Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Evan McMullin Will Be on the Ballot in Potentially 45 States

October 13, 2016
Ted Tuttle

Editor

Independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin joined Glenn on radio Thursday for a compelling interview about the state of the election.

McMullin's campaign has experienced a notable surge in Utah, and the Independent Party candidate is already on the ballot in 34 states. By Election Day, that number could soar to 45.

RELATED: Evan McMullin: We Must Seek Honest, Wise Leaders, Not Merely Those the Party Gave Us

Glenn and McMullin discussed the 13 principles outlined in his document Principles for New American Leadership and serious issues like Russia, ISIS, border control and the economy.

Read below or listen to this segment for answers to these questions:

• What qualifications does McMullin have to handle the economic crisis?

• How will McMullin's CIA experience help with fighting ISIS?

• What are McMullin's positions on personal and business taxes?

• Will McMullin force companies to return to the U.S.?

• Where did McMullin earn his MBA?

Listen to Part 2 of Glenn's most recent interview with Evan McMullin on The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: We are talking to Evan McMullin, candidate for president. He is a candidate -- will be a candidate in 50 -- or, 45 states by the time this is over.

Let me give you a couple things, Evan, to talk about. Because, you know, people don't really know who you are. And we are facing some really bad scenarios coming our way. One, Russia has said in several different ways in the last few weeks that they are rattling the saber, saying that we're on the edge of nuclear war.

I don't know how much of that is true. But I do know that Putin -- do you know how who Dugin is? Aleksandr Dugin. Are you familiar with him?

EVAN: I'm not.

GLENN: Okay. Aleksandr Dugin is one of the advisers of Putin, a really dangerous guy. He has his fingers in the alt-right here in America and all throughout Europe.

EVAN: Oh, yes.

GLENN: So we have that brewing. We have Islamic jihad brewing.

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: We have an open border situation where we don't know who is in this country.

EVAN: Right.

GLENN: And then today we have this: HSBC, the head of the technical analyst department for HSBC has said we are now on red alert for an immanent selloff in stocks, given the price over the past few weeks. He says the pattern shows that we are headed for something at least as bad as 1987.

What experience do you have -- we know you have now CIA experience, global foreign relations experience, but what experience do you have on the economy and finance?

EVAN: Well, you know, I attended the Wharton school, earned an MBA there, and then went on to work in finance at Goldman Sachs. A -- a bank that, you know, is very --

GLENN: Oh.

EVAN: -- is very controversial. But I'll tell you what I did and what I learned, which I think are lessons that all presidents should know. And that is what it takes for companies to thrive in this global marketplace in a way that they can create jobs here in the United States, good-paying jobs. I worked with leaders in industrial companies. Companies that make airplanes and airplane parts here in the United States. I worked with technology companies. I was in California, San Francisco. I worked with companies and consumer package products, in health care. But I learned so much about so many different industries during my time there. And they all have different needs. And they all face different challenges.

But presidents should know these things. Presidents should know that we need government, for example, to get out of the way in order for our economy to thrive.

You know, the number one thing I heard from business leaders when I was working with him in that role is that they had a lot of capital on the sidelines, they would say, that they couldn't or didn't feel comfortable investing in new jobs and new equipment, because they were worried about regulatory uncertainty or a regulatory burden, even if there wasn't uncertainty, just the burden of regulations.

So that's a huge problem we have. I mean, there's so many others -- the corporate tax rate and others. But, you know, we've got to have a president who will signal to the business community that this company -- this country is going to be open for business, that companies are going to be able to thrive.

And part of it, also, Glenn, I just have to say this is that we've lost sight of promoting a truly open market. We've got way too much crony capitalism. I saw it with my own eyes, when I was the chief policy director for the House Republicans.

You know, we have a government that's sort of geared towards helping big corporations. But -- but that -- you know, but advances policies that stifle the small- and medium-sized company, that can't deal with these regulations. And so why is that such a bad thing?

It's a bad thing because it harms competition. And because of that, it harms innovation. And innovation is the lifeblood, one of the lifebloods of our country. We need a more open economy. We need to get rid of crony capitalism. It's a huge problem. But we will not thrive unless we make some of these changes or all of them.

PAT: We're speaking to Evan McMullin, independent candidate for president.

