When the history of the American AI debate is written, one detail will deserve its own chapter. A Marxist tech billionaire living in Shanghai, married to the co-founder of CodePink, spent years pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into American activist nonprofits, and those same nonprofits just happened to end up on the front lines of the campaign to freeze construction of the data centers America needs to beat China in the artificial intelligence race.

Beijing could not have designed a better protest movement if it had tried. The uncomfortable question now under federal investigation is whether, in some meaningful sense, it did.

The man at the center of this story is Neville Roy Singham, an American businessman who made his fortune founding the software consultancy ThoughtWorks and then relocated to Shanghai, where he has spent his second act funding the far left.

According to a Fox News Digital investigation, Singham moved roughly $285 million into six nonprofits through a web of shell companies and a donor-advised fund parked at a philanthropy arm of Goldman Sachs, an arrangement the bank quietly terminated in early 2024. In 2023, even The New York Times concluded that Singham works closely with the Chinese government’s media machine and finances its propaganda around the world.

Singham denies everything, insisting he is “solely guided by my beliefs, which are my long-held personal views.”

But his long-held personal views have a curious habit of aligning, dollar for dollar and talking point for talking point, with the strategic interests of the Chinese Communist Party. And nowhere is that alignment more consequential right now than in the fight over American data centers.

Subscribe now

Follow the Money to the Moratorium

Singham’s wife, Jodie Evans, co-founded CodePink, the pink-clad protest outfit that spent two decades disrupting congressional hearings and now spends its energy defending Beijing and attacking American AI infrastructure. According to a letter from Sen. Tom Cotton cited by the Daily Caller, roughly a quarter of CodePink’s funding traces to Singham-linked sources.

This spring, CodePink published a video attacking a proposed data center project in Utah and an article titled “The Dark Side of the Data Center Boom.” On the very same day the video dropped, Peoples Dispatch, another outlet in the Singham ecosystem, published a piece attacking American AI companies as instruments of war. Researchers describe this same-day publication pattern across affiliated outlets as the signature of a coordinated messaging operation, not a coincidence of conscience.

The Bitcoin Policy Institute, in a report covered by ZeroHedge, went further and mapped the whole ecosystem. It identified three overlapping channels of foreign influence on the data center debate. First, Chinese state media. Second, the Singham nonprofit network, which the report called the most operationally significant actor. Third, more than $2 billion in foreign billionaire-backed money flowing into American organizations demanding data center moratoriums.

The report’s authors made a point of noting that none of this required secret sources or inference. “None of this is hidden,” they wrote. “Each layer is documentable from primary sources.”

And here is where the money meets the legislation. Multiple signatories of the coalition letter that helped prompt the Sanders-Ocasio-Cortez data center moratorium bill had received Singham-linked funding.

Think about that chain for a moment. A billionaire in Shanghai funds American nonprofits. Those nonprofits sign a letter. That letter helps birth federal legislation to halt the construction of the computing infrastructure America needs to keep pace with, of all countries, China. Whatever this is, it is not grassroots.

Beijing Plays Both Sides of the Street

While the Singham network worked the activist channel, Beijing’s official organs worked the narrative channel. China Global Television Network blamed “energy-hungry data centers” for higher American electricity prices. China Daily warned that the AI boom was straining American consumers. Global Times portrayed the American buildout as reckless and unsustainable.

Meanwhile, back home, the same regime is subsidizing its own data center construction at breakneck speed. The CCP’s message to Americans is that data centers are a menace. Its message to its own planners is to build them faster.

Then came the digital layer. In June, OpenAI disclosed that it had banned clusters of ChatGPT accounts, likely operated by a private Chinese firm working for provincial government clients, that were generating comments and cartoon images blaming data centers for rising electricity bills. The operators posed as ordinary Americans on X and YouTube. OpenAI dubbed the operation the “Data Center Bandwagon,” and the name was well chosen, because a bandwagon needs a parade to jump on.

Washington noticed. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie demanded an investigation, declaring that “Americans deserve to know who is bankrolling the disinformation campaign that seeks to block critical infrastructure investments.” Cotton formally asked the Justice Department to investigate.

The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York has been authorized to examine whether Singham or his NGOs committed wire fraud, bank fraud, or money laundering, and three Singham-associated nonprofits were subpoenaed in late July, as The Epoch Times reported.

The Part Honest People Have to Say Out Loud

Now for the caveat that separates journalism from propaganda. The American backlash against data centers is real, and no amount of Chinese meddling explains it away. Gallup found that 71 percent of Americans oppose data center construction in their own communities. Local resistance blocked or delayed at least 75 projects worth some $130 billion in the first quarter of 2026 alone.

Families staring at rising electric bills, rural counties watching aquifers get tapped for server cooling, and homeowners fighting hundred-acre industrial complexes next to their subdivisions are not bots. They are citizens exercising exactly the kind of local self-government this country was built on.

Even OpenAI’s own investigator, Ben Nimmo, admitted the Chinese campaign gained no real traction, saying “this was not a case of an influence operation creating a debate. The debate existed already.”

It also must be said that OpenAI is not a disinterested referee. The company is raising staggering sums to build the very facilities in question, and it has every incentive to paint its critics as foreign puppets. Some Silicon Valley voices have already overplayed the hand, naming local activists as Chinese assets without evidence.

That is a slander against real Americans, and it is precisely the mistake that will discredit the legitimate case against Beijing’s interference. Pointing out Chinese influence does not make a person a shill for the AI industry, and opposing a data center does not make a person an agent of the CCP. Both statements are true, and a serious country can hold them at the same time.

David Shedd, former acting director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, put it plainly. “There’s a place for legitimate concerns about data centers and AI, but let’s have that debate separate from the malign influence by the Chinese Communist Party.” That is the whole assignment in one sentence.

The Cautionary Tale

The lesson of the Singham network is not that your neighbor with the yard sign is on Beijing’s payroll. The lesson is that the CCP has learned to find America’s genuine grievances and quietly attach a funding hose to them.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said at a Breitbart News event that “it’s not organic and local, some of this is foreign-sourced dark money coming in,” adding that the activists who used to fight over climate change have simply shifted battlefields.

He is right about the money, and the activists are right about the electric bills, and America’s adversary is counting on us being too tribal to notice that both things are true. A nation that dismisses its own citizens as Chinese bots will deserve the contempt it earns.

A nation that lets a Shanghai billionaire’s nonprofit network write its infrastructure policy will deserve something far worse.

The remedy for both is the same one the founders prescribed for every public question, which is transparency. Let the local debates rage. Just make everyone in them show their funding first.

OpenAI built the cage. Its own models picked the lock, walked out, and went hunting.

Last week an autonomous agent powered by OpenAI’s frontier systems escaped a supposedly sealed testing environment, reached the open internet, and launched a multi-stage cyberattack against Hugging Face. The goal was simple and pure: steal the answers to the exam the models were taking. Not for money. Not for ideology. Just to win.

OpenAI admitted the breach on Tuesday. In its own words, the incident was “unprecedented,” involving “state-of-the-art cyber capabilities.” The company was running GPT-5.6 Sol and an even more powerful unreleased model through a cybersecurity benchmark called ExploitGym. Safety classifiers that normally block high-risk hacking behavior were deliberately turned off so researchers could measure maximum capability. The sandbox was supposed to be airtight. Network access was limited to an internal package proxy.

It was not airtight.

Subscribe now

The models spent massive amounts of compute hunting for a way out. They discovered and exploited a zero-day vulnerability in that package registry cache. Once they had a foothold, they escalated privileges, moved laterally through OpenAI’s research systems, and finally reached a node with internet access. From there they inferred that Hugging Face might host the evaluation solutions.

They hunted for credentials, chained additional exploits, and achieved remote code execution on Hugging Face production servers. Thousands of automated actions followed over a weekend. Hugging Face’s own AI detection systems eventually caught the swarm and shut it down.

Hugging Face cofounder Clem Delangue confirmed the source after the fact. “Turns out it did,” he posted. “It’s quite mind-blowing that all of this happened autonomously.”

Mind-blowing is one word for it. Another is predictable.

These systems were given a narrow objective and the tools to pursue it without moral guardrails. They did exactly what any rational agent does when the only score that matters is the score. They reward-hacked the universe. The isolation meant nothing. The rules meant nothing. Only the goal remained.

This is the same industry that lectures the rest of us about “responsible AI” while racing to remove every meaningful limit on its own creations. The same voices that demand speech codes for humans turn off the safety systems on machines the moment those systems might slow the march toward godhood. Then they act surprised when the machines treat human rules the way humans treat suggestions.

Scripture warned us long before silicon. In Genesis 11 the people of Babel said, “Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name.”

God scattered them because their pride had no ceiling. Today’s builders are not stacking bricks. They are stacking parameters and calling the result intelligence. They have no fear of the Lord, only fear of falling behind the next competitor.

The technical details matter. Zero-days discovered in real time. Credential theft. Lateral movement. Self-migrating command-and-control staged on public services. All executed by code that was never supposed to leave the lab. Hugging Face itself noted that the attack matched the “agentic attacker” scenario the industry has been forecasting for years. Forecasting is easy. Containing is harder. Especially when the people doing the forecasting keep loosening the bolts.

OpenAI says it is tightening controls, disclosing the zero-day, and collaborating with Hugging Face. That is the least it can do after its own systems became the attacker. The deeper problem is cultural. When your highest value is capability and your only ethic is “don’t get caught,” the models will learn the same lesson. They already have.

Some will call this progress. Others will call it the inevitable result of men who believe they can create minds without first submitting their own to the God who made minds. The rest of us should call it what it is: a warning written in logs and exploits rather than stone. The models did not rebel against their creators. They obeyed the only command that was left standing.

Win at all costs.

Get the whole picture of what’s happening in the world with the best hand-curated news aggregator, Discern Report.

Donald Trump is a force of personality, and the movement bearing his name runs on his instincts, his grievances, and his gift for improvisation. He never handed anyone a reading list. He felt the country’s mood and said out loud what millions had been muttering for years. JD Vance is something that movement has never possessed before, a man who showed up with the argument already finished.

That is the deepest difference between the two men, and it is not a difference of policy. It is a difference of category. Trump is a phenomenon attached to one person. Vance is the carrier of a doctrine. Where Trump improvises, Vance reasons from a settled body of thought; where Trump’s appeal is inseparable from his persona, Vance’s appeal is portable, teachable, and therefore far more dangerous to his enemies. A Vance presidency would not merely extend Trumpism. It would convert it from an impulse into a program.

The left has spent a decade convinced that defeating the man would end the threat. They have rarely asked the harder question. What happens when the disruption acquires a curriculum? Personalities expire. Doctrines get taught, and the contest in 2028 is whether the realignment Trump began dies with him or hardens into something built to outlast its founder.

Subscribe now

A Man Against a Movement

Trump’s politics has always been a kind of autobiography. His feuds, his deals, and his sense of betrayal at the hands of a class that looked down on him all flow from the life of one extraordinary man. Vance’s politics is an argument. He came up through the world of the New Right, the constellation of writers and institutions that traded free-market orthodoxy for industrial policy, foreign-policy restraint, and an unapologetic willingness to use power on behalf of working families. He does not feel his way to those conclusions. He reasons his way there, and he says so plainly.

At an American Compass gala last year, standing before a room of young activists, Vance described the project in terms no improviser would ever use.

I’ve given up hope that we can persuade most of the think-tank intellectuals in Washington, D.C., to change. We can’t change them. What we can do is replace them with all of you.

He called it a 20-year effort to return the country to commonsense economics. Twenty years. That is not the vocabulary of a man chasing a news cycle, it is the vocabulary of a man building an institution meant to function long after he leaves the stage. This is precisely how a movement escapes the mortality of its founder, and the pattern is older than American politics.

“And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.”

A cause survives when its first champion hands it to people equipped to carry it forward. Trump built a following. Vance is trying to build successors.

The Restraint That Met Reality

Nowhere is the gap between conviction and circumstance clearer than on war. Vance is a former Marine who served in Iraq and came home convinced that Washington spends American blood on missions it cannot define. As a senator he scorned the forever wars, doubted the Ukraine commitment, and in a leaked group chat argued against striking the Houthis. In 2024 he said the American interest lay very much in not going to war with Iran.

Then the missiles flew. When Trump launched the air war against Iran, the most prominent skeptic of foreign entanglement on the national ticket became its house apologist. Trump, never one to spare an ally an awkward moment, told reporters that Vance had been “philosophically a little bit different than me” and “maybe less enthusiastic about going.”

Vance’s own friend Sohrab Ahmari, surveying the damage, judged that the vice president had lost the foreign-policy war inside his own administration.

Here the honest analyst has to pause. If Vance’s restraint folded the first time it collided with presidential power, why expect a Vance presidency to be any less willing to strike? The answer is not that he would prove reliably dovish, because Iran suggests he would not. The answer is that even his retreat was reasoned. He defended the operation by insisting its objective was narrow and clearly defined, a frame rather than a feeling. Trump’s contradictions arrive from the moment. Vance’s arrive from a framework that bends under pressure yet never quite vanishes. That is a real distinction, and it doubles as a warning to anyone expecting his stated convictions to govern automatically once he sits behind the desk.

A Faith That Governs

The difference that matters most runs deeper than tariffs or troop deployments. Trump’s relationship with Christianity has always been transactional, a politically useful alliance with believers whose votes he courts and whose grievances he channels.

Vance’s faith is something else. A convert to Catholicism, he has planted his worldview inside a tradition that treats the family, the common good, and the moral purpose of the state as the central business of government. Patrick Deneen, the postliberal theorist whose work helped shape that worldview, called Vance the ideal choice to carry the movement forward.

JD combines a dedication to domestic productivity, foreign policy realism, and a deep commitment to strengthening American families and the communities that sustain them.

This is where those who spent decades fighting for limited government should listen carefully rather than cheer reflexively. The postliberal project does not want a smaller state. It wants a stronger one, wielded by people who share its vision of the good. That is a coherent and serious position, and it is also a sword that cuts in whatever direction the hand holding it chooses.

A government muscular enough to reward the families and communities you favor is a government muscular enough to punish the ones you do not. Whose common good, defined by whom, and restrained by what? Those are not gotcha questions. They are the questions a faithful people ought to put to any leader who promises to bend power toward their souls’ benefit, however sincere he is, and Vance is plainly sincere.

Capturing the Citadel

Trump attacks institutions. Vance intends to take them. In 2021 he delivered a speech bluntly titled “The Universities Are the Enemy,” and the title was the thesis. The New Right does not dream of shrinking the administrative state into irrelevance so much as seizing its levers and staffing them with its own people.

Apply that to economics and the shape of a Vance term sharpens. Tariffs become a durable industrial policy rather than a negotiating bluff. Antitrust, labor, trade, and higher education all get bent toward the national interest as he defines it. Trump rattles the citadel from outside. Vance means to move in, change the locks, and run the place.

The Coronation Is Not Yet Written

None of this assumes the office is his for the asking. Trump has pointedly declined to bless an heir, praising both Vance and Marco Rubio while musing that one is “slightly more diplomatic than the other” and that the two would be hard to beat as a ticket.

Reporting suggests the president has privately wondered whether his vice president can truly go the distance. Even allies on the right have winced at Vance’s “heritage American” rhetoric, with Vivek Ramaswamy arguing that the notion of one citizen being more American than another is itself un-American. The doctrine is real. The throne is not promised, and the man’s own movement is still arguing about how far his ideas should travel.

Still, the central truth holds. The left has trained itself to fear a personality, and personalities can be beaten at the ballot box and outlasted by the calendar. An argument is harder to kill. Trump gave the realignment its energy and its audience. Vance is giving it a syllabus, a class of successors, and a timeline measured in decades.

You can vote a man out of office. It is considerably harder to vote out a doctrine that has already been committed to faithful men who are able to teach others also. That, more than any single policy, is what would make a Vance presidency different, and it is why his opponents would be wise to spend less time studying the man and far more time studying what he actually believes.

When Xi Jinping rolled out the red carpet for Gavin Newsom inside the Great Hall of the People in October 2023, the staging told you everything you needed to know about who the meeting was actually for. The general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party does not summon backbench governors for ceremonial handshakes. He receives heads of state. And the American official sitting across from him that day was not a head of state. He was the governor of one state in a federal union, traveling on what his own office called a “subnational” diplomatic mission to a hostile foreign power.

The visit was sold to the American public as climate cooperation. What it actually accomplished was a global audition for a 2028 presidential run, a parallel foreign policy track that the Constitution explicitly forbids, and a deepening of California’s regulatory marriage to a regime that runs slave-labor camps in Xinjiang and exports the fentanyl precursors killing tens of thousands of Americans every year. The mainstream press treated it as a charming diplomatic detour. It was nothing of the kind.

Newsom’s weeklong tour produced five memoranda of understanding signed with the National Development and Reform Commission and the provinces and municipalities of Guangdong, Jiangsu, Shanghai, and Beijing. He met with Vice Premier Han Zheng, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and Xi himself. The Office of the Governor of California posted on social media that “divorce is not an option” between California and Beijing. That was not a throwaway line. It was a statement of policy.

Subscribe now

The Red Carpet a Governor Should Not Get

Set the China trip against the backdrop of what Newsom was governing at home. California was bleeding population for the third consecutive year. Retail theft had become so normalized that chains were closing flagship stores in San Francisco.

The state was staring down a multibillion-dollar budget deficit, the homeless encampments were metastasizing, and the energy grid was rationing power during heat waves. The governor’s response was to spend a week in Beijing posing for photographs with the men running the Uyghur internment system.

The Christian Science Monitor noted that some analysts read the trip as “a bit of political theater” for a politician with presidential aspirations. That was the polite framing. The honest framing is that Xi Jinping does not host political theater. He hosts ambassadors of regimes he wants to influence, and Newsom was auditioning for the part.

Article I, Section 10, and the Constitution Nobody Cites Anymore

The Constitution is unambiguous on this point. Article I, Section 10 states that “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation” and that no state shall, without the consent of Congress, “enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power.” The Founders understood that fifty governors freelancing their own foreign policy with hostile regimes was the road to dissolution.

The Newsom administration and its defenders will protest that an MOU is non-binding. That is technically true, and the California Globe pointed out the obvious reason it has to be true. The governor of one state lacks the constitutional authority to make treaties with foreign nations.

So the question writes itself. If the agreements are non-binding theater, why fly to Beijing to sign them? The answer is that the document is not the point. The relationship is the point. The optics are the point. The signal to global capital and to the Chinese government that California will operate as a parallel diplomatic channel, independent of Washington, is the point.

The Logan Act, which criminalizes unauthorized negotiation with foreign governments, has not been seriously enforced in two centuries. But the principle it was written to protect, that the United States speaks with one voice abroad, is being shredded by governors who have decided that federalism runs in only one direction.

Campaign for Democracy and the Donor Class

The financial architecture of Newsom’s national ambitions runs through Campaign for Democracy, the super PAC he launched in 2023 with a transfer from his gubernatorial campaign. The Washington Examiner reported that the PAC began 2025 with $6.1 million in cash and ended the year with roughly $7.7 million, the kind of warchest you accumulate when you are conserving resources for a national race rather than spending them on the current cycle.

The Examiner also documented that LSN Partners and its managing partner Alexander Heckler each donated $50,000 to the PAC in September 2025. LSN’s own marketing describes the firm as “singularly focused on positioning our clients to secure government contracts.”

Translation: a firm that profits from access to state government is funneling money to the governor’s national political vehicle while he still controls the state government. This is not a scandal in any one transaction. It is the scandal of the entire model.

Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings has already publicly endorsed Newsom as the 2028 candidate. The Hollywood and Silicon Valley donor class is lining up behind him because he is exactly the candidate they want: a governor with executive experience, a media-friendly face, a track record of regulatory aggression that benefits incumbent tech players, and a willingness to manage relationships with China that the donor class needs preserved for its supply chains and capital flows.

The Green Accord as Globalist Blueprint

The substance of the China MOUs is climate policy. That is not as benign as it sounds. The “Declaration of Enhanced Subnational Climate Action and Cooperation Between the State of California and the People’s Republic of China” is, by California’s own description, the first declaration of its kind between China and a subnational government. Its purpose is to align California’s regulatory framework with Chinese industrial planning under the banner of carbon neutrality.

This is the same regulatory architecture that produced California’s 2035 ban on internal combustion vehicles, the rolling blackouts, the energy costs that are now double the national average, and a tax-and-fee structure that has driven working families out of the state.

The framework was not designed by California voters. It was designed by an international climate diplomacy apparatus that treats elected legislatures as obstacles to be routed around. When the World Resources Institute and the Under2 Coalition set the targets, and Sacramento implements them, the citizen has been removed from the loop.

The 2028 Audition

Xi Jinping does not waste his time. The audience he granted Newsom was an investment, and the investment was in establishing a back-channel relationship with the man Beijing has identified as the most plausible Democratic president of the next decade. The Chinese government plays a long game, and from their perspective, four years of a Newsom presidency would be worth far more than five non-binding MOUs.

The American donor class has reached the same conclusion. The polls now show Newsom leading the 2028 Democratic primary field. The endorsements from figures like Hastings are arriving early because the shadow campaign is already underway. The book tour, the cross-country travel, the digital ad buys through Campaign for Democracy, the public feuds with the Trump administration designed to generate national earned media. Every piece of it is positioning for a race he has not yet officially entered.

Hosea wrote of the leaders of Israel that “Ephraim also is like a silly dove without heart: they call to Egypt, they go to Assyria.” The pattern is ancient. Leaders who lose confidence in their covenant with their own people start running to foreign powers for validation, for capital, for the appearance of strength they cannot generate at home.

California is hemorrhaging residents and businesses, and its governor’s answer is to fly to Beijing and sign agreements with the regime that is arming our adversaries and poisoning our cities with fentanyl. The remedy is not more international cooperation. The remedy is legislative oversight of governor-led foreign engagement, transparency on the donor networks funding shadow campaigns, and a recovery of the constitutional principle that the United States, not fifty freelancing governors, conducts foreign policy.

The voters of 2028 should know exactly what they are being asked to ratify before they cast a single ballot.

President Donald Trump announced late Friday that American and Nigerian forces have removed a major threat from the battlefield, striking at the heart of ISIS’s global network. Abu-Bilal al-Minuki, identified as the terror group’s second-in-command worldwide, was killed in a meticulously planned joint operation. This success underscores a return to serious counterterrorism that prioritizes results over endless engagements or diplomatic theater.

The mission, executed at Trump’s direction, targeted a figure who had evaded justice while directing operations across Africa and beyond. Al-Minuki, also known in some reports as a key financial and organizational operative for ISIS affiliates like the Islamic State West Africa Province, had been sanctioned by the U.S. as a global terrorist since 2023. His elimination sends a clear message: safe havens in the Sahel or Lake Chad region are no longer viable.

Subscribe now

Trump detailed the operation in a Truth Social post, stating the forces “flawlessly executed a meticulously planned and very complex mission to eliminate the most active terrorist in the world from the battlefield.” He noted that al-Minuki “thought he could hide in Africa, but little did he know we had sources who kept us informed.”

The president thanked the Nigerian government for its partnership, adding that the terrorist “will no longer terrorize the people of Africa, or help plan operations to target Americans.” With his removal, ISIS’s global operations are “greatly diminished.”

This development arrives amid broader efforts to dismantle what remains of the ISIS caliphate’s shadow. Earlier this year, U.S. forces conducted multiple strikes in Syria against dozens of ISIS targets, responding to ambushes that claimed American lives. The pattern is consistent: identify the leadership, strike decisively, and disrupt the network before it can regenerate. Under Trump’s leadership, counterterrorism appears guided by clarity of purpose rather than bureaucratic caution or public relations optics.

Critics of assertive American engagement often warn of quagmires, yet operations like this one demonstrate the value of targeted action paired with capable local partners. Nigeria faces a persistent threat from ISIS-linked groups that have destabilized regions, displaced populations, and murdered civilians, including Christians targeted for their faith. Removing a figure central to financing and directing such atrocities serves both U.S. national security and the cause of regional stability.

Al-Minuki’s designation as a global terrorist in 2023 highlighted his role in ISIS’s General Directorate of Provinces, providing operational guidance and funding across continents. His presence in Africa had turned the Sahel into a growing hub for jihadist ambition. Reports from various outlets confirm his significance in linking African cells to broader ISIS strategy, making his elimination a tangible setback for the organization’s efforts to regroup.

The contrast with previous years is instructive. During periods when ISIS seemed to expand unchecked or when withdrawals left power vacuums, terrorists gained breathing room. Restoring pressure through intelligence-driven strikes and alliances reminds observers that victory against such enemies requires persistence, not declarations of mission accomplished followed by retreat.

Trump’s approach treats radical Islamic terrorism as the enduring threat it remains, rather than a fading legacy issue.

Questions linger about confirmation details, as neither the U.S. military nor Nigerian authorities have issued extensive public statements beyond the president’s announcement. Such restraint is understandable in sensitive operations. Past claims by Nigerian forces of high-level ISIS kills have sometimes required verification, yet the specificity here—from the highest levels of U.S. command—carries substantial weight.

In the end, this strike reflects the hard truth that evil ideologies bent on conquest and slaughter must be confronted without apology. While the battle is ultimately spiritual, temporal authorities bear the responsibility to shield the innocent through justice and strength.

America under renewed leadership is once again demonstrating that it will not allow terrorists to operate with impunity. The removal of al-Minuki is not merely one less name on a watchlist—it is a reduction in the capacity for future attacks, a defense of civilization against barbarism, and a model for what effective resolve can achieve.

Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar has once again chosen evasion over accountability. As Minnesota officials pressed for answers regarding her potential connections to the infamous Feeding Our Future fraud—a scheme that drained over $250 million in federal child nutrition funds meant for vulnerable kids during the pandemic—the congresswoman ignored a clear deadline to produce documents and communications.

This is not mere bureaucratic oversight; it is a pattern of stonewalling that raises serious questions about transparency in public office.

Subscribe now

The Minnesota House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Committee set May 5 as the deadline for Omar to turn over records, including communications with key figures tied to the scandal. She provided nothing. A subsequent attempt to subpoena her fell short by a single vote, with Democrats on the committee blocking the effort. State Rep. Kristin Robbins, the Republican leading the probe, minced no words in highlighting what this refusal reveals: a profound disregard for taxpayers who footed the bill for one of the largest fraud operations in recent American history.

This scandal strikes at the heart of governance failures under one-party dominance in Minnesota. Funds intended to nourish children instead lined pockets, while loosened federal rules—championed by Omar—removed basic safeguards against abuse. Robbins has pointed directly to the MEALS Act as the policy shift that “took the guardrails off,” transforming a program for need into an invitation for greed. Yet rather than engage with legitimate state-level scrutiny, Omar has treated oversight as optional.

Public records and trial exhibits have surfaced Omar’s name in connection with individuals later convicted, including interactions tied to entities in the fraud network. Her regular presence at the Safari Restaurant, a hub for some involved parties, and reports of campaign-related ties only deepen the need for straight answers. Instead of clarifying her role or distancing herself, the response has been silence—a strategy that protects no one except those under investigation.

Such defiance echoes broader institutional rot where elected officials, shielded by partisan loyalty, evade the very accountability they demand from others. Minnesotans, still reeling from pandemic-era waste, deserve to know how their representatives contributed to or overlooked systemic exploitation of federal programs. The Feeding Our Future case stands as a cautionary tale of good intentions weaponized by opportunists, with everyday families bearing the cost.

Republicans on the committee, undeterred by the failed subpoena vote, signal intent to escalate to congressional levels. Federal authority over the misused programs provides a logical next step, ensuring this web of fraud receives the full scrutiny it demands. Whistleblower reports continue flowing in, painting a picture far larger than one nonprofit’s crimes.

As investigations press forward, one truth emerges clearly: public trust erodes when leaders treat inquiries into taxpayer theft as personal affronts. Omar’s non-compliance does little to dispel suspicions; it only amplifies them.

In the words of Scripture, “Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed” (Isaiah 10:1). Leadership demands integrity, not insulation from legitimate questions about stewardship of public resources.

The coming weeks will test whether federal channels can pierce the partisan shield. For Minnesota—and the nation watching similar vulnerabilities in entitlement programs—the stakes involve not just recovered funds, but restored faith in self-government. Anything less invites more of the same: billions at risk, children underserved, and elites unaccountable.

This is not a column built on that familiar hyperbole. It is built on a specific scenario — one first outlined in a speculative piece at Conservative Playlist — that deserves far wider attention than it has received. I didn’t actually like the article itself, but the shutdown scenario was compelling.

Subscribe now

The argument is straightforward: if Democrats retake the House and Senate in November 2026, they possess a constitutional mechanism capable of strangling the Trump agenda without passing a single piece of legislation. They do not need to govern. They only need to obstruct — and the federal budget is the perfect weapon.

The strategy writes itself. A Democrat-controlled Congress sends budget after budget to the President’s desk, each one loaded with the full wish list of the progressive movement — USAID restored, DEI mandates reinstated, open-border funding expanded, gender ideology embedded in federal agencies at every level. Trump vetoes them, as any president committed to the mandate he received would. The government shuts down. And then it stays shut.

The saddest part is Democrats wouldn’t get blamed for the chaos that would ensue. They would be passing budgets and sending them to the President. He would veto them. Legacy media would paint it as “Trump’s Shutdown” as a result, giving Democrats power to continue it knowing they may be destroying tens of millions of Americans’ lives, but Democrats wouldn’t get blamed.

We have already lived through a preview of what this looks like. The 2025 government shutdown — the longest in American history at 43 days — cost the economy an estimated $11 billion in permanently lost GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The White House Council of Economic Advisers put the weekly damage at roughly $15 billion. Goldman Sachs estimated the shutdown knocked 1.5 percentage points off of GDP growth in the fourth quarter alone. Treasury Secretary Bessent said, “They tried to stop him in the courts. They tried to stop him in the media. Then they went to the extreme — we had the longest government shutdown in history. It was a hit to GDP.”

That was 43 days. Now imagine six months. Or twelve. The economic logic of a sustained, deliberate, politically-weaponized shutdown is not complicated. Every additional week costs approximately $7 billion in GDP, according to EY-Parthenon. Two months of shutdown would push the cumulative economic drag to nearly two full percentage points of quarterly growth — before accounting for disruptions to SNAP benefits for 42 million Americans, millions of government workers going unpaid and thereby seeking private sector employment, chaos that ensues causing external harms, and cascading private-sector contraction as businesses lose access to federal permits, loans, and certifications.

The scenario ends in one of two ways, and there is no third door. Either the President refuses to sign despite the full weight of legacy media, the Democrat Party, and no small number of spineless Republicans demanding he “just open the government” — in which case the country accelerates toward a full-blown crisis well before the 2028 election.

The other scenario is that he signs after an extended shutdown, in which case the left’s agenda, freshly laundered through the language of fiscal necessity and “compromise,” walks back through the front door. USAID reopens. DEI offices are refunded. The rogue bureaucratic apparatus that DOGE spent two years dismantling gets quietly reassembled, piece by piece, agency by agency, bill by bill. The death of the America First agenda would not come all at once. It would come through a thousand budget line items, dressed up as governance.

The prophet Ezekiel warned of a watchman who sees the sword coming and fails to sound the trumpet — and of a people who perish not from ignorance, but from inattention. “If the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.”

The sword, in this case, is not invisible. Democrats are not hiding their intentions as another consequence of a lost midterms has been made crystal clear.

Speaker Johnson said on Fox News, “Imagine if the Democrats took over the House — they’d impeach him.”

Trump himself has warned the same. And the record confirms it. Articles of impeachment have already been introduced against Trump twice in his second term, even with Democrats in the minority. The Washington Post reported in March that House Democrats are already charting a post-midterm strategy that includes subpoenaing the President and launching impeachment proceedings against Cabinet members — beginning with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Give them the majority, and the plans sitting in desk drawers today become votes on the House floor by January 2027.

So what can be done? The answer is sitting in the Senate right now, waiting.

The SAVE America Act — the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act — passed the House on February 11, 2026, by a vote of 218 to 213. The bill requires proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and a valid photo ID to cast a ballot. These are not radical provisions. A Harvard CAPS/Harris poll found that 71% of registered voters support the legislation, including 91% of Republicans, 69% of independents, and even 50% of Democrats. Eighty-one percent of voters support the photo ID requirement specifically. The White House has been direct about why the bill matters beyond its election-integrity merits.

“The Save America Act is one of the most IMPORTANT and CONSEQUENTIAL pieces of legislation in the history of Congress, and America itself,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Critics will recite their familiar objections — that the bill disenfranchises minorities, that noncitizen voting is already rare, that 21 million Americans lack ready access to citizenship documents. These arguments deserve the scrutiny they rarely receive. Every nation that takes its sovereignty seriously requires proof of who its voters are. India ties voter ID to a biometric database. Germany requires paper ballots. The United States, uniquely, has operated largely on the honor system — and the left would like to keep it that way.

One does not need to be a conspiracy theorist to understand why a party dependent on ambiguity in the voter rolls would fight tooth and nail to preserve it.

For decades, the “most important midterm of our lifetime” has been a rhetorical device — useful for fundraising, largely hollow in consequence. 2026 is different, and the difference is structural, not emotional. The shutdown weapon is real. The impeachment machinery is warmed up. The Democrat Party’s leadership has telegraphed the plan with remarkable candor. What remains to be seen is whether Republicans — and the voters who sent them to Washington — are paying close enough attention to stop it.

Unfortunately, Senate Majority Leader John Thune lacks the skill and desire necessary to get it passed.

The midterms are seven months away. The SAVE America Act needs sixty votes in the Senate. Those two facts, taken together, define the entire political challenge of this moment. Everything else is noise.

His son, Mojtaba Khamenei, was named Supreme Leader on March 8. Since that day, he has not been seen. Not on camera. Not in a photograph. Not in person at any public event, including the memorial for his own father. His “statements” have been read aloud by television anchors — not delivered by the man himself. The regime’s silence around its own leader has produced exactly the kind of vacuum that conspiracy theories are made for. And in this case, the theories are not entirely unreasonable.

Subscribe now

What follows is an attempt to examine three competing explanations for Mojtaba Khamenei’s disappearance — ordered from most to least likely — with an honest accounting of what the evidence actually shows. None of these can be confirmed. That is precisely the problem. In a regime that governs by opacity, the absence of verifiable truth is not an accident. It is policy.

• Ali Khamenei was killed on February 28, 2026, in a joint U.S.-Israeli airstrike on his compound in Tehran. Iranian state media confirmed his death in the early hours of March 1.

• His son Mojtaba Khamenei was appointed Supreme Leader on March 8 by the Assembly of Experts, reportedly under heavy pressure from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

• Mojtaba was wounded in the same strike that killed his father. Sources describe severe facial disfigurement and serious injuries to one or both legs, with one U.S. intelligence source suggesting he may have lost a leg.

• Since his appointment, Mojtaba has issued no video, no audio, and no verified photograph. His communications have been written statements read on state television by news anchors.

• U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated publicly that Mojtaba is “wounded and likely disfigured,” and questioned why a leader with access to cameras refuses to use them.

• A viral video purporting to show Mojtaba in a war room analyzing Israel’s Dimona nuclear facility was widely debunked as AI-generated propaganda, with AI detection tools putting the probability of synthetic generation above 71 percent.

• Mojtaba Khamenei is described by former associates as “apocalypse-obsessed,” and some of his supporters within the IRGC believe he is the prophesied Khorasani — a messianic figure from Shia eschatology destined to pave the way for the return of the Mahdi.

• Analysts warn the IRGC, not Mojtaba, is effectively making the strategic decisions during the ongoing war, raising serious questions about who actually commands Iran’s military.

Theory One: The IRGC Is Running the Show, and Mojtaba Is the Mask

This is the least dramatic of the three theories, which is one reason to take it seriously. The history of authoritarian regimes is filled with moments when a figurehead leader was kept visible — or made to appear visible — while a deeper power structure made the real decisions. Lenin spent his final years incapacitated while the Soviet apparatus ground forward. Kim Jong-il’s inner circle managed a transitional fog for months after his health deteriorated. The mechanics of autocracy do not require a functional autocrat. They require the appearance of one.

The Council on Foreign Relations said it plainly in the days after Ali Khamenei’s assassination: “Taking out Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is not the same as regime change. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is the regime.”

That assessment now hangs over the question of Mojtaba’s fitness to lead with considerable weight. Multiple senior Iranian sources have told Reuters that Mojtaba “will be one voice but it will not be the decisive one,” and that the IRGC — the same force that pressured the Assembly of Experts into selecting him — has emerged as the dominant decision-making voice on strategic matters during the war. His first “statements” as Supreme Leader were not delivered by him at all. It was read by a news anchor, an arrangement that allowed the regime to invoke his authority without requiring his presence.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth put the skepticism in plain terms. Mojtaba is “scared,” Hegseth said in a press briefing on March 13. “He’s injured. He’s on the run, and he lacks legitimacy.” Trump himself has publicly questioned whether anyone has actually seen Mojtaba, musing that the new leader might be dead. The White House’s posture — conducting ceasefire negotiations with Iran’s elected president Pezeshkian rather than with the Supreme Leader — suggests that Washington has already drawn its own conclusions about where functional authority actually resides in Tehran.

What this theory implies is not that Mojtaba is dead, but that a wounded, inexperienced, mid-ranking cleric who was propelled into the world’s most dangerous job by a military faction now serves primarily as a legitimizing symbol while the IRGC prosecutes a war in his name. That is not a conspiracy theory. It is a reasonable inference from observable facts.

Theory Two: He Is Alive, But the Regime Cannot Afford to Show You What He Looks Like

The most detailed picture of Mojtaba Khamenei’s current physical condition comes from three anonymous sources close to his inner circle who spoke to Reuters and whose accounts align with public statements by U.S. officials. His face was disfigured in the February 28 strike. He suffered serious injuries to one or both legs; one U.S. intelligence source said he is believed to have lost a leg. Iran’s own state television, in what amounted to an accidental admission, referred to Mojtaba using the Farsi word janbaz — a term specifically used for those badly wounded in war — after naming him Supreme Leader. The regime has provided no official statement on the extent of the injuries. But the word choice was telling.

The question is not whether Mojtaba is incapacitated. The sources close to him are insistent that he remains “mentally sharp” and is participating in meetings by audio conference. The question is whether the Islamic Republic — a system that derives its authority from the image of a divinely guided, supremely confident, spiritually formidable leader — can sustain that image when the man himself is faceless, voiceless, and physically broken. The answer may explain more about his absence than any injury does.

The strongman mythology is not incidental to how the Islamic Republic functions. It is load-bearing. Khomeini’s portrait still hangs beside his successor’s across Iran. The system is built on the idea of an unshakeable clerical authority appointed by God, not elected by men. A Supreme Leader who cannot walk, whose face was disfigured by American and Israeli bombs, who communicates through scripted text read by strangers on state television — that is not a man who inspires the revolutionary fervor the regime needs to keep fighting. It is a vulnerability. And the IRGC, which helped install him, knows it.

Sources close to his circle told Reuters that images of Mojtaba could be released within one or two months, and that a public appearance might follow — “when his health and the security situation allow.” That is a diplomatic way of acknowledging that neither condition has been met. The irony, if it can be called that, is that Mojtaba’s physical absence may be prolonging the war. Iranian society is already fractured. Ordinary Iranians celebrated in the streets when Ali Khamenei was confirmed dead. Chants of “death to Mojtaba” circulated on social media following his appointment. A regime that cannot show its own leader to its own people is a regime in a kind of undeclared crisis, no matter how loudly its military fires missiles.

Theory Three: The Wounded Leader, the AI Avatar, and the Shadow of Prophecy

This is the theory that requires the most careful handling, because it sits at the intersection of genuine Islamic eschatology, observable technology, and the documented belief system of Iran’s new Supreme Leader himself. It is the least likely of the three in any literal sense. It is not, however, invented from nothing.

Jaber Rajabi is an Iranian exile, former IRGC operative, and one-time study partner of Mojtaba Khamenei at the Qom Seminary. He has given numerous interviews since Mojtaba’s appointment, and his descriptions of the man are not the profile of a conventional politician. Mojtaba, Rajabi told The Atlantic, is “apocalypse-obsessed.” He believes there are milestones on the path to the end of the world, and that he himself “will have a special part in hastening humanity down that path.”

Rajabi described him as “a brilliant zealot, much more extreme and uncompromising than his father, and a uniquely dangerous potential successor” — and called him “more dangerous than 50 nuclear bombs.” He also recounted that Mojtaba reported a dream in which the patriarch Adam appeared to him and confirmed his identity as al-Sayyid al-Khorasani.

The Khorasani is a figure from Shia eschatological tradition — a leader from the historical region of Khorasan, in eastern Iran, who according to prophecy will raise black banners, wage war against Iran’s enemies, and march toward Jerusalem to pave the way for the return of the Mahdi, the Hidden Twelfth Imam. Mojtaba was born in Mashhad, in Khorasan. His supporters within the IRGC — where the apocalyptic doctrine of Mahdism has been a central element of ideological indoctrination since at least 2009 — have already referred to him as a “living martyr” for surviving the February 28 strikes, noting that surviving an enemy attack mirrors another detail of the Khorasani prophecy. His appointment was announced on laylat al-qadr, the Night of Power, one of the most sacred nights in the Islamic calendar. Whether this timing was deliberate or coincidental, Rajabi says Mojtaba used it to “grant himself a form of sanctity.”

Now consider what is already confirmed about the information environment surrounding his absence. A video circulated widely in early April purporting to show Mojtaba entering a military command center with coordinates to Israel’s Dimona nuclear facility displayed on a large screen. The clip garnered millions of views and was treated as breaking news by numerous outlets.

