People Don’t Mock the President in Egypt – but Bassem Youssef Dared To

September 28, 2017

WRITER

He’s known as “Egypt’s Jon Stewart.” Bassem Youssef created a satirical political show that channeled the feelings of many Egyptians, and he has since been exiled from his own country.

Now living in Los Angeles, Youssef has shared his incredible story in a memoir, “Revolution for Dummies.” A documentary released earlier this year called “Tickling Giants” captured his journey from heart surgeon to star to expatriate.

He talked with Glenn on Wednesday about the Arab Spring; comedy and satire; and why oppressive governments don’t want people to be aware and educated. Listen to the amazing interview on Glenn’s Soundcloud (embedded above).

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: There's a guy -- there's very few people that have come on this program that have -- that I've put into the category of a real hero, a global hero. Somebody who is actually facing down giants and not popular with anyone, except the people. And has stared down true dictators. And rewriting history and the book of how things are done. Living in Egypt, there are -- they don't do satire. They don't have The Daily Show. They don't have shows where you take on the president. You find yourself in a prison. The world is radically different in the Middle East.

There's a guy who was a doctor. And during the Arab Spring, he went out to Tahrir Square, and he just started aiding people, helping people. And what he saw was different than what he was seeing on television.

He decided to do a YouTube television show with a friend. And it became an overnight success, gigantic. Before you know it, he's now doing a television show, where he's actually taking on the president of his country. And doing things that had never, ever been done before under a dictatorship. He has been hated by Mubarak. He was arrested by Morsi, and el-Sisi doesn't like him all that much either. His name is Dr. Bassem Youssef, and he joins us now. They call him the Jon Stewart of Egypt. Welcome, Bassem, how are you?

BASSEM: Hello, Glenn, how are you? Such a pleasure to talk to you. Man, I mean, I've kind of known you forever. Such a pleasure. How are you?

GLENN: Thank you. I would imagine that you have strong opinions about me, and we can get to those if you care to later. But I would rather talk about you.

BASSEM: No, no, no. I enjoy all your views, and I have to say, I have watched you, I don't know, make -- I find your ways and -- I don't know. I respect all kinds of freedom of speech. And I have no strong opinions about you at all, no.

GLENN: That's fine. So, Bassem,the one thing that we should come together on was I was really concerned about the Arab Spring because of the Muslim Brotherhood.

BASSEM: Yeah.

GLENN: And I really felt that the -- as I said at the time, Mubarak is a monster. And we as Americans, we helped create him. I mean, we have no business to -- to tell anybody about freedom. We were in bed with Mubarak for a long time. Horrible person. And here we are with our ghost plane, sending people and saying, we're not going to torture anybody. We'll just bring to you Mubarak. And I was concerned because I do know the history of the Middle East. Not like you do. And I do know the -- I take people who are Islamic extremists at their word.

And I saw the Arab Spring as an opportunity for those who wanted to create caliphates. As it turns out, you guys dodged a bullet, and it was ISIS, you know, forming the caliphate. And you guys got away from the Muslim Brotherhood.

In watching your documentary, I can't imagine living it. Can you -- can you tell the American people what it is like to go through a revolution?

BASSEM: Yeah. It's very chaotic. I chose comedy and satire to go through with it. Which is very difficult. Because we happened to write comedy where things were basically falling apart outside, especially threats -- I mean, like there were people -- I was put under siege in my theater, writing my show. And I was put under siege by people who were supporters by the military, not the Islamists.

So -- so the thing is, you are completely right about being scared of the Islamist. And it's totally justified. But what people miss is that Islamism, radical Islamism has been also a tool by military as much as it is a tool by Islamists.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. Oh, I agree.

BASSEM: Yeah. It was set out in 1980, who actually gave a greater power to Sharia in the Constitution in order to have unlimited times of reelection. It was (inaudible) in Pakistan, who also pushed into the Sharia laws, so that he will appease the Islamists. It was Gaafar Nimeiry in Sudan, who changed the country into an Islamic State because military dictatorship was not working.

And even now, right now, the military under el-Sisi is using all the conservative values of conservatism. It's kind of like our Islamism is better than their Islamism. And it has put people in jail because if they try to reform some interpretation of the religion.

So the thing is, I don't think that the Muslim Brotherhood were on the way to the caliphate. As a matter of fact, they were in bed with the military. The military actually pushed them to the front, because the Muslim Brotherhood would give them guarantees so they will keep their own benefits.

GLENN: Correct.

BASSEM: So it is basically a game. You know that the most radical people in Egypt are the Salitis, which are kind of like the right, right, right wing. It's kind of like Muslim Brotherhood on steroids. They were created by the Mubarak regime. And why?

Because these military regimes they tell the West, hey, we are quote and quote, secular. If you go, you will have these people to deal with. So it's kind of like, either me or chaos. Either me or ISIS. What do you choose?

So, of course, all of the Western (inaudible) say, all right. You know what, he's a son of an SOB. But he's our SOB. And it is in their benefit to keep that duality. So they do not -- they do not support education. They don't support awareness. They don't support openness. It is their own best interest to have people stuck between the duality. The bully with the gun or the bully with the Sharia.

GLENN: So we see -- we see people over here. We're marching in the streets. And both sides are marching in the streets now. And they're, I'm so oppressed. And blah, blah, blah. And then you see people like you, where -- where people in America don't have any concept of going on television or going online and telling a joke about a president or a leader and then being arrested for that or being disappeared.

BASSEM: Yeah. Yeah. Yes, yes. And this is a blessing. I mean, I know that you guys are always kind of concerned about how the state of -- and I think this is a good thing. I mean, when I was asked, like, Bassem, do you think we are like a bunch of kids because we are complaining, while you guys went through a lot? I said, no, I think you should be complaining. Because it's like you guys are like someone who is used to a certain kind of service. He goes into a restaurant, he doesn't like his soup, it's cool, he turns it away.

Nobody on the other table is like, oh, you should be grateful because other people in the world don't have food to eat.

No, you have actual war, like for the past 400 years. Civil war. Revolution, in the beginning. Civil rights, to get this kind of service.

So when people think that this is not the kind of service they paid for through their history, they -- they should be upset. And it's fine. So it doesn't have -- you shouldn't be waiting until it actually goes down the drain.

GLENN: So I agree with you. But here's where, you know -- I'm probably a little more like you in some ways. I'm hated by every president in our country. I don't think I've been liked by a president since Ronald Reagan.

BASSEM: Good for you.

GLENN: Yeah. But the last two presidents have made it personal. The last two presidents have -- and it's getting worse -- are making this very, very personal. And we're starting to creep to a place to where, you know, the president just this last weekend said, you know, you should be fired from your job. You know, they should run you out of business. Whatever. For freedom of speech.

And Americans are losing the understanding, on both sides of the aisle, that the only speech that needs protecting is the speech that the majority or those in power don't like. And so we --

BASSEM: Absolutely.

GLENN: And so we have to -- how can you teach Americans that you -- you got to tolerate the stuff you really despise.

BASSEM: Well, actually, I don't think you really need to teach Americans. You have a president to teach. Because the thing is, this is -- as an outsider, as a complete outsider, that is my biggest problem with the current president. It's not because he's -- he's biased against people like me who has skin like me, has an accent like me, or comes from a place like me, because that's kind of like a joke.

My biggest issue with him is that he doesn't understand the concept of becoming a public servant. He is still acting as a celebrity rich guy who doesn't accept criticism.

And you know what really bugged me? Not all -- like, there's a lot of stuff that bugs me about him. But like, this year, when he said, you know what, I'm not going to the correspondent dinner. I'm not going to that tradition where every president in the United States since -- the only one who bailed out was Reagan because he was shot, you know. So, you know, he said I'm not going so that you can make fun of me. And this is a tradition that all -- you don't understand outside of America, how the world looks at the correspondent dinner. And it's like, wow, they have a president. He's there. And he's being roasted for a whole night. This is amazing.

And he said, no. I'm not going because I'm above this. And this is his problem. He doesn't understand that it's okay because people voted for him. People are paying his salary because of the tax --

GLENN: So you have -- you have -- you say this kind of -- not about Trump. You say this in your own -- in the documentary about your experience. You talk a little bit about how, you know, these guys -- we have to be able to make fun of our leader.

BASSEM: Absolutely.

GLENN: But that's totally foreign to you.

BASSEM: Absolutely. Absolutely. And the thing is, in the Middle East, it's totally different. It's not like a rich guy who doesn't understand the concept of being a public servant. It's like a whole region that has lived for so long and attached to our system. It's like he's a father, he's the leader, he's the inspirational guru. It is something that you cannot touch. And it starts from a very young age. You can't talk back against your parents. You can't talk back against your teacher. Against your boss. Against -- all the way up to the president.

And this has been engrained in us. So when I went out and I made fun of it, said, oh, that's not appropriate. It's like, all right. So that's not appropriate. But, like, torturing people, jailing people is appropriate?

It's really weird what people would consider is appropriate. Because I've been hearing you, you know, before I went in, and you were saying like Puerto Rico is suffering, and people are talking about like whether we should kneel or not for the flag. It's crazy. It's crazy.

How people are offended by, like, kneeling for the flag, but they're not offended by what's happening to fellow Americans on this island.

GLENN: Bessem Youssef is joining us. We'll continue our conversation. The movie is Tickling Giants. You really need to see it. It's available everywhere. It's really an amazing documentary on the Arab Spring and what was going on with satire and what it takes to tell a joke in the Middle East.

GLENN: We have Dr. Bassem Youssef on, and we're going to run out of time with him, and I could spend two hours with him. But, first of all, let me just say this, Bassem, we have a Muslim Egyptian on our own staff who is a huge fan. His family lives in Egypt. And they are huge fans. And they -- I'm going to get spanked by everybody in the family if I don't say thank you for them, for what you've done in Egypt.

BASSEM: Oh, my God. That's amazing. Thank you so much.

GLENN: So let me -- let me ask you two quick questions. We have very little time left.

You've seen now this whole revolution. You've watched it. Are you optimistic for Egypt and the Middle East?

BASSEM: On the long run, yes. Because it had to be done. It had to be done. You know, in the age of social media and Snapchat and Instagram and instant likes and shares, I think we got used to things have to happen instantly. So we were fooled by, "Oh, my God. We had the revolution in 18 days. Yay, we got Mubarak down. And then, oh, my God, it's going down the drain."

But if you look at history, history doesn't work this way. Look to America, 100 years in, you had the Civil War. And even your revolution just didn't happen in 1976. And then you had the Constitution. You had the Bill of Rights. There was like fights and malicious wars in the streets. And it took them another 100 years -- so it doesn't work this way. Look to Europe. It's kind of like -- I hate to say this, but I think there's a blood tax that humanity has to pay to learn. And we've seen that in Europe. We've seen that in America. We've seen that in Latin America.

GLENN: I think so too.

BASSEM: And I think we will have to pay. We have to pay to learn. We didn't pay our tax yet, and here's the one optimistic thing that's going out of the revolution. Because I know that you're looking at the Middle East right now, and it looks terrible. But there has been -- if you look closely, questioning was not a popular thing.

GLENN: You have 45 seconds.

BASSEM: Yeah. So popular -- people are very popular -- people now are questioning everything. Questioning things about tradition. Questioning about military.

And this is what came out of the revolution, the questioning. And that's a prequel of revolution.

GLENN: Bassem, I would love to talk to you again. And I wish you all the best of luck. I truly believe you are a -- you are one of the bravest people on television anywhere in the world, as you have active -- real active threats from the power structure, no matter who is in power. And it's an honor to speak to you. Thank you so much.

BASSEM: It's an honor to speak to you, sir. Thank you.

GLENN: You bet.

Name of the video that you must see is Tickling Giants.

STU: And the book, Revolution For Dummies: Laughing Through the Arab Spring.

GLENN: Have you seen the documentary?

STU: I've only seen parts of it.

GLENN: It is -- this guy -- I mean, when they're writing comedy and he's like, so-and-so had their father arrested last night because of the show. Are we doing the right thing? It's remarkable.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

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