Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Rand Paul stands against Patriot Act: "We're doing it now. We're shutting it down"

June 01, 2015
Wilson

Writer

So Congress finally did something right! Key provisions of the Patriot Act expired Sunday, including the bulk collection of phone metadata. The man who has made this happen and who is still fighting the fight, Sen. Rand Paul, joined Glenn on radio Monday.

Related: Check out Rand Paul's new book, Taking a Stand: Moving Beyond Partisan Politics to Unite America.

GLENN: Rand Paul is going to be joining us in just a few minutes. Today is a very busy day for him. He's fighting off John McCain and all the Republicans who are coming after him. A lot of people are really upset at him because it sounds like he is blaming us for terror. And that's what I've heard from several people. I happen to be a little more reflective on that. And I think that, you know, our policies have led to a lot of our problems today. We're not responsible for terror. Islam as it is understood -- the Islamists, I should say, are responsible for the terror. But we do play a role in our own demise here.

Last night, the Patriot Act was suspended. And at least provisions in the Patriot Act. Which I think is a very good thing. Now, whether they actually stop spying on us and what this new bill coming out of the House actually does, Rand Paul says it's actually perhaps a bit worse than the Patriot Act. We have yet to see. Rand Paul is with us now. Hello, Senator, how are you, sir?

RAND: Good. Good morning, Glenn, thanks for having me.

GLENN: Let's address first things first. What has been suspended on the Patriot Act?

RAND: There are three provisions. One of them is the provision that says that the government can collect records that are relevant to an investigation. The problem here is that the government has used that provision to collect all the phone records from all Americans. And the court has said that this is illegal because, how could they be relevant if you're not just getting some of them? If you're getting all of them, how could you say that every record in America is relevant to an investigation investigation? So the court sent them to legal. I don't trust this president to be looking at all the phone records of every American.

They haven't been very trustworthy with the IRS or with religious groups or Tea Party groups. I don't really want this president having all of our phone records. But the good news is that in this battle, the one thing that will come out of this week is that the government will no longer be collecting, in bulk, your phone records. Now, there is a question whether or not the replacement will actually work because I think it will still allow the phone companies to have mass collection of -- and sorting through all the American phone records. So I'm still concerned about it, but I think it will be a step forward.

GLENN: Okay. And I know you mean this as well. I'm concerned with any president having this capability. I don't want anybody having this capability. When it comes to a private business, the phone company, you know, storing all of the records, et cetera, et cetera, as long as they can only use it -- or, give it to the government with a specific warrant, do you have a problem with that?

RAND: No. And, in fact, that's the whole argument. I want to look at more records of terrorists. I just don't want to look at records of all Americans for whom no suspicion for example, the Boston bomber. If you had came to me a year before the bombing and said, well, and let's say I'm a judge. And you ask me, well, the Russians have tipped us off. And we have some evidence that he's going to fly -- he flew back to Chechnya. Would you let us tap his phone? I would say absolutely without a heartbeat. And they say, well, he called 100 people, and five of them live in Chechnya. Can we trace their phone call too? Absolutely.

All I'm asking for is not to collect everybody's records indiscriminately. I want more time spent -- in fact, I told them last night, I would take the billions we're spending collecting all American's records, and I would hire 1,000 new FBI agents to specifically go after the jihadists. The FBI said this week, they don't have enough manpower. Let's hire more, but let's quit indiscriminately looking at American's records.

STU: Creating jobs already. Look at that.

GLENN: So why are people like John McCain so dead-set against this? You know, he's doing exactly what they did to Ted Cruz, you know, with the government shutdown. Except you are responsible for this one. Where Cruz wasn't responsible for that.

RAND: It's an argument for term limits. You know, some people get there and they stay too long. People become out of touch with America. I tell people get outside the Beltway more. Go visit America. I've been traveling America. I've been out there in town halls. Fifty, 200 people, they're coming out in large numbers saying they don't want President Obama collecting their phone records. They don't trust him. And the people up here defending President Obama's collection, which has now been determined illegal by the courts, I don't know. I think if they went home, they might hear a different story.

GLENN: You've said this twice. And it concerns me. Because now you've used this -- and you've heard this from constituents. They don't want Obama doing it. Have we learned enough that we don't want the Bushes doing it or we don't want President Rand Paul doing it. Have we learned enough?

RAND: And that's sort of the problem. When you have Republicans in power, Republican Congresses have given more power to Republicans. When you have Democrats in power, Democrats give more power. And over the past 100 years, probably the number one problem we have in our country is, we used to have coequal branches. But now the presidency has become so large. The bureaucracy is so large that the presidency is probably 100 times more powerful than Congress now. And often the lowliest bureaucrat in the administration has more power than your congressman.

GLENN: So let's turn to something that I -- that has been said about you. In fact, where was it? It was on the Face the Nation or one of those crappy shows, where one of those guys was saying -- a fellow Republican.

PAT: It was Bobby Jindal.

GLENN: Bobby Jindal who I really respect and like. But he took you on and said you're blaming the Republicans for ISIS. Is that true?

RAND: I think it's quite the opposite. I think the only party responsible for terrorism are terrorists. ISIS are a bunch of thugs and terrorists. It's an aberration. It's a barbarity that's been just alarming. And I've been one who actually said we should declare war against ISIS. We have to do something about ISIS. But I've also been one that says, we have to look at our foreign policy and see if it works or not. I've said for two years now, maybe three years, that giving arms to the Islamic rebels in Syria might allow ISIS to grow stronger. And I said the great irony is, we'll be back fighting against our own weapons. And sure enough, most of the weapons that ISIS had came from us, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. We were supportive of all those weapons flowing into there. We thought, well, these people may be al-Qaeda, but they hate HEP Assad. So we'll choose al-Qaeda over Assad. And that was a big mistake.

Even our ambassador at the time, they asked him in the Foreign Relations Committee, they said, will some of these people be fighting alongside al-Qaeda? And he said, it is inevitable that the weapons we give to people, that these people will fight alongside al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, and ultimately beside ISIS. But it turned out ISIS was stronger than everybody else. ISIS grabbed up all the money and the weapons. So the money is ours and the weapons are ours. It's foolish to not have a discussion whether that was a good idea or not.

GLENN: So here's the one complaint that -- and, by the way, I talked to a guy who is probably ten years older than I am. Really deeply conservative. Deeply religious. And I said to him. So who do you think you'll vote for? Without a doubt, quick as -- I just couldn't believe it. Because he's not the stereotypically Libertarian guy. And he said Rand Paul. And I said, really? How come? And he said, because he's standing and saying the things that I want to say and he's standing for the same principles that I have.

So I think that there is -- I think there's a surprise coming for a lot of people when it comes to you. Let me --

RAND: The interesting thing about the debate up here too is it's lopsided. It almost seems like a dog pile some days on me. When you go outside the Beltway, it's a lot different. These people misunderstand the American people. I think the vast majority of Republicans don't want -- and it may not be intellectual enough to say all presidents, but they particularly don't want this president collecting their phone records. And so the people up here championing, allowing President Obama to collect all of our phone records, I just think they're out of step. And if they got home, they would find out that the people want otherwise.

GLENN: What I want to say to you -- and you've kind of touched on this and I want you to go further on it. The one thing I'm not comfortable with it and it's only because we haven't discussed it. And I hear this about you and Libertarians. And they say, well, I don't know if he's the guy to really go for. Because what will he do in the Middle East? You just touched on it. You said you would declare war on ISIS. What does that mean to you?

RAND: Well, see, I would have done things completely different. Last summer when they became active and they marched and took Mosul in one clean sweep, I said that had I been president, I would have come before a joint session of Congress in August. I would have brought everybody back from recess. And I would have said, these are the reasons why ISIS is now a threat to our consulate in Irbile HEP, the same way Benghazi was threatened. This is the way our embassy in Baghdad is threatened. This is the way American interests are threatened. And this is the way that Americans have been killed by ISIS. And I'm asking you for permission to declare war on ISIS.

That's the way it was done originally. The Constitution said that Congress declares war. They're closer to the people. And it was supposed to be a big debate. We've now been at war for nine months, but had no debate and no vote. So I would go all in. I would also say that we should arm the best fighters and those truest to the cause, and that would be the Kurds. I wouldn't send it through the Shiite government in Baghdad. I would load up as many aircraft of weapons from Afghanistan where they're no longer being used, I'd put them on big transport planes and I would land them directly in Kurdistan. And I would tell the Kurds: You fight hard for your country. And when you end, it will be yours. It will be Kurdistan up there. And I would talk to the Turks. And I would say: Look, the Kurds are going to give up their pretensions to wanting any Turkish territory, but you need to fight too. You're our NATO ally. You need to come in and fight.

And I think ultimately if we could get our allies there on the ground, ISIS could be wiped out. But it won't just be wiped out by Americans. It will take Arab boots on the ground to get it done.

GLENN: So we're in this really weird situation where I don't think Americans want to fight war anymore. Because we don't even know what it's about anymore. And even the hawkish of the hawks. I mean, when September 11th came around, you know, I was put a boot up their ass and let's move on. But even me now, I am -- I am, you know, let's pull back. Let's not do all of this. We can't be these kinds of people. You said, you know, I would have done things differently. And that's what President Obama said for the first four years when he had power. And I understand that you're not the president. And you didn't have the power now. But when you get in, you know how bad it is. Can the president still move in a Libertarian way and reduce our presence and yet still have a very hard stick?

RAND: Yeah. And I think this was a lot of how Reagan operated. And a lot of this is misinterpreted about Reagan. Reagan believed in a strong national defense. So do I. I'm a Reagan conservative. Met him when I was 15 years old. Supported him from the time I was a teenager. Reagan believed in a strong national defense. Unparalleled. Undefeatable. But he also was wise about the use of it.

We had a couple little skirmishes. But for the most part, he didn't invade the Warsaw Pact. He negotiated with the Russians, but from a position of strength. And so nobody doubted that Reagan would use force if he had to. And so force is the mighty stick that backs up diplomacy. But it doesn't mean you don't talk with your enemies. It means you negotiate from a position of strength. And the thing is, for example, with the Iranians, I would still negotiate with the Iranians, but I would tell them, they have to give up terrorism. They have to give up their ballistic missile system, and they have to give up any pretension to a nuclear weapon. And if they're tweeting out crap saying that they won't adhere to the agreement and saying the agreement doesn't mean anything, then they're not serious. But I would still continue to negotiate, but I wouldn't accept an agreement that I didn't believe they would adhere to.

GLENN: Talking to Rand Paul running for president of the United States. The guy responsible for the Patriot Act being suspended today. Also, author of a new book, Taking a Stand: Moving Beyond Partisan Politics to Unite America.

Senator, we were talking before we came on the air, as much as I would like to believe they shut it down yesterday, they started shutting it down at 3:57 p.m. I think that's a bunch of bullcrap. Do you actually believe they've actually stopped collecting information today?

RAND: You have to be careful how they parse their words. They might have stopped one program, but they probably have ten others doing the same thing. They have an executive order called 123333. Under that executive order, we really don't know everything they're doing. But they're doing bulk collection under that. They may well be doing more bulk collection under that than they are under the phone collection program.

So they also told us and informed us that in the previous Patriot Act, there's a provision in there saying that they continue any investigation that was already ongoing. So my guess is that since the bulk so-called investigation was collecting everybody's records, they could simply say, well, we started doing that before so that's an ongoing investigation.

So are they stopping it? I don't know. I mean, that's the whole problem with trust here on this. The president's number one man over there, Clapper, lied to us and told us the program didn't even exist. Now we're supposed to accept that they're telling us that the world will end and the sky will fall if it ends. We're doing it now. We're shutting it down.

And I don't know. There's a certain lack of trust I have for this administration.

GLENN: I just want you to know. As we're speaking, Lindsey Graham is announcing his candidacy. So look out.

[laughter]

Best of luck to you, Senator. Thank you so much. Thank you for the hard stand. Rand Paul. Taking a Stand is the name of the book.

4 ways Biden is SABOTAGING Trump on his way out of office

ROBERTO SCHMIDT / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden has less than a week left in the White House, but that doesn't mean he's down for the count quite yet.

