Donald Trump Will Fundamentally Transform the Presidency

December 13, 2016

WRITER

Just as Barack Obama promised to --- and succeeded in --- transforming the United States of America, so too will Donald Trump fundamentally transform America and the presidency, possibly more than anyone else. Woodrow Wilson and FDR changed it a great deal, but will President-elect Trump take it even further than President Obama?

"He is going to fundamentally transform the media, the media that comes out of the White House, the way the president communicates, the way the president is viewed, the things the president can say and do, the way the president behaves, and I think the fundamental structure of the presidency itself," Glenn said Tuesday on radio.

Is that a good or a bad thing?

"Just let me make the same warning to the right that I gave to the left in 2008: Don't push the pendulum too far. If you allow the president to have all kinds of unlimited power, and you like it because it's your side, remember the pendulum will swing back just as far, if not further. And at some point, there will be an emergency, and some president is going to grab the pendulum," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Let me go back to what we were talking about. Because I made a statement that I believe that Donald Trump will change and fundamentally transform the United States of America and the presidency, possibly more than anyone else did, besides -- no, I think even more so. Woodrow Wilson and -- Woodrow Wilson and -- and FDR changed it a great deal. And I think Donald Trump is going to take it further than Barack Obama did. And you can look at that as a good thing or a bad thing. Just let me make the same warning to the right that I gave to the left in 2008.

Don't push the pendulum too far. If you -- if you allow the president to have all kinds of unlimited power and you like it because it's your side -- remember, the pendulum will swing back just as far, if not further. And at some point, there will be an emergency, and some president is going to grab the pendulum.

PAT: And if you don't believe that, it's happened both ways since you started talking about this during the Bush administration. It swung to the left.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: And we had Obama. Now it swung way back to the right, and we got Trump.

GLENN: So here's what's really interesting -- let me just take you through this pendulum, and then I'll get to the reason why I say this with the prediction.

If you -- if you look in 2001, we were already really angry with the left and right. We were already really angry with each other because of 2000, right? The election. It was selected not elected. It was all of that.

Then it was George Bush knew. He was part of 9/11. They forgot that it was Sandy Berger that went in and stole all the documents. So we know the Clintons had something to hide as well. But I don't believe the Clintons nor George Bush knew the World Trade Centers were coming down, had any indication at all. It's just that we excuse a lot of things from the Saudis. Okay?

That's the only thing I think they were covering up. We excuse a lot from the Saudis. So we were already mad. And then what happened?

9/11 was such a crystallizing moment for, what?

What happened to us, as a people? And really, me and you, all of us, what happened to us at 9/11?

First of all, we all loved each other, right? We even looked at Nancy Pelosi, standing there, singing God bless America. And we were like, "You know what, she and Harry Reid, they love the country just as much as we do. And we're all in this together." Right? That was the first reaction.

And what were they singing? Governor God Bless America. Okay. Not a problem. But then we became jingoistic. Then everything was wrapped in the red, white, and blue. The Patriot Act. The phrase even, "You're either with us or you're against us." And if you were against us, you were un-American.

And what did Hillary Clinton say? "I am tired of being told that if I have a different opinion than my -- right?

So who did we elect? We elected a guy who people in the country actually believed wasn't an American. And he was probably the most unlike an American president, more than anyone else. Would you agree with that?

He was an American. I don't question any of that.

STU: I mean, as far -- you're not outing yourself as a birther years after the birther controversy?

GLENN: No. No.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Never been a birther. Here's the thing: Is there a president that was more -- that had a different view of America, a different upbringing of America than any other president? Any other president have more of a different view of America?

STU: To illustrate this point, the Clinton campaign specifically had internal memos that said, "We're not going to point out that he -- we're never going to say that he doesn't have an American background. But he's not going to relate to the center of the country."

This is back in 2007 and 2008. And this was one of the things they thought they could press on, all the time. Constantly talk about Hillary and her upbringing and the fact that she's been in America the whole time.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And she has those same values. They even saw that as a point of differentiation.

GLENN: Right. It's not good or bad. It just is. The guy grew up in a different -- more different than any other president that we've ever had. Okay?

Spent a lot of his time, not even overseas in Europe, which is similar, but Asia, which is completely different than what we know as the American experience.

So he comes in. His name is Barack Obama. The pendulum had swung so far to the baseball, apple pie, and mom, and red, white, and blue, that when it swung back, it swung to a guy named Barack Obama.

Then I said at that time, "If he is elected -- because he was so click. Remember, pendulum also (sound effect) shoe. Remember all of that from George W. Bush?

STU: Right.

GLENN: Where he was at times seemed incapable of coming up with easy words.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Barack Obama, never lost for words. Barack Obama, on prompter, slick, slick, slick. No George Bush moments, at least to be seen of Barack Obama trying to get the doors opened in China. No, you know, turkey sticking his, you know, face into the president's pants. All of those faux pas, completely eradicated. The halo. So it swings all the way back.

At the time, we're going to have a gravy stain guy that said, "Yeah, I farted. Everybody farts, right?" Well, that pretty much is Donald Trump.

STU: Completely right. That prediction -- the pendulum theory on that worked exactly the way you said it was going to work.

GLENN: Exactly right. Exactly right. So what does the pendulum going go back to? I'm not sure yet. But no place good. No place good.

STU: I'll tell you where it goes back to. He's in the Trump Tower right now, meeting with Donald Trump. His name's Kanye West. Kanye 2020. That's what it ends up as.

GLENN: I think if we're lucky, it swings back to Tom Hanks. We look for an adult in the room. And it swings back to somebody like Tom Hanks. But it could swing to a Kanye West.

STU: We're at the point now we're not even considering people who aren't celebrities. It's either Kanye or Tom Hanks. Which one is it going to be?

GLENN: So here is the reason why I say that Donald Trump is going to change the presidency more than any other president ever.

We have said for a long time, "This job is too big. This job is just -- how come you be somebody who has run a company, is perfectly clean in everything, is -- can -- can use the media and understand how to communicate ideas -- how can you be all of those things?"

We've said forever, "You can't. You can't."

And so we've gone -- we have gone for people who just know the Constitution. But that's not very popular.

Look at, Ted Cruz was the worst when it comes to communication skills. The worst.

But he is -- in my opinion, he was the most competent on the -- on the dais. The most competent.

Now, a lot of people thought, "Oh, I like Ted Cruz, but he's just the worst when it comes to presentation. So I'll go for Marco Rubio. I'll go for Donald Trump." A lot of people went for Donald Trump because, quote, he could win. He will beat Hillary. He will beat the press.

Well, that's only one part of the presidency.

Donald Trump is meeting today with Kanye West. What could he possibly have to say to Kanye West? Nothing. The guy is a showman. The guy is -- he is putting together a show for America.

Now, I think that's important. And it may be -- to get things done, it may one of the most important things. But how he puts everything together, I don't know.

But look at how he's already changed.

The president, under George W. Bush, was -- was an honored space. You didn't go in -- you didn't go into the Oval Office -- think of this. During the George Bush administration, a lot of people were up in arms because one of the girls volleyball teams or something -- a couple of the girls showed up in the Oval Office wearing flip-flops. Do you remember that controversy?

STU: Yes. Yeah.

GLENN: Okay. Somebody was in the picture, in the Oval Office wearing flip-flops.

The president, until Barack Obama, didn't carry a phone. The controversy of him carrying a phone -- who do you need to call? You're the president. They'll get them on the phone for you. Why do you need a phone?

Now it has swung back so far from that, that we can tell you when the president-elect gets up at night to go pee. It's usually about 3 o'clock in the morning because that's when he tweets again. So he's getting up in the morning to take a pee, sitting down on the crapper and deciding to tweet something, then go back to bed.

He is going to fundamentally transform the media, the media that comes out of the White House, the way the president communicates, the way the president is viewed, the things the president can say and do, the way the president behaves, and I think the fundamental structure of the presidency itself.

Featured Image: President-elect Donald Trump and Kanye West stand together in the lobby at Trump Tower, December 13, 2016 in New York City. President-elect Donald Trump and his transition team are in the process of filling cabinet and other high level positions for the new administration. (Photo by Drew Angerer/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.

Glenn's Show Prep