'You've got to distance yourself': Bundy under fire for racist "negro" comments

Earlier this month, Glenn came under fire from some in his own audience and beyond for his response to the standoff in Nevada between rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal government. Despite the escalating tensions, Glenn advocated for a peaceful response to the conflict. While the majority of Bundy’s supporters and those who gathered at his ranch were simply standing up for what they believed to be another example of government overreach, there were violent and fringe elements of the group that caught the media’s attention.

[newsletter_inline bgcolor='#ebebeb' header_text='Get More Glenn!' sub_text='Sign up for the Glenn Beck daily email newsletter, and never miss out on our most popular stories.']

On radio this morning, Glenn revisited the Bundy story in the light of an alarming report from the New York Times, in which Bundy is quoted spewing racist remarks at a recent press conference.

As Glenn explained, he was initially hesitant to throw his support behind the rancher because there was very little known about Bundy or what he stood for. While Glenn did have a chance to speak with Bundy both privately – those conversations led to more questions than answers.

Glenn explained that his private conversation with Bundy centered primarily on faith and Scripture. Glenn hoped to get a better sense of what kind of values and principles Bundy was rooted in, and he walked away from the conversation with the sense that Bundy was “a decent guy.” When Bundy joined the radio program the following day, however, the conversation had a different and more bizarre tone. During the interview Bundy said that he wanted the government to be disarmed, and Glenn found that particularly strange.

“When I asked him to tell the story, he said, ‘Here's what I'm told to say: The government needs to be disarmed.’ Okay. Well, that's not what we talked about, but if that's how you want to use your time… I don't have preconditions of guests,” Glenn said. “Pat looked at me [when Bundy said that] like this guy is so unhinged. And I just put my hand up and I turned my mic off and I said, ‘Let him speak. If he's going to hang himself, it's better for him to hang himself than us too.’ So we let him speak for 45 minutes. People that were listening started to say, ‘Well, wait a minute, I agree with some things but I think he's unhinged on other things.”

Glenn, Pat, and Stu agreed that, at the end of the day, they really never felt like they fully understood Bundy’s intentions, and they were disappointed with the way he handled the situation.

“We don't know him,” Pat said. “And while we agree with the basic principle of states rights and land ownership and all of those basic principles, the way in which he's gone about this, we've been bothered by. We've been bothered by that from the beginning.”

A New York Times article published Wednesday, paints Bundy in a very different light. In the article, “A Defiant Rancher Savors the Audience That Rallied to His Side,” reporter Adam Nagourney explains that while the federal government has seemingly moved on from the conflict, Bundy “has not.”

According to Nagourney, Bundy has chosen to continue holding a daily news conference – regardless of how much press is on hand. This past Saturday, just one reporter and one photographer joined Bundy supporters at the ranch. The Times article describes the scene as “a town meeting with supporters, discussing, in a long, loping discourse, the prevalence of abortion, the abuses of welfare and his views on race.” It was to that audience that Bundy delivered some alarming remarks:

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Read the entire New York Times article HERE.

“That shows you how unhinged from reality this guy is," Glenn said. "You've got to distance yourself. You must know who you are standing next to at all times – with exactness. With exactness we will save our nation.”

Glenn believes these “degrading,” “disgusting,” and “offensive” comments should give pause to all those who have considering aligning with or supporting Bundy.

“You wondered if blacks were better off as slaves picking cotton and having a family life? They didn't have a family life! That's the real key to what he said. And there's no way around that sentence,” Glenn said exasperatedly. “Unless the New York Times made this up out of whole cloth… If that doesn't end your relationship with [Bundy], you've got to go back and question where did you go wrong.”

Ultimately, Glenn is keenly aware of and understands the American people’s overwhelming frustration with the federal government. But Bundy and the standoff at his ranch simply does not provide the proper opportunity to take a real stand.

I beg of you. A: Don't let this harden your heart by saying… I still say: The government is out of control. I still say they used over-the-top force. I still say return the land to the west – I am still for that. But I'm not with him. And if we don't clean out our own ranks –

I wrote two weeks ago to the boys: This is the beginning of the separation. And it's an important separation. There was the Martin Luther King movement and there was the Malcolm X and Weather Underground movement. One side was violent. Vengeance was theirs. The other side was peaceful and loving. I know you. I know your heart. I know your intent. I know your love for this country. I was with you in Washington, D.C. I know you felt it. If that is what you're looking for, then that comes through peace and love and kindness. That's what I am looking for. And if I stand alone in the end, I stand alone in the end. I'm totally fine with that, if I'm the only American left. But I know I'm not.

I know what you want. And if you want vengeance, then… I'm not with you. I am not with you. If you want peace and love and true tolerance, if you want small government that doesn't steal things from people and leaves people alone – let them make their own decisions, whether that is in their bedroom or their house of worship or their office, trust people to do the right thing because they will if they're given the opportunity. If they're given the chance, they will do the right thing.

I have seen on social media, people have said they are so sick and tired of hearing me talk about God. That's okay. I warned my staff five years ago when I started talking about God, we're in trouble. When I start actually reading scriptures, we're doomed. But it will be the sign of the times. I don't want to be this guy any more than you want to be who you are at times. But the times call for it. It is not exactly the road to success to be the guy who says, ‘Peace and love, no matter what it takes.’ And ‘Read your Bible.’ That's not the road to mainstream success. But it is the road to winning in the end. Bonheoffer won. Gandhi won. Martin Luther King won. And so will we.

Updated: Watch video of Bundy's remarks below:

The Woodrow Wilson Mother's Day loophole

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

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.