Is progressive NYC mayor getting ready to run for President?

NYC mayor Bill de Blasio just got back to New York City after taking his 13-point progressive agenda on the road. One of the main points is a $15 minimum wage, a policy that is already destroying cities like Seattle. Some are wondering if the tour was a prelude to a presidential race. Glenn tore apart de Blasio, his progressive agenda, and more on radio this morning.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment

GLENN: So here's the latest from Bill de Blasio because Bill de Blasio is thinking about running for president of the United States. I don't know if you know that. Fabulous.

But he's thinking about running for president. And he's come out with a new progressive agenda. A 13-point agenda. And Barack Obama has talked about it. He said, there was sort of this progressive statement of principles about what it means to be a progressive by some of these friends of mine. I noted that it was basically my agenda, except for the trade.

Uh-huh. Now, while he says that, one Democrat, one prominent Democrat unnamed in this article says none of that stuff is going to help us with elections and help us win back the House.

What is the agenda? The mayor wants to stop Democrats from running away from the discussion of progressive economic policy, and I do too. Please, please run on your progressive ideology.

Here's what he said. Raise the federal minimum wage so it reaches $15 an hour, while indexing it to inflation.

PAT: So raise it to 15. And then attach it to inflation.

GLENN: Federal. Federal. So imagine what a 15-dollar federal minimum wage would do to Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

PAT: And then if inflation goes up 2 percent a year, so does the minimum wage. Wow, that's going to be good.

GLENN: There is no way that minimum wage can be raised to $15 in small towns and survive. It would destroy Middle America. Just destroy us.

PAT: It's already creating shock waves in Seattle. And it's not even at 15.

GLENN: And in San Francisco, I believe.

PAT: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: In both of those, you've had all kinds of stores and restaurants closing. More to come. They're only up to $12 so far.

PAT: 11.50 or something in Seattle.

GLENN: Okay. They're not even at 15, and places are already starting to crumble and close. And this as reported by progressive media. So you know it's much worse than what the media is saying. Can you imagine what it would do even in New York City, where prices are already skyrocket? I mean, you get a glass of orange juice, is it ten bucks?

PAT: Probably in some places, yeah.

STU: Certainly at the hotels it is.

PAT: Oh, for sure.

GLENN: At the hotels it's more than ten bucks. So the first one is raise minimum wage. Which would cause massive unemployment.

Then reform the National Labor Relations Act. Enhance workers right to organize and rebuild the middle class. So the right to work goes away.

PAT: Yeah. Because you're going to have unions everywhere.

GLENN: Yeah. Everywhere there would be a union.

PAT: It's a good idea. Good idea.

GLENN: Pass comprehensive immigration reform to grow the economy and protect the exploitation of low wage workers. Are you crazy?

PAT: Grow the economy. How does that -- how does that grow the economy, by all of a sudden granting amnesty to 12 to 20 million people who are here. It just makes it okay for them to be here completely and solidifies the fact that, you know, American citizens aren't going to have those jobs. I don't care America citizens of what color, they're not going to have those jobs.

GLENN: Here's what's interesting to me. The president said he's released -- I want to get this exact quote. Maybe I'm reading too much into this. Stu, you give him the benefit of the doubt.

There was a sort of progressive statement of principles about what it means to be a progressive by some of these friends of mine, according to the president.

Quote, I noted that it was basically my agenda, except for trade.

Here's the trade section.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Oppose trade deals that hand more power to corporations, at the expense of American jobs, workers rights, and the environment.

So the president is saying, I agreed -- these were my agenda points, except for the trade agenda.

STU: And this is -- I assume is the fight between him and Elizabeth Warren.

PAT: On free trade.

STU: Where he seems to be --

GLENN: And why do you think the Republicans are for the free trade? It hands more power to the corporations at the expense of American jobs.

STU: Well --

PAT: I don't think they describe it that way, but, yeah.

GLENN: I bet it is.

PAT: Nobody knows.

GLENN: Nobody knows.

STU: Yeah. I'm much more free trade than Elizabeth Warren, certainly.

GLENN: Yes, yes.

STU: I think everybody on earth is more free trade than Elizabeth Warren. It's hard to know on this. You wind up thinking, am I choosing between Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren as my two choices?

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Which is more of a fundamental foundational problem with the country.

GLENN: Yes. You're going from a full-fledged socialist to a Marxist. Which one do you vote for?

STU: How do you parse that?

GLENN: She's full-fledged socialist. She would have us looking like Denmark overnight. He's a full-fledged Marxist revolutionary.

STU: He's probably more right on this one than she is. Right?

PAT: It looks like it.

STU: I think so.

PAT: Which is why Republicans say they have the votes to pass this thing. Have you seen that?

GLENN: Yeah. So, again, on one side, you have Elizabeth Warren. On the other side, the president. And on another side, Mitch McConnell. I don't trust any of them.

STU: No.

PAT: Although, Obama and McConnell seem to be on the same side.

GLENN: So that leads me to believe Elizabeth Warren.

[laughter]

I mean, I really don't know who to believe on that one.

PAT: Not in that triangle.

GLENN: I talked to someone in Washington who went into the room and read it and said, Glenn, it has to have -- I think it's 60 days -- 45 or 60 days of sunlight. Has to. Otherwise, it cannot be passed. Congress cannot pass it without it having an open airing. He said, I honestly don't know -- he said, I read it. I don't know why it's been kept secret. He said, there's nothing in there that glares at me. He said, but it would take a team of attorneys to go through it. That's why the sunlight is necessary. He said, these bills are too big and too complex. And he said, I know that there are attorneys out there, that once it is online, they'll go through every single line. And they'll bring it up and say, wait. Wait. This is in there. He said, I didn't see anything. But that doesn't mean it's not there. Because this president has shown over and over again that he makes bad deals.

PAT: Right. And someone we respect a lot too. So you would tend to believe him. If he says he didn't see anything bad in it, it sounds like there's nothing bad in it.

GLENN: But he did say it needs a full airing.

PAT: We're not against that.

STU: It makes you nervous when the president all of a sudden seems pro free trade. I just don't believe that those are his principles. But judging on the surface, you know, I'm certainly going to be more free trade.

PAT: Is it possible that he could do one thing right in eight years? Is it possible?

STU: Well, he did kill bin Laden.

PAT: Okay. Two things right.

GLENN: He didn't. I want to point this out. He didn't. It took him a year to decide.

STU: Yeah. But then when he did decide, he took the flight over there with a knife and stabbed him in the heart.

PAT: Yeah. And he made the toughest decision in 500 years.

GLENN: So it was Barack Obama in the library with a candelabra.

PAT: No. It was a knife.

STU: Don't be ridiculous.

PAT: Come on, Glenn.

GLENN: So here's what we have so far with the de Blasio plan. Raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, nationwide. Allow the unions to organize anywhere. Make sure that we get all of the immigrants that are already here. The illegals that are already here. Make them legal.

PAT: You have to help the economy.

GLENN: Oppose any trade deal that gives more power to corporations. Pass national sick-leave. Pass family -- paid family sick-leave.

PAT: So if I'm sick, my wife gets to stay home as well? Is that it?

GLENN: Yeah, paid family leave.

PAT: The whole family gets to stay --

PAT: What?

PAT: Yeah. The Family Medical Leave Act. It's not just for super, hey, I have a cold.

GLENN: No. It's like cancer.

STU: Major. Yeah, something like that. You can actually leave. But the company is not forced to pay you for that time.

PAT: So this one the company would be forced. Wow.

GLENN: Here's the problem with that. Sure, you might have companies that are so grinchy. But those companies, eventually no one wants to work for. You know what I mean? They're so bad. But there's a lot of companies that, like, if you guys left and said, hey, my wife has cancer, I would do my best to hold on. But if it went on for however long --

STU: At some point, yeah.

GLENN: At some point, you know, this is a bad example.

PAT: How long? Like a week and a half?

GLENN: Like 20 minutes. If she's not better by the time I get back from the next break, I can't do it.

PAT: That's understandable.

GLENN: You can see that. It's the CFO of the company. Can you imagine how bad you would be if you fired somebody because their wife had cancer and was in the hospital. Nobody would want to do that. The press would be awful. Awful. You would make as many accommodations as you possibly could. But at some point, you're like, I have to have a CFO.

STU: Yeah, someone actually has to do the job.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: And I can't have some guy in the interim.

PAT: And you can't necessarily pay 2CFOs. One that's actually working and one at home with his --

STU: You can under this plan though.

GLENN: Yeah!

PAT: Is that funded by the government?

GLENN: No.

STU: By evil corporations and their profits, which they don't need?

PAT: Jeez. Can you imagine doing that to a small business. It would kill them.

GLENN: You can't make it. This is a kill all small businesses plan.

STU: It's a genocidal business plan.

GLENN: It really is. Small business genocide. Never again is now. Make Pre-K after-school programs and child care universal.

STU: Yeah. So this was his big change --

PAT: Oh, wow. Child care too.

GLENN: Yeah, babysitters are free now.

PAT: That's a good deal if you can get it.

STU: That's one of the first things he did in New York. It was universal Pre-K.

PAT: He didn't do child care.

GLENN: What kind of grinch is he?

STU: I don't know if he did child care.

GLENN: If I can get my kids from three years old --

PAT: To be raised by somebody else. And I don't have to pick them up until like 9:30 at night, and I just dump them in bed as soon as they get home, that would be ideal. That would be ideal.

GLENN: I don't know if I want to pick them up at all.

JEFFY: Thank you. Thank you.

PAT: Right. You don't need to pick them up at all. Why not child care overnight, every night.

GLENN: Here's what I want to do. I want to have sex with, let's call them surrogates.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: When they get pregnant, I'm not there.

PAT: Why would you be?

GLENN: You put them right in Pre-K. Mom's got child care.

PAT: Besides, she should have had an abortion, she wouldn't have to deal with any of this.

GLENN: Exactly right. That's what I was pushing for. The abortion. Okay. If I can't kill the kid, I don't want to see the kid. I want the kid going right to the government. It's a shared responsibility.

PAT: Should she decide to choose with her own body and have the kid, then it's her responsibility for the first three years. And then you dump them into child care.

GLENN: Right. So you know if she changes her mind anywhere in the first three years, she can still kill the child.

PAT: Like it's a late-term abortion. Really long-term. Like 25th trimester.

GLENN: That's Peter Singer: Before they reach the age of consciousness where they know tomorrow is coming.

STU: Yes, that's the way he phrases it. If they can't say, Daddy, please don't kill me, you're free to go.

GLENN: No. No. They can say, Daddy, please, don't kill me. They just can't say, Daddy, please don't kill me because I want to see tomorrow.

PAT: Or I want to watch Cartoon Network tomorrow.

GLENN: Tomorrow.

PAT: So you can't kill me today.

GLENN: As long as they say I want to watch the Cartoon Network today and today only, then you can abort them. As long as you can convince them there is no tomorrow, you can kill them. That's an actual Peter singer viewpoint.

STU: We may have mangled it a little bit, but not much.

GLENN: Not much.

STU: He initially said you should be able to commit an abortion. Infanticide. Beyond that, it was three to five years old.

GLENN: He said three. Then he came out and apologized.

STU: I'm glad. At least he apologized.

GLENN: Except he apologized and said, I shouldn't have put a time on it. It should be open to any time.

PAT: You don't want to limit yourself to three years. The kid could be 19 and not know tomorrow is coming.

GLENN: Exactly right.

STU: Yeah. What if he's turning out like Jeffy. You're not allowed to --

PAT: Exactly. Or orphan Annie. Well, I guess she knew the sun was coming out tomorrow, didn't she?

GLENN: Yeah, she was singing the song.

PAT: That was a bad example.

GLENN: That's all we have to do. Is, if we want to be evil bastards, once they start killing all the children because it's legal, we just sing: The sun will come out tomorrow, bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow! As long as we have that, our kids can live.

STU: Yay!

GLENN: Expand the income tax credit. Allow students to refinance student loan debt.

VOICE: Well, what if there is no tomorrow. There wasn't one today.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: Did you think about that?

GLENN: They can all die.

Close the carried interest loophole. End tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Implement the Buffett rule so millionaires pay their fair share.

PAT: Yes! Finally!

GLENN: Close the CEO tax loophole --

PAT: Another finally.

GLENN: -- that allows corporations to take advantage of performance pay write-offs.

PAT: Yeah. I hate that

STU: It's about time.

GLENN: Yeah. There's the 13-point progressive plan that Bill de Blasio is now hocking and thinking about running for president of the United States.

PAT: That guy would kill us. He would finish the job that Barack Obama has started.

GLENN: And when it wouldn't work, he would blame us. As they always do.

STU: Why is he doing this so fast? You just became mayor of New York. It's because if he hangs around long enough for his policies to really get into effect, no one is going to elect him.

GLENN: Well, the good news is, he's forcing Hillary Clinton to run to the left.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: So between him and Elizabeth Warren, she is running hard to the left. Notice nobody is talking about that.

PAT: There was an article on Drudge yesterday.

GLENN: Drudge.

PAT: Yeah, but at least it's out there. That she is, what, the most liberal elite candidate.

GLENN: Ever.

PAT: Yeah, or at least in decades.

GLENN: So she is going hard left, which is good. Because you'll see where she stands. We have her on record now, scoffing at the 20-week abortion rule. Passed Congress last week. She says, that's not right.

STU: It's amazing. You're talked about something that is supported by over 85 percent of Americans. It's the third trimester sort of stuff where, I mean, it's not even close.

GLENN: Money doesn't talk. It screams. And she needs money for her campaign now. She needs to be as far left as she possibly can be.

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 EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

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.

Hunter laptop, Steele dossier—Same players, same playbook?

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.