The Brian Kilmeade Show

Hi everyone, it's Brian Kilmeade 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 and 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 and co is exploding and have gone viral on social media thanks to the one 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. Inco dot com. Use promo code Brian for fifteen percent off of any purchase of a hundred dollars 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 Kilmeade. Hi, everyone!

So glad you're here. It's the Brian Kilmeade Show coming your way up from 48th and Sixth in Midtown Manhattan. Heard around the country, around the world. Thanks to everyone who made "United States" the number five book for the third straight week. I've never had that happen before on the bestseller list because now people are using word of mouth.

Because there's a lot of patriotic people in this country, which I find heartening. Six crucial moments that forged the American miracle. Doran Spielman's got to be with us. He's a spokesperson. Of Bibi Netanyahu, what are they going to do?

What's the way going forward when it comes to finding a winner in the prime minister in the elections? It's up to the president to name one of the finalists to say go former government. And believe it or not, even though more seats went to Netanyahu. He's got 53, needs 60. They might tap the other guy, the general, to move forward.

I hope not. I think Netanyahu is the answer there. And standing by is Roger Zackheim. He's the Washington director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute. Author of the upcoming book "Peace Through Strength: How Reagan's Military Buildup Won the Cold War." Before we get to Roger, let's get to the big three.

Number three. This midterm, no question, was a rebuke of the president and the Congress because they were frustrated with the lack of productivity from Republicans in the House and Senate.

Well, the only state standing out, standing out right now after Tuesday for Republicans is Florida. What it means for Governor DeSantis' twenty-eight fortunes and the rest of the Republican field? Number two, I was kind of shocked by that statement by that Vice President Vance put out. It was, quite frankly, disloyal to the press in the United States. All I heard was, "We lost because of the Iran War." And if you want to defend that, go ahead.

J.D. Vance breaks from President Trump and condemns the war, blaming the entire election debacle on the conflict.

Meanwhile, we'll talk about that. What this self-serving VP now needs to be, actually, as he looks to be against the war, he should be eliminated from trying to negotiate an end to the war. Number one. If you look at most of the issues that put the president and his party on the wrong side of the electorate, it wasn't because he went too far to the right. It's because he wasn't populist enough.

The same very same issues that angered Democrats and Independents also angered a lot of MAGA. And the irony, of course, is Trump is president because of populism, and last night he was fully repudiated because of populism. Yep, that's Mark Halpern. Republicans implode at the midterms. We look at the newly empowered Dems, their agenda, and where Trump and the left might just over.

And where they will definitely diverge. Let's bring in Roger Zackheim now from the Reagan Foundation. He's got that new book, "Peace Through Strength," how Reagan's military buildup on the Cold War. But Roger, I think I'd rather talk to you about what you remember, and what you could tell the audience about Ronald Reagan's second term after the midterms, and how it built him to leaving office. I think at sixty percent approval.

Well, I mean, his first midterm, Brian, as you know, was a disappointment in nineteen eighty two. Coming to nineteen eighty three, nineteen eighty three was actually. One of the most challenging years in the Cold War, but Reagan stuck to his principles, and and you know that we've talked about this before. Whether it was the build up, which of course is is a subject of my book, broadly speaking about challenging the Soviet Union and ultimately staying true to his economic reforms. They didn't feel in 1982, but by 1984, as you know, it was morning in America.

So great to be with you, and I think that is an important item to keep in mind as. Republicans try to recover from this shellacking. What do you think happened, Roger?

Well, listen. I think fundamentally, the things that were important to the president, like the Iran War, he didn't sell it enough. I think that's quite clear. Needs to bring the American people along with him. But it was about prices.

It was about affordability. That's what the polling shows, and it was also about the president not taking on immigration and an overreach by people in his administration, as well. And I think, as we've discussed in your show before, tariffs, which gets back to the prices as well, that. Really, created problems for those in the farm belt in our country, those states that rely on exporting their agricultural goods to places like Canada and around the world. That's a combination of factors, not just one factor.

Right, as others may have said, is a combination of factors. But I think all are driving to this this notion that it's the economy.

So it's interesting because tariffs did benefit a lot of the car companies. For example, the Silverado now out of Mexico is going to be being built here. Toyota says, "Okay, if we'll we'll go to zero tariffs, we're going to open up an Audi. We're going to open up plants here. There's going to be more auto workers." So the other thought part is when they're in the rift portion of it, like with Canada, that absolutely hurt Maine, absolutely hurt Michigan, absolutely hurt farmers, absolutely hurt other industries.

But the process can be painful, but the. Result is going to be long-term benefit, and maybe they could have been more targeted rather than these two huge pages of massive tariffs on multiple nations. Yeah, I think you know Liberation Day, and it's Tariffs across the world—you know that that the manner in which it was imposed—I think ultimately didn't win with the voter, and people felt in their pocketbook. I think particularly for farmers, Brian, it was a problem.

So you're talking about what what had to happen in auto industry, and and getting sort of reindustrializing factories back in the United States. I mean, you could have gone ahead, perhaps realized similar results through updating USMCA, but. You know, I'm a I'm a free trader, kind of Republican, and you know these these tariffs. I think in the end of the day showed why they could be so damaging to the economy, and particularly as those states were in the agriculture belt, they felt it the most. I know, right?

This is going to be interesting because I was from the time I was in high school. Republicans were free trade, and Democrats were all about tariffs. And maybe they, maybe President always recommended when he was a business person, thought China was the problem. Always talking about China being the problem. And now, the tariffs have benefited the economy, but maybe not as widespread.

Maybe they could have been more targeted. I'm wondering among the classic free traders from the Bush Reagan era. Is there? Have you seen the tariffs work to the point where you might be more open to it, or are you just still absolutely zero tariff guy? Listen, I'm.

I think if they're targeted to some unfair practices, you know, you look at the the conduct of the People's Republic of China, Brian. There is a place where tariffs can be employed, but the wholesale application of tariffs is a means to driving reindustrialization in the economy. I don't think that's something that Reagan conservatives are going to sign up for, and I don't think there is evidence behind it to show that it's it's really going to drive the an economic growth that that we need.

So, yeah, when it comes to the PRC, absolutely.

So, how do you feel about with the fact that we left all manufacturing because it's going to be could be manufactured cheaper overseas? But now we had ten straight months of manufacturing growth.

So all of a sudden, Indonesia and China—they become our manufacturing hub. They're making our pharmaceuticals. They're—they're it's better off making steel outside our country. And next thing you know, we got this rust belt.

So that's what that's what the president saw. There's no no question that the president, the vice president, and frankly. Republicans overall had to internalize the fact that we lost our ability to manufacture at home. I think the question is. What is the best means for us realizing manufacturing at home?

Is tariffs the correct policy tool to realize that? I think the the big beautiful bill, some of the other things we could do in our domestic economic policy can drive that investment. You know, I deal with a lot of technology companies, software companies, companies that actually on the defense side want to rebuild at home. Rarely, if ever, are they talking about Tariffs is the vehicle to get there. They want to have an economy where the incentives, whether it's permitting reform inside the United States, to go ahead to regulatory policy, to tax policy—three areas that Reaganite conservatives can get behind every time—that drives rebuilding and manufacturing in the United States.

And I don't see anybody disagreeing with that. And I often hear from CEOs and founders that's what they care about most. You know what's interesting is that there should be more of what's in our national interest type of thing. For example, we allowed rare earth to be manufactured outside our country. We stopped mining in this country.

We closed down strip mines where rare earth is located, and we allowed China to hoard it all. And at so no point did anyone that I remember say, "Wait a second." If we're going to have computers, we're going to have iPhones, we're going to have military equipment, if we're going to have a space program, we need all these precious metals. And I like to, and then about when it comes to pharmaceuticals, if there's ever a crisis, there's a war or a pandemic. Do you think it's a good idea for China to have control of all of that? There's no one that's been stepping stepped up until it became a crisis.

No question, and that was clear. We felt it acutely during COVID, and here's where the president's leadership was essential by highlighting the the dependency on China and the fact that we need to reshore onto our home French shore. I mean, this is critical for national security. It's critical for economy. That's right.

The question is, what are the policy tools that will get us there? Reducing our dependency on the China on on the People's Republic of China is absolutely essential, and my own view is that there are really great policy tools that the Trump administration has employed, short of tariffs, that are allowing us to to deal with this.

Now, I would even allow for some industrial policy if it is addressing many of the tactics that the People's Republic of China employs. I'm talking about whether or not tariffs widely applied across our trading partners is the best. Vehicle to realize economic growth and economic enhancing the economic lives of the American people because that fundamentally seemed to be what Americans were saying they voted on in these exit polls.

So Roger, what do you remember? What do you recall in your research? Because I know you have a book coming out about Bush forty one running for president as vice president, and did he have to separate himself all at all from Reagan? In order to do it, and do you remember that you know the Bush family would obviously know better than the Reagan family, but do we does remember that struggle and when Reagan went in and said Bush is my guy?

Well, they very different time, very different personality. But I think H. W. Bush, President H. W.

Bush, was was was quite a different personality, pedigree than President Reagan. But I would be hard pressed to find any historian, scholar, person who lived through it. To point to where Vice President Bush was saying he was going to go ahead in a different direction, or criticize what President Reagan did in office, I think that's what he did because he believed in the Reagan Revolution. He came to be a big proponent of it, and it would have been bad politics. I mean, President Reagan at the time that he was leaving office enjoyed great support; his numbers were excellent.

So, if you're running in 1988, You want to be doing what President Reagan did because the American people backed it so profoundly. After seven plus years in office, you know, and we'll see how how it goes with Vice President Vance. He still is the presumptive nominee. He can run for office in the office of Vice President. He will have all of the Republican infrastructure fundraising and the like behind him.

But I do think his assessment of the midterms really left out a lot. In terms of what the American voter was thinking when they voted, you know, Iran War, no doubt, was a liability and hurt Republicans' election. No question, inflation, for example, costs for everyday Americans was a problem. Israel, I mean, that doesn't show up anywhere. I see in any meaningful way in these exit polls, and even we could talk about the Iran assessment while Iran was liability.

The question is, what about the Iran conflict was a liability? Brian, was it because we went to war, or because we didn't win that war decisively? If it's the latter, then the vice president's MOU has a lot to do with this. If it's the former, right? Then the vice president—I guess it's been reported—said otherwise that he was opposed from the beginning.

Again, an unusual place for vice president to be. Very well said. Very well said. Because I just had Lara Trump on him. She's in an odd spot, obviously, and she just said, "Yo, the Iran War played a role, absolutely." But the reason why they did it and the way he did it needs to be factored in, and he easily could have added that to his diatribe.

He wasn't, you know, it's a huge, huge post. We easily could have said, "I understand why the president made the difficult decision to go to the Iran War, a forty an enemy of our country since 1979." No other president had that courage, but there's no doubt. And then fill in the blank, whatever you want to say. But he didn't do that, so the president was asked about that yesterday. Cut 28.

Vice President Vance says the reason Republicans lost the war lost last night was the war in Iran.

Well, I think it's largely. True, because it drove the gasoline up a little bit short term, and probably that's probably it's true. But at the same time, if I had it to do again, I'd have to do it again because long term, it's the only answer. You can't let Iran have a nuclear weapon.

So I mean, he couldn't have put that in the post. He couldn't say, you know, for me, I was hesitant to do it, but I understand the president's a decisive leader that wanted to take action and not leave this problem to the next president. He couldn't have added that in the post.

Well, it's interesting because the White House posted on on X the president's clip that you just shared with your listeners and connected it to Vice President Vance's X post to suggest that yeah, the president's backing up JD Vance, which in part he was. But I agree with you, Brian. I mean. The president took and is taking a courageous step, and what he says that he's taking an action as commander in chief for the long term benefit of the American people, even if it means that he's going to lose a midterm, is something that moves a president from just being, you know, a political leader to someone who is now reaching. Great heights.

