Monica Crowley discusses 'anti-incumbent mood' with Milwaukee County Sheriff

Guest hosting while Glenn was off the airwaves Wednesday, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke took control of the microphone, sharing his views on the news of the day. He started his discussion by laying some ground rules.

"This is The Glenn Beck Program. My number one objective is to protect the brand," Clarke said.

Then, he quickly added, "Now, don't get me wrong, like I said, I'm at the helm here. You're going to hear my views. You're going to hear my take on things. It may compare with many of your views, Glenn Beck's views. It might not. But don't take that out on Glenn if it doesn't."

One of Clarke's guests was Monica Crowley, writer for The Washington Times, who joined the program to discuss how the presidential election process is playing out, particularly on the GOP side.

Clarke asked for Crowley's opinion on the "anti-incumbent mood" that has manifested itself among the American people.

"You know, it's interesting because we've not seen anything like this ever," Crowley said.

She continued.

We've certainly had outsiders run and win. You think of Andrew Jackson and some other candidates. And you've also seen impulses before, where voters are just so sick of the incumbents. Throw the bums out. That's been a tag line for American politics since the start.

What we have now is something completely different.

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below for more.

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

DAVID: Monica Crowley. She's a writer for the Washington Times newspaper. A prolific writer, I might add. Great insight. And I want to talk to her a little bit about this whole presidential process, what's going on, this dynamic of the -- appears to be the year of the outsider. And why that might be.

Monica, thanks for joining me.

MONICA: Hi, Sheriff. And Merry Christmas to you too, my friend.

DAVID: Thank you, back at you.

Give me your thoughts on this whole process playing out, specifically on the G.O.P. side. This -- this anti-incumbent mood. It's not the first time we've seen it. But kind of not in a presidential sweepstakes. Go ahead.

MONICA: Yeah, you know, it's interesting because we've not seen anything like this ever. I mean, certainly not in our lifetimes, and I would argue maybe never in the history of the republic have we seen a dynamic play out the way it's playing out now. We've certainly had outsiders run and win. You think of Andrew Jackson and some other candidates. And you've also seen impulses before, where voters are just so sick of the incumbents. Throw the bums out. That's been a tag line for American politics since the start.

DAVID: Right.

MONICA: What we have now is something completely different. In that I think particularly on the Republican side, we have a base of voters who time and again have sent Republicans to Washington in waves. In particular, we have two recent wave elections, 2010 and 2014, where we flipped both houses of Congress to Republicans. We have sent Republicans and conservatives to DC with two missions over the last seven years. One, to stop Barack Obama's radical agenda. And two, to advance a conservative one. And in most cases, these Republicans/Republicans have gone there and done neither. There have been some very visible exceptions like Senator Ted Cruz and others. But they have gone there and once again, like those before them, sold out.

And so what you're seeing now is what I argue is the latest incarnation of the Tea Party movement. This is Tea Party 2.0, Sheriff. The initial Tea Party came out of Barack Obama's radicalism, of course. But it also came out of the fact that the Republican Party failed to stand by and fight for its principles: Limited government, fiscal responsibility. They just let all those things fall by the wayside and basically became Democrat-lite. There would have been no need for an original Tea Party movement if the G.O.P. had stuck to its founding principles. Okay? It didn't. So you needed a Tea Party to try to bring it back.

Well, that Tea Party, as we know was squashed by the Barack Obama administration through the IRS and other weapons that they use. And so what you're seeing now, this grassroots movement that is supporting Donald Trump, that's supporting Ted Cruz, that is supporting Carly Fiorina and some of the other outsiders, this is the American people standing up, Sheriff, and saying, you know what, we're done. We're done. We've tried the Republican way. We've sent you off to Washington time and again. You've constantly let us down. And so you know what, we want to try something and someone completely different, somebody who is promising to blow up the system and burn the establishment to the ground.

DAVID: But you know what I find interesting, Monica, first of all, I've always thought about the Tea Party, that was the fighting force. They should have been given a job to be that fighting force within Republican the Republican Party. Actually they face most of their opposition, not from the left, not from the DNC or Democrat Party, but from the G.O.P. I like that Tea Party 2.0. One of the things that I've complained about from the G.O.P. is they don't have an identity. I think that this civil war going on within the party is good. I think that it needs a shaking out, and right now, the fight is for the soul of this party. What are they going to be? What are they going to stand for? And I went through a little bit of a litmus test. I said, "Has this current G.O.P. Congress demonstrated that they're for less government? No. Lower taxes? No. Less spending? No. Military superiority? No." And on and on and on. And I think that's what this -- this frustration is, if you will. I think frustration is a useless emotion. But I think that's what is at the base of it.

MONICA: Yeah, I think that's exactly right. I think, look, if you go in to weed out your garden and you remove half of the weeds, well, then the other weeds continue to grow and they take the garden over again. And I think what voters are saying is, look, we need somebody who is going to uproot this thing. Root and branch, so we can start over again. That's what somebody like Donald Trump is promising to do. They want to start fresh. It's sort of like a scorched-earth policy in their approach to the party and to the conservative movement. And Trump, you can argue whether he's a conservative or not a conservative, but the thing he's projecting is that he's on the outside. He's a successful businessman who will bring executive experience. But more importantly, he's saying to the American voter, look, you don't have to be an enemy in your own country anymore. And you know this better than anybody, Sheriff, because you bore the brunt of this too. The American people have been turned into the enemy in their own nation.

DAVID: That's amazing.

MONICA: If you oppose Barack Obama and the leftist agenda, you're a racist. You're a bigot. You're a homophobe. You're an Islamophobe. You're a sexist. You name it.

And the American people are going, "Wait a minute. Whose country is this?" Trump comes in and says, "We're going to give you your country back. We're going to restore America to its exceptional nature and its greatness. And here's how we're going to do it. We're not going to pay attention to the Republican establishment. Who, by the way, just sold you down the river again with a $1.2 trillion budget that funds everything Obama wanted. What is the point of voting Republican if you send these people to DC and they do what Obama and Pelosi and Reid want? What is the point?"

DAVID: You know what is interesting in this -- and let's just spend a minute on Trump. You know, he's probably the true outsider. You know what you hear. He's not a Republican. He's not a conservative. I'll leave people to argue that.

But one of the other enemies of this Republican establishment is one of their own. It's Ted Cruz.

MONICA: Yeah. I mean, they really don't like Ted Cruz either. And I'll tell you something, Cruz has run a brilliant campaign. Because he was the only one early on, Sheriff, who understood Trump and got what he was doing and got what he was tapping into. Because Trump was tapping into it years ago. Cruz very smartly established something of an alliance with Donald Trump. And the two of them are very helpful with each other with evangelical voters in Iowa, for example. And national security voters on the Cruz side for Trump. They've been implementing each other politically now for seven months. And it has been brilliant on both of their parts. But, look, the establishment is scared to death of these two guys because they will lose total control, not just of the White House, but of the party. The head of the RNC. I mean if you get one of these guys elected president, they control everything. And the establishment knows it will be out. That's why the important thing for everybody to understand here, and I think the American voter gets this on an instinctual level, is that the split in the country is less right/left, blue/red, and more elites versus the rest of us. And what Trump and Cruz are tapping into is, hey, we're one of you. We're with you. We want to protect you and defend this country against the elites on both sides who are destroying it.

DAVID: Right. A finger on the pulse of the American public. The, we, the people. And Trump is really one of the only ones who has established a vision for America, a vision defined as a plan for the future with imagination and wisdom. You know, when he talks about, we're going to make America great again, everybody likes to criticize -- you know, and I don't have a dog in this fight yet. I want to make that clear. I got a couple favorites, but, you know, other than -- other than Trump making America great again, everybody says, "Well, we don't know about his policies. We want to hear about this. We want to hear about his tax policies." Those are policies. It's not vision. All right.

The people in this country right now want to hear about vision. And we're not hearing that from really too many of these candidates.

MONICA: That's exactly right. They want a vision of leadership. Not just who you'll be as a leader, but how you will -- where you'll take the country and what you see for American superpower and our place in the world and how we should exercise that power.

Look, a lot of people, as you say, are critical of Trump because he's put out a specific tax plan and a specific immigration plan. But other than that, you know, the details are pretty sparse. And, you know what, Sheriff, no one cares.

DAVID: Right.

MONICA: I mean, people care. But no one cares because they want the bigger picture, which is what you're saying. They want the vision. And that one slogan he came up with, make America great again. Boom. That is the compelling reason to elect him. Whether he's your choice or not, he has set out a compelling vision and a compelling reason to vote for him. Mrs. Clinton has been on the national scene for 25 years, Sheriff. She still doesn't have a compelling reason for why people should elect her as president beyond I'm a woman and it's my turn. Well, that doesn't -- that doesn't ring out the way make America great again. And that's one of the big reasons why Trump has traction.

DAVID: It's just a power grab by her. Monica, I have to let you go. I want to thank you for joining me.

Merry Christmas, really.

MONICA: It's always a pleasure, Sheriff. Thank you so much, my friend. Merry Christmas to you too.

DAVID: Thank you.

Featured Image: Monica Crowley attends the The Hill, Extra And The Embassy Of Canada Celebrate The White House Correspondents' Dinner Weekend at Embassy of Canada on April 24, 2015 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Dave Kotinsky/Getty Images)

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

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

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

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

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

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

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

Should Starbase become its own city?  

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

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

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

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

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.