Glenn: The world has real problems, but we can solve them if we are honest about what really matters

We have a lot of problems in the world, and as I'm watching them spiral out of control this weekend, I thought if we want to solve them, as an alcoholic, first step is you’ve got to admit you have a problem.

And if we’re going to work together, we have to admit that one of our problems is this partisan bickering, and we have to be willing to then say the tough thing, we have to stop this bickering and be honest with one another and acknowledge a few simple truths, that we are not that different, that our neighbors aren’t. There are those fringes, especially in Washington. There’s maybe 10% on each side that is crazy and out-of-control, but our neighbors generally are not.

And we have to be able to discern which issues are really, truly critical and which ones are not, which ones are just political games. And that’s what I want to try to do today because the globe is in a critical condition, and the country is in critical condition. We have Hamas waging war against Israel, and it’s tearing our cities apart. From London to LA, there is rising anti-Semitism in our streets.

The global economy is dismal. Civil unrest is becoming increasingly prevalent all around the country, and here in America it’s almost as though some of these problems don’t even exist. The 44 million Americans who now follow the president on Twitter must feel like things are amazing. Is there anybody that is following the president on Twitter saying, “Gosh, he seems a little out of touch”?

First of all, it was all about his birthday. This weekend’s tweets were all promoting his birthday, nine tweets. And then on the other side, in Hollywood, which prides itself on being relevant and speaking to the critical issues of the day, they’re not concerned with the anti-Semitic protests that were happening right in their backyard. Instead, they seem to be most concerned about who is the next black star? I don’t understand this.

I see some of the headlines from both sides of the aisle, from everybody, and I think really, this is what we’re working on? If we want real progress, if we want real solutions, we have to begin to identify and agree on which issues are critical and which ones are political. I would say most people feel that the border is a very important issue, all Americans across the board, and the economy, jobs. Those are the two things that everybody cares about, but that’s not what we’re hearing about.

Let’s look at the issues now that are being pushed as critical and put them to the test, what’s really important? Right now, the president is campaigning around the country fighting what he calls the defining challenge of our time, and that is battling income inequality.

Okay, I believe these things. I believe that we have to be able to not just feel like, we actually have to be able to work hard and get ahead. If you have a problem with the rich being too rich, well, that’s not a problem that we can ever solve because the government is going to do that. Is it perhaps that one of the basic problems that we have here in America on income inequality is that we don’t understand greed anymore?

If you think that greed is the answer, that the rich just keep getting richer, not because they’ve invented…nobody has a problem with Bill Gates being rich. Look what he’s done. Nobody has a problem with Steve Jobs being rich. Who are you having a problem with? The banks, right? The people on Wall Street, right? Why? Because it’s all about greed, it’s all about the money. It’s not about actually making something, it’s about the money.

And then when they fail, we have to bail them out, so the problem is greed. And is that a problem that the government can solve? Another pressing issue for this administration is workplace fairness. I love this quote, “You shouldn’t be fired because of who you love.” Is there anyone who disagrees with this? Is there anyone that thinks that you should be fired because you’re gay or straight? I don’t know anybody who thinks that way.

I don’t know a single soul that thinks that’s right, and if it’s happening, are people being fired because of who they love at such a clip that the president needs to make this one of our defining issues of the age? That’s not the pressing issue, and if it is, I want to see the stories on it because we can all unite on this one and stop that one this fast. And then there of course is the war on women, “I want my daughters paid the same as your sons for doing the same jobs.” That’s the president.

Well, Mister President, if my daughter was working in the White House, she would not be paid the same as my son for doing the same jobs at the White House. There is income inequality in the White House when it comes to gender. The White House doesn’t even uphold those standards, and there’s a reason for it. And we’re not going to get into all of it, but there’s a reason for it, and he knows. This is a political stunt, political stunt, because nobody disagrees with that.

We somehow or another, we have our daughters, and we don’t think that our daughters should be paid? Of course, every father thinks that. The political parties, both left and right, are using people to forward their political interests, not our national values. When you have people claiming that it’s a war on women because Hobby Lobby covers 16 out of 20 kinds of birth control, and the four that they don’t are related to abortion, that’s not political interest. I mean, that is political interest. That’s not our national values, and it’s certainly not a war on women by Hobby Lobby. It’s a political stunt.

And all that happens is, I mean, the reason why the president is going from place to place, and he’s not going to meet on these big issues, because he’s always busy. Where is he? He’s busy at fundraisers. This is all about money. That’s all this is about money and power. And you get more money and you get more power by driving the wedge further and deeper down.

I love the people that had come out this week because I was on CNN this weekend, and they were talking about how Glenn Beck is now, he’s only doing this for money; he’s only trying to unite people because it’s in his best interests for ratings and money. Oh my gosh, if that were true, the president would be uniting people on every stop. It is division that makes people race under the banner. It’s somebody saying, “I’m being attacked” that makes somebody, you’re being attacked, we’re all going to lose all of this.

I’m telling you we don’t have to lose all of this. I am telling you we all justice. We all want mercy. We have these problems, but we can solve them. We all want reconciliation. We want people to be respected. We want people to love who they want to love without fear of harassment or execution. We want people to have freedom of speech and to be heard so they can differ with one another but do so with respect.

We all want to know that we’re all in it together, and we’re working toward something much greater, and that we’ve been heard along the way, even though people will disagree with us, doesn’t mean we get our way, but we’ve been heard, and that we have control over our own lives. That is something that we all want, we all want. And if we can agree on that, then we can start looking at the real war on women.

Let’s compare the war on women in America where you can’t have an abortion to the war on women in China where you must have an abortion, even though you want to keep the baby, you must have an abortion, or the war on women living in the Middle East and in Africa who are forced to undergo genital mutilation. The locals call it Sunat. It means duty. You want to talk about reproductive rights, I’d say having, you know, you being forced to have yours cut up and partially or totally removed would be pretty high on the list of offenses on a war on women, and it happens to 130 million women worldwide. That is a problem.

In Egypt, harassment is practically a given. The UN reports that 99.3% of women experience sexual harassment. In Syria, thousands of women have been targeted by both the government forces and the rebel groups, and they’re being raped, they’re being used as human shields, they’re being arrested without cause, they’re tortured, they’re kidnapped, they’re murdered. In the past two years, honor killings have claimed the lives of 25 women that live under the Palestinian Authority.

How about all the women that were kidnapped? Remember, return our girls, return our daughters? That’s a war on women, and that’s one we can unite on, both left and right. Which one, Hobby Lobby or the rape and murder of women, 130 million mutilations? Which one is critical? Which one is political? Which one would actually move us forward as a people, as a species?

Gay marriage is defined as a civil rights, that’s an issue now here in America, and there are those who oppose changing the definition of America. And if you oppose, you’re immediately equated to a hatemonger, and you are immediately compared to the racists of the 1960s. Yet, coming out today here in America practically comes with a tickertape parade and a friendly round of media interviews. It’s not exactly courageous.

Look at the guy at the NFL, look what happened to him. That didn’t take a lot of courage. He had a special on Oprah. Courage is coming out in places like Iran where gays are routinely tortured. To be homosexual is against the law. You’re sent to prison or you’re executed in public for being gay.

In Nigeria, being married if you’re gay lands you in prison for 14 years. Homophobia in Russia is on the rise as well with one celebrity going as far as calling for gays to be sent to the gas chambers, and that’s not a nobody celebrity like me, that’s a somebody celebrity. This is a big guy.

Now, let me ask you, you’re talking about gays being sent to gas chambers, you’re talking about the stoning to death in Iran or in Egypt, isn’t this something that the staunchest DOMA supporter and the staunchest GLAAD supporter can link arms on? And wouldn’t it change the world if we actually did that as Americans?

This weekend, I’ve heard nothing but how Israelis are committing genocide, they’re committing genocide of the Palestinian people. They are now worse than Hitler. I love this, they’ve surpassed Hitler in barbarism. That’s saying something. If that’s true, we all can unite and say that’s got to stop. But if they’re engaging in genocide, they’re really, really bad at it.

Gaza is a tiny area of Israel, and Israel has all the firepower. This conflict has been going on forever, and yet the population of Gaza is increasing. Can you tell me how many concentration camps under Hitler had the population increase that weren’t imported in? Meanwhile, in Darfur, 480,000 people have been slaughtered in the last decade, and it continues today, Darfur, an actual ethnic cleansing that the world has turned away from.

As I said, I talked to CNN on Israel this week, and they didn’t air this part, and I wish they would have. I think it would have been a shock for people on the left to hear me talk about it, because what I said in that interview is we don’t hate the Palestinian people, we can’t hate the Palestinian people, just like we didn’t hate the Germans in World War II. Thirty percent of the Germans elected Hitler. Thirty percent of the Palestinians elected Hamas.

Both the Nazis and Hamas were calling for genocide of the same people. But what happened? We fought the Germans until we defeated the Nazi machine, and then we helped the Germans. We weren’t against the Germans. We love the German people.

We have to stand united on just a really simple principle, no genocide for any people, no genocide. But let’s stop throwing around the word genocide if it doesn’t apply because it’s not happening there. This is a war, and it’s awful, it’s awful, but by crying genocide in war stops people from actually listening to the cry of genocide when it’s real.

Why can’t we work together to end the genocide in places like Darfur? I mean, hasn’t that gone on long enough? Left and right, why can’t we stand together? Why won’t somebody like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie or George Clooney stand with somebody like me and say enough is enough on Darfur, can’t we stop this, enough is enough?

And at the same time, are we not big enough to give aid and comfort, not to the terrorists, but once the terrorists stop using the poor Palestinians, and the bombing stops, aren’t we big enough to extend aid to all people that want peace and to live in harmony?

We all want to move forward. We all want to fix the country. We all want the same things, pretty much the same things, not the fringe crazy people on the edges. Can’t we start looking at our strategy? Are we really attacking the things that matter? Are we attacking critical issues or political ones?

What’s usually on the news in the routine news cycle? First Lady continues to crackdown on America’s school lunch menu. A Nebraska school just banned a bake sale. Really, is that really what’s important? Time for Congress to help the middle class – okay, how? How? Diversity day, drag queens are performing at our military bases. Is that our priority with our military?

The EPA is arresting people for illegally transporting milk, milk, across state lines. That’s your priority? Have you seen what’s happening in Chicago? And meanwhile, we have a $17 trillion debt, and the world is blaming us for it. Chicago, one of the most deadly places in the country to live. Ranchers along the border are continually finding the dead bodies on their property. Did you see that story?

And then we have Ebola on the loose. God help this poor doctor that came in, and God help us all if the CDC is putting our national interests above our national values. When we put our values before our interests, when we put our values before our political interests, we’ll be okay, and we’ll be able to come together. And I suggest that we are the people to begin that march towards real justice, real mercy, and real reconciliation.

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

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.