WATCH: Megyn Kelly Promo Shows She Won't Be Giving Alex Jones a Free Pass

June 12, 2017

WRITER

Oh boy, Megyn Kelly is taking heat from both sides of the aisle.

The host of NBC's Sunday Night With Megyn Kelly announced she will sit down with controversial radio host Alex Jones in an upcoming interview. The news received strong reactions --- from both the left and right. The left accused Kelly of normalizing a conspiracy theorist like Jones while the right finds fault with branding him a "conservative."

"Here's the thing. A good journalist shuts up, asks the questions and lets them hang themselves," Glenn said Monday on radio.

One listen to the released promo confirms Kelly has provided Jones plenty of rope:

Megyn Kelly's interview with Alex Jones airs Sunday, June 18 at 7pm ET during Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly on NBC.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Oh, boy. And Megyn Kelly is in trouble now on both sides of the aisle.

PAT: Which is weird. I don't get that.

GLENN: I don't get this either.

Okay. So Huffington Post, you would expect: How can you give a quarter to somebody like Alex Jones? Okay. All right. I get that.

But now the right is also saying: How can give you quarter to Alex Jones?

STU: Is that what they're saying?

GLENN: RedState is. They're saying that their -- what she's doing is legitimizing him.

STU: Legitimizing him. And I think there was an argument to be made about legitimizing Alex Jones.

PAT: Making fun of somebody, are you legitimizing him? And I don't know she's necessarily doing that. But she's providing him the forum to make fun of himself. He's his own worst enemy.

GLENN: Here's the thing: A good journalist shuts up. Asks the questions and shuts up. And lets them hang themselves. I want you just to hear the promo and tell me after hearing the promo for Megyn Kelly that this is going to be an interview that there's no hanging of one's self in.

ALEX: His authoritarianism knows humanity's awakening. And it's moving against humanity on a planetary scale. The great global battle of the future of our species is being fought right now.

MEGYN: They call you the most paranoid man in America. Is that true?

ALEX: Absolutely not. A paranoid person would be hiding out in their house, not venturing out in public. I go out there on the street and battle Black Lives Matter. The Communists. Point-blank range.

MEGYN: We talked controversies and conspiracies. 9/11.

ALEX: Now, 9/11 was an inside job. When I say inside job, it means criminal elements in our government working with Saudi Arabia and others.

PAT: Right.

ALEX: Wanted to frame Iraq for it. Just a fact. Just a fact.

MEGYN: Sandy Hook.

ALEX: Well, Sandy Hook is complex because I've had debates where -- with devil's advocate, said the whole story is true. Then I've had debates where I've said that none of it is true.

PAT: Oh, well, if you've taken both sides of the issue, then I guess that's okay.

GLENN: In debates. Okay. It's complicated. Because I've had debates where I've said the whole thing is true and the whole thing is not true.

PAT: Complicating the issue by taking both sides of it.

STU: Well, he said devil's advocates arguments. But like --

PAT: That's baloney. That's absolute bullcrap.

STU: First of all, that's an absolute lie he's covering. But beyond that, it's like, do you need a devil's advocate on whether Sandy Hook occurred?

PAT: No. No, you do not. Only in Alex Jones' world.

STU: Is there a need for it? Yeah.

GLENN: I've had debates, played devil's advocate, where I said the sun is an actual god. And I made that argument.

STU: And I made that argument.

GLENN: But I've also said the sun is just a giant flaming orb of glass.

MEGYN: When you say parents faked their children's death, people get very angry.

ALEX: Oh, I know. But they don't get angry about a half a million dead Iraqis from the sanctions or they don't get angry --

MEGYN: That's a dodge.

PAT: That's a dodge. Yeah.

GLENN: And a Buick. I mean, what -- what the hell is that -- they don't angry about all the sanctions.

PAT: What about the Black Plague that killed over 30 million people in Europe in the 1600s? What about that? How come nobody screamed about that? Nobody is talking about it. Why aren't you covering that --

GLENN: Wow. Because you just said --

PAT: What the hell. What does that have to do with anything?

GLENN: You just said parents faked the death of their child.

PAT: Yeah, well, that -- what about -- what about the Armenian crisis in the 1917 era.

(laughter)

PAT: Anybody talking about that?

GLENN: Wow. No.

PAT: That's crazy.

GLENN: But wait. There's more.

PAT: There's more.

ALEX: It was not a dodge. The media never covers all the evil wars.

MEGYN: That doesn't excuse what you did and said about Newton. You know it.

GLENN: Stop for a second. I just want to say -- again, the reason why I'm playing this is because both the left and the right is saying that she is legitimizing him.

STU: You're right. Letting him hang himself, but asking -- and pushing him back --

GLENN: But you're, still, okay. He sounds a little crazy. But it's on NBC, right? This is just the promo. Listen.

ALEX: -- looked all the angles of Newton. And I made my statements long before the media even picked up on it. We didn't get any of the really important stuff.

MEGYN: What do you mean? We talked about all the important stuff.

ALEX: Well, here's the big one they always make fun of me -- you probably want to throw this in there. Thirty years ago, they began creating animal/human hybrids. Isn't that the story Megyn Kelly should be doing?

PAT: It's huge. She isn't covering that.

STU: Why isn't she covering that?

PAT: I will say, he's right about that. She's not covering it.

STU: Is it possible she is one, and that's why she's hiding it?

PAT: I think it's likely.

GLENN: So the question is -- the question is, why on God's green earth would you -- would you bring up animal/human hybrids?

STU: Out of nowhere.

GLENN: Out of nowhere.

PAT: Bizarre.

GLENN: That's something that your PR people say, look, we've made a deal. She's not going to bring up the animal/human hybrid thing, okay? If she asks about it, just shut your mouth.

STU: He brought that up in the press conference after his trial too. The same thing.

JEFFY: Yes, he did.

PAT: It's something he believes very deeply.

GLENN: Okay. Well, there's your legitimate interview coming Sunday with Megyn Kelly.

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.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

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.

Glenn's Show Prep