Binary Choices Lead to Walls, Condemnation and Destruction

The binary choice offers two options --- one good, one bad. Whatever side you agree with, you become an enemy of the other side. Take Black Lives Matter, for instance.

"Right now, we're being told there's a binary choice. The binary choice is, they're good or they're bad. That's it. They can't be anything else," Glenn said Thursday on his radio program.

So what do you do, when you've made the binary choice?

"You say, Well, I've got to build a wall against all those bad people, and I've got to condemn anybody who is for them, listens to them, wants to march with them, because they're all bad," Glenn said.

main-image-binary-choice Screen shot from The Glenn Beck Program, October 6, 2016.

And the other side does the same thing.

"So a binary choice leads to walls, condemnation, destruction and separation of two camps that only becomes balkanized. It only becomes the Palestinians and the Israelis --- and there is no coming back from that," Glenn said.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these singular questions:

• Are the two political parties exactly alike now?

• How did Democrats convince 97% of a population to vote one way?

• What term did communists invent that is killing us now?

• Is a sit down or powwow after the election literal or metaphorical?

• Does Pat have herpes and will a cream help?

• Can we please get out of the binary box?

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

GLENN: Let me take you to this frustrating binary choice thing we're in right now.

I'm not even going to tell you the personalities involved because it doesn't matter because it's not about the personalities.

One personality yesterday said, "Hey, why won't Donald Trump do X?" And the other personality tweeted out immediately, "Well, you should be mad at Hillary Clinton. Why don't you -- you know, you must -- it's just because you're for Hillary Clinton."

STU: Clearly support Hillary Clinton.

PAT: Oh, good gosh.

GLENN: Right? Okay. So everything that you do is a binary choice.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: You either do it --

STU: And we should also point out, a binary choice always defined by someone other than you. Everyone else gets to define what your binary choice is.

GLENN: Yes. Correct.

STU: Which is such a wonderful place to live. It's never our choice. It's never our responsibility to come up with our own decisions. Someone gets to define what the binary choice is, and we must abide by their decision.

GLENN: Right. And if you don't, they destroy you. That is the new binary choice.

PAT: Or at least they're trying.

GLENN: Yeah, well, here's the thing -- let's just put it this way. The two parties are now exactly alike, except constitutionalists are now the black population for the Democrats.

If you step out of line and you're a Democrat and you say, "No, I think that guy is bad. I think Hillary Clinton is not going to be good for us." I don't think Barack Obama -- what happens? You're an Uncle Tom, and they'll do everything they can to destroy you.

PAT: You're not even black.

GLENN: And we sit here -- we sit here, and we look at that and we say, "Black people, you got to -- wake up. Wake up." They're looking at us and saying, "Wake up? We have woken up. And every time we wake up and try to stand up, we're shoved down into the ground."

I contend Bill Cosby would have gotten away with everything that he did his whole life, had he not rocked the boat at the end and started talking about his own community and saying, "Hey, we've got to look at our own community." Basically, what is he saying? The same thing the Democrats don't want to say about the family. The same thing they don't want to say about Detroit. That the things that we've been doing and are being told to ignore are the problems.

So you can't have anybody think. You got to shout them down. That's what's happening with the Democrats, with the black community. And it works.

That's how you can get 97 percent of a population to vote one way. Shut them up. It worked for Saddam Hussein. It's been working for the Democrats for how long? Did Glenn Beck just call him?

So now we're doing it. Now, unless you go with the party, you are politically incorrect in the way that the communists who invented that term, really meant it. You are not correct with the political party. And you will be shut down, shut up, made uncomfortable, and in the case of the communist, you're going to be shipped off. You're going to go into a camp.

And if not, you're just going to be disappeared. You'll go to Siberia, or you'll go into the ground. That's the real term "politically correct." That's the heritage of "politically correct."

Now if you are politically incorrect, you're an enemy. You're a traitor. And everything is a binary choice.

Now, let me show what happens to binary choices. Let's take Black Lives Matter. Right now, we're being told there's a binary choice. The binary choice is, they're good or they're bad. That's it. They can't be anything else. They are good or they're bad. Let's say you say they're good. Or, let's say you say they're bad. Because that's what most people on our side say, they're bad.

Okay. So what do you do, when you've made the binary choice? You say, "Well, I got to build a wall against all those bad people. And I've got to -- I've got to condemn anybody who is for them, listens to them, wants to march with them, because they're all bad." If you're for Black Lives -- if you excuse anything -- because these people should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Get over it. Right?

And if you don't agree with that, you're an enemy. You're with Black Lives Matter. So what do you do? You build a wall around them, make them the enemy. You condemn them. That's what that wall is all about. Then you try to convince others that they're bad. And if you can't convince them, that person you're trying to convince, they become bad.

And the other side does the same thing. So a binary choice leads to walls, condemnation, destruction, and separation of two camps that only becomes balkanized. It only becomes the Palestinians and the Israelis. And there is no coming back from that.

It's my side or the highway. Balkanization. My way or the highway -- thank you -- thank you for just the look.

Let me give you another choice, not a binary choice, one that doesn't lead to Balkanization of the United States of America, or we could just say, "I'm not getting back together with anybody. You were against, and so I will always be against you. And you will be my enemy because you voted differently. And I will never stand with you."

PAT: I'm not coming out to do some kind of sitdown powwow with you after the election.

GLENN: I'm not asking.

PAT: I'm not coming out to some powwow where we sit around and talk about things after the election. I'm not doing that.

GLENN: I'm not talking -- I'm not asking you to --

PAT: Well, that's what I'm not going to do, so stop asking.

GLENN: I'm not asking.

PAT: You're always saying, you want to sit down and do some powwow, some get-together after the election.

GLENN: No, I'm saying that we're all Americans after the election. And we're all going to metaphorically come together --

PAT: Why do you keep saying we need to come together and do a powwow after the election?

[break]

GLENN: Okay. So if you have a binary choice. If everything in our society -- and it is -- everything in our society is -- you're either for us or you're against us. You either love this or you hate this. Okay?

It's -- it's a binary choice. And a binary choice leads to the same thing over and over again. For instance, Black Lives Matter. Good. Okay. Well, then the people who oppose it are bad. And you got to stop them. Or it's bad. And the people who oppose that idea that it's bad, you have to stop them, because they're bad too. And you build a wall and you don't move any further. Or you could say there's more than a binary choice. There's good and bad, which builds the wall, and some will do. Or there is -- let's just take one -- they're bad, but some of the people can be saved. Or they're good, but they -- a lot of the people in there have been co-opted by bad leaders who don't understand what they're following. They've never gone to the Black Lives Matter website. I can guarantee you, Kaepernick does not know what the leadership wants and where they stand just on Israel. It's like a whole page on anti-Israel stuff. And they don't know where they stand on capitalism.

STU: And he's certainly not making that salary under their proposals.

GLENN: Correct. So you can make another choice. And I want to show you how one builds a wall and the other keeps the walls down and keeps us moving forward, when we come back.

[break]

Talking about binary choices and how dangerous binary choices become. And take the election out of it.

I know this is hard to do because everybody is making everything about the election. But in, what, 30 days, 33 days, the election is over. And we have to come together.

And for those who don't understand, I don't mean literally come together. I mean we're going to need each other. And we're going to need to come together metaphorically. I didn't think I needed to express this, this way. But I do.

PAT: No, but apparently, some people are so stupid, you do have to --

GLENN: Yeah -- stop it. Stop it. Stop it. You are the one who caused the last flare-up of herpes. Stop it. I'm trying to put some cream on this.

PAT: Me too.

(laughter)

GLENN: Yeah.

JEFFY: I got to tell you, sometimes the cream doesn't work. I just want to let you know.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, this cream will never work.

