Over the Top Media Coverage on Hurricane Matthew: Your Kids Are Going to Die

October 07, 2016

Writer

It's bad. There's no doubt about it. Hurricane Matthew devastated Haiti and hit the Florida coastline hard --- and it's not over yet. But has the media coverage been responsible?

"There is no doubt this is a deadly, really powerful, very dangerous hurricane. But the coverage so far . . . is it just me?" Co-host Pat Gray asked Friday, filling in for Glenn.

RELATED: More Than 500 Reported Dead as Haiti Starts Long Cleanup After Hurricane Matthew

Reporting at Fox News, Shep Smith had this to say:

This moves 20 miles to the west, and you and everyone you know are dead. All of you. Because you can't survive it. It's not possible unless you're very, very lucky. And your kids die too.

"That is not responsible coverage," Co-host Stu Burguiere responded.

Granted, Smith witnessed and reported on the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, but does that warrant sensational fearmongering?

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these responsible questions:

• What hurricane was two categories higher than Matthew?

• Does Fox News typically cover funeral expenses for citizens?

• Do carton-like threats work better to prevent widespread panic?

• Will Hurricane Matthew be the strongest on record?

• Does climate control prevent hurricanes?

• Did hurricanes occur before people inhabited the U.S.?

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

PAT: Glenn is out today, the Glenn Beck Program. It's Pat, Stu, Jeffy, filling in.

Are you aware that we're all going to die? That's what we heard yesterday on Fox News. We'll start with the media chaos and the insane coverage that is going on, right now.

(music)

PAT: It's the Glenn Beck Program. Pat, Stu, Jeffy.

There is no doubt this is a deadly, really powerful, very dangerous hurricane. But the coverage so far has -- is it just me?

JEFFY: A little strange?

PAT: It's crazy. It is crazy. Listen to this.

SHEP: Over on our wall, a look at the storm track. The forecasters today have expanded the area where the storm may hit.

See this? Melbourne, Daytona Beach, all the way to Jacksonville. This moves 20 miles to the west, and you and everyone you know are dead. All of you. Because you can't survive it.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

SHEP: It's not possible unless you're very, very lucky. And your kids die too.

STU: What? What the hell?

PAT: Is that responsible coverage?

JEFFY: No.

STU: That is not. That is not responsible coverage.

JEFFY: That is not responsible coverage.

PAT: Then there was this.

VOICE: Hugo was, get out.

PAT: Right.

VOICE: As hundreds of thousands of people try to get out of harm's way, I'll speak with somebody who is flatout refusing to leave, and I'll ask her why she's staying and if she expects us to cover her funeral.

STU: What the hell?

PAT: I'm going to guess no, she probably doesn't -- since Fox News doesn't cover a lot of funerals, I would think the answer to that would be no.

JEFFY: No, they do not.

STU: They covered Mandela's funeral.

PAT: Mandela. Maybe Ronald Reagan.

JEFFY: They get Princess Diana?

PAT: Probably.

JEFFY: Probably?

PAT: I don't remember. Probably.

STU: They could have also picked the person in Florida who decided not to leave.

PAT: They could. It's unlikely.

STU: That is weird.

PAT: Wow, that's nutty.

STU: I think there's that element of coverage where they think if they don't scare you, you're going it think, "Eh, that's not that big of a deal."

JEFFY: Yes.

STU: So they, I think, intentionally are telling you thinks that are attempting to scare you. That being said, it actually is a very scary storm.

PAT: It is.

STU: And there is a legitimate amount of panic and preparation that should happen. And "panic" is not the right word. You shouldn't be panicking. But you should be reacting to the danger. The issue is, when you start getting carton-like threats like that, no one takes it seriously.

PAT: I know.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: It's like global warming. They keep telling you you're going to die every nine seconds. And when you don't die, nobody believes it anymore.

PAT: Right. Over on the Weather Channel, more of -- I mean, not quite as bad as Shep Smith. But...

VOICE: This is like no storm in the record books. We are concerned about reports of people deciding to stay in areas under mandatory evacuation orders.

PAT: Now, let me ask you just that. This is like no storm on the record books? Andrew was a Cat 5. It was much stronger than this.

JEFFY: Ever. Yeah, ever..

