Finding the truth behind the Minnesota ICE shooting with Sen. Tim Sheehy | Batya Full Show 1/10

Welcome to Batia on News Nation at our new time. It's prime time. I'm Bati Angar Sargon and we begin with what we learned about America this week.

The week ended in tragedy when a 37-year-old mother of three, Renee Good, was shot after accelerating her SUV into an ICE officer who drew his weapon and fired, killing Good. You've all seen the video at this point. You already have an opinion about who was at fault. And that opinion is almost certainly confirming your priors. It's Schrodinger's shooting. People who voted for Trump who believe in his mass deportation agenda see a woman who turned her car into a deadly weapon and a man acting righteously in self-defense. People who hate Trump see an innocent woman who was gunned down in cold blood.

How to break through this logjam? It's a question that's as important as what really happened on that Minnesota street. Whichever side you're on, this is the real challenge facing us as Americans. How can we tell the truth as we see it with empathy without deepening the divide? And that truth piece is very important because it was a lie that led to the death of Renee Good.

ICE agents surged in Minnesota due to the massive fraud uncovered in the Somali community there. By and large, unreported by the mainstream media. ICE was in Minnesota to arrest criminals like those who bilked the American people out of billions of dollars, opening daycare centers that serviced no children and health care centers that healed no patients and soup kitchens that cooked no meals. They also picked up a registered sex offender from Somalia convicted of 17 crimes, a man convicted of sexually abusing a minor, a man convicted of domestic violence, among many other criminals. And it was during that operation that they encountered Renee Good.

Renee moved to Minneapolis a year ago and enrolled her six-year-old son in a charter school that, according to a New York Post article, puts social justice first and even involves the kids in political and social activism. Through the school community, Renee became involved in ICE Watch, an activist group that disrupts ICE arrests. That's what she seems to have been doing when she used her car to block ICE agents on the day that she tragically died.

Renee wasn't a terrorist. Radicalized by moms at her kids' school, Renee Good died thinking she was making the world a better place. Kept in ignorance about the crimes of her neighbors by social media algorithms and a liberal mainstream media committed to lying about Somali fraud, she chose to believe the mythology that they spread instead. Those networks would have you believe that ICE doesn't belong in sanctuary cities, that you should protest free and fair elections with riots, that the will of the American people in electing Donald Trump to deport every illegal alien is negligible, and that her fellow Americans were Nazis. This is how a mother who had just dropped her child off at daycare died defending Somali fraudsters and their daycare centers full of immigrant children who don't exist. How can we discuss this in a way that is kind and compassionate to the victim of this horrifying tragedy but also honest about the dangerous lie that she bought into?

Here to discuss is Senator Tim Shehy of the great state of Montana. Senator Shehy, thank you so much for joining us.

>> Thanks for having me, Batia. And I really appreciate your framing leading up to this because, as you said, you know, we're all Americans at the end of the day, and we have to find a way to have these discussions uh without having them be filtered uh through a lens of hatred. And two things can be true. We can think that this shooting uh was a tragedy and a young mother being killed is a tragedy. We can also believe that the agenda that the American people voted for to bring back common sense to our streets, to put Americans before immigrants, to put cops before criminals is the right thing to do. We can hold both those beliefs at the same time. And I think to your point, we have to find a way to get back to that because I can personally feel as someone who grew up in the Twin Cities that this is I don't want to see ICE agents in my streets. But the only reason ICE agents are in my streets is because the prior administration chose to bring 10, 15, 20 million illegal immigrants into this country. For what reason is still unclear. To influence elections, to influence NGOs and nonprofits. Either way, the impact has been felt by millions of Americans, primarily lower income Americans whose jobs have been impacted, whose housing have been impacted. And those Americans spoke in 2024 by saying, "We want this problem fixed." So, we have to find a way to talk about it rationally because it's going to continue to haunt us until we do.

>> Rationally, but also as you just did, in a way that recognizes the humanity of every American on both sides of this. I want to play you something from the vice president's press conference about the shooting. Take a look at this.

If the media wants to tell the truth, they ought to tell the truth that a group of left-wing radicals have been working tirelessly, sometimes using domestic terror techniques to try to make it impossible for the president of the United States to do what the American people elected him to do, which is enforce our immigration laws. She was trying to ram this guy with his with her car.

I guess my question would be, do you feel that the vice president brought the appropriate level of empathy to this conversation?

>> Well, listen, I support the vice president's comments. I think what he was responding to was the fact that the media immediately, as you mentioned, and as you saw, sought to villainize these agents, sought to villainize the force that was doing their constitutional duty, and jumped to the defense and tried to say because the wheel was turning one way that somehow this wasn't a threat. It's pretty obvious what she was doing. And and unfortunately, uh the reality is she's a radicalized trained protestor, I guess legal observer is what they call her in liberal terms, and there are scores, hundreds, thousands of these people across the nation that have been trained by folks like Neville Roy Singham, Code Pink, George Soros. They spend millions of dollars training these people and then deploying them and supporting them in the field to do exactly this. So, peaceful protest and First Amendment rights, no questions asked. I don't think you'll hear Donald Trump or the VP or any of us infringe upon that. But there's a big difference between expressing your opinion and then actively impeding the role of law enforcement officers who are doing their constitutional duty. And then furthermore, what unfortunately this young woman was doing, which is literally trying to use your car as a weapon against those individuals. So, um I think unfortunately, as I said, I don't think anybody in their right mind wants police officers uh arresting people in mass in the streets. However, that's the response to a very terrible precedent that was set by the Biden administration. It's hard to solve tough problems without tough answers. Uh the disease is in the body. It has metastasized and unfortunately it's going to take surgery and chemotherapy to get it out. And those aren't easy things to do. But it's the only answer to a very serious problem that was sicked upon this nation uh by successive administrations before, and the Biden administration, of course, selected to open our border and incentivize mass migration and criminal activity. And now the cure for that is going to be tough and and I support it 100% because we've got to fix this problem if we're going to have a prosperous, safe nation moving forward.

>> Mhm. Now, this week that ends in tragedy began with a huge, huge victory. You're a former Navy SEAL. Thank you so much for your service. We had a great military operation. Managed to arrest the dictator of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro. Um, what's amazing is that the Democrats have been bemoaning this massive success since it happened. Um, even though President Biden put a $25 million bounty on Maduro's head. Apparently, only Democratic presidents have Article 2 powers if you're a Democrat. The thing is though, it wasn't only the Democrats who are opposed to it. We just recently had a vote um in the Senate. You had five Republicans pushing back against the president and limiting his um powers in Venezuela specifically. Here you have the the five senators. Some are the usual suspects, but you also have Josh Hawley there. A little bit of a surprise. I guess my question is, does this signal that the president's power over his party is waning?

>> I don't think it does. I think what it's signaling is quite frankly, and and we've talked about this in a bipartisan way, that for the last 50 years, really, you've seen, well, more than that really, probably 80 years since FDR, a one-way march of influence in our government from Article 1 to Article 2. And as you know, the Constitution is structured to have three branches of government and checks and balances. And Article 1 being the legislative branch, Congress, House of Representatives and the Senate, is really supposed to be uh, you know, that powerful branch where the will of the people is discussed and forged through debate and enacted through legislation. Since FDR and throughout the 20th century, we've seen Article 2 grow more and more dominant and more and more muscular. And the fact that it really is now across Democrats or Republicans, Article 2 has really grabbed the helm of the nation and is peeling away. So, I think what you're seeing here is not a rebuke in any way of Trump and his policies. I think what you're seeing uh is a consistent concern from both sides of the aisle to say, "Listen, at some point, Article 1 has to reclaim the turf that the founding fathers envisioned it to have." Uh, I personally, as you know, did not vote with these folks because I think this is now is not the time. Venezuela is actively undermining and killing Americans every single day. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Americans have been killed by the fentanyl drug regime supported by Chavez and Maduro after him. And more importantly, which I think is being less talked about, is Venezuela's role in the rogue nation economy that exists through their ghost fleet oil trade that helps finance the war in Ukraine. So the very Democrats who demanded that we do absolutely anything without limit to support Ukraine in their war apparently doesn't think it's important for us to cut off the primary source of revenue that funds Russia's war in Ukraine, which is exactly what's going on here. And it goes to the hollowness of the opposition to this operation, as you highlighted, Batia, very much unfortunately like the shooting in Minnesota. We can't have rational discussions anymore in this country. And I think it's very frustrating because the Democrats have been consistent in their condemnation of Maduro and Chavez prior to that. They are vocal in their condemnation of Vladimir Putin and the rogue state activities around the world which depend on the oil economy which Venezuela has been uh the facilitator of. So this should be a bipartisan win. We should be all standing behind President Trump uh fully. We can debate the constitutionality of it. We can debate, you know, uh the constitutionality of anything. But at the end of the day, standing in the way of our ability to execute uh these set of operations which have been unequivocally bad for America and present a clear and present danger to the health and welfare of Americans, I think is really unfortunate and we should be supporting the president uh at this particular moment in time because this is a win for America and it's a win for the free world.

