The Brian Kilmeade Show

From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest growing radio talk show. Brian Kilmead.

So glad you're there. It's the Brian Kilmey Show, and a very exciting week leading up to Easter. Nothing slowing down. Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick, always looking to make things work in Congress, will be with us, moderate from Pennsylvania, Ways and Means Committee. And now we have some movement on DHS.

Brett Baer is standing by, Chief Political Actor at Fox News and hosts of Special Report. He's got his great podcast and to rescue the American Spirit, Teddy Roosevelt, and The Birth of a Superpower. He's got another book coming out shortly, too. And we'll be taking your calls. But first, before we get to Brett, the Congressman, let's get to the big three.

Number three. free. All right, Charlie, your Artemis II crew is go for launch. Full send. Good luck.

Godspeed Artemis 2. Let's go. And they're off. Artemis blasts off to the moon, and America once again is inspired. Quietly, space has become a strong part of Donald Trump's legacy.

The next goal: get back on the moon before China gets there. Number two: We're in a new world now, as Justolita pointed out to, where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who's a U.S. citizen.

Well, it's a new world. It's the same constitution. Right. It is. You're right, and that's the whole conversation.

There's the same Constitution that does accept amendments. Birthright citizenship front and center at the Supreme Court, with the president front and center at the Supreme Court. We look at the arguments and how Trump already made a strong case for change, but where and how it could happen is something else. Number one. I can say tonight that we are on track to complete all of America's military objectives shortly.

We're going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. Day 33 of a war that should last a few more weeks. You heard the president as he lays out the case and updates America. We look at the game plan, gas prices, and likely outcomes. Brett, welcome back.

Hey, Brian. Hey, first off, I go back to what Pete Hagsteth said, Secretary of War, two days ago, and he said, get ready for decisive action in the next couple of days. Decisive action could mean two things, uranium and open up the Strait of Hermuz. Do you believe the President's looking at two game plan two separate war plans there? I think so.

You know, he's. The last night was designed, I think, to shore up what they saw in polls, which was Republicans and especially the base still with the President, but really has questions have questions about why and how long. And some of that was designed to be in that speech. You know, a lot of people said, why didn't he do it at the beginning? Obviously, they wanted the element of surprise at the very beginning.

Now he wants to forecast what the objectives will be and how long it'll take. I do think I know for a fact he's been presented a number of different menu of options. And judging by his tone, I think the hope is that they're going to finish these targets and Iran is going to come to its senses and make some kind of deal. If not, There is a real concern about how you get the strait secured, and he's looking for other nations to step up. Right.

But I mean, if anyone's going to take an island or block an island to stop oil, it's going to be us. And the UAE has offered to help. Offered to help, but I can't ever see the French, British saying, hey, I got one boat, I borrowed it from Germany, I'll do it. Yeah, no, you're right. And, you know, the UK is leading this 35-nation.

You know, call, essentially Zoom call, to try to get some consensus about what it looks like, but only after kinetic action has stopped, which is not that helpful in the big picture. But they're concerned about how they're going to get their oil and natural gas. That 70, 80% of it goes through the strait.

So there's a Foxto's poll. They asked people, you support this military action. 42% say yes. 58% say no. And what are you very what are you very and extremely concerned about?

Number one is inflation, eighty six percent. Number two is health care, eighty one percent, gas prices eighty percent, political divisions eighty percent, Unemployment 73%. Islamic extremism 73%. Uh and it goes Iran is at sixty-six percent. but I believe it's eleventh on the priority list.

That's what the President's up against. I think he's done the right thing, addressing a problem seven Presidents didn't fully or adequately. But at the same time, the American people are focused on inflation, and uh and gas prices. Yeah. And, you know, he talked a little bit about that.

He believes that it's all going to change once this action is finished. He believes that he's doing something for the good of the world. And it makes him upset to think that the UK Prime Minister says it's not our war when Iran with a nuclear weapon is everybody's war or everybody's problem, I should say. Anyway, I think that that was the purpose of the speech.

Now, whether it moves the needle or changes the dynamic politically, I don't know. I think the end of the two weeks is likely to be the thing that shifts things.

So, right now at the UN, believe it or not, a long time an organ for extremist behavior, a place for Russia and China to block things, they're actually, the UAE is bringing up a resolution. right now that has obviously our support condemning the shutting down of the of Hormuz, asking for a Security Council resolution. And you know who's pushing back on this? The Europeans, especially the French. What kind of world are we in right now where the Gulf states get it and the Europeans don't?

Yeah, it's really interesting, really interesting. And Spain and Italy, France, those decisions and the U.K., frankly, those decisions that they're making have long-term impacts. And, you know, it's not a joke to say that the President is considering repositioning or reposturing U.S. forces in the wake of some of the decisions that these countries have made. And that has long-term implications, you know.

And I think you could see something at the end of this that relooks at some of those relationships. Yeah, Macron, the headline is this morning, says, reopening the strait by force is unrealistic.

Okay. Thanks for your help. Dennis Ross was on with us yesterday, and you know him. The ambassador has served six presidents, Republicans and Democrats. This is what he says he thinks happening on the ground, Cut 11.

As time goes by, when this is over, the contradictions within the regime are going to come to the fore. If you ask me, Within 12 months, this regime will not exist anymore. Or you'll end up with a kind of Iranian Gorbachev who will emerge, who will realize the Islamic Republic can't exist unless it is reformed in a fundamental way.

So that's when you have the change in the character of the regime. Whether the Iranian people rise up remains to be seen. It's only a matter of time. I'm not saying it falls immediately or changes immediately. But within a year or so, we will see a change in Iran.

Do you talk the people you talk to, do do some of them say what what Dennis is saying? Yeah, a lot of them do, actually. They don't put a timeline on it. But in this state, with the IRGC losing its control over large portions of the country because they've been taken out and their command and control has been taken out and their barracks and security apparatus has been taken out, there is, you know, it's time that will lead to a change. Whether the change comes from within, and to his point, the Gorbachev who steps up or the Del C Rodriguez who steps up and says we need to have a change of policy on how we deal with the world is yet to be seen.

But I think that I hear that a lot, that this is setting the table for what the Iranians will do. I think the Israeli perspective is a little different and they want to force the issue a little more. And lastly, Brett. It looks like I'm looking all this morning, and the New York Times has it, and some other outlets have it. It looks like the foreign minister that was evidently talking with J.D.

Vance. His family's been assassinated and he's been in the hospital. Evidently, some type of airstrike.

So That's one of the issues when you take out these high-value targets. You don't know if one of those targets, in many cases, would be one we can deal with. We have not found a moderate yet that we can deal with. in Iran, and that's through multiple decades. But I don't know if you've heard that.

But one of these guys is targeted. It's been a concern from the U.S. perspective, and they've tried to cross with the Israelis to delineate who they want to work with because at one point Lauren Johnny was said to be the guy that maybe is the one that could turn and start negotiating, and he was taken out by the Israelis. The president said, I want ties, not turbans. And they're having a hard time finding that person.

All right. Brett, you have not named, I know you had one of your TikTok questions yesterday was about naming your panel. I know you put up a roster every day and everyone shows up in the locker room to see if their name's on it. Do you have you named your panel yet? Have you put the roster up?

I have not. I have not. Yeah, yeah, I just put the roster up. We're going to see who makes the cut.

Now, you have another book coming out. I do. It's to the case for America. And it's essentially a case in front of a jury why America is a great place ahead of the 250th. It taps into the six presidents I've written about and then a bunch of interviews with folks like Ken Langone and Condi Rice and all these really amazing American stories that makes the case for America.

So it's literally be in front of a jury of your peers and then kind of a verdict at the end. And I'm excited about it. I mean, it's ahead of the 250th. It comes out May 5th. Nice.

And where can you pre-order it? Everywhere you order books, but you can go to Brett Baer dot com and there's a whole uh thing about the books and you can uh order it right there. Awesome. I look forward to it, Brett. Look forward to you coming by.

That'll bring you to New York. It'll be great. Yes, sir. Maybe this will be the book tour where we hang out. Just me and you walking the city streets, going from Irish pub to Irish pub.

Do you think that'll happen?

Well, I mean, you could also invite me to these big things that you throw, these big auditoriums. I mean, I can do, I can ask you questions about your book. Oh, right. That'll be good. Oh, so I should bring Brett Baer down to my fall tour.

That America's clamoring about. Yeah, we'll do that. How about this? We have style.

Well, you can pick one. You got Jacksonville. You have St. Louis. You have the Westbury Music Fair.

You got New Jersey. Clearwater, Florida.

So we'll try to find something near you. All right. I think Jacksonville and Clearwater are sound possibilities. All right, good. Uh that'll be it.

And then afterwards we just hang out and we just talk, right? Yeah. Well Done. All right. Back in a moment.

Fred Fair tonight at six. Real talk, real guests, real insight, where curiosity meets conversation is the Brian Killmeat Show. Radio that makes you think. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. We're in a new world now, as Justolita pointed out to you, where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child is a U.S.

citizen.

Well, it's a new world. It's the same constitution. It is and. As Justice Scalia said, I think in the case that Justice Lito was referring to, you've got a constitutional provision that addresses certain evils and it should be extended to reasonably comparable evils. He said that about statutory interpretation.

I think the same principle applies here. Don't you? I mean, the same thing. I mean, isn't that why you're in this meeting? The Supreme Court is seeing it, they saw potential with birthright citizenship.

So, what they were trying to do. And I'm not going to try to outmaneuver Jonathan Turley when it comes to defining the law. But essentially, people are abusing our system. They're coming here just to give birth to a kid, make it an American citizen. At the age of 21, they could send for their parents and sometime sooner, or they just stay and nobody asks if you're a Democratic.

Administration, no one ever asked for your idea, you just stay, and that's my kidney's an American citizen.

Now, if you're trying to get the American dream, that's one approach, you're breaking the system, but that's one approach. But then there's people that just want to infiltrate our system. There's a sense in Mexico, if you listen to Peter Schweitzer, there's an organized way that Mexico essentially wants to infiltrate our country, but nobody's more egregious in doing it. and more transparent in their approach. Then China.

So now that they've exposed this and they tell them that one out of 10 births is from an illegal in America, and they look at this case and say birthright citizenship is not where it should have been intended. It was supposed to be because segregationists and racists back in the 1860s, after 1868, after the Civil War, did not want to give citizenship to African Americans and their kids.

So they had to pass this amendment.

So they had to pass this amendment.

Well, it's a much different time now. That's why you have amendments. Andy McCarthy listened to the arguments. And almost everybody says it's not going to pass. But when President Trump first brought it up, they said it had no chance.

And now people are really getting worried that it does have a chance. I'm not worried, I love it. Cut twenty eight. But what the President was always facing here is If you have something that's been on the books for over a century, even originalist judges who might be inclined to rethink the original meaning of this provision of the 14th Amendment are going to be backed up by star A decisis, which is this principle that we respect precedent. And then the other thing is the court could be uncomfortable with the idea that the president gets to change this unilaterally, particularly when the executive is not the branch of government that's really usually in charge in this realm.

So the Washington Post says there's two paths. The first path on birthright citizenship is a sweeping constitutional ruling that the 14th Amendment of 1868 requires automatic citizenship for anyone born to immigrants in the country illegally, for now and all time, right? The second is a narrower ruling that blocks Trump's unilateral effort to rewrite U.S. citizenship rules, but Leaves the door cracked. For Congress to legislate on this subject in the future.

So here's an example.

So I'm not saying that You have to do paperwork in order to go to a maternity award. At any point, last minute emergency. At some point, you got to do paperwork. If it's an emergency, you do it after. If it's not, you do it before.

And then make sure, okay, you got your room to give birth. Why can't during that process, you also have not only a license that shows you were born here? That you're here legally.

So, if you're not, it doesn't mean that the hospital refuses you, but you're not an American citizen. And there's got to be a system for that. Everybody knows it. There's systems with everything, whether it comes to voting, when it comes to going to an airport, if you want to get clear or TSA, you got to go through the background check. You want to get into a bar, you want to show an ID in order to get some liquor.

There's something there.

So you just find out if it's birth tourism.

So you got this a billionaire in China with 100 kids through surrogates. They are American citizens. They go home, they become communists, they come back and they can vote in our elections. They could run for office. If you see this happening, What is wrong with doing what they do before if you're marrying someone from another country?

You marry someone from Brazil. At one point, in order for that person, let's say a guy marrying a woman. From Brazil. They're going to be in separate rooms. They're going to ask them questions to make sure you're not marrying this guy just to get citizenship.

And you got to answer some questions. If they suspect something, you're out. Why can't you do something like that with birthright citizenship?

Okay, both your parents were not born here. We'll help you out with the hospital. But being that we give so much in social services, everybody wants it. That's illegal. And then people want to abuse our system, infiltrate our system, birth tourism.

That's a problem. And if we admit that, can we go into Congress and actually get something done? That's the bigger question. All right, you listen to the Brian Kilman Show. We come back, the big compromise.

Sounds like the old compromise with DHS. Everything's funded except ICE and Border Patrol with no reforms. House is going to take that up on Monday. How does Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick feel about that? The Republican from Pennsylvania.

Don't move. Don't let tax refund worries hold you back. File now with TurboTax on Intuit Credit Karma. They'll find every credit and deduction to help you get every refund dollar you deserve or your money back. Start filing today in the Credit Karma app.

Breaking news. Unique opinions. Hear it all on the Brian Kill Me Joe. This gambit that was done last night is a joke. Under the subheading Border Security Operations and under the heading US Customs and Border Protection and under the headings of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In the Department of Homeland Security, shall be zero. We're not doing that. And it is unconscionable to me. that the Democrats would force some sort of Negotiation at three o'clock in the morning and try to hoist this upon the American people and then get on their jets and go home for their holiday. Yeah, and guess what happened now?

After a week off, we realized they have nowhere to go. They had to go back and take that deal that Speaker Johnson hated. Because it does not fund border, does not fund the D8, it does not fund ICE. Has no reforms.

So Democrats are holding out for reforms just like they were holding out for healthcare. They got neither one of them. But they do have a chance not to fund ICE, which is going to be, I think, passed or attempted passed on another reconciliation spending bill. Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick, working with Tom Swazi to try to find a way forward in his own way, like he does often, joins us now. Congressman, your thoughts about what's going to be put in front of you on Monday, being at the Senate.

Uh r is r offering this deal again. Yeah, good morning, Brian.

Well, I think the best way to view this is Speaker Johnson and Leader Thun are both saying something that is different, but both true, right? Speaker Johnson is saying, you know, we're setting a dangerous precedent by carving out certain parts of DHS and not funding all of it. Leader Thune is saying, we got to count votes. We have a math problem.

So both statements are true. Speaker Johnson is right. As frustrating as it is, we have to deal with the reality that we're going to have to use an alternative method to fund the entirety of DHS.

So I think that's what's going to happen. We're going to go back and pass the Senate bill, and then we're going to have to figure out how to fund the remainder of the department. And keep in mind, Brian, the people that are being hurt by this quote unquote deal It's not even the frontline agents, it's the support staff, the professional staff. that work behind the scenes to support the agents. I know, no kidding.

And you, what do you, what were you and Tom Swazi looking to put forward?

Well, we were just trying to find reasonable things that Tom Holman and the White House have already agreed to, things that we can agree to make some improvements to ICE, right?

So nobody's debating over the FBI's budget. Nobody's debating over DEA or ATF's budget. These are all federal law enforcement agencies.

So for simplicity's sake, what we were saying is let's just make sure that we have consistency across all federal agents when it comes to training, when it comes to body cameras, when it comes to independent investigations for use of force incidents. It's something that's simple. It's something that everyone can agree to. And it's a mechanism to fully fund Department of Homeland Security. But the reality, Brian, and you know this, you've been covering politics long enough, you know, what we suspect is some of our colleagues on the far left are you know, masking their objection behind their desire for quote-unquote reform when what they really want is to abolish ICE altogether.

And that's not something that we support.

So we can bring ICE in conformity with all the other law enforcement agencies, like the FBI, for example, when it comes to our requirements for training, when it comes to use of body cams, identification, things like that. But, you know, we're not going to go overboard. We're not going to hurt ICE or discriminate against them and hold them to a higher standard than other agencies. They should meet the same standard.

So the President said, okay, fund it by June 1st. I want a reconciliation bill on my desk that would fund, among other things, ICE and Border Patrol. But this is what Speaker Johnson told me Friday night, CUD 42. The problem is that what they're doing is they're placing the burden on the Republican Party entirely to make sure that we have border security funding and immigration and customs enforcement because they're going to try to force it into a reconciliation bill. That's a very difficult task.

It is a high-risk gamble for us to assist. that we could do that. But why is it risky? Thanks.

Well, it's risky because it requires unanimity on a on, you know. A vote that we have a lot of independent thinkers in the conference. That's no secret, right?

So, the key here, and I've actually exchanged messages with the speaker this morning. What it looks is going to happen is the Senate is going to send over basically an appropriations bill, but it's going to be fashioned as a reconciliation bill.

So, it's basically going to be a straight-up appropries bill, the piece that's not included in what the Senate has passed. Basically, the remaining funding for DHS and CBP. By the way, I I've spoken to my Democrat colleagues. I, for the life of me, don't know why they're including CBP in this, customs and border protection. They protect our airports.

That has nothing to do with ICE, but somehow they've gotten lumped into this. But we're just going to have to keep it skinny. It's going to emanate and start in the Senate. It's just going to be funding for ICE and CBP. We're not going to get into all this other stuff that typically is associated with reconciliation bills.

So the key is simplicity. If they keep it simple to appropriate, fashion it as reconciliation as a way to navigate the 60-vote threshold. That's really going to be the key to getting this done. I guess so. It's just amazing.

There's two things happen. You guys are in the majority, but yet it seems like you look at the minority. It's just looking to gum things up. And that happened in the fall with 40-plus days. The economy got really hurt.

And we're still feeling the ripple effects of it in early 2026, what happened in late 2025. And now, once again, you got uncertainty among people who, for the most part, are living paycheck to paycheck. But who's in power? You guys. Who's going to look like they're causing chaos?

You guys. But who's actually doing it? The minorities. You did things the right way through regular order. Your appropriations bills were all agreed upon.

And then this was pulled at the last minute after there's two Minneapolis stories. Yep, it was on course to pass all 12 appropriations bills, which, by the way, has not happened in a long, long time. And that's the credit to Tom Cole, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. But unfortunately, you know, the situation in Minneapolis happened after the bill passed the House, before it went to the Senate.

So here we are. But what's important for everyone to recognize, Brian, and I know you know this, unless you have 60 votes in the Senate, you don't truly have the majority, right? Because but for reconciliation, everything requires a 60-vote threshold.

So by definition, as long as the filibuster is in place, it requires, at least in the Senate chamber, two-party solutions to emerge, which requires cooperation.

So a lot of people look and they say Republicans control the House and the Senate.

Well, outside of reconciliation, if you don't have 60 votes in the Senate, you don't control the Senate.

So here's Dave McCormick when word got out that it looks like a deal, they're going to reintroduce the deal that got out of the Senate today, CUD 43. I can't speak for it. But I sure think We're going to have enough votes to get that done. And the reason is as follows: Number one, it was irresponsible and disgraceful of the Democrats not to support funding DHS from the beginning. Once we became engaged in combat operations in the Middle East, the threat level.

went up here at home. And so you have this attack at Old Dominion University, you have this attack in Michigan.

So we need. Uh DHS fully funded And that's why you saw an urgency there. But when you guys go to vote, I'm sure the Freedom Caucus is not going to vote for this.

So are you going to pass this with Democratic votes?

Okay. Yes, so that question remains, Brian. It is going to go through the Senate today through their pro forma session. I think it went through. It went through.

Okay, so it's going to come to the House, and then the Speaker needs to make a decision. Is he going to send it through the Rules Committee and then bring it to the floor under regular order, which would require 218 votes, simple majority, or if they cannot get it through the Rules Committee, they have to put it on suspension, which means they bypass the Rules Committee and it requires two-thirds or roughly 280 votes in the House, 290, actually. I suspect this is going to go through rules. I suspect maybe the Democrats may even support it in the Rules Committee, even if a few Republicans object, because this is exactly the bill that they wanted brought to the floor last week, right?

So I think that's going to be the play call for the Speaker. I suspect they're going to go through the Rules Committee because I think it's a dangerous gambit to expect two-thirds of the House to agree to this, but that remains to be seen. Wow.

So it just goes through committee is all you need. If it goes to the Rules Committee, then it's a simple majority, 218 threshold. It would easily meet that. And I suspect the Democrats and the Rules Committee would vote for it because, again, this is the bill they asked to be brought to the floor last week. How worried are you about the FBI hacks into Cash Patel and other things that are coming that Iran promises to do that they did once already?

Yeah, well, this was my objection, Brian, when there was a resolution brought to the floor to quote unquote immediately end all quote-unquote hostilities against Iran, which doesn't just include Epic Fury, it includes our counter-cyber program, our counterintelligence program, our counterterrorism program that we spend billions of dollars on and have for decades on a bipartisan funding basis against the threat posed by Iran. And here we see it, right?

So it's one of the many reasons why I voted against that resolution that that Thomas Massey brought, they're a threat. They remain to be a threat. You know, we gotta keep our eye on that. And I think this most recent incident with cash is exhibit A of that. Do you think the FBI how do you you know, you're an FBI guy, or you were, how do you think it's functioning under Cash Patel?

Yeah. Well, I've met with the agents. I I speak to Cash on a somewhat regular basis and I've shared my feedback with him. He's appeared before our intelligence committee. You know, we're working through 702 issues now.

I'm appreciative that he supports the FISA 702 program, that he's, you know, understanding the risk posed by this quote-unquote warrant requirement, which is really a double warrant requirement. It's a big issue right now. We got 702 we got to pass, by the way, also next week. That's a huge national security tool that the president is urging that we pass a clean extension. You know, on the flip side, you know, I have met with members of the agents association who, you know, I have always met, who have always come to us and expressed concerns, quite frankly, across many administrations, including under the Biden administration as well.

So, you know, that's a normal thing. And, you know, I certainly want to support the agents. I certainly want to support the director. I just want the FBI to function and to be healthy and to be fully funded and have bipartisan support.

So, you know, we're going to continue to work through that. Because, I mean, the agents are in a tough spot in that if I work as an agent, you're the FBI experience, but I assume if someone says, hey, Brian, I need you to work on there's a shoplifting scam. Unwinded, it has got international implications.

Okay, I got to do it. If I have to do what I'm told. And if I'm going to pick and choose what investigations to do, I'm probably going to get fired.

So, if they're told to do the Mar-a-Lago raid, don't the FBIs have to do it? Yes, so that's why it's very important you distinguish between the superiors and the subordinates. The FBI is structured much like the military is, Brian. If you are a line street agent, you know, two weeks out of Quantico and you're handed a subpoena to serve, you got to serve it. You can't go to your supervisor and say, Sorry, I don't agree with the subject matter of this, right?

You just got to do it.

So you should never punish people like that. You know, if they did anything different, that would be insubordination. That would be grounds for termination in and of itself.

So it's important, you know, the people that are making the decision. Two open investigations or not. If you want to question them on what their motives are, you know, okay. But you can't hold anything against the street-level agents and the support staff, the intelligence analysts who are just following protocol. I know, that's our worry: that there's too many people who have been fired, that would only follow orders.

They had no choice.

So I'm sure you have the same concerns. Yep, for sure. Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick, thanks so much. Appreciate it. You bet.

He's always trying to get things done. You know, he's less ideological, more practical. Hey, when we come back, be able to squeeze in some calls. 1-866-408-7669. I'll go into more detail on the DHS.

Also, I'll go over the president's speech from last night and the chances of the president going on two tracks to really shake up what's happening in this war. I'll explain when we come back. The headlines, the stories behind them, and the people who make them only on the Brian Kill Meat Show. The fastest three hours in radio. You're with Brian Kilmead.

We are in this military operation so powerful, so brilliant against one of the most powerful countries for. 32 days. and the country has been eviscerated. And essentially... is really no longer a threat.

They were the bully of the Middle East, but they're the bully no longer. This is a true investment in your children and your grandchildren's future. The whole world is watching and they can't leave the power strength and Brilliant.

So, the President of the United States gave a speech about 22 minutes last night. And a lot of people think: hey, that's the type of speech you could have headlined in with. And maybe a day after the surprise killing of the 86-year-old Ayatollah and 22 of his, or 42 of his evil friends. Yes, that's a choice. I mean, we the President could look back and say, this is what I did right, this is what I did wrong.

I think it's worthy of a conversation. Then he gave a speech last night, not ending or starting a war. You just say, look, we're about done. I'm almost at the end game, but I'm not done yet. And here's what I accomplished.

It didn't bring up NATO, I thought that was smart. But there's two things left. And we had the Secretary of War, and I brought this up to Brett this hour. And I say he said we're going to have decisive action in the next coming days. And when you say decisive action, there's two major stories.

Where's the uranium? And how do you open up the Strait of Hormuz? And what you gotta do is you can't stop every drone or under submersible drone that might be able and the Ukrainians know this, there's these submersible drones that can just blow up a ship. Unmanned boats that can blow up a a destroyer. Do some damage to it, like the USS Coal.

And the minute that happens, then no tanker is going to go through there.

So if our ship gets hit, it's a disaster. If the Triple E goes down and we lose some sailors, not only is it terrible for those sailors and their families, but it's terrible for the US. We look vulnerable. They get one hit, that's all they need. Because they're being destroyed right now.

You're not going to see it. You'll hear about it, but you'll finally see it at some point. But we got to find a way to get the uranium and get the straight open. First off, there is a. There is a way to get the uranium.

And it's been, the president asked for a deal for some type of plan, and he got it. And essentially Uh, you have to get excavation equipment in there, you got to be able to secure the perimeter, and they say. You have to be able to, and they got satellite footage to know what they would do. It might be for a week. In order to dig in, then when you get to it.

You have to make sure there's no radioactivity. It's not dangerous. It's not literally radioactive. You have 460 kilograms. of uranium.

Now the uh the The um The Weapons Inspectors. The IOC, the IOC, not the IOC, but The ACGOA or whatever it's called, the people that look for weapons of mass destruction, they said they saw flatbed trucks pull up and leave with blue boxes about a few weeks ago, which might indicate that the uranium was moved out of there. But they believe it's buried in the Isfahan stockpile.

So you got to get people in there to get it. You got people to dig in there to dig through it. Then you have to have special forces to defend it while you do it. But imagine if you do that at the same time you send in a destroyer or two to open up the strait. and if you don't want to move your ships through, we'll find some tankers that will move through, with our guidance and our escorts.

But by holding out an island, by wiping out an island and all their, whether it's Carg Island or the ones that surround it, with the help of UAE willing partners. We would have them totally split their attention divided on the two things they care about most, their nuclear program and their ability to hold energy over the heads of Wester of the West. And some of their allies, like Saudi Arabia, or former allies, like neighbors, I should say, like Saudi Arabia.

So are you willing to do that? They say they have a Delta Force-like unit, or Navy SEALs, would wield saws and blowtorches to get past obstacles inside the underground facility. Shooters would be covering them, obviously. They also have some missile, maybe the Thad missile system and some anti-drone activity supporting them. The teams would have to be mindful that anything they shoot, explode, or cut through could disturb dangerous material.

Concerns about radioactivity exposure would require arduous and repeated decontamination of the personnel equipment. I think there's plenty of plans in place to reopen the strait. You heard Frank McKenzie, the general, former head of CENCOM, saying: We go over this all the time: how to reopen the strait, really since the 80s.

So I think the president picks two plans and he does them. And I think if he's going to do them, do them at the same time. High risk, huge reward, decisive win. From high atop. Fox News headquarters in New York City.

Always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Kill Meet.

So glad you're there. It's the Brian Kill Me Show. I come to you from 48th and 6th in Midtown Manhattan, heard around the country, around the world. Finally, it feels like spring. By the way, we had the worst winter ever for the Northeast, anyway.

Andrew McCarthy's going to be with us, Fox News contributor, as you know, a legal genius. And I wanted to see what he thinks about birthright citizenship and get his take on where we go from here. Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery is standing by. He's senior director at the Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation for the Freedom of Defensive Democracies. Inside of the President's speech, which brings me to the latest in the war, which brings me to the big three.

Number three. Alright Charlie, your Artemis II crew is go for launch. Full send. Good luck. Godspeed Artemis 2.

Let's go. And they're off. Artemis blasts off to the moon, and America once again is inspired. Quietly, space has become a strong part of Donald Trump's legacy. The next goal is to get back to the moon, walk on it again before he leaves office, and yeah, beat China.

Number two. We're in a new world now, as Justin Lito pointed out to you, where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who's a U.S. citizen.

Well, it's a new world. It's the same constitution. It is. Yes, Chief Justice John Roberts weighs in with the, as we hear the arguments yesterday, birthright citizenship front and center at the Supreme Court, with the president front and center at the Supreme Court. We look at the arguments and how President Trump already made a strong case for change, but where and how it could happen is the bigger question.

Number one. I can say tonight that we are on track to complete all of America's military objectives shortly. We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. And that's a little bit of the President's speech, day 33 of the war. This should be the last few weeks of this war with Iran.

The President laid out his case last night, updates America. We look at the game plan, gas prices, and likely outcomes. Let's bring in Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery, now retired. Admiral, first off, what do you think has to happen in the next two weeks for this to be a successful mission? You know, I think we need to continue the deliberate targeting.

That is the last, the present kind of. Admit yeah, I said the number last Friday, 3,400 back then.

So, you know, that's some kind of three thousand more Probably deliberate targets and now dynamic targeting. That's the oh. Here's what we didn't hit well, or here's what we learned existed beyond what we thought. 'Cause sometimes when we hit a weapon, when we hit like a munitions depot, the guys next door go, that wasn't us, right? You know, and then you, you know, you kind of follow that back and strike them.

So deliberate dynamic targeting for about two weeks. Really focused, though, I think, on reducing the mind threat. Small bow thread. Trone threatened, missile threatened. In the straits of Hermuz, and it's not just the straits, you know, that the transit scheme goes all the way down to Bahrain.

You know, uh, you know, Dubai and then Bahrain.

So, we really gotta, there's a whole area there. You gotta protect the whole coastline of Iran that you have to be secure against. Um, create those conditions so then you can transition your forces to supporting convoy ops because the forces when you're striking are one way. But when you're doing convoy ops, you pull your destroyers in and do convoy ops. You set up CAP stations, which are three or four stations with two planes in each of them that are there for counter-drone and quick strike, right over the Straits of Hermuz.

Instead of bombing, those Air for those air air elements are contributed to that. You have the A tens doing small vessel strikes. You know, you reorient your force about two weeks from now to being ready to support minesweeping. Mine hunting, mine sweeping to make sure they're clear, and then convoy operations. But it's okay, so it's going to be escorts, convoys.

So plan on escorts on convoys happening. Because the president says I'm going to leave it to the Europeans to figure out. I hope he doesn't do that. I understand he's ticked off, but I hope he doesn't do that. I think also, tell me this, Admiral, why is it so hard to find those smaller fast boats?

They can like a fast boat in America, you can drive it up onto a trailer and take it off and put it in a driveway or put it in the Killmead garage. A small boat, a Shahed drone, we can put those in your garage. The ballistic missile You know, launcher, the cruise missiles, anti-ship cruise missile launchers, you can't put them in the Montgomery or Kilmead garage so that it's easy for us to find and target them.

So, this is the challenge now, right, is to find these things. But I think we'll get all the service vessels. I'm not. The surface vessels aren't the one that really get me nervous. Mines are the ones that get me most nervous based on my own previous experience, but also based on what the Iranian, what their ability to do something to harm us is right now.

I think that's still, you know, when Admiral Cooper does is, what's the risk to force? Can I start convoy operations? Can I start demining? The mines are the number one. I think that's the one that gets the hair up on the back of his head.

So the minesweepers, that's where the Brits can help us out. But I hear they sail very slow.

So it's hard to get in the area, but they got to start. If they could help us out with that. Look, I think if I could go back and say there was probably a missed opportunity. You know, in week one of this campaign, we should have turned to the Our European allies and the Japanese and Australians, and said, look, we're going to need minesweepers. Whether you support us or not.

and the offensive operations, you all believe in freedom of navigation. in a free and fair transit through tolless T transit through the Straits of Hormuz. Send us the minesweepers because what they're going to be, the president is starting to, I think, acknowledge this. We're going to have to start the convoys, but the sustainment of the convoys over time needs to be a European-Asian-American effort, probably in that order. The problem we got is they can provide minesweepers.

You know, Brian, there's a handful of destroyers, air defense destroyers in the world besides American. And really, a lot of them are in Japan, and the Japanese are going to be really hardbreaking. The Japanese could do minesweepers, but air defense destroyers would really be a push on their constitution. Interesting because the destroyers, I heard you guys were phase the Navy was phasing them out, right? Um let no we so we have seventy-eight Aegis destroyers.

They're fantastic. We're building 15 right now, 12 to 15 in Mississippi. And Senator Wicker and Senator Collins would probably have a heart attack if they heard you say we're phasing out destroyers. They're really pushing hard on this. And a lot of us believe the Arleigh Burke destroyer.

which is the backbone of the U.S. Navy, will continue to be the backbone for the next 30 years.

So we're actually building they're the best destroyer in the world and they will be for the next foreseeable future. And complemented maybe by frigates and maybe battleships. I'm not sure about that. But the destroyers are the key. And Brian, we're the only.

What's disappointing is that we have 75 of them or 73 of them somewhere around there. And we could get 45 or 50 underway today to operate. Our British allies have eight or you know Destroyers Africans have 13. I think they can get one or two underway. It's crazy.

This is really dangerous. It's insane. It turns out navies are expensive. Right. And then if you have people pushing to reinforce your social programs and get elected and stay in power, you're going to do it.

We used to cut, that's how we cut space. for other priorities, and thankfully we're not anymore. But other people cut their military. We didn't do that, except we had that so-called peace dividend that never materialized. But, Admiral, let me ask you something I wouldn't know because I'm not an Admiral.

When it comes to mine w uh uh sea mines. into uh into the straight. Do you decide when they detonate? Like, for example, do you actually sit on the side and go, okay, I'm going to let that ship through, I'm going to let that ship through, I'm going to blow this one up. And if you don't, that means if you heavily mine the strait, you could be blowing up Chinese ships.

So that me and your own chips. Correct. Look, are there types of mines that can be done by remote control? Yes, that is not what I think the Iranians are using here because of the distance away from there, where they're laid is too much of a distance for that kind of thing. You do that like in the entrance to a port kind of thing.

So these are going to be, but they do have mine counters, which means it says, I'm going to let the first guy go. I'm going to let the second guy go. But on this third one, I'm going. Just to give it a sense of you think you're okay and you're not. But to do this, it's going to be hard.

We have to do mine hunting first, where you hunt for the mines. That's done usually with helicopters and special gear. and then you locate them and then the mine sweeping part comes through. And that can be done by old fashioned, like the Europeans do it with a mine with the actual manned ship doing it. We do it with an unmanned ship going through that comes off our literature combat ship.

So launch a helicopter, locate them, launch an unmanned vehicle that then sweeps them, either by cutting the cable or causing it to detonate at a distance. Understood. And they say, I don't know where they got the number from, between 10 and 12 are there right now. But I guess we'll see. I just can't see us calling the operation and just saying we're done with the straight, we're out of here.

And do you think have you seen it? Written up, drawn up, a battle plan where we block or take one of some of these key islands that the UAE says, I am looking to help you with this. Yeah. Well, the UAE will definitely help us with the with two of the islands that they claim that Iran has taken from them. I'm confident the UAE will be aggressive on those.

Yeah. You know, on these other islands, I'm a little sensitive to grabbing them. I don't want to put U.S. ground forces in a known latitude, longitude. Close enough to Iran that first-person view drones, the kind of drones that kill 82% of Russian and Ukrainian soldiers, they're that effective.

You know, where we're in the range of the Iranians being able to launch those, not Shaheds, these are the smaller drones that go out and, you know, kamikaze drones that do one-way moves on our soldiers. I'm very reticent to put U.S.

soldiers into that position until we've designed better defenses for it. And we saw we don't have good Shahed defenses. That's how we lost the op center. It's how we've lost some radars. It's how we probably lost some planes on the ground.

We're not good at Shahad drone defense, and we're not good at first-person view, you know, these smaller drone defense. We got to - that's our number - that's Secretary Hegg says, number one job right now is to get our act together on those two systems so that it doesn't limit our ability to apply our forces. Right now, I think it slightly limits our ability to apply our ground forces. Why don't we just call Ukraine? They're already helping the Gulf states.

Is this a personal thing? Look, the Ukrainians are great at it. I'm there all the time. I've seen them in action. They're fantastic.

There are some problems, some of the Ukrainian ones, they're not in the link. We were a little worried if you fired up there, it might hit a U.S. plane or something. There's a little bit of that. But the truth is, I just think we thought.

We'd solved this problem ourselves before. before we got into this kind of contingency. And this isn't like a one-year problem. This isn't a Trump administration problem. This is a five or six year problem.

And certainly the last four years observing this in Ukraine, the idea that we did not get ready for this in a meaningful way for either the Shaheds or for the first person view drones is a significant error by the Department of Defense since 2022. Absolutely. Admiral, what would you first off, what does the George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier bring to this fight? Why do you think we ordered it?

Of course, I think the Ford needs to go home. It needs to recover from the fire, get theirselves fixed up. They've been on deployment. It's in port right now, right? Almost a year.

It's in port, getting fixed up. Get home. You bring the bush until you're back to two carrier strike groups. Look. We need to have a significant amount of striking power, both from Air Force squadrons ashore in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, wherever.

But you can see they're under at risk now from these drones. The beauty of Navy of aircraft carriers is we change our GPS position about every 30 seconds, you know, as the ship maneuvers around. It makes it much harder for a lumbering, slow shahed to get out to you. They still could fire cruise missiles at it, but so far we've defended ourselves both in the Red Sea for the last two years against the Houthis and here in this conflict. The Navy's done pretty well defending itself.

We have the systems to defend ourselves. They are a little expensive. The Navy has its own work to do to drive down the cost of intercept, but they are secure and safe in a way that I don't know that our ground forces and our air forces, when they're on the ground, are secure. All right. Just before we go, Ukraine, where are we at with that mission?

And I heard in terms of negotiations, Zelensky says I'm really excited about the latest proposal about security guarantees from the U.S., so whatever it is, it's got him encouraged. But what do you hear about the actual fighting itself?

So You know, the last time I was there a month ago, I've said the same thing for a year now. They're not going to lose this battle militarily on the ground. I don't know how Ukraine recaptures Crimea without a significant change in Russian leadership or the rest of Donbass, even. 18% of their of their land that they've lost. But they're not going to lose militarily, Brian.

And they're not and their civil society has remained resilient and strong. They get hammered every night. They have m they have as many drones fired at them every week, drones, plus ballistic missiles, that have been fired by the Iranians in the whole conflict. Maybe it's every two weeks at this point, but still, that means 25 times a year. They get 25 times more per year than we've seen here, and they just shake it off.

I mean, they're such a resilient society, and you combine that with a resilient military, sir, they are not going to lose. Yeah, and they're going to be a great resource. They're the second biggest army in Europe, and it's obvious that there's only very few armies ready to fight, and they're one of them. Admiral, any final thoughts before we go about after the President's speech last night, what your takeaway was?

Well, my most important one was he did not take the opportunity to just beat NATO senseless again. He has made good points. NATO freeloaded off of us for 30 years. I agree with that. Europe did within NATO.

But they're not now. They're increasing. You know, they've increased their budgets. They're all above 2%. They should all be above 3.5% much quicker than they plan to.

Our Eastern European partners are above 5% for 2026. They're kicking butt. And he needs to acknowledge that some of them are doing really well, but just not kicking them right now is a good move. And some things are misconstrued. Italy, Prime Minister Maloney supports him in general.

And I think they'll be receptive to us over the next few months.

Well, they better. We need their bases now. We're not going to need them over the next few months. Italy denied it. The UK obviously is.

to a limited Uh and not letting us use those uh bases in Spain. to a country paying 1.4% to their GDP while mocking us at the same time. That's a problem. That's Route's problem. Admiral Mark Montgomery, thanks so much.

Thank you, sir. I should say routa. Back in a moment. From breaking news to big name guests, Brian brings you insight you won't hear anywhere else. You're listening to the Brian Kill Me Show.

The talk show that's getting you talking. You're with Brian Kilmead. There are a lot of differences between just flying around the moon and landing and remaining on the moon. And the technologies for that are not just propulsion and rockets, it's life support, it's food, recycling water and air, and making sure that you have a facility that's going to keep people safe from solar storms. Nature's dangerous in space, and it's not just a failure of the systems that could kill you, it's nature itself.

And you want to make sure you've developed all the technologies to keep the crew safe. as they're doing their work on the moon.

So that is Les Johnson, astronaut, talking about what the mission is: the 10-day missions of Artemis. Finally, a launch in orbit yesterday. Today, transloser ejection. Tomorrow, outbound transit. Saturday, trajectory adjustments, prepare for lunar observations.

Sunday, lunar influence, spaceship and systems test under the moon's gravity, so they'll be circling it. Monday, photography, science observations. They start to return burn. And then on Tuesday. Crew is off duty for the rest and recuperation.

Wednesday, deep space operations. Then return prep and then reentry April 10th. And then in 2028, they want to get to the point where they're actually on the moon.

Now, here's the scary part. Jared Isaacson thinks there's an excellent chance the Chinese will be back before us. They're looking to do a slim-down missing compared to us. They're looking to go on the closer side of the moon. We want to go to the back side of the moon for the first time in 2028.

We're going to bring a nuclear reactor with us to provide the power.

So were they. They want sustained life, so do we. We are in a race. I don't know why they don't bring it up more. At least they're not running from it.

They used to, if you go to do a speech or a NASA, they don't bring up the Chinese.

Well, all I can tell you is this: hydrogen they're looking for, helium they're looking for, they're looking for metals. And that's gonna help us, they believe, with iPhone and everything else. He's so busy, he'll make your head spin. It's Brian Killmead. Is there any way that there might be a different answer with respect to the children of people who are here unlawfully because of this new problem issue that Justice Alito has raised?

No, there is no difference. And of course, the government's arguments as to people who are unauthorized immigrants in this country all runs through and hinges on their domicile requirement.

Okay, that might be a little bit over my head, but that was Justice Sotomayor.

Some of the audio from the Supreme Court Justice, the Supreme Court session focusing on birthright citizenship. That means it doesn't matter who your parents are, if you're born in America, you become an instant American citizen. Is that what the 14th Amendment was about? Is that why it was written? And does it apply today?

Let's bring in Andrew McCarthy, a deep thinker, great legal mind, former assistant U.S. Attorney for Southern District of New York, author of Ball of Collusion.

So, Andrew. You think there's some merit in the President's argument, but you don't think this thing is going to be changed. Yeah, I think, Brian, that President Trump is entirely right on the policy. I think it's kind of crazy. I mean, just think about it in terms of common sense.

You have two people who are in our country in a hostile posture against our sovereignty and our law. They've entered the country illegally.

Now, I don't want to suggest that being an illegal alien is like being an invading Foreign soldier, but it is still an offense of our laws, and you're not here in a Legally compliant posture, you're here in a hostile posture.

So, the thought that those two people can have a baby and that baby is an American citizen under circumstances where, for example, If my wife and I went on Vacation In Europe And Unexpectedly, prematurely, my wife had a baby while we were there. The baby's an American citizen because we're. American citizens. And that wouldn't. That's not only common sense, it's reflected in the law.

I think the idea that you can have this form of citizenship. Is Obviously, it's uh the framers. And the people who drafted the 18th Amendment, well, I'm sorry, the 14th Amendment in 1868 were not dealing with the kind of. immigration system that we currently I mean, we didn't really have immigration laws in this country until about 1880.

So they were looking at a very different. Environment. We didn't have the immigration system as we know it until Really, the 1950s, and we didn't have this problem. Of massive illegal immigration until the last quarter century or so.

So obviously, the conditions are very different. But the law, the problem that the president has legally is twofold. One, The case that he has to get the court to overturn The Wong Kim Ark case is from 1898.

So it's been on the books for 128 years. Congress has legislated with the understanding that it's the law. People have made their arrangements on it.

So Legally, you get the problem of what's called stari decisis, which is this doctrine of law that says we have to respect. precedent, especially if people have relied on it for a long time. And then the second problem Trump has Is In our constitution, It's Congress in Article 1. that is responsible for setting the conditions of citizenship. And even in the 14th Amendment, in Section 5, it's Congress that has the power to make laws that enforce the understanding of the 14th Amendment.

It's not the President.

So I think a lot of the justices, even if they're policy-wise, they'd be sympathetic, they're going to have problems with the idea that the President can change what we've been doing for over a century by an executive order with no sign-off from Congress.

Okay, but so that executive order with no sign-off for Congress got us to the Supreme Court, right?

So how you get to the Supreme Court, does that matter? I just want them to visit this and see if it's Go ahead. That's a great question. No, let me try to answer the question. I think that how it gets to the Supreme Court.

Matters Depending on, you know, is it an ugly factual case? I don't think this is an ugly factual case. I don't think it goes to the court. Under conditions that are favorable to Trump. And what I mean by that, Brian, is.

Let's say the Republicans had a majority in Congress. Right, like a strong majority in Congress that he could actually get legislation. 60 votes in the Senate. Yeah. Yeah, so let's say Trump Instead of doing what he did, because he had the numbers in Congress, he proposed legislation that they signed off on, and he signed it, that said.

Under the jurisdiction in the Fourteenth Amendment phrase. Born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States means And then he says that you have to not only be physically born in the United States, but if you're not a United States citizen and you owe. Fidelity to a sovereignty of another government, you're not a United States citizen, the child is on a nine. Let's say they did that by a statute. If that goes up to the court, that's two branches of the government telling the court, this is what we think the Fourteenth Amendment means.

That would be a stronger posture to go up to the court.

Now I think you're right to the extent that you're suggesting If the constitutional answer is the constitutional answer, it shouldn't matter whether it gets there through the president or through the president in Congress. They still have to answer the question. But I do think it matters how the thing tees up in front of the justices.

So I want you to hear this soundbite. And I'll just tell you from my, with someone who didn't go to law school, what I think about this. Cut 22. Justice Roberts. We're in a new world now, as Justolito pointed out to you, where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who's a U.S.

citizen.

Well, it's a new world, it's the same Constitution. You can It is and As Justice Scalia said, I think in the case that Justice Lito was referring to, you've got a constitutional provision that addresses certain evils and it should be extended to reasonably comparable evils. He said that about statutory interpretation. I think the same principle applies here. Right.

Basically, you have modern problems and you have the same constitution. All right. That's why they're there. I mean, that's why we're visiting it. No one's blaming our founding father, or no one's blaming Lincoln for passing it.

No one's blaming the Congress of 1868 for passing it. I just want to say we've got problems now with the way it's written. Can you see those problems and can I adjust it? because I don't think there was ever the intent or any could foresee the problems we're having right now. I mean, isn't that the whole point of the way we're set up, to be able to adjust with issues of the times using the Constitution as the format?

I think what Justice Scalia would say to that. Is that that's why the framers put a provision in the Constitution to allow it to be amended now. That's not a satisfying answer to people because the amendment process is difficult. Which is, which is two-thirds of the Senate?

Well, it's got it's two-thirds two-thirds of the s of the Congress, and then it goes out and it's got to be approved by three-quarters of the states, right?

So it's a tough pro it's a it's a hard process. But at the same time, what Justice Galia would say, I think, is that What we don't want. Is the court changing what the Constitution says by pretending the words mean something that they don't? And usually, when that happens, it's progressive justices. Changing the meaning of the Constitution in ways that we don't approve of.

So, if we're going to take the position that we don't let the court rewrite. What the Constitution says, that's got to be the same across the board, whether it's something that is helpful to conservatives or not. I think what Scalia would say is: yeah, you're absolutely right. The Constitution does have to be changed. Uh to meet Changing circumstances and changing times.

That's why the framers, who were brilliant guys, put a provision in, recognizing that the Constitution might have to be amended from time to time. Yeah, it's just a hellacious process in a polarized world. It's almost impossible. But this is the line that all you legal experts talk about, and that's very relevant here and subject to interpretation. The s the subject to this jurisdiction of a sovereign means to bear the duties and fidelity of a citizen.

so subject to the jurisdiction of a sovereign.

So, meaning, so if I'm coming over here and my parents are Chinese and they don't belong here, and the pregnant wife gives birth.

So I can honestly say the parents or sovereign to China.

So they're not loyal like their kid if they can't make any decisions.

So why can't that not be interpreted that way? Yeah, I think you're hitting on the one chance that But President Trump has here. And it depends on whether he can get enough justices to see it this way. I agree. That this idea of jurisdiction, what it means, to be subject to the jurisdiction, that the progressives are pushing in this case, it might not be what they push in every case, but what they push in this case is cuckoo.

Because to me, If I vacation in England Right. When I am in England. I am subject to The laws of England.

So I can't violate the law. I can't have to comply with all of the various. Laws that anybody who's present physically present in England would have to comply with. Just because I'm subject to the jurisdiction in that sense doesn't change my American citizenship. I still am an American.

I still owe fidelity to the United States, not to England.

So I think in the 14th Amendment, what they're talking about when they talk about subject to the jurisdiction is a person who has the fidelity or the duty of fidelity of citizenship, not just that you're merely under the laws of the jurisdiction. And let me tell you something different because this came up when I prosecuted terrorists a long time ago. A lot of people asked us. Why don't you charge them with treason? Because after all, they're making war against the United States.

The answer to that question is most of them were not American citizens. Only an American citizen could commit treason.

So you could be physically present in the United States. You can be under our laws. But if you're not an American citizen, you can't be a traitor. Because only an American citizen who owes fidelity to the United States and its government can be. Guilty of treason.

I don't understand why we can easily see that in other contexts, but not in this one. Right. I I mean, I all want everybody wants immigration. We watch all these Western societies just withering. We watch Russia, not Western, but they can't get anybody to go there.

Uh China has uh all they have no women. They're a society that's contracting. Japan's contracting. Everybody wants to come here.

So we do need immigration, especially with the birth rate down. I'm not anti-immigration at all. I think we should have a role in who lives here. And it seems to be a plot and plan to undermine us through certain Chinese billionaires, where one out of every 10 is born to somebody who's not an American citizen. That I find alarming.

So now we have Solicitor General John Sauer, the last soundbite, with Chief Justice Roberts talking about birth tourism. And here we go, Cut 25. You mentioned in your briefing and also this morning the problem of birth tourism. Do you have any information about how common that is or how significant a problem it is? No one knows for sure.

There's a March 9th letter from a number of members of Congress to DHS saying, do we have any information about this? The media reports indicate estimates could be over a million or 1.5 million from the People's Republic. Of China alone. The congressional report that we cite in our brief talks about certain hotspots, like Russian elites, coming to Miami through these tourism companies. And I mean, here's the facts about it that I think is striking.

Media reported as early as 2015 that, based on Chinese media reports, there are 500 birth tourism companies in the People's Republic of China whose business is to bring people here to give birth and return to that nation. No one challenges anything he said. I imagine even the ACLU attorney who was taking this case. Looking at the 14th Amendment, and you've seen that this is one of the major issues that brought the President to the Supreme Court yesterday. Can we how do you address this, Andy?

Well, I think it goes along the lines of our conversation, Brian. I think that. The best way to address it In a perfect world, which we're very far from, is that Congress would pass a statute under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. To reflect the interpretation of jurisdiction that we've talked about in the last couple of minutes. Mindful of what this problem is, so that when the inevitable 14th Amendment challenge came to the Supreme Court, that full record would be in front of the court.

I think it would be much easier. for the court to to look favorably Yeah, yeah, but here's the problem, and I don't want to hide from this because it just simply is a problem. Most of the issues that come up in our public debates. Are ones that we can compromise on at some point. You know, maybe it's the 30-yard line, maybe it's the 40-yard line, but you can get people.

together. I think immigration defies that because you have one major party in the United States who doesn't want the immigration laws enforced, doesn't think the United States should have borders. I'm not saying that most Democrats in the United States believe that, but I do think that the people who run the Democratic Party are the energy of the Democratic Party and are the financing before the Democratic Party, behind the Democratic Party, they're very hard progressive and they're very open borders and they want to do everything they can at every turn to undermine immigration. It's just a fact. I can't argue with you.

It's crazy to have that policy because if I go back in the 90s, the very same people. thought we should have a wall, thought we should have enforced border. You know, uh and these things you know, because they never leave. Schumer's now in his eighties. When he was in his fifties, he felt like you feel and uh we should have strong borders and immigration laws.

You know, but when it comes to uh birth uh uh the birthright citizenship and birth tourism, Every time and this thing in LJUs, tell me if it's if it works. I got a minute. If if you're trying to marry someone from another country, they put you in separate rooms, immigration doesn't question you to make sure it's a real relationship, it's not a chance for you to get citizenship. Why could they not do that? and stop birth tourism.

You know, that we don't even Go ahead. I think the big problem is resources. And I think this goes to a problem that you hinted at a couple of minutes ago, which is, I'm in favor of legal immigration just like you are, but The more you allow your system to be overwhelmed by illegal immigration, the less you have in the way of resources to both administer a legal immigration system and to even follow the people who are legally in the country. I mean, I always talk about this. There's Maybe 14, 15 million illegal aliens in the United States.

You know how many detention spaces Congress has approved? How many? Less than 50,000. Yeah. And that's up.

That's up from two years ago. And yeah, I'll have to leave it there. Man, it's an interesting debate. And people said it had no merit, but it obviously had some merit. Andrew McCarthy, thanks so much.

Thanks, Brian. And check out his column on birthright citizenship. It is great. Back in a moment. It's Brian Kill Mead.

Yeah. Um Information you want, truth you demand. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. According to the jury verdict. The defendant will be held accountable for the death of Jonathan Diller.

They made a distinction between the intent to kill a police officer and the intent of causing serious physical injury to a police officer. Either way, he will be held accountable for that death.

So that was Melinda Katz of Queens, New York, the Queens District Attorney.

So it didn't get the the full extent of the law, four of the five counts, but not murder one for the killing of Jonathan Diller as he went up to a car that was outside a A phone shop in Queens, New York. The guy turns around, 21 counts, 21 convictions in his past, decides to shoot him and kill him, and tried to kill his partner. But He does not get the full extent of the law. He'll be away for 90 years, no doubt about it. But it bothers me that another New York jury fell short again.

What about you? Uh you listen to the Brand Kill Meat show. From the Fox News. Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan. It's the fastest growing radio talk show.

Brian Kilmead.

Hi everyone from 48th and 6th of Midtown Manhattan, around the country, around the world. This is the Brian Kilmey Show. We're going to be joined shortly by a Marine Special Forces officer now retired who runs SMAC Technologies, Andy Markoff. But we have a lot to go over too, including a disturbing decision for the Diller family. Jonathan Diller, the officer from Massapiqua that was slain.

We know the president. He wasn't president then. He was still a candidate. Came down to the wake as well as the funeral. But Jonathan Diller, well, it turns out his killer, who had 21 priors convictions, who shot him in the chest, was not convicted of the most serious murder charge.

Even though he'll spend the rest of his life in prison, it's a New York jury again that I think they let the American people down.

So that is disturbing. And you're going to hear from Stephanie Diller. She talked. This is what she said. This is what she said in December of 2024.

About her husband's alleged killers, cut forty-seven. Men who should have never been out on the street. If, you know, if they weren't there, then Jonathan would still be here with us. And if it wasn't Jonathan that day, then it could have been somebody else. And somebody else's family would have been destroyed in that moment.

And, you know. If we don't change, the way it is now, then it will be somebody else and that that would break my heart. Yeah, and this guy Rivera is the one with the 21 priors who shot Dilla right underneath. the bulletproof vest uh and tried to kill his partner.

So just the whole thing is ridiculous. But he's going to get 90 years in prison. But it just sends a bad message to cops.

Meanwhile Actually, we're going to talk to Andy Markov at the bottom of the arrow. Let's get to the big three. Number four. Yeah. Alright, so your Artemis II crew is go for launch.

Full set. Good luck. Godspeed Artemis II. Let's go. And there you go, Artemis blasts off to the moon.

And back, and America once again is inspired quietly in space. You know, think about it. The president's legacy is going to have so much to do with space when you talk about Space Force as well as his big push to get back into space, deep space. The next goal, beat China. Number two.

We're in a new world now, as Justolita pointed out to you, where 8 billion people are one plane right away from having a child who's a U.S. citizen.

Well, it's a new world. It's the same constitution. It is. Yes, that's the whole point, John Roberts. Is birthright citizenship, which is an amendment from 1868, apply in 2026?

We'll discuss. Number one. I can say tonight that we are on track to complete all of America's military objectives shortly. We're going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. And that is President of the United States last night, day 33 of the war.

It says, a couple of weeks we'll be finished up, and we've done the world a favor, even though they don't realize it.

Now, look. I don't think we should drop out of NATO, but there's got to be some massive reforms to Western Europe. If we were doing a Venezuelan operation or when we face off with Cuba, Not in a military sense, but we're going to be pushing China and Russia out and making that country reform shortly. If you're sitting there in France, you're like, I have nothing to do with Cuba. Venezuela, yeah, I wish the Chinese and Russians weren't involved.

I wish communism was in South America, but what can I do? I can kind of see that. Hey, we use your help. They don't want to help. It's so far away.

But when you use the Strait of Hermuz, and when you know that Iranians have held your citizens prisoner, when you know that they've harassed and destroyed the Middle East by punching up and propping up surrogates like Hezbollah, destroying in France's case, Lebanon, formerly a colony of France, still with some thick ties there. You know the uproar going after Israel. In theory, anyway, Israel's an ally of yours. You see what goes on. And has gone on for since the regime changed to the pro-Ayatollah regime.

Then you might say, well, I wish I got some heads up, but in the meanwhile the US, you could use our bases that you pay for in Italy, you could use our bases in Spain, use the bases in France, you can use the bases in England, and UK has come around a little, but everybody else I mentioned, the answer is no. That's what's got the president incensed.

Now they're talking about if you're not paying the 5%, if you're not going to base us, you're not going to be part of any of the planning. Look, Norway's got no problem. Sweden's got no problem. Estonia's got no problem. Lithuania, Poland, all these Eastern European nations that see the Russian threat understand what we bring to the table.

They're working right now with us. I don't need, you don't need to bail out, but in terms of escorting ships, we absolutely need it. Especially when you look right now, 42% of the country. Don't are against action in Iran. 58% oppose.

It'll change. When this ends, it ends up positive. But six in ten Americans oppose the conflict. They haven't been fully briefed. They are in a very polarized society, and they're concerned, and nobody blames them for this, about gas prices, about inflation.

And they put this as the number six most important thing.

Well, foreign policy matters if you're a president, and it's not up to you to pick the conflicts. And that was a turning point when you see what they were able to do with their missile technology and you see what they were able to do with their nuclear weapons program while bragging that they could make 11 bombs. Yeah, 11 bombs, a civilian program.

So, where does this leave our conflict 12 days in? You got to make an effort, but go out and see some of the damage we are inflicting, some of the damage we're doing to their missile program and to their weapons infrastructure. Lieutenant General Keith Kellock on Where We're At, Cut Nine Full credit to President Trump. He's the first president that had the guts. To do what he's done.

And the world breathes a lot easier because of that. But I think the theocratic government of Iran needs to be addressed. It's revolutionary. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards is a lot different than the Army. They're two separate organizations.

And as long as you've got people like that in charge, With all that conditioning they've had for the last 40 plus years, I think there needs to be a complete change of government. You know, when you move from one to another, they're still radical.

So that's General Kellogg.

So he's also been part of planning in the past for operations in the Gulf and the Strait.

So what he's trying to say is, we did get to regime change. I think they've killed 250 leaders militarily as well as governmental. 250. But the other guys in charge, and they are guys because women have no rights there, the other guys in charge are just as bad. If not more radical, Less experienced.

More unpredictable. And they have no idea essentially what they're doing. Dan Hoffman knows that, used to work in the CIA, Cut Thirteen. I think the evidence points to those who are in power right now in Iran are very much tied to the IRGC hardliners. But look, their actions will speak the loudest.

They just launched more drone and missile attacks against the UAE today. They've still continued to impede travel through the Strait of Hormuz. We are negotiating, but indirectly, in Pakistan with Iran. Uh and I don't think there's any evidence that they're any more interested in negotiating in good faith than their predecessors. Uh but time will tell, and there could be a lot of things happening behind the scenes.

We just might not be seeing the evidence of anything publicly.

So that is obviously Dan Hoffman, who's always skeptical. That is his job. He used to work in the Middle East, Iraq, knows what Iran did. Also, he's got a big background in Russia. Here's what the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board had to say.

About NATO, about Europe not doing anything. Europe might come to regret not helping in the Persian Gulf with Mr. Trump. The U.S. President wouldn't ask if he didn't need help.

And this was a chance to show the alliance is a two-way street. A U.S. withdrawal from NATO would nonetheless serve only Russia, Iran, and China. The axis of adversaries that includes China wants to weaken the Western alliance and the free world. It wants the U.S.

and Israel to fail, fall to defeat in Iran, and Russia to defeat Ukraine militarily and become the dominant power in Europe. If the Western allies let this happen, it will be the height of folly and a historic tragedy. Yes. By the way, Ukraine's not going to fail against Russia. They're bleeding them dry, literally, killing 30,000 a month.

And we're not going to lose here. When you see what's left of Iran, you'll see, and I go back to it. Dennis Ross told us yesterday. As you know, he worked for Obama, he worked for Clinton, he worked for Bush 41 and Bush 43. Cut 11.

As time goes by, when this is over, the contradictions within the regime are going to come to the fore. If you ask me, Within twelve months, this regime will not exist anymore, or you'll end up with a kind of Iranian Gorbachev who will emerge, who will realize the Islamic Republic can't exist unless it it is reformed in a fundamental way.

So that that's when you have the change in the character of the regime. Whether the Iranian people rise up remains to be seen. It's only a matter of time. I'm not saying it falls immediately or it changes immediately, but within a year or so, we will see a change in Iran. And I do have a suggestion about where we might be heading with this.

You'll see a change in ten months, but in terms of us leaving, I see us making a major, major move in this trade. To really put the screws to Iran, whether it's those islands, I trust the war planners have thought about it for decades. Number two, I think there's an operation to get the uranium, too. President asked for it for a reason. We got some of the details of it.

You need some heavy equipment. You need about a week. You got a big perimeter. Navy SEALs or Green Berets can do it. And I'm hoping that there's without much risk, and let the war planners decide.

If you're going to do it, I would do them both at the same time. The Iranians already don't know what hit him. We're playing clips from their Baghdad Bob IRGC spokesperson as if he's speaking the gospel. It's all bloviating and WWE hype stuff that is not based on any fact. But if you're going to do both operations, I would do them at the same time.

What do you think? 1-866-408-7669. We also are going to be talking about birthright citizenship. I want to talk about the space program and where we're at and why China still has the upper hand. I was staggered to see that.

I'll explain. Don't move. Politics, current events, and news that affects you. Brian's got a lot more to say. Stay with Brian Kilmead.

Yeah. From his mouth to your ears, it's Brian Killmead. I went to my first Passover dinner. That's what she said. My mother's gonna have pass.

Okay, we'll go to the dinner. 7:30, we sit down at her mother's house. I'm starving, right? Starving. They start passing out pamphlets, like reading material.

I'm like, what's going on? What are we doing here? What's with the. She's like, no, we read for two hours. Two hours.

I said, listen, I'm a talent. As soon as I sit at a table, I got to have bread within 15 seconds of sitting down. All right? I need something to do with my right hand. I need some oil coming out.

We got oil. I need oil now. And the food they start bringing out, oh, God, terrible. Terrible. Jews have no idea what the hell they're doing in the kitchen.

These people have no cuisine. Celery, crackers, jam. I'm like, what is it? We're losing. People are leaving.

We need food. After breakfast, they fall apart, the Jews. After a bagel, cream cheese, locks, where are they going? They got nothing. Has anybody ever said to you, we went to this Jewish restaurant last night?

The gefilta? Amazing. I respect the Jews, but let's just have the Italians cater to Passover meal. All right. I could read for a A couple of hours with some meatballs on the table.

So that is, I guess, his wife is Jewish. Is that Sebastian Manascalco? It is. That's an oldie but a goodie, sort of posted for Passover each year. You know what I did notice about him?

Like, don't you feel like we were there first? Oh, 100%. Because he came and did our show, Eric, you remember, right? I mean, Pete.

So he would come do our show, and then he would hang out after and just talk to us for a while. And the same thing on Fox and Friends, he came and did our show. But what I notice now, I guess he pops up on my Instagram all the time. I guess someone profiles me of liking Italian comedians. But he is such an act to act out guy.

Like his acting must be unbelievable now. He because he the way he acts out his skits, it makes it doesn't even matter what he says. Like the physicality of it. Physicality, and he's in really good shape.

So He's like walking around. I mean, he's putting on a show. It's not a guy that walks up to a microphone. Like, Jim Gaffigan, to me, is the funniest comedian on Pure Jokes. But in terms of The everything.

Sebastian Manascalco has everything. Like, you're laughing in his setup just because you bought into the whole thing. And the facial expressions and all the movies. Because he sold. He is selling you on his amazement.

with the issue, whatever it is. Yes, but you also know he's like, I mean, we all know he's totally made it. But when they did the skit with him about not even him playing himself, the comedian playing him on SNL the other week. Did you see that? Yeah.

Larry Styles, it was the one he hosted. But he said that he heard about that guy ahead of time, like he knew about him on Instagram and thought he was great.

So he thought it, but I will say this. During the pandemic, Sebastian's movie came out with Robert De Niro, and I don't know if I have De Niro Idis at this point because of the way he's acted over the last eight years. Acted off camera. But it was terrible. I mean, he's done some of those acting roles where he's very Italian in them, and they're fine, but I feel like he just thrives at being himself, and that's, you know, you just want to see more of him.

Yeah, I mean, he does describe early when he used to be in Los Angeles. Do you remember he said I don't know if you I'm sure he didn't say it here, I don't know, but he said before he got to Los Angeles, he mailed out cards. to big agents that said Sebastian is coming. Like as if he was announcing himself. And to all these, like, what is going on?

What are these cards about? And he said, I went and saw everyone. It didn't go anywhere, and he ends up waiting. But I feel like that's a very kill-mead move. I feel like that's something you would have done, or you did just send things out to everyone.

Right?

Well, no, I I'm not unsolicited.

Well, I mean your tapes and like looking for things, but you would I would hit a region. Let's say I would say I'm going to look in Boston. I would look at state, I'd have to go to the yearbook, the broadcasting yearbook, find out the addresses. And when it was updated last, probably get it from the library. I know that sounds crazy.

Get it from the library. And then I would mail out the five there. I'm going to be in the area. Would I be able to stop down? And then you'd get some replies or responses.

So, when you hit the area, you get to know these people. You keep up with them, you tell them what you're doing.

So, you're not asking for a job, but you let them know: I'm looking for a job. I don't know if I was ever successful in it, but I did meet a lot of people. And I'm sure it. It comes back. I feel like people will bring that up: like, oh, you sent me your resume at this point.

But it's also then a nice entry point. Like, hey, remember, I sent you that note, Sebastian's coming. But I just think there's a positive to being proactive than waiting. Like, waiting for a job, waiting for somebody to call is the worst because you feel like you're not doing enough, but at least you could. Go blitz an area while trying to blitz, trying to get different leads in different other areas.

And then you go ahead and you interview with people. that are thriving in the business you want to be in. And you don't ask for a job, but you ask, like, what would you do right now if you were me at 22 and you're now 52? What would you do as me at 22 and work on? Kind of like what Jamie Dimon said to us.

On the show earlier in the week, you know, what would you say to somebody who's concerned that the next job has been, your first job has been taken by AI? What would you do? And the one of the things that everyone's saying is: make yourself totally AI savvy with everything.

So, maybe you know how to use AI.

So, maybe you become valuable to someone in their 50s who, even though, like Jamie Diner is 70 and he seems wide open to it. Who else is wide open to it? Oh, Ray Dahlia, another like most successful hedge fund guy ever. He prides himself on staying up with all this stuff.

So is Jamie Dime. He doesn't say, Well, the kids today, I used to use typewriters. They just stay up with it. They don't use it as an excuse that I'm old or older. It's not up to you.

It's up to you to judge.

Well, it's like saying, Well, I want to go to the movie theater. I went back to the old days.

Well, that's not where it is anymore. If you want to be in the movie, you've got to put together something that's going to thrive on streaming. You can't just look for the heyday.

So, what he said to do is, Then you come out at 22 and you got to know everything about everything as it does with AI and the more you know the more you could see the seam in which you can serve But I think it's definitely Definitely going to affect people, don't you think? Coming out now at 22 years old, coming out of college? No, I mean, I think it will, but as many feel, like human nature, we all evolved, so it'll affect you in this moment. But if you learn it and you sort of understand the pros and cons, and how can you then expand with it? And what else can you do that people haven't thought about?

Remember the meeting we had? About AI, you could still so let's say you're in Gemini. We could program something into Gemini, even though the creators of Gemini are the geniuses. But then you could put together some type of program there that would consolidate everything in the Middle East. Every single day, they would go into a folder to make you more savvy about the Middle East and the war than everybody else.

So even though I'm not the creator, the creator of Gemini is the genius. You could be using that tool to look like a genius in your expertise. Yeah, so then you save time and you're more efficient and you could be even more of a genius with something else. Like, I'm a genius in so many things. I can't take any more genius.

America can't handle more kill meat. Yep. A talk show that's real. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. We have been working on this probably ever since they imposed their will.

We Began executing that war plan. And what does that mean? That means taking down anti-ship missiles at distance, long-range ballistic missiles at distance. The Shahid drones can go almost a thousand miles, so we're going deep into Iran that can access the straits of Amuz, and then we're working close in to deal with what close in. mine layers, small boats that could be suicide boats to interfere with shipping.

They could fire drones from that small boat as well, or fire other kinds of short range missiles at a boat. All of that. is being exercised. That is General Jack Keene breaking down exactly what's going on.

So he's in touch with the Israelis, he's in touch with the U.S. Uh the US uh Uh military team. And the strategists And he's got 60 years of knowledge dating back to Vietnam. Andy Markov joins us now, retired Marine Special Forces officer, now runs SMAC Technologies. Andy, welcome.

Brian, thanks for having me. Hey, first off. I mean, we have two objectives that just remain undone. I guess getting the uranium and opening up the strait. Am I crazy to think that if we're going to do it, doing it at the same time?

might be to our advantage. I mean, I think there's always an advantage to shocking the system simultaneously. And I think we need to get this conflict resolved. I think that it makes sense.

So, if I was to give you the assignment with the straight, I know about unmanned vehicles, I know about the fast boats, we know about the mines. If those are the obstacles, how do you handle it? I mean, I think that we have the Ability to collect information about where these things are. We've obviously been successful at decimating the vast majority of Iran's conventional military. And I think it's really more of the same, but just finishing the job, especially looking at those anti-ship cruise missiles that could threaten the strait to get it open.

And I think we have some of the technology implemented today. But I think you had a conversation with Jamie Diamond where we talked about, we've got the innovation, but we maybe don't have the execution. I think Jamie's right in that the tools exist today to make decisions faster and to be able to work as a coalition, but we haven't fully implemented them. And I think that's a lot of the focus needs to be on how do we actually make better decisions quicker and faster in a more optimal way across both the U.S. forces and with our coalition partners and allies.

I mean, you're talking about the mass production of these great weapons, whether it's interceptors, whether it's drone technology or anti-drone technology for an affordable price, right? You have the innovation, but you have the manufacturing. I think that the manufacturing is really important. I know Jamie talked about that, and he's right. I mean, we absolutely need more weapons, more munitions, and we need to be able to make them faster.

But I think that's going to take some time. I think that there's something that we can do sooner, which is make more optimal decisions with the things that we do have. It's a concept we would call decision dominance. But how do you take all this information, fuse it, analyze it, and make optimal decisions right now with the limited resources that we have? And the technology exists today to do that.

Aren't we already seeing that with the the use of AI in our targeting? I think we're starting to see it, but I think we're really just we're just kind of like, you know, paper deep in what we could do. And we started to see AI get implemented, like to make these types of decisions. But I think there's There's a lot more we could do. I think AI needs to be adopted more broadly, but not just within our forces.

We need to be able to do it with our coalition partners and allies. I mean, today there's not a good machine-to-machine solution with our partners and allies. I mean, like, you know, we can't do this alone. We need to be able to work in multiple theaters. With our partners, and we need to be able to have machine-to-machine solutions to use each other's resources effectively.

And I think that's really important. And that's one of the areas I think. AI could help a lot. I mean, another is understanding the trade-offs between moving assets from one theater to this theater and what the implication is across security across the world. It's really hard to make those trade-off decisions and understand those implications today.

And I think that's another area that AI can really help.

So, in other words, you saw our assets off the coast of Venezuela for months. And now it's in the Persian Gulf, and we've got to take those marine ships. We're in Japan.

So do you think we're doing a good job understanding while we put our assets in those different areas what is vulnerable? I think we don't have an ability to make that like calculus. I mean, doing that like you know, detailed time space plan on what is the implication if I move this group from here to here, not just over the next two weeks, but six months, two years, 10 years. There's not an easy way to do that calculus today. And I think that's one of the real promises with AI is to help us get back to campaigning.

I mean, we like campaigning, you know, being able to weigh the trade-offs of like tactical decisions in one theater versus another theater. And make informed trade-offs is critical, and that is a really, really difficult thing to do.

So and you're saying too that get our partners involved with the innovation prospects.

So I guess the UK has got their military strategists and the France has their military. Instead of judging them, just fold them in. And if they're not going to if they're not going to do their part, make it public. But they can't keep up with us in many ways. But maybe we use some of those creative thinkers and bring them in so they understand their role in this whole thing.

Absolutely. I think we need to bring them in. I think, you know, we've, you know, I've certainly served with our NATO partners and allies when I was in Iraq. I've served with them in Afghanistan. I mean, we've worked closely over the years on the global war on terror.

I think, like, with what's going on in the world today, we need to continue that. But it's not just working together, it's how do we integrate technology so we can make decisions faster together, make optimal decisions together. And I think that's that technology integration is really important.

So, how do you judge our campaign so far from the people that you know and from what you've seen? How's it going? I mean, I think that our military has done a tremendous job of decimating Iran's conventional forces. I mean, I think we are. You know, again, the best in the world at like at doing that, and I think we've proven it again.

I think you know, there's still some cleanup to be done. I, and, you know, I know we've all talked about the straight-over moves. I mean, obviously, there's still a threat there, but I, and will it return immediately in the next couple weeks to where it was before the conflict started? Like, probably not. But can we get it to a manageable level with some focused strikes?

I do think that we're capable of doing that.

So, knowing that, Andy, and the role politics plays for the first time, I know when things got dicey in Iraq, there was a real divide, even among Republicans. Man, I don't think this surge will work. I think we lost in Iraq. Remember, Andy, I remember. uh the leader the majority leader in uh Harry Reid, the majority leader at the time in the Senate, he said everybody knows the war is lost.

Now, you guys are actually fighting the war, but you're hearing politics.

So the campaign by almost every military strategist I talk to is talking very positively about the campaign. But this is what people are saying on TV. About it, and tell me if it wears on the war fighter and their family, cut seven. I mean, he really sounded and looked quite old, quite low energy, quite exhausted, and not particularly focused. Again, which is not that surprising.

And to me, that underscores and is like this sharpie underline for his two biggest political problems with the war. He makes clear in those statements that he makes tonight that this is a war of his choosing. We didn't have to be there. We just went to help. Help who?

Why? There was a bit of an inherent contradiction in saying that the objectives are very nearly complete. It's almost over. But. We're going to attack Iran into the Stone Age over the next few weeks.

Trump is on course to get a thank you card from the Ayatollah this year. This speech was a disaster.

So how does that affect the families and fighters? I mean, I you know, I I do think that the uh For the most part, I mean, we, when, you know, when I was deploying, like, a lot of us try to just stay out of like listening to the media and kind of just focus on like the mission. And that's, and that's really. I think, you know, most of the families are focused on thinking about their loved ones, supporting their loved ones that are deployed. You know, the people that are deployed are focused on the mission.

And honestly, when I was deployed, I don't know that I ever even watched the news because I was so busy just thinking about what we were doing. I mean, I think to echo kind of the point that Jamie Diamond made, I mean, Iran's been a problem for 47 years for us. This is not like a new thing. They undermined us in every theater that we fought in, that I fought in, like in all, you know, like whether it was in Iraq or Afghanistan. This is not a new, they're not a new problem that like happened overnight.

And so I think, you know, a lot of I can't speak for all of the people that are deployed today. I can speak for myself. They've always been. You know, in that region, problem number one. And we're a volunteer force, Andy.

And anyone who said, I'm going to join up for the military and didn't think that Iran possibly could pop up as a place of confrontation. really was divorced from what was going on in the world. And you probably don't hear about that, but like, you know, those of us as we're deployed, like we're, you know, we're living under that we've lived under that threat on deployment in both theaters. And so I think like it's just been It's been something that we've dealt with for a long time. Right.

All right, so we'll see what happens. How long do you expect this to last? I think that with focused strikes, on focused effort to finish off, I think, the real conventional threat to the Strait. I mean, I think that we could see a significant drop in risk, as the President said, in a few weeks. As far as like stability in the region, I mean, that's a much longer problem.

And I won't pretend to guess how long that takes. But I do think the conventional threat, I think, can be dealt with as it relates to the straight. Again, not going to be exactly as low risk maybe as it was before the conflict kicked off, but I think at a manageable level soon. And talking to guys like you, I know how much respect you have for the Australians and the UK. I very rarely hear people say they're not great to fight with.

But I do think there's something about the Israelis who have equal motivation. They're not there to help America, they're there to work with us. And we really have For the most part, the same objective. We just want to, I think both countries just want to live in peace, want to compete economically, not militarily.

So, I think there's something about the quality of the fighter that Americans are fighting with. I think when everyone comes back and tells this story, it's going to be kind of pretty unique. I mean, I agree. I mean, and I've I've I've been fortunate to fight alongside a lot of our NATO partners and allies. It was a true privilege of my career.

I never had the opportunity to fight beside the Israelis, but I mean, I do think that they're a truly unique and great and great partner. And I mean, it's it's a I mean, Iran is to a degree personal for me and for the people that I deployed with, but like not to the degree that it is for Israel. And so I think that like they we're very aligned in a way that, you know, I think is Is great. They've wounded thousands and killed at least 600 during the Iraq War. You could argue that the insurgency would have not nearly been as potent had Iran.

Not fomented the unrest like they did. Andy Markov, thanks so much. Thanks for having me, Brian. You got it. Listen, we're going to come back and wrap things up.

This is the Brian Kill Meet Show. Don't go anywhere. Brian Killmead will be right back. A radio show like no other. It's Brian Killmead.

Sponsored by Previgen. Previgen made for your brain. We landed on the moon. The evidence is overwhelming. The lunar consul can pictures of every landing site.

And you can see the car, the descent stage, the experiments package, the tracks, plus the experiments that we left up that have been sent back data for five years before NASA shut them down. And we've got 600 pounds of moon rocks, which are totally different from Earth rocks. Where did they come from? We landed on the Earth. Yes, we landed on the moon, but it's a crazy question.

With people who aren't normally crazy, don't seem to understand. They say, Well, you went 72, if it was so easy to get there, you got bored of it. Why can't we go back? It's a totally different technology, a totally different approach. And we don't want to just go back and scoop things up.

We want to go back and have sustained life. That's why they're talking about a nuclear reactor. That's why they to provide energy. They're talking about going to the far side of the moon at this point because they feel as if they've gone to the near side. Here's the crazy thing: we're actually trailing China.

There's a belief. There's a belief that China is going to beat us there to actually walk on the moon.

Now, we're the first to get up there. No one's done it since. The Russians have never gone on the moon, all right? And I know there's a lot of Americans out there who don't believe we walked on the moon. That's up to you.

You can go see the footage on YouTube, it's out there. Not just one small step for mankind.

So China is going to the uh China's going to the uh We're going to the back of the moon. China's going to the front of the moon. They say that's going to be easier.

Now we got our 10-day mission that's now, but we're going to be actually walking on the moon in 2028. Sadly, Trump will be gone by then. I think that, like the ballroom, it's got to get done quicker than that.

So I think the one thing with China, what we want to do is beat them up there because they're going to claim it. And they know this, that wherever they land, they're going to say, this is ours.

So that's where we got to get there first and almost beat them to the punch like we're doing with the Arctic.

So In terms of beating them, Jason Isaacson even talked about that. He said, Right now, we're a little bit behind where they're going to be and where we want to be.

So here is Jared Isaacson at Cape Canaveral yesterday talking about there was one communication issue, but now he says we're back in business, cut 32.

So after a brief 54-year intermission, NASA is back in the business of sending astronauts to the moon. We have arrived at this point through a sustained effort and national commitment and the work of thousands across the agency, our industry partners and our international allies. This mission belongs as much to you as it does to the crew. Right. Uh the crew's gonna go up there.

Hopefully everything's gonna go smooth. It's gonna come back and we can reuse the rocket thanks to SpaceX technology. And we know SpaceX said we're gonna go to the moon, but he really wants to go to Mars. But in order to do that, they gotta try some stuff on the moon about sustaining life and not being dependent on Earth. Butch Wilmore, retired NASA astronaut, cut 34.

They're going to be testing every single capability of the Orion spacecraft. And you've got to make sure that it is working as designed. It's going to be certified for future missions based on what takes place on every single phase of this flight to certify it. And then you go from there. We'll do the next mission on Artemis III.

Right now, the architecture has changed a little bit. They're going to go to Laura Thorbit again and do some rendezvous. I don't think they're docking, but rendezvousing with a lunar lander and doing those type of maneuvers. And then Artemis IV, I think, is when we're going to try to make the moon itself.

So that's what we're hoping for. But I guess I got to do some research, and it's always risky. Think about this. If something happens, it's devastating for the astronaut and their families, but it also destroys the program. Right.

So they know that. And nobody's putting anyone at risk, but there is a risk of going into space, like the Wild West. About landing on the moon in the past, about skeptics and what it was like on the moon. Here's the guy we opened up with, Brigadier General Charles Duke, who did just that, cut thirty-seven.

Well, it was very exciting, of course. We felt right at home. We'd studied the photographs of our landing area for many years. And when we got ready to lift off and land, I recognized every major feature in our landing area. And we were very excited to have been targeted into the right area and to have an opportunity to explore the Descartes Highlands.

So he talked about walking on the moon, the youngest to do it at 36 years old, 1972, and the last to do it. I think that was the last mission. Apollo 16, remember Apollo 13 with Tom Hanks, got some Got some play. All right, a lot of you are writing me. Remember, we were talking about birthright citizenship.

And I said, Look, if you can't amend the Constitution, can we have somebody in Congress change it because of birth tourism? Why does it work to our benefit to have thousands of Chinese being born here go back to China, become communists, and then they could come back and be American citizens and vote, maybe run for office? And then Daniel writes, Thank you. Finally, someone brought up change the law. When I heard Chief Justice Roberts say it's a new world but same constitution, I immediately said, then change the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment never intended the abuse of our politicians and courts have allowed to happen over the last decade. It's disgraceful. Yes. I would think Democrats want to do it, but... You heard Andy McCarthy say he believes Democrats want open borders, the more illegals, the more votes they get.

Who's in the Brian Kill Meet Show? Don't forget One Nation Sunday at 10 o'clock. Keep it here.