Why is government doing everything it can to destroy individual sovereignty?

If there is one thing that we have learned through the course of all of human history is sticking our big, fat nose in other people’s business always works.  And number two, best path to peace, strongly worded letter or like the UN or something like that or maybe a meaningful walk and chat on the beach, a.k.a. diplomacy.

That’s why the president was in San Francisco yesterday, the home of peace, to tout his diplomatic efforts in the Middle East.  Here he is:

VIDEO

President Obama:  We’re testing diplomacy.  We’re not resorting immediately to military conflict.

He looks almost like Patton there, doesn’t he, with the big flag?  We’re testing?  There’s no reason to test diplomacy.  The history of peace through diplomacy speaks for itself.  Adolf Hitler when he called off his plans for world domination after a pleasant phone conversation with Neville Chamberlain worked out really well, or the Iranian Revolution being averted when a sweet-talking Jimmy Carter formed an unlikely friendship with the Shah of Iran.

And of course we all saw the movie with William Wallace.  He gave a great speech about Scotland’s freedom on the battlefield, and that I think was what softened King Edward’s heart, and instead of a bloody battle, our history books celebrate the great piece picnics at Stirling Bridge and Falkirk that secured Scotland’s freedom, I think.

So don’t believe all of those peace through strength nut jobs.  It’s all about diplomacy.  The New York Times I read today, and I about had an aneurysm.  They’re very excited about the president’s new strategy.  They say in The New York Times, watch this, “It also reflects a broader scaling back of the use of American muscle…,” remember that, “…not least in the Middle East…,” remember that, “…as well as a willingness…,” you’re going to love this one, “…to deal with foreign governments as they are rather than push for new leaders the better embody American values.”

I wish any of that were true, any of that.  None of that is true.  A willingness to deal with other governments as they are?  We should ask some of those governments.  I tell you what, Tiffany, can you get Muammar Gaddafi on the phone?  Oh, crap, that’s right, Muammar Gaddafi, what was it Hillary said?

VIDEO

Hillary Clinton:  We saw, he died.

That’s right, can’t ask him, we killed him.  That’s right, I remember.  So maybe we’ll just go – Tiffany, get somebody from Assad’s regime on the phone in Syria.  Oh no, Assad, currently the president is trying to drum up support to go and bomb the snot out of him, and we’re giving aid and weapons to jihadis to overthrow him.

Well, maybe we could get Mubarak on the phone.  I mean, no, he’s on trial.  Well, maybe he has a phone in the jail, because after all, the Obama administration helped incite a violent revolution against him.  Boy, that sounds kind of more muscle-ish than scaling back to me, which is weird, because it also doesn’t sound like we get along with anybody either.

Let me make it really, really clear.  I think scaling back our military in the Middle East is probably a really good idea, not the worst one I’ve heard.  In fact, I would say that the whole progressive idea that started with Teddy Roosevelt to spread democracy around the world is one of the worst ideas ever.  I may have been sluggish enough to go, “Yeah, well everybody loves us,” 15 years ago.  Hello?  Have we not spent enough treasure and blood around the world?  Has the last decade not taught us anything?

We have to be a strong, non-isolationist, noninterventionist kind of country, strong.  Here’s what I mean by that: You come over, you fly some planes into our buildings, we bomb the bat snot out of you and go home.  We kill the bad guys who did it and go home.  What are we still doing in Afghanistan?  I believe, I for one, maybe not you, it is well past time to announce that this progressive idea, be it from John McCain or George Bush, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, that we need to nation build and be the world’s policeman is dead and possibly the worst idea America has ever had.

But let me take you back to sugarplum fairy pop land of The New York Times.  They go from the front page into this.  Let me take you to Saudi Arabia, because for a guy, a president who’s hooked on diplomacy, doesn’t it seem like our president is converting all of our friends into enemies?  Not that I was ever a big fan of George W. Bush taking the long strolls at his Crawford ranch holding hands with the Saudi princes.  Boy, I don’t miss those days.  That was creepy.

But you also have to be a realist, and before you start cutting off your friends and making them enemies, you might want to look at your own situation here.  For instance, energy prices are up 42 percent in a decade.  Okay, well maybe we should start exploring for our own, because getting into bed with these guys isn’t good.  And now that it’s up 42 percent, it doesn’t seem wise to really disconnect from the cheapest source of oil in the world, unless you have something to replace it with.  It’s also our second highest source of foreign oil.

So does this make sense to you?  It doesn’t me, but it does to The New York Times, because here’s their rationale, and I love it:  “At the same time, new sources of oil have made the Saudis less essential.”  Same time, new sources of oil made the Saudis…what new sources of oil?  I mean, serious question, anybody on the set, anybody know of a new source of oil that we’ve had?

It’s not Canada.  Keystone pipeline went up.  President blocked that one.  More drilling permits in the gulf?  No, huh uh.  Alaska?  No, huh uh.  Where is this magical fount of oil that has sprouted up?  Have little oil rigs just started to grow in the west lawn in place of the first lady’s veggie garden?  I’m not really sure.

America, I want us to break up with the Saudis.  I want Israel to take care of itself.  I want to be out of the business of everybody else.  But not standing with the only person that understands capitalism in the entire region while pissing off the Saudis really doesn’t seem like good news, you know?  Breaking up with Israel, not so much.  Our overseas policies matter, especially when your policies here don’t match.

You want to break up with the rest of the world, fine, but you have to be self-sufficient.  We’re cutting ourselves off from energy suppliers while at the same time diminishing our own access to affordable allergy.  Hello?  Hello?  Hello?  Oh yeah, but we’re going to go green.  Stop with the green nonsense.  Maybe someday, not today.  Another green company that the president invested your money in just went bankrupt, cost you $139 million.  Why are we doing this?  If green energy is so needed, the free market will figure it out.

Okay, so we have no money left.  We’re really whittling down our friends.  We have no oil.  We have no sufficient source of energy to fill in the gap because we’re closing the coal plants.  We won’t drill for oil, and we won’t build a pipeline.  That sounds like energy shortage.  When that comes, oh, and it will, remember this day.

And so what does that mean for you?  Well, when you are not self-sufficient, you are a slave to whomever holds the bag of food or the bag of black gold.  Our sovereignty as a nation will be put aside in order to survive.  Why do you think we take the lead painted toys from China, and we don’t say anything?  Because our hands are tied.  We need their money.

But here’s the good news, national sovereignty begins with personal sovereignty.  This is the secret of America, the more independent you are, the stronger the nation becomes.  If we as people can self-sustain during an energy shortage, a cash shortage, a food shortage, a health care shortage, then you really can tell people like China and Saudi Arabia to go take their oil and shove it.

But that’s another policy that doesn’t matter because this administration is not encouraging people to be self-sufficient.  We are not helping people go into business.  We don’t advise people to store food, save money, protect yourself, get a gun.  No, those people get mocked.  Instead, Progressives have been campaigning to take all of those responsibilities away from you.

Now wait a minute, if our national sovereignty begins with personal sovereignty, I think you just figure something out.  The secret lies with each individual.  I don’t know what your idea is.  It might stink, but it might be the one that saves us.  I don’t know what your solution is.  I don’t even know the problem you’re working on trying to solve, but you’ll figure it out.

Governments make it worse.  I contend that our government knows where the real source of power comes from.  I mean, how do you miss it?  It’s in big huge block letters in our founding documents, “We the people.”  That’s where the power comes from, the individual American, and that’s why they’re doing everything they can to hobble you.  Look at the attacks on individual sovereignty in our nation.

Last night, we told you about how hospitals are taking custody of your children because the doctors say they know better than you.  So you lose your child, and they can just do that and then issue a gag order so you can’t say anything?  Los Angeles is now considering a ban on feeding the homeless.  Let’s figure this one out.  This is great, from the land of equality.

Listen to this: “If you give out free food on the street with no other services to deal with the collateral damage, you get hundreds of people beginning to squat…,” I love this.  Remember, this is California.  They’re the bighearted people.  “…They’re living in my bushes, and they’re living in my next door neighbor’s crawlspaces.  We have a neighborhood which now seems like a mental ward.”  I just don’t want these people around me.  Well, I’m blown away by your compassion.

This is bogus compassion.  It always is.  Government compassion and progressive compassion is bogus.  The argument sure sounds familiar.  It’s a familiar argument, don’t feed the animals.  Ooh, are animals in cages?  Well, people are animals too, you know?  How about school choice, are we moving towards freedom with the government?  As that thing is collapsing, are they encouraging you?  No, in fact, just the opposite.

They’ve got Common Core, and then off to the side, a really important story that nobody’s paying attention to is the president, his silence on the German family who we’ve had on this program who were granted access to the United States and then denied asylum after they fled Germany because they weren’t allowed to teach their kids in their own home.

Here is an update on that story.  The Supreme Court now has ordered today the administration to respond to the family’s appeal, but I can guarantee you what they’re going to say.  They’re going to say no, send them back.  We’ll give asylum to anyone but not these people.  Why?  Because then the government will be on record saying you have an inherent God-given right to raise your children and teach them the way you see fit.  Government can’t have that.

