These are the qualities that make a great leader

Lots of companies make great products. Lots of politicians have potential. But very few people are able to become real, true leaders. Author Simon Sinek spoke with Glenn on TV last night about what it is about great leaders that they all have in common - the answers may surprise you.

A transcript of the segment is below:

Glenn: Okay, I want to introduce you to a new friend, and that probably would’ve caused him some consternation if I would’ve said that a couple months ago, but a new friend and a guy I think we think an awful lot alike and that I think is important for you to know and read. He is the guy who now has Leaders Eat Last, a new book that is out, and also Start with Why. He has changed my life about a year ago or started to clarify what I kind of instinctively knew to be true, and now I think is in the midst of changing my life and really helping me on a path that I think with you we really will be the people that can really change the world.

I want to start, Simon Sinek is his name. I want to start, Simon, first with just a little bit about this vacuum of leadership and this idea that our leaders have failed us and where are the leaders? And we all say, you know, where is Ronald Reagan or where is Margaret Thatcher or where is Pope John Paul? The leaders of the past are gone, but that’s because we’re looking for them. Shouldn’t we be looking for them inside?

Simon: Yeah, I mean, we want to be led. We like leaders, you know? Nobody wants to go to work and be managed. We want to go to work and be led. I think one of the challenges we face is our own definition of leadership. We think that leadership comes with authority, and sometimes it does, and it’s certainly more efficient when a leader has some authority.

But I know many people who sit at the highest levels of whatever organization they run, but they’re not leaders. You know, they have authority, and we do what they tell us because they have authority over us, but we wouldn’t follow them. And I know many people who sit at the bottom of organizations that have no authority, but they’ve made a choice, a choice to look after the person to the left of them and a choice to look after the person to the right of them. And this is basically and fundamentally what leadership is. It is a choice.

Glenn: Are real leaders usually found at times of crisis? Because like September 11 or here I have this whole wall that is Abraham Lincoln’s face, he’s not the guy that you would pick out and go “I’m going to follow that guy,” but it happened on September 11 too. People who were just coworkers all of a sudden took charge and said, “You, you, and you, let’s go.” Are you born a leader?

Simon: Leadership is a skill like any other that some based on how they grew up and the way that they were raised and the sort of lessons they learned from their parents or their grandparents or their friends, you know, they have a talent. They have a talent for it. Some kids are great at basketball, they have a talent for it, and some kids have to work really, really, really hard to get good at basketball. Leadership is the same. It is a skill. Some have a natural capacity for it. Some of us have to work harder at it, but it is a practice. It’s not something we do at work and then we stop being a leader when we leave work.

Glenn: The key principles of leadership?

Simon: The key idea behind leadership is putting the well-being of others sometimes before ourselves, considering the well-being of others. So a great example of how to think about leadership is something I witnessed when I visited Quantico Marine Base which is where the Marines select their officers. And I did not hear a single Marine say the words I am a leader, I want to be a leader, I aspire to be a leader, I think I have what it takes to be a good leader. Those words were never uttered.

The words you do hear are I’m a leader of Marines, I believe I have what it takes to be a leader of Marines, I aspire to be a good leader of Marines. In other words, even in their own vernacular, they see leadership as a service to another human being, a leader of Marines, not just this leader, not this position or title to be held.

And I think that’s what we all have to remember, which is leadership is not a rank to attain, it’s a responsibility. It’s an honor. It’s much like being a parent, you know? The choice to have kids is the fun part. The choice to raise children is the difficult part.

Glenn: I’m amazed because the first time I spoke to you I said the same thing to you about your book, those are all biblical principles, and you’re not coming to it from a place of the Bible, but they’re all universal principles.

Simon: They’re human principles.

Glenn: They’re human principles, but I mean, it is the same as, you know, when Jesus says the first will be last, and you know, she’s greater because she took her hair and washed my feet when that at the time was you wanted to get around those people. But I serve you. I’ll wash your feet, and it’s the same principle back then.

Simon: There is no expectation of anything in return.

Glenn: Right, and back then they didn’t get it, and we still don’t get it.

