RADIODecember 10, 2024

NBC News Leaves Out CRITICAL Context in Trump Interview

President-elect Donald Trump recently sat down with NBC News’ “Meet the Press” for his first sit-down interview since winning the 2024 election. Glenn and Stu review his statement on birthright citizenship and the CRITICAL context that interviewer Kristen Welker left out: The 14th Amendment doesn’t say, “all persons born in the United States are citizens.” The real quote includes a major qualifier that could allow Trump to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants without having to change the Constitution. Plus, Glenn and Stu review Trump’s comments on the war between Ukraine and Russia.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the program. And welcome to Stu Burguiere.

STU: Thank you, Glenn.

GLENN: You're welcome, Stu.

STU: And Donald Trump went on Meet The Press this weekend. This is what you're supposed to do if you're --

GLENN: Is it?

STU: Yeah, apparently so.

We're supposed to just reflexively go to NBC News whenever --

GLENN: Those days are over.

STU: Well, I thought they were too.

GLENN: Well, he has to do them.

STU: Well, does he? Does he have to do them?

GLENN: Yeah, I think he should do a little of everything.

You know what I mean? I think you shouldn't just go to podcasts. It's what Barack Obama did.

Remember? And he was doing interviews with -- who was that woman in the bathtub? And you're like, okay. This is ridiculous.

You don't have to do the bathtub one. But I think you should -- you should go on places, where you know --

STU: It's adversarial.

GLENN: It's adversarial. You won't get a good interview.

I think that's required as president.

STU: I agree with that. I --

GLENN: As president. Not necessarily as a --

STU: Even as a candidate, I think it's something you should do.

I mean, I think Kamala Harris shouldn't have done an adversarial interview at the campaign at some point, which she did not do.

GLENN: She didn't do interviews.

STU: In fact, she wasn't doing anything for a very long time.

And they switched strategies. And it did not help. In fact, it went the opposite direction.

I do wonder, there's the alternate world, what that election would have looked like, if she just continued to do nothing.

I think it would have been closer. I think if she never did an interview, it would have been closer.

GLENN: I think you're right on that.

I think you're right. The more she spoke.

The more you're like, oh, dear God, no.

STU: Don't do that.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Because I think they correctly realized that there were a certain amount of people, who were very worried about a candidate that couldn't do an interview.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Right?

So they tried to solve that, by doing interviews.

And what they should have done was let those people go. Realize, they're not going to vote for you, and hope.

GLENN: Has anybody noticed.

And I am biased because I've been talking to him, off-air.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And watching him talk to a lot of people, you know, without cameras around.

And his -- his grasp on deep subjects, has changed a great deal. Have you noticed Donald Trump in interviews is not the same guy he was in 2020?

STU: Yeah. I think that's true.

He certainly seems to be more focused and has a real plan, as to what he's going to do. As we know it's directly project 2025. Which he commissioned. We should remember, of course. Yeah. No.

It does seem like, you made the description.

I think it was last week, which it has been sticking with me.

Which, after 2020, he spent four years, thinking, this isn't going to happen to me again.

Like, I'm going to make sure these things -- if I get a president -- if I'm able to become president again. I'm not going to be able to be hit by all of these --

GLENN: I won't be surprised ever again.

STU: Right. It seems like he's coming in, ready for this.

GLENN: Yeah. He's ready.

The other thing that has happened to him. That I think has cut down on his slams and everything else.

I mean, he still does.

You'll notice he's not as crazy on things. And I think that's --

STU: What do you mean not as crazy on things? Just not as worried about --

GLENN: You know, name-calling. You know what I mean?

He's not like that, as much.

Because I think he -- this is just my speculation.

Put yourself in his shoes.

In 2014, everybody on both sides, loved him.

Right?

Maybe not as the president. But they -- they loved him.

STU: As a celebrity.

He was a big celebrity.

GLENN: And he's a great guy. A philanthropist.

He's done so much.

And then he gets in, and everybody that -- that were his friends.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: That knew him, and knew what he was like. They all of a sudden, turned on him.

And I think that just took him by absolute surprise.

And he just kept -- he had to keep punching and punching and punching.

And I think now, a couple of things have happened. One, he just stopped caring. Because you -- you do care. No matter what anybody says, you do care.

He stopped caring. And then I think when he was shot, I think he found his purpose. And I also think in the following months, he kind of became cool again.

He became the guy who could go on Saturday Night Live, and make fun of himself.

STU: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: You know what I mean? And everybody would accept him.

He became kind of mainstream again.

So I don't think he feels that he has to punch anymore.

STU: Hmm. That's interesting. Yeah. I -- I have noticed a difference in him. I think getting shot. No matter what that is.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. That was critical. That was critical.

STU: It was.

GLENN: It has to change.

STU: Yeah. It has to change. So he's going into this with a real plan.

One part of this plan, this will be clip four. Is his plan to end birthright citizenship.

This is -- obviously, highly controversial. Many people on the left, do not like it at all.

They asked him about it, on meet The Press. Was it Wexler?

Christine Wexler.

GLENN: Yeah. Somebody who you've never heard of.

Because everybody you've heard of, has no credibility.
STU: There you go.

VOICE: You promised to end birthright citizenship on day one, is that still your plan?

VOICE: Yeah, absolutely.

VOICE: The Fourteenth Amendment says, quote, all persons born in the United States are citizens. Can you get around the Fourteenth Amendment, with an executive action?

DONALD: We maybe have to go back to the people, but we have to end it. We're the only county that has it. You know we're the only country that has it.

Do you know, if somebody sets a foot, just a foot. One foot. You don't need two. On our land, congratulations, you are now a citizen of the United States of America.

Yes, we're going to end that because it's ridiculous.

VOICE: Through executive action?

DONALD: Well, if we can through executive action, I was going to -- we had to fix COVID first, to be honest with you. We have to end it.

GLENN: Okay. So notice -- notice what happened here.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: She comes with the 14th. Stu, tell me why the Fourteenth Amendment was first written. What was that really about?

STU: I mean, is it wrong to say slavery?

GLENN: No. Slavery.

STU: You looked at me --

GLENN: No, no, no.

It was written for slavery.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: It was written because all citizens could vote.

And you have certain rights.

Blah, blah, blah. And so the southerners.

The Democrats said, well, they're not citizens.

They're not citizens.

They're from Africa.

STU: So they can't vote.

GLENN: So they can't vote.

Yeah. If you were born here. Even if you were born a slave, you're a citizen.

That's what that was about. That was not --

STU: About illegal immigration.

GLENN: That was not illegal immigration.

Come over here, get into a hospital. Have a baby.

And congratulations. Everybody is a citizen.

We are the only one that has it.

And the only reason we do have it is because of slavery.

It was a way to make sure that Democrats didn't just cut blacks out of the vote again.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: That's what's so crazy.

And so notice he says, we may have to go back to the people.

Can you just change that?

Well, no. It's a constitutional amendment.

So we may have to go back to the people.

He says that first.

Her immediate response is, through executive action?

No. I just -- I just said, we may have to go back to the people.

STU: There are several parts in this interview. Where she doesn't -- it doesn't seem she listens to him. She has the idea of what Donald Trump says in this moment.

Already acted it out with her producers multiple times. So she's just not listening.

GLENN: That's right. That's why none of them have any credibility. Because there's not an honest exchange.

There is no honest questions.

He just said, we may have to go -- he volunteered. We may have to go back to the American people, for that.

STU: Right.

GLENN: So you're suggesting that maybe it would be a constitutional amendment? Well, yeah. I think we would have to do it.

I might -- if I get stuck, I might find a way to do it with executive action. But it is a constitutional amendment.

So, yes, that's an honest conversation.

STU: Right. No.

GLENN: That's not what she did.

STU: No. Do we have this clip handy again, to play it again? I want to see if you catch this one little of this. This is clip four, again.

Listen to her verbiage of the Fourteenth Amendment.

VOICE: Do you promise to end birthright citizenship on day one?

Is that still your plan?

DONALD: Yeah. Absolutely.

The Fourteenth Amendment says though, quote, all persons born in the United States are citizens. Can you get around the Fourteenth Amendment?

STU: Okay. Stop.

Is that a quote?

All persons born in the United States are citizens?

That's what she said the Fourteenth Amendment says.

GLENN: You know, now that you ask me, I doubt it is. Have you looked it up?

STU: I have it. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, she leaves that out. But not necessarily important to the conversation.

But the next part is, comma, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, comma, are citizens of the United States and of the state written they reside.

The whole Fourteenth Amendment argument. And you might disagree with this part of it, is that that phrase, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, means that illegal immigrants are not included.

Now, I --

GLENN: How? How?

STU: Well, they're not subject to that jurisdiction.

GLENN: So, in other words, the -- well, if mom --

STU: They would be.

GLENN: If mom and baby, were there. Then they would be subject to that jurisdiction.

But the family would not be. Because they're someplace else?

STU: I think the argument, and again, I wouldn't say I'm an expert on the Fourteenth Amendment argument here.

GLENN: I'm going to tell you.

I am absolutely so far away from an expert. You might as well talk to a fisherman.

STU: What I have heard, people make this argument before.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: And the argument is basically to be subject to that jurisdiction. Is it not mean that you -- everyone, of course, has to follow the laws of a country, that you move into.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: To be subject of that jurisdiction. Means you have to have a basis in the country.

So it's not like you just cross the border. And, hey, I'm now a subject of this jurisdiction.

You're a visitor, right?

Or in this case, a criminal. And I'm crossing the border.

GLENN: Right.

STU: So you would not get necessarily those protections.

Of -- of that Fourteenth Amendment.

GLENN: May I just say, the only thing I hate the Founders for, is their use of commas.

STU: You know, it's a good point.

GLENN: Stop with the use of commas.

Could you please, for the love of Pete, the right to keep and bear arms.

Comma.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Under a well-run regulated militia.

Comma. Shall not be infringed.

Can you stop with the commas? It makes it too complex now. Stop with the commas.

STU: Very true.

But I think, regardless of what you think about the argument, of the 14th amendment. And people who are -- who believe illegal immigrants would not be grandfathered into that.

If it's foundational to the argument, why would you skip it?

Right?

GLENN: Right.

STU: You have to bring that up. Because --

GLENN: Could you do me a favor?

Could you have ChatGPT? Or something like that?

STU: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Type that in, and ask what that means.

STU: Sure. It will take me a second, obviously.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah. All right.

STU: Do you want to go on to the next clip.

GLENN: Yeah. Let's go to the next clip.

STU: Okay. Next someone on Ukraine.

And what needs to happen with Ukraine.

This is, again, Trump on Meet The Press.

There are people being killed in that war, at levels never been seen before.

You have to go back to the Second World War. And even that, if you take a look and you know what it is, it's the soldiers, largely. The cities have been emptied out and demolished.

The country has been demolished.

If I won that election. Which you know how I feel about it. I won't get into it.

Because we don't need to start that argument.

I think it was an easy argument.

It was really proven even more complicit than the win I had on this one.

Yeah, but that's your opinion, but I disagree with it. Had I assumed -- kept control.

Number one, Israel wouldn't have happened.

Number one, Ukraine would have never happened.

It would have never happened in Ukraine and Russia.

But the number of people being killed. Soldiers. Young, beautiful soldiers.

Hundreds of thousands of people are being killed.

And, you know, it's very interesting.

It's level. Totally level the battlefields.

Totally level.

The only thing that stops a bullet. Is a body. A human body. And the people being killed. Hundreds of thousands on both sides. Russia has lost probably 500 thousand. Ukraine has lost higher than they say.

Probably 400,000.

You're talking about hundreds of thousands of bodies, laying all over the fields.

It's the stupidest thing I've ever seen.

And it should have need been allowed to happen.

Biden should have been able to stop it.

GLENN: Amen!

He's absolutely right.

And when this is over, and the body count is actually revealed, and when you see. And when you see BlackRock there, rebuilding.

When you see all of these friends of the Bidens rebuilding.

When you see BlackRock owning the farmland.

Then maybe you will start to have some idea of how grotesque, this really was.

All right. More in just a second.

STU: Let me tell you about the best gift, you can give yourself or someone else this holiday season.

Maybe looking years or even decades younger.

Well, if you want that, 'tis the season to tighten up that jaw line. Introducing the Genucel jaw line treatment with dual peptide and MDL Technology.

