Is progressive NYC mayor getting ready to run for President?

NYC mayor Bill de Blasio just got back to New York City after taking his 13-point progressive agenda on the road. One of the main points is a $15 minimum wage, a policy that is already destroying cities like Seattle. Some are wondering if the tour was a prelude to a presidential race. Glenn tore apart de Blasio, his progressive agenda, and more on radio this morning.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment

GLENN: So here's the latest from Bill de Blasio because Bill de Blasio is thinking about running for president of the United States. I don't know if you know that. Fabulous.

But he's thinking about running for president. And he's come out with a new progressive agenda. A 13-point agenda. And Barack Obama has talked about it. He said, there was sort of this progressive statement of principles about what it means to be a progressive by some of these friends of mine. I noted that it was basically my agenda, except for the trade.

Uh-huh. Now, while he says that, one Democrat, one prominent Democrat unnamed in this article says none of that stuff is going to help us with elections and help us win back the House.

What is the agenda? The mayor wants to stop Democrats from running away from the discussion of progressive economic policy, and I do too. Please, please run on your progressive ideology.

Here's what he said. Raise the federal minimum wage so it reaches $15 an hour, while indexing it to inflation.

PAT: So raise it to 15. And then attach it to inflation.

GLENN: Federal. Federal. So imagine what a 15-dollar federal minimum wage would do to Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

PAT: And then if inflation goes up 2 percent a year, so does the minimum wage. Wow, that's going to be good.

GLENN: There is no way that minimum wage can be raised to $15 in small towns and survive. It would destroy Middle America. Just destroy us.

PAT: It's already creating shock waves in Seattle. And it's not even at 15.

GLENN: And in San Francisco, I believe.

PAT: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: In both of those, you've had all kinds of stores and restaurants closing. More to come. They're only up to $12 so far.

PAT: 11.50 or something in Seattle.

GLENN: Okay. They're not even at 15, and places are already starting to crumble and close. And this as reported by progressive media. So you know it's much worse than what the media is saying. Can you imagine what it would do even in New York City, where prices are already skyrocket? I mean, you get a glass of orange juice, is it ten bucks?

PAT: Probably in some places, yeah.

STU: Certainly at the hotels it is.

PAT: Oh, for sure.

GLENN: At the hotels it's more than ten bucks. So the first one is raise minimum wage. Which would cause massive unemployment.

Then reform the National Labor Relations Act. Enhance workers right to organize and rebuild the middle class. So the right to work goes away.

PAT: Yeah. Because you're going to have unions everywhere.

GLENN: Yeah. Everywhere there would be a union.

PAT: It's a good idea. Good idea.

GLENN: Pass comprehensive immigration reform to grow the economy and protect the exploitation of low wage workers. Are you crazy?

PAT: Grow the economy. How does that -- how does that grow the economy, by all of a sudden granting amnesty to 12 to 20 million people who are here. It just makes it okay for them to be here completely and solidifies the fact that, you know, American citizens aren't going to have those jobs. I don't care America citizens of what color, they're not going to have those jobs.

GLENN: Here's what's interesting to me. The president said he's released -- I want to get this exact quote. Maybe I'm reading too much into this. Stu, you give him the benefit of the doubt.

There was a sort of progressive statement of principles about what it means to be a progressive by some of these friends of mine, according to the president.

Quote, I noted that it was basically my agenda, except for trade.

Here's the trade section.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Oppose trade deals that hand more power to corporations, at the expense of American jobs, workers rights, and the environment.

So the president is saying, I agreed -- these were my agenda points, except for the trade agenda.

STU: And this is -- I assume is the fight between him and Elizabeth Warren.

PAT: On free trade.

STU: Where he seems to be --

GLENN: And why do you think the Republicans are for the free trade? It hands more power to the corporations at the expense of American jobs.

STU: Well --

PAT: I don't think they describe it that way, but, yeah.

GLENN: I bet it is.

PAT: Nobody knows.

GLENN: Nobody knows.

STU: Yeah. I'm much more free trade than Elizabeth Warren, certainly.

GLENN: Yes, yes.

STU: I think everybody on earth is more free trade than Elizabeth Warren. It's hard to know on this. You wind up thinking, am I choosing between Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren as my two choices?

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Which is more of a fundamental foundational problem with the country.

GLENN: Yes. You're going from a full-fledged socialist to a Marxist. Which one do you vote for?

STU: How do you parse that?

GLENN: She's full-fledged socialist. She would have us looking like Denmark overnight. He's a full-fledged Marxist revolutionary.

STU: He's probably more right on this one than she is. Right?

PAT: It looks like it.

STU: I think so.

PAT: Which is why Republicans say they have the votes to pass this thing. Have you seen that?

GLENN: Yeah. So, again, on one side, you have Elizabeth Warren. On the other side, the president. And on another side, Mitch McConnell. I don't trust any of them.

STU: No.

PAT: Although, Obama and McConnell seem to be on the same side.

GLENN: So that leads me to believe Elizabeth Warren.

[laughter]

I mean, I really don't know who to believe on that one.

PAT: Not in that triangle.

GLENN: I talked to someone in Washington who went into the room and read it and said, Glenn, it has to have -- I think it's 60 days -- 45 or 60 days of sunlight. Has to. Otherwise, it cannot be passed. Congress cannot pass it without it having an open airing. He said, I honestly don't know -- he said, I read it. I don't know why it's been kept secret. He said, there's nothing in there that glares at me. He said, but it would take a team of attorneys to go through it. That's why the sunlight is necessary. He said, these bills are too big and too complex. And he said, I know that there are attorneys out there, that once it is online, they'll go through every single line. And they'll bring it up and say, wait. Wait. This is in there. He said, I didn't see anything. But that doesn't mean it's not there. Because this president has shown over and over again that he makes bad deals.

PAT: Right. And someone we respect a lot too. So you would tend to believe him. If he says he didn't see anything bad in it, it sounds like there's nothing bad in it.

GLENN: But he did say it needs a full airing.

PAT: We're not against that.

STU: It makes you nervous when the president all of a sudden seems pro free trade. I just don't believe that those are his principles. But judging on the surface, you know, I'm certainly going to be more free trade.

PAT: Is it possible that he could do one thing right in eight years? Is it possible?

STU: Well, he did kill bin Laden.

PAT: Okay. Two things right.

GLENN: He didn't. I want to point this out. He didn't. It took him a year to decide.

STU: Yeah. But then when he did decide, he took the flight over there with a knife and stabbed him in the heart.

PAT: Yeah. And he made the toughest decision in 500 years.

GLENN: So it was Barack Obama in the library with a candelabra.

PAT: No. It was a knife.

STU: Don't be ridiculous.

PAT: Come on, Glenn.

GLENN: So here's what we have so far with the de Blasio plan. Raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, nationwide. Allow the unions to organize anywhere. Make sure that we get all of the immigrants that are already here. The illegals that are already here. Make them legal.

PAT: You have to help the economy.

GLENN: Oppose any trade deal that gives more power to corporations. Pass national sick-leave. Pass family -- paid family sick-leave.

PAT: So if I'm sick, my wife gets to stay home as well? Is that it?

GLENN: Yeah, paid family leave.

PAT: The whole family gets to stay --

PAT: What?

PAT: Yeah. The Family Medical Leave Act. It's not just for super, hey, I have a cold.

GLENN: No. It's like cancer.

STU: Major. Yeah, something like that. You can actually leave. But the company is not forced to pay you for that time.

PAT: So this one the company would be forced. Wow.

GLENN: Here's the problem with that. Sure, you might have companies that are so grinchy. But those companies, eventually no one wants to work for. You know what I mean? They're so bad. But there's a lot of companies that, like, if you guys left and said, hey, my wife has cancer, I would do my best to hold on. But if it went on for however long --

STU: At some point, yeah.

GLENN: At some point, you know, this is a bad example.

PAT: How long? Like a week and a half?

GLENN: Like 20 minutes. If she's not better by the time I get back from the next break, I can't do it.

PAT: That's understandable.

GLENN: You can see that. It's the CFO of the company. Can you imagine how bad you would be if you fired somebody because their wife had cancer and was in the hospital. Nobody would want to do that. The press would be awful. Awful. You would make as many accommodations as you possibly could. But at some point, you're like, I have to have a CFO.

STU: Yeah, someone actually has to do the job.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: And I can't have some guy in the interim.

PAT: And you can't necessarily pay 2CFOs. One that's actually working and one at home with his --

STU: You can under this plan though.

GLENN: Yeah!

PAT: Is that funded by the government?

GLENN: No.

STU: By evil corporations and their profits, which they don't need?

PAT: Jeez. Can you imagine doing that to a small business. It would kill them.

GLENN: You can't make it. This is a kill all small businesses plan.

STU: It's a genocidal business plan.

GLENN: It really is. Small business genocide. Never again is now. Make Pre-K after-school programs and child care universal.

STU: Yeah. So this was his big change --

PAT: Oh, wow. Child care too.

GLENN: Yeah, babysitters are free now.

PAT: That's a good deal if you can get it.

STU: That's one of the first things he did in New York. It was universal Pre-K.

PAT: He didn't do child care.

GLENN: What kind of grinch is he?

STU: I don't know if he did child care.

GLENN: If I can get my kids from three years old --

PAT: To be raised by somebody else. And I don't have to pick them up until like 9:30 at night, and I just dump them in bed as soon as they get home, that would be ideal. That would be ideal.

GLENN: I don't know if I want to pick them up at all.

JEFFY: Thank you. Thank you.

PAT: Right. You don't need to pick them up at all. Why not child care overnight, every night.

GLENN: Here's what I want to do. I want to have sex with, let's call them surrogates.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: When they get pregnant, I'm not there.

PAT: Why would you be?

GLENN: You put them right in Pre-K. Mom's got child care.

PAT: Besides, she should have had an abortion, she wouldn't have to deal with any of this.

GLENN: Exactly right. That's what I was pushing for. The abortion. Okay. If I can't kill the kid, I don't want to see the kid. I want the kid going right to the government. It's a shared responsibility.

PAT: Should she decide to choose with her own body and have the kid, then it's her responsibility for the first three years. And then you dump them into child care.

GLENN: Right. So you know if she changes her mind anywhere in the first three years, she can still kill the child.

PAT: Like it's a late-term abortion. Really long-term. Like 25th trimester.

GLENN: That's Peter Singer: Before they reach the age of consciousness where they know tomorrow is coming.

STU: Yes, that's the way he phrases it. If they can't say, Daddy, please don't kill me, you're free to go.

GLENN: No. No. They can say, Daddy, please, don't kill me. They just can't say, Daddy, please don't kill me because I want to see tomorrow.

PAT: Or I want to watch Cartoon Network tomorrow.

GLENN: Tomorrow.

PAT: So you can't kill me today.

GLENN: As long as they say I want to watch the Cartoon Network today and today only, then you can abort them. As long as you can convince them there is no tomorrow, you can kill them. That's an actual Peter singer viewpoint.

STU: We may have mangled it a little bit, but not much.

GLENN: Not much.

STU: He initially said you should be able to commit an abortion. Infanticide. Beyond that, it was three to five years old.

GLENN: He said three. Then he came out and apologized.

STU: I'm glad. At least he apologized.

GLENN: Except he apologized and said, I shouldn't have put a time on it. It should be open to any time.

PAT: You don't want to limit yourself to three years. The kid could be 19 and not know tomorrow is coming.

GLENN: Exactly right.

STU: Yeah. What if he's turning out like Jeffy. You're not allowed to --

PAT: Exactly. Or orphan Annie. Well, I guess she knew the sun was coming out tomorrow, didn't she?

GLENN: Yeah, she was singing the song.

PAT: That was a bad example.

GLENN: That's all we have to do. Is, if we want to be evil bastards, once they start killing all the children because it's legal, we just sing: The sun will come out tomorrow, bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow! As long as we have that, our kids can live.

STU: Yay!

GLENN: Expand the income tax credit. Allow students to refinance student loan debt.

VOICE: Well, what if there is no tomorrow. There wasn't one today.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: Did you think about that?

GLENN: They can all die.

Close the carried interest loophole. End tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Implement the Buffett rule so millionaires pay their fair share.

PAT: Yes! Finally!

GLENN: Close the CEO tax loophole --

PAT: Another finally.

GLENN: -- that allows corporations to take advantage of performance pay write-offs.

PAT: Yeah. I hate that

STU: It's about time.

GLENN: Yeah. There's the 13-point progressive plan that Bill de Blasio is now hocking and thinking about running for president of the United States.

PAT: That guy would kill us. He would finish the job that Barack Obama has started.

GLENN: And when it wouldn't work, he would blame us. As they always do.

STU: Why is he doing this so fast? You just became mayor of New York. It's because if he hangs around long enough for his policies to really get into effect, no one is going to elect him.

GLENN: Well, the good news is, he's forcing Hillary Clinton to run to the left.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: So between him and Elizabeth Warren, she is running hard to the left. Notice nobody is talking about that.

PAT: There was an article on Drudge yesterday.

GLENN: Drudge.

PAT: Yeah, but at least it's out there. That she is, what, the most liberal elite candidate.

GLENN: Ever.

PAT: Yeah, or at least in decades.

GLENN: So she is going hard left, which is good. Because you'll see where she stands. We have her on record now, scoffing at the 20-week abortion rule. Passed Congress last week. She says, that's not right.

STU: It's amazing. You're talked about something that is supported by over 85 percent of Americans. It's the third trimester sort of stuff where, I mean, it's not even close.

GLENN: Money doesn't talk. It screams. And she needs money for her campaign now. She needs to be as far left as she possibly can be.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

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

Establish basic liability laws

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

Pass increased whistleblower protections

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

Prevent AI from having legal rights

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

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

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

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

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Operation Midnight Hammer

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

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

What comes next

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

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

That would be catastrophic.

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

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

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

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

Now we pray

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

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

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


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rising Islamism

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

Blending the worst ideologies

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

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

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

Call out radicalism

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Could China OWN our National Parks?

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Here’s what’s really happening.

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

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

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

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

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

Failed management

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

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

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

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

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

Biden’s federal land-grab

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

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

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

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

Land as collateral

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

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

The American way

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.