If you watch one exchange, make sure it’s this one.

The conversation had been circling around immigration for several minutes when the panel began hammering the Trump administration over its enforcement policies, arguing that deportations and arrests of illegal aliens were being carried out in an inhumane way.

It was the kind of discussion that usually follows a familiar script.

The hosts make the emotional case against enforcement. Republicans try to explain why enforcement is necessary. Everyone talks past each other.

But this exchange went in a different direction.

As the criticism intensified, Vance calmly pushed back and made what was really a commonsense argument: enforcing immigration laws is never going to look pretty, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen.

It was an expert 6-1 takedown.

VANCE: “We have to strike a balance, of course, between enforcing our laws.”

“We don’t want to dehumanize people…”

“Law enforcement is always inherently not a very pretty process. Especially when you’re dealing sometimes with violent people, with people who are resisting arrest.”

He then turned his attention to something he says often gets lost in media coverage of immigration enforcement.

According to Vance, many of the stories presented as examples of innocent people being targeted don’t always tell the full story.

VANCE: “Some of the people that I have been told by the media were completely peaceful, had never violated any laws, you actually look into the record and you find out that those people were actually being violent or they did have a criminal record.”

“They had a sex traffic conviction.”

Subscribe now

That immediately drew a response from Sunny Hostin, who argued that most of the people being arrested and deported are not criminals at all. She was visibly emotional.

HOSTIN: “The majority of people DON’T have criminal records. The majority of people that ICE is rounding up and taking…taking out of their homes, from their families, they’re separating families!”

“They’re using children as bait. The majority are not criminals!”

Vance tried to jump back in.

VANCE: “But can I respond to that?”

“Let me just say this. Okay.”

“You talk about the children. Here is what I would say.”

And that’s when he completely flipped the conversation.

Instead of debating individual deportation cases, Vance brought the discussion back to what he sees as the real humanitarian disaster that occurred under the previous administration.

VANCE: “Do we know that during the last administration we had TENS of THOUSANDS of children who were sex trafficked by the cartels, who were brought into our country in profoundly dangerous and predatory conditions…”

Subscribe now

It was a total indictment. Hostin immediately tried to redirect the conversation.

HOSTIN: “Let’s talk about this administration!”

But Vance wasn’t letting go of the point.

His argument was simple — if the border isn’t enforced, criminal organizations benefit, and vulnerable people pay the price.

VANCE: “Unless you enforce the border, you invite that kind of conduct.”

“You think it’s inhumane based on the reporting of one person with a political bias.”

NAVARRO: “It’s not one person!”

VANCE: “What I’m telling you is that it’s inhumane to allow cartels to sex traffic people across our border.”

For a moment, the back-and-forth stopped.

Then something happened that probably wasn’t in the producers’ script.

Ana Navarro, one of Trump’s most consistent critics on television, acknowledged the one thing that even many opponents of the administration have quietly admitted over the past several months.

NAVARRO: “And you guys have done a great job closing the border.”

Just like that, the entire conversation shifted.

After all of the arguments, interruptions, and accusations, one of the panel’s strongest anti-Trump voices ended up conceding the administration’s biggest immigration achievement.

Vance couldn’t resist having a little fun with it.

VANCE: “I appreciate that! We’re going to get you back Ana.”

It was a classic Vance moment.

He stayed calm while the panel came at him from every direction, redirected the conversation back to the issues he wanted to discuss, and ultimately walked away with something few Republicans get on The View — a public admission from Ana Navarro that the administration’s border policies are working.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support!

Last night, CNN’s Erin Burnett — who has spent years attacking President Trump from behind the anchor desk — clearly thought she had the perfect setup when she brought up Trump’s comments about Venezuela potentially becoming the “51st state.”

Twice, she tried to steer Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado into attacking Trump over the comments in just a matter of minutes.

Twice, Machado completely shut down the trap and turned the conversation back toward Venezuela’s alliance with the United States, defeating communism, and the broader fight for democracy in South America.

Burnett opened with a long-winded setup about Trump’s comments, framing them as something Machado should supposedly find offensive or alarming.

BURNETT: “But Trump keeps talking about Venezuela as the 51st state. I just mentioned that social media post that he posted with the 51st state and the map of Venezuela.”

“He also talked about this in detail earlier this week to a Fox News reporter who was really a bit taken aback by it.”

“How do you even respond to that?”

Machado didn’t hesitate at all.

Instead of taking the bait into ridiculing President Trump, she leaned the other direction entirely and spoke positively about both Venezuela and the relationship she believes the country could have with the United States in the future.

MACHADO: “Well, I know President Trump really likes Venezuela and for good reasons. It is a beautiful country. But most of all of wonderful people.”

“But I’m sure he’s going to love it even better when we have a country that is free, prosperous, and democratic, and turns into the strongest ally in the Americas…”

“And look, Erin, from every perspective for the American people and for the Venezuelan people, a transition to democracy is a win-win solution…”

You could almost feel the interview slipping away from Burnett at that point.

Most CNN interviews built around Trump follow a pretty predictable script, especially when a foreign leader or opposition figure is involved.

The expectation is usually that the guest will validate the framing, condemn Trump, and help generate the headline the network wants.

But Machado clearly wasn’t interested in playing that role.

A few moments later, Burnett tried again anyway, this time getting even more direct and repeating Trump’s comments almost word-for-word in an effort to force Machado into rejecting them publicly.

The vitriol directed at the president by Burnett was palpable. She could hardly get the words out as she stuttered, ‘But Trump!’

BURNETT: “But when…when…when trump said to the Fox News reporter; ‘I’m very serious about this. So you can talk about this. I’m serious about beginning a process to make Venezuela the 51st state.’”

“You do not take him seriously?”

Once again, Machado refused to take the bait.

Instead of criticizing Trump, she told Burnett that the president’s overture about making Venezuela the 51st state is actually a direct message sent to the Chavismo regime that the United States is in charge.

MACHADO: “Well, I think he’s sending a message to many people and certainly to the regime.”

“I mean, we, the Venezuelan people value, appreciate, share the values of the American people.”

Machado then pivoted back to the bigger geopolitical picture and started talking about the collapse of communist influence across Latin America if Venezuela were freed from the current regime.

“We are decisive to be a strong ally…and in terms of legacy, imagine what this will mean for the for the U.S. government and for your country, Erin, for the first time, we will have, once we move towards democracy and Venezuela is free, Cuba will follow, Nicaragua will follow.”

“We will have for the first time in the history of this continent, the Americans, free of communism and dictatorship.”

“This is huge!”

At that point, the interview was basically cooked.

Burnett had gone fishing for an anti-Trump soundbite twice and came up empty both times.

Machado never gave CNN the outrage moment they were clearly hoping for. Instead, she turned the entire discussion into a message about freedom, anti-communism, and alliance with the United States.

The look on Burnett’s face said everything.

She realized pretty quickly that Machado was not going to play along with the narrative she was trying to build, and hastily ended the interview.

However, it was far too late. Everyone had just witnessed a trouncing live on CNN.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support!

As the panel criticized DHS and piled onto Secretary Kristi Noem, Elisabeth Hasselbeck did something almost unheard of on the daytime talk show: she made a full-throated case for a strong, closed border — and she came armed with numbers.

But the part that shifted the Overton window came towards the end, when Hasselbeck used an analogy involving the studio audience to illustrate to the panel that her logic on immigration was undeniable.

HASSELBECK: “I think all lives matter to God.”

“And we are in uncommon times, so we need to have uncommon sense about things like this.”

She acknowledged that no policy is perfect, but argued that results matter. Each statistic sounding like a flash bang grenade to the leftist ears of the panelists on The View.

“Yes, there will be mistakes made, but I think if Kristi Noem were up for promotion right now and she put forward the statistics that zero illegals released into the U.S. for 10 months straight have not crossed.”

Hasselbeck continued rattling them off, one after the other.

“That nearly 3 million aliens have left the United States.”

“That we have the lowest murder rate in 125 years.”

“That fentanyl trafficking is down 56% at the border and daily encounters have gone down 96%.”

Before she could continue, Joy Behar attempted to jump in.

Hasselbeck wasn’t finished and she was not about to be interrupted while making her point.

“Hang on one second.”

She pivoted from statistics to a broader philosophical argument, making the case that border enforcement is simply an extension of everyday security norms.

“We need a strong border especially now with the current global situation, and I believe that you may say you don’t want border control and you’re against ICE, but I don’t believe you in your daily lives.”

That’s when it happened. This was the moment that everyone in the room realized her argument was ironclad.

She returned to the visual that had already made her point. Hasselbeck asked the audience directly:

“How many people in the audience had to go through security to get here? Raise your hand.”

“Just be honest, otherwise you got to jail, I guess, for illegal trespassing.”

The cameras cut back to the crowd — hands raised.

“This is an authorized audience. They had to go through security, to get through the border, to get right here to just hear us talk.”

She leaned into the analogy.

“We need strong borders more than ever right now.”

“We are being infiltrated!”

The reaction was immediate.

Nearly every panelist at the table jumped on her, clearly frustrated by what had just been said on their own set.

But by that point, it didn’t really matter.

She had already made her case. The numbers were out there. The analogy had landed.

And the audience — both in the studio and at home — had seen it play out in real time.

On a show where conversations around immigration always follow a predictable script, Hasselbeck broke that rhythm.

For a short while, she pushed the debate somewhere it doesn’t usually go on daytime television — and she held her ground while doing it.

Whether people agreed with her or not, it was one of those moments you could tell would travel far beyond the segment itself.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support!

Subscribe now

When asked about her comments, the Border Czar Tom Homan had a pointed response ready for Omar.

Homan framed the debate around the broader consequences of abolishing DHS, which was created in response to the tragedy of 9/11.

“But, bottom line is, you know, think about this. Members of Congress want to abolish the Department of Homeland Security that was established after the tragedy of 9/11. Right?”

He went on to highlight the irony of lawmakers attacking the very agency tasked with enforcing laws they themselves drafted.

“And they want to abolish the agency that enforces the laws that they wrote. Right?”

“They want attack ICE and call them racist and Nazis and the secret police.”

Homan then delivered the sharpest line of the exchange, leaving little room for political spin.

“Well, if we’re the Nazi for enforcing immigration law, what’s that make them? They wrote the law.”

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support!

On Real Time with Bill Maher last night, he pointed out that Eilish herself admitted she didn’t really know what to say — and that’s when Maher jumped in with the line that the place ablaze.

MAHER: “They did not hear me at the Grammys because Billie Eilish — big controversy this week — she said there’s no illegals on stolen land.”

“And she said, ‘it’s hard to know what to say,’ which I would say, then don’t say anything, because you don’t know things.”

“You didn’t go to school, I don’t think, and you don’t know facts.”

[Audience laughs]

Maher wasn’t arguing that people shouldn’t speak up. In fact, he said he agreed with part of what she was saying — just not the part where emotion replaces understanding.

“She said keep fighting and protesting and speaking up. I totally agree with that.”

“She said voices matter, people matter.”

“And I would just say, so does knowledge.”

From there, Maher went straight at the logic behind the slogan itself. Not with outrage, but by asking the one question he says the left never wants to answer.

He pointed out that once you push that argument, it doesn’t stay theoretical for very long. It’s total hypocrisy, as noted by the Tongva tribe of California who asked Eilish for the land back on which her mansion is built atop.

“No, of course, immediately the people — the tribe here in California — asked for her house.”

