RADIOJune 05, 2025

Is this the REAL reason Elon Musk SLAMMED the “Big, Beautiful Bill?”

Republicans are divided over the “Big, Beautiful Bill.” President Trump wants Congress to pass it, Elon Musk called it a “disgusting abomination,” and Rep. Chip Roy “reluctantly” voted for its current version. Rep. Roy joins Glenn to give his take on the latest updates in the fight. Plus, he gives Glenn his theory on why Elon really slammed the bill.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So last month, the big, beautiful bill cleared the House by a single vote.

The senators now have been meeting for weeks, behind closed doors.

They return to Washington, late Monday.

They revised the package.

Donald Trump just tweeted out, passing the one, big beautiful bill is a historic opportunity to turn our country around.

They need to work as fast as they can, to get this bill to my desk, before the Fourth of July. Then you have Elon Musk saying the massive outrageous pork-filled congressional spending bill say disgusting abomination.

Shame on those who voted for it. You know you did wrong. You know it!

Mike Johnson then says, well, that was advertise appointing.

With all due respect, Elon Musk is my friend. And he's terribly wrong about the one, big beautiful bill.

My for sure, my head hurts from all of this.

Now the White House is sending an additional $9 billion in cuts, which is nice.

But we're hoping for $1 trillion in cuts. And everybody is arguing in $9 billion in cuts.

How is this thing going to even pass?

What is happening here?

We have Chip Roy, who voted for the last one, reluctantly. And I don't know where he stands now. Chip Roy, welcome to the program. How are you, championship.

CHIP: Glenn, how are you doing, brother?

GLENN: I'm good. I'm good. Must not be fun being you right now.

CHIP: Well, you know, here's the thing, when you have a reputation for trying to do the right thing, people do, I think, want to come to you, to figure out, what's the score here? What's the real deal? I'm proud that I think people see me as someone who tries to be honest. And kind of work the lie this. To achieve what you and I and all your listeners want to achieve. We have an obligation to get this done. But we have to get this done right. You said thank you for saying that I voted for it reluctantly.

Because I did reluctantly vote for it. I messaged you at the time. Was reluctant. We have to weight a lot of things right now.

We have a president who was given a mandate, a president that you and I support what he's doing, taking on the establishment, taking on this town.

You know, rooting all this DEI and woke garbage, you know, pushing the barriers. Steering the border. All the things that we know are happening. And we need to do sort of things in this bill. We do need tax relief. We need to extend the tax cuts. We need economic growth by putting more money in the hands of the pockets of Americans.

Those are all important things. But we have to cut spending.

And the swamp creatures in Congress aren't good at that. People like me that are beating our head against the wall, trying to demonstrate. Hey, here's what we need to do, here's how we need to cut.

So now we have to balance this thing. The reason I was reluctant is because it does do some really good things that we bled and fought for, for two months, Glenn. I mean, the week before last, we were at three straight days, going down, negotiating at the White House. Negotiating folks.

And what we got was good. Was it great?

No, it was good.

We got the Inflation Reduction Act reduced down. We got a full repeal basically of all future projects.

But, no. We don't build a 400 billion existing project. We got historic Medicare reductions. Reductions in the increases, yes.

But a trillion dollars' worth, it's never been done, Glenn. Literally, but is that good enough for the moment? Maybe not.

I think we have to do better on that.

All the things about the vulnerable versus the able-bodied.

We got Medicaid work requirements moved out from 29 to 26. We fought like hell to make the bill, something that I think that we could be proud of certain elements.

But Elon is not wrong. Okay?

Elon is not wrong. For the moment, we need to do better.

We need more spending restraint. We need to meet this moment, with the actual deficit reduction that is necessary.

If we get economic growths from the taxes, if we get economic growths from the regulatory policy, if we get economic growths because the president is strong and leading, then we can get out of this mess.

But it's that plus spending restraints. Last point.

I do think it's worth noting, that I'm not sure that Elon is really excited about the extent to which, we are killing the subsidies across-the-board.

GLENN: Wow.

CHIP: All future subsidies for EVs, for solar panels, for the wing craft, all future subsidies we are mostly killing.

There is a few lingering projects. We take it down.

The left is losing their damn mind, Glenn. So there's a little of that that's also at play. So that's a long-winded explanation. A lot to do. We're pushing the Senate. They need to go further. I think we need to fix some stuff.

But I can promise you this, Glenn. If this bill backslides, if they work off what we got, which I don't think is necessarily good enough, I can promise you I will oppose it in the House. So we'll see what the Senate does.

GLENN: Your speculation on what they're going to do? Are they making it worse right now? Is it getting better?

CHIP: I think there are forces at play, that are desperately trying to undo the benefits we got, with respect to repealing the Green New stamp subsidies. Which by the way, the President of the United States campaigned fully and clearly on terminating the green new stamp subsidy.

There are forces, who want to undo that. There are forces in the House, that regret voting for the subsidy he did it.

I think there are forces in the Senate, who are wary of some of our Medicare reforms, which were important. On work requirements, on eligibility. To tighten down and make sure we are trying to make sure the able bodies aren't getting benefits, et cetera.

I don't think it went far enough.

So we will to have work hard, just to hold the line at the House bill, which, Glenn, I would say is on the edge of whether it's good enough to merit moving forward, and hoping we get 3 yards and a cloud of dust.

I will tell you, that if we can repeal IRA subsidies, get the Medicare reforms. Constrain the spending, and the economic growth in the tax policy.

That it's moving the ball down the field.

That's I didn't hold my nose. But if we were truly a conservative Congress, we would cut more. That's just the truth.

GLENN: So I read all kinds of things from the banking sector.

That we're talking about our treasury bills.

That we are -- we are so dangerously close.

You raise the debt ceiling yet again, we are dangerously close to the rest of the world saying, I can't buy their debt anymore.

I mean, they're not serious about anything.

Do you believe we're that close?

CHIP: I believe we're in a very -- yeah. I believe we're on a knife's edge. I think that the bond markets are suggesting that. That's why Scott Bessent has been saying, we need to get deficits down to the percentage of GDP. So we can signal to the bond markets, what needs to be signaled. I think we have an obligation to get this right, right now.

In order to frankly --

GLENN: So why isn't anybody listening to that?

Why isn't anybody listening to Bessent and the bond market?

That's lights out for America, if we don't get that right.

