RADIOJune 02, 2025

These people may face CONSEQUENCES for Biden’s autopen scandal

The House Oversight Committee has begun investigating the potential abuse of President Biden’s autopen during his administration. Rep. James Comer, who chairs the committee, joins Glenn Beck to reveal what’s to come, and it may involve subpoenas - and possibly consequences - for big names like former First Lady Jill Biden and Joe Biden’s former Chief of Staff, Ron Klain.

Watch Glenn's full breakdown of Biden's autopen scandal HERE

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The Congressman from Kentucky, James Comer is with us now.

We want to talk about the cover-up and the investigation that he is overseeing right now.

On, you know, what happened with the auto-pen. What happened with the president. Who is actually running the White House, and why this matters.

He represents Kentucky's first Congressional district. Serves as the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

Where he aggressively advocates for reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in government. Welcome, Congressman. How are you, sir?

JAMES: I'm great. Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: Great.

Your investigation has shown us now, that there may be as many as three. More than that. But three in like a little cabal. That were kind of orchestrating the use of the auto-pen.

For key executive actions. And pardons. Can you confirm whether you have any evidence, identifying a person or persons?

JAMES: Yeah. We have three -- we have very good sources, that point to four staffers. Most of them no one has ever heard of. That actually operated the auto-pen. Remember, even Joe Biden was on the top of his game.

And even if he were authorized for the use of his signature of an auto-pen. He's not the person that would take the document, and put it in the auto-pen and press the power button.

GLENN: Right.

JAMES: We've identified the four staffers.

We're fairly certain that these are the four staff theories put the auto-pen in operation. We're bringing them in.

We've asked them to come in, voluntarily.

Which that's to do a subpoena.

Tomorrow, Thursday is the deadline for their response.

We have given them a week to respond and lawyer up, and all of that. If they do not respond or if they say no, then they will get a subpoena the very next day from me. And they will have to New Jersey for a full-blown deposition. We want to find out the process. Who gave them the authority to use the auto-pen.

Then the next step will probably be the names, like Clyde and the people. Maybe Joe Biden.

The people that are -- who everyone suspects were possibly running the White House.
This is important!

Because so much was done in the last 100 days of the Biden administration. From an executive order, standpoint. They Trump-proofed the government. They Trump-proofed the government. With the auto-pen. Then we all know about the pardons.

But just the executive orders alone, these are given the Trump administration fits in court. He's trying to bring the federal police. The Joe Biden auto-pen signed an executive order, and saying they could continue to work from home.

They gave them collective bargaining rights and everything else. These are issues that are blocking the Trump agenda in court.

And think that we think should be invalid because they weren't legitimately signed by the president of the United States.

And furthermore, this investigation -- I didn't know, anything about these executive orders.

GLENN: So I've heard that we have a whistle-blower at a very high level of the Democratic Party, that has blown the whistle on a little cabal in the White House. That actually, what I heard, was that some people in the White House, had figured out a way to monetize the auto-pen. Is that -- is any of that true?

JAMES: We don't know, but those -- that will be a line of questioning, especially when you get to the pardons.

Remember, everybody knows about the pardons of the Biden family, as a result of our investigation.

But they pardoned thousands of people.

Some of them were murderers and rapists. Some were legitimate pardons, but when you're talking about thousands of -- who vetted them? Who gave them the authority?

Those -- and the auto-pen was used, in every one of those -- those, you know, pardons, outside of the Hunter Biden pardon.

It looks like the auto-pen was used on every single pardon issue by this president.

And, you know, there's rumors that -- that there were people that were monetized then. I don't know. But we will try to find out.

I will tell you this, a lot has come out in the last three weeks.

We've been waiting on this. We've been waiting on this Tapper book. We've been waiting for this Tapper book for a while.

Because we knew that he had sources inside the White House.

That spilled the beans on Joe Biden's mental incapacities.

So -- so this has helped fuel momentum for the investigation, more evidence has surfaced. So we're -- we're trying to go from there.

GLENN: So what specific legal or constitutional violations do you believe the auto-pen may have breached?

And how serious is this?

JAMES: Well, first of all, it's very serious.

Because, first of all, you have to physically sign anything pertaining to the law. I have to sign subpoenas.

I can't -- I have an auto-pen. Everybody in Congress has an auto-pen. Use an auto-pen to sign proclamations. And mass letters. And newsletters.

And things like that. But --

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait.

Didn't we in 2010, I don't know. Barack Obama. Maybe '8. Barack Obama is in Hawaii, and it was the first authorized use of the auto-pen for an executive order, or law or something.

So did that not change? Was that a one-time only thing?

JAMES: You know, our lawyers say, you have to sign anything pertaining to the law. You have to physically sign it.

If Obama had a situation where he was in another country and something had to go out, I don't think anyone would challenge that.

But to use the auto-pen for everything, for the last, at least 100 days of the administration when you had so much activity. You know, this wasn't an actual disaster. You had to do an executive order, to get food to people who were starving to death after a tornado in Kentucky or something.

GLENN: Right.

JAMES: This is Trump Trumping the next administration. To where you can't eliminate the Department of Education. Because you can't fire those employees. You can't make the employees have to go back to work.

You're giving them more rights to work from home. Where you sign the executive order, saying, oh, you've got to pay the student loan debt off. The list goes on and on.

My whole family, they're pardoned, by the way. You can't prosecute them.

You know, they're -- they're -- so -- can't touch them. So these are the kind of things. If I have a subpoena. I have to fly back to Washington. Or we have to overnight it.

There's a million things that you have to do, it has to get notarized and all this stuff.

This was -- this was not legal.

There's no way these will hold up in court. Especially, especially if there's no -- if there's no evidence that Joe Biden gave the order to use the auto-pen.

And we have found no evidence, where there were emails or anything, that said Joe Biden said, yes.

I want to find that executive order.

Or I want to find that pardon.

Just go ahead and get the document. And put it in the auto-pen.

Remember, he spent very few days, the last 100 days in the White House.

He was in Delaware. You know, going between his two mansions on the beach.

He was not in the White House. So there's a lot of evidence, that -- that will be hard for the Democrats. And their friends if the left and the media. To try to spin. That Joe Biden was actually running the show.

You know, during the time White House.

If you're the one giving the orders. Why not sign it there? Why do you have to use the auto-pen?

GLENN: You send letters to the personal physicians, as well as multiple advisers. Are we going to hear from the -- we all suspected that the president was not actually running things.

We have to know his -- you know, his -- the real truth about his mental capacity. Towards the end. Which would also strengthen the case, that he didn't have any idea about the auto-pen.

These weren't things that were coming from him. He was probably, you know, like Edith Wilson did with her husband.

Shoved underneath the hand. Or shoved with the auto-pen. Or signed without cognitively being able to know what he was signing.

JAMES: Yeah, and that's obviously why we're bringing the physician in. We have a lot of questions. We're going to consult with Ronny Jackson, if Ronny is available. I would love to have him in for that interview or deposition. Whatever it turns into.

Because he was the one that was under Trump. And I think that he has a lot of insight.

And I watched several of his interviews. So he knows exactly what is expected in the White House.

This Dr. O'Connor.

You know, he better be on the top of his game, because we have his predecessor in Congress, who has been very critical of -- of a lot of the segments that Dr. O'Connor put out, praising Joe Biden and his health. That comes out, that he's got Stage III prostate cancer.

And they're trying to say, well, we never tested him for prostate cancer. I mean, I can tell. I'm 52. I can test for prostate cancer. Yeah.

GLENN: Okay.

So we're talking to Congressman Comer, who is Kentucky's congressman for the first district. He's also the chairman of the House committee and oversight accountability.

The thing that I think most Americans want to see is not just the uncovering of the truth. But actually, consequences. If this were happening, are people going to jail for doing this?

I mean, we just heard from Jake Tapper's book again, just yesterday or day before.

That, you know, there was -- they were calling themselves the Politburo. That there were a few of them. Three or four of them.

That were just saying, we're running it now.

And if he's reelected. We'll still run it.

That's not Constitutional.

JAMES: It's not constitutional. If I or a member of Congress or the chairman of the oversight committee could put people in jail, I would have put some of the Biden administration in jail.

We investigate, and then we turn over the results of our investigation to the attorney general.
So that question should be asked of Pam Bondi.

We certainly hope she holds people accountable. We're still optimistic, that she will hold people accountable, from investigations of the Biden influence peddling.

Because, you know, Jim Jordan and I have led three or four investigations, where we believe that people should be held accountable for things that were done in the last administration.

So again -- if I could put people in jail, I would -- I would -- the Democrats, when they were in charge of Congress, if Adam Schiff would have put people in jail, he would have put Jim Jordan and John Perry and Donald Trump in jail.

GLENN: Right. I want the system to work the way it should. I'm glad -- I'm glad it goes through the DOJ. But the DOJ, if there are actual crimes committed, I can't think of a higher crime than usurping the power of the President of the United States, and hiding the fact that he's not actually making the decisions or running the country.

That is, in my -- in my view, that is a very high crime.

JAMES: And it's the biggest scandal in the history of America.

If you have three or four bureaucrats, like what Tapper -- that were never elected.

I had never heard of them.

And I'm pretty involved in things in Washington.

GLENN: Right. Right. Me too.

JAMES: And they're running the country!

I mean, that is a bad deal!

GLENN: Congressman, thank you so much.

Thanks for spending some time with us. And explaining what's going on with Congress. Best of luck to you. When do you expect an answer? They have to have an answer tomorrow, before you subpoena them.

JAMES: By tomorrow.

If they don't, they know the next -- the next step subpoena. We have been very clear about that. So that's the process. So we're starting with them. We'll see where the trail leads.

I believe everything that Jake Tapper has alleged in his book.

We're running the country, as well as some others. That many on the conservative media, suspect we're running the country.

I fully expect to hear from -- from them all, over the next few weeks, hopefully.

GLENN: Good. Thank you very much. Congressman Comer from Kentucky.

Alan Dershowitz WARNS the Supreme Court may CHANGE free speech

As chaos grows in America, will the Supreme Court soon put “security” over free speech? Famed attorney Alan Dershowitz joins Glenn Beck to explain why he’s concerned and debate the solution. Plus, as a Harvard Law School professor emeritus, Dershowitz explains why he approves of President Trump’s crackdown on Harvard’s government funding.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome, Alan Dershowitz. How are you, sir?

ALAN: I'm doing great. How are you?

GLENN: I'm good. So did I get this right?

You're talking about now, that the Supreme Court might start leaning towards security over free speech in the coming years.

ALAN: Yeah. Look, never -- it does. I pride myself on never making predictions based on what I want to happen.

That's what -- that's what others on the left do. And that's why they're always wrong. I make predictions based on my analysis of trends.

This is not a trend I approve of. But it's a trend I see coming.

GLENN: Right.

ALAN: I see it coming in the area of defamation. I see it coming in the area of incitement.

I think the Brandenburg decision was written.

During a time of relative calm. And we weren't seeing the incitements of violence that we saw, that probably led to the burning of Jews. In Boulder Colorado. And the shooting of these two innocent people in Washington, DC.

And the kinds of things.

Look, I -- I have a lot of --

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

Yeah. You just said, and I find this amazing.

You said -- you just said, it happened in a time of relative calm. It was 1969 that this case came down in the Supreme Court, if I'm not mistaken.

Which is not really a calm year.

But can you explain what the Brandenburg case is, or was?

ALAN: Sure.

Brandenburg was a Nazi, who was making horrible, horrible speeches. But he wasn't inciting anybody directly. And the Nazis in those days had no influence, and no power. They weren't getting people to do things.

GLENN: I know.

ALAN: The people that were creating problems that were during the Vietnam War.

The people on the left.

I represented a lot of them. And I represented people who disrupted the Democratic convention in 1968.

The Chicago -- other people like that. And I saw with my own eyes. That some of these people who started as disrupters, and violent confrontationists. And people pushing and shoving.

And, you know, breaking property and stuff like that. Ultimately, became murderers, like Captain Houdini, who ended up being responsible for the killing of two policemen. Or the weatherman, who planted bombs, and killed people. And then their leaders became, you know, prominent spokesmen of the left. Professors at various places.

So I saw that, and what I was seeing now, is a different kind of quantity.

What we're seeing, with the globalize the intifada. And Palestine will be free from the river to the sea. Those are calls for violence.

The Brandenburg case, they're protecting speech. I think they should still be protected speech.

But my view, my prediction is that when the next case comes to the Supreme Court. This Supreme Court, I think they may take a more security-oriented point of view, and say, wait a minute.

The incitement does not have to be so direct, it could be a little bit more direct.

And let the jury decide that issue. So I'm concerned about that. In my book, the preventive state. I have a whole chapter on free speech. And how free speech can sometimes cause violence.

And, but that it's not proper to deny free speech, in order to prevent.

We have to pick better ways of preventing violence. And in the preventative state, we come up with better ways than constraining free speech.

GLENN: Because I -- I really, I'm really with you on this. This really disturbs me.

When I read this article from you yesterday. This story from you yesterday, I needed to talk to you. This is horrible. This goes beyond cancel culture.

This is now the government, being able to come in and say, nope!

Right, that's really bad.

ALAN: Yeah. Look, there are so many mechanisms we use that have an effect on free speech. Even deportation.

Deportation obviously denies the deported person, the right to speak freely in this country.

Now, of course, under the Constitution, a citizen has the most free speech rights. A green card holder, the second most -- visa holders, almost no free speech rights. They can be deported, if they say things that are contrary to the interests of the United States. They're just guests in our country.

And so, you know, I think we're going to see a lot -- lots of movement in this area, because we're going to see a lot more violence. Let me tell you what happened to me.

The take before the killings in the District of Columbia. One Christian boy and Jewish women who were killed, working for the embassy. The day after that, I was getting an honorary degree in college at Florida. The security people in college came up to me. We're terrified. It might be a copycat attempt to kill you.

Because you're a prominent spokesman for pro-Israel points of view. And so they created a whole security thing around me, where they created an escape plan.

They have policeman, with machine guns. And with bullet-proof glass. To protect me.

And I have redoubled my security. And I think we're going to see more copycat crimes. I think Hamas wants to see violence in the United States. That's their goal to get more people to kill Jews, Christians, and others in the United States.

And I think they're probably going to succeed unless there's some preventive steps they're taking. Now, the preventive steps should not include diminutions of free speech under the Constitution.

GLENN: I -- I tell you, I -- you know, I see what the government is doing, and how AI is -- and Silicon Valley is playing a big role with the Pentagon and CIA.

And everything else. And I am really, really concerned. If there is another big event like a 9/11.

I fear Americans are just going to run to that kind of stuff. And then we're in a trap. And I don't think we'll get out of.

JOSH: Yeah. That's what history shows.

I show, that there's a common phenomenon. We underreact, and we don't prevent.

We didn't prevent Pearl Harbor. We didn't prevent 9/11. Israel didn't prevent October 7th. Then what happened?

After we failed to prevent Pearl Harbor, we put 110,000 Japanese-Americans in camps, in order to prevent them from doing it again. They never would have done it again.

We overreacted. After 9/11, we created the Patriot Act, which gave the government too much power, to prevent a recurrence of that.

And, you know, the reason we disagree with Israel. But a lot of people think Israel, for failure. From October 7th.

Which they could have done. They had the intelligence. May have overreacted. In Gaza.

I'm not agreeing with that. I'm just telling you, historically, there's a phenomenon, it starts with underprediction.

And ends up with overreaction to the event.

That was not predicted and prevented.

That's one of the thesis of my book.

GLENN: So what -- what should we expect?

And how do we prepare ourselves, so we don't go down that road?

JOSH: Well, first of all, we do a lot more preparation and prevention. We try desperately to use what the resources are available. I'll give you an example.

The young man who burned those people in Boulder, Colorado.

He was here illegally. He had overstayed his visa. There's nothing wrong with using artificial intelligence and computer technology to keep track of people who stay here illegally.

And once he overstayed his visa. Action could have be taken.

And maybe this crime could have been prevented. So I think there are preventive steps that are consistent with the Constitution and free speech.

That can be taken, to avoid the cataclysmic events. Give you another horrible example, that we're working on right now.

Should the United States and Israel bomb Iran's nuclear facilities? We know they're playing to create an atomic bomb.

And we know in the 1930s, if France and England had prevented Germany from building up its army, it would have saved 50 million lives.

We must know it then.

Are these the crimes of preventive decisions, but there's no free lunch!

Every preventive decision entails some diminution of liberty. And, you know, Benjamin Franklin was correct, when he said those who would deny essential liberties to secure a little bit more security, deserve neither.

But the question is, can we deny a little bit of nonessential liberty, to prevent major cataclysmic events. Give you appear example. Before 9/11. We arrested ten people, and prevented 9/11. And the people arrested. And spent two months in jail.

That's probably a trend that was worth it.

GLENN: What are nonessential liberties?

ALAN: Well, there's a continuum. Obviously, free speech is the most essential liberty. Privacy is a matter of degree. And, you know, keeping track of people who are here illegally, does in some way, invade their right of privacy.

But in a small way.

Because they really don't have a right to be there at all.

Liberty is a continuum.

And we have to make sure that we don't go after fundamental liberties, as I think, look, what could be worse than putting 110,000 Japanese-Americans in camps, and denying them their right to earn a living?

We did that for three years.

And the Supreme Court. The liberal justices -- Earl Warren was the governor of California at the time. He was on the Supreme Court.
They all agreed with that, only a couple of justices.

Justice Jackson didn't agree with it.

But Americans were outraged at Pearl Harbor, as they were outraged at 9/11.

When you were outraged.

GLENN: I know.

ALAN: You don't think terribly.

GLENN: I know. I know. And that's a little terrifying. Just looking at what's coming around the world. And then seeing the growth of AI and what can be done.

It's a little frightening, that we will jump immediately to, yes.

We need a super, duper Patriot Act.

That it's --

ALAN: Yeah. That's right. We need a super, duper Patriot Act that denies free speech. That's the first thing. People hate free speech. The vast majority of Americans, even though they claim the First Amendment, believe in free speech for me, but not for thee. When I taught my class on the First Amendment, I would ask my students, how many people believe free speech for everybody?

Everybody would raise their hand, and then I would say, well, what about pornography? Some hands went down.

What about anti-Semitism?

Some hands would go down. What about bigotry against Catholics? Some hands would go down. By the end of the class, no hands were up. Everybody had an exception.

GLENN: Hmm. Alan, hold on for one minute. I want to talk to you a little bit about Harvard and what's going on there, and what do you think is coming for Harvard and out of all of this.

In 60 seconds, back with Alan Dershowitz in just a second.

The sponsor is Good Ranchers.

When was the last time you looked forward to dinner?

And I don't mean out of habit. I mean, actually felt exited like you used to, when steak night meant something. When the smell hit the pan, and people drifted in the kitchen, without being called.

It's amazing what good meat can do. Good fish. Good chicken.

Good Ranchers is not just about buying American. You're supporting US farmers and ranchers. It's about making food mean something again!

Because we have forgotten, you know, what chicken is supposed to taste like.

Or how a burger used to taste. When you were sure you were eating American beef, and it was all natural.

This is a wake-up call.

Everything Good Ranchers sells, is 100 percent American. No import. No mystery. Just high quality beef, chicken, and seafood, delivered straight to your door.

Right now, when you subscribe, they're offering free meat for life. Choose from ground beef, wild caught salmon, bacon or seed-oil free Chicken Nuggets. You'll get that bonus in every box for as long as you stay subscribed.

So visit GoodRanchers.com. Use the promo code Beck. Unlock your free meat for life.

Plus, get $40 off.

It's GoodRanchers.com. GoodRanchers.com. American meat delivered.

Ten-second station ID.
(music)
So, I mean, you were the youngest full professor at Harvard, at the law school. You're an emeritus now at Harvard. What do you see happening to Harvard and this -- this war, this battle between the Trump administration and Harvard?

ALAN: Look, it started with the people in government administration.

Harvard started on its decline, probably more than a decade ago. By adopting DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Which lowered standards for emission. Lowered standards for faculty.

And turned us into a mediocre university. We are a mediocre university, Harvard.

The Latin term shouldn't be veritas. It should be mediocritas. We technically have lowered our standards.

This is not about Jews, or about Israel. This is about lowering the standards for DEI. We also adopted a content called intersectionality, which says that the world is divided into two groups. The oppressors. Those are Americans, white, Jews. And the oppressed. People of color. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

That's permeated the faculty.

Third, we've created these crazy departments of gender studies. Of Critical Race Theory. Of southeast Asian this. And these programs are nonacademic.

They are political.

They have agendas.

And they have destroyed the university.

And so I think we need to fundamentally root out, these hard left political, nonacademic courses.

And, of course, there's anti-Semitism as well.

And so I generally support Harvard a kick in their rear end.

I have a new book coming out in the summer, that's called Trump to Harvard. Go Fund Yourself.

And it lays out, how it's important to have targeted defunding. Schools like the Divinity School. The school that teaches Christianity has become the cesspool of anti-Semitism.

The public health department. A cesspool of anti-Semitism. Human rights has become a place of human wrong. So there's a lot of work to be done. It should be targeted. We shouldn't be denying visas to everybody. We should be denying them to those who would come in and cause terrible disruptions on the campus. So there's a lot of work to be done. And the president of Harvard is food. I assume he's trying his best.

But there are hard left people on the faculty. Who care more about promoting their progressive agendas. Then about teaching students.

You know, 60 years at Harvard. I never once expressed a personal vie in class. Never once. They didn't know what my views were on capital punishment, on Israel. You name it. None of it. I never expressed a personal view in class. My job was not to teach them what to think, but to teach them how to think. If they were conservative, I wanted them to go as a smart conservative. If they were liberal, I wanted them to be a better liberal.

So that's my job. But that's not what's going on at Harvard today. Today, it's becoming a place of indoctrination and propaganda.

GLENN: What do you say to -- there's this big thing going around now. You know, I was just a year away from curing, you know, tuberculosis, and the government pulled all of its funding out of my Harvard research.

ALAN: Terrible.

GLENN: And now these children are all going to do. How do you respond to that?

ALAN: Yeah. First, A, it's an overstatement. Harvard has $53 billion that can at that it can devote to curing cancer. But clearly, I mean, for example, one of the first reactions when they cut off the funds from Harvard research was one of the researchers made an announcement that said, oh, my God. The mice will now die.

We can't afford to feed a mice. You know how much it costs to feed a mice? Eleven cents a day to feed a mouse.

So a lot of overstatement, but I do think we have to have all the targeting. And we should not be cutting back on research at all.

GLENN: Alan Dershowitz. I would love to do a podcast with you, on about the preventive state. You're always right on top of it. Thank you so much, Alan Dershowitz. Again, the name of the book is The Preventive State. Harvard law school professor ameritas and host of the Dershow.

Is this the REAL reason Elon Musk SLAMMED the “Big, Beautiful Bill?”

Republicans are divided over the “Big, Beautiful Bill.” President Trump wants Congress to pass it, Elon Musk called it a “disgusting abomination,” and Rep. Chip Roy “reluctantly” voted for its current version. Rep. Roy joins Glenn to give his take on the latest updates in the fight. Plus, he gives Glenn his theory on why Elon really slammed the bill.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So last month, the big, beautiful bill cleared the House by a single vote.

The senators now have been meeting for weeks, behind closed doors.

They return to Washington, late Monday.

They revised the package.

Donald Trump just tweeted out, passing the one, big beautiful bill is a historic opportunity to turn our country around.

They need to work as fast as they can, to get this bill to my desk, before the Fourth of July. Then you have Elon Musk saying the massive outrageous pork-filled congressional spending bill say disgusting abomination.

Shame on those who voted for it. You know you did wrong. You know it!

Mike Johnson then says, well, that was advertise appointing.

With all due respect, Elon Musk is my friend. And he's terribly wrong about the one, big beautiful bill.

My for sure, my head hurts from all of this.

Now the White House is sending an additional $9 billion in cuts, which is nice.

But we're hoping for $1 trillion in cuts. And everybody is arguing in $9 billion in cuts.

How is this thing going to even pass?

What is happening here?

We have Chip Roy, who voted for the last one, reluctantly. And I don't know where he stands now. Chip Roy, welcome to the program. How are you, championship.

CHIP: Glenn, how are you doing, brother?

GLENN: I'm good. I'm good. Must not be fun being you right now.

CHIP: Well, you know, here's the thing, when you have a reputation for trying to do the right thing, people do, I think, want to come to you, to figure out, what's the score here? What's the real deal? I'm proud that I think people see me as someone who tries to be honest. And kind of work the lie this. To achieve what you and I and all your listeners want to achieve. We have an obligation to get this done. But we have to get this done right. You said thank you for saying that I voted for it reluctantly.

Because I did reluctantly vote for it. I messaged you at the time. Was reluctant. We have to weight a lot of things right now.

We have a president who was given a mandate, a president that you and I support what he's doing, taking on the establishment, taking on this town.

You know, rooting all this DEI and woke garbage, you know, pushing the barriers. Steering the border. All the things that we know are happening. And we need to do sort of things in this bill. We do need tax relief. We need to extend the tax cuts. We need economic growth by putting more money in the hands of the pockets of Americans.

Those are all important things. But we have to cut spending.

And the swamp creatures in Congress aren't good at that. People like me that are beating our head against the wall, trying to demonstrate. Hey, here's what we need to do, here's how we need to cut.

So now we have to balance this thing. The reason I was reluctant is because it does do some really good things that we bled and fought for, for two months, Glenn. I mean, the week before last, we were at three straight days, going down, negotiating at the White House. Negotiating folks.

And what we got was good. Was it great?

No, it was good.

We got the Inflation Reduction Act reduced down. We got a full repeal basically of all future projects.

But, no. We don't build a 400 billion existing project. We got historic Medicare reductions. Reductions in the increases, yes.

But a trillion dollars' worth, it's never been done, Glenn. Literally, but is that good enough for the moment? Maybe not.

I think we have to do better on that.

All the things about the vulnerable versus the able-bodied.

We got Medicaid work requirements moved out from 29 to 26. We fought like hell to make the bill, something that I think that we could be proud of certain elements.

But Elon is not wrong. Okay?

Elon is not wrong. For the moment, we need to do better.

We need more spending restraint. We need to meet this moment, with the actual deficit reduction that is necessary.

If we get economic growths from the taxes, if we get economic growths from the regulatory policy, if we get economic growths because the president is strong and leading, then we can get out of this mess.

But it's that plus spending restraints. Last point.

I do think it's worth noting, that I'm not sure that Elon is really excited about the extent to which, we are killing the subsidies across-the-board.

GLENN: Wow.

CHIP: All future subsidies for EVs, for solar panels, for the wing craft, all future subsidies we are mostly killing.

There is a few lingering projects. We take it down.

The left is losing their damn mind, Glenn. So there's a little of that that's also at play. So that's a long-winded explanation. A lot to do. We're pushing the Senate. They need to go further. I think we need to fix some stuff.

But I can promise you this, Glenn. If this bill backslides, if they work off what we got, which I don't think is necessarily good enough, I can promise you I will oppose it in the House. So we'll see what the Senate does.

GLENN: Your speculation on what they're going to do? Are they making it worse right now? Is it getting better?

CHIP: I think there are forces at play, that are desperately trying to undo the benefits we got, with respect to repealing the Green New stamp subsidies. Which by the way, the President of the United States campaigned fully and clearly on terminating the green new stamp subsidy.

There are forces, who want to undo that. There are forces in the House, that regret voting for the subsidy he did it.

I think there are forces in the Senate, who are wary of some of our Medicare reforms, which were important. On work requirements, on eligibility. To tighten down and make sure we are trying to make sure the able bodies aren't getting benefits, et cetera.

I don't think it went far enough.

So we will to have work hard, just to hold the line at the House bill, which, Glenn, I would say is on the edge of whether it's good enough to merit moving forward, and hoping we get 3 yards and a cloud of dust.

I will tell you, that if we can repeal IRA subsidies, get the Medicare reforms. Constrain the spending, and the economic growth in the tax policy.

That it's moving the ball down the field.

That's I didn't hold my nose. But if we were truly a conservative Congress, we would cut more. That's just the truth.

GLENN: So I read all kinds of things from the banking sector.

That we're talking about our treasury bills.

That we are -- we are so dangerously close.

You raise the debt ceiling yet again, we are dangerously close to the rest of the world saying, I can't buy their debt anymore.

I mean, they're not serious about anything.

Do you believe we're that close?

CHIP: I believe we're in a very -- yeah. I believe we're on a knife's edge. I think that the bond markets are suggesting that. That's why Scott Bessent has been saying, we need to get deficits down to the percentage of GDP. So we can signal to the bond markets, what needs to be signaled. I think we have an obligation to get this right, right now.

In order to frankly --

GLENN: So why isn't anybody listening to that?

Why isn't anybody listening to Bessent and the bond market?

That's lights out for America, if we don't get that right.

CHIP: Yeah. And let me give you another scary point. If we have to refinance our debt at higher interest rates, which currently we would be projecting, much higher interest rates than the CBO is even projecting. How many times the CBO. We all recognize that they're flawed.

It doesn't matter. You have to look at the model that's in front of you.

The current model projects refinancing that debt at three and a half percent.

What if we have to refinance under the levels of four, four and a half percent? Five percent.

You will have massively more interest expense. Instead of a trillion, it would be a trillion and a half. Instead of a trillion and a half, it would be 2 trillion.

We are going to gobble up our entire government expenditures of interest.

I mean, Glenn, it is that bad. And here's the problem: Is Congress finally waking up to what you and I and the Freedom Caucus and conservatives have been saying now for a decade plus?

Yes. They're realizing that we're in a real bad spot.

All that is doing is coming to the table to do the bare minimum.

Right?

The Medicare reforms. The place for giant subsidies. The food stamp reforms.

The other things we put in this bill.

All of these things which are good. And not as far as I would go.

Just to be clear to your listeners. They're finally getting to the table to accept that. And they're getting there too late.

Now what I'm saying, we need to do more.

The president is sending up recisions.

And, yes. It's just 9 billion.

Why does this matter?

The reconciliation package can pass the Senate with 51 votes.

The normal appropriations process, which we still have to do this year. Will require 60 votes in the Senate.

Right?

So that means it will hard to get through Democrats.

So this recessions process is a way to try to cut some of these ridiculous programs. Like USAID. And other things.

Using a 51 vote threshold.

So that is why we're trying to move it, that way.

The reason it's just a smaller 9 billion-dollar number. Is it's a test case.

Will Congress do its job?

And do this first down payment, a 9 billion-dollar recision of PBS, NPR, and a bunch of USAID foreign government funding, foreign aid wasteful program.

And now we'll see.

I'll, of course, vote for that. You know I will.

But will the moderates?

We'll find out. If they do. We will get another rescission package sent up right after that. So this is all part of the process, working near the president. So I don't need to filibuster. But that's the update.

STU: Speak about the process a little bit, because it's fascinating to watch this bill try to make its way through all of this.

Like for at least my estimates so far, my understanding is that there's at least two Congress men who -- one congresswoman, I suppose, who already have said that their vote was a yes.

But now it would be a no, because they didn't realize what they were voting for.

Which would already put you under the amount that you would need to get it passed. The salt people in the house are saying, if you get he rid of salt, we're done.

The Senate is saying, we're getting rid of salt or at least adjusting it. How does this thing get across the finished line?

CHIP: Well, I mean, like everything else, you have to figure out how to navigate to get to 218 and 251.

We managed to get it this far. Look, you go to war with the army you've got. We have the Congress that we have. We have the president that we have who is trying to get this done. We're trying to work to do it. I think we're in this Zip code. But we're not where we need to be.

So let's take the things, you get some examples. Are there things in this bill, that some of us knew about and were warning about, that others are now just kind of waking up and seeing?

Yes. At the time, I said, for example, there's a car tax in this bill, you fools.

I don't support it. It was a tax to make up for the fact that EVs and hybrids can't, you know, pair their fair share of the gas tax.

They needed $40 billion to pay for some Coast Guard and some other stuff. So how did they pay for it, in the committee? What they did was they added a car tax, for EVs and for hybrids. Now, do you think that we conservatives, with the government views, believe we should have a car tax?

I sure as hell don't.

GLENN: No.

CHIP: How about the AI restrictions?

Should we prohibit Florida, and should we prohibit Texas from having some sort of regulation on AI? From a federal standpoint, I'm not sure we should. So there's a lot of things in this bill, that I knew all this.

Was telling people about it. But there's only 40 fights you can pick.

My fight was, you're going to repeal these damn subsidies on the act, that are killing our grid, undermining our national security, and destroying natural gas and nuclear energy options. My fight was trying to get Medicaid held down.

About 20 other fights. For example, the car tax, Scott Perry and I and a couple of others, at least killed the tax on the internal combustion energy.

They were going to have a car tax in America, y'all. So, look, we're fighting everything we've got coming at us. There are things that need to get fixed.

To answer your question, if they need to adjust salt, I might try to call the bluff of the guys on the salt caucus and say, really?

You're going to vote this down. Because you didn't get more subsidies for your great big tax jurisdiction, right? But if they want to try to call our bluff. I can tell you, if they repeal back the Inflation Reduction Act stuff, which the president campaigned on. Then that's going to be a real problem.

GLENN: I know.

CHIP: So we will see.

It's a fine line. And I'm trying to work with leadership.

The White House, to deliver, as close to my values, as I can.

And be able to look in the mirror, and say, I did enough. And I'm not sure, gentlemen. I'm trying to shoot straight. We're walking a line.

It could easily peel off and I can't support it. It could move in the right direction, and I'll support it.

Say, let's go fight tomorrow for the next thing.

I'm trying to work in good faith with the president and his team to deliver. There's a lot of good things in this bill. Let's remember that. A trillion dollars of real Medicare reform. We've never done that before, guys, ever.

Right? Inflation Reduction Act. Planned Parenthood not funded. Trans surgeries. Repeal for adults and kids, to defund that. The left had gone so far, we're peeling a lot of that back. So let's remember the good stuff, while we're trying to highlight some of our concerns.

GLENN: Chip, I -- you're very reasoned, and I really appreciate talking to you. And I'm really so glad that you are representing the great state of Texas. You're a guy that at least I feel I can trust. You know, you say what you mean. And you mean what you say.

And that is the number one thing I look for in a representative. Is somebody who will say the same thing to me, to my face, as they will behind closed doors. I really appreciate all your hard work on this.

Thanks, Chip.
CHIP: Hey, I appreciate it, Glenn. Thanks for exposing all this to the American people and being truthful about it. This is hard for people like us.

Because you want to be with the team to move the ball down the field. We want to succeed.
We want to win.

But you also don't want to eat a crap sandwich.

So I promise you, I will level the good, the bad, and the ugly. And then you just have to decide what's the best for the country. And vote, and move forward.

That's where we are.

GLENN: Next time, it starts to move forward. You call in and you let us know, what's in it.

You just make sure you get a hold of me.

Soon as you start to see things moving forward, you let us know. Because I appreciate your point of view on that.

Thanks, Chip.

WAKE UP! 8,000 Al Qaeda and ISIS members LURKING in America!

Former CIA intelligence analyst and targeter, Sarah Adams, joins Glenn Beck to warn that the US has “dropped the ball” in recent years when it comes to protecting America from enemies like Al Qaeda and ISIS. In fact, she predicts that at least 8,000 Al Qaeda and ISIS members have already come across our borders and are waiting to team up for the next 9/11.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the program. I want to introduce you to Sarah Adams. She's the author of Benghazi: Know Thy Enemy. She's also a former CIA intelligence analyst and targeter, which I think, Sarah, means if you watch the old show 24, you were Chloe, right?

SARAH: Oh, totally.

GLENN: Totally. Sarah, welcome to the program. I'm glad you're here.

I read a response from you yesterday. Eye tweet that was talking about both the assassinations in Washington, DC. And the firebombing in Colorado. And you said, quote, it's going to get a lot worse.

Coming from you, that carries a little more weight, than it would coming from me.

What does it mean? Why do you believe the attacks are about to escalate?

SARAH: Well, there's two pieces to it. One is just the fact that we've allowed kind of the radicalization around this pro-Hamas movement. As you know, if you don't nip that in the bud, it becomes militant at some point. Right? That's how the movements work. But the other thing is because of how we left Afghanistan, with this large terrorist infrastructure, bin Laden's sons are after 9/11 living on US soil. So if we don't get ahead of that, we have something much bigger. We found those two places, which were still ripe for that.

GLENN: So do you believe that people are already here? I mean, we've left our -- left our borders open. How many terrorists do you think have come in the last four years? Are there already here?

SARAH: Yeah. So I think the majority of them are already here. Obviously, every group has different numbers. If you point to al-Qaeda, they sent a thousand people here, to participate in that one event. According to ISIS, they have 2500 terrorists in the United States, who are not here on a legal status. So that doesn't mean they count any ISIS members who are US citizen. Green hold members.

Or US visa holders. And according to the former head of Afghan intelligence services, a thousand here, who are linked to terrorist organizations. So when you start putting these numbers together -- a lot of the Pakistani characters have come in. You know, the numbers probably allowed for easily over 8,000 terrorists have come in.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

SARAH: Yeah. It's insane.

GLENN: What kind of damage could 8,000 people do? Are they coordinated at all? Any parts of these groups coordinated, do you think?

SARAH: Some things are coordinated. There are some like joint agreements between ISIS and al-Qaeda. Like ISIS is supposed to do the attacks in the United States, kind of in big cities, while al-Qaeda's goal is going to be Washington, DC, aviation.

So they did divvy up some types of different attacks they would do. As you know, there's just a lot of people that are bad actors.

You could trigger them at any time. They just don't like we live. The way women have run. All these types of things of how society has worked here.

GLENN: I did a show back in the old days, when I was on CNN, around the turn of the century.

And it was about Beslan.

And that has been the thing that has really terrified me. The idea that actors could be here, and then go after our small cities and schools, and just cause terror in several small cities, unlike America has ever seen before.

Like Beslan.

SARAH: Yeah. No, that's a really great example. And obviously, terrorists in some schools. You know, we haven't talked to a lot of administrators at schools.

But we have had a lot of discussions over the last six to eight months of the different church surveillance incidents. And in some cases, they do have schools attached to that, and there are people there asking questions about the schools. They're trying to ask about the schools, who don't have children. Right?

It makes no sense. Why would you want to know anything about how a school operates, if you don't even have children put into the school? So that's very concerning.

GLENN: So what are we doing about it?

SARAH: Well, I'm worried we dropped the ball a little on terrorism.

Especially on al-Qaeda, right?

There really is no government collection or understanding of what al-Qaeda's leadership is doing. They don't even collect on them anymore. We have no collection. We're focused on the Bin Ladens at all.

So they live -- they're limited. And then, as you know, when you divert all your focus to one thing, then obviously you lose the path to other areas.

And the way we left Afghanistan, you know, the -- the commander of CENTCOM said this, we lost 98 percent of our humans. So we don't have the information to even get ahead of this, unfortunately.

GLENN: The -- the group that is most active in targeting us.

I saw something from who was it?

They were very concerned. Was it Saudi Arabia?

One of the countries overseas, said yesterday, they blamed this attempt on the Muslim Brotherhood.

SARAH: Well, I -- so the individual showed, you know, support for the Muslim Brotherhood. The thing with the Muslim Brotherhood, it's almost like a fabric of like a terrorist movement. Right?

So almost all of them support the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is almost like the PR firm of terrorists, right?

They're the ones who go into countries. They care for politicians. They create organizations to deport clubs, the NGOs. And they bring that influence into these countries, and they have a lot of effect in Spain, in France, to where the governments now actually can't pass all of the Muslim Brotherhood influence.

So it's kind of like two sides of the same coin, if that makes sense. The problem in the United States, is we've never banned the Muslim Brotherhood. So nobody is doing anything effective against them.

GLENN: What happens if we're -- how do you see this unfolding?

First of all, you know, I've got a story next hour about what is it?

Holland, I think. That is just on the verge of collapse.

And they have just -- they just will not, you know, do the right thing. And it's happening all over in Europe. I'm very concerned that Europe is just a ticking time bomb.

That something begins to falter there. And, you know, the -- the Muslim Brotherhood. Or whomever.

Gives word, go, go, go.

And it will just become a bloodbath over there.

Which is first?

Are they first? Or are we first?

Or does it matter?

SARAH: Well, there's multiple things going on, right?

So I do think there's probably some near-term ISIS-related attacks, in Europe before a huge attack in the United States. You know, especially in Germany. But there is very large spots in the United States. And there in Sweden, France, United Kingdom, and Norway.

So they do -- are targeting certain countries. And they are targeting the countries, as you can imagine. Where they have the most supporters.

They're able to bring in the most terrorists.

Law enforcement is very weak, right?

Like, they'll say nothing about Scott (inaudible) for five years.

Just like, about ten days ago, Germany picked up a terrorist. He actually is slotted to be one of the US Homeland commanders. The crazy part, they pick him up, and then they publicly say, oh, yeah. We detained a Syrian from ISIS. He's a Libyan from al-Qaeda-affiliated groups.

So they don't even know the people they're arresting, which is really scary.

This is all across Europe. Especially Sweden is a nightmare. This happens every day in Sweden.

GLENN: You know, I was over in Sweden, gosh, it's funny.

Because I left Iraq. And was going to do a I show you in Sweden. This was probably ten years ago. Because I thought, Sweden is a canary in the coal mine. They are so open.

They are so friendly. They take everybody in.

And my crew was accosted on the streets. It happened later to 60 minutes. And everybody talked about that one.

But the exact same. Yeah. The exact same thing happened to us, in the same place.

A year before. And it was out of -- it was out of control then.

I -- I think this thing, if it happens, it will just happen so rapidly, it will be hard for the West to watch its breath.

SARAH: And that's the way you need to do it.

Obviously, the fall of Afghanistan happened rapidly. The fall of Syria happened rapidly.

They're trying to make the fall of Leticia happen rapidly. Terrorists are starting to realize, these types of events are the better way to do some of these operations. So they're planning a lot more aggressively. I still think we're stuck in a 2001 terrorist mindset.

That he move slow. They're methodical.

And I think it's become a lot more aggressive.

And I think our assessments have evolved with the terrorist mindset.

GLENN: You know, I really wonder.

Because you see what Ukraine did in Russia over the weekend. I mean, they took out the estimates. Or they took out a third of the strategic air command of Russia.

That's something we would have loved to have been able to do years ago.

We -- you know, we don't think that way. And here's this almost now, third world country.

With no Army to speak of, doing that kind of damage. Miles. Thousands of miles inside of the borders.

My gosh. What could they do here?

SARAH: Yeah. They took out 7 billion equipment, just using drones. So low cost. And low cost is obviously a great alternative to terrorists. So, yeah. That's a very scary thing.

And it's no secret terrorists have used drones. Right?

Obviously, they recorded themselves. In Syria, they had drones camps.

In al-Qaeda, they have a camp solely for drones. Drones using them to deliver bombs and other types of things.

So, yeah. That's going to be the future, unfortunately. It doesn't just have to be nation states, right?

GLENN: If you were in charge today, what would you be -- what advice would you be giving the American people? What should we be hardening, doing, and looking for?

SARAH: Well, the way I look at it is, obviously, we don't exactly know when these attacks are going to happen. But we know what -- what different things the terrorists trained on. But that's -- so they train on attacking hospitals. They train on attacking like shopping centers. They train on schools. They trained on nightclubs, right?

So think about it. If you harden those types of locations, then if the terrorist was going to hit you, now they have to -- now they have to make a decision. Now you pushed off your time line. Right?

You made it harder for them. Hopefully, easier for law enforcement. To pick up something in the casing. Or something in the man.

So that's a lot that I like to focus on. And the other thing, really just be a force multiplier. Be someone who can help, right? Being able to help someone in an emergency. Because this is going to take time for first responders to arrive, like in Israel, you have to keep that in mind.

GLENN: You -- you just recently tweeted, there have been multiple incidents of suspected terrorists casing churches across the US. If this happens in your parish, don't brush it off. Report it. How do you harden your church?

SARAH: Well, a lot of churches have started making security and safety teams. That's a really good start. The best part is, if you have any sort of visitor, they have people that are registering outside the parish right?

So you know who is in the building. Anything you can do external is the best way to do it.

But it's also just common sense. Right?

If people show up with weird questions.

And I will just tell you, there are some similar situations. A lot of situations, two to four-men teams that come in.

They are not Christian, and they have from the cover story. They're like, oh, my religious elder told me I need to go explore the religion, and then they say, they're Muslim. Or they say they're Hindu. And then they start asking questions about the security team, which would be very strange about joining a church.

And then the main question that is the most concerning that we've seen in a lot of different locations is, do you live stream your service?

So we do think that some of those items, if they're talking about those. Get your photos. Take your driver's license. Right? Then report it to law enforcement. And the more people who can do pieces of this, so law enforcement can put it all together. Right? And see where things are connecting. Getting ahead of it.

None of this is terrorism. Remember, there's crime in part of these churches, in multiple ways.

GLENN: So you're thinking that the live streaming is a problem, because they want it to be viewed and reported?

SARAH: That's our assessment. It's a very strange question to imagine. If they're not intending to join and become a member of the church.

GLENN: Okay. Thank you so much for everything that you're doing, Sarah, and have done in the past. Really appreciate it. And please, if you see anything, let us know. We would love to get any warnings that we can help people prepare for. So thank you. Appreciate it.

SARAH: Thank you. Thanks for having me.

GLENN: You bet. You bet. Sarah Adams

Crisis LOOMS: Glenn Beck breaks down Jamie Dimon’s urgent plea to prepare

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon recently warned that crisis is coming soon, but this isn’t a new revelation. He’s just saying what elites have known for a while out loud. Glenn Beck breaks down Dimon’s warning and explains what Americans must do to prepare.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let me -- let me start -- let me start with not what's trending, but let's talk about what really matters. What should be keeping you up at night. But maybe isn't. Because it's not on your feed, or at least not yet. As anti-Semitism is spreading its civilizational poison all over America, as Tom Homan yesterday warned of another 9/11-style attack on the homeland, as the Democrats strangely keep fighting for the rights of those who are literally spreading hate, violence, and death in our colleges and our streets. As Congress remains fast asleep, yet you're wide awake every night. Kept awake by your growing debt, and shrinking dollar. Let me share the latest from Jamie Dimon.

That nobody I have seen has shared with you yet.

It was a talk he gave at the Reagan National defense forum in California. Jamie Dimon was a CEO of JPMorgan Chase, one of the largest and most influential financial institutions on earth. He delivered a warning, and it wasn't about cutting interest rates. Not about inflammation curves, or crypto adoption or anything else.

I want you to hear what he said, about Bitcoin. Do we have that audio, please?

VOICE: I was saying we shouldn't be stockpiling Bitcoin. We should be stockpiling guns, tanks, planes, drones. You know, rare earths. We know we need to do it. It's not a mystery.

VOICE: Did you say stockpiling of Bitcoin?

VOICE: I said we shouldn't be stockpiling. Stockpiling. Bullets.

VOICE: Oh, we shouldn't. Okay.

VOICE: You have the military guys tell you, if there's a war in the South China Sea, we have missiles for seven days. Come on. We can't say that with a straight face and think that's okay.

GLENN: Did you notice what the reporter did? She was trying to do a gotcha. You're saying we should stock Bitcoin? Okay. All right. She missed the whole point. He's referencing the Pentagon data saying, we only have enough precision-guided missiles for seven days of sustained conflict. I don't know.

Does that sound like a problem for anybody?

Let that settle in, a week!

That's what stands between deterrence and desperation, if war would break out in the South China Sea. Seven days.

And remember when I shared with you yesterday, the drone bombing in Ukraine, or by Ukraine, that wiped out an estimated one-third of the Russian nuclear -- nuclear strategic air command.

One-third of Russia's nuclear strategic air command?

Ukraine! They did that. That's a country that's almost in third world status, no real military left. and certainly no missiles. They did it with drones.

Imagine what could be done here! With -- with open borders. And enemies like China and Iran.

Enemies all over the world. Now, I want you to understand, Jamie Dimon is not a guy that usually deals in hyperbole. He's not a man who chases the headlines. His words. And he knows this. Moves global markets. The good news on this one, nobody will pay attention to him. Because nobody is interested in telling you the truth on how dire the situation actually is. You know, his silence in most cases is his statement.

That's the way they work at those levels. So when he breaks that silence, and he does it this bluntly, you better believe it's calculated.

Now, most of his piers are still peddling ESG slide shows and block chain buzzwords. But Dimon stepped into the national stage and said, we need to get real. And we need to get ready.

And here's the thing: He's not talking to hedge funds or Pentagon press. He knows. Look at her response. Oh.

He's talking directly to you. You.

This isn't about rare earth or tanks. This is about a new era of scarcity. That's what you have to grasp from what Jamie Dimon was actually talking about.

He is saying there is a reckoning with reality, that most Americans and CEOs and everybody else are not prepared for.

Play cut two of this, please.

VOICE: You are going to see a crack in the bond market. Okay?

It is going to happen. And I tell this to my regulars in this room. I'm telling you, it is going to happen, and you're going to panic.

I'm not going to panic. We will be fine. We will probably make more money. And my friends will tell me -- we like crises because it's good for JP Morgan Chase. Not really. I didn't know it would be a crisis in six months or six years. And I'm hoping that we change both the trajectory of the debt and the ability to embark on markets. Yeah. It's coming.

This is part of all of the stuff we've talked about.

And unfortunately, maybe we need that to wake us up.

That's the unfortunate thing.

GLENN: Cut three, please.

VOICE: And all that, do you think people of rural cities. Do you think people of inner cities thought they were getting anything.

Do you think those people think the American government is fair and competent. And is in their best interest. Their schools don't work.

They're not getting the skills they need, just now.

So I have to acknowledge, I also have -- because, you know, Republicans generally don't like red tape. You know, I understand the devastation of it. Most Democrats they love it. They want more of it. They want to make it so confusing, you can't even make the rules. You get punished and fined everywhere. Celebrate our virtues. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Freedom of enterprise.

Equal opportunity.

Family. God. Country. You know, and acknowledge the flaws that we have which are extraordinary. We did the black population for years. Don't denigrate the great things of this country. Those are two different things. Any time, you put a team on the field. The team is torn apart, the team will lose. That's Caiaphas right now. We're not a team. We don't collaborate. We don't talk much with each other.

We've got to fix our permitting, our regulations, our immigration, our taxation.

Which, I think they're on their way.

We have to fix our inner city schools. Our health care system.

GLENN: Okay. So let's unpack this for a second. His dismissal of Bitcoin, first of all, not a continuation of his long-standing skepticism.

If you listen to all of the stuff he's saying.

This is something much more urgent.

In a time of instability, Bitcoin becomes an abstraction.

It has no mass. It has no utility.

Now, I'm a Bitcoin guy. I believe in Bitcoin. But Bitcoin depends on electricity and the internet and a collective belief. Bullets. They don't care if you believe in bullets or not. Fuel? It doesn't matter if you believe in fuel or not. Food? These are not ideas. These are lifelines. Did you hear what he was saying? Bullets, fuel, food: Lifelines.

Now, don't get me wrong. He's not all of a sudden a patriotic prepper-in-chief. But what he is doing is giving voice to something that the elites all know, but usually whisper behind closed doors, and he's saying it out loud now.

The veneer, we learned this under 9/11. Remember how on 9/11, 9/12, 9/13, we realized, oh, my gosh, this thing could collapse in a heartbeat.

We all knew the veneer of civilization, the veneer of order is so thin. Even the largest company in the world is dangerously exposed.

The danger -- the largest economy in the world, ours, is exposed! I want you to look at the numbers here.

Eighty percent of our rare earth minerals come from China. Basically, everything from missile guidance to smart phones. Eighty percent of it comes from China. What happens if they want to shove that off? What happens if we get to go to war? What happens if we just don't have the fuel to run across the ocean? What happens to us?

Our military. Recruitment shortfalls time and time again. Outdated infrastructure.

I mean, how many trillions of dollars have we spent in the last 20 years on infrastructure projects?

Look at our airports! Look at our munitions stockpile!

It wouldn't last a long weekend, if trouble really happened. And cyber attacks. One single cyber attack could shut down the grid for weeks.

And what happens? See, here's the thing that you have to hear from JP Morgan. He's not saying, prepare out of paranoia. He's saying it out of pattern recognition. Pattern recognition. You need to get good at pattern recognition.

The world is no longer stable. And it hasn't been. I don't know if you've noticed this. For a while!

But most people. All your neighbors are too distracted to notice. Cakes and circuses. Dimon went on to blast the regulatory obsession, you know, in order to make life difficult.

Did you hear what he just said? Democrats, they love it. They want more of it. And they want to make it more confusing. So you can't even meet the rules. You'll get punished and fined afterward.

The last four years, we have lived on the assumption that convenience was safety. That digital meant durable. That markets -- that global markets meant good. But history doesn't move in a trait line. It turns.

It turns around sometimes. It bends. It recoils. And in that recoil, the essentials of survival never change. Shelter, energy, food, protection, human trust in one another.

That's the most important. We don't have it.

What his message was, was very clear. He cuts against every modern comfort we've built our life around. Here's a giant bank saying, you've built your life, we've built our life around things that are not real. He's not saying abandon innovation. He's saying, don't bet your future on intangibles.

So his solution is the same solution we've been talking about here on this program forever.

Celebrate our virtues. Celebrate our freedoms, our freedom of speech, our freedom of religion, our freedom of enterprise.

Equal opportunity. Family, God, and country.

Those are his words. And acknowledge the flaws of the country.

But don't denigrate the great things that this country has done.

They are two very different things!

And start talking to one another. So here's what I want you to consider.

What would you do if the lights went out?

Not for a storm. But because a server farm in Taiwan was hit.

What would you trade your Bitcoin for at the grocery store shelves, if they were empty?

What does wealth mean in a world where your phone does not work. And your bank is a blinking error message. What does that wealth mean?

This isn't about fear-mongering. This is about grow up, America. Maturity. We're long overdue for a serious conversation about self-reliance in this country.

Not the kind you buy in bulk from a website. The kind you live, through community, preparation, clarity, intelligence, critical thinking.

Yes. Have food and water, not because you're afraid. But because you're a responsible human being. Know your neighbors. Not because you're social.

But because you need each other if systems fail.

Understand your rights, because you -- not because you just want to use them. But because you know some day you may have to use them.

I want you to know, this whole message, from him, I believe, and definitely from me. Is not about war. It's not warning you about war or famine or anything else. It's warning you, wake up! Wake up!

Ignore what's happening today, at your own peril. We've spent far too many days and years now, worshiping the screen and the stock ticker and the illusion that problems can be innovated away. But history has a really brutal way of humbling people, and civilizations that trade resilience for comfort. This is a moment that demands discernment.

Are you living in a way that will actually allow I to survive real shocks, or are you like so many people? Including me on many things. Chained to the conveniences that will vanish overnight, if the world sneezes.

Jamie Dimon said it very clearly. Let me just say it again. Bullets over Bitcoin. Tangible over theoretical. Preparation over posturing. The man who runs the most powerful bank in the world, is not hoarding hashtags. He's stockpiling reality.

Shouldn't we all be doing that!