Fallout from Trump team's group chat using Signal app

This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Forget the frustration of picking commerce platforms when you switch your business to Shopify, the global commerce platform that supercharges your selling wherever you sell. With Shopify, you'll harness the same intuitive features, trusted apps, and powerful analytics used by the world's leading brands. Sign up today for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com/slash tech, all lowercase. That's shopify.com/slash tech.

From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Kilmead. Hi everyone, Brian Kilmey here. Thanks so much for listening. We've got a big hour coming your way on the Brian Kilmy Show.

We have a lot going on today. There's going to be high-level intelligence meetings, House in session this week. They're back in action after passing their bill to fund the government. The Senate was left to do it themselves. They did it.

And Chuck Schumer's life has never been the same. But now they're back in action talking about threats to hit the United States. Kaylee McEnany, fresh off hosting for Ainsley on Fox and Friends is in studio. Lieutenant Colonel Alan West on the border. And we're going to also be joined by Daryl Johnson, the outstanding fullback for the Dallas Cowboys, turned broadcaster for Fox, now senior vice president at the UFL.

Talking about a brand new season. But before we get to Kaylee, let's get to the big three. Number three. We're doing it to help our country and our country was riddled with fat like no country probably anywhere in the world and we're getting rid of the fat. There it is, the President of the United States Doge operation yielding great results and protests from Dems as cabinet turmoil has subsided.

Remember two weeks ago?

Now everything's clarified. It's going to be secretaries and then Doge, but attacks on Tesla pick up steam. Is the Juice worth the squeeze? For me, absolutely. Number two, there were no procedures in place to notify people.

Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemy Act. First of all, it's ridiculous. It's just another example of a radical judge saying something that's just disgusting to compare anything to the Nazis. The Holocaust? We follow the law.

Idiot, Judge Patricia Millett, weighing in, and one of three judges weighing in on the legality of shipping 269 ISIS and MS-13 gang members to El Salvador. The judge fair is in full stride as the Trump's team's efforts to deport more criminal aliens. The fate of the fights now in an appeals court in front of those three judges. We look at the case and how politics has infected the justice system. Number Goldberg, the Atlantic editor's phone number, was somehow added to a contact card by one of the people, one of the staffers that was invited to this Signal group chat.

Mike Waltz says he's never spoken to Goldberg and that they've never even met.

So, top secret communications with top officials in the Trump administration leaked to Atlantic magazine writer after he was accidentally looped into a signal. That is an encrypted app text chain. Exposed the lead up to the and the aftermath of the Houthi attack last weekend. Not the attack on us, our attack on them. We look at the fallout.

And Kaylee, we've been going over this on Fox and Friends. We're just putting this story together. First, we found out the Signal app is something is used and allowed in government. And that's something different from when you were there, right? Yeah, that's a protocol that Peter Ducey read out to us.

You know, I did not use the Signal app. Whether others did, who knows? The Bidens did, evidently. The Bidens did, evidently. So, you know, it is certainly more secure than text message.

But, you know, that was news to me to learn that today. It is an interesting story. We'll follow it. And, I mean, there's going to be a ton of questions today, Brian, at this hearing. It was definitely a mistake.

But I think the big picture here: the Houthi strike went off without a hitch. And, you know, we're here today, and they need to figure out a protocol going forward. You got to check who's on that 18-person text chain. I wonder if Jeff Goldberg does this if he gets looped into a Biden text chain. I wonder if he still breaking news.

No, Jeffrey Goldberg would not post this. Other reporters with integrity would, but I have experience with Jeffrey Goldberg. He's the one who did the suckers and losers story. What do you mean by suckers and losers when they're not?

So, this was when he alleged President Trump called our fallen heroes suckers and losers. I never heard President Trump speak that way. Immediately was able to gather more than a dozen sources who disputed the story by Jeffrey Goldberg. But the reason I know this guy does not act in good faith is because he never even came to me with the story. It came through a deputy of mine who, an hour before the story posted, got wind of it.

That's not how most reporters operate. Most reporters give you ample chance to respond. Not Jeffrey Goldberg. This guy's a hit-and-run reporter. It is correct that this was an authentic chain that's been confirmed.

Affirmed by the administration, but Goldberg said war plans were transmitted, but he doesn't give evidence of that. He doesn't give details of that.

So the question remains: Is that a responsible thing to do, maybe? He claims he's being responsible by not sharing operational details.

Okay. But forgive us, Jeffrey Goldberg, for not trusting you to characterize what you saw in the most accurate of fashions, because you certainly did not do that when I was the press secretary.

So here is Jeffrey Goldberg saying how he got it. Evidently, he was shocked to see himself included on this list. Michael Waltz has since communicated. I talked to him. He said, I've never met him.

I don't know him. I have no idea how he ended up on the list.

So when you do Signal, we've learned this. I have Signal. I don't use it much. Your initials pop up.

So it would say KM, BK with me. It would pop up.

So when everybody's on there, Tulsi Gabbard and Michael Waltz and Secretary Hegset, the Vice President Vance, and it goes pretty deep with John Radcliffe and others. When you talk, when you're up there, your initials are up there.

So his points it up there.

So people would say, well, when JG popped up, why didn't someone say who is that? And it turns out that our trade representative, whose name's alluding to me right now, Would be Yeah, Jameson Greer. He would be those same initials.

So maybe people thought trade was a topic because they talked about do we need to bomb with that waterway? How much trade is really at stake?

So they let it go. And that's when he said, I thought it was disinformation. Here's what he said to put it in perspective: what it was like for him, cut three. There have been a lot of breaches. There's been a lot of leaks.

There's been a lot of stolen cases of stolen documents. I've never seen a large group of national senior most national security officials just Kind of willy-nilly put out a bunch of stuff. you know, without knowing who they're talking to.

So he says he's seen a lot of breaches, he's seen a lot of leaks, but he's he's stolen documents, but he's never seen something like this. Yeah, look, I mean, again, a huge mistake. Jameson Greer, that would make sense to me that you'd see that. You'd assume it's your trade representative. But I think there's something to be learned going forward here.

Yeah, signal may be more secure. It's an encrypted way of communicating. But is it really more secure? If you're communicating with initials and you don't know who the initials are, there has to be a way moving forward to verify who is on this text chain. I use just iMessage when I was, you know, in government, using my government device.

You'd get a group text message. The first thing I would do, very first thing, who's on this group message? The second thing I would do would then communicate in the appropriate fashion with said members of the group. You have to have a way to do that because you can't go by initials.

So I'm wondering right now, as the chief of staff's office sitting around huddling, she was on. Susie Wilds was on this too. She was on it. How can we make sure going forward that all of the initials are not the initials of outside actors, but the initials of people within the administration? A simple fix, I assume.

But one that is badly needed.

So, just to put together the story. This is what Jeffrey Goldberg writes. He says, I was on a message from a group chat from Michael Waltz, and it read as follows: Quote: Team establishing a principals group for coordination on Houthis, particularly for over the next 72 hours. My deputy, Alex Wong, is pulling together a tiger team as deputies, agencies, and chief of staff level following up from the meeting to the situation room this morning for action items. And we'll be sending that for later this evening.

So, is it Alex Wong that possibly pulled this together? Because, as Michael Waltz said, I never met this guy. I don't know. I don't have him on my contacts.

So, I obviously, you have contacts, I have contacts. When it comes to the signal, I only have like four. I kind of forgot I had it after a while because someone told me to get it because it's so secure.

So, I'm not carrying over my contacts.

So, if he got a government phone, and you just educate me on this, Kaylee, they come and they say, Congratulations to the press secretary. They give you a government phone, right? Do they? They do.

Okay. Do they say to you? I'm putting contacts on there, or is it up to Kaylee McInnie to put her contacts on there? It was up to me to add the contacts. And the government phone operates in a pretty strange way.

There's a ton you cannot do with it. You know, I'm trying to remember exact details, but I know like some social media apps that I would communicate on as at PressSec. There were limitations that wouldn't be on my personal device.

So there's all kinds of built-in limitations on the government device to protect you.

So I always assume this is the safest way to communicate. Signal was not on there. Whether that changed, who knows? But obviously, something went wrong and that needs to be fixed. And there's going to be a ton of questions today.

But Jeffrey Goldberg, I mean, Brian, it's kind of like out of house of cards. I mean, how does the worst reporter in all of Washington for the Trump administration get added to the chain? I think he's idealistic. He's an ideologue. Is it what you're saying?

He's an ideologue. Yeah, I think it's generous calling him a reporter. I mean, he hates the Trump administration. That's my opinion from what I've observed from the outside. Don't know what's in his heart.

But this guy, I mean, both of his main reports on the Trump administration, the one I was privy to, debunked by a dozen sources. The second one with Vanessa Julian that we talked about on Fox and Friends during the election, debunked by Ben Williamson, debunked by Mark Meadows.

So this is a guy who has an agenda, in my personal opinion.

So, Kaylee, the one thing I talked to a person, I was communicating with somebody close to the President, Michael Waltz's job is not in jeopardy. but wants to straighten it out, don't happen again, it's a mistake. And they were very disappointed that The Atlantic got this because they hate The Atlantic. It revitalized what he thought was a dead magazine. Yeah, of all places.

And now Jeffrey Goldberg can go on some rehabilitation tour of his image with new reporting. You know, Michael Waltz seems like a great guy. People make mistakes. And, you know, as I mentioned to you on Fox and Friends, my dad said when you eat crow, you got to eat it when it's hot. And they did that.

At the National Security Council, Michael Waltz handled this the exact way. He's ahead of the comms team there. They said, we're not denying the authenticity of these messages. He did not try to deny it. He owned the mistake.

And I think the next step is for him to come to an interview, lay it out exactly what happened, just as they were forthright in responding to this reporter. And Jeffrey Goldberg admitted that. I watched Jeffrey Goldberg say last night. The press shop handled this in a way that I thought was very professional. I'm sure that was hard for Jeffrey Goldberg to say.

But the next step is Michael Waltz doing an interview, clearing it up, and what changes are going to be made moving forward.

So here's what Leon Panetta said, former Secretary of State, Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense 2, Cut Seven. There's no question this is legitimate, but. What they're not paying attention to is that you've included somebody. On the outside. who has no business knowing about this information.

There was a mistake here.

Somebody on the Atlantic Got the most sensitive. emails you can imagine at the federal level. That is a serious blunder. It has to be investigated and somebody frankly needs to get fired. Who do you think that is, sir?

Whoever put that chain together.

Somebody put that name on a list. and whoever that was deserves to be fired.

So that's what we're going to hear a lot today as Democrats are dying to sound off about their frustration with the Trump win, the administration, the executive orders, the fact that they're on their heels, the fact that this budget got passed. I believe it's all going to be transferred to an explosive hearing today, don't you? It is. And I just want to emphasize this administration has been near perfect. This administration came in ready.

This administration came in with 100 executive orders, more than anyone else on day one of the administration. They've done a phenomenal job keeping communications tight. There haven't been leaks. Unlike Trump 1.0, there were a ton of leaks not this time around. Susie Wiles clearly has a handle on what's going on.

So this is an unforced error. We're two months in. Everyone's going to make mistakes. But to your point, I think it's a really good one. Jeffrey Goldberg, would he have reported this with Biden?

