>> He's the populist bomb thrower who once had a top job in Donald Trump's White House, this week on "Firing Line."

>> It's time to take on the elites in this country, take the torch to them.

>> They were so close that President Trump created a new role for Steve Bannon, White House chief strategist.

>> Every day in the Oval Office, he tells Reince and I, "I'm going to deliver on this."

>> Bannon helped shape the administration's hard-line immigration policies.

>> [ Chanting ] Let them out!

Let them out!

>> But the relationship soured, and Bannon left the Trump White House after eight months.

>> "Sloppy Steve" is now looking for a job.

>> He's still on the outside, but back defending the president.

>> Donald Trump is not only, I think, a great leader as a president, he's an amazing campaigner.

>> With the first votes cast in the 2020 election, what does Steve Bannon say now?

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible by... Additional funding is provided by... Corporate funding is provided by... >> Steve Bannon, welcome to "Firing Line."

>> Thanks for having me.

>> You were the former chief strategist in the Trump White House.

You had been the executive chairman of Breitbart News.

You have served in the Navy, worked on Wall Street, worked in Hollywood, and now you host a podcast called "War Room," where you comment on news of the day.

And this week is the presidential contest of 2020, and I'd like to start there.

>> Okay.

>> As you look at the Democratic field, is there anybody, in your view, who can beat Donald Trump?

>> I think we're entering a very difficult and dangerous time in American history.

I think you're seeing the rise of the oligarchs.

I think Michael Bloomberg -- It's Bloomberg versus Trump.

Now, it will either be Bloomberg as the nominee or Bloomberg doing the leveraged buyout of the Democratic Party using an instrument.

That instrument may be Bernie Sanders.

It may be Mayor Pete.

It may be a Klobuchar.

It may be Hillary Clinton.

>> Why are you discounting Bernie Sanders?

He just -- >> No, no, no.

Bernie Sanders may be -- Here's my point.

Michael Bloomberg's billions, his organization, his capital, his data systems -- okay?

-- are the thing that's going to oppose Trump.

But I think whether it's Bernie -- He's already said last week, if Bernie Sanders wins the nomination, he will back him with $2 billion of capital.

It could be Mayor Pete.

It could be Klobuchar.

I think it will be Hillary Clinton, at the end of the day, will be the candidate.

But Bloomberg -- >> You think Hillary Clinton's going to get in the race late and run against Donald Trump again.

>> Well, Bloomberg's about -- On March 3rd, you're about to have something that's never happened -- >> Is that what you think, though?

>> Yeah.

Well, I think it's either gonna be Bloomberg or Hillary Clinton coming to save the Democratic Party.

>> So, go back to my original question.

Is there anyone in the Democratic field that can beat Donald Trump?

>> With Michael Bloomberg's billions of capital -- Remember, this is a difference in scale we've never seen before.

We have only eight months to go.

So he's he's doing something, a scale -- They're going to commit, I think, $200 million on Super Tuesday.

>> I just want to push back on just this premise, because you were part of Trump's campaign.

Trump's campaign was dwarfed in spending by Hillary Clinton.

>> Yeah.

>> So there is no recent evidence of money winning the day in politics.

Why are you so convinced -- >> This is different.

It's not money.

Margaret, here's the reason.

Bloomberg's going to apply that capital with eight months to go -- okay?

-- in a way that's never seen before, principally by ground game and data and turning out the vote.

That's why 2020 is gonna be the nastiest election in American history, and I include 1860 in that.

It's gonna be a nasty, brutal, bloc by bloc -- >> So it sounds like you think that President Trump is vulnerable.

>> President Trump is going to win, but President Trump -- Every day is going to be a struggle just for the simple reason that no one's ever -- No one's ever had an oligarch that opposed the sitting president.

This is gonna be a Populist versus an oligarch.

>> Can I just challenge the oligarch metaphor for a sec?

I mean, we look around the world, and there are a lot of people who have made their money because they've been in bed with the cronyism of a government that has enriched them.

Michael Bloomberg is a capitalist that has made his money not because the United States of America or any leader of a government has decided that he deserves to have billions of dollars.

>> That's true.

>> He earned it himself.

Is it fair to call him an oligarch?

>> Yes, absolutely, because, look, we've had wealthy people throughout history.

He's buying the Democratic Party.

The American -- >> Is Trump an oligarch?

>> No.

Trump's a real-estate developer and TV personality.

He's a wealthy guy.

He's worth what?

$7 billion or $8 billion.

That's not an oligarch.

>> Did Michael Bloomberg come by his billions, honestly, in your view?

>> Absolutely.

All his money came about honestly.

Michael Bloomberg is not a corrupt guy.

>> And do you think that the Democratic Party is really for sale?

>> It's 100% for sale.

>> So you and I both know this is gonna be a turnout election.

>> Yes.

>> Those progressive activists on the Left, who support Bernie Sanders, who despise some of the policies of the Bloomberg administration aren't going to come out.

They're not going to turn out if Bloomberg is the candidate or Bloomberg's behind the candidate.

>> Margaret Hoover, you have nailed what I think is going to get to be the single most important issue in the fall of this year.

I happen to think -- And it played in '16.

Those Bernie supporters who were turned off by Hillary Clinton -- Michael Moore always makes this comparison in Michigan.

I think there was 90,000 ballots, down-ballot, voted Democrat, that left it blank.

And they were both African-Americans that just had a bellyful of the Clintons.

They couldn't vote for Trump, but they wouldn't vote for her and also Bernie people.

I think one of the key elements of this, if Bernie doesn't get the nomination -- and I think, right now, he will not get the nomination -- is that if they bring a centrist in with Bloomberg or Bloomberg himself, I think 10% to 15% of the Bernie Populists, those real Populists will say -- who are not really that progressive, maybe, on social policies, but are progressive -- or are really nationalist and really Populist -- will either stay home or support President Trump.

And I think that could be the key to victory in November.

>> Do you think it's interesting or do you think it's newsworthy that the first openly gay candidate for president is leading the field out of the first two states, Iowa, New Hampshire?

>> I just don't think that matters anymore.

I think people -- I think we're in a time that people, even with Trump, some of the stuff Trump did -- If we go back 20, 30, or 40 years ago, you know, people have been shocked maybe by some of his behavior.

I think people today -- >> So you're saying you think a gay man could be elected president.

>> Oh, there's no doubt.

Yeah, absolutely.

I think Mayor Pete -- the whole question about Mayor Pete -- And, look, I admire him.

I'm a naval officer.

He's a naval officer.

He volunteered to go into a combat zone.

I think the big hit on him is about his experience.

And I think he's a little vacuous, but it's not about about his sexual preference.

>> Trump had an experience deficit, as well, when it came to politics.

And most of the commentary coming out of Iowa and New Hampshire discounted Trump, even though he did very well in both of those states, won New Hampshire.

Is the commentary underestimating Mayor Pete?

>> I don't think they're underestimating Mayor Pete.

Here's the thing, the shocking thing, and why they haven't done their job.

Their hatred of Trump has so obsessed them.

And I think they've disrespected Bernie's voters.

That's why I keep telling Bernie voters, Deplorables don't disrespect you.

We admire you, okay?

And if you get disrespected by the Democratic Party, you have a home in the Trump movement.

We may not agree on everything, but we're Populists.

But we're right-wing Populists.

You're left-wing Populists.

We understand there's a difference in the way we come about solutions, but we're kindred spirits.

And so you may not love everything about Trump, but I got to tell you one thing.

President Trump will not disrespect you.

I'm stunned in the Democratic Party, the disrespect.

And, Margaret, this is so important.

If they do come out in 2020 with 10% or 15% of the Bernie people in working-class African-Americans and blacks -- or African-American and Hispanics, Trump will have done revolution like FDR.

This will be like 1932.

He's turned the Republican Party into a worker-based party.

And you know how country club the Republican Party got, how controlled by Wall Street.

Trump has turned that over in three years, which is a stunning -- And now we're actually speaking to working-class people about what their aspirations are and how Trump's policies are helping them.

>> So, that's the goal.

I mean, for you, for the economic nationalist that supports Trump, the goal is for the Republican Party to be the party of the working American.

>> The backbone of the United States of America has always been working-class and middle-class people.

What we have to do is have a party that understands their needs, then particularly understands the ability of wages.

I come from an Irish Catholic family.

My mom was a housewife.

We had five kids.

My dad was basically a foreman at the phone company, eventually got a lower white-collar job for 50 years.

He supported five kids going to Catholic school with a housewife who was -- >> Because you could do that in the '60s and the '70s.

>> But you can -- No, you can do it today.

You can do it today.

>> You can't now.

And that's why, look, President Trump touted, in his State of the Union, the increase in factories, but the truth is -- while there are more factories, there are less factory jobs because of automation, because of the modern economy.

>> No.

Margaret, you look at all these like it's the second law of thermodynamics, okay?

It's not.

It's human action that made this.

Human action can bring those jobs back.

Tariffs, protectionism.

The American system that built this country in the 19th century by people like Hamilton and Lincoln -- okay?

-- that were nationalist, that had protectionism -- And I'm a protectionist.

I believe you have to have a strong manufacturing base and working-class people and middle-class people of every gender and race and sexual preference.

If we deliver for working-class people and middle-class people, we'll have a thriving, robust economy.

And I've got to tell you, there's going to come a point in time that the family unit that I was so blessed to come up with, with a mother that could stay at home with her five kids and a father who could work a blue-collar job as a foreman and pay for Catholic school -- that day's ahead of us.

That's all policy.

>> You're saying women want to go back to staying at home and raising kids, and men go back to the factories and working?

>> If she so chooses.

We ought to have that opportunity.

One of the problems we have with family formation is that these economic policies has really let the world unfairly compete.

Remember, here's the thing with Millennials.

They're like 19th century Russian serfs.

They're better-shaped, they have more information, they're better-dressed, but they don't own anything.

5,000 years of the Judeo-Christian West was built around the family, built around you save your money.

You're good householder.

We've shattered that.

Millennials don't have a chance.

They're 20% behind their parents in the same point in life and in an income -- >> But that's about the economy.

That's not about the family unit.

And what you're arguing for is an economy that is nostalgic and backward-looking.

Why wouldn't -- >> It is not -- No.

>> But why wouldn't the economic nationalist -- No, no.

Steve, just help me here.

Hear me out.

>> It's not nostalgic.

>> Excuse me.

Let me just say this really quick.

Why wouldn't the economic nationalist in you want to modernize the economy in order to deliver for working people, but not with a backward-looking vision of manufacturing as the base, but in a new kind of economy?

>> It is the economy, but here's the thing.

It's a fourth -- We're upon a fourth industrial revolution, okay?

>> Sounds a lot like Andrew Yang.

>> No, no.

But that fourth -- Yang -- By the way, he speaks to Trump voters big-time, okay?

And so does Tulsi Gabbard.

The fourth industrial revolution should be centered here, okay?

Right now, it's gonna be centered overseas.

It's gonna be centered in China.

It should be centered here.

You say I'm nostalgic.

I want to go back to the '50s like it's some medieval period.

It's a golden age, okay?

>> For white Americans.

And now.

But this is my point.

>> No, I'm not talking about the cultural aspects.

I'm talking about the economic aspects.

Right now, if we can deliver that for -- If we can deliver that to African-American and Hispanic workers in particular -- This is why I'm restrictionist -- I'm a restrictionist on immigration.

And the reason is for those STEM programs in public schools to pay off, we have to make sure that there are jobs available for Hispanics and African-American kids.

We need to do that by restricting immigration, particularly on the tech side.

I'm for American citizens, whatever their religious preference, their race, their gender, their sexual preference.

They get first dibs.

That's what economic nationalism about and that's what we've lost in this conversation.

So, you can go back to the golden age of the 50s, economically.

Obviously, culturally, you want to be much more advanced as we are today, but it's to get back to the fact that families -- that families can be so it can be self-sustaining units that can -- If you want to work, you can work.

>> Self-sustaining economic units.

I get it.

In the 2018 documentary film "American Dharma," you said this.

Do you still believe that?

>> Absolutely.

I think unless we have -- >> So, have Trump's policies helped to abate that revolution?

>> It's started, because you start seeing wages rising.

