Twitter is the LAST DIGITAL HAVEN of free speech

May 12, 2023

BRITTA PEDERSEN / Contributor, Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

CEO/Founder

I want to talk specifically here to those people in journalism.

Don Lemon, I used to think we just really disagreed with each other. I don't believe that anymore. I think you might be sick. I think you might be living under some delusion that makes you believe the things you're saying are true. But they're not.

Have you considered doing your show on this platform? Maybe worth a try. Audience is much bigger.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 10, 2023

I have never, ever wanted you silenced. I have no problem with someone trying to make their point of view. That doesn't mean I agree with you. It doesn't mean I'm not going to counter your arguments or point out I believe these things are total falsehoods. But I do not want anyone silenced. Not anyone—even on the left.

I sincerely ask you to take Elon Musk up on his offer and take your show to Twitter. And I mean it. Right now—and this could all change—right now, what Elon Musk is doing is reasonable and American. He is trying to turn Twitter into an actual town square.

What Elon Musk is doing is reasonable and American.

A town square is a place where, traditionally, in America, you could always go, and there would be somebody on their soapbox. You would listen to them. Then, you would go to another person that was on their soapbox, and you would listen to them. They might be disagreeing. But you could hear everything. That's the way we did it in the 1700-1800s.

Last year, the New York Times put out a poll that found one in five Americans say politics hurt their relationships with their friends or families. I don't believe that number is that low. Only one in five! Across the political spectrum, do you know the one thing we all agree on? We're too divided.

There are two solutions to this.

One, I believe, is evil. You liquidate all the people that disagree with whatever the government says. Whatever the leaders or the elites say is true becomes "permitted speech." For all those who dare challenge the official narrative, you either liquidate them or put them in jail. It's been done before. If you were an awful, evil person who believes in dictatorship, that's a legitimate way to deal with things.

The other solution, which has always been the American solution, is open communication. ALL voices. It used to be the case in America that people of all stripes could get all pieces of information. Why is this so important? Because if I am lying to you about what's happening, you should be able to hear it. When you are able to hear something openly, then others are able to discredit it through free and open speech.

We need the space for speech to be protected and to say whether something is or isn't true. Let someone dare speak their mind, and we THE PEOPLE can debate amongst each other whether their statement is true or false. This was the intention of the First Amendment.

This is really important. But we don't have that now.

When you are able to hear something openly, then others are able to discredit it through free and open speech.

Right now, people like me, and Ben Shapiro, and Tucker Carlson are being throttled by social media platforms like Facebook and YouTube. We actually have teams of people to manage this. You can't believe the amount of time and money and energy it takes to strategize every single day on how NOT to get censored for sharing what we believe to be true!

Tucker Carlson has found a very ingenious way to make sure his voice isn't blocked. Fox News is, I believe, doing some very Fox-News-sort-of-things to keep him silent, for at least a couple of years. That can't happen. Legally, they think they can get away with it. I don't think so, but I've not read Tucker Carlson's contract.

Tucker Carlson has found a very ingenious way to make sure his voice isn't blocked.

But this is what makes Tucker's move so ingenious. The one outlet that is most likely not prohibited by his contract is Twitter. We all own our own Twitter feeds as individuals. Our employers don't own our personal accounts. Companies don't own our Twitter feeds. WE DO.

At Fox, they have been ignoring the power of the internet for years. When I left, they didn't cover anything online. Because Roger Ailes thought "online" was a fad. I told him, "No, it's not, Roger." And he said, "Well, you go ahead and do that internet thing. That won't amount to anything."

I responded, "Roger, you really need to pay attention to the internet. I know people thought television is a fad. This is not a fad. This will come and destroy Fox News, as you know it." He laughed at me. They never took it seriously until we built TheBlaze and became a threat, and they started to build Fox Nation.

They never took it seriously until we built TheBlaze and became a threat.

We have been in discussions already with Elon's team about the possibility of streaming something exclusive and special on Twitter. God willing, if Elon stays his course, Twitter will become one of the only social media platforms that actually supports free speech and transparency.

I do not expect Elon Musk to censor anyone on the left, and I believe he actually wants the left to take him up on his offer of “you stream things too.” This is the idea that YouTube and Facebook were supposed to be. That's how they pitched Facebook to us in the first place. We were the ones that helped build Facebook. And then they turned it all around on you and took all of our subscribers. Now we have to pay for access to the very same people we brought to Facebook.

We have been in discussions already with Elon's team about the possibility of streaming something exclusive and special on Twitter.

This is why I started TheBlaze 12 years ago. We needed a space to speak freely. And we still do. It's not enough just to have BlazeTV, because you need an additional microphone. If you can speak all you want to a group of people, it doesn't matter—if those people are behind a wall. That's where we are with social media today.

The Germans found out that putting people behind a wall is a very effective way to shut your dissidents down. Just put them in a ghetto. And we've talked about the digital ghetto for a long time. Between what Elon is doing and the Twitter Files, we have seen Big Tech and the government's coordinated effort to put political dissidents behind a digital ghetto. Now, Elon is breaking us out, at least on Twitter.

We can amplify everything we say on BlazeTV on Twitter in a way that no other social media platform has allowed anyone to do. Anyone who believes in the right to free speech—I see us all as a team—myself, BlazeTV, the Daily Wire, Twitter—I am thrilled to partner with anyone who believes in the First Amendment.

We can amplify everything we say on BlazeTV on Twitter in a way that no other social media platform has allowed anyone to do.

I doubt Elon Musk and I agree on an awful lot. But we don't need to agree. We only need to agree that freedom of speech is paramount for a free society. And anyone who is against censorship, all censorship, I stand with you!

This is why Tucker Carlson is taking a version of his show to Twitter. And it's a brilliant move. It wouldn't be possible if Elon Musk hadn't put his money on the line and, quite honestly, his neck on the line, to turn Twitter from the "Ministry of Truth" into a marketplace of ideas.

I urge everyone in this audience to get on Twitter and to learn how to disagree again without hating each other. Why not treat Twitter as an intellectual coliseum to hash out the real issues we are facing? Because we may finally—at least for a while—have an even playing field online.

Why not treat Twitter as an intellectual coliseum to hash out the real issues we are facing?

So, Don Lemon, I would never ask you to join BlazeTV. You don't belong here. We are looking for people who love America, love the truth, and love the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I don't believe you fit that. But on Twitter, you absolutely fit that. As do I. As does Tucker.

Join us on Twitter. And may the best ideas win.

The Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

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.

Glenn's Show Prep