Genucel's most advanced ever. It tightens sagging jaw lines, and plumps the layers of your skin to contour and define the jaw line and neck area within just minutes. People go, you know, abroad all the time. And they spend thousands of dollars, to get rid of this kind of thing. But you don't have to. Give Genucel a try first.

You will see results in minutes.

And, you know, they get better every day. Why not give it a shot?

Just in time for Christmas and holiday season. You can save 70 percent off, Genucel's complete skin care package, featuring the jaw line treatment.

And Genucel's immediate effects. You can get Genucel XV wrinkle treatment, included for Christmas.

Genucel.com/Beck is the place to go to get this. You can start looking years and even decades younger tomorrow, for those family gatherings. It's guaranteed. So there's no risk there.

Give it a shot. As a special holiday gift, every package ordered, includes a bonus beauty box with two skin care best-sellers and free priority shipping. It's Genucel.com/Beck. G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com/Beck.

Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: So let's go to Chat GPT.

And just see what it says about the Fourteenth Amendment and that particular phrase, between commas.

STU: And I will say our robot betters seem to have summarized this the same way that I understood it. So historically, the consensus among most legal scholars and historical practices has been the phrase, excludes only a few categories. This is the phrase of "not subject to the jurisdiction in the United States."

Those categories are children of foreign diplomats, enemy soldiers, and some Native American tribes, who maintain their tribal jurisdiction.

Legal precedent has largely supported the view that children born in the US to foreign citizens are indeed US citizens.

Regardless of the immigration status of the parents.

Then some conservatives argue, subject to the jurisdiction, thereof, excludes individuals who are in the country, illegally, as they are not legally subject to the jurisdiction in the same way as lawful residents or citizens.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: They claim that because illegal immigrants have not entered the country, and remain in it legally, that they or their children should not automatically receive citizenship.

That is my understanding of the debate. And, again, you can say, you disagree with the conservative side of that debate.

GLENN: Right.

STU: You know, many do.

But to -- to actually skip the phrase, that is important to the debate. When talking to the man, who is arguing the conservative side of that debate. Is journalism malpractice, at the very least.

And I think it's intentional.

I believe it's intentional. But I don't know.

GLENN: Wait. I think it's NBC.
(laughter)

STU: It's not intentional. It's NBC.

GLENN: It's NBC.

STU: It's just what we are.

GLENN: It's just what they do. Of course it is.

STU: Yes! And that's, again, like -- it goes back to our original conversation, as opposed to whether you Meet the Press or not.

Do you need to go to a place that is intentionally doing things like that?

I mean, that is -- that is inexcusable for the one phrase that's important to the debate, you leave out of the amendment?

I mean, that's obviously intentional.

GLENN: I like the fact that the president was calm, cool, collected. Didn't name call. Went through that whole thing.

Wasn't a fair interview. It was exactly what you would expect. But at least he went and talked to the other side.

STU: Yeah. I think it's worth doing to talk to the other side.

I think it's worth doing adversarial interviews.

I wish he had a little honesty.

I feel like when you went back on the show with Russer. That's what you got.

Was -- it wasn't an interview liked. A lot of times, he took things, and took the democratic side a little unfairly. But you wouldn't eliminate the part of the amendment, that is the debate.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: He wouldn't have done that.

GLENN: No. And he would have given you -- there were times, that Ruser -- you would be pissed off at him. Because it was your guy. But you would also be cheering for the other side. Because he was fair. He was even-handed.

It was all that really, we asked for.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Whitney Webb: How You Can BREAK FREE of the Chains of the Elites

Are you truly free, or is your life quietly controlled by systems most Americans never question? In this eye-opening conversation, Glenn Beck speaks with investigative journalist Whitney Webb about how the Elites, banks, and global systems have created modern forms of enslavement, all while the public remains largely unaware. They discuss the urgent need for local self-reliance, alternative financial systems, and taking personal responsibility to protect yourself and your family. This is a wake-up call for anyone who believes freedom is guaranteed, and it’s time to see the truth and act before it’s too late.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Whitney Webb HERE

Claire's warning: The dark side of gender care EXPOSED

Claire Abernathy was just 14-years-old when doctors told her parents she’d take her own life without hormones and surgery. They promised “gender care” would save her life. Instead, it left Claire with irreversible scars, broken trust, and a lifetime of regret. Her mom was told she was required to comply. No one ever addressed the bullying, or trauma Claire endured before being rushed into medical transition. Now, years later, both Claire and her mother are speaking out and exposing how families are misled, how doctors hide risks, and how children are left to pay the price. With federal investigations now underway, their story is a warning every parent needs to hear.

The most INSANE Deep State story you've never heard

Was an NGO with deep government ties trying to RESTART the opium trade in Taliban-run Afghanistan while former Taliban members were on its payroll...only to be caught DESTROYING the evidence?! The State Department's Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Darren Beattie joins Glenn Beck to expose what he found when he was made Acting President of the United States Institute of Peace. Plus, he debunks ProPublica’s claim that DOGE “targeted” an “Afghan scholar who fled the Taliban.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Darren, welcome to the program. How are you? Darren, are you there? Is he there?

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Okay. Check if he's there. Is he? Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney.

STU: Trying to shut him down. They don't want peace. They don't want peace.

GLENN: They don't. They don't.

He is -- he is a big-time anti-globalist. I've got to tell you, what we're doing with the State Department. I absolutely love. The State Department has been a big problem for this country for a very long time. It's what's gotten us into these global wars. These endless wars, and everything he is.

And, I mean, I don't know what happened to Marco rube, but he is tremendous.

And the way president Trump is appointing different people like Darren, it's fantastic. Darren, are you there? Darren.

STU: Something must be wrong with the lines. Because we are talking to him offline on the phone here. And it does seem to be working, but not coming through our broadcast board here for whatever reason.

GLENN: Well, let's see if we can get that fixed, and maybe let me just talk here for five, six minutes on something else. Then we'll take a break and come back and see if we can get him.

There's something else that I really want to talk about. And that is this flag-burning thing. Now, it's not an amendment.

This is something that the president is putting up in an executive order and has very little teeth to it.

But I -- I -- look, I understand. As a guy putting an enormous flagpole up at my house today.

I mean, an enormous flagpole.

I love the flag. I love it!

And there are a few things that make me more angry than see somebody you set our flag on fire.

For a lot of people, that's a punch in the gut, especially our military people. And it has been planted on distant battlefields. It's raced after victory. Saluted in the morning, or should be in our schools and folded and given to the hands of grieving families. It feels like spitting on every sacrifice, that ever made this nation possible. And the argument against flag burning is really simple: It dishonors the idea of all of that. Okay?

And it defends millions of people, including me. It disrespects, I think the veterans that bled. The families who mourned. The dream that binds us together.

However, here's the hard truth: Symbols only mean something, in a land where freedom is alive.

If you outlaw the burning of a flag, the you have placed the cloth above the Constitution that it represents. You have made the flag an idol.

We don't worship idols. If you can only praise the flag and never protest it, it just stops being a symbol of freedom. And starts being an idol of obedience.

Now, that's the argument for allowing it. At least to me.

Because the real strength of a free nation is -- is to -- it's -- it's how we protect, not the speech we love, but how we endure the speech we hate!

And the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. And, you know, they -- the line they drew wasn't an easy one. Freedom of speech, stops where it directly -- directly insights violence. And that's it same thing, kind of, in this executive order.

You can burn the flag. But if I'm not mistaken, but if it incites violence, then you're in trouble.

And that's true. But the bar of inciting violence is so incredibly high. And it's -- it doesn't have anything to do with speech that offends. It's not speech that stirs anger. Not speech that wants you to punch the speaker in the mouth. It's speech only, that provokes imminent and specific violence.

And unless it's that be with the government doesn't have any right to -- to get into the business of silencing speech. Ever. Ever. Ever.

It is a hard line. And that standard is really hard. It's painfully hard.

Because what our citizenship requires, this is civics. What our citizenships require, is that we defend -- oh, I hate this.

We defend the right of your opponent to mock everything that we hold sacred.

Now, I want you to think of this. You can burn a Bible. You can burn the Word of God. But some want to make it illegal to burn a flag. Where are our priorities? You can burn the Constitution. The words that actually are the ones that stir us into action. But you can't burn a flag.

You can't burn a Koran. Can't burn them. Can't. Can't.

You will -- you will quickly come to a quick end, not legally. But you will come to a quick end. I don't ever want to be like that. Ever!

You burn a Bible. I think you're a monster. What is wrong with you? What is wrong with you?

But you have a right to do it. Why are we drawing a line around the flag? It -- the reason is -- is because we feel things so passionately. And that is really a good thing, to feel love of country so passionately. But then we have to temper that. My father used to tell me, that I think this country needs to hear over and over again, every day. My father -- we would talk to somebody. And we would walk away. And he would go, I so disagree with everything that man just said. But, Glenn, son, he would say. I will fight to the death for his right to say it. He used to say that to me all the time. Which now lees me to believe, I know where I've got my strong opinions from. Because dad apparently would disagree with a lot of people all the time.

But that was the essence of freedom. That is the essence of what sets us apart. Standing for universal, eternal rights like free speech. It's not easy. It means you have to take the size of those people that offend you. It means -- it doesn't mean you have to disagree with it. You can fight against it. You can argue back and forth.

But you -- can you tolerate the insults to the things that you love most. That is so hard, and that is why most of the world does not have freedom of speech. It's too hard! But our Founders believed people are better than that. Our citizens can rule themselves!

And the only way you can rule yourself is if you don't have limits on freedom of speech. So the question is, do we want to remain free? Or do we want to just feel good? It really is that simple. It's why no one else has freedom of speech. It's too hard! I think we're up to the task. Okay. Give me 60 seconds. And then we will try again.

The -- there's certain moments in history, that test not just entire nations, but the hearts of those who live in the nations. And right now, the people of Israel are living in one of those moments. Sirens in the night. Families huddled together.

Elderly men and women. Who remember a time when help never came. All of them wonder. Is anybody going to stand with us, this time?

The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews exists to answer that question. They provide food, shelter, security, and hope. Real hope and help in the middle of a crisis! And every act of generosity from people like you sends a clear message. You are not alone. When you support the fellowship, you are joining hands with believers all around the world to lift up God's people, when they need it most. And it is a promise in action. It's a testimony that our faith isn't just words. It's love delivered right on time. And this is your chance to be part of something that really, truly matters. Something that is eternal. To stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel. And say, we're with you. We're not going to fight your wars. Not going to fund your wars. But we're with you. You have a right to live and exist in peace. To learn how you can help. Visit IFCJ.org. IFCJ.org. Go there now. IFCJ.org. Ten seconds. Back to the program.
(music)
All right. Let me -- let me bring Darren in. Darren, are you there now?

DARREN: Yes!
GLENN: Oh, God. Thank goodness.
Thank you for putting up with us. I don't know what happened with the phone system. But, first of all, tell me what the US Institute of Peace is. I've never even heard of it.

DARREN: That is a fantastic question. And I'll try to give the abbreviated answer, because I know we don't have several hours.

GLENN: Good. I know.

DARREN: But US Institute of Peace is one of lesser known, but quite important member of the NGO archipelago, that was created in the '80s. It belongs to the same cohorts as national endowments for democracy.

GLENN: Oh.

DARREN: And some other -- some other better known NGOs that really in the broad context of things. In kind of the sweep of things, was created as a kind of reorganization of the government structure in the aftermath of the church type committee hearings that expose a lot of the dirty dealings of government agencies such as the CIA, and so sort of a broader response to that government lie was to create this NGO layer of governance, with an armed distant plausible deniability, a kind of chameleon character of not exactly being government, not exactly being private, in order to fulfill some of those more sensitive functions that had been exposed in the course of the church hearings.

And so US Institute of Peace is one of those NGOs that had particular focus on conflict regions. But, of course, as I think you -- you suggested earlier, peace requires at the very least, an asterisk. Because there involves a lot of things, that conventional, most American citizens would not think should belong as part of the portfolio of something calling itself an institute of peace.

GLENN: So what was the thing with the -- with this Taliban member that was getting money from us?

DARREN: Right. So this is an interesting case. So there's a whole saga of a takeover of the US institute of peace under -- under DOGE.

And that's really a fascinating story unto itself. Just to give you a sense of what these characters were like. They barricaded themselves in the offices.

They sabotaged the physical infrastructure of the building. There were reports of there being loaded guns within the offices.

GLENN: Wow!

DARREN: There was one, like, hostage situation where they held a security guard under basically kind of a false imprisonment type situation. It was extremely intense.

Far more so than the better known story of USAID. And in the course of all of that, they tried to delete a terabyte of data, of accounting information that would indicate what kind of stuff they were up to.

What kind of people they were paying. And in the course of that, DOGE found that one of the people on their payroll. Was this curious figure, who had a prominent role in the Taliban government. And then seemed to kind of play a bunch of angles across each other.

Sort of one of these sixer types in the middle of Afghanistan.

The question is, what the heck is an organization like this, having an individual, who is a former Taliban member on their payroll.

It underscores how incredibly bizarre the whole arrangement is. And to just reinforce that. I think even more bizarre than having this former Taliban guy on the payroll is the kind of schizophrenic posture exhibited by the chief -- one truly bizarre thing is that one of the US Institute of Peace's main kind of policy agendas was basically lamenting the fact that the opium trade had dissipated under Taliban leadership. They had multiple reports coming out, basically saying, this is horrible, that the opium trade is diminished under the Taliban. Meaning, finding some way to restore it. How bizarre is that!

GLENN: What was their thinking?

DARREN: Well, it's -- it's very strange, and it depends on what kind of rabbit holes you want to go down. But the whole story of opium and Afghanistan and its connection to, you know, government entities, is a -- is a very intricate and delicate and fascinating one. But it seems very clear that the US Institute of Peace was involved in that story to some degree because their public reports. They had a full-the time guy of basically lamenting the fact that the opium trade dissipated under the Taliban. And, meanwhile, they're funding this former Taliban guy.

GLENN: Unbelievable. Now, ProPublica got this. And you have released the statement on it. And ProPublica just completely white-washed this -- said this guy was a victim, and his family was taken hostage. Was his family ever taken hostage because he was exposed?

And correct the ProPublica story, would you?

DARREN: Yeah, I mean, the ProPublica thing, as usual and as expected was a total joke.

GLENN: Yes.

DARREN: I mean, this guy, I'm not an expert on this particular person's history. But what's very clear is he was a former Taliban guy, and he was probably one of these people, who was playing all sides, made a lot of enemies. I know that there were several kind of attempts on his life by the Taliban, in the course of various -- various decades.

This has nothing to do with -- with DOGE.

I mean, he's a known quantity in the region.

And somebody who has made a lot of enemies.

And he was not -- he was on the payroll of the US institute of peace.

And nobody is expecting something like that. So then, and, again, there's this sort of hostile takeover situation.

Where the people are barricading he themselves in. Trying to delete all this data.

And sure enough, what's in the data, is stuff like this.

These random former Taliban guy, making his contract with $130,000.

GLENN: You know, this is the -- this is the real Deep State stuff, that I think bothers people so much.

Look, we expect our CIA to do stuff, we don't necessarily want to do it. We expect it.

When it's in the State Department.

When every department is pushing out money to NGOs to overthrow governments and everything else.

It's out of control!

It's just completely out of control.

And who is overseeing all of that.

DARREN: That's a great question.

I think part of the NGO -- UCEF was almost a cutout of a cutout.

A fourth of its money came from USAID.

In many ways, it was a cutout of USAID. Which itself was a cutout.

So there are many layers of distance. Plausible deniability.

And UCEF, I think institutionally really perfected this chameleon structure of being able to plausibly present itself as government. When that was convenient for what they were doing.

And also to present itself as a private organization, when that was convenient.

It's a very intricate setup that they had, that was truly optimized for this chameleon character of plausible denial operations. In conflict zones. Doing God knows what, with American taxpayer money.

And it's just an absolute hornet's nest.

We have recovered that terabyte that they tried to delete. And once we get things settled in the building itself, I intend to do a kind of transparency effort, whereby we release all of this material to the public.

GLENN: Good. Good.

DARREN: Just like I'm doing at the State Department. I'm currently acting as secretary at the State Department. And doing a transparency effort here. After I eliminated the global engagement center, which was sort of the internal censorship office within the State Department, decided, we've got to -- we've got to air this out to the public.

So within the next couple of weeks.

We'll have our next tranche of helps you of thousands of emails, documenting what this were doing.

GLENN: I would love you to go back on, through those emails.

I think you guys in the State Department are doing an amazing job. Thanks for being on.