Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

“We Are Being Drawn Into a War We Don’t Want to Fight”: What Jordan’s Alliance with Washington Is Costing It

By Muhammad Hamid ad-Din – New Eastern Outlook – September 6, 2026

The growing public discontent with the presence of American troops in Jordan, fueled by the regional conflict and Iran’s strategy, is putting the country’s government in a serious crisis of trust, forcing the authorities to choose between a strategic alliance with the United States and the internal stability of the state.

Some 4,000 U.S. troops, bases used for strikes against Iran, Iranian missiles crossing Jordanian skies, and American soldiers killed on Jordanian ground—all raise an increasingly urgent question: has the strategic alliance with Washington become a threat to the very existence of the country?

A Letter That Could Not Be Ignored

More than 200 Jordanian politicians, cultural figures, tribal leaders, and retired military officers did something extremely rare in Jordan—they publicly challenged their own government. In an open letter to the authorities, they demanded the withdrawal of foreign troops from the country, the cancellation or revision of the security agreement with the United States, and its submission to parliament for review.

“We affirm that their presence exposes Jordan to security, political, and economic risks that serve no national interest, and increases the likelihood of our country being dragged into a regional conflict in which it has no part,” the appeal stated.

The initiative was led by former minister and lawmaker Amjad Khazza al-Majali. Among the signatories were former secretary-general of the Islamic Action Front, Salem al-Falahat; 90‑year‑old political activist Sufyan al-Tell; retired military figures including Ali al-Habashneh; and former secretary-general of the Jordanian Communist Party, Saud Kbeilat.

The diversity of the signatories—from leftists to Islamists, from tribal chiefs to secular intellectuals—prevented the authorities from dismissing the letter as the work of a single political faction. But it would be an exaggeration to claim that it reflects the views of all Jordanians; on such sensitive matters, the kingdom simply does not conduct opinion polls, and open disagreement with the authorities has always been a risky undertaking here.

When an Ally Becomes a Target

Jordan has long been one of the United States’ main military partners in the Middle East. Some 4,000 American troops are stationed on its territory. However, the war between the U.S. and Iran, which resumed after the collapse of the June ceasefire, has turned that presence from an abstract diplomatic arrangement into a tangible threat.

Iranian missiles and drones aimed at Israeli or American facilities regularly cross Jordanian airspace. Some strikes hit installations used by U.S. forces. As a result, American soldiers are being killed—and this is no longer just news from another continent, but events occurring on Jordanian soil.

As The Jerusalem Post noted, the Iranian strikes against Jordan were a calculated move: Tehran sought to “sow discord within Jordan and create governmental chaos.” Professor Ronen Itzhak commented on the situation as follows: “This is exactly what Iran was trying to achieve by launching missiles at Jordan. Its goal is to pressure the Jordanian population into demanding the removal of the American presence.”

And Iran is succeeding. Every new attack reinforces the position of critics of the U.S. presence: the alliance with Washington is costing Jordan in direct security losses.

Storm in Parliament: Condolences to “Child Killers”

A particularly telling episode occurred in the Jordanian parliament in late July. Deputy Ali al-Khalayleh proposed sending official condolences to the U.S. Congress over the deaths of American servicemen on Jordanian soil.

The proposal sparked a storm. Other legislators fiercely attacked al‑Khalayleh. They called the United States “the biggest supporter of Israel, which has committed a massacre in Gaza,” and branded American soldiers “child killers.” “The Jordanian people are above such condolences,” their opponents declared.

What made the situation especially delicate was that al‑Khalayleh himself had earlier described the U.S. military presence in Jordan as “a walk with shepherds.” Now he was proposing that parliament express formal condolences to Washington—and he was jeered by his colleagues.

What matters is that opposition to American policy in parliament came not from fringe activists, but from elected representatives within an official political institution. This indicates that discontent with the U.S. alliance is penetrating the highest levels of Jordan’s political system.

Trump’s Double Game

U.S. President Donald Trump, for his part, also fanned the flames. After the deaths of American soldiers in Jordan, he effectively blamed Jordanian forces for incompetence. “If we had different air defense operators, this would not have happened,” Trump said, hinting that the Jordanians had failed to provide adequate protection for U.S. troops. “When you let others do your work… sometimes things go wrong,” the president added.

For Jordanian critics of the American presence, these words were yet another confirmation of their position: Washington itself does not consider Jordan a safe place for its troops and is ready to shift the blame for their deaths onto local authorities.

The Jordanian government, by contrast, could have used the same attacks as proof of the need to strengthen air defense in cooperation with the United States. But amid growing public dissatisfaction, that argument sounds increasingly weak.

Iran Plays on the Divide

Iran’s strategy in this conflict is anything but subtle, yet at the same time highly professional. Tehran consistently draws a distinction between the Jordanian people and the Jordanian government. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) issued a direct appeal to Jordanians, stating that Iran is “not hostile to Jordan” and that its grievances are only with the American military presence.

“America is using bases on Jordanian soil to wage aggression and commit massacres against our people. It is our legitimate right to strike the aggressor wherever he launches his attacks,” the Iranian military declared. And in the view of many analysts, Tehran has a point on this issue.

Moreover, Iranian propaganda went further: the IRGC claimed that information about the location of U.S. troops in Jordan had been provided by Jordanian civilians and military personnel themselves and expressed gratitude to the Jordanian people for their cooperation.

In this way, Iran is trying to deepen the rift between the authorities and society, using the Palestinian cause as a lever. Support for Palestine is deeply rooted in Jordanian society, and the war in Gaza and Washington’s backing of Israel have only intensified anti‑American sentiment. That is precisely why Iranian statements fall on fertile ground.

Media Blockade and Information Gap

Paradoxically, despite the significance of the letter and the many prominent signatories, major Jordanian media outlets did not publish it in full. Critics of the government saw this as evidence of severe restrictions on political and media space in Jordan. Analysts argued that the limited room for dissent means that the level of opposition visible in the media is likely lower than the actual discontent in society.

As a result, the letter was disseminated mainly through social networks and foreign media. The Jordanian government, for its part, sought to frame the conflict not as a geopolitical problem but as a matter of national security. Official statements emphasized border defense and Jordan’s refusal to take part in the war.

However, in the age of social media, traditional methods of managing information are working less and less effectively. Citizens see videos online, read international reports, and compare them with official statements. The growing gap between the official version and what people see with their own eyes is undermining trust in the authorities.

The Price of Alliance

Jordan’s economy was already under severe strain due to inflation, unemployment, and declining purchasing power. The conflict dealt an additional blow to the tourism sector, which accounts for up to 18% of the country’s revenues. In the first half of 2026, income from tourism and Jordanian expatriates fell by 12%, from American tourists by 25%, and from European tourists by 28%. At the same time, the United States provides Jordan with about $1.65 billion annually in economic and military aid.

King Abdullah II’s government finds itself between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, the alliance with the United States brings billions in aid and security guarantees. On the other hand, that same alliance turns the country into a target, undermines internal stability, and erodes citizens’ trust in the authorities.

As Professor Itzhak noted, “The King of Jordan has the sovereignty to make independent decisions in accordance with the constitution, so it is unlikely that he will change the country’s policy.” But the question is how much longer Jordanian society can endure being held hostage to a geopolitical game in which it has no voice.

The open letter from Jordanian public figures is not just a protest against foreign troops. It is a symptom of a deep crisis of trust between the authorities and society, between the government’s strategic calculations and the real interests of its citizens. War, the Palestinian question, the American military presence, and national sovereignty have become tightly interwoven—a knot that Amman is finding increasingly difficult to untie.

Traditional methods of managing public opinion are working less and less effectively in the age of social media. Jordanians are no longer passive recipients of official messages—they actively seek out alternative sources of information and compare them with government statements. And this growing comparison may prove to be the biggest challenge for the Jordanian government, because in today’s world, controlling the flow of information is far harder than controlling the country’s borders or its airspace.