Evan, this is Pat. You know, in addition to going to Wharton -- whatever, but you also attended BYU. Right? And I saw you last week or a week and a half ago at the game. And, you know --

GLENN: We have 40 minutes with the presidential candidate and you're going --

PAT: And being a Cougar fan is one of his most impressive attributes.

GLENN: Right. Do you have a real question?

PAT: But you also have been -- you've worked really closely -- like you said, you were the chief policy adviser for the House. And so what are your -- what's your position on taxes, in a business and personal taxes?

EVAN: Oh, on businesses, I think we need to lower the corporate tax rate. I said 20 percent. The reason that's important is we need our businesses to be able to reinvest in technology and in equipment and in jobs. That will make our workers more productive, which will mean their salaries will go up, which will mean other companies will want to be here because --

PAT: So you're saying you're going to force companies to come back to the United States of America.

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: What do you think of that idea, Evan? What do you think of that idea, forcing companies, government forcing companies to come back?

EVAN: Well, so let's take a look at Donald Trump's idea, right? So he says, okay. Company X moves to Mexico and starts producing its wages there. So he's going to put a tariff on widgets that come from that company into the United States.

Guess what's going to happen? That country -- or, that company is just going to go to another country where those tariffs don't exist and produce the widgets there. I mean, that's -- it's just so ridiculous. What we want to do is have an open economy that attracts people, companies willingly to come here. That's how we've thrived in the past. That's what we need in the future.

STU: Evan, it's Stu again.

I had an interesting thought or realization the other day, I think, which was, we had this really big debate. We all fought about it in 2009, over this -- Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan. We all thought it was a terrible idea. And 787 billion, you can remember it because we said it so many times, it was such a big number.

We have Hillary Clinton now proposing a new $275 billion stimulus, which no one has talked about at all, and probably because Donald Trump has promised to more than double it, over $550 billion.

He also proposed this new child care and family leave situation, paid for maternity leave and things like that paid for by the government, that the new estimate that just came out from a right-leaning think tank was $680 billion in cost.

We fought so hard against the $787 billion stimulus, but no one is thinking about these sorts of things anymore.

What is your approach on government spending to stimulate the economy and for new entitlement programs?

EVAN: Oh, my goodness. Well, listen, on stimulating the economy, I just have so much faith in the ingenuity of the American, in the -- just the grit that Americans have to create and to build. And that's the strength of our economy. It doesn't come from the government. And the more we think it does and the more we use entitlements and other programs to try to spur economic growth through the government, the less free our economy is. The less open it is. The less competition we have. The less innovation we have. So, look, it's just a fundamental thing.

In order to thrive, we've got to -- we've got to create an environment where people will take risks, where people will innovate. And we can't do that if we're growing the size of government. Therefore, taxing people more. Therefore, depriving people of their economic liberty, which is just liberty. And all of these things are connected.

So new entitlement programs, no, thank you. We need to reform the ones that we have. We do have some important programs that form an important safety net. But they're on autopilot. Congress doesn't even review this spending on an annual basis, if ever. Hardly ever they do.

And right now, it's over -- entitlement programs and our interest on debt that we pay every year is over two-thirds of the budget. If we do nothing, if we stay on our current path, it will be 78 percent of the budget in ten years.

And so we've got to make reforms. And we can do that so that we keep our obligations to people who are retired now and who are retiring soon.

But for people like me who have got decades more of work, let's -- you know, we're going to live longer. Let's increase the retirement age gradually, let's phase it in. And I think we need to do means testing too -- if I'm super wealthy, which I'm not, but if I were, I wouldn't need to collect Social Security. Let's make sure that we have that safety net for people who really need it. Let's just be smarter with our entitlements so we don't burden the American people with an overwhelming -- an overwhelming amount of debt and taxes.

GLENN: Okay. So, Evan, are you available tomorrow at about this time? Do you know? Can you make yourself available?

EVAN: I'll have to check with my team. But I would love --

GLENN: See if you can make yourself available. Here's what I'd like -- because here's what I've heard from you. I've heard a lot of great things, but I've heard your resume. And I can think like the person at home. And they -- what they've heard is, wow, okay. He's got some great background stuff. But on the flip side, you are former CIA, which can mean I'm for foreign involvement everywhere, entanglements, war, yada, yada. Continuation of what we've already done. Two, I used to work at Goldman Sachs, which means to some people I'm for the bank bailouts and cronyism and Wall Street and the fed.

EVAN: I'm not.

GLENN: I know. I know. I'm just -- but this is what I think your resume screams.

And then the last one is, I also was with the House. Well, the House was for stimulus and the bailouts. And they didn't repeal Obamacare. A lot of people in the G.O.P. despise the American -- you know, the average American. And so what I would like to do, because I don't think it's fair to ask you -- to throw that on you and then say, can you give me a two-minute answer.

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: Can you come back tomorrow and tell me what sets you apart in foreign policy from the -- the entanglements that have caused this mess --

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: The Goldman Sachs that are for the cronyism and the bank bailouts and the Federal Reserve just being -- running unchecked, and the House Republicans, what sets you apart from those three things that we hear in your resume? Would you do that?

EVAN: Well, I would love to come back. I just -- because, you know, Glenn, I don't control my schedule.

GLENN: I know. I know.

EVAN: But I will check with my team. I would love to come back. Chances are, we'll do it because this is an important, you know, discussion to have.

But very briefly, I'll just say, on foreign policy, I have said that I think the Iraq War was a mistake. I believe we do need to lead in the world. But I believe we can do it with less blood and treasure. And we can talk about that. I'm happy to talk about that.

With regard to my time at Goldman Sachs, look, I'm not here to represent Goldman Sachs. But I struggled -- I was raised in a lower middle class family. You know, we couldn't turn the heat on in the winter. We worked very, very hard. Parents worked three jobs. I know what it's like out there. And, you know, I'm not wealthy. I've worked hard for everything I have. And I had an opportunity to work at Goldman Sachs. And I learned a ton. I'm not here to defend Goldman Sachs in any way or the bank bailout, which I opposed and all of that.

GLENN: Sure.

EVAN: But I will say that I learned things there that every president should know, period.

As far as my time in the House, look, I was asked to come back and serve. I answered that with a yes, and I did come back and I served. I fought unauthorized spending. I fought mandatory spending. I fought to reform the VA's health care system.

You know, you got to engage. And, you know, that's what I've done. And I've served for most of my life this country.

GLENN: Okay. So tomorrow, if you can, and if not, we'll schedule it some other time, but if you can, I'd like you to focus -- we'll spend the same amount of time, and I'd like to focus on those three things: Foreign entanglements, the cronyism of capitalism and Goldman Sachs kind of image, and where you differ from the House Republicans, which we have -- I feel this audience has fought those guys perhaps harder than we had to fight the Obama administration. And we'll continue the conversation.

EVAN: Yeah, yeah. All right. Looking forward to it.

GLENN: What's your website? Evan, what's your website?

EVAN: Yes. Yes. It's EvanMcMullin.com. And if you want to go to that principled document, which I hope you will, go to EvanMcMullin.com/principles. And you spell McMullin with an I-N at the end, not an E-N. EvanMcMullin.com.

GLENN: Okay. Thank you very much, Evan. I appreciate it. You should buy the E-N domain name too. You should get EggMcMuffin.com

PAT: Have them all. Yes.

GLENN: You should have them all. Anyway, now, this.

Featured Image: Former CIA agent Evan McMullin talks to to the media after announcing his presidential campaign as an Independent candidate on August 10, 2016 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Supporters gathered in downtown Salt Lake City for the launch of his Utah petition drive to collect the 1000 signatures McMullin needs to qualify for the presidential ballot. (Photo by George Frey/Getty Images)

Top THREE reasons we NEED the Panama Canal

Justin Sullivan / Staff | Getty Images

Is Trump seriously planning a military conquest of the Panama Canal?

In the weeks leading up to the inauguration, Donald Trump launched the Panama Canal into the national spotlight. The canal is one of the most important passages in the world, and its continued operation has been critical for both the U.S. military and economy since its construction.

Since America relinquished sovereignty of the canal, China has asserted its authority in the region. The Chinese Communist Party has been growing its influence in Panama and neighboring Latin American countries, convincing them to join their "Belt and Road Initiative," an effort to poise China as the main economic power in developing nations across the world. Panama in particular is quickly becoming a Chinese puppet state. There are currently over 200,000 Chinese living in Panama, a Chinese company runs two of the canal's five major ports, and another Chinese company provides telecommunication service for a large portion of the canal. The government of Panama has even gone as far as cutting diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

It's clear that the Panama Canal is under serious threat of falling into Chinese hands, but President Trump doesn't intend to let them move in. Here are the top three reasons we need the Panama Canal:

1. The canal was built by the U.S.

Hulton Archive / Stringer | Getty Images

Without the United States, neither Panama nor the Panama Canal would exist. In 1903, after Colombia refused to allow the U.S. to build a canal across the isthmus of Panama, President Teddy Roosevelt devised a controversial plan. He supported a Panamanian independence movement, which swiftly overthrew the local Colombian government. Meanwhile, he stationed a U.S. warship off the coast, preventing Colombia from sending military forces to retake Panama.

The moment Panama declared its independence, the U.S. recognized it and struck a deal with the new government: the U.S. would control the Canal Zone, while Panama would receive $10 million and an annual payment of $250,000. Construction of the canal took over a decade, cost $375 million, and resulted in thousands of American casualties, making it the most expensive U.S. construction project of its time.

Fast forward to 1964 when tensions between the U.S. and Panama over the canal erupted into a riot. President Lyndon B. Johnson decided it was time to transfer control of the canal to Panama. However, this proved more complicated than expected. In 1968, General Omar Torrijos, a known ally of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, seized control of Panama in a coup. Negotiations over the Canal stalled, as many Americans opposed giving such an important asset to a controversial figure. It wasn’t until 1999, following the deployment of 27,000 U.S. troops to facilitate yet another change in power, that the Canal was officially handed over to Panama.

2. The canal is vital for the U.S. economy

IVAN PISARENKO / Contributor | Getty Images

The U.S. relies heavily on the Panama Canal for commercial shipping. Between 13 and 14 thousand ships use the Panama Canal every year, which is roughly 40 percent of the global cargo ship traffic. Additionally, 72 percent of ships traversing the canal are either heading toward or leaving a U.S. port.

The time ships save using the Panama Canal reduces shipping costs massively. For example, when the canal first opened in 1922, it was estimated that a ship’s journey from Oregon to the UK, was shortened by 42 percent, reducing costs by 31 percent. If the Panama Canal was blocked or destroyed, or if American merchant vessels were denied passage, the effects on the U.S. economy would be tremendous.

3. The canal is a key defense point for the U.S. military

Historical / Contributor | Getty Images

Similarly, the canal is key to the U.S. military and national security. The canal shaves off approximately 8,000 miles of the voyage between the Pacific and the Atlantic. If U.S. Navy ships were denied access in a time of crisis, the extra time required to bypass the canal would be disastrous. Conversely, if the U.S. can keep the Panama Canal from being used by foreign aggressors, it would provide a massive advantage in future conflicts.

A foreign enemy could easily exploit the canal's current vulnerability. This was proven in 2021 when a cargo ship accidentally blocked the Suez Canal for a week, paralyzing global trade. Imagine China intentionally sabotaging the Panama Canal, considering it controls ports on both ends, owns a bridge that spans the Canal, provides its telecom services, and has the second-largest fleet of ships using the route.

TOP 5 takeaways from JD Vance's 'Face the Nation' interview

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

After an eventful first week in office, JD Vance wrapped the week up with a bang of an interview on "Face the Nation."

Last weekend, Vice President Vance joined "Face the Nation" host Margaret Brennan, who drilled Vance on everything from the economy to immigration. Vance clapped back with polite yet cutting responses, and he defended Trump against some of her more accusatory queries.

If there was any lingering doubt that JD Vance wasn't vice presidential (or presidential) material, they have just been blown away. Here are the major takeaways from his electricinterview on Sunday:

1. J.D. Vance defends Trump's cabinet picks

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Brennan opened the interview with a barrage of questions that brought up concerns surrounding some of Trump's cabinet picks, specifically Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard.

Brennan began by questioning how effective Pete Hegseth could be as Secretary of Defence, given that he was confirmed with a tie in the Senate that VP Vance broke. Vance responded with a quick breakdown of all of the issues the military is currently facing. Vance argued that Hegseth's unpopularity in the Senate results from his being a disruptor.

Brennan also attacked Tulsi Gabbard, calling her unfit for the title of "Director of National Intelligence." Vance defended Gabbard, citing her formidable resume and strong character. Vance also discussed the corruption of our intelligence services, which out-of-control bureaucrats have weaponized against the interests of the American people. He expressed his belief that Gabbard would be the right person to reign in the corruption and return the National Intelligence Service to its intended purpose.

2. J.D. Vance explains how Trump's economic policies will lower consumer prices

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan pushed Vance on the economy, specifically questioning when prices for consumer goods would begin to fall. Vance explained that within the plethora of executive orders issued by Trump during his first week in office, many were aimed at bringing more jobs back into America, which will raise wages and lower prices. Other orders will boost energy production, which will reduce energy costs and decrease the costs of goods.

3. J.D. Vance sheds light on needed FEMA reforms

ROBYN BECK / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan drilled Vance on President Trump's proposed FEMA reforms, specifically regarding Trump's suggestion to send states a percentage of federal disaster relief funds so that they can quickly distribute aid rather than wait on federal action. While Brennen argued that FEMA has specialists and resources that states would not have access to, leaving people without aid, Vance argued that recent disasters, like Hurricane Helene, have proven that FEMA's current bureaucratic red tape deprived Americans of immediate aid when they needed it most.

4. J.D. Vance defends Trump's mass deportations

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

Vance defended Trump's decision to allow ICE to conduct raids into churches and schools against Brennen's criticisms, arguing that law enforcement should remove a dangerous criminal from a school or church, regardless of their immigration status. He also advocated for Trump's proposed changes to birthright citizenship to prevent illegal immigrants from abusing the constitutional amendment by having "anchor babies" on U.S. soil.

Vance also took a hard stance supporting Trump suspension of admitting Afghan refugees. Brennan argued that Afghan refugees were going through a thorough vetting process and were now being abandoned by the U.S. However, Vance cited the foiled terrorist attack in Oklahoma City during Trump's 2024 campaign that was orchestrated by an Afghan refugee, who was allegedly vetted by federal agents. The vetting process is clearly flawed, and it was a prudent decision to halt the admission of these refugees until further notice.

5. J.D. Vance insists that Trump will still reign in Big Tech

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

To wrap up the interview, Brennan questioned the Trump administration's stance on Big Tech given the attendance of the industry's biggest names at Trump's inauguration, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew. Vance assured Brennan that Trump is still resolved to curb the power and influence of Big Tech.

Top THREE reasons the U.S. NEEDS Greenland

EMIL STACH / Contributor | Getty Images

Are Trump's repeated promises to claim Greenland for the U.S. just belligerent imperialism or a deft move to secure the future of America?

During his patriotic inaugural address, President Trump reiterated his campaign promise to expand American territories, including securing U.S. control over Greenland. This is not a new idea despite what the mainstream media may claim.

The idea of buying Greenland was originally introduced by progressive hero Woodrow Wilson in 1917 as an attempt to secure the homeland as America was gearing up to enter the First World War. The second attempt came after World War II when President Truman tried to buy the island from Denmark in another attempt to shore up national security, this time against the Soviets. Since then, Trump floated the idea in 2019, which was met with much the same ridicule as now.

The truth is that the acquisition of Greenland represents far more than just an outlet for repressed imperialist desires. It would be one of America's best investments in a long time, which is why we've been eyeballing it for so long. Here are three reasons the U.S. needs Greenland:

Strategic Military Position

THOMAS TRAASDAHL / Contributor | Getty Images

For the majority of the 20th century, Europe was the region from which a foreign attack on American soil could be launched: the Germans for the first half of the century, and the Russians for the second half. On both occasions, Greenland stood between our foreign enemies and the United States.

After the World War II, America was the official military defender of Greenland, per an agreement with Denmark. Under this agreement, the U.S. built Pituffik Air Force Base, a remote base 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle. Due to its location, approximately halfway between D.C. and Moscow, the Pentagon still views Pituffik as a vital component of America's nuclear defense.

The U.S. also built a secret base within the ice cap known as Camp Century. Camp Century was part scientific outpost, part nuclear-tipped ballistic missile silo built in the ice to withstand a direct atomic strike. The nearly two miles of icy tunnels were powered by a nuclear reactor and were designed to survive a nuclear first strike, and return fire. Although abandoned in 1967, Camp Century still symbolizes the strategic importance of Greenland for U.S. security.

Untapped Resources

OLIVIER MORIN / Contributor | Getty Images

While Greenland's population is a mere 56,000, the island has a total landmass nearly three times the size of Texas. According to a 2009 geological assessment, a whopping 30 percent of the Earth's undiscovered natural gas, and 13 percent of its undiscovered oil is locked away beneath Greenland's icy ground. There are also untapped deposits of valuable rare earth metals including copper, graphite, and lithium.

Neither Greenland nor Denmark have any real plans to tap into this immense wealth trapped beneath the ice, but it could prove crucial for ending the West's dependency on China. China has the global market cornered on rare earth minerals- including America. We acquire 72 percent of our rare earth mineral imports from China, making us entirely dependent on them for the manufacturing of many essential goods. Tapping Greenland's natural resources would help free America, and the West, from China's yolk.

Polar Silk Road

mark peterson / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2018 China launched an ambitious project that aimed to cut the travel time of cargo vessels between its ports and European markets in half. China, in collaboration with Russia, plans on developing new shipping routes through the Arctic Ocean. This bold new strategy, dubbed the "Polar Silk Road," has been made possible thanks to new tech, including a fleet of Russian, nuclear-powered icebreakers, the latest of which is capable of breaking through nearly 10 feet of ice.

With clear waterways from eastern China and Northern Europe, it won't be long before the first cargo ships brave the frigid sea and China looks to the next leg of the journey: the Northwest Passage. The Northwest Passage is the area of sea between Canada and the North Pole that would be an optimal shipping route between America's East Coast and Asia if it wasn't frozen over most of the year. But with new technology, we may be able to overcome the challenges of the ice and open the passage to commercial traffic, and Greenland is positioned directly on the passage's easternmost mouth.

Greenland would quickly become a key location along the Northwestern Passage, acting as a sentinel of the east, with the ability to control traffic through the trade route. If China or Russia were to take control of Greenland, they would dominate the Northwestern Passage, along with the rest of the new northern trade routes.

Is Romania squashing its own 'Trump' candidate?

DANIEL MIHAILESCU / Contributor | Getty Images

This week the streets of Bucharest, the capital of Romania, erupted in protest after the Constitutional Courts annulled the recent first round of the presidential election after the "far-right" candidate won.

The government is lying to you. If you have been listening to Glenn for a long time you already know that, and you also know that if you try to call attention to the lies you get labeled a conspiracy theorist or "far-right." This is not only true in America but across the world. Politicians cheat, steal, and grab power, then lie about all of it. This is the root of countless issues across every government on the planet, and recently Romania has become the latest example of this unfortunate phenomenon.

But what is really happening in Romania? Was this an actual attempt to stamp out someone who would shed light on lies and corruption? Or did the Romanian government put a stop to a genuine bad actor?

The Election

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

On December 6th, 2024, the Romanian Constitutional Court canceled the second round of the presidential election amid claims of Russian interference. The second round of the election would have seen right-wing candidate, Calin Georgescu face off against pro-European centrist Elena Lasconi.

The trouble surrounds Georgescu, who stands accused of using Russian aid to run an unprecedented social media campaign that helped him win an election pollsters claimed he stood no chance of winning. Georgescu's rapid rise in popularity on social media does raise some eyebrows, and to add to the suspicion he declared he had zero campaign spending. On the other hand, Georgescu's supporters claim that his quick rise to stardom and underdog victory is due to the growing resentment for the ever-out-of-touch political elite.

Georgescu's Platform

Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images

Georgescu rose to prominence on a platform many of his detractors have labeled "far-right," "pro-Russian," and "populist" (sound familiar?). His positions include supporting Romanian farmers, increasing Romanian self-reliance, and increasing local energy production. Georgescu has been lauded for his message of hope and vision for the future and his dedication to truth, freedom, and sovereignty.

Georgescu is also a vocal Christian and a supporter of the Romanian Orthodox Church. He has questioned the climate change and COVID-19 narrative as well as NATO and the war in Ukraine, which is how he earned his "Pro-Russian" monicker. Georgescu promised to respect and honor its obligations to the EU and NATO, but only to the extent that they respect Romania and its interests.

What Happens Next?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

After Georgescu's unexpected victory, the Romanian Constitutional Courts annulled the election's first round and scheduled it to restart on May 4th. As of now, it is unclear whether Georgescu will be allowed to participate in the new election. This act by the Constitutional Courts triggered mass protests in the capital, Bucharest, and has caused many Romainians to question the state of democracy within their country.

Many of the protesters are calling what happened a coup and are demanding the election be allowed to continue to the second round. They are also calling for the resignation of current President Klaus Iohannis, who has maintained power thanks to the incomplete elections. Georgescu has officially challenged the court's decision and even made a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, but it is unclear if his appeal will make any difference.