It's Here! It's Here! The Senate Health Care Bill Is Here (And It's Just Like Obamacare)

June 22, 2017

WRITER

At long last, the Republican-controlled senate released their version of the health care bill. And it sounds so much better than Obamacare: The Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017. Unfortunately, it's better in name only, as it retains essentially the same framework as Obamacare.

"I am so tired of Washington, D.C., I have to tell you. I have to apologize for, you know, my behavior over the last year and a half when I was fighting for Ted Cruz. You know, I believed that we could fix this country because we could go back to the Constitution. I think you were ahead of me. You knew that Washington, D.C. is so broken that there's no one going back to the Constitution. It's just not going to happen in today's climate. So I apologize for actually believing. You were ahead of me on that," Glenn admitted Thursday on radio.

The details of the senate plan, which prompted Glenn's gloominess, were outlined in a tidy, easy-to-read 148-page summary. Co-host Stu Burguiere gave the Cliff Notes version of the summary, courtesy of Reason:

It is exactly what critics predicted: a bill that, at least in the near term, retains weakened versions of nearly all of Obamacare's core features while fixing few if any of the problems that Republicans say they want to fix. It is Obamacare lite—the health law that Republicans claim to oppose, but less of it. It represents a total failure of Republican policy imagination.
Even more than the House plan, the Senate plan retains the essential structure of Obamacare's individual market reforms. Like the House plan, the Senate plan retains Obamacare's major insurance regulations, including the requirement to cover preexisting conditions at the federal level.

"If this continues, insurance companies will go out of business," Glenn predicted.

So, yay, senate Republicans for putting those big, well-paid brains to use and delivering exactly the opposite of what the American people wanted: A complete repeal of Obamacare.

Listen to this segment, beginning at mark 1:40, from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: You know, I am so tired of Washington, DC. I have to tell you, I -- I think -- I have to apologize for, you know, my behavior over the last year and a half. When I was fighting for Ted Cruz, you know, I believed that we could fix this country because we could refer -- you know, we could go back to the Constitution. I think you were ahead of me. You know that Washington, DC, is so broken, that there's no one going back to the Constitution. It's just not going to happen in today's climate. So I apologize for actually believing. You were ahead of me on that.

Let's look at what's happening with the health care bill.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Health care bill -- and we have to --

PAT: Well, keep in mind, this is Republicans. So they're fixing it. This is going to be -- it's fixed.

JEFFY: Keep in mind, it's the beginning. It's just the beginning.

PAT: It's repeal and replace. And I'll bet you, they've really taken a hard stand here.

GLENN: Keep in mind, we're at 11:08 Eastern Time in the morning, if you happen to listen to this show delayed. So we're just getting the bill. It's just been released. So we're kind of -- Stu is looking at the whole bill. We're looking at the reads of the bill. So we can't give you our opinion quite yet on this. But we will tomorrow.

They have -- they've released the G.O.P. Senate version. The Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017. It looks more than a little like the House bill, which kept most of Obamacare's structure in place. The Senate plan actually looks closer to Obamacare, that is already on the books.

You don't have to be told this. But this is why I'm so sick of Washington, DC. And I apologize to you.

The average plan has -- has risen by 22 percent. By the way, that was last year. The average plan rose in cost by 22 percent.

PAT: Bearing in mind, that this was going to save everybody $2,500 per family, per year. Remember? That was the promise.

GLENN: Yeah. In just the last year. And early reports show large spikes are coming this year as well.

The -- the for-profit health insurance providers -- you know, the people who actually think we need to be able to make money to be able to keep this thing running, have lost so much money, they've either scaled back their participation, or have dropped out entirely. Obamacare is collapsing now. The -- unlike the House plan, the Senate plan does not allow states to apply for a waiver to opt out of those rules. But it does eliminate the health insurance mandate.

Here's Stu to give us -- who has been trying to read this 148-page summary on exactly what it means.

STU: It's pretty -- I mean, it's interesting. Here is -- I like this -- to give you the boildown here to start: It is exactly what critics predicted.

This is from Reason.

A bill that at least in the near-term retains weakened versions of nearly all of Obamacare's core features, while fixing few, if any of the problems that Republicans say they want to fix. It is Obamacare-lite, the health care law that Republicans claim to oppose, but less of it.

It represents a total failure of Republican policy imagination. Here's some of the details of it. Even more than the House plan, the Senate plan --

GLENN: By the way, can I ask -- I heard last night the Republicans are saying they wanted to keep Donald Trump away from this bill because it was so hard to get done, and they just wanted him, because they were afraid he would make a mess of this, that they wanted to keep him away from this bill.

STU: I don't know if that's true.

GLENN: That's what I heard. I saw a report and I saw the actual screen grab of that text coming from a congressman.

And looking at this, how could have anyone made this worse?

STU: He's apparently been lobbying for it. He's -- reportedly was lobbying Rand Paul to try to get him to vote for it. Mike Lee had also been lobbied, reportedly by Ted Cruz on this, to see how he could get down the road. So --

PAT: Does that mean Ted Cruz is for it?

STU: No, that's not been announced. It just was one report.

GLENN: There are four -- I don't know who they are yet, but there are four -- they need all but two Republicans to sign up.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And there are Republicans who said, from what I know so far, I'm not interested, but I'm not ruling it out.

STU: And that's -- look, I think that's -- you shouldn't rule it out yet. Right?

GLENN: No, you shouldn't, until you've read it.

STU: There's lots of debate to happen. The problem is, what usually happens in these debates is the bill gets worse.

GLENN: It gets worse.

STU: But -- so let me give you some more, the actual details of this. Again, this is the new Senate version of the, quote, unquote, repeal and replace bill from Obamacare.

Even more than the House plan, the Senate plan retains the essential structure of Obamacare's individual market reforms. Like the House plan, the Senate plan retains Obamacare's major insurance regulations, including the requirement to cover preexisting conditions at the federal level.

GLENN: Okay. So that's the thing that Chuck Schumer said, it's a very, very sad bill. I'm sorry. Very, very mean bill.

Because they were saying that they wanted to take out preexisting conditions. So you understand -- so your friends understand, the entire thing about insurance is -- and this has been lost through SSI, Social Security Insurance. That's not insurance. That's a guarantee. Health care is not a guarantee. The way insurance works is you're in pools of people, and the bigger the pool, the better. But what do we do? We break those pools up. You cannot cross state lines. So I can't be in a pool with people all across the country.

So what happens? If you're put in the pool, the company is betting that you're not going to get sick, knowing that some people will be born with cerebral palsy, and somebody will have a heart attack, and somebody in their pool will have cancer. But it's not a sure thing.

If I said, "I'm going to cover everyone who has cancer," and you don't have to pay me prior to having cancer, that's a losing proposition. Cancer centers can't do that. The American Cancer Society can't do that. If you want to cover everyone with cancer, then you should demand that the American Cancer Society covers everyone with cancer.

No one can afford to do that.

PAT: And this is why we said at the beginning, if this passes, there's no getting rid of it.

GLENN: No.

PAT: Because once you've given this to people, it's nearly impossible to take it away.

GLENN: You can't take it. And if you wanted to do something, where people had preexisting conditions of some -- something, then you -- and you can't feel like you can't take it away. Okay. Then come up with a government program, which I'm completely against. But I'm not hearing anybody say this. That is outside of the insurance system. Come up with something different for people with preexisting, catastrophic conditions that need help.

Okay. I don't like that. I would never propose that. But that's the way you do it, to protect the insurance for people who have the sniffles and the cold and a broken arm.

What's happening is, people are not -- you have insurance -- and I can't go to the insurance company and say, "Hey, I just broke my arm -- I need to you -- I need you to sign up." No, I'm sorry. You can't sign up once you've broken your arm. But that's what is happening. You don't have to have the insurance. You don't have to pay in. But you're guaranteed, if you have a preexisting condition, to get it.

So I've never paid a dime to an insurance company. I'm not paying in for the pool.

PAT: Why not just wait till you get sick and then sign up? Why not?

GLENN: Right. And I sign up. And then the insurance company has to take you and cover you.

PAT: This is why so many -- so many insurance companies have dropped out of the exchanges. They just can't do it.

GLENN: If this continues, insurance companies will go out of business.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: Now, they signed -- I have no sympathy at all for these insurance companies.

STU: Many of them pushed for this, for Obamacare.

GLENN: Yes. And the biggest ones did.

STU: And, of course, you know, I don't know, could it be because it benefits them in the long-run? I mean, basically what they have designed is a system that legally required people come into their store and buy their product.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: So, of course, obviously you're going down a road here which ends likely in them, you know, getting -- their industry getting money from every single citizen in the country.

GLENN: But it doesn't -- but it doesn't work that way.

STU: It doesn't work here. This is a half step -- again, I don't think any of it works. But insurance companies like it for that reason.

GLENN: Here. Let me explain this outside of insurance. If the NFL said everybody has to --

STU: Uh-oh.

GLENN: Listen to me.

STU: Oh, no. We're going to the sports analogy.

GLENN: No, no, no. We're okay.

STU: Okay. We're okay.

PAT: Danger, Will Robinson. Danger.

GLENN: Everybody has to buy NFL season tickets.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And everybody has to buy it, but the government then said, you have to guarantee that those people who already have season tickets gets season tickets and those are free. Those are -- don't have to worry about it. They pay regular price. You know, and it's a reduced price. But then no one else in the country is buying their season tickets because they didn't want them. And it doesn't matter to them. What the hell is going to happen to the NFL? Now, the NFL is just having to buy all their own tickets? There's no -- they're not making any money. I think they thought, well, if we get everybody in the country to pay, we're going to make tons of money. Nobody is doing it. Nobody is doing it.

STU: Yeah. I hate to step on your point here, which is a good one. And obviously the preexisting conditions argument is something we've had for a long time. However, that argument is completely irrelevant in our society right now. Currently, Obamacare guarantees preexisting conditions. The House bill guarantees preexisting conditions. The Senate bill guarantees preexisting conditions. And the president has said he must have preexisting conditions in any bill that he would support. So it is like there is no one on the other side, outside of nine people in this audience, who actually think insurance is insurance anymore.

GLENN: Right. Right. And so that's the problem. If you want to take preexisting conditions and come up with something that's not insurance, then that's good. Or if you say, all right. We're going to do preexisting conditions -- we as the United States of America believe that no one should have to worry about a catastrophic failure. And, you know what, there's a lot to be said for that. That no one in this country should ever have to lose their house because they have cancer or their kid has cancer and they've lost everything. Okay.

So we as a society step in and say, we're going to take care of you. I don't think that's a wise idea. But it's charitable and it's nice and it makes us feel good. And it is a nice thing to do.

Okay. Great. But that's not insurance. So let's solve that problem. And then, how can we make the insurance that everybody needs really cheap? They're not doing that.

They're not making insurance more cheaply. They're making it much more expensive. This is only going to make things worse and collapse the entire system.

STU: Quickly on this point -- because this is point one of this. This is really not one even one that's being argued about at this point.

GLENN: Argued. Yeah.

STU: It also retains another thing that is in Obamacare, in the House plan, now in the Senate plan, and also something the president wants, which is, you keep your kids on your insurance until they're 26 years old. So the only difference here --

GLENN: How is it my kid is an adult to the government and to the doctors when they're eight, when they can -- when they could get birth control the minute they start to menstruate and have an abortion and they're an adult and they have nothing -- I have nothing to say about that. But they're a kid that I have to continue to pay for until they're 26.

STU: I will add to this, the one difference between the House and the Senate plan is some of these restrictions, under the House plan, gave the option for states to opt out, to get a waiver and opt out of some of these restrictions. Not all. But some.

GLENN: The House plan did, which was awful.

STU: The House plan did. It was already bad. The Senate plan does not give states the option to get a waiver and drop out of some of the more --

GLENN: Can you see if we can get Mike Lee on? See if we can get Mike Lee on. I'd love to hear what he has to say about this bill.

STU: I mean, it just -- you know, it's just coming out, so he may not want to.

GLENN: He may not know. But if he knows about it, maybe we can get him on tomorrow.

[break]

GLENN: All righty.

So we're looking -- so Stu says, "Glenn shut up. You've brought up two things that are not in the bill, and nobody is even arguing for." Okay. So let me ask you this: State lines. Insurance across state lines. Right? That one is in there.

PAT: I mean, that's a no-brainer. That's what everybody thought could make this so much better.

GLENN: Yeah. You're seeing that, right? I mean, Reason and Politico and everybody else.

PAT: So surely that's like point one.

STU: That is not point one. No. Per se.

PAT: Two. Okay. It's two.

GLENN: But it's at least mentioned in all the articles that you've read. I know you haven't read the full bill yet.

STU: Right. No.

GLENN: No. It's -- wait.

STU: No.

PAT: Where is it then? Okay. It's not in the first one or two --

GLENN: It's not in any articles about it.

STU: No.

So it's interesting in that --

PAT: It's hard to believe they can't even do that, isn't it?

STU: I just don't know.

GLENN: No. No. No. Hang on.

May I have an intervention? It's time for an intervention.

STU: I agree with that. I mean, it might not be the same kind of intervention you're talking about.

GLENN: You're referring to like having one with me.

STU: No. I would not.

GLENN: Okay. I think it's time for an intervention on Pat. He's like, it's crazy that they couldn't even get that done.

Stop it. Let go of that silly belief that these people will do the right thing. Stop it, Pat. It's harmful to you, your family, your relationships. Our relationship. The country.

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Give up on that belief.

PAT: Give up all hope in our government. In our government.

GLENN: In our government. All hope.

PAT: Okay.

JEFFY: I mean, people are already giving up hope on the feed: If health care costs continue to rise, they're going to have to start selling face cream.

STU: Sure.

JEFFY: So they're worried.

GLENN: Joanna Gaines is already doing it. She's doing it.

STU: No, she's not.

GLENN: Right.

STU: I actually got an email from someone, very beginning of the sort of Trump administration, from a person who was a big Trump skeptic. Did not like Trump at all.

And they said, oh, my gosh -- when these first reports were coming out -- oh, my gosh, they're going to repeal Obamacare. I can't believe this. I did not think this would happen.

Yeah, this is where we are now. Just a few months later, I mean, all of that -- even the hope I think from almost everyone on the conservative side looking at these bills is dead. Now, you hope maybe you get the individual mandate and a few of the taxes gone. And you say, "Hey, celebrate. We backed off ten on the horrible scale to a 9.5." That's all we're hoping for. That's the only thing we're even wishing for out of this bill anymore. And that is really where we are. If what you hope for is a small government and a free market and a conservative platform, you're not even hoping anymore for something good. You're hoping to take a ten and reverse it a little bit to an eight or a nine.

GLENN: I'm hoping that they don't torture me before they shoot me in the head.

STU: Okay. All right.

(laughter)

GLENN: That's kind of where we are. Just, will you just kill me quickly?

PAT: No.

GLENN: Or do you have to torture me too? Back in just a second.

(OUT AT 10:32AM)

GLENN: All right. Let's -- let's go to the health care bill. We're going to give you the full rundown of this tomorrow, what it means. And then we'll hopefully talk to a couple of Senate leaders on it tomorrow. This just came out about an hour ago, so we haven't read the entire bill yet. We're trying to scan it as we go in between the breaks. Stu has a couple of updates. And then we're going to move on to something else that is happening, the border wall.

STU: Okay. So we know one of the big complaints about the House bill, was it's going to create all this instability. Some people are going to drop off insurance. Blah, blah, blah.

The way the Senate bill attempts to manage that is by buying off health insurance companies with payments Republicans previously argued were illegal and should be stopped. They're called CSR payments. Cost-sharing reduction payments. They're subsidies due to insurers through 2019. It authorizes those and back payments of those subsidies that insurers have not received. On this front, it's actually an expansion of Obamacare.

GLENN: So wait. So we're paying our tax dollars, and we're giving subsidies to insurance programs?

STU: Right. Yeah. To insurance companies to make it essentially worth their while, to reduce their cost.

GLENN: How about my freaking 21 percent increase that I paid last year as being their incentive? Jeez.

STU: Now, to give Trump some credit here, these are the payments that he, in particular, was talking -- at least had been floated in the media that Trump was talking about, withholding these payments to the insurance companies, which basically would make the entire individual market fall apart. And so this is the Senate saying, no, not only are we going to do them, we're going to give them back payments, which is actually going to give them more money and actually expand Obamacare slightly on that.

PAT: Jeez. Jeez.

GLENN: So we know that the insurance company lobby got their chit in.

STU: Yeah, they got their stuff in.

So --

GLENN: I did say C-H.

STU: I assumed you didn't just swear in that --

GLENN: Yeah. I just saw -- I just saw kind of everybody look at each other. And I'm like, no, I just want to make sure.

PAT: I was trying to think, what was that word exactly?

STU: Yes, they got their stuff.

So this is probably -- if you want the clearest example as to what the G.O.P. Senate health care bill does -- if you just want to understand it with one little function, it's this: The House version of the repeal provided free money to people for health care, as does Obamacare. They did it based on age. The Senate bill does it based on income, which is the exact same way Obamacare does it. Here's the difference, however. Again, this is what I'm talking about, the difference of these plans. Obamacare gave free money to people up to $98,000 a year in salary. Okay. That's Obamacare.

PAT: All right.

STU: $98,000 a year.

PAT: You get free money up to 98,000. Okay?

STU: Yes. The Senate bill will give free money to people for health care, up to $86,000 a year.

GLENN: Wait. What?

STU: So that's the difference. It is -- instead of 98,000, they're making it 86,000.

GLENN: So wait. That's more money than --

STU: No. Why do I -- why do I use numbers? Why do I even use them? Why even say them out loud?

GLENN: Wait. So wait.

STU: If you earn up to $86,000 a year, under the G.O.P. plan, you'll get free money. Under Obamacare, it was 98,000. So it is a slight tiny, teeny roll back of what this was.

GLENN: Got it. Got it. Got it.

STU: And if you want to look at it easily -- you know, if what we had in 2008 was a zero and Obamacare was a ten, as far as where these plans are --

GLENN: This is a nine and a half.

STU: This is -- let's say the health -- the House plan was an eight, and this is a nine. Right?

GLENN: Which is exactly what we said it would be.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: We said it would go to the Senate and it would get worse. And everybody said, "No, no, it's going to get better."

JEFFY: Just the beginning. We're working through this one.

GLENN: Okay. All right. Okay.

STU: So there you go. You want a basic understanding. We'll get into more --

PAT: But it does two good things that we know of, right? It removes the individual mandate.

STU: Which to me -- and I've said this before many times.

PAT: Which is good.

STU: I believe is the most offensive part of Obamacare. The individual mandate.

PAT: Well, it is. It's unconstitutional.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: I maintain that regardless of what the Supreme Court says.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: But the individual mandate is the only thing that makes this work, supposedly.

STU: I don't know. You could argue that. You know, one person who argued the opposite of that was Barack Obama in the campaign. He said you didn't need an individual mandate. If you wanted an individual mandate, you could just --

PAT: Make people buy homes, and you won't have homeless.

STU: Have people buy homes, and there would be no homelessness. I mean, he used to mock that idea. But you're right, I mean, there is a function of it, to force people and gather all their money through tax penalties to pay for this nonsense.

GLENN: Is the Cadillac tax gone?

STU: The Cadillac tax, I have not read that on this particular bill. The House bill pushed it out, but did not remove it.

GLENN: Okay. That's craziness. How can you continue -- look, as a businessman, I cannot run my business and plan for the future when I don't know what the government is going to cost me next year or the year after or the year after that.

STU: I know.

GLENN: I have to have a stable environment to be able to run my business.

STU: And so much of this is just bookkeeping, figuring. Right?

GLENN: No. You know what it is? It's not only bookkeeping, figuring, it's also, when is the next election that we need to be the savior of the world?

STU: Exactly. For example, the Medicaid. What they're doing with Medicaid is they're slowly rolling back the Medicaid. And they're cutting it deeply. Deep cuts to this Medicaid program. And that's one of the things that the Democrats are going to say about it.

However, it pushes those cuts so far out in the future, but still within the ten-year frame. The ten-year frame is important because that's how they score these CBO bills.

So when they're -- they have to do this to get reconciliation to work. So what they're doing is, they're telling you, you know what, we're going to cut Medicaid by 900 percent, we promise, in 2026.

We all know that is not going to occur. When it comes down to 2026, they're going to just change it and start spending that money again. So it is not even real. The savings here is not even real. They're obviously going to change that later on, as they've done many times before or on both sides of the aisle.

Trump's 3 BIGGEST border victories

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

The Southern Border is healing!

Just hours after his inauguration on January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border. A little over a month later, the tide of migrants pouring into the United States has been significantly stemmed. Trump is delivering on his major campaign promises: stopping illegal crossings, rolling back Biden-era border policies, and using every available resource to fortify the border against future challenges.

In his recent congressional speech, Trump highlighted these border security successes—achievements often overshadowed by the flood of other news stories this past month. To spotlight this monumental progress, we’ve compiled a list of Trump’s three most significant border victories.

1. Significantly reduced border encounters

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

When Trump took office, it was clear—the sheriff was back in town. According to the Department of Homeland Security, daily border encounters have plummeted by 93 percent since his inauguration. Meanwhile, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has ramped up its efforts: in the past month alone, ICE doubled arrests of criminal aliens and tripled apprehensions of fugitives at large. This dramatic shift stems from reinstating strict border policies, restoring common-sense enforcement, and unleashing the full capabilities of ICE and Border Patrol.

2. Major policy changes

John Moore / Staff | Getty Images

President Trump has also made sweeping strides in border policy. He reinstated the “Remain in Mexico” policy, requiring immigrants to wait in Mexico during their immigration proceedings instead of being released into the U.S. He also terminated the controversial “catch and release” practice, which had allowed millions of illegal immigrants to stay in the country pending court dates. Additionally, Trump signed the Laken Riley Act, mandating detention for all illegal immigrants accused of serious crimes.

Another key victory was designating cartels like MS-13 and Tren de Aragua as terrorist organizations. This classification empowers law enforcement and border agencies to tackle these ruthless gangs with the seriousness and resources they demand.

3. Deployed major muscle

John Moore / Staff | Getty Images

Trump is doubling down on border security—and he’s not holding back. He deployed 1,500 U.S. troops to secure the southern border and restarted construction of the border wall. Among the forces sent is a Stryker Brigade, a rapid-response, high-tech mechanized infantry unit equipped with armored ground and air vehicles. This brigade’s mobility and long-range capabilities make it ideal for patrolling the rugged, remote stretches of the border.

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's Show Prep