Here’s the Cognitive Assessment Test That Trump Took – What’s Your Score?

It’s customary for the sitting president to undergo a physical exam each year, but President Donald Trump decided to add another test to the mix: one that checks your cognitive abilities.

The White House medical team selected the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), a 30-point test that screens for memory loss and dementia. The unusual decision may have been influenced by critics’ accusations that Trump is not mentally fit to be president.

On today’s show, Glenn and Stu looked at the test, and Glenn had “Dr. Stu” check out his mental health. Can Glenn identify a lion, draw a cube and remember five words? Listen to the full clip (above) to find out, and then check out the test for yourself.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So the president had a -- had some -- a series of tests done on him yesterday. And his doctor said he is as strong as an ox. Now, this is not the crazy -- remember the doctor he had on that was like our movie doctor. You're like Dr. What's-his-face from Back to the Future. I would like a real doctor, please.

STU: Oh, yeah. This was during the campaign, you mean? And they were like, yeah, and he's super mega healthy.

Wait. Mega. Did you use the word mega as a physician? It was that type of thing.

GLENN: Yeah. I know you were from Columbia. But he just looked crazy.

STU: And they talked to him. And he didn't really examine him. And he was using strange words. He was using Trump words. It looked like Trump gave him the script to write. And no one, I don't think, really believed he wasn't healthy. But there was speculation in the media for sure --

GLENN: Yeah. I wanted the doctor questioned. Not because I didn't think Trump was healthy. Just because I thought he was nuts.

STU: Right.

GLENN: So yesterday, the president's results -- his test results were released to the press. And first, let's talk about his physical health. Here's what his doctor said.

VOICE: How a guy who eats McDonald's and fried chicken and all those Diet Cokes and never exercises is in as good a shape as you say he's in.

VOICE: It's called genetics. I don't know. Some people have just, you know, great genes.

I told the president that if he had a healthier diet over the last 20 years, he might live to be 200 years old. I don't know.

He has incredible -- he has incredible genes, I just assume, you know. If I -- if I didn't watch what I ate, I wouldn't have the cardiac and overall health that he has.

GLENN: So he is in good, physical health. And you got to believe Donald Trump loves the gene talk.

STU: Oh, yeah. He's big on that.

GLENN: Yeah, he's big on the racehorse theory. Hey, we breed racehorses. Kind of a 1910 progressive eugenics kind of thing. He is all in, and so is the whole family.

STU: I love the, how can a guy eat McDonald's and be healthy? You can actually -- you know what, almost everyone in America eats McDonald's at times. You can be healthy.

It's funny, seeing people that are like, well, yes, I put butter in my coffee, but how can this man eat McDonald's? Well, of course nine stacks of avocado toast are completely fine, along with coconut butter. But how dare he have a piece of chicken.

GLENN: And who doesn't understand the genetics thing, that there are people who can smoke, drink, and eat sticks of butter, and live to 120?

STU: Yeah. Is it a good idea? Does it hurt your percentage chance to live longer? Yes. That does not mean that eating these things -- especially if you eat them without a ridiculous amount, that doesn't mean you're going to be unhealthy at all.

And then they have to throw the, how can he have all these Diet Cokes? I don't know. Maybe him eating zero-calorie beverages is the reason he can have McDonald's. Is that possible?

Brainiac. I hate that stuff. But he did pass the test and did pretty well. I think you could look at him and say, wow, he --

GLENN: I would hope --

STU: You're impressed by --

GLENN: I would hope that I would be as healthy as he is when I'm his age.

STU: Or now.

GLENN: Or now. I would take it five years ago.

(laughter)

STU: Retroactively trying to match a 73-year-old's health. That's good.

GLENN: Yep. I don't have the genetic predisposition to long life.

(laughter)

STU: That's not good.

GLENN: No.

STU: The other thing was -- by the way, we also found out today, apparently Sanjay Gupta, who is -- you know, you might think of him as a TV doctor. But they wanted him to be a high role, I can't remember was it? Attorney general?

GLENN: No, I think it was surgeon general.

STU: Yeah. For the Obama administration. He was their first choice. And he wound up turning that down. Apparently was saying, if you look at the numbers, that guy has heart disease.

Wait a minute. His doctor didn't say he had heart disease. But Sanjay, looking at the numbers, has been able to take the code and suck out heart disease from these numbers, apparently.

So we'll get more on that as that develops.

