Bill O’Reilly dismisses rivalry claims, defending his podcast’s focus on substance over trends amid shifting media landscapes, while citing Florida’s tax-friendly appeal drawing elites like Griffin and Bezos. Callers raise concerns—Rhode Island’s Rick fears theater safety post-shootings, though O’Reilly downplays trans-related incidents. Ohio’s Andy criticizes O’Reilly’s framing of Democratic policies as extreme, but O’Reilly cites 2025 ICE stats (2,100 murders, 5,400 rapes by illegal immigrants) to justify his stance, despite Hannity’s skepticism. The debate underscores deep divides over immigration enforcement and emotional voter responses. [Automatically generated summary]
Simple man, that can only mean one thing on this radio program.
That is all things self-proclaimed, simple man.
That means all things, Bill O'Reilly, all things Bill O'Reilly at billo'reilly.com.
Mr. O'Reilly, sir, how was your week, Ben?
I know it's better right now.
Always a pleasure to talk with the biggest radio guy in the world, Sean Hannity.
How about that?
Was that good?
You wrote it.
You know, I just got a note from PR people, and they said the National Inquirer is implying that the reason that I'm doing a podcast, which we announced yesterday, is because I want to compete with this person, this person.
And I'm like, no, it's not.
And so I actually responded, which I never do.
And I said, there's zero rivalry with anyone in the podcast space.
I'm way past the petty, often contrived rivalries of my career.
Right now, I do host the number one talk radio show in the country on 760 stations.
Remain the number one rated show in cable news at 9 o'clock.
I have nothing to prove to anybody.
The podcast is simply an opportunity for me to have extended discussions about other passions of mine with the most interesting people in the country.
It's a brand new space.
My plan is to simply build, key word, build.
If you build it, they will come.
A great, compelling show that people will discover over time and enjoy and learn from all while having fun.
Any suggestion to the contrary is simply, you know, people lie.
Well, that's not unusual in this society, is it?
People lie.
Well, I mean, we lived with this our whole career.
Yeah.
Now, we can go back early in our career, and you were a pain in the ass, but I'm just saying.
And then we became friends in the end because we matured and we grew up and we realized that a rising tide lifts all boats and we realized we had far more in common than any petty, stupid, dumb rivalry.
Well, look, the National Inquirer wrote a story about me being on the verge of death.
By the way, I can confirm personally you were never on your deathbed, Mr. O'Reilly.
That part I know.
Yeah, I said, that's good because then people will believe in the resurrection.
That's true.
All of a sudden, Bill's dying.
Oh, my gosh, she made a miraculous recovery.
Jesus came to Bill's bedside.
You could do a great podcast on that, Bill.
You know, when you go on a podcast, you can mix it up a lot easier because you know the time restraints, you know, the commercial restraints, that kind of thing.
We might even have you on one day.
Can you imagine that?
That would be an excellent thing for the country.
You never cease to deliver Bill O'Reilly.
I will say that.
You always bring your A-game.
Well, if anybody is paying me, I'm going to give them the bang for the buck.
And if anybody is nice enough to invite me somewhere, I'm going to perform as best I can.
I mean, that's a work ethic that I've had since I'm 10 years old.
But, you know, we have been, you and me, really in the arena since 1996.
This will be the 30th anniversary of the Fox News channel in October.
And that's longer than most careers.
And we've seen an unbelievable change.
First of all, cable news comes on the scene and then wipes out network news to the extent that people talk about it.
And now we're in another revolution of social media.
It's really astounding when you step back.
But it is amazing in spite of proclamations that talk radio or cable news are dying.
When you do good shows, and I would argue that we do a pretty good radio show every day, and I do a pretty good TV show every night, the audience is there.
You know, you see the numbers, you see the ratings, you know listenership.
However, you're right.
There is a younger generation that has sought out news and information elsewhere.
And I'm not looking to be number one in anything.
I'm just trying to do the best shows I can.
I'm a big believer.
If you build it, they will come.
If you do a good show, people will find it.
And I do have criticisms of some in that algorithm chasing click world, which equals dollars and the way people handle their programs.
But that's up to them.
I don't care.
My success or failure is not going to be determined by other people.
It's going to be determined by me and my ability to put on a compelling show that people want to watch and listen to.
That's it.
The one thing that advantage that you have being on television every night and having three hours of radio is that you can present facts.
And podcasts largely don't do that.
So there is a segment of Americans that want facts.
And you know what you do, and you do present those facts in easy to understand ways.