No.

So the level of scrutiny here for this administration, you have a bunch of reporters sitting there waiting, hitting their pins against the desk for the. The first mistake.

Something they didn't do for Biden. He was always given the benefit of the doubt. I would love to see what was going on in his signal messages if a reporter was ever added, but I don't think we'd be privy to that knowledge. It would have been buried. They would have moved on.

It's the leftist media. Can we talk to something, your opinion now? You can do it about with all your knowledge of foreign policy. It was interesting to see for me to see the Vice President in this case push back, saying essentially, you shouldn't do this. Only 3% of our commerce goes through there.

Europe has 40%. Why are we doing this? The public isn't going to understand it. He also says the President, it goes against what the President's trying to say and that Europe, you got to step up and defend yourselves. How do you feel?

Pete Hakeseth acknowledges it. And then says, But we're still doing it. And then Stephen Miller puts a stop to it. Instead of saying going, they were thinking about going back to the president with this. He could stop at any moment.

And Stephen Miller put a stop to it. The president already made a decision. I'm going through with this. How does that sound to you? Does it sound unique?

It does sound unique. I was fascinated to me, and we haven't talked about this. This was the most fascinating part of all of this. J.D. Vance has a very clear view of foreign policy.

He clearly disagreed with the president to the point of saying at some point, I don't have the exact language, but it was something to the effect of I'm not sure the president is aware of how inconsistent this is with his message.

So J.D. Vance pushing hard in this huge group of 18 people against the president and his view on it. And Stephen Miller shuts it down. As I heard, the president was clear, green lights.

So Stephen Miller shuts it down. It's interesting. He didn't say a word, and then he just yeah. And you know, I had limited interaction with Vice President Pence on COVID issues, for example. He always seemed to be on the same page with President Trump.

You know, I never, in my meeting, saw him, you know. Come back on COVID and be like, oh, the President's kind of wrong on this.

So it was interesting to hear J.D. Vance be so robust in his opinion. Obviously, Pence and Trump had that falling out at the end. But in general, they tended to be in lockstep, at least in front of me. And it was interesting to see J.D.

Vance kind of pushing back on a policy issue. Here it is: says, I'm not sure the President is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. This is a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I'm willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself, but there is strong argument for delaying this a month. doing the messaging work on why it matters, and seeing where the economy is, etcetera.

So, a couple of things. What's not mentioned here, and believe me, I'm not saying I know more than them, but the The message to Iran, they're being thoroughly financed by Iran. They have shut down, they've hit us 70, our destroyer 72 times, 3%, but they hit us 72 times over the last three years. The Houthi rebels have barely a response to trying to hit us with different drone strikes. Number two, they've been rocketing Israel.

Are they an ally? I'm pretty sure they are. Isn't that a good message? We're hitting you wherever it is. You got two months to get rid of your nuclear program.

You're going to stop harassing people in the open seas. And Israel, you're going to get busy. We got your back. And Pete Heckseth made that case on the text chain. He made the case, you know, much of what you're making.

But, you know, J.D. Vance has a very populist view of the world and foreign policy. You know, kind of America first doesn't mean America alone was our motto, but it kind of for him, America first, America alone seems to be the motto. But what was interesting is, you know, I'm sure Vice President Pence had problems. Private disagreements with President Trump behind the scenes, but for J.D.

Vance to do it openly on an 18-person tech chain, it was really, really interesting to see. Kaylee McEney, we'll hear more about this on Outnumbered. We'll see this where the story is at noon. Back in a moment. See you, Brian.

Newsmakers and newsbreakers. Hear it first on the Brian Kill Meat Show. On the latest episode of the Fox Nation Investigates podcast Evil Next Door, female serial killer Eileen Warnos, a Florida-bound hitchhiking prostitute, rose to infamy after killing seven men. Listen and follow now at FoxtrueCrime.com. A radio show like no other.

It's Brian Killmeade. He's saying that he would keep those concerns to himself, but he's basically just told the entire cabinet that he disagrees with the president's decision. And not only that, that he doesn't think the president understands. That's pretty heavy. Doesn't think the president understands the consequences and ramifications.

But of the ramifications, because he believes it's contradictory. Not doesn't understand what it means to bomb a country, because it's contradictory to what he was saying of Europe beginning to act alone on their own behalf. But what can be extrapolated out? It's not just about shutting down the waterway, it's the shots at us that have to go answered. And as I mentioned, Iran, message, you supply them, you're next.

Number two, Israel. There's rockets going your direction. Maybe instead of hitting some empty launchers, maybe we kill some of the people. creating havoc in the region. Also, who's hosting these meetings?

Saudi Arabia Who has been at war with the Houthis? Saudi Arabia. What administration told the Saudis you're the outlaw nation and put the Houthis took the Houthis off the terror watch list? Joe Biden. A lot of things go into this.

It wasn't just take out these people. There was so much more. And I just think it was a complex move, and I love that they did it. It shows when challenged, we will act aggressively. The more you listen, the more you'll know.

It's Brian Killmead. We're concerned about. Trump officials, Trump-Trump officials transmitting classified war plans on unsecured channels. Listen, the administration, as I understand, I just was with the President in the Oval Office just now. The administration is addressing what happened.

Apparently, an inadvertent phone number made it onto that thread. They're going to track that down and make sure that it doesn't happen again. What you did see, though, I think, was top-level officials doing their Their job doing it well and executing on a plan with precision. That Mission was a success. No one was jeopardized because of it.

We're grateful for that, but they will certainly, I'm sure, make sure that that doesn't happen against us. Right. And they're using the signal app that Speaker Johnson's talking about, the communication leading up to and after the attack on the Houthi rebels two weekends ago. Lieutenant Colonel Alan West knows all about keeping secrets. He also knows all about the military and the need for execution on missions like that.

I'm very curious to get his response to this. And he joins us now. He's now Dallas County Republican Party chair and American Constitutional Rights Union Executive Director. Colonel, your reaction to what we know now happened with the Houthi rebel attack being on a group chat that included an Atlantic reporter. Yeah, you know, it's good to be with you, Brian.

And I just got to tell you, one of the maxims that I had as a commander in my unit was one man does, another man checks. And I think that that will preclude you from having, you know, the little faux pas like this.

Someone should have been going through and doing a check of every single one of those addressees and then having a double check of it. And I think that would have precluded that from happening. And hopefully it's a lesson learned. You know, of course, it didn't go to you at Fox News. You probably would have just privately called and said, hey, look, I don't think I should have gotten this.

Now you're going to see, since it's the Atlantic, they're going to try to make a big deal of it. You think that Jeffrey Goldberg publishes this if it's the Biden administration? No, no, I don't. I mean, of course not. I mean, we they didn't even want people to know about the cognitive decline of the president.

They did not want people to know about the auto pen usage or anything like that.

So that's why I said, I mean, it's just tragic and a sad thing that it happened to be the editor-in-chief of Atlantic because they're going to try to keep this in the news cycle for as long as they possibly can. I don't think this thing lasts, you know, 48, maybe 72 hours. Yeah, and I think that they will correct their processes and procedures. I think it's also a part of getting off the ground. I mean, with everybody.

It's the first military operation since they took over. But I was struck by the difference. And you tell me, you're on the inside of these conversations. Vice President was not on the same page with the Secretary of Defense, the CIA Director. And he was on the same page with Mike Waltz, the National Security Advisor.

Does that surprise you? No, look, I mean, behind closed doors, you may have people that are going to have different thoughts and conversations. Look, I think we go all the way back to the Osama bin Laden issue, and it was Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton that really forced Barack Obama's hand in going after Osama bin Laden. I mean, a lot of people said that he did not want to do that.

So you're going to have those type of disagreements. And look, the bottom line is that the President of the United States of America, the Commander-in-Chief, he listens to everyone, and he's the final approving authority or non-approval authority. It's kind of good. You see Stephen Miller come in at the end and say, what do you mean go back to the President? He already green lighted this.

This is done. And I think that's solid. You need somebody on there who understands you, that you trust, because as President, you can't keep getting back every decision you make, right? No, you can't. And that's what we used to say in the military: you salute the flag and drive on.

The point of deliberation and discussion is over once the commander-in-chief says thumbs up or thumbs down. He's taken in all of the assessments and analysis, and he is, you know, has his own assessments, analysis, and he will make that decision. And I think it's important, like I say, once again, that people just drive on and make sure that they execute it and keep him informed and updated on the different measures of effectiveness or the different timelines of the operation.

So, where do you stand, Colonel? I know anytime if you're here illegally, you're susceptible to you don't have any rights that we have. But there's gang members and there are people here that just want to pick your crops, let's say, or want a fresh start. How do you feel about the 269? Before 269 people get on a plane, what do you think the protocol should be to make sure they're who we say what they are?

Because we can't put them all on trial. I don't want them all lawyering up. Thousands, there's millions here.

Well, first and foremost, they shouldn't be getting all lawyered up and they shouldn't have a trial. They came to the country illegally. It's no right to be in the United States of America, and you should be removed thereof. You did not respect our laws. You don't get a chance to stay here and use our laws against us.

And I think, once again, what you have heard Tom Holman repeatedly say is that we're going to prioritize this thing. We're going to look at the criminal element. We're going to look at those who pose a domestic and a national security threat. And when you declare and designate these, you know, Trendier Aragua or MS-13, some of these others as a terrorist organization, you know, they don't get to stay in the United States of America. This is not a law enforcement.

No, no, I know, but what do you do? But what do you do to make sure that's them? But you get, you know, ICE picks him up, a local sheriff arrests him. They go, come get him.

Okay, got him. They're not okay, the language difference.

So I think, you know, I look they look like a terrorist to me. They look like a gang member to me. I don't know, though. I'm trusting the sheriff. ICE sits there and does it their due diligence.

And then you put them on do you put them on a plane or do they get their j they get their hearing?

Well, I don't think they deserve a hearing. I think that one of the clear things you have to do is you go through some type of fingerprint system. And that's why back in Afghanistan, we used to do the retina scans and put people into databases. But unfortunately, you had an administration that didn't do any of that type of event for that. And there's the gotaways, too.

The gotaways don't stop this. That's right. And then there are the gotaways.

So, I mean, you know, the Trump administration is really trying to fight this thing with one arm tied behind its back, but they're doing a great job. I mean, look at the crossings, how far they're down. And we are getting these people out of the country.

So if you do have that data, that background check system that is out there, you utilize that to verify these individuals. Otherwise, it may take a little bit longer to get them verified. Maybe they're in the Interpol system. That's another system that you could use.

So does the judge need to know that, or should we just put him on a plane and get him out? You get them on and put them on the plane, get them out. I mean, look, you know, we don't need judges in a combat zone. And unfortunately, America has become a combat zone because of the previous administration. We have allowed people to come into this country legally.

They have criminal intent. I think the words are predatory intent from the Alien Enemies Act.

So we're not treating them like citizens. These are completely different individuals, and they need to be treated like non-state, non-uniform enemy combatants that have been captured on our ground, on our territory, and they have to be dealt with accordingly.

So, this Patricia Millett, there's a three-judge panel.

So, this one judge Boesberg wants to know the exact flight when they took off. Could you have turned around? Vice versa. He doesn't really want to get into what should have been done, what I think should be done. They just want to re-litigate what happened two weeks ago, which I find fascinating.

In the meantime, there's an appeals court move. Yesterday, the hearing was three court, uh, three judges: one an Obama judge, one a Trump judge, uh, and uh, the other a Bush judge. And one of the uh the Obama judge says this. Judge Patrice Millette. It said, well, I want you to hear it.

Cut 23. There were no procedures in place to notify people. Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemy Act. Really? Here's Tom Homan.

Cut twenty-four. First of all, it's ridiculous. It's just another example of a radical judge saying something that's just disgusting, to declare anything to the Nazis. The Holocaust? We follow the law.

Your thought?

Well, I find it interesting that the judge would say that we have to notify these people. Again, you're talking about non-state, non-uniform enemy combatants, belligerents that are here in our country illegally, that are conducting crimes and may be members of a terrorist organization in our country. What you're supposed to do? You're supposed to send them a text message say, hey, you know, we're about to come pick you up. Can you make yourself available?

No.

In the combat zone, we conduct raids and operations and things. The element of surprise is on our side, and that's what they need to continue to do here. I just don't know whether the left is going with this, Brian. I don't know how they think that this is a winning issue for them. Either do I, but they want to gum up President Trump, any way possible.

You can't slow him down in Congress. Have these judges, and we just keep going up the ladder. I mean, he's got about multiple injunctions. He's setting all types of records.

So they're just going to have to continue to go up to the Supreme Court. And after a while, not every decision, even at the Supreme Court, is going to go your way.

Meanwhile, the president's got to keep doing what he's doing. Yesterday, it looks like Tom Holman has rounded up and announced 371. Illegal immigrant, criminal, illegal immigrants have been rounded up in Massachusetts. The governor, Democrat, to her credit, says we work. We're not a sanctuary state.

We work with law enforcement. We work with ICE. The mayor's bragging that she stood up to Tom Holman. What's wrong with her? Mayor Wu, you saw her testify there before the congressional hearing on being a sanctuary city.

She just doesn't get it. I mean, she does not understand Article 6, Section 1 of the Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause. When the federal government is operating in pursuance thereof, the constitutional rule of the law, states and local municipalities are subject to that. The federal government is supreme. She can't sit up there and say there are certain laws that we're going to not follow.

That's not the case.

So again, I don't understand why these mayors and some governors are willing to put their law abiding citizens at risk and people that are here legally at risk to these criminal illegal immigrants and these members of terrorist organizations. Colonel, thanks so much. My final thought is: have you been to the border to see the dramatic change? Because I've only heard about it. I see the reports about it.

You live in Texas. Have you seen it? No, I have not been down there since President Trump took over, but I've called Sheriff Brad Coe, my good friend, down in Kenney County, Kerrville, which is in between Eagle Pass and Del Rio. He said it's like night and day. Amazing.

I didn't think it was possible to do it this quickly. And they just started extending the wall. Lieutenant Colonel Allen West, thanks so much. Always a pleasure. God bless Brian.

All right, we come back. Your turn to talk. I know you have a lot on your mind, or you can write me, BrianKilme.com. Also, if you ever want to get a shirt that says please get dressed or stay within yourself, my favorite catchphrases ever, if you go to BrianKilme.com, you can actually get that stuff. Don't move.

Diving deep into today's top stories, it's Brian Kilmead. If you're interested in it, Brian's talking about it. You're with Brian Killmead. I'm not playing this game with that you mean girls play. Where, like, oh, you know what?

You can't sit at my lunch table because I'm just not talking to you. And you also have to respect. that you know the guy did win it's more than half the country or whatever i mean you know i just i keep saying it I'm not going to hate, you can not like Trump, you can hate him. You can't hate everybody who vote for them. Yes.

I don't hate half the country, and I don't want to hate half the country. You know, I it's just not where my mind ever wants to go for my own mental health is all this hate.

So yes, I will talk to anybody. It's an honor to be invited to the White House under any circumstances. Absolutely.

So, what happened is Bill Moore was justifying on his podcast, where it's just so weird. I can't believe he just actually gets high doing his broadcast, but whatever. And he's on with Andrew Schultz and he says, Kid Rock said, I will set up a meeting in the White House. Would you go? And he said, Yes.

And then it's coming up. And it's coming up in Less than a week. And he's going to go to the White House on Monday. And he says, I don't hate the guy. And I think it's going to be great.

And Kid Rochester says, I like both you guys. Why can't you? And being that you agree on so much, why don't you meet him? And here's what Bill Maher is doing. He's doing the smart thing.

It doesn't mean he's going to like Trump, but now he's got a line of communication.

So he goes to do his show on Friday and he writes a monologue and he brings on three panel guests, two of which are usually liberal or a Republican that hates Trump, but they'll bring on people that like Trump too. He doesn't care. But it's never balanced. And the one-on-one interviews with people at Governor Shapiro usually.

So now he can actually call the White House because there's three moves that he made this week, whether it's tariffs or something else, and say, Yeah, I'm trying to put together a monologue, but I like facts in it. I gotta have a debate, but I'd like to as a moderator, I'd like to know.

So now all of a sudden he'll have somebody that he could go to. And he could just say, Hey, I called the White House.

Now he's going to know Caroline. We get the answer. I know he's not a breaking news reporter, but there's news on his show constantly. And You might even get to like them.

So, what's wrong with that? Trump doesn't hold grudges unless it's something personal about his family, like these judges and what they did. But I think it's an all-win situation. And I and people are upset. They were upset that Joe Scarborough went after him.

But here excuse me, want to meet with them after they won and Mika. But here's the difference. If you watch both their shows. Bill Moore. Has never just sang from the Democratic hymn book.

He talks about some of the trans policies that make sense. He talks about how ridiculous this political correctness is and how women should not have to deal with trans men in the locker room or on the playing field.

So a lot of the issues, they have the same. It's not just two people who disagree agreeing to talk, there's so much overlap. That's what set this up to matter. Not just two people who don't talk to each other. Joe Scarborough and Mika.

Brzezinski, Have just beat up Trump constantly, did nothing right for seven, eight years. And when he wins, he says, Let me go talk to him. That's why people say, wait a second, we've been following you every day. I don't really know many Scarborough viewers, but he has a lot in Washington and Los Angeles and New York. And they come out and they kill Trump's bad.

Oh, he's terrible. Worst. He's a Nazi. He's sold that to the Russians. Terrible person.

He says all these horrible decisions in his personal life. Oh yeah, we made up, we talked yesterday, we decided to start off fresh.

Sorry. That's not going to fly with the viewers. The three reason why. Bill Maher works is because Bill Maher has been pretty candid and I think fair with Trump, while saying I never voted for him. And one of the things he said last weekend was, Trump's got good ideas, but I just don't like the way he executes them.

All right. He is going to bring that up. I never met him. I met him once, excuse me. He's going to bring that up at the White House.

They're not going to just say, hey, let's just parry the hatchet. They're going to have an engaging conversation. And then he's going to come out and talk about it again. And it'll be critical still, but I think it's a good move. And I think Kid Rock should join us on the radio on Tuesday right after and bring us inside that move.

And he should be given a lot of credit for that. Why? Why does it make sense? Because even though maybe we're more polarized now, It's not so clear what's a Republican issue and a Democratic issue. I mean, Democrats will be the first one to tell you, I have no idea where they're at.

Yesterday, we went over the fact that AOC and And uh Senator Bernie Sanders are getting big crowds, and I think it's a terrible message. If you read their remarks, There's nothing new in their remarks. They can draw a big crowd. There are people in a country of 330 million that think that Bernie Sanders is somebody they want to see and they like. Same people.

But they're not saying anything new. If you want to impress me, you have to be somebody that has new ideas about a new approach, fresh start, good in front of the camera, comfortable on the issues, a very comfortable, a a good wordsmith. Very good broadcaster communicator. Even if you're very aggressive or whatever, just likable JFK type charisma style, then you got my attention. But this whole Jasmine Crockett This whole Bernie Sanders and AOC.

Their policies are done. The political correctness is through. Rich or bad people, that ship has sailed. America, built on stolen land off the backs of slaves, done. We're not into that anymore.

That's what they're saying. Run by oligarchs? These are successful people that went into business, went into government. In many cases, some have been government their whole life. Pretty sure Caroline Levitt is not an oligarch.

David Sachs is a successful businessman who runs crypto and AI. That's not an oligarch, that's a powerful person. Scott Bessett, like a lot of rich people, including Larry Summers, got very successful.

Now he wants to give back and work for $300,000. Then you got President Trump who was successful, had a few bankruptcies, fouled all the way back, lost money to be president. Go ahead and talk about Oligarchs. I don't know. Good luck for you 30,000 people.

It's not going to win you an election. Your ideas are old. They're stale. From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest growing radio talk show. Brian Kilmead.

Hi, everyone. Thanks so much for being here. Brian Kilmey Cho. We come to you from 48th and 6th in Midtown Manhattan, heard around the country, around the world.

So glad you're here. This hour, David Bonson will unwind the surge in the market yesterday, slightly down today, about the president maybe not going, according to the Wall Street Journal and his own comments, as hard on tariffs and more targeted than originally thought coming up April 2nd. He's going to talk about that. Stuart Varney will do a simulcast. Steve Hilton's here, Fox News contributor, served as director of strategy for Prime Minister David Cameron, likely to run for the Republican nomination and be the next governor of California.

But we're still watching a bunch of big stories. Including the President of the United States, he's going to be in court for a bunch of things. Not him personally, but a lot of his policies.

So, before we get to Steve, let's get to the big three. Number three. We're doing it to help our country and our country was riddled with fat. like no country probably anywhere in the world. And we're getting rid of the fad.

Well, that is President of the United States happy with the Does operation yielding great results and protests from DEMS as the cabinet's turmoil that was dominant two weeks ago on what those should do, what a cabinet secretary can do, has been ironed out. They're working together.

However, The threats on Musk and his men and his women who are working Doge. continue and Tesla is still being targeted. Number two, there were no procedures in place to notify people. Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemy Act. First of all, it's ridiculous.

It's just another example of a radical judge saying something that's just disgusting, to compare anything to the Nazis. Yup, yup, yup. The Holocaust. Judge Fair in full stride as the Trump team's effort to deport criminal illegal aliens gets thwarted. For now, the fate of the flights, now in an appeals court in front of three judges, we look at the case and how politics has infected the district justice system.

Number one. Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic editor's phone number, was somehow added to a contact card by one of the people, one of the staffers that was invited to this Signal group chat. Mike Waltz says he's never spoken to Goldberg and that they've never even met.

So, how did this happen? Top secret communication with top officials in the Trump administration leaked to an Atlantic magazine writer after he was accidentally looped into a signal text chain, exposed the lead up to and the aftermath of the Houthi attacks last weekend. We take a look at the fallout now with Steve Helton. Steve, so we know about a text chain. Everything was authentic.

We don't know about the battle plan because Peter Goldberg did not put that in there. Your thoughts about the fallout and what your takeaway is. This is the risk that you run when you communicate by smartphone. It takes me back to the very first days when I was working in Ten Downing Street and we had a security briefing and they were very clear about it, that whatever App you use, or system you use, or the encryption, or whatever, foreign adversaries can get into smartphones. They can take over your smartphone even when it's not on and turn it into a listening device.

In fact, the advice was: if you really want to be safe and secure, then you shouldn't have a smartphone at all. You should have one of these, which is not the best thing for radio, but it's a flip phone, which is what I have. Not for security reasons, just simply because that's my choice. It's actually much more secure. And so, I think that's the bigger issue here: that clearly there was, you know, this was a screw-up, no question, and they've said that, but they've made clear that nothing was compromised in terms of this particular operation.

But the real story, I don't think, is about Signal or even this journalist, it's about the fact it's a reminder that using smartphones for everything is not secure.

Well, what about the text chain and the checks and balances on whether someone should be in there? It's very similar to leaving the door open on the situation room and letting the janitor hear. Only then the janitor would eventually call up Atlantic Magazine and write it, right?

Well, we've got to find out exactly how that happened and who did that. And it is absolutely clear that it's a mistake. They're not denying that. They're just saying that in this particular case, nothing happened. Here's Jeffrey Goldberg, who got the story, who really has no credibility with this administration and with many viewers and readers of the Atlantic Magazine.

He's a left-wing columnist, cut three. There's been a lot of breaches. There's been a lot of leaks. There's been a lot of stolen cases of stolen documents. I've never seen a large group of national senior most national security officials just kind of willy-nilly put out a bunch of stuff.

You know, without knowing who they're talking to. Here's President Trump when asked about this story last. Mr. President, you reacted to the story, The Atlantic, that said that some of your top cabinet officials and aides have been discussing very sensitive material through Signal and included an Atlantic reporter for that. What is your response to that?

I don't know anything about it. I'm not a big fan of The Atlantic. To me, it's a magazine that's going out of business. I think it's not much of a magazine, but I know nothing about it. You're saying that they had what?

They were using Signal to coordinate on sensitive materials and having to do with what? Having to do with what? What were they talking about? With the Houthis. The Houthis, you mean the attack on the Houthis?

Well, it couldn't have been very effective because the attack was very effective. I can tell you that. I don't know anything about it. You're telling me about it.

So the other thing is about the exchange. Did you read the exchange? Yes, parts of it, not the whole thing. Did you see how J.D. Vance was not for it?

Are you okay with that? Look, I mean, you're supposed to have differing opinions. Yeah, exactly. And I think a point that's been made, including by Goldberg, I've seen him on other media today, making the point that actually the positive here, he said that, Jeffrey Goldberg, is that they're having a robust discussion and they're expressing the same opinions in private as they are in public. And it's good to see that there's a real discussion going on.

I mean, so that's what you would want. And Will Kane made that point yesterday, which is that it's actually encouraging that they're having a real conversation about these things rather than just leaving it all up to bureaucrats.

So how do you view if you're Europe and you see how you you were referred to in this exchange? How do you feel about that?

Well, again, it's just it's a wake-up call, but it's not one that I would say President Trump and the administration generally are unhappy for Europe to receive. How long has he said Europe needs to take more responsibility for its own defense? But I'm just saying, he says the account labeled J.D. Vance responded this. Team, I'm out for the day, but I think we are making a big mistake.

The advance account goes on to state 3% of the U.S. trade runs through the Suez. 40% of European trade does. This is a real risk that the public doesn't understand this or why it's necessary. The strongest reason to do this is the President said to send a message.

I'm not sure the President is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe now. There's a further risk than we see as a moderate to severe spike in prices, but there's a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is. He said, I understand your concerns and fully support it. I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what. And then he says, as I heard, the President was clear.

Green light, green light, says Stephen Miller. We soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return. We also need to figure out how to enforce such a requirement on Europe. If Europe doesn't remunerate, then what? If the U.S.

successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost, there needs to be some further economic gain in return. Your thoughts? Because you're an American now, but you were born in Europe and now you lived in the UK. Yeah, and look, there's two conflicting things going on here: which is the role of America as the world's policeman. And whether or not that is a role that has placed too much burden on America without sufficient burden sharing by the rest of the world.

It's in all our interests to have a stable world where you don't have rogue terrorist groups or rogue nations just rampaging around the world, making it a more dangerous place. That's something that is in everybody's interest. The question is: who pays for and who delivers the role of being the policeman? And the argument from certainly from J.D. Vance is like, we've done way too much of that.

And it's our sons and daughters who've lost their lives, and it's our taxpayers who've paid for it. And Europe's been free riding on that. That's a reasonable argument. But then there's another argument which is like, well, no one should be doing this global policeman role and just let each country look after itself. I don't agree with that.

I think just as we want law and order in our country, we want law and order around the world. And so I think that that conversation about who does it and who pays for it is a legitimate. Legitimate conversation. Interesting. Again, this is private conversation, never should have been out.

It's not like it's a public speech, but that's very consistent with J.D. Vancouver. Yes, exactly. He was pretty much saying the same thing at the time. How do you feel about that speech?

Look, and that tone. Are you comfortable with it? Just so you think so. I'm very happy for a little bit of a correction there, honestly. And we had these conversations, and back in the day, I didn't particularly get involved in foreign and security policy.

I was mainly involved in domestic policy. The Obama administration was very annoyed. I know for a fact, talking to the former British ambassador here, furious with the Cameron administration back in the day. This is Obama who was annoyed that the Brits were not stepping up in terms of defense spending and so on.

So, this has been going on a long time. And that conversation that Obama, the Obama administration, was having behind closed doors through the diplomatic channels and in those behind closed doors meetings. The difference now is that it's open and public. And when you have a message like this being delivered both by Vance in a speech, but also people can see this is what they really think, I think that it all. Already is prompting Europe to do more.

That's a good thing. The argument that the President makes about NATO doing much more. That's the head of NATO agrees with that. That actually it's President Trump, both the first time around and this time round, who has prompted Europe to spend more on defense.

So the sum total of defense spending has gone up as a result of this. All right, Steve, are you going to stay for one or two? Stay two? Yes. Okay, so we're going to come back, talk about California when we come back.

Also, the hearings are taking place now. Senator Mark Warner, this is a chance for Democrats to just sound off and vent because from the election on down, they've had zero momentum. In fact, all they've had was infighting.

Now it's time to attack Trump over this decision to include Jeffrey, this inadvertent decision to include Jeffrey Goldberg on this text chain. Don't move. Politics, current events, and news that affects you. Brian's got a lot more to say. Stay with Brian Kilmead.

Radio that makes you think. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. Proposition 47 was actually called the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, ironically. The reality is, it took away Consequences for criminal behavior. It decriminalized hard drugs like heroin and fentanyl and methamphetamine.

And then it also reduced the penalties for theft. We passed that and the result was a complete free-for-all for crime in the state. It became common knowledge that you could commit these serial crimes and face no real consequence for it. Steve Hilton, this is all about his book, and that's a special on Fox Nation that's available on Sunday. It was available since Sunday on the 23rd.

It's called Cala Failure with Steve Hilton. It's the name of his book. And the special Califailure with Steve Hilton is available on Fox Nation too.

So, Steve. What prompted the writing of this book? I know what prompted is your candidacy, the failure in California, but why do you think we should start with a book?

So the the thing that I wanted to understand Brian, it's not just what's gone wrong. We can see what a disaster it's been. You can see it in the crime and the homelessness. You can see it in all the people leaving, hundreds of thousands of people. I mean, we're just talking about it in terms of the future congressional districts, the population shift from California to other states.

So people are being driven out by the possibility of running a business, the highest housing costs in the country, highest taxes, highest prices for everything, for gas, electricity, you name it, right?

So we know those facts. What I wanted to really get to the bottom of is like, why did this happen? How did this happen? And how do we stop it happening in other states? What's the ideology that's driving this?

Because if you look at California, basically, it's been run by Democrats as one-party rule for nearly two decades. This is what you get. When Democrats get everything they want, this is the Democrat plan. Like this is what they would do if they had complete freedom of operation. at the national level.

So it's a warning to the rest of the country. And you've got to understand how it happened. The way they took control of the state legislature, they gerrymandered the districts with the union support, all of this, right? They built this machine To have one party rule, and then they implemented this ideology. And that's what we go through in the book: is like, what are the components of this?

It's not just enough to say, well, it's left-wing. What does it really mean? There's the elitism, the cronyism, the corruption with the unions. Political correctness. Exactly.

The account for all, illegal immigration. There's so many aspects to it. All self-inflicted. All self-inflicted. The climate extremism.

I call it climatism. This ideology that you've got to look like you're totally obsessed with mandated for electric cars. No gas-powered cars are going to be able to come into the state or trucks. But when you say no drilling, right? Let's just take that for sure.

Makes no sense, right? Not that long ago, California, we we We produced 80% of all the oil and gas we use in California, and 20% was imported.

Now it's flipped.

Okay, so the overall amount that we use has fallen a little bit, not that much. But now, instead of drilling for it in mainly Kern County in California, near Bakersfield, and producing it with the cleanest production anywhere in the world, we are now importing it on giant supertankers from places like Iraq and Ecuador, spewing out carbon emissions.

So, in the name of climate change, they are actually increasing carbon emissions to look like they're fighting fossil fuels. Do you think things can change? Do you think we're at the point now where the Inflation Reduction Act, the new Green Deal that they jammed down our throats, has got such backlash in this election where people might be open and listening to Steve Hilton? I think so, because you're looking at the, I mean, first of all, look at what happened in November last year in the election. Ten counties flipped from Democrat to Republican, including big ones like Fresno County.

Fresno is the fifth biggest city in California. It flipped from Democrat blue to red. 10 counties in total, President Trump, the highest number of votes for any Republican candidate in a generation, yet the highest proportion in San Francisco for like 40 years. You saw, as we were just hearing in the trailer for the California special, the proposition that Carmela Harris supported when she was state attorney general to basically legalize theft under $950, all these drug offenses. That was mostly reversed in a new ballot initiative, Prop 36, in November.

70% supported that. In every county, it was supported.

So you're seeing signs of people saying we've had enough. Then you add on to that the fires in Los Angeles. And the way that highlighted this total catastrophic incompetence and extremism. And I think people are waking up.

Now, you just polled just the other day. 50% of Californians would be ready to vote for a Republican governor. 50%. Wow.

So, how about this? Crime. How about crime and incompetence? Your best sales tool is the mayor. And the governor.

She is totally ill-equipped to be effective. She's falling apart before her eyes, being recalled. And you have a governor that literally thinks it was not, he had nothing to do with the failure to put out those fires, who thinks he's going to listen to a podcast instead of attacking his budget deficit. It's amazing. And they've bankrupted Medicaid in California.

It's called Medi-Cal because they gave health insurance free coverage. To illegal immigrants, and they lied about how much that would cost. I mean, last year, they tried to jam through a bill in the state legislature that would take taxpayer money and give it to free down payment assistance for illegal immigrants in California. When most Californians who work so incredibly hard can't afford to buy anti-Semitism on campuses. Exactly.

So, all this stuff, this gives me great encouragement, especially with your knowledge and your feel for the California people and politics, that you really could do a job, Steve Hilton. You might have Jake Steinfeld as competition or an ally, I'm not sure. Steve, best of luck. Go pick out his book, Cala Failure: Reversing the Ruin of America's Worst-Run State. Pick it up now.

It's out today. Thank you, Brent. Breaking news, unique opinions. Hear it all on the Brian Kill Me Joe. There's a federal consulting group, which was a group inside of Interior, but it was managing contracts from many different agencies that flowed through here.

One of those contracts was to do surveys of individuals. $830 million. Surveys, and so part of the question was: hey, could we actually see the surveys? And then the surveys came back and was. A survey was like eight and a half.

By 11 sheets of paper with 10 questions that anyone's child in junior high could have put together or AI could have done for free, $830 million.

So that's one that we've stopped. And that contract was going out after you were inaugurated, sir.

So it was jumping. It would be a fraud. It's a fraud. But we've had many fraudulent contracts that were caught by the work that Elon and his people are doing. and working with our people.

It's been brought to light the the fraud. Uh not just waste and abuse, the fraud has been incredible. Cabinet meeting yesterday with the Trump team. That was Interior Secretary Bergham, former governor of North Dakota, talking about what they discovered. And now the new system goes, Doge works with inside these inside these units, inside, for example, interior, inside defense.

But it's going to be the cabinet secretaries that cut the programs or doesn't cut the programs and personnel, which is fine. I think every state, everybody should have a Doge working for you on some level. I'd like to see how this is all going to come into bringing the deficit down and fixing up the systems and making everything lead and mean for the first time, maybe in my lifetime. David Bonson from the Bonson Group is in the studio. Also, we're watching the testimony on Capitol Hill among our Intel chiefs to talk about the dangers, the most striking dangers are facing our country right now.

He is the author of Full-Time Work and the Meaning of Life. David, your thoughts about what Doge has done and statements like Governor Bergham just made. You know, I love what you said about every state should have a Doge. And I want to point out for listeners, Brian, this is so important. Every business has a Doge.

Sometimes it's the mom and pop that run it. They're the doge because they're keeping an eye on the cash register. They're keeping an eye on the checking account.

Some large organizations have other people. But when there's business involved and self-interest, somebody's making sure that there's not money being wasted, fraud, waste, corruption. The whole point of a doge at government is because there's nobody doing that. There isn't that eyes and ears because there isn't the incentive. It isn't their money.

People are not the same about other people's money that they are about their own.

So their incentives and their awareness, their knowledge is different in the governmental sector than it is in the private sector, which is why there are people like us that are believers in a limited government and want more of a private sector because we believe it's more efficient. There's an embedded doge in every private sector business.

So far, how do you feel about the way they're approaching things? I mean, they have a doge.com, doge.gov.com. You can see some of the stuff. It's put in an organized way, but it is haphazard. You don't know what is being cod, what is new.

Is this really going to count? You know, well, there's been a lot of mistakes, too, and that kind of bothers me a bit. I liked what Governor Mitch Daniels had said about it a couple weeks ago. He's pretty much supportive of what Elon's doing, as I am, but said, I wish that they would talk less, do more. Because I'm telling you, if they did everything they're doing and just didn't say a word, no press, no website, no social media, and then came out in three months or six months with a list of what they had gotten done, signed, sealed, delivered, it would be so much more effective.

Right now, it's a little chaotic, and they like that too. I'm more of a measure twice, cut once kind of guy, but I think that overall there's no real great way to do this.

Okay, you can't get rid of programs that make everyone happy. I wish that they would do it with a little less chaos because it matches my style and personality. But this lends itself to some chaos.

So, David, talk about the hard thing about running your own business, and that's letting people go. And that's what they're doing now. They did this by doing it with the tens of thousands of people and getting rid of whole programs. And maybe some of these people are good, but you've only been there a short period of time. And your goal is to cut down the workforce.

See, I think, Brian, that analogy is a little bit lends itself to a criticism because with a business, if I'm letting people go, there's no way I'm doing it nonchalantly. I want to know who are the biggest liabilities, who are my weakest links, who are my strongest people. And I'm going to my managers and my people to find out who's the right people to let go here. Who do we need to keep? I don't think they really went off after quality.

They did it kind of just broad-based. And here's a buyout. You don't like that. You didn't like that. I think it could have been done better.

And then the reason why I don't like it is I also believe it would have then resonated more with the American people: you want some political capital here. You want buy-in. Doge was polling 20% more popular when they started than now. And there's no reason for that. But I think part of that has to do with style.

And it might be. Unavoidable because, like you said, no one likes people getting fired. See, people say on the left and right, they say, you know, I'm part of the Doge committee. I wanted to cut government. I wish they would have cut me in.

And I think that's a fundamental problem. Because if you put politicians in there, they're elected to have the interest of their people. But the Doge is there for the interest of the country. But not politicians, though. I'm not talking about elected people.

I'm talking about this was sort of Secretary Rubio's point. I think the cabinet people should have a big say in it. They have. They have. But see, that's why you can't have a politician in.

Even if I'm Republican or Democrat, if you put me in the office and all of a sudden you're going to cut a program that's got a huge building in my district and people are going to act in their self-interest, you're almost saving them from themselves so they can go, listen, I had nothing to do with this. You know, they didn't factor me in those damn Republicans. Or, you know what? These Doge people did that. The cabinet secretary never called me about this.

The analogy I used on Fox and Friends was I said, and I hate this line because it came from either Lenin or Stalin, but it's a good line. To make an omelet, you got to break a few eggs. I just want to know what the omelet is. What is it we're trying to get done here? And then the broken eggs along the way, some people get fired, some budgets get cut.

Certain things, there's going to be stories. The media is all over this, Brian. They want to share stories of funding not getting to something that was doing a little bit of good. But see, that's going to happen. You have to cut this stuff overall, and there's no way to do it without some casualties.

But I think if you define what you're going for and then have a little more organization on the process, you keep the American people bought in. Because to your point, there's nobody who disagrees that they need to get rid of this and make it more efficient. It's just when you get in the details, it gets harder. I was stunned to see when you break down what we're spending it on, 7.2% of our budget goes to the interest on the debt that we're spending. Very low.

Yeah. But we are spending so much, but the number one factor of our, I guess, not, would you put it as non-discretionary spending?

Well, mandatory spending is up to 70%. It used to be 30%. 70 discretionary. It's now 70 mandatory, 30 discretionary. If the American people knew what I just said, they would be stunned.

It's the most stunning thing you can say. Because you're only voting for people to affect the budget, 30% of the budget. Barely that, because really, a lot of the other stuff you can't do much about either.

So, how do we fold that out? And see, here's the thing: there are people, and I'm not one of them, and the Reaganite right is not one of them, that then say national defense becomes in the chopping block. And that's one of the only things I believe is a legitimate function of a federal government, is to protect us.

So, really, if you count as I do, national defense is mandatory, you have much less than 30% of the chopping block.

So, fraud, waste, and corruption, and the effort to doge becomes a very significant part. And then, ultimately, the conversation everyone's trying to avoid, you're going to have to get to the 70%, which is entitlements.

So, when you see the attacks on Elon Musk's company, Tesla, knowing that he's heading this up. To me, every business person who has got a degree of success that might want to one day work in government might be saying, I got to think twice about it. My motivation is pure, but the country is so polarized. I have to worry about my family. I got to worry about my product.

I got to worry about my stock.

Well, and that's been there for some time that high-profile companies, especially publicly traded ones, are going to have a certain spotlight. This is at a level we've never seen, but Musk has a role we've never seen, too. In fairness, he invited this, but the way they're behaving is over the top. I think if you're going to be a high public figure and say, I want to go work in something as controversial and audacious as Doge, you're taking on some of the controversy. But Elon is a big boy.

He can handle it, and he has multiple entities he's turned into centa billionaire companies. I would simply say the problem I have is not that people are mad at Tesla and that they want to have political opinions about it. It's the violence, it's the vandalism, it's the French revolutionary behavior. Dissent in our country does not mean lawbreaking.

So, here is Elon Musk talking about what it means for him and his staff. We met a couple of them the other day on Laura Ingram's show: 30-something-year-old software engineers who give up six months to work in the government. Their way of giving back CUD 18. Just trying to do the right thing for the American taxpayer and for the American people. Just a thank you to the Doge team who are literally getting death threats and being accosted.

A lot of them are just kids, you know, they're just trying to help out and they're very talented. They could get jobs for millions of dollars a year. Instead, they come here earn peanuts and get death threats.

So, thanks to the Doge team. You know, it reminds me a little bit, although these guys are 32, they're probably some of the older ones, right? I mean, these are guys that have their whole life in front of them. They're young and talented, and they are doing it with the right motives. And this is the thanks they get.

I will say, Obama's administration did this too to a lot of finance people. After 2008, there were people going back trying to fix AIG, fix Fannie and Freddie, getting, you know, this was complicated financial stuff, and they got demonized for it. And you're right, there's a message in there of no good deed goes unpunished. It's unbelievable. David Bonson, thanks so much from the Bonson Group.

It's going to be an interesting time. We're looking at the market now up slightly, so it's somewhat steady on the tariff talk as it might not be as pervasive as we thought today. We don't know what's going to happen by April 2nd. Thanks so much, David. Thanks, Brian.

All right, we come back and do a simulcast with Stuart Varney on FBN. You listen to the Brian Kill Me Show. Don't move. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. Now the Brian Kilmead Show joins Fox Business's Varney and Company with Stuart Varney, live on your radio and on Fox Business.

Here's Brian Kilmead. Hi, welcome back, everybody. We're going to be on FBN Shortly. We're watching also monitoring the intelligence chief testifying about the leaked fallout from the signal communications leading up to the Houthi attack, as well as outlining the major threats, which originally was the mandate from this conference. The threats facing America where they're from in the Pacific and what China's done and that's why Tulsi Gabbard's there and Cash Patel is there and John Radcliffe is there and you have serious conversations and you should bring up all this stuff about the signal app absolutely and the communication that was picked up and written about in the Atlantic no problem with that but at some point you do have to talk about other things than this communication without it looking more and more like pure politics if it continues so John Senator Warner is hysterical because he is so worried about intelligence but yet he wasted our time for three or four and a half years on the Russia investigation remember anyway the first one so let's listen I'll go back to the beginning.

10.51, here is Brian Killmeet. Yeah, now I got you. Yeah, okay. We're communicating. That's good.

The Trump administration, two hearings over the crackdown on campus anti-Semitism. The first one, Mahmoud Khalil, he wants to block Colombia from handing over his school records to a House committee. Second, Cornell University student says his freedom of speech is being attacked for taking part in the protests. I want to give you my opinion, Brian. This is not about free speech.

It's about their conduct. That's what this is all about. What say you? Yeah, a couple of things. It's kind of a shame that we've got to build up these cases on these people that should be honored to be in our country.

No one knows more about the immigration system firsthand because I know how hard you work to become a citizen, how you have to play the perfect game once you're in a green card. If you do something silly like get in a bar fight or drive drunk, you're done. You lose your green card. That's it.

Now you have these students, air quotes, who come here and decide that they want to get elite education, but next thing you know, they're activists. And Marco Rubio, when asked, how are you going to justify getting rid of Makar? Mood Khalil of Columbia says, well, he lied in his application here. He didn't say he was part of a divest from Israel group. He didn't say what he was involved with in the UK and what his approach was.

There are organizations that this guy, this Khalil guy, was in charge of at 31 years old, a graduate student, and he graduated, by the way, living in campus housing, that he's involved with organizing anti-Semitic protests on this campus and maybe behind the mastermind, behind the takeover of Hamilton Hall a year ago.

Now they've got this other one up in Cornell who openly told people, I know I am jeopardizing my student visa in doing this and did it anyway. You know what they're doing now, Stuart? They're lawyering up. They're wasting our time. They're wasting our money.

People are going to bat for them to make sure that they can violate their immigration status and still stay. My hope is both cases, according to reports, are easy for us to win, should win, and then we quickly are able to use that precedent to grab these ungrateful. Visitors here, right out of the country.

Well said, Brian. The FBI cracking down on attacks against Tesla. Director Cash Patel calls it domestic terrorism.

Meanwhile, Elon Musk says his Doge team is getting death threats. Watch this. A lot of them are just kids, you know, just trying to help out and they're very talented. They could get jobs for millions of dollars a year. Instead, they come here, earn peanuts, and get death threats.

So thanks to the Doge team. Brian, can you explain this? Why is the left so violently angry about Musk? They used to love him. The best electric car company in the world.

And you know what's coming up on the 29th? Day of outrage against Tesla. And it's got John Cusek, the washed-up actor, and the overrated Congresswoman Crockett with a filthy mouth and a lot of attitude, who's a good booking, I guess, as a guest, is calling for an outpouring of anger against Tesla.

Now, they just picked up some explosive devices inside an Austin dealership. Think about all the explosions. Do you know what else is something to keep in mind? When you explode a Tesla vehicle or a cyber truck, these chemicals are so toxic, they're basically poison. And they have warned firefighters, there's only a certain way you could put out the fire.

So it's dangerous, it is illegal, it is terroristic, and you're putting down the one company that you were supposed to allow us to go into this green future. And I have a big secret for every all these Democrats. Most of the Tesla owners are Democrats because Joe Biden said the Earth had a fever, and now Gore backed us up. And if we don't get electric cars, the world would end. Democrats listened.

Now they're exploding those cars. It is insane. You put a lot of toxic stuff into the climate. And these are the climate guys that are trying to do it by the looks of it. Brian, thanks for joining us.

We'll see you again real soon. Thank you. Go get them, Stuart. Thanks so much. Tony, you're up in Montreal, Canada.

Hey, Tony. How are you? We'll turn you mine. Uh I just Brian, I I I've been watching you on Fox for a long time. I'm just grateful to speak to you today.

And I love your show. I know that you're a historian. I'm also a historian. And I don't understand the Ability or the inability of the Democratic Party to understand the clear message that traditionalism is back. It's a turnback in time where people want traditionalism, they want regular stuff, they want government to do the simple things and not to try to transform society, transform our children.

And this thing is happening across the world. But Trump's revolution, I believe it's a revolution, it's going to happen and it's going to be all over the world. You see, conservative governments are coming to Canada, they're coming to Italy. I know, but what's going on, Tony, because of the rivalry now, the fighting going on between our countries, it's fueling the liberals to have another Justin Trudeau-like character become the next prime minister? It's it's Brian, it's pathetic.

You know, like uh the Americans think that Canadian people don't like Americans. False. We love Trump. I'm Canada. There's a lot of people like me that love Trump.

And, Brian, I have cousins in New Jersey. I have cousins in Chicago. I have cousins in La Jolla, California. You know, our country is the same stock of people. I know that you're Irish.

I know you're Italian. I'm Italian and I'm half Ukrainian. And let me tell you something. That's what makes America great. The mix of people and the complete peace of mind that we have.

And that was removed from us, Brian. And, you know, I'm frustrated. I studied in New England, Colby College, and I got a great education. I know, Tony. We're going to be able to work it out between the countries.

I think cooler heads will prevail shortly. Hopefully, it'll be through this and you elect a conservative. From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Gilmead. Appreciate you being there.

Brian Kilmead here. Big hour coming your way. Senator Bill Cassidy will close out the hour. Chairman of the Senate Education Committee, obviously, he's talking about putting together a policy to collapse the federal education office, but Giving the money, saving the money, and giving it right to the states while getting rid of the apparatus that obviously isn't producing great results. And then, with all the court cases going on and all the challenges to this administration and their policies, we thought it would be a great day to interview Sean Davis, CEO and co-founder of the Federalist Former Economic Policy Advisor of Governor Rick Perry.

He's going to be joining us too. We'll talk about oil and gas. And Dan Hoffman is standing by, former CAA station chief, served in Moscow, Iraq, Pakistan, and South Asia at Europe, and a Fox News contributor.

So, we've got a bunch of things to talk to Dan about. But first off, just to update everyone on the big story, Jeffrey Goldberg, astunningly, was included on a text chain on Signal, which is an encrypted app that talked about the lead up and the aftermath of the attacks on the Houthi rebels two weeks ago. And Jeffrey Goldberg, for some reason, we don't know why, was put on that text chain. Obviously, nobody wanted him on. He's a writer that's very critical of the Trump team.

He has no credibility with conservatives. They made up the story, it seems, about soccer. And losers, people that died in World War I. That Donald Trump evidently was claimed in Jeffrey Goldberg's book that ended up being part of a campaign against him. It was not proven, never checked.

And he had wrote a series of stories that can't be verified. But some reason, he ended up on the contact list with Michael Waltz and seen from his office he was putting Jeffrey Goldberg on there. At which time he has now published a story talking about the interaction not classified between people like Tulsi Gabbert, Stephen Miller, Michael Waltz, Secretary of Defense, Marco Rubio, Staffer, and John Radcliffe. Here's Jeffrey Goldberg talking about what he found out, cut one. I made the decision that this the technical aspects of this, including what kinds of weapons packages, the attack sequencing and so on, that's not necessarily in the public interest.

What's in the public interest is that they were running a war plan on a Messaging app and didn't even know who was invited into the conversation. And it's pretty much been verified that this has actually happened, and people want to find out how it happened. And I think everyone on the inside wants to find out how it happened too. We put the story in the Atlantic magazine: Donald Trump says Michael Waltz is safe. He made a mistake.

Just don't let it happen again. That's the type of attitude for people close to him. And then we also, I interacted personally with Michael Waltz. He says, I never met Jeffrey Goldberg, have no idea how he got on my signal app. Uh as a contacts.

So, we're also going to talk to Dan Hoffman about the Ukrainian-Russia talks. The U.S. and Ukraine so far have agreed to safe navigation of the Black Sea following talks with Russia. Russia has to also agree to that. The thing that they really have to agree is they have a Navy, and Ukraine basically has merchant ships and drone strikes, but they still knocked out a third of the Russian Navy through that.

Dan Hoffman joins us now. Dan, first, your take on what we know about the. about the exchanges leading up to the Houthi attack last weekend on the Signal app. Yeah, it's a bit of a self-inflicted wound. I can tell you that.

I'm quite sure our foreign adversaries are pouring over that story in the Atlantic just to gain insights into how members of the administration engage with one another. You might note that the key role of Stephen Miller, who was texting on behalf of the President and really was the one who gave the operation a green light after there was some back and forth about whether To conduct it, Vice President Vance was pretty critical about Europe paying their fair share in defense.

So, whatever he said in Munich, you know, it wasn't really for show, he really means it. But there are a lot of questions. Is this some sort of standard procedure? Have they done this before? Is there some concern that our foreign adversaries with good technical capability like China or Russia might have penetrated signal?

Special Envoy Stephen Witcoff was in Moscow. On thirteenth March, when those text messages were being sent, so was he opening his phone? Was he using his phone or was he using a burner phone? And that signal app? I mean, there's just a lot of questions out there.

I can just tell you from my experience at CIA, phones aren't safe. We leave them outside of sensitive spaces. You're not allowed to bring them into the CIA. or to the to the DIA or the DNI. We use these gifts to sensitive compartmented information facilities.

And I've been in a lot of big meetings like this one that took place to launch that attack on the Hoofies. And what we usually do is just join by secure. video teleconference. And if you're overseas, it means you go to an embassy. And if you can't make it, you send your deputy.

And So it's a tough one, and it's a shame. But as the President said, we learned from it and hopefully move on with some good lessons learned. And then, of course, you got just the timing of all this. I'm sure it's intentional, Jeff Goldberg.

Now they know they got all our intelligence chiefs testifying on the dangers facing our country, and the first 15, 20 minutes are all about something that they had nothing to do with.

So we'll see what happens. Also, I find it very rich when people like Senator Warner come off so sanctimonious when they really went along with this Russia lark for two and a half, three years, and they just watched four years of the previous administration without any serious questions, which was probably some of the worst failures that we've had that left us with the messes and the challenges that we have today. I guess you're not usually involved in the political process, but your observations must be interesting. Yes, I mean, leave the politics out of this. Of course, that won't happen because Democrats see an opportunity to hit on the Trump team over this.

Um but you're not going to really get to the bottom of what was going on or potentially fix it if you just use it for political fodder. But of course, I have no expectation that anyone would do otherwise, unfortunately. But look, as you said, Brian, I mean, this is one that, again, a bit of a self-inflicted wound here. And it'll be the subject today of those hearings and the threat briefing. Tomorrow's threat briefing, I should say.

And also, look, the DCIA was there, was on that text, and so was. Dulcie Gabbard's representative. And so they were, in a sense, complicit just because they were on the text stream. And you wonder why they maybe didn't say, hey, maybe we shouldn't be doing this on signal. Like, I don't think anyone said that, or maybe they did.

they were overruled. Who knows? There's a lot to get to the bottom of. The challenge for us is we're doing this in public, and I kind of wish we weren't because our adversaries are going to soak it up and use everything they can against us.

So let's talk about what's happening in Russia and Ukraine. It just came across, as I mentioned, the U.S. and Ukraine agreed to ensure safe navigation. That means the Black Sea. Let's not attack each other on the Black Sea.

They agreed in principle not to attack each other's energy sources. There have been mutual accusations that they're still doing it. Your thoughts about how these P-Talks are going? Look, the war has been a loser for Vladimir Putin. He's losing.

Um That's this. I'm sorry? Does he know that? Yeah. Yeah, he knows that.

He's the KGB operative in the Kremlin.

So, what he's trying to do is spew a lot of propaganda and disinformation and make us think that he's not losing. Right. if you just think about the hundreds of thousands of of casualties That disease caused For his own army. Uh which is decimated. Their most elite capable units have been chewed up in that meat grinder war, and Russia has only taken about ten percent of the Ukrainian territory since the invasion.

Their stocks of tanks and armored vehicles, artillery also severely depleted.

So part of the question is are we going to allow Uh Ourselves to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I mean, Vladimir Putin's objective was to topple Ukraine, he didn't do it. And so we shouldn't be acceding to his maximalist demands. we should be pressing him to ensure that he doesn't have the capability to launch an invasion down the road where he would finish the job, which is, I think, what he wants to do. He said publicly That you know, many times Ukraine's not a real country, uh, and that he's defending ethnic Russians.

That's not an indication that he's super interested in the peace deal, and he hasn't agreed to the peace deal that Zelensky did, which was just a ceasefire. Putin refused to do that so far. No, I agree with you.

