The Met police chief proves he’s as dishonest and racist as the force he leads
By Jonathan Cook | October 4, 2025
Sir Mark Rowley claims he is worried about rising ‘community tensions’. But the only tensions he cares about are those belonging to an imaginary community he has created of a Jewish hive mind
Once again, the BBC laps up outright disinformation from Sir Mark Rowley, police commissioner of the institutionally racist and corrupt Met. Watch this short clip from the BBC News at Ten last night:
1. Rowley demands supporters of Palestine Action cancel or delay their protest today, after the Manchester synagogue attack, because the timing appears “antisemitic”.
How to untangle this nonsense?
a) The only possible way to interpret Rowley’s argument is that he believes every British Jew identifies and supports Israel’s mass slaughter of children in Gaza and therefore, out of respect for their grief at the Manchester attack, we ought not to protest against the slaughter in Gaza. That undoubtedly makes Rowley the antisemitic one.
b) Even were his deeply antisemitic idea true – that British Jews are an unthinking herd of genocidal monsters – Rowley assumes that we ought to be okay with this: we should just keep quiet about Israel murdering 100 or so Palestinians every day in Gaza, and starving and ethnically cleansing the rest of the population, because it would supposedly offend Britain’s Jewish community to do otherwise.
c) Rowley wants the protesters to take a time-out of a few weeks, even while Israel refuses to take any time-out on murdering Palestinians. Nor is the British government taking a time-out in arming Israel and providing it with intelligence to carry out the genocide. Rowley is suggesting we should simply quieten down for the next few weeks, even as 100 Palestinians are killed each day, before heading back to the streets. He thereby sends an unequivocal message that Palestinian life is worthless – and he does it while claiming we are the racist ones.
2. Rowley claims he wants this weekend’s protests stopped because of the danger they will raise “community tensions, which is my concern”.
And yet from everything he says, the only community’s “tensions” he appears to care about are those of an imaginary one he has created of a Jewish hive mind.
What about the tensions of Palestinian communities, of wider Muslim and Arab communities, of human communities, of those parts of the Jewish community opposed to Israel’s slaughter in Gaza, produced by watching children being torn to shreds by bombs Britain is helping to supply to Israel, by seeing world citizens – including British citizens – being abducted in international waters by Israel as they try to break Israel’s illegal starvation-siege of Gaza?
Does Rowley care about these communities and their tensions, tensions that will only heighten if they are denied their long-established democratic rights to go out on to the streets to protest – rights that have already been aggressively whittled away by successive British governments?
3. Rowley says he finds it “bewildering” why more than 1,000 people would want to get arrested for “supporting a terrorist organisation” – and berates them for taking up police resources at a time when those resources are needed elsewhere.
And yet, Rowley knows there is nothing “bewildering” about their protests. These thousands of British citizens, and millions behind them who are less courageous, are prepared to risk jail, and damage their careers and their futures, with a “terrorism” conviction. They are prepared to do so because they believe the proscription of Palestine Action – the first such proscription in British history for a direct-action group following in the tradition of the Suffragettes – is an assault on our fundamental right to protest, and to protest against the criminality of our own institutions, in this case institutions actively supporting a genocide in Gaza.
If Rowley does not believe he has the resources to arrest the 1,000-plus people who will be sitting quietly in Parliament Square today holding placards opposing the genocide, then he can simply let them be. The sky will not fall in. No one will get hurt. There will be no threat to either public or national security.
The true danger – the danger that Rowley and the government of Sir Keir Starmer really worry about – is that ever more people are beginning to understand that we are ruled by a gang of authoritarian, genocide-assisting criminals.
Starmer government ‘not doing anything’ to help UK citizens kidnapped in international waters

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer at the ACC Liverpool Convention Centre in Liverpool, UK, on September 29, 2025. [Raşid Necati Aslım – Anadolu Agency]
MEMO | October 4, 2025
The families of the British citizens kidnapped by Israel in international waters this week as they sought to take humanitarian aid to Gaza as part of the Sumud Flotilla have drawn a blank in trying to get government assistance for their release. The Starmer government is “not doing anything” to help, it is alleged.