“Which, I thought was pretty great!”

Maher then stepped back and widened the lens. Even if you accept the premise, what comes next? According to him, no one has a real answer.

“But what is the practical next step? This is my problem always with things like this from the left that are always so performative.”

“Okay, even if we agreed with that stolen land — and yes, lots of land is stolen by the way, not just here — what do we do about that?”

Finally, he asked the question that underscored the absurdity of the entire point:

“We give it all back and go back to living in teepees?”

“What is the practical next step?”

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support!

Sometimes all it takes is a microphone, a memory, and a clip Democrats desperately wish would disappear.

During yesterday’s episode of The Joe Rogan Experience, Rogan dropped what can only be described as a political MOAB on the modern Democratic immigration talking points — by replaying a Hillary Clinton campaign speech from 2008 that sounds nothing like today’s party orthodoxy.

As Rogan pointed out, the very policies Democrats now label “extreme,” “racist,” or even “Nazi” when enforced by President Trump were once standard, applause-line positions inside their own party.

ROGAN: “I know it’s on YouTube, but it’s this amazing campaign speech.”

“Listen to this…I love this one!”

Rogan then played the clip.

In the recording, Clinton delivers a tough-talking immigration message that would be unthinkable on a Democratic stage today.

CLINTON: “I think we’ve got to have tough conditions. Tell people to come out of the shadows. If they’ve committed a crime, deport them! No questions asked, they’re gone!”

Rogan couldn’t help but underline the reaction the line originally received.

ROGAN: “Cheers! Cheers from the Democrats.”

But Clinton wasn’t finished. She went on to outline conditions for those aliens allowed to remain in the country — conditions that would be unthinkable with today’s rhetoric.

CLINTON: “If they’ve been working and are law-abiding, we should say here are the conditions for you staying; you have to pay a stiff fine because you came here illegally, you have back taxes and you have to try to learn English and you have to wait in line!”

As the clip ended, Rogan burst into laughter, stunned by how politically radioactive those statements would be in 2026.

[Rogan cracks up in laughter]

ROGAN: “You’re gonna learn English, everybody’s cheering!”

Then came the punchline — and the point Rogan wanted listeners to sit with.

ROGAN: “Now, you’re a Nazi.”

There was no editorializing needed. The contrast spoke for itself.

What Democrats now describe as authoritarian or dangerous, was once framed as common sense and greeted with applause from their own voters.

Rogan didn’t have to argue policy, he simply pressed play.

And in doing so, he exposed a political reality the media would rather ignore: the immigration debate didn’t shift because the facts changed — it shifted because the party did.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support!

But McLaughlin quickly turned the tables, delivering hard facts from the ground that left Cuomo struggling to respond.

McLaughlin laid out the escalating threat to law enforcement.

MCLAUGHLIN: “We’ve seen this highly coordinated campaign. I mentioned those vehicle ramming before, those vehicle rammings where these individuals are weaponizing a vehicle, ramming them into our law enforcement officers or their vehicles is up 3,200%.”

She reiterated that the danger extended beyond officers themselves.

MCLAUGHLIN: “It is getting out of control. The fact that our law enforcement officers who are simply enforcing the rule of law on the books of Congress are facing an 8,000% increase in death threats against them.”

“Their children, where go to school, where their spouses, where they work is being doxed. That should not be a partisan issue, that law enforcement should be off the table when it comes to death threats. And when it comes assault, I think every American should be able to come together on that very issue.”

Cuomo tried to deflect, arguing that federal agents were being forced into difficult situations by policy decisions.

CUOMO: “You get know you get no fight for me on that. Although, I would raise the question. Who’s putting them in this position? The administration is.”

“And by the way, they’re not even trained to do crowd control, these guys. So you’re putting them in a position where people don’t want them there.”

“You’re not working with the locals and then they’re taking it out on the agents when they should be mad at the policy.”

McLaughlin responded immediately, pointing to the unwillingness of local leaders to cooperate.

MCLAUGHLIN: “Chris, why are we not working with the locals? Because they will work with us!”

“We would love for Mayor Frey and Governor Walz to agree to work with us.”

Cuomo suggested legal action as a solution.

McLaughlin shot back with a detailed account of why ICE is compelled to act.

MCLAUGHLIN: “You have to talk to the Justice Department about that, but I will say the fact the matter is on the ground, Governor Walz has released 470 criminal illegal aliens out of his jails and onto Minneapolis’ streets.”

She didn’t shy away from naming the severity of the crimes:

MCLAUGHLIN: “That includes murderers, Chris. That includes rapists, strong arm rapists. That includes child pedophiles.”

“These people were in Minneapolis’ custody and yet they were released back onto the streets. That’s why we’re there. That’s why we HAVE to be there because these leaders turn a blind eye and allow criminal illegal aliens to walk around with impunity and create more American victims.”

McLaughlin concluded with a firm statement on the role of federal law enforcement:

Jen Psaki had set the stage for former CIA Director John Brennan to deliver exactly that. However, that’s not what they received.

Instead, Brennan turned heads by offering high praise for the military and intelligence personnel behind the mission.

BRENNAN: “First of all, again, the U.S. military and U.S. intelligence are second to none in terms of their capabilities, their competence, talent as well as their courageous actions,”

He made it clear that the operation reflected the professionalism of America’s armed forces.

“And so it does look as though it was a flawlessly executed operation, at least according to what we hear from the administration so far.”

Brennan acknowledged the careful planning behind the mission:

“And a lot of planning went into that.”

Brennan stressed that even though the operation took place less than 24 hours ago, it involved significant complexity.

“But that was…I won’t say it’s the easy part, because it was sort of a complex operation, but this happened less than 24 hours ago.”

“Now, the big question is what is the impact of that action? I think there are a lot of people in Venezuela and outside who are celebrating the departure of Maduro.”

Brennan did not mince words about the Venezuelan dictator’s record and the importance of removing him from power.

“He was an illegitimately installed leader, a dictator of Venezuela. He was involved in drug running for a number of years. He’s been involved in a lot of criminal activity.”

He concluded by noting that while the operation was a clear victory, the path forward remains uncertain:

“And so, yes, it’s good that he is no longer in charge. But the big question is, what is going to happen now after this?”

For a network accustomed that makes its living by smearing Trump at every turn, Brennan’s remarks were a surprising departure.

By calling the operation “flawlessly executed” and openly acknowledging Maduro’s criminal history, Brennan gave legitimacy to the mission — a shocking course correction from the usual MSNOW anti-Trump drivel.

O’Reilly began by addressing the media frenzy directly.

O’REILLY: “What hasn’t been reported, though, and I’ve been watching and the other networks and I can tell anybody watching right now that you’re lucky to be on NewsNation because they’re just CLUELESS, most of these pundits.”

He brought up how many outlets rush to criticize Trump without understanding the legal and historical context of the operation.

The key, O’Reilly explained, lies in the designation of a Venezuelan criminal organization as a terrorist entity.

He noted the cartel’s wide-ranging criminal activities:

“That group traffics in narcotics. It traffics in oil, illegal oil to places like Iran…does a lot of bad things.”

This designation, he said, provided the Trump administration with clear authority to take military action.

“Now, under the United States government, if you designate an organization a terrorist, you can attack it with military.”

O’Reilly then took direct aim at the Democrat blowhards who claimed Trump acted unilaterally.

“So there’s no…as Jeffries and the Democrats who hate everything that Trump does, goes running around going, well you didn’t consult Congress.”

He made the legal reality crystal clear: “Well, you don’t have to.”

To put the operation in historical perspective, O’Reilly reminded viewers of precedent.

“And the precedent was set by Bush the elder in 1989 when he took out Manuel Noriega in Panama, in EXACTLY the same kind of operation.”