We're finally starting to see things move in the right direction.

It's far from perfect.

>> Who carries on the populist agenda after President Trump?

>> Oh, I think now you're starting to see a whole type of populism evolve, hopefully in the Republican Party.

I think the whole direction is there.

Look at Ivanka.

Ivanka's taken her time to focus on women's empowerment.

So I think you're seeing it throughout the administration.

I think young politicians are starting to -- Nikki Haley.

Everybody is now focused on working-class people and the concerns of the middle class and working class.

And this is why I think it's been good.

I think our democracy is more -- >> I smiled 'cause it's hard to think of Ivanka Trump as a Populist.

>> If you look at her actions -- Okay, and Ivanka and I have had a lot of fights, okay?

But if you look at her actions, she's talking about women's empowerment.

And so I think if you look at her and you look at all the elements of the administration and young politicians coming up, every young politician understands today, they just can't give the happy talk to Wall Street.

They can't just be a country-club Republican.

If you want to move forward, particularly on the national level, you have to understand the working-class people.

And this is the path -- Right now -- This contest right now is between the Right and the Left.

You get the Bernie and the Warren faction on the Populist Left, and you have the Trump revolution on the Populist Right.

And that's what's really driving American politics right now.

I think that's a healthy thing.

>> This program was originally hosted by William F. Buckley Jr. From 1966 to 1999, it aired.

Ronald Reagan was a guest on this program and he talked about how he interacted with the media.

Let's take a look.

>> Have we reached the point where there is a sufficient popular frustration with the incapacity of the states to maneuver as a result of all the obstacles thrown in their way by the federal government?

>> I campaigned on a belief in the people.

I called it a creative society.

I campaigned on the belief that the people are the best custodian of their own affairs.

And I think we're proving it here in California.

And I think some of the people who oppose this theory, who still want government by mystery, they don't want government by the people.

They want to keep alive the illusion that government is so complicated that the people don't understand it and, therefore, just accept what government does.

And, as I say, I oppose this.

And the only recourse I've had in the few months I've been in office is -- every once in a while, when the issues grow hot, is to go to the people.

And I go by way of television, reports to the people.

>> Is President Trump's ability to do what Reagan did, go straight to the people -- Does he use Twitter the way Reagan used television?

>> I think he's -- I think that President Trump has used Twitter to disintermediate basically the mainstream-media apparatus and kind of go over their head.

I think President Reagan perfected the use of television and kind of that connection to people.

I'm not so sure he disintermediated.

There's a big difference.

Trump, I think, looked at a radical solution, Twitter, because President Trump is not a computer guy.

I don't think -- For instance, I don't think he's ever gone online and seen Breitbart or Drudge, right?

He's not a guy that goes online, but he knows how to tweet and he knows, particularly, how a throw those bombs out there that -- like the -- >> Does he read Twitter?

Does he read his Twitter feed?

>> I think people come and show him the Twitter feed.

Yeah, I think people come and show him the Twitter feed.

I'm not so sure he's on his phone -- I've never seen him read the Twitter feed.

But I think it's a way to -- The apparatus is so huge today to have to overcome, he really went over their heads, and I think it's been a very -- He wouldn't -- I think it would be very tough for him to have run for president and to be president if it was not for Twitter.

>> He's thrown a few Twitter bombs at you.

>> Sure.

But, remember, I come from an Irish Catholic family, like I said.

I've been called worse around my dinner table.

>> What I'm interested, though, is in how his tone has shifted recently.

First, you know, he said, "Sloppy Steve, who leaked more than the Titanic," and that you had very little to do with his historic victory.

But then, since you have really come back from Europe and taken to the airwaves, you've really been defending him.

He's tweeted.

So, what does this tell ordinary viewers about the president and what it takes to be on his good side?

>> Well, listen, I think what the president appreciates of anybody -- people that are working to promote his agenda, okay?

And I've done that from day one.

>> Or flattering him personally.

>> No, I don't think he -- Look, if you get to know him, I think that's very overblown.

I think he's a very pragmatic guy.

Remember, he is a very sophisticated deal guy.

So he understands people kind of come and schmooze versus people who can really deliver.