CHIP: Yeah. And let me give you another scary point. If we have to refinance our debt at higher interest rates, which currently we would be projecting, much higher interest rates than the CBO is even projecting. How many times the CBO. We all recognize that they're flawed.

It doesn't matter. You have to look at the model that's in front of you.

The current model projects refinancing that debt at three and a half percent.

What if we have to refinance under the levels of four, four and a half percent? Five percent.

You will have massively more interest expense. Instead of a trillion, it would be a trillion and a half. Instead of a trillion and a half, it would be 2 trillion.

We are going to gobble up our entire government expenditures of interest.

I mean, Glenn, it is that bad. And here's the problem: Is Congress finally waking up to what you and I and the Freedom Caucus and conservatives have been saying now for a decade plus?

Yes. They're realizing that we're in a real bad spot.

All that is doing is coming to the table to do the bare minimum.

Right?

The Medicare reforms. The place for giant subsidies. The food stamp reforms.

The other things we put in this bill.

All of these things which are good. And not as far as I would go.

Just to be clear to your listeners. They're finally getting to the table to accept that. And they're getting there too late.

Now what I'm saying, we need to do more.

The president is sending up recisions.

And, yes. It's just 9 billion.

Why does this matter?

The reconciliation package can pass the Senate with 51 votes.

The normal appropriations process, which we still have to do this year. Will require 60 votes in the Senate.

Right?

So that means it will hard to get through Democrats.

So this recessions process is a way to try to cut some of these ridiculous programs. Like USAID. And other things.

Using a 51 vote threshold.

So that is why we're trying to move it, that way.

The reason it's just a smaller 9 billion-dollar number. Is it's a test case.

Will Congress do its job?

And do this first down payment, a 9 billion-dollar recision of PBS, NPR, and a bunch of USAID foreign government funding, foreign aid wasteful program.

And now we'll see.

I'll, of course, vote for that. You know I will.

But will the moderates?

We'll find out. If they do. We will get another rescission package sent up right after that. So this is all part of the process, working near the president. So I don't need to filibuster. But that's the update.

STU: Speak about the process a little bit, because it's fascinating to watch this bill try to make its way through all of this.

Like for at least my estimates so far, my understanding is that there's at least two Congress men who -- one congresswoman, I suppose, who already have said that their vote was a yes.

But now it would be a no, because they didn't realize what they were voting for.

Which would already put you under the amount that you would need to get it passed. The salt people in the house are saying, if you get he rid of salt, we're done.

The Senate is saying, we're getting rid of salt or at least adjusting it. How does this thing get across the finished line?

CHIP: Well, I mean, like everything else, you have to figure out how to navigate to get to 218 and 251.

We managed to get it this far. Look, you go to war with the army you've got. We have the Congress that we have. We have the president that we have who is trying to get this done. We're trying to work to do it. I think we're in this Zip code. But we're not where we need to be.

So let's take the things, you get some examples. Are there things in this bill, that some of us knew about and were warning about, that others are now just kind of waking up and seeing?

Yes. At the time, I said, for example, there's a car tax in this bill, you fools.

I don't support it. It was a tax to make up for the fact that EVs and hybrids can't, you know, pair their fair share of the gas tax.

They needed $40 billion to pay for some Coast Guard and some other stuff. So how did they pay for it, in the committee? What they did was they added a car tax, for EVs and for hybrids. Now, do you think that we conservatives, with the government views, believe we should have a car tax?

I sure as hell don't.

GLENN: No.

CHIP: How about the AI restrictions?

Should we prohibit Florida, and should we prohibit Texas from having some sort of regulation on AI? From a federal standpoint, I'm not sure we should. So there's a lot of things in this bill, that I knew all this.

Was telling people about it. But there's only 40 fights you can pick.

My fight was, you're going to repeal these damn subsidies on the act, that are killing our grid, undermining our national security, and destroying natural gas and nuclear energy options. My fight was trying to get Medicaid held down.

About 20 other fights. For example, the car tax, Scott Perry and I and a couple of others, at least killed the tax on the internal combustion energy.

They were going to have a car tax in America, y'all. So, look, we're fighting everything we've got coming at us. There are things that need to get fixed.

To answer your question, if they need to adjust salt, I might try to call the bluff of the guys on the salt caucus and say, really?

You're going to vote this down. Because you didn't get more subsidies for your great big tax jurisdiction, right? But if they want to try to call our bluff. I can tell you, if they repeal back the Inflation Reduction Act stuff, which the president campaigned on. Then that's going to be a real problem.

GLENN: I know.

CHIP: So we will see.

It's a fine line. And I'm trying to work with leadership.

The White House, to deliver, as close to my values, as I can.

And be able to look in the mirror, and say, I did enough. And I'm not sure, gentlemen. I'm trying to shoot straight. We're walking a line.

It could easily peel off and I can't support it. It could move in the right direction, and I'll support it.

Say, let's go fight tomorrow for the next thing.

I'm trying to work in good faith with the president and his team to deliver. There's a lot of good things in this bill. Let's remember that. A trillion dollars of real Medicare reform. We've never done that before, guys, ever.

Right? Inflation Reduction Act. Planned Parenthood not funded. Trans surgeries. Repeal for adults and kids, to defund that. The left had gone so far, we're peeling a lot of that back. So let's remember the good stuff, while we're trying to highlight some of our concerns.

GLENN: Chip, I -- you're very reasoned, and I really appreciate talking to you. And I'm really so glad that you are representing the great state of Texas. You're a guy that at least I feel I can trust. You know, you say what you mean. And you mean what you say.

And that is the number one thing I look for in a representative. Is somebody who will say the same thing to me, to my face, as they will behind closed doors. I really appreciate all your hard work on this.

Thanks, Chip.
CHIP: Hey, I appreciate it, Glenn. Thanks for exposing all this to the American people and being truthful about it. This is hard for people like us.

Because you want to be with the team to move the ball down the field. We want to succeed.
We want to win.

But you also don't want to eat a crap sandwich.

So I promise you, I will level the good, the bad, and the ugly. And then you just have to decide what's the best for the country. And vote, and move forward.

That's where we are.

GLENN: Next time, it starts to move forward. You call in and you let us know, what's in it.

You just make sure you get a hold of me.

Soon as you start to see things moving forward, you let us know. Because I appreciate your point of view on that.

Thanks, Chip.

Why Trump’s War on Harvard Is a MAJOR Threat to Elites | Glenn TV | Ep 436

The Trump administration is taking on Harvard University in a historic clash of power, politics, and principles. It’s an explosive showdown that is shaking the foundations of elitism. At the heart of it are accusations that Harvard has ignored rising anti-Semitism, has defied a Supreme Court ruling on race-based admissions, and has become a factory of radical left-wing orthodoxy. With over 6,700 foreign students and billions of dollars in frozen federal funds on the line, Harvard is feeling the heat like never before. From pro-Hamas protests to elite privilege, Glenn Beck reveals how the ivory tower has become an incubator for hatred and how the Trump administration is leveraging billions to demand change. But this isn’t just about Harvard — it’s about American higher education infecting the nation with divisive ideologies. Plus, the Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro joins to debunk claims Trump’s war on Harvard is a war on free speech as well as to discuss his interview with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and Elon Musk’s fight with Washington over the "big, beautiful bill.

What everyone is MISSING about the “Big, Beautiful Bill” fight

President Trump and Elon Musk are battling over the “Big, Beautiful Bill.” But Glenn Beck explains the one thing many on the Right seem to be missing about the bill: raising the debt ceiling again is terrible, but Trump’s economic plan will fall apart if the good parts of this bill aren’t passed.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Stu, the latest on the battle of the big, beautiful bill.

What the hell is happening now?

STU: Well, I mean, most of the coverage, the last 24 hours, has been that Elon Musk is tweeting about it, an awful lot.

That seems to be the focus of the media at the moment.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: And, you know, various lawmakers trying to wrangle Elon Musk and trying to get him to stop doing this.

They don't want him to message this, as this terrible bill. Because they -- they want to keep him within the walls. They want him to be involved, in the Republican movement and party going forward. They also feel like, this is the best they can do I suppose.

You know, it's -- the bill itself. It will be very hard to get this through. You have only 53 senators, on the Republican side.

We know basically for a fact, that Rand Paul is a no, almost any other circumstance. Right? So you're at 52. You can lose two more.

We know Mike Lee has already kind of indicated he's not particularly in love with this bill. Several others have as well.

So they're going to have to make changes to probably get those people on board. When they do that. You're going to have the House, which only passed the bill by one vote.

And already has two members, who did vote for it.

Who have said, they now would vote against it. Now that they know what's in it.

Which is another significant problem, that maybe we should try to avoid in the future. You should probably read the bill before you actually vote for it.

Especially, you don't have to read the bill on this stuff. Because people are talking about it, outwardly in the debate, about the bill. The particular problems that these two representatives cited. So you're already under the amount of votes you need in the House.

Before the changes. Several factions in the House are saying, they will not vote for the bill, if certain parts of it change. Like the SALT deduction we've talked about before. Where you get to deduct your local taxes in blue states basically for a very short subscription of it.

So, I mean, look, Donald Trump does have a way of coming in and saying, do it!

And Republicans have a way of stepping up and saying, yes, sir.

That's kind of the way the Republican Party works at this point.

GLENN: So I think there's a good chance it still gets through eventually.

But when you look at what the bill has. It has a lot of good.

It has an awful lot of bad in it, as well.

So can I just, let me pick it up from there, Stu.

That it has a lot of bad in it. A lot of good in it.

Here's the thing that I don't think you're getting from anybody, really.

You're not getting a balanced look.

I understand both sides. I really do. I understand the urgency from the White House. And I think Russ Voit is going to be on with us, in about an hour, or next -- or tomorrow. Depends on what his schedule is like, trying to squeeze him in today.

But I trust him. He knows what's going on.

And I understand the White House's point of view. I really do.

I understand that if this doesn't pass, that means the tax cuts will probably not be permanent.

They won't get them through.

Without the tax cuts, the entire thing falls apart.

Without regulation reform, the entire plan for the economy falls apart.

Okay? And Trump knows that. The White House knows that. The Democrats know this.

They have to have this pass. Because of the good stuff in it.

Now, the bad stuff that's in it. The biggest probably bad stuff, the debt ceiling being raised by another $4 trillion.

That's really bad!

That's really, really bad.

Because we're not going to be able to continue to fund our -- our country, if we can't -- if we keep raising the debt, and we can't sell our Treasury bonds. We can't sell our debt to anybody, because nobody believes us anymore. That we're serious about cutting spending.

Then the entire thing falls apart.

So damned if you do, damned if you don't. That's where we're at. Okay?

If we don't pass it, then the president's economic plans fall apart. If we do pass it, we run a very high risk of the rest of the world saying, you guys aren't serious! About your debt. And we can't buy your Treasuries anymore.

And that changes -- that changes everything.

That one is not the fault of this administration.

That one is the fault of every single democratic Republican, since -- since when I was first born, they have been talking about this!

They have been talking about the debt and deficit and everything else. We've been talking about our spending problem forever. And at some point, I mean, even FDR said this, at some point, this won't work. You'll have to stop it!

I remember Ronald Reagan saying, at some point, we're not going to have any good options!

Well, we're there. There are no good options. Damned if you do, damned if you don't!

Okay?

This is what Ronald Reagan said was coming. We've known this forever, as a nation. So I look at this, and say, who do I bet on?

Gosh. I mean, we're betting the future of our nation. We're betting the future of our children.

We're betting the -- you know, whether we're all slaves to debt or not.

I don't hear a good solution on either side. I don't trust that the Republicans -- I don't think they're serious about anything. At all.

There's a few people that are serious about the debt. And really, I think understand it. Rand Paul is another one.

Mike Lee is another one.

Chip Roy is one, but Chip is one who I think also really understands not just the dangers of debt, but also the dangers to the economy, if we don't pass this bill.

We've got to the tax cuts. Have to!

Or everything falls apart.

So what do you do?

Well, there is one thing here, that really bothers me. This is -- this is -- I give the benefit of the doubt, to Trump and the White House.

And that scares me! It does. Not because I don't trust Donald Trump. I do trust Donald Trump.

But the debt scares the hell out of me! Because it's real. And at some point, and I don't know if it's this 4 trillion-dollar debt ceiling raised, or the next one, but at some point the rest of the world is going to walk away and go, uh-uh. So I give the benefit of the doubt, pass the bill. Just pass the bill. Okay?

That could end up being wrong. I'm not going to tell you I'm write by any stretch of the imagination. I think this is something we all have to do our own homework. And then pray on.

I can't tell you what's right or wrong.

You want someone to do that. Listen to Sean Hannity or somebody else. Because I don't know. I don't know.

Here's what I do know.

Yesterday, Trump said, the debt limit should be entirely scrapped. That is colossally a bad idea! A bad idea.

And I can't give the benefit of the doubt on that one. No. If we scrap the debt ceiling and the debt limit, that means nobody ever has to pause. Now, he's right in this sense: That everybody is using that debt ceiling as a weapon.

So if you don't have to have the debt ceiling, then they can't say, you know what, we're going to default on our loans, if we don't spend all this money!

We're never going to default. Okay?

We're not going to default. We just will have to live through austerity.

We will just to have cut all the programs.

And just pay the interest on our bills.

So we won't default.

And if we do, we're even in more trouble than I thought. But if you take away the debt ceiling vote, then there's no restraint. And here's how the world will interpret this.

There is one thing to say, I'm getting into a car. And we're going to go down this canyon. And it's very, very curvy.

You know, it's in one of those really dangerous canyons. That just make my butt clench every time you drive down these steep hills and canyons. And in the West. Where you're like, we can drive over the edge, and then we're dead.

It's one thing to get into a car, where the brakes are fine. It might be leaking a little bit.

But the brakes are fine. And you get into the car, and you're like, okay.

I think we're okay. I think we're okay. And we have a chance of survival.

And then another one, inviting people into the car and saying, no.

Oh, the brakes are fine. I mean, they're leaking a little bit. But the brakes are fine. Some people get in. Some people don't.

But if I got you on the top of that canyon and I pull up in my car, and I'm like, hey, hop in. We're going to go down the canyon. By the way, I cut the brake lines. So there's really no chance of us stopping or tapping on to the brakes. Would you get into the car?

That's what other countries and other -- other sovereign funds and all of the big wealth management. That's the way they will look at us, if we have no debt ceiling! If we just like, yeah. We can spend whatever we want.

We don't even have to talk about it anymore.

You know, we just know that the debt is going to be okay.

I'm not getting into that car.

I'm not buying a single bond from you.

You're completely irresponsible.

And there's no tapping of the brake. There's no slowing the car down. It starts going down the hill. There's no slowing it down. It just crashes, period.

That's what happens. Okay?

We cannot scrap the debt limit. That will be the -- that will be the death knell of America!

It will be over.

You will see the interest rates go through the roof.

Because nobody is going to -- nobody will want to buy our tea bill.

So we will have to be able to offer them more money. Okay. We'll pay you 9 percent.

Well, what is paying 9 percent interest? Just say 6 percent.

Five percent!

What does it mean, if we have to pay 5 percent interest, on $40 trillion?

Nothing good!

We won't be able to afford it. We will all be paying our taxes, just to pay that debt.

That's the bomb that's about to go off.

Okay?

And that's why people who are, quote, fiscal hawks, that I happen to agree with are saying, we have to cut more out of the budget.

We have to! Because it might be this 4 trillion-dollar debt ceiling raised, that kills us.

The world is so close to just saying, screw, America.

And they want to say screw America. As soon as they're ready with their alternate version of whatever it is, Bitcoin, a CBDC, or central banks, you know, BRICS.

Whatever it is. As soon as they're ready. They are going to cut us loose.

So we're facing that, let's just not hasten that!

And here's why the president -- the president has never, in his whole life, had a problem with debt.

And in some ways, he's right!

If you have at the time, and you're not really working hard, you're not doing the smart things.

But you have all this potential. And all this talent.

But you're not doing anything. Debt is a problem. Because how are you going to pay for it?

You know, when you're -- when you're not making the -- even the minimum debt payment, you're just adding more debt, you're in real trouble.

However, you know, you're a deadbeat. And you're like, you know what, I'm going to go to school. I'm going to become a doctor. I'm going to become a brain surgeon. And you have the ability to do that. You know what, I will be a brain surgeon, and some Nobel Prize winning scientist on energy. Because I'm going to invent a new kind of energy. You have no problem with the debt you have. You can keep piling on debt.

Go ahead. You want to go to Harvard. Good luck with that. But go to Harvard, and pile that debt on.

Because you will be able to pay that off, with what you're going to make in the future.

But right now, where the deadbeats.

We're not doing anything to make more money. And you know this in your own life. You have to be able to make more money. You have debt.

You either have to refinance, and if it's at a higher interest rate, that could be a problem. You have to pay it off. Or you just have to default, and say, you know what.

Chapter 11. I'm out. Well, we can't file chapter 11.

We can't do that. But we can't default. The world won't allow us to. So what do we do?

We either cut our debt, and our deficit. And we get our spending way under control.

Or we get another job! And we reinvent.

That's why Donald Trump is letting these -- these AI companies build their own nuclear power plants.

We don't have the money to -- to build them!

They will to have build them. You want to build them?

You build them. I will clear the red tape. But I'm not paying for them. You build them. Because you will be using the energy for AI. So go ahead.

You build the power plants.

That's the way for us to not dig ourselves into a hole. And allow us to be in a position to where we can reinvent the world, and reinvent the way the world works. And be first on the scene, so we can pay this debt off! Because we now have another job.

Does this make sense?

But there's one problem with all of this.

And that is, we're spending so much money now, and what are we spending it on?

I'll finish that here in just a second. First, let me tell you about our sponsor.

Our sponsor this half-hour is the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. You know, what's going on right now in the world, is just really terrifying.

And if you've ever read the Old Testament. I mean, really read it. You know the story about Israel.

It's not about geography. It's about a covenant. It's about a struggle. It's about a people who have endured more than most of us have ever begun to understand. And right now, that struggle is not just in the history books. It's real. It's happening again. There are rockets in the sky.

Families huddled in shelters. Wait until I tell you in a few minutes, what's happening over in France and England.

It will blow your mind. When crisis hits, whether it's war, poverty, or terror.

The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews is already on the ground. And they're giving aid to the elderly, the Holocaust survivors, the children who haven't seen a normal day in months.

These are Christians, standing with Israel, not just in prayer. But in action.

And your gift of only $45 will support their life-saving work by helping provide food, shelter, and so much more.

Bible says, I will bless those who bless you. Supporting IFCJ is a spiritual stand. It's showing up for God's people when it counts. So please, call 888-488-IFCJ. 888-488-IFCJ. Or go online at IFCJ.org. Every dollar helps. Don't wait. Be the difference.

Visit IFCJ.org. Or call 888-488-IFCJ.

(music)

GLENN: So the other problem that we have, and why we can't cut, and this kills me to say this!

One of the reasons why we can't cut so dramatically is because, between federal, state, and local, our GDP is 45 percent based on taxes!

On government. State, local, and federal spending. That's half of our GDP.

That's a crazy amount!

That's a dangerous amount.

So you start cutting all of these programs, you start cutting all of the -- you know, super fast bullet train that we needed in California.

It will take us another 20 years.

So give us some more money.

You stop spending this money. That money dries up in our communities.

And people lose their jobs. So we have to be very careful on how we cut. How rapidly we cut.

We don't want to cut too quickly, until we replace it with growth. But how do you grow without cutting the budgets?

I mean, we are in this really tough situation.

It's why I say to you, I'm not going to tell you, which way to go on this.

Because I don't know.

I don't know.

Who do you trust?

I don't know.

Who has the right idea?

I don't know.

I think it's a combination of everybody.

But I also know, that there's nobody on the Democrat side.

There's nobody on the Democrat side, that's ready to go.

You know what, I will do the responsible thing.

And I will cut. I will cut.

They're not.

So we're just negotiating with ourselves, as usual.

And will the Republicans screw it up?

Well, don't they always?

Alan Dershowitz WARNS the Supreme Court may CHANGE free speech

As chaos grows in America, will the Supreme Court soon put “security” over free speech? Famed attorney Alan Dershowitz joins Glenn Beck to explain why he’s concerned and debate the solution. Plus, as a Harvard Law School professor emeritus, Dershowitz explains why he approves of President Trump’s crackdown on Harvard’s government funding.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome, Alan Dershowitz. How are you, sir?

ALAN: I'm doing great. How are you?

GLENN: I'm good. So did I get this right?

You're talking about now, that the Supreme Court might start leaning towards security over free speech in the coming years.

ALAN: Yeah. Look, never -- it does. I pride myself on never making predictions based on what I want to happen.

That's what -- that's what others on the left do. And that's why they're always wrong. I make predictions based on my analysis of trends.

This is not a trend I approve of. But it's a trend I see coming.

GLENN: Right.

ALAN: I see it coming in the area of defamation. I see it coming in the area of incitement.

I think the Brandenburg decision was written.

During a time of relative calm. And we weren't seeing the incitements of violence that we saw, that probably led to the burning of Jews. In Boulder Colorado. And the shooting of these two innocent people in Washington, DC.

And the kinds of things.

Look, I -- I have a lot of --

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

Yeah. You just said, and I find this amazing.

You said -- you just said, it happened in a time of relative calm. It was 1969 that this case came down in the Supreme Court, if I'm not mistaken.

Which is not really a calm year.

But can you explain what the Brandenburg case is, or was?

ALAN: Sure.

Brandenburg was a Nazi, who was making horrible, horrible speeches. But he wasn't inciting anybody directly. And the Nazis in those days had no influence, and no power. They weren't getting people to do things.

GLENN: I know.

ALAN: The people that were creating problems that were during the Vietnam War.

The people on the left.

I represented a lot of them. And I represented people who disrupted the Democratic convention in 1968.

The Chicago -- other people like that. And I saw with my own eyes. That some of these people who started as disrupters, and violent confrontationists. And people pushing and shoving.

And, you know, breaking property and stuff like that. Ultimately, became murderers, like Captain Houdini, who ended up being responsible for the killing of two policemen. Or the weatherman, who planted bombs, and killed people. And then their leaders became, you know, prominent spokesmen of the left. Professors at various places.

So I saw that, and what I was seeing now, is a different kind of quantity.

What we're seeing, with the globalize the intifada. And Palestine will be free from the river to the sea. Those are calls for violence.

The Brandenburg case, they're protecting speech. I think they should still be protected speech.

But my view, my prediction is that when the next case comes to the Supreme Court. This Supreme Court, I think they may take a more security-oriented point of view, and say, wait a minute.

The incitement does not have to be so direct, it could be a little bit more direct.

And let the jury decide that issue. So I'm concerned about that. In my book, the preventive state. I have a whole chapter on free speech. And how free speech can sometimes cause violence.

And, but that it's not proper to deny free speech, in order to prevent.

We have to pick better ways of preventing violence. And in the preventative state, we come up with better ways than constraining free speech.

GLENN: Because I -- I really, I'm really with you on this. This really disturbs me.

When I read this article from you yesterday. This story from you yesterday, I needed to talk to you. This is horrible. This goes beyond cancel culture.

This is now the government, being able to come in and say, nope!

Right, that's really bad.

ALAN: Yeah. Look, there are so many mechanisms we use that have an effect on free speech. Even deportation.

Deportation obviously denies the deported person, the right to speak freely in this country.

Now, of course, under the Constitution, a citizen has the most free speech rights. A green card holder, the second most -- visa holders, almost no free speech rights. They can be deported, if they say things that are contrary to the interests of the United States. They're just guests in our country.

And so, you know, I think we're going to see a lot -- lots of movement in this area, because we're going to see a lot more violence. Let me tell you what happened to me.

The take before the killings in the District of Columbia. One Christian boy and Jewish women who were killed, working for the embassy. The day after that, I was getting an honorary degree in college at Florida. The security people in college came up to me. We're terrified. It might be a copycat attempt to kill you.

Because you're a prominent spokesman for pro-Israel points of view. And so they created a whole security thing around me, where they created an escape plan.

They have policeman, with machine guns. And with bullet-proof glass. To protect me.

And I have redoubled my security. And I think we're going to see more copycat crimes. I think Hamas wants to see violence in the United States. That's their goal to get more people to kill Jews, Christians, and others in the United States.

And I think they're probably going to succeed unless there's some preventive steps they're taking. Now, the preventive steps should not include diminutions of free speech under the Constitution.

GLENN: I -- I tell you, I -- you know, I see what the government is doing, and how AI is -- and Silicon Valley is playing a big role with the Pentagon and CIA.

And everything else. And I am really, really concerned. If there is another big event like a 9/11.

I fear Americans are just going to run to that kind of stuff. And then we're in a trap. And I don't think we'll get out of.

JOSH: Yeah. That's what history shows.

I show, that there's a common phenomenon. We underreact, and we don't prevent.

We didn't prevent Pearl Harbor. We didn't prevent 9/11. Israel didn't prevent October 7th. Then what happened?

After we failed to prevent Pearl Harbor, we put 110,000 Japanese-Americans in camps, in order to prevent them from doing it again. They never would have done it again.

We overreacted. After 9/11, we created the Patriot Act, which gave the government too much power, to prevent a recurrence of that.

And, you know, the reason we disagree with Israel. But a lot of people think Israel, for failure. From October 7th.

Which they could have done. They had the intelligence. May have overreacted. In Gaza.

I'm not agreeing with that. I'm just telling you, historically, there's a phenomenon, it starts with underprediction.

And ends up with overreaction to the event.

That was not predicted and prevented.

That's one of the thesis of my book.

GLENN: So what -- what should we expect?

And how do we prepare ourselves, so we don't go down that road?

JOSH: Well, first of all, we do a lot more preparation and prevention. We try desperately to use what the resources are available. I'll give you an example.

The young man who burned those people in Boulder, Colorado.

He was here illegally. He had overstayed his visa. There's nothing wrong with using artificial intelligence and computer technology to keep track of people who stay here illegally.

And once he overstayed his visa. Action could have be taken.

And maybe this crime could have been prevented. So I think there are preventive steps that are consistent with the Constitution and free speech.

That can be taken, to avoid the cataclysmic events. Give you another horrible example, that we're working on right now.

Should the United States and Israel bomb Iran's nuclear facilities? We know they're playing to create an atomic bomb.

And we know in the 1930s, if France and England had prevented Germany from building up its army, it would have saved 50 million lives.

We must know it then.

Are these the crimes of preventive decisions, but there's no free lunch!

Every preventive decision entails some diminution of liberty. And, you know, Benjamin Franklin was correct, when he said those who would deny essential liberties to secure a little bit more security, deserve neither.

But the question is, can we deny a little bit of nonessential liberty, to prevent major cataclysmic events. Give you appear example. Before 9/11. We arrested ten people, and prevented 9/11. And the people arrested. And spent two months in jail.

That's probably a trend that was worth it.

GLENN: What are nonessential liberties?

ALAN: Well, there's a continuum. Obviously, free speech is the most essential liberty. Privacy is a matter of degree. And, you know, keeping track of people who are here illegally, does in some way, invade their right of privacy.

But in a small way.

Because they really don't have a right to be there at all.

Liberty is a continuum.

And we have to make sure that we don't go after fundamental liberties, as I think, look, what could be worse than putting 110,000 Japanese-Americans in camps, and denying them their right to earn a living?

We did that for three years.

And the Supreme Court. The liberal justices -- Earl Warren was the governor of California at the time. He was on the Supreme Court.
They all agreed with that, only a couple of justices.

Justice Jackson didn't agree with it.

But Americans were outraged at Pearl Harbor, as they were outraged at 9/11.

When you were outraged.

GLENN: I know.

ALAN: You don't think terribly.

GLENN: I know. I know. And that's a little terrifying. Just looking at what's coming around the world. And then seeing the growth of AI and what can be done.

It's a little frightening, that we will jump immediately to, yes.

We need a super, duper Patriot Act.

That it's --

ALAN: Yeah. That's right. We need a super, duper Patriot Act that denies free speech. That's the first thing. People hate free speech. The vast majority of Americans, even though they claim the First Amendment, believe in free speech for me, but not for thee. When I taught my class on the First Amendment, I would ask my students, how many people believe free speech for everybody?

Everybody would raise their hand, and then I would say, well, what about pornography? Some hands went down.

What about anti-Semitism?

Some hands would go down. What about bigotry against Catholics? Some hands would go down. By the end of the class, no hands were up. Everybody had an exception.

GLENN: Hmm. Alan, hold on for one minute. I want to talk to you a little bit about Harvard and what's going on there, and what do you think is coming for Harvard and out of all of this.

In 60 seconds, back with Alan Dershowitz in just a second.

The sponsor is Good Ranchers.

When was the last time you looked forward to dinner?

And I don't mean out of habit. I mean, actually felt exited like you used to, when steak night meant something. When the smell hit the pan, and people drifted in the kitchen, without being called.

It's amazing what good meat can do. Good fish. Good chicken.

Good Ranchers is not just about buying American. You're supporting US farmers and ranchers. It's about making food mean something again!

Because we have forgotten, you know, what chicken is supposed to taste like.

Or how a burger used to taste. When you were sure you were eating American beef, and it was all natural.

This is a wake-up call.

Everything Good Ranchers sells, is 100 percent American. No import. No mystery. Just high quality beef, chicken, and seafood, delivered straight to your door.

Right now, when you subscribe, they're offering free meat for life. Choose from ground beef, wild caught salmon, bacon or seed-oil free Chicken Nuggets. You'll get that bonus in every box for as long as you stay subscribed.

So visit GoodRanchers.com. Use the promo code Beck. Unlock your free meat for life.

Plus, get $40 off.

It's GoodRanchers.com. GoodRanchers.com. American meat delivered.

Ten-second station ID.
(music)
So, I mean, you were the youngest full professor at Harvard, at the law school. You're an emeritus now at Harvard. What do you see happening to Harvard and this -- this war, this battle between the Trump administration and Harvard?

ALAN: Look, it started with the people in government administration.

Harvard started on its decline, probably more than a decade ago. By adopting DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Which lowered standards for emission. Lowered standards for faculty.

And turned us into a mediocre university. We are a mediocre university, Harvard.

The Latin term shouldn't be veritas. It should be mediocritas. We technically have lowered our standards.

This is not about Jews, or about Israel. This is about lowering the standards for DEI. We also adopted a content called intersectionality, which says that the world is divided into two groups. The oppressors. Those are Americans, white, Jews. And the oppressed. People of color. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

That's permeated the faculty.

Third, we've created these crazy departments of gender studies. Of Critical Race Theory. Of southeast Asian this. And these programs are nonacademic.

They are political.

They have agendas.

And they have destroyed the university.

And so I think we need to fundamentally root out, these hard left political, nonacademic courses.

And, of course, there's anti-Semitism as well.

And so I generally support Harvard a kick in their rear end.

I have a new book coming out in the summer, that's called Trump to Harvard. Go Fund Yourself.

And it lays out, how it's important to have targeted defunding. Schools like the Divinity School. The school that teaches Christianity has become the cesspool of anti-Semitism.

The public health department. A cesspool of anti-Semitism. Human rights has become a place of human wrong. So there's a lot of work to be done. It should be targeted. We shouldn't be denying visas to everybody. We should be denying them to those who would come in and cause terrible disruptions on the campus. So there's a lot of work to be done. And the president of Harvard is food. I assume he's trying his best.

But there are hard left people on the faculty. Who care more about promoting their progressive agendas. Then about teaching students.

You know, 60 years at Harvard. I never once expressed a personal vie in class. Never once. They didn't know what my views were on capital punishment, on Israel. You name it. None of it. I never expressed a personal view in class. My job was not to teach them what to think, but to teach them how to think. If they were conservative, I wanted them to go as a smart conservative. If they were liberal, I wanted them to be a better liberal.

So that's my job. But that's not what's going on at Harvard today. Today, it's becoming a place of indoctrination and propaganda.

GLENN: What do you say to -- there's this big thing going around now. You know, I was just a year away from curing, you know, tuberculosis, and the government pulled all of its funding out of my Harvard research.

ALAN: Terrible.

GLENN: And now these children are all going to do. How do you respond to that?

ALAN: Yeah. First, A, it's an overstatement. Harvard has $53 billion that can at that it can devote to curing cancer. But clearly, I mean, for example, one of the first reactions when they cut off the funds from Harvard research was one of the researchers made an announcement that said, oh, my God. The mice will now die.

We can't afford to feed a mice. You know how much it costs to feed a mice? Eleven cents a day to feed a mouse.

So a lot of overstatement, but I do think we have to have all the targeting. And we should not be cutting back on research at all.

GLENN: Alan Dershowitz. I would love to do a podcast with you, on about the preventive state. You're always right on top of it. Thank you so much, Alan Dershowitz. Again, the name of the book is The Preventive State. Harvard law school professor ameritas and host of the Dershow.

WAKE UP! 8,000 Al Qaeda and ISIS members LURKING in America!

Former CIA intelligence analyst and targeter, Sarah Adams, joins Glenn Beck to warn that the US has “dropped the ball” in recent years when it comes to protecting America from enemies like Al Qaeda and ISIS. In fact, she predicts that at least 8,000 Al Qaeda and ISIS members have already come across our borders and are waiting to team up for the next 9/11.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the program. I want to introduce you to Sarah Adams. She's the author of Benghazi: Know Thy Enemy. She's also a former CIA intelligence analyst and targeter, which I think, Sarah, means if you watch the old show 24, you were Chloe, right?

SARAH: Oh, totally.

GLENN: Totally. Sarah, welcome to the program. I'm glad you're here.

I read a response from you yesterday. Eye tweet that was talking about both the assassinations in Washington, DC. And the firebombing in Colorado. And you said, quote, it's going to get a lot worse.

Coming from you, that carries a little more weight, than it would coming from me.

What does it mean? Why do you believe the attacks are about to escalate?

SARAH: Well, there's two pieces to it. One is just the fact that we've allowed kind of the radicalization around this pro-Hamas movement. As you know, if you don't nip that in the bud, it becomes militant at some point. Right? That's how the movements work. But the other thing is because of how we left Afghanistan, with this large terrorist infrastructure, bin Laden's sons are after 9/11 living on US soil. So if we don't get ahead of that, we have something much bigger. We found those two places, which were still ripe for that.

GLENN: So do you believe that people are already here? I mean, we've left our -- left our borders open. How many terrorists do you think have come in the last four years? Are there already here?

SARAH: Yeah. So I think the majority of them are already here. Obviously, every group has different numbers. If you point to al-Qaeda, they sent a thousand people here, to participate in that one event. According to ISIS, they have 2500 terrorists in the United States, who are not here on a legal status. So that doesn't mean they count any ISIS members who are US citizen. Green hold members.

Or US visa holders. And according to the former head of Afghan intelligence services, a thousand here, who are linked to terrorist organizations. So when you start putting these numbers together -- a lot of the Pakistani characters have come in. You know, the numbers probably allowed for easily over 8,000 terrorists have come in.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

SARAH: Yeah. It's insane.

GLENN: What kind of damage could 8,000 people do? Are they coordinated at all? Any parts of these groups coordinated, do you think?

SARAH: Some things are coordinated. There are some like joint agreements between ISIS and al-Qaeda. Like ISIS is supposed to do the attacks in the United States, kind of in big cities, while al-Qaeda's goal is going to be Washington, DC, aviation.

So they did divvy up some types of different attacks they would do. As you know, there's just a lot of people that are bad actors.

You could trigger them at any time. They just don't like we live. The way women have run. All these types of things of how society has worked here.

GLENN: I did a show back in the old days, when I was on CNN, around the turn of the century.

And it was about Beslan.

And that has been the thing that has really terrified me. The idea that actors could be here, and then go after our small cities and schools, and just cause terror in several small cities, unlike America has ever seen before.

Like Beslan.

SARAH: Yeah. No, that's a really great example. And obviously, terrorists in some schools. You know, we haven't talked to a lot of administrators at schools.

But we have had a lot of discussions over the last six to eight months of the different church surveillance incidents. And in some cases, they do have schools attached to that, and there are people there asking questions about the schools. They're trying to ask about the schools, who don't have children. Right?

It makes no sense. Why would you want to know anything about how a school operates, if you don't even have children put into the school? So that's very concerning.

GLENN: So what are we doing about it?

SARAH: Well, I'm worried we dropped the ball a little on terrorism.

Especially on al-Qaeda, right?

There really is no government collection or understanding of what al-Qaeda's leadership is doing. They don't even collect on them anymore. We have no collection. We're focused on the Bin Ladens at all.

So they live -- they're limited. And then, as you know, when you divert all your focus to one thing, then obviously you lose the path to other areas.

And the way we left Afghanistan, you know, the -- the commander of CENTCOM said this, we lost 98 percent of our humans. So we don't have the information to even get ahead of this, unfortunately.

GLENN: The -- the group that is most active in targeting us.

I saw something from who was it?

They were very concerned. Was it Saudi Arabia?

One of the countries overseas, said yesterday, they blamed this attempt on the Muslim Brotherhood.

SARAH: Well, I -- so the individual showed, you know, support for the Muslim Brotherhood. The thing with the Muslim Brotherhood, it's almost like a fabric of like a terrorist movement. Right?

So almost all of them support the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is almost like the PR firm of terrorists, right?

They're the ones who go into countries. They care for politicians. They create organizations to deport clubs, the NGOs. And they bring that influence into these countries, and they have a lot of effect in Spain, in France, to where the governments now actually can't pass all of the Muslim Brotherhood influence.

So it's kind of like two sides of the same coin, if that makes sense. The problem in the United States, is we've never banned the Muslim Brotherhood. So nobody is doing anything effective against them.

GLENN: What happens if we're -- how do you see this unfolding?

First of all, you know, I've got a story next hour about what is it?

Holland, I think. That is just on the verge of collapse.

And they have just -- they just will not, you know, do the right thing. And it's happening all over in Europe. I'm very concerned that Europe is just a ticking time bomb.

That something begins to falter there. And, you know, the -- the Muslim Brotherhood. Or whomever.

Gives word, go, go, go.

And it will just become a bloodbath over there.

Which is first?

Are they first? Or are we first?

Or does it matter?

SARAH: Well, there's multiple things going on, right?

So I do think there's probably some near-term ISIS-related attacks, in Europe before a huge attack in the United States. You know, especially in Germany. But there is very large spots in the United States. And there in Sweden, France, United Kingdom, and Norway.

So they do -- are targeting certain countries. And they are targeting the countries, as you can imagine. Where they have the most supporters.

They're able to bring in the most terrorists.

Law enforcement is very weak, right?

Like, they'll say nothing about Scott (inaudible) for five years.

Just like, about ten days ago, Germany picked up a terrorist. He actually is slotted to be one of the US Homeland commanders. The crazy part, they pick him up, and then they publicly say, oh, yeah. We detained a Syrian from ISIS. He's a Libyan from al-Qaeda-affiliated groups.

So they don't even know the people they're arresting, which is really scary.

This is all across Europe. Especially Sweden is a nightmare. This happens every day in Sweden.

GLENN: You know, I was over in Sweden, gosh, it's funny.

Because I left Iraq. And was going to do a I show you in Sweden. This was probably ten years ago. Because I thought, Sweden is a canary in the coal mine. They are so open.

They are so friendly. They take everybody in.

And my crew was accosted on the streets. It happened later to 60 minutes. And everybody talked about that one.

But the exact same. Yeah. The exact same thing happened to us, in the same place.

A year before. And it was out of -- it was out of control then.

I -- I think this thing, if it happens, it will just happen so rapidly, it will be hard for the West to watch its breath.

SARAH: And that's the way you need to do it.

Obviously, the fall of Afghanistan happened rapidly. The fall of Syria happened rapidly.

They're trying to make the fall of Leticia happen rapidly. Terrorists are starting to realize, these types of events are the better way to do some of these operations. So they're planning a lot more aggressively. I still think we're stuck in a 2001 terrorist mindset.

That he move slow. They're methodical.

And I think it's become a lot more aggressive.

And I think our assessments have evolved with the terrorist mindset.

GLENN: You know, I really wonder.

Because you see what Ukraine did in Russia over the weekend. I mean, they took out the estimates. Or they took out a third of the strategic air command of Russia.

That's something we would have loved to have been able to do years ago.

We -- you know, we don't think that way. And here's this almost now, third world country.

With no Army to speak of, doing that kind of damage. Miles. Thousands of miles inside of the borders.

My gosh. What could they do here?

SARAH: Yeah. They took out 7 billion equipment, just using drones. So low cost. And low cost is obviously a great alternative to terrorists. So, yeah. That's a very scary thing.

And it's no secret terrorists have used drones. Right?

Obviously, they recorded themselves. In Syria, they had drones camps.

In al-Qaeda, they have a camp solely for drones. Drones using them to deliver bombs and other types of things.

So, yeah. That's going to be the future, unfortunately. It doesn't just have to be nation states, right?

GLENN: If you were in charge today, what would you be -- what advice would you be giving the American people? What should we be hardening, doing, and looking for?

SARAH: Well, the way I look at it is, obviously, we don't exactly know when these attacks are going to happen. But we know what -- what different things the terrorists trained on. But that's -- so they train on attacking hospitals. They train on attacking like shopping centers. They train on schools. They trained on nightclubs, right?

So think about it. If you harden those types of locations, then if the terrorist was going to hit you, now they have to -- now they have to make a decision. Now you pushed off your time line. Right?

You made it harder for them. Hopefully, easier for law enforcement. To pick up something in the casing. Or something in the man.

So that's a lot that I like to focus on. And the other thing, really just be a force multiplier. Be someone who can help, right? Being able to help someone in an emergency. Because this is going to take time for first responders to arrive, like in Israel, you have to keep that in mind.

GLENN: You -- you just recently tweeted, there have been multiple incidents of suspected terrorists casing churches across the US. If this happens in your parish, don't brush it off. Report it. How do you harden your church?

SARAH: Well, a lot of churches have started making security and safety teams. That's a really good start. The best part is, if you have any sort of visitor, they have people that are registering outside the parish right?

So you know who is in the building. Anything you can do external is the best way to do it.

But it's also just common sense. Right?

If people show up with weird questions.

And I will just tell you, there are some similar situations. A lot of situations, two to four-men teams that come in.

They are not Christian, and they have from the cover story. They're like, oh, my religious elder told me I need to go explore the religion, and then they say, they're Muslim. Or they say they're Hindu. And then they start asking questions about the security team, which would be very strange about joining a church.

And then the main question that is the most concerning that we've seen in a lot of different locations is, do you live stream your service?

So we do think that some of those items, if they're talking about those. Get your photos. Take your driver's license. Right? Then report it to law enforcement. And the more people who can do pieces of this, so law enforcement can put it all together. Right? And see where things are connecting. Getting ahead of it.

None of this is terrorism. Remember, there's crime in part of these churches, in multiple ways.

GLENN: So you're thinking that the live streaming is a problem, because they want it to be viewed and reported?

SARAH: That's our assessment. It's a very strange question to imagine. If they're not intending to join and become a member of the church.

GLENN: Okay. Thank you so much for everything that you're doing, Sarah, and have done in the past. Really appreciate it. And please, if you see anything, let us know. We would love to get any warnings that we can help people prepare for. So thank you. Appreciate it.

SARAH: Thank you. Thanks for having me.

GLENN: You bet. You bet. Sarah Adams