PART 2: Glenn Talks With Independent Presidential Candidate Evan McMullin

August 11, 2016

Writer

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.

"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 2 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: We're talking to Evan McMullin from EvanMcMullin.com. He's running for president of the United States.

Evan.

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: Are you going to get on the ballots?

EVAN: Yes, we've got a multi-pronged strategy. I've got a phenomenal team who has been working on this for months to prepare for this, to prepare for a time at which they had a candidate to run.

We are going to be getting on ballots here in the near-term. We'll be rolling those out. We're excited about that. There are a number of ways to get on ballots. There's a lot of misunderstanding about that. People think that it's only via petition. But there are actually a number of other ways. And we're going to compete across the country.

GLENN: How do you respond to people who say you're a spoiler and you're going to cause Hillary Clinton to win?

EVAN: I would just say this: I mean, look at the numbers, Donald Trump, when we entered the race three days ago, was down 10 percent against Hillary. So he's losing already to a super weak candidate.

GLENN: Yeah, but those numbers are probably going to come back. They usually do, after, you know, somebody else's convention. I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

EVAN: Sure. Sure. Yeah, well, what I would say to that, sure, Donald Trump could, you know, rise in the polls a bit. But listen, Donald Trump has alienated so many groups in America. I mean, you just look at the numbers, and, you know, you can find them where he's polling so terribly among women and Hispanics. You name it. I mean, he's just alienated so many Americans. He just can't win that way.

PAT: He does have 1 percent support among blacks.

EVAN: What's that?

GLENN: He does have 1 percent --

PAT: He does have 1 percent support among blacks.

GLENN: So he's got that going for him.

EVAN: Well, that's good. He should be given a certificate.

GLENN: Yeah. Give me -- tell me what you think the biggest crisis that is coming our way.

EVAN: Well, I wish I could -- I wish there were only one, but I think there are three.

GLENN: Give me two. Three. Okay. Go ahead.

EVAN: Can I give you three? I'll be quick.

GLENN: Sure, yeah.

EVAN: Number one is we absolutely just must defeat Islamist terrorism. I know how to do it. I've been there, done that. We have to do it. And let me tell you something, and a lot of people don't think about it this way: We have to beat Islamist terrorism because the more we allow that threat to metastasize and expand, the more our civil liberties here at home come under threat. So it's not only the attacks and the lethality of those attacks, which is also obviously a priority, to prevent that, but the greater the threat is, the more the government needs to say, "Okay. Well, we're going to do this for security. We're going to do that for security." And our civil liberties start to get peeled back.

And so we have to go on the offensive and destroy these evil threats abroad before they -- before they do that to our country. And so that's one.

Number two is I think we need more economic opportunity in this country. We need to be better about fighting -- smarter about fighting poverty as an issue. I'm very passionate about. We need to be smarter about creating an environment here where -- where -- where companies thrive so that people and families can thrive. So that there's jobs and growth and all of this. The government is in the way of all of this. We need to get it out of the way. That's another thing.

GLENN: Can you give me any specifics on that?

EVAN: Well, yeah, for example, you know, it's true that our trade deals have resulted in sort of some shifts -- some industries shifting from one place or another, and jobs can be lost and all of that. And also due to automation and new technologies, some people are losing their jobs. I think we -- we need to -- we need to listen -- to listen to that reality. It's happening.

And we need to do better -- we need to be better at helping -- helping people be retrained and find new opportunities and continue on. And so one idea that I've had that has worked well elsewhere is to use apprenticeship programs, so maybe we give an incentive for companies to say, "Okay. Well, this man or woman lost their job in this factory because it moved somewhere else, but, you know, I'm making microchips. And I'll bring them in, and there's some incentive to do that. I'll train them up, and they can -- they'll get on-the-job training while they're working, and then we help those people move forward. We help the economy, and we help these families. So things like that, I think we need to do. But it's also about lowering taxes, simplifying the tax code.

PAT: Yes.

EVAN: And most importantly, just cutting back on our -- just -- there's just so much overregulation and such little due process that -- and such -- and such uncertainty, regulatory uncertainty that's a real big challenge that companies face. We've got to limit that.

GLENN: Your third problem that you think we might hit?

EVAN: Government reform. We need to transfer more power back to the people. And that has everything to do with federalism and the Tenth Amendment. We must do this. We live in a large -- there are 330 million people here in this country. It's a big country, geographically. The idea that a centralized government in Washington is going to be able to serve well and be accountable to the people is just fantasy. There needs to be more power to the states, and the people's representatives in Congress also need to have their rightful Article One authorities restored.

GLENN: Can you tell me -- Mitt Romney has made some disparaging comments about the Tea Party. Where do you stand on the Tea Party, the values of the Tea Party?

EVAN: Well, listen, I stand with anybody who understands the -- again, federalism. I stand with anybody who understands and supports the Tenth Amendment, anybody who understands that the power of the government comes from the people and only from the people. And therefore, the government is accountable to the people.

This is -- Glenn, this is something I'm passionate about. Our Founders founded this country with the why, as Simon Sinek, the commentator says -- he talks -- every company needs to have a why. That why for our country was the pursuit of happiness.

If people are going to pursue happiness in their way, they need to actually have a -- a say in their government. And that power needs to be close to them, even though they may delegate it to their representatives. So it's a pursuit of happiness thing for me. That's what federalism is about. That's what the Tenth Amendment is about. We've got to get back to a system that allows people to pursue happiness the way our Founders intended.

GLENN: Pat has probably the best question of the day.

PAT: Well, I mean, I'm glad we've talked about some cute little subjects, but can we get to the real issue?

EVAN: Oh, boy. Here we go.

PAT: I'm wondering if, as president, you would seek a constitutional amendment and maybe even an executive order in the meantime, pending a constitutional amendment, to force your will in making BYU a part of the big 12?

EVAN: Yes, I will absolutely do that.

PAT: You will do that?

EVAN: Yes.

PAT: You have my vote.

EVAN: Okay. Good. All right.

GLENN: What a surprise.

EVAN: I got one. That's great.

PAT: You've got at least one vote.

STU: Wait. You're not voting for yourself? Shouldn't you at least have two?

EVAN: Oh, that's true. That's true. That's right. Yeah, I'm in too.

PAT: Are you married? I mean, hopefully we can at least get a family vote going there too.

GLENN: Are you married?

EVAN: I'm not married. But I want to promise the American people, since I'm making important campaign promises right now, guys -- thank you for that -- that I will not leave America without a First Lady if I'm elected. And it is my biggest aspiration in life to be a husband and a father, and I'm working on it.

(laughter)

PAT: Is there anybody --

GLENN: So, yeah. Is this like the Oval is the greatest chick magnet of all time, or is there somebody that you're thinking about?

EVAN: I really --

GLENN: Is there an announcement you'd like to make here?

EVAN: I really do not want to -- can I just not answer that question? Have mercy, please.

(laughter)

Yeah. That's a tough one. I just better keep my mouth shut.

PAT: So seriously, Evan, the deadline is tomorrow for Utah. Right? For ballot access.

EVAN: The 15th.

STU: The 15th. Okay. So you've got a few more days.

PAT: Okay. So you've got four days. You can make it in four days?

EVAN: Oh, yeah.

STU: A thousand signatures there. Right?

EVAN: Oh, yeah, we've got an army of volunteers out there taking care of this. The threshold of a thousand --

PAT: And what do you do in a state like Texas where the deadline has already passed?

EVAN: We'll probably file a legal challenge there.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: Do you -- do you have the money to do this?

EVAN: Money is pouring in. Pouring in.

PAT: Is it really?

EVAN: Yeah.

PAT: I mean --

EVAN: Yeah. Yeah. From small donors, regular people who are just so frustrated. I'm telling you -- and you know this, 70 percent of Americans are just unhappy with the direction of the country. They think it's on the wrong track. And then we have two candidates that are historically unpopular and profoundly unprepared to face the challenges that this country faces now.

Americans want something else. So, yeah, I mean, the metrics are unbelievable. I mean, people are helping out. They're chipping in. But, also, we're getting major mega donor interest. We've already had some really critical meetings on that. I'm going to be in New York next week for some -- you know, some follow-up meetings. You know, we're -- we're getting some good signals there too. So we're very excited, and we feel good on that end.

GLENN: Where is the Republican Party falling short?

EVAN: Well, let me say this: I -- I think that the Republican Party is certainly doing a lot more that's right, right now, than the Democratic Party. And I'm not trying to -- I don't desire to be super partisan here.

PAT: That's not saying much.

EVAN: The Republicans are at least trying to return power to the people, the Republicans in the House. So they got -- they have that going for them.

But I would say this: I think that it is time for the conservative movement to be more tolerant of people of variety of faiths and a variety of ethnicities and nationalities. Conservatism doesn't have to be sort of the Trump bigotry. And that's -- conservatism has nothing to do with --

GLENN: So hang on just a second. Do you think Trump is a conservative?

EVAN: I do not. But there are a lot of people who say that they're conservatives who are supporting Trump.

GLENN: Yes, okay.

EVAN: Yeah, no. I appreciate that clarification. He is most certainly not a conservative. And I feel like -- I feel like he deceived America by claiming that he is. People are so desperate in America for change, that they're willing to believe a total -- I mean, Donald Trump is a con man. I spent ten years in the Central Intelligence Agency. I know a con man when I see one, and I see Donald Trump coming from a mile away.

STU: How about the -- one recent specific policy proposal from Trump and Clinton -- Clinton proposed a 275 billion-dollar stimulus program to -- for our infrastructure. Trump when asked about that proposal said, "That's not enough. We need to double it. Actually more than double it."

EVAN: Wow, okay.

STU: Do you feel the need to -- what's your stimulus plan idea? Do you have a number? Do you want to triple Trump's? What's your --

EVAN: Yeah, no. Look, I think my stimulus plan is getting the government out of the way of free enterprise. That's my stimulus plan.

PAT: Thank you. That would be nice.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: I like that.

PAT: So if people like what they've heard, Evan, how do they help out?

EVAN: Go to EvanMcMullin.com. Chip in if you can. Every little the bit helps. You'll be joining many, many Americans who are doing the same. Sign up so that we can -- we can contact you and get you involved if you want to volunteer. We'd love that. Share -- share things about us on social media. You know, obviously we've entered this race late, not because we think that's the ideal way to do it, but because nobody else was going to and it was the last minute, so we jumped in. So we need to raise awareness as quickly as possible, so people can be helpful on all three fronts.

GLENN: At what point are you going to name a vice presidential candidate?

EVAN: Well, we're looking at people now. I mean, not in the extremely near-term, I think. We're getting some bases covered here as we launch at this early stage. But what we're looking for is somebody who understands what makes America special on a profound level, something that neither Hillary Clinton nor Trump certainly do.

GLENN: Will it be somebody that has some governing experience? I mean, you know, it's a pretty big job to take on and just go, "I got it."

EVAN: Yeah, no, I agree with you. I agree with you.

But, hey, listen, I'll say this about this: Our Founding Fathers had the -- the way they did it is they would tend to their fields, and then they would serve from time to time. And I'm -- I'm a big believer in that model. I think we need people with practical experiences and know-how to help America overcome its challenges. And the other thing I think we need --

PAT: So are you promising to also farm if you're elected president?

EVAN: I would love that. I would --

GLENN: You've got a date, you've got a farm. I mean, holy cow, you got a lot on your plate.

EVAN: Yeah. Yeah, I would love that. But I guess I'm just pushing back on the idea that it's got to be a career politician who has sort of worked their way up.

GLENN: Sure.

EVAN: I just don't think we need that. I think we need new ideas. And we also need -- we need leaders that put the interests of the American people before their own and that will have some character around that. And I just don't think we have that, clearly, in these two major candidates.

GLENN: Evan McMullin, thank you very much for being on the program today. Appreciate it.

EVAN: Thank you, Glenn. Thank you, team.

GLENN: Best of luck.

EvanMcMullin.com. EvanMcMullin.com.

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)

The Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

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.

Glenn's Show Prep