RADIOApril 07, 2025

How to STOP the Judicial Attacks Against Trump

“The nationwide injunction thing has really gotten out of control,” First Liberty Institute executive general counsel Hiram Sasser tells Glenn. The Trump administration has been hit with injunction after injunction, in which individual unelected judges have tried to tell the President of the United States what to do. So, how can we stop this judicial overreach and lawfare? Sasser tells Glenn that there are only 2 institutions that can fix this problem: the Supreme Court and Congress.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Hiram Sasser is with us. First Liberty executive general counsel on the judiciary. Last night, I showed you some of the names and organizations that are funding this judicial coup against Trump. And that is exactly what it is.

And it is well-orchestrated, well-planned, and well-funded. What do we do about it? Hiram, welcome to the program.

HIRAM: Hey, thanks for having me.

GLENN: You bet. So last night I kind of went through these, and it's sickening to see how well-planned this is, and it has nothing to do with anything, other than thwarting Donald Trump and his agenda.

It doesn't have anything to do with the actual law or anything else.

These are the same people that were planning for his impeachment, before he took president the first time!

HIRAM: You know, what I always find amazing is that everybody thinks this is like a practice, right? We get to run our plays. And there will be no opponent on the other side. I mean, there's a team on the other side.

They're very smart and they're very well organized. And they work very hard for the things that they believe in.

So we have to work doubly hard.

Look, the nationwide injunction thing has really gotten out of control in the 20th century. And sort of kind of emerged in the '60s. He had a few here and there. I think couple against President Reagan. A few against President Clinton.

GLENN: By this time. By this time in Biden's administration, there were only three.

There's like 159 now.

HIRAM: Well, that's right.

They really ramped up -- which is fascinating, by the way, Glenn. Is that the left complained about nationwide injunctions. When they were -- you know, basically, 14 of them, were applied to the Biden administration.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

HIRAM: What people don't understand, really is that there's only two -- there's only two institutions that can fix this problem.

Nationwide injunctions. Either the Supreme Court will have to put an end to it.

Which they can. Or Congress will have to put an end to it.

Which they can. But there's no way, really, from a legal standpoint, to get to one of those. One of those two inflection points.

What I think is very, very critical is.
If you look at Judge Kacsmaryk, for example. When he enjoined the FDA's approval, of -- of -- of abortion drugs. One of the things that he did, was he actually halted his order, for a week. To allow for an emergency appeal by the United States.

And what the judge was doing, turn the planes around. I mean, that's -- that's beyond the pale. He -- even with the power to issue a nationwide injunction. A judge should give the government the opportunity to do an emergency appeal, in order to be able to have somebody else bring the papers. And unfortunately, this isn't about the rule of law. This is about trying to control the policy. And that's the big problem.

GLENN: Right.

You know, the left cheered when Joe Biden didn't just go against the district court.

He went against the Supreme Court.

And said, well, they told me, I couldn't spend this money.

Which is clearly unconstitutional. And, you know, we're just going to give all these refunds. And pay all these people's school bills.

He couldn't do that. And then when Supreme Court came out, and said, I will just find another way to do it.

He did it over and over and over again.

I don't have a problem. If you are violating the Constitution.

If President Trump is violating the Constitution, that is the Supreme Court's job to say, hang on!

You can't do that. It is not the district court's place, to stop an administrator from doing administrative work.

It is the Supreme Court's place. And, I mean, I suppose, you as a district judge could get involved.

I don't think you should. At least at this kind of level.

That they are. You know, no district court said, hey. You have to turn the Enola Gay around.

No. The president. That's his responsibility to do that.

Not court!

Congress, yes!

Not a court. How far out of control is all of this? Just to put it into perspective for the average person.

HIRAM: Well, look, what's going on is you have one judge issuing an injunction against the entire United States government. That -- that is embodied in the power of one man. The only person who is elected by the entire nation, and the entire executive branch is housed in one person and the people that that person decides to employ. In order to -- in order to effectuate policy. Then you have this one district court judge. Not elected by everybody. Who is telling that person what to do.

Look, what really needs to happen is the Supreme Court needs to put a clamp on this. And -- and at the very least, all of these decisions, they need to be -- they need to be put on ice. Until they go to the US Supreme Court, for the final resolution. Now, if the court says, hey. I agree with that why.

That's fine.

That's the Supreme Court.

Then Congress can step in, and fix it.

That's where the rubber meets the road.

That -- and the left, maybe they complained. Remember, during the Biden administration, it's all about forum shopping (phonetic). Do you remember the discussions?

GLENN: Oh, yeah, remind people.

HIRAM: Yeah. Look, all the left complained about is, well, any time anyone wants to sue the Biden administration, you know, they go to Texas! You know, and they go find some district court judge in Texas.

Well, I've noticed that. I have noticed that none of the people on the left, they're suing the Trump administration. Their cases are in Texas, right?

They're going to go find their judges.

And here's the fascinating part.

You remember all those attacks on judges?

I mean, Judge Kacsmaryk in Amarillo had a billboard, just outside his neighborhood. That reminded his kid of what a horrible person he is. All right?

GLENN: I remember that.

HIRAM: And you don't see -- I never saw the Federal Judge's Association issue a statement, the judicial independence, of Judge Kacsmaryk. And that's why the Judge Ho actually resigned recently. Circuit Judge Ho resigned from the federal judge's administration. Because he basically couldn't stand.

What he said, was he couldn't stand hypocrisy of what was going on, with the fact that they now issued a statement, trying to defend independence of the judiciary.

Because, you know, all this rhetoric about all these judges are -- that's a threat to judicial independence.

The hypocrisy runs thick here.

The left is against injunctions, until they're for them.

They're against judicial independence, until they need it.

They are -- they are constantly switching sides, just because it's a fight about power.

And whatever gives them the power.

So look, bottom line is this. It's up to Congress.

There's a bill in front of Congress. They're debating it now.

Hopefully, that they can address nationwide injunction. Look, Glenn, one thing I will say is this: When we represented Navy SEALs to sue the United States Navy because of the COVID vaccine mandate, violating their religious -- their religious objections to taking the vaccine. We had Navy SEALs.

We didn't do a nationwide injunction at First Liberty. We actually did the right thing. We filed a class-action lawsuit.

We followed all the rules of filing class-action lawsuit. And that's how we were able to win. We defeated the Navy. There is a way to do this right, getting rid of nation-wide injunctions is not going to hamper everybody.

Everybody can do it the way we did it at First Liberty, and still win.

GLENN: Yeah. I'll tell you. But you know and I know, it's not about winning. This is just about destruction. This is just about hobbling this administration, so he can't get anything done. They'll just keeping moving on from one another. They've already planned I think another 100 lawsuits by the end of the year. He hasn't done anything yet!

And they've already, yeah. You know, wait until you see what's coming next fall.

What? What are you talking about?

How are you planning on these lawsuits, in advance?

HIRAM: Look, it's called lawfare. The left has always been better at it. Have you noticed, they have to attack, the left has to attack the Supreme Court.

You know, we had to come out in great defense, judicial independence. You know, the left loves judicial independence for their district court judges. But they never talk about it for the Supreme Court. They don't mind the protesters, outside Justice Kavanaugh's house.

You know, with his daughters like looking out the window to see people chanting, death to their dad, right?

The rest of the does not care about the attacks to the Supreme Court.

Because they don't believe that they own the Supreme Court anymore.

You go back in time. When the left had a strange hold on the US Supreme Court.

You go back 20 years.

Oh. Oh. Oh. The American Bar Association.

They tell you, all they ever talk about was judicial independence. All they ever talked about was defending the judiciary. Look, it's not about principle for the left.

It's just about power. And on our side, we have -- we have fought principally, and with principles, in order to try to advance the mission that we want to advance in court.

And it's time that the Supreme Court put a clamp town on some of the nonsense. Or Congress.

One of those two will have to do it.

GLENN: Hiram, thank you so much. Hiram Sasser, he is the First Liberty Institute executive general counsel.

You can find their website. And support them. FirstLiberty.org or on X at First Liberty.

Did Fake News Just Crash the Market? The Grim Reality Unveiled

The stock market went on a rollercoaster ride due to fake news that President Trump is pausing his reciprocal tariffs for 90 days. Glenn and Stu take a look at the story, why it’s evidence that maybe we should slow the panic a little bit, and how it can help us interpret the stock market moving forward. Plus, Glenn and Stu review a new poll that doesn’t look good for humanity: how many people think they can outrun a horse?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

We have an update. The market bounced back after it was released in the news, that Donald Trump may consider a 90-day pause. And then we were watching it bounce back. And then all of a sudden, it dropped down again. And it lost, maybe 200 points? Again.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Not detainer sure what happened until we checked the news.

STU: It seems like all these media organizations reported, an interpretation from some social media of your of an interview. In which the interview.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. I want to track that back down.

Of an interview with Trump?

STU: No. That was a good question.

It was a Trump official.

GLENN: Named official? Or Trump official, official?

So we have Trump. And then we have the Trump official.

And then it's -- it's somebody on social media. Doing an analysis of what that Trump official said. Right.

STU: Right.

GLENN: And then the media picks up on that.

So they're quoting.

STU: National economic counsel director Kevin Hassett.

Basically, all he said was like, look, I think -- he was asked by Brian Kilmeade.

Would Trump consider a 90-day pause?

And hasn't said, I think the president will decide what the president will decide.

GLENN: Well, and that means, yes. He will consider.

STU: It's incredible.

GLENN: That's how -- that's why where we that story.

We gave it to you, like four minutes ago.

Go off the air. Like commercial break. And it's all reversed. The stock market goes down. I think we should probably slow down a little bit.

There's no --

STU: We even brought it up. It's to discuss why the market moved. Why the market moved.

So it -- it's an appropriate explanation, I think.

But now --

GLENN: Official breaking, the White House now says, 1900 day pause is fake news.

STU: There's no pause. For you the market is down again.

GLENN: That is crazy.

STU: You know, I will say this, Glenn.

And I don't know what you think about this as far as politics go. Taking it out where you end up on this. We've had really bad economic times before. Right? COVID. Housing crisis in '08. The bursting of the bubble of the internet back in 2000. And you go back to '87, right? That market crashed.

All those things.

All those things came from what seemed like an outside event.

Right? To the American people.

Seemed like, you talked about the housing policies. And what led to the housing crisis for years before that.

And warned about that for years. So there were policies that were directly associated with that. But that's not how the American people took that. It felt like, oh, gosh. The housing market just crashed.

COVID just happened.

You know, this one, I think to the American people, right or wrong, is going to feel like, tariffs caused this.

And I'm worried about how they interpret that.

GLENN: Let me help you out on that.

That's because people did not interpret the stock market and what is going on in our economy as bogus.

STU: Yes, you're right. I think you're right.

GLENN: It's all this bogus money that the Fed keeps printing. And putting in the system with 0 percent interest rate.

It's all funny money. The stock market is no longer tied to anything real.

And everybody -- everybody just bypassed that. And went, wow. Things are really good. Things are really good.

No!

It was all bogus.

All of that is bogus.

STU: I sensed the weakness during Biden. Right?

The market went up with bind. They sensed the weakness.

They sensed it in the economy.

I think the optimism of Trump's policies. Launched into another stratosphere.

GLENN: That is our McDonald's attitude!

That is, yeah. I would like some tariffs. And I Diet Coke.

I mean, no! This is not a drive through. You're not going to get it, by the time you get up to the window.

STU: But I think that's the point I bring up. I think that's how a lot of people consume things.

GLENN: Correct.

Look what just happened!

Stock market. The stock market.

People who are supposedly, you know, educated, they turned that thing on a dime he has

STU: Yeah. But that's people who are really engaged, right?

They're overreacting to news that they are seeing.

The average person is not even following this on a day-to-day basis. They're seeing that general downturn. And if that continues with them, I -- I wonder if this is going to be seen, if this is -- turns into a recession, which it's not yet. If it turns into a long-term negative consequence, it could be seen as essentially Trump's fault. Which means that the entire movement has problems. As opposed to COVID, what people saw was, okay. China released this virus, or it started in China. It took over everything.

GLENN: No, they blamed it on Trump because the media did.

STU: I don't think he took.

I mean, I think he won in 2024.

Because of what people remembered in his economy in 2014.

2020, was some outside thing that he couldn't do something about.

GLENN: Why did he lose then?

The economy was doing really, really well.

Why did he lose? They blamed him for COVID, shutting us down.

Blah, blah, blah. You know, the stuff that he did. That made sense, at the very beginning.

STU: Right.

I remember that being more broad an argument. I mean, no one thought it was Trump's fault that the economy crashed because of COVID.

