Rep. Thomas Massie tells Glenn who he can and can't trust

Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie came onto Glenn's radio program Thursday to share his disgust with Glenn on the recent endorsement of Paul Ryan for Speaker of the House.

"I'm disappointed that my colleagues in the Freedom Caucus expressed support for Paul Ryan instead of Daniel Webster," Massie said before pointing out he is not a member of the Freedom Caucus himself.

Glenn said, "Good, so you have nothing to lose. Give me the names of the members of the Freedom Caucus that you were surprised who just buckled."

Instead of naming names, Massie said, "I don't even want you to trust me. What I want you to do is look at who voted against John Boehner on January 6th. Compare that to the list of people today making noise."

He went on.

"There were only five of us actually who supported the motion to vacate the Speaker. And then, this is most important, Glenn, on October 29th, there will be a vote in front of C-SPAN and God and country, where every member of Congress has to stand up and say who they're voting for, for Speaker. Pay attention," Massie said. "That day they have to choose between you or the establishment."

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below.

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

GLENN: I said on Facebook last night, I'm going to hold off as long as I can because I'm too angry and it's not going to get any better. So let me just see Freedom Caucus. You asked us to kick out the Speaker of the House, John Boehner. You then asked us to do our homework on Daniel Webster. That's the guy you need. Which we did. We did. You actually said to me -- members of the Freedom Caucus actually said to me, "Glenn, you've got to go on the air and ask for this tool. We need this tool." And I said, "I'll give you any tool that you need, me personally. But I don't know how I convince people -- he's -- he's not the guy."

"No, no, no, you don't know. It's the system that matters; otherwise, if we get in -- and this is a damn quote. "If we get in another John Boehner, the party will be lost, we will probably lose the presidency." You remember that, Pat?

PAT: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: This was in a private meeting. So I spent a week talking to members of the Freedom Caucus, the Liberty Caucus, the Tea Party Caucus, calling all these guys up and saying, "Really? Because I got one shot at this. You want me to put my name on Daniel Webster and me to tell the audience -- A, you better be damn sure that he's right. Because I got one shot at it. I betray my audience and put somebody up there and ask them to back him and he turns out to be the wrong guy, then my credibility is shot." And I've never done this before. I've never ever had the guys from the Freedom Caucus, Liberty Caucus, Tea Party Caucus -- they have never ever come to me and said, "Hey, we really want this." And then I've never ever said, "Yes, I'll help you do that." Never. But because this is so important and they made such a big deal out of it: "We'll lose not only the election, we could lose the country. We could lose everything. The whole thing rides on who the Speaker of the House is." That's what I was told by many members. And then they come and they say, "Oh, we're for Paul Ryan." I will give you at the top of the hour, my list of why Paul Ryan is not the guy.

But I personally feel betrayed by the Freedom Caucus. I personally feel betrayed by many members of Congress who asked for your help and asked me to carry water for them. And I got news for you, every single last one of you bums in Congress, I'm done with you. Never again will I help you. Never again.

Now, I want to hear -- I want to hear exactly what you were thinking. Of course, they won't come on. We have Thomas Massie who is waiting. Thomas Massie -- please dear God, Thomas, tell me that you didn't vote for this guy, right?

THOMAS: I did not vote for this guy. I'm not going to vote for this guy. Look, if Paul Ryan would promote the right ideas and a fair process, I could support him, but he doesn't have a history of doing that. Daniel Webster does. I'm supporting Daniel Webster. I'm disappointed that my colleagues in the Freedom Caucus expressed support for Paul Ryan instead of Daniel Webster. I am not a member of the Freedom Caucus.

GLENN: Good. So you have nothing to lose. Give me the names of the members of the Freedom Caucus that you were surprised who just buckled.

(laughter)

THOMAS: You know what, the people here in Washington, DC, are experts at telling you what you want to hear.

GLENN: I know. So tell me the things that you don't want to say. Give me the names of the people so the American people know exactly who these guys are.

THOMAS: You can't trust Sam -- I don't even want you to trust me. What I want you to do is look at who voted against John Boehner on January 6th. Compare that to the list of people today making noise. Look at the five men who were on the motion to vacate. They were only five of us actually who supported the motion to vacate the Speaker. And then, this is most important, Glenn, on October 29th, there will be a vote in front of C-SPAN and God and country, where every member of Congress has to stand up and say who they're voting for, for Speaker. Pay attention. Your listeners need to pay attention because there are people saying that they are something they are not. But that day they have to choose between you or the establishment.

GLENN: I will tell you, Thomas. I don't know how you do it. I don't know how you do it. Last night, I couldn't -- I couldn't -- I couldn't even sleep last night. I was so angry with these guys. I feel -- and, you know what, if you read my Facebook page, you read Pat's Facebook page --

THOMAS: I read it.

GLENN: You see, everybody is saying the same thing. I'm betrayed. I am absolutely betrayed.

PAT: They're pissed. I'm done. I won't make another phone call. All of that kind of stuff.

GLENN: All these guys -- and, you know what, Thomas, I'm sorry, but you're going to be swept up into it. You guys who didn't do it, you've got to stand up. I will make room for you guys, the good guys, on the show. Anyone who stands up. I need a list of the people who did it, and the list of the people who didn't do it. Because if you're not known, you're going to be swept up into it as well.

THOMAS: Here's what I recommend, Glenn, there are five men that put their names and careers on the line to sponsor the motion to vacate.

GLENN: Give me the five names.

THOMAS: Louie Gohmert. Myself, Thomas Massie. Ted Yoho. Mark Meadows, of course, was the primary sponsor. And Walter Jones. Now, we were the five who moved to vacate the chair before this was popular. We were the ones that put our careers on the line.

My wife actually asked me if I felt like I was in physical danger when I did that.

PAT: Wow.

THOMAS: Those are the five you can trust. Everybody else has got to speak for their vote on October 29th when they either vote to maintain the status quo or they vote for something different.

PAT: Thomas, it must be even worse in Washington than I believe it to be when you -- your vote places you in peril or at least your wife is concerned that that might be the case. That's pretty amazing.

THOMAS: These are big numbers, and these are powerful people up here. There's a lot of money at stake. There's a lot riding on this. And I don't want to go into conspiracy theories. I am not worried. I'm not physically worried. I think I'll be fine. If they wanted to ruin me, they would probably put something on my hard drive or set me up in some way and try to ruin me politically. I don't think there's any kind of physical danger here myself.

PAT: Yeah.

THOMAS: But keep this in mind, my colleagues that I work with, they are soft mammals with chemical reactions going on in their brains and they're walking around with voting cards, and you can't trust any of them.

(laughter)

PAT: That's for sure.

GLENN: Okay. So, Thomas, I'm going to ask people to call Congress today and tell them, "We're done." Will that make any difference at all?

THOMAS: It's like they're trying to put -- the establishment has found another cork to put on the bottle, and that's just going to build more pressure. We'll have more Donald Trumps empowered out there. I mean, he's a function -- he is the result of Congress' inaction, dysfunction, and unwillingness to listen.

GLENN: Yep. Yep.

THOMAS: People are so fed up, they're willing to back this guy. And it scares the heck out of me. I'm here in the middle of this, and I am trying to battle to do the right thing. I can't tell you how frustrated I am, Glenn. I am -- I am at least as frustrated as you are. I have to look these folks in the eye today and say --

GLENN: You know what, Thomas, you did what you said you would do.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I know I said it to you. I said it to everybody I spoke to. Everybody who was saying, "No, we really need -- we really need -- those lying sons of bitches looked me in the eye and said to me, "Not really -- because do you remember me saying, "Look, I'll help you in any way I can. I can only do so much. I'll carry that water. Are you sure? Because I got one shot at this. I won't have any credibility left if you guys -- if this isn't the guy or if it -- do you remember me saying that to you?

THOMAS: I remember very precisely. And that's exactly what you said, Glenn.

GLENN: Right. So I feel really deeply betrayed by anyone who came to me and then -- and now they're like, "Well, you know, Paul Ryan, we can't really win." How dare you do that! How dare you do that! Thank you, Thomas, for at least being -- because I -- you know, I talked to you yesterday and you're like, "No, there's no way I'm going to vote for -- and I thought last night, I'm like, "Please, dear God, don't let Thomas be one of the guys who has done this." I'm so happy to hear that you stood your ground.

THOMAS: You can trust me. Look at the track record. This is what I encourage people. Don't -- people want to associate themselves with the caucus. I never did associate with the Freedom Caucus. Never been to a meeting. I'm not throwing them under the bus. What I am saying is, there are 40 individuals, and you need to look at each of those individuals. And what did they do on January 6th, when we stood firm and voted for a new Speaker? How many of them cosponsored the motion to vacate the chair? Not many. And look at what they do on October 29th. That's the most important thing you can do.

GLENN: Okay. So the biggest thing we can learn is the Freedom Caucus is nothing more than the Patriot Act. It's a stupid name that makes everybody think that, "Oh, they're the good guys." Is that what I'm hearing?

THOMAS: I do not want to disparage my colleagues. There are some really good --

GLENN: Okay. I'll do it for you. I'm sure there's five in there that aren't total and complete wastes of skin. The rest of them --

THOMAS: I can guarantee you there are five -- there are five very good individuals in there.

GLENN: Are there ten? Ten?

THOMAS: I've never been to a meeting, I don't know.

(laughter)

PAT: But he can't confirm there's ten.

GLENN: He cannot confirm that there are ten good people in the Freedom Caucus.

PAT: Oh, man.

GLENN: Look, here's the thing, Thomas, it's time to put the cards down on the table. If -- if what I have been told by senators, what I've been told by presidential candidates, what I've been told by House members, all on separate occasions, that if this goes wrong, the party is over because exactly what you said. And everything that I said and predicted five or six or seven years ago that the more you screw this up, the more extreme you will have in candidates, exactly what Thomas just said about Donald Trump is exactly what I said was crazy five or six years ago. That's going to happen. And so -- if what these guys have told me, that you lose the party, you lose the election -- I mean, there's nothing -- there's nothing left to lose here. We have to know and put pressure on these people, if that evens work. If it doesn't work, then I'm just done anyway. Will it work?

THOMAS: Please don't give up yet. I will be left alone up here if you give up. But, again, October 29th -- see, on October 28th, Glenn, there's a secret vote behind closed doors with no accountability whatsoever. And I -- and I expect Paul Ryan will probably beat Daniel Webster in that vote. But nobody has to attest for their vote until the next day, when the only constitutional vote that matters happens on the floor. And people have to --

GLENN: Any way that they can make that go away? Any way that they can take that in secret or it not be known?

THOMAS: No. No. It would be heresy. It would be against the Constitution to have a secret vote --

GLENN: When has that stopped anybody in Washington? When has the Constitution stopped a single damn thing?

THOMAS: Some people might try to vote present or be in the cloakroom or not vote that day. Do not let them tell you they didn't vote -- you know, that they stood up that day if they don't vote. Voting present does not work. Our Founding Fathers did not vote present.

GLENN: That's what they're going to do. These guys aren't Founding Fathers. These guys are criminals. They're not Founding Fathers. You know if they have an out, that's exactly what they will do so they can go back to us, oh, look at me, I didn't vote that way. I didn't do that.

THOMAS: Well, it's up to you not to let them have an out. So they need to cast a vote. They can't vote present or be gone that day. They need to cast a vote on October 29th. Don't trust them by what they say, trust them by what they do.

GLENN: Thomas Massie, representative from Kentucky and a guy who I think actually takes the position seriously and says, "I am a representative of the people of Kentucky," thank you for being on with us. I appreciate it.

THOMAS: Thank you.

EXCLUSIVE: Tech Ethicist reveals 5 ways to control AI NOW

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Could China OWN our National Parks?

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.