Utah Senator hopes candidates appeal to Constitution during GOP debate

December 15, 2015

Editor

The final GOP presidential debate of 2015 happens tonight on CNN. Joining Glenn to talk about what he hopes happens at the debate was friend of the program, Utah Senator Mike Lee.

Lee told Glenn he would like to see a larger discussion of how we can solve our nation's problems by adhering more rigidly to the U.S. Constitution.

"The candidate who can make the best pitch for that I think will stand to gain the most from the American people," Lee said.

Glenn laughingly told Lee that sounds like "riveting television" right there, to which the senator delivered a surprisingly matter-of-fact, yet powerful response.

"Well, it is," Lee said. "There's nothing more appealing than someone who is willing to say, 'Look, I don't have all the answers. And because I don't have all the answers, I'm going to look to that 228-year-old founding document written by the hands of wise men raised up by their God to that very purpose.'"

He went on.

"That's the kind of discussion we need to have more of, and I think the American people, regardless of their traditional political ideologies and their partisan affiliations, that's where they want the discussion to go," Lee said.

Listen to more of the interview or read the transcript below.

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

GLENN: One of the real good guys in Washington, DC. One of the very few that we -- we totally trust, which every time somebody burns us, we say we're never going to trust anybody totally ever again. But this guy we do. And he's the senator from the great state of Utah. Welcome to the program, Senator Mike Lee. How are you doing, sir?

MIKE: Doing great. Thank you very much, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay. So the NSA. Can we just start here? Do you think the NSA has actually ceased in your own state of Utah the data collection?

MIKE: Yes. This is what the USA Freedom Act did. I was proud to author and introduce the USA Freedom Act as a sponsor in the Senate. And that ended the process of bulk data collection. So now, rather than sucking up every American's telephone data without a warrant, the FBI goes to the court. Gets a court order, based on a showing that they need to get calling data connected to a particular number that is itself related to a terrorist investigation. Then they go to the phone company and get the data they need. There is a big difference for privacy purposes and a big difference for Fourth Amendment purposes. And the USA Freedom did a lot to correct that problem.

GLENN: So can I ask you how many billions of dollars that data collection facility in your own state cost?

MIKE: It was not cheap. I don't know the exact price. But you're correct to express it in --

GLENN: Billions.

MIKE: Words that start with a B rather than an M.

GLENN: Right.

MIKE: This is an enormous facility.

GLENN: Right. And are we using it as a storage hangar now? I mean, I just don't believe that the United States government and with all the black ops that happened and with all the black ops money that the NSA has just shut that thing down.

MIKE: No, they haven't shut it down. It's important to remember that a lot of what the NSA does has nothing to do with domestic communications. A lot of what they do involves collecting information about communications going on with people outside the United States. And that's a different category altogether. The USA Freedom Act dealt with domestic communications and metadata connected to those communications.

GLENN: So we were told that the NSA -- that this was vital. And, in fact, anybody who voted for this bill, Ted Cruz included, and I believe Ted cosponsored or coauthored with you on this.

MIKE: Yes, Ted was a cosponsor and a very hopeful supporter of getting it past. We were grateful for not only his vote, but also for his assistance in getting this -- this issue out there. Getting the argument out there, that this is a problem.

I spent years explaining why it's a problem. I even wrote part of my book, Our Lost Constitution -- it focuses on the Fourth Amendment aspect of this and how this problem has its roots going back 250 years to pre-revolutionary colonial times and at corresponding times in Britain when we had the use of general warrants underway. And why general warrants were incompatible with what we later developed as our Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

GLENN: Okay. So Ted has been thrown under the bus. You have been thrown under the bus. Anybody who voted for this, as somebody who just doesn't support -- somebody that doesn't want to keep America safe. But I look at what happened in San Bernardino. We had all the information at our fingertips, without the NSA. But when we had the NSA, what happened to all that great technology that was supposed to save us?

MIKE: Well, that's just the point. We were no safer as a result of collecting information under the old system, under section 215 of the Patriot Act. Bulk data collection didn't make us more safe. It made us less free in the sense that our privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment were being infringed without our knowledge, without our consent, and contrary to the spirit if not to the letter of the Fourth Amendment. But no one can point to a single instance in which that former system, under the Patriot Act, prevented a terrorist act.

