RADIOMarch 05, 2025

Why Trump MUST PREPARE for AI to TRANSFORM Warfare

Artificial intelligence, especially once it hits ASI, will change the world as we know it, including warfare. So, why is the Pentagon investing so much in designing new weapons when AI will make everything obsolete in the blink of an eye? Glenn makes the case that there are smarter things for the Trump administration to invest in to prepare for the AI revolution that’s right around the corner.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Who creates jobs. What's happening with the economy. We will get into that here in a second. But Stu, when we went off the air here, in the commercial break, he was like, I don't know if I agree with you on what I'm saying is, freeze all of the big spending. Do not start any new airplane design at the Pentagon that is a ten-year contract. That most likely will be a waste of money!

Because AGI and ASI is coming! And that will change everything. It will change warfare. Just will!

Drones, five help you dollars each, have already changed warfare. We have to be preparing for the future. And that future is much more nimble, much smaller, and I have a feeling, much cheaper.

STU: Are you concerned about a bridge here, though? We don't know when this is coming, we don't know how it's going to develop. We don't know what it will look like. No one does.

So, you know, we still need the best planes while planes are important.

GLENN: Right. But you don't need to start any new. Fix what we have. You know, finish what you've got in production.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But you don't need to sit down and okay a new design for a new fighter jet.

STU: It's a big bet though. You are making a big bet on ASI and AGI with no backup plan. Why wouldn't you still want to have the best planes in your arsenal?

GLENN: I think, you know, look, let's look at it this way. Our generation's Manhattan project is AI, ASI.

Back with when FDR was convinced by Einstein. He didn't believe it could happen.

And Einstein came in and said, listen. I'm from Germany. They will do it! And so he convinced him. Go ahead. Build this bomb.

It was magical.

Nobody knew that we could even get there.

You know, we could split the Atom, but what does that mean? Can we actually make a bomb that can work? We put everything we had into it, and we continued to build planes and everything else. Because we were currently fighting a war. And we didn't know if that would happen. Up until the very last moment, when they said, dear God, what have we done?

Okay? This yen radiation, it's going to end the same way. In three to five years. Except, this time, we know it's going to happen. Almost everybody who was a naysayer on ASI, almost all of them are now saying, oh, dear God. Yes. It's coming. And it's coming much faster than we thought.

It will be here by 2030. Most likely, it will be here in the next three years. Now, if that time continues to collapse, I mean, just in the last five years, it's gone from 2050, maybe.

To now 2028, 2029.

If that continues to collapse like that. We're -- we're at the event horizon of the singularity. So we know it's going to happen.

Our job is to just bridge the gap as much as possible. But don't build things that we don't know are -- here's what -- here's what our Pentagon should be doing right now.

Building nuclear power plants. Our army Corps of Engineers should be building those little teeny nuclear power plants. Build as many as they possibly can. You don't even to have start them up yet.

Just have them ready to go. So when the server farms are ready. When everything. When AI is there, we can power it.

We won't have the power to be able to have ASI think and affect. We have to start thinking towards the future. Not what's the next generation of fighter jet look like?

There ain't going to be one, attitude. There's just not. At least with a person in it.

STU: Right. Because it will still have -- I mean, AI will probably come up with something that flies.

GLENN: Yeah. It will be hypersonic. It might even be of a new material.

Here's what people don't understand.

ASI will look at the period okay table of elements. And say, guys, shuffle the deck this way. And you have a material that will go 900 miles an hour. It will hold up under the heat and the friction. It won't bend.

It's perfect!

And it's only a quarter of the weight!

And, by the way, here's the formula. And you don't to give and test it for two years. It's correct! Do it!

I mean, that's how fast things are going to happen, once they start happening. And, Stu, this scares the hell out of me. Because you know how I feel about AI.

STU: Yeah, I was going to ask you, because AI obviously has a lot of potential negative consequences. And if we're putting the government. The military in control of that. Does that scare you?

GLENN: No. I'm not saying that we put the government in control of it.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: We have to balance all of this. But the government is already involved in it.

I'm saying, let the government build like power plants. Build the things that we know the country is going need to, the infrastructure, to be able to handle this.

Build the things that we say, we've got it, we can turn it opposite

STU: Yeah. Get prepared for whatever is coming here. I think, I guess, I'm concerned. This is from a guy I have talked to for 20 years, who continually repeats the phrase. I'm always wrong about timing. I'm concerned about that bridge period.

Because I think you're probably coming. It is coming really, really fast. But if something happens. If something goes off course.

You don't know. We need to be prepared for that bridge period.

PAT: How do we spend 877 billion dollars every single year, every year, China spends 200 some billion dollars every year.

And it's that close? If it's that close, you know, we have other problems.

STU: You're just saying, we should sort of rest on our laurels a little bit and just say, hey, we already have the best technology. We already have the best military. Let's not try to develop new things until this AI thing comes.

GLENN: Right. They're developing new stuff as well. Great. Great.

Let's give some time to AI. Let's not double our work. Let's not spend money, now on things that most likely. Don't build another aircraft carrier. Don't design another F57. Tonight do it. It's not going to. You have no idea what's coming!

Fix the stuff we have.

Make sure we have the amnesty. Make sure we have the latest and the greatest, that's already here! Don't do R&D on that stuff.

Don't do it!

And, by the way, you can't tell me, that again, $900 billion overlet's say 250. Or let's say 300 for China.

Okay. We spend three times the amount every year. And we're not competitive?

I don't believe that. And if it is, everybody in the Pentagon should go to jail.

STU: I do think, we're certainly competitive.

GLENN: Of course, we are.

STU: To me, I think there's a lot of bolder projects. There's a bunch of crap in our military.

That tough is our higher priority target, let's put it that way. Then eliminating potential limitations in these fields.

Even though, I know what you're saying. They might be obsolete in a few years.

GLENN: And you will to have come in front of a committee, that is like filled with Elon Musks. And say, here's the pitch!

I don't want the decision to be made by the senators or the generals at this point.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Here's the pitch. Here's why we think this fits with tomorrow's technology.

STU: And they won't be in an adviser role. But we do have a system of government to follow.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. But they should be the ones saying, don't do that, Senator. Don't do that. That's stupid. If they want to do that. We'll vote them out.

We will all know which ones are doing it. Because they're funneling money to their friends.

STU: Part of this comes to the way I think about government spending. Government spending is always worse than the private sector.

GLENN: Huh.

STU: Which is a very basic conservative point. Right?

I think though, the one time, that you -- obviously, constitutionally, you have certain powers, the government spends.

Defense is one of them.

That they will typically be responsible for.

The way I look at it, is government can do some things relatively well.

If you don't care about efficiency. Businesses do. Right?

So they will -- they will not take certain risks, that, you know, have a low percentage chance of paying off.

And the idea that maybe you come up a nuclear bomb.

And you're able to stop global wars for multiple decades.

You know, a private company. You know, like -- very -- certainly, they shouldn't be coming with nuclear bombs. You know what I'm saying. That type of risk. That type of expenditure. That will likely fail. Is the type of thing that the government can take on.

Because when you don't care about efficiency. When you don't care about. Hey, we tried 25 things. Twenty-four of them failed. That's okay.

GLENN: Look. Private industry should be doing this, leading this. But the government is already in bed. DARPA is already doing this. The CIA is the one who helped fund the Silicon Valley in the 1960s. Please, let's get over our little illusion, that they're not involved in any of this.

Let me give you an example, on something the president I hope will talk about tonight: The private sector versus big government and Biden spending spree. What Trump is doing, and what Biden did.

The president has been in for 40 days. I've never seen anything like this, in 40 days.

So he's been in office for 40 days. And the numbers he's bringing into the economy, are staggering. Yesterday.

Taiwan, semi conductors. Which is the greatest news you could possibly hear, if you understand what this means. Taiwan makes all of the best semi conductors and super conductors. And they're dropping $100 billion to build chip factories here in America. Apple, 500 billion over four years, to crank up its manufacturing.

Think Texas server plants, not sweatshops.

SoftBank is in for 100 billion on AI. UAE is tossing 20 billion into data centers. That's $700 billion in private sector commitments. Now, some people are saying that it's as high as 1.7 trillion.

But I can't track those numbers, and get -- I can get a lot of rumors. A lot of, yeah, maybe.

But I don't have -- this is real. This is almost a trillion dollars. Remember, our -- the investment for Barack Obama, the reinvestment act. Was 787 billion. This is 720 billion. All coming, want from tax dollars. Not coming from government IOUs. But real money from companies all over the world. That are betting on America.

This number, like I said, can be verified. And they're not handouts.

Now, just the investment from TCMC, could mean 40,000 construction jobs.

And 6,000 high-tech gigs. Apple, thousands.

This is the private sector.

Not because Uncle Sam wrote a check. But because Trump demanded the same rules on tariffs, for everyone.

We're going to charge you, what you charge us!

That is fair on any playground, anywhere in the world!

And then he sweetened the deal by cutting the red tape and the tax advantages that no other country will offer. And said, build it here.

Bring those jobs here.

We're a stable country. We're the future.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

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

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

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Whitney Webb HERE

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

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

The most INSANE Deep State story you've never heard

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

STU: Hmm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I mean, an enormous flagpole.

I love the flag. I love it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Good. I know.

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

GLENN: Oh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Wow!

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: What was their thinking?

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

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

And correct the ProPublica story, would you?

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

GLENN: Yes.

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

This has nothing to do with -- with DOGE.

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

And somebody who has made a lot of enemies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When it's in the State Department.

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

It's out of control!

It's just completely out of control.

And who is overseeing all of that.

DARREN: That's a great question.

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

A fourth of its money came from USAID.

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

So there are many layers of distance. Plausible deniability.

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Good. Good.

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

So within the next couple of weeks.

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

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

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