Rating President Trump's speech and assessing the departure of AG Bondi

In a world that screams for your attention, there is a place that invites you to peace. You don't need a building. You don't need a choir. You just need to turn your heart to Air One. Air One, songs that heal, lyrics that pray for you when you don't have the words. From Lauren Daigle to Elevation Worship and more. This isn't just radio. It's worship for the every day.

Escape the noise and worship now. Download the Air One app. Ask your smart speaker to play Air One or visit Air One.com. Air One. Worship now. Welcome to today's podcast, sponsored by Hillsdale College. All things Hillsdale at Hillsdale.org. I encourage you to take advantage of the many free online courses there. And, of course, I'll listen to the Hillsdale Dialogues, all of them at Hugh for Hillsdale.com or just Google Apple, iTunes, and Hillsdale.

Welcome back, America. I'm Hugh, Hugh, and I can think of no one better to do an extended review of the president's speech than Eli Lake. Eli is a correspondent for the free press, a columnist for the free press. He's got a great new free press column out. No taco from Trump this time about last night's speech. He's also the host of the wonderful podcast, Breaking History. Eli, welcome. Let's start with your overview on the president's speech last night.

Well, I think it was a, in some ways you could argue we should have given it at the beginning of the war, but it was an explanation for how we got here. He laid out the history of his. own policies and the history of Iran's threats. He explained, I think, a very important concept, which has not been as prominent in the media as I think it should be, which is that regardless of the progress that was set back in Operation Midnight Hammer, what Iran was doing was essentially building a kind of conventional weapons force field so that they would have so many missiles and would be able to threaten

so much of the Middle East and even further, we now know because of their ability to hit Diego Garcia, that it would be that much harder to take out the nuclear program that they were just dead set on continuing. Even after Middine Hammer, there was an important line in which Trump says that he wanted to negotiate after the 12-day war, but then they started moving things to another site, and they were just dead set on acquiring a nuclear weapon. So in that respect, I think it was very important for everybody to get that overview. He made it clear that he was going to finish the job. He used that phrase a few times.

And I think the most emotionally resonant part of the speech, we got from Trump, his description of what it was like when he went to Dover Air Base twice to meet with the families of the fallen. And they told him to finish the job that the sacrifice. would not be in vain. So I think those were all very good. And, you know, he also made it clear that he's open in negotiations, but if the Iranians don't negotiate, well, then there we are, you know. Yeah. We'll come back to that in a moment, Eli. Yesterday, I was on deadline, and you're on deadline today. Yesterday I was on deadline for Fox, and then I had to write a column about a speech that hadn't been given. But I said 30%, 40% will love it, 30% to 40% will hate it. And the other

people won't have watched it or won't know what to think, because that's America in 26. And lo and behold, that's what happened. The reactions from the left were predictable. I thought rather benignly, you know, dismissive of the president's arguments. But I also don't think it matters much. What did you make of the reactions to the speech? Well, I mean, considering that you had a flurry of rumor and reporting before the speech that he was going to announce withdrawal date maybe and declare victory and leave. The fact that we didn't get that, I think, is an occasion for some humility from some of the journalists to acknowledge that, you know, maybe their sources didn't have the inside track.

But, you know, the response, I think is we all need a bit of humility. Those of us who think the war is going well and support the war and those of us who are against it. We just don't know what the dynamics are inside the red, of the Iranian regime at this point. We don't know what's going on over those dinner tables with senior IRGC commanders that are still alive. My sense from being somebody who has reported on and studied the Iranian issue for now a quarter of a century is that I would imagine there's enormous kind of pressures that are coming to bear, economic pressures, military, the leadership underground. And I think that will have it, that that will take its toll and

hopefully cause fracturing and then collapse of the regime. But I don't know that that's necessarily the case. And so I just think that there is a sort of the people who dismiss it as, you know, the mad king is delusional. I don't think they really understand that so much is writing on this. And there's a lot we just don't know. You know, there's a lot of people, Eli, and correct me if I'm wrong. A lot of people were badly misinformed by President Obama and the echo chamber. came to conclude that Iran was a normal regime, or at least a normal power in the normal enemy category like China or Russia, not theological fanatics, not lunatics, as Marco Rubio called them. Right.

And so the damage wasn't just the $1.7 billion in cash on pallets. The damage wasn't the billions more in sanctions relief. The damage was in normalizing Iran. It's not a normal place. It's not run by normal people. Do you think that Americans get that? I think that there, I think a lot of Americans do. Our first encounter with this regime is the hostage crisis.

So I was, you know, a kid. I think the generation X and up, you know, the boomers certainly understand it. But it's not like the Iranians had moderated their behavior. So I think what Obama was doing was, was he was reflecting a new elite kind of consensus. And it was something that Iranians were very good. Their former foreign minister, Javad Zarif, played our elites like a fiddle. And he would present himself as very reasonable.