GLENN: Well, how old is he? Seventy-two? Seventy-three?

STU: Seventy-three, something like that, yeah.

GLENN: I mean, if you're 73 and you're living like Donald Trump, you know, I think you kind of -- you're kind of like, "A little heart disease isn't bad for me."

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Seventy-three, 75 years old, I'm thinking, oh, I only have a little heart disease. Good.

STU: Exactly. You think the guy has been able to do whatever he wants for how many years. He owns a lot of the best restaurants in America.

GLENN: He never exercises.

STU: Doesn't exercise.

GLENN: He's my hero. He never exercises.

He eats whatever he wants. And he's 4 pounds heavier than he was a year ago?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: God bless him.

STU: Especially going into that job, I mean, I would put on 60 in a week.

GLENN: We would have to have soup makers on constant standby.

STU: At some point, you just start building them with release flaps, where you can just expand --

GLENN: Oh, yeah. Just staple. Staple the sides together because you'll need the extra material later.

STU: Yeah, make it for someone who weighs 600, and I'll grow into it. I promise.

GLENN: That's right. That's right.

STU: But the other big thing about this was people wanted him to take a cognitive test.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And to test his brain. Because everybody thinks in the media, apparently, that he is just mentally unfit to be president. Now, mentally unfit to be president is completely different than I don't like his policies, I don't like his character, I don't like his demeanor. Like those are all things that the media obviously doesn't like. But it's completely different than whether he is mentally capable of thinking -- you know, thinking in a normal, human way.

GLENN: I think there are times that he is mentally lazy. Intentionally. He just hasn't thought things through. Just hasn't -- you know, I think he has changed from the personality that if you go back and look at the videotapes in the 1980s and '90s, but I don't think that's a decline in his mental health. I think that's just a -- you know, I haven't thought about it in a while. I'm 73 years old. I'm a little lazy on that.

STU: Right. But none of that stuff you would be able to detect in a mental test. So he took a mental test for the first time ever, apparently. No president has ever had to take one of these tests before. And it wasn't because the doctor was like, well, I'm unsure of this guy. Apparently Trump wanted it done so he could prove that he was okay.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, when you have people around you going, I don't know. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment, we could get him out of here. I'm taking a mental test.

STU: Yeah, why not? Let's prove that -- and that's obviously a ridiculous media narrative, right? You know, the idea that he is incapable of thinking like a normal human being is completely absurd.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: We do have the test, an example of the test.

GLENN: Yeah. So we thought -- because, you know, when you're given a mental test, I don't know, the president passed it. Could you pass it? We'll give you the mental test they gave the president in a minute.

GLENN: So the president passed his mental agility test. And, you know, they can't use the 25th Amendment against him because he's passed a -- you know, a sanity test, or a mental agility test. I will tell you, I have had these tests before. I've had it at Columbia, and I've had it at the Mayo Clinic. Because for a while, I was testing like I had severe concussions. And they couldn't figure out what was going on. And we were afraid that maybe I was going into early Alzheimer's or something. And so I had these tests.

And they're kind of spooky in a way. I mean, they're -- they're tough. And, you know, Stu won't let me see the paper now, so I'm a little nervous now.

STU: Call me doctor, please.

GLENN: Well, no, I'm the doctor.

STU: Call me Dr. Stu for today.

GLENN: Okay. Okay. Dr. Stu.

STU: Because you're right, I won't let you see it in advance. That will not give us the results we're looking for. I will say this, looking at this test, it is not a test of let's do a deep dive and search to see if there's anything wrong with your thought process.

It's more of a test that you would give someone if you highly suspect they have dementia or they just had a stroke and you want to be able to check whether they're able to complete basic human thought. Right?

It's not a -- it's not a type of test that you're going to read into and be like, oh, my gosh.

You know, it doesn't say --

GLENN: Do you have the whole test? Because the whole test, at least the one I took, took at least an hour.

STU: Yeah. This is one page. We can do it quickly.

GLENN: Oh. Okay. Okay.

STU: It's a basic test though. Your uncle has a stroke. They're at the hospital. Is there major problems with his brain? Here's a cognitive test. You go through it quickly. This shows you can do basic processes. Do you have a pen? We'll do it here?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: The first part is, there's three visual tests that won't work particularly well on radio. But we'll explain them. There's a bunch of numbers and letters for the first test and it gives you the beginning of the path. For example, the number one, there's a line drawn to A. Then there's a line drawn to two. You have to complete the pattern.

GLENN: Then a line drawn to B.

STU: That's a good. Yeah, why don't I just give you the answers?

So going down to B. Then B would go to three.

GLENN: Then that would go to C. Then it would go to 4. Then it would go to D. And then it would go to 5, and that would go to E. This is not a real --

STU: Let me see -- the next one. It is. This is the test. It's the Montreal Cognitive Test. Now, there's another one that says for Glenn to draw -- copy a box.

GLENN: I'm sorry. But this is a -- this is not -- this is not an invasive test.

STU: What it is, is the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and don't -- I mean, you can rush through all you want. I don't know if you're trying to prove something here.

GLENN: No, it's just easy.

STU: Okay. So it's easy for Glenn. So there's three tests here. We'll be posting the results here online. How much time do we have, Sarah? Should we go through the next questions?

GLENN: Did I get those right, Doctor?

STU: I will grade you at the end. Thank you for calling me doctor.

GLENN: All right. I will tell you, I just -- I didn't even read the directions, they're so easy. If I have any wrong, it's because I didn't read the directions.

STU: Wow, President Trump was able to read the directions and get them right.

GLENN: Okay. I'll read the directions.

STU: I'll show you a picture. I'd like you to tell me what that picture is. What is that?

GLENN: That's a lion.

STU: A lion is the answer. Get that to my physician's assistant. The first answer was lion. Next one, I'm showing you a picture. What is this picture?

GLENN: That is a rhino. Rhino.

STU: A rhino. And finally I'm showing you this picture, what is this picture?

GLENN: That is an ostrich, a zebra -- a camel. Trust me, this is not --

STU: Lion, just writing down your answers. Rhino.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And a camel.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: Next up. Are you ready?

GLENN: I'm ready.

STU: I am going to read a list of words.

GLENN: Oh, boy.

STU: You must repeat them. Okay?

GLENN: Do I have to wait for a while and then repeat them or just repeat the word you just said?

STU: I'm going to read all five words, you're going to repeat them in that order. Are you ready?

GLENN: All right. Okay. Yes.

STU: Face, velvet, church, daisy, red.

GLENN: Faith, velvet. Daisy, church -- I'm bad at these.

STU: Okay. We're going to try it one more time.

Here is the five words. Repeat them in this order. Face, velvet, church, daisy, red.

GLENN: Face, velvet, daisy -- church, daisy. I can't remember.

STU: Okay. Premiere, we're going need to a new host.

GLENN: Going need to a new host.

STU: We're going to need a new host.

GLENN: I've gone through more difficult tests than these. I have a difficult time with some of them. I have a difficult time with them.

STU: We are learning things -- so far, we've learned many things. In my studies of your test so far, I've learned many things --

GLENN: When you see the lion is actually a chicken, we're -- you'll see how troubled -- how troubled we really are. Back in just a second.

GLENN: Now, I'm under -- I'm under a great deal of stress now.

STU: Welcome to the Dr. Stu Program. 1-800-DR-STU.

GLENN: That's not enough numbers.

STU: We're giving Glenn the cognitive test that the president passed with flying colors yesterday. And we're learning some interesting things as we go through this.

GLENN: Well, now he's telling me that there's certain grades for how well the clock is drawn and stuff. I made a clock face quickly. And just...

STU: Okay. That's --

GLENN: Okay. Here's a picture of a more detailed clock. Here's a grandfather clock. Does that help?

STU: There's an interesting section in the instructions about people who make excuses for their incorrect answers, that we can get into a little bit later.

GLENN: Okay. All right. Okay.

STU: We're now in the next section.

GLENN: Yes, next section.

STU: And here is --

GLENN: By the way, the president passed this with flying colors. I'm still in jeopardy here.

STU: I'm going to read you a list of digits. You need to repeat them in four-word order.

GLENN: Digits. Wait. What do you mean in four-word order?

STU: Normal order. The way I'm going to give them. All right. Two --

GLENN: Two --

STU: No. When I'm done with all five of them, you will then repeat the five.

GLENN: All right. Okay. Okay. All right.

STU: Yeah, two --

GLENN: Somebody write them down.

STU: No, you can't write them down. Just saying. Two.

GLENN: Two. All right. I'm sorry. Go ahead -- I got the first --

STU: I'm about to subtract some points. Listen to the five numbers. Two, one, eight, five, four.

