GLENN: Hello, America. So Bill Maher is on CNN, and he's talking to Jake Tapper. And he says -- you know, they're talking about Hillary Clinton coming out again and whining about why she lost and not having any self-awareness at all. I suck. I suck. Nobody likes me. They like me because of Bill. But if Bill wasn't around, I would have never been a politician or anything that had gone possibly a mayor.
PAT: That would be woke Hillary.
GLENN: That would be woke Hillary.
PAT: But she's not.
GLENN: But she's not woke.
PAT: No.
GLENN: Nobody around her has enough courage to say, "Hillary, you need to let this go, baby, because you played a role in this. Nobody likes you, and you've just overstayed your welcome." And if -- I mean, honestly, we've said this from the beginning, my shoe could have beaten Hillary Clinton. And I think that was proven out with Donald Trump. Somebody that even most people on the right will say, "I mean, I found it really hard to vote for the guy, but I can't go for Hillary." I mean, that's basically saying, "I've got a shoe. And, well, my shoe isn't Hillary."
A lot of what happened here was you had two of the most flawed candidates in American history running against each other. And it was a Sophie's choice in the negative. You wanted to put them both on the train, but you had to select one that stayed with you. And that's what it was.
I want this one to go away, and I don't want to see them again. And that's the way everybody on the left felt about Donald Trump. I'd like to put him on the train, and I never want to think about him again.
So she's not self-aware enough to see, it's just time to go away, Hillary. It's time to go away. You had your chance. You blew it.
And until people can be honest and say, "Look, she was a really flawed candidate," they won't be able to move forward.
Now, listen to what Bill Maher says. This is fascinating.
VOICE: When Bill Maher was asked at the event if misogyny played a role in her loss, she said yes. Do you agree?
BILL: Of course. Absolutely. I think we learned a lot about this country, and we're learning more about it as we watch what goes on with Fox News every day.
VOICE: That is a pretty remarkable turn of event. But you think that's about a misogynistic problem in American corporate culture and not just a few bad apples, I'm guessing.
BILL: Not just corporate culture. You know, I think race is more on the surface, and people talk about it. And there's movements like Black Lives Matter. And I'm glad there are. But I think -- I think we thought we were further along on the woman issue than we are. And I don't think we are.
GLENN: Okay. Stop for a second. I just -- I want to point this out that, okay. Maybe we aren't as far as I thought we were with women because we're not as far along as I thought we were on things like the Constitution. You know, we're not as far along as I thought we were on our principles that bring us together. We're not as far along as I thought we were on -- on anger issues and identity politics. I thought that was one side, but it is also the other side. It's our side too.
So maybe he's right. But I don't -- about some of that. That, you know, maybe we're not as far along as I think we are.
However, to condemn America as this blind country, this jingoistic blind race-hating, Muslim-hating country, you have a guy who grew up in -- outside of America. Has the name -- chosen name of Barack Hussein Obama, while we're fighting a guy named Hussein.
STU: And Osama.
GLENN: And Osama. Who is black.
Now, when, you know -- has -- has the prime minister of England been black? Has the prime minister of Italy, Germany, France -- let's use some of their countries. Cuba, Russia, China, have they've had black guys? No.
PAT: Uh-uh.
GLENN: Okay. So here's a country that not only elected a black man and even his most vocal foes, me, when he was elected, the very next day, I got on and said, "Let's just take a minute here and just celebrate the fact that we're not who everybody says we are." I am thrilled that that barrier is now gone. I'd be thrilled for the barrier -- for a woman to be present.
Who thinks that way? Who thinks that way?
STU: Your chosen candidate, the vice president of that ticket was Carly Fiorina.
GLENN: Yes. Yes.
STU: I mean, that was the one you were rooting for.
GLENN: Yes. I mean, you just don't think this -- you don't think this way. I don't think the vast majority. Now, some do. Okay? But there's always a group of people in any size group that have weird beliefs or wrong beliefs on something. But now listen to what he says. Do you have the rest?
BILL: I mean, there's something like 80 countries who have had a woman leader. Pakistan has had a woman leader. But not the United States of us. Somehow we lag behind that. And I know a lot of people say, "Yes. I'd vote for a woman. I just didn't want to vote for that one."
