The Brian Kilmeade Show

From India, I'm not sure. Tom, Fox News headquarters in New York City. Always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Killmead.

So glad you're there. Brian Kill Mead Show closing out a very, very busy week and an intense week. Carly Shimkist at the bottom of the hour. Carl Rove standing by. Good job numbers.

They expected 59,000 jobs. How about 174,000 jobs? There's a lot going on today, and you forget about the economy. I got to give the president credit. I mean, I watch the Daily Show and I watch these other networks and they think it's bad.

I think it's good. I mean, what's the president doing? Oh, he's talking about the space race. What's he doing? He's going to sit in the Supreme Court because of birthright citizenship.

What's the president working on? He's also working on improving the White House. And then what's he focusing on? Of course, the war in Iran. That's pretty much what a good president does.

He just doesn't talk about it like this president does, which I think is a compliment to the people because he tells you what's on his mind and what he's doing. Big three. Number three. I know the United States has done this 1968 through 1972, but it's just, this is unbelievable that we can put our minds to something and pull it off. This is an unbelievable technical accomplishment.

It also shows you what this country's about. We could do a bunch of things at once.

Well, while looking at the Final Four this weekend, men and women, on schedule, Artemis is out of Earth's orbit and now whipping around to the moon. The astronauts talked to Fox, and we got the inside story from their perspective. Remember, Kim, it's a rough job to ask somebody who wants to have a good reputation in the law, which a lot of lawyers tend to want. A lot of the candidates have nice jobs now, and I don't see it being too attractive to a lot of people. All right, that is Jonah Gerlberg of Goldberg talking about moving out and Pam Bondi, change at the White House and at the Pentagon.

And maybe there's more to come from Trump and from Heg Seth. Will these second year changes be for the better? I'll talk to Carl about that. Number one. What we have to do is open it up ourselves.

And we have the capability to do that. And then at some point, we would pass it to allies and partner for them to continue to do it. We may have to give them a couple of assets that we have that uniquely that they may not have. But nonetheless, this is a very doable. That is General Keene, Epic Fury.

U.S. forces begin taking apart the Iran infrastructure as Iran holds the Hormuz Strait hostage. It is their only play. While extorting tolls for those who want to pass, we're going to look at the anticipated fight and the pressure it's putting on the world economy. Carl Rove, as somebody eminently qualified to be on the show, we looked at your resume.

Former Deputy Chief of Staff of the White House, knows everything about politics, advisor to President George W. Bush, writes for the Wall Street Journal. Carl, welcome back. Thanks for having me. No problem.

First off, let's talk about the war. The last night they hit Kuwait, they hit the UAE, so they still got some rockets and missiles. No doubt about it. But we're beginning to blow up the infrastructure. President made that statement about the trade of Hermuz, you open it up.

But I think we all know he cannot leave with the straight in Iran's hands, right? No, absolutely. Look, I mean, this is a if it is in the hands of the Iranians, first of all, it's a giant cash cow because they will be charging big chunks of change for the passage of vessels. They will use that money to rebuild their infrastructure, their military strength, the factories that make the bombs and the drones and the missiles, and they'll use that money to keep together the Revolutionary Guard, etc. No, we cannot allow them to do that.

And what's interesting to me is how strong. The Gulf Co the Gulf nations have been insane. Yes. Gotta gotta finish the job.

So here is General Keene with me this morning on a report that CNN had that they still have half the launchers and half the rockets and half their drones.

So he I asked him about that, and he has different sources. Uh and this is this is what he had to say, cut eight. I read that report and that flies in the face. I think is what Central Command is telling us. And certainly we're f much further along than that.

The reality is that the last few weeks are harder. That's the reality, because they're doing what? What are the Iranians trying to do? They're trying to hide as many of those launchers so they can preserve capability. They're moving their drones around for the same reasons so they can preserve capability.

We've knocked out pretty much all of their big ships. But the small boats are real. Even though they're smaller, they can impact the straits of Amuz, and they're hiding those. And every time they try to use them, we kill them.

So he said he spoke to you know, he's seen plans. Of what we have to open up the strait. He says it's an excellent plan. We got to do it, don't you think, Carl? Absolutely.

And look, he's right about it. Think about all the big conflicts. World War II didn't get easier at the end. It got tougher. And yes, if they had the amount of drones and missiles that was suggested in that report, you'd think they would be using them to, in essence, drive the uh the the Gulf nations in Saudi Arabia uh uh out of out of the conflict.

They'd be using them to decimate uh our our military facilities in the region, and they aren't. And it's because they don't have them. And yes, they do want to they do want to hold on to what they can, hoping to that uh once this passes, if we leave and if we leave the job undone, that they can then use whatever they have remaining in order to threaten uh the uh Kips moving in and out of the Gulf. But no, I think he's absolutely right. And it gets harder towards the end, but it is the end.

So, NATO, I know you're pro-NATO, but I am with Walker Rubio on this, who's pro-NATO. You don't want to be involved in this. We did it on our own. I got it. You know, if we have a Venezuela operation that's really far away from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, I get it.

But. Can we not use the bases we paid for in Austria, Italy, Spain, limits on France and England? I asked General Keene about that to put it in perspective. Cut 12. It's outrageous.

Here we are doing something. That's in our national interest, in the interest of allies in the region, to be sure, but in the world's interest. I mean, the world economy depends on a distribution of oil out of the Middle East. Everybody knows that.

So, the benefit that comes from pushing back the number one predator for almost five decades, Iran, and taking away their capability, everybody benefits from that. And the fact that they take such a narrow view of this, I mean, the president has a right to be furious over the fact that France will not let us fly over their airspace, that Italy and Germany and Spain are not letting us. Yeah, these are U.S. bases and not letting us use our own U.S. bases to support the war.

What are they thinking? Do you echo that? Oh, yeah, absolutely. I mean, Jack has got it absolutely right. And look, I understand they can be petty because they feel mistreated.

But this is not a time to be driven to act in these ways because you feel bad that the president hasn't been respectful of you. You know, these people, some of these countries sent troops to Iraq and to Afghanistan and lost their own people. They had deaths, and the president disrespected them when he said they've never helped us. They've helped us. But now's the time not to be petty, and this is being petty.

And it is in their interest that this problem be solved because their economies are more dependent upon Middle Eastern oil than our economy is. You'll notice that we aren't hearing this from, for example, Japan, where Japan gets 90% of its oil from the Straits of Hormuz. And yet they're trying to find ways to work around their own constitutional requirement that they can't project their military force outside their home. Home region because they understand that this will affect them in a positive direction if the straits are opened up. No doubt about it.

By the way, we slowly, and this is another side note, just while we're on it, do you know we're expanding our bases in Greenland, and that's well under the treaty from the 1950s? Right.

So we are expanding our presence there, so don't think the president has forgotten about that. I want you to talk, I want to talk politics for a second. As much as the Republicans are struggling, and while this war is on, prices are up, so that's going to make it even tougher. I got it. But I'm shocked at how few Democrats actually like their own party.

Listen to this: cut 50. 2006, Dem's net approval of congressional Democratic leaders was plus 28. You go back to last midterm, look at that, plus 19. Very much on the positive side left. The bottom has fallen out.

The bottom has fallen out. Minus four points. That is Democrats. Democrats' own net approval of their own congressional leaders. Even Democrats don't like their own leaders when it comes to Congress.

And overall, of course, the numbers are just absolutely awful. And I could hit you with the numbers, but it's terrible.

So you might focus on Republicans, they're in power, but Democrats don't have a message that even their own base likes. Yeah.

Well, take a look at the overall electorate. The president's job approval is upside down by, I think it is, 14 points today. The Republican Party's approval is upside down by 15 points. But the Democratic Party's approval is upside down by 20 points. That is to say, they're 20 points underwater.

They're the opposition. You think that the difficulties brought about by this conflict and by the economy would redound to their benefit, and they aren't. And you're absolutely right. It's because they don't have a message that causes ordinary people to say, you know what, I'm upset with the war, or I'm upset with Trump, or I'm upset with prices, or I'm upset with the Republicans. But I really like the Democrats.

They can't bring themselves to say that. And it's going to get worse before it gets better. We have primaries coming up in Michigan in August and in Maine in June that are going to sort of for the U.S. Senate that are going to show is the Democratic Party going to try and be a reasonable party that moves more to the center of American politics or is it going to continue to move left? And, you know, we're about ready to see whether Democrats are going to wake up and realize that their party is floundering and they got to do something to help move it back to the center.

And you're talking about Rogers, who's going to be a strong candidate in Michigan. He barely lost last time. Open C, Gary Peterson. Yeah, Mike Rogers. And then you're talking about Susan Collins over in Maine.

Who everyone thinks they're going to beat every year, but you want to see who they're going to nominate.

So you got the guy with the Nazi tattoos, or you have a governor who's the left of left the left. who wants to be senator at seventy s at seventy five years old.

Well, she would be the oldest freshman, I believe, elected in the history of the country.

So yeah, so that's your opportunity.

So the one guy Who I think sounds reasonable, like the Bill Clinton type guy and what we thought Barack Obama was, was Rahm Emanuel. Listen to this honesty. I'm sure it'll go away when the primaries start. But listen, Cut 49.

Now, to the core question, why do Democrats have a problem? Because we're punks. And we talk like Melody talk like punks. We talk down to people. We get caught up in a set of issues that aren't relevant.

Think about all this about transgender and sports, etc. There's hundreds of thousands of NCA Athletes. And there's 10 transgender athletes. This is crazy. As I said in education, we have the worst reading scores and mass scores in thirty years.

And we're arguing about bathrooms and locker rooms and not the classroom. I mean, that's a reasonable approach, but does that even resonate on the left if you say these things?

Well, um Think about this. How many times have the Democrats nominated the most liberal candidate for President? and one. You know, John F. Kennedy wasn't the most liberal candidate running in 1960.

You know, in 1976, Jimmy Carter was definitely not the most left-wing candidate running. In 1992, Bill Clinton, in part, won because he took on the Democratic Party. Remember the sister soldier moment where he took a high-profile figure who said outrageous things that most Democrats either agreed with or refused to condemn, and he condemned them, and he won. Even in 2008, Barack Obama tried to sound, we're not the red states and blue states, but the United States. Joe Biden was not the most liberal guy running.

So I'm not so certain that this is not a very smart move on the part of Rahm. This is a sister soldier moment. What he's saying to a lot of ordinary Democrats is. I'm like you. And I think all this stuff on the far left is nutty.

Now, it's not going to do them well in the most liberal precincts on the upper west side of New York City, but it's going to do them well in South Carolina and New Hampshire and Iowa and all across the country because I don't think every poll shows that most Democrats are the majority of Democrats are more to the center than they are to the far left wing.

So AOC came out yesterday, and I think this is going to be on the platform and in the debates. AOC says she will now oppose all U.S. military aid to Israel and shifts her position in the York Congression and says that they have enough. They can afford their own weapons. They can afford their own interceptors off the Iron Dome.

I think that's going to be every Democrat. That's going to be the litmus test. Remember? It used to be about green energy.

