Paris mayor plans to sue FOX News, and the man at the center of the controversy is speaking out

January 21, 2015

Writer

A few days ago, Steve Emerson was on FOX News to talk about the attacks on 'Charlie Hebdo'. During an interview, he said, "in Britain, it's not just no-go zones, there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don't go in." The comments went viral, and now FOX News is apologizing and the Paris mayor is threatening to sue the network for inaccurate reporting. Steve joined Glenn on radio this morning to discuss the outcry and the real Islamic extremism issue in Europe.

"[Emerson] immediately came out and he apologized profusely. Fox News gave the biggest apology I've ever seen, and now the mayor of France is saying they're going to sue Fox and Steve Emerson for saying there was no-go zones. Something is not right here," Glenn said.

Steve explained, "n Birmingham I made a total error by referring to the city as totally Muslim. And being sort of a no-go zone. And I was totally wrong. Within hours of making that statement, I issued a declarative, unmitigated, unreserved, unambiguous apology," he said.

"The reason it went viral is because...it was a hatred of Fox. The Islamists together with their alliance with those on the ultra left had been waiting 20 years to pounce on me to make a mistake. And this combined to sort of spiral out of control to the point where it seems like I was guilty of murder of some sort," he continued.

Below is a rough transcript of the segment:

GLENN: Steve Emerson is one of the nation's best national security correspondents. His investigative work on radical Islamic fundamentalism is absolutely critical to that nation's national security. There is no one who has exhibited the same expertise, courage, and determination to tackle this vital issue, written by the "New York Times" executive editor, A.M. Rosenthal. That is who Steve Emerson is. Steve Emerson is one of the bravest people investigators I believe on the planet. One of the -- one of the few that actually called September 11th before September 11 th happened. One of the few that has been there every step of the way, calling it exactly the way it is. Now, he made a mistake but honestly, it's a mistake that I think many of us could have made, because we have heard for years about no-go zones. And for some reason, France, England, and the left are coming after now Fox News and I believe targeting Steve Emerson. Because he was on the air and he was talking about no-go zones. Well, there are no, no, no go zone. But if you want to talk about political nitpicking, listen to this. No-go zones -- what are you implying with a no-go zone? You're implying that the police just don't go into that area. Well, okay. Is that true? Are there places here in America that either visitors or cops just avoid? There's no place here in America that I know of that the police say, I am not going in there. However, there are sensitive areas and areas so dangerous that you just don't go in unless you have to. The French call it a sensitive urban zone. Not a no go zone. This is -- documentation from the French government, sensitive urban zones. ZUS. I have here -- this is 35 pages of fine print, towns that are -- sensitive -- what are they call them? Sensitive urban zones. We would know them as no-go zones. So Steve Emerson was on Fox News and he made a statement about these no-go zones. And he said, I think the way most people speak without accuracy, and he said, you know, it's almost like completely Muslim or he talked about one place. Almost --

PAT: Birmingham totally Muslim.

GLENN: Totally Muslim. Well, no, it's thought totally Muslim. It's 25 or 30% Muslim. However, what is the culture, I don't know. He immediately came out and he apologized profusely. Fox News gave the biggest apology I've ever seen, and now the mayor of France is saying they're going to sue Fox and Steve Emerson for saying there was no-go zones. Something is not right here. I heard this on Friday and -- or on Monday. And I immediately reached out to Steve Emerson. We haven't had a chance to talk until right now. And he happens to be on the phone now to explain what's going on. Hi, Steve, how are you?

EMERSON: Hi, Glenn. I'm okay. Thank you. Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: First of all, thank you for all of the hard work that you have done over the years. You are really truly an American who has risked it all and -- and really, spent a lot of your life, and I would have to imagine you feel it sometimes, there have got to be days you feel you've waste add lot of your life because nobody will listen and they're just trying to torch you. But I want you to know I as an American am grateful for the things that you have done.

