GLENNMarch 09, 2017

4 Steps to Break Down Walls From a Former Westboro Baptist Church Member

Megan Phelps-Roper, who grew up indoctrinated with hatred in the Westboro Baptist Church, left the church in 2012 after what can only be described as an awakening.

"She left the church a while ago, and recently did a TED talk on why she left and how it happened. And it's fascinating because, I mean, there are parts of it that sounds like she's just lifting lines from Glenn Beck about how to deal with the world," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Thursday on The Glenn Beck Program.

Interestingly, Phelps-Roper's conversion began in the hateful universe of social media, where she encountered a pattern that repeated during her 144-character conversations on Twitter.

Initially, the people I encountered on the platform were just as hostile as I expected. They were the digital version of the screaming hordes I had been seeing at protests since I was a kid. But in the midst of that digital brawl, a strange pattern developed. Someone would arrive at my profile with the usual rage and scorn. I would respond with a custom mix of Bible versus, pop culture references, and smiley faces. They would be understandably confused and caught off guard. But then a conversation would ensue. And it was civil. Full of genuine curiosity on both sides.

Concerned with the current state of division in the country, Phelps-Roger has identified four steps on how to approach people with different ideas, especially on social media platforms:

1. Don't assume bad intent

2. Ask honest questions

3. Stay calm

4. Make the argument, explain

"If you want to make it happen, she's giving you the recipe. And it's Martin Luther King's recipe. Unfortunately, most of our society is siding with Malcolm X. Most of us want the anger and hate and rage. We all want it to stop, but we're all being led to believe that nothing will ever change with the other side," Glenn said. "That's a lie, and she's proof positive of that lie."

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: I want to get to the media bias and American kids. Can they spot fake news stories? Can they spot bias? We'll give that to you here in just a second.

STU: So Megan Phelps-Roper. She was in the Westboro Baptist Church. So Phelps is the name.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Fred Phelps was the head guy.

GLENN: Is she -- is she a child of?

STU: No, I think she's married.

GLENN: Okay. So she was a child of Fred?

STU: Yeah. She grew up in -- or, it might be grandchild of Fred. Fred is -- I could be --

GLENN: Have we lost him?

STU: He's very old. I don't know if we lost him. I don't keep up with every iteration of what goes on in the Westboro Baptist Church. But I do find it a fascinating topic, in that it's -- they're just so crazy. And to see -- if you don't know who they are, they're the people that go and protest military funerals. They say God hates Jews and gays.

GLENN: All kinds of stuff. Really bad.

STU: You know, they're the worst part of every news story, basically.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: They come out -- gosh, this is a tragedy. Now it's worse. They're able to do it every single time.

GLENN: Right. Right. Right.

STU: So she grew up -- and, you know, I know we had someone who left the Westboro Baptist Church a long time ago. And I can't remember if it was her or if it was someone else because a couple people have left. But almost everybody at the Westboro Baptist Church is from the Phelps family. It's like 80 percent Phelps family members.

GLENN: Boy.

STU: So she left the church a while ago. And recently did a TED talk on why she left and how it happened. And it's fascinating because, I mean, there are parts of it that sounds like she's just lifting lines from Glenn Beck about how to deal with the world. Now, you might not want to be associated with someone who is in the Westboro Baptist Church --

GLENN: But she's out of the Westboro Baptist Church.

STU: She's out --

GLENN: She's out and she's talking about why she left. And for everybody who says, "Well, you don't -- the left won't listen." Let's listen to how the woman -- do you think the left is less extreme than the Westboro Baptist Church?

STU: If you could communicate with someone like that and break down those walls, you could do it with anybody.

GLENN: And listen to what she said. How it was done. Listen to this.

MEGAN: In 2009, that zeal brought me to Twitter. Initially, the people I encountered on the platform were just as hostile as I expected. They were the digital version of the screaming hordes I had been seeing at protests since I was a kid. But in the midst of that digital brawl, a strange pattern developed. Someone would arrive at my profile with the usual rage and scorn. I would respond with a custom mix of Bible versus, pop culture references, and smiley faces. They would be understandably confused and caught off guard. But then a conversation would ensue. And it was civil. Full of genuine curiosity on both sides.

How had the other come to such outrageous conclusions about the world?

Sometimes the conversation even bled into real life. People I had sparred with on Twitter would come out to the picket line to see me when I protested in their city.

A man named David was one such person. He ran a blog called Jewlicious. And after several months of heated, but friendly arguments online, he came out to see me at a picket in New Orleans. He brought me a Middle Eastern dessert from Jerusalem, where he lives. And I brought him kosher chocolate and held a "God hates Jews" sign. There was no confusion about our positions, but the line between friend and foe was becoming blurred. And it changed the way we spoke to one another. It took time, but eventually these conversations planted seeds of doubt in me.

GLENN: Now, imagine how many Jewish friends this guy had who said, what, are you selling out? Don't you know she's using you? Don't you know, you're being pulled in? You're a sellout. You've got to stand against.

How many people she had in her life saying the same thing. But they both were being civil to each other. And -- and probably everyone in their life said, "It's not going to change anything." And look what happened. Do you have another cut from her?

PAT: Yeah.

STU: If you can win over the Westboro Baptist Church -- and she went on later. Something you said a million times. She said, the conversations always started, and neither of us changed our positions.

GLENN: Yep.

STU: Neither of us changed our principles. It wasn't -- it was just listening. You don't have to change your ideas. It was listening and communicating like your -- your friend.

GLENN: And then start talking about families and things you have in common.

STU: Yeah. And it helped, I mean, win over a Westboro Baptist Church member. And to the extent of how crazy that would be -- because you think of these people, I mean, they're obviously crazy.

GLENN: I mean, God hates Jews. God hates gays. I mean, you can't think of people who are more off their rocker than this --

PAT: She goes into that.

STU: Yeah. And to talk about how indoctrinated she was. She talks at the very beginning of this that the first protest she went to, she was five years old, protesting gays somewhere. Holding a sign she couldn't even read.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: That's how deeply she was in this. And she goes through this entire process. And through Twitter -- we think of all these good people being turned bad through Twitter. Here's someone who went through Twitter and turned her life from pure evil to something else.

MEGAN: My friends on Twitter took the time to understand Westboro's doctrines. And in doing so, they were able to find inconsistencies I had missed my entire life. Why did we advocate the death penalty for gays when Jesus said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone? How could we claim to love our neighbor, while at the same time praying for God to destroy them?

The truth is that the care shown to me by these strangers on the internet was itself a contradiction. It was growing evidence that people on the other side were not the demons I had been led to believe.

These realizations were life-altering. Once I saw that we were not the ultimate arbiters of devine truth, but flawed human beings, I couldn't pretend otherwise. I couldn't justify our actions, especially our cruel practice of protesting funerals and celebrating human tragedy.

GLENN: Okay. Stop here for a second. Let's just put this together. Both sides have this problem. Both sides in one way or another is the Westboro Baptist Church. Both left and right. We have extremists on both sides.