We'll see how it. We'll see how it shakes out. But this is a president striving for greatness because he's putting the United States in a much more secure, stable pathway—not just security-wise, but economically too—because of his decision on Iran. And at some point, you know, we know the vice president's. You know, part of the vice president's job is to share his opinion and give the president his best advice.

Advice, and if he disagrees with the president, that's what you know he should do. But the president should get the backing of his entire administration once he takes that decision.

Well, I'll give you an example. I and I wish I kept the clip, but I saw Hubert Humphrey run for president when LBJ said he wouldn't in the middle of at the end in the middle of the Vietnam War, and they kept asking him about what would you do different. He goes, "Well, my job is to back the president, but me as a candidate, you'll hear that when I begin to run.

So just say it." I just first you're the vice president, and then you you if you want to become president, make it different. I I just just bothers me, and I'll tell you, Kamala Harris to the point where she's running for president on the view. What would you different from Joe Biden? And she said nothing, and it really destroyed it. Destroyed our hopes of winning because he was doing clearly so much wrong.

He was in a coma, so and but to her credit, she showed loyalty, too much loyalty. Final thought. Yeah, well, Mark Teeson said that yesterday on a special report. He thought it was disloyal. Here, I want to focus on the president.

After this midterm, he is still clear-eyed and focused, sure, on the best policy for the American people, and we want to support him for that. And which is, of course, taking on this regime that has killed Americans for forty-seven years. And I hope his administration backs him on it because he's going to need their help. Name of the book coming out is it next week, Roger? That's next week.

Yeah, two weeks.

Sorry, November seventeenth. I'm too excited. November seventeenth is coming out. Peace through strength: How Reagan's military buildup won the Cold War. Roger Zatkheim with the Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute.

Thanks so much, Roger. Appreciate it. Great seeing you, Brian. All right, it's really important to have great analysis. It doesn't mean anyone's absolute, but I just when you have a personal agenda and you're supposed to be working for the president, I I have a problem with that.

What about you? One eight six six four zero eight four zero eight seven six six nine. Keeping you informed, engaged, and always a step ahead. It's the Brian Kilmeade Show. How can we help make stronger communities happen?

Well, at JPMorgan Chase, we invest in what's working—in businesses that create more jobs, in hospitals delivering care where it's needed the most, in workers building new buildings, bridges, and roads, connecting what we need to where we live. Make the green grass grow all around, all around. Make the green grass grow all around. Make momentum happen. Learn more at jpmorganchase.com/impact.

If you're interested in it, Brian's talking about it. You're with Brian Kilmeade. Hey, welcome back. I was a little bit long there, but special thanks to everyone that picked up "United in the States: The Six Crucial Moments That Fours the American Miracle." The book is five in the country three straight weeks, which means you're buying it even if you don't know who I am, which is just an honor, and it just shows how patriotic you are. I hope to see everybody in Clearwater.

Just a few seats left on Saturday, and. On Sunday in Jacksonville, I'm also going to be in Dallas, Fairhope, Alabama, Destin, Florida. I'll be in Ohio as well. I'll be also in in Tennessee, two separate stops.

So it's going to be hopefully I'll get to see in person. If you go to BrianKillme. dot com, you could actually pick it up. You could actually pick it up and get it personalized. It goes to my local bookstore.

I show up there twice a week, and I'm able to sign fifty, sixty copies and get them out for holidays. Kind of a cool setup I have. When we come back, we go over to. Israel, Doran Spielman. Where do they go next in the election, and possibly going back to war?

You'll listen to the Brian Kilmeade Show. Hi everyone, it's Brian Kilmeade 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 and Go, 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 and collars exploding, and have gone viral on social media thanks to the one 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, quarters. 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.

Radio that makes you think. This is the Brian Kilmeade Show. We spend billions of dollars subsidizing a foreign government unconditionally, buying bombs and tanks that have been used to do genocide and apartheid and make war. We have no business fighting, and we're told that if you want to stand up against the murder of innocent Palestinian children, that that's somehow about hate for anybody. It's not about hate for anybody.

It's about equal love for those Palestinian children as you would have for a Jewish. Child going up in the Holy Land, and my approach to foreign policy is simple: we should be the first among equals to uphold international law. Yeah, and of course he thinks it's genocide. Just goes to show you how unqualified he is, and he doesn't know the definition of genocide. Let's bring in Doron Spielman, spokesperson for the Prime Minister's Office, Bibi Netanyahu, former VP of City of David, and author of "When the Stone Speak." Doron, welcome back.

I just want you to comment on the election of El Sayed, the anti-Israel, I think anti-Semitic senator-elect from Michigan, and what he just said. First of all, Brian, it's great to see you, and to all of your audience as well. Look, when the United States confronted Iran in February because Iran constantly chants "Death to America" and they were trying to produce a nuclear weapon, the only country in the world that answered the call of the United States for support from allies is Israel. And the Pentagon itself has called Israel a model ally. In fact, it's it's really a unanimous understanding amongst United States security personnel, whether they're Democrats or Republicans, that the United States has one ally that will always come to its needs, which is the state of Israel.

And I think most people in America understand this: that Israel is a strong ally of the United States. We have similar goals. We stand against evil. We confront the Iranian. Regime that killed fifty thousand of its own people.

Israel has stood against Hamas and Hezbollah, and anyone that's going to try to flip the tables and talk about Israel as the villain in the scenario needs to, you know, really have their moral barometer, I think, rechecked and and repositioned. Why is it not genocide, Dorn? Israel defended itself against a call for an absolute destruction. I mean, it's the most, it's the most basic. Thing that any country or any family would do.

If somebody comes and goes into your home and God forbid, attacks and kills family members right in front of you, the very first thing you would do is defend yourself, and then you would make sure they could never do that again. And Israel went into Gaza, hunted for Hamas. Who hid behind civilians, and Israel took more measures than any other country in the history of war, Brian, to move Gaza civilians out of the way. We sent flyers. We made phone calls.

We sent our troops under fire to direct them out of their way. Text messages and I and I was there on the ground. I saw Israeli soldiers getting fired on by mortars that were trying to move civilians out of the way. The only thing that is genocidal here is the genocide on the truth of this picture. I think, despite the absolute campaign by the Muslim Brotherhood nations, by certain incredibly left media outlets, most people in the world understand Israel was attacked.

Israel didn't wake up on morning and say, "Let's go kill." Palestinians, we are defending ourselves against a brutal jihadist enemy, and we did so in the most moral way possible. And you know, we can see what's happening around the world, Brian. We see what's happening in Europe when that jihadism is is unleashed. I challenge any other government today or in the future to take as many steps as we did to prevent civilian harm.

So, tell me how you feel about President Trump saying on Fox and Friends two days ago that we're no longer going to be giving Israel. Four billion dollars worth of aid, which, by the way, that aid—the four billion—they turn around and buy American weapons.

So, how do you feel about that going away? Is that in fact true? First of all, you know, I want to I want to be very clear, and I think every Israeli feels this way. I know the Prime Minister feels this way. We are greatly appreciative to the American people.

It's been decades now that the American people, the American government, Democrat and Republican, have understood that military aid to Israel is also helping a strong Israel, and also is helping Israel confront enemies that are a danger to the West, like the same Iran that just posted a sign in downtown Tehran in your election day. We will kill President Trump. Replace that. We will kill. Just fill in any president's name because they want to destroy America, and that has really been an across-the-aisle understanding.

Today, Israel has a thriving economy. We have a very strong military and defense industry. And while this aid has been incredibly important, the prime minister has been working with President Trump to make the correct transition out from aid towards partnership and mutual investment, and investment in things like cyber. And AI and weapon systems is what's going to keep both of our countries safe in the decades to come.

So, was he? Were you guys caught by surprise when the president said that, or no? I was in a meeting with the prime minister already a couple months ago during his White House visit with President Trump, where he clearly said, and he's said this for over a year, that this was going on. These are discussions that have taken place because you don't just drop aid in a second. This has been a plan the prime minister's been talking about for I would say close to a decade.

The need to slowly taper off that aid, and you know the American people have their elections. It's not for me to get involved in the elections, but that transition. From aid towards partnership is the right thing both for Israel and the United States, and you know Israel probably provides more intelligence to the United States than any other nation on earth, and that intelligence is very valuable to America. And Israeli arms and know how is very important. Israel, it's I would say it is the model relationship, and we should remember that and we should keep that strong moving forward.

So you guys had an election two weeks ago, at which time it looks as though. Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud party got more seats. You tell me than the the opposition. I think you guys fifty three seats. You need sixty, so t here is going to have to be a partnership there to get over that threshold.

But I understand President Herzog will decide who gets the chance to put together government first. Shouldn't it? Could you tell me what the next steps are? And if I have it right, sure. Sure.

So, what happens in Israel? Israel is a has a different system than the United States. It's a parliamentary system. We have democratic elections, the only democratic elections taking place in the United in in the Middle East. People went to the polls and they voted.

And it's true that Likud party got more, but I don't want to comment on specific elections. The way it works now is the president hands a mandate, and different parties try to put together a coalition, and we'll see what comes from that. What is interesting, while there are a number. Of debates on certain issues, what is not a debate, and it's important for the American people to know this, is that is Israel's relationship with the United States is one message that both the right and left in Israel are totally committed to. Israelis love the United States.

We appreciate they're coming to our defense after eleven days of war in June, and there was I would say almost a hundred percent Israeli support. For answering the call from President Trump in February, and we really believe that this relationship is larger than any single election, whether it's in Israel or in the United States. It's been for decades, and it will hopefully be for decades to come. Right.

So, what about these two Arab coalition potential partners? If one of you decide to do that, that would be enough seats in order to push you over the top. Would you think either side would do that? And what would be the downside of doing that? You know, unfortunately, those parties—Arabs—are fully integrated in Israeli society.

They're. Doctors and nurses and lawyers—they're a thriving part of Israeli society. They have the same rights as everybody else. Unfortunately, the Arab parties are Muslim Brotherhood parties almost across the board, and in in many cases, they don't even accept the right for Israel to exist. Certain members of those parties have even called Israeli soldiers war criminals.

You know, while we were defending ourselves already on October seventh, and so it's very difficult for any coalition to bring. People into the coalition that are calling for the destruction of the state of Israel. Ultimately, it will be for either those sides to make that decision. But I think there's going to be a lot of reticence because the Israeli people, especially after October 7th, are not thrilled on either side of the aisle to bring people in that think that October 7th—that they can't say that October 7th and the people that did it are terrorists. That's unbelievable.

I did not know that. I mean, that's where they both stand. I understand one was a little bit more radical than the other, but so okay, that's a non-starter.

So right now, it's a it's a waiting game. The president Herzog is deciding who to give a chance to put the government together first.

So if the general is able to do that, even though Bibi Netanyahu got more seats, that he'd have to step aside.

So the way it works is if if either side, whoever manages to put together the coalition, in fact, are the ones that then run the government in a parliamentary system. Again, it's a vastly different system. The United States it has a lot of pluses and minuses, but that's what's going to be taking place over the next month. Both sides are going to try to put together a coalition, and whoever manages manages to get the mandate from the president and manages to do it first, that's where that's how the coalition will be made. Or it goes for another round of elections, which we've had in Israel as well.

So you had this ring of fire around you, threatening your very existence prior to October seventh, and it went into action with Hamas on one side, Hezbollah on the other. One started one day on the seventh; the other one started, I think, shelling you on the eighth. And I guess there was supposed to be more helping out, and they didn't. Thankfully, but you've really diminished Hamas. They have not disarmed yet.

Really diminished Hezbollah, but they're not out yet. But if you didn't diminish Hezbollah, Assad would still be in power.

So, for that ring of fire to be fully extinguished, Iran has to be change regime. Does is they in agreement with that? The Israeli people and the Israeli governments, potential governments, in agreement with that. And with or without the United States, do you project military action against Iran? You know, I really yes, there is.

There's not much deviation from what Prime Minister Netanyahu and the government has done up till now with confronting these enemies. The Israeli people see Hamas, Hezbollah, and certainly Iran as an existential threat, and across party lines. It is fully agreed upon that Iran cannot be left with the nuclear weapon because if they're willing to have Hamas charge over our border and massacre men and women and burn babies alive and snatch them out of their parents' arms, and they're willing to do the same thing with Hezbollah, and they're willing to kill fifty thousand of their own people if they get a nuclear weapon, there does anybody really doubt that they that they wouldn't just try to put that on a warhead and drop it on Israel? And so yes, across the board, there is agreement that Iran must not have a nuclear. Weapon and Israel.

You know, we fought all of our wars alone. We've never, ever in the history of Israel, asked anyone to fight our wars for us, including when we struck Iran in June. We struck Iran for eleven days alone, with yes, support from our allies, support from the United States, but we were alone until the U.S. came in and used those extremely important bunker busters. And if we have to go it alone to save our country, you know, we've learned that lesson from the Holocaust.

We'll do whatever it takes to save our country and keep the Jewish people and the Israeli people.

So, the Iranian supreme leader, wherever he is, obviously maimed and physically damaged, has threatened a bigger response if they're hit again, and they seem to indicate they have a special weapon, a surprise weapons, if we, if we or you attack, or both. You know what they are. You know, I think it has to be taken. I think it has to be taken seriously, Brian. You know, this is a regime.

Whether they have a special weapon that they're looking to unveil, or they don't have a special weapon, we have to understand that Iran is a terror regime that is genocidal and jihadist. This is not a normal Western country that kind of thinks the way we do and measures things up. What's the best for the future of our country? They're willing. They're more than willing.

They're happy to strike United States shipping. They're happy. To strike Israeli shipping, they're happy to to kill U.S.

soldiers. They've killed well over a thousand U.S.

soldiers well before this war began, and blown up Marines in Lebanon. This is a genocidal regime. They have to be taken seriously, which is why President Trump, Prime Minister Netanyahu. The Israeli brave soldiers and American brave soldiers took the war to this regime, and you know it may not be popular. It's it's never popular to strike preemptively a regime because you can't prove to people what would have happened had you not struck them.

But I'm telling you, and and most people agree, had the U. S. and Israel not confronted Iran, they would have a nuclear weapon today. They would have a nuclear weapon today, and if they're threatening further attacks. On Israel, the United States, and our allies, we need to take it very seriously.

President Obama says that the JCPOA was stopping them from having a nuclear weapon.

Well, you know, according to Israeli intel, that was never the case. We presented that intel to all to the Pentagon, which is you know nonpartisan. We've presented to people on both sides of the aisle, and we can see that Iran ended up with close to ninety percent uranium, uranium, and the point at which they were going to have a breakout of one week to get a nuclear weapon, which is when we struck in June.

So, you know, whether people think it worked or didn't work, they were enriching uranium and planning to use. An atomic weapon against Israel, United States. You know, we can't wait until the the nuclear weapon is in the air and you know on its way to Israel before we strike. You know, I liken this, Brian, to 1938. You know, had the U.S.

and and England been able to strike Hitler in 1938, it may not have been popular, but it would have saved tens of millions of lives. I think that this will go down in history that the U.S. and Israel, by striking Iran in 2025 and 2026, really prevented nuclear devastation. For Israel and the United States, and I think it will go down in history as one of the most important and courageous moves that has ever been taken by other. And real quick, last question: Pickaxe.

If we leave that untouched, you can't say that we've destroyed their nuclear program. At least we entombed most of it. But we have to find a way to penetrate Pickaxe. From what you know about munitions and capabilities, is it possible?

Well, I've heard the prime minister and the president of the United States say it is possible. And since we've seen what Israel and the United States can do up until now from the air, how they've devastated the vast majority of Iran's nuclear regime, and with the commitment from Israel that Iran's not going to have a nuclear weapon, I think it's not only possible. I think if Iran doesn't Get rid of that uranium and make sure that they don't pose a threat to those in the United States. They're going to pay a very, very heavy price. Lauren Spielman, thanks so much.

Bibi Netanyahu, spokesperson of the Prime Minister's Office, best-selling author himself. I do, for the record, I would feel great if Netanyahu emerged from this, and I do not feel great if the Iranian regime survives this because this is going to be a problem for the next president, the next president, and the next prime minister, and the next prime minister. It's just when we're ultimately Going to be confronting it on our choice or their choice. Doreen Spielman, thanks so much. Thank you, Brian, so much.

Great to see you. Back in a moment. Diving deep into today's top stories. It's Brian Kilmeade. Hi everyone, it's Brian Kilmeade here.

You tired of those uncomfortable dress shirts, especially when they bunch up under a sweater? If so, then you must check out collars and go 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 and collars exploding, and have gone viral on social media thanks to the one 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 dot com. Use promo code Brian for fifteen percent off of any purchase of a hundred dollars or more. That's promo code Brian. Breaking news, unique opinions.

Hear it all on the Brian Kilmeade show. And I think you know, really smart prognosticators would say once the Supreme Court passed the Calais decision, where it was basically under under undermining black voters in the South, saying you no longer matter. Black voters were going to say, yes, we do. Yeah, yes, we absolutely do. I think that's why you saw certain.

Surging black turnout in not just Mississippi, but Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas. I mean, we flipped state legislative seats in Alabama. Like this was not just about Mississippi. This was across the South, a resurgence of voters who were saying, "I will not be silent." During the that's the first time I'm hearing that. Amanda Lippman on on another network, co-founder and president of the Run for Something.

She's to the left now. I haven't seen the stat, but let's just take her at a word. I don't know why. You know, this at this point is when everyone's candid, and then they'll get in their positions in a year from now when everyone's running for office again. But that's interesting because they redistrict to try to squeeze out a few more seats because the the Republicans knew history was against them.

When they redistrict in Texas, redistrict in Florida, redistrict in Alabama, redistrict in Mississippi, Republican just get one or two more seats. But they did not anticipate California doing what they're doing, and then the bounce back in other states. It didn't not seat for seat. They should have gotten more, but they didn't think about when people were being redistricted out because they were assumed to be certain certain groups would be more Republican. Let's make that district more Republican.

And that's how you redistrict. That's how you gerrymander. James Blair and company tried to squeeze a few more seats out that way, but they didn't really anticipate. I don't think some of the resentment that grew and some of the loss of the Hispanic vote, which evidently reportedly the president told Stephen Miller, overdid it. That chasing people around the streets, the two shootings that took place in Minneapolis, really rubbed people the wrong way.

Even Republicans and Trumpers who said I'm for getting illegal immigrants out of here, but Not, not where results in these type of scenes, and you know it's been explained to me too. People that've been in the country thirty, forty years might be illegal. They and they're running restaurants. Their their kids are in schools. They're being deported, and I don't really think that that works for anybody either.

If you want to make sure that they don't have citizenship because they came here the wrong way, of course, you know, make it extended work visas, make penalties. But I think just scooping them up and kicking them out up to forty years—I'm not for that. And maybe you are, because some conservatives and Trumpers have told me, "No, no, I'm for that. I'm not." Hi everyone, it's Brian Kilmeade 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 and go 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 and collars exploding, and have gone viral on social media thanks to the one 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 dot com.

Use promo code Brian for fifteen percent off of any purchase of one hundred dollars or more. That's promo code Brian. From the Fox News Radio studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest growing radio talk show. Brian Kilmeade. Hi everyone!

So glad you're there. It's the Brian Kilmeade show. I come to you from 48th and Sixth in Midtown Manhattan. Around the globe, that's where you get the chance to see where we're located. But you probably can't come in unless you have a validated ID.

Mark Teeson is standing by. I imagine he is dressed and ready to go. Josh Crashow will bring us inside and bring us some great analysis as he looks at the 30,000 feet view. We'll have both those guests on this hour. Keep in mind, we got this fantastic YouTube channel: youtube.com/slash.

At the Brian Kilmeade show, everybody's talking about it, so we'll get to that shortly. You can always get clips of the show and get the whole show afterwards, and every other thing that I have a chance to do.

So, before we get to Mark, let's get to the big three. Number three, this midterm, no question, was a rebuke of the president and the Congress because they were frustrated with the lack of productivity from Republicans in the House and Senate. All right, the only state standing so far from Tuesday's massacre for Republicans is Florida. What it means for Governor DeSantis' 28 fortunes and the rest of the Republican field? Number two.

I was kind of shocked by that statement by that Vice President Vance put out. It was quite frankly disloyal to the press in the United States. All I heard was, "We lost because of the Iran War, and if you want to defend that, go ahead." Mark Teeson. I'll play more of his comments, and actually, Marco, build on that because I watched it last night on Special Report. JD breaks from President Trump and condemns the war, blaming the Iran conflict for the epic collapse in the midterms of the Republican Party.

Why this self-serving VP now needs to be cut out of any talks for or against the war? Number one. If you look at most of the issues that put the president and his party on the wrong side of the electorate, it wasn't because he went too far to the right. It's because he wasn't populist enough. The same, very same issues that angered Democrats and Independents also angered a lot of MAGA.

And the irony, of course, is Trump is president because of populism, and last night he was fully repudiated because of populism. That is Mark Halpern. Republicans implode at the midterms. We look at the newly empowered Dems, their agenda, and where Trump and the left might just overlap. Where they will diverge, I think there is going to be some deals done.

I don't know about you, Mark. Do you think when the president came out and made the and Mark Teason joins us now, Washington Post Fox News contributor, Mark, do you think when the president came out as soon as they lost that on Tuesday night, he joined Fox and he basically said, "Look, I've had four or five Democrats reach out to me already, and there are places that I can work with them." We project six, eight, nine months down the road. Do you think the president will will have some places where he's going to work with the Democrats? I do, but first of all, let me. Can I say something?

This is a big day for me because the first time I made the big three. Really, I've never been part of the. I've never been. I commented on the Big Three, but I've never been in the Big Three.

So, wow! I'm. I'm just like. I'm super happy.

Well, I have. I have three full-time judges. I have three full-time judges. Can we go to the judges, please? Hey, Eric, can you ask the judges this question?

Is this the first time Mark Teeson's been in the Big Three? Can you ask all three of the judges? The judges say it's not the first time he's been in the big three, but maybe it's the first time he's hurt himself. Aha! In the big three, that's a qualification.

Thank you, judges. I think I should have been number one. Believe me, it was with me, but I just had to think of the country because I saw you on special report, Mark. That's I read this after I was on the air. And I, it's exactly I felt as usual.

And I'm watching you say that on the air. You just went anyway. Good. Listen, this is not normal. It is not normal to not.

Not only did he not do two or three lines. This was a diatribe against the war, without the qualification of. By the way, it was a politically risky move. But a. But I understand why the president did it.

And taking on an enemy takes courage. All the things that we know that go along with it. But he made no, no attempt to qualify.

So, so I mean, what Donald Trump said is, I I made the right decision and I do it again, and I didn't hear JD Vance say Donald Trump made the right decision, and I stand with him. Where was that? It was a long. It was a long tweet. You know, hundreds of hundreds of characters.

