Transcript

Maduro Raid Secret Weapons CONFIRMED?! | Annie Jacobsen | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 276

From Glenn Beck · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 1 h 10 min · 11,274 words · 146 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "Maduro Raid Secret Weapons CONFIRMED?! | Annie Jacobsen | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 276", an episode of Glenn Beck published January 31, 2026 (1 h 10 min, about 11,274 words). It mentions 17 people, works and ideas, including Donald Trump, Venezuela, Greenland, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Havana syndrome.

What this episode is about

The discussion centers on the historical existence of advanced, covert weaponry, likened to the Havana Syndrome, dating back to the 1950s, and the implications of the Insurrection Act for military intervention in the United States. It highlights the potential threat posed by Venezuela, as noted in popular media, and delves into the authenticity and complexities of military operations depicted in narrative contexts, suggesting that the U.S. possesses advanced capabilities that remain largely unrecognized.

Key takeaways

  • Havana Syndrome type weapons: a relic of the Cold War or a prescient warning for modern threats?
  • The Insurrection Act: America’s forgotten trump card, raising eyebrows on military intervention in its own streets.
  • Venezuela: not just a plot twist in Jack Ryan, but arguably America’s most underestimated threat in the hemisphere.
  • Innovative military strategies: when kill-or-capture missions become less about regime change and more about swift precision.
  • Presidential tactics evolve; is unpredictability in leadership America’s new national security strategy or reckless gamble?

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 10:00: Venezuela, Greenland, Jack Ryan, Donald Trump
  2. – 20:00: General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Venezuela, Eisenhower administration, Greenland
  3. – 30:00: World War I, Donald Trump, Havana syndrome, DARPA
  4. – 40:00: NRO, World War II, Burna
  5. – 1:00:00: Donald Trump, World War II
  6. – 1:10:00: Greenland, Relief Factor, Donald Trump, Venezuela

Notable quotes from "Maduro Raid Secret Weapons CONFIRMED?! | Annie Jacobsen | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 276"

  • Well, also to be clear, I wasn't just a consultant. I was in that writer's room every day, day in and day out. Jack Ryan's season 1 and season two.
    about Jack Ryan · at
  • I think that's one thing that people don't understand that I really like about Donald Trump in ways scares the hell out of me because he's playing very high stakes games.
    about Donald Trump · at
  • And this and I say this because this is when like Greenland became this key focal point in the nuclear threat from the Soviet Union. But everything that Eisenhower did was done in secret. There were no conversations between him and.
    about Greenland · at
  • And one of those ripple effects is, Venezuela is supposed to have the best of China and the best of Russia protecting it. And none of it worked. I mean I thought about the Chinese salesman that was.
    about Venezuela · at
  • Mission and I cannot wait for a little time to pass and be learn more the Havana syndrome weapon that you know they tried to say for a long time that wasn't real and I'm like it's I don't know it sounds pretty specific that our people are.
    about Havana syndrome · at
  • Of course it exists. but in terms of the sonic weapons, I wrote about those in my book DARPA, about the Pentagon's brain. They exist. I've interviewed people who have volunteered to be civilian recipients of those sonic.
    about DARPA · at
  • About any of them. But again, this is something I've been writing about in all of my books because the degree of presidential power of executive branch power that exists and…
    about World War II · at
  • Just look at NRO, the National Reconnaissance Office, which was a classified office from 1960 to 1993, I believe, maybe '92. So for 30 some odd years it existed and no one in the.
    about NRO · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Donald Trump — Person · Referenced political leader / decision-maker · 4 mentions · first at
    Central reference point for discussion of presidential power, unconventional national-security decision-making, and a prior high-profile targeted killing (Soleimani). The host and guest analyze how his actions differ from historical precedent and how they may reshape geopolitics.
  • General Dwight D. Eisenhower — Person · Historical comparator (referenced president) · 4 mentions · first at
    Used as a historical analogy for secretive Cold War-era executive decision-making, especially around Greenland’s strategic value and covert national security actions. Serves as a contrast to modern public-opinion pressure and media transparency.
    Then how the public perception then moves the rudder on what happens moving forward. And so the closest analogy I could make to this presidential this president's term is like…
  • Jack Ryan — Person · Fictional character referenced as narrative device · 4 mentions · first at
    Mentioned via a viral classroom clip used to discuss predictive fiction and the guest’s role in shaping ‘authentic’ kill/capture mission portrayals in the writers’ room. In context, it functions as shorthand for the TV series’ plotlines rather than a real-world individual.

Companies & orgs

  • DARPA — Company · Referenced expert · 1 mention · first at
    Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency mentioned in context of military technology.
  • NRO — Company · Referenced expert · 1 mention · first at
    National Reconnaissance Office mentioned as a key intelligence agency.

Concepts & topics

  • Havana syndrome — Concept · Core topic · 3 mentions · first at
    Discussed as a type of weapon that has existed since the 50s and its implications.
  • Bretton Woods — Concept · Economic context · 1 mention · first at
    Discussed in the context of rewriting global economic systems.
    Can understand why he's doing things that I think even world leaders are missing. He is d he is saying I am not playing by the old rules because he sees the old rules getting…

Places & events

  • Venezuela — Place · Setting · 6 mentions · first at
    Discussed as a geopolitical threat and location of a military operation in the podcast.
  • Greenland — Place · Strategic location · 6 mentions · first at
    Discussed as a strategic location for defense and nuclear threat scenarios.
  • World War II — Event · Historical context · 5 mentions · first at
    Referenced in the context of the CIA's formation and historical military operations.
  • Eisenhower administration — Event · Historical context · 2 mentions · first at
    Referenced in the context of secret military operations and nuclear threats.
    Then how the public perception then moves the rudder on what happens moving forward. And so the closest analogy I could make to this presidential this president's term is like…
  • World War I — Event · Historical context · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as an analogy for current technological changes in warfare.
    AI everything is going to change and we're already seeing with the use of drones and everything else. And I equate the time period that we're in to World War I when Europe came…
  • Bay of Pigs — Event · Historical context · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as a failed mission analogous to current operations.
    We know about the missions that fail. and again, what this reminds me of the closest analogy that failed would have been Bay of Pigs.

