RADIOMarch 20, 2025

Shocking Truth: Department of Education ABOLISHED ITSELF

President Trump is signing an executive order to start dismantling the Department of Education and the Left is freaking out. But Glenn’s staff discovered something shocking: the DoE, in its current form, is exactly the OPPOSITE of the mission statement Congress gave it. Glenn reads from the Department’s founding documents, which state that it was tasked with protecting “the rights of state and local governments and public and private institutions.” It was also meant to “strengthen and improve” local and state control of education. And if that wasn’t enough, it also explicitly bars the Department from increasing “the authority of the federal government over education.” So, by stripping the Department of Education of its bloated power, Trump is actually UPHOLDING the will of Congress, not defying it.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So the president is going to abolish parts of the DOE. But the Department of Education was -- was first put in by Jimmy Carter. And then a few years later, it was -- it was, you know, set in stone by Congress. So he can't shut it down.

Because Congress established it. Okay?

So only Congress can abolish it. However, he can trim the fat.

And he's going to cut it by 50 percent today. Which is a great thing.

But as Mikayla was doing her homework on this, she said --

STU: One of your producers.

GLENN: Yeah. One of our producers. She said, have you read the Department of Education organization act?

And I'm like.

STU: Oh, obviously.

GLENN: Of course, I have. But tell me what you have found!

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Listen to this.

It is the intention. This is the founding document passed by Congress. It is the intention of Congress in the establishment of the Department of Education to protect the rights of state and local governments, and public and private educational institutions.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Just that! Are they operating within the law, that was set by Congress?

STU: Because I think you could convince me, that that was a good idea. Right? That sounds great.

GLENN: Right. So let me read that again.

The intention of Congress, in the establishment of the Department of Education, to protect the rights of state and local governments, and public and private educational institutions, in the area, of educational policies, and administration of programs. And to strengthen and improve the control of such governments and institutions, over their own educational programs and policies.

Did you hear the second half of that?

To strengthen and improve the local and state administration, and -- and the control of their own educational programs and policies.

That is not what the DOD is doing. Not even. Listen to the next line!

The establishment of the Department of Education, shall not, increase the authority of the federal government over education. Or finish the responsibility for education, which is reserved to the states. And the local school systems, and other instrumentalities of the states!

Wait.

This is not what the Department of Education is. At all.

So when they say, well, he can't accomplish the department of he had. No. They abolished the Department of Ed.

The Department of Ed isn't that! Because like you just said, I wouldn't have necessarily a problem with that!

STU: I would have some questions.

GLENN: Yeah, I wouldn't want it.

STU: As a direction, protecting local rights over education, is exactly kind of what I want.

GLENN: Yeah. Exactly right.

B, no provision of a program, administered by the Secretary or any other officer of the Department, shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control, over the local curriculum.

Any program of instruction or administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection and content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials. By any educational institution or school system.

Except to the extent authorized by this law.

STU: Hmm. I mean, it seems there's all sorts of limitations on it.

GLENN: Yeah. I mean, if you just go back to this: If he just reset it to this, do you know how many problems would go away?

STU: I know. This is really common too. But we mentioned the same thing with the Patriot Act.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: The guy who wrote the Patriot Act. There's a bunch of these things about to go.

I can't believe the Patriot Act would do this. I wrote it. It's not supposed to do that.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: That's not what it's supposed to do at all.

It always grows. It always evades. And the initial -- the limiting principles put on it, by the law itself.

GLENN: Which is amazing. When you know that to be true. And our Founders knew that.

It's amazing how long our Constitution and Bill of Rights has lasted.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You know, the average Constitution's age in the history of the world, the average age of death of a Constitution is 17 years!

We're coming up to 250, of our -- of our Declaration of Independence.

Seventeen years! That's the average.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: We are so far out! For it to have lasted this long, knowing that this is what it always happens. They always morph and distort, and erase the original Founding ideas. Wow!

That's impressive. That we're still standing.

STU: Yeah. And, again, giant chunks of it are still standing. As we pointed out many times, a lot of it isn't standing. Other than just it's on paper.

But that's the problem, right? We should be back to it. And should be trying to focus our country on following it again. A little bit more closely. But I am glad that it still stands.

GLENN: Me too. Me too.

STU: Is it San Moreno? There's one other weird country that has a very old Constitution.

GLENN: Isn't that an old Chevy?

STU: Yeah. The Chevy San Moreno. Beautiful car. V8. Yeah. It's great.

GLENN: Yeah. Here's the other thing that we need to talk about, and that is these judges. I need to get to Tesla, in just a second. That's equally important. And let me talk about the justices and the judges on what is happening.

The judge has ordered to restore USAID. Worker access, and forbids the shutdown. Because it's likely against the Constitution. Well, that's not your job.

The Obama-appointed judge trying to stop USAID shutdown. Donated thousands of dollars to the Democrats. The judge who blocked the key executive order, has a long progressive activist history.

I mean, we're -- we're having these judges get involved in everything.

So what are judges supposed to do?

What does the Constitution actually say?

I want to take you to a -- a football field. Hmm. Glenn, don't do anything dicey. Don't go into sports analogy. Let's just take you out to a football field for your first segment.

STU: Uh-oh, here we go. Prepare yourself. Gird your loins.

GLENN: If -- is that like the grid loins? So let's say the ref is out on the -- and he decides that that touchdown is worth ten points! The clock should be kept running, because I think so. It's most likely, that it should be running, right now.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: That is what's happening in our court system. That's judicial or referee activism. All right? They're just making stuff up.

Judges that are stepping beyond their lane. And making up the rules. Instead of just calling the game as written.

That's what judges are supposed to do.

They're supposed to look at things, as written. And then say, no. Sorry, guys. That's the law!

Not, you know what, you know who we should do? I should also be able to eat any kind of candy that I want.

And you're all -- you're a defendant. You need to bring me candy.

Because that's what I want, right now. Okay.

I'm fat. I've been sitting behind a bench for a long time. You can't even notice my fatness. I am the size of the bench. Just my upper torso is not.

Okay. You can't do that. You don't do that. Now, it's important to realize, judges aren't necessarily bad guys. They have a really, really tough job. And I don't like -- you know, I really feel bad when you're like, well, that's just a bad ruling!

Well, maybe. But I wasn't in the courtroom. How many times have we done a story, where we really want to bash the judge?

But you weren't in the courtroom. You don't know what was said, or what they know. You know what I mean?

STU: You talked about it when you did jury duty. Because from an outsider perspective. You can always come to something.

When you're there and watching it every single day. You know the ins and outs. Sometimes it's different.

GLENN: It's just different. So when they start acting like lawmakers, instead of interpreters of that law, then we have a problem. Like a judge should step in now on the Department of Education.

And say, sorry, gang, I read this section last night. That's not what's going on here.

So the president, yeah. I recommend, I shouldn't. But if it comes to my courtroom, I'm going to show, yeah. Well, that's the law.

Not my opinion. I might love the department. I might be a full-fledged communist. But I'm here to uphold the law.

And that's what Congress said it is. And that's not what it is!

Now, sometimes, there are problems that Congress needs to step in and say, you're out of here.

Sometimes, the judges -- and it has happened in our history. And it's a very high bar. But I'm not sure. I mean, it should be a high bar, like it is with impeachment of the president. But it shouldn't be off the table.

Okay? And here's why: If you go back to the Founding Fathers, they thought this through. It's kind of crazy.

It's not like, hey. We will do a new Constitution in Iceland. Tweet us your ideas.

In Federalist 78. Alexander Hamilton says, judges should not have life tenure.

And if they do, only if they're on good behavior. Well, what does that mean?

Well, he saw judges, as the least dangerous branch. Because it doesn't have -- it doesn't control the purse strings. And it doesn't have an army.

Okay? So he's like, you know, I mean, if they're on good behavior, just let them go. Just let them go. But he also knew that judges weren't perfect. They do go rogue. So he knew, that they would twist the Constitution, and what they were doing into something that it's not.

And that good behavior clause is not just for decoration.

It's the lifeline of the people.

To stop the judges that have gone bad.

Then in Federalist 81. Hamilton troubles down on this one.

Judges can be impeached. If they abuse their power.

How do they abuse their power?

They step out of line of interpreting the law. And start writing laws. And he's very clear.

Congress has the muscle to check them.

You know, it's like giving the principal, the power to fire a teacher, who is teaching kids the alphabet, you know, backwards and mixed up.

You know what, I appreciate it. We're not doing that. Okay. We hired you to teach the alphabet.

So has this ever been done. Has this ever been exercised?

Yeah. I talked to a federal judge, last night about this. And he's like, Glenn!

Luster versus Georgia. And I'm like, oh, man. That's one of my favorite rulings. But I want to ask you to see how much you know about Luster (phonetic) versus Georgia!

It's back in 1832. Supreme Court told Georgia, they have to stop messing with the Cherokee nation land, and they -- I think they also said, you can't go in and teach the Cherokee tribes Christianity. Okay. Georgia said, no. We're going to do that anyway. Okay?

Now, I'm not a fan of the way the Native Americans were treated in history. And I'm not a fan of Andrew Jackson. But he wasn't a fan of the court.

And he supposedly said, great!

The judge has made his decision.

Now, let him figure out how to enforce it.

Now, I don't like that. I don't like that. But that's what Federalist 81 was saying. They don't have purse strings. They don't have an Army. They have an opinion.

But if the other two branches are like, no! We're going to do it anyway.

Again, I don't like that. But that's only -- that can only apply to when the judges step out of their lane!

When you -- when you're an activist judge, go ahead.

You call your army. But when they're in their lane. And they're saying, no. This is the law. This is how it's written!

Then you don't say, no. You go ahead and try to enforce it. Because then it's a breakdown.

But it's just as much of a breakdown. It they legislate from the bench. And we do nothing about it!

The court doesn't have any tanks. It doesn't have any cops. It relies on the other two branches.

It's judge that one is the weakest!

It has no enforcement.

It was never given any enforcement.

The Founders didn't want it to have any enforcement.

Congress has the checkbook. The president has the tanks. The justices have their robes.

So they lose. Theater weakest of them.

Now, they're supposed to be able to check each other.

So you're -- out of respect, for what each arm is supposed to do, we do listen to the Supreme Court.

But wait until you hear what else is in the Constitution, that I just -- I bypassed. I didn't even know.

They -- that goes right to the judges and how important they are, according to the Constitution.

Not the Supreme Court.

These kinds of judges.

Okay. So Jackson, when he says, okay. Go ahead. Let them force it.

That shows the limits of their power.

But it also shows the flip side. When the judges overreach. They can stir up chaos.

You know, if no one is willing to listen. So here's where article three of the Constitution comes in. And remember, Constitution, the rule book!

The rule book for the courts.

It sets up the Supreme Court. But it also gives Congress the power to create or even shut down, the lower federal courts!

They have no power over the Supreme Court.

They cannot shut it down. They cannot affect it.

But Congress can pass a law that says, you guys are done!

So don't tell me, that you can't impeach them!

It's in the Constitution.

That that is -- and the Federalist papers. That is critical, in case they start overstepping the bounds. You can impeach them.

And we should. This is all a ploy, this is no different than the -- quite honestly. The terrorism that is happening on our streets with Tesla.

Okay? That's terrorism.

This isn't terrorism. This is just a whole buttload of lies. Told by a bunch of people, where supposedly, you know, able to trust.

Because they wear a robe.

Don't trust them. Why would you trust the justices when you don't trust the politicians, when you don't trust anybody in Washington?

Why are these guys exempt?

Okay? I'm not saying. I don't want to sow seeds of discord with our -- I believe in the Supreme Court.

It's the best system that we have. But let's not -- let's not throw our Constitution out for these guys, who are sitting in the -- the lower federal courts.

You know, Congress can say, hey. We don't need this court anymore.

You're banned. Or you're banned from ruling on that.

Sorry!

You're not talking about that anymore.

It's a leash. And it's there for a reason.

The Supreme Court is untouchable. And -- and it's -- you know, it's not above impeachment, if the justices start playing king instead of somewhere.

But their job is like a gardener. Their job is to keep trimming the hedges. Keep the law neat and tidy. If they start ripping out the whole garden.

And planting it, with whatever they want.

Someone has to fire them. That is where we are with these lower federal court justices.

You, according to the Constitution, Congress, and the president, are in charge!

The Globalist Elites' Dystopian Plan for YOUR Future | Glenn Beck Chalkboard Breakdown

There are competing visions for the future of America which are currently in totally different directions. If the globalist elites have their way, the United States will slide into a mass surveillance technocracy where freedoms are eroded and control is fully centralized. Glenn Beck heads to the chalkboard to break down exactly what their goal is and why we need to hold the line against these ominous forces.

Watch the FULL Episode HERE: Dark Future: Uncovering the Great Reset’s TERRIFYING Next Phase

Barack & Michelle tried to END divorce rumors. It DIDN'T go well

Former president Barack Obama recently joined his wife Michelle Obama and her brother on their podcast to finally put the divorce rumors to rest … but it didn’t exactly work. Glenn Beck and Pat Gray review the awkward footage, including a kiss that could compete for “most awkward TV kiss in history.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Now, let me -- let me take you to some place. I think kind of entertaining.

Michelle Obama has a podcast. Who knew?

She does it with her brother. Who knew? It's -- you know, I mean, it's so -- it's a podcast with two brothers. Right?

And -- and it -- they wanted to address the rumors, that they're getting a divorce. And this thing seems so staged.

I want you to -- listen to this awkward exchange on the podcast.

Cut one please.

VOICE: Wait, you guys like each other.

MICHELLE: Oh, yeah. The rumor mill. It's my husband, y'all! Now, don't start.

OBAMA: It's good to be back. It was touch-and-go for a while.

VOICE: It's so nice to have you both in the same room today.

OBAMA: I know. I know.

MICHELLE: I know, because when we aren't, folks things we're divorced. There hasn't been one moment in our marriage, where I thought about quitting my man.

And we've had some really hard times. We've had a lot of fun times. A lot of adventures. And I have become a better person because of the man I'm married to.

VOICE: Okay. Don't make me cry.

PAT: Aw.

GLENN: I believed her. Now, this is just so hokey.

VOICE: And welcome to IMO.

MICHELLE: Get you all teared up. See, but this is why I can't -- see, you can take the hard stuff, but when I start talking about the sweet stuff, you're like, stop. No, I can't do it.

VOICE: I love it. I'm enjoying it.

MICHELLE: But thank you, honey, for being on our show. Thank you for making the time. We had a great --

VOICE: Of course, I've been listening.

PAT: What? No!

GLENN: They're not doing good. They're not doing good.

Okay. And then there was this at the beginning. And some people say, this was very awkward. Some people say, no. It was very nice.

When he walks in the room, he gives her a hug and a kiss. Watch.

Gives her a little peck on the cheek.

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Does that --

PAT: Does that look like they're totally into each other?

GLENN: Well, I give my wife a peck on the cheek, if she walks into a room.

PAT: Do you? If you haven't seen her in months and it seems like they haven't, would you kiss her on the cheek? Probably not.

GLENN: No, that's a little different. That would be a little different. But I wouldn't make our first seeing of each other on television.

PAT: Yeah, right, that's true. That's true.

GLENN: But, you know, in listening to the staff talk about this. And they were like, it was a really uncomfortable -- okay.

Well, maybe.

PAT: I think it was a little uncomfortable.

GLENN: It was a little uncomfortable.

It's still, maybe. Maybe.

But I don't think that rivals -- and I can't decide which is the worst, most uncomfortable kiss.

Let me roll you back into the time machine, to Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley. Do you remember this kiss?
(applauding)

GLENN: He turns away, immediately away from the camera. Because he's like.

PAT: He was about to vomit. Yeah.

GLENN: It was so awkward. When that happened, all of us went, oh, my gosh. He has only kissed little boys. What are we doing? What is happening?

He doesn't like women, what is happening?

And then there's the other one that sticks out in my mind of -- and I'm not sure which is worse. The Lisa Marie or the Tipper in Al Gore.

VOICE: The kiss. The famous exchange during the 2000 democratic convention was to some lovely, to others icky.
(laughter)

GLENN: That's an ABC reporter. To some lovely, others icky.

And it really was. And it was -- I believe his global warming stuff more than that kiss.
(laughter)
And you know where I stand on global warming.

