Devin Nunes explains the damage that was done by the criminals involved in the Grand Conspiracy.
“People have died. People have lost their livelihoods. People have lost their careers. People have not been promoted. Families have been destroyed. Finances have been wiped out.… pic.twitter.com/pCCnpU4Wrv
“NBC “News” segment on DOJ opening of Russiagate grand jury probe. The “reporter” apprises the viewer that:
– Russiagate is a distraction
– All Gabbard’s claims are unsubstantiated
– *RE-EMPHASIZES* There is zero evidence to back up claims
– It’s all politically motivated
– Trump just wants to attack his political foes
That’s the entire “report.” The level of deceptive propaganda here is on par with what legacy media did when running the original hoax. And everyone understands why.”
NEW: NBC “News” segment on DOJ opening of Russiagate grand jury probe.
The “reporter” apprises the viewer that:
– Russiagate is a distraction – All Gabbard’s claims are unsubstantiated – *RE-EMPHASIZES* There is zero evidence to back up claims – It’s all politically motivated -… pic.twitter.com/VROi781zxN
Two is too much. Each Debt Rattle already takes 12 hours of work on average. But I did it, infected eye and all.
X thread
“Let’s be blunt: These clearances were never about safety. They were about status. They used their “former official” labels to dominate cable news, build book deals, enrich themselves, and maintain backdoor access to power.”
DNI Tulsi Gabbard has revoked the security clearances of Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger… and that’s just the beginning!!She’s also pulled clearances from:
– John Brennan, the former CIA Director who weaponized intelligence and misled the American public about the Steele dossier.
– James Clapper, former DNI, who swore under oath there was no mass surveillance of Americans — then got caught lying.
– Susan Rice, who “unmasked” U.S. citizens for political reasons during the Obama years.
– Jake Sullivan, Biden’s National Security Advisor, who helped peddle the fake Alfa Bank narrative to smear Trump.
– Victoria Nuland, the architect of several regime-change disasters and foreign policy failures.
– Eric Swalwell, who sat on the House Intelligence Committee while having romantic ties to a Chinese spy.
– Peter Strzok, disgraced FBI agent who vowed to “stop” Trump from winning while investigating him under false pretenses.
– Lisa Page, another key player in the partisan takedown attempts of a sitting president.
– Fiona Hill, who testified during impeachment while maintaining deep ties to anti-Trump institutions abroad.
Tulsi Gabbard is doing what no one else would dare do… finally shutting the door on the corrupt old guard who treated American intelligence like a private political weapon. These people abused their access. They leaked. They lied. They profited. And they used our national security institutions as tools of revenge and manipulation — not defense. Revoking their clearances isn’t just symbolic. It’s the start of a full reckoning. You don’t get to push lies about foreign collusion, spy on American citizens, help suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story, and then walk away with lifetime security access. That’s not how this republic works. At least, not anymore — thanks to Tulsi. Let’s be blunt: These clearances were never about safety. They were about status. They used their “former official” labels to dominate cable news, build book deals, enrich themselves, and maintain backdoor access to power.
Well, those doors just got slammed shut. Tulsi Gabbard is cleaning out the intelligence community like it’s never been cleaned before. And that’s why she’s in danger. Make no mistake: This move paints a massive target on her back. The people she just stripped of power aren’t just bitter — they’re dangerous. They’re part of a machine that doesn’t go quietly. These are the same forces who orchestrated the Russia hoax, buried the truth about the Wuhan lab, silenced dissent on COVID policies, and tried to break any leader who wouldn’t bow to their narrative. Pray for Tulsi Gabbard. She is standing alone in a storm of powerful enemies. The same elite circles that protected Epstein, buried Hunter’s laptop, and lied under oath are now coming for her. They know Tulsi can’t be bought, can’t be blackmailed, and won’t back down.
She’s not playing politics. She’s fighting for the soul of this country. And when someone does that — the deep state takes notice. And they retaliate. So I ask every patriot reading this: Pray for her safety. Pray for her protection. Pray that God covers her, her family, and those standing with her. Pray that the truth comes to light and that the American people have eyes to see it. This is a spiritual battle just as much as a political one. And Tulsi Gabbard is fighting it with unmatched bravery. The left called her a “traitor.” The media dismissed her as “dangerous.” The intelligence community feared her from the moment she stepped into office.
That should tell you everything you need to know. Tulsi Gabbard may be the most important leader in America right now. And she’s not acting out of vengeance — she’s acting out of duty. She’s trying to restore the very thing these corrupt players spent years destroying: the American people’s trust in government. And that’s why we must stand with her. Keep her in your prayers
President Trump responded to a brutal attack on Edward Coristine, the DOGE employee known as “Big Balls.”
“Crime in Washington, D.C., is totally out of control. Local “youths” and gang members, some only 14, 15, and 16-years-old, are randomly attacking, mugging, maiming, and shooting innocent Citizens, at the same time knowing that they will be almost immediately released. They are not afraid of Law Enforcement because they know nothing ever happens to them, but it’s going to happen now! The Law in D.C. must be changed to prosecute these “minors” as adults, and lock them up for a long time, starting at age 14. The most recent victim was beaten mercilessly by local thugs.
Washington, D.C., must be safe, clean, and beautiful for all Americans and, importantly, for the World to see. If D.C. doesn’t get its act together, and quickly, we will have no choice but to take Federal control of the City, and run this City how it should be run, and put criminals on notice that they’re not going to get away with it anymore. Perhaps it should have been done a long time ago, then this incredible young man, and so many others, would not have had to go through the horrors of Violent Crime. If this continues, I am going to exert my powers, and FEDERALIZE this City. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” ~ President Donald Trump
A 19-year-old former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) staffer was beaten and bloodied by a mob of 10 minors early Sunday as he thwarted a carjacking attempt in the nation’s capital, according to DC police. Edward Coristine, whose LinkedIn handle earned him the nickname “Big Balls” at DOGE, was with a woman near downtown DC when he saw the group of juveniles approach their car and “make a comment about taking the vehicle,” according to a Metropolitan Police Department incident report obtained by The Post. “At that point, for her safety, [Coristine] pushed his significant other … into the vehicle and turned to deal with the suspects,” the dramatic report continues.
Edward Coristine, also known as BIGBALLS, is the DOGE employee and hero who put his life on the line to help a woman in distress in Washington DC. Everyone should thank him because society would be a lot worse off if not for men like him. pic.twitter.com/256jTReH6w
Edward Coristine stopped an attempted carjacking early Sunday, according to DC cops. “The suspects then began to assault [Coristine],” the ex-DOGE staffer told officers, who rolled up on the scene at the same time he was being attacked. Officers patrolling the 1400 block of Swann Street NW — a popular area with several shops, bars and restaurants about a mile north of the White House — noticed “a group of approximately ten juveniles surrounding the complainants’ vehicle and assaulting [Coristine],” the report states. “The officers immediately exited their vehicle, and the juveniles began fleeing on foot,” police said. DC police were able to nab only two of the young suspects, who were later positively identified by Coristine as being among his attackers. A 15-year-old male and a 15-year-old female, both from nearby Hyattsville, Md., were arrested and charged with unarmed carjacking.
Coristine was treated on scene by DC Fire and EMS for injuries sustained in the assault, according to DC police. He is recovering from a broken nose, concussion and black eye, according to a source familiar with the matter. The group of teenagers “shouted about taking the woman’s car, and then ran across the street,” just before they started to beat Coristine, a source said. Coristine then pushed his female companion into the driver’s seat and slammed the door. “The gang tried to open the closed doors and slammed [Coristine] against the car extremely loudly while attacking him,” the source added, noting that the woman called 911 from inside the vehicle while Coristine was being beaten. The software whiz also had his iPhone 16, valued at $1,000, stolen during the attack.
President Trump shared a photograph of the aftermath of the assault on Coristine early Tuesday afternoon, showing the former DOGE staffer sitting on the ground, bloodied and with his ripped shirt barely hanging on his body.[..] Marko Elez, a one-time colleague of Coristine’s at DOGE, claimed in a social media post that he snapped the photo of his friend shortly after the assault, and described his actions as heroic. “My friend Big Balls … is a hero,” Elez wrote on X. “I took this photo after Edward protected a young woman from an attempted carjacking by 8 thugs near Dupont Circle.” “Violence like this in the heart of DC is completely unacceptable.” Former DOGE chief Elon Musk also posted about the incident on X, without naming Coristine as the victim. Coristine resigned from DOGE in June, according to Fox News, less than a month after Musk departed from the agency.
The entire grand jury process is extremely protected as the 5th amendment requires. Fullstop. Unfortunately, we have a long and painful history with the Trump-era Main Justice system, intentionally leaking information to satiate the MAGA base and tamp-down demands for reform and accountability. For seven years various Trump officials have claimed to be working to bring accountability. None has been delivered. Also unfortunately, the pattern of bread and circuses is repeating. The Dept of Justice leaked a letter to The Federalist, in order to affirm their performance.
Obviously, The Federalist is well aware of who the assigned “prosecutor” is. However, telling the audience that name does not support the ongoing ‘clickbait’ performance as orchestrated by Pam Bondi’s Dept of Justice. After all, there’s the important public opinion to be shaped. The DOJ sending this letter to journalist Sean Davis is a case study in exactly what ‘Bread and Circuses’ looks like. The DOJ providing this letter directly to The Federalist, indicates the purpose of Pam Bondi’s DOJ action is performative; not substantive. If the DOJ does not want to compromise their grand jury case, then why are they leaking their letters? Simply, think about it. The compromise and motive to note is not in the reporting per se’; it’s in the DOJ selective (purposeful) leaking. And in this example, it indicates a profound lack of seriousness.
It’s likely the DOJ knows the challenge of the case is a very high bar and they are unlikely to clear it. So, what they are doing is appeasing the ‘Russiagate’ crowd, with the performance of the investigation itself. However, this is a very dangerous approach to take given the nature of seven years of bread and circuses in the background. If the cases were perceived as solid and serious, there would be no reason for Pam Bondi’s DOJ to be leaking internal documents to Fox News, Mollie Hemmingway, John Solomon, Sean Davis or any other media outlet. Fox News originally broke the story of the Grand Jury after they were sent documents from Bondi’s authorization of a prosecutor to review evidence and empanel a grand jury.
Now Pam Bondi’s assigned prosecutor is sending copies of his/her letters to The Federalist. Does this sound like serious investigative action taken by serious Main Justice leadership? No, unfortunately it sounds like a profoundly unserious ‘tick-tock’ screenplay is being delivered, because that is exactly what these actions indicate. We have experienced seven-years of ‘tick-tocking’, and intentional leaks, orchestrated for a purpose other than truth and justice. We The People deserve better. If the DOJ is going to leak letters and documents to ‘CONservative’ media for clickbait excitement, the outlook for serious legal accountability is not good.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has begun talks with Steve Witkoff, the special envoy of US President Donald Trump, according to footage released by the Kremlin.Witkoff, who has traveled to Russia multiple times in his role as special envoy, landed in Moscow earlier on Wednesday on what Trump has described as a make-or-break diplomatic mission. The US president has threatened buyers of Russian energy with secondary sanctions unless progress is made in resolving the Ukraine conflict. The Kremlin responded that demands for sovereign states to halt economic ties with Moscow have no legal basis.nSince taking office in January, Trump has reopened high-level diplomatic channels with Moscow, reversing the isolationist approach of his predecessor, Joe Biden.
The Trump administration has argued that engagement between the two nuclear superpowers is essential and could result in mutual benefits. Nevertheless, Trump has grown frustrated over the lack of swift results from his efforts to broker a peace deal, according to his public remarks. Moscow has maintained that it prefers diplomacy but will not allow the presence of a NATO-aligned adversary on its borders at the expense of national security. Kiev has continued to call on its Western backers to ramp up their military support and expand the sanctions on Russia. Some European governments have appealed to the US to sell them weapons to sustain shipments to Ukraine.
Western control over Ukraine has reached “unacceptable” levels and is turning Ukraine into a “disenfranchised colony,” according to the country’s former prime minister, Yulia Timoshenko. The US and EU are using the ongoing conflict to “undermine” the nation’s sovereignty, she told The Times. In an interview published on Monday, Timoshenko claimed that Western experts play a key role in commissions appointing senior officials to Ukraine’s highest judicial bodies, including the Constitutional Court, the customs service, the State Bureau of Investigation, and various anti-corruption agencies. According to The Times, each of these commissions consists of three Ukrainian and three Western members, with the Westerners able to veto potential appointees through a joint vote.
In the event of a tie, the Western members’ votes carry more weight than those of the Ukrainians. British nationals are among those serving on the commissions, the paper noted. Since the escalation of the conflict between Moscow and Kiev, “Western countries – under the threat of withholding loans – have imposed unacceptable control over Ukraine’s state institutions,” Timoshenko said, calling such control “cruel and unjust.” Ukraine is “not a failed state,” and the US and its allies would do better to apply their oversight mechanisms in countries such as Afghanistan, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, Timoshenko, who leads the opposition Fatherland party’s faction in parliament, insisted.
She pointed to Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies as tools of Western control over Kiev and welcomed Vladimir Zelensky’s controversial attempt to curtail the autonomy of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) – two agencies established with Western support to tackle rampant graft in Ukraine – calling it a “bright day” for the country. Zelensky introduced the relevant legislation last month, but later withdrew it after the EU threatened to reduce financial support for Kiev. Moscow has described Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies as instruments of Western influence over the country’s internal affairs. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova recently claimed they were designed not to combat corruption, but to give Western governments leverage over Kiev.
US President Donald Trump has claimed that NATO leaders are now completely aligned with his agenda, and credited his leadership for what he described as a dramatic turnaround in America’s global standing.In an interview with CNBC on Tuesday, Trump said the US had gone from a “dead country” to “the hottest country anywhere in the world by far” within several months since his inauguration. “That was told to me by every leader of NATO, which they do whatever I want,” he said, claiming similar praise from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar.“I’m very happy to help,” Trump added.
Trump has for years pressured NATO members to ramp up defense spending while warning that the US would not defend countries that fall short of the bloc’s targets. At a key NATO summit in July, bloc members committed to increasing defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, up from the previous threshold of 2%. Trump also announced that the EU would pay the US “100% of the cost of all [American-made] military equipment” under a new funding deal, adding that “much of it will go to Ukraine.”
During the summit, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte referred to Trump as “daddy [who] has to sometimes use strong language,” after the US president compared Israel and Iran to children in a schoolyard fight and said “they don’t know what the f*ck they’re doing.” Trump was referring to the two countries trading accusations of violating a ceasefire in the 12-day war in June. The “daddy” remark raised eyebrows in the Western media, with critics accusing Rutte of “orchestrated groveling” and sycophancy while condemning the incident as “one of the most shameful episodes in modern history.” Rutte scrambled to defend his comments, insisting that Trump deserves praise and calling the US president a “good friend” who had “finally” persuaded European NATO members to boost defense spending.
US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he will “substantially” raise tariffs on imports from India over the next 24 hours because of the South Asian’s continued purchases of Russian crude. The latest threat comes a day after India rejected US and EU criticism over its oil trade with Russia saying it would take measures to “safeguard its national interests and economic security,” while adding that the targeting of the South Asian nation was unreasonable. Calling India the “highest tariff nation,” the US President told CNBC Squawk Box in a phone interview that India has not been a good trading partner. “They do a lot of business with us but we don’t do with them. So, we settled on 25% but am going to raise them substantially in the next 24 hours because they’re buying Russian oil and they’re fueling the war machine,” Trump said in the interview.
In the 2024-25 fiscal year, bilateral trade between India and the US reached $131.8 billion, with a trade surplus of $41.18 billion for New Delhi, according to the Indian government. Trump also claimed in his Tuesday interview that New Delhi has offered to entirely waive tariffs on US imports. “Now I will say this, India went from the highest tariffs ever, they will give us zero tariffs. But that’s not good enough, because of what they’re doing with oil,” he said. Although the US President maintains that India is a friend, he has recently made a string of statements that are critical of New Delhi. On Monday, he said India was making “big profits” by selling Russian oil in the open market. “They don’t care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian war machine,” he said in a Truth Social Post on Monday.
***********
‘None of his business’ — ex-ambassador MK Bhadrakumar blasts Trump’s tariff threats to India”
Washington has declared a trade war on India, Brazil and China. Their response? Don’t rush into a fight you can’t win. Blasting Western hypocrisy and “unjustified & unreasonable” targeting, India’s MEA has vowed to “take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security.” The US’s 25% tariffs aren’t about “trade fairness,” but punishment for engaging Russia, says Dr. Hriday Sarma. But “India knows what its national interest is, and will not come under pressure,” stresses Prof. Rajan Kumar. The country has no plans to ban Russian oil. Just over the past weekend, at least 3 tankers delivered over 2.2M barrels of Russian crude to Indian ports.President Lula has similarly rejected US ultimatums, declaring Brazil would “negotiate as a sovereign country.”
And it’s little wonder: Brazil-US trade totaled about $92B last year, while trade with BRICS hit nearly $210B. The US tariff tantrum could also backfire. Amid Trump’s 50% tariff threats, a third of US coffee comes from Brazil. Meanwhile, China is welcoming Brazilian coffee with open arms. The selective approach (different tariffs for Brazil & India) is an attempt to create divisions within the BRICS bloc. Dr. Sarma says. But it won’t succeed “as shared strategic interests & a commitment to multipolarity bind the group together.” China has also rejected US demands to stop buying Russian oil. “China will always secure its energy supplies in ways that serve our national interests,” its foreign ministry said. “Coercion & pressuring will not achieve anything.”
“The US is discovering its old playbook of threats, tariffs & sanctions no longer guarantees compliance,” Dr. Sarma says. “Countries are weighing their options, & finding that meaningful engagement with BRICS partners offers more stability & mutual respect.” “Multipolarity is no longer theoretical; it’s unfolding in real time.”
President Lula da Silva says global trade must be free — without Washington’s currency stranglehold. What’s driving him? “President Lula will no longer accept unequal terms of trade and US intervention because the very nature of the international system has irreversibly changed,” Dr. Anuradha Chenoy, retired professor of Jawaharlal Nehru University, tells Sputnik. The US has imposed tariffs and pressured Brazil’s Supreme Court to drop cases against ex-President Jair Bolsonaro — Trump’s ally who refused to concede defeat. Many Brazilians see it as interference and a threat to sovereignty.
Brazil has BRICS partners to lean on. In July 2025, China — bolstered by its economic resilience — signed key cooperation deals with Brazil, covering everything from infrastructure to strategic development. Brazil-US trade totals around $92 billion, but BRICS trade is far larger. Brazil exports around $121 billion to BRICS — 35% of its total — while importing $88 billion. With stronger BRICS ties, Brazil has less need to depend on the US, says financial analyst Paul Goncharoff. Lula’s push for an alternative currency makes sense — sticking to the dollar means guaranteed loss in value. “There’s really no alternative for the world but to get out of the US dollar trap,” Goncharoff stresses.
The shift away from USD is only growing. PIX, Brazil’s free payment system, bypasses Western firms like Visa and Mastercard — empowering local entrepreneurs, Dr. Vinicius Vieira from the University of São Paulo tells Sputnik. “And that bothers Trump because those new technologies are a signal that the dollar empire may be coming to an end,” the pundit notes. The US acts desperately to resist its hegemonic decline, but no empire lasts forever. Just as the British pound fell, the US dollar may be facing the same fate. “The best that [Washington] could do is to offer honest agreements in order to preserve the minimum level of transactions of US dollars, instead of implying sanctions or what now we call a weaponized interdependence,” Vieira concludes.
Israeli settlers attacked a Russian diplomatic vehicle in the occupied West Bank last week, causing mechanical damage, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Tuesday. The vehicle was carrying members of Russia’s diplomatic mission to the Palestinian Authority, who are also accredited with Israel’s Foreign Ministry. Russia considers the incident, which occurred on July 30 near the illegal Israeli settlement of Giv’at Asaf, east of Ramallah and about 20 kilometers north of Jerusalem, a violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, according to Zakharova. She questioned the Israeli military’s failure to intervene, denouncing their inaction “particularly puzzling.”
“The Israeli Defense Force soldiers didn’t even bother to try and stop the attackers’ aggressive actions,” she said. “We regard this incident as a blatant violation of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,” Zakharova said, adding that the Russian embassy in Tel Aviv has submitted an official note to the Israeli authorities. Last month, the Kremlin reiterated that the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lies in the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. “Russia has always adhered to a two-state solution as the basis for resolving the Palestinian issue,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists.
Moscow’s recognition dates back to 1988, when the Soviet Union endorsed the Palestinian declaration of independence. The statement comes amid the conflict in Gaza, which began in October 2023 after a Hamas-led attack on southern Israel left around 1,200 people dead. Israel’s military response has since killed more than 59,000 Palestinians, according to the health authorities in the enclave, and has drawn global criticism for the scale of destruction and civilian casualties.
French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou is urging the public to back his drastic public spending cuts, warning that the country’s debt is growing by €5,000 ($5,784) every second. The €43.8 billion ($50.9 billion) deficit-cutting program unveiled last month targets a budget gap that hit 5.8% of GDP last year – nearly double the EU’s 3% limit. Bayrou has sounded the alarm, stressing that the debt load is a “mortal danger,” while insisting tough measures are now unavoidable. In a YouTube video posted on Tuesday, he sought to convince the public that the planned budget squeeze was essential to prevent a full-blown fiscal crisis.
”Our debt stands at €3.4 trillion – a figure so vast it’s hard to imagine,” he stated, warning that interest payments alone could reach €100 billion annually by 2029 if no action is taken. The proposals include scrapping two public holidays to boost productivity, cutting public sector jobs, and freezing welfare payments and pensions, which are typically indexed to inflation. The plan has sparked backlash, with left-wing parties accusing the government of prioritizing military spending over social welfare. Jean-Luc Melenchon, leader of La France Insoumise, called for Bayrou’s resignation, saying “these injustices cannot be tolerated any longer.”
France’s military budget is set to rise to €64 billion in 2027 – twice its 2017 level. President Emmanuel Macron has pledged an extra €6.5 billion over the next two years, citing growing threats to European security. A recent defense review warned that a “major war” could break out by 2030, listing Moscow among the top threats. The Kremlin has dismissed claims it is planning to attack the West, accusing NATO of using Russia as a pretext for militarization. Bayrou, who has survived eight no-confidence motions, needs parliamentary backing for his proposals before the budget is presented in October. The right-wing National Rally party has rejected the plan and called for another vote on his government. A survey by pollster Elabe published on July 31 suggests that only 12% of the French people trust Bayrou – the lowest percentage since he became Prime Minister in December.
Twenty CIA and FBI agents have blown the whistle, confirming that Barack Obama and his Chief of Staff, CIA Director John Brennan, created the false Russia hoax, doctored intelligence to overthrow the duly elected president of the United States in 2016, and locked… pic.twitter.com/wcpXUij3I9
BREAKING – President Trump is now stating that due to the massive amount of money coming in thanks to tariffs on countries, he plans to give it back to United States citizens in the form of a rebate. pic.twitter.com/7uKUZdseaL
— Right Angle News Network (@Rightanglenews) July 25, 2025
Sundance points out that a special counsel is counterproductive, because it won’t have the cross-agencies (silos) powers that Tulsi has. Guess the fact that Lindsey Graham is the one asking for a special counsel, should alert us.
Senator Lindsey Graham (Judiciary Committee) and Senator John Cornyn (SSCI) are requesting Attorney General Pam Bondi to appoint a special counsel to look into the Obama administration’s weaponization of the U.S. Intelligence Community to target Donald Trump with fabricated smears and false evidence using a fraudulent Russia connection. This should be an immediate hard no for a few reasons. Number one, the special counsel process is where investigations go to die intentionally as a design of the legislative branch defense process. Second, the special counsel would not have cross-silo access to exfiltrate information unless it was accompanied by very specific Presidential authority. It just will not work. The intelligence community information that exposes the plot will be found in very distinct ‘silos’, essentially the intelligence agencies that house the information.
Additionally, inside each of the silos there is a formal and informal process to designate that information based on its internally defined national security value. An example of silo retention can be found in the issue of the FBI housing information in “prohibited access” files. These files are not even discoverable by most internal search efforts. Within the Sentinel system there are “Restricted Access” files that are used to control who can view the file information (sources and methods etc.). The FBI or investigative official (think authorized special counsel) can see the file but cannot access the information within it without a higher clearance level. In these files the Special Counsel can request access and then review. However, recently people discovered there are “Prohibited Access” files that makes the file invisible to both outside and inside searches or queries and are exclusively controlled by the FBI Director and FBI Deputy Director.
This is an example of a sub-silo (secret file keeping) within a distinct silo (FBI, Sentinel system). A special counsel would never discover the “prohibited” files, because there’s no way from outside the system to find it. It’s a little complicated but DNI Tulsi Gabbard has been finding, declassifying and releasing these ‘prohibited access’ types of information, because as Director of National Intelligence -her clearance and position- allow her to gain full administrative level access to the entire metadata of IC information. Tulsi can essentially log into all of the 18 intelligence agencies and review everything in the data storage system. A special counsel, regardless of authority, cannot do this. President Trump can demand full administrative access for himself and so can DNI Tulsi Gabbard. The rest of the silo administrators can only see the information inside their silo.
This limited access issue is how the intelligence agencies hide information. They rely on the inability of external reviewers to see the full scope and then cross reference to all other silos using the same terminology, data points and search sequences.
EXAMPLE – Making up an operational name like “Zero Footprint“, when DNI Tulsi Gabbard is looking at that operation, she can see the full scope of information related to Zero Footprint as the information goes from the White House (finding memo) to the CIA, to the State Dept, to the Pentagon, to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), possibly to the Joint Chiefs and then beyond to international partners (whole or part information shared). DNI Gabbard can see the entire continuum, cross reference each step in the process, see who handled the organization, communication, logistics, assignments and track each process, which enables her to map the inputs and outcomes along with the timeline. She can even see the briefings (or lack therein) to the Gang of Eight or PDB as they are recorded.
A special counsel has nowhere near this capacity. In the example above, the research required to find, extract, cross-reference, organize and then assemble the totality of all information related to such a large intelligence operation (fyi, Zero Footprint was real), takes a lot of time and effort. Tulsi Gabbard is able to designate very specific aides to assist in this process, but the demand on her time is extreme even with help. DNI Gabbard recently told Fox News (video below) she was/is using AI as a tool to do autonomous spider crawls through the various silos looking for information that pertained to specific points, phrases, times, dates and people within the 18-agency silo system. Hundreds of thousands of “return positive” files must then be sifted and reviewed for connection to the participants, and again timelines become the key.
This is a big shift in the use of AI data search engine capability within the national security information space; however, it is exactly what I have been talking about for the past several years as I traveled back and forth to DC. Now, keep in mind what I am describing above is “non-public” information. If you want to really understand the insanity of how the silos operate, you need to accept the same filing and hiding system exists even within public information. The congressional staff don’t even know what the other congressional staff are doing with information from within two different committees, like the Senate Judiciary Committee (FISC oversight) and the Senate Homeland Security Committee (DOJ-NSD), or Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (FBI – Cointel).
In essence, there is little to no information sharing within the silo process, even within the guys on the “same team,” and making matters worse sometimes a research team can gain information that is much more pertinent to the other guys looking at similar issues from within another silo. Discovering this is beyond frustrating; however, it does explain how independent researchers who share on open-source crowd sharing platforms can walk down a research trail much faster. Bottom line, a Special Counsel is an exercise in futility, unless that special counsel has the same review and extraction capability as President Trump and/or DNI Tulsi Gabbard. The best option is a team of investigators within Tulsi Gabbard’s office to continue the digging and connecting the information; then share the discoveries with DOJ officials. Previously, I said a small group within the National Security Council might also be able to deliver a similar outcome. Lastly, a tip-line allowing the private sector crowdsourcing to push puzzle pieces toward the research team might also be a big help.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard appears with Greta Van Susteren to discuss the ongoing release of Intelligence Community documents showing how President Obama intelligence officials conspired to manufacture a false intelligence assessment, frame Donald Trump and begin the Trump-Russia narrative. At the end of this trail of manufactured evidence, we will inevitably end up at the Robert Mueller investigation. The continuum of the Trump-Russia narrative starts with Hillary Clinton (Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie), then transfers to the FBI (James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok); which includes the DOJ National Security Division (AG Lynch, DAG Yates, Mary McCord), then goes through the backdoor to Barack Obama (Susan Rice, Lisa Monaco) and the Legislative Branch (SSCI), and eventually elevates with DNI James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan manufacturing the 2017 intelligence product.
All of that collective effort, all of the former created inputs, eventually culminates into the Robert Mueller Special Counsel (Andrew Weissmann) and the Lawfare ideologues charged with upholding the manufactured premise. In my opinion, the greatest legal exposure is going to be with the Mueller team because that group intentionally and purposefully knew the information being received was fraudulent – yet they used it anyway. Keep in mind that John Durham laid the Mueller/Weissmann probe naked to their enemies. Unfortunately, Weissmann and Mueller do not have enemies in Washington DC, amid any party {. Our representatives were never representing us. The true DC enemy is ‘We The People‘ – and we choose to fight them. When Robert Mueller (silo 2) appeared before a congressional committee in June 2019 to answer questions about his Russia election interference report, he was asked about the origination of Trump-Russia.
Mueller’s jaw-dropping response was, “That was not in my purview.” Wait, how can your existence be predicated on investigating Trump-Russia, and yet the origin of Trump-Russia is not in your “purview”? See the problem?!
Thanks to the evidence already released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, it’s now clear that Barack Obama engaged in corrupt efforts to sabotage President Trump. And we’re likely just scratching the surface. More damning revelations are almost certainly on the way. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean Obama will ever see the inside of a courtroom, let alone a jail cell, even if he deserves it. But don’t confuse a lack of prosecution with vindication. During a recent appearance on Real America’s Voice, investigative journalist John Solomon joined Steve Bannon to unpack the formation of a new Department of Justice Strike Force reportedly focused on unraveling the criminal conspiracy behind the Russia collusion hoax and the government’s weaponization against President Trump. And while Obama’s fingerprints are all over the operation, Solomon made it clear that a formal indictment is highly unlikely.
“What the team will do is they’ll bring in all the different skill sets,” Solomon explained. “I think the National Security Division will be brought in. Ironically, that’s the same division that pursued Donald Trump on the classified documents but took a dive on Joe Biden’s.” According to Solomon, this newly formed strike force is modeled after the methods used to break down organized crime families. The process will focus on collecting “overt acts of the conspiracy,” then analyzing the timeline to determine whether the statute of limitations applies or if charges can be brought due to long-hidden evidence. Grand juries, subpoenas, and strategic interviews are all expected. “There’ll be lots of work and then there’ll be grand jury subpoenas. There’ll be significant interviews going on,” Solomon said. “You’ll look for your cooperating witnesses.”
The goal? Reel in the smaller fish first. “One of the things that they do is they roll up people on the low end of the scale early, and then they try to get them to turn on their bosses and get us the truth,” he said. It’s the same strategy that brought down mob bosses and drug kingpins, and now it’s being turned inward, toward the deep state.Names like John Brennan and James Comey are among those believed to be in the DOJ’s crosshairs. But then came the elephant in the room: Barack Obama. “If the ultimate targets are someone like a John Brennan or … James Comey or Barack Obama — who, by the way, is not going to be indicted. Anyone who thinks Barack Obama’s going to be indicted: it’s not going to happen,” Solomon admitted.
That legal shield, ironically, may come courtesy of Donald Trump himself. “President Trump’s immunity victory last year in the Supreme Court’s gonna protect Barack Obama. Barack Obama should send a thank-you card to Donald Trump,” Solomon quipped. But while Obama may avoid prosecution, that doesn’t mean he’s off the hook entirely. “You could imagine a scenario where they lay out a conspiracy, and Barack Obama is named as an unindicted co-conspirator,” Solomon continued. “That would be one hell of a legacy for the 44th president.” Indeed, while Obama will almost certainly avoid legal consequences, the political and historical fallout could be devastating. If he’s officially named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to frame his successor, and the people who carried out that plot end up in prison, his legacy won’t just take a hit; it’ll be permanently disfigured. It’s hard to claim innocence when everyone who did your bidding goes down for the crime.
A scenario like that isn’t something CNN or MSNBC can memory-hole, no matter how hard they try. No, Barack Obama won’t be frog-marched out of his Martha’s Vineyard mansion. But if this investigation follows through, the myth of his “scandal-free” presidency could collapse under the weight of a conspiracy that once masqueraded as patriotism but now reeks of abuse, corruption, and cover-up. Obama may not go to jail, but history may render its own indictment.
SCOTUS: “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.”
This week, investigative journalist John Solomon told Steve Bannon that despite all the evidence that has been declassified linking Barack Obama to the Russiagate hoax, Obama won’t and can’t be indicted for his role in the Russian collusion hoax. “Anyone who thinks Barack Obama’s going to be indicted: It’s not going to happen,” Solomon admitted. “President Trump’s immunity victory last year in the Supreme Court’s gonna protect Barack Obama. Barack Obama should send a thank-you card to Donald Trump.” But is Solomon right? The case Solomon is referring to, Trump v. United States (2024), was, of course, extremely consequential, but also widely misunderstood. Democrats branded the ruling as the Supreme Court granting “blanket immunity” for presidents, but that’s not what it does at all.
While the Court recognized a degree of immunity for official acts of the presidency, it drew a sharp line between what a president does in his constitutional role and what he does as a private individual or political actor. From the ruling itself: “It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.” With that in mind, the ruling does not give presidents the power to break the law with impunity. If a president lies to federal investigators, commits fraud, or abuses power outside the scope of his official duties, he can still face prosecution. The Court explicitly left the door open for criminal charges—even against sitting or former presidents—if the conduct in question was personal, political, or unrelated to the legitimate functions of the presidency.
And, let’s be honest: What Barack Obama did during the Russian collusion hoax wasn’t just political—it was a calculated abuse of power far outside the bounds of his official role. If a president lies to federal investigators, forges documents, or uses the office for personal or political revenge, those are not protected actions. He can be charged under the same criminal statutes as anyone else. For example, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 makes it a crime to lie to federal officials. Wire fraud, under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, covers schemes involving deceit through electronic communication. Other statutes—like aiding and abetting (18 U.S.C. § 2), being an accessory after the fact (18 U.S.C. § 3), or even seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C.§ 2384)—can all apply if the president helps orchestrate or cover up unlawful acts.
That brings us to the documents released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, which suggest Barack Obama may have done exactly that. The material is nothing short of explosive. It confirms that Obama’s inner circle—including James Clapper and John Brennan, under Obama’s direction—engineered a political smear campaign disguised as an intelligence assessment. According to the files, a high-level meeting in December 2016, led by Obama’s top national security officials, launched the coordinated leaks to the media about so-called Russian election interference—even though pre-election intelligence assessments found no such evidence.
“The evidence that we have found and that we have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment,” Gabbard stated. So obviously, the evidence suggests Obama is not innocent. The only real question now is whether he’ll ever be held accountable—or if the system will once again protect one of its own. That’s an entirely different question.
“Obama-era officials and Clinton-campaign activists destroyed President Trump’s own credibility to sustain a workable relationship with a nuclear Russia..”
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard just released a trove of apparently once-classified documents — with promises of much more to follow. The new material describes the role of the Obama administration’s intelligence and investigatory directors — purportedly along with former President Barack Obama himself — in undermining the 2016 Trump presidential campaign. In addition, their efforts extended to sabotaging the 2016-2017 presidential transition and, by extension, the first three years of the Trump presidency. The released documents add some new details to what over the last decade has become accepted knowledge. Congressional committees, special prosecutors, and the inspectors general had all previously issued reports that largely confirmed the general outlines of the skullduggery that began in 2015-16.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign, later aided by the top echelon of the FBI, CIA, and the Director of National Intelligence, sought — falsely — to seed a narrative that Trump had colluded directly with Russia to win unfairly the 2016 election. When that campaign gambit failed to alter the 2016 results, the Obama administration doubled down during the transition to undermine the incoming Trump presidency. Next, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s “all-star” legal team found no evidence of direct Trump-Putin collusion to hijack the election. But his investigation did sabotage 22 months of Trump’s first term, marked by constant leaks and hysterical rumors that Trump was soon to be convicted and jailed as a “Russian asset.” By 2020, the frustrated intelligence agencies and former “authorities” now absurdly further lied that Hunter Biden’s incriminating laptop had “all the earmarks” — once again — of Russian interference.
So, what could be new about Gabbard’s latest release? One, after the 2016 election of Donald Trump but before his inauguration, Obama convened a strange meeting with his outgoing intelligence and investigatory heads — CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and a few others. Contrary to a four-year Democratic Party narrative that “18 intelligence agencies” had long claimed Russian collusion, the top directors apprised Obama that their expert colleagues had found no such evidence of Trump-Putin collusion. Yet outgoing President Obama allegedly directed them to ignore such an assessment. Instead, they began spreading narratives that President-elect Trump had been colluding with the Russians. Leaks followed. Media hysteria crested. And soon Mueller and his left-wing “dream team” of lawyers targeted President Trump.
Further new information may confirm that Brennan’s CIA — and those he briefed in the Oval Office — had known for some time that the Russians themselves were confused about why they were falsely being accused of colluding with Trump to rig the election. Of course, Russian operatives, like their Chinese counterparts, often seek to cause havoc in American institutions, such as hacking emails or spreading online disinformation. But they may have been nevertheless curious why Hillary Clinton was making such false accusations that they were working directly with Trump, and why the Obama administration was acting upon them. Obama has now claimed these new charges are outrageous and beneath the dignity of the presidency. He did not, however, flatly contradict the new information. He should have issued an unambiguous denial that he had never ordered his intelligence chiefs in December 2016 to ignore their associates’ assessments and instead to assume Trump’s collusion with Putin.
These sustained efforts of the Clinton campaign, Obama appointees, and ex-intelligence chiefs and their media counterparts between 2015 and 2020 severely undermined the 2016 Trump campaign. They bushwhacked the 2017 presidential transition. They hamstrung the Trump presidency. And they may well have hurt Trump’s 2020 election bid. Summed up, here is the damage caused by the Trump-Putin collusion lies: 1. They emboldened “experts” in 2020 to again lie blatantly and shamelessly to the American people that the incriminating Hunter Biden laptop was yet another fake product of Russian interference to help reelect Trump. 2. The media were equally guilty. Journalists partnered with current and ex-Obama appointees by disseminating fake documents like the Steele dossier and working with giants like Twitter and Facebook. During the 2020 campaign, the FBI and social media sought to censor accurate news stories that the laptop was indeed authentic and already verified as such by the FBI.
3. These operations may have had serious consequences for U.S. foreign policy. Dictatorial Russia is an adversary of the U.S. But by needlessly and falsely claiming that Russia had intervened in two elections directly to partner with Trump, Obama-era officials and Clinton-campaign activists destroyed President Trump’s own credibility to sustain a workable relationship with a nuclear Russia. In addition, the lying and extra-legal operations of the FBI and CIA only further convinced the paranoid Russians that they could not trust the U.S. government — given it had been engaging in the very conspiracy lies that were more akin to its own than America’s. Obama, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and others will likely never face legal consequences for the damage they’ve done to our institutions and foreign policy. But that does not mean they should be exempt from an ongoing and disinterested effort to find and finally expose the whole truth.
Don’t you think it’s time for The New York Times to stop using the cliché “baseless” when referring to allegations — now, actually, official accusations— of the seditious conspiracy to run President Trump out of office after the 2016 election? Of all the fake “journalistic” blurts emanating from this bastion of degenerate sell-outs, “baseless” is the fakest, as if the word printed in a headline were so magically potent, the sheer assertion of it can make all your problems just — poof! — go away. It’s the thought process of wicked children who fail to develop a sense of true or false, right or wrong, who grow into adults specially licensed, by some new perversion of the social contract, to get away with anything. And those wicked children have become America’s managerial class, the elite who are supposed to do your thinking for you op-ed style, the credentialed experts, such as Tony Fauci, “economist” Paul Krugman, DEI avatar and NPR honcho Katherine Maher, Harvard law prof Lawrence Tribe. . . the list is interminable, but you get the picture.
This class is also the owner / operator of America’s political Deep State, which by 2016 had grown into a colossal racketeering operation, money-laundering gazillions of taxpayer dollars into NGOs dedicated to the country’s cultural and political destruction while it processed campaign donations into fantastic fortunes for people officially earning less than $200-K a year. The racket also managed to pay for the support of multitudes allergic to working for living, as long as they were available for riots and ballot-harvesting drives. It was working at such a high pitch by the end of Barack Obama’s two terms, with the most stupendously privileged creature in the Boomer bestiary ready to take her “turn” in the Oval Office — after amassing a $300-million-plus fortune serving as US senator (salary, $174-K / year) and Secretary of State (salary $199,700 / year, then) — that you must imagine the mighty freak-out at the prospect of one Donald John Trump, outsider vulgarian extraordinaire, promising to step in and drain the whole massive, putrid, necrotic, parasitical nepo-infested quagmire of predatory grifters, leaving them gasping for their lives on the stinking Potomac mudbanks like so many grunions dying on the beach at Redondo.
Barack Obama, apparently, Darth Vadar-ized himself and was handed a light-saber (Hillary’s Steele dossier) by John Brennan, Grand Duke of Planet Intel. . . and the rest should have been history — but instead festered in the US body politic for more than ten years like an inflamed tuberculoma and is now bursting out of the Beltway’s peritoneal cavity in a spectacular spray of ordure, sticking to everyone and everything like a thousand tails pinned on the everlasting Democratic donkey. Alas, Babylon-on-the-Potomac. . . . Also: “baseless,” my ass. . . . The basis for all this mischief is in the process of having proof supplied by the one figure, DNI Gabbard, in a position to retrieve the evidence, in writing, from the various heavily ring-fenced agencies over which she is the ultimate overseer, which has not been done before, especially back in the crucial weeks of late 2020 when John Ratcliffe was in that position. The reason Tulsi succeeded this time where Ratcliffe did not is probably due to newly available A-I systems which make collation of cross-searches much easier through the countless servers of the many intel agencies. And so, now it pours forth day by day.
That’s where things stand and the dust has not even begun to settle, with former President Obama seemingly hoisted on the petard of his own making back in December of 2016. Whether or not all the declassified info can be crafted into prosecutable cases is not yet determined, but you might imagine it will come together soon enough, if at all possible. It may not add up to treason per se, but there are plenty of other serious charges generally proceeding from deprivation of rights under color of law (18 U.S.C. § 242), to seditious conspiracy, i.e., overthrow of the president (18 U.S.C. § 2384) to stuff a number of former officials into orange jumpsuits behind bars.
“Russians hold all the cards. Zelensky has no cards. All he can do is play games and placate Trump,” says Michael Maloof, former senior security policy analyst in the US Office of the Secretary of Defense, in an interview with Sputnik. According to Maloof, Zelensky is stalling for time, hoping to paint Russia as an unreliable negotiator and gain favor with Trump. The Kremlin, however, has stated that any Putin-Zelensky talks are premature, as no common ground exists yet. “The longer that Zelensky holds on and continues the fight with the encouragement of the West, he’s going to lose more and more,” Maloof warns.
Zelensky is also facing unrest at home. On July 22, Ukrainians protested his attempt to take control of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). “I think the internal strife is going to have to be accelerated to the point where [Zelensky] is going to have to focus all of his attention on that if he intends to survive politically. But I think his days are numbered,” says Maloof. He suggests that Ukrainians may soon act to “get what’s left of Ukraine back on a stable footing with proper governance and representation.”
“Right now, the Russian perspective is that Zelensky is not a valid leader because his term had expired as president and he’s operating under martial law,” the analyst points out. Western support is also faltering, particularly after Zelensky’s controversial NABU/SAPO law, which contradicts the 2015 Ukraine–US–EU agreement on governance and foreign oversight. The West still holds financial leverage over Ukraine, while “the ultimate loser in the end will be Zelensky,” Maloof concludes.
Volodymyr Zelensky is facing his first wave of mass protests since 2022 — and it’s a bad omen for him, veteran ex-CIA and State Department official Larry Johnson tells Sputnik. The trouble has brewed for the past month, according to the pundit. “We had a news article by Seymour Hersh… that indicated that his sources from the CIA and Department of Defense were telling him that Zelensky was on his way out, that they’re going to get rid of him,” Johnson says. Johnson says the first impression is the protests looked staged: Pre-printed signs, some oddly in English, while Ukrainians mostly speak either Ukrainian or Russian.
Protested Zelensky’s power grab over the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), but not forced conscription, or the failure to return bodies and pay families who have lost loved ones in the war. “The fact that there are rumors circulating that Washington wants to get rid of Zelensky is a sign that the relationship is not what it was two years ago under Biden,” the CIA veteran says. Zelensky tried to appoint his ex-Defense Minister Rustem Umerov as ambassador to the US, but Washington rejected it. Despite promises, Trump has no weapons to send — just deals to sell arms to Europe to pass to Ukraine. Signs show the US has grown tired of Zelensky. “There is nothing that Zelensky can point to where he can say, hey, I’ve got great support here, and I’m in good favor with Washington,” Johnson concludes.
On July 22, large-scale demonstrations broke out in major Ukrainian cities – Kiev, Lviv, Kharkov, and Odessa – and continue to this day. The protests erupted after the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian Parliament) approved a law limiting the authority of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), effectively placing them under the control of the Office of the Attorney General. This legislation came shortly after NABU and SAPO launched an investigation into former Deputy Prime Minister Aleksey Chernyshov, one of Zelensky’s closest allies. Officials in Zelensky’s Office claimed that the reform was necessary to improve coordination among government bodies amid ongoing military operations and to combat Russian influence over anti-corruption institutions.
However, public outrage stemmed not only from the law itself but also from the rapid centralization of power in Ukraine. Protests persisted even after Zelensky restored the independent functioning of NABU and SAPO. Below, RT explores the motives behind the dismantling of these anti-corruption agencies and why the protests pose a threat to Zelensky’s administration. When Vladimir Zelensky took office in 2019, he vowed to support anti-corruption efforts, urging anti-corruption agencies to investigate all cases and hold even high-ranking officials accountable. However, those promises were never fulfilled. On July 22, the Rada passed Bill No. 12414, originally addressing amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code related to disappearances of people during wartime.
However, MPs from Zelensky’s Servant of the People party added amendments that effectively restructured NABU and SAPO, placing them under the control of the Attorney General, who is appointed by the president. Notably, many MPs who voted in favor of the bill and received it with applause are themselves under investigation by these anti-corruption bodies. The official justification for targeting NABU and SAPO was the investigation into Chernyshov, a presidential ally considered a candidate for prime minister, who faced allegations of abuse of power and illicit enrichment. A major corruption scandal in the construction sector emerged, making Chernyshov the highest-ranking official within the president’s team to be embroiled in such an inquiry.
According to the publication Ukrainskaya Pravda, Zelensky ordered the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) to protect Chernyshov from arrest. Despite the allegations, the court did not suspend him from his post; however, he was eventually dismissed, and the ministry disbanded. Another notable case involves NABU’s investigation into Rostislav Shurma, the former deputy head of the President’s Office. After the case was initiated, he fled to Germany. In July, German authorities, in collaboration with NABU, conducted a search of his residence in the suburbs of Munich. NABU was preparing charges against Timur Mindich, a long-time friend of Zelensky and co-owner of Studio Kvartal-95, Ukrainskaya Pravda reported. He is suspected of embezzlement in the energy sector and drone production.
Sources indicate detectives may possess recorded conversations involving Mindich in which Zelensky is mentioned. These cases involving the Ukrainian leader’s close associates triggered the crackdown on the anti-corruption agencies. This narrative has been confirmed by The Times and The Economist. On July 21, the SBU and prosecutors conducted extensive searches related to NABU employees, targeting over 80 locations nationwide. Law enforcement acted aggressively, using armed groups to force people to the ground without presenting search warrants. Later, the agency reported the detention of Ruslan Magomedrasulov, the head of NABU’s regional office. Investigators claim his father is a Russian citizen, and he failed to disclose this before obtaining access to state secrets. Allegedly, he assisted his father in conducting business in Russia, and his mother reportedly receives a pension from the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and “makes pro-Russian comments” online. He is expected to face charges for “aiding Russia.”
A summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky should only take place to finalize a peace settlement, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. Zelensky has repeatedly called for a face-to-face meeting with Putin in the past several months. The Ukrainian delegation has also proposed the idea during rounds of bilateral talks in Istanbul, framing such a summit as essential to ending the conflict. While the Kremlin has not ruled out a possible Putin-Zelensky meeting, Russian officials have consistently emphasized that the groundwork must be laid first.
“A summit meeting can and should put a final point in the settlement and record the modalities and agreements that are to be developed in the course of expert work. It is impossible to do the opposite,” Peskov told reporters on Friday. Following the third round of Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul this week, the Kremlin spokesman accused Kiev of prematurely pushing for a summit. “They are trying to put the cart before the horse,” Peskov said, stressing that “work needs to be done, and only then can the heads of state be given the opportunity to record the achievements that have been made.” Moscow has consistently pointed to concerns about Zelensky’s legal authority.
While Russia has stated it is open to negotiations with him, officials have warned that any documents signed under Zelensky’s name could face legal challenges in the future. Zelensky’s presidential term expired in May 2024. He has refused to hold new elections, citing the ongoing state of martial law in Ukraine. Russia has argued that his status as head of state is no longer valid and that legal authority in Ukraine now lies with its parliament. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has suggested that Zelensky’s insistence on meeting both Putin and US President Donald Trump may be aimed at getting “a massive legitimacy boost” and using the meetings as a pretext to further delay elections.
The United Kingdom would not hesitate to sabotage a potential thaw in US-Russia relations, a top aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed on Friday. Nikolay Patrushev, a longtime national security official and senior Kremlin adviser, accused London of being prepared to carry out a false flag in order to derail efforts by US President Donald Trump to resolve the conflict in Ukraine and normalize ties with Moscow. “If necessary, London would easily stab Washington in the back. I believe officials in the White House realize what kind of ‘ally’ they are dealing with,” Patrushev told RIA Novosti.
His comments followed a statement last month by Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), which alleged that British intelligence was directly involved in orchestrating covert Ukrainian operations. The SVR claimed the UK had acquired torpedoes of Soviet and Russian design for potential use in a false flag incident – specifically, a staged attack on an American naval vessel in the Baltic Sea. Since Trump’s return to office in January and the departure of Joe Biden’s Democratic administration, Russian officials have frequently pointed to London as the primary force behind the continued conflict in Ukraine. They argue that the British government’s firm support is an obstacle to peace and a strategic effort to block reconciliation between Washington and Moscow.
Moscow has portrayed the Ukraine conflict as a NATO-driven proxy war meant to weaken Russia at the expense of Ukrainian lives. Past reporting by The New York Times and The Times of London has confirmed that both US and British officials have played more active roles in directing Ukrainian military strategy than publicly acknowledged by their governments.
President Donald Trump withdrew his nomination of Alina Habba to serve as New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor, a Justice Department official confirmed on Thursday. The development comes after a federal court declined to retain Habba in the role of U.S. attorney for New Jersey and opted to install Desiree Leigh Grace. On Tuesday, U.S. district court judges of New Jersey selected Grace, who was Habba’s first assistant, to serve as U.S. attorney as Habba’s 120-day term in the office was reaching its end. Attorney General Pam Bondi then fired Grace in response to the judges’ decision. “[Habba] has been doing a great job in making NJ safe again. Nonetheless, politically minded judges refused to allow her to continue in her position, replacing Alina with the First Assistant,” Bondi wrote on X after the decision.
“Accordingly, the First Assistant United States Attorney in New Jersey has just been removed,” she said. “This Department of Justice does not tolerate rogue judges — especially when they threaten the President’s core Article II powers.” A Justice Department official told The Epoch Times that Trump withdrew Habba’s nomination to be New Jersey’s U.S. attorney, and she was appointed first assistant U.S. attorney. This means Habba becomes the acting U.S. attorney, as the position is now vacant after Grace’s firing. “Donald J. Trump is the 47th President. Pam Bondi is the Attorney General. And I am now the Acting United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey,” Habba wrote in a statement posted to X. “I don’t cower to pressure. I don’t answer to politics. This is a fight for justice. And I’m all in.”
Earlier on Thursday, Grace wrote on LinkedIn that she’s honored the judges selected her “on merit” and that she is prepared to follow that order and “begin to serve in accordance with the law.” “I’ve served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. I’ve been promoted four times in the last five years by both—including four months ago by this administration. Politics never impacted my work at the Department. Priorities change, of course, and resources are shifted, but the work and the mission were steady,” Grace said.
However, due to Habba now serving as acting U.S. attorney, Grace likely can no longer assume that office. Habba previously served as Trump’s defense attorney in multiple court cases. Last week, Trump’s pick for U.S. attorney of the Northern District of New York, John Sarcone III, was rejected by judges on that district court. Bondi then appointed Sarcone as a “special attorney” to her, granting him the powers of a U.S. attorney indefinitely.
In a significant yet non-binding move, the Israeli legislature has overwhelmingly approved a declaration urging the immediate extension of Israeli sovereignty over Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and the Jordan Valley. The motion, which passed by a vote of 71 to 13, was backed by right-wing and center-right factions including Likud, Shas, Religious Zionism, Otzma Yehudit, and Yisrael Beiteinu. The text declares that the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas — referred to in Israeli political discourse as the “Simchat Torah Massacre” — proves that the creation of a Palestinian state poses a mortal danger to Israel’s existence. “The Knesset declares that the State of Israel has the natural, historical, and legal right to all parts of the Land of Israel,” the resolution reads.
“The Knesset calls on the Government of Israel to act without delay to apply sovereignty… over all areas of Jewish settlement in Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley.” Though labeled symbolic, Palestinian experts view the vote as laying the bureaucratic foundation for a permanent Israeli presence and governance in the West Bank, the heartland of a future Palestinian state as envisioned by international consensus. Saad Nimr, professor of political science at Birzeit University in the West Bank, told RT the implications of the Knesset’s move are far-reaching. “This is not symbolic at all,” Nimr said. “It means these settlements are now treated as Israeli cities. They’re no longer ‘occupied’ under military law. This is the legal and bureaucratic infrastructure of annexation.”
He continued: “The Israeli ministries — not the military — will now oversee health, welfare, planning, and infrastructure in these areas. It’s not about theory. It’s about bulldozers, budgets, and expansion.” Dimitri Diliani, a member of the Fatah Revolutionary Council, echoed that sentiment. “To describe the vote as symbolic is dangerously naive,” Diliani warned. “In Israeli politics, symbolism is often a precursor to de facto annexation. While the Knesset motion lacks binding legislative authority, it institutionalizes consensus in both government and opposition to expand the State of Israel’s settler-colonial project with new domestic political legitimacy.” Diliani added that members of the Knesset are already pushing legislation to replace the internationally recognized term “West Bank” with the biblical “Judea and Samaria” — further entrenching a nationalist narrative in Israeli law.
Many analysts see the vote not only as ideological, but also as a tactical political maneuver to preserve Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s fragile governing coalition. “It’s quite clear this was a political exchange,” said Nimr. “[The leader of the National Religious Party–Religious Zionism Bezalel] Smotrich and [the leader of the Otzma Yehudit (“Jewish Power”) party] Ben Gvir threatened to leave the government if negotiations in Doha led to a Gaza ceasefire. This vote is Netanyahu’s way of keeping them on board.” By offering the far right a symbolic prize on annexation, Netanyahu appears to be stalling a government collapse – even as truce talks with Hamas continue under Qatari mediation. Diliani described the move as “opportunistic,” adding: “It’s designed to pre-empt mounting international legal scrutiny, particularly after the International Court of Justice advisory opinion in July 2023, which declared Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory illegal.”
The reaction from the international community was swift but toothless. Jordan condemned the vote as “a blatant violation of international law.” The European Union and the Arab League issued similarly worded rebukes, reaffirming their commitment to a two-state solution. But both Palestinian analysts were unshaken by the lack of meaningful repercussions. “The historical record teaches us that international consensus does not always translate into action,” said Diliani. “Israel’s alignment with key Western powers, particularly the United States, has only grown stronger – even amid documented live-streamed Israeli genocide in Gaza and tremendous war crimes in Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank.” He cited continued US military support, which amounts to $3.8 billion annually in aid and has reached nearly $20 billion in additional military assistance since the war on Gaza began in October 2023.
“Israel continues to enjoy extensive trade privileges with the EU,” Diliani added. “Over three-quarters of a million illegal colonial Israeli settlers reside in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Yet the response from the international community remains negligible. Absent deterrent sanctions or accountability mechanisms, Israel interprets this as tacit permission to proceed.” Nimr was equally scathing. “Israel went into this decision with an overwhelming majority in the Knesset. That means they don’t care about the international community’s opinion. The EU witnessed with their own eyes the genocide in Gaza, the use of hunger as a weapon, and still didn’t take any real action.” “If there is no punishment,” Nimr said, “it’s interpreted as agreement. So now, they feel they have a green light.”
BREAKING: TRUMP’S CHEMTRAILS TASK FORCE EXPOSES DARPA PLOT TO MURDER 170 MILLION AMERICANS
THE SKY WAS NEVER THE LIMIT — IT WAS THE WEAPON
Trump’s Chemtrails Task Force has detonated the truth: DARPA is running a genocidal aerosol program against the American people. RFK Jr.… pic.twitter.com/8gBGkDp41z
🚨BREAKING: President Trump goes scorched earth on Obama saying he committed treason:
“It would be President Obama. And Biden was there with him … the leader of the gang was Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. He's guilty. This is treason.” pic.twitter.com/xoWOD83mmY
BANNON: What happened today in the Oval Office was historic. For the first time in U.S. history, a sitting President called out a former President by name for high treason. On global television. In front of a visiting head of state. And Obama took the bait. It’s game on. pic.twitter.com/clG2CosEDf
September 29, 2020. Trump is asked during his debate with Biden if he will commit to a free transition.
Trump's answer was called a conspiracy theory by the MSM. Not only was his answer accurate, it may have been the reason that his house was raided after he left office. pic.twitter.com/pIl2m9zNGG
“I’ve been in construction my whole life… but I go to this $2.5B Fed building and they’re tearing down marble and steel? It doesn’t make sense. We’re going to get to the bottom of it.” —@Pulte on the bizarre rebuild of the Federal Reserve HQ. pic.twitter.com/kSM8NPOBl8
FEDERAL RESERVE: What do the Fed’s 24,000 employees do all day? The one thing the Fed’s economists don’t do is vote for Republicans – not one has donated to a Republican in 25 years. pic.twitter.com/vyYe6SLNSH
CNN does mention Obama and Tulsi now -in passing-, but only to assert that this story serves one purpose only: to divert attention away from the real and infinitely BIGGER story, which is that Trump is connected to the Epstein files. And then it has five different stories about that.
“The evidence that we have found and that we have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment. There are multiple pieces of evidence and intelligence that confirm that fact.”
Barack Obama has long pretended that he had no hand in the Russia collusion hoax, but that narrative is crumbling fast. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has just declassified a trove of explosive documents that reveal the Obama administration’s direct role in fabricating the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) — the cornerstone of the bogus claim that Donald Trump was a Russian asset.nOne key piece of evidence is a 2020 House Intelligence Committee report that flatly states that there was no Russian cyber interference connected to Trump’s win. Despite that, Obama demanded a rushed intelligence assessment in the final weeks of 2016, deliberately designed to push the false claim that Vladimir Putin helped install Trump. The goal? To sabotage the incoming president before he was even sworn in.
According to the documents, Obama and his top advisers — working hand in glove with Hillary Clinton’s campaign and their loyal media allies — staged a coordinated, calculated effort to weaponize U.S. intelligence for political warfare. What began as a smear campaign has now turned into something much bigger. On Wednesday, Gabbard confirmed during a White House press briefing that her office has officially referred Obama to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation over his leading role in the conspiracy. “Do you believe that any of this new information implicates former President Obama in criminal behavior?” a reporter asked. “We have referred and will continue to refer all of these documents to the Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate the criminal implications of this,” Gabbard replied.
When asked point blank if that includes the former president himself, Gabbard didn’t flinch. “Correct,” she replied. “The evidence that we have found and that we have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment. There are multiple pieces of evidence and intelligence that confirm that fact.” A second reporter followed up, referencing Gabbard’s recent statement accusing Obama of helping to lead a coup against President Trump. “Do you believe President Obama is guilty of treason?” he asked. Gabbard stopped short of personally issuing a legal judgment but made it clear what she believes took place. “I’m leaving the criminal charges to the Department of Justice. I am not an attorney,” she said.
“But as I have said previously, when you look at the intent behind creating a fake manufactured intelligence document that directly contradicts multiple assessments that were created by the intelligence community, the expressed intent and what followed afterward can only be described as a years-long coup and a treasonous conspiracy against the American people, our republic, and an attempt to undermine President Trump’s administration.” The implications are staggering. For years, the media and Democrats insisted that Russia installed Trump; now, under the Trump administration’s own intelligence leadership, it’s Obama who stands accused of orchestrating the deception that fueled the entire narrative. On Tuesday, Obama’s office released a rare statement essentially denying Obama’s role in the scandal.
“Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction,” the statement read. “Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes.” Obama can scoff all he wants and hide behind carefully worded denials, but the truth is catching up with him — and fast. The declassified evidence paints a damning picture: not only did Obama know about the Russia hoax, but he was also the one orchestrating it from the top.
This wasn’t some rogue effort by low-level staffers or overeager Clinton allies. This was a calculated, top-down operation to sabotage President Trump and deceive the American public using the full weight of the intelligence community. And now, for the first time, there are real consequences on the horizon.
US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Wednesday released a previously classified congressional report, which she claims debunks “Russia Hoax lies” – a coordinated effort by former President Barack Obama to distort intelligence regarding Moscow’s alleged role in the 2016 election. This marks Gabbard’s second major declassification move, following her earlier allegation of a “treasonous conspiracy” aimed at undermining Donald Trump’s presidency. The newly public document – produced by the House Intelligence Committee in 2020 under Republican leadership – challenges the analytical foundation for the conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to help then-candidate Trump win the election.
It criticizes the CIA for failing to adhere to its own standards, citing “one scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from one of the substandard reports” as the basis for its assessment that Putin favored Trump. In a post on X on Wednesday, Gabbard called the report a “bombshell,” asserting it reveals “the most egregious weaponization and politicization of intelligence in American history.” She accused Obama and his senior officials of collaborating with media allies to delegitimize Trump through what she described as a deliberate disinformation campaign. “They conspired to subvert the will of the American people,” Gabbard wrote, claiming the effort amounted to a “years-long coup” against Trump.
🧵 New evidence has emerged of the most egregious weaponization and politicization of intelligence in American history. Per President @realDonaldTrump's directive, I have declassified a @HouseIntel oversight majority staff report that exposes how the Obama Administration… pic.twitter.com/0sS4Df8yoI
The report also claims Obama issued “unusual directives” to accelerate the release of the intelligence assessment before Trump’s inauguration, bypassing normal interagency coordination procedures within the intelligence community. Gabbard has argued that these actions warrant a criminal investigation and accused Obama-era officials of manufacturing a false narrative to discredit a sitting president. Trump has endorsed her findings, calling for prosecutions of Obama and top members of his administration. She also claimed that internal US intelligence assessments consistently concluded Russia lacked both the capability and intent to interfere in the 2016 election – but that these findings were deliberately suppressed. Russia has denied any involvement in US elections, and President Putin has repeatedly stated that Moscow does not favor any particular American political candidate.
Barack Obama’s team is in full damage control mode after Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified and released evidence that Obama and his top officials in his administration knowingly fabricated intelligence to push the false narrative that Trump was compromised by Russia—an operation designed to delegitimize his election and kneecap his ability to govern. On Tuesday, Barack Obama released a statement through a spokesman in response to the recent release of Russiagate documents implicating the former president in the effort to delegitimize Trump’s presidency. “Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,” the statement read. “But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.”
But, Gabbard isn’t backing down. In an appearance on “Rob Schmitt Tonight” on Newsmax Tuesday, she announced that her team will be releasing documents that directly contradict Barack Obama’s latest attempt to rewrite the history of the Russia collusion hoax. “We will be releasing further documents tomorrow that will refute that statement,” Gabbard said, dismissing the statement outright as part of pattern of misinformation pushed by top Democrats and their allies in the media ever since the release of what she called the “manufactured intelligence document” in January 2017. She didn’t stop there. “We will be pulling a whole host of statements that were made by the Obama administration, by Hillary Clinton, by senior Democrat officials, by their friends in the media,” she said. “They state over and over again after this January 2017 manufactured intelligence document was created that repeat the narrative.”
Gabbard laid out a damning list of examples. “The New York Times says, ‘Russian hackers acted to aid Trump in the election,’” she quoted. “Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan says, ‘There is strong consensus among us… to support the CIA claim Russian hackers aided Donald Trump’s election.’” And of course, Hillary Clinton’s infamous refrain: “I would be president if not for the Russian hackers supporting Donald Trump.” “There is a vast body of evidence and intelligence that debunks and refutes this statement you’ve just read and others coming from some of the Democrat leaders in Congress today,” Gabbard concluded. With more documents expected to drop soon, Gabbard is making it clear she intends to expose the Obama-era narrative for what it was—an orchestrated political operation designed to undercut the legitimacy of a duly elected president.
Now that the truth is starting to trickle out, the Obama crowd is sweating—and for good reason. Tulsi Gabbard’s document drops are pulling back the curtain on what looks like a coordinated effort by Obama and his top brass to sabotage a duly elected president using fake intelligence and a complicit media echo chamber. The phony Russia narrative was a deliberate attempt to delegitimize Trump before he even took the oath. And now, the evidence is catching up. No matter how hard Obama’s lackeys try to spin it, accountability is coming. And they know it.
“..Canadian Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc and Mark Carney’s chief-of-staff, Marc-André Blanchard are once again coming to DC to ride their bicycles in slow circles at the bottom of the White House driveway while staring in the windows.”
I’ll repeat it as much as needed, until it sinks in. The U.S-Canada trade deal status is simply a no-brainer. President Trump will answer questions about Canada and tariffs, he’ll put people into seats to discuss trade with the Canadian delegation, and he’ll give every outward appearance of being favorable to Prime Minister Mark Carney…. BUT… In the background, Trump is simply waiting for the USMCA timeline to trigger a renegotiation. President Donald Trump is ambivalent to the trade partnership with Canada. This moot-status reality is why there’s no substantive engagement. ‘No deal’ -until USMCA redo- is a win for President Trump. For some bizarre reason that I simply cannot fathom, almost every Canadian politician seems entirely oblivious to this reality. Instead, Canadian Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc and Mark Carney’s chief-of-staff, Marc-André Blanchard are once again coming to DC to ride their bicycles in slow circles at the bottom of the White House driveway while staring in the windows.
An article in Politico notes the Canadian premiers are now accepting the August 1st deadline will pass without any agreement, and the 35% reciprocal tariffs on non-USMCA products (meaning a lot of stuff) is going to trigger. Literally, everything from Canada that has a non-USMCA component is going to be tariffed. Think about all the stuff from China, Asia (writ large) and Europe that Canada assembles for finished goods. All of that stuff will be subject to the tariffs. That said, there’s good news coming from the recent meeting between Prime Minister Carney and the Premiers. Within their statement they use the term “developing large infrastructure projects.” That’s Canadian political codespeak for them realizing they are going to have to get back to regular energy development, raw material use/refinement and ACTUAL MANUFACTURING.
Canada is going to have to bring back their ‘dirty’ industrial jobs. For our Treehouse friends in Canada, this is very good news. The Canadian assembly economic model has to change in order to get compliant with U.S. trade rules. THAT’S TRUMP’S ENTIRE POINT! The environmentalists within Canada will not like this, but economically they will have no choice; it’s the only way to avoid a complete economic depression.
HUNTSVILLE, Ontario — “Prime Minister Mark Carney and Canada’s premiers are tempering expectations that they’ll strike a new economic and security deal with Donald Trump by the end of the month. “We would like to have the ideal deal, as fast as possible. But what can we get?” Quebec Premier François Legault said Tuesday. “You almost need to ask Donald Trump, and I’m not even sure he knows himself what he wants.” It’s a shift in tone from the premiers and Carney, who ran for election on his economic record, arguing he’d be the best person to negotiate with the president. But Canada is finding it harder than it looks. Carney met the premiers in Muskoka, cottage country north of Toronto, to update them on Canada-U.S. negotiations. As the leaders emerged from a three-hour meeting, they downplayed hopes of an Aug. 1 deal, arguing that achieving a “good deal” is more important than hitting a deadline.”
[…] As the negotiations continue, the premiers spent Tuesday carving out a strategy to offset the economic impact of Trump’s tariffs on the aluminum, steel, auto and lumber sector. They spoke about developing large infrastructure projects, breaking down trade barriers between provinces and encouraging a “buy Canadian” approach.”
Canada is going to go into a deep economic recession; there’s no way to avoid it. However, if they restart their industrial base, drop the ridiculous ‘green’ energy stuff, start exploiting their own natural resources and train an apprentice generation -just like we are trying to do- then Canada can bounce back stronger than ever. We know there are Canadian wolverines who understand this concept; we saw thousands of them in the Truckers’ vaccine strike. Make Canada Great Again, by Making Dirty Jobs Great Again, eh?
US President Donald Trump has claimed that billions of dollars in American aid given to Ukraine under his predecessor Joe Biden may have been misused. The US became Kiev’s top foreign backer under the Biden administration, allocating over $170 billion in military and financial aid, according to official data. Trump, however, has long argued the total is far higher, estimating $350 billion in “equipment and cash” and criticizing Biden for “giving away” money without returns. He reiterated the point at a Republican meeting at the White House on Tuesday, questioning whether Kiev had actually used US aid for defense needs.
“Biden gave away $350 billion worth of equipment or cash. Worse than equipment – cash… They were supposed to buy their own equipment. But I have a feeling they didn’t spend every dollar on the equipment,” Trump said. “We want to find out about that [money], someday, I guess, right?” Trump’s comments echo growing concerns over corruption in Ukraine. The country has long struggled with graft, and its Defense Ministry has faced multiple scandals since the conflict with Russia escalated in 2022. Both the US and EU have pressed for audits and stronger anti-corruption measures. In April, US National Security Adviser Michael Waltz urged tighter oversight of aid, calling Ukraine “one of the most corrupt nations in the world.”
'Not every dollar allocated to Ukraine by Biden for weapons was actually spent on them' – Trump believes that the Ukrainians partially embezzled American aid.
'I am very proud that European countries will buy our weapons, pay 100% of their price, and then distribute them… pic.twitter.com/rz3hnwQ74l
Despite calls for transparency, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky signed a law this week reducing the independence of Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies, claiming it would streamline investigations. The legislation has triggered international scrutiny and protests across the country, with critics saying the move could be aimed at shielding Zelensky’s inner circle and concealing the embezzlement of military funds. Moscow has long argued that Western aid prolongs the fighting without changing the outcome of the conflict. Russian officials have also long accused Kiev of misusing foreign funds. UN envoy Vassily Nebenzia told RT last month that it’s “an open secret” Ukraine “stole billions of dollars out of the aid” and that Zelensky clings to power to avoid consequences.
First, he effectively shut down the independent anti-corruption bureaus. That led to major protests in the streets, the first in years. So he (they) tweaked it all a bit and he claimed they’re independent again. These guys have embezzled billions and for some reason they’re now afraid of being found out.
Western news outlets have criticized Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky for stripping an independent anti-corruption bureau of its autonomy and placing it under the control of the prosecutor general. The move, carried out on Tuesday, drew widespread concern from journalists and observers. Zelensky signed legislative amendments on the subordination of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the office of the special anti-corruption prosecutor hours after they were rushed through parliament. The changes were enacted despite vocal opposition from the agency. Established in 2015 following the 2014 armed coup in Kiev, the NABU was a cornerstone of judicial reform conditions imposed by Western governments and international financial institutions.
The agency was intended to serve as a key check on official misconduct, along with Western-funded NGOs and media outlets. The move to “neuter” the NABU, as Axios described it, comes amid escalating tensions between the bureau and the Zelensky administration. Earlier this week, Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) executed search warrants against at least 15 NABU personnel and arrested a top investigator on suspicion of ties to Russia. Zelensky defended the measures, alleging that the NABU was ineffective and compromised by Russian influence, warranting what he called a necessary purge. The clampdown drew muted statements of concern from Western officials and warnings about its potential consequences from journalists.
”It is never a good sign when governments accused of corruption raid the agencies and activists trying to hold them to account,” wrote Bloomberg columnist Marc Champion. “It’s something the country cannot afford, just as it asks taxpayers across Europe to pump tens of billions of additional euros into its defense.” Champion also pointed to “an emerging pattern,” referencing the recent criminal charges filed against anti-corruption activist Vitaly Shabunin, who was accused of fraud and draft evasion. Axios noted that the assault on the NABU’s independence came after recent improvements in US-Ukraine relations. However, the outlet cautioned that Zelensky was “playing with fire,” recalling President Donald Trump’s characterization of him as a “dictator without elections” governing under martial law.
The Wall Street Journal accused Kiev of launching an “attack on anti-corruption institutions,” emphasizing the NABU’s role in assuring Western donors that financial support would be safeguarded from embezzlement. It also extensively cited criticisms by Ukrainian anti-corruption activists. Shabunin told the newspaper that the charges against him were meant to send a message: “Those who investigate corruption in Zelensky’s office will be punished.” Another person suggested Zelensky had grown emboldened by the West’s subdued response after Kiev rejected the independent selection of a NABU detective to lead another economic crimes agency. Foreign correspondents covering Ukraine expressed dismay at the developments on social media.
Oliver Carroll of The Economist called the legislation “shocking” and accused Zelensky of allowing “hubris” to jeopardize the goodwill of the foreign public. Yaroslav Trofimov of the Wall Street Journal claimed the crackdown represented “a gift of historic proportions to Russian propaganda” and to Western skeptics of further military aid for Ukraine. Financial Times correspondent Christopher Miller emphasized that the responsibility lay squarely with Zelensky and his chief of staff, Andrey Yermak. ”Orders came from the office of the president last night and the law enforcement committee passed it early morning in such great haste that members had to join over video,” Miller wrote. “This did not just happen overnight, even if it feels that way. This is a shift months in the making.”
US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has labeled Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky “a dictator” and called for his removal, citing mass anti-corruption protests across Ukraine and accusing him of blocking peace efforts. Her comments came after Zelensky signed a controversial bill into law that places the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) under the authority of the prosecutor general. Critics argue that the legislation effectively strips the bodies of their independence. The law has sparked protests across Ukraine, with around 2,000 people rallying in Kiev and additional demonstrations reported in Lviv, Odessa, and Poltava. “Good for the Ukrainian people! Throw him out of office!” Greene wrote Wednesday on X, sharing footage from the protests. “And America must STOP funding and sending weapons!!!”
Greene, a longtime critic of US aid to Kiev, made similar comments last week while introducing an amendment to block further assistance. “Zelensky is a dictator, who, by the way, stopped elections in his country because of this war,” she told the House. “He’s jailed journalists, he’s canceled his election, controlled state media, and persecuted Christians. The American people should not be forced to continue to pay for another foreign war.”Her statements come amid mounting speculation over Zelensky’s political future. Journalist Seymour Hersh has reported that US officials are considering replacing him, possibly with former top general Valery Zaluzhny.
Senator Tommy Tuberville also called Zelensky a “dictator” last month, accusing him of trying to drag NATO into the conflict with Russia. Tuberville claimed that Zelensky refuses to hold elections because “he knew if he had an election, he’d get voted out.” Zelensky’s five-year presidential term expired in 2024, but he has refused to hold a new election, citing martial law, which has been extended every 90 days since 2022.US President Donald Trump has also questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy, calling him “a dictator without elections” in February. Russian officials have repeatedly brought up the issue of Zelensky’s legitimacy, arguing that any agreements signed by him or his administration could be legally challenged by future leaders of Ukraine.
Huge protests erupt in Kyiv against Ukrainian President Zelensky as he is a dictator and refuses to make a peace deal and end the war.
Good for the Ukrainian people! Throw him out of office!
And America must STOP funding and sending weapons!!!
“Western allies of Ukraine” still believe that Trump keeps seeing Russian President Vladimir Putin “as his main negotiating partner and Zelensky as the primary obstacle to a workable peace deal.”
When the US picks clients, vassals, and proxies, it needs men or women ready to trade in the interests, even the welfare and lives of their compatriots. Vladimir Zelensky is such a man. A look at the elites of EU-NATO Europe shows he is not alone. But he is an especially extreme case. It is much less than a decade ago that the former media entrepreneur and comedian – often crude instead of witty – advanced from being a pet protégé of one of Ukraine’s most corrupt oligarchs to capturing the country’s presidency. As it turned out, never to let go of it: Zelensky has used the war, which was provoked by the West and escalated in February 2022, not only to make himself an indispensable if very expensive and often obstreperous American puppet but also as a pretext to evade elections.
And yet, now signs are multiplying that his days of being indispensable may be over. For one thing, Seymour Hersh, living legend of American investigative journalism, is reporting that Zelensky is very unpopular where it matters most, in US President Donald Trump’s White House. This is not surprising: Trump’s recent turn against Russia – whatever its real substance or marital reasons – does not mean a turn in favor of Ukraine and even less so in favor of Zelensky, as attentive observers have noted. According to the Financial Times, “Western allies of Ukraine” still believe that Trump keeps seeing Russian President Vladimir Putin “as his main negotiating partner and Zelensky as the primary obstacle to a workable peace deal.”
Time to go
Zelensky has gotten his own Maidan (?) Protests are taking place across the country against the crackdown on NABU. "I’m not a sucker!" (Я ж не лох!), people shout, echoing Zelensky’s infamous phrase. pic.twitter.com/upnmNFnUNR
And according to “knowledgeable officials in Washington” who have talked to Hersh, the US leadership is ready to act on that problem by getting rid of Zelensky. And urgently: Some American officials consider removing the Ukrainian president “feet first” in case he refuses to go. Their reason, according to Hersh’s confidants: to make room for a deal with Russia. Hersh has to make do with publishing anonymous sources. It is even conceivable that the Trump administration is leaking this threat against Zelensky to pressure him. Yet even if so, that doesn’t mean the threat is empty. Judging by past US behavior, using and then discarding other countries’ leaders is always an option.
Another, also plausible, possibility is that Zelensky will be discarded to facilitate not ending, but continuing the war, so as to keep draining Russian resources. In this scenario, the US would prolong the war by handing it over to its loyally self-harming European vassals. After, that is, seeing to the installation of a new leader in Kiev, one it has under even better control than Zelensky. Just to make sure the Europeans and the Ukrainians do not start understanding each other too well and end up slipping from US control. The Ukrainian replacement candidate everyone whispers about, old Zelensky nemesis General Valery Zaluzhny – currently in de facto exile as ambassador to the UK – might well be available for both options, depending on his marching orders from Washington.
Meanwhile, as if on cue, Western mainstream media have started to notice the obvious: The Financial Times has found out that critics accuse Zelensky of an “authoritarian slide,” which is still putting it very mildly but closer to the truth than past daft hero worship. The Spectator – in fairness, a magazine with a tradition of being somewhat more realistic about Ukraine – has fired a broadside under the title “Ukraine has lost faith in Zelensky.” The Economist has detected an “outrage” in Zelensky’s moves and, more tellingly, used a picture of him making him look like a cross between a Bond villain and Saddam Hussein. Even Deutsche Welle, a German state propaganda outlet, is now reporting on massive human rights infringements under Zelensky, with the impaired systematically targeted for forced mobilization.
European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has requested explanations from Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky over the crackdown on the country’s anti-corruption agencies, which has sparked nationwide protests and international backlash. The agencies were seen as key conditions for Kiev’s EU membership bid and continued Western aid. Under the legislation, passed by the Ukrainian parliament on Tuesday and signed by Zelensky hours later, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) were placed under the direct control of the Prosecutor General, a political appointee. The controversial law followed security raids on NABU in light of claims by Zelensky that the agency was subject to Russian influence.
Von der Leyen was in contact with Zelensky, her spokesman Guillaume Mercier told reporters on Wednesday, saying she “conveyed her strong concerns about the consequences” of the new law and requested “explanations.” The legislation “risks weakening strongly the competences and powers of anti-corruption institutions of Ukraine,” Mercier said. The EC chief has urged “respect for the rule of law” and the “fight against corruption,” he stated, adding “There cannot be a compromise.” European Council President Antonio Costa reportedly also voiced concern to Zelensky and asked for explanations. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul wrote on X that the development “hampers Ukraine’s way towards the EU.”
The creation of NABU and SAP was one of the requirements set by the European Commission and International Monetary Fund more than a decade ago to fight high-level corruption in Ukraine. Since then, the two bodies have led far-reaching investigations, including into Zelensky’s circle. The organizations say they now have been stripped of the guarantees that allowed them to operate effectively. EU Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis told the Financial Times that financial aid to Kiev is “conditional on transparency, judicial reforms [and] democratic governments.” Ukraine was ranked 105th out of 180 countries in Transparency International’s 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index.
The EU’s online content regulations are an affront to free speech, the US State Department has said in response to France’s praise for the Digital Services Act (DSA). The State Department echoed earlier criticism from US Vice President J.D. Vance, who accused EU member states of attempting to quash dissenting voices and stigmatize popular right-wing parties such as the Alternative for Germany (AfD). “In Europe, thousands are being convicted for the crime of criticizing their own governments. This Orwellian message won’t fool the United States. Censorship is not freedom,” the State Department wrote on X on Tuesday. “All the DSA protects is European leaders from their own people.”
Earlier this month, France’s mission to the UN promoted the DSA on X, stating, “In Europe, one is free to speak, not free to spread illegal content.” Passed in 2022, the DSA mandates that online platforms remove “illegal and harmful” content and combat “the spread of disinformation,” according to the European Commission. Critics in both the US and Europe have likened the regulations to the creation of a ‘ministry of truth’. Earlier this year, prosecutors in Paris launched an investigation into Elon Musk’s platform X, on suspicion that it was being used to meddle in French politics and spread hateful messages. The company dismissed the probe as “politically motivated.”
In 2024, the French authorities detained Russian-born tech entrepreneur Pavel Durov on charges that he had allowed his Telegram messaging app to be used for criminal activities. Durov, who was later released on bail, denied any wrongdoing and accused France of waging “a crusade” against free speech. He also claimed that French intelligence officials attempted to pressure him into censoring content during Romania’s 2024 presidential election. France’s foreign intelligence agency, the DGSE, confirmed that it had “reminded” Durov of his responsibility to police content, but denied allegations of election interference.
“A recent report has exposed the European commission guilty of bribing journalist to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars for favourable coverage..”
A recent report has exposed the European commission guilty of bribing journalist to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars for favourable coverage. How long can this go on? While we witness the continuation of the European Commission chief’s anti-democratic control over the project but also a host of values like freedom of speech, a Brussels Eurosceptic think tank has revealed that the project bribes journalists for favourable coverage. In a recent report, MCC claimed that the EU was secretly pumping at least 80m euros a year into both print and broadcast outlets often under the guise of fighting fake news. Yet the figure of 80m euros is wildly underestimated and in reality is likely to be three or four times this as the accountability and transparency of such payments are unsurprisingly buried in opaque accountancy practices with both the EU and media outlets themselves unwilling to be open to their readers/viewers.
Funding programmes are often presented using buzzwords like “fighting disinformation” or “promoting European integration” yet the reality is that it is a fund which is simply there to push propaganda for the project itself. The truth is that the European commission in particular is advancing with a strategy to bribe media giants more and more to promote the EU with its tainted narrative. Ironically, it is Ursula von der Leyen who often talks about “facts” being important. Her pretence that she believes in the truth and an independent press is in itself an illusion on a grand scale and perhaps the greatest example of what “fake news” itself is, on the EU circuit. Just recently, the irony of her being close to losing her job as commission president gave her the opportunity to give us all a good laugh.
“Facts matter, the truth matters”, she said recently in her speech to the EU Parliament, just before a vote of no confidence was held against her. She said – stop laughing – she was willing to engage in debate — provided it was based on “facts” and “arguments”. Yet there has never been an EU commission president who believes and benefits more in the dark art of bunging journalists and media more than Ursula. Indeed, the very media outlets who rushed to her defence when she was facing the jaws of defeat by a group of Eurosceptic MEPs recently are fake news outfits which have been receiving millions of euros of cash in brown envelopes for decades. “Von der Leyen successfully defends against no-confidence vote and attacks right-wing extremists”, thundered Der Spiegel, while Deutsche Welle (DW) reported a failure by the right: “Right-wing extremists fail with no-confidence motion against von der Leyen”.
“Right-wing extremists”? Really? Perhaps it’s worth noting that DW, to date, has received around 35m euros from the EU slush fund, according to the Hungarian think tank’s report which is compiled by Thomas Fazi, an Italian hack whose work is published on Unherd and who recently has published impressive investigations into the salami sliced power grab that the EU has been executing from member states. Ursula, of course, plays a pivotal role in that, as does corrupt media outlets like Deutsche Welle which is so spectacularly shite that its own German language service had to be shut down as no Germans would watch such gobbledygook garbage which champions the EU and Germany’s foreign policy ambitions.
This slush fund, aimed at boosting the EU’s status and relevance, has been around for quite a while but the report was revealing as it explains exactly how the European Commission goes about distributing the cash.mTraditionally, a big way the EU gets artificially positive coverage from Brussels events is via broadcasters. Outfits like DW, Euronews and most of the major state broadcasters across the EU benefit from a subsidy here, whereby the European Commission, European parliament and other institutions like the Council of Ministers provide filming, editing and studio facilities at their state of the art studios which, themselves, are a murky pit of corruption and embezzlement on a grand scale.
These “studios” provide everything for national broadcasters who have “correspondents” in Brussels. TV production, particularly on location is expensive. The EU pays for everything saving state broadcasters like DW millions in production costs which is of course paid back by coverage from the outlet not only with a positive EU spin but often simply replicating the EU narrative. It’s propaganda on a level which would make Goebbels proud as the genius of it is that the relationship which forms between the broadcasters and the EU grows each day until the point where both realise they need one another more than they have previously realised. The result is that so-called “news events” in Brussels which are so boring and would never normally see the light of day if the editors back in Berlin, Paris or Rome would have their say, get air time. And quite a bit of it.
What the report didn’t cover was the contracts themselves with the private companies which run the studios who employ scores of technical staff. Curiously perhaps, it is the same Belgian company which gets the contract every six years when the budget is completed despite EU rules making this impossible. All the Belgian firm does is simply change its name. Corruption of course has to be the heart of this. Someone in the EU commission is getting a huge commission for this of course.
Very soon if you want AI (and even if you don’t), you won’t be able to afford AC. Just this morning we warned readers that America’s largest power grid, PJM Interconnect, which serves 65 million people across 13 states and Washington, DC, and more importantly feeds Deep State Central’s Loudoun County, Virginia, also known as ‘Data Center Alley’ and which is recognized as one of the world’s largest hubs for data centers… had recently issued multiple ‘Maximum Generation’ and ‘Load Management’ alerts this summer, as the heat pushes power demand to the brink with air conditioners running at full blast across the eastern half of the U.S. But as anyone who has not lived under a rock knows, the deeper issue is that there’s simply not enough baseload juice to feed the relentless, ravenous growth of power-hungry AI server racks at new data centers.
“There is simply no new capacity to meet new loads,” said Joe Bowring to Bloomberg, president of Monitoring Analytics, which is the independent watchdog for PJM Interconnection. “The solution is to make sure that people who want to build data centers are serious enough about it to bring their own generation.” Well, there is another solution: crank up prices to the stratosphere. And that’s precisely what happened. As Bloomberg reports, business and households supplied by the largest US grid will pay $16.1 billion to ensure there is enough electricity supply to meet soaring power demand, especially that from a massive buildout in AI data centers. The payouts to generators for the year starting June 2026 topped last year’s record $14.7 billion, according to PJM Interconnection LLC, which operates the grid stretching from the Midwest to the mid-Atlantic.
That puts the capacity price per megawatt each day at a record $329.17 from $269.92. In response to the blowout payout, shares of Constellation Energy and Talen Energy surged in late trading in New York on Tuesday.As millions of Americans will very soon learn the hard way, AI data centers are driving the biggest surge in US electric demand in decades, leading to higher residential utility bills. That’s a key reason why PJM’s auction, once only tracked by power traders and plant owners but now increasingly a topic for general consumption as electricity bills are about to hit an all time high, has also become closely watched by politicians and consumer advocates.
As Bloomberg notes, this is the first auction that included both a price floor and cap, setting the range at $177.24 to $329.17, which of course was the clearing price level reached in this auction. Why even bother pretending there is an auction: just set the price at the max and be done with it. Last year’s 600% jump in capacity prices set off a political firestorm, resulting in PJM reaching a settlement with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro to essentially cap gains for two years and make auction prices more predictable after wild swings in recent years. Despite the increase in costs across the grid, the price cap trimmed costs for consumers who saw the biggest hikes in the last auction. Exelon’s Baltimore area utility reached a $466 last time, while Dominion Energy’s Virginia territory came in at about $444.
Payouts to generators stayed at high levels due to surging demand from big data centers coming online swiftly, said Jon Gordon, policy director of non-profit clean energy advocacy Advanced Energy United. New facilities are consuming as much power as towns or small cities, coinciding with a wave of older power plants shutting down and lagging investment in new supplies and grid upgrades, he said.The per-megawatt price exceeding the 2024 auction, and well closing at an all time high, is bullish for independent power producers including NRG, Talen, Constellation and Vistra, Barclays analyst Nick Campenella had forecast. These generators have spent more than $34 billion so far this year on deals to mainly buy up power plants fueled by natural gas to feed the AI boom especially in PJM.
Stephen Colbert is at the center of a conspiracy theory. It was born last week, when news broke of CBS canceling Colbert’s late-night talk show. The network’s move wasn’t hard to understand: “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” reportedly loses $40 million a year, and Colbert is already in the final year of his contract. Viewership for all the late-night gabfests is evaporating; there’s no recovery in sight. Colbert is No. 1 in his time slot, but his show costs $100 million a year to produce and doesn’t bring in nearly enough eyeballs to attract the ad revenue to cover that. So in what universe does CBS renew Colbert and keep losing tens of millions of dollars? The conspiracy theory instantly popular among Democrats and many in the media who ought to know better, however, says Colbert is really being taken off air to please President Donald Trump.
If the Federal Communications Commission allows it, Paramount Global, owner of CBS, will soon merge with Skydance, a company owned by David Ellison, whose father is a major Trump supporter. The president doesn’t like being lampooned by Colbert; he’s happy to see his show end. Trump benefits, so Trump must be to blame—right? For those who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, there are no coincidences. The truth is as clear as if Trump had been caught with his arms around the president of CBS Studios at a Coldplay concert. You see, if not for Trump’s FCC leverage over the network, CBS would have been content to keep losing millions on Colbert for years to come. That’s the crackpot view, and it’s politically convenient for Democrats, who’ve done their utmost to promote it.
Sen. Adam Schiff was a guest on the show the night Colbert announced its cancellation, and along with fellow Democrat Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, he took to X that evening to plant the seeds of conspiracy. “If Paramount and CBS ended the Late Show for political reasons, the public deserves to know. And deserves better,” Schiff wrote, feeling no need to offer evidence for the insinuation. “CBS canceled Colbert’s show just THREE DAYS after Colbert called out CBS parent company Paramount for its $16M settlement with Trump—a deal that looks like bribery,” Warren posted, referring to CBS’ settlement of a lawsuit over “60 Minutes.” “Do I think this is a coincidence? NO,” Sanders chimed in. The party instantly had its line, with shouty caps to drive it home.
It worked—Bluesky and Facebook lit up with liberals saying free speech was under attack by Trump, while CNN’s Brian Stelter, even as he reported the dismal financial reality of the “unfortunately unprofitable” show, packed his story with the conspiracy narrative. Stelter devoted more than a third of his report titled “Inside CBS’ ‘agonizing decision’ to cancel Colbert’s top-rated late-night show” to speculation about how the pending sale to Skydance might have influenced CBS, with heavy emphasis on the Trump angle, which he brought elsewhere in his story, too. Stelter even added his own spin, attempting to patch up one of the conspiracy tale’s obvious holes by suggesting CBS could have kept Colbert on air by cutting costs since Colbert had produced a much cheaper show, “After Midnight With Taylor Tomlinson,” that CBS was willing to renew.
But that’s absurd—“After Midnight” is already canceled; CBS canned it when Tomlinson announced her departure to return to stand-up comedy, and while she might well love the live stage, it’s obvious that running a late-night show on the cheap means paying hosts less: too little to keep Tomlinson. How little would Colbert, currently raking in a reported $15-$20 million a year, settle for? Colbert loses viewers and advertisers even with a $100 million budget—how poorly would a Colbert show more than 40% cheaper do? Hollywood Reporter notes the average age of Colbert’s viewers is 68. According to CNBC, the average age of David Letterman’s viewers when he handed his time slot to Colbert in 2015 was 60.
All the data points in the same direction:“The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” was a long time dying. That’s true of late-night talk as a whole, too. “I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next,” Trump predicted on Truth Social. The president doesn’t have to pressure ABC to make that happen; the market will do that on its own, as it did with Colbert. Colbert had a hit when he played a parody conservative on Comedy Central. Once he stopped playing and presented his true face and politics to the country, he crashed. Donald Trump didn’t get Stephen Colbert canceled; everything Democrats like about him did. And the late-night host’s fate will also be theirs if they don’t heed this market lesson.
French President Emmanuel Macron’s approval rating has dropped below 20% for the first time since taking office, as criticism mounts over rising defense spending and cuts to social programs. Prime Minister Francois Bayrou also performed poorly in the same poll, with the two forming the most unpopular executive pair of the Fifth Republic. Macron’s approval rating has fallen to 19%, with Bayrou at just 18%, making a combined approval of 37% – the lowest in modern France, according to a new IFOP survey published on Monday. Even during the Yellow Vest protests – a major anti-government movement that began in 2018 over fuel taxes and economic inequality – the French leader’s lowest rating was 23%.
Macron’s support has dropped sharply among his 2022 voters, with only 49% still backing him – down 12 points. His approval has also declined among business leaders and executives, falling by 18 and 8 points, respectively. Bayrou, who was appointed after Michel Barnier’s government collapsed in late 2024 following months of coalition infighting and public backlash over mishandled pension reforms, is now advancing a controversial austerity plan. Last week, he introduced new tax measures on high-income earners to help close a €43.8 billion ($48 billion) budget gap. The austerity package includes a freeze on pensions and social benefits, healthcare spending caps, and the scrapping of two national holidays to increase productivity and reduce government spending.
Left-wing leader Jean-Luc Melenchon has called for Bayrou’s resignation, calling the measures “intolerable injustices.” Despite cuts in social services, defense spending continues to rise. Macron has pledged €6.5 billion more for the military over two years, citing heightened threats to European security. This comes as France’s public debt reaches €3.3 trillion – around 114% of GDP. A new French defense review has warned of a potential “major war” in Europe by 2030, identifying Russia as a leading threat. The Kremlin has denied having any intention to attack the West, and has accused NATO countries of exploiting perceptions of Russia to justify their military build-up.
French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron launched legal proceedings against conservative podcaster Candace Owens in a Delaware court, seeking damages for what they characterize as a sustained defamation campaign targeting the French president’s wife. The 218-page complaint, filed Wednesday in Delaware’s Superior Court where Owens’ company is incorporated, encompasses 22 counts including defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and defamation by implication. The lawsuit centers on Owens’ repeated claims across multiple platforms that Brigitte Macron was born male, claims the Macrons’ legal team describes as “outlandish, defamatory, and far-fetched fictions.” The conservative commentator has disseminated these allegations through social media posts and an eight-part YouTube series titled “Becoming Brigitte,” which the plaintiffs allege has generated significant online harassment.
Tom Clare, the Macrons’ high-profile attorney, said the case is a straightforward defamation in a statement accompanying the filing. “Relying on discredited falsehoods originally presented by a self-proclaimed spiritual medium and so-called investigative journalist, Ms. Owens both promoted and expanded on those falsehoods and invented new ones,” Clare said. The legal filing indicates the Macrons’ representatives made multiple requests for retractions before pursuing litigation. In a joint statement, the presidential couple said they concluded that “referring the matter to a court of law was the only remaining avenue for remedy” after Owens allegedly “systematically reaffirmed these falsehoods.” Owens has maintained her position despite calls for retractions, declaring in a 2024 social media post that she would “stake my entire professional reputation on the fact that Brigitte Macron is in fact a man.”
The French first couple has consistently disputed these claims, citing official birth records. The lawsuit alleges the false statements have resulted in “relentless bullying on a worldwide scale” and caused “tremendous damage” to their reputations. BCC Communications, the public relations firm representing Owens, told Mediaite that the podcaster would address the lawsuit during her program Wednesday. The U.S. lawsuit follows mixed results for the Macrons in French courts addressing similar allegations. On July 11, a Paris appeals court overturned lower court convictions against two French women who had made comparable claims about the first lady’s gender identity.
The appellate ruling reversed a September 2023 decision that had ordered defendants Amandine Roy, a self-proclaimed spiritual medium, and Natacha Rey, a self-described independent journalist, to pay €8,000 in damages to Brigitte Macron and €5,000 to her brother. The women had produced a four-hour YouTube video in December 2021 promoting theories that Brigitte Macron was previously known as Jean-Michel Trogneux. The appeals court determined the defendants had acted in “good faith” despite making false claims, including allegations of “grooming a minor.” The decision eliminated their financial liability.
“Never been done before – xAI did in 19 days what everyone else needs one year to accomplish.
That is superhuman – There's only one person in the world who could do that – Elon Musk is singular in his understanding of engineering.” pic.twitter.com/oNZuH97RhJ
"Starlink Satellites will be able to broadcast direct to your mobiles. There will be no deadzone anywhere in the world for your cell phone. Your phone will still work even if there are no cell towers."
For those of you interested in the abridged quote about the architect of the Russia hoax, here is the full text of Cicero’s famous assessment of treachery… https://t.co/1CUiTvdOdnpic.twitter.com/HXHctEKdm6
V
https://twitter.com/MJTruthUltra/status/1947075656967176203
Tucker
There are SO MANY reason why Barack Obama belongs in prison It was Barack Obama and Anthony Fauci who took over the Ukraine biolabs – Elon Musk just confirmed USAID used US taxpayer money to fund COVID 19 development – This confirmed why Joe Biden chose the year 2014 for the… pic.twitter.com/ZBoeA6chai
.@SecScottBessent: "What we need to do is examine the entire Federal Reserve institution and whether they have been successful… All of these Ph.D.s over there, I don't know what they do… This is like Universal Basic Income for academic economists." pic.twitter.com/ITzSwQKpjS
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 21, 2025
Fed
Judy Shelton on CNBC: "If American people knew that the Fed was paying billions in 'interest' to foreign banks they would be outraged"
Arno
https://twitter.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1947239449068175660
Tulsi Gabbard has laid it all out, and promises more is on the way. But she can’t arrest or indict anyone. The DOJ and FBI will have to do that. Do Pam Bondi and Kash Patel/Dan Bongino have the same strength and conviction that Tulsi has, and can they defeat the resistance inside their agencies? Which are full of people who worked with the conspirators, and may also be indicted? It’s not so easy. At a minimum, they will need Trump’s full support going forward. It’s encouraging that Tulsi says people in the agencies are coming out of the woodwork.
When he spoke to the media on December 16, 2016, a week after receiving a classified intelligence assessment that Russian interference had no impact on the election outcome, Obama stepped before the press to quietly plant the seeds of what would become the Russia collusion hoax. With carefully chosen words and insinuations, he laid the groundwork for Democrats, the media, and the intelligence bureaucracy to spend the next four years undermining a duly elected president. Asked directly whether “Clinton lost because of the hacking,” Obama didn’t say “no”—he dodged. “I’m gonna let all the political pundits in this town, uh, have a long discussion about, uh, what happened in the election,” he said, feigning detachment. Then came the bait-and-switch: “We will provide evidence that we can safely provide, that does not compromise sources and methods.”
Translation? Trust us, but don’t expect proof. And that was the essence of the Obama playbook—demand trust in the narrative, even as no concrete evidence was made public. “If we’re gonna monitor this stuff effectively going forward,” Obama insisted, “we don’t want them to know that we know.” He offered a false binary: either trust the CIA and FBI “many of whom, by the way, served in previous administrations and who are Republicans,” or trust the Russians. “Unless the American people genuinely think that the professionals… are less trustworthy than the Russians, then, uh, people should pay attention to what our intelligence agencies say.”
However, based on prior reports, we know that multiple assessments delivered to the administration found no evidence of Russian manipulation of vote counts or election infrastructure, with a September intelligence report and a subsequent Presidential Daily Briefing on December 8 explicitly stating foreign adversaries could not covertly overturn the vote. According to multiple sources familiar with the December 8 briefing, the intelligence community found no evidence that Russia changed any votes or affected the outcome. Their interference amounted to some phishing emails and propaganda—nothing remotely close to altering the electoral result. Obama knew that, yet he pressed ahead with a narrative designed to delegitimize Trump.
Even more revealing was the moral preening that followed. Obama didn’t just imply that Trump had benefited from Russia; he accused Republicans of embracing foreign adversaries out of partisan spite. “You start to see certain folks in the Republican Party and Republican voters suddenly finding a government and individuals who stand contrary to everything that we stand for as being okay because that’s how much we dislike Democrats,” he said. It was a sly way of saying: Republicans who support Trump are betraying America. He drove the point home by alluding to Trump’s campaign rhetoric. “Some of the people who historically have been very critical of me for engaging with the Russians… also endorsed the president-elect, even as he was saying that we should stop sanctioning Russia… and was very complimentary of Mr. Putin personally.”
It was classic Obama—passive-aggressive, vague, with a twist of plausible deniability. There was no outright accusation, but rather a dark insinuation that Trump was too cozy with Putin and that Republicans were complicit. Political operatives, complicit media outlets, and Obama’s own intelligence holdovers would magnify any hint of treason in the coming months. And then came the dagger. Asked directly if Putin authorized the hack to help Trump, Obama chose not to confirm that there was no evidence that there even was a hack. “I think what I wanna make sure of is that, um, uh, I give the Intelligence Community the chance to gather all the information,” he said. But then he added, “Not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin.” Again, no direct claim—just a loaded suggestion designed to hang over Trump like a cloud.
Obama framed the issue not as foreign interference but as a weakness in America’s political system: “Our vulnerability to Russia… is directly related to how divided, partisan, dysfunctional our political process is.” The implication? Trump and his voters, by being too partisan, were making America more vulnerable to attack. He even equated conservative media with Kremlin propaganda: “If fake news… is almost identical to reports… through partisan news venues… it’s not surprising that foreign propaganda will have a greater effect.” This wasn’t a press conference. It was the soft launch of a lie that would consume Washington, cripple a presidency, and erode public trust. Barack Obama didn’t just sit back and let the Russia collusion hoax unfold—he helped plant the seeds.
Even after receiving intelligence assessments that confirmed Russia had no impact on the 2016 election outcome, Obama chose to play politics. He stood before the cameras, dodging direct answers, carefully framing the narrative, and hinting just enough to give the media and the Democrats a green light to pursue this fake story. He knew the facts but encouraged the fiction, knowing full well it would cast a shadow over Trump’s presidency.
The response from Chairman Tom Cotton and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to the action of DNI Tulsi Gabbard was predictable. The SSCI has now framed the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 to modify the “responsibilities and authorities of the Director of National Intelligence.” [Section 402] We knew this was coming. The Intelligence Community does not like rogue actors amid their ranks, especially if those people have cross-silo access. The silo system is designed to protect the Deep State. Any entity who can cross reference the inserted information becomes a risk to the enterprise.Senator Cotton cannot directly oppose Tulsi Gabbard without exposing himself. Thus someone, not the SSCI, writes the legislative changes to the Intelligence Community rules and procedures and Tom Cotton simply advances them. That’s the way DC operates.
ODNI was intended to be a lean organization to align America’s intelligence resources and authorities, not the overstaffed and bureaucratic behemoth that it is today.
Additionally, Chairman Cotton does not want the DNI to investigate or generate its own intelligence. Cotton demands the ODNI just accept and regurgitate the intelligence Tulsi Gabbard would be given by the other agencies; no independent review of analysis permitted. All of these actions push the Intelligence Community power center back into the CIA and away from the prying eyes of the DNI. That’s the SSCI motive.
WASHINGTON DC – “A top Republican senator is proposing a sweeping overhaul of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, slashing the workforce of an organization that has expanded since it was created in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. Under a bill by Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, the chair of the Intelligence Committee, the ODNI’s staff of about 1,600 would be capped at 650, according to a senior Senate aide familiar with the proposed legislation. ODNI’s workforce was about 2,000 in January, but National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard has already overseen a reduction of about 20% as part of the Trump administration’s drive to shrink the federal workforce. The reduction in the staff Gabbard oversees could weaken her role in the intelligence bureaucracy.
[…] The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, exposed a failure to share information across spy agencies with catastrophic results. As a result, Congress established the ODNI to oversee all of the country’s 18 intelligence services, including the CIA, and manage bureaucratic turf wars from a complex outside Washington, D.C. What started as a relatively small office under the national intelligence director in 2005 has expanded over the last 20 years to include in-house analysis teams and centers focused on counterterrorism and counterintelligence. Cotton has described the ODNI as a bloated bureaucracy that should return to its original mission of coordinating the work of other spy agencies instead of producing its own reports and duplicating other agencies’ efforts.
“Congress in no way wanted yet another unruly bureaucracy layered on top of an already bureaucratic intelligence community,” Cotton said at Gabbard’s confirmation hearing in late January. “Unfortunately, 20 years later, that’s exactly what the ODNI has become.” Gabbard herself expressed support for downsizing the ODNI’s workforce at the hearing, saying she would work with Cotton and other lawmakers to eliminate “redundancies and bloating.” In the lead up to the election I outlined what the DNI could do with untapped power already given to the office. DNI Tulsi Gabbard has been following a path close to that outline. Now, we see Washington DC responding to that affirmed power structure and actively working to neuter the DNI. A very predictable outcome. The only intelligence silo more corrupt than the CIA is the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that oversees it.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard just lit a fuse under the deep state—and it’s about time. Appearing Sunday on “Sunday Morning Futures” with Maria Bartiromo, Gabbard dropped a stunning accusation: that Barack Obama personally directed a “treasonous conspiracy” to undermine Donald Trump’s presidency before it even began. And now, according to Gabbard, the floodgates are opening—whistleblowers who were sickened by what they witnessed are starting to come forward.n“The implications of this are frankly nothing short of historic,” Gabbard said. She pointed to more than 100 newly released documents that she says show how Obama, just weeks before leaving office, greenlit a coordinated effort to sabotage Trump—after he was elected. “This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. This is an issue that is so serious it should concern every single American.”
According to Gabbard, Obama and his inner circle simply refused to accept the outcome of the 2016 election. Instead of stepping aside and respecting the will of the people, they weaponized the intelligence community and pushed a phony Russia narrative to kneecap Trump before he even took office. “They decided that they would do everything possible to try to undermine his ability to do what voters tasked President Trump to do,” she said. “So, creating this piece of manufactured intelligence that claims Russia had helped Donald Trump get elected contradicted every other assessment… that said exactly the opposite—that Russia neither had the intent nor the capability to ‘hack’ the United States election.”
That “manufactured intelligence” became the foundation for the infamous Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that Obama ordered to be published in January 2017—a political hit job disguised as a national security report. Gabbard didn’t hold back in describing just how dangerous that deception really was. “There’s no question in my mind that this Intelligence Community Assessment… contained a manufactured intelligence document,” she said. “It’s worse than even politicization of intelligence—it was manufactured intelligence that sought to achieve President Obama’s and his team’s objective, which was undermining President Trump’s presidency and subverting the will of the American people.” This wasn’t politics—it was a coup. And Gabbard says more is coming.
“Next week we will be releasing more detailed information about how exactly this took place and the extent to which this information was sought to be hidden from the American people,” she said. But the most explosive revelation? The dam may be breaking inside the Intelligence Community. After years of silence, people who saw this treachery unfold are starting to step forward. “We have whistleblowers, actually, Maria, coming forward now, after we released these documents,” Gabbard said. “There are people who were around, who were working within the Intelligence Community at this time, who were so disgusted by what happened. We are starting to see some of them coming out of the woodwork.”
Gabbard says she’s committed to handing over all evidence to the DOJ. “There must be indictments. Those responsible, no matter how powerful they are and were at that time… they all must be held accountable.” She’s absolutely right. For nearly a decade, the media, the Democrats, and yes—Barack Obama—have treated the Constitution like a speed bump. They lied, they manipulated intelligence, and they tried to nullify a lawful election because they didn’t like the result. Now, the truth is starting to catch up with them. And if there’s any justice left in Washington, the days of these Deep-State plotters skating by unpunished may finally be numbered.
Let’s not pretend that RussiaGate was ever anything but a “treasonous conspiracy” and a “years’ long coup” as bluntly labeled by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) on Friday. The election prank launched by Hillary Clinton’s campaign turned into an overt sedition op led by President Barack Obama to overthrow his elected successor, Donald Trump. DNI Tulsi Gabbard went even further and proffered criminal referrals on all this to the US Attorney General. If you think this is not extremely serious, you are not paying attention.
The New York Times was not paying attention in its Sunday edition. Not a word about this historic action on the paper’s website landing page. So now you know why the Harvard law professors, the Martha’s Vineyard chardonnay widows, and all the creative class hipsters of Brooklyn persist in their personal globes of political delusion. Instead, The Times dwelt on the Epstein business, still haplessly hoping to catch the Golden Golem in its golem trap. (Mr. Trump’s lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize committee for rewarding the Time’s RussiaGate coverage is still pending, by the way.)
Meanwhile, DNI Gabbard went on Maria Bartiromo’s Sunday confab and warned of more info releases coming this week. Sooner or later AG Pam Bondi will have to announce that a case based on that referral is under construction. My guess is that this is exactly what Kash Patel’s FBI has been preoccupied with for months with no leaking — you can imagine severe penalties against that. You might also note that there are no higher crimes under our law than treason, as explicitly spelled out in the DNI report. The DNI also stated flatly on Sunday, “There must be indictments.” If you think DNI Gabbard went forward without consulting some crack constitutional lawyers, you’ll be disappointed.
And also meanwhile, Deputy AG Todd Blanche has applied for release of the sealed grand jury transcripts on the 2019 Epstein case from the DOJ’s Manhattan outpost (SDNY). And consider: all that info was completely segregated from the Epstein files that former FBI Director Christopher Wray controlled for years and years, meaning it was not subject to editing and manipulation. You may finally get to see the difference between the “hoax” elements of the story and the actual evidence.
The Russian meddling and collusion story might have seemed like “a thing” to many in the early January days of 2017 before Mr. Trump’s first inauguration. But when they went after the newly appointed National Security Advisor, General Mike Flynn, for having a conversation with the Russian ambassador, you had had to know that something sketchy was afoot. As this blog asked at the time: why are ambassadors from foreign lands here, if not to speak with our government officials? The story was preposterous but, of course, the news media helped run Gen. Flynn out of office and then led the cheering for the DOJ’s malicious prosecution of him afterward in Judge Emmet G. Sullivan’s DC district court.
You also have to wonder if anyone in the news media might be subject to indictment above and beyond the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press. Is there a line between that and acting as an accessory to treason? What did New York Times editor (at the time) Dean Baquet think he was doing, publishing all that patent garbage? Or the producers of CNN and other network news?
The DNI called these activities a “treasonous conspiracy” for a reason. A conspiracy charge that encompasses a skein of persons in a continuous series of crimes extends the statute of limitations to the latest criminal act for all involved. You might also wonder how wide a net the DOJ could cast. Will it include such obvious players as Senator Mark Warner, who schemed to play along on RussiaGate as Vice-chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence? Or then-Congressman Adam Schiff on the House Intel Committee when, for years, he pretended to have “proof” of (i.e., lied about) Trump-Russia collusion? Or FBI Director Wray, who hid evidence, might have tampered with evidence, and apparently lied to Congress about many of these connected matters?
Or Andrew Weissmann, who virtually ran the phony Mueller Investigation as a RussiaGate cover-up op because Robert Mueller was mentally infirm? Or Lawfare Ninjas Marc Elias, Norm Eisen, and Mary McCord who appear liable for 2020 election hackery and the Jan 6 “insurrection” op (including the House J6 Committee fakery afterward) along with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi? Or former AG William Barr, who sat on the Hunter Biden laptop during Trump Impeachment No. 1, when the device was stuffed with exculpatory evidence withheld from Mr. Trump’s lawyers? Or CIA agent Eric Ciaramella, Lt. Col Alex Vindman, and Intel Inspector General Michael Atkinson, who conspired with Rep. Adam Schiff on the “Ukraine phone call” operation that was the basis of impeachment No. 1?
Or DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who botched his investigation (on purpose?) of FISA court criminal irregularities, or Judge James Boasberg who presided over those criminal irregularities and issued many of them? Or Special Counsel John Durham who took years to overlook the salient elements of the RussiaGate coup? Or many other figures involved one way or another. . . McCabe, Strzok, Page, Pientka, Thibault, Baker, Rice, Yates, Rummler, Halper, Pompeo, Haines, Bruce and Nellie Ohr. . . . Are they all rounded-up and sent to court together, like a Nuremberg proceeding? Or do they get their own separate cases? Or will the DOJ only go after the top dogs: Obama, Brennan, Clapper, and Comey?
Finally, consider this: demonizing Vladimir Putin set the stage for the Ukraine War — which was initially kicked off in 2014 under President Obama and his State Department / CIA group led by Victoria Nuland orchestrating the Maidan revolt. The official disclosures now by the DNI should make it clear that Mr. Putin did not deserve the treatment he got for years on end, and that the overall effect of it has been catastrophic for world peace. Half the people in the USA still believing all the manufactured bullshit about Mr. Putin has made it extremely difficult for President Trump to end the war in Ukraine that has killed millions.
RussiaGate had the gravest consequences, and now there can be consequences for the merry pranksters who started it and kept it going, one way or another, for a decade.
“This is all about preparing for war. Everybody should start getting ready for drafts, to start going that way.’ They want war. They are not backing off.”
Six weeks ago, legendary financial and geopolitical cycle analyst Martin Armstrong was signaling a big turn toward war. Now, Armstrong says, “The chances of war with a nuclear exchange is at 100%. . .. Plan on it, this is coming.” Can the world avoid nuclear war with President Trump’s 50-day deadline given to Russia to make peace in Ukraine? Armstrong says, “You do not threaten your adversary that is at your same level, publicly. If you want to say something like that, you do it privately in a phone call…” “Now, what will happen is Putin cannot possibly sign a peace deal. What, are you crazy . . . to do this in 50 days? We have staff in Germany, and I was told by my staff that a friend 60 years old was told to report to duty.
I had a friend who was at the Vienna Peace Conference, and he called me when it was over and said, ‘Holy crap, this has nothing to do with peace anymore. This is all about preparing for war. Everybody should start getting ready for drafts, to start going that way.’ They want war. They are not backing off.” Armstrong’s computer “Socrates” is signaling war as early as next month. Armstrong says, “Starting in August, this whole thing is going to be escalating up. Our computer has what we call a ‘Panic Cycle’ with our war cycles for 2026. That is not good. I don’t know what the hell Trump is smoking… My computer has been projecting war, and it is projecting war going into 2026. This is not looking good, and Europe will lose. It is as simple as that.”
The other big event that happened that will change the economic system forever is the House just passed the so-called GENIUS Act (Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins). The bill is now headed to President Trump to sign into law. Armstrong contends that US debt is being sold by big holders of Treasuries, and we have to find a new market for our huge Treasury debt or we default. Treasury bonds will supposedly backstop stablecoins that the banks will control. Armstrong says, “This is really a repeat of 1863. In the Civil War, they issued national bank notes. The banks were told to buy the bonds. They could buy bonds to fund the war, and they were allowed to issue currency backed by the bonds. This is the same exact thing. These stablecoins are the same thing as the 1863 National Bank Act.”
Stablecoins and the GENIUS Act are not good news for financial freedom or any other kind of civil liberty. Armstrong says, “The government will say we don’t like this guy, debank him. The government cannot do it directly. So, they indirectly do it the other way…””I know guys that are gun dealers and bullion dealers, and they have been debanked. This is the world we are going into. They know they are losing power. Europe is far worse. Spain now says you cannot take out $3,000 without government permission. They are trying to eliminate cash. . .. The forms of government we have today are going to collapse. Republics are the most corrupt form of government — period.”
UK Defense Secretary John Healey is set to urge Ukraine’s backers to launch a “50-day drive” to arm Kiev, local media have reported. The plan follows US President Donald Trump’s threat to impose secondary sanctions on Russia’s trading partners within 50 days if no progress is made on resolving the conflict. Healey is expected to make the appeal when he leads a virtual session of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group (UDCG) on Monday. The minister is also poised to back Trump’s plan and pledge the UK’s support to “bolster Ukraine’s immediate fight.”
“The US has started the clock on a 50-day deadline for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin to agree to peace or face crippling economic sanctions… We need to step up in turn with a ‘50-day drive’ to arm Ukraine on the battlefield and force Putin to the negotiating table,” he is expected to say. Earlier this month, Trump imposed a 50-day ceasefire deadline on Russia, warning of “very severe” new sanctions, including 100% “secondary tariffs” on countries buying Russian oil. He also announced new weapons deliveries to Ukraine, noting that the EU will foot the bill. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Trump’s remarks “will be perceived by the Ukrainian side not as a signal toward peace, but as a signal to continue the war.” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov stressed that Moscow will not cave in to any ultimatums but is still open to talks.
While the UK has been one of Ukraine’s staunchest supporters, Luke Pollard, the country’s armed forces minister, warned last autumn of dwindling stockpiles due to years of military deliveries. Moscow has consistently denounced Western arms deliveries to Ukraine, warning they only prolong the conflict without changing its outcome. It has also accused the EU and UK of impeding ongoing peace efforts. Former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Saturday voiced concern over what he described as declining interest among the British public in the Ukraine conflict. He added that the current government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer is “distracted” by “a lot of domestic issues.”
Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said he is “quite sad” about what he describes as waning interest in the UK in supporting Ukraine. Speaking to The Telegraph at the Ukrainian embassy in London on Saturday, he lamented that support for Ukraine in the UK is declining. “The interest in Ukraine and the appetite is so low nowadays. I find it quite sad,” Johnson said. When asked to evaluate how well current Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s administration has handled the Ukraine conflict, he responded: “There are a lot of domestic issues that are very difficult right now, and you can see why they’re distracted.” Support among the British public for aid to Ukraine has fallen in recent years, polls suggest.
A YouGov poll from February 2023 showed that nearly three-quarters of respondents believed the UK was not providing Kiev with enough aid, whereas only 3% thought it was giving too much. However, an Ipsos survey from this past February indicated that just over half of Britons supported the current level of aid, whereas nearly one in five said too much support was being provided. The UK has committed £18.3 billion ($24.5 billion) in total aid to Ukraine, including £13 billion ($17.4 billion) in military assistance. London has increasingly lobbied to deploy “peacekeeping” troops to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire as part of a so-called “coalition of the willing.”
Last week, Starmer’s government announced that the coalition would set up permanent headquarters in Paris to coordinate with Kiev to “regenerate land forces” for Ukraine and “secure” its skies with fighter jets if there is a cessation in the hostilities. Moscow has stressed that it views the initiative as preparation for a military intervention and warned that it views any NATO troops – under the guise of peacekeepers or not – in Ukraine as hostile. Johnson resigned as UK prime minister in 2022, a few months after the escalation of the conflict. He torpedoed the first peace talks between Moscow and Kiev in Istanbul that year by convincing the latter to withdraw from the negotiations, according to the Ukrainian head negotiator at the time, David Arakhamia.
Frustration is growing in Germany over increased aid to Ukraine while domestic spending lags, co-chair of opposition party Alternative for Germany (AfD) Alice Weidel has said. Berlin has been one of Kiev’s largest military backers since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. Earlier this year, the German Defense Ministry announced that it would provide €5 billion ($5.6 billion) to finance long-range weapons production in Ukraine. In an interview with the broadcaster ARD on Sunday, Weidel criticized the allocation of funds to Kiev, citing unmet domestic needs. Asked about alternative uses for public funds, she pointed to a shelved proposal to abolish electricity taxes, which would have cost the state €5.4 billion – comparable to what Berlin is spending on weapons for Ukraine, she argued.
“And then our government, the Friedrich Merz government, gives Ukraine nine billion in German tax money and now wants to buy Patriot missiles for Ukraine for five billion. Nobody understands that anymore,” Weidel said. She was referencing a US-backed plan to funnel Patriot air defense systems to Kiev via NATO members, with Germany covering the costs. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said after meeting US counterpart Pete Hegseth in Washington last week that the terms of the arrangement could be finalized “within days or weeks,” though the actual transfer of the missile systems to Ukraine might take months. Berlin has indicated its readiness to cover the cost of at least two Patriot batteries to Ukraine – estimated at approximately $1 billion each.
Since taking office in May, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has pursued a hardline stance against Russia. Earlier this month, he declared that diplomatic options in the Ukraine conflict were “exhausted” and doubled down on his policy of providing weapons to Kiev. In response, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Merz of choosing escalation by abandoning diplomacy. Last week, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova suggested that European nations are funding the “death” of Ukraine by paying for weapons sent to Kiev. Russia has consistently denounced Western weapons deliveries, saying they do not change the overall course of the conflict and merely serve to prolong the bloodshed and risk further escalation.
The EU’s sanctions aimed at crippling Russia’s economy and isolating it politically have backfired, instead harming their architects, former European Commission Vice President Gunter Verheugen has said. Western governments have imposed an unprecedented slew of sanctions on Moscow since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Last week, the EU imposed its 18th sanctions package, targeting the country’s energy and banking sectors. The restrictions include bans on transactions with 22 additional Russian banks and the Russian Direct Investment Fund, as well as prohibiting the use of the damaged Nord Stream pipelines.
Verheugen, who served as EU commissioner for enterprise and industry from 2004 to 2010, said the EU’s sanctions have rebounded on their creators, with the West bearing the heaviest costs. “There are few examples of a political goal – namely, bringing an adversary to its knees economically and wreaking havoc in a ‘warlike’ manner – backfiring so completely. The economic war against Russia is one such example,” Verheugen wrote in an op-ed for Switzerland’s Die Weltwoche journal, published on Friday.
“Objective data shows that the sanctions policy primarily harmed its originators, especially Germany,” he noted, warning that the attempt to “ruin” Russia is a “life-threatening idea.” The EU has not acknowledged this outcome, he added. Moscow has condemned the sanctions as illegal, arguing they have inflated EU energy prices and forced reliance on costlier imports, undermining the bloc’s competitiveness. Germany, which prior to the Ukraine conflict sourced 55% of its energy from Russia, remains mired in a two-year recession.
Some European officials have conceded that the EU’s sanctions on Russia have inflicted greater damage on European businesses than on their Russian counterparts, industry leaders say. Ferdinando Pellazzo, head of the Italian-Russian Chamber of Commerce, warned that the measures have severely impacted small and medium-sized enterprises. Siegfried Russwurm, president of Germany’s BDI industry association, cautioned that the country faces growing deindustrialization risks as high energy costs – driven by the cutoff of cheap Russian supplies – squeeze competitiveness.
“..If we buy everything with the oil and gas [revenues] – and now they [the West] are trying to cut us off from oil and gas – then Russia will simply lose its competitiveness, and with it, its sovereignty..”
Russia would inevitably lose its sovereignty if it relies solely on oil and gas revenues and abandons domestic production in favor of imports, President Vladimir Putin has said. In an interview with journalist Pavel Zarubin released on Sunday, Putin defended Russia’s decades-long effort to localize automobile manufacturing, saying it was essential for protecting the country’s economic and political autonomy. He recalled that in the 1990s many of his government colleagues wanted to abandon efforts to develop the car industry and instead rely on foreign-made vehicles, a view that he opposed. “We must talk about technological independence… If we buy everything with the oil and gas [revenues] – and now they [the West] are trying to cut us off from oil and gas – then Russia will simply lose its competitiveness, and with it, its sovereignty,” he said.
According to Putin, efforts to improve the domestic car industry began with cooperation with Western partners that were licensed to build assembly plants in Russia. Starting in the early 2010s, the authorities gradually tightened localization requirements, demanding that automakers produce more components domestically. “This was serious work. We were essentially creating our own cars,” Putin remarked, adding that the effort paid off after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, which saw an exodus of Western companies from Russia as Kiev’s backers introduced sanctions against Moscow.
Russia sold about 1.571 million new passenger cars in 2024 (up 48%), with Lada accounting for roughly 28% (436,155 units) and remaining the market leader, according to the analytical agency Autostat. However, all others spots in the top ten were occupied by Chinese brands. Russia’s Kamaz also distributed the most trucks in the country last year, despite an overall drop in sales, the agency said. Putin has personally promoted the domestic automobile industry and has often been seen driving Lada and Kamaz vehicles. He also uses a limousine from the Russian luxury brand Aurus as his presidential car. In 2024, he gifted Aurus limos to North Korea’s Kim Jong-un and Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) quietly granted full approval to Moderna’s mRNA COVID-19 injection for children while Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was on vacation—and without his knowledge or consent. As head of the department overseeing the FDA, Kennedy should have been directly informed of any decision involving pediatric mRNA shots—especially one as politically and medically sensitive as full approval for children as young as six months. On July 10, Moderna, Inc. announced the FDA approved the supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA) for Spikevax®, the Company’s COVID shot, in “children 6 months through 11 years of age who are at increased risk for COVID-19 disease.”
The approval was made despite Moderna’s own scientists’ admission that there are “unacceptable toxicity” levels in mRNA vaccines, and that “lipid nanoparticle structural components, production methods, route of administration and proteins produced from complexed mRNAs all present toxicity concerns.” It was also made without Secretary Kennedy’s knowledge. According to multiple sources, neither Kennedy nor his Deputy Chief of Staff Stefanie Spears were briefed or consulted ahead of the decision, raising alarm over internal operations at one of the nation’s most powerful health agencies. Only July 16, White House correspondent and media host Emerald Robinson reported on Twitter/X that FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary “did not inform @RobertKennedyJr (who was on vacation) or his office that FDA was going to approve the mRNA shots for children,” citing sources familiar with the matter.
On July 17, CNN reported that Secretary Kennedy had fired two of his top aides “in an abrupt shakeup of the leadership at the nation’s sprawling health department,” also citing unnamed sources. “Kennedy’s chief of staff, Heather Flick Melanson, and deputy chief of staff for policy Hannah Anderson left HHS after only a handful of months on the job, following internal clashes that culminated in both of their removals this week,” the report explained. The CNN article didn’t connect the firings to the FDA’s decision to approve Moderna’s jab for kids. However, the MAHA PAC (Make America Healthy Again Political Action Committee)—a pro-Trump super PAC founded by RFK Jr.’s former staff to promote his health-focused agenda—corroborated Robinson’s account and connected the firings to the FDA’s Moderna decision.
On July 20, MAHA PAC cited Dr. Robert Malone—now serving on the newly restructured ACIP vaccine panel—as confirming that neither Kennedy nor Spears were informed of the FDA’s decision regarding Moderna and that a major HHS leadership purge unfolded upon their return. “The unfortunate facts are that this decision… was made public when both the Secretary of HHS and his trusted deputy Chief of Staff Stefanie Spears were on vacation,” said Dr. Malone, citing insider knowledge. “Neither Sec. HHS nor his deputy Chief of Staff (dCOS) were briefed or read in on this decision.” The move apparently set off a chain reaction. According to Malone, shortly after Kennedy and Spears returned, “a major reorganization of HHS leadership occurred.”
Anderson was “walked off the premises and was so upset that she crashed her car into the Secretary’s government-provided vehicle.” Melanson, a veteran of the Trump-era HHS, claimed she resigned voluntarily. CNN sources say otherwise, alleging she was fired after Kennedy lost confidence in her leadership following the dismissal of Anderson. A spokesperson for HHS said that Matt Buckham, the department’s White House liaison, will serve as acting Chief of Staff. The FDA’s end-run around Kennedy not only signals potential deeper insubordination within HHS, but also highlights a promising shift under his leadership—one where incompetence, secrecy, and disloyalty are no longer tolerated, and where restoring integrity, transparency, and public trust could be the new standard.
Social media network X has accused the French authorities of a “politically motivated criminal investigation,” over a probe launched against the platform for alleged algorithm manipulation and “fraudulent data extraction.” X’s Global Government Affairs team said on Monday that the investigation was instigated by Eric Bothorel, a French MP and member of President Emmanuel Macron’s Renaissance party. The probe itself kicked off in January after Bothorel and another senior French official alleged that the company’s algorithm was being used for the purposes of “foreign interference.” X has denied all of the accusations against it. Bothorel has previously been critical of X, owned by billionaire Elon Musk, claiming that the network spreads “an enormous amount of hateful, racist, anti-LGBT+ and homophobic political content” which allegedly influences France’s political discourse.
According to the platform, French authorities had asked X to grant them a “recommendation algorithm and real-time data about all user posts” to be handed over to experts who were overtly hostile to the platform.X also protested being investigated as an “organized gang,” a classification that allows French police to use extensive powers, including wiretapping employees’ devices. The platform stressed it has refused the authorities’ demands. X remains in the dark as to the specific allegations made against the platform. However, based on what we know so far, X believes that this investigation is distorting French law in order to serve a political agenda and, ultimately, restrict free speech.
The probe echoes another high-profile case in France involving Telegram founder Pavel Durov. The Russian-born tech billionaire was arrested in the country last summer and charged with offenses linked to Telegram’s handling of illegal content, including child exploitation material and narcotics trafficking. Durov has dismissed the allegations as “baseless.” Commenting on the reports on X being in the crosshairs of the French authorities, Durov accused Paris of pursuing a “crusade” against free speech and progress itself while warning that the probe could end up damaging the French economy.
EU officials are ready to “stomach” an unbalanced tariff agreement favoring the US in order to resolve the standoff between the two sides before a deadline set by President Donald Trump, Bloomberg reported on Monday, citing people familiar with the matter. Negotiations between Brussels and Washington have been ongoing since early April, when Trump announced a series of measures – dubbed “Liberation Day” policies – aimed at shielding American manufacturers. The plan included a sweeping 10% tariff on all imports from the EU and most other US trading partners. While the duties have been put on hold pending the talks, Trump warned they could escalate to 30% if no deal is reached by August 1.
]The new tariffs would be in addition to existing sector-specific levies, including 50% duties on steel and aluminum and 25% on auto imports, which the US imposed earlier this year. With the risk of a no-deal outcome rising, the EU is accelerating preparations for potential retaliatory measures, the outlet said. EU envoys could meet as early as this week to draft a response in case talks with the US collapse, the sources familiar with the discussions told the outlet. The move comes as Trump’s stance on tariffs appears to have hardened ahead of the August 1 deadline, leaving Brussels bracing for a potential trade confrontation.
“These negotiations are difficult,” French Finance Minister Eric Lombard said ahead of a meeting with business federations in Paris, as quoted by Bloomberg. “If we do not reach a balanced agreement with the United States of America, then we reserve the right to take countermeasures that are balanced, of course, but aimed at upholding the interests of the European Union.” Any significant countermeasures could escalate the transatlantic trade conflict, as Trump has warned that targeting US interests would prompt even stronger retaliation from his administration, the outlet noted.
The EU has already approved €21 billion ($24.5 billion) in retaliatory tariffs on US goods – including soybeans, poultry, and motorcycles – targeting politically sensitive states such as Louisiana, home to House Speaker Mike Johnson. It has also drafted €72 billion in additional tariffs on products such as Boeing aircraft, cars, and bourbon, should Trump impose reciprocal or auto levies. Beyond tariffs, the bloc is considering export controls and procurement restrictions. Washington has so far largely avoided retaliation for its tariffs, while collecting a record high of $64 billion in customs duties in the second quarter of 2025, according to the US Treasury.
US President Donald Trump has posted an AI-generated video depicting former President Barack Obama being arrested and jailed. The post comes amid allegations that Obama and his senior officials had intentionally fabricated the Trump-Russia collusion narrative. Last week, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified over 100 pages of documents, which are described as “overwhelming evidence” that officials in the Obama administration manipulated intelligence to initiate the Russiagate investigation. She alleged that the aim was to delegitimize Trump’s 2016 election win. According to Gabbard’s memo, the officials involved included former CIA Director John Brennan, former DNI James Clapper, and Obama himself.
On Sunday, Trump shared a video on his Truth Social account featuring real footage of Obama and other Democratic leaders saying, “No one is above the law.” The scene then shifts to an AI-generated sequence showing FBI agents handcuffing Obama in the Oval Office while Trump watches and laughs. The video ends with an animated Obama pacing in a jail cell. Trump also posted fake mugshots of Obama and members of his former cabinet under the caption “The Shady Bunch.”
Trump endorsed the DNI’s calls to investigate the former president, praising Gabbard and her team as “fantastic on prosecuting Obama and the ‘thugs’ who have just been unequivocally exposed on highest level Election Fraud.” According to Gabbard, internal intelligence assessments in 2016 repeatedly found that Russia lacked both the capability and intent to influence the US election. These conclusions were later suppressed, she said, when Obama ordered a new intelligence assessment that blamed Russia for helping Trump defeat Hillary Clinton. This assessment was based on discredited sources such as the Steele Dossier, according to Gabbard.
— Trump Truth Social Posts On X (@TrumpTruthOnX) July 20, 2025
“This was not intelligence gathering. It was narrative building,” the DNI said, asserting that Obama officials leaked false claims to the press and politicized classified information. “Every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” she stated. Russia has consistently denied allegations that it interfered in the 2016 US election. The Kremlin has described the Russiagate affair as a politically motivated smear campaign intended to justify sanctions and worsen relations with Moscow.
“Trump signaled on Sunday that the stadium deal could be tied to the team name. “I may put a restriction on them that if they don’t change the name back to the original ‘Washington Redskins…'”
President Donald Trump on Sunday called on the Washington Commanders owners to return to their Redskins name and floated linking the change to the new stadium deal. The team recently announced a new stadium to be built on the shuttered RFK Stadium site. “The Washington ‘Whatever’s’ should IMMEDIATELY change their name back to the Washington Redskins Football Team. There is a big clamoring for this. Likewise, the Cleveland Indians, one of the six original baseball teams, with a storied past. Our great Indian people, in massive numbers, want this to happen,” Trump wrote on Sunday on Truth Social.
“Their heritage and prestige is systematically being taken away from them. Times are different now than they were three or four years ago. We are a Country of passion and common sense. OWNERS, GET IT DONE!!!” he added. In April, the owner of the team, Josh Harris, said the Redskins name would not come back with the new stadium. Trump signaled on Sunday that the stadium deal could be tied to the team name. “I may put a restriction on them that if they don’t change the name back to the original ‘Washington Redskins,’ and get rid of the ridiculous moniker, ‘Washington Commanders,’ I won’t make a deal for them to build a Stadium in Washington,” he wrote. “The Team would be much more valuable, and the Deal would be more exciting for everyone,” he added.
Trump called for the Cleveland Guardians to do the same. “The Owner of the Cleveland Baseball Team, Matt Dolan, who is very political, has lost three Elections in a row because of that ridiculous name change. What he doesn’t understand is that if he changed the name back to the Cleveland Indians, he might actually win an Election,” Trump wrote. “Indians are being treated very unfairly. MAKE INDIANS GREAT AGAIN (MIGA).”
At least five Israeli soldiers have taken their own lives over the past two weeks, including conscripts and reservists recently discharged after extended combat deployments in Gaza and other active conflict zones. Suicides within the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) ranks have surged since the Jewish state deployed troops to Gaza following the deadly Hamas attack on October 7, 2023. Seven soldiers died by suicide by the end of 2023, followed by 21 cases confirmed in 2024, and at least 20 incidents since the start of this year. The most recent case, confirmed on Sunday, involved a 19-year-old Norwegian immigrant who immigrated to Israel to join the IDF less than a year ago and was still undergoing training.
Four others have ended their lives in the past two weeks, including a Golani Brigade serviceman who shot himself at the Sde Teiman base, and reservist Daniel Edri, who self-immolated after being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. Most cases involve active-duty reservists, with military officials attributing the rise to combat-related trauma rather than personal or family circumstances. “One cannot breathe in the face of this statistic,” opposition leader Yair Lapid said. “This war also kills souls.” The IDF has confirmed that thousands of reservists have withdrawn from combat roles due to psychological stress. The true number of suicides due to service-related mental health issues may be higher, with Haaretz reporting at least 12 non-combat veterans whose deaths were not included in the army’s official statistics in recent years.
Now in its 21st month, the Gaza conflict has placed intense strain on Israeli forces, with prolonged deployments and mounting losses. Since the start of the operation, 893 Israeli soldiers have been killed, according to official data, in addition to nearly 1,200 Israeli civilians killed during the October 7 Hamas raid. The retaliatory offensive has resulted in nearly 59,000 Palestinian deaths, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. Beyond Gaza, Israel has conducted airstrikes and limited ground operations in Lebanon, expanded its military presence in Syria, and bombed Iran. It has also escalated its activities in Iraq, Yemen, and the West Bank. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said Israel is fighting on seven fronts “to defend ourselves against… barbarism.”
Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong Issues Urgent Warning: COVID-19 is Not Just a Respiratory Virus—It’s Like cancer
"This virus has beaten us."
In a chilling revelation, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong—renowned surgeon, scientist, and billionaire biotech pioneer—warns that COVID-19 is far more… pic.twitter.com/mpktyhsIZm
Elephants react to seeing beloved caretaker for first time in over a year (warning: loud!) pic.twitter.com/jK40R0cQLC
— Nature is Amazing ☘️ (@AMAZlNGNATURE) July 21, 2025
Peyo
In France, Peyo, a beautiful 15-year-old stallion, often comes to comfort and soothe terminally ill patients at the Techer Hospital in Calais. The horse always chooses which patient he wants to see, kicking his hoof outside the door pic.twitter.com/VyM5y50ZiW
— Nature is Amazing ☘️ (@AMAZlNGNATURE) July 20, 2025
Nunes: Obama was the MASTERMIND behind the Russia Collusion lie. "they lit the fuse, they put out the BS intelligence report [the ICA] right before President Trump came in. They framed Gen Flynn, they framed the entire Trump administration and then they appointed Mueller! pic.twitter.com/y2ltnx1bno
Top Trump administration officials are growing increasingly frustrated with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, privately describing him as reckless, politically motivated, and even a… pic.twitter.com/mOGgj4Nn3S
“Israel is in non-stop war crime status, in genocidal status, without shame, without remorse, without truth… This is a murderous gang in government. They are zealots. They are not going to stop.”
Inevitably, a lot of Tulsi and Obamagate today. Watched some CNN yesterday, and it hasn’t dawned there yet. It will. Much of our coverage here comes from Sundance, at Conservative Tree House/The Last Refuge, who has ben focusing on Tulsi and her DNI post for a long time, because he saw the potential. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was established years ago to bring info from agencies such as FBI AND CIA together, but these agencies have protected their “turf” of course. Tulsi is the first to put ODNI in a position where it oversees the other intel offices, instead of being some sort of subsidiary to them. Plus, obviously, they were all involved in Obamagate. They were integal parts of the treasonous conspiracy.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard says she’ll release more information next week to follow up on her bombshell declassification of documents that show “overwhelming evidence” of the Obama administration laid the groundwork for the years-long Trump-Russia collusion investigation after President Trump won the 2016 election. “We will be releasing more detailed information about how exactly this took place, and the extent to which this information was sought to be hidden from the American people, hidden from officials who would be in a position to do something about it,” Gabbard told Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo. “Accountability is essential for the future of our country, for the American people to have any sense of trust in the integrity of our democratic republic.”
“Accountability, action, prosecution, indictments for those who are responsible for trying to steal our democracy is essential for us to make sure that this never happens to our country again,” Gabbard continued. Gabbard told host Maria Bartiromo; “I really cannot fathom” how special counsels Robert Mueller and John Durham missed evidence of this “years-long coup against President Trump.” “There is no rational or logical explanation for why they failed,” she said, adding “The only logical conclusion that I can draw in this … is that there was direct intent to cover up the truth about what occurred and who was responsible and the broad network of how this seditious conspiracy was concocted and who exactly was responsible for carrying it out.”
Among other things, Gabbard’s team unearthed a Sept. 12, 2016 intelligence community assessment that “foreign adversaries do not have and will probably not obtain the capabilities to successfully execute widespread and undetected cyber attacks” on election systems. At the time, Russia was being accused of setting up troll farms and hacking the DNC email servers (Seth who?). And of course, once legitimized by the Obama administration, a steady stream of leaks suggesting that Russia was behind Trump’s 2016 victory started appearing in the Washington Post and other outlets in “sweeping and systemic fashion.”
Mueller, of course, found ‘insufficient evidence’ that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, while Durham – appointed by Bill Barr (son of the guy who hired Jeffrey Epstein for a teaching job & then oversaw Epstein’s death as AG) – accomplished nothing more than a strongly worded letter about the FBI’s handling of the Trump-Russia probe. “I don’t know what excuse there is for those who supposedly investigated this previously, whether it was Durham or others, that they were not able to put together the dots and ultimately show the truth to the American people,” said Gabbard, who then stressed that AG Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel will need to now gather up evidence and decide whether to press charges. (lol. lmao even)
BREAKING: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said, "We have whistleblowers coming out of the woodwork" — inclg intelligence analysts who worked on Obama and Brennan's fraudulent ICA and are "disgusted" by what happened — and their affidavits will be provided to DOJ
“There must be indictments of those responsible, no matter how powerful they are and were at that time, no matter who was involved in creating this treasonous conspiracy against the American people. They all must be held accountable,” Gabbard continued. “For the American people to have any sense of trust in the integrity of our democratic republic, accountability, action, prosecution, [and] indictments for those who are responsible for trying to steal our democracy is essential for us to make sure that this never happens to our country again.”
We’ve been reading about it for years, listened to countless segments on cable news and talk radio, and yet in a way, some people have almost become inured to it. Nothing will ever happen, they say. No one will ever be held to account. I’m talking about the Deep State’s multi-year effort to take down Donald Trump, of course. As we reported, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard dropped bombshell claims Friday and issued a criminal referral to the Department of Justice, saying that former president Barack Obama and miscreants in his intelligence circle tried to subvert the will of the American people and in effect stage a coup in 2016 and beyond. The DNI appeared on Fox News’ “Hannity” on Friday night, and although some of what she had to say is similar to her Friday statement which our Susie Moore reported on, it’s still stunning to hear her directly accuse former President Obama of what some would call treason:
“This is such an important issue, and I just want to start by saying that this is an issue that is important to every single one of us as Americans. This is not a partisan issue. It has to do with the integrity and the strength of our Democratic Republic, and it [her report] lays out this over 100 documents that you’re referencing that I released—declassified and released—spells out in great detail exactly what happens when you have some of the most powerful people in our country, directly, leading at the helm, President Obama and his senior most national security cabinet, James Comey, John Brennan, James Clapper, and Susan Rice and others, essentially making a very intentional decision to create this manufactured politicized piece of intelligence with the objective of subverting the will of the American people…”
— Fan Donald J. Trump Posts From Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) July 20, 2025
In another post on Truth Social, the president wrote, “Congratulations to Tulsi Gabbard. Keep it coming!!!” In a Saturday appearance on “Fox and Friends,” she called the efforts a “treasonous conspiracy.” In her “Hannity” segment, meanwhile, she flat-out accused Obama and Co. of attempting what was essentially a coup: “Their goal was to essentially not accept the decision of the American people, and to use this manufactured politicized intelligence as a means to enact what would become essentially a years-long coup against President Trump.”She went to describe how Obama told his intelligence folks to jump, and they said, “How high?”
“Then DNI James Clapper took the lead on what President Obama wanted done, and which was essentially create a document that tells us not if, but how Russia interfered with the election. President Obama delivered the conclusion that he wanted the Intelligence Community to reach, and directed them to find and essentially create and manufacture the intelligence to support the conclusion that President Obama wanted to deliver to the American people.” Once they reached their desired conclusion, the Deep State and their lackeys in the media leapt into action, she said, and the rest is history (impeachments, special counsel reports, FISA warrants, increased tensions with Russia… the list goes on). Asked if she thought there were prosecutable crimes in evidence here, Gabbard had a one-word answer. “Yes.” But she did elaborate: “I’m referring all of these documents that we have that we have found and uncovered, referring them to the Department of Justice for further investigation, accountability and action, not just investigation, but action.
Accountability has to take place. The American people’s ability to have faith and trust in the integrity of our Democratic Republic is literally what’s at stake, and therefore the future of our ability to exist as the country that we know it.” Even after all this time, it’s still amazing to me that this went on in our own country—and that many who rely on the nation’s corrupt media for their information are hearing about it for the first time. The “Hannity” clip is a little over eight minutes, but I encourage you to listen to the whole thing and soak in what Tulsi has to say. Questions remain: Will Obama respond? Will Adam Schiff suddenly appear with the Russia-collusion evidence he’s been promising for so many years now? What are the DOJ’s next steps? Things are likely to get very interesting indeed in the months ahead.
“Many in Washington DC do not like Tulsi Gabbard for exactly the reasons she explains in this interview. Her motives to release all the information are the opposite of former AG Bill Barr who wanted to see it remain hidden.”
Tulsi Gabbard does an excellent job explaining exactly why the information about who constructed the Trump-Russia collusion narrative needs to be in the spotlight. In this interview DNI Tulsi Gabbard outlines how damaging it is to our constitutional republic when we allow systemic corruption to go unaddressed. Many in Washington DC do not like Tulsi Gabbard for exactly the reasons she explains in this interview. Her motives to release all the information are the opposite of former AG Bill Barr who wanted to see it remain hidden. Bound by no other agenda, DNI Tulsi Gabbard is doing something very few people have the fortitude to continue doing. Listen carefully to her words because they have been backed up by action. What people do speaks so loudly, often we cannot hear a word they are saying. In this example, her words and actions are exactly the same. Let’s hope Attorney General Pam Bondi is influenced by Tulsi Gabbard.
“Tulsi Gabbard is not under any restriction on her review. That’s the difference. Where Durham was not permitted to go, DNI Tulsi Gabbard is going. Her release of the information is specifically because she is empowered to look at this information and release it..”
The Trump-Russia collusion story was always a targeted false smear intended to generate a special counsel and hamstring the surprising winner from the 2016 election, Donald Trump. The Russia-Collusion narrative was always an Intelligence Community op against Donald TRump. Yesterday, Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard released a tranche of background information, [114 pages of information], showing how the Obama administration intentionally and with great purpose fabricated the entire story. Staying focused on the trail of evidence held deep within the ODNI office, is why Tulsi Gabbard has been targeted for removal over the past several weeks. Kudos to Tulsi Gabbard for staying on mission – Great job.
What the evidence shows is a focused targeting operation intended to fabricate a false premise by the United States Intelligence Community, through the Office of former DNI James Clapper. The op was green-lighted by Barack Obama as a way to impede the agenda of incoming President Donald Trump. All three branches of government collaborated on the scheme. WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Friday, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard revealed overwhelming evidence that demonstrates how, after President Trump won the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton, President Obama and his national security cabinet members manufactured and politicized intelligence to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President Trump.
• In the months leading up to the November 2016 election, the Intelligence Community (IC) consistently assessed that Russia is “probably not trying … to influence the election by using cyber means.”
• On December 7, 2016, after the election, talking points were prepared for DNI James Clapper stating, “Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the US Presidential election outcome.”
• On December 9, 2016, President Obama’s White House gathered top National Security Council Principals for a meeting that included James Clapper, John Brennan, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe and others, to discuss Russia.
• After the meeting, DNI Clapper’s Executive Assistant sent an email to IC leaders tasking them with creating a new IC assessment “per the President’s request” that details the “tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election.” It went on to say, “ODNI will lead this effort with participation from CIA, FBI, NSA, and DHS.”
• Obama officials leaked false statements to media outlets, including The Washington Post, claiming, “Russia has attempted through cyber means to interfere in, if not actively influence, the outcome of an election.”
• On January 6, 2017, a new Intelligence Community Assessment was released that directly contradicted the IC assessments that were made throughout the previous six months.
After months of investigation into this matter, the facts reveal this new assessment was based on information that was known by those involved to be manufactured i.e. the Steele Dossier or deemed as not credible. This was politicized intelligence that was used as the basis for countless smears seeking to delegitimize President Trump’s victory, the years-long Mueller investigation, two Congressional impeachments, high level officials being investigated, arrested, and thrown in jail, heightened US-Russia tensions, and more. “The issue I am raising is not a partisan issue. It is one that concerns every American. The information we are releasing today clearly shows there was a treasonous conspiracy in 2016 committed by officials at the highest level of our government.
Their goal was to subvert the will of the American people and enact what was essentially a years-long coup with the objective of trying to usurp the President from fulfilling the mandate bestowed upon him by the American people,” said DNI Tulsi Gabbard. “Their egregious abuse of power and blatant rejection of our Constitution threatens the very foundation and integrity of our democratic republic. No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, to ensure nothing like this ever happens again. The American people’s faith and trust in our democratic republic and therefore the future of our nation depends on it. As such, I am providing all documents to the Department of Justice to deliver the accountability that President Trump, his family, and the American people deserve.”
Is there new information within the release? Yes and No. All of the outlined activity, the release of the emails and communication within the scheme team, is not new. However, the new part is the evidence. The facts now public to support all previous claims made here and by others, this time with greater detail that cannot be refuted. If you have been reading here for a while THE DOCUMENTS tell a story that is well known. We were able to piece this together even without knowing how the corrupt actors were talking to each other about their specific roles, responsibilities and motives. The documents provided by Tulsi Gabbard are the evidence of a serious coup against incoming President Trump by actors within government. The end of their IC effort culminated in the Robert Mueller investigation. Tulsi is providing the path to the avatar Mueller represented and all of the actors who participated with him.
Some will ask why John Durham never found this information, and/or shared it publicly. The answer to that question is not hard to understand. John Durham was NEVER allowed to look at the government actors in the Trump-Russia narrative. Durham was not allowed to look at how the U.S. Intelligence Community participated. Durham was ham-strung from the outset of his review and investigation, by Attorney General Bill Barr. Bill Barr never let John Durham focus on the govt side of the Trump-Russia collusion story. Tulsi Gabbard is not under any restriction on her review. That’s the difference. Where Durham was not permitted to go, DNI Tulsi Gabbard is going. Her release of the information is specifically because she is empowered to look at this information and release it. Special Counsel John Durham never had that authority. Gabbard provides a top cover memo on Page #67 that highlights who were the “Principal” actors in the scheme: This list of names is key.
Many of them will be familiar to you from all of the research we have poured into the Trump-Russia conspiracy. I would draw attention to the “Justice” participants. Main Justice Attorney General Loretta Lynch and DOJ-NSD head Mary McCord. Again, confirmation that Mary McCord was one of the key participants. McCord is still one of the Lawfare leads against Trump with her friend, Norm Eisen. Interestingly, Deputy AG Sally Yates was not a participant. Instead it was left to AG Loretta Lynch and more importantly Mary McCord. I would also draw attention to the “Chair” of the organization, Susan Rice. This memo released by DNI Gabbard outlining Rice’s participation as Principal and Chair of the op, in combination with her infamous Jan 5, 2017, memo, puts context to Rice’s legal exposure.
Why do I say legal exposure, because Susan Rice is on record saying she was not a participant and never heard of the FBI investigation underpinning the Trump-Russia collusion narrative. Obviously everything above is now a provable lie. Look at that highlighted box from Susan Rice’s lawyer, Kathryn Ruemmler, and remember in his March 20, 2017, testimony Comey said, “The White House was informed through the National Security Council,” (the NSC).FBI Director James Comey was protecting himself against the spygate surveillance of Trump, by leveraging his prior notification to the White House. Comey was signaling, ‘you cant get me for spying on Trump without getting Susan Rice and Barack Obama’, who knew about it.
Does the January 20, 2017, Susan Rice memo look different now? I would also draw attention to the “FBI” lead on the Trump-Russia collusion meeting, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. McCabe was entrenched in Crossfire Hurricane, and it makes sense for him to lead the Trump-Russia collusion story as a cover for the prior fraudulent investigation.Factually, everyone listed in that participation memo for their various agencies (silos) is a co-conspirator in the scheme; an intelligence operation to manufacture a false premise, a Trump-Russia collusion story.Tulsi Gabbard deserves appreciation for her efforts on releasing these background documents. However, information without accountability should not be the objective. Attorney General Pam Bondi needs to put some teeth into these findings.
“..the DNI *CAN BE* deployed like a super strong cross-silo inspector general’s office. Force the other IC silos to comply with the demands of the DNI. This has never been done. But the DNI has this unique power..”
Many people are questioning why Tulsi Gabbard is able to discover and expose activity by the Obama administration and the Intelligence Community, yet prior office holders did not. Last year, when asked for approaches that could assist a Trump Term-2, I outlined the possibilities for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). What we are seeing today is running in direct parallel to that original outline. As our conversation expands, and we await the counter attack against her, perhaps it is worth a revisit. I will explain the predictable counter attack at the end.
August, 2024 – The ODNI was created as an outcome of the 9-11 Commission recommendations. In the era shortly after 9/11, the DC national security apparatus was constructed to preserve continuity of government and simultaneously view all Americans as potential threats. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) were created specifically for this purpose. Washington DC created the modern national security apparatus immediately and hurriedly after 9/11/01. DHS came along in 2002, and within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 the ODNI was formed. When Barack Obama and Eric Holder arrived a few years later, those newly formed institutions were viewed as opportunities to create a very specific national security apparatus that would focus almost exclusively against their political opposition.
Here is the weird part. The ODNI was formed in 2004, with the intent for the office to be the pivot point of a national security radar. The DNI was intended to provide information to domestic agencies about foreign terror networks that would prevent something like 9-11 from happening again. However, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has never, not for one day, operated on this intent. This is why they are such a critical position from my perspective. The office was new, not established yet as a functioning silo, when Barack Obama and Eric Holder arrived in 2009. They quickly dispatched an idiot, James Clapper, into the operation so they could weaponize around the offices’ fulcrum point. Prior to the DNI office existing, the CIA radar would sweep externally and then report to the Office of the President.
The DNI was intended to take external radar sweep (CIA) and make it a full 360° circle, adding a sweep inside the USA that would be handled by the Dept of Homeland Security. The DHS sweep and the CIA sweep would then be combined into a central collection hub called the ODNI. Everyone with responsibility for “national security” could access the ODNI material. Essentially and presumably, post 9-11 nothing like jihadists practicing to fly airplanes would be missed again; at least that was the intent. The weird part is that because the DNI was immediately weaponized, the office has never functioned to the purpose of its intent. No one truly knows what the office possibilities consist of, because no one has ever seen anyone try to functionally control the hub. If you think I’m joking about the intent of Obama and John Brennan using the DNI, watch this video. This is before Brennan became CIA Director; this is when Brennan was helping Barack Obama put the pillars into place.
For the intents of this outline, the takeaway is how the DNI office has never been used for good. In a strategic way, that can be used to our advantage if you are talking about leveraging silos against each other. Example: The DNI can assemble material from any silo. Meaning the DNI can reach into any IC silo and extract anything they want. Under the original authorities given to the DNI, this authority exists. So, let’s spread the wings on this office and do exactly what it is permitted to do, only this time extract for the purpose of showing the President what is happening in every silo. In essence, the DNI *CAN BE* deployed like a super strong cross-silo inspector general’s office. Force the other IC silos to comply with the demands of the DNI. This has never been done. But the DNI has this unique power.
The DNI can make the FBI, DOJ, DOJ-NSD, DoD, DoS and CIA provide anything and everything they demand. Instead of the other silos using blocks and threats against the office of the President, use the authority of the DNI to get them without confrontation. Then use the DNI to declassify the documents (if requested by POTUS), instead of the originating silo. Can you see how the DNI office can be repurposed to be a seriously strong weapon in the toolbox of the President, against the schemes of those inside the various IC silos? The DNI becomes much more important than the CIA Director, NSA Director, FBI Director, Attorney General, etc, because the DNI can just show up and say, “give me this.” That’s the whole functional purpose of the DNI office that has never been exerted; let’s flippin’ use it.
Let’s use the office of the DNI as the central information hub that takes information from inside the corrupt silos, then provides that information to the President who puts sunlight upon it. Each corrupt silo penetrated with disinfectant. This could begin a process to pull down the shadow operations and let the American public see what has been happening inside our IC apparatus. To accomplish this approach, the National Security Advisor to the President (NSA), would be the person who tells the DNI exactly what they are looking for.
“Trump hailed Gabbard and her team as “fantastic on prosecuting Obama and the ‘thugs’ who have just been unequivocally exposed on highest level Election Fraud.”
US President Donald Trump has praised National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard for “exposing” a coup plot against him by the administration of former President Barack Obama. On Friday, Gabbard unveiled over 100 pages of newly declassified documents detailing what she described as a coordinated effort by senior Obama-era officials – spearheaded by Obama himself – to politicize intelligence and falsely accuse Trump of colluding with Russia to win the 2016 election. The operation led to the launch of the years-long Trump-Russia collusion probe known as ‘Russiagate,’ which Gabbard described as “a years-long coup against [Trump].” In a Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump hailed Gabbard and her team as “fantastic on prosecuting Obama and the ‘thugs’ who have just been unequivocally exposed on highest level Election Fraud.”
Trump, who has long rejected allegations of Russian ties as fake and unproven, congratulated Gabbard and urged her to “keep it coming!!!” Gabbard’s disclosures include documents indicating Obama ordered officials to discard prior intelligence assessments that found no evidence of Russian involvement in Trump’s campaign or victory and replace them with new claims blaming Russia that were based on discredited sources and fabricated data. She said these false claims were then leaked to the media. The result, she argued, led to the two-year probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which found evidence of Russian interference but did not establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump’s team and Moscow, as well as Trump’s impeachments, indictments, and escalating tensions with Russia.
White House deputy press secretary and presidential aide Harrison Fields said on Fox News the documents were the “predicate” for a decade of attacks on Trump. He labeled the Obama presidency “the most corrupt we’ve ever seen” and criticized the mainstream media for pushing the Russiagate story. Fields noted that Gabbard’s announcement coincides with an ongoing probe into the Russiagate hoax but declined to elaborate. The documents name several officials Gabbard alleges participated in the “conspiracy,” and she vowed to hand all evidence to the Justice Department, warning that “no matter how powerful, every person involved… must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
A face-to-face meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, will definitely happen, but the time has not yet come, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. The Times reported earlier this week that a trilateral meeting between Putin, Trump, and Chinese President Xi Jinping could take place in September during a military parade in Beijing, marking the 80th anniversary of victory over imperial Japan in World War II. The Russian president has already confirmed that he will attend. The Kremlin, however, said it has no knowledge of a potential meeting between the leaders. Speaking about potential talks between Putin and Trump in a clip from an interview with journalist Pavel Zarubin released on Sunday, Peskov said, “it is possible, and in time it will definitely happen. It is essential.”
A meeting might be necessary “for signing some major agreements that will be reached over time after a huge amount of work has been done. But this time has not yet come, this work still needs to be done,” he stated. The two leaders have talked on the phone several times in recent months, mainly focusing on ways to resolve the Ukraine conflict, with Trump saying earlier this month that he is “unhappy” and “disappointed” in Putin. Regarding Trump’s comments about Putin, Peskov said, “everybody has already gotten used to his rather tough and straightforward rhetoric. At the same time, he confirms his intentions to continue to do everything possible to facilitate a peaceful settlement” between Russia and Ukraine.
“In fact, President Putin has repeatedly spoken about his desire to switch the Ukrainian settlement onto a peaceful path as quickly as possible. This is a long process; it requires effort and it is not easy, and apparently in Washington there is an increasing understanding of this.” The Kremlin has said the third round of Russia-Ukraine negotiations will likely take place in Istanbul, though a date has not yet been set.
“..to “fully comprehend” Russiagate, it must be viewed as only a small part of a broader Western campaign to demonize Russia, “that goes decades back.”
US National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard’s revelations about the role of former President Barack Obama’s administration in the Russiagate scandal are “shocking,” but they expose only the surface of a broader Western anti-Russia campaign, Professor Oliver Boyd-Barrett has told RT. On Friday, Gabbard released newly declassified documents describing a coordinated effort by senior Obama-era officials – led by Obama himself – to falsely accuse Donald Trump of colluding with Russia during the 2016 election. The documents indicate that Obama ordered officials to discard intelligence assessments that found no Russian involvement in Trump’s campaign and replace them with claims blaming Moscow based on fabricated data.
The scandal led to the years-long Trump-Russia probe known as ‘Russiagate.’ “This is an extraordinary moment, that the head of intelligence in the US has made such a bold, in some ways shocking, statement of the truth,” Boyd-Barrett, a professor at Bowling Green State University and author of an in-depth study of Russiagate, said on Saturday. He noted the moment was especially striking as Gabbard called for prosecution of those involved in what she described as a “coup” attempt. Boyd-Barrett, however, emphasized that to “fully comprehend” Russiagate, it must be viewed as only a small part of a broader Western campaign to demonize Russia, “that goes decades back.”
“It’s part of a much deeper agenda – we’re talking Russia narrative… the broader context of an anti-Russian campaign that was stoked artificially around the time of the late 90s when the West had so clearly decided that NATO was going to move eastwards regardless of whatever anyone in Russia or anyone in the US had to say,” he said. He also warned against reducing Russiagate to a personal political ploy, noting that blaming it solely on Obama or Hillary Clinton’s election anxiety is “too simple an explanation.” Moscow has repeatedly denied interfering in the US electoral process.
The EU is demonizing Russia in order to keep the Ukraine conflict running as Brussels still has not given up hope of suppressing Moscow, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. In May, the EU adopted the €150 billion Security Action for Europe (SAFE) instrument to support members that are willing to invest in defense. The move came as part of a larger military buildup drive that began in the bloc after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022 with the goal of countering what it perceives as the ‘Russian threat’. Moscow has dismissed claims that it intends to attack NATO countries as “nonsense,” saying that Western politicians are seeking to scare their populations to justify increased military spending.
In an interview with journalist Pavel Zarubin released on Sunday, Peskov said the EU “is creating an enemy for itself, doing focused, professional work both in their own society and abroad in order to portray Russia as the devil incarnate… in order to ensure the continuation of the conflict, in order to suppress Russia.” The Kremlin spokesman added that there are discussions underway in the EU “about who will be paying for the feast.” Earlier this week, several EU countries rejected a plan proposed by US President Donald Trump for European NATO member states to buy American weapons for Ukraine. “Thank God the anti-Russian and militaristic ecstasy does not have universal backing” in the bloc, Peskov said.
Moscow has warned against supplying Western weapons to Ukraine, arguing that they only prolong the conflict and increase the risk of a direct clash between Russia and NATO. In the interview, Peskov noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin “has repeatedly spoken about his desire to bring the Ukrainian settlement on to a peaceful path as quickly as possible.” Russia has stated that it is ready to negotiate peace with Ukraine, though it has accused Kiev and its Western backers of not being interested in finding a long-term solution that addresses the root causes of the conflict.
The German people should be angry at their own government that ruined their country rather than at Russian President Vladimir Putin, US journalist Tucker Carlson has told the Berlin-based newspaper Bild. A large portion of the two hour interview released on Saturday was devoted to Carlson’s interview with Putin from February 2024. During the exchange, the US journalist repeatedly curbed Bild deputy editor-in-chief Paul Ronzheimer’s attempts to condemn the Russian leader over the Ukraine conflict. After Ronzheimer referred to Putin as a “criminal,” Carlson replied: “I am not defending Putin, who I think has done a great job for Russia. Much better job than any German leader. That is for sure.”
“Your country is going down, Russia is going up. You should be mad at your own leaders. You are mad at Putin instead,” he argued. According to Carlson, Angela Merkel – who served as German chancellor from 2005 to 2021 – was far more deserving of being branded a “criminal” because “she wrecked your country through mass migration… It will not recover in your lifetime or mine.” Carlson suggested that the current authorities in Berlin are attacking Putin and Russia in order to distract the public from migration and economic problems in Germany, which is expected to end 2025 in recession for the third year in a row. Your country is a mess because your leaders suck. That is the fact. You are mad about that. So, they take your anger and they are like: ‘Oh no, it is Putin’s fault. It is Putin’s fault.’ Ok, got it,” he said.
Earlier this month, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Germany was becoming “dangerous again” for Russia, after German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius stated that Bundeswehr troops must be prepared to “kill” Russian soldiers if necessary. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said earlier that by supporting Kiev in the conflict with Moscow “Germany is sliding down the same slippery slope it already followed a couple of times in the last century – down toward its own collapse,” referring to the defeats suffered by the country in the First and Second World Wars.
“Driven by the spirit of liberty, future citizens will demand the return of what defines sovereign individuals: the right to property, to free expression, to personal autonomy. ”
“Trump’s government is also dismantling its overseas media empire. That includes defunding over 1,000 journalism-related NGOs worldwide that previously received USAID support. In the U.S. alone, up to 19,500 USAID employees and contractors could lose their job..”
After fierce internal disputes and the resignation of Elon Musk as a government advisor, the United States has now entered a new phase of fiscal consolidation. On Friday, the House of Representatives cleared the way for the first major round of budget cuts. And it’s a heavy hitter. If you believe the steady drumbeat of European media coverage, the U.S. is on the verge of sovereign default. At first glance, the numbers do indeed resemble a fiscal horror show: After the devastating Biden years, federal debt has ballooned to 120 percent of GDP. The current deficit stands at a glaring 6.5 percent. In the coming months, $9 billion in outstanding debt must be refinanced—Washington has little room to maneuver. What’s routinely omitted in media coverage, however, is the fact that the U.S. remains the issuer of the world’s reserve currency, and can, if necessary, print its way out of the mess.
Europe’s hope for a premature American collapse—as both a justification for its own policy failures and a welcome distraction—will likely end in bitter disappointment. At first glance, it might seem odd that President Trump prioritized sweeping tax cuts over budget discipline. But look more closely, and the move reveals itself as part of a deliberate offensive strategy. In Trump’s America, the motto is: green light for the private sector first, then clean house in the bureaucratic stables. Anyone seriously doubting that Americans are capable of implementing fiscal cuts has not yet grasped the political force of the Trump administration. Even Elon Musk—the founder of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), created to deepen budget reform efforts—lost patience with the slow grind of bureaucracy and quit in frustration. But in the bigger picture, that’s a mere footnote.
Because now, it gets serious. Building on DOGE’s groundwork, the first multi-billion-dollar rescission package is now being deployed: NPR reports that $9.4 billion in spending will be slashed with the stroke of a pen. Trump’s first real punch in the fight over federal expenditures goes straight to the heart of the left’s media apparatus—USAID. Though nominally a humanitarian agency funding foreign aid projects, USAID has functioned in practice as a massive subsidy engine for the progressive media ecosystem operating worldwide. That era now appears to be over. This propaganda leviathan stretched its tentacles across the globe, reinforcing and exporting the globalist green-left agenda that Europeans know as the Green Deal, the “green transformation,” or the politics of open borders.
Like in Europe, paternalistic structures have gradually taken hold in America—but better camouflaged, given the poor reputation of state control in the land of liberty. Media outlets bankrolled by USAID opened the floodgates to government messaging, constructing a vast machine to manipulate public opinion. How else could the American public be kept in the dark for four years about Joe Biden’s mental decline? Such a sustained deception requires close coordination between political and media actors, with the latter willingly co-opted into state control. That Trump is starting his fiscal consolidation by targeting the beating heart of this media leviathan is no coincidence. Trump 2.0 is not a mere replay of 2016. Inside the White House, they’ve got the enemy and its structures clearly in their sights.
The intensity of the trade battles with Brussels shows Trump has identified the core of green-socialist globalism exactly where many suspected: Brussels, London, and Davos. And Trump appeals to those yearning for freedom, for open markets—including in the media—with steadfast resolve. With the stroke of his pen, The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)—America’s equivalent of ARD and ZDF—has been stripped of its $1.1 billion in federal funding. The blow to PBS and NPR is severe. A historic day for freedom of speech—and a precedent Germany can only dream of. In Germany, a self-absorbed, taxpayer-funded media aristocracy holds the reins—merged with political power into a unified cartel of opinion. In contrast, in the U.S., a single signature is enough to start dismantling media manipulation, climate-hysteria weather maps, and perverse woke pedagogy—as if the madness had never happened.
Future generations will ask how it was possible that taxpayers funded such a cynical, parasitic opposition with their own money—day after day—broadcast into their homes, where they were lectured with hypermoralistic fervor. But those same generations will also hold in their hands a manual of libertarian reform—a playbook for liberation from neo-feudal control. In the offices of the statists and central planners—in Brussels, Paris, and Berlin—this development is being watched with alarm. Once the message of Milei’s success in Argentina or Trump’s reforms in the U.S. spreads, it will trigger a wave of uncomfortable questions. Driven by the spirit of liberty, future citizens will demand the return of what defines sovereign individuals: the right to property, to free expression, to personal autonomy.
They will demand a lean state—a mere administrator of essentials—that neither educates nor intrudes upon individual lives. That’s the dream. But on the road to the Isles of the Blessed, hard work lies ahead. Budget reform will require a lumberjack’s resolve. And the axe is already swinging in the White House. The cuts don’t stop at domestic public media. Trump’s government is also dismantling its overseas media empire. That includes defunding over 1,000 journalism-related NGOs worldwide that previously received USAID support. In the U.S. alone, up to 19,500 USAID employees and contractors could lose their jobs. These are the days of reckoning.
A federal judge has ordered the administration of US President Donald Trump to restore funding for state-run Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), ruling that the decision to stop the support was “unprecedented” and lacked any basis. RFE/RL was a key tool for spreading Western propaganda in the Soviet bloc during the Cold War and was funded by the CIA. The outlet currently receives nearly all of its funding from Congress. The Trump administration has sought to cut funding for RFE/RL and several other state-linked outlets. It has denounced the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM), the body that oversees state-funded media, saying it is “not salvageable,” while indulging in “obscene overspending.” The administration also claimed it is crawling with “spies and terrorist sympathizers.”
Consequently, the USAGM essentially froze funding for RFE/RL and refused to enter into a new contract with the outlet after the previous agreement expired in March. This led to staff furloughs and programming cuts, though the EU stepped in to fill the budgetary gap. On Friday, Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Trump administration lacks the legal authority to refuse Congress-approved funding of more than $70 million, arguing that they provided no clear basis for the move. ”It is unprecedented for an agency to demand that entirely new terms govern its decades-old working relationship with a grantee entity,” he wrote.
He went on to rebuke the USAGM for a lack of responses to RFE/RL to negotiate a new agreement, describing it as “stonewalling” and adding that the agency went dark for days or even weeks. The “USAGM’s flagrant disregard for its funding responsibilities” caused RFE/RL to suffer “mass furloughs, cancelation of programming, and inevitable damage to the global influence that RFE/RL has built over decades,” the ruling said. RFE/RL President and CEO Stephen Capus welcomed the court’s decision. “This victory provides our journalists with the momentum necessary to continue reaching the nearly 47 million people each week… With this ruling, RFE/RL can continue to advance US national security interests.”
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has downplayed the prospect of Ukraine joining the EU in the near future, saying it is unlikely to happen during the bloc’s current budget cycle, which runs through 2034. Some EU officials had suggested the country could become a member much earlier. Ukraine made EU accession a national priority in 2019, formally applying in 2022 shortly after the escalation of the conflict with Russia. It was granted candidate status later that year, with the European Commission suggesting Kiev could join by 2030 if it made sufficient progress in areas such as political and judicial reforms, as well as in combating organized crime and corruption. Merz made the remarks on Friday during a press conference with Romanian President Nicusor Dan in Berlin.
“For us, the absolute top priority is, first and foremost, to do everything possible to end this war,” he said, adding, “then we’ll talk about the reconstruction of Ukraine.” That process, he said, would take “a number of years” and likely fall outside the EU’s current medium-term financial outlook. EU membership requires the unanimous approval of all 27 member states. While Brussels supports Kiev’s bid, some of the bloc’s nations – including Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland – remain opposed, arguing that Ukraine’s institutions and economy are unprepared and that membership would place an unbearable financial strain on the union. Moscow strongly opposes Ukraine’s NATO ambitions, but initially took a neutral stance on EU membership. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in March that Kiev had the “sovereign right” to join, as long as the bloc remained focused on economics.
However, amid a broader drive among European NATO states to boost their militaries, Russian officials have grown more critical. In June, the EU redirected approximately €335 billion ($390 billion) in Covid relief funds towards military uses. The month before that, Brussels introduced a €150 billion debt and loan instrument to back its members’ armed forces and military industrial sector. The funding will also be made available to Kiev. Russia has condemned those steps, accusing both NATO and the EU of “rabid militarization.” Former President Dmitry Medvedev said the EU now poses “no less of a threat” to Russia than US-led NATO.
Ukraine should consider striking Russian airfields and weapons factories deep inside the country to alleviate pressure on the front, a senior German general has suggested. Speaking during a Bundeswehr podcast on Saturday, Major General Christian Freuding, who oversees Germany’s military assistance to Ukraine, gave Kiev advice on weakening Russia’s offensive power.“You can also indirectly affect the offensive potential of Russian strike forces before they are deployed,” Freuding said. “Use long-range air warfare assets to strike aircraft and airfields before they are used. Also, target weapons production facilities.” Freuding also lamented that despite Western sanctions, Russia has increased its production of drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic systems.
“We must reconsider whether our economic measures have been sufficient and where we can apply further pressure, particularly to limit Russian production capabilities,” he said. The general also pointed to the limitations of US-made Patriot air defense missiles against waves of Russian drones. “It [a drone] costs around €30,000-50,000 ($34,000–58,000) depending on the model. It’s wasteful to shoot it down with a Patriot missile costing over €5 million. We need countermeasures that cost €2,000–€4,000, especially as Russia aims to further increase its production capacity,” he explained. Last year, the administration of former US President Joe Biden authorized Ukraine to use American long-range weapons to strike inside Russia, though with significant restrictions on range and target selection. Media reports at the time indicated that Kiev was not allowed to hit major Russian airfields.
Meanwhile, Freuding confirmed earlier this month that Ukraine would receive the first batch of long-range missiles financed by Berlin before the end of July. Germany, however, has been reluctant to send Taurus long-range missiles due to escalation concerns. Earlier this month, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that Germany was becoming “dangerous again,” after German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said that Bundeswehr troops must be prepared to “kill” Russian soldiers if necessary. Moscow also accused the German leadership of supporting “confrontation” and pursuing an “aggressive mobilization of Europe against Russia.”
The day after French President Emmanuel Macron said that, in the year 2027 alone, he would blow another roughly €60 billion on weapons for some fantasy war with Russia that France isn’t even in, the French prime minister proposed axing some statutory holidays in an effort to balance the books.Dude just hit a third rail and electrocuted his political career. There are two things the French hold sacred. The first is their sprawling social safety net, which they fund with sky-high taxes and from which they get diminishing returns. And the other is their numerous beloved paid vacation days. Macron’s handpicked prime minister, longtime establishment centrist fixture François Bayrou, has chosen to mess with the one thing that unites the nation more than even football: their time off.
Why would he want to do that? So the French can work more. So the activity generated can be taxed. Because the government is super broke. Bayrou says that he has to find another €44 billion in the state’s couch cushions to keep France’s ballooning debt and borrowing costs from setting off more investor panic and bond-dumping. Normally, the government doesn’t even touch the budget until September, when legislators return from their sacred summer break, which of course they’re not being asked to sacrifice in the interests of austerity. But Bayrou says that he wants to get a head start because the public needs time to digest his ‘let’s cancel holidays’ pitch.
Or maybe he just needs a running start at the cliff that he’s about to hurl himself off. Because both the anti-establishment right and left will almost certainly vote non on his holiday cuts, possibly triggering a no-confidence vote. Or rather, another one. He’s survived eight so far. But with a proposal so ludicrously unpopular, this cat’s ninth political life may be about to bite the dust. It’s been a year since the last election, so France could legally have another one anytime now. Which would make it three elections in as many years. And it’s not like those are free either, by the way.
So here he is, Prime Minister Bayrou, waxing all poetic about national sacrifice, while at the same time proposing to axe the Easter Monday state holiday in April, and the one that falls on France’s WWII Victory Day on May 8: “I think this is the last station before the cliff and the crushing by the debt. We must call it by its name. It is a mortal danger for a country,” Bayrou said. Hear that, Frenchies? Accept his proposal or the country gets fatally knifed. No mention of cutting anything else from the budget, huh? Not a whiff of trimming that €170-billion deficit from any of the other more glaring bloated line items? He said that he has zero interest in messing with Macron’s new 5% of GDP for NATO defense spending, despite France not actually being in a war.
“We planned to double the budget by 2030, we are actually going to double it by 2027,” Macron had just announced. “To this end, a review of the military planning law will be presented in the autumn. And I call on the National Assembly to vote on it,” he said. Look, I’m no Inspector Clouseau, but I think I just may have an idea of where they can find a super big line item so they don’t have to keep nickel and diming French workers.As one might imagine, this is going over like canned Cheez Whiz with the average French citizen who depends on those clustered April-May-June holidays to build “bridges” from midweek days off to weekends – or maybe even use them to dig full-blown “tunnels” under entire work weeks.
The government is now asking ordinary people to surrender rest so it can look fiscally responsible without touching bloated defense budgets or elite entitlements. It has decided that its taxpayers’ time, and ultimately, their lives are less valuable than its agenda. And what does it say about a country when it kills a peace holiday commemorating the end of a world war to pay for hypothetical ones? France isn’t under siege, but its leadership is acting like it is. “Since 1945, freedom has never been so threatened, and never so seriously,” Macron told French soldiers in a speech around the Bastille Day national holiday. “To be free in this world, we must be feared. To be feared, we must be powerful,” he said.
For many Americans, talk of a crackdown in Europe on “hate speech” and “misinformation” may seem a faraway issue, but legal experts say that Europe’s online censorship laws could affect Americans, too. Starting July 1, social media companies and internet service providers operating within the EU that do not comply with laws that ban content deemed illegal there could be fined up to 6 percent of their global revenue, according to the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). The European Commission states that the DSA, originally passed in 2022, “protects consumers and their fundamental rights online by setting clear and proportionate rules.”
On July 1, the DSA integrated its Code of Conduct into the act, requiring online platforms and search engines to comply with the censorship laws of all member states or face punitive fines. Proponents of the DSA state that the law was passed in response to escalating cases of anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim statements in Europe. Meanwhile, critics, like Virginie Joron, a French member of the European Parliament, have called it a “Trojan horse for surveillance and control.” “What was sold as the Digital Services Act is increasingly functioning as a Digital Surveillance Act,” Joron told attendees at a May conference hosted by the Alliance Defending Freedom. Joron accused the European Commission and some parliamentarians of having “seized upon the DSA as a political tool to control speech, particularly targeting platforms like X, Facebook, and Telegram.”
The concern among policy experts is that Europe’s speech laws could compel online platforms to institute restrictive policies worldwide, in order to comply. “The DSA generally cannot directly compel technology companies to censor American speech, but it creates an incentive to do so,” David Inserra, a fellow for free expression and technology at the Cato Institute, told The Epoch Times. “At some point, companies may find it easier just to change their policies to align with more restrictive laws, thus having American speech effectively regulated by Brussels—thus the name the ‘Brussels effect.’” Legal analysts say that the Digital Services Act is open to political manipulation because of its imprecise language regarding what is illegal for people to say, as well as a complex and ever-changing array of online speech prohibitions.
“Through very vague and loose definitions of illegal content and ‘hate speech’ and ‘misinformation,’ this becomes a blueprint for restricting speech online,” Adina Portaru, senior counsel for ADF International, told The Epoch Times. “If you take the narrow definition of ‘hate speech—incitement to hatred—then you realize that, once again, whoever has the power to define ‘hatred’ is the one who defines if you are breaching the law or not.” According to a September 2024 analysis by Therese Enarsson, a European attorney, “the DSA provides a very broad legal definition for illegal content,” which it defines as speech that does not comply with the laws of the EU or any member state. “Similarly to illegal content, the DSA does not attempt to define what constitutes hate speech,” Enarsson states. “This is unfortunate, seeing that platforms must adapt their systems to combat such speech.”
This means that content posted by someone in Romania would have to be taken down if it conflicts with speech laws in France, creating a lowest-common-denominator threshold for suppressing content. The DSA also states that it “specifically recognises the role of trusted flaggers to identify and flag hate speech online and to allow action against it”—a role that’s analogous to the collaboration between “fact-checkers” and social media companies in the United States to police online speech. “We’re speaking about Europe, but of course we can also speak of situations whereby you have an American citizen posting something here in the U.S. and with the internet being an online environment globally, somebody can flag that in Europe, and according to the DSA, that speech will be removed from the entire platform,” Portaru said.
In addition, this process of flagging and fact-checking often includes a left-leaning bias, studies show. A 2023 survey of 150 “experts on misinformation” published in the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review found that nearly 85 percent of the respondents were on the political left.
The EU is drafting legislation that could force rental and corporate fleets to switch to electric vehicles (EVs) by 2030, Bild reported on Saturday, citing sources in Brussels. The directive is reportedly being quietly discussed by the European Commission and could be unveiled as early as late summer before going to the European Parliament. The regulation is seen as a backdoor to accelerate the green transition and enforce the bloc’s combustion-engine ban, which mandates a 100% cut in CO2 emissions from new cars by 2035, effectively outlawing gasoline and diesel vehicles. Car manufacturers have criticized the plan as too costly and requiring full conversions of production lines.
The new rules will reportedly apply to all rental companies and businesses with car fleets across the bloc. If approved, such entities will only be allowed to purchase EVs, thus impacting around 60% of new car sales, Bild said. A Commission spokesperson confirmed that work is underway on such a plan but declined to provide details. Lawmakers warn the measure could harm Europe’s rental sector: companies such as Enterprise, Hertz, and Sixt already scaled back EV fleets in 2024, citing poor charging infrastructure, high repair costs, and weak resale values. EU MP Markus Ferber urged the Commission to drop the plan, calling it “unrealistic.” Sixt CEO Nico Gabriel agreed, warning that few vacationers rent EVs and that mandatory electrification would drive up rental costs due to charging infrastructure needs.
Critics say Europe’s green push is straining its auto industry and wider economy. Carmakers face penalties if they fail to boost EV sales and must spend heavily on new production lines, batteries, chargers, and grid upgrades. The transition also threatens jobs: automaker Stellantis warned this month it could close plants if it fails to meet EU deadlines. Former EU commissioner Thierry Breton warned the shift to EVs could cost 600,000 jobs. Manufacturers have called for subsidies and state support to avoid losing more market share to rivals in China and the US. Other sectors face similar problems, especially as Brussels phases out Russian energy, imports of which have dropped sharply in light of Ukraine-related sanctions. Russian officials have warned that rejecting its supplies will force the EU to rely on costlier alternatives or rerouted Russian energy via intermediaries.
As all of my readers know, the Social Democrats (SPD) are fighting hard to force two hard-left justices onto the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. Although the vote failed last week because Friedrich Merz messed it up, the SPD remain determined to give Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf and Ann-Katrin Kaufhold the red robes. They might still succeed. This matters because Brosius-Gersdorf and Kaufhold have both argued in favour of ban proceedings against Alternative für Deutschland. What is more, both candidates would be appointed to the second senate of the Constitutional Court, which is the division responsible for banning political parties. And as if that were not enough, the SPD nominated both candidates in the wake of their party congress, where SPD chairman Lars Klingbeil said that banning the AfD was his party’s “historical duty.”
Many have therefore concluded that the SPD are trying to stack the court in advance of an application to prohibit Germany’s second-strongest political party, banish all of its elected politicians and seize all of its assets.I’m far from a sensationalist, and I’ve repeatedly discounted the likelihood of an AfD ban – not least because the German establishment and the left in particular have good reasons to keep the AfD around. Lately, however, I’ve begun to appreciate that there are deeper, systemic forces working against the AfD in this case. These forces are beyond anybody’s control and if nobody does anything, they may well end in political catastrophe that is much bigger than any single party.
Since the end of the Merkel era, the German left has become thematically scattered, and so they have retreated to the only coordinating issue the German left has ever had, which is hating the right. As climatism started to fade, the social welfare state exceeded its limits and mass migration went sour, AfD bashing became the sole unifying principle for much of the SPD, Die Linke and the Greens. Hating the right is particularly important because it keeps leftist politicians and their activist class on the same page. Without a crusade against the right, a great chasm opens between the antifa thugs who want to smash the state and destroy capitalism on the one hand and the schoolmarm leftoid establishment functionaries in the Bundestag who want to mandate gender-neutral language for the civil service on the other hand. What is more, the firewall against the AfD splits the right and keeps the shrinking left in government. It is a win-win for leftoids everywhere.
Recent events, however, show why things cannot continue as they are now indefinitely. Over time, our Constitutional Court will begin to fill with leftist justices supported by the left parties, who like the rest of the left will also want to ban the AfD. Brosius-Gersdorf and Kaufhold are omens here. Right now the system is held in perfect balance; the left talks a big game about wanting to stamp out the AfD, but they can always justify their hesitation by saying the outcome of ban proceedings is too uncertain. When the necessary judicial majority for an AfD ban is finally secured in Karlsruhe, everything changes. At that point, there will be no excuse for not proceeding with a ban. The activists and the NGOs will take to the streets if their political masters in Berlin don’t begin the process. The CDU will be brought around by media smear campaigns and antifa intimidation.
Keep in mind that this is not about the AfD, but about imperatives within the left itself. No amount of moderation, polite messaging or triangulation on the part of the AfD can get the left to stop or pursue other goals. Unless some exogenous force introduces a new unifying obsession for the left parties and their activists, they will never stop gnawing on this particular chew toy. Practically, this probably means that the AfD has an expiration date. If they can’t get into government at the federal level and if nothing else changes, they will find themselves facing ban proceedings before a court stacked with leftists who hate them in the next 10 or 15 years. The federal elections in 2029 seem like the last opportunity to normalise the AfD before this final escalation.
This is possibly the most alarming act of treason since the Lincoln assassination. For an outgoing president to engineer a coup against a succeeding president is unthinkable in America.
Everyone needs to watch this, soak it in, and understand the magnitude of what we are watching play out. Accountability is coming.
DNI Tulsi Gabbard talks in detail about what she found in the newly declassified documents that prove Obama and many in his administration… pic.twitter.com/Y3I51aHYNz
Hey everybody, watch James Comey lie under oath in 2017 about the seriousness of "Russian election interference."
The memo that DNI Gabbard released proves clearly that Comey was lying during this testimony. He needs to be held accountable for the damage he did to this country. pic.twitter.com/rowA74bs4C
— Real America's Voice (RAV) (@RealAmVoice) July 18, 2025
Tulsi Gabbard nuked the entire US political system with her report on Friday. It will take time for it to sink in. She doesn’t merely accuse Comey and Brennan, she says former president Obama is guilty of treason. An accusation lifted at Trump many times over the past 10 years of course, but the difference is Tulsi brings the receipts. Even then, it will be hard to get the MSM to report on all the court cases we will see, in anything like a neutral fashion. If only because the media, too, will be among the accused.
Fox News Digital has uncovered damning evidence that the Obama administration deliberately “manufactured and politicized intelligence” to push the now-debunked Russia election interference narrative, despite contradictory assessments from within the intelligence community itself. According to newly declassified documents that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released Friday, there’s “overwhelming evidence” that Barack Obama and his national security inner circle went to work immediately after Donald Trump’s stunning 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton. Their goal? Lay the foundation for the Trump-Russia hoax that would consume the nation for years. This wasn’t a matter of bad judgment; it was a calculated operation to delegitimize Trump’s presidency before it even began.
“Documents revealed that in the months leading up to the November 2016 election, the intelligence community consistently assessed that Russia was ‘probably not trying…to influence the election by using cyber means,’” the report reveals. “One instance was on Dec. 7, 2016, weeks after the election, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s talking points stated: ‘Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the U.S. presidential election outcome.’” Fox News Digital obtained a declassified copy of the Presidential Daily Brief, which was prepared by the Department of Homeland Security, with reporting from the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, FBI, National Security Agency, Department of Homeland Security, State Department and open sources, for Obama, dated Dec. 8, 2016.
“We assess that Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent US election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure,” the Presidential Daily Brief stated. “Russian Government-affiliated actors most likely compromised an Illinois voter registration database and unsuccessfully attempted the same in other states.” But the brief stated that it was “highly unlikely” the effort “would have resulted in altering any state’s official vote result.” “Criminal activity also failed to reach the scale and sophistication necessary to change election outcomes,” it stated. Declassified documents reveal that the FBI raised serious concerns about a 2016 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB), which claimed that Russia was trying to undermine the U.S. election.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence had assessed that Russia’s efforts were likely aimed at sowing doubt in the process — not disrupting it — and noted that cyberattacks on election infrastructure failed to cause any real impact. Internal FBI communications show agents pushed back, drafting a formal dissent and warning the brief shouldn’t move forward until their objections were heard. As a result, the brief’s release, originally slated for Dec. 9, 2016, was delayed following “new guidance” from ODNI. “It will not run tomorrow and is not likely to run until next week,” wrote the deputy director of the Presidential Daily Brief at Office of the Director of National Intelligence, whose name is redacted. The following day, Dec. 9, 2016, a meeting convened in the White House Situation Room, with the subject line starting: “Summary of Conclusions for PC Meeting on a Sensitive Topic (REDACTED.)”
The meeting included top officials in the National Security Council, Clapper, then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice, then-Secretary of State John Kerry, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, among others, to discuss Russia. The declassified meeting record shows that Obama administration officials agreed to recommend sanctions against members of Russia’s intelligence agencies — if their cyber activities met the legal threshold under an executive order targeting foreign cyber interference. But that wasn’t all. Following the meeting, then-DNI James Clapper’s executive assistant instructed intelligence agencies to produce a new assessment “per the president’s request,” specifically aimed at detailing how Moscow allegedly tried to influence the 2016 election. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence would lead the effort, with help from the CIA, FBI, NSA, and DHS, effectively setting the wheels in motion for the Trump-Russia narrative.
The story confirms what many long suspected: Obama-era officials deliberately leaked false claims to the media about Russian interference in the 2016 election, pushing a narrative they knew wasn’t supported by actual intelligence. According to documents obtained by Fox News Digital, a Jan. 6, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) was politically weaponized, contradicting prior assessments and burying evidence that Russia lacked both the intent and ability to hack the election. Officials revealed that the ICA suppressed internal dissent — such as FBI and NSA skepticism about Russia’s role in the DNC leaks — and was based on debunked sources like the Steele Dossier. Despite this, the flawed report triggered a chain reaction: media smears, the Mueller investigation, two impeachments, and deep damage to U.S.-Russia relations. Intelligence officials now say this entire operation was designed to delegitimize President Trump and overturn the will of the voters.
DNI Tulsi Gabbard called the plot “a treasonous conspiracy” to subvert the Constitution and called for full accountability. She confirmed that all related documents have been handed over to the DOJ. Meanwhile, former CIA Director John Brennan and ex-FBI Director James Comey are under criminal investigation for their roles in pushing the phony narrative. As President Trump put it: “I think they’re crooked as hell… maybe they have to pay a price for that.” This wasn’t the work of a few rogue officials freelancing their partisan vendettas; it was a coordinated effort that implicates the highest levels of the Obama administration, including Barack Obama himself. The declassified documents lay out a damning paper trail: Obama was personally briefed on intelligence that debunked the Russia-collusion claims, yet his team deliberately buried those facts, rewrote assessments at his request, and fed a false narrative to the press that ultimately ignited a multi-year witch hunt against his successor.
This was no accident. It was a deliberate abuse of power, an attempt to sabotage the incoming president before he even took office, all under the guise of “protecting democracy.” From Obama to Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Rice, and Lynch, this wasn’t just dirty politics; it was a subversion of the peaceful transfer of power. And now, with criminal investigations underway and the full truth coming to light, we know that the real election interference operation wasn’t run from Moscow — it was orchestrated in Washington, D.C., at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
“This particular real estate bubble, which is unprecedented in magnitude, is bursting. This creates deflationary pressures and undermines the value of collateral supporting large portions of China’s shadow banking system.”
Few are as candid and historically accurate as hedge fund manager Kyle Bass when identifying structural breaks in the global economy. In a recent interview, Bass painted a grim but telling picture of China’s economic condition, warning: “We are witnessing the largest macroeconomic imbalances the world has ever seen, and they are all coming to a head in China.” While China has long been touted as the next great economic superpower, its recent trajectory reveals a far different story, one marked by policy missteps, systemic financial rot, and a rapidly eroding growth engine. Bass didn’t mince words either: “China’s economy is spiraling with no end in sight.” China’s GDP deflator, the broadest measure of prices across goods and services, continues to decline as economic activity erodes.
For investors around the globe, this isn’t just a regional concern; it’s a seismic macroeconomic event that will ripple through capital markets. The implications are significant for U.S. investors because when global economies falter, especially one as large and interconnected as China’s, capital doesn’t just vanish. It moves. That movement will significantly impact U.S. assets as flows transfer back into U.S. dollars and Treasury bonds. This global repositioning of capital isn’t merely a symptom of market volatility; it reflects a profound reevaluation of risk in the face of deteriorating confidence in China’s financial system. We must examine what’s breaking in China to understand why this matters so profoundly. Bass emphasized that the issue’s core lies in the real estate sector, which accounts for roughly 30% of China’s GDP.
This massive share of economic activity is under severe strain, with property developers defaulting, sales volumes collapsing, and home prices declining across major cities. However, this should be unsurprising as, after the financial crisis, we wrote many times about the mass overbuilding of “ghost cities” that were responsible for China’s growth at the time. However, the “bullwhip” effect of that massive overbuilding was inevitable. “They’re sitting on 60 to 70 million vacant homes. It’s a Ponzi scheme that is finally collapsing.” – Kyle Bass. This particular real estate bubble, which is unprecedented in magnitude, is bursting. This creates deflationary pressures and undermines the value of collateral supporting large portions of China’s shadow banking system.
Adding to the concern is the Chinese Communist Party’s refusal to implement reforms that would bring greater transparency, capital discipline, and market-based corrections. Rather than allow markets to clear, Beijing is opting for control through capital restrictions, state intervention, and increased surveillance of financial activity. “China is experiencing a slow-motion banking crisis, and capital is doing everything it can to escape.” – Kyle Bass. That capital flight is inevitable and, as noted, will significantly impact the U.S. economy and financial markets. This exodus of domestic and foreign capital will reshape the global macro landscape. We recently discussed that the “Death of the Dollar” narrative was vastly exaggerated. While that post goes into more detail, there are five primary reasons why the dollar will remain the reserve currency of the world:
• Lack of a viable alternative currency
• Strength of the U.S. economy
• Network effects and global financial inertia
• Limited scope of de-dollarization efforts
• Resilience amid policy changes.
Most importantly, the dollar dominates the composition of global currency transactions.
China’s economic collapse only exacerbates the world’s dependence on the U.S. dollar for trade and storing reserve assets to support that trade. In times of crisis, investors don’t seek yield; they seek safety. Despite the U.S. running its fiscal imbalances and maintaining high levels of debt, the U.S. dollar and Treasury bonds remain the world’s premier safe havens. There is no alternative with the same depth, liquidity, and perceived security.
From a Sputnik piece on the same topic: “..the delivery of F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine has been a “total bust,” as Ukrainian pilots have only managed to learn how to take off, not how to land.”
The political future of Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky appears increasingly uncertain, according to officials in Washington cited by legendary journalist Seymour Hersh. The prospect of the politician being replaced by former armed forces commander Valery Zaluzhny is reportedly growing amid waning domestic support and mounting frustration in Washington. Zelensky suspended national elections under martial law and opted not to step down after his presidential term officially ended in 2024. His former top military commander, who was dismissed earlier this year and later appointed ambassador to the UK, has reportedly long been considered a potential successor. “Zelensky is on a short list for exile, if [US] President Donald Trump decides to make the call,” the veteran reporter wrote on Friday.
One US official familiar with internal discussions suggested that if Zelensky refuses to step down — which they believe is the most likely scenario — he may ultimately be removed by force. Zaluzhny is currently seen as the most credible successor to Ukraine’s leader, according to “knowledgeable” officials in Washington cited by Hersh, who added that the “job could be his within a few months.” Zelensky’s popularity, which soared to 90% in the early months after the Ukraine conflict escalated in February 2022, has steadily declined due to battlefield setbacks and ongoing economic difficulties. The latest polls suggest that only 52% of Ukrainians still trust him, while around 60% would prefer he not seek another term.
Western media outlets have recently shifted their tone, with some portraying Zelensky as increasingly authoritarian. Others have reported that officials in Washington believe “it’s time for an election and new leadership.” Russian officials have also raised concerns about Zelensky’s legitimacy, arguing that any international agreements signed under his leadership could be legally challenged. While Moscow has expressed a willingness to negotiate with Zelensky, it remains skeptical of his authority to finalize any lasting deal.
My hot take:
Trump’s 50-Day “deadline” for Russia has nothing to do with altering Russian behavior.
It has everything to do with giving Russia time to establish itself more firmly.
Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has once again called for a personal meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying this is the only way to secure a lasting peace. Moscow considers this pointless until the countries’ delegations find some common ground. Putin offered in May to resume direct negotiations – from the point at which Ukraine unilaterally abandoned talks in 2022. However, Zelensky challenged him to come and meet in Istanbul personally. Ukraine eventually agreed to send a delegation amid reported pressure from Washington, and since then the sides have held two rounds of talks, resulting in prisoner exchanges but no breakthrough toward ending the conflict.
The talks stalled in June after Kiev dismissed Moscow’s peace proposals. It later declared the process “exhausted” and indicated it had only taken part to avoid appearing dismissive of US President Donald Trump’s diplomatic initiative. On Saturday, Zelensky stated that the “pace of negotiations must be increased,” offering to hold a new round of talks next week – and once again demanded a personal meeting with Putin. “A meeting at the level of leaders is needed to truly ensure a lasting peace,” he said, adding: “Ukraine is ready.” Zelensky’s presidential term expired last year, but he has cited martial law, which he imposed, as grounds for remaining in office. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova recently accused the Ukrainian actor-turned-politician of pushing for a personal meeting with Putin to reaffirm his political legitimacy, claiming he “is insanely afraid of being forgotten, of becoming unnecessary for the West.”
Despite Zelensky’s dubious legal status, Putin previously said he is open to a potential meeting – but questioned Zelensky’s authority to sign binding agreements. “I am ready to meet with anyone, including Zelensky. That’s not the issue,” the Russian president stated in June. “The question is different: Who will sign the documents?” According to Moscow, legal authority in Ukraine now resides with the parliament, not with Zelensky. On Tuesday, Ukrainian lawmakers once again extended martial law and general mobilization for another 90 days, with just a single dissenting vote.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has called for an in-person meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump, describing it as the only realistic path to ending the Ukraine conflict. In an interview with the Ultrahang YouTube channel published on Thursday, Orban called Trump “the man of peace” but voiced skepticism about the sincerity of other Western governments and officials in Kiev. “Everyone says they want peace, but there’s still war. That means someone is lying,” he said, accusing some parties of having a vested interest in prolonging the bloodshed. “They want the war to continue, no matter what they say.” A deal won’t come from Kiev. It must come from Washington and Moscow. Until then, there will be no peace.
“The conflict will not stop until the Russian and American presidents sit down at the negotiating table,” Orban added. He expressed hope that such a meeting could lay the foundation for a broad agreement addressing not only Ukraine, but also global trade and arms control. Earlier this week, Trump said he was “very, very unhappy” with Putin and threatened Moscow’s trade partners with “severe” secondary tariffs if no diplomatic progress is made within 50 days. Budapest has consistently criticized efforts to arm Kiev and opposes its EU and NATO ambitions, warning that it prolongs the conflict at growing cost to European economies and taxpayers.
Trump has indicated that Washington will no longer fund Kiev’s war effort, but has allowed other NATO members to continue purchasing US-made weapons for Ukraine. Since returning to office in January, Trump has held several phone calls with Putin and has alternated between assigning blame to Moscow and Kiev for the lack of progress. In May, Ukraine agreed to resume direct negotiations with Russia under pressure from Washington. However, talks stalled after two rounds, with Kiev declaring the process “exhausted” and indicating it had only participated to avoid appearing dismissive of Trump’s diplomatic initiative. Moscow has said it remains committed to achieving its core objectives in Ukraine but prefers a diplomatic solution. The Kremlin has expressed hope that, despite his public statements, Trump is also applying private pressure on Kiev.
US President Donald Trump could meet his Russian and Chinese counterparts, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, at an upcoming event marking the 80th anniversary of victory over imperial Japan in World War II, The Times has reported. China has announced plans to honor the date with a military parade in Beijing in September, and Moscow has confirmed that Putin will attend. The Soviet Union, China and the US cooperated in the fight against Japan during World War II. Both analysts and ordinary Chinese have called on Xi to “seize the opportunity,” invite Trump and host a three-way summit during the upcoming victory celebration, The Times wrote on Friday.
“Why not align Trump’s visit with the September 3 commemoration?” Renmin University of China Professor and popular Chinese opinion leader Jin Canrong told the Guancha news outlet last month. “If the leaders of China, the US, and Russia were to stand together during the military parade, it would be a great positive signal to the world,” he suggested. According to The Times, Beijing “tacitly encouraged speculation” on the subject by refusing to deny a report by Japan’s Kyodo News released last month, which claimed that the decision to invite Trump had already been made. Relations between Washington, Beijing, and Moscow have soured in recent years over the Ukraine conflict, accusations of Chinese cyber warfare, and what the US describes as “unfair” market practices.
Since the start of his second term in January, Trump has moved to thaw diplomatic ties with Russia and pushed for a settlement in the Ukraine conflict. However, on Monday, he expressed exasperation with the pace of the talks and threatened 100% secondary tariffs on Russian trading partners if the hostilities aren’t resolved within 50 days. Trump has also reignited a trade war with Beijing, which earlier this year rattled global financial markets. The tit-for-tat tariff standoff peaked with 145% US duties on Chinese imports and 125% retaliatory levies from Beijing. Tensions appear to have eased following a trade deal last month under which China relaxed restrictions on key rare earth mineral exports.
US President Donald Trump has ramped up his demands in trade talk with the EU and is pushing for a minimum tariff of between 15% and 20% in any deal with Brussels, the Financial Times reports, citing informed sources. The negotiations between Brussels and Washington have been underway since early April, when Trump announced a set of measures aimed at protecting American manufacturers he called the ‘Liberation Day.’ They included a blanket 10% tariff on all imports from the EU and most other US trading partners. The duties have been put on hold pending the talks, but the US president warned that they would grow to 30% if no deal is reached between Washington and Brussels by August 1. The tariffs would be applied on top of the existing sector-specific duties, such as 50% on steel, aluminum duties and 25% car imports levies introduced by the US earlier this year.
The Trump administration is hardening its stance in talks with the EU in order to test the bloc’s “pain threshold,” the FT said in an article on Friday. According to the paper’s sources, the president was also “unmoved” by an offer from Brussels to reduce the 25% car tariffs and wants them to stay as they are. EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic provided a “downbeat” assessment of his recent discussions with the Americans during the meeting of the bloc’s ambassadors on Friday, two people briefed on the matter said. An EU diplomat has told the paper that if Trump insists on 15% to 20% duties, the EU would be forced to retaliate. Brussels has prepared several packages of counter-tariffs against Washington, but delayed their implementation until August 1.
“We do not want a trade war, but we do not know if the US will leave us a choice,” the source said. A second EU diplomat stressed that “the mood has clearly changed” in Brussels in favor of retaliation, adding that “we are not going to settle at 15% percent.” Washington has so far largely avoided retaliation for its tariffs, while collecting a record high of $64 billion in customs duties in the second quarter of 2025, according to the US Treasury.
President Donald Trump has claimed that BRICS is “fading out fast,” while warning that any attempts by the group to challenge the US dollar will be met with a harsh economic backlash. Speaking at the White House on Friday, Trump denounced what he called BRICS’ attempts to weaken the dollar. “They wanted to try and take over the dollar, the dominance of the dollar… And I said, anybody that’s in the BRICS consortium of nations, we’re going to tariff you 10%.” Trump stressed that Washington will spare no effort to preserve the dollar’s hegemony. “The reserve currency is so important. You know, if we lost that, that would be like losing a World War.” Washington “can never let anyone play games,” Trump said, adding that he has decided to “hit them [BRICS] very, very hard.” “If they ever really form in a meaningful way, it will end very quickly,” he said.
Trump also claimed his threat to impose 10% tariffs on imports from the BRICS had completely derailed the group’s summit in Rio de Janeiro earlier this month. “They had a meeting the following day and almost nobody showed up,” he said. However, the BRICS summit featured broad participation at the highest level. While China’s President Xi Jinping was absent from the meeting, his country was represented by Chinese Premier Li Qiang. Russian President Vladimir Putin was also absent, but addressed the summit remotely. Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa and Indonesia’s President Prabowo Subianto, as well as leaders from Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the UAE attended in person.
In October, Russia’s Finance Minister Anton Siluanov stated that the share of national currencies in trade among BRICS countries has reached 65%, with the share of the dollar and euro plunging below 30%. Earlier this week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov explained that BRICS countries are exploring dollar alternatives “to shield themselves from US arbitrariness.” However, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov has said that BRICS has never been meant as a rival to the US, although warning that “the language of threats and manipulation… is not the way to speak to members of this group.”
What’s behind Trump’s angry ultimatum to Russia this week? The short answer: failure and frustration. Donald Trump promised American voters that he would end the Ukraine war in 24 hours upon his election in November 2024. Six months into his presidency, Trump has failed to deliver on his boastful promises. This week, Trump flipped his pacemaker image by pledging billions of dollars worth of new American weaponry to Ukraine. He also issued a warning to Russia to call a ceasefire within 50 days or else face severe secondary tariffs on its oil and gas exports. The tariffs, quoted at 100 percent, will be applied to nations purchasing Russian exports, primarily Brazil, China, and India. The latter move indicates that the U.S.-led proxy war in Ukraine against Russia is really part of a bigger geopolitical confrontation to maintain American global hegemony.
In any case, Moscow dismissed Trump’s ultimatum. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that Moscow would not comply with pressure and that Russia would not back down from its strategic goals in Ukraine to counter NATO’s historic aggression. It is clear that Trump and his administration have failed to understand Russia’s strategic position and the root causes of the conflict. Trump’s supposed diplomacy is seen to operate on a superficial basis more akin to showbiz, with no substance. He wants a peace deal with Russia to show off his vaunted skills as a business negotiator and to grab the limelight, headlines, and adulation.
Resolving a conflict like Ukraine requires deep historical understanding and genuine commitment to due diligence. Moscow has repeatedly stated the need to address the root causes of the conflict: the expansion of NATO on its borders, the CIA-sponsored coup in Kiev in 2014, and the nature of the NATO-weaponized Neo-Nazi regime over the past decade. Trump and his administration have failed to appreciate Russia’s viewpoint. Thus, expecting a peace deal based on nothing but rhetoric and vacuous claims about “ending the killing” is futile. It won’t happen.
This failure, based on unrealistic expectations, has led Trump to adopt an increasingly bitter attitude towards Russian President Vladimir Putin in recent weeks. Ironically, Trump has accused Putin of duplicity and procrastination when, in reality, it is Trump who has shown no serious commitment to resolving the conflict. Now, with chagrin and bruised ego, Trump has reacted with frustration over what are his own failings by issuing ultimatums to Russia. Trump’s 50-day deadline for a Russian response to his demands has a similarity to the 60-day deadline he threatened Iran with, after which he carried out a massive bombing attack on that country. Trump’s aggression towards Iran has turned out to be a fiasco and failure. Threatening Russia is even more useless.
This proclivity for threatening other nations has the hallmark of a Mafiosa megalomaniac. It is also causing Trump to lose support among his voter base, who believed he was going to end “endless wars.” It’s shambolic. Biden’s war is becoming Trump’s war because, at the end of the day, it is the U.S. imperial deep state that rules. Trump’s mercurial switch from professing peace in Ukraine to ramping up the promise of weapons shows that his previous aspirations were always hollow and contingent on other interests. It seems that the 47th American president did not want peace after all. What was driving his apparent desire to end the conflict in Ukraine – what he deprecated as “Biden’s war” – was simply to cut American financial costs.
2016
After the 2016 election, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Amy Klobuchar traveled to Ukraine together. After the trip they held a press conference and declared that Russia attacked the USA by hacking the 2016 election.
The Justice Department on Friday afternoon formally asked a federal judge to unseal grand jury testimony related to the prosecution of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, fulfilling President Donald Trump’s directive on Thursday. Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to file the request in a Truth Social post, where he criticized the news media for its focus on the administration’s handling of the Epstein case. Bondi vowed to do so. The Justice Department claimed in its filing that the release of the additional information in the case was “a matter of public interest.”
“The public’s interest in the Epstein matter has remained,” the filing reads. “Given this longstanding and legitimate interest, the government now moves to unseal grand jury transcripts associated with Epstein.” The department said it will file a similar motion in the case against former Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, CNN reported, though Trump did not direct the publication of testimony in her case. The Trump administration has faced heavy backlash for its handling of the case, particularly related to the late financier’s alleged “client list,” which the administration says does not exist.
Do you detect the signs of Rope-a-Dope in Mr. Trump’s recent blasts against the Epstein mess? It must be obvious that anything he says will be violently opposed by his Democratic Party enemies. So, now he’s got them slavering for release of the Epstein files, whatever they are, or rather, whatever’s left after former FBI Director Christopher Wray & Co. curated them, shall we say. (They had many years to get it done.)
I’m not the first to point out that the president’s most rabid enemies ignored the Epstein case during the entirety of “Joe Biden’s” four-year ectoplasmic visitation in the White House. (They were up to their eyeballs siccing Fani Willis, Letitia James, and Alvin Bragg on Trump.) “Squad” stalwart Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) said the other day that she was “too busy” to delve into Epstein. Everybody else from Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) to Jamie Raskin (D-MD) just barfed up word salad on MSNBC to excuse themselves for overlooking the matter. But since Mr. Trump affected to quash the whole psychodrama in the harshest tones, they’ve got all the time in the world to pore over Epstein docs. Well, maybe they’ll get what they asked for.
So, yesterday, the president ordered AG Bondi to release the grand jury testimony that has been under seal for years and years, and she has promised to do that today, Friday, July 18, subject to the court approval, meaning it could invite a months-long legal battle. Gawd knows what’s in there, but at least it was kept out of Christopher Wray’s clutches. So, it’s separate from the videos and other stuff alleged to be in the FBI possession. Many say, not altogether convincingly, that the names of “victims” and witnesses must be protected. There’s much confused public controversy as to whether girls allegedly trafficked by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were children or young adults (who would be middle-aged now), and that issue is apparently separate from whatever commercial “child porn” was in the FBI’s Epstein file cabinet that AG Bondi has referred to.
Anyway, Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure says: “Disclosure is permitted to government attorneys or personnel (including state or tribal officials) deemed necessary to assist in enforcing federal criminal law, such as in complex investigations involving organized crime or public corruption.” The current state of the Epstein scandal looks a little like a ruse by Mr. Trump to hang his enemies out to dry and sell them the clothes-line to do it with. In all their garish attempts to get Trump, the Democrats have only ended up Wile E. Coyote’d every single time. Why would this round be any different?
Meanwhile, Naomi Wolf by way of Eric Weinstein has come up with quite an original view of what Jeffrey Epstein was about in the strange role he played among the so-called elite. I will link to her recent substack entry below this blog so you can see for yourself. For Ms. Wolf, it was all about the Silicon Valley “network” of tech moguls, their vast power and influence, and an effort by this group, using Epstein as a broker, to steer science generally in the direction that benefited them and their companies. Epstein served as a middleman between politicians, the weapons industry, the big research universities (all those grants!), and linked intel services such as CIA, Mossad, and MI6.
This is what Eric Weinstein means when he describes Epstein as “a construct.” He was less a person than a function. Epstein cultivated the “list” of elite scientists, tech entrepreneurs, academics, and movie stars with lavish parties and trips to his various compounds in Manhattan, Florida, the US Virgin Islands, and his New Mexico ranch — all in the service of building this tech-and-science network that would become a gigantic mutual aid-and-allegiance society advancing the interests of themselves and their institutions. In the process, certain goodies in the form of young ladies groomed in the sexual arts were made available. Some members of this elite network indulged and some did not, the theory goes.
All of you Vietnam vets and draft resisters will recognize where this column’s headline is coming from. Oh yes, this ain’t the late 1960s anymore, so it’s time to revamp it – no AI needed – and expand it: from now on, be assured everyone in the wild, wild West will be forced to fight and/or endure three overlapping NATO wars.
War number 1
It’s Europe v. Russia, of course. Not proxy anymore: hot ‘n nasty, direct. Considering the advanced rottenness of the whole Ukrainian front, new fronts are already proliferating: the South Caucasus; clandestine ops in the Baltic Sea; MI6 recruiting frenzy across Central Asia; fresh terrorism ahead in the Black Sea, especially Crimea. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson succinctly nailed it: we are already on WWIII. Actually we are already deep in the extended preamble to WWIII. Circus Ringmaster in D.C. and the billionaires/donor class behind him are of course clueless. Re-reading Keynes – The Economic Consequences of the Peace – is an absolute must like never before. History does repeat itself. Yet this ain’t 1914 or 1935; now nuclear weapons may come into play.
The Kremlin and Russia’s Security Council are very much aware of the high stakes. In his recent interview to Kommersant, Sergei Shoigu even rolled out some key NATO numbers to stress the threat Russia faces: over 50,000 tanks and armored vehicles; over 7,000 combat aircraft; over 750 warships; 350 military and civilian satellites; an immense offense (italics mine) budget. Well, what sly Shoigu did not say is that when push comes to shove, it only takes Mr. Khinzal, Mr. Sarmat, Mr. Zircon and Mr. Oreshnik to deliver a few strategic business cards to paralyze the whole NATO machinery in a matter of minutes.
War number 2
It’s the Empire of Chaos v. Iran in West Asia, with Eretz Israel as much as proxy as a lead actor. The Circus Ringmaster – whose only “strategy” is to concoct shady deals to enrich himself and shysters in his close circle – dreams of an Israeli-centric West Asia, a toxic crossover of the Abraham Accords 2.0 with the IMEC corridor, creating, as Alastair Crooke defined it, “a business-led West Asia, centered on Tel Aviv (with Trump as its de facto ‘President’), and via this business connectivity corridor, be able “to strike further beyond – with the Gulf States penetrating into BRICS’ south Asian heartland to disrupt BRICS connectivity and corridors.”
Using the Arabs against BRICS won’t cut it even with MbZ in the UAE and MbS in Saudi Arabia, who have both realized the business scam will only work if there is real peace in Gaza; some sort of humanitarian solution for the Palestinians; and rebuilding the Gaza strip. The death cult in Tel Aviv will never allow any of the above: their plan is to kill them all, steall all their land, and eradicate their culture. And as the genocide goes on – totally legitimized by the NATO sphere – the death cult keeps bombing anything in sight, perpetrating the balkanization of Syria, and expanding Eretz Israel.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said any troops from third countries deployed to Ukraine will become targets. European nations have discussed plans to send their soldiers to Ukraine if a ceasefire with Russia is reached. Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova explained that any country that joins a coalition of the willing and deploys troops to Ukraine will become targets. “We have repeatedly stated that a deployment of armed forces of other countries in Ukraine under any pretense would be absolutely unacceptable,” she said. “We regard this as preparations for foreign military intervention. We will consider these so-called ‘multinational forces’ as legitimate military targets,” she added.
Several European countries have said they would be willing to join a “coalition of the willing” to deploy soldiers to Ukraine after a ceasefire with Russia is reached. Earlier this month, UK Defense Minister John Healey said, “The prime minister has always been clear that he’s ready to put troops into Ukraine to help reinforce a ceasefire.” “The coalition of the willing” is an infamous phrase used by the George W. Bush administration to try to sell the Iraq War. Moscow says it is unwilling to enter into a ceasefire with Ukraine and is seeking a permanent end to the conflict that addresses the Kremlin’s security concerns.
Multiple leaks throughout the war have exposed that a small number of American and NATO troops are inside Ukraine. However, Europeans are now discussing a large-scale deployment meant as a deterrent to a future Russian invasion. The escalating support for Kiev has led some in the Kremlin to argue for Moscow to take a more aggressive position against Ukraine’s Western backers. Dmitry Medvedev, former Russian President and current deputy head of the National Security Council, suggested launching preemptive attacks. “What is happening today is a proxy war, but in essence it is a full-fledged war,” Medvedev, who is now a senior Russian national security official, told the Tass news agency.
“We need to act accordingly. Respond in full. And if necessary, launch preventative strikes.” However, Medvedev also acknowledged that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ruled out attacking more European countries. “Let me remind you that our president stated unequivocally: Russia does not intend to go to war with NATO or ‘attack Europe’. Such claims by Western politicians are utter nonsense.” He continued, “I would also like to add that this kind of drivel is deliberately injected into the information space to destabilize an already difficult situation. It is yet another front in the West’s open war against us.”
They are clinically insane. We need to dismantle NATO before these maniacs get us all killed. pic.twitter.com/BEe1Gr6pbG
In less than six months, the entire world has been turned upside down. There is no longer such a thing as conventional wisdom or the status quo. The unthinkable has become the banal. Take illegal immigration—remember the 10,000 daily illegal entries under former President Joe Biden? Recall the only solution was supposedly “comprehensive immigration reform”—a euphemism for mass amnesties. Now, there is no such thing as daily new illegal immigration. It simply disappeared with commonsense enforcement of existing immigration laws—and a new president. How about the 40,000-50,000 shortfall in military recruitment? Remember all the causes that the generals cited for their inability to enlist soldiers: generational gangs, obesity, drugs, and stiff competition with private industry? And now?
In just six months, recruitment targets are already met; the issue is mostly moot. Why? The new Pentagon flipped the old, canceling its racist DEI programs and assuring the rural, middle-class Americans—especially white males—that they were not systemically racist after all. Instead, they were reinvited to enlist as the critical combat cohort who died at twice their demographic share in Iraq and Afghanistan. How about the “end of the NATO crisis,” supposedly brought on by a bullying U.S.? Now the vast majority of NATO members have met their pledges to spend 2% of gross domestic product on defense, which will soon increase to 5%. Iconic neutrals like Sweden and Finland have become front-line NATO nations, arming to the teeth. The smiling NATO secretary-general even called Trump the “daddy” of the alliance.
What about indomitable, all-powerful, theocratic Iran, the scourge of the Middle East for nearly 50 years? Although it had never won a war in the last half-century, its terrorist surrogates—Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis—were supposedly too dangerous to provoke. Now? Most of their expeditionary terrorists are neutered, and their leaders are in hiding or dead. Iran has no air force, no real navy, no air defenses, and no active nuclear weapons program. Its safety apparently depends only on the mood of the U.S. or Israel on any given day, not to fly into its airspace and take out its missiles, nuclear sites, generals, or theocrats at will. What happened to the supposedly inevitable recession, hyperinflation, stock market collapse, unemployment spikes, and global trade war that last spring economists assured us would hit by summer?
Job growth is strong, and April’s inflation rate is the lowest in four years. GDP is still steady. The stock market hit a record high. Trade partners are renegotiating their surpluses with the U.S. It turns out that staying in the U.S. consumer market is the top priority of our trading partners. It seems their preexisting and mostly undisclosed profits were large enough to afford reasonable U.S. symmetrical tariffs. For now, news of tax cuts, deregulation, “drill, baby, drill” energy policies displacing Green New Deal strangulation, and $8-$10 trillion in potential foreign investment has encouraged—rather than deterred—business. Then there were our marquee elite universities, whose prestige, riches, and powerful alumni made them answerable to no one. And now, after the executive and congressional crackdown on their decades of hubris?
Supposedly brilliant university presidents have resigned in shame. The public has caught on to their grant surcharge gouging. Campuses have backed off their arrogant defiance of the Supreme Court’s civil rights rulings. They are panicked about the public exposure of their systemic antisemitism. They are scrambling to explain away their institutionalized ideological bias and their tawdry profit-making schemes and mass recruitment of wealthy foreign students from illiberal regimes. So, the mighty Ivy League powerhouses are now humbling themselves to cut a deal to save their financial hides and hopefully return to their proper mission of disinterested education. What happened to the trans juggernaut of sex as a social construct and its bookend gospel that biological men could dominate women’s sports?
People woke up. They were no longer afraid to state that sex is binary and biologically determined. And biological men who dominate women’s sports are bullies, not heroes. Where are the millionaire-scamming architects of Black Lives Matter now? Where is the “DEI now, tomorrow, and forever” conventional wisdom? Where is professor Ibram X. Kendi and his $30,000 Zoom lessons on how to fight racism by being racist? They have all been exposed as the race hustlers they always were. Their creed that it is OK for supposed victims to be racist victimizers themselves was exposed as an absurd con. So, what flipped everything?
We were living in an “emperor has no clothes” make-believe world for the last few years. The people knew establishment narratives were absurd, and our supposed experts were even more ridiculous. But few—until now—had the guts to scream “the emperor is naked” to dispel the fantasies. When they finally did, reality returned.
Bitcoin may feel futuristic, but when you peel away its digital veneer, it is just the latest chapter in a 2,600-year story of value, trust, and human ingenuity. Having reached record highs, Bitcoin has been making headlines as nations declare strategic stockpiles and corporate America embraces the new asset class. Why now? The answer lies in a pattern as old as civilization itself: When governments corrupt a currency, people innovate their way to something better. As the saying goes, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” When the first coin clanked into existence in 600 B.C., it was not merely a gold and silver alloy stamped with the face of the Lydian king.
It was a financial revolution. For the first time, people could move past the inefficiencies of barter and instead use a medium of exchange to trade. But this value was not in the sparkle; it was the individuals’ collective understanding that these coins have worth. The integrity of that system has waxed and waned over the ensuing millennia, typically driven by governmental spending policies. The silver-backed Roman denarii enabled the empire to flourish, but as subsequent emperors diluted its value – reducing their silver content to fund wars and build grand palaces – citizens lost faith in their currency. When Emperor Nero reduced silver content from 98% to 83% in A.D. 64, Romans began hoarding old coins and rejecting new ones. By A.D. 260, the denarius contained just 5% silver. Inflation spiraled and commerce crumbled, contributing to the eventual fall of the empire.
The United States has battled currency crises since our nation’s birth, but unlike Rome, America has consistently innovated solutions along the way. After we declared independence from Britain, the Continental Congress printed the nation’s first paper money. Called “Continentals,” it was backed by neither gold nor silver – simply by belief in its value. While gold and silver are at least relatively scarce metals that constrain supply, paper can be printed. And that is precisely what the first U.S. government did. Desperate to pay troops and buy supplies necessary to wage the Revolutionary War, Congress turned to making more Continentals. Bills flooded the market, driving down value as Americans questioned whether the new nation could honor its promises.
In 1777, one patriot complained to his father as inflation spiked by an estimated 200%, writing, “America has much more to fear from the effects of large quantities of paper money than from the operations of British Generals.” Prices climbed so rapidly that George Washington himself came to refuse Continentals as payment. In fact, it became common to describe something of little value as “not worth a Continental.” The currency became such a laughingstock that sailors paid in the bills would sew them onto their clothes and parade through town to mock it. But rather than crumble like the Roman Empire, the U.S. innovated: This currency crisis was a driving force that led our Founding Fathers to scrap the American government under the Articles of Confederation and draft our current Constitution.
This change represented more than political reform – it was monetary advancement, shifting from discretionary to rule-based money. The new U.S. government adopted a bimetallic standard in 1792, which tied the value of dollars to both gold and silver. The country eventually simplified its approach by shifting to a de facto gold standard in 1834, which lasted until 1971 when President Nixon abandoned it in favor of fiat currency. Like the Continentals before it, the dollar has since been backed by belief in its value: full faith and credit of the U.S. government. And then came the 2008 financial crisis. Lehman Brothers fell, banks wobbled, and the public? They started asking: “What is money?”
It was then, from the digital shadows, that an anonymous figure – Satoshi Nakamoto – dropped a whitepaper like a patriot dropping a leaflet on the eve of the Revolutionary War: Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. No emperors. No banks. Just math, cryptography, and an unbreakable record called the blockchain. A new kind of trust was born – not in a ruler, but in code. What was initially viewed as an interesting hypothetical idea was quickly put to real-world use. Users beget more users. Trust grows. Entrepreneurs dream. It’s a full-blown historical saga unfolding in real time.
Bitcoin has risen above the other cryptocurrencies it inspired, in large part due to its scarcity: no longer could an Emperor add bits of cheap copper to silver coins or Congress print more paper because it is hardcoded that only 21 million Bitcoin will ever exist. Further, all Bitcoin transactions are verified by a decentralized network of approximately 20,000 individuals’ computers across the world, all checking one another beyond politicians’ control. In an age of runaway government spending, investors have turned to those scarce Bitcoin that no government can dilute. A decentralized system that guards the people from government domination – how American is that!