STU: There's only five categories.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And we all know it's one through five.

PAT: And they're acting like this is a Category 206. There's never been a Category 206 because the scale only goes to five. What are you talking about?

VOICE: This is a mistake. This is not hype. This is not hyperbole.

PAT: Uh-huh.

VOICE: And I am not kidding. I cannot overstate the danger of the storm.

PAT: I think you just did.

VOICE: Central and North Florida have never been hit by a hurricane this strong. If you live in a Florida evacuation zone, you need to head to a safe spot now. Do not assume you can survive if you choose to stay. There will be overwhelming damage and likely a heartbreaking loss of life. Based on everything we know, Matthew will make history. The Weather Channel does not want you to be part of that history.

(music)

JEFFY: Thank you.

PAT: Is it because they haven't had a major hurricane to sink their teeth into, in 11 years in America that this kind of coverage is going on?

JEFFY: Yes. Well, we did have, what, Hermine right up in the armpit of Florida this year, earlier this year.

PAT: Although it was a Category 1.

JEFFY: Yeah. Yeah. And by the time, when it -- it made landfall as a hurricane and then broke apart, you know, almost immediately.

PAT: And, by the way, Hillary said this about Hurricane Hermine.

VOICE: What will I tell my son?

PAT: Oh, that's the other one.

STU: She does do those accent to certain audiences. You can detect it.

PAT: She does.

JEFFY: She does.

HILLARY: Another threat to our country is climate change. 2015 was the hottest year on record.

PAT: Yeah, I've been saying that.

No.

HILLARY: The science is clear.

PAT: The science is not clear. But they keep saying that so you will eventually believe it.

STU: That is --

HILLARY: It is real. It's wreaking havoc on communities across America. Last week's hurricane was another reminder of the devastation that extreme weather can cause. And I send my thoughts and prayers to everyone affected by Hermine.

PAT: Yeah.

HILLARY: But this is not the last one that's going to hit Florida, given what's happening in the climate.

PAT: By the way, it's not the first either, given what's happening in the climate.

STU: I think she's right on that last part though.

PAT: It is not the last that will hit Florida. I'll guarantee you that. It's not -- there's not -- the last hurricane will never happen on this planet because hurricanes happen, and they've always happened. And they'll continue to happen. And they've happened with much more regularity than this.

STU: Because of global warming. Is that --

PAT: No, no.

STU: If you end that --

PAT: Long before global warming. Back in the third century, hurricanes were happening in Florida. Nobody lived there, so we didn't know about it. But hurricanes were happening. In the BC period of time, hurricanes were happening. Was there a lot of global warming, climate change happening at that time?

JEFFY: The media didn't cover it.

PAT: How devastating was Hermine? Because it was a Category 1.

JEFFY: Yeah, Hermine was the first one to hit since '05.

PAT: Since '05. First hurricane.

JEFFY: Technically was a hurricane. And, you know, there was some flooding and stuff. But the aftermath in Florida alone --

PAT: Yeah.

JEFFY: -- in Lee County, crews were deployed to collect plant debris.

PAT: I mean, plant debris.

JEFFY: Hernando County --

STU: You can joke about that, but what does that mean to the plant? The plant -- it hurt the plant quite a bit.

PAT: It means a lot.

JEFFY: Worked in Hernando County before. They provided curbside debris removal, and two parts were closed.

PAT: Two? Is that hyperbole on your part, Jeffy?

(laughter)

STU: I mean, look, there's a big --

JEFFY: I know there was a lot of flooding damage and stuff throughout it.

PAT: Yes.

JEFFY: But it was --

PAT: And I will say, a tree fell on a homeless person and killed him. So they were able then to call it a deadly storm.

STU: Quite a different scale of what we're looking at now.

JEFFY: No kidding.

STU: Haiti, the death toll is up to 478.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

STU: I mean, it's brutal.

JEFFY: So sad.

PAT: But it has nothing to do --

STU: Yeah.

PAT: I can't believe they're making this into climate change. And they are. I can't believe they're making this into a climate change storm. They've had nothing to go on for 11 years.

STU: And, remember, this was the marquis claim of people who believed in global warming and wanted to scare you about it, when Al Gore's movie came out.

PAT: Right. "There's going to be stronger and more frequent hurricanes."

STU: To the point of, on the theatrical poster of An Inconvenient Truth was a giant hurricane.

PAT: Exactly.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: It was their prime time, number one claim. Following that movie, we went 11 years with no hurricanes in Florida. And, you know, nothing --

PAT: And not a single --

STU: This is the first major one.

PAT: Major hurricane in all that time. We've had a few minor ones. A few smaller ones. I think -- the one that hit us before we left Houston, Ike, was a high two or low three.

STU: Yeah, the one thing that everyone will point to is, quote, unquote, Hurricane Sandy, which was not a hurricane.

PAT: Not a hurricane.

STU: Wound up not being a hurricane before it hit. And it was not a wind-situation incident. You had an island there. There was very unique circumstances.

PAT: There was flooding.

STU: Where a storm hits the place where we store all of our tall buildings. So there was a lot of damage that happened there.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: But as far as natural disasters go that could be linked to climate, we've had a really good run there. And this is the point with global warming. It doesn't matter what the run is. It doesn't matter what the past is.

PAT: Not at all.

STU: It's just, what is happening right now? Right now, people are focusing on weather. Therefore, global warming is going to be -- Al Gore is going to be out on the campaign trail for Hillary Clinton. That's what's going to happen. They're going to tell millennials that this is all daddy and grandpa's fault. You know, the people who built your society. Those terrible, terrible people, they're responsible for the .9-degree temperature rise, and they should be blamed for it. And somehow, that means you should vote for Hillary Clinton, which is inexplicable in --

JEFFY: Well, I mean, technically -- I mean, Matthew is wreaking havoc along the east coast. Right now, it's a little north of Cape Canaveral. But technically Matthew has not made landfall.

STU: Right. I thought I heard --

JEFFY: It obviously made landfall in Haiti, when it was cutting across -- you know, when it was coming across the Caribbean and the Bahamas, but not the US.

STU: Right. I thought it did on an island.

JEFFY: Yeah, that's possible.

STU: Yeah, right.

Regardless though, this is a dangerous storm.

JEFFY: Absolutely.

STU: They're saying they believe that the way it's turning -- you know, it's going to be more of a north Florida -- Georgia is going to be the hardest part hit, rather than Southern Florida, which kind of got away with --

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: Which is great. But, I mean, the thing about this is, as you look at these hurricane paths -- you'll see this all the time. They have this -- they're called the spaghetti --

JEFFY: The spaghetti models, yeah, sure.

STU: You'll see the spaghetti models. And it looks like a bunch of lines just drawn on top of each other that all pretty much go generally same way.

JEFFY: They all want to go back east.

STU: And then there's always one or two that shows it turning back and circling South America and then stopping on Hawaii for nine months. You know, there's always that one model that's totally --

JEFFY: There's more than one model showing Matthew doing that now.

STU: Right. There's a couple that -- not that. But something else --

JEFFY: No, but turning back around. Turning back around.

STU: I'm just making a general point about when you look at these models. Because this is the time of when everybody is thinking of them. The spaghetti models, they all shoot up the same way. And then there's always one or two that drifts off that kind of just drifts off in some weird direction.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: With global warming predictions, they have the same modeling. They have the spaghetti model. And all of them shoot up in all of the same direction. And then there's one or two that just kind of straggle around. And there's almost no warming at all. The temperatures are matching those models. It's going the opposite way.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: The crazy, outlying -- the hurricane model that makes it circle around South America and stop over Hawaii for six months, that's the model the temperatures are actually following. And to see that, when we're supposed to be so sure about what's happening with global warming and how there's going to be so certain -- and the science is settled -- we can give you some polling on this. The American people certainly don't think the science is settled, including liberal Democrats. Even they don't buy --

JEFFY: The administration just keeps driving it home.

STU: They just keep saying it. It's like Shep Smith. I guess if you continue to tell people they're going to die, in your mind, you think, well, maybe one person will take it seriously. Maybe somebody out there will listen.

But I think the other side of that is that a lot of people kind of laugh and move on with their lives.

PAT: What happened to their theory -- and I think is fact: Weather is not climate, and climate is not weather.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: Don't confuse a weather event with the climate. Because they always said that to us because they were predicting that there was going to be no more snow. Remember that?

STU: Yeah.

PAT: Every Democrat living today. And especially living back then in the early 2000s, would say, "There's not -- pretty soon, you're going to have to tell your children what snow was. Because we're not going to have any." Really? So every time it snowed, we said, "Well, it's still snowing."

Yeah, don't confuse climate with weather. That's just a weather event. But every weather event now that is severe, whether it's a hurricane, snowstorm, whatever, that is now climate change. Every single one of them proves their point.

STU: Right. Even the snowstorms.

PAT: Even the snowstorms.

STU: Which is amazing. Because you're right. That was their answer to, well, there's a big snowstorm. Eh, it's just the weather. It's got nothing to do with climate. Now, even the snowstorms have to do with climate.

PAT: Talk about science deniers. Oh, man.

Featured Image: Screenshot of Fox News anchor Shep Smith reporting on Hurricane Matthew.

Fort Knox exposed: Is America's gold MISSING?

Christopher Furlong / Staff | Getty Images

President Trump promised that we would get a peek inside Fort Knox, but are we ready for what we might find?

In this new era of radical transparency, the possibility that the Deep State's darkest secrets could be exposed has many desperate for answers to old questions. Recently, Glenn has zeroed in on gold, specifically America's gold reserves, which are supposed to be locked away inside the vaults of Fort Knox. According to the government, there are 147.3 million ounces of gold stored within several small secured rooms that are themselves locked behind a massive 22 ton vault door, but the truth is that no one has officially seen this gold since 1953. An audit is long overdue, and President Trump has already shown interest in the idea.

America's gold reserve has been surrounded by suspicion for the better part of a hundred years. It all started in 1933, when FDR effectively nationalized the United States's private gold stores, forcing Americans to sell their gold to the government. This gold was melted down, forged into bars, and stored in the newly constructed U.S. Bullion Depository building at Fort Knox. By 1941, Fort Knox had held 649.6 million ounces of gold—which, you may have noticed, was 502.3 million ounces more than today. We'll come back to that.

By 1944, World War II was ending, and the Allies began planning how to rebuild Europe. The U.N. held a conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, where the USD was established as the world's reserve currency. This meant that any country (though not U.S. citizens) could exchange the USD for gold at the fixed rate of $35 per ounce. Already, you can see where our gold might have gone.

Jump to the 1960s, where Lyndon B. Johnson was busy digging America into a massive debt hole. Between the Vietnam War and Johnson's "Great Society" project, the U.S. was bleeding cash and printing money to keep up. But now Fort Knox no longer held enough physical gold to cover the $35 an ounce rate promised by the Bretton Woods agreement. France took notice of this weakness and began to redeem hundreds of millions of dollars. In the 70s Nixon staunched this gushing wound by halting foreign nations from redeeming dollars for gold, but this had the adverse effect of ending the gold standard.

This brings us to the present, where inflation is through the roof, no one knows how much gold is actually inside Fort Knox, and someone in America has been buying a LOT of gold. Who is buying this gold? Where is it going and for what purpose? Glenn has a few ideas, and one of them is MUCH better than the other:

The path back to gold

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

One possibility is that all of this gold that has been flooding into America is in preparation for a shift back to a gold-backed, or partial-gold-backed system. The influx of gold corresponds with a comment recently made by Trump's new Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, who said he was going to:

“Monetize the asset side of the U.S. balance sheet for the American people.”

Glenn pointed out that per a 1972 law, the gold in Fort Knox is currently set at a fixed value of $42 an ounce. At the time of this writing, gold was valued at $2,912.09 an ounce, which is more than a 6,800 percent increase. If the U.S. stockpile was revalued to reflect current market prices, it could be used to stabilize the dollar. This could even mean a full, or partial return to the gold standard, depending on the amount of gold currently being imported.

Empty coffers—you will own nothing

Raymond Boyd / Contributor | Getty Images

Unfortunately, Glenn suspects there is another, darker purpose behind the recent gold hubbub.

As mentioned before, the last realaudit of Fort Knox was done under President Eisenhower, in 1953. While the audit passed, a report from the Secretary of the Treasury revealed that a mere 13.6 percent was checked. For the better part of a century, we've had no idea how much gold is present under Fort Knox. After the gold hemorrhage in the 60s, many were suspicious of the status of our gold supply. In the 80s, a wealthy businessman named Edward Durell released over a decade's worth of research that led him to conclude that Fort Knox was all but empty. In short, he claimed that the Federal Reserve had siphoned off all the gold and sold it to Europe.

What would it mean if America's coffers are empty? According to a post by X user Matt Smith that Glenn shared, empty coffers combined with an influx of foreign gold could represent the beginning of a new, controlled economy. We couldstill be headed towards a future where you'll ownnothing.

Glenn: The most important warning of your lifetime—AI is coming for you

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Artificial intelligence isn’t coming. It’s here. The future we once speculated about is no longer science fiction—it’s reality. Every aspect of our lives, from how we work to how we think, is about to change forever. And if you’re not ready for it, you’re already behind. This isn’t just another technological leap. This is the biggest shift humanity has ever faced.

The last call before the singularity

I've been ringing this bell for 30 years. Thirty years warning you about what’s coming. And now, here we are. This isn’t a drill. This isn’t some distant future. It’s happening now. If you don’t understand what’s at stake, you need to wake up—because we have officially crossed the event horizon of artificial intelligence.

What’s an event horizon? It’s the edge of a black hole—the point where you can’t escape, no matter how hard you try. AI is that black hole. The current is too strong. The waterfall is too close. If you haven’t been paying attention, you need to start right now. Because once we reach Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI), there is no turning back.

You’ve heard me talk about this for decades. AI isn’t just a fancy Siri. It isn’t just ChatGPT. We are on the verge of machines that will outthink every human who has ever lived—combined. ASI won’t just process information—it will anticipate, decide, and act faster than any of us can comprehend. It will change everything about our world, about our lives.

And yet, the conversation around AI has been wrong. People think the real dangers are coming later—some distant dystopian nightmare. But we are already in it. We’ve passed the point where AI is just a tool. It’s becoming the master. And the people who don’t learn to use it now—who don’t understand it, who don’t prepare for it—are going to be swallowed whole.

I know what some of you are thinking: "Glenn, you’ve spent years warning us about AI, about how dangerous it is. And now you’re telling us to embrace it?" Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. Because if you don’t use this tool—if you don’t learn to master it—then you will be at its mercy.

This is not an option anymore. This is survival.

How you must prepare—today

I need you to take AI seriously—right now. Not next year, not five years from now. This weekend.

Here’s what I want you to do: Open up one of these AI tools—Grok 3, ChatGPT, anything advanced—and start using it. If you’re a CEO, have it analyze your competitors. If you’re an artist, let it critique your work. If you’re a stay-at-home parent, have it optimize your budget. Ask it questions. Push it to its limits. Learn what it can do—because if you don’t, you will be left behind.

Let me be crystal clear: AI is not your friend. It’s not your partner. It’s not something to trust. AI is a shovel—an extremely powerful shovel, but still just a tool. And if you don’t understand that, you’re in trouble.

We’ve already seen what happens when we surrender to technology without thinking. Social media rewired our brains. Smartphones reshaped our culture. AI will do all that—and more. If you don’t take control now, AI will control you.

Ask yourself: When AI makes decisions for you—when it anticipates your needs before you even know them—at what point do you stop being the one in charge? At what point does AI stop being a tool and start being your master?

And that’s not even the worst of it. The next step—transhumanism—is coming. It will start with good intentions. Elon Musk is already developing implants to help people walk again. And that’s great. But where does it stop? What happens when people start “upgrading” themselves? What happens when people choose to merge with AI?

I know my answer. I won’t cross that line. But you’re going to have to decide for yourself. And if you don’t start preparing now, that decision will be made for you.

The final warning—act now or be left behind

I need you to hear me. This is not optional. This is not something you can ignore. AI is here. And if you don’t act now, you will be lost.

The next 18 months will change everything. People who don’t prepare—who don’t learn to use AI—will be scrambling to catch up. And they won’t catch up. The gap will be too wide. You’ll either be leading, or you’ll be swallowed whole.

So start this weekend. Learn it. Test it. Push it. Master it. Because the people who don’t? They will be the tools.

The decision is yours. But time is running out.

The coming AI economy and the collapse of traditional jobs

Think back to past technological revolutions. The industrial revolution put countless blacksmiths, carriage makers, and farmhands out of business. The internet wiped out entire industries, from travel agencies to brick-and-mortar retail. AI is bigger than all of those combined. This isn’t just about job automation—it’s about job obliteration.

Doctors, lawyers, engineers—people who thought their jobs were untouchable—will find themselves replaced by AI. A machine that can diagnose disease with greater accuracy, draft legal documents in seconds, or design infrastructure faster than an entire team of engineers will be cheaper, faster, and better than human labor. If you’re not preparing for that reality, you’re already falling behind.

What does this mean for you? It means constant adaptation. Every three to five years, you will need to redefine your role, retrain, and retool. The only people who survive this AI revolution will be the ones who understand its capabilities and learn to work with it, not against it.

The moral dilemma: When do you stop being human?

The real danger of AI isn’t just economic—it’s existential. When AI merges with humans, we will face an unprecedented question: At what point do we stop being human?

Think about it. If you implant a neural chip that gives you access to the entire internet in your mind, are you still the same person? If your thoughts are intertwined with AI-generated responses, where do you end and AI begins? This is the future we are hurtling toward, and few people are even asking the right questions.

I’m asking them now. And you should be too. Because that line—between human and machine—is coming fast. You need to decide now where you stand. Because once we cross it, there is no going back.

Final thoughts: Be a leader, not a follower

AI isn’t a passing trend. It’s not a gadget or a convenience. It is the most powerful force humanity has ever created. And if you don’t take the time to understand it now, you will be at its mercy.

This is the defining moment of our time. Will you be a master of AI? Or will you be mastered by it? The choice is yours. But if you wait too long, you won’t have a choice at all.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's Zelenskyy deal falls apart: What happened and what's next?

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump offered Zelenskyy a deal he couldn’t refuse—but Zelenskyy rejected it outright.

Last Friday, President Donald Trump welcomed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Washington to sign a historic agreement aimed at ending the brutal war ravaging Ukraine. Joined by Vice President J.D. Vance, Trump met with Zelenskyy and the press before the leaders were set to retreat behind closed doors to finalize the deal. Acting as a gracious host, Trump opened the meeting by praising Zelenskyy and the bravery of Ukrainian soldiers. He expressed enthusiasm for the proposed agreement, emphasizing its benefits—such as access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals for the U.S.—and publicly pledged continued American aid in exchange.

Zelenskyy, however, didn’t share Trump’s optimism. Throughout the meeting, he interrupted repeatedly and openly criticized both Trump and Vance in front of reporters. Tensions escalated until Vance, visibly frustrated, fired back. The exchange turned the meeting hostile, and by its conclusion, Trump withdrew his offer. Rather than staying in Washington to resolve the conflict, Zelenskyy promptly left for Europe to seek support from the European Union.

As Glenn pointed out, Trump had carefully crafted this deal to benefit all parties, including Russia. Zelenskyy’s rejection was a major misstep.

Trump's generous offer to Zelenskyy

I believe Trump is playing 4-D chess with Zelenskyy. pic.twitter.com/L19RtQdCF6
— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck)
March 3, 2025

Glenn took to his whiteboard—swapping out his usual chalkboard—to break down Trump’s remarkable deal for Zelenskyy. He explained how it aligned with several of Trump’s goals: cutting spending, advancing technology and AI, and restoring America’s position as the dominant world power without military action. The deal would have also benefited the EU by preventing another war, revitalizing their economy, and restoring Europe’s global relevance. Ukraine and Russia would have gained as well, with the war—already claiming over 250,000 lives—finally coming to an end.

The media has portrayed last week’s fiasco as an ambush orchestrated by Trump to humiliate Zelenskyy, but that’s far from the truth. Zelenskyy was only in Washington because he had already rejected the deal twice—first refusing Vice President Vance and then Secretary of State Marco Rubio. It was Zelenskyy who insisted on traveling to America to sign the deal at the White House. If anyone set an ambush, it was him.

The EU can't help Ukraine

JUSTIN TALLIS / Contributor | Getty Images

After clashing with Trump and Vance, Zelenskyy wasted no time leaving D.C. The Ukrainian president should have stayed, apologized to Trump, and signed the deal. Given Trump’s enthusiasm and a later comment on Truth Social—where he wrote, “Zelenskyy can come back when he is ready for peace”—the deal could likely have been revived.

Meanwhile, in London, over a dozen European leaders, joined by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, convened an emergency meeting dubbed the “coalition of the willing” to ensure peace in Ukraine. This coalition emerged as Europe’s response to Trump’s withdrawal from the deal. By the meeting’s end, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a four-point plan to secure Ukrainian independence.

Zelenskyy, however, appears less than confident in the coalition’s plan. Recently, he has shifted his stance toward the U.S., apologizing to Trump and Vance and expressing gratitude for the generous military support America has already provided. Zelenskyy now says he wants to sign Trump’s deal and work under his leadership.

This is shaping up to be another Trump victory.

Glenn: No more money for the war machine, Senator McConnell

Tom Williams / Contributor | Getty Images

Senator McConnell, your call for more Pentagon spending is as tone-deaf as it is reckless. The United States already spends more on its military than the next nine countries combined — over $877 billion in 2023 alone, dwarfing China ($292 billion), Russia ($86 billion), and the entire EU’s collective defense budgets. And yet here you are, clamoring for more, as if throwing cash at an outdated war machine will somehow secure our future.

The world is changing, Senator, and your priorities are stuck in a bygone era.

Aircraft carriers — those floating behemoths you and the Pentagon so dearly love — are relics of the past. In the next real conflict, they’ll be as useless as horses were in World War I. Speaking of which, Europe entered that war with roughly 25 million horses; by 1918, fewer than 10 million remained, slaughtered by machine guns and artillery they couldn’t outrun.

That’s the fate awaiting your precious carriers against modern threats — sunk by hypersonic missiles or swarms of AI-driven drones before they can even launch a jet. The 1950s called, Senator — they want their war plans back.

The future isn’t in steel and jet fuel; it’s in artificial intelligence and artificial superintelligence. Every dollar spent on yesterday’s hardware is a dollar wasted in three years when AI upends everything we know about warfare. Worse, with the Pentagon’s track record, every dollar spent today could balloon into two or three dollars of inflation tomorrow, thanks to the House and Senate’s obscene spending spree.

We’re drowning in $34 trillion of national debt — 128% of GDP, a level unseen since World War II. Annual deficits hit $1.7 trillion in 2023, and interest payments alone are projected to top $1 trillion by 2026.

This isn’t sustainable; it’s a fiscal time bomb.

And yet you want to shovel more taxpayer money into a Pentagon that hasn’t passed a single audit in its history? Six attempts since 2018, six failures — trillions unaccounted for, waste so rampant that it defies comprehension. It’s irresponsible — bordering on criminal — to suggest more spending when the DOD can’t even count the cash it’s got.

The real threat isn’t just from abroad, though those dangers are profound. It’s from within. The call is coming from inside the house, Senator — and not just the House, but the Senate too. Your refusal to adapt is jeopardizing our security more than any foreign adversary.

Look at China’s drone shows — thousands of synchronized lights painting the sky. Now imagine those aren’t fireworks but weaponized drones, each one cheap, precise, and networked by AI. A single swarm could cripple our planes, ships, tanks, and troops before we fire a shot. Ukraine’s drone wars have already shown this reality: $500 drones taking out $10 million tanks. That’s the future staring us down, and we’re still polishing Cold War relics.

Freeze every bloated project.

Redirect everything — every dime, every mind — toward winning the AI/ASI race. That’s the only battlefield that matters. We’ve got enough stockpiles to handle any foreseeable war in the next three years and a president fighting to end conflicts, not start them. Your plea for more spending isn’t just misguided — it’s a betrayal of the American people sinking under debt and inflation while you chase ghosts of wars past.

Or is it even that senator? Perhaps I have buried the lede, but I am not sure if the following stats will help people understand why this op-ed might have been written by someone in your office.

Your state, Kentucky is:

45th in GDP Per Capita
44th in Employment
42nd in High School Diplomas

And 11th in Defense-related defense contract spending

Who are you actually concerned about, Senator? The safety of the American people or your war machine buddies?

Thanks, but no thanks.