Trump bypasses Europe, begins Ukraine/Russia peace negotiations

This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. During tax season, your personal info travels to a lot of places, between payroll, your tax consultant, and the IRS. If your W-2 gets exposed, that's just the ticket for identity thieves. That's why LifeLock monitors millions of data points every second. If your identity is stolen, they'll fix it guaranteed or your money back.

Don't let identity thieves take you for a ride. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com slash podcast. Terms apply. From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest growing radio talk show.

Brian. In Kill Mead. Thanks so much for being here, everybody. It's the Brian Killmeat Show. We're going to hit the ground running today.

Jonathan Turley standing by. Jason Chaffetz at the bottom of the hour looking at oversight. Right now, there's a hearing going on, flat out scintillating, which is a hearing on to look at USAID. And it's chaired by Brian Mast. And he's trying to find out what's going on with this organization.

Congressman Meeks of New York feels they're doing a great thing. And the bottom line is, I'm just listening to witnesses and I'm looking at these programs. It looks like pure ideological, not all of it, but so much ideological things for gay, gender rights, all these studies, DEI, pro-choice, all this stuff, and climate change. And we have had enough of that as a country. Big three.

Number three. People didn't really I don't know what President Putin's thoughts were, but I think I can say with great confidence he wants to see it ended, also. That's good. End it. And that's what Donald Trump has promised to do with the Ukraine-Russia war for a long time.

But how it ends will be the key because a perceived Russian win could mean this is just a pause on fighting instead of an end. We will discuss how this deal is taking shape as 47 announced that 90-minute call with Vladimir Putin. Number two. Throughout her service, Tulsi has always distinguished herself as a leader of the highest caliber. She's earned the respect and admiration and love of Americans on both sides of the aisle.

And he went on to say she's got a lot of friends. Tulsi is in. RFK is on deck in cash this week or next. Trump's team is coming together now at a rapid pace as the 47th president signs some true believers on his roster who now know exactly what his vision is. Looks better than advertised, by the way, and the best is yet to come.

They are now being confirmed at an Obama-like pace. Number one. Donald Trump and Elon Musk are recklessly and illegally dismantling the federal government. It's about helping Elon Musk and Donald Trump be as efficient as possible in robbing our government. They're trying to rob you.

Yes, can you see Elon Musk is really making inroads with the Democrats? A must and must win. The Does team back to cutting and exposing waste and fraud. The anger boiling over on the left. And it's really not at Trump, it's more at Elon.

Jonathan Turley joins us now. Jonathan, first off, we know Kathy Hochul has canceled her meeting with President Trump. By the way, you should have two meetings and not zero, because she doesn't like the fact that Pam Bonn, the Attorney General, is suing New York for their Sanctuary City policies. Yes, I'm not too surprised about that decision, but it certainly is not going to do anything to help New York. The interesting thing about this effort is it's part of an overall effort to get these issues into court, get judicial review, establish what the navigational beacons are and going forward.

I like that because this is administration on a mission. They want to not waste all the time that they saw just burn away in the first term and instead to hit the ground running.

So they've gone on this sort of full assault across the board. They're virtually inviting people to take them to court. And they also have strong arguments. You know, I said earlier that I was completely baffled by what the federal court was thinking in enjoining the buyout plan for federal employees. I still have no idea what the court thought was unconstitutional there, but fortunately the court changed its position, and that is now going forward.

On this issue, they've got some really interesting arguments. Arguments. It's going to be a little tougher because there are some countervailing constitutional cases. But there's an interesting aspect about the New York law, which is going to be a headache for that state. Under their law, they not only prevent state information and data being made available to federal agencies, which itself raises serious questions.

But it also has a TIP provision that if the Federal Government inquires about an allegedly unlawful migrant, that person is then informed about the inquiry. And the Feds are saying, wait, l w what are you doing? We're trying to apprehend this person and you're giving them a heads up. That is more than just saying we're not going to enforce federal policy. That's taking an active role to frustrate federal enforcement.

Here's Pam Bondi yesterday, cut nineteen. We're here today because we have filed charges against the state of New York. We have filed charges against Kathy Hochl. We have filed charges against Letitia James and Mark Schroeder, who is with DMV. New York has chosen to prioritize illegal aliens over American citizens.

It stops. It stops today. As you know, we sued Illinois. And New York didn't listen.

So now, you're next.

So there you go. They also so that was Pamboni yesterday.

So that's what she did. She's going on the offensive. What do you mean by Illinois? She wasn't in place yet. Are you saying the administration sued Illinois over this anchor city status first?

Yes, they previously went after Illinois, then they went after New York. The laws are different, but the underlying premise is the same. They are basically telling state officials You cannot assist or share information with Federal officials.

Now, in New York, particularly, that involves driver's licenses that they are giving to these individuals. And they have stripped out of those licenses the Status of the person so that law enforcement officers do not know that status when they're encountering someone. And a lot of law enforcement groups have said, look, this puts us in real danger here. You know, it's really important for us to know who it is we're dealing with and whether they might have an interest in fleeing or even assaulting an officer.

So, I want you to hear with another attorney on another channel, which I'm sure you don't get on your cable system, CNN, Eli Honing. This is what he said about Bondi, Cut 21. What a bizarre way to open this press conference, and you just played the clip. In the first 10 seconds of this press conference, the Attorney General of the United States said three times she had, quote, filed charges against New York, against Kathy Hochul, against Letitia James.

Now, 99 out of 100 civilians understands that to mean criminal charges. 100 out of 100 prosecutors understands that to mean criminal charges. When she said that, my phone went crazy. Crazy. People saying, wait, has Pam Bonnie indicted Letitia James?

Now, it turns out the answer is no. This is a civil lawsuit. But to use that terminology is either an inexplicable screw-up by the new Attorney General, although she's been a prosecutor 20 years, or was an intentional choice of overheated, misleading rhetoric. Do you think that was a point worth pointing out? Yeah, yeah.

Yeah. I know. I think that somehow he found the the smallest hill to climb. But later he did admit that he thought that the Trump administration actually may have a winning argument here.

So it was very important, I think, given the audience, to start out by saying that there was a real nomenclature or verbiage problem and then to just sort of bury the fact that there actually may be merit to what the Trump administration is saying. This is actually a very difficult field. And it's a field in flux because it deals with something called anti-commandeering. And it's a doctrine that says that in our system, based on states' rights, The federal government cannot commandeer the states. It can't tell the states, in one case, you have to do background checks as part of a federal law.

And the states objected and said, that's your law, okay? No, we're not your agents. And the Supreme Court agreed.

So, you have to watch the commandeering line about forcing state officials to do things. What's different about these states is that they're actively trying to frustrate federal enforcement. They're not being called to do background checks, they're withholding data. And sometimes it goes even further than that. We had a state judge years ago who actually physically had a person who was being pursued by ICE.

secreted through the court offices and taken out a back door to avoid federal officials. That's how extraordinary this can become. Unbelievable.

So, the other thing that happened yesterday is, as you know, was it a week ago, where Doge recommended giving six-month severance pay or seven-month severance pay for any federal worker that wants to quit. Just email us back, put resign in the subject title, and let us know. The number is up to $75,000.

Well, if I got this right, the union went and sued, and they paused it. They unpaused it yesterday. And Judge O'Toole writes this: The plaintiffs here are not directly impacted by the directive. The unions do not have the required direct stake in the fork directive, which means fork in the road, but are challenging a policy that affects others, specifically executive branch employees. This is not sufficient.

Second, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs' pleaded claims for the foregoing reasons. Essentially, this is how I see it, civilian. You're my union, but I can make my own decisions and I quit. And you can't stop me, right? Right.

In other words, the opinion said you could put a fork in it because you're done. And the weird thing about this, I don't know what the judge was thinking originally, because this is a very when this policy first came out, I did an interview and said this is remarkably creative. I was very impressed. because the President is allowed to determine the conditions under which people work. He can tell people you can all stay at home like Biden did.

He can give them long periods of vacation. And in this case, he said, look, I'll let you stay home and look for a job if you promise to leave.

Now what's fascinating, as you pointed out, Brian, is that you've got 35,000 employees saying, look, I think this is a good deal for me and my family. And the unions and the Democratic members were absolutely beside themselves. And said, we don't want to allow these employees to do something that they feel is good for them. It's a real conflict of interest for these unions. because these are due paying members that will be leaving the union.

But what is also remarkable is you have these senators like Senator Warren and Senator Kane, who went on the air and warned employees that this was basically a scam. and that this was not a real thing. And I was writing at the time, I said, this is truly bizarre. You're spreading disinformation. This is a real thing.

This is binding on the federal government.

So you had these senators telling people something that wasn't true to try to get them not to leave the government.

So the other things that they have blocked right now, maybe you could tell me the buyout offer, okay, we address that. Doge access to U. S. Treasury data, they are now allowed to look, or is that still on hold, but Treasury can look at all this data in order to decide what's coming in, what's coming out. Yes, this is another one where I thought the court just totally went beyond the pale, because the court originally said no Treasury officials can look at this data.

And some of us said Well, what are you doing? I mean, the President of the United States has Article II authority to run the executive branch. How could you possibly say that? That Treasury officials can look at this. And by the way, Doge has Treasury officials.

Musk wasn't looking at this material. It was read-only for a couple of people, including a Treasury official. And if you're going to find waste, you actually have to sort of look at the receipts.

So now the court has come back and said, well, you can do it if it's in compliance with federal law, which leaves us all sort of mushy because the Trump administration is saying that's what we're doing, okay? This budget comes to us to manage, to make priority decisions, and we're trying to figure it out.

Now we just heard today from the EPA that twenty billion dollars at the last minute was moved to a separate account. By the Biden administration for use in what is still unclear purposes. The point is that all administrations at the end of their time try to move a ton of money out and to sort of cement programs. What the Trump administration did is we want to put a freeze on this. We want to look at all where this money is going.

We want to recapture some of that money. And I think they're going to win. They're going to be allowed to do that. I mean, we don't know who did that. I don't think Biden's signing off on this.

Why would they do it? Like, what would be the approach their approach to doing this? They want to make sure the EPA gets the green the money to push forward on climate change?

Well, this just broke, you know, and so we don't know all of the details, but what's important about it is the timing, that this is precisely why the Trump people wanted a freeze. They wanted before money to go out, they wanted to take a look at where the money was going. And it's stuff like that that gives you the red light, that you really need to look at it carefully. And also, there's a lot of misreporting there, and there were also some missteps. I criticized the Trump administration.

that it moved a little too fast. it should have taken more care in terms of some USAID programs to make sure that there were people there that could put to could continue the money to the programs the Trump administration greenlighted. Because what was lost in all of this was that the Trump administration said, no, we're waiving the freeze. For programs that really are health-based, like HIV programs and programs needed to help children. There was a glitch there because that then, with all the massive change in personnel, there was.

a problem getting that money through. My understanding is that's now being resolved. And what was really fascinating that hearing today you mentioned, Brian, is those protesters were objecting to the loss of money in a program Which is being fully funded, that the Trump administration did fund that program. And that's an example of this sort of misinformation. No, I I hear you.

So, I mean, these are some of the pro uh projects and some of the challenges. And lastly, I just have to s uh with thirty seconds. They keep saying that Trump is ignoring the law and it's going to be a constitutional crisis. The first time we had somebody ignore the law in a long time was President Biden, ignored the Supreme Court when it came to giving out forgiving student loans. Yes.

And I just wrote a column in the New York Post on this constitutional crisis and said that this is basically an example of the Democratic Party jumping the shark, you know, that old expression from happy days when uh the the ratings were going south on them, so they decided to have the Fawns jump over a live shark on water skis. And it's a term that's used for saying some dying franchises can't resist trying to do something sensational. That's what the Democratic Party has become. It first said that democracy would die unless Harris was elected.

Now it's saying that there is a constitutional crisis because of Musk. And the people are yawning. I mean, the risings aren't there. And the point is that every indication is that the American people no longer believe this, which is a good thing because it's not true. We are not in a constitutional crisis.

And if the Democratic Party wants happier days, they're going to have to learn that lesson. I hope so. But it's good for your business, Jonathan. You get a lot of airtime. Jonathan Turley, thanks so much.

Thanks, Brian. Back in a moment. It's Brian Killmead. Hey, I'm Trey Gaddy, host of the Trey Gaddy Podcast. I hope you will join me every Tuesday and Thursday as we navigate life together and hopefully find ourselves a little bit better on the other side.

Listen and follow now at FoxNewsPodcast.com. A radio show like no other. It's Brian Killmead. I'd like it to be closed immediately. Look, the Department of Education is a big conjob.

We're ranked, so they rank the top 40 countries in the world. We're ranked number 40th. But we're ranked number one in one department, costs per pupil.

So we spend more per pupil than any other country in the world. Norway, Um Denmark, Sweden, I hate to say it, China, as big as it is, it's ranked in the top five. And uh that's our that's our primary competitor. We're ranked number forty.

So if we're ranked number forty, that means something's really wrong, right? And that's what he's saying. Collapse the Department of Education. And it's going to be tough for Lynn McMahon, as she tries to become Secretary of Education, to say, yeah, I want to do this job. Ask me any question I want, but I would like to destroy the agency.

Now, the money wouldn't disappear. Any money that they had would go right to the states to make their own decisions because they're best have to do it. My argument's been: you might be happy what Texas is going to do with it, but are you going to be happy with what? I guess you could say Illinois is going to do with it. Are you going to be happy with what California is going to be doing with it?

So that's the issue. And then what happens is, the theory is the Red States will do better than the Blue States, and they'll be forced to change because most parents don't care about politics when it comes to their kids and achievement.

So, but I was also cautioned by one of the former secretaries of education, Bill Bennett. That it's a lot. I was told to collapse my secretary of my education department too by Ronald Reagan. It is a lot harder than it sounds.

So, you're better off taming it than destroying it. That's what I think. Jason Chabit's next. The more you listen, the more you'll know. It's Brian Killmead.

People didn't really. I don't know what President Putin's thoughts were, but I think I can say with great confidence he wants to see it ended, also. That's good. And we're going to work toward getting it ended. and as fast as possible.

So that was President Trump saying he spoke 90 minutes. I guess with translator, it's probably a little bit less in terms of substance. I think, I'm not sure he does. I know he doesn't speak, I don't think he does speak English. But Donald Trump talking about a 90-minute conversation with Vladimir Putin about bringing the war to an end.

Now, we know that Zelensky is talking to President Trump nonstop. In fact, right away, when President Trump came out and said, We probably need a $500 billion deal in rare earth to pay for the equipment we're giving you. Also, I need it. You know, we're not dealing with China anymore on this. Congressman Jason Chaffetz, former Fox News contributor, former House Oversight Committee chairperson, your thoughts about that conversation yesterday.

Keep in mind, he's the prior of the world, Vladimir Putin. A lot of people say, I don't really think it's good policy to talk to him. How do you feel? You have to. Look, he is a superpower.

There is a war. There is a conflict. And I think President Trump and Vladimir Putin have a good working relationship. That's healthy for the United States of America. I have no problem with it.

I have no doubt that the President. And it will put the best-forward deal for the United States of America. I have no doubt that he wants to bring peace to the region. And Donald Trump's about the only one that I think can negotiate and bring that to a deal. And I wholeheartedly, 110%, agree this would have never happened if Donald Trump was the president.

He went in on Biden's term because Biden was so weak.

So interesting. Ned Ryan said today, I looked at his point of view before I interviewed him, conservative mind. He said. I think the biggest regret Democrats have is that Donald Trump didn't win in 2020. Because he came back reloaded, and Joe Biden's was such an inverse from Trump.

Trump not only comes back better. Four years to get going on stuff that he would have done differently, and now he's ready to go. I think there's a lot of truth to that because Donald Trump is. They could have been done with him. Yeah, they would have been done with him, moved on.

But Donald Trump was better prepared. He had a better staff, a better cabinet. Everything was, I think, better in so many regards because the president had four years to stew on it and campaign on it and plan on it and prepare for it. And I hate to say this, but I think his getting shot actually changed the president. And he's a little bit different.

I wish it had never happened. I don't want to wish any ill will on anybody, but I'm just telling you, I think he's even a better, more compassionate person. Right. Also, I think it showed everybody that he's legitimately tough. Yeah.

And I think when you go, well, he's a tough guy. He just talks. No, you saw that. I mean, Mark Zuckerberg, yeah, that's about as badass as it gets. Yeah, and Google, I mean, I'm just looking at certain things.

Like, Google is now working with the Defense Department. Google came out and got rid of their DEI. We know what Meta is doing now. He's been to not only Mar-a-Lago, he's been back to the White House. And you have a guy as a vice president who's very AI savvy, basically lecturing the world.

Stop with your parameters that you put in our social media companies and stop with the fines because you can't control your people. Don't just ban people because their speech is different from what you want them to say. And I was fascinated by some of these sound bites that came out because you can't talk over his head because some of his mentors, Peter Thiel, they are his mentors. They want to push him forward. A guy that is firmly in his camp is David Sachs.

So these guys are now a part of it because he got familiar with that for two years. He worked out there. They weren't anti-Republican with him. No, and you know what? J.D.

Vance had also worked at for years. J.D. Vance, I think, is known as an entrepreneur, had played in those circles and could speak that language as well. That added to the oomph. And it also helps when the President Trump goes out and dominates electorally.

You win the popular vote. I mean, he just has such a mandate and command of where we're going. And to the point earlier, It was in such contrast with a sleepy Joe Biden who had no clue. Kamala Harris in charge of AI for two years. Come on, give me a break.

Did anybody respect that? They never did. All right, so let's talk about what it's going to look like as these two sit down. We know the corner has been terrible. In fact, the president texted me this.

He says the casualty rate, because he thinks I got it wrong, is combined 1.5 million. He says, you're not being told the right truth. He wrote me back. He's like, it's higher than you just said.

So, okay, 1.5 million. And that's what he sees.

So Pete Hagseth essentially says this. Cut thirty. But we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders. is an unrealistic objective. Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering.

A durable peace for Ukraine must include robust security guarantees to ensure that the war will not begin again. This must not be Minsk 3.0.

So The borders stay, and what you could do, they say, is in South Korea, they never admitted that North Korea existed. They never gave up their rights to it, but they know that the 38th parallel is where North and South Korea separate. They'll never give it up technically. Maybe they'll get a reasonable leader after Vladimir Putin hopefully takes his own life soon. Maybe they'll get a reasonable leader and say, sorry about that.

But if not, you could then establish yourself, establish those lines, get the security guarantees, maybe get some missile defense, permanent missile defense there. The world will jump in, but in turn, no NATO membership. Are you concerned about going into a deal, giving up so much, going in? Because where do you have to move once Vladimir Putin says still not enough? I don't believe it's giving it up.

I think we're giving up the idea of war. Look, I look at what happened when Russia moved into Georgia under Bush. They took essentially 20% of that. I've been out there. I've seen it on the border.

That thing isn't moving. They signed a document saying, oh, this is temporary. Breakaway province. Yeah, this is just temporary. But you go and you get, they give you the big binoculars and you look at it and they're securing, they're fortifying those things with bricks and everything else.

Very similar. I think Pete Hegseth is reflecting reality and the idea that we can stop the killing and get on with it. I think it was a fundamental mistake to taunt Russia with the idea that one of the most corrupt nations out there, Ukraine, was going to be given NATO membership. And I think that scared him to the point that, hey, let's go on the offensive. And when they moved in Crimea and nothing really happened under Obama.

Yeah, it kept going. Yeah, no, they got they got blankets and they got MREs. That was what they got. And it was Trump that gave them javelins, or else those tanks would have rolled right through Kyiv.

So we'll we'll see what happens. We know this. Russia's paid a steep price. And they've totally moved their economy to a war economy. I was stunned by this.

Even if you do the currency convergence. 42% of Russia's GDP is military. That's defense. Think about that.

So you have most of Europe who's paying, it was like one point on average, 1.7% of their GDP. You put them all together, it doesn't equal Russia. And Pete's message, Secretary of Defense's message, was so, I thought, well thought out. Guys, you got to start defending yourself. I've got China.

I got to deal with China over there. At least. Buy your stuff and And be ready for a fight. That's how you prevent one from happening. Yeah, a hundred percent.

I think it is well thought out. I think this is a reflection of reality and where and the hand that was dealt President Trump. And I do think they'll come to a deal. And Donald Trump holds the cards here because he'll actually do what he says he's going to do. He's feared by our enemies and respected by our allies.

And I think Europe is going to have to get in and they're going to have to step up financially and do their part in a big, big way. And look, if they did, if I'm leader of France, if I'm leader of England, if I I try to balance my budget and they go, you know, just like us in the space program. The first thing you guys cut is the space program, right? Because there's no need to go to space. We benefit from it.

With them, it seems like defense is the first thing they cut and they put it to their social programs.

Now, if I'm a leader, I go, guys. I'm treaty obligated to pay 5% for my military. And they want. I think all these leaders want that strong defense, right? It gives them more clout on the world stage.

It gives them a sense of security, a toughness.

So now, if they turn around and get put 5%, let's say even if it's 3.5% is compromise. They're going to be buying our stuff. They're going to need it maintenance. There's going to be instructions. We'll be able to give them the best military equipment.

Our allies know how to work it. We'll be able to interlock with them should there be a conflict. I think everyone wins on that. I think everybody does win. I don't know that psychologically they're all there.

I think the peace through strength, I think a world has lived on the idea that the United States will come in and protect us, that they rule NATO. Remember, Matt Whitaker is the NATO ambassador to NATO and will be our representative there. That's a good point. I forgot about that. Yeah, we need to get him confirmed and get into place to make those deals and push those people.

Yeah, I mean, we don't have any of the ambassadors yet. We just got the main guys.

So here's the detractor before we go to break. Congressman Seth Moulton, military veteran, armed service committee member. He sees this shit. He sees this deal coming out all wrong. Cut 33.

Trump and Hegst literally appear to be negotiating. on behalf of Putin. They're trying to sell us on the things the Kremlin wants. And it is everything wrong with running a good negotiation. I mean, it violates every principle of negotiation you can imagine.

First of all, he's saying he's desperate for a deal. Putin knows that Trump is desperate for a deal. He promised the end of the war on day one, and he's already broken that promise.