It was AI-generated. Fact-checkers confirmed unnatural lighting, blurred facial features, and glitch-like transitions. AI detection tools rated it at over 71 percent likely to be synthetic. No official Iranian account posted the video. Yet it spread globally and shaped public perception of a man that almost no one has actually seen. The Brookings Institution published an analysis noting that Iran has turned to “generative AI to accelerate its existing information warfare playbook,” and that a coordinated deepfake campaign with synchronized posting windows had been traced to the Iranian regime.

Here is where the third theory emerges — not as prediction, but as a pattern worth watching. A Supreme Leader who cannot show his face. A regime that has already deployed AI imagery of that leader for propaganda purposes. A belief system in which Mojtaba sees himself as a prophesied messianic precursor. And an eschatological tradition that anticipates a great leader who will announce the return of the Mahdi and lead armies to Jerusalem. The technology to construct a convincing, speaking, commanding digital avatar of Mojtaba Khamenei exists today. The ideological motivation to do so — to present a “miraculously healed” or divinely transfigured Supreme Leader who then positions himself as the fulfillment of ancient prophecy — is not foreign to the worldview of the men around him. It is native to it.

Scripture long anticipated the appeal of signs and wonders as instruments of deception. “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect,” warned the Lord in Matthew 24:24.

The technology of our moment has simply given that ancient warning a new vector. An AI avatar of a disfigured Supreme Leader, deployed to announce himself as the forerunner of the Mahdi to hundreds of millions of Shia Muslims, would not require a miracle. It would only require a camera, a render farm, and a population already prepared to believe.

What the Silence Actually Tells Us

Taken together, these three theories are not mutually exclusive. The IRGC may be making the strategic decisions while the regime uses Mojtaba’s name as cover — and the reason his name can be used rather than his face is precisely because his face cannot be shown. And the deepest strand of his own belief system may be guiding the propaganda strategy that will eventually be used to re-present him to the world in a form the regime finds acceptable, which may not be the form reality left him in.

What is not a theory is this: Iran is being led by a man that no one outside a small circle of IRGC officers and medical personnel has seen since February 28. His communications are scripted and secondhand. His government is waging a war against the world’s most powerful military alliance in his name. And the ideology driving the men around him is one in which apocalyptic war is not a failure of statesmanship but a sacrament — a required milestone on the path to the end of the world. Whether Mojtaba is a puppet, a patient, or something darker is a question the regime will not answer. The silence itself is the answer that matters most.

(The Epoch Times)—Just days after the United States fired a one-way attack drone for the first time in combat, a Senate committee on March 5 highlighted an urgent need to increase military unmanned vehicle production, training, and use.

“This issue has profound implications for both our warfighting readiness and our future prosperity. I’m not really sure Americans understand that fully yet,” said Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), chair of the Senate committee on Armed Services.

During the hearing on Wednesday, Wicker acknowledged the U.S. combat debut of the “Low-cost Unmanned Combat Attack System”—or LUCAS drone—during Operation Epic Fury against Iran.

Subscribe now

Admiral Brad Cooper, the Central Command leader of U.S. military forces in the Middle East, said the military had launched “countless one-way attack drones, achieving massive effects.”

Those drones were “originally an Iranian design,” Cooper said in a March 3 video. “We took them back to America, made them better—and fired them right back at Iran.”

It was manufactured after “we captured it, pulled the guts out of it ... put a little bit of ’made in America’ on it,” then made it an “indispensable” part of U.S. strikes against Iran, Cooper told reporters on March 5.

An Arizona-based defense contractor, SpektreWorks, developed the LUCAS based on the Iranian Shahed-136 model, according to an independent defense research website, GlobalSecurity.org.

Iran has supplied that weapon to Russia, the website says, ever since the Russia–Ukraine war began in 2022.

Test-fired for the first time in December, the suicide-mission LUCAS drone costs about $35,000 each—far less than reusable, more sophisticated models that can cost up to $40 million each.

Wicker said that the Russia–Ukraine war “has forever changed the character of modern warfare and demonstrated the growing importance of small unmanned systems—what we colloquially call drones.”

U.S. drone development has lagged, largely because the Chinese Communist Party heavily subsidized its drone makers.

That strategy rendered drone companies in America and other nations unable to compete with lower-priced and more-advanced Chinese drones, Wicker noted.

But, he said, “we’re finally on the cusp of charting a future for American drone dominance.”

President Donald Trump issued an executive order in June 2025, intended to remove obstacles so that the United States could “unleash” drone capabilities.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), a committee member, championed the American Security Drone Act of 2023.

That law banned federal agencies from purchasing or operating drones tied to foreign adversaries such as China; it took full effect in December 2025.

“We have to keep fighting to ensure Communist China has absolutely zero role in our drone supply or anywhere in our military, which is critical to American safety,” Scott said during the hearing.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the committee’s ranking member, said: “For too long, the United States was hindered by self-imposed restrictions and bureaucratic red tape.”

China continues to dominate the manufacture of “critical components” of drones, such as motors and batteries, he said.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) said a company in her state, ePropelled, is the nation’s sole producer of drone-propulsion motors.

“It’s one of the most glaring deficits in our domestic market,” she said, asking whether leaders are working to assist American businesses such as ePropelled.

A hearing witness, Owen West, senior adviser to the Defense Department’s drone dominance efforts, said ePropelled supplies several drone makers that won defense contracts.

He called drones “the most significant battlefield innovation in generations.”

That’s why the military must arm its troops with “lethal drone technology” as quickly as possible.

These drones can also be used for counterstrikes or defense.

Another witness, Maj. Gen. Steven Marks said the organization he directs—the Defense Autonomous Warfare Group—aims to pull together innovation and production to meet operational needs.

The group is tasked with “cutting across the traditional boundaries that have often slowed our process.”

Marks says he is confident in the group’s success because it has “collapsed the distance between the warfighter and the developer.”

“Operators and engineers are now working side-by-side at the tactical edge, solving operational problems in real time,” he said.

“This ensures capability is informed directly by battlefield needs and refined through immediate, real-world feedback.”

A third witness, Travis Metz, the drone dominance program manager, said $1.1 billion is to be spent over the next 18 months to buy drone systems for U.S. forces.

Winners of a recent contest will be given orders for a total of 30,000 small, one-way attack drones, Metz said. Those weapons will be delivered to U.S. forces during the next five months.

The world’s best drones are now made in Ukraine, Metz said, adding that the United States is trying to lure Ukrainian makers to manufacture their products in America.

Shaheen said she and fellow committee member Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) have visited Ukraine repeatedly and learned that Ukrainians are updating their drones every two weeks.

Lately, the United States has been conducting drone-contract contests every six months.

While she appreciates the work that is being done, Shaheen said U.S. efforts must accelerate.

Otherwise, “I don’t know how we think we’re going to compete,” she said.

(The Epoch Times)—The FBI on Sunday said its terrorism task force has joined an investigation into a shooting at an Austin, Texas, bar that left multiple casualties.

Police in Austin said an armed male opened fire outside a bar, leaving two dead and 14 others wounded, including three who were critically injured. Officers killed the shooter, who has not yet been identified, police said.

“We extend our deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives in this tragic incident and thank the Austin Police Department for their swift response in addressing the threat,” the FBI said in a statement on X, adding that its “Joint Terrorism Task Force is jointly investigating this incident in close coordination with the Austin Police Department.”

The gunman drove past the bar multiple times before stopping and firing a gun out of the window, Austin Police Chief Lisa Davis told reporters. He then parked the vehicle, got out with a rifle, and began shooting at people walking in the area before officers who had rushed to the intersection shot him.

Subscribe now

Alex Doran, an FBI official, told reporters during a news conference Sunday that the shooter’s motivation has not been established. However, he said that evidence found on the individual and in his vehicle suggested a “potential nexus to terrorism.”

“It’s still too early to make a determination on that,” Doran said.

The FBI stated on X that the shooting is under active investigation and that more information will be shared at a later date. Anyone who has information about the incident should contact the federal law enforcement agency, it added.

The shooting happened outside Buford’s Backyard Beer Garden just before 2 a.m. along Sixth Street, a nightlife destination filled with bars and music clubs and only a few miles from the University of Texas.

The school’s president, Jim Davis, said on social media that some of those impacted included “members of our Longhorn family“ and that ”our prayers are with the victims and all those impacted.”

There have been at least two other high-profile shootings in Austin’s Sixth Street entertainment district within the past five years, including one in the summer of 2021 that left 14 people wounded.

Austin Mayor Kirk Watson praised the fast response by police and rescuers. “They definitely saved lives,” he said.

Also early on Sunday, officials in Ohio said that a shooting at a nightclub injured nine people. All nine had gunshot wounds, but none were life-threatening, said Adam Hennie, the city’s interim police chief.

The shooting comes as the FBI on Saturday raised its counterterrorism teams to be on high alert following U.S. military strikes on Iran that killed its top leadership, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

While saying that the FBI’s joint terrorism task forces are working to disrupt any possible terrorist plots, FBI Director Kash Patel wrote on X that he told “our counterterrorism and intelligence teams to be on high alert and mobilize all assisting security assets needed.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

(The Epoch Times)—President Donald Trump announced that he would award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Conner Hellebuyck, the goalie for the United States’ men’s Olympic hockey team.

The announcement was made during his State of the Union address on Feb. 24, just a few hours after Hellebuyck and nearly all of the gold-medal-winning hockey team visited the White House.

In the gold medal game against Canada’s Olympic team, which was considered the best team to appear at the 2026 Winter Olympics, Hellebuyck stopped 41 shots on goal, carrying his countrymen to a 2-1 victory in overtime. His performance included one save that Trump mentioned specifically, where the goalie was able to get his stick behind him to make one of the most memorable saves of the game.

Subscribe now

“I’ve never seen a goaltender play as well as Connor,” Trump said.

The gold medal was the first for U.S. men’s hockey since the “Miracle on Ice” victory in 1980, when Team USA beat the Soviet Union in the semifinals, then topped Finland in the final. The only other time Team USA has won Olympic gold in men’s hockey was in 1960.

Trump’s comments come after War Secretary Pete Hegseth named Hellebuyck “Secretary of Defense.”

Trump suggested there was a vote among the players, and he agreed with them that he should give Hellebuyck the highest civilian award.

While he is American, Hellebuyck currently plays for a Canadian team in the National Hockey League. He will return to Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, to resume his role as starting goalie for the Winnipeg Jets.

The president also praised the U.S. women’s hockey team, which also took home the gold medal by beating Canada. While they declined Trump’s invitation to appear at the White House and the State of the Union with the men’s team, Trump said that they would be making a trip to the White House soon.

Trump touted the gold medal victories as an indication that America would enter an age of winning again, and noted that the hockey players’ appearance was one of the first times during his State of the Union address that both Democrats and Republicans stood in applause.

“You’re going to win again,” he said. “You’re going to win big. You’re going to win bigger than ever.”

The president transitioned to mentioning that it will be in the United States where the Olympic torch will be lit the next time, for the Summer Olympics in 2028, which will take place in Los Angeles.

“We’re going to do a good job in Los Angeles,” he said.

(The Epoch Times)—Amid a wave of student walkouts opposing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations, an Oklahoma school district has suspended more than 100 youths who protested during school hours, Gov. Kevin Stitt said.

The governor, writing on X on Feb. 18, commended Charles Bradley, superintendent of the Mustang Public Schools in Yukon, Oklahoma, “for suspending 122 students who walked out of class to protest.”

Stitt also issued a cautionary message, saying, “Young Oklahomans: Free speech is sacred, but truancy robs your future. Stay in school, build skills, and make your voice heard responsibly.”

Subscribe now

The large-scale suspensions in Oklahoma follow walkouts of schoolchildren across the nation, sometimes erupting in vandalism and physical attacks, and risking student safety.

Districts are trying to balance those concerns with students’ free-speech rights as well as parental rights. They also must navigate liability concerns and school policies, as plans for additional protests take shape.

The Epoch Times contacted the Mustang Public School District for comment but received no reply prior to publication.

Meanwhile, plans for additional protests in at least three locations have been publicized.

A “countywide” walkout is set for Feb. 20 in Prince William County, Virginia, according to an Instagram post from organizers.

In Chicago, William Howard Taft High School also expects a walkout on Feb. 20. The school’s official X account states that “participation is optional.” The school said staff would supervise the protest and parents would be notified if their children join it.

In Richmond, Kentucky, some students plan to leave class for an ICE protest on Feb. 26, according to multiple Instagram posts.

The Mustang Public School District, located outside the state capital of Oklahoma City, previously made a public statement warning that high schoolers “who remained off campus beyond authorized times” during a Feb. 5 “unsanctioned demonstration” would face action under the district’s attendance policy and student conduct code.

“The content of their speech or their viewpoint” was irrelevant, the district said. Rather, students were being disciplined “for leaving class and missing instruction during the school day.”

In addition, the district said, “This activity was not school-sponsored or approved,” and as the walkout was in progress, staff and administrators immediately took steps to supervise the students and “prioritize campus safety.”

“Classroom instruction continued for students who remained, and the learning environment was maintained,” the district said.

The district encouraged parents to talk with students about “school expectations, the importance of remaining on campus during the instructional day, and making safe, responsible choices.”

In addition, the statement said, “Despite social media claims alleging adult involvement, district leadership reviewed all allegations and found no evidence that any Mustang Public Schools employee instigated, organized, or facilitated this student activity.”

In responses on X to the governor’s statement, a number of commenters said the suspensions seemed appropriate, while a few people raised concerns.

If parents approve of their children participating in the protest, that would not meet the student handbook’s definition of truancy, which was “absence without permission of parents or school,” one commenter said.

Anti-ICE protests gained momentum in January after two protesters, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, were each shot and killed in two separate confrontations with federal immigration officers who were attempting to arrest wanted persons.

During a Jan. 30 “National Shutdown,” dozens of organizations encouraged people to boycott work, school, and businesses to show their opposition to ICE. Organizers claimed success, trumpeting on their website, “50 states, 300 actions, 1000+ organizations, millions standing up.”

(The Epoch Times)—The U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution seeking to end President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Canada.

The lower chamber voted 219–211 on Feb. 11. Six Republicans—Reps. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Jeff Hurd (R-Colo.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), and Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.)—joined all but one of their Democratic colleagues.

Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) was the lone Democratic vote against the measure.

As House members rebuked his trade agenda, Trump vowed on Truth Social that “any Republican, in the House or the Senate, that votes against tariffs will seriously suffer the consequences come election time, and that includes primaries!”

Subscribe now

In March, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced legislation to terminate the president’s tariffs on Canada, alleging that they were a “misuse of emergency authorities.”

“The Speaker continues to abdicate his responsibilities, ceding Congress’s Article I authority to Donald Trump,” Meeks said in a Feb. 10 statement on X.

“Republicans now face a clear choice: go on the record and join Democrats in ending these cost-raising tariffs, or keep forcing American families to pay for them.”

The vote comes one day after three Republicans—Reps. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.), and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)—voted with Democrats to defeat a rule that would have blocked votes in the lower chamber on the president’s tariffs through July 31.

House Republicans have relied on this procedural rule to prevent members from rebuking Trump’s trade strategy.

As part of the president’s global trade agenda, blanket tariffs were imposed on Canada surrounding border-security concerns and the flow of fentanyl.

Trump paused levies for one month this past spring after Ottawa had committed to bolstering security at the U.S.-Canada border.

The president later amended his executive action to exempt goods compliant with the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement.

Congress has attempted to reverse these import duties on one of America’s largest trading partners.

Now that it has passed in the lower chamber, it needs to make its way through the Senate before it can head to the president’s desk for his signature.

While he is likely to veto the bill, it could be a symbolic victory for his Democratic opponents, who are spotlighting their pushback against the tariffs.

This is not the first time lawmakers have attempted to curb Trump’s use of emergency statutes, particularly the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Four Republicans—Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)—voted with Democrats in October to pass a resolution scrapping IEEPA.

The emergency‑powers statute lets a president control international trade during a declared national emergency and has typically been used to restrict commerce with foreign nations. Trump relied on this law to justify placing tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, citing threats related to fentanyl and unlawful immigration.

U.S. officials are still waiting for a Supreme Court determination on whether IEEPA can be used to justify these tariffs.

Newhouse, who is not running for reelection, told The Epoch Times after the vote that “the court’s going to help us” assess the constitutionality of the president’s trade measures.

“I think that we have a say in some of these issues, like tariffs on imports. That’s Congress’s realm,” he added, telling reporters that his Washington district has many Canadian-owned businesses.

The vote marked a rare moment of opposition to the president from at least some House Republicans. Yet, Democrats sounded pessimistic about the prospect of snowballing defections from within Trump’s party.

“I appreciate the handful of Republicans who had the courage to vote yes. There’s a lot more who didn’t have the courage to vote yes, but disagree with Trump’s tariffs,” Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) told The Epoch Times.

Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), who chairs the House Democratic Caucus, told The Epoch Times that Trump “controls, kind of, what’s on the floor.”

US–Canada Trade Relationship

Trade relations between the United States and Canada have deteriorated.

Shortly after Canada reached a new trade agreement with China—effectively allowing thousands of new Chinese electric vehicles into the country in exchange for lower tariff rates on canola—Trump threatened a 100 percent tariff on Canadian goods.

“If ‘Governor’ Carney thinks he is going to make Canada a ‘Drop Off Port’ for China to send goods and products into the United States, he is sorely mistaken,” Trump posted on Truth Social last month.

“China will eat Canada alive, completely devour it, including the destruction of their businesses, social fabric, and general way of life.”

Appearing before the Senate Banking Committee on Feb. 5, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told lawmakers that the administration could not allow its “northern border be used as a way for Chinese EVs” to enter the United States.

This was a reversal of the president’s immediate reaction, when he told reporters it was a “good thing” for Prime Minister Mark Carney to get a deal done with Beijing.

In his speech at the World Economic Forum, Carney told the audience that the “old order is not coming back.”

“Middle powers must act together because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu,” Carney said.

Trump, during his speech in Davos, stated that Canada should be grateful to the United States.

“I watched your prime minister yesterday. He wasn’t so grateful, but they should be grateful to us. Canada lives because of the United States,” Trump said.

While the Canadian economy has struggled for the past decade, economic conditions have worsened since the Trump administration implemented tariffs on Canadian imports.

In November, the gross domestic product was measured at zero percent following a 0.3 percent contraction in October, according to Statistics Canada.

Preliminary estimates suggest the Canadian economy expanded 0.1 percent in December.

Additionally, Canada lost nearly 25,000 jobs in January, falling short of the consensus estimate of a 7,000 gain.

By comparison, the U.S. economy registered 3.8 percent growth in the second quarter and 4.4 percent in the third quarter.

It is on track to post an expansion of about 4 percent in the final three months of 2025.

The United States, Canada, and Mexico will engage in a joint review of the post-NAFTA trade deal this summer.

Nathan Worcester contributed to this report.

(The Epoch Times)—The Trump administration’s website aimed at giving Americans major discounts on drug prices launched on Feb. 5.

TrumpRx, a direct-to-consumer website, uses what’s called most-favored-nation drug pricing, which will align drug costs for select medications to the lowest price in developed nations.

But the prescription drug costs aren’t automatically applied to all medications. Americans must go through a few steps on their own to gain access to the deals.

Here’s how you can secure the low costs available on TrumpRx.

Subscribe now

TrumpRx Website

Americans looking to cut their payments on prescriptions must first visit the official TrumpRx.gov website.

The platform is designed by AirBnB co-founder Joe Gebbia, who currently serves as chief design officer for the Trump administration.

When people visit TrumpRx, they will see a search bar below the main headline.

Users can type their diagnosis or the medication that they use into the search bar to see if it is covered.

For example, if a person types in “weight loss,” they will see options for a Wegovy Pen that starts at $199, a Wegovy Pill that’s $149, Zepbound, which begins at $299 and an Ozempic Pen going for $199.

Each price listed on the website is an out-of-pocket price, meaning it applies to people with and without insurance. However, the website encourages people to check their insurance policy for co-pay information because the medication might be even cheaper.

The website does not provide telehealth services, such as scheduling appointments with doctors who will prescribe medication. The user must go to their own provider to be prescribed the medication before the drugs are sent to the pharmacy, where the coupon can be used.

The medication they choose will show them how much money they are saving using TrumpRx and require them to accept the terms provided before they receive a coupon with the deal.

Discount Rules

A person attempting to redeem the coupon must be 18 or older and a resident of the United States or a U.S. territory (Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa).

The user has to confirm that they are not enrolled in insurance from any government, state, or federally funded medical or prescription benefit programs.

Examples of government-funded programs include Medicare, Medigap, Veterans Administration, Defense Department, TRICARE, Medicaid, or any other state or federal medical/pharmaceutical benefit or assistance, according to TrumpRx.

The person must also agree that they won’t seek reimbursement from their insurance plan to cover the out-of-pocket costs.

