Before you read: This is an op-ed: an opinion piece and an argument, not a news report. Jared Kushner has not declared a 2028 campaign, and none is known to exist. What follows is my reading of the public record, which is linked throughout so you can check every claim yourself.

Subscribe now

Let’s start with a name most people are too smart, or too tired, to say out loud in a serious sentence.

Jared Kushner.

Go ahead and say it in a room full of political professionals and watch what happens. Somebody smirks. Somebody makes the son-in-law joke. Somebody pivots to the names you are allowed to take seriously, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the governors already rehearsing their lines for the cameras. And then everyone moves on, satisfied that the grown-ups have spoken.

I want you to sit with a different possibility. Not the comfortable one. The one that makes you put your phone down.

The most logical Republican nominee for 2028 is the man everyone just laughed at. And the reason it sounds like a joke is exactly the reason it is not one.

So no, this is not a leak, and I am not telling you a campaign already exists. As of early 2026, no candidate had formally entered the 2028 race at all. What I am handing you is a map. Follow it with me.

Receipt No. 1: Governing Without a Job

Here is the thing the punchline crowd keeps missing. Kushner is not waiting for power. He already has it, and he holds it in the purest form there is: power with no title attached.

When Trump returned to the White House, Kushner and Ivanka did something that looked, at the time, like a retreat. They publicly swore off official roles and moved a thousand miles from Washington, to Miami. No office. No badge. No portfolio. The couple who had been everywhere in the first term would simply be private citizens in the second.

And then he ran the foreign policy anyway.

He took on an oversize role despite holding no formal position, shuttling into the hardest rooms on the board: helping drag the Gaza ceasefire over the finish line, working the back channels on Ukraine and Iran, drafting a plan for Gaza’s postwar reconstruction and governance that read less like a peace framework than a waterfront real-estate brochure. When Trump finally reached for a label and called him an envoy of peace, the White House hurried to clarify that it was not an official role and that Kushner was merely volunteering his time.

Read that again. He conducts statecraft at the highest level of the American government with no confirmation hearing, no divestment, and none of the disclosure that binds a Secretary of State.

So understand what a presidential run would actually be. Not a promotion. Not a leap. Just the paperwork, at long last, catching up to the job he already holds.

Receipt No. 2: The Machine He Already Built

Every rival for 2028 can give a speech. Only one of them built the machine that won in the first place.

Rewind to 2016. The campaign had none of the technological firepower of the Clinton operation, so the job of building it fell to a real-estate heir with zero political experience. Once the nomination was locked up that June, Kushner took over every data-driven effort, called his contacts in Silicon Valley for a crash tutorial on Facebook micro-targeting, and inside three weeks set up a roughly 100-person data hub outside San Antonio to unify fundraising, messaging, and targeting. They called it Project Alamo.

Look at what that actually meant, because the specifics are the whole point.

He built a custom geo-location tool that plotted around twenty types of voter over a live Google Maps interface, until the data was dictating everything: where Trump traveled, where he rallied, where the money went. He installed Brad Parscale, a man who had built small websites for the Trump Organization, to run it, then poured the majority of the digital budget into Facebook and pushed out hundreds of thousands of micro-targeted ads aimed at specific voter communities. He brought in Cambridge Analytica, the data firm the campaign paid more than $5.8 million.

And the people on the other side knew exactly what they were watching. Eric Schmidt, the former Google chief executive who had helped build Hillary Clinton’s own technology operation, called Kushner “the biggest surprise of the 2016 election,” and said that, as far as he could tell, Kushner had essentially run the whole campaign with almost no resources.

He did not ride the apparatus. He built the prototype.

And it outlived the campaign. When Trump needed someone to run the entire 2020 reelection effort, he reached for Parscale, the operator Kushner had installed in San Antonio. Every other name on the 2028 whiteboard would have to build all of this from the studs. Kushner did it once, from nothing, and won.

Receipt No. 3: The Two-Billion-Dollar Question

Now follow the money, because this is where the story stops being about proximity and starts being about power in its own right.

The day after the first Trump administration ended, Kushner incorporated a private investment firm. Six months later, that brand-new firm took two billion dollars from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund. Not from a track record. There wasn’t one. The fund’s own screeners balked, flagging his inexperience, before a board chaired by the Crown Prince approved the deal anyway.

Congress noticed. Lawmakers opened an investigation into whether his finances had bent American foreign policy, and a senior senator’s ongoing inquiry accused the firm of functioning to funnel foreign government money to the president’s family.

Hold the outrage for one second and look at it the way a strategist would. Set the ethics aside and what you are looking at is a self-funding war chest and a Rolodex of the wealthiest heads of state on earth, assembled while he was technically a private citizen. Every other candidate has to go beg for that. He owns it.

This is independent journalism. I don't have a corporate owner, an advertiser, or an editor who needs this to be less alarming than it is. What I have is you. If you're not subscribed yet, now is the moment. Every subscription is a direct vote for independent female journalism that answers to no one.

Subscribe now

Receipt No. 4: Buying The Map

The money did not sit still. It went shopping for countries.

It started, as these things do, on a yacht. On a 2021 holiday, Jared and Ivanka anchored off an uninhabited island in the Adriatic, swam ashore, and hiked barefoot to the top, where, Ivanka later said, they were simply “captivated.” Within a few years, that vacation had become a multibillion-dollar claim on two of Albania’s wildest places.

The island is Sazan, and its history is not subtle. For decades it served as a military base, used by the Soviet Union as a submarine outpost and a testing ground for biological and chemical weapons, and Soviet-era gas masks still litter the ground today. It is roughly twice the size of Central Park. The plan is to turn this poisoned Cold War relic into a very high-end luxury resort, the kind of place, Kushner has said, that he would want to vacation at with his own family.

Watch how the deal was done. On December 30, 2024, just after Trump’s reelection, Albania’s Strategic Investment Committee, chaired by Prime Minister Edi Rama, granted “strategic investor” status to Atlantic Incubation Partners, a firm linked to Kushner’s Affinity, fast-tracking approvals for a $1.4 billion resort on Sazan and a second, $4.7 billion development on the protected coastal wetlands of Vjosa-Narta. The timing raised open questions about whether Albania was using the project to curry favor with the Trump administration, which officials deny, and the terms were kept from Albania’s own parliament and public until the press exposed them.

Then came the cost. Vjosa-Narta is a protected delta, home to flamingos, dolphins, sea turtles, and monk seals. Work reportedly began there without permits or an environmental assessment, and conservationists at BirdLife Europe warned it had already done severe, irreversible ecological damage. Albanians noticed. For days on end, thousands flooded Tirana demanding Rama’s resignation, while the country’s own anticorruption prosecutor opened an investigation into the sudden change to the area’s protected status, the bypassing of public tenders, and the origin of the money buying up the land.

Albania was not the only address on the shopping list. In Belgrade, Kushner’s firm signed a 99-year lease to raise a $500 million Trump-branded hotel, the first Trump complex in Europe, on the ruins of the former Yugoslav Army headquarters, a building bombed by NATO in 1999 and left standing since, whose protected heritage status was stripped away to clear the path. Then the official who removed that protection was arrested and admitted forging the document used to do it. Kushner abandoned the project only after Serbian officials were criminally charged, his firm insisting it had played no part in the alleged wrongdoing.

Now put the map next to the diplomacy. The fund buying up Balkan coastlines and Belgrade landmarks is bankrolled overwhelmingly by the same Gulf governments Kushner sits across from as an envoy. He does statecraft and real estate in the same regions, in the same season, on the same phone, with the same relationships doing double duty.

In a normal party, that sentence ends a career. Hold that thought, because we are coming back to it.

Receipt No. 5: The Closer

Here is the move that separates him from every bomb-thrower in the field.

This summer, Kushner met privately, behind closed doors in New York, with Hakeem Jeffries, the man in line to become Speaker of the House if Democrats take it in November. They talked housing, immigration, and the cost of living, and Kushner floated a follow-up meeting with Trump’s own chief of staff.

Sit with the picture. The same man who can sit across a table from Hamas can sit across a table from the next Democratic Speaker, in the same season, and keep both conversations going.

Repackage that for a primary, and then a general election. Not the brawler. The closer. The one figure in Trumpworld who can talk to everyone. In a field of performers, that is a lane nobody else can even walk into.

Receipt No. 6: The Family Business

Now step all the way back and ask what the modern Republican Party actually is, because the answer is the whole argument.

It is not a coalition with a platform and a deep bench. It is a family enterprise, organized around a single brand and a single bloodline of loyalty. The father-in-law sits in the White House. The father, a felon pardoned by that same president and then confirmed as ambassador to France, runs an embassy in Paris.

In an ordinary party the heir apparent is the second in command. In a family business, the heir is the one who runs operations and married into the name.

By that logic, the successor was never going to be the understudy waiting his turn. It was always going to be the son-in-law.

Receipt No. 7: Where Is Ivanka?

There is a person missing from this story, and her absence is the loudest thing in it.

In the first term, Ivanka Trump was everywhere. She was a senior White House adviser and one of her father’s closest aides, with a carefully tailored West Wing portfolio, at his side through all four years. Insiders said Trump viewed his daughter as the “heir apparent”, and he has floated her running for president and once wanted to make her ambassador to the United Nations.

And then, right as the machine geared up to win again, she vanished.

In late 2022, as her father launched his 2024 run, she announced she was stepping out of the political arena entirely, to prioritize her children and a private life, and through the second term she has stayed largely outside the public spotlight, a thousand miles from Washington in Miami, the woman who was once inescapable now surfacing mostly for luxury vacations, glamorous nights out, and polo.

Take her at her word and this is a mother stepping back from a brutal arena to protect her kids. That is real, and I will not accuse her of being insincere about what the first term cost her. She shut down her own brand amid ethics questions and absorbed years of scrutiny for decisions she could not control. Anyone would want out.

But read it next to everything else in this piece, and a second story appears.

Look at what “stepping back” has actually bought her. She is not in the administration, so she owns none of its scandals. She is not signing the memos, defending the tariffs, or answering for the cuts. She got out before the second term could mark her the way the first one did. Her record is being kept clean. Her image is being kept soft. She is, in the most literal sense, keeping her hands empty.

Now ask the question this whole piece has been building toward. If the dynasty’s path to power runs through her husband, what is the single most valuable thing Ivanka Trump can do between now and 2028?

Nothing.

Be untouchable. Be unscarred. Be the spouse with no baggage on the day the ticket needs one. The heir apparent did not give up the throne. She married the man walking toward it and stepped out of the sun, so that when the family business finally needs a First Lady, one is already standing there, polished and blameless and ready.

I want to be fair: no one has reported that this is her plan, and she has offered her own reasons, all of them human. But you do not assemble a dynasty by accident. Watch who in this family stays unstained. It tells you who they are keeping in reserve.

Receipt No. 8: The Inheritance

Now the honest part, because an argument that dodges its own weak points is propaganda, and I am not in that business.

Kushner has never run for or won any public office in his life. The conflicts are not a footnote; they are an industry, from the Saudi billions to the Albanian permits to the Gaza plan that doubles as a sales deck. He is not a natural on a stage. And the ground to Trump’s right is already crowded.

These objections are real. But look closely and notice what kind of objection each one is. They are not objections to Kushner. They are objections to the machine that already runs the party. And inside that machine, each supposed liability quietly flips into an asset.

Never elected? Neither, in any sense the base respected, was the movement’s founder before 2016.

Foreign billions and a Gulf Rolodex? In a normal party, that ends you. In this one, it is a war chest and a ready-made foreign-policy résumé folded into a single line.

Statecraft fused with the family’s private business? That is not a bug he has to explain away. It is the operating model he would carry to the top of the ticket.

The dynasty tie that makes reporters wince is not a flaw in the pitch. It is the pitch.

So here is where we land. He already conducts the nation’s foreign policy without a title. He already funds an empire with foreign governments’ money. He already negotiates with the opposition’s next Speaker. All at once. All without a single vote cast in his name.

If the idea of President Kushner still strikes you as a joke, your quarrel is not with the man. It is with the party that spent a decade rebuilding itself into the exact shape that makes him the obvious answer. The machine was engineered to produce this outcome. All that is left is for the title to catch up to the power.

They built a system that runs on bloodlines and money and back channels, and then they told you the outcome would be absurd.

It isn’t absurd. It’s arithmetic.

Share

Subscribe now

A word is being stretched so far past its meaning that it is losing the ability to describe the thing it was built to describe. That word is antisemitism.

It is a real and serious problem. Jewish people are facing a documented rise in harassment, vandalism, and violence, and none of what follows is meant to minimize that. But a real problem does not stay protected when it gets used as a shield for something else. Right now, “antisemitism” is being used as a shield for a political strategy that has almost nothing to do with protecting Jewish people and everything to do with punishing critics of a foreign government’s policies. That needs to be said plainly, and it needs to be put to rest.

Start with the part everyone skips.

What Zionism Actually Is

Zionism is not a synonym for Judaism. It is a political movement, born in the late 19th century, built around the idea that Jewish people deserve their own homeland in Israel. That is the Anti-Defamation League's own definition: a movement for self-determination and statehood. Not a religion. Not an ethnicity. A political position about a state.

That distinction matters because political positions can be debated, criticized, and opposed without that opposition being bigotry toward the people who hold a different political position. You can disagree with Zionism, or with a specific Israeli government’s policies, the same way you can disagree with any other nationalist or state project in the world, without that disagreement being an attack on Jewish people as a group.

It helps to think of it the way MAGA relates to being Republican, or being American. MAGA is a specific political movement that formed inside a much bigger group. Most Republicans have views on it, some embrace it fully, some keep their distance from parts of it, some reject it outright, and none of that changes whether they’re still Republican, or still American. The movement is not the identity. It’s a position some people in that group hold and others don’t.

Zionism sits inside Jewish identity the same way. It’s a political movement that a great many Jewish people support, some Jewish people reject, and plenty more hold complicated, partial views on, and none of that makes any of them more or less Jewish. The movement is not the identity either.

Not all Jews are Zionists

This is the part that gets buried the fastest, and it is the part that breaks the entire “criticism of Israel equals antisemitism” argument in half.

The Anne Frank House put it about as clearly as it can be put: not all Jews live in Israel, not all Israelis are Jewish, and not all Jews are Zionists. There is a long history of Jewish opposition to Zionism that predates the state of Israel itself, running from ultra-Orthodox communities who believe a Jewish state should only come with the Messiah, to secular and progressive Jews who see Zionism as a nationalist project they want no part of. Groups like Jewish Voice for Peace describe their opposition as criticism of the current policies of the Israeli state and moral or ethical criticism of the idea of a Jewish nation-state, built and led by Jewish people themselves.

If an entire category of Jewish people can hold anti-Zionist views, then “anti-Zionist” cannot be a stand-in for “antisemitic.” Those are two different words describing two different things, and collapsing them erases the actual Jewish people who disagree with Zionism, while pretending to speak on their behalf.

How The Accusation is Being Used

Now for the part that actually needs to end.

Multiple sources across the political spectrum, not just activists, are documenting the same pattern: an accusation of antisemitism, applied so broadly that it now functions as a political weapon against anyone criticizing Israeli government policy, regardless of their intent or their identity.

A bill introduced in Congress this session, the Antisemitism Response and Prevention Act, states it directly: there has been a systematic pattern of weaponizing antisemitism accusations by the Trump administration to pursue ideological and partisan political objectives unrelated to protecting Jewish communities, including using antisemitism as a pretext to defund university programs the administration simply disagrees with. The bill also points to a New York Times investigation finding that the administration has acted on more than half the recommendations in “Project Esther,” a Heritage Foundation-linked plan that, according to that same bill text, focuses exclusively on left-wing critics of Israel while making no mention of the Proud Boys or other far-right sources of actual, documented antisemitic violence.

Polling backs up that the public sees this happening too. A University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll found that Americans view labeling people antisemitic as more often used to delegitimize political opponents and critics of Israel than to describe people who are genuinely antisemitic. That is not a fringe read of the situation. That is the majority read.

And it is not only university policy. It has become a legal weapon. When Florida moved to shut down Students for Justice in Palestine chapters, Governor Ron DeSantis did not frame it as a speech issue. He framed it as terrorism. “You have a right to go out and demonstrate, but you can’t provide material support to terrorism,” he told NBC, arguing that student activists who “linked themselves to Hamas” through rhetoric alone had stepped outside First Amendment protection entirely. A civil liberties group told reporters at the time that this approach risked killing free speech otherwise protected by the First Amendment. This is the actual mechanism: reframe protest as terrorism, and suddenly the Constitution doesn’t apply.

The Rubio Visa Policy

In a May 2025 address to an Israeli government conference on antisemitism, Rubio said there is “no nuanced separation of hatred of Israel and hatred of the Jewish people,” and went on to describe certain anti-Israel rhetoric, up to and including some boycott campaigns, as expressions of antisemitism in themselves. That is the country’s top diplomat, on the record, in the State Department’s own transcript of his own speech, collapsing criticism of a foreign government’s policy into hatred of a religious and ethnic group, by name. You do not need to invent a quote. This one is real, straight from the source, and it says the quiet part.

The honest version does not need the exaggeration. It is worse on its own.

Start with Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish PhD student at Tufts. Her offense was co-authoring an op-ed in her school newspaper criticizing how the university responded to the war in Gaza. For that, plainclothes agents surrounded her on a Somerville street, handcuffed her, and put her in an unmarked van, before flying her to a detention facility in Louisiana. She had not been told her visa was revoked days earlier. In custody, she suffered multiple asthma attacks and has said a detention nurse forcibly removed her hijab. Rubio personally confirmed the visa revocation and defended it. Nearly a year later, an immigration judge terminated the case against her outright, because the government could not produce evidence to support removing her. The State Department’s own memo had justified the revocation by saying her actions “may undermine” foreign policy. Not a crime. A vibe.

Then there is Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia graduate student and green card holder, married to an American citizen, arrested at his own home. The government later admitted in court that agents had no warrant when they took him. Records unsealed in the case, obtained by the nonpartisan Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, show officials privately acknowledged their case against Khalil, Ozturk, and a third student, Mohsen Mahdawi, rested entirely on protected speech, and expected to lose a First Amendment fight over it from the start. They pursued it anyway.

Rubio has said he personally revoked visas tied largely to campus activism, at one point putting the number at “maybe more than 300,” and describing some of the students affected as “lunatics.” Advocacy groups tracking the crackdown put the broader total, across agencies, at close to 1,700 international student visas revoked.

That is the accurate version. Not a hypothetical about what could happen to someone who criticizes Israel. A government official personally signing off on the detention of an asthmatic PhD student over an op-ed, a green card holder pulled from his home without a warrant, and internal memos admitting the whole legal theory was speech, not conduct, then proceeding anyway because they expected to win in the court of public opinion even if they lost in an actual one.

And this is not something that happened once, back in 2025, and quietly faded. Just this week, Rubio restated the same policy in almost identical terms, saying the visa system will keep targeting foreign nationals accused of inciting hatred against Jewish Americans. The framework is still active, still expanding, and still resting on the same collapsed distinction between criticizing a government and hating a people.

Why This Needs to End

None of this works if we’re not honest about both halves of it.

Antisemitism is real. It is rising. It deserves to be taken seriously, investigated seriously, and fought seriously, including on the actual far-right sources of it that a policy like Project Esther conveniently leaves out of the conversation entirely.

And separately, distinctly, without one fact canceling out the other: a political movement has figured out that if you stretch the definition of antisemitism wide enough to swallow ordinary political disagreement about a foreign government, you get to reclassify your critics as bigots, your protesters as terrorists, and your student visa holders as national security threats, all without ever having to defend the underlying policy those people were actually criticizing.

That is not protecting Jewish people. Jewish anti-Zionists like the ones at Jewish Voice for Peace are getting swept up in the exact same dragnet as everyone else, which should tell you everything about who this is actually designed to protect. It is a shortcut around debate. Call the position hatred, and you never have to argue against the position itself.

This is not a call to stop caring about antisemitism. It is a call for the word to mean what it means again, so that when it’s used, people believe it, and so that Jewish people dealing with the real thing aren’t drowned out by a political strategy wearing their name.

That’s the whole argument. It really is that simple, and it’s long past time it was said out loud.

Everything here stays free to read. If you find this kind of digging valuable and want to help keep it going, a paid subscription is just a way to chip in, not a paywall. It goes straight into the time behind pieces like this one.

Subscribe now

First, the simple version of what just happened. A group called the Election Transparency Initiative (ETI) used to operate on its own. It was founded in 2021 by Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia’s former attorney general and one of Trump’s former Homeland Security officials, who is himself a named author of Project 2025. Last month, ETI got absorbed into the Heritage Foundation, one of the biggest and most influential conservative policy organizations in the country. Cuccinelli still runs it day to day, but now it has Heritage’s lawyers, researchers, and communications team behind it, along with Heritage’s ability to reach state lawmakers across the country. Think of it like a small shop getting bought out by a chain. Same product, same owner, but suddenly a much bigger operation to sell it with.

It matters who’s doing the buying. The Heritage Foundation is the same organization that wrote Project 2025, the 900-page blueprint for reshaping the federal government that became a defining flashpoint of the last election. It isn’t a side project of Trump’s administration, it’s embedded in it. More than 70 percent of Trump’s cabinet has direct ties to groups behind Project 2025, including Russell Vought, one of the plan’s lead architects, who now runs the Office of Management and Budget, and Brendan Carr, who wrote the plan’s chapter on the FCC and now chairs it. Cuccinelli himself is on that author list. When Heritage expands an initiative, it isn’t a think tank musing from the sidelines. It’s an organization with its own people already sitting inside the government it’s trying to influence.

Heritage announced the merger using words like transparency, integrity, and confidence. Those words show up again and again in ETI’s own mission materials. What they’re covering for rarely gets said out loud, and it rarely gets said anywhere at all. Outside of Heritage’s own outlets and a scattering of conservative state blogs, this merger has barely registered in mainstream coverage. A group with this much reach quietly folded into one of the most powerful conservative policy operations in the country, and almost nobody outside its own circle wrote about it.

So let’s say it out loud. This is not a transparency initiative. It’s a voter suppression initiative wearing a transparency costume, and the costume is doing all the work.

Read The Actual List

Buried in ETI’s list of principles is one word that deserves way more scrutiny than it gets: “routine.” They call for “accurate voter registration lists through routine, lawful list maintenance.” It sounds like paperwork, filing cabinets, not politics. That’s exactly the point. “Routine” is the word chosen to make you stop paying attention right when you should be paying the most.

Here’s what “routine list maintenance” actually means in practice: mass removal of voters from the rolls, often right before an election, often sweeping up thousands of people who are still eligible to vote and have no idea they’ve been dropped.

The Group Behind The Curtain

ETI doesn’t run these purges alone. Heritage’s own materials cite the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) approvingly, and PILF has spent years pushing county election officials across the country to aggressively “clean” their voter rolls. Their legal hook is a federal law, the National Voter Registration Act, which requires states to make a “reasonable effort” to remove ineligible voters: people who’ve died, moved away, or lost eligibility.

That sounds sensible on paper. Rolls should be accurate. Nobody wants dead people or people who moved to Ohio still sitting on a Nevada voter list. But “reasonable effort” has become a weapon, not a maintenance chore. PILF and similar groups send counties formal notices demanding aggressive purges, sometimes threatening lawsuits if officials don’t comply fast enough. The pressure isn’t about accuracy. It’s about volume.

How to Break a Law Without Breaking It

Here’s the part that should make this concrete instead of abstract: there’s an actual legal deadline that’s supposed to stop this, and it’s being worked around in real time.

Federal law bans states from running systematic purge programs during the 90 days right before a federal election. That “quiet period” for this November’s midterms starts August 5, 2026, tomorrow, as of this writing. The reason the law exists is simple: mass purges done too close to Election Day don’t leave wrongly-removed eligible voters enough time to fix the mistake before they need to vote. States can still remove voters who died, moved, or asked to be taken off the rolls. What they’re not supposed to do is run a sweeping, systematic removal program in that final stretch.

So how does a group built on “routine list maintenance” get around a law specifically written to stop late, sweeping list maintenance? With a word game. Republican officials in states like Arizona and Ohio are telling courts that their purge programs don’t count as “systematic” purges at all. Their claim: bulk data-matching removals, run off databases like the federal SAVE system, are actually “individualized” reviews of one voter at a time, not a systematic program, even when the same process flags and removes thousands of people at once using the same dataset. Voting rights advocates warn many of these purge policies lack safeguards against exactly this kind of quiet-period sweep.

This isn’t a hypothetical. It already worked once. In 2024, Virginia’s governor ordered daily voter roll updates during the quiet period to remove people flagged as noncitizens through DMV records. Lower courts found that likely violated the law and briefly ordered voters restored to the rolls. The Supreme Court let the purge continue anyway, right before the election, with no written explanation. About 1,600 eligible voters were removed under that program before the dust settled. A similar Arizona case is headed to the Supreme Court this fall, and it likely won’t be resolved until after a lot of ballots are already being cast.

Put plainly: the law says stop 90 days out. The word “systematic” is the loophole ETI-aligned officials are using to keep going anyway. And if courts let it slide the way they did in 2024, the quiet period isn’t really a deadline. It’s a suggestion.

Who Actually Gets Purged

This is the part that should make you angry. Voting rights groups, including Demos, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the Brennan Center for Justice, have repeatedly had to step in and defend county officials and voters against these purge campaigns. Their finding, over and over: the voters caught up in mass purges are disproportionately low income, young, and Black or Latino. In plain terms, the same groups statistically more likely to vote Democratic.

Purging isn’t random. Rolls that skew toward one kind of neighborhood or one kind of address history get flagged first. A voter who moved twice in five years, or who registered through a same-day drive, or who shares a common last name with someone in another state, is far more likely to get swept off the list than a voter who’s owned the same house for thirty years. None of that has anything to do with whether the person is actually eligible to vote. It has everything to do with who looks “messy” on a spreadsheet.

And the stakes are brutal. A purge doesn’t announce itself. Most people who get removed don’t find out until they show up to vote and get turned away, sometimes on Election Day itself, when it’s too late to fix.

“Fraud” Isn’t There

The justification for all of this, that voter rolls are dangerously full of fraud waiting to happen, doesn’t hold up well under scrutiny. Heritage maintains an “Election Fraud Database” that groups like ETI point to as proof the threat is real. The Brennan Center for Justice reviewed it and found the numbers grossly exaggerated and devoid of context. A lot of the cases in that database aren’t fraud that succeeded. They’re fraud that got caught, meaning the existing system already worked exactly as it should. Heritage has pushed back hard on that critique, arguing the database was always labeled a sampling rather than a full study. Even so, the underlying point stands: a sampling of roughly a thousand cases spread across decades of American elections isn’t the epidemic that “routine list maintenance” is being sold to fix.

So the emergency being used to justify the purges isn’t backed by the evidence. The purges happen anyway.

Why The Heritage Merger Raises The Stakes

This isn’t new. PILF and groups like it have been running this playbook for over a decade. What’s new is the muscle now behind it. Now that ETI is inside Heritage, it has access to a legal team built for model legislation, a 50 state scorecard operation designed to pressure lawmakers, and a communications machine built to move statehouses fast. A purge campaign that used to run county by county now has one of the most powerful conservative policy operations in the country pushing it at scale, right as state legislatures gear up for the next election cycle.

Call it “routine” all you want. There’s nothing routine about deciding, quietly and at scale, who gets to stay on the list of people allowed to vote.

To find your state and register to vote click here!

Everything here is and always will be free. If this kind of reporting matters to you and you’re able to, consider chipping in with a paid subscription. It’s not for access, you’ll never hit a paywall here, it’s just a way to directly support the time that goes into tracking mergers like this one and the court fights that follow.

Subscribe now

Before you read this: I will never put anything behind a paywall. Everything I write is free, always. But this kind of reporting takes real time to source and fact check, and a paid subscription is what keeps the lights on. If you’re able to chip in, it genuinely helps. If you’re not, keep reading, it’s yours either way.

Subscribe now

For nearly thirty years, Benjamin Netanyahu tried to talk an American president into bombing Iran. He tried with George W. Bush in 2008, when he asked for a green light to hit Iran’s nuclear sites and got turned down flat. He tried with Barack Obama in 2013, making the same pitch during his first presidential visit to Israel, and got the same answer. In 2015 he went around the White House entirely and addressed Congress directly, urging lawmakers to kill Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran because, in his words, Iran posed a grave threat not just to Israel but to the peace of the entire world, according to reporting from the Cato Institute. Joe Biden refused him too.

