The Brian Kilmeade Show

This show proudly sponsored by Real American Freestyle Wrestling. From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Kilmead. Hi everyone, so glad you're there. It's the Brian Killmeat Show coming away on this Thursday.

We have Secretary of State Marco Rubio in about 20 minutes.

So don't move. We'll bring back some of it if you have to leave this hour a little bit later in the day.

Meanwhile, we're watching a few things. There's going to be a space launch today at Merritt Island in Florida. We're going to try to get to the moon. And now Sean Duffy's job at NASA is to make that happen. And that's his focus.

The president will sign an executive order today in the Roosevelt room relating to that. And there'll be a State Department briefing, just some of the things happening today. And believe it or not, President Biden delivers remarks at the National Bar Association Gala. I think he's getting an award. I have no idea why.

But let's get to the big three. Number three. I think though she got a little bit of a shock when she looked at some of those internal polling numbers and saw that, you know, despite having run for president, there was no overwhelming support for her in running for the governor's office in California. And going forward, I must say, you don't hear a lot of people on the ground saying, oh yeah, we want her to come right back. True, and she's done nothing with all the catastrophes happening in California.

She has not asserted herself at all. Kamala Harris shocks many by declaring she's not running for California governor, queuing up a 2028 presidential run. Is she really the left's best hope or a nightmare as we look at the rest of the field as the messaging for the Democrats continues to be all over the place? Number two. To be very clear.

as I have been over the course of this campaign. I am not defunding the police. I am not running to defund the police. You just said it over and over again for five years. Biggest test today.

Marxist mayor, Democratic primary winner Zoran Mamdani, rushes back from Uganda to explain that he's not really against the police after the Midtown massacre. Are we to believe him then or now? Dem stays silent as we learn more details of Motive and the victims. Number one. What President Trump has raised the natural leverage of the U.S.

market to really obtain some significant concessions from the Koreans? I mean, this is exactly the sweet spot that President Trump is hitting with trade partner after trade partner. Trade Representative Jameson Greer weighing in on another deal done. It's a stunner. Trump announcing a trade deal with South Korea as India talks heat up.

And by the way, he is going after India for waiting this long to do a deal while going after India for doing all that low-cost oil from Russia. Inflation remains low. Growth is up. Sadly, interest rates don't move. It looks like the president's detractors are really tired of his winning to the point where they're making stuff up.

So there's some things going on with the economy that I think is important to point out. 3% growth is fantastic. People say, well, we had to buy, industry had to buy a whole bunch of things before tariffs kicked in.

Well, why was it so low last quarter? They said the same thing. Deregulation should. Put about $150 billion to $400 billion into our coffers by the end of the year. We have the private sector now having added 104,000 jobs.

I would love to see the private sector as well as government hires when the Biden administration was there because they kept growing government. And by the way, wages jumped 4.4%. If you look at what inflation is doing, there's a lot of reasons to be happy.

So this is where we're at right now. The economy looks good, but there are people out there looking to run it down. Like, for example, Chuck Schumer, cut 12. And while the Trump administration will try to wave rosy headlines about the Q two number. Today's GDP number is in fact a mirage.

Because some ominous numbers lurk under the hood. Dun dun dun dun. Not true. Mark Halperin says there is some uncertainty in the economy. He plays it more up the middle.

They are upset about the interest rates. It really makes no sense to the experts. And there were two Fed officers who split from Powell and just said, I'm for rate, we have to lower the rates. Pal's like, no, we're going to have to wait a little bit longer on tariffs.

Well, let me see. The tariffs went in place in April. We were one day away from August. What are you waiting for? Here's Mark Halperin, cut 14.

This is about as confused an economy as we've seen. There's so many cross-currents, right? The tariffs are a big piece, but there's questions about supply chains, upcoming. Back to school, Thanksgiving, Halloween, Christmas, consumer behavior. There's a lot of uncertainty.

Number two, the irony, of course, of the White House message today is if the economy is growing quickly, you don't want to cut interest rates, at least under classic economics, right? You wouldn't want to stimulate an overstimulated economy. Right.

Some cross currents, but I mean, it's not like it's at five. It goes from 2-2 to 5. I mean, it's going to 2-2 to 3.

So. What I think the one thing people tell you is if inflation is out of control, you got to slow down the economy and the spending.

So, what you do is you raise interest rates.

So, people stop getting the house. They don't move. They don't do any addition. They don't put too much money into the system.

Now, we're showing that inflation is not going to be an issue. You should probably do it.

So, yesterday, another trade deal came in. I think India could come in today, and I'll tell you why. But, first, South Korea. President announced on Truth Social yesterday, I'm pleased to announce the United States has agreed to a full and complete trade deal with South Korea. The deal is that South Korea will give the U.

S. three hundred fifty billion dollars for investments owned and controlled by the United States.

Now we have like six hundred billion In there from Japan, $700 billion from the EU, investments, which means you're going to benefit too. Selected by itself, that's a good deal.

South Korea will purchase $100 billion worth of LNG, which we're great at. Other energy products, further, by the way, that's good for their security. They can count on us.

South Korea has agreed to invest a large sum of money. The sum will be announced within the next two weeks when the President comes here to the White House in a bilateral meeting. I'd also like to congratulate the new President on his electoral success. It has also agreed that South Korea will be completely open trade with the United States. They'll accept American products, including cars and trucks and agriculture.

We have agreed to a tariff for South Korea of 15 percent.

So, and we have zero.

So this is pretty unbelievable what he's been pulling off. He's using the power of the economy, our consumers, our market, and he's enticing the rest of the world. And they're saying you're no longer going to have a free reign here. The other thing I want to talk about much more serious on Monday. We watched this gunman get out of his car, double park his BMW.

He had driven 30 hours from Las Vegas, and he went in, opened up fire at 345 Park Avenue, where some of the most prestigious, lucrative companies in the world are housed, including the National Football League. The gunman clearly wanted to go after the NFL. Thankfully, he went in the wrong elevator. Not good for people on the 43rd floor who, unfortunately, were gunned down because he happened to get off there randomly.

So, when Zoe Ram Mdani, who won the Democratic primary, Is on the he was in Uganda at the time. It's not his fault. He was at a wedding, kind of odd timing if you want to be mayor. But Umandami got off the plane and knew he had to quickly. explain his record when it comes to law enforcement.

The very group that was first on the scene, he wants to disband and he vilified. The police, he has pretty much said defund the police in multiple ways, and I'll read those postings shortly. But now he's got to convince everyone he didn't mean it then. I know you don't buy it. And why I'm bringing up a mayor's race in New York City is because this is the direction of the party.

Certainly, the loudest that's got a mayoral candidate in Minneapolis, Senate candidate. in Michigan. One was running and lost in Arizona. And without the established Democrats speaking up, And not endorsing him and endorsing him, just staying on the sideline. Chuck Schumer, Keem Jeffries, Governor Hokul.

No one's endorsing him, no one's not endorsing him, except for AOC. He's my guy. He had to quickly Say, I'm not for defunding the police. Cut 19. To be very clear.

as I have been over the course of this campaign. I am not defunding the police. I'm not running to defund the police. The tweet that you refer to is A Tweet that is out of step. with the way in which I not only view police officers the immense work that they do, in the city.

but also the seriousness with which we need to treat That work. and the difficulties that come with that work.

Okay. The problem is, he didn't just say, I'm not, you know, yesterday he said I'm not running to defund the police.

Okay. But in 2020, he says we don't need an investigation to know the NYPD is a racist, anti-queer, major threat to public safety. Same year, we need to elect a socialist city council to defund the NYPD. Same year, there's no negotiating with institutions. It's wicked and corrupt.

That's the police.

Now, he wasn't even an assemblyman yet, so you could easily say, you know, I was angry and emotional, and the George Floyd riots were taking place.

Well, you would think that there would people be pressing him like his opponents to define further define how he feels, but maybe they just know how he feel. Because on Facebook twenty twenty five, he shared an article about a police shooting and wrote, This is why we need to defund the police and invest in alternatives. April twenty twenty five. When you say old tweets, how old? April?

I mean, that what has changed? And if you were gonna change, couldn't you have told us? Instagram video, May of 2025. One time he speaks to a group of young people about police brutality and the need for reform.

Okay, how long?

Okay, so that's three months, but he's changed a lot. May of 2025. He discussed his time as a housing counselor, noting how he observed police being used to evict people from their homes and says they have no reason doing that. June of twenty twenty five. The NYPD's budget is bloated and ineffective.

We need to invest in community-based solutions to public safety. When did this guy change? Yesterday? June, the police are not the solution to our public safety problems. We need to address the root causes of crime.

And lastly, July, I'm not running to defund the police. What are you to believe? Cut twenty. My statements in 2020 were ones made amidst A frustration that many New Yorkers held. At the murder of George Floyd, and the inability to deliver on what Eric Adams of all people described.

As The right for all of us to be able to enjoy safety and justice, that we need not choose between the two.

Okay, and lastly, I'll play this. Elise Stefanik wants to be the next governor of New York. If anybody can do it, she can do it. She's got confidence, understands issues, will tear up Hochul if they ever debate. She was in the studio yesterday with Larry Kudlow, and this is the subject I bring up.

I don't want people to think I'm just telling you a New York story. It really is big, or else I wouldn't bring it up. Elise Daphodic Who is a national figure right now in a small district in New York City? Was just there over the weekend, a beautiful area. A Lake Champlain Fort Ticonderoga, a whole area of it's a beautiful area, Lake George.

Here's what she said on Larry Cuddlow, and this is so important, Cut 28. You have Kathy Hochl, who is the leader of the New York Democrat Party. You have Chuck Schumer, the leader of the Democrat Party in the Senate from New York, eligible to vote in the New York mayoral race, hasn't said who he voted for in that primary. And you have Hakeem Jeffries, the leader of the New York Democrat Party in the House, in the minority. He also hasn't said who he voted in that mayoral primary.

And reporters, where they chase Republicans down and ask who you voted for in primary, they haven't asked that question. Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries need to answer who did they vote for in the Democrat primary for mayor? I want to know: was it Mondami, or who was it if it was not him? And then what is their position? They have refused to condemn him.

They own his position. Yes, and by the way, there's no way they voted for Mondami. They would have just said, I voted for him. But they won't. In fact, what's his name met with him, Hakeem Jeffries, and said, I guess we'll meet again.

Really? Two Democrats, one that just won the primary handily, and you can't figure out if you're going to vote for him yet. That's called posturing. We'll take a short time out, come back with your calls. In about ten minutes, it's going to be great.

We're going to talk to the National Security Advisor, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, for our radio show. Don't move. Newsmakers and newsbreakers. Hear it first on the Brian Killmeat Show. Running a business comes with a lot of what-ifs.

But luckily, there's a simple answer to them. Shopify. It's the commerce platform behind millions of businesses, including Thrive Cosmetics and Momofuku, and it'll help you with everything you need. From website design and marketing to boosting sales and expanding operations, Shopify can get the job done and make your dream a reality. Turn those what-ifs into.

Sign up for your $1 per month trial at Shopify.com slash special offer. Radio that makes you think. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. These four, you know, basically closed the chapter in 2026. doesn't foreclose chapter of 2028 or in the future beyond that.

I think in this case she's going to reboot, recharge. Yeah, I haven't heard the end of Kamala Harris, but it's just not 2026. It's really kind of One-dimensional. Ram Emmanuel is clearly running for president. To his credit, he basically says it.

Everybody else couches it. What else would he be doing?

Well, after becoming ambassador to Japan, he was mayor of Chicago. He wanted everyone to forget his reign, but he was more reasonable than anybody we've seen there now, certainly Brandon Johnson. Um and Lori Lightfoot. Um so But now he says about her, Kamala Harris, the fact that she's not running for governor doesn't mean she's done. But he's trying to say it's not like she's too talented to step aside forever.

You know, it's uh When Barack Obama lost as a state senator, if he decided I'm done with my career, a lot of people would be like, Are you kidding? You're just getting started. You only lost one race. But there is not a big Uh clamor. For Kama Harris, terrible vice president.

Really lazy. She had a great opportunity. Because Joe Biden was asleep at the switch. And keep in mind, Joe Biden, nobody even admits that she lost. She spent over a billion dollars.

People want to say it was too short of a run. She didn't have to go through any of the primary process. That's all to her advantage. Listen to her. Remember Joe Biden goes and does the view.

And this is what he says the reason why Kamala Harris lost, Cut 31. Why do you think the vice president lost, and were you surprised? I wasn't surprised, not because I didn't think the vice president was the most qualified person to be president. I wasn't surprised because they went the route of uh The sexist route, all the whole route. I mean, this is a woman, she's this, she's that.

I mean, it really, I've never seen quite a as successful and a consistent campaign undercutting the notion that a woman couldn't lead the country and a woman of mixed race. You crazy. A woman can't lead the country? Who brought that up? It just so happens two ran and both lost.

You pick the right one. Uh they'll win. This is not she's not the right one, genius. Congressman James Comer, cut 33. There's no guarantee Kamala Harris would have even won that governor's race.

If you look at how she got to be the Democrat nominee, she was appointed in a smoke-filled room. There's no guarantee she ever would have emerged from the primary, even if they had had an abbreviated primary. There's no guarantee she would have even beaten Gavin Newsom or Josh Shapiro or any other leading Democrats. But no, th I think she's going to run though. I mean, I think if Comer thinks she's done, she's not.

She'll be the last one to realize it. Remember, she had no campaign, but she came out and this will be her third time running.

So she had no campaign message. She had an opening speech, and then she couldn't go to homework on any of the issues.

So I think she's definitely running for president. And I think she looks at the governor's race as a step back. And here's why. She'd actually have to do work if she did that. It is hard to recover a state to recover with taxes so high.

They are buried right now in red ink. They have a huge illegal immigration problem, and there's confrontation with the federal government. She's going to have to deal with that. And it would be an opportunity for a good leader, but to her, it is just a challenge. And for her, I think she understands too.

For the presidency, she's hoping that being a woman who was there before, people would think that they're not respecting her by running against her. I think that ship is sale. But among the people that they expect to run, and it's a pretty huge list: Westmore, Andy Bashir, Josh Shapiro, Gretchen Whitmer, AOC, Gavin Newsome, Pete Budajudge, J.B. Pritzker, Rahm Emanuel, Hunter Biden, Stephen A. Smith, who knows?

That's a huge list. I hate to tell you, there's no way she's going to emerge victorious on that list. This is Jason Chaffetz from the Jason and 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 FoxnewsPodcast.com or wherever you download podcasts.

Breaking news, unique opinions. Hear it all on the Brian Kill Me Show. Welcome back, everybody. It's my privilege to be in the National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. Mr.

Secretary, welcome. Good morning. How are you? I'm doing great.

So far, you have a lot on your plate. I can't imagine what it's like on your things to do list. I know the President of the United States talked about one of the top priorities now. Within 10 days, he's going to make a decision on what's going to happen with Russia because he does not believe that they want a ceasefire. Here's what he said.

I'm not so interested in talking anymore. He said. He talks, we have such nice conversations, such respectful and nice conversations, and then uh people die the following night in a With a missile going into a town and hitting, I mean, recently, I guess, the nursing home, but they hit other things. Whatever they hit, people die.

So he's obviously changed dramatically since he first took office. What do you think's going to happen after ten days, mister Secretary?

Well you know, the first of all, let me say the President has waited over six months now. And given the best efforts possible, we continue to engage with the Russian side as early as this week. Earlier this week on Monday or Tuesday, we had a whole conversation with them as well, not with Putin, but with some of Putin's top people in hopes of arriving at some understanding on a path forward that would lead to peace. And we've not seen any progress on that. And I think what bothers the President the most is he has these great phone calls where everyone sort of claims, yo, we'd like to see this end if we could find a way forward.

And then He turns on the news and another city has been bombed, including those far from the front lines.

So at some point, he's got to make a decision here about what how much they continue to engage in an effort to do ceasefires if one of the two sides is not interested in one.

So the President has a lot of options. I mean, he has options, as everyone knows, to sanction secondary sales of oil, secondary sanctions on oil sales of Russian oil, which is a huge part of their revenue. There's banking sectoral banking sanctions that would also be very powerful. Again, I think our hope is to avoid that and to sort of figure out a way that we can get the fighting to stop. We think that's the best path forward.

We're open to some different paths, but the best path forward is to have the shooting stop and the talking start. But so far, there's not been what we feel at least sincere interest on the Russian side in achieving that objective.

So we'll continue to be available and willing to participate in something like that if it becomes available. But obviously the president's not going to wait forever.

So Medvedev, the former president, threatened you guys, threatened our country and said basically your ultimatums that's going to lead to confrontation, if I could just paraphrase, and he says, with your country. And Donald Trump last night went back at Medvedev and said, tell Medvedev, the failed former president of Russia, who thinks he's still president, to watch his words. He's entering very dangerous territory. Do you take him seriously, Medvedev?

Well, you can't ignore anything someone's saying, and you always wonder is that approved as but he basically is not a relevant player in Russian politics. He does not a decision maker. He's not in any of the meetings or conversations we've ever had. If you recall, he was the president there for about four years. During the time when Putin didn't run again, and then he obviously came back, so he was a placeholder.

So I wouldn't call him a relevant. decision maker. But by the same token, Obviously, he's someone who once held office there and is still in a role and in government. And his words are going to have impact in terms of being a provocateur and things of that nature.

So I think the the I'm not sure he's speaking for the official Russian position, but he's certainly someone in an official position in Russia. Who's saying things that are inflammatory, but that's okay. I don't think that's going to be a factor one way or the other. Do you think Russia's in a position to confront America militarily?

Well, that's not even a fathomable thing. I mean, understand the a war between the United States and Russia is not something we can ever see. These are the two largest nuclear weapons uh militaries in the world. and that the danger would just be too great. I don't think there's any doubt that from a conventional military capability, the Russians could not take on the United States or frankly, many other countries in Europe, for that matter.

I think they would struggle. They've struggled with Ukraine. who now is the largest army uh in in in Europe, but at the time of being invaded was not. I think they would struggle Unconventional front greatly.

So that's not a. I think what you worry more about is not an all-out war with Russia. I think what you worry more about is. A skirmish or a miscalculation that leads to the start of conflict because that ESCO. Since the Russians are not.

very good at conventional weaponry, they would almost invariably have to rely On some other means, like a tactical nuclear weapon on the battlefield, to sort of escalate in an effort to de-escalate a fight.

So you would worry about that, but we shouldn't even think about it because that's not something that is plausible or, frankly, feasible for either side.

So, as you know, the trade deals are coming down. That's not really your purview. You have enough on your plate. But one thing the President said last night on Truth Social: he goes, Russia continues to be the top oil supplier to India. During their first six months, they make up 35% of the overall supplies.

Quote: India will therefore be paying a tariff of 25% plus a penalty for the above starting on August 1st. He's upset, maybe you're upset, that India continues to get, instead of a small portion, a great portion of their discounted oil from Russia, which is fueling their war machine. How disappointed are you in a so-called ally? Look, global trade India is an ally. It's a strategic partner.

Like anything in foreign policy, you're not going to align one hundred percent of the time on everything. India has huge energy needs. And that includes the ability to buy oil and coal and gas and things that it needs to power its economy, like every country does. And it buys it from Russia because Russian oil is sanctioned and cheap and meaning they have to, in many cases, are selling it under the global price because of their sanctions. And that unfortunately, that is helping to sustain the Russian war effort.

So it is most certainly a point of irritation in our relationship with India. not the only point of irritation. We also have many other points of cooperation with them. But I think what you're seeing the President express is the very clear frustration that with so many other oil vendors available. India continues to buy so much from Russia which in essence is helping to fund the war up item and allowing this war to continue in Ukraine.

So, Mr. Secretary, I have to tell you that they're doing an investigation. You're John Radcliffe, the CIA, FBI director and assistant director, deputy director, doing a heavy investigation of what's going on in 2016 when you were in the Senate about leading up to Russian meddling in the election. And Matt Taibbi and others have led the investigation along the way, and they're finding out new revelations. But every time a Democrat's asked about the investigation into 2016 and the role of John Brennan and James Comey and others, they point to an investigation you did as senator.

I want you to hear Democratic Congressman Jason Crowe. There have been four. Four investigations, including a bipartisan Senate investigation led under the first Trump administration and led in part by Marco Rubio, that was very, very clear on these findings. These have been investigated and reinvestigated and reinvestigated, and nothing has changed up until this past month.

So, do you think anything has changed since you did that thorough investigation? Russia meddled in our election period? Yes, but that's not what the question was. I don't think that the issue is whether Russia did things to try to influence American public opinion and or drive wedges. I think here's the thing that they leave out when they talk about this.

And they're so dishonest about it. What they leave out is: the issue here was not that. The issue here was they claimed that they did it not just to help Trump, but that Trump was in on it. for a year and a half, almost two point five years, they put this country through this notion, this fake fraud scheme lie, that Trump was somehow in cahoots collaborating with Russian and Russian intelligence officials to help his campaign. And what my investigation that I, you know, I was the acting chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

What that investigation showed is that there was zero zilch proof whatsoever, any evidence of any kind, that. Uh the Trump Campaign in any way colluded with the Russians. That's number one. That's clear.

So I think what they should be saying is that there was a bipartisan state. Study done by the Senate committee that found that the narrative that all these people were putting out there was a lie. Here's the other thing that the report found: that the way they handled the dossier, understand this dossier. This dossier was a piece of campaign disinformation, it was paid for by political campaigns. They hired the equivalent of a private investigator, and then they laundered it.

Usually they take that and leak it to the media. In this case, they laundered it through our intelligence agencies.

