Jason Chaffetz announces run for Speaker of the House

October 06, 2015

WRITER

Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz joined Glenn on radio Tuesday to share why he wants to run for Speaker of the House.

Glenn introduced Chaffetz as a good friend who he hasn't had a chance to catch up with for quite some time.

"I've kind of lost track of Jason and what he's been up to lately," Glenn said. "We wanted to talk to him firsthand and hear his case."

Listen to the exchange or read the transcript below.

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

GLENN: Congressman Jason Chaffetz. He's from Utah. He's a guy who actually sleeps at his office. He's been -- when he was at Fox. He was one of the refounders. He was a guy who was right there on the front lines and has been working hard to change the way things are done in America. Has been a good time -- or good time? Good time friend. A long-time friend and a good friend for quite some time. We haven't -- we haven't had a chance to catch up with each other for I don't know how long. So I've kind of lost track of Jason and what he's been up to lately. But I saw he was announcing he wanted to be Speaker of the House. And we wanted to talk to him firsthand and hear his case.

Hi, Jason, how are you, sir?

JASON: Hey, Glenn. Glad to be with you.

GLENN: Good. Tell me, you've decided to run for Speaker of the House. A, is this real? I'm not putting you in this category. I hear some people are doing it just to get their name out, et cetera. Et cetera. Is this real, and why do you want it?

JASON: You know what, it's time for a fresh start. And when John Boehner was up last time, nobody ran against him. And I thought, "Shame on us." There should be choices. You're either part of the solution, or you're part of the problem. And so I think if I got better, smarter way to do it, I should throw my name in the bucket. And, you know, guys like me who are underdogs, there's no way we're supposed to be able to do this. But, gosh, you can't win if you don't try. So I'm throwing it all out here. I don't plan to be in Congress for very long. But when I'm here, I'm going to give it everything I got.

GLENN: So, Jason, tell me what the biggest problem, and what you're going to change.

JASON: Internally, we're breaking apart. We don't have the process to allow that groundswell of expertise so that members can represent their own districts and that they can actually bring forth amendments and vote on things that they want to vote on. It's been too much of a top-down process. I'm tired of reading my phone, what the speaker is going to tell me, and then go into a meeting and the Speaker says, "This is what we're going to do."

It's supposed to happen organically from the bottom, up. I also do believe that once the conference gets behind something, we have to go fight for it. We have to take that battle to the Senate, to the White House, and to the American people. We don't -- we're not very good communicators. I actually want to be a Speaker who speaks and goes out and makes the case to the American people why the conservative viewpoint -- why what Republicans stand for is the right thing to do in this country.

GLENN: Okay. So give me a couple of -- the biggest mistakes, the things that we should have done that Boehner just didn't do.

JASON: Well, look, the debt and deficit is right near the top of my list. I was elected same time as Barack Obama. The debt has gone from 9 trillion to $20 trillion.

The president the other day said he's not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling. He's not going to negotiate on -- well, what he's saying is, he's okay with borrowing more money from China as opposed to actually fixing the underlying problem.

We were elected not to perpetuate the status quo, to actually fix the problems of this country. And we fixed some of them, but I want to start scoring some touchdowns and putting bills on the president's desk. And that, we haven't done. And I'm not here --

GLENN: Tell me about the continuing resolutions.

JASON: Well, I voted against the last one. That's a terrible way to do business. We want to have more open process so that you can actually go through what's called regular order where members are allowed, page by page, line by line, to offer amendments. And then you vote on those.

And on some of those, we did that. You know, when I was here when Nancy Pelosi was running the place, we never even did that. So we started that process. We came almost halfway. But I'd like to keep pushing that. Pushing that. Because regular order and better process yields a better product. It won't be everything I want or Glenn Beck wants or any other member wants. But it does yield a better, more respectful process. That's what we're here to do.

GLENN: Jason, I will tell you this, based on just your voting record, you're our guy.

JASON: Well, good. I better hang up now.

(laughter)

GLENN: Daniel Webster, however, was on with us, and he was quite clear on the process. Now, he wants to run for Speaker of the House too. According to his voting record, he's not the guy I want. However, when he was talking, he talked solely about the system. And he's like, "Look, the system will work itself out if the system is used." And the continuing resolution is something that is really, really boring to a lot of people.

JASON: Right.

GLENN: But it's probably the most critical thing we have in the process to stop the Republicans from this constant retreat. It's not the way our system was meant to be done. And it's why they always have a government shutdown if you say I want to change The Birdcage paper. Oh, you want to shut down the government. It's because of the continuing resolution. So how can you -- what you just said to me, I want to keep moving forward. No, I don't. I want our government to run the way it was designed. Will you as a Speaker of the House take that stand?

JASON: That's what -- that is what I'm saying. There's a lot to learn from Daniel Webster because what he did in Florida is very important. And he's very smart on these issues. He and I have very different voting records. But I'm not there as the Speaker to impress upon everybody else my political agenda.

The role of the Speaker is to make sure that the process is such that the will of the body actually surfaces. And to that extent, the process is broken. And there has to be changes on how we pick committee chairmen, on how we go through the process of the regional representatives. A lot of the internal structure stuff that no matter where you are on the political spectrum, we have a lot of people that are terribly frustrated.

And if you can get the process right, this is where I think I agree with Daniel Webster. You get that process right. I think then you're going to get a better product. And I want it to be as conservative as possible. But I recognize I'm probably much more conservative than the bulk of other members. And that's okay. But I'm not here just to dictate to them, "Oh, you have to do it my way." I've been on the receiving end of that, and I don't like it.

GLENN: According to my notes, you took Mark Meadows off his committee assignment, presumably for voting against John Boehner. Was that retaliation? What happened there?

JASON: That wasn't the only reason. It was about some other things. But, you know what, I overreached. And, you know what, we all make some mistakes. I would like to think as a leader, I was smart enough and humble enough to listen to my committee members who thought I was too harsh. And it was a good lesson for me, that you're not going to build unity and move the ball forward by breaking knuckles. I overreached. And I shouldn't have done it. And I recognized it. And we reimplemented him a few days later.

And Mark and I have a good working relationship. He has to represent his constituents from North Carolina, I have to represent mine from Utah. If we agree, we agree. But that's a valuable lesson that I learned.

GLENN: May I just delve a little further into that?

JASON: Sure.

GLENN: What -- how did you learn that lesson? Why did you learn that lesson? And when you said there were many things, it wasn't just that, why did voting --

JASON: Not many things, but yeah --

GLENN: But why did the Boehner thing even come into play? Why should anyone be punished for standing up against the leader?

JASON: First of all, I never spoke with the Speaker about this. I never spoke with his staff about it. That was my decision. But I -- I had some discussions, very candid discussions with Mark Meadows, and I think we both are in a good place now. But you learn that lesson.

And partly, it was listening to the 25 -- we have 25 members on my committee. I'm the chairman of the Oversight Committee. Most of them came in. We sat down, and we talked for an hour and 40 minutes. And it was very healthy.

And I said, "All right. Let me sleep on it. I believe in prayer." And I prayed about it. And I came back out of that and thought, "You know what, darn it. I overdid myself. And I shouldn't have done that." And I announced the next day that I would make the change back. They were right. I was wrong.

GLENN: Good for you.

PAT: But Jason you did vote for Boehner last time.

JASON: Yes, I did. Yes, I did.

GLENN: Why?

JASON: Partly because he was the only nominee. We didn't have anybody else. And like I said, here we go again. And, look, I'll support the nominee. And I said I'll do that. But I put myself in the ring now. So if I think have a better way, then you better get in and run. And so I do think I got a better way. I do think I could do some of these things. A guy like me is not supposed to rise up and -- after just -- you know, in his fourth term become a Speaker. I get that. But I think I can do things a little bit better. And so you put your hat in the ring. If I lose, I lose. But now that I'm trying, I'll know that I gave it my best shot.

PAT: That's not entirely true that nobody ran against him. Because Louie Gohmert did. I know a lot of people didn't think he was a serious candidate.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: But I don't fully understand that. Because Louie a pretty strong conservative. And maybe there just aren't enough conservatives in the Republican Party anymore to elect one as Speaker. What is -- is that what it is? And if so, how does that affect your candidacy?

JASON: Well, I don't believe it should be a litmus test on how conservative or how liberal a person is. You're electing a person who is going to speak for the body, negotiate with the White House, the Senate, who is going to be a fair arbiter of the full political spectrum within the Republican conference. And so, you know, I -- I have a lot of respect for John Boehner. And I know a lot of people don't. But John Boehner was very good to me. And I didn't owe him anything. He didn't ask for anything. But of the candidates out there, yeah, I -- I -- I did vote for John Boehner.

GLENN: I will tell you this, think what you want about somebody when they say, I have a lot of respect for John Boehner, but I will tell you that coming on this program --

PAT: And telling us that.

GLENN: And telling us that and telling this audience that, it takes some real balls.

JASON: Well, yeah. Let me tell you why. I fought to get rid of earmarks. And when I first got elected in 2008, everybody else in the delegation was for them. And I went to John Boehner and I said, "Can a guy like me survive here because I'm fighting against earmarks?" And he said, "Jason, I've never asked for earmarks." And I do appreciate that John Boehner, when he actually became the Speaker, you know what he did? He got rid of earmarks. That has been the political candy that leadership uses to coerce votes and get bills passed. It made it easier. And he took it away from himself and took away power from himself. And I do admire him for that.

PAT: He also got none of the things done he said he was going to. He said they were going to get 12 things done in 12 weeks. And none of them -- I think one of them happened.

JASON: I'm telling you --

PAT: One.

JASON: There are a lot of things I like about him. And a lot of things I don't. A lot of things are frustrating. I'm not going to trample on him as he goes out the door. That's just not my style.

GLENN: Yeah, it's not necessary to do that because we're talking about the future. So what will set you apart from John Boehner?

JASON: Well, I want to be a Speaker who speaks and goes out and makes the case to the American people and takes the fight to the president and to the White House. I'm tired of just gravitating to the lowest common denominator. And if Mitch McConnell and the United States Senate can't get something done, you know, we have to figure out where we'll hold the line here.

GLENN: Would you shut down the government over Planned Parenthood?

JASON: Look, the discussion is -- it's not just Jason Chaffetz. It's the conference as a whole. So I've hold the president say things like this. I don't think having $20 trillion in debt is the right solution. I really don't. I think that question is for the president of the United States. Our job in Congress is to get that bill on his desk. And if we can't get that bill on his desk, then we can't even get to that next step. That decision on shutdown is the president's.

GLENN: Jason, we haven't talked to each other for I don't know how long.

JASON: Yeah, it's been a while.

GLENN: How is your soul?

JASON: I'm so comfortable with myself at this point. I have this amazing wonderful wife and family that I couldn't be more proud of. And I know that I'm not -- this is temporary in its time. And part of the reason I'm running, Glenn, is I'm -- I'm fine with losing. You know, I'm okay with losing. Because I'm not trying to be here forever. I'm going to give it everything I got and then go home. That's -- that's where my heart is. My heart is at home.

GLENN: So you're telling me -- are you making an announcement that you will not run for Orrin Hatch's seat when he retires?

JASON: I might make that announcement -- if I wanted to be here for a long time, I would run for the Senate, and I have not. Nor do I anticipate doing that. But I'm not making the official announcement here today.

(laughter)

STU: We're trying to bring some --

JASON: Nice try. But go ahead.

GLENN: All right, Jason. Best of luck. And the vote is on Thursday, right?

JASON: That's the first step. That's the conference vote. But the real vote on the floor, that happens at the end of October.

GLENN: And the best way for people if they choose you or somebody else, what's the best way they can support you?

JASON: Call their members. Find out who are their members voting for. I'm not -- I don't have a formal whip operation. Just call your member of Congress. Figure out who they're voting for.

GLENN: Okay. Good. Jason, thanks a lot. Appreciate it. Buh-bye.

The Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

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

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

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

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

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

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

Should Starbase become its own city?

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

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

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

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

Glenn's Show Prep