For more than four years, Americans who questioned the true nature and scope of United States’ taxpayer funded biological laboratories in Ukraine were ridiculed, smeared, censored, and denounced as conspiracy theorists. Television pundits dismissed them. Corporate media outlets mocked them. Members of the political establishment insisted that any discussion of American involvement in Ukrainian biolaboratories was nothing more than Russian propaganda. Now, thanks to a sweeping declassification ordered by Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard, the American people are finally learning that much of what they were told was false.

The newly released Intelligence Community (IC) documents reveal that American taxpayers funded and supported an enormous international biological research network consisting of more than 120 laboratories in over 30 countries. Among the most significant concentrations of those facilities were more than 40 laboratories located throughout Ukraine. According to the declassified material, approximately $200 million in American funding flowed into these facilities through the Department of Defense’s (now the Department of War) Biological Threat Reduction Program, an initiative that traces its origins to post-Soviet efforts to secure dangerous biological materials left behind after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The disclosure is remarkable not because it proves the existence of an active offensive biological weapons program. The documents do not establish that conclusion. Rather, the significance lies in the extraordinary gap between what the public was told and what government officials privately knew.

For years, Americans were assured that concerns about Ukrainian biolabs were entirely fabricated. Yet the newly released materials confirm that these laboratories housed and studied some of the world’s most dangerous pathogens, including anthrax, plague, tularemia, tuberculosis, Ebola, Marburg virus, Lassa fever, MERS, SARS, highly pathogenic avian influenza, and numerous other potentially catastrophic biological agents. The documents further reveal extensive American involvement in the construction, modernization, funding, staffing, training, and operation of these facilities. U.S. contractors, particularly Black & Veatch, were deeply involved in designing and upgrading laboratories throughout Ukraine. Millions of dollars were invested in individual sites. American scientists worked alongside Ukrainian personnel. Research projects included genomic studies of highly infectious diseases and the modernization of containment facilities capable of handling exceptionally dangerous pathogens.

The revelations are especially striking because they echo statements made during the earliest days of the Russia-Ukraine war that were categorically dismissed by Western governments and media organizations. In March of 2022, then Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland acknowledged during Senate testimony that Ukraine possessed “biological research facilities.” She further admitted that American officials were concerned that Russian forces could gain access to biological materials stored within those facilities. At the time, that testimony generated enormous controversy because it contradicted previous assurances that concerns regarding biolaboratories in Ukraine were entirely unfounded. Rather than prompting a broader public discussion, however, many establishment figures doubled down on efforts to discredit anyone who raised additional questions.

The declassified materials released by DNI Gabbard provide far greater detail than was previously available. They identify specific facilities, construction costs, pathogen repositories, contractor relationships, biosafety concerns, and vulnerabilities that existed as Russian forces advanced into Ukrainian territory. One particularly noteworthy facility is the Institute of Experimental and Clinical Veterinary Medicine in Kharkiv. Publicly available information and the newly disclosed analysis indicate that the site maintained collections of dangerous pathogens and participated in numerous Defense Threat Reduction Agency-funded projects. The facility reportedly had documented biosafety deficiencies, historical connections to Soviet-era biological programs, and was considered vulnerable to compromise during the conflict.

Critics of the program argue that the distinction between defensive biological research and offensive capability is often less clear than government officials acknowledge. Biological research is inherently dual-use. Knowledge gained through legitimate disease surveillance and pathogen analysis can also be applied to offensive purposes if placed in the wrong hands. That reality is precisely why transparency and oversight are so essential.

The broader issue extends well beyond Ukraine. The declassified materials suggest that American taxpayers financed an extensive global network of biological laboratories operating under varying levels of secrecy. Much of this work was conducted far from public scrutiny despite involving highly dangerous pathogens and substantial federal expenditures.

Director Gabbard has been blunt in her criticism of previous government officials and public health authorities. She has accused members of prior administrations, intelligence officials, and prominent health figures of misleading the public regarding the scope and nature of these programs. Her release of these documents follows President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order ending federal funding for gain-of-function research abroad, reflecting a dramatic shift in American biosecurity policy. The connection to the gain-of-function debate cannot be ignored. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, millions of Americans became acutely aware of the catastrophic consequences that can result when dangerous pathogens escape containment or when biological research lacks adequate oversight. Whether one believes COVID originated naturally or through a laboratory accident, the pandemic demonstrated that biological risks are not abstract theoretical concerns. They are matters of national survival.

What the Gabbard declassification ultimately exposes is not necessarily an active biological weapons conspiracy. What it exposes is something equally troubling: a pattern of secrecy, dismissal, and public deception. Americans were told these facilities essentially did not exist. They did. Americans were told there was no significant U.S. involvement. There was. Americans were told concerns about dangerous pathogens were baseless. They were not. Americans were told questions themselves were illegitimate. They were not. Reasonable citizens can debate the purpose of these programs. They can debate whether the research was defensive, necessary, or beneficial. They can debate whether the expenditures were justified. But what can no longer be honestly debated is that the American people were denied critical information about activities conducted in their name and with their tax dollars.

The lesson here extends far beyond Ukraine. A free society depends upon transparency, accountability, and informed consent of the governed. When government officials and media institutions work in concert to suppress legitimate questions, public trust inevitably erodes. The release of these documents marks an important step toward restoring that trust. Yet many questions remain unanswered. Who authorized the secrecy? Why were legitimate inquiries dismissed so aggressively? What additional information remains classified? And perhaps most importantly, what safeguards are now in place to ensure that high-risk biological research never again proceeds beyond meaningful public oversight? Those are questions the American people deserve answered. And after years of being told not to ask them, they are finally asking anyway.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was born in an era when Americans finally learned the extent to which their own government had been spying on them. In the wake of the Church Committee investigations of the 1970s, Congress discovered a sprawling surveillance apparatus that had been used against political dissidents, activists, journalists, and ordinary citizens. The FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies had wandered far beyond their legitimate mandates. FISA was supposed to be the remedy. It was designed to place guardrails around government surveillance and ensure that intelligence agencies would never again turn the immense power of the state against the American people without oversight and accountability.

Nearly half a century later, FISA has become the very abuse it was intended to prevent. What began as a narrowly tailored mechanism for monitoring foreign spies, hostile governments, and terrorist organizations has evolved into a vast surveillance architecture capable of vacuuming up the communications of millions of Americans. The most controversial component of this system is Section 702, which allows intelligence agencies to target foreign nationals located overseas without obtaining individual warrants. On paper, that sounds reasonable. In practice, however, Americans who communicate with those foreign targets are swept into the dragnet through what the government euphemistically calls “incidental collection.” There is nothing incidental about it.

The federal government now possesses enormous databases filled with emails, text messages, phone calls, and digital communications involving American citizens who were never suspected of committing a crime. Those communications can then be searched by federal agencies through what critics accurately describe as backdoor searches. In many cases these searches occur without a traditional warrant, without probable cause, and without the constitutional protections that Americans have long understood to be their birthright under the Fourth Amendment.

Supporters of reauthorization insist that this authority is indispensable for national security. They point to threats from China, Iran, Russia, transnational criminal organizations, and terrorist groups. Nobody disputes that foreign intelligence collection remains necessary. The United States faces genuine threats and our intelligence professionals require tools to identify and disrupt them. The issue is not whether intelligence gathering should exist. The issue is whether Americans should surrender their constitutional rights in the process. The answer is no.

Over the years the government has repeatedly assured Congress and the public that safeguards are in place. Yet those safeguards have repeatedly failed. Declassified opinions from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court have documented thousands of improper queries and compliance violations. Searches have involved journalists, political donors, protesters, members of Congress, and countless individuals who were not legitimate foreign intelligence targets. Time and again officials have promised reforms. Time and again those promises have been followed by new revelations of misuse.

This pattern is not an accident. It is the predictable consequence of granting extraordinary powers to institutions that operate largely in secrecy. Human nature does not change merely because an agency possesses a three letter acronym. Bureaucracies expand. Authorities broaden. Temporary exceptions become permanent practices. Mission creep becomes institutional doctrine. Every generation of Americans learns this lesson anew, yet Washington somehow manages to forget it whenever intelligence agencies appear before Congress seeking another extension of their powers.

The problem extends beyond the mechanics of surveillance. The existence of these massive databases creates a chilling effect throughout American society. Citizens who know their communications may be collected, stored, and searched are naturally less willing to speak freely, associate openly, or engage in controversial political activity. The Framers of the Constitution understood that liberty cannot survive under the shadow of constant surveillance. A government that possesses the ability to monitor every communication possesses the ability to intimidate every citizen.

Defenders of Section 702 often argue that requiring a warrant before searching Americans’ communications would cripple intelligence operations. This claim collapses under scrutiny. Law enforcement officers obtain warrants every day. Judges review applications every day. Emergency exceptions already exist for genuine crises. A warrant requirement would not eliminate foreign intelligence collection. It would merely require the government to respect the Constitution when it wishes to examine the private communications of an American citizen. If probable cause exists, a warrant should not be difficult to obtain. If probable cause does not exist, the search should not occur.

Subscribe now

The expansion of surveillance authorities over the past two decades should concern every American regardless of political affiliation. Conservatives remember the surveillance controversies surrounding Donald Trump’s campaign and associates. Progressives remember the monitoring of activists and journalists. Libertarians have long warned that government surveillance powers eventually become government surveillance habits. History demonstrates that the abuse of surveillance authority is not a partisan phenomenon. It is a bureaucratic phenomenon.

Perhaps the greatest irony is that FISA itself was created to prevent exactly this outcome. Congress enacted the law because intelligence agencies had become too powerful, too secretive, and too insulated from meaningful oversight. Today many of those same criticisms are directed at the very system FISA created. The secret court established to serve as a safeguard has often functioned as a rubber stamp. The oversight mechanisms have proven incapable of preventing recurring abuses. The public remains largely dependent upon leaks, declassifications, and whistleblowers to understand how these authorities are actually being used.

America deserves better than a perpetual cycle of scandal, apology, reform, and repetition. FISA once served a legitimate purpose. It provided a framework for confronting foreign threats while imposing limits on government power. That balance has eroded. Advances in technology have transformed surveillance capabilities beyond anything lawmakers in 1978 could have imagined. Intelligence agencies can now collect, store, analyze, and retrieve information on a scale that would have seemed like science fiction during the Carter administration. The law has not kept pace with the constitutional implications of that reality.

Congress should resist the temptation to rubber stamp another reauthorization. At a minimum, any future surveillance authority must require warrants for searches involving Americans, impose genuine transparency, strengthen adversarial review before the FISA Court, and create meaningful consequences for violations. If those reforms cannot be achieved, lawmakers should allow Section 702 to expire.

The Constitution was not written for moments of convenience. It was written precisely for moments when government officials insist that liberty must yield to necessity. The Founding Fathers understood that freedom is most vulnerable when fear becomes a justification for expanding state power. The purpose of intelligence gathering is to protect the Republic, not to transform it into a surveillance state.

FISA was once a shield against government abuse. Today it has become a vehicle for that abuse. The time has come not for another automatic extension, but for a serious national reckoning about how much surveillance a free people should tolerate from their own government. The answer should be guided not by fear, but by fidelity to the Constitution that intelligence agencies are sworn to defend.

The recent wave of indictments and convictions in Minnesota’s massive Medicare and Medicaid fraud schemes has laid bare the seedy, criminal reality of unchecked third-world migration. Billions of taxpayer dollars intended for vulnerable Americans—autism therapy for children, home healthcare, pandemic relief—have been systematically looted by networks predominantly composed of Somali immigrants and their associates.

Cases like Feeding Our Future, which siphoned over $250 million (with estimates climbing higher), and ongoing autism Medicaid fraud exceeding $90 million in a single recent indictment, reveal patterns of fraud, kickbacks, money laundering to foreign terror groups, and outright theft on an industrial scale. Federal prosecutors and even CMS under the Trump administration have taken unprecedented steps, including withholding funds from Minnesota’s program until oversight improves.

This explosion of accountability has raised uncomfortable but necessary questions about the broader integration—or lack thereof—of certain migrant communities. Time and again, the data shows elevated rates of welfare dependency, fraud, and crime from the Somali diaspora in Minnesota. The left-wing media and Democrat politicians have long shielded these communities with narratives of victimhood and “diversity is our strength,” refusing to acknowledge the cultural and criminal pathologies imported from failed states. But the dam has broken. Public outrage is growing, and the political cover is evaporating.

At the center of this rotten ecosystem stands Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN). Far from a peripheral figure, Omar functions as the political kingpin and shield for these networks in Minneapolis and across the entire state of Minnesota. Through no accident, her rise to power coincided with the entrenchment of these fraud schemes. Her refusal to condemn or distance herself from the criminal elements in her community, combined with her own long-standing, unrefuted scandals, makes her the symbol of everything wrong with importing incompatible cultures and then elevating the worst of those communities to high office. The time to strike against Omar is now while she is most vulnerable.

The Viral Brother-Marriage Claims: Never Debunked, Never Invalidated

For years, viral allegations that Rep. Ilhan Omar married her biological brother, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, in 2009 as part of an immigration fraud scheme have circulated despite ferocious left-wing media cover-ups, dismissals as “racist conspiracy theories,” and outright censorship. These claims have never been debunked. Not one piece of contradictory evidence has been produced by Omar, her defenders, or fact-checkers. Instead, the response has been deflection, deletions of social media evidence, and lawfare against those who dared investigate.

Even if the statute of limitations has expired for some criminal charges related to the 2009 marriage (though conspiracy and perjury angles remain possible), this scandal is more than sufficient to justify Omar’s immediate ouster from Congress. Rep. Tony Gonzales and Rep. Eric Swalwell were recently forced to resign from Congress amidst sexual impropriety scandals that disgraced the chamber. Omar’s conduct is arguably much worse than either of theirs—marriage fraud, perjury, tax fraud, potential student loan fraud, and shielding a web of criminality in her district. But it is the marriage fraud that is perhaps the most egregious and most telling of the true nature of the Somalis invading our nation. They are coming over here to scam the taxpayer, cut every corner, take advantage of the system until the day they can overwhelm us and implement Sharia Law on our shores.

Ilhan Abdullahi Omar did not enter the United States under her birth identity. In 1995, she arrived as part of a fraudulent asylum claim using the “Omar” family name—an unrelated family granted asylum. Her true birth name was Ilhan Nur Said Elmi. Her genetic father was Nur Said Elmi Mohamed; her genetic sister Sahra Noor (formerly Sahra Nur Said Elmi). Three other siblings—Leila Nur Said Elmi, Mohamed Nur Said Elmi, and Ahmed Nur Said Elmi—received asylum in the United Kingdom under their real names. This split-family deception allowed Ilhan, Sahra, and their father to game the U.S. system while others went to the UK.

Public records confirm this. Social Security numbers for “Nur Omar Mohamed,” “Ilhan Abdullahi Omar,” and “Sahra Noor” were issued in Virginia in 1995-1996. Address records place the family at Arlington, Virginia locations. UK records show only one each of Leila, Mohamed, and Ahmed Nur Said Elmi. Sahra Noor has publicly identified only one sister (Ilhan) and referred to the same man as father. Screenshots from Sahra’s Facebook (published by Preya Samsundar in 2016) show “Nur Said” as father. A 1997 UK marriage certificate for Leila Nur Said Elmi lists her father as “Nur Said Elmi.”

Instagram posts from Ilhan’s old “Hameey” account (later IlhanMN) show family photos: one of Leila Elmi, Nur Said, and Ilhan on an August 2011 East Africa trip (captioned by Ilhan); another of Leila and Ilhan with caption “I heart my sisters.” A December 2016 social media post by Suleiman Axoow places Ilhan at dinner with “her lovely sis Leila Elmi” shortly after Ilhan’s cab harassment incident (where she initially claimed to be with her “sister”). Axoow even linked the Leila Elmi account. Ilhan has steadfastly refused to name any siblings besides Sahra— the only rational explanation is protecting the UK-based siblings’ presence and identities.

On February 12, 2009, Ilhan Omar legally married Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, a UK citizen born April 4, 1985—the same birthdate and name as her brother. Omar herself confirmed the marriage in an August 18, 2016 statement, claiming it was a genuine relationship that ended around June 2011, followed by a faith-tradition divorce, with legal divorce pending. She called brother allegations “absurd and offensive.”

Evidence shows otherwise. Omar and Elmi simultaneously attended North Dakota State University (NDSU) in Fargo from roughly 2009-2011. Address records reveal they lived together at 2608 Pacific Dr. South, Apt. 4 in August 2009—while Omar’s Islamically divorced first partner, Ahmed Hirsi (father of her children), also moved there. Later, both Omar and Hirsi moved to 2438 18th St. South; Elmi joined months later. Omar lived concurrently with the man she claimed to have divorced (Hirsi) and the man she was legally married to (Elmi). This arrangement facilitated immigration benefits for Elmi and likely favorable federal student aid treatment (married applicants’ parental assets are not considered for need-based calculations).

Subscribe now

Critically, on June 12, 2012—while still legally married to Elmi—Omar gave birth to daughter Ilwad. An Instagram post from Elmi’s account shows him holding the newborn at the hospital, captioned as holding his “nieces” (sic). A niece would be his sister’s child. This directly contradicts Omar’s later claims of no contact with Elmi after June 2011.

In 2015, during a widely reported trip to London, archived Instagram posts from Omar’s “hameey” account show her posing with Ahmed Elmi. These photos—posted under her own account and later deleted after the scandal broke—prove contact well after June 2011. Elmi has admitted being in the photos. On August 2, 2017, Omar filed an “Application for an Order for Service by Alternate Means” in her Minnesota divorce from Elmi. She swore under penalty of perjury (Minn. Stat. § 358.116) that she had no contact with Elmi after June 2011 and did not know his whereabouts or anyone who did. This was false on multiple counts. Minnesota perjury law allows up to five years per instance; Omar perjured herself repeatedly.

Additional evidence includes Elmi’s own posts calling Leila’s twin daughters his “nieces” (Omar “liked” one); Omar posting with the same girls in Camden Lock Village during the 2015 #londontrip, calling them her nieces. School records from Haverstock School (Camden) confirm Ahmed lived with guardian Leila. Recent Instagram posts show Leila and Ahmed referring to each other as “mum” and “son.” St. Paul Public Schools records show “Ahmed N. Elmi” (DOB 04.04.1985) enrolled at Arlington Senior High School 2002-2003, living with his father Nur Said Elmi Mohamed—the same man Ilhan publicly calls father. No other person matches this exact name and birthdate.

The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board found Omar violated state campaign finance laws, forcing reimbursement of thousands in misused funds. More damningly, her 2014 and 2015 federal tax returns were filed as “joint” with Ahmed Hirsi—a man who was not her legal husband (she was married to Elmi). Under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), willfully filing a false return under penalty of perjury is a felony (up to 3 years prison, $100k+ fine). Omar later filed amended returns; the originals and amendments sit with the IRS and Minnesota DOR. These falsifications occurred while she held public office.

Private investigators for Big Tent Republicans PAC Director Anton J. Lazzaro legally collected discarded items such as Coca-Cola cans, hair, cigarette butts from Omar’s Washington, DC residence with surveillance photos documenting the operations on her 2016 Toyota Camry and near her home with then-lover Timothy Mynett.

Endeavor DNA Laboratories produced a full profile. Parallel collection from Elmi’s London address (339 North End Road, Fulham; also linked to sister Leila) yielded matching samples. The DNA Siblingship Report shows a 99.9999% probability of full siblingship between Omar and Elmi. Lazzaro publicized this on IlhanOmarDNA.com, offering Omar $1 million and his red Ferrari for a 5-second swab to disprove it. She refused, denied the findings, and attacked Lazzaro as a liar.

The Cover-Up and Subsequent Lawfare Campaign Against Top Whistleblower

Despite overwhelming, multi-year evidence from public records, social media archives (many of which were deleted after exposure), genealogy databases, unaltered photos, and now DNA, Omar has been politically shielded. U.S. Attorney Andrew M. Luger, who served in the District of Minneapolis under both Obama and Biden, wrote to Omar’s counsel stating his office was not investigating immigration status claims—willful blindness that set the tone. Social media accounts went dark; incriminating posts vanished. Omar responded to inquiries by smearing questioners as racists rather than providing evidence.

The most egregious retaliation targeted Lazzaro, the most outspoken and visible of Omar’s critics. While managing Republican Lacy Johnson’s opposition campaign against Omar in 2020, Lazzaro spent over $300,000 investigating the brother-marriage claims. After publicizing DNA results and offering the public test, he faced selective prosecution. His consensual adult relationships on popular “Sugar Daddy” websites were twisted by Democrat officials and prosecutors into a fabricated sex-trafficking ring. His home was raided by armed agents; the story leaked immediately to the far-left Daily Beast with the reporter admitting coordination with Asst. U.S. Attorney Laura Provinzino, a donor and friend of far-left Sen. Amy Klobuchar.

During the trial, government witnesses confirmed no prostitution occurred. Prosecutors repeatedly invoked “Trump” during trial amid peak level of Trump Derangement Syndrome among the masses. Lazzaro was eventually convicted in the kangaroo court on all counts and sentenced to 21 years in a sickening case of lawfare against a Trump supporter and effective Omar critic. Provinzino was later rewarded with a Biden appointment as a U.S. District Judge in Minnesota. Lazzaro’s ongoing lawsuit against Omar for defamation—seeking damages, declaratory judgment on siblingship, and injunctive relief—highlights how she and the system that has fostered her have chilled his speech while he remains incarcerated.

Lazzaro deserves serious consideration of having his sentence commuted by President Trump, who remains doggedly focused on the plight of lawfare victims. The selective prosecution, as millions of other men engage in similar arrangements among lawful-aged consenting adults without being subjected to federal raids and prosecutions, reeks of political targeting to protect Omar.

The Time Is Now: This is the Last Chance to Hold Omar Accountable

Years later, in 2026, the dam is truly breaking. The Trump administration’s DOJ, with Vice President JD Vance publicly confirming, is investigating Omar over immigration fraud and family finances. President Trump has called for her to be “thrown out of the United States.” House Oversight moves, including subpoena efforts on immigration records, signal momentum is building against Omar. The Somali fraud scandals have stripped away the protective narrative. Omar’s district has become a cautionary tale of what happens when the third world comes to America. They don’t assimilate to our culture; we instead adopt more of their backward traditions as the virtues of civilization slip away.

Omar is an anti-American stain on our political system. Her fraudulent entry, marriage to her brother for apparent immigration and financial gain, perjurious court filings, tax fraud, and role as political shield for criminal networks in Minnesota demand immediate accountability. The evidence is chronological, documented, photographic, testimonial, and genetically conclusive. Left-wing media cover has failed; deletions and smears have fallen short; and lawfare against investigators has failed to erase the truth.

Even where statutes of limitations may bar some prosecutions, ethical and political removal from office is fully justified—precedented by actions against other members for far less. House Republicans must seize this moment. Subpoena records, hold hearings, refer for ethics investigation, and force a vote on expulsion. The constituents of Minnesota’s Fifth District deserve representation that upholds the Constitution and the rule of law, not evades them. The broader message to would-be fraudsters and incompatible imports is clear: America is a no-go zone for your devious schemes. President Trump, Attorney General Todd Blanche, House Republican leadership—you must act now. History will judge those who had the evidence and the moment but lacked the courage. Ilhan Omar must go.

On June 8, 1967, while America was deeply entangled in the morass of Vietnam and the Middle East was engulfed in the Six Day War, one of the most shocking and controversial attacks on American military personnel in modern history unfolded in the waters off the Sinai Peninsula. 34 Americans were killed and 171 were wounded. The victim was not an enemy warship. It was the USS Liberty, a United States Navy intelligence vessel operating in international waters under a clearly visible American flag.

Nearly 60 years later, the bloodshed itself remains controversial. What is not controversial is that the Johnson Administration moved with astonishing speed to bury the incident, suppress difficult questions, and accept explanations that many survivors, intelligence officers, admirals, and government officials found wholly unconvincing. The greatest scandal surrounding the USS Liberty may not be the attack itself. It may be what happened afterward. The official explanation has always been that Israel mistakenly identified the Liberty as an Egyptian vessel and attacked it in the confusion of war. That conclusion was accepted by successive administrations and remains the official position of both governments today. Yet the testimony of survivors, intelligence personnel, and several senior American officials has created a cloud of suspicion that has never dissipated.

The facts are stubborn things. Israeli reconnaissance aircraft reportedly flew over the Liberty multiple times before the attack. The weather was clear. The ship flew a large American flag. The vessel possessed distinctive hull markings. The attack itself was not a single accidental strafing run by a nervous pilot. It was a sustained assault involving fighter aircraft, rockets, cannon fire, napalm, torpedo boats, and machine gun attacks that lasted well over an hour.

Captain William McGonagle, despite suffering grievous wounds, kept the ship afloat and saved the lives of countless crew members. His heroism earned him the Medal of Honor(MOH). Yet even that award ceremony carried the odor of political embarrassment. Unlike most Medal of Honor recipients, McGonagle was not publicly honored by the President at the White House. The ceremony was conducted quietly at a Navy Yard with remarkably little fanfare. It was as if Washington wanted Americans to forget the Liberty ever existed.

That desire to forget brings us directly to Lyndon Baines Johnson. There is no conclusive evidence proving that Johnson ordered the attack. Despite decades of speculation, no document has emerged demonstrating that LBJ directed Israeli forces to strike the Liberty. Claims that Johnson personally orchestrated the attack remain highly speculative and unsupported by definitive evidence. What is far better documented is Johnson’s role in ensuring that the incident disappeared from the headlines as quickly as possible.

Numerous witnesses have testified that American aircraft launched to assist the stricken vessel were recalled. Survivors and later investigators have alleged that Washington’s primary concern became avoiding a diplomatic crisis rather than uncovering the full truth. Former Secretary of State Dean Rusk later expressed serious doubts that the attack had been accidental. Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would eventually describe the affair as a deliberate attack followed by a massive cover-up. Most explosive of all was the affidavit of Captain Ward Boston, senior counsel to the Navy Court of Inquiry. Decades after the event, Boston stated that President Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara pressured officials to conclude that the attack was a case of mistaken identity regardless of contrary evidence. Boston alleged that the Court of Inquiry was essentially prevented from conducting a full and independent examination.

If Boston’s account is accurate, then the official investigation resembled less a search for truth and more a political stage play whose ending had already been written before the curtain rose.

That brings us to Robert Strange McNamara, the architect of so many disastrous decisions during the Vietnam era. McNamara’s fingerprints appear throughout the Liberty controversy. According to multiple accounts, he participated in the decision to recall American aircraft that had been dispatched to aid the ship. Critics have argued that McNamara’s actions reflected a determination to avoid confrontation at almost any cost. If Johnson was the political conductor of the orchestra, McNamara was the first violinist faithfully playing every note.

The former Ford Motor Company executive had already become notorious for reducing warfare and human tragedy to charts, graphs, percentages, and statistical abstractions. In Vietnam he measured success through body counts. In the Liberty affair he appeared equally willing to subordinate the pursuit of truth to broader geopolitical calculations.

To many Liberty survivors, McNamara became the embodiment of bureaucratic indifference. While sailors buried their dead and tended to horrific wounds, Washington’s elite appeared more concerned with preserving diplomatic relationships than with demanding accountability. The central question remains simple. Why would Johnson and McNamara allegedly suppress a more aggressive investigation if the mistaken identity explanation was unquestionably true? That question continues to haunt historians. One possibility is that the administration feared a rupture in relations with Israel during the height of the Cold War. Another is that Johnson, already drowning in the political quicksand of Vietnam, had no appetite for another international crisis. Still others argue that exposing the full truth could have revealed sensitive intelligence operations that both governments preferred to keep hidden. Whatever the motivation, the result was the same. The surviving crew members spent decades fighting for recognition, transparency, and answers. Many believed they had been abandoned not only during the attack but afterward by the very government they had sworn to serve.

Subscribe now

Adding to the controversy is what many researchers and survivors describe as a substantial body of evidence challenging the mistaken identity narrative. They point to eyewitness testimony, intelligence reports, intercepted communications, and statements from senior military and government officials that they argue are inconsistent with the official story. Supporters of this view frequently cite what they refer to as the “official story” and contend that key facts were ignored, minimized, or excluded from public investigations. Whether one accepts those conclusions or not, the persistence of these competing accounts helps explain why the USS Liberty remains one of the most fiercely debated incidents in modern American naval history.

In fact, nearly six decades later, the controversy remains very much alive. On the June 8, 2026 anniversary of the attack, recently defeated Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky announced that he would deliver a rare House floor speech devoted to the USS Liberty and invited surviving crew members to attend from the House gallery. Public congressional discussion of the USS Liberty has been exceedingly uncommon over the years, making the departing Massie’s decision noteworthy in itself. The renewed attention underscores how unresolved the matter remains for many survivors. The USS Liberty Survivors Association continues to press for the release of additional government records and a fuller accounting of what occurred before, during, and after the attack. Survivor Mickey LeMay summarized the sentiment shared by many crew members when he stated, “All we want is the truth.”

The push for disclosure extends beyond Congress. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Michelle Kinnucan and currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeks the release of additional classified or unreleased federal records concerning the attack and the government’s response. The litigation reflects a continuing belief among researchers, survivors, and advocates that important documents remain hidden from public scrutiny. The controversy persists because too many questions were never fully answered and too many witnesses felt they were never fully heard.

The tragedy of the Liberty is not merely that 34 Americans died under attack from a nation considered an ally. The greater tragedy may be that generations of Americans were left wondering whether their own government preferred silence over truth. Lyndon Johnson did not need to order the attack to bear responsibility for what followed. If the allegations of suppression, intimidation, and predetermined conclusions are true, then his administration helped construct one of the most enduring cover-ups in modern American history. Robert McNamara, ever the consummate bureaucratic technician, stands accused of helping cement that narrative into official history.

The dead sailors of the USS Liberty deserved complete transparency. Their surviving shipmates deserved a full and fearless investigation. Instead, they received a hurried inquiry, unanswered questions, and decades of official indifference.

Massie’s congressional remarks, the continuing efforts of survivors, and the ongoing court battle over government records demonstrate that the USS Liberty story is far from settled. Whether one accepts the official mistaken identity explanation or believes critical facts remain concealed, the demand for transparency has not faded with time.

For that reason, the USS Liberty remains more than a naval tragedy. It remains a cautionary tale about power, politics, and the dangerous temptation of governments to place expediency above truth.

For nearly a decade foreign interference in American elections dominated cable news coverage, congressional hearings, and political debate. Many warned that foreign money and influence posed a serious threat to democracy.

Yet one of the most significant proven cases of foreign money entering American politics has received comparatively little attention. Prakazrel “Pras” Michel, the Grammy winning member of the band The Fugees, has now begun serving a 14 year federal prison sentence after a jury convicted him on ten criminal counts arising from an international influence operation tied to fugitive Malaysian financier Jho Low.

This is not speculation, opposition research, or a conspiracy theory. It is the conclusion reached by federal prosecutors, a federal jury, and a federal judge.

According to evidence presented at trial, Michel became involved with Jho Low, the central figure in the infamous 1MDB scandal, one of the largest financial fraud schemes in modern history. Prosecutors established that Michel received enormous sums connected to Low and helped facilitate the movement of foreign money into American politics through a network of straw donors designed to conceal the true source of the funds. Federal law prohibits foreign nationals from contributing money to American elections because elections are supposed to be decided by Americans, not wealthy foreign interests seeking influence over government.

Prosecutors argued that millions of dollars connected to Low were funneled through intermediaries and ultimately benefited Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection effort. Imagine if the political parties involved had been reversed. If a prominent entertainer allied with Republicans had been convicted of helping channel foreign money into a Republican presidential campaign, and the foreign financier involved had been tied to a major international corruption scandal, the story likely would have generated far more sustained coverage. Instead, the case received limited attention compared with many other allegations of foreign influence. That does not mean Barack Hussein Obama was charged with a crime. He was not. There is no evidence that Obama personally directed or knowingly participated in the scheme. Those distinctions matter and should be acknowledged. However one must also consider the old saying, “You’re known by the company you keep”.

What cannot be ignored is the larger lesson. Foreign interference is wrong regardless of who benefits. If Americans are serious about protecting election integrity, the standard must apply equally to everyone. Foreign money flowing into any campaign is wrong. Secret lobbying on behalf of foreign interests is wrong. Using straw donors to disguise the source of political contributions is wrong.

The Pras Michel case exposed an uncomfortable reality: foreign influence operations are not confined to one political party, ideology, or election cycle. They remain a persistent risk wherever money, power, and access intersect. That is why this case deserves to be remembered; not because it confirms a partisan narrative, but because it demonstrates that the problem is real and that one of the men convicted for participating in it is now serving fourteen years in federal prison. Given the years of attention devoted to foreign interference, it is notable how little discussion this proven example has generated among many commentators.

Today, June 6, 2026 we mark the 82nd anniversary of D Day, the greatest amphibious invasion in human history and one of the most consequential days in the history of civilization. It was the day when thousands of young Americans, joined by British, Canadian, and Allied forces from many nations, stormed the beaches of Normandy and began the liberation of Europe from the grip of Adolf Hitler and National Socialism. Their courage altered the course of history. Their sacrifice preserved freedom for millions. Their victory helped save the world.

Today, only a small number of the men who participated in that historic operation remain with us. They belong to what journalist Tom Brokaw famously called the Greatest Generation. They were ordinary citizens who answered an extraordinary call. Farmers, factory workers, students, mechanics, clerks, and laborers became soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. They crossed an ocean knowing that many would never return. They fought not for fame or recognition but because they believed that freedom was worth defending.

The scale of Operation Overlord remains almost impossible to comprehend. Nearly 160,000 Allied troops landed in Normandy on June 6, 1944. More than 7,000 ships and landing craft supported the invasion. More than 11,000 aircraft filled the skies. American airborne troops from the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions landed behind enemy lines during the darkness before dawn. At Utah Beach and Omaha Beach, American forces assaulted heavily fortified German positions. British and Canadian forces landed at Gold, Juno, and Sword Beaches. By the end of the day, despite terrible casualties and fierce resistance, the Allies had established a foothold in France.

The bloodiest fighting occurred at Omaha Beach, where American soldiers were met with devastating machine gun and artillery fire. Young men who had never heard a shot fired in anger were suddenly thrust into one of the most violent battlefields in history. Many never made it beyond the surf. Many more pressed forward despite seeing their friends fall beside them. Their determination and courage under fire remain among the most inspiring examples of military heroism ever recorded.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander, understood the gravity of what lay ahead. In his famous Order of the Day issued to Allied troops before the invasion, he wrote: “You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you.” He continued, “The hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere march with you.” Those words captured the enormous stakes of the operation. The invasion was not simply a military campaign. It was a battle for the future of freedom itself.

Forty years later on June 6, 1984, President Ronald Reagan stood atop the cliffs of Pointe du Hoc in Normandy and delivered one of the most moving speeches ever given by an American president. Speaking before the surviving Rangers who had scaled those cliffs under enemy fire, Reagan reminded the world of what had happened there. “These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war” he said solemnly to the crowd before him listening through their muffled tears. Reagan understood that the story of D Day was not merely about military strategy or battlefield tactics. It was about character, sacrifice, and duty. Looking at the aging veterans before him, he declared, “Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs. Some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet you risked everything here.” The speech remains one of the finest tributes ever paid to the men who fought in Normandy. My readers would be remiss if you were not to take the time to listen to it in its entirety.

Visitors to Normandy today can see the price that was paid for victory. The American Cemetery at Colleville sur Mer overlooks Omaha Beach. More than 9,300 American servicemen rest there beneath rows of white marble Crosses and Stars of David. The grounds are immaculate. The silence is profound. Every grave represents a life cut short in the service of freedom. Across Europe, American cemeteries stand as enduring reminders of sacrifice. From France to Belgium, from Luxembourg to the Netherlands, thousands of Americans remain buried far from home. They lie in honored glory beneath the soil of the continent they helped liberate. These cemeteries are sacred ground, not only for Americans but for all who cherish liberty.

The story of D Day has been preserved through countless books, films, and personal accounts. Among the most important is “The Longest Day” by Cornelius Ryan. Published in 1959 and later became a major motion picture, the book revolutionized the way military history was written. Ryan sought to tell the story through the eyes of those who had actually lived it. To gather those memories, he placed advertisements in newspapers and reached out to veterans, asking them to share their experiences. The response was extraordinary. Hundreds of soldiers, sailors, airmen, resistance fighters, and civilians sent letters describing what they had seen and endured on June 6, 1944. Ryan meticulously assembled those firsthand accounts into a narrative that remains one of the definitive works on D Day. His book preserved voices that might otherwise have been lost forever.

Military planners used the term “D Day” simply to designate the day an operation would begin. Likewise, “D Plus” referred to the number of days after that event. D Plus 1 meant one day after D Day. D Plus 3 meant three days after D Day. By that measure, June 6, 2026 marks approximately D Plus 29,950. Less than 30,000 days have passed since American forces stormed the beaches of Normandy. In the span of world history, 30,000 days is not a long time. The veterans who fought there are not ancient figures from a distant past. They are men whose lives still overlap with our own. Many of us knew them as fathers, grandfathers, uncles, neighbors, teachers, and friends. Their memories are still within reach. Their example remains relevant. Their sacrifice continues to shape the world we inhabit.

As we commemorate the 82nd anniversary of D Day, Americans should pause to reflect upon what those young men accomplished. They faced impossible odds. They crossed a hostile sea. They climbed cliffs, breached fortifications, and fought through machine gun fire because they believed that tyranny must be defeated and freedom must prevail. The Allied forces did more than win a battle. They liberated nations. They restored hope to millions. They helped destroy one of the most evil regimes in human history. Their victory changed the course of civilization.

The men of D Day asked for little in return. Most returned home and resumed ordinary lives. They built businesses, raised families, attended church, coached Little League teams, and helped build the strongest and most prosperous nation the world has ever known. Their legacy is not merely found in monuments, museums, or cemeteries. It lives in every generation that enjoys the freedoms they preserved. As President Reagan reminded us at Pointe du Hoc: “We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.” On this anniversary of D Day, those words remain as true and as necessary as ever.

For much of the twentieth century, Latin America served as one of the principal battlegrounds in the global struggle between communism and free market democracy. The Soviet Union and its allies invested enormous resources into cultivating revolutionary movements, socialist parties, and Marxist insurgencies throughout the Western Hemisphere. From Cuba to Nicaragua and beyond, the Left promised a future built upon economic equality, state control, and collectivist ideology.

For a time, many believed those movements represented the inevitable direction of history. Political leaders, academics, journalists, and activists throughout the region embraced socialist theories and revolutionary rhetoric. The collapse of the Soviet Union slowed that momentum, but it did not eliminate it. In the decades that followed, a new generation of left wing governments emerged across Latin America under what became known as the “Pink Tide”.

Today, a remarkable political transformation is underway. Across the region, voters are increasingly turning away from socialist and progressive governments in favor of conservative, nationalist, and free market alternatives. The shift reflects growing frustration with crime, corruption, inflation, economic stagnation, and governments that have failed to deliver on decades of promises. Nowhere has this political reversal been more dramatic than in Argentina. Long regarded as one of the most economically troubled nations in South America despite its vast natural wealth and human capital, Argentina endured years of soaring inflation, fiscal instability, and declining public confidence. Faced with mounting economic hardship, voters elected Javier Milei, a self described libertarian and fierce critic of government expansion.

Milei’s election represented far more than a routine change in political leadership. It reflected a broader rejection of the policies that many Argentines believe contributed to their nation’s prolonged economic decline. His promises of deregulation, reduced government spending, and economic liberalization resonated with voters who had grown weary of inflation and diminishing living standards.

A similar political struggle is now unfolding in Colombia, one of the most important nations in the Western Hemisphere. Colombia is currently governed by President Gustavo Petro, the country’s first left wing president, who is constitutionally prohibited from seeking another term. His administration pursued an ambitious progressive agenda focused on wealth redistribution, environmental reforms, negotiations with armed groups, and expanded government programs. While Petro retained a loyal base of support, his presidency also became increasingly controversial amid concerns about public security, economic performance, healthcare reform, and rising political polarization. The Colombian presidential election has become a referendum on the future direction of the country. The candidate representing continuity with Petro’s movement is Senator Iván Cepeda, a longtime left wing activist and close ally of the current administration. Cepeda has pledged to continue many of Petro’s policies, including expanded social programs, greater government involvement in the economy, land redistribution initiatives, and a continuation of negotiations with armed groups.

Opposing him is Abelardo de la Espriella, a conservative lawyer and political outsider who has surged from relative obscurity to become the leading candidate in the race. De la Espriella has campaigned on restoring public order, strengthening law enforcement, confronting criminal organizations, rebuilding relations with the United States, and reversing many of the policies associated with the Petro administration. His rise has drawn comparisons to both Javier Milei in Argentina and Nayib Bukele in El Salvador.

The results of the first round of voting sent shockwaves through Colombian politics. De la Espriella finished first with approximately 43.7% of the vote, while Cepeda finished second with roughly 40.9%. The outcome forced a runoff election and demonstrated that a substantial portion of Colombian voters are prepared to move in a more conservative direction. Several center right political figures have already lined up behind De la Espriella, further strengthening his position heading into the decisive final vote.

The Colombian election is significant because it illustrates the broader debate occurring throughout Latin America. On one side stand political movements advocating greater state involvement in economic and social life. On the other stand candidates emphasizing public security, economic growth, free enterprise, and national sovereignty. The contest is no longer confined to academic discussions or ideological debates. It is being decided at the ballot box by voters increasingly focused on practical outcomes.

Subscribe now

Elsewhere throughout the region, similar patterns are emerging. In Ecuador, concerns over organized crime, cartel violence, and public security have become dominant political issues. Citizens increasingly demand stronger law enforcement and more effective government action against criminal organizations that have expanded their influence in recent years.

In Chile, enthusiasm for sweeping progressive reforms has diminished as voters express growing concern about economic performance and national stability. In Brazil, conservative and nationalist movements continue to command significant support despite intense political polarization and sustained opposition from many established institutions.

The changing political landscape reflects more than dissatisfaction with individual leaders. It represents a broader reassessment of the ideological assumptions that have influenced Latin American politics for generations. Many citizens have concluded that expansive government programs and centralized economic policies have failed to produce the prosperity and opportunity they were promised.

Venezuela stands as perhaps the most powerful example of this reality. Once among the wealthiest countries in the region, Venezuela became synonymous with economic collapse, hyperinflation, political repression, and mass emigration. Millions of Venezuelans fled their homeland in search of safety and opportunity. The consequences of that national decline have been visible across the continent, shaping public opinion far beyond Venezuela’s borders.

For many Latin American voters, these developments are not abstract political theories. They are lived experiences. Families have witnessed rising prices erode their savings. Business owners have struggled under burdensome regulations. Communities have endured growing insecurity. Citizens have become increasingly skeptical of politicians who promise transformative change while delivering disappointing results.

As a consequence, political movements that emphasize economic freedom, public safety, national sovereignty, and governmental accountability are gaining momentum throughout the hemisphere. While each country’s circumstances are unique, the broader pattern is difficult to ignore. The significance of this trend extends beyond Latin America. The issues driving political change throughout the region mirror many of the concerns that dominate political debates in the United States. Inflation, crime, immigration, government spending, and public trust in institutions remain central issues for voters throughout the Americas.

The outcome of Colombia’s runoff election will provide one of the clearest indications yet of where the region is headed. A victory by Cepeda would preserve the momentum of the Latin American Left and provide a successor to Petro’s political project. A victory by De la Espriella would represent one of the most significant conservative victories in South America in recent years and would add Colombia to the growing list of nations reassessing the promises of progressive governance.

The political realignment now unfolding across Latin America demonstrates that voters ultimately judge governments by outcomes rather than intentions. Grand ideological visions often lose their appeal when they fail to improve daily life. Citizens want secure communities, economic opportunity, stable currencies, and governments capable of performing their most basic responsibilities effectively.

The great political story emerging from Latin America is therefore not merely a series of election results. It is a profound reassessment of ideas that have shaped the region for decades. After years of disappointment with policies that promised prosperity but often delivered instability, many voters are embracing a different path. The consequences of that choice may shape the future of the Western Hemisphere for years to come.

On Friday, President Donald Trump announced that he would be endorsing former Oklahoma State Senator Mike Mazzei to be the state’s next Governor, citing Mazzei’s support of “AMERICA FIRST Policies required to Grow our Economy, Create GREAT Jobs, Cut Taxes and Regulations, Promote MADE IN THE U.S.A., and Unleash American Energy DOMINANCE” in making his decision in a Truth Social post.

President Trump wasted no time with endorsing Mazzei because Oklahoma has the chance to become a powerhouse in the state-level resistance against the radical left—eliminating the woke stranglehold over the school system, protecting religious liberty for Christians and enforcing law and order in full alignment with President Trump’s agenda to Make America Great Again. It was also important because one challenger threatens to sabotage Oklahoma’s immense potential from the inside: current state Attorney General Gentner Drummond. He is the quintessential RINO—a disingenuous politician whose entire modus operandi is subverting the noble America First cause.

Drummond’s anti-Trump record shows him as fundamentally out of step with MAGA movement that defines today’s Republican Party. During the 2020 cycle, at the height of the China Virus lockdowns and the heated election battle, his wife Wendy Drummond donated $1,000 to the Lincoln Project. This group of Never-Trump operatives—co-founded by figures like George Conway, Rick Wilson, and John Weaver—was explicitly designed to destroy Donald Trump and his supporters. That the potential First Lady of Oklahoma funneled money to such a representable outfit is deeply troubling.

Additionally, FEC records show a $1,000 contribution made in Drummond’s name to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign through ActBlue on August 31, 2020. After getting caught, Drummond attempted to blame his wife for making the donation erroneously before scrambling to refund the donation in a desperate bid to save face. However, this was no honest mistake. Drummond has a documented pattern of spreading money to purchase influence across politics, donating over $80,000 to state candidates between 2016 and 2025. One notable gift was $500 to John Waldron, a Democrat who later became chair of the Oklahoma Democratic Party, for his first State House campaign in 2017. He backed other Democrats challenging Republican incumbents such as Inhofe, Coburn, and Bridenstine.

Drummond’s fundraising as Attorney General exposes his compromised nature. He pulled in more than $225,000 early on, accepting checks from prominent Democrats including former Governor Brad Henry ($1,000) and former Democratic state Rep. Collin Walke ($500). University elites and business interests that prefer Drummond’s more pliable, moderate brand of Republicanism also opened their wallets. Drummond has proven adept at courting Democratic dollars while cynically exploiting the Republican label in a deep red state. A man whose household and donor network tilt this way cannot be trusted to have President Trump’s back as Governor.

In addition, Drummond has a disturbing record of opposing Christianity in public life and has shown consistent hostility against religious liberty. He has positioned himself as a fierce opponent of parental choice and faith-based education as AG, going out of his way to attack Oklahoma’s groundbreaking approval of the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School—the nation’s first public religious charter school. After replacing a more conservative predecessor, Drummond immediately scrapped the prior legal opinion that supported such schools. He has penned op-eds in the Tulsa World and Wall Street Journal warning that taxpayers might be forced to fund schools they find “reprehensible,” and he has vowed to take the fight all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Drummond’s own words reveal his deeply secularist worldview. He traced the push for religious charter schools to “Christian nationalism,” accusing believers of “confusing true religion — and religious liberty, and faith in God — with political power.” He painted this as a dangerous movement “giving oxygen to this attempt to eviscerate the Establishment Clause.” Looking ahead, he cautioned: “There will be a day in America where Christianity is a plurality, and not a majority... We need to be careful of the establishment of laws, and rules of law, that will take what we’ve considered sacred these last 250 years and do away with it.” He cast himself as a defender of the “separation of church and state,” hiding his anti-Christian bigotry behind a false leftist interpretation of the Constitution.

Subscribe now

The U.S. Constitution says nothing about any “separation of church and state”—that is a misreading drawn from Jefferson’s private letter, not the text of the Establishment Clause, which bars Congress from creating an official religion or prohibiting the free exercise of faith. Drummond’s takes his cues not from the Founding Fathers, but rather from left-wing advocacy groups like the ACLU who work to keep Christianity marginalized and bolster the woke monopoly over the public school system. In a deeply religious state like Oklahoma, this stance isn’t principled neutrality. It is zealous hostility against the will of the people by erecting a barrier against displays of Christianity in the public sphere. By fighting to limit school choice and relegating God to the fringes of society, Drummond has effectively waved the white flag of surrender in America’s ongoing culture war.

Drummond has persistently acted as an internal saboteur within the Republican Party, using his authority to undermine Governor Kevin Stitt’s conservative agenda through sneaky, bureaucratic subterfuge. He has undermined Stitt’s crackdown on indigenous crime, challenged the governor in federal court over tribal gaming compacts, and has pushed unnecessary investigations into COVID relief targeting his political enemies. These moves reassert “independence” not to strengthen conservatism, but to gum up the works—harming the Republican Party as he self-servingly climbs the political ladder.

In the end, figures like Drummond represent the greatest internal threat to the conservative cause. An open Democrat can be confronted directly—the battle lines are clear, and the party unites in opposition. But a RINO fifth column, cloaked in Republican credentials while quietly advancing moderate, establishment, and even left-leaning priorities, can inflict deeper, more insidious damage. Drummond’s behavior confuses voters, siphons energy, protects the reviled status quo and prevents Oklahoma from fully embracing MAGA and reaching its full potential as a deep-red enclave.

Oklahoma cannot lead the national movement to decimate the radical left and deliver real America First governance with a subverter at the helm. Voters must recognize Drummond for what he is: a Democrat in disguise whose anti-Trump past, war on religious liberty, and pattern of undermining fellow Republicans make him unfit to lead. President Trump rejected him for these very reasons, and the people of Oklahoma should follow suit. Patriots must elect a leader who strengthens the cause rather than erodes it from within. Oklahoma’s future—and its role in renewing America—depends on rooting out the scourge of Gentner Drummond by ending his political ambitions and keeping him on the sidelines where he belongs.

FULL DISCLOSURE- I joined the Mazzei campaign as a strategic consultant when he was at 2%. He earned the Trump endorsement when he passed Drummond in the polls to take first place and thus was the candidate best positioned to beat that Biden donor. No one buys a Trump endorsement but providing and guiding campaign strategy along with other talented professionals, I did help Mike earn it. This is what I have done for a living for over 50 years. It’s called strategic political consulting, and I’m damn good at it. Voters can pick the candidate of their choice but any inference that Mike Mazzei won Trump’s endorsement because he hired me to work on his campaign is both insulting and false.

As Colombians prepare to cast their votes on Sunday, one figure towers over the campaign trail like a force of nature: Abelardo de la Espriella, the combative lawyer and businessman known throughout his nation as “El Tigre.” Surging in the final polls to within striking distance of the leftist frontrunner, the outsider candidate is drawing massive crowds that roar his slogan “¡Firme por la patria!” while men in tiger costumes chant and fireworks explode behind bulletproof glass. He is the candidate the left and the entrenched conservatives fear most because he refuses to play by the rules of the political establishment. A self-funded movement leader who skipped the old party primaries, de la Espriella offers something rarer in Colombian politics: an unapologetic repudiation of the failed status quo.

This election is far larger than Colombia alone. It is a hemispheric test of whether Latin America will continue its drift toward ideological experiments that weaken sovereignty and empower criminal empires, or finally reject them by electing a leader with the force of personality to stop them dead in their tracks. Voters are faced with three options: institutionalization of Gustavo Petro’s left-wing project in Iván Cepeda, the restoration of a stale political class with Paloma Valencia, or the genuine anti-establishment renaissance that de la Espriella represents. It is a moment of truth for the Colombian people. Will they accept genuine transformation or instead choose the same old failures wearing fresh slogans and slicker advertising.

The conditions for this populist explosion were created by Petro himself. Colombia’s first leftist president arrived promising “Total Peace,” treating armed groups as political actors with legitimate grievances rather than mortal enemies of the State. In practice, the policy granted narco-terrorist networks precious time, legitimacy, and breathing room to expand. Groups such as the ELN, FARC dissidents (FARC-EP and Segunda Marquetalia), Clan del Golfo, Tren de Aragua, and the transnational empires of the Sinaloa Cartel and CJNG—all designated by the United States as terrorist organizations—exploited the opening. As a direct result of Petro’s malfeasance, ordinary Colombians lived with extortion, displacement, and the grinding erosion of safety on a daily basis. Petro may not have invented these criminal ecosystems, but his doctrine of craven appeasement functionally empowered them.

The damage has not stayed within Colombia’s borders. A fragile Colombia strengthens the cartels, accelerates migration northward, and hands strategic advantages to Venezuela and the Cuban regime. It weakens a historic U.S. security partner at the very moment when counter-narcotics cooperation, border security, and regional stability matter most. Petro’s open hostility toward Washington has only hastened the drift. The next president will determine whether Colombia remains a frontline bulwark or remains as a vector of instability.

Into this vacuum steps Iván Cepeda, Petro’s chosen successor from the Historic Pact. A senator, human rights activist, and son of a Communist Party leader, Cepeda is more disciplined and ideologically consistent than his mentor. He pledges to deepen social reforms, pursue further negotiations with armed groups, advance progressive taxation, and possibly rewrite the constitution through a constituent assembly. To those who value order, sovereignty, and strong alliances, Cepeda represents something more dangerous than mere continuity. He is the full institutionalization of Petroism. Through the coddling of narcotraffickers, the full-scale expansion of cultural progressivism, hostility to markets, and further alienation from Washington, Cepeda would serve the interests of Maduro, Havana, and the narco-left while undermining U.S. objectives on drugs, migration, and hemispheric security.

On the center-right stands Senator Paloma Valencia of the Democratic Center, positioned as the respectable, establishment-approved conservative option. A philosopher, lawyer, and political heir with deep ties to the legacy of controversial former President Álvaro Uribe, Valencia promises to end Total Peace, strengthen security forces, resume coca fumigation, and revive investment in hydrocarbons. Yet Valencia is the very embodiment of the system many Colombians now reject: conventional, focus-grouped, donor-influenced, and bound by her ties to the political elite. She offers competent stewardship of decline within the bounds the globalist elite find acceptable. Like a Colombian Nikki Haley, she can rally traditional conservative votes and obtain high-level endorsements, but Valencia lacks the dynamism to spark the broader popular revolt against an exhausted, self-protective political class widely viewed as corrupt and incapable of delivering structural change.

That is precisely why de la Espriella has become the lightning rod. Operating through his Defenders of the Homeland movement, the 47-year-old has crafted an insurgent crusade instead of a conventional candidacy. His platform puts security first as the indispensable foundation for everything else: ten new mega-prisons modeled that would outdo Salvadoran President Nayik Bukele, military offensives against groups that refuse to submit, aerial fumigation of coca crops, drastic cuts to government bureaucracy, tax reductions, and a complete revival of the hydrocarbons sector. Criminals who reject peace will face decisive action under the law—no more treating narco-terrorist armies as negotiating partners. Just days ago, he met virtually with Brazil’s Bolsonaro brothers to begin forging a regional conservative alliance centered on ironclad security, smaller government, and economic freedom.

De la Espriella’s leadership ability lies in the characteristics she shares with the most influential leaders throughout the Americas. He wields Trump’s nationalist directness, contempt for elite gatekeeping and fearless naming of enemies—whether it is leftist ideologues, criminal networks, or the incestuous political class. He channels Bukele’s uncompromising insistence that public order is the precondition for liberty: the simple freedom to leave home, run a business, send children to school, and return home with your family safe and sound at the end of the day. And he carries Milei’s ferocious attack on socialist bureaucracy and market-hostile policies that punish productive citizens. For de la Espriella, security, sovereignty, and economic stagnation are not separate issues but one interconnected crisis manufactured by decades of elite failure.

His coalition reflects that understanding. It draws conservatives, working-class voters, entrepreneurs, national-security realists, anti-corruption voices, and independents who are exhausted by both Petro’s experiments and the old right’s timidity. These Colombians feel unsafe in their own neighborhoods, cheated by a self-serving system, and abandoned by conventional conservatism. They are not looking for the politics of respectability. They do not yearn for some kind of bipartisan facade. They are looking for a leader who owes no favors to a political class that has besieged their country. Colombia’s populist moment has arrived.

Abelardo de la Espriella is the candidate who captures the fury, the fear, and the hope of millions of Colombians who want safety restored, national sovereignty reclaimed, and prosperity to finally be unleashed. The left fears him because he rejects their ideologies and pays them no lip service otherwise. The right fears him because he rejects their good ol’ boys club. The comparison to Donald Trump is obvious. If Colombians choose la Espriella’s bold path toward national renaissance, they may not only rescue their own country but help chart a stronger, freer path for the entire hemisphere—one grounded in unity, strength, nationalism and an unyielding will to achieve absolute victory for the people.

Under President Trump’s unwavering leadership in the fight to keep America safe, his administration has now, for a second time, brought Alex Saab — a top enabler of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro — into U.S. custody, sending a powerful message that those who aid hostile narco-regimes and threaten American national security will continue to face justice.

Colombian-born Alex Saab, the Venezuelan regime’s chief money launderer and financial fixer, was once again apprehended by U.S. authorities in February of this year and brought from Venezuela to the United States on May 16 to face justice in American courts.

For freedom-loving Venezuelans and supporters of a strong U.S. foreign policy, Saab’s capture — coming on the heels of Maduro’s own apprehension earlier this year — represents righteous justice against a regime that plundered Venezuela, tortured political dissidents, and poisoned American families through its narcotics trafficking network.

During Saab’s initial arrest and extradition to the United States in 2020 and 2021, U.S. prosecutors accused him of orchestrating massive money laundering and bribery schemes that siphoned hundreds of millions of dollars out of Venezuela through shell companies and fraudulent contracts tied to the Maduro regime. Prosecutors said Saab helped enrich regime insiders while exploiting Venezuela’s state-controlled exchange system for personal gain.

Alex Saab’s trajectory in and out of the American justice system reflects not only the stark contrast between the Trump and Biden administrations’ approaches toward the Maduro regime, but it reveals the rise of a so-called “negotiated transition” for Venezuela championed by the official Venezuelan “opposition” led by María Corina Machado — a process that ultimately guaranteed Saab’s return to Venezuela and his reinstatement within Maduro’s inner circle.

The 2023 return of Alex Saab from the United States to Venezuela, under the Biden administration and while President Trump was out of office, was the direct result of the “Barbados negotiations,” under which Venezuela’s controlled opposition and the regime supposedly agreed to a “democratic transition” and “the road to free elections” that, of course, never truly existed. In truth, the negotiations functioned as a mechanism to guarantee the regime’s impunity and recover key operatives, like Saab, captured during Trump’s first presidency.

For context, the “Barbados negotiations” provided a surreal, almost sci-fi political framework marketed internationally as a pathway toward democratic transition and “free elections” in Venezuela. Behind the theatrics, however, the process opened the door for sanctions relief, political normalization, and ultimately the Biden administration’s return of Alex Saab to the Maduro regime (with the Biden administration pretending to believe the pact would lead to democratic reform). The entire episode exposed the fraudulent coexistence between Chavismo and the fictional Venezuelan “opposition,” headed by María Corina Machado, that survives politically by pretending to oppose the very dictatorship it legitimizes.

In December 2023, the Biden administration allowed Saab to return to Venezuela, where he was welcomed by the regime as a triumphant political symbol and embraced publicly by Maduro himself. Far from becoming a liability for Chavismo, Saab was rewarded, elevated within the regime’s inner circle, and appointed Venezuela’s Minister of Industry.

María Corina Machado herself described the exchange that allowed Alex Saab’s return to Venezuela as “an episode within that path of construction” toward “free and fair elections.”

Machado also acknowledged having been “involved” in the Barbados negotiations, as well as in the “complementary” talks between the United States and Venezuela, in order to “contribute” to that objective.

The so-called “negotiated transition” is nothing more than a political scam — a mirage designed to prolong Venezuela’s agony, sustain the business of political operators, grant the regime time, legitimacy, and sanctions relief while ensuring that tyranny never faces accountability.

While ordinary Venezuelans continued suffering under political repression, corruption, and economic collapse, key regime operatives —narcotraffickers, money launderers, and deeply corrupt regime insiders — regained freedom and, in cases like Alex Saab, achieved a triumphant return to the highest levels of Chavismo.

This process was facilitated by a factitious Venezuelan opposition, at the helm of which is María Corina Machado — whose participation in Saab’s return she has openly acknowledged — whose primary function is to deceive supporters into legitimizing any arrangement the regime places before them, all while traveling the world portraying themselves as champions of democracy in search of international support.

Today, with President Trump back in office, renewed American pressure and decisive action have once again placed Alex Saab in U.S. custody — a development many view as the restoration of the accountability that was abandoned when the original maximum-pressure campaign against the Maduro regime was reversed through the Biden administration’s embrace of the “Barbados negotiations” and the collaboration of Venezuela’s controlled opposition figures.

In the current case, U.S. prosecutors accuse Saab of serving as a principal financial operator for the Maduro regime by helping launder money connected to Venezuela’s CLAP food program and fraudulent oil transactions. Prosecutors argue that Saab and his associates manipulated humanitarian aid contracts, bribed officials, and moved illicit proceeds through U.S. financial institutions — helping sustain the socialist dictatorship’s grip on power while ordinary Venezuelans suffered under repression, corruption, and economic collapse.

Trump’s return to power has also coincided with a far deeper understanding of how Venezuela’s controlled opposition structure and its system of two Lefts has historically functioned. Over the years, Washington cycled through successive opposition figureheads — from Henrique Capriles, to Leopoldo López, to Juan Guaidó, to Edmundo González, and now María Corina Machado — each marketed around the world as the face of democratic transition while ultimately functioning as political instruments that helped the regime preserve itself behind the façade of opposition politics.

President Trump’s camp recognizes that neither Delcy Rodríguez nor María Corina Machado represent a genuine solution for Venezuela. While the United States holds overwhelming leverage over the regime through sanctions, intelligence capabilities, international finance, and Venezuela’s dependence on access to global oil markets, Trump-aligned officials understand that the answer is not another progressive European-backed “transition” built around political coexistence with Chavismo.

President Trump certainly understands that María Corina Machado is not the United States’ answer for Venezuela:

Critics point to Machado’s central role in disarming the Venezuelan people and leaving them defenseless in the face of this sanguinary regime’s brutality, her alignment with Agenda 2030 politics, and her prominent participation in the Socialist International. They also note that Machado brought adviser Magalli Meda — a Trump-hating radical progressive — with her into a White House meeting with President Trump earlier this year, despite Meda having publicly called Trump an “idiot” for “crying” over Barack Obama’s surveillance of his 2016 presidential campaign.

For anti-Chavista hardliners, these contradictions reinforce the growing belief that Venezuela will not be saved through regime-manufactured socialist opposition figures marketed to the world as democratic saviors.

Bajo el firme liderazgo del presidente Trump en la lucha por mantener segura a Estados Unidos, su administración ha logrado, por segunda vez, poner bajo custodia estadounidense a Alex Saab — uno de los principales operadores del dictador venezolano Nicolás Maduro — enviando un poderoso mensaje de que quienes ayuden a narco-regímenes hostiles y amenacen la seguridad nacional de Estados Unidos seguirán enfrentando la justicia.

Alex Saab, nacido en Colombia y considerado el principal lavador de dinero y operador financiero del régimen venezolano, fue nuevamente capturado por autoridades estadounidenses en febrero de este año y trasladado desde Venezuela hacia Estados Unidos el pasado 16 de mayo para responder ante la justicia en tribunales americanos.

Para los venezolanos amantes de la libertad y los defensores de una política exterior estadounidense fuerte, la captura de Saab — producida poco después de la propia aprehensión de Maduro a comienzos de este año — representa justicia legítima contra un régimen que saqueó Venezuela, torturó a disidentes políticos y envenenó a familias estadounidenses a través de su red de narcotráfico.

Durante el arresto inicial y extradición de Saab hacia Estados Unidos en 2020 y 2021, fiscales estadounidenses lo acusaron de dirigir enormes esquemas de lavado de dinero y sobornos que desviaron cientos de millones de dólares de Venezuela mediante empresas fantasmas y contratos fraudulentos vinculados al régimen de Maduro. Los fiscales sostuvieron que Saab ayudó a enriquecer a figuras internas del régimen mientras explotaba el sistema cambiario controlado por el Estado venezolano para beneficio personal.

La trayectoria de Alex Saab dentro y fuera del sistema judicial estadounidense refleja no solo el marcado contraste entre los enfoques de las administraciones Trump y Biden frente al régimen de Maduro, sino también el surgimiento de una supuesta “transición negociada” para Venezuela impulsada por la llamada “oposición” oficial venezolana encabezada por María Corina Machado — un proceso que, en última instancia, garantizó el regreso de Saab a Venezuela y su reincorporación al círculo más cercano de Maduro.

El regreso de Alex Saab desde Estados Unidos hacia Venezuela en 2023, bajo la administración Biden y mientras el presidente Trump se encontraba fuera del poder, fue el resultado directo de las llamadas “negociaciones de Barbados”, mediante las cuales la oposición controlada venezolana y el régimen supuestamente acordaron una “transición democrática” y “el camino hacia elecciones libres” que, por supuesto, jamás existieron realmente. En la práctica, las negociaciones funcionaron como un mecanismo para garantizar la impunidad del régimen y recuperar operadores clave, como Saab, capturados durante la primera presidencia de Trump.

Para ponerlo en contexto, las llamadas “negociaciones de Barbados” ofrecieron un marco político surrealista, casi de ciencia ficción, vendido internacionalmente como una vía hacia la transición democrática y “elecciones libres” en Venezuela. Detrás del teatro político, sin embargo, el proceso abrió la puerta al alivio de sanciones, la normalización política y, finalmente, al retorno de Alex Saab al régimen de Maduro por parte de la administración Biden (mientras la administración Biden fingía creer que el acuerdo conduciría a reformas democráticas). Todo este episodio dejó al descubierto la coexistencia fraudulenta entre el chavismo y la ficticia “oposición” venezolana, encabezada por María Corina Machado, que sobrevive políticamente fingiendo oponerse a la misma dictadura que legitima.

En diciembre de 2023, la administración Biden permitió el regreso de Saab a Venezuela, donde fue recibido por el régimen como un símbolo político triunfante y abrazado públicamente por el propio Maduro. Lejos de convertirse en una carga para el chavismo, Saab fue recompensado, elevado dentro del círculo interno del régimen y posteriormente nombrado Ministro de Industria de Venezuela.

La propia María Corina Machado describió el regreso de Alex Saab a Venezuela como “un episodio dentro de esa ruta de construcción” hacia unas “elecciones libres y justas”.

Machado también reconoció haber estado “involucrada” tanto en las negociaciones de Barbados como en las conversaciones “complementarias” entre Estados Unidos y Venezuela, con el fin de “contribuir” a dicho objetivo.

La llamada “transición negociada” no es más que una estafa política — un espejismo diseñado para prolongar la agonía de Venezuela, sostener el negocio de operadores políticos y concederle al régimen tiempo, legitimidad y alivio de sanciones, mientras se garantiza que la tiranía jamás enfrente consecuencias reales.

Mientras el pueblo venezolano continuaba sufriendo bajo la represión política, la corrupción y el colapso económico, operadores clave del régimen — narcotraficantes, lavadores de dinero y figuras profundamente corruptas del chavismo — recuperaban su libertad y, en casos como el de Alex Saab, lograban un regreso triunfal a los niveles más altos del poder chavista.

Este proceso fue facilitado por una oposición venezolana ficticia, encabezada por María Corina Machado — cuya participación en el retorno de Saab ella misma ha reconocido públicamente — cuya función principal consiste en engañar a sus seguidores para que legitimen cualquier arreglo que el régimen les presente, mientras recorren el mundo proyectándose como supuestos campeones de la democracia en busca de respaldo internacional.

Hoy, con el presidente Trump nuevamente en la Casa Blanca, la renovada presión estadounidense y una acción decisiva han colocado otra vez a Alex Saab bajo custodia de Estados Unidos — un acontecimiento que muchos consideran la restauración de la rendición de cuentas que fue abandonada cuando la campaña original de máxima presión contra el régimen de Maduro fue revertida mediante la adopción de las “negociaciones de Barbados” por parte de la administración Biden y la colaboración de figuras controladas de la oposición venezolana.

En el caso actual, fiscales estadounidenses acusan a Saab de haber servido como uno de los principales operadores financieros del régimen de Maduro al ayudar a lavar dinero vinculado al programa alimentario CLAP de Venezuela y a transacciones petroleras fraudulentas. Los fiscales sostienen que Saab y sus asociados manipularon contratos de ayuda humanitaria, sobornaron funcionarios y movieron ganancias ilícitas a través de instituciones financieras estadounidenses — ayudando así a sostener el control de la dictadura socialista sobre el poder mientras los venezolanos comunes sufrían bajo la represión, la corrupción y el colapso económico.

El regreso de Trump al poder también ha coincidido con una comprensión mucho más profunda de cómo ha funcionado históricamente la estructura de la oposición controlada venezolana y su sistema de “las dos izquierdas”. A lo largo de los años, Washington fue rotando sucesivas figuras opositoras — desde Henrique Capriles, pasando por Leopoldo López y Juan Guaidó, hasta Edmundo González y ahora María Corina Machado — cada una presentada ante el mundo como el rostro de una transición democrática mientras, en la práctica, funcionaban como instrumentos políticos que ayudaban al régimen a preservarse detrás de la fachada de una supuesta política opositora.

El entorno del presidente Trump reconoce que ni Delcy Rodríguez ni María Corina Machado representan una solución genuina para Venezuela. Mientras Estados Unidos mantiene una capacidad de presión abrumadora sobre el régimen a través de sanciones, inteligencia, el sistema financiero internacional y la dependencia venezolana del acceso a los mercados petroleros globales, funcionarios alineados con Trump entienden que la respuesta no es otra “transición” progresista respaldada por Europa y construida alrededor de la coexistencia política con el chavismo.

El presidente Trump ciertamente comprende que María Corina Machado no es la respuesta de Estados Unidos para Venezuela:

Los críticos señalan el papel central de Machado en el desarme del pueblo venezolano y en dejarlo indefenso frente a la brutalidad de este régimen sanguinario, así como su alineación con la política de la Agenda 2030 y su destacada participación dentro de la Internacional Socialista. También señalan que Machado llevó consigo a su asesora Magalli Meda — una progresista radical anti-Trump — a una reunión en la Casa Blanca con el presidente Trump a comienzos de este año, pese a que Meda había calificado públicamente a Trump de “idiota” por “llorar” debido al espionaje realizado por Barack Obama contra su campaña presidencial de 2016.

Para los sectores antichavistas más firmes, estas contradicciones refuerzan la creciente convicción de que Venezuela no será salvada mediante figuras de una oposición socialista fabricada por el propio régimen y vendida al mundo como supuestos salvadores democráticos.

Memorial Day is not a holiday. It is not merely the unofficial beginning of summer. It is not a day for mattress sales, beach traffic, backyard cookouts, beer coolers, or retail promotions wrapped in red, white, and blue bunting.

For millions of Americans, Memorial Day is the worst day of the year. It is the day a mother stares at a folded flag inside a mahogany box. It is the day a widow runs her fingers across the cold marble of a grave at Arlington National Cemetery. It is the day a son remembers the father he barely knew except through medals, photographs, and stories whispered through tears.

Memorial Day is a sacred day of remembrance consecrated by blood, grief, sacrifice, and duty. It is a day when America must bow her head before the altar of the fallen and remember that freedom is not free.

Freedom is purchased in flesh and blood by young Americans who climbed hills under machine gun fire, stormed beaches under artillery barrages, flew burning aircraft into enemy skies, froze in foxholes, drowned in distant seas, and marched into battle knowing they may never return home again.

The story of Memorial Day begins not in comfort but in catastrophe. Its origins were born from the smoldering ashes of the American Civil War, the deadliest conflict ever fought on American soil. The first formal Memorial Day observances emerged when grieving Americans decorated the graves of Union soldiers with flowers in what became known as Decoration Day. Yet the true roots of American sacrifice stretch back even further to Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775 when a colonial militia stood before the most powerful empire on earth, The British Empire, and answered tyranny with musket fire. Ralph Waldo Emerson later immortalized that first exchange as “the shot heard round the world,” because it was not merely the beginning of a revolution. It was the birth of an idea unlike any other in human history. America was founded upon the radical belief that our rights come from God, not kings, not governments, not bureaucracies, and not tyrants.

That idea has been defended ever since by generations of American warriors whose courage forged the republic in every era of danger and uncertainty. The first Americans to die under the flag of the United States fell during the Revolutionary War. Approximately 4,435 American soldiers were killed in combat during the Revolution, while more than 25,000 died overall from disease, exposure, imprisonment, and deprivation. The Continental Army bore the overwhelming burden, though colonial militias and early naval forces also suffered losses.

Shortly after independence, America confronted the Barbary Wars, conflicts many modern Americans barely remember but which shaped the nation’s understanding of sovereignty and military power. The Barbary Wars were fought against North African pirate states including Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis, and Morocco, whose rulers kidnapped sailors, enslaved Christians, hijacked merchant ships, and extorted tribute payments from Western nations. European powers often paid the pirates for safe passage. America refused. Thomas Jefferson understood that a republic unwilling to defend itself would soon cease to exist. During the First Barbary War from 1801 to 1805, approximately 35 Americans were killed in battle, primarily sailors and Marines. Total deaths were roughly 74. The Second Barbary War in 1815 resulted in approximately 4 battle deaths and roughly 138 total deaths. These early conflicts cemented the United States Navy and Marine Corps as guardians of American commerce and freedom abroad.

The War of 1812 followed, often called “America’s Second War for Independence”. British forces burned their way through Washington, D.C. while American soldiers and sailors fought desperately to preserve the young republic. Approximately 2,260 Americans were killed in battle and roughly 15,000 died overall, most from disease. The Army accounted for approximately 1,950 battle deaths, while the Navy lost around 265 personnel and the Marine Corps lost roughly 45.

The Mexican-American War from 1846 to 1848 expanded the United States across the continent but came at terrible cost. Approximately 1,733 Americans were killed in battle and more than 13,000 died overall. The Army suffered nearly all battle casualties while Marines and Navy personnel also perished in combat operations.

Then came the American Civil War, the great national crucible that nearly destroyed the republic entirely. Brother fought brother. Entire towns lost their young men in a single afternoon. More than 655,000 Americans died overall, including approximately 215,000 battle deaths between Union and Confederate forces. The overwhelming majority served in the Army while naval losses were significantly smaller. The Civil War remains the deadliest conflict in American history because Americans killed other Americans on an industrial scale never before seen on this continent.

After the Civil War came the Indian Wars, frontier conflicts, interventions, and overseas operations. Thousands more Americans died during campaigns against hostile tribes, during the Seminole Wars, and in smaller military expeditions that secured and expanded the nation. The Boxer Rebellion in China claimed approximately 68 American battle deaths. The Spanish American War in 1898 cost approximately 385 battle deaths and roughly 2,446 total deaths. The Philippine American War that followed claimed approximately 1,020 battle deaths and more than 4,000 total deaths.

World War I introduced America to trench warfare, mustard gas, machine guns, and industrialized death on a horrifying scale. More than 53,000 Americans were killed in battle and over 116,000 died overall. The Army and American Expeditionary Forces bore the brunt of combat losses while the Navy and Marine Corps also sustained significant casualties.

World War II transformed the entire planet into a furnace of violence. The United States lost approximately 291,557 battle dead and more than 405,000 total military personnel. The Army and Army Air Forces suffered more than 318,000 deaths. The Navy lost more than 62,000. The Marine Corps lost more than 24,000. The Coast Guard lost nearly 2,000. Young Americans crossed oceans to storm Normandy, fight through the jungles of the Pacific, liberate concentration camps, and destroy fascism and Japanese militarism. Entire cemeteries across Europe and Asia now stand as eternal monuments to American sacrifice.

Subscribe now

The Korean War followed only five years later. Often called “The Forgotten War”, Korea has been tragically overshadowed between the monumental shadow of World War II and the trauma of Vietnam. Yet the men who fought at Inchon, Chosin Reservoir, and along the frozen Korean Peninsula displayed extraordinary courage under unimaginable conditions. Approximately 33,700 Americans were killed in battle and more than 36,000 died overall. The Army suffered the majority of losses while Marines endured catastrophic casualties during some of the war’s fiercest fighting. Korean War veterans deserve far greater recognition than history has often afforded them.

Vietnam became one of the most painful chapters in modern American history. Approximately 58,220 Americans died during the conflict, including roughly 47,000 battle deaths. The Army lost more than 38,000. The Marine Corps lost nearly 15,000. The Navy and Air Force each lost thousands more. Young American men fought bravely in jungles, villages, and rice paddies against a ruthless communist insurgency. Yet when many returned home, they were not greeted as heroes. Some were cursed at, humiliated, and even spit upon by radical antiwar activists poisoned by self hatred and left wing propaganda. Those Vietnam veterans deserved parades, gratitude, and reverence. Instead many received contempt from the very nation they risked their lives to defend. It remains one of the great moral disgraces of modern American society. In fact, President Trump personally and very quietly financed the Vietnam Veterans “Welcome Home” parade in New York City on May 7, 1985 with a one million dollar endowment as well as raised additional funding and served as co-chairman of the New York Vietnam Veterans Memorial Commission appointed by Mayor Ed Koch.

The Cold War carried America into Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, and countless covert and conventional operations around the globe. Then came the Gulf War, where approximately 294 Americans died, including roughly 149 to 288 battle deaths depending on classification. Then came the Global War on Terror after September 11, 2001.

In Afghanistan, approximately 2,325 Americans died, including nearly 1,900 battle deaths. In Iraq, more than 4,492 Americans died with battle deaths ranging between approximately 3,500 and 4,400 depending upon classification. Thousands more returned home wounded physically and psychologically, carrying scars invisible to the naked eye but permanent upon the soul.

America’s military sacrifices extend beyond combat alone. Training accidents have claimed enormous numbers of American lives. During World War II alone, approximately 15,000 American airmen died in training accidents before they ever saw combat. From 2006 through 2021, more than 5,600 active duty personnel died in training mishaps and accidents. Since 1980, tens of thousands of military accident deaths have occurred, many during exercises intended to prepare Americans for combat. Every one of those lives mattered. Every one represented a son, daughter, husband, wife, or friend who raised their hand and volunteered to serve the United States of America.

Today, according to the Defense POW MIA Accounting Agency, approximately 80,000 to 83,000 Americans remain unaccounted for from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, and other conflicts. Roughly 71,000 remain missing from World War II alone. Approximately 7,300 remain missing from Korea. More than 1,500 remain missing from Vietnam. Some were prisoners of war. Some were lost at sea. Some vanished behind enemy lines. Many families never received answers. Yet America continues searching for them because this nation understands a sacred principle. We do not abandon our dead.

The total number of Americans who have died for our freedoms and liberty is approximately 1.3 million men and women. They came from every race, creed, religion, state, and economic background. Farmers from Iowa. Steelworkers from Pennsylvania. Ranchers from Texas. Fishermen from Maine. Coal miners from West Virginia. Immigrants who barely spoke English but loved the American flag with all their hearts. They stood together beneath one flag because being an American is not an accident of geography. It is a gift from God.

The United States is not perfect because no nation created by imperfect men can ever be perfect. Yet there has never been another nation in human history that has done more to advance liberty, self government, individual rights, human dignity, correct our wrongs, and opportunity. Americans liberated Europe from fascism. Americans rebuilt Japan and Germany instead of enslaving them. Americans defended South Korea from communist annihilation. Americans protected shipping lanes, rescued allies, fed starving nations, and carried the burden of defending the free world for generations.

The men and women we honor on Memorial Day did not die for politicians. They did not die for bureaucracies. They did not die for fashionable ideologies or social experiments. They died for the enduring promise of America itself. They died so future generations could worship freely, speak freely, vote freely, raise families freely, and live beneath the blessings of liberty secured by the Constitution and endowed by Almighty God.

When you stand before a military cemetery this Memorial Day understand what you are truly witnessing. You are standing in the presence of Americans whose legacies are written not in speeches, headlines, or monuments alone, but in sacrifice itself. Their names are etched into white marble crosses and Stars of David stretching to the horizon like an army still standing watch over the republic they died to preserve. Their legacies are enshrined in nothing other than their own blood and is their gift to us. Don’t squander it.

Empires rarely collapse all at once; they decay incrementally like an ancient cathedral left exposed to centuries of salt air and corrosion. The marble still glistens from a distance. The banners still wave. The ceremonies continue with rehearsed grandeur. Yet beneath the surface, the foundation begins to rot. Institutions once built to safeguard liberty metastasize into instruments of coercion. Bureaucracies swell into ravenous organisms consuming the very constitutional restraints that gave them life. The citizen gradually transforms from sovereign to subject while the state cloaks its appetite for power in the sanctimonious language of “security,” “justice,” and “democracy.” America now stands perilously close to that precipice.

This week the United States Department of Justice quietly acknowledged what millions of Americans have understood for years. On May 18, 2026 the Department of Justice announced the creation of what it calls the “Anti Weaponization Fund” a staggering $1.776 billion mechanism established through settlement agreements tied to the lawsuit Trump v. Internal Revenue Service. The suit stemmed from the unlawful leak of President Donald Trump’s tax returns and those of his family and business entities. Rather than monetary damages flowing directly to President Trump and the plaintiffs, the settlement instead creates a process whereby victims of government weaponization and political lawfare may seek apologies and financial redress from the federal government itself.

Pause for a moment and consider the sheer historical gravity of this announcement. The federal government is now formally establishing a taxpayer funded compensation structure for Americans harmed by politically motivated abuses carried out by government institutions. That alone is an indictment more damning than any speech ever delivered from the Senate floor. The very existence of this fund is an admission that the cancer of weaponized governance metastasized so profoundly throughout federal agencies that it now requires an official remediation process.

The Anti Weaponization Fund draws its money from the Treasury Department’s permanent Judgment Fund, the same perpetual appropriation mechanism historically used for government settlements and legal liabilities. Approximately $1.776 billion will transfer into the fund over the coming weeks. The structure itself is extraordinary. A five member commission appointed by the Attorney General will oversee claims, including one member selected in consultation with congressional leadership. The President retains removal authority over commissioners, and the panel will continue hearing claims until no later than December 1, 2028. Quarterly reports will be submitted to the Attorney General. Audits and anti fraud mechanisms are supposedly built into the process, while any remaining money at the end of the program returns to the federal government rather than activist organizations or politically connected nongovernmental entities.

The commission will reportedly evaluate claims according to the “totality of the circumstances,” including legal costs, imprisonment, financial losses, reputational destruction, and other demonstrable harms tied to politically motivated investigations or prosecutions. No partisan requirement officially exists. In theory any American who believes he or she was targeted by government power for ideological, political, or personal reasons may apply for compensation or formal acknowledgment.

That detail alone distinguishes this fund from earlier government settlement structures such as the Obama era Keepseagle settlement involving discrimination claims against the Department of Agriculture. Critics on the left have already erupted in apoplexy, hysterically describing the fund as a “slush fund” for Trump supporters and January 6 defendants. Yet the irony is staggering. These are the same political factions that spent years applauding taxpayer funded legal crusades, multimillion dollar special counsel investigations, coordinated intelligence leaks, censorship campaigns, and prosecutorial fishing expeditions aimed almost exclusively at conservatives, populists, Trump allies, and dissidents.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche declared that “the machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American.” Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter condemned the use of federal authority for “improper and unlawful political, personal, or ideological reasons.” Those are remarkable words because they constitute an extraordinary institutional confession. The Justice Department is effectively admitting that the federal apparatus became infected with partisan venom.

The term “lawfare” itself has become one of the defining terms of modern American politics. It is derived from combining the words “law” and “warfare,” a concept popularized by Air Force Colonel Charles Dunlap in 2001. At its core, lawfare means using legal systems as weapons rather than instruments of justice. Courts become battlefields. Prosecutors become political assassins wearing tailored suits instead of military uniforms. Investigations are strategically timed to destroy reputations, bankrupt adversaries, silence dissent, and manipulate public perception. The process itself becomes the punishment. Endless subpoenas, coordinated leaks, selective prosecutions, confiscatory legal bills, ruined careers, frozen bank accounts, and public humiliation become tools of attrition.

The Left perfected this strategy with almost medieval precision. The American legal system was transformed into a labyrinthine torture chamber designed to exhaust political enemies financially, emotionally, physically, and psychologically. They understood that even if convictions never materialized the spectacle itself could still inflict irreparable damage. The goal was never merely prosecution. The goal was obliteration.

Closely intertwined with lawfare is the broader phenomenon known as the weaponization of government. This phrase refers to the abuse of state power against citizens for political or ideological purposes. Agencies originally created to defend the nation instead become praetorian guards for entrenched bureaucracies and political factions. Intelligence agencies surveil political opponents. Federal law enforcement stages theatrical raids. Regulatory bodies harass disfavored industries and organizations. Social media companies receive pressure from government officials to censor lawful speech. Bureaucrats become unelected sovereigns operating behind layers of institutional opacity.

The Founding Fathers would have viewed such conduct as the behavior of tyrants. Thomas Jefferson warned repeatedly about the consolidation of executive power. James Madison feared factions manipulating institutions for partisan domination. George Washington cautioned against corrosive political tribalism consuming the republic from within. Benjamin Franklin famously warned Americans that they had been given “a republic, if you can keep it.” One suspects these men must now be rolling over in their graves as modern Americans witness armed federal agents behaving like a domestic occupying force.

I know this reality personally. I was besieged in my own home despite never committing a crime involving violence, espionage, or insurrection. Before dawn, 29 heavily armed FBI agents descended upon my residence in what can only be described as an outrageous pageant of intimidation orchestrated for maximum political theater. They arrived like a militarized phalanx storming a terrorist compound in Tikrit rather than serving a process crime indictment against a 66 year old political consultant. CNN had been conveniently tipped off in advance and positioned outside my home before the raid even began. That fact alone remains one of the most brazen and scandalous indications of collusion between federal law enforcement and corporate media in modern American history.

Subscribe now

The entire spectacle was designed not for justice but for humiliation. It was political pornography masquerading as law enforcement. Federal agents armed with automatic firearms and other weapons arrived in tactical gear and stormed into my home before sunrise while cameras rolled outside to ensure maximum public degradation. Such conduct belongs in banana republics and collapsing authoritarian states, not in the constitutional republic established by George Washington and defended by generations of American patriots. They sent more people to arrest me than they did to neutralize Usama Bin Laden.

What happened to me was not isolated. President Donald Trump endured years of coordinated investigations, leaks, fabricated narratives, selective prosecutions, and unprecedented legal assaults. The Russia collusion hoax poisoned the nation for years despite collapsing under scrutiny. The Mar a Lago raid shattered all historical norms surrounding former presidents. Confidential tax records were leaked with virtual impunity. Intelligence officials manipulated media narratives while prosecutors and bureaucrats operated with astonishing asymmetry.

General Michael Flynn was financially annihilated through prosecutorial misconduct. Internal government communications later revealed discussions about whether the goal was to “get him to lie” or “get him fired.” A decorated military officer who served his country for decades was destroyed because he represented a threat to the permanent bureaucracy.

Rudy Giuliani, once celebrated as America’s Mayor for leading New York through the ashes and smoke of September 11, was transformed by the establishment media into a caricature to justify the destruction of his finances and reputation. His law licenses were attacked. His bank accounts were strained. His name continued to be dragged endlessly through the mud because he dared to challenge the ruling class and stand beside President Trump. The same media institutions that once canonized Giuliani suddenly treated him like a public enemy because political obedience matters more to the establishment than truth or loyalty.

Michael Caputo and his family also became casualties of this malignant culture of lawfare. Caputo has now filed one of the first claims seeking restitution through the Anti Weaponization Fund after years of investigations, smears, financial devastation, and personal suffering tied to the Russia investigation era. The implications are enormous because his claim may become the first domino in a tidal wave of similar filings by Americans who believe they were politically targeted.

The Michael McMahon case has now become one of the clearest modern examples of why Americans have lost faith in the integrity of the justice system itself. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the entire case against Michael McMahon in New York, a stunning development made even more extraordinary by the fact that the decision was ultimately unopposed by the prosecution. That detail speaks volumes. Cases with genuine evidentiary strength are defended aggressively on appeal. Here the government effectively stood aside while the conviction collapsed. Yet despite the implosion of the case, Michael McMahon had already endured imprisonment, financial devastation, reputational destruction, and years of emotional torment inflicted upon both him and his wife Martha along with their three children. The cost was not merely personal. Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars were incinerated pursuing a prosecution against an innocent man that many Americans now view as fundamentally meritless from the beginning. Careers were destroyed first while questions came later.

Similarly countless January 6 cases have begun unraveling under deeper legal scrutiny. Charges once wielded like political bludgeons were later narrowed, reconsidered, vacated, or criticized after defendants had already lost homes, careers, businesses, and years of their lives. The damage had already been done. Men and women were transformed into political hostages while cable news networks converted prosecutions into prime time entertainment. The process itself became the punishment.

John Eastman likewise became one of the most visible casualties of modern lawfare. Eastman, a constitutional attorney and former law professor, advised President Trump regarding legal theories surrounding the disputed 2020 election. For that alone he became the target of disbarment proceedings, criminal investigations, financial ruin, public vilification, and relentless professional destruction. Regardless of whether one agrees with his legal theories, the broader danger is unmistakable. Lawyers cannot provide candid constitutional advice to presidents or political clients if every unpopular legal argument risks professional annihilation years later. Once legal advocacy itself becomes criminalized, constitutional government begins suffocating beneath the weight of political vengeance.

Jeff Clark represents another central figure in this expanding landscape of lawfare victims. Clark served as a senior Department of Justice official during the final year of the Trump Administration, including as Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division and previously as head of the Environment and Natural Resources Division. A highly credentialed attorney educated at Harvard and Georgetown, Clark became a target because he questioned aspects of the 2020 election process and discussed potential investigative avenues within the Department of Justice. For those actions he became the subject of coordinated political attacks, congressional targeting, bar disciplinary proceedings, raids, investigations, crushing legal expenses, and attempts to destroy his professional livelihood.

Supporters argue that Clark is being punished not for criminal conduct but for offering legal advice and participating in internal executive branch deliberations that political opponents later found objectionable. The implications are chilling. If government lawyers can be professionally destroyed for providing controversial advice to elected officials, then future administrations will govern beneath a permanent cloud of fear, intimidation, and ideological enforcement. That is not constitutional governance. That is bureaucratic terror masquerading as ethics enforcement.

Then there are the January 6 defendants. Nearly 1,600 Americans were charged in connection with January 6. Many lost careers, homes, businesses, pensions, reputations, marriages, and years of their lives. One only needs to glance at social media to see and read all their stories which are, admittedly, too voluminous to fully comprehend all at once. Some J6er’s were held in prolonged pretrial detention under conditions critics described as punitive and politically motivated. Images of nonviolent defendants being marched in shackles, isolated, denied opportunities, and publicly vilified became symbols of what many Americans viewed as selective justice and ideological vengeance.

President Trump repeatedly described many January 6 defendants as “horribly treated” and victims of weaponized government. He issued pardons and commutations for many involved. Lawyers representing January 6 defendants are already signaling their intention to pursue restitution claims through the Anti Weaponization Fund for legal expenses, imprisonment, lost livelihoods, reputational destruction, and emotional suffering.

Predictably establishment figures erupted in outrage. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges have already moved to challenge the legality of the fund in court, arguing that taxpayer money should not compensate January 6 participants. Yet even Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche declined to categorically exclude such claimants, emphasizing instead that cases will be evaluated individually according to the totality of circumstances.

That phrase is critical because it suggests the commission may examine prosecutorial conduct, sentencing disparities, pretrial detention practices, financial ruin, selective charging decisions, and broader patterns of government behavior rather than merely accepting official narratives at face value.

Meanwhile politically connected figures on the left routinely escaped accountability for conduct that would have destroyed any conservative public figure. The violent Black Live Matter domestic terror attacks during 2020 caused billions of dollars in damage, destroyed neighborhoods, injured police officers, and terrorized cities across the nation, yet media organizations often described the chaos as “mostly peaceful.” Prosecutors dropped charges. Politicians raised bail money. Celebrities endorsed the unrest. Americans watched a bifurcated justice system emerge before their eyes. One standard existed for regime loyalists and another for dissidents. This asymmetry shattered public trust.

The Department of Justice announcement therefore represents something far larger than a settlement agreement. It is a tacit acknowledgment that confidence in federal institutions has catastrophically eroded. Once citizens begin viewing law enforcement and intelligence agencies as partisan actors rather than neutral guardians of justice, the moral legitimacy of the republic itself begins to fracture. Civilization depends upon confidence in impartial justice. Without it nations descend into tribalism, cynicism, instability, and eventually societal disintegration.

The Anti Weaponization Fund does not erase the damage already inflicted. It does not restore ruined reputations, recover lost years, or repair shattered families. It does not undo unconstitutional surveillance, improperly motivated political prosecutions, media coordinated character assassinations, destroyed careers, or psychological trauma. But it does represent something profoundly important. It is the first formal recognition by the federal government that the machinery of the state was corrupted and turned inward against the American people themselves.

For years millions of Americans were told these concerns were paranoid fantasies. They were mocked, censored, ridiculed, and dismissed. Anyone questioning federal agencies was branded dangerous, extremist, conspiratorial, or unhinged. Yet now the Department of Justice itself has effectively admitted the disease existed all along. The Goliath finally confessed what I and so many other Americans already knew. It had become sinister. It had become monstrous. And now after years of humiliation, intimidation, prosecutions, raids, censorship, surveillance, bankruptcies, and public destruction, the American people are finally demanding restitution from the very monster that turned against them.

For decades, Carmen Mercedes Lineberger cultivated the image of the consummate federal prosecutor. She was not some transient political operative bouncing from cable television studios to activist nonprofits. She was a career Department of Justice (DOJ) insider who rose through the prosecutorial ranks with the quiet bureaucratic discipline that Washington traditionally rewards.

As Managing Assistant United States Attorney for the Fort Pierce branch of the Southern District of Florida (SDFL), she occupied a position of substantial authority and institutional trust. Colleagues reportedly viewed her as experienced, methodical, and deeply embedded within the operational culture of federal law enforcement. She handled serious federal matters, supervised prosecutions, and operated within one of the most politically explosive jurisdictions in America during the Trump classified documents investigation.

That is precisely why the allegations now exploding around her are so politically radioactive. According to the federal indictment unsealed this week, this veteran DOJ official allegedly smuggled sealed investigative records connected to Jack Smith’s prosecution of President Donald Trump into her personal email accounts while disguising the files as dessert recipes to evade detection.

The allegations read less like ordinary white collar misconduct and more like a political espionage novel authored by a cynical screenwriter convinced Americans would never believe the plot unless it unfolded in real life. Prosecutors allege Lineberger renamed sensitive DOJ files with titles resembling harmless baking documents such as “Bundt_Cake_Recipe.pdf” and “chocolate cake recipe.pdf” before transmitting them to personal Hotmail and Gmail accounts. Beneath those deceptively domestic titles, according to the government, were portions of internal DOJ memoranda and material tied directly to Volume II of Jack Smith’s final report regarding the Mar a Lago classified documents investigation against President Donald Trump. The significance of that detail cannot be overstated.

Volume II has never been publicly released. It remained under seal after United States District Judge Aileen Cannon issued a sweeping order blocking dissemination of the material following the collapse of Smith’s prosecution. Cannon concluded that public release risked serious prejudice against remaining co defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira and warned of what she described as potential “manifest injustice” if investigative conclusions were circulated after the underlying prosecution had already been dismissed. Her order prohibited DOJ employees, agents, and officials from releasing or transmitting the material outside authorized channels. That injunction remained in effect throughout the period during which prosecutors allege Lineberger transmitted the documents to herself.

Federal prosecutors have now charged Lineberger with multiple offenses tied to those alleged actions. The indictment includes two misdemeanor counts involving theft of government property valued under one thousand dollars. More ominously, it includes felony charges for destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in a federal investigation and concealment, removal, or mutilation of public records. The falsification count alone carries a potential prison sentence of up to 20 years. She pleaded not guilty in federal court in West Palm Beach and was released on her own recognizance pending further proceedings.

The symbolism surrounding this case is devastating for the Department of Justice and particularly for defenders of the Jack Smith prosecution. For years, the American people were assured that Smith’s investigation represented an immaculate exercise in constitutional accountability. Critics who questioned the legitimacy of the prosecution were dismissed as extremists, conspiracy theorists, or enemies of democracy itself. Yet now one of the prosecutors operating within that very ecosystem stands accused of secretly transmitting sealed investigative records to personal email accounts while allegedly hiding them beneath the digital equivalent of Betty Crocker camouflage.

Even more politically explosive was the reaction from FBI Director Kash Patel, who publicly torched the conduct in a statement posted to X. Patel declared, “This afternoon, a former managing assistant U.S. Attorney who supported Jack Smith’s politicized investigation of President Trump has been charged with stealing the confidential investigation documents. Carmen Lineberger allegedly emailed the confidential material to her own personal email, disguising them as dessert recipes to conceal them from record searches. Lineberger is charged with four felony counts in the indictment. This FBI will not hesitate to bring to account those who violated the trust of the American public in an investigation that should’ve never been brought to begin with.”

That statement detonated across conservative media like artillery fire echoing through a canyon. To millions of Americans already skeptical of the DOJ’s conduct during the Trump years, Patel’s remarks reinforced a long festering belief that the machinery of federal prosecution had been transformed into a political weapon wielded selectively against ideological adversaries.

The allegations against Lineberger now threaten to deepen that perception exponentially. This scandal arrives against the backdrop of the complete implosion of Jack Smith’s classified documents case. Smith’s prosecution once stood as the crown jewel of the anti Trump legal campaign. Media figures spoke of it with near liturgical reverence. Commentators predicted criminal convictions, disqualification from office, and the permanent destruction of Trump’s political movement. Instead, the case collapsed beneath mounting constitutional challenges, procedural scrutiny, and judicial skepticism surrounding Smith’s appointment and prosecutorial conduct.

Now the remnants of that prosecution resemble the ruins of an abandoned imperial fortress. What was once presented as a towering monument to institutional righteousness increasingly appears to many Americans as a labyrinth of leaks, secrecy, procedural overreach, and political animus.

Subscribe now

The legal doctrine looming over the Lineberger case is known as the collateral bar rule, one of the judiciary’s most formidable enforcement mechanisms. Under this doctrine, court orders must be obeyed unless and until they are overturned through proper legal channels, even if the individual subject to the order believes the order itself is flawed or unconstitutional. The principle emerged prominently in American jurisprudence during the civil rights era through the Supreme Court’s decision in Walker v. City of Birmingham, where the Court ruled that demonstrators could not simply ignore an injunction because they believed it violated constitutional rights. That doctrine now hangs over Lineberger’s defense like a guillotine blade suspended by fraying rope.

Even if her attorneys attempt to argue that Cannon’s sealing order was overbroad or legally questionable, the collateral bar doctrine makes such arguments extraordinarily difficult as a complete defense against the alleged conduct itself. Prosecutors will likely argue that she was obligated to obey the order unless and until it was formally modified or overturned. The alleged disguising of the files as recipes further strengthens the government’s argument that the conduct was intentional, knowing, and designed specifically to evade oversight.

Jurors may ultimately find that detail impossible to ignore. Complex legal statutes often lose ordinary citizens in a maze of abstractions. But disguising confidential investigative records as dessert recipes is visual, memorable, and almost cinematic in its absurdity. It transforms bureaucratic misconduct into something tangible and comprehensible. Prosecutors understand this. They will hammer that imagery relentlessly.

The case also raises profound institutional questions for the Department of Justice itself. How many officials had access to Volume II? Were other records transmitted improperly? What safeguards existed to prevent unauthorized dissemination? Did supervisors know? Were internal concerns ignored because the Trump prosecution was viewed as politically exceptional? Was this truly an isolated act or merely the visible crack in a much larger foundation of dysfunction?

At present, there is no public evidence implicating Jack Smith personally in any criminal misconduct connected to Lineberger’s alleged actions. That distinction matters legally. Yet politically, the damage radiates outward regardless. In the public imagination, institutions and individuals often merge during scandal. When one senior DOJ official tied to a politically explosive prosecution is accused of secretly exfiltrating sealed records, millions of Americans naturally begin questioning the integrity of the entire enterprise.

Federal prosecutions also create enormous incentives for cooperation. Once felony exposure enters the equation, prosecutors frequently seek information extending beyond the immediate defendant. Conservative commentators are already speculating that Lineberger could eventually cooperate with investigators regarding internal DOJ operations connected to Smith’s investigation. There is no public evidence of broader conspiracy at this stage, but such speculation will intensify as the case develops.

This controversy also underscores the growing collision between transparency and secrecy within the modern administrative state. Americans were repeatedly told that Jack Smith’s investigation represented a defense of democratic norms and constitutional order. Yet large portions of the final report remain hidden from public scrutiny while allegations now emerge that DOJ insiders themselves mishandled those same materials behind closed doors. The contradictions are staggering.

American history is littered with moments when public faith in federal institutions collapsed beneath the weight of secrecy and abuse. From the FBI excesses of the Hoover era to Watergate to the intelligence scandals surrounding Crossfire Hurricane and Russia Collusion hoax, the recurring pattern remains remarkably consistent. Institutions initially portray themselves as guardians of law and democracy only to later discover that hidden misconduct was festering beneath the polished exterior. That historical pattern is precisely why the Lineberger case is so politically combustible.

If the allegations are proven true, Americans will ask a deeply uncomfortable question. How many other “Bundt cake recipes” exist inside the sprawling corridors of the federal bureaucracy? How many sealed files, hidden communications, disguised transmissions, and concealed records remain buried beneath euphemism and institutional opacity?

The case now moves into its earliest procedural stages. Motions challenging the indictment are likely. Defense attorneys will attempt to narrow the charges and contest aspects of the government’s interpretation of the sealing order. Prosecutors will portray the conduct as deliberate concealment carried out by a veteran federal prosecutor who fully understood the gravity of her actions.

Meanwhile, the ghost of the failed Trump prosecution continues hovering over the entire proceeding like smoke drifting above a battlefield long after the cannons have gone silent. Jack Smith’s once celebrated legal crusade did not end with triumph. It ended with collapse, controversy, sealed records, judicial rebuke, and now felony charges against one of the prosecutors tied to the apparatus itself. In Washington, corruption rarely announces itself with trumpets. More often it seeps through the walls quietly like water beneath marble foundations until suddenly the entire structure begins to crack under the weight of hidden decay.

In foreign policy, timing, leverage, and national interest must guide the strategy of engagement with rising powers. President Richard Nixon grasped this principle as well as any Chief Executive during his groundbreaking 1972 opening to China. President Bill Clinton, however, failed his test when he championed China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) and Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) in 2000. President Donald Trump’s recent state visit to Beijing revives the Nixonian tradition of pragmatic, interest-driven diplomacy with a foreign adversary—engaging from strength while delivering concrete American wins—while actively correcting the structural imbalances and strategic vulnerabilities created by the failures of past policies.

When Nixon landed in Beijing in February 1972, China was a desperately poor, agrarian society still recovering from the Cultural Revolution. Rural areas largely lacked indoor plumbing, and electricity access was minimal; rural electricity consumption was only about 1-10% of national totals in the 1960s-1970s. Its military was massive in manpower but technologically backward, with limited projection capability. GDP per capita hovered near subsistence levels. Nixon, the consummate anti-communist, pursued classic realpolitik: exploiting the Sino-Soviet split to isolate Moscow, ease pressure in Vietnam, and create a triangular balance of power. The Shanghai Communiqué was deliberately cautious—acknowledging differences, opposing hegemony in Asia, and committing to gradual normalization and people-to-people contacts without massive technology transfers or one-sided economic concessions. Trade in 1972 stood at a mere $95.9 million. Nixon built a bridge across 22 years of hostility, famously declaring it “the week that changed the world,” but he did so without arming or enriching a future rival at America’s expense.

Clinton’s policy marked a sharp and consequential departure from Nixon’s success. Convinced that economic liberalization would foster political openness, the administration granted PNTR in 2000 and supported China’s WTO accession in 2001. U.S. officials projected modest trade growth and mutual benefits. Reality proved otherwise. Pre-WTO (2001), the U.S. goods trade deficit with China was about $83 billion. By 2015, it had ballooned to $367 billion—an annual average increase of over $20 billion. Imports from China surged from $102 billion to $483 billion, while U.S. exports grew far more slowly from a smaller base. Economists estimate this “China Shock” displaced 2.4 to 3.4 million U.S. jobs, with roughly 2.6 million in manufacturing, devastating communities in electronics, apparel, furniture, and other sectors. China’s economy exploded—eleven times larger by some measures post-accession—fueled by foreign investment, technology transfers, and export-led growth. Its military modernized rapidly, shifting from coastal defense to blue-water ambitions. What Nixon engaged as a weak agrarian power, Clinton’s policies helped transform into an economic and military superpower.

President Trump’s May 2026 visit to China reflects a Nixonian calculus adapted to 21st-century realities: direct personal engagement, tangible reciprocal deals, and firm guardrails on strategic competition. Like Nixon’s trip, it featured high-level meetings, cultural exchanges, and warm rapport with leadership. Xi Jinping may be a wicked man like Mao Zedong clearly was, but those characterizations are often immaterial pertaining to geopolitical realities. Unlike Clinton’s broad market-opening that disproportionately benefited China, President Trump secured specific wins for American exporters. China committed to an initial 200 Boeing aircraft purchase (with potential expansion to 750), plus hundreds of GE jet engines—reopening a critical market for U.S. aviation and supporting thousands of American manufacturing jobs. Agricultural agreements promise “double-digit billions” in annual purchases of U.S. soybeans, beef, and other farm products. Expanded imports of American oil and LNG further bolster U.S. energy producers. New bilateral mechanisms, including a U.S.-China Board of Trade under a reciprocal tariff framework, aim to stabilize ties on more balanced terms.

These outcomes contrast sharply with the post-Clinton era’s imbalances. President Trump negotiates from strength—leveraging tariffs, export controls, and alliances—while delivering immediate benefits to U.S. farmers, manufacturers, and energy workers. The approach wisely manages competition without repeating the naive bet that economic integration alone would moderate Beijing’s behavior. Nixon engaged a fragmented, impoverished China to counter the Soviets; President Trump is engaging a powerful China to prevent dominance in key sectors, secure supply-chain resilience, and protect critical infrastructure and technology.

Trump has scored with a commitment from China not to provide weapons to Iran and China will not support Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon at the same time getting commitments for the purchase of American agricultural products like soybeans, beef and pork. The Chinese have also agreed to purchase 200 Boeing aircraft. Trump deals from strength haven cut China’s access to cheap oil from Venezuela and Iran.

History underscores the difference in risk. Engaging a weak China in 1972 carried manageable downsides. Empowering it through unconditional access after 2000 gave a burgeoning rival everything it needed to obtain global hegemony. President Trump’s bridge-building seeks to restore reciprocity and leverage, honoring Nixon’s realism while repairing decades of policy missteps. The test ahead is whether sustained pressure and targeted engagement can produce a stable, interest-based relationship that prioritizes American workers, security, and prosperity—outcomes put on the backburner due to the neoliberal Clinton consensus. In an era of competing world powers, Nixonian prudence without wearing ideological rose-colored glasses offers the wiser path forward.

Part 1 made the geopolitical argument for Trump’s pardon of former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez.

Part 2 examined the case the Biden Department of Justice put on.

Part 3 examined how the prosecutors lied to get the trial in front of a biased judge and an uninformed jury.

Part 4 showed how the prosecutors coached cooperators to lie about ledgers and radar that did not exist.

Part 5 examined the four cooperators — 134 murders between them, 700 tons of cocaine trafficked, whose uncorroborated testimony was the basis for Hernández’s 45-year sentence.

This is Part 6.

The United States government told two different stories about Juan Orlando Hernández.

In the first version, Hernández was one of America’s great anti-drug allies in Latin America.

In the second story, told by the Biden administration’s Department of Justice, Hernández ruled Honduras as a narco-state, accepted bribes from cartels, and used the authority of the Honduran presidency to shield cocaine shipments moving toward the United States.

Both stories originated from the United States government.

One of them is a lie.

The Calendar

For eight years, while Juan Orlando Hernández served as president of Honduras, the praise directed toward him by the United States government came from the agencies responsible for monitoring narcotics trafficking.

Either they were all fooled for nearly a decade, or something stranger happened.

Apparently, everybody in charge either thought he was helping stop trafficking, or the greatest intelligence failure in modern hemispheric history lasted nearly a decade.

In March 2015, General John F. Kelly, then commander of United States Southern Command, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that drug-trafficking flights into Honduras had fallen from nearly 300 in 2011 to almost none. He described it as a 98 percent reduction and attributed the result to Hernández’s government.

In May 2015, General Kelly told the Honduran newspaper El Heraldo that, within little more than a year of Hernández’s presidency, Honduras had declined from the number one transit country for South American cocaine to the fifth.

In 2017, Vice President Mike Pence met Hernández at the White House and publicly described him as “a good friend & key ally on promoting security, stability, & democracy in Central America.”

In 2017, General Kelly, then serving as Secretary of Homeland Security, publicly referred to Hernández as “a great guy, good friend.”

On June 7, 2018, the official social media account of the Drug Enforcement Administration announced publicly: “DEA met with President Hernandez of Honduras today. Critical to reducing violence and addiction caused by drug trafficking that afflicts both our nations.”

In 2019, Hernández stood beside President Donald Trump at the White House while Trump told reporters, “President Hernandez is working with the United States very closely. Through this partnership we’re stopping drugs at a level that has never happened.”

In 2020, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf told Hernández: “We are committed to continuing our support as you continue to do more to secure your borders and dismantle gangs and cartels.”

In 2020, Admiral Craig S. Faller, commander of United States Southern Command, stated publicly: “In 2020 already, Honduras has taken more drugs off the streets and has more prosecutions than in 2019 combined.”

In 2021, the State Department’s International Narcotics Control Strategy Report — the INCSR — stated that the Honduran government had seized 14.2 metric tons of cocaine in the first nine months of the year alone.

The figure was four times the total number of seizures reported for 2020.

On January 27, 2022, Hernández left office as president of Honduras.

Three weeks later, the Biden administration’s Department of Justice indicted him in the Southern District of New York.

In April 2022, the newly elected government of Xiomara Castro extradited Hernández to the United States.

Then came the trial.

The Exclusion

Renato Stabile, Hernández’s defense counsel, moved to admit the State Department’s annual certifications recognizing Honduras as a counter-narcotics partner.

The prosecution opposed the request.

Judge P. Kevin Castel granted the government’s motion to exclude the evidence.

The government’s star witnesses were four cooperators.

Together, they admitted involvement in 134 murders and the trafficking of 700 tons of cocaine. Each testified under a cooperation agreement, under which federal prosecutors sought reduced sentences in proportion to the assistance their testimony provided the government.

The jury was presented with the government’s theory that Hernández had governed Honduras as a narco-state.

The jury was not informed that, for eight consecutive years, the United States government’s agencies had publicly documented the opposite conclusion.

Judge Castel prohibited the defense from placing that record before the jury.

The DEA Agent Who Said the Opposite

Judge Castel did more than exclude the documented record showing decreases in drug trafficking during Hernández’s presidency.

The prosecution was also permitted to present testimony from a Drug Enforcement Administration agent, Jennifer Taul, who testified that cocaine trafficking through Honduras increased between 2014 and 2019, covering five years of Hernández’s presidency.

For eight consecutive years during Hernández’s presidency, the State Department’s International Narcotics Control Strategy Report — the INCSR — documented decreases in cocaine trafficking through Honduras.

The same agency that published reports documenting decreases in cocaine trafficking through Honduras sent an agent to testify that trafficking had increased.

Only one version reached the jury.

The Same Prosecutors. The Opposite Expert.

The prosecutors from the Southern District of New York who tried Hernández in 2024 had previously presented a different expert witness in an earlier case.

Dr. Darío Euraque, an expert in Honduran history and political systems, had previously testified in a related federal narcotics case that cocaine trafficking through Honduras had decreased during Hernández’s presidency.

Five years later, the same Southern District of New York office presented Agent Taul to testify that trafficking had increased during those same years.

The Sidebar

During the jury-instruction phase of the trial, defense counsel Stabile informed Judge Castel that DEA Agent Taul’s testimony was false.

Stabile wanted the jury informed that cocaine trafficking through Honduras had decreased during Hernández’s presidency and proposed to introduce the DEA’s International Narcotics Control Strategy Reports.

Castel denied the motion.

The jury deliberated without having access to the DEA’s published record.

The Ruling

After the conviction, Hernández moved for a new trial. He argued that the prosecution had presented false testimony to the jury regarding cocaine trafficking trends during his presidency.

On May 9, 2024, Judge Castel acknowledged that a conflict existed between Agent Taul’s testimony at Hernández’s trial and Dr. Euraque’s testimony in an earlier trial.

Castel nevertheless ruled that even if Taul’s testimony had been false, the contradiction would not have altered the result.

Castel said that even if trafficking did decrease during Hernández’s presidency, that proved Hernández was using anti-trafficking policies as cover for trafficking.

In a trial concerning whether Hernández had protected cocaine trafficking, evidence that he had publicly and measurably opposed trafficking was likely to suggest innocence.

In a trial about whether a president protected cocaine trafficking, evidence that the president spent years fighting cocaine trafficking was considered too favorable to the defense.

Hernández in His Own Words

At sentencing on June 26, 2024, Hernández spoke in front of the judge who had kept it from the jury, the record that had been excluded.

“Three agencies, the DEA, the State Department, and three presidencies — Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Biden — informed the United States Congress during every year of my presidency that the passage of drug was being reduced from 90 percent that was traveling through Honduras and coming to the United States, down to 4 percent. But you were not able to hear that, nor was the jury. So the witness presented by the DEA is saying that the DEA lied and those three presidents and all of them lied?”

Castel told Hernández the courtroom was not a public forum. He was not welcome to make a speech.

Castel Explains

Judge Castel then explained why he had excluded the U.S. government’s record.

“In a political environment in which the public sentiment in Honduras and its allies, including the U.S., was vehemently opposed to drug trafficking,” Castel said, “it was necessary for Hernandez to maintain the public image of being an anti-drug crusader while secretly aiding select drug traffickers.”

The extraditions Hernández authorized, the anti-narcotics laws he enacted, the cooperation extended to American agencies, and the praise he received from United States presidents and senior military officials were, in Judge Castel’s reasoning, not evidence of innocence.

They were evidence of concealment.

If the jury had seen the eight years of certifications, the SOUTHCOM testimony, and the Army War College endorsement, the jury might have asked the inverse question.

Not whether Hernández’s counter-narcotics work was the cover for hidden trafficking —but whether Judge Castel’s framework was the cover for a Biden-era political decision to dispose of a Trump-allied Honduran ex-president. The cover for a diplomatic gift to the leftist Castro government that had just turned Honduras toward Beijing.

Castel sentenced him to 45 years.

The Pardon

When President Donald Trump pardoned Hernández, he characterized the prosecution as a setup orchestrated by the Biden administration.

The prosecution began three weeks after Hernández left office and proceeded with the cooperation of the newly installed government of Xiomara Castro, which had shifted Honduras’s political orientation toward China.

What Happened to Honduras After Hernández

Under Hernández, in the first nine months of 2021 alone, the Honduran government seized 14.2 metric tons of cocaine.

Under Castro, in all of 2023, the Honduran government seized less than half a ton.

The first coca plantations in Honduras were discovered in April 2017, during Hernández’s tenure. They were minor. They were eradicated.

Under Castro, coca cultivation expanded into a national phenomenon. Honduras stopped being a transit point. It became a cocaine producer.

There is a lot of money paid to a lot of people in the world of drug trafficking. Following the money in drug trafficking is hard.

Cocaine trafficking through Honduras went down under Juan Orlando Hernández.

It went up after him.

Maybe that was the point.

This morning, beneath the towering marble monuments and windswept flags of the National Mall in Washington, D.C. the United States began something far larger than a mere political celebration. America commenced the solemn observance of its 250th birthday with a national act of prayer, gratitude, remembrance, and rededication to the principles that forged this nation from wilderness into world power. The event titled “Rededicate 250: A National Jubilee of Prayer, Praise and Thanksgiving” is not simply another gathering in the capital city. It is an attempt to restore the spiritual architecture of the American experiment at a moment when the country stands battered by division, cynicism, cultural amnesia, and political warfare. Like weary travelers returning to the church bells of a familiar hometown after wandering through a storm, thousands gathered today not merely to celebrate America’s existence, but to ask whether the soul of the nation can still be renewed.

The event marks the beginning of the broader America 250 commemorations leading toward July 4, 2026, the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In historical terms, 250 years is the blink of an eye. Yet within that brief span, America rose from thirteen fragile colonies hugging the coast of the Atlantic Ocean into the most powerful republic in human history. The architects of the celebration understand that anniversaries are not merely ceremonial markers. They are mirrors held up to civilization itself. Rome had its triumphs. England had its jubilees. France had its revolutions and republics. America now arrives at its own great reckoning point where the nation must ask whether it still remembers the covenant that made it exceptional.

The symbolism of today’s date was not chosen accidentally. On May 17, 1776 General George Washington called upon the colonies to engage in prayer and fasting as the Revolutionary War raged and the future of independence remained uncertain. Washington understood something modern America often forgets. Nations are not held together merely by constitutions, commerce, armies, or elections. They are held together by shared moral belief and common sacrifice. A republic without virtue eventually becomes a carcass picked apart by opportunists, oligarchs, and ideological scavengers.

The organizers of today’s event intentionally reached back to that original moment of uncertainty and faith to remind Americans that the United States was born not simply through muskets and battlefield heroics, but through perseverance, providence, and prayer.

The gathering itself is enormous in scale and ambition. Gates opened early this morning as crowds streamed onto the National Mall near 12th Street. The program stretches throughout the day with Scripture readings, speeches, musical performances, worship services, testimonies, and public prayer. Organizers describe the event as built upon three central themes: “The Miracles That Made Us,” reflecting upon divine providence throughout American history; “The Miracles Still In Our Midst,” highlighting modern testimonies of faith and perseverance; and “A New Birth of Faith and Freedom,” which looks toward America’s next quarter millennium. The language intentionally echoes Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, where Lincoln warned that the nation must experience “a new birth of freedom” if government of the people, by the people, and for the people was not to perish from the earth.

The event exists under the broader Freedom 250 initiative supported by President Donald Trump and the White House Task Force 250. Unlike the more bureaucratic congressional semi-quincentennial commission that focuses heavily on museums, educational programming, and cultural outreach, Freedom 250 places its emphasis squarely upon patriotism, faith, military history, national pride, and public spectacle. Critics in the media and academia predictably sneer at this emphasis, accusing organizers of promoting Christian nationalism. Yet the truth is far simpler and far more uncomfortable for the secular left. America cannot honestly tell its own story without acknowledging the central role of faith in its founding and survival. The abolitionists sang hymns. The civil rights movement marched from churches. Presidents from Washington to Lincoln to Reagan invoked divine providence during the nation’s darkest hours. Erasing faith from the American story would be like removing the steel beams from a skyscraper and pretending the building still stands.

Among today’s speakers are some of the most recognizable voices in American public life, faith leadership, and conservative politics. House Speaker Mike Johnson holds a particularly prominent role in the proceedings. Johnson has consistently framed America’s founding principles through the lens of Biblical morality and constitutional originalism. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth whose own public life has blended patriotism, military advocacy, and Christian conviction, also appears as one of the principal speakers. Secretary of State Marco Rubio contributed remarks through video presentation, emphasizing the international importance of American liberty and the continuing global struggle between freedom and authoritarianism.

Dr. Ben Carson, the legendary neurosurgeon and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) appears as both a statesman and living embodiment of the American dream. Carson’s rise from inner city poverty to world renowned medical achievement has long served as a powerful repudiation of the left’s poisonous insistence that America is irredeemably oppressive. Monica Crowley, serving as Chief of Protocol, joins the event as one of the administration’s most articulate defenders of American exceptionalism. Retired Major General Patrick Brady was awarded our nation’s highest military commendation, the Medal of Honor (MOH), for extraordinary heroism during the Vietnam War reminds attendees that freedom is never inherited cheaply. It is purchased generation after generation through blood, sacrifice, and courage.

The religious leadership assembled today reflects a broad coalition of Christian traditions along with Jewish representation. Franklin Graham appears through video message, continuing the Graham family’s decades-long role in American evangelism and civic life. Cardinal Timothy Dolan also contributes by video, while Bishop Robert Barron brings Catholic intellectual tradition into the national conversation. Pastor Jack Graham, Pastor Jentezen Franklin, Reverend Samuel Rodriguez, Pastor Jonathan Falwell, Pastor Jonathan Pokluda, Pastor Gary Hamrick, and Pastor Lorenzo Sewell each represent various corners of evangelical America. Paula White Cain, serving within the White House faith office, also plays a visible role throughout the proceedings.

One particularly noteworthy figure is Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, one of the nation’s most respected Jewish scholars and public intellectuals. His participation underscores the Judeo-Christian foundations underpinning the American constitutional order. The Declaration of Independence itself speaks not of government granting rights, but of rights endowed by a Creator. God. That distinction is the firewall separating liberty from tyranny. Governments that believe rights come from the state eventually decide the state can also remove them.

The event also features authors, media personalities, performers, and public witnesses who bridge faith and popular culture. Eric Metaxas, long one of America’s foremost Christian historians and commentators, participates prominently. Jonathan Roumie, widely known for portraying Jesus in “The Chosen,” joins the lineup alongside members of the Robertson family whose own media presence has intertwined faith, Americana, and cultural conservatism. Musically, the celebration is anchored by worship leader Chris Tomlin, joined by Blessing Offor and Aodhan King among others. Their performances transform the Mall from a simple political gathering place into something resembling a national revival meeting.

America has held great commemorations before. The Centennial in 1876 celebrated survival after the Civil War. The Bicentennial in 1976 arrived amid post Vietnam malaise and Watergate cynicism yet still rekindled patriotic pride. Today’s America 250 observances emerge during another era of turbulence marked by cultural fragmentation, institutional distrust, economic anxiety, political radicalism, and spiritual exhaustion. Yet throughout American history, the nation has repeatedly demonstrated a unique capacity for renewal. Like a battered ship entering harbor after weathering violent seas, the Republic has often emerged stronger precisely because it was tested.

The broader America 250 celebrations planned throughout 2026 will include state fairs, historical exhibits, fireworks, military commemorations, concerts, reenactments, museum programs, tall ship gatherings, volunteer projects, educational initiatives, and public festivals stretching from small towns to major cities. But today’s event on the National Mall establishes the spiritual tone for everything that follows. Before the fireworks, before the parades, before the concerts and celebrations, America pauses to give thanks. That matters enormously.

Civilizations collapse when they lose memory of who they are. A nation that forgets its origins becomes vulnerable to every ideological parasite that promises reinvention through destruction. America’s founders were imperfect men, but they understood enduring truths about liberty, human nature, faith, and self government that remain astonishingly relevant nearly two and a half centuries later. Today’s gathering is an act of remembrance against the cultural forces attempting to sever modern Americans from that inheritance.

As the voices rise across the National Mall today in prayer, worship, and patriotic celebration, Americans are reminded that this country was never merely an economic zone or administrative state. It was an audacious moral experiment unlike anything the world had ever seen. The torches first lit in Philadelphia in 1776 still flicker today through the storms of history. The purpose of America 250 is to ensure they continue burning for another two hundred and fifty years.

Tulsi Gabbard is one of the most unusual and controversial figures ever to ascend to the apex of the American intelligence apparatus. A former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, combat veteran, Lieutenant Colonel, and former presidential candidate who publicly broke with her own party over war, surveillance, and the sprawling national security bureaucracy, Gabbard spent years condemning the intelligence establishment before ultimately becoming Director of National Intelligence (DNI) under President Donald Trump. Her appointment alone sent seismic tremors through Washington’s permanent ruling class. Yesterday those tremors erupted into a political earthquake after allegations exploded across Capitol Hill and conservative media that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had removed highly sensitive files from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) during an escalating confrontation over the declassification of records involving the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the infamous MKUltra mind control program.

The controversy erupted publicly after reports circulated during Jesse Watters’ broadcast on Fox News on May 13, 2026. Watters stated that CIA personnel had effectively “raided” Gabbard’s office and removed dozens of boxes of classified records reportedly being prepared for public release. According to the claims aired on television and amplified across social media, the records included materials tied to the Kennedy assassination, covert CIA operations, and MKUltra, the notorious Cold War era program in which the agency conducted experiments involving LSD, hypnosis, psychological conditioning, and other forms of behavioral manipulation.

The story detonated instantly because of its staggering implications. Tulsi Gabbard is not merely another cabinet official. As Director of National Intelligence she oversees the broader Intelligence Community, including coordination among the CIA, The National Security Agency (NSA), The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA),and numerous other agencies. For the public to hear allegations that the CIA had entered the orbit of the DNI and removed records under dispute created the appearance of an internal war inside America’s intelligence hierarchy itself.

The controversy intensified further due to testimony reportedly connected to CIA whistleblower James Erdman, who allegedly informed Senate investigators that approximately forty boxes of documents had been seized from ODNI custody while undergoing declassification review. According to accounts circulating among congressional investigators and conservative journalists, those files were being processed for release pursuant to President Trump’s renewed push for maximum transparency regarding historical intelligence abuses. The implication was unmistakable. Critics of the CIA immediately suspected that elements within the agency were attempting to prevent disclosure of material that could humiliate current and former officials or expose decades of deception surrounding politically radioactive subjects.

Representative Anna Paulina Luna of Florida became one of the most aggressive public voices on the matter. Luna has emerged as a leading advocate for declassification efforts involving JFK, RFK, MLK, intelligence abuses, and covert operations. She publicly stated that she had been informed that documents under ODNI jurisdiction had been taken by the CIA and warned that if the records were not returned Congress could pursue subpoenas. Her remarks dramatically escalated the story because they granted congressional credibility to what otherwise might have been dismissed as internet rumor or political theater.

However, the details became murkier as the day progressed. Gabbard’s office categorically denied that the CIA had “raided” the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. DNI press secretary Olivia Coleman issued a public statement declaring that the reports were false. Luna herself later clarified that the event did not occur literally on May 13, 2026 and that the word “raid” may have been imprecise. Intelligence officials speaking anonymously to media outlets likewise insisted there had been no forcible seizure or dramatic confrontation. Yet notably, the clarifications stopped short of fully denying that disputed documents had been removed from ODNI control at some earlier point.

That distinction is critically important because the core issue is not whether armed CIA officers stormed Tulsi Gabbard’s office like a scene from a political thriller. The underlying issue is the alleged struggle over who controls historically explosive intelligence records and whether factions inside the national security bureaucracy are resisting Trump administration declassification efforts.

To understand why this matters, one must understand the central role the CIA plays in both controversies. The Kennedy assassination remains perhaps the most scrutinized intelligence related event in American history. Despite decades of investigations, public skepticism persists because thousands of records remained classified or partially redacted for generations. Many researchers believe elements of the intelligence community concealed information about Lee Harvey Oswald’s contacts, CIA surveillance activities, anti Castro operations, and intelligence failures before the assassination. Even when documents have been released, heavy redactions and missing files have fueled suspicion rather than trust.

MKUltra is equally incendiary. Beginning in the 1950s, the CIA conducted secret experiments exploring methods of mind control, interrogation resistance, chemical manipulation, and psychological conditioning. Subjects were sometimes dosed with LSD or subjected to experiments without informed consent. Congressional investigations in the 1970s exposed aspects of the program, but many records had already been destroyed on orders from CIA leadership. The surviving revelations permanently stained the agency’s reputation and transformed MKUltra into shorthand for unchecked clandestine power operating in the shadows of government.

Subscribe now

Tulsi Gabbard’s role in this unfolding drama is particularly significant because she has long positioned herself as hostile to regime change operations, secret wars, and intelligence excesses. Throughout her political career she repeatedly accused elements of the national security establishment of misleading the American people and perpetuating endless foreign conflicts. Her appointment by President Trump was therefore viewed by many intelligence veterans as akin to placing an institutional skeptic atop the intelligence pyramid itself.

This broader context explains why conservatives and anti establishment figures interpreted yesterday’s reports as evidence of Deep State resistance. To them, the dispute symbolizes a larger battle between elected officials seeking transparency and entrenched intelligence bureaucracies determined to protect institutional secrets. The allegations also dovetail with broader claims made this year by whistleblowers involving CIA obstruction concerning investigations into the origins of the coronavirus, surveillance of congressional investigators, and internal classification disputes.

At present, many aspects of the story remain contested and unresolved. No publicly released evidence confirms a dramatic physical raid in the literal sense. Yet multiple figures connected to congressional oversight and whistleblower channels continue asserting that disputed records involving JFK and MKUltra were removed from ODNI custody during a sensitive declassification process. The distinction between “raid” and “custodial dispute” may ultimately prove more semantic than substantive depending on what facts emerge in the coming days.

What happens next could become enormously consequential. Congress may issue subpoenas. Additional whistleblowers could emerge. Tulsi Gabbard herself may eventually speak publicly in greater detail. CIA Director John Ratcliffe may be forced to clarify the agency’s actions. Most importantly, the controversy has once again focused national attention on the enduring secrecy surrounding America’s intelligence agencies and the historical episodes that continue to haunt them decades later.

The American people are witnessing a spectacle that resembles less a bureaucratic disagreement than an invisible civil war inside the architecture of the national security state. At the center stands Tulsi Gabbard, the former Democratic insurgent turned Trump intelligence chief, now seemingly locked in a confrontation with the very institutions she spent years condemning from the outside.

Part 1 made the geopolitical argument for Trump’s pardon of former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez.

Part 2 examined the case the Biden Department of Justice put on.

Part 3 examined how the prosecutors lied to get the trial in front of a biased judge and an uninformed jury.

Part 4 showed how the prosecutors coached cooperators to lie about ledgers and radar that did not exist.

This is Part 5.

The Biden Department of Justice built its case against Juan Orlando Hernández on one idea: that Honduras became a narco-state while he was president.

Prosecutors said he used political influence, security forces, intelligence structures, and the authority of the presidency to protect the movement of cocaine through Honduras.

For eight years, during Hernández’s two terms as Honduras’s president, the U.S. State Department, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the U.S. Army War College had said the opposite.

The U.S. had praised him for fighting drug trafficking.

The Biden DOJ argued the eight years of praise had been the cover. That Hernández had pretended to fight drugs so he could traffic them.

The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Damian Williams, and his prosecutors chose four convicted drug dealers in U.S. custody to testify that Hernández was the Honduran drug trafficker in chief.

All four were cooperators. All four were facing life in federal prison. Each was eligible for a § 5K1.1 cooperation letter from the prosecutors — the document that, when filed, allows a federal judge to sentence below the otherwise mandatory minimum.

Each would get back his life, or some part of his life, for testifying that Hernández — the formerly praised president — was a secret drug trafficker.

Each gave the prosecutors what the prosecutors needed.

Alexander Ardón. Former mayor of El Paraíso, Copán. Pleaded guilty to 56 murders and the trafficking of 250 tons of cocaine. Faced life plus 30 years. Served less than six years in U.S. federal custody before being released back to Honduras.

Devis Leonel Rivera Maradiaga. Former leader of Los Cachiros. Pleaded guilty to 78 murders. Faced life plus 30 years. Has been a cooperating witness in five major SDNY prosecutions over eleven years. His final sentence has not been imposed. His current custody status is not in the public record.

Luis Pérez. The pseudonym of Alexander Monroy-Murillo, a Colombian. Worked for Sinaloa Cartel leaders Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán and Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada. Trafficked 200,000 kilograms of cocaine from Colombia through Honduras over seven years, starting in 2008. Sentenced to 135 months. Served 6 years and 3 months — after the Department of Justice filed a motion to reduce his sentence in exchange for his cooperation.

Fabio Lobo. The son of Porfirio Pepe Lobo, Hernández’s predecessor as president of Honduras (2010 to 2014). Sentenced in September 2017 by Judge Lorna Schofield to 24 years. Four months after Judge P. Kevin Castel sentenced Hernández to 45 years, Castel granted Fabio Lobo a sentence reduction. Lobo was released after serving seven years of his 24-year sentence.

The prosecution’s case rested on the testimony of four cooperators who, between them, had been responsible for 134 murders and the trafficking of more than 700 tons of cocaine. Based on the public record, the amount of time those four cooperators have collectively served in U.S. federal prison for those crimes is approximately 19 years.

The man they testified against was sentenced to 45 years on the strength of their testimony alone.

There was nothing else.

No recording of any of the alleged meetings. No photograph. No financial record. No bank trace of the millions of dollars that allegedly changed hands. No surveillance footage. No phone records between Hernández and any of the four cooperators. No text messages. No emails. No corroborating witness — not a single person outside the four cooperators was willing to confirm any of the events they described.

The Drug Enforcement Administration had wiretaps on El Chapo Guzmán’s communications throughout 2013, when Ardón says El Chapo personally delivered $1 million to Hernández. The wiretaps captured every other significant transaction in El Chapo’s life that year. They did not capture the Hernández meeting.

Rivera Maradiaga recorded hundreds of conversations as a DEA informant from 2013 forward. He did not record a single conversation with Hernández.

Pérez claimed he gave $2.4 million to Hernández’s campaign in 2013 through intermediaries, including an unnamed official at the Port of Cortés. The official was never identified, never arrested, never charged, never produced as a witness.

Lobo’s account of cash bribes paid to Hilda Hernández was contradicted by Rivera Maradiaga’s account of the same alleged payments. The two cooperators told different stories about the same transactions. Hilda Hernández was dead and could not confirm or deny either version.

That was the case. Four men. Four stories. No corroboration. Each was hoping for the prosecutors’ § 5K1.1 letter as their only hope of getting out of prison. Each had every reason to say what the prosecutors needed.

That was the case.

Unravel the story, and the smell is the same. A story coached by the prosecutors. They wanted their man — Hernández.

Who ordered them from above in the Biden administration is hard to know.

What we do know is that the testimony was uncorroborated, that the cooperators had every reason to give the prosecutors what they wanted, and that they each got what they wanted in exchange. The federal term for that pattern, when it is proven, is subornation of perjury.

Hernández’s innocence was irrelevant.

The kitchen in the Ambassador Hotel sounded like a battlefield.

Silver serving trays crashed violently against the floor. Coffee cups shattered.

Steam billowed through the narrow pantry corridors of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles as campaign workers, reporters, waiters, and hotel staff screamed and dove for cover. Men wrestled blindly atop one another in panic while women cried hysterically against the walls.

Robert Francis Kennedy, moments earlier triumphant after winning the California Democratic Presidential Primary, staggered backward in shock as gunfire erupted around him in the cramped hotel pantry shortly after midnight on June 5, 1968.

Then came the scream that would echo through American political history forever: “We shot him! We shot him!”

Multiple witnesses later described a young woman in a white dress with black polkadots fleeing through the hotel corridors alongside a male companion moments after the shooting.

That distinction changes everything.

The Ambassador Hotel was packed that evening because Robert Kennedy had just achieved one of the greatest victories of his political career. California was the crown jewel of the Democratic primary season. Kennedy had delivered his victory speech in the Embassy Ballroom shortly after midnight, celebrating his triumph before supporters, journalists, celebrities, labor leaders, and campaign staff packed into the glamorous old hotel that for decades served as one of Los Angeles’ political and Hollywood nerve centers.

Kennedy intended to leave the ballroom by passing through the hotel kitchen pantry as a shortcut to a press conference area.

He never made it.

Sirhan Sirhan was immediately seized by bystanders after the shooting and quickly presented to the public as the lone assassin. Authorities assured Americans the case was solved within hours. A deranged fanatic had murdered the Democratic frontrunner. Open and shut.

But almost immediately, the official story began collapsing beneath the weight of the evidence itself.

Robert Kennedy did not die that night in the pantry. Gravely wounded, he was rushed to Central Receiving Hospital and later transferred to Good Samaritan Hospital. Surgeons fought desperately to save his life through the night and into the next day. Kennedy lingered for nearly twenty six hours before finally dying in the early hours of June 6, 1968.

But even during those agonizing final hours, bizarre events and unanswered questions swirled around the case.

Reports circulated for decades that President Lyndon Johnson repeatedly called the hospital demanding updates on Kennedy’s condition while shouting to operators, “Is he dead yet? Is he dead yet?”

Other accounts claim members of the Kennedy family sought to bring a renowned Boston brain surgeon to Los Angeles aboard a military aircraft arranged through Hubert Humphrey, only for Johnson to angrily intervene and halt the effort while berating Humphrey for authorizing the flight.

Whether every detail of those stories can ever be conclusively verified or not, they reflect the extraordinary atmosphere of suspicion surrounding every aspect of Robert Kennedy’s death.

And with good reason.

Because the forensic evidence directly contradicts the government’s official narrative.

The central issue is brutally simple.

Sirhan Sirhan was always positioned in front of Kennedy.

Yet Kennedy was shot from behind.

Thomas Noguchi, the highly respected medical examiner who performed the autopsy, reached conclusions that devastate the lone gunman theory. Noguchi determined the fatal shot entered behind Kennedy’s right ear from a distance of approximately one inch. Powder burns and stippling proved the muzzle was pressed extremely close to Kennedy’s head. The bullet traveled upward through the brain from behind. Noguchi also documented additional entry wounds fired from behind at similarly close range.

This matters enormously because witness testimony consistently placed Sirhan several feet in front of Kennedy during the shooting. Witnesses described Sirhan extending his arm outward toward Kennedy from the front before multiple individuals grabbed and restrained him almost instantly.

Photographs confirm this positioning.

Sirhan was never behind Kennedy.

Never close enough to press a revolver within one inch of the back of Kennedy’s head.

Simple 10^th grade geometry alone destroys the official story.

A gunman standing in front of Kennedy cannot fire a point blank shot into the back of Kennedy’s skull from behind.

No amount of media repetition changes the laws of physics.

The ballistics problems only deepen from there.

Sirhan’s revolver held eight rounds. Yet audio recordings analyzed over the years by independent experts suggested the possibility that more than eight shots were fired in the pantry. Some acoustic studies identified as many as thirteen distinct shot impulses. Witnesses described rapid overlapping gunfire inconsistent with a single revolver fired while the shooter was being physically restrained.

Investigators also encountered apparent bullet holes in pantry door frames and ceiling panels that did not align with the official trajectory analysis.

Then comes the issue of proximity.

Noguchi’s autopsy proved the fatal shot was fired from virtually direct contact range. Yet witness after witness insisted Sirhan never got close enough to Kennedy to fire from within an inch of his head. Several individuals physically intercepted Sirhan almost immediately after the first shots rang out.

Which raises the obvious question.

Who was behind Robert Kennedy?

One name has haunted independent researchers for decades: Thane Eugene Cesar. Cesar was a security guard standing directly behind Kennedy during the shooting. Unlike Sirhan, Cesar occupied the exact position necessary to match the autopsy findings. He carried a .22 caliber revolver, the same caliber used in the assassination. Witnesses reportedly saw Cesar draw his weapon during the chaos.

Cesar also possessed deeply troubling political views. Researchers later documented that he strongly opposed the Kennedy family, supported segregationist politics, and viewed the Kennedys as dangerous radicals. He worked for a defense contractor tied to sensitive military projects and possessed security clearances that only fueled further suspicion.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. eventually concluded Cesar likely fired the fatal shot. That conclusion emerged after years of studying the evidence surrounding his father’s death.

In September 2020, Kennedy Jr. appeared on Mike Tyson’s podcast Hotboxin’ alongside Tyson and former NFL player Eben Britton. The interview became one of the most remarkable public conversations Kennedy Jr. has ever given concerning both his father’s assassination and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

The discussion ranged across intelligence agencies, the military industrial complex, the Bay of Pigs invasion, civil rights, American democracy, vaccines, and the Kennedy family’s battles with entrenched power structures. Kennedy Jr. spoke openly about what he believes was longstanding hostility between his family and elements of the intelligence establishment.

He declared that evidence of CIA involvement in President Kennedy’s assassination was “incontrovertible.” He argued Lee Harvey Oswald possessed intelligence connections and functioned within a larger covert operation.

Then Kennedy Jr. turned to his father’s murder.

For years, he explained, he accepted the official story regarding Sirhan Sirhan. Only after carefully reviewing the autopsy report, witness testimony, and ballistics evidence did he conclude the government’s narrative was impossible.

Kennedy Jr. emphasized the critical forensic contradiction.

Every shot striking his father entered from behind.

The fatal shot behind the ear came from approximately one inch away.

Sirhan stood in front of Kennedy.

Therefore, Sirhan could not have fired the fatal shot.

Kennedy Jr. specifically identified Thane Eugene Cesar as the individual he believes killed his father. He discussed Cesar’s position directly behind Kennedy during the shooting and criticized authorities for failing to aggressively investigate Cesar or properly examine his firearm despite the glaring inconsistencies in the case.

Kennedy Jr. also discussed Sirhan Sirhan himself, suggesting Sirhan may have functioned as a manipulated patsy or diversion within a broader conspiracy. Sirhan has long claimed he possesses no memory of the shooting itself. Kennedy Jr. expressed support for reexamining Sirhan’s conviction while maintaining Sirhan did not murder his father.

The interview later vanished from major video platforms after discussions involving intelligence agencies and political assassinations generated controversy. Yet copies continue circulating because the interview struck directly at one of the great forbidden questions in American history.

Who really killed Robert F. Kennedy?

The mysterious woman in the polkadot dress only deepens the suspicion.

Multiple witnesses reported seeing her interacting with Sirhan prior to the assassination. Some described her guiding him through the Ambassador Hotel before the shooting. Others recalled her standing near him immediately beforehand.

Then came the chaos afterward.

Witnesses independently reported seeing the same woman sprinting away from the pantry alongside a male companion while shouting, “We shot him!”

Yet investigators astonishingly minimized or dismissed these converging eyewitness accounts despite their consistency.

The woman in the polkadot dress became one of the most haunting symbols of the assassination because her existence threatened the carefully constructed lone gunman narrative authorities rushed to impose upon the country.

The broader political context only intensifies suspicion.

Only days before his death, Robert Kennedy reportedly told students at UCLA that as President he intended to reopen the investigation into the assassination of his brother, President John F. Kennedy.

Imagine how terrifying those words would have sounded to individuals implicated in Dallas.

Robert Kennedy was not simply another politician. He was rapidly approaching the presidency. He threatened entrenched intelligence interests, permanent war bureaucracies, and the very power structures his brother had challenged before his own assassination.

Then, on the eve of ultimate political victory, Robert Kennedy was gunned down in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel.

For decades Americans have been instructed not to question the official story.

But the evidence refuses to cooperate.

A man shot from behind at point blank range cannot be murdered by a gunman standing several feet in front of him.

No amount of institutional mythology can erase that immutable truth.