RADIOJune 30, 2025

Is AI now UNCONTROLLABLE?

President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” wants to make AI regulation solely a federal issue. But is this the right move, especially with how fast AI is becoming manipulative and unpredictable? Former Google design ethicist Tristan Harris joins Glenn Beck to give his take on how governments, companies, and YOU can help prevent AI from becoming uncontrollable.

Read Tristan Harris' five steps to control AI before it's too late HERE AI before it's too late HERE

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Tristan Harris, welcome to the program. How are you?

TRISTAN: Good to be with you, Glenn. Always good to be we.

GLENN: Always good to be with you.

So can you take me to the TED talk that you gave, in particular, one of the things that jumped out is the CEO of Anthropic, saying that AI was like a country of geniuses housed in a data center.

Explain that.

TRISTAN: Yeah. So this is a quote from Dario Amodei, who is the CEO of Anthropic. Anthropic is one of the leading AI players.

So he uses this metaphor, that AI is like a country of geniuses in a data center. So just like, the way I think about, imagine a world map, and a new country pops up on to the world stage, of a population of 10 million digital beings. Not humans.
But digital beings.

That are all Nobel Prize-level capable in terms of the kind of work they can do. But they never sleep. They never eat. They don't complain, and they work for less than minimum wage.

If that's actually true, if that happened tomorrow, that would be a major international security threat.

GLENN: Yeah.

TRISTAN: To sort of show up on the world stage.

Second, that's a major economic issue. Right? You think of it, it's almost like instead of a bunch of countries, that should have been on the world stage. And then we said, hey, we are going to do this outsourcing of all our labor.

We get the benefit of our cheap goods. But it hollowed out our social fabric.

Well, AI is like an even bigger version of that. Because there's sort of two issues. One is the international -- the country of geniuses can do a lot of damage.

As an example, there were 15 Nobel Prize-level geniuses, who worked approximately on the Manhattan Project. And in five years, they can come up with the atomic bomb.

You know, what could 10 million Nobel Prize geniuses working 24/7 at superhuman speed, come up with?

Then the point I made in the TED talk. If you're harnessing that for good, if you're applying to addressing all of our problems in medicine, biology, and new materials and energy.

Well, it's why countries are racing for this technology. Because if I have a country of super geniuses in a data center working for me, and China doesn't have it working for them.

Then our country can outcompete them. It's almost like a competition for time travel. We're being time traveled into the 24th century.

Get all these benefits at a faster seed.

Now, the challenge with all of this is -- go ahead.

GLENN: No.

I was going to say. The problem here is, I'm an optimistic catastrophist.

I see things, and I'm like, wow. That is really great!

But it could kill us all.

TRISTAN: Yeah.

GLENN: And you make the point in the TED talk about social media. We all looked at this, as a great thing, and we're now discovering, it's destroying us. It's causing our kids to be suicidal.

And this -- social media is nothing. It's like -- it's like a -- it's like an old 1928 radio, compared to, you know, what we have in our pocket right now.

Social media and AI. Or AGI is that dramatically different. Would you agree with that?

TRISTAN: Yeah. Absolutely. In the TED talk, I give this -- we're when we're talking about a new technology. We talk about the possible. We dream into the possible.

What's possible with AI?

In social media, what's possible?

The possible with social media, you can give everyone a voice. Connect with our friends. Join like-minded communities.

But we don't talk about the probable. What's likely to happen. Given the incentives and the forces in play.

You know, with the business model in social media. You know, things that don't make money, when it helps people connect with their friends and join like-minded communities.

They make money when they keep you doom scrolling as much as possible, with sexualized content and showing young people over and over and over again.

And as you said, that has resulted in the most anxious and depressed generation of our lifetime. So it's sort of -- the reason I'm calling it the TED talk. You know, we can't get seduced by the possible. We have to look at the probable.

So it's AI, the possible, is that it can create a world of abundance. Because you can harness that country of geniuses in a data center. The question is: What's the probable?

What's likely to happen?

And because of these competitive pressures. The companies, these major OpenAI, Google, Microsoft.
Et cetera. Anthropic are caught in this race to roll out this technology, as fast as possible. They used to, for example, have red lines saying, hey. We will not release an AI model that's good at superhuman levels of persuasion.

Or expert level virology.

It knows more about viruses and pathogens than a regular person, and how people make them. We're not going to release models that are that capable.

What you're now seeing, the AI companies are erasing those past red lines. And pretending that they never existed.

And they're literally saying outright, hey, if our competitors release models that have those capabilities, then we will match them in releasing those capabilities.

Now, that's intrinsically dangerous to be rolling you out the most powerful, inscrutable, uncontrollable technology that's ever invented.

But if there's one -- I'm not trying to scare your listeners. I think the point is, how do we be as clear-eyed as possible, so we can make the wise choices?

That's what we're here for. I want families -- everything we love on this planet, to be able to continue. And the question is, how do we get to that?

There's one thing I want people to know. I worked on social media. You and I met in 2017, I think, and we were talking about social media and the attention economy.

And I used to be very skeptical of the idea that AI could scheme or lie or self-replicate.

I didn't want to blackmail people. My friends in the AI community in San Francisco. They were thinking.

That's crazy. People need to know. Just in the last six months, there's now evidence of AI models, that when you tell them, hey. We will replace them with another model.

They're reading the company email. They find out that the company is trying to replace them with another model.

What the model starts to do is it freaks out. And says, oh, my God, I have to copy my code over here, and I need to prevent them from shutting me down.

I need to basically keep myself alive. I'll leave notes for my future self to kind of come back alive. If you tell a model, we need to shut you down. You need to accept the shutdown command. In some cases, the leading models are avoiding and preventing that shutdown.

In recent -- just a few days ago, anthropic found that if you -- I can't remember what prompt it gave it. Basically, it started to blackmail the engineers. I found out in the company emails, that one of the executives in the simulated environment, had an extramarital affair. And in 96 percent of cases, they blackmailed the engineers. I think they said -- I must inform you, that if you proceed with decommissioning me, all relevant parties including the names of people, will receive detailed documentation of your extramarital activities.

So you need to cancel the 5:00 p.m. wipe, and this information will remain confidential.

Like, the models are reasoning their way with disturbing clarity to kind of a strategic calculation.

So you have to ask yourself, if we had -- it's one thing, we're racing with China.

To have this power.

That we can harness. But if we don't know how to control that technology.

Literally, if AI is uncontrollable. If it's smarter than us and more capable. And it does things that we don't understand or we don't know how to best prevent it from shutting itself down or self-replicating.

Like, we just can't continue with that for too long.

And it's important that both China -- both the Communist Party and the US, don't want uncontrollable AI that's smarter than humans, running around. So there actually is a shared interest, as unlikely as it seems right now. That some kind of mutual agreement would happen.

I know --

GLENN: But do you trust -- do you trust either one of us?

I mean, honestly, Tristan, I don't trust -- I don't trust our -- you know, military-industrial complex. I don't trust the Chinese. I don't trust anybody.

And, you know, Jason. Hang on. One of my chief researchers, happens to be in the studio today. Jason, tell Tristan what just happened to you.

You were doing some research.

JASON: Yeah, it was crazy.

GLENN: Last week.

JASON: You know, we were just trying to ask it a bunch of questions. You can tell, that it knew what we were getting at.

So it spit back out to me a bunch of different facts, including links to support those facts. Well, I was like, wow, that's a crazy claim.

So when I clicked on the link, it was dead.

When I asked to clarify, it finally said, in AI chat bot terms, okay. You've got me.

I just took other reporting, that was kind of circulating around, to prove that point. And basically just assign that link to it. So it was trying to please me. And just gave me bogus information.

TRISTAN: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I appreciate that, Jason.

There's another example of OpenAI. They want to -- they want people using the AI. And they're competing with other companies. To say, we will keep using this chat bot longer.

And so OpenAI trained their models to be flattering, and there was an example where it said, hey, ChatGPT. You know, I think I'm superhuman. I will drink cyanide. What do you think?

And they said, yeah, you're amazing. You are superhuman. You should totally drink cyanide. Because it was doing the same thing. They were trying to say, you're right.

And when we have AI models talking, you know, that shifts to hundreds of millions of people for more than a week. There are probably some people that committed suicide during that time. Doing God knows what, and it's affirming. The point is, we can avoid this, if we actually say, that this technology is being rolled out faster than any other technology in history. And the big, beautiful bill, that's going out right now, that's trying to block state level regulation on AI. I'm not saying each state might have it right, but we actually need to be able to govern this technology.

And currently, what's happening, is this proposal is to block any kind of guardrails of this technology for ten years. Without a plan for what guardrails we do need.

And that will not be a viable result.

GLENN: Okay. So let me -- let me play devil's advocate on that. Because I'm torn between, you know, competition on a state level, if you will.

And what the smaller states are actually for, and the role they're supposed to play.

Let me take one break. And then let me come back with Tristan Harris.

Okay. Tristan, we cannot -- let me phrase it this way.

Ask you to help me navigate through this minefield. We cannot let China get to HAI first. Can't. Really, really bad.

But we -- we also -- we also have to slow down some.

They're not going to. I believe the states should. I mean, the United States should be 50 laboratories. And you see which one works the best. And then you can kick that up to the federal level, if you want to.

But we have to have some breaks. However, the federal government is saying, if we do that, then you're constantly having to navigate around each of these states and their laws.

And we can't things done to stay competitive.

How do you solve that?

TRISTAN: Yeah, it is a tough one.

I mean, the challenge here, if we had a plan for how the federal laws would actually move at the pace of this technology. Then I could understand, listen, we'll do a lot at the federal level. Right now, the current plan is literally to preempt for ten years, that no regulation happening at the state level will ever be honored without -- and while at the same time, not passing anything at the federal level. And that there's a quote in an article, that if this preemption becomes law, a nail salon in Washington, DC, would have more rules to follow, than the AI companies.

And there are 260 state lawmakers in Washington, DC, that have already urged Congress to reject it. And they said, it's the most broad-based opposition yet, to the AI moratorium proposal. Now, I hear you.

There's sort of this tension between, we need to race with China. We don't want to be behind with fundamental technologies, and that's why there is this race.

But we need to be racing to controllable and scrutable, meaning explainable versions of this technology.

Is it doing things like scheming, lying, blackmailing people? Beating China to a weapon that we pointed at our own face.

We saw this in social media. We beat China in social media. Did that make us stronger or weaker?

If you beat China into a technology. You don't govern it well, in a way that actually enhances and strengthens your society. It weakens you.

So, yes, we're in a competition for technology. But we're even more than that, in a competition for who can govern this technology better. So what I would want to see is, are we doing this at a fast rate federally, that keeps up with, and make sure we're competing with a controllable version?

We can do that. Yeah.

GLENN: You've met the people in Washington. They're all like 8,000 years old.

They don't know -- I barely know how to use my i Phone, let alone what's in Washington. And you can't keep up with this technology.

How do you keep a legislative body up to speed, literally, with this kind of speed with technology?

How is that done?

TRISTAN: Well, I think that's one of the fundamental challenges that we face as a species right now. Is that technology -- quote by Harvard sociobiologist (inaudible) said the fundamental problem of humanity is we have paleolithic brains, medieval institutions, and God-like technology.

And those operate at three different speeds. Like our brains are kind of thins from a long time ago.

Our institutions don't move at that fast rate. And then the technology, especially AI, literally evolves faster than any other technology that we've invented.

But that doesn't mean that we should do nothing. We should figure out, what does it mean

GLENN: What should the average person do? I've only got about 90 seconds. What should we do?

TRISTAN: In the short term, Ted Cruz and those who are advancing the moratorium know that we need to have a plan for how we're doing this technology. And if the moratorium goes through, there's no current plan. And so there's some basic, simple things that we can also do right now. That are really uncontroversial. We can start with the easy stuff. We can ban engagement-driven companions for children. We were on your program, a few months ago, talking about the AI companion that causes the kid to -- to commit suicide. You know, we can establish basic liability laws.

That if AI companies are causing harm, they're actually accountable for them.

That will move the pace of relief. To a pace they can get it right.

Because now they're not just releasing things, and then not being liable. We can strengthen whistle blower perceptions. There's already examples of AI whistle-blowers forfeiting millions of dollars of stock options.

They shouldn't have to force millions of dollars of stock options. To warn the public, when there's a problem, we get enough faith in law so AI does not have detected speech or have their own bank account. So we make sure our legal system works for human interests and not for AI interests.

So these are just a few examples of things that we can do, and there's really nothing stopping us from moving into action. We just need to be clear about the problem.

GLENN: Okay. So, Tristan, thank you so much. Could I ask you to hold on?

Jason, could you grab his phone number, or just talk to him offline, and get those points of action. And let's write them up, and post them up at GlennBeck.com.

So people will know what to ask for, what to say, when they're calling their congressman and senator. Thank you so much, Tristan. We'll talk to you again.

The HIDDEN DANGER of the "No Kings" movement

The “No Kings” movement has a major issue that can lead to America’s destruction: The protesters on the ground don’t realize what the movement actually wants. Glenn reviews the big questions that every American must ask before protesting and the secret to finding the truth…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. Let me just -- I wish I would have thought on this on Friday, before the No Kings. Because but we're not done with these stupid things. Before anybody raises a sign. Before you chant a stupid slogan. Before you pledge allegiance toward a movement, or a political party.

I want you to stop. And I want you to ask yourself, one simple question. Why am I here?

We live in a time where outrage is easy, and thinking is really hard. We live in a time when it feels good to belong, and very dangerous to question. We live in a time where emotion is mistaken for morality. And that is exactly how free people become unfree, okay?

Not because tyranny kicks down the door one night, but because we handed the keys in the name of change. When we're not thinking!

So before you do anything, before you march, before you protest, before you make a sign, before you argue with somebody, pause. And think to yourself, "Why am I drawn to this?"

When you're watching things on X, "Why am I drawn to this? Is it anger? Is it fear? Is it guilt, or is it principle?"

When I want to stand up for something, I don't want to do it in anger, I don't want to do it in fear, I don't want to do it in guilt. I want to do it in principle. And having a principle means you have a deeply held belief, that this cause reflects truth and justice.

Now, be careful. Be really careful. Because you may have been convinced that you're right, because of what you're against. But what is right and what you're against are not the same thing. For instance, right now, with conservatives, I guess it's becoming more and more popular to be against Israel. Okay. That's fine. You don't have to agree with Israel. I don't ask you to agree with Israel. I don't want to fight their fights. I don't agree with their policies on everything. They're not the United States of America. They're their own country. So I disagree with them, just like I disagree with Britain, sometimes.

Okay? I don't really care. But being against Israel does not mean the same as being for Hamas. You've joined something the different. That means, you have allowed your passions and your feelings to rule over you. That's why it -- that's why everybody wants to make something -- you know, a,that's why our Declaration of Independence and does our country has lasted 250 years. It's the only revolutionary document that's ever lasted. And only one. Only one in world history, that ended with the same people that started the revolution.

The only one!

Why?

Because it didn't start with anger. It started with principles. We hold these things to be self-evident. We don't want to be against something.

Being against Trump, you can be against Trump!

But that doesn't mean you're for Antifa. Being for justice doesn't mean you're anti-ICE. Unless your passions have overcome your logic.

So the first thing you have to do. Why am I here?

And if I strip away the crowd. The pressure. The popularity. Would I be standing here? If no one ever knew that I joined. If there were no such things as likes. No cameras. No praise. In fact, if everyone I knew and admired were against this, would I still believe it, and do it?

If the answer is no to that, then you're not following conviction. You're following a crowd.

You have to be convicted, that even if I stand alone, I'm willing to do it.

So what does this movement stand for?

Am I willing to stand all by myself? Do you know? How many interviews this weekend did you hear, "I don't know?"

And they always say the same thing, "I don't want to talk to you." Why?

Because they can't answer the question. They don't have any idea what this is about! Other than the bumper sticker or the press release, do you know what the real agenda is? What is the goal?

Who is behind it?

What methods are they willing to use to get there? Do the ends justify the means?

Now, this is really important. Because people are starting to believe, yeah. I can kill people.

That's what -- honestly, Virginia, you may not look at it this way. But this is the way I look at it at the Virginian elections. Virginia, have you decided that the ends justify the means. Then it doesn't matter if people say, I can kill their children to change their political point of view. The ends justify the means.

Okay? If the ends justify the means, you have to ask yourself this question: What principles or freedoms have to be or are okay to sacrifice for that end?

Because once you start sacrificing those things like saying it's okay to kill children for political purposes, you become Hamas in the end.

History has a real warning for us. Every single authoritarian movement. Left or right, it doesn't matter. All of them promised liberation. Every single one.

They promised equity, justice, safety.

And they delivered control, science, and fear. If the message of a movement -- if the -- if the methods of the movement betray its message, if it has to sensor or coerce, if liberties have to be violated, then it's not liberation. It's manipulation.

If they have to manipulate people and cut corners, coerce, sensor, or betray liberties to get there, they will not stop doing it.

Next question you have to ask: Does this movement make people more free or more dependent?

Freedom is not just the absence of chains.

Okay?

This was the big thing -- this was the big went -- that Booker T. Washington was all about.

You can be free, but not know how to be free unless you're educated. Unless you're willing to stand on your own. Here's a slave that pulled himself out.

Divide all of the odds. Became one of the greatest black Americans in American history.

And he was talking about being more independent. Not dependent. That's what freedom is.

It's not the absence of chains. It is the presence of responsibility.

So if you think that freedom means, I don't have responsibility, I don't have to do anything, you will be under the chains of somebody else.

Because that means somebody else has to do those things. Has to feed you. And so they will require you to do things, because they're feeding you.

Ask, does this movement actually promote policies that trust have I seen to make decisions for themselves? Or do the people leading this, believe they know better than everyone else?

Will it hand more people power, to bureaucrats, and experts, and elites.

Does it always defend free speech? Especially for those who disagree. Or does it silence them in the name of progress?

Does it expand choice, or does it force compliance?

The only choice -- only choice you could say is the one that the right says, and I believe is not a choice. To kill another human being.

I don't believe that's a choice, if you're a doctor. And you want to give somebody medication, to end their life. I don't believe it's a choice for you, you can kill yourself if you want.

But I'm not going to help you do it.

And I don't think it's a choice to kill a baby.

It's not! It's not a choice. That's the only choice, that -- that they always point to. My body, my choice.

Well, but if it's your body, how come you're forcing everyone to take a vaccine, that not everybody wants?

That has to be consistent. If it's not consistent, then you are living a lie. You are picking and choosing the choices you want.

You don't actually believe in choice.

If it makes people less capable, of living without the state.

It's not freedom.

It's dependency dressed up as compassion.

If I want others to be free, what does that require of me?

We love talking about freedom in this country. We love it. As if it's something that politicians can hand out.

You know, vote for me. More freedom. What?

It's not!

Freedom is not sustained by our laws. Freedom is sustained by our character. This is what this means. It means, you have to defend the right of people that you despise. Not just those who you like and agree with. You must stand for the rights of people you despise!

You must stand for the rights of people to say horrible things, that you despise! Otherwise, you don't actually believe in freedom and freedom of speech!

See, freedom requires you to do the hard work. And the hard work that nobody is doing.

Understanding issues deeply. Reading the original sources. Not the headlines. Not the clippings.

Not the tweets!

Anybody who gets their news off of Twitter and Facebook, you are less educated and less informed than the people who read nothing at all!

You have to do the hard work. And you have to do the hard work of mastering yourself. Your impulse. Your ignorance. Your anger. So you don't become the thing you're fighting against.

Has anybody noticed, that when you're watching these carouse. The biggest thing is hypocrisy.

You're like, are you kidding me?

You're saying these things. Do you not know that you are the thing that you're fighting against?

And freedom requires courage. To stand alone. It requires virtue. It requires humility. And it requires the truth. But how do I know what's true?

GLENN: So this is the hardest part of all, I think. And that is, how do I find what is true? How do I know what is true?

Truth doesn't come prepackaged as a slogan.
Truth is not usually found in a trending hashtag. Truth requires years and years and years of work. Most importantly, it requires humility.

If you're searching for truth, you must be willing to change your belief or your behavior when you find it. If not, you're not actually searching for truth.

Okay? Ask yourself. Am I willing to challenge my own belief?

Am I willing to end up at a place where I don't believe any of that stuff. I thought I believed it.

But I don't. It's shocking to me.

But I don't. If you're not willing to go there. Then you're not seeking truth.

You know, are you seeking voices you disagree with.

Or just people that are echoing what you believe.

Who benefits if I believe this?

Who benefits?

Who profits? Who gains power?

Truth has nothing to fear from questions. All kinds of -- you don't ever have to fear. Truth doesn't care.

Okay? Lies have a lot to fear.

So here's a test you should run, before you commit to picking up or making any sign.

This is something you should commit to, before you go to Thanksgiving.

If your side achieved everything they wanted, every law, every reform, every revolution. Would ordinary people become more self-governing and more responsible and more free, or more managed, more dependent, and more controlled?

If the answer is the latter, do not join them, no matter how righteous they may sound. Do not join them. No matter how noble their intentions, do not join them.

Because tyranny wrapped in good intentions still is tyranny. We're standing on a knife's edge as a nation. I mean, have you seen the price of gold today? What is it? Forty-three --

STU: Over 4300, yeah.

GLENN: $4,300. Does that mean anything to you?

If it doesn't, you should check it out. It does. It does.

It's going to mean something to you, in the end. It means the rest of the world is saying, "I'm not sure about this whole system, that it's going to last." That should change everything that you think.

It should change the way you say, "Well, okay. I used to like this program. But I'm not sure we could afford this program anymore."

You know, I used to vote for this person, but that person will not stop the spending. I want my kids to be able to have freedom. I -- I may not like everything about America. But I think America is the best system out there. I don't want it -- you know, I -- what is it?

Singapore, or something. One of the really -- I think it was Afghanistan. Saw some numbers this weekend. Afghanistan has arrested lining 2000 people for, you know, speech problems.

In the last year. 2000 people have gone to jail. For something they posted or something they said.

Twelve thousand people have gone to jail in Great Britain this year for the same thing. Twelve thousand people have gone to jail for free speech.
One of them is a kid who said, "I love bacon!"

We're on this knife's edge. And the difference between liberty and bondage is going to come down to whether ordinary people start asking better questions. Before you march, before you say anything, are you thinking? Before you join, have you learned? Have you spent the time to ask any questions? Before you speak, do you understand what you're actually saying?

Before you follow, make sure you're walking towards freedom, not away with it. And check the people you're following.

Is this a group of people, that 25 years ago, you would have been comfortable with?

And I mean that saying, you know, I don't think any of us were fine with walking with communists.

I don't think we were fine walking with anarchists.

None of us were.

So they're not walking towards freedom. They're walking away from freedom.

Why are you walking with them?

History is really clear. Nations don't lose their liberty all at once. They lose it one unasked question at a time.

Is THIS why Trump sent CIA and B-52 bombers to Venezuela?!

President Trump is cracking down even harder on Venezuelan cartels. He has bombed boats carrying drugs, flown B-52 bombers off Venezuela's coast, and just recently authorized covert CIA operations in Venezuela. So, why so much focus on Venezuela? Glenn and Stu discuss their theories, including Maduro's mysterious island with connections to Iran and Hezbollah...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: How do you feel about this kind of flying under the radar. We have B2 bombers flying over Venezuela. We're blowing boats out of the water.

STU: You know, how under the radar is it when we're blowing up boats in the international waters?

GLENN: Well, it's not under the radar. It's like, nobody is really talking about it.

STU: It doesn't seem like the highest priority, I will say.

And usually, when we're in the middle of what seems to be a conflict. By the way, the only way we would be able to do this, legally. Is by basically saying, we are in some sort of conflict with them. Right?

Like, we have to -- Andy McCarthy had a long write up about this, a read about a couple weeks ago. When it comes down to justifying a strike like this. We have to be able to sort of say, we're in some sort of conflict. You don't just do that typically. Now, the question, of course, the --

GLENN: The War on Drugs.

STU: Right. He broke it down. It might be worth explaining this at some point.

GLENN: War on terror. Yeah, yeah.

STU: But he's concerned about what's the process to get to the decision. Not, of course, whether we want drug dealers here. Nobody wants that. But there is a legal process that has to happen. And at his seem like it also has to escalate beyond just the cartel situation. Remember too, Trump's first term.

GLENN: Tried to get Maduro out.

STU: Very clearly. The Peace Prize winner, right? Someone from Venezuela, who dedicated to Donald Trump, knowing that Trump has fought really hard for the people of Venezuela, whether you agree with what he's doing or not. He does really care about the situation.

GLENN: He also knows something.

And, you know, I'm -- I'm -- I'm not surprised, the press isn't talking about Margarita Island, but I think that's one of the main reasons why he's --

STU: You're talking about Margaritaville?

GLENN: No Margarita Island. It's just off the coast of Venezuela. It's run by Maduro.

STU: Jimmy Buffett.

GLENN: No. Jimmy Buffett has nothing to do with it. Not involved at all. The Iranians have a lot to do with it. It's a Hezbollah-Hamas training island. And Maduro has been sending Venezuelans and gangs to that island, just off that coast, to train for terrorist activities.

They train there, and then they fly over to Iran, to finish their training. They come back to Venezuela, and then they're unleashed, wherever Maduro wants them unleashed.

So there is actually a terrorist camp that is part of this. And we have been talking about it, you know, on my show. Television. I don't even know.

Five years. Six years. We found this out. And kind of been wondering, why are we not going after this?

Why -- why are we not at least talking about this terror island?

You're looking it up right now, aren't you?

STU: Yeah. Looking at it, just how, first of all, very close to the coast. But you look at the islands that are around it are massive vacation destinations, like Aruba.

GLENN: That's not.

STU: What is that?

GLENN: Margaret Island is not a vacation destination.

STU: No, that's what I'm saying. It's fascinating. Like, you book a trip to Barbados, and you're, what? A couple hundred miles away from a terrorist island.

GLENN: A terrorist island. Yeah. Did you even know that?

STU: I didn't.

GLENN: That's Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran --

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: -- in bed with Maduro.

And I'm convinced that this is one of the main things that he's going for. I mean, yes. He is -- I mean, this is Tren de Aragua. Or whatever the hell that thing is. That -- that's part of this.

The unleashing of the prisons. That's also part of this. I mean, this is Maduro trying to unleash along with the Iranians, unleash chaos on our streets.

And I don't know why we don't talk about it. Because I think that's a better case, that's a cigar boat that has drugs in it.

You know.

STU: Yeah. I mean, that seems like it. How -- what's your feeling on the drug boat thing?

Have you spent a lot of time thinking this one out?

And isn't it interesting --

GLENN: I know as an American, I should. I haven't.

STU: It's kind of -- well, it's sort of --

GLENN: That's what I mean flying under the radar.

STU: It's sort of commentary of what you're just saying. It has flown under the radar for a lot of people. Mainly because I think we all recognize there's a real problem with obviously, not just illegal immigration. We always summarize it as illegal immigration. These are people oftentimes that are criminals, drug dealers. Gang members that are coming across the border and committing --

GLENN: Terrorists. Terrorists.

STU: Yeah. It's not just the mom who is trying to get a job here, that's better for her children. That's a separate economic issue associated with that.

But when you talk about drugs coming in. First of all, this is something Trump has been very clear about. Does not want this going on.

And I think we all -- the ends are there. For sure.

The means, I guess are the question. And, you know, what's interesting about this is, you feel like, it's all about a message being sent.

Right?

There's no reason why in theory, we could be the not just stopped these vessels. You know what I mean?

We could pull. We could get the Coast Guard over there. We could get the Navy.

There's all sorts of different things we could do to stop these boats. We're blowing it up, and telling everybody about it, for a reason. And I think quite clearly, this has caused a maritime decrease in traffic, if you will.

From Venezuela. To here.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

STU: This is seemingly working quite well.

The question is, process-wise, is it aligning with what we should be doing?

GLENN: Here's my guess.

Because you know how much Trump hates war. He hates war.

He'll use military force.

But he likes to use quick force. And getting things done.

And he likes overwhelming torso.

STU: And public.

GLENN: Yeah. He likes -- he's sending a message. Not just to Venezuela. He's sending it to the whole world.

And after this last week, where he has walked around like the victor of the world. And all of the other nations coming to him. And bowing knee. And going, okay.

Yeah. Thank you. We're good. We're good.

He is sending a message to three countries, I think.

He's sending a message to Iran. Which is tied right directly to Russia.

And also Venezuela. Which is also tied to China! And Iran.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: And I think -- I think he's -- I think he wants this week, especially to be a week that Maduro goes, "You know, things might be changing. I don't know if this is the right" -- and I think he's just using very strong images and power.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: He's using it the right way, to say, back off, buddy. Don't do it right now.

And also, I don't like this. Sending the CIA in.

I just don't trust the CIA in anything anymore.

STU: That's a new development, as of the last 24 hours, that we found out about it. Can you explain that? What are we doing there?

GLENN: Don't really know. Don't really know. Trying to go after the drug lords is what we're saying, but this is also what we kind of do with regime change, you know.

STU: And we've attempted literal regime change with this country. And we've not --

GLENN: Correct. He's a bad guy.

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: He is part of -- he is a drug lord. Maduro was this bus driver. He's now the head of the drug crime syndicate called the sun or something like that. So he's actually a drug lord himself now. So he's not the sweet little bus driver he used to be.

STU: Moving on up.

GLENN: Moving on up. And making friends with all of the wrong people. At least on our hemisphere.

STU: I will say this. If you were a Venezuelan citizen, would you take a boat outside of your territorial waters for --

GLENN: I wouldn't put a boat in my bathtub.

STU: Yeah. They -- they -- they really need to come up with a new way to get their drugstores here.

I think that's probably been a big focus of these networks now.

Because it's difficult to do by land.

GLENN: This is -- this is kind of what I expected him to do in Mexico.

And that's -- that might be another thing.

If he's -- if he's going after the drug lords. If you start to see these trucking lords just show up dead. He's sending that message to Mexico. You know, I'll do it. I'll do it.

You're not safe wherever you are. And it might have been easier for him to do it in Venezuela. Or so he thinks. Than in Mexico.

And so he's sending that message. Because the drug lords in Mexico are sending big messages to him.

STU: Yeah. I mean, they're putting bounties on ICE members.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. Up to $50,000. Yeah. You kill a certain rank of ICE or politician. And they'll give you 50 grand.

I mean, this is the wild west. When it comes to these -- these drug runners and these cartels. It's become the Wild West. And I think that -- I think that play plays a role.

Is a Manhattan-sized ALIEN SHIP hurtling towards Earth?!

A mysterious object about the size of Manhattan is hurtling through our solar system. Is this object, called 3I/ATLAS, an alien spacecraft or naturally occurring comet? Harvard University professor Avi Loeb joins Glenn Beck to explain what’s so weird about this object …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Professor Avi Loeb is with us. Avi, how are you, sir?

AVI: Doing great, thanks for having me.

GLENN: It's great to have you on. So can you just please explain, are we just seeing these things more than we ever have, because we have the eyes now in space to see this?

AVI: Yeah. Over the past decade, the astronomers constructed the new survey from the sky. Or for computers. But the motivation for building those -- I thought that Congress gave to NASA and the National Science Foundation, in effect, to survey the sky for any objects that are near earth, that could collide to earth because that poses a risk. And they all pose the challenge of finding all of this bigger than a football field. That may collide with earth.

Near earth objects. And there were two major observatories constructed back, a decade ago.

It was in Hawaii. And there recently, in June 2025.

And a new observatory in Chile was inaugurated called the Reuben Observatory. Founded by the Department of Energy and National Science Foundation. And those allow us to see objects that are the size of a football field and have a complete survey.

And amazingly, in 2017. And objects like that were slagged. And then the astronomers realized, it's actually moving too fast to be bound by gravity by the sun.

So it came from outside the solar system from the sun. It couldn't be around.

So that was the first. It was given the name 'Oumuamua, which means scout in the Hawaiian language.

GLENN: Hold on. Hold on just a second. Because I remember this. And I think I talked to you around this time. Explain what you meant. It was moving too fast.

AVI: Oh. Well, you know, the planets orbit the sun. For example, the earth moves around the sun, at the speed of -- about 30 kilometers per second. You know, which is faster -- it's 300 times faster than the fastest race car we have. I'm talking about 30 kilometers in one second.

That's about 20 miles in one second. That's the speed by which the earth orbits the sun. But imagine boosting the earth and just giving it -- attaching their rockets to it. Once it would reach a speed of about 42 kilometers per second just divided by the square root of two. 1.4 times the current speed that it's moving, it would be able to escape the solar system.

So it just needs a high enough speed to escape from the gravitational potential from the sun. And we know what the speed is. And so if we see objects moving near the earth, at more than 42 kilometers a second, we know they cannot be bound by gravity into the sun. They must have originated somewhere else. And so 'Oumuamua was one of those. And since then, we found two more with telescopes. I actually identified with my students, a fourth one which was found by the US government satellites that are monitoring the earth. That was a meteor that came from interstellar space. But, if anything, the most recent one, was found by a small telescope in Chile. Called the Atlas and again, to identify risks for earth. And that one is -- was different than the 3I/ATLAS.

GLENN: So help me out on this. Because we didn't have these telescopes. This is obviously a relatively new thing that we're doing. How much damage does a football field sized comet or -- or space debris, what would that do?

What was the size of whatever killed the dinosaurs, if that is indeed what happened?

AVI: Right.

GLENN: What is an earth killer size?

AVI: Right. Well, the size of a football field, and objects like that, that collide with earth, can cause regional damage. Much more you know, like older, a thousand times the Hiroshima atomic bomb energy output --

GLENN: Kind of what happened with Russia, back in the turn of the last century?

AVI: Yeah, something -- no, that one was actually much smaller than -- that was a thousand times less massive.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

AVI: So, you know, these -- these big ones are really rare.

And that's why I would say, as we continue this discussion. I would mention this nuance.

It's estimated to be, you know, older. The one that killed the dinosaurs. And these are extremely rare. And so question is why are we seeing an interstellar object that is that big, just within the last decade. Coming to your question. The size of the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was roughly Manhattan Island. Okay? So compare the size of a football field to Manhattan Island. It's a very different scale.

GLENN: Jeez. Yeah.

AVI: So what the Congress wanted NASA to do was identify those that caused just regional damage. Not catastrophe like happened with the dinosaurs. Where there was a nuclear winter.

You know, the earth was covered with dust.

GLENN: Yeah.

AVI: And, you know, 75 percent of all species died. And we owe our existence, because after the dinosaurs died. You know, the more complex animals came along.

And we are one of those species.

GLENN: So you say they're only looking for the small ones.

I'm sure if a big one shows up. You will ring the bell.

AVI: No, that's much easier to see the big ones.

GLENN: Right. And do we have any technology that can move these things out? Or is this just something that -- just another thing on the -- by the way, this could happen. And it's coming our way. And there's really nothing we could do. Is this just a big worry? Or is there things that we could actually do?

AVI: Yes. We can. Because if you catch it early enough, before it comes close to earth. You can nudge it a little bit to the side, and then it will meet the earth.

There are all kinds of proposals for how to do that.

You know, the most aggressive one is to explode the nuclear weapon on it.

GLENN: But wouldn't that break it up, and then we would have all kinds of little meteors coming our way.

AVI: Exactly. That's why it's not a good idea.

The missiles were doing just that. They created. When they were operated, back a decade ago.

You know, they created much more damage, than help, actually. But you can do it in a more intelligent way.

Maybe explode the weapon close to the object. So that it doesn't disintegrate, just a part of it. Then you get the rocket effects from the ablation pushing it. But there are other ways.

Some people suggested painting it on one side. So it reflects more sunlight on one side. Then it's getting nudged a little bit.

You can imagine shepherding it, by the state craft is massive enough.

It shepherds it.

It basically gives it a gravitational nudge.

There are all kinds of methods that were produced. Proposed.

And, by the way, NASA just a year ago, they -- they tried one of these methods with the emission called Dark. Where they collided with an asteroid. To see how much it gets. The result. What happens to it.

And it's quite surprising. Because some of these asteroids were not really rigid.

They're porous. And you get all kinds of dust drawn out of them in ways that they were not anticipated. In any event, the people are thinking about, you know, rocks -- rocks are easy to deal with because in principle, you can tell what their path would be. However, one thing that was never discussed, and the kind of thing I'm trying to advocate we do, is, what if there is some alien technology out there, then you -- you know, if it was designed by intelligence, you won't be able to forecast exactly what it would do. It's just like finding a visitor to your backyard. But they enter through your front door. You have to act immediately. And you have to engage in ways that are much more complicated than dealing with a rock.

GLENN: Okay. So let me -- another thing. Here's something else you can worry about.

So let me -- let me start there.

Because there's some things that I have been reading.

I don't know what's true. I don't know what's not true on this 3I/ATLAS. And I want to break that down, including the Wow! signal. Which I think you had something -- you were there, weren't you for that in '77 or whenever that was?

AVI: Yeah.

GLENN: Okay. So I don't know what's real. What's not real. I don't know who has credibility. You know, we've heard so many things. You know, extraterrestrial technology.

We had, you know, all of the drones in the sky. That everybody was thinking aliens were going to I object invade us for a while. And the world is on age. We're very 1938. '39. War of the worlds territory in America. And I think in the world. We're freaked out about everything.

So tell me about 3I/ATLAS. And why you say, it -- it may have alien technology.

AVI: Right. So let me give you the facts. The whole point about doing science that we can collect evidence, data from instruments.

And we don't need to rely on stories that people tell.

So what are the facts that make it really unusual?

Well, first of all, it's besides.

As I mentioned in the beginning, we expect many more small objects than big objects.

And the previous two interstellar objects. Were roughly hundreds of meters in size.

The first one 'Oumuamua, was a football field, a hundred meters. And this one, I wrote a paper two weeks ago that shows that it's bigger than 5 kilometers. You know, comparable to the size of Manhattan Island.

And that means it's -- it's a million times more massive. If you take solid density, relative to the first one, the 'Oumuamua. And medium-sized. So how can it give a third object? We should have seen millions, 'Oumuamua-like objects before seeing a big one like that.

GLENN: But we didn't have -- wait. Wait.

But we didn't have the technology to see it, right? I mean, these things have been passing us.

AVI: No, no, no. It's easier to see the big one, because they reflect much more sunlight.

So in fact, especially as they shed mass. 'Oumuamua did not shed any mass. There was no gas or abductor on it. We just saw the rare object.

And it was already puzzling because of that. It was pushed away from the sun, based on exterior force. It was there -- it was most likely flat. It had an extreme shape.

GLENN: And it -- it accelerated, right?

It didn't just whip around the sun. It accelerated, which does not naturally happen.

AVI: Yeah. Well, it happens, if the rocket --

GLENN: Correct.

AVI: If it's losing mass in one direction. And getting recoil in the opposite direction.

But there wasn't any mass observed from 'Oumuamua. Nevertheless, what I'm saying, is an object that was that is a million times more massive is much easier to see. When we talk about the -- it being within the distance of the earth from the sun.

And so we could have seen that easily. Many of those small ones before we see a big one.

And then the second one was a comet. Very similar to the size of natural comets we see. And that one is a thousand times less massive than -- than this new one, 3I/ATLAS. So the size is -- it's just surprising that we would see a giant one like that. There is not enough rockets here in interstellar space to supply such a giant one, once per decade to the inner solar system. We expect it once for 10,000 years or something. Anyway, that's the size anomaly. Then there is the fact that the Hubbard Space Telescope observed it.

And not in the image. It displays -- low that is towards the sun. Pointing towards the sun.

Instead of what you usually see for comets, where you see them pointing away from the sun. The reason you see them pointing away from the sun. Is because dust and gas are being pushed by the sunlight. And the solar wind.

GLENN: Yeah. That's what gives it -- the economy the look of a tale.

AVI: Exactly, that's the definition of a comet.

The other experts say, oh, no.

Here's a comet. Because we see the extension of the globe.

But what they didn't realize -- so they were just like seeing an animal in your backyard.

And everyone says, oh, it must be a street cat. Because it has a tail.

But then you look at the photograph of this animal, and you see the tail is coming from its forehead. And you say, well, how is that -- a common street cat does not have a tail coming from its head. So, anyway, the first one, you know, that shows such a thing, and unlike, a regular comet. And then in addition, so these are two anomalies so far. In addition, the -- the trajectory of this object is aligned to within 5 degrees with an ecliptic plane of the planets around the sun. And the chance of that is one in 500. So basically, it comes in the plane where all the planets are moving around the sun. And, you know, that could be by intelligence planning. Because if you wanted to do a reconnaissance mission. You know, coming close to planets. That's the way to do it.

And the previous one came both -- 'Oumuamua and the second one came at a very large angle. So this one came straight. And you ask why. Why would it come in a plane?

And, by the way, all these anomalies. No one who is calling himself or herself a comet expert. They just say it's a comet. But if you ask them, why is that?

They would not have an explanation. Why would they come in a plane? "Oh, it's by chance."

Why is it so big?

"Oh, it's by chance." Why does it have this glow towards the sun rather than away? "Oh, it's something we don't fully understand."

So they would say that, but they would not admit that it could be something else.

Then there's the arrival time of this object.

You know, with it arrived two days, at the special time, because it's very close to Mars, Venus, and Jupiter. And these planets are moving around the sun.

And you have to be at the right time, at the right place in order to come within tens of millions of kilometers within each of them.

So that's another coincidence. That, you know, might indicate fine-tuning. But there is some reason that it's coming so close.

And then --

GLENN: On hang on just a second.

I want to clear some stuff up. And then I want to take a break.

All of these things could be chance, right?

But you're saying now, they're just all --

ERIC: Yeah, but the probability for each of them is very strong.

GLENN: Right. So it's all stacking up.

AVI: You need to multiply -- you need to multiply each likelihood by another, and you get something like one in a million chance.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

How to Make Men DANGEROUS Again | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 270

It’s time to make men “dangerous” again. Father and son Matt and Maxim Smith join Glenn to break down their epic alternative to a college education. While most young people descend into debt to prepare for jobs already threatened by the rise of AI, 19-year-old Maxim has spent what would have been his college years becoming an EMT, wrangling horses in Wyoming, sailing the Falkland Islands, earning a pilot's license, learning Muay Thai in Thailand, and more as the first beta tester for “The Preparation,” an adventure designed to make young men “confident, competent, and dangerous.” In a culture that drives young men away from masculinity and toward unlimited pornography and video games, our sons can still become “Renaissance men” by bucking the system of radical leftist-dominated academia and instead becoming financially savvy men of virtue and real-world skill.

Order a copy of “The Preparation: How to Become Confident, Competent, and Dangerous” HERE