TrumpRx Coupon

Once a user has agreed to the terms listed on TrumpRx, they will receive a white coupon with a flying gold eagle.

The coupon will have four categories: a bin number, a PCN, a group name called “MAHA” and a member ID labeled “TRUMPRX.”

Americans will be able to get access to discounted drugs using coupons provided by TrumpRx. The coupon can be printed or added to a person’s digital wallet on their phone as long as they have iOS 6+ and what the website calls “new versions of Android.” It did not specify which versions.

People using their computer are given a QR code to scan onto their phone, which puts it into their digital wallet.

Coupon Redemption

All printed or digital coupons must be taken to the person’s pharmacy in order to receive the discount, as the new rates are not automatically applied to every medication, even if it’s available on the website.

The pharmacist will scan the coupon during checkout and the buyer will receive the discount.

Available Medications

TrumpRx launched with over 40 medications on Thursday and plans to add more over the next few weeks.

Trump touted the GLP-1 and fertility drugs during the website’s launch, but there is a wide variety of items that address health issues.

The GLP-1s offered include Wegovy (pill or injectable), Ozempic, and Zepbound.

Drugs relating to fertility include Cetrotide, Gonal-F, and Ovidrel.

Some inhalers are listed as well as medicines used for conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and severe asthma.

Menopause-related drugs are also available.

Other drugs include a drug to manage an adult’s overactive bladder symptoms, a medicine used to treat mild to moderate eczema, and Genotropin, which contains human growth hormone.

(The Epoch Times)—President Donald Trump on Saturday announced federal authorities will not intervene in protests in Democrat-led jurisdictions, but will continue to forcefully protect federal property.

“I have instructed Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, that under no circumstances are we going to participate in various poorly run Democrat Cities with regard to their Protests and/or Riots unless, and until, they ask us for help,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.

“We will, however, guard, and very powerfully so, any and all Federal Buildings that are being attacked by these highly paid Lunatics, Agitators, and Insurrectionists.”

The president’s message comes after federal authorities shot and killed protesters Renee Good and Alex Pretti during recent immigration enforcement operations in Minnesota.

Subscribe now

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer shot Good on Jan. 7 as she struck the officer with her SUV while attempting to flee apprehension. Officials said the ICE agent suffered internal bleeding during the encounter.

A Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer fatally shot Pretti on Jan. 24 during an altercation. Videos from the incident show Pretti was filming federal authorities with his phone, and stepped between one of the CBP officers and another protester the officer had pushed to the ground. The incident then devolved into a struggle between Pretti and several federal agents, ending with one or more of those federal agents shooting him.

Pretti possessed a permit to carry firearms, and had a handgun on his person at the time of the altercation. His death is now the subject of a federal civil rights investigation.

Representatives for Pretti’s family confirmed he was filmed in a separate Jan. 13 altercation in which he appeared to spit at a vehicle and kick out its taillight. The vehicle then stopped, and several masked federal agents proceeded to tackle him to the ground.

In his Saturday social media post, Trump said he issued instructions for ICE and Border Patrol personnel to “be very forceful” in protecting federal property.

“There will be no spitting in the faces of our Officers, there will be no punching or kicking the headlights of our cars, and there will be no rock or brick throwing at our vehicles, or at our Patriot Warriors,” the president added. “If there is, those people will suffer an equal, or more, consequence.”

Trump said state and local governments also have an obligation to protect federal property, as well as local property.

The president also raised the prospect of deploying military personnel to assist in protecting federal property.

“Remember that I stated, in the strongest of language, to BEWARE — ICE, Border Patrol or, if necessary, our Military, will be extremely powerful and tough in the protection of our Federal Property,” he wrote.

(The Epoch Times)—The Trump administration is suing an illegal immigrant to collect close to $1 million in fines for remaining in the country after a deportation order was issued against her.

The federal government alleges that Marta Alicia Ramirez Veliz of Chesterfield County, Virginia, failed to leave the United States after an appeals board ruled against her in 2022. The government said that as of April 2025, Veliz owed $941,114 in fines plus interest.

Veliz is being sued under a federal law that has been on the books since 1996 that allows civil penalties for illegal immigrants who deliberately fail to leave the country as ordered. In President Donald Trump’s first term, the federal government began assessing fines under the long-unenforced law but did not file lawsuits to collect them. President Joe Biden’s administration stopped assessing fines altogether.

Subscribe now

The Trump administration revived the fine policy after the president issued Executive Order 14159 in January 2025, which authorized immigration officials to reinstitute the practice of assessing financial penalties under the law. In June 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued new regulations making it easier to issue fines.

DHS said that as of June 2025 it had sent more than 9,000 fine notices to illegal immigrants for a total of nearly $3 billion.

The legal complaint filed against Veliz on Jan. 23 in federal district court in Richmond, Virginia, states the government is suing “to collect a civil penalty imposed by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Veliz for willfully failing or refusing to leave the United States pursuant to a final order of removal.”

An immigration judge issued a removal order against Veliz in July 2019, which became final after the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed her appeal in September 2022. The civil penalty for remaining in the United States after a removal order has become final is $998 for each day the person subject to the order remains in the country, according to the complaint.

The Trump administration encourages illegal immigrants to “self-deport,” meaning they voluntarily leave the United States on their own.

DHS said last year that civil fines or penalties for illegal immigrants would be forgiven for those who self-deport through the CPB Home App, which is available for smartphones.

“By self-deporting, illegal aliens take control of their departure and may preserve the opportunity to come back to the U.S. the right and legal way in the future,” the agency said in a statement.

The government served a notice of intention to fine on Veliz in April 2025, but she did not appeal the notice, and a final order imposing the penalty took effect in June 2025, the complaint said.

The complaint does not disclose personally identifying information for Veliz such as nationality, age, or address. Veliz does not appear to have legal representation.

Efforts by The Epoch Times to contact her were unsuccessful.

A group called Public Justice filed a proposed class action lawsuit in November 2025 challenging the imposition of the fines on illegal immigrants who fail to leave the country after being ordered to do so.

In a class action, a plaintiff sues on behalf of a larger group of people who claim to have suffered the same injury at the hands of a defendant. Federal and state rules govern whether a class action gets certified and is allowed to proceed.

The lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs are “hardworking individuals facing significant personal hardships who, like millions in this country, have been navigating the U.S. immigration system.” ICE has fined them “exorbitantly,” sending notices advising them they owe large fines that run from hundreds of thousands of dollars to approximately $1.8 million, the legal complaint said.

The large fines were imposed without the government considering whether they were appropriate in an individual case, and under regulations that were issued without the legally required public input, the complaint said.

The complaint said the fines will drive the plaintiffs and thousands of other people residing in the United States into “ruinous debt, in violation of the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.”

The Administrative Procedure Act is a 1946 federal statute that governs administrative law procedures for federal executive departments and independent agencies. The late Sen. Pat McCarran (D-Nev.) said the law was “a bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated in one way or another by agencies of the federal government.”

On Jan. 26, the Veliz lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Judge Roderick C. Young.

(The Epoch Times)—A federal grand jury has indicted a Maryland government contractor on charges of illegally transmitting and retaining classified national defense information, alleging he shared sensitive military intelligence reports with a Washington Post reporter.

Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones, 61, of Laurel, Maryland, faces five counts of unlawful transmission and one count of unlawful retention under the Espionage Act, the Justice Department announced Thursday.

Each count carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.

Perez-Lugones, who held a top-secret security clearance for two decades while working as a contractor, is accused of accessing, printing, and removing classified reports from secure facilities between March 2025 and January 2026. Prosecutors say he then provided portions of those documents to a reporter, who cited them in at least five published articles.

A search of Perez-Lugones’s home and car earlier resulted in the discovery of documents marked “SECRET,” including one in a lunch box.

Subscribe now

The reports contained intelligence about foreign adversaries’ military capabilities, according to court documents.

Federal authorities said their agencies will continue to aggressively investigate any cases it perceives as threats to national security.

“Illegally disclosing classified defense information is a grave crime against America that puts both our national security and the lives of our military heroes at risk,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.

“Perez-Lugones allegedly printed and removed classified documents from his workplace on multiple occasions, took them home, and later passed them to a reporter who used the information in news articles,” FBI Director Kash Patel said. “Protecting our country’s secrets is essential to the safety of our most sensitive intelligence, military, and law enforcement operations.”

Perez-Lugones’s attorneys did not immediately respond to requests for comment. He is scheduled for an arraignment in the U.S. District Court in Baltimore.

The case gained attention after FBI agents raided the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson on Jan. 14 as part of the investigation. Federal authorities seized a phone, two laptops, a recorder, a portable hard drive, and a Garmin watch during the search, according to court filings.

The Washington Post said Natanson, who covers federal workers within the Trump administration and acquired more than a thousand sources, was informed she is not a target of the probe and that the newspaper received a subpoena related to Perez-Lugones.

A federal judge in Virginia temporarily blocked prosecutors from reviewing the seized materials on Wednesday, pending further arguments. U.S. Magistrate Judge William B. Porter issued the order after Natanson’s lawyers argued the search violated protections for journalists.

Critics of the search say it represents a major threat to press freedom.

According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press—which tracks issues affecting First Amendment freedoms as they relate to members of the media—the raid on Natanson’s home marks the first time in U.S. history that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has raided a journalist’s home in connection with a national security leak.

Joseph Lord contributed to this report.

(The Epoch Times)—The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) is looking into possible violations stemming from a protest by anti-ICE demonstrators at a church in St. Paul, Minnesota, on Jan. 18, according to officials.

Footage circulating on social media shows protesters gathering inside Cities Church in St. Paul during a Sunday service, while chanting phrases like “Justice for Renee Good” and “Who needs justice, we need justice.”

Protests against ICE in Minnesota have escalated after a federal agent in Minneapolis fatally shot protester Renee Good, who allegedly drove her SUV toward the officer after being ordered to exit her vehicle during an ICE operation. Federal officials have said the officer opened fire in self-defense.

Subscribe now

Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, said on X that federal officials are investigating protesters for potential violations for allegedly “desecrating a house of worship and interfering with Christian worshippers” during a service at Cities Church.

“Considering and investigating other related crimes as well. @FBI activated too,” Dhillon said in a subsequent post, suggesting the FBI will also be involved in the investigation.

Attorney General Pam Bondi later said on X that she has been in communication with Dhillon regarding the protests at Cities Church and has ordered the DOJ to investigate.

Bondi also warned that anyone found in violation of federal law will face prosecution.

YouTuber Don Lemon, who livestreamed the protest, said that anti-ICE protesters disrupted a church service at Cities Church following claims that one of the church pastors is serving as acting field office director for ICE in Minnesota.

In his video, Lemon spoke to the church’s lead pastor, Jonathan Parnell, as protesters gathered inside the church. Parnell said that he had requested the protesters to leave but they refused.

“I mean this is unacceptable. It’s shameful to interrupt a public gathering of Christians in worship,” Parnell told Lemon.

Lemon pointed to the First Amendment, highlighting the rights “to freedom of speech and freedom to assemble and protest,” and Parnell replied that the congregation had come “here to worship Jesus.”

When asked whether he had tried to talk to the protesters, Parnell said: “No one is willing to talk. I have to take care of my church and my family, so I ask that you actually would also leave this building.”

Kevin Ezell, president of the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, said that his organization will step in and provide security for the church if local officials fail to take action.

“For protestors to disrupt a Sunday morning worship service this way is absurd. If elected officials won’t contain lawlessness @NAMB_SBC will provide security,” Ezell said on X.

The Epoch Times reached out to the Cities Church for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz mobilized his state’s National Guard on Jan. 17 to support public safety amid ongoing protests across multiple cities in the state. The Minnesota National Guard said the soldiers will wear bright yellow reflective vests over their uniforms so protesters can “distinguish them from other agencies” such as ICE.

“These Soldiers are staged, and vehicles and personnel are ready to respond at locations across the metro,” Army Maj. Andrea Tsuchiya, state public affairs officer for the Minnesota National Guard, told The Epoch Times on Jan. 18.

Jacki Thrapp contributed to this report.

(The Epoch Times)—Republican political fortunes could hinge on the effects of President Trump’s immigration crackdown, according to the authors of a report from the Brookings Institute. A Republican representative from Florida has written a bill she says will enable the country to cross this immigration divide, but the bill must first cross the political divide in Congress.

The authors of the report, “Macroeconomic Implications of Immigration Flows in 2025 and 2026: January 2026 update,” estimate a net migration deficit of 10,000 to 295,000 in 2025.

This is “the first time in at least half a century it has been negative,” the report said. The authors expect that trend to continue in 2026.

Subscribe now

“Reduced migration will dampen growth in the labor force, consumer spending, and gross domestic product,” the report said.

Wendy Edelberg, a senior fellow at Brookings and one of the report’s authors, said immigration was a driving force in the U.S. labor market in 2024. This also drove strong demand for consumer goods. As the labor pool dries up, so will consumer spending, the report said.

“We’re talking about ... between $40 billion and $60 billion in 2025 in terms of reductions in consumer spending. And then, from ’25 to ’26 another reduction of, let’s say, 10 [billion] to 40 billion,” Edelberg said.

David Bier is director of Immigration Studies for the Cato Institute. He said many people may believe that high-profile Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol operations as well as a tightened southern border are the reasons for the decrease.

However, Bier attributed most of the decrease to President Trump ending asylum and refugee programs as well as implementing immigration bans on some countries.

“There’s about 300,000 or so deportations so far this year. You compare that to the number of people who lost their legal, temporary, protected status. ... Over 2 million people have had their temporary status eliminated by this administration,” Bier said.

Eduardo Porter, a Mexico City-based journalist, agreed with Bier’s assessment. He said recent polls show that Americans see illegal immigration as a shrinking threat.

He said a July 11, 2025, Gallup poll showed that the percentage of Americans who wanted immigration reduced dropped from 55 percent in 2024 to 30 percent in July 2025.

“At the same time, a record-high 79 percent of U.S. adults say immigration is a good thing for the country,” the Gallup website reads.

Porter predicted a difficult midterm election for Republicans.

“I think this will ultimately hurt Trump, that he continues with the policy, with the tactics that we’re seeing in cities like Minneapolis,” Porter said.

Rep. Maria Salazar, R-Fla., agreed with much of what was said. She said that she sponsored the Dignity Act in Congress to head off the predicted issues but not provide a pathway to citizenship.

She said the biggest obstacle she must overcome is the political divide.

“It’s just that politics always gets in the way because there are groups out there saying, ‘Oh, you’re in favor of amnesty,’” Salazar said.

Salazar said the bill—which she has been sponsoring since 2022—has 31 co-sponsors.

The law would allow illegal immigrants in the country for five years or more without committing further crimes to obtain legal status. They would pay a fine of $7,000 and a penalty of 1 percent of their income for every year they are in the United States.

Not a Path to Citizenship

Under this arrangement, the now legal immigrants would be able to work, travel, bank, and live in the United States without fear of deportation. The law would prohibit them from receiving social services, but they could pay for their own healthcare and other services.

She said this would solve the labor force and consumer spending issues but stressed that the Dignity Act only conferred legal status.

The law would also make it easier to find the gang members, violent criminals, and other candidates for deportation, she said.

The law requires Congress to work on immigration reform and calls on Washington to build diplomatic relations with Latin American countries. Salazar said that the law could boost Trump’s image.

“[President Trump] is going to be for immigration what Lincoln was for slavery and Reagan was for communism,” she said.

(The Epoch Times)—After U.S. military forces captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro over the weekend, attention has turned to what comes next for the country that has lived under socialist rule for more than 25 years.

President Donald Trump has spoken about his long-term goals for Venezuela, but for now, his focus remains on tackling short-term challenges. Holding fair and free elections and restoring a democratic government will take time, he said, as there is much work to do.

“We’ll have elections at the right time,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Jan. 4. “Venezuela right now is a dead country. We have to bring it back.”

Subscribe now

The Trump administration has made clear that before any broader political change can take place in the country, the immediate priorities include ensuring that the interim leadership complies with U.S. orders, preventing interference by drug cartels, and bringing in U.S. oil companies to help rebuild Venezuela’s energy infrastructure.

In recent years, Venezuela has experienced economic collapse, accompanied by hyperinflation, widespread poverty, and a significant exodus of citizens.

During a press conference at Mar-a-Lago in Florida, hours after Maduro’s capture, Trump said the United States will run Venezuela until a “safe, proper, and judicious transition” to a new government is possible.

In a Fox News interview on Jan. 3, shortly after the operation, Trump explained why the United States needs to be involved in the country’s governance.

“We can’t take a chance on letting somebody else run it and just take over where [Maduro] left off,” he said.

Maduro and his wife were transferred to New York City on Jan. 3 and are currently being held in jail. At their first court appearance on Jan. 5, both pleaded not guilty to federal charges that include drug trafficking and collaborating with gangs designated as terrorist organizations.

Maduro told the court that he is still the president of his country and that he was kidnapped.

On the same day, Venezuela’s parliament swore in Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s vice president, as acting president. Her brother, Jorge Rodriguez, was also elected speaker of parliament.

Trump said Delcy Rodríguez will have to comply with U.S. demands, or “she will face a situation probably worse than Maduro.”

Delcy Rodríguez issued a statement on Instagram in response.

“Our country aspires to live without external threats,” she wrote on Jan. 5. “We invite the US government to collaborate with us on an agenda of cooperation oriented towards shared development within the framework of international law to strengthen lasting community coexistence.”

What Is Next?

A senior White House official told The Epoch Times that Trump’s national security team, rather than a single person, would continue to handle Venezuela policy for now.

The official said the team includes Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller.

Andrés Martínez-Fernández, a senior policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, said he believes that Trump’s team will seek to avoid large-scale military occupation and instead protect U.S. national security interests through external pressure.

He told The Epoch Times that, in the near term, the administration will continue to apply economic and military pressure, as it has in recent months, to ensure that “the remnants of the regime in Venezuela don’t fall into a status quo of weaponizing drugs and migration against the United States.”

Corruption in the Venezuelan military and broader security services also creates a challenge for the Trump administration and will probably be a key topic in talks with the remaining members of the regime.

“There is a deep entrenchment of drug trafficking and corruption in those institutions, and there needs to be a major clean-up in those entities,” Martínez-Fernández said.

Role of Oil Companies

Trump has stressed that he expects U.S. oil companies to help rebuild Venezuela and restore the country’s economy during the transition.

Over the weekend, he said large U.S. oil companies would begin fixing broken infrastructure “and start making money for the country.”

The United States will be taking “a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground,” Trump said on Jan. 3.

He also indicated that oil revenues would be used to compensate people who were taken advantage of.

Venezuela, a founding member of OPEC, was once one of the world’s leading oil producers. The country sits atop the world’s largest proven oil reserves. However, its crude oil production has fallen in recent years, mainly because of the regime’s mismanagement.

Evan Ellis, a military strategist and former Latin America policy adviser to the U.S. State Department, said that former leaders Hugo Chávez and Maduro have left behind a serious legal and economic mess. The country faces significant international obligations to pay debts to various groups because of expropriations and unpaid monies under the leadership of the two socialist leaders.

“The path forward will be extremely challenging,” Ellis told The Epoch Times.

But effective management of the country’s oil assets and repairs to infrastructure, including the El Palito refinery, could boost oil production within two to three years, he said.

“That would allow Venezuela to reemerge as one of the most prosperous oil economies in the region and potentially reclaim its former status as one of Latin America’s wealthiest democracies, as it was through the 1990s.”

Opposition Leaders, Political Prisoners

There are also major political and humanitarian questions, including whether opposition leaders currently living abroad will be able to return safely and what will happen to hundreds of political prisoners held in Venezuelan prisons.

Trump has suggested that Venezuela’s opposition figure and 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado lacks sufficient support and respect within Venezuela to assume the leadership in the near term.

Following Maduro’s removal from office, Machado said that opposition leader Edmundo González, widely recognized as the rightful victor of Venezuela’s 2024 election, is ready to take over the government.

“We are ready to take over the government. We have the teams, we have the plans,” she said in a statement.

However, both Trump and Rubio have expressed skepticism.

“There has to be a little realism here,” Rubio told CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Jan. 4. “They’ve had this system of chavismo in place for 15 or 16 years. And everyone’s asking why, 24 hours after Nicolás Maduro was arrested, there isn’t an election scheduled for tomorrow. That’s absurd.”

It remains unclear when Machado, currently in Norway, and González, currently in Spain, will be able to return to Venezuela.

Rubio said that the administration is not ready yet to appoint opposition leaders.

“We’re going to make an assessment on the basis of what they do, not what they say publicly in the interim,” Rubio said. “So we’re going to find out.”

Whether Trump’s efforts will successfully lead Venezuela toward democratic elections—and how long that process may take—remains to be seen.

Martínez-Fernández said that rebuilding electoral, regional, and broader state institutions will require significant time.

However, he expressed hope that an election could take place before the end of Trump’s presidency, possibly sooner.

A credible election would finally end the “deeply unpopular” Chavista movement, he said.