The Times Have Changed: Glenn Finds Common Ground With 'The New York Times'

October 25, 2016

Writer

Glenn recently had the opportunity to sit down with the editorial board of The New York Times for an enlightening conversation.

"So I don't want to quote anything that they said or take anything and make them look one way or another," Glenn told radio listeners Tuesday. "I will tell you that the thrust of the conversation was, who is your audience? Who are the people of the Tea Party, and are those people the same people that are supporting Donald Trump? And what happened if they are?"

From Glenn's perspective, those he met with appeared to have a keen and genuine interest in understanding what was happening in the country, particularly on the right. Could this signal a step toward bridging the divide and bringing people together?

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these questions:

• How did Glenn describe members of the Tea Party?

• Did Glenn adequately express the frustration felt by conservative Americans?

• Had the editorial board ever heard the truth about conservative Tea Party patriots?

• Did Glenn kiss a frog or a toad?

• What would make conservatives lose their credibility?

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

GLENN: I met with a New York Times editorial board yesterday, and it was all on background. So I don't want to quote anything that they said or -- or -- or take anything and -- and make them look one way or another.

I will tell you that the -- the thrust of the conversation was, who -- who are -- who is your audience? Who -- who are the people of the Tea Party, and are those people -- are those people the same people that are supporting Donald Trump? And what happened if they are?

To be able to sit with all of the editors of the New York Times and say, "Look, here's what happened: The press mocked, belittled, called them racist, called them dangerous, called them names, when these were families who came so far out of their comfort zone because they actually believed in something."

These aren't Marxists. These aren't revolutionaries in college. These are the people who just put their face in a book during college and did it and didn't get involved in any of that stuff. Have never done any of that their entire life. Have lived a law-abiding quiet life.

And then they saw in justice, they saw things that they thought were wrong. And the press immediately said they were dangerous. And then, riding in on a white horse, to their rescue was -- who? The G.O.P. And Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. Come. You are such great friends. We needed you. And we then had a historic election for the G.O.P. and sent Tea Party people there. And those very people in the establishment turned those people against us.

And nothing changed. And then Mitt Romney, in 2012. And it was between 2010 and a week after the election of 2012 that everybody who was part of that movement said, "There's no way to win. Nothing is going to change. We've been defeated. There's nothing we can do."

And then a new man rode into town, who said, "I'm your defender. I'll crush them." And what he was promising or what his record was, wasn't as important as finally getting somebody to stand up who will refuse to sit down and will burn the whole damn thing down because the whole thing is corrupt. That's what happened.

It has nothing to do with racism or anything else. That's a subset.

That's not who these people are. They're tired, and they're frustrated. And they've looked for someone who can finally tell people like you, "Shut up. That's not who we are."

I don't think those people had heard that before.

PAT: How did they respond to that?

GLENN: They were amazing. They were amazing. And I don't --

PAT: It really sunk in, you think?

GLENN: Yeah, I do. For some. I do. There were 19 people in the room. I don't know. I didn't get a chance to talk to them. But I will tell you that it was not what I expected.

And, you know, people were blasting me on Facebook saying, "You know, you just went to bash Trump." No. Not really. Uh-uh. They weren't really that interested in Donald Trump. They were interested in who you are.

Now, I think, personally -- nothing to base this on, but I think personally, they know that the world is changing. They see trouble on the horizon, and like all of us, they may be saying now, "Gosh, it's a different world. It's a different game, make we should reexamine everything we're doing.

I don't know that. But that's the feeling I got. And here's why -- here's one of the reasons why I said yes to going up and meeting with them.

When I was at RedState this summer, somebody from the New York Times -- I didn't know they were from the New York Times, somebody in the press gaggle asked two questions. I don't even remember what they were. But they were thoughtful. They were really thoughtful questions. And I answered those questions.

And I wondered where she was from. And I thought she was from a -- a right side organization. And they were very smart questions. And she came up to me afterwards and asked a couple of other questions. I said, "Who are you with?" She said, "The New York Times." I said, "The New York Times?" She said, "Yes. We're trying to understand what's happening." Now, she's a documentary filmmaker. So we spent some time talking off the record. Her family is from, I think, Louisiana or Arkansas. They're Republicans. I think they're Trump supporters.

She's not. But she wasn't virulent either way. She was just like, "You know, I don't know. I'm not a Trump supporter, but my family is." She understood the center of the country, like no one else I've met in media.

And she said, "Would you be a part of this short documentary?" And I said, "I think so. But I don't know how it's going to be edited."

PAT: That was the problem, isn't it?

GLENN: Yeah, no, it is. But it was edited. And it was fair. It was fair. It was like eight minutes. But it was very fair.

And represented our side very well.

Yesterday, after it was all over, I was talking to her producer and somebody else from the New York Times, and they said, "Thank you for being a part of that." And I said, "I have to tell you, I was really skeptical." And they said, "We are really trying to understand. We're trying -- we don't want to be flippant on things." I said, "Oh, I know that feeling. Yes."

"We're really trying to understand." And they said, "The best thing about that is that -- now, this is key.

Said, "Did you read any of the comments underneath that when it first went out?"

And I said, "No."

And she said, "It was really good." She said, "So many of your people said, I can't believe this is the New York Times." And she said, "And so many of the New York Times people said, I can't believe there are conservatives like this. I didn't know they existed."

That is critical.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: If we're going to heal the country, that's critical.

Now, whether the New York Times or anybody else continues this the day after the election, I'm assuming I just kissed a frog. I'm assuming I just kissed a toad, hoping that they would be a princess. And they're not going to be a princess. That's how I have to go into this.

Anything that you get on the other side where you go, "Oh, my gosh. Look at that. It's tiny movement." Is a blessing. But we have to start doing that. We have to start looking for anybody who is actually willing to stand. And what I recommended to the New York Times -- I recommended, first of all, that Hillary Clinton, if she was serious about bringing the country together, that she said, "I'm not -- at this point in the country's history, I'm not going to replace a Scalia with a Ginsburg. I'm going to replace a Scalia with Mike Lee. A conservative constitutionalist with a conservative constitution."

PAT: She won't do that. But even if she did, a moderate --

GLENN: To be able to say that, in the New York Times and explain the thinking behind it --

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: -- I thought was important.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I said, "If she's serious, then de-weaponize the IRS." That, she could do. It was wrong when Nixon did it. I don't want to get into the past. But it's wrong now.

De-weaponize the IRS. Her side -- I said, "The only way that it will make any difference is if she hurts her own self with her side. If her side isn't screaming, 'What are you doing,' it won't mean anything to the left -- to the right. They won't believe it."

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And even if she does it, they'll still say, "There's a catch." But it will come in a long-term pattern. Did that really do what she said it would do? And if it doesn't, it makes it worse.

But the reason why I came up with this, you know, Watergate begat Travelgate is because I said the other thing is -- and it won't mean anything coming from people on our side. What means something to the right -- to the left is us on the right standing up and saying, "Here's the infection point on our side. Here are the things we have to take care of." We can't say we're for morals and we don't hate women and then stand with a guy who says, "Come on. Tell me she hasn't been grabbed there a few times in the past." Holy cow. He actually said that yesterday.

We can't accept that. Forget about them. But we'll have no credibility with anyone. And the same thing with them.

I said, "What have you -- by ignoring, what has the left promised us now that she can get away with?" You have to take a hard line on corruption, no matter who wins. You have to take a hard line on corruption. And I don't know -- I don't know what their thinking was. And I wouldn't want to characterize it either way. But I have hope that they will see and say, "We do to have take a hard line." The times have changed.

Featured Image: People walk past The New York Times building on October 1, 2014 in New York City. (Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images)

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