RADIOJanuary 30, 2024

Did Biden RETALIATE against Texas with liquid natural gas ban?

After Texas refused to back down and hand over control of Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, Texas, to federal authorities, President Biden banned all new liquid natural gas (LNG) export approvals. While Biden claimed this was a climate-related decision, many criticized the timing, since it will likely hurt Texas' economy. So, was this Biden's revenge on Texas for trying to secure the border? Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton tells Glenn that he has "no doubt." Paxton joins Glenn to explain the state's latest border moves and address critics who say his razor wire lawsuit doesn't mention Texas' right to defend against invasion. Plus, he gives his take on the “Take Our Border Back” trucker convoy.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Attorney General Ken Paxton joins us now. Hello, Ken, how are you?

KEN: I'm well, good morning.

GLENN: Good morning.

So I just have to say, I read your -- I read your letter, to the general council of the US Department of Homeland Security. And I thoroughly enjoyed it.

This particular paragraph, I would like to quote.

You are talking to a man, who the Department of Homeland Security and the federal government has said, we have government land. And you're not letting us use and access our government land. So we can get down to the river.

You said, second, you say, the United States acquired a perpetual easement from the city of Eagle Pass in 2018.

What I said last week about the 2015 MOA, I'll say again now, about your latest claim. Quote, Texas never approved that transaction, as required by article four, section ten of the Texas Constitution.

Your federal agency cannot have something, that it was not the city's right to give.

You are invited to read that document, here.

And you'll hyper link to the Constitution.

But even if the 2015 MOA were somehow valid, you're not seeking access consistent with its terms. The nonexclusive easement from 2018, is attached for your convenience.

Its press purpose is to allow maintenance of a road, along the river, including the right to trim trees or other obstacles within the roadway.

Elsewhere, the 2018 easement prohibits the United States from making any permanent improvements, other than roadway without written city approval. If your federal agency wishes to help the municipal officials with tree trimming and road maintenance chores, I suspect they would appreciate the help.

The 2018 easement, however, nowhere contemplates allowing the federal government to deploy infrastructure that President Biden will use to waive thousands of illegal aliens into a park that will continue to be and used and enjoyed for recreational events.

I -- I -- I found your clarity enjoyable.
(laughter)

KEN: Me too.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

KEN: I mean, it's not complicated. And they keep misstating what actually is true.

And you know that. About the border. And then about this particular case.

Because the law and the facts do not back them up. And so they make claims about how it's their property.

And how they have claims with the city. Obviously, not based in any fact.

So, anyway, it's -- it's the way they operate. It's how they've operated for three and a half years.

And he we will hope that the electorate gets it, and realizes how bad this is.

GLENN: So there's been people saying that, none of this constitutional stuff, was argued with the last case that was in front of the Supreme Court.

And if I'm not mistaken, that's true. You're arguing an invasion backed up by eight different letters. Given to the president.

He ignored all eight of them.

This is -- this is an attempt, I think, to get them, into the Supreme Court, is it not?

KEN: Yes. So it was what? Ten, 12 years ago, that Obama sued Arizona over their law, which tried to protect Arizona.

And Robert v. Kennedy, and the three little judges came in and said, it's preempted by federal law.

But it is true also, that we've seen a very different border than we've ever seen, and the consequences of that decision is that it dramatically negatively impacted the country.

I don't even know if you can measure it.

Both socially and economically. But it's also true, that it was argued that there was an invasion. So this is a different argument, in front of a very different court.

And we're hopeful that we can get at least the five justices that are not Roberts. And maybe that Roberts, if he starts realizing how bad that decision was.

GLENN: So, I mean, you have a -- the only case that I think that they could make, that the American people would understand is, well, this is not an invasion.

That's not what the Constitution meant by invasion. And we could argue that point all day long. And win a thousand times.

However, you're not the only one saying it. Now you have 25 governors saying it. And the state of Mexico is now saying, that they fear there's an invasion of their company, or country.

Coming in from the Southern border. Their Southern border.

KEN: Well, you're right. There's more people saying -- more recognizing it. It's become common knowledge. Common understanding.

It's also true. I don't think any of these states would have joined the confederation, or they were signed on to the Constitution. And I don't think Texas, be surely, at that time, would have signed on. If they believed. That the federal government would have passed laws.

About people coming across the border. And somehow not enforce those laws. And then the state would be prohibited from defending their orders, and they would have to allow all kinds of crime and who knows who coming across the border, including terrorists. I cannot believe that was the understanding at the time.

So it's difficult for me to believe, that that's what the Founders meant. And that's what really matters here.

What did the Founders envision?

GLENN: So I want to go back to this. Because Ken Cuccinelli and others have said, Paxton and Abbott are not asserting the invasion clause in the border fence case.

They did in the Buie case, but not this one. This is separate, correct?

KEN: Yes. There are separate cases. One, we were sued by the federal government. The other, we sued the federal government.

So we had different arguments for different cases. We made the invasion argument. The governor has declared an invasion. You can quibble over how we use it, when we use it. I guess if Ken wanted to write the brief, he can come in and try to help us.

But the reality is, you know, we've got a pretty good team, that is pretty successful in the Biden administration.

I guess you can say, they're not perfect. They don't get 100 percent of the wins. Guess what, we don't decide the cases either.

I don't necessarily think, that if Ken had the pen on every case, if he would get it all right either.

Or that we necessarily agree with him, on every particular point.

GLENN: But it's my -- and excuse me. I'm way, way out of my league on this one.

But it seems to me, that this is something entirely new.

What happened last week, after the decision, that this is entirely new. And you're trying to either get the government to try to sue you. Or you in a place, to where you have to sue the government.

So this is entirely separate, is it not?

KEN: That's correct. And we also have another law going into effect. We have the Buie case. We have the Concertina wire case, which is still going, despite the fact that the Supreme Court stopped the injunction.

We still have that case going in the fifth circuit. We also have -- we aren't even sued bit federal government and the ACLU, over a law that was passed and goes into effect. Passed by the legislature. State legislature. Goes into effect, I think March 5th.

And it says Texas can start deporting on its own. So all of these cases will be opportunities for us, to make the argument, hey, we're being invaded.