So you had some of the highest level officials in our intelligence agencies in the country taking that fake, ridiculous dossier and using it to influence and inform an official intelligence assessment of what happened in this campaign. The report that we put out pointed to this. My statement at the time pointed to this. And I think we've learned even more about how hard what we've learned over the last with these new revelations is how hard the FBI and some people not all, but some people at the CIA worked To make that dossier a part of their intelligence assessment, it is a huge outrage because it was fake. It was a lie, and they used it to mislead the American public.

It cost millions of dollars in investigations, all chasing a hoax.

So that's the part they leave out because they're trying to play cute with words and the media is either uninterested or too lazy. To understand those nuances and that reality? I think both. They were too busy getting their awards for running that story. Literally, all these New York Times, Washington Post, these reporters are getting rewards for being a stenographer for John Brennan and others who are clearly leaking, even when out of office.

Another big thing on your plate is what Steve Witkoff's doing today. He's heading over to Israel, then he wants to possibly go to Gaza. We have allies, UK, Canada, and France, all either threatening to or already done, recognizing a Palestinian state. That's over 140 in the UN. How does the U.S.

view this move? Irrelevant? It's irrelevant. I mean, it's annoying to some, but it's irrelevant. It doesn't mean anything.

First of all, none of these countries have the ability to create a Palestinian state. There can be no Palestinian state unless Israel agrees to it. Number two, they can't even tell you where this Palestinian state is. They can't tell you who will govern it. And I think, number three, it's counterproductive.

So think about it now of your Hamas. You're Hamas, you're still holding 20 innocent people as hostages. You're holding the bodies of over 50 of the people you massacred, raped and killed during this on October 7th of 2023. You're sitting there hiding in some tunnel somewhere as cowards. And then you're reading or hearing in the press that all of these countries are rallying to your side because this is the Hamas side.

At the end of the day, the Hamas side is the Palestinian statehood side.

So you are creating this reward, and by the way, they are hurting ceasefire talks. Because Hamas is sitting there saying, that's the problem with the UK statement. The UK is like, well, if Israel doesn't agree to a ceasefire by September, we're going to recognize the Palestinian state.

So if I'm Hamas, I say, you know what? Let's not allow there to be a ceasefire. If Hamas refuses to agree to a ceasefire, it guarantees the Palestinian state will be recognized by all these countries in September.

So they're not going to agree to a ceasefire. I mean, it's so clumsy. But what this really is, in many of these countries' case, is their domestic politics.

Some of these countries have huge constituencies now that are pressuring them domestically to line up on the side irrespective of its geopolitical ramifications. That's what they're doing here. But they're hurting they're actually hurting the cause. They're not helping because A, their statement isn't going to change anything other than it encourages and rewards Hamas, who now has every reason in the world not to agree to ceasefire. And not to release the hostages.

I wish all these countries would get together for once and maybe in one clear voice say, you must release these 20 living hostages who are there. That's what they are, they're hostages. You must release them immediately. I wish there was as much attention paid to that as some of the other factors here. Great point.

The Arab League came out. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt are demanding Hamas lay down its arms and agree to a two-state solution.

Now, the two-state solution, you just wreck it, it's folly. I got it. But for Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, they have the sway, don't they? Especially Qatar. Yeah, I mean, over, they host the Hamas external people in their country.

And look, I want to be fair, okay? I know the Hamakata is not always. a source of controversy among some. When it comes to this negotiation, they've been very helpful. They've been very forceful.

They've put a lot of time and energy into this, and frankly, they've expressed their own frustrations with Hamas. I think the moment of truth has to arrive, however, where there has to be consequences if Hamas continues to disagree. Understand, there was a ceasefire agreement in principle in place. Israel actually made a bunch of concessions that Hamas had asked for, hard concessions for Israel to make. And then Hamas came back and just rejected the deal.

And by the way, rejected it on the same day that Macron from France Made his announcement. Because at the end of the day, Hamas is sitting there saying, We're winning the PR war. We've got all these countries lining up on our on our side of this argument. We've got leverage now. We shouldn't agree to anything.

We should keep this thing going. That's how they don't care about how many people die in Gaza. And they certainly they've got hostages that they think is their shield, and now they've got all these countries sort of lining up on their side. And so as they view this anti-Israel narrative building internationally, it's emboldening Hamas. And I do think, however, it's interesting how forceful these Arab countries are about demilitarizing Gaza.

I think that's a very important thing because if Gaza is not demilitarized, if Hamas is not demilitarized, there will never a lasting peace is impossible in Gaza or anywhere. No, I hear you. The other thing is you're talking about the huge Muslim population in France and the UK, where people find those cities almost unrecognizable because of what they've allowed to happen with immigration into their country. I assume that's what you were saying, right? You don't mean liberal units.

I mean, look, I'm not an act. You know, their internal politics may be influenced by a combination of things. We have seen this unity of these pro-Islamist anti-Western, anti-capitalism left sort of merger and they sort of join forces on everything from attacking ICE officers to you've seen in some of these immigration riots, immigration enforcement riots that you've seen these protesters in California and other places and many of these things, it's the same people. They're wearing waving the same flags, wearing the same headscarfs. And it's the same people that shut down our universities.

That's what we've experienced domestically, and this has become a factor in many of these countries as well. They're under tremendous domestic pressure. And you watch the programming of things like the BBC, ninety five percent of their coverage is about how evil in their narrative Israel is. Very little coverage paid to the hostages, the families. Uh uh it's totally been forgotten because you know why?

The United States is not insensitive, and we have done a lot. We've done more than, frankly, anybody else in terms of providing funding necessary for humanitarian relief in Gaza. And the cameras capture the images of the human suffering there. You know what the cameras don't capture? The suffering of 20 people living in tunnels right now, taken hostage by Hamas for almost for a long time.

No one's covering that. And no one's talking about that. Mr. Secretary, people have talked about changing tone with China. The Taiwan president came here.

We said, don't walk across the country. It's going to aggravate China. We seem to be going more towards Pakistan than India. As of late, do you think we're more in deal mode with China? How would you describe our approach as we push forward on trade with China and also ask them to help us with Ukraine?

Well, we have plenty of issues that we disagree with China on, and they happen every day. I mean, in terms of those things continue. We remain as committed as ever to freedom of navigation in the region. We remain as committed as ever to our partners in the Philippines and in places like Taiwan and other things of this nature. We are also entering a period of some sort of strategic stability.

In the end, we have two big the two largest economies in the world, an all out trade conflict between the U. S. and China. I think the U. S.

would benefit from it in some ways, but the world would be hurt by it. It would have a huge impact on the world and on our economy and especially on the Chinese economy.

So I think as much as anything else, a mature foreign policy requires strategic balancing of equities as we move forward. We don't have a trade deal with China. What we have is an agreement in the short term that was just recently extended after a very hard negotiation That occurred with our trade negotiators just a few days ago. Got you.

So, you know, I think it's. At the end of the day, two things are true. We have a lot of irritants long term with China that we need to confront. There are vulnerabilities that we need to close. Mr.

Secretary, I guess I have to stop you there against a hard break. Thanks so much for your time. Mark Arubia. Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. With the price of just about everything going up, we thought we'd bring our prices down.

So, to help us, we brought in a reverse auctioneer, which is apparently a thing. Mint Mobile Unlimited Premium Wireless! Give it a try at mintmobile.com/slash switch. Upfront payment of $45 for three months plan equivalent to $15 per month required. New customer offer for first three months only.

Speeds low after 35 gigabytes of network's busy. Taxes and fees extra. See Midmobile.com. The fastest three hours in radio. You're with Brian Kilmead.

Yeah, I want to go long with Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, but it's such a privilege to have him in. We probably could have won another hour. But I hope you enjoyed it. We're going to bring some of it back throughout the show. Don't forget, go to BrianKilme.com and find out how to see me August 23rd, History, Liberty, and Laughs.

And of course, it's going to be streamed on Fox Nation, September 27th, in Richmond, Virginia. Let's fill it up. From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan. It's the fastest growing radio talk show. Brian Kilmead.

So glad you're there, Brian Kilmichoke, coming out to you from 48th and 6th in Midtown Manhattan, heard around the country, around the world. You know, we have this huge, we have this huge roster of affiliates, and we thoroughly appreciate it. But a lot of times, some take one hour, one time, sometimes take it last, depending on the time zone you're in. Earlier in the show, we talked to Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. We're going to bring some of that back.

It was great talking to him. I mean, it's hard to imagine a more impactful staffer from his job at the State Department to National Security Advisor. I think he's handling archives as well. Josh Crash Hauer at the bottom of the hour, Fox News Radio Political Analyst, as well as Mark Thiessen standing by.

So let's get to the big three. Number three. I think though she got a little bit of a shock when she looked at some of those internal polling numbers and saw that, you know, despite having run for president, there was no overwhelming support for her in running for the governor's office in California. And going forward, I must say, you don't hear a lot of people on the ground saying, oh, yeah, we want her to come right back. It's kind of honest, Juan Williams, Kamoa Harris, shocks many by declaring she's not running for California governor, queuing up a 28 run.

She also has a book coming out. Is she really the best hope or a nightmare selection for the Democrats who, as Mick said to Rocky and Rocky III, you just can't win? Number two. as I have been over the course of this campaign. I am not defunding the police.

I am not running to defund the police. The problem is, everything you've been saying as late as June, that is Zoron Mondani, who won the Democratic primary, his biggest test is now on. Marcus Mayers, the Democratic primary winner, who happens to be a Marxist, rushes back from Uganda to explain he's not really against. The fight against the police after the Midtown massacre. Are we to believe him now?

Them stays silent when it comes to his future. They're too scared to speak. Number one. President Trump has raised the natural leverage of the U.S. market to really obtain some significant concessions from the Koreans.

I mean, this is exactly the sweet spot that President Trump is hitting with trade partner after trade partner. Here we go. That is Jamison Greer, another stunner. Trump announced a trade deal, this time with South Korea, as India talks heats up and the president offers some veiled threats. Inflation remains low and growth is up.

Sadly, interest rates don't move. Although, two officers at the Fed go against the chairman. Very rarely, it hasn't happened since 1993. It looks like the president's detractors are tired of his winning. Mark Thiessen joins us now.

Mark, South Korea win is a big one, and it seems to be tilting in our direction substantially, like Japan and the European Union. What a change of events from April when people were saying this is going to be a Titanic era with the tariffs.

Well, look, on the economic front, you got the big, beautiful bill followed by EU trade deal, Japan trade deal, South Korea trade deal, Vietnam trade deal, Indonesia trade deal. And success begets success.

So this is just this it's going to keep going. And what's interesting is that Trump is, you know, with the EU, for example, Trump in 2018, Trump offered them a zero-for-zero tariff deal. Zero tariffs. Either way. And now he's got a deal where they pay us 15% tariffs and we pay them nothing.

So it's better than zero for zero. Um, so you know, they should have taken the deal five years uh, you know, five seven years ago when they had a chance.

So the president's threatened to on Truth Social India. And he said essentially, you know, I don't know what to hold up is to do a deal. And he called them out for buying Russian oil. And he went very specific against them. He said they have always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia and are Russia's largest buyer of energy, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to stop the killing of Ukraine.

