PART 1: Glenn Talks With Independent Presidential Candidate Evan McMullin

Evan McMullin, a former CIA agent, officially entered the presidential race on Wednesday as an Independent candidate, hoping to offer Americans an alternative to what he believes are two terrible choices. He joined The Glenn Beck Program on Thursday to talk about why he's qualified to be president, the three major issues he believes America faces and why he's far better suited for the presidency than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

Following the interview, Glenn asked his co-host what they thought about McMullin.

RELATED: PART 2: Glenn Talks With Independent Presidential Candidate Evan McMullin

"Generally liked him. He's better than some of the other choices," Stu said.

"Liked him," Pat said.

While McMullin appears to be a serious, worthwhile candidate, Glenn identified his biggest challenge:

"Is there enough time for people to listen to him and get comfortable with him? You know, let's see him in a debate. Somebody like that has got to be tested some way or another," Glenn said.

Listen to Part 1 of Glenn's interview with Evan McMullin on The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. We have Evan McMullin on. And want to get right to him. He is a guy who is running for president of the United States. He has just joined, and his background is quite extensive, but he's a name that nobody has really ever heard of. And we go to him now.

Evan, how are you, sir?

EVAN: I'm doing great, Glenn. How are you? Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: Very good. Let's get a quick look at your background first. Why are you qualified to be president of the United States?

EVAN: Well, I spent over ten years in the Central Intelligence Agency as an undercover operations officer serving overseas after 9/11 where I carried out covert operations against al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, as well as other countries who are hostile to liberty, as I like to say. Then after that, I spent some time in the private sector in working with companies in a range of industries to help them compete globally and create jobs in the United States.

And then most recently, I've been on the Hill as a senior national security adviser, as well as the chief policy director for the house of Republicans, where I've learned a lot about what kind of reforms this government needs in order to be more accountable to the people, which is a huge issue for me.

So these are three major issues that the country faces: security, jobs, and government reform. And I think I'm very well suited, certainly far better suited than the two major candidates to deliver that.

GLENN: Tell me your thoughts about the Third Amendment to the Constitution.

EVAN: Yeah, well, let me say where I'm mostly focused on the Constitution: I'm a big Tenth Amendment guy. I do believe that power needs to be returned to the states. I think that we've got way too much power in Washington. This is where I'm focused: way too much power in Washington.

And what that means is that, if you're sitting in, say, Wyoming, if you're a voter in Wyoming, you're one of 440,000 people only who is voting in state elections. If you're in Wyoming and then, you know, like any American voting in a national election, you're one of 240 million, which means that your voice in Cheyenne is far more powerful than it is in Washington.

So, you know, I'm most interested in returning power to the states, returning power closer to the people. There are a lot of other things that need to be done to return power to the people, but that is really what I'm mostly focused on.

PAT: So quartering soldiers is not one of your biggest issues right now?

EVAN: No.

GLENN: That was kind of a trick question. I wanted to see if you knew what the Third Amendment was. But you definitely know what the Tenth Amendment is.

EVAN: Yeah.

GLENN: Tell me about the balance of power. How as a president of the United States -- what would you do to restore that?

EVAN: Well, the first thing is -- well, first of all, let me just say that it's a huge problem right now. I mean, over the last several decades -- and there are a number of reasons for this: Some laws that were passed and then some Supreme Court decisions that basically shifted a lot of Congress' power to the executive branch. And so now you have the executive branch, and I'm sure your listeners are aware of this. But, you know, the executive branch passes dozens and dozens of major rules and regulations every year that have major rules -- that those are rules that have an economic impact of over $100 million. And these have the force of law. And then the executive branch has the power to adjudicate complaints about them and then also to issue fines.

So, you know, they're behaving -- first of all, they're acting -- they're acting like Congress. They're taking Congress' power. They're also acting as though they're the judicial branch. There's -- there's no balance of power in that system, and so that needs to be changed.

We can't have the executive branch basically legislating on its own. So one of the things we need to do, there's a great bill out there called the REINS Act, which we've passed through -- went through the House, that would basically say, that if the executive branch issues a rule or regulation that is going to have an economic impact of $100 million and more -- and, you know, that's sort of -- there are other ways to sort of draw the threshold, but that's the way it's drawn in the bill -- that it has to get the approval of Congress. It can't just -- the executive branch can't just move forward with it without Congress' approval. I'm 100 percent supportive of this. I would sign it as soon as possible as president, and that would be a first step.

GLENN: The -- you've called Donald Trump inhuman.

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: You want to elaborate on that or explain that?

EVAN: I would love to. I would sure love to.

Look, Donald Trump doesn't care about anyone but himself. I think that's been very, very clear through this campaign. I mean, this is a guy who attacks people with disabilities. I mean, what kind of person does that? This is a person who, you know, kicks babies out of his rallies. Who does that?

(laughter)

EVAN: He attacked -- actually he tends to attack the world's most vulnerable people, whether, you know, they're refugees or babies or, you know -- or people with disabilities. I mean, this is who this guy is. But it doesn't end there. He attacks -- he attacks our men and women who have served valiantly, who have given their lives for this country and their mothers. I mean, I just -- I just think -- I served for ten years in the CIA, put my life on the line countless times, and luckily walked away, you know, still alive. But others haven't. And I just think anybody who would pursue the Oval Office to be our commander-in-chief and who would disrespect our heroes and their families that way is somebody who is indeed inhuman.

GLENN: So let's just go through a couple things, if we could just do some rapid-fire.

EVAN: Sure. Let's do it.

GLENN: Where do you stand on guns?

EVAN: I'm a gun owner and strong supporter of the Second Amendment.

GLENN: Any restrictions on those? Any kind of common sense --

EVAN: Well, I do believe -- there's a system of background checks. And I support that. I think we need to have that, but, you know -- go ahead.

GLENN: Do we have enough laws, or do we need other new laws?

EVAN: Listen, this is -- this is the way I look at it: I'm concerned -- I do not trust the federal government -- I do not trust the federal government to be an honest broker in -- in a larger capacity. So I guess what I'm saying is that some people want certain checks to be done on certain purchases, and they want a national -- you know, a national system for that. I would rather -- if there's going to be something like that, I'd rather it be seen at the state level. I just think there's a real trust issue right now with the federal government, especially on the Second Amendment. So, you know, I'm open to discussions of certain ideas, but it's with the -- through the prism of not trusting the federal government over -- at least under this administration, over its desires to limit Second Amendment freedoms.

GLENN: Okay. All right. I've got about ten of these. I want to go as fast as I can. Taxes and the IRS.

EVAN: Well, I mean, what the IRS has done over the last several years has just been targeting people -- targeting groups based on ideologies. Absolutely terrible. I mean, in terms of taxes, I think we need a simplified tax code. I think we need lower taxes. The House of Representatives has a lot of great ideas that they've have put out recently under Paul Ryan's leadership. I support those. So that's in a nutshell -- if we're doing rapid-fire, I'll try to limit it.

GLENN: Universal health care.

EVAN: Not a supporter. I think we need a free market solution.

GLENN: Federalism.

EVAN: I could not be a bigger supporter.

GLENN: Von Mises.

EVAN: You got me there, Glenn.

GLENN: Von Mouses.

STU: Mises and Mouses.

EVAN: You got me. You got me.

GLENN: The government's role in education and Common Core.

EVAN: I don't think -- I don't think the federal government should be dictating to the states. I think this is a state and local issue, and that's my view.

GLENN: Eminent domain.

EVAN: I mean, there's a role for it to play, you know. There is a role. But I think it needs to be extremely limited. And Donald Trump's idea of it, you know, where he just wants to build hotels and parking lots and push people out of their homes, I think it's tyrannical, frankly.

GLENN: Abortion.

EVAN: Abortion, pro-life.

GLENN: Immigration.

EVAN: I believe we need to secure the border first and foremost. You know, it's the basic part of being a country. We've got to enforce our laws. Again, we're a country of laws. Rule of law is so critical to commerce and security and all of these things. We've got to do it. I do not -- I'll say, I think it's -- the idea that we're going to deport 11 million people, I think is unrealistic. So I'm not a supporter of that. But I do agree with Donald that we need to secure the border. But Donald has this idea that it has to be done with the wall across the whole thing. I talk to experts who tell me that in some places we need a wall, in other places we need a double wall, and in other places, a wall wouldn't help. So however it's done, I'm a little more agnostic, just as long as it gets the job done. We have to secure the border.

GLENN: ISIS. How to defeat them.

EVAN: Well, two things, and I think President Obama is failing miserably. And Hillary Clinton, you know, she's -- you know, she presided over our foreign policy at a time when al-Qaeda in Iraq was reconstituting itself and then becoming ISIS. So how she's capable to fight ISIS as our commander-in-chief, or qualified, is a mystery to me. And, of course, Donald Trump, I don't think is -- he's even less qualified.

But what I would say is two broad things: Number one, we have to be better about taking the fight to ISIS out there. We're just not serious right now. I mean, you know, President Obama is doing a few airstrikes here and there, but we need to step that up. We need to do a range of things to take the fight to them.

Yeah.

GLENN: How many of these isolated incidents and things like Fort Hood or the shootings that we have -- that have been isolated, we'll never know their motive, or it was just a lone gunman, not related to ISIS. For instance, the shooting at Fort Hood or the latest shooting in Orlando, do you buy that we'll never know their motive?

