Glenn interviews Marco Rubio and Josh Mandel

You’ve heard of Marco Rubio and you know he’s the type of guy America needs in Congress - Josh Mandel is running in a tight race in Ohio and he is another guy this country desperately needs. He’s a military veteran and a tea party style conservative - and he’s only 35 years old. Glenn interviewed them both on radio this morning while they were campaigning in Ohio.

Transcript of interview is below:

GLENN: All right. We're going to be in Ohio. You know, I think they are ‑‑ we are on the verge of miracles, quite honestly. I don't know how else to describe it. It is ‑‑ you're going to see on Tuesday I believe Chick‑fil‑A. Remember there was no big ‑‑ nobody was bussing people in. Just, everybody just came.

PAT: So Tuesday we're going to see a lot of chicken sandwiches?

GLENN: Yes, we're going to see a lot of chicken sandwiches.

PAT: Wow, I can't wait.

GLENN: And people will be standing in line to vote and they are going to be like, where's the chicken sandwich? But remember ‑‑ and it went on for a couple of days.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: That's what's going to happen. They are running out of "I voted" stickers in Texas. In Texas. I mean, Texas is like it doesn't ‑‑ I'm not going to really count in the presidential election. But they are running out of "I voted" stickers here. That's fantastic. In Ohio things are dicey. I personally think if it's not stolen, you are going to see an amazing upset in almost all of these states. We have one of the guys who's running, he's state treasurer now, he is running for Senate against Sherrod Brown. I'll let Josh tell the difference. We have Josh on the phone. Also Marco Rubio is on. Is he on the same line?

STU: Yeah, they're separate ‑‑ I think they are sharing the phone there, with each other.

GLENN: Is this a party line? Is that what's going on?

MANDEL: Hey, Glenn, how are you doing?

GLENN: Good. How are you. Is this Josh?

MANDEL: Yeah, this is Josh on the party line in Cleveland, Ohio.

GLENN: Marco, where are you.

MANDEL: He's coming. He's out in the diner shaking hands with some folks.

GLENN: Okay. So Josh, first of all, what's the difference between you and Sherrod Brown?

MANDEL: Well, he was named the most liberal senator in the United States of America, he's never seen a regulation he didn't like or a tax he didn't hike, and I'm a proud full spectrum conservative. While I am a Republican, I'm a conservative first and I'm a constitutional conservative and in Washington some of the Republicans are oftentimes just as much a problem as some of the Democrats and we need to elect more senators like Senator Rubio and others who will stand proudly as conservatives to do the right thing for our country.

GLENN: Small government conservatives?

MANDEL: Small government conservative. I believe the private select ‑‑ private sector is the solution to our problems. When it comes to a lot of our social woes, I think we should look to religious organizations and nonprofit organizations oftentimes before we look to government. And I also believe that while so many politicians, my opponent and others think that the federal government is the answer, I think Washington's the problem. Is the more we can get Washington out of the way, the stronger our economy and our country will be.

GLENN: So you're the treasurer in Ohio State and ‑‑ which is fantastic, because you obviously are a numbers cruncher. The financial cliff that is coming our way and all the trouble we're having. If we don't change the course now, how long do you think we have?

MANDEL: Not very long. It's ‑‑ we are running 100 miles per hour down the tracks and it's I believe soon going to be off the rails if we don't get some new leaders in Washington, $16 trillion debt, over a trillion dollars to China, Social Security, Medicare, bankruptcy.

GLENN: How are you ‑‑ how would you suggest that we stop the money printing and the QE infinity and pull ourselves back up without ‑‑ I mean because the first thing that will happen is interest rates will go up. How do we ‑‑

MANDEL: Sure.

GLENN: How do we not collapse ourselves by trying to heal ourselves?

MANDEL: Well, I think we need to make aggressive cuts in our federal government quickly and, you know, there's a lot of Republicans who disagree with some of the things I stand for. For instance, many Republicans will say, you know, we can't touch defense spending as well. I actually believe we need to do a top/bottom review of all of our bases throughout the world and, for instance, in Europe we're not fighting the Nazis anymore, we're not fighting the Cold War anymore. We could probably trim down or shut down some of our installations and ‑‑

GLENN: So how aggressive are you talking? You know, when Calvin cool age came in, he and Harding, they put the spending by 50%.

MANDEL: Right.

GLENN: How aggressive, how aggressive do you think we should be?

