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!

What Glenn Beck Never Got to Say to Charlie Kirk | Glenn TV | Ep 456

Charlie Kirk would have been president. Political violence robbed him of fulfilling that destiny, so now his friends, colleagues, and supporters throughout the world must figure out how to pick up the pieces and ensure that his legacy never ends. On a special episode of "Glenn TV," Glenn replays the most powerful, touching, and inspirational moments from his time guest-hosting "The Charlie Kirk Show" on Wednesday morning, one week after Charlie’s death. In a touching tribute to his friend, Glenn places Rush Limbaugh’s golden microphone next to Charlie’s — a symbol of Charlie’s longtime dream and the influence he has had throughout the world. Plus, Glenn speaks to "The Charlie Kirk Show" executive producer Andrew Kolvet and Turning Point USA COO Tyler Bowyer about who their dear friend was behind the scenes, the influence he’s had on America and the MAGA movement, and how Charlie’s fingerprints will still be present on future elections. Also, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) and Glenn discuss how Charlie Kirk helped launched her career, and Research Center Investigative Researcher Ryan Mauro shares how he has the smoking gun President Trump needs to take on George Soros’ network. These are the voices who knew Charlie well, but the number of people he indirectly touched and influenced is spread far and wide. Glenn ends with a beautiful song tribute by David Osmond and Cheyenne Grace, depicting just how mournful the entire world truly is. Rest in peace, Charlie.

Fact-check: The 5 LIES circulating about Charlie Kirk

In the first week after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, some in the media and on the Left have tried to either justify or dismiss his death by spreading lies about what he said. Glenn Beck reviews an article by The Federalist, which debunks the 5 biggest lies.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We were just talking about the five lies that are going around, about Charlie Kirk.

And it is -- it's reprehensible about what's going on.

Because people who are saying these things. Who are starting these things. They really need -- I mean, they know. They know.

Like Stephen King, really?

You really think that Stephen King.

You really think that Charlie Kirk is for the stoning of gay people?

I --

STU: I do think, though. A lot of these people have an image of everyone on the right, that --

GLENN: But it shows how unbelievably isolated you are.

STU: Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Now, king, in particular, I think -- like, I don't think Stephen King was lying on that.

I think he's -- and I don't think he's the sharpest knife in the -- in the drawer.

GLENN: He ought to be. You can't write like he does.

STU: He's not an idiot, right? He can form thoughts. But I think he's so completely isolated in his bubble. Like, if someone says something terrible, about a person like Charlie Kirk, and your image of him is he's basically Hitler.

Well, you don't -- you don't spend time fact-checking it.

Of course, that guy -- he's that terrible human being. Of course, he said something like that. You don't even bother to check it.

You know, it's like, if I -- if you ran into a quote from Hitler, you've never seen, that was negative from Jews. As a journalist, you should probably check it.

You might think. That was probably true. He said a lot of things like that. That's how they think about people who are normal conservatives who want lower taxes and less regulation. And that is really, really disturbing.

So these lies are really prominent. People really believe these things.

GLENN: So there's a couple of -- here are the five. The first one is Charlie Kirk said black people were better off in slavery.

How big of an idiot, do you have to be, to believe that?

Okay?

Unless you're Crockett. Unless your last name is Crockett.

And I don't mean Davey. Black Americans were better off than slavery. No. That's absolutely no true -- not true. He never said anything like that. Now, what he -- what you're probably getting this from, and I'm going -- searching. I am on -- way metal detector on the beach with board shorts, sandals, and socks, looking for anything that even kind of sounds like that. But Charlie Kirk did say that, you know, they were talking about Jim Crow and how evil Jim Crow was. But he said with be, but if you look at the family, the black family before the passage of the civil rights act, which ended the Jim Crow laws, he said, the family was thriving.

And it was!

It was. Blacks had a lower divorce rate than whites did in I think 1961. They -- their families were stronger. Dads were in the homes. They had lower crime rates. I mean, it -- something happened around the time of the Civil Rights Act.

Now, my theory is, the Civil Rights Act was a -- was done by progressives. I mean, these are the guys who said no to the Civil Rights Act, just four years before. And -- and worked hard to stop the Civil Rights Act.

