No, President Trump DID NOT Bow to the Saudi King

May 22, 2017

WRITER

The media and the left are trying to make the case that Donald Trump bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia during his trip to the Middle East --- which he did not. While being presented with a gold medal, the president lowered his head to assist the king in placing it around his neck.

“He's 6’ 5”. The king is what, 90, like 91 years old?” Glenn explained. “He's lifting this big gold thing, and the president bends over so he can put it around his neck.”

Of course, it was of no concern to the media and left when President Obama intentionally bowed to the Saudi King --- but seeking truth never stopped them before.

“Let me tell you something. Every president has bent over for the Saudis for a very long time, I don't think anything new is happening here. He did not bow to the Saudis,” Glenn said.

GLENN: Hello, America. Welcome to Monday. We're glad you're here. A lot going on. It was a good weekend for the president, I believe, wasn't it? It didn't seem to be -- seemed to be presidential. Seemed to be going really well. The press is trying to make something -- or the left is trying to make something out of how Donald Trump bowed to the Saudi king, which --

PAT: They actually called him a hypocrite for it --

GLENN: Well, if he would have bowed, he would have been.

PAT: But he didn't.

GLENN: Didn't bow?

PAT: That is not a bow.

JEFFY: No.

PAT: They're placing like a ribbon medal around his neck.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: And he bends over to make it easier for the placement. He wasn't bowing to the king.

GLENN: He's 6-5.

PAT: Ridiculous.

GLENN: He's 6-5. The king, is what? Ninety? Like 91 years old. Some crazy. You know, he's an old king. And he's lifting this big gold thing, and the president bends over so he can -- he put it around his neck.

And let me tell you something: Every president has bent over for the Saudis for a very long time.

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: So I don't think anything new is happening here. He did not bow to the Saudis.

Did you see Roger Stone had a real problem with this though? He said, getting that award --

PAT: No.

GLENN: Now the left -- or, sorry. Now the right is turning on Donald Trump. Because he -- he didn't say Islamic extremism in his speech. Apparently, he danced with some swords. And he accepted this award from the Saudis. And so Roger Stone came out and said, "This is atrocious. This is grotesque. This is a betrayal of everything he said on the campaign trail."

STU: I assume because Roger Stone has never said anything, that he either believed or was actually true, that the exact opposite is actually what happened.

GLENN: Yeah. That is really -- have you ever seen the documentary Get Me Roger Stone?

STU: It just started.

GLENN: Oh, it just came out?

STU: It just came out on Netflix. I have not seen it. It's supposed to be great.

GLENN: Yeah, it is. He's a despicable human being.

STU: Almost by his own admission.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. No, no. No, no, no. He admits to all of it.

PAT: Really?

GLENN: Oh, he is a despicable human being.

PAT: And he admits to being a despicable human being?

GLENN: Yeah. He says he's just playing into it because everybody says that's what he is anyway. So why not embrace it?

Well, or, you know, check yourself. You know, just say, "Maybe, I'm --

STU: I was falsely accused of murder. So I've just been murdering people. I mean, everyone thinks I'm a murderer anyway. I might as well murder.

GLENN: Yeah, that's pretty much it.

STU: Yeah. That's a terrible argument.

GLENN: Yeah. When you watch it, it's pretty bad.

But he didn't bow. The globe -- that spooky --

PAT: Orb.

GLENN: -- orb, that he had his hand on, apparently that's the symbol of some --

PAT: It's an illuminated globe at the global center for combating extremist ideology in Saudi Arabia.

GLENN: Hmm. Hmm. Yeah, that's going to --

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: They're doing a lot the good there, aren't they?

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Are they opposing the extremist ideology in Saudi Arabia? Is that the location of it, or is that the name?

PAT: That's the location of it. That's the location of it.

GLENN: Okay. Because do they know that --

PAT: That they have extremists --

GLENN: That the hijackers from 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia?

JEFFY: That's why they're opening this center.

GLENN: Right. Guys, look what we just figured out!

JEFFY: Right!

GLENN: Yeah. Somehow or another, I think that's going to turn around on us.

PAT: Wahhabism comes from Saudi Arabia. So maybe start there. I don't know.

JEFFY: Just put your hand on the orb. Just put your hand on the orb.

PAT: It is a cool little orb. Cool/creepy.

GLENN: Cool? Yeah, it's a little creepy. Maybe --

STU: It looks like a scene from a movie.

GLENN: It does. It does. It looks like, "And now, we all put our hand on the orb, and it will read our handprints. And it will start the doomsday device."

STU: This is the case with every president though. Like, you go to these other countries. You know these pictures are going to look terrible for you at home, but you're trying to have a good relationship with another country, so you just kind of go along with it. And then it becomes like the defining moment of your presidency. It does seem like it's a pretty common occurrence.

GLENN: Well, it never seemed to hurt Barack Obama. You remember the pictures or the video of George Bush going to open up the big Chinese stores?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Okay. And how many times they ran that over and over and over again.

STU: That closed.

GLENN: That exact footage exists with -- with Barack Obama.

PAT: Obama. Yeah.

GLENN: He did the exact same thing, but they just didn't make a big deal out of it.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: So, I mean, when you're going over there -- I mean, when George Bush was dancing -- where was dancing? And he just looked ridiculous.

STU: Uh-huh.

JEFFY: Well, it was -- Mr. Trump -- President Trump didn't look that great dancing with the swords himself.

GLENN: Well, yes. Yes. And I'm not sure, as president, I'm going to dance with the swords.

STU: Yeah, I don't know what you do. Because, I mean, you know, it is the one of those things. You're being honored. They're telling you, "These are our wonderful traditions. They mean so much to us. Thank you so much for coming. It's so important you're involved in this." And, yeah, you can say "no," I guess. But it's a tough spot. I mean, I don't know. No one seems to be able to actually pull off a "no" out the that. It's just a matter the whether the press decides to mock you for it afterwards. Which is funny, because the same people who are telling us how important it is to be multicultural and understand diversity and people's other customs are the people mocking.

GLENN: Like any -- like name a news person. I hate to stick Jake Tapper out. Because he's a nice guy and tries to be honest. Name a --

STU: Scott Pelley.

JEFFY: Well, there's always Lester Holt.

GLENN: Do you think Lester Holt is going to look good dancing with swords? Nobody is going to look good dancing with swords.

JEFFY: Hmm.

STU: I think you're right on that. And it's funny because that's the type of thing that the enlightened liberal does. Right?

JEFFY: Yes.

STU: You're in the city. You go to some festival in some area of town where the dumb tourists don't go, and you go and you participate in an authentic event, in Brooklyn.

And in like -- now, you know, Trump or Bush or whatever Republican goes to the actual authentic event in the actual country and participates in it, they just get mocked for it. Because they look like morons. You're an idiot. Look, I can't believe you danced like that. Well, that's the thing -- you would praise it in any other circumstance.

But, I mean, that's the world we live in.

PAT: Meanwhile, they'll go ahead and dance at a gay pride parade with the buttocks removed from the back of their pants, and that's fine. That's perfectly fine.

GLENN: Well, we find out this weekend that -- we knew this to be true.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep