Veteran broadcaster Bill O’Reilly forcefully pushed back Monday night against claims that President Donald Trump is “backing down” following violent unrest in Minneapolis after a Border Patrol–involved shooting that sparked protests and national controversy.
The confrontation unfolded during NewsNation’s On Balance with Leland Vittert, where O’Reilly 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 officials—including Border Czar Tom Homan—shifted toward de-escalation, engaging with local leaders to restore order.
That shift became the flashpoint of the exchange between O’Reilly and Vittert.
During the interview, Vittert referenced O’Reilly’s recent commentary criticizing Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, drawing a historical comparison that sparked sharp disagreement:
LELAND VITTERT: You write “Who is the modern John C. Calhoun,” about Walz, “a despicable South Carolina senator who actually wanted the Civil War to happen.”
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?
O’Reilly responded by arguing that state officials who openly defy federal law should face scrutiny under existing statutes:
BILL O’REILLY: 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, O’Reilly emphasized order and de-escalation—values long central to conservative governance:
LELAND VITTERT: Would that be good for America?
BILL O’REILLY: I don’t 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%.
O’Reilly argued that cooperation does not mean capitulation—and that enforcing federal law remains non-negotiable:
BILL O’REILLY: But that doesn’t 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 don’t have a country. It goes! Okay? Everybody should understand.
The interview reached its most heated moment when Vittert suggested Trump was “backing down” in response to public pressure:
LELAND VITTERT: So then why is Trump backing down?
O’Reilly erupted at the framing, accusing the host of echoing legacy media talking points:
BILL O’REILLY: Now here’s the second part of the story. He’s not backing down! He’s trying to defuse. Why would you say he was backing down?! Do you want a CNN contract?!
He’s backing down! He’s defusing the way he should!
