How NATO’s ‘model intervention’ shattered Libya and Europe



In 2010, Muammar Gaddafi made a dire prediction about Europe’s future. While negotiating a deal with Italy to prevent African migrants from using Libya as a gateway to Europe, he warned: “Tomorrow, Europe might no longer be European … as there are millions who want to come in. … We don't know if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions.”

A year later, Gaddafi was dead. His removal during an Arab Spring uprising created a power vacuum in Libya, allowing nearly a million migrants from Africa and the Middle East to cross the country unchecked into Europe — just as he had foreseen. Years later, the Migration Policy Institute described Libya’s continued instability, stating: “Post-Gaddafi, the trade and extortion of human beings became a central source of income for communities in Libya, often to the migrants’ detriment.”

No territorial body — whether in Africa, Europe, or anywhere else — can truly function as a nation without securing its borders.

At the peak of the migration surge into Europe in 2015, Libya became a primary transit point, with nearly 200,000 migrants per year making the journey. Smugglers charged between $5,000 and $6,000 per person to cross the Mediterranean on unsafe dinghies. Many landed first on the Italian island of Lampedusa before continuing to welfare-rich destinations like Germany and Sweden.

That same year, a separate wave — the “European migrant crisis” — unfolded, likely influenced by Libya’s collapse. This migration, largely over land, passed through the Middle East, Turkey, and Greece before reaching Germany, where then-Chancellor Angela Merkel welcomed the influx.

The 15th anniversary of Gaddafi’s warning is also a reminder of NATO’s direct role in his downfall. The U.S.-led alliance, facing unprecedented criticism from the current White House, orchestrated the dictator’s removal in 2011. The Arab Spring provided a pretext to eliminate a longtime regional obstacle, setting the stage for the chaos that followed.

Libya remains far from recovery and needless to say has not transitioned into a Western-style democracy. Instead, it resembles a slightly less chaotic version of Iraq, marked by deep tribal and factional divisions. However, a 2017 agreement between Italy and the Libyan coast guard has significantly reduced migrant crossings from Libya to Europe. Meanwhile, rising foreign-led terrorism and organized crime in Germany and Sweden have bolstered the appeal of right-wing populist movements.

NATO’s removal of Gaddafi, once hailed as a “model intervention” by Foreign Affairs, exposed the fundamental flaw of nation-building — failing to account for the vacuum left behind (or, really, just the folly of nation-building itself).

More than a decade later, Libya, like Iraq and Syria, remains fractured not just along political lines but also by tribal and ethnic divisions. Under Gaddafi, Libya had been both a destination and transit hub for migrants, particularly black Africans seeking work in the oil industry. After his fall, many became victims of racial violence and even enslavement by local militias and Islamist groups.

Barack Obama later admitted that failing to plan for Libya’s post-Gaddafi future was his “worst mistake” as president. Reflecting on the crisis, he noted that any stable government must first control its own borders. Given the source, the irony is unmistakable. But the point remains: No territorial body — whether in Africa, Europe, or anywhere else — can truly function as a nation without securing its borders.

Zelenskyy miscalculated — and Trump won’t budge



During last week’s Oval Office confrontation with President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy received a stark reality check — and Europe is now scrambling to preserve its influence over Ukraine’s future.

First, we must establish a crucial fact: Those who wish to continue the endless war want you to believe that Ukraine must join NATO to ensure its ongoing security in a ceasefire deal. The opposite is true. Russia lost, and it did so without NATO involvement. Russia failed to achieve its primary objective — taking full control of Ukraine. The notion that Russia is poised to invade Poland or other NATO countries is unfounded. Without NATO involvement, Moscow has already demonstrated its limitations.

Will Zelenskyy take the deal, or will he keep dragging his countrymen through a war they can’t win?

This is critical when examining the exchange at the White House between Trump and Zelenskyy. This was not a routine diplomatic meeting — it was an unvarnished display of power dynamics.

Contrary to prevailing narratives, Trump did not instigate the tension. The viral clips circulating on social media omit the preceding 20 minutes, during which Trump consistently offered Zelenskyy an off-ramp.

Trump repeatedly cautioned him, signaling that he should reconsider his stance. Yet Zelenskyy persisted, prompting Trump’s firm response: “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem!”