So now he's scrambling to get a peace deal. Trump is literally trying to sell us on what Putin wants. I actually have a lot of respect for Seth Moulton, but I totally 110% disagree with that comment that he just made. Look, hey, Democrats, Joe Biden, you had, I don't know how many years to A, prevent it, B, solve it, and there was no daylight that it was coming to a conclusion.

So nice try. You can say he's trying to, no, he's trying to come up with a mediated solution, and it only works if both sides buy into it. I don't think Trunt's desperate for a deal. I mean, he got elected. But what happens is one of the first things he wants to do is get a deal.

But that's just like a priority. Like, for example, the other thing is now that plastics drawers are back and the penny is gone. You might as well bring peace between Russia and Ukraine.

So I don't think he's desperate for a deal. You might not like the deal points that are out, but maybe Trump's not going to budge from here.

Well, what else would he do to just laid it out? By the way, my negotiation is this is it. This is the fundamental problem with the Democrats. They keep. Arguing against all these different things, but they offer no solutions.

I know they don't counter with what you should be doing is this. I mean, they're arguing, let's hand out our foreign aid faster than we could possibly do it. But that's not a reasonable solution. And if you want, if you don't like the deal, that's we see the outlines of the deal, what would happen to get rid of the killing, the death, the destruction, the war, then offer a solution. But you didn't, and you don't have one.

Yeah, and I guess we're going to see what happens now because I imagine talks could happen real soon just to see Zelensky. I think the respect that he's got, the people that he's trained, I hope that he doesn't pay the price for his leadership that Winston Churchill did when FD even though he brought them through war, they wanted to turn the page and got rid of him. I think he's earned his leadership. I'd love to see the guy in peacetime because I think he's got I think he's been really impressive. A lot of people disagree with me.

I've been thought he's been great. Maybe we could buy him a suit. He's ready when he gets off the wars. Does that bother you? It doesn't bother me at all.

No, you're at war. He's in a bunker. He's at war, man. You show up at the White House in a sweatshirt. I don't know.

I have no problem with it. I know most people have a problem with it. They don't feel. They said he's playing. He's not really playing.

He actually lives in a bunker without his family for three years. Back in a moment. Both sides, all opinions. It's Brian Killmead. If you're interested in it, Brian's talking about it.

You're with Brian Kilmead. ICE agents will go to homes early in the morning to make arrests. They'll stop people on the street or in public places, which could include a public area of a workplace. They either want to deceive you into thinking that they're not ICE, or they lie.

So, that you come to believe that they do have a right to enter.

So, if you're stopped on the street by an officer, you don't know if it's ICE, you don't know if it's your local police, the first thing you have the right to do is to ask, am I free to go? Am I being detained? And if the answer is yes, then you can leave.

So, what are you listening to? You're listening to a webinar sponsored by, but she didn't show up, Congresswoman AOC, offering to intervene for those people in Queens, New York, the surrounding boroughs, or anybody that wanted to get her webinar password and find out what your rights are if you're an illegal alien at home.

So, you can circumvent law enforcement. How could that be something that you want to do as a lawmaker? Can you please tell me any subject that the Republicans would ask for a way to circumvent law enforcement? Congressman Jason Chavitz is here. Jason, this is outrageous.

It's totally outrageous. You're doing more to protect the illegal immigration population than you are the American citizens and the victims of some of the crimes. I'm not saying, look, if you're here illegally, you're here illegally. But remember, a good portion of those. Too many of them have actually committed crimes, and you're going to help them try to figure out how to avoid ICE.

I mean, where are your priorities? That is just so untenable. I can't believe it.

Well, it's crazy. The Sanctuary City, I know you're not a lawyer, but we went through this in 2017. President Trump came in and said, we're getting rid of the Sanctuary Cities. They went through the courts, and the courts went against them. What changed?

Look, this is one of the. You look at these big cities, these big states go from New York to Denver to Chicago to California. This is so fundamentally wrong at its core. And I think this country is going to have to come to grips with it. And I can't tell you legally why the impediment is there, but I can tell you that voters have to take this into their own hands.

If you're here, an American citizen, you have got to grab hold of this yourself because the elected leaders are putting these in place. They're giving them rewards, benefits, all these other things. But to give them actual sanctuary and not cooperate with law enforcement who's trying to root out the people that have committed these crimes, so fundamentally wrong. Here's what's happening. We know that Pam Bondi is suing Letitia James civilly, and the governor, Kathy Hochul, and her response because of the sanctuary city status.

And by the way, Governor Cuomo put that in.

So he wants to be the next mayor, and he's got maybe 30 percent of the vote already.

So he most likely will do it. He also stopped fracking in New York, which is basically criminal. You denied people of upstate New York. Think of rural America, very rural up there. They really could use a break.

They didn't get it. know it's in the ground, look at Pennsylvania, how they've benefited, have a different leadership.

So Kathy Hochl had a lunch today with President Trump. Do you know she canceled it? Because of the lawsuit? She should have just the opposite. This is her minute to her minute to go there in front of the President and talk and plead her case.

Well, she's never made a case that she's very bright or very articulate and can make a case. I think she is. Look, I saw Jonathan Turdley on Fox News, and he made a really good point. He said, Listen. Where the strongest case for the federal government is, is the tip off provision.

That is, you can't if ICE makes an inquiry into a particular person, the state can't then or the city can't then go tip that person off and said, Hey, feds are looking for you. Oh, by the way, they're going to come get you. Which is cue to, hey, go ahead and run. You can't harbor somebody, but you can't also tip them off. That has to come to an end.

And when you have somebody who is in a detention facility being arrested or going through the process, you have to be able to have the feds be able to come in and detain that person to administer the law. But they're suing Illinois and they're suing New York for the same exact reason.

Now, what Mayor Adams is going to do is going to be fascinating because he's got a reputation of not following through on anything.

So he said to Tom Holman, yeah, I'll be open to making changes here. Homan's meeting with him today at the ICE facilities, at which time he says, where's the cooperation you promised? He just got exoneration en route to be exonerated.

So it's time to pay up, buddy. Yeah, it has to happen in New York. And the other one that's fascinating to me is what's going to happen in California. Because if you think you're going to continue to get federal taxpayer dollars to support all your things, whether it be the fires or anything else, guess what? That means you have to live by the federal rules.

And I think that means you're going to have to cooperate with our federal law enforcement officer. Hey, you know, what's interesting in California as they try to rebuild? They got the Olympics in the World Cup. And Rick Caruso and other business people say, the way you're doing it now, you're never going to be ready. Let us take over.

And Karen Bass goes, No, I got this. You've never had this. You shouldn't have had it to begin with. Jason Chavis, thanks so much. Thank you.

Ryan Killmeecho. When we come back, I take your calls. Don't move. From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Kilmead.

Don't move, everybody. It's the Brian Kill Me Show coming to you from Midtown Manhattan, around the country, around the world. Where if you're an illegal alien, don't worry. If you want to be briefed on how to avoid ICE, AOC has got a webinar. And if you weren't there to listen to it live, she will post it, I imagine.

Oh, actually, she wasn't in it. Just one of her staffers gave it. It just shows you how twisted people are. It's okay to brief people, many of which are criminals and gangsters, about how to avoid being arrested because I don't know, you're a minority or don't belong here. You're a person in an afflicted class.

It is absolutely insane.

So, this hour, we're going to be joined by Mark Thiessen. I'll get a sense on what's happening. A lot of eyes on Europe these days about the defense conference over in Munich, about the NATO membership meeting that's happening right now, and we got to find out about this peace deal. Not only the peace deal, that the ceasefire deal over in the Middle East over in Gaza, but the one that could be brewing between Ukraine and Russia.

So, before we get to Mark Thiessen, who asked me to buy a little bit of time, he's not quite dressed yet. to the big three. Number three. People didn't really I don't know what President Putin's thoughts were, but I think I can say with great confidence he wants to see it ended, also. That's good.

That is ended. That's what Donald Trump has promised to do with Ukraine-Russia. You know that. But now he's talked to Vladimir Putin for 90 minutes and he wants to move forward rapidly, maybe even meet with Putin in Saudi Arabia in a couple of weeks. We'll talk about what this means for Ukraine.

Number two. Throughout her service, Tulsi has always distinguished herself as a leader of the highest caliber. She's earned uh the respect and admiration and love of Americans on both sides of the aisle. There you go. Tulsi is through.

RFK is on deck. Cash this week. Trump's team is coming together now at a rapid pace. The 47th president signs more true believers to work his roster. That's key.

Everyone was competent last time, but a lot of them didn't buy into the Trump plan.

Now they do. Number one. Donald Trump and Elon Musk are recklessly and illegally dismantling the federal government. It's about helping Elon Musk and Donald Trump be as efficient as possible in robbing our government. They're trying to rob you.

Unbelievable.

Elon's, that is, Elon, you are a must and must win. Yep. The Doge team has been cutting and exposing waste and fraud, and that drives Democrats crazy. The anger boiling over on the left. And it's really not at the president, it's really at Elon, which is so misplaced.

Mark, does it surprise you? All the anger that Trump received over the first four years and ever since. It's kind of subsided. It's all on Elon now. Yeah, well, it's also this is more like the normal, you know, they're not actually in the process of trying to destroy him or impeach him or, you know, throw him out.

They're actually just opposing him politically, which is a change, which is what happens to most Republican presidents when they're doing something that the left doesn't like.

So he's having actually a normal start to his second term, which is great, first of all. Second of all, All this outrage about Doge. Actually, the full name of Doge is the U.S. Doge Service, USDS. And you know who created that?

Barack Obama. When Barack Obama came in and created something called the U.S. Digital Service. And it was he partnered with instead of partnering with Elon Musk, he partnered with Eric Schmidt and Google to do it. And he brought in all these tech bros, these 20-something tech bros.

He called them presidential innovation fellows, and he deployed them as SWAT teams to government agencies to go into their systems and make them more efficient.

So literally what, you know, when Eric Schmidt and Google were doing it with Barack Obama, nobody had a problem. It's only what Elon Musk is doing it with Donald Trump. And instead of trying to make the government spend money more money more efficiently, they're trying to cut spending that they suddenly feel that tech people should not be working for the government. USAID, your thoughts about how much of it is good.

So first of all, USAID is became I was working in on Capitol Hill for Jesse Helms when he tried to shut down USAID, and the idea was actually Warren Christopher's idea. Because he thought, this is Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, that our aid should be in service of our foreign policy objectives. And so it should be run by the Secretary of State inside the State Department.

So that's what I believe. I believe that USAID, I don't believe in getting rid of all foreign aid, but what happened was they sort of decided that they were an independent charity, except they were using U.S. tax dollars and that they would spend it on their priorities and they should be insulated from the president and the secretary of state and their decision making. And that's not what the job of U.S. foreign aid is.

U.S. foreign aid's purpose is to exercise U.S.

soft power to help us help countries around the world where we have a national interest in helping them. And sometimes our interest is moral.

Sometimes we want to eradicate disease and we want to do this or that, and that's all good. But it should all be done through the prism of U.S. foreign policy. And so it needs to be put into the State Department and it needs to be run. Every project needs to be Scrutinize and run through the judgment of our elected leaders and their representatives to decide if this advances U.S.

foreign policy or not.

So the questionable U.S. aid expenditures, $1 million for gender diverse support, Bangladesh, $7.4 for Syrian democracy, $1.9, by the way, some of which got into terrorist hands, $1.9 million, Guatemalan transgender support, Honduran LGBT group rights for $1.9 million.

So what it is, what I'm describing, along with the DEI musical in Ireland, $70,000. Not much, but the message is we're giving them an agenda. Say, take some money, but do what we tell you. What kind of aid is that? You know, just so you know how deep this corruption is, Brian, when I was working for the Smith Center Foreign Relations Committee in the 1990s, trying to do this, we put out every day we put out what we called captured enemy documents, which were people inside AID who were leaking to us the craziest things that they were doing because they wanted it shut down and put in the State Department, even people within AID.

And one of the things they leaked to us, which we put out as a captured enemy document, was a program to create gender identification toolkits, which had 30 different genders. In it. And this is the 1990s, and we were thinking, this is insane. You know, who would ever do, you know, get it seemed so crazy.

Now it's become orthodoxy in the Democratic Party that they're 30 genders.

So, but this was literally 30 years ago. AID was on the cusp of the gender ideology revolution, pushing gender identification toolkits to foreign countries. And by the way, how crazy is this? This left-wing doctors group has sued the government out in California to make sure that they do not go to listing only two genders as president's executive order demanded. They said it would be to cause irreparable harm to people looking at their website.

And they won. They won at least a delay in this.

So now let's talk about what's happening in Ukraine. Pete Hagseth said this, among other things, yesterday as Secretary of Defense, CUT 31. The United States. Does not. believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement.

Instead, Any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-European troops. If these troops are deployed as peacekeepers to Ukraine at any point, they should be deployed as part of a non-NATO mission. And they should not be covered under Article 5. He went on to say this, cut 30. But we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective.

Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering. So there you go. Your thoughts.

So, first of all, everything that Pete said there is right. And I don't think the Ukrainians think that they were going to get back to the 2014 borders. And Zelensky has said that he's even willing to make some territorial concessions in order to get a peace deal, though, of course, I don't think he's going to ever acknowledge Russian sovereignty over any territory of Ukraine. But, you know, we didn't acknowledge Soviet sovereignty over the Baltic states, but we had practical alliance there.

So I think that's all of what he said is true. People are misreading what he said about NATO. He said that he doesn't think it's a realistic outcome of these negotiations. He didn't say that Ukraine can never be a part of NATO. It's just not going to be part of this deal.

I think that's realistic. What I'm not quite sure about is why we would sort of lay out all these concessions, you know, instead of getting something for them at the negotiating table in a speech going into the discussion. I don't see, understand the wisdom of that. Another thing that's being overlooked is that Secretary Beset, the Treasury Secretary, was in Kyiv the other day and presenting Zelensky with what Trump said was a $500 billion minerals deal in which we would get paid back for the aid we've given and continue to provide aid going forward in exchange for $500 billion stake in Ukrainian minerals and rare earths. I mean, that is a huge, huge development if that happens.

Because what it means is, one, Ukraine is going to continue to get weapons. Two, the American taxpayers are going to get repaid for saving Ukraine. And three, both Ukraine and the United States now have a permanent stake in maintaining a sovereign, free and independent Ukraine, because if Putin takes over Ukraine, he's not going to give us the minerals. He's not going to pay he's not going to pay us for arming Ukraine to fight his troops. The only way we get the value out of it is if we if we if Ukraine survives as a free and independent state.

Saturday is the 12 o'clock deadline for all hostages to be released according to the President. He said, Look, Prime Minister Netanyahu can make his own decisions. His war. He could go and have his own deadline. But Hamas says now they're going to adhere to the original plan.

They were getting off it. They didn't think aid was getting there quick enough.

Now they said they worked it out. They're going to continue the current pace. How does this get resolved on Saturday?

Well, the hostages get released or all hell breaks loose. I think that's what I think that's what uh what Trump is saying. And look. One of the things that Trump did in his first term, which I think is overlooked, is he sent a message to Iran, which was. we are not going to let you hide behind your proxies.

We're not going to hold your proxies responsible for what they're doing. We're going to hold you responsible in Tehran for what they're doing.

So if Hamas doesn't release the hostages, He all hellbreak is not going to necessarily break loose against Hamas, though it might. All hell is going to break loose for Iran. He's going to hold Iran responsible for the hostages because ultimately it's Iran's decision whether the hostages get released. Hamas are just a proxy, it's a cutout.

So if I was in Tehran, I'd be very worried about what's going to happen to me at noon on Saturday or soon thereafter. Right. And Hamas is isolated. I mean, was it that way when they started? They said Hezbollah is going to join in.

They did. Iran is going to support. They bombed. And guess what? They all lost.

Hezbollah has never been so down since they were created. I hope they finish them off, even though they're in a ceasefire situation now. And Hamaska, seventeen thousand by conservative estimates, of their people. And Iran has never been as vulnerable as they are right now. They've lost all their air defenses.

They've lost their ballistic missile program. It's all been taken out. The nuclear sites are completely vulnerable right now. And guess what? I don't know if anyone noticed this, but Donald Trump just gave Israel the Moab.

The mother of all Bavs. It is the deepest penetrating weapon other than a nuclear weapon.

So literally, Israel could drop a Moab on the nuclear Russia the Iranian nuclear program and destroy it.

So I would you know, I'd I'd be very cautious if I was the Iranians. I would think very, very hard about w the the cost benefit of holding on to those hostages. And you know you might be very unhappy with the results. Do you think that on some level the Democrats are looking at each other and said, I wish we let him win last time? Because this is a much more formidable foe.

I think the American people are thinking that, that's for sure. But you know what? I think this has all worked out beautifully because I think Trump the having that interregnum has given Trump a lot of freedom of action because the Democrats came in and they were so bad And they were such a disaster that people, even people who didn't like Donald Trump, don't like the way he talks, not sure about him like that. They're like, you know what? This guy was much better than these people, and let's give him a chance.

And that's why he's got 53% approval right now, which is the highest he's ever had as president. And 55 with people under 30, which is nuts for a Republican. Lastly, Gen X was going to be, Gen Z was going to be the next conservative generation. I'm watching his enemies, which are on MSNBC and CNN. They say that Donald Trump is just giving the presidency to Elon Musk.

And look at how the Time magazine covers eating at him. And I know for a fact that's not true. And look at the body language when Elon Musk was talking. I'm not going to lead the witness. Mark, what's your take on their relationship?

So here's the thing. This is a weird thing to say about the richest man in the world, but he's a staffer. He has no authority on his own. He has the delegated authority of the President of the United States. Just by the way, the Treasury Secretary has the delegated authority of the President.

These are they're all exercised. They say who elected Elon Musk? Nobody. They elected Donald Trump. You know, did they complain about, you know, about Biden's cabinet secretary?

In fact, in the case of Biden, they were actually being the president because Biden was so mentally incapacitated that they were actually running the country and nobody elected them.

So Donald Trump is running the country. Elon is doing his bidding. He's reporting back to the president. He's exercising presidential authority. I don't, the who elected Elon thing is the dumbest argument I've ever heard because no one elected Elon or no one elected Biden's cabinet.

No one elected Obama's cabinet. You know, they're presidential staffers. And so Elon had been delegated authority by the President, and he's carrying it out. No question. Mark, I can't wait to see what you're writing about next.

Always love talking to you. Thanks so much. Take care. All right, 1-866-408-7669. For the first time, I can open up the phones.

Brian, kill me, y'all. Taking America back. Our long national nightmare is over. One executive order at a time. I ended the paper straw.

You okay, he's right on this one. It's Brian Kilmead. Radio that makes you think. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. All right, 1-866-408-7669.

Quick announcements coming up in 48 hours. I'm going to be at History Liberty Laps on stage talking about the things that made our country great. My five history books, two sports books I put out, talking about what's happening in the news and putting together a show that's been honed over three years. But we have an overcapacity crowd now. They've unmasked the upper balcony at the Florida Theater in Jacksonville.

So that's coming up Saturday night, 8 o'clock.

So hope to see you there. Over 100 VIPs, so that's exceeding the number. But click on it and see if they'll let you in. And then on the 22nd in March, we've actually sold more tickets there, but it's a bigger theater.

So I hope to see everyone, KTFK listeners, especially over in St. Louis. That's March 22nd, BrianKilme.com. Lyman, listening in North Carolina. Hey, Lyman.

Hey brother, how are you? doing today? Good. How ridiculous is that AOC stuff that you just heard?

Well, man, this is This is my thing. They're not we all know at the intelligence level they're at her office. And so, my thing is, if they're trying to reach illegals, why are they speaking English? How many of the people that could come in here illegally Speak English. Great point.

The other thing would be those people that are here for 20 years, they're not being targeted. They wouldn't even be targeted for years. I don't even care about them. And I and and and because they've been here that long, my thing is. Come here legally, I got no problem with you.

I want you to come to our country. I want you to be an asset to the United States of America. But if you do it illegally, how are you helping me and our country? Good point. Thanks so much, Lyman.

I appreciate it. What, of course, is referring to, if you're just tuning in, AOC had a webinar last night where she's talking about Tom Holman's in New York City right now, too, the Borders Are, meeting with Mayor Adams, and he's giving him an earful for not doing what he said he was going to do. In a sanctuary city, yes, but there's more you could be doing. But AOC, a Queens Congresswoman, you know her. Had a webinar.

She didn't show up for it, but her staff ran it and told everyone essentially how to break the law. If you are illegal, don't worry about it. Here are your rights. If ICE comes up to you, you don't have to say hello to them. Whatever it is.

I mean, whoever heard of that?

So, if you look at a robber bank, here's how to pull it off. Here's where you get the money, and here's how not to get caught. I mean, for that to be something you think is in the best interest of your constituents in our country, it just shows how twisted Democrats are. I'm not kidding. If a Republican hopped on and said, this is how you beat a legitimate law, I'd be just as upset.

Breaking news, unique opinions. Hear it all on the Brian Kill Me Show. You look at the kind of waste, fraud, and abuse that this country is going through, and we have to straighten it out. We have great people going into the military in terms of. We need ships, we need a lot of things.

We have great people going, we have business people going in. But when you look at what's happened to Are purchasing the purchasing. And when you look at the USAID, when you look at The things that they're giving to, the billions, the billions of dollars that they're giving to. And it doesn't make sense. And that is spread to the United States talking about the cost cutting that Doge is doing and the exposure of the fraud and abuse that's taking place and the programs that seem to be for the most part politically driven.

And when there is a program that's good, that was more effective, originally cut, was put back in place. And it was Pet For. And that was put originally by AIDS and HIV medicines to underserved struggling countries. It was put forward by George W. Bush.

It saved millions of lives. And that was cut and was put right back into play. But for the most part, you're looking at some things that are just pure ideological. You're going to tell me that we need $1 million for gender diverse support in Bangladesh? You're going to tell me we need one point nine million for Guatemalan transgender support?

You're going to tell me we need seventy thousand dollars for a DEI musical in Ireland? Or two point five million to make sure that Vietnam is using electric vehicles? Assisting migrants in Colombia, $19 million assisting migrants in Colombia. Are you kidding?

So these are some of the things that USAID cannot explain, and Elon Musk says we should cut. Katherine Boyle is a former Washington Post reporter at turned venture capitalist. She is a general partner in Dreessen Horowitz and the co founder of the firm's American Dynamism Arm. Which invests in companies that build to support national interests. Catherine, welcome back.

Thanks so much. For having me. Great to be here.

Well, first off, just on some of the cuts and some of the blowback that Elon Musk has felt and took two days ago. Your thoughts about some of these programs and what his approach has been. Yeah, well, I mean, the thing that I think people are stunned by is the approach. And my answer to them is: welcome to Silicon Valley. This is how things get done.

This is how our great businesses in America are built. They are built fast. They are built with extraordinary engineering talent, and people make decisions quickly because the timelines for a venture-backed company or for one of something like SpaceX. You have to move so much faster. When Elon says that I sleep on the factory floor, he means that literally.

He sleeps on the floor of his factories that he needs to be there. You know, works 20-hour days. We know for a fact, I mean, we know some of the people who are in there, they are spending Saturdays and Sundays, 18-hour days, going through line by line to do this important work and transparent work on behalf of the American people. And so, this is how things get done. It's messy.

It's very different than what Washington is used to. It's very different than what many in the establishment are used to. But this is how we build in America. And I think it's great that it's finally being applied to the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. And he's ready to take the fire.

He understands it too. And he's trying to explain it. For example, Doge yesterday announced they have 199 contracts across 35 agencies that he cut over two days. The Education Department, he ended 89 contracts worth $881 million. He canceled $101 million for DEI training.

We all know about that. HHS acts $182 million in administrative expense. What I also think that he can do, Catherine, intuitively is figure out systems and get the latest tech to make things more efficient with less man power necessary to think to make things effective. We're not talking about taking people's Medicare away, but can you imagine if we can make Medicare run more efficiently? Totally.

I mean, we have the best technologist in the history of the 21st century. I mean, he is the best technologist living today, working with the federal government to try to bring efficiency and technology into the bureaucracy. It is an extraordinary service to the country. It's also not new. Like other administrations have tried this.

There was the Grace Commission during Brendan. The Clinton administration tried this. There's been calls from both Democrats and Republicans to bring efficiency to the federal government. But because of their methods, it just never got done. You know, you can spend two years writing a report that Congress looks at, and nothing gets done with it.

But the way that Elon Musk works is he goes into an organization and he fixes things immediately. He brings the best and brightest talent in, he brings what he knows about technology, and that's what he's doing for the American people. And President Trump has a mandate to do this. This is something that the American people want, and they're doing it in the most transparent way possible. What about since you do know Elon Musk?

What about the way he's working with President Trump? And President Trump has mentioned to people that you would think a guy in charge would have trouble taking instruction or checking in. And he says it's just the opposite. And that some have speculated that he's almost been like a father figure to him. Could you talk about what you know about him?

So I think Elon respects high integrity. He respects people who are straight shooters. He doesn't like this sort of managerial bureaucratic class of lawyers that tends to run everything in major companies in Washington, DC. He likes people who shoot straight. And so, you know, from looking on the outside end, it doesn't surprise me they have a great relationship because they're two straight shooters.

They say what they think. They're probably two of the people who, you know, what they say in private is also what they say in public. They don't have any facade. They constantly tell people the truth. And I think that is like, that's how Elon works.

That's how he works in all of his companies. If someone says to him, I don't know, or that can't be done, they immediately get fired, especially if they tell him that something can't be done. That is sort of a history of how he works inside of SpaceX. If you don't think something's possible, he doesn't want to work with you. And I think they both have that sort of mentality that they can accomplish great things.

And so it makes sense that they're working well together.

So here's what he said from Dubai in the UAE a few hours ago, cut seven. We really have here uh rule of the bureaucracy. As opposed to rule of the people, democracy. We want to restore rule of the people. And so, what that means is reducing the size of the Federal government.

Basically reducing regulation. Um You know, there's a tremendous amount of over-regulation that's happened over time. I think we need we do need to. Delete entire agencies. as opposed to leave part of them behind.

'Cause if you leave part of them behind, It's easy. It's kind of like If uh leaving a weed, if you don't get remove the the roots of the weed, then it's easy for the weed to grow back.

So and that's he was asked about what are exactly doing in America and you and that's how he explained it. Yeah, no, I think it makes perfect sense. And he's going back to something, which is that we've had rule by agencies for a very long time in this country, and that's not how the framers founded this country. That is not how most Americans think the country is run. They want to elect people to Congress who make laws, and then the executive implements those laws.

And I think that people are, frankly, stunned. By how much waste, fraud, and abuse exists in the federal government because of this agency rule. And so, Elon's shining a light on it. He has a very big megaphone. And again, he's one of these people who says what he thinks.

He always tells the truth. He's telling people what he sees inside. And the transparency, I think, is refreshing for most Americans.

So here's what Congressman Dan Goldman, who just gets up every day to try to impeach Trump and stop Republicans, cut 11. Just yesterday, Mr. Musk announced that he canceled 89 government contracts worth $881 million in the Department of Education. That's money Congress appropriated. We have the power of the purse.

Maybe it's wasteful, maybe it's not. I have no idea, you have no idea. But it's a blatant violation of the law and the Constitution.

So they don't get it, but you are allowed to do it and it's g ultimately is going to go to the courts. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think many of these things are going to go to the courts, but the thing that I would emphasize particularly about what Doge is doing and what Elon Musk is doing is that they are doing it in public. Like most committees in Washington, most commissions in Washington, people meet in closed rooms for a year and a half and they deliver a report and they talk amongst themselves. And what I think is different for this administration and really different with this initiative is that it is all being done in daylight.

Everything is being reported. I mean, you have minute-by-minute reports coming out on X on the Doge account. You have press conferences every day where, you know, Caroline is showing the receipts, as she says, where you have Elon standing in press conferences and saying what they found. And that allows the American people to actually know what's going on in their government. And I think that is a well-needed change.

It's a good change. And it's something that couldn't be done without this type of leadership. A couple of things are happening. You know, for example, that. Uh That Elon's got government contracts.

And a lot of it is, he says, I look at every one of those contracts and they have paid off for the U.S. government. But people are saying there's a conflict of interest there. Here's more from the congressman from New York, Cut Tin.

Now how about this committee? Investigate Elon Musk's rampant conflict of interest, Mr. Chairman. He has six companies that have at least $13 billion of government contracts. And here he is making decisions about what government contracts should be canceled.

So uh do you think he's working in his own interest to make SpaceX better or his boring company fantastic or the chips in brains more effective? No, I think Elon is again a very transparent person. And let's just put this in perspective, too. Elon was the richest man in the world before June when he endorsed President Trump. SpaceX, just to give you some numbers on how important SpaceX is to the U.S.

and the world. 85% of global launch in 2024 was a global launch was done by SpaceX.

So not only are they the most important launch company in the U.S., they are basically dominating space for the entire world. And SpaceX has been an extraordinary partner to the U.S. government, saving them billions of dollars every year for over a decade. They are the most efficient government contractor when it comes to space. And that's something that they continue to achieve on.

So is Elon doing this because he wants to win a few more government contracts? I think that's a silly thing for people to say, just given what he has accomplished thus far. I think he's doing this to help the American people. I think he's doing this to bring efficiency to government. And I think he's doing it in a way that is shocking to people because business as usual in Washington doesn't often, you know, it doesn't involve achieving results.

And we are seeing the results every day of what Elon does. And I think it's great that this administration is doing it with such transparency in mind. No, I hear you.

So, J.D. Vance is the vice president, is tech savvy, Silicon Valley Connected, and he's in Paris, France, and he had a message. And his message is: stop with the suffocating regulations and stop with the suffocating of free speech. Cut 38. And I would also remind our international friends here today that partnering with such regimes, it never pays off in the long term.

From CCTV to 5G equipment, we're all familiar with cheap tech in the marketplace that's been heavily subsidized and exported by authoritarian regimes. But as I know, and I think some of us in this room have learned from experience. Partnering with them means chaining your nation to an authoritarian master that seeks to infiltrate, dig in, and seize your information infrastructure. Should a deal seem too good to be true, just remember the old adage that we learned in Silicon Valley. If you aren't paying for the product, You are the product.

Your thoughts.

You thought that he gave this speech. In a way in which he understood it. And not many people at a high level know AI, especially in the political world, right?

So I will just say, I think we have another great communicator on our hands. And I'm not just saying a great communicator. I think he is the great communicator. I think he understands, can can connect with people. I think he can give a speech, you know, not since Reagan.

Have we seen a politician that can do this? And J.D. Vance's speech, I think it will go down as one of the most important technology speeches ever given. I now listen to it three or four times. It is so important that he went to Europe and he said, we are going to stop listening to other countries telling American companies and American innovators what they can and cannot do.

He said, we are going to lead in artificial intelligence. We are going to make sure that there is not onerous regulation that stops us from building American dynamism in our country and sharing it with the rest of the world. We're not going to censor the American people. He was very strong on making sure that we are not going to say that things are misinformation and train AIs to do silly things and to have extraordinary bias. But the most important thing that he said was actually at the end, and this is so unique to J.D.

Vance. He talked about we are going to have a pro-worker AI policy. We are going to make sure that workers and artificial intelligence work hand in hand to improve the American worker, to create jobs, and AI is not going to replace the American worker. And I just think it is an extraordinary speech. I could listen to it again.

It's a 15-minute speech, but it is dense with information. He understands the importance of the technology in a way that I think very few politicians do. Do you think they got the message overseas? I'm not sure either one of us are equipped to understand what they're processing, but I think they understand that we're not asking, we're telling, and understand that when you partner with China, you're never really a partner with China. They're looking to dominate you and you'll never end up on the upside.

I think they very much understood the message. And actually, I think it was a welcome message. You know, he started out saying, We used to call this conference AI safety. It is now about AI opportunity. America is going to lead the way.

We want to partner with you. And, you know, I honestly think a lot of the leaders there found it refreshing. I think they were taking notes. They want to build this kind of success in their own countries. They want to partner with America.

I genuinely think that people were listening, you know, listening with enthusiasm in that room. Maybe not all European leaders who want a fresh innovation in their own countries, but I think a lot of the people in that room were excited about what he was saying. Catherine, I keep hearing from people on the inside how suffocating the Biden administration was to them. Can you tell us what it was like in Silicon Valley during the AI people and the social media people? They really felt as though they didn't have a partner and that the Biden people were picking winners and losers.

Yes, I mean, that was the scary part for, I think, a lot of small tech. We called it little tech companies, the companies that are just coming up, where it was basically said through both executive orders and through sort of these closed door rooms, we're going to pick a winner. We're going to pick the company that we want to work with, and then we're going to regulate that company. And I think that, you know, that was what was so incredible about the vice president's speech was he said, that is not what we're going to do. We do not want to believe the doomerism and believe the safety concerns, which then will lead to us working with one massive big tech company where the government's going to regulate it or where a unified global government's going to regulate AI.

That is not the path we are going down. That is a dangerous path. And so I think it was an about face from this administration on what the previous administration said about AI and what the world thought about AI. And so I think it was a tremendous speech. It was an impactful one and one that's going to have ramifications for decades.

Absolutely. Catherine Boyle, great to have you on. Appreciate it. Thanks so much, Brian. You got it.

We come back, your turn again: 1-866-408-7669. You listen to the Brian Kill Me Show. Giving you everything you need to know. You're with Brian Kilmead. The fastest three hours in radio.

You're with Brian Kilmead. It's Galentine's Day. Oh, it's only the best day of the year. Every February 13th, my lady friends and I leave our husbands and our boyfriends at home and we just come and kick it breakfast style. Ladies celebrating ladies.

Yeah, that's right. February 13 is now known as Galentine's Day. The holiday exploded in popularity after that 2010 episode of Parks and Recreation and has turned into a yearly celebration of female friendship, usually over brunch and quite possibly drinks, if that floats your boat. Don't you think as a nation, we shouldn't let sitcoms pick out our holidays? They did it with festivals.

And now they're doing this day. It's still here. We have to explain this history to our next generation. That's right.

Well, it was a funny show in the 90s, and it really took root, as opposed to he discovered America. What do you think was a valid point? I hate to disagree with myself in real time in the same day, but isn't that a valid point, Eric, Pete? I mean, relatively genius. Do we think sitcom should pick out our holidays?

I mean, if it's funny and entertaining, I don't see the problem with it. But is someone going to have a day off for it? I mean, that's when things get caught up. I mean, that's how we ended up with President's Day. One person said, you know, President's doing a great job.

Next year, we got Monday off. I think Thirty Rock had a couple too. Wasn't like Ludacrismus something that Thirty Rock came up with? I didn't really watch that. uh found Alec Bold on a bit of a turn off.

Although that was pretty funny. I watched it in replay. By the way, in Brussels the s the new Secretary of Defense is now speaking uh at the NATO uh NATO conference, and then he's going to go over to the Defense Summit over in He's going to go to the Defense Summit over in Munich, Germany. Man, what a start he had. Tulsi Gabbard's on her way to Munich at this moment, too.

Think about the start that Pam Bondi had. Within hours, she's suing other states for Sanctuary City status. It's crazy. And trying to find out who at the FBI is tipping off ice out in California. No rest.

We're on Trump time now. Brian Kilmicho.

So glad you're here. See you in person Saturday night in Jacksonville, Florida, the Florida Theater. It's 98 years old, but we're going to make history Saturday. From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest-growing radio talk show. Brian In Kill Mead.

All right, from 48th and 6th in Midtown in Heritage and Hatton, heard around the country, around the world. We have a big hour coming your way. Victor Davis Hansen at the bottom of the hour. And John Tapper, if you're smart enough to get the feed, we're streaming now on the Fox News app and on Fox Nation. John Tapper, host of Bar Rescue, good friend of the show.

Need no directions to get here. He grew up in New York, author of The Power of Conflict. Also, Bar Rescue from Paramount has announced the renewal of its hit series Bar Rescue for its 10th season. John, you're hosting, producing season nine. We'll return with new episodes on Sunday, February 23rd.

So, in a couple of weeks, welcome back. Good to be here, buddy. You're all zoned in on what's happening right now. They're voting finally on an HHS secretary. Who most of the Kennedy family is not for?

Yes. RFK Jr.'s got 41 votes, got to get over 50. Looks like he's getting close as we're speaking. It's happening right now. He's going to pass.

I think there's little doubt about it. And he's going to revolutionize, he claims, and some of the things he does has a lot of resonance. He's going to revolutionize what we're eating in foods. He's going to question vaccines and pharmaceuticals. Are you okay with this?

I think I'm very much so. You know, as one who wants to give him the credit, I don't think we'd be having this dialogue if it wasn't for him. Right. You know, he's the one who brought all this to the surface, that got us talking about this, that made it a major topic. I think he's the guy who has the motivation to get this done.

It's a passion for him. And, you know, Brian, I was looking online at, you know, I won't say what brand, a cookie. 20 years ago, the recipe. And then that recipe today, and I'm sure you've seen some of these things. You know, 20 years ago, that cookie had five ingredients in it.

Today has 70 ingredients in it, and every one of them is a chemical name. And then you think about products. Unpronounceable, by the way. Unpronounceable. And then you think about the products that we eat here that are illegal in other places in the world.

How did we fall behind? I always thought that the FDA and these organizations were protecting us. You know, I remember at penicillin, we got it 28 years after everyone else, right? Because it had to be safe. Where did all that go?

And, you know, you think about what's happening with even eggs today. And we have real issues with food supply. And every month or so, there's another issue. There's another recall. How did this happen?

How did we lose control of our food quality to this degree? And I think in the research that I've done, and I've put a lot of time into this, Brian, it's the fact that tobacco companies have bought the food companies. And food companies used to be driven by the mentality of great food. It's a different corporate culture now. Right.

With the one good thing that's happened that's undeniable is people aren't smoking like they used to. That's right.

And even when you see these period pieces in the nineteen seventies, They're all smoking, and because they're trying to be accurately depicting it, you forget about that. But in the big picture, do you believe? That is diabolical. motivations? Or do you say to yourself, got a country this big?

Imagine if the food I make can last longer. I could save money. I have to ship across this huge country. How do I put them on trucks?

So I'll add some ingredients in, and they don't care. Maybe not knowing how bad it was.

So think about that. Let's say you bake bread, for conversation's sake. You got a choice. You can build bakeries all around the country. Build twenty bakeries, sell fresh bread in regional offices and all of that.

Or you can say, I'm only going to build two bakeries and I'm going to load it with chemicals so I can ship it nationwide and it stays on a shelf for two weeks. It might even taste better. And it might even taste better to you, right. But that's the tr that's the route that they took. And unfortunately, in almost every product and we look at all the chemicals and you know, I look at them, Brian, and I look them up and I try to see what they do.

I can't figure out what half of them do. And then you look at them. And you can't you're in the business. And I'm in the business. You I read like citric acid.

You think citric acid, oh, that must be from an orange. It has nothing to do with an orange or fruit. It's a complete chemical process.

So, yeah, I think that Kennedy brought this to the height. He created a dialogue about it. He created a priority about it. Let's give him a chance to do it. Right.

I like to see him do it. I know Callie and Casey Means wrote Good Energy. And then you have Peter Attira, whose book is still on the top 10, talked about all this. And these are guys that were working out. For example, I always thought to people, you know, when you see people eat, they go, you know, it's too much junk food in America.

Well, they're not active enough. We said those are the reasons why America.

Well, what if you think you're eating good and you're also working out and you're going, you know, I can't lose this weight. I don't know what's going on. Or I don't have the energy I used to. Or every year I seem to get the flu now. I never used to get it before.

So what are you saying is going on?

Well, I think I'm eating good, but I'm not. I emit theamine. Why would they sell it if it's bad for me? And then he did the comparisons with Europe and fast food, and that exposed a lot. And then everyone became savvy.

Did you see RFK's hearings two days long? Pat. Packed with moms. Yeah. Right?

I don't know. There's a real interest in this. Democrat or Republican, doesn't matter.

So are you finding it in the restaurants? I think so. I think the restaurant operators are a little more conscious of it as well. But, you know, it's interesting. I was talking to somebody today about something like jalapeno poppers, believe in that earlier.

These are frozen products that come from food supply companies. You know, they're loaded with chemicals and such. They're not made in restaurants anymore. And, you know, we need to start making. You don't make them in a store.

You buy them frozen from food products.

So Mitch McConnell is the only Republican to vote so far, vote against RFK, but we got 41 votes. He's nine short. They have 78 people that voted so far. McConnell was expected, though. I thought about you, too, because I knew you were on my list today, and last night.

Dawn said to me, Let's not eat out again. Let's eat good tonight. And I'm thinking to myself, why can't they both be true? Why can't I not eat out and know it's quality? It's just quicker.

Why do I always have to assume? And why do people assume it's got to be bad? Yeah. Because that's the perception that's been created. And it's true, though.

I think it's environmentally somewhat true. I mean, today as a restaurant, you buy hamburger meat. You want to make sure it's pure. You know, there aren't additives in it. You know, meatballs, all these types of products.

You know, it's all up to the restaurateur and their cultures, Brian, and how they go about it. You know, and Dawn is right. You know, I'd like to think that there's a healthy place.

Well, you know, a steak isn't processed. Yeah. A piece of chicken can be processed, but a steak isn't processed. You know, prime rib isn't processed. There are certain things that, you know, it's interesting.

They tell us, don't eat red meat, don't eat red meat. But red meat is one of the least processed things out there compared to other meats and products.

So it's all balanced, Brian. But the fact of the matter is, when I was a kid, We were taught that Captain Crunch and frosted flakes were good for you. Yes. That breakfast cereals were good for you. And we put sugar on it all.

And we piled shit right. Look at now how wrong they were at that time.

So I wonder, was that ignorance or was that contrived? Because what kid doesn't like sugar? Right. Right. I remember I was going to start at college and I'm working out and I walked in and we had this girl who's studying nutrition.

She walked into my dorm room and she said, what are you doing? I go, I'm putting sugar on cereals. She goes, why would anybody do that? I go, why wouldn't you? I had no idea that people weren't doing this nonstop.

And the food pyramid was bread, right? And all these things we shouldn't be eating.

So I look back at all that and I do wonder, you know, was it ignorance or was it contrived?

So yesterday we got some numbers in on inflation and it's up at 3%. I don't see anybody in a clear mind that could say that's Trump's fault. Of course not.

So we're bouncing out of this and then the Fed goes, I'm not going to raise interest rates. I don't think I have to.

So we're pretty much a holding pattern. Have you noticed in the restaurant business, have you been noticing, are you still having to? Erase those and unlaminate those menus. Yeah, there's still a creep happening in cost, if you will. It's not as quick, but it's still a creep.

That's going up. And yeah, we have to. But, you know, everybody. Has it affected business?

Well, I know. I know I'm talking wholeheartedly.

Well, business is down across the country, about 20%, give or take. And I was reading an interesting research report this morning. Oh, Zempic is a part of it. When you look at all the people that are taking these weight loss drugs, their appetites are greatly reduced. People aren't eating as much.

So I think there's sort of a triple effect happening: uncertainty. Right. I think inflation, and then a drop in revenues.

So, yeah, we're struggling right now. First thing you cut is: let's not go out to eat. We got to tighten our belts, right?

So, that's one thing it's pretty clear.

So, with your new season now. Your thoughts about coming back for finishing up nine and doing ten? First of all, I can't believe the network signed season ten before we even did season nine. Wow.

So that's quite a compliment. The show just keeps doing well. Season nine is pretty intense. I got a couple of guest hosts this year, which I'm excited about. You mean the co-host?

You're not. I'm not present in the episode, but I'm behind the scenes, you know, still doing the remodels and speaking to them and all that. And, you know, we're trying to expand the base of the show a little bit. I can only do so many episodes a year. Right.

So it'd be great to have a team of people that can do some more. And look, Brian, it's a blessing. You know this. I'm very passionate about this. If I could help another 10, another 15 people a year by adding some other experts to the show, I'm going to do it.

I love when Shark Tank goes back and they say this would happen to the business, right? How often do you go back to maybe season three and say I know that probably initially there's the big push and the big bump. That's the guy from Bar Rescue. Got it.

