VP JD Vance x Megyn Kelly - The FULL Interview

Welcome back everybody. Sitting here with the vice president of the United States, JD Vance. Mr. Vice President, thanks so much for being here. >> Good to see you.

>> All right. So, what happened with the president in the phone call? >> Which president? Which phone call are you talking about? You mean just back there?

>> Just back there. Yeah. >> Oh, okay. I mean, well, you know, he's at the G7. He's about to go to dinner over in Switzerland. And so, he just called me to check in on how things are

going. Which president? >> What the update? Well, I I meant which phone call. I was like, "Wait a second. Do you guys have me tapped in there? I didn't think you were in there when who

who is feeding you intelligence?" They just told us that. That's why you were going to be a little late to say. >> I see. Okay. Sorry, I was confused at that. But yeah, no, we had a just a a

chat about how the G7 was going and okay, >> you know, he's asking about how is, you know, what's the progress of the deal? What's going on? What are we hearing?

And just the things that you talk about when the president, the vice president, >> what is the progress of the deal? What are you hearing? How's it going? >> Well, I mean, the the deal is is done,

at least the first step of it. And you know, one of the things I've been doing for the past couple of days is correcting a lot of misinformation about the deal because I've heard so many

conspiracies, so many things that just aren't true. So like, let me kind of run you through what the deal is and what the deal isn't. >> Yeah.

>> Okay. So number one, what it says is effectively the United States will open the Straight of Hormuz, lift the naval blockade, the Iranians will destroy the dust, and then hand it over either to us

or to an international organization. They will. So they agree to it. >> Exactly. And the third part of it is assuming they comply with the terms of the agreement, there are all of these

economic benefits that can flow to the Iranians. And so so what happens? So if you're an Iranian hardliner and you want to be out of this and you want to make this deal, but you don't want to sort of

pitch it a certain way to a domestic audience, what you do is you go through the document. you identify everything the Iranians could get and you say we are getting it and then you

underemphasize or don't even talk about all the things that they have to give in order to get those benefits. And so like the way that I think about it is there's sort of a you know we're at a fork in

the road in this entire relationship with Iran. Uh for 47 years we've obviously had basically a terrible relationship with Iran. They've funded a lot of terrorist organizations. There's

obviously the nuclear issue that's been in the background, you know, going back well before Donald Trump even got on the political scene. And here's where we are right now. Their nuclear facilities are

destroyed. That is just objectively true. Their ability to enrich uranium to build a nuclear bomb completely destroyed. Number two, their economy is currently in shambles, right? The

blockade and all of the other sanctions have had a very profound effect. And number three, they are at a position where what they're saying is that they want to make long-term commitments to

the United States and to the Gulf Arab countries to change their relationship. So that's true whether they comply with this deal or not. Now, if they comply with this deal, I think it's much better

for the United States and it's going to be much better for Iran. But if they don't comply with the deal, the straits are still open. We've still done incredible damage to their nuclear

program and is really, you know, we can get on with our lives as a country and they don't get anything if they don't >> turn off the financial spigot. >> Exactly. Well, the way I'd put it is the

financial spigot has already turned off. It's been turned off for a very long time. In fact, we've probably turned the screws even tighter. But we can either unscrew the financial spigot or we can

keep it where it is right now, which is fundamentally just very bad for the people of Iran. And I'm like, you know, as you know, I'm I'm fundamentally an optimist about these things. I always

try to think about what can do rather than just what can happen rather than just identify problems. But, you know, if we go down the option where the Iranians comply with their obligations

under the deal, like this totally transforms the Middle East. And it it's interesting, you know, there's always this question about how is this the same? How is this different from the

JCPOA, the Obama deal that, you know, Republicans have been very critical of for 1015 years? And I actually think I could walk you through the substantive differences between what we're talking

about and what the uh what what what what the Obama deal did. But fundamentally, how did the Gulf Arab countries, the Gulf Coast coalition, how did they respond to the Obama JCPOA?

They hated that deal. They thought it empowered Iran. They thought it did nothing for them. They weren't consulted. They weren't a participant in the process. How do they feel about this

Trump peace plan? They love it because they see it as a genuine opportunity to transform how the Middle East has worked um for the next couple of generations. So I I think we have a real opportunity

here. But regardless if if it just ends in Iran's nuclear program is destroyed, the war is over, the Straits of Hormuz are opened. That's a great place for the United States to be in.

>> How how is it though? Okay. How is that different from where we were before we launched this war? I get how it's different thanks to the strikes we did last June. That was very helpful. Sure.

>> But straight open and nuclear sites destroyed and we're no longer fighting is where we were in February. >> Well, we did additional destruction to their nuclear facilities and

particularly their capacity to rebuild. So if you look while a lot of people were focused on you know we want to replace the Ayatollah with Raza Pavlavi or you know somebody like that. What the

president always said is we want to destroy their ability to project power across the Middle East. And you know, obviously people always talk about Israel and Israel, I'm sure we'll get

into that uh during this conversation, but it wasn't just the Israelis, but it was also the Gulf Coast coalition that the the Arab countries in the Gulf who were frankly petrified of the role that

Iran played of their ability to project power, of their ability to launch missiles and hit some of these energy facilities. But then also that industrial base that produced missiles

was also useful in rebuilding their nuclear capacity, right? And so what we've done fundamentally is destroy that conventional military capacity, also destroy their ability to rebuild their

nuclear program. And then what we have an option to do, and again it really depends on what the Iranians respond with. What we have an option to do, I think, is fundamentally transform our

relationship with Iran. So >> I mean, I I liken it to what President Trump was doing in that Middle East summit with Saudi Arabia, with whom we didn't used to have the greatest

relationship, trying to say, "What if we could get along economically?" Like, "What if we could help make you rich?" >> Correct. And it it like for a US president to look at Iran and even

suggest such a thing has many people upset. But if it worked out would be transformative. >> Well, it would be transformative. And what the president has said is I want

Iran to be a successful country. But if in order to do that, just like with Saudi Arabia, it's actually a great example. You know, if you went back 20, 25 years, one of our biggest concerns

with Saudi Arabia is they were funding Islamic radicalism. >> They sent all the 911 terrorists. >> Yeah. A lot of the ideas, the terrorists themselves, but also the ideas that were

spreading all over the Middle East, all over the world were funded not necessarily by the Saudi government, but certainly by people within Saudi Arabia. The Saudis completely cut down on that,

transform their country, have a great economic and political relationship with the United States of America. And the president's saying if the Iranians are willing to change their behavior in the

same way the Saudis did, then absolutely we want them to be a successful country. And it's >> the two governments are very different. The two governments are very different,

but there actually are there are similarities, too. And again, we just have to go down this pathway, see where we get. If it works out, great. If it doesn't work out, we're still in a good

place as an inter. >> What do they have to do specifically to get us to turn on the financial spigot? >> Yeah. So, a lot of this stuff is to be negotiated at kind of the the technical

level of detail, but it's it's basically, if you think about it, we care about their attempt to rebuild their enrichment capacity. We care about this enriched uranium, this nuclear dust

as the president calls it. We also care about, you know, are they getting along well with their neighbors? Are they funding revolutions in their neighboring countries? Are they funding terrorist

organizations? Or are they being good partners with uh the Gulf Coast coalition and and and of course other countries in the region. And what we're saying is the more that you do, the more

we're going to try to reintegrate you into the world economy. And that's the basic template of the deal. And I I said I'd talk about like what the deal is and what the deal isn't. what the deal

isn't. You know, we don't list this list this stuff out specifically. We've been talking to them directly about what this might look like. They seem very interested, but again, we've also been

very clear that if you guys don't do this thing, none of the actual benefits are going to acrew to your country. >> How about Hezbollah and Lebanon? Because, you know, that's a proxy that

they're funding and that could easily quer this deal. It could quer this deal. This week, people fear, never mind on a go forward basis, either side, Israel or Hezbollah.

>> Sure. Look, it's it's always it's always delicate with these things and you know what we've seen with the ceasefire in Lebanon and it's been clear to be clear a dirty ceasefire. There's been some

shooting back and forth but frankly there's very ceas there's way less shooting now than there was two weeks ago and there's way less shooting two weeks ago than there was

before. So with these things as the president of the United States said a couple weeks ago he said sometimes a ceasefire just means they're shooting less and that's the progress and then

you get to the next stage. Is Lebanon included? >> Lebanon. >> It is a regional peace deal. It's going to include the Gulf. It's going to

include Israel. It's going to include Lebanon. The idea is this is a true regional peace deal because again, sorry, forgive me for interrupting. >> No, no, no. The idea is that is that if

the is the if the Iranians comply, then we are going to have a true transformative deal for the Middle East. And if not, they don't get any economic benefits. The United States, we got what

we came to do and we're done. And that's the basic approach. >> We would not not turn on the spigot if Hezbollah hit Israel over and over. >> Well, what I would say is like if Iran

is funding Hezbollah, we're not going to allow a bunch of unfrozen assets to freeze to the Iranians. Right now, I want to be clear about this too because those are not American assets. There's

been a lot of misreporting on this and people have said, "Oh, is the United States going to give Iran billions of dollars?" No. I want be very, very crystal clear. Even if the Iranians do

everything contemplated by this deal, not a penny of American money flows to Iran. But let me give you an example of, you know, one of these things that people again have misrepresented. Let's

say, for example, that the United Arab Emirates, who's been, they've been one of the best allies that we've had in the region, let's say that they want to invest in a nuclear power plant in Iran,

they really can't do that without us lifting some of the sanctions that exist in the global financial system to make that possible. Now, are the Emiratis going to invest in Iran, or is America

going to let the Emiratis invest in Iran unless the Iranians change their behavior? No. So, all these people say, "Well, you know, you're giving Iran money." No, no, no. We're saying that if

the Iranians change their behavior, we're going to let some of these other countries invest in rebuilding their country and creating some prosperity for their people. That's like a good thing,

right? If the Iranians stop funding terrorism, if they're behaving and their relationship is transformed not just with us but with the whole region, like that's a thing to celebrate. You know,

somebody said, I I forget who, but somebody said, you know, this is like doing the Marshall Plan when the Nazis are still in control. And that's wrong on a few different ways. Number one, the

Marshall Plan was a lot of American tax money. This is not American tax money. Number two, we're saying you only get the benefits of the bargain if you change your behavior. If that happens,

we're talking about a transformed Middle East. That's a great legacy for the president, but more importantly, it's a great win for the American people. >> Well, we have inspections of whatever

they are or aren't doing when it comes to nuclear enrichment, you know, I mean, and and is enrichment even on the table? Because I haven't been able to totally understand what

President Trump is saying on that. If >> if they want the benefits of the bargain, enrichment is going to be on the table. And more importantly, verification and inspections is going to

be on the table. >> So that but that means we'd let them do it a little. Like what else are we inspecting? >> No, look our our plan is well what we

would be inspecting is the full part of building a nuclear weapon. So I'm hardly a nuclear engineer, so forgive uh the scientists are going to have to forgive me for this summary, but building a

nuclear weapon is the infrastructure to enrich uranium. It's the infrastructure to turn enriched uranium into nuclear fuel. It's the infrastructure to turn that nuclear fuel into a bomb that you

can detonate. It's the delivery mechanism for that bomb. >> The cascades and the centrif are those coming out. >> Our our plan under this deal is again

the Iranians are going to get a lot of benefits so long as they dismantle that nuclear weapons program. And again, you know, people always ask me, why do you believe him this time? I don't believe

them. I don't I don't trust Megan. I don't trust anything that anybody says. I trust what people do. And the way this deal is structured is that as they do more, they receive more. As they do

less, they receive less. And that's the basic structure. >> Now, the reaction to this from the neocons, from the hawks, has been negative already. They're mad that that

they can't see the memorandum of understanding, which I get actually in their defense. Why can't they see why can't we all see theou right now? >> Well, there's there there Yeah. So,

first of all, the president said by the latest Friday, possibly as early as tomorrow, we're going to release the memorandum on understanding text. Uh the reason why we haven't released it yet is

there are some delicate diplomatic things going on where the Iranians and not just the Iranians but some of our mediators the Pakistanis and the Qataris have asked us to sequence this in the

right way. Uh I don't frankly fully understand it but there are sensitivities that exist in the Arab and Muslim world that we're trying to be responsive to. Fundamentally does it

really matter if the deal comes out on Wednesday versus Friday? No. that that's why we haven't emphasized it so much is because at the very latest the text is going to be out on Friday.

>> Okay. Yeah. And I mean you've already signed it, but it's not like legally binding to where you can't undo it. It's a diplomatic agreement. So it's correct. If people freak out, there's an utter

meltdown here in the United States. It could always be undone if you change your minds. >> Exactly. And and I again Megan I could summarize this deal in like two or three

sentences which is that if the Iranians change the way that they behave with regards to their nuclear weapon, with regards to their financing of terrorism, we are going to bring them into the

world economy. If they don't, we won't. It's really that simple. >> Okay, so here's some of the reaction. Um Mark Tissson uh said if if the deal terms are accurate as has been leaked,

it's a complete disaster. He's calling this, by the way, the Vance the Vance deal. Um there >> I wonder why he doesn't call it the Trump deal.

>> I I wonder too. There is um Ben Dominic who was on special report last night called this the a hillbilly Obama deal. I >> wonder who that's a reference to.

>> Seems to be a shot at you, sir. Um not bold foreign policy. There's a guy named Yanan Mal who is a an Israeli journalist who's very close with Netanyahu. He's basically his mouthpiece. Who it called

you a low life, called Donald Trump a loser. Um the Israeli ambassador to the United States called this so disappointing. Um then there's Mark Levin who's been rage tweeting about it

every five minutes. He demands to see the memorandum. He demands that this be treated like a treaty to where now you have to get congressional approval for theou. The constitution does say you

need approval to declare war, which Trump doesn't think he did and didn't seek. But now and and they and he defended him on that. But now that we're ending it, which you definitely don't

need congressional approval for, he wants this treated like a treaty and is demanding you go before Congress, sir. >> Well, to be clear, I I don't think that congressional approval was required. I I

I really firmly do believe that the president this is not was never a full-scale war in the conventional or legal sense of it. So, we we definitely made sure that we dotted our eyes and

crossed our tees here. So, I want to defend the administration on that point. But it is kind of ironic that they're really really worried about stopping this thing, but they were completely

gung-ho about starting this thing. And look, I I want to be responsive and and charitable to some of these concerns. So, first of all, why do they believe Iranian propaganda only about one thing,

the peace deal? They don't seem to believe Iranian propaganda, rightfully so, about anything else. So, if you're in the position of endorsing Iranian propaganda only when it's related to

this peace deal, then maybe you should check yourself a little bit and question your sources. The second thing that I'd say is what is their alternative? If you look today, Brent crude is around $78 a

barrel. West Texas crude is even lower, 75, $73 a barrel. I mean, the the numbers float around a little bit, but what that means is lower gas prices for Americans, lower energy costs for

Americans. That means that this little blip that we've had of an increase in energy costs, which has caused a lot of people some problems, we're now getting back to normal. And I think that

fundamentally, if you look at what they're proposing, they're proposing an endless conflict. They want this to go on until every bomb has been dropped or until every Iranian is dead. That is not

what the president of the United States wants. What he said is, "I set about this to end their nuclear program, to eliminate their ability to threaten their neighbors and project power, and

to fundamentally make sure that no future child would have to deal with a terrorist regime with an atomic bomb. That's why the president set out to do this. He feels and he's right that he's

accomplished that goal and now we can get to the negotiation to see what are the other benefits that we can get from this and frankly what are the benefits the Iranians could get from this if they

behave. I just don't think that that people who are criticizing this one they're not actually dealing with the reality of what's in it. And number two they don't have an alternative. If your

alternative is just to drop bombs without any clear goal or any clear American interest implicated, then you're not making the wise decisions on behalf of the American people. The

president is and that's why we're in this position. >> I'm going to give you a shot from sound on tape from John Podoritz, who is the chief over at Commentary Magazine, which

is very pro-Israel, very neoci preview. He's not happy. Here it is. >> I honestly don't know if it could be worse. America is going to be in a strategically,

tactically, and militarily worse position than it was under Biden. He made a choice to test America's resolve, and he has choked. He has chickenened out. He has bled himself dry. Trump, the

crazy lunatic psychotic who doesn't care about lives and will do anything and do anything, could not bear the idea of putting a boot on the ground anywhere in Iran and could not bear the idea of a

single American possibly being taken hostage, which I understand. I'm not saying that either of those is a good thing, but if you're going to go to war, you have to put boots on the ground.

everyone in the military has volunteered to put their lives on the line for their country and that the country itself may have to sacrifice in the form of wildly higher oil prices. If you think that the

American national interest is has to be engaged in this process and if you go into the process and you lose it and it's a complete war of choice, you have made things worse. The situation is

worse. >> Thoughts on that? Well, there's a lot to respond to in there, but I actually think John, I appreciate that because John is kind of giving away the game.

He's saying he really doesn't care that much about higher oil prices for Americans. Doesn't care about high gas prices, and he wants boots on the ground.

>> Doesn't care about casualties. >> Exactly. and and wants boots on the ground and casualties in a country of 95 million people where again the president of the United States never said that his

goal was to install Raza Pavlavi to become the new leader of Iran. What he said is if the Iranian people want to rise up great that's their business that's between them and their

government. What we want is a sessation of their nuclear program either through diplomatic means or through military means as he ultimately went down that pathway. And I and I think Megan there's

a there's actually a deeper foreign policy debate that I think the last few months has sort of papered over here which is when President Trump uses military power he's not an isolationist

right he's not a Rand Paul guy Ron Paul guy he never has been never was but what he is is a guy who says if I'm going to use American military power I want to accomplish a discrete objective and

every single day I saw it very very much on the inside he was asking have we accomplished that objective can we stop this and once we got to the point where people were saying, "Yes, we feel like

we are in a much stronger position. We feel like their nuclear program is destroyed. We feel like their conventional military, it's going to be impossible for them to rebuild it for

very, very many years." He said, "Okay, then I want you to go and negotiate a deal that transforms the Middle East." And that's what he did. >> I mean, how integral was the sneaking of

the oil out of the straight of Hormuz overnight? Because that to me, that was the one of the best things we did. Correct. They thought they shut down the straight and had us by the neck.

Correct. >> We closed up their ports which gave them skin in the game. But we were secretly getting oil out of there because the biggest pressure point on us has been

the the prices, the energy prices. >> That's absolutely right. And so for the first few weeks of this actually, there was this totally misaligned thing where the Iranians were getting oil out of the

straight of Hormuse, but literally nobody else was. And we kind of flipped that on its head a little bit. We shut down any access they had to the straight of Hormuse. They couldn't get anything

in or out. But while that was happening, we were getting sometimes it was 12 million barrels, sometimes it was three to four million barrels, but it averaged out to many millions of barrels every

single day that US and the Arab allies were getting out of the straight of Hormuz. Iran was getting nothing. And that leverage point did increase the pressure on them. You know, this this

idea of closing the straight of Hormuz, this has obviously been in some ways the biggest strategic back and forth of the entire conflict. That's a card you can play, but if you play it every day, it

gets weaker and weaker and weaker. And again, I think that's one of the reasons why we are in a stronger position here and why the Iranians are coming to the table. You know, this you John Potteritz

is basically calling it was this Israeli journalist who said, you the president's a loser and I'm a total lowife or whatever he said and and Potteritz wasn't that far off. What these guys

don't realize is we fundamentally have all the cards. like what what is it that they wanted us to do besides put 300,000 ground troops in Iranian soil which we were never going to do? The president

felt like he could accomplishes his objective using the means that he used he was right about that by the way said help is on the way and that he they don't think he sent it and they think

it's the same leadership and it was bad leadership either way. It's not the same guys. By the way, that is different. PE people attack the president on this. But when the president says that we're

dealing with more reasonable people, he is actually right. Now, again, my my attitude is a verification. I trust actions, not words. But we are dealing with people some of whom our own

intelligence agencies say, you know, these are the super hardliners. And what they're saying is, you know what, we are hardliners, but we've realized after 47 years that maybe this is a mistake.

Well, there's a report out today though saying that Ratcliffe, who runs the CIA, has been listening to their intel, saying they don't mean a word of what they're saying. They're not going to

live up to any of this. >> Well, first of all, I'd be skeptical of that reporting. You know, I always see sometimes with my own name on it, administration officials who believe

this or that. I'd be very skeptical of this stuff. The the inner team of the Trump administration, we're actually very tight. We're very close to each other. There isn't nearly the

factionalism that people say that there is. So, I'd be skeptical about that report, but I'll let John speak for himself. >> Scott Bess and Bill Py.

They're not tight at this point. >> Uh Scott Massent and Bill Py are not super close. That is true. And I say that as admirers of of both of them. >> You've admitted it.

>> Uh but but fundamentally, that's why the deal says verification and action. >> Trust but verify. >> Well, I'd say just verify, right? I mean, I guess what the president says is

we don't trust anybody. And I think that's exactly right. He said, "We don't trust our allies. We don't trust our foes. We trust action. And that's what we have to anchor ourselves to.

>> All right. Let's talk about what happened to the GOP base as a result of all this. Okay. Because it's divided. Um I know you've experienced it yourself. I've experienced it, too. It's been sort

of a sad, tumultuous, stressful time. >> Sure. >> It's much more fun, I think, for most of us who lean right or right leaning independents to be fighting with the

left. But it's been kind of civil warry over on the conservative team since this whole thing got launched. and the non-interventionalist right feels very betrayed, very betrayed

by it, whether you agree with that they've been betrayed or not. Uh, Mr. Vice President, what do you say to those people? >> Well, what I'd say to them is is one, I

I think you can walk through all the ways in which this has led to a good place for the United States of America. And I'd ask them not to sort of view this purely through the filter. I know,

you know, a lot of these these folks are frustrated with the role that Israel has in all this. We can talk about that but don't look at it from the lens of you know what what is it that different

people think about it. What do you think about it? What like fundamentally do you think >> I've but but I'm saying ask yourself I think you can make the best argument

that the nuclear program is destroyed. The Iranian conventional military is destroyed. We had yes a temporary rise in energy prices that's already coming down substantially. And we didn't get,

as I said repeatedly, we were never going to get the quagmire that a lot of people were warning about because Donald Trump is just not George W. Bush. So I would say first, the first argument I'd

make is look at where we are right now and I think you can make the best argument that where we are right now is a good place for the United States of America. And again, if we transform the

Middle East, this was fundamentally worth it. Okay. The second argument I'd make, this is maybe >> uh is is this. even if you disagree with this particular action, it's completely

ridiculous to pick up your marbles and go home. That's not how politics works. And I've been very much on the inside of a lot of these debates and conversations. You know, some some

people have criticized our immigration policy. Some some people have criticized tax policy or some people have criticized foreign policy. The way that politics works is that you have to stay

engaged in the process. You absolutely have to make your voice heard. But right now, right now, we have a very good deal for the American people. And importantly, we have a constituency

right now that is saying that we're going to send boots on the ground. They want the Donald Trump to send hundreds of thousands of ground troops into Iran. The best thing we need people, but we

need people to be pushing back from inside the tent. Frustration. Important point. >> And then we're told, and I quote, "Those who speak ill of Mark Levvin are not

MAGA." Well, the president, as he does, is pushing back at a criticism of yours that he thought was unfair. >> Not just me. I mean, a lot of the

non-interventional, >> but I talked to him last night and I said, "Mr. President, I'm going to go on Megan Kelly's show and I'm going to defend the administration's policies."

Absolutely. I love that because again, >> good engage. >> He engages and he's going to criticize you when he agrees or disagrees with you. He's going to say nice things about

you when he agrees with you. But that's what I actually love about the president is he's not he's not like viewing these debates from the outside. He's participating in them himself. And

again, Megan, the frustration that I've had with, you know, the non-interventionist side has been that the attitude seems to be, we disagree with the president on this policy. Look,

we can have that debate, but fine. Okay. You disagree with the president on this particular policy. That doesn't mean you can give up on the entire enterprise. And and the reason, Megan, the reason

why neocons are so much more effective in politics than the people on the other side in our coalition is because they play the game. They get disappointed. They make their criticisms and they go

back and they live to fight another day. Right now, right now, we need everybody who recognizes that this is a good deal for the American people and that we don't want, like John Powitz is saying,

hundreds of thousands of ground troops in Iran. Make your voice heard. This is where you've got to participate in the process. Disagree when you disagree. Agree when you agree. But I don't like

this idea of the president did something I like didn't like, so I'm out. I think it's a very immature way to approach the political process. And it's the way to ensure that your enemies always win.

>> I have I've been saying the same uh because a lot of people have been saying that they feel blackpiled by the whole experience, you know, like I'm just out and I I have been trying to make the

point that that you can't do that, right? You got to stay. But realistically, as we because after these midterms are over, >> let me sorry, can I make one more point

about this? Make this is like very important. I'm sorry to interrupt, but no, it is. >> So, look, >> the coalition that made Donald Trump the

president of the United States and JD Vance, the vice president of the United States, people have to remember this. It was Megan Kelly and Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan. It was also Mark Levin. It

was also a lot of people like John Potitz who want a more aggressive foreign policy. What I think is important, I'm never going to say that John Peritz is not welcome in the

Republican party. He is, but just as he's disappointed right now, sometimes other people are going to be disappointed at other times. You can't just quit politics because the leader of

a country of 330 million people makes a decision you disagree with. >> I agree with you. I know a lot of people don't agree with us here. They're very, very angry over the Iran war. it was

like their number one issue and they feel like Trump is not the man they thought he was because he betrayed that promise and didn't explain much about it and I understand their feeling too. But

I will just say that you know Pedoritz and Levin and all those those that's the original never Trump crew. They hated him. Hated him. I was there. I had those people coming on my show saying

absolutely not, never Trump. And then they embraced him like a bear hug just as soon as he decided he was going to attack Iran and was cozying up with Israel and that's their main issue. And

now they're starting to get a little wobbly. And I wonder whether the president sees maybe his new best friends aren't quite as in love with him and loyal as he thought.

>> Yeah. And I would say the same thing to them that I'd say to the non-interventionists who have been a little blackpilled over the last few months. I'd say you don't quit the

political process just because the president, who by the way has way more information than any of his critics have as making a decision that they don't agree with. Disagree with it. We have

the first amendment in the United States of America. I'm not saying be a pathy. I'm not saying be, you know, a person who always falls in line. Make your viewpoint understood. But I I I I think

this is a very important part in a coalition rep. We have a two-party system in this country. You've got what is it 80 million people 85 million people who voted for Donald Trump.

Nobody is going to agree with the administration 100% of the time. So, you know, it actually doesn't bother me that Mark Lean is criticizing this deal even though I think this deal is great for

the American people. I'm going to go on a show for the next few days. I'm going to defend it. What would bother me is if Mark Leven said, "You know what? The president did something I didn't like

and I'm going to go home. I'm not part of this coalition. Screw that guy." I think that's the mistake that way too many people across our political system make.

>> Has any of this um influenced your thoughts on a possible run? Don't tell me you're not thinking about it. And I know you gave me that answer, but after these midterms are done, it's on. You

don't have three years. You have about six months. >> I'm not thinking about it, Megan. >> You have to decide. You're going to have to decide.

>> I mean, you know me and you know that like like I'm kind of a procrastinator. >> I don't make decisions until I have to. It probably frustrates my wife a lot of times, but like we still don't have a

name for our baby. And every time my wife tries to talk to me about it, I'm like, "Well, let's just, you know, figure it out when we actually see the baby and see what he looks like and want

to name it." >> You know, it's a boy, right? >> We know it's a boy, but we don't don't have really even like a single name that we've picked out that both of us liked

and the baby's coming in about four weeks. >> I just make decisions when I have to. >> Yes, after the midterms, I will eventually have to make that decision.

Let's make it. If you don't run, I mean, you represent more of the non-interventionalist wing. Um, and you're all over the New York Times as reportedly predicting this would be a

disaster. It's going to call cause regional chaos. It's going to break apart Trump's coalition. >> Don't believe everything you read in your

>> Oh, that's okay. There may be tapes now given to Maggie Haberman, >> which is crazy, by the way. That was a very weird story. So weird. You're talking about the EP. So just for your

audience's sake, there was this story about Epstein that came out in the New York Times and like half of it or so was BS and about half of it, you know, it's the way it always goes.

>> It's that's how these stories always there's always an element of truth. There's always an element of non-truth, but there were certain things in there that legitimately made me worried that

people were like taping. >> Yeah. In the situation room, >> which by the way is like a felony. >> Yeah. It's a super dangerous. >> So that was weird. That story was very

bizarre. It was sort of a nothing burger of a story in the sense that everybody sort of knew all those details anyway, >> but the fact that somebody had taped >> well where I was going with that list of

predictions of yours that turned out to be true um was if you don't run who who would run that would represent that wing of the party. >> Well, I think the you know committed

non-interventionist America first Ted Cruz could be a representative for that wing of the party. >> Who else you got? >> He's clearly running for president. Um,