Rep. Trey Gowdy grills NPS director over treatment of veterans during gov’t shutdown

October 17, 2013

Writer

Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) made headlines yesterday, after he grilled National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis at a U.S. House hearing concerning the closure of national parks and monuments during the partial government shutdown. Rep. Gowdy ripped Jarivs for treating “pot-smoking” demonstrators in the Occupy Wall Street movement with more respect than the nation’s war veterans.

“Let's go to Trey Gowdy because Trey Gowdy makes me feel good. Trey Gowdy was talking to the head of the park rangers, the park police, on why'd they shut down everything.”

GOWDY: October of 2011, Occupy protestors descended upon McPherson Square and they decided to stay. Despite the clear language of the law, these protestors camped at McPherson Square with the definition of camping being sleeping or preparing to sleep. For 100 days they camped in violation of the law and you did not make a single solitary arrest for camping. So Congress decided to have a hearing and asked you why you were not enforcing the law when you told us, Mr. Jarvis, that you had a great deal of discretion in how and when to enforce the law. You told us that you were, after 100 days of not enforcing the plain language of the statute working with protestors to, quote, gain compliance, whatever the hell that means, with the law and what you called, quote, a measured and reasoned approach. By the way, Mr. Jarvis, those were your words, not mine. So the law says no camping but the protestors did anyway and you didn't do anything in terms of arrests or citations for over 100 days. So Mr. Jarvis, I want you to fast-forward two years. Parks are closing, access to monuments is restricted, even access for those who helped build the monument in the first place. You didn't wait 100 days to enforce the law, Mr. Jarvis, with veterans who wanted to see their monument. You didn't work to gain compliance. Veterans weren't greeted with a measured and reasoned response, Mr. Jarvis. They were greeted with barricades on the very first day.

“I just want you to take a second, and I just want you to know this is a guy the TEA Party got in. This is a guy the TEA Party got in,” Glenn said. “Now that we've taken a moment and recognized how great this guy is and that because TEA Party people stood up, this guy is able to ask this mustachioed little worm of a man sitting there in his park ranger's outfit not arresting anyone for sleeping and camping and defecating on our Mall in our nation's capital. After not arresting, not making a single arrest, he's about to answer why he barricaded the World War II veterans.”

GOWDY: Furthermore, they could not exercise their First Amendment rights to walk to a monument that they helped build but yet some of our colleagues were allowed to exercise their First Amendment right to protest whatever it was they were protesting on the National Mall. So I'm going to read something to you, Mr. Jarvis, and I want you to ask me if you recognize who said this. Because of the lapse in funding, you are having to deliver difficult news to our visitors and partners. The functions we must perform under a shutdown are not the reasons any of us join the National Park Service, but they are the duties we are required to perform by law and regulation. Do you know who said that, Mr. Jarvis?

JARVIS: I believe I said that.

GOWDY: You're right, you did. Can you tell me why you would not enforce the law at McPherson Square but yet you greeted veterans with barricades on the very first day? What regulation can you cite to me that required you that required you to erect barricades?

JARVIS: The contingency plan that was approved on September 27th for the national park system is in compliance with the Anti-Deficiency Act. Under criminal --

GOWDY: I'm looking for a statute, Mr. Jarvis. I am looking for --

JARVIS: Yeah.

GOWDY: I am looking for a citation to the Code of Federal Regulation or the U.S. code for why you erected barricades. We've established you did not enforce the law for 100 days for protestors, agreed? You agree with me you did not issue a single citation for camping, right?

JARVIS: I believe that is correct.

…

GOWDY: Okay. Well, I can cite you the regulation that you did not follow two years ago. Can you cite me the regulation that required you to erect barricades to prevent veterans from accessing a monument that they built?

JARVIS: I can cite the Anti-Deficiency Act.

GOWDY: Can you cite a regulation that would require you to erect barricades, Mr. Jarvis? That is not a complex question.

JARVIS: The Anti-Deficiency Act requires that I reduce all employees down to only those that are necessary for life and property. That required the closure of all 401 national parks.

GOWDY: Mr. Jarvis, why did you fail to enforce the plain language of a statute for 100 days for protestors and yet on the very first day you denied access to a monument that veterans helped build.

JARVIS: On the very first day of the closure, I implemented a closure order for all 401 national parks in the compliance with the Anti-Deficiency Act and immediately, immediately that day also included as a part of that order that First Amendment activities would be permitted on the national mall.

GOWDY: Do you consider a First Amendment activity to walk to a monument that you helped build, or is it only just smoking pot at McPherson Square?

“This guy, he is so great,” Glenn said.

As Glenn explained, Rep. Gowdy’s questioning of Jarvis proves just how out-of-control the government bureaucracy has become. Jarvis knows he has no logical defense as to why the OWS crowd illegally occupied a space for over three months, while the veterans are kept away from their memorial after just one day, but he is so desperate to keep his job, he cannot tell the truth.

“Here's why he did it. This little worm wants his job. That's what [Jarvis] wants. He wants his job. He's a guy who has worked his whole life to get up to be the head of the Park Service,” Glenn explained. “Every single one of us have to decide right now: What is the price of our soul? Really that's what it is. What is the price of our soul? I'm telling you courage is contagious. If this guy would have stood up and he would have said, ‘Congressman Gowdy, I want to speak in front of Congress, few weeks ago. I am being pressured to put barricades around all of the monuments and I will being told that I will lose my job and they will make my life miserable, but I'm not being told in direct terms. It is all being insinuated. Here is my badge. I put it on the table but I wanted to do this in front of a session of Congress. Here's my badge.’”

“Can you imagine,” Glenn asked. “There is going to come a moment, there is going to come a time that somebody will put it all on the line and they will do it in a peaceful and respectful way.”

Front page image courtesy of the AP

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