Now it's going to be about refusing to arm up our ally, don't you think?

Well, again, the question is how stupid are the Democrats going to be? Yeah, if there are a lot of stupid Democrats, AOC's opinion is going to be dominant. But I'm not certain that's where most Democrats are. Again, it may be good for her district, but there is. There is a long-standing affection inside the Democratic Party towards Israel, and to be that extreme.

And to be that radical, and to take some of the rhetoric that we're hearing out of candidates like the guy in Michigan. Accusing Israel of genocide and of the applause in certain elements of the Democratic Party for the action on October 7th. This is not going to be good for the Democrats over the long haul, in my opinion. American politics is constantly changing. And if you take some of the elements of the Democratic Party who strongly support Israel, among them are older black voters, particularly older black women.

Those are the most loyal of loyal Democrats. And it's going to be a mistake if the Democratic Party does this. And not only that, but it's wrong. It's fundamentally wrong. It would worry me as an American, but not know who our friends are.

Carl Rove, thanks so much. Great to be with you. Have a fantastic Easter. Yeah, same to you. Thank you.

Back in a moment. And bottom of the hour, Carly Shimpkiss, 1866-408-7669. Don't move. How? Giving you everything you need to know.

You're with Brian Kilmead. Uh Radio that makes you think this is the Brian Kill Me Show. I mean, you get the anger. I mean, what Biden and Obama did to this president. You understand there's a lot of anger about that, right?

Not only do I understand, I lived it, Jesse. Don't forget, I was on your show the night two years ago, the night that President Trump was found guilty in Manhattan in the middle of the law fair.

So I do not need any kind of, I had a first-hand accounting of what happened. And so, yes, I understand it. The American people understand it. And I know that the American people expect that it will never happen again. And we take that seriously.

And so Todd Blanche ascends right now as acting. I think he's a contender to keep the job as Attorney General. I think he wants the job, no doubt about it. And the other guy is Lee Zeldon, who people think he's got such bipartisan respect. He'll have almost no problem getting confirmed and it'll be a fresh start.

If I'm Trump, though, I have a guy killing it at EPA. And what's so important about EPA, with this administration defocusing on this green mania and refocusing on getting energy, combine him with Doug Bergam and Chris Wright, man, these guys were killing it. And then he was given an additional job of trying to get the people of Pacific Palisades in California rebuilt and forcing these insurance companies to pay up and getting rid of the red tape. He only got that job because the president knows how competent he is. It has nothing to do with the EPA.

My feeling is then you lose two, then you lose a guy that's doing two things. Todd Blanche ascends. He knows the president. He knows the law. And I don't even know if he goes through a whole confirmation process, because he had to go through a confirmation to be deputy.

I guess it's a new job, so maybe you do. But then, if he does, all the fireworks and the Epstein files and everything that's happened over the last 12 months. Come front and center. I know the president thought it out, probably made it out, but if not, get a new deputy in there right away because you've got to have the Department of Justice functioning in all cylinders. We come back.

Collin Shimkis is here. We're going to talk a little space. Kind of exciting. Shows you what a diverse country we have. We can play basketball on the weekend.

Of course, in the NCAAs, we can go to space and fight a war. Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same premium wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities, so do like I did and have one of your assistants' assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do at mintmobile.com/slash switch.

Upfront payment of $45 per three-month plan equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra, fee full terms at mintmobile.com. Breaking news, unique opinions. Hear it all on the Brian Kill Me Show. Mm-hmm.

I feel like when I was a kid watching the Apollo missions, a massive crowd turned out, just like in the old days, to witness the first manned moon mission since 1972 at Cape Canaveral. One space fan, I believe, captured the true spirit of the moment. Why do you want to be here? Why do you love space? Why do you love being a part of history?

We're going back to the Moon, that's why. Yeah.

You tell them, camera head kid. That says it all. Reminds me of that famous children's book, Goodnight, Mother. That was funny. That was really funny.

But that kid did say that live on television. He literally did. What do you mean? Here's the story. This is why it's so disingenuous.

The unnecessary censorship. This is what he said, cut fifty-seven. Why do you want to be here? Why do you love Why do you love being a part of history? We're going back to the freaking moon, that's why.

Oh, okay.

So it went from parents are not proud of him to parents think what he said was funny and exactly. Uncle you watch Colbert, you think this kid's drop an F bomb.

Well, you know what's funny is I listened to this on the Five last night and they didn't bleep it. But I was listening to it in headphones and I thought he Said a d the bad word.

So then when I just heard this bleep version, I was like, oh no, the five made a big mistake, but they didn't. Right.

So they so the Stephen Colbert can't even get that right. I know. This poor little kid looks like he's just dropping the F-bombs. I love how excited he is about space, though. Right.

I mean, yeah, we are going back to their friend. Who knows if he's really excited about space or he just, I mean, it's just so much be a breath of fresh air not to talk about Trump for one minute. I know, right? You can't obviously inject Trump into the story, though, because NASA is a government organization. I mean, this wouldn't be happening without him.

He's into space. He's into space. Yeah.

And into the fact that we need to beat China back to landing on the moon. Would you listen to the show yesterday? The Brian Killme show? No. Which one?

Your myriad of shows. Yes, I did listen to the show.

So you did on this whole write-up. Isaac Sin admitted, he said, there's a good chance that China will be on the move with us before us. I know. I mean that that bothers me so much because I mean, so make it 2027. Remember, 2028, Trump will be gone by then.

Yeah, I know.

Well, and that's the other thing that he said when people question if we went to the moon to the first place. You know, it's like a fake narrative right now. The way that I think it was Isingman that described it, too. He says we have like 600 pounds of rocks that only are they're unique to the moon on top of that. You know that?

Uh I did not know that. Oh, yeah. We got if we did.

Well, if we brought that back as proof. Oh, I see what you're saying. Hey, uh Eric, you you're into space. Can you go on YouTube and just look at the different launches and walks? And aren't some of them in color?

I believe the last couple were. Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, so this is, it got so, we weren't even watching it. And I was. Six, whatever. But no one's watching it. Because in the beginning it was like I I was too young, but it was such a big deal.

And then by the time we're done, we're like, oh, there's it's up again. You know, Apollo 13, they made a movie about it. They had one thing go wrong. Like you're saying that we kind of took it for granted in that 50 years.

Well, and what I was what I want to say was that one of the reasons it's taken so long is because it is by the will of the president. And there are certain presidents who are into these missions and there are others who weren't. And then you start and stop, depending on who wins office. And now we have a current administration that's off Space Force and beyond.

So we're going back. I think it's so cool. Yeah.

I mean, the astronaut spoke last night. Here's Reed Wiseman from as he's the commander on our Artemis two forty four.

Well, we are still technically in Earth's orbit, although we did just do our translunar injection burn. And so we are definitely 100% on our way to the moon. The lunar gravity will take over in a couple of days here and start pulling us around the far side. At the end of our translunar injection here about an hour and a half ago, we just really looked at each other. And I know the United States has done this 1968 through 1972, but it's just, this is unbelievable that we can put our minds to something and pull it off.

This is an unbelievable technical accomplishment. And it's a better capsule. It's a better technology, obviously. Yeah.

And, you know, I mean, I just think that these astronauts are so brave because you think about a successful mission and what we all lived through, some of us did. Missions that weren't. And you always think about that when it's launching, like, dear Lord, please let this work. And then it did. But then, okay, so now they're going towards space.

And you mentioned this on Vox and Friends this morning that they're not. propelling forward. The force that they already have. You know, Newton's law of motion, moving objects continues to move. But they do have to- Right, but they do have to navigate.

During certain times, or else they will literally slam into the moon. Ahead of time, or just continue to fly into space in perpetuity. There was a movie about that. Right.

A couple of things. Um I think we ought to land there quicker. Number two is I think we all should start seeing footage from the sixties and seventies so we could stop dealing with these things with people who are very well educated who keep saying we've never been to the moon. Don't you think? Yeah, we do, because last week I was a little bit of a moon denier myself.

And then now that I am all into this, this week I've changed my mind.

So do you know the Challenger and Columbia? What do they have in common? They both exploded. Katie, my daughter, had no idea about the space shuttle. I go, what are you talking about?

So I had to show her how horrific that was in 86, and then back again. And 2003. Right.

Well, it was before she was born. Yeah.

But you know, one was Reagan, had to explain it. The other one was Bush. How to explain it. We had to explain it. A teacher was on board.

And here's the reason why, Brian, people are now saying, Did we ever really do that? Because it has been so long. And so people think, well, why has it taken us so long to get back? If we could do that in the 60s, why is it so challenging right now?

So those are the questions that people have. But then there's a lot of things. And it takes an investment. What they really want to do, and I did that story about five years ago in NASA about what they were working on. And the one thing they want to do is like Musk wants to go to Mars.

So they go, SpaceX, they want to get started on the moon, but they're thinking Mars the whole time. They want NASA to do moon, and Musk wants to do Mars. But the main thing is, they don't want to have to depend on Earth. They want to grow their own food. They want to be able to sustain their own energy.

Wow. I know. So, this is their goal: not to worry, not to need Earth.

So, here's Jason, Isaacson. He's Isaacman, and NASA administrator, Cut 43. We are starting to build a moon base. We are going to have uncrewed landings on a near-monthly cadence.

So, these are robotic landings starting in the beginning of 2027. This is how we're going to test out mobility, crewed, uncrewed, power generation, surface comms, orbital comms. We're going to put up orbital observation satellites. We've even created a moon-based website and a moon-based social channel so people can log in, watch us building the base in near real time until we build up to maintaining that enduring presence on the moon. It's just a wild concept.

And then you do we start talking about like who colonizes the moon? Oh, yeah. Well, China's going to try to claim it. I mean they're gonna try to claim a huge rules.

Well actually I was like you can't claim the moon and then I was like well America can. Right.

Yeah, I mean I wanna.

Well we know no one's coming.

So we could do anything. Yeah.

Golf or whatever.

So they already had one problem, bathroom problem? Yeah, they had a fan in the bathroom that wasn't working, and that became a story. But those are the things that engage people. You know, it's a headline that you click on. I certainly did.

So, in the four-in-person crew, there's a woman and there's a black man, right?

So, I thought this question was so great. And the way Victor Glover answered it, he's black, cut 46. It is a big question, and I want to highlight, I guess, maybe one facet of this is the tension, I call it. I live in this, you know, this dichotomy between happiness that a young woman can look at Christina and just physicalize her passion or her interests, or even if it's not something she wants to do, she can just be like, girl, power, and that's awesome. And that young brown boys and girls can look at me and go, hey, he looks like me and he's doing what?

And that's great. I love that. But I also hope we are pushing the other direction that one day we don't have to talk about these first, that one day this is just, and I listen to this, that this is the human history. It's about human history. It's the story of humanity, not black history, not women's history, but that it becomes human history.

That's the most well-rounded answer I've ever heard. It's true. There is a level of the first this, the first that.

Okay, cool. But it's really about people. Yeah.

There is so much more that unites us than separates us. We don't always have to focus on the superficial. You said that in 2020, it must be some MAGA lunatic who doesn't understand that they're really a minority. They've been brainwashed. For example, I mean, this is the way it should be.

Like, you ever have somebody from a small town makes it to the NFL or Major League Baseball, they go, no one from this town ever made it before.

Okay. Noted? But then once you start playing, you're no longer the small town guy. You're just or woman playing basketball at UConn or never had a basketball player recruited from my town. Yeah, that's noted.

But then when it comes to playing, you just play. Good player. And then if you do a documentary, bring it up. But it shouldn't, your origin story shouldn't be out there. It should be what are you doing now?

It's so cool. And I mean, that's what Martin Luther King Jr. was talking about the entire time. And I loved that response. And beyond that, all of these astronauts have been asked about the achievements that they've, you know, they're history-making people.

They're going to go down to history. And their answers are all very selfless in that, and I really do believe that they think this, that they're just doing this and this is their moment. But they're doing it for the next astronauts to go even further than them. It really feels like a whole team effort. They're a family.

If you talk to an astronaut, they all feel a part of the same group. But they don't even know each other. But a couple of things. I also think the one thing that happened Is when we beat the Russians. That's part of the reason why we stopped Being obsessed with it.

Because we did it. Because we want. And maybe that, I'm just thinking now. Maybe that's why they don't want to get caught up in a China race. It's not that they don't think we can win, but they're worried about when we win.

Are you going to lose interest? And I just think there's going to be sustained interest this time that's going to be yeah, and you know what? Speaking of interest, I know that you feel this way about sports and you know, like the Olympics and the World Cup, and how important it is for young people to see that and get inspired. And, you know, we played the clip as a little kid before who didn't curse. But I love that.

And that is what. This mission did for a lot of kids. I, for the first time, was able to watch this with my son, who's becoming old enough to somewhat conceptualize what's going on. He was so into it. He pretended to be a rocket ship afterwards.

He was like, I love that rocket ship. You know, it's like, he won't remember, but it was an exciting moment for him. And I think it, you know, will. You know, get the wheels turning a little bit. How about this goal?

The next time there's a blast off, liftoff, he's going to say, Watch. I want to watch. Yeah, he'll have something to pull from. Yeah.

And that's nothing but positive. Right.

And do you know if you're having a boy or girl? This time around, I'm having another boy. You have another boy? Have you picked out a name? No, Brian, help me.

Oh my gosh. Can your callers call in with name suggestions? Name suggestions. I have no idea. I like that.

What is your husband playing a role in this? Yeah, well like 20%. 80-20, okay.

So he does have a sex. And he knows that. There's this country song. It's like, you name the babies, I name the dogs. Blake Shelton sang that.

I feel like if you're physically carrying the baby, you have like a little bit more. I think you should. But we both have veto power. He's vetoed some names.

Well, Brock's a good name. Thank you. Yeah, I always remember that you said that. And I know that. My dad's a good name.

I got it. Well, so here's the thing. I feel like people, maybe it's because I call him by his name and not my son, but I feel like it's a little bit memorable. I don't know. But I think a lot of people do know his name.

And my husband wants this baby to be named Jack, which is a name that I love, but it's more common, although I do like it.

So that's the pickle that I'm in. Right.

I want to name the case. Should I say it? Should I say what I want to name the baby?

Okay, right now, who's winning? What name is winning? My husband, because I don't know if I'm 100%. I want to name the baby Stone. Oh, I love that.

You do? Don't don't you love that? Do you like that?

Okay. What do you think? A lot. I mean, I'm getting more negative feedback than positive, and I can be easily swayed by other people's opinions on names. No, I think it's really good.

You know, everyone's going to say Stone Phillips of 2020. I don't know who that is. Wow. Do you guys know who Stone Phillips is? You guys do, right?

Of of the show 2020. Yeah.

Oh, okay, yeah, I've heard of him before. Yeah.

So that's the only time I ever heard the word stone.

So now we're thinking Jack Stone, Stone is a middle name, but nobody knows your middle name. You could use it. Yeah, I'm just saying, I don't know. Yeah, I know.

I know. I don't know. I think about it a lot. Do you like the name Bear? Isn't it a dog?

See, I like the name Bear for a boy too, but my husband's like, you're not giving birth to a dog. But Bear Grylls, that's got to be a nickname. That's got to be a nickname. That can't be his real name. I think it's his middle name, actually.

I Googled it. Wow. You did look it up. All right.

So, listen, if you could name Carly's kid. Yeah, name Carly's kid. How much time do we have? Can we do a telethon? I'll pay you.

Name my kid. All right.

How much time do we have? Oh, till July. Till July 25th. Oh, we got time. Oh, yes.

1866-408-7669. Or if you want to write me, go to briankillme.com. Just click on comments, and I'm just going to send them to Carly. She needs a name. She needs you.

NameCarly's Kid.com. Want even more, Brian? Download the podcast at BrianKillMeatShow.com every episode. Exclusive interviews on demand. More of Kill Me coming up.

Ah! The fastest three hours in radio. You're with Brian Kilmead. Carly Shimkis asked for help. Ask for help from the Brian Kilmead radio show, and people are jumping on the lines.

Calling, naming your second baby, the first one, his great kid, full of energy, future quarterback in my view, or middle linebacker, Brock. Yes, I love the name. Thank you so much, and thank you to everybody who just into the Name That Baby game.

Okay, here is Wally. In St. Pete Beach, Florida. Wally. Give Carly an idea.

Carly, I I've worked on this for a while. You name the baby on the birth certificate T B D. And then for the fifth birthday, let the boy or the girl Choose the name they want. Oh, you call the kid the young boy TBD for five years? Yeah.

Well, that's just for the birth certificate because they're going to want something.

So, to be determined. That is hilarious.

Well, it's five years old. What if he's like, I want to be named Buzz Lightyear? Yeah, that's true. Carly, creative, thinking outside the box. I love it.

10 out of 10. Rudy in Topeka, Kansas. Rudy, what should Carly name her baby? Binnett. B-N-N-N-E-T-T.

Our name, our boy's name is Bennett, and we love it. Do you use the full name or you'd go Ben? No, we just go Bennett. Bennett is on my short list. I'll tell you that right now.

So we are on the same page, my friend. Cool. Thank you. That is awesome. How about Tony in Florida?

Hey, Tony. Hey, good morning. Carly, I think you should try doing something that we've done with my family. It's a real easy formula. If it's a boy, the first name is named after somebody in the father's family.

The middle name is taken by someone in the mother's family, and vice versa for a girl. If it's a girl, then the first name comes from somebody on the mother's family, and the middle name comes from somebody on the father's family, and this keeps your family heritage going.

Okay, so if you do this, could you give me a name?

Okay, so it would be Leo, because that's a big family name for my husband's family. And then my side of the family, my dad's name is Edward.

So it would be Leo Edward if we followed that formula. Wow. And lastly, thanks so much for the call. Thank you. That was great.

We were talking about the African-American astronaut, and how he said, I just don't want it to be that's the most important thing. Eric in North Carolina. Eric, what's your perspective? Hey, how you doing? I'm Eva, black male who served in the Navy for 20 years.

um you know a a golfer you know, a a sports enthusiast, you know, we naturally and organically Got rid of the term black quarterback because that was a thing. We naturally and organically got rid of the term black golfer. And we naturally and organically got rid of Black Navy SEAL and other Special Forces titles. And I believe that they will come as we continue to excel as people. But as a black male, yes, I do want to represent.

Gotcha. I love that. Thanks so much for the call. Yeah, and that's what the astronaut was saying. I love that.

Carly, best of luck. We gave you some ideas. I love it. Buzz Light Year. Got some ideas.

Number one. From the farm. Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan. It's the fastest growing radio talk show. Brian Kilmead.

Hi everyone, so glad you're there from 48th and 6th in Midtown Manhattan. Brian Killmee Joe coming to you. Of course, we are at 1211 6th Avenue. Gerard Baker is going to be with us from the Wall Street Journal. Here's what he, the title that captured our attention, the headline, you may already have won the Iran War.

He's going to expand on that from a financial perspective. Also, President got some great news today. They expected 59,000 jobs and unemployment to tick up. Unemployment stayed the same and we added 176,000 jobs. That is huge.

Standing by, Vice Admiral Robert Horwood spent his youth in Iran and now is into working with, going to tell us how we're doing. in our effort to defeat Iran.

So let's get to the big three. Numbers. three. I know the United States has done this 1968 through 1972, but it's just, this is unbelievable that we can put our minds to something and pull it off. This is an unbelievable technical accomplishment.

Yes, that is astronaut Reed Wiseman on schedule. Artemis II is out of Earth's orbit, now whipping around the moon. The astronauts talk to Fox. We have the inside story. Number 10.

It's a rough job to ask somebody who wants to have. a good reputation in the law, which a lot of lawyers tend to want. A lot of the candidates have nice jobs now, and I don't see it being too attractive to a lot of people. Moving out, change at the White House and the Pentagon. Maybe there is more to come from Trump and Hagseth.

We have the second year changes. Are they for the better? We'll discuss. Number one. What we have to do is open it up ourselves, and we have the capability to do that.

And then at some point, we would pass it to allies and partners for them to continue to do it. We may have to give them a couple of assets that we have that uniquely that they may not have. But nonetheless, this is a very doable. And that is General Keene with me talking about the plan that he had a chance to look at and examine that shows a way to open up the strait that we should do. Epic Fury cannot be won as much success as we've had if that straight is closed and Iran's in control, as hampered as they would be.

Vice Admiral Robert Horwood, he's the senior advisor with the Iran Policy Project, Hewis Institute for National Security of America. Vice Admiral, welcome. Ryan, good to be with you.

So do you agree with the general and for me for what it's worth that you cannot say you won if the strait's in Iran's hands? And they're charging the business. Without a doubt, that's been the objective since day one. And part of that is their ability to project missiles, hit missiles.

So the missiles in the straits have remained a priority from day one. And I can sense a little bit of the president's frustration that that has not been accomplished. And we can do it. Of course, there's risk. Associated, but there's also a lot of other people who have more interest, just as the President has said, in this than we are.

So I'll be curious to see how NATO responds here after their meetings ongoing today, but the straits are important to everyone. And the thing is, if Iran's never in control again, that is tremendous progress because they've always hung that over everybody's head, correct? That's exactly right. From for their whole entity, they wanted to control the straits. And here's the more important part.

If we didn't do this now, there may have been a point two or three years from now where we could not do it.

So don't squander this opportunity to get a long-term solution here. I think this first outreach from some of the political leaders in Iran that, hey, we're offering to give you this may be an indicator of where we are in the war.

So here is, I know that I guess what you're referring to too is the UK convened about 40 different world leaders yesterday in a Zoom call to talk about what they're going to do. And then nothing concluded from it, but they're talking.

So yesterday we blew up one of the brand new biggest bridges in Tehran and we put the video out there and say more to come. Their answer was to rock at the UAE, Abu Dhabi. They hit a gas field. They shut it down. They hit Kuwaiti refinery.

And they went for Saudi Arabia, but the drones were eliminated.

So, your thoughts about what they have left? That's all they have left. And you're exactly right. Once we get rid of that, the regime's done. That's their lifelines.

They have two lifelines left. Controlling the straits and their ability to launch missiles and drones. Once those are done, the regime is at risk, if not done. You know, the capture of American pilot today adds a new wrinkle to it and will, I'm sure, escalate the conflict to a different level. They did capture an American pilot, that's true.

That's correct. We lost an aircraft today, was shot down and pilots on the ground, and we believe has been captured by the IRGC. Wow, I did not know that. Last night they claimed to have shot down and we said all are accounted for, but you just gave us new information. Thank you for that.

So we'll look to see what that does change things. But it does amp things up. Just like if we go into the strait and grab an island, there's a chance you could take casualties there. There's a chance they could get lucky and hit one of the ships, right? That's exactly right.

And it's interesting to watch the Israelis, remember their strategy was go after the leadership. You may be seeing some results on that based on now. You have some of these political leaders coming out and tweeting that, hey, we can work through the nuclear issue, we can work through.

So, both of those efforts, the Israeli campaign to eradicate the leadership, while we're focused on missiles and the straits, are coming together. And at one point, they'll culminate to really focus the capability on the center of gravity, which I think will ultimately be the regime. But we've got to solve this missile and the straits first.

So, President Trump put this out. Uh one hour ago. With a little more time, we can easily open up the Hormuz Strait, take the oil and make a fortune. It would be a gusher for the world, Donald Trump.

So if we're in control, he wants to not only be in control of it, he wants to actually take a piece of it, it seems. But he has to understand that no one's going to consider it a victory if Iran's in control. Right now, they're charging millions of dollars just to go through. And they're picking and choosing who's going to be going through. I mean, that cannot stand.

The other thing to keep in mind, there's a CNN report that says they still have half of their launchers and half of their drones, and some missile factories on the coast have not been touched. What do you hear, Admiral? No, I'm hearing a little bit different than that. But everywhere we know they exist, we go after it. But let's get back to this oil thing.

I know everybody's concerned about the price of oil now, but I think the President has it right. If this regime flips and looks west instead of east, the flow of oil coming out of the region changes the whole dynamics. You're going to see an end state where oil is half of what it was before the conflict started, not what it is today.

So that's the potential of all of this. And the ability to have a government in Iran that's part of the international community changes the economic dynamics, not just in the region, but globally.

So I think that's the end state everyone's hoping for. And I think that's the end state the NATO allies, the Europeans, are talking about today. Because they ultimately do need to be a part of this because it affects them dynamically. Look, if NATO didn't want to get involved in Venezuela and we were jammed up in Venezuela, I could see it. They'll say, hey, that's not my hemisphere.

We have no problem with them. I have no history with them. If Cuba goes south and we're having struggle, I get it. If you want to ignore us, that's your option. Got it.

But when you say the Strait is in your wars or it's an illegal war and you can't use our bases, I mean, how outrageous is it Austria, Spain, Italy, Germany says we can't use our own bases in their countries? But yeah, it doesn't make sense to me. And I just did a European swing last week, and I went and said, I won't name those countries, but I saw tankers. I saw fighters. I saw certain countries are in support and accommodating.

So it's not wholeheartedly. And again, as you've talked about, I think NATO at the end of the day in Europe is going to realize this opportunity and they're going to have to be involved. I think it's inevitable. If they don't do it now, and we do leave, they've got a much bigger problem on their hand down the road.

So I think inevitably they will get involved and be a partner, the partners they need to be.

So here's what Yvette Cooper said, the British Foreign Minister who put the call together yesterday, cut three. We are focusing on the diplomatic and international planning measures, including collective mobilisation of our full range of diplomatic and economic tools and pressures, and also action to guarantee the safety of trapped ships and seafarers, and the effective coordination that we need across the world to enable a safe and sustained opening of the strait. Without any conclusions, Admiral.

So we would need probably escort ability at some point, but they don't want to get involved until the shooting stopped. But the shooting will be drones, the shooting will be rockets, and it might be mines, right? That's correct. Just because the shooting hasn't stopped doesn't mean they're not going to be involved. Intelligence, logistics, there's other ways they can support.

I think you're seeing some of that from her statement right there indicate they're willing to do some of those things.

So, again, I think those are good first steps, but ultimately, it's going to take a lot more than that. And they'll come to that realization inevitably because it's in their own best national security interests. Admiral, I understand the president doesn't brief them and he gets under their skin, but in the big picture, they got to understand that they have very little leverage here. I mean, we I mean, nobody is supporting that I know of. Spain, 1.4% of their GDP want nothing to do with the war, especially set like almost an overture out to Iran.

And Austria, as well as Italy. Italy says you can't use our base in Sicily. I think that's outrageous. Here's what Matt Whitaker said about NATO and our relationship. As you know, he is our ambassador there, Cut Five.

You know, as the United States representative to NATO, I am on the president's side in this situation, but I can also, I think, give some good context and color as to what's going on in real time. Here in Europe. But ultimately, the President's going to make a decision. He's going to say whether or not the United States is going to continue with this relationship. I think ultimately the time is now for our NATO allies to explain.

Why they're beneficial to the United States of America and step up. And I've been saying this now for a year as today's my one-year anniversary of being sworn in.

So, I mean, he's got to bring that message. I know he's got the respect of our military, Whitaker. I wonder if he has the respect of our allies in this alliance. What do you hear?

Well, you know, it's interesting you use the word respect, but because before this war, I heard from our partners in Europe, our partners in the Middle East, they had lost respect for us. And more importantly, no one feared us.

Well, let me tell you, that dynamic has changed dramatically.

Now they do understand we are willing to use force to meet our national security objectives, but we're not focused specifically on theirs. If they want that, they've got to be partnered. And it is in their national security interest, not just today, but more importantly, for the future. And I think politically they're going to come to that realization.

So slowly we're going to have to turn this carrier going in a different direction in Europe. I think it's somewhat inevitable. And my hat's off to the ambassador there who has a hard job of pushing that agenda. But because of the moral and operational high ground, I think he'll get there.

So this is what we could tell you. The Middle East news writes: Iran said on Friday the Islamic Revolutionary Guard defenses had shot down an F-35. A spokesman for Iran's Air Force Central Headquarters said the jets completely destroyed and that the pilots' chances of survival were low. The Axios is saying Iran has shot down a fighter. According to two sources, it would be the first time since the beginning of the war the U.S.

military and the White House didn't immediately respond. And now there's a search and rescue operation out, Admiral Harwood. That's what I'm hearing. I heard an F-15. I heard the pilot was down.

I heard he was in IRGC hands.

So we'll have to see how that plays out today. But if that is the situation where we have one of our pilots in the hands of the Iranians, it will sure change the dynamics in a lot of different ways. Uh in what way?

Well, they have another bargaining chip. They're going to leverage that guy. They're going to put him on camera, as we've seen occurred with pilots before. And this is kind of indicative where warfare is going at all. There's great risk associated with those pilots.

Can we accomplish that with unmanned aircraft, strike aircraft? And so that's all coming. Our future planning and consideration is taking that into court. And that gives you another reason for U.S. boots on the ground.

It wasn't just to open up the straits, the Bob Almandab, keep those warways. But if we've got people on the ground and we have the opportunity to recover them, we may use those forces for that.

Okay, so a couple of things. Lastly, I know you have friends still in Iran. What what do they say about the things uh what's happening on the ground? Most of them are cheering. As they've told me, when they hear strikes, they don't run to the basements, they go up on the roof and look.

So again, I think all of these effects are playing out in Iran with the people. And as we've said from the day That's what's going to turn the tide.

So I think these are indicators of our commitment and present opportunities to help move and influence the regime, if not replace the regime.

So all the people I'm hearing from in Iran are still cheering and anticipating the final outcome. Do they have anybody have any guns to maybe take their country back? I don't know that, Ryan. As you know, my philosophy from day one, we should have gotten guns to people.

So that may be going on behind the grounds. I sure hope we're preparing for that. And that could play out into your calculus of U.S. boots on the ground. Are you going to put them in somewhere where they can help?

Instigate and build that upsurge from the people.

So, again, another option for the president tied in with the Israelis, our intel community, and where that opposition resides and how we can best galvanize it. Admiral, a lot of moving parts. Thanks so much. I appreciate Admiral Harwood joining us on this Friday. Back in a moment.

He just doesn't read the headlines. He breaks them down. Real talk, real news. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. I don't know where.

The talk show that's getting you talking. You're with Brian Kilmead. Living in Orion isn't quite the same as being at home with our families, but yes, some of the exciting things are the burns that we do. They kick off with such an acceleration that most things that you see velcroed around that aren't actually fastened down all fall down to the floor of Orion. But speaking of floors and ceilings, it actually is just all by convention only.

There is no difference between up and down. And so, yes, I've been sleeping with my feet there and my head down here, and it's very comfortable. I think I'll probably stay there the whole mission unless someone kicks me out.

So, we're just finding out how to make this space capsule at home.

So, that is the astronaut speaking out from the space station to Trace Gallagher last night, space station, though, space capsule, the Orion. It flawlessly executed the six-minute maneuver known as the translular ejection burn that she just referred to, just over a day into the mission. Orion has gone around the Earth twice, and now is slingshotting its way to the moon. And it's going to go further than any we've ever been before into space to go around the dark side of the room, the moon, and then come back. It's going to be a 10-day mission.

At the same time, starting in 27, you heard the administrator, the NASA administrator, say we're going to start putting equipment onto the moon, life-sustaining equipment, eventually putting together a nuclear reactor and different things you'll need to sustain life so they won't be dependent on Earth. That is the goal. And that's the best way to make sure China doesn't claim the moon as theirs.

Okay, well, if we had to make a choice, I'd choose the Earth over the moon, but I don't know why we have to make a choice. We might have already won the war. That's the headline of George Baker Wall Street Journal editorial. He'll tell us more about it in a moment. He's so busy, he'll make your hat spin.

It's Brian Kilmead. What we have to do is open it up ourselves. And we have the capability to do that. There are well thought out plans to do that.

So you've seen these plans? I understand in a general sense what it is. And those plants, the people in charge of them have a lot of confidence in doing it because they play war games and the like to do this sort of thing. We think we can absolutely accomplish that mission. And then at some point, we would pass it to allies and partners for them to continue to do it.

We may have to give them a couple of assets that we have that uniquely that they may not have. But nonetheless, this is a very doable So that is General Jack Keene with me this morning on Fox and Friends talking about the need to take back the strait and move forward. The campaign is going exceedingly well. We are following the other story of U.S.

sources saying that an F-35 was shot out of the sky yesterday or today, and the Iranians, according to the report, said there's no way anyone could survive this. We're doing a search and rescue operation. Gerard Baker is talking about this as he writes in his column this week. He's the editor-at-large of the Wall Street Journal. Gerard, welcome back.

Hello, uh Brian. Thanks for having me. So your title uh caught my attention. He said, You may have already won the Iran war. And it's in contrast to everybody who says we already lost it.

So why do you think it was necessary for you to take this position?

Well, if you read the whole column, my point is not that we have won the Iran war. My point is that anybody who has any certainty about what's happened after just a month is blowing smoke. Frankly, it's ridiculous to say that we've already lost the war. I've read so many pieces in the last couple of weeks saying this is the greatest disaster, military disaster, you know, in American history. And then I've read, but it's also equally ridiculous to say we won the war.

We know we haven't won the war. I've read pieces saying this is the greatest military victory for the United States since the American Revolution.

Well, you know, I think Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ulysses S. Grant might want to have a word about that. Look, it's too early to say. You're right.

The military campaign has been a remarkable success. And the fact, by the way, and obviously right now this morning, we're praying for those pilots who were in that plane that appears to have been shot down and hope that they can be rescued and everything is safe. But the fact that we're very concerned about that is itself a kind of telling observation on the strength of the U.S. military campaign because it's The first plane in five weeks, the first plane that's actually been shot down, been shot out of the skies, in a military campaign in which we've inflicted untold damage. We've taken out probably every single plane the Iranians may have, every ship they have, everything else.

And we're concerned, understandably, about the loss of one plane.

So, militarily, there's no question this campaign has gone well. But we don't yet know. what the strategic implications of this will be. We do know that Iran's regime is still in place, and we do know that they still have a grip on the straight of home. As you just heard Judas talk to General Jack Keene about this.

And to me, that does seem before we can declare victory, Either in an ideal world we'd remove the Iranian regime, that's what we would all like to see, because that will lead to long term peace in the region. But at minimum, we do need to ensure that they don't remain in control of the Strait of Hormuz. And I think that is the next phase of this. And when we do that, we leave if we if we if we if we relax their grip on the strait of Hormuz and therefore on the world's shipping supply and therefore on the world's oil supply and the shipping that goes through it and the fact that oil prices are double what they were two months ago. If we do that, if we loosen their grip on the Strait of Hormuz, then I think we can start to talk about a really significant strategic victory.

But we're not there yet.

So let's talk about our allies. Abet Cooper, the British Foreign Minister, convened 40 leaders yesterday to see what they could do on the straight Cut Eight. Excuse me, cut three. We are focusing on the diplomatic and international planning measures, including collective mobilisation of our full range of diplomatic and economic tools and pressures, and also action to guarantee the safety of trapped ships and seafarers, and effective coordination that we need across the world to enable a safe and sustained opening of the Straits.

So They're beginning to make progress, they said, but nothing was concluded from it. What do you hear?

Yeah, look, the Europeans, they've been held this meeting, they've been holding a meeting yesterday, not just Europeans actually, but a wide-ranging group of countries that are all obviously affected by essentially the shutting down of the strait, which is more or less what we've seen. And look, there is the capacity there to deal with this. It's been reported actually this morning that a French ship has gone through the Strait of Hormuz.

Now, that's kind of either interesting and encouraging on one level, or it's very alarming on another level. Because as countries are going to start doing deals, that's not a good thing. What I think the British are trying to do in their very kind of rather slow and clumsy and inept way is to try finally try and get some international almost kind of international enforcement operation to make sure that the strait is open. And I think that is one way to go. I suspect, however, that that is still going to requ I doubt that there's any willingness on the part of any of the Europeans or the Japanese or anybody else to go and to put their troops in harm's way in a way either through minesweeping operations or more and more likely, because this is the more likely way it would happen, to take out the Iranian facilities on the shores of the Gulf there in the Strait of Hormuz.

They're not going to do that.

So some kind of a deal is more likely with the Iranians. And again, I don't like the idea of that. If Iran is operating essentially a toll booth on the Strait of Hormuz with the cooperation of the international community, of a so-called international community, You know, that's not good news. That means Iran's going to make oil process. They could basically just turn and t to open and close the toll booth whenever they like to hold the world economy to hostage.

So we that's it's a ransom.

So that's you know, let's see what progress the rest of the world makes in trying to pull this off. But it's nothing I've heard so far makes me encouraged that this is actually gonna reduce Iran's power in that region. If anything, it might actually increase it. All right.

And when we talk about the economic head, Kevin Book. For the managing director of Clearview Energy Partners, was on with Brett last night. And he talks about the disruptions on the oil and gas. And then, Jerry Baker, I'd love for you to weigh in: Cut 16. On a net export basis, the United States could say that it has a certain amount of energy independence and has really since 2019.

If you go back to the early part of the previous decade, we were net exporters of refined petroleum products. But we are, as you say, connected to the world. More than 60% of oil moves across national borders, a lot of it on ships. And when it does, it carries the price with it.

So a shortage anywhere in the world is a problem for all of the world.

So he was just trying to explain to people that just because we have oil and gas doesn't mean we have control because it's a global market, right? It's a global commodity, which means the price that U.S. energy producers charge is exactly more or less, there are some slight differences, but it's broadly the same as the price that Chinese consumers will pay. It's a global commodity, and it's priced the same everywhere.

So look, so yeah, so while there is benefit to the U.S. from oil prices being high, their benefit to U.S. oil companies, and by the way, that all feeds through into the broader economy too. Their profits will be higher. That will be recycled into the economy.

The dollar will probably be stronger. Our terms of trade, as it's called by economists, will be better. That is all beneficial. It doesn't alter the fact that consumers are going to be paying, as I just did when I felled up my car yesterday, $5 a gallon here in New York or $4 a gallon in the rest of the country, which is 30%, 40% higher than it was. Plus, not just, of course, gasoline, but all those oil-based products, everything from, as we know, fertilizer to certain types of food to plastics.

To pretty well everything in your iPhone, in your smartphone, you know, that is made from ultimately from. B oil derived products. Oil-derived materials.

So that's all going to be more expensive for us. Yeah, it does help certain U.S. companies and it helps more broadly in some ways for the U.S., but it doesn't alter the facts that consumers are going to get hit hard if these oil prices remain as high as they are, American consumers as much as everybody else. Absolutely. And we'll see what happens in the region.

But I just am outraged that the Austrians, the Spanish, the French, the British, the Italians all said we can't use our bases. Uh Well They weren't consulted about this war. They don't think it's a good idea. Their peop their populations are against it, just as most of the American people seem to be against it, according to the opinion polls. They think in some respects, in some countries, in some of those countries, not in Britain, but some of those other countries, they actually think it's an illegal war and they don't want to be involved in it.

I mean, I'm look, I think they have an interest in doing what they can, their own interest in helping to win this, but I can also understand that these countries that many of them are very fragile governments with very hostile populations that are extremely hostile now to the United States, that have become extremely negative to the United States since Donald Trump threatened to invade Greenland and supports Russia really largely against Ukraine. Those countries are not very favourably disposed to the United States.

So even though they're in a difficult position, those governments, because I think while they understand the importance of winning this war and of helping the US if they can to win this war, their populations will curve them out. They were really worried about genocide in Gaza, but it's okay if 30,000 are gunned down in Iran. They don't have any outrage. There's no marches for that, unless you're Iranian. Here's General Jack Keen, cut 12.

It's outrageous. Here we are doing something That's in our national interest, in the interest of allies in the region, to be sure, but in the world's interest. I mean, the world economy depends on a distribution of oil out of the Middle East. Everybody knows that.

So, the benefit that comes from pushing back the number one predator for almost five decades, Iran, and taking away their capability, everybody benefits from that. And the fact that they take such a narrow view of this, I mean, the president has a right to be furious over the fact that France will not let us fly over their airspace, that Italy and Germany and Spain are not letting us. These are U.S. bases and not letting us use our own U.S. bases to support the war.

What are they thinking? Yeah, I mean If you can't get a hold of your population to understand that America is your only thing stopping Russia from running over your country eventually, and you have put nothing into your defense. And if you don't even want to let us use our stuff, that's a little crazy for me. I think you and General Key need to understand. And honestly, I feel very sad to say this, but.

I actually think probably most Europeans would quite like the United States to lose this war. I think they now regard the United States as fundamentally as an enemy. They regard Donald Trump as an enemy. They regard the things that he's done, again, over things like Greenland, threatening to take over Canada, saying he needs to take over Canada, cozying up to Vladimir Putin, saying he doesn't really believe in NATO, that NATO, you know, the U.S. wouldn't come.

Saying things like, you know, all those who died fighting with the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq didn't really do anything, didn't contribute anything. Again, you can argue about the merits of that, but you can't really argue about the effect that it has on popular opinion. And I think most Europeans today, look, they're not favorably disposed towards Iran. They hate Iran. They know what a terrible country it is.

But I think right now they probably regard the United States as a greater threat to them and a greater enemy to them than they regard Iran. Yeah, let's see how that goes. Let's see how that goes for it. The next time they take hostages over there, and where they have a terror attack against their interests, or they're paying tolls over in the Strait of Hermuz. If they think for a second that Iran was not a threat to their capital when they've already shown they had rockets that would hit their capitals, We had missile defense there for a while, just for Iran's reasoning.

But everyone said, well, they don't have rockets that could hit that far. They told us they didn't.

So let's just see who comes to their aid. Let's see if Russia comes to their aid.

Well, they don't expect Russia to come to their aid, but I think they'd also say, look, the U.S. fought two big wars in the Middle East, in particular in Iraq, which led to massive refugee displacement through Turkey. The U.S. fought ineffectively in Syria, too. And that resulted in, you know, many of them would argue that they've been more adversely affected by U.S.

wars in the Middle East than they have by Iran. And again, that's true up to now.

Now, as you say, Iran does have the military capability possibly to hit Europe. It never has done so, but it's certainly there as a potential. But again, the Europeans look at the state of the world at the moment. They look at the things that Donald Trump says about the world and what he says about them. And they, you know, again, they regard the United States as a bigger threat to them than Iran.

As you say, maybe wrongly, but that's the view in Europe right now. Right.

That's great. They can't have it both ways. If they look at us as a threat, don't expect us to stay in NATO. And then good luck with that. Anybody thinks NATO is, I think most people in Europe think NATO is a dead letter right now.

I don't think they expect the United States to defend them in the event of a war if Russia were to invade the Baltics or Eastern Europe. Yeah, we can reprogram that money. We can reprogram that money because there are different places we can do to build up bases here in this country rather than put up bases in other countries that are going to decide whether we use them or not.

So we'll see. And also, the president did amend his statement, came back the next day about the sacrifices the British and French made in Iraq and Afghanistan. Talk about the British in particular. He didn't, you know, he mentioned the Danes and the and the Germans and the Italians and the others who died there too.

So again, I'm just saying I'm just telling you what the view is in Europe. And again, I think it's it's a shocking thing to say, a really shocking thing to say, but I honestly believe that if you ask most Europeans, they probably see the United States as a bigger threat to their peace and security than they see than they think Iran is. That's really fascinating because if you look at Europe, too, have put like $3 into their military for the last 60 years, 70 years. Oh, sure.

So the British have no navy. I can't believe I'm saying that. The French have almost nothing. And now they're like, well, and the Germans are just now realizing they need a defense. And it's a big story.

Last year they put money into it. And now they've got to go, okay, America's a bigger threat. All right, then you handle your threat. We'd love to see that. They've lived in a fantasy land for 30 years of, you know, what wasn't really a fantasy land.

I mean, you know, the U.S. did basically guarantee European security for 30 years, and it made them extremely complacent and lazy and made them fail to do any investment in their own defense. And yeah, the world, they do now, they have very belatedly, you know, too late, but very belatedly, they've realized that that is no longer the case. And they better start taking care of their own security. They better find ways to help their own economy grow.

Because they don't, again, they don't believe anymore that they have an alliance with the United States. And they're probably right about that. And the ones that the Gulf states have proven just the opposite. I mean, they've proved stalwart allies. In fact, UAE, I think, wants to fight again, wants to get involved the best they can anyway.

Well, they're not. I mean, they're not. They're not actually contributing anything militarily. They're just using lots and lots of U.S.-bought weapons to shoot down the missiles that are being fired at them. They're not contributing.

They haven't. I mean, again, to be fair to the Europeans, more than a thousand European soldiers died in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not a single remember where 9-11 came from, Brian. It came from Saudi Arabia.

Well, I'm just telling you, let's not get too excited about it. Just keep in mind, you're talking about the future. You're talking about currently.

So, you got to talk about currently.

So, if Europe feels one way, Brian, are the Arab countries doing militarily to help us win this war against Iran?

Well, militarily, they only have capable right now of defense. But I also think by, I got to go to break, but by freezing funds and freezing access, that'll get their attention. Because a lot of Iranians who have no economy are keeping their money in those states.

So we'll see if they can have it both ways. Those states are being directly attacked by Iran and thank God they're using U.S. weapons, which they bought from us. But they're not contributing anything militarily to actually win this war.

Well, if they are asked, they would do it. And right now, they're not being asked, unlike the Europeans who just asked to help out with the Straits. Why not? Unfortunately, the Wall Street Journal, Jerry Baker, thanks so much. It's Brian Kilmade.

Information you want, truth you demand. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. Hey, you got it. Hey, by the way, a United States tour is coming your way. First, May 30th, I'll be in Reno, Nevada, on stage, BrianKillmee.com.

It's going to be Patriot inspirational and hopefully motivational. But then in the fall, I got a bunch of dates. July 11th, I can't forget about that, Pensacola at the Sanger Theater. But then October 16th in Redback, New Jersey, October 17th in Westbury Music Fair on Long Island, then Clearwater, Florida, November 7th, Jacksonville, Florida, November 8th, and then right outside St. Louis, Chesterfield, Missouri, November 21st, BrianKillmead.com.

Streamed on Fox Nation. From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian. Hi, I'm so glad you're there. It's the Brian Kill Me Joe coming from Midtown Manhattan, around the country, around the world.

Mark Teeson, the bottom of the hour. Shannon Bream is standing by. We have a lot going on today. Good job numbers. They had 174,000 jobs.

Pretty impressive, especially when they projected 54,000 the market like that. But they most likely would love to have the straight-up formuze open, and that's going to be the focus with the president over the next few days. I looked at his truth social post. That's going to be primarily in the beginning. He said, let them open it, meaning Europeans.

Now I think he understands we're the only one equipped to do it.

So hopefully we will. We are following another story. It looks like. One of our planes, an F thirty five, was shot out of the sky.

Some say it was an F sixteen. I'm not sure which one. But it's pretty much we're looking to doing a search and rescue operation to see if the pilots survived.

So let's get to the big three. Number 3. I know the United States has done this 1968 through 1972, but it's just, this is unbelievable that we can put our minds to something and pull it off. This is an unbelievable technical accomplishment. And that is an astronaut not easily impressed on schedule.

Artemis is out of Earth orbit and now whipping around to the moon. It'll be there on Monday. The astronauts talk to Fox and we have their comments. Number two. It's a rough job to ask somebody who wants to have.

A good reputation in the law, which a lot of lawyers tend to want. A lot of the candidates have nice jobs now, and I don't see it being too attractive to a lot of people. Well, yeah, moving out. Change at the White House as Pam Bonnie is out at AG. Will others be following, like the Labor Secretary?

I had the FBI Director. We'll discuss it. Number one. What we have to do is open it up ourselves, and we have the capability to do that. And then at some point, we would pass it to allies and partners for them to continue to do it.

We may have to give them a couple of assets that we have that uniquely that they may not have. But nonetheless, this is a very doable. Yes, that is General Jack Keene with me this morning. Epic Fury. U.S.

forces begin taking apart the Iran infrastructure, took out a major bridge. More to follow. The Iranians might have shot, as I mentioned, down one of our jets. We'll see how that goes. Jennifer Griffin reported that we have had 12 Predator drones shot out of the sky, so that's going to be costly.

We're going to look at the anticipated fight and the pressure it's putting on the world economy. And it looks like some of our allies are getting together about maybe helping out in some way, shape, or form. We'll see how that goes. Shannon Bream joins us now. Shannon, some pretty intense times, isn't it?

Absolutely. And when we know that there have been casualties to U.S. service members, it takes on even added importance now as this continues. The fact that we may have had a pilot shot down there. And, you know, where you think about what a rescue mission and what that may entail, and the fact that, you know, other service members are then in danger when you try to unravel something like that.

So, praying for that pilot and for anybody who may be trying to go in after him or her. And there's a lot of movement going on right now on Capitol Hill, including the Secretary of the Army is now out. Or the chief the chief the stee the chief of staff And that is Randy George. Listen to what Congressman Richard McCormick said about that. Of course, you know he's a veteran, CUT 22.

That would be news to me if you're talking about General George. I'm not sure which general you're talking about, but that would be very surprising to me. And I would look into it immediately because those are people that I know very well. I mean, General George has a brilliant mind. I think General George and Admiral Paparo are two of the brighter minds we have in the military.

I've never heard him say anything contrary to what the president is trying to achieve. I thought he's done a really good job getting the Army ready for war.

So I'd like to hear more because that's concerning to me. Because he was part of the recruiting effort, too, that's gone through the roof. of late.

So how's that resonating in the Pentagon, you think?

Well, I mean, the reporting we're getting from inside, and really only those men who were party to that conversation know, is that the general wasn't really given an explanation.

So we don't know exactly what the secretary was thinking and what motivated that. Whether we'll find out publicly, I don't know. The Pentagon's been having pretty regular briefings, at least, you know, every couple of weeks. And so if we get another one of those soon, and I hope that we will, I think that's going to be one of the first questions. Like, what's going on with these leadership changes?

What motivated that? Whether the Secretary answers or not, it'll be interesting to see. But I think that we definitely have more questions than answers about that particular change at this point. Yeah.

So this week was the birthright citizenship debate. We have not spoken since on our show, on this show, as you get ready for Fox News Sunday. The conventional wisdom is that most of the justices are very skeptical of it. Do you feel in retrospect as you analyze some of their comments and witness it, do you feel the same way? Yeah, I did.

I mean, sitting there in the arguments, normally we're just completely trained on the bench, but of course, I was trying to look at the president, see what his facial reaction was to any of what he was hearing from the bench. He was very dialed in and very focused. You know, nothing overtly from him demonstrating how he felt about how the arguments were going. But it was a tough day. I mean, the Solicitor General does a very good job of what he does, John Sauer, but he can only work with what he has.

And there was a lot of skepticism along the bench, all across the bench, from justices who said, Listen, this is the way it's been interpreted for 150 plus years. Congress could have changed it over time. Courts could have interpreted differently. They didn't.

So you can point to original legislative intent and those kinds of things, but people who could have spoken up and changed this along the way didn't. And so it would be a pretty heavy lift for them to change the way it's been interpreted all this time. Not to say that they couldn't, but I didn't see five votes there. Why did they take it, Shannon? Why did they take it?

That was my question, too. I mean, because it takes four votes to get onto the calendar, and it's very difficult. They get thousands and thousands and thousands of cases, and they only take maybe 70 or so, maybe 80 in a busier term.

So I was a little bit shocked that they got the votes to hear it.

Now, it had lost in every court below, so there wasn't a split in the courts. There wasn't something they needed to resolve. But maybe they wanted to put this to bed to say, you know, we don't know if it was for quote-unquote conservative justices who voted to hear it, or maybe some of the liberal justices voted to hear it too, saying, I just don't think the court would ever allow this.

So let's hear it. Let's get it done. And let's just fast-track it and solve the question. Yeah.

Here's Kentaji Brown Jackson questioning how this would go into play. Listen. How does this work? Are you suggesting that when a baby is born, people have to. Have documents, present documents.

Is this happening in the delivery room? How are we determining? When or whether a newborn child is a citizen of the United States. You say your rule turns on whether the person intended to stay in the United States. And I think Justice Barrett brought this up.

So are we bringing pregnant women in for depositions? What are we doing to figure this out? Yeah, Brian, were you happy to hear that you said pregnant women? Oh, I didn't really. I just looked up at her.

I was like, you know, because sometimes the language is pregnant persons. I was like, okay, well, we at least agree that, you know, this is the pregnant woman we're talking about.

So, a couple of things with those questions. They're concerned about how this is going to be implemented. They didn't seem to have that concern about tariffs. How are you going to do that? I mean, I heard Amy Coney Barrett say a question: like, by the way, if we get rid of the tariff power of the president, how's it going to look?

We know John Roberts thought: if I get rid of Obamacare, how's this going to happen?

So, how do I land that plane?

So, I don't get it because you study the courts, you go to law school. What do they care about that? Should they just focus on the law? Do they focus on practicality? What would happen if I rule this way?

Yeah, some of them do, but the purists will say that's not what you're supposed to be doing. You're supposed to be just interpreting the law. And listen, the implications of how it may work in practicality, often the court thinks that that's more of the job for the folks across the street in Congress. Like they're the ones who legislate it. We're just interpreting the law as it stands.

We don't write the law, we just interpret it.

So they don't often go to the implications about things. And listen, there was discussion during the arguments on Wednesday about birth tourism. There was discussion about overwhelming illegal immigration. And then indications from many of the justices kind of following up, saying, but that won't be how we decide this case. We're going to stick to the text of the law and statute.

But maybe I'm thinking the Solicitor General should have said, I know what they intended, and I agree with it. But now in 2026, look at what I'm witnessing. Look at the numbers. You know, the billionaire with 100 kids using surrogates from China. Chinese citizens get born here.

They go be trained as communists. They come back and vote and run for office here.

So, however, You thought about it in 1868, in 2026, there's a huge problem here.

So, what's the wrong with the courts in that? Or do they say, not my problem? That's a legislative problem. Yeah, and Justice Alito brought this up in the context of like, yeah, we couldn't have foreseen that what we're dealing with now. The people who wrote the text of this and pushed for the passage of it could not have thought about that.

And the Solicitor General did say, he said, like, listen, like Justice Alito said, there are 8 billion people on this planet who are just a plane ride away from coming to the U.S. and having a baby here. And then, you know, having a citizen that links them to this country. But that is what prompted the Chief Justice to say, like, we may have a new world, but we have the same constitution.

So they kept going back to the text that they've got to deal with that.

So while there was discussion of some of this modern day issue, it doesn't seem like it's going to be persuasive to the court, at least not at the majority of the justices.

So I want to get into the gossip of what's going on in the White House. The politico has a story today with Pam Bonnie gone. The labor secretary could be next. Cash Patel and Howard Luttnick. Do you think the sentiment's in the White House to have that type of disruption, clean house approach?

I don't think that they're going to do all of that at once, but I do think poll numbers have got to be driving them a little bit crazy. Midterms are coming. We're ticking closer to that. They want some resets. And I think that sometimes you look at personnel changes as the way to change the narrative, the conversation, and maybe change the results that you're getting as well.

I did think it was interesting that it was Bondi and Lutnick sitting with the president as I was staring at them at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. And now maybe those two are kind of on a shortlist. Not really sure exactly what's going to happen there. But we do know that the president has talked to some of his inner circle about some of these different cabinet positions and whether it's time for a change. You know, he does that.

I mean, I think he clearly did that with Secretary Noam, too, kind of saying, you know, is this time? Is this a liability? What do we do here? And it seems like he's been having some of those conversations regarding other people.

Now, with regard to Tulsi Gabbard, the White House has been very strong in pushing back that she is not in danger. For other people, it's been, you know, good praise, but a little bit more restrained and like, hey, so-and-so is doing a good job, but not. Absolute false fake news. They're not going anywhere. I just think there's, you know, right now, I think the number one story is the war.

And a lot to do with the economy is really going to be hamstrung to a degree because. oil prices, which has got to go to affordability. I don't know if you can afford You know, fault Howard Luttnick about that, unless there's a dynamic problem between the president and he, or Besant and he. Have you heard that? Not Besson at all.

I think that he is one of the president's top, top, top lieutenants. I think that he's very happy with him. And I don't, I think he's probably one of the safest, probably cabinet members. He and Marco Rubio. I mean, oh, Lutnick and Bessett.

Well, you know, there's a lot of chatter that Luttnick has not made a ton of friends in the inner circle. He kind of likes to do his own thing and is not as much of a team player as some of the others are. And so that kind of leaves him at odds with them sometimes. But remember, earlier on in the administration, there was talk of Secretary Besson and possible physical interactions with somebody close to the president in his circle. That all died down.

Haven't heard of any more dust-ups with Secretary Besson now that certain people aren't in the White House all the time.

Okay, so last yesterday, I thought the DHS, the House, had reverse itself and going to go with the Senate idea of funding everything with no reforms, but no funding for Border Patrol and ICE, and just try to do a reconciliation package by June 1st.

Now we understand the speaker is thinking twice about that. Yeah.

Oh, yeah, yeah, this has been such a mess. You know, the Senate leaves town, drops this thing in the middle of the night, and the House was ticked, to put it mildly.

So, you know, they send back their CR that they know is not going to go anywhere. The Senate is no. It sounds to me like the president got the Speaker and the Senate leader together and said, like, listen, we got to do this. You know, there's a long phone call apparently yesterday that the House leadership had with the House GOP members saying, dudes, we have no other options. This is it.

We're just going to have to get in line and do it. But there are some people in the House that are super hardlined who do not want to go along with a plan. There are also a lot of conservatives out there saying like, all right, you're just leaving the SAVE Act in the dust. It's not even in this conversation.

So unless we have some action on that, don't think you can assume our vote for this deal you guys have cooked up.

So there is no vote on Monday right now, right? For now, no. And listen, they're out until April 13th is supposed to be the scheduled time the House would be back. The speaker said in the past, if there was a good path forward, he would call them back. It doesn't seem like that's how they feel about this package right now after that lengthy phone call.

So, Shannon, what are you leaning towards on Sunday? What's your focus?

Well, I think it's definitely going to still be Iran, straight of Hormuz, that ticking deadline for the president to say, get the straight open and we're going to start taking out all your power plants and infrastructure.

So we're going to focus there. We've got, you know, Dave McCormick, Republican senator. We've got Jake Auchinclaus, Democrat House member. Both of them, you know, have served in uniform, have been veterans. They are veterans.

So I'd be interested to get their take. And the whole funding showdown, the Save Act. Yeah, there's a lot to talk about on Sunday. By the way, if you need a little bit of lightness and cheer in your life, I'm also going down to the tidal basin to go through the cherry blossoms today with Japan's ambassador to the U.S. And they're gifting us a bunch of new cherry trees for our 250th birthday.

So a little palette cleanser for you on the show, too. Oh, is that going to be on? Are you going to do a feature with that on your show? Yeah.

It'll be on Sunday. What are you doing Sunday night? Sunday night, I'm going to have. Governor Tate on the miracle of Mississippi when it comes to education. They went from 49 to 7.

How do they do it?

So it was a very interesting conversation. Mark Thiessen, Danielle Pletka have that great podcast, but they're together looking at the Iran war. And Gavin Newsom, as he emerged from his book tour more powerful than ever. My Jamie Dimon interview that we did on radio has not been sleeping. Excellent.

Yeah, we're going to bring it back. We're going to bring it back for Sunday as well. And then I have my interview with somebody you probably don't know, Alan Rothenberg. Without him, we don't get the World Cup in 94 or the one in 2026. He was also one of the founders in the MLS.

Mr. Sheldon Bream is not going to miss that interview. Because he loves soccer. Almost as much as you. Almost.

That's key. I mean, he's pretty he's very pretty far down that rabbit hole, and he is very excited about the World Cup. Oh, it's going to be great. Hope you get him tickets, or I hope he gets himself tickets and brings you. Pick up Shannon's book, Nothing is Impossible with God.

11 heroes, one God, endless lessons in overcoming.

So appropriate on Good Friday, with, according to reports, Easter Sunday. Yes, it's coming. I like to say on Good Friday, it feels like a rough day if you celebrate and you remember what happened on Good Friday, but Sunday is coming. There's hope. Yeah, was I right to push back when people said happy Good Friday?

I'm thinking about it. I don't feel like it's, I say, sort of a blessed Good Friday if you really go back and read the account. Just, you know, if you have time today, Luke 22 through 24. And, you know, I think Good Friday is the appropriate way to say, I wouldn't say happy. Right.

Do not read 26, Luke. Just 23 to 24. Nope. Nope. It's done at 25.

There's no 26 for you to read. I knew that. Thank you, Shannon. Enjoy. Back in a moment.

Real talk, real guests, real insight, where curiosity meets conversation. It's the Brian Kilmeat Show. Yeah.

From his mouth to your ears, it's Brian Killmead. We're in constant communication with the astronauts. They just had some incredibly inspiring words as they kind of took their last close approach view of Earth at the conclusion of the translunar injection burn.

So now, They're heading out into deep space. They're going to go around the moon farther away from Earth than any humans have ever gone before, about 250,000 miles away. They're going to put their spacecraft through all the motions, come back safely to Earth, splash down off the west coast, and that's going to help inform quite a bit of our planning for subsequent missions until we land on the moon and our astronauts set foot on the surface again alongside a moon base that we're building. That is Jared Isaacman. He's not just talking, he's also an astronaut himself, and he is the NASA administrator.

And he is talking about everything they got to do. And he knows his 10-day mission. He also knows the stakes. If something should go wrong, a disaster will set the program back like never before. We're just getting our feet underneath us again and getting people excited about the mission.

And the president loves it. I mean, that's part of his legacy. I just hope the next president in three years is as enthusiastic about this and will just hold the le, hold the, you know, hold the. The line on the president's mission and go to space and keep going. The innovation that happens along the way is well documented.

NASA's just got to keep telling their story. Mark Thiessen tells the story next. He says you do not need talks to end this war. We'll talk about that and also the latest on the F-16 that was shot down somewhere around. A talk show that's real.

This is the Brian Kill Me Show. It's a rough job to ask somebody who wants to have. a good reputation in the law, which a lot of lawyers tend to want. It's even harder if you expect, which is reasonable, that at minimum the Democrats are going to take back the House. And being Trump's a frustrated, increasingly lame duck, President, being his attorney general when you're going to have Democrats with subpoena power, that's just like a lot of these, a lot of the candidates have nice jobs now.

And I don't see it being too attractive to a lot of people.

Well, a lot of people are lining up for it. I think Janine Pirro would like it. I think that Todd Blanch would like to keep it. I'm talking about the attorney general role. I think Lise Eldon would take it.

Mark Thiessen joins us now. You're not eligible. Mark, did you go to law school? I did not. But I used to work in the Senate, so I made laws.

Right.

So you don't want that job? I don't I don't know. Right.

Okay, good. But do you agree with no? Would you agree with Jonah Goldberg that not many people want it? No, I think a lot of people want it. I don't think there's ever been a powerful job in Washington in which you haven't had a lot of people who want it.

And look, I think that it's entirely possible. You're seeing now this is the second cabinet position that Trump has changed hats on this year in the last few months. And it's, you know, I think we're probably going to hold on to the Senate. But if we don't hold on to the Senate, he's not going to be able to get anybody confirmed in the last two years of his presidency.

So he may be deciding that it's time to make some changes now while he still has Senate control and can put his people in place because he better have his cabinet, the cabinet he wants to cross the finish line with in place before the midterms. What a disaster that would be without the Senate. Oh, I know. Because you have Supreme Court justices in their 70s and you've got to be able to get that done.

So do you think that there is truth to the political story that the Labor Secretary, Howard Luttnick Commerce, Even Cash Patel are being evaluated. I think everybody's being evaluated right now. Look, there has been less turbulence in this second Trump term than there was in the first. I mean, how many national security advisors did he go through in his first term? People were getting fired left, right, and center.

He hasn't said you're fired very often in the second Trump presidency. But I think he is smart after we've got 14 months or so, 15 months that we're into this administration. Start evaluating people, see how they're doing, and make replacements now just as a safety in case things go badly in the midterms. All right, so let's talk about what's happening in Iran. Right now, we're trying to follow this story that an F-15 or an F-35 was shot out of the sky looking for the pilot.

Do you know anything on this? I don't know anything except what I've been reading in the press. It's we're obviously praying for those pilots. We're praying for the rescue mission. Our prayers are with them.

At the same time, it's very important to recognize that I don't think there's ever been a war that we fought where we haven't lost some pilots, and there's never been a war that we've fought where we've lost this few in a conflict. The fact that we're now a month into this conflict, and this is the first one that they have shot down, is a testament to the skill and the just overwhelming force of the U.S. military campaign in Iran.

So we're praying for them, and let's get them home.

So let's talk about you say we don't in your column in the Washington Post, Mark Thiessen, you say you don't need a the President doesn't need a deal with Iran to end this conflict. In what respect?

Well, first of all, I think he's better off without one.

So what Trump has done, he always pursues diplomacy while he's pursuing other means of coercion. And what he's done is he's laid down the terms of surrender for the regime, and they're non-negotiable. And he's also offered them some benefits if they take the deal. And he has spared the lives of some Iranian leaders for the purpose of negotiating, right? He's told the Israelis not to strike some of these people because he needs somebody to negotiate with.

If they're not willing to take the deal that he's put on the table, then he should just simply finish the task, carry out all the remaining military objectives that we have. The final one should be to give the Israelis the green light to take out these people because if they're not going to capitulate at the peace table, they have no purpose in their continued existence.

So there should be a final barrage of leadership strikes against the people we've spared. And then you just lay down the terms of, you say that the terms that he put on the table. Are now in effect. No more nuclear program, no more ballistic missiles, no more support for terrorism, and importantly, no more firing on innocent Iranians or mass executions. And if any of those are violated, he will take out the units responsible.

If you try to reconstitute your nuclear program, we'll whack it. If you fire on the crowds when they come out in the streets, we will take out the leaders and the units responsible for that. And that will, over time, keep the tasks that we've accomplished in place and also give space for the Iranian people to rise up and change their government, which is important, Brian, because all of this has been one of the greatest military, most effective military campaigns in my lifetime. But it's necessarily reversible if the regime stays in place, right? Over time, the leaders we killed will be replaced by new leaders.

They've shown that they're going to reconstitute whatever. Whatever we destroy, it'll take them a long time. But the only way that this becomes permanent is if the regime changes over time.

So the question is, what do they have left? CNN's running with this story. Here's Caitlin Collins Cutsix. As sources are telling us here tonight, that recent U. S.

intelligence assessments found roughly half of Iran's missile launchers are still intact and that thousands of one way attack drones are still in Iran's arsenal tonight. That's despite daily U. S. and Israeli airstrikes that we've seen against Iranian military targets for the past five weeks. And I should note, this assessment that my colleagues are reporting on tonight might include launchers that are currently inaccessible, such as those that are buried by strikes or not just completely destroyed.

So to me that would mean they're out of p play. But they say 50% of the launchers are there, 50% of the rockets remain, and 50% of the drones remain. That according to three intelligence sources talking to CNN, your thoughts?

Well, first of all, I don't know if that's true. But if it is true, it simply validates what Marco Rubio said this week, which was that they were on a crash course to build enough missiles and enough launchers to make it impossible for us to stop them from obtaining a nuclear weapon because they could overwhelm Israeli and American defenses in the Middle East. And so we had to act before they were able to achieve that. If after almost 30,000 strikes, we've only destroyed half of what they had, it means they were well on their way and this operation was more important than ever. But also keep in mind, the president has said we're going to go at this for another two or three weeks.

It's not like he's stopping with all these launchers still intact, all these drones still intact. The last, you know, we're in the red zone, as Jack Keene likes to say, but the final yards are always the hardest because what's left is the deeply buried stuff, the hidden stuff, the inaccessible stuff. And it's going to take some work to take those things out. Hmm. But Admiral Cooper is completely in command of this operation and is ready to do exactly that.

And there is a plan in place to take the straight. And General King told me this morning he wants to see it done. He said it's a good plan. Yeah, Admiral Cooper. Admiral Cooper could do it tomorrow if he's given the order by the President.

I mean, we could open up the Strait of Hormuz. In on a moment's notice. The rockets and the rockets and the other thing and the other Navy ships that they use to threaten our strait have been destroyed. What they have left, they have drones and they have small boats, which are hidden. But as soon as they come out of their hidey holes, we can take those out.

In terms of the drones, we have counter-drone technology and we also have electronic warfare capabilities.

So, what you can do essentially is create a bubble around any ship passing through the Strait of Hormuz that protects it by U.S. military force, and we can do that. What we ought to do, I know the president wants the Europeans to take the lead on that. I've got a different idea that I've put forward. He should impose the Hormuz transit tariff.

You should impose a tariff on every ship going through the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranians have been charging $2 million a ship. We should charge $2 million a ship. There were 154 ships a day right before the war going through the Strait of Hormuz. That is $9 billion a day.

I'm sorry, and over $100 billion a year in revenue that we could bring in. And we charge for ships passing through, and then we will waive the tariff. For any country whose flagships are going through, who is helping with the mission.

So, if you're a European country that is helping us keep the Strait of Hormuz open, participating in the mission, you don't pay a tariff. But if you're one of these free-riding European countries that won't help in doing that, you're going to pay a hefty tariff for every ship carrying oil or jet fuel or LNG that you're depending on that we're providing for you. No more free riding. Right.

Yeah, I guess the escorts are the ones that protect him. If you could reopen it, it's got to be in a way that can sustain it because it's missile attack, it's small boat attack, it's mines, right?

So we're not worried about anyone blocking it, worry about Small tax. They can handle all of those things. They need an escort mission. We can put a military bubble around every ship going through the Strait of Hormuz, and we have a plan in which to do that. Admiral Cooper could do it tomorrow.

So when we look at what's happening now with the next step, the President of the United States this morning made it clear. At first he said the straight over moves, let someone else worry about it.

Now he says we'll do it. We know how to do it. What did you take of the conference call yesterday with 40 uh high-ranking officials led by the British about how to help out and go forward. Yeah, Europe has organized a Zoom call. Congratulations.

I am a longstanding supporter of NATO. I played a key role in the 1990s in bringing Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into the alliance. They've been, except for Hungary, been a great addition to NATO. That's the only country I regret. And this alliance is important for protecting Europe from Russian aggression.

The bases we have in Europe are important for projecting force around the world. But the reality is, it's really kind of hard to defend NATO right now. Donald Trump didn't ask them to send their pilots to fly alongside our pilots over the skies of Iran and carry out bombing missions. He asked them to let us use their airspace, use the bases that we pay for and that we have used to defend them for seven decades and just not get in our way and then to help with the discrete mission. Of protecting shipping that they, not us, depend on in the Strait of Hormuz, and they've been reluctant to do that.

There's some countries that have. I mean, so Greece has been terrific. Croatia is allowing us to use their ports. There are countries that have been allowing us to use their airspace.

So it's not NATO across the board that's not doing this. But I think we've got to, when this is all over, we have to take a real assessment of who among the NATO allies is a reliable ally and who isn't. And we should reward the ones who are and punish the ones who are not. If Germany doesn't want to help us, we don't need bases in Germany. The reason that bases are in Germany is because we are trying to prevent an invasion from East Germany across the Fulda gap.

Well, that's not a threat anymore. Let's move our bases to Poland. Let's move our bases to Romania, who have been helping us. Let's reward the allies who are stepping up and spending money on their defense, who didn't have to be forced into spending 5% of GDP on defense by Donald Trump, who did it voluntarily. Let's reward those countries and reassess.

Yeah.

Who we work with and who are our individual alliance relationships going forward?

So, Jerry Baker of the Wall Street Journal, along with me of previous hour today, said that we are now less popular, really, almost than Russia among our Western allies in NATO. And that it's not good for them. We are so hated by the population, it's not good for them politically to allow them to use our bases: Spain, Austria, Britain, and France.

Well, also, part of that is one of the reasons I think that is the case is because they have allowed mass migration from the Middle East. And so, a lot of these countries are afraid of their Muslim populations that they would be helping us in a war in the Middle East.

So, Jerry's right on that perspective, though, not quite the way he means. But I remember that Ronald Reagan was incredibly unpopular. Remember when he wanted to deploy intermediate-range missiles in Europe and the Middle East and all the anti-nuclear protests that were taking place? If we conducted national security by popularity contests, then we would be in a disaster. Ronald Reagan was hated by the populations of Eastern Europe.

They thought he was going to start a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Instead, he brought down the Soviet Union by peaceful means. And so, I really don't care what the people of Europe think that their governments are supposed to be our allies. They have obligations in the NATO alliance. We've paid to defend them for decades.

They would be. They'd be speaking German everywhere, but they already speak it in German. All their militaries withered. All their militaries have withered. Yeah, okay, because they've been hiding under an American security umbrella for years.

And it's time for them to step up and put their big boy pants on and be real militaries and be competent allies. And, you know, after seven decades after the Cold War, sorry, 40 years after the Cold War ended, it's time for them to take primary responsibility for the security of their continent. We have a supporting role to play, but we have to deal with China. We have to deal with Iran. We have other responsibilities.

And the least we can expect is them to not interfere in what we're doing. And a lot of those countries, unfortunately, have not done so. I hear you. We'll find out where we go from here because if you're not going to let us use our bases, that to me, you don't want to be in this. We didn't consult you ahead of time.

Make your argument. But when we say we're using our bases and you said in Italy, we can't use our bases in Sicily.

Okay, good luck with that. Or our airspace, the airspace to fly over. You know what Donald Trump ought to do, Brian? If France won't let us use their airspace, we should enter French airspace and do a flyover over the graves in Normandy before every mission to the Middle East, just to make a point. Yeah.

Just right on the coastline, just take a little flyover. It'll take about two add two minutes to the flight and just do a tip of wing to the ally, to the fallen who liberated that country from Nazi occupation on our way to liberate the Iranian people from their oppression. Mark, you've done so well. I want to have you back on Sunday at 10 o'clock, along with Daniel Pletka. I'd love for you to do that on One Nation.

I know it's a little sudden, I'm springing it on you, but hopefully you'll say yes. I would be happy to join you, Brian, anytime, anyplace. You got to come on my podcast sometime. I can't wait. I keep hearing that.

I've been trying to get you on. You're the hardest get. I've got Mark Ruda joining me. Donald Trump has joined the podcast, but I can't seem to lock down Kill Mead. He's a very important man.

All I need is an invitation at 12.01. There you go. I've never heard you turn down an opportunity to speak on the air anywhere. My podcast is the only one.

Now we'll go to sarcasm. Didn't take long. Mark Thiessen, thanks so much. Also, on One Nation, coming up on Sunday, Alan Rothenberg is going to be with us, the founder of MLS and won the goddess who brought the World Cup here. We're going to have Jamie Diamond going to be on, an exclusive interview there.

You're going to see the interview he did on this radio show, but it's an entirety. And we have Governor Tate of Mississippi, the Mississippi miracle when it comes to education. How exactly did he do it? He'll discuss that. All coming up Sunday at 10 on One Nation.

Don't move. Where big stories meet bigger conversations. Stay informed and energized with the Brian Kilmeat Show. A radio show like no other. It's Brian Killmead.

Sponsored by Previgen. Previgen made for your brain. We like to say that we're prepared without having an expectation. But you know, in the back of your mind, you kind of hope you launch. And then when we got really close, it was like, wait, we're getting ready to go to space.

And when those solids lit, You know, it was a ride where you're trying to be professional, but the kid inside of you wants to break out and just hoot and holler. But what I wanted to say about that was Our exploration ground systems team, our launch control team, They have had some time to practice since February and March and really dial in their procedures and learn and grow. And so I just want to give them some credit. It was a, an. An example of how hard they've been working lately that we launched, and it was, even though we didn't get to really watch, but it felt beautiful.

So, yeah, they were on the inside, not the outside. And that's the astronauts who were with. It's pretty amazing. It was Chase Gallagher last night.

So, don't forget, I'll watch, and they're going to have a great mission. It's going to be 10 days. It'll be in the moon on Monday, or not in the moon, but just wrapping around the moon, then slingshotting right back to Earth. Hopefully, everything goes great.

So far, it is. Don't forget, watch One Nation Sunday at 10 p.m. Eastern Time. You will love the show. And of course, you have to find out where I'll be on stage on BrianKilny.com.