Mercury Confidential: Meet the woman who has kept Glenn's TV show on the air every day since CNN

By Meg Storm

Ever wonder what goes on behind the scenes at Mercury Radio Arts? Just how do all of Glenn’s crazy ideas get done? Does anyone ever get a chance to sleep? Well, over the next few months we are going to take you inside MRA, giving you the inside scoop on everything from publishing to special events, 1791 to Markdown to GBTV. We will be interviewing members of our New York, Columbus, and Dallas staff, bringing you all the info, so you can know what it’s really like to work for Glenn. Part 1 (Kevin Balfe – Publishing)Part 2 (Liz Julis – GBTV/Special Events)Part 3 (Joel Cheatwood: CCO & President of TheBlaze)Part 4 (Eric Pearce: VP, TV Operation of TheBlaze)Part 5 (Michelle Vanderhoff Network Operations Manager at TheBlaze)

Imagine leaving your job at CNN to get a call a few days later asking you to return and help launch a show for a radio personality who had virtually no television experience. Imagine then being the only person to leave your job at CNN and follow the now budding cable news star to Fox News, where you work your way up to senior producer in a matter of months. Finally, imagine leaving the comforts of working as an executive producer at a major cable news channel to join a fledgling online streaming network. Well, that just about sums up the remarkable career of Tiffany Siegel, V.P. and Executive Producer of Glenn Beck Programming

Siegel's journey is proof that with risk comes reward, and it is her work ethic and unfailing ability to translate Glenn's mile-a-minute ideas into a broadcast ready reality that took her from producing "all of the entertainment fluff segments" to the person calling the shots.

Life as an executive producer for Glenn can mean a long and stressful day, with Siegel getting into the office each morning in time for the 6:30AM meeting during which Glenn and his team figure out the content for the day and not leaving until after the Glenn's show is off the air each night, but she doesn't mind. After all, she is living her dream.

"Its pretty obvious - for this job at least - I went to Syracuse University, and I studied broadcast journalism," Siegel explained. "This was a lifelong thing for me."

She interned for CNN throughout college, and then took a job there after graduation. "I started in financial news, which was not that exciting. But at the time, it was during the Dot Com bubble, so we were launching all kinds of business programs. It was actually a good place to get your feet wet," she said.

Siegel ended up leaving CNN to work for CBS News, but it wasn't long before she got a call that would ultimately prove to be the opportunity of a lifetime. A producer at CNN, Conway Cliff (now a program consultant at TheBlaze), was launching a new daily show with a man named Glenn Beck, and he thought Siegel would be a good addition to the team.

"I was only at CBS for a few months because I left CNN and then Conway pulled me right back into CNN when Glenn's show came on because it just seemed like something so different then anything that network had done before," she recalled. "So I came in for an interview. I didn't meet Glenn, but I interviewed with Chris and Kevin Balfe. And then I met Glenn about two weeks before we were going to launch."

It was an exciting opportunity for Siegel that came at a very special time in her life. "I actually got married the week before we launched - the day Cheyenne [Glenn's daughter] was born - and then I came back from my honeymoon, and I think we launched the next day," she said with a laugh.

As far as Glenn is concerned, Siegel started at the bottom of totem pole. "I started as a segment producer doing, as Glenn tells the story, all of the entertainment fluff segments," she said. "When he tells a story about how you can make it big in his company he always says: Look at Tiffany, she started doing stupid, idiotic reality TV show segments for me."

"I did start doing a little bit of the lighter stuff," she continued. "I worked my way up - did a lot of field producing, and I guess that is when I really got to know Glenn. I did some stuff in the field, like when we went to Los Angles for a week, which enabled me some time with him working on different packages."

That trip to Los Angeles was actually one of the first chances Siegel got to really make an impression on Glenn, and it is safe to say things didn't quite go as planned.

"I didn't know Glenn that well, and I really wanted to show him that I wasn't just the fluffy reality TV show girl," she recalled. "So we were going to broadcast from the roof of the CNN building, which was pretty cool. I guess Glenn had just had these fancy suits made for his new TV career, and he had on his brand new L.A. suit that day."

"I took him up to the roof to show him this amazing vantage point, and the whole suit rips right before air. It just ripped," she said shaking her head. "I think they ended up putting masking tape on the back of it. And I was just like, 'Ok - this is the worst impression I could be making on this man.' He has these really nice fancy suits and it was ruined... that kind of sucked."

The incident was definitely an icebreaker, and it clearly didn't affect her chances for success. In fact, in retrospect it proved to be the beginning of an incredible partnership.

One of Siegel's fondest moments of her time at CNN came when a segment she produced made Glenn cry on television... for the first time.

"I think I made him cry for the very first time on set - at CNN anyway - we all know he has cried many, many times," she said sarcastically. It was a segment about a woman who had lost her son in Afghanistan, and she set up a foundation in his honor that would send packages to soldiers overseas. The woman was brought to the studio to talk about her story with Glenn.

"We had done a profile on her and her story, and she was on the set," Siegel explained. "So she watched the package with Glenn, and we came back from the piece, and he was just - you know Glenn - so hysterical that he could barely compose himself."

Considering how many tears Glenn has shed on the air, it is no small feat to say a story you produced caused him to cry for the first time. Siegel is one of the few people who have had the chance to work with Glenn since day one of his television career, and she has witnessed his evolution from novice to expert.

"Glenn, in the beginning, did not understand TV at all. He would say, lets get an expert on X, Y, and Z, and then they would be on the set that night, and he would be like, 'How did this happen?' He couldn't fathom how it worked," she said. "Now he is like, get me an elephant, two wild turkeys, and a monkey at five o'clock. And he expects it to be done. He has caught onto TV, the lingo, all of it. And now he is an expert on all of these things."

When Glenn decided to make the move to Fox News in late 2008, Siegel jumped at the chance to continue working with him. Of the entire production staff at CNN, she was the only one to follow Glenn. "I was the only one who took the risk at the time," she said. "That was scary, but exciting. And I knew that if Glenn was behind it, it was going to be fine. I knew him at that point, and I was comfortable with what he was doing."

With her days as the "fluff producer" long behind her, Siegel moved to Fox News as the second in command. "I was not running the show at first, but they had a senior producer that didn't work out," she explained. "So after about six months they put me in the driver's seat, and I was so excited. At that time we were the number two show in all of cable news, and I couldn't believe that I was running it!"

As executive producer, Siegel's job is to oversee the production and content of the show, providing Glenn with as many ideas as possible and keeping things organized - responsibilities that are much easier said than done when it comes to working with Glenn.

"I guess the thing with Glenn - what is that saying? The only thing consistent is change. That's Glenn. It is legitimately different everyday," she said. "He is not someone that likes to plan ahead, and even if he does plan ahead he will pretend that he didn't plan ahead. He'll be like, 'What are you talking about? I never said I would do that.'"

"For Glenn, I just like to come up with as many different story ideas with as many different topics as possible - so a ton of research, creative ways that he can tell stories," she continued. "We build that rundown from scratch everyday. We come in at 6:30 in the morning, and we meet with him and give him ideas. And then he marinates them in his head and comes out with that day's monologue, which has become the signature of the show."

There is no question that the opening monologue has become the hallmark of Glenn's program - lasting upwards of 20 minutes and packed full of thoroughly researched material that sets the tone for the rest of the show. "When we started with Glenn he was doing maybe four or five minute monologues, and people said that was too long, and you can't keep that up," Siegel explained. "And then we expanded them to twenty minutes, and now they can be up to an hour long. He is the only one on TV that I think can pull that off everyday."

Working with Glenn is also unique in that he generates so many of his own ideas. Siegel describes Glenn as "an idea factory," a quality that makes her job exponentially easier and more difficult at the same time.

"He is so not the typical TV host," she said. "He changes everyday. His ideas get bigger. No one works harder than Glenn, so just trying to - I don't want to say keep up with that - but I love the fact that he is absolutely the hardest working man in this building. To surround yourself with that just pushes you to do more."

"He is absolutely one of a kind, and completely unique. I have worked with a lot of other anchors and they are nothing like Glenn," she continued. "Glenn's vision is all his own."

