The Super Bowl now plays like America’s divorce proceedings



The Seattle Seahawks trampled the New England Patriots in Super Bowl LX, but the postgame chatter barely touched football. Fans and pundits argued about anthems, halftime, commercials, and what the whole spectacle “said” about America.

For better or worse, the Super Bowl serves as the premier civic liturgy of the American empire, a night when strangers share the same screens and offices share the same small talk. When that ritual becomes another front in the culture war, the country loses one more place to breathe.

Americans once used the game to share food, laugh at ads, and pretend for a night that they still belonged to one people. This year, the country used the game to rehearse separation.

Families fight. Politics intrudes. Resentments pile up. Holidays still force a pause. Thanksgiving and Christmas push people back to the same table, reminding them that the argument cannot become the relationship.

When even the ritual itself turns into the argument — when Thanksgiving and Christmas are no longer about gratitude or celebrating the birth of Christ but rather who can win a political debate — the family slides from conflict toward rupture. A nation works the same way. Shared ceremonies do not solve deep disagreements, but they keep disagreement from becoming total separation.

From national pastime to litmus test

Americans rarely stop living their separate lives to watch the same thing at the same time. Streaming splinters audiences. Social media isolates communities. Even big films and best-selling books now fall into ideological silos.

The Super Bowl remains one of the few national events that still compels common attention. People who hate sports tune in for the ads so they can follow the conversation at work the next day. A shared celebration, however frivolous, still binds people who otherwise share little else in common.

This year’s Super Bowl looked like a country at war with itself.

The broadcast opened with two national anthems: the familiar Francis Scott Key standard and the newer “black national anthem” that appears at more NFL events each season. The league has leaned hard into woke activism, from corporate rituals to social campaigns, and it rarely hides the moral it wants viewers to absorb. Two anthems signal two constituencies. Two constituencies begin to behave like two nations.

A cultural sorting mechanism

The halftime show sharpened that divide. The NFL chose Bad Bunny, a Puerto Rican artist who performs almost entirely in Spanish, and the set centered on Hispanic identity. The stage recreated a bodega, complete with an “EBT welcome” neon sign. The performance leaned into sexual provocation, with dancers simulating sex acts and same-sex grinding played for shock and applause. The show ended with performers hoisting foreign flags, a tableau that read less like cultural flair and more like a victory lap.

RELATED: Bad Bunny preached in Spanish. The NFL hides behind tax perks in English.

Photo by Kevin Sabitus/Getty Images

A large portion of the audience did not buy what the league sold. Ratings suggested many viewers tuned out during the set. Some did so out of prudishness, others out of irritation at the message, others out of confusion. Either way, the halftime show did not function as a shared moment. It became a sorting mechanism.

Turning Point USA offered a competing halftime program featuring country artists singing about America and Jesus Christ. The stream broke records and reportedly became YouTube’s largest live broadcast. The accomplishment deserves credit. The need for it should worry anyone who wants a coherent nation. Instead of one shared celebration, Americans built parallel ceremonies, then congratulated themselves for avoiding each other.

Who is the customer here?

The commercials followed the same pattern. One spot from a mortgage lender portrayed a family of color moving into a mostly white neighborhood and encountering casual racism until they instructed the residents on diversity and inclusion. The ad did not wink. It preached.

Another strange commercial, backed by Patriots owner Robert Kraft, aimed to address rising anti-Semitism. It showed a Jewish student harassed in a school hallway as classmates mocked him and stuck a note reading “dirty Jew” to his backpack. The boy reached his locker, where a black student offered solidarity based on shared experience with hatred from whites. The ad then unveiled a “blue square” social media campaign modeled on the "black square" campaign that followed George Floyd’s death in 2020.

NFL owners did not back away from the woke script. They turned the dial higher.

Two different worlds

The next day I went to my barber, and he described the shift in real time. Small talk drives that job. For most of his life, the Monday after the Super Bowl brought lively chatter about the best plays and the funniest ads. This year, customers wanted to talk politics. They complained about the anthems, the halftime, the messaging, the moral scolding. The game itself barely came up. Friendly banter about the MVP and next season’s prospects gave way to arguments about what kind of country this still is.

That exchange captured the larger problem. Conservatives and liberals increasingly inhabit different worlds. They share geography, but they do not share premises. They do not share authorities. They do not share the same media diet, the same moral language, or the same sense of what counts as a fact. When they occupy the same room, they talk past each other. When they can avoid the room, they do.

RELATED: Americans aren’t arguing any more — we’re speaking different languages

Photo by Taurat Hossain/Anadolu via Getty Images

The old American civic fracture ran along a map. The new fracture runs through families, workplaces, churches, and neighborhoods. The country did not divide into North and South. It divided into competing moral nations layered on top of the same territory. Each tribe builds its own institutions, its own entertainers, its own narratives, and, increasingly, its own rituals.

No stable regime can endure that kind of division indefinitely. One side will eventually impose cultural dominance on the other, with power used to punish dissent and enforce conformity. Or the country will choose some form of national divorce, formal or informal, with communities separating as much as law and logistics allow.

The Super Bowl did not create this crisis. It revealed it. A shared civic ritual lets people practice unity without requiring uniformity. Americans once used the game as a harmless excuse to share food, laugh at ads, and pretend for a night that they still belonged to one people. This year, the country used the game to rehearse separation.

A nation that cannot share a football game cannot share much else for long.

Federalism cannot be a shield for sanctuary defiance



If Friedrich Hayek taught us to inquire about who should decide and Abraham Lincoln taught us to ask to what end, then the question of immigration compels us toward a third and inescapable question: Where is the line drawn?

The principles of subsidiarity and federalism demand that matters should be resolved at the lowest level of authority competent to manage them. Much of what the national government has usurped would be more wisely and justly managed by the states, local communities, families, and institutions of civil society.

A nation that treats its laws as optional, its borders as permeable, and its citizenship as devoid of meaning invites the very chaos that destroys liberty.

The Constitution itself was framed to embody this division of powers, preserving the vitality of local self-government against the dangers of centralized tyranny.

Yet subsidiarity is not an absolute doctrine, nor is federalism morally sovereign. America’s founders never regarded federalism as an end in itself, but as an instrument ordered toward justice, liberty, and the common good.

When the claims of federalism or local autonomy come into conflict with the equal dignity of the human person, federalism must yield. This is the profound teaching of the Civil War. That great conflict established beyond doubt that there are moral limits that no level of government — federal, state, or local — may transgress, even under the guise of divided sovereignty. The principle of human equality proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence sets a boundary that no appeal to states’ rights or local preference can override.

Before 1861, the defenders of slavery advanced an argument we hear echoing in our own day: that each state must be free to decide for itself the very foundations of republican government. The Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford lent its sanction to this view regarding slavery. But Lincoln repudiated it utterly.

He understood that the rights of man do not vary according to geography or popular vote. The self-evident truth that all men are created equal declares that no majority, no state legislature, no municipal council may lawfully decree some men unfit for liberty on grounds that deny their humanity. To enslave a man is to violate his natural rights; to nullify federal authority in matters essential to national existence is to dissolve the Union that secures those rights.

Lincoln did not abolish federalism — he preserved it by subordinating it to the higher law of nature. Federalism endures insofar as it is grounded in moral truth and serves to perpetuate a regime dedicated to equal natural rights.

This distinction becomes decisive when we turn to immigration. It concerns not merely internal policy but the very nature of the American political community: who may enter, under what conditions, and by whose authority.

The power over naturalization and the regulation of foreign entry are among the essential attributes of sovereignty, which the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) has expressly delegated to the federal government. Borders define the “We the People” whose consent forms the government. A people that cannot control its own borders or decide who can become a citizen cannot long govern itself justly or preserve equality under law, our regime’s moral foundation.

The federal government exists not to confer human dignity (which is inherent in every person) but to secure it among the specific members of the polity. Human dignity demands that no one be enslaved or deprived of life and liberty without due process; it does not entail an unqualified right to enter any political community or claim automatic citizenship.

The right to migrate is not the same as the right to enter any country of one’s choosing. Conflating the two dissolves the distinction between universal natural rights and the particular rights of citizens, a distinction the founders carefully preserved.

RELATED: Civil war chatter rises when Democrats fear losing power for good

Photo by Sean Bascom/Anadolu via Getty Images

The real question for us is not merely whether authority is federal or local, but whether policy is directed toward justice, human dignity, and the nation’s common good. Lincoln saw that democracy unbounded by moral limits becomes incoherent and self-destructive. A nation that treats its laws as optional, its borders as permeable, and its citizenship as devoid of meaning invites the very chaos that destroys liberty.

Federalism is a means to the end of justice; it is not a refuge from moral duty. Local communities may not, under color of autonomy (sanctuary cities), nullify the Union’s authority over matters essential to its preservation — any more than Southern states could nullify the Fugitive Slave Clause or obstruct the enforcement of laws necessary to national integrity.

These acts of interposition — driven by radical professional activists and their followers in cities like Minneapolis — echo the nullification and secession doctrines Lincoln condemned as fatal to the republic. In his 1861 Annual Message to Congress, he accurately described the true nature of such “principles”: “rebellion thus sugarcoated” that has “been drugging the public mind.”

The lesson of Lincoln and the founders is unchanging: Decentralization without moral anchors descends into anarchy; centralization without moral purpose hardens into despotism. True statesmanship orders power toward the permanent truths enunciated by the Declaration of Independence. Only then can the American experiment endure as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people — and dedicated to the Declaration’s proposition “that all men are created equal.”

Editor’s note: A version of this article was published originally at the American Mind.

Glenn Beck issues chilling read of America’s ‘dashboard’: Red, yellow, and green lights signal where we’re headed next



America is navigating a moment of intense polarization. Widespread civil unrest over federal immigration enforcement, deepening distrust in institutions, and a sharp surge in gold prices have much of the nation steeped in economic and institutional anxiety.

Many Americans are fretfully asking the question: What’s next for our country?

News outlets, influencers, and podcasters are all answering that inquiry differently using various metrics, opinions, and filters, but Glenn Beck’s prediction comes from none other than history itself.

And when he holds the current state of the nation up against historical patterns, he sees it all — the good, the bad, and the ugly.

“If we were an early warning system, there would be some lights on the panel that are flashing today. Some would be red, some would be yellow, and some would actually be green,” he says.

On this episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn delivers an honest reading of America’s dashboard and predicts what comes next.

Red lights

1: “Loss of nuance”

This light is “blinking really hard,” Glenn warns.

He points to the dialogue surrounding the death of Alex Pretti — the 37-year-old U.S. citizen fatally shot by federal agents on January 24 in Minneapolis during an anti-ICE protest — as the best current example of America’s lack of nuanced conversations.

“A healthy society can hold two ideas at the same time. An unstable society cannot do that,” Glenn says. “And right now, we’re losing the ability to say somebody can be really guilty and a bad guy and mistreated; law enforcement can be necessary, needed, doing their job, and fallible; protests can be legitimate and infiltrated by insurrectionists.”

“Those things are all true, but America can’t see that anymore,” he laments. “When everything collapses into all good or all evil, there is no moral clarity anymore.”

2: “Faction over truth”

Truth, Glenn contends, is “meant to be argued about, wrestled with, thought about,” but in America today, truth has become about which team you’re on.

“Facts no longer persuade. All they do now is signal allegiance,” he says, calling it “a late-stage indicator” of America’s path to collapse.

“Once truth bends to faction, power then replaces persuasion every time in every civilization in all of history.”

3: “Organized disorder”

Glenn differentiates “organized disorder” — the coordinated, professionally funded, strategically disruptive actions that go beyond peaceful expression — from constitutionally protected protests.

“You have a right to protest the law. ... You have a right to go protest the people who make the law to get them to change the law. You have a right to go and stand peacefully and protest the cops, if that’s what you want, or ICE,” he explains, “but you do not have the right to engage and disrupt the law.”

But unfortunately, that’s exactly what’s happening in Minneapolis right now. Many demonstrations involve breaking the law and physically engaging with law enforcement. And the scariest part is that these kinds of protests are rarely grassroots. They’re professionally organized and well-funded thanks to deep-pocketed donors who aim to collapse the country from within.

“When unrest becomes coordinated, when it becomes professionally funded, strategically disruptive, and shielded by moral confusion, ... that’s no longer a spontaneous civic expression,” Glenn explains.

What we’re seeing on the streets of Minneapolis is intentional “internal destabilization,” and it’s a flashing red light that America is catapulting toward its demise.

Yellow lights

1: “Currency confidence”

Glenn calls the skyrocketing price of gold a yellow light because it’s “serious” but “not fatal at this point.”

“The way gold is rising — it’s not a collapse announcement. It is a stress gauge,” he says, noting that gold has recently been “trading at as high as $5,600 an ounce.”

Gold reflects “trust or the lack of it,” and the fact that people are buying it up, even at exorbitant amounts, indicates their uncertainty in certain “promises.”

“What promises are those?” Glenn asks. “Promises of, we’re a stable society; we are not going to spend ourself into oblivion; that our government and our Congress gets it, and they’re going to stop spending so much and borrowing so much.”

The people buying up gold right now “know things are beginning to get really dicey. It’s a yellow light, and it is trending hotter every day,” he warns.

2: “Debt saturation”

“Debt isn’t immoral, but debt that can’t be discussed honestly and paid back is immoral — and it’s dangerous,” Glenn says.

This is the predicament America finds itself in. We’re no longer asking, “How are we going to pay this bill?” but instead, “Who bears the burden of this bill?”

“That’s when debt becomes corrosive and deadly,” Glenn cautions. “And we’re not Rome yet, but this gauge is rising.”

3: “Institutional distrust”

“Skepticism,” Glenn argues, is good and necessary. The five rights listed in the First Amendment — freedom of speech, religion, assembly, the press, and petition — are proof that “skepticism is our first amendment.”

Distrust, however, is “paralyzing,” he declares. “When people believe the courts are illegitimate, ... if they believe elections are meaningless, law enforcement is either sacred and can make no mistakes or evil and can do no good, the system loses its elasticity.”

This light, he warns, is “getting deeper yellow.”

Green lights

1: “We’re still arguing about right and wrong.”

Glenn celebrates that public debates are still normal.

“Collapsing societies stop arguing about morality. They argue only about power, and we’re still arguing about justice and what it means — limits, rights, responsibility,” he says. “That’s not decay. That’s conscience. It’s still alive.”

2: “The Constitution still exists, and it’s still being cited.”

It’s a very good sign that the majority is still cognizant of and concerned about upholding the Constitution.

“It’s getting a little sketchy,” Glenn acknowledges, “but we’re still arguing it, and that tells you something powerful: People still believe rules matter, even when they break them.”

For now, this light is “green, but it’s fragile.”

3: Warnings are still being issued on both sides.

In a nation on the verge of collapse, the warnings go silent.

“I’m able to get on the air and speak to you about these warnings. MSNBC is able to get on the air and speak to you about what they see as warning signs,” Glenn celebrates.

Before its historic collapse, Rome “silenced its warnings,” he recalls. “We are today still able to have them on the air legally — both sides.”

“That alone means this system is not finished.”

For those who look at the red and yellow lights and see inevitable ruination, Glenn has an encouraging message: “Red lights do not mean doom. They mean choice. ... Civilizations don’t collapse because warnings exist; they collapse because warnings are mocked, politicized, or ignored. So the question is not, ‘Are we Rome?’ The question is, “Will we do what Rome didn’t do and respond to the warning signs while the lights are still on?”’

To hear more of Glenn’s analysis, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

A one-way national divorce: Anarchy for them, coercion for us



Imagine the Confederates attacking Fort Sumter in April 1861 and Abraham Lincoln negotiating terms of separation instead of mustering troops. We would be two separate countries. In a limited but real sense, we now live in two countries anyway — because Donald Trump has ceded ground to blue-state mobs.

States like Minnesota, working in tandem with local politicians to obstruct a basic federal function — protecting national sovereignty — are latter-day Confederates. Blue states claim the power to nullify federal immigration enforcement inside their borders. That raises a question no one in Washington wants to answer: If blue states can thwart national sovereignty to protect illegal aliens, why can’t red states remove them?

Blue jurisdictions unify behind the proposition of protecting illegal aliens. Red jurisdictions rarely unify behind protecting Americans from political persecution.

This fight doesn’t hinge on Minneapolis or the specific riots that ended with two anti-ICE agitators dead. It reflects a sustained, coordinated campaign across blue cities: street militants, local Democrats, and friendly judges working in concert to shut down immigration enforcement. The activists don’t negotiate over “rules of engagement.” They aim to ban enforcement itself, at least anywhere Democrats hold power. Blue states now run a neo-Confederacy against one of the few legitimate functions of national government.

Now look at what happens on the other side of the divide. Some weak-kneed Republicans — James Comer of Kentucky among them — float the idea that Trump should leave blue cities to stew in their own sanctuary mess, as if the locals will eventually revolt. That fantasy collapses on contact with reality. Worse, ceding sovereignty to blue states hasn’t even produced more deportations in red states.

Courts have enjoined nearly every state statute that tries to treat illegal presence as a state crime. If red states attempted full-spectrum crackdowns under a Democrat president, the same judicial buzz saw would cut them down.

The result: Democrats can block federal law regardless of who sits in the White House, while red states can’t protect themselves when Democrats run the executive branch.

That asymmetry flows from something simple and ugly: Republicans don’t believe their own promises the way Democrats believe theirs. Republicans talk problems to death. Democrats build institutions.

Democrats staff agencies, cultivate prosecutors, and train judges to pursue a shared mission. Republicans often appoint people who treat their “mission” as career management and donor service.

Democrats built parallel systems designed to frustrate immigration enforcement under an opposing president. Conservatives in red states built little beyond press releases and campaign slogans.

RELATED: Memo to Trump: Stop negotiating and ramp up deportations

Photo by Sean Bascom/Anadolu via Getty Images

Democrats in Minnesota and elsewhere have effectively executed the state interposition James Madison described in Federalist 46.

“The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices … would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments,” Madison wrote. “And where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

So the first step is to stir public “disquietude.” Then teach “repugnance” toward federal action. Encourage refusal to cooperate with “officers of the Union.” Then use the governor, legislature, and adjacent states “in unison” to create obstacles so severe that the federal government hesitates to enforce the law.

Blue states have followed that script with discipline. They align the branches. They coordinate the message. They deploy local officials to deny cooperation. They rely on judges in blue jurisdictions to shred the Immigration and Nationality Act, even when Congress tried to limit judicial interference, and they order illegal aliens released from custody.

The political class says the quiet part out loud. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) invoked Fort Sumter to describe his interposition against the federal government. Mayor Jacob Frey (D) declared that Minneapolis “does not, and will not, enforce federal immigration law.” Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner threatened to “hunt down” ICE agents he believes violated civil liberties, calling them “wannabe Nazis,” and promised to identify them and pursue them.

RELATED: Civil war chatter rises when Democrats fear losing power for good

Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images

Blue jurisdictions unify behind the proposition of protecting illegal aliens. Red jurisdictions rarely unify behind the proposition of protecting Americans from political persecution. Where did red-state leaders stand when the Biden Justice Department went after pro-lifers for praying outside abortion clinics? Where did they stand when federal authorities treated ordinary citizens like criminals for walking through the Capitol after barriers and rope lines moved?

Democrats now operate by a new rulebook: anarchy for their people, coercion for ours.

Republicans still operate as if the old system can save them. Even when a red-state leader shows spine, he often stands alone — without a legislature willing to act, without an attorney general willing to litigate, without courts willing to defend state interests.

Watching blue states succeed at sabotaging immigration enforcement under Trump should alarm everyone. A darker problem looms: the next Democrat Justice Department won’t limit itself to immigration. When it turns its machinery against Americans again, red states won’t have Madison’s “in unison” design ready to defend their citizens. They will prove as impotent against federal coercion as they have been against the importation of millions of illegal aliens.

Americans now live like second-class citizens while illegal aliens enjoy first-class protection — because the party that claims to represent Americans has failed at the most basic task of representation: fighting to win.

Civil war chatter rises when Democrats fear losing power for good



Barack Obama used the same U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement tactics as Donald Trump. During his eight years in the White House, his administration deported more illegal aliens than Trump has.

Yet the Obama years did not feature mass protests over deportations. No governors or mayors compared ICE to the Gestapo, a comparison so obscene it should end careers. No district attorneys vowed to “hunt down” ICE agents for doing their jobs. No late-night comedians insisted that ICE agents ranked “worse than Nazis.”

Democrats once drove the country into a civil war to protect slavery. Today they court conflict to protect power.

That backlash became routine only after Trump. Two factors explain why.

First, the left hates Trump to the core. Not as a political rival, but as a personal and moral affront. This visceral, uncontrolled hatred has swallowed identities and replaced judgment. It fuels social media tantrums, office politics, family feuds, and the constant need to punish dissent. Among allies, people congratulate each other for hating the right man. For everyone else, they virtue-signal.

This hatred will not fade with time. It will persist after Trump leaves office, and it may even outlive him. Ronald Reagan hate still lingers decades after his death. Trump hate runs hotter, deeper, and more irrational. It will not burn out on schedule.

Second, the immigration fight has turned strategic.

During the Obama years, the left had not yet internalized two tactics that now help it hold power.

Once Democrats win office, many push policy as far left as state and federal constitutions allow: higher taxes, soft-on-crime governance, heavier regulation, and soaring costs that punish families. That agenda drives productive citizens out of blue cities and blue states and into red states. Conservatives hold few truly red cities now; the activist class has captured many local institutions.

Red states gain taxpayers and workers. Blue states lose them.

Democrat leaders have chosen to replace the citizens who leave, but not with similarly productive citizens. They replace them with illegal aliens.

That strategy helps explain Joe Biden’s first-day border reversals and the torrent of executive actions that followed. The signal was plain: Enforcement would relax, entry would rise, and the federal government would look away. Millions came, many without legal status. Many settled in blue jurisdictions that offer sanctuary policies and advertise benefits.

Politicians sell those benefits as “free”: child care, health care, schooling, housing programs. Taxpayers pay the bills. Debt fills the rest.

California offers the clearest example. The state has lost large numbers of residents to Texas and Florida. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) does not treat the exodus as a crisis. He treats it as ideological sorting. If taxpayers leave, he can replace the head count with people who will not challenge his machine at the ballot box.

Illegal aliens are not allowed to vote. They still count. Biden made sure of that.

The census counts residents, and those numbers drive seats in the United States House of Representatives and votes in the Electoral College. Add population, gain power. Lose population, lose power. Democrats understand the arithmetic, which is why they fight enforcement as fiercely as they fight elections.

RELATED: ‘This isn't organic’: Joe Rogan says Minnesota's anti-ICE protests are ‘coordinated’ to induce chaos

Photo by Geoff Stellfox/Getty Images

Then comes the long game. Children born here can vote. Democrats assume those children will vote Democrat for life. They are building a future electorate while padding current representation.

Trump’s deportation strategy threatens that structure. Democrats have already watched citizens flee Illinois, New York, California, and other strongholds. If deportations also shrink the illegal-alien population those states have absorbed, Democrats lose House seats, Electoral College strength, and national leverage.

So they raise the temperature. They smear ICE as “secret police” and dare Trump to enforce the law anyway. They bait confrontation because chaos can create a veto: If streets burn long enough, Washington may flinch.

If Trump refuses to flinch, they reach for the next weapon: the camera. A clash becomes a “crackdown.” An arrest becomes “political persecution.” A dead protester becomes a martyr, and the headlines write themselves. The moral damage does not scare them; it serves them.

Democrats once drove the country into a civil war to protect slavery. Today they court conflict to protect power. They do not need tanks to do it. They need prosecutors, mayors, and media partners willing to treat law enforcement as evil and disorder as virtue.

Trump offers hilarious rebuttal to Tim Walz's absurd Civil War analogy



President Donald Trump gave a hilarious response to Democratic Gov. Tim Walz's attempt to compare the conflicts in Minnesota to the Civil War.

Blaze News asked Trump to address Walz's remarks likening the hostilities at Fort Sumter that sparked the Civil War to the heightened tensions seen on the ground in Minneapolis in recent weeks. When asked if he agreed with the characterization, Trump gave Blaze News a viral response.

'I was elected to do a job.'

"Does he know what Fort Sumter was, or do you think somebody wrote it out for him?"

"I was elected on law and order," Trump told Blaze News. "I was elected on a strong border. We had a border that allowed 25 million people to come in. Many were murderers. ... We had open borders."

RELATED: Trump's unusual Cabinet meeting may reveal which officials are on thin ice

Blaze Media's @rebekazeljko: "Tim Walz recently likened the conflict on the ground to Fort Sumter..."

President Trump: "Does he know what Fort Sumter was?" pic.twitter.com/blvsf1RDjl
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) January 30, 2026

Trump brushed off Walz's remarks, differentiating his tough-on-crime track record from the Democrat governor's state that is rampant with fraud and violent crime.

"I was elected on a lot of reasons, because when I took over we inherited a mess," Trump told Blaze News.

"When I was elected, I was elected to do a job, and one of the big things I was elected to do is law and order."

RELATED: 'Horrifying situation': Some Republicans retreat following Minneapolis shooting of anti-ICE agitator

Francis Chung/Politico/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Trump criticized Democrats' refusal to embrace law enforcement, pondering if they really want criminals to remain in their cities.

"If you look at Minnesota, Minneapolis, we have crime down there because we took out thousands of people, despite all the mess and everything else," Trump told Blaze News.

"But do these people really want to have rapists? Do they really want to have drug dealers and people from prisons and murderers?"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Hawaii tells Supreme Court our rights should exist only with permission



Something shocking just happened between Hawaii — a state that already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation — and the Supreme Court, and Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck is sounding the alarm.

In defense of a sweeping gun restriction, Hawaii argued that Americans’ rights only exist if someone else gives permission, citing "Black Codes" written to disarm freed slaves as “historical tradition.”

This means that gun owners can’t carry on private property, unless the owner explicitly allows it.

“That means your constitutional right only exists if somebody else says yes. And the judges are like, ‘I’m sorry, how are you doing the math on this one?’ And Hawaii steps up to the microphone and says, ‘Yeah, your honor, don’t worry, history supports us on this,’” Glenn says.


The initial Black Code law that Hawaii’s new law is modeled after was written after the Civil War, and it was meant to disarm newly freed slaves so they were unable to defend themselves from mobs, the clan, or corrupt authorities.

“People who normally recoil from Black Codes, you know, like garlic with a vampire, suddenly embrace them because it helps restrict guns,” Glenn explains.

“But the case isn’t really about guns,” he says. “And that’s what I think everybody who is analyzing this case is missing. It is not about guns. It’s about whether your rights exist before government or only after permission is granted.”

“Hawaii says your right exists if someone else allows it. The Constitution says no, no, your rights exist because you exist and you’re free. And the court’s being asked to answer the question, do we define American liberty by its highest principles? Or by its darkest moments?” he continues.

“And once you use poisoned history to limit rights, rights stop being rights,” he adds.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

America now looks like a marriage headed for divorce — with no exit



Marriages rarely end over one argument. They fall apart through a long breakdown in communication, a growing inability to resolve disagreements, and the slow realization that two people no longer walk toward the same future.

Healthy marriages don’t require full agreement on every subject. They require compromise on the decisions that shape daily life: money, children, priorities, responsibilities. They also require shared goals.

No tidy divorce court exists for a nation-state. We share one flag, one legal framework, and one public square.

When those goals diverge — and neither side will realign — the relationship becomes unsustainable. The law calls the condition “irreconcilable differences.”

America now lives in that condition.

We remain bound under one nation, one Constitution, and one civic home. But we no longer share a common purpose. We no longer share a common story about what the country is, why it exists, or whether it deserves to endure.

This conflict no longer turns on tax rates or regulatory policy. It turns on the legitimacy and direction of the American experiment itself.

The modern left no longer argues about how to preserve the American system. It treats the system as the problem. Democratic leaders and activists call for “fundamental transformation,” flirt with socialism, and talk about the founding less as a flawed but noble legacy than as a moral failure that demands replacement. In that worldview, America doesn’t need reform. America needs erasure.

The right still believes the country can be repaired and preserved. The left increasingly treats the country as something to dismantle.

This rupture shows up in concrete ways. In 2021, the National Archives placed a “harmful language” warning on the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence — the documents that define the nation. That doesn’t signal ordinary partisan dispute. It signals contempt for the country’s moral foundation.

Socialism sits at the center of this divide. It contradicts the American system at its roots. America rests on the premise that rights come from God, not government. Socialism elevates the state over the individual and makes rights conditional on political approval. It centralizes power in the name of enforced equality — “equity.”

RELATED: Americans aren’t arguing any more — we’re speaking different languages

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

America protects private property as an extension of liberty. It channels ambition into innovation and prosperity. Socialism treats success as a social offense and demands equality of outcome. When people refuse to surrender the fruits of their labor, socialism turns to coercion. Coercion requires centralized authority. Centralized authority punishes dissent.

The pattern repeats: less freedom, greater dependency, and a governing model incompatible with constitutional self-rule.

The irony remains hard to miss. The left calls Donald Trump “Hitler” while cheering figures like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, an avowed socialist. Yet the Nazi Party sold itself as the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — a collectivist project built on centralized power and state control.

The same left often excuses Antifa, a movement built on intimidation, street violence, and political enforcement designed to silence opposition. Those tactics don’t belong to liberal democracy. They belong to regimes that fear debate.

Even basic reality has become contested. The left and right can’t agree on something as elemental as what a man or a woman is. The Supreme Court recently showcased the collapse when ACLU attorneys arguing sex-based discrimination refused to define “woman.” When a society refuses to name biological facts that every civilization once treated as obvious, compromise collapses with it.

This crisis goes deeper than polarization. It reaches the level of knowledge itself. The left increasingly treats biology, history, and moral limits as malleable social constructs. The right still believes objective reality binds us all.

These aren’t normal disagreements. They describe incompatible worldviews. And incompatibility carries consequences.

During the COVID era, polls found majorities of Democrats willing to endorse coercive measures against the unvaccinated, including house arrest. Nearly half supported imprisoning people who questioned vaccine efficacy. Those numbers didn’t represent a fringe. They revealed a growing comfort with state force in service of ideological conformity.

After Trump’s 2016 election, many friendships survived political conflict. By 2020, after years of dehumanization — after constant accusations of “Nazism” aimed at ordinary voters — many of those relationships broke. The political battle stopped sounding like disagreement and started sounding like moral extermination.

RELATED: Washington, DC, has become a hostile city-state

Photo by Astrid Riecken For The Washington Post via Getty Images

In September 2025, someone assassinated Charlie Kirk. Large segments of the left didn’t just rationalize the killing. Many celebrated it.

After Scott Adams died following a long fight with cancer, prominent voices responded with mockery instead of decency. People magazine ran a headline labeling him “disgraced.” Even death became a political verdict.

This is what irreconcilable differences look like at a national scale.

A country cannot endure when one side believes the nation stands as fundamentally good — worthy of preservation and reform — while the other believes it stands as irredeemably evil and must be dismantled. Marriages end when partners stop seeing each other as allies and start treating each other as enemies.

Nations fracture for the same reason.

America cannot solve this the way a couple dissolves a marriage. The Constitution binds us to one civic order. No clean separation awaits. No tidy divorce court exists for a nation-state. We share one flag, one legal framework, and one public square.

When irreconcilable differences exist but separation remains impossible, the danger grows.

Only three paths remain: recommitment to constitutional principles, enforced coexistence through expanding coercion, or escalation into open conflict as dehumanization becomes normal.

Pretending this amounts to another election cycle, another policy dispute, or another cable-news food fight invites catastrophe. A nation cannot survive when its people no longer agree on what it is, why it exists, or whether it deserves to continue.