All things not good. Quote, India and U.S. have engaged in negotiations for a fair and balanced deal. We remain committed to that objective. Russia, by the way, continued to be the top oil supplier of India at 35% for the first six months of 2025.

So that's a funny way for our ally to act. They have their own relationship with Russia as a counterbalance to China. I get it. But they should know they're getting on the president's bad side, especially when it comes to their dominant role in BRICS. Yeah, 100%.

The fact is, President Trump has said that he's going to that if Russia doesn't agree to peace in Ukraine, he's going to crush the Russian economy by driving Russian oil off the global market. The two biggest buyers of Russian oil are India and China. And so as part of any trade deal they're going to get, they're going to have if you look at what the deal he did with the EU, he he part of the deal is they're going to stop buying Russian oil and start buying American oil, right? That's that's that look for that feature in any negotiation with China and with the and with India. Because he wants to cut deals with them, but he's not going to let Vladimir Putin get away with these attacks on civilians the way he's doing it.

So, what changed? Which change in what way? Which way? Again, so if I was talking to Donald Trump seven months ago. And I told him By August 1st or of August 15th or something.

You're going to have to, you're going to realize you can't deal with Vladimir Putin, and you're going to go all in to derail their economy and get him out of Ukraine. He probably would have said, no, Brian, I can handle this.

So, what changed? So, a couple of things. Number one, I don't think anything changed because Trump was very clear from the very beginning what he was going to do. He's going to give Putin a chance to negotiate peace. And if he didn't negotiate peace, he was going to arm the Ukrainians more than they ever got armed before.

He's been saying that for years. Just a lot of people weren't listening to what he was saying.

So, this is not a shift in Trump's policy. He was right to try and get Putin to agree to end the war. And just, you know, if you go back in time, You know, a lot of people criticized Ronald Reagan for his negotiations with Mikhail Gorbachev. You know, saying that he was conceding too much to the Soviets and all the rest of it. And he was right to negotiate with Gorbachev.

The problem is that Trump doesn't have a Gorbachev. He's got a Brezhnev. He's got an Andropov. He's got a hardcore Russian dictator. And so it's not.

Trump, that is the problem. It's his interlocutor. And you can't turn Brezhnev into Gorbachev. You have to replace Brezhnev with Gorbachev. And some point, maybe there'll be a leader in Russia who wants to negotiate with Trump.

But right now, he was right to try, but what he's discovered is he's dealing with a hardliner, not with somebody who wants to negotiate with the West. And I'm glad he tried it. And I'm glad that he's now following through on what he promised he would do. Yeah, so meanwhile we know that the former President Medvedev is threatening us and said if you continue to give us deadlines and ultimatums, maybe we're going to have a problem with you. And Trump last night said one at him and said threaten the former Russian President, concluding, and tell Medvedev, the failed former President of Russia, who thinks he is still president, to watch his words.

He's entering very dangerous territory. I asked the Secretary of State moments ago how he feels about Medvedev's threat in the brushback pitch.

So Medvedev, the former president, threatened you guys, threatened our country and said basically your ultimatums that's going to lead to confrontation, if I could just paraphrase, and he says, with your country. And Donald Trump last night went back at Medvedev and said, tell Medvedev, the failed former president of Russia, who thinks he's still president, to watch his words. He's entering very dangerous territory. Do you take him seriously, Medvedev?

Well, you can't ignore anything someone's saying and you always wonder is that approved as uh but he basically is not a relevant player in Russian politics. He does not a decision maker. He's not in any of the meetings or conversations we've ever had. If you recall, he was the president there for about four years. During the time when Putin didn't run again, and then he obviously came back, so he was a placeholder.

So I wouldn't call him a relevant. decision maker. But by the same token, Obviously, he's someone who once held office there and is still in a role in government. And his words. are going to have impact in terms of being a provocateur and things of that nature.

So I think the the I'm not sure he's speaking for the official Russian position, but he's certainly someone in an official position in Russia who's saying things that are inflammatory, but that's okay. I don't think that's going to be a factor one way or the other. You agree? Yeah, Medvisive is a clown. He was his entire the only reason he was president is because the Constitution barred Putin from seeking a third term, and so he held he got him to be president while he was prime minister for another term, and then he could run again.

So he's literally just Putin's Putin's lapdog. And look, uh Medvedev said that uh don't go down the path of Sleepy Joe. It's like what Medvedev and the Russian leadership don't seem to understand is they're not dealing with Sleepy Joe anymore. They're dealing with a president who's willing to bring down the hammer on them. And the reality is that the Russian economy is in crisis right now.

They're spending four out of $10 on the war every time. Inflation is at double digits. They've got a labor shortage because so many people are getting killed or shipped off to Ukraine. The economy is so bad that there are armed robberies where people are stealing butter from grocery stores to resell on the black market. The only thing keeping the Russian economy afloat is oil and gas.

And if Trump brings down the hammer on oil and gas, the Russian economy is going to implode. And so they ought to be very careful. They ought to look at what happened to Iran when Iran didn't when Iran ignored Donald Trump's deadlines. He gave them a deadline, and if they don't follow it, there's going to be economic hell to pay.

So you wrote this column today that said Trump is using the Laffer curve to find the tariff sweet spot. The Laffer curve is slamming the market with supply side, right? Bringing down the prices. Tell us, can you expand on that?

So the Laffer curve was the foundation of the Reagan economic revolution. And what it held was, in very simple terms, if you have a zero percent tax rate, you get zero revenue. And if you have a 100% tax rate, you get zero revenue because nobody works. Right? You're not going to work if someone takes 100% of your income away.

So somewhere between zero and 100% on the lower end is an optimal tax rate where you unleash enormous economic activity, but also bring in the maximum revenue. And what Ronald Reagan did is he used that to lower tax rates, which were very high, and unleash the Reagan economic boom. Trump is using it in the opposite way. When Trump came into office, we had near zero tariff rates, which meant we're getting no revenue whatsoever from our trade deals, right? Where you have lots of trade going on, but no tax revenue coming in, no customs revenue.

He's now negotiating all these deals. With the UK, it's a 10% baseline rate. With the EU, it's 15%. With Japan, it's 15%.

Now, this new deal with South Korea, 15%. He's using this principle that you want a low baseline tariff in order to bring in lots of revenue without crushing economic activity.

So you allow the trade to flourish. And he's right. This is channeling the Reagan's economic principles. You want to and we've seen it already. He's brought in one hundred fifty billion dollars in new tariff revenue.

The target is three hundred billion for the year. That's enough to pay for the Golden Dome.

So that's Yeah. You know, this is this is very smart economics. People are getting upset about him with imposing tariffs. We don't want 50% tariffs. We don't want 70% tariffs unless we're doing it for some, you know, coercive reasons.

But a 10 to 15%, I prefer 10 to 15. I definitely prefer 10 to 20. But a baseline tariff is a smart economic policy that Ronald Reagan would probably agree with. All right, Mark, I did bring up Gaza with the Secretary of State and our allies and their dubious decision. Let's listen.

We have allies, UK, Canada and France, all either threatening to or already done, recognizing a Palestinian state. That's over 140 in the UN. How does the U.S. view this move? Irrelevant?

It's irrelevant. I mean, it's annoying to some, but it's irrelevant. It doesn't mean anything. First of all, none of these countries have the ability to create a Palestinian state. There can be no Palestinian state unless Israel agrees to it.

Number two, they can't even tell you where this Palestinian state is. They can't tell you who will govern it. And I think, number three, it's counterproductive.

So think about it now of your Hamas. You're Hamas, you're still holding 20 innocent people as hostages. You're holding the bodies of over 50 of the people you massacred, raped, and killed. during this o on october seventh of twenty twenty three, you're sitting there hiding in some tunnel somewhere as cowards, and then you're reading or hearing in the press that all of these countries are rallying to your side because this is Tahamas' side. At the end of the day, the Hamas side is the Palestinian statehood side.

So you are creating this reward. And by the way, they are hurting ceasefire talks.

So, your reaction to where this is going as Steve Witkoff goes to the area and will be visiting Gaza.

So the idea You would reward Hamas. for October 7th by granting them statehood. is the dumbest idea in international relations I've ever heard. When you look at what we did in Germany and Japan, We defeated Germany and Japan and forced them to repudiate Nazism and their imperial ideology in order to become sovereign again, right? In in Gaza, we have to destroy Hamas.

and make Palestinians repudiate this Islamic radical ideology. You can't have a state we couldn't have like had a German a post war Germany in which the Nazi party was allowed to function. Right? It would have been impossible, or where, like, the Japanese imperialists who still wanted to invade other countries were allowed to function. You have to totally denazify them, and you have to de-hamosify Palestinian territories before you can even have a conversation about having a state.

The idea that you would do it now. Admits while they're holding hostages, while they're refusing to surrender, is absolutely. you know, it's it's uh it's it's the it's just Pure stupidity. I hear you, and I think that having the Arab League and Egypt Qatar come out and say it's time for Hamas to put down their weapons and go, we have not had that. And I think that they're again, then they ask for a two-state solution, which we know is folly and ridiculous, because nobody wants that, and there's nobody to run it.

So, I think that there are some things that we get the sense that things are coming to an end, but it makes everything so much harder, the Secretary was saying, when people come out and make. The Israelis look like the bad guys. No, 100% like. Look, why is the extent that there is hunger in Gaza? Who's responsible?

Hamas is responsible. They've been defeated, but they won't surrender. In every other country, having been pummeled the way they have been. Would have surrendered a long time ago. And when people, when they surrender, that's when you can bring the food aid in.

Mark Thiessen, thanks. You got it. Mark, we're up against a break, but thanks so much. Yep, absolutely. Appreciate it.

Take care. Back at a moment. It's Brian Killmead. The talk show that's getting you talking. You're with Brian Kilmead.

Just over a year ago, I launched my campaign for President of the United States. 107 days traveling the country. fighting for our future. The shortest presidential campaign in modern history. It was intense.

High stakes, and deeply personal for me and for so many of you. Since leaving office, I've spent a lot of time reflecting on those days. talking with my team, my family, my friends. and pulling my thoughts together. in essence, writing a journal.

That is, this book, A Hundred and Seven Days. Right.

I cannot wait to get her perspective. I'm sure there might be some newsworthy things there, but she used that I will not run for governor yesterday to a buy my book today coming out in September. We'll see if there's anything newsworthy in it. My sense, judging by her political career, nothing. And it will paint an ugly picture for Donald Trump.

But I'm sure won't say anything of substance with Joe Biden, which is going to be a bigger hindrance. How could you sit there for four years and let our country be run by a figurehead that simply was run by staffers? How little did you know? How little did you do? How often were you actually meeting with him once a week for your lunch?

At which time did he fall asleep in his soup? And did you wake him up or just leave him there to drown? These are some of the questions I'd love to find out. When we come back, also, some of the theatrics with the Democrats. Josh Krashauer next.

He's so busy, he'll make your head spin. It's Brian Killmead. These four, you know, basically closed the chapter in 2026. Doesn't foreclose a chapter of 2028 or in the future beyond that. I think in this case, she's going to reboot, recharge.