Zelenskyy had just been publicly put in his place. He came to Washington thinking he could dictate terms. He thought he could guilt America into another blank check. Trump made it clear: Those days are over. At that moment, Zelenskyy grasped reality. He was no longer dealing with an American leader willing to be pressured into indefinite financial and military commitments. He hastily returned to Europe seeking reinforcement.

Zelenskyy returns, tail between his legs

Within hours, European leaders — including British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, and other heads of state — gathered in London. Their objective was to craft an alternative peace framework that would circumvent Trump’s influence. Their true concern is not Russia’s next move but the prospect of an American president who prioritizes U.S. interests over European demands.

In response, the U.K. pledged an additional aid package to Ukraine worth over $4 billion, including a $2 billion loan and another $2 billion for air defense systems. Macron floated the idea of a “coalition of the willing,” which is a euphemism for “If America won’t send troops, maybe we will.”

This approach raises fundamental questions. Are European nations prepared to deploy their own troops? More importantly, are Americans willing to send their sons and daughters to fight in Ukraine? The answer, for many, is a resounding no.

Europe’s power play

The ongoing crisis is less about defending democracy and more about geopolitical maneuvering. European elites are striving to maintain their strategic leverage, and Trump’s economic-based approach threatens to upend their plans.

Trump’s proposal to Ukraine is straightforward: Accept economic investment in rare-earth minerals, or receive no further assistance.It prioritizes economic cooperation over endless war. Ukraine holds vast mineral resources essential to modern technology, and American investors are prepared to help rebuild the nation. The plan represents a mutually beneficial alternative to prolonged warfare. However, Zelenskyy initially rejected it. After reconsidering, he returned to the United States, only to attempt a renegotiation in front of the media. Trump, unwilling to entertain such posturing, dismissed him outright.

This response sent shock waves through European leadership. If Trump’s strategy prevails, the war will conclude, military aid will cease, and Ukraine will transition to an economic recovery model. Such a resolution would strip Europe of its ability to dictate terms while simultaneously disrupting China’s control over global supply chains — an outcome Beijing strongly opposes.

The bigger picture

Connecting these dots reveals a broader reality: European leaders are not advocating for peace — they are maneuvering to retain influence. Their fear is not that Ukraine will fall to Russia but rather that Trump will broker a settlement that excludes them from the decision-making process.

Zelenskyy’s tantrum in the Oval Office was not merely a diplomatic miscalculation — it was the reaction of a leader recognizing that U.S. policy is shifting away from blank-check commitments. The crucial question now is whether Ukraine will seize the opportunity to rebuild through economic engagement or persist in a conflict that serves the interests of European power brokers more than its own people. Will he take the deal, or will he keep dragging his countrymen through a war they can’t win?

“America First” isn’t about abandoning allies but about ensuring we’re not being played. Last week, Trump made it clear: The game is over.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

International law spells the end of sovereignty



Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s recent meeting at the White House was a disaster. Afterward, every progressive pundit rushed to declare that the rules-based international order was on the verge of collapse. Delusional commentators argued that any peace talks with Ukraine acknowledging Zelenskyy’s stubbornness would spell the end of international law and national sovereignty.

Their assumption is flawed. They seem to believe that international law is a higher power that countries can appeal to and that the United States is obligated to uphold. In reality, international law and the supranational bodies that supposedly enforce it are more likely to threaten national sovereignty than protect it.

Civilizations will continue to clash in a contest of great power politics, leaving smaller nations to go along for the ride — whether they want to or not.

Sovereignty means holding supreme power — the ability to make final decisions without outside approval. Sovereign entities may consider the interests of other nations and the limits of their power beyond their borders. But a truly sovereign nation does not need permission from international bodies to make decisions.

When leaders appeal to outside authorities to validate their nation’s sovereignty, they misunderstand what sovereignty means.

Sovereignty rightly understood

The political philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that a state’s sovereignty depends on its ability to protect its citizens. By his definition, a state that cannot defend its own people or borders is not sovereign. No nation can survive long without protection from hostile forces. If a nation cannot provide for its own defense, another political entity will assume that role and, by extension, its sovereignty.

Carl Schmitt echoed Hobbes’ view when he wrote:

If a people is afraid of the trials and risks implied by existing in the sphere of politics, then another people will appear which will assume these trials by protecting it against foreign enemies and thereby taking over political rule. The protector then decides who the enemy is by virtue of the eternal relation of protection and obedience.

Despite the valiant efforts of many Ukrainian soldiers, Ukraine cannot defend itself without outside help. Western nations have sent hundreds of billions of dollars, along with ammunition and advisers, to support Ukraine’s military. Even so, the Ukrainian forces have struggled to hold their ground.

Russia has not achieved the level of dominance it wants, but the reality is clear: Without backing from the United States and other NATO allies, Ukraine would likely lose the war immediately.

In theory, international law and organizations like NATO exist to protect the sovereignty of nations that cannot stand up to great powers like Russia. NATO was founded to defend Western nations against the Soviet Union’s expansion. Although that threat has vanished, the military alliance endures, claiming to protect the sovereignty of its members. However, despite losing its primary adversary, NATO has continued to expand, moving its borders ever closer to Russia.

In reality, NATO is the United States and the United States is NATO. In 2023, the U.S. contributed $830 billion of NATO’s $1.3 trillion budget. Germany, the second-largest contributor, provided just $61 billion. This funding disparity explains why Donald Trump repeatedly urged European nations to increase their contributions to NATO and to boost their own national defense budgets.

Previous U.S. administrations have encouraged Europe’s demilitarization while pledging to defend the continent with American resources. This arrangement may have played a crucial role in stopping the spread of communism when Europe was recovering from two world wars. But with its original purpose fulfilled, NATO now serves only to distort the true nature of sovereignty.

Ukraine is not sovereign

Officially, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is the president of an independent nation fighting a territorial war against a world power. In reality, the United States and its NATO allies are funding a proxy war with Russia. While Zelenskyy should hold significant authority, it’s clear that the real peace negotiations are happening between Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. If the United States continues to provide financial and military aid, the war could drag on for years. If that support ends, the conflict would likely conclude swiftly.

Ukraine’s inability to defend itself independently means it cannot control its own fate. Ukraine is not sovereign, and Zelenskyy does not make the final decision. During his meeting at the White House, Zelenskyy seemed to forget this reality, but Trump did not hesitate to remind him before showing him the door.

The idea that a collection of “international laws” recorded in the charter of a supranational institution can uphold the sovereignty of smaller nations is comforting but false. When a lesser nation appeals to an international body, it is ultimately appealing to the will of the sovereign nations that control that body. The moment a country must rely on another for protection, it surrenders its sovereignty.

This geopolitical reality is unsettling to many because it suggests that very few nations are truly sovereign. While some countries may exercise a degree of internal political autonomy, even that can be quickly undermined. U.S. intelligence agencies wield significant influence over foreign affairs, largely because many nations rely on America for their defense.

Samuel Huntington’s theory that geopolitics is a clash between civilizational blocks led by great powers has proven accurate. Supranational organizations like NATO and the “international law” they enforce are little more than façades for the will of powerful nations shaping global events. Civilizations will continue to clash in a contest of great power politics, leaving smaller nations to go along for the ride — whether they want to or not.

NATO’s cracks show: Time for a controlled demolition?



When they’re first built, skyscrapers and other towering buildings are impressive. But there comes a time when structural weaknesses raise the danger that one will collapse, injuring or killing many people going about their daily business. Shoring up the building works for a while, sometimes, but often things reach the stage where the most prudent action is to demolish it in a controlled way.

The United States faces similar structural threats today. The two most urgent and fundamental dangers are the unchecked administrative state at home — and, by extension, among globalist NGOs — and the declining condition of many NATO partner countries. Both the administrative state and the U.S. role in NATO were products of postwar efforts to create stability and order after World War II. However, these institutions have grown far beyond their original purposes and now pose significant risks to our national security, economic stability, and core constitutional freedoms.

Both the entrenched administrative state and our current alliances with Western Europe now show serious structural weaknesses.

Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency project is exposing the depth of corruption and waste within the administrative bureaucracy and its NGO partners. As a result, Americans are starting to see how these networks leave ordinary people struggling to afford basic needs like food and rent. The findings also reveal the extent of the country’s precarious financial situation.

However, fewer Americans realize how European countries have drained U.S. resources — and arguably poisoned the relationship — through their actions. While the United States has shouldered most of NATO’s expenses and defense efforts, European nations have neglected their own militaries and failed to meet their defense commitments.

European nations have made things worse by burdening their own economies with unsustainable welfare programs and excessive regulations that stifle innovation. At the same time, they have imposed unfair tariffs on U.S. goods, increasing the economic strain.

Even more troubling, they are trying to impose regulations on U.S. energy use, free speech, information flow, and even the participation of popular parties in national governments. Recent examples are easy to find, and Vice President Vance recently highlighted some of these issues at the Munich conference.

Meanwhile, they expect the United States to continue draining its resources, admit Ukraine into NATO — which would commit U.S. forces to respond to Russia — and silence any criticism of their actions on social media.

The hypocrisy is both staggering and offensive. For proof, just look at how much Russian oil and gas Germany is buying today, even as it refuses to allow imports of Israeli natural gas.

Is it time to consider a controlled demolition of NATO? Possibly. The alliance should have been restructured or dissolved after the Soviet Union fell 34 years ago. Instead, President Clinton and his successors expanded NATO incrementally by adding former Soviet and communist countries on Russia’s border. That this strategy would provoke a response was entirely predictable.

We must not be drawn farther into this folly. Alliances based on mutual interests and fair contributions are valuable. But having U.S. troops deployed in combat at the whims of Great Britain, France, and Germany — rather than based on American assessments of threats and costs — is not.

The bottom line: Both the entrenched administrative state and our current alliances with Western Europe now show serious structural weaknesses. It’s time to consider dismantling or reforming them before they collapse on American citizens and the nation as a whole.

How Biden’s Blank Check For Ukraine Disastrously Bounced

Americans were told that, with enough help, Ukraine could liberate all of its territory. It was a murderous lie.

Trump's Oval Office Showdown With Zelensky and the End of Europe's Free Ride

Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky was not the first European leader to cross the pond this week in search of answers from Donald Trump. But Zelensky’s visit, which culminated in a showdown with the president and vice president, was the most consequential. 

The post Trump's Oval Office Showdown With Zelensky and the End of Europe's Free Ride appeared first on .

Europe’s Free Ride Comes to an End

Having been shocked by Vice President J.D. Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference and Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s negotiations with Russia, the great and the good in Europe are descending on Washington to understand what the Trump administration is up to. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, are merely the most well-known figures to cross the pond in the past few days.

The post Europe’s Free Ride Comes to an End appeared first on .

For peace in Ukraine, we must defeat the globalist propaganda machine



The world has changed dramatically since Donald Trump’s inauguration. In just five weeks, he has reversed U.S. policy in Ukraine, shifting from endless war to a MAGA/America First foreign policy. The United States and Russia are now negotiating peace face-to-face.

But peace in Ukraine threatens the interests of the globalists and neoconservatives who helped engineer this conflict. Determined to destroy Trump’s peace agenda — and his presidency — they are working to undermine these efforts.

Lies can’t withstand truth — and we must fight like never before to speak the truth about Ukraine.

In its final days, the Biden administration sought to escalate the war in Ukraine, desperate to derail Trump’s plan. Biden (or whoever was running the country at the time) authorized Ukraine to launch deep strikes inside Russia using U.S.-made Army Tactical Missiles Systems.

These missiles rely on American military satellites, American GPS targeting systems, and American personnel for coordination. That meant the United States was no longer just supporting Ukraine — it was directly involved in firing missiles into Russia and killing Russian soldiers.

The warmongers pushed the world to the brink of nuclear war. President Trump pulled us back.

A globalist war

This war was never about Ukraine. U.S. Army Col. Douglas Macgregor has pointed out that the United States and NATO have waged a proxy war in Ukraine to advance globalist interests. Their ultimate goal is to dismantle Russia as a nation.

The strategy, outlined by George Soros, called for using Eastern Europeans as cannon fodder in a war with Russia to “reduce the risk of body bags for NATO countries.” This plan has been brutally executed, and the cost has been staggering. More than 1 million Ukrainian soldiers have lost their lives.

During the 2024 campaign, President Trump made his anti-war, anti-globalist stance clear. In his Agenda 47 video “Preventing World War III,” he warned, “Every day this proxy battle in Ukraine continues, we risk global war.” He vowed to end these conflicts, stating, “There must … be a complete commitment to dismantling the entire globalist neocon establishment that is perpetually dragging us into endless wars” (emphasis added).

President Trump is delivering on his promise.

Truth bombs away!

Trump and his team began dismantling the globalist-neocon war machine with three major truth bombs.

First, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that Ukraine will never join NATO. This decision was monumental — NATO’s push to expand into Ukraine was the primary trigger for the war.

Next, Vice President JD Vance addressed European globalist elites in Munich, condemning their Soviet-style crackdowns on free speech and political dissent. His speech was so powerful that the conference chairman was reportedly brought to tears.

