President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

RELATED: Trump makes a bold push for global competitors to abandon nukes: ‘The power is too great’

Photo by Chip Somodevilla / Staff via Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

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

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Department of war, Department of defense, Defense department, Peace through strength, National defense, National security, Donald trump, Harry truman, Ronald reagan, Dwight d. eisenhower, Military industrial complex 

Snoop Dogg is not a fan of LGBTQ+ representation in kids’ movies — and apparently he’s not afraid to say it.

During a recent interview on Sarah Fontenot’s “It’s Giving” podcast, the famous rapper made controversial comments regarding the film “Lightyear,” which he took his grandson to see.

While they were watching it, he was surprised to find that one of the characters has two moms.

“They’re like, ‘She had a baby — with a woman.’ Well, my grandson, in the middle of the movie, is like, ‘Papa Snoop? How she have a baby with a woman? She’s a woman!’” he said.

Snoop said his grandson was confused by the same-sex couple and asked, “They just said she and she had a baby — they’re both women. How does she have a baby?”

“So it’s like, f**k me, I’m like scared to go to the movies,” Snoop explained. “Y’all throwing me in the middle of s**t that I don’t have an answer for.”

BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock agrees with Snoop, but he doesn’t agree with Snoop being the one to say it.

“Not a bad message. Wrong messenger. And I think if he wanted to send a real message, the story should have ended with, ‘Yeah, I pulled my grandson up out of this movie, and we left and, you know, went and streamed an old-school movie for kids,’” Whitlock says.

“My real thought is, Snoop needs to evaluate what his music has done to little kids and that his music has groomed as many kids for sexual degeneracy as any Disney movie,” he adds.

BlazeTV contributor Shemeka Michelle agrees, calling him “the wrong messenger” as well.

“For one, I don’t think he’s going to stand ten toes down. If he does, I’ll be surprised, but I’m so used to them backtracking and saying, ‘That’s not what I meant,’ or, ‘I love the LGBTQ community,’” Michelle explains.

“And I’m like you,” she continues, adding, “I would have gotten up and left the movie.”

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Camera phone, Video, Video phone, Upload, Sharing, Free, Youtube.com, Jason whitlock harmony, Jason whitlock, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Snoop dogg, Lightyear movie, Disney, Lgbtq hollywood, Lgbtq propaganda, Lgbtq agenda, Snoop dogg lgbtq kids movie 

The universities preaching that America is structurally racist now say they need international students to survive. Sad but true.

President Trump on Monday floated a proposal that has conservatives buzzing. Just before meeting with the president of South Korea, while discussing trade negotiations with China, Trump suggested that the deal might include allowing 600,000 Chinese students to attend American universities.

Instead of winning hearts and minds, universities would be exporting American self-loathing. Why should taxpayers fund that?

I’ve learned not to sprint ahead of Trump’s negotiations. He often uses public remarks as part of the bargaining table — dangling outrageous possibilities to shove the other side into error. And inconveniently for his critics, it usually works. Still, this one deserves a closer look.

Universities built on sand

As a professor at Arizona State University, the nation’s largest state school, I see firsthand how fragile higher education has become. Universities increasingly depend on international students to prop up their budgets. They reorient themselves not around local students but around foreign ones, reshaping programs and communications to make sure outsiders feel at home.

ASU boasts 195,000 students. Yet when the semester began, the university’s homepage highlighted international arrivals, not Arizona students. The welcome-back email did the same. Arizona families — the taxpayers who actually fund the place — were treated as an afterthought.

Administrators justify this by pointing to economic contributions, diversity, and talent. But native students notice the slight. Parents notice it too. The message is clear: Tuition dollars matter more than the citizens who built these schools. ASU may call itself the “New American University,” but more often it presents itself as the “No Longer American University.”

RELATED: Chinese nationals on student visas allegedly ripped off elderly Americans in nasty scheme

Moor Studio via iStock/Getty Images

A house of cards

Here’s the truth: Many American universities cannot survive without international tuition checks.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick admitted as much on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show, saying the bottom 15% of U.S. colleges would simply shut down without that revenue. Universities have operated like Ponzi schemes, built on the illusion that enrollment growth never ends. But as American students tire of being hectored with radical political agendas, growth slows and the budgets collapse.

The U.S. already hosts about 270,000 Chinese students, not counting tens of thousands more from India, South Korea, and elsewhere. ASU alone has 16,000 international students, down from 18,000 last year. Trump’s proposed deal would more than double the number of Chinese students nationwide overnight.

What are they learning?

Even if you grant the economic benefits, the bigger question — maybe the biggest — is: What sort of education would these 600,000 students receive?

We could introduce them to the greatness of the American experiment, the sweep of Western civilization, and the biblical truths that shaped both. We could even present the gospel to hundreds of thousands of students who may never have heard it before. That would be a noble exchange.

But that isn’t what happens on most campuses.

Drop them into a humanities classroom and they’ll be steeped in anti-racism, DEI dogma, LGBTQ activism, “decolonizing the curriculum,” and the thesis that America and the West are irredeemably wicked. Instead of winning hearts and minds, universities would be exporting American self-loathing — either by turning foreign students into residents who despise their host country or sending them home as ambassadors of contempt.

Why should American taxpayers fund that?

A higher-ed reckoning

Universities like ASU showcase international students while sidelining their own. They rely on foreign tuition to mask fiscal rot. And in exchange, they sell a curriculum that treats America as racist, the West as evil, and Christianity as oppressive.

No “economic benefit” offsets that catastrophic formula.

If American universities want to survive, they must first clean their own house.

Admit the harm caused by their reckless anti-America, anti-West, anti-Christian curriculum.Abandon DEI dogma, corrosive identity politics, and “decolonized” philosophy.Value American students — the citizens and taxpayers who fund these schools.Reorient higher education toward the people of the states and communities that built it.Teach again that we are created by God, equal in worth, and capable of knowing truth, goodness, and beauty.

Only then can we discuss whether more international students make sense. Until then, it is rich with irony: The same universities that teach contempt for America now admit they need foreign students to survive.

​Opinion & analysis, China, Students, Student visas, Donald trump, Xi jinping, Trade, Tariffs, Dollars, Universities, Colleges, Arizona state university, America, America first, Taxpayer dollars, Anti-american, Diversity equity inclusion, Dei, Ideology, Decolonize 

It’s election season, and Texas Senator John Cornyn (R) wants voters to believe that he’s an America First candidate and a close ally of President Donald Trump — but BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales knows that couldn’t be further from the truth.

“Actions speak louder than words,” Gonzales says on “Come and Take It.” “And so instead of just taking John at his word right now in 2025 when he is just trying to win an election, which, by the way, the polls show he’s probably not going to win. … Let’s look at actions.”

Conservative Review assigns federal officeholders a grade based on their “Liberty Score,” which is based on the top 50 votes that officeholder has taken in the duration of a rolling six-year window.

And Gonzales has Cornyn’s Liberty Score.

“Let’s give reasonable perspective. So, our other Texas senator, Ted Cruz, let’s look at his Liberty Score. He has a respectable 88%. Not perfect. I would expect an A from any senator from the state of Texas,” Gonzales explains.

“John Cornyn is coming in at [an] abysmal 54%,” she says, disturbed. “Now, I’m not great at math, but I believe that that’s an F. That is a failing Liberty grade. John Cornyn is failing in liberty, and this is coming from a Texas senator. That is embarrassing.”

Gonzales points to several things that could have contributed to Cornyn’s failing score.

“Did you know that John Cornyn was one of Joe Biden’s biggest cheerleaders on, well, many things, but one of which was his gun control legislation? Did you know that?” she explains. “Yeah, under Joe Biden, John Cornyn was pretty instrumental in the negotiation of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.”

“It increased federal grant money to states who enacted red flag laws. So it’s giving an incentive,” she adds.

And President Trump agrees with Gonzales.

“The deal on ‘Gun Control’ currently being structured and pushed in the Senate by the Radical Left Democrats, with the help of Mitch McConnell, RINO Senator John Cornyn of Texas, and others, will go down in history as the first step in the movement to TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY. Republicans, be careful what you wish for!!!” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.

“John Cornyn is the one that is being paired together, lumped in with Mitch McConnell, for good reason, because birds of a feather flock together, and the two of them were doing Joe Biden’s bidding with his gun control legislation,” Gonzales says.

“John Cornyn was as anti-MAGA as it gets,” she adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Camera phone, Video, Video phone, Upload, Sharing, Free, Youtube.com, Come and take it, Come and take it with sara gonzales, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, John cornyn, Joe biden, Maga, America first, Texas senator, Liberty score, The conservative review