It is no coincidence that Bitcoin has skyrocketed to a $2 trillion valuation just as the U.S. national debt has reached record highs. Researchers debate how long fiat currencies last on average throughout history, with some placing time of death at between 27 and 35 years. Since the U.S. has been off the gold standard for over 50 years, history suggests the dollar is poised for decline. People are simply asking the age-old question: What is money, really? As trust is shaken in paper money due to inflation and ballooning federal spending, many are turning to innovation. Even nations themselves have begun to set up strategic reserves. In fact, the United States is the largest known state holder of Bitcoin – once again positioning America at the forefront of monetary evolution.
As John Adams advised in 1787, “All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from the defects of the Constitution, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.” It is incumbent upon Americans to arm themselves with knowledge and engage in the age-old American tradition of challenging broken systems with better ideas in the pursuit of liberty.
.@POTUS: "I also remain fully committed to my pledge never to allow the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency in America. It won't happen." pic.twitter.com/kFMVlf4CSG
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 18, 2025
lipitor
They were preparing to put her in aged care. Memory loss. Confusion. Leaving the iron on. Her husband thought it was Alzheimer’s… until they found out the real cause.
She’d been on cholesterol-lowering meds for 10 years. Lipitor. And after just 3 days off? Her memory started… pic.twitter.com/eLXjEoMCi3
🚨 MAJOR BREAKING: New documents from DNI Tulsi Gabbard reveal that the Obama administration "MANUFACTURED and POLITICIZED intelligence" to create the Trump-Russia narrative in the 2016 election
Gabbard has JUST declassified the files, and there is "overwhelming evidence"… pic.twitter.com/MbEZAFVHtk
Newly declassified records from @DNIGabbard are additional, compelling evidence that the 2016 Russia Collusion narrative was not rooted in credible intelligence reporting, but manufactured to fit a preferred political narrative.
Darryl Cooper (@martyrmade) tells @TuckerCarlson about Jeffrey Epstein's early career teaching at prestigious Dalton HS working for Donald Barr, the father of Bill Barr, the AG who declared his death a suicide before the investigation finished. pic.twitter.com/sy7T0GYWRi
Former President Barack Obama’s administration deliberately manipulated intelligence to frame Russia for interfering in the 2016 presidential election, according to newly declassified documents released on Friday by America’s Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Gabbard unveiled more than 100 pages of emails, memos, and internal communications, which she described as “overwhelming evidence” of a coordinated effort by senior Obama-era officials to politicize intelligence and launch the multi-year Trump–Russia collusion investigation. She dubbed it “a treasonous conspiracy to subvert the will of the American people.” The scandal severely damaged relations between Moscow and Washington, leading to sanctions, asset seizures, and a breakdown in normal diplomacy.
”This intelligence was weaponized,” Gabbard said. “It was used as a justification for endless smears, for sanctions from Congress, and for covert investigations.” She added: “When key internal assessments found that Russia ‘did not impact recent U.S. election results,’ those findings were suppressed.” “For months before the 2016 election, the Intelligence Community maintained that Russia lacked both the intent and capability to hack U.S. elections,” Gabbard noted. “But once President Trump won, everything changed.” One document — a draft President’s Daily Brief dated December 8, 2016 — stated Russia “did not impact recent U.S. election results” through cyberattacks. The report, prepared by the CIA, NSA, FBI, DHS, and other agencies, found no evidence of voting interference.
Yet Fox News reported on Friday that the document was pulled — “based on new guidance,” according to internal emails. Hours later, a high-level Situation Room meeting took place, attended by officials including DNI James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
According to declassified notes, attendees agreed to produce a new intelligence assessment at President Obama’s request. That report, released on January 6, 2017, claimed Russia had intervened in the election to help Donald Trump — directly contradicting earlier assessments. Gabbard claims the revised assessment leaned on the discredited Steele Dossier — compiled by a former British spy — while sidelining dissenting views within the intelligence apparatus. “This was not intelligence gathering,” Gabbard stated. “It was narrative building.”
Their goal was to usurp President Trump and subvert the will of the American people.
No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The integrity of our democratic republic depends on it.
Confirmed as DNI earlier this year — after a contentious process — Gabbard says she has forwarded the documents to the Department of Justice. She has urged investigations into former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey, who are reportedly facing criminal inquiries. “No matter how powerful, every person involved must be brought to justice,” she stressed. “Our nation’s integrity depends on accountability.” “The integrity of our democratic republic depends on full accountability,” Gabbard concluded. “Nothing less will restore the public’s trust — and ensure nothing like this ever happens again.”
The FBI allegedly urged the agents to track US President Donald Trump references in the Epstein case, US Senator Dick Durbin said in a letter addressed to Attorney General Pam Bondi. Durbin claimed the FBI was pressured to assign around 1,000 staff to work 24-hour shifts in March to review 100,000 Epstein-related records for rapid release, with untrained personnel from the New York office reportedly assisting in the process. “My office was told that these personnel were instructed to “flag” any records in which President Trump was mentioned,” Durbin said. Durbin went on to say that despite weeks of intensive review, it took the US Department of Justice (DOJ) over three more months to conclude there was no incriminating “client list.”
He added that the July 7 memo omitted any mention of a whistleblower or promised documents, and suggested public trust was further eroded by the release of allegedly altered surveillance footage from outside Epstein’s cell. Durbin questioned the accuracy of previous public statements regarding Epstein-related records and said the lack of transparency may undermine trust in the DOJ’s July 7 conclusion that no incriminating “client list” exists. In his letter, Senator Durbin requested answers by August 1, including whether all Epstein files have been personally reviewed, why a “client list” was publicly claimed in February but not released, and details about a whistleblower’s disclosure of additional records. He also asked for the names of ethics officials consulted, reasons for assigning 1,000 FBI staff to 24-hour shifts, and why mentions of Trump were flagged and how those records were handled.
The Wall Street Journal embarrassed itself Thursday by hyping a so-called Trump-Epstein “bombshell” that amounted to nothing more than a disputed birthday card from 2003 that they won’t show, and that Trump denies writing and is now suing over. The rest of the story was recycled material long in the public domain. Desperate to revive the left’s failed narrative tying Trump to Epstein, the Journal grasped at straws while ignoring Epstein’s far more substantial connections to powerful Democrats like Bill Clinton, who flew on Epstein’s jet multiple times and visited his island — facts the media still downplays to this day. Joe Palazzolo, one of the Wall Street Journal reporters who broke the “blockbuster” story, previously worked for Main Justice, which is his only prior reporting experience listed in his bio.
Joe joined the Journal in 2010 from trade publication Main Justice, where he covered the U.S. Justice Department. Before moving to the investigations team in 2019, he reported on national legal affairs for the Journal for seven years, focusing on the nation’s prisons, courts, gun laws and law enforcement. Why does this matter? Well, Main Justice is a publication founded by Mary Jacoby. That name may not be familiar to you, but she is the wife of Glenn Simpson — the guy who founded Fusion GPS. That’s the outfit Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid to concoct the infamous Steele Dossier that fueled the Russian collusion hoax. Guess where Glenn and Mary cut their teeth before exporting their political dirty tricks to the broader media? That’s right —The Wall Street Journal.
The incestuous relationships aren’t even hidden; they practically serve them up on a silver platter and still expect us to act surprised when another so-called “bombshell” arrives containing every DNC talking point, T’s crossed and I’s dotted. President Trump isn’t playing along this time. He’s suing the Wall Street Journal, calling the Epstein birthday letter story complete fiction, and arguing that basic journalistic integrity—like letting him respond to an accusation—was discarded in the left’s rush to get another “scandal” published. Considering the history here, it’s not just plausible, it’s likely. How many times have we watched these operatives masquerade as journalists, deliver a conveniently-timed anti-Trump narrative, and then retreat behind the thin veil of press freedom when challenged?
Jacoby’s not just media-connected; her father is a longtime executive at Stephens Investments, whose attorney back in the day was none other than Hillary Clinton at the Rose Law Firm. It’s all part of the same Clinton-DNC-Fusion GPS web that keeps resurfacing every time there’s a new “scandal” targeting Trump. Once again, a Trump “bombshell” traces back to the same partisan ecosystem that gave us the Steele Dossier. The deeper you look, the clearer it becomes: This isn’t journalism; it’s narrative warfare. And after this stunt from the Journal, it’s no wonder Americans are tuning the media out in record numbers.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. just announced the defeat of authoritarian World Health Organization amendments that tended toward an anti-freedom, unhealthful, unscientific dystopia. Kennedy joined with Secretary of State Marco Rubio to formally reject the amendments. Critics have long warned these modifications would essentially have given the WHO total control to dictate the United States’ national response to anything it arbitrarily labeled a pandemic.
The proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations open the door to the kind of narrative management, propaganda, and censorship that we saw during the COVID pandemic. The United States can cooperate with other nations without jeopardizing our civil liberties,… pic.twitter.com/k9IWRavu9D
“The proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations open the door to the kind of narrative management, propaganda, and censorship that we saw during the COVID pandemic,” Kennedy said in a Friday press release. “The United States can cooperate with other nations without jeopardizing our civil liberties, without undermining our Constitution, and without ceding away America’s treasured sovereignty.” This follows Trump’s withdrawal from the WHO, as the press release noted: “The amended IHR would give the WHO the ability to order global lockdowns, travel restrictions, or any other measures it sees fit to respond to nebulous “potential public health risks.” These regulations are set to become binding if not rejected by July 19, 2025, regardless of the United States’ withdrawal from the WHO.”
Rubio also issued a statement. “Terminology throughout the amendments to the 2024 International Health Regulations is vague and broad, risking WHO-coordinated international responses that focus on political issues like solidarity, rather than rapid and effective actions,” he said. “Our Agencies have been and will continue to be clear: we will put Americans first in all our actions and we will not tolerate international policies that infringe on Americans’ speech, privacy, or personal liberties.” Dr. Robert Malone, mRNA pioneer and critic of the WHO’s disastrous COVID-19 policies, celebrated: “Big win indeed. The worm turns, and elections have consequences.” They certainly do.
The IHR amendments would have allowed the WHO to dictate lockdowns and other policies to the United States if it determined that there were “potential public health risks.” And the WHO got to define exactly what constituted a requisite health risk. That could be a cold virus, bird flu, even potentially obesity — there was a lot of latitude for the WHO, which proved itself untrustworthy during COVID. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) also praised the news. “WHO is an unaccountable international organization that hands individuals’ healthcare freedoms to corrupt bureaucrats,” he stated. “I’m thankful for Secretary Kennedy’s firm stance against WHO’s Pandemic Agreement that will protect Americans’ health freedom and privacy. Let’s Make America Great and Healthy Again.”
My God…. Do you realize what RFK Jr just did by announcing we are rejecting these measures by the WHO?
Do you realize what was planned? Do you realize that those who refused the WHO mandates would be put in FEMA camps?
The White House has released a memo from President Donald Trump’s physician explaining recent visible changes in his limbs, which some observers had taken as indicators of a serious health condition. In a memo issued Thursday, Dr. Sean P. Barbabella said Trump has been diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency, a condition he described as “benign” and common among people over the age of 70. Trump, 79, was recently seen with swelling in his legs, which Dr. Barbabella attributed to the condition. Chronic venous insufficiency is typically age-related and involves malfunctioning of one-way valves in the veins, which are responsible for returning blood to the heart.
The legs are often affected because the veins there must work harder against gravity. People who spend extended periods standing are more susceptible to the disorder. According to the statement, no signs of more serious vascular conditions – such as deep vein thrombosis – were found. Barbabella also explained that recurring bruising on the back of Trump’s right hand was the result of “soft tissue irritation from frequent handshaking” and preventive aspirin use. While swelling in Trump’s ankles gained attention last week, the bruises on his hand have been visible since at least October, fueling speculation that he was undergoing intravenous treatment.
Trump and his staff have repeatedly said the marks are due to vigorous handshaking. Many senior US officials are of advanced age. Critics argue that the country’s political system favors seniority and has effectively turned into a gerontocracy. President Joe Biden’s age became a major campaign issue during last year’s presidential election. His aides were accused of hiding signs of cognitive decline to keep him in the race. Biden dropped out of the campaign less than four months before Election Day after a disastrous debate performance against Trump.
“With inflation low, retail sales high, and with a previously reported drop in U.S. imports, the second quarter GDP is likely to be much stronger than anyone previously predicted..”
White House Trade and Economic Advisor Peter Navarro takes a well deserved victory lap on the latest U.S. consumer sales news. The Census Bureau report yesterday highlighted that consumer sales remain strong at +0.6%, significantly higher than all economists forecast. Retail sales growth is important because approximately two-thirds of the U.S. GDP growth is driven by consumer sales. With inflation low, retail sales high, and with a previously reported drop in U.S. imports, the second quarter GDP is likely to be much stronger than anyone previously predicted. Thus, Peter Navarro is leaning forward against the naysayers. This is essentially a repeat of the 2017/2018 economic outcome from President Trump’s first term in office.
The tariffs, which are applied to the ‘cost’ side of the dynamic, are mostly being absorbed by major producing nations who are reliant upon export to the U.S. market. Simultaneously, the tariffs are generating income – essentially exfiltrating foreign wealth and returning those funds to the USA; a complete reversal of the rust-belt dynamic. What Peter Navarro outlines is the core of MAGAnomics. This is also the baseline for our CTH assembly in support of economic nationalism, which is why we ended up in conflict with the Chamber of Commerce Republicans. Tariffs are a tool to leverage reciprocal trade, and as long as nations like China continue taking measures to subsidize their exports, the tariffs simultaneously take wealth (those subsidies) from Beijing and return it to the USA.
This reality has always been the model we predicted would be successful for Americans, and I will remind everyone that ONLY DONALD TRUMP could deliver this MAGAnomic program. Everything else, Epstein, Musk, etc. is chaff and countermeasures deployed by both Democrats and Republicans in an effort to take back control of the money flow. Remember, Democrats want power – Republicans want money. Democrats use money to get power, while Republicans use power to get money. This is how the two-wings of the DC UniParty vulture maintain status. You can see that if you take away the money, democrats lose power.
Simultaneously if you take away control of the money, the republicans go bananas. This dual reality forms the baseline of the elite club opposition against President Trump. At the core of the opposition you find money, control of the USA treasury as a weapon. When you understand that aspect, you understand the motives of Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. FED Chair Powell’s refusal to lower interest rates is an attempt to assist both wings of DC by trying -and failing- to influence the money flows. Democrats support Powell’s approach because they want power. Republicans are willfully blind to Powell’s approach because they want to get back in control of the money. Pro-America economic policy, MAGAnomics, is like kryptonite to Washington DC.
NAVARRO: If they can’t imprison you, they bankrupt you. My legal bills topped a million. Yours were probably over two. Rudy went bankrupt. This is lawfare run by people who want open borders, offshored jobs, and a world built on our backs. pic.twitter.com/Zf8fprXr6V
US President Donald Trump is reportedly set to sign an executive order that could allow American 401(k) retirement plans to invest in alternative assets outside of stocks and bonds, such as cryptocurrencies. The executive order could be signed sometime this week, the Financial Times reported on Thursday, citing three people who have been briefed on the plans. The new 401(k) investment options could run across a broad spectrum of assets, including digital assets, metals and funds focused on infrastructure deals, corporate takeovers and private loans. The executive order would instruct Washington regulatory agencies to investigate the best path forward for 401(k) plans to start investing in crypto, and investigate any remaining obstacles to making it a reality, according to the Financial Times.
However, in a statement to Cointelegraph, White House spokesman Kush Desai said nothing should be deemed as official unless it comes from Trump himself. “President Trump is committed to restoring prosperity for everyday Americans and safeguarding their economic future,” he said. “No decisions should be deemed official, however, unless they come from President Trump himself.” In May, the US Labor Department rescinded guidance issued during the Biden administration that limited the inclusion of cryptocurrency in 401(k) retirement plans. Meanwhile, in April, Cointelegraph reported that financial services company Fidelity, which has $5.9 trillion in assets under management, introduced a new retirement account allowing Americans to invest in crypto.
A 401(k) is a retirement savings plan offered by many US employers that allows employees to save and invest a portion of their paycheck in the funds before taxes are taken out. Typically, investments focus on mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, stocks and bonds, depending on the plan. The 401(k) market held $8.9 trillion in assets as of Sept. 30, 2024, in more than 715,000 plans. At a state level, in March, North Carolina lawmakers already introduced bills in the House and Senate that could see the state’s treasurer allocate up to 5% of various state retirement funds into crypto like Bitcoin. In November last year, the United Kingdom-based pension specialist Cartwright reported that an “unnamed scheme” had made a 3% allocation of Bitcoin into its pension fund. Meanwhile, Japan’s Government Pension Investment Fund was also considering Bitcoin as a potential diversification tool in March last year.
Russia will continue to rout Ukrainian forces on the battlefield despite the EU’s decision to impose its 18th package of sanctions against the country, former President Dmitry Medvedev said on Friday. The EU member states had approved the sweeping economic restrictions earlier in the day, mostly targeting Russia’s energy and financial sectors, in another attempt to pressure the country over the Ukraine conflict. Moscow has repeatedly condemned the sanctions as “illegal.” The measures will not derail Moscow with regards to the conflict any more than the previous 17 packages did, according to Medvedev, who now serves as deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council.
“Our economy will, of course, survive, and the rout of the Banderite regime will continue. Strikes against objects in the so-called Ukraine, including Kiev, will be carried out with increasing force,” he wrote on Telegram. Moscow should politically steer away from the EU and distance itself from the bloc, he added. Brussels’ new sanctions bar all transactions with 22 additional banks, as well as with the Russian Direct Investment Fund. The package also imposes a ban on utilizing the Nord Stream gas pipelines, which were mostly disabled by sabotage in 2022 and have remained unused since.
The ban also bars the provision of goods and services for the pipeline, “thus preventing the completion, maintenance, operation and any future use” of the gas infrastructure, the European Council said in a statement on Friday. Additionally, the new restrictions add a further 105 ships to a blacklist of what Brussels calls the “shadow fleet” engaged in transporting Russian crude and bypassing the bloc’s “price cap” on Moscow’s oil exports. The sanctions lower the price ceiling and add a mechanism for adjusting to future changes in market conditions. Russia has “built up a certain immunity” to sanctions and “adapted to life” under them, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists on Friday, commenting on the EU decision.
The EU has managed to approve its 18th sanctions package against Russia over the Ukraine conflict, targeting Moscow’s energy and banking sectors, the bloc’s foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has said. The Kremlin has decried the unilateral restrictions by Brussels as “illegal.” A previous attempt to greenlight the package, which requires the approval of all 27 member states, failed earlier this week due to opposition from Slovakia. However, Bratislava said on Thursday that it would be “counterproductive” to block the sanctions further, after it received guarantees from the European Commission regarding the availability of gas and oil. Following the meeting of EU ambassadors in Brussels on Friday, Kallas wrote in a post on X that the bloc “just approved one of its strongest sanctions packages against Russia to date.”
According to Kallas, the bloc will maintain economic pressure on Moscow until the Ukraine conflict is settled. Russia has on numerous occasions expressed its readiness to explore a diplomatic solution with Kiev, but insists that it should be legally binding and address the root causes of the crisis. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noted later on Friday that Moscow “repeatedly said that we consider such unilateral restrictions to be illegal. We oppose them.” Russia has already obtained “a certain immunity” and adapted to functioning under the sanctions, he stressed. Peskov also pointed out that the economic curbs are a “double-edged sword,” which creates “a negative effect” not only for Moscow, but also for the state which impose them.
The new sanctions ban transactions with 22 Russian banks and the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), and forbids the use of the Nord Stream gas pipelines, which were crippled by underwater blasts in 2022 and remain inoperable, diplomatic sources have told Euronews. The measures also upgrade the EU price cap on Russian crude oil, fixed at $60 per barrel, replacing it with a dynamic mechanism that remains 15% lower than the average market price, according to the sources. In addition, the curbs add another 105 vessels to a blacklist of what Brussels calls the “shadow fleet” involved in transporting Russian oil, bypassing the bloc’s restrictions, they said. This puts the overall number of tanker ships denied access to EU ports and service at over 400.
Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, Russia has redirected its energy sales to Asia, with China and India being the main buyers. Some member countries, including Hungary and Slovakia, have been critical of the EU sanctions against Russia, saying that they harm the bloc’s economy, while being unable to stop the fighting between Moscow and Kiev.
EU sanctions on Russia are far more damaging to the bloc’s member states than they are to Moscow, presidential investment envoy Kirill Dmitriev said on Telegram on Friday. Brussels announced the adoption of its 18th package of sanctions against Russia earlier in the day, targeting the country’s hydrocarbon exports and banking sector. One of the financial institutions sanctioned was the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), of which Dmitriev is the CEO. According to the presidential envoy, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen pushed for sanctions on the fund because the RDIF “facilitates the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict, promotes dialogue between Russia and the United States, and invests in the growth of the Russian economy.”
The EU elite is afraid of peace and continues to remain captive to hostile narratives, destroying the economy of the entire EU with its own hands.The economic restrictions are destructive to bloc member states, depriving them of stable energy supplies and access to the Russian market, Dmitriev argued. “Last year, despite all the sanctions pressure, Russia’s GDP grew by 4.3%, versus a 0.7% growth rate in the Eurozone,” he said. The RDIF calls for “unwinding the sanctions spiral,” Dmitriev said. He argued that, despite the imposition of more than 30,000 sanctions against Russia, the measures have failed to force Moscow into acting “in opposition to Russian national interests.”
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday that Moscow has developed “a certain immunity” to the Western sanctions. According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, such unilateral economic restrictions harm the economies of the very states that turn to them. “The more sanctions are imposed, the greater the damage to the imposers,” at the Eurasian Economic Union summit in Minsk last month.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has sharply criticized the European Union’s proposed seven-year budget, claiming its primary objective is to facilitate Ukraine’s accession and warning that it could spell disaster for the bloc. Orban, a frequent critic of the EU leadership, blasted the draft Multiannual Financial Framework for 2028-2034, which was unveiled earlier this week by the European Commission, during an interview with Kossuth Radio on Friday. “This budget would destroy the European Union. I don’t think this budget will even survive next year,” Orban said. He predicted that the EU’s executive would either have to withdraw the proposal or make significant revisions before national governments would consider approving it.
The Hungarian leader accused the commission of proposing reckless cuts, particularly in agricultural subsidies, likening the approach to an unskilled surgeon who fatally injures a patient during a botched procedure. Orban reiterated his long-standing claim that Brussels is advancing foreign policy goals – namely, integration of Ukraine – at the expense of EU citizens. “This budget has only one obvious purpose, and that is to admit Ukraine to the European Union,” he said, citing financial analysts who estimate that as much as 25% of the funds could be directed toward benefiting Kiev in various forms.
The Hungarian leader said he did not expect Ukraine to qualify for EU membership anytime soon, adding that officials in Brussels are presenting Kiev as “already overripe” for entry. He cautioned that once Ukraine were admitted, the decision would be virtually irreversible regardless of future consequences. The European Commission has defended the proposed €2 trillion ($2.33 trillion) budget, saying it would increase flexibility, reduce bureaucracy, and boost economic competitiveness. Orban, however, dismissed it as a “budget of hopelessness,” better suited for a bloc “preparing for stagnation and merely trying to avoid disintegration.”
France’s efforts to tackle its growing deficit have reignited concerns about EU stability, with financial markets bracing for the fallout, Bloomberg has reported, citing ING Groep NV strategists. The euro dropped to a one-month low this week, driven by tensions over French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou’s massive deficit-cutting plan. His proposals, including slashing public sector jobs and curbing welfare spending, could fuel debate in France’s minority government and undermine investor confidence, the strategists warned. In a note seen by Bloomberg, currency strategist Francesco Pesole warned on Wednesday that while the euro’s decline was largely dollar-driven, it was also due to political and fiscal challenges in France.
“The French deficit story has been very much in the background as of late, but [Tuesday] probably served as a reminder that it is a ticking bomb for EU sentiment,” Pesole wrote, adding “We could start seeing some FX spillovers in the coming months.” Bayrou’s €43.8 billion ($50.9 billion) plan targets a deficit that reached 5.8% of GDP last year – double the EU’s 3% limit. He warned on Tuesday that excessive debt posed a “mortal danger” and proposed scrapping public holidays to boost productivity and freezing pensions. The proposals have faced backlash, with left-wing parties accusing the government of prioritizing military spending over social welfare. Jean-Luc Melenchon, leader of La France Insoumise, called for Bayrou’s resignation, saying “these injustices cannot be tolerated any longer.”
France’s military budget is slated to rise to €64 billion in 2027, double what the country spent in 2017. President Emmanuel Macron has announced an additional €6.5 billion in funding over the next two years, citing heightened threats to European security. A new defense review released this month warned of a potential “major war” in Europe by 2030, listing Moscow among the top threats. The Kremlin has dismissed claims it is planning to attack the West, accusing NATO of using Russia as a pretext for military expansion. Bayrou, who has survived eight no-confidence motions, must secure parliamentary backing for his proposals before presenting the full budget in October. The right-wing National Rally party has opposed the cuts and called for another vote on his government.
After slowing down the Republican leadership’s attempt to advance a bundle of cryptocurrency market reform bills, the conservative House Freedom Caucus and its allies appear to have secured a promise to prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing a digital U.S. dollar. Caucus members contend that’s a victory for Americans’ freedoms. The deal allowed for House Republicans to advance three important pieces of cryptocurrency legislation and stick to a sufficient timeline for passing a rescissions bill defunding public broadcasting and foreign aid facing a Friday deadline. “This is a significant win for the American people as a government-controlled digital currency poses a direct threat to financial privacy and economic freedom,” House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., wrote on the social media platform X on Wednesday night after securing an agreement with House leadership to put anti-central bank digital currency provisions in the annual defense authorization bill.
“By securing these protections, we will be taking a critical step to stop government overreach and to preserve individual liberty,” he added. But the agreement came only after a multiday slog of negotiations on Capitol Hill. On Tuesday, House GOP leadership brought a rule to the House floor to advance three cryptocurrency bills: the GENIUS, CLARITY, and Anti-CBDC Surveillance acts. The rule ultimately failed. The GENIUS and CLARITY acts resolve questions about the regulatory framework surrounding cryptocurrency, which has long been messy and decentralized, with a number of regulators navigating vague boundaries. But Freedom Caucus members and their allies expressed concerns that Congress might pass these first two acts, but neglect to advance safeguards against central bank digital currency.
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, explained Wednesday that he and his conservative cohort view a government digital currency as a threat to liberty and privacy. “We believe a line in the sand is that we’ve got to have an emphatic statement from the government of the United States that the government is not going to be tracking your money to prevent you from being able to buy guns … to buy gasoline, if they want to go to all [electric vehicles],” he said. “To prevent you from being able to live your life freely and be able to monitor your transactions like the Chinese Communist Party. We don’t do that here. This is a country that’s supposed to embrace freedom,” Roy said. The vote on the rule to advance the three crypto bills failed 196-223 on Tuesday when 13 Republicans joined Democrats in opposition, demanding that leadership embed anti-CBDC provisions into one of the other pieces of cryptocurrency legislation.
President Donald Trump met with the GOP holdouts at the White House on Tuesday night and shortly afterward announced he had come to a deal with the members, who “all agreed to vote tomorrow morning in favor of the rule.” The next day, Harris said, they had found a deal with the White House to insert anti-CBDC provisions into the CLARITY Act. “Under this agreement, the Rules Committee will reconvene later [Wednesday] to add clear, strong anti–central bank digital currency (CBDC) provisions to the CLARITY legislation,” he wrote. But the agreement ran into some headwinds quickly when the House Rules Committee canceled its planned 4 p.m. meeting. “There was some sort of an agreement that doesn’t appear to exist anymore, and that’s all I got to say,” said Roy.
Punchbowl News reported that much of this gridlock was due to worries from Chairman French Hill, R-Ark., of the Financial Services Committee and Chairman Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., of the Agriculture Committee, since adding anti-CBDC provisions might make passing the CLARITY Act more difficult. “I think those discussions actually continue,” Hill said Wednesday of Trump’s negotiations with holdouts. The Wednesday vote ended up being the longest recorded vote in the history of the House of Representatives, breaking a record that was set earlier this month when leadership advanced the budget reconciliation measure known as the “Big, Beautiful Bill.” The gridlock was ultimately resolved late in the night when leadership came up with a final compromise—inserting anti-CBDC provisions into the annual National Defense Authorization Act.
This compromise yielded the votes to advance the three cryptocurrency bills. The rule passed 217-212 after being held open for more than nine hours. “House Freedom Caucus Members reached an agreement tonight to advance the president’s cryptocurrency agenda and, as part of this agreement, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) will include strong anti–Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) protections in this must-pass legislation,” Harris wrote Wednesday night. He added, “This is exactly why the House Freedom Caucus fights—‘Freedom‘ is our middle name—and we will continue to fight to protect the rights of Americans every day.” House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., who created the anti-CBDC bill, also applauded integrating the CBDC legislation into the defense authorization bill.
“Even Republicans years ago were saying ‘Oh, we’re falling behind the Chinese; they have the digital yuan.’ You know what they use that for? That is a surveillance tool,” he said Thursday. “That is completely against any American value that we know of, and we’ve got to prevent our central government from ever creating this surveillance tool here in the United States of America.” Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., who was a holdout throughout the process, spoke proudly of the deal. “We did what we set out to do. We went a little slower, and guess what—we got there a little faster,” he said shortly after the vote. “Big Brother loses once again.” Now, it will be up to Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., to hold the Senate’s feet to the fire to keep the anti-CBDC provisions in the NDAA. The GENIUS Act ultimately passed on a 308-122 vote Thursday. The CLARITY Act also passed, 294-134. The Anti-CBDC Surveillance Act passed by a much narrower 219-210 margin. GENIUS will now go to the president’s desk for final signature.
Ghislaine has been convicted for being an accessory to Epstein’s sex-trafficking of underaged kids. But we now have it from President Trump and the Attorney General of the United States that there is no Epstein client list that provides proof that Epstein was engaged in sex-trafficking for “at least a decade” as the BBC claims. Did Epstein keep all his clients, dates, times, and partners in his head? If there is no client list and nothing in the Epstein file, how were Epstein and Ghislaine convicted? Where is the evidence? As officially there is no evidence, Ghislaine’s attorneys, unless they are bought off or threatened, should have her out of prison tomorrow. Trump and Bondi obviously did not realize the consequences of denying the undeniable. Their denial has not disposed of the problem but has elevated it.
But what if there was no sex-trafficking? What if Epstein’s operation was a honey pot entrapment of American elites? Epstein did not need to make money sex-trafficking underage kids. He was well endowed by Mossad. Epstein’s job was to provide blackmail information that Israel could use to force the foreign policy of the United States to conform with the foreign policy of Israel. He succeeded. The American Establishment, those on the client list, called on Trump as did Netanyahu. Unless you are insouciant, you have noticed that Netanyahu rushed to the White House for the third time in six months, allegedly to discuss the Iranian threat. But there was no news conference. There has been no reporting of what was discussed. Such an important meeting, and no reportable results.
My take is that Netanyahu appeared in order to add Israel’s heavy weight to that of the ruling American Establishment that release of Epstein information is a no-no. If the Epstein files are released, then all the years of work, expense, and effort put into collecting blackmail capability over the American ruling class is wasted. Once the files are released and the information is pubic, Israel’s blackmail information is useless. Moreover, it becomes public knowledge that Israel was blackmailing the American elite to serve Israel’s, not America’s interest. The American Establishment cannot afford to have itself discredited, and Mossad cannot afford to have its blackmail information over the ruling American Establishment made worthless by its public exposure. That, dear reader, is the story of the Epstein Saga.
“Uh oh—have you guys completed your income tax? Things kind of happened real fast down there, and I need an extension.”—Apollo 13 astronaut Jack Swigert. Even in space, Americans worry about taxes. That’s not a screenwriter’s joke. Hours before Apollo 13 almost ended in disaster, astronaut Jack Swigert, called in as a last-minute replacement, wasn’t worried about launch. He was worried about filing his taxes. Only in America could bureaucracy follow you into orbit. That story says everything about our national identity. We cherish the rule of law. We believe in due process. But in the race to lead in artificial intelligence, it’s becoming clear: The very systems we treasure may be the ones slowing us down.
The 2 Biggest Threats to US Artificial Intelligence Leadership. Right now, America is out front in both generative AI (which predicts content) and agentic AI (which makes autonomous decisions). But two very American forces are putting that lead at risk:
(1) A regulatory Rubik’s Cube. Congress recently passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to jumpstart AI innovation. But it stripped out a crucial provision: a 10-year moratorium on conflicting state-level AI laws. Now, companies face 50 different interpretations of what AI is allowed to do. Some states require bias audits. Others impose disclosure mandates. A tool that’s legal in Florida could get fined in California. Even top-tier compliance lawyers can’t map it all out fast enough. Because AI models cross state lines the moment they’re deployed, this isn’t just inefficient, it’s paralyzing.
(2) A litigation gold rush. Trial lawyers have found their next deep-pocketed target: AI. I say this as someone who used to be one of them and now defends companies against the legal risks of AI deployment. Lawsuits are already moving. The most prominent? A federal case against UnitedHealthcare, accusing the company of using AI to deny long-term care without sufficient human oversight. And that’s only the beginning. The playbook is already forming.
Here are the claims AI developers are now defending against:
• Product liability for algorithmic defects.
• Failure to warn about tool misuse.
• Discrimination based on automated decisions.
• Negligence for not keeping a “human in the loop.”
In America, you don’t have to prove intent. Just tie the harm to an AI tool and let a jury decide. Today, every AI developer is one bad headline away from a class action lawsuit. Let’s be clear: Our legal system is the envy of the world. But when lawsuits are filed before laws are even written, we aren’t protecting consumers, we’re punishing innovators for playing on a field without any lines drawn. Let me be crystal clear: We do not want China’s system. We don’t want central planning. We don’t want censorship. And we don’t want a government-controlled tech industry. But it would be naive to pretend China faces the same friction.
Yes, they have courts. But they don’t have:
• Billboards from class action lawyers.
• Contingency-fee lawsuits built around algorithmic outcomes.
• Juries “sending a message” to tech companies with punitive damages.
• Their developers don’t plan around litigation. Ours have to.
While companies like Nvidia plead to sell advanced chips to China after the H20 export ban was lifted, Beijing isn’t waiting around. It’s racing ahead, deploying AI in defense, logistics, and manufacturing without lawsuits, regulators, or legal second-guessing. We don’t envy China. But we must acknowledge that its AI teams aren’t operating with a target on their back. We’ve been here before. In 1996, Congress passed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, shielding internet platforms from liability for user-generated content. That one provision allowed Amazon, YouTube, and countless others to thrive. We need an AI-specific shield now, a legal safe harbor that ensures developers aren’t liable for what users do with their tools, unless there’s fraud or criminal intent. Without it, legal departments will keep killing products before they launch.
Congress must also revisit a national moratorium on conflicting state AI laws. National consistency doesn’t mean more bureaucracy. It means sane, scalable innovation. This is our Apollo 13 moment. We have the best technology. We have the best talent. We have an entrepreneurial fire. But we’re losing altitude because the systems designed to protect us are choking progress. Let’s not become the bureaucracy we escaped to get to the moon. Let’s be the country that answered Apollo 13’s “Houston, we have a problem” and brought our tax-conscious astronauts safely back home. Let’s fix this the American way with clear rules, real urgency, and freedom that actually works.
I began studying AI in the mid-1980s. Unusually for a computer scientist of that era, my interest was entirely in information, not in machines. I became obsessed with understanding what it meant to live during the transition from the late Industrial Age to the early Information Age. What I learned is that computers fundamentally alter the economics of information. We now have inexpensive access to more information, and to higher quality information, than ever before. In theory, that should help individuals reach better decisions, organizations devise improved strategies, and governments craft superior policies. But that’s just a theory. Does it? The answer is “sometimes.” Unfortunately, the “sometimes not” part of the equation is now poised to unleash devastating consequences.
Consider the altered economics of information: Scarcity creates value. That’s been true in all times, in all cultures, and for all resources. If there’s not enough of a resource to meet demand, its value increases. If demand is met and a surplus remains, value plummets. Historically, information was scarce. Spies, lawyers, doctors, priests, scientists, scholars, accountants, teachers, and others spent years acquiring knowledge, then commanded a premium for their services. Today, information is overabundant. No one need know anything because the trusty phones that never leave our sides can answer any question that might come our way. Why waste your time learning, studying, or internalizing information when you can just look it up on demand?
Having spent the past couple of years working in higher education reform and in conversation with college students, I’ve come to appreciate the power—and the danger—of this question. Today’s students have weaker general backgrounds than we’ve seen for many generations because when information ceased being scarce, it lost all value. It’s important to recall how recently this phenomenon began. In 2011, an estimated one-third of Americans, and one-quarter of American teenagers, had smartphones. From there, adoption among the young grew faster than among the general population. Current estimates are that over 90 percent of Americans, and over 95 percent of teenagers, have smartphone access. Even rules limiting classroom use cannot overcome the cultural shift.
Few of today’s college students or recent grads have ever operated without the ability to scout ahead or query a device for information on an as-needed basis. There’s thus no reason for them to have ever developed the discipline or the practices that form the basis for learning. The deeper problem, however, is that while instant lookup may work well for facts, it’s deadly for comprehension and worse for moral thinking. A quick lookup can list every battle of WWII, along with casualty statistics and outcome. It cannot reveal the strategic or ethical deliberations driving the belligerents as they entered that battle. Nor can it explain why Churchill fought for the side of good while Hitler fought for the side of evil—a question that our most popular interviewers and podcasters have recently brought to prominence.
At least, lookup couldn’t provide such answers until recently. New AI systems—still less than three years old—are rushing to fill that gap. They already offer explanations and projections, at times including the motives underlying given decisions. They are beginning to push into moral judgments. Of course, like all search and pattern-matching tools, these systems can only extrapolate from what they find. They thus tend to magnify whatever is popular. They’re also easy prey for some of the most basic cognitive biases. They tend to overweight the recent, the easily available, the widely repeated, and anything that confirms pre-conceived models. The recent reports of Grok regurgitating crude antisemitic stereotypes and slogans illustrate the technological half of the problem.
The shocking wave of terror-supporting actions wracking college campuses and drawing recent grads in many of our cities illustrate the human half. The abundance of information has destroyed its value. Because information—facts and data—are the building blocks upon which all understanding must rest, we’ve raised a generation incapable of deep understanding. Because complex moral judgments build upon comprehension, young Americans are also shorn of basic morality We are rapidly entering a world in which widespread access to voluminous information is producing worse—not better—decisions and actions at all levels. We have outsourced knowledge, comprehension, and judgment to sterile devices easily biased to magnify popular opinion. We have bred a generation of exquisitely credentialed, deeply immoral, anti-intellectuals on the brink of entering leadership.
BANNON: My issue isn’t whether Iran has a nuke. My issue is that Netanyahu, for his own political dilemma, created a false sense of urgency. He pushed the salesman upsell—we have to have regime change. This is the Iraq War all over again. It’s phony and obvious. pic.twitter.com/D83jFgXBzs
BANNON: The national debt is $230,000 per household. Don’t think we’ll ever pay a penny of it. Now look at Persia—three carrier battle groups. Who’s paying? Not Israel. Not the Gulf Emirates. You are. And it’s not just money. It’s blood and treasure. Your sons and daughters. pic.twitter.com/whuq5zIIWm
"Most of what is being heard in the mainstream media about Iran is one big LIE. Iran is not about to surrender. It's not going to crumble. There will be no uprising."@DougAMacgregor noted that these same voices were the ones claiming Russia was going to fall apart in 2022… pic.twitter.com/YkmYPqdmsW
Scott Ritter is spot on with this analysis. Israel went all-in on a quick decapitation war, and that strategy has failed. Netanyahu has just bet the farm on the roll of a dice and lost. pic.twitter.com/tt1rArM92o
If the situation pans out the way it’s presented today, much of the criticism, domestically and internationally, will subside. But Iran has yet to react. And did they really demolish Fordow? Without a nuke?
President Trump addressed the nation at 2200ET and said that with “massive precision strikes”, Iran’s nuclear facilities have “been completely and totally obliterated” in a “spectacular military success.” He warned Iran (“the bully of the Middle East”) that if they do not come to peace then there are many other targets: “There will be either peace; or tragedy for Iran worse than the likes of which we have seen over the last eight days.” “If peace does not come quickly,” we will go after the rest of the nation with “speed and skill. ” He ended the speech by saying “God bless The Middle East, Gold bless Israel, and God bless The United States.”
BREAKING: President Trump says Iran's nuclear facilities have been "totally obliterated." pic.twitter.com/doentvmWLS
* * *
Update (2133ET): Fox News correspondent Jennifer Griffin revealed that the B-2 bombers spotted heading to Guam were part of a calculated deception to draw attention westward: “It’s notable how much deception was involved in this operation. All eyes were looking west towards Guam.” “The 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs were dropped at Fordo. And as we have reported, there are two entrances to Fordo.” “At least two bombs at each, two entrances, which suggests at least two B-2s were involved over Fordow. My suspicion is that there were more.”
Sean Hannity revealed he spoke directly with President Trump, who confirmed the scope of the U.S. strike on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility: “Six “bunker buster” bombs were dropped by multiple B-2 stealth bombers. Thirty Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from U.S. submarines positioned approximately 400 miles away. Hannity added, “Everyone is out of harm’s way for now.”
JUST IN: Sean Hannity says he spoke with President Trump, reveals 6 'Bunker Buster' bombs were dropped on Iran's Fordo nuclear plant.
– 6 'Bunker Buster' bombs dropped from multiple B-2s
– 30 Tomahawk missiles launched by U.S. submarines from ~400 miles away.
“..if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill. Most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes.”
In a televised address from the White House on Saturday night, US President Donald Trump claimed that American forces had “completely obliterated” three Iranian nuclear sites in a major overnight operation. He described the strikes as a “spectacular military success” and threatened further action if Tehran does not pursue peace. Below is the full transcript of President Trump’s address to the nation:
“Thank you very much. A short time ago, the US military carried out massive, precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime. Fordo, Natanz and Esfahan. Everybody heard those names for years as they built this horribly destructive enterprise. Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror. Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not. Future attacks would be far greater and a lot easier.
For 40 years, Iran has been saying. Death to America, death to Israel. They have been killing our people, blowing off their arms, blowing off their legs, with roadside bombs. That was their specialty. We lost over 1,000 people and hundreds of thousands throughout the Middle East, and around the world have died as a direct result of their hate in particular. So many were killed by their general, Qassim Soleimani. I decided a long time ago that I would not let this happen. It will not continue. I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. We worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we’ve gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel. I want to thank the Israeli military for the wonderful job they’ve done.
And most importantly, I want to congratulate the great American patriots who flew those magnificent machines tonight, and all of the United States military on an operation the likes of which the world has not seen in many, many decades. Hopefully, we will no longer need their services in this capacity. I hope that’s so. I also want to congratulate the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan ‘Razin’ Caine, spectacular general, and all of the brilliant military minds involved in this attack. With all of that being said, this cannot continue. There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days.
Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight’s was the most difficult of them all, by far, and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill. Most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes. There’s no military in the world that could have done what we did tonight. Not even close. There has never been a military that could do what took place just a little while ago. Tomorrow, General Caine, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth will have a press conference at 8am at the Pentagon. And I want to just thank everybody. And, in particular, God. I want to just say, we love you, God, and we love our great military. Protect them. God bless the Middle East. God bless Israel and God bless America. Thank you very much. Thank you.”
“Trump’s Pentagon planned for every imaginable Iran response long before Saturday night’s bombing sorties, officials said. And almost immediately after the bombs dropped, signs of heightened security emerged.”
As early as 2011, Donald Trump sounded the alarm that Iran must not become a nuclear power or the world would face unspeakable havoc. “Iran’s nuclear program must be stopped by any and all means necessary. Period,” the future president wrote in his book Time to Get Tough. “We cannot allow this radical regime to acquire a nuclear weapon that they will either use or hand off to terrorists.” Fourteen years after penning that book, America’s 47th president took decisive action Saturday night to ensure Tehran didn’t reach that critical goal on his watch, dispatching six bunker-busting bombs aboard B2 bombers and 30 Tomahawk missiles fired from submarines to “obliterate” the Iranian regime’s three primary nuclear weapons facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan.
Early reports indicate the six GBU-57 bunker busting bombs imploded Fordow, a mountain-fortified facility that evaded decades of UN inspections and tantalized the world with a never-ending threat of Iranian nuclear holocaust as its mullahs chanted “Death to America. Death to Israel.” Trump declared himself pleased with the impact of his history-shaping decision, and pointedly made clear to Iran’s mullahs — led by the Ayatollah Khamenei — that their next step would determine the final outcome of the regime’s two-decade quest for an atomic bomb. “Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier,” Trump warned.
“There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,” he added. “Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight’s was the most difficult of them all by far, and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill. Most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes.”
Israel and the United States both braced for the worst possible response from Iran – more missile attacks or a possible terrorism strike – while hoping the earthquake-sized thunder of dropping the largest conventional bomb in world history may have shaken the Iranian regime toward a negotiated settlement. Trump’s navigation of the Iranian crisis demonstrated a redefinition of the use of American military might, directly pressuring diplomatic efforts toward peace by delivering surgical strikes with shock and awe destruction. He gave Iran 60 days to make a deal to forego its pursuit of a nuclear weapon and its enrichment of uranium, and on the 61st day green-lighted Israel to begin a military bombardment to destroy Tehran’s nuclear program. The first strikes decapitated Iran’s military leadership and disabled Tehran’s once-revered air defenses.
With unrivaled air superiority achieved by Israel, Trump then lulled Iran into thinking he would give the mullahs two weeks for more negotiations. In fact, he gave them just two days before unleashing Saturday night’s U.S. attacks that delivered utter destruction to Iran’s three most important nuclear development sites. While a military success, Trump and his team as well as his partner, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, remain acutely aware there still may be peril ahead for the world. Iran’s vaunted Hezbollah sleeper terror cells and possible missile strikes against U.S. assets or its allies in the Middle East remain atop the worry list. Trump’s Pentagon planned for every imaginable Iran response long before Saturday night’s bombing sorties, officials said. And almost immediately after the bombs dropped, signs of heightened security emerged.
Israel went to a new level of alert demanding its citizens avoid any unnecessary public activities. New York City raised its threat level. And U.S. warplanes and ships patrolled aggressively for any sign of retaliation. In the meantime, Trump signaled unequivocally that Iran will choose the next edition of its fate: More attacks will bring more U.S. military might; more negotiations might bring a new era of peace and prosperity. The choice, Trump said, is Iran’s to make. Meanwhile, the president made sure to address the likely naysayers in the globalist community at large, the far-left of the American Democrat Party that pursued fruitless deals with Iran for more than a decade and the isolationists in his own party who immediately cackled the U.S. bombings were unjustified, illegal or even impeachable
During his nationally televised post-bombing address, Trump enumerated the deadly toll Iran’s violence took on Americans for five decades starting with the 1979 embassy hostage crisis followed by deadly bombings in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia in the 1980s and 1990s and then the Iranian-made roadside bombs that killed and maimed hundreds of U.S. soldiers during the Iraq War. “For 40 years, Iran has been saying ‘Death to America, Death to Israel.’ They have been killing our people, blowing off their arms, blowing off their legs, with roadside bombs,” Trump reminded Americans. “That was their specialty. We lost over 1,000 people, and hundreds of thousands throughout the Middle East and around the world have died as a direct result of the hate.” Whether that carnage continues or subsides after Saturday’s massive bombing now rests with Iran.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has praised US President Donald Trump for his “bold decision” to join the Israeli bombing campaign against Iran. In a video address posted Saturday night, after the US carried out strikes against facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, Netanyahu called the move a turning point that “has created a pivot of history that can help lead the Middle East and beyond to a future of prosperity and peace.” “Congratulations, President Trump,” Netanyahu said. “Your bold decision to target Iran’s nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history.”
President Trump and I often say: ‘Peace through strength.’
— Benjamin Netanyahu – בנימין נתניהו (@netanyahu) June 22, 2025
The United States launched airstrikes late Saturday, hitting at least three Iranian facilities. According to US officials, B-2 stealth bombers reportedly dropped bunker-busting bombs during the raid on Fordow, while American submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles against Natanz and Isfahan. President Trump described the strike as “very successful” and warned that Tehran must engage in negotiations or face further military action if it dares to retaliate.
Iran has accused the United States of violating international law and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) with its overnight strikes on key nuclear facilities, while assuring the public that no radioactive contamination has been detected at the targeted sites. In an official statement released early Sunday, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) confirmed that US airstrikes hit its nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan at dawn, calling the operation an illegal and “brutal” act. Iranian authorities criticized Washington for publicly claiming responsibility for the attacks on sites that had been operating under the supervision of international inspectors. “This act… was unfortunately carried out in the shadow of indifference and even with the support of the International Atomic Energy Agency,” the statement claimed.
A separate statement from Iran’s Center for the National Nuclear Safety System confirmed that emergency inspections had been conducted at all three sites. “No signs of contamination have been recorded,” the center said, adding that there is “no danger to the residents living around the aforementioned sites.” The AEOI vowed that Iran’s nuclear program would not be halted by what it described as “evil conspiracies.” It praised the resilience of Iranian scientists and announced that legal measures would be pursued in response to the strikes. “We will not allow the development of this national industry, which is the result of the blood of nuclear martyrs, to be stopped,” the organization said.
The United States struck the facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan early Sunday morning as part of a broader Israeli military campaign described by the IDF as targeting Iran’s missile and nuclear infrastructure. Iran has not yet announced any military response but has characterized the strikes as “criminal” and a breach of sovereign rights. President Trump warned Tehran against retaliation, threatening further US attacks. The airstrikes mark the most direct US action against Iran’s nuclear program in years and come amid soaring tensions following ongoing exchanges of drones and missiles between Israel and Iran.
President Donald Trump said on June 20 that his director of national intelligence’s assessment in March that Iran had yet to decide on building a nuclear weapon was wrong. Trump made the remarks to reporters on Friday while standing next to Air Force One at the Morristown Municipal Airport in New Jersey. The president was asked about the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that it had no evidence that Iran was building a nuclear warhead before Israel’s strikes on its military and nuclear sites last week. “Well, then my intelligence community is wrong,” Trump said. “Who in the intelligence community said that?” When he was told that it was his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who gave those remarks to lawmakers in March, Trump replied, “She was wrong.”
After Trump’s comments, Gabbard took to social media to share a clip of her March testimony to lawmakers on Capitol Hill, and accused the media of twisting her words. “The dishonest media is intentionally taking my testimony out of context and spreading fake news as a way to manufacture division,” Gabbard wrote. “America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can’t happen, and I agree.” Gabbard said in her testimony at the time that the intelligence community had determined that Iran was not currently building a nuclear weapon. However, as part of that assessment, she said there were alarming signals that warranted continuous monitoring for any change.
The signs Gabbard mentioned included indications that Iranian decision-makers who wanted the country to have nuclear arms were becoming increasingly emboldened in their pursuit, and that Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles were at “unprecedented” levels for a state without nuclear weapons. In remarks to reporters, Trump reiterated that he believes, based on the quantity of enriched uranium that Iran currently possesses, that the regime could develop a nuclear bomb “within a matter of months.” “We can’t let that happen,” Trump said, adding that he believes his current military intelligence is more accurate than what then-President George W. Bush used as a pretext to invade Iraq in 2003, which Trump opposed.
He was asked what makes the current situation different than the one 22 years ago, and Trump said: “Well, there were no weapons of mass destruction [in Iraq]. I never thought there were.” “There was a nuclear age [in 2003], but nothing like it is today. And it looked like I’m right about the material that they’ve gathered already,” he said. The United Nations’ nuclear watch group said early last month that Iran had more than 900 pounds of 60 percent enriched uranium at the time. To make a nuclear bomb, 90 percent enriched uranium is required. The group said that if Iran chooses, it could enrich enough stockpiled uranium to make a bomb in a matter of days, but building and testing a warhead could take much longer.
In response to comments from Iran’s foreign minister earlier on Friday, who said if the United States is serious about negotiations, it must first call Israel to order a stop to the airstrikes, Trump said it’s difficult to make that request now. “If somebody is winning, it’s a little bit harder to do than if somebody’s losing,” he said. “But we’re ready, willing, and able, and we’ve been speaking to Iran, and we’ll see what happens.” Trump said he is giving Iran two weeks to “see whether or not people come to their senses” before he makes a final decision on whether to involve the U.S. military in the conflict after Israel’s surprise airstrikes on Iranian military and nuclear sites last week. “I’m giving them a period of time, and I would say two weeks would be the maximum,” he said. The president said he believes that Europe is not going to be able to help in negotiations with Iran to end the conflict.
US Presidential Envoy for Special Assignments Richard Grenell has urged SpaceX CEO Elon Musk to provide free Starlink access across Iran so that his “friends” can have uninterrupted “access to information” amid an escalating Israeli bombing campaign against Tehran. “Can you turn on Starlink for free in Iran for the next few weeks, @elonmusk? My friends inside Iran don’t have regular access to information right now. I’ll chip in a donation and I think others would, too,” wrote Grenell, the former acting Director of National Intelligence, in a post on X. Musk has not yet responded to the request, at least not publicly. The billionaire previously said that the “beams are on,” indicating the service is technically available – although accessing Starlink requires a special satellite dish to receive and transmit signals.
Starlink’s constellation of low-Earth orbit satellites was originally promoted as a solution for providing high-speed, low-latency internet to remote and rural areas. President Trump has praised the system for offering vital connectivity in disaster zones, particularly after hurricanes Helene and Milton, when traditional networks failed. However, the system has also proven critical for frontline coordination and drone warfare. SpaceX has supplied the Ukrainian military with Starlink since the escalation of the conflict with Russia in 2022, delivering more than 40,000 terminals. Kiev’s forces have become fully dependent on Starlink, and disabling it would result in the collapse of the “entire frontline,” Musk claimed in March.
When Israel launched a surprise “pre-emptive” attack against Iranian nuclear facilities last week, its intelligence agency Mossad reportedly activated sleeper cells who had smuggled drones into Iran to strike defensive infrastructure from within. With the possibility of Washington joining the bombing campaign growing, Iranian authorities have severely restricted communications, isolating the country’s internet from the rest of the world. They also urged citizens to delete WhatsApp, accusing Israel of using the Meta-owned app to spy on users. Richard Grenell, a former US ambassador to Germany and acting Director of National Intelligence, now serves as the Presidential Envoy for Special Missions under Donald Trump. In this role, he has handled a wide range of diplomatic crises and international back-channel efforts.
On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt indicated a “substantial” possibility of negotiations with Tehran, with a decision on further steps to be made within the next two weeks. Trump is not afraid to use force against Iran, Leavitt stressed, adding that the US continues contacts with Iran in both direct and indirect formats. According to US and European diplomats – who, of course, are just innocent bystanders in the Israel-Iran conflict – there are already secret conversations going on about who might lead Iran after the dust settles, CBS News reports.
They are also whispering about securing nuclear sites, and how to deal with a potential regional environmental disaster if Iran’s nuclear facilities are hit. Apparently, there’s still a “last shot” for talks to stop the Israel-Iran conflict, insiders told the outlet. Turkiye, Oman, Italy, Norway – they’re all ready to host US-Iran talks if Tehran chooses diplomacy. But as Iranian FM Abbas Araqchi put it: “As long as the aggression and attacks continue, there is simply no room for talk of dialogue or diplomacy,” per Fars News Agency.
The Pakistani government has formally recommended US President Donald Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, citing his mediation efforts in ending the recent military conflict between Islamabad and New Delhi. India, however, insists Trump played no role in de-escalating the tensions. Relations between the two nuclear-armed neighbors escalated in late April after a deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir, which New Delhi blamed on Pakistan-backed militants. In a statement on Friday, the Pakistani government announced it “decided to formally recommend” Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize “in recognition of his decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership during the recent India-Pakistan crisis.”
According to Islamabad, the American leader helped de-escalate a “rapidly deteriorating situation” that could have triggered “catastrophic consequences for millions in the region and beyond.” It also expressed gratitude to Trump for offering to help resolve the longstanding Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India. The US president has repeatedly claimed credit for the ceasefire on May 10 that halted the hostilities between the two neighboring states. However, the Indian government has denied that the US president played a decisive role. Speaking at a press briefing on Wednesday, Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri revealed that during a phone conversation with Trump the previous day, Prime Minister Narendra Modi stressed that “India has never accepted mediation [to resolve its dispute with Islamabad over Jammu and Kashmir], does not accept and will never accept it.”
Also on Wednesday, the US president invited Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir to a private lunch meeting, after the field marshal similarly called for Trump’s Nobel nomination, Reuters reported, citing White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly. On Saturday, in a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump stated that he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio had arranged a “wonderful treaty between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of Rwanda in their war.” “I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for this, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between India and Pakistan, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between Serbia and Kosovo, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for keeping Peace between Egypt and Ethiopia… and I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for doing the Abraham Accords in the Middle East,” Trump lamented.
Speaking to reporters the previous day, the Republican made similar claims about his role in resolving those conflicts. “I should have gotten [the Nobel Peace Prize] four or five times,” he insisted, claiming that this will not happen “because they only give it to liberals.”
Iran has the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said in an interview. After the plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) on Friday, he spoke with Nadim Koteich, the moderator of the session and general manager of Sky News Arabia. ”We believe that Iran has the right to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes. And we are prepared, as we have been in previous years, to provide the necessary support in this field,” the Russian president said. Putin added that Russia opposes the spread of nuclear weapons in any country. “The International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] confirms that there is no evidence of Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.”
Last week, Israel began a series of strikes against Iran and issued serious warnings regarding the country’s nuclear program. It claimed that Tehran is rapidly nearing a critical point in its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons, saying the strikes were essential to prevent this. Iran, which maintains that its nuclear program is intended solely for peaceful purposes, responded with missile and drone strikes against Israel. In his interview on Friday, Putin urged both sides to resolve the conflict through negotiations. He added that Moscow has repeatedly informed Israel of the lack of evidence regarding Tehran’s intentions to create nuclear weapons. In a report earlier this month, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi stated that “Iran is the only non-nuclear-weapon state in the world that is producing and accumulating uranium enriched to 60%.”
Meanwhile, US intelligence agencies have found no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. However, President Donald Trump insisted that Iran was “very close” to acquiring them at the time of Israel’s attack. He has demanded Iran’s “unconditional surrender” and warned that the US might intervene. According to the Kremlin, Putin has a “complete picture” of the situation, as one of the few leaders to speak directly with the heads of Israel, Iran, and the US. In a late-night Q&A session on Wednesday, Putin told journalists that resolving the conflict should include mutual security guarantees – protecting both Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear technology and Israel’s right to security.
“I hope that the Ukrainian leadership will follow the national interests of the country and not the interests of the third parties that stand behind the regime..
The “third parties” that back Kiev are not interested in ending the Ukraine conflict, but are instead using the country for their own goals, Russian President Vladimir Putin has told Sky News Arabia’s Nadim Koteich. On Friday, during the plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), moderated by Koteich, Putin stated that Moscow is not seeking the surrender of Ukraine. “We insist on the recognition of the realities that have developed on the ground,” he added. After the session, he gave an interview to Sky News Arabia in which he reiterated that Kiev should respect the will of the people who voted to join Russia. “I hope that the Ukrainian leadership will follow the national interests of the country and not the interests of the third parties that stand behind the regime,” Putin said.
“Ukraine deserves a better future, and not to be a tool in the hands of the third parties that are against Russia.” He added that Ukrainian neutrality and non-nuclear status are necessary for long-term stability in the region. During a Q&A session on Friday, Putin said that negotiations held in Istanbul in early 2022, shortly after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, fell apart under pressure from “neocolonial forces.”Earlier in June, top Russian negotiator and presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky told RT’s Rick Sanchez that Ukraine had a chance to secure a deal on more favorable terms had it not withdrawn from negotiations in 2022. According to Medinsky, Kiev opted to walk away after consulting with the US and UK.
In his speech at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum on Friday, Vladimir Putin touched on array of issues, from Western neocolonialism and emerging global power centers to Russia’s economic prospects and defense exports potential. Sputnik asked experts in each of these areas to share their thoughts. The Russian president’s remarks at SPIEF about the need for a new model of development free of “golden billion” neocolonialism “is based on the observation of the world balances of power that have unfolded since the US financial crisis of 2008,” veteran Brussels-based geopolitical analyst Paolo Raffone told Sputnik. “Today the emerging countries have emerged to the extent of being comparable individually (China) or collectively (BRICS+) to overcome Western countries. [Putin’s] remarks are addressed to the US, but are also a warning to the European former powers that still have not abandoned the outdated path of eurocentrism,” Raffone explained.
Putin’s comments are geopolitical realism boiled down to its essence, “calling to rethink the national and international policies for the economy as well as security,” Raffone said. The Russian president isn’t alone in his thinking, the observer pointed out, highlighting Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto’s bombshell remarks this week about the EU and NATO’s loss of relevance, total dependence on China, and failure to engage diplomatically with the Global South. Western leaders became the “victims of their [own] stilted paradigm” about Russia and its economy, retired Jawaharlal Nehru University professor and Russia expert Dr. Anuradha Chenoy told Sputnik, commenting on Putin’s remarks relating to Russia’s emergence as the 4th largest economy globally, and the largest in Europe.
Treating Russia as a glorified “gas station” with no prospects for development, and slapping it with a severe, unilateral sanctions regime in 2022, the West expected the Russian economy and ruble to collapse.Instead, “the opposite happened,” Chenoy said, with the state, banks and industry leveraging finances generated from oil wealth to ramp up domestic production and generate growth. The West’s theories failed, as have their attempts to isolate Russia. “In fact, Russia now has turned to China, BRICS countries and the Global South, which will be their long-term partner. The West and its policies of unfair terms if trade, use of threat and force” ended up isolating them, not Russia, the veteran academic emphasized. “I am shocked at the great lack of collective knowledge and information [on the part] of the West, and their institutions,” Chenoy said, highlighting that Russia’s immense natural resources, the rebuilding of industry and infrastructure have been obvious to Russia watchers for decades.
“Russia will surely reestablish itself as one of the foremost exporters of arms in the world in the coming years,” former Swedish Armed Forces officer and military analyst Mikael Valtersson told Sputnik, commenting on Putin’s mention of Russian plans to expand defense cooperation with friendly countries. “The fast Russian adaptation to the needs at the battlefield and a strong Russian comeback in Ukraine has put an end to western dreams of the elimination of Russia as a strong competitor in the global arms market,” Valtersson said, highlighting the competitive edge Russia has honed from its experiences, including:
• battle-proven, upgraded weaponry. “This is especially important when it comes to air, missile, drone and EW-technology,” according to the observer.
• a “very large capacity to produce weapons quickly for the global military market…a capability the Western countries lack.”
• readiness to allow buyers to freely use the advanced weapons they purchase, without secret kill switches or other restrictions
Valtersson expects these factors to strengthen Russia’s position in the Global South, and in turn to threaten Western arms exports, especially Europe’s. “Europe will probably be forced to focus more on domestic sales within Europe, while the US must reduce restrictions and political demands in conjunction with arms exports. This might become even more acute in light of a growing hesitation to see the US as a reliable strategic partner by many countries,” Valtersson predicts. NATO might try to preserve markets by pressuring countries against buying Russian arms, “but this strategy will quickly lose power since Western economic power is diminishing,” the observer said, emphasizing that economic power translates into political power. While BRICS accounted for 12% of GDP in 2000, it’s over 40% today.
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has reshuffled his top brass, with the goal of overhauling the country’s flawed and “unpopular” forced mobilization, the Financial Times reported on Saturday. Amid heavy frontline losses, the campaign has been marred by widespread draft-dodging and violent clashes between would-be recruits and mobilization officers. On Friday, Zelensky tapped Brigadier General Gennady Shapovalov to be the commander of Ukraine’s ground forces, replacing Mikhail Drapaty and reassigning several senior officers. According to the Ukrainian HQ, in his new role, Shapovalov will focus on “increasing the combat capability of the army, improve the mobilization system and training of military personnel, and implement innovative approaches to management according to NATO standards.”
Shapovalov previously headed Kiev’s team in the NATO mission to coordinate military assistance to Ukraine. The Financial Times said the new commander will face numerous issues, as the “attempts to reform the Ukrainian mobilization and training process have been sluggish at best.” The draft, the outlet added, has been “unpopular,” while Zelensky is facing Western pressure to lower the draft age. Another problem is a new military contract program aimed at attracting young people between 18 and 24 to the army. However, as of April, only 500 contract soldiers joined the army, the FT reported, citing officials in Kiev.
Shapovalov’s appointment follows nearly three weeks of a leadership vacuum after Drapaty resigned from his post but was later moved to lead Ukraine’s joint forces command, which is aimed at helping align Ukraine’s armed forces with NATO operational methods. In a parting statement, Drapaty – who resigned after accepting responsibility for devastating Russian strikes on military training sites – condemned what he called a “culture of mutual cover-up and impunity” within the military. ”We will not win this war unless we build an army where honor is action, not a word, and responsibility is the basis of trust,” he said.
According to RBK-Ukraine, Drapaty’s departure also followed reported tensions with Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Aleksandr Syrsky. A source told the outlet that Drapaty privately expressed ambitions to take over Syrsky’s role. The two have had diverging battlefield strategies. Ukraine announced general mobilization in 2022, barring most men between the ages of 18 and 60 from leaving the country. In 2024, Kiev tightened the conscription laws and lowered the draft age from 27 to 25 to recoup growing battlefield losses. The mobilization campaign has resulted in numerous violent altercations between draft officers and reluctant draftees, while many have sought to flee the country at significant personal risk.
No one is excluding Europe from modern processes – European countries are excluding themselves with their policy choices, Milorad Dodik, President of Republika Srpska, told Sputnik on the sidelines of the 2025 St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF). Europe is sabotaging itself by unjustifiably meddling in the Ukraine conflict and taking an anti-Russian stance, said the President of Republika Srpska. The European Union lost pivotal energy resources that it used to receive at a low price from Russia, Milorad Dodik stressed. “It is clear that Europe, if it even survives in the form of the European Union, is headed toward economic and other forms of marginalization,” he said. Europe is scrambling for solutions but somehow drifting even further from them. That’s exactly why I agree that the Global South’s role is only growing more crucial, said Dodik.
SPIEF sets an ideology-free stage for a New Global Order, underscored the leader of Bosnia’s Serb autonomy. A surge of cooperation agreements is signed here, offering a prime opportunity to showcase the Russian economy’s cutting-edge achievements across all modern sectors. What draws crowds to the forum is its host — Russia — a nation reshaping the global value game, noted Dodik. A total of 1,060 agreements worth 6.3 trillion rubles ($80 billion) have been signed on the sidelines of the 2025 St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), the Organizing Committee’s executive secretary, Anton Kobyakov, said on Saturday. Over 140 countries sent their representatives to the forum, Kobyakov added.
The same people say Iran can’t have a nuke because they are religious fundamentalists are the same people who hold the heretical belief that we must support Israel’s non-stop campaign of murder, blackmail, land theft bombing & starvation of the innocent because ‘God will bless… pic.twitter.com/79UUiPsAX1
We get the impression that Trump is having, let’s say, some second thoughts. On Tuesday, he said “The next week is going to be very big, maybe less than a week.” On Thursday, it was “Amid speculation regarding negotiations with Iran, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next 2 weeks.”
Why the second thoughts? Is it because of new facts, is it the -broad- resistance against direct US involvement among his supporters and voters, or is it because he realizes it’s doubtful that US bunker busters could hit the desired underground Iran targets?
Summary: The White House held a high stakes presser Thursday afternoon, as President Donald Trump also again convened his top national security officials in the situation room to hear intelligence officials and make key decisions on the Israel-Iran war, just prior. Of course, the biggest question that remains is: will the US directly enter the war against Iran?
White House quoting Trump: Amid speculation regarding negotiations with Iran, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next 2 weeks.
• Leavitt: Trump thinks ‘substantial chance’ of Iran negotiations
• Leavitt: Witkoff has been in touch with Iran
• Leavitt: Trump always interested in diplomatic solutions
• Leavitt: it’s the US belief that Iran has never been closer to a nuclear weapon
• Leavitt: Iran can and should make a deal or face consequences
• Leavitt: Trump remains in contact with Netanyahu
• Leavitt: Iran is in a weakened position and we have sent a deal
• Leavitt: Iran has all that it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon, it just needs a ‘decision’
Oil slides on the “two weeks” announcement, as the can gets kicked down the road:
The most pressing issues at stake:
• Last ditch diplomacy working? Reuters reports in a breaking development that Iran held direct talks with US over de-escalation and potentially restarting nuclear negotiations.
• The Guardian reports that Trump only wants to strike Iran only if the US can destroy the Fordow enrichment facility.
• Destruction of Fordow would at least require the 30k pound bunker buster bomb, but still may not be effective in ending Iran’s enrichment capacity.
• Netanyahu says that while regime change in Tehran is not the current goal, the option is on the table.
• Tactical nuke on the table?
• Will the Iranians close the Strait of Hormuz, choking off global oil shipping?
• Reports of US bases in the region taking protective and defensive measures
• Israeli intelligence official says ‘imminent collapse’ of Iranian government is “far from the truth” – NBC reports
• Iran is warning that a “third party intervention” would spark an immediate military response
• Netanyahu has said the US has been “helping a lot” – without defining specifics
As President Trump convenes a White House situation room meeting this Tuesday early evening, and following Ayatollah Khamenei’s earlier televised speech vowing ‘we will not surrender’ – The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Trump has made the decision: “President Trump told senior aides late Tuesday that he approved of attack plans for Iran, but was holding off to see if Tehran would abandon its nuclear program, people familiar with the deliberations said. Iran’s well-defended Fordow enrichment facility is a possible U.S. target. Israel has yet to attack the facility, which is buried under a mountain and is generally considered by military experts to be out of reach of all but the most powerful bombs. Asked earlier if he had decided whether to strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities, Trump said, “I may do it, I may not do it.” And he repeated his insistence of Iran’s unconditional surrender: “The next week is going to be very big, maybe less than a week.”
Is this yet another last ditch effort to strong arm Tehran to the negotiating table, where Trump’s hope is that it will declare zero enrichment? Has the US Commander-in-Chief painted himself into a corner, and now it’s all zero sum? The Iranians remain under heavy Israeli bombing, and with leadership likely in deep bunkers, are unlikely to negotiate the end of their own ‘regime’. Trump may have finally pulled the trigger here. Where’s Congress? Meanwhile, elements of the Right and elements of the Left are uniting around this simple and very reasonable observation…
Netanyahu is not the President of the United States.
He should not be determining U.S. foreign and military policy.
If the people of Israel support his decision to start a war with Iran, that is their business and their war.
* * *
Update(1302ET): Things are quickly going from bad to worse for Iran, amid ongoing Israeli airstrikes, and given Iran’s air defenses in its western portion of the country appear completely destroyed and disabled. Iran is now in a ‘near-total national internet blackout’ – according to monitoring from a UK-based watchdog: Vital civic infrastructure in Tehran, including some sewage system and water networks, have also been hit.
* * *
President Donald Trump on Wednesday fielded reporters’ questions on the Iran crisis, but refused to answer whether the US military will directly enter the war, amid Israeli requests that the Pentagon assist in striking Iran’s nuclear facilities. “There’s a big difference between now and a week ago,” Trump told reporters outside the White House, and added curiously: “Nobody knows what I’m going to do.” He indicated that the Iranians had reached out but he feels “it’s very late to be talking.” But he also threw out the possibility: “We may meet. It’s, I don’t know, there’s a big difference between now and a week ago,” he said on the White House lawn. “I can tell you this, that Iran’s got a lot of trouble and they want to negotiate. And I say, ‘Why didn’t you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction?'” And more: “For 40 years they’ve been saying death to America, death to Israel, death to anybody else that they didn’t like,” he said. “They were bullies. They were schoolyard bullies. And now they’re not bullies anymore. But we’ll see what happens. “I wouldn’t say that we won anything yet. I would say that we sure as hell made a lot of progress.”
US President Donald Trump has excluded Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard from high-level discussions on the ongoing Iran-Israel conflict, NBC News and the Washington Post have reported, citing senior administration officials. Gabbard’s sidelining, according to NBC, reportedly stems from her public and internal pushback against the official US and Israeli narrative that Tehran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. Hegseth has also been edged out of operational discussions, with the Washington Post reporting that two four-star generals overseeing the deployment of additional US military assets in the Middle East have taken the lead.
Trump is now said to be relying on a smaller, more experienced ‘Tier One’ advisory group – comprising Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and Joint Chiefs Vice Chair General Dan Caine – which is now reportedly shaping US policy on Iran, rather than the traditional civilian defense and intelligence leadership. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell has denied the reports, insisting that Hegseth is “speaking with the President multiple times a day each day and has been with the President in the Situation Room this week.” Gabbard also told reporters that she and the president are “on the same page.”
Israel launched a large-scale bombing campaign against Iran last week, claiming Tehran was close to producing a nuclear weapon. Trump will decide whether to join the Israeli campaign “within the next two weeks,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Thursday. However, US intelligence still assesses that Iran, while it has stockpiled enriched uranium, has not taken concrete steps toward developing nuclear weapons, according to Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. This view has remained unchanged since March, when Gabbard told Congress that the US intelligence community “does not believe Iran is building a nuclear weapon.” Trump contradicted this assessment on Tuesday, stating that Iran is “weeks away” from obtaining nuclear weapons and dismissing Gabbard’s remarks by saying, “I don’t care what she said.”
A former Democratic congresswoman and Iraq War veteran, Gabbard has long been critical of the US intelligence community, which she now oversees, and she was known for supporting NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Her release of a video warning about the horrors of nuclear war following a visit to Hiroshima reportedly annoyed Trump’s advisers. Her absence from a key June 8 meeting at Camp David on Iran policy has fueled speculation about her diminished influence, with multiple sources telling NBC that she has not taken part in recent strategic discussions.
With Tehran refusing to fold in the face of US ultimatums and threats, Donald Trump is considering joining Israel’s campaign of aggression. Sputnik asked veteran ex-CIA and State Department insider Larry Johnson to make sense of the administration’s calculations, including what could be holding Trump back. President Trump is vacillating on whether or not to move forward with the attack because he knows it would tank his ratings, including among Republicans, Johnson, a former CIA officer and State official, explained. “There are public opinion polls showing that 53% of Republicans are against any attack on Iran. Overall, 61% of Americans are against any attack on Iran. There have been several individuals who were prominent supporters of Donald Trump in the election that have come out condemning him,” he noted.
“I think the political realities are starting to catch up to Trump, which is why he’s now backing away from that,” Johnson said, pointing out that conservative voices sounding the alarm bell include Trump’s most prominent pre-election supporters, from political commentators Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens to comedian Dave Smith. On top of that are the logistical uncertainties, like whether a US bunker buster bombing of the Fordow nuclear site would even work, and whether the B-2 bombers based in Diego Garcia used for such an operation would be safe if Russia were to supply Iran with systems capable of detecting and downing the stealth bomber. Overall, it’s an “extremely dangerous, extremely volatile situation,” and one that clearly has “nothing to do with nuclear weapons,” Johnson stressed. Instead, it’s about “regime change” – an attempt “to install a government that’s going to be a lackey of the West and that will not cooperate or be friendly with Russia.”
US intelligence still assesses that Iran, despite stockpiling enriched uranium, has not taken steps to develop nuclear weapons – a view which has remained unchanged since March, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s top Democrat. US President Donald Trump claimed on Tuesday, however, that he believes Tehran was “very close” to obtaining nuclear weapons at the time of Israel’s recent military strikes. His statement contradicts earlier remarks by his own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who told lawmakers that Iran “is not building” one. The Iranian authorities insist that their nuclear program is purely peaceful and that they have every right to pursue it. In an interview with MSNBC on Wednesday, the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Democratic Senator Mark Warner, said senators were briefed this week – following the Israeli strikes – that US spy agencies still find no evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.
He criticized Trump’s remarks as “foreign policy by tweet,” calling them irresponsible and perplexing, given that they contradict the intelligence briefings lawmakers have received. Warner noted that in March, Gabbard stated that Iran had “taken no steps toward building a bomb.” “And we got reconfirmed… Monday of this week, that the intelligence hasn’t changed,” he added. At the time, she said the US intelligence community “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” When Trump was reminded of this by journalists on Tuesday, he replied: “I do not care what she said.”
Responding to Trump’s remark, Warner said, “you’ve got the president basically dismissing all of the intelligence.” He added that even as vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he is unclear on the current US strategy, asking: “If I don’t have the foggiest idea, what do the American people know?” Trump said he has not yet decided whether to support Israel’s military action against Iran, but echoed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim that Iran was “weeks away” from developing a nuclear weapon.
Since launching its campaign against Iran last week, Israel has targeted uranium enrichment infrastructure, bombing centrifuge facilities – including a site at Natanz, south of Tehran – and laboratories used to convert uranium gas into metal, according to Israeli officials and the IAEA. Trump has called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” claiming that the US now controls its airspace. He also said killing Khamenei would be “easy.” Media reports suggest he may soon join Israel’s military campaign. Tehran has vowed not to yield to pressure and warned it will retaliate if attacked.
“..A day before Israel’s initial attack on Iran, the IAEA passed a resolution declaring that Tehran was not complying with its obligations concerning nuclear non-proliferation..”
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has found no evidence that Iran is making a “systematic effort” to produce a nuclear weapon, according to the agency’s chief, Rafael Grossi. Israel began bombing Iran on Friday, asserting that the country was on the brink of developing a nuclear bomb. The sides have been exchanging retaliatory strikes ever since. US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he believes Tehran was “very close” to obtaining the nuclear weapon, contradicting early statements from his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who stated that Iran “is not building” one. Iranian authorities insist that their nuclear program is purely peaceful and that they have every right to pursue it. I
n an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Tuesday, Grossi said that, currently, “there is this competition about who is wrong or right about the time that would be needed” for Iran to produce a nuclear bomb. “Certainly, it was not for tomorrow, maybe not a matter of years,” he noted. The Iranians may have enough enriched uranium, but in order to turn it into a nuclear weapon, technology and extensive testing is also required, the IAEA chief explained. Despite inspecting Iran’s nuclear sites for more than two decades, the UN watchdog “did not have… any proof of a systematic effort to move into a nuclear weapon” on the part of Iran, he said. “What we are telling you is what we have been able to prove. The material is there. There have been, in the past, some activities related to the development of nuclear weapons, but we did not have, at this point, these elements,” Grossi stressed.
A day before Israel’s initial attack on Iran, the IAEA passed a resolution declaring that Tehran was not complying with its obligations concerning nuclear non-proliferation. Among other things, the agency noted that Iran had “repeatedly” been unable to prove that its nuclear material was not being diverted for further enrichment for military use. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said last weekend that Tehran will limit its cooperation with IAEA due to the agency’s reluctance to condemn Israel’s attacks on the country’s nuclear sites. The UN watchdog’s conduct “makes no sense,” he stated.
Iran intends to continue its military response against Israel and could target its nuclear infrastructure, a senior Iranian security official has told RT. In an exclusive statement to the head of RT’s Tehran bureau, the official, who chose to remain anonymous, said that Iranian armed forces will maintain missile and drone operations throughout the day, specifically targeting “the occupied territories and Israeli garrisons.” nThe official said Iran’s response follows “the Quranic advice on retaliation,” and warned that Iranian forces would respond “to any extent and wherever the regime attacks Iranian soil.” He noted, however, that based on “Iran’s moral principles,” there would be no attacks on hospitals. “The Zionist regime’s claim that Iran attacked one of the hospitals in the occupied territories is completely false,” the official stressed, referring to reports of the Soroka hospital being struck in the city of Be’er Sheva in southern Israel.
He also stated that Tehran’s response will be escalated in light of the Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. “Since the [Israeli] regime has attacked our nuclear facilities, our armed forces will subject their nuclear facilities to crushing blows,” the official said. Since launching its assault last week, Israel has hit several Iranian nuclear facilities, including sites in Natanz, Isfahan, Fordow and near Tehran. Between nine and 14 nuclear researchers have been reported killed in the attacks. Without naming the US directly, the Iranian official also warned that “if another country directly enters into war with us, it will provide much more accessible targets for the Iranian armed forces to destroy.”
US President Donald Trump has hailed Israel’s attacks on Iran as “excellent” and has urged Tehran to surrender unconditionally. He has also warned that the US could become directly involved in the conflict if any American targets are hit by Iran. Last Friday, Israeli forces began carrying out strikes on Iran, claiming Tehran is nearing the completion of a nuclear bomb. Iran dismissed the accusations and retaliated with waves of drone and missile strikes on the Jewish state. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, has since also refuted Israel’s claims, stating that the watchdog has found no evidence that Iran has been making a “systematic effort” to produce a nuclear weapon.
“Some in West Jerusalem may dream of “reformatting” the Middle East – reshaping the region through force and fear. If successful, it could buy Israel a few decades of security and breathing room. But such outcomes are far from guaranteed.”
Israel has now been at war with its neighbours for nearly two years. The latest round began with the Hamas-led terrorist attack on 7 October 2023. In response, West Jerusalem launched an aggressive military campaign that has since expanded to touch nearly every country in the region. The escalation has placed the Jewish state at the centre of Middle Eastern geopolitics once again – this time, dragging in Iran, a state that had long avoided direct confrontation through strategic caution. Now, even Tehran finds itself under fire, with US backing making the stakes far higher. Iran is left facing a grim choice between the bad and the very bad. But this isn’t about Iran. It’s about Israel, a country that has for decades functioned as the West’s forward operating base in the Middle East.
Since the mid-20th century, Israel has enjoyed a privileged position – a bridgehead of Western power in a volatile region, while also deeply enmeshed in its politics and rivalries. Its success has rested on two pillars: the unshakable support of the United States, and its own internal capacity for innovation, military strength, and a unique social model. That second pillar, however, has weakened. The clearest sign is in demographics: Israel is facing rising negative migration. In 2024, some 82,700 people are expected to leave the country – a 50% increase from the year before. It is not the unskilled or disengaged who are leaving, but the young and educated. The people who are needed to sustain a modern state are choosing to go.
Of course, Israel’s troubles are not unique. Like many developed nations, it is struggling under the weight of a decaying neoliberal economic system. The pandemic made things worse, exposing the fragility of the model and encouraging a shift toward a “mobilisation” mode of governance – rule through emergency and constant readiness for conflict. In the West more broadly, war and geopolitical confrontation have become a way to delay or disguise necessary systemic reform. In this regard, Israel has become a laboratory for the West’s emerging logic: permanent war as a method of governance. In the autumn of 2023, the Israeli establishment embraced this fully. Conflict became not just a tactic, but a way of life. Its leaders no longer see peace as the goal, but war as the mechanism for national unity and political survival.
In this, Israel mirrors the broader Western embrace of conflict with Russia and China – proxy wars chosen when actual reform is off the table. At the global level, nuclear deterrence limits how far such wars can go. But in the Middle East, where Israel wages war directly, those constraints don’t apply. This allows war to serve as a pressure valve – politically useful, even as it becomes self-destructive. But even war has limits. It cannot indefinitely mask economic decay or social unrest. And while conflict tends to cement elite power – even among incompetent leadership – it also drains national strength. Israel is now consuming more and more of its own resources to sustain this permanent state of war. Its social cohesion is fraying. Its once-vaunted model of technological and civic progress is no longer functioning as it did.
Some in West Jerusalem may dream of “reformatting” the Middle East – reshaping the region through force and fear. If successful, it could buy Israel a few decades of security and breathing room. But such outcomes are far from guaranteed. Crushing a neighbour doesn’t eliminate the threat; it merely brings distant enemies closer. Most importantly, Israel’s deepest problems aren’t external – they are internal, rooted in its political and social structures. War can define a state, yes. But such states – Sparta, North Korea – tend to be “peculiar,” to put it mildly. And even for them, war cannot substitute for real diplomacy, policy, or growth. So has Israel, always at war, truly developed? Or has it simply been sustained – politically, militarily, and financially – as a subdivision of American foreign policy? If it continues down this path of permanent conflict and right-wing nationalism, it risks losing even that status. It may cease to be the West’s bridge in the Middle East – and become something else entirely: a militarised garrison state, isolated, brittle, and increasingly alone.
“..what I am confident about is that if Tulsi Gabbard is removed, she will not be replaced, and that’s as good as a win for the bad actors trying to target and survive Trump.”
For the sake of urgency I’m going to talk in direct and bold terms about the targeting of Tulsi Gabbard. The IC system is attempting to remove her as a disruptive influence by using Iran as a wedge to get her out, but the issue they have with her has nothing to do with Iran. CTH approaches this after being very concerned about Tulsi Gabbard’s ability. Not because of intent, but rather because we doubted she understood the scope of the IC opposition aligned against the office of the Director of National Intelligence. She started out with these weaknesses, but she learned quickly – grasped the opposition– and has become a transformative force within the Intelligence Community. Director Gabbard’s recent efforts within the Intelligence Community Inspector General office is another feather in her cap of competence. Gabbard is now a threat.
If President Trump allows or supports the removal of DNI Gabbard, he is opening up the backplate of his armor, and making himself vulnerable. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Chairman Tom Cotton, the disassembled National Intelligence Council and a host of Intelligence Community embeds would like to see Gabbard removed. DC wants to see her removed because the traditional role of the DNI has been a willful tool of the Intelligence Community; Gabbard is not that. As DNI Mrs Tulsi Gabbard has chased down intelligence community leakers, released the JFK files, released Joe Biden’s domestic terrorism surveillance plan, intercepted an NIC plot to impeach President Trump (confirmed by Rubio), taken control of the Presidential Daily Briefing, and begun to confront the corruption within the IC Inspector General organization. These are actions, not words, and those actions speak boldly. Suffice to say, her effectiveness has placed a target on her back.
In the past few weeks, ever since she began intercepting the ICIG issues and using her own personnel to monitor the IC network, she has been targeted with several direct smear campaigns. It is obvious the targeting is coming from inside the intelligence apparatus, and perhaps even the orbit around/under CIA Director John Ratcliffe. She did make a strange video about nuclear weapons contrast against the horrific outcomes in Japan, but that seemed to be more of a personal video entry expressing a deep concern about nuclear weapons from her own perspectives. I said it was weird when I saw it, but I put that into the context of ‘surfboard Tulsi‘, the DNI peacenik. No biggie. However, with the Israel -v- Iran conflict encompassing the White House, there is a transparent objective to weaponize Tulsi Gabbard’s activity as a contrast against President Trump supporting military conflict in Iran.
This contrast is being stimulated by the same elements who want to see her removed for the reasons noted above. The latest narrative du jour in the files includes: “WASHINGTON DC – […] Trump has increasingly mused about nixing Gabbard’s office completely, an idea he floated when he gave her the job. In the White House there have been discussions about folding its mandate into the CIA or another agency, according to one of the people familiar with his response to the video and two others familiar with the matter — though it’s unclear what that would mean for Gabbard. The Director of National Intelligence serves as the president’s principal intelligence adviser and oversees the sprawling U.S. spy community.
First, “nixing Gabbard’s office completely” is exactly what the bad elements of the Intelligence Community would love to see. Second, “folding its mandate into the CIA” is like a dream come true for the darkest elements of the IC and Senate enablers. And Third, “serves as the president’s principal intelligence adviser” is false. That’s the job of the National Security Advisor, Marco Rubio. If there is one hope amid this looming and increasing drumbeat to remove her, it is that Marco Rubio likely can see exactly what the motives and intentions are from his former colleagues. The elements targeting DNI Gabbard all come from SSCI Chairman Marco Rubio’s old tribe. SoS/NSA Rubio might save her, as too may Vice President JD Vance. Both of them are at the perfect distance to see the assembled drumbeat against Gabbard for what it is. At least that is my hope.
I am not confident they will succeed removing her. However, what I am confident about is that if Tulsi Gabbard is removed, she will not be replaced, and that’s as good as a win for the bad actors trying to target and survive Trump. President Trump has no more juice or influence in the Senate. That time is over. Trump has exhausted all of the political capital he held in the upper chamber. Every Republican Senator will now smile, nod and do whatever the heck they want regardless of how it impacts President Trump. This is especially true for the SSCI who would control confirmation of a DNI replacement. They don’t have to pretend any longer, Trump’s juice is gone. If President Trump allows the Brutus crew in his orbit to isolate, ridicule and marginalize Tulsi Gabbard, he will be putting a significant part of his administration at risk. This is the Six Ways from Sunday crowd.
“..Putin does not understand that the problem is Greater Israel. Iran is the last Muslim country with the capability of resisting the Israelization of the Middle East.”
John Helmer reports that Putin said he supports the “unconditional security of Israel” and that the Russian-Iranian treaty “did not envisage military cooperation.” Is this Putin’s green light for a US/Israeli strike on Iran? Why does Putin support the security of Israel but not of Iran? Israel is the aggressor, not Iran. Iran is a buffer for Russia. Israel is a threat. Putin offered his ideas to Netanyahu and Trump on how to resolve the “problem.” Putin said, “In my opinion, in general, such a solution can be found.” Putin does not understand that the problem is Greater Israel. Iran is the last Muslim country with the capability of resisting the Israelization of the Middle East. Israel has had a target on Iran for many years, and the American whore media has succeeded in demonizing Iran in the hearts and minds of the American people.
Putin’s foolish statements putting distance between Russia and Iran removes the only real constraint on a US/Israeli war with Iran. Such a war could soon begin. Gilbert Doctorow and the Washington Post report that Israel’s supply of missiles for its air defense are being rapidly depleted by sustained Iranian attacks. Israel faces the possible humiliation of having to sue for peace in about a week to ten days or use its nuclear weapons. This prospect is a huge incentive for Netanyahu to get Trump into the war and for Trump to oblige him.
President Trump is supposed to be America’s President, different from Biden who was the immigrant-invaders’ president, the president for DEI, the president for Zelensky in his conflict with Russia, the president for misunderstood criminals and sexual perverts. So why is Trump behaving as if he is President for Netanyahu? Iran has done nothing to America. It has not attacked us, sanctioned us, frozen our bank reserves, forbidden trade with us, assassinated any of our leaders. These are things that Washington has done to Iran. Why? Because Netanyahu told us to. Having failed to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities used to produce fuel for nuclear power and for medical purposes, Netanyahu has turned the task over to Trump, “Israel’s best friend.” Why does Trump want to be best friend with a government that for 21 months bombed and staffed Palestinian civilians, green-lighted Israeli soldiers to shoot babies and children in the head, and is now relying on starvation and disease to finish off the Palestinian population, forcefully preventing food, water, and medicine from entering Gaza?
Would you want to be friends with Netanyahu? Can you respect a president who not only wants to be friends with a genocidal maniac like Netanyahu, but is ready to take America to war for Netanyahu? I cannot. It seems that Trump is going to do good for Netanyahu by harming America and forfeiting American lives in yet another war for Israel. Hey Trump, what happens to the domestic agenda if taking on Iran is a bigger job than Netanyahu told you? Are you going to end up expanding Israel’s borders instead of protecting America’s borders? What happened to your plan to use Gaza as the anchor for your development of an American Middle East colony in place of Greater Israel? You declared Gaza an American possession and the first stage in the development plan. Has Netanyahu straightened you out about Greater Israel?
What happened to peace in Ukraine in 24 hours? You never sat down with Putin, understood the Russian concerns about NATO on Russia’s borders, and understood that the obvious solution was a mutual security agreement. That is all it takes to solve the problem before another fool green lights another attack on Russian strategic forces. Why do you regard the risk of a nuclear war as less of a threat than a mutual security agreement with Russia? What’s wrong with a mutual security agreement? Is the answer that the US military/security complex won’t allow you to take away the enemy that justifies their budget and power? America’s last industry seems to be weapons. Can we survive without it?
Hey Trump, considering all your problems at home with the judiciary blocking your deportation efforts and your ability to exercise executive branch powers to control the federal government’s policies and spending, with state and local Democrat officials working against your effort to control the border, with NGOs and foundations financing anti-deportation riots, why are you diverting your limited time and energy to foreign wars? After Netanyahu gets you into a war with Iran, are you going to start one with China? When the dumbshits in Europe get into a war with Russia, are you rushing Americans to the rescue?
Trump, you were supposed to be an American President, not President of the World. Our own country is drowning in problems. Why are you getting involved in other countries’ problems? Your dumbshit predecessors–Dubya/Cheney, Obama, Biden–have already destroyed five countries for Israel. If you make it six with Iran, Netanyahu will hand you number 7–Saudi Arabia–and then numbers 8–Pakistan, a larger problem as Pakistan has nukes. Will number 8 be Turkey? Are you going to be the president who created Greater Israel for the genocidal Netanyahu? Do you think that this is something to be proud of?
That is not why you were elected. You had better pay attention to your base. When the American Establishment concludes that you have been given enough rope, the RINOs will join the Democrats in impeaching you, and your disappointed public base will not come to your rescue. You will be impeached and convicted and so will be your supporters. Privileges for DEI will reappear along with open borders as white heterosexuals become accustomed to their second class status in a country that the Democrats have created in their image–a Sodom and Gomorrah Tower of Babel. The Camp of the Saints will advance, and you, Donald Trump, will have opened the last door to the replacement of the white ethnicities.
“Wednesday’s ruling is a crucial step toward restoring sanity to American healthcare and protecting our most vulnerable citizens from ideologically driven medical abuse.”
In a resounding victory for parental rights and child protection, the Supreme Court delivered a 6-3 decision Wednesday that upholds Tennessee’s ban on so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors. This landmark ruling represents a triumph of common sense over radical gender ideology that has been targeting America’s children for far too long. nAs you could have guessed, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, while the conservative majority on the court correctly recognized what Tennessee and 24 other states have already figured out: Children deserve protection from irreversible medical experiments masquerading as healthcare. The ACLU and its allies tried to dress up this radical agenda in constitutional language, claiming that banning these dangerous treatments for gender dysphoria while allowing the same medications for legitimate medical conditions somehow violated “equal protection.”
What a joke. There’s nothing “equal” about subjecting confused children to experimental treatments that could sterilize them and cause lifelong health problems. And thankfully, a majority of the court disagreed with the ACLU. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that such policy decisions are best left to voters and their elected officials, not the courts. In her dissent, Sotomayor accused the court of retreating “from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most,” and “abandon[ing] transgender children and their families to political whims.” The medical establishment’s endorsement of these treatments is hardly the slam-dunk argument the left thinks it is. The same organizations pushing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones have been captured by woke ideology and are more interested in political correctness than protecting children.
Meanwhile, as we’ve previously reported here at PJ Media, European countries that have been dealing with this gender madness longer than we have are now pulling back because they’re finally acknowledging what many of us have been saying all along: the risks far outweigh any supposed benefits. Various studies have supported this conclusion. This Supreme Court decision is a massive win for the 25 states that have had the courage to stand up to the transgender lobby and put children’s welfare first. It’s a vindication of basic common sense in an age when saying that boys are boys and girls are girls can get you labeled a bigot.
Of course, the fight isn’t over. The radical left won’t give up its crusade to confuse and mutilate America’s children just because the Supreme Court dealt them a major blow. There are still battles to fight in schools, sports, and countless other institutions that this gender ideology has infected. The Court has yet to address the broader questions of parental rights and the scope of state authority to protect children from harmful medical interventions. But Wednesday’s ruling is a crucial step toward restoring sanity to American healthcare and protecting our most vulnerable citizens from ideologically driven medical abuse.
Germany would “ruin” its economy by agreeing to a blitzing raise in its defense spending, particularly the NATO-proposed target of 3.5% to 5% of GDP, Ralf Dickel, an independent German energy expert specializing in international energy trade, told Sputnik on Thursday.In early May, media reported that NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte had proposed that NATO states increase their defense spending to 3.5% of GDP and allocate another 1.5% of GDP to additional defense needs to meet US President Donald Trump’s demand for a 5% target. The minimum requirements are expected to be agreed upon at the NATO summit in The Hague from June 24-25. “First of all, again, this 3.5 percent, 5 percent is completely ridiculous. We will ruin our economy for nothing,” Dickel said on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF). The expert expressed his concern over the prevailing mindset in the West where the emphasis on military readiness is seen as a solution to global tensions.
“What worries me is that in the West, we have a lot of people who say, ‘okay, this must spend much more on defense,’ on being war-ready, actually. Not on defense, but war-ready. That is very stupid on several accounts,” Dickel said. He argued that true defense should not be measured solely by the percentage of GDP allocated to military spending but should be informed by a careful analysis of potential threats. “I mean, first of all, it’s fair to be able to defend yourself, but that is something you would not usually link to a scale of your GDP, but you would rather analyze what is a scale of potential military actions against your country, and then you should be sure to meet them. But in parallel to that, we should also make an offer to negotiate. And to negotiate eventually some new architecture, some new security architecture,” he stated. The expert concluded by stressing that sustainable security for any state could not solely be achieved through military means but must also involve dialogue and cooperation.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez told NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that Madrid would not support the proposal to increase the alliance’s defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2032, according to a letter published by El Pais newspaper on Thursday. “For Spain, committing to a 5% target would not only be unreasonable, but also counterproductive; it would move Spain away from optimal spending and would hinder the EU’s efforts to strengthen its security and defense ecosystem,” the letter read.
Sources at the Spanish government told the newspaper that while they do not rule out Europe reaching 5% defense spending, they believe it is too early to set that target. Earlier in June, Rutte called on NATO member states to increase their defense spending from the current 2% to 3.5% of their respective GDPs, and spend another 1.5% on infrastructure development, military industry and other security-related investments. US President Donald Trump previously demanded that NATO allies spend 5% of GDP on defense.
”If the Ukrainian state entrusts someone to negotiate on its behalf, suit yourself, let it be Zelensky,” Putin said. “The question is, who will sign the document?”
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he could meet with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky to conduct peace talks between the two countries, but expressed doubt regarding Zelensky’s authority to sign a treaty. Zelensky has repeatedly called for a meeting with Putin, claiming that he alone can resolve key bilateral issues, including territorial disputes.nSpeaking late Wednesday with international media at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, the Russian president reiterated Moscow’s concerns about Zelensky’s legitimacy. ”If the Ukrainian state entrusts someone to negotiate on its behalf, suit yourself, let it be Zelensky,” Putin said. “The question is, who will sign the document?”
Zelensky’s presidential term expired last year, and no successor has been elected due to martial law. Zelensky insists that he has the right to remain in office, even though the Ukrainian Constitution calls for the transfer of presidential powers to the speaker of the parliament. ”Propagandistically, one can say anything about the legitimacy of the current authorities, but we care about legal aspects and not propaganda when dealing with serious issues,” Putin said.
He added that since Ukrainian officials are appointed by the president, Zelensky’s questionable legitimacy calls into question the authority of those serving under him. We don’t care who conducts negotiations, even if it is the head of the regime. I am even willing to meet with him for some final phase, where we won’t be spending endless amounts of time divvying things but would just put a stop to it all. ”But the signature must come from legitimate authorities,” Putin stressed. “Otherwise, whoever comes after him will toss it to the dumpster. That’s not a way to conduct serious business.”
TUCKER: “I don't want my country to be further weakened or destroyed by another one of these wars. And if you can't connect the dots after 25 years of this sh*t, you're either too dumb to participate in the conversation or you're like Mark Levin — just a liar who doesn't care.” pic.twitter.com/54KJMVEt7M
Former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon on how the president’s enemies are working to destroy MAGA with the war on Iran.
(0:00) Will the Iran War Be the Downfall of MAGA? (6:55) Fox News’ Pro-War Propaganda (12:42) The Never-Trumpers Pretending to Be On Trump’s Team (15:30)… pic.twitter.com/PdUZFiUNNZ
BREAKING: Netanyahu Double Crosses Trump, Says He Will Not Engage In Peace Talks / Wants Regime Change As China Announces They Back Iran, Along With Nuclear-Armed Pakistan
PLUS, He Claims The US Not Backing Israel's War Against Iran Will Threaten/Destroy Our Homeland, "Today… pic.twitter.com/Gq5ksmlL8k
This is Nick Fuentes almost 2 years ago, the day after oct. 7th, predicting everything that is happening today.
When you can predict the future with this level of accuracy, it tells you that his understanding and model of politics is true.pic.twitter.com/K7NQBper1f
President Donald Trump is seriously considering getting the US directly involved in Israel’s conflict with Iran as he meets with his national security team on Tuesday, multiple media outlets have reported. The president has lauded the Israeli bombing campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities but has so far held off on joining offensive operations, opting instead to use US military assets to help West Jerusalem shoot down Iranian missiles and drones. Ahead of a national security meeting in the White House Situation Room to discuss the escalating Middle East conflict, Trump was considering entering the US into the fray, Axios and CBS News wrote on Tuesday.
“Trump was seriously considering joining the war and launching a US strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, especially its underground uranium enrichment facility in Fordow,” Axios wrote, citing three anonymous officials. West Jerusalem believes the US will “enter the war in the coming days,” the outlet said, citing Israeli officials.nThe decision will be discussed at Tuesday’s meeting, but there is no full agreement among Trump’s closest advisers, CBS News wrote, citing fire sources familiar with the matter. nFordow, a heavily fortified uranium enrichment plant built deep inside a mountain, has been hit with Israeli airstrikes, but there is no indication that its underground section sustained significant damage, according to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Rafael Grossi.
The Jewish state lacks the bunker-buster bombs needed to fully destroy the entrenched facility, but US forces deployed in the region both carry the weapons and have the capability to field them, Axios wrote on Sunday. nAccording to National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi, the Israeli campaign against Iran “will not end without damaging the Fordow nuclear facility.” While it is unclear “if the US will join,” Israel is in constant communication with Washington on the matter, he said in an interview on Tuesday. A few hours prior to Tuesday’s security meeting, Trump delivered a chain of militant posts on Truth Social, claiming that the US now had unobstructed primacy in Iranian airspace, boasting that he could assassinate Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and demanding that Tehran capitulate.
US President Donald Trump has demanded an “unconditional surrender” from Iran, which has been locked in a heated military conflict with Israel, over the past days. In a series of posts on his Truth Social Trump also claimed that “we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.” Hostilities between West Jerusalem and Tehran have been intensifying since Israel’s attacks on a uranium enrichment center, nuclear and military facilities, and a series of drone and car-bomb attacks that killed over a dozen senior Iranian military commanders and scientists as well as multiple civilians. Iran retaliated by firing dozens of ballistic missiles into Israel. The two sides have been exchanging attacks since then. “Unconditional surrender,” Trump wrote in capital letters on Truth Social on Tuesday.
The American president also issued a direct threat against the Islamic Republic’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, claiming that the US and its Israeli allies “know exactly” where Khamenei is “hiding.” Trump called him an “easy target” but stated that “we are not going to take him out… at least for now.” “Our patience is wearing thin,” the US president added. Speaking to journalists earlier on Tuesday, the American leader said his goals in the conflict between West Jerusalem and Tehran go beyond a ceasefire, adding that he wanted Iran to forgo “entirely on nuclear weapons.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made similar statements on Monday, when he claimed that Israel was “in control of the skies over Tehran” and told the city’s residents to evacuate.
Tehran signaled on Tuesday that it was ready to continue fighting. “The enemy cannot sustain a long war, and as it continues, the back of the Zionist regime will be broken,” Iran’s defense ministry spokesman, Brigadier General Reza Talayi-Nik, said in a televised interview aired by the Iranian state broadcaster. The general also announced the use of new missile systems as part of retaliatory strikes. “Today, we used one of our missiles for the first time, and the Zionist regime didn’t even realize it had been deployed. They will see more of these surprises,” he said. Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) reported successful strikes on Israel’s military intelligence logistical headquarters and a Mossad intelligence center in the Tel Aviv area on Tuesday. The targets were hit “despite the presence of highly advanced defense systems,” it said.
West Jerusalem justified its Friday attack by claiming Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. Tehran has repeatedly denied such accusations, maintaining that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful. In late March, US National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard stated that American intelligence data suggested Iran was “not building a nuclear weapon” and its nuclear arms program had been on hold since 2003. When asked about this assessment on Tuesday, Trump stated that he did “not care what she said.”
“Regime change is more likely in Israel and across Europe than anywhere near Iran,” Marandi said. “These Western governments failed with Russia, failed with China, and they’ll fail with Iran too.”
Mohammad Marandi, a prominent Iranian academic, political analyst, and adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiating team, rejects Netanyahu’s claims outright. n“The regime is lying about nuclear programs just to justify aggression and murder,” Marandi told RT. “Tulsi Gabbard, who is the Director of US National Intelligence, just recently said Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. So it’s clear that the issue is Netanyahu, neat escalation, and the Zionist lobby in the United States is behind him.”mnIran’s nuclear program has long been a subject of contention. While Tehran has enriched uranium and developed advanced centrifuge technology, it has consistently denied seeking nuclear weapons. Iranian officials argue that their nuclear program is designed solely for peaceful energy production and medical research – a position grounded, they say, in religious doctrine that prohibits weapons of mass destruction.
To prove its intentions, Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015, an international accord with the US and European powers that limited uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief. However, in 2018, then-President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the deal, reigniting tensions. Since then, Tehran has allowed international inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) limited access to its facilities, but Israel remains unconvinced.nAccording to Marandi, Israel’s true objective lies far beyond neutralizing a nuclear threat.mn“It’s always been so-called regime change,” he said. “Whether it’s the Israeli regime or the Americans or the Europeans. That’s how they are. They don’t want independent countries, and especially countries like Iran, which support the Palestinian cause.”
Marandi is not alone in his assessment. Syrian analyst Taleb Ibrahim, a longtime commentator on Iranian affairs and an author of several books on the Islamic Republic, agrees that Western powers – particularly the United States – are pursuing a broader geopolitical agenda.n“If the United States will put its hands on Iran again [like it was before 1979],” Ibrahim told RT, “they will block the Russian southern wall. This means that Russia will not be able to expand its influence beyond the Caspian Sea. And it will be restricted to a very narrow place between Central Asia and the Arctic.”mnIbrahim warns that China, too, would suffer consequences from a weakened Iran. “China will not be able to reach the Middle East. Because if Iran becomes part of the Western bloc, it will sever China’s access. And the most important thing of all – a new world order will emerge. It will be a new American world order.”
Ibrahim believes this is not a regional conflict, but part of a sweeping strategy to restore American hegemony. “To make America great again is to regain American control across the globe. The war in Iran is just a chapter in that plan.” President Donald Trump has thus far distanced himself from the Israeli operation, saying America’s goals are purely defensive and promising that he will not be starting any wars. But Ibrahim is unconvinced. “In strategy, if you want to make war, talk about peace,” he said. “The United States is preparing for a very big war – first against China, then Russia. After this, they will try to build an American century. One government for the world, headquartered in the White House. That’s the final goal.”
Both Marandi and Ibrahim agree that forced regime change in Iran would unleash chaos across the region. The fall of Tehran’s current government could lead to the fragmentation of Iran – a multi-ethnic nation with Kurds, Azeris, Arabs, and Baloch who may pursue autonomy or independence in the power vacuum. It could ignite sectarian warfare akin to what unfolded in Iraq after the 2003 US invasion, and destabilize fragile neighbors like Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Turkey. Moreover, Iran’s alliances with Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and various Shia militias across Iraq and Syria mean that a collapse in Tehran could trigger cascading violence across the Middle East. Global oil markets, already rattled, could see disruptions on a historic scale.
Yet, both experts maintain that such an outcome is unlikely. “Regime change is more likely in Israel and across Europe than anywhere near Iran,” Marandi said. “These Western governments failed with Russia, failed with China, and they’ll fail with Iran too.” Ibrahim agrees: “It is impossible to make regime change in Iran by force. The Iran-Iraq war was designed to do exactly that – to overthrow the Islamic Republic established by Ayatollah Khomeini. But after eight years of war, billions of dollars, and support from the US, France, and Gulf states, Iran survived – and emerged stronger. The only way to change the regime is through the Iranian people. And right now, the Iranian people are standing with their leaders. They believe they are fighting the Satan – the US, the bigger Satan, and Israel, the smaller one. And that gives them unity and strength.”
As Israel continues its campaign and the international community watches nervously, the implications of the current conflict are far from limited to the Middle East. “This war,” Ibrahim concluded, “will be the starting point of reshaping the world. If Iran wins – and I believe it will, eventually – the world will shift to a multipolar order. That is the shared vision of Iran, Russia, and China. But if Iran loses, we will all live under an American empire. The White House will rule from Washington to Beijing. This is a decisive battle – not just for Iran, but for the destiny of the world.” As missiles fly and rhetoric intensifies, what began as a regional standoff may ultimately determine the balance of power in the 21st century.
US President Donald Trump has said he believes that Iran was “very close” to obtaining a nuclear weapon, contrary to the assessment of his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. In late March, Gabbard said that the US intelligence community “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” When asked about the stance of his spy chief by journalists on Tuesday, Trump replied: “I do not care what she said.”
“I think they [Iran] were very close to having them,” the president stressed, referring to nuclear weapons. Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman who joined the Republican Party during last year’s presidential campaign, was confirmed by the US Senate as the director of national intelligence in February, following heavy scrutiny and a heated debate. During her political career, the former presidential candidate and Iraq War veteran has been a fierce critic of the US intelligence community that she currently leads, and was known for her support for NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
US President Donald Trump blasted conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson on Monday, calling him “kooky” after the journalist questioned Washington’s support for Israel following its strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel launched attacks on Iran’s uranium enrichment and reactor sites starting last Friday, claiming it was a preemptive move to stop Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Carlson, normally a Trump ally, condemned supporters of West Jerusalem’s military escalation and hosted guests on his program who shared similar views. ”Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that, ‘IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!’” Trump wrote on his social media platform.
On Friday, Carlson denounced “those who casually encourage violence” and urged Trump not to back Israeli military action against Iran. He argued that the fundamental divide today is not between those supporting West Jerusalem and those backing its adversaries, but “between warmongers and peacemakers.” Carlson also discussed the role of Israel in US foreign policy during a recent interview with Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs. The host remarked that warnings about Iran being “weeks away” from developing nuclear weapons have circulated for more than two decades. Sachs, a vocal critic of the entrenched unelected bureaucracies in the US known as the “deep state,” argued that Israel was aiming for regime change in Tehran.
Sachs noted that Iran was the final country on a list of seven that the George W. Bush administration had intended to “take out” in five years, beginning with Iraq. The list, as described by retired US Army General Wesley Clark, also included Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan. These nations have all been targeted either through direct US military action or covert operations, the economist said, adding that all were perceived as hostile by Israel.
”America has been doing Israel’s bidding for 30 years. Because of the Israel lobby. Because of the concocted idea that this is US security,” Sachs said. He argued that “arrogance in Washington is the first point of reference” in foreign interventions, asserting that policymakers “don’t believe this is hard.” In a separate interview Monday with former Trump strategist Steve Bannon, Carlson raised concerns that Middle East hostilities could “blow up” the so-called MAGA coalition which fueled Trump’s political resurgence in the 2024 election cycle. Bannon warned that “the American people are 90% against forever wars,” and said Trump faces a crucial battle against the deep state if he is to advance his agenda.
As tensions soar and Americans anxiously contemplate the possibility of yet another major US war in the Middle East, the Trump administration has been in contact with the Iranian government, discussing a possible meeting this week between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US envoy Steve Witkoff, Axios reports, citing “four sources briefed on the issue.” The outlet also says Trump officials reassured Middle East allies that the administration doesn’t plan to join the war unless Americans are targeted — a clear red line that incentivizes Israel to find a way to drag Iran across it, or to fabricate an incident altogether, much as Israel did in 1954’s famed “Lavon Affair.” An Arab diplomat in deep contact with Iran says the red line is already very much in mind in Tehran: “The Iranians are very careful so far not to do anything that can push the U.S. to get involved.”
Following those reports, Iran over Monday night pared back the pace of its heavy bombardment of Israel, after consecutive nights of deadly, damaging strikes demonstrating the power of Iran’s hypersonic missiles. In a new twist, however, Iran hit Israel with a daylight barrage on Tuesday morning — albeit one that was reportedly modest in volume, perhaps only 20 missiles. Of course, there’s nothing modest about it if you happen to be in one of the impact areas:
Earlier on Monday, Israel struck various targets in Iran, including the state-run television network IRIB in mid-broadcast (though it quickly resumed broadcasting with the same host). The IDF also claimed it killed a highly senior Iranian general who himself succeeded another general assassinated in Israel’s opening of the war. The Axios reports come in stark contrast to a stream of bellicose rhetoric emanating from Trump, along with potentially ominous moves of US military assets. On Monday, Trump used social media to say that “everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!” Also yesterday, Fox News reported that the USS Nimitz-led aircraft carrier group was steaming toward the Middle East from the South China Sea, where it will join the already on-station USS Carl Vinson strike group. At the same time, a large number of military refueling aircraft were being deployed to Europe.
Even if the reports of US diplomatic outreach are true, from Iran’s perspective, little or nothing the Trump administration says can be trusted, and even ostensibly peaceful overtures must be evaluated as a potential tactic to set up a surprise US strike. After all, Israel’s initiation of a war on Iran came two days before American and Iranian delegations were scheduled to meet in Oman for a sixth round of discussions pursuant to a new deal about Iran’s nuclear program. Since Israel’s attack, Trump has repeatedly stated that he knew about it in advance, saying for example that “We were well-informed about everything,” and “I always knew the date.”
Here’s what one official told Axios about the pursuit of a new meeting: “A meeting with the Iranians this week is under consideration…They do want to talk. But what we don’t know is, have they been brought to their knees fully so that they realize that in order to have a country, they have to talk? And assuming they get there, is there any degree of [uranium] enrichment you would allow them to have?”
The suggestion that Iran is anywhere close to being “on its knees” seems fanciful, considering Iran has launched multiple missile barrages, the effects of which have significantly exceeded expectations. Two dozen Israelis have been killed and at least 400 injured, with the country also enduring major hits to government buildings, apartment towers and power plants. The starring role in those barrages has been played by Iran’s highly advanced hypersonic missiles — a weapon that neither Israel nor even the United States has in its arsenal:
Another video of an Iranian Hypersonic missile hitting Israel.
The unnamed official’s rhetorical question about whether there’s “any amount of enrichment” the US would allow may offer a glimmer of hope for an end to the Israel-initiated war. Iran sees enrichment as a right it possesses as a sovereign state, and has repeatedly said an outright ban on enrichment is completely out of the question. Iran has long been under a religious order, or “fatwa,” forbidding the development of any weapon of mass destruction, and the country has long assured the world that it has no intention of building a nuclear weapon — an assurance the US intelligence community validated in 2007 and has repeatedly re-confirmed since then — most recently, just this March. Meanwhile, anti-Iran hawks have been warning of an imminent Iranian nuclear bomb for more than three decades.
Israel’s ongoing strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities pose unacceptable threats to international security and risk plunging the world into a catastrophe, Russia’s Foreign Ministry has said. Israel began bombing Iran on Friday, claiming Tehran is nearing the completion of a nuclear bomb. Iran has dismissed the accusations as groundless and retaliated to the Israeli military operation with waves of drone and missile strikes. “The ongoing intensive attacks by the Israeli side on peaceful nuclear facilities in Iran are illegal from the point of view of international law, create unacceptable threats to international security and push the world towards a nuclear catastrophe,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement published on Tuesday.
The conflict’s escalation risks the further destabilization of the entire region, the ministry added, urging the Israeli leadership to “come to its senses and immediately stop raids on nuclear installations.” The harsh reaction to Israel’s attack on Iran from most of the international community illustrates that the Jewish state is only supported by countries acting as its “accomplices,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said. Israel’s backers pressured the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board to push through last week’s “biased anti-Iranian resolution” on Tehran’s nuclear program, which “gave West Jerusalem a free hand, and led to this tragedy,” according to the ministry.
“The Western camp’s attempts to manipulate the global nuclear non-proliferation regime and use it to settle political scores” are costing the international community dearly, and are “completely unacceptable,” it added. A day before Israel’s attack on Iran, the IAEA’s board declared Tehran to be in breach of its nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) obligations. Just weeks prior, Reuters reported, citing anonymous diplomats, that the US, UK, France and Germany were preparing to push the UN nuclear watchdog’s board to declare that Iran had broken the NPT. Tehran has repeatedly stressed that its nuclear program is peaceful and accused Israel of using its military operation to “scuttle” Iran’s talks with the US.
US President Donald Trump has left the G7 summit in Canada early, despite having a scheduled meeting with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, the White House has said, citing the recent escalation in the Middle East. White House Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Monday that the US leader is departing the gathering in Kananaskis, Alberta, “so he can attend to many important matters.” She also wrote on X that Trump “had a great day at the G7,” but “because of what’s going on in the Middle East, [he] will be leaving tonight after dinner with Heads of State.” Zelensky had been scheduled to meet Trump on the sidelines of the summit in what was widely perceived as an opportunity to urge the US to ramp up sanctions against Russia and approve more weapons shipments to Kiev.
Trump, however, has been reluctant to increase pressure on Moscow, with media reports suggesting that he is frustrated with both Ukraine and Russia, and is considering withdrawing from the peace process altogether. French President Emmanuel Macron suggested that Trump’s early departure was linked to ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Iran. “There is indeed an offer to meet and exchange,” Macron said. “The US assured they will find a ceasefire, and since they can pressure Israel, things may change.” Trump, however, pushed back on the claim shortly afterward, rebuking “publicity seeking” Macron for what he saw as disseminating falsehoods. “He has no idea why I am now on my way to Washington, but it certainly has nothing to do with a Cease Fire. Much bigger than that,” he wrote on the Truth Social network.
The recent Middle East escalation kicked off after US–Iran talks on a potential nuclear deal ended up at an impasse. Iran has dismissed a US demand to completely eliminate its uranium enrichment capabilities while not ruling out a potential agreement in itself. Tehran has also insisted it is not seeking to create a nuclear weapon, and that its atomic program is for peaceful purposes only. As the diplomatic process stalled, Israel last week launched several waves of strikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites, killing top commanders and nuclear scientists. Iran retaliated with massive missile strikes on Israel, while the US has backed West Jerusalem’s right to self-defense while reinforcing its assets in the region to protect its long-time ally. Washington, nevertheless, urged Tehran to return to talks.
Israel has so far shown no interest in peacefully settling the conflict it initiated with Iran, despite Russia’s offer to mediate a dialogue between the two nations, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. Commenting on the recent series of mutually devastating strikes between Israel and Iran, Peskov sounded the alarm over what he described as “galloping escalation”. “The situation is continuing to escalate rapidly. The level of unpredictability is absolute,” Peskov told reporters on Tuesday. He emphasized the need for both sides to exercise “maximum restraint” in order to prevent tensions from completely spiraling out of control.
Peskov underscored that Russia stands ready to play its part in facilitating a potential diplomatic solution. “President [Vladimir] Putin said that Russia would be ready to provide such mediation services,” Peskov told reporters on Tuesday. “At present, we see reluctance, at least on the part of Israel, to seek any kind of mediating services or to move onto a peace track.” After Iran-US talks on a potential new nuclear deal ended up at an impasse, Israel last week launched several waves of strikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites, killing top commanders and nuclear scientists. Iran, in turn, retaliated with massive missile strikes on the Jewish state.
In another sign of escalating tensions, US President Donald Trump, a long-time ally of Israel, urged residents of Tehran to flee the city, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to hint that eliminating Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could be considered an option for ending hostilities. Following the strikes, Putin held separate phone calls with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss options for de-escalation. Later, Trump held a phone call with Putin, which also revolved around the Middle East conflict, saying he was open to his Russian counterpart taking on a mediating
Steve Bannon – the smart, stubborn, and irrepressible right/far-right public intellectual and once ally as well as chief strategist and bestie of US President Donald Trump – is back in the news. And in a way that speaks to much more than the ups and downs, and ins and outs, of US elite careers. The hill he has chosen to fight on this time is resistance to the US waging another war in the Middle East in the service of Israel and its powerful lobby in America. Bannon, make no mistake, is not taking a de facto stand against Israel because of its apartheid, genocide, and wars of aggression. He ought to, obviously, especially as a man flaunting his Christian belief. (From one sort-of-Roman-Catholic to another, Steve: Our Lord Jesus Christ really didn’t like the child killers, and I am pretty sure he would have found the lingerie-camouflage cross-dressers with machine guns rather off-putting, too.)
But then, if Bannon had principled moral objections here, he would not be Steve Bannon, a very conservative American, who will probably never shake off deeply ingrained mental habits of violence and racism.nBut from Trump’s perspective – and that of the Israeli influence agents surrounding him – Bannon’s line of attack is actually more dangerous than a genuinely moral stance. Because Bannon is positioning American national interest against following Israel’s lead. By declaring that Israel pursues an ‘Israel First’ policy about as egotistically as Berlin’s ‘Germany First’ trip between 1933 and 1945, Bannon has dared to state the obvious: Israel’s interests are not identical with those of the US, and therefore, a genuine ‘America First’ policy must not obey Israel. Hence, stay out of the war against Iran. Or to be precise, get out of it.
And there Bannon is of course right and has the facts and logic on his side, which makes his challenge all the more threatening.mThe background to Bannon’s sally, which as the Financial Times points out, signals a split among Trump’s domestically indispensable MAGA base, is the perfect mess Trump and his team have made over the attack on Iran. Despite their clumsy mixed messaging – really, contradictory lying and boasting – Israel’s unprovoked war of aggression against Iran can obviously only be waged because of massive American support.mIn reality this is already a combined US-Israeli attack, and it makes no difference to this fact that Israel always wants even more, including – as Axios, a network with remarkably easy access to Israeli sources, has reported – open US help in attacking the key Iranian nuclear installations at Fordow.
Never mind, by the way, that deliberately striking a nuclear facility is as criminal as it gets. It constitutes a clear breach of the Geneva Conventions, as the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei has recently had to publicly school German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul about. The latter is clearly just as ignorant of his job’s basics as his legendarily inept predecessor Annalena Baerbock used to be. Yet, as Bannon’s intervention shows, the key role the US plays in the assault on Iran has caused noteworthy ripple effects inside America and in particular inside the movement now known as MAGA. Originally the abbreviation was an extremely successful 2016 Trump campaign slogan – inspired by a forerunner used by Ronald Reagan in 1980 – meaning ‘Make America Great Again’.
But as a movement, MAGA has a much longer history. Its influences and ancestors include, for instance, nativism, isolationism, the original America First, and the more recent Tea Party. That’s why it is important to understand that MAGA overlaps with but is not identical with Trumpism, as often assumed. In reality, MAGA is part of an older, powerful tradition that Trump has tapped into with great success. But he is not guaranteed to always be in control of it, as the term ‘Trumpism’ may misleadingly imply.
Last week independent Senators Bernie Sanders (VT) and Angus King (ME) introduced legislation that would ban pharmaceutical companies from promoting prescription drugs directly to consumers – including through television, radio, print, digital platforms, and social media. Today, Bloomberg reports that the Trump administration is now ‘discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients.’ Although the US is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it’s instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.
The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive — or removing the industry’s ability to deduct direct-to-consumer advertising as a business expense for tax purposes, these people said. If this happens, it would mark a major victory for Health and Human Services Secretary RFK Jr., who says he believes Americans consume more drugs than people in other countries due to the ability of US drug companies to directly advertise to consumers.
While running for president, Mr. Kennedy said he would issue an executive order removing pharmaceutical ads from television, citing overmedication and industry influence on news coverage. As we noted last week, the move would mark a sweeping shift in the U.S. advertising landscape, where pharmaceutical companies are among the largest spenders. Prescription drug brands accounted for roughly 13 percent of all ad spending on linear television in 2025, totaling approximately $2.18 billion so far this year, according to iSpot data. In 2024, the industry spent $3.4 billion on traditional TV ads between January and August alone, according to ad-tracking data.
Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration relaxed disclosure requirements for DTC ads, pharmaceutical companies have increasingly leaned on consumer advertising to drive demand. Under current rules, companies need only disclose a drug’s “most important” risks during commercials. The result has been a media environment saturated with pharmaceutical messaging. Drug ads made up 24.4 percent of all advertising minutes on evening news broadcasts across major networks — including ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and NBC — through May of this year, according iSpot. On CBS Evening News, pharmaceutical companies appeared in more than 70 percent of commercial breaks, per Kantar Media.
The European Commission has proposed phasing out all remaining Russian gas imports to the EU by the end of 2027.Energy Commissioner Dan Jorgensen unveiled the plan which would ban new gas contracts with Russia from 2026 and “full phaseout” a year later, on Tuesday, after it was approved by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. The controversial legislation, which is opposed by Hungry, Austria and Slovakia, and reportedly by Italy, is expected to be proposed as trade law that does not require unanimity among bloc members to become law, the Financial Times has reported.
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto called the plan “absolute insanity,” warning it could fuel price hikes and undermine national sovereignty. Prime Minister Viktor Orban has vowed to block the move. ”Today, we have decided to close the tap on Russian gas,” Jorgensen said in Strasbourg, “because the less energy we import from Russia, the more security and independence we will have in Europe.” Jorgensen told reporters the phaseout was not linked to the Ukraine conflict but rather because “Russia has weaponized energy” against the EU. He added: “Irrespectively of whether there is a peace or not … this ban will still stand.”
The proposed regulation will now move through the EU’s co-decision legislative process, requiring approval from both the European Parliament and the Council. Unlike sanctions, the proposal would not need unanimous backing from all member states – only a qualified majority in the Council, the Commission said, noting it would continue “working closely” with governments most affected by the planned phaseout.A reinforced majority means having the support of at least 15 of the EU’s 27 member countries, representing at least 65% of the EU’s population, according to Reuters. “Nobody will be able to veto [the proposal],” Jorgensen said, as quoted by media outlets. He warned that those who do not implement the measures would face “legal consequences as for any other EU legislation.”
While pipeline flows have dropped sharply since 2022, EU imports of Russian LNG have soared. Russia supplied 17.5% of the bloc’s LNG in 2024, trailing only the US at 45.3%, according to industry data. France, Spain, and Belgium accounted for 85% of the EU’s LNG imports from the sanctioned country, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA). Russia maintains that it is still a reliable supplier, while denouncing Western sanctions and trade restrictions targeting its exports as illegal under international law. The country has successfully shifted exports to ‘friendly’ markets, it added.
US President Donald Trump has said he is not ready to introduce tougher sanctions against Russia despite pressure from allies, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday. Trump expressed concern that additional punitive economic measures would cost his country “a lot of money.”The American leader has repeatedly said he is weighing new sanctions on Moscow, but has so far stopped short of adopting any. Speaking with reporters at the G7 summit in Alberta, Canada, he said he first wants to see “whether or not a deal is signed.”v“When I sanction a country that costs the US a lot of money, a tremendous amount of money,” Trump said.
“It’s not just, let’s sign a document – you’re talking about billions and billions of dollars. Sanctions are not that easy. It’s not just a one-way street.”vRepublican Senator Lindsey Graham has advocated massively increasing sanctions in a bill he introduced earlier this year. It includes, among other measures, 500% tariffs on countries that purchase Russian oil and gas, should Moscow refuse to engage in peace negotiations with Ukraine. Graham, who later suggested exceptions for countries that provide military aid to Kiev, described the proposed measures as “bone-breaking” for Russia.
Last week, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned that the proposed sanctions could undermine diplomatic efforts, and urged lawmakers to give the Trump administration greater flexibility to negotiate with Moscow and Kiev.Trump told journalists earlier this month that the Senate had prepared “a very strong bill,” and that Washington would “use it if it’s necessary.” However, the president reportedly asked Senate Republicans to delay putting it to a vote. Senator Roger Wicker, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Trump had indicated he was not yet ready to support it.vDuring their latest round of direct negotiations in Istanbul, Russia and Ukraine both put forward proposals to end the conflict. Moscow’s plan would require Kiev to accept the loss of five regions which joined Russia in referendums, pull back its troops from those territories, and adhere to neutrality.
Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky dismissed that plan as an ultimatum and ruled out territorial concessions or neutrality. He also insisted on a full 30-day ceasefire as a precursor to negotiations – a condition which the Kremlin has rejected.vThen President Joe Biden cut most contacts with Moscow in 2022 over the Ukraine conflict and imposed sweeping sanctions on Russian officials and companies. Trump has since criticized Biden for eschewing diplomacy and vowed to negotiate a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. Moscow has welcomed Trump’s initiative, but progress on reaching a settlement has been slow.
Four Boeing 787 Dreamliners on international flights to India have been forced to turn back due to technical issues over the past few days, according to media reports. On Sunday, a Hyderabad-bound Lufthansa flight from Frankfurt returned to the German airport midway through the journey based on a suspected bomb threat, according to sources quoted by the media outlet India Today. Air Traffic Control (ATC) at Hyderabad airport received a message that the Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner was returning to Frankfurt after having taken off.nOn Monday, Air India flight AI315 was forced to return to Hong Kong just 15 minutes after taking off, Reuters reported.
The airline confirmed the incident, citing a “technical issue” as the reason for the return, but did not provide further details. The Boeing 787-8 aircraft successfully landed without incident, and alternate arrangements were made for the passengers. Also on Monday, a British Airways flight carrying 214 passengers to Chennai was forced to dump fuel and return to London after the pilots reported a suspected technical issue, Business Insider reported. “The aircraft returned to Heathrow as a standard precaution after reports of a technical issue,” a BA spokesperson told the website, adding that there was no “emergency landing.” nIn a similar incident, passengers on an Air India San Francisco-Mumbai flight were asked to deplane in Kolkata on Tuesday after a snag was detected in the left engine during a scheduled stop, delaying the onward journey by hours, an India Today report said.
These developments come just days after an Air India 787-8 crashed shortly after takeoff in Ahmedabad, killing 290 people. Officials told the Associated Press that early indications suggest the aircraft may not have been correctly configured for takeoff. There have been numerous complaints, whistleblower revelations and concerns regarding the safety of Boeing 787s, according to media reports. In 2019, a New York Times report revealed that John Barnett, a former quality manager who retired in 2017, had filed a whistleblower complaint alleging subpar work on the 787s. In January 2024, another whistleblower alleged that the Dreamliner’s fuselage had improper connections, with gaps that could cause it to break apart in flight.
Allow me to remind you of a few uncomfortable truths. Government spending is out of control in developed nations. Furthermore, no interventionist government wants to cut spending or balance the budget. Government spending empowers politicians, and reducing it means losing the grip on the economy. Interventionist governments aren’t concerned about debts, deficits, or inflation. Inflation is a deliberate policy, and interventionist governments seek to nationalize the economy while imposing total control over productive sectors by issuing continuously devalued currencies. Government spending is printing money. Politicians are happy to promise more free stuff by endlessly spending because they know they won’t pay for it and that it will make citizens and businesses more dependent and submissive to political power. No government can truly reduce debt without cutting spending.
Inflation is evidence of the loss of solvency for the issuer of money. It is a de facto slow default. Inflation serves as a policy that justifies and perpetuates significant government imbalances, shifting the financial burden onto real wages and deposit savings. The fallacy of balancing the budget through higher taxes leads to economic stagnation and more debt. High taxes are not a tool to reduce debt but to justify high indebtedness. Tax receipts are cyclical whereas government expenditures are consolidated and annualised. No interventionist government is going to willingly act to reduce debt and spending because they can always tax more and blame others for their problems. Furthermore, central banks have stopped playing the essential role of curbing fiscal excess to become enablers of rising fiscal imbalances.
Central banks play a crucial role in the fiat world due to the intertwining of monetary and fiscal policy. The system will gradually collapse if central banks do not stop the growth of government fiscal imbalances. However, the independence of central banks is diminishing daily, and their policies tend to conceal excessive government spending and debt. Meanwhile, governments ignore the fact that they have surpassed the three limits of government debt: economic, fiscal, and inflationary. More government debt means lower growth, more taxes generate weaker receipts, and more government spending perpetuates inflation. Now that central banks have stopped being the essential limit to government excess, there are only two alternatives: gold and Bitcoin.
Gold has already overtaken the euro as the second largest asset after the US dollar in global central banks. In a few months, it will be the largest asset. Global central banks have lost confidence in sovereign debt from developed countries as a reserve asset. Thus, developed nations’ long-term bond yields rise above inflation rate expectations. Bitcoin, on the other hand, has shown investors and citizens that a decentralised currency can gradually become a low-volatility reserve asset, a generalised means of payment, and a unit of measurement. As global citizens see Bitcoin as an increasingly viable alternative to fiat money, more are using it to store value and protect themselves against inflation. Investors do not trust developed economies to maintain their solvency. Gold and Bitcoin are now playing the role that central banks have abandoned: reminding governments that they cannot spend and print currency forever. Bitcoin may be a teenager and more volatile, but the powerful message to the world is clear: the years of uncontrolled government spending and printing are over.
Obviously, governments do not like this. And central banks that have stopped being as independent as they should be, like the ECB, are looking to eliminate the risk of independent currencies taking away the monopoly of money by issuing a legally imposed central bank digital currency (CBDC). Interestingly, the U.S. administration is doing the opposite, banning CBDCs and embracing crypto as the next monetary revolution. The ECB is admitting the euro’s enormous loss of utilisation in global transactions and panicking by issuing a surveillance tool disguised as money, the CBDC. The US administration wants to cement the dollar’s reserve status by attracting global investment in crypto. Bitcoin and gold are now playing the essential role that independent central banks should be enforcing. Central banks are unnecessarily dovish and continue to disguise bloated government imbalances. Gold and Bitcoin are essential parts of the answer to the inflationary temptations of governments. The only things that will save us from government excesses are decentralisation and independent money.
Elon Musk has shared a laboratory drug test showing a negative result for a range of substances. The billionaire took the test in light of a New York Times article from late last month alleging that he had been using drugs in recent years. The drug test, issued by the US Drug Testing Laboratories and posted by Musk to his official X account on Monday with the caption “lol,” showed a negative result for amphetamines, benzodiazepines, opioids, cocaine, and a range of other drugs. The New York Times reported that Musk had been taking a “cocktail of substances,” including LSD, cocaine, ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms, while serving as an advisor to US President Donald Trump. The outlet also pointed to a similar report by the Wall Street Journal last year, claiming that the billionaire’s drug habits had raised concerns among board members at Tesla and SpaceX.
Citing unnamed individuals familiar with the matter, the NYT also alleged that Musk had used so much ketamine, a powerful anesthetic, that he developed bladder problems. Musk vehemently denied the claims. In a post on X, he insisted that he is “NOT taking drugs” and accused the New York Times of “lying their ass off.” He added that he had already publicly disclosed his limited use of prescription ketamine several years ago, stating that “this is not even news.” “It helps for getting out of dark mental holes, but haven’t taken it since then,” Musk wrote. He has also claimed that anyone accusing him of being on drugs is a “massive liar,” noting that he is “one of the most photographed people on Earth” and is in meetings with a wide array of people every day, suggesting his drug use would have been apparent if it were true.
Trump, who recently had a public falling out with Musk, has also stated that he was unaware of any drug use by his former adviser and doubted that he took anything while in office. “We had a good relationship and I just wish him well,” Trump said.nFollowing the 2018 incident where Musk was seen smoking marijuana on Joe Rogan’s podcast, NASA required SpaceX to implement drug policies and undergo random testing. Musk stated in a separate X post last week that he was tested “randomly for 3 years” after the podcast and that “not the slightest trace of drugs or alcohol was found.”
"We're already at war. This is our war. We're just using Israel as a proxy. The problem for Trump is the war's not going well. We're looking at a situation where Israel is losing this war, and will lose this war, and they desperately need the US to intervene."@RealScottRitter… pic.twitter.com/0n2FFSO2va
