RADIOJuly 16, 2024

“This Should Have Been Identified”: Security Expert Explains Failures at Trump Rally

It's clear that many things went wrong with security on the day of Trump's near-assassination at his rally in Pennsylvania. "The Secret Service, in my view, is inept," Glenn says. Former Department of Defense intelligence analyst Jason Buttrill, who spent years planning and leading protective details for politicians, stars, and other high-profile people, joins to explains what he believes the biggest failures were. Why weren't law enforcement officers placed on the rooftop the attacker used? Should the Secret Service have shot first? Why has it taken so long for the government to release more information on the killer? And — scariest of all — did he work alone?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. We have Jason Buttrill with us. Who is my chief researcher.

And also, in charge of national security, and -- and -- and global wars and everything else, that we have to look at. He has extensive background in military intelligence. And that's why you know military intelligence was a joke, because Jason was involved in it.

But it was also -- you were never a lead of my detail, right? Of my protective detail?

JASON: I was never the lead, but I was the manager on your detail, and I led many other details in the past.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

So the reason why I'm still alive today, is Jason was not in charge of the detail.

JASON: That's good. That's good.

GLENN: Yeah. But I will tell you, that we have had many dealings with Secret Service. And without getting into any of the details, but I would be running to testify on it, the Secret Service is in my view, inept. It's nothing against the agents or anything. I think the people who run it, they rely on money and technology, and they just don't think.

And we have seen things that could get people killed, quite honestly. We've experienced it, with the Secret Service ourselves.

And I've been warning about this, for a very, very long time.

Now, Jason, you have actually planned events like this with the Secret Service. You have been with major politicians, and done major events, not only with me, but with others. And worked side by side with the Secret Service. How could this have happened?

JASON: I'm glad you had me on today, Glenn. Because I saw a lot of speculation. I think it's important to understand how these things happened.

How did we get to where we got to on Saturday. And I just want to briefly run down.

I will reveal a few tricks of the trade here. I think it's good for crazy people and potential attackers to know this as well, to know how difficult it is.

It should be almost impossible to pull off what happened on Saturday.

But, as you know, Glenn. You've seen this work, an advance team is always sent out. This is copied from the Secret Service level all the way to the governor's protected details. All the way to public officials. Or, you know, personalities like yourself.

But an advance team would go out. Secret Service would go out, weeks in advance. They would go out and set up a multi-tiered security plan. So basically, like let's say you see a president on a rope line. And he's shaking hands.

And, you know, patting people on the back. That's political smoke and mirrors.

Those are not people that just randomly show up. Those are friends, family, highly trusted people that have been vetted. That talks a little bit of the sexiness out, but that's the same way as when Donald Trump is on a stage. The people right in front of him are supposed to be there.

They have been given access. They have a wristband or lanyard. They're wanded. They're checked. They're fully vetted, trusted people right in front of them. There's another tier beyond that.

They're usually high level donors. They're also very, very trusted. Vetted. They've been searched. Then once you get beyond that, there's not a thousand Secret Service agents out there. So they have to delegate to law enforcement officers. Local law enforcement officers, SWAT, just regular beat cops. They designated those areas.

Now, as all this is happening, they also identify further out threats. And they -- they identify sectors of fire. Positions of fire.

Potential sniper positions. Going all the way to like a thousand yards.

130-yard sniper position. Absolutely, which -- which is where this attacker was. Would have been identified.

And there would have been several designated. They would have said, this is alpha position. This is bravo position. Whatever.

They can go through them. So they can quickly address the situation. They would also, in this instruct the witness not to answer plan, have local law enforcement guarding those areas to make sure no one would gain access to those areas. And they would number contact with the Secret Service.

Now, there's multiple different questions here, that need to be asked. As you said in full transparency. Knowing this entire complex plan, A, did the Secret Service designate those sniper positions as they always do, and as they're supposed to?

Now, let's assume they did. The second question. Did law enforcement adequately man those positions?

It does not appear so, on the videos that we have seen.

I mean, we've got tailgaters, basically, screaming at law enforcement. The only thing missing was like a couple of beer cans hanging off their helmets. And they're chugging down beers. That's basically -- hey. Look over there. There's a guy climbing up there. How did no one respond? That breaks the entire plan. There should have been a law enforcement officer or officers watching it.

GLENN: Right. So there's also the fact that when you have a position like that.

First of all, that position, if it was left open.

They keep saying. Well, it wasn't part of the secure perimeter.

It was 130 yards away. You know, when you are on rooftops and sniper positions, you don't have to be on just the building right across the street. You can be watching all of the rooftops, all the way around, that have any kind of angle at that street. So not only should they have somebody there, or at least had a team around. And it looks like they had local police. And I don't know if local police failed.

But they also, when you have a position like that, and, for instance, there's woods in this same venue area.

You always put up something that blocks the view, so you would go up on that roof. And you would say, okay. There is the podium.

So let's put up a big screen. Or a big sign, or something, that blocks that view from that position. They didn't do that either.

PAT: Yeah. To say, as an excuse, that it was outside the secured perimeter, is absolutely ridiculous. I cannot believe someone would say that. I've been at events where Secret Service was there. Where there was a river, hundreds of yards away. But they still had local law enforcement driving Zodiacs up and down the river, because they were worried about potential snipers coming from a boat. That was not inside the perimeter, but that was a potential firing position that they had identified.

Now, that's the key right here. They would have identified all these positions, especially 130 yards, with a clear line of sight to the president. That would have been identified. There would have been a team of law enforcement officers, or should have been, protecting that area. Now, did they leave that -- this is the second question. First question was, did Secret Service identify them? I'm assume they did.

Second question, did law enforcement adequately man those positions? Third, and this is probably the scariest part of the question, was there a law enforcement officer there?

Was there help given to the shooter? Now, this is not a conspiracy theory. It's a question. It needs to be asked. Because we heard people saying, there's the shooter, no one did anything about it.

So they -- look, this has to been done in full transparency. Can you imagine, Glenn? And the JFK assassination. All these weird things that happened. Right?

You have, let's just say, there were cell phones and camera phones. And they were like, again with their beers and helmets. And they're like, look at that. And they're film the grassy nothing like. Look, officer, there are guys at the grassy nothing like. They have fedoras on. They have sniper rifles.

And they're about to shoot. Like, can you imagine, if we had all of this evidence, what would the conspiracy theories be like then? This is what we have right now. We need to ask these questions. It's very, very rational to do so.

GLENN: So we're about to have Dallas Alexander on. Do you know who he is?

JASON: Oh, yeah. Very, very famous sniper here.

GLENN: Yeah. So he's a sniper, and he says, there's no way this happened without help. I don't want to go there. I don't want to believe that.

Because that takes us into an entirely different world.

JASON: Yeah.

GLENN: Do you believe that as a realistic possibility?

JASON: Okay. Okay. I think it is a possibility. There are also the other random possibilities that it was just lackadaisical security, by the local law enforcement, in my opinion. I'm not jabbing law enforcement. But I don't think they make great security guards because they're primarily reactionary.

GLENN: Right.

JASON: The Secret Service aspect of security like that is not reactionary. It's preventing the attack before it happens. The law enforcement, as a security --

GLENN: It's why they -- it's why the shooter, which I don't believe was a Secret Service sniper, may have only shot after shots were fired.

JASON: That's what I mean.

GLENN: Where Secret Service. You're in Secret Service, you have permission. You see a guy with a gun, pointed at the president, shoot him before he shoots.
Where, law enforcement would need the permission to shoot, unless he shot first. Would they not?

JASON: Right. That's exactly right. Secret Service is a different mindset than other law enforcement. Basically, they don't manage a situation with a firearm. If you see a Secret Service with a firearm, it typically means someone is getting shot. Law enforcement is completely different.

But I will not rule out the fact that it could just be very lax security. Maybe they were big Trump fans. Maybe they weren't fans at all. Maybe it was the exact opposite.

And they weren't as vigilant as they could have been, and someone was able to sneak over there. That is possible.

But the most random things in assassinations happen. Who would have known that Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian activist, would have been posing as, or blending in with hotel staff, and would have been in the right place at the right time, and caught RFK going through that private areas. You've been through those areas yourself, in public events? It's chaotic. Who would have known? Things like that happen.

Who would have thought that a crazed Hinckley would have -- looking to gain the support of Jodi Foster. Had no political ideology at all, just was a crazy guy looking to impress a movie star, would have been able to get to Ronald Reagan. These things do happen.

GLENN: So I want to ask you about the things that are being said now about the shooter, that we really don't know who he is.

I don't believe that for a second. If so, what the hell is the CIA and NSA doing with all of the eavesdropping on all of our communications? I don't believe that at all.

And this ruse, this lie, that, well, we just don't know. We don't know anything about him. We don't. You know, it smells of the Nashville shooter. Now, it's still early. But if they don't come out with the full detail on this guy, they're going to lose all credibility.

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

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

Fact-check: The 5 LIES circulating about Charlie Kirk

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

Like Stephen King, really?

You really think that Stephen King.

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

I --

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

GLENN: But it shows how unbelievably isolated you are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay?

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

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

And it was!

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

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

So what changed in those four years?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That Charlie Kirk could say that?

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

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

GLENN: Yes.

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

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

STU: This is true.

GLENN: They rate it absolutely true.

STU: Hmm.

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

STU: Oh. Oh.

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

STU: Hmm.

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Well.

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

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

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

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

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

I mean, that is so incredibly dishonest.

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

STU: This is one I heard a lot.

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

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

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

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

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

That's nonsense.

It's drivel.

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah.

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

He spoke for himself so eloquently.

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

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

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

Sad, unfortunate fact about automobile travel.

That you do have to deal with some automobile accidents.

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

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

STU: It's absolutely true.

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

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

GLENN: No. They did in England.

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

GLENN: There's no murder there.

STU: No violent crimes there.

I keep reading about them. Is that all false?

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

STU: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STU: The guys from the Young Turks.

GLENN: That's what he was saying.

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

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

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

GLENN: Yes. Yes. Yes.

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

They'll act as if I say it.

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

STU: Uh-huh.

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

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

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

GLENN: No.

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

GLENN: Yeah. And there is a problem.

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

And then on tomorrow.

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

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

So just be very careful what you read online.

And don't necessarily repeat everything that you see.

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

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

Watch This FULL Episode of 'Glenn TV' HERE

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And crushing Germany.

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

In theaters. They were called Four Minute Men.

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

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

The government actually encouraged kids to spy on their neighbors.

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

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

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

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

This is Germany.

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

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

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

GLENN: Goebbels.

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

GLENN: Yeah. Goebbels, the douche bag.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay?

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

I want you to think about life during COVID.

What was the goal of the government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So then why -- why was it repealed?

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

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

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

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

Why did we modernize?

Well, because don't you like transparency?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whatever -- whatever you want.

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

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

Download the app today. Use the code Stu.

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

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

Okay?

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

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

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

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

This is a direct descendent from this shift. Okay?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But we have systems in place for that.

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

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

Liberty is gone. Okay?

Now, enter Mike Lee.

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

Right or left.

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

Period.

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

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

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

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

Oh, boy. Dangerous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restore the Smith-Mundt Act.