The "one big, beautiful bill” received a draft proposal last week from the Republican Utah Senator Mike Lee-led Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which would mandate the sale of between 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres of public land owned by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service in the American West.

While Lee has framed the proposal as a means to increase affordable housing, critics claim it would do little to aid in the housing crisis and instead would just bar the public from beautiful land they now still can enjoy.

Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck doesn’t share their critique.

“What we mean by ‘affordable housing’ is if you take a look at the percentage of land that is owned in some of these states, you can’t live in a house in some of these states, close to anything, for less than a million dollars. Because there’s no land,” Glenn explains on “The Glenn Beck Program.”

“Can we just look at the perspective here? The federal government owns 640 million acres. That is nearly 28% of all land in America. How much land do we have? Well, that’s about the size of France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined,” he continues.

“They own and hold pristine land that is more than the size of those countries combined, and most of that is west of the Mississippi, where the federal control smothers the states, shuts down opportunity, and turns local citizens into tenants of the federal estate,” he adds.

With less land available for citizens, there are higher prices and less state taxes paid on land.

“We’re not talking about selling Yellowstone or paving over Yosemite or anything like that. We’re talking about less than one-half of one percent of federal land that is remote, hard to access, or mismanaged,” Glenn says.

“This is really important,” he continues. “The federal government is, what, $35 trillion in debt, or are we $45 trillion now? I’m not sure. Our entitlement programs are all strained, infrastructure crumbling, and yet we’re still clinging to millions of acres of land that the federal government can’t maintain.”

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.

'BIG WIN': Newsom's losing streak continues as 9th Circuit Court delivers Trump more great news

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overruled a Clinton judge and delivered some bad news to California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) that might wipe the default grin off his face.

How it started

Exercising his constitutional and statutory powers, President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles on June 7, noting that the anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement riots constituted "a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States."

'It is likely that the president lawfully exercised his statutory authority under § 12406(3).'

Newsom — among the many Democrats who downplayed the violence and appeared sympathetic to the rioters' cause — asked a federal district court judge to force Trump to surrender control of the federalized California National Guard.

U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer, a Bill Clinton appointee, sided with Newsom, claiming on June 12 that Trump's actions "were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution."

Newsom subsequently told Trump, "You must relinquish your authority of the National Guard back to me and back to California," then smugly attacked the president in a press conference where he called Trump "weak."

The governor's gloating was cut short when the Trump administration appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and secured an emergency ruling to return command of the National Guard to the president.

How it's going

Newsom optimistically stated on Tuesday, days ahead of the appellate court's ruling, "I'm confident in the rule of law. I'm confident in the Constitution of the United States. I'm confident in the reasoned decision issued last week by a very well-respected federal judge. And I'm confident that common sense will prevail here."

Common sense prevailed — just not in Newsom's favor.

Mario Tama/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images

On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the appeals court ruled unanimously in the president's favor, granting a stay of the Clinton judge's order.

The appeals court concluded that "it is likely that the president lawfully exercised his statutory authority under § 12406(3), which authorizes federalization of the National Guard when 'the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States'" and indicated Hegseth's transmittal of the order "likely satisfied the statute's procedural requirement that federalization orders be issued 'through' the governor."

'The Judges obviously realized that Gavin Newscum is incompetent and ill prepared.'

The court also recognized that Trump had "a colorable basis" for deploying the National Guard, citing evidence that the anti-ICE rioters:

interfered "with the ability of federal officers to execute the laws";
threw objects at ICE vehicles attempting to complete a law enforcement operation;
threw Molotov cocktails and vandalized property;
"'pinned down' several [Federal Protective Service] officers defending federal property by throwing 'concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects,' and used 'large rolling commercial dumpsters as a battering ram' in an attempt to breach the parking garage of a federal building."

To Newsom's likely chagrin, the court noted further that "the president's failure to issue the federalization order directly 'through' the governor of California does not limit his otherwise lawful authority to call up the National Guard" and that "Newsom had no power to veto or countermand the president's order."

Newsom, like Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and other Democrats, suggested that the presence of the National Guard was inflammatory and prompted more unrest.

California National Guard troops outside a Los Angeles federal building on June 9, 2025. Photo by David McNew/Getty Images

The appellate court was not buying what the governor was selling, noting both that "these concerns are counterbalanced by the undisputed fact that federal property has been damaged and federal employees have been injured" and that such concerns "are too speculative."

President Trump celebrated the ruling, suggesting the decision affirms his ability to take similar action elsewhere if necessary.

"BIG WIN in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the President's core power to call in the National Guard!" the president wrote on Truth Social. "The Judges obviously realized that Gavin Newscum is incompetent and ill prepared, but this is much bigger than Gavin, because all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done."

"This is a Great Decision for our Country, and we will continue to protect and defend Law abiding Americans. Congratulations to the Ninth Circuit, America is proud of you tonight!" added Trump.

Newsom expressed his disappointment, vowing to press forward with his "challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens."

Judge Breyer is reportedly contemplating whether to slap Trump with another injunction, restricting the president's use of National Guard troops in Los Angeles.

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

'Rogue' Biden judge ignores biological truth, blocks Trump's common-sense passport policy

Gender ideologues' narrative about sex, identity, and the supposed benefits of medical transvestism has collapsed in recent years under the weight of comprehensive scientific studies. Polling shows the American public also majoritively rejects their core claims and policy aims.

With science and public opinion largely against them, gender ideologues now appear to be primarily fighting their war against common sense in the courts, where they are, for the most part, losing. Meddlesome U.S. district court judges are, however, doing their part to delay the final defeat of gender ideology, at least where the law and federal policy are concerned.

'Gender ideology is internally inconsistent.'

A day before the Supreme Court's decision to uphold Tennessee's ban on sex-change genital mutilations and sterilizing puberty blockers for minors, a Biden judge blocked the Trump administration from requiring passports to accurately reflect the holders' sex.

White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said in a statement to Blaze News, "This is yet another attempt by a rogue judge to thwart President Trump's agenda and push radical gender ideology that defies biological truth."

"There are only two genders, there is no such thing as gender 'X,' and the president was given a mandate by the American people to restore common sense to the federal government," added Kelly.

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

On his first day back in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order rejecting gender ideology and instructing the government to recognize only two sexes, male and female.

"'Gender ideology' replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa, and requiring all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true," Trump said in his order.

The president noted further that "gender ideology is internally inconsistent, in that it diminishes sex as an identifiable or useful category but nevertheless maintains that it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body."

The president directed his secretaries of state and homeland security to ensure that government-issued identification documents, including passports and visas, were reality-affirming — as they had been until 2021, when the Biden administration began allowing people to choose their own sex marker as well as a third marker, "X," instead of an "M" or an "F" marker.

Blaze Media Illustration

Several transvestites joined the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and Covington & Burling LLP in a lawsuit over the passport policy earlier this year.

U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick granted them a preliminary injunction in April preventing the State Department's enforcement of Trump's Executive Order 14168 while the lawsuit played out — but only as it applied to six of the plaintiffs.

Kobick suggested that the plaintiffs' inability to extend their self-deception to their federal documents would make them more "likely to experience worsened gender dysphoria, anxiety, and psychological distress, and they will face a greater risk of experiencing harassment and violence."

The Massachusetts-based Biden judge expanded her injunction on Wednesday after the plaintiffs amended their complaint and moved to apply the preliminary injunction to other potentially affected gender-benders whom they wanted broadly to be certified as a class.

Adopting the language of gender ideologues, Kobick granted the plaintiffs class certification, meaning that the lawsuit can now apply to "people whose gender identity is different from the sex assigned to them under the Passport Policy and/or who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria," people who simply want their passport to indicate the wrong sex, and "all people who currently want, or in the future will want, a U.S. passport and wish to use an 'X' sex designation."

'The government has failed to meet this standard.'

"Even assuming a preliminary injunction inflicts some constitutional harm on the Executive Branch, such harm is the consequence of the State Department's adoption of a Passport Policy that likely violates the constitutional rights of thousands of Americans," wrote Kobick.

Photo by PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images

"The Executive Order and the Passport Policy on their face classify passport applicants on the basis of sex and thus must be reviewed under intermediate judicial scrutiny," added the Biden judge. "That standard requires the government to demonstrate that its actions are substantially related to an important governmental interest. The government has failed to meet this standard."

Li Nowlin-Sohl, a senior staff attorney for the ACLU's LGBTQ and HIV Project, called the ruling "a historic win in the fight against this administration's efforts to drive transgender people out of public life. The State Department’s policy is a baseless barrier for transgender, nonbinary, and intersex Americans and denies them the dignity we all deserve."

When asked about the ruling, a State Department spokesperson told Blaze News that as a general matter, officials "do not comment on pending or ongoing litigation."

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

Hegseth blocks Democrats’ smear tactics in fiery Senate showdown: 'I won't fall for it'

Department of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday regarding the department's fiscal year 2026 budget request — his fourth hearing this month.

Hegseth faced heated exchanges during the hearing as Democratic lawmakers pressed him with hypothetical scenarios aimed at portraying President Donald Trump's administration as overreaching and authoritarian.

'It's all meant to attempt to smear the commander in chief, and I won't fall for it.'

Democrats grilled Hegseth on the Trump administration's strategy amid the escalating tension between Israel and Iran, the deployment of troops in Los Angeles, and the termination of "qualified" military leaders.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) questioned Hegseth's leadership abilities, claiming the DOD "has been consumed by high turnover and disarray" since the secretary's confirmation.

Senator Jack Reed. Photo by Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images

Hegseth countered Reed's critique by highlighting global instability under the prior administration, citing the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal, the outbreak of war in Ukraine, and the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack.

"That was a view of weakness and chaos unleashed by the Biden administration under the previous defense secretary," Hegseth said, referring to former Sec. Lloyd Austin. "So, if a few changes have to be made in the first portion of my term in order to get it right, I think that's pretty acceptable to establish deterrence and rebuild our military and restore the warrior ethos."

Several Democratic leaders decried Trump's decision to send National Guard troops to Los Angeles amid the anti-immigration enforcement protests that turned destructive and violent.

"What he's doing may well be illegal," declared Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). "I want to ask you about contingency plans for the use of active duty military in other cities. Do you have such contingency plans?"

Blumenthal noted that he was "deeply disturbed and alarmed" by Trump's move.

Hegseth retorted, "Senator, I would just say, we share the president's view that, as you characterized it, we are 'deeply disturbed and alarmed' that [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers are being attacked while doing their job in any city in America."

Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) also questioned Hegseth about the deployed troops, pressing the secretary with outlandish hypotheticals.

"You claim lethality is your top priority. Do you plan to unleash this lethal force against U.S. citizens and civilians in L.A. and other cities?" Hirono asked.

Hegseth rejected the senator's characterization.

"I would like to have a professional response," Hirono snapped.

"Given this regime's dangerous policy of mobilizing troops inside the U.S., the politicizing of the military is a legitimate concern," she continued. "If ordered by the president — I'm going to ask you once again — to shoot peaceful protesters in the legs, would you carry out such an order from the president?"

Hegseth replied, "I reject the premise of your question and the characterization that I would be given or are given unlawful orders. It's all meant to attempt to smear the commander in chief, and I won't fall for it."

Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) used his time to defend Hegseth after Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) claimed that the secretary would never be "held accountable" for allegedly disclosing military actions over the messaging application Signal.

Mullin fired back, "I wonder who was held accountable for the disastrous withdrawal out of Afghanistan, where 13 soldiers died and left thousands of Americans behind underneath Secretary Austin's lead?"

"Did one person get held accountable during that time?" Mullins questioned.

The senator defended Hegseth's record at the DOD after Democrats proclaimed that the department had been plagued with turmoil under his leadership.

Mullin noted that the DOD had the "lowest morale measured in our military history" and "absolutely disastrous" retention rates under Austin.

"You had recruitments that wasn't even meeting lowered standards that you guys lowered," Mullin told his fellow lawmakers. "Now, we have the highest morale that's been measured in decades in the military. We have recruiting numbers that are exceeding expectations."

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

What changed? No Kings vs. 2009 Tea Party protests

The No Kings protests that sprang up across the nation in June have sparked comparisons with the Tea Party protests that started around Tax Day of 2009. However, a look back in time reveals a very different treatment by the mainstream media that could not be more at odds with the favorable treatment given to the No Kings protests today.

