The real story the October 1986 Reykjavik Summit

May 14, 2014

The Glenn Beck Program

On Wednesday's Glenn Beck Program, Glenn laid out the little known history of the October 1986 Reykjavik Summit. With U.S./Soviet relations at an all-time low, the Summit represented a true meeting of good and evil. President Ronald Reagan was prepared for the global stage. The young Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was not.

Below is a transcript of this segment of The Glenn Beck Program

We are being schooled by a master. Vladimir Putin is taking our president to school, and what do we do? The answers really are simple, and they can all be found in history.

I’m going to take you back to 1985 when relations between the Soviet Union and the U.S. were at all-time lows. Anybody who grew up, and you were coming of age in the 80s, you remember, you might not remember the duck-and-cover drills in the classroom, but you knew of them. You knew the location of the bomb shelters, and the threat of nuclear war was still very real. I remember growing up having nightmares about them.

Just two years earlier, President Reagan had dubbed the Soviet Union the Evil Empire, and getting them to agree to anything at all was going to be extremely difficult. He was calling them evil, and that set the world on fire. The arms race was on, but it wasn’t anywhere near finished, and we didn’t know who was going to win. This was the climate of tension proceeding the Geneva Summit where the leaders of the two premier global superpowers, the ones that had all the power, that could destroy the entire planet, would meet for the very first time, and it was good versus evil.

Whatever happened would set the tone for the talks to come. Historic moment and one Reagan was ready for, and apparently, the Soviets were not, because at the time, Gorbachev was the new guy. He was the young kid. He was the guy that was getting all of the whole world to say, “Look, he’s new, he’s cutting edge,” and Reagan was the old man.

Well, when they arrived at Reykjavík…I talked to a guy who actually was there. He watched it happen, and it wasn’t planned. Reagan had planned it in his own head. He had already arrived, and he was well rested and ready to go. And he was waiting for Gorbachev, a man 20 years younger. And he saw the Soviet ZiL pull up, and they started to put a jacket on the president. They said Mister President, it’s very cold, put the jacket on. He said no, and it was freezing temperatures. Reagan knew what he was doing

The rest of them stood around and looked and had no idea why he didn’t want to wear a jacket. Reagan wanted to look like the young man, so he went down the stairs, he greeted the ZiL, opened the door, greeted him, hugged him, and here was the photo op, not the one the Soviets were looking for. The older man now looked like the young man, helping the elderly Soviet premier up the stairs. That is the opposite of Putin’s over-the-top shirtless pictures with tigers and bears and whales and everything else he’s doing. And that’s why Putin is doing those things, he learned his lesson. But our president never did.

Reagan was the tough guy in this duo. He was the one with the street cred. He was the cowboy who said what he meant and meant what he said. He was risking it all. Reagan wasn’t dubbed “the Great Communicator” for nothing. He knew these summits with Gorbachev would be crucial to steering the international debate, especially in the Soviet Union, and here it was live on Soviet TV, Reagan looking like the superior man and the younger man all the way.

It was the first step in reshaping the view of Reagan in the eyes of the Soviet public, and that would set the tone for this meeting and all to come. And it wasn’t dumb luck. It wasn’t happenstance. Reagan spent a lifetime preparing for that moment. Win or lose, his legacy would be forever intertwined with this epic fight against communism and the Evil Empire.

We recently spoke to Ken Adelman, he was Reagan’s Director of Arms Control and Disarmament, about a later crucial encounter between Reagan and Gorbachev.

Ken: In 1980, I was waiting the Detroit to get the nomination of the Republican Party. Someone asked Reagan in the plane, “Ron, why are you doing this? Why are you running for president?” And Reagan said, “I want to end the Cold War.”

In October 1986, President Ronald Reagan took a crucial step toward that goal. He was to meet Mikhail Gorbachev, Secretary General of the Soviet Union, halfway between Washington and Moscow in a place called Reykjavík, Iceland.

Ken: I was in the administration. I was his arms control director, and I was at his side during Reykjavík. Reagan had the backing of conservatives in Congress, but the liberals were complaining that he was too ambitious for arms control, that he was too tough with the Russians.

Every time he made this ideological attack against communism, it did two things: It infuriated the liberals, and number two, it infuriated the communists. And it showed that basically their ideology was expired, their ideology was uninspiring, and their ideology was oppressive. President Reagan expected this to be a very low-key kind of meeting. He expected it to be more of preparation for a summit than a real summit.

But Gorbachev wasn’t wasting any time. He was there to talk arms control.

Ken: One surprise was that Gorbachev wanted to negotiate right there. Another surprise was that both Reagan and Gorbachev wanted to reduce dramatically if not eliminate nuclear weapons. Over those 10-1/2 hours, Gorbachev complained 11 times, maybe 12 times, “I’m making all the concessions,” said Gorbachev, “you’re giving me nothing.”

We went back to the ambassador’s house after the Sunday breakup of the summit, and he was in the living room. And those of us who were on the team could see he was not to be disturbed. He couldn’t sit down. He couldn’t even talk to us. He was just too mad. He was just steaming in the corner, pacing back and forth and back and forth. And he called it the angriest day of his presidency.

Despite the Reykjavík summit’s initial unraveling, Reagan wasn’t giving up. After all, he became president to end the Cold War, and that is exactly what he intended to do.

Ken: Reagan was indifferent to the fight beneath him. He came up with the idea of saying let’s tear down this wall, and on the morning that he gave that speech, which was June 12, 1987, in the car on the way to Brandenburg Gate to give that speech, the deputy chief of staff for the White House was still talking to him, trying to talk him out of using that phrase and using Gorbachev’s name in that phrase. And Reagan kind of looked out the window, and he says, “Well, I know,” he says, “but it’s the right thing to do.” That one meeting at Reykjavík in October of 1986 led to the end of the Cold War.

Anybody reading the book Reagan at Reykjavík will see that Reagan had it all mapped out pretty clearly. Not everybody in the administration did, but he did.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep