NRA launches ethics investigation into Grover Norquist

March 13, 2015

WRITER

On Wednesday's radio program, Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy, alleged that Grover Norquist was acting as an agent of influence on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood. Norquist is currently up for re-election to the board of the NRA, and Glenn said he had heard enough bad things about Norquist that he was going to drop his membership if the re-election was a success. Friday morning, Glenn revealed that he had spoken with Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, and the NRA was opening an ethics investigation in Norquist.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment from radio:

I have a -- an important and personal conversation with you about the NRA. I know that a lot of our listeners are NRA members. I am an NRA member. I am a member -- a lifetime member. And one that -- I'm a reluctant member to almost anything. The only two organizations I belong to are my church and the NRA. I believe in Wayne LaPierre and the direction he's set for the NRA. I don't always agree with him. But I believe they're honest people trying to do the right thing.

Two days ago I was on the air, and I brought up Grover Norquist. And he's a board member on the NRA, and he's running for reelection. And I said something then that I meant then and I mean now. That if Grover Norquist remains on the board of the NRA, I don't believe that I can remain a member of the NRA. I so deeply believe this is a very, very bad man. And I so deeply that he -- and I'm not assigning. I shouldn't say he's a very bad man. I don't know him. And so I don't want to assign his reasons. I don't know why he does what he does. And I just know the people that he hangs out with and the people that he helps empower, and they are agents of influence for the Muslim Brotherhood.

And many of the reasons why we're off on the wrong track now in the Middle East is because of the influence of Grover Norquist. He is a guy that the left used to say was the all powerful, all mighty and powerful Oz during the Bush administration. I used to mock that. I didn't know anything about Grover Norquist and I thought that was the most ridiculous thing ever heard. We heard it so many times that we started doing our own homework on it. And instead of mocking it, we decided, let's just dismiss this. We started doing our homework on Grover Norquist, and I'm sorry, he is Oz. And he is a -- it's really sad because what he does on taxes, I happen to agree with. I happen to agree with some of his policies.

But when it comes to the Muslim Brotherhood and Islam, this guy is on the wrong side. Whether he knows it or not, I don't -- I don't believe he's out trying to destroy America, but his efforts and his work will lead to the destruction of America. And he is one of 76 board members of the NRA. I am not saying to the NRA, it's either him or me, I'm just saying, he's up for election, and it is the lifetime members that vote for him. And if the lifetime members think that he is a guy that should be on the NRA, just like I did with General Motors, General Motors was my biggest client at the time. And I loved General Motors. And I loved the direction they were going in. And then they switched directions and they took money from the federal government.

And I had to make the hardest call I've ever made. I turned down seven figures for my business because it violated my principles. And I told General Motors, the minute you get out of bed with the government and you start doing the things that you told me you were going to do, I would love to represent you again. But I don't have an axe to grind against General Motors. It's a personal decision.

Yesterday, I spent about an hour on the phone with Wayne LaPierre at the NRA. And we discussed this issue. And I am happy to report that the NRA, after hearing this a couple of days ago, and they've been trying to get on my schedule the last couple of days and I haven't had the chance. But they reacted immediately because of your phone calls. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of phone calls have apparently come into the NRA and have said, if Glenn leaves the NRA, we leave the NRA. And I don't want you to be a lemming by any stretch of the imagination, I assume you've done your own homework on Grover Norquist as well. And don't ever take my word. Just because I do something, doesn't mean you should do it. And I don't mean to talk down to you. I know you know that.

PAT: It's more for the media than it is for --

GLENN: Thank you very much.

We can be in lockstep. But not mindless. And you must do your own homework. And I urge you to do your own homework on Grover Norquist. Because he is an influential player in the G.O.P. And he is, I believe, a dangerous man. Because of what he believes about Islam.

This is going to raise all kinds of charges. The game will be played. I have now thrown down the chips on the table, and so Grover Norquist is a very powerful man. And we don't have friends in Washington as it is, and I'm happy about that. But he is a very powerful man, and so I believe that, you know -- you know, we've started a little war here because of our principles.

But he is the first to lead the charges of, well, you're a racist and everything else if you say anything against the Muslim Brotherhood or him. And there's not a racist bone in my body. I don't hate Muslims. I just had Zuhdi Jasser here who I think is a guy that should be held up. He's a Muslim. He's of Arab descent. So please, shut up.

Now, let me tell you about the phone call. So Wayne calls me yesterday, and he said, Glenn, I understand your concerns. And before I say anything -- because I honestly expected some sort of defense. And he said, I want you to know, because of the phone calls that have come in, I want you to know and I want your audience to know, I take our members voice's seriously.

Now, I have been -- I have been in rooms with a lot of people, I have talked to a lot of company heads and everything else. There's no organization bigger than the NRA. More powerful than the NRA. And I was humbled and shocked by how seriously they take your voice. And when you called, they went into action. And they said that they were opening up an ethics investigation on Grover. They said they're going to get down to the bottom of this once and for all. Grover denies all of these allegations.

PAT: Always has.

GLENN: And always has.

And they said, I want you to know, and when they said that, I thought, what does that mean? They said, I want you to know, it will be fully transparent. It will be posted on the web. You will know everything we did and everything we found. And then we will take action from that point. You know, they -- my feeling is, this really hurts the NRA. This really -- just the question of whether he's in with the Muslim Brotherhood or not really hurts the NRA. And the last thing I said to Wayne was: Wayne, if I were on the board, and when I said foolishly on Fox that morning, I think the president was a racist. And I was thinking out loud. And the gates of hell opened up. If I were on the board and people were starting to question the NRA because of what I said, do you think you would have had to call me?

And he said, no. And I said, no. I would have called you. The NRA is more important than me, I said. Take me off the board. Get this heat off of me. The fact that Grover Norquist hasn't said I won't run for reelection I think speaks volumes because he's one of 76 board members. He goes to the meetings, but he doesn't really even speak up. It's not like he's leading anything. So he's one of 76. What difference does it make that he's on the board of the NRA?

So I think that says a lot about his personal character, myself. But I also can understand someone digging in their heels if they think they're right. And I'm not leaving. I'm not going to be bullied like this. Et cetera, et cetera. I'm not trying to bully. I have nothing against the NRA. I think if we lose the NRA, we lose a lot. We cannot lose the NRA. And that's why I say this, because I believe Grover Norquist is an agent of influence. And I believe that he is influencing people to look the other way when it comes to people like the Muslim Brotherhood. And the facts are clear.

And I want to just give a story. This was written by Bill Gertz.

Islamists linked to the Muslim Brotherhood are seeking to influence the US conservative movement as a part of a nonviolent jihad against the United States. This is according to a group of retired national security leaders. Ten former US officials, including the retired attorney general, former CIA director, a retired general and an admiral, and a former counterterrorism prosecutor, among others, have challenged an assessment made years ago by the political outreach activities by the antitax activist, Grover Norquist.

Now, this story, you can read it online. It's from Bill Gertz. It's called Influence Operation. But I want you to hear the names of the people that put their name on a cover letter saying, he's an agent of influence.

Now, again, I don't have any firsthand knowledge. I will tell you that I have, A, been on Grover Norquist's side at the beginning. I thought this was ridiculous. We used to mock the people who used to say this about Grover Norquist. So it's not like I have an axe to grind. I don't know the guy. I like his other policies. And I also mocked the people who used to say this. But then we did our homework.

And there is enough smoke to worry about fire. And our homework has included talking to some very good, reasoned, well educated and well balanced individuals. Now, I want you to listen just to the names of the people who have signed this cover letter saying, there is fire here.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey. Pretty significant. Former CIA director James Woolsey. Allen West. Lieutenant general, retired, William Boykin. General Boykin is one of the most honest, decent, and clear-minded men I know. Former Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, a former federal prosecutor, Andrew McCarthy, who is really clear on this. Former FBI agent, retired admiral, James Lyons. Former commander of the US Pacific Fleet. Former Pentagon inspector general. An ambassador. Former Director of the Pentagon Strategic Defense Initiative Organization. And a former CIA officer, Clare Lopez.

I know many of these people. I find them to be sound and of sound mind and sound judgment. And I am warning you that Grover Norquist is an agent of influence. Whether he knows it or not, I'm not assigning in any ill will toward him. Whether he knows it or not, he's placing himself near and around members of the Muslim Brotherhood. And he is assisting, whether knowingly or not, agents of influence from the Muslim Brotherhood. And he's currently on the board of directors on the NRA. And I've said to Wayne last night that I -- I appreciate the NRA. I love the NRA. And I support the NRA. And I will wait to see what they do. And I know it will be open and transparent.

And he said, Glenn, I will take you and your audience through it every step of the way. And I believe him.

Now, I will tell you, I said to him, this is a matter of opinion. A lot of this. This is a matter of opinion on whether he is knowingly doing this or not knowingly doing this. I don't know how you remove somebody -- you know, from a position because you disagree with their opinion. And this might turn out to be, I disagree with the opinion -- I agree with the opinion of the former CIA director and the former generals and admirals and commanders of the Pacific fleet. I happen to agree with them and not the people defending Grover Norquist. And that doesn't make either of us wrong.

It's a matter of opinion. But I think when it comes down to something this important, of agents of influence. Of people who are intentionally trying to destroy us from within, we do not take a risk. Especially with an organization as important as the NRA.

So goes the NRA, so goes America. It's really critical that they remain healthy. And that's why I am bringing this to their attention. And I'm asking you, especially if you're a lifetime member to bring this to the attention of every lifetime member. Because it's the lifetime members that vote for the board. And no matter what it says, if the lifetime members with uneducated and they vote for him on the board, you are doing a grave disservice to the -- to the NRA.

And as I said to Wayne, I don't want this to happen. I don't want this to happen. And he said, Glenn, it's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. But, again, it's a matter of opinion. And my opinion is, he's a very dangerous man, whether knowingly or unknowingly. And if he remains on the board of the NRA, I will to have resign my membership. And that comes at great pain for me because I love these people. I really love them and I believe in them.

But let's play this out and see what they do. They have promised that they will be transparent. And I want you to know, Wayne was open and honest. Not hedging. There was nothing. It was -- he was so deferential to you. And I want to bring the message that this is one of the only organizations of this weight that I've ever seen that is truly reacting to you. They listen to their membership. They listen to their membership. So let's see how this plays out. But I want you to do your own homework on Grover Norquist. And see what you feel. He's a very dangerous man when it comes to Islam I believe.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

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