And you don't get that on a podcast.
So there's always going to be a need for linear radio and television in this country.
It's not going to go away.
But as the country becomes more distracted, apathetic, the bubble people rise, it's going to be harder and harder and harder to get the audiences that we used to get.
Now I do social media.
YouTube saved me because YouTube is so dominant that I'm now viewed on a daily basis more than I was on linear television.
It's an amazing.
Well, the fascinating thing, too, though, is like Fox News, you can get on YouTube television and a lot of younger people watch us there.
Absolutely.
And, you know, when we do a special or something like that, we have tens of millions of people come in.
And it's because they are trolling the social media.
That's what they do now.
Used to be they went home after work, ate dinner and watched television.
Now they go to the social media.
So you're smart to do the podcast.
You can build up a brand new franchise.
Emotional Voting and Fraud00:13:20
I, of course, have, and it's done very well for me.
I just am doing it because I like to do it.
I mean, you come on once a week.
We have fun discussions.
I usually don't know what we're going to talk about until I actually crack the mic and play Leonard Skynyrd.
That's the spontaneity of radio.
TV is formatted very differently.
You have five-minute segments with people.
You have to get to the bottom line.
It's a little tougher.
The beauty of long form is you can go in a million different directions and people can watch it that way.
All right, I do have a question for you, and it's about your senator and your friend, Chuck Schumer.
Chuck Schumer, you guys are close, right?
I used to have a good relationship with him, but I don't any longer.
Okay.
Let's take a trip down memory lane and play Chuck Schumer on the need for ID to prevent fraud.
Let's admit the truth.
Everywhere people go, they're asked for a social security card.
In fact, one way to prove you're a bona fide person who can have a job is to ask for a driver's license and a social security card.
This is an anti-fraud amendment.
All over where we go, people say, well, why can't you stop illegal immigrants or others from coming here?
And the number one answer we give our constituents is when they come here, they can get jobs, get benefits against the law because of fraud.
Okay, because of fraud.
That was him then.
Now it's Jim Crow 2.0.
Listen.
About 83% of the American people, including majority Democrats, support voter ID laws.
The voter ID laws that, first, each state can have its own voter ID laws, and some do and some don't.
But secondly, what they are proposing in this so-called SAVE Act is like Jim Crow 2.0.
They make it so hard to get any kind of voter ID that more than 20 million legitimate people, mainly poorer people and people of color, will not be able to vote under this law.
We will not let it pass in the Senate.
We are fighting it tooth and nail.
It's an outrageous proposal that is, you know, that shows the sort of political bias of the MAGA right.
They don't want poor people to vote.
They don't want people of color to vote because they often don't vote for them.
Okay.
So here's my question.
Did he support Jim Crow 2.0 back when he made that comment about the need for ID?
Yes.
And look, the better example is that Senator Schumer supported Barack Obama's deportation of 3 million foreign nationals during Obama's two terms.
I had Jay Johnson on the Notes Bin News yesterday.
It's on billoreilly.com for anybody who'd like to see it.
He was Homeland Security Secretary, as you know, under Obama.
I asked him that question.
I said, Schumer didn't have any objection, did he?
No.
They supported Obama.
And Obama deported more people than Trump did in his first term.
And so when you're looking at Charles Schumer, the minority leader in the Senate, you're looking at a pure politician, a guy who puts his finger to the wind and says, what's good for me, what's good for the party, that's what I'll believe.
Joe Biden was a champion of that.
I used to call him a man of no seasons.
He had no core beliefs at all, none.
And I think Schumer fits into that category.
All right, quick break.
Right back.
More with Bill O'Reilly, all things simple man, all things O'Reilly at billo'reilly.com on the other side.
Then your calls are coming up, 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
All things self-proclaimed simple man.
That means all things Bill O'Reilly, all things Bill O'Reilly at billo'reilly.com.
Well, it's fascinating to me, you know, that we're at this place.
And now maybe this dovetails into a broader discussion that I'd like your thoughts on.
If the Democratic Party wants no voter ID, they want to defund the Department of Homeland Security and with it FEMA and the Coast Guard and the Secret Service because they all fall under that umbrella.
If they're now the party of defund dismantled no bail laws, they're now the party that voted against the largest tax cut in history that helped working men and women and older folks with no tax on tips overtime social security.
They are the party against energy dominance and independence, and they're the party of woke.
And you tell me in a choice election, in spite of historical trends where midterm elections usually go to the party out of power, if I'm looking for the best shot for Republicans to retain control, I want this fight and this debate.
Am I wrong?
No, but you're appealing to a certain audience that thinks rationally and in a linear way.
And that's the danger for the Republicans and President Trump in November.
You have a lot of emotional voting.
And the emotional voting is going to be going to break down two ways.
Am I worried about my financial situation?
This is what the people are going to ask themselves.
If they are worried and they are angry about it, they'll vote Democrat because they're saying, well, he promised this, he promised that, didn't happen.
I want to change.
And then the other side is demeanor, that you can get worn down by daily controversies.
And people go, I'm just so tired of it.
Both of those are in the emotional realm.
You're not voting logic.
You're not voting, well, what is the Democratic Party going to offer me?
Because let's be honest, okay?
That's a hallmark of you and me.
The Democratic Party offers nothing but criticism.
They don't have any solutions to any problem.
And if they do, I don't know about them.
And this is what I do for a living.
What's your solution?
I wrote a message of the day about homelessness in California.
It's worse now after billions and billions and billions of dollars have gone into trying to get drug addicts and mentally compromised people homes.
They failed.
But they won't admit failure.
And I don't see any successes or any vision on the part of the Democratic Party.
But that takes rational analysis.
And I'm afraid that most voters these days are going to the polls on emotion.
It's a real concern.
I think it's a very, very real concern.
That is the challenge.
You've drawn a line in the sand.
And the challenge for Republicans is to convince people that these policies are so radical and extreme that they will hurt the country and hopefully motivate the 50-plus percent of people in the country that want common sense and logic in place.
Bill O'Reilly, it's always a pleasure.
I mean, I don't know.
I mean, you want a podcast because it kind of scares me.
You know, I'm going to get in, honey.
All you got to do is walk to the mound, put your hand cart, and I'll drive right into podcast land.
Oh, man.
All right, Mr. O'Reilly.
We appreciate you.
All things simple, man.
Bill O'Reilly of billoilly.com, sir.
Lynn, I'm not sure if you saw this, but there's a new Emerson College poll, and they've been pretty accurate in polling in the last number of presidential cycles.
And it shows Steve Hilton has opened up a surprise lead in the California's governor's race.
Well, it's not a surprise if you're paying attention.
I mean, my God, who you vote for?
Gruesome Newsom?
He's ridiculous.
Well, you can't vote for Gruesome Newsome.
Did you just come up with that on the fly?
No, no, I just wanted to bash him.
I'd just like to bash him.
I know that he's not the one that's running, but it's fun just to make fun of him.
I was watching Kevin O'Leary.
I like Kevin O'Leary, and he was making fun of Zoron Marxist Kami Mamdani and his proposed 9.5% property tax hike.
What's fascinating about this, he makes this endorsement of Kathy Hochul.
Now he's threatening Kathy Hochle to either raise taxes on people in New York that make more than a million dollars a year, up a whopping, nearly doubling it from 3.86 to 5.86, or I will increase property taxes for everyone in New York City by 9.5%.
Now, what do you think that's going to do if that happens?
Now, according to Kevin O'Leary, pretty smart guy, he says, well, that's brilliant because that tax hike will result in an even larger exodus out of the state of New York, by the way.
And Kathy Hochle kind of knows this, which is why she's trying to throw him a bone.
His problem is the pure amount of money.
He has a $127 billion budget proposal.
That is more than the entire state of Florida.
And Florida has better infrastructure, better services, better schools.
They're either number one or two, better law enforcement than New York could ever even think of or dream of.
It's insane.
Another article came out how Texas is now leading the way along with Florida in terms of all of these institutional investment companies.
They're all leaving.
They have a migration and a math problem that has emerged here.
And it is, Kevin O'Leary said, well, that'll make Momdani the real estate agent of the year because of the predictable, inevitable mass exodus out of that state.
It's a massive tax.
You know, what I love about this guy, and I'm giving him credit, he goes big.
He goes big, and he's got a fantastic social media team.
This is great.
This is bat poo-poo crazy, what he is proposing.
And probably sometime next year, within 12 to 18 months, I will meet him in Miami and give him real estate year award.
Because I'm not happy with what's happening.
I can't get across the bridge anymore.
I live in Miami Beach.
Everybody from New York and New Jersey and Massachusetts is moving into my neighborhood.
I'm pissed off.
And this guy's just doing more of it.
What he's proposing is beyond insane, but I love it.
You are very taxed.
I'm like everybody else.
Listen, you guys live here.
You're not paying your fair share.
I don't live here.
You've got to pay 110%.
That's the right thing to do.
Because he's not coming sneakers.
No, but he's going to tax you into a blue.
You just can't argue with the guy.
Here's Jared Moskowitz, a congressman, Democrat from Florida, on Momdani's property tax threat.
Listen.
He's now warning that he would like to propose a nearly 10% property tax if no tax is issued on the wealthiest in New York.
Do you expect you're going to see an exodus out of New York into Florida?
Yeah, that's already happening, right?
And we've seen it out of Chicago.
Ken Griffin moved his whole company here to Florida.
We see it out of California.
You know, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg moved here.
The Ellisons have, you know, have purchased a lot of Palm Beach County.
So we see this happening around the country.
And yes, I think that if Momdani's law were to go forward and he would increase taxes, I think a 9.5% increase, you'll see more people move here.
By the way, that tax increase isn't just on the rich.
It's on regular people making $122,000 median income.
I think the exodus is still going on.
I think it'll continue.
And again, these targeted wealth taxes that we see from states, whether it's California, New York, the wealthy can just leave, right?
So these are not going to work.
Just like this wealth tax that they're going to have as a referendum in California that would be retroactive to January.
It's caused two of the co-founders of Google, they're now in Florida.
Larry Ellison's in Florida.
Ken Griffin is now in Florida.
His entire Operation Citadel is in Florida.
I've been saying and talking about Wall Street South now for a long time, and it is very real because I see it with my own eyes every single day.
And that means every major bank, every private equity group, every, you know, every venture capital group is moving their offices to Florida or to Tennessee or to Texas.
And by the way, the problems that he's talking about with traffic in Miami, Miami's rough.
Rhode Island Reflections00:02:26
Lynn, I don't know the last time you've been to Miami, but it's not what it used to be.
It's packed.
I don't go to Miami.
It's not New York traffic now.
It's basically New York with sand.
It's New York with sand and sunshine and warmer weather.
I do not know.
Is that what you're saying?
Rick in Rhode Island on the Sean Hannity Show.
What's up, Rick?
Hi, sir.
Big fan.
Been listening to your radio show since 2013.
Thank you very much, by the way.
I can't do this without you.
I love your show.
I was very disturbed about the shooting at Livy Arena.
It hit really close to home.
I've coached a lot of the kids that are on one of the high school teams.
I'm a youth coach.
I've known these kids since they were young.
Luckily, everybody was okay.
We checked in with everybody.
But Rhode Island hockey is a really small community, so it just instilled a lot of unnecessary fear.
And, you know, we...
Well, it's not unnecessary.
A lot of people lost their life here, including this person's kid and ex-wife, and I guess the in-laws were shot as well.
I mean, it's just horrible.
So, all these seniors, though, this might be the last time they play organized hockey, and it's totally ruined for them, not to mention the horrible loss of life.
But my wife had said something to me a few weeks ago.
I wanted to go see the Melania movie with her.
You know, we're big fans, and she was actually scared to go to the theater.
She said, let's just wait till it comes out on streaming so that we don't have to worry about getting attacked at a theater or possibly shot.
And I really, you know, being a lifelong Rhode Islander where it's a, you know, it's home, it's a nice state, and it's just made me really sad to hear that.
That, you know, just.
Oh, it's very sad.
I lived in Rhode Island five years.
I love it there.
There have been a number of recent shootings where the shooter was trans.
The one in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, the one in Tumblr Ridge in British Columbia.
We discussed that case, I think, a week or two ago.
And more than 25 people were wounded, including two who were airlifted to a hospital, life-threatening injuries.
We had the Annunciation Catholic Church shooting in Minneapolis.
That was in August of 25.
If you remember, the Nashville, Tennessee Catholic school shooting.
If you remember the Colorado Springs LGBTQ plus nightclub shooting that took place, the Highlands Ranch in Colorado school shooting, Aberdeen, Maryland shooting.
Mass Shootings Controversy00:07:12
I mean, now, is it as a percentage the highest number?
No, it's a fraction of mass shootings, but it's a much smaller universe of people.
And I think people have the right to raise questions about whether or not people that are transitioning and taking puberty blockers and taking hormones that somehow this doesn't impact their psychological state.
I think that's a fair question.
Sir, the last thing I got for you, sir.
They sell black pearl chowder.
You can have it shipped to Florida, just so you know.
I've had it shipped to Florida, and you can get it frozen, delivered to your house.
It's much better.
Don't get the cans.
That's my advice to people, okay?
We ship it frozen to family out of state.
Do you work there?
Oh, you ship it as like friends.
You know, friends that love it.
Yeah, we have family out of state.
If you want to ship me a couple of quarts of it, we'll make sure you can get it to me.
No, I'm kidding.
I appreciate it, Rick.
Thank you, my friend.
God bless you.
Andy is in Ohio.
Andy, hi, how are you?
Glad you called.
Hi, yes.
I'm doing well.
I was calling actually about this opening salvo that you've talked about, talking about the case to friends, family, and neighbors, and how you rattle off this list of things that the Democrats are supposed to be for, but I think you're overselling them.
I think you're making them sound way cooler than they actually are.
So, for instance, you say that they're going to defund ICE and the DHS.
I wish they would.
And the police.
Well, you know, and we can talk about those.
I think those are separate issues because one of those is federal and one of those is not.
But in terms of ICE, right, you know, I am older than ICE.
It was formed in 2004.
With that in mind, right, they're costing us $180 billion a year now, and they're violating people's rights.
You know, Alex Predi's Second Amendment rights, Mahmoud Khalil's Sixth Amendment rights, and habeas corpus rights.
Now they're threatening to punish people who criticize ICE online.
That's a violation of the First Amendment.
I don't know that they're threatening to go after people online.
Now, if you're talking about doxing agents, there are laws on the books against making terroristic threats or specific threats against individuals that would put them and their families in harm's way.
And I think that would be applicable without triggering any constitutional crisis.
You've already made a conclusion about Renee Goode and Alex Predi, and you come to a conclusion.
I want to see all the evidence before I come to my own conclusion.
I think it is inconclusive at this time.
I don't see as much controversy as it relates to Renee Goode.
I think it's very clear that she accelerated towards the officer.
And according to their trading and rules of engagement, he was within his rights to defend himself, and he did have internal bleeding as a result of getting hit by that car.
So I didn't mention Renee Goode, but I was specifically referring to Alex Predi, right?
He was disarmed when he was shot.
It looks like it from the video.
It looks like they, like a fraction of a second, if you break it down frame by frame, you would probably be correct based on what I've seen, but I'm not rushing to judgment and a definitive conclusion here.
That's not my style.
I've never done that before, and I'm not going to start doing it now.
I mean, that's fine, but there's not really any evidence that they're doing any sort of investigation on this.
The feds are blocking the local people on this.
Well, they don't have jurisdiction to do the investigation, number one, if you're looking at this murder.
If an officer feels and has a just that an average person would feel threatened that their life and the life of fellow officers is at risk in that moment, whether right or wrong, that would be a justification for the use of lethal force.
Whether you like the rules or don't like the rules, that's what it says.
So I will point out that self-defense or defense of another is an affirmative defense, which means that they are presumptively guilty when they raise that defense.
No, well, you're quoting the Constitution, but you're forgetting something that's very critical, and that is a person is presumed innocent.
That doesn't appear in the Constitution, and it also is when you raise an affirmative defense, you admit.
You've already made up your mind.
I've not made up my mind.
Okay, so let's agree to disagree.
So, and we can agree to disagree, but my point here is that we have numerous instances where this agency has violated people's rights.
You keep saying that.
Give me an example.
I don't even know what you're talking about.
You know, you know, here's what you're not pointing out.
I've gone through the list of murderers, rapists, child molesters, drug dealers that ICE agents put their lives on the risk to get.
You're discounting the insightful rhetoric and dehumanizing rhetoric of politicians that have motivated people to go out there and harass the living hell out of them.
You and the environment in which they're working, which is in a tense, you know, heightened state because of their recklessness.
You, you know, last year alone, 2,100 illegal immigrants murdered Americans.
You're not talking about their civil rights.
I'm not saying any law enforcement group is perfect.
5,400 people in 2025 alone that were known rapists of Americans, illegal immigrants.
Why don't you mention them as part of your narrative?
Having discussed that.
Can you name one person that was murdered by an illegal immigrant last year?
Those were killed by illegal immigrants.
I'm asking you a question.
Can you name one person that was murdered or raped by an illegal last year?
Lake and Riley, right?
No, not last year.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I got the year wrong.
You did.
The point here.
So name one.
Can you name one person murdered or raped?
I'm sorry.
Can you name one person murdered or raped that have been apprehended, that are charged with murder or rape that have been apprehended by ICE just in last year alone?
Can you name one person?
No.
No, 85.
Thank you.
Obviously, you have a bias in one direction, whether you want to admit it or not.