Why Is Sean Hannity Mad at Glenn?

On his radio program Tuesday, Sean Hannity expressed his frustration with conservatives who have not boarded the so-called Trump train, specifically accusing Glenn of "attacking" him "every day."

Business Insider reported Hannity saying the following:

RELATED: Behind-the-Scenes Photos of the ‘Contentious’ Meeting with Sean Hannity, Ben Sasse and Glenn Beck

"Well, let me just say to all of you. And that includes the commentator class. That includes the Jonah Goldberg class, that includes radio talk show hosts. Glenn Beck is like on a — it's a holy war for him at this point. I mean, he's off the rails attacking me every day. Blaming me for Trump. Well, no. I was fair to everybody, Glenn. Whether you want to admit it or not. I know I was fair. My conscience is clear. And I, frankly, I'm proud to pull the lever for Donald Trump with a clear conscience.

We checked the radio transcripts and compiled every reference Glenn made to Hannity during the month of August. What we found didn't sound like "attacking" and it certainly wasn't "every day," but we'll let you decide. Here's what Glenn had to say about Hannity all five times his name came up this month:

THURSDAY, AUGUST 11TH

GLENN: All right. I want to go over a little bit of what Sean Hannity said. And I'm actually going to agree with Sean Hannity on a lot of what he said. And he took people on from the G.O.P. that are standing against Donald Trump or at least not supporting Donald Trump. And there are some things that I don't agree, but a lot that I do agree. And I think I have a way where we can all come together, something where both the people who agree with Sean and the people who agree with me can actually come together and protect our country. And it's probably where we should begin to focus. And we'll get into that here in just a second. I don't want to do it an injustice by trying to cram it in here.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

GLENN: Let me go to Sean Hannity and what he said last night, because I actually agree with him on some things. Listen to this monologue.

SEAN: Is it time now for Republicans who refuse to endorse Donald Trump -- are they now sabotaging his campaign? Because if they continue to do what they're doing and Hillary Clinton wins, will they be responsible for supporting Hillary Clinton's radical left-wing agenda?

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Flawed thinking here.

PAT: And it's almost progressive thinking. That's exactly what Obama does: He sets up a straw man argument, and then he sets it on fire. Well, that's...

GLENN: Yeah. I'm not responsible for Hillary Clinton.

PAT: No.

GLENN: We warned --

PAT: We said it all along.

GLENN: We had to beat Hillary Clinton. And we warned -- if we weren't powerful enough to get Ted Cruz to be the nominee, we're certainly not powerful enough to have Donald Trump trailing by 13 points.

PAT: No.

GLENN: I mean, if we had the power of 13 points, Ted Cruz would be the nominee.

STU: You and your math.

GLENN: Yeah, I know. So it's not us. We agree, Sean, with you that Hillary Clinton is a disaster. And the idea that Donald Trump said was, I don't need those constitutionalists. I don't need them. And those are his words.

PAT: He should be talking to Donald. Not us. Not only does he not need them; he said he didn't want them.

GLENN: Right. And that's totally fine. His plan was, I'm going to reach across the aisle, and I'm going to get a lot of Democrats and I'm going to get Bernie Sanders supporters. Well, that's not happening. And one-fifth of the Republican Party doesn't want anything to do with Donald Trump. One-fifth. You cannot win with one-fifth of the Republican Party not saying that they won't vote for you. But his plan, as we said, won't work. His plan from the beginning is, I'm going to win New York. I'm going to win Pennsylvania. I'm going to win a lot of Democrats. Well, that's not happening. Okay. So go ahead.

SEAN: Time to name names. Bill Kristol. Former Governor Mitt Romney. Susan Collins. Jeb Bush. Ted Cruz. Ben Sasse. Lindsey Graham. Meg Whitman. And many, many others. Now, if they keep up their stubborn, their stupid game and continue to lick their wounds, well, this is what they will be responsible for.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. I'm not letting you two talk. (Laughter.) Not letting you two talk.

PAT: Well, again, it's just that, that's not the issue. The issue is not our wounds. The issue is not our feelings. And he knows that.

GLENN: Right. It's our principles.

PAT: And he knows that.

GLENN: And to Sean, I believe our principles are very much the same. He's just going towards those principles in a route that we disagree with. And we're going towards those principles in a route that he disagrees with. And there's nothing wrong with that. We have different ways of getting to our principles. And he -- you know, he knows Donald Trump. I don't. He knows him. He trusts him. I don't think that Sean Hannity is evil or anything else.

He knows him, and he's talked to me several times, and he's like, "Glenn, you're wrong about Donald Trump." And it's not any kind of game he's playing. He's not getting money or anything. He believes Donald Trump. He knows him. I don't. I don't trust him.

But that's just the difference between us. And it's not that we're licking our wounds. It's not. It has nothing to do with that.

SEAN: Give a few examples. Of course that would be the continuation of President Obama's disastrous economic policies. And did any of them happen to listen to Trump's speech?

GLENN: This is where we totally agree.

SEAN: We have the lowest labor participation rate since the '70s. Lowest home ownership rate in 41 years. The worst recovery since the 1940s.

GLENN: He's right.

SEAN: Clinton will simply continue that failed economic agenda of Obama. Enforces Obamacare.

GLENN: Absolutely right.

SEAN: Now, Donald Trump told me last night he will repeal or replace it and have competition. Clinton will keep it.

GLENN: Okay. Stop.

PAT: Donald Trump also told 60 Minutes, he wants -- and he doesn't care if it costs him votes.

STU: And he also said he knows it's not Republican.

PAT: Right.

STU: I want the government to pay for it.

GLENN: So the question is -- and this is, again, where Sean knows Donald and believes him that he's going to repeal and replace with free market. I tend to take a man at his word on 60 Minutes that he's going to repeal and replace with something that is 100 percent socialism.

PAT: He was adamant about it. In September.

GLENN: He was adamant about it. And that is his record of belief throughout his life.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Sean may be right. But I don't know Donald Trump. And a lot of people don't know Donald Trump. And the Donald Trump we do know changes his viewpoint to wherever he happens to be standing. And so that's the difference between us. I don't believe him on this.

SEAN: Open borders. Trump promises a wall. Clinton wants open borders. So which is better for national security and the American worker? Now, the refusal to use the term "radical Islam." Donald Trump will mention it. Liberal Supreme Court justices versus the originalists that Donald Trump has said that he will support. He wants people like Scalia and Clarence Thomas on the bench. On this one issue alone, this will impact this one for generations to come.

GLENN: Absolutely true.

SEAN: Hillary, of course, wants a 550 percent increase in unvetted refugees. Trump promises to vet them all, or else not let them in. Top-down Common Core education. That's failing. Hillary would continue that. We have a dilapidated military. Trump will improve the military and rebuild it. And the list goes on.

PAT: When did our military -- when -- wow, that's --

GLENN: No, we are in trouble. No, we are in trouble with our military.

PAT: Are they dilapidated?

GLENN: No, we are in big trouble. We are in big trouble. He's right on that.

PAT: I would not call our military dilapidated.

GLENN: I will put you in touch with somebody who will tell you exactly what's happened over -- we are in big trouble with our military. So Hannity is absolutely right on those problems. He's absolutely right. I want you to understand clearly, for the record, we've been saying this for over a year -- actually we've been saying this for four years because we knew she was going to be it. But as this went on, this is why we fought so hard -- this is why I endorsed somebody for the very first time. I endorsed the Constitution, not Ted Cruz. I started almost every speech, "I'm not here to endorse Ted Cruz. I am here to endorse the Constitution of the United States." I am telling you now, Hillary Clinton is an absolute unmitigated disaster for the country. Disaster. I happen to believe that Donald Trump, A, cannot nor will he win. I also think he is a very dangerous man that could end up being a bigger disaster for the United States.

So how do we solve this problem? We can either sit here and go back and forth. Sean said that -- he went on in his monologue calling people crybabies, et cetera, et cetera. And I was very offended by that. But I immediately thought, "You know what, I've said things like that about the other side." I have said things and disparaged people on the other side. And I regret it. Shouldn't have done it. So how am I going to point the finger at Sean Hannity and say, "Hey -- no. I did it too. We should stop that. And start to understand that there is one thing that we can come together -- there is one thing I can stand with Sean Hannity on and will stand with Sean Hannity on. And it won't be who to vote for. Although, I have never said, "Do not vote for Donald Trump."

STU: Well, at least not since the end of primary. I mean, certainly --

GLENN: Yeah, during the primary. I have said since the end of the primary, I cannot, but I understand those who do. I really do. I understand why. Because Hillary Clinton is so bad. So I understand that. And I'll never say Sean is not a patriot for doing that. He's doing what he believes is right because we are facing two horrible, horrible options. However, here's where we can unite, the under ticket. If Hillary Clinton is president, the only thing that will have a chance of being a speed bump, not a stop, but a speed bump, will be a Republican Congress. And we know the Republican Congress will unite against Hillary Clinton. We know the press will throw in for her. You need a speed bump. It's not going to solve all of the problems of what she's going to bring, but it will at least slow her down and stop some of them.

So let's unite on the bottom of the ticket. You must go out and vote. Who you vote for at the top of the ticket is your business. Who I vote for is my business. Who Sean does --- his business.

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17TH

GLENN: We have now lost Fox News. We -- Roger Ailes is out. By his own doing, but Roger Ailes is out. And Roger Ailes is now tying his wagon to Donald Trump. Sean Hannity, completely Donald Trump. Drudge Report, completely Donald Trump. Breitbart, completely Donald Trump. Much of talk radio, completely talk Donald Trump. In fact, one big radio network, which will not be named, is telling their hosts throughout the entire country, "You are not to say anything bad about Donald Trump, period." There is an edict. No more. Many of our talk radio programmers are telling their hosts and choking back up on the chain, and they're doing it, I think, because of ratings. But most of them are doing it because they're such strong believers of Donald Trump. There's no diversity. You do not talk ill about Donald Trump. And the Tea Party. Now, not all of the Tea Party. But some of the Tea Party. And if it's some of the Tea Party, all of the Tea Party now has been discredited.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 19TH

GLENN: So let me give you a prediction. If Trump wins, you're going to see Bannon as the chief of staff or the media arm and Breitbart and Breitbart web and radio, I think, will become his official media. He'll just -- you know how the White House now does all of their media and they're not letting the reporters in. They're just doing the media themselves, and you can get the pool feed? But they're producing all of these clips. And the press pushed back on Obama, but not too much because it was Obama. I think he's going to take it a step forward. Roger Ailes, I think, will be, you know, a consultant of some sort. And I think air talent like Sean Hannity, I think Sean will become press secretary. And I mean this sincerely. I think if he wins. Now --

STU: I mean, first of all, Sean would be great at that.

GLENN: No, he would be great.

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24TH

GLENN: Sean Hannity. Let's play what we can of that one. Sean Hannity last night had Donald Trump on, and I want to take your phone calls. 877-727-BECK. And I want to hear from Donald Trump supporters, from people who are voting for Donald Trump, and tell me what you think about . . . he's softening his language on immigration and softening his policy and reversing some of his policy. Here's a little bit of what happened on Hannity last night.

SEAN: And this is where you seem to in the last week be revisiting the issue of sending everybody back that is here illegally. Tell us where you stand on that.

DONALD: We want to follow the laws. You know, we have very strong laws. We have very strong laws in this country. (Laughter.) And I don't know if you know, but Bush and even Obama sends people back. Now, we can be more aggressive in that, but we want to follow the laws. If you start going around trying to make new laws in this country, it's a process that's brutal. We want to follow the laws of the country. And if we follow the laws, we can do what we have to do. (Applause.)

GLENN: Stop. That's incredible.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 25TH

GLENN: Now, here's the interesting place -- I want to play these three phone calls for you this hour and show you where I'm really confused with the Trump support right now. And we have to play some audio from -- that was cut out by Fox from Sean Hannity that shows, I think, how volatile this situation is. And the -- you can hear the volatility in this caller, where we start talking to him about, is Donald Trump betraying you? And he says no.

Featured Image: Fox News Host Sean Hannity speaks during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2016 at National Harbor in Oxon Hill, Maryland, outside Washington, March 4, 2016. (Photo Credit: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.