RADIOMarch 27, 2025

WATCH: NPR CEO’s Radical Tweets Come Back to Haunt Her

NPR CEO Katherine Maher faced a brutal showdown before the House DOGE Subcommittee, as lawmakers demanded answers on why NPR deserves taxpayer funding. Grilled alongside PBS CEO Paula Kerger, Maher took heat for her radical past tweets on white privilege, oppression, and reparations—alleged proof of NPR’s leftist bias. As Republicans gear up to defund NPR, Glenn breaks down why Maher is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” and argues that NPR’s taxpayer funding should end now. Plus, Glenn reveals the one question Congress missed that could’ve sealed her fate.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Jim Jordan is laying out the sweeping agenda for judicial reform. Which I don't think could happen to a better group of people. We'll talk about that here in a second. But I also want to talk about the NPR CEO that was -- that was called up to the House, to -- to testify, on a few things yesterday. Stu, you want to take us through this?

STU: Yeah. I would like to talk about this as well.

It was an interesting hearing. First of all, good fundamental hearing of what was happening.

Was, hey. Maybe we shouldn't be paying a bunch of money for left-wing propaganda at NPR and PBS. Does and I think there's absolutely no reason for that to be occurring. I don't know what country we are. I understand the UK as the BBC. They have Pravda going on. I don't know why we need one of those. I'm totally with this, and I don't think this should happen. However, even if it was actually doing a good job, I would think it's a bad idea. They are not however, doing a good job, and they are led by -- NPR is led by Katherine Maher. She is -- well, she is, is a leftist.

She has some really extreme views. We've covered some of them before. Never really had their answer for them. Part of what happened is that process. And one of the big complaints about NPR in particular, was they were probably -- you tell me if I'm wrong on this, Glenn. The worst offender when it came to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. They said, on day one: We will not cover conspiracy theories. That's not worth the time for us to cover for the American people.

STU: Really bad. They just -- absolutely dismissed it. With no evidence. Because obviously the story was true.

They absolutely dismissed the story, right before the election, assuming it was some sort of right-wing conspiracy.

GLENN: Yeah. Almost on day one.

STU: It did not turn out to be a right-wing Soros. It did turn out to be a conspiracy between Hunter Biden and then a bunch of hookers. But that's a different situation.

This is Katherine Maher, trying to answer about -- for some of the poor showings of journalism that they -- they have produced over the past couple years. Listen.

VOICE: Can we expect that you will bring the same lack of reverence for truth to your management at NPR?

VOICE: Thank you, Congressman. First of all, I do want to say that NPR acknowledges that we were mistaken in failing to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story more aggressively, and sooner. Our current editorial leadership.

VOICE: Wuhan.

VOICE: We recognize that we were reporting at the time. But we acknowledge that the new CIA evidence is worthy of coverage, and have covered it.

VOICE: What have you done to clean up the bias before you? You mentioned, I wasn't there for that. What are you doing to clean up and make sure that we have --

VOICE: Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman.

As I mentioned, I came in, in May. Mr. Berliner published his story two weeks into my tenure, regarding stories that had happened prior. I wish that I had had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Berliner. I would have loved to have him engaged, and come back to us in suggestions as to what we could do editorially in order to address what he perceived as bias.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: So may I just -- I want to point out who she is here, for just a second.

Chris Rufo has pointed out, hmm.

What's -- well, her -- let's shall we say, interesting work history.

Before NPR she was employed by the US State Department. And the national democratic alliance. Or Democratic Institute.

The NDI is one of the main branches of the National Endowment for Democracy, and when was she there?

During the Arab Spring. What were they doing?

Promoting the Arab Spring. Remember, it was the NED and US government strategy during the Arab Spring, they were training youth movements on how influence public opinion through mass media, and ultimately, organize in the streets.

And then topple the regime. Okay.

Chris Rufo has said that -- I should rephrase it. He all, but called her a CIA agent. Okay?

Also, she was with Wikimedia, which is Wikipedia. And when she got there, you know, they changed -- they changed a little bit.

And started controlling information. And then she is now the head of -- of NPR? And we're supposed to be comfortable with this? She's part of this whole Deep State revolutionary thing, that is exactly what we told you is, I think what the JFK files are showing us. They're showing us the pattern.

This is what happened in the '60s. This is what's happening right now.

It's the same story.

And she's right at the head of it.

STU: Yeah. And if you -- sometimes it's difficult, Glenn. When you look at someone's resume. To be able to determine who the person is.

Right? You might work at an organization that could disagree with you.

There's a lot of people who worked at X.

With it&Twitter. That we now know were really upset what Twitter was doing at that time.

We consider them kind of a left-wing social media network. And at the time, there were people inside, who were really upset about that.

We learned about those things later. This particular case, though. Not a good example of that, though. At all.

GLENN: Yeah. Let me just point out too, currently she is currently on the board of signal.

STU: Okay. Yeah. That's an often newsworthy edition to the story.

GLENN: Interesting thing to point out.

STU: And, again, you could even say. Someone who is a left-leaning person.

Who is controlled of NPR.

They've been controlled forever. You could be a left-leaning person. And okay. That could be something that could work. Obviously, everyone has an opinion. Everyone has some opinion on news stories.

This particular person, however, Katherine Maher has a fascinating history, and what she has done is not just work in these places. And not just have influence in these stories that keep coming up over and over again.

But explicitly state her crazy positions over and over and over and over again on Twitter, on X.

So she -- she had to know this stuff was coming. But she was asked by Brandon Gill. He's a Congressman from Texas about some of her previous tweets. And it is just absolute gold.

VOICE: Do you believe that America is addicted to white supremacy?

VOICE: I believe that I tweeted that. And as I've said earlier, I believe much of my thinking has evolved over the last half decade.

VOICE: It has evolved. Why did you tweet that?

VOICE: I don't recall the exact context, sir. So I wouldn't be able to say.

VOICE: Okay. Do you believe that America believes in black plunder and white democracy?

VOICE: I don't believe that, sir.

VOICE: You tweeted that in reference to a book you were reading at the time, apparently, the Case for Reparations.

VOICE: I don't think I've ever read that book, sir.

VOICE: You tweeted about it. You said, you took a day off to fully read the case for reparations, on January of 2020.

VOICE: Apologies, I don't recall that I did. No doubt, that your tweet there is correct, but I don't recall that.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. Stop. Stop.

STU: So good.

GLENN: So the question there is: Is she -- was she just lying about, you know, reading that?

And if she was lying about reading that then, was she just doing that, because she's part of a circle that you've got to read this book. And solve this. And blah, blah, blah.

And so she just didn't do her own homework. She made up she was taking the full day off, to really understand the case in the book. She was just being a shill to promote this point of view.

STU: That's the best case scenario, right?

The fact that she's just lying an opposer, right? Is the best-case scenario.

The worst-case scenario would be she actually believes the United States is nothing but black plunder. So -- and that's I think actually the truth.

But fascinating, number one, she should absolutely be prepared for that. She should know that tweet is coming. How do you go into a Congressional hearing, and not know that they are going to bring up that tweet?

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait.

Let's be fair to her. Almost everything she said has been crazy, batcrap nuts.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: So, I mean, can I narrow it down to which ones he's going to bring up.

STU: Yeah. And there is an element to this.

If I went back, Glenn.

Examine we did a fake congressional hearing. Where I was a Congressman. And we were giving testimony.

And I said, hey. Glenn. Do you remember tweeting this?

I'm sure I can find a tweet that you don't remember tweeting. I'm sure I can find even a topic. Maybe even a show.

Hey, Glenn. You said you were watching this show. Do you remember that?

I don't think so. Actually, you tweeted that in 2018. 100 percent, could happen. Right?

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: However, what you wouldn't find in there, is, you know, something that completely disagreed with your entire philosophy of life.

Right?

STU: Right. If you went back and said, Stu, I'm looking back at your tweets, why did you tweet in 2019, that you loved the Dallas Cowboys? That wouldn't happen.

Right? I would certainly know that I tweeted something like that. Because it's actually more evil than claiming the entire country is a bunch of white supremacists.

GLENN: And I agree with you. And let me add one more thing, on the -- on the statement that my views have evolved.

The wrong question was asked by the senator.

Really?

How? Why?

What changed your mind.

Because you've been tweeting this forever.

And you're still against Trump and everything that he's doing. I haven't seen any change of anything.

What's changed your mind, that makes you now say, that America is not just based on white supremacy?

STU: It's the most interesting part of the story. The transition story is the story.

Right? To walk me through the moment that good God, why was I saying all those terrible things?

GLENN: Correct. That's the question these guys have to ask. Wow. You know what, we all change. Tell me about that moment, when I realized, you were on the wrong track.

STU: By the way, I think, Brandon Gill did a very good job in this hearing. But it is a fundamental problem of these hearings, that most of these guys. And I'm not saying him, but most of these guys are up there, to just say their thing. And not actually listen to the answers.

GLENN: No. He's not. He's not.

STU: He is listening. He does want to know.

But time is limited, and everything else.

I would have loved to know the answer to that Congress. Because whoever the next Congressman up should -- should have followed up with that.

But --

GLENN: Can we play the rest of it?

STU: There's more. Yeah, it's worth it.

VOICE: Yeah, no doubt that your tweet there is correct, but I don't recall.

VOICE: Okay. Do you believe that white people inherently feel superior to other races?

VOICE: I do not.

VOICE: You don't? You tweeted something to that effect. You said, I grew up feeling superior. Ha, how white of me. Why did you tweet that?

VOICE: I think I was probably reflecting on what it was -- to grow up in an environment where I had lots of advantages.

VOICE: It sounds like you're saying white people feel superior.

VOICE: I don't believe that anybody feels that way, sir. I was just reflecting on my own experience.

VOICE: Do you think that white people should pay reparations?

VOICE: I've never that said, sir.

VOICE: Yes, you did. You said it January 2020. You tweeted, yes, the North. Yes, all of this. Yes, America. Yes, our original collective sin and unpaid debt. Yes, reparations. Yes on this day.

VOICE: I don't believe that was a reference to fiscal reparations, sir.

VOICE: What kind of reparations was it a reference to?

VOICE: I just think it was a reference to the idea that we all owe much to the people who came before us.

VOICE: That's a bizarre way to frame what you tweeted.
(laughter)
Okay.

STU: I mean, that's obviously just nonsensical thing to -- justification for what she actually said.

GLENN: So funny. So funny. Yeah. And that's why she should not be at NPR. And NPR should not be there.

If that company is being run by this woman. And people -- and NPR is not saying, okay. Come on. The whole thing needs to be abolished.

They're obviously not telling the truth.

I don't have a problem with you, if you're a lefty, and you're just telling the truth.

And you're like, no.

I do believe that. I have more respect foy, saying that. Than I do her.

And making up all kinds of stuff.

Because the temperature of the room has changed. Have the balls to stand up for what you actually believe and want to do. That's not -- that is a revolutionary. That is in -- that is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

And we keep seeing the wolf. But it's because the sheepskin just keeps slipping a little bit. Wow. Sheep. Grandma, you have mighty big teeth.

Yeah. NPR should be abolished. Should start with just firing her.

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

Michelle Obama has a podcast. Who knew?

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

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

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

Cut one please.

VOICE: Wait, you guys like each other.

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

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

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

OBAMA: I know. I know.

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

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

VOICE: Okay. Don't make me cry.

PAT: Aw.

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

VOICE: And welcome to IMO.

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

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

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

VOICE: Of course, I've been listening.

PAT: What? No!

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

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

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

Gives her a little peck on the cheek.

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Does that --

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, maybe.

PAT: I think it was a little uncomfortable.

GLENN: It was a little uncomfortable.

It's still, maybe. Maybe.

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

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

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

PAT: He was about to vomit. Yeah.

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

He doesn't like women, what is happening?

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

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

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

Don't even start with me.

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

PAT: The other awkward thing about that.

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

Where she's considered reeving him.

GLENN: Yeah.

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

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

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

I don't know.

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

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

Grandma, we're getting a divorce.

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

And I said, what?

We're getting a divorce.

And she said, how dare you.

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

And I said, what?

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

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

PAT: Wow.

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

PAT: Yeah. Yeah. Uh-huh.

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

PAT: Did she know your first wife?

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

No, Trump’s tariffs ARE NOT causing inflation

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I don't think I'm wrong.

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

That tariffs don't work.

They increase inflation.

It's going to cost us more.

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

Tell me what's going on.

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

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

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

But, anyway, go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Correct.

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

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

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

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

There's very, very little movement overall.

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

Wait.

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

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

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

So where are they?

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

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

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

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

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

Because that's a real option.

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

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

That's entirely possible.

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

That's not where the inflation is coming.

Instead, it's coming from housing.

That's part of the CPI at that time.

Housing is the cause of inflation right now.

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

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

It's not building.

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

GLENN: Okay.

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

Or housing prices to buy a new house.

They are talking about rent.

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Right.

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

I mean, come on!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah. All right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. But we had one month.

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

JUSTIN: I looked it up.

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

It was 20 something years ago.

So this is incredible, really.

And if it works.

You and I talked about this before.

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

So that they can be competitive.

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

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

The plan is, go all in on artificial intelligence.

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

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

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

They don't care.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have no hope.

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

GLENN: Yes.

Well, I tend to agree with you.

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

I war gamed this, probably in 2006.

I'm thinking, okay.

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

They won't be real on popular.

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

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

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

What can be done now.

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

But they need each other.

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

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

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

And I don't think I am.

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

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

Agree with that or disagree?

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. Right. Right.

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

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

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

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

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