EMERSON: I appreciate the kind words, you know. I'm only doing my job and I started doing it 20 years ago because I felt nobody was looking at the real aspects then of the first World Trade Center bombing in February of '92. And then -- I'm sorry, February '93. And then of course, the 9/11 attacks occurred. So I established a nonprofit looking at what the government wasn't looking at, which was the political slam, radical Islamic activities of the mosques, of the Islamic groups that pretended to be moderate or civil rights groups but were in fact conduits for radical Islamic activities. Even terrorist activities. So that's what I've dedicated my life to. And yet I did -- as you pointed out, I made a serious error when I referred to Birmingham -- I was talking about no-go zones, which by the way is not a formal reference. I mean, governments don't recognize that term. But it's an informal reference where -- in which policemen or firemen or government agencies won't go in to areas where there are dense Muslim concentrations for fear of their lives. And it's been reported on since 2002 of all places, the "New York Times" -- which referenced it. Now, having said that, in discussing it, I discussed it in England where I talked about the sharia police in parts of London that had -- basically attacked non-Muslims for not wearing the right attire. And this was reported in the BBC. It's reported in London newspapers. And yet I was attacked by the BBC for saying it. And in Birmingham I made a total error by referring to the city as totally Muslim. And being sort of a no-go zone. And I was totally wrong. Within hours of making that statement, I issued a declarative, unmid gated -- unmitigated, you know, unreserved, inambiguous apology. I put out my website.

GLENN: Steve, Steve, Steve. Tell me what's really --

EMERSON: Made any mince about it, okay?

GLENN: Tell me what's really going on.

EMERSON: The reason it went viral is because the reason -- it was a hatred of Fox. People -- the Islamicists together with their alliance with those on the ultra left had been waiting 20 years to pounce on me to make a mistake. And this combined to sort of spiral out of control to the point where it seems like I was guilty of murder of some sort. The irony, of course, that the mayor of Paris, where -- Paris being symbolically now the top city in the world where you would think it reigns has this symbolic city of free speech, having seen the massacre of people protecting -- trying to exercise free speech, is now going to sue Fox for emphasizing free speech? Which is actually true. I mean, I'd like to see the portionan mayor suing Fox or suing me. On discovery they wouldn't get away with it.

GLENN: No, I'm sitting here with 30 fif page of something called sensitive urban zones, which is what -- we, you know -- in colloquial terms call no-go zones. That's what they call them. Sensitive urban zones. It's the same thing, is it not? Or am I wrong on that?

EMERSON: It can be. It's an amorphous determine and I think it fluctuates from area to area, so I think that, again, no so against is an informal determine that the governments don't recognize. They don't recognize as a formal term, which is why Fox actually issued a second apology on Saturday night saying you know, there's no such thing as a formal, you know, recognition of no-go zones. And we -- you know, we apologize for using that term. But again, there is no formal designation of no-go zone. Those are -- the French map listed areas where there are -- what they called sensitive urban zones, where there are areas that the police or firemen or areas where government agents won't go in. And it -- the difference -- there are differences in each different zone, but certainly those zones are designated as such because of the refusal by various government agencies or services to go in for fear of their lives.

GLENN: Steve, are we --

EMERSON: BriMerrill Muslim, they're all Muslim. And in some areas they have sharia courts, not ought necessarily. But this goes beyond necessarily those areas. Some areas, it's very, very -- you know, no go, which means nobody goes in. And in some areas they do go in when they have to go in. So I think that the definition varies. On the other hand, you have mayors. You have chiefs of police. You have chiefs of firemen. You have journalists, French journalists, all -- documenting and talking about no-go zones for years.

GLENN: Right, I know.

EMERSON: As well as an article in the "New York Times" or "Newsweek" going back to 2002 and 2005. So the notion somehow this was just an invention of Fox is ludicrous.

GLENN: So Steve, let --

EMERSON: -- only because, as you pointed out, a desire to get at Fox. Or desire to get at me.

GLENN: Okay. Let me ask you this. If this is where France is after, you know, after this attack, and they are so hyper focused on political correctness, and they care this much about destroying somebody like you and Fox, is your -- do you think Europe has a chance of recovering from the radicalism that is infected, and I mean radicalism from both the Islamic side and the fascistic side? There is a fight for who's going to control the populace. Which fascism, Islamofascism or the new neo-Nazi fascism? Does it have a chance of surviving?

EMERSON: The correct dynamics. Which is -- you see a rise of this -- you know, of a right wing -- sometimes very fascistic reaction to the emergence of these radical Islamic zones. And self-declared sovereignty. The sharia courts that have been enabled by European governments. The fact that -- in many countries, in Sweden as well, you will find higher rates of rape and theft and crime associated with dense Muslim migration. And I want to be very clear that I'm not saying that Muslims are responsible for all crimes or anything like that or they're responsible for all terrorism.

GLENN: I'm going to let do you that, but you don't have to on this show. We're all adults.

EMERSON: I want to be very clear in stating that.

GLENN: No, I know.

EMERSON: And I'm not associating Islam with terrorism itself, but there is a -- and it is radical in Europe. And I say statements with Mr. Cameron, who called me an idiot. But Mr. Cameron himself said ISIS and ISIL all these groups have nothing to do with Islam and they're just monsters. I could I is a that statement is more idiotic than any statement I've ever made.

PAT: Yep.

EMERSON: It doesn't necessarily mean they're equal to Islam, but it these do with the interpretation.

GLENN: They're quoting.

(overlapping speakers).

EMERSON: We have to recognize to the extent we don't recognize it is going to fester and grow.

GLENN: They're quoting the Quran. They're doing it in the name of Allah and the holy Prophet Muhammad. How much more Islamic do you need to be?

STU: That's what's amazing to this.

EMERSON: When you have a group called the Islamic Jihad and then you have the president or John Brennan, the CIA director, saying Jihad means peace and moral struggle, are we supposed to rename the Islamic Jihad the movement for peace and struggle? It's a group that carries out murders, stabbings, and decapitations. So it's absurd for us to deny the connection between Islam and these Islamic terrorist groups. Again, it doesn't mean that every Muslim is a terrorist, far from it. It's a minority, very small minority, but they have a dis-- especially the extremists, have a disproportionate control over the majority because they occupy the leadership position, the Islamists, the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood, as you know, Glenn, is the parent group of almost every single Suni terrorist group in the world from ISIS to Al Qaeda to Hamas, the Islamic Jihad. Every single group like that pays its homage to the Muslim Brotherhood. And you know what? The only country in the world that had the courage, the bravery to name the Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups in the United States, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations, which was named a front group by the F.B.I. as a front group for Hamas, the only country in the world that named and designated the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR as terrorist groups was a Muslim country, the United Arab Emirates. And who came to the defense of CAIR? The United States.

GLENN: Steve, I just want --

EMERSON: I'm ashamed of what the U.S. State Department did.

GLENN: I think the State Department -- the State Department is one of our biggest problems and the incoming president, whoever it might be, the best thing he could do is fire every single person at the State Department. Steve, I just wanted to get you on. I wanted to hear what your point of view was on this and I appreciate. I want you also to know, there are millions of Americans who -- who know you and who have learned a lot from you. And who support you. And I know that you're -- your organization takes donations and when you're up against all the powers of the world, I know how difficult it is. And I wanted to make sure that people understood that you could donate and you could help Steve at InvestigativeProject.Org. You can also go there and learn an awful lot of information that quite honestly is very politically incorrect and they have been trying to get this guy for 20 years. And he is really truly one of the American heroes that should be remembered in history as one of the guys -- as one of the Bohnhoffers that stood when no one else would stand. InvestigativeProject.org. Steve Emerson, thanks so much for being on the program.

EMERSON: Glenn, thanks for your very kind words.

GLENN: God bless you.

PAT: And instead of all that, they've turned it around in him in the midst of 12 people being murdered at the hands of extremist radicals. Now he's the problem, not they. Unbelievable.

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.

Glenn's Show Prep