Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

This Millennial Powerhouse Spreading Conservatism on College Campuses Can't Be Stopped

April 07, 2017
Staff

WRITER

What happens when parents let their children learn from Glenn Beck? They turn into awesome, conservative young adults. That couldn't be more true than with Millennial Lauren Cooley, Founder and Executive Director of Campus Red PAC, who listened to Glenn as a young child and read Common Sense in her teens. Now in her twenties, Cooley joined Glenn in studio Friday to discuss her effort to bring sanity back to college campuses and challenge the liberal status quo.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Lauren Cooley is in town. Lauren is somebody who has been listening to this show for a long time. You were in high school when you started listening to this show?

LAUREN: Yep. High school.

GLENN: Did your parents serve any time for that cruelty?

LAUREN: No. Not at all. I was watching you on TV when my parent was watching one thing, and I was in the other room watching Glenn Beck on TV.

GLENN: Wow. You were a weird kid.

LAUREN: Yeah, that's true. I'm not gonna deny it.

GLENN: And when you were in high school, you read common sense.

LAUREN: Yeah, it's the book that made me think not just Republican but conservative too. Probably conservative first and Republican second.

GLENN: And why was that? Do you know?

LAUREN: I think it cut through all the talking points -- no upon intended, here's some common sense that everyone is talking about, and it explained things so simply that it wasn't, like, you have to vote for this party or that party. You have to tow the party line. It was these are things that are really going to help our country, they make sense. They are things that have been around. It's not brand new. Why aren't we talking about these things and thinking about these things? For me, it clicked and made sense.

GLENN: Wow. How old were you at the time?

LAUREN: I was 16 or 17.

GLENN: How. How much would you love to have your 16 or 17-year-old reading on their own something like common sense and be, like, I'm thinking about these big issues. That's remarkable.

So then you live in Florida.

LAUREN: I do.

GLENN: And you're doing a speaking tour now for college students. Tell me about it.

LAUREN: During the election, I was helping students get out the vote and doing a big voter registration program and now the election's over, all right. What do we do on campus; right? So all of these students came to me and said, hey, you gave me such great direction during the election but now what? So that's the premise of this speaking tour called make campus great again.

JEFFY: They're allowing me on campuses?

LAUREN: Some campuses where I could get away with it. Last night we heard screaming out the door, and we thought it was protesters. It wasn't. I thought that would give me street credit. But going to college campuses saying we've been playing defense, we around for some leftist group on campus to say we hate the American flag. Let's get rid of it and then say, oh, we love the flag. Why don't we go on offense for these America first policies that we care about instead of waiting for some kind of controversy on campus to happen. Why don't we start pushing our agenda going to the student government and saying, hey, we receive taxpayer dollars. We love our country. We want to always prominently display the American flag and get something passed as resolution on the front-end that way we're not always playing defense. Multiple things but that's a good example.

GLENN: When you say multiple things, because you've said a couple of things that put a red flag up in my head that that's America first that you have to be careful with America first. It's our principles first. Where do you stand on free speech on campus and safe spaces? And where do people your age stand on that?

LAUREN: Right so to answer America first, when I always tell people is obviously when it comes to principles, everybody has equal intrinsic value; right? But when you come to a nation state, that's where you have to start deciding with the social contract what is the role of that organization? So in that sense, that's what we're talking about America first policy.

GLENN: Good. Okay. All right.

LAUREN: But free speech on college campus is such a difficult topic because it's not that the administration wants to shut down other ideas, although a lot of times it is, they just like to have control, and they don't like any type of organized chaos. So for college students on most campuses, and this is even worse on private campuses, there's something called a free speech zone. You can only articulate, you know, controversial values in this small little area. So what I've actually encouraged students to do on this tour is go out and purposely revoke their administration that they're not allowed to be talking about some issue outside of the free speech zone. Purposefully go and stand just outside of the free speech zone with a sign that says I'm not in the free speech zone.

I have the first amendment. You know, whatever it might be. And get that on film, get documentation so that they can actually go and use it either with the student government or trustees or use it for media or even for a legal case and say here's a documented example. We've actually shown the administration is trampling on our free speech rights and then be able to make policy changes.

GLENN: I would think that college students would be the first to say don't trample on my right to speak in any direction. I mean, the reason we have tenure is that -- is so that 25 years ago a professor could say, you know, global warming's going to happen, and we're all going to die. We have to ban oil because it was controversial and needed to make sure he could keep his job. Now we have to be able to have tenure so some professor could say, you know, this global warming stuff is nothing but crap. On a University campus, it should be the place where you are the most uncomfortable.

LAUREN: Yeah, absolutely. I think learning is exploring new ideas, things that are uncomfortable. And what I've seen at least when I was an undergrad about four or five years ago, free speech zones, trigger warnings, they weren't really that big of a thing. It's really been in the last five years or so when the left has become so extreme.

GLENN: Who's driving that? Is it the students? Is it the faculty?