That was the most awkward kiss I think ever on television!

PAT: Yeah. It was pretty bad. Pretty bad.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

So when people who are, you know -- these youngsters.

These days. They look at Barack and Michelle. They're like, that was an awkward kiss.

Don't even start with me.

We knew when we were kids, what awkward kisses were like.

PAT: The other awkward thing about that.

She claims, there was not been one moment in their marriage.

Where she's considered reeving him.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: She just said a while ago. A month or a year ago, she hated his guts for ten years. She hated it.

GLENN: Yeah. But that doesn't mean you'll give up.

PAT: I guess not. I guess not. Maybe you enjoy being miserable.

I don't know.

GLENN: No. I have to tell you the truth.

My grandmother when I got a divorce, just busted me up forever. I call her up, and I said, on my first marriage.

Grandma, we're getting a divorce.

And my sweet little 80-year-old grandmother, who never said a bad thing in her life said, excuse me?

And I said, what?

We're getting a divorce.

And she said, how dare you.

I said, what's happening. And she said, I really thought you would be the one that would understand. Out of everybody in this family, I thought you would understand.

And I said, what?

And she said, this just -- this just crushed me when she said it.

Do you think your grandfather and I liked each other all these years? I was like, well, yeah.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Kind of. And she said, we loved each other. But we didn't always like each other. And there were times that we were so mad at each other.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah. Uh-huh.

STU: But we knew one thing: Marriage lasts until death!

PAT: Did she know your first wife?

GLENN: Okay. All right. That's just not necessary.

No, Trump’s tariffs ARE NOT causing inflation

The media is insisting that President Trump's tariffs caused a rise in inflation for June. But Our Republic president Justin Haskins joins Glenn to debunk this theory and present another for where inflation is really coming from.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Justin Haskins is here. He is the president of Our Republic. And the editor-in-chief of stoppingsocialism.com.

He is also the coauthor with me at the Great Reset, Dark Future, and Propaganda War.

So, in other words, I'm saying, he doesn't have a lot of credibility. But he is here to report -- I don't even think you're -- you're -- you were wrong on this, too, with the tariffs. Right?

JUSTIN: Well, at some point, I was wrong about everything.

GLENN: Yeah, right. We are all on the road to being right.

But this is coming as a shock. You called yesterday, and you said, Glenn, I think the tariff thing -- I think the president might be right.

And this is something I told him, if I'm wrong. I will admit that I'm wrong.

But I don't think I'm wrong.

Because this goes against everything the economists have said, forever.

That tariffs don't work.

They increase inflation.

It's going to cost us more.

All of these things. You have been study this now for a while, to come up with the right answer, no matter where it fell.

Tell me what's going on.

JUSTIN: Okay. So the most recent inflation data that came out from the government, shows that in June, prices went up 2.7 percent. In May, they went up 2.4 percent. That's compared to a year prior. And most people are saying, well, this is proof that the tariffs are causing inflation.

GLENN: Wait. That inflation is -- the target is -- the target is two -- I'm sorry.

We're not. I mean, when I was saying, it was going to cause inflation. I thought we could be up to 5 percent.

But, anyway, go ahead.

JUSTIN: So the really incredible thing though. The more you look at the numbers. The more obvious it is, that this does not prove inflation at all.

For starters, these numbers are lower, than what the numbers were in December and January.

Before Trump was president. And before we had any talk of tariffs at all.

So that is a big red flag right at the very beginning. When you dive even deeper into the numbers, what you see is there's all kinds of parts of the Consumer Price Index that tracks specific industries, or kinds of goods and services. That should be showing inflation, if inflation is being caused by tariffs, but isn't.

So, for example, clothing and apparel. Ninety-seven percent, basically.

About 97 percent according to one report, of clothing and apparel comes overseas, imported into the United States.

GLENN: Correct.

JUSTIN: So prices for apparel and clothing should be going up. And they're not going up, according to the data, they're actually going down, compared to what they were a year ago. Same thing is true with new vehicles.

Obviously, there were huge tariffs put on foreign vehicles, not on domestic vehicles. So it's a little bit more mixed.

But new vehicle price are his staying basically flat. They haven't gone up at all. Even though, there's a 25 percent tariff on imported cars and car parts. And then we just look at the overall import prices. You just -- sort of the index. Which the government tracks.

What we're seeing is that prices are basically staying the same, from what they were a year ago.

There's very, very little movement overall.

GLENN: Okay. So wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.

Wait.

Let me just -- let me just make something career.

Somebody is eating the tariffs. And it appears to be the companies that are making these things. Which is what Donald Trump said. And then, the -- you know, the economist always saying, well, they're just going to pass this on in the price.

Well, they have to. They have to get this money some place.

So where are they?

Is it possible they're just doing this right now, to get past. Because they know if they jack up their price, you know, they won't be able to sell anything. What is happening?

How is this money, being coughed up by the companies, and not passed on to the consumer.

JUSTIN: Yeah, it could be happening. I think the most likely scenario, is that they are passing it along to consumers. They're just not passing it along to American consumers.

In other words, they're raising prices elsewhere. To try to protect the competitiveness with the American market. Because the American market is the most important consumer market in the world.

And they probably don't want to piss off Donald Trump either, in jacking up prices. And then potentially having tariffs go up even more, as a punishment for doing that.

Because that's a real option.

And so I think that's what's happening right now.

Now, it's possible, that we are going to see a huge increase in inflation. In six months!

That's entirely possible.

We don't know what's going to happen. But as of right now, all the data is suggesting that recent inflation is not coming from consumer goods being imported, or anything like that.

That's not where the inflation is coming.

Instead, it's coming from housing.

That's part of the CPI at that time.

Housing is the cause of inflation right now.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. It's not housing, is it?

Because the things to make houses is not going through the roof. Pardon the pun. Right?

It's not building.

JUSTIN: No. No. The way the CPI calculates housing is really stupid. They look basically primarily at rent. That's the primary way, they determine housing prices.

GLENN: Okay.

JUSTIN: That so on they're not talking about housing costs to build a new house.

Or housing prices to buy a new house.

They are talking about rent.

And then they try to use rent data, as a way of calculating how much you would have to pay if you owned a house, but you had to rent the same kind of house.

And that's how they come up with this category.

GLENN: Can I ask you a question: Is everybody in Washington, are they all retarded?
(laughter)
Because I don't. What the hell. Who is coming up with that formula?

JUSTIN: Look. I mean, sort of underlying this whole conversation, as you -- as you and I know, Glenn.

And Pat too. The CPI is a joke to begin with.

GLENN: Right.

JUSTIN: So there's all kinds of problems with this system, to begin with.

I mean, come on!

GLENN: Okay. So because I promised the president, if I was wrong, and I had the data that I was wrong, I would tell him.

Do I have to -- out of all the days to do this.

Do I have to call him today, to do that?

Are we still -- are we still looking at this, going, well, maybe?

JUSTIN: I think there's -- I think there is a really solid argument that you don't need to make the phone call.

GLENN: Oh, thank God. Today is not the day to call Donald Trump. Today is not the day.

Yeah. All right.

JUSTIN: And the reason why is, we need -- we probably do need more data over a longer period of time, to see if corporations are doing something.

In order to try to push these cuts off into the future, for some reason. Maybe in the hopes that the tariffs go down. Or maybe -- you know, it's all sorts of ways, they could play with it, to try to avoid paying those costs today.

It's possible, that's what's going on.

But as of right now, that's not at all, what is happening. As far as I can tell from the data.

GLENN: But isn't the other side of this, because everybody else said, oh. It's not going to pay for anything.

Didn't we last month have the first surplus since, I don't know. Abraham Lincoln.

JUSTIN: Yes. Yes. We did. I don't know how long that surplus will last us.

GLENN: Yeah. But we had one month.

I don't think I've ever heard that before in my lifetime. Hey, United States had a surplus.

JUSTIN: I looked it up.

I think it was like 20 something years ago, was the last time that happened. If I remembered right.

It was 20 something years ago.

So this is incredible, really.

And if it works.

You and I talked about this before.

I actually think there is an argument to be made. That this whole strategy could work, if American manufacturers can dramatically bring down their costs. To produce goods and services.

So that they can be competitive.

And I think that advancements in artificial intelligence. In automation. Is going to open up the door to that being a reality.

And if you listen to the Trump administration talk. People like Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce. They have said, this is the plan.

The plan is, go all in on artificial intelligence.

Automation. That's going to make us competitive with manufacturers overseas. China is already doing that.

They're already automating their factories. They lead the world in automation.

GLENN: Yeah, but they can take half their population, put them up in a plane, and then crash it into the side of the mountain.

They don't care.

What happens to the people that now don't have a job here? How do they afford the clothes that are now much, much cheaper?

JUSTIN: Well, I think the answer to that is, there's going to be significantly more wealth. Trillions of dollars that we send overseas, every year, now in the American economy. And that's going to go into other things. It's not as though -- when this technology comes along, it is not as though people lose their jobs, and that's it. People sit on their couch forever.

The real danger here is not that new markets will not arrive in that situation. And jobs with it. The problem is: I think there's a real opportunity here. And I think this is going to be the fight of the next election, potentially. Presidential election. And going forward.

Next, ten, 20 years. This is going to be a huge issue. Democrats are going to have the opportunity, when the AI revolution goes into full force. They will have the opportunity like they've never had before.

To say, you know what, we'll take care of you. Don't worry about it.

We're just going to take all of the corporate money and all of the rich people's money.

And we will print trillions of dollars more. And you can sit on your couch forever. And we will just pay you. Because this whole system is rigged, and it's unfair, and you don't have a job anymore because of AI. And there's nothing you can do. You can't compete with AI. AI is smarter than you.

You have no hope.

I think that's coming, and it is going to be really hard for free market people to fight back against that.

GLENN: Yes.

Well, I tend to agree with you.

Because the -- you know, I thought about this.

I war gamed this, probably in 2006.

I'm thinking, okay.

If -- if the tech is going to grow and grow and grow. And they will start being -- they will be responsible for taking the jobs.

They won't be real on popular.

So they will need some people that will allow them to stay in business, and to protect them.

So they're going to need to be in with the politicians.

And if the politicians are overseeing the -- the decrease of jobs, they're going to need the -- the PR arm of things like social media. And what it can be done.

What can be done now.

I was thinking, at the time. Google can do.

But they need each other.

They must have one another. And unless we have a stronger foundation, and a very clear direction, and I will tell you. The president disagrees with me on this.

I said, he's going to be remembered as the transformational AI president.

And he said, I think you're wrong on that.

And I don't think I am.

This -- this -- this time period is going to be remembered for transformation.

And he is transforming the world. But the one that will make the lasting difference will be power and AI.

Agree with that or disagree?

JUSTIN: 1,000 percent. 1,000 percent. This is by far the most important thing that is happening in his administration in the long run. You're projecting out ten, 20, 30 years ago years.

They will be talking about this moment in history, a thousand years from now. Like, that will -- and they will -- and if America becomes the epicenter of this new technology, they will be talking about it, a thousand years from now, about how Americans were the ones that really developed this.

That they're the ones that promoted it, that they're the ones that does took advantage of it.
That's why this AI race with China is so important that we win it.

It's one of the reasons why. And I do think it's a defining moment for his presidency. Of course, the problem with all of this is AI could kill us all. You have to weigh that in.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. Right.

Well, we hope you're wrong on that one.

And I'm wrong on it as well. Justin, thank you so much.

Thank you for giving me the out, where I don't have to call him today. But I might have to call him soon. Thanks, Justin. I appreciate it.

The ONLY Trump/Epstein Files Theories That Make Sense | Glenn TV | Ep 445

Is the case closed on Jeffrey Epstein and Russiagate? Maybe not. Glenn Beck pulls the thread on the story and its far-reaching implications that could expose a web of scandals and lead to a complete implosion of trust. Glenn lays out five theories that could explain Trump’s frustration over the Epstein files and why Glenn may never talk about the Epstein case again. Plus, Glenn connects the dots between the Russiagate hoax, the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up, and the Steele dossier related to the FBI’s new “grand conspiracy” probe. It all leads to one James Bond-like villain: former CIA Director John Brennan. Then, Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA operations officer, tells Glenn why he believes his former boss Brennan belongs in prison and what must happen to prevent a full-blown trust implosion in American institutions.