You now have to purchase a product in order to be considered law-abiding.  Catholic and other religious health care institutions are forced to violate their own beliefs and provide birth control and abortions.  An update on this one too, Supreme Court’s going to take another look at that issue.

From the level that you set your thermostat at to the gas mileage on your cars to the fat content in foods, not being allowed to fish in order to eat unless you have a permit, individual sovereignty is all but dead.  And people are becoming more dependent, and many people like it that way.  We are going the way of Greece, and I have to tell you, we did, and you can find it if you’re a member of TheBlaze.  You can go find it and watch this episode.  I think it was like 40 minutes.  It was six hours on the ground in Greece.

I flew out in the middle of the night, and I just talked to the cab drivers, and I talked to the people on the street.  I watched what was happening.  Things in Greece are getting so bad now that they’re actually inflicting themselves with HIV in order to receive government benefits.  Here’s what it was like about 24 months ago in Greece.

VIDEO

Glenn:  And what does this say?

Male:  It says that we don’t have to live like slaves.  Communism is the revolutionary movement of the ongoing period.  Revolution now.  Let’s produce life and not those things that strangle life.  Let’s not produce those things that strangle life.

Glenn:  Communism is the answer?

Male:  Yes.  It’s the revolutionary movement of the ongoing period.

Glenn:  And the people that are on the street are not drunk.  They’re high, bad heroin highs that we’re seeing on the streets.

Look, it’s a disease in the West, and it kills the human spirit, being a slave to someone else, waiting for the handout, waiting for the government.  It reduces you to a compliant robot unable to think or choose for yourself.  If you have not read this, I just reread this a couple weeks ago.  It’s Anthem by Ayn Rand.  You know, she asked Walt Disney to make this into a movie, and I want to make this into one.

She wanted it to be made into a cartoon, and I want to make it into a cartoon because it’s right.  It’s right.  This is the collective takes over.  You become a robot.  You forget about yourself entirely.  This is why they want to regulate your guns, because they can’t have you stand up.  They can’t.

You know, we put out a book this week, this book.  I don’t care if you go to the bookstore and read this one chapter on Athens, Georgia.  In fact, let me find which chapter it is.  I’m sorry, Athens, Tennessee, I keep saying that.  Battle of Athens is chapter 10, and the Battle of Athens, tomorrow…I’ve sent everybody home from the studios.  So many people are traveling that I’m just going to come in and do the show myself tomorrow.  And I might read this chapter to you.

And I’ve got some things I want to share with you tomorrow on the radio.  It will be a very different radio show.  But the Battle of Athens is happening again.  What happened in Tennessee is happening all over our country, and this gives you the antidote.  It shows you when you rise up and say enough, enough, you do everything right, everything, but they have to make you dependent.

See, the people that tried to take over Athens, Tennessee, the fascists there, they were criminals.  They made everybody dependent, but they forgot one thing, soldiers were returning home from war.  You can’t be dependent on anything or anyone.  To the best of your ability, if you’re not independent now, you’ve got to strive for it.  If you have it, empower someone else so they can achieve it.

This is the era that the American revolutionaries dreamt of.  I’m convinced of it.  They weren’t pining for 1776.  They envisioned a day when man could live a self-reliant life free from all tyranny.  This is it.  The Internet gives us that.  With technology, you don’t have to be chained to your own town.  You don’t have to be chained to somebody else to be a buyer or a distributor.  You don’t even have to go to work and be stuck at one location or a desk or bound by a schedule.

The sky is the limit now for the first time in human history, unless we allow others to put us in a box and close the lid.  There is one uniting principle, and I think George Washington and Thomas Paine shared it.  Now, those who are atheists will say that George Washington was a deist.  I don’t believe that.  I’ve read too much of his words and his letters.

And Christians will say that Thomas Paine wasn’t really an atheist.  They’re wrong.  I’ve read too much of his stuff.  The guy was an early precursor to a Marxist.  But they came together.  If it wasn’t for the two of them, revolution wouldn’t have happened.  They came and found something in common, sovereignty for the individual, maximum personal responsibility, maximum liberty.  When you strip everything else down, I think that’s where most people are, I hope, at least 30% of this country.

And so when you find the religious people that will not oppress and force conformity, will not say my way or the highway or not just playing some game because they believe in the church ruling everybody’s life, and when you find Libertarians who are not anarchists who believe in some government just to be able to protect and defend property and won’t oppress and say none of that religion stuff, when you can get together where common sense and freedom live, where people believe in maximum freedom and maximum personal responsibility, games over.  It’s over.

When you can get to a point where a guy like me, really very religious, and a guy like Penn Jillette, really not religious, can live in the same space, we could be neighbors, and we could be happy neighbors, how do you beat that?  How could Penn Jillette be somebody who hates all people with religion and has a secret plan to put everybody in religion out of business, when I’m one of his good friends?  How could I be a fascist when my good friend is a self-described narco-capitalist?  Something doesn’t compute.

That’s the box that everybody wants to put you in.  Don’t.  Break those molds.  When religious people and nonreligious people can get along, when Ayn Rand and small government Christians can get along, we find the balance, and we understand that the secret is self-regulation.  When we can work together with people we disagree with on some pretty big principles but still have enough points in common to tether ourselves to those principles, and those principles free mankind, it is game over.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Top FIVE takeaways from Glenn's EXCLUSIVE interview with Trump

Image courtesy of the White House

As President Trump approaches his 100th day in office, Glenn Beck joined him to evaluate his administration’s progress with a gripping new interview. April 30th is President Trump's 100th day in office, and what an eventful few months it has been. To commemorate this milestone, Glenn Beck was invited to the White House for an exclusive interview with the President.

Their conversation covered critical topics, including the border crisis, DOGE updates, the revival of the U.S. energy sector, AI advancements, and more. Trump remains energized, acutely aware of the nation’s challenges, and determined to address them.

Here are the top five takeaways from Glenn Beck’s one-on-one with President Trump:

Border Security and Cartels

DAVID SWANSON / Contributor | Getty Images

Early in the interview, Glenn asked if Trump views Mexico as a failed narco-state. While Trump avoided the term, he acknowledged that cartels effectively control Mexico. He noted that while not all Mexican officials are corrupt, those who are honest fear severe repercussions for opposing the cartels.

Trump was unsurprised when Glenn cited evidence that cartels are using Pentagon-supplied weapons intended for the Mexican military. He is also aware of the fentanyl influx from China through Mexico and is committed to stopping the torrent of the dangerous narcotic. Trump revealed that he has offered military aid to Mexico to combat the cartels, but these offers have been repeatedly declined. While significant progress has been made in securing the border, Trump emphasized that more must be done.

American Energy Revival

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s tariffs are driving jobs back to America, with the AI sector showing immense growth potential. He explained that future AI systems require massive, costly complexes with significant electricity demands. China is outpacing the U.S. in building power plants to support AI development, threatening America’s technological leadership.

To counter this, Trump is cutting bureaucratic red tape, allowing AI companies to construct their own power plants, potentially including nuclear facilities, to meet the energy needs of AI server farms. Glenn was thrilled to learn these plants could also serve as utilities, supplying excess power to homes and businesses. Trump is determined to ensure America remains the global leader in AI and energy.

Liberation Day Shakeup

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Glenn drew a parallel between Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and the historical post-World War II Liberation Day. Trump confirmed the analogy, explaining that his policy aims to dismantle an outdated global economic order established to rebuild Europe and Asia after the wars of the 20th century. While beneficial decades ago, this system now disadvantages the U.S. through job outsourcing, unfair trade deals, and disproportionate NATO contributions.

Trump stressed that America’s economic survival is at stake. Without swift action, the U.S. risks collapse, potentially dragging the West down with it. He views his presidency as a critical opportunity to reverse this decline.

Trouble in Europe

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

When Glenn pressed Trump on his tariff strategy and negotiations with Europe, Trump delivered a powerful statement: “I don’t have to negotiate.” Despite America’s challenges, it remains the world’s leading economy with the wealthiest consumer base, making it an indispensable trading partner for Europe. Trump wants to make equitable deals and is willing to negotiate with European leaders out of respect and desire for shared prosperity, he knows that they are dependent on U.S. dollars to keep the lights on.

Trump makes an analogy, comparing America to a big store. If Europe wants to shop at the store, they are going to have to pay an honest price. Or go home empty-handed.

Need for Peace

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

Trump emphasized the need to end America’s involvement in endless wars, which have cost countless lives and billions of dollars without a clear purpose. He highlighted the staggering losses in Ukraine, where thousands of soldiers die weekly. Trump is committed to ending the conflict but noted that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has been a challenging partner, constantly demanding more U.S. support.

The ongoing wars in Europe and the Middle East are unsustainable, and America’s excessive involvement has prolonged these conflicts, leading to further casualties. Trump aims to extricate the U.S. from these entanglements.