Hey, this decision that you made in the past cannot be right, given the consequences to our state. The federal government shouldn't be able to pass laws. And not not enforce them. They're actually aiding and abetting the cartels. They can't be allowed to help the cartels. Then we have to sit on the sideline. Suffer the terrible consequences of that decision.

GLENN: All right.

Back with Ken Paxton with more in just one minute, 60 seconds time. First.

VOICE: NMLS 182334. NMLSConsumerAccess.org. APR rates in the five, starts at 6.725 for well-qualified buyers. Call 800-906-2440 for details about credit costs and terms.
(music)

GLENN: American Financing has been helping your neighbor save money for 25 years. Last year alone, they saved customers of this audience an average of $854 a month.

Just by helping them tap into their home's equity to pay off high-interest debt.

This year, maybe it's your turn.

Mortgage rates are in the fives now.

That means it's a good time to call American Financing.

In ten minutes. You could be well on your way to a new year with financial freedom.

Let them help you catch your breath. You might be able to delay at least two mortgage payments. And because you're going, if your high interest credit cards, are in the 20 plus, even 30 plus now, bringing that down, and putting it into a 5 percent interest rate, that you can write off, gives you all kinds of breathing room. So breathe easy. Just call this number. 800-906-2440. 800-906-2440.

Or go to AmericanFinancing.net. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: Ken, what happens if the president says, I'm going to federalize the National Guard?

KEN: So he -- he has the right to do it. There's -- obviously, I think that's a bad decision. I think it's also a bad decision for his election changes. Because his numbers on the immigration issue are not good. And he -- if he takes over our National Guard, and makes it even harder for us to protect the border. Then I think that hurts him in the coming election.

So he has to make a choice here.

Does he want to continue to damage his reputation, and his standing on the immigration issue?

Or is he going to go forward with his policy for the last three and a half years. Which is dismantle every law that we have in place, to help the cartels, accomplish their goals of getting as many people here as possible. And building their network and our country.

GLENN: And he would probably have to nationalize the National Guard for 25 different states. Because they're sending their National Guard, right.

Yeah. Every state that sends the National Guard. I would assume, he would have to take him too.

So it will be very confrontational. It will be very directed at the states. And it will be very directed at helping the cartels continue their operation on the border.

GLENN: Do you think the L and G decision that came out. This weekend.

About natural gas, sales being curbed, for overseas.

For the next year.

Do you think that was directed to Texas.

KEN: Oh, I have no doubt.

That was at least a side part of it.

Obviously, they don't like any fossil fuels.

Even if they're clean burning fossil fuels.

They have -- they have enriched many people, dealing with this all this alternative stuff, that doesn't work yet.

It's not affordable for most Americans. There's no doubt in my mind. They were probably enjoying the fact, that it would hurt the Texas economy.

I think that's what the border is about.

The other part of what they're doing is they're bringing people into our state. So that we have higher costs.

We have law enforcement costs.

Health care costs.

We have education costs.

And they know that. And they know the Republican state has been successful, versus the Democrat states.

That's people voting with their feet.

And I think they're doing their best to damage and harm, in any way possible, even if it means higher crime, the Republican states.

GLENN: So, Ken, this is crazy conversation we're having.

KEN: It is. It's hard to believe I'm saying this. It sounds so conspiratorial. I can see what they're doing.

It's not like a secret, it's all out in the open. So for me to say that, I'm just commenting on nothing secret. I'm commenting on what I see.

And it's pretty obvious, this hurts our state.

It's pretty obvious. They're bringing these people in.

They want them to vote.

They want to use them in their congressional drawing.

It's pretty obvious, they will bring people to the Republican states. They will hurt the Republican states.

GLENN: So Friday, there was this moment, when the president said, yeah. You have twenty-four hours.

That it sounded like, wait. Twenty-four hours, for what?

And giving people the -- I mean, we're entering times.

If things go awry.

God help us.

I don't want this.

If things go awry. You will have the ambiguity of, wait.

Do I answer that law or this law?

And this is what a constitutional crisis looks like.

Do you -- do you see -- have you guys talked about that being a real possibility, that he does something really foolish? That causes real trouble?

KEN: Yeah. We've certainly talked about it. We've certainly thought about it. It's hard to imagine that he would somehow try to create some armed violent conflict. That certainly doesn't make a lot of sense. And if you think about it, people on the border -- Border Patrol agents, they're on our side. They don't like what Biden is doing. None of those people. They're all working together. They're all friends. They all know each other. Whether it's the National Guard. State police. Border Patrol.

They all have the same goal. They're just being forced by Mayorkas and Biden. To not only ignore the law. As I said, it's more than ignoring the raw. It's actually dismantling, and telling the cartels, we will help you. Don't worry about hiding people anymore.

They used to try sneak across. We'll -- we'll make it very efficient for you.

Seeing, they're making ten to $12,000 a person. So it's very helpful for the cartels to have the Biden administration doing this. And they know that. And that's why they're incentivized to get as many people here as possible.

GLENN: What do you think of the trucker convoy?

Is that helpful?

KEN: Oh, I would love to see the border shutdown. The reality is, anything that makes Biden blink and stop doing this, and economic consequences, when things aren't being shipped back and forth. Having economic consequences.

That's why we do economic sanctions. If this is the way we stop the terribleness. I don't have a problem with anything like that, that affects commerce and sends a message to the Biden administration. It's like a strike.

GLENN: Right.

KEN: And send a message.

GLENN: I worry, only because, you know, up in Canada.

Look what they tried to do with the truckers.

And did. But this is in Canada.

And as long as there are no infiltrators in there. They will be fine.

But again, this isn't Canada.

The law enforcement will not be looking to pick a fight with the truckers.

They will actually, I think, be more in line with. If there's somebody out of line. They will arrest them quickly.

But not necessarily blame it on the truckers. Unless the truckers were doing it. But I doubt that.

KEN: No. I agree with you. I don't think we have the same mentality as the Canadians. I say we.

I'm sure the Biden administration does.

They're in line with the Canadian government. There's no doubt about that. But I'm saying general law enforcement, is not sympathetic to federal law being violated.

And the cartels being enriched and helped.

GLENN: Right.

What do you -- what are you saying to the other 25 states, and is there a chance that any of the others -- like Denver just said, we're out. We have nothing. You have to get out of our homeless shelters. Because we can't afford to keep this. Or any of the other states possible on joining?

KEN: Yeah. Look, I think this is going past Republican/Democrat. You can see. These sanctuary cities were created during the Trump immigration. To complain about Trump enforcing the immigration law. Then when Biden came in, they started getting a trickle -- I say trickle, compared to what we have to deal with. And suddenly they're realizing, wow, this is really expensive, and it has high cost, both economically and socially. And they realize, this is not a good thing for our city. And I think you will see more and more cities. They literally -- just not enough money to pay for the entire cost, of millions and millions of people, moving into our country.

And we all be suffering for this, for a long time. And I think this hurts Biden in the upcoming election.

It hurts the country for obviously much longer than that.

GLENN: I know you don't have any of the details. Nobody does, and that's always a special surprise in these things.

But the bipartisan bill that Biden is trying to get through. Any thoughts on that?

KEN: I'm very suspicious. I don't want to give in and start allowing people in, in violation of our current laws. That doesn't solve the problem.

It just supposedly -- it's a deal for something that actually hurts the country.

So I'm not for -- I'm not against immigration. But let's make sure that it makes sense, and we're not hating, because Biden administration violated the laws for the last three and a half years.

And we will say, well, because he's letting in, you know, millions a year. We will say, he can only let in a million.

Well, that's not the way to answer this. They should follow federal law, and if they want to change the law, make it something that is good for America. Make it something that makes the system more efficient.

GLENN: Ken Paxton. The Texas attorney general, on Texas constitutional right to protect its border. Ken, Godspeed. Stay safe. Thank you.
(music)

KEN: Thank you, have a great day.

GLENN: All right.

Why Trump’s currency swap could CRUSH China’s grip on South America

Why did President Trump recently do a currency swap with Argentina and make a deal for Argentinian beef imports? Financial expert Carol Roth joins Glenn to explain why she believes these deals are actually America First and in our national security interests. Plus, Carol and Glenn discuss the effects of Trump's tariffs and the government shutdown.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Carol, welcome to the program.

CAROL: Hi, Glenn. How are you?

GLENN: Good. Can you tell me what's going on in Argentina?

First of all, the currency swap. We didn't make a loan to Argentina. We made a currency swap. Which I'm not really -- I'm not really fond of the -- what is it? The piece zero. What is their currency down in Argentina?

CAROL: The Argentinian peso. You don't have a bunch of those in your vault with all your gold and silver?

GLENN: No. No. I don't. I don't.

But we do now, because we currency swapped, right? What's it mean?

CAROL: Yes, so this is -- this is not -- you know, just giving known Argentina for its government to spend. This is a financial support, which, by the way, currency swaps are not something that is unusual.

GLENN: Right.

CAROL: You know, we do this all the time with our allies, with Japan and Canada and what not. What is unusual in this particular situation, is how it's affected.

So basically, what happened is that we gave the Argentinian Central Bank dollars. We took as collateral the peso, and that is meant to support the Argentinian peso and help to stabilize this currency.

GLENN: Right.

CAROL: And a couple of things of note, one is how it was done is interesting. Because normally when we do currency swaps, and we have these lines, it's done through the Federal Reserve, or central bank.

This time, it was not. It was done through the Treasury, through something called the ESF. The Exchange Stabilization Fund, which is sort of a black box fund that allows Treasury to move quickly. You don't need Jay Powell. You don't need the approval of Congress in order to do these things.

GLENN: And that's what it was built for, to stabilize currency in friendly countries?

CAROL: And in the US, by the way,
because I can talk about the history and how we've used it in the US before. But just to kind of get to the Argentinian point. We did this, you know, before the election to help, you know, stabilize things for Milei, so that his government could win.

But we didn't do this because we think Milei is a good guy, or he has fabulous hair, even though we do think that.

The reason we did that is to secure our interests. Because you know who has been making a play in Argentina and throughout Latin America? You know who has had a long-term currency swap with Argentina. It's another country, I'll give you all a hint, and it rhymes with China. China's influence all around the world with their Belt and Road Initiatives where they're trying to dominate traditional infrastructure, digital infrastructure, financial infrastructure, we are trying to kick out their influence. For national security reasons. Also, it just so happens, that Argentina has the second largest reserve of lithium, as well as a smaller set of reserves of other rare-earth elements, that we need access to, for our economic and national security.

So that is what is underpinning all of this. It's because we don't want to be speaking mandarin one day.

GLENN: It's amazing how Donald Trump. People just don't understand this.

Everything he's doing in south marker, he's realigning the globe.

CAROL: Yes.

GLENN: He's doing -- he's doing his own version of America first, Great Reset, and he's just doing it by himself.

I mean, it's pretty incredible, isn't it? Carol?

It really is.

This is why, remember, when we first had the discussion by Scott Bessent.

And I eased everyone ever seen concerns.

Scott Bessent made his fortune on foreign currency exchange. There is nobody who understands the machinations of how you use currency to support countries, and also, you know, the impact on political influence. Like Scott Bessent.

So he has been side by side with President Trump. Who has said, you know. China's influence in South America is a national security issue.

It's a priority.

And, you know, at the time, when we're seeing a reset of the global financial order, and you had China making this very big play. At the same time, when we really have a serious issue with our fiscal foundation. At a minimum, we need to make sure that we have our hemisphere, locked down, before we can do anything else.

And China has really been focused on making inroads in Latin America, and that is what this is all about. And it's not just about the currency swap.

You talked about the importation of Argentina beef. That's a piece of it as well.

And we have to support US ranchers. We have to make it easier for them to do business. We have to remove regulation. This extra piece from Argentina, this is a long-term play. And I know that it's hard for people who are ranchers and who are dealing with this day to day. But this is a long-term play for national security. Because otherwise, it's not going to be Argentinians. It's going to be China that owns everything.

GLENN: Yeah. So I'm looking at Venezuela. What's happening there.

And I don't think that's about drug running. I mean, you know, it is about drug running. But it's not.

It's about, again, taking control of this hemisphere. True or false?

CAROL: Absolutely. And, I mean, this a -- this isn't even you or I guessing about this. This has been a stated goal of the Trump administration.

One of the great things about the Trump administration is Trump, whether he intends to or not. Is incredibly traps parent

He will tell you, what -- he will tell you the things he will do, even if they're couched, you know, in a different record. You can look through that record, and see what that candy is on the inside. And he told us about that candy. So he's been very clear, in addition to the commodities, and the -- the words, the elements, and all these things that are very plentiful in South America. We need to make sure that we have within our allies control so we can have access to.

You do not want China to have military relationships, and other very strong relationships. Within South America.

Because we know what that means long-term for the United States.

GLENN: How is Trump doing overall?

CAROL: So I think overall, I think he's doing quite well. I think from a foreign policy perspective, and I said this during the last administration. Think of him as a business guy. But from a foreign policy perspective, he's an absolutely just killing it. Crushing it. He's been doing a great job in terms of securing the borders. Obviously, we would like to see more deportations. But they're certainly trying and have some roadblocks. And I think from an economic standpoint, the fact that he has this long-term lens, even though some of the machinations I don't agree with, these are the important things. This is finally an administration who says, wait. Our military stockpile is at risk. Because we don't have the components and the supply chain to be able to make products.

We're dependent upon other products in other countries. And assuming they're going to sell us those products, so that we can be able to defend ourselves against them. That doesn't make any sense.

So finally, we have people who are addressing the long-term problems.

And I think the most important thing for a country right now subsidy that we have the runway.

Because we cannot, in three years. Or three and a half years, turn over the reins to another set of people, who want to undo all of this, who hate the United States. Who want to walk that back.

We need people like President Trump. Like the people he's developing. Who understand the long-term issues, that we face that have been built up over many years.

From this broken fiscal foundation. From both parties. But that's where we are today. And he is doing the hard work to try to fix that.

And it's not necessarily apparent to everyone who doesn't understand at this level. But it is so critical, for this very important reset that we're going to have.

GLENN: So I know that you're not a fan of tariffs. I'm not a fan of tariffs.

CAROL: Correct.

GLENN: However, the things that have been happening, the tariffs are not doing what everybody thought they would do.

Why is that?

CAROL: Well, I don't necessarily agree that they're not doing what people thought they would do.

I think that they're -- there has been a bit of overhype on how things are presented.

So do tariffs make it more expensive for businesses and consumers to buy certain goods and services? Yes.

And that has happened. And I've seen it with my own eyes. With my own company. In joy venture partners and small businesses across the country.

There are small businesses that have major burdens. These are the things we thought would happen. And they are happening. In terms of creating runaway inflation, I don't think anybody said that at the levels they are.

They said that when he kicked them up to 100 percent. Which he walked back.

GLENN: Right.

CAROL: But we also know when you look at inflation data. That the way that calculated. There's a lot of picking and choosing and substitutions. So, of course, when you say, oh, well, this particular product is being hit too much.

Some of it is substituted to this. Of course, it's not going to show up in the same way, as it affects people in their day-to-day lives. So, again, I think it's that nuanced understanding.

It's the same thing, you know, when people said, hey, why am I at the grocery store? And everything is 30 percent higher. And they're telling us that inflation under Biden is 4 percent. We know that has to do with the calculation.

So I think that tariffs are causing some issues. And some pain.

And hopefully, that can be sorted out in time.

But, you know, absent that particular strategy, I think other things that he's doing, on the American front, to shore up our security from an economic and national security standpoint, make a lot of sense.

STU: And, Carol, I think a lot of people lose sight. Just because it was such a big issue.

Look, trade is important.

But it's also not a huge part of our economy. Imported good news are about ten percent of our economy.

Does that number sound about right?

CAROL: You know, it's a small percent.

I would want to go back and verify the neighbor.

I have so many things rolling around in my head today. That's not top of mind.

But it's not a meaningful percent of our direct -- where does impact, there's a component, where it flows through the economy. And it affects domestic goods and services.

So even, if, you know, on a headline basis, it doesn't seem like it's that important, it can flow through the rest of the economy and create a drag and create some issues there.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: I want to take a break. And, Carol, I want to come back.

Carol Roth is the economist I trust. She's a former investment banker. And really has a clear eye, on not Wall Street. But on Main Street.

I want to talk to you about the shut down. We're about to see possible delays at our airport. Our air traffic controllers. SNAP is about to expire. What happens here. When his the average person begin to really feel the shutdown. And is there a -- is there a line where it just has gone too far.

GLENN: So, Carol, tell me where we are on the shutdown.

CAROL: Well, it's tough. And I think I've said to you before, Glenn. As somebody who would love to see many parts of the government be shut down permanently. There's part of me that goes, this is fantastic. And I hope it goes on forever.

GLENN: Me too.

CAROL: Obviously, there are people who -- you know, we want to make sure that we get paid. We want to make sure the military get paid. We want to make sure that air traffic controllers get paid. So there's a little bit of give and take. Probably the most surprising thing that has come to light is how many people are on food assistance in this country.

GLENN: Yes.

CAROL: When we have something that's supposed to be a safety net, it's almost in my mind, supposed to be like under the tightrope. The trampoline under the tightrope. You fall, and then it pushes you back up. And it's a temporary solution. I feel like we've turned that net into a hammock, where people are just taking a nap. And sleeping in it long-term. And, you know, that is something that even though devastating for the families who truly need to be on it. The fact that this is getting some light on it, I think, you know, that could be a small silver lining here. And I think that will put pressure on the Democratic base. The Democrats are holding out for a bunch of insanity, for illegals over trying to feed the people who are actually in their base. So I'm hoping that puts enough pressure for everybody else though. I think when this really starts to flow through the economy and becomes a drag on numbers and becomes a drag on the stock market, is where you're going to -- to see a little bit more --

GLENN: Any idea when that happens?

CAROL: It's hard to say. Because as we know right now, with the government shutdown. We're not even getting numbers.

GLENN: Right. Right. Right.

CAROL: But, you know, we cannot afford for GDP to contract. We cannot afford for the consumer, which is 70 percent of the economy.

To feel like they cannot spend. Because that flows through tax receipts. And if we have lower tax receipts. It will blow up the deficit. If we blow up the deficit, we can end up in a debt spiral. So that's the big issue here.

GLENN: Well, the food stamps. If you look the at the SNAP program through ethnicity. 45.6 percent of Afghans who have been imported here in America, are on food stamps. Forty-two percent of the Somali community. Thirty-four percent of the Iraqi community, and 23 percent of the Haitian community. That just can't happen!

That just can't happen.

CAROL: Yeah. You know, in terms of those numbers. I think there's a common sense approach that we need to take here. In terms of immigration.

Which I've raised the question with AI. You know, how much immigration do we actually need?

But to the extent that we do invite great people into our country, who share our values. We need to means test that, and you should not be allowed to come here and then be a dependent on the government.

That should be a position of coming to this country.

And I think that's something that seems like it would maybe a 20 or 90/10 issue. So, again, shining light on these things at the point of people who are actually willing to do the hard work and address this problem, is a net benefit.

Is a silver lining, even though the backdrop. You know, we don't want people who actually need this, to go without food.

But, you know, it brings into question, the system. You can get people beans. You can get people rice. You can get people staples. And have them be well-fed in a fraction of the cost, that it's currently costing. And keep out the dodos and the candies and the people who just arrived here to take advantage of the system.

GLENN: Yeah. Carol, thank you. As always, God bless.

CAROL: Always a pleasure.

GLENN: You bet. Buh-bye. Carol Roth. She is just -- I just love Carol. I looked for somebody like Carol for a long time, that understood Wall Street, understood the banking, and then also understood Main Street. CarolRoth.com.

You can find her at the website. Carol Roth. Or follow her on X @CarolJSRoth.

I have a theory about Trump's nuclear testing…

President Trump recently ordered the Pentagon to resume nuclear testing after Vladimir Putin announced a new underwater nuclear device. Are we heading towards a potential nuclear war, or does Trump have another goal? Glenn Beck explains his theory: Trump just won this fight...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, President Trump said yesterday, truly great meeting with President Xi.

This is a the problem. So much is hyperbole is -- truly. Like everybody said that meeting couldn't happen. It happened. And they said couldn't be done. It was done.

I got up this morning. People said I couldn't open the door, and I opened the door. Okay? It was the greatest door opening I've ever seen.
But from all accounts, this was a really, really good meeting.

Let me just say this: He's getting ready to meet with Putin. And with what Putin has done in the last couple of days, and now everybody is upset.

Oh, my gosh. Donald Trump said he's going to start testing nuclear weapons again!

Yeah. Yeah.

You know why?

Well, China is testing them.

And Russia is testing them.

We've had a moratorium on that. And here's what he's really doing. If I -- if I heard the news. And I was in the Donald Trump White House, I would be -- I would have walked in, after I heard the news, especially yesterday.

That Vladimir Putin has a new nuclear missile, that he can shoot 6,000 miles away.

Underwater. And it can navigate, and then blow up like a hydrogen bomb under the water, just off the coast of California, which would create a radioactive tsunami. This is what I would tell the president. Congratulations, Mr. President. You've won.

Now, why would I say that?

Because Vladimir Putin is not going to do that.

He's not going to do that. It would make him the pariah of the entire world. You're not going to set off a nuclear, radioactive tsunami to cover Los Angeles.

Because here's -- if I'm the president, and maybe this would make me a very bad president. But if I'm the president. And I hear that he has just launched a nuclear missile, towards Los Angeles, my decision is: Do I stop it?

Yes, I do everything I can to try to stop the missile from hitting. Do I respond before it hits?

All unconventional wisdom is, you've got to launch now, Mr. President. You have to launch now!

Hmm. Now, maybe this makes me a very bad president. I don't know.

I think it probably does. But I would say, no.

I'm not launching. Let it hit. And then I'm going to say to the rest of the world, immediately after it hits, this man just bird Los Angeles, killed all of these people, by launching a missile, a hydrogen bomb, underwater. God only knows what it's done to the environment.

But here's what it's done to people. And here's what it's done to Los Angeles. I give the world an hour before I respond.

I don't want a nuclear war. Because we all know what that means.

But rest of the world, you need to condemn him, and he needs to go on trial for crimes against humanity.

Nothing -- nothing warrants that kind of abuse of nuclear weapons.

That's what I would do as the president. Because I know the rest of the world, would not be kind to anyone who launched a nuclear weapon at the West Coast.

Wouldn't. If we launched a nuclear weapon, you know, even if we blew up Israel, with a nuclear weapon, the world would be like, look at what America has just!

They've killed all these Jews. Wait a minute. I'm so confused right now, what I'm for and what I'm against. But they would still condemn it.

Nobody can get away with that. He knows. Putin knows, the president is the most concerned about nuclear weapons. So what does he do?
He describes two nuclear weapons he has.

He's pulling out all -- there's nowhere to go from there. What are you going to do next? I'm going to blow up the moon?

He's just used everything in his bag of tricks. There's no place bigger that he can go. Other than actually launching those things. Mr. President, Congratulations, you've just won. So that's what I think is happening with -- with what Donald Trump has done this week. And the way Putin is now reacting. And he's about to turn his sites on Putin and Ukraine.

So let's start and see what happens.

What the Fed’s interest rate CUT means for YOU

The Federal Reserve has cut interest rates for the second time in the 2025 fiscal year. Glenn sifts through all the economic jargon and translates it into plain English to explain what this could mean for the average American.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me talk to you a little bit about the fed rate and what it means. Most people don't spend their evenings reading the Federal Reserve statements. And I don't blame them. Because I don't do it either.

It's like background noise from an alien planet.

The Fed has cut the rate by 25 basis points. I don't even what a basis is or a basis -- what the hell does that even mean? Why should I care about that?

Okay. Let me explain what it is, and why you should care. Because the Federal Reserve -- the quiet, most powerful group in the world has decided to cut rates. And that changes the rules of your financial life. From your mortgage to your job security. From the cost of groceries. To, you know, the health of your savings account.

What they did yesterday is not going to help your savings account. What they did yesterday, will help your job. Okay?

A little bit. Now, think of the Federal Reserve as hmm. I don't know.

The most corrupt bank -- I'm sorry. I mean, the central bank.

Think of it more like the mob that -- think of it like a very credible bank that you don't know who even owns it. Okay?

It is not part of the federal government. It's not a federal agency. That's a really important part. They don't print the money. Not directly. Okay? That's up to the Treasury.

But they control the flow of money, and if the economy slows down, this is what they say they do. Okay?

If the economy slows down or starts to break, the Fed tries to fix it by lowering the Federal Funds Rate.

That's the interest rates that the banks charge each other to borrow money overnight. And when that rate drops, supposedly, borrowing becomes cheaper for you! But does it?

Yes. But it takes time to get to you. When borrowing becomes cheaper, you can start a new business.

You can get a house. You can borrow more money.

And when people borrow more, they spend more. Which in theory, keeps jobs going. People are creating jobs. Businesses start to open up.

Et cetera, et cetera. That's the lever the Fed just pulled again. Twenty-five basis points. That means .25 percent.

It doesn't sound a lot -- like a lot. Especially if your credit card is at 21 percent. Or your car loan is at 8 percent. Or your mortgage is just choking you to death. But it is a small ripple that will go outward. And it may just be the beginning.

So if you own a home, and you have an adjustable mortgage, you'll see a slightly lower rate. Maybe -- maybe you'll save a couple hundred dollars every month. And that's nothing -- you know, that's not nothing. If you have credit card debt -- and this is my favorite part. If you have credit card debt, don't hold your breath. You're not going to see anything. Why?

Oh, because when they're raising the rates. Oh, those banks, they raise it right away. Oh, it costs us so much money to be able to borrow money. And you're going to borrow it from us, so we have to raise that rate right away, because it will cost us money. Once they lower the rate, they're not in any hurry.

They're like, you know what, let's slow down just a little bit. We don't need to lower that interest rate on the credit card, right away.

Remember I said, think of them as a Mafia -- as a really good bank. Okay?

Now, if you're shopping for a car or a small business loan, this could be your window. Because lending is going to get a little bit looser. When the money is flowing a little bit more.

Because the Fed lowers the interest rate. Then the lending gets a little looser. You can buy a car.

If you're retired or you're saving. You know, you have money, you know, in a CD or a savings account, think of this as a move from the Mafia. Your savings account will drop just a little bit. Because your savings. You'll earn less, your CDs, and everything else.

You'll earn less when the interest rates fall. Okay?

So in short, what this means yesterday, is it will help people who are borrowing money. But it will hurt people that are not savers. Now, it's not dramatic. But that's -- you know, going -- interest rate going down hurts people saving money, but helps people borrowing. Interest rates go up, it helps people who save money and hurts the people borrowing money. Okay?

So why is the fed doing this? Well, the president has been saying, can you do this, for quite some time. Because this is what spurs an economy. This is what spurs jobs being created. Because people can borrow money, and they can expand their business.

The reason why they said they did this yesterday is because, quote, the downside risk to employment has risen. What does that mean?

People are losing their jobs. That's what that means. Okay? I don't know why they just can't speak English. You know what, we have to do this because people are losing their jobs. Maybe we need to lower this down, so people can hire some more people. That's what they should say. Inflation, they said, is still somewhat elevated.

Okay. Let me translate again. We don't have -- we don't know our butt from our elbow on what we're doing with inflation.

We're out of magic tricks.

And we still have it tamed inflation. But it's getting better.

Okay. So they're trying to ease the pain of people getting fired or no job creation.

Without setting all of our money on fire.

This is the real trick and the real balance. And when I say setting our money fire. The lower the interest rates. What that means is, they're -- your money will be worth less.

Okay?

But here's the -- here's the bigger move that's buried in the fine print.

They're also stopping the shrinkage of their balance sheet. Love that.

We're just going to stop the shrinkage of our balance sheet.

Okay. What kind magic Fed Viagra are you using here to stop that shrinkage?

What it means is they're done pulling money out of the system. They're going to start adding money back in. More liquidity. More dollars that they throw in, the -- the more fuel.

And it's a soft rolling start from fighting inflation to fighting a slowdown. That's what this is.

Now, here's how it's going to hit you in the real world. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, this might feel like some relief in the short-term. Okay? Maybe your payments start to ease up.

Maybe if you're looking for a car. Maybe you get a little bit more bang for the buck. But this is just a small move in that direction. Maybe credit gets a little more available.

Maybe you can afford a little bit more of a better house.

But here's the hidden cost in the long-term.

Every rate cut makes your dollar worth a little less.

By the way, may I just side note here, Your Honor. I don't know why we accept the Fed saying, "We have a target of 2 percent inflation, every year. Two percent is -- that's our target."

Why shouldn't they be -- why shouldn't they be targeting zero percent inflation? Why do we accept that?

You know what that means? That means 2 percent, two cents on every dollar goes away every year.

I don't know. After ten years, that adds up. Why do we accept that? Because they say it in a way, nobody understands!

And so nobody pays attention. So the prices at the store, they don't fall with things like that. They usually rise.

The assets of the rich, the stock, real estate, they start to inflate again. The working class, once more, will pay for the cure. With the value of their labor. And, but this is how the cycle works. Okay?

When things tighten, the powerful scream louder than the average person, and the Fed listens. They open the money spigot. The markets rally, and the average American gets another inflation hangover at some point. Hopefully, it won't happen, at least right away.

Hopefully, we will balance things out. Because Donald Trump, with what he did in Asia yesterday, there's a huge -- there's a lot of money coming in. And he has reshaped the Western world. This guy is not going to be appreciated for -- if J.D. Vance wins. And just assuming it's going to be J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio as the president.

But if they win, after his first term, and maybe into the second term, if he's given a chance for the second term, that's when you're going to really see everything that Donald Trump is doing right now. You're going to see the effects. And you're going to realize, holy cow. I thought that guy made a huge difference at the time.

Look at what he did. He is a long-time. Long-term player.

He's looking way over the horizon. And this week in Asia was a big, big deal. So let me get back to the Fed rate.

Here's what you need to do. You need to first understand the game. This is not a bailout for you. It's a pressure valve on the system. Okay?

If you have debt, this is a signal, that you can make pay it down fast enough, while the interest rates are starting to ease. Same with our government. Interest rates are going down, don't borrow more money, spend less money. And pay things off faster.

If you have savings, look for hard assets, things that will hold their value. Real estate. Blah, blah.

If you're in business, this might be the window to shore up your position.

Don't overextend yourself. Things are still tenuous. Because this is a pivot.

This is a -- a swingback to cheap money. Hopefully not 0 percent again. But the Fed believes that the storm isn't over. And they're right.

It's not. We're in a very precarious situation between employment and runaway inflation. Now, Javier Milei has tamed this thing. And luckily, Donald Trump and Javier Milei get along, and I hope we take a few more things from Argentina.

But the Fed, almost against their own will, is trying to steer us out of a slowdown. But if we're not careful, it will set us up for another round of inflation. But the pivot point is here from the Fed, and every time they pull that lever, remember, it's -- it's you and your dollar that ends up footing the bill. One paycheck, one grocery bill, one devalued dollar at a time.

But right now, it is important for it to happen, so we balance the losing of jobs, maybe some more job creation is coming our way.

We've lost a lot of jobs just in the last week. Because of AI. And I don't know -- did we talk about this yesterday? I'm not sure we did. This week, there's been two. It's been UPS and Amazon, that have cut, what? About 100,000 jobs between the two of them. That's a lot of jobs.

But notice, it's not the guy on the front line. It's not the guy at the dock. Right now, it seems to be the white-collar worker. So the guy who didn't go to college right now, right now, is more safe than the one who did go to college and is trying to pay off all of that stuff. They're being replaced by AI before the dock worker is.

So if you didn't go to college, now is the time to go, suckers!

Because you don't to have worry about all the things that the people that are still paying for that they can no longer use.

Why this Deep State spy campaign is the WORST scandal of my lifetime

According to the records released now by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and the House Judiciary Committee, The Biden era DOJ and special counsel Jack Smith drove an investigation that sprayed subpoenas like a firehose. There were 197 subpoenas sent to 34 people, over 160 businesses, and vacuumed up communications tied to more than 400 Republican individuals and entities. Fox News, Turning Point USA, OAN, all engulfed in what has been called "Operation Arctic Frost." And all this was predicated on NEWS CLIPS?! Glenn explains why this Arctic Frost is MUCH worse than Watergate.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: While we're talking about winter, let's talk about Arctic Frost. That's the code name. And according to -- according to the records released now by senator chuck Grassley and the -- and the House Judiciary Committee. The Biden era DOJ and Special Counsel Jack Smith drove an investigation that sprayed subpoenas like a firehose. We now know, there were 197 subpoenas, spanning more than 1700 pages. Sent to 34 people. One hundred sixty-three businesses, and then vacuumed up communications, tied to more than 400 Republican individuals and entities.

Okay? That's reaching into everything. They reached into media companies. CBS, Fox, Fox Business, NewsMax, Sinclair, into financial institutions, into political organizations.

Even members, employees, and agents of the legislative branch. So now you have congressmen and senators being vacuumed up into this whole thing.

This is not a precision rifle shot. This is a net and a very big dragnet.

Okay? This is not the way justice in America works. You do not go after, you know, an entire party, 400 people? Now, what were they looking for? How did it start?

Well, let me say, the opening memo to justify Arctic Frost is to call -- does in legal terms, it would be called the predicate.

And it was stamped sensitive investigative matter, okay?

And it's cited. And I love this. Listen to this language. It's cited, evidence suggest a conspiracy around alternate electors.

I'll get to that here in just a second. But it -- it relied on -- leaned on news clips. News clips!

To vacuum all these people up, to get the -- to get the engine turning. News clips were used.

Suggesting, not proving. Suggesting, and it just rose up the ladder.

Ray, Garland, Monaco, even coordination with the White House counsel's office. It surfaces now in the record. This went all the way to the top.

This is not my language. This is what the documents now on the table imply.

Okay? Now, let me just pause for a minute, in the reading room of American memory. What is this all about?

Alternate electors. That's not a Martian invention. Okay?

That's not something completely foreign. We've seen it before. 1876, and 1960. They were messy. Contested. Deeply political moments that produced zero criminal prosecutions for their existence of rival slaves.

In fact, Al Gore, if he didn't set an alternate slate of electors, he was counseled, and I've talked to Dershowitz about this.

He said, they're counseled to have an alternate set of electors. Because once -- if you don't do that, and the tables turn and you're like, you know what, there was a problem -- if you haven't ceded those electors before a certain time, you have no case. You can't change anything. So it has to happen. And it has happened two times before, I think three, but definitely in 1876 and 1960.
In Hawaii, in 1916, Democrats signed certificates while a recount was still underway. The recount flipped. So it was ultimately certified. The democratic slate was certified. Ugly? Yes. But that's the way it worked.

It's not criminal. And history has said no. It's not criminal.

But it doesn't matter, when it's about Donald Trump. So let me go back to Arctic Frost thousand. As the subpoenas flew, the FBI reportedly snooped phone records of Republican members of Congress!

The scope widened to donor analytics. Broad financial data. Trump world advisers.

The lawyers. The media contacts. We said, during January 6, we said, internally, if you don't think they are going after a massive tree, because remember, this is -- this is what the Patriot Act allows you to do now.

You go after one person. If anybody is calling somebody else, well, that person now can be Hoovered up. And who has that person called?

So you can get pretty much everybody that you want, with one subpoena.

But that's not where they stop. They didn't stop with one subpoena. Okay?

When the state casts a dragnet over the opposition's political ecosystem with the authority to seize all their communications, compel testimony, and chill the donors, that's not tough politics.

Okay?

That is the government, with badges and grand juries, leaning its full weight into one side of the national scale.

Watergate. Please!

Watergate. Let me compare Watergate. You know what Watergate was?

Watergate was a gang of political operatives who broke into an office to get information. They weren't even. They weren't even losing the election. Nobody even knows why they would even do this. It is so stupid that they would even do this. But it was a local office. They broke in. They wanted to get some information that was there, you know, on the -- on the candidate and on the race.

And then they covered it up.

And they tried to keep the public from the truth.

It was wrong!

It was criminal.

And it forced a president to resign. And people went to prison over it. But Watergate was a private burglary, executed by a campaign, and covered up. By the White House.

Terrible!

Awful.

That's not the DOJ blanketing the opposing party's entire world, with federal subpoenas while citing news hits as the predicate.

Do you see the difference?

Watergate was an attempt to weaponize a campaign. Arctic Frost, if the emerging records hold, was the attempt to weaponize the entire state against a political party.

The difference there is the whole ball game. Under a constitutional republic.

You don't have a constitutional republic, if that's allowed to happen.

In America, the state is supposed to be the neutral referee. Not a sideline enforcer wearing one team's colors under the stripes.

And don't even start with me on, well, what about Donald Trump?

We'll play that game all day long. And you know where that gets us?

Nowhere. You want to make a charge against Donald Trump and what he's doing.

Good. Let's take that separately.

Let's do that. I'm willing to. Let's take that separately. Let's deal with this one, first. Okay? The moment the referee picks up the ball and starts running, the game is over!

It's not a fair game anymore. And if it can be done to them, today. It will be done to you, tomorrow.

That's not a slogan. That's a law of political gravity.

Yeah. But Trump did -- okay. Let's have that conversation.

But can we at least have it honestly?

Because if you think this is about, whataboutism. You believe so see the nose on the front of your face.

You're completely missing this.

You cannot make a weaponization of a government, a partisan inheritance that each side can claim when it holds power.

If any president, any prosecutor red, or blue, uses federal power to criminalize political opposition, rather than prosecute clear crimes.

It is an offense gets an equal protection under the law. So let's -- let's lay down a standard here, that I'm willing to apply to Donald Trump and to Joe Biden and any other president that comes our way. Because if we don't lay this clear standard down, we're done.

The predicate. Predication. It has to be real. Not rhetorical.

Evidence suggesting via TV interviews, is circular sourcing, at its best.

It's not something that you launch a sprawling investigation on into a presidential rival's universe. If you can't articulate the crime, specifically, you don't get to launch a dragnet on the people that are running against you!

The scope has to be narrow, and tied exactly to the alleged crime!

Not a sweep through media organizations, and donor records, and opposition infrastructure, under vague theories, that come from TV reports!

Journalism.

Political advocacy.

Fundraising.

All of those things are protected activities. Separation from the White House, also must be unmistakable. If the White House Counsel's office is coordinating device transfers into an investigation of its chief political rival, alarms should clang in every corridor of every main justice call hall.

Everywhere! The alarm -- the Claxton should be going off right now. Also, historic practice matters!

If prior episodes -- by the way, this was all thrown out by the Supreme Court. So you know. Okay? Nothing there.

If prior episodes, 1876, 1960, and I believe 2000. If they were treated as political, not criminal, especially where alternate electors were explicitly conditional, then you need compelling new legal theories and clean facts to criminalize it now.

You can't just say, yeah, well, history, never did anything about it before. And, actually, they said it was fine.

But now, now it's going to be a crime.

Wait. Can you be specific on what has changed? Well, we really just liked the people that are doing it this time. That doesn't count. That doesn't count.

Now, before anybody clips this monologue and screams, so Glenn Beck said, nobody -- the Trump administration did anything wrong. Well, I don't think so.

But that's not what I'm saying, because I'm not the judge. I'm not your juror. I'm the guy insisting that the rules are rules, and they should be applied to everyone on all sides.

Smith has his report. He says, he wants to tell his side. Great! Put him under oath. If he didn't do it, then he should be set free.

But it should be on a clear set of laws! What's happened in the Biden administration, they just kept changing laws. Well, yeah. I mean, the bank said there was no crime. But Donald Trump. And so all of a sudden, there was a crime.

Nobody has ever been prosecuted. Ever before that. Even the bank said, this is ridiculous.

There's no crime here.

It didn't matter.

That's not justice.

I want real justice. Smith says he has a side, let's hear it. Bring forward the memos. Publish the predicate. Let the country see where weather we had a criminal case or an election cycle dragnet. Because that's what it looks like. If the emerging picture looks like, if the Arctic Frost opened up on thin evidence, escalated on political pressure, and metastasized into a government-wide sweep of the sitting president's chief rival and his entire ecosystem, then this is not just like Watergate. This is much, much, much worse than Watergate. In kind.

Not just degree.

Watergate tried to steal the information. That's it. They potentially attempted to steal legitimacy to criminalize opposition by wielding the sword of the state.

That violates, you know, more than statutes. That violates our creed, that free men govern themselves by consent, and the process is sacred. And the law is the wall that even presidents and prosecutors can never climb over. If proven, the remedy is not a sternly, terse letter, or an op-ed, and a shrug.

The remedy is the full force of the law. Inspector general referrals. Special counsels where appropriate, prosecution where crimes are clear. Statutory reforms to bar this from ever happening again from -- from press clippings?

Being your predicate? Bright lines need to be drawn. Protections for the press, for donors, and legislators in political cases. Sunlight. All the sunlight on how this began, who approved it, and why no one in the administration said stop.

And to my friends saying, well, Trump is doing the same thing. I hear you. I don't agree with you, but I hear you. Why don't we codify the guardrails right now?

So when emotions are high and temptations are strong, the republic doesn't survive by trusting that our guys will be angels. It survives on the chains on power. Everyone's power.

You know, when I hold a founding sermon in your hand, when you read the ink of Washington scratched in the margin notes of James Madison. You discover that America's miracle wasn't that we selected saints. It's that we built a system where even the sinners are fenced in by law.

That's the process. When justice is blind, to banners and bumper stickers and political parties, that's when America is America. Arctic Frost. If the record stands, it took a blowtorch to that fence.

So the choice is really simple. Retreat into teams. Each side cheering for its prosecutors. And its dragnet. Or you can do the harder, nobler thing, just like our founders did. And insist that the same rules that bind all power, especially when it's aimed at people that we dislike, are enforced. That's how you keep a republic.

That's how you make sure that there's not a second Watergate. Because we learned the lesson the first time. But it we?

Because if we haven't. If we don't learn it this time, and by God, we are done!

The story of America is not a story of who got whom. It's a story of the people who refuse to let the government become a weapon. And if that spirit still lives in us, then this cold wind called Arctic Frost will pass. And the Constitution will withstand. Because you stood for equal justice. For due process. For truth. That doesn't bend to politics.

And that, that is how we relight the torch of America!