Liberal Professor Robert Reich Inadvertently Endorses Ted Cruz

A new two-minute video from liberal professor and political commentator Robert Reich backfired in delivering its intended message: Ted Cruz is more dangerous than Donald Trump.

Instead, Reich inadvertently made the case that Cruz is a better presidential choice for conservatives due to his "strict, originalist view" of the Constitution. Reich, who believes Bernie Sanders' economic proposals would spur growth, may have delivered the best endorsement yet for electing Cruz.

"There is a video explaining why Ted Cruz is more dangerous than Donald Trump, and I'm watching this, and I'm thinking, 'You got to be kidding me, right? I mean, did Ted Cruz write this?' It is phenomenal," Glenn said Monday on The Glenn Beck Program. "I never saw anything like it. I saw Ted last night, and I said, 'You need to run this at all of your rallies.' Here is a guy on the left making the case to his followers why anyone, but Ted Cruz should win."

Here are Reich's four reasons why Ted Cruz is more dangerous that Donald Trump:

Number One

• Cruz is more fanatical, a fierce ideologue who takes a strict, originalist view of the meaning of the Constitution. He denies the existence of man-made climate change, rejects same-sex marriage, wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, believes the Second Amendment guarantees everyone a right to guns, doesn't believe in a constitutional divide between church and state, favors the death penalty, rejects immigration reform and demands the repeal of Obamacare.

• Trump is a bully, but he doesn't adhere to any sharp, ideological line.

Number Two

• Cruz is a true believer, embracing right wing economic and political views.

• Donald Trump has no firm principles, except making money, getting attention and gaining power.

Number Three

• Cruz is more disciplined and strategic, using a clear script and a carefully crafted strategy. He plays the long game, as he's shown in Iowa.

• Trump is all over the place, often winging it saying whatever pops into his mind.

Number Four

• Cruz is a loner who is willing to destroy institutions. His opposition to Obamacare led in a significant way to the shutdown of the federal government.

• Trump has spent his career using the federal government and making friends with big shots.

There's never been a more glowing endorsement for a conservative candidate. Thank you, Robert Reich.

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

GLENN: From Las Vegas, Nevada. It was the weekend of South Carolina and Nevada. Trump and Hillary both claimed victory. In a matchup between Hillary and Trump, which one does America want? Actually let me revise that. In a matchup between Hillary and a Hillary donor, which one does America want? And what do the exit polls actually say from South Carolina? Plus, an amazing video from Robert Reich, you know, the guy from the left, the big Clinton supporter. It is the most powerful campaign ad I have ever seen. The problem is: He was trying to make an anti-campaign ad for somebody. We begin there, right now.

(music)

GLENN: From Las Vegas, Nevada. So glad that you've turned in. Hello, America. Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

Yesterday, I saw an -- a saw a video on YouTube from Robert Reich. Robert Reich is -- I don't know. He's a bizarre economist with the Clinton campaign -- or, has been with the Clinton campaign for many, many years. Been with Bill Clinton and is a guy who is absolutely upside down and does not agree with the right at all. Conservatives are, you know, the Antichrist to him.

There is a video explaining why Ted Cruz is more dangerous than Donald Trump. And I'm watching this, and I'm thinking, "You got to be kidding me, right? I mean, did Ted Cruz write this?" It is phenomenal.

PAT: I thought the same.

GLENN: Right. I never saw anything like it. I saw Ted last night, and I said, "You need to run this at all of your rallies." Here is a guy on the left making the case to his followers why anyone, but Ted Cruz should win. Listen to this.

ROBERT: Four reasons Ted Cruz is even more dangerous than Donald Trump.

Number one, Cruz is more fanatical. Now, Trump is a bully, but he doesn't adhere to any sharp ideological line. Cruz is a fierce ideologue. He denies the existence of man-made climate change, rejects same-sex marriage, wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service.

PAT: Is that a bad thing for anyone?

GLENN: Yeah. I know. He wants to abolish the IRS. No.

PAT: Oh, no. No. No. I didn't realize that about him.

ROBERT: Believes the Second Amendment guarantees everyone a right to guns.

PAT: Yes, it's the Second Amendment.