>> Absolutely. All of our enemies are howling about this. It's it's the Democrats and, you know, China, Russia, and of course, Iran, which is now suddenly seeing this unbelievable mass protest by the unbelievably brave people of Iran standing up against their tyrannical regime. What are you hearing? Is this the end of the Ayatollah Khomeini?

>> Well, I sure hope it is. And again, the silence is deafening. It's amazing that this is getting no coverage. I mean, you'll have wall-to-wall coverage of a handful of old, gray-haired, you know, liberals protesting with signs on any street corner in America. Uh, yet now we have millions of of youth in Iran finally what appears to be destabilizing a 46-year regime of terror, murder uh in in one of the Middle East's most impactful nations. And it's getting little to no coverage, which is crazy. As someone, as you well know, as you do also, who's very concerned about Iran's malign influence all over the world. Iran has been the single most destabilizing factor in the Middle East for the last 50 years, um, whether it's its direct intervention in their neighboring countries or global terror networks that they finance, to include Venezuela. The IRGC has been active in Venezuela. The the regime in Iran has been the most anti-American, murderous regime in the world. And it's a core component of the North Korea, Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela axes of evil that's out there. So the fact that these folks are courageously rising up, number one, let's remember, Batia, this isn't an accident. This is a result of years and months of pressure from Israel. Uh, and of course, over the past year from this Trump administration, who is obviously the midnight hammer strike which debilitated and showed the Iranian people that their regime is not all-knowing and invincible. And of course, Israel's continual campaign to reduce Iranian influence in the region. We have to give credit also to our allies in the region like Saudi Arabia, uh, who've stood strong with us through many of these conflicts over the years. So this is a historic time, perhaps one of the most important geopolitical developments in recent history.

>> One of my New Year's resolutions to myself was to bring good faith in my debates with the other side. Something I've been struggling with all week when you see the Democrats seeming to side with Iran against the protesters with this silence, with Russia because they cannot acknowledge um how important it was to cut Russia off from Venezuela, even with China. Um, how do you bring good faith into these conversations and reaching across the aisle and bring empathy to what are really, really important and difficult debates?

>> Well, for me, it goes back to many oaths I've taken to our Constitution. Uh, whether it was when I was joining uh the Navy initially, becoming a SEAL, becoming a senator. Time and again, I've sworn an oath uh to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and defend all Americans and our Constitution, not just Republicans or Democrats or people I agree with or people I like or don't like. I've sworn an oath to repeatedly defend our nation. Uh, and when I deployed overseas and when I fought wildfires uh as a wildland firefighter, I wasn't just protecting people I agreed with or liked. I was protecting American communities and I view that way uh of my duty every day today. So, I'm hoping that we can look at these problems as Americans. I was on CNN just the other day talking about the Venezuela issue as an American, not as a Republican, but as an American. And I hope that during this resistance movement, as the Democrats try to pull every lever to stop Trump, they can at least check themselves occasionally and say, "Listen, this is bad for Americans." Trend Aua on the streets of America, murdering Americans, lacing our drugs with fentanyl, killing tens of thousands. That this is bad for America. Terrorist regimes in our hemisphere is bad for America. Terrorist regimes anywhere in the world that are actively murdering and killing innocent people is bad for the world. So, there are things we should be able to unite on. Uh, the power of debate about the constitutionality of what we're doing and whether uh tax policy, immigration policy makes a lot of sense. That's our job as elected officials, but we shouldn't be standing in the way of common sense initiatives that the American people have voted for.

>> What does the world look like at the end of the president's term? Are we in a multipolar world now? What does American strength look like? And what are you hoping to see in terms of the shuffling of the powers?

>> The only constant is change, Batia. And of course, we have uh you and I have have lived during the golden age of the post-war uh rules-based international order that since World War II, America has been the tent pole holding up the tent of the world. We really, we've been Atlas holding the globe on our back for a long time. And I think our role in the world will continue to be that of the leader of freedom and opportunity. But we also have to recognize the world changes. And that globe we're carrying on our back, Atlas is getting tired and the globe's getting heavier. And it's also at times sprouting arms and stabbing us in the back. And we have to look at that and say, are we going to continue to support and prop up countries that either refuse to support themselves or actively undermine us? Why are we sending billions of dollars to countries that actively want to kill us? Why are we supporting initiatives that undermine the very values this country was founded on? So, I think we're going to continue to see a reorientation around America First. So, that doesn't mean America only or America alone, but it does mean that as elected officials, it's not too much to ask that we put the needs of our people, our families, our country, our economy, our businesses, our border should come first. And I think that's exactly what the president is doing. And believe it or not, but as you all know, the rest of the free world benefits from a strong America. So having a strong American economy, have strong American borders, uh, and a strong American foreign policy, that benefits the rest of the free world more than anything else.

>> Senator Shehy, God bless and protect you. Thank you so much for joining us.

>> Thanks, Bati. Happy New Year.

>> Happy New Year. Coming up, I call out the left's blatant hypocrisy over the Trump administration's actions in Venezuela. The Democrats are very angry that President Trump has done regime change in Venezuela.

>> Well, we were clearly breaking the law and doing a regime change operation.

>> And the irony is that the president who criticized nation building, who criticized regime change wars, now is talking about running Venezuela.

>> They are evil, brutal dictators all over the world. That does not give the American president the right to invade those countries.

>> He should not be trying to run Venezuela.

>> But they are also very angry that President Trump has not done regime change in Venezuela.

>> They have the same repressive regime in place right now that's being even more repressive against the people of Venezuela. And the president even threw the recipient of the Nobel Prize under the bus and now supporting Maduro's vice president who's by some accords more ruthless than he.

>> Madurismo is totally intact in Venezuela. Uh, his handpicked vice president is in charge.

>> The Democrats are very angry that Trump is spending millions of dollars in Venezuela and not at home. Spend all this time, effort, and dollars getting rid of Maduro and then sending sending all this oil money back to Venezuela when America needs help.

>> We should be rebuilding America, not rebuilding Venezuela.

>> You know, we can either spend hundreds of billions of dollars in Venezuela fixing their oil industry or we can spend billions of dollars making sure that Americans have healthcare. But they are also very angry that Trump is bringing home millions of dollars from Venezuela.

>> This is an insane plan. They are talking about stealing the Venezuelan oil at gunpoint.

>> I do not expect that this president will work effectively for democracy in Venezuela, but I do think he will work uh to make sure that American oil companies uh uh can profit from Venezuelan uh oil. I can't believe I'm saying this, but presidents can't just steal and sell stuff that belongs to another country.

>> Which is it, guys? Pick a lane. In their need to oppose anything Trump does, the left is blind to what he's accomplished here. Neither war nor regime change, but a change in leadership with a clear directive. Work with the US or else, because we're not messing around anymore. And if you fill our streets with drugs and gangs and sell weapons and oil to our enemies, we're coming for you. Here with us now to discuss is Erica Donalds from the America First Policy Institute and Dan Turentine, the co-host of The Huddle on YouTube. Thank you both so much for being here. All right, Dan, let's start with you. What the heck?

>> Well, I mean, look, you teed this up very well. When you suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, you knee-jerk, you know, to every single thing. And as you said, I mean, the party looks ridiculous on some of this. Obviously, you know, Barack Obama went into Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden. He didn't ask Congress for permission. Everyone has wanted Maduro out. If we could just admit those two things, the country would then listen to us when we say, "Okay, now what are we doing?" The fact that when Trump announced that we are now running Venezuela, I think even Republicans eyebrows raised like, "Pardon me, what are we doing now?" And there's a lot of appropriate questions to ask, but because we knee-jerk the way we did, most of the country rolls their eyes at us.

>> So Erica, Dan's totally right. There were five Republicans who voted to limit the president's power in uh Venezuela recently. Um, is there a line to the presidential power, to the Article 2 powers? I mean, I often joke that for Democrats, you know, only Democratic presidents get Article 2 powers, but is there a line at which you would become uncomfortable with the way this president is exercising his powers?

>> Well, certainly not in this particular situation. As you laid out, this is a criminal narco-terrorist dictator. It's not just someone whose leadership style we disagreed with. It's someone who has funded drug trafficking, human trafficking, and and against the United States is a wanted criminal. And so, Trump did exactly what was necessary to not just remove him from power in Venezuela. The purpose was to bring him to justice in the United States. Because we did that, we have to help stabilize what we left behind, which was a void of leadership and also what he left behind, which is a chaotic country where there is a weaponized government dependency of the people. And I think Trump has been very measured in giving, of course, Marco Rubio, the star from Florida, the necessary tools and authority to ensure a transition of leadership there that's going to ensure the United States of course benefits from that transition.

>> Mhm. It truly was the week of Marco Rubio. Um, I do have to say, Erica, there was something the administration put out this week that I really hate. The new pyramid in which the recommendation is it's the sort of "let them eat steak" model of pursuing affordability. I just think this is a rich person's view of how you help people achieve a healthier lifestyle. This is the keto diet. It's not actually healthy. It costs a lot of money. Working-class people cannot afford to give their kids steak every night. I really hate this. How do you defend it?

>> Well, I actually don't. I'm not sure that the department of anything in the government should be telling us what and how to eat. You know, they've they've now rolled back the um vaccine schedule. Now, they're rolling back the food pyramid that's been in place for 30 years. And in that time period, uh, obesity quadrupling in the United States and parents being so unhappy with uh school lunches, it's been an absolute disaster. What we need the government to do is to ensure honest and transparent ingredients, stop subsidizing overprocessed foods, and let get out of the way, allow families to make these decisions based on the information that is readily available to them by their smartphones and in their pockets. Actually, the government should not be telling people what to eat. They haven't done a very good job so far.

>> Yeah, Dan, I I feel Look, I feel mind divided about this because you hear people saying if if somebody's on food stamps, right, those food stamps, they are paid for by the American people, they should not be allowed to spend those on unhealthy things. And I hear that. But I also bulk at the idea that poor people should be somehow penalized for their poverty and have fewer choices among the limited choices that they have. What's your take on? I actually worked for a member of Congress who had this fight when I was his chief of staff about trying to limit what people can do with food stamps and have heard this argument. Look, if you're on them, who are you to say go to Whole Foods and buy a $7, you know, pepper when I could go to the store and buy some pretzels and a bottle of soda and it feeds my family more. To some extent, I totally agree with Erica and with what you're saying. I would also say though that telling people to eat less sugar and less processed foods is kind of like red dye. You're kind of like, why didn't we do this sooner? Right. Most people would say to their kids, all things being equal, eat less sugar, eat, you know, less McDonald's. But you are right. It's very hard to tell people on a limited budget that they need to kind of go and, as I say, buy a pepper and not a bag of pretzels.

>> Yeah. And I hear from working-class people all the time that actually fast food right now is cheaper than groceries, which is just horrifying. I I know the president is doing his best to bring down the cost of groceries, but it is taking time. Um, Erica, I want to get your take on this. Um, the president very much wants to acquire Greenland. Um, let's play that.

I will say this about Greenland. We need Greenland from a national security situation. It's so strategic right now. Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place. We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security.

>> Erica, do we need Greenland?

>> You know, I would go with the president on this. This is another one of those situations where the media has mocked the president for saying that we need Greenland. Uh, similar to what they did about tariffs, about NATO, about building the wall. And it usually turns out that the president is right. He kind of uses humor to introduce these somewhat controversial ideas. And then as those ideas developed, as he's talked about, you know, China and Russia have expanded their footprint in the Arctic region. Greenland is a very strategic uh place for us to be when it comes to minerals, when it comes to national security. And it always turns out that Trump can make a deal. Maybe it's not acquiring it, but but some sort of more strategic relationship. And the media likes to ignore these um benefits and the deals that Trump can make as he throws out these sort of jokingly introductions to these ideas.

>> I mean, I have been very humbled by how many times he's been right about things that I thought was crazy. Where are you on Greenland?

>> Look, in the abstract, everybody here is right. It has resources. But here's the problem. They're not for sale. It's not Maduro. It's not somebody who's, you know, banging on our door. I would think that you probably have better results if you use the carrot here, not the stick with an ally. It's hard to see, but I think victory may be that we have some sort of a strategic relationship that allows us to get minerals and not the Chinese or the Russians, you know, being there.

>> Where are the Democrats on Marco Rubio? I mean, he's going to meet next week with the Danish. What is the feeling in the party? Is he somebody who could be a unifying force?

>> Look, people like Marco Rubio. He's obviously a colleague. He has relationships. He worked with them. It wasn't too long ago he was criticizing the president. I I I actually think there is trust. And I think for the party, we have to be careful on foreign policy. You can't just knee-jerk that everything Trump does is wrong because he's not always wrong. I think the question often is how he goes about it. And that's where people may disagree. But I think in Marco, a lot of people trust.

>> Dan, Erica, thank you so much for joining us. What a pleasure.

>> Thanks so much.

>> Coming up, Trump the leftist, a look at how the president is ticking off the wish list of the left, accomplishing longheld policy goals like affordable housing and bringing down drug prices and getting zero credit for it. We all know that things have gotten worse. We all know that young people, for the first time in American history, are worse off than their parents. Many, especially working-class Americans, struggle to achieve the most basic version of the American dream despite working unbelievably hard. And a huge part of that stems from the fact that the hallmarks of the American dream, owning a home of your own, having access to affordable health care, being able to retire in dignity have just absolutely skyrocketed in cost. For years, the left has decried the eroding American middle class. They promised cheaper, more accessible health care, affordable housing, a corporate tax to fill our coffers to spend on welfare. But it is President Trump, a Republican, who is actually working to achieve those goals. He somehow got our pharmaceutical companies to give the American people most favored nation pricing, getting the cost of drugs down by 400%. He implemented reciprocal tariffs, raising $250 billion, the vast majority of which was paid by American corporations. This was a tax on greedflation, and the money has gone to paying down our deficit, but also paying a stopgap for food stamps during the government shutdown. Once progressives like Bernie Sanders called for immigration restrictions to protect working-class wages. Open borders. That's a Koch brothers proposal. Bernie lambasted Ezra Klein in 2015. Now it's President Trump whose mass deportations have resulted in rising wages for blue-collar workers. According to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant, real wages for hourly workers were up nearly 2% in the first 5 months of 2025. This week, the president announced the latest left-wing proposal he had pilfered, a blanket ban on large investors buying single-family homes. Investment banks and others own 20% of all home sales in Houston, Miami, Phoenix, and Las Vegas. A 2024 analysis found that large institutions owned 25% of rental homes in Atlanta, and 18% in Charlotte. What happens when investment banks and others buy up significant portions of the housing market is they jack up the prices or they turn the homes into rentals, which makes housing that much more scarce, making each available unit even more expensive and home ownership even more elusive. According to Harvard Housing Studies, home prices are up a full 60% nationally since 2019. The crisis is real and President Trump stepped in with a real solution. One advocated for years by the leftists who denounce him. The left likes to call Donald Trump a 21st-century George Wallace. He's actually a 21st-century FDR. His foreign policy, domestic policy, and immigration policy are all working together to restore the American dream for the hardest working Americans. After the break, we've got AOC's former advisor, Corbin Trent, to explain why the left insists on opposing Trump, even when he's doing exactly what they want. You don't want to miss this.

Welcome back to the show. A recent study from an organization that seeks to get Democrats elected found that 70% of voters believe the Democratic Party is out of touch with average Americans. Based on interviews with 500,000 voters, the study concluded that the Democrats are too focused on symbolic issues divorced from the struggles of daily life. Things that the wealthy care about, like climate change, and voting rights, race relations, and guns, totally ignoring the concerns of working-class Americans who care more about things like border security, immigration, terrorism, crime, drug addiction, and gas prices. But you know who is laser-focused on border security, immigration, terrorism, crime, and drug addiction? Let's ask Corbin Trent, a Democratic strategist and former communications director to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Corbin, thank you so much for joining me. You're somebody who I think genuinely cares about working-class Americans like AOC, I believe. And I guess my question is, do you recognize this description that the Democrats' concerns are very much the concerns of the elites, whereas the concerns that working-class Americans have are much more represented by Donald Trump?

>> I think that uh Donald Trump's campaign rhetoric definitely represented working-class needs more so than the Democratic Party's campaign rhetoric. Um, I, you know, I've but you know, in most of my work, I've run in primaries against the Democratic Party as it exists. You know, your first segment earlier was talking about, you know, Donald Trump being the FDR of this generation, and I've definitely been looking for the FDR of this generation, but, you know, it's not Donald Trump. Maybe his campaign was that. Maybe he wanted to run on that kind of idea, but that's not the way he's implementing it. It's not, you know, we're not seeing a resurgence in manufacturing in America. We're not seeing a, you know, field to factory kind of move that we had during the Arsenal of Democracy that was, you know, getting factories built in 18 months. Uh, you know, I just don't think the the costs that are burdening the American people, not just the middle class. We're talking 80% down, aren't going to move unless we actually start building much more capacity. I mean, I think, you know, keeping BlackRock out of buying single-family homes is definitely a good move and a good step, but, you know, healthcare is eating. We're paying like almost $6 trillion a year for our healthcare in this country, you know, more than double most any other country per capita. We're, you know, it's just not working and there needs to be more, uh, you know, more aggressive moves. Like I think the focus on removing immigrants and the, you know, the folks that are actually driving up the prices here are working on Wall Street. They're trading commodities, uh, they're not, uh, they're not in our communities. You know, the Somali community in Minnesota maybe did a fraud of a couple hundred million. Um, but, you know, we're seeing Medicare frauds by by the pharmaceutical industry is much, much higher than that. We're seeing, you mentioned earlier in your segment, the food we're fed in our schools. I went to the Culinary Institute of America in Hyde Park, and food is something that, you know, I grew up around. My grandparents had gardens, uh, you know, my my grandpappa was a sharecropper, and the food that's ending up in our schools that my kids are eating is not a result of our government. It's a result of Big Ag and big business. That's who's doing it, you know, um, and we're not seeing enough.

>> Let's take healthcare for a minute. Um, I totally agree with you. Okay, these cartels, the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, just absolute disaster. Donald Trump managed to get the cost of drugs down by 400%, something that many Democrats promised to do. Let me just finish the question. I really want to hear what you think about this. You look to the Democrats, but I would think this would be the moment to go big. Medicare for All. Healthcare is the number one issue. There's 70% for a public option among the American people, 49% among Republicans. And yet, you don't see the Democrats doing that. You see them doing this kind of, you know, the the band-aid on the bullet wound, the Obamacare subsidies. There's no vision on the other side where at least you have Trump implementing things that are going to help people. What say you?

>> Uh, there is a lack of vision on both sides of the aisle. That's absolutely right. I don't see very many people coming up with uh solutions that that stand up to the the problems. I mean, healthcare, you know, the the thing is America used to own about 40 to 50% of its own healthcare distribution, the hospitals, the clinics, the pharmaceutical companies. We owned that capacity up until the mid-70s, mid-80s, and then we started privatizing it, giving it to nonprofits and and giving it away. So, we lost the ability to compete with the private market. Um, absolutely. You know, the problem with Medicare for All is all it does is pump trillions of dollars into an already broken system. So, that's part of the solution, the single-payer system. But the other thing is that we've got to be able to break the back of those cartels. The only way to do that, I think, is through direct competition. That's a good capitalist way to do things, and the best way to compete with something that big is with something even bigger, and that's us as a community, as a people, the American government, the American people. So you mentioned that, you know.

>> Let me just quickly move on before we run out of time to immigration. You mentioned that, you know, the people in the communities are not the real problem. But this was Bernie Sanders' position in 2015 that if you have access to an illegal labor force, of course this drives down the wages for working-class Americans, you have to have a tight border. Um, Bernie did a 180 when he was running in 2019, but I think that that initial view was what was considered the progressive view for a hundred years. Um, what is the progressive view on immigration today and why is it not that view?

>> I mean, you definitely have to have a border. I mean, there's things that try to get across the border, but a lot of the drugs that are killing Americans are coming from, you know, the calls coming from inside the house. It's coming from the Sackler family back in the '90s and.

>> Working-class wages, having an illegal labor force of 11 million people to undercut working-class people in five or six industries. Well, I it'd be much easier instead of rounding up millions of people to put some people that own businesses in jail. I think if you put the people that are employing folks illegally or taking advantage of workers, that's a much smaller group of people and they react to jail much more effectively. So, you know, I think that uh letting off the folks that are doing the hiring and taking advantage of workers uh is really a big bigger part of your problem and it it takes less violence, I think, too. You know, I don't think a lot of these business owners uh are gonna are going to need as much violence. I think you can just put them in jail for doing it. Certainly heavy fines.

>> So that is that the the progressive view on immigration going into 2026, 2028?

>> You know, I don't know what the progressive view is. It's like I'm looking for, you know, when I look out at the landscape of who's going to be able to take this country and pull it out of the quagmire that we're in, that, you know, the falling wages, the falling uh life expectancy, um, I'm not seeing a lot of people on the horizon that have the vision that I think America needs. Um, I certainly don't think it's the Trump administration. I don't think they've done what needed to be done and what they promised to do in their campaigns. Um, you know, hopefully somebody emerges and we'll see what the what the vision is.

>> So, you're saying there's no one in the Democratic side that you feel drawn to at this moment, including AOC, Bernie Sanders?

>> I mean, I love Bernie. You know, Bernie got me into politics in the first. I mean, Bernie's, you know, I don't think he's going to run for president again. I, you know, and I also think that we need there's an idea that needs to be injected into the mainstream of American thinking, and that is the fact that we've got to build more stuff. You know, like you talked about uh influence in South America earlier and one of the justifications for Venezuela, but the idea that we're going to be able to bomb or pressure our way into influence across the world, I think is wrong. The Chinese, they're building so much stuff. They own 90% of the rare earth mineral processing capacity.

>> We have to leave it there, Corbin. I I totally agree with you. We got to bring more stuff. I hope you'll come back. I really enjoyed this. God bless and protect you.

>> Still ahead, goodbye Dry January. What Dr. Dr. Oz has to say about the new US dietary guidelines when it comes to your alcohol consumption.

[Music]

We began with what we learned about America this week and we end with what we're looking forward to in the coming week. More drinking. That's right. The Trump administration came out with new dietary guidelines to keep us healthy. Among other changes, the recommendations ditched the long-standing recommendation to limit alcohol to two drinks a day for men and just one for women. Pushaw says this administration, their recommendation, it came down to two words, consume less. I have to admit I could not love this more. Sayonara Dry January with your pieties and your haughty abstaining. There's a new sheriff in town and he enjoys a cocktail. Asked to explain the change, Dr. Oz had some sage words of wisdom.

>> So, alcohol is a social lubricant that brings people together. In the best-case scenario, I don't think you should drink alcohol, but it does allow people an excuse to bond and socialize. And there's probably nothing healthier than having a good time with friends in a safe way. So, there is alcohol on these dietary guidelines, but the implication is don't have it for breakfast.

>> Later on Twitter, Dr. Oz clarified. Brunch is obviously different than breakfast. What can we say except not all heroes wear capes? Some hold an upside-down food pyramid. Dr. Oz is right. There is nothing better for you than bonding with friends and family. And what makes that sweeter than a glass of wine shared between friends? We will certainly drink to that. Thank you all so much for joining me. It's been an honor to have you. May God bless and protect you and the United States of America.

[Music]