The Brian Kilmeade Show

How many years have we spent listening to politicians in Washington argue about how to make healthcare insurance more affordable? Obamacare was supposed to fix it. Then we needed bigger government subsidies to make Obamacare affordable. Those subsidies expired. And guess what?

People are paying more again at some point. Maybe the question isn't, how do we keep fixing the same system? Maybe the question is, what else is out there? That's why I want you to take a look at WeShare Health. WeShare isn't health insurance.

It's a nonprofit, Christian healthcare sharing organization. And their members pay up to 60% less than they would for Obamacare. You still get access to a nationwide PPO network and over a million physicians plus unlimited telehealth.

So stop waiting for Washington or the insurance companies to make healthcare affordable for you. Do your own research. See what your options are. Call 188-WESHARE for a free quote. That's 1-888-WESHARE.

Or visit weShareHealth.org and take a look for yourself. Harvard is proud. Killmead here. Are you tired of those uncomfortable dress shirts, especially when they bunch up under a sweater? If so, then you must check out Collars Co., makers of the dress collar polo.

Listen up. These shirts are four-way stretch, buttery soft polos with firm dress collars on them, so they give you the dress shirt look, but extremely comfortable polo feel. You can wear them with anything under a sweater, with a blazer, or by themselves as an elevated polo. They work for any occasion. These polos are perfect, whether it's in the office, on a golf course, or a night out.

Collars Co. is exploding and have gone viral on social media thanks to the 1 million investment they received on Shark Tank from Mark Cuban and Peter Jones. You don't have to worry about collars that flop down and spread out. They stay firm and sharp all day. It's an amazing array of sweaters, quarter zips, pants, and outerwear.

If you're looking for the performance dress shirt or polo that looks great all day, check out collarsandco.com. Use promo code Brian for 15% off of any purchase. of $100 or more. That's promo code BRIAN. From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never sowing division.

It's Brian Kilmead. Thanks so much for listening, everyone. It's going to be a big hour. Thanks for being here. Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, is one of our guests, and of course, we'll take your calls.

There's going to be a lot of hearings on Capitol Hill today and a lot of talk about AI, but also there's going to be. Yeah. There is going to be an executive commission on China to hold a hearing examining the imprisonment of Hong Kong media entrepreneur who's a good friend of the show, Jimmy Lai. I wouldn't say a good friend of the show, I should say his family's been in before on his defense. He's a self-made multimillionaire who had a newspaper over in Taiwan, and because he was printing the truth, they put him in jail and he's hurting.

And there's going to be a commission. I hope the president could bring it up again and say, hey, can you let this guy out for humanitarian purposes?

So we'll talk about that in all the unfolding deals in Washington because the Senate is back in session.

So let's get to the big three. Number three. It's a search for justice. You know, we want justice for Charlie, and Charlie deserved the best. And in this instance, unfortunately, Ainsley, he didn't get it.

Not close. Andrew Colbert with turning point. Two assassination investigations. Charlie Kirk, what wasn't done to protect him, and what do we know about the Butler shooter now that more information is out? Are you satisfied?

We'll discuss. Number two. Right now, there's really no reason to have discussions with those kind of maximalist demands and a delusion. And I just think time is running out for this regime. That is the UN, the NATO ambassador, Matt Whitaker.

Iran says we want to talk, but we don't know what Ron is talking about because the Supreme Leader says they don't want to talk.

Well, we didn't reach out to him anyway, that I know of. I think it's about time we call in the IDF. and together take out these terrorist states once and for all. Number one. There's a coordinated campaign to make the American people afraid.

There's over 50 of these organizations that were coordinating campaigns, testing public opinion, and spending huge amounts of money trying to scare people. It's regulatory capture on one hand. It's our adversaries, of course, want us to stop. Joe Lonsdale, no stranger to Silicon Valley. That's where he was located as co-founder of Palantir.

Can we slow down without slowing down? That's my message when it comes to this AI hysteria. Much like the data centers from two weeks ago and the pandemic from four years ago, I sense this massive hysteria is causing an overreaction around the country, and I smell politics. I'm not saying it's not without any merit at all. That's not at all what I'm saying.

AI and the so-called recursive self-improvement is the key. What does it mean? Essentially, it means what if you create an AI and it just uses all the data possible and teaches itself things that go beyond human comprehension. That's what they're witnessing in some of these trials to a degree. Then I see a lot of other people that are very skeptical about this huggy face situation where they put these agents, which are created by you and me, and they put them in the sandbox, they say, and that sandbox is a way of keeping you locked in.

And they say the agents, when they were looking the other way, got out of that sandbox. Opened up the internet, which it wasn't supposed to be, combined with other agents and overstepped all their bounds and their missions. And it kind of concerned people. And other people said, okay, CEOs, maybe we should slow down. All right.

You could slow down. No one goes out to Fox and says, Hey, you know, you guys have so much news. Why don't you do a little less news and do more repeats? I'm just getting worried. You guys have so much of the marketplace.

Can you slow down a little? We wouldn't do it.

So Magic the C our CEO came out and said Um I think we should take guardrails. On Fox, MSNBC, and CNN. Why? Why don't you just guard yourself? Have a meeting with CNN and MSNBC or whatever they call themselves now and guard yourself.

That's what the President's saying. You got no one stopping you from setting up guardrails. Why do you want people, government, coming in who does not know your industry like you know it, to come in and guard yourself?

So the president called in. To the NVIDIA CEO, podcast All In, and he was a guest, Jensen Wong. And he was the guest, and he welcomed in the president. He put the microphone to his phone, and here's how it went: cut one. The great thing about Life is that Jensen can develop the most complex computer chip in the world that nobody can copy for 10 years, but he can't figure out how to put me on speaker.

So it's not interesting with the AI, it's almost as conspiracy. And the happiest group is China, and China's very happy. And I could even say in the country, a lot of states are happy that weren't going to get anything because they're being inundated by people that want to be there. But now all of a sudden you see they're building in Finland. They want to build one.

Google wants to build a big one in Finland, which I'm not happy about, because they were unable to get permitting. And I'm telling you, it's all a hoax.

So, what he was talking about was data centers there. And he went on to say basically the same thing. And what it is, the president uses the word hoax, just an oversimplification because people can get it. They know hoax. He doesn't agree.

Instead of saying that there's some substance to the worry, but not enough to slow down, he'll say hoax.

So people immediately know where he stands. And that's just the way he operates. He's not going to change, nor should he. But Elon Musk, who likes the President, they're back in good graces for each other. It's doing great things for Ukraine, by the way, on the President's request.

Cut nine. The danger of A I is Ah is very significant at this point. that that that we we we need to do better with AI safety. Or or we have Have um at this point, exponentially increasing risk with the AI models. When a lot of people from Anthropic.

telling you that their models are very dangerous, I think we should believe them. It certainly is like some crazy 4D chest to, you know, say the these i there's whatever a 10% chance of annihilating. Humanity. But by the way, um how much allocation would you like in our IPO? That's the problem, that second line.

So, if you're about to offer an IPO, why would you do this to offer guardrails?

Well, you would lock you in in first place. Joe Lonsdale, as I know, very accomplished guy. He, along with the PayPal group, helped save Elon Musk. When he was having a lot of trouble, when he was launching Tesla as well as SpaceX. As before he bought X.

And when he had his solar city.

So, Joe Lonsdale is one of the few people, maybe not intimidated by the intellect of Elon Musk, but respectful of it.

So, not to confuse you more, but he stands. Diametrically opposed to slowing down. And not concerned at all, Katen. President Trump and you are correct. There's a coordinated campaign to make up the American people afraid.

I mean, I had dozens of older mentors and friends reach out this week and they're scared. They're here on all these terrible things. And you know what? There's over 50 of these organizations that were coordinating campaigns, doing narrative intelligence tests, testing public opinion, and spending huge amounts of money trying to scare people. It's regulatory capture on one hand.

It's our adversaries, of course, want us to stop. And I'll tell you what else it is. America's always been very religious, but they've given up Christianity and most of San Francisco.

So this is like a messianic complex where this is their religion of the end of the world and they're obsessed with it. And it's weird. That is weird.

So that's Joe Lonsdale weighing in.

So then I pick up the New York Post today.

So I'm thinking to myself, you know, where do I stand? I'm not going to be joining the hysteria, I know that for sure. And I'm going to be respectful of all these CEOs who just spent their lives doing this. But I also see other people just as smart, just as accomplished, pushing back on this. And then, when I see Barack Obama stand up over the weekend and make a series of speeches at fundraisers and say to Gaheem Jeffries, make this your number one issue, that's what I would do.

That doesn't sound like a guy that wants to save the world. It sounds like a guy that wants to save the Democratic Party and have them have success in the midterms.

So the New York Post As a cover. and has all these so-called hall monitors Volunteered by the CEO of Anthropic to watch over the shoulder of AI. You know who they are? These crazies are these radical leftists. who believe in pronouns, open borders.

Yeah, you know the Um Jane Bank uh uh Bankman Freed. The guy that ends up in that eccentric guy that might have autism, extremely bright, is in jail right now for doing that scandalous. Uh investing, but essentially it is a Ponzi scheme. That group Led by all these staffers, he wants looking over the shoulder, being the monitors on these. But for all these AI Groups I mean, you have these bios on the front page.

I mean, you have the guys with the nose rings and the purple hair who do TED talks on the on the pluses of open borders. They're woke globalists, those people who just lay in the street because they believe the world is going to die if we use gasoline cars. They've now those priorist climate change fanatics When they realized the world wasn't going to end, they needed another cause. This is their cost.

Now they're doing it again. And if you want proof Bernie Sanders is leading the charge, that's the type of guy that you do not want to follow. There's nothing Bernie Sanders does. Did I want to follow? And now he's having a big press conference today, and he's going to talk about the need to slow down and stop AI.

'Cause he says he's pro-human race.

Now we add Tristan Harris here. He's extremely nervous about it. I don't dismiss that. But any time Bernie Sanders is your North star on a complicated issue, no, you need to find another star. Because there's nothing that he does that's pro-American.

He talks working class, but he talks socialism while living the life of a millionaire.

Well, now he's going to vilify billionaires.

So when we come back, I do want to talk about the two assassination investigations. Charlie Kirk. It looks like his family is moving towards a lawsuit against the college, the university, as well as the state of Utah on security measures. And then we have find out more. about the would-be assassin over in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Got details.

Some questions, but we got details. You listen to Brian Kilman Show. Learning Something new every day on the Brian Killmeat Show. How many years have we spent listening to politicians in Washington argue about how to make healthcare insurance more affordable? Obamacare was supposed to fix it.

Then we needed bigger government subsidies to make Obamacare affordable. Those subsidies expired, and guess what? People are paying more again at some point. Maybe the question isn't, how do we keep fixing the same system? Maybe the question is, what else is out there?

That's why I want you to take a look at WeShare Health. WeShare isn't health insurance, it's a non-profit, Christian healthcare sharing organization. And their members pay up to 60% less than they would for Obamacare. You still get access to a nationwide PPO network and over a million physicians plus unlimited telehealth.

So stop waiting for Washington or the insurance companies to make healthcare affordable for you. Do your own research. See what your options are. Call 188-WESHARE for a free quote. That's 1-888-WESHARE.

Or visit weShareHealth.org and take a look for yourself. Mm. Radio that makes you think. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. What has happened with the act, and not just in removing McElmore from the lineup, but when you see what Robert Kraft did to line up all of the stadiums.