He stressed that similar executive actions have long been accepted in U.S. foreign policy.

“People forget that. 21,000 American troops went to Panama, they arrested Noriega, took him to Miami, he was convicted of narcotics trafficking and he never got out of prison.”

O’Reilly also pointed out the double standard in the media coverage.

While Democrats and liberal commentators portray the operation as illegal, past presidents have carried out identical military actions with little scrutiny. Trump, O’Reilly argued, is being held to a standard that no previous leader has faced.

For everyone trying to cut through the headlines, O’Reilly’s message was simple: the operation was lawful, Trump followed established precedent, and the media’s portrayal of him as overstepping his authority is flat out wrong.

As critics continue to frame the story as a partisan battle, O’Reilly unearthed the glaringly obvious underlying reality that the administration acted decisively against a violent, internationally-connected criminal organization.

The law, history, and precedent all support the move — even if much of the media and Democrat Party refuse to acknowledge it.

It was a familiar argument: Trump is fading, Republicans are restless, and cracks are supposedly forming inside the GOP. But Jennings wasn’t buying it — and he made that clear immediately.

When Bedingfield suggested Trump’s speeches and leadership were signs of a party slipping out of his grasp, Jennings dismissed it outright.

JENNINGS: “This like may be your Christmas wish, but it is not a reality.”

He reminded viewers that Trump isn’t just influential inside the party — he is the party.

JENNINGS: “The president is the head of the Republican party. He’s never been stronger among Republicans than he is right now.”

That’s when Bedingfield pivoted to what Democrats increasingly see as their last remaining pressure point: the Epstein files.

She argued Republicans had “bucked” Trump over them, implying it showed a weakening grip on his base.

BEDINGFIELD: “Is that why he spent six months fighting his party on the Epstein files?”

Jennings didn’t flinch. Instead, he flipped the accusation back on Democrats — hard.

JENNINGS: “You guys have been desperate for ten years to find the moment where Donald Trump is no longer going to be accepted by the [Republicans]. He is the leader of the Republican Party. He is going to continue to be the leader of the Republican Party.”

But Bedingfield wasn’t done. She doubled down, insisting that Republicans once moved in lockstep with Trump and no longer do.

BEDINGFIELD: “It used to be the case that Donald Trump’s wish was their command. And it is the case that for the last six months, for example, they have bucked him on the Epstein files to the point where they’re now…”

Jennings cut her off with a single line that instantly changed the room.

JENNINGS: “The Clinton, the Clinton files!”

The moment landed like a hammer.

What began as an attempt to frame Trump as politically isolated ended with a reminder Democrats would rather avoid: if anyone has a long and uncomfortable history tied to Epstein, it’s not Republicans.

Douglas tried to shift blame away from Democrats after 40 straight days of gridlock.

Jennings wasn’t letting him rewrite history — and he brought the receipts.

DOUGLAS: “Scott, with all respect, you cannot put on the American people that Democrats were the one that were hurting people, making this plight.”

JENNINGS: “Who was casting the votes AGAINST opening the government, Democrats or Republicans?”

DOUGLAS: “Who was…?”

JENNINGS: “No, no. Who was casting the votes?”

DOUGLAS: “Scott, who was wanting to cut SNAP benefits?”

JENNINGS: “Nobody, Republicans voted to fund SNAP 15 times.”

“Republicans voted to FUND SNAP 15 times. Democrats voted to DEFUND it 15 times!”

“And we had to get 8 to join us!”

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support.

Schneider didn’t hold back.

He went directly after the institution that built its legacy on free expression — and then allowed violent activists to try to silence it.

“Let me tell you; Berkeley, shame on you Berkeley!”

“Shame on you!”

“The regents, the academics here, you should fight for free speech.”

“If free speech means anything, it’s the right for me to say something that pisses you off, if it means anything.”

“Free speech is ALL speech.”

Organizers say “Antifa thugs” stormed the sold-out event, with keffiyeh-wearing protesters clashing with police and attendees outside the venue.

Videos from the scene show demonstrators trying to break through barricades as officers attempted to hold the line. Several people were left bloodied in the chaos.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support.

Bessent didn’t let the framing slide.

He immediately reminded Stephanopoulos of his own past comments attacking Republicans who voted against reopening the government.

BESSENT:

“Look, you were involved in a lot of these in the ’90s. And you know, you basically called the Republicans terrorists and, you know, you said that it is not the responsible party that keeps the government closed.”

“And so what we need is five brave moderate Democratic Senators to cross the aisle, because right now, it is 52–3, 52–3, five Democrats can cross the aisle and re-open the government. That’s the best way to do it, George.”

STEPHANOPOULOS:

“I can disagree with you about the history there, but we don’t need a history lesson right now.”

Then came the line that hit like a freight train.

BESSENT:

“No, no, George. No, no, no, George, if you want, I’ve got all your quotes here. And I went back, read your book.”

“So you got one purchase on Amazon this week. And that’s very much what you said.”

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support.

Maher tried a low blow, but O’Reilly countered instantly, leaving Maher stumbling on his own stage. The audience loved every second.

O’Reilly opened with a pointed critique of the Democratic Party’s current messaging.

O’REILLY:

“The message that the Democratic Party has traditionally had, that we are for the workers. We want to improve the lives of the backbone of the country. Now you are into all this fringe garbage that Americans don’t want. I think that’s your posture.”

Maher tried to push back, but hesitated.

MAHER:

“No, I wouldn’t put it that way but go ahead.”

O’REILLY:

“But you might want to rethink…because that’s a good way to put it.”

MAHER:

“Well, I’m still on the air and you’re not…but go ahead.”

The audience erupted into laughter and applause at Maher’s jab, but O’Reilly wasn’t down for the count.

He fired back with both barrels, without needing to think of his response.

O’REILLY:

“I expected that. So we did a town hall on the NewsNation a few weeks ago from Kennedy Center, 23 million people watched. 23 million. Okay? You can add up all the HBOs you want, you’re not going to come close. Just want to correct the record.”

The crowd cheered again, and Maher’s composure faltered. He began to stutter.

MAHER:

“I…ughhh…I…I will check those facts. I…I…”

O’Reilly’s final line had the audience howling.

O’REILLY:

“Yeah, you check them!”

By the end, it was clear who ran the stage.

Maher was flustered, O’Reilly was in full control, and the audience got exactly what they came for — a fiery, no-nonsense showdown that had everyone laughing, cheering, and a little bit shook.

It was a classic political duel between two heavyweights on opposite sides of the aisle.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support.

Abigail Spanberger took Virginia’s governor’s mansion, Mikie Sherrill secured New Jersey, and 34-year-old Zohran Mamdani, a self-described ‘socialist’, captured New York City’s mayoral seat.

On the surface, it looked like a clean sweep for the left. But Bill O’Reilly wasn’t impressed.

On Tuesday evening, he appeared on NewsNation alongside Chris Cuomo and other panelists, and he quickly upended the conventional narrative.

“I disagree with all of you.” O’Reilly said, cutting through the standard election analysis.

As the panel tried to draw connections between tonight’s results and the 2026 midterms, O’Reilly warned that viewers should be careful about reading too much into the current outcomes.

According to him, next year’s political landscape will be entirely different.

“This has nothing to do with the midterms. ZERO.”

“The reason so many things are going to happen between now and this time next year…it’s going to be a completely different country than it is now.”

When Cuomo asked how he could be so certain, O’Reilly gave a concrete example.

“Because there’s so many things that have to be decided there. There are too many undecideds. And you can start with the Supreme Court ruling on the tariffs, you can start on that.”

He explained that the court is likely to rule in Donald Trump’s favor, citing the 1974 law signed by Gerald Ford.

“And they’ll rule in Donald Trump’s favor because of the 1974 law that Gerald Ford signed into.”

While Democrats were celebrating tonight’s wins, O’Reilly’s comments served as a reminder that elections are just snapshots in time.

The victories may feel significant now, but the political battlefield a year from now could look drastically different — and no one should assume tonight’s results solely predict the shape of 2026.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support.

Luntz opened by framing the shutdown as a political choice.

“I believe that the shutdown is politically motivated. I believe that if they wanted to, they could find common ground, but they choose not to.”

He then walked the panel through the obvious consequences for Republicans.

“And that has hurt the Republican brand, the Republican reputation. Their numbers are down. As you point out in your own polling, of Donald Trump.”

But just when it seemed like the conversation would follow the expected narrative, Luntz dropped a bombshell.

He didn’t leave it there. Luntz doubled down, reiterating the severity of the political damage.

“It is hurting the Republicans, but it seems to be hurting the Democrats even MORE.”

The revelation hung in the air.

Panelists exchanged glances as CNN’s Boris Sanchez scrambled to redirect the conversation toward the 2026 midterms, trying to soften the unexpected blow.

Luntz’s comments exposed a reality few on the network were willing to confront: the party that set the government shutdown in motion may be paying the steepest political price.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support.

Fox’s Bill Hemmer referenced President Trump’s Truth Social post, in which he threatened massive cuts:

“I wanted to ask you because he mentioned Russ Vought in that. I think that came out at about 8:00 this morning about cutting certain programs that they deem are not necessary. Is that real or is that a negotiating tactic?”

Leavitt’s response was crystal clear. The administration is not backing down one inch.

Leavitt said that the responsibility for these cuts falls squarely on the Democrats.

“And the Democrats should know they put the White House and the president in this position. If they don’t want further harm on their constituents back home, then they need to reopen the government.”

And she explained just how simple it is for Democrats to fix this.

“It’s very simple. Pass the clean, continuing resolution and all of this goes away. We would not have these discussions at the White House today if not for the Democrats voting to shut the government down.”

She also confirmed that the President will meet with OMB Director Russell Vought as early as today to discuss the cuts.

Kennedy’s first one was a brutal critique of Democrat political missteps, delivered with his signature wit:

“You know—everything happens for a reason. But sometimes the reason is…you’re stupid and you made a bad decision.

“And my Democratic colleagues have made a very, very bad decision here.”

Kennedy went on to lay out some of the more absurd demands coming from Democrats, calling out things like “free health care to foreign nationals who are in our country illegally.”

His point was clear: the demands are over the top, and the political strategy behind them is questionable at best.

But Kennedy saved another gem for the end of the segment, painting a picture with his words that perfectly summed up the Democrats’ predicament.

“A wise person once said, if you pray for rain, you got to be prepared to deal with the mud.”

“And I don’t know how they’re going to deal with the mud because we will never, never, ever agree to this list of demands.”

Love him or hate him, Kennedy has a knack for taking complicated political drama, breaking it down in plain English, and making it entertaining in the process.

There’s really no one else like him in politics.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support.

Keilar was left stunned after pollster Frank Luntz brought up a very inconvenient piece of data for the Democrats.

Luntz is no fan of Trump either.

Keilar cited a New York Times/Siena College poll showing Trump’s approval rating largely unchanged since April, suggesting he was losing support among key voter groups.

Keilar asked:

Read more

Stephen Miller laid waste to what’s left of the Democratic Party. He wasted no time doing it, either.

“Do you know why so many of these unaccompanied alien minors are being put to work in slave wages and slave conditions all across California?”

He laid out a brutal accusation.

Miller says it’s a war, and Democrats are on the wrong side.

“I never thought we would ever see the day when Democrat politicians would use language and use rhetoric that would encourage illegal aliens and radical left nonprofits to try to murder ICE officers but that's where we are right now.”