and over. Jimmy Kimmel was on his show laughing about someone not getting vaccinated and dying in the hospital. Sorry, buddy, you're at the end of the list. And the audience applauded. I mean, we saw this dehumanation. What was it? 40% of Democrats said unvaccinated kids people should have their kids taken away, some huge percentage. So this whole us versus them thing happened on our shores. This isn't some weird foreign land where they've never had freedom. And I think people need to look back at that and realize those people haven't vanished. They're just, they vote just like you and me, or just like you, at least. That is scary and shocking.

I didn't know that about status. It makes sense. Of course. Virtue signaling is. That's right. You know, but I certainly saw fear. And now that you describe it that way, I look back and I can see the quest for status. Can I give one example that happened to me?

I didn't, I was considered important, so I didn't have to quarantine. And I was on the subway, the New York City subway was deserted, which never happens. And there was an Asian guy in his 30s, you know, dressed in Western gear, he wasn't some kind of foreigner. And some older gentleman in his 50s gets up, stands over him, screaming at him about not wearing a mask. And it's like if you were really afraid, you'd go the other side of the subway car 20 feet away. You don't have to come close to him. But it wasn't fear. It gave you an opportunity to yell at him, to feel like you're the big shot in the morally righteous person and put this person in his place.

I filmed it. It was very disturbing to watch. What was revealing about all this, Michael, is that this is stuff that is at the base of here. That's right. That's right. Now, I don't want to sound overly partisan here because the right has its own base instincts that seem it can be inclined toward. But right now, those that you just laid out, it's like they fit hand and glove with the modern left. That's correct, yes. And it gives them power because then it gets to be like, I'm the one who's going to make sure that these awful people aren't killing grandma. Okay, if the left's Achilles heel, their base instincts, they have to avoid his fear and status. What is the rights? I think there is a huge streak. And I know I'm going to hear crap for this, but I'll say anyway, there's a huge streak in right-wing thought about hating the outgroup and not caring. I remember, like, I'm not a big support of trans issues, to put it mildly, but the argument is I hear people say, oh, they can go pee in the bushes, or it doesn't matter what happens to them. It does matter, because these people have to exist, they have to eat food, we have to grapple with the situation. And you see a lot of this on Twitter where it's like, I hope they kill everyone in Ukraine, I hope they kill everyone in Israel, things like this.

If I'm supposed to care about Ukraine and Israel, screw you, I'm going to be the opposite. I'm going to tell you I don't care. And that might be fun to say in social media, and I wonder how much people being. And a lot of them do. But in practice, it's like these are human beings with desires and needs, and you can't just hand-wave them away from the face of the earth. I think that's right. A lack of empathy. Yeah, that's right.

Or sympathy even more. Yeah. Yes. Okay, so let's take this movement now that we both agree Donald Trump has totally refocused the Republican Party. That's right. And for that matter, the entire political landscape of America, because it has repositioned the left as well. That's right. It repositioned first the Republican Party, then as a reaction, it repositioned the left.

What does all this look like, though, after Donald Trump? The one thing, J.D. Vance is a very talented politician. Sure. Many other talented politicians. Ron DeSantis is very talented politician, or at least a very talented governor. Yes, sir. But where does all this go after Trump? Because his personality, his charm, his individual.

individual characteristics are singular. So it does raise the question of what does this look like after Donald Trump? I think Trump has his antennae up about issues of loyalty during this campaign, this presidency. We saw during his first term how many people made millions by being in his office and then writing books and turning him. Omar Rosa, John Bolton, the list goes on and on. So he really staffed the White House this time with people who be loyal to him and his agenda. We saw what happened with Tulsi recently, where he made her basically walked the plank publicly and take back, which it earlier said. And when Trump and Elon had that big