Four presidents. Two parties. Three decades of the same pitch, rejected every single time by people with the judgment to see it for what it was. Then he found Donald Trump.

The Mark

According to former Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking publicly this spring, Netanyahu described the pitch to Trump as having four points, though Kerry’s own account named only three explicitly: that a strike could kill Iran’s leadership, incite regime change, and destroy the country’s military. Kerry watched Netanyahu make this exact case to Obama and get rejected. Obama refused. Biden refused. Bush refused. Trump said yes.

Al Jazeera reported in December that Netanyahu had been warning of an urgent Iranian threat for more than thirty years. Thirty years of the same sales pitch, rejected by every president smart enough to see through it, until he found the one who wasn’t.

This was not an American president identifying a threat and acting decisively. This was a foreign leader running the same play for three decades against smarter opposition, and finally landing it on the one man in Washington vain enough, and desperate enough for a win, to buy what he was selling. Netanyahu did not find an ally. He found a mark.

The Alliance is Cracking

By June, the war Netanyahu talked Trump into had already turned on him. When Netanyahu ordered a strike on Beirut that threatened to blow up a fragile arrangement with Iran, Trump did not respond like a man in control of his own war. According to reporting picked up by the Times of Israel, Trump said flatly that Netanyahu has no fucking judgment. That is the president who greenlit this war, cursing out the man who talked him into it, in the middle of it, because he can already see it slipping out of his hands.

Five Months, Zero Deals

Here is the part that should embarrass every person still defending this war: not once, not a single time since February 28, has a deal actually held.

A two week ceasefire in April collapsed within days. US strikes hit Tehran again by May 7. A fourteen point memorandum signed in Switzerland in June was dead within weeks, torched by Trump himself, who called it over and called Iran’s leadership scum, according to Al Jazeera. Roughly nine straight nights of strikes followed. Two American service members died at a base in Jordan for a war with no defined end. A pause called at the end of July was immediately followed by Iran’s own government stating, on the record, that what existed could not honestly be called a ceasefire, according to CNN.

This past weekend, Trump said he called off what reporting described as potentially the largest single strike on Iran since World War Two, because a deal felt close. Oil prices dropped on the news, briefly. Two days later he was back on Truth Social accusing Iran of unbelievable duplicity, insisting the Strait of Hormuz is already completely controlled by the US Navy, and repeating the same ultimatum he has been making since March: a deal, or total surrender.

Every single mechanism this administration has tried has failed. The deadlines failed. The threats of hell failed. Two separate ceasefires failed. A signed memorandum failed. The blockade has not produced surrender. There is no fixer for this, because the thing Netanyahu sold Trump was never a plan with an ending. It was a war with an opening move and nothing after it.

There Is No Undo Button

Trump built his entire public identity on the idea that he could fix anything with a deal, a phone call, a big enough check. Iran is teaching him, in real time, that some things do not come with a return policy.

Khamenei is dead. Thousands of Iranian civilians are dead, according to figures compiled by Time magazine from Iran’s own human rights monitors. More than three hundred health and medical facilities in Iran had been damaged as of early April, according to the Center for American Progress. Global GDP has taken a hit estimated at over two trillion dollars a year, a figure reported by Time that grows every single time the fighting resumes, which it keeps doing, on a schedule you could set a watch to.

None of that comes back with a phone call. There is no envoy, no summit, no Truth Social post that restores February 27. And Iran knows it. Tehran has every reason now to drag this out, deny talks are happening, and route everything through Oman instead of Washington, because trusting this administration’s word has already cost them a war they never agreed to stop.

Why He Can’t Leave

There is a theory about why this keeps happening that has nothing to do with strategy, because there isn’t one. It has to do with ego, his and the people whispering in his ear.

Reporting from Zeteo, relayed by other outlets in late February, described advisers pushing Trump toward striking Iran partly by invoking Obama’s 2013 Syria red line, the moment Obama threatened military action against the Assad regime and then didn’t follow through. If the fear that got Trump into this war was never wanting to be remembered the way Obama was after that moment, the fear keeping him in it now is that same insecurity working in reverse. Walking away without a win, to that kind of mind, is the same as becoming the cautionary tale.

Foreign Policy has called this exactly what it is: a sunk cost fallacy, playing out with real bodies attached. Five months, thousands of lives, and trillions in global economic damage are brutal things to admit were spent for nothing. And the people around him are not equipped to give him the truth even if they wanted to. The American Prospect has reported that Trump’s lead negotiator is a golfing buddy with no formal diplomatic background, who has repeatedly misread what Iran was actually offering. The men closest to this war may not even understand it well enough to tell the president how badly it is going.

This is where it gets genuinely frightening. When every normal lever, deadlines, blockades, ceasefires, sanctions, has already failed, and turning back feels impossible for reasons of pride rather than reasons of strategy, the pressure does not just evaporate. It goes looking for a bigger lever. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists warned in May that this is precisely the dynamic that can make a nuclear option start to look, from the inside of a cornered White House, like a lesser evil instead of the unthinkable act it actually is: a way to break Iran’s will and reclaim the initiative without another endless bombing campaign. The Bulletin pointed directly to Trump’s own words as evidence the rhetoric was already sliding there, including his warning in late March that a whole civilization would die that night, never to be brought back again.

Al Jazeera’s rundown of Trump’s remaining military options lists a nuclear demonstration strike as one of exactly three paths still on the table, alongside intensifying the bombing campaign or sending in ground troops, and is blunt that using one would make Trump a war criminal and unleash consequences, radioactive fallout, an electromagnetic pulse, that would reach far beyond Iran’s borders.

Yes, Trump has said publicly that he would not do this. But Trump also said Iran begged for a meeting he now insists barely happened. He said a memorandum was a deal, then called it dead weeks later. He said the war was almost over more times than anyone has bothered to count. His public statements have not been a reliable guide to his private decisions once, in five months. There is no reason to start treating this one as the exception.

What Actually Happens Now

The honest argument here is not that Trump needs a smarter strategy. It is that there is no strategy left to find, because there was never a real one to begin with, only a foreign leader’s thirty year old grudge and an American president’s ego standing in for a plan.

Don’t expect Congress to be the thing that stops it. Lawmakers have tried, repeatedly, and lost every time. The Senate voted 47 to 49 to kill a war powers resolution meant to force Trump to end hostilities, a vote that failed even as oil topped 100 dollars a barrel and the war entered a deadlier new phase. Republicans have given this administration a wide berth from the start, and the White House has simply treated each ceasefire as resetting the clock on the 60 day limit the War Powers Act is supposed to impose. Symbolic votes are not going to end this war. They haven’t yet, and there is no reason to think the next one changes that.

What might actually force a break is money. Reports of cash shortages funding the operation suggest the Pentagon will need to go to Congress for a formal supplemental request before the fiscal year is out. That is a different kind of vote than a war powers resolution. It is much harder for a lawmaker up for reelection to explain writing a blank check for a war that keeps collapsing than it is to explain a procedural no on a resolution nobody back home was tracking. Watch that vote, not the symbolic ones.

The other pressure point is casualties and the midterms, whether Trump admits it or not. Eighteen American service members are dead. Trump has taken to comparing that number favorably against past wars, which tells you he is tracking it closely even while insisting publicly that none of this touches him politically. Every American war that has dragged on this long has eventually collided with an election, and Republicans nervous about their own seats tend to find their spine faster than their conscience does.

So here is what people should actually expect. Not a graceful exit, and not Congress riding in to stop it. What is more likely is that Trump gets pushed out of this war the same way stubborn men usually get pushed out of bad decisions, not by admitting he was wrong, but because the money and the votes run out from under him before the pride does. That is a worse story than a president simply admitting a mistake and walking away. It means the off ramp, when it finally comes, will not be an act of leadership. It will be the war ending the only way something with no strategy behind it ever ends, when it becomes too expensive and too unpopular to keep pretending otherwise.

Never behind a paywall, ever. If this was worth your time, a paid subscription helps keep it that way.

Subscribe now

Sources for this piece include reporting from the Cato Institute, Al Jazeera, CNN, Time, the Times of Israel, the Council on Foreign Relations, the UK House of Commons Library, the Center for American Progress, Foreign Policy, the American Prospect, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Arms Control Association, CNBC, PBS News, and Brookings. Figures and dates are current as of the morning of August 3, 2026.

Before you read: This is Day 3 of a 10-day series correcting the American history you thought you knew. Total Hypocrisy: Unfiltered is fully reader-funded via paid subscriptions as donations. No paywall, no ads, no corporate backing. If this work matters to you, become a paid subscriber and keep it going.

Subscribe now

Two women lived a short walk apart in occupied Philadelphia during the Revolution.

One of them got a legend, a museum, a flag design named after her, and a place in every American classroom. The other risked her life to carry British battle plans through enemy lines, and you have probably never heard her name.

Here is the problem. The famous one has no evidence. The forgotten one has some.

The Betsy Ross story is a family tale told 94 years later.

Start with what you were taught: George Washington visited Betsy Ross’s upholstery shop in 1776, showed her a sketch, and she sewed the first American flag, improving the design with her five-pointed star.

Now the record. That story surfaced in 1870, when her grandson William Canby presented the family tale to the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, nearly a century after the fact. No letter, no diary, no receipt, no contemporary account connects Ross to the first flag. The Museum of the American Revolution (my favorite Philly museum), which sits in her own city, puts it plainly: without any credible historical evidence, historians generally dismiss the family story as more fiction than fact.

The mythmaking got greedy fast. An 1871 pamphlet credited her not just with the flag but with coining the name United States of America and writing the hymn behind the French national anthem. Neither claim has any evidence behind it either. The machine did not care. The country was approaching its 1876 centennial and wanted a founding mother, and Betsy Ross was cast in the role.

What does the documentary record actually show? One receipt. In 1777, the Pennsylvania State Navy Board paid her for sewing ship’s flags, which places her among several Philadelphia flag makers doing the same work. She was a real upholsterer who sewed tents, blankets, and supplies for the war effort and lost two husbands to the Revolution. A real contributor. Just not the story on the pageant stage.

Now meet her neighbor.

Lydia Darragh was an Irish-born Quaker midwife on Second Street. When the British occupied Philadelphia in the fall of 1777, General William Howe set up headquarters across the street from her house, and British officers commandeered a room in her home for meetings.

On the night of December 2, 1777, the officers ordered the family to bed early. By the family’s account, Lydia listened in and heard the plan: a surprise attack on Washington’s army at Whitemarsh, sixteen miles away, set for two days later. Her own son Charles was serving there with the 2nd Pennsylvania Regiment.

She was a pacifist by faith. She informed anyway. She obtained a pass to buy flour at the Frankford mill, walked miles through British lines with an empty flour sack, and got the warning to the Continental Army. When Howe marched on Whitemarsh, Washington’s forces were ready and waiting. After days of skirmishing, the British turned around and went back to Philadelphia.

Here is where honesty gets interesting.

A fair skeptic now objects: isn’t Darragh’s story also family lore? Yes. The full dramatic version, the eavesdropping and the interrogation afterward, was first published in 1827, a half century later, from her daughter Ann’s telling. Standing alone, it would deserve the same skepticism as the Ross legend. This series does not grade stories on how good they sound.

But Darragh’s story does not stand alone, and this is the difference that matters.

Elias Boudinot ran intelligence for Washington as commissary general of prisoners. In his private journal, he recorded that on the day in question, at the Rising Sun Tavern, a woman he described as a “little poor looking insignificant old woman” handed him an old needle book with a rolled paper inside containing intelligence that the British were coming out. He rode for Whitemarsh with it. When Boudinot’s papers surfaced decades later, they gave the family story something the Ross legend has never had: independent corroboration from inside Washington’s own intelligence operation, written by a participant.

The two accounts even disagree on details, which is what real sources do. The daughter says Lydia passed the warning to an officer on the road. Boudinot describes the needle book at the tavern. The disagreement is honest evidence of a real event remembered imperfectly, not a polished legend that improves every decade.

So separate it cleanly. Documented: the occupation, Howe’s headquarters by her house, the Whitemarsh battle, and Boudinot’s journal describing a woman delivering exactly this intelligence at exactly this time. Family tradition, labeled as such: the keyhole, the linen closet, and the British interrogation afterward. A recent full-length study by historian Robert Fanelli takes her story seriously precisely because the documented scaffolding holds.

The pattern is the point.

Ross got the legend because the legend was useful. A centennial nation wanted a domestic heroine at a sewing table, and a grandson supplied one. Darragh got forgotten because her story was inconvenient in every direction: a pacifist who broke her faith’s rules, a spy whose work was secret by design, and a woman whose receipt sat in another man’s private journal for a century.

The country did not choose its heroine by the evidence. It chose by the story, then taught the story as evidence.

That is not a quirk of the 1870s. It is a habit, and this series keeps finding it. Yesterday it was a verse removed from the anthem without explanation. Today it is a legend installed without proof while the documented woman went missing. The record is usually better than the myth. Someone just has to go read it.

Tomorrow, Day 4: Edison did not invent the light bulb. He won it.

Subscribe now

This series was researched against primary documents: manuscripts, archives, and institutional records, linked inline throughout. That work takes time, and time is funded by reader donations in the form of paid subscriptions. If you learned something today, become a paid subscriber. No paywall ever. Just receipts.

Before you read: This is Day 2 of a 10-day series correcting the American history you thought you knew. Total Hypocrisy: Unfiltered is fully reader-funded via paid subscriptions as donations. No paywall, no ads, no corporate backing. If this work matters to you, become a paid subscriber and keep it going.

Subscribe now

You have sung the first verse of the national anthem your whole life. Francis Scott Key wrote four.

The Smithsonian holds the earliest known manuscript of Key’s song and publishes all four verses on its own website. Read the third one. It includes this line: “No refuge could save the hireling and slave, from the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave.”

The land of the free has a verse about slaves finding no refuge from the grave. This is the story of who those people were, who wrote that line, and how the verse quietly disappeared.

First, meet the people the verse is about.

The War of 1812 gets taught as a rematch with Britain over shipping rights. Here is the part your textbook skipped.

In April 1814, British Admiral Alexander Cochrane issued a proclamation: enslaved people who reached British ships or lines would be freed, with the choice to enlist or be resettled as free people in British colonies. The response was enormous. By the National Park Service’s accounting, 3,608 people broke free from slavery and boarded British ships during the war.

Hundreds of the men went further. They put on British uniforms. The Corps of Colonial Marines was a unit built from formerly enslaved Americans, trained on Tangier Island in the Chesapeake, receiving the same training, pay, and equipment as white Royal Marines. Roughly 600 of them marched with the British on Washington and Baltimore.

Sit with that. Men who had been enslaved in Maryland and Virginia returned in uniform, armed, to the region that had held them. They fought at Bladensburg. They were part of the force that burned the Capitol in August 1814. Three weeks later, that same army turned toward Baltimore and Fort McHenry.

That is the army Francis Scott Key watched from the deck of a ship on the night of September 13, 1814.

Now meet the man who wrote the song.

Key was a Washington lawyer detained aboard a British truce ship during the bombardment, and by dawn he saw the flag still flying and started writing. That much of the story you know, and it is true.

Here is the rest. Key was a slaveholding lawyer from an old Maryland plantation family. He had been present weeks earlier at the Battle of Bladensburg, the rout that let the British burn Washington, a defeat delivered in part by the Colonial Marines. When he wrote a verse mocking the enemy who had boasted of destroying his country, he included the hireling and the slave among those whose blood would wash out their pollution, and celebrated that no refuge could save them from the grave.

His later career removes any doubt about where he stood. As District Attorney for Washington from 1833, Key used the office to prosecute abolitionists. In the most infamous case, he charged Reuben Crandall with seditious libel in 1836 for possessing anti-slavery pamphlets, and sought the death penalty. The jury acquitted Crandall, who died soon after of an illness contracted during his long jailing. Abolitionists in Key’s own lifetime mocked his famous line, rewriting it as the land of the free and the home of the oppressed.

Let’s play devil’s advocate. Maybe the verse means something else?

Honesty requires giving the other reading its full weight, so here it is.

Some historians argue the third verse targets the British force as a whole, not escaped slaves specifically. In this reading, hireling means Britain’s professional and mercenary soldiers, and slave was a standard insult for men serving a king. There is real evidence for the rhetorical tradition: a poem published in 1813, a year before Key’s, used hirelings and slaves to describe British troops at Bunker Hill. Key’s biographer Mark Clague reads the verse as aimed at the entire invading force.

Take that reading seriously. Now notice what it does not do.

It does not change who was in the army Key was cursing. The Colonial Marines were there, at Bladensburg where Key stood, and at Baltimore where he watched. Most historians agree Key was referring to them, but even under the narrower reading, a slaveholder wrote a verse consigning an army that included self-freed Black men to the grave, in a song declaring his country the land of the free, while thousands of people were fleeing that country to be free somewhere else. The generous interpretation rescues the word choice. It does not rescue the man, and it does not resolve the contradiction. The documented record of his life settles what the poem alone cannot.

The verse did not disappear by accident.

Here is the part that makes this a correction rather than trivia.

Key’s song was not the national anthem for most of American history. Congress made it official in 1931, more than a century after it was written. And for generations, Americans sang and were taught the whole thing. Schools taught all four verses until roughly the 1950s. The third verse was not lost. It was dropped, quietly, within living memory, without any official reckoning with what it said.

So the correction is this: you were not taught a false anthem. You were taught a quarter of one, and the missing quarter was removed rather than explained.

What happened to the people in the verse?

The men and women who escaped did not vanish when the song ended. After the war, around 700 Colonial Marines and their families were resettled in Trinidad, where they built free communities. Their descendants live there today and still call themselves Merikens. Americans.

The people the third verse wished into the grave outlived it. Their families carry the name of the country that sang about them, and that country does not know they exist.

Documented: the four verses, in the Smithsonian’s own manuscript. The Cochrane proclamation and 3,608 escapes, in the National Park Service’s records. The Colonial Marines at Washington and Baltimore. Key’s slaveholding and his prosecutions, in court records his defenders do not dispute. The 1931 adoption and the quiet mid-century amputation of the verse.

Inference, labeled as such: exactly what was in Key’s head when he wrote “hireling and slave.” He never said. His life said enough.

Tomorrow, Day 3: the wrong Philadelphia woman got the legend. Her neighbor got the receipts.

Subscribe now

This series was researched against primary documents: manuscripts, archives, and institutional records, linked inline throughout. That work takes time, and time is funded by reader donations in the form of paid subscriptions. If you learned something today, become a paid subscriber. No paywall ever. Just receipts.

Before you read: This is Day 1 of a 10-day series correcting the American history you thought you knew. Total Hypocrisy: Unfiltered is fully reader-funded via paid subscriptions as donations. No paywall, no ads, no corporate backing. If this work matters to you, become a paid subscriber and keep it going.

Subscribe now

You know the story. One rider. One horse. One shout in the dark: the British are coming!

Almost none of it is true. And we know that because Paul Revere himself wrote down what happened.

The man who told you the truth was Paul Revere.

In 1798, Revere wrote a long letter to Jeremy Belknap of the Massachusetts Historical Society describing the night of April 18, 1775 in his own hand. The Society still holds it. You can read the original manuscript with a transcription right now.

His account is better than the legend. Hold onto that thought. It will be the theme of this entire series.

There was never supposed to be one rider.

The famous lanterns were not a signal sent to Revere. They were a backup plan arranged by Revere, in case he never made it out of Boston. His letter describes the arrangement: two lanterns in the North Church steeple if the regulars moved by water, one if by land. If Revere was captured crossing the river, the warning would still go out.

The patriots did not trust the mission to one man, because the whole system was designed to survive the loss of any single rider.

That is the first correction. The midnight ride was not a solo act of heroism. It was a network doing what networks do.

Meet the second rider your textbook skipped.

His name was William Dawes.

Dr. Joseph Warren dispatched two riders that night with the same warning. Revere’s own letter records that when he arrived at Warren’s house, Warren had already sent Dawes by land. Dawes rode the long way, out through the Boston Neck and around the bay. Revere was rowed across the Charles River and rode through Charlestown. Two men. Two routes. One message. They converged at Lexington, warned Samuel Adams and John Hancock, and set off together for Concord.

Dawes got no poem. His own descendant spent the 1870s publicly accusing the poet of writing his ancestor out of the story altogether.

Revere never made it to Concord. A third man did.

On the road from Lexington, Revere and Dawes were joined by Dr. Samuel Prescott, a young Concord physician riding home after a late visit to his fiancée.

Then a British patrol stopped them.

Prescott jumped his horse over a wall and escaped. Dawes got away but was thrown from his horse and never completed the mission. Revere was captured at gunpoint, questioned, and released without his horse. He walked back to Lexington on foot.

The only rider who reached Concord that night was Prescott. The famous ride was finished by a man most Americans have never heard of, who joined it by accident at one in the morning.

You can trace all of it yourself. The Paul Revere House built an interactive map of the midnight rides that follows every stop from Revere’s front door to the capture site, including the routes your textbook never drew.

Nobody shouted that the British were coming.

The colonists were British. In April 1775, the people of Massachusetts still considered themselves British subjects, so shouting that the British were coming would have confused everyone in earshot. The warning that night was that the regulars, the professional troops, were out.

The recorded version comes from Revere’s arrival in Lexington. A sentry told him to stop making noise. Revere’s reply, by the accounts that survive: “Noise! You’ll have noise enough before long. The Regulars are coming out!”

There was also no shouting through the streets. Riders woke specific militia leaders and trusted contacts house by house, who then spread the alarm outward. Screaming through occupied countryside was a good way to get arrested and a bad way to run a covert warning network.

The version you learned was Civil War propaganda.

Here is where the myth was manufactured, and it has a date and an author.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow published his poem in 1860, 85 years after the ride, as the country slid toward civil war. He was not writing history. He was writing a national unity story for a nation about to break apart, and he needed one hero, not a network. So Dawes vanished. Prescott vanished. The capture vanished. Revere gallops into Concord in the poem, a thing that never happened.

To be fair to Longfellow, he was a poet, not a historian, and he never claimed otherwise. The failure belongs to everyone who taught the poem as the record for the next 165 years. Early readers knew it was embellished. Americans today rely on the poem for the facts more than their ancestors did a century ago. The myth is getting stronger, not weaker.

What the record actually shows…

Separate the documented from the invented and here is what remains.

Documented: Revere rode, and rode well. He arranged the lantern signal as a failsafe. He warned households from Medford to Lexington, got Adams and Hancock moving, was captured, talked his way through an interrogation with a pistol at his head, and still made it back to Lexington in time to witness the first shots of the Revolution. The Concord leg was not even his assignment. He and Dawes had completed their mission at Lexington and chose to keep going. It is all in his own letter, which is a better adventure than the poem.

Invented: the lone rider, the shout about the British, the arrival in Concord, and the erasure of two other men.

The real story is not smaller than the legend. It is bigger. A secret network, redundant signals, three riders, a capture, and a mission completed by a doctor who happened to be out late. The truth did not need improving. It needed telling.

That is what the next nine days are for.

Tomorrow, Day 2: the third verse of the national anthem, the one nobody sings, and what it celebrates.

Subscribe now

This series was researched against primary documents: manuscripts, archives, and institutional records, linked inline throughout. That work takes time, and time is funded by reader donations in the form of paid subscriptions. If you learned something today, become a paid subscriber. No paywall ever. Just receipts.

Subscribe now

Look at the chart attached to this piece before you read another word.

It is titled Die Nürnberger Gesetze, distributed across Germany starting in 1936 as an official teaching aid, sold for one Reichsmark by the Reich Committee for Public Health Service. White circles mean German blood. Black circles mean Jewish. Half shaded and quarter shaded circles mean Mischling, mixed.

It walks five family types, generation by generation, marking which marriages were allowed, which needed government approval, and which were forbidden outright. There is a box in the corner for special cases, spelling out the exact rule for a child born out of wedlock to a Jewish parent after a specific cutoff date in 1936. The state needed a formula for that too, and it built one.

This chart is what happens when a government decides that where you are born is not enough to tell it who you are, so it goes looking for the answer in your grandparents instead.

Today, a version of that same question landed on the desks of nine justices in Washington. And one of them just wrote down, in ink, how to keep asking it.

The State Builds a Formula

In September 1935, at the Nazi Party’s annual rally in Nuremberg, the Reichstag passed the Reich Citizenship Law and the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor, together known as the Nuremberg Laws. Historical accounts from the National WWII Museum describe the laws as thrown together in a rush, competing drafts scrambled together the night before, one reportedly scrawled on the back of a menu, handed to Hitler at 2:30 in the morning hours before he announced them. The laws stripped Jews of Reich citizenship and criminalized marriage and sex between Jews and citizens of German or kindred blood.

To enforce it, the regime needed a formula, because religion alone was not reliable. Too many Jewish Germans had assimilated, intermarried, or converted generations earlier. So the state turned to genealogy. The First Supplementary Decree defined a Jew as anyone descended from three or four Jewish grandparents. Two Jewish grandparents made you a Mischling of the first degree, a half Jew, reclassified as fully Jewish if you practiced the faith or married a Jew. One Jewish grandparent made you a Mischling of the second degree, a quarter Jew, generally spared unless you married into a Jewish family, at which point your own children would be born Jewish under the law.

This was not fringe material passed around in secret. It was published, government sanctioned education, designed by a Nazi propaganda official, and used to teach ordinary Germans how to sort their own family trees. By 1939, roughly 72,000 first degree and 39,000 second degree Mischlinge were living under this classification in Germany, their legal status decided entirely by the documented religious practice of grandparents some of them never met.

I want to be exact about what I am claiming, because precision is the entire point of this publication. I am not saying what follows is that. It is not. Nobody is being marched anywhere. This was a legal dispute over a federal statute, decided by justices writing public opinions subject to public scrutiny. That distinction is real and I will not pretend otherwise. What I am saying is that the mechanism in that chart, an ancestry test replacing a birthplace test for who belongs to the nation, is not theoretical, and it is not buried in the past. A government kept the paperwork. And this week, a member of the highest court in this country handed lawmakers a paperwork problem of their own to solve.

Today’s Ruling, and The Crack Left Inside It

Today the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment still means what it has meant for 160 years. Children born on U.S. soil are citizens. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion in Trump v. Barbara, striking down President Trump’s Executive Order 14160, the order that tried to strip citizenship from babies born to undocumented or temporarily present parents.

Do not relax. The vote was 6-3 on the bottom line. It is not 6-3 underneath.

Five justices, Roberts joined by Barrett, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson, said the order is unconstitutional, full stop. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented, with Thomas filing a 91-page opinion arguing the Fourteenth Amendment was only ever meant for the descendants of enslaved people, a reading NPR notes has not been embraced by any court or legal norm in a century and a half.

Then there is Justice Brett Kavanaugh. He agreed the order has to die. He refused to say the Constitution killed it. Instead, Kavanaugh ruled the order unlawful because it conflicts with an existing federal statute, 8 U.S.C. §1401(a), the law currently codifying birthright citizenship. Then he did something that should be the actual headline: he told Congress exactly how to undo it anyway.

Kavanaugh Handed Them The Blueprint

Kavanaugh’s opinion states, in writing, that Congress could amend §1401(a) or pass new legislation carving out exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily in the country, and that doing so would be consistent with his reading of the Fourteenth Amendment. He notes Congress has not done this yet. Yet is the whole ballgame.

Trump did not miss it. Within hours he posted that no constitutional amendment is needed, that Congress can finish this through ordinary legislation, and that it will have his complete and total support, demanding lawmakers start today. House Speaker Mike Johnson echoed the same statutory workaround to reporters the same afternoon, a talking point The Hill traced directly back to Kavanaugh’s language. The President and the Speaker landed on the same reading of the opinion before the ink dried. That is not a coincidence. That is a plan.

So drop the headline you were handed. The real one is this: birthright citizenship survived today by constitutional interpretation, and a sitting justice just published the statutory workaround for next time.

Why This Does Not Need Two Thirds of Anything

Here is the part that should worry you more than the ruling itself. People hear “change the Constitution” and picture the hard version: two thirds of the House, two thirds of the Senate, then three fourths of state legislatures, 38 states, signing on. That bar exists. It is brutal by design. It has almost never been cleared in modern American politics.

That is not the path Kavanaugh handed them.

He pointed Congress toward amending 8 U.S.C. §1401(a), the ordinary statute that currently codifies birthright citizenship into the U.S. Code. Changing a statute is just legislation. It needs a simple majority in the House, effectively 60 votes in the Senate to clear the filibuster, and a presidential signature. Trump has already said he will sign it. No states. No supermajority. No conventions. That is the “no long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary” line Trump posted within hours of the ruling, and it is not bluster. It is an accurate reading of Kavanaugh’s opinion.

The reason this works, in Kavanaugh’s view, is that he did not read the Fourteenth Amendment as settling this question at all. He struck down Trump’s executive order purely on statutory grounds, meaning he believes a statute can carve out exceptions to birthright citizenship without the Constitution standing in the way. Roberts’s majority disagrees. Their opinion treats the Fourteenth Amendment as already resolving this, which would mean an ordinary statute trying to narrow it is unconstitutional the moment it is signed, and headed straight back to this same Court.

So here is the honest version for the record. Trump and Speaker Johnson are betting on the low bar, a simple majority statute, using Kavanaugh’s opinion as the legal theory that gets it past a future challenge. Whether that theory survives contact with the Court that just ruled against Trump today is genuinely unresolved. But the bet itself does not require 38 states or a two thirds vote. It requires 218 House members, roughly 60 senators, and a President who has already said yes.

The Question is Old. The Method is Older.

Strip the case citations and you are left with the oldest fight in American law: who decides what makes a person American, and on what basis. Blood, or birthplace. Ancestry, or geography. Dred Scott asked it. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 answered it once. The Fourteenth Amendment answered it again. United States v. Wong Kim Ark answered it a third time in 1898, confirming the amendment protects children born here to noncitizen parents. Every round of this fight has been an argument about ancestry versus soil, and every time, the ancestry argument has come back dressed differently.

The Throughline

Here is the pattern, stated plainly, not the equivalence. A state decides birthplace alone is not a legitimate enough basis for belonging. It substitutes a test rooted in the status of your parents or ancestors instead. That test requires an administrative machine, forms, decrees, supplementary regulations, built specifically to sort human beings into belonging and non-belonging based on facts about people other than themselves. The chart at the top of this piece is what that machine looks like when it is finished.

Kavanaugh’s blueprint does not propose grandparent audits. It proposes a narrower carve out tied to whether a parent was in the country unlawfully or temporarily at the moment of birth. But it is the same structural move. It shifts the qualifying question away from the fact of being born here, and onto the immigration status of your parents, a status the child never chose and could not control. That is jus sanguinis, citizenship by blood, quietly replacing jus soli, citizenship by soil, inside a system built after the Civil War specifically to bury jus sanguinis for good.

Alito’s dissent today argued the ruling incentivizes people to enter the country illegally just to give birth. Thomas argued the amendment was never meant for anyone beyond the freed population and their direct descendants, a claim NBC News notes runs headlong into a century and a half of unbroken legal precedent, and one that, followed to its logical end, would have to explain why nobody has ever seriously questioned the citizenship of Irish, Italian, or Eastern European immigrants’ American-born children. An ancestry test applied selectively, to whichever group is currently politically disfavored, is not a new idea. It is one of the oldest tricks in this particular book.

What Happens Next

Nothing about today’s ruling forces Congress to act. But the President has publicly ordered Congress to act, Kavanaugh has published the statutory map for how, and House leadership already picked up the phrase on cue. Watch §1401(a). Watch for a bill carving out children of parents who were present unlawfully or temporarily, dressed up as a narrow technical fix to immigration law instead of what it actually is: a redefinition of who is American. It will not arrive with a chart. It will arrive with a bill number and a press release about closing a loophole.

The fight this country has been having since before the Fourteenth Amendment’s ink dried was never really about immigration policy. It is about whether being born here is enough. Today, five justices said yes. One justice showed everyone exactly where the next fight over that yes will happen, and handed Congress its opening argument. Look at the chart again. Now you know what the finished version of that argument looks like.

Subscribe now

If you want to keep seeing this kind of reporting the moment it breaks, become a paid subscriber. It is the only thing that keeps this publication independent and free for everyone.

Sources: Supreme Court opinion in Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365, June 30, 2026, supremecourt.gov. Reporting from NPR, NBC News, CNBC, The Hill, and the National Constitution Center on the ruling. Historical detail on the Nuremberg Laws and the 1936 genealogy teaching chart from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the USHMM collections catalog, the National WWII Museum, and Yad Vashem's Shoah Resource Center.

Subscribe now

Last Thursday night, June 26, 2026, Senator Chuck Schumer appeared on the second floor of the Lingua Franca townhouse in New York City's West Village. He was handed a red, white, and blue crewneck embroidered with the words "Power to the People." He sang a protest song. He told the room that the people assembled were spreading "the good word, not just in New York, not just in America, but around the world."

The room was full of content creators who had flown in for a party thrown by Lingua Franca, the luxury knitwear brand that built its identity on progressive virtue. Earlier that evening, The Resistance Revival Chorus had performed a cover of Woody Guthrie’s “All You Fascists Bound to Lose,” swapping in the word “centrists” for a few verses. It was a victory lap: three days earlier, progressive candidates backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani had swept the June 23 Democratic primaries, ousting establishment incumbents including five-term Rep. Adriano Espaillat and Dan Goldman in back-to-back upsets. The room was celebrating.

Then Chuck Schumer walked in. Schumer is not a progressive. He voted for the Iraq War in 2002. He has spent decades cultivating Wall Street donors. He has faced primary challenges from the left throughout his career. And he has been one of the most consistent supporters of U.S. military aid to Israel in the Senate, at a moment when that position puts him directly at odds with the progressive base that had just swept the primaries three days earlier.

In February 2026, Schumer publicly declared that one of his jobs as Senate Minority Leader is to “fight for aid to Israel, all the aid that Israel needs,” and that under his leadership more security assistance was delivered to Israel “than ever, ever before.” In April 2026, he voted against Bernie Sanders’s resolutions to block bomb and bulldozer sales to Israel, siding with Republicans even as the majority of his own caucus voted the other way, during a campaign the International Court of Justice has found presents a plausible risk of genocide. Protesters outside his New York office chanted “Schumer, Gillibrand pick a side, the people or genocide.” Three days after the progressive sweep, the Lingua Franca party gave him a sweater and let him sing.

Lingua Franca handed him a sweater. He sang. Nobody said anything.

That is the operating logic of this brand in one room, in one night: resistance is a product. Power gets a pass when it shows up to the party.

But the Schumer singalong is the least of it.

What They Say They Are

Lingua Franca was founded in 2016 by Rachelle Hruska MacPherson. The brand’s origin story is warm and personal: her grandmother taught her to embroider as a girl. After the 2016 election, she picked up a needle to cope with anxiety. The first sweater said “I Miss Barack.” It went viral. The rest, as they tell it, is resistance history.

Since then, Lingua Franca has grown into a luxury brand with retail locations in New York’s West Village, Montauk, and Northern California. Their sweaters run $150 to $600. Oprah wears them. So does Meryl Streep, Jane Fonda, Reese Witherspoon, and Martha Stewart.

Their public claims, stated repeatedly across their website and marketing:

• “Fair trade”

• “Sustainably sourced”

• “Ethically made”

• “A living wage for our embroiderers”

• “Hand-stitched by women in NYC”

• “The options are limitless” on custom orders

Every one of those claims has a problem.

The Women Who Make the Sweaters

Lingua Franca has a 2.3 out of 5 rating on Glassdoor, based on 7 total reviews. Only 24 percent of reviewers would recommend working there to a friend. The rating has been flat for six consecutive months.

The reviews document a consistent pattern across multiple roles and multiple years.

May 13, 2024, 1 star, “Do Not Work Here,” Anonymous, former employee, 3+ years:

“This company hires young people with little to no experience right out of college, and then manipulates and abuses them because they aren’t confident enough to advocate for themselves. They withhold overtime. They make employees cry and berate them publicly. There’s no HR. If they do hire someone older than 25, they leave within 3 months after seeing what a shitshow the workflow and culture is. That, or they’re fired because they don’t kowtow to the founder and president. This culture trickles down through all management, and breeds an environment of cruelty.”

Advice to Management: “Go to therapy.”

May 9, 2024, 2 stars, “Not Recommended,” Former Stitcher, 5+ years:

Cons: “Exploitative. Treatment of employees not equal.”

Advice to Management: “Two tier system here. Exploitative and unappreciative, but demanding. Not feminist. Management is thoughtless. I’ve witnessed employees be made to cry on several occasions.”

January 11, 2025, 1 star, “Do Not Work for Rachelle Hruska MacPherson,” Anonymous, 1+ year:

Pros: “The company is so disorganized they don’t know where you are half the time.”

Cons: “Clueless white rich woman who created this company with her husband’s money as her play thing. She is completely politically incorrect and uses this as a front.”

The overtime withholding allegation is not a culture complaint. It is an alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, both of which require time-and-a-half pay for hours over 40 per week. As of September 2023, wage theft is classified as larceny under New York Penal Law section 155. Workers have six years to file a claim.

The Living Wage Claim Does Not Hold Up

Lingua Franca’s mission statement says they are “proud to pay our embroiderers, all local women in NYC, a living wage.”

In a 2018 interview with Ms. Magazine, MacPherson said the company employed 50 embroiderers at $25 an hour. That figure is eight years old, self-reported by the founder in a favorable profile, and has never been independently verified or updated.

We do not have to speculate about what Lingua Franca actually pays today. Four days ago, on June 25, 2026, the day before the collaboration cocktail event, the company posted a job listing on Simply Hired for a Machine Embroidery Production Assistant in New York, NY. The listed pay: $17 to $20 an hour. Part-time. The listed benefits: on-the-job training and a flexible schedule. The listed qualifications include Spanish, suggesting the company expects its applicant pool to be largely immigrant workers.

The MIT Living Wage Calculator, updated February 2026, puts the living wage for a single adult with no children in Manhattan at $38.21 per hour. For a single adult with one child, it is $60.92 per hour.

At $17 to $20 an hour, a full-time Lingua Franca embroiderer would earn between $35,360 and $41,600 a year before taxes. This posting is part-time, meaning the actual annual earnings are lower still. That is not a living wage. It is barely above New York City’s legal minimum of $17 an hour, which went into effect January 1, 2026.

The $25/hour figure MacPherson cited in 2018 was already $13 below MIT’s current living wage threshold. The current posting suggests the actual rate may be lower than the 2018 claim, not higher. The brand’s own hiring behavior, in the present tense, contradicts the living wage claim it has made for nearly a decade.

There is a second problem with this posting. Lingua Franca's entire brand identity rests on the claim that their sweaters are hand-stitched by women in NYC. The job posting is not for a hand embroiderer. It is for a Machine Embroidery Production Assistant. Machine embroidery is a mechanized process, faster and less skilled than hand stitching, and it typically commands lower wages, which tracks with the $17-$20 range being offered. The brand has never publicly disclosed what percentage of its production is hand-stitched versus machine-produced. If machine embroidery is part of the pipeline, the signature claim that defines both the product and its price point deserves a direct answer.

The “Fair Trade” Label Is Self-Applied

Lingua Franca calls itself “fair trade” across its website and marketing materials. That term has a specific meaning, and they do not meet it.

Legitimate fair trade certification requires in-person audits by an independent body, verified wage minimums, and in most cases an additional community development premium paid directly to workers.

Lingua Franca appears in none of the certified brand registries. No audit. No certification mark. No external verification of any kind. “Fair trade” in the United States garment industry is an unregulated term. Any brand can use it. Lingua Franca does, without accountability.

The Selective Politics of “Limitless” Options

Lingua Franca’s website advertises custom orders with the promise that “the options are limitless.”

In 2025, Alison Himel, a 60-year-old woman from Toronto, placed a $446.27 order for a navy crewneck with “Proud Zionist” embroidered on the front in light blue letters. She never received it. Lingua Franca first told her the color was out of stock, then blamed technical issues. Eventually she received an email stating: “After careful internal discussions, and given the current political climate in the Middle East, we’ve made the difficult decision not to produce sweaters that directly reference this ongoing conflict.”

This is not an endorsement of that order. Zionism is a contested political position, and a brand declining to produce messaging around an active conflict is a defensible call.

What is not defensible is the contradiction. The same brand that cited the political climate in the Middle East as its reason for declining the order just threw a party for Chuck Schumer, who publicly declared his job is to fight for military aid to Israel “all the aid that Israel needs” and voted against blocking bomb sales to Israel as recently as April 2026.

Lingua Franca does not stay out of Middle East politics. It picks a side through who it platforms. It just will not stitch that position onto a sweater for a customer who names it too directly. The options are not limitless. The limits track with whose politics the brand is comfortable being seen endorsing.

Now About That Party

Which brings us back to last Thursday and the room full of content creators.

Those creators were affiliated with Chorus, a nonprofit influencer network that MacPherson has formally partnered with, built a dedicated Chorus Creator Collection around, and publicly credited as her source of hope. “It was the first time I was like, ‘OK, this is giving me hope,’” she told WWD.

Here is what Chorus actually is.

Chorus is a fiscally sponsored project of the Sixteen Thirty Fund, one of the most powerful donor networks in American politics. A Sixteen Thirty Fund spokesperson confirmed the relationship on the record: “Sixteen Thirty Fund became a fiscal sponsor of Chorus in April 2025.” The fund is not required to disclose its donors, even as it spends hundreds of millions on political activities.

Before going further: dark money is not inherently good or bad. Both parties use it. The Koch network runs it on the right. Arabella Advisors runs it on the left. The problem is not the ideology. The problem is what happens when money from undisclosed sources pays people to pose as independent voices.

That is exactly what Chorus did. Journalist Taylor Lorenz documented in Wired that starting in spring 2025, Chorus recruited liberal political influencers with monthly stipends of $250 to $8,000, under contracts that prohibited them from disclosing that they were being paid, or that the money came from Chorus or the Sixteen Thirty Fund. Over 90 influencers were enrolled. Creators told Wired the contract stipulated they would be cut off financially if they so much as acknowledged they were part of it.

The scheme was described from inside by Chorus’s own lawyer, Graham Wilson, on a Zoom call reviewed by Wired: “It gives us the ability to raise money from donors. It also, with this structure, it avoids a lot of the public disclosure or public disclaimers, you know, ‘Paid for by blah blah blah blah,’ that you see on political ads. We don’t need to deal with any of that. Your names aren’t showing up on, like, reports filed with the FEC.”

After the story broke, the Sixteen Thirty Fund formally severed its ties to Chorus, which restructured into a new entity called Creator Collective, registered three days after congressional investigators sent their first inquiry. Who is now funding Creator Collective is not publicly known. There is no disclosure requirement. The funding went from one opaque structure to another, mid-investigation, and nobody outside the organization knows who is currently writing the checks. The Sixteen Thirty Fund then produced 135 pages of documents over six months of the congressional investigation, less than one page per day.

It is worth noting that the congressional investigation is led by Republican James Comer and follows partisan lines. That does not change what Lorenz documented independently, what the fund confirmed on the record, or the fact that Chorus restructured the moment investigators came knocking.

A Note on Why Disclosure Matters

Investigative journalism does not have a team. When it is working correctly, it is the invisible fourth branch of government: the check on power that exists outside institutional structures, answerable only to the documented record. This piece is written by a leftist author about a brand that markets itself to the left. That is not a contradiction. That is the job.

The reason disclosure matters is not procedural. Audiences cannot evaluate what they are reading if they do not know who is paying for it. A creator who tells you what to think about a politician while being paid by an undisclosed network to do exactly that is not informing you. They are managing you. The fact that the political direction happens to be one you agree with does not change what the transaction is.

Lingua Franca built a brand on the idea that it gives a damn. It sells sweaters to people who believe they are buying from a grassroots, ethical, independent voice. Then it flew thirty creators from that network to its townhouse, dressed them in product, and stood alongside Senator Schumer as he sang for the room.

The women who stitched those sweaters say overtime gets withheld. The “living wage” claim is eight years old and unverified, and a current job posting suggests the actual rate is lower. The “fair trade” label is self-applied with no certification.

The Bottom Line

A $380 sweater that says “Poverty Is Sexist.” Workers describing a two-tier system where employees are made to cry in public. A current job posting offering $17 to $20 an hour while the brand claims to pay a living wage. A custom order policy that stops at Jewish pride while the founder platforms one of the Senate’s most pro-Israel voices. A party for an influencer network that paid people to pretend they were not being paid. Chuck Schumer singing while the room celebrated beating his wing of the party three days earlier.

This is what “Give a Damn” looks like when the receipts come in.

If you are one of the workers who stitched those sweaters and believe you were denied overtime, file a complaint with the New York State Department of Labor at labor.ny.gov or by calling 888-469-7365. New York’s statute of limitations for wage claims is six years.

If you have worked at Lingua Franca and want to talk, contact Total Hypocrisy: Unfiltered at TotalHypocrisyMGMT@gmail.com.

Total Hypocrisy: Unfiltered is an independent, reader-funded publication. No advertisers. No corporate backing. No teams. To keep this reporting free and accessible, consider becoming a paid subscriber:

Subscribe now

Sources: WWD, Lingua Franca x Tiny Pricks x Chorus party, June 26, 2026 | Wired / Taylor Lorenz, Chorus dark money investigation, Aug. 2025 | House Oversight Committee, Chorus investigation launch, Nov. 2025 | House Oversight Committee, continued investigation, March 2026 | House Oversight Committee, subpoena issued, May 2026 | Daily Signal, Sixteen Thirty Fund confirmation | InfluenceWatch, Chorus profile | User Magazine, Chorus creator complaints | Simply Hired, Lingua Franca Machine Embroidery Production Assistant posting, June 25, 2026 | MIT Living Wage Calculator, Feb. 2026 | Glassdoor, Lingua Franca NYC reviews | Ms. Magazine interview with MacPherson, Sept. 2018 | WWD, Lingua Franca brand profile | Fair Trade Federation, certification standards | The Free Press, Proud Zionist sweater, Aug. 2025 | Common Dreams, Schumer Israel aid statement, Feb. 2026 | The Intercept, Schumer Israel arms vote, April 2026 | Fair Labor Standards Act, overtime requirements | NYS DOL, wage theft guidance

Before we start, a note on the receipts. Throughout this piece you will see codes like EFTA01829313. Each one is a single page from the government’s official Jeffrey Epstein document release. Lawyers call these Bates numbers. Think of them as the file stamp printed on the bottom corner of each page so it can be found again. You can look them up in the U.S. Justice Department’s Epstein library or simply click the individual links throughout the article. When I say a thing is documented, I mean there is a stamped page that says so.

One more promise. I will tell you what the documents prove. I will also tell you, clearly, where they stop proving and start raising questions. Those are two different things, and mixing them up is how stories like this fall apart.

A word on how this gets made. Pieces like this take days of digging through scanned court files to get every date and dollar figure right. I keep the work free, with no paywall. If you want to keep it that way, consider a paid subscription. Think of it as a donation that funds the next investigation, not a key to the content. The receipts stay free for everyone.

Subscribe now

Here is the strongest thing the documents show. Jeffrey Epstein, a registered sex offender, fresh out of jail and supposedly under the control of the courts, took personal command of the people hired to watch him. And it was not just the private guards. The sheriff’s deputies assigned to watch him during his jail term were on his payroll too. Every layer of his supervision ended up answering to the man it was supposed to be supervising.

The Summer He Went Shopping for Guards

Jeffrey Epstein left jail in Palm Beach, Florida, in July 2009. He had pleaded guilty in a state case and served his time under an unusually soft arrangement. By the time he walked out, he was a registered sex offender, and he was supposed to be under close supervision.

Watch how fast he took control of his own security.

It started with a request to meet the candidates. On July 13, 2009, Epstein emailed an assistant: "i want to meet the prospective guards from wackenhut, please organize." That is page EFTA01829313. The reply chain shows the assistant asking "This week?" and Epstein answering "yes." That is EFTA01829388. So before the guards were even hired, the man under supervision wanted to sit down and look them over himself.

The guards were one item on a to-do list. A separate email from that same week, EFTA00882257, is a ten-item personal task list. Item seven is simply “wackenhut,” sitting on the list next to things like phones, a safe, and a camera. To Epstein, his security detail was a line item, like buying office equipment.

The candidate meeting was set up through his lawyer’s office. In one thread the assistant arranges the meeting with the security candidates, and Epstein replies with two words, “jacks off,” which reads as shorthand for “Jack’s office,” meaning the office of his attorney Jack Goldberger. Those are pages EFTA02440030 and EFTA01829732. Keep Goldberger in mind. He is about to become the center of this whole arrangement.

Then Epstein got specific, and this is the detail that should stop you. On July 17, 2009, he told his assistant to tell the guards he wanted a particular officer, “OFFICER GENT,” for the Thursday morning shift and for “every tuesday morning at the 7 shift.” In the same message he said he wanted that officer to “take him to probation.” Those are pages EFTA01816292 and a duplicate at EFTA00882291.

Sit with that. Probation is the supervised check-in that a person under court control must attend. Epstein hand-picked a specific guard, set his shifts by name, and wanted that same guard to personally drive him to the appointment where the state was supposed to be keeping tabs on him. The man being supervised was choosing his own escort to supervision.

The guards rearranged their schedules to fit him. The next day, July 18, 2009, the assistant wrote back about shuffling the roster, mentioning a lead officer named Russ on the day shift and asking whether Epstein wanted the schedule changed to put his requested officer on days instead. That is EFTA02440205. A Wackenhut manager named Eduardo Rodriguez also runs through these records. The detail bent itself around Epstein’s preferences.

And he was wired straight into their contact list. On July 21, 2009, the day his contract took effect, the assistant asked whether to put last names on the list of phone numbers being handed to the guards, and whether to give them Epstein’s cell phone and house number. That is EFTA02440291, with a copy at EFTA00772848. The guards were being plugged directly into his personal lines.

Let me be fair here, because fairness is the point of this whole publication. A wealthy client asking for a specific guard, or to meet the team, is not a crime by itself. Plenty of people do it. But this was not a movie star managing paparazzi. This was a registered sex offender, fresh out of jail and supposedly under the control of the courts, personally selecting, scheduling, and directing the private force around his home. The guards worked for him. Not for the court.

It Wasn’t Just Private Security. Epstein Was Paying the Cops Too.

And here is the part that turns this from a rich man’s quirk into something structural. The private Wackenhut guards were not even the first watchers Epstein was paying. The official ones were on his tab first.

Go back to his jail time. Under his 2008 plea deal, Epstein served 13 months in the Palm Beach County Stockade, but he spent most of it on work release. He was let out of his cell up to 12 hours a day, six days a week, to sit in his office. Sheriff’s deputies were assigned to watch him while he was out. PBS NewsHour and the Associated Press laid out the arrangement, including the loophole that allowed it. Sex offenders are barred from Florida work release, but officials said Epstein qualified because he was not yet a registered sex offender when he served his time.

Now the part that matters most. Epstein paid for those deputies. His foundation reimbursed the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office $128,136 for the officers who guarded him during his incarceration, according to records obtained by WPTV’s Contact 5. Read that twice. The sworn law enforcement officers assigned to keep tabs on a convicted sex offender were being paid by the convicted sex offender.

And the watching was thin. A deputy who worked the detail later told WPTV that he was ordered to follow Epstein’s car in a sheriff’s vehicle and to wait in the driveway when he went into his house, so he had no idea what happened inside. He said that was part of why he stopped working the detail. And even though Epstein was supposed to stay at his office, records show deputies escorted him to his Palm Beach mansion at least eight times.

I want to be straight with you about this part. It is not new. The work release, the deputies, the payments, and the soft supervision have been reported since 2019, and Florida’s state police later reviewed how the Sheriff’s Office handled it. What is new is putting it next to what comes below. The same thing is happening on both sides. The man under watch is paying the people watching him. First the public deputies. Then, as you are about to see in detail, the private guards. The badge changed. The arrangement did not.

He Ran Them Like Room Service

Back to those private guards, because they show the same arrangement in even sharper detail. If there was any doubt about who was in charge of them, an email from later that year settles it.

On December 19, 2009, Epstein sent a short order: “call wackenhut , I want 24 hrs a day for the next two weeks.” His assistant asked if he meant immediately. Epstein replied, “starting tomorrow morning.” That exchange is EFTA00766631, and the follow-up reply is preserved again at EFTA00743895.

There was no request and no negotiation over price. He simply told them to put his house under 24-hour guard, and it happened the next morning. A man under court supervision was setting his own security schedule with a one-line email.

What the Guards Wrote Down Every Night

This is not a story about a couple of emails. There was a real, working surveillance operation at the house, and the guards documented it shift by shift.

The records include stacks of handwritten security officer reports, written on G4S Wackenhut letterhead, logging the post at Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion, 358 El Brillo Way around the clock. You can watch the officers rotate through them. An officer named Donnie Ingram worked the overnight shift, roughly 10 at night to 8 in the morning. An officer named John Henley took the day shift. An officer named Christopher Schmidt also rotated in. They logged perimeter checks, gate activity, and notes on the client moving around his own property at night.

The batches run across the whole period. One set of 39 pages covers December 2009, page EFTA01837281. Another covers late December into January, page EFTA01157876. February into March is at EFTA01157553, and notes that one officer took over the post on February 1. April is at EFTA01157608. Late May into June is at EFTA01157694. June into July, the tail end of the contract, is at EFTA01157636, and includes small human details like a malfunctioning east gate, a note to call someone named Janusz about the gate being open, and a logged sighting of a person in the office.

None of this is dramatic on its own. That is the point. It is the ordinary, around-the-clock paper trail of a private watch operation, running every day at the home of a man the public was told the state was watching.

The Lawyer Was the Cutout

Here is where a story about guards becomes a story about a system.

The Wackenhut contract was not signed by Epstein. It ran through his criminal defense lawyer, Jack Goldberger, and his firm. It was handled under attorney-client confidentiality, a legal shield that normally keeps a lawyer’s work private. The guards reported to the lawyer. The contract even specified that a client-provided vehicle would stay at the residence at all times. That contract is page EFTA01157828.

In plain terms, the surveillance of a sex offender’s home was structured so that it sat behind a lawyer’s privacy shield.

Again, the fair version first. Running a defendant’s day-to-day logistics through his attorney is normal. That confidential label covers a lot of dull paperwork, and there is nothing inherently illegal about it.

But look at the effect, whatever the intent. A private guard force, and all the money paying for it, was wrapped in legal privilege, at the home of a man the public believed the state was supervising. That is not a conclusion about anyone’s motive. It is a description of how the paperwork was built.

Follow the Money

The money trail is its own story, and it is specific down to the penny.

Two cost statements show the payments going out early. One, dated September 10, 2009, lists two Wackenhut payments of $11,313.94 and $5,194.97. That is page EFTA00725395. Another, dated October 7, 2009, lists two more Wackenhut payments of $9,270.67 and $11,661.89. That is EFTA00725394. The guarding was not cheap, and the bills were piling up fast.

The money moved through the lawyer’s account. In an April 22, 2010 email, an Epstein aide reported that after paying Wackenhut more than eleven thousand dollars and paying about fifty-five hundred in rent, only about two thousand was left in “Jack’s account,” and asked whether to wire in more. Epstein wrote back that he wanted to see the Wackenhut invoices. That email is EFTA01811503. So Epstein was personally checking the guard bills.

The account ran dry under the weight of it. A May 28, 2010 email, EFTA02417300, reports that a person in Goldberger’s office, Sherry Mahoney, was overdrawn by ten thousand dollars after paying out for several things including Wackenhut.

And the bills kept coming even after the contract ended. The detail wrapped up in July 2010. But an August 12, 2010 email, EFTA00734516, shows Mahoney needing another $159.08 to cover a final, trailing Wackenhut bill. The names handling the cash run through these pages: Darren Indyke and Rich Kahn on the money side, Sherry Mahoney in the lawyer’s office paying the guards out.

So the picture is complete. Money flowed in from Epstein’s financial people, through his lawyer’s account, and out to the guard company, with Epstein himself asking to see the invoices. The surveillance and its financing both lived behind the lawyer.

