At Ease: Marcus Luttrell and other special ops soldiers sound off

The Glenn Beck program aired a unique special last night featuring four former spec op soldiers, some lawn chairs, a bucket of beer and some microphones. This is simply something you don’t get to see every day - elite American soldiers sounding off on the VA, ISIS and more.

Watch a preview below - TheBlaze TV subscribers can watch the full episode on demand HERE.

Pete: How do you guys feel about Iraq right now? I mean, we all fought there. We all lost friends there. How do you feel about watching basically everything we fought for just—?

Marcus: Is it still there?

Paul: You’ve got to go get an x-ray. If you x-ray it off of your body, does that count that you have it?

Chad: I asked him if I could do a hostage picture with a newspaper behind the missing leg. Here’s the date, the leg’s gone.

Marcus: I didn’t lose it. It’s not like I misplaced my leg.

Chad: Anybody that served in Iraq called it. I mean, why do you have all these brilliant military minds that you’ve chosen to promote to four-star general and admiral and all that stuff, and then you discount everything that they tell you about how to fight a war? So, you decide to pull out early so that you can make political gains, and this is what you’re going to get.

Paul: No, the colonels were telling everybody, and then they got out. Then the people that went lockstep with them for the majority, the guys that went lockstep in that mentality of just whatever, those are the ones that are the four-star admirals and generals.

Marcus: That is a bit baffling. I mean, you don’t join the military and get elected or appointed straight to general or admiral.

Chad: Everybody called this.

Paul: You know, it’s hard to even care. If no one else does, then just don’t put our troops there.

Chad: Look at two of the top commanders in ISIS, they were former Republican Guard Colonels for Saddam, you know? So, now you’ve got these guys who actually were trained at some point in time in the United States leading the biggest terrorist organization in the history of the modern world.

Paul: I think it would be a lot easier for me to care about it, and maybe you guys feel different, but it would be a lot easier for me to care about it if when you watch 70 guys that are crossing across to go fight ISIS and 700 military-age men are cheering them on, I’d stop and be like, “Hey, man, get in.” When they care, then maybe we should care a little more. That was the disconnect when we were over there going FID and everything else.

Marcus: Look, here’s the deal, man. They’re not stupid. So, every time they do something and we talk about it like hey, we’re discussing this, we disagree with what you’re doing. You disagree with somebody getting strung up, heads cut off and burned. I’m sure they really care about the fact that we disagree with them over here. That means absolutely nothing. I mean, the only way you handle a terrorist, and it should go for over here as well—we’re not talking about a criminal. Somebody breaks the law, yeah, you put them through the justice system, and then you put them in prison and let them do their time. We’re talking about a terrorist, somebody who is trying to eradicate or destroy and kill multiple people. You kill them right there. It’s right there.

Pete: Lawrence of Arabia, what he said, you know, an opinion can be argued with, but a conviction is best shot.

Marcus: What are they afraid of? Why would they be afraid of us?

Paul: President Obama.

Pete: They’re afraid of the six [indiscernible] a day. I mean, that’s just a devastating show of force.

Chad: I mean, if you want to talk about a leader, look at King Abdullah. You’re going to burn my guy, let me put on my flight suit. I’m about to get in my Cobra.

Paul: That’s his lineage. That’s where he came from. I wouldn’t expect any of our politicians, but at least let the guys that would jock up and go over there and hand somebody their…you know, let them do it.

Marcus: That female prisoner there, the terrorist, you better get your prayers in, because it’s going to be ending tomorrow.

Chad: Yeah, but instead we’re alienating the only ally, the true ally that we’ve had for, you know, the Israelis, you know? I mean, you want to go down that road.

Pete: I mean, at what point, you guys watched the whole Arab Spring go, rolled right across northern Africa into Syria. At what point do you just have to stop and go, “Are we intentionally aiding?” Are we letting this happen for a reason? I mean, because we’ve done absolutely nothing, and we’ve watched all of—and you knew what was going to happen in Egypt. It wasn’t like…they were like, “Oh, there’s going to be democracy and democratic elections.” You have the Muslim Brotherhood stepping up across the board.

Marcus: I get the perspective from what a lot of those people are saying that they don’t want to put boots. I get it, man. Why are you going to send us over there? The America soldiers, why are you going to send them over there? Why? To die. It’s going to happen. Soldiers die. We get paid. It’s a part of it, man. We get it. That’s not a problem with us. The issue is not a problem of us wanting to go. We’ll go, but why? So, it’s to secure what, nothing? Okay. You’ve got to have a reason.

People are dying. Yeah, people are dying, man. People die all the time. People have been dying over there for thousands of years, man. I mean, if you’re going to give a reason and have all the American public sign off on it and say yeah, it’s worth my boy going over there to die in a foreign land against a foreign land kind of deal, right?

Pete: I’m just saying an action across the board, not just military action. I’m not just saying military action, but look across action, any kind of action, sanctions. I mean, let’s just take it from a bigger picture. What did we really do? It’s like football. You build momentum, right? They have momentum right now. How do you take care? I mean, there’s one side of it where you say okay, if you walk into your kitchen, you turn on the lights, and there’s a bunch of cockroaches, do you walk in the next day, turn on the lights, and kill a couple cockroaches or do you turn the lights down, let all the cockroaches show up and then kill them in the dark?

Paul: They don’t scatter when you turn the light on. These cockroaches stay right there, and they “Here we are.” You’re right in one sense, Marcus, I think, but what do we stand for? I don’t know if I could walk into any military anywhere and say, “What does America right now in the world stand for?”

Chad: What was the statistic you gave earlier, the 27% or something?

Paul : In the Military Times, I think it was right before or right after Hagel was fired or quit or whatever happened there, they did a poll of the senior leadership, the junior people in the military. When you say senior leadership, I would presume that’s the O-6 and above level, and when they polled, they probably polled the E-5 and below, the E-5 Mafia down. They asked them, they said well, “Do you have confidence in your senior leadership?” Twenty-seven percent confidence. What’s Congress at? If you’re parallel with Congress, you’re in trouble.

Pete: Number one priority at Naval Academy, what would you imagine it would be just common sense? Like creating officers to fight and win a war?

Paul: Social engineering.

Pete: No, their number one priority is diversity above everything else at the Naval Academy. I don’t care how well you could lead. If we’re diverse, then we’re winning.

Marcus: Never had to question why I was doing something. It was because you were there. That’s why I’m here. That’s why I’m here. If everybody leaves, okay, I’ll go too, man, but if you’re going, I’m going—you jump, I jump kind of deal. Maybe an ignorant mentality, but it’s what keeps us alive.

Paul: But with phones and media and all the things and breakdown of leadership and unlawful command influence that happens constantly, which is, you know, it’s a horrible thing that when senior commanders are telling like the guy that had the counterterrorism—I hate to just throw it out, but the guy that was at West Point that taught the counterterrorism course that mentioned radical Islam and all that and then the secretary or the chief of staff of the army ended up getting involved. You remember all this? He ended up getting involved in this. Basically he’s a light colonel or a full-bird colonel, and they trashed his career because all the pressure from above, and you can’t say Islam when you’re talking about terrorism.

Marcus: Islam is the last thing you need to worry about me calling you.

Pau;: Yeah, right?

Marcus: I just say it how it is, man. That’s straight up.

Pete: But don’t you think it’s kind of scary that we’re not even acknowledging that it’s radical Islam, that it’s just extremism? Because to me that scares me domestically, because then, okay, if we’re going to battle extremists, well then you can make anybody an extremist. You’re a right-wing extremist. That to me scares me coming back, like we’re just battling extremists, so now hey, there you go.

Marcus: You know how hard that is for these younger kids, not us, not what we were in, these younger kids having to fight an ideologue? They’re not fighting a uniform. If I look at somebody, I can’t tell if he’s extremist or not.

Chad: It’s lack of knowledge. It’s lack of experience. Everybody sitting here has seen that airplane land in a combat zone and congressmen and senators and representatives get off, and they’re surrounded by PSD.

Pete: The 30th of the month, and then they stay until like the first or the second so they get two months tax-free.

Chad: They get two months tax-free, and then they stay for 45 minutes to an hour. They get back on the plane, and they leave. Then the first thing they do when they get home is they say I just returned from a war zone. It’s like no, you didn’t. You want to go to a war zone? Get in this truck with me. Hop in the truck. Jump in this truck and let me see what your pucker factor does.

Pete: Take your bloody cammies off. Put your nice cammies on.

Marcus: You spent all those months growing that beard out, and oh, you need to shave for the day. What?

Paul: Have you seen this?

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.