One of the things I appreciate about the Left in the '18 election -- they realized something the Republican establishment didn't realize, that he's transformative and he's historic, and it's like a Kafkaesque novel for them.

They know he's going to be between deconstruction in the administrative state and the judges, that he's going to be in their personal lives 10, 20, and 30 years from now, and they have to get rid of him.

>> Yeah.

>> And so I think that -- And he's become a transformative figure.

You see now that I think he really -- And what's happened over the last couple weeks, he not only understands the power of the office of the presidency, I think he's now very comfortable in his judgment.

I think what you're seeing is President Trump coming into his own, and that's why I think 2020 is gonna be a total throwdown, because the Left is only going to get more triggered.

President Trump is coming to that part of his presidency that he has confidence in his voice and he has confidence in his decision-making.

And I think you're about to see really the next phase of the Trump presidency starting in the next couple weeks.

>> I want to switch gears and talk about China.

Is their goal, in your view, global hegemony?

>> 100%.

There's no doubt.

The Chinese plan is absolutely global hegemony.

They're trying to consolidate the Eurasian landmass now with North Korea with with Persia, with Turkey, and now with a new ally, Russia.

>> Okay, so, you have this new podcast, "War Room: Pandemic," where you have spent hours talking about the coronavirus.

>> This is something we've never seen before in human history.

What's happening in Wuhan -- And remember the Chinese people are the most decent -- >> How did you know -- I mean, now it has surpassed the deaths that SARS had.

>> I know China.

>> No, 'cause SARS, of course, was a virus that came out of China, as well, from Wuhan, as well.

>> I knew something was happening in early January.

I know, from my relationships and contacts, that something -- Wuhan is like the Pittsburgh of China.

>> But do you feel like talking about it here in the U.S. helps build sympathy towards your world view and your point of view about China?

>> I think what it does -- it highlights the fact that the Chinese people are victims of this totalitarian dictatorship that only cares about itself.

What they allowed to happen and jeopardize the world, what they allowed to happen for the 90 days that they knew this was going on and suppressed it, not caring about the people in Wuhan, we're going to have horrific casualties.

The vaccine is not coming for years, okay?

What the Chinese people are -- What the Chinese government is doing is trying to -- with social separation, trying to stop it in Wuhan.

Here's the problem.

They covered it up for at least 60 to 90 days, and many brave doctors -- The heroes coming out of this, the doctors and nurses that try to warn people, and then, knowing there was a death sentence, went back to those hospitals to care for the sick and died in the process is heart-rendering.

The CDC and WHO immediately must send the top virus hunters into Wuhan, and we have to find out what the situation is.

Doctors and nurses that volunteer, that want to go over to the CCP, regardless of what it means to their political legitimacy, have to accept this, because the public-health systems in Central China right now is starting to collapse.

They just announced yesterday 500 doctors and nurses are now infected with the virus.

>> Yeah, I read that.

So, President Trump says Xi Jinping has this under control.

He tweeted... Do you agree?

>> This is what -- President Trump's a statesman, and this is what leadership is.

>> So, in other words, you don't agree with this, but Trump is doing this for diplomatic reasons.

>> I think what President Trump is doing -- he's taken some strong and bold actions here.

He's helped lead the world about taking strong and bold actions, about making sure the United States and Western Europe is -- >> So, what's he doing when he's saying Xi's got it right?

>> Well, I think with President Xi, he's trying to support, I think, the CCP as they go about the quarantine process.

If they don't get this quarantine down right, the social separation, this thing -- Dr. Gabriel Leung, the virus hunter from Hong Kong, said if this is not handled properly, in Hubei Province, 60% to 80% of the world's population is gonna get this.

>> So explain to me what Trump's tweet means then if -- >> Well, I think he's supporting the CCP in their efforts to get this under control.

>> But you disagree that Xi has this under control.

>> This is one of the reasons that it's better that I'm not in The White House.

On the outside, I pride myself in being one of the leaders of the virulent side of the anti-CCP regime-change movement, that President Xi is not a good guy.

>> President Trump, though -- >> So he doesn't have it under control.

>> No, he has to look at a broader context.

I think what he's trying to do is trying to assist President Xi in getting this under control.