falling out, which I'm shocked, like, vanished like 72 hours. I thought this was going to be like weeks of drama. I was waiting. What's J.D. Vance going to do? J.D. Vance within minutes was on X saying, I support President Trump. I stand with the president. So I think he's going to be looking at who's going to have his back and who's going to try to create distance between himself and the administration. That tells us what may happen over the next four years. Sure. And perhaps who he would endorse to take on the mantle officially after him. But I wonder even as a movement. We already see, as we both describe, some fracturing of the movement, at least online. And that's why I say, I'm not sure how indicative online is of what's

happening in the real world. Because I think President Trump's approval rating is still incredibly high. Especially by historic standards. By historic standards. And by the way, on the issues that are the most contentious online, meaning taking military action in Iran. But I'm wondering about the movement, the set of beliefs that he has forwarded, the way he's repositioned the right. is MAGA. What is that after President Trump? It's interesting because in the same way Obama was a blank slate and that allowed a lot of leftists to read what they liked into him. There's this feud, this very fringe version of the right, where a lot of people were, like the left were saying he's a crypto-Nazi

and a lot of people hoping he was. And then when he wasn't, they ended up being very disappointed. This is the most Zionist president we've ever had in American history. So I think what's going to end up happening, and it's going to be hilarious to watch, is two groups saying, You're not really MAGA. I am. You're not really MAGA. I am. Because... We're not seeing that today. Right. And MAGA has somewhat of a nebulous term. It can mean a top populist kind of Steve Bannon thing, or it can mean this kind of techno-Elon Bro kind of thing, and who knows where it's going to shake out and which politician is going to take, which side of divide. I'm shocked, and I bet you are to some extent.

To what extent Rubio has fallen in line with Trump's vision. This is not the same person who was the senator who ran for president in 2016. He's really become Trump number two, and I think he's positioned himself superbly going forward. Well, and I have worried, again, officially on the politics side, not on the movement side, that what would happen is that traditional republicanism would be what moves forward. You knee-jerk back to the norm of the previous decades. And I don't know what Marco Rubio's true beliefs are, to be honest at this point. We don't know, yeah. And I think he's doing an incredible job right now.

But I also know the way he was before he was in this position. So take a guy like Marco Rubio. Who is he after Trump? Right. Right. We don't know. We also don't know what's got on the midterms. Because in 20, the Biden midterms, there's supposed to be that red wave. And a lot of the people that Trump endorsed in those kind of swing races didn't win. And there was the whole thought that Trump's a loser. We got to get rid of him. He's going to, he can't possibly win in 2024. And then he was a kind of a juggernaut. So four years and two years are a very long time in politics. And if this, if this Middle East and a Ukrainian conflict go on, you're going to see, and you know this perfectly well, every day the New York Times is going to be dog piling, dog piling, dog piling to create as much damage as possible. They do this very well George W. Bush. Trump is a much better counter-of-tacker than George W. Bush was, but it's going to move a lot of people.

Okay, I want to go a little higher in the clouds here for a moment, going back to the movement. I don't know how much you buy into this stuff, but I can scroll Instagram or X and see these posts, these graphs, which you've seen as well, I'm sure, the cycle of politics. Strongman, you know, to populist, populist to chaos, to chaos. to elites, elites to corruption, back to populism, and then the cycle keeps going around from strong man to democracy, to elites, and over and over again. On the movement side, I do wonder, I like, by the way, the populist repositioning of President Trump.

I also think populism is a fire that can burn out of control. That's right. Yeah, very much so. And I do wonder, the left's embrace of identity politics can infect the right. And so factionalism, which is what our founders were concerned with. That's right. They were concerned with factions. perhaps racial factions.

We don't seem right now to be leaning into economic factions. That was sort of a communist-driven worldview. Yeah, and progressivism. It's still there. Sure, of course. I do worry, though, about this entire project and where we are, like, late-stage, are we late-stage democracy? Are we late-stage constitutional republic? What does populism lead us to as much as I like it?

What does factionalism look like in America? Yeah, I think we are more divided than ever, not in like a civil war, in the sense that it's very easy not to talk to someone who doesn't share your views. You can kind of create this silo of people who broadly speak and agree with you, maybe disagree with you on the edges. And that is kind of tricky when you're trying to create governing coalitions and get anything done. I mean, a lot of people going after Trump for his budget, things like that, he's got a two-seat majority in the House.

I mean, you try to sit down with 220 people and get any kind of economic or social consensus. This is, I mean, talk about hurting cats. It's going to be a tricky situation. And they're acting like Mike Johnson has carte blanche. to dictate to his caucus, it's crazy. So, but I think that's also a weakness that Hakeem Jeffries and the Democrats will be very excited to exploit come in the midterm.

So the thing is, this can fall out anyway. You and I both know enough about American history, where we can cite examples where it went towards, like, a Reagan kind of revolution, or in 1994 when you had the Gingrich Revolution, or it could be some kind of Herbert Hoover thing where the right completely collapses, and you have an FDR figure with supermajorities.

But do you think it even could be deeper than that? Do you see the American experience? itself is fragile, meaning not just who's elected president, not majorities on the left or the right, but this idea of a multi-ethnic, multi-diverse population that can coexist, which is a unique historical experience. In fact, I don't know that there is a parallel, right? We can't come up with another parallel of something this diverse being held this much together through the idea of democracy, constitutional republic. Sure. And you do you do wonder, like, does it have a lifespan? Like, how fragile is the experiment of America?

I think it's more fragile than some people think, but not as fragile as people online would like to say. I've championed the idea of national divorce for a minute now, and I've seen leftists have taken up this mantle in California and other places. I think as both parties stand for something completely opposed to one another, how do you move forward in policy? It just ends up every four years, every eight years. Some people are livid and feel completely voiceless, and and the vice versa. And that's a prism, though, that sees it through the binary. That's right, yes.

Right. And I'm worried about that becoming not a binary, but 10, 5, 10 factions that can't coexist any longer. And we see this in some European countries where they have parliaments with like eight or nine people. In Germany, they had to cobble together government with three parties for the first time in the election preceding this one. And yeah, because you have the Rick Santorum types, then you have the Rand Paul types,

and then you have the Mitt Romney types, there's still a few of them, Olympia Snow and Murkowski being two examples, how do you get them together to agree on anything when some of these policies, like, what's the compromise on like trans kids? Like there's no compromise. Either you're for it, you think it's a great idea, or you're engaging in child abuse and shut up, I'm not talking to you. It's really not much of a vend diagram and issues like that. Okay, so now let's turn full circle now.

Not sick of winning. First hundred days of President Trump. I started with, I think he is one of the most consequential presidents, and I think I undersold him 50 years. I actually think you can go back further. I think Reagan was most recent as consequential president, don't you agree? I think the Cold War is more consequential than Ronald Reagan. Really? I do.

Okay. I mean, I think the effect of ending the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union is massive. Right. But I think that we are entering a whole new stage of America. I agree. And I think President Reagan repositioned the parties to some extent. What looked like a permanent leftward lean was certainly reversed. That's right.

But I do think that now we're not just talking about the traditional political spectrum of a left-right linear progression. I think that President Trump has scrambled everything. That's correct, yeah. And that now we have to look things. I say things that a Democrat from 10 years ago would have agreed with. Right, that's right. And does that mean I'm inconsistent or it's a new America? Right.

That you have to reimagine and re-examine where we are and what actually fits where we are. And I think that's largely based upon what has been forced to the front by President Trump. And it's not just in terms of politicians in terms of how people consume media and who they talk to. That is radically changed in the last 10 or 15 years. And it's also kind of funny because I think you and I remember when Obama was like doing data mining and Facebook and that leveraged him to his reelection. And, you know, everyone the left was cheering. Oh my God, it's a genius. No Republican lover went again.

And then when Trump tweets his way into the presidency 2016, we got to shut down social media. It's too dangerous. It's getting out of control. So it's really kind of funny. Watch the message vacillate. If I went back in time and tried to find the closest historical parallel, it would actually to be to a time period that you dismissed a moment ago as someone not deserving to be on Mount Rushmore.

