Bill O’Reilly Spills on Why Fox News Is ‘Not What It Was’

Bestselling author Bill O’Reilly opened up about his definition of evil, how President Donald Trump is dealing with Vladimir Putin, and why Fox News is “not today what it was.” In a wide-ranging conversation, I spoke with the former Fox News host about his new book Confronting Evil, as well as the shifting media world he has watched from both the inside and the outside.

O’Reilly’s latest project arrives after the runaway success of his long-running Killing series, and this time the focus is on history’s darkest figures. His definition of evil is stark: one who has made the deliberate choice to make others suffer. The book’s cover features Vladimir Putin, a modern leader O’Reilly places squarely in that tradition.

But as our conversation revealed, he also sees Trump’s diplomatic strategy of welcoming Putin to the United States, not as appeasement or enabling someone he clearly sees as “evil,” but as part of a larger chessboard of global maneuvering.

It was a window into how O’Reilly weighs moral clarity against realpolitik, and why he believes the public rarely sees the whole picture.

Just as striking was his take on the media environment: Eight years after his ouster, O’Reilly was blunt about Fox News, calling it very different from the network he helped build into a juggernaut. He explained why it remains wildly influential, yet still not quite what it was when he left. He praised its original vision under Roger Ailes as inclusive and talent-driven, and contrasted that with what he sees today: a narrower, more Trump-centric channel shaped by management changes and audience demand.

“Not today what it was,” he said flatly. He also took credit for and comedically teased Jesse Watters for effectively mimicking his original style.

At the same time, O’Reilly acknowledged the rise of YouTube and other direct-to-audience platforms, which have given him a new stage and surprising reach. While quick to criticize the irresponsibility of some online voices, he is also a beneficiary, drawing large audiences to his own digital essays.

When pressed on his labeling a vote for New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani as “evil,” and whether that level of hyperbole is responsible following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, he was steadfast, insisting that his rhetoric is not only factual, but fair and any bad actions are the sole responsibility of the individual who took action.

For a man long associated with the cable news era, O’Reilly now finds himself navigating — and capitalizing on — the fractured media ecosystem he once defined.

* * * * *

HALL:  Congratulations: Confronting Evil is #1 on Amazon in its first week. Let’s start with the book, then we’ll pivot to today’s media landscape and some current events. You define evil pretty clearly as “choosing to make others suffer.” Some leaders you profile, like Stalin and Mao, claim they acted for the greater good. Is that genuine evil or pragmatism? How do you separate the two?

O’REILLY: Rationalization, even though it’s rationalized, very few people can honestly say, “I am Hannibal Lecter” or “I am Ted Bundy.” Even Ted Bundy couldn’t admit it. Most make excuses: abused as a child, emotionally distraught, that kind of thing. In China the rationale was that you can’t govern 1.5 billion people any other way than totalitarianism — everything for the state, nothing for the individual — and they’re fine with that. Hitler justified his policies on racial grounds. All of that is excuse-making. Even if you’re pursuing a higher goal, there’s always a way to achieve it without brutalizing people. The easier path is often the violent, capricious route.

HALL: I sense some academic historians might call that a pretty big oversimplification. How do you respond to critics who say your moral clarity flattens complexity and turns historical figures into caricatures?

O’REILLY: With facts. Caricatures? Mao Zedong killed 20 million of his own people, Stalin almost as many, Hitler, you know, into the double digits of millions that he slaughtered. Right. Yeah, come on. It’s ridiculous. Look, there are a lot of people living in bubble worlds as part of our country’s trauma right now, that maybe most of the citizens live in a bubble world, created by themselves with the help of social media. You want to live in our world; you live in that world. Everything I have in confronting evil, all the facts that we present are backed up. It happened. You don’t want to believe it happened, you want to make an excuse for it happening, that’s on you, not me. My job as a reporter slash historian is to report the truth. Here is what happened. And then if you want to go discuss among yourselves about subtleties or all of that, go ahead, I don’t mind that, but that’s not my job.

HALL: You seem to view these cases in black-and-white terms. How do you reconcile that with someone like Putin being on your book cover, given your friendly relationship with President Donald Trump, who welcomed Putin to Alaska and literally rolled out a red carpet despite his widely being considered a war criminal, or in your terms, “evil.” Is Trump enabling evil with that relationship?

O’REILLY: So the problem with the analysis on Putin, Ukraine, Trump, and NATO is that the strategies to negate Putin or to diminish his horror, his evil, are not known. I know them because I’m directly involved with conversations about them, but the press doesn’t know. So they oversimplify the situation: Trump is afraid of Putin, Trump doesn’t want to do this, Trump does not want to do that. They have no idea about the bigger picture in what they’re playing.