LAUREN: I think it's our culture. I think the culture comes from a lot of times these AstroTurf protests. That gets into the culture, celebrities promote it, different student groups on campus that are left wing have different organizations that are funded maybe by George Soros. Giving them talking points and activism projects. And then that starts creating where it looks like it's natural and coming from the students.

GLENN: And do the students for the most part left and right agree with safe zones?

LAUREN: No, absolutely not. And that's what I say of getting at. About five years ago, people didn't care one way or the other. But I think the farther left our culture gets, that's what people are going to see on college campuses is that it used to be counter culture to be liberal. But now we see in Hollywood, in our government for the past eight years, our culture, the normal culture is this liberal progressive be nice, be politically correct, you can only use your free speech in a safe little box where it's away from everybody else. Young people like to be radical. They look to be counter culture, and I think that's where we're seeing conservative values come back. This push against political correctness, a push against trigger warnings with, and it's neat to see polling and trending with younger generations even younger than millennials and this new wave of college students now as opposed to five years ago that we're voting for President Obama. There's a push back, and I'm really excited about seeing that on campus, and that's kind of what my tour's about is these practical ways, these actual tactical steps to make a difference and push back against these things.

GLENN: Lauren Cooley. LaurenCooley.com is her web address. You can find out more about her and what she's doing. Nice to meet you.

LAUREN: Thank you for having me.

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?

Trump's mineral deal with Ukraine: What you need to know

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.

Mark Carney's bombshell victory: Is Canada doomed under his globalist agenda?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Top FIVE powerful takeaways from Glenn Beck’s unfiltered Trump interview

Image courtesy of the White House

As President Trump approaches his 100th day in office, Glenn Beck joined him to evaluate his administration’s progress with a gripping new interview. April 30th is President Trump's 100th day in office, and what an eventful few months it has been. To commemorate this milestone, Glenn Beck was invited to the White House for an exclusive interview with the President.

Their conversation covered critical topics, including the border crisis, DOGE updates, the revival of the U.S. energy sector, AI advancements, and more. Trump remains energized, acutely aware of the nation’s challenges, and determined to address them.

Here are the top five takeaways from Glenn Beck’s one-on-one with President Trump:

Border Security and Cartels

DAVID SWANSON / Contributor | Getty Images

Early in the interview, Glenn asked if Trump views Mexico as a failed narco-state. While Trump avoided the term, he acknowledged that cartels effectively control Mexico. He noted that while not all Mexican officials are corrupt, those who are honest fear severe repercussions for opposing the cartels.

Trump was unsurprised when Glenn cited evidence that cartels are using Pentagon-supplied weapons intended for the Mexican military. He is also aware of the fentanyl influx from China through Mexico and is committed to stopping the torrent of the dangerous narcotic. Trump revealed that he has offered military aid to Mexico to combat the cartels, but these offers have been repeatedly declined. While significant progress has been made in securing the border, Trump emphasized that more must be done.

American Energy Revival

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s tariffs are driving jobs back to America, with the AI sector showing immense growth potential. He explained that future AI systems require massive, costly complexes with significant electricity demands. China is outpacing the U.S. in building power plants to support AI development, threatening America’s technological leadership.

To counter this, Trump is cutting bureaucratic red tape, allowing AI companies to construct their own power plants, potentially including nuclear facilities, to meet the energy needs of AI server farms. Glenn was thrilled to learn these plants could also serve as utilities, supplying excess power to homes and businesses. Trump is determined to ensure America remains the global leader in AI and energy.

Liberation Day Shakeup

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Glenn drew a parallel between Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and the historical post-World War II Liberation Day. Trump confirmed the analogy, explaining that his policy aims to dismantle an outdated global economic order established to rebuild Europe and Asia after the wars of the 20th century. While beneficial decades ago, this system now disadvantages the U.S. through job outsourcing, unfair trade deals, and disproportionate NATO contributions.

Trump stressed that America’s economic survival is at stake. Without swift action, the U.S. risks collapse, potentially dragging the West down with it. He views his presidency as a critical opportunity to reverse this decline.

Trouble in Europe

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

When Glenn pressed Trump on his tariff strategy and negotiations with Europe, Trump delivered a powerful statement: “I don’t have to negotiate.” Despite America’s challenges, it remains the world’s leading economy with the wealthiest consumer base, making it an indispensable trading partner for Europe. Trump wants to make equitable deals and is willing to negotiate with European leaders out of respect and desire for shared prosperity, he knows that they are dependent on U.S. dollars to keep the lights on.

Trump makes an analogy, comparing America to a big store. If Europe wants to shop at the store, they are going to have to pay an honest price. Or go home empty-handed.

Need for Peace

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

Trump emphasized the need to end America’s involvement in endless wars, which have cost countless lives and billions of dollars without a clear purpose. He highlighted the staggering losses in Ukraine, where thousands of soldiers die weekly. Trump is committed to ending the conflict but noted that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has been a challenging partner, constantly demanding more U.S. support.

The ongoing wars in Europe and the Middle East are unsustainable, and America’s excessive involvement has prolonged these conflicts, leading to further casualties. Trump aims to extricate the U.S. from these entanglements.