Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Is MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski Turning Conservative?

November 30, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

An amazing shifting is taking place, and the mainstream media doesn't seem to recognize it. Ironically, the left and the media are sounding like the Tea Party did in 2008 and 2012, lamenting about their constitutional rights disappearing.

"If I wanted to be a jerk, I would say, Really? Can you tell me which rights have disappeared? Because isn't that what they've said to us for the last eight years? We can't play that game anymore," Glenn said Wednesday on his radio program.

Another shift taking place is a new open-mindedness and objectivity among a minority on the left.

RELATED: Former Progressive Caller Josh Reveals His Incredible Transformation After Reading ‘Liars’

MSNBC news anchor Mika Brzezinski has, on several occasions, expressed her concern about double standards on the left while looking for new ways to communicate about and approach issues. Brzezinski recently voiced her displeasure with Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), saying she might want to be a little inclusive because she's sounding like the people she's accusing of being exclusive.

Is Brzezinski turning into a conservative? No, of course not. She's just changing her approach, her tone.

"That is critical, just critical. And that's what we've been talking about. That's what the book Liars tried to do in the writing," Glenn said.

The bottom line is that we need each other. We need to be approachable to the other side and listen to the opinions of others.

"I don't mean that you change your principles. I haven't changed --- people believe I have --- but I have not changed my principles. I am changing my approach because this doesn't work, what we've been doing. It doesn't work. And it's going to lead us into very dark and bad places," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: This is an amazing thing. I'm now reading articles about how the Hollywood left is -- they're buying luxury bunkers. And what is it that these people know that the rest of us don't seem to know? All of a sudden now preparing is also kind of cool for -- for the left, I guess.

Now there's a reason to hunker down. To me, this says, we can make the case that the presidential powers are far too great. That if half of the country is terrified under a Democrat and then we -- and then we replace him with a Republican and the other half is terrified, would he give you a problem.

PAT: And, gee, who said that, "Don't give those powers to the president because you're not going to like it eventually?"

GLENN: We said that during Bush. We said that during Bush.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: This is the real problem. I want to get into this here in just a second, but I want to start with a phone call that we had yesterday that I think is -- I mean, we had so much mail and so many Facebook comments on this because it shows that, A, there is hope and that people are open-minded if you present yourself the right way.

Listen to this.

CALLER: Let me start off this way, I was a very, very progressive liberal, almost to the point of communism. I believed everybody should be -- you know, in the wage gap and everything. So a buddy of mine that I've known since I got out of the Army, he -- he came to me one day and gave me your book. One of your books. And he says -- he said, "You've got to read this."

GLENN: Which one?

CALLER: Liars.

GLENN: Okay.

CALLER: And he said, "You've got to read this book." And I said, "Oh, come on. Really?"

And, "No, you've got to read this book. You'll never believe the some of the stuff that's in it."

So he told me the first chapter to go to. And it was in August, so I can't remember, to be honest, what chapter it was.

But it was the part of the book where it talked about how they -- with Prohibition.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

CALLER: And how they put poison in the alcohol to find out the tracking routes of where it was going.

GLENN: Yes.

CALLER: So I read that, and my jaw hit the floor.

GLENN: You looked it up too, didn't you? You didn't believe --

CALLER: I did. And I finished that book in three days. It was the most amazing book I've ever read. And I said, "I've got to do more research on this, and I've got to find out who this Glenn Beck guy is." So I went to YouTube.

GLENN: Oh, boy.

CALLER: And I searched your name and I found a video that you did on TheBlaze. I don't know how long it was. But you spoke to a guy that was an alcoholic. And you talked to him about some -- I forget who said it. It was to Peter Carr.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

CALLER: And the statement was, "Set reason firmly in her seat, and question with boldness the very existence of God. For if there is a God, he must rather honest questioning over blind-folded fear." I will never forget that statement. Because that statement brought me to Christ.

I was an atheist before that.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Holy cow. So you were a communist, an atheist?

CALLER: Yeah.

PAT: And how long ago was this, Josh?

GLENN: He said August.

CALLER: I got that book on August 15th of this year.

PAT: Of this year! Wow, that's --

CALLER: Yeah, I voted for Barack Obama twice. I'm sorry, but I did.

GLENN: Holy cow.

PAT: Wow.

CALLER: And I would have voted for Hillary Clinton with vigor. However, I pulled the lever for Evan McMullin this year.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

GLENN: You didn't even go -- oh, my gosh.

CALLER: And I have never, ever, ever -- I'm telling you -- I want to be as serious as I can with you, Glenn, because this is a dream of mine, to speak to you since August. I have never, ever realized the difference -- I thought all conservatives hated me. I thought conservatism was hate -- was complete hate, until I listened to you.

PAT: Wow. That's --

GLENN: This is -- this is a dream come true. This has made the last year totally worth it.

Before we go back to this phone call, because we talked about -- we talked about a few things with him on what -- how -- because that's quite a statement to make. But I want to -- I want to shift gears. And can we go to Mika and what Mika said on MSNBC? Was this today or yesterday?

PAT: I think it was yesterday.

GLENN: Okay. Listen to this.

VOICE: And you have Elizabeth Warren who is stepping out and basically looking like she's going to be the de facto head of the Democratic Party nationally. That is a --

VOICE: Yeah.

MIKA: Do you lead on anger though? Because that doesn't seem very constructive to me.

I got to tell you, I love her. I'm getting tired of this act.

PAT: Wow.

VOICE: She's definitely giving voice to the people in the party and in the country who think Donald Trump is a disaster for the country. She's going to be out every day --

MIKA: Yeah. But you know what, there's a huge part of the country that doesn't think so.

VOICE: Right.

MIKA: And she might want to be a little inclusive because she's sounding like the people she's accusing of being exclusive.

I mean, she's just got to stop. I'm sorry. It's getting exhausting. And this was not helpful during the campaign. It wasn't. There was an anger there that was shrill and --

PAT: Uh-huh.

MIKA: -- and a step above what it needed to be, unmeasured, and almost unhinged.

PAT: How about that?

GLENN: Now, listen, what people will want to say, on our side is, wow, is Mika turning a conservative? No. No.

PAT: She's changing her tone.

GLENN: She's changing her tone. That is critical. Just critical. And that's what we've been talking about. That's what the book Liars tried to do in the writing. And obviously, at least for one person, it was successful.

We tried to say, "Look, this isn't a Democratic problem. This is a Democratic and Republican problem. And this is not a liberal problem. This is a human problem."

PAT: And nothing proves better what you've been trying to say for a while now better than this. Because how did that make all of us feel? Everybody listen I objecting to that went, "Wow, thank you. Thank you for being a little bit reasonable and seeing the other side."

GLENN: And honest. And honest.

PAT: And honest.

Well, so if we did the same thing, how will the left feel?

GLENN: Correct. Correct.

And you're not going to get everybody on the left. You're not going to get the die-hards. You're not going to get the die-hards. But the die-hards eventually --

PAT: Some reasonable people might be able to come --

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: On both sides.

GLENN: And the die-hards will eventually be the absolute outer fringes that no one will listen to.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Another great example of this was David Axelrod, of all people.

PAT: Right.

STU: Who was in the Obama administration obviously. A real hard-core partisan and hasn't changed his beliefs. But while Trump was getting beat up for not naming his people fast enough in his cabinet, Axlerod came out and said, "Wait a minute. By this time in our administration, we hadn't named anybody, and I don't remember any criticism." We need more of that.

PAT: A little honesty. A little bit of honesty goes a really long way.

GLENN: Right. Right.

And if we can -- if the right can lead the way in this -- if we can not play the same game and not trash our enemies because they're our enemies, but call them as we see them -- not remain silent when an injustice is happening. Let me give you one. Let me show you an example.

Right now, you have Breitbart being boycotted. Well, first of all, I don't believe that Kellogg's was ever a major sponsor of Breitbart. Maybe. But I don't ever remember seeing Kellogg's Corn Flakes all over. And this was done to us.

There were people that would say they were going to boycott us, that never spent money with us. We were never on part of their buy. They never would have.

PAT: And everybody counted it, "That's the 37th sponsor." Yeah, like eight of them. Four of them. One of them was a sponsor before.

GLENN: Right. Right. Really, most of them were like BMW will never advertise -- well, they never advertise on talk radio. They've never advertised with me before.

So, A, I think this is the press doing to Breitbart what the press did to us. What the left did to us. I don't believe that that -- that boycott of Kellogg's is even real. But even if it is, let me make the case -- and everybody knows how I feel about Breitbart and Bannon. So I have nothing to gain here.

Let me tell you why I think it is a problem. I believe in legal boycotts. I believe you have the right to do it. It's a free market. You have a right to spend your money as a business or -- or an individual, any way you want. It's your money. So if you want to do a boycott, you can do a boycott.

But let me show you why it's not good: Breitbart, if the numbers are right -- and I'm trying to look this up. If the numbers were right, in the last 30 days, Breitbart claims they did 45 million next week.

That's a lot of people.

STU: That's a great number.

GLENN: That's a great number. And that's a lot of people.

Okay. So 45 million people -- Kellogg's, you're going to say, "I don't want any of you. I don't want any of you." Now, Breitbart has said they are the platform for the alt-right. Okay. That's a pretty big choice. To me, I'm not reading Breitbart anymore because I don't want to support something that has -- that says, "I'm going to give this group of people a platform." I don't agree with that. But 45 million people don't care. Forty-five million Americans.

Now, let me just give you this: Remember Richard Spencer. He's the guy who's the leader of the alt-right. He had a big get-together in Washington, DC. This was their big victory lap. How many people showed up?

JEFFY: I think it was like 80 million.

GLENN: Right. 80 million. Well, 45 million, right? Right. No. 275 people.

JEFFY: A little less than that.

GLENN: Yeah. 275 people showed up.

PAT: Yeah. Less than 45?

GLENN: Yeah, it is less than 45.

Now, you don't need 30 percent of the population for a real movement, but you need maybe -- well, definitely more than 275.

JEFFY: Yes.

(chuckling)

GLENN: The point is, Breitbart's audience is not alt-right. And this is the point the press has got to understand. They're all touting -- let me give you this: This is from The Daily Tar Heel. This is the newspaper for the University of North Carolina.

Here's their headline: We can -- this is the editorial board right --

PAT: Are they considered pretty liberal? Yeah?

GLENN: Yeah. Okay. This is the editorial board. We can all learn from Glenn Beck's change of heart.

And it goes in to say we're living in a world that is in perpetual status quo with different ideas for directions on where to go from the norm.

In many cases, the far right and silent majority have won, leaving many of those who generally aligned with that party, to be ecstatic.

It goes on to say -- I'm going to skip a bunch of. Regardless of which side you stand on these issues, let's praise Beck's open-mindedness to new ideas and perspectives.

Now, they are saying that I am praising Black Lives Matter.

PAT: That you've changed on certain things like Black Lives Matter.

GLENN: And I haven't. I haven't.

What I have done is what Mika has done and changed my tone. And I've said, "Let's listen." Not to the people who are praising Fidel and want an end to American capitalism, who are at the top of Black Lives Matter, but instead, the people on the street, who are not violent, who are not calling for death to cops, who just are wound up in this group that I believe is the majority of them. The majority of people that are saying, "You know what, at least Black Lives Matter is stepping up and getting people's attention.

I don't believe they want to destroy America. We need to listen to people who say, "No one is hearing me."

That -- now, by boycotting 45 million people that read Breitbart, what are you doing? You're saying, "You're not even worth listening to. You're not even worth marketing to. I never want to see you again." That's a mistake. Because .00001 percent of the people who read Breitbart are Nazis. Two hundred and seventy-five nazis showed up last week in Washington, DC.

PAT: Well, alt-right people, right?

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Yeah, well, I'm sorry --

PAT: I mean, they've got some of those tendencies perhaps.

GLENN: The 275, no, they were giving the Hitler salute. I will call them that.

PAT: Were they?

STU: No, they were saying hail -- hail Trump. That was their big excuse. They're like, it wasn't heil Trump, it was hail Trump.

GLENN: They actually did the Hitler salute and said hail Trump.

PAT: They said heil in English.

STU: Right.

PAT: Okay. Good. Good. That's unique.

GLENN: Completely differently. Completely different.

So I want to go back to this guy, but, again, the point of the phone call that came in yesterday and the point of Mika and the point of Liars, the book -- if you haven't read the book, we worked really hard on it. And it was a best-selling book, and it's really good. Please get it for Christmas, especially if you know somebody who has an open mind.

PAT: Like this guy.

GLENN: Right. And may I suggest that we need an open mind, that we need to be approachable to people on the left. I don't mean that you -- that you change your principles. I -- I haven't changed -- people believe I have. I have not changed my principles. I am changing my approach because this doesn't work, what we've been doing. It doesn't work. And it's going to lead us into very dark and bad places.

We need each other. We need to be able to listen to each other. We need to be able to -- how many of us had a Thanksgiving where we just couldn't stand sitting at the table with our own relatives for political reasons? I understand not wanting to sit at the table for other reasons with your family, but not for political reasons.

Featured Image: Host Mika Brzezinski speaks on stage during the Women In The World Summit held in New York on April 24, 2015 in New York City. (Photo by Andrew Toth/Getty Images)

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

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

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

Should Starbase become its own city?  

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

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

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

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

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

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

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

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

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

Top FIVE takeaways from Glenn's EXCLUSIVE interview with Trump

Image courtesy of the White House

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

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

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

Border Security and Cartels

DAVID SWANSON / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

American Energy Revival

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Liberation Day Shakeup

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

Trouble in Europe

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Need for Peace

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

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

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