The 'ALL NEW! BIGGER! NICER!' Glenn Beck?!?! You've been missing out mainstream media

The media has had a lot to say about Glenn's recent interview with Megyn Kelly. Piers Morgan and Joe Scarborough praised Glenn for being introspective and took it as a moment to do a little self-reflection of their own on the heated rhetoric that takes place on cable news. Others, like a CNN panel on Thursday, were left wondering where this "new" Glenn Beck was coming from and why he was suddenly standing up for gay rights (or to use a better term, human rights) and uniting principles.

Well, clearly the media hasn't really been paying attention as this "ALL NEW! BIGGER! NICER!" Glenn Beck has been around for a while now (although Glenn has managed to redefine the term bigger through the growth of TheBlaze...and his waistline). Glenn hasn't really changed, he's just been living by the principles and values he's been espousing for years, people are just now paying attention.

Glenn opened the TV show today catching the media up on what they may have missed over the past few years:

The below is based off the transcript to the opening monologue of 1.23.2013 episode of The Glenn Beck Program

Hello, America, and welcome to The Glenn Beck Program and to TheBlaze.  This is the network that you are building, and I want to start with something that is referred to as the seven national crimes.  And here they are:  I don’t think, I don’t know, I don’t care, I am too busy, I leave well enough alone, I have no time to read and think of these things, I’m not interested.

Okay, these are the seven national crimes.  This was written by a guy from Germany around the turn of the century, and if these are true, and I think they are, this is what’s gotten us here.  If these are true, then the opposite of these must be virtues – thinking, knowing, taking the time to read, become interested, right?  Speaking out, becoming interested, educating yourself, and then speaking out, those should be treasured.  Okay?

This really is not a new concept.  This is just one of those uniting principles.  We should be able to agree that all of those are national crimes because if the entire country says those things, bad.  Not new thinking, 2,500 years ago, you go to Euripides, and he said this: “This is slavery, not to speak one’s thought.”  That’s pretty good.  That’s slavery.  You’re a slave if you can’t say what you’re thinking.

Fast-forward, 1700s, Voltaire said, really important phrase, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”  That one I think I have quoted over and over again.  I don’t have to agree with you, but you have a right to say it.  This is really, because of this kind of language where you really meant I’ll fight till the end for your right to say something, this is where tenure came from.

You can’t have people who are talking about science or they’re talking about God or they’re talking about politics or anything, they cannot be afraid that you’re going to kill them or fire them, right?  And it goes against everything that is in our makeup, our DNA, as a country.  The founders made this really, really clear in their commitment to free speech.  That’s why it’s amendment number one.

You have a right to believe in God or not believe in God.  You have a right to speak and not fear that you’re going to be thrown in jail.  And the implications of a society without free speech, well, it’s clear, it’s North Korea.  Okay, so now let me do a health check on our freedom of speech and if we’re even thinking anymore.  Let me give you a few stories.

Actress Maria Conchita Alonso, she was fired just this last week because she openly supported a Tea Party candidate.  I know, crazy.  Now, first of all, she’s going to be on Dana’s show tomorrow night, but I find that astounding.  Is that not Hollywood blacklisting, except it’s not with Communists; it’s with small government people?

Andrew Cuomo said Conservatives are not welcome in New York.  I said earlier this week isn’t that what they said to Martin Luther King and the freedom riders, you’re not welcome in this state, go read a book?  That was the quote from the governor.  Well, Bob Beckel called me names, I guess yesterday, because I called Cuomo out on this and compared him to the governors of the South in the 60s.

Bob Beckel:  That may be the most foolish, ridiculous, disgraceful…no wonder the son of a bitch is off the TV. 

Q:  Why?

Bob Beckel:  Because he equates Andrew Cuomo with one of the most racist governors there were who allowed black people to be lynched in his state, who never put together a jury, never allowed any blacks on a jury, and he, Glenn Beck, is equating him with Cuomo, Governor Cuomo.  It’s ridiculous.  He ought to leave the state.

I don’t know why people even would think about putting him on television or want to be around him.  Bob, life does not have to be so angry all the time.  It’s not surprising that somebody like Bob Beckel would resort to name calling because, not anything to do with Bob Beckel, but because of Cuomo’s position.  It is absolutely indefensible to say if you’re pro-life you’re not welcome in this state.