One of the things they would always talk about is how so many of the top Iranian officials had degrees from Western universities. Zarif was a fluent English speaker. And he would couch arguments in terms of international law. I always found him something to be a maddening figure because he was this sort of reasonable sounding at least speaker or figurehead for a regime that existed in as a rogue state outside of international law that didn't recognize international law and was violating it all the time. But he was able to command this kind of respect, not just in terms of getting constantly interviewed by journalists or ABC, you know, the network. but he would pretty regularly deliver, you know, talks at the Council on Foreign Relations, and it was a charm offensive for our foreign policy elites and it largely worked. The American people, however, I mean, I think the American people, you know, I don't know,

but I would imagine the most of the American people understood there was something deeply wrong with a regime, you know, that hung, you know, citizens who they expected were gay from cranes. Well, I also, I am a boomer. I not only remember the 44 days, I remember the Marine Corps barracks in 1983. Okay. I don't know if that's a bit. That's better. I'm back.

The boomers like me, not only do you remember 44 days of humiliation, but they blew up the Marine Corps barracks in 1983. I married into a Marine Corps family. That was traumatic. Then they went around the world assassinating people. Then they blew up the Argentinian Jewish Center. Then they did this, then they did that. Then Soleimani started blowing up Americans in Iraq. We've been doing Semper Five Fund shows for 20 years here to help the wounded,

who basically Iran wounded them and gave them everything. They are an evil regime. The president used that word last night. That's the only thing I wish he would have said. They were evil. Do you think the Americans understand they're evil, evil, evil, evil? I do. And by the way, he did use, I think.

man, he didn't use evil, but he called, when he talked about Kassam Soleimani, he said he was a horrible person. He says a brilliant guy and a horrible person. And he talked about the roadside bombs that was part of Soleimani's strategy. I think the American people who would have tuned in would understand that this was a regime. They could never get their hands, should never be able to get a nuclear weapon. And that this is that, and he kept coming back to this refrain, which I think was right. I'm dealing with a problem that my predecessor should have dealt with a long time. ago. Instead of giving them

all that money and all that runway. I'm going to talk with Eli during the break. He's going to come back after the break so that we have an extensive rundown available over at my YouTube channel on the podcast. But stay tuned to the Salem News channel. He'll be right back. I'm back with Eli Lake. Eli, the most difficult question on the

table is whether or not the president orders, as he threatened to do last night, the destruction of their electricity grid. Because that means incubators and hospitals don't work. They might have backup generators, but we don't know. It means the people of Iran are hurt badly, but it also crushes the regime's ability to mount any kind of coherent defense against the people rising up. What do you think?

Absolutely do not hit the energy infrastructure. I think that we still have to hold out the prospect of a color revolution. I don't want to punish the Iranian people. I think it's very important that we don't. And by the way, I would just say there is a huge difference morally, from a moral perspective, hitting IRDC headquarters, I would say, is a morally good thing to do. Hitting the infrastructure like that, I don't think you're really even punishing the regime, especially if they subscribe to this fanatic cause of martyrdom.

I think it will be a huge PR boon for the regime. I think it will, you know, potentially turn what I think is our greatest ally, which would be the Iranian people for the most part, into potentially another foe. I just think it would be a disastrous idea. I understand that you want to deprive the IRDC in particular of revenue that they need to continue to make war against us and the Iranian people. I get that. But hitting the power plants is not a piece of leverage, and I would try to talk the president out of that. I know, Eli, 19 years ago, President Bush had a half dozen talk show hosts in to talk about the war. It was during the search, 2007, Bill Bennett and I and Mark Levin were among them.

And one of the questions was, why are we letting the Iranians get away with this? And he said, we're not letting him get away. We can do a lot of things. We can disintermediate their money. Pretty big word for a president, isn't it, disintermediate? Have we ever done that? It looks to me like we don't do that. Well, the sanctions against Iran, especially, I mean, to give Obama credit in his first term, at the end of it, he did eventually decide to do the big one, which was he sanctioned Iran's central bank.

Now, that was the leverage that, you know, the Obama people will say, created the opportunity to start the negotiations that led to, in my view, absolutely terrible deal, known as the JCPO. but there was a kind of financial warfare on Iran. There were efforts to go after their ability to evade the sanctions. There were efforts to go after their kind of front operations. The Treasury Department has devoted significant resources to it. What was never really seriously considered is what Trump did, which is that, you know, starting at the, in 2020, he took out Qasem Soleimani. What he made it clear was we have military options too.

and this is not just a matter of symbolic strikes on Iranian-affiliated militias in Iraq, which is the kind of thing that used to be in the 90s called cruise missile diplomacy. No, we could really take out your leaders. And that's why I'm very hesitant to sort of declare that, oh, my God, the war is lost and so forth, that hopefully we won't have to get to the point where we're bombing electrical grids. And the reason I say that is because we've never seen anything like this. second. I've got to come back on the network and then we'll continue to talk.

Welcome back, America. Eli Lake is still with me, Hugh Hewitt, on the Salem News Channel, the Salem Radio Network, all of our great radio affiliates. Eli is with the free press, also the host of breaking history. Great conversation there between he and Aviv, Redi Gore, about the nature of the Iranian regime and why it's so tough to predict with any certainty when it will collapse. But Eli, you were saying, as we came out of the break, you don't want to hit the electrical grid because we can still go about picking off the IRGC leadership and rank and file as well as the besiege. Is that what you were saying? Yeah, I would say there's a couple things.