To censor speech in that one specific way, it's become clear that this is not just about. One music artist or two music artists, but this is about How just a handful. of stadium owners and the elite can prevent an entire massive issue, in this case the genocide in Gaza, but it doesn't stop there. It could be speaking out about AI. It could be speaking out about any issue that you can now just get a handful of stadium owners to ensure that an entire person's career can be jeopardized if they speak out about any issue.

Right. The AI issue. We're always banning people on stadiums because of AI. You can't make the analogy. There's only one analogy.

If you're going to come out and make anti-American statements, and if you own a stadium in Foxborough, you have the right to say, hey, listen, I want this guy playing.

Now, you book Ed Sheeran, you don't know who his opening act's going to be, but he picks a guy that is anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and he already wore a mask. I couldn't believe it. They said he wore a mask to look like a caricature of a Jewish person. I never thought it was actually going to be that. It was exactly that, the biggest insult you could possibly imagine.

You would imagine Hamas walking out on stage with that should they have a rock concert or a festival. Or dare I say that because of what they did to the Israeli music festival and how they torture those Israelis. But this Ed Sheeran hires McLemore, knowing he has these statements. He comes out and uses the forum and the stage of Ed Sheeran to go ahead and rip. And I don't even know if we have any of those McLemore cuts, but.

And rip Israel, say it's genocide, which it's not, say they're killing innocent children, which is never the intention, not noticing or bringing up how this whole thing started on October 7th.

So you have Bob Kraft, who realizes anti-Semitism is raging in the country, says he's not playing at Foxborough.

So Edge Hearing drops him.

So now Edge Hearing's warm-up backs are all quitting, refusing to play that role. This guy.

So, this guy named Bioga, an Irish singer, says, We are Irish people, understand colonialism as founding members of the Irish Artists for Palestine movement. We're a committed activist for justice and will continue to be. Really? You ever been over there? Lucas Graham says, Money doesn't give you the right to own the conversation.

Nobody's bank balance should decide who gets to speak or who's suffering. We're allowed to acknowledge. I love Ed Meeting Sheeran, and I'm grateful for everything, but I'm sorry we'll not be there. This is a difficult decision. Good, you're done.

So, Ed Sheeran, who doesn't condemn McLemore nor Condone McLemore. He doesn't go either way. He says, I agree. After McLamore's performances at my Jersey Show's venues on my upcoming tour days, communicated they would pull the shows if he still was supporting, if I still had him.

So I was informed that his stance was based on how McLamore conveyed part of the message during the performance rather than on everything that was said. I spoke with the venues at length all week and tried to build a bridge. McLamore coming off the tour was the promoter's decision. It was not mine.

So now there's all this blowback, and AOC is weighing in because she does, in her only valley girl way, want to weigh in on all these things.

So now Ed Jiren's in a mess. But it's his own fault for having a guy get up on stage who thinks he's a headliner and thinks that we care about what and or that stadium cares about what he thinks. I'm not Mr. Rapartist expert, but evidently the guy's got one hit.

So he's got one hit. For some reason, Ed Chiron likes him, said why don't you join me on stage? And this is how you thank him.

So. Let me bring you to another big story, and that's the Charlie Kirk. It looks like they're getting ready to sue the family, and they have every right to do it. You know, there was so much caught up in the aftermath of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, what happened, who's responsible. But when they talk about the security, it's not really been the subject of a lot of conversation.

But what a mess it was. They announced today the Charlie Kirk family filed a notice of claim against the state of Utah, Utah Valley University, and other officials over the assassination of Charlie. And they're claiming, despite multiple warnings, including requests for and promises of security coverage on the rooftops surrounding the UVU quad, which, as you know, he was shot from the rooftop, just weeks after the Butler assassination of the president from Drumroll Please, the rooftop, the risk posed by accessible rooftops were not addressed, arguing the failures led to the wrongful death of TPUSA's founder, Charlie Kirk. That's the formal. They're going to end up suing, and they're going to end up winning.

So he's got this great security team.

So they went and checked it out. And they said Hey, uh Campus cops. You got a problem. You have a roof exposed. In fact, here's the text exchange which has entered into the complaint.

TPUSA texted, Hello, Chief Long. We received a message today from the student group. There is a student roof access pretty close to where Charlie Kirk will be set up at Utah Valley. When a TPUSA official informed Chief Long, of the concern and asked if If this is true. It would be nice to either have it controlled access, mean you're not allowed up there, or allow one of my guys to be there as well.

If possible. Chief Long responded by saying, quote, I got you covered. He didn't. Yeah, how many people were covering over like 3,000 people? Six.

Campus Cops Not putting down campus cops, but they're not exactly Navy SEALs. And the local cops were not involved. What happens is when you get a contract, whether you're a stand-up comedian or a speaker or you're doing anything. Yeah, You always put in that contract. There'll be riders in that contract.

Like you want something to eat, or you need a ride. They make sure there's a car service either way, and they'll have security. Always be listed. In a big venue or small venue, they'll always list security. And it might in the security line, it might say none.

none provided. Or it might say, we are totally in charge of security. That contract will reveal how much they get. But my sense is they're going to this is going to fall short of a lawsuit because Utah, the state, and the university No, how wrong they are And the security couldn't be worse.

So, and the other thing is, maybe they easily could have brought that thing indoors and they could easily have secured it much better, but they didn't. I'll talk about crooks. In about 15 minutes. But next is going to be Rich Lowry, editor of Nash Review. We'll talk about AI, why this is Why this is a big deal, why it is the number one story, and actually, for my condition.

Good for Republicans. How many years have we spent listening to politicians in Washington argue about how to make healthcare insurance more affordable? Obamacare was supposed to fix it. Then we needed bigger government subsidies to make Obamacare affordable. Those subsidies expired, and guess what?

People are paying more again at some point. Maybe the question isn't: how do we keep fixing the same system? Maybe the question is: what else is out there? That's why I want you to take a look at WeShare Health. WeShare isn't health insurance, it's a non-profit Christian healthcare sharing organization.

And their members pay up to 60% less than they would for Obamacare. You still get access to a nationwide PPO network and over a million physicians, plus unlimited telehealth.

So stop waiting for Washington or the insurance companies to make healthcare affordable for you. Do your own research. See what your options are. Call 1-88-WeShare for a free quote. That's 1-888-WESHARE.

Or visit weSharehealth.org and take a look for your. Yeah. Breaking news, unique opinions. Hear it all on the Brian Kill Me Joe. I think there's definitely risks where, for example, if the AI gets in charge, if people use it for viral synthesis at a DNA synthesis site, they could cause a lot of deaths.

I think there's going to be lots of hacking that happens thanks to AI being used by people. I think there's other risks that we can't yet understand for how authoritarians could use this to conquer and to suppress us and to trick populists by being really good at knowing how to appeal to huge numbers of people about horrible things.

So there's lots of risks and there's lots of upside.

So Joe Onsdale and Palantir, not panicking, but says, yeah, if it gets in the wrong hands, it's always a problem. We get a nuclear weapon in the wrong hands, it's a problem. But can you create something that you can't control? That's the bigger question. Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, wrote about that in his latest article.

Will AI destroy humanity? Rich, are you convinced that this hysteria is real or do you feel like it's manufactured? I think these guys at the top of these companies kind of all in unison saying, we got to be careful or we might be going too fast. I think that's probably Sincere. I think some of the solutions being offered are self-interested.

You know, basically give us liability, protection and have the government take over the pacing so we remain ahead. I don't like that. And that's clearly kind of what Anthropic is after. But look, it's your responsibility as a company to make sure your product is safe. And if it causes some harm, you're going to get sued and your company might get destroyed and you might go to jail.

So I think what we're talking about more in terms of the risks is what Lonsdale is talking about there. Could every power plant get shut down in New Jersey? Seven years from now, you know, in some sort of agentic AI attack? Yeah, sure. But that's not going to destroy humanity.

And I just can't get my head around how it would destroy humanity, because that would require, you would think, doing things in the real world, not just doing them virtually or on the internet, right? You need to launch nuclear weapons, you need to build the bioweapon.

So I think that that strikes me as hysteria, might be sincere, they might be really worried. But I think the risks are less than that. And but we can To just turn away from that. I mean, even if we get an agreement with China, they'd cheat on it, right? And you'd get sky net with Chinese characteristics, right?

Do we want that?

So I don't think there's any alternative to, as Trump said, just going as fast as you can. And the Trump administration says they're looking at some limited guidelines and limitations. They say they're narrowly targeting some guardrails. Described by one source, the industry's self-regulation potential is encouraging AI companies to follow a code of conduct. They're going to help them construct that code of conduct.

But look at Mark Zuckerberg of all people. He said every lab has a responsibility incentive to move at the pace required to train its models safely and the ability to take its own actions to ensure what happens. The reality is, people don't want to use agents that are misaligned with them. And they don't do what they are asked.

So labs have a strong natural incentive to make their models more aligned. And he said this, labs face significant liability if their models cause harm.

So they have a strong incentive to prevent this as well. Meta's delayed the shipping of Muse, which I assume it's their ChatGBT. Model for several months to focus on safety and security. We didn't call for everyone else to do this before we would do this. We just did it as part of our day-to-day work.

That's what I'm thinking. Yeah. You know, maybe he didn't get the conference call. Yeah, I don't know why the attitude is stop us before we destroy humanity. You stop yourself before you destroy humanity, right?

So I think Zuckerberg is right over the target there. And look, you know, there are a lot of dangerous things, not just nuclear weapons, which you mentioned earlier, but industry deals with a lot of dangerous substances and chemicals, the biochemical industry, obviously. And there are industry safeguards, some of which are backstopped by government to prevent these things from harming people.

So we need the same thing with AI, but we don't need a system that's going to entrench Anthropic as the leader of this industry.

So I want you to see that. This makes me think politics. And when I found out that President Obama over the weekend at fundraiser says, if I'm a Democrat running for office, I'm making it all about AI right now. And I'm telling Akeem Jeffries, make this all about AI. That doesn't sound like a guy worried about the world ending.

It sounds like a guy that wants the midterms to go his party's direction. And listen to this, Cut 15. These new models are scary. We're dealing here with real. Peril, not science dictator.

Well, if Congress is not equipped, then throw the bumps out and bring in some new people who are. We know Trump is not going to step up to the plate here. He puts his head in the sand.

Well, we've got to take it seriously, and the President, who characterizes himself as a stable genius, has told us not to worry. I'm sorry, that doesn't give me much comfort. Yeah, so that's the Blumenthal, Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Democrats who want this issue. I'm kind of surprised, Rich, but you're the one with all the political experience. The Democrats have the economy to run on.

You know that with the Iran war, the gas is oil is over $100 a barrel, gas is around $4.25. And they say they're grabbing on this issue. I think it's. It's kind of interesting. It's a huge risk.

Yeah, well they're not mutually exclusive. And look, AI doesn't pull well. People don't like data centers. I think it's hugely important that we have data centers and there's very little downside, as we just discussed. We need to go full speed ahead.

with AI, but given that Trump is in that position, takes that position, that they're going to hit him and go where the polling is, I still think the main issue in the election will be will be the economy and especially prices. I wonder if I'll go over to your other story, and you wrote about AOC's. Uh phony lynching panic. Uh, that Massachusetts Congresswoman Ayanna Prosley, a founding member of the squad, organized 59 Democrats to co-sign her letter demanding a federal investigation of the spate of supposed lynchings. Which, by the way, have not happened.

So they made up a story, signed off on it. And I guess their goal would be to give the Americans the sense that it's 1950. Yeah, I mean, they want to create a social panic around this. If they just Googled these cases, AOC cited 10. I think at least eight are suicides.

And as r readily obtainable information, there's no reason not to know that. But one, they always assume the worst of their own country. Two, they kind of they like the idea, it makes them feel important. that were living in 1924 America, where people were lynched a lot and justice wasn't served in those cases. But that's not contemporary America.

So it's it's really a poisonous smear. Of our own country. And the one case that definitely was a murder was committed by a black guy, or he's the suspect.

So none of this adds up. It's totally preposterous. All right. I want to bring you now to the Iran situation. As you know, it continues to go on.

We have the massive economic pressure. The Houthis have expanded this fight, and they said that we're not going to hit Israeli or American ships. Our problems with Saudi Arabia, I'm not buying it personally.

So, right now, there's an additional strait where 12% of the oil around the Red Sea Strait, 12% of the oil goes through, and the Houthis are taking island after island in order to control it. And we know they're almost fully financed by the Iranians.

So, here is Scott Bessant yesterday, CUD 31. Could you please describe the impact Operation Economic Outcast is having on the Iranian economy as we speak?

Well, Congressman, I would just quote the President of Iran, the Speaker of the Parliament, and the head of the Central Bank who said that the economy is in dire straits. He was warning both his hardline IRGC compatriots and the Iranian people.

So we have seen the currency collapse. We have seen inflation through the roof. And unbelievably, in a country with the third highest energy resources in the world, they now have three to four hour gas lines because they have to import their fuel.

So the economic outcast is possible because of the blockade. You think we're on the right track? I do. I think we win we'll win eventually here if this is the the stalemate and the fast grow. Eventually, we'll grind them down.

and or crack them. It's just not necessarily going to happen on a time frame that we would like. It might take longer. And the Iranians clearly have cards to play and clearly the Hooties and are trying to tighten the screws. And the price of brent crude, at least as of yesterday and with today, was above $100.

A barrel again.

So one thing I've been really surprised by, Brian, I thought Trump would want this over and done with and would find a way to get it over and done with regardless to get gas average price of gas below $4 a gallon here in the United States, but he's demonstrated an amazing stick-to-itiveness, and obviously, he's really committed to this. I think it is a suppressant on Republican chances in November, but Trump's decided it's tolerable, tolerable price to ultimately win this conflict. And their supreme leader, wherever he is? Says, I have these demands: complete end to the war, the release of billions of dollars in frozen assets, and an end to interference in its nuclear program.

Okay, thanks for joining us. That's great. Yeah, we'll get right on that. Yeah, that's not going to happen. Yeah, I also think we are meeting with Saudi Arabia.

We have to help them out. It looks like we are doing it behind the scenes. This is their fight with the Houthis. I know they're financed and the strategy is given by the Iranians, but they're trying to tell us, please don't bomb us. But if the lists are going to back off that straight, that we're going to have to go with the Saudis on this, ultimately, I think we're going to have to rejoin with the IDF and just finish these guys off.

Yes, clearly Trump's reluctant to do that. I do think the munition things, although he insists it's not a problem, I do think it is at least something that's on his mind. Um and you know it's kind of depressing how much the Saudis do with it.

So so they can't deal with this problem on their own. Yeah, we'll see what happens. Rich Larry, thanks so much. Thanks, Brian. All right, 1866-408-7669.

I'm going to talk a little bit about what we know about Crooks, the would-be assassin of President Trump. Also, going to talk about the McLemore situation and give you an idea where we stay in AI. I've got really smart people all over this issue on both sides of the issue. And the President of the United States is still confident that his party will prevail. We'll discuss all that and more.

You listen to the Brian Kilmey Show. He just doesn't read the headlines. He breaks them down. Real talk, real news. This is the Brian Kill Me Show.

How many years have we spent listening to politicians in Washington argue about how to make health care insurance more affordable? Obamacare was supposed to fix it. Then we needed bigger government subsidies to make Obamacare affordable. Those subsidies expired, and guess what? People are paying more again at some point.

Maybe the question isn't, how do we keep fixing the same system? Maybe the question is, what else is out there? That's why I want you to take a look at WeShare Health. WeShare isn't health insurance, it's a non-profit, Christian healthcare sharing organization. And their members pay up to 60% less than they would for Obamacare.

You still get access to a nationwide PPO network and over a million physicians plus unlimited telehealth.

So stop waiting for Washington or the insurance companies to make healthcare affordable for you. Do your own research. See what your options are. Call 188-WESHARE for a free quote. That's 1-888-WESHARE.

Or visit wesharehealth.org and take a look for yourself. The fastest three hours in radio. You're with Brian Kilmead. By the way, violent crime arrests by the FBI in New Jersey are up 75% on top of the historic results we've already delivered for the American people. Thanks to the state police.

Irrespective of the lies that he continues to tell. Sir, nothing I have said here is a lie. You said your time's up. Are you done or not? No, are you done or not?

If you want to answer my questions, if you want my questions, go to the next person. This is ridiculous. What a mockery you are. You are the biggest mockery in the United States Senate and you're sitting next to ship.

So He's not going to be outspoken. And Senator Gressley ends up screaming for Corey Booker to be quiet. He actually told me to shut up at one point. Uh you know the thing is I don't understand the tone. When he was first getting com confirmed, I get it.

But now he's announcing after two years on the job how many most wanted they wanted. You also notice that evidently arrests were picked up something like eighty percent or crimes down eighty percent.

Well, I give state the state police that credit.

Well, let him finish. He will tell you the role the FBI played in that and maybe have some backup on that. And if you can beat somebody, you don't have to yell at him or just speak over him. But he wasn't the only one. Senator Peter Welt, too.

Listen to this exchange, cut forty four. Why are you being such a panderer to President Trump, who is still claiming that he won the 2020 election? What I believe in is the rule of law. What I will always believe in the issue is the rule of law. Saying in advance that it has been rigged.

I want to know how your wealth increased 4,000 percent since you became United States Senator. That's a magic act all Americans should be available. Woo, that was a shot. Senator Peter Welch of Vermont, another millionaire senator. Kesh Patel also just talked about some of the positive things he's been able to do.

So, look, you want to be critical of him? I don't think he should have been drinking with the hockey team. I got it. You know, flying around some places to see his girlfriend. He says security-related.

You could debate it. But this other stuff is working. Maybe you don't like some of the people that were fired because they had to do their job. Uh following up and investigating. After uh after the uh 2020 election.

Maybe that was an overstep.

Some of these people anyway. You know, you're in the FBI and they tell you to go do X, Y, and Z. You pretty much got to do it.

So here's more cut 45. The FBI has arrested fifty four thousand filers. Criminals. That's up 90% from the 18-month period prior to that. The FBI has removed 3,258 kilograms of fentanyl.

That's enough to kill a quarter billion Americans. We have located, found, and identified 11,081 child victims. That is up twenty-one percent. We haven't captured nine of the top ten most individuals on our list. We've captured ten.

So There you go. Those are pretty good. If you have a problem with those stats, because I think his scripted remarks are given ahead of time, you could have challenged him. You could have said, well, you know, the local cops did those first 10, and you guys just came into whatever you want. But just go yell at him because you don't like him.

Are we past that? Are you trying to get a campaign ad? And Corey Booker is trying to run for president, which will be a disaster. Everybody knows it's going to be a disaster. Says 8 million people voted for him in New Jersey.

Well, in New Jersey, you're not really running against any Republican.

So people who show up at the polls will probably vote for you. You're somewhat of a bipartisan mayor of Newark. But as a senator, you couldn't be more partisan, and it's sad. The other thing that's making its way through the senate. And I think it got seventy votes yesterday, seventy plus, is that NIL bill reforming college sports.

They're going to have another vote that fixing it around the edges, and then they're going to hand it to the House. The House says no plans of taking it up because they want home to campaign. My hope is it will take it up. I mean, look at what's happening in college sports right now. I mean, it is really the Wild West.

You just ask, you ask even the even the state, even the universities that are on top. They want some rules, and the Senate's got a way forward. I noticed Deion Sanders is with it. Nick Sabin is with it. There's a lot of important people who are all for it.

So that's good. In the midterm elections, say the President of the United States is going to be in North Carolina. He's going to be in North Carolina. Scheduled the campaign stop with his good buddy for our RNC chair, yesterday's guest, Michael Watley. He'll be in Gastonia.

It is pretty much near Michael Watley's hometown. It's an area which is very Republican. Hopefully, you get a big turnout there. The newest poll does not look good for the Republicans. Trafalgar has Roy Cooper up 48.2 to 42.3.

So that's six points. It usually leans a little bit more towards Republican. On the northern ECU poll, Cooper's up 52 to 44. That's just 675 likely voters. On the Elon College, Elon University tour, the Elon UGov tour, 4938.

That's 11. That's pretty bad. On the averages, different aggregators currently put Cooper ahead by about roughly 8 to 9 points. How are they going to close that gap when you don't have a debate? He does not want any part of a debate.

The new midterm picture, the newest Reuters poll, Democrats, on the generic poll, who are you going to vote for? A Republican or Democrat? 4437. Democrats are above. The crazy thing is, when it comes to immigration, Democrats got a higher mark.

They let the border down. They let millions come in. They denied it was happening. The president shuts it down in the first few months. And now they give, because they also are trying to deport the 8 million people that came here illegally, some of which are the most of which are the worst of the worst.

They don't like the image of us scooping people off the streets. 461 over in Chicago the other day, in New York, there was over 2,000 were picked up. They don't like the look of that.

So now the president gets worse marks there. On the economy, please tell me anything. The Democrats have done positive on the economy except for pledge to raise taxes and condemn Republicans for evidently giving tax breaks to billionaires. If you listen to Bernie Sanders every day, the battleground states are this: North Carolina, I just told you about. Georgia, it looks like that's going to stay Democrat.

Iowa, they have a strong candidate in Iowa. I think the Republicans hold that. I think they'll hold Maine. They got a great shot at Michigan, New Hampshire, Johnson Unu within two. Ohio, John Usted is still trailing in the poll there.

Believe it or not, name recognition is issue there. Texas and Alaska. How many years have we spent listening to politicians in Washington argue about how to make healthcare insurance more affordable? Obamacare was supposed to fix it. Then we needed bigger government subsidies to make Obamacare affordable.

Those subsidies expired, and guess what? People are paying more again at some point. Maybe the question isn't: how do we keep fixing the same system? Maybe the question is: what else is out there? That's why I want you to take a look at WeShare Health.

WeShare isn't health insurance, it's a non-profit, Christian healthcare sharing organization, and their members pay up to 60% less than they would for Obamacare. You still get access to a nationwide PPO network and over a million physicians, plus unlimited telehealth.

So, stop waiting for Washington or the insurance companies to make healthcare affordable for you. Do your own research. See what your options are. Call 1-88-WeShare for a free quote. That's 1-888-WESHARE.

Or visit weSharehealth.org and take a look. for yourself. From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest-growing radio talk show. Brian Kilmead. Welcome back, everybody, from 48th and 6th in Midtown Manhattan.

Bryant Kill Meet Show is proud to welcome in a guy that's extremely hard to book unless he writes one, Jonathan Swan, White House reporter for the New York Times. I get that. I download it. I pay much of his salary. Regime changes the name of the book.

It's bestseller. Has been for quite some time. Name it number one in the country inside the imperial presidency of Donald Trump. Jonathan, welcome back. How are you?

I'm good, man. Thanks for having me. Hey, first off, how's your family? How are you adjusting? What's going on?

Well, I have a new number three just arrived four weeks ago.

So we're in newborn, the newborn phase again.

So I'm doing my best, mate. I know. You're doing your best. And I know you have this work-life balance because I remember asking you a few times and say, listen, I just want to write for a while and I want to be able to spend time with my family.

So I know for you to put this book together was a big commitment.

