CALLER: Hey, guys, how are you? That was such a great interview with Bill. I have to tell you, I've missed his voice. I've missed his take on things, and I would love for you guys to get him on The Blaze.
GLENN: So would I. I would pay him in sandwiches.
CALLER: That's just my two cents on that. But, Glenn, I wanted to ask you something you were talking about a week or maybe two ago about how there's this little blogger guy that was trying to get everybody to boycott fox, the advertisers.
GLENN: Yeah.
CALLER: Couldn't get any traction in the United States, so he went to the British advertisers.
GLENN: Yes. He's now running media matters, isn't he? That's the stop Beck guy. I could be wrong, but he's running one of the big ones. I think it's media matters. But go ahead.
CALLER: Right. And, well, I can tell you this: I am -- I'm not going to boycott anybody and neither are many of our family members and friends, but we have decided since we are the older generation and the money really resides in our pockets and our bank accounts, not in our childrens, that we're going to be paying a lot of attention to who we support, who we spend our money with. Like I said, I'm not going to be boycotting anybody, but I am going to be paying attention to whether or not they appreciate my money.
GLENN: Yeah, I will tell you this. Thank you, Sharon, for your phone call. I will tell you this. ABC is really -- this is an interesting thing. Ben Sherwood is the head of ABC television. He doesn't make all of these decisions, but Ben is a friend of mine. I know him. I really respect him. He's a decent, decent guy. Doesn't hate, you know, Christians are the center of the country. I really think ends all of that and appreciates it. And, you know, one thing that I found amazing at the height of Glenn Beck is the most hated man in the world, I was at a big television conference and all the everybodies were there. Here he is head of ABC Disney, and he sees me across the room, I see him, and one of my guy says you want to go say hi to Ben? And I'm, like, no, he's in a pack of all the big executives from all the big networks. I don't want to do that.
STU: Last thing you want to do to Ben.
GLENN: Ben is a friend. I'm not going to impose myself on him in that circle. Ben looks over and sees me, and I'm across the room. He sees me, I see him say excuse me. He walks over across the room, and I start walking toward him. Halfway there, very crowded with all the it people in L.A. gives me a hug and says -- and as I'm hugging him, I said are you out of your mind? And he said, no, you're my friend.
He's a really good guy. So I don't believe this stuff about ABC firing, you know -- getting rid of Tim Allen because of some, you know, we don't want Christians. We don't want the center of the country. That doesn't make sense in the first place. But, you know, we looked at -- what is that TV gallows? TV Grim Reaper. This guy's usually right about stuff. And he said the Tim Allen show was going to be brought back and was quote on the bubble. But it's a really good performing show.
STU: Look at this. Let me give you basis to this. So this is a guy who does -- it's a site that predicts whether shows will be canceled or not.
GLENN: Uh-huh.
STU: And they do this all the time.
GLENN: Don't you wish you could just make money doing that.
STU: It's based on, like, ratings and ratings relative to the rest of the network. Also really intricate things like once you get to season 5, you are more likely for syndication, so almost everyone renews everything when it gets past season 4. They always get a fifth season.
GLENN: If you get to ten seasons, you've got -- you're in syndication for years and years and years.
STU: Yeah, so they -- they put all of that into a formula and come out with a percentage chance it's going to be renewed. So then they make a prediction. Will it be renewed or not? This is from 2009. They were 63-11. 85 percent correct. 2010, 94 percent correct. 2011, 93 percent. 2012, 92 percent. 2013, 93 percent, 47, 92 percent, 2015, 90 percent. So very accurate over a long period of time with this formula and the way they figure these things out. They run every year, and it's up on the site now, a final renewal cancelation prediction for every show.
GLENN: Do they do it by percentage of --
STU: Yes, how likely is it? For example, just looking at agents of shield is one that they missed with here. But they -- and they do miss, as I just said. About 90 percent right. They had as a 35 percent renewal chance, and it was renewed. The catch on ABC was a 45 percent chance to be renewed. It got canceled. American crime. 25 percent to get renewed. It got canceled. The real O'Neals. 15 percent to get renewed, it got canceled.
GLENN: That's pretty accurate, still.
STU: There's one miss in there. But they thought it was a good chance.
GLENN: But not a huge chance.
STU: Blackish, 100 percent chance renewed, renewed. Goldbergs, 99 percent chance got renewed. Modern family. Got renewed. Goes through all of these, designated survey. 99 percent chance to get renewed. Got renewed. Last Man Standing. 90 percent it would be renewed. Got canceled.
GLENN: That's interesting.
STU: The tweet from the site. This is, again, from TV grim reaper, which I love, was I would say that last man standing was among the most surprising renewal pricking misses in the reaper's history.
JEFFY: Wow.
STU: Again, this is 90 percent accurate, and they miss occasionally. But when they think there's a 90 percent chance of it being renewed. It almost never is canceled. There's only one other show that I found this entire season. There's one 80 percent chance they thought renewed was canceled. It could be that one was also on Dr. Ken on ABC, so it's possible that maybe ABC is very cancel happy this season. I don't know. You could make excuses. But it is a stand out for people who look at this thing for a living.
GLENN: And it's -- it is also a stand out for people who are looking for shows that relate to the center of the country. And quite honestly, if you're programming, you don't -- you don't want to be just on the coasts. You don't want to be a network. You need to connect with the center of the country. This highly successful show on the worst night of the week. It's Friday night. Nobody staying at home watching TV shows on Friday night. It's the worst show of the week, and it is -- it's only -- it was only down 5 percent. Other shows that stayed were down 30 percent. And it just doesn't make any sense. But it doesn't make sense for ABC to cancel it. But I will tell you. If I'm sitting in a room, and I'm the network, there is something that I would sit at that table and say, guys. Guys. This show relates to the center of the country. This show relates like Rosanne did. This show relates to the people in our country like politics. We're having enough time getting people to think that we're not against them. Leave that show on. That's doing well. Even if it was doing worse, leave that show on. It helps us in the long run. It doesn't make any sense.
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.
