Glenn Greenwald Called Me ‘Morally Deranged.’ Then This Happened.

In light of the crumbling facade of the LGBT movement, consider the rapid and recent downfall of the Leftist journalist named Glenn Greenwald, who’s become fashionable in certain corners of the populist Right in recent years.

In case you’re not familiar with Greenwald, he broke the story that the NSA was engaging in wide-ranging, secret surveillance of American citizens. Without a doubt, it was very important reporting. It made Greenwald’s career, by all accounts. Then, with his newfound credibility, Greenwald grew his audience as a political commentator more generally. In particular, he began speaking with authority about “gay and trans rights.” And it was in this capacity that Greenwald publicly attacked me just a few weeks ago. Specifically, Greenwald took issue with this statement that I made on Tucker Carlson’s podcast:

One has to be morally deranged – or totally ignorant of the grim realities of kids lingering without parents in orphanages, shelters and foster care, only to be expelled at 18 with no support – to believe that that dark hell is better for kids than being adopted by gay couples: pic.twitter.com/56evJtQ1VH

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 1, 2025

That episode was posted on April 30 of this year. One day later, on May 1st, Greenwald responded to me by writing this:

One has to be morally deranged – or totally ignorant of the grim realities of kids lingering without parents in orphanages, shelters and foster care, only to be expelled at 18 with no support – to believe that that dark hell is better for kids than being adopted by gay couples.

Greenwald went on to personally attack me several other times. For example, in response to another post on X, he wrote,

[Walsh’s] hatred for gay people vastly outweighs his self-glorifying, professed love for The Children.

So to recap, he says that gay men should be allowed to adopt young boys. He says it’s far better than the alternative, which is leaving the boys in orphanages until a heterosexual couple can adopt them. Not leaving them there permanently, to be clear. That’s not what I advocated for. I advocated for making sure that every child gets to a loving, stable home with a mother and a father. Which is a possibility foreclosed for children who are given to homes with gay parents. But Glenn says that, when I argue my position, I’m not actually interested in protecting children. He says I just despise gay people, because he is apparently able to read my mind. And above all, he claims that I’m “morally deranged.” Yes, for adhering to traditional conservative and Christian principles about the family, I’m “deranged.” For having the exact same view on this topic that nearly every human on Earth has had since the dawn of civilization, I am deranged. Glenn Greenwald — who is gay himself and has adopted two young boys, and then a third child more recently — is, in his mind, the one exhibiting moral clarity and decency.

WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show

Now, in case you’re one of the lucky ones who hasn’t heard the news, recent events have called Glenn Greenwald’s own moral character and suitability for fatherhood into question, to put things about as mildly as possible. In summary, footage was just posted that depicts Glenn Greenwald, a 58-year-old man with three adopted children dressing up in a maid outfit and performing debauched acts on an unknown adult male. At one point, it looks like Greenwald licks up the guy’s spit and sucks on his toes, as part of some kind of humiliation fetish. There’s also what appears to be drug paraphernalia in the shot. Then Greenwald sends a few thousand dollars via PayPal, while on camera, suggesting that prostitution is involved. I’m not going to share any of the footage or show images, for obvious reasons.

To be clear, this is not footage from Greenwald’s well-documented past life working in the porn industry in Brazil. It appears to be current. People are saying Greenwald himself briefly reposted the video, although I didn’t see that.

In any event, after this footage was released, Greenwald didn’t state that it was fake or anything like that (beyond a vague claim that some of the leaks were “distorted”). He didn’t deny that there were drugs in the footage, either. 

Instead, he stated that he had no “embarrassment or regret” about his behavior. He said the footage had been posted without his consent, and said his behavior didn’t harm anyone. On the drug point, someone on X directly asked Greenwald about the apparent meth pipe in the video. Greenwald responded and did not at any point deny it or give any assurance that he isn’t using hard drugs. Instead he said this: 

The point I’ve made from the start is that the moral and ethical code I believe in for my own life is one I am satisfied I am fulfilling. The fruits of my personal and professional life and the values they represent speak for themselves – I’m quite proud of them – and I feel no obligation to confine myself to the various moral codes others profess to believe in when it comes to private behavior… My personal and private life is something I’m proud of but don’t consider anyone else’s business and is certainly not something that should be publicized without my consent. Above all else, it’s not something I feel any need to try to justify to others. I am perfectly content if others disapprove of those choices, even strongly, because they are full aligned with my own moral code.

So there you have it. He’s asked about the meth pipe in his fetish video filmed by a male prostitute, and his response is that he’s proud of the decisions he makes in his personal life. Then Greenwald went on, in a different comment, to attack Donald Trump. Specifically, Greenwald suggested that he’s morally superior to Trump, and invoked the various unproven allegations of sexual misconduct that have been made against the current president. This is one of the most flagrant and grotesque examples of deflection imaginable, but Glenn very clearly has no shame, so he went for it.

Watching this sad and sordid display, some conservative commentators — including some who I really like and respect and consider friends, and still do — have defended Greenwald by saying that his private life is none of our business and that these acts were performed by “consenting adults.” Essentially, they’ve adopted Greenwald’s position that he’s harmed no one, and that everyone should drop the story entirely.

Before we get into the main reason why that’s not true, it needs to be said that Glenn Greenwald is the one who chose to engage in these depraved sex acts on camera. To all appearances, he did it voluntarily. He’s looking right into the camera. And that’s very significant. The moment you allow some random guy to film you while you’re on your knees, dressed in a maid outfit, you can’t cry about the fact that your privacy has been violated. You did it on camera. Here’s an idea: don’t film something if you don’t want other people to see it. Let’s put that up on the Big Board, as life lessons that shouldn’t need to be said out loud. At a minimum, Greenwald is the fool who decided to let someone film all of this in the first place, while he was busy licking up spit from the ground. So let’s just dispense with that whole sob story about “privacy” and a “smear campaign” right away. And by the way, not only did he let someone film it, but he let apparently a prostitute film it. So this is not a morally upstanding and trustworthy person. This is not someone that any sane individual would trust with sensitive material like that.

Second, an act can be consensual and yet still be depraved, disgusting, and (in Glenn’s own words) “morally deranged” at the same time. Consent is just one of the things that makes a sex act (or any other act involving another person) moral. It is not the only thing. There have been several stories in the so-called “LGBT community” about men consenting to their own mutilation and even murder. That doesn’t make it ethical. It doesn’t mean we should tolerate it or accept it. And it certainly doesn’t mean that we can’t form moral judgments about the behavior and rational judgments about the character of the men engaged in them.

Once again, this episode demonstrates why “consent-based morality” is so flimsy, weak, and ultimately useless. What makes an act moral cannot simply be that the people who committed the act did it on purpose. There has to be more to it than that. And everyone fundamentally knows that. Which is why, if you saw the Greenwald video, or saw images from it, or even just heard me describe it, it triggered your disgust reflex. It made you feel revulsion. Because you recognize that it is depraved, and no amount of consent will change that.

But the most important issue here — and this gets back to what I said on Tucker’s podcast, and why Greenwald attacked me in the first place — is the fact that Greenwald adopted two young boys in Brazil back in 2017. As their legal guardian, he’s responsible for their survival and their development at the single most crucial period in their lives. He’s supposed to be their role model as well as their guardian. But in truth, predictably, he’s neither. His behavior raises obvious questions about his capacity to raise children. And those questions become even more urgent when you take a closer look at this particular family’s history.

EVARISTO SA/AFP via Getty Images

For one thing, look up Greenwald’s biography on Wikipedia. It’s heavily sanitized, but it’s still pretty revealing. As the story goes, Greenwald met his future “husband,” David Miranda, in Brazil when Greenwald was 37 years old, and Miranda was just 19. So that’s an 18-year age gap. How did that happen, exactly? If you read the official narratives, you’re told that Greenwald was on some kind of vacation, and then he happened to bump into Miranda on the beach. And then they moved in together, in just a few days. Specifically, the New York Times reports that, out of nowhere, Greenwald’s 19-year-old love interest, “accidentally knocked over Mr. Greenwald’s drink with a ball,” and then the magical romance commenced. 

Of course, there was no New York Times reporter on the beach in Brazil when this fairy tale supposedly took place. Presumably, they’re just taking Greenwald’s word for it. Whatever we do, we’re not supposed to conclude that this chance encounter on the beach had anything to do — whatsoever, in any universe — with the fact that Miranda was the “son of a prostitute” who “dropped out of school when he was 5.” And we’re definitely not supposed to think that this little encounter was related, in any way, to Greenwald’s short-lived career in the gay pornography business, from back before he made it big in journalism. 

If you’re the single most credulous person on the planet, it’s possible you might believe all of this, without asking any questions. But that’s not really the relevant standard here. The standard is not, “could Glenn Greenwald possibly be telling the truth about his life story?” The standard is: “Should Glenn Greenwald be given custody of several small male children, given everything we know?” He has the burden of proof here, because the consequences of a mistake are extremely severe. We’re talking about the well-being of children. And Greenwald has consistently failed to meet this burden of demonstrating that he should have custody of these children. 

The question is: Can we say with confidence, given everything we know, that the Greenwald household is a safe place for two young adopted male children? Or let’s look at it this way. If this video of Greenwald in a maid outfit licking the feet of an apparent male prostitute had been posted before he adopted those boys, does anyone — even people who think gay adoption should be legal — actually think that the adoption agency would have or should have allowed him to take custody of those kids? The apparent drug use alone would be enough to rule it out. Or, bringing this back to my original point, does anyone doubt at this point that his adopted children would have been much better off if they’d remained at an orphanage until a healthy couple composed of a man and a woman had adopted them? Can anyone really deny that, given everything we’ve just seen from Greenwald’s own personal situation?

To be clear, the point here is not to attack Glenn Greenwald personally. He’s the one who launched multiple personal attacks against me before I ever said a word about him. The point is to emphasize that what I told Tucker back on April 30th is true: There’s a very good reason that male couples should not be able to adopt children. Greenwald has demonstrated it. It’s not by random chance that, within a month of Glenn Greenwald accusing me of being a horrible person for saying gay men shouldn’t raise children, he’s been outed as a guy who films apparently drug-fueled gay fetish porn with male prostitutes.

Gay men are overwhelmingly more promiscuous than heterosexuals in stable, committed relationships. That’s not some kind of accusation invented by bigots. It’s what all the data says. And it’s what any rational person can observe. Hollywood and the corporate press has spent something like 30 years trying to sell the idea that gay couples are just like straight couples, and they want nothing more than to raise children in a wholesome, stable environment — even children that aren’t theirs. They claimed that, even in the worst-case scenario, it’s better for a child to be adopted by two gay men, than to stay another day in foster care. That’s what we’ve been told, again and again.

What they didn’t tell us is that the true “worst-case scenario” is far more troubling — and far more common — than most people can possibly imagine. But the secret’s out, at this point. “Pride parades” are collapsing because the vast majority of Americans have come around to realizing what exactly the LGBT movement is really pushing for. And now, just in time for Pride month, Glenn Greenwald has made it abundantly clear — with videotaped evidence — why children should only be adopted by stable, two parent households, with both a mom and a dad. That’s what the children have a right to. Every child has a right to a mom and a dad. It’s what nature intends. It’s how God designed it. And it’s what every child is entitled to. And we should be a lot more concerned with the rights of these children than with the desires of men like Glenn Greenwald.

Yes, if you say that out loud, they’ll call you “morally deranged.” They’ll say your views are backwards and outdated. But it doesn’t matter what they think. What matters is the well-being and safety of children who cannot defend or speak for themselves. Children belong with a mother and a father. And as the esteemed journalist Glenn Greenwald himself has just demonstrated — with video evidence — the consequences of denying this truth are dire.