GLENN: Two, one, eight, five, four.

But I would like to say, that it is five, two, one, eight, five, four. Because you said five several times before.

STU: I said two many times because you kept interrupting me.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. And two, two, two. Five, five, five -- it's actually five, two, five, two, five, two.

STU: Sir, we can remove you from office.

GLENN: All right. Go ahead.

STU: There's a silliness clause in this test.

GLENN: All right.

STU: I would like you to repeat these numbers in backward order. Put your pen down, sir.

GLENN: In backward order. I'm just finishing clock face.

STU: Put your pen down. You've already failed the clock test. Well, we'll see how you did on the clock. Repeat these in backward order. Seven --

GLENN: Backward order. Sorry.

STU: Seven, four, two. There are three numbers I just gave you.

GLENN: Two, four, seven.

STU: That is correct. You'll be getting the full test results here in just a moment.

GLENN: See, this is not like a real test. Is this really the one they gave the president?

STU: This is the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and, yes, this is the test.

GLENN: Because I will tell you, I've had these before, and here's how they usually go, I'm going to give you five numbers. Okay. Let me give them to you here, Stu. Let me see if I can do this with you.

STU: He is stalling to get out of it. I'm getting that from my physician's assistant here in the other room.

GLENN: No. Seven, 14, 21, eight, three. Say them.

STU: Wait. You didn't tell me what we were doing.

GLENN: I'm saying. I'm giving you five numbers, you repeat them back. Seven, 14, 21, eight, three.

STU: Seven, 14, 21, eight, three. So you're saying the test designer has a problem?

GLENN: Yeah, he's a little insane.

STU: Is that the issue here? Are you trying to delay so we don't get to the end of the test?

GLENN: No, no, no.

Five numbers. Ready?

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Five, three, 17, 40, nine.

STU: Five, three, 17, 40, nine.

GLENN: Give me the first five numbers that I gave you.

STU: Seven, 14, 21, eight, one, three.

GLENN: Okay. So the real tests, they keep doing this. They just keep adding five numbers. And they'll give you five numbers. Five numbers. Five numbers. What were the first five numbers?

STU: That would be impossible. And, again, that's an interesting distinction between the tests. The one you're talking about is, let's do an incredibly deep dive to see if we can find any hint of anything that's at the very beginning stages.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: What this is, you just had a massive stroke. Can you do the basics? That's what the president passed.

GLENN: In this test, they had the president draw a three-dimensional box. In the test that I've seen, they'll show you something like this.

STU: Where you're seeing like a rectangle, circle, square --

GLENN: Like a little antenna thing coming off the end. And then it comes out and it juts out. And they don't make any sense. And they show it to you for like are five or ten seconds. Say, remember this. They put it away. Now, draw it.

STU: Right. Much more challenging.

GLENN: And you have to draw it. Because it's very intricate. And there's no rhyme or reason to why it's built that way.

STU: And, Sarah, you would say this is a delay to not get to the answers in the test.

SARAH: Absolutely.

STU: Okay. Thank you. Okay. There you go. I would like you to clap your hands. Okay. Thank you. Here you go --

GLENN: You didn't say stop clapping.

STU: Please stop clapping your hand. Okay. Now, every time I say the letter A, I would like you to clap. Okay. That's it.

GLENN: That had A in it.

STU: When I say the letter A, you should clap. Ready?

GLENN: Got it.

STU: F, B, A, C, M --

GLENN: Go ahead.

STU: -- N, A.

GLENN: A. A.

STU: J.

STU: K. L, B, F --

GLENN: Now, is this the letter -- because they sound --

STU: F, A, K, D, E, A --

GLENN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

STU: A, A, J, A, M -- this is harder than I thought.

GLENN: Well, because the K and the J, if it's not in the letter, it does have J-A-Y. So it has an A in it. I'm just saying.

STU: Now, the next question, you specifically warned me not to give you any math questions, which is not something you could ask the doctor. You can't say anything, but blood tests. You can't do that.

GLENN: Yeah, I didn't ask the doctor to not --

STU: I'm going to give you a number. I would like you to subtract seven from that number.

GLENN: Seven.

STU: Okay?

GLENN: Fourteen.

STU: I haven't started yet.

GLENN: All right.

STU: The number is --

GLENN: Twenty-one.

STU: I haven't started yet, so you can't --

GLENN: Seven. Six, five, four, three, two, one.