Siegel has learned that a sense of humor is often necessary to ensure she keeps her sanity. "And then there is the silly factor of Glenn," she said with a laugh. "Like when the Supreme Court health care decision came down, he said that morning, let's have a circus on set. Let's have an elephant and horses and clowns. And he is dead serious! I have to be the magic fairy that makes that happen. It's a challenge, but fun... really fun."

It is running joke around the office that certain people have learned to 'speak Glenn,' and Siegel is one of those people. Her ability to anticipate his needs and understand the big picture is what makes their relationship work so well.

"I think from listening to him and working so closely with him, I do feel like I can often finish his sentences," Siegel admitted. "And I have a good memory, so if we did a show in 2009 where there is a certain sound bite that Glenn recalls, I can recall that too."

It also helps that in the six plus years Glenn has been on television, Siegel has only missed a handful of shows. "The only time I have ever missed a show was when I gave birth - and I only missed four shows," she said. "So people definitely think I am nuts, but just literally being on every show he has done on TV, allows you to remember all that stuff."

It also helps that Siegel has surrounded herself with a fantastic group of writers, producers, and directors. It is a team effort through and through. "Our team is unbelievable," she said without hesitation. "This team is all in it. Go big or go home."

When Glenn made the decision to leave Fox News and start his own online streaming network, Siegel was once again ready for the challenge. "Exposure wise it is obviously harder because you go from being part of the mainstream to being sort of under the radar," she said in regards to GBTV (now TheBlazeTV). "On a positive note, there is nothing we can't do. At the networks - at Fox or at CNN - we always had to get approval. If Glenn wanted to do a stunt or say something or do a show on location, we had to go to the 'second floor' - that's what they call it at Fox - or run it through executives."

The freedom to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants is something that Glenn was particularly excited about when he started GBTV. The freedom for Glenn to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants is something that can pose a bit of challenge for Siegel. "Now, we have no limitations, which is a blessing and a curse because sometimes if Glenn wants to do something nuts, we used to be able to say, 'Oh the second floor said no,'" she said with a laugh. "I'll say to Joel [Cheatwood, President/Chief Content Officer at TheBlaze] sometimes, 'We are the second floor. Help!' We can't say no now. It's just us. If Glenn wants to ride a horse into the studio, well, okay, make sure you are wearing your cowboy hat."

Despite all of the television wonders she has seen and produced over the years, one of Siegel's most memorable moments working for Glenn actually had nothing to do with TV.

"We were at Fox, and it was probably a Tuesday," she recalled. "Glenn decided it was his 10 year anniversary, and how could he let that go by without splurging on a last minute trip to Rome with Tania [his wife]."

Considering Glenn's show stars Glenn and Glenn only, taking the rest of the week off was going to be a little tricky. "So we had not been on Fox that long. We didn't have the liberty like we do now to just get a guest host," Siegel explained. "The only way to make this work was to tape like two or three shows back to back at one o'clock in the afternoon, and then he was going to get on the plane with Tania and go."

As if preparing for and taping three shows in one day was not complicated enough, Glenn added another piece to the puzzle when he decided the trip was going to be a surprise. "This was a really big ordeal, and it was like, no one tell, no one tell, no one say anything. This is the biggest surprise, and everyone managed to keep their mouth shut."

During the taping/broadcast of his show, Glenn can hear Siegel through an earpiece he wears, and when he speaks, she can hear what he is saying as well. Just as they were about to begin taping the first show, Glenn had a request. "We are right about to go on the air to tape the show," she said. "And I am in his earpiece, and he is like, 'Tiffany, I need you to do me a favor. I need you to ask my wife - (who is now waiting in the Green Room with no idea what is going on - she thinks she is here for this early show) - I need you to get her pocketbook and take her passport out because they need it so she can get on the plane.'"

"And I am like, you know, we can get you your circus elephants, but why would Tania give me her purse. Like I am supposed to take her pocketbook? She didn't really even know me at the time," she said.

As usual, however, she figured out a way to get it done. "But we somehow managed to sneak her passport out of her bag so she wouldn't know, and she was still surprised when she got to Rome. Its just so Glenn - go steal my wife's pocketbook, and steal her passport, and she won't notice."

It may sound nuts, but it is just another day at the office for Siegel, and she wouldn't have it any other way. "It sums up my job," she said with a smile. "I am responsible for everything from making sure the show gets on the air to making sure he has a Coke Zero at all times."

