Glenn Gets in Heated Debate With Bill O'Reilly Over Trump Dissolving White House Jobs Council

August 17, 2017

WRITER

Two business groups advising the Trump administration have dissolved in the wake of President Donald Trump’s third round of comments on last weekend’s white nationalist rally in Charlottesville.

Trump failed to unequivocally condemn the Nazis who marched in Charlottesville and several days later made startling comments that were perceived as making excuses for the white nationalists. A woman died on Saturday after a white supremacist allegedly drove deliberately into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer and injuring 19 others.

In response, business leaders withdrew their companies from two major advisory groups, the Manufacturing Jobs Initiative and the Strategy & Policy Forum. Trump has claimed that he wanted to close the two advisory councils himself.

Rather than putting pressure on the businesspeople of the Manufacturing Council & Strategy & Policy Forum, I am ending both. Thank you all!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 16, 2017

“Racism and murder are unequivocally reprehensible and are not morally equivalent to anything else that happened in Charlottesville,” Campbell Soup chief executive Denise Morrison, who was part of the Manufacturing Jobs Initiative, said on Wednesday.

If Trump had refrained from making his follow-up comments earlier this week, the jobs advisory councils probably would have stayed intact.

“That’s the problem that Donald Trump has, that he can’t constrain himself,” Bill O’Reilly said on radio Thursday.

O’Reilly and Glenn had a heated debate over the reasoning behind the business leaders’ decisions to leave the jobs council.

“If you walk away because far-left groups say to you, ‘If you don’t, we’re going to organize a boycott against your company’ … our democracy is shot,” O’Reilly asserted, saying that companies who crumble under the pressure are in the wrong.

“I agree with that; however, that’s not the world we currently live in,” Glenn objected, explaining why business leaders have no incentive to stand with Trump when it damages their company.

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly has come out with an opinion piece on Charlottesville. And I want to just read one thing: America, there is indeed a civil war underway. And the president along with his supporters will lose that war, unless they fight it smarter. Any time Nazis are involved, you condemn them and walk away. That's all.

There will be time to expose the hard left fanatics down the road. It's about picking your spots. It's about an effective wartime strategy.

Bill O'Reilly, welcome to the program. Could not agree with you more, Bill. But I don't think the president -- you asked me this on your podcast two days ago, and I gave you a different answer.

When I saw what happened with Bannon yesterday, I think the president is unfortunately done. I don't know if he recovers from this.

BILL: I don't see it that way. When you are president of the United States, even if your opinion polling is low, you still have an enormous amount of power. And he has the ability -- Trump does -- to kind of isolate Bannon. And Bannon doesn't really have anything other than the court of public opinion to fight back with.

GLENN: Okay. So hang on just a second. But Bannon came out yesterday and pretty much announced, "Hey, I'm the leaker," talking to not only the New York Times, but the Prospect. What he said to the Prospect and the New York Times, stunning. He's --

BILL: Well, give me an example of what stunned you in what he said.

GLENN: Let me see here: First of all, in Kim, Trump has met his match. The risk of two arrogant -- no, no, no, sorry. That's not it.

STU: No. Yeah, he said, "They've got us." He said, "North Korea has got us."

GLENN: Yeah. "They've got us." He said -- he said, "There is no military solution to North Korea's nuclear threats. Forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't even know what you're talking about. There's no military solution. They've got us."

Not something the president would approve of. Then he goes in to say, "I'm changing out people in East Asian defense. I'm getting hawks in. I'm getting Susan Thornton out at state. That's a fight I have every day. And then I'm going to take on the Treasury with Cohn and the Goldman Sachs lobbying." So he is saying basically, "Here's my agenda, and I'm going to do these things," while he's saying, "The president was bluffing. We don't have -- there's no way to win a war with North Korea, which we all know." But you don't say that if you're in the White House.

BILL: All right. So you have a guy who is sending a signal because he believes he will be fired, that, you know, he's powerful. And if you fire me, bad things are going to happen. That's my assessment of the bluster that is --

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: And you agree with that, right?

GLENN: Yes, yes.

BILL: So okay. Trump's got to make a decision. And the decision most likely will be that Bannon will be fired. And that will I think come probably next week. Because Trump can't back down. He's not that kind of guy anyway.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: So Bannon leaves. And then Bannon basically tries to rally through Breitbart and other, you know, conservative places. Tries to rally that Trump has lost his mojo. And it's all over.

So what? I mean, the American people aren't going to listen to Steve Bannon, en masse. They're not. And all Trump has to do is basically do it quickly and not say anything, not comment to what Bannon does. And then in a month, it will all be gone.

GLENN: Okay. That assumes a couple of things: One, that Donald Trump can fire somebody and then not say anything about it.

BILL: All right. But Kelly will fire him. And I'm sure that Kelly and Trump will basically have a strategy going forward. But you might be right. Trump might make a bigger deal out of it than he should, which is what happened in Charlottesville.

GLENN: So here's the thing: As I've been watching the Charlottesville thing, as you said in your op-ed, you know, you got to -- for the love of Pete, you're -- the Nazis, good or bad? They're bad. White supremacists, they're bad.

(chuckling)

BILL: But there was never a time when Trump said they weren't bad. That's just propaganda crap.

GLENN: No, I know that -- but wait a minute, Bill. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Out of dead sleep, you're the president of the United States, you know you take a hard-line stance because that's what we all believe.

BILL: Right. Right.

GLENN: And then he says, "Well, I wanted a couple of days to figure it all out." He comes out with a statement that he's reading. And everybody knows, those aren't his words. I'm not saying he supports the Nazis or white supremacists. But then he comes out and says it. And then he won't leave it alone. And then the next day, he comes out and he undoes everything.

BILL: Well, that's -- that's the key: Leave it alone.

GLENN: Correct.

BILL: He doesn't have the discipline to walk away from provocations on the far left.

Look, that's -- and that's what I say in the column.

And, by the way, if folks want to read it, they can go to Bill O'Reilly and read it. It was also originally printed in the Hill.

But that's the problem that Donald Trump has, is that he can't constrain himself. All right?

GLENN: Correct.

BILL: His hatred or his annoyance, whatever word you want to put, is valid. I mean, the far left is trying to overthrow, not only his election, but the entire country as we discussed.

GLENN: Oh, I -- I agree with you.

BILL: But you don't bring it in when you're talking about Nazis.

GLENN: So here's the -- so help me out with this. Because there are many things. The -- the left is beyond reason with hatred of Donald Trump. And it's never going to stop. And the press is never going to stop. I got it. I got it.

BILL: Good.

GLENN: And I think everybody knew that going in, and that's fine. But if you're in a war like that --

BILL: Yes.

GLENN: -- you have to play your cards right.

So here's the jobs council: Merck, Under Armour, Johnson & Johnson, United Tech, Corning, GE, Intel, Campbell's Soup -- these guys -- all these guys didn't like Donald Trump. But they have fiduciary responsibility. They all walk out this week. So the president has now --

BILL: Do you know why they walked out?

GLENN: Yeah, pressure. Pressure.

BILL: From?

GLENN: The far left.

BILL: Yes, Glenn Beck. Good.

GLENN: They have a fiduciary responsibility. They cannot have their companies -- they would all be sued by their shareholders. And so I want you to know, I'm not --

BILL: Whoa, whoa, whoa. You nailed the reason, but the fiduciary responsibility comes in operating your corporation honestly. So to say that, "Oh, well, I disagreed with Trump's analysis of Charlottesville, so I'm quitting. That's not why they quit."

GLENN: No. No. No. Perception is reality, Bill.

BILL: No, no, no. But you have to look -- you have to understand your audience and then focus on how dangerous this is.

GLENN: Perception is reality. You're fighting -- your argument is, so you stood with the guy -- perception is reality. That's -- I'm not saying this is what happened. I'm saying this is what everyone will believe and the case that will be made. And it will be swept --

BILL: No, they won't. Look, there's a poll out today that say 67 percent of Republicans have no problem with Trump's analysis of Charlottesville. All right?

So you're a CEO. You're on the economic council.

It's an economic council. It's not a council on racism or Nazis or anything else. All right?

So you choose to walk away because your belief system is opposed to Donald Trump. I don't have any problem with that. Okay? I don't have any problem with that.

But if you walk away because far left groups say to you, "If you don't, we're going to organize a boycott against your company," if you walk away because of that reason, our democracy is shot. That's what it means to me. That's what it means to you.

