Harvard Professor: Watching Donald Trump, I Understand How Hitler Came to Power

The Context

Danielle Allen, a liberal political theorist at Harvard University, recently wrote an article for The Washington Post urging fellow Democrats to register as Republicans in order to vote against Donald Trump. Why would she propose such a drastic measure?

Understanding History

There are people from all over the political spectrum sounding the alarm about Donald Trump, and Ms. Allen captured it perfectly in her article:

Like any number of us raised in the late 20th century, I've spent my life perplexed about exactly how Hitler could have come to power in Germany. Watching Donald J. Trump's rise, I now understand. Leaving aside whether a direct comparison of Trump and Hitler is accurate, that's not my point. My point is rather about how a demagogic opportunist can exploit a divided country.

To understand the rise of Hitler and the spread of Naziism, I have generally relied on the Jewish German philosopher Hannah Arendt and her arguments about the banality of evil. Somehow, people can understand themselves as, quote, just doing their job, yet act as cogs in the wheel of a murderous machine.

This philosopher also offered a second answer in a small but powerful book called The Men in Dark Times. In this book, she describes all of those who thought Hitler's rise was a terrible thing, but chose internal exile or staying invisible and out of the way as their strategy for coping with the situation.

They knew evil was evil. But they too facilitated it by departing from the battlefield out of a sense of hopelessness.

The Republic Is at Stake

Ms. Allen makes the point that Trump is rising by taking advantage of a divided country, split by strong partisan ideologies. She also believes we have reached the moment of truth.

Trump is exploiting the fact that we cannot unite across any ideological divides. The only way to stop him is to achieve that just kind of coordination across party lines and across divisions within our own parties. We have reached that moment of truth.

Republicans, you cannot count on the Democrats to stop Trump. I believe that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, and I intend to vote for her. But it's also the case that she's a candidate with significant weaknesses, as your party knows quite well. The result of a head-to-head contest between Clinton to Trump is unpredictable. Trump has to be blocked in your primary.

Noting that Jeb Bush did the right thing by dropping out, Ms. Allen urged Kasich and Carson to leave the race if they care "about the future of the Republic."

A Suitable Candidate

While Ms. Allen makes the case that Rubio is best suited to beat Trump head-to-head, Glenn explained why he doesn’t believe that to be the case.

“She says here that Marco Rubio is the one, but she's buying into the bogus narrative, and we'll know this by Tuesday," Glenn said Wednesday on The Glenn Beck Program. "Marco Rubio is not ahead in any state. He's not going to win any state. In fact, he's running third in Florida. Ted Cruz is still at this time, still winning in a few states, including a huge, huge state of Texas. He is going to win states on Tuesday. ...But whoever doesn't win states on Tuesday must drop out. They have to drop out. And if that's Ted Cruz, then so be it. If it is Marco Rubio, then so be it.”

Common Sense Bottom Line

The chorus against Donald Trump is growing. Even the outspoken former Greek finance minister compared the popularity of Donald Trump to the rise of fascism across Europe in the 1930s.

What happens to our nation when we have a totalitarian leader? After seven years of division, look at the difference in our civility toward one another. What will happen when we have a president that pits people against each other even more than Barack Obama?

"I have news for you," Glenn said. "When I said a few years ago, 'Man, I have to tell you, I didn't like Bill Clinton at all, but I'd give my right arm for Bill Clinton over this guy.' I'm warning you now, you will say after two years of Donald Trump, 'I'd give my right arm for Barack Obama.'" I know that sounds crazy, but mark it down.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Give you my analysis on what is coming here in the next week coming up in just a second.

JD in Nevada. Caucused in Nevada last night.

Hey, JD, what happened?

CALLER: Yes. I was at Silverado High School. I want to -- what I found interesting. I got there at about 4:30. I'm 71 years old, and I've been active since the Eisenhower administration in politics. So I think I know what I'm talking about.

There was 1400 yards of people in line, which you can calculate how many people. It went rather smoothly. They were running out of ballots. I sat with a woman, who was a Trump supporter, about 45 years old. She lived in Manhattan. And she had been in Vegas for 14 years. Very nice gal.

I think what Trump has tapped into, Glenn, is that we're winners. It's American nationalism. I'm 71 years old, like I said. My father won the Second World War.

STU: Wow.

CALLER: My grandparents got through the depression. All my life, I've been a winner because of this country. And I heard the chants in the last three or four times that I've seen Trump on TV, and it's, "USA, USA," like the 1980 Olympics against the Russian hockey team.