Nowhere did he find any space to say, "I stand with Donald Trump." He's he's he's the most courageous president in American history because this was obviously going to be a politically costly decision, but he put the national security of the country ahead of his own political interests, and that's what statesmanship is. I didn't hear anything from that from J.D. Vance, and on top of that, it's incredibly. First of all, he's wrong to say that it was just the. Iran war.

Iran obviously contributed, but there were. If you look at the Fox News voter analysis, the you know Gallup poll, the the AP exit polls, it was. There were other issues that were higher up that that that affected the outcome. It was it contributed, but to say this is just about the war and that the solution is to end the war and change our relationship with Israel when we've got. Donald Trump is the most pro-Israel president in American history.

is is It's shameful. It's disloyal to Donald Trump. What what he what the vice president of the United States should be saying is, "I stand with the president. The president made the right decision. I back him a hundred percent." And he's not doing that.

He's he's trying to create distance between himself and the president. And quite frankly, if he's not willing to endorse Donald Trump's foreign policy, then Donald Trump should not endorse him. And that's simple. Yeah, you know, you're you if you're running to succeed the president of the if you're a vice sitting vice president running to succeed the sitting president, what people are voting for is four more years, and if you're breaking with the president. In order to do to to to succeed him, the president has no obligation and probably has a positive obligation not to endorse you and to pick somebody else.

So I think this is disqualifying. For for for JD Vance as as a presidential candidate. And look, I don't think Donald Trump should endorse him. And by the way, we're following the other story of France riots. They expect as many as seven hundred thousand, eighty thousand alone in France, and they're protesting lack of services, schools, just basic things in society, lack of jobs, lack of opportunity.

I don't know how you settle this. I mean, it's not like they're saying, "I need the minimum wage done." I need they once used to strike over retirement age, which was ridiculous. They put it to sixty-four, to sixty-four. But this is—I don't know how they ends in Europe. I'm really worried about the future there.

But here's the president asked about the post on X of JD Vance. Cut thirty. I know how he feels about it. I think it was—I think it was fine. Yeah, I thought it was good.

We knew that. I know that. I knew that when I went in, and we stopped them from having a nuclear weapon, and they will never have a nuclear weapon. And he went on to say, "This cut thirty-one." Yeah, I've been speaking to him about a lot of things, but I mean, we'll see what happens. Everybody.

You don't know who's talking about running. You can have people running. You can have a lot of people. Maybe a lot of people are running. Maybe nobody's going to run.

Maybe maybe no. He won't run. I don't know who's going to run, but I can tell you that as far as that war is concerned, I would have done nothing different. Maybe no one's going to run. I'm pretty sure that's not an option.

But your thoughts about how the president gets that in his face twenty minutes after it posts and how he handled it. Yeah, well, I mean, I think I think he basically he said you know there's nothing wrong with it, but he then he repudiated it and what he said. And here's the thing that's that's so ironic about this: JD Vance is saying we lost because of Donald Trump's poor national security decisions to just to start a war in the Middle East. It's actually not the war in Iran that hurt politically. It's the ceasefire and the MOU that JD Vance negotiated because the war went fine.

If you look at the Operation Epic Fury was a huge, huge success. But then suddenly in April, you know, JD Vance and and the negotiating team come to Trump and say, you know, well, you know, I think Iran's desperate for deal. They wanted they when they want to cry uncle, and so we do this MOU that was supposed to lead to a comprehensive deal for. Iran to disarm itself of a nuclear weapon, and we go through six months of feckless negotiations, during which Iran repeatedly violates the MOU that J.D. Vance negotiated.

Embarrassing him and the country and the president, and then we have to retaliate and going back and forth, and we keep getting Trump keeps getting told, oh, they wanted, they're desperate for deal, they wanted deal, they never wanted a deal. There was no intelligence ever suggesting that they that they were interested in deal. They clearly are not in interest in a deal because they kept violating the MOU, and so instead of a decisive end to the war in April, we now have six months of Americans in. In petroleum purgatory, right? Where you're paying more for gas, but it's all for a good cause.

But and it's going to end tomorrow.

Well, no, it's not. It's going to start again. No, it's going to no, it's not. Maybe I'll start the war again at some point. JD Vance led Donald Trump into a cul-de-sac, where he where where you know and and so we're stuck in this purgatory.

And the gas could have been below three dollars on election day. I know if it wasn't for JD Vance. And his stupid MOU. If it wasn't for that MOU, we would the war would have been over. We were two weeks away from finishing the job.

We could have finished it, declared victory, had the blockade, and opened the Strait of Hormuz, and we would be done.

So, and instead, we're stuck. Mark, you're 100 right. It's absolutely true, and the thing is, he has no experience doing it. And and and it wouldn't like, for example, you don't want me handling the. There's certain things you have expertise at.

That's why you have a Secretary of State. Marco Rubio should be leading these. There's just no doubt about it. A Vice President who everybody knows doesn't want the conflict and has no experience. He got dissed by the Pakistanis.

The video is apparent for everyone to see. Pakistan at that point was was the negotiating partner.

Now I think. It might be no one or Oman, or it might even be the Chinese. Evidently, the Chinese are are desperate to end this conflict and desperate for us not to reengage in Epic Fury the sequel.

So that's interesting. I think it's sincere, by the way, because it's in their interest to be sincere. But but listen to this. But listen to this. He is still negotiating with the IRGC.

He's the lead person, and now it's on the record saying he doesn't believe in the war and he wants to end the war.

So he is the exact wrong person. To be dealing with this, at the very least, the president's got to say, "I understand how JD feels. I respect him." So that's why he is no longer leading these talks. You got to put Rubio in there. There's no other more important issue.

Well, first of all, he shouldn't be leading the talks because he failed for six months. You know, I remember after 2006 in the midterm when we got that thumping in 2006 because the Iran war was going terribly. George Bush fired Donald Rumsfeld. Because the strategy wasn't working, and he changed course.

So, if you get a thumping in the midterms, you don't keep the guy who's who's screwed up the negotiations in charge of the negotiations, especially when he's declared that he doesn't even agree with the decision.

So, he should be fired from the job of negotiating. You can't fire a vice president, like you can't a secretary of state. Though, quite frankly, if he if he dissents so publicly. From Donald Trump's foreign policy, why doesn't he resign and run for president and oppose Trump?

So I and take us in a different direction. But he should not be he should not be in charge of these negotiations. Absolutely, he's incompetent, and because he doesn't believe in the policy. And but Don Jr. does.

So I mean, this I mean, it's I was interviewing Larry Trump into Donald Trump's family relationships. He between but he has him and his son. He's not a public official. Teddy Vance is the vice president of the United States, but he's got a lot of power in the MAGA movement. I don't think I don't think either of them have a lot of power in the MAGA movement.

Look, if you look at the polling on on foreign policy, go to the Reagan Institute polls for the last three years. MAGA Republicans are the single most hawkish segment of the American electorate, bar none, including establishment Republicans. The isolate. There was just a poll on Ukraine. Five percent of MAGA Republicans support Russia.

Five percent, fifty percent want you. A majority want want Ukraine to prevail and think it's important for us. If you go on any issue. The the MAGA Republicans are the most hawkish people. They don't.

They're not isolation. These neo isolationists that Trump that Vance is leading. And by the way, what Vance says is, well, you know, but it's the younger voters. It's the younger ones. It's that's that's that's zombie Reaganism.

That's the older Republicans who are who are hawkish. No, the Reagan Institute specifically polled. Maga voters under thirty in the in their last poll, they are just almost as hawkish as the older voters. This is this these guys are like it's the it's the biggest scam you've ever seen. These these neo isolationists, they are not they are not conservatives.

They are not representative of the MAGA movement. What JD Vance and his ilk are trying to do is hijack the MAGA movement and and and repurpose it. For a foreign policy that is completely opposite of Donald Trump's. This Donald Trump. Look at Donald Trump's national security decisions.

Okay, in his first term, he destroyed the ISIS caliphate. He bombs Syria twice for using chemical weapons on its own people. He killed Qasem Soleimani. Second term, he bombs the Houthis. He bombs Nigeria.

He bombs the Iranian nuclear program. He bombs and he takes out Maduro in Venezuela. And then he launches Operation Epic Fury. JD Vance. Would not have done any of those things.

So how can you tap a guy, let alone Cuba, to be commander in chief who doesn't support your foreign policy?

So, so I agree. Listen, I know that's rhetorical, but I'm going to answer it anyway. Whatever you want to say about Kamala Harris, she was afraid to break with Biden ever, even when he lost his mind. When it was so apparent he lost his mind to the point where it helped her lose the election. But there was so many areas in which he could say, "Listen, I have respect for the Joe Biden gave me the break of a lifetime, X, Y, and Z." But whatever you want to say about it, she didn't break with the the administration, and she got skewered for it.

That's different than this because he's not running; he's still vice president. And it's not the final lap. He's not on stage where he's being pressed by DeSantis or Ted Cruz to say where do you separate from? Where he might warn the president, "Hey, listen, I'm going to let everybody know that I was not for this." But I'm my there's two jobs I have, like Hubert Humphrey had, like like Nixon had with Eisenhower, like Bush 41 had with Reagan. There might be areas in which you separate.

You're not the president, but this was not the time. I want you to hear. Do we have enough time to roll this clip? We probably don't. Yeah.

Hey, Mark.

Next time, I want. Bill Pollack came out. He's a California Post editor, and said, "How about this for a choice? Win. That would be the choice for America." Just your final thought on that.

When, when, when JD Vance says the American the MAGA voters want to end the war, they want to end with victory. That's the Trump doctrine. The Trump doctrine is you go in hard, you have a clear objective, and you win. He said, "We're going to win so much, we're you're going to be sick of winning." And what JD Vance did was stop, convince him to stop. The war before victory, and go through six months of negotiations that led to nothing.

That was he violated the Trump Doctrine. This is the we could this could have been over. We could have won, and gas prices could have been down, and the midterms would have turned out very differently. Yeah. They probably would have lost a lot, but not like this.

So we'll see. But it is important to get some context. Mark, thanks so much, and congratulations on making the big three. But just for the record, the judges said not the first for number one. You got yeah.

Well, the judge, the Soviet judge, was against me, right as usual. And the Soviets—that's so weird to still have Soviet judges. But I decided to do that. Back in a moment. Both sides.

All opinions. It's Brian Kilmeade. Hi everyone, it's Brian Kilmeade 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 and go 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 and collars exploding and have gone viral on social media thanks to the one 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. Collars and Co.

dot com. Use promo code Brian for fifteen percent off of any purchase of a hundred dollars or more. That's promo code Brian. The fastest three hours in radio. You're with Brian Kilmeade.

We should have ran socialists in every primary, dude. We should have been running straight communists in some of these blue in some of these blue districts. I'm thinking it's woke 3.0. We're skipping past 2.0. We're bringing it back.

It's we're we're throwing everybody in prison if they if they misgender anybody, they're going to jail. Straight to jail. Assad Piker, I mean, can you be more idiotic than that? Evidently, he streamed for twelve hours. Twelve hours, yeah, an average of two hundred thousand an hour.

Assad Piker yesterday. I mean, do you believe this guy? I mean, this is this is their spirit. This is their leader. You know, people used to be upset that Rush Limbaugh was the voice of conservatism.

He was provocative, but he was unbelievably clear, spoken and well thought out. This guy is an absolute detriment to any any Democrat. Either they're going to start disavowing him wholeheartedly, or they're going to just embrace what he says.

So what he does, what he says politically, is so detrimental to the success of that party long term. I don't know how they're going to deal with it, but he made it clear yesterday. You heard his foul language. You heard his approach. You heard what he's saying.

They want to bring DEI back. You know who said that? Rokana. Good day for DEI as a cut, and I'm sure the next word is going to be green energy. That's the best way to flip the house back.

Josh Crashauer coming up next. Listen to the Brian Kilmeade Show. Don't move. The talk show that's getting you talking. You're with Brian Kilmeade.

I'm looking forward to conversation about what we can do to try and address things. There are going to be a lot of things we disagree on, given his very, very clear record. But you know, my job is not to defend myself. It's not to to hold grudges about the way that he campaigned. My job is to go out and serve.

And I'm looking forward to working with anybody and everybody who's committed to serving the 10 million in the state. Right, so that was a less cocky Al Sayed. He said, "I like the fact that he doesn't want to fund Israel, which is the one thing that Israel. They talked about the four billion dollars. He said on Fox and Friends." And the funds not going to Israel because it's detrimental politically, and they don't need it because they're growing at five percent their GDP, which is unbelievable to me.

It's just part of the miracle of that economy and that country. Josh Krasner joins us now, Fox News Radio analyst and editor in chief of the Jewish Insider.

So, Josh, I could not. I was one of the worst for my money. One of the worst. Victory speeches I ever heard. El Sayed coming out saying, "Can't wait for J.D.

fans have to swear me in." And hey, Donald, not Mr. President with a message, as opposed to Governor Elect Donalds saying, "I like to salute David Jolly and all those people that didn't vote for me." So I just, I just despise those that type of cocky behavior in sports and in life. Yeah, that's such a great analogy. I mean, you hate the sports teams that are poor lose, poor winners and poor losers, and. And it was a very—it's like it's like that Sesame Street segment of one of these things are not like the other.

Every other Democratic senator who won gave a gracious victory speech, and in many cases, congratulated their opponent. Even in those like Talerico, who ran in a pretty pretty tough races, were dealing with a lot of negative ads. Elsaiad was the exception to the rule, and I think the interesting thing about the outcome, given, and it's kind of ironic, given that it was such a big wave. For the Democrats, they swept in a lot of red state Democrats from even Mississippi. These are these are Democrats that actually need a win, conservative voters, if they want to survive in the future politically.

So they're not going to at all be from the El Sayed camp of politics.

So he he does come to with a very big incoming Democratic Senate majority, but his style of policy is either going to have to change, and maybe you saw that change in tone today, but you know his comments later, but Either that, or he's not going to get along well with his Democratic colleagues, and he's not going to get much done. That's a good point. And the other thing is, you know, Trump takes Mondami's calls. The other day, they agreed. Evidently, there was this illegal immigrant that was shot tragically.

was bullied in school. It was an immigrant. It was bullied in school and was killed from Ghana, I think it was. It was just horrible situation in one of the boroughs here in New York City. And Mondami says he wanted his mother to come from Ghana to his funeral, and he picked she he picked up the phone and called the president.

Says, "Yeah, of course, we'll pay for it. You know, we'll bring her over here." I just thought that that's the relationship. That's what both thought they could help each other out.

Now, Elsie, if he comes and visit the president, he wants to deliver for like Governor Whitmer. If there's something he wants to deliver for Michigan that the president could do, he does not get dug in and say, "Don't let him in this building." So it's going to be very curious to see if the president's instincts of getting along with enemies like Putin and and others like President Xi and Mondami, who stands for nothing, the president stands for. If that goes over to the extremists on the left. Yeah, I mean, politics is is a game of addition. Even people who are deeply ideological, I mean, Mubarak is actually a good example because he, you know, we've criticized him and he's done a lot of things that are on the far left of the Democratic Party.

But he kept. He also did understand that. Political realities and keeping Jessica Tisch as NY PD Commissioner, and he has not been as pugilistic as as El Sayed has been during the campaign in terms of trying, at least, trying to at times sound a more more unifying note. Going to the White House meeting with Donald Trump, as you mentioned, getting things done when it comes to crises and challenges that you're facing.

So that's it's just basic blocking and tackling. For I mean, there's so many sports analogies we can. Draw from, but yeah, it's basic blocking and tackling, and being a good executive, being a good governor, being a good senator, and being a good politician. And Elsayed did not. I mean, look, we don't need to kind of dwell on the margins, but Elsayed only won by seven points in a tidal wave year where you had red state Democrats winning by double digits in red states that Trump easily easily carried by you know like fifteen points in twenty twenty four.

So, I mean, Elsayed was swept by the wave, but he didn't do anything to help his own standing in a divided electorate in Michigan. I just don't know how he won by six seven points. I just don't. I'll never understand. Of course, I've only been to Michigan a handful of times, but it was the same two years ago when he almost beat Slotnick.

So, how many more? How many more? I mean, he's a much more fringe candidate than Slotnick.

Well, the sad reality is we and then. People were not voting based on anything about any candidate. They literally, you saw. This is why you just saw this historic Democratic. Wait, I think Democrats.

This is going to be the best performance by any party in a in any kind of midterm or presidential election going back to 1974, the Watergate post Watergate years.

So, I mean, what that meant is that any D on a ballot was getting swept in. Didn't you have socialists in a swing? There was a guy who was a member of the Democratic Socialists of America in a swing district that Alyssa Slotkin held, and it was you know you assume that you need to be moderate to win that kind of district, and this guy underperformed badly. He said he said all kinds of nasty things about black voters and and other other minority groups, and yet he still won because it didn't. People were not voting based on candidates; they were just were were casting a straight ticket.

Ballot for the Democrats, so you know this is this is why winners need to be a little bit, and it's always smart for the winning side to have a little humility and understand sometimes it's not you, it's the environment that that sweeps you over the finish line. If Elsae it acts the way he he did during that Senate campaign as a senator, he's not going to make many friends, and frankly, he doesn't have a whole lot of leverage. His brand of politics, his his ideological views, don't have a lot of allies. There are some, but but far from a majority of the Democratic caucus. He's got to play nice with others, including Republicans, if he wants to get anything done.

So here's Chuck Schumer on leadership. He still thinks he's going to be the guy. Cut eleven. The issue is not me. I'll be reelected as majority leader.

But the issue is focusing on the American people and what they want.

Well, all five new Democrats, Democrats going to the Senate, have all said they're not voting for him. But nobody else has emerged as somebody wants to lead. What do you think is going to happen, Josh? Yeah, look, we we have a story about Schumer, kind of his strange new respect from from some Democrats on all from the left and the center, just because he won. Winning is the ultimate, you know, deodorant in politics as well as sports.

So, um, you know, I did the secret, you know, I I think there may be some holdouts in the leadership vote. I thought it was funny that he doesn't care about. Himself, and he says, "I'm going to be majority leader." You know, just just to be clear about that. But look, you know, there have been names mentioned in the past, Chris Van Hollen on the far left. But but after winning the Senate with 54, 55, 56 seats, he's going to have a lot of leverage, and I doubt there's going to be much of an opposition to him.

I think the bigger question, Brian, is what does this mean in 2028? He's up for reelection. The AOC has been talked about as a possible primary challenger. A lot of people on the left that have been eager to go after Chuck Schumer does the fact that he engineered a big Senate majority change that dynamic back home, or is the left still going to be ascendant? I think that that's the story that's going to be told as the Democratic Party they have this big tent, but they have a lot of new DSA members, a lot of extremists on the far left that are coming into the Congress, but you also have a lot more moderates because of the size of the wave.

So there's going to be a real Battle internally within the Democratic Party, even though they have these majorities. All right, so so J.D. Vance comes out and says this is all about the war, and basically says the president's decision to go about the war doesn't qualify, and say I understand why the president did. He just came out and just says he blames on the war, and and any honest conversation about what went wrong has to start there, which is unbelievably arrogant in my view. But I'm just stunned by it.

We're according to Axios, Hakeem Jeffries. Was taken aback by the statements. Not that he cares if the president and vice president are differing, but it's just so jarring to read it. Am I over overreacting? No, I mean this is JD Vance is a tenier for politics.

He's not. He shows he's not a team player by putting out this statement. And apparently, there's also been reporting this morning that he didn't even talk to the White House, didn't even talk to the president, or talk to anyone in the administration that he was going to be publishing this. Look, this is an ide this is an ideological move and a political move. And just like with the Democrats, politics is about addition, not subtraction.

This is something that is dividing the party. It's not going to help fans. Look, when you're vice president, you that's what Kamala Harris learned in in 2024. You really, as VP, you really can't credibly claim you're not part of an administration that gets rejected at the ballot box.

So, when your first instinct after a tough night is Is instead of trying to be a team player and suck it up, and then figure out what with your colleagues what went wrong and how do you fix it, he's basically throwing his friends under the bus. Which is not not good politics. It's going to create more divisions in the party. It's going to create opportunities, frankly, for other ambitious Republicans to look at what Vance is doing and see opportunities to run in in twenty twenty eight. And by the way, like I mean, he obviously the Iran War not you know it was a drag on on the Republican Party.

It was far from the only reason. And if you look at the exit polls, and we have a lot of good data, corruption was the biggest concern for voters. The state of the economy and the overreach on immigration also tied with. With the war in Iran, as the leading criticisms, the leading leading frustrations among voters, according to the exit polling.

So the notion that this was—I mean—it was very convenient for for Vance to basically say that these are the reasons why it's all about the war in Iran and and the U.S. relationship with Israel, by the way, as he put it put in his statement. When there's no evidence, really, within the Republican Party that that's the case, and basically ignores all the other things that he was he was part of. You know that are unpopular, and he wants to ignore those inconvenient truths.

So, you know, this is not a smart political move for Vance, and I think it shows his his fundamental vulnerabilities heading into twenty twenty eight. Don Junior liked it.

Well, that's ultimately Don, the president, is the one who matters. I mean, if Vance gets the nomination, I would think he would want. Even you know, even now the president's support in in a Republican primary, maybe not, but but he he really jeopardized that, and I'm not sure if Don Jr.'s opinion is really going to carry the most weight. But if you're going to So I want you to hear this. This is Governor Ron DeSantis last night, and I think I want to get your opinion, Josh Krasner.

But here's Governor DeSantis last night on what Congress didn't do and how it set up this horrible evening for the party. Cut to. If you're going to do huge conservative things that are going to reorient the country for a generation, fine. But I saw no indication that the current group of Republican senators were interested in doing that type of. Correct conservative change.

I mean, why haven't we done immigration? Shut off H one B visas. Why haven't we codified Trump's immigration executive orders? There's so. Why haven't we stripped jurisdiction from the federal courts over deportation cases?

There's so many things that could have been done. They didn't even attempt it.

So he he said Congress should have done more. And he thought the Senate was really reluctant to do bigger things, but they needed sixty votes. Would go back in the conversation. They should have blown up the filibuster.

So, your thoughts about all those things?

Well, look.

Someone's very thirsty, and probably running for president based on what I've seen from Governor DeSantis. And look, he he is going to talk about Florida. Florida was the one big state that that stood stood in the in the Republican column, so that that's something that he can hang his hat on. You know, I certainly Congress could have done more. Generally speaking, they kind of ceded their role as the legislative branch in passing policy and working with the they let the president kind of dictate the agenda.

But you know, I'm not sure. I mean, DeSantis—he obviously ran in 2024, underperformed. I think there's going to be a lot of people that are not part of the Trump administration, and you know, smart, talented Republicans. I'm thinking Brian Kemp, perhaps outgoing governor from Georgia. I'm thinking Sarah Huckabee Sanders, U.S.

Senator Dave McCormick, Katie Britt. There are people that are that Trump likes and has a hell of a lot of respect for. But, but, but, are not part of the administration. Those are the people that are going to their political stock is going up right now as as a result of the midterm outcome. I hope so, and I just think it's going to be really interesting before it gets political for Republicans to sit back and say for the longest time they were flat solid free traders, right?

For the longest time, it was blindly support NATO. And with the president, this president said, "Okay, no, no, no, not until they spend more." I'm not guaranteeing we're going to say next year they're paying five percent of their budget. And then when it comes to free trade, we're not really. There's a big imbalance here. President, go over the top with tariffs, perhaps.

But the idea of bringing manufacturing home because the situation has rusted out or manufacturing over the course of twenty-five years was really resonating with the country. And over the last ten months, manufacturing has grown.

So maybe the Free traders. I'm a Republican. I'm a free trader. Was natural. Maybe they're going to reconfigure that, and they'll say, "Wait, I can learn something here." They see the way NATO responded to take control of their own security for the first time in my lifetime, and they say, "Well, maybe Trump scared us and scared them, and maybe it worked in the long term." So I think that there's going to be some honest analysis about pre-thoughts prior to Trump and after Trump.

Well, I was going to say Trump's first. Term that that was the playbook he used, like talk tough, but then cut deals. That that you saw, including on trade, including you know, in terms of cutting cutting, uh, you know, what was it? There was a the renegotiation of NAFTA. Trump was able to kind of renegotiate it and and do it more on his terms, and and Canada and Mexico were happy.

So. The problem is that, like he, he forgot the deal making part of the second term, and we're basically just trying to like attack and attack and attack our allies, whether our trading allies, our our foreign policy allies. In many cases, not everywhere, but but the whole Russia Ukraine situation was a bit of a head scratcher. On trade, you know, tariffs can be popular when you poll initially, but but if they're going to raise prices, yeah, you know, ultimately that's what people are concerned about. It that that's the reality versus the abstract.

And what happened with the tariffs is that ag prices shot up in the Midwest, those prairie states like Kansas and Iowa. They they were feeling the economic pinch, largely a result of the tariffs, partly because of gas prices, but but it actually was the tariffs that really shot up the price of some key goods in those states.

So you know you can say it pulls well, like people want to you know want to stick it to some some of our unfair trading partners.

Well, if it raises prices, that's what people care about more, and that's what Trump and Republicans learned from last night. You know they did do twenty trade deals, and they started because the tariffs forced South Korea to the table, forced Japan to the table, forced EU to the table, and then they got better deals twenty.

So they didn't really talk about that.

Now they got to get Canadian thing stressed out the election for no reason because it looks like we're about to land the Canadian deal.

Now, were they holding out, trying to hurt the president politically? I think so, perhaps. But Carney came out and said both sides are giving. It looks like we're on the fast track to doing it.

So, if we're going to do it, and it's going to be ultimately better for Maine, better for Michigan, better for Wisconsin, better for Ohio, then it's worth it.

So, you know, it's the whole deal. Make I I love tariffs to do to do a deal. Exactly, exactly. I mean, look—that that's—I mean, but what is the one, the last big fight is the one you remember the most, and it was the fight with Canada. And by the way, like, what are some of the biggest trading partners state statewide when it comes to our trade with Canada?

Michigan, Maine, New Hampshire, and those are three battlegrounds that Democrats took advantage of. You know, and a lot of the candidates there felt felt very awkward having to both defend Trump but also offer some mild criticisms of the of the. With Canada, so I mean, yeah, I mean, like I said, I think the first term, and there was, yeah, there was some of it in the second term, but Trump's big. Is talking tough and then cutting a deal. Yeah, that that is what people like about him, and the fact that it seemed like on a whole lot of fronts, Brian, there was just almost a pugilistic.

I want to fight, and then then just fight for the sake of fighting, and that's not what what politics is about. But look, he got the Greenland deal too, which now we have this great military relationship. Any country that wants to do a deal in Greenland has to go through us. We have to okay it.

So it's the better. He ended up with a with a good, really good deal, and he's got the first rights on natural on rare earth. But I hear what you're saying. I think you you got there's some valid things to your your criticism, Josh. It's always interesting, especially now.

Thanks so much. Yeah, it's going to be an interesting few weeks during this lame duck and the new Congress.

So we'll be a lot to talk about. Josh Chashara, thanks. It's Brian Kilmeade. He's so busy he'll make your head spin. It's Brian Kilmeade.

Hey, we are back, and just want to thank everyone that's picking up the United States. The six crucial moments that forged the American miracle, and hopefully, I'll be able to see a lot of you at Clearwater. Just a few tickets left for the Capitol Theater Saturday. Coming up this Saturday, on Sunday in Jacksonville, Florida, at the Florida Theater. That's a huge venue.

There's room for you. BrianKillme.com. It's going to be streamed. One of these going to be streamed on Fox Nation. Then on the 14th in Dallas, Texas.

You need to register at the Interbank Books. You can go to on BrianKillme.com for. Tickets ahead of time, and then the following weekend on the the following day on the fifteenth I'll be in Fairhope in Destin, Florida, and then from Destin, Florida at eleven I'll be going to Fairhope, Alabama by four, and I'll sign into the whole town is happy.

Next week I'll be in thanks to WRVA. I'll be a Monday night. I'll be in Richmond, Virginia. And on the 21st in Chesterfield, Missouri, and then I'll take a little break for Thanksgiving, and then in Point Pleasant, New Jersey, Mount Juliet, Tennessee, and Pigeon Forge, Tennessee. BrianKilney.com.

From highest up, Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Kilmeade. Hi, everyone.

So glad you're there. It's the Brian Kilmeade show. And right now, there's a lot going on. There's riots in France. I'm talking about seventy thousand in Paris.

They expect seven hundred thousand throughout that country, and they usually ripple through the rest of Europe. Why? I mean, the demands. They have are so wide and pervasive and vague. I don't see any way to satisfy them.

They want their schools better. They want better services. They want better jobs. They want better opportunity. They want less taxes.

They want more services. It's crazy.

So, I mean, how do you possibly fix that? Also, the first lady in the United States is celebrating something she should very well do, and that is the fact that thousands have been able to. Avoid starvation and be freed from the province of Kyivs on in the middle of the Ukraine Russia war. And now there is representatives from Russia and Ukraine together meeting with her at the White House. She's giving a speech to talk about the temporary ceasefire that gives these people some relief because the city that belongs to Ukraine, occupied by Russia, the results where the people are being tortured.

So she's fixed that. Maybe. Witkoff and Kushner could take a page from her. This hour, going to be joined by Trey Gowdy at the bottom of the hour. Talk about a legal way forward when it comes to what they're what's going on in Alaska, where the real Dan Sullivan trails by just a handful of votes, but the fake Dan Sullivan got 1.7 percent of the vote.

That would have been enough to keep the real Dan Sullivan knock him over the top for with 50 percent of the vote.

So the president's going on him to get all the other fake Dan Sullivan votes. Obviously, is going to be. Run through the courts with me in studio. I'll talk about the ramifications of the the horrible night for Republicans. What Democrats should do.

Go from here, and and everything else is is Jason Chaffetz, Fox News contributor, former Utah congressman, former House Oversight Committee chair. Jay, a lot going on right now. First off, you you told me some I didn't know. I didn't know Utah paid the price too in the state legislature yesterday. Yeah, there were fourteen Republicans.

They don't Republicans no longer have the super majority. I think it caught most people by surprise. You had some people way up in the food chain that didn't even really put much of an effort in the campaigning. They lost, and so that wave was coast to coast, including the Intermountain West. Yeah, I think it's the biggest.

It's the biggest shillacking anyone's taken, I think, since the '70s after Watergate. Republicans have taken look. Republicans got to do what they say they're going to do. I do think it is a failing primarily in the United States Senate that that helped caused this. There was a time when the young people were listening to Joe Rogan, they were listening all this, but they weren't.

Ours, you know, we say, "Oh, just get Republicans to vote Republican." That's not the way it is anymore. They look at individual candidates, and they went out, and the Republicans failed to get done what they said they were going to do. Evidently, this is what they say: that a lot of Republicans came out to vote for Democrats. Yeah, I I don't think because what do they stand for? But I think the younger generation does not necessarily have a rock solid party affiliation associated with them.

I I really do. I think the the peak of popularity for Republicans was when they had Elon Musk and they were doing Doge, but they didn't codify anything. You didn't see purp walks. You didn't see people going to jail. They they didn't they didn't follow through on that.

Instead, you got you know a disgusted. Elon Musk, who walked away, you can't tell me that didn't have a major influence on millions of younger people. And I, I think it was terribly frustrating. We couldn't even pass. Republicans had the House and Senate and the presidency.

They didn't even pass a ban on the Stock Act. Like members of Congress trading stocks, you couldn't pass that. That I feel bad for a lot of House Republicans because I think they did pass a lot of these bills, but then it's the Senate. Every time you turn around, the Senate couldn't pass the Save Act because they had a recess. I mean, that's hard to understand.

Why aren't they in session right now, passing these federal? I mean, why aren't they getting these federal judges approved? I think they're coming back next week, aren't they?

Okay, but there's another four or five days on the calendar that are just missed. Here's Mark Halperin; he's offering his analysis. Cut seventeen. Look, it's a repudiation of the president and the way he's governed on a range of issues, and I think the one that's most underdiscussed so far is, if you look at most of the issues, with one big exception that put the president and his party on the wrong side of the electorate, it wasn't because he went too far to the right. It's because he wasn't populist enough.

The same, very same issues that angered Democrats and Independents also angered a lot of MAGA. What are those issues? They don't like the war. They don't like the high prices that come from the war. They don't like the way he handled Epstein.

They don't like the way he's made a lot of money and his family has made a lot of money while he's in office. There was just a big anti-establishment, and the irony, of course, is Trump is president because of populism. And last night he was he was fully repudiated because of populism. Because you can't say it's like they want to sign up for the Democrats. What do they stand for?

More green energy, more DEI, you know, more spending, more health care. Failed Obamacare. Nobody likes Obamacare.

Now the rates go up again. Another thirteen percent of subsidies.

So what? What exactly did they vote for? They voted against the administration. They voted against. Look.

President Trump ran on draining the swamp. He didn't need this job because he had so much money. You know, nobody could even imagine that he didn't need the business card because he was so famous. But Republicans failed to pass that legislation and get it done. And I I think there's a there's a lot of truth to that.

They, but when you're in the minority, it's easy. You just say no all the time. When you're in the majority, Democrats have a problem. They want to drive down the price of gasoline diesel at six fifty a gallon. Good luck introducing.

I want to see the bill that they think because they ran on on bumper sticker politics. What's their bill to drive down the price of gas? They don't have one. That's how America was frustrated that the Republicans didn't get it done. It was not a confirmation that we want more socialism.

I guess we're looking at a few things that definitely played into it. Number one, I mean, the growth is three point four percent. Manufacturing is up for the last ten months. If you look at jobs, it usually is a driver of the elections. Jobs unemployment's pretty steady at four point one percent.

If you have a four hundred one k, you got to be happy. But none of those things really matched what they felt as though gas prices, utility bills, and things to that nature. And in some of the states that were near that. Were victims of the tariffs, and then Canadian collapse of a trade deal that just seemed to have put them over the top. Nobody sits around the kitchen table and says, "Hey, honey, guess what?

The GDP is up point five percent." They do feel it if because if the GDP is up and jobs are down, usually there is hiring. Yeah, but if the mortgage is seven percent and it costs two hundred dollars to fill up your F two fifty, then that's a problem, and that's not what they signed up for. And you know, a lot of people say, "Oh, it's the war." I don't think it was. War. I think it was they didn't finish the war.

You and I were talking about earlier. Look, you either get in, fight, and win in the spring. Yeah, you go fight and win. You got to define what victory looks like. The president would go out and say.

We destroyed their nuclear capability. Those, you know, B two bombers and or whatever bombers they were. They went in stealthy. We were like, "Oh, these heroes!" You know, with those cool looking airplanes, went in, took out their capability. Then a couple months later, we had to go back in.

