Ted Cruz pledges to rescind every illegal executive action taken by President Obama

August 21, 2015

WRITER

Ted Cruz joined Glenn on radio today, where he took a moment to list the five things he plans on doing the first day in office if elected. First, he'll take President Obama’s executive actions to task. Next, he'll open an investigation into Planned Parenthood.

By the end, Glenn seemed even more impressed with Cruz than he was before.

Here's the full list in Cruz's own words:

1. Rescind every single illegal and unconstitutional executive action taken by President Obama.

2. Instruct the United States Department of Justice to open an investigation into Planned Parenthood, into these horrific videos, and to prosecute any and all criminal conduct by that organization and its employees.

3. Instruct the Department of Justice, the IRF, and every federal agency, that the persecution of religious liberty ends today. Instead of the federal government violating and persecuting our religious liberties, the federal government will defend the Bill of Rights and our religious liberty.

4. Rip to shred this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal, which is the single greatest national security threat facing America.

5. Begin the process of moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the once and eternal capitol of Israel.

Listen to the full segment or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Ted Cruz, presidential candidate and senator from the great state of Texas is on the phone with us now from Iowa or Idaho or one of those I states. I'm not sure.

PAT: Illinois -- something.

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Ted. How are you, sir?

TED: Well, thank you, Glenn. Great to be with you. Always cool, but I don't think I've heard a cooler show intro than, I just got a call from Chuck Norris.

GLENN: And he'll have to --

TED: You're living the life, man. You're living the life.

GLENN: I know. I know. And he'll have to kick your ass if you get out of line, I just want you to know.

So, Ted, first of all, I want to thank you for the support for Birmingham. And thank your father for being there. And you're a little busy doing something, I don't know. But we thank you for all the support you've shown us. And I know that you care desperately about these topics. You only have ten minutes. I want to talk to you real quick on one thing that is really bothering Pat a big deal. He wants to play a piece of audio from you and then see how you -- where you stand. Because we have two differing Ted Cruz -- I don't think they're differing, he does. Listen.

TED: I have spent my professional career defending the Constitution. I served five and a half years as the Solicitor General of Texas, the Chief Lawyer for the state of Texas in front of the US Supreme Court, and I've repeatedly defended the Constitution.

The 14th amendment provides for birthright citizenship. I've looked at the legal arguments against it, and I will tell you, as a Supreme Court litigator, those arguments are not very good.

As much as someone may dislike the policy of birthright citizenship, it's in the US Constitution.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: Now, you've also said this.

PAT: That you are absolutely opposed to birthright citizenship.

GLENN: Help me out on that. Which is it?

TED: Well, sure. Both of those comments are entirely consistent. And what I said, that first recording you played, it's from 2011. In 2011, at the time -- and that's just a little segment, but at that time I said publicly I was opposed to birthright citizenship. In fact, I said in writing in 2011 when I was running for the Senate, that I was opposed to birthright citizenship. And the reason is simple: It doesn't make any sense. It's bad public policy.

GLENN: It was for slaves.

TED: That we would incentivize and reward people coming here illegally by giving their children automatic citizenship. So that has been my position today. It was my position yesterday. It will be my position tomorrow. That, as a public policy matter, birthright citizenship doesn't make any sense.

GLENN: Explain what you said then about the Constitution.

TED: There is the separate legal question about how you change that policy. And among constitutional scholars, there is a good-faith legal debate. Some constitutional scholars argue that you need a constitutional amendment to get rid of birthright citizenship. Other constitutional scholars argue that Congress could change it through a statute. There are arguments on both sides.

What I was addressing there is that if it goes through a constitutional amendment -- constitutional amendment takes many, many years. It's a long, delayed process. And so what I was saying there in the rest of that interview is, we need to solve the crisis of illegal immigration now, today. Not five years or ten years from now. And the way to do that is secure the border today. And indeed, in January 2017, if I'm elected president, on the first days in office, the administration will finally begin securing the border, enforcing the law, stopping illegal immigration. That we can do now. I still support pursuing either a statute or a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship. But that is a slow and long-term process. It's not something that can be done quickly. And we need to solve this problem quickly.

GLENN: I'm sorry, Pat. I just wanted to say, I didn't hear exactly what you said off the air just a minute ago. What was that, that you said?

PAT: I said that's the explanation you gave.

GLENN: Yes, that they are not -- that's two separate arguments.

PAT: But I wanted it hear it from Ted. Because one of the things that we love so much about you, Senator Cruz, is that you're so consistent and so good on so many issues. In fact, I don't know a single issue on which I disagree with you. So...

GLENN: Would you like to make out with the man right now?

PAT: Almost. I'm pretty close to that, and you know it.

But what's so great is that you've got an -- whenever something like an inconsistency seems to arise, you usually have -- well, always, that I've heard, a good explanation for it.

But the other thing is, I wanted to ask you really quick, because we hear this so often from -- it seems that virtually every conservative really likes you. Really -- in fact, they want to make out with you like I do.

But what we hear so often is, I really like Ted Cruz, but. How do you address that with people? How do you get them to understand?

GLENN: May I rephrase your question? Ted, tell me what your first week in office, what are the things you do?

TED: Well, on the very first day in office, I had pledged to do five things.

The first thing I intend to do is to rescind every single illegal and unconstitutional executive action taken by President Obama.

PAT: Love that.

GLENN: And Bush?

TED: Sure. Although, Obama will take a good chunk of the deck.

GLENN: Yes. All right. Okay.

