Will Future Artificial Intelligence Be Able to Frame You for Crimes?

If you aren’t yet at Elon Musk’s level of being nervous about artificial intelligence, this peek into the future might get you there.

On today’s show, Glenn read an email from a friend in the tech industry theorizing what AI of the future will be able to do. AI that can mimic voices and recognize people not only by their faces but also by their body movements is already in the works. What’s coming next?

“Imagine AI … being able to identify a perfect stacked, ranked list of every person in the country who works against whatever your agenda is,” Glenn said. “Then imagine that AI being able to go online and post things on the internet that sound exactly like you.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So I had a friend write to me, just this morning. And he said, Glenn, I was listening to your show yesterday. And he said -- let me see if I have this. I'm paraphrasing here. You talk about AI killing us all.

I know that's a go-to line a lot of tech people take with AI. But the thing I want to get across to you, is that's not the worst thing AI could do.

STU: Wait.

GLENN: Yeah, okay.

STU: You're talking about artificial intelligence could kill us all, and that he says not the worse that it could do?

GLENN: This is a guy who is in Silicon Valley, very high levels. And has -- he writes to me from time to time. And he'll say, hey, you've got this wrong, or you should pay attention to this. Or, hey, have you seen what people are working on over here? So he'll write to me from time to time. I -- think -- I'm not sure if I've ever met him. Maybe I met him once, years ago. But I'm not sure if I've ever met him. And he's written me for years. Just for years.

And I really respect him. He has a very sharp, sharp mind. And he's never asked for a meeting before.

And he wrote me last week, and he said, AI is starting to take a very scary turn. And I -- I need to meet with you.

And I said, will you come on the air and talk to me?

And he's like, God, no. No. But you need to know. And I need to make you aware of what is happening with AI.

So he says, you know, AI killing us all may not be the worse thing.

Well, what could possibly be worse? Stu, listen to this.

Imagine AI, current AI, not some AI in the future, being able to identify a perfect stacked, ranked list of every person in the country who works against whatever your agenda is from top to bottom.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Let me say that again. Imagine AI, current AI, not some AI in the future, being able to identify a perfect stacked, ranked list of every person in the country who works against whatever your agenda is from top to bottom.

Don't give this on camera, please. Then imagine that AI being able to go online and being able to post things on the internet that sound exactly like you.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: He hasn't even started. Then imagine AI being able to go online and post things on the internet that sound exactly like you, writing in your voice perfectly. Imagine AI can call people on the phone and sound exactly like you, can appear in videos, surveillance cameras, photos, looking exactly like you. Walking exactly like you.

Imagine an AI that is able to see everything that you do and then determine what the best way is to frame you for something you didn't do. Then build the evidence against you perfectly to the point that you could never defend yourself in court. Imagine an AI that can orchestrate a pile of real blackmail evidence against you, from things that you actually have done in your life, then tell the owner how to present it to you, to make you completely snap, based on your current medical and mental state.

Imagine an AI that makes it so you have no idea what is real and what is fake.

Glenn, this is the kind of thing that I'm talking about. And I can show you actual evidence of this happening now. You need to see it.

Yeah, AI can kill me. Don't do me any favors. The worst concept is what AI can do in the hands of the wrong person or agency or political party or nation or nation state. You've talked in the past about not being able to believe your eyes. We're there. That future is now.

Holy mother.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: You do not want my friends.

STU: No.

GLENN: You don't want my friends. I don't sleep well.

STU: Most people just email me to congratulate me about the Eagles win last night.

GLENN: I know. I know.

STU: And that, I think, ties into the situation with -- with Russia. And the media has done such a job on trying to make this all about Donald Trump. The idea that a foreign power with almost unlimited resources could harvest and harness that type of technology, to utilize it against somebody here or their enemies, is frightening.

GLENN: Have you heard what Vladimir Putin says about AI? Have you heard his latest statement in the last month?

STU: I don't think so.

GLENN: In the last month or so, he came out and he said, this is the final war. This is it. Whoever masters AI first will dominate and control everything on earth.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: And so he's pouring all of the resources of Russia into the development of AI. Because, I would imagine, he knows the same thing my friend does: The entire world changes.

This goes back, Stu, to a conversation you and I had in '97, '96, when I said to you, imagine a time when you're not going to be able to believe your own eyes. Because they'll be able to re-create you and put you in photographs and put you in videos. And it's not you. But you won't be able to believe your own eyes.

STU: Yeah. We've been talking about the Harvey Weinstein thing a lot this week. Imagine that sort of technology applied to this, to someone who didn't do it.

GLENN: Well, and imagine -- we know that AI -- we know that a year or 18 months ago, we heard AI imitate the voice of Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and I think Hillary Clinton.

STU: Hillary Clinton, yeah.

GLENN: You could tell it was a computer. But it was really close.

STU: Just -- it wasn't a consumer-facing press. Was it a university that was doing it?

GLENN: I can't remember.

STU: But it was the first attempt, right? In ten years, I mean, imagine how far they'll be --

GLENN: Imagine how far it is now.

STU: And it wasn't taking words from Barack Obama. It was actually creating from scratch his voice and then typing in whatever you wanted him to say.

GLENN: Correct. And, again, you could tell it was a computer. But it was the first attempt. Imagine that tape of Harvey Weinstein that the -- the NYPD had, that undercover tape. You could create -- especially somebody like me, who has been on television. You have all my movements. You have everything.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You could create anything. Anything.

STU: And this is one of the downsides of our society turning into 310 million individual broadcasters. Because now everybody has had videos posted of them, of almost everything they've done. We all host our own little shows on social media and feed into this. And really, if this technology develops as your friend says it does, and he's at a high level of Silicon Valley.

GLENN: You know who he is.

STU: Yeah, and if that develops that way, unimpeded, you're going to be able to make anyone say anything. And you're not going to be able to defend yourself.

GLENN: And what's frightening is the damage that is done -- imagine, you want to start World War III. You can start it. You can absolutely start it.

You want to start Civil War, show Donald Trump meeting with Vladimir Putin and -- and show him doing all kinds of wicked plans against the United States. You would have a civil war. Neither of them were in the room, that's not true. What's frightening is not what comes in ten years, but how perfected this technology may be at this point, where before everybody has it in their hands. Once everybody has it in their hands -- but until everybody recognizes that this stuff is true and exists, it's just then a conspiracy theory. And how many people will be wronged or jailed or killed? How many wars will be started? How many things will collapse because it was used and people don't know that we have that technology? Holy cow.

STU: I for one believe AI is responsible for turning the freaking frogs gay. I don't know if that's true. But that's what I believe.

GLENN: No, I don't think that is true.

STU: Oh, no, that was chemicals in the water. But who knows. All I know is the frogs, they're gay. I'll say that.

GLENN: I don't -- I definitely don't think they are. How do you know?

STU: They're totally gay frogs.

GLENN: Have you been to their clubs?

STU: Yeah, they're kind of enjoyable, to be honest.

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.