Unlike a failed marriage, America can’t walk away.

Minneapolis ICE protesters are BEGGING for civil war — and we need to take them seriously



Liberal protesters have descended upon Minneapolis following the ICE shooting of Renee Nicole Good — and after viewing footage from the protests, BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales can’t help but get “civil war vibes.”

“I do take them seriously that they want violence,” Gonzales says. “OK, I want to be clear. I do take them seriously that they are trying to take down America from within and that they do very much want a civil war.”

“Over the weekend, you’ve got more civil unrest, once again, you have all of these people putting their lives on the line to protest and obstruct ICE agents who are there to round up criminals. Like that’s all there is to it. They are there to cause a problem for the law enforcement officials who went out there to round up actual criminals,” she continues.

One clip from the weekend protests even shows a man screaming that he plans to buy a gun and learn how to use it because it’s “time for armed resistance against the United States of America.”


“First of all, I need the administration to take this very seriously. They need to take this extremely seriously. Any of these protesters who are out there threatening these ICE agents who are out there threatening, saying, ‘I’m going to get a gun and then I’m going to kill you,’ should be arrested,” Gonzales says.

“You’ve gone far over freedom of speech. You do not get to threaten someone with murder. You’re not allowed to do that. You know how I know? I’ve had people prosecuted for doing the same thing. You are not allowed to do that,” she continues.

And Gonzales can’t help but notice that the reason for their protest is about as ridiculous as it was the last time Minneapolis saw riots.

“And this is the state of leftism. They are rioting over a chick who tried to protect Somali criminals from being deported. And that is why I’m saying this is actually worse. People protesting this are actually like, this is actually dumber than the George Floyd protests,” she says.

“It’s actually dumber ... if you obstruct ICE, if you make the wrong decision, if you put their life on the line and they are forced to defend themselves or their partners or any other innocent people, they will do that,” she adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Glenn Beck exposes the REAL reason Tim Walz is fanning civil war flames — and it’s not Trump resistance



After the death of Renee Nicole Good — the woman shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis on January 7 after she struck him with her car during a large-scale immigration operation — Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D), who publicly condemned the shooting as unnecessary, intentionally fanned the flames by issuing a warning order to prepare the National Guard for deployment.

The Constitution, specifically the Supremacy Clause, forbids state military forces from impeding, obstructing, or interfering with federal military or law enforcement officials carrying out federal duties, as federal law and authority are supreme over conflicting state actions.

Walz, says Glenn Beck, undoubtedly knows such a violation of this clause would mean serious consequences, so his words were clearly meant to accomplish a different purpose.

That purpose, he says, is to send a "signal” to “the Democrats' own revolutionary guard.”

“Those are the people who have been so duped or … hate America because America is the worst place in the world … they're on a mission to stop the federal government any way they possibly can,” Glenn explains.

In other words, Walz was stoking a “civil war.”

The following day, he went a step farther. At a press conference on January 8, Walz said, “When things looked really bleak, it was Minnesota First that held that line for the nation on that July 3, 1863, and I think now we may be in that moment, that the nation's looking to us to hold the line on democracy, to hold the line on decency, to hold the line on accountability, and more than that, to rise up as neighbors and simply say, ‘We can look out for one another.”’

“What he's doing here right now is just, it's the most selfish thing I've ever seen. He is only protecting himself,” says Glenn, predicting that it’s a matter of time before Walz is behind bars for his almost certain complicity in the massive, mostly Somali-perpetrated fraud schemes uncovered in Minnesota.

“The guy is guilty,” he says frankly.

It’s this guilt — not anything related to Renee Good — that is fueling Walz’s recent statements, Glenn says.

“He, first of all, stole your money, gave it to people who were shipping it out of the country. He and his administration enabled and assisted in all of this, then turned a blind eye when everybody realized … something wrong is happening. They did nothing. Why? Because if they did something in the Somali community, it guaranteed that they would not be re-elected,” Glenn says.

“It was all about getting elected.”

Then when the fraud schemes started to catch up with him, prompting the massive influx of ICE officers into Minnesota, followed by protests and obstructions and eventually Good’s death, Walz saw an opportunity to take the spotlight off his own crimes by inciting radicals to resist federal agents, framing it as defending democracy and neighbors.

“He is calling for a civil war and making himself the white knight on the white horse, saying, ‘I'm just here to protect you’ ... even though he's the guy who enabled people to come into your house and steal all of your stuff,” scoffs Glenn. “He’s saying, ‘I'm here to protect you from the bad guys who are trying to put me in jail."’

“He's willing to have people killed. He is willing to see a civil war. For what reason? To keep him out of jail. I don't think I've ever seen anything this selfish in my life.”

To hear more of his analysis, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.