So, what about, do you ever go back way back and see how they're doing? Do they keep in touch with you?

Some of them do. I don't force myself on them, but some of them do. For example, Moonrunners in the Carolinas just opened two more locations, so they're doing really, really well. My friends at Spirits on Bourbon just sold the business for millions of dollars. They did about $30 million.

When you found them, what were they doing? They were doing about $2 million a year. When we left, they were doing five. All right. I'm going to see how well you remember your show.

Here's a hit. from bar rescue. Come on over guys, I want you to hear this. What do you do when you're borrowing? What do you do when you're drowning in debt?

What do you do when you're stepping up? Oh, with fingers on the tarpaulin. Oh, you want to talk to me now? I'm a one-shot f ⁇. All new guests are from.

Certainly not top shelf. I've been in a lot of kitchens. That was terrible. I've never seen a more disgusting restaurant in my life. I got a marriage, a family, and a bar all falling apart.

I just want to fix it. I'm going to make this place a joy for you again.

So you're that says it all, buddy. Sure. I remember all those scenes. It's so emotional, Brian, when you see a man, proud man. Like that, my personal life, my b everything is falling apart.

John, he looks at me, I'm his last hope. It's heavy duty, Brian. It's a big responsibility.

So, think about it. Not only financially, you go home and you thought you built something, all you have is debt, and then you thought you had this belief in yourself and your high self-esteem, and all of a sudden it goes away as the business begins to diminish. And of course, if you don't have the same self-esteem about yourself, how are you projecting with your family and your spouse? Exactly that. And it's heavy duty, and I've got to get this man strong again.

You know, and I call it BMS broken man syndrome. He's, you know, he's walking hunched over. He walks slowly. You can see their facial expressions.

So, somehow, you know, I typically get his wife and his children to say that they don't respect him as a businessman in the beginning of the episode because I got to change him. But then in the end of the episode, I have to have them tell him that they are.

So at the end of the episode, they say, you know what, Dad, I'm proud of you. You know, I'm proud of you. You can see his posture changes. His face. You can see it when they change.

It's unbelievable, Brian. And you can see it when they don't. Talk about the audio, too. You did a deal with TuneIn, the world's leader in audio. It's announced a partnership with you and the star Bar Rescue John Taffer.

You launched a brand new original content exclusively on the platform.

So it's going to be Small Business Monday, Las Vegas and Las Vegas Friday. Yep. So you know this. Is it from the podcast? Like a podcast or you just podcast a radio show.

It hits every Tuesday. But you know, Brian, watching 272 episodes in 40 years, I got a lot to teach small businesses. People that want to be entrepreneurs, I want to talk to them. People that are entrepreneurs, I want to talk to them. Small business owners, I want to talk to them.

So this is a chance to try to make a difference in the small business community. And you know, I live in Vegas. I'm a huge fan of Vegas.

So another show is talking about all the excitement, energy, and entertainment going on in Vegas. What about this boring company that Elon Musk is making to alleviate traffic? Today, do you know, has it affected traffic in Las Vegas? I don't think so. You know, it operates with Teslas now.

So there's only four people, five people in each unit that goes.

So it isn't like it's a train or a monorail or something that's moving massive amounts of people. It's cool, people like it, but it's just a a very narrow tunnel that a Tesla goes through back and forth. But they don't have to drive. It goes on a truck. It goes on a well, electronic track, yeah.

So why so it's not fit for other cars? I don't believe so. I believe he built it just for Teslas. Because I think it's supposed to be Los Angeles. I mean, it's got to help Los Angeles.

I think it's. Is your traffic that bad? In Vegas, it's getting bad because so many people are leaving California and moving to Nevada. Before we go, and I know you've got to run, you have a theory about today's political environment: what one party stands for and what another does. Yeah.

You know, I've always felt that the Republican Party was a party of management. They focus on how do we manage things better? How do we do that? Whereas I always felt that the Democratic Party was driven by activism. And when you're driven by activism and you don't get your activism done, you resent what exists.

Climate change, LGBTQ.

So now they start to resent who we are. Because your focus is activism. When you resent who we are, you don't manage it well. All you want to do is change it. We saw that the last four years.

We saw an activist administration that didn't manage or run anything.

Now we're going in the other direction. Look at Trump. He talks about Ukraine. There's a business angle to it. We're going to get the minerals.

He's talking about the Gaza. There's a business angle to it. We can do some of the development.

Some of our people can make some money.

Son of a gun, Brian. We're running the country like a business. How refreshing is that? Yeah, and we like to do it. And then you're looking at your budget.

What are we spending on and why? And why? And every business has to do this. When I read these things that Doge has found. I find it so offensive, Brian.

I can't begin to tell you. When you read the contracts. I'm contracting people that are losing everything and watching every penny. Everything. I watch how contracts that expired 10 years ago are still being paid.

Right. And nobody caught this. And now I watch how the the the liberals are going crazy because they don't want the audit. You know, it's, I find it interesting, whistleblowers. Can have no accounting experience at all.

But if they expose something, they're heroes. But you know fundamentally what it is, John? It is not their money. If it was their money, they would feel totally different. How do you get people to care when they get paid regardless?

And how do you get people who work for the federal government to have that intuition to be responsible? Only 3% showing up for work. And what business did you research and try to rescue where only 3% show up to the job? I think shame is very powerful. You know, I think that when Trump starts to reveal where these dollars went, where the kickbacks are, follow the money, so to speak, I think shame goes a long way.

The Democratic Party needs some shame these next few months. All right. Some of these leaders need to be shamed. They need to sleep in the bed that they made, if you will. All right.

And then understand, see how it's done. And if the Republicans can produce, they could be in power for a long time. And I'm hoping they will. John Taffer, do you ever regret not going into politics? I do sometimes.

You know, I almost ran for Senate two years ago, and Trump endorsed me, and I had Kevin McCarthy's endorsement, and Steve's. I was close, Brian. You were close. I went to D.C. for two days.

I met with the campaign managers and the conflict attorneys. And I'm sitting in Trump International, the hotel that night, and I'm watching all the congressmen and senators having their dinners with their pins and their dark suits. And I looked at my wife and I said, I don't know if I can do this. But I didn't. But I came very, very close.

I do regret it sometimes. Right. We'll see what happens. Right? It's not over yet.

John Taffer, anything else to plug everything effectively? You did. We're doing great. Brown brought a bourbon. Is doing great.

Okay. I sent you a bottle of that. That was fantastic. And all is well. No, you did.

Thank you, buddy. John Tavert, thanks so much. Back with you in a moment. Increasing your intelligence quotient. What the hell did you just say?

It's Brian Kilmead. The talk show that's getting you talking. You're with Brian Kilmead. We're in a moment of anti-blackness on steroids. and we refuse to be silent.

We will not back down in our pursuit. of racial justice. And while we do the work of resistance and blunting the many harms of this hostile, anti-black administration, it's imperative that we continue advancing an affirmative agenda. for black America in building momentum toward this critical priority. All right.

As you know, Congresswoman Presley, who loves to just hate America, does anyone listen to this? I think the more we play it, the more votes Republicans get. Nobody feels like this is an anti No clear thinking person thinks it's an anti-black. Administration. It's pro-American administration.

DEI is done. It's done nothing but hurt the country. Let's assume it was put out there for the right reasons. We're not at those reasons now. And I love these people who have these press conferences for reparations.

They all do it. They all agree to study it until they see the price tag and they see that nobody alive was a slave or is responsible for enslaving people. And then you realize who's going to write that check? Taxpayers. And who's going to pay the price?

Everyone in that state. And no one ever writes the check.

Now the news. RFK Jr. has defied expectations and is now the HHS secretary. He made a bet on himself. And he bet on Donald Trump.

He said, I'll disband my candidacy. I'll come aboard, even though I'm of the most famous democratic family in the world. And I'll be part of it. My family will turn on me. And I will find a way.

to get confirmed and he just did. He lost two Democratic votes. I don't know who the second one was, but one was Mitch McConnell. which is embarrassing considering how many Democrats he did buy a vote for. He's so busy, he'll make your head spin.

It's Brian Killmead. And it was a woke reign of terror for the last 12 years where people were scared to stay their mind in public, in private, and we had these elaborate governmental apparatuses in place to aggressively censor behind the scenes using law enforcement organizations to do it.

So I think that the fact that we're all still a little upset about that and that we're very concerned about what the Europeans are doing. I think it should be a little bit more understandable for those of us that were raised in the true liberal spirit of the left. That was Michael Schellenberger talking about what the last 12 years have been like. Victor Davis Hansen has lived it, studied it, always puts it in perspective. He's from the Hoover Institute, Senior Fellow, best-selling author.

The 2019, his book, The Case for Trump, with a new introduction, is out just in time for the new Trump. Victor Davis Hansen, welcome back. Can you put in perspective historically what the last two, three weeks have been like in American history compared to other starts to presidencies?

Well, we haven't seen anything like it in the modern age. FDR had 100 days where he went in the opposite direction and began.

socializing the economy. and got in trouble with the Supreme Court, et cetera, et cetera. But I don't even think that his revolution was quite as extensive as this. This is a counter revolution. It's trying to undo all of the eight years of Obama and the four years of Biden.

And they're just moving ahead as fast as they can. I think they feel that it's such a Traumatic shock to the administrative state, the media, the foundations, academia, the whole liberal. architecture that they have to move quickly because they're going to I think we're going to see a House of Representatives midterm election like we've never seen in our lifetime. Really? Do you believe it's going to be counter to what to traditionally happens, and that is for the party in power to lose seats?

Yeah. Well, I think they I think that if they succeed and I think they are succeeding and they make a huge effort in the midterm, they'll they'll be able to win the House, keep the House. Because what's the alternative? They know that if these crazy people take over, they're going to impeach Trump. And try to humiliate them and try to take it and get the Senate, not that they can convict him, but.

It's going to be a bloody knockdown, drag out midterm because they don't have, if you look at what the left's basically telling us, Brian, is They don't have the White House, they don't have the House of Representatives, they don't have the Senate, they don't have the Supreme Court, they have no subpoena power, they have no confirmation blocking power. What power do they have? They have nothing. And so that's new for them, and they can't stand that idea. They have no power.

All they have is cherry-picking an occasional low-ranking. Federal district judge, and that's about it. They can't stop it, and they know they can't stop it. And the public opinion on most of these issues. Is on Trump's side.

And so I guess their only option is to so demonize Musk and Trump and call him all these horrible names to drive down his approval ratings so they can win seats in the midterm. But I don't think they will. Right now he's at about 53% popularity with people under 30, 55%. The Republican Party has never been more popular with younger people and with minorities. Doesn't mean they're winning every minority, but they're ticking in the right direction.

And this perhaps is the cause of this type of anger and the cursing is just so odd. Cut nine. Donald Trump and Elon Musk are recklessly and illegally dismantling the federal government, shuttering federal agencies, firing federal workers, withholding funds vital to the safety and well-being of our communities. What House Republicans and the Trump Musk administration want to do is they want to look into your kids' lunch money. It's about helping Elon Musk and Donald Trump be as efficient as possible in robbing our government.

So let me tell you something. The gentle lady's elected time has expired. It's expired. Rain in this rogue actor no longer. Elon Musk is sending his unqualified.

Doge staff to carry out this agenda across all of these agencies.

So they're trying to rob you.

So, I mean, I just want to show you a little bit of the anger, the stuff that I didn't have to bleep out. I mean, I don't even know what their message is. What are they blaming Elon Musk for? Because I guess they're cutting programs because the government is 39 trillion over budget. Yeah, I mean, they have no argument, but they can't tell the truth.

Elon Musk. Don't have any legislative authority or executive authority to cut things, but he does have executive authority to audit.

So, what he's doing is he is finding all of these. Flawed, waste, and abuse items, and then he gives them to the respective cabinet head or to Donald Trump. And then they have the executive power. as being appointed by an elected President to make the cuts. And The other thing is they said no one no billionaires ever ha FDR took Harry Hopkins, Brian, you know that, and moved him in the White House.

And he has no portfolio. He's a private citizen. And he said, you're in charge of all policy toward aiding the Soviet Union. And the guy was a hardcore socialist. But that's happened a lot.

And there's nothing new about any of this, except. Uh One of the subtexts is that the billionaires, the Mark Andreessens, the Mark Zuckerbergs, even the Elon Musk, they were all firmly in the left-wing camp. And as long as they were, they didn't mind when Mark Zuckerberg in 2020 gave $419 million to alter the registrar's work in a lot of key states and help Biden win. But when those guys flipped, then Bezos, de facto, Then, all of a sudden, billionaires were evil. Not some of them.

They still loved Sorrels. They loved Sam Bankman-Free, but the point is. it it's just a a hysteria because they look at all the sources Of their traditional power, and they don't see any political office that they can exercise it. They can't see the high courts are not on their side. The media is dissolving before their eyes, their favorite media, the network news and the cable left-wing shows.

They have never mastered the podcast to the same degree as conservative. And they look around, they say, uh-oh, they're going to charge 15% no more for. For overhead, I was at Stanford University. You should see them, Brian. They're going crazy.

They've been charging the federal government 40 and 50 percent overhead for. for NIH grants when they get about 700 million. And when they get a grant from the Gates Foundation or somebody, they only charge them 15%.

So they know what they've been doing, but all of a sudden, the academia is under threat, the left says. And they say, what institution do we have? And now he's going after the administrative state. We're going to lose all power. And that's the hysteria.

Which is interesting. You know what also is interesting? Because I remember you and Neil Ferguson of Hoover. They came out and said, after Trump won in 2016, they said, look out. I said, why?

He said, because the social media companies feel like Trump used them more effectively than Hillary Clinton did. And therefore, they're getting blamed for Trump's success. There'll be a backlash. Man, did we see it? And man, has it changed?

No, he hasn't. And he knows something that he knows them now, and he's seen this other side of this. Left-wing one-eyed jack, and he knows that you don't stop, you don't stop to discuss it, you don't parley with these people because they're hardcore Jacobin revolutionaries.

So we just have to push ahead so and keep them off balance.

So you go right into HHS, you go right into NIH, you go into the Defense Department, and you make them defend these cuts and get the word out. And they don't uh they never mention the real I mean, Why don't they say Donald Trump cut $40 million. It was going to gain in function research at the Wuhan Lab. That was a great thing. That was important.

Why can't we keep funding Chinese virologists working on COVID and bat viruses? they they don't want to do that and And so you just have to keep pushing it and get the word out to the public and the public will support it if they get the information out.

So the interesting thing is this USAID, and I want to get your perspective on it. Because you look at their programs and they're out there aiding groups. They say we're going to help developing nations and later they're going to be allies. But the more you look at it, it seems like they have a political agenda. And if you want to get their aid, you better subscribe.

I mean, when you look at the gender diverse support in Bangladesh, Guatemalan transgender support, Honduran LGBT groups, you're talking $1.8 million, $1.9 million. In the Syrian democratic political process, $7.4 million. They said it did a study. They followed the money. Most of it went to terror groups.

The DEI musical in Ireland for $70,000. Who are they helping? No one. And that's why Samantha Power was she's been on media saying China loves these cuts. No, China's angry at these cuts.

Not only did they lose forty million dollars at their biology lab, but USAID was funding a quarter billion dollars for something called Reporters. Without borders. It was 6,000 left-wing journalists all over the world. China loves stuff like that. China loves.

The United States imprinting their hardcore, left-wing, wacky, transgender, radical, gay, drag show agendas on these traditional Islamic or conservative societies, like almost like we're British imperialists of the 19th century and we go into a country and say, This is the way you're going, this is our culture. But at least they had a culture. We're giving them an anti-culture, and these traditional societies. don't like it. We saw what USA did in Ba in Afghanistan, they gave $80 million to a gender studies program.

They had the pride flag at the U.S. Embassy on the website. They had George Floyd murals and artists and Nobody wanted that. Maybe a small westernized elite did, but it really created a backlash that the Taliban took advantage of.

So I think it's counterproductive. It's not just that we're going to save money because we're going, we omit this expense, but we also omit it's a sin of commission where they can't do anything harmful. I think they don't do anything good that I can see except a few hunger and famine relief programs that can be bundled under the State Department. Victor Davis Hanson, our guest.

So I've got to tap into your history as well as your war now military history. Donald Trump said this yesterday when he picked up the phone, or I don't know who called who, and talked to Vladimir Putin for 90 minutes, got 27. People didn't really Know what President Putin's thoughts were, but I think I can say with great confidence he wants to see it ended, also. That's good. And we're going to work toward getting it ended.

And as fast as possible. At which time it came out a little bit later through the Secretary of Defense that he says you are not going to be in NATO. The getting pushing back to the original lines between the nations is not going to happen. And we are not going to have a NATO force as a peacekeeper force. If they are mixed militaries, they are not going to have the Rule Five protections.

Your thoughts about where this is heading? Because President Zelensky is concerned that he is not in on these talks, and these came out without talking to him first. What are your thoughts about this?

Well, he he lost his his independence because he's entirely reliant on U. S. arms. If Europe was giving an equal number of munitions, then he would have more autonomy. But I think You know, you can't trust Putin, he's a thug, but.

everybody's been attacking Trump because they said he gave away negotiating points. But To be fair, no administration since 2014, not Obama, not Trump. Not Biden ever said we were going to supply Ukraine militarily to take back the Donbass in Crimea. And they got it under Obama. They went in again under Biden.

They had gone under George W. Bush and Dosasia. They didn't go in under Trump. That was the first time of four administrations. They didn't because Putin was afraid of him.

And so that people forgot that. As far as NATO, nobody in their right mind knew wanted to put NATO right on the border of Russia, not with its traditional breadbasket in Ukraine, and westernize all of Ukraine. People had warned not to do that. George H.W. Bush promised we wouldn't do that.

But then, you know, during the Obama administration, it was Victoria Newland, Robert Kagan, the Obama people said we're going to put it right in Putin's face. And that was weird, Brian, because You've got to remember, they loved Putin in the beginning. In two thousand nine, they pushed the reset button and they said George Bush had been too mean to Putin in Ossatia and they put Ambassador McCall, a colleague at Hoover, and he said we're going to democratize Russia. And they had the hot mic in South Korea, where Putin Was told by Medeva, I mean, Obama said to Medeva: Tell Vladimir if you'll give me space. I'll be flexible on middle missile defense.

And they both kept their bargain. Obama canceled missile defense, and Putin did not invade until Obama was re-elected. And so they were appeasing Russia, and then Russia took that kindness and said, Your magnanimity makes us more aggressive. We're not going to reciprocate. Then they went paranoid and they said, We hate Putin.

He's horrible. And what followed was Russian disinformation, Russian collusion, the dossier. Trump is an asset. He's a puppet. But it was them who tried to have a reset.

Chambered unlike the Munich agreement with Russia that blew up in their faces. And then they went completely to the other extreme and said, you know, we're going to go to Moscow almost. And the irony is that everybody thinks Trump is. this cruel type of person, but he's the only leader In the last three administrations, that's talked about the human suffering is 1.5%. Total casualties, wounded, dead, missing on both sides.

It's the greatest loss of life since Stalingrad.

So all Trump was doing is what I'm trying to say is, you know what, I could lie and say that these are negotiating tools. We'll discuss NATO, we'll discuss the Donbass but Putin knows that that's not going to happen.

So those were empty points. And we all know what the agreement is. Trump's going to try to get Putin back where he was before February 24th of 2022. He's going to try to get the Europeans to arm Ukraine to the teeth. It's trying to get an international effort to rebuild Ukraine.

And he's going to tell Putin, if you do it again, we're going to, you know, we're going to do a lot of stuff to you. And apparently, from what Trump has said, he told Putin that. during his own own term. And I think Putin if you remember that exchange, it was reported in the media that Trump said, Would you like the Kremlin to be hit? And Putin said, You don't mean that, Donald.

And he said, I do mean that. And so that kept him out. Yeah, I mean, I will see. We always know he's KGB, but we also know he's never lost 500 to 700,000 troops before. And we also know 40 percent of his economy goes solidly to the military.

I don't know how much, and he lost most of his elite thinkers, a big brain drain from his country.

So we'll see. Nothing's going to be the same from before the invasion. I'm sure he wouldn't have done it if he could have foresaw this type of tax toll on his country. I mean, he's got a chance to have an off-ramp. We'll see if he takes it.

Victor, always educational to talk to you, always insightful. Thanks so much. Thank you, Brian. You got it. Back up to finish this hour in just a moment.

If you're listening to the Brian Killmead Show, you're with Brian Kilmead. Information you want, truth you demand. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. So, pretty big news. Tulsi big news got through.

They didn't think she was there as director of national intelligence. She's now en route to Munich, Germany, for the defense meeting, big defense council meeting over there in Munich, Germany. And now we have the HHS secretary is drumroll, please, RFK Jr. Aren't you glad, Caroline, that you went out and tarred your whole family and told everyone what a scoundrel he is? Was that really necessary?

Do you think you convinced any Democrat or Republican, Democrat that he was good, or a Republican that he's bad? No, you haven't. I mean, you tarred your whole family. You guys look like an absolute abomination. We thought Teddy was bad, but she's been such a letdown, just a political hack.

So RFK is going to have a chance to put his principles of make America healthy again into action. And I think people are going to be pleased. They're going to be thrilled. You know why? Because he's doing it.

for the right reasons. He's already rich. Beyond imagination. He's already sued. He's already done those things environmentally.

Let's see if he can straighten out our diets. Let's see if he can make sure pharmaceutical companies are not keeping us sick. That has been the thing all along.

Next is going to be Cash Patel. Then he's going to be Labor Secretary Howell Lutnick next week. And now we're going to see the hearings. We're already begun for Linda McVan. One day, they're going to go all over her.

I don't see one Republican defecting. She's already proven herself as a fantastic staffer under Trump, who, my goodness, is on a roll. Hey, I'm going to see you Saturday night in the Florida Theater in Jacksonville. Go to BrianKilby.com, get some tickets. Fox News Audio presents the Fox Nation Investigates podcast, Evil Next Door, exploring the life and crimes of five serial predators from across the United States.

Follow and listen starting February 25th at FoxtrueCrime.com. Listen to the show ad-free on Fox News Podcast Plus, on Apple Podcast, Amazon Music with your Prime membership, or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Mm-hmm.