Sen. Rand Paul: “Somebody needs to go to jail for this”

On radio this morning, Glenn interviewed Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to get his perspective on the IRS and AP scandals and the ongoing investigation into the Benghazi attacks.

“It has been a fascinating, fascinating week or so to watch the goings on in Washington,” Glenn said. “We have the IRS, Benghazi, and AP scandal.”

To start, Glenn asked Sen. Paul whether or not it was possible the IRS auditing of conservative groups applying for 501(c)(4) status really could have been the work of just a few rogue employees, or if higher-ups, including President Obama, had to have been aware of what was going on.

“I think it's nearly impossible it's one or two agents because it sounds like this is from several parts of the country,” Sen. Paul responded. “But I think it's just profoundly un-American to use the power and to abuse the power of government to target people based on their political or religious beliefs, and I think the vast majority of Americans would agree with that statement.”

In a rush to feign accountability, the commissioner of the IRS was allegedly asked to resign, but, as it turns out, his tenure at the post was already set to end in June

“When you notice the game they're playing, it's the same sort of game they are doing with Benghazi. Hillary Clinton has resigned, although she never accepted culpability,” Sen. Paul explained. “Now they have with acting commissioner of the IRS who's resigning but not accepting culpability. They think they can sort of sweep it under the rug by having somebody resign who really was scheduled to leave and may or may not have had anything to do with this. I want to know who wrote the memorandum, I want to know who set the policy, and I want to know how they got this effectuated throughout the whole country. And they need to be responsible. Someone needs to go to jail for having done this.”

The leadership, or lack thereof, President Obama has shown throughout these three scandals – the IRS, Benghazi, and AP – is truly alarming. “I don't buy into the faux outrage that the president had yesterday. You know, his administration knew about this. We reported on it over a year ago,” Glenn said. “Even though I had the documentation, we were called conspiracy theorists for even bringing it up. And now he's got some faux outrage because he read about it in the newspaper. There's not a chance he read about this. If so, he's got the most incompetent administration in the history of America.”

“Well, you know, Lincoln I think put it well when he said nearly any man can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man, give him power,” Sen. Paul said. “The president of the United States has extraordinary power and with that power you want somebody who would use restraint, who would obey the rule of law. We have instance after instance where this is not the case.”

Sen. Paul likened the situation at the IRS to the ongoing Benghazi investigation, in which the only person who lost their job – Hillary Clinton – has refused to fully accept responsibility.

“I will tell you, the Benghazi story is increasingly frustrating because no one will ask why that ambassador was even there that night,” Glenn said. “And, I am sorry Senator, but it was gun running. No one will even ask, ‘Are we supplying guns, weapons, to the Syrians through Turkey?’ I mean, we’ve got a lot of evidence that is what’s happening.”

“Well, you are talking to the senator who asked Hillary Clinton that question directly,” Sen. Paul clarified. “I asked her, ‘Do you think this was about shipping guns from Libya? Was the CIA involved in transporting weapons from the CIA annex from Libya to Turkey?’”

Congress has confirmed that weapons were in fact being transported from Libya to Turkey, but Clinton continues to deny any knowledge of the situation. “Were [the guns] going with our knowledge, with our help, and did that have anything to do with the attacks in Benghazi,” Sen. Paul asked. “I asked this repeatedly, but Hillary Clinton’s response was ‘I know nothing.’ She acted as if she had never heard of the concept, but it has been reported in the media that she was the biggest advocate for arming Syrian rebels within the administration.”

Likewise, Clinton denied having any involvement in changing the talking points that UN Ambassador Susan Rice read on the Sunday morning talk shows in the aftermath of Benghazi, but the recent release of emails would imply otherwise. “She also said she had no knowledge of changing the talking points,” Sen. Paul said. “But the emails now show that her spokesman, Nuland, was the one intimately involved in exchanging emails that night saying we can’t talk about terrorism, there will be political ramifications.”

Sen. Paul lamented that a lack of Republican control in the Senate has made it all but impossible for him to request further hearings regarding Benghazi, but he is confident his colleagues in the House will get to the bottom of what happened that night in Benghazi and what happened in the days and weeks after.

“Without question she was involved,” he said. “And I think the whole thing about this has been her trying to escape culpability. When Ambassador Pickering did the review board, he said, well, all of these decisions happened well below the level of Hillary Clinton. My point is that's precisely her culpability because it's her job to make sure these decisions were made at her level and that security for an ambassador in a war torn country like Libya is not the place for underlings and if it took place at her underlings, if that is true, that is precisely her culpability for not making that his herself.”

In regards to the scandal involving the Department of Justice secretly subpoenaing AP reporters phone conversations, there is a fine line between protecting national security and maintaining the First Amendment’s right to freedom of the press.

“I'm troubled by the fact that if you're going to ask for records – if it's a government official who you think leaked something, I think you do everything possible to get those records and I think the level of judicial review to do it for a government official may be a little bit less,” Sen. Paul said. “But for the press, I think you should ask a judge for a warrant before you look at the press.”

“I strongly disagree with leaks,” Glenn explained. “But this administration is sending a message to whistleblowers. They have already gone up against whistleblowers more than all other presidents combined, in U.S. history, all of them. That includes FDR. This guy's had five years in office and he has gone and blown through whistleblowers more than any other president in U.S. history and all of them combined. Come on. There's a real problem. They're sending a message.”

Regardless of your position on leaks, this is an obvious abuse of power from an administration that is headed by a President who recently told graduates at Ohio State not to pay attention to anyone who says there is a possibility of tyranny in government.

There are not enough people like Sen. Paul in Washington, who are willing to put their necks out on the line for what is right. And it is up to us to provide the necessary support they need to keep fighting the good fight.

“Keep stoking the flames. We've got to keep pressure on people up here because I'm concerned. We have to survive as a country, you know, four more years of this really lack of leadership,” Sen. Paul said. “And in order to not let them run amok with the power, you know, that they have accumulated to use it against opponents, they are going to have to be held accountable. And I think this last week is the first step in trying to do that.”

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

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.