(chuckling)

GLENN: And the Supreme Court.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah.

ROBERT: He doesn't believe in a constitutional divide between church and state.

PAT: Yeah, and neither does the Constitution, by the way.

ROBERT: Favors the death penalty. Rejects immigration reform. Demands the repeal of Obamacare. And Cruz takes a strict, originalist view of the meaning of the Constitution.

(gasping)

GLENN: Okay. Stop. Stop.

PAT: No!

GLENN: So far, I'm like, "He's my guy."

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, I've never heard anything -- but it gets better. Wait. There's more.

ROBERT: Cruz is a true believer.

Donald Trump has no firm principles, except making money, getting attention, and gaining power. Cruz has much of his life embracing radical right economic and political views.

Number three --

PAT: Wow. Wow.

GLENN: Stop. Okay. So Cruz -- look, Donald Trump, he doesn't actually believe in anything, except himself and making money and everything else. But Cruz has actually spent his life really embracing these things. And they're all crazy.

PAT: Uh-huh. It's incredible. I mean, this seriously should be a campaign ad for Ted Cruz. For sure.

ROBERT: Discipline and strategic --

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Stop.

PAT: More disciplined. Strategic --

GLENN: Here's point number three: Cruz is disciplined and strategic, where Trump is just all over the place.

PAT: Yes. Uh-huh.

ROBERT: -- winging it, saying whatever pops into his mind. Cruz uses a clear script and a carefully crafted strategy. He plays the long game, as he has shown in Iowa. And fourth and finally, Cruz is a loner willing to destroy institutions. Trump has spent his career using the federal government and making friends with big HEP shots.

PAT: Can you -- he spent his career using the government.

GLENN: Okay. Here's an example of this. And this is the kind of stuff, guys, that you're going to see --

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: This is what you're going to see in the mainstream media come July if Donald Trump is the candidate.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: Try this one on for size. Donald Trump said, you know, you remember when Donald Trump did this big deal. And this is exactly how it will be presented on NBC.

Remember when he said that -- oh, you know, how dare you say -- I had friends that died in the World Trade Center. So far -- and this is the way, again, the media will portray this. So far, NBC has reached out to the Trump campaign several times and cannot get one name of anybody that Donald Trump was friends with. We also looked at the records, and there is no record of Donald Trump attending any funerals for any individual after 9/11.

Okay. The press has already done that. But they haven't stood on it. But here comes the hammer. Donald Trump owns 40 Wall Street, a building worth $400 million. And on paper, is making $26.5 million every year. Donald Trump, after the government put together a package for small businesses to help those mom-and-pop stores in lower Manhattan that had been damaged or hurt by September 11th, Donald Trump and 40 Wall Street filed a claim to try to get money out of the small business fund.

He actually -- a business that makes $26.5 million a year. $20 million over the limit, somehow or another was able to receive a grant of $150,000, taking that $150,000 from the mom-and-pop small businesses that truly needed it. Brian, back to you.

That's exactly how it's going to happen. That's exactly what's going to happen.

Here's Donald Trump. And this is what Robert Reich was saying. He has spent his career taking money from the government. We know this because of the documentaries we have seen. And some of them are now posted. Documentaries that Donald Trump got shut down back in the '90s that are now starting to pop up on the news because he can't muscle NBC. He can't muscle ABC. The internet is there.

And now you're seeing in some of these documentaries how he built his business. He would go to the government and get subsidies for all his business. So what Robert Reich is saying here, "This isn't a guy who will shut down all the subsidies. This is a guy who uses the subsidies to get wealthy." This is exactly what America -- and I'm going to make a point today, and you're not going to like it. But I am going to make a point that there is a revolution coming in the next eight years. There is a revolution actually happening right now. But it is a velvet revolution. And if we choose wrong, it will not be a velvet revolution. If we stay the course and we continue down the road with corrupt crony capitalism and corrupt -- quite honestly, the kind of politics that the left is dealing in right now, where Hillary Clinton has all the superdelegates, so it doesn't really matter what the people say. The people are voting for -- for Bernie Sanders, and it is a virtual dead HEP heat between those two. But somehow or another, she wins six coin tosses, and here in Nevada, she wins the delegates by flipping over cards: He got a six. She got an ace. She gets the delegates. Your vote really doesn't matter with the left. It doesn't matter at all.

And those kinds of things where we're undermining democracy and we're undermining the confidence in true, decent, honest, and honorable capitalism is not going to last. And that's what's happening. And this is what Robert Reich is holding up and saying is a good thing. Why? Because de Tocqueville was right.

De Tocqueville, the guy who wrote Democracy in America back in the 1800s, a Frenchman who came over to America and said, "What is it that makes them special? Why is it that they are being able to cross all of these lines and hurdles and jump all these hurdles? Why is it this little teeny country is starting to explode?" And he said, "Because America is great because America is good." They had certain fundamental principles that they never violated. And the people were good and honorable and decent.

And we've lost that. And that's what -- that's where this anger is coming from. People are tired from saying, "Wait a minute. Hillary Clinton should be in jail. She shouldn't be on the campaign trail. She should be in jail." And I would like to say that those on the right would say the same thing if it was their candidate. But we wouldn't. Polls are now showing that we play the same game the left does. All of this bullcrap, quite frankly, that we all said to each other over the last eight years, "It's not about -- it's about principles. It's about the Constitution. It's about these principles they're taking and destroying." Now what are people saying? "My guy can play that game even better than they can. And I'm tired of playing by the rules."

You read my Facebook. I have never seen anything like what I'm reading on my Facebook page now: Story after story after story of people saying, "You know what, I'm tired of playing by the rules. I'm tired of being stepped on. I'm tired of having everybody win except for us. The ends justify the means. If they're not going to play by the rules, I'm not going to play by the rules."

And the problem with that is, America, you might win the game, but you're going to lose your soul. You're going to lose what made America great in the first place. You cannot play by that, unless you want to fundamentally transform the United States of America.

So let's finish this Robert Reich video.

PAT: Yeah.

ROBERT: Cruz. He's repeatedly led Republicans toward fiscal cliffs. In the fall of 2013, his opposition to Obamacare led in a significant way to the shutdown of the federal government.

PAT: No, it didn't.

ROBERT: Both men would be disastrous for America, but Ted Cruz would be the larger disaster.

(chuckling)

STU: Brought to you by the Ted Cruz campaign.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Can we play one more time without interrupting it. Because it's so powerful in a minute a half.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah.

ROBERT: Four reasons Ted Cruz is even more dangerous than Donald Trump: Number one, Cruz is more fanatical. Now, Trump is a bully, but he doesn't adhere to any sharp, ideological line. Cruz is a fierce ideologue. He denies the existence of man-made climate change, rejects same-sex marriage, wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, believes the Second Amendment guarantees everyone a right to guns. He doesn't believe in a constitutional divide between church and state. Favors the death penalty. Rejects immigration reform. Demands the repeal of Obamacare. And Cruz takes a strict, originalist view of the meaning of the Constitution.

Second, Cruz is a true believer. Donald Trump has no firm principles, except making money, getting attention, and gaining power. But Cruz has spent much of his life embracing radical right economic and political views.

Number three, Cruz is more disciplined and strategic. Trump is all over the place, often winging it saying whatever pops into his mind. Cruz uses a clear script and a carefully crafted strategy. He plays the long game, as he's shown in Iowa.

And fourth and finally, Cruz is a loner who is willing to destroy institutions. Trump has spent his career using the federal government and making friends with big shots. Not Cruz. He's repeatedly led Republicans toward fiscal cliffs.

In the fall of 2013, his opposition to Obamacare led in a significant way to the shutdown of the federal government. Both men would be disastrous for America, but Ted Cruz would be the larger disaster.

PAT: That is --

GLENN: I'm Ted Cruz. And I approve this message.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: That's what super PACs should be playing right now.

PAT: Yes. Yes. Wow.

GLENN: I mean, that is the most powerful endorsement of Ted Cruz I've ever heard from Robert Reich.

Featured Image: Former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich (L) testifies before the Joint Economic Committee January 16, 2014 in Washington, DC. Reich joined a panel testifying on the topic of 'Income Inequality in the United States.Ó (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

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.