Hope in D.C.? Glenn Interviews Senator Ben Sasse and Arthur Brooks

Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska joined Glenn on radio Wednesday to discuss the outrageous idea he had of putting a complete outsider into position as Speaker of the House.

The "outsider" - Arthur Brooks - joined the call as well.

"I don't think anybody is a better storyteller about the meaning of America right now than Arthur Brooks. I said, why wouldn't the House consider him?" Sasse said.

Listen to the conversation or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Senator Ben Sasse took to Twitter. And he said, I've been thinking about the House Speaker race, Boner -- Boner.

(laughter)

PAT: Freudian.

GLENN: Yeah, Boehner quitting prompted some remarkably boring and lazy analysis on where we are as a nation.

He said, imagine how much -- amazing how much conventional wisdom gets wrong.

Throughout our campaign, we heard from the DC press, but not from Nebraska voters.

This was the dynamic. Media. Everything is Tea Party versus establishment. Leader versus outsiders. Voters yawn.

No real question about vision. Who has it. Who doesn't.

Press obsesses over bickering. Student council races. Who slighted whom. The voters barely care.

Media framing the Speaker's race is reductionalist choice. Small-ball establishment versus wild-eyed Visigoths who want to burn the government to the ground.

It's a 24-hour news cycle of this junk, and it never ends. He goes on -- and he goes page after page after page of tweets.

And he says, I have an idea, let's elect an outsider. I'm going to let the senator speak, and then the outsider is also on the phone as well. Senator Ben Sasse, how are you, sir?

BEN: I'm doing well, Glenn. Thanks for having me on. When you read someone's tweet after the fact, you know, without all the iconographic ways to get it 140 characters, it makes it sound like I can't even type.

GLENN: You haven't read a lot of other people's tweets. So, Ben, tell us what you were thinking here.

BEN: Well, I mean, I think your audience gets this, right? The media is obsessed with the Tea Party versus establishment narrative. But the fact is that this is really a question of vision. I mean, you listen to the DC press Corp write about anything that's happening on Capitol Hill, and we constantly get this choice between small-ball procedural process-obsessed establishment insiders versus supposedly crazy people who want to just burn down the capitol. And I don't think that's the real choice. And it's not what I hear when I travel Nebraska.

You know, there's a reason that Congress' approval rating is at 11 percent. And Nebraskans are sick of the idea that the only way you should talk about politics is as if politics and DC are the center of the world. I think what the people in my state are worried about is whether or not the people are going to be vital and whether or not civil society will be dynamic and whether or not families are strong and their regulatory environment allows small business people to get a foot in the door and build the American dream. The things that the people of America are worried about and obsessed about are big and important questions. And DC tends to get wrapped around the axle around student council race squabbling. And we can do better than that. And we should.

GLENN: Ben, I tell you, you're one of my favorite senators. You really, truly are. You get it. And every time I talk to you, I'm struck with how in touch with the American people you really are. And that's hard to do in your position. Really hard.

BEN: Well, it helps if you live in a place that isn't dominated by the professions and the professionalization of politics. So we -- my wife and I are blessed to have three little kids. Girls are 14 and 11. Son is four. And we live in Nebraska, and we're raising them because we don't know where they would detassel corn and walk beans in DC. So we fly home every weekend. We're doing a family commute. And so our neighbors are actually real people, who if I talked about process of insider DC baseball all the time, anybody at a high school game or at the grocery store is going to look at me like I have two heads. And that's healthy. It keeps you grounded.

GLENN: Okay. So what is your solution? Because honestly I've talked to a few of the people running for the House Speaker. And I'm kind of yawning. I mean, there's nothing -- I don't see anything that I'm excited about.

BEN: When I read the US Constitution, the first position that's referenced is Speaker of the House. It's the most democratic body because it's closest to the people, and every 24 months you have to get reelected or tossed out. The people can fire the politicians because the people are in charge and the politicians are supposed to work for us. And it's a good thing that the people have the power to fire us. And that Speaker of the House should be a voice, not just for one party, but a representation of the will of the American people in our Madisonian, separation of powers system. So I would love to see a conversation in DC be about something bigger than who is caucused with whom and what professional issue people have been fighting about last week. So it seems to me, if you want to think about the direction of the country, which the people in Nebraska and beyond do, if you want to think about the direction of conservatism. If you want to think about the challenges we face five and ten and 15 years in the future, we should think, who is a happy warrior? Who knows how to celebrate earned success? Who knows how to talk about fighting for people, not just against bad programs? How do we cut through, you know, a lazy media portrayal that the fight is between ostensibly a number of obsessed Republicans versus genuinely compassionate Democrats. That's not the right way to frame the problem. And the guy that kept coming to my mind as I was watching Sunday Night Football is Arthur Brooks, the head of AEI. And so I think that the House Republicans should think about going outside the box. There's nothing in the Constitution that requires you to have a Speaker who is an elected member of Congress. And I don't think anybody is a better storyteller about the meaning of America right now than Arthur Brooks. I said, why wouldn't the House consider him?

GLENN: Arthur Brooks is on the phone. Arthur responded, quote, normally I trust Ben Sasse's ideas, but is America ready for a bald Speaker? I think not.

Arthur, welcome to the program. Arthur, are you there? We've lost Arthur. He's down. We've got a man down.

BEN: I think we know what he thinks about the nomination.

ARTHUR: Hey, can you hear me?

GLENN: Yeah, we can hear you now. Hi, Arthur, how are you?

ARTHUR: Hi, I'm doing great. How are you doing, my friend?

GLENN: Good. So tell me, how do you take this? Do you take this seriously?

ARTHUR: Well, look, I mean, it's clear that Ben is drinking too much beer when he watches Sunday night football. I think that much is known at this point. But, look, we love Ben Sasse. Because he's -- look, if he decides to stay in politics, he's the future of the Republican Party. He's not an anger guy. He's not an envy guy. He's an aspiration guy. He's somebody who truly understands what it means to be a happy warrior. He gets into this business because he wants to fight for people.

Look, this is what you've been talking about now for more than ten years, Glenn. You got to fight for people, you don't just fight against things. And, you know, Ben lives that out every day, and his frustration is palpable.

I mean, I saw the tweet stream coming because I look at my Twitter too. And I'm thinking, "What is he getting at? What is he getting at?" Then in the end, "Are you kidding me, man?" But, still, I get the basic idea that what he's after, it's boring the kinds of things we're talking about in DC right now. Right?

GLENN: Oh, we had -- we had one of the candidates on for Speaker of the House yesterday. And he's a friend of ours. And we've known him forever. We hung up the phone, we were like -- I'm not. I don't care. I mean, there was no -- there was nothing there.

STU: He didn't seem like he was really totally into running.

GLENN: Right. It was the same kind of stuff.

STU: And the other guy we talked to was basically -- it was a, he's not super conservative, but there will be a lot of procedural things you won't understand that he'll change and he'll be right on.

GLENN: That he'll get right.

STU: Which is not exciting.

GLENN: And then the third guy is a guy who you're like, you have to be kidding me, right?

STU: He's like, we did the Benghazi thing just to screw Hillary Clinton. Elect me.

GLENN: It's just small thinking. There's nobody -- I'm looking for a candidate that is -- on all fronts, that says, you know what, we're not going to play this game anymore. We're just not going to play it. We don't have to play it anymore. The world is changing. The times are changing. The thinking has changed. We'll think way out of the box. And, quite honestly, Ben, that's what I like about this idea.

BEN: Arthur, we could comment a lot about Arthur's hair and the potential if he had some grafting and a combover.

ARTHUR: That would be interesting, wouldn't it?

BEN: It's amazing the stuff -- when you're on Twitter, and you're maybe a little bit promiscuous with your tweeting for a time. The things people send back to me.

Arthur, I got to show you some of the photos after you talked about being bald.

GLENN: Oh, I want to see.

BEN: People Photoshopping everybody else's hair onto you and sending it to me.

GLENN: Arthur, I want to see you with Donald Trump's hair.

BEN: Oh, yeah.

ARTHUR: That's the secret. That's what America needs. But here's why --

GLENN: Let's talk about this -- let's talk about this seriously.

BEN: Yes.

GLENN: Senator, you have bought the domain DraftArthurBrooks.com. Are you serious about this?

BEN: Well, something tells me that Mrs. Brooks isn't too thrilled that I've nominated her husband for the most thankless job in all of Washington.

ARTHUR: Look, Ben, I'll tell you what Mrs. Brooks said. I took it to her on Sunday night. I said, "What do you think, honey?" And she said, "Well, as you know, as Catholics, we don't believe in divorce."

(laughter)

GLENN: That sounds like a yes to me.

(laughter)

PAT: So there's a chance then?

BEN: In all seriousness, I genuinely think that Arthur would be an incredible Speaker of the House because the Speaker of the House should be Congress' chief storyteller. I know that seems provocative to folks because around the Hill, I've heard over the course of the last day and a half, well, that's ridiculous. It isn't the job of the Speaker of the House to cast a grand vision for the American people.

GLENN: Yes, it is.

BEN: The Speaker is supposed to recatalyze (phonetic) us and remind us who we are. The Speaker's job is to sit atop the sausage factory, was a direct quote someone gave me. The Speaker's job is to sit atop the sausage factory, and that's an ugly process. You can't cast a vision from there. Ben, you're confused. You articulated the job of the president.

Well, a couple of things. First of all, in a Madisonian construction of three separate, but equal branches, the article one branch, the legislature is the place that policy is supposed to remain. And that policy should be aligned with a long-term directional sense of where the country is headed. Number two, historically, the founders, a lot of them wanted to conscript Washington and make him into a king even though he didn't want to do it because they weren't sure that a republic would really work.

But to the degree that they decided to make this gamble, they thought a couple of things. One, they didn't even call the guy president in some of their early drafts. Sometimes he was just this presiding officer term. Used to be called the administrator, in some people's terms, because the idea was, anybody who is elected to represent the people is absolutely supposed to have a fundamental sense of the American idea. And the American idea is about the fact that we as a people, we as a nation, are much bigger than the compulsory tools that are the powers of a distant federal government. And so the storytelling aspect a fundamental part of this job. And I just truly think, who could be better at this than Arthur? And if you got somebody, great, nominate them. But let's not start with a passive assumption that whoever has caucused best over the last four months to align themselves for this next career move, that that's the important question. The important question for the people in Nebraska is who has a vision for where the country is headed.

GLENN: So, Arthur, do you --

ARTHUR: I mean, let's think about in a big way of what Ben is really talking about here. Ben is not talking about being Arthur Brooks. Ben is talking about what the leadership should really look like that's a step away from the presidency of the United States.

The Speaker speaks for the American people. What do the American people care about? They care about four things. Faith, family, community, and work. Those are the four things that gives people's lives meaning. Those are the four things that government should be getting out of the way of. We need a Speaker. We need a Congress. By the way, Ben correctly points out that Congress' favorability is at 11 percent. And I will remind our listeners that Kim Jong-un is at 12 percent. 11 percent is not very high. And the reason for that is this whole concept that they're not fighting for me. That doesn't mean they want more free things. That doesn't mean they want more benefits.

They want somebody who says, "Yeah, this Congress, this Speaker, people who want to be president, are warriors for the things that I really about and that I want to pass on to my kids." And let me you, right on this call, if we spent an hour, which we won't, but if we wanted to, we could come up with ten ways that the government in the next year will get out of way of faith and religious freedom. That will make it easier to set up traditional families. That will stop fragmenting communities. And that is going to become warriors for meaningful work for Americans.

Look, just with those four things. If that's what the vision is for a better Congress -- if that's what the vision is for a better state, imagine the happiness of the people. Imagine what we could do. And that's Ben's point. It's not about me. It's about actual leadership.

GLENN: You know, you would think that actually the Republicans would kind of like this, except that they're all camera hogs. You would think they would actually like this because you could actually go outside and hire somebody who is just great at articulating a vision. That's not elected -- doesn't have to worry about being elected again. Doesn't have to worry about any of the game playing. Can just be somebody who is telling the vision of America and keeping -- and really -- I mean, it's almost like a PR guy. Is it not?

ARTHUR: Marketing is a lot of it, guys. Marketing is a lot of what the president does. And there's nothing wrong with that. See, the actual work of making America work -- that's not the government's job. That's the citizen's job when they take care of their kids, when they go to church, and they go to Little League, and especially when they go to work every day.

But the government's job is making sure that basic functions function, that we have a safety net for people, and that we get out of the way when they're trying to live their lives. That's the vision of what it's supposed to be. And that's exactly what we're not doing.

GLENN: So, Arthur, because you do what you do at the American Enterprise Institute, you're following this game. Is there somebody -- we have really been at a loss for telling people who they should get behind. Who should they get behind? Is there somebody that you see? Is there some plan that you see? I just see small vision after small vision after small vision, and it's killing me.

ARTHUR: Well, it's an iron cage is what it is. So it's a competition of relatively small visions. Because it's almost as if break out with something bigger, it gives you a competitive disadvantage.

And here's the good news, Glenn. The good news is the Republican Party is a better ecosystem than it's been in a long time. I know there's a lot of infighting. I know there's a lot of bad blood. I got that.

But if the Republican Party, if they can get somebody like Ben Sasse to run for Senate and win on a walk, I might add, and a few other guys like Cory Gardner and Tom Cotton and the new generation, James Lankford, the new generation of guys who are in the Senate, that's a Republican Party that's a pretty healthy ecosystem. What that means, the people who are running can be really good. We don't actually have to find the new bald think tank president guy. We need to urge the people who are really running to talk in terms of the bigger vision. To use the metaphor of Sunday night football, to throw a long ball.

GLENN: Ben, in your own -- in your own circle with the Senate, what do you say, you know, you slip a roofie of some sort with Mitch McConnell and --

STU: This is not a good direction.

BEN: I don't even know what that means. I'm sure I'm not -- I don't even know what that means.

(laughter)

GLENN: I have to wrap it up, so we'll leave it at the roofies you'll slip Mitch McConnell.

(laughter)

God bless you, both of you. Thank you very much for having the conversation. And, Ben, please hang on to your soul because you're really, truly the good guys, as are you Arthur Brooks. Appreciate it. Thank you. Buh-bye.

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

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picking up his torch

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two turning points, decades apart

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

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

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

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

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

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

A time for courage

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Muhammad to Marx

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

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

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

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

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?