Finally, President Donald Trump exposed Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a fraud, calling him “a dictator without elections” who has driven Ukraine into ruin.

Boom.

The resulting freakout by the globalists, neocons, endless-war uniparty, and the mainstream propaganda media has been intense. They’ve regrouped and launched Russia collusion hoax 2.0, again rolling out the lie that “Trump is a Russian asset.”

Obedient to his puppet masters, even Volodymyr Zelenskyy joined the chorus — claiming that Trump “lives in a disinformation space” created by the Kremlin.

The dictator checklist

NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine has relied on one of the largest propaganda campaigns in history. The truth has been buried under a mountain of lies — but a full-scale effort to expose reality can change that. President Trump’s statement on Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a strong start, but much more needs to be done.

Let’s begin.

In a Truth Social post, Trump described Zelenskyy as a “moderately successful comedian.” That assessment is far too generous. Zelenskyy is a clown, not a statesman. In Ukraine, he is best known for flamboyant and vulgar television performances — playing the guitar in his underwear, dancing in high heels while patting fellow male dancers on their backsides, and even performing a Jewish folk song on the piano using his penis.

So how many boxes does Zelenskyy check on the dictator checklist?

First, he’s an illegitimate president.

Zelenskyy canceled presidential elections and remains president even though his term expired last May. No wonder. A November poll showed that only 16% of Ukrainians would vote for him again. President Trump reports that now, support has dropped to 4%.

He’s running a corrupt, neo-Nazi police state.

Seriously, Zelenskyy is a neo-Nazi collaborator. His regime is a neo-Nazi police state that celebrates Nazis as heroes. The birthday of Stepan Bandera, the father of Ukrainian Nazism and leading German collaborator during World War II, is a national holiday.

Ukraine is the most corrupt nation in Europe. Elon Musk calls Zelenskyy’s government a “fraud machine feeding off the dead bodies of soldiers.”

He’s blocked political opposition.

Zelenskyy banned all 11 opposition political parties, imprisoned opposition party leaders, and has sanctioned his main rival in any future election.

He is crushing freedom of speech, press, and religion.

Zelenskyy shut down all non-government-controlled media. Websites not approved by the government are prohibited. Last year, American journalist Gonzalo Lira was imprisoned for criticizing the Zelenskyy and Biden governments. Lira was tortured and died from neglect.

Ukrainians are being imprisoned for criticizing the regime — even in their private conversations.

Zelenskyy has directed the assassination, kidnapping, and torture of his political opponents.

Press gangs snatch Ukrainian men off the streets and shove them into frontline trenches.

Zelenskyy outlawed the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and jailed dozens of priests. He’s a bad guy.

The truth will out — if we fight

The globalist-neocon establishment is pulling out all the stops to sabotage President Trump’s peace agenda and prolong the war in Ukraine. Its weapon is the propaganda that keeps the American people in the dark. But lies can’t withstand truth — and we must fight like never before to speak the truth about Ukraine.

President Trump pulled us back from the brink of another world war. We cannot allow the warmongers to pull us back from the brink of peace.

To Europe’s leaders: We aren’t drifting away from democracy — you are



Dear esteemed leaders:

I write to you as an American commentator who has long studied the histories of our respective nations and the principles that have shaped the modern world. Your recent remarks, exemplified by German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock’s warning to the United States about its alleged failure to support liberal democracies, compel me to respond — not out of antagonism but out of a shared concern for the democratic ideals we once jointly championed.

I respectfully submit that Europe, rather than exemplifying liberal democracy, is drifting toward a system that bears troubling parallels to the authoritarian regimes it once overcame. Allow me to outline this case with clarity and evidence with the hopeful aim of fostering mutual understanding.

Are you honoring the principles we fought for together?

Liberal democracy, as articulated by thinkers like John Locke and fortified through centuries of struggle, rests on the people's sovereignty, expressed through free speech, free elections, and accountable governance. Yet, across Europe, we observe a troubling erosion of these pillars.

In Germany, citizens face prosecution for questioning state policies on gender or immigration. Speech deemed inconvenient is silenced under the guise of protecting social order. The United Kingdom has detained individuals for silent prayer near abortion clinics, a stark infringement on both expression and conscience. Sweden imposes penalties for critiques of religion, narrowing the bounds of public discourse. These are not isolated incidents but symptoms of a broader trend: the suppression of dissent, once a hallmark of the Soviet system, not the Europe that triumphed over tyranny.