Patriotic uprising—Why 90% say Old Glory isn’t just another flag

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Hunter laptop, Steele dossier—Same players, same playbook?

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

The Durham annex and ODNI report documents expose a vast network of funders and fixers — from Soros’ Open Society Foundations to the Pentagon.

In a column earlier this month, I argued the deep state is no longer deniable, thanks to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I outlined the structural design of the deep state as revealed by two recent declassifications: Gabbard’s ODNI report and the Durham annex released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

These documents expose a transnational apparatus of intelligence agencies, media platforms, think tanks, and NGOs operating as a parallel government.

The deep state is funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

But institutions are only part of the story. This web of influence is made possible by people — and by money. This follow-up to the first piece traces the key operatives and financial networks fueling the deep state’s most consequential manipulations, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Architects and operatives

At the top of the intelligence pyramid sits John Brennan, President Obama’s CIA director and one of the principal architects of the manipulated 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence, signed off on that same ICA and later joined 50 other former officials in concluding the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” ahead of the 2020 election. The timing, once again, served a political objective.

James Comey, then FBI director, presided over Crossfire Hurricane. According to the Durham annex, he also allowed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server to collapse after it became entangled with “sensitive intelligence” revealing her plan to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

That plan, as documented in the annex, originated with Hillary Clinton herself and was personally pushed by President Obama. Her campaign, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-debunked Steele dossier — a document used to justify surveillance warrants on Trump associates.

Several individuals orbiting the Clinton operation have remained influential. Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security adviser, was a foreign policy aide to Clinton during her 2016 campaign. He was named in 2021 as a figure involved in circulating the collusion narrative, and his presence in successive Democratic administrations suggests institutional continuity.

Andrew McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, approved the use of FISA warrants derived from unverified sources. His connection to the internal “insurance policy” discussion — described in a 2016 text by FBI official Peter Strzok to colleague Lisa Page — underscores the Bureau’s political posture during that election cycle.

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, as a former representative from California, chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time and publicly promoted the collusion narrative while having access to intelligence that contradicted it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both members of the “Gang of Eight” with oversight of intelligence operations, advanced the same narrative despite receiving classified briefings.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, exchanged encrypted text messages with a Russian lobbyist in efforts to speak with Christopher Steele.

These were not passive recipients of flawed intelligence. They were participants in its amplification.

The funding networks behind the machine

The deep state’s operations are not possible without financing — much of it indirect, routed through a nexus of private foundations, quasi-governmental entities, and federal agencies.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations appear throughout the Durham annex. In one instance, Open Society Foundations documents were intercepted by foreign intelligence and used to track coordination between NGOs and the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump strategy.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

Soros has also been a principal funder of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which ran a project during the Trump administration called the Moscow Project, dedicated to promoting the Russia collusion narrative.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors both specialize in “dark money” donor-advised funds that obscure the source and destination of political funding. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest donor to the Arabella Advisors by far, which routed $127 million through Arabella’s network in 2020 alone and nearly $500 million in total.

The MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation also financed many of the think tanks named in the Durham annex, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Federal funding pipelines

Parallel to the private networks are government-funded influence operations, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or counter-disinformation initiatives.

USAID directed $270 million to Soros-affiliated organizations for overseas “democracy” programs, a significant portion of which has reverberated back into domestic influence campaigns.

The State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization with a $315 million annual budget and ties to narrative engineering projects.

The Department of Homeland Security underwrote entities involved in online censorship programs targeting American citizens.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon, from 2020 to 2024, awarded over $2.4 trillion to private contractors — many with domestic intelligence capabilities. It also directed $1.4 billion to select think tanks since 2019.

According to public records compiled by DataRepublican, these tax-funded flows often support the very actors shaping U.S. political discourse and global perception campaigns.

Not just domestic — but global

What these disclosures confirm is that the deep state is not a theory. It is a documented structure — funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control. It launders narratives, neutralizes opposition, and overrides democratic will by leveraging the very institutions meant to protect it.

With the Durham annex and the ODNI report, we now see the network's architecture and its actors — names, agencies, funding trails — all laid bare. What remains is the task of dismantling it before its next iteration takes shape.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.