From radio: Santorum endorses Ted Cruz

On radio this morning, Glenn welcomed Rick Santorum to the program to discuss what he has been up to since suspending his campaign for President as well as many of the local elections happening across the country. One race that Santorum expressed a strong interest in was the Texas Senate race, and on the radio show Santorum publicly endorses candidate Ted Cruz.

"Ted Cruz in Texas. You know, this is a ‑‑ this is a tough race there because there's very good people in this race, but to me Ted is what we're missing in the United States," Santorum said.

"I hear this every ‑‑ all the time from people that I work with that are trying to move the conservative agenda in Washington, D.C. Not just a good conservative vote but someone who has the skills and the leadership to be able to go out and articulate the vision and the message. There is almost no debate going on in the United States anymore. There's no one out there that can get up there and deliver the kind of impassioned, spellbinding speeches and really engage the debate in on the floor of the United States Senate. We're missing, particularly on a lot of issues. I mean, yes, you got people can do it on some of the tax issues and Republicans are always good at talking about lower taxes, but there are a lot of other issues out there beyond just taxes and spending, and we don't have a lot of voices on those issues."

"And Ted Cruz, I've seen him speak and he is spellbinding. He really is. He's just a tremendous orator and very strongly principled, in‑depth. I mean, he understands these issues at his core and can ‑‑ and can really deliver the message. And we do need not just people who are good votes but people who can really motivate and lead. And, you know, one of the things that I felt that we were able to do out on the campaign trail was to, in some respects, inspire people by, you know, painting a vision, and Ted really has that capability that it's a very missing ingredient in Washington D.C. right now."

Read the transcript of the interview below:

GLENN: Rick Santorum is on the phone. Hello, Rick.

SANTORUM: Good morning. How are you there, Mr. Beck?

GLENN: Very good, Rick Santorum.

SANTORUM: Good.

GLENN: You've got that bedroom voice like, I just woke up.

SANTORUM: Yeah.

GLENN: Like I'm well rested now.

SANTORUM: Yeah. Well, I'm actually out here on the West Coast and it's a little early this morning but, you know, we've been ‑‑ this is my third meeting so far, but I'll try to pick up the voice a little bit for you.

GLENN: Wait a minute. This is your third meeting this morning?

SANTORUM: Yeah. Well, yeah, third call.

GLENN: What are you doing now? Aren't you ‑‑ you lost, you know.

SANTORUM: Oh, sorry. I'll go back to bed.

GLENN: Shouldn't you be, like, relaxing and be like, "Yeah, I'm not doing anything. I'm in my ‑‑ I'm in my boxer shorts walking around the house. I got nothing going on."

SANTORUM: Yeah. Well, that would be nice but if we ‑‑ no, it's been a ‑‑ it's been, you know, obviously a very different pace, you know, when you're on a campaign and doing the things that we had to do every day and to step back, but it's been an opportunity to spend a heck of a lot more time with the family, which has been a great thing and, you know, think about what we can do in maybe a different capacity to try to make a difference in this, as I said in every campaign speech I delivered. This is the most important election in the history of our country and just because I'm not out there on the frontline as a candidate doesn't mean that I shouldn't do like every other citizen of this country: Be as involved as I can in making a difference come November.

GLENN: May I ask you a question: We were talking on the air yesterday about Sarah Palin's endorsement, and everybody has endorsed now Orrin Hatch. Am I missing something? What happened with Orrin Hatch where all of a sudden now they're saying that he's a ‑‑ he's a small government "balance the budget" kind of guy?

SANTORUM: Yeah.

GLENN: Do you have any insight on this?

SANTORUM: No, I don't. I was surprised at that myself. I mean, you know, Orrin is a ‑‑ is a nice guy, he's a friend of mine, I served with him in the Senate. We had a very good relationship.

GLENN: Yeah, he's a nice man.

SANTORUM: But, you know, Orrin is not the kind of, you know, dynamic conservative leader that we really need, someone who's ‑‑ who's willing to get out there and take on the tough stances and really be a leader of a fundamental change in the way Washington does business. And that's what I'm looking ‑‑ when I look at candidates, because I haven't endorsed very many candidates going forward, and I've really taken the opinion that, you know, I'm going to step in races where I think you have really strong voices of people that you can trust to be principled politicians. And even if you look at two years ago, there's a lot of folks that got elected who became, let's just say not, not the kind of Tea Party reformers that ‑‑

GLENN: Exactly right.

SANTORUM: ‑‑ they campaign to be. They get to Washington ‑‑ it's tough. I mean, I know it's very, very tough in that environment. But if now isn't the time, when we're facing fiscal Armageddon and financial Armageddon in this country, if you can't be tough now, when can you be tough?

GLENN: Can't.

SANTORUM: And that's why, you know, I've, you know, been scouring these candidates very, very closely and have really only chosen a few that I felt comfortable in accepting.

GLENN: Who have you ‑‑ who have you endorsed?

SANTORUM: Well, I endorsed Mourdock in Indiana. That was probably the ‑‑ that's the first person I stepped forward and endorsed. Again, I ‑‑

GLENN: Nice.

SANTORUM: Richard Lugar's a nice man, but just like Orrin Hatch. I mean, they've been there for 30‑plus years and ‑‑

GLENN: Part of the problem and you didn't get it done, you haven't been ‑‑

SANTORUM: Well ‑‑

GLENN: Like Rick, Jim DeMint was there and he has been fighting solidly. Solidly all these years trying to get things done and change the course. These guys have not been those pioneers.

SANTORUM: Yeah. I mean, and Jim is not a popular guy. I mean, let's just be honest about it. I mean, Jim is, within his ‑‑ the ranks of the United States, he is not a popular guy with his colleagues.

PAT: Hmmm.

SANTORUM: Because, you know, he holds their feet to the fire and he's endorsed people against, you know, folks that he has to see and work with every single day. That is hard, folks. I mean, that is really hard. And so I give him a tremendous amount of credit for it. And he's gone out and done what he thinks is right and I think that's what we have ‑‑ we have to look for in candidates, folks who can stand up. And I wanted to talk to you today because, you know, I felt like there's a campaign and a candidate that I've gotten to know a little bit more over the past couple of weeks and I've done a pretty thorough, thorough scouring of not just his record but the people that are around him and close to him, and I felt like I wanted to step forward today and support somebody and I thought, well, what better place to do that than to call the Glenn Beck show and tell the people about that.

STU: Is it Barack Obama?

SANTORUM: Gosh, you know, what a Blockbuster endorsement that would have been.

GLENN: Yeah, wouldn't it?

SANTORUM: Yeah.

GLENN: That would be. That would be a surprise. That would be newsbreaking.

SANTORUM: You'd jump off a Butte out here in Arizona, having done something like that. No.

GLENN: Who is it?

SANTORUM: Ted Cruz in Texas. You know, this is a ‑‑ this is a tough race there because there's very good people in this race, but to me Ted is what we're missing in the United States, and I hear this every ‑‑ all the time from people that I work with that are trying to move the conservative agenda in Washington, D.C. Not just a good conservative vote but someone who has the skills and the leadership to be able to go out and articulate the vision and the message. There is almost no debate going on in the United States anymore. There's no one out there that can get up there and deliver the kind of impassioned, spellbinding speeches and really engage the debate in ‑‑ on the floor of the United States Senate. We're missing, particularly on a lot of issues. I mean, yes, you got people can do it on some of the tax issues and Republicans are always good at talking about lower taxes, but there are a lot of other issues out there beyond just taxes and spending, and we don't have a lot of voices on those issues. And Ted Cruz, I've seen him speak and he is spellbinding. He really is. He's just a tremendous orator and very strongly principled, under ‑‑ in‑depth. I mean, he understands these issues at his core and can ‑‑ and can really deliver the message. And we do need not just people who are good votes but people who can really motivate and lead. And, you know, one of the things that I felt that we were able to do out on the campaign trail was to, in some respects, inspire people by, you know, painting a vision, and Ted really has that capability that it's a very missing ingredient in Washington D.C. right now.

GLENN: Well, I tell you from your mouth to God's ears here on Texas, when is this primary? It's next week, isn't it?

SANTORUM: Yeah, it's next week. And I sort of sat back and waited because this is a very interesting dynamic the way the race works in Texas. It's a ‑‑ you have to get 50% to win the election. If you don't, then the top two run off at a later date. And I was watching and looking and seeing how this race would develop and I think right now there's, you know, Ted has certainly emerged as the number two person to the lieutenant governor who has been the favorite and the person who's been spending enormous amount of money. And so I related Ted to another level, he's being outspent 4:1. I wish I was only outspent 4:1, but...

GLENN: (Laughing.)