While the State Said It Was Watching Him, His Own Guards Were on Duty

There is a second, separate batch of Florida records that makes the whole thing sharper. After he got out of jail, the watching passed from the sheriff’s deputies to the state’s probation system, and the paperwork tells the same kind of story. It is the state’s own supervision file, pages EFTA00181807 through EFTA00182343. This is the official paperwork of Epstein’s community control, which is the strict form of supervision he was under after release.

This file contains the routine machinery of supervision. Daily activity logs. Monthly check-in reports listing his residence and employer. The written conditions he was supposed to follow. Paperwork to move his supervision to New York. Travel permission forms. The state corrections officers handling him are named in it.

It also contains schedules that read like flight plans. One line says, "Leave 358 El Brillo way for galaxy Aviation," dated in early 2010. Galaxy Aviation is a private jet operation.

Now set the two stories side by side. On one side, the state of Florida is filing monthly reports about a man it claims to be supervising closely. On the other side, that same man is hand-picking his own guards, ordering them around the clock, and, according to his own schedules, leaving his court-ordered home for a private jet terminal. His release deal had already been condemned as a sweetheart arrangement by the Miami Herald in its “Perversion of Justice” investigation. These records show what that softness looked like in daily practice.

I am not going to tell you a court has ruled that he broke a specific condition. I cannot prove that from these pages, and I will not pretend otherwise. What I can show is that the documents place his private guards and his private jet departures inside the very window the public was told he was confined. Whether each of those trips was authorized is the obvious next question, and the records to answer it exist.

Now Remember Who Wackenhut Really Was

Step back from Epstein for a moment, because to understand the next chapter you have to understand the company he hired. Wackenhut was never an ordinary rent-a-guard outfit. It was a spying company.

It was founded in the 1950s by George Wackenhut, a former FBI agent who left the Bureau and built a private security and intelligence empire. The investigative outlet MuckRock went through his FBI file and traced his rise from a washed-out federal agent to a private operator whose firm became known for collecting information on Americans. Over the decades the company guarded some of the most sensitive sites in the country. Nuclear weapons plants. Government buildings. U.S. embassies overseas. The Alaska oil pipeline.

And here is the part that matters for what comes next. Wackenhut got caught running a spy operation against a critic.

In 1991, the company that operates the Alaska oil pipeline, Alyeska, admitted it had hired Wackenhut to spy on an outspoken critic named Charles Hamel. Hamel had been feeding information about safety and environmental problems to Congress and the press. The spying campaign included surveillance, agents posing as environmentalists to pull documents out of him, and even tracing his phone calls to find his sources. When it blew up, the pipeline company took out full-page newspaper ads to apologize, and its president admitted the spying was wrong. Congress held hearings. You can read the contemporaneous wire report from UPI here.

That is the company Jeffrey Epstein hired to watch his own house. And watching is exactly what they did, in both directions.

The Man Being Watched Was Also Watching

This is where that history stops being background and starts explaining what happened at the house.

At the Epstein property, the guards did not just watch the front door. They watched the people watching Epstein.

In March 2010, the officers logged a string of surveillance incidents. On March 5, according to the guard’s incident report, a man and a woman in a black Mercedes pulled up and yelled at the post, called Epstein a name no one would print on a billboard, said he should not be allowed to live in the neighborhood, and told police dispatch that, in their words, Epstein “has the whole city of Palm Beach in his pocket.” A Palm Beach police captain responded and found the guards had done nothing wrong. That is the officer’s own account, logged in the report. Treat it as the guard’s account of what a neighbor shouted, not as proven fact about the neighbor.

Then it got more serious. On March 13, the guards logged a man on foot near a dead end by a pump station. On March 17, they logged a grey Chrysler 300, Florida plate 493TCT, parked on a rise where it could look down on Epstein’s block, which the officer described as a perfect spot to watch the house. On March 23, the same Chrysler, same plate, backed into a vacant lot positioned to face Epstein’s street, and the driver followed the guard before breaking off. All four of those incident reports are bundled together in page EFTA01157905.

Here is where the company’s spying history echoes. Days later, a Wackenhut area supervisor named Tom Hartog emailed the Palm Beach police chief and named two men as suspected surveillance operatives. He tied one of them to Scott Rothstein, a Florida attorney who was later disbarred for running one of the biggest financial frauds in the state’s history. That email is page EFTA00761772.

Discipline matters here, so hold the line with me. The documents call those men suspected. They do not prove the Chrysler belonged to them. I am not telling you who was in that car. What the records do show, plainly, is this. Epstein’s private guards were running counter-surveillance. They were spotting, describing, and tailing other people’s investigators, and reporting them to the police chief by name. The watched man had hired watchers who watched the watchers.

That is not a coincidence of personality. That is the kind of work the Wackenhut company had been doing for decades.

Epstein Sued the Victims’ Lawyer, and That Is How We Know Any of This

Here is a question worth asking. If all of this was wrapped in attorney-client privilege and run through a lawyer’s office, how did these documents ever see daylight?

The answer is its own damning story.

Epstein did not just defend himself. He went on the attack. He filed a lawsuit, as the plaintiff, against several people including Bradley Edwards, the attorney who represented his victims. Edwards fought back with a counterclaim. So the man who had pleaded guilty in a child sex case was now suing the lawyer for the people he had harmed.

In that legal fight, it was Edwards’s side that pried the guard records loose. Edwards’s attorney, Jack Scarola, subpoenaed Wackenhut for its records and took sworn testimony from the guards. The deposition of officer Donnie Ingram was set for February 25, 2011. The deposition of officer Christopher Schmidt was set for February 28, 2011. Those subpoena packages are pages EFTA01102234 and EFTA01102227, both signed by Scarola as the attorney for Bradley Edwards.

In other words, the only reason the public can see how Epstein ran his own guards is that Epstein sued his victims’ lawyer, and the lawyer fought back hard enough to drag the guard company’s files into the open.

And the lawyer wanted more than the logs. A separate subpoena in 2011 demanded that the guard company hand over its computer systems, network diagrams, lists of devices, and data maps, not just the paper reports. That is page EFTA02770017. Read between the lines. Someone believed the security company held an electronic record of every person who came and went from that house. Those visitor records, if they still exist, are the single most important document nobody has published yet.

From Epstein’s Driveway to an ICE Cellblock

Now the connection that should not sit easy with anyone who follows immigration detention.

The company that guarded Epstein was The Wackenhut Corporation, the spying firm we walked through earlier. By 2009 the guard business had been bought by a global security giant called G4S. The Epstein records prove this on the company’s own letterhead. The 2011 cover letter that delivered the guard files comes from “G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.” at an address literally named “4200 Wackenhut Drive.” That is page EFTA01077415. The Epstein files themselves document the company’s evolution.

Here is the family tree, kept simple.

In 1984, Wackenhut started a prison branch called Wackenhut Corrections Corporation. Around 2003, that branch took its own name. It became The GEO Group. Prison Legal News reported the rename. The man who built that prison business, George Zoley, still runs The GEO Group today as its top executive. The prison branch had been chasing federal immigration detention contracts since the 1980s, back when the agency was still called INS, long before it was renamed ICE.

The GEO Group is the company now operating Delaney Hall, an immigration detention center in Newark, New Jersey, with room for about 1,000 people. ICE is the federal agency that detains and deports immigrants. GEO runs Delaney Hall under a 15-year contract it says is worth about one billion dollars. ICE work now brings in close to half of GEO’s revenue, and the company posted a record profit last year. Delaney Hall is not a one-off. GEO today runs 19 detention facilities for ICE across the country, what NPR describes as nearly two dozen, holding tens of thousands of people.

This is also a company with a documented record of how it treats the people it holds. At a GEO Group-run ICE facility in Tacoma, Washington, the company paid detainees one dollar a day to do the work that kept the place running, from the kitchen to the laundry to cleaning. In 2021, a jury found that violated state minimum wage law, and The GEO Group was ordered to pay millions in back wages, a verdict an appeals court upheld. The Washington Attorney General’s office laid out the case here. A similar one-dollar-a-day labor lawsuit out of a GEO Group facility in Aurora, Colorado, reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which in early 2026 ruled against the company on a procedural question and let the case proceed. The Tacoma facility has also seen hunger strikes and deaths in custody.

And the secrecy theme follows the company right into the present. At Delaney Hall, New Jersey’s own health inspectors and the city of Newark say they have been blocked from fully inspecting the building. The state and the city are both in court trying to get inside or shut it down. The company argues its federal contract shields it from state and local rules.

Now the honest part, because this is exactly where weaker versions of this story collapse, and where this publication demands more.

The guard company that watched Epstein and the prison company that runs Delaney Hall are not the same company today. They are more like cousins. They grew from the same Wackenhut family tree and then split. The guard side became part of G4S. The prison side became The GEO Group. If a defender wants to point that out, they are right, and you should say so before they do. The lineage itself is not a secret. Others have traced Wackenhut to The GEO Group to Delaney Hall before. What has not been done, until now, is connecting that bloodline back to the guards Jeffrey Epstein hand-picked to watch his own house.

But that is the point, not the escape hatch. These are two branches of one private security family, both grown from one former FBI agent’s spying business. One branch guarded a sex offender’s mansion and ran counter-surveillance in his driveway. The other branch now holds about a thousand people for the federal government behind doors that New Jersey’s own inspectors say they cannot fully enter, and it has been caught paying the people it holds a dollar a day for their labor. Same roots. Same founding family still atop the prison side. And the same habit running through all of it, from a pipeline critic in 1991 to a Newark cellblock in 2026: private control, public money, and as few outside eyes as possible.

Here is the line that connects the whole story. Epstein proved that a man with enough money could buy the people assigned to watch him. He bought the sheriff’s deputies. He bought the private guards. The GEO Group is what that same idea looks like once it grows into an industry. A private company, paid with public money, holding people for the government, with the doors locked against anyone who wants to check. Epstein did it for himself, for two years, behind one lawyer. The GEO Group does it at scale, for a billion dollars, with a federal contract. The question the documents force is not just what Epstein got away with. It is why we keep handing the job of watching people to whoever is being paid to do it, and then letting them lock the door.

What Should Happen Now

The documents above are real, they are public, and they are specific. They also leave open questions that the paper alone cannot close. So here is the ask, in plain terms.

Release the rest of the Epstein guard file. The visitor logs and sign-in sheets that recorded who came to that house. The full sworn testimony of the officers who guarded it. The complete state supervision file, checked against the original scans, so the public can finally see whether Epstein’s private jet trips during his supervised period were authorized or not. Release the work-release records too, including the logs the sheriff’s deputies were supposed to keep of everyone who came and went from his office, and whatever Florida’s state police found when they finally reviewed how the Sheriff’s Office handled him.

Then turn that same demand for transparency on the company’s living descendant. If one private security bloodline can spy for a convicted sex offender in 2010 and run a billion-dollar federal detention contract in 2026, with the same founder still at the top of the prison side and the same instinct to lock the doors against inspectors, then the public deserves a hard, independent look at how GEO Group treats the people it now holds, and at who is allowed to walk inside and check.

Epstein got to pick his own guards. He got to set their hours. He paid the sheriff’s deputies who were supposed to watch him, then paid private guards on top of them. Every watcher he had was on his payroll. The people inside Delaney Hall do not get to pick anything, and the company holding them does not want anyone looking. The least the rest of us can do is refuse to stop looking.

A note before you scroll. This piece embeds video of violence against protesters. If that is not something you can watch right now, you do not have to. The reporting will keep.

Subscribe now

A woman stood on a strip of industrial road in Newark, New Jersey on Father’s Day and held an American flag upside down. That is not vandalism. It is a recognized signal of a nation in distress, written into the U.S. Flag Code for moments of dire danger. She waved it. She walked. A car came through the gate of the ICE detention center known as Delaney Hall behind her.

The car did not stop. She was hit.

That same afternoon, a few yards away, another woman was forced to the ground by federal officers and held there while people screamed at them to let her go.

Both of these happened on the same Sunday, outside the same jail. While most of the country was looking at a reflecting pool’s peeling paint, this is what was happening in New Jersey. Let me walk you through it the way I walk through everything. Slowly, and with the receipts.

Start With the Place Itself

If you have never been to Delaney Hall, you are not alone. I have not stood on that road either. So here it is the way reporters on the ground describe it. The facility sits on Doremus Avenue, a long industrial stretch beside the Passaic River, the kind of place you would not visit without a specific reason. It sits beside a sewage treatment plant and a garbage dump, where the air can carry sulfur and rot. That is part of the story. You do not tuck a place you are proud of into a corner like that.

Inside that building is the largest immigrant detention center in the Northeast. It is run for ICE by a private company called The GEO Group, one of the two giants of the for-profit prison industry. GEO holds a roughly $1 billion contract to operate the facility for fifteen years. That is not a typo. One billion dollars, public money, paid to a private company to hold people.

That is the setting. Now the people.

The People Behind the Fence Are Mostly Not Who You Were Told

The protests did not start on the street. They started inside.

On May 22, hundreds of detainees launched a joint hunger and labor strike over conditions inside the building, according to the American Friends Service Committee, which keeps in regular contact with people held there. Their demands were not radical. The release of the elderly, the pregnant, the young, and the seriously ill. A fair review of their cases. An end to pressure to sign their own deportations. And the firing of a guard whom detained women accuse of sexually assaulting at least 10 of them, a staff member who they say is still working inside.

Here is the detail that should reset how you read the word “detainee.” WHYY reported that roughly 70 percent of the people held inside have no criminal history. Families say detainees are served spoiled food, given dirty water, and denied medical care. Some women, family members allege, have miscarried without proper treatment.

The retaliation, by multiple accounts, was swift. The Intercept reported that staff transferred strike leaders to other facilities to separate them and shut down family visitation. One detainee’s wife described, through a translator to WHYY, guards throwing tear gas into a housing unit where her asthmatic husband was held. She said he told her he could not breathe, was hospitalized, then returned and placed in solitary confinement for days.

So when families showed up outside on Father’s Day with signs reading “Free the dads, Close the camps,” and hung neckties on the fence, that is who they were there for. Gabriela Soto, whose husband is being held in a different New Jersey immigration detention center in Elizabeth, was among those at the family vigil on Sunday. Martin Soto was detained by ICE on Feb. 2 while he was out buying diapers, his family says, and in the months since his pregnant wife has become one of the most prominent voices at the protests outside Delaney Hall in Newark.

Hold that picture. A vigil. Neckties on a fence. Children’s drawings. That is the backdrop for what happened next.

What Happened on Father’s Day, Both Within the Same Afternoon

The pinning. It began at 1:54 p.m., during a shift change, when the documentation account Civic Witness says ICE officers surged into a group of protesters. The account, written by someone photographing on the scene, says officers pinned a woman to the ground and held her there while others shouted for her release. It says officers fired what appeared to be pepper balls, which are projectiles loaded with chemical irritant. The witness has documented this site seven times since June 6 and called this the most violent confrontation they had seen there. The video of it was recorded at roughly 1:58 p.m.

Read the language carefully, because I am going to. Pinned and held down. That is what the source says. I am not calling it a chokehold. The account does not, and the video captures the aftermath of the pinning, not the start of it.

The flag and the car. That same afternoon, the woman with the upside-down flag was struck by a car entering the facility. We do not have a precise time for it, only that it happened Sunday. A named organizer on the scene, Birdie Green of the Sussex Visibility Brigade, told NJ.com the woman is from Minnesota, was hit from behind, was not blocking traffic, and could not see it coming. Agents then deployed pepper spray and mace, and families at the hospitality tent had to evacuate.

@h.e.faliveno @h.e.faliveno ♬ original sound - hefaliveno

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

Here is what the footage shows. A car entering the facility struck her from behind. It did not brake. It did not slow. The named organizer on the scene says she was not blocking traffic and could not see it coming. What no video can capture is what was in the driver’s head, so I am not going to assign a motive. I do not need to. A car that hits a woman holding a flag and never touches its brakes is a fact on its own, and it is on tape.

This Keeps Happening, and It Keeps Happening to Women

If this were a single bad afternoon, it would still be news. It is not single. It is a pattern, and the pattern is on the record.

A nurse named Norma Bowe was shoved to the ground while she was trying to treat a woman who had been dragged along the sidewalk. A young woman was shot several times with a pepper-ball gun. Federal officers have spent weeks swinging batons and firing pepper balls into crowds.

The vehicles are their own thread. A photojournalist, Joseph Pacheco, was hit and partially dragged by a car on June 6. Before that, an AP photographer was struck by a wooden beam, and a police sergeant was later charged with stealing her camera bag while she sought treatment. Earlier still, a protester was pushed into a slow-moving truck and had a leg run over, an incident the governor herself cited when she diverted traffic on the road.

I have spoken with people who have stood outside that fence. The protesters I have talked to tell me, in their own words, that the women are being targeted. I am giving you that as their testimony, attributed, because that is what it is. It lines up with everything documented above. It is not yet a court finding, and I will not pretend it is.

Why an Agency Like This Draws the People It Draws

Here is where I stop reporting and start analyzing. I am marking the seam on purpose, because you deserve to know when you are reading a fact and when you are reading analysis.

Ask what kind of person an institution recruits when its public posture is dominance. When the official message is that the people in the road are rioters, that the people behind the fence are less than, that force is the answer and the cameras do not change the math. That message does not land on everyone the same way. It lands hardest on people already comfortable with a hierarchy, with the quiet belief that a woman standing her ground, or a person who is not white, ranks below them.

Now lay the moment we are in on top of that. We are living through a loud political project, driven hardest from the right, to restore what its champions call “traditional family values.” A clear order at home. Defined roles. Men who lead and women who follow, support, and stay. You can find that vision admirable or alarming. That is not my point. My point is what it does to how a woman in the street gets seen.

A woman standing alone in a roadway, holding a flag, refusing to move, is not playing the assigned part. She is loud where she is supposed to be quiet. She is public where she is supposed to be private. She is defiant where she is supposed to defer. To someone who has absorbed the idea that this is not a woman’s place, she is not only a protester. She is a woman out of her place. And in that worldview, a woman out of her place is a thing to be put back in it.

I am not telling you every officer at that gate thinks this way. I cannot see into anyone’s head, and I will not pretend to. What I am saying is that an ideology which ranks women by how well they stay in role does not stay home. It clocks in. And an agency whose entire posture is dominance makes a comfortable home for it.

An institution that operates this way does not simply attract those people. It rewards them. It promotes them. It defends them when the footage gets out. That is my read of the pattern. It is reasoning, not a court document, and I will keep building the receipts for it in public rather than asking you to take my word.

Hear the Government Out, Then Notice What It Will Not Say

I do not run one-sided pieces, so here is the other side, in full.

The Department of Homeland Security calls these protesters “rioters.” It denies that conditions inside are abusive. It denies the hunger strike is even real. It frames every confrontation as obstruction of federal law enforcement. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin defended the food and said flatly that this is “not a Holiday Inn.” A DHS spokesperson told America Magazine that the place is a detention center and was never meant to be comfortable. And border czar Tom Homan praised the food after a visit, down to the spaghetti.

That is their record, and you are entitled to weigh it.

Now notice the silence. DHS and Newark Police were both asked to comment on the Father’s Day incidents. Neither responded. An agency that is quick to call protesters “rioters” went quiet when asked about a specific woman struck by a specific car. Hold both of those facts at once.

Follow the Money and the Revolving Door

Here is the part that turns a protest story into an accountability story.

GEO Group is not a neutral contractor. It is a company with a billion-dollar reason to keep this facility full and operating. And the line between GEO and the government that pays it has worn thin to the point of transparency.

The AFSC notes that President Trump nominated a former GEO Group executive, David Venturella, to lead ICE, the very agency that signs GEO’s checks. It also notes that before she became Attorney General, Pam Bondi worked as a lobbyist for GEO Group. I have traced this revolving door before in my reporting on GEO’s roots, and it keeps spinning in the same direction. The people who profit from detention keep ending up in the offices that regulate it.

Meanwhile, the City of Newark and the State of New Jersey are both suing GEO. The state went to court after the company refused to let health inspectors fully into the building. Ask yourself why a facility insisting it has nothing to hide would fight to keep inspectors out.

That is the machine the two women on Father’s Day were standing in front of.

Calling It AI Is Not the Same as Proving It

There are two videos here, not one. One shows the car striking the woman with the flag. The other shows officers pinning a woman to the ground. Both are already being waved away as AI, so let me be fair before I am firm. AI fakes are real. Fabricated hit-and-run videos have been traced to foreign influence operations. Asking whether a clip is authentic is not denial. It is diligence, and I respect it.

But “it might be AI” is not evidence. Provenance is. And the provenance here does not rest on a single clip that could be cooked up in an afternoon. It rests on two separate videos, of two separate incidents, backed by two separate sourcing trails. The car is documented by a reporting outlet and a named organizer who was on the scene. The pinning is documented by a named documentation account, a disclosed source for the footage, and a witness who was photographing a few feet away. Two events, two cameras, two sets of people willing to attach their names. That is not the shape of a fabrication. If someone insists either video is fake, the burden is on them to show it. The same way the burden is on me to prove intent before I claim it. Those rules run both directions or they are not rules.

Go Back to Where This Started

A woman on an industrial road, holding a flag she had turned upside down on purpose, because that is the signal you fly when the country is in danger. A car came. She never saw it. You can argue about the driver all you want. You cannot argue about her, on the ground, outside a jail the public is paying a billion dollars to run. She meant the flag as a warning. Take it as one.

Subscribe now

This is what independent accountability reporting looks like. No ads. No access deals. No team to please. Just the record, chased down and sourced. Work like this runs on readers, not advertisers, and that is the only way it stays honest. If you want more of it, become a paid subscriber to Total Hypocrisy: Unfiltered and help keep it independent.

A note before you read. This piece describes the abuse and neglect of disabled children and adults in state institutions, including physical violence, sexual assault, and eugenics-era forced sterilization. If that is heavy for you today, take care of yourself first. The history matters, but so do you.

Subscribe now

Before you read a single line about what the Justice Department did this week, you need to know what the word “institution” used to mean in this country. Not the sanitized version. The real one. Because the people who wrote this week’s memo are counting on you not knowing.

The Institutions Were Never Hospitals. They Were Warehouses.

Forty minutes outside Philadelphia, in Chester County, there is a ruin called Pennhurst. I know exactly where it is, because it sits a short drive from my home. The state of Pennsylvania authorized it in 1903 and opened it in 1908 under a name that tells you everything about its purpose: the Eastern Pennsylvania State Institution for the Feeble-Minded and Epileptic. It was built as part of a eugenics-driven movement to segregate disabled people away from the rest of society. That was not a side effect. That was the design brief.

If the term eugenics is new to you, here is what it means. Eugenics was the early twentieth century belief that the human race could be improved by stopping the people it judged inferior from reproducing or blending into society. In practice that meant the disabled, the poor, and the immigrant. The tools were segregation, confinement, and forced sterilization. Pennhurst was one of those tools.

At its peak in the 1950s, Pennhurst held more than 3,500 people in buildings meant for roughly 500. Children were sent there and stayed for decades. The average resident lived there about 35 years.

In 1968, a young reporter named Bill Baldini walked in with a camera and broke the silence. His report on the conditions caused a national outrage. He put it plainly:

“Zoos spend more on their wild animals than Pennsylvania spends on its 2,800 patients at Pennhurst.”

One of the children he interviewed, Roland Johnson, had been sent to Pennhurst at age 12. He was bullied, abused, and raped there. He left in 1971 and became one of the most important disability rights organizers in American history.

This is what an institution was. Hold that picture. The memo wants you to forget it.

Pennhurst Is Why the Rule Exists. A Child Named Terri Lee Halderman Is Why It Has Teeth.

In 1974, a class action was filed on behalf of Pennhurst’s residents. It carried the name of Terri Lee Halderman, a resident who had been horrifically abused there. Over eleven years inside, she had lost teeth and suffered a fractured jaw, fractured fingers, a fractured toe, and numerous lacerations and bites. The suit alleged the conditions were unsanitary, inhumane, and dangerous.

In 1977, a federal court agreed. It found the facility was consistently overcrowded, understaffed, and lacking the programs necessary for adequate care, with excessive use of restraints. It recognized a constitutional right to community services and ordered the institution closed. It was the first time a federal court ordered an institution shut down on that basis. After years of appeals, the parties reached a consent decree in 1985 requiring the state to provide community living arrangements. Pennhurst closed in 1987.

Remember the phrase “consent decree.” It matters in a few hundred words.

Deinstitutionalization Was a Promise. Olmstead Made It Law.

Pennhurst was not unique. It was typical. Across the country these places were exposed and emptied because they were found to be, in plain terms, harmful and deadly. Out of that wreckage came a legal principle: disabled people have the right to receive services in their communities, not locked away to get them.

In 1990, Congress wrote that principle into Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, building on Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Federal agencies turned it into a rule with a name: the integration mandate. It said that states must serve people with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.

Then, on June 22, 1999, the Supreme Court made it binding. In Olmstead v. L.C., the Court held that unjustified institutional isolation of people with disabilities is a form of discrimination prohibited by the ADA. For more than twenty-six years, that decision has been the wall between disabled Americans and the warehouse. The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division used it, plus the integration mandate, to pressure states to discharge people from institutions and to win consent decrees in nearly a dozen states.

That is the wall. Now watch them take a chisel to it.

This Week, the Justice Department Said the Promise Was Never the Law at All.

On June 18, 2026, four days before Olmstead‘s twenty-seventh anniversary, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel released a formal legal opinion, authored by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lanora C. Pettit and addressed to the Counsel to the President. Click here and read it for yourself. The receipts are all in it.

It reaches three conclusions. Olmstead did not actually require states to treat people in the most integrated setting. Neither the ADA nor Section 504 imposes an integration mandate or lets federal agencies impose one. And the regulations that created the mandate are, in the opinion’s word, unlawful. A footnote goes further and instructs the Department to rescind its guidance documents on the subject, including protections for people merely at risk of being institutionalized.

The opinion does not flinch from what it is doing. It openly concedes its reading is out of step with longstanding and consistent federal court opinion, and admits that any agency adopting it will likely be sued.

Here is the part that should make every American’s jaw tighten. To build its argument, the memo leans on the federalism holding of Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman. They cite the Pennhurst case. They cite the legal shell of the very lawsuit that closed Pennhurst, and they use it to dismantle the community-living principle that Terri Lee Halderman’s broken jaw paid for. They kept the citation and threw away the child.

The disability community understood the stakes within hours. The American Association of People with Disabilities said the Department gave the White House a green light to take disabled people back to a time when the state could strip us of our homes, families, autonomy, and our lives, and named Pennhurst-era abuses directly: filthy conditions, eugenic experiments, forced sterilizations. The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund answered with a sentence that doubles as the whole rebuttal:

“There is no such thing as a good institution for disabled people. There is only loss of freedom, choice, and community.”

The ACLU was blunter still: the Justice Department cannot erase federal laws and decades of legal precedent with a single opinion.

So how did a memo like this come to exist? It did not fall from the sky. It was written down, step by step, for three years, in public.

This Did Not Start With the Memo. It Started With a Campaign Video.

In August 2023, the Trump campaign posted a policy video on its own website as part of its Agenda47 platform, titled “How We’ll Fight Homelessness.” In it, the candidate said cities had been surrendered to people who are unhoused, drug addicted, and “dangerously deranged.” Then he said the line out loud: “For those who are severely mentally ill and deeply disturbed, we will bring them back to mental institutions, where they belong.” Watch the video here:

Where they belong. The plan also called for banning urban camping and relocating people to government-sanctioned tent cities. This was not coded. It was the stated goal, on camera, before a single vote was cast.

Project 2025 Wrote the Plan Down.

The campaign provided the slogan. The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 provided the machinery. And it put the machinery in writing, on a numbered page, with a name attached.

Chapter 15 of the Mandate for Leadership, the chapter covering Housing and Urban Development, was written by Ben Carson, the man who actually ran HUD under Trump from 2017 to 2021. On page 509, Carson directs the department to end Housing First so that it prioritizes “mental health and substance abuse issues before jumping to permanent interventions in homelessness.” In the same passage he calls for restricting program eligibility, tightening work requirements, and imposing term limits on federal rental assistance, so that families can be timed out of the help that keeps them housed.

Here is the hypocrisy worth marking, since that is the entire reason this publication exists. When Project 2025 turned into a political liability during the campaign, Trump claimed he knew “nothing about Project 2025” and had no idea who was behind it. The person behind the housing chapter was his own former Cabinet secretary. The plan he disowned in public is the plan his administration would execute line by line. I am not claiming a secret plot. I am pointing at a paper trail anyone can read.

By April 2025, Justice Department officials who manage grant money were already brainstorming how to use that grant authority to clear encampments and increase involuntary commitment. Three months later it was official.

On July 24, 2025, the President signed Executive Order 14321, “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets.” The order’s own framing said the goal was shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings through civil commitment. It directed the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to pursue the reversal of judicial precedents and the termination of consent decrees that restrict civil commitment. It ended federal support for Housing First, exactly as Project 2025 asked.

Read that directive again. Reverse the precedents. Terminate the consent decrees. The same consent decrees that closed Pennhurst. The National Alliance to End Homelessness said the order adopts pledges made in Project 2025 and defies the settled precedent in Olmstead. The ACLU said it directs states to institutionalize people with mental health disabilities.

The order had one problem. A President cannot wave away the Supreme Court. Olmstead and the integration mandate were still standing in the way. The order told the lawyers to go knock down the wall. It did not yet say how.

In November 2025, the policy got money behind it when HUD codified the order’s principles in a funding notice that threatened existing grant contracts, throwing homelessness programs across the country into chaos. The leverage was now real. The legal key was still missing.

The Memo Is the Key That Was Always Missing.

This is where the timeline closes its own loop. On February 17, 2026, an Associate Counsel to the President emailed the Office of Legal Counsel with a request for an opinion on the ADA integration mandate. The White House asked the question. Over the following months, the Civil Rights Division, the Office of Legal Policy, and HHS fed internal memos into the process. On June 18, 2026, the answer came back in the form of the opinion you read above.

Walk the chain one more time, because every link is documented and every link is public. Campaign video saying institutions are where these people belong. Project 2025 blueprint ending Housing First. April 2025 grant-office brainstorming. July 2025 executive order ordering the reversal of precedents and consent decrees. November 2025 HUD funding pressure. February 2026 White House request for a legal opinion. June 2026 opinion declaring the integration mandate was never lawful.

The executive order set the goal it could not legally reach. The memo is the tool built to reach it.

Their Best Argument

I am not going to pretend the other side has nothing. Here is the strongest version of their case, made as well as they would make it.

Start with the law. Deciding whether to lock someone up for psychiatric treatment has almost always been the states’ job, handled in state courts, not Washington’s. The integration mandate, the rule that says people must be served in the community when possible, was not written by Congress into the actual statute. It was added later by federal agencies in their regulations.

Then there is Olmstead itself. The argument is that the ruling was narrower than people remember. The detailed test everyone quotes, the one that lays out when a state has to place someone in the community, was signed by only four of the nine justices. Four is not a majority. So, they say, that famous test was never fully binding to begin with.

Even Justice Kennedy, who agreed with the Olmstead outcome, added a warning. Emptying the institutions has a dark side. People get pushed out of care and end up on the street or in a jail cell. And in 2024, the Supreme Court changed a long-standing rule, so judges no longer have to automatically trust an agency’s reading of a law just because the agency has read it that way for decades.

On top of all that, the suffering on the streets is real, and there are nowhere near enough psychiatric beds for the people who need them. A serious person can hold all of those points at once.

Here Is Where Their Argument Falls Apart.

Now the rebuttal, point for point.

Olmstead is still the law. The memo is an internal legal opinion, not a court ruling and not a finished regulation. It changes nothing on its own. As the disability groups stressed, people can still bring Olmstead claims, and the opinion itself admits it invites litigation it expects to face. By its own words it is out of step with the federal courts.

The dignity argument collapses on funding. If you actually wanted humane treatment, you would build it. This administration did the opposite. The order provides no money to build treatment capacity even as the same administration cuts mental health and Medicaid funding. You do not get to call it care while you defund the care.

And the new legal standard is the tell. The memo says institutional confinement is lawful whenever a state has any nonarbitrary rationale, and it lists acceptable rationales including cost and bed shortages. Translate that. A state can warehouse a disabled person and defend it in court by saying community care was too expensive or the beds were full. The cheapest option becomes the legally protected option. That is not a safeguard. That is a green light with paperwork.

Kennedy’s warning cuts the other way, too. He feared people being driven out of care and onto the street. The fix for that is funded community services, the thing this administration is dismantling. Not the warehouse.

What Is Documented, and What Is Not.

Let me hold my own line here, because that is the entire point of this publication.

What is documented: the campaign video, the Project 2025 text, the April 2025 grant brainstorming, the executive order, the HUD funding notice, the February 2026 White House request, and the June 2026 memo. A public paper trail, every piece pointing the same direction.

What is inference, and belongs to advocates rather than to me: the claim that this is a finished plan to mass-institutionalize disabled Americans tomorrow. It is not that yet. The honest status line is narrower and, frankly, more useful. This is the legal key, not the act of unlocking. The regulations remain on the books until an agency formally rescinds them, and that move will draw immediate lawsuits.

But a key is built for a door. We know which door this one fits.

We Know How This Ends. We Have the Address.

The integration mandate did not appear out of thin air in 1999. It was carved out of places like Pennhurst, out of the testimony of children with broken jaws and stolen decades. The rule exists because the country looked at what the institutions actually did and said never again.

This week, a Justice Department lawyer wrote thirty-nine pages arguing that “never again” was never really the law. To make that argument, she cited the Pennhurst case by name. The ruins are still standing, a 27-minute drive from where I am writing this. I can go stand in them. So can you. You can read the cottage names. You can stand where the children stood.

That is the address. The memo is the map back to it. The only question left is whether the rest of us let anyone follow it.

Total Hypocrisy: Unfiltered remains free because investigative reporting has no place behind a paywall. To help keep this work free for everyone to access, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Before you read. This piece is free, and it will stay free for everyone. That only works because paid subscribers cover the cost of the research, the sourcing, and the time. If Total Hypocrisy: Unfiltered is worth your while, become a paid subscriber and keep the receipts coming, free for all to read.

Subscribe now

I Am Not The Right Person To Tell You What This Day Means

Let me say this before anything else.

I am a white woman. Juneteenth is not my holiday to explain. It is not my pain to narrate. It is not my freedom to celebrate.

The meaning of this day belongs to Black Americans. They carried it for more than a century before the rest of the country bothered to notice.

So I am not going to tell you what Juneteenth means. I am going to do the one thing I am actually qualified to do. I am going to lay out the documented record. The history. The receipts. And the people who, right now, in 2026, are working to make this day smaller.

Then I am going to get out of the way and point you toward the voices you should be listening to instead of mine.

The News Took Two And A Half Years To Arrive

Start with the date everyone gets wrong.

Slavery did not end on January 1, 1863. That is the day the Emancipation Proclamation took effect. The Proclamation declared that enslaved people in the rebelling Confederate states were free. On paper.

Paper does not enforce itself. Freedom only arrived where Union troops arrived to enforce it. Texas was the most remote corner of the Confederacy, with few Union soldiers on the ground. So slavery continued there for more than two years after the Proclamation, in open defiance of it.

That ended on June 19, 1865. Union General Gordon Granger landed at Galveston and issued General Order No. 3. The order informed the people of Texas that, in the words of the document, “all slaves are free.”

By most accounts there were roughly 250,000 enslaved people in Texas on that day. They had been legally free for two and a half years and did not know it, or were not allowed to act on it. In Galveston, the order was read at what is now Reedy Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church. The celebrating started almost immediately. It has not stopped since.

That is where the name comes from. June and nineteenth. Juneteenth.

The Emancipation Proclamation Did Not Free Everyone. Read The Fine Print.

Here is a fact that complicates the tidy version of this story, and I am including it because the truth is more damning than the myth.

The Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the United States. It applied only to the Confederate states in rebellion. It deliberately did not free enslaved people in the border states that had stayed in the Union. Slavery remained legal in parts of the country it did not touch.

Slavery was abolished nationwide by the Thirteenth Amendment, ratified in December 1865, six months after Juneteenth.

So Juneteenth marks a specific thing. Not the moment freedom was promised. The moment it was finally enforced for the last enslaved people the Proclamation had reached. The gap between the promise and the enforcement is the entire point of the day.

Black Texans Built The Holiday Washington Ignored For 156 Years

Nobody handed Black Americans this holiday. They built it.

The first celebrations began in Texas in 1866, one year after Granger’s order, organized by the freed people themselves. They called it Jubilee Day, Emancipation Day, Freedom Day. They held it in churches, in newly purchased land, in the face of people who did not want it held at all. When the Great Migration carried Black families out of the South in the twentieth century, Juneteenth went with them and put down roots across the country.

It survived Jim Crow. It survived being left out of the textbooks. It survived a century of official silence from a federal government that had no interest in commemorating the day it finished freeing people it should never have enslaved.

Texas became the first state to make Juneteenth an official holiday. That happened in 1980. According to Pew Research, for the next four decades Texas was the only state to do so. The other forty-nine were not in a hurry.

A Black Woman In Sneakers Walked It Into Law

If you remember one name from this piece, make it Opal Lee.

Lee was born in Marshall, Texas, in 1926. When she was twelve years old, on June 19, 1939, a white mob burned her family’s home in Fort Worth to the ground. She spent her life as an educator and a community organizer. And she decided that Juneteenth belonged to the whole country, not just to Texas.

In 2016, at the age of 89, she started walking. Her campaign took her from Fort Worth toward Washington, D.C. In city after city she walked two and a half miles, a distance she chose on purpose. It stood for the two and a half years it took for the news of freedom to reach Texas. The National Women’s History Museum documents the campaign and the symbolism behind it.

Her math worked. People noticed the little old lady in sneakers. She became known as the Grandmother of Juneteenth. And on June 17, 2021, when President Biden signed the bill making Juneteenth a federal holiday, Opal Lee was standing next to him. The bill, S.475 in the 117th Congress, became Public Law 117-17. She received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2024.

She turns 100 this October. She has spent the better part of a decade asking younger people to pick up the work. That is the voice that built this. Not mine.

Washington Showed Up 156 Years Late, Then Started Backing Out

So the federal government finally recognized Juneteenth in 2021. That is the good news, and it took 156 years.

Here is the part that belongs in Total Hypocrisy: Unfiltered.

In December 2025, the Interior Department, led by Secretary Doug Burgum, released its 2026 calendar of fee-free days for national parks. Martin Luther King Jr. Day was removed. Juneteenth was removed. Added in their place was June 14, which is Flag Day and also President Trump’s birthday. NPR and Newsweek both documented the change.

Montana Free Press reported that the removals were aligned with the administration’s executive order titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.”

Presidents revise the fee-free list all the time. The holiday itself was not repealed. Juneteenth is still a federal holiday. Federal offices still close. No law was changed. You can read the cut as a routine calendar shuffle and the addition of Flag Day as a patriotic call that happens to land on a convenient date.

That is the most generous reading available. Take it seriously, then look at what got cut and what got added.

The two days removed were the only two on the calendar that specifically honor Black American history. The day added shares a date with the sitting president’s birthday. The stated justification points to an order about “truth and sanity” in how the country tells its own history. Senators Adam Schiff and Catherine Cortez Masto introduced legislation to write the fee-free days back into law, including Juneteenth and MLK Day, specifically because of this.

Two Black history holidays removed. A presidential birthday added. An executive order about rewriting how the country remembers itself sitting underneath all of it.

This Is The Part Where You Stop Reading Me

Everything above is documentation. History anyone can verify and a news story anyone can source. That part I can do.

What I cannot do, and will not fake, is tell you what it feels like to belong to the people this day is about. So here is where I hand you off.

Read Annette Gordon-Reed, the Pulitzer-winning historian and Texas native, whose book On Juneteenth is the place to start. Read Clint Smith, whose How the Word Is Passed includes a chapter set in Galveston, where this began. Listen to Opal Lee in her own words while she is still here to share them. Spend time with the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which exists precisely so this history does not depend on the goodwill of any one administration.

Those are the voices. Go to them. The point of an ally with a platform is not to talk over the room. It is to hold the door open and point.

Why We Keep Recognizing It

Here is the case for keeping this day, and it is short.

Juneteenth is the holiday about the distance between when freedom is announced and when freedom actually arrives. Two and a half years, in Texas. Longer than that, in practice, in a hundred other ways the country is still working through.

That distance is not a footnote to the American story. It is the American story. The promise on paper, and the long fight to make it real.

A day built to remember exactly that is not a threat to anyone telling the truth about this country. It is only a threat to people who would rather you forget how long the wait was, and who is still being asked to wait.

So we keep recognizing it. Loudly. On purpose. Especially in the year someone decided to quietly take it off the parks calendar and hope nobody read the fine print.

I read the fine print. Now you have too.

Share

Webs are woven on purpose. Not over years but over decades, passed from one set of hands to the next. The instructions are never written down, yet everyone holding a thread understands them. Keep weaving. Keep tangling the strands. The more tangled the web becomes, the fewer people can trace it back to the center, and the safer the center stays.

But every web has a first thread. Find it, pull it, and the whole design begins to give. That is the work here. To pull the thread. Because it is in the truth, and only the truth, that we finally see the shape of the thing.

Subscribe now

Today it is called The GEO Group. It runs Delaney Hall in Newark, New Jersey. It runs North Lake in Baldwin, Michigan. It runs immigration detention and for-profit prisons across the United States and overseas. Before it was The GEO Group it was Wackenhut Corrections Corporation. Before that it was a division of The Wackenhut Corporation. And before that it was a small Miami investigative shop that operated under more than one name in its first few years, including Special Agent Investigations, Fidelifax, and Security Services Corporation.

Strip away every rebrand and you reach the same place. A man who left the FBI in 1954 and spent the rest of his life selling the Bureau’s name back to the public and the government. The roots of the largest private prison company in America run directly into the federal government itself.

This is not a theory. The FBI kept a file on the company’s founder that runs 436 pages long. It is public, and you can read it for yourself here:

The Declassified FBI Files

Decades of court records, federal lawsuits, a congressional surveillance study, and a six-month magazine investigation fill in the rest. The story they tell together is worse than the company’s compliance problems. It is about what this company was built to be.

The FBI rejected him the first time.

George R. Wackenhut was born in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, just outside Philadelphia. He served in the Army, in Hawaii and Virginia, as a physical reconditioning officer and a trained marksman. In February 1945 he applied to the FBI. He wanted to be a physical education instructor at a starting salary of $3,500. The Bureau had no such job and offered him work at half that. He declined. The agents who reviewed him were not impressed.

He tried again. By 1951 he was chairman of the physical education department at Johns Hopkins. The second background check went better. On January 27, 1951, with Harry Truman in the White House, the FBI’s director, J. Edgar Hoover, signed his appointment letter. The salary was $5,000. He trained at Quantico and was sent to Atlanta to work check fraud.

His FBI career lasted about three years. He resigned in 1954. On his way out he asked Hoover for a signed photograph. Hoover sent one. That small detail captures the whole relationship. Courteous, transactional, and pointed in one direction. It is the relationship Wackenhut would chase for the next three decades.

No, not that Hoover.

A quick clarification, because two famous Hoovers get mixed up all the time. This story is about J. Edgar Hoover, the man who built and ran the FBI. He is not Herbert Hoover, the 31st president of the United States, who was in office from 1929 to 1933. Two different men. No relation. One ran the country for four years. The other ran the FBI for nearly fifty.

J. Edgar Hoover was never president. He never needed to be. He led the FBI from 1924 until his death in 1972, through eight presidents of both parties. One of them was President Herbert Hoover himself, which is exactly the kind of overlap that makes people confuse the two. He outlasted every president in Washington, built the modern Bureau, and grew so powerful that presidents were careful not to cross him.

His name still sits on the FBI’s longtime headquarters in Washington, the J. Edgar Hoover Building. The Bureau announced in late 2025 that it would finally leave that building, but the fact that his name was bolted to the front of the FBI for half a century tells you how large he looms.

So when you read below that George Wackenhut spent decades courting Hoover, picture the most powerful law enforcement figure in American history. Not a president. The man who decided what the FBI was, and who it served.

He sold the FBI’s name for fifty years.

In 1954 Wackenhut and three other former agents started a private investigations firm in Miami. The pitch was simple. Hire ex-FBI men. Sell their pedigree. The partnership was not a happy one. By one account from a later investigation, Wackenhut settled a dispute with a partner over the direction of the company by knocking the man unconscious. In 1958 he bought the others out, and the firm consolidated under his own name. The Wackenhut Corporation. In 1961 he wrote to Hoover personally to introduce the Bureau’s director to the company that now carried it.

That October 1961 contact is where the FBI’s headquarters file on the company begins. The first document in it is a brief, cool acknowledgment from Hoover’s secretary, Helen Gandy, written while the director was away.

A senator found the loophole. The money followed.

Here is the mechanism the company’s polished timeline leaves out. For seventy years, federal law had made it a crime for an employee of a private detective agency to do work for the government. The Anti-Pinkerton Act of 1893 was written to keep private spies out of public business. It stood directly in Wackenhut’s way.

According to the 1992 investigation by SPY magazine, the wall came down through a friend in the Senate. George Wackenhut was close to Senator George Smathers of Florida, a friend of John F. Kennedy’s. Smathers’s law firm found the loophole. It set up a wholly owned Wackenhut subsidiary that supplied only guards, not detectives, and so fell outside the Pinkerton ban. The door to federal contracting swung open.

What came through it was not small. Wackenhut won contracts to guard Cape Canaveral and the Nevada nuclear-bomb test site. Those were the first of the federal security contracts that would sustain the company for the next half century. The man who could not get hired as an FBI gym teacher had just become a permanent vendor to the national security state.

Washington made him rich.

The firm grew two ways. It bought competitors, and it kept landing government work. In 1962 it bought a California security firm, General Plant Protection, for $1,024,000. In 1964 it bought a Los Angeles outfit, Dawn Patrol, for $733,000. By the mid-1960s its largest customers were federal. The Atomic Energy Commission. NASA. Lockheed.

Then Wackenhut took the parent company public. The contemporaneous account, a February 1967 Los Angeles Times investigation, dates the first public stock issue to April 1966 and reports that he and his wife sold 112,300 shares to underwriters at $11.60 a share while keeping voting control with 71.58 percent of the stock. SPY magazine later put the public offering in 1965 and his retained stake at 54 percent. The two accounts differ on the year and the exact percentage, which is worth noting, but they agree on the thing that matters. Wackenhut took outside money and never gave up control.

So when people ask where the money came from to build this prison company, the honest answer has layers. A Senate friend cracked open federal contracting. Federal security work built the parent. A public offering capitalized it. The founder kept majority control the entire way. The prison business came later, in 1984, when The Wackenhut Corporation created a corrections subsidiary and seeded it from the parent's balance sheet. The federal government was the customer that made the founder rich. The federal pedigree was the product he was selling.

Files on four million Americans.

This was never only a guard company. From early on it was a private intelligence operation, and the scale of it is the part that should stop you cold.

By 1965, according to the SPY investigation, Wackenhut was boasting to potential investors that it maintained files on 2.5 million suspected dissidents. At the time that was roughly one in every 46 American adults. In 1966 the company bought the private files of Karl Baarslag, a former staff member of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. With that purchase, Wackenhut could claim more than four million names, the largest privately held file on suspected dissidents in America.

These were not just old McCarthy-era index cards. The surveillance scholar Frank Donner, in his book The Age of Surveillance, documented that Wackenhut kept updating the files long after the red scare cooled, adding the names of antiwar protesters and civil-rights demonstrators to its list of what it called derogatory types. The 1967 reporting preserved in the FBI's own file describes the same operation. A private company, run by former federal agents, was compiling and selling dossiers on millions of citizens for their politics, and no one outside the company had any oversight of it.

When the law came, he hid the files (which should sound familiar).

This is the detail that turns a disturbing story into a damning one, and it is documented in a university archive, not a rumor mill.

In the 1970s, Congress began investigating private companies that kept secret files on Americans, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act started to give people the right to see records held on them. So Wackenhut moved the files out of reach. In 1975 the company handed much of its dossier collection to the Church League of America, a right-wing anti-communist research group in Wheaton, Illinois, that was not bound by the new disclosure law. Wackenhut reserved the right to keep using the files for its clients and friends.

We know this because the files still exist. They now sit in the Tamiment Library at New York University, in the Church League of America collection, which holds the research files of the Wackenhut Corporation alongside those of other private surveillance outfits with intelligence-agency ties. The archive’s own description records that the company reduced its active files to between 225,000 and 250,000 in response to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, then routed the rest to a group the law could not touch.

Read that plainly. A private company built files on millions of Americans for their politics. When a federal law threatened to let citizens see their own records, the company did not destroy the files. It parked them with allies who were exempt from the law, and kept the right to use them. The surveillance did not stop. It just went back into the dark.

The FBI tried to disown him.

For all the pedigree he sold, the Bureau whose name Wackenhut built his brand on spent years trying to keep its distance from him.

On April 16, 1962, an FBI headquarters memo, written on the director’s own instructions, ordered that every former FBI employee known to be tied to the Wackenhut Corporation be removed from the Bureau’s mailing lists. It told the Miami field office to quietly identify any others. It directed agents to avoid contact with a former agent then working for Wackenhut. And it approved an internal letter alerting field offices to the character and activities of the company.

The file is personal as well as institutional. Bureau records even logged an unverified rumor about the private lives of Wackenhut and his wife, the kind of thing the FBI of that era collected and kept. It surfaced again and again as a reason never to bring him back. Hoover’s FBI watched the man who would not stop writing it fan letters.

A bribe, padded bills, and a name for sale.

The field reports underneath the 1962 order are blunter than the memo. Miami agents recorded that Wackenhut’s director of investigations, himself a former Bureau official, repeatedly leaned on the local FBI office for things he was not entitled to. He asked the Bureau to explain how it had identified a man as a pro-Castro operative, for a private client. He asked the FBI to steer business to Wackenhut. He asked for the names of young FBI clerks he could hire away. He pushed for the local FBI chief to pay him social calls. The Bureau refused each request, and noted that he was holding himself out as the go-between to the FBI.

The same field file recorded two allegations the company would rather stay buried. That in 1960 Wackenhut offered a retired Air Force colonel a $10,000 a year job in exchange for steering Pan American business his way, an approach the colonel reportedly rejected as a thinly disguised bribe. And that an informant accused the company of padding its payroll in the bills it sent the corporations it guarded. Be precise about these. They are recorded allegations, not court findings. They belong in the record exactly as that. Allegations the FBI wrote down.

He courted four FBI directors. Then hired one.

Hoover’s coldness did not cool Wackenhut. When newspapers criticized the Bureau, Wackenhut sent Hoover letters of support and told his own staff to do the same. Hoover answered with the same mechanical courtesy he gave everyone.

When Hoover finally died in 1972, the job of running the FBI passed from one director to the next, and Wackenhut greeted each of them in turn. L. Patrick Gray. Clarence Kelley. William Webster. To be clear, these are FBI directors, the people who run the Bureau day to day, not presidents. And then Wackenhut did the thing that tells you what the whole performance was always for. He put one of them on his payroll. Former FBI Director Clarence Kelley went to work for him.

Read that again. The founder of what is now the largest private prison company in America hired a former director of the FBI. The line between the federal security state and the private one was not blurry to him. He erased it on purpose, and Kelley was only the beginning.

He stacked his board with spy chiefs.

By the 1980s, Wackenhut’s board of directors had stopped looking like a corporate board and started looking like a reunion of the national security establishment. The lineup, as reported by SPY magazine and corroborated by the magazine In These Times in 1991, included former FBI Director Clarence Kelley, former Defense Secretary and former CIA Deputy Director Frank Carlucci, former Defense Intelligence Agency director General Joseph Carroll, former Secret Service director James J. Rowley, former Marine Commandant General P. X. Kelley, and former CIA Deputy Director Admiral Bobby Ray Inman. Before he became Ronald Reagan’s CIA director, William Casey served as Wackenhut’s outside legal counsel. The earlier boards had carried right-wing celebrities like the aviator Eddie Rickenbacker and a John Birch Society leader. The later ones carried the men who had run America’s spy agencies.

In These Times put it cleanly at the time. The board read like a who’s who of the intelligence community. As government privatized in the 1980s, a for-profit company was quietly stocking its leadership with the people who used to run federal intelligence.

Look at what that company was trusted to guard. By the early 1990s Wackenhut was the largest single provider of security to United States embassies abroad, protecting more than a dozen of them, several in hotbeds of Cold War espionage like Chile, Greece, and El Salvador. At home it guarded the Alaskan oil pipeline, the Hanford nuclear-waste site, the Savannah River plutonium plant, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It had roughly 30,000 armed employees. In 1991 about a third of its 600 million dollars in revenue came directly from the federal government. A private company with a board of former spymasters held the keys to the most sensitive installations in the country.

They called it a shadow CIA.

Now the part that demands caution, because this is where solid documentation gives way to serious allegation, and the difference matters.

The 1992 SPY magazine investigation, the work of journalist John Connolly, reported that Wackenhut functioned as more than a contractor. It alleged the company served as a cover for the CIA. The claim came partly from named insiders. William Corbett, who spent eighteen years as a CIA analyst and later advised ABC News, told the magazine the agency placed its people inside Wackenhut to run covert operations, and that contracts flowed back as the reward. A former CIA officer who became a Wackenhut vice president said he had seen a formal proposal to let the agency use Wackenhut offices around the world as fronts. A retired FBI agent put the industry view bluntly: if you want a dirty job done, call Wackenhut.

From there the allegations get more explosive. SPY tied the company, through a Special Projects Division and a web of intermediaries, to a scheme involving the Cabazon Indian reservation in California to manufacture weapons for the Nicaraguan contras outside congressional control, to operations in El Salvador where a Wackenhut executive said his men were doing things he would not want his mother to know about, and to the movement of sensitive equipment toward Iraq. Asked directly whether his company was an arm of the CIA, George Wackenhut said no.

Hold these claims at arm’s length, the way this publication holds everything. They were serious, they were reported by a real magazine with named and unnamed sources, and some of those sources were convicts or had axes to grind. The company denied them. They were never proven in court. What is documented beyond dispute is enough on its own. The board of spymasters. The contracts for nuclear sites and embassies. The files on four million Americans. You do not need the most sensational allegation to be true to see what kind of company this was.

A governor handed him a police force.

Long before any of the spy-world reporting, the warning signs were public. In February 1967, Florida Governor Claude Kirk appointed Wackenhut to run a privately financed crime force, reportedly for one dollar a year, bankrolled by undisclosed business donors through a trust the governor controlled.

A sitting governor outsourced a piece of state police power to a private firm that kept secret files on millions of people and answered to anonymous donors. The conflict of interest was obvious at the time. It is the same model, public authority routed through a private contractor with private incentives, that the company still runs on today.

The payoff was a castle with a moat.

It made the founder very rich. By the early 1990s, SPY reported, George Wackenhut’s annual compensation approached two million dollars, and he lived in a twenty million dollar estate in Coral Gables complete with a moat and eighteen full-time servants. His office featured a pair of chairs shaped like elephants, mounted with real tusks, which he called his Republican chairs. On the wall hung autographed photos of Presidents Reagan, Nixon, and the elder George Bush, each with a handwritten note. According to a former associate, Wackenhut privately called Bush a pinko. The man courted the powerful relentlessly, and considered most of them insufficiently right-wing.

Then he started building cages.

In 1984 The Wackenhut Corporation created Wackenhut Corrections Corporation. For this company the pivot from guarding nuclear plants to running prisons was a short one. It already had the federal relationships, the security pedigree, the armed workforce, and the appetite for government contracts. Now it would house human beings for profit. The instinct that built files on four million Americans was about to be pointed at a captive population that could not file a complaint anyone would hear.

Then the abuse, state after state.

What followed is not alleged. It is in court records, federal lawsuits, criminal indictments, and government audits.

In Louisiana, the United States Department of Justice moved in 2000 to stop the company from abusing boys at the Jena Juvenile Justice Center. Federal lawyers accused it of beating children, firing tear gas indoors, and pepper-spraying minors in the face, and of failing to provide them with adequate education and care. The company surrendered the contract, and the state terminated it.

In New Mexico, four prisoners died in two Wackenhut prisons within roughly two years of their opening. Three were stabbed. One was beaten to death with a laundry bag weighted with two rocks. A guard, Ralph Garcia, was killed in a 1999 riot. State consultants called for a near-total overhaul and faulted the company for thin, ill-prepared staff earning, in one report’s words, Wal-Mart wages. Three former employees were later convicted of federal civil rights and obstruction offenses tied to the beating of an inmate.

In Texas, the abuses turned into the largest prison sex scandals in the state’s history. At a state jail in East Austin, eleven former guards and a manager were indicted over the sexual assault and harassment of sixteen female prisoners. One woman described being raped while heavily medicated, then beaten to keep her quiet, and trying to take her own life twice before anyone investigated. Prisoners reported trading sex for basics like shampoo and underwear. Prosecutors looked into whether the company had shredded documents to impede the inquiry. The company lost a contract worth twelve million dollars a year and was fined $625,000.

The worst of it involved children. At the Coke County Juvenile Justice Center in Bronte, Texas, a facility meant for girls as young as twelve, a 1999 lawsuit alleged a permissive sexual environment that included statutory rape, and conditions so violent that girls were hospitalized with broken bones. Two guards pleaded guilty to sexual misconduct. In an earlier suit over the same prison, the former prisoner who brought the case killed herself the day the settlement was signed. Wackenhut was paid eighty dollars per child per day to run it, its highest daily rate anywhere.

Now the company’s defense, stated fairly, because that is the discipline. Its longtime chief executive George Zoley pointed to a zero-tolerance policy, cooperation with investigators, and revised procedures, including a rule that only female guards would supervise female prisoners. Several suits were settled confidentially, without any admission of wrongdoing. And through all of it the company stayed a Wall Street favorite, rated a buy, closing 1999 with record numbers, around 439 million dollars in revenue and 22 million in profit.

That is the steelman. Here is the pattern it cannot cover. These were not one rogue facility or one bad year. They were many facilities, in multiple states, across years, with the same root causes every time. Understaffing. Poverty wages. Weak oversight. Relentless profit pressure on the business of confining people who had no way to fight back.

So they changed the name.

So the company did what it had always done when a name became a liability. It changed the name.

In 2002, with the Wackenhut brand now fused in the public mind to abuse scandals, The Wackenhut Corporation agreed to be acquired by the Danish security giant Group 4 Falck for thirty-three dollars a share. The founder and his family signed a binding agreement to vote their shares for the deal, and handed over an irrevocable proxy. The corrections arm kept trading publicly, with the parent holding a 57 percent stake. This is in the company’s own filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Then, by the company’s own account, its management bought back the stock the Danish firm held, and in 2004 the corrections company was renamed The GEO Group.

The Wackenhut name disappeared from the prison business. The business did not. It is the same company, with the same founder’s fingerprints, under a cleaner label.

It was bred for this.

Let me separate what is documented from what is inference, because that line is the whole point of this publication.

Documented. The largest private prison company in America was founded by a former FBI agent. He got into federal contracting through a senator’s loophole, built the firm on his FBI pedigree, courted Hoover and every director who followed, and hired one of them. He filled his board with former leaders of the CIA, the DIA, the Secret Service, and the FBI. His company guarded the nation’s nuclear sites and embassies. It compiled files on more than four million Americans for their politics, and when a federal law threatened to expose those files, it hid them with a group exempt from the law. The FBI kept a file on him and, on Hoover’s instruction, worked to keep its distance. The company moved into prisons in 1984 and then ran up a documented record of abuse across multiple states, including the rape and injury of imprisoned women and girls. When the name turned toxic, it was changed. Every sentence in that paragraph is sourced below.

Alleged, and held at arm’s length. That the company served as an outright front for the CIA, and took part in covert weapons schemes abroad. Serious reporting, named sources, company denials, never proven in court. Worth pursuing. Not yet proven.

Inference. The throughline. This company did not drift into the business of caging people for the government. It was bred for it. From its first day it sold one product, proximity to federal power, and it has been selling versions of that product ever since. The detention center is not a departure from the firm that kept files on four million Americans and stacked its board with spymasters. It is the same instinct, monetized one more time, pointed at the people with the least power to resist it.

When you see the GEO Group name on a facility like Delaney Hall, understand what you are looking at. Not a modern corporation that happens to run prisons. The latest name on a company that came out of the federal government, learned early that the government’s pedigree and the government’s secrets were the most valuable things it owned, and never once let go of them.

The mainstream press covers The GEO Group as a vendor with a compliance problem. The record tells an older and far darker story. The company was rooted in the Bureau from the start. It spent fifty years turning that root into an intelligence operation, a surveillance archive, and finally a chain of cages. The name on the door keeps changing. What the company is has not.

Subscribe now

This is what independent, receipts-first reporting looks like. No ads. No sponsors. No team. If you want more investigations like this one, the kind that begins with a 436-page file and follows the thread wherever it leads, become a paid subscriber. That is what keeps the work alive.

Sources:

• FBI headquarters file, Wackenhut Corp.-HQ-1, released under FOIA, digitized by the Internet Archive and mirrored by The Black Vault. Pages cited: 2, 27, 39, 421, 422, 423. https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/fbifiles/Wackenhut_Corp.-HQ-1_text.pdf

• On J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI headquarters building: FBI, History of FBI Headquarters; the building was named the J. Edgar Hoover Building in 1972. On the late-2025 announcement that the Bureau would close and leave it, see The Hill, December 2025, https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5663971-fbi-hoover-building-permanent-closure/. https://www.fbi.gov/history/history-of-fbi-headquarters

• Jack Nelson, reporting on Wackenhut and Governor Kirk’s private crime force, Los Angeles Times, February 12, 1967, as preserved in the FBI file.

• John Connolly, Inside the Shadow CIA, SPY Magazine, September 1992. Investigation of Wackenhut’s intelligence ties, board, and contracts.

• The Anti-Pinkerton Act of 1893, codified at Title 5 of the U.S. Code, Section 3108, restricting the federal government from using private detective agencies. The loophole and its effect on Wackenhut are described in the SPY investigation above. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3108

• Joel Bleifuss, The First Stone column, In These Times, 1991, on the composition of Wackenhut’s board of directors. His 1991 Wackenhut reporting is documented in Project Censored’s account of the Inslaw and Casolaro affair, https://www.projectcensored.org/11-the-strange-death-of-daniel-casolaro/. https://inthesetimes.com/authors/joel-bleifuss

• Church League of America Collection of the Research Files of Counterattack, the Wackenhut Corporation, and Karl Baarslag, Tamiment Library, New York University (TAM.148). https://findingaids.library.nyu.edu/tamwag/tam_148/contents/aspace_ref11/

• Frank Donner, The Age of Surveillance (1980), on the maintenance and expansion of private political files.

• MuckRock, From FBI reject to private warlord: the rise of George Wackenhut, January 10, 2017. https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/jan/10/george-wackenhut-fbi/

• ABC News, Private Prison Co. Again Accused of Human Rights Abuses, August 5, 2008. https://abcnews.com/Blotter/story?id=5466166

• Prison Legal News, Wackenhut Wracked by Sexual Abuse Scandals, August 15, 2000. https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2000/aug/15/wackenhut-wracked-by-sexual-abuse-scandals/

• The New York Times, Privately Run Juvenile Prison in Louisiana Is Attacked for Abuse of 6 Inmates, March 16, 2000. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/16/us/privately-run-juvenile-prison-in-louisiana-is-attacked-for-abuse-of-6-inmates.html

• U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, The Wackenhut Corporation Form 8-K, filed March 8, 2002. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/104030/000095014402002155/g74648e8-k.htm

• The GEO Group, official company history timeline. https://www.geogroup.com/about-us/history-timeline/

• On The GEO Group’s current ICE detention operations, including the North Lake Processing Center in Baldwin, Michigan, reopened in 2025 as the largest ICE detention facility in the Midwest: Bridge Michigan, 2025. https://bridgemi.com/michigan-government/ice-detention-center-opens-dangerous-times-be-immigrant-michigan/

• On The GEO Group’s operation of Delaney Hall in Newark, New Jersey, a roughly 1,000-bed ICE detention center reopened in 2025 under a 15-year ICE contract: WHYY / Associated Press, May 2025. https://whyy.org/articles/newark-nj-immigration-detention-center-delaney-hall/

Before you read. Total Hypocrisy: Unfiltered is free to read, no paywall, no team jersey, just the record. But digging through the money and the filings takes time. If you want the work to keep coming, become a paid subscriber. The reporting stays free for everyone. Paid support is what keeps it alive.

Subscribe now

On June 10, Rep. Byron Donalds dropped a bill and almost nobody covered it. H.R. 9240 has one job, according to its title: “To provide the Comptroller General of the United States access to State records and documents for the purposes of certain audits, investigations, and evaluations, and for other purposes.”

No press release with balloons. One sponsor. Straight to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Introduced, referred, partisan, Republican, one name on it.

That name matters. So does the timing. And so does a Justice Department memo signed a month earlier that almost nobody read. Let me walk you through it, plain and slow.

Start Here: The Plain Version

If you do not live inside politics, here is the whole story in five sentences.

Your state runs its own elections, and it keeps the official list of everyone who is registered to vote. That list is called the voter roll, and it holds your name, home address, date of birth, party, and a record of which elections you have voted in. Whoever controls that list controls who is allowed to stay on it, so if the federal government starts purging them, eligible voters can get wrongly knocked off.

For more than a year, the Trump administration has been trying to get every state’s voter roll, nationwide, through the courts and through various bills in Congress. It keeps getting blocked. This new bill opens a quieter path: it would let one federal official demand state records, and voter rolls are state records.

It may never become law. But it is the newest move in the same long game, and the midterm elections are five months away. Now the details.

Read the title twice, because the word “voter” never appears.

Here is the first thing I owe you straight, because this publication runs on the record and not on the spin.

H.R. 9240 does not say “voter rolls.” It says “State records and documents.” The actual bill text has not been posted yet, which is normal for a bill this young, but it means nobody outside the sponsor’s office has read the operative language. Anyone telling you today that this bill “seizes the voter rolls” is reading ahead of the paper.

So why are we talking about voter rolls at all?

Because voter rolls are state records. Because of who wrote it. And because the executive branch already told us, in a formal legal opinion, that grabbing those rolls is exactly the goal.

The Justice Department already wrote down the plan.

You do not have to guess whether this administration wants the voter rolls. It put the argument in writing and posted it online.

On May 12, 2026, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a formal opinion titled “Authority to Obtain and Share Statewide Voter Roll Data.” The Office of Legal Counsel is the Justice Department’s in-house law firm. Its job is to tell the rest of the executive branch what it is allowed to do. Its opinions are not court rulings and cannot bind a judge. They are the permission slip the administration writes for itself before it acts.

Read that title again. The conclusion is not subtle: the Civil Rights Division can force states to turn over their full voter registration lists, and can share those lists with the Department of Homeland Security to flag people the government decides are ineligible to vote.

Except the premise is a fiction. Noncitizens already cannot vote, and almost none do. It is a federal crime that carries prison and deportation, and you cannot even register without swearing you are a citizen under penalty of prosecution. These gates are not theoretical. When you apply to register in Pennsylvania, the state runs your information against its own PennDOT records before a county office will accept it, and the application tells you in plain red type that noncitizens cannot register.

None of this is a Pennsylvania quirk. Federal law makes every state check your application against government records and makes you swear you are a citizen under penalty of perjury before your name goes on the rolls. Do not take my word for it, or Pennsylvania’s. Look up your own state at vote.gov and read the fine print. The gate is already there.

And the problem those gates are built for barely exists, with receipts from the right as much as the left. Louisiana’s Republican Secretary of State searched forty years of state records and found 390 suspected noncitizen registrations across the entire span. A study of the 2016 election put suspected noncitizen votes at 0.0001 percent of ballots cast. Even the libertarian Cato Institute found they do not vote in detectable numbers.

So weigh the fix against the problem. To catch a number that close to zero, the plan is to vacuum up every registered voter in the country and run the lists through an immigration database. The memo’s own logic treats every name on the roll as a “subject of investigation.” That is not a scalpel for a rare crime. It is a dragnet, and the data is the prize.

The legal hook is a statute from 1960. The opinion leans on Sections 301 and 303 of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, a law written to let the Attorney General inspect local voting records in the Jim Crow South, and reads it to mean a state cannot withhold or even black out a single line of its voter file. The reason is something called preemption, the legal rule that federal law overrides state law when the two collide. Their bottom line: produce it on demand, period.

This did not come from nowhere. The opinion traces the effort back to Executive Order 14248, Trump’s March 2025 elections order, which told the Attorney General to go after states that fall short on cleaning up their voter lists. By September 2025, the Civil Rights Division under Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon was sending states letters demanding their complete voter lists. The OLC opinion is the after-the-fact legal armor for those demands.

Here is the part this publication exists to flag.

The Division told states it wanted the lists “solely for list maintenance purposes,” meaning routine cleanup. The opinion then quietly blows that promise open. It concludes that the government is not bound by its own “list maintenance only” pledge, because a legal doctrine called equitable estoppel does not bind the United States the way it would bind you or me. Translated: they asked for your full voter file to tidy it, and reserved the right to do whatever they want once it is in their hands.

Sit with what that means. A federal officer holding the complete roll, with no binding limit on its use, is the one who decides who stays on it and who gets struck off. That is not housekeeping. That is the power to purge, and one wrong call drops eligible voters from the rolls.

Promise list maintenance. Reserve the right to decide who comes off the rolls. Tell the states they have no standing to complain. Sign it.

Total Hypocrisy, in one government PDF.

The courts are blocking this, but not this bill.

First, the good news, and it comes from judges. The Justice Department has spent a year trying to pry voter rolls out of the states, and it keeps losing in court. A federal judge in Michigan ruled that an old 1960 law cannot be stretched to seize today’s voter files (United States v. Benson, February 2026). Even Fox News, no enemy of this president, reported that judges have turned the department away in about two dozen states.

Now the catch. The courts keep winning for one reason: the president’s side does not have the power to run elections. Congress does. So when the executive grabs voter data on its own, a judge can strike it down. H.R. 9240 sidesteps all of it by handing the job to Congress’ own auditor, the branch that actually holds the power. The argument sinking those lawsuits would not even apply. Legal does not mean safe. This is the quiet door, the one with no judge standing in front of it.

The man who wrote the bill voted against certifying an election.

Byron Donalds is not a random backbencher with a process bill.

On January 6 and 7, 2021, Donalds voted against certifying the electoral votes from Arizona and Pennsylvania. Certifying is the routine final step where Congress confirms who won the presidential election. He was one of a dozen Florida Republicans to vote no, and he did it after the Capitol was stormed, not before. He told his constituents in advance he would object “to restore faith in our election system.” Watchdogs have tracked him as a documented election denier ever since.

He is a heavyweight, not a footnote. In 2024, Donalds sat on Trump’s vice presidential short list before the pick went to JD Vance. Trump then endorsed him for Florida governor in February 2025, abnormally early, clearing the primary field. Donalds officially qualified for the governor’s race on June 9, 2026, the day before he filed this bill.

So keep the framing clean. He is not chasing a VP seat Vance holds. He was passed over for it, and he is now the Trump-anointed frontrunner to run a state that counts a lot of ballots. Read his elections bill with both of those facts in hand.

The comptroller general is not who you think, and that is the whole game.

This is the part the loud takes will get wrong, so we slow down.

The Comptroller General does not work for Donald Trump. The office heads the Government Accountability Office, or GAO. Picture the federal government’s auditor: a nonpartisan agency that digs into how tax money is spent and whether agencies follow the law, then reports back to Congress, not to the White House. The person who runs it is the Comptroller General, who serves a fifteen-year term and can only be removed by impeachment or a formal vote of Congress. On paper, this is the single most insulated-from-the-president office in Washington.

If you stop there, H.R. 9240 looks almost boring. Congress’ nonpartisan auditor wants standing access to state records. Fine.

Do not stop there.

Gene Dodaro, who held the job for fifteen years, left on December 29, 2025. There is no Senate-confirmed Comptroller General right now. A career official, Orice Williams Brown, is running the GAO in an acting capacity. And here is the hinge: under an oddity of federal law, the president nominates the permanent replacement, and the Senate confirms. Roll Call reported that Dodaro stepped down “amid a clash with the White House,” and that Trump, who has had an adversarial relationship with congressional investigators, gets to name his successor. Months later, that search is still unresolved.

Put it together. A bill that grants new, permanent access to state records, routed through an office whose next permanent boss Trump gets to pick, filed by a Trump-endorsed election denier, while the chair sits empty.

That is not proof of a plan. It is a set of facts that point in one uncomfortable direction, next to a memo where the executive branch already stated the goal out loud.

The front doors jammed. This is the back one.

Watch how the ways into your voter roll stack up over eighteen months.

Door one, the executive route: the Justice Department campaign described above. Letters, lawsuits, the OLC opinion, the pipeline into the DHS database. Powerful on paper, but blocked so far in court.

Door two, the legislative route: the SAVE Act, a Republican bill that would require people to show documentary proof of citizenship, like a passport or birth certificate, in person before they could register to vote. It passed the House, again, but it is stuck in the Senate. Most major bills there need sixty votes, not a simple majority, thanks to a rule called the filibuster. Republicans hold fifty-three seats, so without Democratic help the bill goes nowhere. Majority Leader John Thune has admitted the votes are not there. It collected dust for most of a year.

Now read the supporters’ own words. Vote.org notes that even if the SAVE Act fails, its backers have signaled they will pursue its goals “through other legislative and executive paths.”

Door three is the quiet one. It skips Homeland Security and the DOJ Civil Rights Division, running instead through Congress’ auditor, into “State records and documents,” filed as routine oversight rather than an elections bill. The catch: Trump picks who runs that auditor. That is H.R. 9240.

The midterms are five months out, with control of Congress in play. That is the deadline behind all three doors.

What I can prove, and what I can’t.

This publication does not sell you inference as fact. So here is the line, drawn in daylight.

Provable: The Justice Department has formally claimed, in a written legal opinion, the power to compel state voter rolls and share them with Homeland Security. DOJ told states the data was for routine cleanup, then reserved the right to use it to find noncitizens for removal. Donalds filed a bill granting the Comptroller General access to state records. He is a documented election denier. He is the Trump-endorsed frontrunner for Florida governor. The top GAO job is open and Trump nominates the next person to hold it. The SAVE Act is stalled and courts have blocked the DOJ demands so far.

Inference: that H.R. 9240 is aimed at the voter rolls. The bill text is not public, the word “voter” is not in the title, and it went to the Oversight Committee rather than the House Administration Committee that handles elections. A defender would say this is routine oversight of how states spend federal money, nothing more, run by a nonpartisan office that no president can fire.

That defense is not stupid. It is the strongest case for the bill, and you should hold it in your head. Then weigh it against the calendar, the company it keeps, and a Justice Department memo that already said the quiet part in a court-citation voice.

This is not a law. It is not close. Watch it anyway.

Keep the panic in check. Every bill starts the same way. It is “referred to committee,” handed to a small group of lawmakers who decide whether it moves forward or quietly dies. Most quietly die. H.R. 9240 is a one-sponsor bill, introduced this week, sitting in committee with no posted text.

By the raw odds, it is a long shot. Historically, only about two percent of introduced bills become law, and only around eleven percent clear committee at all. A partisan bill carrying a single name fits that long-shot profile.

So why the deep dive? Because the odds are not the point. The pattern is.

A bill does not need to pass to tell you what its authors want to build. This one slots into a campaign that already runs on an executive order, a Justice Department legal opinion, a stalled Senate bill, and two dozen court fights. Long shots get refiled. Long shots get bolted onto must-pass bills in the dead of December. Long-shot language becomes the next move once the courts finish closing the louder doors.

We flag it now, while it is small, so nobody is surprised if it stops being small.

The next-day answer

You are not the only one who noticed.

One day later, on June 11, six House Democrats led by Rep. Jill Tokuda filed H.R. 9306, titled “To prohibit Federal employees from intervening in election administration.” In plain terms: a bill to keep federal officials out of how states run their elections. It went to the same committee as Donalds’ bill. The roster, per congress.gov, includes Rashida Tlaib and New Jersey’s Bonnie Watson Coleman.

I will not oversell it. Its text is not posted either, and it does not name the Comptroller General. But the timing, the subject, and the shared committee make it the obvious counterweight: one party working to open a federal channel into state election machinery, the other moving to wall it shut.

What to watch

The text. The moment H.R. 9240’s operative language posts, read it for two things: whether “State records” is written to include voter registration data, and whether access stops at the Comptroller General or flows onward to executive agencies like DHS.

The chair. Watch who Trump nominates to run the GAO. A new power to pull state records means far more depending on whose hands hold it.

The courts. The DOJ’s voter-roll theory is live in roughly two dozen cases. If a higher court hands the executive branch a win, the legislative doors matter less. If the executive branch keeps losing, expect more bills like this one.

The cosponsors. A one-sponsor bill is a flag in the ground. If it starts collecting names fast, it stopped being a flag and became a plan.

Share

If this opened your eyes, or made you feel like a target in your own country, do not keep it to yourself. A move like this only works while no one is looking. Share it, and make sure someone else is.

Before you read. Total Hypocrisy: Unfiltered is a reader-funded publication. No advertisers, no donors, no access deals, nobody with a stake in what this page says. That independence is the only reason a story like this one can run without asking anyone's permission. If you want more of the reporting that follows the money no matter whose family it leads to, subscribe. Free subscribers get the work. Paid subscribers keep it independent.

Subscribe now

Ivanka Trump says they found it by accident.

On a podcast last month she described swimming up to an uninhabited Albanian island, hiking barefoot to the top, and being captivated. “We were on a friend’s boat, and we stopped for a swim,” she said, per Al Jazeera. “Effectively, that’s how we found it.”

@businessblurbIvanka Trump on @David Senra talks about Jared Kushner’s private equity firm, Affinity Partners, investing $1.4 billion to transform Sazan Island into an ultra-luxury eco-resort. Located in Albania, this 1400- hectare Mediterranean island sits where the Adriatic and Ionian Seas meet. The site is a former Cold War military base. #realestate #island #investing #architecture #money

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

You did not find it. You were handed it. And the island you were handed is not a patch of wilderness. It is one of the most strategically contested rocks in the Mediterranean, a former Soviet military base that sits at the throat of a NATO ally’s main southern harbor. The story of how it ended up in the hands of the President’s son-in-law is the clearest map yet of how American power now converts itself into private wealth.

Let me walk you through it. No teams. Just the record.

First, the Island Belonged to Moscow

Picture a narrow doorway into a sheltered harbor. Sazan is the rock sitting in that doorway. It guards the entrance to the Bay of Vlorë, the point on Albania’s coast where the Adriatic Sea meets the Ionian. Whoever holds the island controls who gets in and out of the bay behind it. That one fact is why powerful men have fought over this place for a hundred years.

The Italians held it first and ran it as a naval base. After World War II it passed to Albania, and then to the Soviet Union, which made it the heart of something Moscow had nowhere else on earth: its only submarine base in the entire Mediterranean Sea. The plan was never modest. Standing at a nearby base in the late 1950s, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev reportedly bragged that from here he could “control the Mediterranean to Gibraltar,” as France 24 recounted when the island first opened to visitors in 2015. In plain English, he thought this single island could let the Soviet navy dominate a stretch of sea running halfway across southern Europe.

It did not last. Albania and the Soviet Union had a bitter falling out in 1961, and the Soviets were thrown off the island. Albania’s communist dictator, Enver Hoxha, then sealed Sazan off from the world. No civilians, no visitors, only soldiers. Terrified of invasion, he buried the island under roughly 3,600 concrete bunkers built to survive a nuclear strike, all linked by a maze of underground tunnels. For sixty years it held more bunkers than people and saw not one tourist. Only in 2010 did Albania change course and declare it a protected nature park, finally opening a small corner of it to day-trippers in 2015.

Remember that word. Protected. We are going to watch it disappear.

A Barren Rock That Controls a Sea

Here is the part the brochure leaves out, and the part most coverage misses because it files this under “environment” instead of “national security.”

Albania joined NATO, the Western military alliance led by the United States, in 2009. Ever since, it has worked hard to make itself useful to that alliance. In March 2024 it reopened an old air base at Kucova as NATO’s first base in the Western Balkans, paid for by NATO itself. Prime Minister Edi Rama has spent years offering up Albanian harbors for the alliance to use, including the Pasha Liman naval base near the city of Vlorë and a proposed new base further up the coast, as Euronews has reported. NATO now helps patrol Albania’s skies. This is a country trying to become one of NATO’s front doors in the region.

Now picture what is actually meant to go on this island. The project is a luxury resort worth well over a billion dollars, with hotels, villas, and a marina spread across Sazan and the protected coastline facing it, as Reuters and Time have reported. It is the work of Affinity Partners, the private investment firm run by Jared Kushner, the President’s son-in-law, operating through an affiliate it created called Atlantic Incubation Partners. And Affinity is bankrolled mainly by the governments of the Persian Gulf, a point we will come back to in a moment.

Now drop that resort onto the military map. Albania’s working naval base, Pasha Liman, sits tucked inside the Bay of Vlorë. Sazan is the island standing guard at its entrance. Whoever holds Sazan controls the way in and out of that bay. This deal would hand Sazan, along with a brand-new marina, to Kushner’s Gulf-funded firm. In plain terms, a company financed by foreign governments and run by the President’s son-in-law would sit at the front door of a NATO ally’s naval base.

I want to be careful here, because a wilder version of this story is already floating around. Russian state media has jumped on it, spinning fantasies about secret missile launchers and hidden gas pipelines. Ignore all of that. You do not need a spy thriller to see the problem. The plain facts are bad enough.

Here they are in one breath. Albania is a NATO member, one of the alliance’s frontline countries. It is handing long-term control of a piece of its own strategic coastline to a private company tied to the family of the sitting American president. That company is bankrolled by foreign governments. And the whole deal was rushed through a process that is now under criminal investigation by Albania’s own prosecutors.

The real danger is not a hidden submarine. It is the example this sets. If the President’s family can be handed a strategic island this way, what stops a Chinese or Russian-backed company from being handed the next one? NATO was built to protect its members from enemies on the outside. It has no rule for a member quietly selling off the store from the inside.

They Did Not Discover It. The Government Cleared the Way.

The “we found it on a swim” story collapses the moment you look at the paperwork.

Kushner’s plans for Albania surfaced publicly in 2024, covering both Sazan and a sprawling resort zone in the protected Vjosa-Narta coastal landscape near Zvernec. The wider play is regional, part of an Affinity Partners push into the Balkans that also included a now-abandoned tower project in Belgrade.

Then the laws started changing. The Vjosa-Narta coast had been legally protected since 2004, with that protection strengthened by a 2017 law. None of that was supposed to allow a luxury resort. So in early 2024, Albania’s parliament rewrote the law and punched a hole in those protections, allowing tourism development inside protected areas. Conservation groups saw exactly what was happening. EuroNatur says the 2024 change opened the door to big developments, luxury tourism included, on protected land. BirdLife International puts the change in February 2024 and accuses the government of lying to its own parliament about it.

So follow the order of events. Protect the land in 2004 and 2017. Quietly weaken those protections in early 2024. Give the investor special fast-track status later that year. Then, on December 30, 2024, a government committee chaired by Rama himself approved the Sazan project for a company linked to Kushner’s fund, Reuters reported. The timing is hard to ignore. That approval came right after Donald Trump won the election, and about three weeks before he was sworn in for a second term.

The law was changed first. The project was approved second. The land’s protected status was never a real obstacle. It was a setting the government could switch off whenever it wanted to.

There was even a rival bidder, and the way she got brushed aside is its own small scandal. As the New York Times reported, an Albanian-American developer named Evi Kokalari-Angelakis had pitched her own plan for Sazan in the spring of 2024, offering to invest 400 million dollars in a luxury hotel. She says the government asked her to prepare a more detailed proposal, and then she learned from Ivanka Trump's July podcast comments that the deal had effectively already gone to the Trumps. "My biggest disadvantage is that I am up against Trump's daughter and son-in-law," she told the paper. An opposition member of the Albanian parliament, Agron Shehaj, described the selection process to the NYT as deeply opaque and warned it looked like a private deal serving the prime minister's political interest. That reporting also placed Sazan among a series of deals linking the President's family to foreign governments.

Albania’s own prosecutors are not treating this as a parking ticket. The country’s anti-corruption prosecutors, known as SPAK (the Special Structure Against Corruption and Organized Crime), have opened an investigation into three things: the 2024 changes to the land’s protected status, why officials skipped the normal competitive bidding process, and where the money came from to buy up the land in the first place.

One more detail that should kill the “eco-resort” branding for good. The island is still a minefield. Using military records it pried loose through a public-records request, the investigative outlet Reporter.al found that Sazan and the waters around it are littered with World War II artillery shells, naval mines, and tons of explosives that never went off. The Defense Ministry has only now been ordered to clean it up. Read that again. They changed the law and rushed through the approvals before anyone cleared the live bombs out of the ground.

The Man Who Negotiates Wars and Banks the Proceeds

Now we get to the part that makes this an American story, not just an Albanian one.

Jared Kushner is not a private citizen who happens to be related to the President. In February 2026, Trump appointed him Special Envoy for Peace. He has been the administration's central negotiator on Gaza, he has run point on the US-Iran nuclear talks in Geneva, and Bloomberg titled its profile of him with the only words that fit: a peace envoy who is also a six-billion-dollar fund manager.

Where does that money come from? Foreign governments. One day after leaving the first Trump White House, Kushner opened his investment firm, Affinity Partners. Within months he had raised two billion dollars from Saudi Arabia’s government wealth fund, which is controlled by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The crown prince reportedly forced the deal through over the objections of his own financial advisers. The fund grew to about 4.8 billion dollars by the end of 2024 and now sits somewhere between five and six billion. The governments of the United Arab Emirates and Qatar are invested too. According to the New York Times, Kushner is now trying to raise another five billion, and the Saudis get first crack at any new money he takes in.

So hold the whole picture in your head at once. A foreign government, Albania, courting favor with Washington, hands a strategic island to a private fund. That fund is run by the President’s son-in-law. That fund is bankrolled by other foreign governments, the Saudis and Emiratis and Qataris, whose wars and ceasefires that same son-in-law is negotiating on behalf of the United States.

This is not my characterization. It is Congress’s. In March 2026 Senate and House Democrats opened their own investigations, with Senator Ron Wyden calling Kushner a “wildly corrupt appendage” of the administration running a shadow State Department. In April, Representative Jamie Raskin sent Kushner a letter saying he cannot be both an American diplomat and a financial servant of the Saudi monarchy, and raising the question of whether he is, in effect, an unregistered foreign agent, someone secretly working on behalf of a foreign power. These are official government documents. You can read them yourself.

The corruption everyone keeps waiting for is not going to arrive as a single smoking-gun email. It is built into the structure of the whole arrangement. It is sitting in plain sight, signed and stamped. The conflict of interest is not a glitch in the system. It is the system.

The Russian Threads

There are real Russia connections in this story, and there are fake ones. The Kremlin’s outlets are busy manufacturing the fake kind to drown out the real ones. Here are the two that actually hold up.

The first is history’s grim joke. The island that guarded Moscow's only Mediterranean submarine base is now being delivered to capital tied to an American president's family. The Soviets were expelled in 1961. The fund is moving in sixty-five years later. The strategic logic of the rock has not changed. Only the flag of the man who wants it.

The second is documented and far more uncomfortable. In that same letter, Raskin notes that in February 2026 Kushner pivoted to a Ukraine ceasefire effort that “coincidentally involved close contact with major Russian financiers,” before he abandoned it and returned to the Middle East and his fundraising. The man steering American diplomacy toward Moscow was, on the public record of a sitting congressman, in close contact with Russian money while doing it. That is the Russia thread worth pulling, and it runs through a federal oversight document, not a conspiracy blog.

I am not going to hand you the Russian state-media version, the one claiming Sazan is secretly about controlling an Israeli gas pipeline through the Strait of Otranto. That theory is being pushed hardest by outlets that answer to the Kremlin, and it exists precisely to make a real, provable conflict of interest look like the ravings of cranks. We do not need it. The truth is heavier.

Albania Is Not For Sale. It Was Sold Anyway.

The Albanians are not waiting for a verdict. They are in the streets.

What began as a small gathering in Zvernec, after developers strung barbed wire across a public beach and private guards roughed up the locals, has become the country’s biggest political story. Thousands have filled Tirana for consecutive nights. They wave pink flamingo cutouts, the bird that nests in the wetlands now under the bulldozers, and the press has started calling it the flamingo revolution. The signs tell you exactly how this reads to the people who live there. “Nation is not for sale.” “I don’t want Albania like Dubai.” And, aimed straight at the family, “Ivanka, go home.” Time and Foreign Policy have both tracked the escalation, and Foreign Policy reports the protests are expected to intensify.

The state response has hardened the anger. Police have used water cannons. The private security firms that attacked protesters were stripped of their licenses and police officers were suspended, Al Jazeera reported. Conservationists have already mapped the destruction of at least one sea turtle nest from the early earthworks. Rama, for his part, offered to meet the opposition to “discuss solutions” and was refused. The protesters do not want to renegotiate the terms. They want the project killed.

The country is not unanimous, and that deserves a sentence. Some residents and tourism boosters want the investment and the jobs in a poor region, the developers say they are following the law, and Rama calls the project Albania’s ticket into the top tier of Mediterranean tourism. None of that touches the real question. Albania can need investment and still not need this. A poor country is allowed to develop its coast. It is not required to gut its own conservation laws, skip the public bidding, and route a strategic island to the American president’s family in the weeks between his election and his inauguration. The jobs talk is a fog machine. What SPAK is investigating is not whether Albania should build hotels. It is how this specific deal, for these specific people, got the green light. Development is not the scandal. The shortcut is.

What This Means For You

You might be reading this from Pennsylvania, or Ohio, or anywhere that is not a wetland on the Adriatic, and wondering why an Albanian island is your problem.

Here is why. The Sazan deal is a working model, and the model is portable.

The model is this. A foreign government wants something from the United States. It cannot legally write a check to the President. So it does business with the President’s family instead, through a private fund that is already fattened by other foreign governments who want their own things. The favors flow as land, as concessions, as fees, as access. Everyone keeps their hands technically clean because nothing about it is technically a bribe. The protected status gets revised. The tender gets skipped. The paperwork gets signed. And the man at the center of it is, at this very moment, conducting American foreign policy in the same capitals that fund his firm.

That is not a story about Albania. That is a story about whether the office of the American presidency is for rent, and the early signs say the lease is already signed. The reason it matters that Jared Kushner is the Special Envoy for Peace is that the title is supposed to mean he works for you. The two-billion-dollar Saudi check, the deals he keeps doing alongside that same Saudi fund, the island off Vlorë, all of it says he works for someone else, and that you are footing the bill to be represented by a man with foreign money in every pocket.

The flamingos in Narta do not get a vote in Tirana, and neither do you. But the Albanians figured out the assignment faster than we have. They looked at a protected island being handed to a foreign president’s family and they wrote it on a sign. “Nation is not for sale.”

We will see if anyone here is paying attention.

Subscribe now

Total Hypocrisy runs on readers, not advertisers and not access. If you want the investigations that connect the deeds nobody else is connecting, the ones that follow the money from a wetland in Albania to a fund in Miami to a podium at the State Department, become a paid subscriber. Paid members keep this work independent and keep the receipts coming. No teams. No allegiances. Just the record.

Before you read: Yes, this is a publication about politics and yes, today it is about the guy from The Hills. I am as bewildered as you are, but he out-polled a sitting council member, so apparently this is the timeline we live in now.

Total Hypocrisy stays free because paid subscribers keep it that way. No ads, no billionaire backstop, no team to trust. If the unflinching version is worth something to you, become a paid subscriber. You fund the work; everybody else reads for nothing.

Subscribe now

There are sentences a serious independent journalist never expects to write. For example:

The chin-reduction guy from The Hills is now a serious contender for mayor of Los Angeles.

And yet here we are, in June of 2026: Spencer Pratt currently sits second in the L.A. mayoral primary, ahead of an actual sitting city council member, and is headed, in all likelihood, toward a November runoff against incumbent Mayor Karen Bass.

I want to be fair to the man, because that is the whole point of this publication: no teams, no narratives, just the record. So let me say the genuinely sympathetic part first. Pratt and his wife, Heidi Montag, lost their home in the 2025 Palisades fire. That is a real tragedy, and his early, loud advocacy for fire victims was real too. People who watched a city fail them and then watched a celebrity say the things they were feeling are not stupid for responding. I get it.

But “I get why people are angry” is not the same as “this man should run a city of four million people.” And once you move past the fire and actually look at the twenty-year paper trail, the case against Spencer Pratt writes itself. He has, helpfully, written most of it himself.

The Villain Who Keeps Telling You He’s a Villain

Pratt’s entire fame rests on a single accomplishment: he made America hate him on purpose, for money, and he’s proud of it. In his 2026 memoir, titled, with zero shame, The Guy You Loved to Hate, he frames his Hills persona as a deliberate piece of media manipulation. He has said, repeatedly, that he pitched himself to MTV as the villain “every story requires”, that he engineered conflict, and that he treated the manufacturing of drama as a craft.

Take a second with that, because it’s the most important thing about him and everyone keeps treating it as charming. His defense against having behaved monstrously on television is: don’t worry, the monstrousness was a marketing strategy. That is not an exoneration. That is a man telling you, on the record, that he will fabricate reality, weaponize other people’s lives, and burn down relationships if it gets him attention and a payday, and that he’s good at it. We are now being asked to hand that skill set the keys to City Hall, the LAPD budget, and the emergency-management apparatus of a wildfire-prone megacity. The idea that he is a master manipulator who admits he manipulates is a confession, not a campaign slogan.

What He Did To The Woman Next To Him

The clearest long-form footage we have of Pratt’s character is how he treated Heidi Montag at the start of their relationship, and it is not flattering. He arrived in her life, and her best friend and roommate, Lauren Conrad, was gone within a season. The wedge was a rumor that Conrad had made a sex tape, which became the engine of the entire show.

(Can I just state again that writing about reality tv and citing ET Online is an absolutely absurd position to be in?)

Conrad’s parting line to Montag, “I want to forgive you and I want to forget you,” is now reality-TV scripture. Montag’s family followed: by the time she underwent ten cosmetic surgeries in a single day at twenty-three, her relationship with her own mother had ruptured on camera. Montag reportedly “nearly died” as a result of having so many procedures at once.

Isolate the partner from her friends. Isolate her from her family. Make yourself the center of her world. You don’t need a psychology license to recognize the silhouette of that pattern, and I’m not going to pretend you do.

Here’s where intellectual honesty cuts against an easy hit piece, though: Pratt insists much of The Hills was staged, and Montag has, for years, agreed and defended him. So you’re left with two possibilities, and both are damning for a would-be mayor. Either what we watched was real, in which case it’s a genuinely ugly portrait of how he treats the people closest to him. Or it was, as he claims, a calculated performance, in which case he spent years deceiving millions of people for profit and is now asking those same people to trust what comes out of his mouth. Pick one. There is no third door where this reflects well on him.

And Then There’s His Sister

If The Hills material were all we had, you could wave it off as ancient, edited, showbiz nonsense. It isn’t all we had. When Pratt announced his run, his own younger sister, Stephanie Pratt, herself a former Hills cast member, went on X and begged Los Angeles not to vote for him, calling it “a vote for stupidity.”

Then she went much further. She alleged that he physically assaulted her when she was eighteen and put her in the hospital. She alleged he got her hooked on hard drugs as a teenager. She alleged he was in a cult, was estranged from the family for years because of it, and once got arrested on a firearms charge in Costa Rica.

I am going to be scrupulous here, because this is exactly the kind of thing that lazy commentary gets wrong: these are unproven allegations, made on social media, by an estranged sibling, in the heat of a campaign she clearly wanted to sink. There is no public charge, no record, no corroboration I’ve been able to find. Pratt’s camp didn’t substantively respond, and within days Stephanie scrubbed much of her own social media. Take all of that for exactly what it’s worth, which is to say, treat it skeptically.

But notice the asymmetry. A candidate’s own sister leveled firsthand accusations of violence and drug abuse against him, and the campaign’s answer was essentially silence and a memoir tour. In a normal race, that detonates. In this one, it barely registered, because we have collectively decided that a man being famous is the same thing as a man being vetted. He is not vetted. He has a poli-sci degree he took over a decade to finish and precisely zero hours of governing experience. His campaign has run substantially on AI-generated videos and viral stunts, what one rival bluntly called “AI slop and no plans.” That’s not a disruptor. That’s a content strategy cosplaying as a candidacy.

Heidi Montag Is No First Lady of Los Angeles

Which brings us, regrettably, to the prospective first lady.

I have actual sympathy for Heidi Montag as a person: the surgeries she nearly died from, the years of tabloid cruelty, the trolls who drove a kid to a surgeon’s table. That’s a sad story and she’s said she regrets it. But sympathy isn’t the question. The question is judgment, and the public record on Montag’s judgment is rough.

This is the woman who, asked point-blank by Vogue about the total absence of racial diversity on her show, explained that the cast actually was diverse because “we don’t all look the same.” Audrina, you see, “has darker hair.” It would be a hilarious bit if she were in on the joke. She was not in on the joke.

This is also the woman who, defending herself in a scandal, compared her own persecution to that of Jesus Christ. Who has flitted from being Sarah Palin’s self-described “biggest fan” to wearing an Obama shirt, depending on the season and the camera. Who once filed for divorce as an admitted publicity stunt to juice ratings. The throughline of Montag’s public life is not malice; it’s that there is no throughline. Belief, identity, even her own marriage have all, at various points, been content. That is a fine way to run a personal brand. It is a deeply strange qualification for the most visible unelected role in city civic life.

Here We Are

I did not want to spend any of my week on the dry-shampoo dramas of a 2007 docusoap. But Los Angeles is about to make a real decision, and “he’s a character,” which is, word for word, roughly what the President said about him, is how cities end up governed by people whose only demonstrated skill is staying on television.

Spencer Pratt told us exactly who he is two decades ago, then wrote a book reminding us, then put it on the ballot. The villain was always the bit. The terrifying part is that the bit might win.

Share

If you found this useful, share it with the one person in your life who keeps saying “honestly, Spencer Pratt is kind of funny though.” That’s who this is for.

Before you read: Total Hypocrisy: Unfiltered stays free for everyone, and it stays that way because paid subscribers make it possible. If this kind of reporting matters to you, the single most effective thing you can do is become a paid subscriber. Your support keeps the paywall down, keeps the work independent, and keeps every reader, paying or not, in the loop. Upgrade to paid and keep the truth unfiltered for all of us.

Subscribe now

The Absurdity, Up Front

On Tuesday, June 2, 2026, Donald Trump posted to Truth Social that Bill Pulte, the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, would become acting Director of National Intelligence, replacing Tulsi Gabbard.

Read that again. The man who regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is now the nation’s top spy.

If those names are fuzzy, here’s the short version: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the government-backed companies that sit at the center of the American mortgage system. They don’t lend to you directly. Instead, they buy up mortgages from banks, which frees those banks to keep issuing new home loans, and they guarantee a huge share of the country’s mortgages against default. Between them they touch roughly half the home loans in America, which is why they’re considered too important to fail. Pulte’s agency, the FHFA, is their regulator, and Pulte made himself their chairman. In other words, his actual expertise is housing finance. Mortgages. Loan paperwork. Not spies, not foreign threats, not surveillance.

Pulte has no known experience in national security, no military background, and no record of ever working in or around the intelligence community. What he does have is a two-year track record of using a federal agency to go after the President’s political enemies. As Steve Benen of MS Now put it, this may be “the single most outlandish personnel move of Trump’s second term”, and the competition for that title is fierce.

This isn’t a man being promoted despite his record. He’s being promoted because of it.

Who Is Bill Pulte?

He’s a 37-year-old private-equity heir. The grandson of the founder of PulteGroup, one of the largest homebuilders in the country, Pulte studied broadcast journalism at Northwestern and built a brand for himself online long before he built one in Washington. He founded his own investment firm, Pulte Capital, and made his name on social media through what Newsweek describes as “Twitter philanthropy,” a mix of cash giveaways, GoFundMe promotion, and self-promotion that turned him into a minor internet celebrity with millions of followers. He has, in his own words, called himself the “inventor” of the format.

His instinct for combat showed up early. As Newsweek lays out, in 2016 he helped his own grandfather force out PulteGroup’s CEO, joined the board as one of the youngest directors in the Fortune 500, and then spent years tangled in lawsuits and inheritance disputes with relatives and executives. That scorched-earth style, the piece notes, foreshadowed exactly how he would operate in Washington.

The Senate confirmed him to run the FHFA in March 2025, in a narrow 56–43 vote, with only three Democrats crossing over. He promptly installed himself as chairman of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, consolidating control over the institutions that backstop roughly half the country’s mortgages. Since then, per Newsweek, he has fired senior staff, sidelined ethics officials, and pushed abrupt policy shifts, including a widely criticized proposal for 50-year mortgages.

On paper, the FHFA is a sleepy financial regulator. Pulte made it anything but.

He’s Not Giving The Housing Job Up

Here’s the part that turns an odd appointment into an alarming one. Pulte is not leaving the FHFA to become spy chief. He’s keeping it. Trump made that explicit in the very post announcing the move: “During this period, he will remain Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and Chairman of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.”

Sit with what that means. One man will simultaneously run the agency that regulates half the nation’s mortgages, chair the two companies at the center of the housing market, and oversee all 18 agencies of the U.S. intelligence community. He’ll hold the mortgage records of millions of Americans in one hand and the surveillance powers of the NSA in the other. The same official who spent two years mining loan paperwork for ammunition against the President’s enemies isn’t trading that toolkit for a new one. He’s adding to it.

Stacking these jobs on one person has no real precedent, and for good reason: running the intelligence community is meant to be an all-consuming, full-time role, not a side project bolted onto a financial-regulator day job. One commentator didn't mince words, calling the idea that Pulte will run the spy agencies while still running the housing agency "an outrageous joke."

What He’ll Actually Be Responsible For

This is not a ceremonial post. The Director of National Intelligence sits atop the entire U.S. Intelligence Community: 18 separate agencies and elements, the count fixed in federal law.

That includes the heavy hitters:

• The CIA (foreign human intelligence and covert action)

• The NSA (global communications surveillance)

• The DIA (military intelligence)

• The NGA and NRO (satellite imagery and the spy-satellite fleet)

• The intelligence arms of the FBI, DEA, Treasury, State, Energy, Homeland Security, the Coast Guard, and all the military branches.

This is a staggering enterprise. The DNI oversees and directs all 18 elements, a workforce of roughly 100,000 people and an intelligence budget that has grown to more than $70 billion a year. Pulte would be responsible for setting the priorities that decide what the entire apparatus collects, analyzes, and chases, from foreign terrorism to cyber warfare.

The power of the purse, and the power over the President’s ear:

Two pieces of that job matter most, and both are dangerous in the wrong hands.

First, the money. The DNI’s single most powerful tool is control over the National Intelligence Program budget, the pool that funds the DNI’s own office, the entire CIA, and strategic intelligence activities across the other agencies. That “power of the purse” is how the DNI enforces priorities and forces the sprawling community to fall in line. Whoever holds it can starve the programs they dislike and feed the ones they favor.

Second, and more chilling given Pulte’s record: the DNI coordinates and delivers the President’s Daily Brief, the single most exclusive intelligence product in the world, the synthesized assessment of the day’s most critical threats handed to the commander-in-chief every morning. The DNI is also the President’s principal intelligence advisor and a member of the National Security Council. In other words, the person in this chair largely decides what intelligence reaches the Oval Office and how it’s framed. That is precisely the gatekeeping role Sen. Warner was warning about when he said the White House appears to want “the narrative it wants, not the intelligence we need.”

A wartime posting, handed to a novice:

The timing makes it worse. Pulte takes over in the middle of a shooting war. The U.S. and Iran have been fighting since late February, and four months in, there’s still no end. An April ceasefire is on “life support,” with intermittent fighting resuming in May, a U.S. naval blockade and Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz are still choking global shipping, and the diplomacy meant to end it collapsed just this week. This is the highest-pressure environment a top intelligence official can face, and there’s zero margin for on-the-job training.

He also inherits an office that has already been hollowed out under Gabbard, which cut or reassigned 40% of ODNI staff and consolidated analytic functions through a restructuring critics say weakened the office’s institutional capacity. So Pulte arrives at a diminished agency, in the middle of an active conflict, with no relevant experience, holding the keys to the President’s morning brief.

The DNI role exists for a specific, blood-soaked reason: it was created after the intelligence failures that led to the deaths of thousands of Americans on 9/11. It was designed to make sure the nation’s spy agencies talk to each other and tell the President the truth.

It was not designed to be handed to a mortgage regulator as a reward.

Two Years of “Fishing Expeditions”

Here’s where the “attack dog” nickname comes from, and it’s not the opposition that coined it. CNN itself described Pulte as “an unlikely political attack dog against the Federal Reserve and many of Trump’s perceived political enemies.”

The mortgage-fraud weapon:

Pulte’s signature move was deceptively bureaucratic. He set up a mortgage-fraud tip line and began issuing criminal referrals to the Justice Department over “occupancy fraud”: the technical question of whether someone improperly labeled a property a “primary residence” to get a better loan rate.

It sounds like dry paperwork. In practice, Pulte became a leading figure in the president's retribution campaign, pushing the Justice Department toward some of its most eye-popping cases against Trump's personal foes. The tactic drew enough alarm that a federal watchdog, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, opened an investigation into Pulte over possible misuse of authority.

The targets read like an enemies list:

• New York Attorney General Letitia James: the prosecutor who won a massive civil-fraud judgment against Trump.

• Sen. Adam Schiff: the Democrat who led Trump’s first impeachment.

• Fed Governor Lisa Cook: a Biden appointee.

• Fulton County DA Fani Willis: a Trump antagonist.

All of them denied wrongdoing. And here’s the part the administration would rather you skip: the referrals mostly went nowhere. The only one that produced criminal charges, against James, was dismissed in November after a judge ruled the prosecutor who filed them had been illegally appointed. The referrals against Schiff and Cook never yielded charges, and neither did the one against Willis, the Georgia prosecutor who brought the 2020 election-interference case against Trump.

The cases collapsed. The point was never really the cases.

The Cook firing:

The Lisa Cook referral wasn’t just a press release. Trump cited Pulte’s fraud allegations to justify firing Cook from the Federal Reserve, an unprecedented move now sitting before the Supreme Court. Pulte’s paperwork became the legal pretext for an attempt to seize control of the supposedly independent central bank.

The war on Jerome Powell:

That fits a broader pattern. Sen. Elizabeth Warren accused Pulte last July of abandoning his actual job amid a housing affordability crisis, and instead obsessing over getting Fed Chair Jerome Powell fired. Her receipt: in a single month, Pulte had fired off more than 100 posts and reposts about Powell on X.

A housing regulator who spent his days trying to topple the Fed chair on social media. That was the résumé.

How He Landed the Job, and Who Got Skipped

Here’s a detail that should stop you cold: Pulte wasn’t even the plan.

When Gabbard announced in May that she was resigning effective June 30, citing her husband’s rare bone-cancer diagnosis, Trump had already announced that the job would go to Aaron Lukas, the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence. I reported on it. Lukas is the statutory successor: the law says the principal deputy “shall act for, and exercise the powers of” the DNI during a vacancy.

Then Trump changed his mind and reached for his attack dog instead.

And he did it through a loophole. Acting officials can serve up to 210 days without Senate confirmation. Because Gabbard’s vacancy starts June 30, Pulte can sit in the chair until roughly January: no hearings, no confirmation vote, no Senate scrutiny of his nonexistent qualifications. Whether Congress has any mechanism to remove him before that clock runs out is, per CNBC, “less clear.”

It’s governance by stopwatch. Install the loyalist, run out the clock, dare anyone to stop you.

Just How Unqualified Is He?

Catastrophically. And not just by the opposition’s account.

The DNI job carries a statutory requirement of “extensive national security experience and management expertise.” Pulte has neither. He’s never held a security clearance role, never run an intelligence operation, never analyzed a threat.

The reaction was brutal and bipartisan:

• Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, warned the concern isn’t only the missing experience. It’s that Pulte “appears to have been selected precisely because the White House believes he will provide the narrative it wants, not the intelligence we need.”

• Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called him “a partisan thug with no experience in intelligence.”

• Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Trump was “rewarding his lackey, who has no national security experience, with a perch atop our nation’s intelligence community. What could go wrong?”

And then the tell. Even Republican Sen. John Cornyn, who sits on the Intelligence Committee, conceded: “I don’t see any evidence of his qualifications for that job, but I’m willing to listen.” When a member of the President’s own party can’t name a single qualification, the emperor has no clothes.

Trump’s own justification gives the game away. His defense of the pick was that Pulte has “deep experience managing the most sensitive matters in America, the safety and soundness of the Markets, and over 10 Trillion Dollars at Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.” Notice what’s missing: a single word about intelligence, national security, or foreign threats. The case for him is that he managed mortgages well. We’re meant to believe that translates to running the NSA.

And, as noted above, he’s not even giving up the housing job to do it. Analysts already fear the appointment will “further politicize the office and erode U.S. intelligence gathering.”

Why This Should Scare You: The Fishing License Just Got Bigger

Here’s the throughline that turns an absurd story into a dangerous one.

For two years, Pulte hunted Trump’s enemies with the tools of a housing agency: mortgage records, occupancy data, loan paperwork. Limited tools. Narrow access. And even with those, he managed to manufacture the pretext for firing a Federal Reserve governor and triggering DOJ probes of several prominent Trump critics.

Now hand that same man the crown jewels of American intelligence: the surveillance powers of the NSA, the FBI’s domestic intelligence files, the full reach of 18 agencies. The upgrade in firepower is exactly the point. As former National Security Council official Brett Bruen told CNBC, Pulte’s arsenal will now graduate from “cafeteria-type sensitive information to the crown jewels of our most protected secrets.” If he could spin mortgage paperwork into criminal referrals, imagine what he can build from classified files.

This isn’t hypothetical hand-wringing. Intelligence analysts and lawmakers alike warn that Pulte could weaponize the office against the president’s domestic political rivals and erode trust in U.S. intelligence. And there’s already a tell in his FHFA record: when an inspector general looked into complaints that Pulte had obtained mortgage records improperly to punish political enemies, Pulte fired the watchdog, sweeping out roughly a dozen ethics officials at the agency. A man who purges the people investigating his abuses at a housing agency is now responsible for policing abuses across the entire intelligence community.

Consider what’s actually inside that toolkit. The DNI sits atop agencies that can intercept communications, run surveillance, and compile dossiers, capabilities that, turned inward, represent the oldest and most dangerous temptation in American government. The CIA was barred from spying on Americans at its founding precisely because leaders feared it would become an instrument of political abuse, and the post-9/11 wall between foreign intelligence and domestic politics has been the thin line protecting dissenters, journalists, and opponents ever since. Pulte’s entire track record is the story of a man who treats legal guardrails as obstacles to route around.

Warner named it directly: Trump has chosen “an official who has demonstrated not just willingness but eagerness to use the authorities of government to pursue political retribution.” The track record isn’t a warning the White House overlooked. It’s the qualification the White House valued.

The pattern is the whole story. A loyalist who treats government agencies as instruments for targeting the President’s enemies has just been promoted to run the most powerful surveillance machinery on earth, with no confirmation, a 210-day shot clock, and a President who’s already shown he’ll cite this man’s paperwork to justify firing people he doesn’t like.

The mortgage-records phase was the test run. The question now is what he fishes for when the pond is the entire intelligence community.

Share

Sources are embedded throughout. This piece reflects reporting available as of June 2, 2026, the day the appointment was announced; several details, including whether Aaron Lukas remains in his post and the exact start date of Pulte’s tenure, are still developing.

Before you read: No advertisers, no access, no billionaire. Just readers. Subscribe to keep Total Hypocrisy: Unfiltered going.

Subscribe now

There is a version of Donald Trump that exists for the public, and a version that exists on the phone. On Monday, the country got to meet both of them within the same hour, and the gap between the two tells you everything about who this presidency actually serves.

At 5:47 PM today, the public version posted a warm little dispatch to Truth Social. He had asked “Bibi” not to raid Beirut, and Bibi turned his troops around. “Thank you Bibi!” Hezbollah would stop shooting, Israel would stop shooting, and with any luck the calm would hold “for ETERNITY!” It was signed, with the gravity of a treaty, “President DONALD J. TRUMP.” It was the kind of statesmanlike note you write when you want history to remember you as a peacemaker.

But that post went up in the evening. The phone call it describes happened around midday. And the private version of that same conversation, according to two U.S. officials and a third source briefed on it who spoke to Axios, sounded nothing like a thank-you note. It sounded like this:

“You’re fucking crazy. You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me. I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.”

So the sequence is the story. First the screaming. Then, hours later, the gratitude, packaged for the public like nothing had happened. The warmth was not how he felt. The warmth was the press release.

And read that one sentence again, slowly, because it is the whole game: “You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me.” That is not a threat. That is a resume.

The Quiet Part, Said Into A Phone, And Then Leaked

For years the charge that the United States shields Benjamin Netanyahu from accountability has been treated as the fevered talk of cranks and radicals. On Monday the President of the United States made the case himself, in his own words, to the one person who would know whether it was true.

Netanyahu is not a controversial figure in the abstract. He is, as a matter of documented international law, a fugitive. In November 2024 the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for him for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including the use of starvation as a method of warfare. As recently as December, the court rejected Israel’s attempt to kill the case and kept the warrant firmly in place. That warrant is live right now. It is the legal status of the man Trump just called to scream at.

And what was Trump screaming about? Not the warrant. Not the alleged starvation of civilians. Not the buildings flattened in Lebanon to kill a single commander, which another U.S. official said genuinely bothered the President. He was screaming because Netanyahu’s behavior was inconvenient. Because it was threatening a deal with Iran. Because, in Trump’s own framing, an ungrateful client was making his benefactor look bad.

The grievance was never the war crimes. The grievance was the bad timing.

“I’m Saving Your Ass” Is A Sentence With A Paper Trail

Let us be precise, because precision is what separates journalism from rage-posting, and because the truth here is damning enough that it needs no exaggeration.

The “prison” Trump bragged about on the call was, by the reporting, a reference to Netanyahu’s corruption trial in Israel, the one Trump has spent months demanding be wiped away, going so far as to publicly lean on Israel’s president to hand Netanyahu a pardon. So when Trump says “you’d be in prison if it weren’t for me,” he is talking, in the immediate sense, about a domestic bribery and fraud case.

But you do not get to claim the narrow reading and dodge the wider one, because the wider one is built from the same brick. This is the same administration that, in February 2025, sanctioned the International Criminal Court itself, the institution that issued the war crimes warrant, treating the court as the criminal and the indicted man as the victim. This is the same United States that will not lift a finger to honor a warrant its closest ally is subject to. Strip away the diplomatic varnish and Trump’s boast is simply true on every level at once. He is the reason Netanyahu walks free, in an Israeli courtroom and on the world stage both.

He said it because he believes it. And he believes it because it is correct.

The “Total Hypocrisy” Of It All

Here is the part this publication exists to name. We do not have to infer the gap between the public Trump and the private one. On Monday he documented it himself, in two messages a few hours apart, about the exact same phone call.

For the Truth Social audience, the one he performs for, it was all warmth and victory. He thanked Bibi by name. He cast himself as the broker who stopped a war and the man hoping the quiet would last forever. Eight and a half thousand likes in just a couple of hours. A peacemaker’s signature at the bottom.

For the officials who got briefed on it, the ones who then leaked it, the same call was Trump calling Netanyahu "fucking crazy," telling him "everybody hates you," and reminding him whose hand is keeping him out of a cell. One official’s blunt summary of the real outcome was not a meeting of partners. It was a demolition: Trump “steamrolled” him, and Netanyahu folded into “OK, OK, just make sure everything is taken care of.”

That is the tell. The “Thank you Bibi!” was not a description of the call. It was the cover story for the call. What Trump tells you online and what Trump does in private are not just different, they are designed to be different, because the online version is the product and the private version is the truth he would prefer you never hear.

So which is it? Is Netanyahu the indispensable ally worth thanking publicly, or a crazy, hated liability the leader of the free world has to babysit and bail out? The administration wants you to believe both, on alternating posts, depending on which one keeps the money and the cover flowing. That is not a contradiction Trump is embarrassed by. It is the business model.

The 1 AM Tell

If you want to understand the mood of the man making these calls, look at what he was doing in the dead of night before he made this one.

At roughly one in the morning on Monday, as American and Iranian forces traded fire over the weekend and his promised quick war ground into its third month, the President of the United States was awake and posting. He told the “Dumocrats” and “various seemingly unpatriotic Republicans” to stop “chirping.” He told the country to “just sit back and relax, it will all work out well in the end.” And then, the tell, the three words that should worry anyone paying attention: “It always does!”

This is the temperament behind the protection racket. A man who insists everything is fine while the region burns, who lashes out at “chirping” critics for the crime of noticing, and who, hours later, is screaming obscenities at the war crimes suspect he has personally chosen to shield. The midnight bravado and the lunchtime meltdown are not two different Trumps. They are the same man, telling you to relax while he keeps a wanted man out of the dock.

What He Confessed

Forget the spin from both governments. Forget the “productive call” and the “our position remains the same.” Strip it to the single fact that survived contact with reality on Monday.

The President of the United States, unprompted and on the record through the officials who relayed it, declared that an internationally indicted war crimes suspect would be behind bars if not for him.

He did not deny the man’s conduct. He did not defend the war on its merits. He simply took credit for the impunity. “I’m saving your ass” is not a foreign policy. It is a confession.

And the only thing that made him angry was being thanked too little for it.

So here is where it sits. The President of the United States has told us, plainly and on the record, what he is: the man who keeps an indicted war crimes suspect out of a cell, and who resents only that the favor goes unappreciated. The confession is in. The reporting is sourced. The post is still up.

The question is no longer whether it is true. The question is what a country does once its own leader has admitted it out loud. So what does America do with this now?

Sources

• Axios, “Trump to Netanyahu in call on Israel striking Lebanon: ‘You’re fucking crazy’”: https://www.axios.com/2026/06/01/trump-netanyahu-israel-lebanon-call

• Axios, “Trump reins in Netanyahu over Lebanon after Iran threatens to quit talks”: https://www.axios.com/2026/06/01/trump-netanyahu-lebanon-israel-bomb-beirut

• The Hill, “Trump says Israeli troops no longer heading to Beirut after call with Netanyahu” (the “Thank you Bibi” Truth Social post): https://thehill.com/homenews/5904377-trump-israel-lebanon-hezbollah-iran-ceasefire/

• The Hill, “Donald Trump knocks ‘chirping’ from ‘political hacks’ amid Iran negotiations” (the 1 a.m. Truth Social rant): https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5903674-donald-trump-iran-negotiations-pressure/

• Mediaite, “’What the F Are You Doing?’: Trump Rages at Netanyahu During Phone Call” (on the corruption trial and pardon push): https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump/what-the-f-are-you-doing-trump-rages-at-netanyahu-during-phone-call-report/

• International Criminal Court, “Pre-Trial Chamber I rejects the State of Israel’s challenges to jurisdiction and issues warrants of arrest for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant” (Nov. 21, 2024): https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges

• The Times of Israel, “ICC rejects Israeli bid to halt Gaza probe; maintains warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant” (Dec. 2025): https://www.timesofisrael.com/icc-denies-israeli-bid-to-halt-gaza-probe-maintains-warrants-for-netanyahu-gallant/

• Human Rights Watch, “US: Trump Authorizes International Criminal Court Sanctions” (Executive Order 14203, Feb. 6, 2025): https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/02/07/us-trump-authorizes-international-criminal-court-sanctions

We already pay for their army, their bombs, and the freedom to fund their citizens better than our own. Now a bill too toxic to pass on its own has been buried inside the one law Congress cannot vote down, and it would hand the independence of the U.S. military to a man the world’s highest court wants in handcuffs. This is how a superpower is captured without a shot fired.

Before you read: Total Hypocrisy: Unfiltered is reader-funded. No corporate overlords, no advertisers, no editors softening the truth to keep someone comfortable. If independent journalism that names names matters to you, become a paid subscriber and keep this work alive.

Subscribe now

There is a particular kind of theft that never makes the evening news. Not the smash and grab, but the paperwork version. The kind where someone signs away something that belongs to all of us, files it in a drawer marked “routine,” and counts on the certainty that you are too tired, too busy, and too distracted to read the fine print.

That is happening right now, and the fine print is page after page of a defense bill almost nobody will finish.

Tucked into the House Armed Services Committee's version of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a 505-page document almost no one will read to the end, is a provision called Section 224, the "United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative." Strip away the anesthetic title and here is what it does: it lays the legal groundwork to fuse the American and Israeli militaries together at the level of research, weapons production, joint ventures, and licensing. As the Quincy Institute’s Responsible Statecraft reported when it first surfaced this, the provision would do more to intertwine the two militaries than the entire history of American military aid to Israel combined.

If that sounds like hyperbole, look at what it covers.

The Legislation They Didn’t Want You To Read

Section 224 did not fall from the sky. It is the text of a standalone bill introduced in February 2026: the United States-Israel FUTURES Act (H.R. 7540 in the House, S. 3855 in the Senate), formally the United States-Israel Framework for Upgraded Technologies, Unified Research, and Enhanced Security Act. That bill created, by name, the very “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative” that is now Section 224. Nor was it the first attempt: the same idea was floated years earlier as the United States-Israel Future of Warfare Act of 2023, which went nowhere on its own. This is a plan that has been pushed, rebranded, and pushed again until its backers found a vehicle that could not be voted down. It was bipartisan from the start, sponsored by Republicans Ronny Jackson and Ted Budd alongside Democrats Don Davis and Kirsten Gillibrand, and AIPAC endorsed it openly, publishing its own summary cheering the bill on. The standalone version never got an up-or-down vote of its own. Instead its language was folded into the NDAA, the must-pass annual defense bill that Congress is structurally incapable of rejecting. That is the maneuver. Rather than force a standalone debate on whether to fuse the two militaries, you tuck the plan inside the one bill that has to pass, and let it ride through on the back of everything else.

Read what the text actually authorizes. It would force the Secretary of Defense (or War as Hegseth insists on calling his position) to appoint a dedicated official whose job is to synchronize American and Israeli “research, development, testing, evaluation, integration and industrial cooperation.” It names priority areas including counter-drone systems across air, sea, and land, anti-tunneling and subterranean warfare, and missile and air defense. Then it reaches into the technologies that will define every war for the next half century: artificial intelligence, quantum machine learning, autonomous systems, directed energy, advanced sensing, cyber and electronic warfare, and biotechnology.

And then, buried in the list, come two phrases that should stop you cold: “network integration” and “data fusion.” Hold onto those. They are the most dangerous words in the entire provision, and I will come back to exactly why.

This is not the missile defense cooperation the two countries already share through Iron Dome and Arrow. As Dr. Mark Hilborne of King’s College London told Al Jazeera, the existing relationship has been about provision and sharing. This is about jointly building the weapons of the future, and doing it through an arrangement deliberately designed, in his words, to survive changing administrations. The development cycles are long. The entanglement becomes entrenched. The whole point is that no future president and no future Congress could pull it apart even if the American people screamed for it.

That is what they mean by “lock-in.” It is not a bug. It is the entire design.

The Language They Hoped You’d Skip

Do not blindly take my characterization of it. Here is what Section 224 actually says, pulled directly from the bill text on pages 40 through 45 of the Chairman’s mark. It is a public document. Read it yourself.

The provision orders the Secretary of Defense to designate an “executive agent” responsible for synchronizing cooperation with Israel in order to, in the bill’s own words, “expand and accelerate bilateral defense technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration, and industrial cooperation.” The very first task assigned to that agent is “identifying jointly developed or Israeli-origin technologies with operational utility for potential integration into United States systems and programs of record.” Sit with that. The stated goal, written into federal legislation, is to wire Israeli-origin technology directly into American weapons systems.

It then directs that agent to establish “frameworks for joint ventures, licensing agreements, and United States-based co-production or manufacturing partnerships with Israeli industry,” and to coordinate with the most sensitive corners of the American defense establishment by name, including the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Missile Defense Agency, the Defense Innovation Unit, and United States Space Command.

Subsection (b) lists the domains this cooperation will cover. There are ten. Among them, verbatim: “Artificial intelligence, quantum, machine learning, and autonomous systems.” “Cyber defense, electronic warfare, and digital resilience.” “Biotechnology, biomanufacturing, and medical defense.” “Defense industrial base cooperation, manufacturing, and co-production.” And, as item eight: “Network integration, data fusion, and contested logistics.”

There it is, in the statute, not in anyone’s interpretation of it. Network integration. Data fusion. Written into law.

And then the detail that tells you everything about how this is being sold. Subsection (g) is titled “Public Transparency.” It requires the Pentagon to post occasional updates describing, in the bill’s exact phrasing, “how these efforts contribute to United States technological and military supremacy.” That is the pitch. Fusing the American military to the war machine of an indicted war criminal is dressed up, in black and white, as American supremacy.

A Criminal In The Driver’s Seat

Now consider who sits at the other end of this merger.

Benjamin Netanyahu is not an ally with a complicated record. He is, as a matter of legal fact, a fugitive from the highest criminal court on Earth. In November 2024, the International Criminal Court’s Pre-Trial Chamber issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former defense minister Yoav Gallant. The charges were war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the war crime of using starvation as a weapon against the civilian population of Gaza. In December 2025, the court rejected Israel’s attempt to throw the warrants out. They are still in force today. Every member state of the court is, in principle, obligated to arrest him on sight. That places him in the same legal category as Vladimir Putin.

This is the man whose war machine Congress proposes to bolt onto ours. Not a partner. A defendant. And the conduct that produced those warrants has not stopped. It has expanded.

“Absolutely”: Netanyahu Says The Quiet Part Out Loud

Here is where the merger stops being a defense-policy abstraction and becomes something far darker.

In August 2025, on Israel’s i24 News, an interviewer asked Netanyahu directly whether he felt connected to the vision of a “Greater Israel.” His answer, reported by the Times of Israel, was a single word: “Absolutely.” He went on to describe it as a “historical and spiritual mission.” For decades the Israeli right gestured at this idea while maintaining deniability. Netanyahu dropped the pretense on camera.

What is Greater Israel? It is the expansionist vision of a state stretching well beyond Israel’s current borders, into the occupied Palestinian territories and, depending on who is drawing the map, into parts of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. The Arab League condemned the remarks immediately as a threat to the sovereignty of multiple Arab states and a challenge to international law. And it did not happen in a vacuum: Trump himself has mused that Israel is “too small,” language that points in exactly the same direction.

So set the two facts side by side. A leader openly committed to seizing land across several neighboring countries. And a bill that would weld the American military-industrial base to his. Section 224 is not a neutral defense initiative. It is rocket fuel for a stated project of regional conquest.

Greater Israel Is Not A Slogan. Watch It Happen.

If you think “Greater Israel” is just inflammatory rhetoric, look at what the Israeli government is doing on the ground while the world’s attention is fixed elsewhere.

In August 2025, Israel gave final approval to the E1 settlement plan, more than 3,400 housing units on a strip of the occupied West Bank east of Jerusalem. This is not ordinary settlement expansion. As Times of Israel and PBS both reported, E1 is designed to cut the West Bank in two, severing its northern half from its southern half and walling Palestinian East Jerusalem off from both. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said the quiet part with relish, declaring that the plan “buries the idea of a Palestinian state.” In September 2025, at a ceremony for the project, Netanyahu himself was unequivocal: “There will be no Palestinian state.”

E1 is one piece. Chatham House documented that Israel approved a record 54 new settlements in 2025 alone, the year after Trump’s reelection. The International Crisis Group concluded that much of the West Bank has, in effect, already been annexed, with governing power deliberately shifted from military to civilian hands to make the control permanent. And Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has gone further still, unveiling a plan to annex 82 percent of the West Bank outright, summarizing the logic of the project in six chilling words: “maximum land with minimum Arab population.”

That is what Greater Israel means in practice. Not a metaphor. A map, a bulldozer, and a demolition order. This is the project Netanyahu said he believes in “absolutely,” and it is advancing right now, with American weapons in the hands of the soldiers enforcing it. Section 224 would bind us to that machine more tightly than ever, at the exact moment its own architects are bragging that the Palestinian state is being erased not with slogans but with actions.

What The Merger Actually Buys The Conquest

Do not take my word for what this enables. Take the analysts Al Jazeera quoted.

Dr. Hilborne of King’s College was blunt about what joint research and development would mean on the ground. Better surveillance. Better autonomous vehicles. Better AI targeting. Better counter-drone and counter-missile systems. Every one of those improvements, he noted, would flow as a capability boost to Israeli forces operating in Gaza and the West Bank. In other words, the merger does not just deepen a bureaucratic relationship. It sharpens the blade. The technology refined through American partnership gets pointed at Palestinians and, increasingly, at Lebanese civilians.

This is not theoretical. As of late May 2026, even with a so-called ceasefire nominally in place since October, Al Jazeera reports at least 850 Palestinians killed in Gaza, and more than 3,000 people killed in southern Lebanon since Israel’s advance began in March. Israeli forces have crossed the Litani River and seized territory deeper into Lebanon. The Greater Israel project is not a thought experiment. It is being executed in real time, with American weapons, while Congress drafts the paperwork to make the partnership permanent.

And here is the part that should alarm even the most hardened defender of the alliance. Hilborne pointed out that deeper integration would reduce Washington’s leverage over Israel, because the United States would be less able to withhold capabilities it jointly depends on. The likely result, in his assessment: an Israel that feels even more emboldened. We would be handing a wanted war criminal a deeper arsenal and simultaneously surrendering our ability to restrain him with it.

Your Secrets Become Their Secrets

Remember the two phrases I told you to hold onto: “network integration” and “data fusion.” Now that you have seen them sitting in the statute, consider what they actually mean. The Quincy Institute put the practical effect plainly: the United States military’s data could become the Israeli military’s data. Not stolen. Shared. By statute.

To understand why that should chill anyone who claims to care about American security, you only need to remember one name: Jonathan Pollard.

Pollard was a civilian intelligence analyst for the US Navy who, in the 1980s, passed hundreds of classified documents to Israel. As Britannica and contemporaneous reporting record, he was arrested in 1985, pleaded guilty, and in 1987 received a life sentence. US officials have long described his betrayal as one of the most damaging breaches involving an American ally, exposing intelligence methods, military capabilities, and surveillance operations, with some of the material reportedly making its way to the Soviet Union. He served thirty years.

And how did Israel treat the man who gutted American intelligence on its behalf? When his parole restrictions expired in 2020, Pollard moved to Israel, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally welcomed him at the airport, handed him an Israeli identity card, and told him he had come home. Pollard kissed the tarmac. In 2026 he resurfaced in Israeli politics, openly calling for the forced transfer of Gaza’s entire population.

Sit with the symmetry. The most notorious spy ever to betray the United States for Israel was received in Israel as a returning hero by the very prime minister this bill would make our military partner. What Pollard risked his life and liberty to steal in secret, Section 224 proposes to hand over openly, with a signature, dressed up as cooperation. We are being asked to voluntarily install as a permanent feature exactly the kind of access that, when one man took it covertly, was treated as one of the gravest national security disasters in American history. The difference is that this time, no one will have to break the law to get it. Congress will simply give it away.

Not An Alliance. An Empire With Israel At The Hub.

Defenders of Section 224 will frame it as deepening a partnership between equals. It is nothing of the sort, and its own champions describe a far more revealing ambition.

Imad Salamey, an international relations professor at the Lebanese American University, told Al Jazeera that the integration is best understood as the successor to the Abraham Accords: the construction of a US-backed regional security order with Israel installed as the dominant military and technological hub. In that architecture, the role of the United States is not partner but underwriter. America supplies the money, the technology, and now the institutional fusion, while Israel sits at the center of a Middle East reorganized around its military supremacy.

The stated goals of that order, as Salamey laid them out, are to contain Iran, to blunt the independent regional influence of a NATO ally like Turkey, and to pull Arab governments into security cooperation on Israeli terms. For the people of Lebanon and Gaza, he warned, it means intensifying pressure to submit to Israeli-led security arrangements. Submit, or die. In other words, the same expansionist logic driving the bulldozers in the West Bank, scaled up to the size of a region.

This is the true shape of what Section 224 advances. Not a treaty among friends, but the scaffolding of an empire, with an indicted war criminal’s government as its core, American taxpayers as its financiers, and the American military as a subordinate limb. The Greater Israel project does not stop at the Jordan River in this vision. It becomes the organizing principle of an entire regional order, and the United States volunteers to build the frame and pay the bill.

They Already Give Israel Everything. Now They Want To Give The Integration Too.

Understand the most important word in this entire story. Nobody is taking American military power from a reluctant Congress. Congress is offering it up. The people writing Section 224 are not victims of a foreign government prying control from their hands. They are volunteering it, on top of everything they already hand over, which is staggering.

Start with the money, because we are not being asked whether to begin funding Israel’s military. We already do, lavishly. Under the current agreement signed in 2016 and running through 2028, the United States commits roughly 3.8 billion dollars a year to Israel, more than any other nation receives. After October 2023, that baseline exploded into a wartime surge: the Quincy Institute documented at least 21.7 billion dollars in military aid in just two years. Across the lifetime of the relationship, the running total now passes 300 billion dollars in today’s money, the largest aid relationship in American history.

Then notice the trick inside the trick. By law, the bulk of that aid must be spent on American-made weapons, a “buy American” requirement phasing up to 100 percent by 2027, as laid out in the Congressional Research Service’s own accounting. The money largely never leaves the country. It moves from the US Treasury straight into the accounts of American defense contractors. So the aid is engineered to do two things at once: arm a foreign government committing genocide, and buy the loyalty of the domestic arms industry that profits from arming it. The taxpayer funds both ends of the leash.

And here is the contrast that should make every American who has ever skipped a doctor’s visit over the cost furious. Israel guarantees its citizens universal healthcare, and has since its National Health Insurance Law took effect in 1995. Every Israeli is covered. Meanwhile the American taxpayers underwriting billions of Israel’s military budget every year, freeing Israel to spend its own treasury on covering all of its people, enjoy no such guarantee at home. We do not wire money to an Israeli hospital directly. We do something subtler and more damning: we carry so much of Israel’s defense burden that Israel can afford the social safety net we are forever told America cannot. We fund their security so they can fund their citizens, while ours go without.

That is the arrangement before Section 224 ever passes. Your money buys the bombs, and those bombs have been used in ways even cautious institutions cannot whitewash. Amnesty International has documented American weapons used by Israel in violation of international and US law. Human Rights Watch has demanded a suspension of transfers and named American complicity outright. Al Jazeera describes the campaign in Gaza as a genocidal war, a characterization echoed by genocide scholars, a United Nations commission of inquiry, and the live case at the International Court of Justice. We are not bystanders. We are the supplier, the financier, and now, if Section 224 passes, the partner.

So when the sponsors of this bill say they want deeper integration, hear it clearly. They are not being forced. They already give Israel the money, the weapons, the diplomatic cover, and the freedom to fund a welfare state Americans are denied. Section 224 is them stepping forward to give away the one thing left: the independence of the American military itself. And they want to do it quietly, because the willingness is the part they cannot defend out loud.

How You Capture A Superpower

This is where the genius of Section 224 reveals itself, and where its danger becomes structural rather than political.

Israeli defense firms already run co-production facilities on American soil. Expand that footprint, as the provision invites, and the Israeli government gains the single most powerful lever in American politics: jobs in congressional districts. Once a member of Congress represents a district whose paychecks depend on an Israeli co-production line, that member will defend the arrangement as if their own job were on the line, because it would be.

The capture is already showing, and it is not subtle. Al Jazeera reported that former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene attacked the proposal as exactly what “complete capture to a foreign government looks like.” But the clearest warning shot came in May 2026, in Kentucky.

Representative Thomas Massie was one of the only Republicans in Congress willing to vote against military aid to Israel and to oppose the war with Iran. For that, he was targeted for destruction. His primary became the most expensive House race in American history, with total spending topping 32 million dollars. According to reporting by The Intercept, AIPAC’s super PAC and allied pro-Israel groups poured more than 15 million dollars into defeating him. AIPAC branded him the most anti-Israel Republican in the House, and after he lost, the lobby publicly took credit for ensuring his defeat. This was not the first scalp. The same machine helped take out progressive Representative Cori Bush in 2024.

Read the message Congress is meant to absorb, because it is the entire mechanism of capture in one sentence: vote your conscience on Israel, and a foreign-policy lobby will spend whatever it takes to end your career. Now imagine that same lobby defending a provision that has planted Israeli co-production jobs in dozens of American districts. The threat would no longer need to be spoken. It would be structural. You do not capture a legislature with arguments. You capture it with payroll and primaries.

So picture the machine this builds. A foreign government, led by an indicted war criminal who has openly endorsed a project of regional conquest, with its weapons factories planted in American districts, its data fused with American military data, its industry so entangled in our defense base that no future Congress could separate the two, and a lobby proven willing to spend record sums to destroy anyone who objects. A government whose own analysts admit it will be emboldened by the arrangement and harder for Washington to restrain.

We would be handing that government a permanent veto over American foreign policy, and we would be doing it with the lights off.

This Can Still Be Stopped

Here is the one piece of good news, and the reason this piece exists.

Section 224 is still early. It sits in a draft, not in law. It can be amended. It can be stripped out. Representative Thomas Massie has already pledged to introduce an amendment to remove it if it reaches the House floor. And the consensus that made all of this automatic is cracking, on both sides of the aisle, as more members confront the widening chasm between Israel’s actions and American interests.

The question is whether it cracks fast enough.

Read The Fine Print

Empires are rarely lost in a single dramatic vote. They are signed away in provisions nobody reads, in bills too long to finish, by representatives betting that you will never notice.

Section 224 is that bet, placed in writing, on behalf of a man the world’s highest court wants in handcuffs and who has told you to your face that he dreams of a Greater Israel.

So notice it. Name it. Call whoever claims to represent you and make them say, out loud and on the record, whether they support fusing the American military to the war machine of an indicted war criminal pursuing the conquest of his neighbors. Make them choose between the six in ten Americans who want this stopped and the lobby that wants it buried.

They are counting on your silence. The least we can do is refuse to hand it over.

Share

Total Hypocrisy: Unfiltered holds power to account regardless of party. If this piece earned your trust, the best thing you can do is share it.

Sources

• House Armed Services Committee, FY2027 NDAA Chairman’s Mark (Section 224 text)

• Responsible Statecraft (Quincy Institute), “Congress quietly moves to integrate US and Israeli militaries”

• Al Jazeera, “US Congress moves to deepen military ties with Israel: Why it matters”

• Jewish Insider, bipartisan US-Israel FUTURES Act (Budd, Gillibrand, Jackson, Davis)

• AIPAC, bill summary endorsing the US-Israel FUTURES Act

• Rep. Don Davis, press release co-leading the FUTURES Act

• Congress.gov, United States-Israel Future of Warfare Act of 2023 (earlier attempt)

• International Criminal Court, arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant

• Times of Israel, ICC maintains warrants on appeal (Dec 2025)

• Times of Israel, Netanyahu endorses the “Greater Israel” vision

• Middle East Monitor, Arab League response to “Greater Israel” (and Trump’s “too small”)

• Times of Israel, Netanyahu signs E1 plan, “There will be no Palestinian state”

• PBS, Israel clears final hurdle on E1 settlement construction

• Institute for Middle East Understanding, Fact Sheet: Israel’s E1 Settlement

• Chatham House, Israel’s accelerating de facto annexation of the West Bank

• International Crisis Group, “Sovereignty in All but Name”

• Times of Israel, Smotrich plan to annex 82% of the West Bank

• Britannica, Jonathan Pollard biography and conviction

• Military.com, Pollard breach described as among the most damaging

• Al Jazeera, convicted US spy Pollard arrives in Israel, welcomed by Netanyahu

• Council on Foreign Relations, US aid to Israel ($3.8B/year)

• Quincy Institute, US Military Aid and Arms Transfers to Israel ($21.7B)

• Congressional Research Service, US Foreign Aid to Israel (buy-American rules)

• Amnesty International, US-made weapons used in violation of law

• Human Rights Watch, suspend arms transfers, end US complicity

• Institute for Global Affairs, poll on arming Israel (the “six in ten” figure)

• Al Jazeera, Massie race breaks spending record as pro-Israel groups target him

• The Intercept, Massie loses in a win for Trump and AIPAC