Nebraska senate candidates Shane Osborn & Ben Sasse face off in back-to-back interviews

Primary season is in full swing, and Glenn has spent the last several months highlighting some of the small government, liberty minded candidates who are challenging big government Democrats and Republicans around the country. One such race is underway in Nebraska where two seemingly strong candidates are set to face off in the May 13 primary to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by retiring Senator Mike Johanns (R-NE). FreedomWorks initially endorsed former Nebraska state treasurer Shane Osborn but rescinded that endorsement last month. It then threw its support behind Ben Sasse, who had already been endorsed by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT).

On radio this morning, both Shane Osborn and Ben Sasse joined the program in separate interviews to respond to recent criticisms and accusations and to explain why they are the best person for the job.

“We have really never done this before, but we think there are a lot of great candidates all across the country. These are the people we prayed for. These with the people we have worked for, slaved for, fretted over. We have said: Where are the good people? They are all over the country now,” Glen said. “Today we want to highlight Nebraska. And there's two candidates there. We actually like both of them, and you should decide which one you like best. So we'll do an interview with Shane Osborn, then we'll have Ben Sasse on a little later on. So you can compare and say, ‘This is the one I want.’”

In February, former Nebraska state treasurer Shane Osborn spoke to Glenn about his military service, his campaign, and what he believes are the most important issues facing the country. Glenn found himself impressed with Osborn’s stance on the debt, energy independence, and veteran affairs. This morning, Osborn initially came across a bit defensive about reports he is affiliated with progressive Republicans like Mitch McConnell, but he settled in once he started talking about the issues.

Pat asked Osborn to outline some of the differences between he and Sasse. Osborn chose to focus on the work he has done for the people of Nebraska in the past.

“It's not just the military service and putting the country first… In my time as treasurer, I kept my promises. I cut my budget – didn't slow growth – cut it nearly 12% over four years. Never been done in our state – probably any other state. I reduced the staff by over a quarter. I made the office so much more efficient that we won the National Treasury Marquee Award,” Osborn explained. “I brought transparency to Nebraskans. For less than $40,000 and a lot of college interns, we created NebraskaSpending.gov, where Nebraskans can see where the money is being spent. That's thing we need in Washington, D.C. So I'm running on a record of being a proven conservative. I have shrunk government. I know how to do it… Talk is cheap, Glenn. I think actions speak louder than words.”

Glenn found himself agreeing with much of what Osborn had to say about the threat of Russia and the dangers of amnesty as part of an immigration reform bill. But one of the last things Osborn said made Glenn a little uncomfortable.

“One other plug, I have Grover Norquist doing town hall with me at 8:00pm CT. So hopefully, we'll have about 20,000 to 40,000 Nebraskans on that. I am happy to have Grover helping me out,” he said. “I've known [Norquist] for years. I think Americans for tax reform do a lot to help the movement on simplify case. We need a flatter tax code.”

While most Americans know Norquist for his position on tax reform, anyone who is a fan of the program knows Glenn has serious concerns over his connections to Islamists.

“He had me up until [he said], ‘I've got a great thing with Grover,’” Glenn said. “I'm sorry. Grover is everything they have said he is – a very dangerous, bad, bad guy.”

You can learn more about Osborn’s campaign HERE.

After a break, Glenn returned to speak with Ben Sasse. When Glenn spoke to current president of Midland University last month, he referred to Sasse as a man who has “the Constitution running through his veins.” This morning, Sasse responded to some of the allegations waged by Osborn in addition to offering his position on some of the biggest issues facing our country.

Glenn is quite skeptical of the university system, and asked Sasse what differentiates him from, say, Glenn’s favorite president (sarcasm) Woodrow Wilson, who once served as the president of Princeton University.

“Assure me that you are not going to turn into a ‘I know better than everybody else’ kind of

Woodrow Wilson progressive and a guy who doesn't have the experience with the free market system,” Glenn said. “Help me out.”

“Amen. That’s the right kind of skeptical question our founders would relate to,” Sasse said. “I am a college president because I'm at 130-year-old school that was going bankrupt, and I do turn-around stuff, so my background is private sector. And I am in my fifth year as a college president in my hometown is because this special school was closing, and we had a crisis that was big enough that we could fix things. And now we put kids first and we have gone from the brink of bankruptcy to being the fastest growing college in the Midwest right now.”

As Sasse explained, turning things around included recognizing that students are “customers” who “ought to be at the center of institution.” Whether or not those students are learning is “what the school exists to do.

“We don't exist as a jobs program for those among us who have historically been employed there,” Sasse said. “So we had 45 majors and minors, but 84% of the students majored in only about seven departments. So we had 38 departments that were economically unviable. We had some departments that had more professors than kids. You don't need to be a math major to realize that doesn't work. So we had to end tenure at our school.”

With his education background in mind, Glenn asked Sasse where he stands on Common Core.

“I'm opposed to Common Core… It was going to be a voluntary state-based program. Nebraska is, fortunately, one of only nine states that haven't adopted the Common Core standards,” he said. “But ultimately it will be a weapon of political correctness for the government to force certain standards on local communities that are going to be about political correctness and the agenda of the left.”

Glenn couldn’t let Sasse go without asking him the now infamous question: How is your soul?

“You know, I'm a committed Christian. I believe I'm a sinner, and Jesus is my hope and redemption,” he said. “So I feel pretty good about my soul – not because of me, but because I believe in what Christ has done for me. So it's good.”

You can learn more about Sasse’s campaign HERE.

“That was like a debate,” Stu concluded of the back-to-back interviews. “We almost had like a debate on the air for the last hour, except they were separate from each other. That was fun.”

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.