Bill OโReilly Flips Out When Host Says Trump โBacking Downโ After Shooting
Veteran broadcaster Bill OโReilly forcefully pushed back Monday night against claims that President Donald Trump is โbacking downโ following violent unrest in Minneapolis after a Border Patrolโinvolved shooting that sparked protests and national controversy.
The confrontation unfolded during NewsNationโs On Balance with Leland Vittert, where OโReilly accused the host of adopting left-wing media framing by suggesting Trump had retreated under political pressure.
The unrest began Saturday after Border Patrol agents shot Alex Pretti during a federal immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis. As video of the incident circulated online, activist groups and Democratic officials immediately accused federal authorities of misconduct, triggering protests that quickly escalated into disorder.
As is often the case in fast-moving, emotionally charged incidents, early claims about the shooting were disputed. Trump administration officials initially described Pretti as a dangerous suspect, while critics accused the government of spreading false narratives. Multiple videos later emerged that fueled further debate over what exactly occurred.
President Trump responded first with a blunt social media statement condemning lawlessness, defending federal officers, and criticizing Democratic leadership in Minnesota for what he has long argued is a refusal to enforce federal immigration law. As tensions grew, Trump administration officialsโincluding Border Czar Tom Homanโshifted toward de-escalation, engaging with local leaders to restore order.
That shift became the flashpoint of the exchange between OโReilly and Vittert.
During the interview, Vittert referenced OโReillyโs recent commentary criticizing Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, drawing a historical comparison that sparked sharp disagreement:
LELAND VITTERT: You write โWho is the modern John C. Calhoun,โ about Walz, โa despicable South Carolina senator who actually wanted the Civil War to happen.โ
Do you think Walz wants the Civil War to happen and therefore should be arrested as though he was a southern governor or something in the early or late 1850s?
OโReilly responded by arguing that state officials who openly defy federal law should face scrutiny under existing statutes:
BILL OโREILLY: I think there is evidence that should be examined, and you might be able to charge Walz with insurrection under the, if you want me to read it to you, I got it right here. It fits Walz to a tee.
Pressed on whether such action would be good for the country, OโReilly emphasized order and de-escalationโvalues long central to conservative governance:
LELAND VITTERT: Would that be good for America?
BILL OโREILLY: I donโt care. Look, anarchy is the worst thing that could happen, the worst. Right now, in this present moment, de-escalation is the best thing that can happen. So Homan meeting with Frey has my 100% endorsement. Walz calling Trump, vice versa, 100%.
OโReilly argued that cooperation does not mean capitulationโand that enforcing federal law remains non-negotiable:
BILL OโREILLY: But that doesnโt excuse what has happened and is happening, which is a rebellion against the United States law passed by Congress, by a state under the governance of Walz and a city where Frey runs.
If you continue, and I say you in a general sense, to allow states and cities to not enforce federal law, you donโt have a country. It goes! Okay? Everybody should understand.
The interview reached its most heated moment when Vittert suggested Trump was โbacking downโ in response to public pressure:
LELAND VITTERT: So then why is Trump backing down?
OโReilly erupted at the framing, accusing the host of echoing legacy media talking points:
BILL OโREILLY: Now hereโs the second part of the story. Heโs not backing down! Heโs trying to defuse. Why would you say he was backing down?! Do you want a CNN contract?!
Heโs backing down! Heโs defusing the way he should!















Stunner: Documents Many Prove Top CIA Employees Plotted to โTake Outโ Trump
A new federal lawsuit may reveal proof two CIA employees discussed a plot to โget rid ofโ and โtake outโ President Donald Trump.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced they filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Defense Department for โreports submitted by a military officer to his superiors regarding an alleged conversation around January 2017 between CIA analysts Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko about trying to โget ridโ of then-President Trump.โ
โThe intelligence community targeted Trump for removal for daring to question Biden family corruption and election interference tied to Ukraine and Burisma,โ Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. โThe Biden Defense Departmentโs sitting for over a year on a simple FOIA request on the Deep State targeting of Trump is a cover-up plain and simple.โ
In 2022 Real Clear Investigations reported:
Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella โ the CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the anonymous โwhistleblowerโ who touched off Trumpโs impeachment โ was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.
Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom Ciaramella was speaking was Sean Misko. Both were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign policy and national security issuesโฆ
At a meeting of National Security Council employees two weeks into the Trump administration, the unidentified military staffer, who was seated directly in front of Ciaramella and Misko, confirmed hearing them talk about toppling Trump.
โAfter Flynn briefed [the staff] about what โAmerica Firstโ foreign policy means, Ciaramella turned to Misko and commented, โWe need to take him out,โ โ the staffer recalled. โAnd Misko replied, โYeah, we need to do everything we can to take out the president.โโ
Added the military detailee, who spoke on condition of anonymity: โBy โtaking him out,โ they meant removing him from office by any means necessaryโฆโ
Alarmed by their conversation, the military staffer immediately reported what he heard to his superiors.
โIt was so shocking that they were so blatant and outspoken about their opinion,โ he recalled. โThey werenโt shouting it, but they didnโt seem to feel the need to hide it.โ
In response, Judicial Watch file the suit after the Defense Department failed to respond to a January 14, 2022, FOIA request for:
Any and all reports submitted by a US military officer assigned to the National Security Council to his superiors relating to a conversation he overheard circa January 2017 at an โall-handsโ NSC staff meeting between CIA analysts Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko regarding trying to โget ridโ of then-President Trump, as discussed in a January 22, 2020 Real Clear Investigations article available at this link.
Any and all records relating to any investigations conducted by the Department of Defense and/or its sub-agencies and departments into the alleged conversation between Misko and Ciaramella referenced above, including but not limited to investigative reports and witness statements.
All emails and communications sent to and from members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding the alleged conversation between Misko and Ciaramella and any related investigations.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.