Like I thought, we destroyed it. It was such a mixed message. It was. There was. But I was really shocked to see.

And as I mentioned before, the president, the vice president, went out of his way to let everybody know that if you're being honest, it's all he said. If you're being honest, which is a ridiculous argument to make.

So, by the way, if you you could be dishonest and not agree with me, or you could be honest and agree with me. Thanks for the choice, JD. Appreciate it. Be honest. It's all about the war, but it wasn't just a quick line or two.

This was a long, long statement, and in that was no qualification of I understand why the president did it. He's trying to fix a generational problem that goes back to the 1980s that has killed 600 Americans during the 603 Americans during the Iraq War, the insurgency that that made. Thousands during that same war, the ones that started with the Marine barracks on down, the ones that continue to thwart, to inflict damage and shut down straits like the Red Sea, supported by the Houthis, who also set up a ring of fire around our chief ally Israel. Not a one word. But he goes on on to say the four things that we have to address.

The last one is Israel, our alliance with Israel. Yikes! I look. You say yikes? I yeah.

Look, I really like the vice president. I think he's a lot to offer. I thought it was interesting. He put it on his personal account, not his official account. Why do you know that?

Yeah, it was his personal account as opposed to the official account. I thought that was a tell, if you will. It is. Much more complicated. Look, I happen to think that the president has to.

Here is what I wish the president would have said. I wish the president would have come out and said, "You know, when you get into this office, you are faced with decisions, and you get to see intelligence that nobody else gets to see on the planet. This is not my first choice." But my first duty to the United States of America is to protect the safety and security of our nation now and into the future. If I don't take care of this problem right now, it is going to hit us when we least expect it. And I am going to do.

I'm going to take it from the start, and I'm going to finish it. And that message, I think, America would have rallied behind him, but it lingered. And then there was not. It was a convoluted message of why we're there. And if you don't hit Carg Island and do.

Some of these other things that America was learning about, then it just continues on in perpetuity, and the price of gas goes up. The fact is, they cleared out the Strait of Hormuz. We got millions of barrels of gas right now. Yes, what they should have done, Republicans, you should have pivoted and say. Wait a sec.

Joe Biden's the one that shut down the Keystone Pipeline. It's the Democrats that are shutting down refineries in California. You want to look at the high price of gas? We have to have more refining capacity. We got to be able to move this oil, and only the Democrats take this down.

We never heard that argument. Here's Amanda Lippman on something else that factored in, and that's to redistricting. Listen to this, cut eighteen. And I think you know, really smart prognosticators would say once the Supreme Court passed the Calais decision, where it was basically under under undermining black voters in the South, saying you no longer matter. Black voters were going to say yes, we do.

Yeah, yes, we absolutely do. I think that's why you saw surging black turnout in not just Mississippi, but Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas. I mean, we flipped state legislative seats in Alabama. Like this was not just about. Mississippi.

This was across the South, a resurgence of voters who were saying, "I will not be silent." During the that's a bunch of crap. I I don't buy anything that that person just said. I don't even know who said it, but I don't buy it. Look, people are going to say, "Oh, I'm going to vote another way because of the Clay decision." No, they get out and vote for the person they think is going to be best. That that's all there is to it.

Long gone are the days of party allegiance between Republicans and Democrats. It is that middle part of America, the independents. Will sway elections one direction or another. They do look. Donald Trump was highly successful because he attracted people from all areas.

The lesson of Donald Trump was lost on Republicans and Democrats into the future. Do you think the redistricting ended up not being worth it? I I think they're looking at numbers in a micro way and saying, oh well, we have this many Republicans and this many Democrats. Hogwash. I I just don't.

I think it's. I think that. We are a a swipe and click communication network now. That is the way we live our lives, and people are going to look at individual candidates, regardless of party affiliation, and say, "I want to go that direction or the other." But when you tell people, when you try to when you try to gerrymander around people, they seem to resent it. Is that true?

They. Look, Democrats have surged in the big cities. The city they voted for decades for the Democrat on their ticket. Look at Los Angeles, Baltimore. You know, you can name all the big cities, and and it's it's kind of scary.

But look, Republicans only have one of the top ten most populous states, and that's Florida. And they barely hung on to that. Yeah, it's true. That leaves a lot of people thinking that maybe Ron DeSantis might be somebody that should find the stage, the debate stage, in the twenty. In twenty eight, what do you think?

He won by a razor thin margin. He grew that margin by more than a million. He won by big numbers because he actually did what he said he was going to do. That's what America wants. They want people that can get stuff done.

And I think he's been highly critical. He calls balls and strikes. He accomplishes things. He he. He counts votes faster than any other state.

Why can't every other state be like Florida? Used to be the worst. They got rid of the property tax. That's going to be a highly sought after type of leader into the party. I think he's in the top two or three people to become the next president of the United States.

Who else? Marco Rubio is still, you know, right there at the top of the. You can't dismiss the vice president, but I think between Marco Rubio, you know, you got a lot of Floridians in there, too. Of the Floridians, I still think the Democrats are flailing. I think they got forty people that are going to show up on that debate stage, trying to fight for a way to get into the mix, and it's probably somebody we haven't heard of before.

That's going to emerge. From the Democrats, I don't think it's going to be Kamala Harris. I don't think it's going to be Pete Buttigieg. I think it'll be somebody else. When they Democrats have been successful, from Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama to Bill Clinton, they took somebody who America did not know, and they melded them into what they thought was the perfect candidate—a good, articulate, could communicate a message—and suddenly they became the hot thing.

And and the and they'd had no record to to to point out and to knock them down. Whoever fits that mold, I think will ultimately win.

So not to Joe Biden, you don't think he'll run? Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, you know, nah, maybe not. When we come back, what the Democrats are going to be doing with Jason Chaffetz? Don't move. In a world of noise, get the signal sharp, informative, and always on point.

You're listening to Brian Kilmeade. Information you want, truth you demand. This is the Brian Kilmeade Show. So I want you to hear what Democrats are thinking about doing when it comes to their agenda. And Jason Chaffetz, our guest, and tell me if you think any of this stuff is going to get done.

Cut nineteen. Maniata, Maniñora, Medicare for.

So when I say healthcare, not bombs, I'm talking about my patients. When I say abolish ICE, I'm talking about those children. Investing in our babies and not bombs, and freeing Palestine, and making sure that our communities can live with dignity. We have to pass Medicare for all. We have to pass a living wage for all to abolish.

To abolish ice.

So, Jason, how much is that going to get done? None.

Okay. Thank goodness. I think that's why America can rest easy a little bit, a little bit. But hey, let's have that argument. Let's have that debate.

I want to see them put it. It's one thing to put it on a bumper sticker and have that cute little saying or chant. It's another thing to contextualize it, actually put it into text of legislation, and then it score it, analyze it, have a debate that. I really do welcome because good luck with putting that up and trying to get everybody on the same page. Medicare for all means getting rid of private insurance.

That means we're all going to pay for everything. Look, government runs things, okay? Government runs the post office. Is that what we are after? Government helps run reservations, Indian reservations.

Well, how about this? Cut twenty. Tonight, DEI is back as America celebrated diversity and inclusion. We will launch investigations, take him to court, and entangle him in legislative razor wire. You got to have a tax on billionaires, and if you do that, we could raise four hundred billion dollars a year.

We can provide free public college. Public colleges and universities, tuition free, universal childcare. What about that? No, that that ain't going to work either. I like.

Again, try to put that up, and then tell us how expensive. Because the only way you can get from here to there is to raise taxes. But what about the investigations? Chuck Schumer was like, "Yeah, we're going to investigate." No doubt. Look, we we've tried.

Oh, hey, look, this is right in my my wheelhouse. I'm going to remind people day in and day out about the precedent that the Obama administration set. They're the ones that said this, and so when I would issue a subpoena, when I would issue a compulsory, "Hey, you have to show up, you have to do this." Do you think they paid any attention to it? No, it was just a stiff arm. They granted immunity to people like Hillary Clinton's chief of staff.

They were handing out pardons. They were doing all the things that they wanted to do.

So, if you think that suddenly, that's not what America signed up for. They didn't vote for these people because oh, we're gonna you know engage in lawfare. That's they want to bring down the price of gasoline. They want mortgage rates to come down. They want the cost of living to go down.

So all these things, hey, get ready. You know, Senator Markey saying, oh, we're gonna have to plant new forests because we're gonna need so much paper to issue all these all these pardons. That isn't gonna work. Congressman now incoming Chairman Garcia saying, hey, you know we're Lawyer up! That's they've tried that on Trump.

It didn't work. I just hope it can't be nonstop investigation. Both sides. I think everyone's fed up with that. It's just so frustrating because there's so many real things to do.

Jason, with Luke, let's go look for you all over the channel. Thank you. Back in a moment. From his mouth to your ears, it's Brian Kilmeade. If you're going to do huge conservative things that are going to reorient the country for a generation, fine.

But I saw no indication that the current group of Republican senators were interested in doing that type of bold conservative change. I mean, why haven't we done immigration? Shut off H-1B visas. Why haven't we codified Trump's immigration executive orders? There's so.

Why haven't we stripped jurisdiction from the federal Courts over deportation cases. There's so many things that could have been done. They didn't even attempt it.

Well, the problem is you don't have sixty votes. In fact, you don't have fifty votes in the Senate because Murkowski, Collins, and Tillis weren't playing ball. And now Cassidy, at the end, because President has brawled with them and basically said, "If I don't primary you, just quit," and they did. And Joni Ernst would have been another.

So they had fifty-three, but they had defections, so they couldn't even get a simple majority. And the way it works in the Senate is you need sixty votes, and nobody was coming along.

So that's that led to the previous conversation, which said, "Should you get rid?" The filibuster, and both sides said the answer should be yes because now Democrats are going to do it. I actually don't think you should get rid of the filibuster because someone's going to do something wrong. It doesn't mean you beat them to the punch. Trey Gowdy is a former chairman of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, host of Saturday Night in America, and that is Sunday night. Sunday night in America.

It is Sundays at nine o'clock Eastern Time. Author of Color of Death, it's a novel and a bestseller. Trey, what do you think of the criticism you just heard from Governor DeSantis? Oh, I think forensic pathologists are out in full force right now. I, I, I don't.

Know that it's it may be part of what Ronnie just said, but I think more than anything else, it is over reading the results from two years ago. Brian, every when is not a mandate, and even if you have a mandate for certain things, it doesn't mean you have a mandate for everything. No doubt, the president had a mandate for border security. But he did not have a mandate, nor did he have anything to do with glitzy ad campaigns, hair extensions, riding around on a horse, positioning yourself to run for president, calling Americans that are shot in the street domestic terrorists. That none of that was Donald Trump.

So I think a little bit of it was some of his cabinet folks looked in the mirror and saw a president, and a lot of it. Was mistaking winning and the right to govern with a mandate to do things that the voters weren't interested in. I'll give you two examples, Brian. I mean, did you hear a single solitary person say, "You know what? I am voting for you because I am tired of Lake Ontario being called Lake Ontario"?

Did you hear a single voter say, "I really think the Kennedy Center should be renamed"? No, no, no, no, no.

So, so you have to know why you were put in office, and then be a good steward of that, and don't read every when as some overwhelming mandate for your most extreme ideas. I mean, put it this way: If you want to fix up the White House and add some rooms, you do that. But the president's a multitasker, so I'm not going to say that he should only do one thing at a time. But I agree with you: you don't have a final closing argument in front of the reflecting pool and only talked about the reflecting pool. I used to, I've thought of that as a backdrop, but I'm old-fashioned.

But that was interesting.

So. Well, we'll see going forward. It's a huge rebuke, no doubt about it. The best, the thing that most shocked me, even the Utah legislature. I just had Jason Chafetz in flipped.

They no longer have a super majority. You saw them losing state legislative seats. Of course, in Texas, they lost a whole body, and they lost seats even in places like Alabama. What did? What did the?

Why were the red states so mad? Brushback pitch. I don't think people in red states have become socialists. I don't even think they've become Democrats. I think it is how do we get your attention?

We gave you two years of everything, two years of the House, the Senate, and the White House. I think a little bit of it was a failure to explain the war in Iran. I do not agree with the vice president that the war in Iran alone cost them the election. And if you, if that's your takeaway, then I think you're misreading what happened Tuesday night. It was a confluence of things.

Corruption was pretty high up the list, or the perception of self enrichment. I think more than anything else, Tuesday night was a brushback pitch. I mean, Republicans did not become socialist overnight. Look, the billionaire tax—I don't even think passed in California, did it? No.

I mean, boys and girls sports didn't pass even in so-called blue states. It is not a repudiation of our core values. It is a repudiation of our failure to execute and to go down these side streets. That nobody elected us to go down.

So listen to some of what J.D. Vance wrote in a long assessment, and I didn't know this either. I didn't know it was his personal account. He said. Republicans' sweeping midterm losses Wednesday morning pointed at the Iran war as the driving force behind the party's election defeats.

But the real reason we lost was obvious to almost everyone, said Vance. The reason we lost the war, the reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so. If you like to argue it, it was worth it. Then losing the Senate for the next six years was worth it.

Then do so. Argue it was worth. Argue, argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree. That's at least honest.

But everyone knows why we lost. Any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there. Number one, I resent the fact that I'm supposed to agree with him, and if I'm not, I'm not honest. And then there was no here's why he did it, and I understand it. There was no sense of that.

I'm against the war. My staff leaked that I'm against the war, and let me just tell you, that's why we lost the midterms. I, you know, politics better than I do. How how weird is this? I don't know how weird it is, given the author of that and his relationship with some people that you know are cozy with Putin and have never had anything nice in their lives to say about Israel.

I mean, he's got a very close relationship with some people that don't really see the world the way you and I do, Brian. Here's what I would say in response to the vice president: With all due respect, it's just as plausible. Voters got vertigo from all the fits and starts. All the times we were told the war was on, and then it was off, and there's peace, and now there're missiles. And what about the MOU, which actually took longer to draft, Brian, than it lasted?

Was it possible Americans needed to be convinced all other means of reining in Iran had been explored and exhausted? Yes. J.D. Maybe you should have done that. Maybe you should have gone out there with our best spokesperson, who happens to be Marco Rubio, and say, "Look, yes, this is unpopular.

I'm glad war is unpopular. I never want war to be popular. But here's why it's necessary." But he didn't want to do that. He didn't want to jeopardize his shot at 2028, and he didn't want to offend a former former Fox host who still. His body and does everything he can to undercut the president.

Yeah, all the time. How you can do both, but Don Jr. doesn't seem upset either.

So Chuck Schumer said this, and you tell me if he can cut thirty-three. The American people don't know what the heck we're fighting for in Iran. He's never made it clear. He changes his mind day to day and minute to minute. This war must end.

It must end. We have some Republicans already who have joined us in ending the war. And the founding fathers had the power of the purse as one of the ways of deterring a president who does war without the consent of the American people. And everyone said Bernie Sanders, we're defunding the war. You're defunding the blockade.

That's what you're doing. What are you talking about? He said hundreds of billions of dollars. It's forty-six billion, which is a lot of money, but it's not hundreds of billions.

So what could Chuck Schumer actually do about this? Nothing. I mean, if he wants to defund the Department of Defense, I mean, I guess he can do that. I don't really recommend it. That that'd be a pretty stupid idea.

First of all, I'm not sure what war they're talking about. There have been Kinetic strikes. There have been. There was a very heroic pilot rescue. There have been blockades.

Yes, we have lost service members as a direct consequence of Iranian action. But Brian, that's been the case for decades. Iran's been killing Americans and giving aid to those who do for nearly fifty years. Which is precisely why Donald Trump said no more and no nuclear Iran.

So, what is your plan, Chuck Schumer? What is your plan, J.D. Vance, to keep the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon? The president laid out his effort. If you have a better idea, what is it?

The M O U. Please, I mean, the M O U. looked like it looked like it was drafted by Neville Chamberlain. You unfroze the funds. You release the blockade.

You allow. You reduce sanctions. You told everyone they can now buy. Buy everyone. You can now buy Iranian oil, in exchange for we get to use the Strait, which we were using before, with no guarantee of any nuclear weapons, with a guarantee of talking about getting rid of nuclear weapons.

That's what J.D. Vance walked in. That's what he did. Yes. Yes, and we're supposed to like give him the Nobel Prize for something for that.

And by the way, even that didn't last. The Iranians took, which was what was a very favorable MOU for them, and they still could not abide by it. How long was it before rockets were raining in from Lebanon into Israel after that MOU was signed? And by the way, they're scared to death, Israel, right now. They're just bombing everybody else through the Houthis.

Before I go, I got to ask you the hardest question yet: figure out Alaska's election process.

Now we have a situation where, by a handful of votes, the real Dan Sullivan is trailing Mary Peltola, who we all know, staffless, behind for the last year, recruiting Dan Sullivan's, and they finally got one. He's gotten at least three thousand six hundred plus votes. This thing is. Been decided by just a handful of votes. If that Dan Sullivan Jr.

was not in the race, if logic would tell you, Dan Sullivan would have won already.

So now, as they go to ranked choice voting, what does it mean for the outcome? As they only have seventy-five percent in Alaska ballots counted at this hour. It's complicated because use the word logic. If you and I were in court together, logic does not carry the day. We need evidence that people were duped into voting for Decoy Dan.

We need evidence of fraud in the procurement of Decoy Dan. All of which requires. Kind of piercing that veil of confidentiality that we have when it comes to voting, and it involves law enforcement actually interviewing people. I mean, we hold that sacred when we close the curtain, who we vote for and why. But you need people to come forward and say, "But for this, I would have, or I intended to vote for Senator Dan Sullivan, and I was duped." And that that's a steep hill.

To climb, I would have preferred that this be litigated on the front end, which the Trump administration tried to do. It was a criminal conspiracy, which we know that because Paltola's campaign manager is the one who spilled the beans.

So this thing is so hard to correct after the fact. Yeah, it would have been better to prevent it from happening in the first poll. It's not dirty poll; it's more than that. It's criminal.

So I am going to read you what it says now. Dan Sullivan trails by six hundred twenty-six, six hundred twenty-six votes. Both failed to get fifty.

So here, the official ranked choice voting tabulation is scheduled for November eighteenth, after eligible ballots are reviewed and counted. How it works: If nobody exceeds fifty, which is the truth, the lowest-ranked candidates are eliminated. Which means Daniel Sullivan will be gone. He got one point seven percent, and ballots transferred to voters' next remaining choices. The additional candidates may help Sullivan in later rounds, as the theory.

An Alaskan Beacon analysis of incomplete ballots found that Sullivan would gain two thousand seven hundred twenty-eight redistributed votes versus eighteen hundred sixty-eight for Peltola, and it matters. I mean that seat matters, not for the majority, but it matters in the Senate for the next six years. It matters. Period. It matters that we don't reward really bad behavior that is borderline, if not over the line, criminal.

I mean, look, politics is a dirty line of work, which is why so few people go into it. This is more than dirty. I agree. This is a conspiracy to like, like. I mean, people talk about fake electors.

People talk about you know Jack Smith been how long looking into fake electors. This is a fake candidate. This guy had no interest in being the senator. I mean, he had he ever participated in politics before? The problem is, how do you get people to talk, Brian?

I mean, you can make them show up, but how do you get them to talk?

So you got to get emails and texts. Yeah, you have to have cooperators, and that takes time, and it takes. That veil of confidentiality, as to did you vote? Who did you vote for, and why? Right.

So we understand too. There's a forget this guy Gerald Hikas, a fake Republican. That's two point three percent. He was also recruited to to muddy up the the ballots. And last thing, Trey, if they said to you, "Hey, Trey, I want you to run for Congress, but I don't think you can win unless we come up with a bunch of scams to to find your opponents with the same name, people with The same name as your opponent.

Wouldn't you say? Hey, thanks, but no thanks. If you have that little faith in me, I don't think I'm going to run. And plus, you have too much integrity. But that's what they reportedly, by the New York Times, twelve separate sources.

That's what they said about her. That should tell you all you need to know, and it should make us wonder. The people that did vote for her—did you know any of this before you? Are you okay with that? I mean, are you okay with an end justifies the means mentality and whatever it takes to defeat somebody?

Dan Sullivan, the real Dan Sullivan, Senator Dan Sullivan, is a good man who wore the uniform for this country, and for him to be treated like this and some.

Some half-baked idea to steal a seat in Alaska. The challenge is we're fixing it after the fact. That's the challenge. How we could have this campaign manager that came forward to the New York Times a couple weeks ago? Why didn't you go to the FBI when it happened?

And then she wanted to retract it. Trey, who's going to be on your show Sunday? Do you know yet? Yeah, we're working on. I'm trying to get a guy named Brian Kilme to come on and give me his expert analysis of the election.

We're going to try to figure. You know what? I'll end with this because I've gone too long. Losing is the toughest teacher in the world, Brian. But we should only take the class one time.

Just take it one time. We got to figure out why we lost. And the forensic pathologist that whose reports I've read since. Tuesday night, they're not looking in the right spots. I hear you, and I agree.

Trey, thanks so much. We'll watch you Sunday at ten, and then of course everyone hopefully stays tuned for One Nation right after. Of course they do. At nine, and they stay at ten. I'm the warm up pitcher for Brian.

Kill me. Trey's got the highest ratings on the channel on the weekends. Trey, thanks so much. Appreciate it. All right, brother.

Take care. Back in a moment. From breaking news to big name guests, Brian brings you insight you won't hear anywhere else. You're listening to the Brian Kilmeade Show, a talk show that's real. This is the Brian Kilmeade Show.

When the incoming House Oversight Committee Chairman to be sends out two words, "lawyer up," is that the message that you think some of these candidates are looking for? No, let me say, and you heard Leader Jeffrey say this today. You heard Senator Schumer, and I've been saying it all day as well. We ran on and we won on affordability. That is going to be our focus.

So that is Dan Martin. That too, Ken Martin. He is saying that he's not going to talk about lawyering up and all those aggressive things. He says we're going to look to get into his credit. He sounded very reasonable last night.

He sounded very reasonable last night as he went over different things that Democrats want to do, and they said they they want to get stuff done. And I watched Charlemagne. I watched Stephen A. Smith say the same thing. In fact, here is Stephen A.

Smith giving a warning to Democrats. I know we we had that cut before. Yeah. So he basically said, "You guys, if you go back." Here it is.

Well, we don't have any time. He says, "If you go back to your cancel culture and your cultural wars and your DEI, your woke ideology, this will be a disaster, and you're going to get your comeuppance in 28. This will be deciding to be successful enough in 28.

Meanwhile, I hope to see everybody on Friday, on Saturday night over in Clearwater, Sunday night over in Jacksonville. BrianKilmeade.com to tickets. It's the Uniting the States tour. It's named after my book, which is now five in the country. Can't wait to see in person.

It's Will Cain Country. Watch it live at noon Eastern Monday through Thursday at FoxNews.com or on the Fox News YouTube channel. And don't miss the show. Listen and follow the podcast five days a week at FoxNewsPodcasts.com or wherever you download your favorite podcasts.