Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
Ohio Train Disaster: How Corruption and Greed Created Catastrophe, w/ David Sirota
Plus: Hawley's New Social Media Law
February 15, 2023
post photo preview

Note From Glenn Greenwald: The following is the full show transcript, for subscribers only, of a recent episode of our System Update program, broadcast live on Rumble on Tuesday, February 14, 2023. Watch System Update Episode #41 here on Rumble. 


In this episode, we take a look at Senator Josh Hawley, the Missouri Republican, who has long supported the conservative view on culture war issues, that parental rights are sacrosanct and that it should be parents, not the state or school bureaucrats, who decide what American children learn about social, cultural and religious debates and how they learn about them. Yet this week, Senator Hawley has introduced a new law that would deprive America's parents of the right to decide for their own children when and how those children can start using social media and replace that parental decision-making power with a blanket rule from the state that bans social media from allowing any children under the age of 16 to use social media, even if their own parents believe they are ready to use it. We'll examine the values in conflict as a result of Senator Hawley's bill and whether it can be reconciled with the banner of parental rights, which the American right has been waving as part of the culture wars. 

For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update starting right now. 


Monologue:

Many of the most inflammatory culture war issues over the last several years have involved fights over what children should and should not be taught in public schools about highly contested questions regarding history, race and gender ideology. But a related dispute is whether communities and parents are acting recklessly – or even endangering children – by allowing them to attend so-called drag shows or read books about LGBT history and how to understand their own gender. 

When these controversies began receiving significant public attention a few years ago, conservatives – often led by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis – waved the banner of parental rights. They objected to children being taught – or indoctrinated with – highly disputed beliefs about social issues. Aside from arguing that schools should focus on teaching students the traditional subjects they need to advance in their education and prepare themselves for the adult world – English, mathematics, science, geography, chemistry, algebra and the rest – opposition to much of the curriculum centered on the view that the responsibility to decide what children learn about political and social issues – and how they learn it – should rest with parents and not with school bureaucrats or elected officials using the force of law. 

In March of last year, Governor DeSantis published an announcement on his official website under this title: “Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Historic Bill to Protect Parental Rights in Education.” The announcement emphasized that value over and over – parental rights - in announcing, in the governor's words, that he had signed

House Bill (HB) 1557, Parental Rights Education, which reinforces parent's fundamental right to make decisions regarding the upbringing of their children”. 

The bill prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through 3rd grade and prohibits instruction that is not age appropriate for students and requires school districts to adopt procedures for notifying parents if there is a change in services from the school regarding a child's mental, emotional or physical health or well-being. 

The Bill builds on the Parents’ Bill of Rights, which was signed into law in Florida last year, and as part of Governor DeSantis’ Year of the Parent focus on protecting parental rights in education. 

Parents’ rights have been increasingly under assault around the nation but, in Florida, we stand up for the rights of parents and the fundamental role they play in the education of their children”, said Governor Ron DeSantis. “Parents have every right to be informed about services offered to their children at school (Florida Governor’s Office. March 2022).

As that passage demonstrates, the banner of parental rights has been the one most frequently waved by conservatives in these culture war debates. It is the parent's right to decide what social, cultural, and religious influences their kids are exposed to – or not exposed to – and not the role of the state and its educational bureaucracy to decide that for the parents. 

Yet, now, Josh Hawley, the Republican senator from Missouri, who has been an outspoken advocate of the right's views in many of these culture war issues, often waving the banner of parental responsibility and parental rights himself, has introduced a bill this week that seems to me to do the opposite. That bill would deny parents the right to decide when and how their children can use social media and instead transfer the responsibility to make that decision away from the parents and onto the state. 

As Fox Business reports today about this bill, 

Missouri GOP Senator Josh Hawley has introduced a pair of bills aimed at protecting kids online – one that would implement an age requirement for social media usage and another that would study the harmful impact of social media on children. The first bill titled the Making Age-Verification Technology Uniform, Robust and Effective Act (MATURE Act) […]

He went out of his way to create this acronym: MATURE Act

[…] would place a minimum age requirement of 16 years old for all social media users, preventing platforms from offering accounts to those who do not meet the age threshold (Fox Business. Feb. 14, 2023). 

Hawley’s other measure, titled The Federal Social Media Research Act, would commission a government report on the harm of social media for kids. That study, according to the senator's office, would examine and “track social media's effects on children over 10 years old.”

I don't think anybody objects to a study to understand how this technology that is still quite new in our lives and continuously evolving – social media – is impacting the nation's children. I don't think many people would object to that; I know I wouldn't. The question of the other bill, however, I find much more difficult to grapple with, which is the idea that there should be a minimum age that applies nationally, to every community, to every state, and to every family, that prohibits any children under the age of 16 from using social media – even if you, as the parent of your children, conclude that your children are ready and able to use social media at the age of 13 or 14 or 15 with whatever guidelines and limits you decide are necessary for them to do that. 

Under this bill, Josh Hawley is taking away the power for you to decide for your own children at what age they are able to use social media and replacing your decision-making power with that uniform minimum law from the federal government that says that it shall be illegal in essence, for social media companies to remit children under the age of 16, to use Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and the rest. 

Before delving into what I think are some interesting and difficult questions raised by this law, let's listen to Sen. Hawley himself at a hearing today in the Senate in which he defends his own bill and has an exchange with the witness he believes illustrates the need for it. 

(Video 12:44)

Sen. J. Hawley:  It wasn't until Carson was a freshman in high school – was about 14, I would guess – that we finally allowed him to have social media because – this is what caught my attention – that was how all the students were making new connections. Could you just say something about that? Because that's the experience, I think, of every parent. My kids are, my boys are ten and eight, and they're not on social media yet. But I know they'll want to be soon because they'll say, “Well, everybody else is on it.” So, could you just say a word about that?

 

Witness:  Yes. Thank you. We waited as long as we possibly could, and we were receiving a lot of pressure from our son to be involved. I think – and I hear this a lot from other parents – you don't want to isolate your kid either. And so, we felt by waiting as long as possible, talking about the harms – don't ever say anything that you don't want on a billboard with your name and face next to it, that we were doing all the right things and that he was old enough. He was by far the last kid in his class to get access to this technology. Yet this still happened to us.

 

Sen. J. Hawley: Yeah, that's just incredible. Well, you were good parents and you were a good mother. Incredibly good mother, clearly. This is why I support and have introduced legislation to set 16 years old as the age threshold for which kids can get on social media and require the social media companies to verify it. I heard your answers.[…]  I just have to say this, as a father myself, when you say things like, well, the parents really ought to be educated. Listen, the kids’ ability and I bet you had this experience, the kid's ability to figure out how to set what's on this phone. And my ten-year-old knows more about this phone than I know about it. Already. What's going to be like in another four years or five or six years, like your son?

 

So, I just say, as a parent, it would put me much more in the driver's seat if the law was “You couldn't have a phone. I'm sorry you couldn't get on social media till six”. I mean, that would help me as a parent. So that's why I'm proposing it. Parents are in favor of it. I got the idea from parents who came to me and said, Please help us. You know, please help us. And listen, I'm all for tech training. It's great. But I just don't think that's going to cut it. So, I've introduced legislation to do it. Let's keep it simple. Let's just, let's put this power in the hands of parents. I'd start there. 

I'm really confused by that last part where he said, “let's put the power in the hands of parents,” because what he's doing is clearly the opposite. He's taking away the power of parents to decide when their own children can go on social media or not. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
28
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Answering Your Questions About Tariffs

Many of you have been asking about the impact of Trump's tariffs, and Glenn addressed how we are covering the issue during our mail bag segment yesterday. As always, we are grateful for your thought-provoking questions! Thank you, and keep the questions coming!

00:11:10
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Breaks Down Trump's DOJ Speech on Fox News
00:04:52
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Discusses Mahmoud Khalil on Fox News
00:08:35
Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

(~16 min) Chris Smalls is a human being of courage. That's even consistently speaking.

placeholder
TONIGHT: Submit Your Questions for the Friday Mailbag!

We look forward to seeing what’s on your mind. Please feel free to submit more than one question.

The Woody Allen Futuristic Sleeper from 1973 is almost here, but it’s not quite what some might expect.

post photo preview
Should Obama Admin Officials Be Prosecuted for Russiagate Lies? Major Escalations in Trump/Brazil Conflict
System Update #498

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXeM7_lvrgdg_5Q9HFyUAtiZmWcpNFbv5Y5SlIIi4PzkGFrNyl7a32vxRkND5L9ugAgbJXX9MBL9c3Yac2CNxE5Xv4dDiigLQUx75j4d5gokXZt3PW088MjMKVwVxIcV9pI2Cu4hXz-IRwukRmzz5bU?key=PiLZZVDB8mI7afwDZI6o3g

The Russiagate fraud is receiving all sorts of new attention and scrutiny thanks to documents first declassified and then released by Trump's Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. As we reported at length last week, these documents were quite incriminating for various Obama officials, such as former CIA Director James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director Jim Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, as they reveal what was a deliberate attempt to weaponize intelligence findings for purely partisan and political ends in 2016, namely, to manipulate the American electorate into voting for their former Obama administration colleague Hillary Clinton as president, and more importantly, defeating Donald Trump, and then repeatedly lying about it to Congress and the American people. 

Yesterday, it was reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi is not only investigating, which is kind of meaningless, but what's not meaningless is that she's also apparently empaneling a grand jury to investigate whether there was prosecutable criminality at the highest levels of the Obama administration. We'll examine that obviously important question. 

Then, we’ll examine what's driving all his complex escalation of Trump’s decision for 50% tariffs on Brazilian products and what's at stake, and the potential consequences for all sides. 

AD_4nXeM7_lvrgdg_5Q9HFyUAtiZmWcpNFbv5Y5SlIIi4PzkGFrNyl7a32vxRkND5L9ugAgbJXX9MBL9c3Yac2CNxE5Xv4dDiigLQUx75j4d5gokXZt3PW088MjMKVwVxIcV9pI2Cu4hXz-IRwukRmzz5bU?key=PiLZZVDB8mI7afwDZI6o3g

AD_4nXcMLHddBcYrOQkGBrftza6Qmzy1fTdJQYf__iGj6ghLK6A5bXi0gHsAdFB4QQg9QIS86OS8NB9osGCnH9eBJ-eq249C6MDSOU7yW1FeA7Fc3dHzrytPwkzWr928FUUPA3BRlx4Q2CPAJI7vGYnjUtg?key=PiLZZVDB8mI7afwDZI6o3g

I believe it's been obvious, pretty much from the very beginning of the Russiagate hoax, the Russiagate fraud, which I'll remind you, again, was driven by the core conspiracy claim that the Trump campaign officials collaborated and colluded and conspired with the Kremlin to hack into the DNC email server as well as John Podesta's email and disseminate those emails to WikiLeaks and by the broader conspiracy theory that Trump was being blackmailed by Vladimir Putin with sexual material, compromising financial information, personal blackmail as well, and that therefore the Kremlin was basically, once Trump got elected running the country, was a completely unhinged and deranged conspiracy theory from the start for which there was no evidence. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Trump Admin Unleashes More Policies That Prioritize Israel Over American Citizens; The Smear Campaign Against Gaza Aid Whistleblower with Journalist Mel Witte
System Update #497

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXfb6_8u1Lpq1OnbUDY01-uKWOMTGYJr_VpZMwCTb2IniIqJxHTDhet_15t7Rqbxygnw3T8WFswmonhZm8gOvAMEOfIgdgNwYWk7wn8lW2g-pqcGYMzY4I-YMCwjT4_0_UvrAYj-Fai4K0F4nRBO8Q?key=BwcFiBmu5qlNx-80kubn7Q

That the U.S. government and multiple state governments are devoutly loyal to Israel is hardly a secret. Anyone who pays even minimal attention to American politics knows that. The Trump administration has severely escalated this framework. The administration does not just send billions of dollars and massive amounts of arms to Israel, but they go much further: they have been routinely punishing American citizens and jeopardizing American interests to serve and protect Israeli interests. 

Our guest is Melissa Witte. Last week, I praised her work and independent journalism. Mel Witte is a strong believer in the America First ideology that was sold by Donald Trump, whose candidacy and MAGA movement she has supported. But unlike many, if not most, Trump supporters, she actually took seriously the core promises of America First, and she has been scathing in her denunciation of the Trump administration for deviating so brazenly from them, but also quite relentless and meticulous and detail-oriented and evidence-based in her reporting on all of these matters. We have wanted her on our show for some time and she is our guest for this show. 

AD_4nXfb6_8u1Lpq1OnbUDY01-uKWOMTGYJr_VpZMwCTb2IniIqJxHTDhet_15t7Rqbxygnw3T8WFswmonhZm8gOvAMEOfIgdgNwYWk7wn8lW2g-pqcGYMzY4I-YMCwjT4_0_UvrAYj-Fai4K0F4nRBO8Q?key=BwcFiBmu5qlNx-80kubn7Q

Foto editada de homem de terno e gravataO conteúdo gerado por IA pode estar incorreto.

I don't think people realize how many policies there are already in place in the United States that punish American citizens and deprive American citizens of certain benefits and certain rights if they'd refuse to either sign a loyalty oath to Israel, where they agree never to boycott the state of Israel, even though they're allowed to boycott every other country on the planet, even other American states, you just can't boycott Israel. 

There are also many programs that will dismantle crucial programs beneficial to American interests in order to shield Israel from criticism or to claim that, by allowing protest against Israel, an institution is being antisemitic. And it doesn't matter how valuable these programs are, if they're associated with an institution that Israel supporters dislike for having allowed some protests against Israel, they will dismantle and defund the program. Let's start with the second policy that happened on Friday night as an example, just to illustrate how extreme this has become. 

Here's Paul Graham, a very successful investor in Silicon Valley, who has been very supportive of Republican and conservative policies, but also quite outspoken about the Trump administration's financing of Israel. On August 3, 2025, he said this:

AD_4nXd1KxbYwNTldwdVTbxmNs7o6aXiCSWEnfwaYH1L594H51aluoFUZfDOfLGeb3nxVxQShRi2zuz89da_TuPJMaIoHzLtg-i8x7GAQKp1eSzJJA5YEKYZJie0vIfLAXn9Waq9jiaJOXl6FU2_aBUWRp4?key=BwcFiBmu5qlNx-80kubn7Q

 Terrence Tao is probably the most important and accomplished mathematician on the planet. Maybe there are two or three people who compete with him. He's an Australian American citizen. He works inside the United States, on research programs funded by the U.S. government, which the government funds because applied mathematics is one of the most crucial fields to all sorts of programs that the United States needs to compete with China, from AI and cryptography to detecting financial fraud or managing financial transactions. 

The Allies were able to break Nazi codes using cryptography because of mathematicians during World War II. That's the equivalent of who this person is and what this program does. Yet, the Trump administration just announced that they're defunding it, not because they say that it's wasteful or that it's not producing benefits. And it's no part of some broader attempt to defund research programs at universities. The Trump administration is funding all sorts of research. Instituting programs at universities is something the U.S. government has always done for its own benefit. 

The only programs they're defunding are ones that they claim are attached to institutions like UCLA, which they claimed are antisemitic. They claim that about Harvard, filled with Jewish students and Jewish administrators, five of the last seven presidents of Harvard are Jewish, yet somehow the Trump administration decided that's an antisemitic institution because they allowed protests against Israel. Same with UCLA. Anyone who knows UCLA knows how robustly represented Jewish students and Jewish faculty members are. 

Read here what Terence Tao said on his social media account about why this was done. This was on August 1. 

 Again, this is so ironic. The conservative movement spent a full decade mocking claims of racism, mocking claims that people on college campuses need anti-discrimination protection, then the Trump administration gets in and makes it one of their very top priorities to declare that there's a racism epidemic in the United States, but only against one group. There's only one genuinely marginalized, true victim group in the United States, and that's American Jews and the Trump administration has been doing everything, no matter how much it harms American citizens or American interests, to purge the world of this one form of bigotry that it claims has pervaded all American institutions. And it will sacrifice anything to do so. This is not new. This is just how extreme these things can get in the framework of American politics. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Stephen Miller's False Denials About Trump's Campus "Hate Speech" Codes; Sohrab Ahmari on the MAGA Splits Over Antitrust, Foreign Wars, and More
System Update #495

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it as a podcast on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast platform.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXcVfmDdHrQ-Zpha3--J66DT8UosaZB6QyVMRKKiDc8Pc2H964SPdSLx9gna_y2ysGMem-Xi15VbLqaGVV7Maed8gr8ZLSxbMYn8cSuV6G0zDRkpROzpYBVRwH_J8C9Vc2jmBXiAk1Raeq68gE03_xk?key=VHGDu0SWVvqcMVQQb5VmgQ

One of President Trump's most powerful advisers, Stephen Miller, last night claimed that I had posted what he called "patently false" statements about the Trump administration’s policy. Specifically, earlier in the day, I had pointed out – and documented, as I've done many times – that the Trump administration has implemented a radically expanded "hate speech" code that outlawed a wide range of opinions about Israel and Jewish individuals and, even worse, that they have been pressuring American universities to adopt this expanded "hate speech" code on campuses to restrict the free speech rights, not of foreign students, but of American professors, American administrators and American students. It's a direct attack on the free speech rights of Americans on college campuses. 

I also pointed out – as I have covered here many times – that the Trump administration has also adopted a policy of deporting law-abiding citizens, not for criticizing the United States, but for criticizing Israel. All of my claims here are demonstrably and indisputably true. Yet after I pointed them out yesterday, and various MAGA influencers began responding to them and promoting them, White House officials began contacting them to convince them that my claims weren't true. When that didn't work because I was able to provide the evidence, the White House late last night dispatched one of its most popular officials – Stephen Miller – to label my claims “patently false." 

The policies in question, adopted by the Trump administration, especially these attacks on free speech on American college campuses through hate speech codes, are of great importance, precisely, since they do attack the free speech rights of Americans at our universities, and the actual truth of what the Trump administration should be demonstrated. So that's exactly what we're going to do tonight. 

Then: The emergence of Donald Trump and his MAGA ideology in the Republican Party led to the opening of all sorts of new ideas and policies previously anathema in that party. All of that, in turn, led to vibrant debates and competing views within the Trump coalition, as well as to all new voices and perspectives. One of the most interesting thinkers to emerge from that clash is our guest tonight: he's Sohrab Ahmari, one of the founders of Compact Magazine and now the U.S. editor for the online journal UnHerd. We’ll talk about all of that, as well as other MAGA divisions becoming increasingly more visible on economic populism generally, war and foreign policy, and much more. 

AD_4nXcVfmDdHrQ-Zpha3--J66DT8UosaZB6QyVMRKKiDc8Pc2H964SPdSLx9gna_y2ysGMem-Xi15VbLqaGVV7Maed8gr8ZLSxbMYn8cSuV6G0zDRkpROzpYBVRwH_J8C9Vc2jmBXiAk1Raeq68gE03_xk?key=VHGDu0SWVvqcMVQQb5VmgQ

Sometimes, government policy is carried out with very flamboyant and melodramatic announcements that everyone can listen to and understand, but more often it's carried out through a series of documents, very lengthy documents, sometimes legal documents, that have a great deal of complexity to them. 

Oftentimes, when that happens, the government, if it has a policy or is pursuing things that are unpopular, especially among its own voters, can just try to confuse things by claiming that people's descriptions of what they're doing are untrue and false and trying to just confuse people with a bunch of irrelevances or false claims. A lot of people don't know what to make of it. They just throw up their hands because most people don't have the time to sort through all that. Especially if you're a supporter of a political movement and you hear that they're pursuing a policy that you just think is so anathema to their ideology that you don't want to believe that they're doing, you're happy to hear from the government when they say, “Oh, that's a lie. Don't listen to the persons or the people saying that. That's not actually what we're doing.”

Yet when that happens, I think it's very incumbent upon everybody who wants to know what their government is doing to actually understand the truth. And that is what happened last night. 

I've been reporting for several months now on the Trump administration's systematic efforts to force American universities to adopt expanded hate speech codes. Remember, for so long, conservatives hated hate speech codes on college campuses. They condemned it as censorship. They said it's designed to suppress ideas. 

Oftentimes, those hate speech codes were justified on the grounds that it's necessary to protect minority groups or that those ideas are hateful and incite violence. And all of this, we were told by most conservatives that I know, I think, in probably a consensus close to unanimity, we were told that this is just repressive behavior, that faculty and students on campus should have the freedom to express whatever views they want. If they're controversial, if they are offensive, if they are just disliked by others, the solution is not to ban those ideas or punish those people, but to allow open debate to flourish and people to hear those ideas. 

That is a critique I vehemently agree with. And I've long sided with conservatives on this censorship debate as it has formed over the last, say, six, seven, eight years when it comes to online discourse, when it comes to campus discourse, free speech is something that is not just a constitutional guarantee and according to the Declaration of Independence, a right guaranteed by God, but it is also central to the American ethos of how we think debate should unfold. We don't trust the central authority to dictate what ideas are prohibited and which ones aren't. Instead, we believe in the free flow of ideas and the ability of adults to listen and make up their own minds. 

That's the opposite of what the Trump administration has now been doing. What they said they believed in, Donald Trump, in his inauguration and other times, was that he wanted to restore free speech. Early on in the administration, JD Vance went to Europe and chided them for having long lists of prohibited ideas for which their citizens are punished if they express those views. And the reality is that's exactly what the Trump administration has been doing. 

I want to make clear I'm not talking here about the controversies over deporting foreign students for criticizing Israel. That's a separate issue, which is part of this discussion, but that's totally ancillary and secondary. I've covered that many times. That is not what I'm discussing. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals