Sean Hannity Show - Those Who Serve Know - June 18th, Hour 3

June 19, 2025 - Sean Hannity Show

29:29

Those Who Serve Know - June 18th, Hour 3

Congressman Patrick Harrigan of North Carolina’s 10th district, is a West Point grad and Special Operations Green Beret, he is a Member of House Armed services committee and the “For Country” caucus, and today gives us his take on the war in the Middle East, and the steps that should come next. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart podcast.
	Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
	All right, news roundup and information overload hour, 800-941-Sean, our number, if you want to be a part of the program.
	In a minute, we're going to be joined by Congressman Patrick Harrigan of North Carolina, their 10th district.
	And something he said caught my attention.
	He's a West Point grad, special ops Green Beret, member of the House Armed Services Committee, and the For the Country caucus.
	And he actually wrote something that I saw that just stood out to me.
	And he said, regime change by force does not work.
	We've seen the physical cost in our national debt and real cost in American lives.
	Too many politicians in Washington beat the drums of war without ever carrying its burden.
	But I want to run over this with you.
	Was it wrong when Donald Trump, using the Trump doctrine, as I call it, was it wrong for him to defeat the caliphate ISIS that built up under Barack Obama and Joe Biden?
	No, absolutely not wrong.
	And the way he did it, he did it without kicking in doors or watching men with lots of life to live die or explaining to mothers why their kids weren't coming home because he is implementing the next generation of weaponry, which reduces the need for boots on the ground and the risk to American troops' lives.
	right?
	That's exactly right.
	No, I think President Trump has successfully navigated situations like the one we're dealing with incredibly well throughout his entire first term and has lowered the temperature of international conflict during the first five months of his second term.
	I mean, he's done an unbelievable job up to this point.
	And I can't think of a better leader to have at the helm than President Trump, someone that I would trust to make these very difficult decisions that he's probably got to make in the next 48 hours.
	And I'm betting that you agree with me and his decision to take out Solomani on the tarmac.
	I mean, we were following Solomani, according to reports and people I spoke to that know for up to two straight weeks.
	We had him fully identified in our sites.
	They watched him get on and identified him getting on that commercial airliner.
	They waited for everybody to disembark.
	And then when he was on the tarmac, they took him out.
	I think that was the right decision.
	I assume you agree with that too.
	Absolutely, I do.
	There's no question that that changed the paradigm of Iran's leadership's decision-making from that point moving forward towards the United States.
	And that's what President Trump has been known for.
	He'll put all options out on the table, and he'll end up choosing a course of action that nobody was anticipating.
	And ultimately, that's advantage to the United States of America.
	No question about it, Sean.
	And you would agree that taking out Baghdadi and associates was also the right decision.
	So far, we're 100% in alignment.
	I want to make sure we are.
	Yes, we sure are.
	There's no question about that.
	So to me, the Trump doctrine isn't, as some are identifying it, as isolationism, which I think is naive and can lead to catastrophic results down the road.
	And in this case, we have to factor in as it relates to Iran, the number one state sponsor of terror that has also killed many Americans around the globe, from the Kobar Towers to Beirut to Iraq and other places as well, that has threatened to wipe Israel and America off the map, that has threatened to get missiles big enough to hit the continental U.S.
	We have a window of opportunity here where their missile defense systems are completely obliterated, where Israel owns the skies over the entire country, where Israel has taken out two of their big nuclear sites, and the one remaining site probably needs U.S. assistance and bunker buster bombs.
	And I think it is very much in keeping with the Trump doctrine to go in there, eliminate that threat, because otherwise the world will be held hostage from my perspective.
	And you can tell me if you disagree.
	And at that point, you know, then protect our assets in the region.
	It's not without danger.
	Every military action has a high degree of danger with it.
	I don't mitigate that at all.
	And I don't underestimate the danger that some people will be in harm's way as a result of any military action.
	However, I do believe as commander-in-chief, if he makes that decision, and I believe he probably will, because I don't think this window of opportunity will stay open long.
	I think it would be the right choice to forever destroy any hope that the Iranians have of a nuclear weapon.
	I'm not in the business.
	I don't think Donald Trump is in the business of regime change.
	Now, if the Israelis that have been hit with hundreds of thousands of missiles decide that they want to take out their refineries and take out their electric grid and go after the Supreme Leader, as far as I'm concerned, that's their choice.
	They deserve to make that choice after what the Iranians have done to them.
	You and I hold absolutely no disagreement in our perspectives, Sean.
	And I think that what I've became concerned about over the last couple of days is some of my colleagues in the House and the Senate, as this situation has unfolded, rapidly ushered in a conversation about needing regime change in Iran.
	And I think that wherever we look in our nation's last 25 years of history, whether it's the global war on terror, whether it's the color revolutions that we sponsored, whether it's any intervention that America played a role in in the Middle East to perpetuate the concept of regime change, those have been fundamentally unsuccessful.
	And when you break it, you buy it.
	You can't just go in and break this thing and let it spiral completely out of control.
	does not seem like it's in our greatest strategic interest.
	And so I just want to be very cautious about what some...
	Have you heard President Trump ever mention regime change?
	The only mention he made of the Supreme Leader is that he knows where he is and that he's not taking him out, even though he could take him out yet.
	I mean, obviously he's saying it's an option down the road if needed.
	But I've not heard the president or I've never heard the Trump doctrine ever talk about regime change.
	Me neither.
	And my comments were not directed towards the president.
	My comments are directed towards many of my colleagues who I've seen on mainstream media across primetime over the last couple nights.
	And that is where my concern lies.
	And that potentially moving in and impacting the decision-making of the president eventually.
	But no, I don't think that President Trump's intention is regime change.
	I think what he's doing is he's laying all options on the table and saying, look, if we wanted you dead, Ayatollah, you would be dead.
	That fundamentally changes his decision-making limitations and constraints for ultimately what I think President Trump is trying to do is provide as many diplomatic off-ramps as possible to come to a peaceful resolution here.
	But obviously, the enemy gets a vote.
	And if President Trump decides that it is in the best strategic interest of the United States of America, it's the only option available to us to make sure that there's not a nuclear-armed Iran, that we need to take action from 30,000 feet.
	I'd be supportive of him.
	I would have preferred that the Iranians go along with the president's offer for peace, but I also agree with the president's understanding of evil in our time and that a nuclear-armed Iran is not a threat that the world can withstand because their radicalism married to weapons of mass destruction like this, to me, could result in a modern-day Holocaust.
	Do you agree with that?
	I think certainly that it is an existential threat to Israel.
	And with Iran's support of terrorist.
	What about the U.S.?
	I mean, they've said they want to come after the U.S. too.
	And you've got to imagine in the out years that they're going to have the missile capability to reach the continental U.S. From the intelligence that I have seen, Sean, we are a far ways away from that happening.
	I think Israel is much more directly impacted by any potential decision that Iran decides to make in the near future.
	And that provides us operational space to make decisions in the future, because I think we always want to take as limited approach as we possibly can because these decisions have incredible second and third order impacts for our strategic around the globe.
	And that's all I want people to be cautious about.
	Let me just put it in perspective, Sean.
	Six days ago, we were talking about Iran coming to a nuclear deal.
	And we were talking about China being our greatest strategic threat in the world.
	And some, you know, a third of Congress thinks that it's Russia.
	I think you and I don't believe that in the world.
	By far, it's China, our top geopolitical foe, not even close.
	And fast forward six days, and we're talking about regime change.
	Some people are talking about regime change.
	I'm not talking about it.
	I've not heard Donald Trump talk about it.
	We have Lindsey Graham on.
	He's not talking about regime change.
	I think that there have been many, many representatives and senators that have talked about regime change over the last couple of days.
	I think that we'd be wise to not have those discussions.
	I think the president's stated position.
	They can't have a nuclear weapon is it.
	That's it.
	Yep, me too.
	I'm 100%.
	All right, quick break.
	We'll come right back, and we will continue on the other side with North Carolina Congressman Patrick Harrigan is with us.
	800-941-Sean is on number if you want to be a part of the program.
	The Dems want to stand on the steps singing terrible songs and cursing out Trump.
	You know, you have one guy over there, shout out to ever wonder if these people ever go to work?
	Me too.
	Throw them out.
	This is the Sean Hannity show.
	Florida just legalized gold and silver.
	Yep.
	My new home state, the free state of Florida, has made it legal to use gold and silver as money.
	Now, Governor DeSantis explained it all by saying, this is our ability to give you the financial freedom to be able to protect yourself against the declining value of the dollar.
	This is exactly why I partnered with a top precious metals company myself.
	If you want to learn more about how gold and silver can help protect your money, if you want to inform yourself, do your due diligence, reach out to my partners at Goldco.
	They're a great company.
	I'm a customer.
	They've helped me out tremendously.
	Check them out on the web, HannityGold.com, or call no obligation, 855-815-GOLD.
	Get their free 2025 gold and silver kit.
	You'll also learn about their unlimited bonus silver offer.
	That's 855-815-GOLD or HannityGold.com.
	That's HannityGold.com.
	We continue now, Congressman Patrick Harrigan.
	He's from North Carolina and their 10th district.
	Look, I think as a natural occurrence of taking out the if we were to take out the nuclear capability, and if the Israelis, if the Israelis say, you know what, they want to forever remove this threat.
	They're funding proxy wars.
	And I've been to Israel many times.
	I've been to towns that have been hit with 10,000 rockets in 10 years.
	One town, one little town, baby town, where kids can't play outside.
	I've seen the rockets.
	I've seen the Iron Dome in action.
	I've been there during conflict.
	And I could just tell you right now, this is their everyday reality.
	And the people that have been fomenting this never-ending terror campaign and funding it and supporting it has been Iran.
	Now, the Israelis have a lot more to factor, you know, they have a lot more consideration in this than I think we do.
	If the Israelis decide that it's time for regime change, be careful always what's on the other side of that because you never know, although I don't know how you can get much worse than what we got than this, you know, insane Islamic caliphate convert or die theocracy.
	But I think if the Israelis decide that they want to incapacitate any ability for this country to make money or even have even be able to power their own people or offer power to their own people, I have no problem with the Israelis doing what they deem necessary after what's happened to them.
	I absolutely agree with that.
	I think that that would be fully within their prerogative and their right to provide for their own self-defense.
	You're going to find no argument from me there, Sean.
	I think when it comes to what America should do in terms of its strategic interests, certainly there is a component of America's strategic interest, a significant component of ours, that is and should always be supportive of Israel as our greatest ally in the Middle East.
	I don't think that's under question.
	But if we can resolve this situation by providing, as President Trump has provided, continued diplomatic off-ramps to even where we could get that proverbial settlement on the courthouse steps prior to, immediately prior to trial, that would absolutely be a preferable outcome given the certainty.
	Do you really believe that's a possibility, considering that would mean that the Iranians the next day have to allow anywhere, any place, anytime inspections and the complete dismantling of their entire nuclear program and Americans being the lead supervisors and on the ground watching that, I don't ever see that happening.
	I think we should always leave the possibility for that to happen open.
	And the way that you craft that situation, Sean, is you allow Israel to continue doing what it's doing because at some point it comes down to the existential survival of a regime.
	That fundamentally changes their thought paradigm and how they approach the negotiation process to coming to a deal.
	I think that there's a low probability of that happening, but I certainly don't think that we should be locked in to any one particular course of action.
	You've always got to leave room for what the adversary can choose to do, and hopefully they make the right decision.
	And if they don't, as President Trump has said, we will have to deal with them the other way.
	It looks like more and more that the other way looks like the only option that's going to be left remaining.
	However, I do want to put emphasis on something you're warning people about.
	There's no military option, even owning the skies of Iran, that is risk-free.
	And we do have bases and we have troops in the region.
	We also have shipping lanes that could be sabotaged.
	There is great risk in any such thing.
	So I would only say that our prayers are with our brave men and women in the military and our commander-in-chief and our allies in Israel, and that this situation, which has become untenable by this sick, twisted, evil regime, come to as successful an end with the least amount of damage and carnage and death as possible.
	But they've made their choice as of now.
	So it would be on them.
	Thank you for your service, Congressman.
	You're a good man.
	God bless you.
	And I think you gave us a lot of insight.
	We really do appreciate it.
	Always great to be with you, Sean.
	God bless.
	I don't know if you saw this, Linda.
	The hard-hitting ABC Disney news show, The View, a big fight over what to do with Iran.
	Listen.
	The Iranians literally throw gay people off of buildings.
	They don't adhere to basic human rights.
	Listen, here's the thing.
	Let's not do that because if we start with that, we have been known in this country to tie gay folks to the car.
	But where the Iranian regime is gay and self-effective.
	There isn't anything hanging black people.
	So it is not even the same.
	I couldn't.
	No, no, no, no.
	That's not what you mean to say.
	It is the same.
	Murdering someone for their difference is not good.
	Whoever does it.
	It's not good.
	So that's why I said you weren't saying what I heard was not what you meant.
	I think it's very different to live in the United States in 2025 than it is to live in Iran.
	Not if you're black.
	Not for everybody.
	Not if you're black.
	Guys, don't go to salon.
	Do not anyone at the table say it torn.
	Why do I get a headache every time we play this?
	Can we stop monitoring?
	Who monitors this show for my for this show?
	Who gets burdened with that task of having to watch that show every day?
	Linda, who has to watch that show?
	Who do you make watch the show?
	Because I couldn't tell you.
	That was me.
	So you have to watch it.
	I don't pay you enough money to watch that show.
	You don't have to show it to me.
	I can never pay you enough money to watch that show.
	It's horrible.
	It's a horrible show.
	And the fact that she, for one second, thinks that comparing the people that are hanging from cranes in the middle of Tehran is equivalent to her hosting a national morning show on ABC.
	Ma'am, just inappropriate.
	You think?
	They're just out of their minds.
	That's all there is to it.
	But it's actually really offensive.
	It's really offensive.
	If you talk to these young women who are kept as slaves, some as young as the age of eight and nine, married off to men that are old enough to be their grandfathers, and she's equating that.
	I have no words.
	It just isn't worth my time.
	800-941-Sean, our number, you want to be a part of the program.
	Let's say hi to Aaron in California, the United Socialist Utopia.
	Aaron, how are you?
	I'm doing well.
	How are you today?
	I'm good, sir.
	What's on your mind?
	Well, I wanted to follow up with a caller that you had yesterday.
	It was a young man, I think he was out of Sacramento, living in his car, couldn't afford a place to live.
	Yes, sir.
	And he's just got divorced or he's separated from his wife and he has a kid.
	He works full-time.
	He works on garage doors, which, by the way, is something in need.
	I know, because my garage door breaks constantly.
	It's infuriating.
	Well, so, and I commend him on working full-time.
	The issue and what I heard led into a couple of different issues for me.
	Number one, some of the advice that I heard was: we need to work more, need to get another job.
	I don't know if you know this, but California dictates child support based off of gross income.
	So the more he works and the more money he makes, the more child support he's going to end up paying.
	Well, look, there's only two ways that I can think of if you want to get out of financial trouble.
	And I've been there is number one, spend as little as possible.
	And number two is bring in more income.
	And even if a percentage of that income is going to support your child or spousal support or whatever the deal is that you made with your ex, you're still going to come out with more money.
	Well, the issue ultimately is California itself.
	We live in a state where it is just not economically feasible for people making money under $40,000.
	And I'm going to give you some examples.
	Number one, I mean, we have unelected boards like the C California Public Utilities Commission that just gave PG ⁇ E its sixth rate increase this year.
	We have the California Air Resource Board, unelected board that just is raising our gas tax again coming up July 1st.
	We have our health insurance, my health insurance, mine, quadrupled in 2024.
	My son, he's five.
	His health.
	Well, maybe if they didn't spend tens and tens of billions of dollars on illegal immigrants in your state, you'd be better off.
	But go ahead.
	I hear you.
	I vote red.
	And it's one of the things that I wanted to talk about was that 40% of California is red.
	And what California needs to do, and I think what Republican Party needs to do is start kind of packaging up this up to kind of the more moderate and the independent because this guy who's making this money, he just can't afford to live here.
	And this goes to another issue.
	Look, I've been in this position.
	Let me explain something to you.
	I've lived paycheck to paycheck.
	I live paycheck to paycheck.
	So I live paycheck.
	Okay.
	You're living paycheck.
	And by the way, it sucks.
	It really does.
	And that's why I offered to help the guy out yesterday because I want to see him get on his feet.
	I want him to have a place where he can bring his son.
	And I understand.
	However, I'm just giving the advice I practiced myself.
	And I worked out deals with my landlord, you know, to cut the lawn and paint the house and hang wallpaper and do chores and clean out an old barn that was a mess and do all sorts of things, you know, just to make my rent go down.
	And I had a great landlord that was very accommodating and had a lot of work that I could do.
	And it worked out, you know, pretty well for me.
	And then I worked as much overtime as I could, but I was also single.
	And then I lived beneath my means.
	I couldn't even afford to go to McDonald's at that point in my life.
	It was too much of a luxury.
	At that point in my life, I would make a meatloaf for the week, and that would be what I ate all week.
	And, you know, I make a mean meatloaf, by the way.
	But the only way to get ahead is you're going to have to work more hours, make more money, and find ways to bring in more income and spend less money.
	It's not easy to do.
	I'm not saying any of it's easy.
	When my car broke, I had a $200 Econa line van at one point, which was my work truck.
	It was breaking all the time.
	I had to fix it all the time.
	I had a $350 Ford Maverick, 1971.
	I used to fix that myself.
	I mean, I just, you have to find a way.
	Otherwise, you're going to live in your car.
	I don't want this guy living in his car.
	Point is that we in California are living paycheck to paycheck.
	I heard an ad on your this radio.
	But what's he going to do?
	He can't leave his kid behind.
	He's not going to leave the state and go to a better state.
	California voters need to just start voting for different policies so that we can afford to live here.
	Policies that allow for home building, policies that allow for companies like PGE and Cal Am to not just keep jacking our utility costs, right?
	Policies that lead for our health insurance to start coming down.
	The more money that here's the problem: people, people that are sick and tired of the burdensome taxation, regulation, intrusion into their lives, more and more of them that would be more likely to vote red like you have left your state.
	I left New York for a variety of reasons, not the least of which of what you're describing.
	So, again, my point is that simply making more money.
	You don't want to hear any of my solutions.
	You're saying to me that I gave this guy bad advice and simply making more money isn't going to help.
	Well, it's not going to hurt.
	He's going to drive up his health care costs and he's going to pay more child support.
	California needs to start fixing this from the inside out.
	And that's what I'm saying.
	Listen, maybe it just needs one of the ways I learned to make money.
	And this is when I began to start to save: I learned how to paint houses inside and out, interior, exterior, hang wallpaper, and lay tile.
	And I got good.
	I wasn't good at it.
	I was actually great at it.
	I had a great eye for finished work.
	And I would work.
	I'd start at 7 in the morning and I'd finish at 10 at night and I'd go get up the next day and do it again.
	And I work Saturdays and I work Sundays.
	I'm not missing his point.
	Linda just said in my ear, I'm not missing his point that he's saying that if you do these things, it's still not going to work in California.
	That's what he's saying.
	Housing costs not 80% of your net income when you back in the day.
	I think if I may, and I very rarely do this, and I think you know that you guys are actually agreeing.
	You're just not saying it the same way.
	The caller is explaining that while what you did was out of a good heart and kindness, it's not going to help him in the long run because no matter how much money he makes, unless he's a multi-millionaire in California, it will not be enough to do what he needs to do.
	$40,000 is not a livable income in California.
	You're right.
	But then follow the rest of my advice.
	You've got to bring in more money.
	Right.
	And you bring in more Monday and money.
	And under current calculations, you get screwed.
	That's what he's saying.
	Okay, but you're still going to have more money after you pay your child support, even if they take away health care benefits for a period of time.
	You're still going to have more money in your pocket.
	If you work another 20 hours a week, you will still, and you pay your child support, whatever, your spouse will support.
	You're still going to end up with another, you know, 400 bucks a week, which is significant if you're in that situation, in my view.
	That's net?
	400?
	How do you make an additional 400 bucks a week net when you're already working full time?
	He's working.
	He's told me he works 40 hours a week.
	Okay.
	I used to work 80 hours a week.
	By the way, I still work 80 hours a week.
	Truth be told, I work a full week.
	I don't stop.
	Linda, how many times do you get texts from me at four in the morning?
	All the time, every day.
	And how many times do you get texts about stories all weekend and ideas for the weekend?
	All the time.
	I'm trying to tell you.
	Go ahead.
	Say your thought.
	I'm sorry, sir.
	California does not incentivize people to work harder because if this guy works harder and makes more money, his health care costs through Medi-Cal are going to double or triple.
	Correct.
	And you know what?
	And then you paint somebody's house.
	I'll paint that room in your house.
	They give you $200 cash, and I'm not telling people to break the law.
	Okay.
	What I'm saying is California itself, the policy.
	You're saying to just give up because you won't net any money at all if you do it.
	I agree with your principle.
	I'm not disagreeing.
	They make it.
	They disincentivize you.
	However, if I'm going to have another $200 a week and working hard, I'll still take it.
	I'd rather have the money and have a place for my child in his situation than any other consideration.
	Living in your car with a young child is not an option for me.
	Does that make sense?
	When are you going to spend time with your kid working 80 hours a week?
	You're going to be spending our child care with $1,600 a month.
	So, okay, sir, so your solution is go work 80 hours a week.
	Okay, so now you've got a baby.
	What are you doing with your baby and your kid?
	Well, he's not seeing the baby now because if he's living in a car, there's not a judge in the country that's going to let this guy see his kid or let the kid stay with him.
	So he goes to work.
	You might as well work hard, get an apartment, at least see him on the weekends, maybe Sundays.
	Maybe that's all the time he'll have with the child.
	There's nothing ideal about this situation.
	And government makes it worse.
	I concede your point at the highest level.
	All right, I wish I had more time.
	I mean, I really feel for this guy, which is why I want to give him at least a start in the hopes that maybe he'll be able to get a little, you know, clean studio apartment, a place when he's free, he can see his child.
	Quick break, right back.
	We'll continue.
	All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
	Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern on the Fox News Channel.
	Full, complete coverage of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran.
	What will President Trump do?
	Will he take out this one remaining nuclear site?
	We'll get full coverage with Newt Gingrich, his take, Horace Cooper tonight.
	Also, Senator Mark Wayne Mullen, Horace Cooper, and Tommy Laron.
	9 Eastern, Hannity on Fox.
	We'll see you tonight, back here tomorrow.

▲