Next Monday, January 20th, President-elect Trump will be officially sworn into office, marking the beginning of his second term. But after such a bitter and contentious election, the Democrats aren't ready to roll over. Instead, they have been working around the clock to ensure that Trump will face as many obstacles and challenges as possible the minute he is sworn in. These political landmines are designed to sabotage his presidency—at the cost of the well-being of the American people.

Biden's job approval rating currently sits around 38.7 percent, one of the lowest approval ratings of any president, he has nothing to lose from these reckless ploys. Here are four ways Biden and the Left are trying to sabotage Trump:

Pardoning criminals

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

In November, President Biden customarily pardoned the Thanksgiving turkey ... along with his son Hunter and dozens of other controversial criminals, including 37 felons on death row. Hunter's 11-year-long blanket immunity sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents, and we may never know the full extent of the Biden family's crimes and corruption.

Destroying U.S. energy

J. David Ake / Contributor | Getty Images

Biden has made several moves that have damaged America's ability to produce its energy independently, including canceling the Keystone XL pipeline on his first day in office. Earlier this month, Biden signed another order that has dire consequences for the energy sector, effectively blocking any new drilling off the U.S. coast indefinitely. This not only further kneecaps the U.S. oil industry during a time when gas and energy prices are on the rise, but moreover, the way the executive order was written means Trump will have a much harder time undoing it. Thanks, Biden.

Escalating overseas wars

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

America's involvement with the ongoing war in Ukraine has been tenuous from the beginning, but under Biden, it has escalated to a Cold War-like proxy war. Neither pleas from Americans in need nor threats from Russia have deterred Biden. He has approved countless aid packages sent to Ukraine, totaling billions of dollars. Recently, Biden has decided to up the ante by supplying Ukraine with long-range missiles, despite Putin's warnings that Russia would consider this an act of war. It's almost like Biden wants to start WWIII before handing the reigns over to Trump.

Installing a "shadow cabinet"

For years Glenn has warned of the dangers of the deep state, and its very existence has been denied ... until recently. Shortly after the election Democratic Rep. Wiley Nickel made a disturbing speech on the House floor where he proposed the creation of a "Shadow Cabinet" designed to hamper the Trump administration and to step in if Trump were removed from office. This "Shadow Cabinet" would be composed of Democrat counter-picks to Trump presidential cabinet members, and they would scrutinize every act made by the Trump administration and propose alternative actions. This just proves that the deep state will do anything to stop President Trump.

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

America is no stranger to natural disasters. But it’s not the fires, floods, or earthquakes that are the most devastating — it’s the repeated failures to learn from them, prevent them, and take responsibility for the damage.

My heart goes out to the families who have lost homes, cherished memories, and livelihoods. But if we’re going to help California rebuild and prevent future disasters, we need to confront some uncomfortable truths about leadership, responsibility, and priorities.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

While Californians continue to face heart-wrenching losses, those who have the power to enact change are mired in bureaucracy, regulation, and ideologies that do nothing to protect lives or preserve the land. The result? A state that keeps burning, year after year.

Where did all the water go?

We all know that water is essential to life. When NASA searches for signs of life on other planets, it looks for water. Yet, California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure. The state hasn’t built a new major reservoir since 1979 — over 40 years ago. Back then, California’s population was roughly half what it is today. Despite massive population growth, the state’s water storage capacity has remained frozen in time, woefully inadequate for current needs.

Moreover, billions of gallons of rainwater flow straight into the ocean every year because no infrastructure exists to capture and store it. Imagine how different things could be if California had built reservoirs, aqueducts, and desalination plants to secure water for its dry seasons.

Water is life, but the state’s failure to prioritize this essential resource has put lives and ecosystems at risk.

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

This neglect of critical infrastructure is part of a larger failure of vision, and in California, the consequences of that failure are on full display.

Consider the progressive leadership in Los Angeles, where the mayor cut the fire department’s budget to fund programs for the homeless, funneling money to NGOs with little oversight. While helping the homeless is a worthy cause, it cannot come at the expense of protecting lives and property from catastrophic fires. Leadership must put safety and well-being over political agendas, and that’s not happening in Los Angeles.

The same misplaced priorities extend to environmental policies. Progressive leaders have blocked sensible forest management practices, prioritizing dead trees over living creatures. They reject controlled burns, forest thinning, and other commonsense measures, bowing to the demands of activists rather than considering real solutions that would protect those they govern.

California’s wildfire crisis is, in many ways, a man-made disaster. Yes, factors like Southern California’s dry climate, strong Santa Ana winds, and little rain play a role, but the biggest contributing factor is poor land management.

The forests are choked with dry brush, dead trees, and vegetation that turn every spark into a potential inferno. The crisis could have been mitigated — if only the state had made forest management and fire prevention a higher priority.

Finland and Sweden, for example, understand the importance of maintaining healthy forests. These countries have perfected the art of clearing underbrush and thinning trees sustainably, turning potential fire fuel into biomass energy. This approach not only reduces the risk of wildfires, but it also creates jobs, boosts the economy, and improves the ecosystem. And yet, California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore these solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

We need to stop pretending that something as devastating as the Palisades and Eaton fires are just “part of life” and hold leaders accountable.

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

California faces another major and often overlooked liability when it comes to natural disasters: insurance.

California’s ongoing disasters make the state an uninsurable risk. Insurance companies are pulling out because the odds of widespread devastation are just too high. This creates a vicious cycle: With private insurers gone, the government steps in to subsidize high-risk areas. This enables people to rebuild in fire-prone zones, perpetuating the destruction. The solution isn’t more government intervention; it’s better decision-making.

This doesn’t mean abandoning people to their fate, but we must address the root of the problem: California’s inadequate disaster preparedness and poor land management. If the state continues to resist commonsense solutions like forest thinning, controlled burns, and better zoning laws, no amount of insurance or government assistance will ever be enough to mitigate the losses. The cycle will repeat until the costs — financial and human — become unbearable. It’s time to stop pretending the risk isn’t real and start making decisions that reflect the reality of California’s landscape.

What’s the solution? California’s government needs to put its people over harmful political agendas that put its residents at risk. Start by managing your forests. Implement controlled burns, remove dead trees, and clear underbrush.

But how you vote matters. California’s progressive policies have focused on political correctness and ideology instead of practical, lifesaving solutions. Until voters hold leaders accountable, the cycle of destruction will persist.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

WADE VANDERVORT / Contributor | Getty Images

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

A chilling story has emerged: A whistleblower, claiming to possess knowledge of advanced military technologies and covert operations, took his own life in a shocking explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. He left behind a manifesto filled with claims so extraordinary they sound like science fiction. Yet if even a fraction of them prove true, the implications are staggering and demand immediate attention.

This whistleblower alleges that the United States and China developed “gravitic propulsion systems,” technologies that manipulate gravity itself to enable silent, undetectable flight at unimaginable speeds. According to his claims, these systems are not theoretical — they are operational, deployed both in the United States and China. If true, this would render conventional defense systems obsolete, fundamentally altering the global balance of power.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

Imagine aircraft that defy radar, heat signatures, and missile defense systems. They carry massive payloads, conduct surveillance, and operate without a sound. If such technologies exist, they pose a national security threat unlike any we’ve faced.

But why haven’t we been told? If these claims are false, they must be debunked transparently. If true, the public has a right to know how such technologies are being used and safeguarded.

The whistleblower’s manifesto goes farther, claiming that with this technology, the United States and China developed and deployed the infamous drones that were seen across the United States starting late last year. He alleged that China launched them from submarines along the U.S. East Coast, calling them “the most dangerous threat to national security” because of their stealth, ability to evade detection, and unlimited payload capacity. He ties this advanced technology to other surveillance systems, creating a network so advanced it makes our current intelligence capabilities look primitive.

These claims may sound far-fetched, but they highlight a deeper issue: the cost of government secrecy. Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation. Without transparency, these incidents dangerously erode public confidence in our leaders and institutions.

The cost of secrecy

Beyond technology, the manifesto also alleges moral failures, including war crimes and deliberate cover-ups during U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one particularly harrowing claim, the whistleblower describes attacks in Afghanistan’s Nimroz Province in 2019. He alleges that 125 buildings were targeted, with 65 struck, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in a single day. Even after civilians were spotted, he claims, the strikes continued knowingly and deliberately.

The United Nations investigated similar incidents and confirmed civilian casualties during these operations. However, the whistleblower’s accusations go farther, implicating high-ranking officials, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even top military generals in a broader pattern of deceit, eroding the moral integrity of our military and government.

Whether these specific claims hold up, they underscore a larger issue: Secrecy breeds corruption. When people in power hide their actions and evade accountability, they break trust — and everyone pays the price, not just those at the top but also the citizens and soldiers they serve.

Transparency is an imperative

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the Capitol riot on January 6 to the potential misuse of advanced technologies, the American people have been kept in the dark for too long.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and sunlight is coming. Transparency must become our rallying cry. As we look to the future, we must demand accountability — not just from those we oppose politically but from all leaders entrusted with power. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving our nation from self-destruction.

As we enter a new chapter in our nation’s history, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether it’s uncovering the truth about advanced technology, holding perpetrators of corruption accountable, or seeking justice for war crimes, we must act. This isn’t just a call to action — it’s a moral imperative.

Our strength lies in our unity and our resolve. The powerful fear an informed and vocal citizenry. Let’s prove them right. By demanding transparency and accountability, we can restore trust and ensure that the government serves the people — not the other way around.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement to lift content moderation policies across all of Meta's platforms and end the company's reliance on third-party fact-checkers, at first glance, is an incredible left turn given the platform's long-term participation in online censorship. However, does their shift signal a genuine change of heart, or are there more selfish motivations at play?

On the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and Stu looked at both perspectives. On the one hand, Zuckerberg's announcement, adding UFC President and avid Trump supporter Dana White to Meta's board of directors indicates major progress in America's pushback against online censorship. However, Glenn also posited that Zuckerberg's intentions are chiefly to win the good graces of the incoming Trump administration in order to maintain Meta's controversial work in virtual and augmented reality technologies (VR/AR).

There is evidence for both perspectives, and we lay it all out for you below:

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Zuckerberg’s bombshell announcement, at face value, suggests that Meta recognizes the greater demand for free speech on online platforms and growing discontent against content moderation that has censored non-mainstream political opinions, including Glenn and Blaze Media. Zuckerberg described this shift as an authentic attempt to return to the company’s roots of promoting free expression, acknowledging past mistakes in suppressing voices and content deemed politically controversial. Moreover, Meta's new adoption of community-driven content flags similar to X positions itself as a platform that values user input rather than the biased perspective of any single third-party "fact-checker."

Additionally, Zuckerberg’s evolving views on Donald Trump strengthen the argument that his "change of heart" is genuine. Before the 2024 election, Zuckerberg expressed admiration for Trump, even calling him a "badass" after the first assassination attempt, noting how the event changed his perspective on the then-presidential candidate. Moreover, his embrace of new board members, such as UFC President Dana White, a staunch Trump supporter, further suggests that Meta may be diversifying its leadership and welcoming a more inclusive approach to varied political opinions. In this context, Meta’s move away from fact-checking can be interpreted as a commitment to fostering an environment where free speech and diverse political perspectives are genuinely valued.

Or is it about self-preservation?

DREW ANGERER / Contributor | Getty Images

While it is tempting to view Meta’s policy change as a sincere commitment to free speech, there is also a compelling argument that the company’s motivations are rooted in self-preservation. Glenn suggested Meta’s financial interests, particularly in virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies, indicate its pivot may be less about principle and more about ensuring continued government contracts and capital flow. Zuckerberg’s significant investments in VR/AR technology, which has already cost the company billions, may be driving his need to align Meta’s policies with the political climate to safeguard future funding from both the government and private sectors.

Moreover, the company’s financial projections for the coming years show a sharp increase in advertising revenue, driven primarily by Facebook’s dominance in social media. This revenue helps sustain Meta’s ambitions in the VR/AR space, where it faces significant losses. The government’s involvement in funding military and tech projects tied to VR/AR underscores the importance of maintaining favorable political relationships. For these reasons, many view Zuckerberg's policy change as an attempt to position Meta for maximum political and financial benefit.