MANDEL: We have to be very aggressive. We need to do a top/bottom review of the federal government and for every agency administration bureaucracy that is not called for in the United States Constitution, we have to really ask the question what is its purpose, how many people work there, how much does it cost the taxpayers and what is the value to our society.

GLENN: I love you.

MANDEL: And one of the first acts, Glenn, of ‑‑

GLENN: If we wouldn't be sued by Barry White, I would play Barry White right now and turn the lights down.

MANDEL: Hey, Glenn, I have someone here who wants to say hello.

GLENN: Oh, wait, wait.

MANDEL: Go ahead.

GLENN: Wait, I just want to thank you for your service, first of all, especially for everything that's going on in Benghazi. You were a Marine for eight years and you know we don't leave men behind. And thank ‑‑

MANDEL: I do know that.

GLENN: And thank you for your service. And I can't wait until you get to Washington and start pulling the bodies out.

MANDEL: I appreciate that. You know, it was my honor to do my small part and do a couple of tours in Iraq and it sickens me to see when our Americans are killed overseas and abroad and I ‑‑ this is just disgraceful how this is playing out with Benghazi. And I'll tell you something else, just while you're on this topic. I didn't like those comments the president of the United States made to Governor Romney at the debate about bayonets and horses. When I went through Marine boot camp in Paris Island, South Carolina, we actually did have bayonets that we trained with. And as a Marine if Iraq, I actually did have a bayonet that I wore on my flak jacket and I just think the commander‑in‑chief of our military needs to be more respectful of our men and women when he's making comments about our military and he should really understand who it is out there carrying a weapon and protecting our country every day.

GLENN: And I know I have Marco Rubio waiting but I mean, you're an official in Ohio. How concerned are you on the stealing of the election in Ohio?

MANDEL: Ballot integrity is definitely a big issue here. I mean, I was down by the board of elections the other day and there's just vans and vans and vans of people being dropped off there to vote and obviously the default is giving ‑‑ is believing the people are following the law and doing everything legally within the bounds, and I'm ‑‑ I hope and assume that's happening. But at the same time with such a volume of people voting early here in Ohio, we need poll watchers and we need folks keeping eyeballs on every ballot site. But I think it's also important, Glenn, that those poll watchers are Americans. I don't know if you caught this.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

MANDEL: Crazy idea about the UN observers wanting to come into America ‑‑

GLENN: I don't know how Ohio handled it but Texas said, go to hell, we'll arrest you if you come in.

MANDEL: Yeah. Over my dead body.

GLENN: Exactly right. Thank you very much, Josh.

MANDEL: So if any of your listeners want to help us out here in the last week, our website's pretty simple. It's JoshMandel.com.

GLENN: Thanks, Josh. JoshMandel.com.

MANDEL: Let me pass out the phone. We've got Senator Marco Rubio here. We're calling you from Joe's Diner in Ohio.

GLENN: Oh, really? Is Joe Biden there because ‑‑

MANDEL: Joe Biden's not here but Marco sure is. Hang on one second.

GLENN: Thanks a lot.

RUBIO: Glenn, good to talk to you.

GLENN: Hey, senator, how are you?

RUBIO: I think people understand the choice of this election is not just between two people. It's between two very different views of our government's role and our future and what America should be, what America should remain. And, you know, I think you're starting to sense that from people as you talk to them.

GLENN: Oh, I tell you I think you're going to see a miracle on Tuesday. I really do. I mean, a miracle as far as the distance between the two. I think America is wide awake. They've just had enough. They're quiet about it. It's like my grandparents. My grandparents didn't have to say anything. They would just go do it. And I think that's what's going to ‑‑ that's what's going to happen.

RUBIO: Yeah, I think that as well.

GLENN: Is ‑‑ how do you think things are going to fare for Romney in Ohio and Florida? How close?

RUBIO: Let me start with Florida, yeah, because that's ‑‑ obviously live there and spend a lot of time there. I feel great about Florida. The analogy I always use is I know people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 that are going to vote for Mitt Romney. I don't know anyone who voted for John McCain that's going to vote for Barack Obama this time. I know that's anecdotal but I think that's the feeling people have. There's a lot of disappointment. Some people just kind of bought into the 2008 notion that, you know, he's ‑‑ let's try something different, he's going to unify our country, he's going to bring us together. And it's just been a disaster. I mean economically, politically, all the way around. And people are just ready to walk away from that and kind of go back to the free enterprise system which made us the most prosperous people that have ever walked the Earth.

GLENN: I am really concerned about what's happening in Benghazi.

RUBIO: Yeah.

GLENN: And even when Mitt Romney wins on Tuesday, on Wednesday I will still be pushing for ‑‑

RUBIO: Yeah.

GLENN: ‑‑ serious investigations because we are ‑‑ what we have is a president that let guys die and a lot of people watched them die in realtime. There's a massive coverup on this. And beyond that, you've got at least ‑‑ you've got anywhere from 25 to 500 people who know and are now having a hard time sleeping at night. And if those guys are allowed to let that just cook in their soul, man, we go really dark. It's not good. We've never been that way as Americans, to leave just people die.

RUBIO: Yeah. Two things are happening. On the one hand I think there's a very serious concern that I have and I think it's a legitimate question to ask and that is, is the reason why they spent two weeks telling us that this was the result of a spontaneous uprising, is the reason why they're saying that because it went counter to their narrative that Al‑Qaeda had been defeated, Bin Laden was dead and the world was safer. And then they bragged about this for months. It was a key part of their convention. Obviously we're very happy Bin Laden is dead, but Al‑Qaeda unfortunately has reconstituted itself in North Africa including Libya. So that's the first element of it. The second is that there's clearly something going on here in terms of our different agencies to be able to interact and coordinate and make the right decisions in a timely fashion to save lives. So we're going to have what they call classified hearings. But I'm going to push for open hearings as well. And by the way, these hearings should have happened a long time ago.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

RUBIO: They shouldn't be happening after the election. And there's a lot of information out there that's going to be classified that shouldn't be classified. There's no reason to keep it that way. The American people have the right to hold their government accountable for its failures, A, so that the people who did it can be held accountable and, B, so that it never, ever happens again.

GLENN: Thank you very much, Senator. You and you keep going and we wish you luck that I think the real hard work for America begins on Wednesday.

RUBIO: Well, thanks for what you've been doing for years all the way back to the 9/12 movement and your involvement in that years ago. It really began in '09 right after the election when folks like you raised your voice and began to educate the American people about what was going on. That led to the big wave in 2010 that allowed me to get elected and the wave in 2012 that's going to give us a new president and is going to give us Josh Mandel.

GLENN: Well, just don't ‑‑ don't let us down. One quick question. How worried are you about the lame duck session?

RUBIO: I'm worried. I mean, a lot of bad things happen in lame duck sessions. You have folks who are never going to run again who don't feel like they're accountable. You have a lot of ‑‑ you know, they will package a couple of good ideas with ten bad ones and tell you that's the way business is done, that's the only way to get things done. So I am concerned about some pretty bad policy happening in the lame duck. You know, we got that START treaty with the Russians and a couple of other things that were not good for our country as well.

GLENN: Thank you very much, Senator, appreciate it.

RUBIO: Thank you.

GLENN: We'll talk again soon.

STU: They're both great.

PAT: I liked Josh Mandel, too. Liked him.

GLENN: He knows ‑‑

PAT: He knows what he's talking about.

GLENN: He knows what he's talking about. He's a Jewish American, strong on Israel. I mean, he gets it.

PAT: And clearly Rubio is ‑‑

STU: Fantastic.

PAT: There's hardly anybody better.

STU: I will say I maintain ‑‑ a lot of people said they liked the Clint Eastwood thing and whatever, you liked it or you didn't like it. One of the worst things that happened in that convention was that Clint Eastwood thing took all the attention from Marco Rubio's speech which was one of the best speeches by a Republican that, I mean, I can remember.

PAT: And it got no attention at all.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: None.

STU: I mean, here's a guy who's really smart, different. Obviously the optics are good on politically and demographically. It's just one of those things that Marco Rubio needs to be heard.

GLENN: Every time I ‑‑ every time he speaks, gives a major speech, like ten of my friends write to me and says, "My gosh, did you see this guy?"

STU: Yeah, he's great.

GLENN: He's really, really effective.

STU: Josh Mandel was great, too. That's the first time I heard him in an extended area. He's great.

GLENN: I talked to him in Ohio last time. I met him backstage and we spent about ten minutes together. He's really sharp. He's really sharp.

STU: That's great.

GLENN: Come on, Ohio, come on.

STU: Come on, Ohio.

GLENN: Come on, Ohio. Remember how pissed you were at Florida?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah. That's the way we're going to be with you.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: You don't want none of this.

GLENN: No, you don't. We'll come up there and give you such a hit.

Patriotic uprising—Why 90% say Old Glory isn’t just another flag

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.