Donald Trump and Woodrow Wilson—The Similarities are Getting Eerie

An eerie similarity between Donald Trump and Woodrow Wilson is emerging. You remember Woodrow Wilson, the president Glenn loves so much? Not. America's current problems with an out-of-control, overreaching government can be traced back to Wilson's progressive policies.

If you listen to the language of Trump, it sounds much more like a progressive than a constitutionalist.

"Ronald Reagan said, 'The problem is the government.' Our Founders said, 'The problem is the government.' Donald Trump says it's the people running the government," Glenn said Friday on The Glenn Beck Program.

From Donald Trump's perspective, the government doesn't need to be reined in, it just needs to be managed better. Now where have we heard that before?

Philip Dru: Administrator, a favorite book of Woodrow Wilson's, was written in 1912 by Edward Mandell House, an American diplomat, politician and presidential foreign policy advisor. Advisor to whom? You guessed it---Woodrow Wilson.

The book's hero leads the democratic western U.S. in a civil war against the plutocratic East, and becomes the dictator of America. Dru as dictator imposes a series of reforms that resemble the Bull Moose platform of 1912---then he vanishes. Considering the author had such a close position to the president, it's no surprise that some of the ideas in the book eventually made their way into public policy.

"Do you realize that if you look at [Donald Trump] as a great manager, you have completed the progressive, fundamental hope number one? You take the president and you make him nothing more than an administrator," Glenn explained. "The president is a guy who just manages the bureaucracy. You don't need a president. You don't need the Constitution. You don't need the Congress. You need a guy who just manages the bureaucracy."

Still not convinced Donald Trump is a progressive akin to Woodrow Wilson? Just listen to his new campaign song with children---creepily similar to Obama's kiddie propaganda song from 2008. What inspired Trump's anthem? A song from World War I used by none other than Woodrow Wilson.

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Donald Trump probably had five boos last night. If you think you're going to unite the party around that guy, it's not going to happen. It's just not going to happen. He is a torch and burn everything that doesn't agree with him. He is Barack Obama. He's doing the same thing that Barack Obama -- you disagree with him, it doesn't matter if he liked you in the past. It doesn't matter if he said I had all my attorneys turn this inside and out. He's totally qualified. If it stands in his way, he'll say and do anything. He will destroy you to get his way.

What difference is it?

By the way, I saw something on a Facebook post that said -- because here's what I wrote last night.

While I strongly disagree with Donald Trump's view on Muslims, I believe he will only grow in numbers because Jeb Bush, believe it or not, who I also disagree with, was right. People are afraid because this president has denied the problem, can't name it, and has made us much less safe. That's what Jeb Bush said last night. And that's exactly right. People want security. And they don't believe anyone in Washington, DC, or anyone in the media anymore. They know that they've been lied to by the people that -- the people who trust radical Muslims in Iran more than they trust those who attend church in small towns all across America. They are tired. They know they've worked hard. They're not getting ahead. They don't even know what we're fighting this war for anymore. They're tired of seeing excuses made for criminals, illegals, people who burn down towns like Baltimore or Ferguson. And those who kill in the name of Islam. Always an excuse for those people, but never an exception for Americans. It's bottom up, top down, inside out. Things are so out of control that people rise up and cry out, "Help! Won't somebody do something?" They want somebody just to take care of the problem.

The bottom rises in despair, the top answers their call. Oh, I'll fix that problem. And it finalizes the transformations and turns us inside out. People never make good decisions in times like this. We made shameful mistakes in World War II. A progressive FDR had a problem with immigration, and they called them at that time saboteurs. We would call them terrorists today. German terrorists. We worried about Japanese saboteurs. Before Pearl Harbor happened, FDR had already drawn up his plans for concentration camps. Which, by the way, internment camp is not what FDR called them. FDR always referred to them as concentration camps. The moment he had an excuse of December 7th, he rounded up the Japanese. The guy who ran that program for a very short period of time was Dwight Eisenhower's brother. Dwight Eisenhower's brother resigned and told the new guy, "I hope you can sleep tonight. I can't sleep anymore because this is so terribly wrong."

People were afraid, and so they violated their principles because the government had failed to do their job and screen out the few and tell the truth about the German and Japanese people as it was growing in strength. They allowed FDR to do it because it allowed them to feel safe and it allowed them to not have to do any of it themselves. They didn't even have to think about it.

This was then. Too many Americans now want somebody to think for them. Quite honestly, watching Donald Trump last night, he sounded a lot like my uncle Bob. My uncle Bob, I don't talk about very much because my uncle Bob was not a good man. My uncle Bob, quite honestly, was an alcoholic and an abusive man. And after a few beers in, he would slur some rant and many people would say, "Damn right, pop!" He would never really say anything of substance. He would never suggest any real solutions. My uncle Bob was just mad. He would just say things that other people on barstools had said or would want to hear.

And as the day grew late, in the end, they'd just slap each other on the back and say, "Damn, right, Bob." And they would order another Rainier beer.

Will America think -- will they think, or will they actually go for another man with little or no detail, who just simply calls for hope and change? Or in this case, I'll make America great again.

Here is a response to that on Facebook last night that I read this morning when I got up.

A guy said, "Glenn, you don't understand. It's not that we don't -- we Trump supporters aren't thinking for ourself. We are thinking for ourself. It's not that we think he's going to fix all our problems." Now, listen to this. I want you to listen to this closely. Because if anybody in this audience thinks I've changed. That I'm the one that has changed. Listen carefully to what he said.

We just see Donald Trump as a great manager. Now, can anyone tell me why that might set me off and be proof that I haven't changed, you have?

PAT: Philip Dru: Administrator.

GLENN: Thank you, Pat.

Do you realize that if you look at him as a great manager, you have completed the progressive, fundamental hope number one? You take the president and you make him nothing more than an administrator. The president is a guy who just manages the bureaucracy. You don't need a president. You don't need the Constitution. You don't need the Congress. You need a guy who just manages the bureaucracy. Philip Dru: Administrator. That's exactly what you are seeing in Donald Trump, a progressive that doesn't say the problem is government. He says the problem is the dumb people in government. We've got the wrong people in government. We've got the wrong managers. We have the wrong people negotiating.

Ronald Reagan said, "The problem is the government." Our Founders said, "The problem is the government." Donald Trump says it's the people running the government.

He's not proposing that we shut down whole sections of the government. He's saying, "I'll manage it better."

That's not constitutional. The favorite -- his favorite novel, Woodrow Wilson. Oh, I hate that guy! Woodrow Wilson, his favorite novel was a novel called Philip Dru: Administrator. He read it like three or four times during his administration. It was written by a progressive to put it in novel form of how our government will work when we've completed this task.

It's a horrible book. But it's available for free. I think you can get it on Amazon.com. It's one of those books that is in the public domain so you can download it for free and read it. It's horrible, horrible, horrible, like dime-store novel fiction.

But when you read it, you'll meet Donald Trump. He's a reluctant servant. He just doesn't want to do it. I have a life of my own. I'm not the guy to be your president. I don't need this job. I don't want this job. Okay. Well, I'm the only guy that can do it. I happen to be in the right place at the right time. And damn it, I just care about my country. So I will. And I'll go in there and I'll serve. And I'm going to go in there and I'll fix this because we have all the wrong people running everything. Congress is all screwed up. The administration is all screwed up. I'll just go in. I'm a humble servant. And I'll just go in and I'll manage this right.

Well, about halfway through the book, he has managed things exactly right. In fact, he's managed things so great that he's decided to put a new council together to go state by state and manage the states as well. Because the states don't really work. And the Constitution as it stands doesn't really work. You can't get things done fast enough. And many times the state constitutions argue against things that are now in the US Constitution. So we all have to come together and work together. And I can do that because there's a lot of these politicians that are just standing in the way. But I'm a good manager. And you know me. I just care about the country.

Philip Dru: Administrator. It's happening. No, Glenn, it can't happen. He's a Republican.

The Republicans started the progressive party. It was Theodore Roosevelt.

GLENN: Can we play the audio? Remember the audio of -- of Barack Obama when he had the kids sing and everybody was really creeped out by this audio.

(music)

GLENN: Do you remember how all of us -- all of us said, "That is creepy. That is creepy propaganda that's now being pushed out for the kids?" I'd like to play a new song by a new candidate. Here it is.

(music)

PAT: Yeah! Everybody!

(music)

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: What, you have a problem with this?

PAT: Oh, man.

STU: Yeah.

(music)

PAT: Isn't that great?

GLENN: So president Donald Trump is going to make things great again. A new song for kids which I think is fantastic. And what I really, really like and I think is super is the fact that it's based on a song from World War I used by -- gosh, I can't remember who that guy was. Jeez. I know I hate him.

STU: Isn't his last name I Hate That Guy?

GLENN: I hate that guy. Oh, yeah. Woodrow Wilson. What a surprise.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Glenn Beck Program

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

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.