“Despite official statements claiming that families are being kept informed,” said Samir Asli, “it has now been more than 48 hours and we have still not received any substantial updates from the UK Foreign Office.” Asli’s wife is well-known journalist and activist Yvonne Ridley, a frequent contributor here at Middle East Monitor.
Yvonne was aboard the Omar Al Mokhtar, a humanitarian vessel participating in the peaceful mission to challenge the illegal blockade of Gaza and deliver symbolic aid to a population facing starvation, explained her husband. “On or around 2 October, the boat was intercepted by Israeli forces approximately 70 nautical miles off the coast of Gaza, in international waters, where Israel has no jurisdiction.”
Legal experts have confirmed that such an action constitutes a violation of international law. Indeed, former UK ambassador Craig Murray, who is also a former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Alternate Head of the UK Delegation to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, has pointed out on social media that the flotilla was intercepted well beyond Israel’s 12-mile territorial waters.
“Moreover,” said Murray, “the Israeli maritime blockade has been in place for 17 years and is an intrinsic part of the long-term occupation found illegal in the International Court of Justice advisory opinion. It is, therefore, not a short-term measure in time of armed conflict as specified in the San Remo manual.” In any event, he added, the San Remo rules explicitly state that humanitarian supplies may not be blockaded. “The UN Commission of Inquiry has already determined that Israel is committing genocide, and the blockade is plainly a part of the machinery of such genocide. As such, the Israeli attack on the flotilla is plainly illegal.”
And yet, according to Samir Asli, a Foreign Office official told him that Yvonne’s actions were “illegal”. He obviously disputes this line. “This official’s job is to keep families informed and supported, not to judge Yvonne’s humanitarian work. Yvonne has always acted from a place of conscience, compassion and international law.”
The only response to their request for help from the family’s local Conservative MP, John Lamont, was a short message suggesting that the government might argue that, “Yvonne was travelling against current UK advice.”
At a time when a number of British citizens have been kidnapped in international waters, local MPs need to demand answers and action, not offer excuses, insisted Asli. “Yvonne and the other humanitarians on the flotilla were on a mission of conscience — to help starving children — and deserve the full support of their government.”
Such an inadequate response from the UK government appears to ignore the fact that, as Craig Murray noted, “On the High Seas, the law applying on each ship is the law of its flag state. An attack by a state military warship on a vessel on the High Seas is an attack on the flag state of the vessel attacked.” In other words, Israel has basically attacked the sovereignty of the states under whose flags the vessels were sailing. “Acts of illegal possession of vessels or abduction of crew on the High Seas should be pursued by each flag state as crimes within their domestic jurisdiction, not only in international law. As such, the Metropolitan Police and Director of Public Prosecutions have an obligation to investigate and act over the abduction of persons from UK-flagged vessels on the High Seas.”
The families of Yvonne Ridley and other British citizens being held unlawfully by Israel are calling upon friends, colleagues and supporters to contact their local MPs to insist that the Starmer government fulfils its responsibilities under British and international law to ensure the swift and safe return of their loved ones.
Pro-EU Czech PM concedes election defeat
RT | October 4, 2025
The right-wing party of agricultural tycoon Andrej Babis, branded the ‘Czech Trump’ by local media, has come out ahead in the Czech general election with 97% of the vote counted, according to official results.
The ANO movement is now set to replace the current center-right cabinet led by Prime Minister Petr Fiala. He has already congratulated Babis, conceding defeat and stating the outcome of the vote must be respected.
Speaking to reporters after his victory became evident, Babis once again rejected longstanding accusations of being anti-EU and insisted he merely wants to “save” the bloc.
“We want to save Europe… and we are clearly pro-European and pro-NATO,” Babis told Reuters.
ANO will seek a one-party cabinet but will have to enter talks with two minor parties to secure an outright majority, Babis said. One of the parties is believed to be the far-right SPD, which has long been considered a potential coalition partner.
“We went into the election with the aim of ending the government of Petr Fiala and support even for a minority cabinet of ANO is important for us and it would meet the target we had for this election,” SPD deputy chairman Radim Fiala said in a televised speech. In contrast to ANO, his party maintains an explicit anti-EU and anti-NATO stance.
Another potential coalition partner is the Motorists, who strongly oppose the EU’s environmental policies. They and the SPD received nearly 7% and 8% of the vote respectively, and joining forces with ANO would be sufficient to secure a majority.
During his campaign, Babis repeatedly criticized the EU’s handling of immigration and the Green Deal, as well as opposing EU membership for Ukraine. He also pledged to drastically cut aid for Kiev, promising more domestic spending instead. Babis signaled he would end the so-called ‘Czech initiative’ project, dedicated to supplying ammunition to Ukraine, calling the scheme overpriced.
Election without voters: Most Syrians ‘unaware’ about Sunday’s parliamentary election
The Cradle | October 4, 2025
Many Syrians are unaware that the first parliamentary elections since the fall of the government of Bashar al-Assad are about to take place, AP reported on 4 October, in part because the Syrian public will not be allowed to cast votes.
“There were no candidate posters on the main streets and squares, no rallies, or public debates. In the days leading up to the polling, some residents of the Syrian capital had no idea a vote was hours away,” AP reported on Saturday.
“I didn’t know — now by chance I found out that there are elections of the People’s Assembly,” said Elias al-Qudsi, a shopkeeper in the famed markets of old Damascus.
“But I don’t know if we are supposed to vote or who is voting,” he added.
The US, Israel, and allied powers succeeded in December 2024 in toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad after a decade of war under the pretext of replacing his authoritarian rule with a “democratic system.”
The multi-billion-dollar regime change operation, known as Timber Sycamore, installed former Al-Qaeda and Islamic State commander Ahmad al-Sharaa in power in Damascus as Assad fled to Moscow.
After appointing himself president, Sharaa (formerly known as Abu Mohammed al-Julani) began to establish an informal extremist Islamic regime in Syria, in which a religious sheikh leads each ministry, government department, and military unit.
Rather than allow the Syrian public to vote in Sunday’s election to form a new parliament, Sharaa himself will appoint 70 of the 210 parliament members.
The remaining 140 will be elected by subcommittees of Syria’s Supreme Committee for People’s Assembly Elections, which Sharaa also appointed in June.
A subcommittee was established for each governorate. However, Syrian authorities say that no vote for parliament will take place in Suwayda Governorate, which is under Druze control, and Raqqa and Hasakah Governorates, which are under Kurdish control, citing “security reasons.”
The lack of a popular vote has been overshadowed in the western media by the candidacy of Henry Hamra, a Jewish former resident of the neighborhood who emigrated to the US as a teenager and only returned after Assad’s fall.
Nawar Nejmeh, spokesperson for the committee overseeing the elections, claimed a popular vote was “impossible” because large numbers of Syrians were displaced or lost their personal documentation during the NATO-backed war.
But Syrian activists who opposed Assad have criticized Sharaa for organizing the parliamentary vote in this way, forbidding the formation of political parties, and consolidating his own authoritarian and extremist religious rule indefinitely into the future.
“Are we going through a credible transition, an inclusive transition that represents all of Syria?” asked Mutasem Syoufi, executive director of US-funded The Day After project.
“I think we’re not there, and I think we have to take serious and brave steps to correct all the mistakes that we’ve committed over the last nine months,” since Assad’s fall, he stated.
US strikes another vessel off Venezuela, killing four
Al Mayadeen | October 3, 2025
The United States has escalated its military campaign in Latin America, carrying out yet another deadly strike off the coast of Venezuela under the false pretext of fighting narcotics trafficking.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the latest strike in a post on X, celebrating the destruction of a small vessel that US officials claimed was carrying drugs. A video accompanying the post showed the boat erupting into flames, a scene observers say reveals Washington’s growing reliance on extrajudicial force and its willingness to kill without evidence, trial, or accountability.
“Four male narco-terrorists aboard the vessel were killed in the strike,” Hegseth wrote, asserting that it “was conducted in international waters just off the coast of Venezuela while the vessel was transporting substantial amounts of narcotics — headed to America to poison our people.” He vowed, “These strikes will continue until the attacks on the American people are over!!!!”
The latest strike brings the death toll to at least 21 people across four attacks in recent weeks, none of whom have been positively identified as traffickers. Washington has offered no independent proof linking the victims to drug networks, raising concerns that the US is unilaterally executing individuals in foreign waters under a fabricated pretext.
This new military doctrine stems from President Donald Trump’s declaration that the United States is now in “armed conflict” with drug cartels, reclassifying them as “terrorist organizations”, a move legal scholars have condemned as an attempt to bypass international law. A Pentagon notice sent to Congress, obtained by AFP, claimed: “The president determined these cartels are non-state armed groups, designated them as terrorist organizations, and determined that their actions constitute an armed attack against the United States.” The same document described alleged smugglers as “unlawful combatants”, stripping them of legal protection under the Geneva Conventions.
Rights groups have warned that such terminological manipulation echoes past US practices, from the “war on terror” to the invasions of Panama and Iraq, where legal gray zones were exploited to justify preemptive violence and regime change.
Political Theater and Extrajudicial Killings
The Trump administration has openly celebrated these operations as demonstrations of strength rather than law enforcement. Trump’s communications director, Steven Cheung, declared that traffickers had been “turned into stardust.” On Truth Social, Trump himself echoed the narrative, writing: “A boat loaded with enough drugs to kill 25 TO 50 THOUSAND PEOPLE was stopped, early this morning off the Coast of Venezuela, from entering American Territory.”
But independent analysts and international law experts argue that the campaign bears all the hallmarks of a covert regime change operation. The strikes come amid an unprecedented US military buildup near Venezuela, including the deployment of F-35 warplanes to Puerto Rico, marking the largest show of force in the Caribbean in more than three decades. Venezuela’s Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino condemned the presence of US jets near Venezuelan airspace as “a provocation” and “a threat to our national security.”
UK Digital ID Scheme Faces Backlash Over Surveillance Fears — Is a Similar Plan Coming to the U.S.?
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender |October 2, 2025
The U.K. plans to introduce a nationwide digital ID scheme that will require citizens and non-citizens to obtain a “BritCard” to work in the U.K., which includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Government officials say the plan, to take effect no later than August 2029, will help combat illegal immigration.
But critics like U.K. activist and campaigner Montgomery Toms said the scheme, “far from being a tool for progress,” is instead a “gateway to mass surveillance, control and ultimately the rollout of a centralised social credit system.”
The plan faces broad opposition in the U.K., according to Nigel Utton, a U.K.-based board member of the World Freedom Alliance, who said, “the feeling against the government here is enormous.”
A poll last week found that 47% of respondents opposed digital ID, while 27% supported the ID system and 26% were neutral. The poll was conducted by Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now, on behalf of GB News.
A petition on the U.K. Parliament’s website opposing plans to introduce digital ID may force a parliamentary debate. As of today, the petition has over 2.73 million signatures.
According to The Guardian, petitions with 100,000 signatures or more are considered for debate in the U.K. parliament.
As opposition mounts, there are signs the BritCard may not be a done deal. According to the BBC, a three-month consultation will take place, and legislation will likely be introduced to Parliament in early 2026.
However, U.K. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said the government may push through its digital ID plans without going through the House of Commons or the House of Lords.
Protesters plan to gather Oct. 18 in central London.
Digital ID will ‘offer ordinary citizens countless benefits,’ U.K. officials say
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the digital ID scheme last week in a speech at the Global Progress Action Summit in London.
“A secure border and controlled migration are reasonable demands, and this government is listening and delivering,” Starmer said. “Digital ID is an enormous opportunity for the U.K. It will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure.
The plan “will also offer ordinary citizens countless benefits, like being able to prove your identity to access key services swiftly,” Starmer said.
According to The Guardian, digital ID eventually may be used for driver’s licenses, welfare benefits, access to tax records, and the provision of childcare and other public services.
Darren Jones, chief secretary to Starmer, suggested it may become “the bedrock of the modern state,” the BBC reported.
Supporters of the plan include the Labour Together think tank, which is closely aligned with the Labour Party and which published a report in June calling for the introduction of the BritCard.
Two days before Starmer’s announcement, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, led by Labour Party member and former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, published a report, “Time for Digital ID: A New Consensus for a State That Works.”
Blair tried to introduce digital ID two decades ago as a means of fighting terrorism and fraud, but the plan failed amid public opposition. According to the BBC, Starmer recently claimed the world has “moved on in the last 20 years,” as “we all carry a lot more digital ID now than we did.”
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Blair endorsed a global digital vaccine passport, the Good Health Pass, launched by ID2020 with the support of Facebook, Mastercard and the World Economic Forum.
According to Sky News, French President Emmanuel Macron welcomed the BritCard for its ability to help fight illegal immigration into the U.K., much of which originates from France.
Critics: Digital ID marks ‘gateway to mass surveillance’
The BritCard, which would live on people’s phones, will use technology similar to digital wallets. People will not be required to carry their digital ID or be asked to produce it, except for employment purposes, the government said.
According to the BBC, BritCard will likely include a person’s name, photo, date of birth and nationality or residency status.
Digital wallets, which include documents such as driver’s licenses and health certificates, have been introduced in several countries, including the U.S.
Nandy said the U.K. government has “no intention of pursuing a dystopian mess” with its introduction of digital ID.
However, the plan has opened up a “civil liberties row” in the U.K., according to The Guardian, with critics warning it will lead to unprecedented surveillance and control over citizens.
“Digital ID systems are not designed to secure borders,” said Seamus Bruner, author of “Controligarchs: Exposing the Billionaire Class, their Secret Deals, and the Globalist Plot to Dominate Your Life” and director of research at the Government Accountability Institute. “They’re designed to expand bureaucratic control of the masses.”
Bruner told The Defender :
“All attempts to roll out digital ID follow a familiar pattern: corporate and political elites wield crises — such as mass migration, crime, or tech disruptions — as a pretext to expand their control … over private citizens’ identities, finances and movements into a suffocating regime.
“Once rolled out, these systems expand quietly, shifting from access tools to enforcement mechanisms. Yesterday it was vaccine passports and lockdowns; tomorrow it is 15-minute cities and the ‘universal basic income’ dependency trap. ‘Voluntary’ today becomes mandatory tomorrow.”
Tim Hinchliffe, editor of The Sociable, said digital ID is “not about tackling illegal immigration, it has nothing to do with job security and it definitely won’t protect young people online. Digital ID is all about surveillance and control through coercion and force.”
Hinchliffe said:
“Illegal immigration is just one excuse to bring it all online. Be vigilant for other excuses like climate change, cybersecurity, convenience, conflict, refugees, healthcare, war, famine, poverty, welfare benefits. Anything can be used to usher in digital ID.”
Twila Brase, co-founder and president of the Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, said governments favor digital ID because it allows unprecedented surveillance.
The ID system “notifies the government every time an identity card is used, giving it a bird’s-eye view of where, when and to whom people are showing their identity,” she said.
According to Toms, “A digital ID system gives governments the ability to monitor, restrict, and ultimately punish citizens who do not comply with state directives. It centralises power in a way that is extremely dangerous to liberty.”
Experts disputed claims that digital ID is necessary to improve public services.
“The ‘improved efficiency’ argument is a technocratic fantasy used to seduce a public obsessed with convenience,” said attorney Greg Glaser. “Governments have managed to provide services for centuries without a digital panopticon. This is not about efficiency. It is about creating an immutable, unforgeable link between every individual and the state.”
Digital ID technology may create ‘an enormous hacking target’
London-based author and political analyst Evans Agelissopoulos said major global investment firms, including BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, could combine their financial might with the power of digital ID.
“BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street are on a mission to buy properties to rent to people. Digital ID could be used against people they deem unfit to rent to,” he said.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the same firms supported digital vaccine passports in major corporations in which they are among the top shareholders. Some experts suggested digital ID may institutionalize a vaccine passport regime and central bank digital currencies.
“Digital identity is the linchpin to every dystopian nightmare under the sun,” Hinchliffe said. “Without it, there can be no programmable digital currencies, there can be no carbon footprint trackers, no social credit system.”
Other experts suggested that a centralized database containing the data of all citizens could be monetized. “By centralizing everything, they will have access to health, criminal, financial records. This data can be sold,” Agelissopoulos said.
According to Brase, those who will benefit from the centralization of this data include:
“Anybody who’s going to be the third-party administrator, academia and companies who are building biometric systems and what they call ‘augmented authentication systems’ that provide the cameras, the back system operations for biometric identification and for digital systems.”
Several major information technology (IT), defense and accounting firms, including Deloitte and BAE Systems, have received U.K. government contracts totaling 100 million British pounds ($134.7 million) for the development and rollout of BritCard.
U.S. tech companies, including Palantir, Nvidia and OpenAI, “have also been circling the UK government,” The Guardian reported.
Digital ID also raises security concerns, with IT experts describing the U.K.’s plan as “an enormous hacking target,” citing recent large-scale breaches involving digital ID databases in some countries, including Estonia.
“Government databases are frequently hacked — from healthcare systems to tax records,” Toms said. “Centralizing sensitive personal data into a single mandatory digital ID is a disaster waiting to happen.”
The public may also directly bear the cost of these systems. Italy’s largest digital ID provider, Poste Italiane, recently floated plans to levy a 5 euro ($5.87) annual fee for users.
Switzerland to roll out digital ID next year, amid controversy
In a referendum held on Sunday, voters in Switzerland narrowly approved the introduction of a voluntary national digital ID in their country.
According to the BBC, 50.4% of voters approved the proposal. Biometric Update noted that the proposal received a majority in only eight of the country’s 26 cantons, though the country’s government campaigned in favor of the proposal.
Digital ID in Switzerland is expected to be rolled out next year.
Swiss health professional George Deliyanidis said he “does not see any benefits for the public” from the plan. Instead, he sees “a loss of personal freedom.”
“There are suspicions of election fraud,” he added.
In a letter sent Tuesday to the Swiss government, a copy of which was reviewed by The Defender, the Mouvement Fédératif Romand cited “significant statistical disparities” in the referendum’s results and called for a recount.
In 2021, Swiss voters rejected a proposal on digital ID under which data would have been held by private providers, the BBC reported. Under the current proposal, data will remain with the state.
According to the Manchester Evening News, countries that have introduced nationwide digital ID include Australia, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, Estonia, India, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Arab Emirates. Other countries with similar systems include France, Finland and Norway.
In July, Vietnam introduced digital ID for foreigners living in the country. In August, the Vietnamese government helped neighboring Laos launch digital ID.
The New York Times reported that, in 2024, China added an “internet ID” to its digital ID system, “to track citizens’ online usage.”
Bill Gates has supported the rollout of digital ID in several countries, including India.
The European Union plans to launch its Digital Identity Wallet by the end of 2026.
“When you see a nearly simultaneous worldwide push, like this digital ID agenda, people in all nations need to expect to be impacted to some extent,” said James F. Holderman III, director of special investigations for Stand for Health Freedom.
Is national digital ID coming to the U.S.?
Although the U.S. does not have a national identification card, the U.K. did not have one either — until digital ID was introduced. The U.K. scrapped national ID in 1952.
In May, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began Real ID enforcement for domestic air travelers in the U.S. In the months before, TSA engaged in a push to encourage U.S. citizens to acquire Real ID-compliant documents, such as driver’s licenses. Full enforcement will begin in 2027.
The REAL ID Act of 2005 established security standards for state-issued ID cards in response to the 9/11 attacks and the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In the intervening years, its implementation was repeatedly delayed.
Last year, then-President Joe Biden issued an executive order for federal and state governments to speed up the adoption of digital ID.
Brase said Real ID “is really a national ID system for America, currently disguised as a state driver’s license with a star. The American people really have no idea that what’s in their pocket is a national ID and they have no idea that the [Department of Motor Vehicles offices] are planning to digitize them.”
Hinchliffe said 193 countries, including the U.S., accepted digital ID last year when they approved the United Nations’ Pact for the Future.
Earlier this month, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced the Safeguarding Personal Information Act of 2025 (S 2769), a bill to repeal the REAL ID Act of 2005.
“If digital ID is allowed to spread globally, future generations will never know freedom,” Hinchliffe said.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
32% of Mass Shooters Are Veterans. 0% of Media Outlets Will Say So.
By David Swanson | Let’s Try Democracy | September 29, 2025
Two U.S. military veterans allegedly shot and killed at least three people each this past weekend, Thomas Jacob Sanford in Michigan, and Nigel Max Edge in North Carolina. So, it is a safe bet that they will both be added (with, almost certainly, no mention of their status as veterans) to the database maintained by Mother Jones that I have for years been using as a starting point to track statistics on mass shootings.
It’s been almost two years since I posted an update. In that time, Mother Jones has added seven mass shootings to its database. These two new ones will make nine. Of those other seven, one of the shooters — bizarrely, and I hope nobody gets reprimanded — is actually identified as a veteran by Mother Jones. Another of the seven was 14 years old and yet another was 67; they don’t factor into calculations about men under 60. Another was a veteran of an institution that uses the word “veteran” to associate itself with the military: football. He blamed his football injuries for his crime. He counts statistically as NOT a military veteran. In a quick internet search, I’ve been unable to identify any of the others as military veterans either, so will count them as non-veterans. But it’s worth noting that often in the past I’ve managed to find out about veteran status only after lengthy searching.
So, the data has now changed from 40 of 127 mass shooters (who are men under 60) being military veterans when last I wrote about this to now 43 of 134 mass shooters being military veterans. That’s 32%, up from 31%. That figure has been between 31% and 36% for as long as I’ve been doing these calculations
In the United States, only a very small percentage of men under 60 are military veterans.
In the United States, at least 32% of male mass shooters under 60 (which is almost all mass shooters) are military veterans.
As I reported in June 2023, a University of Maryland report touching on this topic was virtually ignored by media outlets.
But here are the facts:
Looking at males, aged 18-59, veterans are well over twice, maybe over three times as likely to be mass shooters compared with the group as a whole. And they shoot somewhat more fatally.
The numbers have changed slightly since I began writing about this:
- October 28, 2023: ABC News Report Claims No Past Mass Shooters Have Been Veterans; At Least 31% Have Been
- October 26, 2023: At Least 31% of Mass Shooters Were Trained to Shoot by the U.S. Military
- May 10, 2023: At Least 32% of U.S. Mass Shooters Were Trained to Shoot by the U.S. Military
- March 23, 2021: At Least 36% of Mass Shooters Have Been Trained By the U.S. Military
- June 4, 2019: Updated Data: Mass Shooters Still Disproportionately Veterans
(At this point it was 35%) - November 4, 2018: Mass Shooters’ Histories in the U.S. Military Most Amazing Coincidence
(At this point it was 35%) - November 14, 2017: U.S. Mass Shooters Are Disproportionately Veterans
(At this point it was 34%)
The training and conditioning and arming of shooters is of far less interest to media outlets than “motivation,” but what we should actually know about shooters’ ideology is not unrelated to the disproportionate presence of military veterans in the list of mass shooters. These are people who have been armed and trained and conditioned at public expense and then generally thanked for the supposed service of what they’ve done when it has not yet included shooting any of the wrong people.
All sorts of correlations are carefully examined when it comes to mass shooters. But the fact that the largest institution in the United States has trained many of them to shoot is scrupulously avoided.