STU: I think we lock you up after this. Okay. One hundred. Subtract seven.

GLENN: Ninety-three.

STU: Subtract seven from that.

GLENN: It would be 93. Ninety-two, 91 --

STU: You can use your fingers. It doesn't say you can't.

GLENN: Oh. Ninety-three, 92, 91, 90, 98 -- no, that the be right. Eighty-nine, 88, 87, which would be wrong.

STU: See, in the test materials, there's no point, where it recommends the doctor harass the patient to try to pressure him into correct answers, but that is what I'm too good.

GLENN: Okay. Seventy-one.

STU: All right. We're going to move on. Repeat the sentence.

GLENN: Twelve.

STU: I only know that John is the one to help today.

GLENN: I only know that John is the one to help today. But the trick is repeat this sentence, because that's what you just said. So it's a trick question.

STU: Okay. Here's another one I'm going to give you, and I would like you to repeat it. Here it goes: The cat always hid under the couch when dogs were in the room.

GLENN: Here it goes: The cat always hid under the couch when dogs were in the room.

STU: Okay.

Let's see.

GLENN: Twenty-nine.

STU: I don't even understand that question. Okay. Let me ask you this one. We're looking for similarity here. For example, a banana and an orange. The similarity would be they are both --

GLENN: Round.

STU: Fruit. Okay.

GLENN: Colorful.

STU: Similarities between trains and bicycles.

GLENN: Both have wheels.

STU: Okay. Of course, obviously not true.

GLENN: Yeah, but trains have wheels, bikes have wheels.

STU: I'm not here to judge you, sir, except for --

GLENN: Both are made out of metal.

STU: Okay. A watch and a ruler.

GLENN: A watch and a ruler.

STU: What's the similarity there?

GLENN: I'm trying to think of something that just doesn't work. They both have numbers. They're both measurement.

STU: Don't try to justify --

GLENN: They're both round.

STU: Okay. Now, I earlier on gave you five words --

GLENN: Oh, you --

STU: If you get one of these --

GLENN: It is that.

STU: That is in here.

GLENN: Yeah, it was. Face, velvet -- all I can think of cake -- so I think automatically cake.

Face, velvet. I don't remember.

STU: Okay. And -- all right. And then what -- well, I'm not going to give you the date, month, year, all that stuff. You know where you are. Date.

GLENN: Do not ask me that. I really don't know the date.

STU: I don't know it either.

GLENN: I don't know the date. The 18th?

VOICE: It's Wednesday, January 17th.

STU: Thank you. We have it at the beginning of every show.

GLENN: It's Wednesday, January 17th.

STU: What year?

GLENN: 2018.

STU: What's today?

GLENN: Wouldn't it be great if it was -- if one of the real legitimate questions, who is president? You would be like, me.

GLENN: Me.

STU: What place are you in?

GLENN: A chair. Studio.

STU: What city?

GLENN: Las Colinas. Earth.

STU: City, you got that.

VOICE: You're listening to the Glenn Beck Program.

GLENN: Okay. Got it.

STU: We'll take a break. And I will go through and grade this for you.

GLENN: Could you kick me off the show? Is there the 25th Amendment that you could just kick me right off --

STU: This has been a giant ruse to make you take this test and see if you're mentally fit to do this program.

GLENN: Wow. I will tell you, that is -- with the exception of one of the last questions of, oh, and what was those five words? That was not --

STU: Not hard, right?

GLENN: Yeah, not hard. You know --

STU: You could easily screw one of them up. You could easily have a problem here or there. Now, Trump did very well on it. But, again, he also knew, if he got anything wrong, it would be a major news story. So he maybe focused a little bit more than you. However, we could make it a major news story too.

GLENN: No, I don't think so. I think somebody questioning your mental agility, if you're taking it seriously, that's a lot of pressure.

STU: Okay. We'll hold you to the same standards then. I was going to give you a break, but we'll be happy to hold you to the same standard as the president. I think that's fair.

GLENN: That's not what --

STU: I'll go through a little grading here. And you do the commercial, if you can get through it.

GLENN: Face, velvet, cake. Orange. Trapdoor.

STU: Is this the commercial? Or are you --

GLENN: Just trying to remember what those words were.

STU: Got it.

The double standard behind the White House outrage

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A new Monroe Doctrine? Trump quietly redraws the Western map

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.