SANTORUM: But still, you know, there's a kindred spirit when you're the underdog and being outspent and someone who's got the grassroots support and is out there working their tail off every day and, you know, that's the kind of candidate that I obviously, you know, that I was and I sort of gravitate to and so I'm pretty excited about being involved in his campaign and will be doing all I can between now and Tuesday to help him out.

GLENN: Right.

SANTORUM: And make sure that he is at least in that runoff. And who knows. Maybe he can surge ahead and pull off a big surprise and get to that 50%.

GLENN: Wouldn't that be nice. Rick, thank you very much.

SANTORUM: My pleasure.

GLENN: We'll talk to you again and stay safe. You're not done. I ‑‑ you're not done. Of course, you should be in your underpants right now and not be in all these meetings, you know, get a nap in because I don't think you're done with your service to the country by any stretch of the imagination. Thanks, Rick.

Our children are sick, and Big Pharma claims to be the cure, but is RFK Jr. closer to proving they are the disease?

For years, neurological disorders in our children have been on the rise. One in nine children in the U.S. has been diagnosed with ADHD, and between 2016 and 2022, more than one million kids were told they suffer from the disorder. Similarly, autism diagnoses have increased by 175 percent over the past decade. RFK Jr. pledged to investigate the rising rates of neurological disorders as Secretary of Health and Human Services, and this week, he announced a major initiative.

Earlier this week, RFK Jr. announced that the HHS has embarked on a massive testing and research effort to uncover the root causes of autism and the sharp spike in recent diagnoses. The HHS Secretary vowed that the results will be available by September of this year, leaving many skeptical about the study's rigor. Conversely, some speculate that the HHS may have unpublished studies revealing critical insights into these disorders, just waiting to see the light of day.

Glenn brought up a recent article by the Daily Wire referencing a New York Times piece in which experts questioned the legitimacy of ADHD diagnoses. Glenn agreed and suggested that people are just wired differently; they learn, work, and study differently, and the cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all school system simply fails to accommodate everyone.

New York Times' ADHD Admission

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Earlier this week, the New York Times published an article that made a shocking admission: there are no concrete biological markers for ADHD. The clinical definition of ADHD is no longer supported by the evidence, and there are no physical, genetic, or chemical identifiers for the disorder, nor is there any real way to test for it. The paper also admitted that people diagnosed with ADHD would suddenly find that they no longer had any symptoms after a change of environment, profession, or field of study. This suggests that "ADHD" might simply be a matter of interests and skills, not a chronic brain sickness.

The most horrifying implication of this admission is that millions of people, including children, have been prescribed heavy mind-altering drugs for years for a disorder that lacks real evidence of its very existence. These drugs are serious business and include products such as Adderall, Ritalin, and Desoxyn. All of these drugs are considered "Schedule II," which is a drug classification that puts them on the same level as cocaine, PCP, and fentanyl. Notably, Desoxyn is chemically identical to methamphetamine, differing only in its production in regulated laboratories rather than illegal settings.

Worse yet, studies show that these medications, like Desoxyn, often provide no long-term benefits. Testing demonstrated that in the short term, there were some positive effects, but after 36 months, there was no discernible difference in symptoms between people who were medicated and those who were not. For decades, we have been giving our children hardcore drugs with no evidence of them working or even that the disorder exists.

RFK Jr's Autism Study

Alex Wong / Staff | Getty Images

Autism rates are on the rise, and RFK Jr. is going to get to the bottom of it. In the year 2000, approximately one in 150 children was diagnosed with autism, but only 20 years later, the rate had increased to one in 36. While some claim that this is simply due to more accurate testing, RFK Jr. doesn't buy it and is determined to discover what is the underlying cause. He is an outspoken critic of vaccines, asserting that the true scope of their side effects has been buried by greed and corruption to sell more vaccines.

RFK Jr. doesn't plan on stopping at vaccines. Similar to ADHD, RFK Jr. suspects other environmental factors could increase of autism or exacerbate symptoms. Factors like diet, water quality, air pollution, and parenting approaches are all under investigation. It's time to bring clarity to the neurological disorders that plague our nation, cut through the corruption, and reveal the healing truth.

Neurological Intervention

WIN MCNAMEE / Contributor | Getty Images

Big Pharma has been all too happy to sit back and watch as the rate of neurological disorders climbs, adding to the ever-growing list of permanent patients who are led to believe that their only choice is to shell out endless money for treatments, prescriptions, and doctor visits. Rather than encouraging lifestyle changes to improve our well-being, they push ongoing medication and costly treatments.

