Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

BUSTED: Former Twitter CEOs Jack Dorsey and Parag Agrawal censored Trump's account after Twitter execs said Trump never violated Twitter's 'incitement' rules

December 13, 2022
MARCO BELLO / Contributor, MANDEL NGAN / Contributor | Getty Images
Katarina Bradford

Bari Weiss just dropped the fifth installment of "The Twitter Files" with the latest bombshell: that Twitter’s former CEOs Jack Dorsey and CEO Parag Agrawal ignored Twitter's review board, who concluded Trump did NOT violate Twitter’s “incitement” rules.

Trump makes his last appearance on Twitter before permanent suspension

In the aftermath of the Capitol Riots, Trump tweeted what would become his last two tweets before his account was suspended. On January 8, 2020, Trump tweeted his last two tweets in the aftermath of the Capitol riots. At 8:46 am, Trump tweeted, “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

At 9:44 am, Trump tweeted, “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Several hours later, 300 Twitter employees signed an open letter to then-CEO Jack Dorsey, which was published by the Washington Post, calling for Twitter to ban Trump’s account on the grounds of incitement. The letter went so far as to say Twitter would be complicit with “insurrection” if the platform didn’t take further action and ban Trump’s account: “We must examine Twitter’s complicity in what President-Elect Biden has rightly termed insurrection.”

Twitter's review team finds Trump NOT guilty of inciting violence

Twitter's review team began its internal review of whether Trump’s tweet merited incitement, and, to say the least, they weren’t convinced. One staffer wrote, “I think we’d have a hard time saying this is incitement.”

Another employee agreed, “Don’t see the incitement angle here.” Similarly, the team found Trump’s tweet about “American patriots” was referring to “the people who voted for him” rather than the “terrorists” on January 6.

“I think we’d have a hard time saying this is incitement.”

Twitter policy official Anika Navaroli agreed with the team's review, concluding, “I also am not seeing clear or coded incitement in the DJT tweet [...] I’ll respond in the elections channel and say that our team has assessed and found no vios [violations] for the DJT [Donald J. Trump] one.” Navaroli subsequently notified the respective Twitter execs that “Safety has assessed the DJT Tweet above and determined that there is no violation of our policies at this time.”

"There is no violation of our policies at this time."

Bari Weiss pointed out Navaroli went on to testify before the House January 6 committee several month later, defending Twitter’s decision to ban Trump’s account.

“For months I had been begging and anticipating and attempting to raise the reality that if nothing—if we made no intervention into what I saw occurring, people were going to die,” Weiss wrote. Apparently, Navaroli wasn’t convinced that Trump’s account posed a threat when she recommended that his account remain active to Twitter’s higher-ups.

Former Twitter employee Anika Navaroli, who said Trump was "violation of our policies at this time," poses for a Washington Post special. The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

Twitter execs immediately try to find ways to interpret Trump's tweets as "incitement"

Within minutes of Navaroli’s recommendation, Twitter’s higher-ups began looking for ways to interpret Trump’s tweets as “incitement.” Less than 9 minutes after Navaoli’s initial recommendation, Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust, asked whether Trump’s tweet could be interpreted as a “coded incitement to further violence.”

Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust, attends a Twitter event with her husband, Ramsey Homsany.Mike Coppola / Staff | Getty Images

A few minutes later, Twitter’s Scaled Enforcement Team (SET) said Trump was, in fact, praising the “rioters” as “American patriots” rather than “the people who voted for him,” totally disregarding the previous recommendation from the review team. SET said that this interpretation could merit Trump guilty of “glorification of violence.”

Twitter employees compare Trump to Hitler and Twitter's refusal to ban Trump to being a "Nazi following orders"

SET members went so far as to “view him as the leader of a terrorist group responsible for violence/deaths comparable to Christchurch shooter or Hitler and on that basis and on the totality of his Tweets, he should be de-platformed.” Twitter exec Yoel Roth says that Twitter’s refusal to ban Trump’s account equates to “Nazis following orders.”

Trump is a "leader of a terrorist group responsible for violence/deaths comparable to Christchurch shooter or Hitler."

Within two hours, Twitter execs hosted a 30-minute all-staff meeting in which then-CEO Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s former general counsel and the head of legal, policy, and trust, answered staff questions as to why Trump wasn’t banned yet. One hour after Dorsey requested from Roth and his team “simpler language” to explain Trump’s suspension, he announced Trump’s permanent suspension from the platform.

Why did Twitter go against the review team's recommendation?

It’s clear Twitter had one goal in mind and no one with an opposing opinion could deter them from their aim: to permanently remove Trump’s Twitter account and discredit his followers. Even though the review board concluded Trump’s tweets didn’t incite violence, other higher-ups from different teams bent over backward to provide justification to delete Trump’s account.

Even Navaroli, the head of Twitter’s review team, initially concluded Trump’s tweets didn’t merit permanent suspension--and she was no fan of Trump as she testified before the House January 6 committee several months later. However, her review was immediately dismissed by Twitter execs who already set their minds on their desired outcome–to permanently ban President Trump.

Anika Navaroli testifies in a Jan 6 Committee hearing in which she said "people were going to die" if Twitter didn't intervene. Pool / Pool | GETTY IMAGES

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this story is the fact that Jack Dorsey was complicit in disregarding the review board’s consensus and caving to the overwhelming push from Twitter employees to remove Trump’s account. It's clear they were involved with internal communications to find any possible way of justifying Trump’s ban following the contrary opinion from the review board. Were they also involved in covering up the review board’s opinion and convincing Navaroli to give a contradictory testimony before Congress? As Trump was permanently suspended from other social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram, one can only wonder what efforts their teams went through to suspend the President’s accounts.

As Glenn continues to unravel the scope of Big Tech’s censorship against conservatives, we are only scratching the surface of the ongoing war against freedom of speech. If these big tech platforms have the lion's share of digital communication within the U.S., shouldn’t they be accountable to protect our freedom of speech in digital communication in the same way that written and spoken forms of communication are protected by the first amendment?

It's important to view Big Tech censorship in light of the Great Reset—the vision proposed by globalist elites during the 2020 World Economic Forum to bring about leftist utopia through centralized government expansion at the expense of individual liberty. Censoring opposing voices is a key step in this plan. They have done it to anti-establishment spokespeople, Charlie Kirk and Dan Bongino. If they can do it to Donald Trump, a U.S. President, they can do it to anyone.

We are only scratching the surface of the ongoing war against freedom of speech.

The argument that Twitter, as a private company, can regulate speech as they see fit is increasingly becoming more feeble. The Twitter Files bombshells continue to reveal their censorship is one-directional against conservatives—particularly when Twitter publicly denies censorship, like in 2019 when Twitter published the following:

Our mission is to provide a forum that enables people to be informed and to engage their leaders directly. ... Our goal is to ... protect the public’s right to hear from their leaders and to hold them to account.

Feeling a bit gaslit?

This is part of our ongoing series on "The Great Reset." To read similar content, click here.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?