Oops: Huff Post, Reuters attribute comments to Glenn… but he never spoke publicly about the story

Last week, TheBlaze published a story about the city of Salem, Massachusetts’s decision to end an agreement with Gordon College – a private, Christian school that recently banned “homosexual behavior” among students and faculty. The contract between the school and the town had been set to end in August, but Kimberley Driscoll, the mayor of Salem, confirmed the early opt-out because of the school’s “behavioral standards.”

Read the full article via TheBlaze HERE.

This particular article from TheBlaze’s Dean Graham was really no different than any other report, but it soon turned into a big story after news outlets like Reuters and Huffington Post picked up a Facebook post from the Salem mayor that attributed sentiments expressed in the comments section of the article to be Glenn’s personally.

On radio this morning, Glenn called out the media organizations who failed to follow the most basic journalistic practices when putting their own stories together, and he finally offered his actual thoughts on the topic.

TheBlaze article on Salem’s decision ran last Monday, and on Wednesday, the mayor of the city wrote posted a letter on her Facebook page about the feedback her office had received about its decision to cut ties with the school.

The only problem? Glenn never commented on the story publically, and he admitted he actually hadn’t even read TheBlaze report on the topic.

“When I read on the Huffington Post about my opposition to the mayor's decision, it was the first I had heard about the story. I didn't even know the story. It was unbelievable. I'm reading this and I'm like, ‘Wow. I said that?’ I had never said a word,” Glenn said on radio this morning. “In fact… I wrote to Stu. I wrote to Tiffany. I wrote to Dan. I wrote to Pat. ‘Anybody heard of this story?’ All of them never even heard of this story. That didn't stop Reuters from printing a news story claiming that I had.”

While the Huffington Post and Reuters took Driscoll’s claims at face value, Esquire at least dug a little deeper into where the so-called Glenn Beck connection in this story came from – aside from the fact that he is the founder and chairman of TheBlaze.

“Beck’s website, The Blaze, ran a story about the mayor’s decision to terminate its contract with Gordon,” Esquire’s Ban Collins writes. “Somebody posted the phone number to Driscoll’s office in the comments section. Driscoll’s office started receiving dozens of phone calls.”

While Glenn has grown accustomed to reading media reports about him that are less than truthful, he found it difficult to understand how any purported news source could use an un-attributed Facebook post as the basis of a report without so much as a fact-check.

“They got this from a Facebook post as a source. That's not a typo. You didn't hear that in error. Reuters wrote a story about a Facebook post. They didn't call us for comment. They didn't search to see if I had ever said anything about the story,” Glenn explained. “Because of this, dozens of outlets ran with my supposed opposition to something I don't even know about. That's how bad our media is today… They are using Facebook posts as legitimate sources without calling for any secondary source.”

Reuters has since issued correction clarifying TheBlaze article referenced was not authored by Glenn himself. But that doesn’t really get at the heart of the problem. Glenn decided it would be best if he commented on the story – for the first time – so at least other news organizations would have a real, quotable opinion to reference.

“I'm in the awkward position of realizing that while my opinion about a story is apparently vitally important, nobody has asked me about my opinion about it,” Glenn said. “So let me give you my unsolicited opinion – and I mean completely unsolicited. Reuters, Huff-Po, nobody has asked me my opinion. But in case it matters to some journalists, here it is:”

I don't have anything bad to say about Salem or the mayor. Nothing. They can do business with whomever they choose. That's it. Even the college admits that the city had executed a valid clause in their contract. That's what the college says. It's a valid clause. They can opt out. Okay. Here's the thing. People of Salem, you choose whether that was a good decision or a bad decision the next time the mayor is up for election. And my guess is you're going to think it's a good choice. You're going to think it was fine.

You know what may be unpopular in Salem, or at least inside the mayor's office, is the constitutionally protected speech of the students and a faculty at a private religious college. That may be unpopular. But that's what the First Amendment protects. Unpopular speech. Things that other people don't like. Gordon College has a right to stand for their religious belief. And there's every indication that they will. And I applaud them.

I also applaud Salem for standing up for what you believe. You had a contract. That's what it said… You're just cancelling it. The town has a right to decide based on the First Amendment. The college has a right to stand its ground based on the First Amendment. When it comes to religion, we have to protect the things that we don't like, which you would think out of all the cities in America, Salem would understand… We don't have to agree on everything. But we do have to love and respect everybody…

I will continue to give people like the mayor the benefit of the doubt and just say I'm sure she's a fine human being. I'm sure she's really motivated by what she believes. I just dislike her actions, and it's wrong to lie. I strongly encourage politicians to stop lying. But I still believe that she's my sister through God. We're brothers and sisters…

I can't personally vouch for the North Shore Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Youth. That's the charity that she says [she’s] going to give $5 to. Everybody that calls, [she’ll] give them $5. They describe themselves as a safe place for LBGT youth to come together. And here's the great thing. Here's the bonus for you: They meet in a church. So I applaud the mayor's reliance on private charity and a church instead of government to advance the important issues affecting her community socially.

I don't know the mayor personally. I don't know whether she was sincere or not in her vow to donate $5 for each and every call that comes in. But based on her signed promise… she would donate to this service.

Now I'm tempted, because I'm giving you my unsolicited opinion, to encourage every single one of my listeners to call the mayor's office of Salem and issue a respectful complaint saying, ‘I love you as a sister… You're great. But I have to respectfully issue a complaint’ – because whether it's honest or not, she'd be forced to part with more money than she's ever earned somehow or another.

But that's the old me. (laughs) So I'm not encouraging that. And I'd be very disappointed if anybody ever did that. But I'm a work in progress.

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.

Top FIVE takeaways from Glenn's EXCLUSIVE interview with Trump

Image courtesy of the White House

As President Trump approaches his 100th day in office, Glenn Beck joined him to evaluate his administration’s progress with a gripping new interview. April 30th is President Trump's 100th day in office, and what an eventful few months it has been. To commemorate this milestone, Glenn Beck was invited to the White House for an exclusive interview with the President.

Their conversation covered critical topics, including the border crisis, DOGE updates, the revival of the U.S. energy sector, AI advancements, and more. Trump remains energized, acutely aware of the nation’s challenges, and determined to address them.

Here are the top five takeaways from Glenn Beck’s one-on-one with President Trump:

Border Security and Cartels

DAVID SWANSON / Contributor | Getty Images

Early in the interview, Glenn asked if Trump views Mexico as a failed narco-state. While Trump avoided the term, he acknowledged that cartels effectively control Mexico. He noted that while not all Mexican officials are corrupt, those who are honest fear severe repercussions for opposing the cartels.

Trump was unsurprised when Glenn cited evidence that cartels are using Pentagon-supplied weapons intended for the Mexican military. He is also aware of the fentanyl influx from China through Mexico and is committed to stopping the torrent of the dangerous narcotic. Trump revealed that he has offered military aid to Mexico to combat the cartels, but these offers have been repeatedly declined. While significant progress has been made in securing the border, Trump emphasized that more must be done.

American Energy Revival

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s tariffs are driving jobs back to America, with the AI sector showing immense growth potential. He explained that future AI systems require massive, costly complexes with significant electricity demands. China is outpacing the U.S. in building power plants to support AI development, threatening America’s technological leadership.

To counter this, Trump is cutting bureaucratic red tape, allowing AI companies to construct their own power plants, potentially including nuclear facilities, to meet the energy needs of AI server farms. Glenn was thrilled to learn these plants could also serve as utilities, supplying excess power to homes and businesses. Trump is determined to ensure America remains the global leader in AI and energy.

Liberation Day Shakeup

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Glenn drew a parallel between Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and the historical post-World War II Liberation Day. Trump confirmed the analogy, explaining that his policy aims to dismantle an outdated global economic order established to rebuild Europe and Asia after the wars of the 20th century. While beneficial decades ago, this system now disadvantages the U.S. through job outsourcing, unfair trade deals, and disproportionate NATO contributions.

Trump stressed that America’s economic survival is at stake. Without swift action, the U.S. risks collapse, potentially dragging the West down with it. He views his presidency as a critical opportunity to reverse this decline.

Trouble in Europe

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

When Glenn pressed Trump on his tariff strategy and negotiations with Europe, Trump delivered a powerful statement: “I don’t have to negotiate.” Despite America’s challenges, it remains the world’s leading economy with the wealthiest consumer base, making it an indispensable trading partner for Europe. Trump wants to make equitable deals and is willing to negotiate with European leaders out of respect and desire for shared prosperity, he knows that they are dependent on U.S. dollars to keep the lights on.

Trump makes an analogy, comparing America to a big store. If Europe wants to shop at the store, they are going to have to pay an honest price. Or go home empty-handed.

Need for Peace

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

Trump emphasized the need to end America’s involvement in endless wars, which have cost countless lives and billions of dollars without a clear purpose. He highlighted the staggering losses in Ukraine, where thousands of soldiers die weekly. Trump is committed to ending the conflict but noted that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has been a challenging partner, constantly demanding more U.S. support.

The ongoing wars in Europe and the Middle East are unsustainable, and America’s excessive involvement has prolonged these conflicts, leading to further casualties. Trump aims to extricate the U.S. from these entanglements.