On Tuesday, a federal grand jury in Montgomery, Alabama, indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center on 11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a bank, and conspiracy to commit money laundering for allegedly defrauding donors by secretly funneling over $3 million (2014–2023) to paid informants associated with extremist groups like the Ku Klux Klan without disclosure.

Glenn Beck, calling the SPLC a “tool of the progressive engine,” sums up the charges like this: “They were bankrolling the very racists [they were] denouncing on the evening news.”

The question is: Why?

On this episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn unpacks why he believes the SPLC would allegedly fund the very “extremism” it claims to fight.

If true, the revelations about the SPLC, Glenn says, follow the same pattern of “controlled extremism” that we see in “really ugly political systems” all over the world.

“First, you help create or intensify the very danger you publicly are claiming to fight. … Money flows in quietly to radicals and to dangerous people, and it helps them become louder and more active,” he explains.

“The public then sees a bigger threat. The organization points that threat out and makes more money, more moral authority, media defense, and political leverage. And it’s just lather, rinse, repeat, lather, rinse, repeat.”

Step two involves “[turning] labels into weapons” so that “extremist, terrorist, [and] foreign agent” become tools to “isolate opponents.”

“You chill people’s association. You cut off funding. You make the public afraid to defend the target,” says Glenn, pointing to how Russia’s Supreme Court recently declared the Nobel Peace Prize-winning human rights group Memorial an “extremist” organization and banned its activities in the country.

The third step, he says, requires cultivating “a climate where the map becomes territory.”

“Once a group is publicly targeted as hateful or extremist or subversive, the press, the foundations, the bureaucracies can begin treating the label as proof,” Glenn notes.

“This is where soft totalitarianism systems are born. You don’t start with gulags. You start with reputational death, which kind of becomes a soft blacklist. You start funding the choke points and public fear. That’s what the Southern Poverty Law Center was [allegedly] doing,” he continues, claiming it looks suspiciously like a “color revolution.”

He explains that “if an institution can inflate or steer the public perception of extremism, then it can help manufacture a crisis atmosphere,” which it can then use to delegitimize political opponents, pressure the media into conformity, justify surveillance and deplatforming, scare donors, churches, business, and individuals away from supporting the “wrong side,” and create moral permission for “extraordinary countermeasures” — even violence.

“Is that what the Southern Poverty Law Center was doing?” asks Glenn.

While he refuses to make premature judgments, Glenn says he “could sure make the case.”

To hear more, 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.

​Color revolution, Extremist groups, False statements, Foreign agent, Glenn beck, Ku klux klan, Money laundering, Montgomery alabama, Progressive engine, Southern poverty law, Southern poverty law center, Splc, Splc attorney domestic terrorism, Surveillance deplatforming, The glenn beck program, Wire fraud 

“Baby has 2 dads… chose neither,” reads the caption on the video recently posted by gay country star Shane McAnally. In it, McAnally’s husband, Michael Baum, asks the couple’s baby son, “Who do you want, Dada or Pop?”

When the boy calls out for “mama,” the two men laugh. “There is no mama,” says Baum, as the baby begins to cry.

Commercial surrogacy is a booming global industry. By 2032, the market is projected to exceed $120 billion.

Backlash to the clip was swift. To many viewers, there was nothing funny about the baby’s confusion; instead it was cruel and deeply disturbing.

Considering the costs

McAnally and Baum no doubt meant this as a lighthearted parenting moment, and not long ago, that’s probably how it would have been received. But the reaction to the video suggests that today, a decade into our nation’s legal, cultural, and technological push to reshape the family, more people are beginning to consider the costs of that transformation — most poignantly, the cost to the babies born via surrogacy and sold to same-sex couples, forever cut off from their biological mother or father by design.

Many of us have been raising the alarm about this for years, despite being dismissed as “homophobes” and “bigots.” To those just joining us, welcome. Below are a few concrete steps we can take to help these most innocent of victims.

1. Overturn Obergefell v. Hodges

Since the beginning of civilization, marriage has been understood as a union between a man and a woman, one that is inherently ordered toward procreation and family life, grounded in sexual complementarity, and oriented toward permanence and exclusivity.

It is only recently in human history that we have sought to question this assumption — first through the sexual revolution’s legal and cultural devaluation of marriage, and then through the Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Now that we have, studies have made it all the more obvious that we were right the first time: Children need a mother and father.

Research using the massive Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study dataset finds that children in single-parent and co-habiting homes fare worse overall on multiple outcomes, including rates of abuse.

Moreover, studies show that children raised by same-sex couples are significantly more likely to struggle emotionally, socially, and academically.

Traditional marriage is ideal for children — and for society. If we hope to restore it, the first step must be to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges

2. Ban commercial surrogacy

Surrogacy turns the creation of human life into a commercial transaction — a transaction that offers the children being bought and sold few legal protections.

It separates children from their biological mothers by design and often treats both women and children as means to an end rather than individuals with inherent dignity.

In commercial surrogacy arrangements, contracts often dictate the terms of pregnancy, birth, and custody — including how disputes over the child will be handled. Many agreements include provisions requiring the surrogate to follow the intended parents’ wishes in cases of fetal abnormality or multiple embryos, sometimes including abortion or “selective reduction.”

No surrogate can literally be forced to undergo an abortion. But in practice, the pressure can be significant. Refusing such a request may mean breaching the contract, losing compensation, facing legal action, or being drawn into prolonged custody disputes. In some documented cases, payments have been withheld or additional financial incentives offered to encourage compliance.

This creates a troubling dynamic: While the surrogate retains formal bodily autonomy, the structure of the agreement can place her under intense legal and financial pressure at precisely the moment a moral decision arises. The child, meanwhile, is treated less as a person with inherent claims and more as the subject of a negotiated outcome.

That tension — between autonomy in theory and pressure in practice — is one of the least examined ethical problems in modern surrogacy.

The silence is hardly surprising. Commercial surrogacy is a booming global industry. By 2032, the market is projected to exceed $120 billion.

Nonetheless, countries including France and Germany have summoned the political will to prohibit or heavily restrict surrogacy. The United States should follow suit. If we are serious about protecting children, we cannot allow a system that commodifies them before they are even born.

RELATED: Surrogacy ‘trafficking’? Unmarried Chinese couple in the US accused of massive baby scam — 21 kids placed in foster care

Blaze Media Illustration

3. Establish children’s legal right to a mother and father

Both the weakening of marriage and the rise of surrogacy can ultimately be traced to the same development: the tendency to prioritize adult desires over children’s needs.

As Katy Faust, founder and president of children’s advocacy group Them Before Us, points out, the “adult practicality” promised by gay marriage comes at the expense of children: “When marriage makes husbands and wives legally optional, mothers and fathers become legally optional, too.”

We all know intuitively that children have a right to be raised by their biological mother and father whenever possible. We must now codify this right into law, reshaping adoption and reproductive policy to favor the child, not the adults seeking a child.

This means we should prioritize placement with married mother-father households in adoption and foster care, ending policies that intentionally create motherless or fatherless homes — and risk reducing children to lifestyle accessories or status symbols We should require courts to consider long-term child outcomes, not just adult eligibility.

Unique roles

My heart broke watching the young boy in McAnally’s video cry out for his mother, someone he will likely never know. As a mother to both a toddler boy and a baby girl, I see firsthand the beautiful and distinct ways my husband and I meet different needs in our children’s lives. It’s easy to say, in theory, that kids need a mom and a dad. But it’s entirely different to witness, day in and day out, how deeply they rely on both of us in unique ways.

There are moments when my children come to me for comfort, gentleness, and reassurance, things that come entirely naturally to me. And there are other moments when they look to their father for strength, play, challenge, and a different kind of guidance that only he can provide.

Neither role is interchangeable. Both are essential. How many more children must suffer before we restore mothers and fathers as the foundation of family life?

​Adoption policy, Lifestyle, Gay adoption, Surrogacy, Obergefell v. hodges, Gay marriage, Shane mcanally, Defending the family 

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) remain neck and neck in the Republican Senate runoff despite a massive spending disparity between the two campaigns.

Cornyn’s incumbent advantage is further boosted by the $8 million his campaign ended with in the first quarter compared to Paxton’s $2.6 million cash on hand. Despite Cornyn’s financial advantage, Paxton has maintained his lead over the sitting senator.

Talarico also boasts a major spending advantage over both Republican candidates.

Polling still gives Paxton a slight edge.

As of this writing, Paxton is averaging a 3.4-point lead over Cornyn, according to RealClearPolling. A recent poll from nonpartisan Texas Public Opinion Research even put Paxton at an eight-point lead over Cornyn just weeks from the GOP runoff on May 26.

Although the candidates remain within striking distance of each other, President Donald Trump has notably refrained from endorsing either Paxton or Cornyn.

RELATED: Jasmine Crockett claims voters were ‘disenfranchised’ following crushing defeat in key Texas primary

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc./Getty Images

Although Paxton appears to be more popular with the Republican base, Cornyn polls better against the Democrat nominee, James Talarico. According to polling averages calculated by 270 to Win, Paxton polls just one percentage point ahead of Talarico, while Cornyn leads by two percentage points.

Talarico, who defeated Rep. Jasmine Crockett in the Democrat primary, also boasts a major spending advantage over both Republican candidates. Last quarter, Talarico raised $27 million and ended with just under $10 million in the bank.

The runoff will be held on May 26, and whoever wins the Republican nominee will face off against Talarico on November 3.

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

​Donald trump, Ken paxton, John cornyn, James talarico, Texas primary, Texas senate race, Jasmine crockett, 2026 primaries, Politics 

A Latina lesbian member of the Salt Lake City Council has been accused by four people of sexual harassment while she mounts a campaign to win a U.S. congressional seat.

Three of the accusers are elected officials, and all said they were subjected to unwanted sexual advances from Eva Lopez Chavez.

‘We cannot excuse behavior — past or present — that trivializes or undermines the seriousness of sexual violence, assault, and harassment.’

Chavez said through an attorney that she was “shocked” by the allegations, denied one interaction had ever occurred, and claimed nothing inappropriate happened between three other accusers.

“She is prepared to address them in any forum. She stands ready to submit to a polygraph test regarding these various allegations if requested,” reads a statement from her attorney, Greg Skordas, to the Salt Lake Tribune.

Three of the accusers said they told others about the interactions at the time, and the Salt Lake Tribune said they confirmed the claims. All the alleged interactions occurred before Chavez was elected to the city council.

The accusers said they went public now partly because Chavez was running for office in the U.S. Congress and had castigated another politician over crude jokes he previously made about sexual battery and domestic violence.

“Our communities deserve leaders who take these issues seriously — not just in rhetoric but in conduct,” Chavez said in a statement about Democrat state Sen. Nate Blouin. “We cannot excuse behavior — past or present — that trivializes or undermines the seriousness of sexual violence, assault, and harassment.”

The accusers said her statement ignored her own behavior against women.

One of the accusers claimed that Chavez “pushed me back against a pillar so that my back was against the wall and told me, ‘The only reason I still f**k men is because a woman hasn’t shown me what I really want.'”

The Tribune described in detail the circumstances of the other accusations against Chavez.

RELATED: Human resources study shows a stunning unintended backlash to the ‘MeToo’ movement

Lopez says in her biography that she is the eldest daughter of an immigrant family from Mexico and the first Mexican-American elected to the Salt Lake City Council.

She also is a proponent of abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to her profile on the X platform.

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

​City council member eva lopez chavez, Eva lopez chavez sexual harrassment, Lesbian latina harassment, Democrat sex scandal, Politics