Have we lost our freedoms?

Glenn was joined by Judge Andrew Napolitano last night to discuss his new book, Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat of American Liberty. Napolitano's book argues that the greatest trick the federal government has ever pulled was in convincing us, U.S. citizens, to voluntarily surrender our liberties. Watch as Napolitano and Glenn discuss examples in history where the government has stepped in and tried to remove Americans freedom, and mostly succeeding.

Glenn: Okay, new book out, "Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat of American Liberty". Judge Andrew Napolitano is the guy who is a good friend of ours. A lot of people would like him to run for president. I would like to see Ted Cruz be president, and maybe we have a new Chief Justice. I’m just saying. I’m just saying. How are you doing, Judge?

Judge: I am well, Glenn. What a fabulous, fabulous opening segment. It made me pine for those days where I was sort of seated behind the cameras in that FOX studio watching you do that five days a week.

Glenn: Thank you.

Judge: Great, my man.

Glenn: So judge, do I have it wrong anyplace on the part—I think Americans are not revolutionaries? I think that we don’t like hatred. We don’t like any of this stuff; however, the government, both left and right—as you know, progressive started with Theodore Roosevelt—both left and right, they will seize power.

And your book talks about George W. Bush and Barack Obama. And once a few of us get out of our own skin a little bit and say hey, wait a minute, maybe I made a mistake on George W. Bush, we do see the point that the left was making, but the left hasn’t seen the point we’re making now. But it’s this game back and forth. They’re both doing it.

Judge: The first half of the book is a history of presidential lawmaking and law breaking from George Washington to Bill Clinton, and of course it touches on the hot button issues, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the progressive era, Woodrow Wilson arresting people for singing songs in German, arresting people for reciting the Declaration of Independence in front of draft offices.

The second half of the book really focuses on George W. Bush and Barack Obama, who basically took the unpunished behavior of their predecessors when they broke the law and violated the Constitution and used it to their own political purposes. I recount a scene in which the FBI was known in the Bush years to show up at post offices and intimidate postal inspectors. These are post office cops with uniforms and guns and badges, into forking over mail so that the FBI could look at the mail, put a marker in it, close the mail up, and send it on its way.

A Republican Congress enacted legislation saying you can’t break into the mail. You want to get into the mail, go to a judge, present probable cause, and get a search warrant—very fine, consistent with the Constitution, except that when George Bush signed this legislation into existence, as the ink was falling from the pen in his fingers, he raised his eyes and looked at the camera and said I have no intention of enforcing this law. You know what, we have seen that attitude magnified today to gargantuan proportions under Barack Obama.

Glenn: I will tell you, Judge, I am concerned about this president as I have been. I was concerned about the last president. I am more concerned about this one, but I have to tell you, I’m five times more concerned about the next one, because I don’t think that you can keep this money game going for very long. And when the people become hungry, we do take to the streets, and then all bets are off. Whoever’s in office has an opportunity to become absolutely a nightmare.

Judge: Here is where in my view you were right on the mark with the pendulum swinging left and right and freedom being at the heart, being at the fulcrum which never moves. And here’s the problem with leadership in the Republican and Democratic parties today.

On the three transcendental issues of our era, the Republicans and the Democrats, the leadership of the parties, all agree. They agree that our freedoms do not come from God or from our humanity, they come from the government. They also agree that we should be in a state of perpetual war, because war is the health of the state and perpetual debt because we don’t dare want to pay our bills today when we can push them off until tomorrow.

Unless and until a force in the government comes along, whether it’s Rand Paul or Ted Cruz, to break that cycle, freedom comes from our humanity, which is a gift from God, perpetual war will destroy us, and perpetual debt will destroy us. We will continue to go down and down and down.

Do you know that the government’s debt silently broke 18 trillion over the Thanksgiving weekend? Did you see that on the front page of the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times?

Glenn: We talked about it, but I know that it wasn’t talked about. It’s 70% increase in the last six years, 70%. I don’t care who did it. It was unpatriotic and un-American when this guy was running, and now a 70% increase.

Judge: It was done by a Democratic president and a Democratic Senate and a Republican House of Representatives, most of whose members condemned the concept of debt but then voted to let the president borrow all the money he wants.

Glenn: So Judge, let me take you here to a couple of recent things that are gravely concerning to me. One, the president said, what was it, yesterday or the day before, that he is going to sign an executive order, and he’s going to decide, he’s going to oversee this civilian military force that we’re building. I have no problems with cops. I am friends with a lot of cops. I love cops; however, we should not be militarizing our cops, and the president should not oversee which departments get militarized and which don’t get militarized. This is craziness.

Judge: The over militarization of the police which occurred in the last 12 years under the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, when the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Justice gave used military equipment to local police departments, brings us dangerously close to a police state. The definition of a police state, when the government’s prime concern is for its own safety, not for the lives, liberty, and property of the people it has sworn to protect. That’s a very, very dangerous place in which to be.

This president using Ferguson as an excuse sounded yesterday, with Al Sharpton seated just two people away from him, like he wants to federalize the police, like he wants to tell every police department from New York City to Ferguson, from Dallas to Los Angeles, from Sussex County, New Jersey to Omaha, Nebraska, how they should protect our lives, liberty, and property. We should say to the president stay home. Leave us alone.

Glenn: Well, a lot of people have said that, but he doesn’t listen. So when we come back, you know, your book outlines what Woodrow Wilson did, what FDR did, and quite honestly, Judge, I don’t think we’re beyond that ourselves. You know, you throw somebody for speaking German into jail, I mean, there were concentration camps in America in World War I. There were obviously in World War II with Italians and with Japanese. We don’t like to talk about them, but that’s what they are. We call them internment camps. They were concentration camps, period, and it was a gross violation of our Constitution.

I don’t think that we’re beyond that. How do we get people to see the errors of their ways, Judge, when quite honestly—and I need to take a break—when quite honestly nobody is interested? Nobody seems interested in this because they don’t believe bad things could actually happen.

The Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

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.

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.