One is you can still hit the leadership, but we never have seen any kind of war in which the leadership has been wiped out the way it has in the case of the Iranians. So I don't know how they're adjusting. I mean, all of them, if you're a senior leader right now, you've got to be underground. The Israelis have shown they have the ability with armed drones to take out local besiegey commanders at checkpoints in at least Tehran. I'm sure they could do it in other cities as well. What I would say is a strategic move that I wouldn't talk about, I would just do, is that when the time comes and you think you've battered the regime security forces enough, Figure out how to turn on the people's internet and turn off the regime's internet. I believe that technology exists.

I believe that the Israelis probably have that. And I would say that that right there, if you can give the Iranian people the ability to communicate and you can fluster or block or make more difficult the ability of what's left of the regime to communicate, that's an enormous advantage in terms of what I'm looking for, which is, again, color revolution. And you might need to see, you might see that three months after hostilities end. I mean, I don't know what the timeline is, but I would keep my eye on that, and I would be satisfied that you've defanged the regime enough that they will have, you know, an enormous mountain to climb if they want to try to build back a military that's been taken away from them.

I'm keeping my eye on the second A10 squadron that went over there, the war dog. Those are for ground support. Those are for clearing the 100 miles of straight, and I'm keeping my eye on the Marines and the 82nd Airborne in the islands and thinking President didn't say he wasn't going to do anything. Got a question for you from a listener. What is Jerry Carey thinking? John, what is John Kerry thinking right now? Well, I hope he's embarrassed, and I hope he has a moment of self-reflection. I mean, I think John Kerry, every assumption, who, by the way, is extremely close with Javad Zarif who we were discussing before. He's on the show.

He talked with him illegally during the time he wasn't in an office. He negotiated with him. Right. I mean, what's John Kerry's head? But I imagine the entire Obama team have to be looking at this. And they have to be saying to themselves, if America wins this war, it discredits everything we were saying about Iran, that they could be.

One of the things they would say is that there's no military solution because you can't bomb the. idea and the knowledge out of the Iranian people. Well, I would argue that there is a military solution. You can take out an industrial-sized nuclear program. As the Israelis have done, you can take out the top scientists. You can make it make other nuclear scientists who are Iranian who might be recruited for that program, afraid to join it because they might be on a hit list. There's all kinds of other solutions than taking the word of a revolutionary terrorist regime that has no compunction about lying to us.

So that's how much. Quick questions for you. Cuba next. Cuba? I believe it's in the process. Let's fingers cross. I do. I think Cuba is probably next.

And I would like to also just stress, I want to eventually see elections in Venezuela. But I think, you know, we're moving in the right direction. And a very final question, NATO, which I think is very badly damaged. I don't know if it is beyond repair. What do you think?

I think you can repair NATO. I think there has to be a come-to-reality moment for our NATO allies, which is that they have allowed enough drift, and it's deeper than defense spending. They need to become more serious as a country and I would say look to Israel as a model ally. Is there any NATO country that can do what Israel is currently doing, flying as a peer ally in a war over-earned? Iran to end a threat, not just to the Middle East, but I would say to the West. And instead of, instead of tisking, learn from Israel on how you can be that valuable to an American military operation. Well said, Eli, and I appreciate the extra time today.

A happy Passover to you. I know you're in the middle of it. Thank you so much for joining me on a holiday. Thank you very much, Eli. We'll talk again next week. If we're lucky, thank you, my friend. Don't go anywhere, America. if you're listening on one of our great radio affiliates across this USA.

I'll be right back. You're listening on the Salem Radio Network. Thank you. If you're watching on the Salem News Channel, don't change that channel. I'll be right back on the Hugh Hewitt Show. Eric Mattis joins me. Vic is the Arts and Culture Editor at the Free Beacon. He is also a host of Getting Hammered,

your morning podcast for any time of the day where they're over, caffeinated, underprepared. I think I've got that down. Vic, I greatly enjoyed the Big Arch. to Pollyamory episode. In fact, I don't know that I've ever quite heard an arc of stories that go from the Big Arch Challenge to Polly Amory before. So now that I've put the hook in, we'll leave Polly Amory for the end. I'm a boomer, so I don't know anything about the Big Arch Challenge. When did that and where did it get started?

Is it Instagram? Yeah. Well, I mean, it started online with the CEO of McDonald's. His name is Chris Kempinski, otherwise known as Chris K. is rolling out this new sandwich known as the Big Arch. And Chris Kay is a rather formal guy. He's not a big fella. And, you know, the kind of guy who always has his shirt tucked in.

And he does this little video where he's testing out the new big arch. And it just had the sense, you just had the sense that he'd never had it before or seen it before. And let alone taste it. And I'm sure he had. But he delicately handles this monstrosity of a burger that is about 1,020 calories. he doesn't mention that part. And takes a little bite and we're supposed to believe that then he finishes the whole meal. I have my doubts about that.

Nevertheless, he calls it a product. People made fun of it and went viral. And then other CEOs of fast food chains got in on the action looking much more comfortable with it. And then it finally reached full circle, Hugh, where Chris Kay was back, totally owning the way he handled that big arch and continued to call it a product. and I think he kind of won out in the end. It was quite amusing, and we had to find out what the fuss was all about. Before we go to the taste test, which is itself very amusing, I'm amazed that I'm wholly unaware of something that involves the CEO of Whopper,

of Wendy's, and A&W Root Bear, which is one of my favorite places. I didn't even know there was A&W. Rupeers left, did you? No, I've never been to one. I enjoy the Root Beer, but I've never been to it. to one of their restaurants, and so that was quite amusing to see that, that he was trying. The burger didn't look great, actually, but, you know, fine, get in on the action, take advantage of it while you can.

It must be a Midwestern thing, Hugh, because I don't see too many around here. Oh, the ANW rip here in Warren, Ohio, was a drive-in and an absolute must-go after basketball games. It was right out of American graffiti, even though it was 10 years after American graffiti. So, Vic, you and Mary Catherine, did you have those, did you guys? go and record them at a Mickey D's? Or where did you do that show? No. So we recorded it separately split screen.

She was at her house and I was at the office. We just had to time it very carefully because, as you know, there's about a 30-minute shelf life, even under the heat lamps, Hugh. So what I did is I brought one of these little vacuum seal packages that keeps the heat in if you have, you know, certain food products for a trip. I brought it to the McDonald's, ordered it, put the bag immediately in this sort of foil line container and then left it in my office until we were go time for the show. Okay.

Now, I got to say, I don't believe MKH ate the pound burger. The full pound burger on her life. I didn't know she played lacrosse to this episode, so I've got to talk to her about that next week. But I don't believe she ate it. I don't believe you two eight, was it two quarter pounders and all that other stuff? Yeah. It is a, it is two quarter pound patty.

So that is a half pound of beef with lettuce and crisp onions and cheese and a special sauce. It was massive. I didn't have breakfast. So that was quite the lunch. And I'm still, I'm paying a, it's really, I'm paying a penitence for it, fittingly, Hugh, for having. You know, I would just imagine that would stay with you for a couple of days. That's a lot of McDonald's. No, it weighs on you.

You can feel it. But, you know, there's a guy who famously has been eating a Big Mac every day all his life, and he's not fat at all. It's a true story. So it's possible. All right. Now, let's move to Pollyamory. This is, by the way, if you're an adult with children in the back, you may want to turn this part off.

Vic, what book? Again, I don't know the book that you received as the Art and Culture editor. I get books all the time. I have not received any on Pollyamory. So I guess the Washington Free Beacon is walking on the wild side. We get all sorts of interest. books, Hugh. And I'm, you know, I'm an open-minded kind of a guy. I'll take a look. And, you know, actually, the book I got was not necessarily, well, again, it was kind of

polyamorous, but it really was about a, a, both a sapphic, multiverse novel. So it combines some elements of, like, what you're seeing in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and a romance between two women. What Mary Catherine was relating was a true story involving a supposedly open marriage, but of course it never is. And somebody is more open. than the other, let's put it that way. You know, I thought you guys made a reference to the 70s, and I lived the 70s. It really didn't happen. There wasn't any of that going.

I mean, people had affairs and divorces, but that was always talked about but not really happening, the whole hope and marriage thing outside of perhaps Manhattan. Now, Vic, I want to know what you thought about the president's speech last night. I thought it was very solid. I mean, you know, he didn't veer off on some strange tangents. I mean, he obviously was reading from the teleprompter. He looked a little bit tired. He's, you know, I mean, he manages on what, four hours of sleep a night.

And there was a lot going on right now with the partial government shutdown and then the price of oil. And of course, what's happening in Iran and everything else. But he laid out a pretty good case. I wish he had done this earlier when the war first happened. But I'll still say better late than never. I thought it was reassuring that he says, you know, we're making great progress, which we are. You could see this on all the video demonstrations. You know, the kind of things that we first discovered in the First Gulf War where you can see the results of what's happening overseas.

And you're seeing it now that Iran is no longer the bully of the Middle East as the way he put it. And that is correct. And no matter how many people feel about this and how angry a lot of people are about the war in Iran, everybody long term, when they look back on this moment in Trump's second term, is going to thank him. because he did something that no other president wanted to do. They all wish they can do it, and they kick the can down the road. But he's the only guy, and he always likes to say decimated, but I'm a stickler to what that means, which is one-tenth. Thank you.

Decimated is a Roman legion term. Markix-Crasse ordered his legion decimated, and every 10th man was beaten to death by his nine colleagues. That's decimation. Yeah. This is obliteration. This is obliteration. Air Force, the Navy, those submarines, the other facilities.

The big question is whether or not he's going to go forward and start destroying the generators. That would be a very big deal. I think we could probably have to have some troops on the ground, maybe secure Karg Island. But still by and large, everything is going in the direction. Again, this is a massive operation that a lot of people said could not be possible and that Iran's militaries to be feared. The number of missile launches from Iran right now are at an all-time. time low. So, I mean, clearly progress is being made. So it was a good speech. I think it was, too. And Vic, I do not believe it'll be over in three weeks. I've said it

often. I think it'll be going on until June. And that's simply because they've got to keep killing the IRGC leadership as long as the IRGC won't lay down its weapons. So maybe it won't be as intense, but I really don't think it's going to be over in two to three weeks. Last question, when do you think it's going to be over? Yeah, I'm going to say somewhere between the three weeks that Trump predicted and you're June. I think Dennis Ross had said somewhere else. He thinks even if we stop now, the leadership will collapse in 10 months. That means that if we keep on going, maybe it will be less than 10 months and they'll find actual leadership that wants for him.

Excellent. I hope he's right. Vic Mattis, co-host of Getting Hammered and the Arts and Culture Editor, who read very weird books. Thank you, Vic. Follow him on exit Victorino Mattis. Follow me in the next segment. 1-800-5-20-10-1-2-3-4. Way in on the President's speech.

1-800-5-20-0-12-4. Welcome back to America. I'm Hugh Hewitt. I spent most of the day talking about the President's speech, and I'll do more with Matt Contennetti after the break. But right now, David Drucker, senior political correspondent for the dispatch, joins us. Not for reaction to the speech, but for actually, what is going on at the Department of Justice?

And Todd Blanche is now the acting attorney general. and I think there's just more for us to find out on that front. Do you think this is the result of President Trump realizing? He's got less than three years. He has an agenda. He wants to get it done. And Kristi Noem wasn't getting it done. She's now no longer D.H. Secretary, A.Pam Bondi wasn't getting it done.

Whatever it is. She's no longer the AG. Do you expect more? Well, with the president, you're never quite, sure, right? Nobody's ever quite safe. I mean, you know, for a story I published this week of the dispatch about Marco Rubio, I went back and looked at some of the televised cabinet meetings where the president goes around the table asking for progress reports. And it was really striking to me in light of the Pam Bondi firing how often everybody was praising the president's

selection of the cabinet, you know, how it was the greatest cabinet they'd ever seen or such a talented team, and everybody sort of agreed with that, and the president certainly didn't argue with it. And obviously, in the past few weeks, it's clear that he's not in agreement that the cabinet is as good as it could be. And so, you know, I imagine he was looking for more effectiveness. I think in the case of Kristi Noem, she was more of a scapegoat because I think she was carrying out the policy as it was given to her. And it was easier to get rid of her than get rid of the broader policy. In the case of

Pam Bondi, I wonder if it was just simply a lack of finesse, the ability to do some of the things the president wanted with a little bit more skill. Well, there is one big failure. He tried a couple of times to indict a couple of people, and it didn't work.

And that's Judge Jean Piro in D.C. and other U.S. attorneys. And I think there are significant obstacles to indicting someone. We've always made the joke about ham sandwich. It's really not that easy. You have to have at least a patina of a crime, the elements of a crime laid out, to get a grand jury to indict. Do you think that's it? Well, it's possible that, again, she could be scapegoated for this. You know, you make a really

good point, Hugh, and obviously you've got firsthand expertise in this. If we're talking about some random county and some random state, the ham sandwich analogy applies. But when you're talking to federal courts. It absolutely does not apply. And I think the, you know, forgive me, I'm in an airport. I think the Justice Department has been given marching orders by the president that are simply often too high a bar to accomplish. But maybe the president wants to see what can happen with some different leadership. Well, Todd Blanche is a very serious man, a very accomplished a prosecutor. I don't doubt that he has a managerial ability. He's been doing the deputy's job, which is the manager job at DOJ. Now he has to.

find his own replacement. What do you think of that choice? Yeah, that's going to be really interesting. I mean, the initial reporting is that the president is considering moving Lee Zeldin over from EPA, where he's the EPA administrator, excuse me, and making him the new attorney general. Look, I think there are a lot of competent choices. I mean, the president in his first term had a lot of, had a couple of very competent, very accomplished attorneys general. I think part of the issue for the president is he's looking for the DOJ to do things that it normally doesn't do, hasn't done, and then there are these high bars that he sets. He wants certain people indicted, and it's simply going to be very

difficult to do so. He wants certain cases handled. It's going to be difficult to do so. So I'm curious if he goes in just a different direction here, recognizing the constraints put on him by the federal courts. Do you think there might be any connection between his going to the Supreme Court yesterday and then firing Pam Bondi last night because you have to really stretch to believe there's any way that the Supreme Court's going to uphold his executive

order and that became, I think obvious in the first hour that he stayed for. You think he just went home and said wow, I'm going to lose this. Why didn't anyone tell me I'm not going to win this? Well, I mean, he could have blamed Pam Bondi for that, but in this case he should blame, you know, the White House attorneys because

they're the ones that are going to be crafting these sorts of executive orders, not the AG. And somebody should have certainly told him that this executive order, especially as crafted, we're never going to pass muster with the court. So, you know...

Executive order was never going to... It is an 1833 case in which the Chief Justice then John Marshall said the question presented is of great importance but not much difficulty. I kind of view that as yesterday. I'm glad the president issued

the executive order because it's going to put to rest the idea that birthright citizenship has been other than the accepted norm since 1868. And I mean, I think it might have been gotten through. Sit for an hour and listen to John Sauer get roasted. Don't you think you might get the idea that, boy, that was a bad idea. Who gave me that idea? And then I'm not sure the White House counsel takes the fall for that because the Office of Legal Counsel over justice is the one that's supposed to give you an opinion on things like that.

But she's around and she's convenient. That's what I'm thinking. I just want to know if it makes sense to you. Listen, you know, on this sort of thing, Hugh, I almost defer to you unless I have direct reporting. And I don't yet. You know, what I have found in interviewing the president over the years and in covering him is that on the one hand, he solicits a broad range of opinions more so perhaps than at least his immediate predecessors in the White House. and yet once he's kind of decided that things should be a certain way, he can be very difficult to move off,

at least where he has strong opinions. I think there are issues where he's a pragmatist or he's transactional, and he'll just land wherever he thinks he needs to land. But this is related to immigration and immigration policy. And so I wouldn't be surprised if he's just stubbornly convinced that he's right and that the issue isn't the recommendation. It's the courts, which obviously has, know, he never hesitates to voice his opinion about the courts when he disagrees with them.

So let me switch on to his speech, which I described last night when I was done. I said, well, that was confident and direct. I like to, but I doubt it changed anyone's mind, even a degree, because everyone's opinion on Trump is fixed. I'm just very glad he didn't set an arbitrary deadline. What was your reaction? Yeah, we don't think we disagree too much here. I mean, I think on the one hand, he finally really laid out in concrete terms his objectives for launching the war, right? And you and I've talked about this a lot. And he laid out objectives that, you know, you can disagree with him, but you can't argue that his objectives are in the right place, right? We have given nearly 50, diplomacy, nearly 50 years.

Iran is the globe's largest state sponsor of terror. you couldn't allow them to achieve nuclear weapons capability and so on. And so he laid that out in a way that he hasn't done before. I think this speech would have possibly had more effect had he given it the day we launched the war, notwithstanding. I agree. Opinions on Donald Trump are fixed. I think where he gets himself into trouble with these speeches is that he likes to blame a lot of different people

and veer off the subject matter. And it helps keep things static. because of people's strong opinions of it. Well, I just don't think he can change a single mind. What will change people's mind is when that regime emerges, crippled, been exposed naked before the world as having been a shambolic terror regime forever. David M. Drucker. My friends, you've probably seen the headlines are worse, your latest sell bill.

Big wireless is raising rates again. That means you could be paying more for the same service or getting pushed into a pricier plan that you simply don't need. That's not right. There's a better way, and it's called Consumer Cellular. Millions of Americans have already made this switching for good reason. Consumer Cellular is consistently ranked number one in customer satisfaction because they treat you like a customer, not a number. With Consumer Cellular, you get flexible, affordable plans that fit your life, not the other way around.

No long-term contracts, no hidden fees. You can keep your phone and you use a new one. So don't let big wireless dictate what you pay. Take control today. Visit Consumer Cellular.com slash hue and use the promo code. Hugh Hewitt-U-G-H for your second month for free. Or call 800, 411, 4454. Again, remember my code is Hugh.

If you're over 50, listen to this. You can get a single line with unlimited talk, text, and data for just $35 a month at consumer cellular.com slash hue. Clean water is not complicated, but it is essential. Without it, public health suffer. Education declines. Economic stability. Well, it weakens if it doesn't collapse.

Across Latin America and the Caribbean families are, facing that reality of unclean water every day. Mothers walk miles for clean water. Children are exposed to preventable diseases because they haven't got it. Communities are held back by the absence of basic clean water access. But strategic compassion changes outcomes. Through food for the poor, your gift provides safe and living water. Improving health, strengthening communities and supporting gospel-centered transformation

through trusted local partnerships. This is a measurable impact with lasting results. Your gift of $50, ensures two people have safe and living water, or for $100, a family of four will be transformed for a year. I hope you act. Text Hewitt, H-E-W-I-T-T, that's Hewitt, H-E-W-I-T-T, to 5-1-5-5-5. That's Hewitt to 51-55-5. Or visit Hugh Hewitt.com right now and click on the blue Giving Living Water banner at the top to provide living water today. And thank you.

World that screams for your attention, there is a place that invites you to peace. You don't need a building. You don't need a choir. You just need to turn your heart to Air One. Air One, songs that heal, lyrics that pray for you when you don't have the words. From Lauren Daigle to Elevation Worship and more. This isn't just radio. It's worship for the every day.

Escape the noise and worship now. Download the Air One app. Ask your smart speaker to play Air One or visit Air One.com. Air One. Worship now. America, Matt Continenti with the Wall Street Journal, where he writes in the free expressions vertical. And he's also that of domestic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Matt, what did you make of the president's speech last night? I thought it was a great speech, Hugh.

I think President Trump laid out the reasons for Operation Epic Fury. I think he talked about our successes so far. I think he indicated that it's not done yet, that there's a couple more weeks ahead and that if anything, we may escalate in those weeks ahead. And he also, you know, kept open this option of coercive diplomacy if the Iranians can get their act together and actually agree diplomatically to what we're trying to achieve and are achieving militarily. So I thought it was a good speech. I'm glad he did it. And I hope he does one in the coming weeks when we're closer to completing the mission. Now, I use the terms direct, confident,

and determined. He's not giving up on this thing, and he's going to make sure that there's the rubble to bounce, perhaps, a few times. Do you think that the system will fall? He's right. Leader set number one, leader set number two, they're dead, but we're on leader set number three, and they probably got the D and the E and the F squad.

Do you think you'll keep going until finally the IRGC runs for their Swiss bank accounts? I think he's going to go after the missile cities. He's going to go after the drone teams. He's going to go after the economic targets, which we're already seeing. Today, apparently we targeted a bridge, a very important bridge. Israel and the IDF, they're going after kind of economically important sites. Remember the IRGC, which is the militia that effectively runs Iran right now, is more than anything else, kind of a gangster operation.

And so if you target these economic nodes, you're denying them the resources that they use to carry out terror and oppress their own people. As that happens, Hugh, I think there will be more pressure on the regime. Now, you saw, I'm sure, this conversation that was reported between Peshkesean, the president, and the IRGC commander, where the president said, look, I can't two, three more weeks of this, and the economy will collapse. I won't have anything. Well, isn't it funny? That's exactly kind of the timeline. that the president laid out in his speech last week. So yes, I think even though the purpose of this mission, as President Trump says,

is to deny Iran the ability to harass and endanger the United States and the region, the greater Middle East, ancillary benefit of our campaign may probably, and I think likely, to be the end of the Iranian regime. I think so as well. It might take a while, but it cannot survive without cash. Now, I wrote a column for Fox News before the president had to give a speech because I had to go up this morning.

And I said, hey, no matter what he says, a third's going to love it, a third's going to hate it, and the middle part won't know what to make of it. That's exactly what happened. Were you surprised by any reaction? Did anyone go against type, Matt, that you've seen today? It's a testament to your vision and purse capacity, Hugh, that you were able to see the reaction before the speech even occurred. but you're exactly right.

No one's opinions were changed. It may be that there are people who within the Republican Party who said, well, you know, maybe we should wrap things up. And I think President Trump explained why we can't do that right now, why we need to finish the job. And for the liberal media, who of course, they weren't going to like the speech, whatever Trump said, remember going into the speech, they were saying, oh, Trump's going to announce a ceasefire. or Trump's going to announce we're ground troops or Trump's going to announce we're pulling out of NATO. None of that happened.

Once again, they were completely delusional. And the president, as he has been, it's amazing, as he has been for decades, has his sense of mission and purpose. He will deny the Iranian terrorist regime a nuclear weapon. And that's precisely what he's doing right now. Matt, you may find it funny. I'm doing a little research on the speech last night

compared to Richard Nixon's great silent majority speech of November 3rd, 1969. More than 100 million Americans watched that speech. His approval rating went up to 77% after that speech. The fact of the matter is, that kind of speech is, that's a dinosaur. It's never going to happen again. The American people don't watch speeches like that. Do you agree with me? Well, it's a fact.

I mean, there's just no question. You and I speak all the time about our fractured media. landscape about people losing trust and institutions. The American population is so incredibly diverse in any way you can imagine, including how they get information, how they respond to a president. I think if you just kind of came from Mars and you just asked an American, do you support disarming Iran or not? Americans would say, a majority would say, yes, I support disarming Iran.

But once you introduce partisan politics, once you, introduce the negatism of the media, it becomes polarized. And so President Trump has to stay the course, even if opinion seems to be tilting against him in some ways. And the New York Times story the day after the Nixon speech, Nixon does not reach the greatest television audience ever, which was 125 million for people landing on the moon. Some things don't change. I'll be right back with Matt Contenetti. Stay tuned.

Welcome back, America. I'm Hugh at Matt Contenetti. still with me. He of the Wall Street Journal, the AEI. Are you still writing for the free press, Matt? No. I moved all my writing to the Wall Street Journal and the free expression newsletter, which you so graciously plugged. That's where you can read my writing now. I love reading it there. I love that you're working with Jack Butler as well. It was an old intern of the U. Huet Show, so we're very pleased about the new Continenty mentorship of young Mr. Butler. Let me talk about your column from March 27th.

finish the job in Iran. I got the sense last night. He said, oh, maybe two to three weeks, but it's going to be as long as it takes, I think. Do you agree with that? There is something to that, Hugh. Of course, you know, I think President Trump's favorite number is two weeks, because no matter the context or the issue,

if he wants to give himself time to make a decision, he always says two to three weeks or, you know, 10 or 12 days, right? And so there was some of that to the speech last night. What he's signaling is that he is going to continue this operation until its military objectives are complete. And once those military objectives are complete, there will be consequences, most certainly consequences within Iran. Right. I'd point out in that column you mentioned, you know, it's hard to kind of launch a mass mobilization against your government when bombs are falling from the sky. I think most people expect that it won't be until after the bombs stop dropping that the Iranian people

come out and force to protest. And when that happens, of course, there will be decisions for this president and for the Israelis as well. President Trump said help is on the way for the Iranian people, too. And the power is there, the help is there, and I think he's ready to use it. So about the one question of, I'm just divided in mind myself, should we take out their electrical grid, at least in Tehran, Khum, and a few other major cities. President said he could blinker the lights out, I'm sure we can, along with the Israeli. Ought we to do that? I think it should be a last resort.

You know, it's interesting, even when the president in his speech last night mentioned the energy industry. He said that, you know, while we took out the IRGC positions on Karg Island, we didn't hit the oil because, and he said that would hurt the Iranians in long run. He's still thinking about Iran's recovery under a different government and under a different regime and foreign policy. So knocking out the electricity, I think, would hinder that as well. And so Trump's reluctant to do it. However, again, you do get the impression from the speech that Trump is ready to escalate if the Iranians remain kind of stubbornly dug in, hiding in their bunkers, concealing the missile launchers, that the electricity in those locations you mentioned,

could be an eventual target. What do you think about a tip for tat? You strike at a tanker, we'll blow up a refinery. You hit a second tanker, we'll take out a power station. It seems to me that that's deterrence. What do you think? Yeah, I mean, we're already seeing a little bit of that, and I think kind of the Iranian threats to go after our Gulf allies,

energy infrastructure, and desalinization plants have been one reason we haven't gone after kind of the energy and electricity network of the Iranian. regime. What I'd like to see, Hugh, is us take an approach to the Persian Gulf that we took to the Venezuela coast and say, look, these tankers, they're ours. They're illegally shipping this oil. We can take the oil. We can use our naval operations to board those tankers and hold them. That, I think, would get the attention of the Iranians very quickly. All right, let's talk about our non-allies. Keir Starmer got blasted by former Vice President Mike Pence today.

McCrome came out with about the least de Gaulle like set of remarks I've ever heard. What do you think happens to the NATO relationships here? Well, the relationships are deteriorating. There's no question about that. It's been going on for a couple months now. I think the whole Greenland episode also contributed to the deterioration of the relationship. I think in some ways the Europeans in kind of a petty fashion are getting back at America, now because of Greenland.

But this is not in anyone's interest. And it's really a bad sign for the future of the alliance. There has to be reciprocity here. And for Europe just to expect a free ride and America to do all the work all the time, that's not healthy. It's not healthy for the Europeans who not only face the Russian threat, but as has been made clear by these Iranian missile launches, such as the failed attack on our base at Diego Garth,

see, they face an Iranian threat too. So I think this is really a case of, you know, cutting off your nose to spite your face on the part of our NATO allies. I want to switch away from Iran to birthright citizenship. In 1833, Chief Justice Marshall said in a case, Barron v. Baltimore about whether or not Baltimore owed damages to Mr. Barron for destroying his wharf before the Bill of Rights was made applicable to the states. The Chief Justice then said this is a case of great importance.

but not much difficulty. I think that the birthright citizenship case is the same. It's of great importance and not much difficulty. It's not going to happen. Do you think that the president got sort of figured that out listening yesterday and went home and determined to fire Pam Bondi for not telling him that? I'm not sure that's why he fired Pam Bondi, Hugh. I think he may have been frustrated with the direction of many of the questions of the justices.

For my sins, I listened to all two and a half hours of oral argument. So I kind of, you know, I got the sense actually by the end that the eventual decision may be closer than some people anticipate. I think right now people are anticipating either, you know, 8 to 1 or 7 to 2 against the government's position that is upholding birthright citizenship. But especially when the ACLU lawyer kind of gave the plaintiff's argument, I sensed among some of the justices, some of the Republican appointees, kind of an intellectual struggle. You know, what does it mean to be born under the jurisdiction thereof of the United States? So I think the end. The great Scalia said about substantive due process, it's got to be deeply rooted in our history and tradition. Even during the Great Migration, 1880 and 1920, we never, ever worried about whether people came through Ellis Islands.

Once you were here, Ali Ali, Infree, you were born here, you were going to stay here. I just cannot see them not ruling birthright citizenship. And I expect 8-1, maybe even 9-0, but there is this statutory off-ramp, which I don't want to get in the weeds with you. Instead, I want to ask you about Pam Bondi. If it wasn't the argument, what do you think had Pam Bondi run out of time with Donald Trump? Well, I think it's pretty clear that there were a series of mismanaged decisions from the Justice Department over the past year, and primarily surrounding the release of the Epstein files. And this is a way, I think, for Trump to kind of clear the death.

move on and chart a new course with another Attorney General. So we're out of time, Matt. I just want to know quickly. Are you watching the 50th season of The Survivor? No. My family's watching American Idol, you. Okay. I'm not watching either.

I'm just Ben Dominic is watching it, and I'm kind of surprised by that. I'm just checking in with the millennials I know. Matt Contenetti, thank you. Follow him on exit Contennetti. Read him in the Wall Street Journal. Look for his work coming out of the American Enterprise Institute. In a world that screams for your attention, there is a place that invites you to peace.

You don't need a building. You don't need a choir. You just need to turn your heart to Air One. Air One, songs that heal, lyrics that pray for you when you don't have the words. From Lauren Daigle to Elevation Worship and more. This isn't just radio. It's worship for the every day. Escape the noise and worship now.

Download the Air One app. Ask your smart speaker to play Air One or visit Air One.com. Air One. Worship now. !