EVAN: No. I think it's clear. I mean, these are people who are unstable and then manipulated -- manipulated by Islamist radicals. I mean, that's what happens. And I think, Glenn, it's an interesting question. A lot of people want to say, okay. There's a terrorist attack. And they say, "All right. We've got to -- let's see if there was command and control from Pakistan or from Syria. And if there was command and control there. And if they were trained over there, and then they flew in here to do it, okay. Well, then that's a terrorist attack."

We have to get past that. We need to be -- we need to realize the enemy has moved on. The enemy has adapted to our successes in counterterrorism. And they've decided -- and this was a decision that Zawahiri made and that ISIS has made: They've decided -- excuse me -- to respond to our strengthening of our -- our -- our borders and what not, in some respects, and our intelligence service operations. They've responded to that by saying, "Okay. Well, we're just going to inspire crazies and those who are radical on -- you know, radical Islamists in the United States to carry out these things, and we're going to train them remotely and all of it." My point, Glenn, is that these kinds of attacks are just as much terrorist attacks as 9/11 itself. And we've got to finally get ourself to the point that we understand that. The enemy has adapted. We also must adapt.

GLENN: Okay. We're talking to Evan McMullin who is running for president. Evan McMullin.com. Evan, can we hold you for a few more minutes, or do you have to run?

EVAN: No, no. I've got time, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay. I'd like to take a break. We'll come back and maybe push you past the bottom of the hour as well because I want to hear your strategy. I want to hear why you're running. What your motivation is. What made you decide to do it and what your strategy is to win and not just be a spoiler. Evan McMullin.com.

(Break)

GLENN: He's running for president of the United States. And, Evan, I want to go into in-depth on this, but I think we have two minutes here.

EVAN: Okay.

GLENN: Tell me why you want to run for president of the United States.

EVAN: Well, let me just say that, like many Americans, millions of Americans, I was hoping -- I've been hoping against hope that someone else would step into this race because I think our two options are just terrible. I think Americans are very frustrated, and so was I. And not just frustrated, but very concerned about what these two candidates mean for our country. So I waited and hoped that somebody else would come forward. And no one did, and I realized no one was going to a couple of weeks ago. Had some conversations with people who were eager to launch an independent candidacy. And so ultimately, I decided to do it because other people weren't, candidly.

GLENN: Do you -- do you think you could win?

EVAN: Yeah, I do. I do think that there's a way we can win. And there are multiple paths towards it. I mean, we are going to be on ballots across the country through a variety of means. There are a number of ways that we can succeed. You know, 270 is -- reaching 270 is going to be difficult, but there are -- there are other means that we can prevail.

GLENN: What does that mean? What does that mean?

EVAN: Well, if we're able to move it into the House, we can prevail potentially there.

But let me say this, you mentioned something before the break about my being a spoiler. I want to make this very clear: I just entered the race a few days ago. When I entered the race, Donald Trump was losing to Hillary by ten percentage points. And at the same time, he continues to put his foot in his mouth, and I just -- Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate. We should be -- we should be doing very, very well against her.

GLENN: Yes.

EVAN: Conservatives should. And Donald Trump just isn't getting the job done. And he is ensuring that Hillary takes the White House. I'm concerned about that too. So he's already losing to her, and he is going to lose to her because he's an even weaker candidate than she is. I think with conservatives, we need somebody who can actually compete with Hillary head-on, and I know that I can do that. So that's where I am on this. And I'm trying to give people a better option here, something that they can be proud of, you know, somebody with a positive vision for the future of the country.

STU: If it does go to the House, what's your relationship with people in the House? I know obviously you came from that background recently, right?

EVAN: Yeah, I did. And I think the key here is that I understand what -- you know, certainly House Republicans are looking for. And I am in lockstep with them on, for example, balance of powers, the separation of powers, the REINS Act, things like that. And on policy. On -- you know, on their agenda. I'm with them. I was there as that was developed.

So, you know, Donald Trump is not there. Donald Trump, despite his campaign promises, this is not a guy who is going to be willing to send executive power that belongs to the legislative branch back to the legislative branch. I mean, Donald Trump is going to try to amass and consolidate power, given that he's an authoritarian.

GLENN: Okay. So hold on. I want to come back to you. We're going to have to break for a couple minutes. I want to come back to you and talk to you about the things that you think are the biggest problems that we're going to face, and then I want to ask you about some solutions. When we come back.

Featured Image: Former CIA agent Evan McMullin announces his presidential campaign as an Independent candidate on August 10, 2016 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Supporters gathered in downtown Salt Lake City for the launch of his Utah petition drive to collect the 1000 signatures McMullin needs to qualify for the presidential ballot. (Photo by George Frey/Getty Images)

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

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 began as a political payoff to Socialist agitators

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.

Durham annex EXPOSES Soros, Pentagon ties to Deep State machine

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.