Yeah, I haven't heard the end of Kamala Harris, but it's just not 2026. It's really kind of One-dimensional. Really kind of one dimensional. It means running against you, Rahm Emmanuel, because we all know you want to run. Josh Crash Hour joins us, Fox News Radio political analyst, editor in chief of Jewish Insider.

Josh, were you surprised by the announcement of Kamala Harris not running for governor, and what do you think of Ram Emmanuel's response? Uh, I wasn't all that surprised. Um I I I I think she's Damaged goods after the 2024 presidential election. I think she would not have been a shoo-in. even as the gubernatorial nominee in California, there would have been other candidates on the Democratic side looking to run against her.

And look, I actually think she may be out of Paul. I mean, I know there's been a lot of conversation about her running in 2028. There was a notable quote, I believe it was in Politico, this morning on background from someone who knows Kamala Harris very well. same, you know, she didn't really want to do the job. And I think that kind of problem.

No question. It was hard. But the state is buried in debt. They have a huge everyone's leaving. They had a huge uh the taxes are through the roof.

They have an immigration clash every day and they got donations on one homeless population. I mean, even w the promise it has, and she's got this pledge to make sure they're not prosperous when it comes to energy. And trying, you know, making gas $7 a gallon, and all those problems are going to be in our lap. That means just that, that's just hard work. Yeah, and Harris never really took a.

I mean, right now there's a big, ugly divide within the party on. Over over ideology between the AOCs and the left wingers and and the more pragmatic people like Rahm Emanuel. And Harris does doesn't have and she's not an ideas person, she's not a policy person. She's not really someone who's gonna I think really be driving that debate. And I think whoever fills the void in California and nationally, going ahead in the Democratic Party to 2028 is someone who's going to actually have to have concrete ideas and policies and have a really take a side, if you will.

So, Rob Emmanuel is part of the more moderate wing of the party, Josh Shapiro in that camp, right? If he runs for president. On the left, we know who the players are, AOC being first and foremost among them. That is going to be the divide going forward. And Harris, just to her campaign was sort of.

didn't really take a side at all. It was part of her problem. She didn't really stand for anything and had a left-wing record that was a. You know, a big part of her baggage. I don't know how any of that will change and has changed.

And I think she understood that as well. It will make these conversations. And so much, Josh, has to do with, and I know people say it's just one mayor's race, but with this mayor that beat Cuomo in the primary and is leading by about 15 points in the general and believes Eric Adams and Curtis Sleewa is this Zoran Momdami. And listen to Lee Stefanik. This is the push.

Are you going to endorse this guy or not? Hakeem Jeffries, Dan Goldman, all Democratic leadership. They're all sitting on the sidelines. CUD 28. You have Kathy Hochl, who is the leader of the New York Democrat Party.

You have Chuck Schumer, the leader of the Democrat Party in the Senate from New York, eligible to vote in the New York mayoral race, hasn't said who he voted for in that primary. And you have Hakeem Jeffries, the leader of the New York Democrat Party in the House, in the minority. He also hasn't said who he voted in that mayoral primary. And reporters, where they chase Republicans down and ask who you voted for in primary, they haven't asked that question. Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries need to answer who did they vote for in the Democrat primary for mayor?

I want to know, was it Mom Dami or who was it if it wasn't? If it was not him. And then what is their position? They have refused to condemn him. They own his position.

Don't they? Yeah. Of course. I mean, this is going to be a gift that keeps on giving to Republicans, especially those in the New York, New Jersey area. And by the way, Alyssa finally, you know, she was probably going to run for governor, and that race is not until 2026.

So let's say Mamdani does get elected. Look, I would expect him to govern closely to how he campaigned. And that would be as a. pretty far left socialist. And that's going to cause all kinds of baggage in the run up to the governor's race.

So I mean, that is what Elise Stathonik is looking at very closely, that Lee Zeldin came very close as a Republican within five points, I believe, winning the Governor's race. Years ago, and now you could have a mayor who's going to be a lightning rod for the Democrats and a real problem for the Democratic Party that Stefano can really run against. And it could make Kathy Hochul and a lot of other Democrats' positions a little very, very difficult in the coming years. I mean, the guy's anti-Semitic. There's just no question about it.

He basically said it. And you know what he's done after he won the primary, basically embarrassed himself or any clear-thinking person. He said, I'm not going to run to defund the police.

However, his past record goes, go to Instagram, May 2025. Mondami speaks to a group of young people about police brutality and the need for reform. April 2025, Facebook shared an article about police shooting and wrote, This is why we need to defund the police and invest in alternatives. In May 2025, discussing the time as a housing counselor, noting how he observed police taking joy in evicting people from their homes.

So, when did you have this revelation? Did you hit yourself on the head on the way back? From Uganda, or do we believe you in the spring? Yeah, and he has not distanced. I mean, there are candidates who, because they want to.

Win power, they moderate, they change their stripes, they evolve. This is someone who was an early, early member of the DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America, which has very, very radical positions on everything from policing to crime to Israel, you name it, very extremist views that really render them toxic even in New York City politics. Um, and and you look at sort of how you know, his father's a virulently anti-Israel professor at Columbia University, uh, and and that's where I think he gets a lot of some of the the ideas from. Um, this is someone who's not doing it for politics. There's a really, I think, deep-seated belief there if you look at his history and then look at it look at his background.

Uh, so that's that's why Chuck Schumer hasn't endorsed. Mamdani. That's why Hakeem Jeffries has not endorsed Mamdani. That's why a whole number of New York members of Congress have not endorsed Mambani. They they they're trying to delay the inevitable.

Now I do think like if they had some Some principle, they would back one of the other independent candidates, whether it's Cuomo or Adams, and try to stop the extremists from winning the mayor's race. But they don't want to alienate that very loud and growing perhaps faction of the party so that we're in this kind of purgatory period where they don't want to endorse it, but they don't want to reject him either.

So, what with theatrics on the floor? Couple of days ago, as Senator Corey Booker ripped his fellow Democrats for not standing up to Donald Trump, but yet it was a bipartisan agreement on on police funding. No one could understand you had Amy Klobucher going against Corey Booker and Senator Mastow. Basically, the guy didn't even show up for the committee meetings. Greg Stuby brought it up last night.

It said it made no sense. Cut seventeen. He's the Republican from Florida. Cut thirty seven. To have him didn't even show up for his committee meeting where this bill was at, didn't voice his opposition then, and then comes on the floor and then shuts down the consideration of this bill that would fund police officers.

It's not the first time we've seen Democrats going against funding for our law enforcement officers. This is the to fund the police movement, and this is at its highest level the Democrat senator on the floor complaining against funding going to our law enforcement officers. And while Democrats are having timper tantrums on the floor, Trump is crushing it. The economy is booming. The border shut down.

We have trade deals all across the world. And America is moving forward because America's first agenda is moving forward, and Democrats just can't help themselves.

So they are arguing with themselves. He's 100% right.

So. That was almost surreal a few days ago. I had to make sure, because I listened to the radio, I had to go make sure I was hearing it right. Yeah, I mean, there's, you know, the story of the boy who cries wolf. Like, if everything, even things that voters are not familiar with becomes a 10, if you have to give like an impassioned floor speech for everything, then nothing is going to matter.

Nothing's going to really get the attention of your voters. And that was one of those, you know, I think a lot of people still have to follow and read up on what he was really complaining about. And look, Booker gave that lengthy, was it, you know, day-long filibuster, day-long floor speech, got some attention for that. But ultimately, like, you know, where's the beef? Where's the substance?

And I think that's been the wrap on Booker. He certainly came up as a rising star in the Democratic Party, ran for president, didn't do that well in 2020. But there's been a question of like, you know, he has the charisma, he has the energy, the Spartacus nickname. But there's not been a lot of clarity on where he stands and what his overall argument beyond just being anti-Trump is.

So, Josh Krashauer, one of your jobs as editor-in-chief of the Jewish Insider. I'm sure I'd have to tell you that Steve Witkoff's heading over to God. He's going to be going to Israel, but maybe going to see for himself what's going on. We have a few members of the Arab League calling for a Hamas to disarm final, including Qatar, who's been hosting these talks. You get the sense that there's going to be some type of end to what's happening in Gaza.

How would you like to see it end?

Well, look, I think it would be and that just in the White House's interest. I mean, you heard Trump's comments about the humanitarian toll that the war is taking. You know, and Israel's los I mean, the problem, I think, for Netanyahu in Israel is that there's a growing sentiment within the country that, well, what is the military mission? Can we defeat Hamas? Like, well, what is the timetable?

Because we're losing soldiers, and there seems to be a muddle. We're losing also a lot of political support across the globe. And most recently within the Democratic Party last night, there was a Bernie Sanders vote to cut off aid to Israel. And for the first time, a majority of Senate Democrats voted with Bernie Sanders.

So that, you know, Blame it more on the Democrats, and I think they're ultimately responsible. But there is, when you look at the European public opinion and some of the diplomatic moves from England and France in the last week, I think there's an understanding that things need to change in Gaza, that they either need to accomplish their goals in Gaza and set a timetable or basically declare victory. They ousted a lot, they've done a lot of damage to Hamas and figure out an end game. I think that's what Trump, I mean, Woodkoff is going to be looking for himself and talking to the key stakeholders. But I think that we heard some messages from Trump over the last few days about the images out of Gaza.

I think he's been taking the same line as Mike Johnson and other Republicans on Capitol Hill. But I do think there's a desire for some kind of endgame in Gaza. And we'll see if the Israeli government responds accordingly. Here's what Bernie Sanders had to say: cut 44. Sadly, Israel is becoming a pariah nation.

And all over the world, people are looking. At a situation where the government of Israel under Netanyahu and his right-wing extremist friends are starving children. Are you at the point yet where you would call what's happening in Gaza a genocide? You can use whatever word you want.

So Bernie Sanders gets up every day and hates Israel. That's not surprising, but a lot of people are beginning to agree with him in the Democratic Party. Yeah, and only in the I mean, it's definitely within the Democratic Party where Republicans unanimously voted to support Israel. If this was a military aid fund, support this is beyond the government. This is protecting Israel from the six many, many security threats it faces, as we all know.

Um so this goes I mean it it's one thing to criticize the government and certainly some of Netanyahu's uh coalition partners, but but The reason these types of resolutions have been rejected pretty significantly is that they would affect Israelis. They would affect Israel's ability to defend itself and cutting off military equipment.

So look, it's You had seventy votes total for for continuing the aid, but Bernie Sanders has gradually been able to get more Democrats in the Senate to take his his very left wing positions, his anti-Israel posturing.

So you're seeing you're seeing Israel becoming a more partisan issue where Republicans have been stalwart in support of the Jewish state as it defends itself against Hamas, and that's ultimately the goal for everyone to get Hamas out of power in Gaza and to to have a better future for everyone in the region. But um, ultimately that that seems to be downplayed when you hear all the Democrats talking about th this resolution. And they seem to be wanting to put more blame on Israel, which is defending itself, and that's why this war started in the first place, because Hamas Committed a brutal attack against Israel, right? And it's often forgotten, people have amnesia. But it seems like you don't hear much of that from the Democrats who supported these resolutions.

So we have another deal when it comes to these colleges. And our Secretary of Education, the anti-Semitism that raged on campus during the Biden years and a little bit when Trump took over is coming to an end, I hope. Columbia has paid $400 million to get their billions of dollars in aid back. Harvard evidently is in negotiations. I think yesterday Brown came in in Dartmouth.

Here's Linda McMahon on negotiations with Harvard, CUD 49.

Okay. Well, I can say we're still in negotiations. We are closer than we were. But we're not there yet. And they have a lawsuit pending.

But I think as we look at more and more things that Harvard is doing, I think they're aware that it would probably be to everybody's benefit if we could come to a settlement. How do you explain how much success the Trump team is having in getting these institutions to comply with basic fundamentals of higher education for the first time in decades? Yeah, no, I think it's basically power politics. The government has the power, and they've really spotlighted some of the worst and most egregious episodes of anti-Semitism on these elite campuses. And they've put these universities between a rock and a hard place, and they've threatened to withhold a lot of federal funding for a lot of elements that they threatened to really make a dent in the university's operations.

So even Harvard is seemingly moving towards a settlement. They want to cut a deal.

Now, I think the ultimate question is, is this more about money? I know there's a lot of settlements, and a lot of the financial payouts are the big headlines. I think the bigger issue is it's easy to forget that the reason that these issues have come up in the first place is because these universities tolerated just insane degrees of anti-Semitism on their campuses throughout much of the last couple of years. I think they're getting things right. They're starting to move on the right track.

But the key is the reforms and what the universities are actually doing to really make changes. I think Columbia, I think there are a lot of encouraging signs that they're actually making changes. And that was part of that settlement at Columbia. A little less clear about Brown and we'll see what happens at Harvard. But the ultimate.

Success of these agreements are going to be: are they actually changing their behavior? Are they cracking down on the anti-Semitism that was allowed to run rampant on some of these? I mean, they had no Jew zones on UCLA campus. I mean, the And UCLA settled. They actually settle themselves.

They realize that. But still, I mean, do you believe this? I mean, do you believe? I mean, I know I witnessed it, but in retrospect, when I read it, I said, I can't believe this is America, but I think Trump understands it. He's identifying it, and he clearly is attacking it.

Josh, thanks so much. Appreciate it. Thanks, Brian. Back in a moment. You're with Brian Kilmead.

Listen to the all-new Brett Baer podcast, featuring common ground, in-depth talks with lawmakers from opposite sides of the aisle, along with all your Brett Baer favorites like his all-star panel and much more. Available now at FoxnewsPodcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts. Information you want, truth you demand. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. I am deeply skeptical of pretty much every actor.

Mainstream media, including some people at this network. The UN is a hotbed of deceit and deception and self-dealing. UNRWA and Hamas are deeply in bed with each other. It's not entirely the fact that UNRWA is entirely run by Hamas, but it is deeply infiltrated by Hamas. Hamas is the government.

of Gaza. And if you read closely the coverage of this, if you read the UN statements about this, All of the responsibilities are on Israel to feed everybody. And I think Israel should do more.

Some of these images are legitimately terrible. But we who spend our time in T V should have some more acknowledgement of how badly things can go awry. When public policy and foreign policy are governed by images. Absolutely. And by the way, it's just unrealistic.

I mean, the biggest disappointment is just a joke. It's the symbolic move by France, the UK, and now Canada.

So the president's opening up on Canada and says, okay, forget about doing a trade deal now that you're going to go out of your way to recognize a two-state solution or a Palestinian state over in Israel.

So he's ticked off. He's ticked off at India saying, wow, you're going to continue to buy oil and gas from Russia, even though you're our ally. And you know what? He goes, maybe one day you'll be able to get your oil from Pakistan because we are doing a trade deal in Pakistan where we are going to start helping them drill their oil.

So, I think it's really important for people to get a perspective on what's going on. But Trump knows, Trump has a degree of certainty. That should reassure people. This is what he believes. This is what he'll do.

But if the facts change, he'll change. And that's what he's shown in Russia. Louisa LeBron, Kill Me Chill. Don't forget Sunday, 10 p.m., One Nation on Fox News Channel. Don't move.

I'm Dana Perino. This week on Perino on Politics, I am joined by a great friend of mine, Democratic strategist and senior vice president at the Messina Group. His name is Ty Matzdorf. Listen and follow now at FoxnewsPodcast.com. From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never sowing division.

It's Brian Kilmead. Hi, everyone. Welcome to the Brian Killmead Show.

So glad you're here. It's been a real busy week, a lot to discuss. Julian Epstein will break down the Democratic Party, where they go from here, especially with that radical Marxist that won the Democratic primary and is up by about 10 in New York, who has a little problem. We had a horrible shooting, a massacre. We had people die.

It could have been a lot worse. And the people that saved him and stopped it from being a whole lot worse. Are the cops that got there within two minutes and those of which he has been on the record saying that he wants to defund and said one of some of the most horrible things about him when he was assemblyman before and even when he was a candidate in May.

So let's get to the big three. Number three. I think though she got a little bit of a shock when she looked at some of those internal polling numbers and saw that, you know, despite having run for president, there was no overwhelming support for her in running for the governor's office in California. And going forward, I must say, you don't hear a lot of people on the ground saying, oh, yeah, we want her to come right back. Yeah, there you go.

Kamala Harris shocks many by declaring she's not running for California governor. What's next for her? What does it mean for the 28 field? Number two. To be very clear.

as I have been over the course of this campaign. I am not defunding the police. I am not running to defund the police. Right now, all those police officers are flooding the streets of the Bronx, the site of a mosque where the 36-year-old officer was called his own. That was where he went to worship, and that's where he lived, but he was gunned down on 345 Park Avenue.

While that happens, all the candidates for mayor are reporting. to the mosque to pay their respects. Number President Trump has raised the natural leverage of the U.S. market to really obtain some significant concessions from the Koreans. I mean, this is exactly the sweet spot that President Trump is hitting with trade partner after trade partner.

So there you go, another stunner. Trump announced another trade deal, this time with South Korea. Could India be next? They are brawling right now. Sadly, interest rates do not move, but the economy has added 104,000 jobs in the private sector, and the average pay went up 4.4%.

So there's other things going on. For example, last week was dominated. Three weeks ago, the story was in Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh, where they talked about the need. For investment into AI. Following the week, it was cryptocurrency and the need for regulations, but allow a groundwork in order for it to flourish.

And now we have a president that's looking to beat China and made it clear when it comes to AI, we have to beat China to the punch. Did some controversial things too, in terms of telling NVIDIA, you can sell. Your top chip, or one of your top chips to China, which previously have been banned. They convinced the president to do that because, number one, it would help them get a trade deal. Number two, they think that they would end up engineering their own and then we'd have absolutely no control over them.

What about the sanity of that move? Very few know better than Tristan Harris all about the dangers, challenges, and the pluses with AI, artificial intelligence. And Tristan joins us now. Tristan, welcome back. I would agree with you, Brian.

So, first off, do you agree with the President's objective? We have to beat China? Yes, there's really two things here, two objectives that I think President Trump is trying to manage. And he has the opportunity to be the most incredible leader for technology in U. S.

history because AI is the most transformative Technology. It's just important for people in your listeners to understand: intelligence is what got us all of science, all of technology, and all of our military advantages.

So if you beef up intelligence. It's sort of pumping power into your scientific, technological, and military advantage. It's like the one ring to rule them all from Lord of the Rings. And the problem though, as we've discussed Brian. is that the power that is being built in AI is also power we don't know how to control.

As we talked about, I think recently, there's just demonstrations the last few months that these latest AI systems, when you tell them, hey, we want to shut you down, It will actually avoid shutdown commands something like 90% of the time. You can tell them, hey. No, no, it this is stuff that we thought literally only existed in science fiction movies.

Now let me zoom out for a second because you're bringing up chips and it's such an important point. There's really two risks that we have to manage. with AI. There's the risks of building AI. and losing control because it's avoiding shutdown and hacking cyber systems or creating Crazy things in biology.

There's the risk of AI itself, and then there's the risk of not building AI, like having China build more advanced AI than we have, right?

So we need a response that leaves these two things. Together.

Now, typically, I'm on your show and we talk about the risks of AI itself, the risks of it cyber hacking various things, or just last week or two weeks ago, it won gold in the International Math Olympiad.

So, in other words, it's like beating us at math, it's beating us at science, it's beating us at cyber hacking. It's now, I think, the top 200 programmer in the world. AI is just moving so quickly.

Now, it's all this power, but now with this question about the chips. Last week, NVIDIA was basically allowed to sell our chips into China.

Now I think that this is a big mistake because we're basically playing into the propaganda of the Chinese Communist Party. The Chinese Communist Party is saying, hey, these chip controls, they're not really making a difference. Huawei, our company, is right behind you and you got to you should sell us the chips. And even Howard Luttnick, the Commerce Secretary, said. that China in twenty twenty five We'll make 200,000 Huawei AI chips.

Let me compare that number.

So two hundred thousand Huawei AI chips Compared to this year, NVIDIA will make something like 10 million. AI chips. And 200,000 chips from Huawei is only enough to fill Elon's single data center in Memphis, Tennessee. It's not that many chips. Whereas we're producing, again, more than 10x Potentially 20x of that.

And so I'm worried that we're making a big mistake here: that it's like selling the world uranium because we want to boost our GDP and boost our stock market. Obviously, that will boost our GDP and it'll boost our stock market, but we have to actually put our national security interests. Yeah. So I agree with you, but they say the the end the twenty chips, is it N twenty? Is it called N?

Is it N twenty? Or I think you're talking about the the H twenty, excuse me. H twenty, my bad. But the best ones are the H one hundreds. We held them back.

Nvidia went went and lobbied Trump and they said, look, if we sell it to them, We're in the game together. But if we don't, they're going to try to engineer their own. Maybe they'll figure it out. Likely they will. They'll steal it somehow.

And then we'll have zero control.

So we might as well get something for this, and the president ends up being won over by that argument, and maybe some more. Right.

And the question is: how close is Huawei to catching up? Because if they're really close, then I understand this argument, right? Because we got to basically get American chefs out there and create a dominant American tech stack. That's the argument for it. But the question is, really, the crux of the argument is whether Huawei is right behind us or whether they're many years.

Uh, behind us. And in the sort of You know, data that I have seen, it is estimated that they are years behind us in this technology. And it's important that even though you said the H20, this chip, right, it's going to account for something like 70% of all AI computing needs. I won't go into the details for your listeners, but basically, there's sort of two sides of AI: one is like the chips you need to train it, and the other is like the chips you need to run it. The H20 are the chips you need to run it.

And by 2026, The shifting need to run it are going to account for 70% of all the computing needs.