GLENN: Stop. Hold on just a second. Have they had a Christian leader? Have they had a Jewish leader? Has Pakistan had a white leader? Have they had an Indian leader?
I mean, I just want to throw out.
PAT: A Jewish leader.
GLENN: A Jewish leader. This is our world. That's their world. Well, they've had a woman leader. Okay. They've had a woman leader.
STU: We've never had a Pakistani leader. But Pakistan has. Yeah, so?
GLENN: You're not comparing -- it's culture to culture, dude. Culture to culture.
STU: Ridiculous.
GLENN: Now, listen. There's more.
BILL: Well, let's see next time when there's another woman put up for president, and I don't know how -- I don't know when that's going to happen. It doesn't look any time soon.
GLENN: Carly Fiorina.
VOICE: Well, it might be Elizabeth Warren, we don't know.
GLENN: Carly Fiorina. Now, stop, stop. Instead of Carly Fiorina, it might be Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren, another person that even people not on the hard left, but on the Democratic side, say is too hard-core left.
STU: Uh-huh. Bernie Sanders. But, you know --
GLENN: Bernie Sanders, who is a woman, and younger. There's a lot of people who think Bernie Sanders is too far. Go ahead.
VOICE: 2020 possibilities, any Democrats that you like that you hope get into the race?
GLENN: Listen to the sexist.
BILL: I still like Bernie Sanders.
GLENN: Okay. Stop. What an unbelievable sexist.
PAT: Everyone else is a misogynist, but he still wants Bernie Sanders. He didn't name a woman.
GLENN: Now, if there was a race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton --
PAT: Oh, man.
GLENN: Oh, wait a minute. There was. Who was he pushing for?
PAT: What a misogynist.
GLENN: Was he pushing for the old white guy?
STU: So great.
GLENN: Or was he pushing for Hillary Clinton because he's not a misogynist.
STU: That's awesome.
PAT: No, he is a misogynist. He pushed for the old white guy.
GLENN: I mean, it is amazing. Completely amazing.
PAT: Complete unawareness too. They are so self-unaware. It's --
STU: By the way, Bernie is only eight years older than Elizabeth Warren. So I think you would have a very similar profile.
GLENN: No, I'm just saying the old white guy.
STU: It's -- yeah.
GLENN: I mean, I'm tired of the old white guy.
STU: I'm just saying the age isn't too much of a factor.
GLENN: Right?
Oh, my gosh. Stu, why do you hate --
STU: You said younger. I guess technically. Yeah, eight years.
GLENN: Eight years.
And why are you always defending the old white guys? You just want a culture full of old white guys, started by old white guys.
PAT: He's a misogynist.
STU: Well, what candidate would you like if you had a choice of any candidate?
GLENN: I would like -- I don't know if you have met Rodgey Hussein Mao.
(chuckling)
STU: Uh-huh. I haven't.
GLENN: But it is a wonderful unit. I don't want to say person.
STU: Sure, of course not.
GLENN: And I'm going to assign gender. But that's my -- that's the one that I think if America wants to prove itself.
PAT: Uh-huh.
GLENN: And redeem itself, it will vote for that.
STU: Okay. Good. Okay.
GLENN: Okay. So there you go.
Now, there's more because what I want to show you is they're overplaying their hand. While they're overplaying their hand, they are saying they're overplaying their hand. Do you have the other piece from Bill Maher? Now, listen to this.
PAT: Yeah.
VOICE: So what should Democrats do to win over Trump voters?
BILL: Well, I was just going to say, a bit of it is ease up on the identity politics.
GLENN: Okay. Now, he just played identity politics.
PAT: Identity politics.
GLENN: And then he's saying we should ease up on it. Now, when we come back, I'm going to show you culturally, comedy, television shows, art, that always leads the way. It always -- when you start to see art going a certain way -- and I use art to cover a lot of things -- you see culture start to move. Culture is always ahead of politics. And I want to show you a couple of things that show, again, the culture is being moved away from the identity politics, all of the political correctness, all of the things that you could be woken up in the middle of the night and ask a question and went, "What? What are you talking about? Go back to sleep. You're not making any sense." You in a dead sleep could be able to say, "You who are supposedly awake aren't making any sense. Go to sleep." They're overplaying their hand. And the culture is starting to change. We'll give you that here in a second.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