Sponsors

  • Relief Factor — Product · Sponsor · 2 mentions · first at
    Promoted as a supplement targeting inflammation and pain.
    It targets inflammation that causes pain so you can move better, feel better, and actually enjoy life again. Try the 3-week quick start. It's 1995. Go to reliefactor.com or…
  • Preborn — Company · Sponsor · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as a sponsor promoting ultrasound machines for clinics.
    Pre-born's goal is simple and urgent.
  • Burna — Product · Sponsor · 1 mention · first at
    Promoted as a less lethal self-defense product.
    Why I want to tell you about Burna. They are the leader in less lethal self-defense. A BurnA launcher is legal in all 50 states, requiring no background check, no permits, no…
  • Home Title Lock — Product · Sponsor · 1 mention · first at
    Promoted as a service to protect against title theft.
    Reliefactor.com or call 8004 relief. 800 the number for relief. Let's see if you're next in getting out of pain. The FBI has been warning about a type of real estate fraud on…

Full transcript with timestamps

So the Havana syndrome type weapons have existed since the 50s. The Insurrection Act allows the president to use military force inside the United States of America.

We are looking at war that will happen in the blink of an eye. It specifically addresses what a threat space is in terms of nuclear weaponry. So after Venezuela, there's this clip going around with Jack Ryan uh where he is he's in a classroom and he's like, "Tell me the biggest threat uh to the United States and the I think the Western Hemisphere." They might he might have even said the world and everybody has a suggestion and he says Venezuela. And uh and every that clip was going around like look at this. This is magic. Look, I mean, you know, it's like the Simpsons. Um, but you were one of the consultants on that. You were one of them that said, "No, Venezuela."

Why did you say that? Mhm. Well, also to be clear, I wasn't just a consultant. I was in that writer's room every day, day in and day out. Jack Ryan's season 1 and season two.

Wow. And so it was like, and you know, it's a collaborative effort, by the way. It's not uh you know every we're all working together to figure out the best the best story line but the actual capture um the assault on the compound was something that I brought in a bunch of you know air quotes former military folks

help the writer room understand how we could portray that kind of a of a killer capture mission authentically and that's obviously what we did. And so you wrote a book about kill and capture. Um, but the rest of the world and and I think this probably even goes to military people were shocked by how that went down. I mean, it puts America in a different place militarily speaking. I think it shows maybe we have things that nobody understands and we're far more advanced uh than what anybody thought. Um, how how shocked were you at how that went down?

Well, I was shocked for a very different reason. And I think for me I'm always looking at the technical aspects of things in terms of the military equipment in terms of the the planning what's called and then also how it sits in the long line of history meaning the militaries and the CIA's kill or capture missions since the invention of the C or rather the the the sort of CIA became an organization World War II and but organizations like Delta Force. So to me that's what's shocking is how it's absolutely changing and you know we can get into the the details of that because that's what I find really interesting.

So I do want to get into that because the one thing I I hate the things the CIA has done. Um much of it is good but a lot of it is not good. And I think a lot of the world hates us because we'll we have had these policies of we're going to just depose somebody and we're going to pick the next person for you. And so the idea of self-ruule and everything else, it just becomes this is America's guy. And that hasn't worked out well for us many times. Um and it's very short-term thinking. And I've I've always hated that. What I liked about this and also at the same time simultaneously disliked is that we didn't topple the regime. The vice president who uh you know duly elected or not um she's not a fan of the United States. She's not like our pick.

But we took the one person out at the top and said you are in violation of these things and we are not necessarily picking the next person. Is that unusual for us? Is that new thinking?

It is unusual. And what's also interesting is that e every if you I think if you look at the presidents and you approach if you're like me a historian who writes specifically about military and intelligence

you can see how the president or at least I can is impacted by both his predecessors

and because presidents are briefed on what the other guys have done and who they want to emulate and then also they want to set their own sort of stamp on, you know, special activities, if you will,

euphemism for this kind of thing, a killer capture mission. But this current president never ceases to amaze me. And that was true in the last uh his last term as well. And when I say amaze meaning the playbook is not by any stretch predictable or rather

it doesn't follow a foot, right? Yes. It is not standard and but you it's it's interesting. I almost used the word fun and that's a terrible word. It's not fun but it's

intriguing to look at how these different presidents approach all this and also how they are impacted by their own successes or failures. And that's where it gets really interesting because you can go all the way back to Kennedy and look at how his personal embarrassment over one organization's failed killer capture mission

impacts the world going forward. You know, um uh I think that's one thing that people don't understand that I I really like about Donald Trump in in ways scares the hell out of me because he's playing very high stakes games. Um but it seems logical to me at least I can understand why he's doing things that I think even world leaders are missing. He is d he is saying I am not playing by the old rules because he sees the old rules getting us from Bretonwoods to where we are now. And he doesn't believe we're in a good place.

Those you know might have been good for the time back in the 40s and 50s but the world has changed. And so he's I'm not playing by the the rules. And I I think it took them quite a while before the world started waking up and going, "Oh, oh, wait, wait, wait. At what point do you think the world is going to catch up to him and say, "Okay, I can predict what he's going to do next. Are we there yet or not?" Well, I think your observations are super interesting and and they point to something I think about also, which is like I I write about history and it's easier to look at look at operations through the lens of history and then kind of, you know, reverse engineer your opinion. I mean, and I mean that with all humility that that is actually easier. what you just commented on is saying here's what's happening in the present day and that is a lot harder.

It is a lot harder to know. And so it's kind of like a comfort being a historian. But what's crazy about this is that I am repeatedly being like asked to comment on things that we thought were history that are actually present day. Right? So if you just look at

meaning what like meaning I did not expect to be writing you know suggesting to the Jack Ryan writers team hey let's do an authentic killer capture mission inside the the Venezuela and then have it essentially

become kind of true reality. That is where it gets awkward when can we I just I want to just touch on Greenland here for a second. Um

yes by I think he and and and help me out. I I talked to him about five months ago, six months ago and I said, "You're rewriting Bretton Woods. You're just rewriting the whole thing." And he said, "Yes, good observation. Yes, I am." Um, and when I look at what he's saying about Greenland, my god, I don't want to take that over. I don't want to be s sewing a 51, you know, 51st star on the flag. I don't I don't want any of that kind of stuff to happen. But I think this is him to understand this. He is saying in my opinion, Europe has failed. They're going in the wrong direction. They are not going to be able to protect themsel.

They're just failing right now and they don't seem to be waking up at all and we have to protect our own hemisphere and so we have to have control of Greenland. A, am I reading that right? B, how does Europe respond to that? And is there a chance that we can get what we need from Greenland without, you know, sending in military or doing something like that? Well, I think what you're also pointing out is very important point about what the president and let's call him pus what a pus wants to do

what they have the power to do which is mostly the answer is everything in my opinion my understanding and then

what happens the events that happen and then how the public perception then moves the rudder on on what happens moving forward forward. And so the closest analogy I could make to this presidential this president's term is like if you look back at the Eisenhower administration after Trump, right?

Mhm. But everything was happening in secret. And this and I say say this because this is when like Greenland became this key

focal point in the nuclear threat from the Soviet Union. But everything that Eisenhower did was done in secret. There were no conversations between him and someone like yourself, like a president and right. There was it was he and his adviserss, his special group. That's always what they're called. Deciding the fate of the world in essence or deciding what we would do, we being the United States. And so and then the world would see the results of that a decade later.

Correct? I keep I keep I keep saying to my audience, you don't understand. You will not understand what he has done in his first year for 10 years, maybe five, but it's it's not people are like we're not getting anything done. No, no, no. M good or bad mountains are being moved but you won't understand why for maybe a decade exactly like Eisenhower even though he's saying it out front some of it

I don't think people connect it yes and then there also is now this new sort of pressure on what happens in the present tense which is based on public opinion which didn't exist in the 1950s. It simply didn't exist. People were just way behind the curve. And now you're talking about a daily dose of opinion from billions of people around the world, which does impact not only the president's opinion of what he might do, but what others do, what Europe does, what China does. And so it's completely new territory. And it's interesting for us to discuss. I cannot encourage people enough to read history because then it takes the sort of

you know impact like how could we be so crazy as to you go well wait we have been doing this look at the kill or capture missions

since Eisenhower. Yeah. and then begin to understand how this fits into the big scheme of things so that one's opinion is a little bit more informed and I then I think you have actually a better take on the narrative as it's unfolding and with no doubt understanding that it's a new world.

Yeah. And I don't even know I I feel weird every day. You know, my job is to give opinions, and I feel less and less qualified to give those opinions every day because we're dealing with things that if he's right, it's going to change the world, I think, for a much better and freer. Um, in my opinion, but if he's wrong, it could be catastrophic. I mean, you just look at he seems to when it came to Venezuela, I felt like he took, you know, the old term, you know, two birds with one stone. I felt like he took one stone and knocked out 200 birds. I mean, everything, China, everything was is affected by that. And at some point, you're backing these big countries into corners. And that's when countries or anybody becomes dangerous is when they are like, I have no other thing I can do. And I think, correct me if I'm wrong, you probably know better than I, but I I I think that most wars, if not all wars, all begin with just a

simple miscalculation. Somebody has miscalculated. Um, and I I hope it's not us. Do you have any comment on that thought?

Yes. I would I like here's what comes to mind, and it sounds like a tangent, but stay with me. in the first Trump administration when he chose to kill General

Solommani, you know, Iranian sort of military chief in a drone strike. I was stunned. I remember thinking I mean it was so unusual the specifics of doing that,

right? and the bravado with which that was done and short of Iran you know threatening to kill Pompeo and others nothing has really happened on that but again

it you know that we just don't know we don't know we the general person does not understand how that impacted Israel how that impacted Hezbollah how that in in you know impacted the entire terrorist organization across the Middle beast. And I think that is a little bit of a sort of maybe poetic analogy that I'm trying to get at with this current,

you know, capture mission. But the specifics of this capture mission are astonishing to me because it was so successful. That is what is hard to wrap one's head around, at least for me. Killing Solani is a lot easier. Drone striking someone.

I mean, this was an astonishingly huge operation. And what if it had failed? It would have been catastrophically bad. Um and as and the the amount of people I mean for us not to lose any asset, not just people, any asset is remarkable. And you know, one of those ripple effects is, you know, Venezuela is supposed to have the best of China and the best of Russia protecting it. And none of it worked. I I mean I thought about the Chinese salesman that was going to go to the big convention for weapons that is now looking at all their customers who are saying wait a minute wait a minute what the hell happened there how good is this because America you didn't you didn't even launch a missile how did that happen what do we have something new do you know

well I I I don't know I don't know and this is why it's and I mean that as like an interesting yeah

thought experiment because we know about the missions that fail. I mean, and again, what what this reminds me of the closest analogy that failed would have been Bay of Pigs.

Mhm. Trying to kill Castro and this, you know most you know, people aren't even they only know about this as just like the Bay of Pigs. But if you really look about look drill down on that and understand what happens when something goes wrong, how a President Kennedy in that situation becomes embarrassed and outraged. And so I think we're talking about this mission that was a success. What's more interesting to me is what is that going to do now to this president and his authority perception of authority and his perception of the use of Delta and his perception of the use of the CIA because all of these things lined up in his favor in a manner that is unprecedented. And it's scary because you don't want the president to become arrogant about it, you know,

or to think that that wasn't just a I don't want to say, but just a bunch of events working at the right. There were 150 aircraft involved.

Yeah. I mean, the agent the CIA was in, you know, conducting intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance prior. There's this strange detail of the president by his own admittance calling Maduro and you know giving him a heads up which is just how did that work? We don't know any of this. We don't know what is actually propaganda or you know or call it what you will sort of narrative that you want to tell.

These are interesting times. Um, we knew the CIA had been monitoring him, Maduro, and knew where every family member was, knew, you know, the the guys going in knew the dogs. I mean, knew everything. Um,

a quickly, how unusual is that? That's not unusual at all from what I understand. Okay. I mean, in other words, the guys who I remember the Jack Ryan writers team going, this is going back to the to the, you know, that tweet,

um, being shocked to learn, and it's a detail I know, but that I had, you know, forgotten how interesting it is, that that the the CIA or the military, they work together in situations like this, essentially has the architectural plans of every important building in every foreign country. And you can fill in the dots why.

Yeah. I mean, it was amazing. It It was amazing to me when we bombed uh the nuclear facility that we had been running dry runs of that bombing back in the early 2000s and that we had built that bomb specifically for that that and again 20 years ago. It's amazing the things that we have filed away and the things that we're working on just so if the president says we're going to do that, they're ready. It's incredible.

That is absolutely correct. And it's also why I like looking at history to really drill down on these events of the past and I do it from documents, you know, that are declassified as well as firthand accounts from the operators who were involved in those missions. so that you can become a little bit educated about you know what might happen in the future and but I am fascinated by this mission and I cannot wait for a little time to pass and be learn more

um the Havana syndrome weapon that you know they tried to say for a long time that that wasn't real and I'm like it's I don't know it sounds pretty specific that our people are coming back and going to the hospital and saying the same things were happening to them. Um, is it possible that we now have that? Did we Is it possible we use that on this mission?