So regime change inside Donald Trump II. You knew this guy well, the President, well, going in. You've seen the ups and the downs. You've seen the controversies. You've seen the manufactured ones and maybe ones that you thought were real.

What are we finding about Trump two that's different from one? I think in many ways it's unrecognizable from Trump 1. In Trump 1, he came into office with no experience in Washington, no experience in government, and he really didn't know the people that he was appointing in these top roles. I mean, he was meeting many of them for the first time: people like James Mattis, Rex Tillerson, H.R. McMaster, you can go down the list, Gary Cohn, John Kelly.

Because of that, he hadn't done the digging to know that many of them had worldviews that differed from his. In many cases, some of these people viewed Donald Trump himself as dangerous and saw their jobs as protecting the country or the world from Donald Trump. Those people do not exist in this term. He has a group of people around him who like him, who support him, in some cases who went through the off years with him. And that was a very galvanizing experience when he was investigated, indicted, when they're in the attempted assassinations.

Some of them themselves received subpoenas. And so I would say, generally speaking, it's the team that he wants that sees their job as executing on his behalf much more than stopping him from doing things that they disagree with.

So I read 32 chapters.

So I'm almost done with the whole book.

So I truly appreciate it.

Some of the stuff I knew and other stuff. The good stuff only comes in 33. Which I heard. And that's the problem. But that's probably.

Why the sales are so big? People have such a positive review in the last few chapters. But, Jonathan, as he went in, number one, he's enjoying himself. I know he blows up at Bibi Netanyahu sometimes and gets a little angry at other times, but I think he's thoroughly enjoying the job. And he has not forgotten how hard, how close he came to almost going to jail.

And he has certain ideas of who's to blame for that. And he's doing the best he can to get retribution, don't you think? Yes, all all that's true. And I I think one thing that people Under the Estimate is that in term one, he felt under siege from day one. And so much of what he was doing was reactive.

This time around, He really had nothing to worry about. He had a Supreme Court ruling in 2024 that was very favourable, giving presidents sweeping immunity. And his team had had time to prepare. When he came back in the second time, Stephen Miller had that they had he was overseeing an Excel spreadsheet of something like a hundred or more executive orders. That really aggressive opening gambit was so carefully prepared by that team.

So it was just a completely different posture that he came in on. And Trump himself had had time to think about what he wanted to do differently from the first term.

So a couple of things. It looks like... People thought that Christine Noam was a mistake at Homeland. And the president said, listen, she's been unbelievably loyal. I got to give it to her.

And it didn't work from day one, right? That's true. And one thing we report in the book is that Stephen Miller actually, when they were deciding on these roles at Mar-a-Lago during the transition, did not think it was a good idea to put Christy Noam in. Once Trump made the decision, he obviously got behind it. But she was somebody who was not thought of very highly by the inner circle, that's for sure.

So she was out, and there's been a change there. Also, at Tulsi Gabbard, you mentioned that the president, after a short while, was cutting her out of meetings. You got that confirmed? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, she was not involved she was not in the room at all, for example, for any of the planning meetings that led up to the Iran war.

She was literally not in any of those meetings where they were planning and discussing the details that led up to the Iran war.

So by that stage, which was towards the end of her tenure, she wasn't really in the loop for the most meaningful conversations.

So the role of Susie Wiles, how would you describe it compared to other chiefs of staff?

Well, she's been the most long-lived of those Chief of Staff. I mean, remember, we went through four of them in term one, and we saw all different models of the Chief of Staff. She had an advantage because Both she and Donald Trump were with each other at their lowest points.

So people forget how that. Relationship was forged. She worked for him in the first campaign, 2016, and he credited her with delivering Florida. She worked again for him in 2020, but Ron DeSantis tried to stop that from happening. They had a big falling out.

She used to work for Ron DeSantis. Trump hired her anyway, and she was always grateful for that. And then, of course, she was with Trump during those really difficult years of 2021 and 2022, rebuilding his political operation when he was under huge legal pressure and many people were counting him out politically. Yeah, and we still don't know exactly what that fallout was, do you? With this answer.

With Susie Wiles and DeSantis. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, that relationship. w was very uh bad and um i there were Accusations by DeSantis allies that they were trying to accuse her of leaking, and it got very, very nasty. And there was no love loss there.

I think she was very happy to be on a campaign that defeated him.

So let's talk about Liberation Day. And early on you found out that they came up with some numbers and Howard Luttnick had some numbers about an imbalanced trade and it wasn't an imbalance as everyone thought. And the President said go back and get some new numbers. Do you think Liberation Day is looked at as a mistake from your research?

Well, the team became very worried, particularly Scott Bessett, the Treasury Secretary and Howard Lutnick, the Commerce Secretary. After Liberation Day, the bond markets got very wobbly. There was a period of time Six or seven days, I think it was, after Liberation Day, maybe even less than that, where the bond markets looked like they might melt down. And those two officials I don't want to say pleaded, that's probably too strong, but certainly made a really strong case to President Trump that you should put a pause on some of these tariffs because you're just trying to bite off too much. Starting a trade war essentially with the whole world may be not the best move.

So what they did was they put a pause on the vast majority of those tariffs and they kept the China tariffs on for that moment. But the goal of The tariffs was what the president wants to rebalance trade. He felt as though those, he's been saying since the 80s. He's like, why are we giving such great deals to people? They need us more than we need them.

And he's landed 20 trade deals. Um Do you look at that as a victory? I mean, you use tariffs as a wedge in order to get a better deal with the most significant countries on the planet. Probably the best example of a victory in this sense was with Europe. um where he got terms out of Europe that uh I don't think the Europeans were particularly happy to agree to and it was By wielding that power.

One thing about Trump, which you know very well, Brian, is he doesn't like to deal multilaterally. He likes to deal one-on-one. And the reason for that is because when he sees multilateral groups getting together, countries getting together, he just sees leverage building up. He likes to use the power of the US economy to deal one-on-one. And when it's with smaller or middle powers and they're not working collectively, you can squeeze them really hard and get quite a lot for the United States.

And there's many examples of Donald Trump doing that. Where it becomes more difficult is when the country actually has leverage of its own. And Xi Jinping had spent a lot of time preparing for this trade war. He had the rare earths, the magnets. He had leverage of his own.

And Trump ended up sending Bessett to Geneva and working out a détente with Xi Jinping.

So, you know, Jonathan, I never looked at this. Is what I was intrigued about the book about because you are not getting up every day. I don't like Trump. I think 80%, you could agree or not. Get up on a daily basis and go, I can't believe this guy's president.

I never took you as that. I always thought you were a case-by-case. Guy. But as you look at it, now that you've known the President for so much for so long, Do you think he, some of these things that he is doing now, do you think he's showing a template of how to move fast? Where other presidents didn't think it was possible.

He's changing so many rules. He's actually showing people in some ways how to get things done.

So, it's such an interesting question because I think a lot as a thought experiment about. what happens with let's say you have a Democrat come into office and they survey the Trump years. What Trump has taught, I think, both sides is that many of the restraints. That have been on the modern presidency have been self-imposed restraints or restraints by norms, not by laws. And when Trump shows that you can just act, whether it be Building a ballroom.

The courts have ultimately blessed it, but let's say they didn't. Let's say this is a small trivial example, but it kind of illustrates something larger. Trump by the time that the court process was sort of getting caught up to the ballroom, The hole was in the ground. The cranes were in the sky. The shovels are digging.

And so Trump creates facts on the ground, and people have to react to that and they have to catch up. And in many senses, the court system was not built for a president who's wielding power in this way.

So I absolutely think that it's more likely than not that, even if they're a Democratic leftist president, that they'll be looking for lessons in these uses of power and how they can use them to achieve their own goals. The personal relationship that he has with so many people. I mean, how many times have I been watching Meet the Press or Face the Nation or CNN? People that aren't really too positive towards the present. And they start the conversation with I just got off the phone with the President.

And he gave me this story. And he told me this. and the personal interaction that he has with reporters that aren't necessarily his favorites and his favorites. Is never going to be replicated again? Or do you think that there's going to be other presidents that are going to want to?

go right to the press like this and make them feel I don't want any filter in between the message. It's pretty hard to imagine, Brian, right? Having just like you could imagine I'll give you an example. One of my colleagues managed to get hold of Joe Biden's cell phone number, right? And they called him up for comment on the book.

And the next day, Or the next day, or two days later, the team had shut off that number.

So, you know, it's hard to imagine a president. In the future, being okay with half of Washington having their cell phone number and to actually take calls directly from reporters. Obviously, I'd be all for it, but I'm skeptical that it will be repeated. How comfortable are you to I mean, it's amazing you're inside meetings. Your inside.

I mean, that's why I know this stuff. I'm doing it every day. I'm reading about it. I get up at three in the morning. And still, you're showing me stuff in regime change, Jonathan Swan, that I did not know about.

Also, it's helped me with dynamics, how people get along with each other. How do you... With it uh How do you build those sources in a brand new In a brand new administration quickly, and turn around a book like this that chronicles year one. How do you do that?

Well I've been covering Trump now. This is my eleventh consecutive year covering him. And and the consecutive part of that's really important. And Maggie's been covering him longer than me, my co author. But You know, I didn't stop covering him when he left office.

I kept covering him through those four years out of office, through all of the trials. You know, yes, there are new people in his orbit, but they're not completely out of nowhere. I mean, most of these people, you know, even the people who came in. We're starting to build a relationship with Trump at the latest in sort of 21, 22, 23.

So it's long-term sourcing. It's not just, you can't just pick it up and snap your fingers and get sourced. I mean, it's really hard work and it takes a long time. You know, there's a lot of stuff that we didn't end up being able to put in the book because we couldn't be sure it was true, or we just couldn't quite nail it down, and we sort of left a huge amount on the cutting room floor for that reason. For example, tell me what you left.

I don't want to, man, because it's not verified. I don't want to. Pollute your airwaves, Brian.

So, Jonathan, what do you expect over the next few months as we get closer to the midterms? Number one, if he wins, he keeps both chambers, and what if he doesn't keep either?

Well, I think one even before we get there, I think one thing that everyone's looking for, including people at a senior level in the administration, I'm sure you're picking this up as well, is what will Iran do before the midterms to try to mess with Trump or to hurt him, not just hurt him in terms of national US national security, but also potentially politically.

So that's something they're all Watching very closely, and obviously, we'll see what happens there. We'll see what happens with the Houthis. After the elections, look. One thing that I think Is not clear at all to me. Let's say Democrats do take the house.

Let's say the polling's basically right or close to right and they take the house. I'm not so sure that oversight will be Uh As effective as many people imagine. I think we're going to see a real fight between the branches, maybe much more than we've seen before. Pretty aggressive pushback from the Trump DOJ. Congress obviously doesn't have a way of enforcing subpoenas.

All they can do is refer it to the Justice Department.

So I think there's a really open question as to whether the Trump. Administration complies and agrees to go and submit to Democratic demands for documents, for people to testify, and things like that.

So I think we could see a real war between the branches. Obviously, Democrats are already foreshadowing that they want to impeach the president. I don't think anyone would be surprised by that, but there's not really any prospect of that going anywhere in the Senate. And for Trump, look, I think on foreign policy, the one I'm watching, and I'm sure you are too, is Cuba. I've been very interested to see whether we see regime change in Cuba.

I know Marco Rubio has been very intensely focused on that. One thing we report in the book is he's been talking about regime change in Cuba since he was a child. He comes out of that community and has been very, very much focused on this.

So I'll be curious to see how they wield pressure there. And as for domestic policy, I don't know. They haven't really laid out the next phase of their agenda. Since they passed the big beautiful bill, we haven't really seen what they you know, a big sweeping policy program. I think the issue that everyone right now is focused on is AI and how are they going to engage with AI?

How are they potentially going to weigh into regulation? Trump has made clear that he doesn't think that putting guardrails on these companies is a wise idea, that it could allow China to catch up. But will the competing pressures and cross pressures change that? Very curious to follow that story. And that is Jonathan Swann.

More with Jonathan Swan in a moment. You're listening to the Brain Kill Me Show. Don't move. It's Brian Kilmeid. Hi everyone, it's Brian Kilmead here.

Are you tired of those uncomfortable dress shirts, especially when they bunch up under a sweater? If so, then you must check out Collars Co., makers of the dress collar polo. Listen up. These shirts are four-way stretch, buttery soft polos with firm dress collars on them, so they give you the dress shirt look, but extremely comfortable polo feel. You can wear them with anything under a sweater, with a blazer, or by themselves as an elevated polo.

They work for any occasion. These polos are perfect, whether it's in the office, on a golf course, or a night out. Collars Co. is exploding and have gone viral on social media thanks to the 1 million investment they received on Shark Tank from Mark Cuban and Peter Jones. You don't have to worry about collars that flop down and spread out.

They stay firm and sharp all day. It's an amazing array of sweaters, quarter zips, pants, and outerwear. If you're looking for the performance dress shirt or polo that looks great all day, check out collarsandco.com. Use promo code Brian for 15% off. of any purchase of $100 or more, that's promo code BRIAN.

The talk show that's getting you talking. You're with Brian? Kill me. Yeah, what I want to do is keep this short because I got more with Jonathan Swan, co-author of Regime Change Coming Up Your Way. Just my book, United States, comes out October 13th, six crucial moments that Forge the American Miracle.

I think you're going to love it. I think you're going to love the six I chose. If you think you have different ones that should have been in there, I'd love to hear that too. BrianKillMe.com, all my live appearances are lining up now. You got Westbury, October 17th, New York, and Redbank, New Jersey, October 16th.

November 7th in Clearwater, November 8th in Jacksonville, and November 21st in St. Louis, Missouri. Also, got book signings too. Just go to BrianKilme.com and just register so I know you're coming. Keep it here.

Brian Kilmey Show. He's so busy. He'll make your head spin. It's Brian. kill me.

Hey, we are back. Jonathan Swan was kind enough to join us. You know, he had just had another kid, so, and when his book comes out, Regime Change, which is doing extremely well one year inside the Trump administration, he couldn't really do any publicity for us now for it. And now that he can, he joined us. And we spent some time.

I think he's very fair. I don't know what Maggie Haberman wrote and what he wrote, but he's always been very fair to Trump, and I think that's why he's got access. And I have not. That's all I can say. I haven't seen President Trump say anything.

bad about him. Uh at all. And You heard the first 20 minutes of my interview with him. Here's a little bit more. Will you be are you in the process of following up with another book?

On this? Absolutely not. I am very hostile to the idea of doing a book again, Brian. That one just about killed me.

So I'll stick with the reporting for a while.

Well, how would you characterize your relationship with the President now? I mean, it's the same as it's always been. It's just professional. I cover him. You know, I don't take it emotionally if he.

complaint about I just you know Like you said, I get up, I report, I try to get the information out, and I don't. get emotional uh about you know things like this. I also don't want to ever portray myself as some kind of a Protagonist or righteous man coming in on a white horse holding a sword with my journalist badge on. You know, I'm just doing my job and. Um it's You know, it's a reporting for a newspaper is a pretty kind of workmanlike.

You know, you get in, you get the information, you report it. That's what the job should be. But also your goal is if you could get that great intelligence and great information, your stories are better, your columns are better, so that means interaction with the guy making the most news in the world, right?

Well, not just that, you have to actually interact with the people who are making the decisions across the government. You can't be sort of. You have to get into these rooms. I mean, it's just simple. If you're trying to get the information that we want, you have to try to break into these rooms.

And to do that, you know, there's a pretty tight group of people that are. Actually, making the decisions in this administration.

So we watched Cash Patel and Scott Besant. We watched them testify today. You talk about stuff that we've also known about the Treasury Secretary. You know, he, Jonathan, he was doing our radio show, and they say, hey, by the way, he's a finalist to be a Treasury Secretary. And he came in for two years before he got the job on a regular basis.

And I couldn't believe how smart he was, intelligent was. I didn't know how tough he was. Could you give our audience a sense of how tough he is physically behind the scenes?

Well, we have a couple of scenes in the book which a lot of people have talked about. One is he got into quite an argument with Elon Musk early on. In the administration last year, and it actually at one point got physical. They were. arguing and it got pretty heated in the Oval Office and there was a shove and depending on who you talk to, who shoved who, but there was certainly physical contact.

And after the incident, Trump had one question that he wanted to know, and it was who won?

So he wanted to know who won the fight.

So, you know, Besant is a brawler both verbally and. Yeah, if required physically. Yeah, he and also very competent. In terms of the different cabinet secretaries, I mean, RFK gave a pretty brilliant speech, I thought one of the best speeches for President Trump of the Republican Party, talking about how he used to be a Democrat and how they really wouldn't let him run. And then they wouldn't let it the the few delegates he had, he wouldn't be able to give them up.

And he just talked about how things have changed and how Donald Trump has lived up to every promise that he promised me when I jumped aboard and how different he is, how he's been portrayed in the press. Uh and how he how much more depth he understands about the issues. And I've heard people go both ways.

Some people say, I can't believe how little he knows. Other people say, I can't believe how detailed he is. Where does Jonathan Swan stand about with that? Yeah, I wouldn't co-sign the RFK statement. I think Trump, I don't think there's a huge difference between the private Trump and the Trump that you see publicly.

I think that he can be more profane. He has different modes, and he can obviously be incredibly flattering, charming, hospitality mode. Everyone who's been with him has experienced that. But I don't think he's. Spending a ton of time poring over policy papers.

I don't think he's steeped in healthcare policy or anything like that in particular. I think he's a gut instinct player who doesn't, he's sort of the opposite of George W. Bush in the sense that I'm not saying Bush wasn't instinct driven, but Bush wanted there to be total consensus with his team. He went through a policy process that the NSC was coordinating, deputies up to principals. Bush wanted them all to agree to present to him.

He would make the decision. It's the precise reverse with Trump. Trump knows what he wants to do, particularly on national security. He says, I want this, and then it gets forced down through the system and that gets done. He's not wanting there to be this, he doesn't really care about a policy process or NSC or anything like that.

And it's a gut-driven decision-making. That's my view from covering him.

So, the one thing that's happened, I've got a chance to meet somebody like Steve Witcoff, for example, and you talk about him in the book. Obviously, you have to if you cover him the first year. And you talk about when the first meeting with the foreign minister, Witkoff suggested that Iran be allowed to maintain a civilian. Program at levels negotiated under the 2015 JPEG. JCPOA.

I mean It's amazing. You talk about gut instinct. The same thing as he meets with Vladimir Putin, the same thing as he meets with the Foreign Minister. There's a guy who's extremely intelligent, obviously very successful, but ill equipped to do that job. I mean, not putting the time in prior to that or having somebody who's steeped in trade uh, who's steeped in international relations, if you're going to go in and be the chief negotiator.

That it's astounded me that you that you chronicle that in the book. Yeah. One thing that surprised people at a senior level when they saw Witkoff operate is just how unstaffed he is. He's really sort of a sole operator, you know, very thin staff. He went to meet Putin on his own, doesn't really rely on the subject matter experts and, you know, follows that.

So that's how you get incidents like that, which he had to walk back, by the way, because Trump was like, no, we're not doing the Obama deal.

So that got reversed pretty quickly. But yeah, no, he came to all of these issues pretty much cold with Donald Trump's blessing and not very much staff around him to help him. And we'll see what happens because there's two things that he's got to do, the President, before he's out. He's got to fix it, end this or the Ukraine war, and he's got to find a resolve in Iran. And now it's getting more complicated because the Houthi rebels are now involved, and we've got two straits that could be shut down.

They're certainly being hindered at this hour, and gas is over $100 a barrel, right? Yes, all of that's true. And you have very anxious Gulf states in the middle of it. Trying to sort of Figure out how they're going to get back to rebuilding their economies. And their whole vision has sort of been put on pause as well during this war.

All right. So, Jonathan, regime change inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump. Congratulations on your sustained run on the best seller list, continued success, and congratulations on your growing family. Thanks, Brian. Really appreciate it.

Thanks for having me. Jonathan Suan, regime change. All right. So he's not going to do a year or two. He says, oh, I don't think he'll ever do another book again.

But he'll have great access, and we'll see where we go. I know one thing. I think the press overall is really, especially after speaking to the Axios guys yesterday, I don't think they understand how much they're going to miss Trump. I don't care what they think of him. The access they get, the type of stories they get, how everything's been exposed, and it gives you an idea of the inner workings of an administration.

I don't think we're really going to see anything like it again. I don't think anyone wants to replicate it. I don't think anyone's capable of replicating it. I don't know if any single person is as confident in their ability as the President is in his. And that's why theme seems to be in many respects so thin staffed.

But I would love to see somebody in the Middle East, as we were just talking about, Focusing just the Middle East. And three or four hot spots. Number one, I don't think we should pull one out of Iraq. We got Iranian militias in Iraq. Why are we pulling out?

That's exactly what Iran wants. We're pulling out of Syria.

Now, the President's been wanting to do that for a while. We have a guy that we can deal with in Syria, but he's also blowing Christians and Jews out of that country right now, at the same time hammering the Kurds. All three are allied with us. Tom Barack is there.

Now, I hear he's extremely intelligent. I know he's very successful. But how much experience does he have in the region? He's playing such a dominant role right now. And then.

When you look at what's happening with the Gulf states, they constantly want to be reassured. They're sporadically under attack. Our bases in Bahrain, are we going to rebuild them? Are we going to get going? I'd love to see two or three people with decades of experience that, yes, like President Trump.

I have nothing against him. You know, cut from the same cloth as you would have. Marco Rubio is loyal to him, and Witcoff and Kushner are loyal, obviously, but they don't have the experience. Kushner is extremely bright and does have a track record there. I like to see him play a role, but I don't think he should be taking the lead role.

I just think it's it's too complicated. And relationships matter. And the president can't possibly be all over this, all over Central and South America. He's got an eye on Cuba as well as on our economy. Today he's in North Carolina.

And then he's going to be back in Texas again. And he's going to try to bring up all the battleground states and tighten everything up and make sure his. MAGA BASE is at least going to vote.

Now the generic poll between the two parties is over eight points. They say if it gets in double digits, that's when it it could be a wave for either party. Not that I think anything's ever typical these days. But it could be a wave either way.

So we'll talk more about that when we get back. We'll also be able to take some calls. I got a ton of emails: 1-866-408-7669. You listen to the Brian Killmee show. Keeping you informed, engaged, and always a step ahead.

It's the Brian Kill Me Show. Information you want, truth you demand. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. I think we looked at some 27 devices, exfiltrated all the data off of them, looked for connections to individuals in America and overseas, and we found no evidence that that individual was literally even speaking to any other human being other than his parents who he resided with. And that's we're talking about the would-be assassin Thomas Crooks of Thankfully Lost, but he got killed.

He missed Donald Trump, just hit his ear, but he killed Corey Compachure, which is just tragic, cut down the prime of his life with his family there protecting them. But he was able to get on that roof and shoot. And the question is: who the hell is he? How did he get there? What motivated him?

How did a guy who liked Republicans end up hating Republicans? What's he like? We knew nothing about it. And Senator Grassley, to his credit, said, I need to find out more. And it came, I don't know why they're just not more transparent about it, especially with Cash Patel there and Dan Bongino.