GLENN: Yep. Yep.

CALLER: I voted for Cruz. I'm a Cruz supporter. And I believe in Ted Cruz. But Trump doesn't have to say anything about how he's going to do anything. I believe the last pollster was 72 percent of the American people are against illegal immigration. So he taps into that. He taps into building the wall. He taps into making America number one again and making sure that he's a solid businessman that's going to make the government work and eliminate our debt.

I believe those are the things that Trump -- that is driving the Trump campaign. He doesn't have to talk about specifics. We're number one again. We're Americans.

He's appealing to patriotism. Build a wall. Stop the illegals. Stop paying for the schools. The police. The hospitals that all the illegal services eat up.

GLENN: I think you're exactly right. Thank you for your call, JD. He is attracting -- and it is the scariest form.

And this is why -- this is why the press is so out of control. Because they know this. Nationalism is extraordinarily dangerous. And it's why they made fun of everybody in the Tea Party: They're nationalists. They're Nazis.

You haven't heard them say this about Donald Trump, have you? And yet, let me give you this. This is from the Washington Post, written by Danielle Allen. She is a political theorist at Harvard University.

This is what she wrote: Like any number of us raised in the late 20th century, I've spent my life perplexed about exactly how Hitler could have come to power in Germany. Watching Donald J. Trump's rise, I now understand. Leaving aside whether a direct comparison of Trump and Hitler is accurate, that's not my point. My point is rather about how a demagogic opportunist can exploit a divided country.

To understand the rise of Hitler and the spread of Naziism, I have generally relied on the Jewish German philosopher Hannah Arendt and her arguments about the banality of evil. Somehow, people can understand themselves as, quote, just doing their job, yet act as cogs in the wheel of a murderous machine.

This philosopher also offered a second answer in a small but powerful book called The Men in Dark Times. In this book, she describes all of those who thought Hitler's rise was a terrible thing, but chose internal exile or staying invisible and out of the way as their strategy for coping with the situation.

They knew evil was evil. But they too facilitated it by departing from the battlefield out of a sense of hopelessness.

I have to tell you, that's what I was feeling this morning when I got up. And all I kept hearing in my prayers was silence in the face of evil is evil itself.

She goes on. We can see both of this phenomena unfolding right now. The first shows itself, for instance, when journalists cover every crude and cruel thing that comes out of Trump's mouth and, thereby, help acculturate all of us and what we are hearing. Are they not just doing their jobs, they will ask, in covering the Republican frontrunner? Have we not already been trained to hear these things by 30 years of popular culture becoming more and more offensive and inciting comments?

Yes, both of these things are true, but that doesn't mean journalists ought to be Trump's megaphone. Perhaps we should just shut the lights out on offensive. Turn the mic off when somebody tries to shout down others. Reestablish some standards on what counts as worthwhile for the public debate.

That seems counter to journalistic norms, yes, but why not let Trump pay for his own ads when he wants to broadcast foul and incendiary ideas? He still has plenty of access to the freedom of expression. It's time, America, to draw a bright line.

One spots the second experience in any number of water-cooler conversations at dinner party dialogues. Yes, it's terrible. Can you believe what he said? Have you ever seen anything like it? Have we really as Americans come to this?

I know, it's terrible.

Then somebody says, "But what are we going to do?" And silence falls. Very many of us, too many of us are starting to contemplate accepting internal exile.

Are we joking about moving to Canada? Yes, but more seriously than usually. But over the course of the past few months, I've learned something else that goes beyond the ideas that were expressed in the 1940s in the Banality of Evil and the feelings of impetus in the face of danger.

Trump is rising by taking advantage of a divided country. The truth is, the vast majority of voting Americans think Trump is unacceptable as a presidential candidate. But we're split by strong partisan ideologies and cannot coordinate a solution to stop him.

In the same way, a significant part of voting Republicans think that Trump is unacceptable, but they too thus far have been unable to coordinate a solution. Trump is exploiting the fact that we cannot unite across any ideological divides. The only way to stop him is to achieve that just kind of coordination across party lines and across divisions within our own parties. We have reached that moment of truth.

Republicans, you cannot count on the Democrats to stop Trump. I believe that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, and I intend to vote for her. But it's also the case that she's a candidate with significant weaknesses, as your party knows quite well. The result of a head-to-head contest between Clinton to Trump is unpredictable. Trump has to be blocked in your primary.

Jeb Bush did the right thing by dropping out, just as he did the right thing by being first alongside with Rand Paul to challenge Trump. The time has come. John Kasich. Ben Carson, leave the race. You expressed a powerful commitment to the good of your country and to its founding ideals. But if you care about the future of the republic, it is time to endorse Marco Rubio.

Kasich, there's little wind in your sails, but it's not enough. Your country is calling on you. Do the right thing.

Ted Cruz, I believe is pulling votes away from Trump. For that reason, he's useful in the race. But Mr. Cruz, you're drawing too close to Trump's policies. You should change course.

Now, she says here that Marco Rubio is the one. But she's buying into the bogus narrative, and we'll know this by Tuesday. Marco Rubio is not ahead by any state. He's not going to win any state. In fact, he's running third in Florida. Ted Cruz is still at this time, still winning in a few states, including a huge, huge state of Texas. He is going to win states on Tuesday.

Marco Rubio will win none on Tuesday. Now, that could change. But whoever doesn't win states on Tuesday must drop out. They have to drop out. And if that's Ted Cruz, then so be it. If it is Marco Rubio, then so be it.

But this guy has got to be stopped. That's my commentary.

Let me go back. Democrats, your leading candidate is too weak to count on as a firewall. She might be able to pull off a general election victory against Trump. But then again, she might not. Too much is uncertain this year. You too need to help the Republicans beat Trump. This is no moment for standing by passively. If your deadline for changing your party affiliation has not yet come, reregister and vote for Rubio, even if like me, you cannot stomach his opposition to marriage equality. I would prefer Kasich as the Republican nominee. But pursuing that goal will only make it more likely that Trump will take the nomination, and the republic cannot afford that.

Finally, to all -- see, I disagree with her here because I don't think you beat a Democrat with another Democrat.

But, anyway: Finally, to all of you Republicans who have already dropped out, one more great act of public service awaits you. As candidates, you pledged to support whomever the Republican Party has nominated. It's time to revoke that pledge. Be bold. Stand up. And shout that you will not support Trump if he's your primary nominee. Do it together. Hold one big mother of a news conference. Endorse someone together. It's time to draw a bright line. You are the ones whom this burden falls. And no one else can do it.

Okay. So this is coming from a Harvard person. All right. Good. We don't like Harvard.

Let me give you this. Outspoken former Greek finance minister compared the popularity of Donald Trump to the rise of fascism across Europe in the 1930s. So we now have somebody in Harvard that's saying that this is the rise of the 1930s. I think this is the rise of the 1930s. Here is the Greek finance minister saying the same thing.

He ran Greece's economy during the crucial bailout talks and resigned last year. Monday, he spent 90 minutes asking -- asking questions on Quora.

Trump has provoked the left with his comments on Muslims. Blah, blah. But here's what he wrote when you think about Donald Trump's political success in the U.S.

Anger is prevalent. Common folks follow a good instinct when they want to punish an establishment that has lied to them for decades and treated them with contempt and considers them useful idiots to be bought by the highest bidder.

Unfortunately, this good instinct often leads fed-up conservatives to the wrong leader, camp, and campaign. We saw this in the 1930s. We're seeing it today in France with the rise of Le Pen.

Our duty as Democrats is to offer disaffected voters, including conservatives, a way to indulge their impulsive urge to punish the establishment without becoming hostage to people like Trump or Le Pen. We saw the rise of the right-wing autocratic fascist dictatorships in Italy, Spain, and Germany, while France Marine Le Pen leads in the far right national party, which recently enjoyed a boost in popularity.

Yada, yada. This is what's happening, America. And I saw it firsthand. Good Americans standing in line last night. And I talked to a lot of Trump supporters. Some I didn't. Because they were just the most nasty, vile -- I think some of the most dangerous people I've ever encountered. Some of them were reasonable. And I talked to them.

And I said, "Why Trump?" One lady said, "Well, I'm Jewish. And Ted Cruz is just going to baptize all of us." And I said, "That is crazy. That's not who he is. He's a constitutionalist." She

said, well, I am -- I said, "Who are you voting for?" She said, "I'm voting for Donald Trump." And I said, "The guy who said he's going to -- you're Jewish. He's remaining neutral between the Palestinians and Israel." She had just turned off. She said, "In the end, I just want change."

Okay. Next guy. Talking to a guy outside. Reasonable guy. I said, "Who are you going to caucus for?" And he said, "You're not going to like the answer." And I said, "It doesn't matter. We're all Americans. Who are you caucusing for?" And he said, "Donald Trump." And I said, "Why?" And he said, "You're not going to like the answer." I said, "I got it. I got it. Why?" He said, "I just want change."

Last night, the anger was more visible in Nevada than it was in South Carolina. The anger in our country is growing.

Donald Trump has already said that he's going to do universal health care. Let me ask the Republicans in the audience, how are you going to feel when Donald Trump puts through universal health care? When Donald Trump tells you to shut up and sit down, he knows what's right? What are you going to do when he starts doing the things that only Democrats would do?

And I know that's crazy. I know that's crazy. But we've seen it happen with Mitch McConnell. We've seen it happen when we have -- under George W. Bush, they have done things because we have to do it.

Donald Trump agreed with the bailouts. He even called for the nationalizing of the banks. When our economy collapses and he bails out or allows the banks to do a bail-in and then talks about nationalizing the banks, are you going to feel betrayed?

What happens when you feel betrayed by Donald Trump? Do you think he allows you to continue to speak out? For the good of the nation, should you be punished?

What do you think happens to our nation when we have a leader -- we've already seen what happens. Look at the difference in our civility to one another, between now and 2006. 2007. We had a guy who pitted people against each other, and look how vile we are to each other now.

What do you think is going to happen when you have a guy who is on the road, pitting people against each other, far more than Barack Obama ever did? I have news for you. When I said -- when I said a few years ago, "Man, I have to tell you, I didn't like Bill Clinton at all, but I'd give my right arm for Bill Clinton over this guy" -- how many of us feel this way, that I would give my right arm for Bill Clinton over Barack Obama? We all have said that. I'm warning you now: Donald Trump -- you will say in two years of Donald Trump, "I'd give my right arm for Barack Obama." I know that sounds crazy. But mark it down.

Featured Image: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a caucus night watch party at the Treasure Island Hotel & Casino on February 23, 2016 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The New York businessman won his third state victory in a row in the 'first in the West' caucuses. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

Did Democrats just betray fair elections? The SAVE Act controversy explained

DOMINIC GWINN / Contributor | Getty Images

One of President Trump’s key campaign promises, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, faces fierce opposition from Democrats in the Senate.

The SAVE Act recently passed Congress for the second time and is now headed to the Senate. This voter security bill mandates proof of U.S. citizenship for all federal elections. It garnered unanimous Republican support in Congress but was backed by only four Democrats, consistent with last year’s Senate rejection of the bill.

Glenn has repeatedly emphasized the urgency of securing our elections, warning that without reform in the next four years, free and fair elections may become a thing of the past. However, the SAVE Act faces significant hurdles. Republicans lack the Senate votes to overcome a filibuster, meaning the bill’s fate hinges on bipartisan support—something Democrats have been reluctant to offer.

So, what exactly does the SAVE Act do? Why are Democrats opposing it? And how can you help ensure its passage?

What the SAVE Act Entails

Stefan Zaklin / Stringer | Getty Images

The SAVE Act is straightforward: it requires voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship before casting a ballot in federal elections. This measure responds to reports of voter fraud, including allegations of noncitizens, such as illegal immigrants, voting in past presidential elections. Acceptable forms of identification include a REAL ID, U.S. passport, military ID, birth certificate, or other specified documents.

Additionally, the bill mandates that states remove noncitizens from voter rolls and lists of eligible voters. It also establishes criminal penalties for officials who fail to comply with these new guidelines.

Democrats’ Opposition to the SAVE Act

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Democrats have strongly criticized the SAVE Act, arguing it discriminates against women, transgender individuals, and minorities. They claim that people who have changed their names—such as women after marriage or transgender individuals—may struggle to vote if their current ID doesn’t match their birth certificate. However, the bill allows multiple forms of identification beyond birth certificates, meaning affected individuals can use updated IDs like a REAL ID or passport.

The argument that minorities are disproportionately harmed is slightly more substantiated. A recent survey showed that 93 percent of voting-age Black Americans, 94 percent of voting-age Hispanics, and 95 percent of voting-age Native Americans have valid photo IDs, compared to 97% of voting-age whites and 98 percent of voting-age Asians. However, in 2024, only about 58 percent of the voting-age population cast ballots—a trend that has been consistent for decades. There’s little evidence that Americans are prevented from voting due to a lack of ID. Instead of opposing the bill, a more constructive approach would be to assist the small percentage of Americans without IDs in obtaining proper documentation.

How You Can Make a Difference

Melissa Sue Gerrits / Stringer | Getty Images

The stakes couldn’t be higher—free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy. Conservatives must rally to ensure the SAVE Act becomes law. Contact your Senators to express your support for the bill and highlight its importance in safeguarding electoral integrity. Grassroots efforts, such as sharing accurate information about the SAVE Act on social media or discussing it with friends and family, can amplify its visibility. Local advocacy groups may also offer opportunities to organize or participate in campaigns that pressure lawmakers to act. Every voice counts, and collective action could tip the scales in favor of this critical legislation.

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

-Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park

The monstrous Dire Wolf, extinct for 10,000 years, has returned. This larger, ancient wolf species—popularized by HBO’s Game of Thrones—was resurrected by Colossal Laboratories, a Dallas-based bioscience company. Colossal utilized both preserved ancient Dire Wolf DNA and modern gray wolf DNA combined with some clever gene-crafting and a healthy pinch of hubris to create three approximations of the ancient canine.

While the wolves posed for a photoshoot alongside Game of Thrones props and its creator, Colossal’s broader plans remain unclear. However, what Glenn recently uncovered about the company is far more monstrous than the wolves will ever be. Glenn revealed that the CIA, through a nonprofit group known as In-Q-Tel, is funding Colossal's endeavors to bring back all sorts of extinct beasts. With the recently released JFK Files exposing the CIA’s unchecked power, Glenn warns of the dangerous potential behind this genetic manipulation—and the rogue agency’s possible motives.

Here are the top three most horrifying uses the CIA could have for this technology:

Dual-Use Technology

Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

Colossal and other biotech firms advertise a variety of "civilian" uses for bioengineered beasts, including research subjects, exotic zoos, and even climate restoration. As dubious as those uses are, Glenn revealed that the CIA could be cooking up something much worse. Gene-editing tools like CRISPR are inherently dual-purpose and easily adaptable for military use. As one of Colossal’s major investors, the CIA gains prime access to cutting-edge biotech, likely eyeing its potential for warfare.

Frankenstein’s Spy Lab

Like AI, one can only guess at the maximum capabilities of this gene-editing technology. On air, Glenn speculated about bioengineered resilient organisms, animals with tweaked senses designed for espionage or combat in areas inaccessible to drones or humans. Playing God to create new weapons of war sounds right up the CIA's alley.

Even worse than man-made mutant mutts, Glenn pointed out that these augmentations are by no means limited to animals. We could see (or rather, hear unverified rumors of) the rise of the next generation of super soldier projects. Human experimentation is not outside of the CIA's scope (think MKUltra), and genetically or chemically augmented humans have been a pipe dream for many a clandestine organization for decades. Is there anything more horrifying than an agency with as little oversight as the CIA in control of something as powerful and potentially devastating as gene-augmentation?

Eco-Warfare Unleashed

MARCELO MANERA / Contributor | Getty Images

Why attack a single target when you could attack an entire ecosystem instead?

Anyone who has had to deal with the destructive effects of fire ants knows how dangerous an invasive species can be to the human, plant, and animal inhabitants of any given region. Now imagine genetically engineered Dire Wolves or Woolly Mammoths unleashed by the CIA to cripple an enemy’s agriculture or environment. Such a weapon could inflict irreparable damage from a distance. Even the mere threat of eco-warfare might serve as a deterrent, though its unpredictability could reshape the world in ways we can’t control or repair.

Trump’s Liberation day unveiled: 3 shocking takeaways you need to know

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

President Trump’s new tariffs have sparked global outrage, and even conservatives are divided over the merits of his plan.

On Wednesday, April 2, 2025, President Trump declared "Liberation Day" to usher in a new era for the American economy. This bold initiative began with the introduction of sweeping tariffs on most—if not all—countries trading with the United States. These tariffs are reciprocal, meaning the percentage charged to each country mirrors the tariffs they impose on U.S. goods. The goal was to level the playing field between America and its trade partners.

As Glenn predicted, these tariffs have caused some immediate damage to the economy; the stock market has been hit hard, and China has already imposed a retaliatory tariff. While many fear that a recession is inbound, along with a global trade war, others are trusting in Trump's plan, keeping their head and preparing to ride out this rough patch.

So, what exactly are these "Liberation Day" tariffs, and what happened on April 2? Here are the top three takeaways:

Baseline Tariff

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

To kick off Liberation Day, the White House unveiled a baseline tariff affecting all imports to the U.S. Starting April 5, 2025, every good entering the United States will face a 10% tariff, regardless of its country of origin. While some nations face additional tariffs on top of this baseline, others—like the UK, Australia, and Argentina—only pay the 10% rate. These countries enjoy this leniency because they impose relatively low tariffs on American goods.

Reciprocal Tariffs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

For the countries that levied heavy tariffs against America, Trump hit them back hard. Cambodia, for instance, now faces a steep 49% tariff, while China contends with 34%, the EU with 20%, and Iraq with 39%. While these tariff rates may seem steep, they are all a good bit lower than the rates they apply against the U.S (see the full chart here). Trump’s strategy is to make foreign goods prohibitively expensive, encouraging manufacturing and jobs to return to American soil. Whether this gamble succeeds remains to be seen.

Canada and Mexico

Aaron M. Sprecher / Contributor, Chris Jackson / Staff | Getty Images

Notably absent from the "Liberation Day" tariff list are Canada and Mexico, America’s closest neighbors. That’s because Trump already imposed tariffs on them earlier this year. In February 2025, he slapped a 25% tariff on most goods imported from both countries to pressure them into curbing the flow of fentanyl across U.S. borders. Exceptions include agricultural products, textiles, apparel, and other items protected under NAFTA.

Does France's latest move PROVE lawfare is on the rise?

Sam Tarling / Stringer | Getty Images

An all-too-familiar story unfolded in France this week: the is law being weaponized against a "far-right" candidate. Does that ring a bell?

Glenn was taken aback earlier this week when he learned that Marine Le Pen, a popular French conservative, had been banned from the 2027 election following a controversial conviction. The ruling shocked French conservatives and foreign politicians alike, many of whom saw Le Pen as France’s best conservative hope. President Trump called it a "very big deal," a view shared by French commentators who fear this marks the end of Le Pen’s political career.

But this isn’t just about France—it’s a symptom of a larger threat looming over the West.

A double standard?

Fmr. President Sarkozy (left) and Fmr. Prime Minister Fillon (right)

BERTRAND GUAY / Contributor, Chesnot / Contributor | Getty Images

As of Sunday, March 30, 2025, Marine Le Pen led the polls with a commanding edge over her rivals, offering French conservatives their strongest shot at the presidency in years. Hours later, that hope crumbled. Found guilty of embezzling EU funds, Le Pen was sentenced to two years of house arrest, fined €100,000 ($108,200), and banned from public office for five years, effective immediately.

Glenn quickly highlighted an apparent double standard. Former President Nicolas Sarkozy and former Prime Minister François Fillon faced similar—or worse—corruption charges, yet neither was barred from office during their political runs. So why Le Pen, and why now? Similar to Trump’s "hush money" trial, legal troubles this late in the election cycle reek of interference. The decision should belong to voters—France’s largest jury—not a courtroom. This appears to be a grave injustice to the French electorate and another crack in democracy’s foundation.

This is NOT about France

Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images

This pattern stretches far beyond France; it’s a tactic we’ve seen before.

In early 2025, Bucharest’s streets erupted in protest after Romania’s Constitutional Court annulled the first round of its presidential election. Călin Georgescu, a rising conservative, had clinched an unexpected victory, only to have it stripped away amid baseless claims of Russian interference. His supporters raged against the decision, seeing it as a theft of their voice.

Both Georgescu and Le Pen echo the legal barrage President Trump endured before his 2024 win. The Left hurled every weapon imaginable at him, unleashing unprecedented lawfare. In America, the Constitution held, and the people’s will prevailed.

Now, with Tesla vandalism targeting Elon Musk’s free-speech stance, a coordinated pushback against freedom is clear—spanning France, Romania, the U.S., and beyond.

The war on free will

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Trump’s 2024 victory doesn’t mean lawfare is dead; Europe shows it’s thriving.

France and Romania prove its effectiveness, sidelining candidates through courts rather than ballots. Glenn warned us about this years ago—when the powerful can’t win at the polls, they turn to the gavel. It’s a chilling trend of stripping voters of their choice and silencing dissent, all the while pawning it off as justice. The playbook is polished and ready, and America’s turn could come sooner than we think.