Samantha Bee of 'Full Frontal' Talks With Glenn About Bridging the Divide

What does it mean to be men and women of good will? What does it mean to love your neighbor as you would love yourself? What does that look like in action? We need to figure it out because it's the only way we can find peace on earth and peace with each other.

Samantha Bee, host of Full Frontal with Samantha Bee on TBS, joined Glenn in studio Wednesday to begin a dialogue about uniting our divided nation. While the two would traditionally be viewed as opponents, even adversaries, based on their political views, they both believe we've got to get back to place where we can listen to others, hear their opinions and be open to different viewpoints.

RELATED: After Winning a Divided Election, Thomas Jefferson Gave a Unifying Message

“People are receiving their news in their own bubble of the internet. It’s very difficult to penetrate that with actual information,” Bee said. “I don’t really know how to penetrate that. I don’t think anybody really does.”

As a result of that information bubble, many people define others by who or what they hate --- and it's no way to come together and find common ground.

How do we heal the divide? It starts one conversation at a time, by taking a risk and reaching outside your comfort zone.

"If we can find honest people who are actually struggling with that --- how we do this without causing more problems --- we will make it. We will make it," Glenn said.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these questions:

• Why did Samantha want to talk with Glenn?

• Does Glenn think Samantha has a potty mouth?

• Should presidents be messianic figures?

• Is Samantha an American?

• Why is civil discourse essential?

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

GLENN: Joining us now -- and she just said, "Wow, this is real." And I said, "No, I think most people would think this is unreal."

SAMANTHA: Maybe.

GLENN: From Full Frontal, Samantha Bee. And we don't know each other.

SAMANTHA: No.

GLENN: We've talked to each other once last night for about 25 minutes.

SAMANTHA: Yes. It was a very pleasant conversation. It was great.

GLENN: It was.

SAMANTHA: Yeah.

GLENN: Why are you here?

SAMANTHA: I don't know. (laughter)

I don't know. Why are you having me here?

I'm here. We're doing -- well, we're doing a piece -- we're doing a piece with Glenn, and so you generously invited me to be on your show. We are merging worlds in a way.

GLENN: In a way.

SAMANTHA: In a way.

GLENN: Because I'm sure we haven't talked about it, but I'm sure there are many things we don't agree on.

SAMANTHA: I can pretty much guarantee that for sure.

GLENN: Yeah. So --

SAMANTHA: I don't think that's a bad thing.

GLENN: I don't either.

SAMANTHA: I don't see that as -- I don't see that as a bad thing.

GLENN: I think people trying to control people's lives is a bad thing.

SAMANTHA: Yes. I do agree with you.

GLENN: Oh, my -- the first thing off her mouth --

SAMANTHA: What! What!

GLENN: Your world is coming crumbling down.

STU: You are a sellout.

SAMANTHA: Uh-oh.

GLENN: Did you lose some crazy bet? And now here you are.

SAMANTHA: I'm winning the bet. I'm here.

GLENN: Saying I agree with Glenn.

SAMANTHA: It's okay with us to agree with each other on some things. I feel like there's a shared humanity, right?

GLENN: There is.

SAMANTHA: We really literally have to have conversations with people we don't agree with. It's essential.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

SAMANTHA: And I do feel like -- I'm sure that a lot of your listeners or your viewers have either not watched your show, or they have watched my show and they have not -- and turned it off.

GLENN: Yes. Turned it off in anger.

SAMANTHA: Or, you know, one interesting thing that happened on our show -- we went to the conventions, of course. And while I was at the Republican convention, so many people there came up to me privately and said, "Oh, my God, I love your show. It's really funny."

GLENN: I think you're really funny.

SAMANTHA: Thank you. Well, I wasn't really --

GLENN: You have a potty mouth.

SAMANTHA: I wasn't fishing for a compliment.

(laughter)

Definitely have a potty mouth for sure.

GLENN: Yes.

SAMANTHA: But people I think -- I think people on both sides of the aisle can appreciate a well-crafted joke. And I do think it's essential to be able to make fun of yourself. It's just --

GLENN: Uh-huh. Is there a problem -- because this is -- you'll notice that -- I mean, except for the conservatives that have a stick lodged someplace.

SAMANTHA: Sure.

GLENN: Or Al Gore and Tipper, when they were against the -- you know, wanted the parental labels on CDs or albums, I think at the time.

SAMANTHA: Albums, I remember those.

GLENN: Yeah.

The -- most people don't have a problem with The Simpsons because they know The Simpsons might take your guy on and hit him hard in the face.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And the very next joke or the very next episode, going to hit the other side just as hard.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Do you think that comedy -- you know, The Daily Show and your show, do you think you do that? Do you think you hit your side just as hard?

SAMANTHA: I think that we look for those opportunities for sure. I think that, you know, we launched in a very particular moment in American politics. I mean, we launched at the beginning, really, of campaign season. And so there was just a plethora of material.

GLENN: Sure.

SAMANTHA: For us to select from.

GLENN: Sure.

SAMANTHA: I think that moving forward, that will happen more and more for sure. But there's no -- there's...

GLENN: Here's why I ask this question.

SAMANTHA: Yeah. Are you going to show a little bit of our show to acclimatize people to the tone?

GLENN: Uh, no.

SAMANTHA: You don't need -- that's okay. I promise, some of you will really like it. It's very edgy.

GLENN: No. I -- I like it. It is -- it is -- I used to -- I was much more of an artist with the F-word than you ever will be.

SAMANTHA: Okay. Oh. Oh.

GLENN: Yeah.

SAMANTHA: Okay.

GLENN: And then I found Jesus and all of that stuff.

SAMANTHA: Sure.

GLENN: So I've cleaned up my act. And so it is a little assaulting for viewers that are not used to that -- you know, Mike Huckabee will watch it and say, "I've never heard a woman use the F-word before."

SAMANTHA: Well, he would 100 percent find me to be nasty.

GLENN: Yes.

SAMANTHA: Yes.

GLENN: He might go farther than that.

SAMANTHA: He would go further than that.

GLENN: You may be from the underworld.

SAMANTHA: Definitely from the upside down.

GLENN: But, anyway, I find you very, very funny.

PAT: We actually have played clips of your show.

SAMANTHA: Which -- I was curious about that because you mentioned that last night.

STU: We can play -- as you might know --

SAMANTHA: In like a favorable way, right?

STU: Yes. No, actually --

PAT: Donald Trump can't read.

JEFFY: Yeah.

SAMANTHA: Trump can't read.

STU: We thought that was really funny.

PAT: And -- that was very funny. And the trolls in Russia. We played --

JEFFY: Yeah, the hacker.

GLENN: We spent an hour talking about the trolls in Russia.

SAMANTHA: Did you?

PAT: Yeah.

STU: That was really interesting. How the heck did you find those people?

SAMANTHA: Well, you know, we have an incredible research team.

STU: Yeah, ours sucks.

JEFFY: Yeah, no kidding.

GLENN: We got this guy.

STU: We have that guy. He just sits over there and types --

SAMANTHA: Oh, boy. That's it. The whole team.

GLENN: Well, he ate the whole team.

(laughter)

SAMANTHA: You know, we have -- yeah, we have an -- we have just an amazing team of people. And we had one woman who was able to -- she just ended up in I don't know chat rooms. I don't know what she did to kind of infiltrate that world. But she ended up chitchatting a paid Russian troll. And, you know, the story was born out of that. And then it just kind of grew and grew. And then we decided it was worth it to go to Russia and speak to them in person.

PAT: Did you ever at any point believe they might be not the real thing?

SAMANTHA: Not real.

PAT: Yeah.

SAMANTHA: Well, you know, you have to treat them -- you have to -- obviously, you have to be very suspicious.

PAT: Yeah.

SAMANTHA: I think we did our absolute best due diligence with them.

PAT: Uh-huh.

SAMANTHA: And we determined that we were comfortable -- we were comfortable believing that they were real. And I believe that they were real.

PAT: It sounded like they were.

SAMANTHA: Since the story aired, Russian media has tried to discredit the story in various ways. But that's kind of what they do.

JEFFY: They do.

GLENN: So is it disturbing to you at all because we've been on this Russian thing for, four years? Three years? About the influence of Russia and Putin. And it's interesting because a lot of people that were -- were okay with that in saying, "Yeah, okay. I believe you. Yeah, that's wrong. That's bad. That's dangerous."

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: In the last year, many of them have said, "That's propaganda. That's crazy. That's not happening." Or it's, "So what?"

SAMANTHA: Right.

GLENN: Does it bother to you that we seem to be playing musical chairs, that under the last president I was freaked out and thinking, "Oh, my gosh." And now, under this president, you're saying, "Oh, my gosh."

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh. Well, it's not just me saying it. There are a lot more people.

GLENN: No, no. I am saying it -- I'm saying it as well.

SAMANTHA: Yeah.

GLENN: But the point that at least I have been trying to make and many people in our audience have been trying to make -- and we were never taken serious is no president should ever make you feel that way. Not because we elect the great guys. Our Founders knew, they're going to elect bad guys. It's the balance of power. No man should have so much power that he can reach into your life and change our culture and change everything.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Do you see that? Or?

SAMANTHA: I -- you know, I guess fundamentally I don't really trust anyone. I don't really --

GLENN: We don't either.

SAMANTHA: I don't really -- I just don't see presidents or -- I don't -- as these messianic figures.

GLENN: Right.

SAMANTHA: I just don't think that any one person or leader is going to be everything to everybody. And, of course -- you know, the pendulum swings.

GLENN: Yes.

SAMANTHA: It --

PAT: Uh-huh.

SAMANTHA: It's -- I think what we're going through right now feels very different to me, in my experience, which is limited because, remember, I'm an immigrant. And this is the first election that I was able to vote in.

GLENN: You're from, where?

SAMANTHA: So that was -- I'm from Canada, you guys.

GLENN: Oh, that's not an immigrant.

PAT: Oh.

STU: I'm a Bluejays fan.

SAMANTHA: That's a total -- my immigrant experience, I came across with my babushka. You know.

GLENN: Yeah.

So it's not that -- the thing that I think we can unite on that I -- and it seems -- it seems almost eye-roll stupid, but it's not, is the Bill of Rights.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: The Bill of Rights -- we all agree -- you know, I was dumb enough in 2003 to go, "Oh, George Bush, he'd never misuse the Patriot Act." By 2006, I'm like, "Oh, my gosh, how stupid was I." Then -- and left -- you know, the people on the left were right there.

And the reason why a lot of us didn't listen to that warning was because, "You're just the other side. You're just against George Bush."

Oh, my God, shut up.

And now, under Barack Obama, it expanded and got worse. And under this guy, it's going to expand and get even worse.

SAMANTHA: Do you feel like the world is going to be -- or our world -- at least I feel -- and this is part of the reason why we're here today is because I do think that it's important for us to kind of redraw the lines a little bit. I don't think that it's as clear-cut as left and right or liberal and conservative anymore. I feel like --

GLENN: True liberals --

SAMANTHA: -- you need to form alliances in a different way now. I think that, you know, there are things that are imperiled now, or certainly there feels like there's an urgency and there feels like there's violence in the air to me.

And I think that it's going to be more important than ever for people to kind of reach into areas where they wouldn't necessarily feel comfortable and hold hands with people --

GLENN: I agree.

SAMANTHA: -- in a different way.

And I think -- you know -- and it's more about -- and it's more than just talking, too. It's actually more than just civil discourse.

Civil discourse is really, for me, just the beginning of change.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. Yes.

SAMANTHA: You know, that's a nice place to start. It's a very privileged idea that we can all sit here and go, "We should speak to each other nicely. We should actually be civil."

GLENN: Yes. We should do more -- we should also listen to each other.

SAMANTHA: Speak nice. Speak -- you know, speak properly to each other.

GLENN: Yes.

SAMANTHA: Listen to one another. But then there's an action moment too, where you have to -- you have to defend people. You have to stand up for people who are imperiled in this new world. You have to take action. I don't know what the action moment is. We do have to find it.

GLENN: It will come. It will present itself. Don't look for trouble. It will come. Be prepared for trouble.

SAMANTHA: This is all so comforting.

GLENN: No, no. But don't you --

SAMANTHA: Yeah.

GLENN: You just prepare for it. And then if it doesn't come, it doesn't come. But if it does, we'll know it when it comes. And then we are prepared and united to stand on common principles.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But no one wants to talk about common principles. Everybody is talking about policies. And that's been our problem -- that's been my problem. I wanted you here because I think you felt -- you feel right now like I felt -- not in '08, but in '12.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Where I thought, "Okay." For instance, TIME Magazine just made Donald Trump person of the year.

SAMANTHA: Sure.

GLENN: And in the headline, it says, "President of the divided states of America."

I completely agree with that. But there's a lot of people that will look at that and go, "Really? Slap across the face." Where Newsweek, in '08, ran the headline and the cover, "We're all socialists now."

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Dismissing the good portion of the population that was like, "No, I'm not a socialist. I don't want to be a socialist. No."

So one side just dismissed the other. And we're still doing that. Just dismissing.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: In '12, I'm -- I was shocked that the American people could know all of this information and still vote for him because of, I thought, lies, of doctors cutting off of feet, and everything else. And you feel that way now about Donald Trump. So do I.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But you kind of lost faith in, "Crap, it's not just the president, it's the people around me too. I don't understand how they're disconnecting from truth. They're just accepting it." Do you understand what I'm saying?

SAMANTHA: I do. But I'm not sure I know what the question is.

GLENN: So my question is: How do we take on -- how do you take on your side and say, "You know what, there are some things that -- lying about Benghazi did matter. It did matter."

SAMANTHA: There are consequences to lies.

GLENN: Right.

SAMANTHA: I think we are seeing that. I don't really know how to --

GLENN: How do you mean that? We're seeing that?

SAMANTHA: When you -- well, there are just false narratives. There's -- I mean, we've all been talking about fake news. We were talking about it on the show the other night.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

SAMANTHA: There's so much distrust. There's so much -- we -- you know, people are receiving their news in their own bubble of the internet.

GLENN: Yes.

SAMANTHA: It's very difficult to penetrate that with actual information.

GLENN: On both sides.

SAMANTHA: I agree.

GLENN: We're self-selecting out.

SAMANTHA: Well, of course.

I don't really know how to -- I don't really know how to penetrate that. I don't think anybody really does.

GLENN: But that's what we're here for.

SAMANTHA: But that is why we -- that is why we need to be so vigilant and so diligent and do things in a different way and take ownership of those.

GLENN: We're going to spend some more time together. I'm doing something for your show.

SAMANTHA: No. Delightful.

GLENN: And then we're going to spend some time on Facebook.

But -- look at that look. "Delightful."

SAMANTHA: No, it is. It's going to be delightful.

GLENN: Look at that look. I saw that look.

SAMANTHA: Don't -- don't read anything sinister of that. It will be fun, I promise.

GLENN: All right. It is nice to meet you.

SAMANTHA: It is so nice to meet you.

Featured Image: Samantha Bee, host of 'Full Frontal with Samantha Bee' on TBS on 'The Glenn Beck Program', December 8, 2016.

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.