DOJ stands against legally immigrating German family seeking political asylum

"Do you have a right to teach your children and raise your children up in the faith of your four fathers? Do you have the right to teach your children the Bible?  Do you have the right to teach your children about God and Jesus, or does Penn Jillette which the right to say there is no Jesus, there is no God?  Does he have the right and do you have the right to raise your children in your personal faith?" Glenn asked this morning at the start of his radio show.

All questions that, at least in America, seem like they would have a simple answer — yes.

"This gets really tough when you're talking about faith like Westboro Baptist Church.  But the Constitution really only matters when it is tough," Glenn continued.  "But this is not a case that is tough.  This is a story that sounds to me an awful lot like the earliest American story.  Our founders, our Founding Fathers and sisters and brothers, they came here for religious freedom.  They came here because the old world said you have to be a member of this faith.  You have to do it this way.  Remember, the old world is where they were burning people at the stake if they thought that you could read the Bible and should be allowed to read the Bible in your own home.  That's not your right to read the Bible.  That's not your right to print the Bible in your own language.  You go to the church which was a combination of the church and the state and you'll get all of the information you need from the church and the State.  The pilgrims who were mocked by calling them puritans, "Oh, you're one of those puritans."  The pilgrims lost their lives, took any fortune that they might have had, they worked and worked, they were swindled, they were mocked, they were jailed and yet they held their family together and they prayed to God, "Find one place that we will go which a we can be a refuge.  Find one place that we can actually stand and just worship God."  It is the American story."

The story Glenn is referring to isn't one like the Westboro Baptist Church, where some could make the case you shouldn't raise your kids that way. It's one that involves a Christian family from Germany who immigrated to the United States seeking political asylum, and may soon be deported. This story is about homeschooling.

In Germany you don't have the right to educate your children at home. You don't have a right to educate your children in the way you see fit based on your faith.

"It is the oldest battle, and it is a battle unfortunately that is now raging all around the world," Glenn told his listeners.

The Romeike family are evangelical Christians from Germany who were homeschooling their children because of their religious beliefs. The State told them they couldn't and even threatened that their children would be taken away from them. This is why they came to America.

"They currently live in rural Tennessee.  They did it the right way.  They have their visas.  They came here and asked for political asylum because if they return to Germany, the German state will take their children unless they dump them into the system where they are teaching them things about God that this family disagrees with," Glenn explained.

This family came to America the right way and for the right reasons, yet somehow the current Justice Department is not standing behind them The DOJ is arguing that the German law banning homeschooling does not violate the family's human rights. The Obama administration isn't exactly a "fan" of homeschooling, and Glenn believes that this could lead to things like restricting homeschooling happening in America.

"In other words, your children are not yours; you are not in charge of rearing your children.  You are not in charge of raising and teaching your children; the State is.  There's nothing that is more un‑American than this.  This is truly who we are at the core," Glenn said. 

The Constitution protects these rights for Americans — Germany doesn't believe in our system. But, if you're German and you come to America through the front door asking for political asylum because what the Constitution deems to be fundamental rights, America is supposed to defend them. Not with soldiers, but by letting these individuals in our borders.

"We let those people come here and make us stronger because too many of us have forgotten it," Glenn said.

 

"Homeschooling families in America should be paying attention to this case, but every American should be paying attention to this case because this is the end of America as we know it if our justice department stands and wins.  Our justice department is fighting to have the family sent back."

After discussing the controversy, Glenn spoke with Michael Farris, Chairman of the HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Association). The HSLDA is funding the legal defense against the Justice Department in this case and will soon being giving the oral argument for the family in front of the Sixth Circuit court.

Farris explained just how out-of-step the Justice Departments action on this case are with in comparison to similar cases.

" It's baffling frankly, and no one can figure out why they are so motivated to take this family on, especially because the initial immigration judge ruled in their favor," Michael explained. "That's the toughest hurdle in any immigration case is to win that initial battle. That's kind of the factual battle. Then after that it's, what does the law mean.  And they won the factual battle.  It's very clear.  You know, they're a good, upright family and they were, in fact, homeschooling for religious reasons and the judge said they are being denied religious freedom by the German ban of homeschooling.  Interestingly enough, of course, the German law in question was enacted during the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler and the German government hasn't adjusted it."

Michael also explained that if the family is sent back over to Germany they face real trouble. The German government goes after homeschooling families they find in their country.

"There are probably 500 people that are brave enough to even attempt this in Germany," he told Glenn.

"They find you, they jail you, but, you know, ultimately at the end of the day, they remove your children from your custody," he added. " That's the progression. And this family has been fined substantially. Police have shown up at their house and taken their children to the public schools and they were well down the road…the threats were coming that they would remove custody of your family if you don't relent."

Basically Germany's stance is that this if one of the good things Hitler did — although they ignore the fact it derived from when he was in power.

Glenn went on to explain that while some are "baffled" by the Obama administration's reaction to the case, this is a road we've been headed down for awhile.

"As we get into Common Core and we see just the data collection on our children that they are planning, there is no way that homeschooling is going to be allowed, there's no way that this country is going to allow you to deviate and actually raise your children the way you want to raise your children.  I mean, it makes sense to me:  Isn't the justice department by arguing that the German law banning homeschooling does not violate the family's human rights, doesn't that fundamentally transform the United States of America if they win that battle here?  Will they not then have a card and a way to strengthen that argument in later battles against the American people?" Glenn asked.

"Absolutely correct," Michael responded. "Human rights is really equivalent to constitutional rights in this particular context.  We will not survive as a nation if the government wins, and it's even more insidious than might be apparent because their contention is not only are parental rights not valid, not only is religious freedom not valid on an individual basis but they really take the position that no individual liberty is the subject of human rights protection.  The only thing that qualifies you for asylum, our government is arguing, is if your group is discriminated against.  They don't care about individual liberty at all.  They write it off in the way they argue this particular case and they say "This family has no liberty because they don't belong to a church that forces them to homeschool.  Other Christians don't homeschool in Germany.  Other Christians don't homeschool in the United States."  And so it's unless some kind of a group, this government doesn't get it.  But our law and human rights law is based on two principles:  Individual liberty and equal protection.  Well, they have just thrown individual liberty out of the equation entirely, both for human rights law and arguably for American law as well.  I mean, they are setting a precedent that's incredibly dangerous.  They don't really believe in individual liberty and they are doing everything they can to stomp it out."

Glenn's charity, Mercury One, has set up a fund to help support the HSLDA in their defense of the Romeike family. Mercury One will be making a $50,000 donation to their firm. 100% of the proceeds donated to this fund will go directly to the HSLDA. If you would like to donate, you can do so HERE.

POLL: Is Musk’s Mars dream a win or a curse for South Texas?

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?

Trump's mineral deal with Ukraine: What you need to know

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.

Mark Carney's bombshell victory: Is Canada doomed under his globalist agenda?

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.

As President Trump approaches his 100th day in office, Glenn Beck joined him to evaluate his administration’s progress with a gripping new interview. April 30th is President Trump's 100th day in office, and what an eventful few months it has been. To commemorate this milestone, Glenn Beck was invited to the White House for an exclusive interview with the President.

Their conversation covered critical topics, including the border crisis, DOGE updates, the revival of the U.S. energy sector, AI advancements, and more. Trump remains energized, acutely aware of the nation’s challenges, and determined to address them.

Here are the top five takeaways from Glenn Beck’s one-on-one with President Trump:

Border Security and Cartels

DAVID SWANSON / Contributor | Getty Images

Early in the interview, Glenn asked if Trump views Mexico as a failed narco-state. While Trump avoided the term, he acknowledged that cartels effectively control Mexico. He noted that while not all Mexican officials are corrupt, those who are honest fear severe repercussions for opposing the cartels.

Trump was unsurprised when Glenn cited evidence that cartels are using Pentagon-supplied weapons intended for the Mexican military. He is also aware of the fentanyl influx from China through Mexico and is committed to stopping the torrent of the dangerous narcotic. Trump revealed that he has offered military aid to Mexico to combat the cartels, but these offers have been repeatedly declined. While significant progress has been made in securing the border, Trump emphasized that more must be done.

American Energy Revival

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s tariffs are driving jobs back to America, with the AI sector showing immense growth potential. He explained that future AI systems require massive, costly complexes with significant electricity demands. China is outpacing the U.S. in building power plants to support AI development, threatening America’s technological leadership.

To counter this, Trump is cutting bureaucratic red tape, allowing AI companies to construct their own power plants, potentially including nuclear facilities, to meet the energy needs of AI server farms. Glenn was thrilled to learn these plants could also serve as utilities, supplying excess power to homes and businesses. Trump is determined to ensure America remains the global leader in AI and energy.

Liberation Day Shakeup

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Glenn drew a parallel between Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and the historical post-World War II Liberation Day. Trump confirmed the analogy, explaining that his policy aims to dismantle an outdated global economic order established to rebuild Europe and Asia after the wars of the 20th century. While beneficial decades ago, this system now disadvantages the U.S. through job outsourcing, unfair trade deals, and disproportionate NATO contributions.

Trump stressed that America’s economic survival is at stake. Without swift action, the U.S. risks collapse, potentially dragging the West down with it. He views his presidency as a critical opportunity to reverse this decline.

Trouble in Europe

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

When Glenn pressed Trump on his tariff strategy and negotiations with Europe, Trump delivered a powerful statement: “I don’t have to negotiate.” Despite America’s challenges, it remains the world’s leading economy with the wealthiest consumer base, making it an indispensable trading partner for Europe. Trump wants to make equitable deals and is willing to negotiate with European leaders out of respect and desire for shared prosperity, he knows that they are dependent on U.S. dollars to keep the lights on.

Trump makes an analogy, comparing America to a big store. If Europe wants to shop at the store, they are going to have to pay an honest price. Or go home empty-handed.

Need for Peace

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

Trump emphasized the need to end America’s involvement in endless wars, which have cost countless lives and billions of dollars without a clear purpose. He highlighted the staggering losses in Ukraine, where thousands of soldiers die weekly. Trump is committed to ending the conflict but noted that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has been a challenging partner, constantly demanding more U.S. support.

The ongoing wars in Europe and the Middle East are unsustainable, and America’s excessive involvement has prolonged these conflicts, leading to further casualties. Trump aims to extricate the U.S. from these entanglements.