Is something really bad about to happen to the U.S. dollar?

Sec. John Kerry said that if America stops the Iran nuclear deal, the US dollar could no longer be the world’s reserve currency. What does that really mean? Glenn feels like something really bad is coming for the U.S. dollar and the global economy, and asked economist David Buckner to come onto the radio show and discuss.

GLENN: Just two days ago, we had John Kerry say this about the deal with Iran.

JOHN: That is a recipe very quickly, my friends, businesspeople here, for the American dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world, which is already bubbling out there.

GLENN: So what does that even mean? I asked an audience last night what they thought that meant, and nobody really had any idea. I have somewhat of an idea, but I don't even know if I understand it. David Buckner is here. David Buckner is adjunct professor at Columbia University. An economist who goes all over the world trying to work with businesses and trying to hold things together. And he's been a consultant on this program for quite some time. David, welcome to the program.

DAVID: Good to hear from you, Glenn. How are you doing?

GLENN: Where are you in the world today?

DAVID: I'm upstate New York in the backwoods somewhere in the mountains right now. Life is pretty good, pretty sunny.

GLENN: Okay. Sorry to bother you. We just wanted to know exactly what that meant, David. I have this feeling that something really bad has begun especially with the devaluation of the currency in China and with Secretary Kerry saying that. It's almost like a shot across our bow that they know that we're on a course for something, and they're just -- they're going to use it to blame it on something that is convenient for them.

DAVID: Well, it actually started two or three years ago when China signed its first agreement. Do you recall that the reserve currency back prior to, you know, World War II was the sterling. Was the pound sterling. And it was the Bretton Woods Act in '44 and thereon through '55 that we transitioned to the dollar. And all that really meant was that we were going to exchange the dollar for oil. So it's the currency used for the exchange of oil. This is where Secretary Kerry starts pulling in ISIS in the Middle East.

Well, two years ago, China signed an agreement with Russia to no longer use the dollar. And within 17 days, Australia signed the agreement with China as well, that they would only -- it was almost like a unilateral treatment of currencies where they would decide between the yen and the Australian dollar or the yen and the ruble and other currencies. That they would exchange without the dollar being the global entity.

So we've already started down this path. What he identifies there is a little bit frightening because he's indicating that we have to make a decision, aligned with the current policy with ISIS, Iran, and others, or we're going to be -- we're going to lose the dollar. We're already on that path. And quite candidly, we're being held hostage by suggesting we have to capitulate or the dollar is going to be gone.

The dollar is already being comprised. And the question you asked regarding China is evidence of that. The fact that China has so much of our debt and that we're beholden to any movement they make in their currency indicates that any time they do something, like they did yesterday -- they did a 5 percent shift in their currency.

Their currency has been selling about 6.1 or 6.2 yen to the dollar. They moved up to 6.4, 6.5. There's a shift that immediately does two things to us: One, is makes their goods 5 percent cheaper. So that means our goods become expensive compared to them. That means more people are going to buy directly. Which, by the way, puts them in a better position to negotiate more of those deals to get rid of the dollar. That's one thing.

The second thing it does that nobody is talking about, that's more frightening for me personally, from a macroeconomic perspective, and what you and I have been talking about, Glenn, for probably three years now. And that is that what we owe China, all of that debt, we're talking trillions of dollars of debt, the largest percentage to China and a big chunk in Japan. What we owe them now has become 5 percent more expensive overnight.

Now, it doesn't mean the interest rates have changed, but the money that we borrowed -- and borrowed it when it was worth six, we now have to repay that same amount of money that if we were to use it to buy goods would be worth more. But we can't.

So we lose 5 percent on every dollar we're returning to them. That is an overnight shift in interest rates, if you will. Even though the interest hasn't changed, the buying ability of that piece of paper. So we're in a position where overnight, China made our commitment to them 5 percent more expensive. And made all of their goods 5 percent cheaper. So we're fighting -- we're fighting this -- this is crazy, Glenn.

GLENN: So tell me, David, what it means -- explain to somebody -- because what Secretary Kerry was saying, not getting off the dollar as the exchange rate for oil. But he's saying the reserve currency, which means people are not -- they're not generally having a bunch of gold in their bank. What they have is a bunch of US dollars. And if everybody gets rid of the reserve currency and goes off that, all those dollars come flooding back into the system. Am I wrong?

DAVID: No, you're correct on that. And the reason -- and you're correct. Let me blend the two words though, that we're aligned in this.

You're correct when we're talking reserve currency. That is because it is -- it has always been the global currency.

GLENN: Correct.

DAVID: So when we no longer -- the reason I linked in the oil is not because it's changing anything there or anybody has agreed differently. But the reality is, if there's other ways to purchase oil, we no longer need a large reserve, if I'm a foreign country, of US dollars.

GLENN: Correct.

DAVID: Consequently, I can then --

GLENN: Hang on just a second. So people understand that. That's because you were only allowed to buy oil in US dollars. So countries had to have that huge cash of the US dollar because if you wanted to buy something like oil, you had to buy it in dollars. That's quickly going away.

DAVID: Exactly.

GLENN: So how much money is in the -- the central banks of countries? How much -- how many dollars are there?

DAVID: Okay. Now, that's a question without my precise answer for this reason.

What we know we have put out there into a secondary market. You know, when we're shoving dollars out. When the fed shoves money out by buying bonds, that money goes out. And while we can say it's traceable, it's not traced. In other words, what goes out into the U.S. in a bond may make its way by others buying from China, from India, from other places.

So when we're talking about central banks holding them, they'll have what you might call an official number. But the unofficial market is unwieldily. So we know how much is out there. And that we've been flooding. That's been the damaging and frightening part of this, Glenn, is that we keep shoving it out there. And if it gets aggregated into one place, if China starts reserving it and holding it, then they have a huge club. And we keep saying, no, surely, surely they wouldn't have it. We've diffused it. The money is going out broadly. But nobody can track where it's actually being collected and held because the public announcement -- just like China has indicated that they devaluated their own currency, but they control their banking. So when you go to China -- you know I spend a lot of time there.

GLENN: Yes.

DAVID: And when you go to China, you have a variety of different ways in which currencies can be exchanged. When you go to Brazil, there are three totally different currencies: The dollar at the bank, the dollar on the street, and the dollar you pay in a hotel, which is the government rate. And they are vastly differing numbers.

So I'm not wobbling other than to suggest that I can -- I could give you formalized numbers. We could go back and look those up. They're irrelevant. The money that's out there could be aggregated by these central banks, and we do not know which central bank is truthfully aggregating the largest in their formal and informal economy.

GLENN: So here's what I really want to know, and I'm hoping that you're going to say I'm wrong. But this to me, when I heard this, what I heard was the equivalent economically of him saying, by the way, if you disagree, it is total nuclear war. This is an economic -- if the dollars that other countries have are no longer being used as the global currency and the world's reserve. That means that all those dollars are out and we're in hyperinflation and it is -- it's the end of the West or the western commerce as we know it. At least for -- at least until we can settle on what we're doing.

DAVID: Right. There are three things -- we talked about this before. But there are three things that America offers right now. One is that we offer the dollar. Okay? And if that goes away, that's frightening, right?

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Explain why -- tell people what that means, if the dollar goes away, to them.

DAVID: Well, right now because every exchange is principal for oil, which is the central currency of everything. Energy is everything, okay. Because that exchange must go through us and we control the medium or the piece of paper that you can use to exchange, we control -- I don't want to say control the world. But we control that exchange. And if that's the central exchange, then we still have some significant control on the markets of the world. If that is removed, you no longer have control. If you go into, you know, Germany and you're not using euros and you're using a Brazilian currency that nobody cares whether you have or not, you don't buy anything in Germany. So if our dollar is no longer viewed as the global necessity, we don't have that to offer.

GLENN: So hang on. Before you go on, on that. So, in other words, we become like Iceland. What was it, the kronas, that when it crashed and went away. They couldn't buy meat for McDonald's. Everything had to shut down. We wouldn't be able to buy oil from anybody because no one would accept the US dollar because it would be worthless.

DAVID: It's an irrelevant piece of paper. Most people would say that because there's so much debt being held of US debt, we're betting on our bankers not letting us fail. Now, that scares me, just to be honest. I don't want to bet on my bank not wanting me to fail especially if my house goes up in value and they'd rather take the house rather than to default on what I owe them. Okay? Our house is our natural resource in the U.S. So if we default and we have collateralized our -- the assets of our country, which are our natural resource. Then technically, just like they did in the 1980s when Manhattan, a good percentage of the real estate had to go to foreign entities. We hit such a downside, that you would see Chinese and Japanese signs in front of banks because the real estate was owned by them. We've collateralized what America has against our debt. And our debt is in crazy land. You know that. We've talked about that before.

GLENN: Right.

DAVID: So if the dollar goes away and they go technically after the assets and we then defend the assets, then you are correct that the next thing we offer is war. And that's not where -- and, by the way, I'll give you just one side note that may be contrary to what you think or it may be differing than what you think or it may simply augment it. I actually think the next real battle issue will not be metal against building. I think we can do more with cyber and banking zeros. Ones and zeros in the electric world than we can ever do with weapons.

GLENN: Yes, I agree.

DAVID: I think the next war will be a cyber disaster. And the frightening thing about that is, if you are the one that owes the rest of the world, they have control over your assets. It doesn't take much for them to be able to access all of those buttons. And that's where it gets crazy. So, Glenn --

GLENN: Go ahead. Wrap it up here, David.

DAVID: I was in Hiroshima a week ago. I was there for the 70th anniversary for the disaster there. And they talk about one bomb. And we talk about 15,000 warheads that exist if the world. All it takes is one finger to push buttons to get things crazy. And one one and one zero in the banking world or the economic world to get people desperate. I don't know when we get to that point. But I will tell you, this move by China to shift things by 5 percent in 15 minutes is a daunting look at where we go and what America has to see in the economic future.

GLENN: Thank you a lot, David. I appreciate it. Go back to the mountain and enjoy the sunshine.

DAVID: Good talking to you.

GLENN: God bless you. David Buckner.

Exposed: The radical Left's bloody rampage against America

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

For years, the media warned of right-wing terror. But the bullets, bombs, and body bags are piling up on the left — with support from Democrat leaders and voters.

For decades, the media and federal agencies have warned Americans that the greatest threat to our homeland is the political right — gun-owning veterans, conservative Christians, anyone who ever voted for President Donald Trump. President Joe Biden once declared that white supremacy is “the single most dangerous terrorist threat” in the nation.

Since Trump’s re-election, the rhetoric has only escalated. Outlets like the Washington Post and the Guardian warned that his second term would trigger a wave of far-right violence.

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing.

They were wrong.

The real domestic threat isn’t coming from MAGA grandmas or rifle-toting red-staters. It’s coming from the radical left — the anarchists, the Marxists, the pro-Palestinian militants, and the anti-American agitators who have declared war on law enforcement, elected officials, and civil society.

Willful blindness

On July 4, a group of black-clad terrorists ambushed an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Alvarado, Texas. They hurled fireworks at the building, spray-painted graffiti, and then opened fire on responding law enforcement, shooting a local officer in the neck. Journalist Andy Ngo has linked the attackers to an Antifa cell in the Dallas area.

Authorities have so far charged 14 people in the plot and recovered AR-style rifles, body armor, Kevlar vests, helmets, tactical gloves, and radios. According to the Department of Justice, this was a “planned ambush with intent to kill.”

And it wasn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a growing pattern of continuous violent left-wing incidents since December last year.

Monthly attacks

Most notably, in December 2024, 26-year-old Luigi Mangione allegedly gunned down UnitedHealth Group CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan. Mangione reportedly left a manifesto raging against the American health care system and was glorified by some on social media as a kind of modern Robin Hood.

One Emerson College poll found that 41% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 said the murder was “acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable.”

The next month, a man carrying Molotov cocktails was arrested near the U.S. Capitol. He allegedly planned to assassinate Trump-appointed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and House Speaker Mike Johnson.

In February, the “Tesla Takedown” attacks on Tesla vehicles and dealerships started picking up traction.

In March, a self-described “queer scientist” was arrested after allegedly firebombing the Republican Party headquarters in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Graffiti on the burned building read “ICE = KKK.”

In April, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s (D-Pa.) official residence was firebombed on Passover night. The suspect allegedly set the governor’s mansion on fire because of what Shapiro, who is Jewish, “wants to do to the Palestinian people.”

In May, two young Israeli embassy staffers were shot and killed outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. Witnesses said the shooter shouted “Free Palestine” as he was being arrested. The suspect told police he acted “for Gaza” and was reportedly linked to the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

In June, an Egyptian national who had entered the U.S. illegally allegedly threw a firebomb at a peaceful pro-Israel rally in Boulder, Colorado. Eight people were hospitalized, and an 82-year-old Holocaust survivor later died from her injuries.

That same month, a pro-Palestinian rioter in New York was arrested for allegedly setting fire to 11 police vehicles. In Los Angeles, anti-ICE rioters smashed cars, set fires, and hurled rocks at law enforcement. House Democrats refused to condemn the violence.

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

In Portland, Oregon, rioters tried to burn down another ICE facility and assaulted police officers before being dispersed with tear gas. Graffiti left behind read: “Kill your masters.”

On July 7, a Michigan man opened fire on a Customs and Border Protection facility in McAllen, Texas, wounding two police officers and an agent. Border agents returned fire, killing the suspect.

Days later in California, ICE officers conducting a raid on an illegal cannabis farm in Ventura County were attacked by left-wing activists. One protester appeared to fire at federal agents.

This is not a series of isolated incidents. It’s a timeline of escalation. Political assassinations, firebombings, arson, ambushes — all carried out in the name of radical leftist ideology.

Democrats are radicalizing

This isn’t just the work of fringe agitators. It’s being enabled — and in many cases encouraged — by elected Democrats.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz routinely calls ICE “Trump’s modern-day Gestapo.” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass attempted to block an ICE operation in her city. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu compared ICE agents to a neo-Nazi group. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson referred to them as “secret police terrorizing our communities.”

Apparently, other Democratic lawmakers, according to Axios, are privately troubled by their own base. One unnamed House Democrat admitted that supporters were urging members to escalate further: “Some of them have suggested what we really need to do is be willing to get shot.” Others were demanding blood in the streets to get the media’s attention.

A study from Rutgers University and the National Contagion Research Institute found that 55% of Americans who identify as “left of center” believe that murdering Donald Trump would be at least “somewhat justified.”

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing. They don’t want the chaos to stop. They want to harness it, normalize it, and weaponize it.

The truth is, this isn’t just about ICE. It’s not even about Trump. It’s about whether a republic can survive when one major party decides that our institutions no longer apply.

Truth still matters. Law and order still matter. And if the left refuses to defend them, then we must be the ones who do.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

America's comeback: Trump is crushing crime in the Capitol

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Trump’s DC crackdown is about more than controlling crime — it’s about restoring America’s strength and credibility on the world stage.

Donald Trump on Monday invoked Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, placing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control and deploying the National Guard to restore law and order. This move is long overdue.

D.C.’s crime problem has been spiraling for years as local authorities and Democratic leadership have abandoned the nation’s capital to the consequences of their own failed policies. The city’s murder rate is about three times higher than that of Islamabad, Pakistan, and 18 times higher than that of communist-led Havana, Cuba.

When DC is in chaos, it sends a message to the world that America is weak.

Theft, assaults, and carjackings have transformed many of its streets into war zones. D.C. saw a 32% increase in homicides from 2022 to 2023, marking the highest number in two decades and surpassing both New York and Los Angeles. Even if crime rates dropped to 2019 levels, that wouldn’t be good enough.

Local leaders have downplayed the crisis, manipulating crime stats to preserve their image. Felony assault, for example, is no longer considered a “violent crime” in their crime stats. Same with carjacking. But the reality on the streets is different. People in D.C. are living in constant fear.

Trump isn’t waiting for the crime rate to improve on its own. He’s taking action.

Broken windows theory in action

Trump’s takeover of D.C. puts the “broken windows theory” into action — the idea that ignoring minor crimes invites bigger ones. When authorities look the other way on turnstile-jumping or graffiti, they signal that lawbreaking carries no real consequence.

Rudy Giuliani used this approach in the 1990s to clean up New York, cracking down on small offenses before they escalated. Trump is doing the same in the capital, drawing a hard line and declaring enough is enough. Letting crime fester in Washington tells the world that the seat of American power tolerates lawlessness.

What Trump is doing for D.C. isn’t just about law enforcement — it’s about national identity. When D.C. is in chaos, it sends a message to the world that America is weak. The capital city represents the soul of the country. If we can’t even keep our own capital safe, how can we expect anyone to take us seriously?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Reversing the decline

Anyone who has visited D.C. regularly over the past several years has witnessed its rapid decline. Homeless people bathe in the fountains outside Union Station. People are tripping out in Dupont Circle. The left’s negligence is a disgrace, enabling drug use and homelessness to explode on our capital’s streets while depriving these individuals of desperately needed care and help.

Restoring law and order to D.C. is not about politics or scoring points. It’s about doing what’s right for the people. It’s about protecting communities, taking the vulnerable off the streets, and sending the message to both law-abiding and law-breaking citizens alike that the rule of law matters.

D.C. should be a lesson to the rest of America. If we want to take our cities back, we need leadership willing to take bold action. Trump is showing how to do it.

Now, it’s time for other cities to step up and follow his lead. We can restore law and order. We can make our cities something to be proud of again.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Can Trump make D.C. great again?

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

For years, Washington, D.C., has been a symbol of everything wrong with big government—riddled with crime, manipulated stats, and soft-on-crime policies that let gangs terrorize innocent citizens while the elite turn a blind eye. Now, President Trump is stepping up, deploying federal agents after a savage attack on a hero like Edward Coristine, vowing no more "Mr. Nice Guy" as he promises to jail criminals, clear out the homeless encampments, and restore order just like he sealed the border. This isn't just a crackdown; it's a reclamation of our capital from the chaos liberals have unleashed.

Glenn has already covered this on his radio show, exposing how legacy media and Democrats twist crime numbers. They claim that there was a 35% drop in crime while ignoring FBI data showing only a 10% decline, and murders are still sky-high compared to pre-pandemic days. Trump's policies draw parallels to the 1990s, when Congress took control and turned things around, proving that strong leadership can counteract progressive failures. With Democratic mayors crying "power grab" in failing cities like Chicago and Baltimore, it's clear: Trump's bold move is a lifeline for liberty, not a threat. Our capital should be a shining example of America, where leaders can work in peace and foreign representatives can see what this nation stands for without fearing for their lives.

Our nation's heart is at risk from the gaslighting establishment that benefits from disorder, absurdly framing Trump's actions as a "military takeover." Is this the leadership America needs, or will we let the swamp dictate the narrative?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Can we trust the media's spin? Should Trump expand this fight? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you support President Trump's deployment of federal agents to crack down on D.C. crime?

Do you believe liberal media and Democrats are manipulating crime stats to undermine Trump's efforts?

Is Trump's plan to jail criminals and relocate the homeless a necessary step to restore order in our capital?

Do you see Democratic policies as the root cause of rising violence in cities like D.C., Chicago, and Baltimore?

Should Trump extend this federal intervention to other failing blue cities to protect American liberty?

Durham annex exposes Hillary’s hand in Russiagate deception

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Newly declassified documents show that Hillary Clinton approved the Russia hoax strategy — and that the Obama White House was briefed from the beginning.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) last week declassified a 29-page document known as the Durham annex. Its publication has received remarkably little attention from major media outlets, despite containing one of the most significant intelligence disclosures since the origins of the Russiagate investigation.

The Durham annex is not conjecture, analysis, or political spin. It is a collection of sensitive intelligence reports, internal memos, and declassified emails compiled by the intelligence community and withheld from public view for years under the pretext of “source protection.”

The Durham annex reveals that the FBI ignored evidence in 2015 and 2016 suggesting that foreign governments were attempting to collude not with Trump, but with Clinton.

The declassified document offers a clearer view of what many Americans have long suspected: that the narrative surrounding Trump-Russia collusion was not only politically motivated but deliberately constructed by the Clinton campaign, facilitated by sympathetic actors within U.S. intelligence agencies, and ultimately endorsed by senior members of the Obama administration.

This trove of documents does not merely reinforce existing criticisms of the FBI’s conduct during the 2016 election. It provides evidence that the Clinton campaign approved a strategy to discredit Donald Trump by promoting a false association with Vladimir Putin. And it does so using intelligence collected from foreign surveillance of American political actors — surveillance that the CIA deemed credible enough to brief President Barack Obama directly.

The cover-up unraveled

Central to the Durham annex is a source codenamed “T1” — a foreign intelligence asset who intercepted Russian cyber-espionage activity targeting American entities, including George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, the Clinton campaign, and U.S. think tanks. The reports T1 relayed to U.S. intelligence included detailed assessments of internal American political strategy. In effect, T1 was watching Russian spies watch us — and reporting back.

T1’s identity remains classified, but strong circumstantial evidence points to a Dutch intelligence source. The Netherlands reportedly gained access to Russian cyber operations as early as 2014. Regardless of who provided it, U.S. agencies treated the intelligence from T1 as credible.

Then-CIA Director John Brennan quickly briefed President Obama, Vice President Biden, FBI Director James Comey, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Those briefings included memos indicating Hillary Clinton had personally approved a plan to tie Donald Trump to Russian election interference.

One memo, dated 2016 and reportedly obtained through Russian surveillance of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, outlined a Clinton campaign strategy: “Smear Donald Trump by magnifying the scandal” over Russia’s preference for Trump. That memo laid the groundwork for the Trump-Russia collusion hoax now known as Russiagate.

Intelligence running Clinton’s interference

The CIA labeled the intelligence “sensitive” and credible. The FBI rejected it. Agents claimed it relied on hearsay, appeared exaggerated, and might have suffered from translation errors.

That kind of skepticism might seem reasonable — if the FBI had applied the same scrutiny to the Steele dossier. Instead, they accepted that now-debunked document without verification and used it to justify surveillance warrants.

The inconsistency runs deeper than analysis. The Durham annex reveals that the FBI ignored evidence from 2015 and 2016 showing that foreign governments weren’t courting Trump — they were cozying up to Clinton.

One memo, written before Trump even announced his candidacy, described a foreign intelligence operative preparing to meet with a Clinton associate to discuss a “plan.” The operative was acting on direct orders from a foreign head of state

Gilbert Carrasquillo / Contributor | Getty Images

The precise content of the plan is redacted, but the FBI’s field office viewed it as serious enough to request a FISA warrant. That request, however, was left to “languish in limbo” by senior FBI officials, who subsequently warned Clinton in a defensive briefing.

Frayed trust, no accountability

The documents suggest a coordinated operation — one in which political, bureaucratic, and media institutions aligned to discredit a political opponent using information they had strong reasons to believe was false. The CIA deemed the intelligence worth a presidential briefing. The FBI discarded it. The media ignored it. And Clinton operatives implemented it.

This is not merely a scandal of partisan excess. Nearly 10 years after the first Hillary Clinton email leaks, and eight years after Trump’s unexpected victory, we are only now beginning to see the scope of institutional complicity in the Russiagate deception. The political cost may never be fully calculated, but the institutional damage — to the FBI, to the intelligence community, and to the trust of the American people — is already done.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.