Former Libertarian National Committee Chair Angela McArdle shared details of a meeting she had with then-Republican candidate Donald Trump during the 2024 election cycle in a speech delivered at the NH Liberty Forum this past month. McArdle also discussed her experience with the campaign and her role in securing a pledge from Trump to pardon Ross Ulbricht.
McArdle recounted the events in a mainstage keynote address at the annual gathering, which is hosted by the Free State Project. Local media estimated that around 300 attendees participated in the full forum. McArdle’s talk, titled “The Heart of the Deal,” covered her initial contact with Trump, the conversation that led to his appearance at the Libertarian National Convention, and his pledge to pardon Ulbricht. A full transcript of her speech has since been published on Third Party Watch.
According to McArdle, she came into contact with Trump through Ric Grennell, his former acting director of national intelligence. Grennell had initially reached out to gauge how Libertarians felt about Trump, with McArdle acknowledging areas of agreement between them, including Trump’s foreign policy views and his criticism of corporate media. She also expressed concerns about pandemic-era stimulus spending and the drone strike on Iranian military officer Qasem Soleimani in early 2020.
She later met Grennell for dinner in Texas with her family. During the meal, she recounts that Trump spoke to her over the phone directly for about forty-five minutes, asking further questions about Libertarian voters.
“What was really fascinating is, he knew all about me,” McArdle recalled. “I said I liked how he made the worst people’s heads explode, and he was like, ‘Oh, you know, I say the same thing about you. I’ve been reading on the internet—you make a lot of heads explode. You make a lot of Libertarian heads explode.’ So that was really interesting, you know?”
Trump reportedly asked how he could reach such voters and said he didn’t think the Libertarian Party would win. McArdle responded that she wasn’t focused on the presidency but rather on influencing local races and other issues. She was invited to Mar-a-Lago several weeks later through Grennell.
While at Mar-a-Lago, McArdle met with Trump, Grennell, campaign co-chair Susie Wiles, and one other unnamed adviser over dinner. While waiting for Trump to arrive, the group discussed Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and individuals McArdle said she would like to see pardoned. At this point, Ulbricht’s name had not yet come up. She also addressed allegations with the NH Liberty Forum audience that she was paid to attend the meeting, denying the claim and saying she paid for the trip herself.
Once Trump arrived, McArdle said the discussion turned to reaching voters, monetary policy and the Federal Reserve, and the drug war, specifically mentioning reclassifying cannabis from a Schedule I to a Schedule II substance. Trump then expressed interest in speaking at the Libertarian National Convention. McArdle suggested he address members on a topic such as freeing Ross Ulbricht or another political prisoner. When Trump asked who Ulbricht was, and after hearing the name and explanation, he reportedly said he “loves freeing people” and agreed to attend.
McArdle explained she raised Ulbricht’s case because of its emotional impact and resonance with both Libertarians and bitcoin advocates.
“You have to choose something with maximum emotional impact,” she said. “It has to have high emotional appeal, because think about how asymmetrical the bargaining power is right now. You have to choose something that people will emotionally invest themselves in.”
According to McArdle, Trump’s staff remained in consistent communication for more than a year after the meeting, though contact tapered closer to the election. She said one staffer reached out again less than a week before the inauguration to clarify whether Ulbricht should receive a commutation or a full pardon. Trump, who said at the Libertarian National Convention he would commute Ulbricht’s sentence on his first day in office if elected with Libertarian support, ultimately issued a full pardon the following day, a delay McArdle attributed to scheduling.
She also said she was on the phone with Trump’s team during the first assassination attempt against him in Pennsylvania, originally calling to discuss ballot access. McArdle noted that Trump had been slated to speak at Rescue the Republic, a multi-group rally in Washington, D.C., that she helped organize in late 2024, but coordination became impossible following the attack due to heightened security needs.
Since Trump began his second term, McArdle said she continues to lobby on behalf of two “prominent Bitcoin Libertarians,” with one likely being a reference to Roger Ver, whom the party had organized a committee around prior to her resignation as LNC chair. She said she is hoping to secure a position within the Trump administration and hopes to help place additional Libertarians in federal roles, though she did not specify what that has looked like.
McArdle also commented on the framing of the Libertarian Party’s message during the election, referring to its presidential nominee, Chase Oliver, as “a sub-par candidate.” She praised him, claiming he made it easier to secure more Libertarian votes for Trump as a result. She also very briefly mentioned the Kennedy Victory Fund, the joint fundraising committee between Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Libertarian National Committee.
McArdle concluded her speech with a pitch to attendees to help recruit a 2028 Libertarian presidential candidate who could secure a position on another candidate’s transition team or in a federal cabinet in return for dropping out.
“I don’t care whether or not you join the Libertarian Party, especially not right now,” McArdle said. “But you should all help me recruit our next presidential candidate, so that we can get more people out of prison who are there wrongfully, so that we can put an end to foreign conflicts that the United States shouldn’t be meddling in, and so that we can preserve the future of this beautiful country for our children. So let’s start working on our next heart of the deal.”
Editorial note: The author of this piece helped Third Party Watch obtain a full video copy of the speech for transcription purposes.
That’s not surprising. Conservatives / rightists / small l libertarian learners are relatively happier on average with the GOP/Trump on average right now than liberal-left are with Democrats / Biden / Harris / etc. So, parties of the left – greens and socialist and left leaning independent – did relatively well; libertarians and constitution relatively less so. That included who drew stronger and weaker than average potus candidates and many other interrelated factors.
What’s the evidence that Ulbricht was freed for other reasons? Or put another way, why wouldn’t she have? It’s verifiable fact she met with Trump privately and publicly. It’s verifiable fact he went to their convention site while they were gathered there and asked for their support. It’s verifiable fact that freeing Ulbricht was one if their key public demands at that event. I seem to recall reading Ulbricht considers himself at least small l libertarian if not big L. Skepticism is generally healthy, but is it warranted in this case? What’s the countering evidence?
Interesting.
First, I continue to doubt McArdle’s claims that she had any real influence re Ross Ulbricht.
Second, as far as vote-generating power, I again remind everybody of something that will continue to delight me for the next four years, and that is that Libertarians finished behind Greens last year — well behind.
Thanks again. Do you ever do articles to ask questions and hopefully get answers via comments, pingbacks, resulting private and social media conversations, etc? I think ipr used to but it may have been before your time. Idk for sure.
If the faketarian information is correct, it doesn’t necessarily change the questions to be asked. For example, one faction may have submitted the theme idea as a dig at another, but the other faction may have turned it to their advantage by funding it, or by letting the opposing faction play themselves. Or, maybe the deliberate dig theory is correct. I’m only asking questions, but you’re probably better at getting the answers. This discussion will do for now.
What do other folks reading this if there are any think about this and for what reasons?
What about interviewing folks? McArdle / Padgett? Anyone else?
What happened or will happen with the “New opportunity” that will / would / was going to “make (some) people’s heads explode” ?
Curious: I’ll pass that along. Just as a heads-up, I don’t expect an answer right away, so I’ll post a notice about the new policy in the Monthly Open Thread before the end of the day.
As for the basis of an article, I do think there’s potential, and I’m always happy to gather more information. Some details would need further investigation before I’d feel comfortable publishing something here on IPR. I’ve seen at least one anecdote that contradicts the connection to the convention theme, assuming it’s accurate: someone affiliated with the Fakertarians group previously claimed the theme name was submitted as a deliberate dig at the former chair, though I’m not able to say if they were the person who did the submitting.
I know I can be overly cautious, especially when it comes to content and sourcing. That said, I don’t believe the party ever announced who submitted which theme suggestions or how much support each received. That’s something I’d want clarified, especially since it might help identify who was involved in the donation process.
As an aside, I’m a private historian in my personal life and once placed a bid on an item the Libertarian National Committee was auctioning for my home collection. As a result, my personal information appeared in an FEC filing. It’s very possible that some donor information could become publicly available in the near future, depending on how much those individuals had already contributed up to that point.
LEO libertas – thank you for the summary of the upshot of what I helped X compose regarding the matters we’re curious about with McArdle/Padgett/Freedom Calls corporation and theme and related matters
. Jordan, would you see those posts combined or something based on them forming the basis of a new article ? If yes: Would you help compose it, only post but not compose, or neither?
Thanks again, Jordan. When you add the new written policy, or if you already did, will you also post an article or at least comment to let us know it’s there? If I may make a suggestion for you to pass on, could you please make it an article, and make that the place to discuss the policy for those who can’t use email for that purpose, if at all possible, please?
Curious: That’s a good question, and I unfortunately don’t have an answer for you now. I will reach out and ask.
Below, X asks about whether it’s a coincidence that the theme of next year’s libertarian national convention – freedom calls – which was chosen through a fundraiser auction – is the same as the name of the telemarketing company owned by Angela McArdle’s husband Austin Padgett – Freedom Calls.
X also asks about the timing and reasons of Mrs. Padgett’s resignation from her 2nd term as LNC chair. At the time, she said she was resigning to take a soon to be revealed opportunity – as in job – which would make some heads explode. This was rumored at the time to be a Trump Administration job, perhaps underneath HHS Secretary Kennedy. More recently,I’ve seen only second or third hand reporting that she’s working as a paralegal outside government and running for a third term as LNC chair at the “freedom calls” convention.
The freedom calls theme was chosen through an auction which was used to fundraise for the lnc. Freedom Calls the company was, iirc, used as a fundraising contractor for the LNC during Mrs. Padgett’s previous term(s) before it was public knowledge that it was the chairwoman’s husband’s company. Both matters seem fundraising related to me, as well as worth further looking into. Particularly if it’s true that she will be running again …
Curious,
Of course, you might just get no answer at all, but anyone who wants details might find some by reading the ballot access news discussions X linked. I read it, and if I actually used email – it’s been a few years – I’d go ahead and email and ask those specific questions.
Perhaps someone who still uses email would be so kind as to read the linked ballot access news discussions, send email to the address Jordan has promised to put up for that purpose once that’s up, and report back any replies at Ballot Access News if they can’t be posted or discussed here?.
Thank you, Jordan. I look forward to the upcoming written guidance; please excuse my impatience. Will there also be any appropriate venue to discuss it publicly here for those who can’t email you for reasons of privacy having to do with their email address? I promise I won’t keep pressing if the answer is no, but I really hope the answer is yes.
There are many reasons why some people, including me and all my circle of friends / neighbors / family / roommates / coworkers / etc who comment here can’t share our email addresses (in addition to very rarely using email at all for any reason anymore). We encourage everyone we know to put [email protected] or [email protected] in email address fields of comment submission forms at any and all websites as well as to always use VPNs, proxies, or some form of floating or shared IPs.
Hi Curious,
Several users have been banned since the beginning of the year. During that time, I’ve had to explain on multiple occasions that flooding the site with spam or constant repeat comments can trigger the site’s internal security system, resulting in automatic bans. I’ve also previously mentioned to some users that the Foundation had received complaints about commenter behavior, like highly aggressive exchanges across multiple articles, and asked that everyone try to be more courteous to avoid forcing the moderation team to begin removing such content.
To that end, the Foundation board adopted a formal moderation policy at its most recent meeting. I’ll be adding it to the site before the end of the business week (if not today, but I need to step out for the afternoon). The goal is to provide clearer guidance in areas where the previous civility policy fell short. For any specific questions about moderation going forward, there will also be an email address readers can use to get in touch.
I think all of this is relevant to the subject of this speech, even though it was already all posted in open thread. I explain why at the end. Please bear with me:
Jordan Willow Evans, May 2: The Libertarian Party’s theme contest came to an end earlier this week. I’ve seen it mentioned several times online, including by LNC Secretary Caryn Ann Harlos, that “Freedom Calls” is the winning theme. I’m waiting to see if the national party issues an official announcement with more information, including how much was actually raised.
Unknown, May 8: Isn’t that the name of Angela’s baby’s daddy’s telemarketing company?
Actually, May 9: I thought it was Mises PAC founder Michael Heise’s telemarketing company, but you might be right, if you meant Austin Padgett, former LNC chair Angela McArdle’s domestic partner and child’s father.
X, May 9: Unknown is correct.
“…under McArdle’s leadership the LNC has paid over $45,000 since last February to a company called Freedom Calls for fundraising services. Porter discovered that McArdle’s domestic partner and father of her child, Austin Padgett, was the incorporator of record for that entity. The operation’s website says it offers phone banking, canvassing, and website and email services, but the “Who are you?” squib merely says they are “a radical group of individuals who’ve come together to change the system. We are futurists. The tech industry is full of disrupters and secret dissidents.” No names are provided. Porter says he could find no Federal Elections Commission records of any other entities paying Freedom Calls.”
– https://reason.com/2025/02/04/libertarian-party-gets-new-national-chair-after-angela-mcardles-surprise-resignation/
Curious, May 9: Is that a coincidence?
X, May 21: It turns out that Mr. Austin Padgett, owner of Freedom Calls, isn’t Mrs. Austin Padgett (nee Angela McArdle)’s baby daddy or domestic partner, he’s her husband. Also, reportedly Mrs. Padgett will be seeking a third term as LNC chair at the 2026 Grand Rapids libertarian national convention – where Freedom Calls is the winning theme.
For additional context see articles and discussion at
https://thirdpartywatch.com/2025/05/13/angela-mcardle-on-negotiating-with-trump/ [and Ballot Access News link above].
The new (to me) development is that Austin Padgett is not Angela McArdle’s “Baby Daddy” or “Domestic Partner.” In this speech given in 2025 describing 2023 events she repeatedly calls him her husband. It seems to me that she is saying he is both now and was then her husband, although I only read the transcript, not listened.
Also new to me is that Mrs. Padgett is running for a 3rd term as LNC Chair in Grand Rapids in 2026. She resigned early in her 2nd term, citing unspecified opportunities which will “make some people’s heads explode” or words to that effect, “to be announced soon.” That was a few months ago; if there’s been an announcement (of the “New opportunity” reported by various people to be some sort of Trump administration job), I missed it.
I note that various detractors have speculated that there were completely different actual reasons why Mrs. Padgett resigned as chair, and that she is in fact now working (in the private sector, presumably) as a paralegal. All of this is speculation, second plus hand.
Jordan replied May 21: “…this is the first time I can recall McArdle referring to her husband as such. I’ve also seen her mention mounting a third bid for LNC Chair in passing on X, but to my knowledge, she hasn’t made a formal public announcement.”
I likewise never saw that before either, and have not seen a public announcement of her running for a third term but have seen various supporters and detractors of her say it as if it’s a done deal in different places.
If she’s running, I think it’s not trivial to ask about the reasons and timing of her 2nd term resignation, what happened to the alleged opportunity that was the stated reason she resigned or whether that’s still coming, and whether the name of her husband’s for profit company and the theme of the convention where she might be seeking a third term being identical is a coincidence or not.
I am neither a supporter nor a detractor of Mrs. Padgett, her faction, or the libertarian party as a whole. I agree with their stated end goal, have voted for their candidates for various offices a few times over the years, signed their silly pledge 38 years ago to help Ron Paul seek their presidential nomination, never formally revoked that pledge, and sent them token financial contributions which briefly made me a dues paying member in 1987-9 and 2008-9. I’ve attended a small handful of their local and events in Florida and Georgia over those 38 years, as well as national conventions in Seattle, Washington (1987), Philadelphia, PA (1989), and Denver, CO (2008). I called myself a libertarian and registered to vote as one a few times over the years, but currently do neither. I’m an independent, and have participated in various such ways in other minor and major parties throughout my life.
I’d like to ask a question or several based on that discussion X linked, but I’m afraid it would get me banned.
It’s about whether or why some people who used to participate here got banned , whether we can get warnings before such decisions are reached, and whether or when a revised written discussion standards policy might be coming here.
Am I allowed to ask such questions here without getting myself banned as well, or are the accusations that one or two people who used to participate here frequently are now banned altogether false?
The more I think about it the more of these questions I have. Should I take them to open thread, or can we have a separate article for a discussion on such questions, or can they be discussed on this article discussion, or can they not be discussed at this site at all?
Extensive discussion at
https://ballot-access.org/2025/05/13/read-text-of-angela-mcardles-description-of-negotiating-with-presidential-candidate-donald-trump-last-year/
for anyone with the time and tolerance to wade through a lot of trolling / off topic stuff / tangents