Bill O'Reilly meets CCP leaders, calls for cooperation with China
(NewsNation) — Bill O'Reilly said Monday that the United States has no choice but to work with China to prevent global conflict, despite the country's history of breaking agreements and engaging in espionage.
'There's no other alternative,' O'Reilly said on NewsNation's 'On Balance' after returning from meetings with what he called 'the most powerful people' in China. 'We've got to try to get a deal with China.'
O'Reilly said he briefed President Donald Trump for about 30 minutes following his China trip, though he declined to share specifics of that conversation. He said Chinese officials indicated that tariffs were not their primary concern, but Taiwan remains the central issue.
'2049, 100 years since Mao Zedong imposed communism, they want Taiwan under the Chinese flag,' O'Reilly said. 'I told them that while President Trump is in office, it's not going to happen militarily.'
Russia severely limited after attack: Ex-Ukraine ambassador
O'Reilly proposed what he called a 'plan for peace and prosperity' that would position the United States and China as global 'enforcers' of peace, potentially sidelining Russia and Iran. He said Chinese officials appeared receptive to the concept.
When pressed about China's surveillance state and human rights abuses, O'Reilly acknowledged the country's authoritarian nature but distinguished Chinese leadership from Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom he characterized as more 'psychopathic.'
'I wouldn't use the word evil across the board,' O'Reilly said of China. 'It's a police state, a surveillance state. Nobody has any rights. They justify it by saying, look, we got a billion and a half people.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News24
13 minutes ago
- News24
SA researchers involved in breakthrough HIV treatment approved for use in the US
Be among those who shape the future with knowledge. Uncover exclusive stories that captivate your mind and heart with our FREE 14-day subscription trial. Dive into a world of inspiration, learning, and empowerment. You can only trial once. Start your FREE trial now Show Comments ()
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Scott Galloway Reached His Financial Goal 8 Years Ago. He Says There's Just No Justification For Becoming A Billionaire
Scott Galloway had a plan: sell his company, take $25 million, raise another $250 million, and become a billionaire. But then he stopped to think about it. 'Why would I want back on this hamster wheel of stress?' he asked on a recent episode of his podcast, 'Office Hours.' Galloway, a business professor, entrepreneur and investor, said he realized the pursuit of more wealth would just cost him time, peace of mind and family moments. 'I've been doing nothing but working for a quarter century,' he said. After hitting his personal financial target, he made a different choice: spend on what brings joy, pay people well, and give the rest away. 'I hit my number eight years ago,' he said. 'And I decided there's just no reason why I would ever need to be a billionaire.' Don't Miss: Peter Thiel turned $1,700 into $5 billion—now accredited investors are eyeing this software company with similar breakout potential. Learn how you can invest with $1,000 at just $0.30/share. Invest early in CancerVax's breakthrough tech aiming to disrupt a $231B market. Back a bold new approach to cancer treatment with high-growth potential. 'Every year I look at my number,' he explained. 'Anything above that number, I do one of two things: I either spend it or I give it away.' He added, 'It feels amazing to spend money and to give it away.' He owns a plane and refuses to let money prevent him from enjoying life. When friends can't afford to join, he covers the cost himself, saying it gives him satisfaction. His shift in mindset mirrors that of Andrew Wilkinson, a Canadian entrepreneur who told his own story in the 2024 book, 'Never Enough.' Wilkinson became a billionaire after building the tech conglomerate Tiny, but eventually saw the limits of wealth. After nearly partnering with legendary investor Charlie Munger, Wilkinson said he turned it down. The thought of chasing another level of wealth no longer appealed to him. Both Wilkinson and Galloway reached a similar conclusion. Once you have enough, more doesn't necessarily improve your life. In fact, it can increase stress. Trending: GoSun's Breakthrough Rooftop EV Charger Already Has 2,000+ Units Reserved — Become an Investor in This $41.3M Clean Energy Brand Today Galloway recalls the fear he felt in 2008 when his first son was born during the financial crisis. 'All I felt was shame and fear,' he said. 'I thought, I've failed this kid. I don't have enough money.' That fear stayed with him until he reached financial security. 'Happiness is not only a function of the things you have,' he said. 'It's a function of the things that you don't have—specifically, an absence from stress.' Galloway also wants to normalize open conversations about money. 'This zeitgeist that you're not supposed to talk about money is nothing but an effort by rich people to keep the poor and middle class down,' he said. He encourages people to share information about salaries, taxes and financial tools to help each other get ahead. 'Talking about it a lot gives you ideas and opportunities and can be quite cathartic,' he said. These days, Galloway says he's off the hamster wheel for good. He spends on joy, gives generously and says he finally feels free. Read Next: Maximize saving for your retirement and cut down on taxes: Schedule your free call with a financial advisor to start your financial journey – no cost, no obligation. Are you rich? Here's what Americans think you need to be considered 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? APPLE (AAPL): Free Stock Analysis Report TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article Scott Galloway Reached His Financial Goal 8 Years Ago. He Says There's Just No Justification For Becoming A Billionaire originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Deportation Goals Are Unrealistic
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. In March, President Donald Trump was preparing to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport noncitizens. This use of the law, which was passed in 1798 and previously used to intern Japanese Americans during World War II, was unprecedented, and Emil Bove III, a top Justice Department official, was concerned that it was illegal. To be clear, Bove wasn't troubled that the administration might be breaking the law; rather, according to a new whistleblower complaint, he was concerned that the courts might try to block removals. In that case, 'DOJ would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you' and ignore any such court order,' Bove said, according to the document. The complaint was made by Erez Reuveni, a fired DOJ lawyer, and first reported by The New York Times this week. The administration says that his allegations are falsehoods from a disgruntled former employee, but this is difficult to credit. A career lawyer, he was promoted by the Trump DOJ but says he was fired after he acknowledged in court that the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia was an administrative error and refused to accuse him of being a terrorist. The complaint details Reuveni's 'attempts over the course of three weeks and affecting three separate cases to secure the government's compliance with court orders, and his resistance to the internal efforts of DOJ and White House leadership to defy them.' It also suggests that Reuveni has emails and texts to back up many of his claims. A top Justice Department official allegedly conspiring to defy court orders would be very dangerous; what makes it darkly amusing, too, is that senators are this week considering Bove's nomination to the federal bench that, according to Reuveni, he wanted to ignore. This led to a sharp exchange in a committee hearing yesterday between Bove and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, two veteran federal prosecutors, in which Bove repeatedly insisted that he did not 'recall' making the comments that Reuveni alleged. 'Did you say anything of that kind in the meeting?' Schiff asked. 'Senator, I have no recollection of saying anything of that kind,' Bove said. 'Wouldn't you recall, Mr. Bove, if you said or suggested during a meeting with Justice Department lawyers maybe they should consider telling the court, 'Fuck you'?' Schiff replied. 'It seems to me that would be something you'd remember—unless that's the kind of thing you say frequently.' Because no Republicans have yet come out against Bove's nomination to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, he's likely to win confirmation. (By way of reminder, Bove got here by serving as one of Trump's personal lawyers in some of his many criminal cases.) This presents the grim parlor question of whether it's better to have Bove in a lifetime appointment on the bench, where his opinions can be appealed, or at the Justice Department, where he's reportedly been a one-man wrecking crew. The allegations against Bove are what my former colleague James Fallows took to describing during the first Trump administration as shocking but not surprising. Trump himself has said repeatedly that he will abide by court orders, but his deputies have been less circumspect, especially Vice President J. D. Vance, who is a lawyer, and the former DOGE leader and current Trump frenemy Elon Musk. Outside observers, including me, have fretted over what will happen if the White House actually crosses the rubicon of defiance. This is arguably beside the point. Even though the Trump administration continues to deny that it has refused to obey court orders, the reality is that it has