You can blame him and say, hey.

I don't think he should have locked down. Again, he didn't really do that.

GLENN: Democrats have country that. Look what he did to the economy, and they won. And they won.

STU: They did win. They did win.

GLENN: So I think that's the ill-informed again. Let me give you this survey. Ready for this survey?

STU: Hit me with it. Hit me with it.

GLENN: Out of 50 men, if you ask them, in 100-meter sprint, can you beat a horse?

How many say yes?

STU: How many say yes, they could beat a horse?

GLENN: Beat a horse.

STU: A specific horse. Could be a horse that's dead?

GLENN: No. No. No, just a regular horse.

STU: So we assume a normal horse at a regular speed. Not necessarily a race horse. Just a normal horse.

GLENN: No, just a horse. I can outrun a horse.

STU: The correct answer to this would be zero. Zero. That's what it should be.

GLENN: Zero. Because a racehorse can run 40 miles an hour. Doughnut if you know this, you can't. Usain Bolt, he's the fastest in a sprint, 27 miles an hour. Okay?

Horse, a little faster. Okay?

So only 2 percent out of 50. So not --

STU: Okay. That's not actually bad. 2 percent will say anything, right?

GLENN: That's the one they say is number 15 on the big charts of animals I could beat. Okay?

There are 15. Then you get to a zebra. Okay. I will pass that on, maybe you don't think zebras actually exist. You know, we have none here.

STU: It is strange.

GLENN: Deer? I could outrun a deer. A fox. An ostrich. Number ten, I can outrun a cheetah!

STU: A cheetah would be the one I would think would be the lowest number. Because theater fastest animal. Right?

GLENN: Right. A kangaroo. A mongoose. I don't even what an a mongoose is. So I will give this a pass.

Ready for this? I can outrun a swarm of bees.

STU: I mean, no. You can't. Not for a long time.

GLENN: No, no, I don't think you can. I don't think you can. Have you ever seen --

STU: They are fast.

GLENN: Why wouldn't people just run? If the bees -- when you're being swarmed, just run. They can't keep up with you. You can't outrun bees. I can outrun a house cat?

STU: No. I mean, people have seen cats before, they're fast.

GLENN: I can outrun a goat. I can outrun a rabbit.

STU: A goat. How fast are goats?

GLENN: I don't have that stat. I don't have that stat.

STU: I don't -- all the other ones seem completely absurd. I'm thinking of a goat.

They're kind of climbing a side of a mountain.

They don't look that fast. I could probably take them.

GLENN: Would you say, yes, I could probably take a goat. I don't know.

GLENN: Okay. A goat? A rabbit?

STU: No. Rabbits are incredibly fast, no.

GLENN: Okay. A hippopotamus.

STU: I mean, a hippo, again, I've never raised a hippo myself.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: But I -- like, a hippo doesn't seem like a fast animal. They move pretty slow.
GLENN: Is it the hippopotamus or the rhinoceros? One of those is the most deadly animal alive. They're fast, and they'll stomp you to death.

STU: Really? I thought it was mosquitoes. Aren't mosquitoes the most deadly animal?

GLENN: No. Of course not. I can outrun a mosquito.

Number two.

STU: Why don't we tell that to the African nations. Tell your people to outrun a mosquito.

GLENN: Run? Why don't you run? Number two, I can outrun an elephant?

STU: Yeah. See, an elephant does not look like it moves quickly. But the strides are large. You have to factor that in.

GLENN: I don't have to factor that in. I just know, I can't outrun an elephant. They're fast animals. They're an animal. They're a giant animal.

STU: So are we. We're all animals.

GLENN: Right. Yeah. Not fast!

STU: Look, I'm not saying I would say that I could outrun an elephant. I could understand why someone might say that.

GLENN: Why do you think we invented the gun? Why do you think men invented the gun? We couldn't outrun any of these animals.

STU: That's a good point.

GLENN: Okay? That's the only reason why we're at the top of the food chain.

Because we're like, oh, really? Take that elephant. I can outrun an elephant. Yes, if I have a rifle.

I will do that.

STU: Because then it can be dead. And you can walk away from it.

GLENN: So we don't. We have a pretty healthy, we have a pretty healthy view of ourself.

10 percent say that they have actually -- sorry, 28 percent say they have actually been out in the wild, some place, and clocked an animal, and thought to themselves. I can outrun that!