Many of those mass shooters who are not military veterans tend to dress and speak as if they were. Some of them are veterans of police forces with military-sounding titles, or have been prison guards or security guards. Counting those who’ve been in either the U.S. military or a police force or a prison or worked as an armed guard of any kind would give us an even larger percentage of mass shooters to consider. The factor of having been trained and employed to shoot is larger than just the military veterans, yet carefully ignored by every single U.S. corporate media outlet (that sounds like an exaggeration, but can you prove it wrong?).
Some of the non-military mass-shooters have worked as civilians for the military. Some have tried to join the military and been rejected. The whole phenomenon of mass-shootings has skyrocketed during the post-2001 endless wars. The militarism of mass-shootings may be too big to see, but the avoidance of the topic is stunning.
Needless to say, out of a country of over 330 million people a database of 134 mass shooters is a very, very small group. Needless to say, statistically, virtually all veterans are not mass shooters. But that can hardly be the reason for not a single news article ever mentioning that mass shooters are very disproportinately likely to be veterans. After all, statistically, virtually all males, mentally ill people, domestic abusers, Nazi-sympathizers, loners, and gun-purchasers are also not mass-shooters. Yet articles on those topics proliferate like NRA campaign bribes.
There seem to me to be two key reasons that a sane communications system would not censor this topic. First, our public dollars and elected officials are training and conditioning huge numbers of people to kill, sending them abroad to kill, thanking them for the “service,” praising and rewarding them for killing, and then some of them are killing where it is not acceptable. This is not a chance correlation, but a factor with a clear connection.
Second, by devoting so much of our government to organized killing, and even allowing the military to train in schools, and to develop video games and Hollywood movies, we’ve created a culture in which people imagine that militarism is praiseworthy, that violence solves problems, and that revenge is one of the highest values. Virtually every mass shooter has used military weaponry. Most of those whose dress we are aware of dressed as if in the military. Those who’ve left behind writings that have been made public have tended to write as if they were taking part in a war. So, while it might surprise many people to find out how many mass shooters are veterans of the military, it might be harder to find mass shooters (actual veterans or not) who did not themselves think they were soldiers.
There seems to me to be one most likely reason that it’s difficult to find out which shooters have been in the military (meaning that some additional shooters probably have been, about whom I’ve been unable to learn that fact). We’ve developed a culture dedicated to praising and glorifying participation in war. It need not even be a conscious decision, but a journalist convinced that militarism is laudable would assume it was irrelevant to a report on a mass shooter and, in addition, assume that it was distasteful to mention that the man was a veteran. That sort of widespread self-censorship is the only possible explanation for the complete whiting out of this story.
The phenomenon of shutting down this story does not exactly require a “motive,” and I would like to recommend to reporters on mass shootings that they, too, devote a bit less energy to the often meaningless hunt for “a motive,” and a tad more to considering whether the fact that a shooter lived and breathed in an institution dedicated to mass shooting might be relevant.
UPDATE SEPTEMBER 29, 2025:
Shockingly, CBS News did one article on this topic two years ago. Here it is. The seven people who wrote it used a database from the Violence Project and did not separate out men or men of any particular age. They concluded that 26% of mass shooters were veterans, as compared to 7% of all people. In other words, a mass shooter is over 3 times as likely to be a veteran.
It’s always seemed more relevant to me to remove the very few mass shooters who are female or young or old, and then compare to 18-59-year-old men in the general population. The closest I can come to putting an exact number on that is like this. The U.S. Census says that in 2024, males 19-59 were 88,300,644 or 25.96% of the population. (This is imperfect because it looks at only one year, because it is an estimate, because it leaves out 18 years olds, and because it includes non-citizens who were not eligible for or did not live in the United States at the age for being in the U.S. military.) According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, of men aged 20-59 (so, missing 18-19-year-olds), 6,565,138 as of 2024 were veterans. That’s 7.43% of all men aged 19-59. If we compare 32% with 7%, mass shooters are over 4.5 times more likely to be veterans.