Well, the from what I understand that what you're referring to is directed at people. Right. Right. So, it's working to injure people and it's injuring people in a long-term manner like short-term, medium term, but also really long term. So then the the sonic weapons then would be more mass to make you vomit or do whatever it is.

Those kinds of weapons, they're different in your opinion. Yeah, they're all I mean I've written about these in almost every one of my books because they always connect. So the Havana syndrome type weapons have existed since the 50s. I I'm just stunned that I'm stunned when reporters are like reporters were saying this sounds like it's made up. I mean it just it's there historically. Of course it exists.

Of course it exists. Um, but in terms of the sonic weapons, I wrote about those in my book DARPA, about the Pentagon's brain. They exist. I've interviewed people who have volunteered to be civilian um recipients of those sonic weapons, you know, to see if it actually incapacitates them. Those are short-term weapons usually, by the way. You can just Google them and find them. And

why haven't we used them more? Or have we? We just didn't notice. And do you think they were used on this mission?

We do use them. The the real remarkable situation about this mission is that it was a confluence of events that all came together working together when when the reference I can't remember if it was the president or the chief of staff said that we, you know, took out the electronics. Yeah.

Right. That's an old technique that goes back to Gulf War 41, which is what we did to Iraq, you know, to the entire system in the first night,

right? Those were E I mean, we've had E6s, I think that's what they are. Those E6s, we've had those forever that go in. They're the first ones to go in. They jam everything. But to come in with I don't remember the number, 26 helicopters, slow and low, and no missile was even launched at them. That's hard to explain.

Well, there's no question that that's new technology and there's always new technology in these missions. Remember the Bin Laden reign and raid or kill when they killed Bin Laden?

That involved new technology with a stealth helicopter that was only unveiled when a piece of the helicopter got left behind and packaged.

That's right. That's right. So, these are always like secret pieces of technology that we don't know about until they make an appearance on the battlefield. That's the F-17 in in Iraq. This is again this is history. So it will be interesting to learn eventually what those specific weapons were. But by now China and Russia already know about them and are developing if they hadn't sooner. So, you know, I and I talked to the president about this about why are we still bu building aircraft carriers when we know in three years just through AI everything is going to change and we're already seeing with the use of drones and everything else. And I I equate the time period that we're in to World War I when Europe came in with all of the horses and they were going to fight it with the horses and they had no idea that the tank was going to change everything that you had gas that you know we had flamethrowers and it was

going to be a completely different world and it shocked and horrified the world and I I keep thinking that the next big conflict, God forbid, is going to shock the world at what at how efficient man has become in killing in war. Do you agree with that?

Well, I think your World War I analogy is is pretty brilliant and also terrifying.

Yeah. Because, you know, let's not forget the chemical weapons that were used, the muscle gas. And remember that at the out, you know, at the end of World War I, everyone agreed that was the war to end all wars, right?

Because war was perceived as so horrible. It had gotten so mechanized. And you had all these treaties that came out of it, Geneva, etc., you know, make prohibiting chemical weapons, etc., only to be completely defied.

Um, and so you're absolutely right. I mean, which is the the reason why all of this must be to prevent a World War II.

Yes. Must be full stop, end of sentence. It is dangerous time with weaponry accelerating to a degree that none of us have any idea about. That is how the defense department is structured. They are working on weapon systems we are not meant to know about. I will tell you that I saw when I first saw the uh drones take out um people in a tank in Ukraine and how it just waited for them and there was no escape. It it knew how many people were in and it would follow each one and there's nowhere to go. And I thought,

"Oh my gosh, put that at scale. Put that on Taiwan." Uh I mean, that is it's just horrifying. Horrifying. And I and I uh I know that the one thing that truly frightens President Trump because if he brought it up once to me, he's brought it up a thousand times in private private conversations. You don't ever want a nuclear war. He's like, Glenn, I I helped rebuild it. You have no idea the destruction that can happen. You do not want a nuclear war. And u so I know he's trying to prevent those things, but at the same time I wonder if we're looking over the horizon and seeing is there something almost as horrific as a nuclear weapon. I mean the you know the problem is nuclear weapon as you so I mean you just so vividly outline in your book. Um you know you push that button and it's over and that we're not looking at those kinds of weapons I hope. Um but we are looking at war that will happen

in the blink of an eye. battles that will be started and over in a blink of an eye.

You brought up an interesting point there that um maybe I'll tell an anecdotal story about that has to do with acceleration of weaponry when you spoke of the Ukrainian drones. It's I think it's really interesting to consider that drones didn't exist until they did exist in the summer of 2000. I mean they existed. They were tiny plantations battlefield in Vietnam. But it was the CIA who really brought the drone to the battlefield

in a mission that is kind of analogous or at least important to what happened with Maduro. So it was the summer of 2000. Clinton was president and the CIA wanted to kill Bin Laden. This was a year before 9/11

and this is because of his attacks against embassies in Africa. Right. And the CIA specifically went to Clinton and asked for permission. They had been developing these drones. I interviewed all the original players and it's in surprise Gil Vanish. They went to the president and the president said, "No, we will not do that. You need to have an FBI agent with you when you you have to give Bin Laden the opportunity to be arrested."

Wow. And do you see my analogy? This is exactly what happened with Maduro. they had FBI agents with them.

And so my take on hearing about that was, you know, this kind of circular when the when the sort of horseshoe comes together, you had, you know, the CIA was furious that Clinton wouldn't give them permission to kill Bin Laden, which much of the world would look back and say, "Too bad they didn't." Okay,

he wanted to do it the legal way and bring in an FBI agent. The CIA said, "That's ridiculous. it will never work. And so instead, the CIA developed the Predator drone. And you know, the rest is history about that, going all the way up to your comments about Ukraine. And then you come around full circle where all these weapons, you know, sort of more conventional and also modern-day battlefield weapons go in and take out Maduro, but actually arrest him.

Yeah. That just makes my head spin with with multiple layers of special operations which and I'm not saying I'm pro or you know again for or against a mission I'm just telling you the facts

but on balance with nuclear World War III all of these things must be taken into consideration

new research is revealing something heartbreaking millions of women in America carry longlasting emotional pain after an abortion grief regret, you know, the trauma that often doesn't fade with time. This is something pre-born sees up close every single day at the clinics they support uh where women are just not facing just a medical decision, but an emotional and spiritual one as well. But there is hope and it often begins with one powerful moment when a woman sees her baby on an ultrasound and hears the heartbeat for the very first time. That changes absolutely everything and the baby's chance at life doubles.

As Preborn celebrates 20 years of saving babies, there is a moment right now that can save countless lives for years to come. It's an ultrasound. An ultrasound machine just doesn't show a picture. It introduces a mom to her child and clinics that can't afford one. Pre-born's goal is simple and urgent. Place an ultrasound machine in every clinic across America that needs one. If you have the means, would you consider a taxdeductible gift of $15,000 to save countless lives? But dial pound 250 send a keyword baby. That's pound250keyword baby or donate securely at pre-born.com/glen.

pre-born.com/glenn. You know that I'm a gun owner and that I understand the importance of being prepared for any emergency situation. I think you're the same. But I also know that according to law enforcement statistics, 99% of all situations where force may be required, it doesn't require lethal force. It's vital to be prepared for that 1% of situations with a gun, but it's also important to be ready for everything else. And that's why I want to tell you about Burna. They are the leader in less lethal self-defense. A BurnA launcher is legal in all 50 states, requiring no background check, no permits, no waiting periods. As long as you're over 18, you can own one and carry one anywhere. And I personally own one. Uh, every member of my family owns a BurnA launcher. My kids keep them in their backpacks in, you know, in the college campuses. uh at work. My wife has one in her purse. I have one in the small of my back. Uh

Burna, they believe in your right to defend yourself, but also be completely prepared for that. So take action now. Uh protect what's important. Visit burnaab by rna.com and get a 10% discount off your purchase. That's burn.com/glenn. Stand together with Berna where safety meets responsibility and preparation meets peace of mind. you know, you've written about PED's presidential, what is it, executive action initiatives, I or I mean uh directives, right? Um and when I first found out about those, I don't know, I'm I'm uh I'm slow in the pickup sometimes.

I've learned a lot about my country in the last 20 years, but um when I found about found out about those, they've been going on for a long time. I was horrified. just absolutely horrified. If that's not the if that's not authoritarianism, I don't know what is where the president can put in a directive and it's in there and only the president and maybe one other person can know what it is and it's only pull explain what a peed is. Well, you're talking about them in terms of I believe what I wrote about in nuclear war scenario whereby they're in the briefcase and we're talking I was speaking specifically to peeds that are directives for the president in the event that the president is going to launch a nuclear counter strike anyone.

But there are other kinds of peeds. They cover everything. Oh yes. Yeah. Oh yes. Absolutely. And we don't know about any of them. But again, this is something I've been writing about in all of my books because the the degree of presidential power of executive branch power that exists and that has existed since World War II is astonishing and most people do not realize or know about. And it's only when some of these radical, you know, situations come to the four that people learn about them. And then I think many people are astonished to learn about them. But it would probably be better to understand how they've always been there. And it's literally just a ma a matter of who uses what kind of authority. You know, you saw during the Bush administration the real exercise of that executive authority for the first time in the modern era. For the first time in the modern era, but they had always been there going back to

interestingly because Dick Cheney was the vice president. Some people say he was acting like the president. Um, cliche, but you know, I write in Surprise Kilvan about how Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were the chief of staff and the deputy chief of staff to Ford after Nixon was impeached. This is where you can see absolutely the resurgence, the rebirth of executive authority that came directly out of Rumsfeld and Cheny's fear that the church hearings, sorry for too much history, the church are what investigated the CIA over the assassinations. Right? So the church hearings are happening and we need to, you know, everyone's screaming and shouting. We need to get rid of the power of the CIA. And meanwhile, inside the executive office, the power is being protected and restored. This is the way of the executive branch. And it's better to know it, I believe, than to be the ostrich who pretends it doesn't exist.

When the proverbial four-letter word hits the fan, you better believe that executive authority comes out. And that's what you're talking about with the peeds. you know, they can come out of that briefcase or the file whenever the president wants. And you're looking at that right now with what's happening domestically. And so all of these things entwine and become super interesting.

Um I I am really concerned. Um I don't like secret stuff and I do believe that there are things that we as a nation have to keep secret and I like that. But we we are secret about everything. And so the secret of things we shouldn't be secret about, you know, it it's just it we've overclassified everything. Um and that gives power to a lot of people that maybe shouldn't have power. and and I am I'm I'm very concerned at the about the growth of the intel agencies uh for because it is almost like I I I said this to somebody that I I I can't reveal who it is but you would you would know who they are and um they were very high up um in Intel and um and he's not necessarily not a fan of Intel and what's going on or a fan um but I asked to him. I said, "If the intel is out of control, if it's almost like they're their own thft that they can do whatever they want, you know, they they don't really report to anybody cuz a lot of

times nobody knows what they're doing." Um I said, "Are they are they own little kingdom? Can they ever be stopped if that's true?" And shockingly to me, this man said to me, "No, I don't I don't think you ever undo that without just resetting everything." Do you hold that view?

I hold a view that's that's shares some of that, but also sort of expands a little bit starting with this. You know, many people think of the CIA as the intelligence community, not acknowledging that there are 17 intelligence agencies

that we know of. So, I'm assuming there are more. Um, just look at NRO, the National Reconnaissance Office, which was a classified office from 1960 to 1993, I believe, maybe '92. So for 30 some odd years it existed and no one in the United States of America that wasn't didn't hold a top secret SEI clearance knew it even existed. This is this was the satellite agency in essence. Um and so to your question how powerful is the intel world? It's very very powerful. It's also important. Essentially they are there to give intelligence to the president to prevent military action.

This is also transforming in the world in which we live where intelligence is used not necessarily to prevent you know military action but to foster it. But I think the biggest problem that listeners, viewers would benefit from thinking about is that after 911, this new organization, the director of national intelligence, this office was created and that's what Tulsi Gabbard is currently the director of. And from my understanding of decades on reporting and intelligence is there is a I don't want to say hostility, but there is a rivalry if you will.

Yeah. or a class of a clash of cultures between the CIA and the you know and the DOD

and so things are stovepiped there which ironically was the whole reason that organization

right and again that is interesting all this stuff is really interesting to me Glenn because it's human nature you know what you see you kind of see in your own family or your tribe or your extended family or your tribe at people getting power or prestige and then kind of wanting a little more. And so I think these are human at at the core they're human issues for somebody like

can they be corrected? I mean that's the beauty of our constitution. Average length of a constitution survival is like 17 years. You know we're we're we're coming up you know over 200 years. And um and that's for a reason I think because for a lot of those years it actually had the checks and balances. Our founders they studied human nature and you know they didn't they didn't predict that like for instance Congress would just give up their power and say no give it to the give it to the agencies because they didn't want to take responsibility for anything. So there's a few things that, you know, over time they didn't uh expect humans to do, but we don't have, especially on secret stuff, there doesn't seem to be checks and balances that work. You know, you there's always a backdoor, always a way you can get around it. And and and that's the real problem. They don't see and this is not just the intelligence

agency. Nobody seems to be uh carry ultimate responsibility for anything. You know, you don't know who who do I go to, who do I who do I go to, who do I fire, who who made that. It's always kind of just nebulous and uh and nobody really seems to have responsibility even though you know people have responsibility. You just as a citizen don't know who it is. Does that make sense?

Yeah, absolutely it makes sense. I I because I am an eternal optimist, which I know people find shocking because I write about the grimst possible, but I really am an eternal optimist.

And I see the situation that we're in now as I see history, which is as a work in progress. As a work in progress. And so I like to be aware of what's happening in the moment obviously, but I like to look at how far we've come and where things have gotten better, not necessarily where they've gotten worse.

Yeah. Um because I think you have to otherwise you can be you know you know pessimism I think leads to paranoia and that is deeply dangerous especially for the citizenry because that's certainly what I am part of and so I'm just examining the leaders and the and the operators um as those who are really holding the reigns of power but what's the role of the citizen? Well, I personally think to be curious how you and I started this conversation off camera. That's where the role of the citizen lies because this business of everybody thinking they are like quarterbacking the president's moves or the secretary of state or

I mean that I find a little suspect because you can one cannot imagine what it would be like to wear the moccasins of those individuals.

Oh my gosh. I can't tell you for the first time. I mean, I've been watching this stuff for a long time. Um, but for the first time, we are under this president, uh, I have seen him make moves that affect billions of lives. And if it's wrong, it affects billions of lives in a negative way. And I have thought to myself, I don't know how many times, I am too much of a coward to be in the shoes of Rubio or Trump. I because I would out of out of responsibility. You know what I mean? I would be like, "This affects so many people. I don't know if I'm qualified to be the one to make the decision." And it takes a special person if you can take it out of arrogance and keep it under control. It does take a special kind of person that can look at all of it and go, "No, we're doing that." Otherwise, you would just you'd be bouncing around over and over again and not and not accomplishing anything.

He is really good or bad, he is bold and uh making decisions that I would never want to be around. Never. Can't imagine it. I'd never sleep.

I think Yes. I mean, look, I think that the I I specifically do not write about politics. No one has any idea what my political affiliations are because I want to tell you about what happened and what is happening and hopefully let people make their own decisions about things. But I believe that it's really important for the citizenry to continue to have an objective like I would hope that people would be like, hm, maybe I can benefit from being a little less tribal.

Yes. Right. Yes. Then you can look back through the lens of history and maybe find errors, errors where you know the course needed to be corrected and where America has gone astray in its leadership and then how to get back toward you know a better way forward. But with that said and what we have been discussing is that you also have this situation where whereby the world all of us all of us on this the world is changing so rapidly because of the momentum of technology that everybody has to step up and recognize that decisions need to be made about the direction of some of these major national security issues you know in an expedited manner. And that's the real problem with the Congress. You have this old sort of lethargic Congress that can't get anything done. And meanwhile, the world is moving forward at lightning speed. And so then that just gives the executive more power.

The president's lean on his ability to create executive orders and do what the perception of the White House needs to be done. I have found myself recently saying over and over again before a monologue, please take off your team jersey. We are facing things that are so consequential that you cannot think about it with a team jersey. You have to be rational, reasonable. You have to know history. I I did a monologue recently on the insurrection act and I I went back to Shea's rebellion because I know the founders did not like authoritarianism. They didn't. But they were also afraid of of tyranny coming in a mob or tyranny coming with the with the banner of liberty. You know what I mean? And so and that is really tough to balance those two. Um, and with the Whiskey Rebellion and Chase uh rebellion, they sent in the troops. And as I'm reading the Constitution, it seems pretty clear to me at least.

Um, but you have to be so careful. I mean, they were George, if you read the words of George Washington on the whiskey whiskey rebellion, they I mean, he was very, very careful. He did not want to do that because he didn't want to send the wrong signal to people, you know, that yep, we're the big state coming in. He was so against that, but yet he rode in with the troops himself

uh to to put it down. Um you know, how do you how do you view the things that we are going through now? Um, I see this as a completely different time in American. This is one that people that do what you do are going to be studying for maybe centuries. This is such a pivotal time in world history. Well, the the two differences right now between now and then, most particularly, which we've been discussing, have to do with speed of action, speed of participation, and the degree of force involved, the degree of lethality, right? And you know, you see that right now inside America. And that's the I couldn't agree with you more that the team jerseys need to come off because the the danger of, you know, being blinded literally by wanting your team to win is profoundly undemocratic. You would want to be curious and say, "Well, those guys are right about that, but I disagree with that and that." And that is not what we

see happening with or almost or or almost just as if not more importantly they're right about this wrong about that.

What does the constitution say? I mean our my team is team constitution and team bill of rights. You know that's the team because that's what's gotten us through all of these really tough times. And the minute we start playing with that or not taking that seriously, the entire thing falls apart and you're you're not America. So it doesn't matter if your team wins or not because you're not what we were created to be.

Mhm. Well, I I I appreciate that a lot. I think in any situation, you want to have your north star. You want to have your guiding principles. You want to be able to refer to a set of, you know, organized ideas so that you can cor, you know, course correct your own

potential tribalism, which is also in our DNA. I mean, we wouldn't have survived if we if we if we weren't a bit tribal and we didn't sort of have a little bit of

protect your own. And so this is this is the balance except we were always we were always eurbous unum for the most part. We've had tribalism break us apart, but we usually came back to the one thing that brought us together, and that was the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The understanding. My father used to say this all the time. I will I I will argue against your point of view till the day I die. I think you are completely wrong, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. And we've lost that. We've lost that.

You know, I have no problem if you want to protest and and and maybe you can take us through the insurrection act. Um uh what it gives the the president authority to do and not do here. But I don't ever want to stifle protest. I don't ever want to pick people up because they're protesting this or that. But the minute, as I read it, the minute you obstruct the federal government from doing its due course and you are using violent means to do that, you've kind of backed the government into a corner to where, well, what am I going to do? Stop doing our job? I mean, how else do you react to that? Can you go through the insurrection act a bit? Yeah, I think the easiest way for people to understand because sometimes you just want it to be simple. It's like boil it down. That's why I go to the smartest people is make this simple for me to understand. The insurrection act allows the president to

use military force inside the United States of America. That's just the simplest, clearest, and most important component of it. the National Guard is there to function at the behest of the governor until you know and then you get into title 10 versus title 32 here's where a lot of people's eyes glaze over so we won't

but once the president says I'm declaring the insurrection act all sort of states bets are off the table all state authority is in deference now to the military And if the military moves in following the directives of the president, the authorization of military force is on the table and soldiers are trained in very specific ways. Just look how the battle.

Yeah. They are not a police force. They're not a police. They are not a police. And and here's where and here's where you know because I was reading about you know the Shea rebellion and um you know they made that decision because the courts were being threatened and so they couldn't do the regular business of the state. Um and for the military to come in and put a rebellion down is is scary because you just don't want to open that can of worms. But it it is at times necessary probably um and um but it it it's very specific that the the state its functions cannot they are not um functioning well take Minnesota. The courts are still working.

The police are still working. They're just not working. You know, I saw the the three Somali that beat the guy with a snow shovel and it was ICE that arrested him, not the the police in the city. And I wondered, is is that a sign that the police are not working and fulfilling their job? I don't know. I mean, it's

I don't know if we're going to get a clear answer, which is really horrible. Well, let's go back in time for a minute here. I think the last time that the insurrection act was in a, you know, was called upon was in 1993 here in Los Angeles, my hometown during the riots. I was here

and to your point, the police simply could not handle the situation and so the president authorized the military to basically return Los Angeles to the control of the state.

Right. But Right. And that is not the situation that you're saying, right? Yeah. Right. Because it's it's not that the police can't, they're not. Um, and so then you get into, well, I mean, do do you think that we that this road started when we started to accept sanctuary cities, and that could be on pot or whatever, things that we thought were no big deal, you know, even sanctuary cities for immigrants. We all kind of just went, well, that's California or that's, you know, Berkeley or whatever. Um but once a state and a city decide they can pick and choose the federal laws instead of changing working to change the laws as the system is supposed to be that the the end result of that eventually is conflict between the state or the city and the federal government because at some point if it comes to a head somebody's got to make the decision.

So of course and what you're talking about right now in this situation would be you you need the you know the the phrase cooler heads will prevail comes to mind and that is not what is happening. What is happening is that the states go, you know, the governor is baiting the executive branch, the president in particular,

you know, and and and the president has taken the bait and has re responded. And so it is very dangerous. It is a very dangerous situation. I saw the press conference by Governor Walsh when the this the first press conference he gave and he said something that shocked me and I'm paraphrasing you know we have never been at war with the federal government and if I'm not mistaken he used the actual word war

he did and he said civil war and he also said he referred to and I don't remember his exact language but he referred to we are training the national guard u for these actions which is completely completely unconstitutional. I don't think he actually meant that. I mean, I don't know why. He might have just said it to bait or I don't know. But he said things that I have never heard from a governor again that just to me when I heard that speech, I thought he's not calling on the National Guard. He is he is activating the citizen national guard.

He is he is saying my people that run my team Jersey I need you to do the things that the National Guard can't do.

Yes. And then the president did the same thing either last night or today whereby he used some incendiary language, you know, calling upon we're coming for you. I mean this is this is truly bananas, you know, and then you have the governor using the word atrocity. Yes. which can only remind any of us of World War II, which is a really poor word choice. So, you have, you know, poor poor word choices coming out of the mouths of the people who are supposed to be restoring order and paying attention to the north star of the constitution. Instead, acting like children in a sandbox. I say that as a mother who watched this these kind of things happen literally. And yet the power and the the the responsibility of these offices is just being ignored to my opinion on both parties.

Yeah. I I tell you I you know when they were talking about arresting Bill and Hillary Clinton I I What are you thinking? First of all, it's to get answers on Ebstein. And we all know you're never going to get answers on Epstein. You don't have anything except a flight log. I mean, if you had stuff maybe, but you don't have stuff. We're not That is just baiting. Just baiting. Um, and you know, I said, "Look, if you want to go, you know, on Gazprom or any anything Clinton initiative and you have evidence, then what that has to happen is it needs to go over to the DOJ and somebody who's an adult needs to stand with a long boring list and say, "Here are the charges.

Here are the here is the evidence. This is not personal. It's not revenge. It is based on the law of these charges. You don't put the GOP or the DNC calling somebody in for questioning and then throw them in jail. That it I mean it just seems like that's a dream come true for the Clintons. If you really wanted to really stir things up, do me another favor. Can you arrest her at the same time you arrest me? It's crazy. It's crazy. Got to stop. I wonder, you know, it's so important to have people in your orbit that give you counsel that you might not necessarily like at first blush, you know,

vital. And so it seems to me that I, you know, the word sycopant always comes to mind because you see it, I see it happen around many powerful people where they just isolate themselves or insulate themselves with opinions by people from people that are only really looking out for their own interests. And I can't help but feel like when the jersey just is on and will not come off, the team jersey, it's because that person is lacking um any kind of, you know, outside counsel for lack of a better phrase.

Well, we're not in a place, you know, when I did that monologue, I looked at my executive producer and said, "Well, this is not going to make me popular with the diehard, you know, team jersey, you know, because there's a lot of people that feel I arrest them. We know they're guilty of something. You know, that's not what you do, but that's how people feel. Same thing with uh with uh Minnesota. They think that Donald Trump is, you know, an authoritarian. Nothing's going to change their mind. And so there's no reason happening behind any of that. But you you to save our nation, you have to have people that will say, but here's the key.

honest people that disagree with you honestly that will say, "Mr. President, I I don't agree with you on a lot of stuff. I respect you. I respect the office. I am not playing for a team. I'm playing for principles here. And you have to consider these principles." I don't know any smart or reasonable person that is against that. But we've lost the ability for people at the second tier it feels to be that kind of person. you know, they they they are sick of hands. We need people of real courage to walk into a room like that and say, "I know you're the most powerful person in the world, and I respect you on this, this, and this, but I disagree on this." I mean, probably the best conversation I ever had with Donald Trump was on uh trade. I disagree with him on trade. And it was amazing.

He said, "Okay, so what is the problem with trade?" And I expected just a little thing. We had about a 25 30 minute talk. He listened. He repeated the things back. So he really I knew he was listening and understanding and um and then at the end I expected him to say what all politicians would say. You know, I'm going to take that under advice. I'm going to look into that knowing that he wasn't going to, you know what I mean? Um but he listened and he said, "Glenn, nothing you said I haven't thought of already. I've been thinking about this my whole life." So, I'm not going to change, but I appreciate the exchange.

And I thought, that's what I want from somebody in leadership. I want somebody to listen, tell me that they've already thought about these things and know that that is true, and then tell me the truth when I walk out the door. I'm not going to do that. Great. Great. Thank you for the honesty. We just have to find more people that will do that. There comes a point where everybody everybody starts to feel um sore, you know, where your body is offering unhelpful feedback usually at inconvenient times. You stand up and something like all of a sudden you're like, "Hey." Um that's not good. You reach for the floor thinking that Jesus might be calling you home. This is why you should trust relief factor. It's why I take relief factor. It's not about pretending you're 20 again or powering through things that you know like nothing hurts. It's about supporting your body where a lot of these issues

start. Inflammation and so a movement doesn't feel like a negotiation every time you change positions. This is a daily supplement and you know that that really matters because real improvement usually shows up gradually and naturally. And I know that's the way it happened for me. So one day you realize you got through the morning without even thinking about it. You stood up, walked around, sat back down without making a creaking sound. You know that worried the dog. Relief Factor. 100% drug free. It targets inflammation that causes pain so you can move better, feel better, and actually enjoy life again. Try the 3-week quick start. It's 1995. Go to reliefactor.com or call 8004 relief. 800 the number for relief. Let's see if you're next in getting out of pain. The FBI has been warning about a type of real estate fraud on the rise called title theft and your equity is the target. And here's how it works.

Criminals will forge your signature on a single document. One, they use a fake notary stamp and they file it with the county and just like that on record, they own your home. Now, using your home ownership, they take out loans against the equity or even sell your property. You won't know about it until foreclosure or collection notices start showing up in the mail. Find out today if you're already a victim and stop this from happening. Use the promo code glenn at hometitlelock.com and you'll get a free title history report and a free trial of their milliondoll triple lock protection. That's 24/7 monitoring of your title records, urgent alerts if any changes are made and fraud occurs. If it does occur, they have a US-based restoration team that will spend up to a million dollars to fix it. So, don't be a victim. Protect your equity today. Go to hometitlelock.com. Use the promo code glenn. get a free title history report

and a free trial of their triple lock protection home titlelock.com promo code glenn. Um let me uh let me ask you because I was curious on going back to Greenland in reading your book and I have heard so many people recently say no you know what we have these we have this defense system that can shoot those missiles out of the sky and I have you read Annie's book cuz that ain't true. Um uh and then I heard the president say, "We need the golden dome. We need Greenland for the Golden Dome." Is any of that technology real for nuclear missiles?

You're speaking specifically about can we shoot? Will the Golden Dome intercept? Yeah. What is

What's the difference between what we say we have that you in your book show that's garbage? Um, what's the difference between that and this new thing called the Golden Dome for intercontinental ballistic missiles?

Yes. So, to be clear, what we have now are interceptor missiles that are ground on the ground and they fire at an incoming ICBM, ideally making contact with the warhead 500 miles up in space.

Crazy. Okay, that's what an interceptor system is. It's got about a 50% success rate. There are 44 of them. That's going to do nothing against a thousand incoming ICBMs.

The Golden Dome, again, simplifying it down, is sort of the 21st century version of Ronald Reagan's Star Wars program,

the strategic defense initiative, which was the idea that you would put, you know, systems in space. And I use that word systems because that is where you're getting into the classifications that you or I cannot know about. Glenn, people who claim to know about this are just, you know, wagging their tail. That is just I know the people I have interviewed the people in the defense companies like Ander who are working on these components and the closest thing we the citizenry can ever get to this who are not top secret cleared is that maybe they involve cube satellites.

Okay. So systems in space that are directing you know other systems to shoot down an incoming

ICBM. My guess is that is laser technology. That is what would make sense. Okay. So would that work? This is a classic situation where we do not know, we will not know until these systems are declassified. And so yes, one side of the argument is this is just a military-industrial complex trillion dollar swindle to give a lot of money to the defense industry to posture against China, Russia, North Korea, etc. that we can take down their incoming ICBMs should they come our way. And the other side of the argument is, oh no, we actually have an advanced technology system maybe involving cubats that could do this.

We don't know. We don't know. Just simply don't know. I I will tell you, I think I've seen China demonstrate laser technology uh on missiles that was pretty remarkable. I don't know if it's real or not, but it was it's pretty remarkable.

Well, this is a very real threat. And there was an executive order come that came out of the White House in December which went completely under the radar but is super significant because it specifically addresses what a threat space is in terms of nuclear weaponry.

Yeah. And without getting too into the re weeds you know from reading nuclear war a scenario. Thank you for reading. Thank you for asking the president about it. Um, you know, I talk about how there was the very serious possibility that North Korea had or could send a small nuclear warhead into space disguised as a satellite and it would be orbiting the globe. And that were that specific, you know, nuclear small warhead were to detonate 300 miles directly over the United States of America, it would be what is called electric Armageddon. It would take out the entire power grid.

That is not a fantasy. That is a fact. And so the president wrote an EO to address exactly that kind of a threat. And I think that is very interesting. Let me let me end this uh I could talk to you forever and I can't thank you enough for coming on again. Um but uh let me end this with something that I thought of again on Venezuela and that was the president said that the space force was involved.

Yes, they were. Do you know how? Yes, because the space force is in charge of looking at all of or conducting all ISR intelligence surveillance and then that leads to reconnaissance from space from satellites because the remarkable abilities from what a camera can see from hundreds of miles up down on the ground is astonishing. That's why that is all classified. That's why I always put my money on NRO as the most important intelligence agency that no one ever talks about.

Thank you so much. I really appreciate your our conversations. God bless you. Thanks.

Thank you for having me. Back.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "Maduro Raid Secret Weapons CONFIRMED?! | Annie Jacobsen | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 276"?

Glenn Beck (Guest), Annie Jacobsen (Guest).

What is "Maduro Raid Secret Weapons CONFIRMED?! | Annie Jacobsen | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 276" about?

The discussion centers on the historical existence of advanced, covert weaponry, likened to the Havana Syndrome, dating back to the 1950s, and the implications of the Insurrection Act for military intervention in the United States. It highlights the potential threat posed by Venezuela, as noted in popular media, and delves into the authenticity and complexities of military operations depicted in…

What is mentioned in this Glenn Beck episode?

17 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Donald Trump, Venezuela, Greenland, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Havana syndrome, World War II. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "Maduro Raid Secret Weapons CONFIRMED?! | Annie Jacobsen | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 276"?

The episode runs 1 h 10 min; the transcript is about 11,274 words in 146 timestamped sections.

More from Glenn Beck

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated February 3, 2026.