And this guy was a solemn guy. He said he had no, his father said he had no real relationship with him. He seemed to be a genius. 1400 on his SATs, came back and did it again nearly perfect. And then he basically failed out of college.

He was in high school. You saw some video of him there in high school, and he was part of one commercial. Then they just happened to randomly come to his school, a major corporation.

So you see him in the background. He was a terrible shot, we understand.

So he went and took shooting lessons and got a scope and learned to shoot from a great distance. His father evidently said to him, Why are you learning to shoot from that far of a distance? And he said he just wanted to be able to test himself. Little did he know, he was probably working on a way to shoot the President of the United States or excuse me, the former President of the United States who was going to be the future of the United States. Mark Teason waited in.

He had spe he has questions on Special Report Cut twenty seven. Donald Trump has suffered more assassination attempts than any president in American history. And the idea that this is two years on and we know almost nothing about this guy or what his motivations were is ridiculous. On the other hand, we're still debating the motivations of Lee Harvey Oswald. There are movies made about Lee Harvey Oswald and conspiracy theories about him.

He actually succeeded in killing a president.

So it's not unprecedented that we would be debating for decades the reason why someone tried to kill an American president. True. Uh and you you just wonder too, is it true that he was uh seen an hour and a half away at a gun shore store with two other people?

Now, they I don't I don't know if there's no video that I know of, but they said that this the guy that looked exactly like him was at a gun store.

Now, the father said he had no other friends. Who's he at the gun store with? Why do you need twenty seven other devices? Steph Kite on spe on special work, twenty eight. There's so many questions.

It's remarkable to be at this place and still really have so few answers, even when you have Trump's own selected leadership at the DOJ and FBI, who are of course prioritizing getting to the bottom of this. And they can criticize the past leadership of the FBI and DOJ, but we still don't have any questions on this, any answers to these questions. Yeah, and that's what people want. If you get a standard, I know there's going to be people with conspiracy theories, regardless, but if you can just find out and how he got on the roof, how he was able to get there, the security that was all with Joe Biden and not with him. Whatever you say to me, there's no way you'll show me any difference.

Clearly, the Secret Service overworked anyway, understaffed, apparently, but they were not out there to really make sure that Donald Trump stayed safe. Remember, Joe Biden was telling RFK, jumping a lake when he asked for Secret Service. You just know the hatred between the two camps, the Biden camp and the Trump camp. He wasn't saying, hey, bulk up his secret. Secret Service protection.

They did afterwards. And to Biden's credit, he did call him after he was nearly killed. And lastly, Senator Eric Schmidt on where this investigation is going, Cut 29. I think it's hard for people to accept that this guy was just a social outcast and perhaps almost pulled off one of the most devastating events in American history. I think everybody, just where this country would be right now, if you had actually been successful.

So I'm all in favor of continuing to ask important questions, and the FBI director I know would be open to that. This guy was clearly sort of a loner. That's what his father said in these interviews, didn't have any friends. But this isn't some kid who's having problems in school. This is somebody who tried to assassinate the future, the one-time and then future president of the United States.

And we should leave no stone unturned in this investigation. And then the other big story that we were just talking about was with Charlie Kirk. And now it looks like the family is suing the college, about to sue the college, about to sue the state for not keeping Charlie safe. And it looks pretty damning. I mean, the backs, the information that they have, the text messages, the exchanges with their own private security, it shows they really dropped the ball big time, just like they dropped the ball in Butler, not because they were able to squeeze off the shot, but when you see the fact that they were able to get so close, can you imagine letting a would-be assailant get back on a roof just months before when the president was almost killed from a guy on a roof?

So the minute they checked it out, Secret Service checked it out, they said, Hey, wait a second, you got a roof exposed right in front of the stage where Charlie's going to be on the grass. Can you handle that? And evidently, they have the text message. And the answer was yes, and here's the exact text message. TPUSA texted this.

Hello, Chief Long. We received a message today from the student group. There is student roof access pretty close to where Charlie Kirk will be setting up. If this is true, it would be nice to either have a controlled access, which means no one's allowed up there when he's speaking. or allow one of my guys to be there, if possible.

Chief Long responded by saying I got you covered. I got you covered. He didn't. So Why did Chief Long not have him covered? And I was on uh campus in college.

Those cops, you know, they were great people, but they I didn't feel like I was dealing with Navy SEALs. They had six cops controlling. Six campus cops controlling 3,000 people. That's insane. Charlie had his own people, but you can't control the perimeter.

And I just think whatever's in that contract that said who controls security, that's going to matter a lot. Here's what they say the failures are: no written security plan, no pre-event security briefing, no real-time CCTV monitoring, closed caption, closed circuit, no drone surveillance. They offered a drone, they had it, ready to go, they weren't able to use it. No rooftop security coverage. And that was the worst.

So this is six offices for 3,000 people. 25% of the UVU police force was six. That means you only had 18. From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Kilmead.

All right, from 48th and 6th in Midtown Manhattan, heard around the country, around the world, is the Brian Kill Meet Show. We're going to go inside the FBI with Kyle Bow Winkle, the retired FBI senior executive who served in the Bureau's elite hostage rescue team in crisis negotiation. Kyle Rove is standing by. He's going to be zooming in with us. We've got to get the latest on the midterms, but first let's get to the big three.

Number three. It's a search for justice. You know, we want justice for Charlie, and Charlie deserved the best. And in this instance, unfortunately, Ainsley, he didn't get it. Not close.

Two assassination investigations. Charlie Kirk, what wasn't done to protect him, and a lawsuit that should be following. And what do we know about the Butler shooter now that Chuck Grassley demanded some facts? We'll discuss. Number two.

Right now, there's really no reason to have discussions with those kind of maximalist demands in a delusion. And I just think time is running out for this regime. No kidding. Matt Whitaker, NATO ambassador. Iran says we want to talk, but we don't want to know what he they're talking about.

They don't want to talk. We don't even know who asked them. I don't think there's any official conversations with the Iranians. What are they talking about?

Meanwhile, I think it's time to call the IDF and together take this regime down once and for all. Number There's a coordinated campaign to make of the American people afraid. There's over 50 of these organizations that were coordinating campaigns, testing public opinion, and spending huge amounts of money trying to scare people. It's regulatory capture on one hand. It's our adversaries, of course, want us to stop.

Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale. Can we slow down without slowing down? That's my message when it comes to this AI hysteria. Much like data centers from two weeks ago and the pandemic from four years ago. I sense the massive hysteria is causing an overreaction around the country.

And this time I'm trying to be smart enough not to get caught up in it. While still noticing there's some substance here, Carl Rove joins us now. Carl, have you ever seen a subject crop up so quick, so comprehensively with the midterm election so close?

Well, it really is amazing how widespread it is. I must admit, though, I keep going back. There's a very interesting set of polls done by Echelon in which they ask about data centers. And basically, the overwhelming majority say, I'm worried about it. I don't want them.

But if you say, what if you guarantee that they're going to supply their own electricity and your utility bills won't go up? What if you knew that they were going to pay property taxes on these very expensive centers that are going to lower you, in all likelihood, hold the line or lower your local property taxes? Your schools are going to get more money out of them. And if they are responsible about water and have systems that recirculate the water rather than use evaporation, how do you feel? And basically, a third of the people say, I don't want them anyway.

But two-thirds of the American people say, I'm open to them at that point. That's a good point. That's the whole thing. They people want a voice in what they're doing. Maybe they were too cavalier in putting them out there.

And by the way, people have said to me that they use more of water for golf courses. Yeah, that's true. That's true. I mean, if you've got the local golf course and if you have a data center that has a capture system that recycles the water, there's only one day in which that data center will have more water use, and that's the day when they load out the system. But otherwise, no, absolutely.

And that's why you're finding, look, there's also an issue about noise, having these in urban areas or having them near residential sections. That's why we're finding, like, for example, Spur, Texas is in the middle of nowhere. And what this is going to, the data center there, what's going to happen is that that school district is going to go from being one of the poorest in the state to being one of the richest. And the local county taxes are now going to be paid for almost exclusively by the data center. And they have their own power system, and they're going to load it once and reuse that water.

So the local community is saying, we're ecstatic about this. Just make certain it's not too close to our barns and our cattle because we want them to be. Able to sleep at night. Yeah, by the way, they use the term when it comes to AI specifically. Data centers, I'm all in.

I understand the Democrats want to run against it, and some Republicans were afraid to bring it up. And even the governor of Texas said, let's put a pause on it.

Now, all of a sudden, it's been a long time. No, he said, let's put a pause on it. And to make certain that everybody understands, we need to have several things. One is, You got to have your own, what's called behind the meter. You can't load your power needs onto the local system.

You've got to make certain that you have the water issue handled by recycling. You've got to blah, blah, blah. I mean, he was handling this a very smart political boy saying, I heard you. These are your concerns. I'm not going to stop these, but we're going to put in place rules that are easy to understand and achieve exactly what you, the local people, want to have to have achieved.

Um what do you do in Ohio? where they want to tell the center John Eusted, you are the data centered candidate. I'm all for him. You're you understand it. If you are with John Eusted right now, how do you counter Sherrard Brown running those ads?

I think you took two things you say. I believe in reasonable standards, and those standards are you got to pay for your own electricity. You got to reuse the water so you don't draw down it. You've got to put these away from neighborhoods and schools because we don't want the noise. And you need to make certain that these things pay their fair share of taxes, which relieves the burden on the local taxpayers.

And I'm in favor of those because they have good manufacturing jobs and good ongoing jobs in these data centers. And I want jobs in Ohio. And if Sherrod Brown doesn't want to have this progress and he wants these data centers to be in Michigan and Pennsylvania and all across the American South, we're going to be losing more people from Ohio, good mechanics, good electricians, good construction workers who would make a good living from building and maintaining these centers. I'd go straight into it. I think the echelon poll is right.

A third of the people are going to say, hell, no, never. But the other two-thirds of the American people are saying, well, you know what? It's a pretty good idea as long as you protect what I'm concerned about.

Now, let's just talk about AI specifically, the technology. People are concerned about recursive self-improvement. Essentially, you give AI a mission, it feeds on itself, it builds itself, smarter than its user, smarter than all users, and starts going on its own mission.

So we can get into specifics, but now they have the CEOs of some of these major companies from Elon Musk. Uh, to uh to the CEO of uh Anthropic. Zuckerberg is not, he's got a different take. Coming forward and go, Yeah, we maybe we should have the government put guardrails on. President wants nothing to do with it.

Here's what he said, cut one. The great thing about life is that Jensen can develop the most complex computer chip in the world that nobody can copy for 10 years, but he can't figure out how to put me on speaker.

So with the AI, it's almost this conspiracy. And the happiest group is China, and China is very happy. And I could even say, in the country, a lot of states are happy that weren't going to get anything because they're being inundated by people that want to be there. No, he feels like it's a giant conspiracy that these guys are all colluding together. Zuckerberg is not.

Zuckerberg goes: look, if we do something that's going to hurt the country, we're going to get sued, we're going to be ruined. Why is it that in our interest? We should be able to guard ourselves. Where do you stand, Carl?

Well, I sort of tilt towards the lighter regulations better than heavy regulation, and I do worry about, you know, sort of like the regulatory capture. The big boys who are working on this now set up a regime that benefits them, but not challengers. On the other hand, this is a highly unusual technology, and I don't fully grasp it. I don't think a lot of us fully grasp its implications.

So I want lots of smart people talking about this and explaining it to us and arriving at something that makes sense to ordinary Americans. I like the President's attitude: we don't want China to get a lead in this because there are all kinds of malign ways that AI can be used to attack America. But we need a national dialogue about this, and some really smart people. Who don't have a financial interest in the game to help us understand it. Here's what David Sachs said: he's the president's AI Zar, but seven.

I think we are in a political season right now. It feels like a panic is being ginned up. And so I do think that the threat here has been exaggerated. No one is saying that they shouldn't take steps on their own to prioritize the safety of their own products. Again, every corporation in America has an obligation.

It's not a hoax.

Well, no, the hoax is that somehow we're going to be extinct as a species within a few years because of AI, and therefore we have to stop completely.

So Jensen Wong, it feels like David Sachs, Elon Musk feels like. The other the other way. It goes uh the other way around.

So I just don't know if you want a bunch of people, Carl, who know nothing about AI or generally about AI regulating some of the most sophisticated AI models in the world. Yeah, I agree with that. I also don't want people who already have sophisticated AI models to set up a regulatory burden that, in essence, makes it difficult for anybody to enter the field and compete with them. This guy, Sachs, I don't know him, but I got to tell you, I think every time I hear him, I hear a reasonable, thoughtful person. He made a very important point.

We are just over 50 some odd days from the election, and political players on both sides of this issue are going to be using that fact to gin up one way or the other, and particularly those who support some kind of, you know, we like the people who are already in there. Let's help them capture the regulatory apparatus to their advantage, or the doomsters who say we don't want AI at all. Both of those camps are going to be trying to use the fact that we have an election coming up to their advantage. That's why I think Sachs is absolutely right. We shouldn't do things simply because of the implications that it might have for the outcome of the election.

And Bernie Sanders is saying, just shut it all. Down, and I always feel comfortable doing the opposite. Yeah, he and his new running buddy Steve Bannon, the two of them were out there saying, you know, let's get you know, the the the modern Luddites, the the the Democratic Socialists from Vermont and the uh I don't know what from Arizona or someplace else. All right. Let's talk about the midterms now.

The generic ballot. Where do you understand that is now? I understand the CBS poll has Democrats with something like an eight or nine-point advantage. Where do you think it is? I think it's six or seven.

I think that's maybe a little robust. And again, that's you know, the generic ballot matters more for the House. In one sense, because it's a national number. And the Senate is obviously limited to basically a third of the seats, and therefore a third of the country. But Even there, you know, look, the generic ballot may be seven or you know, seven or eight advantage for the Democrats, but what does that mean in a district that Donald Trump won by 13?

It probably means that the race, rather than being 12 or 13 for the Republican, is going to be. Six or seven.

So again, this is going to come down to a handful of districts. If you look at all the prognosticators, Sabato, Cook, political report, you know, National Journals Political Report, they're about Twenty some odd low twenties that are toss-up seats, and then just low thirties that are toss-up seats, and lean Democrat and lean Republican. And that's where what the actual generic ballot is in those thirty-some odd seats. That's what matters.

So do you believe Minnesota's in play with Michelle Tafoya? You know, I haven't seen any polling there, but the Democrats have once again nominated a DSA adjacent. She's not a member of the Democratic Socialists, but the lieutenant governor is very, very, very left-wing. And Tufoya is the kind of outsider who might have a shot at this. But I haven't seen any polling on that.

I have seen the Cook political report followed the recent polls and moved New Hampshire from lean Democrat to toss-up. I once said John Sununu has become the Republican nominee with a pretty good advantage. And Chris Pappas is the Democrat who represents the first district, the one that's on the coast, that is the more, you know, the more contentious district of the two in the state. We have a coefficient poll and a Qantas poll. Flanagan in Minnesota up just one, and then one, that was on the 15th.

And the Qantas poll on the 10th had Flanagan up four. But she's, you know, she's covered in this fraud scandal. She's a lieutenant governor. And There's a lot to run on. And Michelle Tafoya is not an extreme conservative.

She's a moderate conservative who just came out of sports, big name. She's not going to be rattled on the stump. I'll tell you that. Yeah, yeah, and look, Minnesota is is a conservative state, but it's a traditional conservative state. You're right.

This is not a place that rewards right-wingers by electing them to statewide office, but it does take, you know, it's all those Germans and Swedes and Norwegians and Danes and, you know, who are sort of culturally conservative, fiscally responsible, but not extreme. We Nordic types are not allowed to be extreme. And yeah, it's going to be an interesting race because she's got two, Tafoya has two things going for her. One is, you're right, the lieutenant governor is wrapped up in all of those. She's trying to press it now off on the governor, saying, I was not part of that.

That's really the governor's responsibility. But the other thing is she has a number of very weird views of her own. She is a Native American.

So she has, you know, she was the one who presided over the Democratic National Committee meeting in Minneapolis by opening it up saying, you know, we're sorry, we terrible people here living here today. We pay homage to. Those whose land it's really, this land really is, the various Indian tribes of 200 years ago. And, you know, that frankly just strikes a lot of people as sort of goofy. But she's got a lot of left-wing views.

So Tafoya has two things she can go after. This woman sat presided over the biggest financial scandal in the history of Minnesota, and she has these views that you don't agree with. All right, let's talk about Rogers and El Saeed. He's got about a one, El Saeed said to have between a one and three point lead in that. If you're Rogers, how do you game plan against that if you believe the polls?

Well, first of all, I think that's probably accurate because he's come off of the primary victory. But the Republicans have not won a center race there since 1994. And yeah, I think Rogers is doing great. I love the coverage of last weekend's Michigan game. There's Mike out there having a brat and a beer with everybody and should have circulated among all the tailgaters.

And Al Saeed is having to deal with the fact that even though he played high school football, he considers football toxic masculinity. And so here's the diminutive little El Saeed sort of hoofing around about football as college football and high school football is terrible because it's a representative of the masculine dominance of our society. And he sounds like a goofball. 30 seconds. Talk about a sport.

A sport that's beloved in Michigan. It's football. Tallarico Paxon, how do you see this race right now?

Well, Tallarico is finally, Trump is starting to spend money, but Tallerico has had several months in which he'd been running in the clear. And his message is my opponent is corrupt. And the message that The Paxton campaign is my opponent, is a left-winger, and they're both powerful messages in their own right. The problem is going to be for Paxton is that they've got to spend more money. His money is coming in from the Super PAC.

You and I have talked about this before. The Super PAC pays four, five, six, seven, eight times as much for an ad as does Talrico.

So Talrico is spending roughly, you know, Six, seven, eight million a week. And so, in order for Uh Paxton's camp with its super PAC support to match that, they got to be spending $30 or $40 million a week, and they're spending five. They're spending five.

Now, there are new ads that are going to start running soon with a heavier buy. Right. But this is a battle that should have been engaged with earlier and is going to be very costly for the Republicans. Yep. We'll see what happens.

Carl Robe, thanks so much. Always great. Talk to you soon. Back in a moment. Don't go anywhere.

Brian Kilmead will be right back. From his mouth to your ears, it's Brian Killmeade. I think that there is nobody who's earned the right to make Her own decision more than Vice President Harris. I think she has absolutely earned the right to run. And whether or not that impacts how other people are thinking about it, I think that's on them.

Really? That is Wes Moore. He keeps saying he's not going to run, but everyone thinks he's going to run. Remember, he was out in Italy with none other than. George Cooney, and he was having a good time in the boat.

I'm sure they're saying, Hey, I need you to run. I'll support you. George Cooney is a kingmaker. He's the only one with the courage to stand up to Joe Biden and say, Hey, wait a second, you really can't do this anymore. I saw you, you're not the same guy.

That editorial, they say, was written by Obama, but at least he went out there. You know what else I like about George Cooney? As far as I could tell, he's not doing what Robert De Niro does.

Now, obviously, Trump wins tried twice, two or three times. He accepts it. Books for the remake. That's the way you should do it. You should have, well, I don't know how he did it, but he won.

I'll get you next time. A talk show that's real. This is the Brian Killmeat Show. Hey, with me in studio, if you're smart enough to get the stream, is Shaping Chaos, the author of Shaping Chaos, Leadership Lessons forwards in the FBI's Most Dangerous Operations. Kyle Bowenkel joins us now.

He's also an expert with FBI hostage rescue, team operator, and crisis negotiator.

So, Kyle, and you just got out, right? Three and a half years ago. Three and a half years ago, with a West Point background. You were just telling me. Correct, yeah.

I did four years at West Point, and then. Five years in the Army and then 24 years in the FBI. Right. So, what do you think the state of the FBI is right now? Uh Has some Issues, I think, with lowering the standards.

I'm not a fan of the current director lowering the standards, as we're just talking about. That is not something that. You know, the quality of personnel is so important for the FBI, the agents and analysts, those that I worked with, are some of the best of the best. And to let people in with these. Lowering the standards.

I just don't understand it. I understand maybe the application numbers are down, but to lower the standards, you need the best of the best people in the Bureau, and you don't need to be lowering standards. Besides that crazy bestiality give and take that we watched with Senator Kennedy and others, are there other indications that they lowered the standards?

Well, I've heard secondhand that the interview process for onboard employees who are not agents yet but want to become agents. They're called professional support employees. And when they wanted to become agents, they had to go through the same process that the agents had to go through with this phase two interview process. And for other agents, I've heard that's been completely waived.

So they are removing steps to become an agent, which I and everyone else had to beforehand.

So I don't think that's right. Would you wanted to see some reform after Comey and Strzzok and McCabe and some of the things that we witnessed over the last few years? Yes, there are absolutely some individual bad apples in the organization. As you mentioned, Comey, Strzok, McCabe, they embarrassed the organization, embarrassed me, and all those hardworking apolitical individuals. For 24 and a half years, I never once asked someone who they voted for.

No one once ever asked me who I voted for. We truly followed the facts wherever they went. And to hear what those individuals did and a couple others, yeah, there were absolutely some. Political actions taken by A few number of individuals, and those should be weeded out, and that accountability should be wielded with a scalpel. Not a chainsaw.

Tell me if you like these numbers. Uh, cut forty five. The FBI. has arrested fifty four thousand by Criminals. That's up 90% from the 18-month period prior to that.

The FBI has removed 3,258 kilograms of fentanyl. That's enough to s kill a Quarter billion Americans. We have located, found, and identified 11,081 child victims. That is up 21%. We haven't captured nine of the top ten most individuals on our list.

We've captured ten.

So, do you like those numbers? I'm sorry, I didn't hear the numbers. Oh, you weren't able to hear. Yeah, I'm sorry. I thought they were going to be played.

Oh yeah, you just put the sound up right here. I didn't know it wasn't on. Fine, fault. The FPF, 54,000 criminals arrested, including 10 of the top 10 most wanted, up 90% of the previous 18 months. They also got a lot of fentanyl, 3,258 kilograms of fentanyl off the street.

So does those numbers make you feel better?

Well, yeah, fantastic that we're getting criminals and drugs off the street. There's also other metrics besides just numbers of arrests.

So I understand counterintelligence has been deprioritized. And I used to work counterintelligence for several years.

So, yeah. Criminal organizations need to go after, need to take those bad criminals off the street, but also shouldn't be at the expense of these counterintelligence investigations because just one case against. China, Russia, Iran. could literally prevent a war.

So it's really tough to measure the Effectiveness of one single-encounter intelligence investigation versus one fentanyl case.

So you were in the FBI from 9-11. All right, how did it change?

Well, I was in my home in Northridge, California, 6:15 a.m., getting ready for work. I saw the first plane hit the World Trade Center. And I thought, wow, what a horrible accident. And then I saw the second plane hit, and I realized America is under attack.

So I drove in. In my SWAT gear, I was on Los Angeles SWAT team. And first thing we did was start. Securing the building.

