Rick Perry shares a disturbing story about the border

Will Rick Perry run for President of the United States? He hasn’t announced, but he’s certainly talking like it’s a possibility. He joined Glenn on radio this morning to talk about some of the important issues facing the next president - including the border and illegal immigration. To illustrate just how bad things are, he shared a story of a disturbing meeting he had with President Obama.

When asked how he would secure the border, Perry explained the three steps that need to be taken - and revealed just how far off we are.

First, Perry said you need to put personnel in the right places to secure the border. Not only has President Obama failed to do this, he didn't know where his Border Patrol were even stationed.

"Let me tell you a side story here. Sitting on the ramp in Marine One, I told the president about his Border Patrol that was back 45 to 50 miles away from the border in an apprehension mode. He literally looked over to Valerie Jarrett and said,'is that right, Valerie?' I mean, the president himself did not know where his Border Patrol was stationed," Perry said.

Perry said personnel needed to be on the border and in the river where people are crossing.

"The second part of this is strategic fencing, which by and large is in place in the metropolitan areas," Perry said.

"But the third thing. And this is the most important one, I would suggest to you to finally secure the border. You know, put the personnel in the right places. But it's aviation assets. These are fixed wing, our drones. I mean, we have the technology. We have the ability to look now, 24/7, all kinds of weather. Fly from Tijuana to El Paso. El Paso to Brownsville, 1800 miles, looking down every inch of the border. Technology, when you see suspicious or clearly illegal activity, have quick response teams that go and address that at that particular point in time.

"Glenn, that will secure the border."

GLENN: There are like a million people now running for president of the United States on the G.O.P. side. But there's a few that actually have really good track records. One of them is Rick Perry. Welcome to the program.

RICK: Great to be with you. How is the family?

GLENN: Very good. Very good.

RICK: Good.

GLENN: How is life not being the governor of Texas?

RICK: Well, I'm not having to look for anything to do.

GLENN: Yeah.

RICK: We're still very busy. Anita is overseeing the building of a house 70 miles east of Austin. Just outside of Round Top, Texas. Population, 90. So we've got a wonderful place over there on 70 acres with two of my best friends from college. A couple of marine veterans who live over there with us. So it's a -- I love my life. It's -- you know, we've got work to do in this country. But there's always a haven to come home to in the great state of Texas.

GLENN: I will tell you. One time -- I don't even know if you remember this. But we sat and chatted 45 minutes or so one day. And you just told me a little bit -- and I didn't know -- a little about your life growing up. That you grew up out in the middle of nowhere. Where they didn't even have electricity. So you -- I mean, you have seen it all in your life.

RICK: 15 miles from the closest place that had a Post Office. But, actually, we had electricity. Rural Electric had come out there two years before we moved into that house. We still had an old carbide (phonetic) plant that allowed for the lights to work at night prior to REA coming in.

Anyway, it was a wonderful life. I tell people, listen, we weren't poor. We didn't have indoor plumbing. We lived like nearly anybody else. But we were really rich in the sense of two fabulous parents. You know, a kid with a dog and a pony and lots of land to roam on. So I was incredibly rich to grow up in Paint Creek. Have some great people. Scoutmasters, coaches, and teachers who loved me and pointed me in the right direction in life. So I'm one of the most blessed people that I know.

GLENN: So you're not running for president of the United States at this point. But coincidentally, you were in Iowa last weekend.

RICK: We will make an announcement on the 4th of June of what our intentions will be. I thought you were talking about that I'm not running for president because I am a blessed man.

[laughter]

GLENN: No, no, no. You're not running -- you do have to move to Washington, DC, if you do win. Which is a bad thing.

RICK: Hey, listen there are things you have to give up. But this country is worth a lot of sacrifice. I was just with a young man over the course of the last 24 hours. He lost all four of his limbs in defense of freedom. And, you know, I look at that and I go, whatever I need to do. Whatever the people of this country need to do to defend the freedoms that he gave up so much for is the story of what a lot of us need to be about.

GLENN: I will tell you, we have a lot of mutual friends. A lot of SEAL friends and Special Forces friends. And you are the favorite of all of the people that I have met in Special Forces. Because you -- you do actively get involved. And a lot of it is behind the scenes. A lot of people don't know all the things that you have done. And how hard you have pushed. I would imagine, if you were president, one of the first things you would do is -- is gut the VA.

RICK: That's a conversation that I had today with a young Army man who actually he had lost three of his limbs. And Jack Zimmerman. Jack lives up in Minnesota. And I visited with Jack over the course of the last 24, 48 hours. And he and I were talking about that. That every day, every day, these young men and women deserve somebody who wakes up, goes to the White House, goes to the Oval Office, and picks up the phone and asks the secretary of the Veterans Administration, are you getting that place to where it needs to be? Cajoling the senior staff. Have we straightened out the Veterans Administration? Are they getting the benefits on a timely basis? Have we fired the people who are responsible for this debacle? And that's not happening today. Because if it were happening today, that place would be getting straightened up, and it's not. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any successes at the Veterans Administration from the standpoint of where our veterans -- whether it's the 90-year-old, as my father is, or whether it's a 19-year-old who deserves the treatment that we promised, Glenn. I mean, that's the tragedy here. These young men and women have come. They put their hand up. They swore their allegiance to take care of this country and to defend the Constitution and the freedoms. And then they come home, and they find that they're not being taken care of. That there's long lines. That -- we've got -- I don't know what the number is. How many suicides per day. The federal government says it's 22. But that's not all. I mean, that's -- I would suggest to you that it's more than that by a substantial margin. Because they don't even count California and Texas in those numbers. And we -- I mean, we ought to be incensed from the standpoint that the Veterans Administration all too often is handing a bag of pills to these kids and patting them on the back and sending them out the door. And people are wondering, you know, why can't they get a job? You know, why are they killing themselves? And it's because our federal government is not living up to its promise to take of these kids. And let me tell you, wherever I end up in life, you know, if I decide to run for the presidency, obviously my intention is to win it. And America will know one thing, they will have a president of the United States that gets up every day intent on making sure that the men and women who have served this country get the support and the services that we promised.

GLENN: Rick, we are -- we're looking at a country that is completely out of control right now. 188 trillion -- I'm sorry. $1.88 trillion now. Just what it costs because of federal regulations in the United States. The overreach by the federal government into everything. And the -- the lack of ability to accomplish anything, and it's -- it's only going to get worse. We have people now who are -- who are intent on is getting all of our streets on fire with the riots.

And you know and I know, the Al Sharptons and the Black Panthers, they're not going to sit down. They are going to try to set, you know, every city on fire with the police. With that happening, plus the militarization of our police, how do you balance that? How do you fix what's going on there?

RICK: Well, I think it starts at the very top. You start sending, you know, a powerful message out that we'll be number one, a rule of law. And these kinds of activities that are clearly illegal, clearly outside of the bounds of decency and the rule of law, they're not going to be accepted. And, you know, that's the first marker you put in place. And the second one is, I mean, I believe we can have a conversation in this country about how you address a lot of the -- what's perceived to be the -- the inequities in this country and, you know, my home state, for instance, I think did a great job of dealing with the issue of young men and women, individuals who nonviolent drug-related events that were being sent to prison for long periods of time. And we put drug courts into place in Texas. Drug courts into place. Actually we had prostitution courts and veterans courts on the back end of that. But in '07, we put into place drug courts, where we gave judges the opportunity, the flexibility, if you will, to deal with the nonviolent drug-related offenses, rather than throwing them in jail and throwing the key away, which was kind of the standard operating procedure back in the '90s. And people who gave up hope, we gave them options of treatment, shock probation. And instead of destroying young people's lives, they were given a second chance, if you will. And I would suggest to you that that's one of the conversations we need to have all across the country. Where those people who think -- and may have a righteous position, that these young people have been put in to bad positions. To give them their life back. We closed down three prison units over the last four years, saved $2 billion in taxpayer money. That's smart on crime, Glenn.

GLENN: You also have, however, a frightening thing happen that I've never seen in my lifetime. A growing distrust of the government from people who are usually waving the flag and very pro America and pro government. I don't know if we ever should have been pro government. But people that generally have trusted the government. We had operation Jade Helm. And you know, I mean, that took law-abiding normal citizens, a lot of people saying, wait a minute. What's going on? Is the government going to try to take over Texas? I mean, some crazy things are happening now because we don't trust each other.

RICK: Yes. Here's the interesting -- I think -- and if you put an individual, and I'll use myself. You know, I haven't announced for the presidency. But if I did. Let's say if I were to become the president of the United States, I think there will be a clearly change of attitude towards that office, what comes out of that office, the messaging that comes out of that office, that clearly puts America back on the course -- I hope people always question government. They should. Our Founding Fathers sent us that message that we ought to question government. But don't question your military. Don't question the men and women who have put their hands up and sworn this oath to our Constitution to defend this country. And to know that there is someone there who truly wants to get this country back on track to get America being America again, where our allies trust us, and they know this is a place that is going to be standing with us. That has the ability economically to get this country back on track, domestically strong from the standpoint of bringing manufacturing back. Lowering the corporate tax rate. Giving people the opportunity to have the dignity of a good job. But also, that allows the resources to come back into this country that can build our military back -- in fact, we have the smallest military -- excuse me -- the smallest army that we've had since 1940, Glenn.

GLENN: So let me play Judy Woodruff here for just a second. Are you telling me that you don't believe that Barack Obama wants to bring America's engine back and prosperity back?

RICK: Well, I look at his results in the last six and a half years, obviously that's not the case. If he did, he would have lowered the corporate tax rate. If he did, he would have opened the XL Pipeline. I mean, listen, your track record is what you're going to get graded on, buddy. And his track record is abysmal when it comes to economic development and bringing this country back economically. I mean, it's -- that is not even arguable. That's unquestionable.

GLENN: Tell me about the border. How do we fix this with the Republicans pushing for, you know, total -- basically amnesty and, quite honestly, Rick, that is the -- that is the last thing we need to do. There are four and a half million people right now waiting in line to become a citizen of the United States of America. And we're gifting it to everybody who came in the middle of the night.

RICK: Yeah.

GLENN: But more importantly, you know and I know, ISIS is either on our border or will be on our border in short order. How are we going to get control of that?

RICK: Listen, the security of the border is not rocket science. As a matter of fact last summer when the president came and I met with him and I told him, I said, Mr. President, you don't secure the border, Texas will. And after the meeting, Glenn, I knew he wasn't going to take any action. We deployed our National Guard there. We saw a 70 percent decrease in the apprehensions, just by what Texas had done.

You have a president of the United States who is committed to securing the border, and I would suggest in a relatively short period of time, the border would be secured. And you do it by three actions.

One is obviously personnel and putting the personnel on the border in the right places.

Let me tell you a side story here. Sitting on the ramp in Marine One, I told the president about his Border Patrol that was back 45 to 50 miles away from the border in an apprehension mode. He literally looked over to Valerie Jarrett and said, is that right, Valerie? I mean, the president himself did not know where his Border Patrol was stationed. And so there's this clear way to put personnel on the border, in the river, which is what we did with our Parks & Wildlife coordinates.

GLENN: Right.

RICK: And then the second part of this is strategic fencing, which by and large is in place in the metropolitan areas. But the third thing. And this is the most important one, I would suggest to you to finally secure the border. You know, put the personnel in the right places. But it's aviation assets. These are fixed wing. Are drones. I mean, we have the technology. We have the ability to look now, 24/7, all kinds of weather. Fly from Tijuana to El Paso. El Paso to Brownsville, 1800 miles, looking down every inch of the border. Technology, when you see suspicious or clearly illegal activity, have quick response teams that go and address that at that particular point in time. Glenn, that will secure the border. And at that particular point in time, we know the border is secure.

GLENN: One last question, Scott Walker said that he -- because he's flip-flopped on the border. And he said he changed his mind when he was with several governors from the southern states. And they explained to him what was happening on the border and that's why he's changed his opinion on what happened on the border. Were you one of those governors, or have you talked to him at all about this?

RICK: If I've talked to him on the border, I don't know -- you know, I can't make a decision about what he took away from any conversation he had with me. I don't recall having one. But everyone knows my opinion on this border. You have to secure the border first. You can't have a conversation about any type of immigration reform until the border is secure. Americans do not trust Washington, DC, absolutely under any circumstance to have a conversation about immigration reform until the border is secure.

Now, I think this country was -- this country was created on immigrants. It was created on legal immigration. And a lot of the, you know, most successful companies in this country were started by legal immigrants. We need legal immigrants. We need people who are coming in this country who love this country, are coming for the right reason, high-skilled visa holders. When they're hired, interestingly -- and this is some Hoover Institute data --

GLENN: Rick, I hate to interrupt you. I'm up against a hard network break.

RICK: Well, you know, securing the border is the key. You don't get the border secure, and you can forget the immigration reform conversation. It's not going to happen.

PAT: Obviously, you're not running for president yet. But if you had been, I mean, is there a place where people could go to help out?

GLENN: Ten seconds.

RICK: Well, one of the --

GLENN: RickPerry.com?

RICK: RickPerry.org. Ride with Rick. We're going to have a ride up in Iowa on June the 6th, which will be a lot of fun. A lot of festivities there. RickPerry.org. Ride with Rick.

GLENN: You got it. Rick Perry, appreciate it.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Could China OWN our National Parks?

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.