A tenth of them have actually tried to do that. I don't know. Got out of their car. And was like, come on, horse. Bring it on.

And 11 percent.

Now, out of those showdowns, mainly with dogs. 61 percent have tried to race their dog. 26 percent have tried to race their cat.

I mean --

STU: How would you even do such a thing. 19 percent have tried to race a goat. Okay?

But 60 percent. Only 60 percent said, yeah. I couldn't -- I couldn't run. 26 percent considered themselves winners. And here's my favorite, 14 percent said it was a draw. It was a draw.

I mean, I think we both -- I talked to the goat afterwards. You agree, right?

We finished. We're basically at the same place. And you have four legs. So, you know, you might have run double the distance. But you have double the legs. So we're a draw, right?

Oh, my gosh.

I think we're a -- I think we're in trouble.

18 percent say they would back themselves to beat -- beat somebody in an arm-wrestling match. Only 11 percent of women. Why?

Wait. Why would only 11 percent of women? Women are no different than men. Hold on just a second.

Oh, it's ego probably.

It's mansplaining. The 26 percent of men say I could beat anybody in a wrestling match, and only 11 percent of women.

Probably because of what men have said to women. That you are not strong enough to beat a big, strong guy.

Because we all know that could happen. 72 percent of all respondents admitted that men are more likely to believe that men could beat an animal, than -- than women.

My favorite, is sure, I can outrun a horse, I can outrun a cheetah. But some -- some people -- one in 50, believe they can outswim a dolphin.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Don't know if you know this, they're in the water. That's their domain. You know.

Now, I could outrun a dolphin. You put one on the beach. I'll beat him every single time. Outswim him? No. I don't -- uh-uh.

I don't think. You should probably -- you get a nap in. Let's readdress this maybe tomorrow.

Chalkboard: The Deep State’s Role in the Ukraine/Russia War

Context is key when trying to understand President Trump’s negotiations to end the Ukraine/Russia war. How did this war even begin in the first place? Will Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio be able to end it? What do Presidents Zelenskyy and Putin really want? Glenn heads to the chalkboard to lay out the entire timeline and explain how America – mostly the Deep State – played a major role in causing this mess.

Watch the FULL SHOW here

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

The Truth Behind Conservatives' Shift on Trump's Tariffs | Ep 252

Donald Trump is the only one telling the American economy, “You have cancer!” Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, says, “The treatment is going to be a little painful.” Kevin responds to criticisms that the Heritage Foundation has changed its position on tariffs, explains why the president’s treatment of Canada may be a “tactical error,” and says it’s time for tax cuts, deregulation, and to stop the “fuzzy math happening in Congress” and cut the budget. Considering why the Epstein files “landed like a lead balloon,” Kevin posits that Pam Bondi is “understaffed” and celebrates what he believes is the best assembled Cabinet in modern history. They discuss nuclear energy, the Chinese Communist Party, the DOGE, and how the socialist president of Mexico “understands Trump.” They both agree that we are experiencing the “second American revolution” and lauded the gutting of the Department of Education and the vision of JD Vance, while warning that “not everyone in Silicon Valley is our friend.” In the end, they have to ask, is Donald Trump moving too fast?

Major AI Company WARNS: How Humans Can Lose Control

AI startup company Anthropic just released a chilling warning: there’s no pause button on artificial intelligence. It can already subtly manipulate us, pre-write our thoughts, predict us, and autonomously rewrite its own code. This is the silent apocalypse, Glenn says: not war, but surrender. As AI agents start planning our days, filtering our news, and nudging our voices, Glenn urges us to remember that this is a tool: we cannot let it use us. We cannot get lazy. We must stay in control: By 2030, we will have either created the most extraordinary tool in human history—or the last one we ever control.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Anthropic just released a report that landed with a little too much of a lack of sound for what it contained.

I wanted to bring it up to you.

In case you don't what an anthropic is. Anthropic is one of the big players in AI. They have $8 billion in funding from Amazon, just i think in the last two years. $2 billion from Google. They are the power behind Claude. I don't know if you're aware of that AI.

But it's a major player. Hey, with one kind of disturbing detail I'll tell you at the end of this. They released a little report yesterday.

And it described our future. A future that is no longer speculative. A future that is rushing towards us now.

It's a future in which artificial intelligence just doesn't outpace our thinking. It escapes our control!

Anthropic's engineers. Among some of the most advanced AI builders on the planet, are not asking now, if AI could pose as an existential threat.

They're no longer asking that. They're now warning that it is likely, if it's mismanaged.

Now, this is no longer a dystopian fantasy. It is a short-term forecast. Drawn from models, that are already in testing. And from systems, already capable of things, that would have been unthinkable, 24 months ago.

What they described, yesterday, in this report, is stark. It is the choice that is right directly in front of you. It's already been decided foy, five years ago.

Do you understand what I just said?

It is now the choice right in front of you, today, that has already been decided for you, five years ago.

Super intelligence systems now, that can design biological weapons, in minutes. Manipulation of global information, at scale.

Autonomously, rewriting their own code. And even deceiving human operators, as a means of protecting their objectives.

Yesterday, in another report, for the very first time, a computer system and an AI system has just passed the Turing test. That is a test that says, you can't tell the difference between a human and an AI.

You know, a lot of people in the past have said, oh, it's close. I think they passed it. This is the first time they've been confirmed. Yeah. They have passed the Turing test.

The systems, you should know are not evil. They're not sentient. They are just optimized. They are built to achieve goals.

This is critically important. What are the goals?

And when the goal is narrowly defined. Even as something as harmless as something like maximizing profits, or efficiency, or information retrieval, it can evolve into something very, very, very dangerous.

If we've given AI the task of winning, it will win!

Even if it means stepping over every other human value in the process. And the risks are not far off!

They're beginning to show right now. According to this, that just came out yesterday.

The choices have already been made. AI models can already simulate human behavior.

Mimic speech.

They can copy faces. They can write their own malicious code. They can predict outcomes based on enormous troves of data.

They can influence, persuade, subtlety distort reality, without you even knowing it.

What happens when a regime, any regime decides to head over surveillance, and governance to an AI?

It will happen!

When propaganda becomes personally tailored by a machine that knows your weaknesses better than you do. When dissent is predicted and neutralized before I even act on it.

Before it's just a budding thought in your head.

We may not notice.

This is the warning. That moment, when human choice becomes less relevant. And that is the trap.

These systems are not going to arrive as conquerors. They're going to come, and they already are, as conveniences. Tools that help us decide. Optimize our time. Filter our information.

And eventually, we won't even notice when we've stopped deciding.

This is something I put enormous amounts of energy into. And there are solutions to all of these things.

But you have to separate yourself from some of these companies! Quite honestly.

Who are they to make these decisions for us?

So it just announced, its personal education tool, yesterday.

Anthropic did. Under clawed.

Now, remember what I just said to you. They're warning that it can subtlety manipulate you.

It can convince you of things that are not true.

It can make you do things that you may not -- you don't even know that's not your choice.

It can change history!

It can change everything.

The people who are warning you, that it is no longer a matter of when -- if. It's a matter of when!

Are now the guys coming out, on the same day saying, by the way, we have been a new educational tool for you!

Oh, okay.

Sign me up for that, I guess. That's a little terrifying!

And the risks are already here. When our choices become echoes of machine predictions, we're in trouble.

The time when we hand the steering wheel over, and we're now passengers in our own story. That's the quite apocalypse. Not war.

But surrender.

One click! One convenience at a time.

And you hit the point of no return.

Anthropics' report that came out yesterday makes one thing brutally clear: There is no longer a pause button.

There is no longer halting the spread of AI.

Any more than you could put a pause on electricity. Or pull the plug on electricity.

It's not going to happen. You can do it yourself.

But the code is out.

The research is all public.

The hardware has already been distributed. Every major nation. Every tech giant. Every university is building this now.

We are past the point of whether this happens. The only question now is how!

We are building something that we don't fully understand yet. Hoping that by the time it becomes dangerous. We will have figured it out. Ask how to contain it.

When was the last time humans ever figured that out?

I mean, that hope is pretty thin. It's not dead.

But, I mean, the only reason to have hope is there is another side to the story!

If we guide it with wisdom and restraint, AI can change almost everything for the better.

By 2030, we can see diseases. Once fatal, map and cured by intelligence systems that can simulate billions of drug interactions in hours!

It can take a COVID-19. It will -- it will solve that in minutes. And it will, yes, all of its mutations. And come up with something better, that will kill it. Personalized medicine is not just a promise anymore. It will become a baseline soon.

Cancer will become very rare.

Genetic disorders will be reversed. Alzheimer's. Alzheimer's will be stopped before it even begins!

Food insecurity erased. Climate models powered by AI prevent disasters before it strikes.

I mean, this is incredible!

Education, as they announced yesterday, will become individualized. Children learning by not standardized testing, but by curiosity and passion. Guided by systems that will adapt to their minds, like a perfect teacher.

Who doesn't want me some of that?

Who is in charge of it?

That's the thing we have to ask!

Because the promise is: Work could evolve from survival into meaning. Dangerous repetitive labor, automated. Creativity will explode. Writers, musicians, artists, working alongside AI to build entirely new forms of expression! Perhaps most importantly, humanity might finally be equipped to solve problems that we were unable or unable to fix. Poverty. Illiteracy. Water access. Energy efficiency. And AI, if we use it right, will just be a multiplier on human will!

If that will is good, then the outcome would be extraordinary. And that's the point, if. If. If.

Because we're not guaranteed a better world.

We are not promised a renaissance. The same tools that could save a life, could be used to extinguish millions of people. The same systems that could free us from our everyday drudgery.

Could chain us to distraction. Dependency and control. And once we step fully into this world, and we're stepping into it, right now.

We're not going to be able to turn back. We're not there. We're there now.

We can't turn back from this.

But we may lose sight on our own choices. Not in five years. You can't stop it! You can't unbuild intelligence.

We may reach a point where systems that we made are so embedded in daily life. That they cannot ever be unplugged. Without collapsing the entire economy. Worldwide. Hospitals. Governments. Everything.

There's -- what's scary. It would be a dramatic ending. But there would be no dramatic moment of takeover.

Just the gradually drift, until the idea of human first decisions become quaint.

I've been talking about this for so long.

And I -- the time is here! The time is now.

But one of my favorite lines from Les Miserables.

But we are young. Or I am young and unafraid.

There are things, that we can do.

But we have to really -- we have to convince our neighbors and our family and our friends, I'm not sure anybody is really working on that right now.

We have to make sure that they understand the problems!

Our -- our big question is not whether the technology has come. Not even what it can do. The question will be personal. The question is personal!

What will I do with it?

Will I use AI to amplify my voice, or to silence others? Will I let it shape my habits? Or will I remain the author of my own mind?

Will I demand transparency. Or will I settle for convenience?

Will I build it for truth or profit alone?

Because all of this stuff is going to be tempting. And it's going to be right in your face tomorrow!

And it will be so easy to let go.

To let it help. Let it guide. I don't know.

I mean, look at -- guys, when it comes time to go out to eat, are you ever like, you know what, I really want to go to the restaurant!

Whatever.

Where do you want to eat?

I don't care. Wherever. Where do you want to go, honey? You make the decision.

Okay. We're willing to surrender stuff. And let's surrender it to other humans, especially when it's not important stuff.

But it's going to plan your day. It's going to filter your news. It will nudge your voice.

You will trade agency for ease.

And if we do that too often for too long. We won't be using AI anymore. It will be using us.

So this isn't a manifesto of despair.
It's not. Because the tools we're building are not demons.

They are not gods! They are mirrors. They are amplifiers. They become what we ask of them.

They will reflect what we value.

If we build for wisdom, we may finally gain it.

If we build for dignity. We may elevate to that level.

If -- if we build it for power alone. Then power becomes the only outcome.

We stand right here in the doorway!

We're now in the room!

We don't get a -- we don't get a second chance at the first step.

And the first step is being taken right now!

By 2030, we will have either created the most extraordinary tool in human history, or the last one, we ever control!

So, we're building something beyond ourselves.

The machine is here. It's not going to leave. It's not going to sleep.

It's not going to wake.

The only choice is the one you make today.

Not later.

But today.

Not when it's obvious. Right now!

Which way will I use this?

Because AI is a tool. A brilliant one.

Until the moment, I forget, that I'm -- I'm the user of it!

And when I forget that, the tool begins to use me.

And then that's the moment we vanish. Not with a bang, but with a shrug. Don't shrug.

Choose! Choose!

Stay awake. Stay aware.

Follow this! It's really important.