Okay, there’s some bad news.  Let me give you some good news.  Bill Nye the Science Guy, I think he’s really offensive on the way he treats people of religion because he doesn’t believe in creationism.  He believes in evolution.  And that’s fine, whatever, to each his own, but now, here’s the good news, he is willing to actually have a debate with Ken Ham and debate their positions, the merits of evolution versus creation.  That’s fantastic.  This is the way we’re supposed to be.

But as I’m reading the article today, here’s what caught my attention, Richard Dawkins and other atheists are begging Nye not to do the debate.  Why?  Because they say it gives the idea of creation credibility and, I want to quote, “creationism is a worthless and uneducated position to hold in our modern society and Nye is about to treat it as an equal, debatable controversy.”  Now, this is Richard Dawkins.

Now, that’s quite a claim, because nobody can prove how the world began, right?  We know that.  So how does Richard Dawkins think the world began?  Because if you’re saying look, to treat, you know, there is a God, and he created people through intelligent design as equal, debatable, it’s ridiculous.  But what does he believe?  How does he say the world began?  Look at this clip from Ben Stein’s Expelled, an interview with Richard Dawkins.

It’s amazing because remember, uneducated and worthless opinion to say God did it.  It has no credibility, but what is the possibility that Dawkins is entertaining as the origin of life?

Stein:  So you have no idea how it started?

Dawkins:  No, nor has anybody.

Stein:  Nor has anyone else.  What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

Dawkins:  Well, it could come about in the following way, it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet.

Now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility, and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Come here.  Okay, let me ask you a question, what did he just say?  He said God, it’s ridiculous, God created things.  There’s no evidence of God at all.  It’s ridiculous.  You have no place in even a debate in real conversation, you know?  If you want to have an intelligent conversation about who created life here on this planet, I mean, aliens, we could go to the aliens.  Really?  Do you have any evidence of aliens?  Do you have the evidence of anything?  No, we don’t know.

The point is here, I believe in God.  I believe he created the heavens and the earth.  I got it.  That’s where I am.  Now, I may die and wake up in a void of blackness or not wake up as the case may be, and I may go crap, the whole time there’s been no God.  Oh well, that belief in God made me a better person.  I don’t have any idea how God creates.  I’ve no idea.

This is the most ridiculous argument because we’re not going to figure it out, but to act like you do know that that’s ridiculous, and you’re saying well, the alien thing makes a lot of sense – come on, man.  Come on, really?  Can’t we just be comfortable enough to say I don’t know the answer?  You don’t know the answer either.  He said it there.  He was there.  Nobody knows.  Good, so why can’t we hear out each other’s opinions?

Why can’t we…why is it so surprising to say hey, gay people shouldn’t be put into the ovens like that fascist in Russia says?  Why is that surprising to say, hey, I think we should all get together and stand against that one?  Why is it wrong to say hey, if gay couples want to get married, cool, dude, whatever, but don’t tell me that I have to change my church?  If I want to marry you in my church, cool.  If I don’t, cool.  Can’t we just get along?

Apparently no.  Why?  Because we have a growing ruling class.  Let me give you the story from the IRS.  The IRS is harassing a low profile conservative group called the Friends of Abe.  Who are the Friends of Abe?  These are Hollywood actors and writers and producers.  I met with them, and I’m telling you, when I met with them, you go through all kinds…I had to go through the back of a restaurant, through the kitchen, in by the bathroom to this other holding room while other like six or seven of them started to slowly walk into one room.  And then I walked in at the end.  It’s crazy.  It’s crazy.  It’s an underground meeting.

Now, for two years they’ve been trying to get 501(c)(3) status for the Friends of Abe, but the IRS said nope, we need your list of members.  Listen to this, the government is saying we want the names.  Gee, have I heard that someplace before, we want the names, Hollywood?  Well, they’re not going to release the names because they’re afraid of blacklisting.  Now, I know that sounds crazy, but remember what happened to Maria?  Remember, Maria?

She was fired because she was for the Tea Party guy, and every time this stuff happens, it ends in exactly the same way.  And the parallels to the 1950s, we are seeing them right now.  You just heard me tell you a story, the Friends of Abe, the government is saying give us the names of people who are in the Tea Party or are against this government.  Watch this.

VIDEO

Narrator:  Calling the House Un-American Activities Committee to order, Chairman J. Parnell Thomas of New Jersey opens an inquiry into possible Communist penetration of the Hollywood film industry.  The committee is seeking to determine if Red Party members have reached the screen with subversive propaganda.

A long list of prominent motion picture witnesses appear before the committee.  Speaking for the films, Eric Johnston, President of the Motion Picture Association, talks frankly concerning the attitude of the producers.

Johnston:  We are accused of having Communists and Communist sympathizers in our employ.  Undoubtedly there are such persons in Hollywood as you will find elsewhere in America, but we neither shield nor defend them.  We want them exposed.  We’re not responsible for the political or economic ideas of any individual.

Okay, stop.  This is one of the worst times in American history.  Everybody knows this, worst time.  I hate the idea of Communism, but if I target and blacklist people because of their Communism, am I any better than the brutal communist dictator?  The answer is no.  If you hate Fascism, but you’re willing to go after people and demand a list of names, I’m sorry, that makes you a, say it with me, Fascist.

When I went after Van Jones to expose who he was, if you remember right, if you watched the show back then, I said don’t fire him, don’t fire him, what are you doing firing him?  I was the only one standing up, the White House shouldn’t be firing this dude.  I just wanted people to know who he really was and who the president had working around him.

The same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness applies to Communists.  Van Jones has a right to get a job.  That’s fine, but it also applies to me and you.  My position on this has been clear and consistent from the very beginning, and my position on things has not really changed.  In fact, it has gotten deeper; however, the methods might have changed a little bit because I think, I hope, I’m smarter.

I hope I’m a better person than I was, and I’m really quite baffled because the press today is, like, it’s crazy.  It’s crazy.  They are still talking about what I said to Megyn Kelly earlier this week, reminder.

VIDEO

Kelly:  How do you remember it now?

Beck:  I remember it as an awful lot of fun, and that I made an awful lot of mistakes.  And I wish I could go back and be more uniting in my language because I think I played a role unfortunately in helping tear the country apart.

Stop.  Now, the media is all over this today because they really, truly cannot understand why the always angry, always crazy Glenn Beck is now suddenly introspective and calm.  What is happening to him?  How is he changing?  He’s changing his views now, you know?  Well, no, I’m not.  I haven’t changed any of my views.  You’re discovering some of my views.  CNN had a panel segment today talking about this, and the banner said Beck changes his tone on gays.  I looked at that, and I went, “I have?  When?”

Hey CNN researchers, show your audience the times when I was harsh on gays.  I’ll spare you the research which you’re never going to do, it doesn’t exist.  The funny thing is the media acts as if they’re always the enlightened one.  Glenn Beck has evolved, and evolution is a good thing.  I caught that one today.  I thought that was great.  I was divisive.  I didn’t mean to be.  I tried not to be, but it’s the system that just pits people apart.

And he’s divisive, and he’s finally admitting it.  No, I’m willing to take responsibility for my part and yet, their warped view of me proves that they have been perpetuating this problem all along.  They are shocked today because they think I’m some anti-gay, racist nut job, and they think the same thing about you.  Now, why do they think that?  Because the only time they ever reported on me or on you was when some leftist with an agenda at Media Matters sent them some ridiculous out-of-context Glenn Beck alert.

And that’s the only thing that’s ever been newsworthy to them.  That’s it.  They didn’t see the CNN or MSNBC report on the Restoring Love event in Dallas.  Oh, that’s right, CNN, MSNBC, and FOX, nobody did a report on that.  Do you remember that?  And we had truckloads of relief.  In fact, it was one of the biggest armies of volunteers that America has seen – not a peep from the media.

I haven’t changed.  They’re just seeing it.  I didn’t see them report on Mercury One’s donations and the work in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy or any of the other numerous tornadoes and other tragedies that you have done.  Because of you, Mercury One has been able to give $14 million to victims of tragedy in under two years, $250,000 to the NYPD.  I think it was like their union or something because they didn’t have any money to be able to help on their emergency relief for their families.

The union guys were like what, I don’t know what to…because that’s who we are, dude.  You just didn’t think so.  Five hundred thousand dollars we gave to a struggling hospital in New York City.  Joe, was it 500?  Yeah, $500,000 to New York City so they could help continue to treat people in New York City that are not welcome in any place, and it’s great that we’re helping them because I got news for you, apparently I’m not welcome in New York either.

I don’t think they even saw the beginning let alone the end of Man in the Moon.

VIDEO

And the Man in the Moon was woken from his deep slumber by a faint and gentle tapping, one that he had not felt ever before.  It was his beasts, and when he looked closer, he saw them.  He saw them dancing and jumping up on his face.  They were dancing together in the glow of the great lights.  They had done it.  They had found their way.  They had used their machines to reach toward him, and now they were one.

Hello?  How about the reaction from the crowd of 25,000 people who saw that?  How about just one reaction of somebody who sure doesn’t look like she should be a fan of Glenn Beck’s?

VIDEO

I would love to tell Glenn Beck thank you very much.  I heard something today that I didn’t know I needed to hear until I heard it, and so it hit very close to home with me.  And now I know that every day the sun will rise, and I can look up to see the moon to remind me that I know the sun will come up.

That’s our job.  That’s what we’ve been trying to do, but they never covered it.  They didn’t report on the 9/12 Project that brought people together on principles and values.  They mocked it.  They didn’t look at it.  They didn’t believe it.  They were cynical.  They didn’t report on any of this and what you’ve done.  They’ve just selectively decided to paint all of us in a certain way.

May I humbly suggest that the media stop gawking at my introspection and start maybe doing a little introspection of their own?  Piers Morgan, now this is a record, Piers Morgan had a response I have to commend.  Watch.

VIDEO

Morgan:  Let’s talk seriously about the polarization of political debate in America, because Glenn Beck was quite brave I thought to say what he said.  And if I’m being self-reflective, doesn’t happen very often, but I may as well throw it out there.  You know, we mentioned guns there.  When I’ve done the guns debate, I can tell that when I get over angry and get a little bit abusive to the gun people, that it actually doesn’t help the debate, that actually all it does is intensify the polarization.

How fantastic is that?  How fantastic is that?  Okay?  He took this as an opportunity to look inward and upward, not just at you.  Kudos, Piers.  Joe Scarborough, not a friend of this program, responded this way on MSNBC today:

VIDEO

Scarborough:  You know, he came out this past week and also said if you are anti-gay, if you don’t like a person because they’re gay, you have no place in this country, and don’t call yourself a fan of mine.  I think what’s so fascinating about this is that if Glenn Beck were saying all of this from a position of weakness, that would be one thing. 

Glenn Beck from what I saw made like $90 million last year.  He has done on the Internet what the largest corporations in America have tried to do on the Internet.  I mean, he has somehow brought together TV and Internet, and he’s had an extraordinary year financially.  So I think that’s what’s even more telling about this is that he’s making these admissions from a position of strength.

Okay, stop.  I just want to show you that because Joe Scarborough is not a friend of this not work.  In fact, let me show you what Joe Scarborough said when I left FOX.

VIDEO

Scarborough:  I’m just saying it outright that Roger Ailes was right that all of those people that showed up at Glenn Beck’s rally were FOX people, were Roger Ailes people, and not Glenn Beck’s people.  And Glenn Beck will find that out in the coming years.  Roger Ailes has built a remarkable platform for conservative speakers, and Glenn Beck got plugged in at five o’clock and did better than anybody else at five o’clock, but he also did better than he will for the rest of his career.

Here is a guy who had that opinion and now was able to realize that he was wrong.  And I would like to take this moment and ask the media aren’t we all a little wrong about something?  Haven’t we all done things that we are saying oh man, if I just would’ve known then?  Really?  Haven’t we all just made mistakes?  I mean, none of us are perfect.  What is that he without sin cast the first stone thing?

Unfortunately, that’s not how the media is set up.  I’ve asked Tiffany to run as a documentary maybe the Christmas meeting that we had as a company and show you who we are on the inside.  They won’t understand.  They won’t even get it.  I think you’ll even be shocked at a lot of the stuff, probably not, the way we run our company and what we think we are and we stand for and what we strive to be.

In the rest of the media, admitting a mistake, oh, that’s horrible.  I’ve always told you I lead with my mistakes, and I’ve always told you we can disagree, but I will defend you.  I will defend.  And I’m not going to defend a mistake because I’m afraid I’ll lose an argument.  Don’t be afraid, and don’t fall into the trap of the seven crimes.  Don’t be afraid to think, to know, to care.

 

POLL: Is Musk’s Mars dream a win or a curse for South Texas?

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?

Trump's mineral deal with Ukraine: What you need to know

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.

Mark Carney's bombshell victory: Is Canada doomed under his globalist agenda?

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.