So it's a big deal, it's where the world is going. And quality chips are not only inferior, they're also unreliable. They frequently overheat. There's a bunch of problems with them. And so I worry that we are falling into Huawei's propaganda and allowing a private company of NVIDIA to prioritize profits over our national security interests.

Like I said before, we don't sell nuclear technology to China. Why would we sell this chips? Because let's establish one more fact, Brian. China is actually currently faster at building out energy than the US. We all know this.

We know that energy is a big component to whether the US wins the race to AI.

So we don't have an advantage over energy, but we do have an advantage in talent, and we have an advantage in chips.

So we don't want to give up this advantage. And I think there's a lot of Republicans who are pushing back right now saying, hey, this isn't over. We shouldn't make this mistake. And there's still an opportunity to turn it around. Yeah, I know what you mean.

I can see this argument. I think the stronger argument is not to sell it. But I see the argument on the other side, too. I just think it's fascinating to see what's going on where the president went to deal mode instead of confrontation mode. We know he could do both.

And he's done both with them.

So we'll see where that goes. Tristan, the other thing we talked about is Zuckerberg. Mark Zuckerberg is coming out with superintelligence that will create a new era of empowerment. Here's his quote. The rest of the decade seems like to be the decisive period for determining the path of this technology will take and whether superintelligence will be a tool for personal empowerment or a force focused on replacing large swaths of society.

Already we understand AI is wiping out a lot of the entry-level positions for new graduates. Your thoughts about where we're going? Yeah, well, I mean, Mark Zuckerberg said basically that he wants to put super intelligence in every pair of eyeglasses, right? But imagine the same technology for AI in, so I mean, would you trust your children to have Mark Zuckerberg's basically AI in their glasses? We have already created, as we've talked about before, Brian, the most anxious and depressed generation in literal U.S.

history because we allow this toxic business model that's not based on helping kids be as healthy and growing as possible. Instead, this is a business model that's based on maximizing attention and engagement and addiction, which means sexualized content. That means things that make kids anxious and depressed. And would you want to put that AI directly into the glasses of your children?

Now, it's important, AI can decode invisible signals.

So, you're going to have an AI, super intelligence. listening to every conversation. monitoring every twitch in your face. scanning the faces of every person. This risks creating a massive surveillance state.

And you have to ask again the question, does Meta or Mark Zuckerberg have a good track record with regards to his position? I don't think that's the answer is very good. One last thing, Brian, is that he is Mark Duckerberg is handing out one hundred million dollar signing bonuses to individual AI talent and reportedly, as of yesterday, offered a billion dollars To a single person, Mira Marati, who's one of the co-founders of OpenAI, to leave her startup and to join him on his superintelligence team. And you might say, why is Mark Zuckerberg willing to spend $100 million for a signing bonus for a single employee or a billion dollars? And the answer is that those figures are nothing compared to the multi-trillion dollar prize at the end of the rainbow if you build super intelligence first, because basically he's building a god, owning the economy, and making trillions of dollars.

But as we know, again, what's dangerous about this is that AI is not a technology we know how to control right now. And so these are all the problems that we face. Unbelievable, Tristan. And for the one thing you were in the studio, Tristan Harris with us, co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology. He's been trying to tell everybody the dangers of social media for a while.

And we know, remember Social Dilemma, the documentary. But, Tristan, you said here last time: say, listen. Let's be responsible about it. Last time we were first to social media and to the internet, and we lost control over it, and it seems like. The the Chinese, for all their sense thanks to their oppressive tactics, have more control over social media than we do, and it's uh raising a whole bunch of depressed kids who don't know how to communicate.

So let's be careful. But you're saying the risk is greater to having uh the Chinese set the pace.

Well, no, it's actually both, Brian. I so appreciate you bringing up that quote. We to the degree we're in a race with China, we're in a race for who is better at integrating AI into their society in a way that's actually positive and constructive.

So let me give you one quick example. You know that during final exams week in China, they shut down the AI models that let the kids sort of pass in their homework or their test questions and automatically do their homework. It's really smart because it means that kids during the school year know that they can't just rely on AI to do their homework because during final exam week, they won't be able to rely on AI. And which society is going to win? The one that has a smart policy that prevents kids from just basically maximally using AI to cheat?

Or the ones that actually have it.

So it's the same thing with social media. Which society is going to win? You know, they give, in China, they regulate TikTok and they give them the digital spinach version, but they export the kind of digital drugs version to the U.S. and the rest of the world.

So we get the kind of nonsense, most addictive, most incendiary content. And they get patriotism videos, videos about who won the Nobel Prize, how to invest your money and be successful, these kinds of things. And so again, it's about who's better at governing the impact of the technology.

So we have to weave between these two risks, the risks of AI and also the risks of not building AI. There is a path through, but it's very narrow. People can check out. I gave a TED Talk a few weeks ago online. If you Google for Tristan Harris and Ted, you'll see the TED Talk.

Go get it. I'll do that. Tristan, always great to talk to you. I know our audience loves you. And very few people can rival your knowledge of this area.

Tristan Harris, thank you. Always grateful to be with you, Brian. All right. Back in a moment. Bottom of the hour, Julian Epstein, Inside the Democratics Tactics from here.

Also, the President of the United States, the former President of the United States, is going to be speaking today. We'll tell you to whom and why. Giving you everything you need to know. You're with Brian Kilmead. Fox News Audio presents Unsolved with James Patterson.

Every crime tells a story, but some stories are left unfinished.

Somebody knows. Real cases, real people. Listen and follow now at FoxtrueCrime.com. From his mouth to your ears, it's Brian Kilmead. Hey, welcome back, everybody.

Bottom of the out with Julian Epstein, and of course. Got to remind you, Fox Nation, I'm going to be streaming that show August 23rd in Dallas. Go to BrianKillmee.com. I want to see you in person. Danny, you're in Israel.

Danny, Steve Woodkoff, heading your direction. Might even drop into Gaza. How's Europe recognizing A free Palestine going over in Israel. Hi, Brian. Thank you for having me again.

Yes, I wanted to touch a bit with this issue, especially focusing on Macron and Starmail and now Canada recognizing the Palestinian state. which is actually recognized in the Hamas terror stage, as you know. What they did, Brian, is exactly the opposite of what is needed now to release the hostages and stop the war. And they they are actually sabotaging President Trump's efforts to achieve a ceasefire. and they are actually awarding Hamas for Terror.

But Brian, let's be honest, you know, let's be a Yeah, let's be honest, Macron and Stalmet are not doing it because they believe that it will bring peace to the Middle East. They do it because they want to placate the extreme leftist and Islamic groups in their country, who actually control their governments.

So this should serve as a warning from French and English people regarding the direction in which the Socialist parties are leading them to a Marxist and an Islamic state. What English Conservatives call London stun, Brian. That that's my opinion. Right, because all these Muslims are over there, no doubt about it. By the way, we understand now Donald Trump has extended the trade deal for Mexico.

for another uh another ninety days So that's just in. I don't know how they why Mexico gets another ninety days. Uh, that astounds me. Maybe it's because their extreme cooperation, that at least judging by the results, uh, when it comes to Uh when it comes to Uh the what's happening at the border. Because we know the southern border has been great.

So we'll see where that goes. So the president also says, I'm not extending India.

So that's interesting because India is one of our leading trading partners.

So you got Mexico, Canada and India that have yet to come in. And China, we think, is going to have more substantial progress by August twelfth. But they've seen both sides do very little bloviating, very little politicking, and really drill down on the numbers. A few things that Trump's doing. He is um not going easy on Taiwan.

They're not letting the Taiwan President come across our country right now because it would aggravate the situation. Being a little bit more tougher on India, who is a rival of China. And I think that he's trying to get China to act in Ukraine. Because if China wants Russia to stop fighting, they can hold back the dual-use weapons. It's the Will Kane Show.

Watch it live at noon Eastern, Monday through Thursday on FoxNews.com or on the Fox News YouTube channel. And don't miss a show. Get the podcast five days a week at FoxNewsPodcasts.com or wherever you download your favorite podcasts. A talk show that's real. This is the Brian Kill Me Show.

Just over a year ago, I launched my campaign for President of the United States, 107 days traveling the country. fighting for our future. the shortest presidential campaign in modern history. It was intense. High stakes, and deeply personal for me and for so many of you.

Since leaving office, I've spent a lot of time reflecting on those days. talking with my team, my family, my friends. and pulling my thoughts together. in essence, writing a journal. That is, this book, A Hundred and Seven Days.

Right.

When you do very few interviews, travel around a lot and spend a billion dollars, go to a microphone and leave, you could always run into the car or go to the green room and finish off your book. That's what she did: 107 days to lose a billion plus and still owe money. And now, Kamala Harris has said, I will not run for governor. Personally, I think it's because it's too hard of a job. because you'll have to actually show up every single day and deal with a huge deficit, high taxes, high energy subsidies, a huge illegal immigrant problem, the largest homeless population.

She's getting whoever comes in after Gavin Newsom is getting a hand grenade. Joining us now to discuss this is Julian Epstein, served as Chief Counsel, House Judicial Committee and Staff Director to the House Oversight Committee for Democrats for years, and he joins us now. Julian, what about her decision not to run as governor? Are you surprised? No, and I slightly disagree with you on that, Brian.

I don't think she's scared about. How difficult the job is. I think she's scared that she couldn't win, that she doesn't have a constituency. Yeah. I think she ran the most incompetent presidential campaign.

In history, as far as I'm concerned. And she did when she was running in 2019, 2020. And there's massive reports of her staff. Resigning en masse and running an incompetent sort of Senate office. No, I don't think she could win.

Um you go back and you look at um Sort of all of her riffs on what culture is, and you know, has she been to the border, and what has been all of that? You know, she. If it came out of anyone else's mouth, you would think that there was something wrong with the person. I mean, the number of incoherent You know, riffs and statements and sort of, you know, wanderings that she engaged in. She was just not a competent candidate.

She never indicated that she had any command of the issues, which is why her staff hid her from the press. If we were anyone else, people would be saying she was an empty suit. And I think for the obvious reasons, people don't want to say she's an empty suit. But I think she's she fears that she's better off With her brand not running and leaving people wondering, then running and having a campaign that would collapse. Who do you think right now?

Do you know names of people that might run for governor outside Steve Hilton on the right, which is going to be tough? But outside Steve Hilton, who else is running that? That is God blackly to be a successor. I think Caruso is gaining more support than we recognize. The guy who ran for mayor in Los Angeles.

Rick Caruso. I don't, yeah, I don't think. I think the broad theme here. Um For a number of reasons, Brian, is that Democrats don't have much of a bench anywhere. They don't have much of a bench in California.

They certainly don't have a bench. To speak of nationally, I mean, there's no candidate. That jumps out at you. As somebody who can get 50-plus votes in 2028. And part of that is because the Democrats are.

Are suffocating from ideologies that are unpopular. And part of it is because they're suffering from. This vocabulary of anger, which is also very unpopular.

So the Democrats are in the dumps right now for a All because of their own doing. And I don't think they know how to climb out of it.

So a couple of things. Let's uh fast forward to the mayor's race. And in New York City, and why it's such a bigger deal. I want you to hear Zoram M. Dani try to explain the defunded police statements he's made as late as May of this year and how now that it's they had that horrible shooting on Monday in New York City, he comes back from Uganda and says this, amongst other things.

Cut twenty one. And the vision that we've put forward in this campaign Despite what others may say, it is not to defund the police, it is in fact to allow those officers to respond to the serious crimes that many of them signed up. to address And to do so, That We ask them to focus on those crimes and we ask mental health professionals to respond. to calls of mental health crises. And as it pertains to the Strategic Response Group, When it was first formed, There was an intention for its use to be more akin to the manner in which it was deployed earlier this week.

Yeah. So he is against that force. He wanted to disband it, called him horrible things. And to fund the police, he said it a million different ways since twenty twenty.

So he's trying to do some damage control while also knowing he still believes what he believes. He wants a social worker to show up with domestic disputes. It's not going to work. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, it's a joke.

You know the term retcon? It's the term when you are trying to con someone into believing that what you said five minutes ago you really didn't say five minutes ago.

So he's conning the public to say, you know, he's been talking about defunding the police since 2019 and again through last May, as you pointed out. And then to come and make it into the general election and say, oh, no, I really didn't mean that. It gives you one of two options for him: either he's completely hollow and has no core beliefs and can change with the shifting winds. Or he's lying. But in either case, it's not good.

And the big question, I mean, this. Tees up the big question for the Democrats today, Brian, which is that the centrists. The same people inside the Democratic Party know the socialist left is driving them off a cliff, but they are too. They are too scared to stand up to the left because what the left has done is they have weaponized social media to shame people that dissent and to try to cancel people that dissent. You saw that happen with Seth Moulton when he came out against women and men playing in women's sports.

And so the centrists in the party, the leaders, the Chuck Schumers, the Hakeem Jeffries, these are small men. These are weak leaders. These are people that don't know how to stand up when they know something is wrong, when they know the party's going off the cliff, because they're too scared of the personal repercussions from the disaffected in the party that will go after them. And this is in essence what the dilemma is for the Democratic Party today. Here's Elise DeFonic, who's probably going to run for governor.

I hope so. She is an extremely sharp, very impressive congresswoman from upstate New York. This is what she said yesterday to Larry Kudlow, cut 28. You have Kathy Hochl, who is the leader of the New York Democrat Party. You have Chuck Schumer, the leader of the Democrat Party in the Senate from New York, eligible to vote in the New York mayoral race, hasn't said who he voted for in that primary.

And you have Hakeem Jeffries, the leader of the New York Democrat Party in the House, in the minority. He also hasn't said who he voted in that mayoral primary. And reporters, where they chase Republicans down and ask who you voted for in primary, they haven't asked that question. Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries need to answer who did they vote for in the Democrat primary for mayor. I want to know, was it Momdami or who was it if it was not him?

And then what is their position? They have refused to condemn him. They own his position. Well, you know, they haven't endorsed him, so you know they didn't vote for him.

So they probably voted for Cuomo. And Cuomo's down by about 10 points, and he's a scandal-ridden guy who would do a terrible job. He lost to any type of zeal that he presented.

So I don't know what's going to stop him, but if he wins, word was Hakeem Jefferies told others that if he wins, they can't win the House back. What does Julian Epstein think?

Well, if Mandami wins they can't win the House back. Yeah, because they're going to say that will be the face of the Democratic Party. It will be the face, and every Democrat across the country will be asked if they agree or disagree. And what it portends, I think it's bad for winning the House back, no question. I think it portends a civil war within the Democratic Party for the foreseeable future.

And it's a cold war right now, but it could become a very, very hot war. And I think it will just lay open. The wounds of the Democratic Party, the sort of the dying dinosaurs who are in the centrist, and the increasing move to the socialist left. Which just believes in growing the welfare state and the nihilism of woke, which means destroy everything we know, destroy gender, destroy the rules of racial non-discrimination, destroy the borders, which American people hate.

So I think it means that you will see a more prominent, angry socialist left, which will become the face of the party, and that will mean. I the potential death of the Democratic Party. As far as Elisa Stefanik, She represents the realignment of the Republican Party that is increasingly gaining the centrist wing. You know, if I were a New York resident, I would be extremely tempted to vote for her as a Democrat because she was brilliant on the anti-Semitism. She was brilliant at the way she just took down Hockle and the New York delegation.

And she speaks common sense. I think she is a rock star. And I would be very tempted to raise money for her. I would be very tempted to vote for her because I think she represents a Republican Party that is increasingly capturing. The political center.

Look at what Trump did on the trade deals. You know, what Trump did on the trade deals. That is where the Democrats used to be during the Clinton administration. You know, fair trade, protect workers. Uh Limit the slave labor that's coming in from open borders.

I mean, this is sort of what centrist Democratic positions were in the 1990s. And now the Republicans, with the help of Trump and people like Stefanik, are starting to occupy this political center. And it portends, I think, a really serious realignment in American politics. Let's talk about education and the progress they're making. I think it was UCLA $6 million to $200 million.

Harvard and Brown are now, Dartmouth and Brown are now paying.

Now you have another university, Columbia, $500 million to fight anti-Semitism on campus, restructure things, pay off people like the janitors that got beat up because they tried to hold on to that office building two years ago. Here's Linda McMahon on the series of victories in higher education, Cut 48. In the settlement, it does agree to protect students on campus and to make sure they are still cracking down on anti-Semitism. They also have agreed, you know, to recognize women as women and men as men, and not to allow men in women's sports, and women can have private dressing facilities, etc. And they've also agreed to get rid of the DEI and their hiring practices to make sure that it's based on merit, and promotions and admissions are based on merit and not on other ideologies.

How significant is what's happening in higher education right now? Very significant. And again, something I completely support. As you know, I've written about this many times in the New York Post and elsewhere. You know, I always say that if what happened to Jewish students happened to black students, if they were intimidated, if they were blocked from going to classes, if there were black free zones on campuses, if they were told to go back to their countries of origin, the left, the heads would be exploding on the left.

But this happened regularly to Jews on a false narrative that the Palestinian movement is a liberation movement. The Palestinian movement has repeatedly rejected peace. But if this were happening to black or brown students, the left's heads would be exploding. There wouldn't be any question. But when it comes to Jews, the left sort of shrugs, which is sort of the neo-racism, what Coleman Hughes calls the neo-racism of the neo-racism of the American left.

So I think what they've done is groundbreaking. I think it's very important. What I don't think they're doing enough of, if I had to find an area of criticism, is the universities are becoming a monoculture of leftist groupthink that is particularly anti-Western. Anti-American, whenever you hear a studies department, Mideast studies, gender studies, colonial studies, these are code words for. a pedagogy that is essentially This notion that the West and the US is oppressive, an idea that nobody agrees with.

And this is pervasive within the faculty lounges of the elite universities. If, again, if you had a pedagogy that was giving rise to sort of KKK anti-black violent sentiment that was happening in universities, the left would be all over it. But this is, in fact, happening on universities. It's just directed at other minority groups. It's directed at Jews and it's directed particularly at the remarkable things that Western civilization has achieved in the last three centuries.

But it's very fashionable in faculty lounges to be anti-West. It's the way you get advanced, it's the way you get tenure, it's the way you get noticed. Being angry and complaining about sort of what things, what happened in your parents' generation, is a good way to advance yourself in academia. It's a culture. It's a monoculture, an anti-Western monoculture.

I think they've made progress on that, but I think there's a lot more work to be done. But I think what Trump has done, again, is something that will be widely supported by many constituencies, not just Jewish Americans, but sort of common sense Americans. And I think, again, this. Yeah. A lot of people that came up like myself in the Democratic Party in the 1990s look at the Democrats today, don't recognize them, see what Trump is doing.

And I can say as a Democrat, Brian, I think a lot of what Trump is doing is really great, and I support it. And I don't mind saying that.

So, the Trump administration struck a deal with Brown for, I think, $200 million. They'd be open to doing a deal with Harvard for $500 million. And we know that they got $6 million from UCLA for setting up no-Jew zones and all the horrible things they've been teaching.

So, I want to see how it's implemented. I want to see if this curriculum, as much as I want a private university to be private and make their own decisions, I think with the anti-Americanism raging and the anti-Semitism raging, there's got to be some oversight.

So, I hope we do this in an intelligent way because it's got to be sustainable. Whether Trump wins or Trump's party wins or not in three years, this has got to be something both sides agree on. I would think. Julian Epstein, thanks so much. Thanks, Brian.

Back in a moment. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. Hey, I'm Trey Goutdey, host of the Trey Goutde 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.com.

A radio show like no other. It's Brian Killmade. Sponsored by Previgen. Previgion made for your brain. Hey, welcome back, everyone.

Just filling out this hour. I mean, Julian Epstein, the reality of the party is I think a lot of Democrats feel like Julian. They don't know what's going on, and they see this guy Mondami as mayor of New York City. And they wonder if it's going to be Abigail Spamberger, somebody who says the CIA background: hey, you know what? I'm going to run as a moderate and try to win in Virginia.

Is it going to be Governor Whitmer, who I think leans way left but is looked at as a moderate now as governor in Michigan? I think there's a lot to consider, and there's also the Democratic standard bearer, which is Barack Obama, who has come out in the past and say where this country, where this party is heading, is not good. He also brought up the rhetoric when it comes to men and women, let alone men and women in sports, cut thirty-five. I will say. as quote unquote Progressives Didn't it?

Democrats uh progressive parents, enlightened ones. We've made that mistake sometimes in terms of our rhetoric. where it's like we're constantly talking about it, you know. what's wrong with the boars instead of what's right with them. Yeah, then he went on, cut thirty-six.

We rightly have tried to invest in girls to make sure that. the there's a level playing field and then they're not barred from from opportunities. But we haven't been as willing, I think, to be Intentional about investing in the boys, and that's been a mistake. And I think people are starting to recognize that. The whole political correctness thing is driving people nuts.

And everyone kept their head down, didn't worry about it, didn't speak up. Leagues acquiesced and did all the self-flagellation that we saw and accepted the taking a knee before games and that we're an oppressive society. And then all of a sudden, people picked their head up, looked around, and go, No, we're not. I'm not going to do that. Doesn't make sense to me.

Doesn't make sense to you either. Really? We're not alone in this? Absolutely. And now the political rightness, the DEI, the whole green fever, has finally broken.

And the person that went along with it the whole time was Joe Biden, who even when he was sane was more of a moderate, certainly was strong on crime. And went all the way to the left over the last two years. He left the party in tatters, and his report card, even though his son thinks it's great, is absolutely awful. And Trump's first six months are hugely impactful, even when you watch people scramble to get to score on him. It's all about Epstein.

But Epstein's got to be a dry hole, believe me. You go ahead, put all your money there. This is Jimmy Phala, inviting you to join me for Fox Across America, where we'll discuss every single one of the Democrats' dumb ideas. Just kidding, it's only a three-hour show. Listen live at Noon Eastern or get the podcast at foxacrossamerica.com.

Mm.