All RFK Jr. is doing is asking questions, and yet the backlash from the "experts" is so immense that one can't help but wonder what they could be hiding. Both Glenn and RFK Jr. have their suspicions of Big Pharma, and the upcoming HHS study might be one of the most important steps to making America healthy again.

Why do planes keep crashing?

STR / Contributor | Getty Images

Last week, two more serious air travel incidents occurred, adding to the mounting number of aviation disasters this year. Is flying safe?

Over the past year, the number of aviation disasters that have been blasted across the media has been steadily rising, with February alone having a half dozen incidents. It begs the question: Is air travel becoming more dangerous? Or has the media just increased its coverage of a "normal" amount of crashes?

If you look at the data, it suggests that flying has been—and remains—safe. The number of accidents and fatalities has been steadily decreasing year over year and remains a small percentage of total flights. In 2024, out of the approximate 16 million flights recorded by the Federal Aviation Administration in the U.S. every year, there were 1,150 accidents resulting in 304 fatalities, meaning that the average flight in America has a 0.007% chance of an accident. In addition, the National Transportation Safety Board records a decrease in both fatal and non-fatal aviation accidents when compared to 2024. By this time last year, there were already 399 crashes and accidents, while this year has only clocked in 271.

That being said, Sean Duffy, Trump's new transportation secretary, admitted that America's air traffic control system needs an overhaul. Duffy pointed toward dated air traffic control equipment, overregulation, and radical DEI as the culprits behind many recent aviation accidents.

But what do the crashes suggest? We've gathered details about the major aviation accidents this year so you can decide for yourself why planes keep crashing:

American Airlines Blackhawk collision over D.C.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

In one of the deadliest U.S. aviation accidents in the last decade, an American Airlines plane collided with a Black Hawk helicopter over the Potomac River in Washington, D.C. The American Airlines flight was approaching Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport carrying 60 passengers and four crew when it collided midair with the Army helicopter, crewed by three, killing all 67 people involved.

The exact cause behind the mid-air collision is still under investigation, but it is believed that the Black Hawk was up too high and outside of its designated flight path. A report from the New York Times suggests that the air control tower at the Ronald Regan Washington Airport has suffered years of understaffing, which seems to be a result of DEI hiring practices. Investigators are piecing through the wreckage, and the exact cause of the crash is still unknown.

Medevac explosion in Philadelphia

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On the night of Friday, March 31st, a medevac plane with six people on board crashed into a Philadelphia neighborhood, killing everyone on board, along with one man on the ground. The small jet departed from Northeast Philadelphia Airport at 6 pm, and according to the FAA, it crashed less than a minute later after reaching an elevation of 1,650 feet. The ensuing explosion cast a massive fireball into the sky and wounded 19 people on the ground, killing one.

The six people on board the jet were Mexican nationals, including a mother and her sick daughter who was receiving treatment from Shriners Children’s Hospital in northeast Philadelphia. As of now, there is no official cause of the crash, but much of the plane has been recovered, and the incident is being investigated.

Alaskan flight disappearance outside of Nome

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

At approximately 3:16 pm, on Thursday, February 6th, a small commuter plane working for Bering Air, carrying 10 passengers, took off from the town of Unalakeet, Alaska, destined for the nearby town of Nome. After a few hours, Nome lost contact with the small plane as weather conditions worsened. The following day, the Coast Guard discovered the remains of the plane, all 10 occupants were dead.

The wreckage of the aircraft, along with the remains of the passengers and crew, have been recovered and are under investigation. While there has been no official explanation given for the crash, the poor weather is believed to be a major contributing factor.

Small jet collision in Scottsdale

Gabe Ginsberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The pilot of a small jet died after the aircraft crashed into a larger plane in Scottsdale, Arizona, on Monday, February 10th. The owner of the jet that crashed was Vince Neil, the frontman of the heavy metal band Mötley Crüe, but Neil was not on board at the time of the accident. The jet had just landed in Scottsdale, where it appeared to veer out of control and smash into a parked Gulfstream at high speed. The plane was carrying four people: two pilots and two passengers. One of the pilots was killed, and the other three were seriously injured. There was only one person aboard the Gulfstream at the time of the crash, they suffered injuries but refused treatment.

It is believed that the landing gear failed upon landing, which caused the jet to skitter out of control and smash into the parked plane.

Delta crash in Toronto

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On Monday, February 17th, a Delta aircraft flipped while landing and slid upside down across the runway while ablaze at Toronto Pearson International Airport. Fortunately, all 80 people aboard survived, and only three people suffered critical (though not life-threatening) injuries. First responders were quickly on the scene, extinguishing the fires and assisting the grateful survivors out of the wreckage.

The crash is believed to have been caused in part by the extreme weather in Toronto, which included a powerful crosswind and potential ice on the runway. It is also suspected that the landing gear failed to deploy properly, causing the plane to flip in the severe wind.

Small plane collision north of Tucson

aviation-images.com / Contributor | Getty Images

On Wednesday, February 19th, yet another small plane crash occurred in the skies above Arizona. Two small aircraft collided midair near Tusosn, Arizona at Marana Regional Airport. There were two people in each of the small planes, two of which from the same aircraft died, while the other two managed to walk away with little injury.

Marana Regional Airport is an uncontrolled field, which means there is no active air traffic control present on site. Instead, pilots rely on communication with each other through a "Common Traffic Advisory Frequency" (CTAF) to safely take off and land.

Hudson helicopter crash

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A helicopter tour out of New York City took a tragic turn on Thursday, April 10th, when the Bell 206 broke apart mid-flight and plunged into the Hudson River. All six people aboard perished in the crash, which included the pilot and a tourist family of five.

New York Helicopter Tours, the operator of the flight, announced it would cease operations following the accident. The decision comes amid scrutiny of the company’s safety record, which includes a prior emergency water landing and another incident where a helicopter was forced to land shortly after takeoff due to mechanical issues. The cause of the crash remains under investigation.

Upstate New York family tragedy

Billie Weiss/Boston Red Sox / Contributor | Getty Images

Days after the tragic Hudson crash, a small private plane carrying an NCAA athlete crashed in upstate New York, killing all six passengers. On Saturday, April 12, 2025, Karenna Groff, a former MIT soccer player and 2022 Woman of the Year, was aboard her father's Mitsubishi MU-2B with her parents, boyfriend, brother, and his partner when the plane went down in a muddy field in Copake, New York.

The aircraft was reportedly in good condition, and Michael Groff, Karenna's father, was an experienced pilot. While the official cause of the crash has not been determined, low visibility at the time of the incident is suspected to have been a contributing factor.

The recent string of aviation incidents underscores a troubling trend in air travel safety, raising urgent questions about the systems and policies governing the industry. While data suggests flying remains statistically safe, the alarming frequency of crashes, near misses, and systemic issues like outdated technology and questionable hiring practices cannot be ignored. BlazeTV's own Stu Burguiere did a deep dive into the recent crashes in the Blaze Originals documentary, Countdown to the Next Aviation Disaster, uncovering the truth behind the FAA’s shift toward DEI hiring and its impact on aviation safety. Featuring exclusive interviews with former air traffic controllers, lawyers, and Robert Poole—the inventor of TSA PreCheck—this documentary exposes how the Biden-Harris administration’s policies, under Pete Buttigieg’s leadership, have contributed to making air travel more dangerous than ever.

Did Democrats just betray fair elections? The SAVE Act controversy explained

DOMINIC GWINN / Contributor | Getty Images

One of President Trump’s key campaign promises, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, faces fierce opposition from Democrats in the Senate.

The SAVE Act recently passed Congress for the second time and is now headed to the Senate. This voter security bill mandates proof of U.S. citizenship for all federal elections. It garnered unanimous Republican support in Congress but was backed by only four Democrats, consistent with last year’s Senate rejection of the bill.

Glenn has repeatedly emphasized the urgency of securing our elections, warning that without reform in the next four years, free and fair elections may become a thing of the past. However, the SAVE Act faces significant hurdles. Republicans lack the Senate votes to overcome a filibuster, meaning the bill’s fate hinges on bipartisan support—something Democrats have been reluctant to offer.

So, what exactly does the SAVE Act do? Why are Democrats opposing it? And how can you help ensure its passage?

What the SAVE Act Entails

Stefan Zaklin / Stringer | Getty Images

The SAVE Act is straightforward: it requires voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship before casting a ballot in federal elections. This measure responds to reports of voter fraud, including allegations of noncitizens, such as illegal immigrants, voting in past presidential elections. Acceptable forms of identification include a REAL ID, U.S. passport, military ID, birth certificate, or other specified documents.

Additionally, the bill mandates that states remove noncitizens from voter rolls and lists of eligible voters. It also establishes criminal penalties for officials who fail to comply with these new guidelines.

Democrats’ Opposition to the SAVE Act

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Democrats have strongly criticized the SAVE Act, arguing it discriminates against women, transgender individuals, and minorities. They claim that people who have changed their names—such as women after marriage or transgender individuals—may struggle to vote if their current ID doesn’t match their birth certificate. However, the bill allows multiple forms of identification beyond birth certificates, meaning affected individuals can use updated IDs like a REAL ID or passport.

The argument that minorities are disproportionately harmed is slightly more substantiated. A recent survey showed that 93 percent of voting-age Black Americans, 94 percent of voting-age Hispanics, and 95 percent of voting-age Native Americans have valid photo IDs, compared to 97% of voting-age whites and 98 percent of voting-age Asians. However, in 2024, only about 58 percent of the voting-age population cast ballots—a trend that has been consistent for decades. There’s little evidence that Americans are prevented from voting due to a lack of ID. Instead of opposing the bill, a more constructive approach would be to assist the small percentage of Americans without IDs in obtaining proper documentation.

How You Can Make a Difference

Melissa Sue Gerrits / Stringer | Getty Images

The stakes couldn’t be higher—free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy. Conservatives must rally to ensure the SAVE Act becomes law. Contact your Senators to express your support for the bill and highlight its importance in safeguarding electoral integrity. Grassroots efforts, such as sharing accurate information about the SAVE Act on social media or discussing it with friends and family, can amplify its visibility. Local advocacy groups may also offer opportunities to organize or participate in campaigns that pressure lawmakers to act. Every voice counts, and collective action could tip the scales in favor of this critical legislation.

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

-Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park

The monstrous Dire Wolf, extinct for 10,000 years, has returned. This larger, ancient wolf species—popularized by HBO’s Game of Thrones—was resurrected by Colossal Laboratories, a Dallas-based bioscience company. Colossal utilized both preserved ancient Dire Wolf DNA and modern gray wolf DNA combined with some clever gene-crafting and a healthy pinch of hubris to create three approximations of the ancient canine.

While the wolves posed for a photoshoot alongside Game of Thrones props and its creator, Colossal’s broader plans remain unclear. However, what Glenn recently uncovered about the company is far more monstrous than the wolves will ever be. Glenn revealed that the CIA, through a nonprofit group known as In-Q-Tel, is funding Colossal's endeavors to bring back all sorts of extinct beasts. With the recently released JFK Files exposing the CIA’s unchecked power, Glenn warns of the dangerous potential behind this genetic manipulation—and the rogue agency’s possible motives.

Here are the top three most horrifying uses the CIA could have for this technology:

Dual-Use Technology

Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

Colossal and other biotech firms advertise a variety of "civilian" uses for bioengineered beasts, including research subjects, exotic zoos, and even climate restoration. As dubious as those uses are, Glenn revealed that the CIA could be cooking up something much worse. Gene-editing tools like CRISPR are inherently dual-purpose and easily adaptable for military use. As one of Colossal’s major investors, the CIA gains prime access to cutting-edge biotech, likely eyeing its potential for warfare.

Frankenstein’s Spy Lab

Like AI, one can only guess at the maximum capabilities of this gene-editing technology. On air, Glenn speculated about bioengineered resilient organisms, animals with tweaked senses designed for espionage or combat in areas inaccessible to drones or humans. Playing God to create new weapons of war sounds right up the CIA's alley.

Even worse than man-made mutant mutts, Glenn pointed out that these augmentations are by no means limited to animals. We could see (or rather, hear unverified rumors of) the rise of the next generation of super soldier projects. Human experimentation is not outside of the CIA's scope (think MKUltra), and genetically or chemically augmented humans have been a pipe dream for many a clandestine organization for decades. Is there anything more horrifying than an agency with as little oversight as the CIA in control of something as powerful and potentially devastating as gene-augmentation?

Eco-Warfare Unleashed

MARCELO MANERA / Contributor | Getty Images

Why attack a single target when you could attack an entire ecosystem instead?

Anyone who has had to deal with the destructive effects of fire ants knows how dangerous an invasive species can be to the human, plant, and animal inhabitants of any given region. Now imagine genetically engineered Dire Wolves or Woolly Mammoths unleashed by the CIA to cripple an enemy’s agriculture or environment. Such a weapon could inflict irreparable damage from a distance. Even the mere threat of eco-warfare might serve as a deterrent, though its unpredictability could reshape the world in ways we can’t control or repair.