GLENN: I just want to do a couple of minutes here on bitcoin because I find it interesting. Stu and I both have very little money in bitcoin. Just enough that you are like, okay. I can walk away from this and not worry about it. So we both have about $6.75 in it.
STU: That's too much for my blood. But I have some.
GLENN: Yeah. So Stu bought about $300 a coin. And it is now -- is it about to cross the 1800 mark?
STU: Yeah, it's right around there. 1800.
GLENN: 1800 per bitcoin.
STU: They're saying a lot of it goes to the --
GLENN: Instability.
STU: In China --
GLENN: Instability. Oh, yeah China.
STU: And instability. It's true. China though. Both of those are true: Instability, and the Chinese market has blown up. They're throwing money into this like crazy. And remember, we haven't even hit a point where there's an actual collapse of an economy. And a lot of people think that if this happens, where currency collapses in this environment, a country may switch to bitcoin as its actual currency.
GLENN: I know.
STU: I mean, if that were to happen, I mean -- God only knows what could happen to this. I have no idea.
GLENN: And at the same time, it could completely collapse and go nowhere.
STU: It could be zero tomorrow, without -- without any doubt at all.
GLENN: Yeah. This is one of those things that, you know -- that you're either going to look like a genius or a dummy.
If you put a lot of money into it, you have a better chance of looking like a dummy. But, you know, this is something that your family could talk about for generations. "Yeah, I know. My great grandfather, he bought bitcoin when it was $300 an ounce." When it was, what? For a coin.
STU: Yeah.
GLENN: When it was what?
But there are some changes going on with that. And I think, you know, when things go unstable, at least until they can get their arms around it. See, this is what happened to gold. Look at bitcoin. This makes no sense. Bitcoin now is more expensive than gold. That doesn't make sense.
STU: Right. No. Of course not.
GLENN: And that's because they do reverse treasuries and all of those games. They shut this down and they play all kinds of games with the manipulation of the price of gold because they know that people see gold as a signal of trouble. And so when they see gold start to fluctuate in big jumps, they freak out.
Gold should probably be closer to 2,000 to 2500. If it wasn't the artificial barriers, it would be at least -- I bet you it would be $2,000. But these artificial barriers keep them down.
STU: And that's what happens -- bitcoin is even more susceptible to that.
GLENN: Oh, yeah. It's not susceptible -- I don't know if anybody is trying to keep it down. But people don't know. And it's not stable. And it could go to zero. Gold will never go to zero. You know what I mean?
STU: Right.
GLENN: But it depends on what happens. Do they -- same with bitcoin. Do they seize it? Do they not seize it? Do they make it illegal for trading in it? I don't know.
STU: Right. That's my biggest concern. My biggest concern, as is, my biggest concern with everything is the government coming in and saying, "You know what, people are doing X, Y, and Z, that we don't like with this currency. Therefore, it will no longer exist."
And the people who love bitcoin say, "Well, they can never do that because it's digital and it goes around the government." And all that's true. Like, it is true -- it would be very difficult for the government outside of shutting the internet down completely to turn off bitcoin.
However, if you make it so that you -- you know, if the government creates a law and somehow it makes it possible that, you know what, you're not allowed to accept bitcoin. No one is allowed to have bitcoin, it's going to chase everybody like me out of it. Because I have no interest in being on the wrong side of the law. I'm not looking to make some weird, you know, currency point here. I just find it generally interesting. And at that point, while, yes, it will still exist in some world, it will no longer, I think have the -- the number of people involved in it that will create the increase in value.
GLENN: Unless it's China. Unless China says, that's our currency. Or that's how we're going. If China does it, then you still have all that money in bitcoin available to China. Your job is to get to China. You know, if you had $10 million in bitcoin --
STU: Right.
GLENN: -- because you bought it -- this is not crazy.
STU: No.
GLENN: Because you bought it today and currency went out and China said, "Oh, by the way, this is our currency." And a few markets were using that as currency, you could see that -- you could see $10 million in bitcoin. Now, get to it, you couldn't do it here in the United States. But if you could get to someplace where it was free, that's -- you know, that is one thing about -- you know, people in the 1930s had to try to smuggle everything out. They were eating diamonds and everything else, to try to smuggle it out. This is all up in your head.
That's different than gold or anything else. You don't have to move around with it. You just have to find a way to access it, which, you know, today is easy. But if you had real global, you know, authoritarianism, that changes. But that changes everything anyway.
STU: Yeah, exactly. At that point, you're beyond --
GLENN: Yeah, there's no -- there's no scenario -- oh, let's see. If Blade Runner comes true. There's no scenario for Blade Runner.
STU: Well, considering there's a sequel coming out very soon.
GLENN: Well, I forgot about that. Yes, I forgot that.
STU: Then I would say yes. Sequel to the documentary Blade Runner 2049.
GLENN: Right. Which looks really good. It looks really good.
STU: It looks kind of interesting.
But that's the thing with this, is the crazy scenario in which bitcoin goes to 10 million, the world is such a crazy place, you almost can't prepare for it.
JEFFY: Right.
STU: The situation in which, you know, let's say Chuck Schumer decides, you know what, people shouldn't be able to have the freedom with their currency, so we're going to ban it, that's not an unrealistic scenario at all to me. And even if the rest of the world continues to use it, if you're an American citizen, you don't want -- like I'm not interested in being on the wrong side of the law. I'm not Jeffy.
GLENN: No, nobody is. Nobody is.
STU: Nobody except Jeffy is interested in that. So the business --
GLENN: No, I meant nobody is like Jeffy.
STU: Nobody is like Jeffy, that's true. But the businesses will stop accepting it.
GLENN: Yeah.
STU: That won't happen anymore. And when that happens, it just becomes irrelevant to the average person in America.
GLENN: Well, same thing could be said for gold or silver and not --
STU: It's true. But gold or silver is so much more established, right? This is something where the average person knows nothing about.
GLENN: Yeah, yeah. The government -- I guarantee you, the government it -- at some point, if it crashes, the government will have to get control of -- of the currency. They're going to have to get control. And so they will say, the only way you can sell is with X, Y, or Z. Then you just have to have the courage to barter. You know, it's one thing to have gold buried in your backyard -- which I would never do --
STU: You just don't want to dig.
GLENN: What? I don't know what you're saying.
You know, it's one thing to have gold buried in your backyard. And then, you know, take it out slyly to your neighbor and say, hey, look. Bury this in your backyard. I need to buy, you know, a chicken. You know, or whatever.
STU: A chicken?
GLENN: Well, that's the only -- let's be honest, guys.
JEFFY: Right. That's right.
GLENN: If you're buying gold like I do -- I don't buy it for the investment. I didn't buy bitcoin for the investment.
I buy it for an insurance policy that the whole freaking world is burning down. So, yes, I will be in the market for a chicken so I can have an egg.
Speeches were careful, strategies were diluted by committees, and action was often defined by what couldn’t be done. The language was always the same: "nuance," "complexity," "stakeholders." Rarely was it about results.
That has changed.
What’s come out of the State Department in the last hundred days is a complete departure—not just in tone, but in structure.
The most telling shift is this: the department is no longer preoccupied with managing decline or defending abstractions. It’s operating from the premise that U.S. foreign policy must serve actual national interests, not vague global norms or ideological missions.
Look at the key decisions. The Global Engagement Center—an office that claimed to combat disinformation but increasingly acted as an internal censorship tool—is gone. Not repurposed. Not renamed. Eliminated. Aid programs that masked themselves as diplomacy while undermining core U.S. positions have been cut. Contracts to NGOs with open hostility toward U.S. policy goals? Revoked.
This isn’t cosmetic. It’s structural.
The department’s reorganization is consolidating power downward—removing bureaucratic silos, emphasizing merit over ideology, and restoring clarity to diplomatic goals. This isn’t about optics. It’s about removing friction between strategy and implementation. On immigration and border enforcement, there’s now a foreign policy posture that treats visa privileges as exactly that—privileges, not entitlements. Visa holders who break laws or support terrorist groups lose their status. Period. No press conference required. Just enforcement.
Countries that allow mass illegal migration into the U.S. are being held accountable. Agreements are being structured around reciprocity. When those agreements are ignored, consequences follow. China’s influence in the Western Hemisphere, long treated as inevitable, has been directly challenged. Beijing’s role in Panama, particularly regarding the canal, has been dismantled through diplomacy backed by leverage, not lectures. That wasn’t done through press statements—it required statecraft, pressure, and the willingness to say no.
In Europe, there’s been a reframing of NATO obligations. Not as symbolic unity, but as measurable responsibility. The benchmark is no longer two percent. The conversation is now five. That changes the nature of the alliance. In Africa, the posture is shifting from dependency to commercial engagement. Trade, not aid. Access, not assistance. Diplomacy with terms, not with guilt.
This isn’t a matter of tone or branding. This is a systemic shift away from a model that rewarded process over outcomes, toward one that is rediscovering the purpose of diplomacy: to secure advantage, resolve conflict, and protect national interests.
This recalibration will not be popular in foreign capitals used to ambiguity, or in institutions comfortable with drift. It’s also not universally admirable. It’s direct. It’s unambiguous. And it signals something rare in modern American foreign policy: conviction.
That alone is worth paying attention to.
Your son has been a Marine for what feels like an eternity. Only those who have watched their children deploy into war zones can truly understand why time seems to freeze in worry. What begins as concern turns to panic, then helplessness. You live suspended in a silent winter, where days blur and dread becomes your constant companion.
Then, in an instant, it happens. What you don’t know yet is that your child — your most precious gift — fell in combat 60 seconds ago.
