WATCH: Glenn's full interview with Senator Rand Paul

March 07, 2013

Writer

Sen. Rand Paul gave his first interview since ending his nearly 13 hour filibuster to Glenn Beck and TheBlaze. You can read the full transcript from the interview below:

GLENN: A man who is I believe going to be the logical choice for president of the United States because he is reasonable, polite, and a ‑‑ I believe in a teaching mode right now, teaching the American people, not throwing around firebombs, not calling anybody names but speaking about principles, and the principles are those basic human rights that we all know naturally we're born with. One that he spoke about last night, the right to live and to have a trial and to have a warrant, not just be killed, gunned down in the streets, or in this case killed by a drone because this president or any president says, "Yeah, take him out." Here in the United States he held his filibuster last night and his first interview, Rand Paul, welcome, sir.

RAND PAUL: Good morning, Glenn. I was thinking about you. About four or five hours into it I was thinking, gosh, Glenn Beck can sit and talk for four or five hours every day, but it's really not that easy to talk for that long.

GLENN: I can go to the bathroom.

RAND PAUL: And you get commercial breaks.

GLENN: I know. I was a little disappointed, quite honestly, Senator. I mean, you're a doctor. Did you ‑‑ did you think about giving yourself a catheter at any point? I know you're an eye doctor, but ‑‑

RAND PAUL: Yeah. Well, see, the thing is I did think about it. I put them in before and I really decided against it.

GLENN: (Laughing.)

RAND PAUL: But ‑‑

GLENN: Tell me what your ‑‑ tell me what your thoughts were last night on who joined you, who didn't join you, the success that you had or where you felt it fell short.

RAND PAUL: Well, you know, I was pretty amazed by the outpouring of support just up here. I mean, we probably had 15 congressmen come over to the Senate floor, and congressmen are allowed to come to the Senate floor but not allowed to speak or to come forward. I've never seen that happen before. And they came spontaneously. Nobody called them. They just showed up. And so one by one 15 people came in through the door which is ‑‑ you know, that to me is pretty amazing because we've all got, you know, busy careers and speaking engagements, and for 15 people to show up in support from the other House was amazing. And then really most of the senators came spontaneously too. We called one or two that do a lot with us to help us early on and then ‑‑ but gradually I'm not sure how many we had, but I'll bet you we had 15 finally show up to be supportive.

And the interesting thing is we may not be all be on the same page on drone strikes here, there and hither and yon, but on American soil we came together and said, you know what? We're not going to do targeted strikes of people not engaged in combat in America.

GLENN: Explain this to people because I know I have friends who I will talk to about this story this weekend and they will say to me, "The president is not going to do that." I mean, that's pretty much what Eric Holder was hoping people would buy into when he didn't ‑‑ wouldn't deny that it's unconstitutional or, you know, he was sitting there and I think he was just hoping that people would say, "Well, they're reasonable and so they will never do that."

RAND PAUL: Well, you know, I just recite back to them the Federalist Paper by Madison when he says, you know, if government were comprised of angels, we wouldn't need rules. And so I try to make it less about President Obama and more about what if someday we elect someone who wouldn't ‑‑ who would abuse this power. And I think when you make it in those generic terms, people can be concerned with it. And it's dangerous anytime you use an example of Hitler because everybody thinks you're overexaggerating. But Hitler was elected democratically. So democracies can make mistakes and that's why you want the rule of law to restrain them and not let them do that. And it's really an important principle, and it's difficult sometimes for people because I want to kill terrorists too, and I think if you're in a battlefield fighting us, you don't get due process. You don't get lawyers. You can be killed. If you attack us in a plane, all of those things can be rejected with any kind of lethal force. But I'm concerned about people who are sitting and eating in a diner and you might think they're associated with terrorism because they've sent an e‑mail to somebody. But really that needs to be adjudicated in the courts. And even many other people made the point that if you're sitting eating in a diner in America and you really are a terrorist, we probably get a lot more information out of you by capturing you and going ahead and interrogating you than we would by killing you.

GLENN: I can't think of any reason, any reason with perhaps the idea that you know, you have a live shot of somebody wiring up the Empire State building and there happens to be no police officers, no FBI, strangely the only thing you have ‑‑ because he's going for the red button and pushing it ‑‑ possibly at that time but not, not for any other reason can I think of.

RAND PAUL: Right. And if those instances there's really not any disagreement. Like Eric Holder brings up, you know, planes attacking the Twin Towers like they did on 9/11.

GLENN: Right.

RAND PAUL: Or attacking on Pearl Harbor. Those are attacks that obviously are repulsed but see, those aren't even targeted drone attacks. We might use drones but that's not what we're talking about when we're talking about targeted drone attacks to individuals. And none of us really are arguing against repulsing any attack or anybody anywhere near a bomb. I mean, if you're just carrying a bomb into a building, I think you can be, you know, you're bringing lethal force. You don't even have to have your finger on the button. You can eliminate someone who's carrying a bomb, carrying a weapon. You know, there's all kinds of things that can be done.

GLENN: Hang on a second. We found out yesterday through a Freedom of Information Act that the drones from the Department of Homeland Security can see if you are carrying a gun in day or night with their new drones.

RAND PAUL: Yeah, I'm not going after people necessarily caring a rifle around. That would be half of the South, and myself included. So ‑‑ and half of my staff. So now I am not talking about that but I am talking about if you've been investigating a group and obviously you see them going into the World Trade Center basement with a bomb, you know, lethal force can be used at many stages and always has been. Same with police. Police use lethal force all the time. If someone's robbing a liquor store, you don't get a warrant and you call out "stop" and if they don't stop, you get shot if you've got a weapon and you're a threat to people.

So but what's interesting is the president wants to answer the question we are not asking: Can you use lethal force when someone is imminently using lethal force. And the reason we worry about this is his drone strike program overseas, he says that you have to be an imminent threat but you don't have to be immediate. So if that standard's going to be used in the United States, we're concerned that that could be somebody sitting in a diner.

GLENN: The ‑‑ Van Jones came out and supported you.

RAND PAUL: Hey, we got Code Pink too.

GLENN: I know. I'm not sure I believe either of them but I'll ‑‑ you know, that's fine if ‑‑ I mean, I don't know why all of a sudden the Bill of Rights means something.

RAND PAUL: Here's the thing, Glenn: This is an issue that does get people who believe in liberty on the left and right, and there are people who do have consistent, sincere beliefs. Like Ron Wyden I think's a good man. I don't agree with him on most economic liberty issues, but on civil liberties he and I have a lot of agreement.

The other thing about this is if we're ever to grow as a party, the Republican Party to grow, we need to interest young people who are interested in civil liberties who may not be quite with us on the economic issues yet.

GLENN: No, no, no, no. Hang on just a second.

RAND PAUL: As they get holder, they come towards us.

GLENN: Yeah, I'm not talking about economic issues. When somebody is an avowed Communist, you know, then I don't understand your civil liberties thing. However, we can disagree on a lot of things and that's why I've been saying I really, truly believe ‑‑ and this is why I think you are the guy that could make the impact that will take us away from these two parties, you are the guy who could hold up the Bill of Rights and say, "Look, we can disagree on economic issues. We can disagree on a lot of stuff. But these, these ten ideas we should have no disagreement on. These ten ideas are what keeps the individual to be able to disagree with each other. And that's important.

RAND PAUL: Well, and that's sort of the point we were trying to make yesterday is that, you know, Eric Holder has said that the Fifth Amendment they are trying to apply in the Oval Office when they talk about drone strikes. That's debatable overseas because I think a lot of areas overseas in war you don't necessarily get the Fifth Amendment anyway. But the problem is they now say that these drone strikes are not ruling them out in America, but the Fifth Amendment being discussed privately as part of some kind of PowerPoint presentation in the Oval Office isn't really what most people conceive of when they think of due process and a jury and an accusation. So really what's applicable overseas in a drone program and some of us might debate and we might actually accept a lot of what goes on overseas, we can't accept that at home because it's different when we're talking about people who we think might be associated with terrorism. There really needs to be an accusation. There needs to be an adjudication of whether you really are or aren't. You need to be able to stand up and say, "No, no, I didn't really mean what I sent in that e‑mail" and there needs to be some discussion.

GLENN: There needs to be a trial.

RAND PAUL: Exactly.

GLENN: There's no reason why the FBI cannot go and arrest that person and have a trial. No man, no man should ever be in the position of judge, jury and executioner, ever.

RAND PAUL: Well, and see, this went on with the indefinite detention, too. See, about a year ago they passed legislation that allows them to detain citizens without a trial, and you can actually, an American can be sent to Guantanamo Bay from here without a trial. And the president at that time said, "Well, I have no intention of doing that," but he signed the legislation. Which is sort of what he's saying now: Trust me, I'm a good man, you can trust me, I will not kill Americans who are sitting in a restaurant. And, you know, I want to take him at his word, but intent isn't really what I'm looking for. And so I mentioned several times yesterday the oath of office says "I will protect, preserve and defend the Constitution." It doesn't say "I intend to when it's convenient."

STU: Senator, there has been some criticism over your filibuster last night including apparently from Lindsey Graham saying the idea that we're going to ‑‑

GLENN: Wear it as a badge of honor.

STU: The idea that we're going to use a drone to kill a citizen in a cafe in America is ridiculous.

RAND PAUL: Well, I agree it's a ridiculous idea but then why wouldn't the president say he won't.

PAT: That's exactly right.

GLENN: That's really it.

PAT: That's exactly why you do it.

STU: Here's another from the Wall Street Journal editorial: Calm down, Senator, meaning you.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: Mr. Holder is right. This is supposedly a conservative paper. Even if he doesn't explain the law very well, the U.S. Government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else. What it can do under the laws of war is target an enemy combatant anywhere at any time including on U.S. soil.

RAND PAUL: Yeah, here's the problem, this idea of laws of war. And I agree with some of this aspect of laws of war. If you're in Afghanistan or if you're in a battle zone, you get no due process. You don't get a lawyer, you don't get Miranda rights. You get killed. If you are shooting American soldiers, we can use drones, bombs, we have no limit to what kind of force we will use against you.

The difference is, is that if you bring ‑‑ if you say America's part of the battlefield and you want the laws of war to apply over here, just describing someone as an enemy combatant ‑‑ see, a year or two ago, they described people who are pro life, people who are for strong immigration and strong secure borders, people who believe in third parties. I think Glenn Beck was on the list, Ron Paul was on the list. They described these people as potential terrorists and they sent out a statement to all the police in Missouri.

GLENN: Yeah.

RAND PAUL: So we have to be concerned about just saying someone's a dangerous person or enemy combatant, you have to prove that. You can't just accuse someone and then they get killed.

GLENN: Yeah. The Southern Poverty Law Center just came out with a new study. Shows that these, quote, patriot groups are a danger and pose a terrorist threat, an increasing terrorist threat. That's their language. So you've got to be really careful.

One last question, Senator, and we'll let you go: Are you going to vote for Brennan?

RAND PAUL: We're hoping to get an announcement from the White House this morning, and I don't intend to. We're trying to get a statement this morning that confirms that they are not going to target com ‑‑ not going to target Americans who are not engaged in combat in America for targeted killing. And my argument really still is mainly with that ‑‑ with the idea, not the person. I'm concerned, though, that Brennan really, it's been like pulling teeth to get him to say he'll support the Constitution and so my inclination is still to vote, you know, not letting end debate if I don't get the information. If I get the information, you know, you and I have had this discussion before. My opinion a lot of times has been to give deference even to people I disagree with, but I won't vote for him on any of the votes if I don't get information from the White House saying they are going to adhere to the Constitution. I hate doing that. ‑‑

GLENN: Senator ‑‑

RAND PAUL: I know I lost a little bit there, but ‑‑

GLENN: You're not ‑‑ at least you're clear, you're not waffling, you're not saying the popular thing, and I appreciate that. We just disagree on this. I think the man is a real danger to the United States, and putting him into that position is really quite dangerous. But I respect you.

RAND PAUL: I think you're right and, you know, the question always is, is what rises to that level. I think the constitutional question and the idea of killing citizens obviously rises to that level. The question is I'm still leaving somewhat of an opening in the sense that I want to get an honest answer from the White House. We're using the leverage of holding up the vote, and I can make them stay here through Saturday, and they hate to work on weekends. So we'll see what happens and hopefully they'll agree to give us a statement saying they're going to support the Constitution.

GLENN: Senator, thank you very much. And very proud of the stand you made yesterday. Very proud the way you handled it, and I'm just, I'm glad you're in Washington, sir. Thank you.

RAND PAUL: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: God bless.

More in a second. Our sponsor this half hour is Carbonite. I'm not sure how he ‑‑ we have to discuss next hour, I'm not sure what he just said.

STU: This is a positive day for Rand Paul though.

GLENN: It is, very.

STU: I don't agree with that stance. I agree with Mike Lee's stance, but still.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep