Author: America Is the 'Most Anxious Nation on the Planet' – Why?

Do you struggle with anxiety? You’re far from alone. Americans are more anxious than ever – and author Max Lucado wanted to find out why. Joining Glenn on radio Tuesday to talk about his latest book, Lucado offered a three-part theory as to what is making Americans so anxious:

1) The world is moving far more quickly than it used to as technology advances

2) People have forgotten how to slow down

3) We’re constantly bombarded with negative news from every corner of the globe

“We are now the most anxious nation on the planet, and this is the most anxious generation since anxiety was ever measured,” Lucado explained the inspiration behind his new book, “Anxious for Nothing.” The title is a reference to the Apostle Paul’s encouragement to Christians in the New Testament book of Philippians to “be anxious for nothing.”

American anxiety is translating not only to a breakdown in community and relationships but also to a higher suicide rate.

“We’re losing the ability to have honest conversations with one another because we live in fear,” Lucado said.

The two fundamental questions in life are “why am I here?” and “where am I headed?” People can only live so long without being able to answer those questions until they become “bitter and jaded and cynical,” Lucado said.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Max Lucado, from San Antonio, Texas. He started a small church in Miami, Florida. And now he's in San Antonio. He's been a pastor for 40 years. He's -- he's authored 34 books, 43 different languages. Ninety-seven million copies of his books are in print. He's been married 34 years. Has a granddaughter. Has three wonderful children and a -- a very important message in his new book Anxious For Nothing. Which, Max, I had to have you on, because I think this is the answer to much of what the world is facing right now. We are so anxious about everything. And through, I think, misdirection.

We're blaming it on all kinds of different things and all different people. But it's -- it's really -- this anxiety -- first of all, where do you think it's coming from? What are we experiencing?

MAX: Thanks for letting me on the program, by the way.

GLENN: Sure. Yeah.

MAX: It's not just an assumption on your part. You know, sociologist after sociologist has told us -- and I document a lot of this in the book -- that we are now the most anxious nation on the planet. And this is the most anxious generation since anxiety was ever measured. Third world countries score higher on the anxiety list than the United States does. So how could this be? We have more gimmicks, more gadgets, more toys, more entertainment than ever, and yet we're wrapped tighter than Egyptian mummies. We're just anxious people. And so it's not just an assumption on your part.

And I think the consequence of this -- of course, it's physical. Just about every malady can be faced back in some form to some form of stress. But I think also it has -- we pay a high price emotionally. We're losing the ability to have honest conversations with one another because we live in fear. We're anxious. And when you're anxious, you hunker down and you withdraw. And the result of that can be a breakdown in fellowship, community, and dialogue.

GLENN: So we also withdraw, but then we also gather in groups -- this thing that's going on with, you know, dopamine right now.

MAX: Yeah.

GLENN: We get constant dopamine hits if we post something nasty on Facebook and it starts to go viral. Our brain is rewarding us for that.

MAX: Yeah.

GLENN: With a feel-good drug. And I don't know how that's going to break. Because we're looking -- and, look, we're strung out on opioids or on dopamine hits. And if you're not doing one of those two things, the suicide rate is going through the roof. People are not built to handle this kind of stress.

MAX: The suicide rate between 1999 and today has gone up 24 percent.

GLENN: Wow.

MAX: Twenty-four percent. Now, if we said that about a particular disease, we'd call that an epidemic. More people than ever are orchestrating their own departure, which gives rise to the question: What is happening in our culture to cause that to occur?

GLENN: So what is it?

MAX: I think from a socialist viewpoint, the comment list includes -- we've seen more change in the last 30 years than we've seen in the last 300. So the world is moving far too fast. Number two, we have not -- we have forgotten how to slow down. Our great-grandparents and ancestors would go only as far as the day as the horse or the camel would go. And then when the sun set, they would slow down. We have forgotten how to do that.

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

MAX: And then also, the bombardment of negative news. Not just political news, but just negative news. If something bad happens in Nepal, I hear about it within five seconds. Whereas, our ancestors never would have heard about it. Or if they did, it would have been five weeks later. So we're just bombarded with negative news. So those are the three things that socialists state. Can I add to that as a pastor?

GLENN: Sure.

MAX: I think secularism is taking its toll on us. Secularism is the belief that there's nothing in life beyond what happens between birth and the grave, and there's nothing beyond the world to help us.

Secularism really sucks the hope out of a culture because if there's nothing more than what I can see and touch and feel and I don't like what I can see and touch and feel, then I think I'll just check out.

GLENN: So I want to play something for you that I saw this morning from Jim Carrey. He was giving an interview yesterday in New York, and it was some fancy celebrity thing. And everybody was reporting this as, look at Jim Carrey, he's kind of slapping down Hollywood and the elites and everything else. I don't think that's what's happening. I want you just to listen to what Jim Carrey said in an interview yesterday. Because he is really unhealthy, or he's just starting to figure life out. And I can't decide which it is.

VOICE: Say, Jim Carrey, yes?

JIM: What?

VOICE: I've covered a lot of Fashion Weeks. This is the first time I've run into Jim Carrey.

Wait. Tell me -- is it true you're wandering the streets? You need a date in the party? What's up?

JIM: No, no, no. I'm doing just fine. I -- you know, there's no meaning to any of this. So I wanted to find the most meaningless thing I could come to and join. And -- and here I am. I mean, you got to admit, it's completely meaningless.

VOICE: Well, they say they're celebrating icons inside. Do you believe in icons?

JIM: Celebrating icons, boy, that is just the absolute lowest aiming, you know, possibility that we could come up with. It's like icons. What are -- do you believe in icons?

I don't believe in personalities. I don't believe that you exist. But there is a wonderful fragrance in the air.

VOICE: You don't believe certain icons have the power to make change, to think differently, to be bold, to inspire others, artistry? You're one of them.

JIM: On the good foot, ha!

Yeah. Shut her down now.

Yeah, no.

VOICE: Yeah.

JIM: No, I don't believe in icons. I don't believe in personalities. I believe that peace lies beyond personality, beyond invention and disguise, beyond the red S that you wear on your chest that makes bullets bounce off. I believe that it's deeper than that. I believe we're a field of energy dancing for itself.

And I don't care.

VOICE: But, Jim, you got really dressed up for the occasion. You look good. Was that an accident?

JIM: No, I didn't get dressed up. I didn't get dressed up.

VOICE: Who did?

JIM: There is no me.

VOICE: There's no you. We're not here. This is a dream?

JIM: No, there's just things happening. And there are --

GLENN: Stop. He is -- he's a guy who has been going through trouble lately, a lot of personal trouble. And to me, this is really concerning.

I like the idea that he says all of this is meaningless. But I think he is to a point to where he means really all of this is meaningless. And there's a fine line between that.

MAX: He seems right on the edge of despair.

GLENN: Yes.

MAX: And despair often is borne out of a sense of utter complete disappointment of life. You know, I have been at the top. I've had the very best. I've had all it could give me. And it's still vain. It's vanity.

You know, there's a book in the Bible called Ecclesiastes. And King Solomon reached that same conclusion. You know, the richest man probably who ever lived. And he said, it's nothing, but, you know -- there's vanity. It has no meaning to me.

And so this cry for meaning, this longing to be a part of something significant is right at the core of the deepest, deepest need of a human being. Why am I here? Where am I going?

GLENN: So where are we finding that now? Now that our churches are, you know, struggling. I think in some cases for good reason. Where do we find it? How do we put this back?

MAX: I know our churches are struggling. And oftentimes because of the way churches are structured, they can be so inauthentic, that they come across to people as simply another way to earn money or to -- to steal from people.

GLENN: Yeah.

MAX: And so that -- that's created disconnection between many people and the church.

I really think though that we are beginning to sense, especially in the millennial generation, a sense of authentic faith among our young people. And it's very, very encouraging. And it's a faith that's really built upon a deep, deep conviction that there is a good God who is up to something good. They don't have all the answers. Don't have all of the questions resolved. But there's a deep, deep conviction, that we're seeing, a fresh move of faith among our young people.

And I find that very encouraging.

GLENN: There are reasons to feel the chaos. There are reasons -- I mean, there's real things that are happening that people's jobs are at stake. They -- they don't know how they're going to make ends meet. Their kids are in trouble. Suicide rate with the youth is through the roof. There's real reason to feel this way.

How do you disconnect from the very real things in your life? The hype of all the things that you shouldn't worry about, and put that in order and then find a peaceful place in it? You know, how did Martin Luther King -- how was he in jail and fine?

How did Dietrich Bonhoeffer thank his executioner? How do you do that?

MAX: And I asked that very question in this book, because I based this book upon the writings of the Apostle Paul. And he wrote this book in a Roman jail cell. And this book called Philippines in the Bible has come to be known as the epistle of joy, and yet there's 1,001 reasons he should not be happy.

GLENN: Right.

MAX: I mean, the emperor was making a living on killing Christians, and probably Paul was next in line. And here, the Apostle Paul is chained to a Roman guard and has every reason to think he'll never see the light of day again. If it is, it's just for a few moments before his head is chopped off. And yet, you read these four chapters, and there's not one word of complaint. Not one word of complaint.

And as you dig into this book, you find in this book really a deep and abiding trust in two simple facts: that there is a good God, and this good God is up to good things.

And so I think that -- and I'm not saying anything that surprises you. I mean, I'm a pastor. I know I'm supposed to say these things. But deep in my heart, I really believe that the cause of anguish and despair is a sense of meaningless.

GLENN: It is.

MAX: Why am I here? Where am I headed? Why am I here? Where am I headed? And if you cannot answer those two fundamental questions in life, I mean, how do you get up on a Monday and go to work? You can only do it so many times before you become bitter and jaded and cynical.

GLENN: I'd add to that that there's -- there's a deep sense I think in all of us, of I want to do something of meaning.

MAX: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And we can't find it. We can't find that something of meaning.

We're talking to Max Lucado. In a second, I want to talk to him about chaos, which we've just been talking about. But calm. C-A-L-M. Calm the chaos. In a minute.

(music)

STU: The book by Max Lucado is Anxious for Nothing: Finding Calm in a Chaotic World.

At some point, I want to ask Max the question my kid asked me the other day with the hurricane bearing down. It was one of those, "Hey, why is God sending the hurricane? Is it to kill people?"

And I thought that was probably -- I didn't want to say yes to that. So I said, "Hey, look, daddy's i Pad is charged. Here you go kid!" That was probably not the response Max will give.

GLENN: Max Lucado, a grew new book everyone should read. It's called Anxious for Nothing: Finding Calm in a Chaotic World.

STU: So this really happened the other day. My son is six. And he's watching some of the -- people talking about the hurricane. My mom lives in Georgia. Was threatened by it at one point.

And he asked, "Why does God send hurricanes? Is it to kill people?" So I surely did not answer the question correctly. But what -- I mean, how do you answer something like that to a 6-year-old?

MAX: Yeah. How do you answer when a 6-year-old's father is diagnosed with cancer or when someone's in a car wreck like a family in our congregation was recently? And the man had his first baby on Monday, and he was killed in a car wreck on Saturday.

It's just these -- these kinds of things, you know, they leave our heads spinning.

GLENN: And it's not even 6-year-olds that ask that. There's 60-year-olds. There's 96-year-olds that ask that question.

MAX: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Why do bad things happen to good people, you know? And I think that's where the heart of the conversation is. The real heart is, is there a God? And if he is a God, what kind of God is he? You know, is there a God? Is he in control? And if he's in control, why do bad things happen?

And I think the Bible talks about that over and over -- you know, Jesus said many times, for example, in this world you will have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I've overcome the world.

The ultimate answer for human suffering, according to the Bible is, it's -- it's not supposed to be this way. It's not supposed to be this way. The world was not created to have hurricanes and tornadoes. Our bodies were not intended to have to deal with cancer cells and heart conditions. My dad died of ALS, you know. And the body -- it's not supposed to be this way.

But there's a good day coming. There's a better day coming. Don't lose hope. Don't give up. I promise I'm going to take what is difficult, tragic, and I'm going to redeem it into something good. And this is what led one Bible writer to say that the promise of the future glory is not worth comparing with the difficulties we have today. In other words, the small potato struggles we have are going to be long forgotten in the next life, in the new life.

I know that requires faith. I know that that's hard for some people to believe.

I've tried not believing it. And I think the idea of not having faith is far more difficult to me than having faith. And so ultimately, the answer is, it's not going to be this way forever.

STU: And I'm going to lay the blame at the feet of Eve. Adam and Eve. Because what you said --

GLENN: I don't --

MAX: Don't give him my email address.

(laughter)

GLENN: Max, I have a great story to share with the audience of -- of, it's how you look at your situation, that we're going to share here in a minute.

And I've run out of time, but I want to come back for one more segment with you. Because I want you to explain C-A-L-M. In a world of chaos, the answer is calm. And we get to that, next.

GLENN: Max Lucado has a new book out called Anxious for Nothing. And as each passing day goes by, I kind of feel like that. I kind of feel like, you know, there are real reasons to be anxious. There's real pressure on right now. The world is changing. But really, how much of that really matters? You know, you either have the faith that it's going to be fine and we're going to make it, or you don't.

And if you don't have the faith, then, you know, it's trouble. You say the answer is calm.

MAX: Yeah. I -- I would even go so far as to say, I think we each have a moral obligation to be peaceful people. You know, we have a moral -- I owe it to you and to you to be as peaceful as I can be. And rather than stir up anxiety everywhere I go, if I can learn to bring peace, like you said earlier, Glenn -- one person is changed, and that person changes a family. That person -- a family changes a community and then a state and then a nation and then the world.

I have a moral obligation to do all I can do to be a peaceful person. Because in the long-term, if enough of us do that, we create a peaceful place. And so that's why I've been so fascinated with this whole theme of anxiety. We're an anxious nation. An anxious nation makes bad decisions. An anxious nation is on edge. An anxious people cannot get along with each other.

Peaceful people, on the other hand have dialogue, have community. Talk through their differences and learn to disagree agreeably. These are characteristics of a peaceful people. So all of that to say, how do you become that? The book in the Bible called Philippines is a book about peace.

And in this book, the apostle says, here's four things you can do: Number one, you celebrate God, the way he says it is. Rejoice in the Lord. Always, again, I say rejoice. He must have been a preacher because he says everything twice. Rejoice in the Lord always. Again, I say rejoice.

So the next time you feel anxious, just take a minute and rejoice in God. Rejoice in the sunshine. Rejoice in his goodness. Rejoice in what you've got.

And then the apostle says, be anxious for nother. There's the phrase. But in everything by prayer and petition, let your requests be made known to God.

So instead of letting the anxiety settle within you, immediately lift the cause or source of that anxiety to God. Make a prayer out of it. Then the apostle says, do this without Thanksgiving. That is to say, leave it God. Then lastly he says, now meditate on good things.

And he gives us a list of like nine different virtues upon which to meditate. In other words, set your mind on better things.

It's a real practical thing, I think, Glenn, that the apostle who had every reason to be stressed out found peace. And he says, here's how I do it.

GLENN: Max, it is good to talk to you. And you have been an influence on my life. And many, many, many people that I know. And it is --

MAX: Oh, thank you.

GLENN: And it is great to have you here.

MAX: And it's mutual. It's mutual. Every conversation is better than the other.

GLENN: Thank you. God bless you.

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Durham annex EXPOSES Soros, Pentagon ties to Deep State machine

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

The Durham annex and ODNI report documents expose a vast network of funders and fixers — from Soros’ Open Society Foundations to the Pentagon.

In a column earlier this month, I argued the deep state is no longer deniable, thanks to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I outlined the structural design of the deep state as revealed by two recent declassifications: Gabbard’s ODNI report and the Durham annex released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

These documents expose a transnational apparatus of intelligence agencies, media platforms, think tanks, and NGOs operating as a parallel government.

The deep state is funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

But institutions are only part of the story. This web of influence is made possible by people — and by money. This follow-up to the first piece traces the key operatives and financial networks fueling the deep state’s most consequential manipulations, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Architects and operatives

At the top of the intelligence pyramid sits John Brennan, President Obama’s CIA director and one of the principal architects of the manipulated 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence, signed off on that same ICA and later joined 50 other former officials in concluding the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” ahead of the 2020 election. The timing, once again, served a political objective.

James Comey, then FBI director, presided over Crossfire Hurricane. According to the Durham annex, he also allowed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server to collapse after it became entangled with “sensitive intelligence” revealing her plan to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

That plan, as documented in the annex, originated with Hillary Clinton herself and was personally pushed by President Obama. Her campaign, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-debunked Steele dossier — a document used to justify surveillance warrants on Trump associates.

Several individuals orbiting the Clinton operation have remained influential. Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security adviser, was a foreign policy aide to Clinton during her 2016 campaign. He was named in 2021 as a figure involved in circulating the collusion narrative, and his presence in successive Democratic administrations suggests institutional continuity.

Andrew McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, approved the use of FISA warrants derived from unverified sources. His connection to the internal “insurance policy” discussion — described in a 2016 text by FBI official Peter Strzok to colleague Lisa Page — underscores the Bureau’s political posture during that election cycle.

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, as a former representative from California, chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time and publicly promoted the collusion narrative while having access to intelligence that contradicted it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both members of the “Gang of Eight” with oversight of intelligence operations, advanced the same narrative despite receiving classified briefings.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, exchanged encrypted text messages with a Russian lobbyist in efforts to speak with Christopher Steele.

These were not passive recipients of flawed intelligence. They were participants in its amplification.

The funding networks behind the machine

The deep state’s operations are not possible without financing — much of it indirect, routed through a nexus of private foundations, quasi-governmental entities, and federal agencies.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations appear throughout the Durham annex. In one instance, Open Society Foundations documents were intercepted by foreign intelligence and used to track coordination between NGOs and the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump strategy.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

Soros has also been a principal funder of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which ran a project during the Trump administration called the Moscow Project, dedicated to promoting the Russia collusion narrative.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors both specialize in “dark money” donor-advised funds that obscure the source and destination of political funding. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest donor to the Arabella Advisors by far, which routed $127 million through Arabella’s network in 2020 alone and nearly $500 million in total.

The MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation also financed many of the think tanks named in the Durham annex, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Federal funding pipelines

Parallel to the private networks are government-funded influence operations, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or counter-disinformation initiatives.

USAID directed $270 million to Soros-affiliated organizations for overseas “democracy” programs, a significant portion of which has reverberated back into domestic influence campaigns.

The State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization with a $315 million annual budget and ties to narrative engineering projects.

The Department of Homeland Security underwrote entities involved in online censorship programs targeting American citizens.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon, from 2020 to 2024, awarded over $2.4 trillion to private contractors — many with domestic intelligence capabilities. It also directed $1.4 billion to select think tanks since 2019.

According to public records compiled by DataRepublican, these tax-funded flows often support the very actors shaping U.S. political discourse and global perception campaigns.

Not just domestic — but global

What these disclosures confirm is that the deep state is not a theory. It is a documented structure — funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control. It launders narratives, neutralizes opposition, and overrides democratic will by leveraging the very institutions meant to protect it.

With the Durham annex and the ODNI report, we now see the network's architecture and its actors — names, agencies, funding trails — all laid bare. What remains is the task of dismantling it before its next iteration takes shape.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.