While you go about your day, unaware, military protocol kicks into motion. Notification must happen within eight hours. Officers are dispatched. A chaplain joins them. A medic may accompany them in case the grief is too much to bear.
Three figures arrive at your door. One asks your name. Then, by protocol, they ask to enter your home. You already know what’s coming. You sit down. He looks you in the eye and says:
The commandant of the Marine Corps has entrusted me to express his deep regret that your son John was killed in action on Friday, March 28. The commandant and the United States Marine Corps extend their deepest sympathy to you and your family in your loss.
This moment has played out thousands of times across American soil. In 2003 alone — just two years after 9/11 — 312 families endured it. In 2007, 847 American service members died in combat. In 2008, 352. In 2009, 346. The list goes on. And with every name, a family became a Gold Star family.
For most Americans, Memorial Day means backyard barbecues, family gatherings, maybe a trip to the lake or a sweet Airbnb. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying these things. But we must never forget why we can.
Ask any veteran who lived when others did not, and you’ll understand: Memorial Day is not just another holiday. It is a solemn day set apart for reverence.
So this weekend, reach out to a Gold Star family. Acknowledge their pain. Ask about their son or daughter. Let them know they’re not alone.
This is a day for sacred remembrance, for honoring those who laid down their lives — not for accolades but for love of country and the preservation of liberty. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).
They died for the Constitution, for our shared American ideals, and the worst thing we could do now would be to betray those ideals in a spirit of rage or division.
We cannot dishonor their sacrifice by abandoning the very principles they died to protect — equal justice, the rule of law, the enduring promise of liberty.
This Memorial Day, let us remember the fallen. Let us honor their families. Let us recommit ourselves to the cause they gave everything for: the American way of life.
They are the best of us.
This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.
Editor's note: This article is sponsored by Chapter.
The U.S. government has filed a major lawsuit under the False Claims Act, targeting some of the biggest names in health insurance—Aetna, Elevance Health (formerly Anthem), and Humana—along with top insurance brokers eHealth, GoHealth, and SelectQuote. The allegation? From 2016 to at least 2021, these companies funneled hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks to brokers to steer seniors into their Medicare Advantage plans.
If the allegations are true, it means many Americans may have been steered into Medicare Advantage plans that weren’t necessarily the best fit for their needs—not because the plans were better, but because brokers were incentivized by illegal kickbacks.
Navigating Medicare Advantage’s maze of plan options is daunting, so beneficiaries rely on brokers like eHealth, GoHealth, and SelectQuote, who claim to be unbiased guides. But from 2016 to 2021, insurers Aetna, Humana, and Elevance Health allegedly paid brokers millions in kickbacks to favor their plans, regardless of quality. Disguised as “co-op” or “marketing” deals, these payments were tied to enrollment targets. Internal emails revealed executives knew this violated the Anti-Kickback Statute, with one eHealth leader joking that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would miss a $15 million Humana deal for minimal enrollments. Brokers used call routing to prioritize high-paying insurers, betraying beneficiaries’ trust.
The scheme wasn’t just about profits—it targeted vulnerable beneficiaries. Medicare Advantage must accept all eligible enrollees, including disabled people under 65. Yet Aetna and Humana allegedly pressured brokers to limit their enrollment, as these beneficiaries were deemed to be less profitable. Brokers complied, rejecting referrals and filtering calls to favor healthier enrollees, incentivized by bonuses. This violated federal anti-discrimination laws and CMS contracts, undermining the founding principles of Medicare by discriminating against the very people it was created to aid.
The schemes led to false claims to CMS, with insurers certifying enrollments as “valid” despite kickbacks and discrimination. The government paid billions, unaware of the fraud. Examples include Humana’s $12,477 for a 2016 enrollment and Aetna’s $79,047 for a 2020 case. On May 1, 2025, the U.S. filed suit, seeking treble damages and penalties under the False Claims Act. Aetna and others deny the allegations, per May 2025 reports, promising a fierce defense. The case, demanding a jury trial, seeks justice for beneficiaries and taxpayers.
Medicare costs are a silent thief—thousands of your dollars just vanish if you pick the wrong plan...
And there are a lot of Americans out there who have been taken in by slick advisers promising great plans, only to find out later that things like co-pays are now bleeding them dry, or that the doctor they trust is no longer on their plan.
Chapter is different.
I’ve met with these people personally, and I know that they founded their whole company specifically because their own parents got taken in with terrible Medicare programs, and they wanted to do something to change that, so it doesn’t happen to you.
At Chapter, they don’t just guide you—they search every plan, from every carrier, with technology so sharp it cuts through the noise.
These are licensed advisors with no hidden agendas.
Other Medicare advisers might cherry-pick plans that pad their pockets—Chapter puts you first.
So, if you are turning 65 or are already on Medicare, contact the good people at Chapter. Chapter is your move for anything related to Medicare.
Dial #250 and say key word “Chapter” or go to askchapter.org/beck.
- Glenn Beck