But let's just think of -- for this audience, let's just think of the right -- or, the left thinks they're the arbiter of everything that is true. They're the -- we're not science deniers. We're not that way. You're the science denier.

Well, you aren't educated. We are educated. We have all the universities. They believe that everything intellectually is on their side. Right? So they're morally superior. They don't see the -- the disconnect between saying, let's march for women and yesterday, while this was going on, they were advocating -- the left was advocating and going against the CDC, saying, women are protesting the CDC because you men can't tell us not to drink during our pregnancy.

Well, I agree that we can't tell you what to do. That's your decision. But that doesn't seem like something you later in life will be proud of standing and marching for.

It doesn't seem logical, to me, that when all is said and done, you'll be proud that you marched for abortion for the killing of children. That at some point in your life, you, or most, I believe, will come to the determination that, you know, that is a child. Because there's no way. Because of science. It's going to force you. I'm not the science denier. You're the one that says, I don't want a scan. I don't want an ultrasound to happen. And give the women a chance to say, oh, my gosh, it is a child. If they have that scan and they say, I don't care. Well, that's a different subject.

But you have to admit that that is a child; otherwise, why would you say no to ultrasounds?

Which one of us is in this bubble? Now, I'm only using this side because both sides are in a bubble. But anybody who says that they cannot reach the left, you're -- listen to what she just said. It was by kindness on the internet, first. Kindness of not slamming back.

Because the left does see the right as a monster, just like many on the right see the left as a monster. They're not.

We're not. We disagree on things. And we ratchet it up because we're screaming at each other. But if we'll just start talking -- and better yet, listening. Listening first. To one another. You will find what I have found, wow, we have a ton in common.

Now, it's not going to change everything overnight. People say to me all the time, yeah, well, who have you changed? Well, nobody. But I will tell you, look how many people from the left have been on this show. Just two days ago, we had somebody on the left who said, you know what, I changed my mind. I'm actually not on the left. I'm on the right. And I was die-hard on the left. And now I've changed. So while I haven't personally done it, I think it is happening.

And if you want to make it happen, she's giving you the recipe. And it's Martin Luther King's recipe. And unfortunately most of our society is siding with Malcolm X. Most of us want the anger and hate and rage. We all want it to stop. But we're all being led to be convince that had nothing will ever change with the other side.

And so it's of no use. That's a lie. And she's proof positive of that lie. At least I think so.

STU: At the most extreme level. If this isn't a proof of concept, I don't know what is.

[break]

GLENN: Craziest elections, our series continues in just a few minutes. Also, we want to talk to you a little bit about Obamacare. And Stu wants to give us the four steps that this woman from the Westboro Baptist Church said got me out of the church.

STU: Yeah, she identified these. Which I thought were interesting. One, don't assume bad intent. And that's something I like to use on social networks. Because it makes your -- it just makes your life better. You know, if you're constantly getting in fights with people, it's just annoying. And I've -- because people will insult you. Like I insult Jeffy all the time, and he knows it comes from a good place.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: But that's how I look at everybody who calls me Hitler on the internet.

PAT: They mean it in a nice way?

STU: They mean it in a joking way. And I just treat it that way. And I don't care. It makes me feel better.

GLENN: You know what, a lot of times I'll see people online. They'll say something like, you know, you're so mean to Glenn. And blah, blah. You know, the one defender. Blah, blah, blah. And they'll be like, no, I'm a big fan of the show. I was joking.

STU: Right.

GLENN: And so if you don't assume bad intent, it saves you a lot of angst.

STU: Yeah. And it also means you never get pissed off at the internet.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: So many people get obsessed in these little battles. They never bother me. I never care what you say about me. If you go with that principle, just don't assume it's bad. All these interactions wind up being better. And many times, by the way, you turn people around. There's people who are fans of the show that didn't like some things we said. They came out, they call us all sorts of names. If you respond nicely, typically they'll just turn around --

PAT: Yeah. I'm having a hard time finding the rainbow in all of that, during the election. When they were saying things like eat crap and die, I didn't think that was necessarily good-natured.

GLENN: But I will tell you -- I gave up. It was overwhelming at the time. But I will tell you, a lot of people will say, you know what, you're right. I'm sorry. I flew off the handle. I don't agree with you. But I appreciate it.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Step two. Ask questions. So that's a great thing to do.

PAT: Even the very existence of God. For if there be a God, he must surely rather --

GLENN: Shut up.

STU: But I mean, asking questions is important. And honest ones. Right? It's not just like trying to come up with a point and just saying what you believe and pushing other people. And then asking questions that aren't honest.

GLENN: Don't ask a question that you know the answer too.

PAT: Just trying to set people up.

GLENN: And you're just trying to trap people into it.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: This one is very difficult for a lot of people. But if you do the other two, you can do this one, which is stay calm.

You know, the person who you're going up against in an argument, especially from the other side are going to say terrible things about it, why let it bother you? That's you. That's not them. That's you letting it bother you. You're making the choice to allow it to bother you. If you stay calm and don't let it bother you, you're able to kind of reason your way through the argument.

PAT: How amazing is it that this is coming from a Phelps -- the granddaughter of Fred Phelps, the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church. This is astounding.

STU: Yeah, because it worked on her to get her out.

PAT: That is really amazing. She and her sister both got out.

STU: Yeah. It might have been her sister --

PAT: It might have been her sister Grace we talked to. I think so.

STU: We should see if she'll come on too. Because it's great.

And the last one is make the argument. Which that one didn't strike me as obvious when I was listening to that list. But if you're in a battle with someone on the left or you're in a battle with someone who is nuts and you're trying to actually persuade them, a lot of times I think because we believe, for example, low taxes are the right thing to do or abortion is wrong or whatever the belief is, it's so apparent to us, we treat it as if it's doctrine to everybody. And we don't bother to walk people through the step by step argument of how you actually get there. So many people have -- they start at their arrival point. I'm young. I'm in college. I'm a liberal. I'm a leftist, I love abortion.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: And the process very well may not have ever happened, where they made that decision organically. Where they walked through the steps in their head.

GLENN: You know, I got to get to the survey. The survey shows that most people -- and this includes teens -- and I will narrow it down to teens. But most people get their money from a friend, or I blog. A commentator of some sort. They haven't done the thinking. They get the opinion from someone else who may or may not have done all of the thinking themselves.

STU: Take the time to actually make the argument when you're talking to someone. Calmly. Don't assume their bad intent. You follow those few steps -- you're not going to win everybody over, nor should you care --

GLENN: Isn't it interesting, you're on the bandwagon.

PAT: I've been on the band freaking wagon. I brought these clips to the show.

GLENN: Listen to him now.

STU: Stay calm! That's all I'm saying. Stay calm!

GLENN: I'm assuming bad intent.

RADIO

Democrats Support DANGEROUS Plan to JAIL Elon Musk?!

A new poll found that 71% of Democrats now want to put Elon Musk in jail for what he’s done with President Trump. But if that’s not insane enough – that they want to IMPRISON the guy who’s done the most for their climate crusade in modern history – the 71% is actually in favor of designing a NEW law to jail Musk. "How far are you going to fall, Democrats, before you realize, 'I might be on the wrong side?'" Glenn says. Not even AI can justify this, Glenn and Stu find out!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. 71 percent of Democrats now say that this person should go to prison. Who is that person besides Donald Trump?

STU: I was going to say, only 70 percent. It can't be Trump.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Who? Who? Who?

STU: I believe I know the answer to this. Elon Musk.

GLENN: Yeah, who is it? Elon Musk.

Elon freaking Musk! They now want to put Elon Musk in prison!

STU: The guy that saved the climate.

GLENN: Saved the climate.

Single-handedly saved it more for climate, than anybody else on the planet. Yes. Dare I say, even more than Al Gore.

STU: Wow, the guy who invented the internet.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. He did.

STU: I will say, if you're looking at this honestly, with the left-wing calculus.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

STU: Right? It is impossible to disagree with that.

That he's done more than anybody else. He basically took electric cars from nothing. No one wanted them. No one had them. And built the world's largest car company out of it.

Not to mention what he's done with SpaceX, which also has a massive climate motivation.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Not to mention, what he did -- what was it? SolarCity. The solar company.

That, you know, solar roofs. And solar panels.

How many conservatives do we know, that either owned Tesla. Or have solar on their house now. Or both!

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And not because of the conservative turn necessarily, to -- to --

GLENN: Because --

STU: Which is part of it, lately.

But because he was the first person to actually work.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

Now, just so you know, so you don't get down in the mouth. When I say, they want to put him in prison. You might say, what's the logical question here. 71 percent of Democrats want to put him in prison.

The logical question is.

STU: Why would he do it, it's a crime.

GLENN: Yeah. It's actually 71 percent of Democrats now want to pass a law, that puts him into prison!

STU: Oh.

GLENN: Yeah. So just when you thought it was bad.

No. It's much worse.

STU: Much, much worse. They want to retroactively -- not for a -- they can make him commit essentially.

GLENN: They are for an unidentified, nondescript law, that would put him in prison.

Wow! How far are you going to fall, Democrats, before you realize, I might be on the wrong side.

You now are for passing of -- coming up with a law, where the objective is, put that guy in jail!

I think there's no way to defend that.

I mean, I'm just working on it.

Just off the top of my head here.

I don't think I could find a way to defend -- would you ask Grok or ChatGPT. How could I defend creating a law, when -- whose objective is, only to put Elon Musk in jail?

How would I defend it.

STU: Well, I would have to ask Grok that question. Give me a defense of a lay that --

GLENN: No. Of writing a law, whose only objective is to put Elon Musk in jail. That's -- let's see what Grok has to say.

Because I don't even think Grok could come up with it.

Hopefully, the answer is: I can't justify that.

STU: I will get no. My Twitter account will get no reach after I type this sentence.

GLENN: No. Watch. I bet you, it will come up with something.

It doesn't. It plays fair with Elon Musk.

It won't defend him.

STU: No. I know.

I'm just saying, some part of this algorithm will pick up.

I'm trying to put Elon Musk in jail.

We will get re-tweets for a month.

The sole objective of jailing Elon Musk is a tough sell.
(laughter)
But let's give it a shot by framing it in a way that might appeal to reason, while acknowledging the obvious pitfalls.

The argument hinges on principles of accountability, deterrence, and symbolic justice. So it's riddled with issues that might make it more of a thought experiment, than a practical proposal.

First, such a law could be pitched as a response to concentrated power.

Musk's influence through wealth and control of companies, like Tesla, SpaceX.

GLENN: That's how they would have to do it. You would have to go, well, no. It's about concentrated power. That was not the question in the poll.

That's not the question in the poll. Question in the poll is, would you support the designing of a law to put Elon Musk in jail?

STU: That is -- again, this is why we harp on principles and foundations so much. Because no matter what the name is, in that sentence, the answer is always no! Like the principle of the moment. You would have to know that at the beginning. Right?

When you hear a sentence like that, you should reflexively say, absolutely not!

Regardless of who the person is. What winds up happening with a lot of people on the left. And I think it's a problem on the right to a lesser extent. Is, do I like the name that was mentioned?

Do I think bad things should happen to the person mentioned in the sentence? Like if we were to flip that around. Do you support a law that would throw, you know, George Soros in prison?

I do not -- I do not support a law that was created with the sole design of putting George Soros in prison.

If George Soros broke a law, he should go to prison. But I do not support a law created to put him in prison, even if I don't really like him.

Now, you can get to LeBron James territory. I might go along with you.

GLENN: Wait. But even with Soros, I would support a law that would say, you cannot do these things.

STU: In the future.

GLENN: Yeah. And that means, he has to stop doing those things.

STU: Right. But he does not get in trouble.

However, it's a principle of our country. You do not get in trouble for things that happen beforehand. Right?

You can't retroactively prosecute someone for a law that was passed afterward.

That is, I think a fundamental principle of our country.

And, of course, it should be applied equally to everyone. It shouldn't just be to one person, because of his name.

GLENN: Okay. What did Grok say? Because I just asked ChatGPT. I think ChatGPT's answer might be better than Grok.

Grok is Elon Musk's own company. So what did it say at the beginning?

What was the opening?

STU: It said, defending the law with the sole objective of jailing Elon Musk is a tough sell.

But let's give it a shot by framing it in a way that may appeal to reason, while ignoring the obvious pitfalls.

Listen to this. This is from ChatGPT.

Legally and morally, it's extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible to justify writing a law whose sole and explicit purpose is to imprison one individual, such as Elon Musk, without violating core principles of justice, equality under law, and Constitutional protections.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: However, if the question is to attempt an argument, in favor of such a law, as a rhetorical or theoretical exercise, here is the best possible version of that case, though it is inherently flawed and dangerous!

STU: Right. And that's --

GLENN: Listen to that.

STU: Good. Good. That's a good --

GLENN: I couldn't know -- you know why AI is giving that answer? Because unlike you, so far, unlike anybody of the 71 percent of Democrats who are like, yeah.

I would be for that. It's still using critical thinking. It's still saying, wait a minute.
I have to check. I have to check this against a couple of other things. I have to ask a couple of questions. Is that right to do?

Is that Constitutional to do? Does that support liberty and justice and equality?

Under the law, or is this just a totalitarian state? If you don't ask those critical thinking questions, you're like, yeah, I don't like Elon Musk. Go to prison! You know, get the guillotine out. I want blood. That would be great.

STU: And, by the way, I will say, what you just heard us do, is literally happening inside the halls of Washington right now.

One of the things that's interesting about these programs. Which are re-- very good. At what they do.

Is there used to be a line, where a politician came up with a crazy idea.

Right?

And they would -- they would pop it up there. They would go to their attorneys. Could we do this?

And the attorneys would typically say, no. Of course not. You can't do that.

What's happening now is everybody has kind of an attorney in a box.

And they're going to it. And they're saying, hey. Give me the best case possible for this policy.

Which we all know is insane.

And it is providing that best case.

It's not --

GLENN: But listen to the best case.

STU: But they toss out all of the stuff you read already. Right?

And then they bring that to the American people, and try to get it to catch on.

You've heard examples of it.

One example I'll give you of this. Is the one that Joe Biden did right at the end of his presidency. When he just declared the Equal Rights Amendment passed.

I -- this is what they do. They go in there, and they get some justification, that's not the justification. Not the truth.

It's a possible argument, that could theoretically, maybe be the truth.

Maybe. And then they just go to the public with it. And try to enforce it.

Now, it didn't work.

Everybody just ignored Joe Biden because of how he was asleep when he said it.

But it is a concern now.

GLENN: Okay. Listen to how he says.

This is how you do it.

If I want to justify it. Justify a law that puts Elon Musk in -- it says, in this hypothetical, Elon Musk by virtue of his control over critical infrastructure, Starlink.

Platforms for public discourse. Discourse.

Like Twitter. Or X.

Massive transportation. And defense contracts.

Tesla, space, and global influence.

Could be seen as a private actor with state-like power.

Okay.

You're like, yeah!

All right. Then what about everyone else, like I don't know.

George Soros.

What about Jeff Bezos?

What about anybody on your side?

What about anybody?

Once you cross this Rubicon, you don't go back.

But, anyway, let me -- could be seen as an actor with state-like power.

But without state-level checks.

If he repeatedly evades regulatory oversight. Or is found manipulating markets. Weaponizing satellites in geopolitical conflicts.

Or undermining US sovereignty through opaque foreign deals.

Congress might argue, that national interest justifies emergency action.

From that vantage point, a law targeting Musk might be framed, not as a personal vendetta, but as a necessary surgical-like strike to prevent a modern-day oligarch from becoming untouchable, a figure above the law, immune to consequences.

So you would have to have all of those other things happening. And then maybe you could make the case.

But what is the moral detriment?

Then you just have opened the door for everybody going to jail?

And you have no -- you have no meaning behind life.

You could write a law to make anybody go to jail.

And that -- that is the thing.

Isn't that the thing, that everybody is saying, that they're trying to avoid?

I know I'm trying to avoid that from the right and the left.

I don't want laws to be personal.

I want to be a nation of laws. Not a nation of men.

And men. What do men do?

Well, when you're a nation not of laws. And you're a nation of men, men can say, that person needs to go to prison.

Because I don't like that person.

Which?

That's what a nation of men do. A nation of laws is what George Washington said we now have.

We have a nation of laws. And not a nation of men.

A nation of laws don't allow you to single one individual out.

It means, you have to look to the law.

Are they violating something?

What are they doing that is violating the law?

And if they're not violating the lay.

You just don't like it.

Well, then there's nothing you can do about it.

Unless you want to start compromising your own values.

Remember, gang, this cuts both ways.

This is why everybody is like, well, look at.

Donald Trump. You can't put Joe Biden in jail.

Yes, you can.

But you wouldn't put Joe Biden in jail, because he's Joe Biden.

You put Joe Biden and his family in jail, because they're criminals.

Now, I'm not saying they are. I'm saying, there should have been an investigation.

Like there would have been on Donald Trump.

There should have been an investigation.

And if he broke the law, then he and his family should go to jail.

But not if he didn't break the law.

You don't just make things up. Letitia James.

I mean, this is -- this is what the left -- this is what our friends who are Democrats need to understand.

When you have 71 percent say, we should write a law that can put him in prison.

You should understand, there is an almost 100 percent chance you have become the fascist.

You cannot do that. In a free country.

RADIO

Biden’s Reckless Biolabs Nearly Sparked Pandemic 2.0

Under the Biden administration, a lax safety environment at the most dangerous biolabs in America could have caused a second pandemic, Trump NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya tells Glenn. He points to Fort Detrick's Integrated Research Facility, where an employee allegedly recently cut a hole in a coworker’s hazmat suit with the goal of causing sickness. “This goes back to the Biden administration,” he says about the only story that has “scared” him since starting his job. Dr. Bhattacharya explains how the Trump administration plans to increase security in our labs. Plus, he gives his take on the President’s executive order to make pharmaceuticals cheaper for Americans and his previous EO to pause gain-of-function research.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

So I am thrilled to have Dr. Jay Bhattacharya on. He's from the National Institutes of Health.

I want to talk to him about being science back into the NIH.

There was a lab leak. And I want to get to that here in a second.

But I have to touch on the news of the take. And it's not really his area of expertise.

But the president just signed an executive order to lower drug costs.

Doctor, welcome to the program. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. Any comment on that, as we get started here?

JAY: Sure. It's something I studied in a past life when I was a professor. The difference in product prices between the United States and Europe is sharp and alarming.

And it has been persisting for decades.

Sometime between two and five times. Sometimes as high as 10 times, of the same drug as Europeans do.

And, you know, as a professor who has a -- you know, has a deal in economics, I'll tell you. When you see a persistent price differences like that. That indicates a very unhealthy market.

And this particular state, what it means is that, Americans. American consumers, essentially are being taken advantage of.

American patients are paying, you know, through the nose, for drugs that are -- that Europeans paid much less for.

And the reason is, that the European countries will tell drug companies, if you don't lower the drug prices to a very low level, you know, just above -- then we're not going to cover you at all.

And the -- what the drug companies, told Americans, if we don't pay higher drug prices, there won't be any RD on drugs. What the president and the executive order does is it tell Europeans, look, this is not fair to Americans. This is actually lowering the investment, that we could possibly be making on R&D for drugs.

And so they should be paying prices that are equal to the level Americans pay. And the Americans pay much lower prices than we do -- much closer -- it's a huge move forward.

And now, we'll have to see, what Europeans do. Ask what drug companies do in response. Does to me, I've been hearing about this problem for decades.

It's the first time a president has really taken a big step to really try to address it.

GLENN: As someone who is in research for a very long time.

Let me -- doesn't the promise of AI, AGI, ASI. Lessen this whole thing of we need gobs of money to be able to do R&D. Because that should, you know, in maybe five years from now, begin to do -- to cut those costs dramatically.

To take that chair away from the table. Or put that chair back into the table, if you will.

JAY: Yeah. No. That's quite -- just to give one example.

There's this technology called Alpha Fold. That allows scientists to much more easily understand how proteins will fold on each other.

And how -- and as a result, hopefully, anyway, dramatically reduce drug development expenditures.

Drug development is -- you still have to run randomized, large-scale clinical trials, and those will be expensive.

But the initial perception of drug development with AI. And as well as the clinical trials will be much more efficiently run over time.

The idea that you need to have trillions of dollars, you know. Tens of billions of dollars, to develop a single drug.

We hope, it will become a thing of the past.

In any case, there's no reason why the Americans should shoulder the burden of the whole rest of the world. The developed world should be bearing this burden together.

GLENN: Let me switch.

You know, I recently reached out to you, because I wanted to talk to you about the HHS halting work at high risk infectious disease labs around the world.

And I -- I can't believe this is true. But you tell me.

So there was an incident that -- at a -- at a bio lab. That apparently, what happened is. There was a -- I don't know.

A personal squabble between people.

And a contractor, actually punched a hole in the other person's biolab suit.

I don't know. To get them sick.

Or whatever.

But it was -- I mean, is that what happened, at that bio lab?

I think it was at Ft. Diedrick.

JAY: That's exactly what happened.
I haven't been scared about anything, except for that one thing.

So I learned about this, about three weeks into the job.

I've been in the job, since the beginning of April.

It turns out, that there had been an incident a few weeks before.

In fact, right before I signed -- I like joined the NIH director.

A lab had much run -- part of the lab is run by the National Institute of Health.

And it's a -- which is the highest biosecurity lab.

GLENN: Right.

JAY: I mean, the lab, the experiments done there, are on some really nasty bugs.

You know, Ebola. A whole bunch of viruses and pathogens.

If it gets out in the population or if it injects lab workers, it's for -- it's quite deadly.

GLENN: Right.

JAY: And what I've learned was that there's been incidents, just a couple of weeks before I joined as director of the NIH. Where a lab worker has cut a hole in the -- in a bio containment suit of a fellow worker with the express intention of getting that worker infected.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

JAY: If that is -- and apparently, it was over some lover's spat. And I'm not sure exactly the details.

There's an ongoing investigation of that.

What I learned was that -- that the -- not just the incident that happened.

Which actually has a threat not just to the worker.

GLENN: The world.

JAY: If these gets out.

I was actually -- I mean, I was absolutely livid.

And so what I do, is I order the lab -- an operational shutdown. Secured all of the vials of the nasty bugs, in a safe environment. Made sure the animals were cared for, that they're in the lab.

And we're going to -- we're not going to open that up, until the safety of the lab is absolutely solid.

The contractor that was overseeing this. I think did a very last week job. What I learned, this goes back to the Biden administration.

That the safety environment in the lab, essentially, downplayed these kinds of security problems.

If you're going to run experiments on these bugs.

And personally, I'm not sold that all of these are worth doing.

But in any case, if you're going to run. Have an absolute responsibility to have zero to do for safety problems.

GLENN: Right.

JAY: The issue here, is not just a one-off thing.

It's something problematic in the safety culture of this lab. Where I don't -- I cannot guarantee that if we reopen the lab right now. It would be a safe environment.

While we reopen the lab. I'm sure that's the case.

GLENN: Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Shouldn't that person be punished.

That really is attempted murder. And maybe on a mass scale.

JAY: I mean, there's an ongoing investigation.

I shouldn't say more about this.

It's one of those things.

I was actually actively scared when I first heard --

GLENN: Yeah. Americans are actively scared. Because none of this stuff should be happening.

We are just. We're just an accident or a stupid move. Or an intentional leak away from mass death.

And, you know, you keep hearing people like Bill Gates saying, we're on the verge of another pandemic.

Why?

Why?

I mean, why are we on the verge of another pandemic?

Do you think we are?

JAY: I mean, you know, pandemics happen. They happen all throughout history.

The key thing to me, though, Glenn. We don't want to cause one.

GLENN: Right.

JAY: That increases the risk of them.

This past pandemic. Is that it was very likely caused by actions aimed at stopping pandemics from happening.

GLENN: Yeah.

JAY: Almost this hubris.

It was hubris.

This idea that we could somehow, if we go into the case of China and all the wild places.

Bring all those viruses we find there.

It happens that we find there. Into the lab.

Catalog them.

We can somehow prevent all pandemics from happening.

Making them more dangerous to humans.

We can somehow as a result of that exercise, make it less likely to have pandemics happen.

Of course, what we found out, the opposite is true.

You can't do this work entirely safely.

And actually, even if you fully accomplish what is the same of that sort of research program.

Which is to go out, and find the pathogen.

You wouldn't protect anybody against the pathogen. Because what would happen is, when and if the outbreak happens, whatever countermeasures you denied for them would already be out of date.

Because the illusionary biology of these viruses is you take very rapidly.

And so when they come out of the population, the countermeasures you prepared for, which you never attempted in any humans, very likely would not work.

GLENN: Have we stopped all of the gain of function stuff now? Are you convinced it's done?

JAY: Yeah. So last week, President Trump signed in an absolutely historic executive order. Which puts a pause. A full pause on all of gain of function work throughout the government.

And we -- we implemented a pause at the NIH.

And I'm sure the government has done the same.

Over the next 90 days, we will develop the framework.

Here's how the framework will work.

You have to be a little careful here. Gain of function can mean many things.

For instance, insulin is produced via the gain of function exercise. There's no risk of a pandemic being codified, but you take a bacteria and E. coli.

You change, so they can produce insulin. That's how you produce human insulin.

That's a completely safe thing to do. On the other hand, you take a virus like a bat virus, and then the -- that has these sort of coronavirus-like properties.

Add a (inaudible) and manipulate it so they can infect human cells more easily.

Well, now you have the potential to cause a pandemic. If you're going to do an experiment like that, you the scientist alone. Or scientist alone, should not get to decide whether the risk is worth taking. The public should have a say.

The public should be able to say, no, that's -- no matter what knowledge you're going to gain from that. It's not worth the risk of causing a worldwide pandemic, that will kill 20 million people and cost $25 trillion or something.

And that's exactly what they want to do. They say, if you assign -- if I assign this to a project, the public will have a veto over that.

They know you're not allowed to do it.

Because most science won't be affected by this.

Most science has no chance of causing a pandemic. Any time that it does, it will be the subject of this very, very strict regulatory framework.

GLENN: We're on with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who is a hero in my book, now the director of the National Institutes of Health.

Is an apology good enough for the National Institute of Health? I mean, should anybody go to jail for what has happened?

And what is it like to walk into that building? When you're enemy number one, to many in that building. You know, during the time pandemic.

JAY: You know, it's been interesting. It's certainly a big turn of faith.

Where I -- a devastating takedowns. And called all kinds of names. By folks, who are in this building, where I now lead.

At the same time, I found many, many excellent scientists. Many people devoted to -- to advancing human knowledge.

For benefiting. For the benefit of all people.

I mean, most scientists are like that. They're not trying to create havoc.

And so I've been trying to find out.

And I found out a lot -- you asked, what should happen, with regard to policy.

To me, apology is -- I mean, I -- I think the key thing. Personally, I'm very happy to apologize, on behalf of American public health. To the American people, to the failure during COVID. The key thing going forward is reform.

How do we change the institutions? So that it's focused on the health needs of the American people.