I would like to hope -- I keep telling people this is their biological Chernobyl.

I happen to believe that not only they lied to us consistently about this, I believe, like in Chernobyl, they don't even have their own grip on the entire problem.

>> Alright, last question.

Should Roger Stone be pardoned?

>> First up, the Roger Stone thing -- Look, Roger's a [bleep] artist.

To prosecute him over that was ridiculous.

>> You were called in to be part of the prosecution's testimony.

They subpoenaed you.

>> They had the e-mails.

Well, if you read the e-mails and text messages, they're very innocuous.

To prosecute a guy and put all those resources on to prosecute a guy like that -- The punishment for General Flynn and these people and Manafort and particularly for Roger Stone, to me, is absurd.

>> Should Roger be pardoned?

>> That depends on what the president does.

>> Do you think he should pardon him?

>> But the one thing that he did -- They said, "Look, he lied to us on 20 different counts."

I happen to think that Roger Stone should not spend any time in prison.

Hopefully, the judge will be very evenhanded.

And I think the president -- >> So you don't think he should be pardoned.

>> Well, no, I think the president is going -- The president, I think, takes these pardons very seriously.

I think he'll look at Manafort.

If something unfortunate happens, at General Flynn.

I think Roger Stone -- I think the president will take a look at these overall and weigh and measure them.

He's not somebody that just kind of snaps and does something.

And people say, "Oh, he's trying to protect his friends."

I think he's really held back and been very presidential on this.

I mean, they've been after him for three years.

And my whole point is that's why I think Lindsey Graham needs to hold hearings.

We need to get the whistleblower.

We need the number-two whistleblower.

We need Adam Schiff.

It's not for Trump, and Trump says -- >> But what are you gonna learn from the whistleblower?

>> I think you're gonna learn from the whistleblower, number one, was he in a National Security Council meeting in early 2016 -- okay?

-- with members of Joe Biden's staff and members of Ukraine in the National Security Council?

This is part of the stuff that Rudy has.

You get all this out there.

This is to protect -- If AOC is the president in 10 years, this is to protect her, okay?

It's to protect every president that comes down the road.

>> You seem to talk a lot about AOC.

>> Well, she's a dynamic personality.

Look, she went from a bartender and, in one year, closing the night shift at a bar to becoming the third-most-powerful political person in the most powerful nation in the history of mankind.

>> You think she's the third-most-powerful politician in the United States?

>> At one time, she was.

It was it was Trump, Pelosi, and AOC, absolutely.

AOC's wing of the party has really forced Pelosi's hand to impeach Trump.

So, yes, I call that power.

AOC, by the way, is the power in back of Bernie.

Bernie's surge happened when Bernie came back for jury duty.

Remember, in Iowa, it was AOC's the rock star.

She's going around.

She's the energy in back of that moment.

Bernie is her third term.

It just happens to be the first one.

Here's my point.

What I'd like and I want the Republican Party -- We get too many lawyers and not enough bartenders.

What I want is people that have closed up the shift, have worked for $8.50 an hour, and have worked for tips.

I don't like AOC's policies.

I think they're way off base, okay?

What I like is her fire.

Here's the one thing I like.

I like the fact she goes home at night, and when she cooks, she's doing Facebook Live and giving civics lessons, and she's got millions of followers, because we don't teach civics in school.

They're getting it from AOC.

She's a fighter.

>> You think she's teaching civics correctly?

>> I think she's teaching civics with her -- She's teaching civics with her angle of attack, just like I would teach civics with my angle of attack.

So I don't begrudge her her opinions on that.

Here's what I like.

I like fighters.

I want the Republican Party -- I want this populist movement to start to have our own AOCs, people who came from nowhere, who have had to head to live on $16,000, $24,000 a year, who know at night, when you can't sleep because your parents have got some illness or some like that.

Those are the type of people we have to start getting into Congress.

And if we start doing that, we're gonna become a real worker's party, and I think it's gonna be a great benefit for the country.

>> Steve Bannon, thanks for coming to "Firing Line."

>> Thanks for having me on this historic show.

Thanks.

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible by... Additional funding is provided by... Corporate funding is provided by... ♪♪ >> You're watching PBS.