And no one can point to a single instance since the passage of the USA Freedom Act where we've been made less safe. So really what it did, among other things, the old system, was it made it harder to find that needle in a haystack. They created a much bigger haystack. And our current system, the one devised by the USA Freedom Act narrowed the haystack and keeps the NSA focused on what's most relevant.

GLENN: Money runs out to fund the government I think tonight or tomorrow night. Tomorrow night. Why is it, Mike, that we keep putting ourselves in this situation?

MIKE: It -- it really is disappointing. It is one of the most frustrating things associated with serving in Washington, with being a member of the United States Senate. I knew that this place had a lot of problems. This is one that is much, much worse than I anticipated when I got here. The fact that we're operating a 4 trillion-dollar government and the fact that we operate it on the basis of one binary decision a year, we --

GLENN: Right. Fund it or don't fund it.

MIKE: Right. Fund it or don't fund it. Fund everything basically as is or fund nothing at all and shut it all down. That is an absolutely preposterous way to run any organization, especially the most powerful nation on earth and its government.

And, you know, I would like to have seen us put an omnibus spending package, if that's how we were going to do it, on the floor weeks, if not months ago to allow individual members to offer amendments to improve it so that it's an open, publicly debated process. Instead, what I'm predicting is that we'll get stuck with probably a 1500 to 2,000-page deal. One that spends roughly a billion dollars per page and that we'll only have hours, if not minutes to read it before we have to vote on it. And that's wrong. That is absolutely wrong

GLENN: Whose fault is that?

MIKE: Well, this is a process that has evolved over the course of years. We've had Republicans and Democrats who have been involved in it. But any time you've got that process moving forward, people who vote for bills like that, vote for bills that they can't possibly read, that they can't possibly know the contents of, is in one way or another responsible for the problem because that's what perpetuates the problem.

GLENN: You going to vote for it?

MIKE: Not if I don't have an adequate opportunity to review it certainly. And depending on what's in it, I may have other reasons to oppose it as well. With any bill, I wait until I see it to make a final decision. But I know in advance, if I don't have time to read it before it's time to vote, I will vote no every single time.

GLENN: Paul Ryan, is he a help, a hindrance, or nothing?

MIKE: Well, look, we will see -- we will see whether this kind of thing continues under his watch. We've got to keep in mind that before he became speaker, a lot of this was in process anyway. A lot of this was in the pipeline. And if this kind of thing continues to happen on his watch, I don't think that's going to be good for him. I -- I hope that he will make sure that this doesn't happen again. Never ever again on his watch.

GLENN: You're running for reelection. Now, let's just play this out. You're running for reelection. And you're the only person that I've -- that I've ever endorsed. And you didn't ask for my endorsement. And you could clearly tell me not to endorse you, if you think that would help you. Anything to help you. But I've never endorsed anyone before, but I've endorsed you.

Now, but let's play this out. Ted Cruz becomes president. One of the Supreme Court justices kick it. And he says, "I want you to be the Supreme Court justice." What do you say?

MIKE: Well, I don't think I know any lawyer, certainly I don't know any law gig who wouldn't be highly flattered by even a hypothetical like that being asked. And I would count myself among those who would be highly flattered by something like that. I would be very grateful. We'll see what happens.

PAT: Can you imagine, Mike, at your age, how the left would react to you being nominated for the US Supreme Court? I mean, you could have 50 years on the court, and I think they would just be delighted with that.

GLENN: Oh, I think --

PAT: Would be delighted.

MIKE: Yeah, it's interesting. I don't think I would be their first choice.

PAT: No. I don't think so.

GLENN: I will tell you, I've had a conversation with Ted about you and others. I said, "We need people like Mike on the Supreme Court, but I don't think anybody has the guts to say -- they'll look and they'll triangulate, "Well, who can I get on," where the left just doesn't move.

PAT: No.

GLENN: And he just smiled at me and he said, "Well, I have the guts." And I believe him. I believe him. So I'm hoping to see you in robes some day and not a bathrobe.

MIKE: Well, thank you. That's kind of you.

GLENN: Yeah.

MIKE: They say black is a flattering color.

PAT: Slimming. I think it's slimming.

MIKE: Yes, exactly right. We all need that.

But, by the way, Glenn, I wanted to mention to you, Sharon and I read The Immortal Nicholas over Thanksgiving. We loved it. It was a fantastic book. Thank you for sending it to us.

GLENN: Oh, thank you so much. Thank you. You bet. Thank you.

Okay. So tonight, the debate on CNN, what are you hoping happens? What are you hoping that we talk about?

MIKE: I would like to see a fulsome discussion tonight of how we need to adhere more rigidly to the Constitution, of how a lot of the problems that we've got in Washington relate to the fact that we have ignored the most important features of the Constitution, namely the structural protections in our founding document. The vertical protection, which is federalism, the principle that says most of the powers should remain close to the people at the state and local level. And the horizontal protection, which we call separation of powers. We flip both of those principles on their heads. And I would like to see more of a discussion of that, of the structural deviations from the Constitution and how we need to restore those. The candidate who can make the best pitch for that I think will stand to gain the most from the American people.

GLENN: I will tell you this, Mike, that sounds like riveting television right there.

(laughter)

MIKE: Well, it is. Actually there's nothing cooler from the standpoint of the typical, rank-and-file Republican primary presidential election voter. There's nothing more appealing than someone who is willing to say, "Look, I don't have all the answers. And because I don't have all the answers, I'm going to look to that 228-year-old founding document written by the hands of wise men raised up by their God to that very purpose. And I'm going to return us to that. And here's how I'm going to do it. I'm going to put the law-making power back in Congress where it belongs, instead of delegating it to executive branch agencies, where people who are not elected by the people and not accountable to them are making them. And I'm going to put most of the power back, close to the people. If you're from Vermont and you want a single-payer health system, knock yourself out. Do it through the state system, not the national government."

That's the kind of discussion we need to have more of, and I think the American people, regardless of their traditional political ideologies and their partisan affiliations, that's where they want the discussion to go. And that's what intuitively understand when the argument is made.

GLENN: So tell me about this. Because I think we have a real problem with immigration in our country, and I think that we have really bad guys in our country and we have no idea. And my gut tells me, "Shut the system down and cleanse it all. You know, get all the -- fine all the people that have overstayed on visas. Get them out of here. Find out who is here. Then look at how we're vetting everybody and reopen the immigration system."

Donald Trump said we should -- we should stop all Muslims from coming in. Constitutionally speaking, can he even do that?

MIKE: Strictly constitutionally speaking, there have been times when distinctions have been made on religious affiliation, particularly when taking -- when agreeing to take certain persecuted religious minorities. It's also been suggested that for similar reasons, perhaps the government might be able to do that. But I don't think that is the right approach for a variety of reasons.

Number one, as you point out, you've got to fix the problem more holistically than that. And I don't think religious paths, when you're talking about solutions necessarily the way to go. In part because they're incompatible with how we've traditionally treated religion in this country. And part because they're easy to cheat. So I think what you may be suggesting, at least what I tend to believe is that given the security threats that we face right now, we ought to, at least with respect to certain regions of the world that are volatile right now, we have to just halt all immigration until we figure out how to make sure that those who are coming in from those parts of the world present no threat to us.

As some have suggested in the past, when you look at reforms like this, you might analogize it to a leaky basement. If you've got water in your basement, you got to figure out where the leak is. You got to fix the leak before you start bailing out water. And sometimes you've got to turn off the water main for a while while you diagnosis and then address the problem. And I think that's what we ought to be doing here.

GLENN: Senator Mike Lee, always good to talk to you, sir.

PAT: We should get to the real issue though before we get off the phone with Mike. And that's, of course, you attended BYU. Your father was the president at BYU. Who should be the next head coach of the football team at BYU?

MIKE: I was hoping that either you or Glenn might take it.

GLENN: Do you wear black? Because if it's slimming, I'll take the job.

MIKE: That's right. That's right. Look, our friend who is at the Naval Academy, whose name I routinely butcher --

PAT: Niumatalolo?

MIKE: Yes. I think he's an ideal candidate for the job, and I hope he takes it. I think he would do a great job.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah. All right. Appreciate it.

STU: Breaking news.

MIKE: That is, if the two of you aren't willing to take it together.

GLENN: Oh, I think I'd do wonders.

PAT: I'm not sure if the university will be willing to take us.

GLENN: No, I don't think the university would be willing to take us in any capacity.

PAT: Not even allow us on campus.

GLENN: No, not even janitorial service.

Mike, thanks so much.

MIKE: They do need more of a conservative voice on the political science faculty. As an alum of that faculty, I can vouch for the fact that the student body that's fairly conservative, a faculty that is less so. So, you know.

GLENN: Big time less so. Big time less so.

MIKE: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Thank you so much, Mike. Appreciate it.

MIKE: Okay. Thank you.

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