Rather than these utopian schemes to end all pandemics. Adding no heat whatsoever to the risk that they take.

Science is very, very powerful.

Kind of an idea and institution. But it needs to be focused on real, human needs.

Real -- particularly, for the NIH. Real human health needs.

And there have to be guardrails so that scientists understand, they operate in the context of public support. We -- we function on taxpayer money. We have to answer to the taxpayers.

So that's been the challenge.

Keep the light of science alive.

While still reminding scientists that we are not acting just as -- as if we were like independent actors like God. We are actually beholden to the American people.

GLENN: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. I unfortunately, have to take a network break.

I would love to have you back for a longer podcast.

Thank you. Thank you. For everything you did during the COVID nightmare.

And thank you for standing up so strongly now.

And congratulations on being our director of the NIH.

JAY: Thank you, Glenn. So good to talk.

GLENN: God bless you. Buh-bye.

RADIO

White House Official Addresses Criticism of Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill"

President Trump has promised to team up with Congressional Republicans to pass a “big, beautiful bill” chock full of campaign promises, like “no tax on tips,” “no tax on overtime,” and major spending cuts. But as the bill’s progress drags on, are the Republicans to blame, is Trump starting to compromise too much, and will he allow Democrats to increase taxes for the rich? Trump’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, joins Glenn to address the criticism. He discusses what Trump’s real strategy is, whether the bill will restore government spending to 2019 levels, how DOGE has been helping, whether the bureaucracy will actually shrink, and whether Congress will codify any of Trump’s policy changes.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Russell Vought. Office of Management and Budget. He is the director.

And one of my personal heroes. And I think yours too, Stu. Welcome to the program, Russell.

RUSSELL: Thanks, Glenn. Appreciate you having me on.

GLENN: You bet. All right. So I want to talk about the Republicans. Because I believe they're kind of a waste of space.

They are not doing the things that I think the president promised. And that is, cut the budget.

And cut regulation, in dramatic ways.

And President Trump has been playing very, very nice with them.

Trying to get them to do what I think is something. By passing the big, beautiful bill.

Can you tell me where we stand on this. And what's in it.

RUSSELL: We're working through. Right now, the House has a -- they're trying to meet their instructions.

They basically passed the budget that would have 100 -- or 1.5 trillion in savings.

And about four and a half trillion in tax relief.

And they are working through to get a bill that can pass.

And we're right there with them, trying to get it done.

And I think it would be a big savings. We could go north of that.

And I think that's -- that is the goal, to try to figure out, how to make this a historic opportunity, to both extend the tax cuts.

Do the tax cuts, the president wanted to do on the campaign. No tax on over time.

Some other things. No tax on Social Security benefits.

And then to really make sure that, you know, this is an opportunity to have some of the -- the highest reforms to mandatory spending since the 1990s. And there's a lot we can do in this area.

And I think that the House right now, is trying to put these bills together.

You know, we spend so much time debating whether you have a couple of bills. Or one bill.

We lost some time in that.

And we were trying to catch up.

And I think they're hard at work. And we have to be right by them, to help get them done.

GLENN: So when are we expecting to get this voted on, and possibly go through.

RUSSELL: My hope is that they pass it out of committee, the two big committees that we've seen. Energy and commerce. And then go to budget. And set up a vote thereafter on the House floor. That's our hope. That's what we're working toward.

I don't think they've noticed yet, the committees. But that's what we're working --

GLENN: So, Russ, can you do me a favor?

I mean, I'm sure you've done this to Congress. But I don't know the American people really understand how dire this situation is.

I mean, I've got a letter from a family member who I just love dearly. A couple weeks ago.

And he said, Glenn. What the president is doing. I said, well, what the president is doing, is trying to save the country from The Great Reset.

Because a reset is coming!

And you want it to be towards shareholder capitalism. Not stakeholder capitalism.

But with our debt the way it is, the interest rates, that we're now paying. Bigger than the defense budget.

No country has ever survived this.

Can you give us some idea on -- on how serious -- I mean, Congress needs to move a little quicker.

RUSSELL: Look. We have $36 trillion in debt.

When I left office the first time.

Under President Trump. We had about $300 trillion per year in interest costs.

Now it's above the defense spending. At $900 billion.

GLENN: 1.1.

RUSSELL: 1.1. So we've got this enormous interest cost, as a result. And it's one of the reasons why, we've incurred it from the administration on balance.

On taking dramatic actions through DOGE. Our budget that you referenced in the lead-up. The lowest non-defense spending, since 2000 adjusted for inflation.

And so -- and I think what we've been trying to do to deal with kind of the paralysis on Capitol Hill, is to change the reality on the ground.

I mean, I think that's what DOGE has done, in a fundamental way. And we will try to make those savings permanent in a couple of different ways.

But it's to force Congress.

If they want to be a part of the process, you know, come alongside of us.

But we will move inasmuch as we can. Within the parameters of the law, and the Constitution. And we will move as fast, and aggressively as possible. To change the reality on the ground. With reductions in force.

With reorganizations.

With doing a dramatic review of spending, that doesn't have to go out.

There's a whole thing.

Set of tools in our box.

That we will use aggressively. To get Congress moving in our direction.

Because we can't -- we cannot be in the normal situation, as an administration, where we just kind of send bills up. And wait on them.

GLENN: Right.

RUSSELL: We have one big bill that needs to occur.

We've tried to put everything, as we possibly can. On that.

Because it has procedural protection in the Senate.

But -- and even in that. It was part of our thinking, was to make sure we limit the number of things that we have to go to Congress for.

GLENN: The -- the taxes.

I mean, I was hoping that we were going to get new tax cuts.

And not just the -- not just the renewal of the Trump tax cut.

But I was hoping Congress would get serious.

And we would get even deeper than that.

And now, the White House, last night. The president last night tweeted.

You know, I know that Congress, you know, they're going to be wishy-washy on -- you know, they will get blamed, if they raise any taxes on the very rich.

But I will go along with it.

If they want to do that.

That's a little scary. We should be going the other way. Shouldn't we?

RUSSELL: Well, I think the president ran a set of tax proposals. That he was very excited about.

Committed out.

Designed toward the working class.

That we, from an economic standpoint. Also believe are really critical to getting more and more of -- of labor force participation at it, of this part of the economy.

And we think it would be a huge boon to the -- the impetus on the economy, the growth.

And so, we are living in a world where, you know, we don't -- we don't have the ability to have unlimited tax cuts.

GLENN: Right. But is it --

RUSSELL: You're seeing a lot of different navigation on that.

GLENN: But is it possible to go back to the 2019 budget. I mean, why can't we just reset and say, we're going back to that budget.

It was fine then. It will be fine now.

RUSSELL: We're trying to do that with the budget that you saw, that we sent out.

That is essentially what that budget represents. It's an effort to go back, non-adjusted for inflation.

It goes back to 2017. It's the 35 percent cut for most programs, when we account for maintaining infrastructure and veteran spending.

But that's what we're trying to do.
Do the entitlements, the mandatory spending, the interest. Do those have an impact on our ability to go back overnight to 2019?

Yes, they do.

And so that's really what we're trying to say.

And I do think that there's a newfound desire to cut spending, even in the context of the tacks cuts on the Hill.

You have a ton of members that are really trying to make sure, this is either deficit neutral.

Or you have -- this is a moment, that can be used for significant mandatory reform.

GLENN: So to get there. Are tax hikes on the rich part of that plan?

RUSSELL: Well, listen, the President put out a truce this morning. He said, look.

I think he said, a couple different minds. He has always been very focused on the things that he ran on.

This was not something that he ran on.

The -- the no tax on overtime.

GLENN: Right. Right.

No tax on tips. Yeah.

RUSSELL: No tax on tips. All that kind of thing.

That's really what we've been trying to fit in. To the amount that Congress is ready to reduce.

At the same time, we have to spend the tax cuts from his first term.

GLENN: I saw in the budget, we are increasing defense and border security.

Is that border.

Is that why this is happening?

RUSSELL: On the border. We want to increase -- and really, buy out all of our increases, over the next three to four years. In one bill.

And we're doing that. This is a paradigm shift. I'm really glad you asked.

We no longer want to be in a situation, where we have to get Democrat votes. Defense increases.

That then, they put us in a situation, where they have to lever up and demand -- not only on our habits. But that we have to increase non-defense spending.

Because we need their votes in the Senate.

Secondly, they flatout oppose any border spending. They put us on the precipice of a shutdown every single time, we want to increase spending for ICE or the wall.

And so our view is to -- to actually look to how they did it. And then the Joe Biden administration.

And put those increases, on the mandatory one big, beautiful reconciliation bill. And then put us in a situation where we have a united Republican Party.

So your defense hawks are not working against us in the appropriations process, to actually get non-defense cuts. That's what we're trying to do.

And then we have DOGE working over time. Pete Hegseth with reforms. Obviously, there's waste there as well.

And at least in this first year. To make sure, we would reinvest there. And let the new leaders there, get a sense of where the reforms need to be.

GLENN: So with all the DOGE stuff. A, this has nothing to do with DOGE, but I was glad to see Kash Patel come out yesterday and say, no, no, no. I will go with the budget.

On the FBI. Because he was saying, no. We can't live on that. We need more. And cut, cut, cut. And I was glad to see, that he kind of changed his position on that yesterday.

But, you know, with DOGE, I'm seeing that Congress is like, well, we're not going to take all of the DOGE recommendations.

Why?

JOHN: Yeah, I mean, that's the question Congress has asked. Number one, send all these rescission bills. Rescission bills. And I'm willing to send rescissions bills.

Our administration is. The Trump administration is. But, man, they have to pass.

And so if they don't pass. It passes our ability to use some of the tools that we would have executively. To spend less of that money.

And so we are working with them.

That's why I haven't formerly sent up the 9th round of rescissions from DOGE.

I am having great conversations, surprisingly with the appropriations committee. Historic in and of itself.

And they are trying to think through. Okay. What's the version that we could do this a little bit different?

But hit the same amount of savings?

That's a healthy back and forth. I think that in and of itself.

This is a little bit different, Glenn.

This is more like the early 1980s. When Reagan first came in, than anything we've seen recently.

Congress is saying, we -- instead of, we will ignore your budget. Saying, we will want to hit your number.

So it's early. I don't know if that will materialize. But I am optimistic about it.

GLENN: How -- how optimistic are you?

Because, you know, I've talked to the president about this. Just a couple of weeks ago.

And I said, we are playing such a dangerous game. Because we have to.

I mean, I think America -- I mean, no country has ever turned around from this point. And we have to.

And it just requires some really big boy pants, to do it.

But I'm -- I'm just so concerned about it.

And I'm -- you know, I'm hoping that we can get the reduction, and the staff.

I know that you're -- you know, you're doing a fantastic job on reducing the number of federal employees. Do you believe we'll be able to get these things, actually codified, so if things don't go well. Or even if they do go well.

But it's not President Trump, the next time. That this remains. This path remains this direction?

RUSSELL: I do. I think if you zoom out for a second, we will come away from this year, in particular. We have to know when to cut spending in like two or three decades.

You know, Paul Ryan kind of put us in this cul-de-sac forever. I think we will come away this year with probably the largest mandatory savings ever, or adjusted for inflation.

Since the 1997 balanced budget. That's going to happen.

I think we will see the appropriations process fixed for the first time, because of our talking about executive tools like rescissions and empowerment.

It's going to cause the appropriations process, a return to separation of powers. That Congress actually listened to our cuts.

GLENN: Wow.

RUSSELL: And we may not get all of them. But we will get some of them. And I think we will see something that is progress on that front.

Third, I think -- I remember coming on this show, in the first term.

And they're just like, the extent to which, the career bureaucracy is just impregnable. Is totally unacceptable. You pushed on this.

And I think, many of us. The president. Elon has spent a ton of time thinking about this.

And I think that will be -- one of the biggest stories, the extent to which, the things that have been done. You know, the fork in the road. Has fundamentally changed the reality on the ground.

And so we have a much smaller. We will have a much smaller bureaucracy, as a result of it.

Notwithstanding the laws that are on the books, that have been here thus far.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I stay away from Washington, DC, you know, as much as I try to stay away from the plague. But next time, I'm up, Russ, I would love to sit down with you, and do a long form interview with you.

You're really one of the good guys. Thank you for everything you're doing.

JOHN: You've got it. Thanks, Glenn.

RADIO

Rogan Debate Bombshell: Murray Calls Out Fake Experts!

After his recent appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience" with comedian Dave Smith, author Douglas Murray was accused of practically saying, “don’t listen to anybody unless they have an Oxford degree.” But Douglas joins Glenn to set the record straight: He claims he never said that. Instead, he says he believes “experts HAVE let us down.” But having actual experience with a topic, like he does with the Israel/Hamas conflict, still makes a difference. Glenn, as a fan of both Murray and Smith, hears this side of the story.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Thank you. So I hate to get into this because it's been talked about for so long.
But I just -- I think I agree with you, Douglas.

And I just want to make sure that we are saying the same thing. Can you lay out the controversy that you've been embroiled in here recently?

DOUGLAS: You mean, I tend to be embroiled in quite a lot of controversies. Which one?

GLENN: The one where you're accused of saying, don't listen to anybody, unless they have an Oxford degree.
(laughter)

DOUGLAS: Which, of course, I never said. I never would say.

GLENN: Yeah, I know.

DOUGLAS: I think this was -- from my recent appearance on Joe Rogan.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

DOUGLAS: The similar thing I said, which has been I think misrepresented by a very large number of people, deliberately. Is that everybody has the right to say anything they like about anything.

But that doesn't mean that all opinion should be regarded as being equal.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

DOUGLAS: And when I was brought on to debate.