Anyway, I don't mean come together. What I mean is, metaphorically, we need to be Americans again. Because no matter who is going to be our president -- Trump or Hillary -- trouble is coming. And depending on who you're voting for, you'll think that the other one is going to have more trouble. And you may end up being right.

But we'll never know. Will we? Because she's want going to go to a parallel universe and run another country so we'll have a double-blind -- we won't know. We'll just know, we need to stand together so we can weather any storm that might come our way, from the outside or the inside.

And I'm using Black Lives Matter as a -- and please, do not use this as politics. These are principles.

Black Lives Matter to show you the binary choice. One, the binary choice: Good, bad. Leads you to a wall, you don't go past that. You become a balkanized country that sees things one way or the other, black or white, and you go nowhere, because you have nothing in common because you stopped talking to each other a long time ago.

Black Lives Matter, let's just say, you decide they're bad. They're bad. The leadership is bad. What they're doing is bad. But not all the people are bad.

Well, now that's not a binary choice. No, no, you got to make -- they're good or bad. We have to condemn them all or not. No, no. It's like -- and I know this isn't popular currently again, but this audience understood currently when we did it because it took a lot of explaining because we are trained to think binary -- we all want immigrants to be legal. We -- at least in this room, we all want legal immigration. We all want really tough border security

PAT: And I will say, nobody has fought harder than illegal immigration than we have. No one has fought harder.

GLENN: Yeah, you have been -- you're crazy on it.

PAT: Yeah, and nobody has opposed more consistently comprehensive immigration reform than we have. When others were flip-flopping on it because the nominee in 2012 was for it --

GLENN: No, no, when others were flip-flopping because George Bush was the president for the G.O.P. --

PAT: And that too. We were rock solid on that.

GLENN: We were hardcore. So anyway, we have been there -- thank you, Pat for another flare-up.

PAT: Yes, you're welcome. No, I'm just clarifying.

GLENN: I know.

So, anyway, we have been -- we have been solid on this. We went down to the border because I said, "I am for legal immigration, not illegal immigration." We want border security. We want this -- we need this to be solved. And if you come across the border, you need to go home. But we must soften our hearts and see the plight of people. We need to see that there are bad guys. We need to see that there are drug runners. We need to see that there are Syrians and Iraqis and really bad ISIS and al-Qaeda guys coming across our border. But we also need to see the children. And when it comes to the children, we don't just box them up and put them in storehouses, and then do what with them?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: We need to love the children and love people, unless you've proven yourself to be a bad guy. And then you have credibility to say, "I love you. Now it's time for you to go home." And we need to make sure our hearts don't harden and harden into a place where we can't see people anymore.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Black Lives Matter, good, bad, build a wall, you don't see people anymore. Or bad, but some of these guys are good. They're just misguided. They're being led by people and they don't even know who they're being led by. Because they've had something happen in their life or they've been brainwashed, quite honestly, by an educational system and a culture that just tells them, "You can't make it. These guys are bad. And there's no escape." And as our mothers used to say, "Show me your friends, I'll show you your future."

How many of us have gone down the wrong road because we have surrounded -- don't answer this, Pat, because I don't want to hear this answer. We've gone down the wrong roads because we've made friends with people who were strong personalities that weren't necessarily on the straight and narrow. And you changed your behavior and you changed courses. How many of us have been sold a load of goods that now in retrospect, we were like, "Oh, crap. I can't believe I was so stupid, I believed that."

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: But if you had a bunch of people standing around you --

PAT: How many times had we said that about the Bush administration? How misled we were about the Patriot Act and going into Iraq --

GLENN: Oh, yeah. Yeah. Right. All of it. All of it. And if you were surrounded by people, as we were by the Michael Moores --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: -- who were extremists themselves, who said, "All these people are just bad people." And we're like, "No, we're not bad people. We really believe this. We don't think he's a bad guy."

PAT: Right.

GLENN: If somebody would have reached out to us, honest, not trying to -- not a Susan Sarandon -- honest. And sat down with us and really talked to us and loved us and proved they loved us -- they were our friends -- and look, we can disagree. Glenn, you and I can disagree. You might in the end really say war is right. But they would have sat down with us, and they would have listened to us. And then they would have said, "Wow, you've got some good points here. And I didn't know that. I'm going to go look that up. I did not know that. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm wrong. But you look up that. I'm going to look up what you showed me, and you look up what I just showed you. And let's come back together."

Not the intention of winning.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But the intention of reconciliation. The intention of, "Let's just come back together on the facts."

PAT: It would have been better. But I don't know that it would have swayed us because now we have ten, 12 years of evidence. You know, we've got -- we've got 12 --

GLENN: I contend nobody tried.

PAT: That's for sure. That's true.

GLENN: And look what happened, now no one tried and now we're in these camps of enemies where nobody even listens to the other side.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: No one -- let's take another example. The New York Times, and CBS, ABC, NBC, they have deemed people like us bad for so long, that they could come out and say the truth about something that we believe in and have the documentation. And you still wouldn't believe it. Because you would look at it and say, "Well, it's NBC. It's the New York Times. Of course, they're going to say that." Well, but wait. Here's the video. They --

JEFFY: We did use disclaimers, right? We would do stories or do reports and say, "Well, but it's NBC, so."

GLENN: Yes. But now it's gotten to the point where I said to Stu back in the '90s, there's going to come a point where you won't even believe your eyes. We now watch videos and we still dismiss it.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Because that's just the media out to get X, Y, or Z.

It's on video!

So we've set ourselves up for absolute failure and the balkanization -- which, by the way, just want to let you know, is one of the goals of the Weather Underground, of the communists, of everybody, to balkanize the United States. E pluribus unum is bad. Because e pluribus unum means, from many one, and you can never defeat them when they're one. You have to break them up.

Black Lives Matter, you could love them first. Be honest and find a way to see the common humanity, which is almost impossible now. You're not a human anymore. You're a member of the media, or you're a conservative, or you're a liberal, our you're a Clinton supporter. Or you're a Trump supporter. And there's nothing in between, okay?

There's no humanity. I keep saying, "Am I not more than who I voted for?" Is this the only thing -- you'll see it on Facebook. Somebody will say, "Hey, this is a great pie recipe. Oh, notice it's apple pie. Apple pie. All you conservatives want apple pie, like everything is going to be fine if your beloved Donald Trump gets in." You're like, "What the hell -- I'm just giving a pie recipe." Okay. It's happening in everything. Everything.

We could love. We could listen. We could learn. Then we could either say, "I was wrong." They could say they were wrong. Or we could say, "I was a little bit wrong, and they were a little bit wrong." And we could stand united on those principles and those facts that we now agree on, together. Or we can continue to take one step.

Hmm. Bad. Build wall. Don't talk. Demonize. Put into camps.

We could do that. But that leads to our total downfall.

Or we could not do the same thing and expect a different result. We are doing the same thing -- George Washington warned us against this: Don't do the two-party system. Because the two-party system, they're going to start demonizing each other. And it's going to get worse and worse and worse, until you will divide into two camps. And then, somebody who is unscrupulous will come outside and say, "It's these two party people, and I will make everyone who disagrees with us pay."

And he won't be doing it for any other reason -- and I'm not saying this is Trump -- I'm telling you what Donald -- I'm telling you what George Washington said would happen. And that will be the end of the republic because everyone will just want vengeance because everyone will feel that they have been wronged by the other party who is now their enemy.

What do you say we try something different? And even if we vote differently, at least after the election, we try to take a deep breath and realize we're going to need each other.

PAT: I'm not coming to a powwow. Sit down and discuss things after the election.

GLENN: Oh, is that herpes? Yes, it is. Thank you.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Glenn Beck Program

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.