So what changed in those four years?

The assassination of President Kennedy. That changed your mind. Not even. Not even.

I mean, Johnson was the biggest racist up until he -- up until he died. Why would he create the great society?

My theory, this is just a theory. But my theory is, is because finally, the progressives had a way to keep blacks under their thumb and destroy the family. And destroy them, as people.

I mean, the Civil Rights Act, and more the Great Society.

The Great Society did more damage to the black family than -- than anybody could have done outside of Margaret Sanger. I think that's what he meant by that. It was evil.

You know, Jim Crow, et cetera, et cetera.

But if you look at the numbers on specifics, family, et cetera, et cetera. Blacks were doing better as families, before the Great Society.

And I think that undoing is absolutely -- is absolutely tied to it. And it was intentional, myself, I believe that.

Also, the next claim is that -- that Charlie Kirk said, black women have inferior intelligence. No, that's not what he said.

Now, they're quoting him saying that black women don't have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously.

How -- how bad does your image have to be of people on the other side to believe that they could say that?

That Charlie Kirk could say that?

STU: Like, if you were to -- you know, I think about this a lot of times. When I think about how we react to crazy statements on the left.

My reaction a lot of times, when I hear someone saying that is wait a minute.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Even if they believed that, they wouldn't just blurt it out. What is the context of this? I want to know. I want to understand. That should be your first question when you run into a quote like that.

GLENN: Well, go to Snopes. They rate this one true.

STU: This is true.

GLENN: They rate it absolutely true.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Until you get to the last paragraph, when they say, well, we should point out, he wasn't talking about all black women. He was talking about four specific black women.

STU: Oh. Oh.

GLENN: So he's talking about Joy Reid, absolutely true. Sheila Jackson Lee, absolutely true.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Ketanji Brown Jackson. Jackson Brown, absolutely true.

STU: Well, she's not a biologist, Glenn.

GLENN: No. She doesn't know what a woman is. I'm not a biologist. Yeah.

And Michelle Obama, which I don't think is true. I think Michelle Obama is actually rather smart and conniving and just flatout evil.

STU: Yeah. There's a mix there. Ketanji Brown Jackson, for all the flaws that would happen. There's a Supreme Court justice, obviously isn't a moron.

GLENN: Well.

STU: I would say Sotomayor, I would be more confident saying she is a moron.

Though, I am -- for the job that she has, Ketanji Brown Jackson is a moron. You know, Joy Reid is a complete idiot. Wasn't Sheila Jackson Lee, those two follow the same category? You're right. Michelle Obama, I would not call an idiot.

Again, criticizing four members of a group does not mean you're criticizing the group.

GLENN: And he was criticizing people he thought were unqualified to make statements of -- of any intelligence on whatever topic it was that he was talking about.

And what they did, is they said, he thinks that all black women are just dumb.

I mean, that is so incredibly dishonest.

Charlie Kirk said, gun deaths are worth it to keep the Second Amendment.

STU: This is one I heard a lot.

This is one that a lot of people on the left are using as justification for their celebration.

He said, you know, well, you just have to deal with the deaths if you want to have a Second Amendment.

And, you know, I don't know if you have the context --

GLENN: I have it -- I have his answer right here.

You ready? You will never live in a society where you have an armed citizenry. And you won't have a single gun death.

That's nonsense.

It's drivel.

But I am -- I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year.

So you can have the Second Amendment right to protect your other God-given rights.

It's a prudent deal. It is rational to think that way.

STU: I mean, and obviously -- every time -- if you have a free society, you take risks with it.

There will always be people. Horrible, horrible human beings that all seem to donate to Democrat causes, that will do things, like we saw one week ago today.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And that is -- you know, I -- again, you can't speak for Charlie Kirk.

He spoke for himself so eloquently.

But he -- even what occurred last week, would not change his mind on that.

Even -- now that something terrible has happened to me and my family, we should overturn the Second Amendment. And people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves.

You know that's how he would feel about it. And this is, if anything, pointing to his incredible consistency on the rights that we have, in this country. You know, it is a sad -- sad, unfortunate fact about so many things.

Sad, unfortunate fact about automobile travel.

That you do have to deal with some automobile accidents.

When you have highways where you can drive 55, 65, 75 miles an hour, we all understand that to be true.

GLENN: It's unreasonable to think that you can live in a society with automobiles, and not have some automobile accidents.

STU: It's absolutely true.

GLENN: It's exactly what he said about guns.

STU: And, frankly, the other thing that is important to understand, if you did eliminate all guns, you would not eliminate all murders.

GLENN: No. They did in England.

STU: Oh, they did. We're all set?

GLENN: There's no murder there.

STU: No violent crimes there.

I keep reading about them. Is that all false?

GLENN: Yeah. That's Donald Trump. You know what I mean?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And he's -- last one, Charlie used an Asian slur. Now, I'm not going to use the slur, obviously. I'm just going to say, it's what happens sometimes with armor. There's a very famous saying with armor, that has nothing to do with the Chinese or Asian at all. But I'm not even going to put those together in this context now, you you'll have to figure it out.

The thing is going around, he used that slur to yell at an Asian woman in the audience.

Now, again, what kind of monster -- or how --

STU: You should know on its face, that's false. You should know that's false.

GLENN: Yeah. How stupid would Charlie Kirk have to be, okay?

So, you know, there's nothing. There's nothing like that. Well, I'm sorry.

He was screaming something at a woman when they were talking about capitalism, and he was yelling, Cenk, not the other word. Okay? And who is that? From the Young Turks --

STU: The guys from the Young Turks.

GLENN: That's what he was saying.

STU: Oh, gosh, that's just so bad. You know, the other one was the Stephen King situation, where he quoted some horrible thing that Charlie Kirk said.

And, again, he knitted eventually, that -- that it was false.

But it was -- it was -- he was quoting someone else, in an incident, and critiquing that position.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. Yes.

STU: Which was a bad position. But he was bringing it up to quote him and critique him, which is a very standard thing they did on the left. This is a standard tactic of Media Matters when you're quoting someone else or saying something.

They'll act as if I say it.

GLENN: You repeat a lie often enough, and the public will remember it. Glenn Beck is quoting Hitler. Glenn Beck loves Hitler.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Yeah. Hitler said that, but that's not what I was saying. That had nothing to do with the conversation, for the love of Pete.

STU: Yeah, again, if you had something against Charlie Kirk, you wouldn't need to go to this stuff. If our opinion of Kirk, which was a guy who worked hard to debate people.

Who tried to practice politics and civic life the right way. Who tried to be a shining light for his faith, which was vitally important to him and his family. If that vision of Charlie Kirk was false, you wouldn't need to go to these things.

GLENN: No.

STU: You could come up with 50 different things he said that were really offensive. Instead, what you come up with are lies. Because that's what you're in the business of.

GLENN: Yeah. And there is a problem.

The -- we now know. And we'll have more on this later today. On the Charlie Kirk show.

And then on tomorrow.

But we now know that the Chinese and Russia are involved with disinformation campaigns.

Based on Charlie Kirk, trying to get us to push us into Civil War. And we know it for a fact now.

So just be very careful what you read online.

And don't necessarily repeat everything that you see.

The Far-Left Attacks in 2025 Prior to the Assassination of Charlie Kirk

In the aftermath of the assassination of Turning Point USA Founder Charlie Kirk, it is important to realize that a chilling pattern of far-left radical attacks had already emerged in 2025. Glenn Beck heads to the chalkboard to lay out the timeline, connect the dots, and explain why what looks like a “protest” on one day can turn into an actual attack on the next. Glenn walks through each high-profile incident, the groups and ideologies involved, and the national implications for safety, free speech, and public order.

Watch This FULL Episode of 'Glenn TV' HERE

Glenn Beck warns of dangerous government powers in proposed Charlie Kirk act

President Trump and others have posted in support of a proposed Charlie Kirk Act. But Glenn Beck gives a warning: there are 2 versions of this going around. One, proposed by Sen. Mike Lee, would stop the government from using propaganda against Americans. The other would go further, giving the government dangerous powers over truth. Glenn Beck explains the differences as well as what the Smith-Mundt Act was and why an Obama-era decision may be connected to the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. I want you to just spend a couple of minutes with me, and switch everything that you've been thinking on, off for a minute. This is very important. I want to take you back to the world in 1948, okay?

The ashes of World War II are still warm. The Cold War is already beginning to chill in the air, and the Soviet Union has a propaganda machine that is in full swing.

Radio Moscow, Pravda, endless streams of anti-American stories are pouring into the homes of men and women, all across the globe.

And Congress looked at this. And said, we need a counterbalance on this.

America needs to tell her story to the world about liberty and about her finding ideals.

And we need to tell it to the rest of the world.

This is the birth of the Smith-Mundt Act. Okay? We needed to launch things, at that time. Like the Voice of America, and radio-free Europe, and Radio Liberty.

These were not just radio stations. For many who were behind the curtain, these were lifelines.

A Polish dissident in the 1970s or a Hungarian who lived through the 1956 uprising, they'll tell you, they're huddled in the dark, and they have that dial of that radio.

And they can tune it. They carefully tune it, listening to an American voice break through the static and break through the darkness. That says, freedom is real. And the world hasn't forgotten you. They remember that as being very important.

But and here is the key: We, as a society, drew a very bright red line, none of this could ever be used in the United States. Congress rightfully was terrified of unleashing a government propaganda machine on its own citizens. Now, I want you to remember. 1948, Congress is still Democrat.

Okay?

You just had 20 years of the same president, FDR.

They're about to say, no president can serve that long.

The Democrats said, no Democrat president. No Republican president can ever serve that long. Because we were so close to fascism.

So the Democrats are very concerned about the government going fascistic.

And they should know about it. Because they remembered the control commission.

Now, let me take you back to World War I. The Creel Commission is something that nobody remembers, and everyone should.

Because it's what whipped America up in a frenzy, to get us to go into World War I.

You know it, because you remember the I want you Uncle Sam poster. And I've always hated that Uncle Sam poster because of the Creel Commission. I love it. I think it's really beautiful. It was created by an artist, that he didn't create it for the Creel Commission. So, you know, he was innocent. But it was the Creel machine that plastered it on every wall, every post office, every train station.

And suddenly Uncle Sam's finger was pointing at you. It wasn't just a poster. It was a summons. It was you. We need you to go to war. Americans did not want to go to World War I. In fact, Woodrow Wilson said, the other side, he will put you into war. I will keep I out of war. He knew that wasn't true.

Within three months after his reelection, we're at war. But he had to bring the country along. So the Creel Commission, through films and songs, films like the Kaiser, the Beast of Berlin, it turned the -- it turned Germany into a cartoon villain. George Cohan, he wrote songs, over there. Over there.

All of these things were done by the government, as propaganda to get Americans to go over there.

And fight. Then the government went even further. And they started hiring these, what were called Four Minute Men.

Now, imagine this, you're sitting in a movie theater.

The film. You're watching maybe the -- the newsreel. And as they're changing the reels, some guy who just in the audience, stands up, walks to the front. Clears his throat. And he delivers this really well-thought out and rousing four minute speech about patriotism. And liberty.

And crushing Germany.

The government had 75,000 volunteers. They gave millions of speeches, when anybody would pause in churches and schools. In parks.

In theaters. They were called Four Minute Men.

This was social media before social media. They were short bursts. And they seemingly were everywhere, and always on message.

Because the message was crafted by the government. Then the Creel group, through our government, published booklets, official bulletins. They planted stories in the press. This is when we really started really getting into the press, and information was -- had one goal. All of the information. And that was rallies for the -- rally support for the war, and drown out anybody that was disagreeing with that. Okay?

The government actually encouraged kids to spy on their neighbors.

That you were encouraged and post -- post men did this.

To go through the mail, if they saw -- if they saw letters that were coming in. Ask they wanted to know, who it was. And are you a German spy. Are you somebody who is going to be against the war?

Postal workers went through your mail. And it was legal at the time!

You were encouraged, operators were encouraged to listen to people's phone calls, and to report if they were on the other side.

This is Germany.

In fact, because of the Creel Commission, Germans, and what's his name?

The head of the German propaganda, oh, what's his name? The German douche bag. I can't remember his name. Anyway, what was his name?

STU: Goebbels, is that who you're talking about?

GLENN: Goebbels.

STU: Although, I like your name for it, frankly.

GLENN: Yeah. Goebbels, the douche bag.

Anyway, he said, we lost World War I because of American propaganda. But we learned how Americans did it.

And that's what Goebbels did in World War II. All of this propaganda. Okay?

By the way, American advertising, up until World War II, it was called propaganda.

What I heard, I wouldn't have said, now a message from our advertiser.

I was delivering literally and it was cool at the time, to call it propaganda.

Because that's what it was. Paid for propaganda.

Bit after Goebbels took it. And did what he did with it. We were like, oh, propaganda is bad!

Okay?

So here's what -- here's what happened because of the Creel Commission. They were pushing uniformity of thought. They did that by making sure Americans were hearing the same slogans. The same images. The same stories from every direction. Which created the illusion of unanimous consent. I want you to think about life today.

I want you to think about life during COVID.

What was the goal of the government.

To crush any dissent, and to control all of the messages that were going out, to make sure that you were hearing the same slogans, the same images. The same stories from every direction, to give you the illusion that it was unanimous consent.

What about the global warming? It's exactly the same.

Then on top of it, the Creel Commission demonized dissent. Okay? German Americans were part of this country forever.

In fact, we were I think two votes away from making German our official language, as the United States, not English. But they were all of a sudden, branded as traitors.

You couldn't -- a priest went to jail, because he gave the last rites to a German who fell down in front of him on the streets and was dying. And a priest spoke German and gave him the last rites in German. That priest went to jail! Okay??

Okay? So they demonized dissent. Then they suppressed free speech. The propaganda campaign dovetailed with the Espionage Act of 1917. The Sedition Act of 1918. If you criticized the draft, if you questioned the war, you could be fined. You would be ostracized, and you would go to jail.

This is Woodrow Wilson, gang. Does any of it sound familiar?

Now, here's what the aftermath was, after the war. When the war ended, the mask came off. Millions were dead, and Americans felt absolutely duped. They felt that they were tricked into going into a war that they were manipulated into. They didn't even understand it. And that's why we were such isolationists, in the 1920s and our 1930s, because our own government had manipulated the population to go in to fight this war, and they felt so manipulated and so betrayed by their own government. They were like, I don't want anything to do with foreign wars, okay?

So why did this -- why did this happen in 1948?

Well, because in 1948, all of this stuff is happening, and we're saying, okay. We need to have some sort of -- some sort of boundary.

Because we're going to start all of this propaganda, for the United States. And it cannot be ever turned on the people of the United States. Okay?

So then why -- why was it repealed?

It was repealed without any really kind of conversation. Because it was slipped in, called the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act.

It was slipped in to a defense authorization bill. Just like it's happening right now, the government didn't pay its bills.

They couldn't come up with the -- with a way to actually fund everything. Because we have to act as an emergency, otherwise all of our war machine. And it's all going to stop. And the world is going to die. And panic and all of that.

;And so somebody has slipped the bill in. And we modernized it.

Why did we modernize?

Well, because don't you like transparency?

I mean, we're doing this overseas. We're doing this propaganda overseas. Do you know -- taxpayer. You're paying for it. Shouldn't you see it?

There was a Congressman Max Thornberry. He was one of the sponsors. And he said, quote, today the law prevents the American people from seeing or hearing the same things we broadcast overseas, and that doesn't make any sense.

We paid for it. Okay. Then they switched that from transparency to, and it's helping fight terrorism. It will let the Department of Defense and the State Department share counter radicalization material both abroad and at home, because we have to modernize this. The internet is everywhere, okay?
So who doesn't want to fight terrorists? Who doesn't want transparency?

Now, here's what actually happened. I'll tell you in 60 seconds. First, Stu.

STU: Yeah. Let me tell you about Prize Picks. You know, we're talking about daily fantasy sports, which is a nice escape, honestly from where we've been over the past three weeks.

If you remember fantasy sports and you're like, oh, gosh.

Yeah, that's a lot of work. I have to be on there, every single day. You don't have to do it that way. Prize Picks brings it back to what it was meant to be. Simple and quick and actually enjoyable.

No drafts. No leagues. No season-long commitments. You just look at the player projections for the day, decide if they'll do more or less than what is listed, build your lineup. And then you're in.

It takes less than a minute to play. And you can mix or match players across different sports, football, baseball. Basketball.

Whatever -- whatever you want.

You don't have to be a stat wizard. You don't have to be a sports insider. You just got instincts, and you have an opinion.

You can win Prize Picks. It's daily fantasy, the way it should be. Fun, flexible, and easy to fit into real life and a nice escape. No stress. Just sports your way.

Download the app today. Use the code Stu.

Get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. The code is Stu, to get 50 bucks instantly when you play your first 5-dollar lineup. It's Prize Picks. And it's good to be right. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: So in 2012, the left decides, we have to get rid of this propaganda thing.

Okay?

Once the firewall was gone, and it's just a blip, no one even really noticed it. Suddenly, the government agencies could circulate diplomacy campaigns, inside of the United States.

And we saw this. This is where you get your USAID. The NGOs. Doing all the things here in the United States.

Because they can all do it. During COVID, you saw this.

You saw government-funded messaging, quietly merging with the media campaigns and big tech content moderation. Narratives weren't debated. They were handed out by the government. And then they were enforced. Then take the DHS disinformation governance board.

This is a direct descendent from this shift. Okay?

It was the government openly declaring it had a role in policing speech at home.

Look at the 2016 aftermath of the elections. Reports now confirm that the US government funds originally intended for overseas information campaigns that had filtered into domestic projects that fact-checked, flagged, and suppressed certain narratives online. The line between foreign propaganda and domestic persuasion was completely gone. Everything they worried about in 1948, was now happening after 2012. Okay. So why am I bringing this up today?

Because after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, we have been asking for this to be reinstated.

This Smith-Mundt Act has to be reinstated. But after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, there is a new wave of enthusiasm for this as there should be.

But some people on our side, are now demanding more than just a firewall.

You go to change.org. And there's petitions for a Charlie Kirk act.

And it will not only stop government propaganda. But it goes further than that. It starts to punish private media. Educators. Social media platforms. For spreading what they call false narratives. So this is -- this is our side saying, yeah, well, now we want the power to do what they did. Okay? Hear me clearly.

Accountability matters! Lives are destroyed, reputations are smeared. And that matters.

But we have systems in place for that.

What this proposal opens is a new door. A terror where government decides, what is and isn't falsehood.

And the government cannot do that. History teaches us. Once the government claims the authority to define truth.

Liberty is gone. Okay?

Now, enter Mike Lee.

Mike Lee has another proposal. Mike Lee has a version. That he is submitting to Congress. And trying to get it passed. And every American should be for this.

Right or left.

Every American should be for this. He's not going to reinvent the wheel. He just wants the old firewall put back. That's it.

Period.

The government must not, and cannot propagandize its own people. Restore the very bright red line that was attacked in 1948.

It's not about silencing speech. It's about preventing the most powerful institution on earth, with the endless resources of that institution, the government.

And the endless reach, from turning its firehose of influence in on the American people.

This is why it matters. I want you to think of -- I want you to think of football.

Oh, boy. Dangerous.

You wouldn't let the referee this a football game, put on a jersey, and join one of the teams. Okay?

But that's what the repeal did. It let the government be both the referee and the player in the arena of ideas. Mike Lee is saying, put the stripes back on their jerseys. Make sure they're in black and white stripes. So we know exactly who they are!

Change.org and some people on our side want to make the ref not only a player, but the judge, the jury, and the executioner. It cannot happen.

This is -- I'm telling you, if this goes through, Mike Lee is proposing something that is clean. Doesn't have any of this in.

So support the Mike Lee Mundt Act. But if you're hearing people talk about, we have to go further, that is the Patriot Act of our day. We're standing at a fork in the road.

Reinstating the Smith-Mundt protections. They're not going to solve all the problems of misinformation, but it reestablishes the ground rules. And tells Washington, you cannot propagandize us, period.
(music)

Once truth belongs to the state, truth itself ceases to exist. Support Mike Lee's bill.

Restore the Smith-Mundt Act.