Trump's Leading Candidate for the Supreme Court Wrote Law Cited for Advancing Transgender Regulations

January 19, 2017

WRITER

Two religious liberty cases have sparked an internal war among conservatives over Judge William H. Pryor, the leading candidate to take Judge Antonin Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court.

Both the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation approved Pryor as one of 20 candidates on President-elect Trump's list for Supreme Court nominees, but second thoughts are seeping in. Additionally, Dr. James Dobson and Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council have raised concerns about a law crafted by Pryor that various Obama administration agencies --- including the Departments of Justice, Labor and Education --- began citing as their justification for advancing transgendered litigation and regulations.

"We cannot afford to have anyone chip away on religious liberty," Glenn said.

It's critical that the judge chosen to replace Scalia serve as a conservative benchmark on the court.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Two religious liberty cases have sparked an internal war among conservatives over Judge William H. Pryor. Stu.

PAT: Is Pryor one of the -- is he one of the main considerations?

GLENN: He is the main. He's the leading candidate.

PAT: Is he really?

STU: Yeah, and he's been talked about in Republican circles for a long time for a Supreme Court seat. I've heard problems from Libertarians with him. Although, the problems you're describing here are not really from that angle.

GLENN: Right. Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation put him on the list. Both of them did.

However, there is a problem. And the problem was found by The Federalist Society, and it started to ripple around that community. And they were like, "Oh, crap, we put this guy on the list." And members of the Federalist Society were like, "Yeah, I know you did."

And now the ripples are going through the Heritage Foundation, and no one is willing to say anything about it.

But you need to know about it. Everybody loves him because his judicial record. 2003 Senate confirmation, he said, "Roe vs. Wade is the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law." Big.

PAT: Love that. It's great.

GLENN: Now, let me see.

No one in the conservative movement or the religious movement care to say anything about this, except James Dobson and the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins.

They have now circulated and are persistently open about their concerns with Pryor. One of the cases that concerns them is Keaton versus Anderson-Wiley. It involved a Christian counseling student, whom a state college expelled after she refused to agree to a remediation measure, such as one of her choices, she could attend a gay pride parade intended to change her views on homosexuality.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: When she said no, she was suspended from school. A three-day -- or, I'm sorry, a three-judge panel, including Pryor, ruled the school did not discriminate against the student because the school would treat anyone with her belief the same way.

PAT: Well, then they would discriminate against anyone. Right?

GLENN: Right. They would discriminate against anyone who would believe that.

PAT: That's unbelievable. Wow.

GLENN: More problematic is the majority opinion in Glenn versus Brumby. Brumby. A case involving a biological male fired after he wanted to dress as a woman and begin medical treatments.

Pryor again concurred with the circuit court's liberal former Judge Rosemary Barkett, ruling that the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution protected the employee from discrimination based on sex, which the court interpreted to include gender identity.

So now, he is saying that sex is whatever you decide it to be. Slate -- Slate called the opinion absolutely revolutionary for transgendered employment rights.

PAT: How did this guy get recommended by the Heritage Society?

GLENN: Right.

Various Obama administration agencies, including the Departments of Justice, Labor, and Education began citing Glenn as their justification -- as their justification for advancing transgendered litigation and regulations.

So he's the guy who wrote the -- the current law --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: -- that allows them to say, "Bathrooms."

STU: You know, look, that's -- those are a couple of cases. And, you know -- you know, there's a lot of good with Pryor. He is -- you know, here's -- this is --

PAT: That's what they said about Stephen Breyer too.

STU: But you have hundreds -- hundreds and hundreds of cases, can you find a couple that are going to --

GLENN: Are those pretty big.

STU: But let me give you this: This is from SCOTUS blog, talking about religion.

Pryor has consistently, although not uniformly, ruled in favor of parties raising religious liberty claims.

And so that's -- he's --

GLENN: We cannot afford to have anyone chip away on religious liberty.

PAT: No, we can't. No, we can't.

STU: Exactly.

GLENN: We can't afford it.

STU: Especially when there are people on that list that you probably could say have uniformly --

PAT: Yes. You've got the Lee brothers. So many guys on there who would be consistent.

GLENN: You have 20. There are three that are unacceptable. Pryor is one of them.

STU: You think unacceptable is the right term for Pryor? I feel like that's going too far honestly.

GLENN: I think when you have Scalia -- you're replacing Scalia.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Okay?

PAT: In that context, he is unacceptable, I think.

GLENN: He's unacceptable. You have no one holding the benchmark. It's like, if you're replacing Ginsburg, you would replace Ginsburg -- I mean, I wouldn't, you wouldn't, but they would replace Ginsburg -- and if it was the only one, they would not roll the dice. We have no one --

PAT: And they would replace her with someone more radical than she is.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: We never do that.

GLENN: We never do it. We never do it.

PAT: We never do it.

The Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Glenn's Show Prep