In 2009, several networks accused Fox News of unfair coverage of the Tea Party movement. ThinkProgress said Fox was "actively promoting the protests," and Politico even said the network was "blurring the line between journalism and advocacy,” using the term “pseudo-journalism” to describe Fox News’ coverage of the Tea Party protests.

'The problem is, you can’t buy grassroots energy like we had in 2009, particularly when the "kings" behind the veil are paying for it.'

A Fox News article said, "The grassroots phenomenon, while largely ignored in the mainstream press, has caught fire on the Internet, where platforms like Facebook and Twitter have served as launching pads for demonstrations." The article went on to describe the Tea Party as a "nonpartisan" movement, though it "largely involved conservatives."

Double standard

Media Matters for America published a lengthy exposé titled "REPORT: 'Fair and balanced' Fox News aggressively promotes 'tea party' protests" criticizing Fox News' coverage of the protests: "While tea-party organizers have stated that the protests are nonpartisan, Fox News and organizers have also characterized the protests primarily as a response to the [Obama] administration's fiscal policies."

Michael Beck Photography. Used with permission.

The article concluded with a breakdown of each of the Fox hosts' supposedly biased coverage of the protests, but MMFA's main issue was with Fox's promotion of the events.

Media Matters wrote: "Fox News has in dozens of instances provided attendance and organizing information for future protests, such as protest dates, locations and website URLs. Fox News websites have also posted information and publicity material for protests. Fox News hosts have repeatedly encouraged viewers to join them at several April 15 protests that they are attending and covering."

By contrast, CBS News published an article on June 13, 2025, titled "'No Kings' protests planned across Massachusetts on June 14. Find one near you," seemingly presuming public interest in the event and encouraging participation.

Left-leaning outlets were as quick to dismiss the grassroots nature of the movement and downplay the size of the protests as right-leaning outlets were to affirm them.

The outlet subsequently updated the title of the article early the next morning. The current version replaced "Find one near you" with "Here's what to know."

Grassroots or astroturf?

During the Tea Party rallies of 2009, many outlets called into question the "grassroots" nature of the protests, as Fox News reported them.

The Los Angeles Times published an article called “Republicans stage 'tea party' protests against Obama.” The article opens: “Republicans sought to ignite a popular revolt against President Obama on Wednesday by staging 'tea party' protests across the nation to demand lower taxes and less government spending — but the tactic carried risk for the party.”

The reported number of people who attended Tea Party rallies seemed to differ across ideological lines as well. A New York Times article reported 200 people in Philadelphia; "several hundred" in Lafayette Park across from the White House; 500 protesters in Pensacola, Florida; around 1,000 people in Austin, Texas; and around 2,000 in Houston, Texas.

Plexi Images/GHI/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

On the other hand, the Washington Times reported that the rally in Richmond, Virginia, "drew over 5,000 people on a chilly, rainy day and they were pumped," according to American Majority founder and CEO Ned Ryun. The story went on to report that there were "hundreds of thousands of protesters" at "more than 300 rallies across the country."

ThinkProgress named FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity as the "heavily staffed" and "well funded" power players behind the organization of these protests. The article was clearly framed to refute Fox News' coverage of the story, which drew criticism from many other outlets as well.

On the other hand, DataRepublican, a user on X, compiled a database of over 140 organizations that purportedly participated in funding the No Kings protests. This list is not exhaustive, as more organizations will likely be added as more information becomes available.

Some have noted the stark difference between a "grassroots" protest on the left versus the right.

“Oh, the irony. Back when I was helping organize the Taxpayer March on Washington on September 12, 2009, the corporate media leftist apparatchiks like Media Matters were eager to characterize the massive Tea Party turnout that year as paid-for astroturfing. Because that’s how they had always done it,” said BlazeTV host Matt Kibbe, one of the organizers of the grassroots Tea Party movement in 2009. “They still are with their web of government-financed NGOs. The problem is, you can’t buy grassroots energy like we had in 2009, particularly when the 'kings' behind the veil are paying for it.”

A Democrat Tea Party

Clearly, there was a great deal of partisan coverage of the Tea Party movement in 2009. Left-leaning outlets were as quick to dismiss the grassroots nature of the movement and downplay the size of the protests as right-leaning outlets were to affirm them. However, some left-leaning outlets today have seemingly changed their outlook toward the 2009 protests.

For example, Vox recently wrote an article which played up how effective the protests in 2009 were, saying, “The Tea Party reorganized the Republican Party on its own terms.”

Even more surprising is the affirmation that the Tea Party was a grassroots movement at the start: “Notably, the movement was defined by how decentralized it was at its start — though some national organizations later formed to try to organize and wield populist furor, it was mostly a grassroots movement.”

While there are some very clear differences between the 2025 No Kings protests and the 2009 Tea Party protests in terms of media coverage and organizational support, Vox may be right that the Democratic Party is facing an internal reorganization. Or perhaps the very notion of a grassroots movement on the left has become obsolete.

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

Bible Study by Rick Burgess - LIVE - June 18, 2025

Kennedy has Big Pharma ads in his sights — and he's not the only one mulling a crackdown

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. noted in an op-ed last year that one of the ways President Donald Trump can make America healthy again is by reviewing direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ad guidelines.

"The U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to the public," wrote Kennedy. "News channels are filled with drug commercials, and reasonable viewers may question whether their dependence on these ads influences their coverage of health issues."

The administration is now poised to tackle this issue with policies that might make it costlier and/or more difficult for pharmaceutical giants to push their products directly to patients.

Health and Human Services press secretary Emily Hilliard told Blaze News that "Secretary Kennedy has consistently emphasized direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising must prioritize accuracy, patient safety, and the public interest — not profit margins."

"Consistent with Secretary Kennedy's public health commitments, we are exploring ways to restore more rigorous oversight and improve the quality of information presented to American consumers, who deserve nothing less than radical transparency," added Hilliard.

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Bloomberg reported that the administration is considering two policies in particular.

The first would require drugmakers to to be more forthright in their ads about the side effects of their products.

Given that pharma products often have myriad side effects, this would likely increase the run time of TV ads, thereby making them far more costly. Since a total ban on pharma direct-to-customer ads would expose the administration to litigation, this potential disincentive could have a similar effect without the consequence.

Individuals said to be familiar with the plans told Bloomberg that the second policy would entail denying pharmaceutical companies the ability to write off DTC advertising as a business expense for tax purposes.

Recent analysis from the Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing indicated that the average annual global spending on advertising and promotions in 2023 among the drugmakers AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer was $1.4 billion, with Pfizer spending the most.

The advertising data firm MediaRadar reportedly found that companies spent $10.8 billion last year on direct-to-consumer pharma advertising.

Drugmakers spent a combined $729.4 million to run TV commercials for the top 10 brands in just the first three months of 2025, reported Fierce Pharma.

'The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television.'

Bloomberg suggested that these potential policies could impact a key source of revenue for advertising, media, and pharmaceutical companies.

AbbVie chief commercial officer Jeff Stewart reportedly told analysts in May that if there were a crackdown on pharma ads, the company "would have to pivot," potentially focusing its advertising online rather than on mass media.

Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images

Alex Siciliano, a spokesperson for the National Association of Broadcasters, told Bloomberg, "Restricting pharmaceutical ads would have serious consequences for stations, particularly those in smaller markets, and could raise First Amendment concerns."

Those concerned about HHS purging the airwaves of Big Pharma propaganda need not only fear initiatives from the Trump administration.

Independent Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Angus King (Maine) introduced legislation last week that would ban drugmakers from using direct-to-consumer advertising outright, not only on TV and radio, but on social media, digital platforms, and in print as well.

"The American people are sick and tired of greedy pharmaceutical companies spending billions of dollars on absurd TV commercials pushing their outrageously expensive prescription drugs," Sanders said in a statement.

"The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television. They want us to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and ban these bogus ads."

An Axios-Ipsos poll conducted last year found that 59% of Americans support banning TV pharma ads.

Unlike the Trump administration's potential policies, the End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act might not survive a constitutional challenge, given that Congress is barred from making any law abridging the freedom of speech.

The independent lawmakers noted in their joint statement that HHS Secretary Kennedy is not the only relevant party who has expressed an interest in clearing the airwaves; the American Medical Association has similarly endorsed a ban.

"The widespread use of direct-to-consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies drives up costs and doesn’t necessarily make patients healthier," said King.

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

'Weak, emasculated leader': Ex-Vikings player blames Tim Walz for Minnesota killings

A former NFL player blamed Democrat Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for the "chaos" that has engulfed the state in recent years.

Jack Brewer, who played for the Minnesota Vikings and the University of Minnesota, said Walz and Minn. Attorney General Keith Ellison have put the state in a spiral, turning it into a place that does not reflect the people of Minnesota.

'Whenever you give Satan power, he shows his face.'

"We need to start calling this what it is. These people have lost their minds," Brewer told Fox News. "I am heartbroken to see one of the most amazing states in America completely turned around under Gov. Tim Walz. Minnesota is confused."

After a man named Vance Luther Boelter was charged with the murder of a top Minnesota lawmaker and her husband, Brewer said the incident was a direct result of Democrats and Walz's leadership. The former NFL player said there needs to be a "return to masculinity" in order to turn the state around.

"On this Father's Day, I wish Minnesota would focus on restoring fatherhood — protecting women, protecting families. Tim Walz is the example of a weak, emasculated leader. That is not what God made fathers to be. It's pathetic," Brewer told Fox News.

A Homeland Security K-9 officer walks around the Warren E. Burger Federal Building, where Vance Boelter had a court appearance on June 16, 2025, in St. Paul, Minnesota. Photo by Steven Garcia/Getty Images

Brewer described Minnesota as the "capital of chaos in America" and said Democrats have gone "so far left" that their party members attack anyone who does not agree with their principles.

"They are forcing everyone in the party to conform," Brewer's comments to Fox News continued.

The former defensive back added that the "root cause" of the problem in the state can simply be labeled "evil."

"Whenever you give Satan power, he shows his face. That's what we’re witnessing now."

Brewer has also been a Donald Trump supporter for years and was allegedly a Democrat until he was inspired by the president to change course.

Jack Brewer, #42 of the Minnesota Vikings, is congratulated after intercepting a pass against the Green Bay Packers on November 17, 2002. Photo by Elsa/Getty Images

In early 2020, Brewer declared Trump the "first black president" and said he was "changed" and "inspired" by him to keep doing God's work by reaching out to inmates in prison, according to the Hill.

In 2019, Brewer predicted that a "black awakening" would give Trump a 20% black vote in the upcoming election, but only 12% was garnered, per the Roper Center.

Brewer was in the NFL for four seasons, playing for the Vikings, New York Giants, and Philadelphia Eagles.

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

Want more from Glenn Beck?

'BIG WIN': Newsom's losing streak continues as 9th Circuit Court delivers Trump more great news

How it started

How it's going

Going Soft On Illegal Labor Is A Betrayal Of American Workers Like My Family

'Rogue' Biden judge ignores biological truth, blocks Trump's common-sense passport policy

Emails: College Officials Plotted To Claim Transgenderism As ‘Religion’ To Thwart Trump’s Protections For Women

Hegseth blocks Democrats’ smear tactics in fiery Senate showdown: 'I won't fall for it'

What changed? No Kings vs. 2009 Tea Party protests

Double standard

Grassroots or astroturf?

A Democrat Tea Party

Bible Study by Rick Burgess - LIVE - June 18, 2025

Kennedy has Big Pharma ads in his sights — and he's not the only one mulling a crackdown

'Weak, emasculated leader': Ex-Vikings player blames Tim Walz for Minnesota killings

Can populism break America’s two-party system?

I was separated from my mom because Ireland enforced its laws

DOD reveals stunning new details following Trump's attack on Iran

Weekend Beacon 6/22/25

Trump’s tariffs take a flamethrower to the free trade lie

MLB star reclaims the rainbow — then shatters a core leftist lie

The COVID Reckoning Cometh

What He Learned From the Revolution

Want more from Glenn Beck?

How it started

How it's going

Double standard

Grassroots or astroturf?

A Democrat Tea Party

We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.