So they're going to do things incrementally back and forth. And I wasn't too encouraged by Steve Witkoff's relatively conciliatory message that, well, there's Russian-speaking people in the Donbass region, so I don't think they're giving up that land yet. Just like there's Spanish-speaking people in Texas, I don't think we should give it back to what they think should be Mexico.

So it's kind of ridiculous. But as we look at what's happening in Ukraine, I want you to hear what Marco Rubio said: Cut 38. First of all, I think the American people should be proud that we have a President that's promoting peace and the end of conflict on this planet. This is a war that's gone on for three years, as you pointed out, that as you've rightly pointed out would have never happened had you been President, but now it's here, and it needs to be brought to an end. There is no military solution to this war.

It has to end through negotiations.

So they're going to look to do this thing incrementally.

So the only thing that would stop another invasion, I believe, is a promise that America would secure it or international forces on their land. And that's a nonstarter with Russia.

Sooner or later, we're going to get to those really tough decisions. Yeah, I mean, too bad. Ukraine is an independent sovereign country. If they want some French or British or other European troops in their country, like that's okay for them to do that. And the other thing, I would just say, look, and I'm not saying this to spoil things.

God bless the Trump administration for trying. But if I were advising the President, I'd say, please don't hitch your political wagon to the KGB guy in the Kremlin. Do your best to get a ceasefire, but remember that we're out for our own national security about what matters most. And remember that Putin has always considered the United States to be Russia's main enemy, Glavny Prativnik in Russian. And he wants to damage our global reputation, not enhance it as a global peace mediator.

He wants to drive a wedge between us and our NATO partners, our allies. And ultimately, he'd like to induce us to accede to a bad deal for Ukraine.

So those are things I think we just have to be very careful about. And I hope that Special Envoy Witkoff's got a Russia expert on his team who's served there for many years and can speak Russian to just interpret what is going on here because it is extremely challenging dealing with Vladimir Putin. He's pulled the wool over the eyes of numerous presidents in the past, as I know you recall.

So As it's progressing right now, are you encouraged, discouraged? What do you think? Look, I have to emphasize this point. Of all the wars I've seen close up and studied in history class, wars end when one side wins or both sides are too exhausted to fight. And we're not there yet.

So we are trying to stop the conflict, and that's good for us and it's good for the world. I just don't know if we're going to get there. I don't even know if it's possible to get there. I know we'll do the best that we can to get there, but that's where the President may have to step back like he did in Hanoi when he walked away from a bad deal with Kim Jongoon and just say, you know what, I tried and I can't do it. We can't break these two apart.

Sorry. Yeah. He may have to do that. And the thing is, I think Trump's got to show a willingness to walk away and to give Ukraine more weapons. Yep.

Yep, exactly just like he did in Hanoi, which was a brilliant move. He showed up, he said, I'm ready to talk about your the North Korea's nuclear arsenal, and we're ready to do a deal, a fair deal, a good deal. And what the North Koreans were proposing was bad for the United States, bad for our national security, and the President packed up his stuff, took his people home. And he was lauded for that because it was the right decision for our country. Do you think there's a chance that Putin understands that the upside of having normalized relations with us is enough of an enticement to allow those international troops on the ground to back out and stop this war?

Do you think he sees himself like, you know what? I'm looking at this private communication. There really is a rift with the West. We don't like that, but he does. You think he's like, they really do want to de-emphasize and let these guys fight on their own.

You know, and I know Trump, and there's an excellent chance he really believes this, and he took a lot of crap in America because of it, even from his own party. And Mike thinking to himself, it's in his best interest. To do this deal, I'm not saying that he'd ever do it for us, but would he do it for? Does it does it ever? If you're him and you put yourself in that person's spot all the time for a living, do you think that?

Yep, that's the key thing is to see the world through Putin's eyes.

So what you just asked is what President Trump should be asking Director of CIA Radcliffe. what's it going to take for Vladimir Putin to actually agree to a deal?

Now look, Putin doesn't care about the hundreds of thousands of casualties he's caused. They don't threaten his regime. It's just a statistic to him. And Ukraine is an existential threat, not because Ukraine poses a military threat to Russia, but because they're a democracy and they're trying to build relations, commercial, diplomatic and strategic relations with Europe and the West. And he could never allow that to happen.

And again, that's why his strategic objective was to overthrow the government of Ukraine.

So I don't know if he's going to want to agree to a deal. His allies are Iran and North Korea and China, and he's happy. To enjoy that partnership for all that it entails in lieu of. A real partnership with the West, the United States, and Europe, which he knew he was going to blow it up when he invaded Ukraine. and give up the commercial relationships that he enjoyed that were very lucrative For his hydrocarbon exports.

So he doesn't have that anymore. But he's okay with that because he wants to be aligned with this. Access of dictatorships, which is what we've got. And I still feel like the best way to break that relationship is to defeat. Putin in Ukraine makes it clear that his imperial land grab was a loser, and that maybe that might drive a wedge between Putin and those evil, despotic regimes with which he's allied.

I think Ukraine still wants to fight. I mean, they're the ones who keep saying they want to keep fighting, but they understand that that's not going to really resonate with the West. But think about it: Vladimir Putin got his worst nightmare. He got two formidable countries now joining NATO, and now he's got $300, if not more, billion dollars frozen in the West.

So that's another incentive for Trump, isn't it? It is. Absolutely.

Uh absolutely. If your country's invaded. The way Ukraine was invaded and Russia's kidnapped tens of thousands of Ukrainian children. And mounted countless indiscriminate bombing attacks, which have killed Ukrainians in their homes and hospitals, neighborhoods, and maternity wards. You're going to fight.

I know you and I would. Brian, we'd pick up an automatic rifle and we'd go to the front and we'd fight for our country, because that's what you do. In fact, if you're wondering about whether Ukraine is a sovereign nation or not, or whether they'd be okay being taken over by Russia, there's your answer. I mean, that's it. God bless them for fighting back and showing the world that the stronger nuclear power doesn't just get to take over weaker countries the way Putin tried.

It looks like, real quick, we have a minute left, but it looks like the IDF is going to look to destroy Hamas, not just weaken Hamas. Will they be successful? That was the objective that Prime Minutes in Yahoo laid out when the war began. Destroy Hamas.

So if you're looking at a post-conflict reconstruction plan for Gaza, it cannot include Hamas. If it does, you've got a counterinsurgency you've got to deal with.

So they are destroying Hamas. They're picking apart Hamas leaders and their battalions. And it's a long fight. But look, there's no future for Gaza or the Palestinians with Hamas. Daniel Hoffman, thanks so much, Dan.

Appreciate it. Yeah, man. Thank you, Brian. Have a good rest of the week. You got it.

We'll bring you the latest from the hearings going on right now and the other breaking news. Brian Kill Me Show. Don't move. Coming to you on a need-to-know basis because Mandy, you need to know. It's Brian Kilmead.

The fastest three hours in radio. You're with Brian Kilmead. Sponsored by Previgen. Previgen made for your brain. Um, because we in these hot ass Texas streets, honey.

Um, y'all know we got Governor High Wheels down there. Come on now. And the only thing hot about him is that he is a hot ass mess, honey.

So, um.

So yes, yes, yes, yes.

So she shouldn't be embarrassed if she represents your community. Hot Wheels, a guy in a wheelchair, it's hysterical, isn't it? Any of you you have any quadriplegic jokes rolling out off your tongue? Number two, they also re re you got to hit Ted Cruz hard. You gotta hit em hard upside the head.

I mean, her comments about Tesla, I want them to feel pain. And talking about that 29th to give on the 29th, that's her birthday. And that's what you could do on the 29th to make sure that Tesla feels some pain. I mean, this is the most irresponsible person, but the best selling point for Republicans in Texas and for Democrats to continue to wallow with no national message. As long as people like that are front or center and AOC and Bernie Sanders are spewing their socialist stuff, Republicans should feel good.

You should worry about when the moderates step up, the Fettermans and others step up and talking center-left stuff. We're center-like Bill Moore. That's when this real competition is going to start. But right now, it's a distraction, but a disturbing one. The talk show that's getting you talking.

You're with Brian Killmead. There have been a lot of breaches, there's been a lot of leaks, there's been a lot of stolen cases of stolen documents. I've never seen. I've never seen a large group of national senior most national security officials just. Kind of willy-nilly put out a bunch of stuff.

you know, without knowing who they're talking to.

That's Jeff Goldberg talking about what it was like to be in that text chain. We know this story by now on Signal, which is an encrypted app, which all the high-ranking intelligence people were communicating about the Houthi attacks two weeks ago. What that means in the big picture, they got to reform it, they got to fix it, but no one's getting fired. Donald Trump made that clear with me, and he just made it formally a statement about 9:30 today. Evidently, they did put something out in February saying that this was a dangerous app, that somehow the Chinese and Russians would be able to use it.

Whether there were actually detailed attack plans in it, I don't know. Jeff Goldberg said he left it out when he wrote his story because he thought it wasn't in the best interest of the country's national security. Sean Davis joins us now, and we're loose looking at some of the fireworks that are taking place now between Senator Bennett, obviously frustrated as party's going nowhere, and John Radcliffe. Sean Davis, welcome back.

Well, thank you for having me, sir. As CEO and co-founder of the Federalists, you're all over conservative causes and some of these intelligence challenges. Obviously, a mistake was made with this signal intelligence, and very fortuitous for Democrats to have this the day of this intelligence conference committee meetings, right? Yeah, it is. It was definitely a mess up.

Personally, I don't, I'm not as bothered by the fact they were communicating on Signal. That had been approved, as Ratcliffe said about the CIA. I'm a lot more concerned about who added this person, who added Goldberg, how that happened. I don't particularly think classified information was shared. In fact, there's one exchange which Goldberg himself reported where Hexeth says, Hey, on this topic, go check the high side, referring to the classified network.

So they clearly were keeping classified information on the classified network. But I think the big issue here, at least in my opinion, is not, oh, they were using Signal. That's crazy. It's how on earth was Goldberg added? Who did it?

And how are they going to make sure that doesn't happen again? Absolutely.

That certainly would help. But now we've got to go back and forth on this. And we'll see where it goes. Hopefully, people learn from it. The other thing they're pretty clear is that.

J.D. Vance was not on board with this strike, and the anti-European attitude was not just the context of a speech. He really. Uh feels as though uh Europe has been On for the ride, and they're not paying their fair share. Your thoughts about that interaction?

Yeah, I actually thought it was really interesting.

Now, I've never been at a high level like Vance was, but I worked in Congress, I worked on the Hill, I've been in conversations with senators. There are things you discuss in private in a very open and honest way to help make sure that you are serving your principal in the best way possible to make sure everything you're doing is aligned with the principal's message and vision, in this case, Donald Trump.

So, when I see people talking openly that way in private about how to align stuff, my first reaction wasn't, oh, wow, JD's not on the team. It was, hey, there's a lot of disagreement internally, and they're all trying to figure out the best way to handle that. Right. I like that Stephen Miller shut it down and said, we're not going back to the president. He green lit this.

So enough. Yeah, exactly. But that you have to be able to have those kind of open conversations at the staff level. You need to be able to hash stuff out. Because what you were seeing there was people saying, hey, these are going to be some of the concerns that pop up.

How do we handle that? How do we deal with that? That's stuff that you have to do at the staff level. And the idea that everyone, when they're having these discussions on execution, is going to be just like happily skipping along and holding hands. And that's just not how things work.

Houston Senator John Hovind said, The Republican from North Dakota cut six. I haven't seen the specific information yet, but I'll take a look at it. But you know, Marco Rubio, if I'm headed up the intelligence committee, he's a sharp guy.

So I'm not sure what happened here, but I'll sure take a look and see. But as far as going after the Houthis and taking a strong position in the US, we need to do that. We're doing the right thing. The idea that they'd shut down shipping in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, that's ridiculous. And that's what I think the point was, is that, well, J.D.

Vance says, hey, only 3% of our COMRS goes through there.

Well, they shot at our destroyer that went through there over 70 times. We're using missiles to knock down drones, which we shouldn't really do. It's not cost protective. Ultimately, we'll have to leave because we can't protect ourselves anymore. That's disrespect towards the superpower that is, and shows that Russia and China could go through without any problem.

So I have no problem with this operation, especially because they went after people and not just empty launchers. Mm-hmm. That's true. You can't allow hostile forces to go harass shipping lanes, whether you're there for a percent of it or 100% of it. You know, you look at how Thomas Jefferson handled the pirates early, early in America's history.

You can't have any tolerance for it. What I kind of was looking at in that particular conversation wasn't so much, hey, we're going to do this or not do it. It was more like a, hey, this is a much bigger problem for Europe than it is for us. Why are we shouldering the entire burden? Maybe we should be looking for ways to make them foot the cost.

We'll execute it, but we shouldn't be doing this for free. And I think that's totally appropriate. Yeah, and that's pretty much what they were saying. Here's John Radcliffe explaining the whole thing about a half hour ago. Senator Radcliffe, were you on the group chat?

Senator, I was on a signal messaging group.

So you were the John Ratcliffe on that chat? I was. Thank you, thank you. Can I provide some context, Senator, to that? Yes, but I've got a series of questions.

But I think it's important because at the outset, you made a couple of comments about signal messaging using encrypted apps.

So that we're clear. One of the first things that happened when I was confirmed as CIA director was that signal was loaded onto my computer at the CIA, as it is for most CIA officers. One of the things that I was briefed on very early, Senator, was by the CIA records management folks about the use of signal as a permissible work use. It is. That is a practice that preceded the current administration to the Biden administration.

Dr. Rackliff, I've got a series of questions. If you're making the question. If you're making the statement that signal is a secure channel, no, can I answer that? It is decryption.

So it is permissible to use to communicate and coordinate for work purposes, provided, Senator, that any decisions that are made are also recorded through formal channels.

So those were procedures that were implemented. My staff implemented those processes, followed those processes, complied with those processes. And finally, just please, so my communications, to be clear. Here in a signal message group, we were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.

So you try to explain it. It wasn't as when you originally hear it, you don't realize that Signal was being used so effectively or so willingly in the last administration into this one. Right. And it's easy to look at that and say, oh, they're using an app. We can't be using apps.

But the issue here was not a technological flaw in the app. It was a poor execution of the process by a human involved in it. You know, if I invite someone into my house and they have a bug on them and they're recording conversations with me, that's not a breach of my door locks. It doesn't mean the alarm doesn't work. It just means that a person was allowed in kind of through deception or incompetence.

That's the problem here. They had a human problem here, they did not have a technological problem.

So Sean, as we look at the President of the United States now, he is trying to cut costs and get a budget passed. At the same time, get out of the court system with his initiatives, executive orders. And he's with us in front of a three point person panel this week in order to appeal a verdict that was handed by a single judge, a district judge, that said he could not ship two hundred sixty one people to a Supermax prison who happened to be illegal alien criminals. How do you see this playing out?

So, I think it's important to step back and kind of look at what Trump struggled with in his first administration, which was a total obstruction from the administrative state, the deep state, whatever you want to call it.

So, he comes in day one in Trump 2.0 and understands what he's facing and immediately goes to work neutering this completely unelected, all-powerful administrative state.

So, he's not going to have that challenge this time around. What he's facing now is what's effectively a judicial coup from the judiciary, where you have single inferior court district judges taking for themselves not just the power of the presidency, they're taking for themselves powers of superior courts, of the Supreme Court. And an example I'll give you is that there's no one member of the United States Supreme Court, not even Chief Justice John Roberts, who has the power unilaterally to block anything. They have to do everything together. They have to have a majority.

And yet, what we have right now is a single district judge in D.C., elected by no one, saying, Hey, Mr. President, you can't do this because I've decided you can't. And that's a total abomination and total disrespect, not just for the president, but for the American people who elected him.

So, what happens next? They're trying to get some type of legislation to disempower but not impeach. This guy. Yeah, so Congress can do a bunch of stuff. They can change districts around.

They can remove jurisdiction. But the most powerful check you have, either from Congress or the president, is the fact that the judiciary and all its rulings really only survive with respect to Congress or the presidency based on their own deference. The judiciary doesn't control money. It doesn't control the military. What you have to have is a trust from either the executive or legislative branch to defer to you.

And I think we're rapidly reaching the point where the president may just stop deferring to them and saying, you're infringing on my powers that the Constitution gives to me, and I'm obligated to abide by the Constitution. All right. Thanks so much, Sean Davis. Always great to talk to you. I appreciate it, especially riding with the breaking news.

All right. When we come back, Senator Bill Cassidy from Louisiana. Are you listening to the Brian Kilmeet show? It's Brian Killmade. He's so busy, he'll make your head spin.

It's Brian Kilmeade. Director Cabard. Did you participate in the group chat with Secretary of Defense and other Trump senior officials discussing the Yemen war plans? Senator, I don't want to get into this matter. Ma'am, did you want you're not going to be willing to address it?

So you're not denying. Matt, will you answer my question, ma'am? You were not TG on this group chat? I'm not going to get into the specifics of the group.

So, you refuse to acknowledge whether you are on this group chat? Senator, I'm not going to get into this specific. Why are you going to get into the specifics? Is it because it's all classified? Because this is currently under review by the National Security Commission.

Because it's all classified? If it's not classified, share the text now. As the White House previously classified or non-classified information on this title, I can confirm.

So that is some of the sporring with Senator Warner, as well as Sulcy Gabbard, on the signal intelligence communication leading up to the Houthi and after the Houthi attack. Senator Cassie, I want to talk about education. Just wanted to get you to weigh in on this. You have so much experience in Washington. I did not know the signal app was even used in the prior administration, let alone this one.

Your thoughts? Yes, first, the signal app doesn't surprise me because the Chinese have been very active at trying to go after text messages between government officials. And the fact that they're using Signal is another layer of protection against something that the Chinese have been attempting to do. Let me first say that. But, Brian, just more broadly.

They made a mistake. The President has acknowledged that. You can be sure it won't happen again. And the President has said, you know, people are entitled to a mistake. I'll point out no Americans died.

That was different than Afghanistan, where Joe Biden got fired in part because Americans were dying when he withdrew so poorly from Afghanistan. It's a mistake. They'll get over it, and they'll be better after it. Yeah, so we'll see. This fireworks today, the timing's interesting, right, when you have it at an Intel conference.

But having said that, hopefully they'll get through it and understand it, and they're just standing up now. All right, let's talk about the dissolving of the Education Department. You are chairman of the Senate Education Committee. Are you against it or for it? I am for it.

Talked about this in 1980. And so to see a President Trump take it on and attempt to execute, which will require my help and the help of the Senate Republicans to get it done. as kind of a kind of a realization of that which Republicans have understood needed to be done for some time.

So how does it happen? And do you think legisl obviously legislation is going to be needed? What are you going to do? First, I'm speaking with Secretary McMahon, and how do we come up with something? They'll have to deliver something to us, and then we will work to make it happen.

First you got to, first thing you have to do is relieve anxiety. Secretary McMahon made it clear when she was in her confirmation hearings This is not about decreasing federal funding. It's about returning control to the parents and the local school district. And the fundamental question is Who has the child's interest more at heart? The mom, the dad, the local school board, or a Washington DC bureaucrat?

And this is about giving control to mom and give control to dad.

So now the Teachers' Union School Districts are suing President Trump's administration over the dismantling of the Education Department. Not unexpected that the American Federation of Teachers and its Massachusetts chapter joined the East Hampton School District, the Somerville Public School Committee, in challenging this executive order. Yeah, so if you way back when Jimmy Carter set this up, he put the stakeholders, the vested interest in public education, who are more about their vested interest than they are about the child, he gave them an inordinate amount of influence over the Department of Education. And you saw this during the COVID lockdown. when clearly it was safe for people to go back to the classroom, and teachers' unions weighed in to keep kids locked out.

Now this should be more about the child, not about a DC bureaucrat. We need to put the parent Centerpiece into the education of their child. And by the way, is the parent going to have more influence over a local school board or over a Washington DC bureaucrat? Clearly it's the local school board. Let's give parent let's give power to the parent.

Let's give mom the power. What about special education? Where who's going to take care of that? She made it clear that funding will not be decreased for the special ed programs. Who's going to do it?

It will be local school boards, but there will still be accountability required to the federal government. The federal taxpayer is not going to want his or her tax dollars going someplace and being used to do something which is inappropriate.

So there will still be accountability measures. We can do it a lot better than we're doing now. Pell Grant, student loans, things like that, is that going to Treasury?

So right now, the President has moved some of the student loan activity to the Small Business Administration, and they do a lot of loans. They've got a lot of expertise. I will point out that the Department of Education under Biden covered itself with shame in terms of how they managed that program. Costing the federal taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars and, frankly, the kids who had to pay it back, too.

So we can do this a lot better. And I think a new approach. Senator Cassidy, do you think that maybe cutting the interest rate on these student loans, rather than randomly forgiving these loans and defying the Supreme Court, is an option you could do?

Well, yes, but I'll tell you, there's already so many programs out there to help somebody, for example, who loses their job to get forbearance on paying it back. And when the Biden administration was just kind of coming up with a let's forgive everything as if it was had to be done to rescue people, they were ignoring that which is already out there. More fundamentally, we need to address the high cost of education so that kids don't get in this situation to begin with, and that's the place to begin. Interesting. So how do you plan on judging if there's improvement, if everyone wants to get away from teaching to the test?

How are you going to judge if anyone's learning anything?

Well, first, we can acknowledge that we started off in nineteen seventy nine when it was nationalized, if you will. I think like in the top five internationally in terms of the performance of our kids. And now we're like, you know, way below that.

So there has been a decline over the period of time in which we have nationalized the regulation of education.

Now, it's not overnight, but as a rule, I would ask, who cares more about a child's education? The parent, particularly the mom, or some DT bureaucrat, we can expect improvement. And the teachers are great. We try to give the great teachers more money. Senator Bill Cassie, I'm glad you're in charge.

Thanks so much. Thanks, Brian. Back in a moment. Keep in mind, RyanKillMe.com. Find out how to see me in Dayton, June 21st, History, Liberty, and Laugh.

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. Listen and follow now at FoxtrueCrime.com or wherever you get your favorite podcasts. 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.