GLENN: You're living in a dream world. You know corporations settle litigation all the time even though they're in the right, and it is destroying our system.

BILL: But this is far beyond that.

GLENN: I know that.

BILL: This is extortion. And if American corporations are going to allow themselves to be extorted --

GLENN: Of course, they are. Tell me what --

BILL: Well, this has to be exposed.

GLENN: To what end?

BILL: Look, then every single commentator on every single television, radio, or internet program, all right? Will go out of business because nobody will sponsor them when threatened with boycotts by the far left.

GLENN: And that's what's happening. That's what's happening.

BILL: I know!

GLENN: So, Bill --

STU: Loud agreement right now.

GLENN: Okay. So wait a minute. So, Bill, hear me out here.

BILL: Yeah.

GLENN: You're talking about right and wrong.

BILL: No, I'm talking about --

GLENN: Doing the right thing.

BILL: -- doing the best for the country. Doing the best for the country.

GLENN: Correct. Correct. I agree with that. However, that is not the world we currently live in. And just hear this one thing out: You have the jobs council walking away. You have Steve Bannon threatening. You have the media just ripping him to shreds. And you have the G.O.P. quietly canceling all of their appearances everywhere because nobody in the G.O.P. wants to stand next to Donald Trump. He has isolated himself. And he doesn't have the ability or the strength to be able to hold the line and to make this moral case.

I would love a president -- and Ronald Reagan could have made this case. I don't see Donald Trump having the discipline, the -- the acumen to be able to make this case and withstand this storm -- this ongoing storm, much of it of his own creation because of sloppiness and no discipline. How does he survive?

BILL: Well, I'm not going to disagree. But it's speculation. All right? You're speculating that he doesn't have the resources or the discipline to overcome what's befallen him. You might be right. But that's not my job -- you know, your job is different than mine.

GLENN: I don't understand this.

BILL: But my job is to basically say to the American people, "This is what's actually happening." Okay? This is what's happening.

So Trump goes out and he basically makes a big mistake by not just condemning Nazis and walking away, he brings in other matters.

GLENN: Yep.

BILL: And then the press takes that and says, "He's a Nazi sympathizer." And they run wild.

GLENN: Yep. Yep. And he is not --

BILL: No sane person believes Donald Trump is a Nazi sympathizer.

GLENN: And I don't believe that even Steve Bannon, who I despise, is a Nazi sympathizer.

BILL: I don't even care about Bannon. You care far more about him than I do.

GLENN: Because he's a powerful player. Not only in the White House, but in conservative media --

BILL: I think if Trump fires him, which is likely, then in a month, that most people will even forget him.

But, look --

GLENN: That's what they said about Van Jones. He's now at CNN.

BILL: All right. That's probably -- Bannon will probably wind up somewhere.

(chuckling)

Anyway, you're speculating that Trump cannot overcome it. You might be right. You might be right.

But in the meantime, the American people should get the truth, that this walkout of this economic council was not driven by moral outrage. It was driven by fear.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: Fear of economic damage caused by far left boycotts.

GLENN: Exactly right. You and I have no disagreement on that. None.

BILL: Good. Good.

GLENN: But what you're saying is, you deal in reality. No, no, no, Bill, I deal with reality. That's the reality. There isn't a CEO -- you show me the people who actually have a spine to stand up. So I would like people to have a spine. I try to have a spine. You try to have a spine. But none of those people have a spine.

BILL: Well, the only solution to that is transparency. Is to get out what the forces of darkness are doing. Make it easier for these CEOs not to fold. But right now, people don't understand what the boycott situation is. Why sponsors were pulled from the O'Reilly Factor because Media Matters threatened the sponsors. They don't understand it.

So once it's exposed -- and, of course, the New York Times is not going to expose it. They're in on it!

GLENN: No. Yeah.

BILL: All right. But the threat to our freedom --

GLENN: I know.

BILL: -- by this kind of behavior is off the charts.

GLENN: I know. I know. I agree with you.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

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?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

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.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

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.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

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.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

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.

What did Trump want?

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.

What did Zelenskyy want?

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.

What does this mean for the future?

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 Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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?

A Costly Election

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.

Poilievre's Downfall

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.

Glenn's Show Prep