THE DOCUMENTS for 'Civil War: The Left's Revolution Playbook EXPOSED'

September 23, 2020

Photo by Warren Wong on Unsplash

CEO/Founder

Last week I told you about the growing trend this month, a narrative that the Left is building about how President Trump will lose the election in November and refuse to leave office.

Democrats have been delusional about Trump from day one, so I guess this narrative isn't really surprising.

But the repeated references to this really make you sit up and take notice. Is someone passing out talking points? Because this is remarkably coordinated messaging. And this messaging has a familiar ring to it when you remember the Color Revolutions that happened in Eastern Europe during the Obama administration.

WATCH: Civil War: The Left's Revolution Playbook EXPOSED

Color Revolution might as well be the name of the Left's insurance policy for the U.S. presidential election. They seem to be following the same playbook they used in countries like Ukraine — because they ARE using the EXACT same playbook. On previous episodes, I explored everything the Obama administration did in Ukraine, in coordination with George Soros, through Civil Society 2.0, the “tech camps," etcetera, so I'm not going to revisit those specifics tonight. But if you're not already a BlazeTV subscriber, please join us so you can refresh your memory by watching those episodes on demand. Your support helps us bring you the vital information that no one else is digging up.

The Left is done with regular U.S. presidential elections. 2016 ruined it for them. The coronation for the first female American president was all set, the decorations were ready, the catering was ordered. But when this outsider crashed their party, the Left vowed with remarkable unity — never again.

Now, through the Color Revolutions that the State Department instigated around the world, especially in Eastern Europe, there are American experts in this field of “mostly peaceful" regime change. These Americans are specialists who have developed a systematic approach to Color Revolution. And now, in their desperate hour, they seem to be using this playbook on their own nation.

The Left and the mainstream media have waged a four-year war to delegitimize President Trump with a singular focus on November 3, 2020. In the Left's collective mind, losing this election is an impossibility. But there's still the annoying wild card of American voters. That's where their Color Revolution playbook comes in. Make no mistake – the goal just under six weeks from now is to set the system right, with the ruling class elites back in charge. Democracy is convenient and all when the people obediently elect this ruling class. But when the people wreck the system and put someone like Trump in office? The people have to be put back in their place.

Last week I told you about one of these Color Revolution specialists, Michael McFaul. He was the U.S. Ambassador to Russia under Obama. McFaul wrote an academic paper in 2005 about the “Seven Pillars" a country needs to have in place for a successful Color Revolution. I showed you those Seven Pillars on the chalkboard last week and I'm going to return to the first four a little later. Remember, a “Color Revolution" is not an old-school, banana republic-type military coup. It's a strategy the U.S. has used for regime change in foreign nations with a few main components: questioning the legitimacy of an election; mass street protests and civil disobedience; and relying on Media for positive coverage and promotion.

A year after his paper on the Seven Pillars, Michael McFaul wrote a book titled – Revolution in Orange: The Origins of Ukraine's Democratic Breakthrough. Who wrote the only endorsement featured on the book's back cover?

A guy you may have heard of with a vested interest in these kinds of revolutions: George Soros.

McFaul is just one of several Color Revolution specialists who were diplomats during the Obama Administration. One of the most influential of these specialists is the Obi Wan Kenobi to McFaul's Luke Skywalker, a guy named Norman Eisen. He is a longtime DC lawyer and former ambassador.

In 2003, Eisen co-founded a government watchdog organization called CREW — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Bookmark that one, because CREW will pop up again later.

When President Obama took office in 2009, he made Norman Eisen Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform, better known as the White House “Ethics Czar." I want you to pause for a moment to let it register that this guy was Obama's “Ethics Czar" — that's going to take on a lot of irony after you hear about all that he's currently involved with.

In 2011, Obama appointed Eisen Ambassador to the Czech Republic. So, like Michael McFaul and many other Color Revolution specialists in the State Department, Eisen honed his craft on the ground in Eastern Europe. This Color Revolutionary guard is a relatively close-knit group of people with strong connections to the Obama administration and the Left's top power players. And they all share the common goal of removing President Trump from office.

Norman Eisen actually wrote a 100-page report that is a playbook for the Color Revolution movement. He didn't even try to be subtle about it.

It's titled: “The Democracy Playbook: Preventing and Reversing Democratic Backsliding."

In this playbook, Eisen writes (p. 24):

Opposition leaders may also choose to pursue more extreme institutional measures available to them, such as IMPEACHMENT PROCESSES, votes of no confidence, and recall referenda. To raise the profile of their campaign against democratic erosion, opposition leaders can also utilize extra-institutional tools – engaging in or encouraging, for example, a protest, strike, or boycott, in conjunction with civil society.

Hmm, interesting. “Encouraging protests" sounds like precisely what Democrats have been doing for the past four months, refusing to condemn the violence in the process. It's also precisely what they're gearing up for after November third, broadcasting this idea that Trump will claim victory and refuse to leave office.

It's also no accident that Eisen's playbook mentions impeachment as a viable option.

If the name Norman Eisen rings a bell, you might remember him for another prominent role he played this year — Special Counsel for Adam Schiff's House impeachment committee.

Eisen literally wrote the book on impeachment in July, it's called: A Case for the American People: The United States v. Donald J. Trump.

The Left tried so hard to make it seem like Trump brought impeachment on himself.

But Eisen admits that he had already drafted ten articles of impeachment one month before Nancy Pelosi had even announced an official impeachment inquiry of Trump last year. In fact, as soon as Democrats retook the House in 2018, Jerry Nadler hired Eisen to get ready for impeachment. After all, impeachment is in Eisen's Color Revolution playbook.

Let that sink in for a moment — House Democrats hired one of the architects of Color Revolution to lead their impeachment effort. It was part of the plan from the very beginning. And I mean the VERY beginning.

The weekend of President Trump's inauguration in 2017, David Brock, head of Media Matters, put together a conference with over 100 liberal donors to map out how Democrats would “kick Donald Trump's ass." Media Matters, along with CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) produced another 50-page playbook for the conference. And remember who the co-founder and board chair of CREW is? Norman Eisen.

Full David Brock Confidenti... by Joe Schoffstall

Here's a quote from page two:

Trump will be defeated either through impeachment or at the ballot box in 2020.

The memo says CREW will be responsible for filing lawsuits against President Trump:

Trump will be afflicted by a steady flow of damaging information, new revelations, and an inability to avoid conflicts issues.

They have certainly fulfilled that pledge. CREW has dozens of pending lawsuits against President Trump and his administration.

What does all this mean? It means that Norman Eisen who wrote one of the Color Revolution playbooks — which includes impeachment as a strategy for regime change — and who was also Special Counsel to the Democrats' House impeachment committee, was planning President Trump's removal BEFORE Trump was ever sworn in.

Well, the Mueller report failed them. Impeachment failed them. The full Color Revolution treatment is all they've got left or everything they've worked for the last four years is a waste. Their whole plan hinges on the November third election. But they've been laying the groundwork since 2017, and their “Seven Pillars" to pull off a successful Color Revolution seem to be in place

Next, I want to take a closer look at the first four of these pillars...

They were already establishing that Donald Trump's legitimate election put the nation "under siege."

So now I've told you about Norman Eisen, one of the key architects of Color Revolution strategy.

He even wrote a Color Revolution playbook that he actually called “The Democracy Playbook." I mentioned how before Trump was even sworn-in as President, Eisen collaborated with David Brock, head of Media Matters, on a written strategy to remove Trump. Right at the top of their 50-page action plan, they write:

The progressive infrastructure groups we've built together were started long before Hillary Clinton ran for president. They were always intended to be the first line of defense — and offense — when we are under siege.

Did you catch that? They were already establishing that Donald Trump's legitimate election put the nation “under siege." It's also disturbing that their “first line of defense and offense" is not voters, not better ideas — it's their AGENDA through the “progressive infrastructure groups" they've built.

Again, quoting from the first page of their action plan:

We have the mandate. Together, we won the popular vote and Democrats picked up seats in the Senate and the House. TRUMP IS THE LEAST POPULAR INCOMING PRESIDENT IN MODERN HISTORY AND THE OUTGOING PRESIDENT AND POPULAR VOTE WINNER ARE AGAIN THE MOST ADMIRED MAN AND WOMAN IN THE NATION. THE COUNTRY DID NOT VOTE FOR TRUMP-STYLE CHANGE.

That clearly ties-in to the second pillar on Michael McFaul's list of the seven factors that need to be in place to pull off a successful Color Revolution. Number two:

“An unpopular incumbent."

That messaging began the day after Trump's election.

On Inauguration Day, remember how much the media crowed about the supposedly small crowd on the Washington Mall?

Trump's alleged unpopularity has been the standard operating message for four years.

According to the Left and their Media friends, Trump has NEVER been popular.

And of course, when you own the entertainment industry, it's easy to perpetuate the message that Trump is unpopular. Since at least 2008, the Left has elevated Saturday Night Live's election influence to mythic proportions.

So, right out of the gate, SNL went outside its own cast to get Alec Baldwin to play Trump as a nasty moron. Or what about Showtime's new James Comey glorification project? Watch this and see if you can figure out who the villain is...

The Left and the Media have also made a big deal this year out of a group called The Lincoln Project. The narrative here is that President Trump is so unpopular and dangerous, that this group of Republicans organically got together and organized to campaign for Joe Biden instead.

In reality, the Lincoln Project has raised over $20 million from Leftist donors to campaign against not just Donald Trump, but Republican Senators who are up for re-election.

According to its FEC filings, the Lincoln Project hired the Katz Watson Group for “fundraising consulting."

Fran Katz Watson who owns that consulting firm is a longtime Democratic operative who used to be the national finance director for the DNC. Her firm's other clients include the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The Lincoln Project has also paid consulting fees to a firm run by Adrienne Elrod — she was Spokesperson and director of strategic communications for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign.

As if that's not proof enough that the Lincoln Project is just a Democratic opposition campaign in Republican clothing, its communications director is Keith Edwards who was formerly on Mike Bloomberg's presidential campaign staff. The Lincoln Project is the very definition of “Republican in Name Only."

Pillar two is clearly in place — if you hammer home the idea every day for four years that President Trump is wildly unpopular, it helps you create the perception that he could not possibly win a legitimate election. Which helps you develop the fourth pillar on the list:

“An ability to quickly drive home the point that voting results were falsified."

Recently, Democrats spent a couple weeks flooding the airwaves with the conspiracy theory that President Trump is going to sabotage the U.S. Postal Service with cutbacks and closing facilities so they can't deliver all the mail-in ballots on time.

Any time Trump has been critical of mail-in-voting, the Left immediately frames it as “voter suppression." It all seems to be part of their groundwork to deny any positive election result for the President.

Now, just in the past week, we're also seeing blame placed on “right-wing" media — including me — that we're working to delegitimize a Biden victory. It's all part of the narrative that Biden winning the election is a foregone conclusion, and that Trump disputing that result will be fake news.

And of course, social media will jump in and do its part for the cause with their Fact Checks. Because what's a good Color Revolution these days without the aid of social media?

Facebook, for example, is very proud of their third-party fact-checking program. They use fact-checkers that are certified by IFCN – the International Fact-Checking Network. Sounds very official, but what exactly is the IFCN? It's a project of the Poynter Institute. Founded in 1975, Poynter bills itself as:

The world's leading instructor, innovator, convener and resource for anyone who aspires to engage and inform citizens.

One of the major funders of Poynter, of course, is George Soros' Open Society. Poynter also owns PolitiFact. PolitiFact's two largest financial supporters are the E.W. Scripps Company and... Facebook. PolitiFact is also one of the IFCN's certified fact-checkers, which means in essence that the IFCN certifies itself as a legitimate fact-checker. Not sure how that's supposed to fly. But it doesn't matter because it's a Left-wing operation, which means it's automatically trustworthy.

Next time you see a “fact check" from PolitiFact, take it with a tiny grain of salt, since it is largely funded by Facebook.

So, how does election polling play into this narrative that Trump is unpopular and will somehow falsify the voting results? How accurate are these polls that the Media and political class rely so heavily on? In 2016, nearly every poll predicted an easy victory for Hillary Clinton, which made Donald Trump's shock win that much more devastating to Democrats and Mainstream Media. Four years later it seems like déjà vu, because the polls once again indicate virtually no chance that President Trump gets re-elected. What's going on here? Can anyone put any real stock in polls anymore?

The Left MUST make the case that Trump's presidency is at least a semi-autocratic situation.

We're going over the first part of Michael McFaul's “Seven Pillars" list of essential factors that need to be in place for a successful Color Revolution. The first item on the checklist is:

“A semi-autocratic rather than fully autocratic regime."

Obviously the United States is not a fully autocratic regime, but the Left MUST make the case that Trump's presidency is at least a semi-autocratic situation. I'd say they've done a pretty good job staying on message.

They tried so hard pushing the Russian collusion hoax, which was supposed to make their case for them that Trump aspires to be just like Putin. Here is the author of the Color Revolution pillars himself, Michael McFaul, in a BBC radio interview LESS THAN A MONTH after Trump took office...

It's interesting that even now they still try to tie Trump to Russia — which is the one place where the State Department apparently could not get their Color Revolution done. That must be why Michael McFaul lasted just two years as U.S. ambassador to Russia.

Next, any autocratic president worth their salt will have some sort of thuggish force to help carry out their will. Enter Charlottesville.

The tiki-torch-carrying neo-nazis, and the armed white supremacists provided the Left with the perfect visuals they needed to paint this far-out fringe as Trump's wacko militia.

Now, anytime Antifa or BLM instigate some of their famous “mostly-peaceful" protests, we're told the real threat is from Trump's wacko right-wing militia.

The Left has tried building the case from day one that Trump is an aspiring dictator. But the Covid pandemic has exposed the inconsistency of their scheme.

Their constant attack against the President for six months is that he hasn't been autocratic ENOUGH in addressing the pandemic.

Why on earth, they wonder, won't the President declare a national mask mandate? I don't know, maybe because he doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do so? Isn't forcing every citizen to wear a mask EXACTLY what an autocratic ruler would do?

Trump has resisted the kind of heavy-handed responses to the pandemic that Democratic governors around the nation embraced without flinching.

Naturally, they get praised for it, while Trump is blamed for the deaths of 200,000 Americans. THAT is insane.

By the way, Joe Biden now says that if he's president, he'll have the authority to create a national mask mandate. Autocratic for me, but not for thee!

Speaking of that, Barack Obama's presidency proved that any degree of autocratic is not really a concern for the Left as long as it's THEIR guy in charge. It's so nonsensical.

Spying on the Associated Press and threatening reporters with jail on issues of identifying sources.
Using the IRS to target Tea Party members.
Attempting to force nuns to grant access to birth control.
Going around the Constitution's treaty provisions to make the disastrous Iran deal.

Who did all that? President Obama. And that's barely scratching the surface.

Next to FDR, no other president in our history attempted to reshape so much of American life by simple decree than Barack Obama. By Executive Order, he decreed the U.S. joining the Paris Climate Accord, DACA, the Clean Power Plan, and transgender restrooms. Through Obama's 276 Executive Orders, he instituted 560 major regulations — classified by the Congressional Budget Office as having “significant economic or social impacts."

Regardless what you think about President Trump's comments to the media, or his tweets, or any of his impulsive tendencies, those things are not what makes an autocratic ruler. Being autocratic is working to expand your power beyond the Constitutional limits. Obama clearly did that, A LOT. And Trump has not.

The end-result of the Color Revolutionaries trying to establish Trump as a scary authoritarian ruler is their conclusion that he will refuse to leave office when he loses the election. There is no actual proof that Trump would refuse to leave office. And even if he tried to refuse, they haven't really explained how he would pull off such a feat.

As for Pillar Number Three: “A united and organized opposition" — this is the Left's specialty.

They've been united and organized since before Day One of Trump's presidency. I've already mentioned the David Brock and Norman Eisen conference on Inauguration weekend that brought together 100 of the most powerful Leftist donors to map out a plan for removing Trump.

Then there is the Transition Integrity Project, headed by Bill Clinton's former Chief of Staff John Podesta. Note how the “Transition" is basically assumed. A Biden win is their foregone conclusion. The TIP conference invited 100 current and former government officials, academics, and journalists to wargame various election outcome scenarios.

It was started by Rosa Brooks who is a Georgetown law professor. She served as special counsel to George Soros' Open Society Foundation where she is also on the Advisory Board. It's hilarious that every mention of the Transition Integrity Project in the media calls it “non-partisan." Look at this quote from a Washington Post article Rosa Brooks wrote weeks after the TIP war games:

A landslide for Joe Biden resulted in a relatively orderly transfer of power. Every other scenario we looked at involved street-level violence and political crisis.

Sure, it doesn't get much more bi-partisan than that. Does that not sound like a veiled threat to vote for Joe or face street-violence?

The conclusions of the TIP report make it clear that any effort by Trump to stop the street violence using the National Guard, or to have Attorney General Barr investigate voter fraud will automatically be seen as election interference by Trump. Which would then just reinforce Pillar Number One that Trump is a power-mad autocratic monster.

Self-fulfilled prophecies are the darnedest things.

The Color Revolutionary guard is so united and organized, that one election war gaming conference wasn't enough. A coalition of 50 Left-wing organizations held a Zoom conference earlier this month called the “Democracy Defense Nerve Center." One participant told the Daily Beast that they strategized about practical matters, like how to "occupy s--t, hold space, and shut things down, not just on Election Day but for weeks."

Classy.

Participants in the Democracy Defense Nerve Center say such a large number of groups has never coordinated so closely before. Really — who could've possibly seen that coming?

Rahna Epting — executive director of MoveOn was in the conference and said:

It is very obvious that Trump is laying the groundwork for claiming victory no matter what... we will fight to protect it [our democracy] from what we truly see as a president who has gone off the rails and taking this country down an authoritarian fascist path.

I don't know what kind of Disney version of authoritarian fascist leaders these people have studied, because if they knew anything about ACTUAL fascist governments, they would know that their Lefty Election Fight Club Meetings, their books, and tweets, and hundreds of millions of dollars in fundraising WOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED. They would all be canceled, thrown in prison, executed. That's what happens under normal dictatorships.

If Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist, then every one of these Color Revolutionary clowns should fall on their faces and THANK GOD ALMIGHTY that they would be so lucky to live under such oppression.

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.