So literally, I was an FBI agent walking guard around the perimeter of the Federal Building and Wilshire Boulevard there in Los Angeles, because we thought every target, every government target was attack. And the Bureau, you know, director I'd only been on the job for a week. We transitioned very quickly to a counter-terrorism. Organization, that being our number one goal to prevent another terrorist attacks. How'd that change you on a daily basis?

Well every everyone in the Bureau.

So I was working counterintelligence at the time. And then I immediately was transferred, and everyone worked counter-tele worked counter-terrorism cases.

So we're following up leads. Like the one neighbor saw another neighbor who had wires. In their house, and they're speaking Arabic.

So we had to follow up on leads like that, which most turned out to be nothing, but every once in a while there was a legitimate lead.

So the whole Bureau was following every single lead, and the Bureau is. It's a wonderful organization like any bureaucracy. When we put all our focus on one thing, which we did after 9-11, it's an incredibly effective, impressive organization.

So, really, every agent, every analyst was working trying to solve the 9-11 hijacking.

So, meanwhile, as you work your way up the Bureau after finishing a years in West Point, you talk about lessons that you learned along the way. Can you want to share them? Sure, that's what I talk about in the book Shaping Chaos. I had three kind of very unique positions. I went on the National Hostage Rescue Team, our elite counterterrorism team.

So, for eight years, I went through the door, I deployed Iraq and Afghanistan with JSOC forces. And so we Persuaded others through intimidation tactics. The assault principles for hostage rescue are speed, surprise, violence of action. Then I made the unique switch to become a negotiator. And negotiators Slow things down.

Negotiators talk about emotions and are patient. Words were our weapons.

So I had two really diametrically opposite ways to look at crises. And then later in my career, I went into FBI management.

So then I was leading those operations where now security and lives hung in the balance.

So I have a very unique having three different perspectives looking at crises, how to solve them. And I talk about those kind of takeaways in there, priming your team, Predicting, forecasting outcomes, how to prevail through friction. Would you learn about the Iraqi culture, or would you learn about the Afghan culture? That helped you?

So we we trained and had For example, Arabic linguists and specialists for each country, because I deployed to both, who would come down to the hostage registry and meet with us, and we'd have. Cultural training classes, because we did the battlefield interrogation. And census side exploitation.

So we learned about Sunni Shia, we talked about the five pillars of Islam, because we wanted to be versed in their culture, especially we're trying to understand them. Two. See, our primary focus was to see if there's any links back to the United States. Were there any terror attacks waiting? Back in the States or any threads back to US targets.

So we would go out on site. My partner and I were actually the first to be embedded for a full rotation with JSOC in Iraq in Mosul. And that was the whole new Experience for the FBI and for the military, right? To have investigators on target. Like, I have a badge and a notebook, an FBI agent, and now I'm going on target with U.S.

military special mission units, right? Which is crazy. They probably appreciated your Army background, though, right? They did, but it was very. High barriers initially, because like the deputy director of the FBI and General Crystal wanted us there, because the military is very good at finding, fixing, destroying targets.

The Bureau is very good at investigating and dismantling networks.

So, it is a logical pairing to bring us together. But just because the people on the top want it doesn't mean the guys on the ground, it's actually going to happen.

So, for three weeks, we just sat. at the FOB, the Ford operating base, and didn't go on target because they didn't trust us. They didn't know us, so we had to slowly kind of earn their respect and trust and say, hey, we're not here to investigate you. We don't. Really care what happens on Target.

We're here to help you and again, look for those connections back to the U.S. Right. So, after all that experience, how did that lend to you being FBI in management then? You were able to get the international, the domestic, you understood it. Yes, the great thing is, after I didn't go to management for 17 years, so I wasn't one of those guys that just wanted to raise their hand to go.

get promoted higher.

So I had paid my dues in the organization and I had the respect of my peers and others.

So when I went to be a unit chief at headquarters and a supervisor at Washington Field Office, then I finished up the Assistant Special Agent in Charge Miami office. Like, I didn't have to prove myself to anyone and all my team. Members knew my background. I didn't have to talk about it because it was basically. Established.

So it was a wonderful position from which to operate as a leader from because I knew. The organization, I knew what we had to do, and the team trusted me, and I trusted them.

So, if I was to say, what kind of role could you play? We're talking to Kyle Volwenkel. His book, Shaping Chaos, is now out: Leadership Lessons Forged in the FBI's Most Dangerous Operations. If I was to put you into the Iran operation that's ongoing right now, we're pretty much in a stalemate, both. look to see who blinks first.

Where would you like to insert your insert insert yourself?

Well, Iran Quagmire, right, it's very dangerous when you have national pride and personal pride enter into negotiation. Because when one side sees accepting the other party's terms as total humiliation, Alright, then becomes a contest of the battle of the wills.

So, what we really need to do is create some off-ramps, some off-ramps that are not so humiliating to the other party. And We have to remove the B Or I should say insert into negotiation behaviour, but with some rewards. Like if they Go four days or five days without shooting at US bases or allowing ship traffic through, then here's a minor relief of a minor sanction.

So that they understand what those relief points are. Because that's one thing the previous agreement, the MOU, it didn't have consequences laid out. And it also was a voluntary oh, we both can walk away at any time.

So you need to have strict consequences for the behavior in the next hopefully a round of negotiations.

So the Ukraine situation is interesting in that we have one side looking to meet Ukraine, and Russia should be looking to meet, but they don't they're not. And that's a side, the Russian side, that needs an off-ramp. Is there one out there? Yeah, the Russian one is another very difficult one. Just one guy, Vladimir Putin.

Right, and he has absolute control, although there's rumors of people that are. Thinking he is suscept susceptible to uh His age and his focus so much on the Ukraine that it's almost a weak point for him. Are you one of those believed that he might be vulnerable? I I think that it's extracted such a cost On Russian society, especially the elites, right? The oligarchs, they're losing money, they're having things sanctioned left and right, they want an end to this.

Ju just like an Iran, like It's a continuing salemate where both parties are losing. Right. Ukraine, you know, civilian casualties, all this investment in defense is costing. And Russia also is now feeling it at home, as you know. Like they are striking deep within the heart of Russia.

So that toll is adding up each and every day to them. But these this goes back to that ego, and I talk about ego being such a problem in the book. When your ego gets in front of the mission, just like it I think it is with Putin, It's preventing him from Willingness to go to the negotiating table and accept some terms that doesn't give him total, complete. Victory. And that's what they said about LBJ.

He didn't want to be the first president to lose a war. And how many more years and how many more lives were lost because of that? Exactly.

So we'll see. I guess these two conflicts are ongoing as they go through. Are you Kyle, do you know where this whole anti-Semitism that's cropped up in this country where that's come from? I'm not sure, and it it's so bothersome. Because You know, look at the October attacks that was committed against Just, it's gut-wrenching, right?

Revolting. There's no justification for that. And yet, you see, see so many people on college campuses. You know, some of the things these kids are saying, it's just I I don't understand it. I really don't.

Yeah, see where it comes from. That could definitely affect policy.

So what would you like to see? How would you like to see the FBI reformed?

Well, again, that accountability needs to be wielded with a scalpel, not a chainsaw, because the due process wasn't followed with a lot of those firings of individuals who were just doing their job. The other thing, too, is that people were upset about the seventh floor. They said the management really disconnected from the men and women in the field. Yeah, it's very political in Washington.

Well, the seventh floor is Is the The Hoover building, where the FBI director, deputy director, and like the seven executive assistant directors sit. And that's always kind of looked at as almost like the puzzle palace, we would call it at FBI headquarters because decisions were made, you didn't always understand. And those are all super high-level people with 25-plus years usually. And Anytime, like they serve the director's discretion.

So, actually, when the new director comes in, he absolutely should clean out the seventh floor.

So, I have no problem with a new director. Cleaning house there in the 70s. But you want people in, yeah. Yeah, you want your own people that you trust and work with, but you need to have that. Establishment Establish trust and credibility between the seventh floor and the workforce.

As I mentioned before, I thankfully had that because I had seventeen years in the organization before I went to management. Patel comes in, or we bring in other people who don't have that credibility, and you already have a disconnect between the workforce.

So, yeah, cleanup headquarters. But put in people that have Have the respect and credibility because then you need to build that bond and connectivity between the leadership and the workforce. How do you divide the person, the president that appoints you, from the job you have to do?

So, if I had the national security advisor, I'm working for the president. If you're the FBI director, even though the president is the one who put up your nomination, are you working with the president? If I was FBI director, I would absolutely meet occasionally with the President, but I wouldn't take individual weekly calls from his chief of staff about who to fire and who not to fire if I was in that position. Right. You try to keep it dissemination.

But that's why it's so important to have what is it, a six-year term? A ten-year term. A ten-year term. Yeah, that's so. It's supposed to insulate.

Absolutely. And the FBI director Wright reports to the Attorney General: very rarely would the FBI director even go to the White House in the past, except to brief. Like important intelligence or updates on cases, then absolutely the director should be going there. But the director shouldn't be going there to report on who they fired from this case in the past. Right.

You have a president, though, that feels really burned by the FBI. I understand, yes. He totally feels that the FBI targeted him and certain individuals absolutely were responsible, but the whole workforce, the whole bureau, was not out to get him. True. Kyle Bowenko, congratulations on the book, Shaping Chaos Leadership Lessons Forged in the FBI's Most Dangerous Operations.

Prime, Predict, Prevail means.

Well, prime your team. Set to yourself self-regulation, predict forecast outcomes and plan your branches, and then prevail, you act when those conditions decisively align. And I was fortunate to be part of some extraordinary teams, and in that book, tell some extraordinary stories. You got to check it out. It's called Shaping Chaos.

You'll listen to the Brian Kill Me Show. Thanks, Kyle. Where big stories meet bigger conversations. Stay informed and energized with the Brian Kilmeet Show. A radio show like no other.

It's Brian Killmade. Sponsored by Previgen. Previgen made for your brain. Nuclear weapons, you discussed, could be used for good or evil. But AI is the only technology that can use itself.

And that's what makes it so unique as a technology and why it's so uniquely terrifying. It's like, can you imagine when we had nuclear proliferation that Oppenheimer sold his bomb to regular companies? This is on that level. Like nuclear weapons, artificial superintelligence is a threat to humanity, and it must be treated as such. That is Bernie Sanders, that computer genius.

That is Jacob Coxon, who is an insider at Anthropic. Kara Swisher, who is an expert in that area, or certainly reporting on it. But together, they believe that AI needs to be reined in. And if you listen to the CEO of Anthropic, one of his statements was: hey, I don't even know why we're doing this and the government's not doing it. The private enterprise is the reason why America thrives.

Why biotech? Why isn't the FDA inventing all these medicines? Biotech, you need the free market. You need people betting on different cures and knowing that if I come up with a medicine that's going to stop the next polio, that I'm going to be rich. And you open up to the market, you get investors, and then people want to be a part of it.

That's the whole concept of it. There's no way the private sector is the one that could excel when it comes to artificial intelligence.

Now, I do hear when it came to the internet, the first thing to happen is computers communicating with each other, the Pentagon. and the government being able to communicate with each other. That was the first time they had people actually interacting. But the ones that the ones that actually pushed it forward were the Steve Jobs of the world and the Bill Gates of the world, and that's how we got to where we're at today.

So that question Doesn't really deserve much time or much focus because it's obvious the private sector was going to keep us ahead of totalian governments like China and like we beat the Soviet Union. There was no incentive for the individual to excel because everyone was the same. Therefore, their country was always second rate. That's what fuels us. That's why you want to put up guardrails if the president's open to it.

But for the most part, we'd like you to regulate yourselves, please.