And that would be during the early 1900s, sort of the advent of ideology. Before the early 1900s, we didn't see a thing through an ideological prism. That's when progressivism begins. That's right. That's when you will eventually have a conservative counteraction. So Teddy Roosevelt, in a lot of ways, I do think, is reminiscent of President Trump. Oh, don't say that. Oh, that's awful.

I don't think that makes them alike for like-oranges-to-orange's comparison. But I think you were existing at a point in time in America when people are doing something very similar. Sure. What does this mean for who I am, who we are as a nation, how this all fits together? So I'll ask you, then, who is the closest parallel historically to President Trump? I agree with you, personality-wise, Teddy Roosevelt and Trump have a lot in common. And a very easy example. People might know this story.

Ted Roosevelt was giving a speech. he was shot and he finished the speech. Glenn Beck actually has the papers with the bullet still in it. So, in terms of that kind of sense of bravado, they're both New Yorkers, they both have that New York personality to them. Teddy Roosevelt was the one who introduced the idea, which is a complete lie,

that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid it, I, as president, permitted to do it. He introduced progressivism into the White House, into America. Woodrow Wilson, who is his arch enemy, obviously built in that very heavily, and tapped to some extent in between. So personality-wise, also Andrew Jackson, with this idea of, you know, he made this law, let him enforce it, that kind of thing.

So that kind of, like, admiration of strength. Teddy Roosevelt's motto speaks softly, carry a big stick. Trump is more like speak loudly and carry a big stick, I think he would say. I don't think Teddy Roosevelt really spoke very softly either. I think that's kind of absurd to say in retrospect. But I also think, I'm curious to your thoughts, I don't know that Reagan would think very highly of President Trump. I think he'd have a little bit of thumbing up his nose

at what he would regard as the vulgarity. I think I agree. And you know what? I think Teddy Roosevelt would like President Trump. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, he would love him. Because he was also a big nationalist. So he would love what he was doing with the border and things like this. He would be a big, but it's also interesting in terms of you were saying how left-the-right changes. It was President Eisenhower, who had a program whose name I can't even mention on this podcast, who had massive deportation of hundreds of thousands of people to Mexico. And Eisenhower was so far in the left of the Republican Party that Barry Goldwater referred to his presidency as a dime-stranded. new deal, and he wasn't wrong. So it's kind of interesting, like, what left and right mean over the time. Well, until very recently, that was actually not a partisan divide. Like,

shouldn't be allowed legal rights to infiltrate our country. That wasn't a big deal until what, the last 10, 15 years? And it was Bernie Sanders who's on camera talking about open board. He's a crazy cook brother's proposal. Yeah. No, no, we'd close borders. All right, we'll end it with this. Not sick of winning. Then do you agree with my initial question? Do you think that he is, at least in consequence, when I say Mount Rushmore-level president, I'm talking about top four, top five level president, that really changes history. I think the jury is still out. I would definitely put Reagan ahead of him.

But if you're going to have me choose between Roosevelt and Trump, I'm going to choose Trump any day. All right, not sick of winning is the book by Michael Malice. Check it out. I appreciate you making the trip up from Austin. Oh, this is so much fun. Thank you so much. Thank you, Michael. All right, that's going to do it for us today.

I hope you enjoyed that conversation with Michael Malice. Make sure you check out his new book, Not Sick of Winning. My thanks to Senator James Langford, make sure you join us again tomorrow. Fox News Facebook, Fox News, YouTube, Spotify, Apple. We'll see you next time. Listen ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcast, and Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show,

ad-free on the Amazon music app. From the Fox News Podcasts Network. Hey there, it's me. Kennedy, make sure to check out my podcast. Kennedy saves the world. It is five days a week, every week. Download and listen at foxnewspodcast.com or wherever you listen to your favorite podcast.