GLENN: Okay. Let's judge him on his actions, not what we fear. Can we do that?
STU: Of course.
PAT: It's fair.
GLENN: So just on this action, not what we fear -- because what I fear is the same thing you fear: We start putting up trade barriers and we start moving into the things that he's also said he's going to do and we move into the area of tariffs, and we're in real trouble. But he hasn't done that. On this, I think this is a good thing getting out of TPP.
STU: You know, there are risks to it.
GLENN: China will be able to write all the rules. Right.
STU: You know, obviously if our issue is China with trade, now China is going to be writing the rules likely for this entire group of countries, which will be their negotiating starting point for anything going further. Of course, you know, Trump would say that he's going to be able to negotiate better deals. And he may very well -- he might. So to this one, I'm not thrilled in that. But I know I'm in the minority for sure.
GLENN: You happy, Pat?
PAT: Yeah. I think that's a good thing.
GLENN: Reinstating a ban on funding some abortion services. Trump's order yesterday reimposes a ban initiated in 1984 by Reagan on government support for international aid groups that provide or counsel women on abortion services. To receive any US aid, nongovernmental organizations will now have to certify they do not perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning. This ban is called the Global Gag Rule, lifted by Obama after he took office in 2009.
What it doesn't do, it doesn't affect family planning or abortion policy here in the United States.
I think it's a step in the right --
JEFFY: It's a start.
PAT: However, good for -- what the hell are we funding abortions anywhere, but especially foreign countries.
GLENN: Yeah, yeah.
STU: That's an A-plus for me.
PAT: That's huge.
STU: And also, you know, it's been one of those things that every Democrat has not enacted and every Republican has. So Reagan had it on. Then the Clintons took it off. Then Bush put it back on. Then Obama took it off. So this is very consistent with past Republican policy since Reagan. And obviously as somebody who is pro-life, it's important.
GLENN: Third, ordering a government-wide hiring freeze.
Here's what the order does: The Trump administration directed the leaders of all federal agencies and departments to freeze hiring of new personnel. Any vacancies in the federal workforce as of noon on Sunday must remain unfilled, and no new positions may be created, except in limited circumstances, the order stated.
The decision is meant to counter the dramatic expansion of the federal work force since the Clinton administration, from 1.8 million civilian employees, to 2.1 million. The cost in health and retirement benefits are unsustainable, says the administration.
There's, frankly, to some degree been a lack of respect for taxpayer dollars for a long time, says Spicer.
What the order does not do: Military is exempt from the freeze. Each department or agency can also exempt any position that it deems necessary to meet national security or public safety responsibilities.
I think that's good. Just through attrition, you will cut the size of the government down dramatically.
STU: Yeah, I'm certainly a big fan of this one as well.
The left is -- their point is, just so we know, because it's always important to know -- their argument is essentially, of all the things that have expanded during the Obama administration, federal employment hasn't really expanded.
A lot of that is to do with economic collapse and that kind of thing. But he left office about the same employment level federally as he got into office, which is sort of surprising, I think.
GLENN: Really surprising.
STU: Because it did drop initially. And then it has come back up to even. So that's just something to note, if you care.
But, I mean, as a principle, I think it's a good idea. We obviously know the federal government is way too big. And this is -- you're right, a way of doing attrition without having to lay people off constantly and have all those negative headlines
GLENN: And it's hard to fire people.
STU: It's hard to fire people. You don't want to fire good people. When people leave, you don't replace them. And that has to go along with obvious cuts in the structure eventually. But there's enough fat on there that you don't have to think about that for a while.
GLENN: Yeah. Going to turn the federal workers against because how many times have we worked in a company where they just didn't hire replacements, and then you get -- congratulations, no pay increase, you get to do their job too. And you're like, oh, crap. So it's going to be bad on the morale of government workers.
He has announced his intention to renegotiate or withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, with Canada and Mexico.
He is in conversations with Canadian/Mexican leaders. Trump has made clear his intention to renegotiate the deal, though no formal steps have been taken. He has also convened his generals and informed them that they have 30 days to submit a new plan for defeating the Islamic State group.
So these are the -- some of the promises that he made. Remember, he was out and he said, "We're not going to fight this the way -- I'm going to go to the generals, and I'm going to tell them, you scrap what you're doing and come up with something else. I'm going to do that day one." This is where TIME magazine is like, well, he didn't do that.
Well, he's informed them, and he's convened them. And he's telling them that they now have 30 days.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