Elections, the bedrock of democratic legitimacy, have also been undermined. Ukraine’s indefinite suspension of voting, however justified by conflict, sets a precedent that weakens its democratic fabric. Romania’s recent nullification of an election result — because a sovereigntist party prevailed — suggests that outcomes displeasing to the European establishment may be discarded. In Germany, discussions to ban the Alternative für Deutschland, a party with significant public support, reflect a willingness to override the electorate’s voice.

This behavior is not one of a confident democracy but of a system fearful of its own citizens — a system reminiscent of the Eastern Bloc’s “managed” elections, not the vibrant pluralism that defined postwar Europe.

Globalist policies that bypass democracy

Further compounding this drift is the imposition of policies that lack a democratic mandate. The aggressive pursuit of climate goals and environmental, social, and governance frameworks often bypasses public consent and is driven instead by unelected bodies and elite gatherings like the World Economic Forum in Davos. These initiatives, while framed as moral imperatives, impose sweeping economic burdens — rising energy costs and shuttered industries — without clear electoral backing.

Historically, centralized control over vast swaths of life, unchecked by the people, was a feature of the Soviet Union’s command economy, not the free societies that rebuilt Europe after 1945. The parallels are not exact, but they are unmistakable.

The United States is not without fault. Our own democracy has faced its trials — overreach, elitism, and polarization among them. Yet in November 2024, we held an election, and the American people chose a path of renewal, reaffirming government by consent. This stands in contrast to Europe’s trajectory, where the will of the people is increasingly subordinated to the priorities of a technocratic class.

Is history repeating?

History offers a sobering lens. Europe’s leaders in the 1930s failed to recognize Adolf Hitler’s rise, not because they lacked elections, but because they tolerated the erosion of liberty under the pretext of stability.

Force, fear, and expansive state control supplanted democratic norms then as they risk doing now under different banners. The United States played a pivotal role in dismantling that fascism and, through the Marshall Plan, rebuilding your nations — not to enable new autocracies but to secure liberty’s foothold. With that legacy in mind, I urge reflection: Are you honoring the principles we fought for together?

JD Vance’s remarks at the recent Munich Security Conference underscore this divide. He called for unfettered freedom of speech, the uninterrupted conduct of elections, and an end to U.S. funding of Europe’s state-aligned media — positions grounded in first principles of self-governance. He questioned NATO’s relevance in a post-Soviet world and America’s disproportionate burden within it. He did not espouse provocations but rather rational appeals to adapt to new realities. The elicited dismay from European leaders suggests a growing philosophical rift — not over petty differences but over the essence of democracy itself.

Back to the basics of democracy

I write here as an individual, not on behalf of any institution, but as someone who listens to and speaks with millions of Americans every day through my program. While some in our own country fail to recognize the message, “We the people,” which was sent to our capitals in 2024, leaders across the West mustn’t continue to mistake a movement that simply demands a return to long-established norms of law, order, and the Bill of Rights as “Hitlerian.”

The failure of elites to listen and respond to their people builds dictators. Nascent authoritarians — “baby Hitlers” — are among all of us, waiting in the wings. But by ignoring the will of the people, you water those seeds and, perhaps unknowingly, allow their scope and power to grow.

I harbor deep respect for the peoples of Europe and the United Kingdom, with whom Americans share an enduring bond. Our intent is not to abandon you but to refocus on our own renewal — a task long overdue.

We are stepping back from the role of global enforcer, not out of indifference, but from a belief that each nation must secure its own destiny. NATO, designed to counter a now-defunct threat, requires re-evaluation; its costs, borne heavily by the United States, must align with current needs, not past promises. We will no longer subsidize systems that stifle the very freedoms we once defended together.

I implore you not to misconstrue this as a threat but as a call to mutual accountability. The greatness of our civilizations — yours and ours — stems from the people, not their rulers. The courage of ordinary citizens felled fascism and communism, and their voices must still guide us. I hope we can realign with those founding truths, restoring a partnership rooted in liberty, not lecturing.

With respect and in earnest dialogue,

Glenn Beck

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Here’s How The Media Are Lying Right Now: ‘Rewriting’ Ukraine War History Edition

When people like Peter Baker claim that it's 'rewriting' history to acknowledge the truth, what they really mean is that the propaganda they prefer has been a failure.