I’ll give you a very specific example. The key to mitigating Putin is China. Because if China pulls out from the oil deal and turns against Putin and says, you better knock it out, you better stop it. Then, Putin’s going to have to do that. That’s where a lot of the efforts are going now, to convince China and to a lesser extent, India to stop enabling, because they are directly enabling Putin to kill civilians. Putin likes to do this; he enjoys killing people, he is a psychopath, and he is a different person now than he was when Trump was president the first time around, because that always happened. Once you get absolute power and you impose evil, you deteriorate mentally in every other way. Every one of these people that I wrote about that happened to, every single one of them, evil consumes itself.

And so there are a lot of things in play that Trump can’t trumpet because these are very sensitive negotiations. I mean, I was in Beijing, and you know that. I was there for a reason, I was at the request of the Chinese government, not the American government. But I told the Chinese Government that what’s said in this room was a three-hour deal. I have to report back to the President of the United States. It’s my duty as a citizen, as a loyal citizen, and they were fine with it. But, I know things about how the Trump administration … Is operating, that I can’t report, they’re not off the record, it’s like, you know, if you report that, you put the national security in jeopardy, and I’m never going to do that.

HALL: We recently learned of Seal Team Six taking out some North Korean civilians in a secret operation while Trump was praising Kim Jong Il at the same time. Are you saying there are covert operations or diplomatic maneuvers with Russia now — like public outreach paired with clandestine measures — that the public doesn’t know about yet?

O’REILLY: The irresponsible media, which is most of it now, unfortunately, as you talk about caricatures, they made Trump a caricature. A one-dimensional guy who does things for his own ego fulfillment, doesn’t care about people or the country, I mean, look, I’m not in business to prop up the Trump administration and I don’t do that. No, I look at each occurrence… And I analyze it in the most honest way i can but it’s absurd these commentators and they don’t know any.

I’ll give you an example: I got ripped up by John Bolton about six weeks ago… Who involved in his solution to the Ukraine war and why he was making the rounds on every liberal program, smashing Trump. Give them all the weapons and let them fight it out with Russia, and they’ll defeat Russia. That’s insane. You look at Russia, look at their military personnel as compared to Ukraine, and it’s impossible. It could never happen, yet Bolton’s run around saying this, and all of these lemmings who hate Trump, they book Bolton for one reason and one reason only, because they know Bolton is gonna smash Trump. So, I can do, my audience, this guy, number one, is living in the ozone layer, he’s crazy, and number two, he will not come on my program to face up to what he’s saying, which is absolutely true.

Anyone on NewsNation are all not going to get in a gutter, whether, what gutter? We’re talking about policy, we’re talking a statement you made, that you believe Ukraine to defeat Russia on the battlefield, which literally no one else on earth— except for the real kooks who make money off this stuff, believes. And so I justify that, and then I have all the staff in the military that I have to rely on. But the overall existence, the industry of television news has deteriorated so much, Mostly because of the Trump hatred. That the people on television number one, don’t know much, and number two really don’t care about that they’re doing what they are told to do and… You know it’s staggering from where I came. From working for Peter Jennings and then working my way up uh… And and run in uh… Ash and very independent mine and show on Fox from one twenty years you know this is the area It’s shocking. But it helps me because the worse they get, the more profitable and powerful I get. But it still don’t think it’s good for the country

HALL: Let’s pivot to the current political media world. Hosting The O’Reilly Factor for what, two decades on Fox News — You were really a progenitor of the cable news host form. Do you think Fox News today is the same as it was under its original management, or has it changed?

O’REILLY: Look, everybody knows that FNC today is not what it was when it started in 1996. Why is that? Well, personnel changes is the big reason. You know, you have a different crew running the operation than you did. When Ailes started it, Ailes’s mandate to me was to report the truth. And give traditional Americans equal say. And I think that’s easy. And that’s what I did. I was never an ideologue. I wrote a seven-page outline of The O’Reilly Factor when I was in Harvard — the Kennedy School to get a master’s and I brought it to Ailes and the else when I come down to New York for an interview … So I presented a plan — here’s what I’d like to do. And Ailes said “I know who you are,” because he did, he knew what I did, turned Inside Edition around and I mean he knew my repertoire of background with Peter Jennings because he knew Jennings. And he could easily, you know, type me in as somebody who wasn’t an ideologue. And then he put Hannity and Colmes on, you now, he wanted to have that kind of dual presentation. So that worked.

But then you got to have skilled people to carry that out. I mean, you got Charles Krauthammer, you got Tony Snow, you got Brit Hume, you’ve got O’Reilly, you have a pretty good bench here. But those people are not easy to find. And then when it all went south and Fox changed their management, they went for, “Well we’re going to sign on to Trump,” because he is far and away the biggest rainmaker in television news ratings in the history of the medium. There would never have been anybody drive ratings like Donald Trump ever. And so that’s what happened.

And FNC made a ton of money to this day, driving that Trump narrative, all right? And then the others said, well, we want a piece of this action, but we can’t do it driving Trump, so we’ll hate him. That’s how we’ll make our money because there are just as many TV viewers that hate them as like them. The problem was that MSNBC and CNN split the playing field and they didn’t have the top line talent to make the presentation interesting. It’s the same song every single night. And I mean, you know, you get tired of the oldies once in a while. You want to hear something new? You’d never hear it there.

HALL:  Some Fox News hosts can feel repetitive — like a classic rock station stuck on classic hits — how many times can you hear “Hotel California” or “Stairway to Heaven?” But they still have very popular talent, judged by their dominant ratings. Do you think that cable news viewers are more to blame for seeking reinforcement of their partisan beliefs, or do networks bear responsiblity for pandering?

O’REILLY: Viewers bear responsibility — people want what they want. But my approach has always been to analyze each story factually. When I said, two weeks after the 2020 vote, there was no fraud that would overturn the result, I lost thousands of subscribers. It was the truthful analysis, and over time, it gave me credibility. The industry suffers because many outlets choose narrative over honesty. Network news and even legacy programs like 60 Minutes have diminished because they’ve joined the chorus instead of critically reporting.

And Fox has better talent, OK? And better producers. I trained a lot of those producers, and they execute better. And the MAGA people are fanatics. I mean, there is a hardcore 2 million viewers who, every night, want to hear good things about President Trump. That’s a big crew. And they don’t care whether you vary your presentation because they like the talent, they like it.

HALL: That sounds almost cultish — people only tuning in to hear good news. You could say the same about MSNBC viewers who only want bad news about Trump, or warnings about authoritarianism. People want their biases reinforced, sure. But who’s to blame — the audience or the channels?

O’REILLY: Sure, but the viewers are to blame for everything. I mean, are the viewers to blame for ultra-violent movies or pornography? Of course not. There’s just a segment of the population that wants what it wants, and it’s all over the place. But the key to my success — and it still works today — is to take every day and every story and analyze it in a fact-based way. There’s a large enough audience for that. And now with the YouTube component, which has skyrocketed for us, it’s worldwide.

HALL: There are people who want that.

O’REILLY: Right. When I said, two weeks after the 2020 vote, that there was no fraud that would rise to the level of overturning the result in federal court, I lost thousands of subscribers on BillOReilly.com. They didn’t want to hear that. But it was absolutely true. And in the long run, because the analysis was honest and turned out to be true, I gained credibility. I separated myself from the pack — those who insisted it was fraud, or wasn’t, in that cliché of a Greek chorus. That group has lost enormous respect among average American viewers — not the ideological ones, there’s a difference. But it’s easy to make money selling MAGA or hating MAGA. That’s simple. And not just cable: the network news joined the “hate crew” and destroyed themselves. 60 Minutes is a shadow of what it used to be because of that. And that pains me, because Mike Wallace was my mentor. I never missed an episode of 60 Minutes. Now I never watch it.

HALL: Let’s go back to Fox. Roger Ailes left under terrible circumstances, then passed away, and I know you were close to him. How would Fox be different under Trump if Ailes were still running it? What struck me back then was that under Ailes, Fox felt more under control — like an engine with a governor. And as a result, the arguments seemed to come from a broader sensibility and were therefore stronger and more impactful. Is that fair? How would Fox be different today if Ailes were still there?

O’REILLY: So much of it was business strategy. Ailes’ strategy was: we’re going to give conservative, traditional Americans a voice — but we’re not going to be exclusionary. So we’d bring in the smartest left-wing people we could, or the smartest right-wing people, depending on the issue. My instruction to myself was: get the best you can get. Now it’s exclusionary. You don’t hear much from the other side on any of them.

I did something with Major Garrett yesterday on CBS — the first time in 10 years they put me on the air. And that only happened because of a management change. The old management absolutely excluded anyone who didn’t toe the liberal anti-Trump line. That’s why Colbert “got it between the eyes.” He’s a fanatic, no doubt, but the real problem was he refused to book anyone who disagreed with the progressive line. Total opposite of Letterman. I was on Letterman all the time. Same with Leno, and Kimmel early on. But Kimmel has since gone to that exclusionary side.

That’s the real danger. It’s not that Colbert is a progressive zealot — who cares? The danger is shutting out all other voices, and using enormous media power to be absolutely exclusionary. That’s not what our republic was built on. And it’s exactly what’s been happening for 10 years, since Trump entered politics.

HALL: Let me ask about YouTube. You’ve said it’s blown up for you. Obviously, people are now on their phones or computers more than they watch TV. What I’ve noticed is that the most lucrative YouTube outlets pick a lane. Whether it’s Megyn Kelly, Tucker, the Meidas Bros, or The Young Turks, they’re not necessarily known, or influential, because of their nuanced takes. Does it concern you that no one clicks on moderation, and that extremism is what makes money — but also deepens division in the country?

O’REILLY: I don’t see it that way. There are just too many outlets on social media spewing whatever they want. People need to understand: it’s entertainment, number one. That’s what it is, not news. There’s no editor, no one checking anything. A bunch of people figured out they can make money, and they do. And they make money.

HALL: But is that responsible? You said it’s not news, and I agree. But are enough Americans discerning? Joe Rogan says he’s not a newsman, but plenty of people still get information from him. Isn’t that a problem?

O’REILLY: The Constitution gives you the right to be a moron. You’re never going to police how Americans consume information. And interestingly, Rogan would never have me on his program. Ever. That’s pretty weird, since he knows he’d get massive ratings. But he won’t have me on. I don’t live in that world. My younger staff does, and they explain it to me. So I said, okay, I’ll do three fact-based essays a week on YouTube. Boom — all over the world. I’ve had foreign government leaders yelling at me. People in Malaysia calling me a colonialist. It’s crazy. And lucrative.

But here’s the distinction: these solo YouTubers — their only responsibility is to themselves. They’re entrepreneurs. Networks and corporate media? They do have responsibility. If you run a car company, people expect honesty. The same applies to a giant media company. That’s the difference.

I’ve been on The View with Barbara Walters maybe 20 times. After she left, nobody gets on that show who disagrees with liberal orthodoxy. That’s wrong. That’s not how this country was founded. Meanwhile, I’ll defend guys like Tucker Carlson: he has every right to say what he wants. If he says Biden is more evil than Putin, I’ll disagree, and I’ve invited him to debate it. He doesn’t want to. That’s fine — he’s a private entrepreneur. That’s his business model. People can take it or leave it.

HALL: Two last quick ones. The 8 p.m. host at Fox now is Jesse Watters, who rose under you. People first saw him on your show. He’s done well. But I have to say: watching him now, it’s stunning how much he’s picked up your on-camera mannerisms — gestures, elocution, even tone. Is that fair? Is he basically doing a high-end version of an O’Reilly bit?

O’REILLY: It didn’t work at first! He was a booker for us, and so annoying in meetings that I said, “We’ve got to get him out on the street, I can’t take him anymore.” I called him into my office and said: you’re going to do man-on-the-street, but do it funny, do it charming, don’t be mean. Don’t cherry-pick idiots. Walk up cold, don’t prep them, just random people — like Steve Allen did. He didn’t even know who Steve Allen was. I told him: Look it up. That worked.

We trained him to be relaxed on camera, and the rest is history. Watters is very talented, with a great TV presence — especially among older women, who are a big part of cable news audiences. I applaud his success. And if he wants to borrow some of my suits, fine.

HALL: Okay, last one. Back to “evil.” You’ve been using that term a lot in your TV hits. You even said voting for Zohran Mamdani was an “act of evil.” Given your longstanding warnings about socialism, that’s not surprising. But here’s my question: do you regret using that word for a voter’s choice? Especially after the assassination of Charlie Kirk and other recent political violence? Don’t people with big platforms need to be more careful about rhetoric that could be taken the wrong way by disturbed individuals?

O’REILLY: No, because it’s true — and I back it up. My responsibility is to tell the truth, not to censor myself in case someone unstable misuses it. My analysis is indisputable: if you vote for a man who openly wants to take a billion dollars from the NYPD, release criminals, and embrace “restorative justice” instead of punishment, then you’re voting for more death and destruction. The body count will rise. You cannot have that kind of anarchy and protect 8.5 million people. It’s impossible. So if you vote for that, you are voting for increased violence. That is an evil act. I’m not saying the voter is inherently evil — I’m saying the act is evil. And I’d stand by that 100 percent.

HALL: So if something bad were to happen, and someone claimed they were motivated by your words, do you bear responsibility?

O’REILLY: No. Their mental illness is on them. My job is to cite dangerous situations, like what’s happening in New York City. Once I report the truth, I can’t control what happens afterward.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.