(laughter)

TED: The second thing that I intend to do is instruct the United States Department of Justice to open an investigation into Planned Parenthood, into these horrific videos, and to prosecute any and all criminal conduct by that organization and its employees.

The third thing I intend to do on the first day in office is instruct the Department of Justice, the IRF, and every federal agency, that the persecution of religious liberty ends today. Instead of the federal government violating and persecuting our religious liberties, the federal government will defend the Bill of Rights and our religious liberty.

The fourth thing I intend to do on the first day in office is rip to shred this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal, which is the single greatest national security threat facing America.

And the fifth thing I intend to do in office, on the first day in office, is begin the process of moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the once and eternal capitol of Israel.

GLENN: I've heard people say that that's not a big deal. To me, that's a huge deal. Explain why that's so important.

TED: Well, it is a huge deal because Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel. And we refuse to put our embassy there in an effort to nod to the Arab countries in the Middle East that dispute Israel's right to exist. And it is simply giving in to the radical Islamists who want to destroy Israel. And under federal law -- Congress passed a law providing that the embassy be moved to Jerusalem. But every president has issued a waiver, and the law has a presidential waiver built into it.

And here's one thing that I think is really striking on this point. Many presidential candidates, both Republicans and Democrats, have made the same promise I did, which is to move the embassy to Jerusalem, and when they get to the White House, their national security teams tell them, well, gosh, a bunch of the other folks in the Middle East will be really mad at you if you do that, and they don't follow through.

And, Glenn, Pat, I think the single biggest difference between me and the other very fine gentlemen who were standing on that debate stage in Cleveland, is that with me, when I tell you I will do something, I'm going to do exactly what I said I'm going to do.

GLENN: I know. I know.

PAT: You've proven that.

GLENN: So let me ask you this, because I know you have to run. But we have Johnnie Moore with us on next hour. We had Kayla Mueller, a US aid worker who was held as a sex slave by al-Baghdadi in just a horrific thing. It's clear the administration knew that -- there's no way they didn't know this was happening. Al-Baghdadi did it for a reason.

We haven't really said anything about it. Meantime, Johnnie Moore, I'm raising money right now to try to get the Christians out of the Middle East, get them out of that situation and come into the United States. The United States of America has blocked anybody coming in as Christian from the Middle East. They are not accepting them. We have Mexico that will accept them. We have Poland that will accept them. I think we have Latvia that will accept them. We won't accept them. Will you as president, stand up for the Christians and the Muslims that aren't Muslim enough and the homosexuals that are being killed in the Middle East and allow them to come here and stop giving preferential treatment to Muslims?

TED: Absolutely, yes. And we need a president who will call evil by its name. Right now, we have a president and an administration that refuses to even utter the words "radical Islamic terrorism." ISIS is the face of evil. They are crucifying Christians, they are beheading children, they are using rape, forcible rape as an instrument of terror. And it is -- and they are murdering Christians, they are murdering Jews, they are murdering other Muslims who don't embrace their radical jihad. And right now, this administration refuses to acknowledge the enemy.

Glenn, if I'm elected president, every radical militant across the face of the globe will know, if you join ISIS, if you take up arms and wage jihad against the United States of America, then you are signing your death warrant.

Right now, under the Obama administration, ISIS believes they're winning. And they're winning because this administration is not fighting a real war. It is not using military power to defeat ISIS.

GLENN: No, no. Ted, we're running seven airstrikes a day. Seven.

TED: And in contrast, do you know how many airstrikes a day we ran during the first Persian Gulf War?

GLENN: No.

TED: About 1100. 1,100 a day.

GLENN: Jeez. In a much smaller area. In a much smaller area.

TED: Yes. This is -- we have a commander-in-chief who is not attempting to defeat our enemies. Indeed, the policies of this administration are weakness and appeasement. We see this with the Iranian nuclear deal, where the administration wants to send billions of dollars to Iran, which would make the Obama administration the world's leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism. It is unacceptable.

And I do have to tell you, tonight, in Des Moines, Iowa, we have a rally for religious liberty. And one of the people that will be there is Naghmeh Abedini, the wife of Pastor Saeed Abedini, who is wrongfully imprisoned in Iran. He's an American citizen, a Christian pastor. He was sentenced to eight years in prison for preaching the gospel. We're going to have heroes from across the country who have stood for their faith and have been persecuted for religious liberty. It's at 6:30 p.m. Friday night in Des Moines, Iowa. Anyone can find that information about it at TedCruz.org. TedCruz.org.

The Newsboys, the terrific Christian pop band, is going to be playing in concert. I would encourage folks who are nearby Des Moines to join us. And you can watch it live stream online at TedCruz.org. Standing for religious liberty here and across the world.

PAT: Too bad there's no where I can contribute to your campaign if somebody really wanted to.

GLENN: It's going to be another year of this.

PAT: Where would you be able to do that if you really liked everything you just said and you didn't know where to go, what would you do?

TED: You know, funny we should ask. We've had 25,000 contributions at TedCruz.org. TedCruz.org.

And, Glenn, every time I go on your show, your listeners are incredible because they light up the internet with contributions at TedCruz.org. And it's what's giving us such incredible momentum on this campaign. Thank you.

GLENN: Ted, I will tell you that this audience loves you. We do a poll every month, and you've been number one in the poll every single time. You're dirt strong with this audience.

PAT: Every time.

GLENN: And they love you. They love you. Thank you so much, Ted.

TED: Thank you. God bless. Keep speaking the truth, my friend.

GLENN: You got it. Ted Cruz.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep