Which Alternate Universe Does Newt Gingrich Live In?

October 26, 2016

Writer

If Newt Gingrich's alternate universe includes a pipe dream in which he outmaneuvers Fox News star Megyn Kelly, he might want to consider changing realities.

In a bizarre encounter with the host of The Kelly File, the former Speaker of the House and Trump devotee got into a sparring match that left him looking petty, angry and unhinged. Kelly, on the other hand, came off as calm, cool and collected.

"I'm listening to this, and I'm thinking, Her poor husband and children ever trying to pick a fight with mom or the wife? You're dead. You're dead. Listen, you know she's angry, yet she is completely emotionless," Glenn said on radio Wednesday.

Co-host Pat Gray agreed.

"She's completely under control, and he's out of control," he said.

Gingrich's universe also includes the state of Pennsylvania magically allowing early voting.

"They're outvoting Democrats in Pennsylvania. That's unprecedented. ...All I can report to you right now is they're outvoting the Democrats in early voting, which is also true in Florida," Gingrich claimed.

However, co-host Stu Burguiere made a very salient point.

"We're talking about two alternative universes, and we need to find those universes. One is the universe where Donald Trump is winning in an unprecedented way: The early vote in Pennsylvania. The other universe is the one we live in, in which Pennsylvania does not allow early voting. That's the other universe," he said.

"Holy cow," Glenn replied.

Alternate universe, indeed.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these controlled questions:

• Which candidate is consistently polling ahead in Pennsylvania?

• Do facts matter if you're a Trump supporter?

• Does Gingrich consider Fox News part of the MSM?

• Which three states has Fox News moved to the left as a likely win for Hillary?

• Is it acceptable for a gentleman to publicly accuse a woman of being obsessed with sex?

• Has Trump's crassness rubbed off on Gingrich?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Last night, it was Megyn Kelly versus Newt Gingrich on the facts. It was -- it was quite an amazing thing. And I think Newt Gingrich said everything right towards the beginning when he said, "We are dealing with two alternative universes." And he's right. I think there is the universe that Newt Gingrich is living in and the universe that everyone else is living in. But maybe it's just me.

I want you to listen to this. And we could take clips, but as I was watching it this morning, I thought to myself, "Man, I could stop it at three different points and say, that was incredible. That was incredible to watch."

But wait, there's more. I think you need to hear the whole thing in context. Listen to this.

NEWT: Good to be back.

MEGYN: I mean, with Cook and many other non-partisan, independent pollsters now saying that the Senate is likely lost to the Republicans, what does that say? I mean, if Donald Trump loses this White House race and the Republicans lose the Senate, does that suggest that the Republicans nominated the wrong candidate at the top of their ticket?

NEWT: Well, the next two weeks are a contest of two parallel universes. I just listened to that report.

First of all, I used to hang with Charlie Cook when he would explain that Donald Trump was hopeless and would not get the nomination. I like Charlie. That doesn't mean he's infallible.

GLENN: Okay. Stop for a second.

I want to just say something here. There's something that I want to get to later. Michael Moore says Donald Trump is going to win. And when you hear his explanation of why he believes he's going to win, I think he has a good point. I think he may be right. And it was what I was talking about yesterday and what I was saying to the people up in New York, who are in the mainstream media. Who say, Donald -- Hillary Clinton is going to win. I'm not so sure of it.

STU: Typical Glenn. Glenn Beck is dumb!

GLENN: You should turn your mic on.

STU: It is on.

GLENN: Oh, it's just not working today? Good. Thank you, guys. Thank you for finally getting it done. Stu's mic is not working.

GLENN: But you need to listen to that. We'll get to that in a second. But I want to point out here that when you're watching this -- Newt Gingrich throws up his hands and shrugs his shoulders when he says -- when Megyn says, "If they lose the Senate, does that mean they nominated the wrong person?" He just shrugs it off as, "Eh, I don't know. We're in two parallel universes." If we lose the Senate or the House, that's a really bad thing. Can we all agree that we're in that universe, that that's a bad thing? Now.

NEWT: Report we just got. Republicans are actually outvoting Democrats in Florida. They're outvoting Democrats in Pennsylvania. That's unprecedented. They've cut the Democratic lead --

MEGYN: You predict a win in Pennsylvania?

NEWT: I think they might.

MEGYN: Really? You think Trump's going to win Pennsylvania.

NEWT: Look, all I can report to you right now is they're outvoting the Democrats in early voting, which is also true in Florida, which is unprecedented.

MEGYN: But all the polls in Pennsylvania had her winning.

NEWT: What?

MEGYN: All of the polls in Pennsylvania have her head.

NEWT: I know. I just told you, we have two alternative universes right now.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. So there's one universe where the facts say one thing and another universe where the facts say something else. Stu, can you help me out with the early voting that Democrats are behind and that Republicans are outvoting them?

STU: You know, it's a -- it's an interesting point he's making there. There has been some -- I think Donald Trump's early voting looks pretty good in Iowa, I would say. I would say --

GLENN: In Florida? He's saying that they're --

PAT: Florida and Pennsylvania.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Because he said, again, we're talking about two alternative universes.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: And we need to find those universes. One is the universe where Donald Trump is winning in an unprecedented way: The early vote in Pennsylvania.

The other universe is the one we live in, which Pennsylvania does not allow early voting. That's the other universe. So --

GLENN: Holy cow.

STU: It's going to be -- it would be unprecedented if he was winning the early vote in Pennsylvania.

JEFFY: What?

PAT: Are you kidding?

STU: They don't do it there.

JEFFY: What?

PAT: They don't have early voting in Pennsylvania?

STU: No, that's not a thing.

PAT: What the hell is he talking about?

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: I mean, he's just --

PAT: You don't need a single fact if you're a Trump supporter. You don't need fact one.

GLENN: Wow. Wow.

JEFFY: That's amazing.

STU: That is amazing.

GLENN: Okay. Go ahead. So go ahead.

NEWT: I will -- for example, the Democrats are 50,000 votes behind, where they were with Barack Obama in turnout. The governor is very confident we're going to carry Iowa, which Obama carried last time.

GLENN: Do you agree with that?

STU: I actually --

PAT: Wait. 50,000 behind where they were with Obama doesn't mean they're losing to Trump.

GLENN: I know. And it depends also on '12 or on '08. '08 was unprecedented. So being behind in '08 is not necessarily saying --

STU: And those are good things to consider. I actually do think he's going to win Iowa. I could be wrong on it, and it could change. But his numbers are good in Iowa in the early voting. And his polling has been strong in Iowa throughout, as opposed to other states -- comparing it to other states that are similar or ones --

PAT: Isn't that interesting since Ted Cruz won Iowa in the primary? That's interesting.

STU: Yeah. Iowa has been a strong state for Trump polling against --

PAT: Because they haven't been that strong for Republicans lately.

STU: Right.

PAT: And now --

GLENN: They're still not.

PAT: And they're still not.

GLENN: They're still not. They're still not.

NEWT: -- case like this. In Minnesota, we're almost certainly going to win the congressional seat up around Duluth, which is a very Democratic area. But it deeply dislikes Hillary Clinton. And represent --

MEGYN: But let me just ask you -- let me just ask you, because you say it's two alternative universes. I mean --

NEWT: Yeah.

PAT: Why not North Dakota too? There's a guy running for alderman, who may win, and he doesn't like Hillary either.

GLENN: All right. All right.

PAT: Stupid.

MEGYN: These are sort of small examples of how he might be ahead in early voting and so on. But I'm telling you that the Fox News decision desk just moved Iowa that you just mentioned, Indiana, second congressional district in Maine -- all of them moved left, moved more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton. And, in fact, all of the moves that have been on this map over the past three weeks, by Larry Sabato, by Cook, by the Fox News decision desks -- these are nonpartisan outlets that are just trying to call the electoral --

NEWT: What? They're not nonpartisan outlets. Every outlet you describe is part of the establishment.

MEGYN: Fox News. Really? Are we? I don't think so.

NEWT: Oh, come on.

MEGYN: Every state they've moved, they've moved it to the left, towards the left, towards Hillary. And you tell me whether that's all made up.

PAT: So he's attacking Fox News who has been in the bag for Trump the entire election.

GLENN: I think he's only attacking --

PAT: He may be only attacking Megyn Kelly.

STU: And the Fox News polls.

PAT: Yeah, and the polls.

STU: He's trying is what he's doing. He's doing his best.

GLENN: He's muddying the waters.

PAT: He's grasping at straws.

NEWT: No, I think they're two alternative universes. You have a poll which suggests that she's going to get a Barack Obama turnout among African-Americans. I don't think that's going to happen. You have a Washington Post/ABC News poll when where they took out eight percent of the vote because they didn't like the way it voted.

Look, I've been around long enough. I remember when the Detroit liberal newspaper, on the Sunday before the election, said John (inaudible) would lose by 14 points. He won the governorship that year. I don't take polls as seriously as people who have never run for office.

MEGYN: But your candidate -- your candidate loves them and has touted them from the beginning. And he's been behind in virtually every one of them, out of the last 40 polls that we've seen over the past month. That's the reality.

STU: The important point to remember here -- because I think a lot of Trump people realize this, but in case you're on the Newt Gingrich bandwagon, the issue with the problem with the primary was not saying the polls were wrong and Donald Trump was losing and then he wound up winning. It was that he was winning the whole time. And people, like myself, for example, gave you reasons why the polls probably were not going to work out in Donald Trump's favor. And they did. He wound up winning. But he was winning the whole time. So now the same people that were questioning the polls and saying -- or, questioning the polls now that they were saying they were right then. The point here seems to be that the polls are right. The polls have done a pretty good job in predicting these things.

GLENN: Well, the polls showed him winning at the time against his candidates. But they showed him losing against Hillary.

STU: The same polls.

GLENN: The same polls.

STU: The same methodology. The same organizations.

GLENN: Right. It's why we were saying during the primary, stop looking at those polls. He's telling you he's winning in everything. He's losing in all of the critical polls which show the head-to-head against Hillary. He was the only one that was losing every single time to Hillary Clinton.

Now, those were the same polls that showed him winning against Marco Rubio, against Ted Cruz. But losing at the same time to Hillary Clinton.

STU: The margin increased, not decreased, but increased as Trump won the primary.

GLENN: Yes. Increased. Yes. Yes.

PAT: Which is a point we tried to make a million times here.

GLENN: Yes. It was going the wrong direction.

STU: The wrong direction. And it's like, to believe that, you have to believe that part of the poll done by the same organization was biased. But the other part of the same poll done by the same organization is not biased. These are not -- these are not, you know, intellectually consistent arguments.

GLENN: No. Because they were done at the same time. It's not like these polls -- it's not like the polls showed him winning against Clinton during the primary. Those same polls showed him losing against --

PAT: I don't think he won a single one during the primary.

GLENN: I don't -- not that I remember. Stu, you'd be better at that.

PAT: Did he win a single poll, head-to-head, during the primary, against Hillary?

STU: I can get you the numbers on that, but I think he did win a couple. All of those that he -- I think he won a couple by one or two points.

GLENN: It was like 51 polls or something --

STU: I think it was over 100.

PAT: It was more than that. Yeah, he had lost 118 out of 120, or something like that.

STU: I can find it.

NEWT: Do you want to assume the election is over? Skip the next two weeks and we can talk about the future.

GLENN: Now, listen to this.

MEGYN: I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking you whether you believe your candidate is behind based on these numbers and what it says about the down-ballot races.

NEWT: I believe the odds are at least one in three and maybe better than that. But the difference in intensity and the difference in determination and the degree to which Hillary Clinton is clearly the most corrupt, dishonest person ever nominated by a party, all mean that the odds are pretty good she's not going to win.

Now, I actually believe that. This is not just because I'm for Donald Trump. I actually believe the American people are sickened by this.

MEGYN: So let me ask you --

NEWT: Sure.

MEGYN: Let's assume she is corrupt. Right? She was just as corrupt three weeks ago and three months ago. And she would have been corrupt and collapsing physically on September 11th of this year and her poll numbers tanked. But then you know what happened: He had a rough first debate. He took the bait on Alicia Machado. He stayed in that trap for a week. The Access Hollywood tape came out, which was not produced by Hillary Clinton. That was Trump, on camera talking about grabbing women --

NEWT: That was -- Megyn, I just heard -- look, I just heard you go through this with Governor Pence. I get it. I know where you're coming from. Let me point out something to you.

MEGYN: Sure.

NEWT: The three major networks spent 23 minutes --

GLENN: That no one watches.

NEWT: Attacking Donald Trump that night and 57 seconds on Hillary Clinton's secret speeches. You don't think this is a scale of bias worth of Pravda and Izvestia. I mean, you want to know why Donald Trump has had a rough time --

MEGYN: If Trump is a sexual predator, that is --

NEWT: He's not a sexual predator. You can't say that. You could not defend that statement.

MEGYN: Okay. That's your opinion. I'm not taking a position on it. I am not taking a position on it.

NEWT: I am sick and tired of people like you, using language --

GLENN: Like you.

NEWT: -- that's inflammatory that's not true.

MEGYN: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. You have no idea whether it's true or not. What we know is that there are at least --

NEWT: Neither do you.

MEGYN: That's right. And I'm not taking a position on it, unlike you.

NEWT: Oh, yes, you are. When you use the words, you took a position. And I think it's very unfair of you to do that, Megyn. I think that is exactly the bias people are upset by.

MEGYN: So what I said -- incorrect.

PAT: Wow.

MEGYN: I think that your defensiveness on this may speak volumes, sir.

What I said -- no, no, let me make my point, and then I'll give you the floor.

What I said is, "If Trump is a sexual predator, then it's a big story." And what we saw on that tape was Trump himself saying that he likes to grab women by the genitals and kiss them against their will. That's what we saw. Then we saw 10 women come forward after he denied actually doing it at a debate to say, "That was untrue. He did it to me. He did it to me." We saw reporters. We saw people who had worked with him. People from Apprentice and so on and so forth. He denies it all, which is his right. We don't know what the truth is.

PAT: Newt knows -- Newt knows her. He should know better than this. You don't take Megyn Kelly head-to-head like this.

GLENN: All I can think of this whole time --

PAT: What are you doing?

GLENN: All I can think of -- I'm listening to this, and I'm thinking, "Her poor husband and children ever trying to pick a fight with mom or the wife. You're dead."

PAT: Bad idea. Bad idea.

GLENN: You're dead. Listen, you know she's angry, yet she is completely emotionless.

PAT: She's completely under control, and he's out of control.

GLENN: And he's out of control, and he's about to really lose control.

MEGYN: To you, as a media story, we don't get to say the ten women are lying. We have to cover that story, sir.

NEWT: Well, sure. Okay. So it's worth 23 minutes of the three networks to cover that story, and Hillary Clinton in a secret speech in Brazil to a bank that pays her 225,000 saying her dream is an open border where 600 million could come to America, that's not worth covering?

MEGYN: That is worth covering. And we did.

NEWT: You want to go back to the tapes of your show recently? You are fascinated about sex, and you don't care about public policy.

MEGYN: Me? Really?

NEWT: That's what I get out of watching you tonight.

PAT: Wow.

MEGYN: You know what, Mr. Speaker, I'm not fascinated by sex. But I am fascinated by the protection of women and understanding what we're getting in the Oval Office. And I think the American voters would like --

NEWT: Okay. So we're going to send Bill Clinton back to the East Wing because, after all, you are worried about sexual predators.

MEGYN: Yeah. Listen, it's not about me. It's about the women and men in America. And the poll numbers show us that the women in America, in particular, are very concerned about these allegations. And in large part believe that they are a real issue. And don't dismiss the --

NEWT: You want to comment -- do you want to comment on whether the Clinton ticket has a relationship to a sexual predator?

MEGYN: We, on the Kelly File, have covered that story as well, sir. I will tell you the polls --

NEWT: No, I just want to hear you use the words. I want to hear the words "Bill Clinton, sexual predator." I dare you. Say "Bill Clinton, sexual predator."

GLENN: Out of control.

MEGYN: Mr. Speaker, we've covered -- excuse me, sir.

NEWT: Disbarred by the Arkansas bar. Disbarred by the Arkansas bar. $850,000 penalty.

MEGYN: Excuse me, sir. We, on the Kelly File, have covered the Clinton matter as well. We have hosted Kathleen Willey.

NEWT: Try saying it.

MEGYN: We've covered the examples of him being accused as well, but he's not on the ticket. And the polls also show that the American people is less interested in the deeds of Hillary Clinton's husband than they are in the deeds of the man who asks us to make him president, Donald Trump.

We're going to have to leave it at that, and you can take your anger issues and spend time working on them, Mr. Speaker.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Kelly File

The Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

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.

Glenn's Show Prep