Simon: And this is why when we find great leaders, the reason we want to follow them is because they serve as the example. They give us permission. They show us what it looks like. They lead the way. You know, leadership comes with risk. You go first means you’re the one who may get in trouble or get your head cut off for taking that risk and –

Glenn: So does good leadership have anything to do with shedding all the trappings of the leaders? I mean, because some people will say well, they’re rich or they’re this or that. You can still be – that doesn’t matter.

Simon: There’s no relationship whatsoever. You know, as a leader, you know, we’re hierarchical animals naturally, and there’s basis for this, which is we used to live in populations no bigger than 150 people. This presents a bit of a problem. You know, these austere times someone brings back food, we all rush in to eat. If you’re lucky enough to be built like a linebacker, you shove your way to the front. If you’re the “artist” of the family, you get an elbow in the face.

This is a bad system for cooperation because the odds are I’m not going to alert the person who punched me in the face this afternoon I’m not going to alert them to danger this evening when they’re sleeping, you know, I’m just going to leave them.

Glenn: Correct.

Simon: So there’s a different system that had to evolve. And we are hierarchical animals. We’re constantly assessing and judging each other, who’s alpha, who’s beta. And when we assess that someone is alpha to us, and sometimes it’s a formal hierarchy, you know, it’s a higher rank, and sometimes it’s an informal thing. And it’s not a constant, it’s a relative system. When we assess that someone is alpha, we voluntarily step back and allow alphas to eat first.

Alphas get first choice of meat and first choice of mate. And so though we may not get the best choice of meat, we will get to eat eventually, and we don’t get an elbow in the face – good system. And to this day this system exists and is alive and well. Not a single person has a problem with somebody more senior than them in the company making a higher salary. That doesn’t bother us. We may think they’re ineffective, we may think they’re an idiot, but it actually doesn’t bother us that they get a higher salary because they’re higher level than us in the company. It doesn’t bother us that they have a bigger office or a better parking space.

Glenn: However, it is in our society being touted as a bad thing.

Simon: And here’s the reason, because none of that stuff comes for free. You see, we are okay with our leaders being given preferential treatment and having the trappings and the perks if they’re willing to uphold their responsibility as a leader. It doesn’t come for free. So the group is not stupid. You see, we expect that when danger threatens the tribe, when danger threatens the group, that it will be the guy who’s stronger, better fed with all that confidence who will rush towards the danger to protect us.

Glenn: So the reason why that’s happening is because the big guys got the bailouts, they all kept their jobs, nobody paid the price, but when there was trouble, they cut all of those jobs down there.

Simon: And this is why we have visceral contempt for some of the banking CEOs and their disproportionate salaries and perks. It’s not the numbers. It’s that they have violated the very human definition of what it means to be a leader. We know that they allowed people to be sacrificed so they could keep what was theirs, or worse, they sacrificed their people so they could keep what was theirs.

What if I told you we were going to give Nelson Mandela $150 million bonus? No big deal. How about Mother Teresa, $250 million bonus? No one has a problem with the numbers or the perks or the better life or the people carrying your bags or calling you sir. No one has an issue with that.

Glenn: In fact, I had a problem when Jimmy Carter wouldn’t carry his bags because I was like he’s the president.

Simon: He’s the president, exactly. The issue we have is when you are given all of those advantages, and you are not willing to uphold the responsibility of the leader, in other words, you think it’s about you.

There was a great story I was told which I’ll share with you which I think encapsulates what it means to be a leader. It was a former undersecretary of defense, and he retired about a year prior. And he was giving a speech at a large conference of about 1,000 people. And he’s standing on the stage giving his prepared remarks sipping his coffee from a Styrofoam cup he had. And he stops and interrupts himself. And he looks down at the cup, and he looks up at the audience.

He says, “You know, I spoke at this exact same conference last year, except last year I was still the undersecretary. And I flew here business-class, and there was someone to meet me at the airport. And they drove me to the hotel. And they’d already checked me in, and they took me up to my room. I came down the next morning, another person was waiting for me, drove me to this same venue. They took me in the back entrance. They took me to the green room, and they gave me a cup of coffee in a beautiful ceramic cup.”

He says, “I’m no longer the undersecretary. I flew here coach. I took a cab from the airport to the hotel. I checked myself in. This morning I took another cab to this venue. I walked in the front door, found my way backstage, and when I asked somebody, ‘Do you have any coffee,’ he pointed to the coffee machine in the corner, and I poured myself a cup of coffee into this here Styrofoam cup.”

He says, “The lesson is the ceramic cup was never meant for me, it was meant for the position I held. I deserve a Styrofoam cup.” And this is the point, I think a lot of people in leadership positions believe that all those perks that are afforded to them are for them. It’s not. It’s for the position they hold. And they have a responsibility, because, by the way, when they leave, they will give those things to the next person.

And I think one of the humilities of leadership is that we have to remember though we were given these things, and we can enjoy them, I mean, let’s be honest, it’s good, it’s nice, it’s good to be the king, it feels good, we get all of these advantages, but it all comes at a price.

First of all, it’s given to the position and not to you, that’s number one. And number two, we have to “pay” for those things by offering and sometimes sacrificing what is in our interest for the good of those around us or the good of those who have committed themselves to see our visions come to life. That’s the responsibility of leadership.

Glenn: We have about three and a half minutes, but I want to tell you real quick you will understand why I’ve been saying about mercy, mercy, mercy, justice and mercy, we have to serve one another, if you read his book, Leaders Eat Last. And if you missed the radio show, listen to I think it was hour one and two today on the radio show, never had a guest on for three hours and did it today, and it’s fantastic.

And it’s really important that you watch that and read his book. Let me ask you this, we’re not people on paper that should be sitting down with each other.

Simon: You and me?

Glenn: Why are you here?

Simon: I’m here for the same reason you’re here, which is one, I have an insatiably curious mind, and I believe that people who have different perspectives than I have have something to teach me that I can learn. I know enough to know that I know very little, that I don’t know everything.

And I think we have a bad habit in this country of listening to the people who tell us what we already agree with or tell us what want to hear because it feels good and because we agree with it. And you know, if your politics are left, you listen to left media, if your politics are right, you listen to right media, and never shall the twain interact or mix.

Glenn: And you don’t put yourself in either of those categories?

Simon: Oh no, I consider myself a common sensist, and I will work with anyone. And I’m very open about it. You know, I’ll get calls from Republicans, and I’ll tell them, yeah, just so you know, I’m going to give the same advice to Democrats. And when Democrats call, I say just so you know, I’m going to give the same advice to Republicans because my goal is that we find common cause and work together.

And so the reason I wanted to meet you was because I was told I should meet you, is because I was told that, you know, you disagree with him. I’m like really? Because I’ve never met him, you know? And we may have not got along, and so I would have wasted an hour of time to find out that I didn’t like him. And instead, I found an hour of time that made me craving wanting more.

And what I love is that you and I seem to represent an example of what the rest of us could do. Instead of hearing the sound bite and forming our opinion and saying, “I hate that person, I hate that side, I hate that group,” to rather say, “I’d like to learn more. I think we both want the same thing.”

Glenn: Without getting into specifics, you and I have had a couple of times where I think both of us have gone either on the phone or in e-mail or something we’ve gone okay, all right, maybe that came out wrong.

Simon: That’s not what I meant.

Glenn: That’s not what I meant.

Simon: Because we find ourselves going at each other and the other one going whoa, that’s not what I meant.

Glenn: Right.

Simon: And I think the things we say are not always the things we mean. Let me rephrase that, the words that people hear are not always what we mean. And so I think it’s the responsibility to try and be as articulate as possible obviously, but I think it’s the responsibility of the listener or the person receiving information to say let me understand what you mean, what do you mean by that, let me repeat back to you in my own words and tell me is this what you’re trying to say? Because I think 99 times out of 100, I think we just completely misunderstand each other.

Glenn: You learn that from any marriage counselor. Anyway, the name of the book is Leaders Eat Last, and Start with Why, either one, both of them, highly recommended. Simon, thank you.

Simon: Thanks for having me, Glenn.

EXCLUSIVE: Tech Ethicist reveals 5 ways to control AI NOW

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

How private stewardship could REVIVE America’s wild

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.