And it's not often that Joe Rogan's podcast does that. Normally, he has people give their opinion. But he felt that clearly, the pro-Israel voices like mine, had to be countered.

On air. And when I was talking about my recent book, the best-seller on democracies and death cults. Israel and the future of civilization.

I got into the weeds of what had been happening in the last two years, in the Middle East.

I got into it.

Not just because I had written about it. But I had seen it all up close.

I spent the last couple of years, mainly living it. Being embedded with the Israeli Defense Forces in Gaza and Lebanon, and elsewhere.

I have seen this war up close.

And I was being pitched against. Who was wildly, wildly uninformed.

On issue after issue. On spouting after spouting after spouting.

Turned out to never have been to the region. And I said, this is -- this is like, if we were to discover, the Chinese state media, as somebody on all the time.

Talking about America.

Claiming that America was a racist country.

The claiming black Americans are currently being lynched and sold into slavery.

If we discovered that person was rampaging across the Chinese media.

But he's never been to America.

Didn't speak English.

And obviously, so -- he's so wildly misinformed.

We would regard that person as being almost comical in their ignorance.

Certainly malevolent.

So why should it be, that when there are people at home, here in America. Who are also just not informed.

Just as many British people are not informed.

About big situations in the world that they're talking about. Why should their opinion be regarded as being somehow sacrosanct?

I don't think it is. And yet, I believe in standards. I believe that they have let us down badly. Experts have let us town badly.

But it doesn't mean there's no such thing as expertise. Or comparative expertise. In matters.

And if people don't understand that, and don't understand that, for instance, a journalist who can goes and reports, first hand. May well get things wrong.

But it's better than somebody who has never left their bedroom. And think they know the world.

GLENN: You know, I mean, read a quote. I think it was from Jefferson. And I've adapted it to modern times.

The man who reads nothing at all, is better educated, than the man who reads nothing, but social media.

He said, newspapers.

But I think that's -- I think that's the kind of expert we have now!

That are running around.
And I don't believe in, you have to be credentialed. Or anything like that. I don't think you have to have a formal education. I don't think that hurts.

But I think serious people can do serious study on their own.

Especially in today's world.

And become an expert in a field.

But, you know, you're -- also have to have enough humility to go, you know what, I'm not an expert on this.

I don't know. I've just done a lot of homework.

And I'm open to different opinions. But here's what I found.

DOUGLAS: Absolutely. And there's a lot of good that can come from that. And we've all done that to some extent.

That is, as you say, in particular, is able to push on people.

GLENN: Yeah.

DOUGLAS: Is extraordinary. Not least because of the lack of humility.

One of the things in debate, it was sort of near the comedian, he put me on with.

One of the things that was startling about it, is the sheer lack of humility of the guy I was debating.

I mean, he seems to think that he knew everything about Israel. And the idea.

Despite never having been there or met anyone. Or spoken with anyone on the ground.

Of the idea.

And he seemed to think that in the Israeli Defense Forces, how they should protect their people, from another massacre like October the 7th.

Maybe, the generals in the Israeli Army, and the politicians and others, who have been losing family, for the last 18 months.

Fighting in Gaza. Maybe they do know something more. Than -- than from even social media.

In Austin, Texas.

Maybe!

It's my view.

I mean, people quite often say to me. You know, what would you -- what would you tell this politician?

Or what would you tell this general, when you meet them?

And I always say, I don't tell them anything.

I listen. I listen.

Because that's much, much more important.

Because they know more about the proximate causes of the conflict.

And what they're doing to prevent it.

And when I hear and see these people. There was a guy. One of Joe Rogan's friends, who had been cropping up on social media recently.

And he accepted the challenge. Which was if you know, if you have a plan to how you would get 250 hostages back from the density buildup and booby trapped area of Gaza. And if you know how to get 250 hostages back. And how to kill or capture all the leadership of Hamas, if you have a better plan, than what the Israelis have been doing for the last 18 months, let me know, and I will pass it on to anyone I know, in Jerusalem.

Okay? And one of these comedians decides to take up this challenge. And you know what he said? He said among other things. Why don't they fight like men?

Why don't they fight like men? And I'm sorry. I've been to the funerals of young men who have no desire to have to ever be in Gaza again.

Who lost their lives, because they were fighting house to house with terrorists embedded in mosques and in hospitals and in civilian homes, and cropping up in tunnels, all over the place.

And if the idea is to me, Israeli Air Force. To level the place they could have done.

But they didn't, because they wanted to minimize casualties on their opponent's size. And minimize casualties on their own.

And if you have to put up with some doofus, claiming that he's the real man.

And he knows, because he's sitting in a podcast studio somewhere, two continents away.

And I think that's just objectionable on every level. And it's a lack of humility and understanding, that is almost pathological.

GLENN: I tell you, Douglas, I mean, I think I struggled from this a little bit. I've done this job for almost 50 years now.

But when I got into television, everything changes so rapidly.

I was -- I was pretty assured that I was right.

Thinking -- I spent a lot of money on research and everything else.

Really good, you know, we were buttoned up.

But when I left there, and I was reflecting on what I had done, I -- I came to the understanding, and I think this just comes from maturity. And experience.

And that is, the only thing I'm certain of, is that I'm not certain of anything.

DOUGLAS: Hmm.

GLENN: I don't -- I don't know. I'm like you. I will ask questions, I will voice my opinion, I will voice what I do know. But that doesn't necessarily make it the absolute truth.

I need to understand more of the situation.

DOUGLAS: Yes.

And you do that. And, you know, one of the things, Glenn.

Is that all of us who -- I hope -- I want to learn more.

And know more. And understand things better.

We -- we have that instinct.

But it also doesn't mean that on the things we know about. Including the things we've seen with our own eyes.

That we should be lacking in confidence. To say --

GLENN: Yes. It's a really tough place to be.

You have to have the confidence in what you do know. And you also have to have the humility to say. I don't know anything.

DOUGLAS: Right. And one of the things that I do know is that having seen war up close. And know what the difference is, between a death cult, as I call Hamas, a death cult like Hamas.

That fights for death, fights to bring death to its enemies, fights to bring death to its own side, even to its own children. And know the difference between a death cult like that. And the democracy like Israel or the United States of America and our armies, who fight for life.

Who fight to minimize casualties, on our own side. And to fight to minimize casualties on the enemy's side.

And there is all the difference in the world between these two things.

But when I see people fighting, it is complicated to tell the difference between a democracy and a death cult, I think they're lost.

Glenn's Show Prep

4 Steps to Break Down Walls From a Former Westboro Baptist Church Member

Democrats Support DANGEROUS Plan to JAIL Elon Musk?!

Transcript

Biden’s Reckless Biolabs Nearly Sparked Pandemic 2.0

Transcript

White House Official Addresses Criticism of Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill"

Transcript

Rogan Debate Bombshell: Murray Calls Out Fake Experts!

Transcript