already done so. Judge James Boasberg said in April that he'd concluded that probable cause existed to find the administration in contempt of court for removing certain Venezuelan immigrants. (An appeals court has temporarily stayed proceedings on the contempt charge.) In another instance, last month, the administration deported a Salvadoran man despite a court order forbidding it, then blamed 'a confluence of administrative errors.' (These errors seem to be a consistent issue for this presidency!) The administration also insisted in a court filing that Abrego Garcia simply could not be returned as ordered, because the United States 'does not have authority to forcibly extract an alien from the domestic custody of a foreign sovereign nation.' The DOJ proved that false not long afterward, when it brought Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. to face charges. In a bizarre move this week, the administration sued every federal judge in Maryland—an attempt to evade an order that bans the government from immediately deporting migrants who are challenging their removal. The fights with courts are ironic, because although Trump has fared poorly in lower courts, the Supreme Court has been willing to let him expand his powers once cases reach it. As Reuters reported earlier this month, the justices, using what's known as the 'shadow docket,' have repeatedly granted emergency requests to proceed, pending full consideration. This week, the Court temporarily lifted an order preventing the executive branch from quickly deporting migrants to countries to which they have no ties. The White House has been seeking to send people—including Laotian, Vietnamese, and Filipino nationals—to extremely perilous countries such as Libya and South Sudan. This would be callous and morally abhorrent under any circumstances, but given the notable cases of the Trump administration deporting people who are legally protected, including Abrego Garcia, it is especially terrifying. The desperation to sidestep court restrictions on deportations is evidence of the shortcomings of the White House's plans. Trump aims to remove 1 million people this year, but as my colleague Nick Miroff reported yesterday, ICE statistics show that the agency has carried out only about 125,000 deportations since Trump took office, with roughly half the year gone. But as Reuveni's story suggests, in this administration, to be honest is to risk being fired. Attacking the courts is much easier than admitting that the president's signature promise is unrealistic. Related: The self-deportation psyop Trump's legal strategy has a name. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Tom Nichols on the president's weapon Humanity is playing nuclear roulette, Jeffrey Goldberg argues. Three ways to find purpose and meaning in a job Today's News The Senate parliamentarian advised rejecting some Medicaid changes that would offset the costs of other key policies in President Donald Trump's tax bill. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Iran's strike on a U.S. base in Qatar was a 'slap to America's face'; he also warned against further U.S. attacks on Iran. A new Supreme Court decision allows states to cut off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. Dispatches Time-Travel Thursdays: Isabel Fattal on how sleeping less became an American value. Explore all of our newsletters here. Evening Read The Blockbuster That Captured a Growing American Rift By Tyler Austin Harper In a cramped, $50-a-month room above a New Jersey furnace-supply company, Peter Benchley set to work on what he once said, half-jokingly, might be 'a Ulysses for the 1970s.' A novel resulted from these efforts, one Benchley considered titling The Edge of Gloom or Infinite Evil before deciding on the less dramatic but more fitting Jaws. Its plot is exquisite in its simplicity. A shark menaces Amity, a fictional, gentrifying East Coast fishing village. Chaos ensues: People are eaten … In June 1975, 50 years ago this month, the movie version of Jaws was released in theaters and became the first-ever summer blockbuster. Though the film retains Benchley's basic storyline—shark eats people; shark dies a bloody death—it turns the book's politics upside down. Read the full article. More From The Atlantic Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib: Pro-Palestine activists fell for Iran's propaganda. Alexandra Petri: Pete Hegseth's guide to war Radio Atlantic: What does Khamenei do now? Culture Break Watch. Thank God for The Bear. Season 4 of the show (streaming on Hulu) is exactly what it—and we—needed, Sophie Gilbert writes. Lean on me. In everyday life, many people are reluctant to ask for and offer help. But milestones such as weddings lower the barriers to relying on other people, Julie Beck writes. Play our daily crossword. Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Article originally published at The Atlantic
