Doc Thompson Questions Activist's Promise of Non-violence at Trump Inauguration

January 18, 2017

WRITER

One of the hallmarks of American democracy is the peaceful transition of power every four to eight years. However, liberal activists unhappy with the election results seem bent on disrupting Inauguration Day with protests and civil disobedience.

Doc Thompson from The Morning Blaze With Doc Thompson, joined Glenn's radio program to report his encounter with Lacey MacAuley, a leader of activist group Disrupt J20.

According to its website, Disrupt J20 is a "collective of experienced local activists" who are "planning a series of massive direct actions that will shut down the Inauguration ceremonies and any related celebrations --- the Inaugural parade, the Inaugural balls," paralyzing the city.

While MacAuley assured Doc of the group's dedication to non-violent civil disobedience, Doc uncovered additional information that directly contradicted MacAuley's claim.

"James O'Keefe and Project Veritas released their first video that seems to show they want something a little more than just civil disobedience, possibly some things that are pretty dangerous," Doc said.

In a second Project Veritas video, activists called for illegally shutting down the metro and punching people in the throat.

MacAuley brushed off these statements, saying it was a ruse for the interview.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: We have Doc Thompson with us. He does mornings on TheBlaze Radio Network. And you have been kind of taking my approach of, hey, let's listen to people.

DOC: Right. Right.

GLENN: And it has paid off in a big way. Tell us how.

DOC: I was following your other approaches in life, and those weren't working out so well for me.

GLENN: Right. Yeah, I know.

DOC: So this one -- so a couple weeks ago, we found about this J20. This is the Disrupt J20, where they're organizing all of the different little factions. Anybody who is opposed to some of our ideals, for whatever the little issue, abortion, gun control, whatever, to bring them all together in DC and do whatever they can to actually disrupt the inauguration.

On some level, to stop him from becoming president, which is a little nutty to me. We found out about it. My producer Chris Cruz said, "Okay. Let me try to get them on." And he amazingly got a lady by the name of Lacey MacAuley to come on. Apparently, she doesn't have access to the Internet to find out about me. So she actually agreed to the interview.

GLENN: But you were honest with her.

DOC: I was. I was. A lot of people think that by asking tough questions or that I'm satirical, over the top at times, that I'm going to treat them that way. And we didn't. We heard her out. She said some things that the audience objected to. Some things I did as well. I didn't debate every issue, but we talked about the Disrupt J20. And she said it's non-violent. They just want to disrupt. Civil disobedience. She used phrases like that.

And I said, "Listen, I will stand with you for your right to express your First Amendment rights. I will stand with you. But not for violence, not for breaking the law, anything like this."

So then James O'Keefe and Project Veritas released their first video that seems to show they want something a little more than just civil disobedience, possibly some things that are pretty dangerous.

GLENN: Is she in the video?

DOC: She is not in the first one. But they mention her in the second one, which was released late yesterday. So after the first one was released, the day before yesterday, we interviewed her yesterday morning, and she said basically that the people in the video that were calling for stink bomb, acid -- I can't remember the type of acid it's called -- to be put in the ventilation or the sprinklers off, that they knew -- and I'm paraphrasing here, but essentially they knew that the person that was talking to them was not one of them. And she said, we knew it was some sort of scam. We didn't know who. It could have been police.

GLENN: So you make it worse?

DOC: That was my question. I said, "Why would you incriminate yourself? They can use this as evidence." And she really didn't have a great answer for that. But she stuck to, this was all just a big ruse that they were putting on for whoever was interviewing them essentially.

GLENN: Right.

Uh-huh.

DOC: And then the video came out yesterday that seems to show a little bit more. So I have a clip if you want to hear it, of yesterday's interview with her, where she mentions a couple of things like that and then also talks about James O'Keefe.

GLENN: Okay. Here it is.

DOC: Once again, I'm going to offer you the opportunity to condemn any acts of violence or anything that would get anybody hurt this week in DC.

LACEY: Well, thanks very much, Doc. This is absolutely something that we articulate and reaffirm at every single one of the meetings of Disrupt J20. And, you know, this is a commitment to harming no one.

DOC: You believe James O'Keefe is working on behalf of Nazis, or he's doing the work of Nazis, white nationalists?

LACEY: Well, he basically is attacking our group, the DC anti-fascist coalition, and our targets are the people who are modern day Nazis.

DOC: They voted for Trump, they're looking for something different. But they don't necessarily stand with the Nazis. I mean, you understand the difference.

LACEY: Well, I think it's pretty clear to me that he's attacking a group that protests Nazis. So that puts him on that side.

GLENN: President-elect Trump until Friday. You don't think that he supports Nazi issues, do you?

LACEY: Well, I think there's basically a reason that these groups have been so celebratory of his policies.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

LACEY: Glenn Beck, your thoughts on that?

GLENN: Quite clearly misguided. I mean, I stand against fascism.

LACEY: Yeah.

GLENN: I stand against Nazis.

To tie Donald Trump -- actually tie him to Nazis is ridiculous. To tie Steve Bannon to the Nazi movement is not. But there is nothing in Donald Trump's history that shows that he is racist. Maybe the thing, Stu, that he went for the casino thing. That's probably the biggest mark of racist. But other than that, in his history, is he -- does he have that tendency that would show that he was a Nazi?

STU: Nazi, no. God, no. You know, even -- you talk about Steve Bannon, I mean, he -- there are obviously a lot of people in the alt-right that embrace those values and send people pictures of them in gas chambers and such.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: But most people --

GLENN: They've sent them to us.

STU: Even Ben Shapiro, who is an ardent critic of Steve Bannon's, has said he doesn't think he believes those things. He's using them for --

GLENN: Oh, I don't think so either. He's using them.

And I think that there is a case to be made that Steve Bannon is connected and using them. And Donald Trump was taking advice from Steve Bannon, but I don't think he's a Nazi.

DOC: It's funny though. There are so many subtle levels of this. Yes, clearly there are people in America that identify with Nazis. These people are crazy, right?

GLENN: But literally --

DOC: But there's many -- it's not everybody automatically in the alt-right, the right or whatever, is a Nazi just because we disagree. There's many, many levels that gets you closer and closer to that.

STU: Even a lot of the Nazis weren't Nazis as we think of them today.

DOC: Right. They were just, I got to do this, right?

STU: Again, that's horrible, but I'm not even talking about -- there were people in the party who didn't do all those things. Even back then, to assign -- it's true. It's true.

GLENN: No, I know it's true. You and I are both -- we're more well read on the Nazi movement than 99 percent of the Nazis.

STU: Right. And there's no reason to draw gray areas about the Nazis.

GLENN: Yes, right.

STU: They're all obviously horrible. My point though is even people who would today identify themselves that way weren't people who have killed 6 million Jews. This is why everyone gets so frustrated with Nazi comparisons. We all know how that ended up, so therefore everyone jumps to the end point of that. However, there was a lot of stuff early on, it wasn't so clear they were going to wind up killing 6 million Jews, even though Hitler very -- was very clear about his intentions.

GLENN: Again, people not taking him literally, but taking him seriously.

STU: Yeah, point is though, you can't compare -- I mean, obviously a comparison like that, where you're just throwing everyone -- half of this freaking country in the boat of Nazis is completely absurd.

GLENN: And to disrupt the inauguration destroys the main thing about America. And that is, we have a peaceful transfer of power.

That is one of the most stabilizing points that we can make to the rest of the world. Look, we strongly disagree. But we always have a -- a peaceful transfer of power. Even though -- I mean, we can compare this -- you know, the -- the Secret Service was not in effect with Abraham Lincoln. We didn't have a Secret Service.

Abraham Lincoln did not understand how divided this country was, until he made it to Baltimore. Most people don't know this, but there was a plot against his life, coming in for his first inauguration from Illinois. And he took the train to Philadelphia. And he was supposed to then take the train to Baltimore the next morning.

What people didn't know is he actually took a train -- he got into Philadelphia, and instead of saying, he went out the back door. And in the cover of darkness, went to -- I want to say like Hershey or someplace in that area. And then took another train in the middle of the night to Washington. And completely bypassed -- actually, no, it wasn't Philadelphia. It was Baltimore. He made it all the way to Baltimore. And it was the next morning they were going to kill him at the train station. So he took another train out and then rerouted to Washington. But it was in him walking, down the street to get out, where he heard all of the anti-Lincoln and anti-North sentiment on the streets. And he couldn't believe it.

He said later, "I didn't understand how divided we were as a country, that there were people willing to kill the people in the North. It wasn't just me."

I think we're close to that point again, to where we are so divided and the extremes on both sides have been so wound up by politicians, that they think now is their moment.

DOC: Imagine if they get what they want on Friday. It's like the dog that catches the car. What are you going to do now? What do you think is going to happen? We disrupted it. He didn't get inaugurated. Everyone is just going to go back to their life. Obama stays president. All hell breaks loose if they disrupt that.

PAT: And he's inaugurated anyway. They'll just go inside and inaugurate him. I mean...

DOC: And he gets inaugurated anyway.

GLENN: That's right. But that's what happens -- that's what people want. There are a great number of people now that want a crackdown. They want the chaos because they want the crackdown.

PAT: And we were such --

GLENN: She says she's anti-fascist. Well, what do you think -- how are fascistic states created? They're created by crackdowns because crackpots went and burned down the Reichstag.

DOC: I thought it was with marshmallows and rainbows. I thought that's how it was created. Wasn't it? Something like that?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. It's really frightening to see the left -- and, again, the media has called a whole group of people Nazis. Not -- not what I said.

DOC: Right.

GLENN: These are Brownshirt tactics. And there's a difference between Brownshirt tactics and Nazis. While they were both Nazis, one is describing a person and a group of people. The other is saying, "You're using the same tactics here."

DOC: Did you see the second James O'Keefe video? The Project Veritas one? In it, at one point, one of the guys talking, he's like, oh -- this is one of the Disrupt J20 people. Let me call my comrade and see if he can blah, blah, blah.

GLENN: Comrade.

DOC: So you anti-fascist people are communist.

GLENN: Are communist. They're communist.

DOC: You think that's better?

GLENN: Right.

DOC: These are the people that believe that they are opposite sides of the spectrum. I do not believe that.

GLENN: No, they're not. That's total government. Doc, thanks so much for bringing that in.

DOC: Thanks.

GLENN: You know, your mom can fix those pants.

DOC: Okay. I'm flying immediately after this segment to DC. These are my TSA pants. Because, yes, it makes me uncomfortable when TSA touches me. But with these -- because I make them pat me down as part of my civil disobedience.

GLENN: Are they ripped in the butt or something?

DOC: Yes, they are. Right here. See right here. It's definitely going to make them uncomfortable.

PAT: Thank you for sharing that with me by the way. Thank you. That's okay.

DOC: That's for you, Pat. Rump shaker. Rump shaker.

GLENN: All right. Thank you. You've got to go off the set now. We're never going to get --

PAT: Don't you need to hit a flight?

DOC: I do. I got to go. I'm glad you said that.

GLENN: There are some things you can't unsee. And that's one of them.

PAT: I know. Yikes.

GLENN: But Tania and I were in Vegas this weekend, somebody would walk by, and I would be like, "You can't unsee that one." And she's like --

JEFFY: That's what makes Vegas great.

GLENN: -- "But you can replace it. Replace it with that one." And these people were -- oh, there was a woman that I saw at a really nice restaurant, dressed as a very nice hooker, I think. And Tania pointed out, "She might be." And I'm like, "Okay. Yes. I did see Pretty Woman. Maybe she is. But I don't think she was." You know how women go to Vegas and they dress like hookers?

STU: It's actually their city slogan.

GLENN: This woman was -- yeah, this woman was plump. And she honestly had a dress on. And she was probably 40. And she had a dress on where I could see the -- the cheek come down. Okay. I could see the cheek meet the leg.

PAT: Uh-huh. That's great.

GLENN: Now, she was standing with her butt toward me. And I said to Tania, "I'm torn. Because I want her to turn around to see how this works on the front." Because I said, "Just draw a mental line around." So I want to see how this works in the front, and yet I really don't want to --

STU: Especially in a food environment.

JEFFY: You have to see that.

GLENN: No, no.

JEFFY: You can't go to Vegas not to see --

GLENN: Again, there are things you cannot unsee.

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