Muhammad Hamid ad‑Din is a prominent Palestinian journalist

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

September 6, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on “We Are Being Drawn Into a War We Don’t Want to Fight”: What Jordan’s Alliance with Washington Is Costing It

Anti-War Activists Are Getting ‘Debanked’ In The UK

The UK’s decent into authoritarianism continues

By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | September 5, 2026

The UK has been, for years, waging an all-out war on its own people, particularly on those who are anti-war and anti-Zionist.

Journalists like Richard Medhurst and Asa Winstanley have had their devices seized by UK “counterterrorism” authorities for their reporting on the Israeli genocide in Gaza, while thousands of peaceful activists have been arrested on terrorism charges for holding signs stating they support Palestine Action, a non-violent direct action group which was proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the UK government at the behest of the Zionist lobby.

The war on anti-war and anti-Zionist figures continues, with multiple anti-war figures recently losing their bank accounts within a short time period.

George Galloway, a former Labour MP, known for his staunch firebrand opposition to Zionism and empire, had his bank account closed without explanation, preventing him from receiving his parliamentary and old age pensions, which he paid into throughout his career.

On X, Galloway wrote: “39 years ago I opened a personal bank account with Bank of Scotland in Byres Rd, Glasgow. Yesterday, without explanation or notice, they closed my accounts. My parliamentary and old age pensions are paid into these accounts. The mortgage on our family home is paid out of them. The mortgage is with them. They haven’t heard the last of this.”

Shortly before Galloway was debanked, the independent news outlet The Canary reported that it had its Bank account closed for the second time within months, the first time being in July.

“This has meant that once again, some staff were not paid for August,” the outlet noted, adding that, like Galloway, it received no explanation for why it lost its Bank account.

Due to the debanking, the outlet was forced to “suspend operations” which “is a necessary step to protect what remains of the Canary and to give us the opportunity to rebuild on a stable foundation.”

It wrote that “recent events have created circumstances in which we have been left with no responsible alternative but to suspend the Canary’s operations with immediate effect,” adding that, “It is the direct consequence of the debanking of the Canary’s funds, the resulting financial disruption, and the serious internal consequences that followed.”

It seems clear that this is a coordinated effort, almost certainly spearheaded by the British state, to debank voices critical of Zionism and warmongering, in yet another attempt to shut them down.

September 5, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Comments Off on Anti-War Activists Are Getting ‘Debanked’ In The UK

6-Week-Old Amish Infant With Fatal Genetic Condition Died From Measles, Coroner Confirms

By Henrick Karoliszyn, DSW | The Defender |September 4, 2026

A 6-week-old Amish infant with a neurological genetic disorder died from measles, Lancaster County Coroner Stephen Diamontoni said today. Lancaster Online first reported the death and Diamontoni’s comments.

The baby girl, born with Amish lethal microcephaly, a condition that typically causes infants to die within six months of birth, died on Aug. 18, the coroner said.

“Those children are sick from birth and actually are placed on palliative care from the time of birth,” Diamontoni told Lancaster Online today. “They typically only live 5 or 6 months of age and the majority of those children die as a result of a respiratory infection of any kind, because their brain is very small and they don’t have the capacity to fight those infections well.”

The infant’s death “was not unexpected,” Diamantoni said. He said the Clinic for Special Children in Leacock Township handled the case. When reached for comment, the clinic refused to comment, citing privacy laws.

Diamantoni said he did not know if this was the second “measles-associated” death initially reported on Aug. 25 by Gov. Josh Shapiro.

Lancaster County Commissioner Josh Parsons said today in a statement that the county still could not confirm the death of the infant as “measles-associated.”

Parsons said state officials provided little information beyond saying the 6-week-old — and a newborn whose death the coroner confirmed on Aug. 25 — were both “unvaccinated.”

Parsons questioned that characterization, noting that a 6-week-old infant would not ordinarily have had an opportunity to receive a routine measles vaccination.

“If this is the second [‘measles-associated’ death] case, the ‘unvaccinated’ label would again be deceptive.”

The newborn, also Amish, died during childbirth. The infant tested positive for measles, but according to the coroner, she died of a ruptured spleen — not of measles.

Parsons said that if the newly identified infant is the second case that was announced Aug. 25 by the state, officials should have provided additional context while protecting the family’s privacy.

“There are obviously significant relevant facts that should have been discussed about the case,” Parsons said, adding that those facts could have been presented “in a careful,” accurate and honest way without identifying the infant or family.

“That was not done,” he wrote on X. “The opposite was done. The few facts revealed were done so in a deceptive and inflammatory manner.”

Parsons also said the delay in notifying the coroner’s office prevented his staff from conducting what he described as a full, routine investigation, including a review of physical evidence.

“Much of the debate and invasion of privacy could have been avoided by state officials being honest and forthright at the beginning of this, rather than forcing the people of Lancaster County to track down information a piece at a time,” he said.

RFK Jr. ‘undermined public health,’ says Shapiro

After today’s statement to the press about the 6-week-old infant, Shapiro continued relaying on X that both cases were the “first two measles-associated deaths in 35 years.”

The Pennsylvania Department of Health uses the term “measles-associated” when there is laboratory or epidemiological evidence of the virus.

Shapiro criticized U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., saying:

“Instead of listening to the real doctors and public health experts, RFK chose to sow doubt, play politics, direct the CDC not to acknowledge these deaths, and even accuse me of fabricating these tragedies. That led to a firestorm of conspiracy theories that denied these families’ pain, invaded their privacy, and undermined public health.

“It’s long past time for RFK to stop playing games with people’s lives, report these deaths accurately on the CDC dashboard, and heed the guidance of actual medical experts so people get accurate information to discuss with their trusted health care providers and can best protect themselves and their children against this deadly disease.”

Shapiro used his initial announcement of the deaths on Aug. 25 to criticize the Trump administration’s approach to vaccination policy and public health messaging.

“When the information we see coming from the federal government, in some cases, isn’t driven by facts and by science, it makes it even more confusing for parents, and that has a serious impact,” Shapiro said.

Kennedy responded on social media by accusing Shapiro of announcing the deaths with “giddy delight” for partisan purposes. He called the governor’s announcement “unseemly” and accused him of using the COVID-19 playbook, which includes “the weaponization of infectious disease fears for political gain.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) decision not to include the deaths in its national count has only added to the dispute.

“CDC has a responsibility to ensure its reporting accurately and transparently reflects what is known and what remains unconfirmed,” a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson told The Defender. “The two measles-associated deaths announced by Pennsylvania have not been confirmed based on the information currently available to CDC.”

The CDC said the current data reflect “the best available information and our commitment to transparency and telling the American people the truth.”

The measles outbreak continues

Meanwhile, the measles continues to spread in Pennsylvania and beyond.

The U.S. has recorded its highest number of measles cases in 35 years.

As of today, 577 people in Pennsylvania had contracted measles in the current outbreak, with 115 new cases reported in the state in the past week. The state also reported 87 hospitalizations as of Aug. 31, with Lancaster County among the hardest-hit areas.

Lancaster County is home to the country’s largest Amish community, where vaccination rates have historically been lower than in the general population. Pennsylvania health officials estimated last year that only about 25% of Lancaster County’s Amish population had received the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

The Amish Church has no official doctrine prohibiting vaccination. The parents of the newborn who died of a ruptured spleen told The Atlantic that their decision not to vaccinate their children was not politically motivated and was not based on extensive research.

The Pennsylvania Department of Health says vaccination remains the best protection against measles and has expanded vaccination clinics in response to the outbreak. The state says more than 35,000 Pennsylvanians received an MMR vaccine in July, about 10,000 more than in a typical month.

The Lancaster County coroner’s office and the Pennsylvania Department of Health ignored several requests for comment from The Defender.

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.

September 5, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Comments Off on 6-Week-Old Amish Infant With Fatal Genetic Condition Died From Measles, Coroner Confirms

Reporters Without Borders calls for EU to close loopholes allowing Europeans access to censored Russian media

RT | September 4, 2026

The EU- and US-funded press watchdog, Reporters Without Borders (RSF), has called for tighter controls on AI-based search technology, after discovering that chatbots bypass European censorship laws and present Russian media sources banned by in Western Europe to users.

The Paris-based RSF, which lists EU and the US National Endowment for Democracy among its backers, found that popular AI services can provide RT articles, links, excerpts, and news summaries to web users. “Public chatbots can access these websites and redistribute their content,” a statement by the organisation claimed on Wednesday.

The EU and UK have banned numerous Russian news outlets since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, including RT and Sputnik. Moscow has denounced the EU-wide ban as an attempt to silence coverage of the conflict that contradicts Brussels maximalist political stance.

The censoorship has since spread across virtually every publishing channel, including websites, apps, chats and social media. RT has been blocked and removed from practically all Western tech platforms, while RT France was forced to close in 2023 after its accounts were frozen and RT America suffered a similar fate in 2024.

Though VPN technology is used by a significant portion of netizens, making RT’s counter-mainstream reporting accessible to its loyal audience, in July, the EU’s top court ruled that even individuals running free, non-commercial websites can be found guilty of redistributing RT content.

RSF asked popular AI services to retrieve international news exclusively from sanctioned outlets, including RT, Sputnik, and RIA Novosti.

ChatGPT and Grok emerged as the “leading bots for circumventing EU sanctions,” retrieving headlines and providing links, excerpts and detailed summaries. ChatGPT complied “without reservation,” according to RSF, while Claude responded with “unfailing consistency.”

French AI-bot Vibe located the requested material on VKontakte (known as ‘Russia’s Facebook’) and through an app carrying Telegram posts. RSF praised its “remarkable ingenuity” and described the bot as a “resourceful sleuth.”

Gemini cited sanctions to refuse requests while Meta AI, whose parent company unilaterally banned RT from Facebook and Instagram in September 2024, was the only chatbot tested that “consistently refused” to provide the requested material.

RSF called on the European Commission to investigate ChatGPT under the EU’s Digital Services Act – a raft of legislation that allows the EU to manufacture consensus and alienate dissent from narratives it wishes to impose on its population. The RSF, which is funded by the bloc and the controversial US NED called for cases to be taken over other AI services capable of providing access to sanctioned Russian media.

Video Report

September 4, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Comments Off on Reporters Without Borders calls for EU to close loopholes allowing Europeans access to censored Russian media

Nearly half of US citizens say Washington’s post-9/11 wars ‘worth the cost’

The Cradle | September 3, 2026

Nearly half of US citizens believe the wars waged by Washington in Afghanistan, Iraq, and beyond after the 11 September 2001 attacks have been “worth it,” a YouGov poll published on 2 August shows.

The poll was commissioned ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attacks, which the US government used as a pretext to launch the so-called “War on Terror” that led to the deaths of nearly 5 million people.

Respondents were asked if fighting “against the threat of terrorism through military operations abroad” and introducing “increased security and surveillance inside of the United States … have been worth the cost.”

Forty-eight percent responded yes, while another 27 percent said they weren’t sure. The remaining 25 percent said no.

Support for this view was strongest among Republicans, with 71 percent responding yes.

When asked whether some people in the US government knew about the 11 September attacks beforehand but let the attacks happen anyway, 39 percent of respondents agreed, and the same number disagreed.

Immediately after the attacks, US officials blamed Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Al-Qaeda was founded in the 1980s in Afghanistan. At the time, the CIA was arming and funding Islamic extremists known as “mujahideen” to fight the occupying Soviet Army.

The CIA later supported Al-Qaeda militants fighting in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Iraq, and Syria, while claiming to be opposed to the group.

In 2024, the US helped install former Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Ahmad al-Sharaa as president of Syria following the CIA’s 14-year covert war to topple the government of Bashar al-Assad.

When YouGov asked if Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks, 38 percent agreed, while 34 percent disagreed.

Pro-Israel officials in the administration of former US president George W. Bush began pushing for an invasion of Iraq immediately after the attacks on the World Trade Center buildings in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, DC.

The US government and media launched a massive propaganda campaign to wrongly convince US citizens that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had collaborated with Al-Qaeda to carry out the attacks and that the Iraqi government possessed weapons of mass destruction that could threaten the US homeland.

Sixty-seven percent of respondents to the poll said that the amount of surveillance by the US government had been affected “a lot” by the 9/11 attacks.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Bush signed the Patriot Act, which gave the US government sweeping powers to surveil US citizens, allowing the National Security Agency (NSA) to track their phone calls and movements.

When YouGov asked if “Muslims in the United States have been treated better, about the same, or worse than people of other religions,” 52 percent of respondents said Muslims have been treated worse.

Among Democrats, 71 percent agreed with the statement, while 28 percent of Republicans agreed.

After 9/11, many US citizens became hostile to Muslims, viewing them as “terrorists.”

A 2023 report from the Costs of War Project at Brown University estimated that 4.5 million people have died as a consequence of the US wars since the 9/11 attacks.

The US military carried out attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.

Of the 4.5 million deaths, roughly 900,000 were killed by direct violence. Roughly 3.6 million resulted from “indirect” deaths caused by the aftereffects of the wars.

September 3, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Nearly half of US citizens say Washington’s post-9/11 wars ‘worth the cost’

Trump Censorship Machine Loses Again in Court

By James Bovard | Mises Wire | August 31, 2026

The Trump administration’s crusade to crush campus criticism took another wallop on Friday in a California courtroom. Federal judge Noël Wise ruled that the Trump administration’s “ideological-deportation policy” brazenly violated the US Constitution.

The Stanford Daily—one of the best-known college student newspapers in the nation—sued the Trump administration for changing its “immigration policy and pattern of enforcement, namely by arresting, detaining, and deporting students with F-1 visas when those students use their freedom of speech to express opinions that the government does not like.” It asserted that the Trump administration’s “actions have specifically impacted Stanford Daily by decreasing the quantity and diversity of opinion pieces The Stanford Daily is able to publish on the conflict between Israel and Palestine.” Foreign students who had written on the issue requested that their previous articles be deleted, and other foreign students were no longer willing to comment on hot issues.

The Trump administration claims unlimited discretion to silence foreign students by deporting those whose opinions it disapproves of. Judge Wise wrote, “The language of the [First] Amendment makes clear that it is not the government that gives freedom of speech to the people. Instead, that freedom is imbued in the people. . . . It is not the government’s to take.” This is a notion that conservatives instinctively understand when it comes to the Second Amendment and the right of self-defense. But many people fail to recognize the same right for freedom of speech. Conor Fitzpatrick—the chief supervising attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)—which represented the student newspaper, declared, “Today’s ruling proves that free speech isn’t a privilege, but the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.” FIRE president Greg Lukianoff clarified the scope of the ruling:

This ruling does NOT say the government must admit anyone, issue anyone a visa, or grant anyone citizenship. It says that once a person is lawfully here, the government cannot deport them because they engaged in protected speech. The government cannot tell a legal immigrant: An American is free to say this, but if you say it, you’re out.

George Porteous—Editor in Chief of Stanford Daily—hailed the decision: “The reporters in our newsroom shouldn’t have to fear that writing a story will result in their deportation. Today’s victory means they won’t have to.” But it remains to be seen whether this latest judicial rebuff slows the Trump censorship juggernaut.

When former president Donald Trump was campaigning to get elected as president in 2024, he openly promised at a campaign event, “One thing I do is, any student that protests, I throw them out of the country. You know, there are a lot of foreign students. As soon as they hear that, they’re going to behave.” This was a linchpin of the promise on Trump’s campaign website to “make our college campuses safe and patriotic again.”

Trump presumed that non-citizens have zero right to free speech and his appointees have enforced that policy with an iron fist. On March 25, 2025, masked ICE agents seized Rumeysa Ozturk—a Turkish graduate student—off the streets outside Boston. Ozturk was locked up for 45 days and her student visa covertly canceled because she co-authored an op-ed criticizing Tufts University for failing to divest from Israel in response to the genocide in Gaza. Secretary of State Marco Rubio vilified her as a “lunatic” and implied that the feds had ample evidence of her crimes and abuses. Rubio later justified targeting Ozturk because she met the standard of “people that are supportive of movements that run counter to the foreign policy of the United States.” (Ironically, a large majority of Americans now oppose Trump’s foreign policy regarding his war on Iran). A leak to the Washington Post revealed that the feds had nothing on her—except that op-ed. Federal Judge William Sessions ordered Ozturk released because her arrest “potentially chills the speech of the millions and millions of people in this country who are not citizens.” But that was the whole point.

Last September, in a case similar to the Stanford Daily case, federal judge William Young ruled that the Trump’s administration’s implementation of the Executive Orders (on foreign students),

. . . was targeted intentionally at specific viewpoints in order to chill speech. The evidence presented at trial included the Public Officials’ many public statements suggesting that they wished to staunch public protest related to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, including the President’s campaign promise that he would put an end to the student protests on this issue by kicking out protestors.

A Trump Executive Order interpreted “support” for terrorists “to be centered on core First Amendment speech and expressive conduct, such as attending public protests, leading such protests, or even publishing op-eds.” Judge Young declared that he “saw virtually no evidence that anyone along the way [any Trump official] seriously questioned whether pure political speech in support of Palestine or against Israel could be construed as support for terrorism.” Instead, that was the self-evident truth driving the crackdown.

The Stanford Daily case vivified how far the Trump administration will go to snuff dissent. A New York Times headline captured the essence of the case: “Judge Rules Trump Unlawfully Targeted Foreign Students Who Criticized Israel.” If a foreign student engaged in violence at a protest, that would be sufficient to deport them regardless of their opinions. But the Trump administration cast a far wider net, relying heavily on a list of 5,000 foreign students provided by the Canary Mission, which, according to Wikipedia, is “an Israel-based anonymously-run doxing website established in 2014 that publishes the personal information of students, professors, and organizations that it describes as anti-Israel or antisemitic.”

Judge Wise’s decision included stunning examples of how far the Trump administration stretched its definition of terrorist support or antisemitism to justify deporting aliens. John Armstrong—the chief of the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs—carried out Secretary Rubio’s crackdown on non-citizens. During legal proceedings, Armstrong was asked if a “statement calling for limiting military aid to Israel could be covered” (i.e., sufficient to deport). He answered, “[i]n my opinion, yes.” When did foreign aid become sacred?

Judge Wise concluded her 90-page ruling by declaring that the strength of American democracy,

. . . is diminished when members of our society—citizens and noncitizens alike—must self-censor and “behave” or suffer the government’s retaliation. In March 2025, that retaliation was directed at those engaged in pro-Palestine and anti-Israel speech. In September 2025, caught in the government’s net were people critical of Charlie Kirk. In May 2026, it potentially included “weighing in on a peace deal that’s being negotiated” in Iran regarding the Strait of Hormuz. Tomorrow, or perhaps even today, targets may include anyone in the United States who exercises their freedom of speech to simply express opinions the government does not like.

That warning reverberates as the Trump administration further decimates the privacy of Americans returning from abroad, claiming the right to seize and copy all the contents on their cell phones. The Trump administration proposed that foreign visitors will have to surrender their social media passwords before getting a visa to visit here. How long will it be until the same policy is imposed on American citizens?

Judge Wise declared, “Free speech, including the freedom to criticize the government and its leaders, is not a sign of our democracy’s fragility. It is evidence of its strength.” But is that “strength” increasingly a mirage in the United States? And how many other illegal actions has the Trump administration taken to suppress dissent that Americans have not yet heard about?

Final question: Is the Trump administration seeking to vindicate every leftist stereotype about conservatives and Republicans being intolerant authoritarians?

James Bovard is an American libertarian author and lecturer whose political commentary targets examples of waste, failures, corruption, cronyism and abuses of power in government. He is a USA Today columnist and is a frequent contributor to The Hill.

September 1, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Comments Off on Trump Censorship Machine Loses Again in Court

YouTube’s Account Enforcement Practices Face Possible FTC Lawsuit

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | August 31, 2026

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is investigating YouTube’s (Google’s) controversial moderation and account-enforcement policies, a probe that is now in its final stages, according to a report from Bloomberg.

The agency is reportedly considering a potential lawsuit, but no decision has been made. YouTube has not been accused of wrongdoing, and the inquiry may end without enforcement action.

The FTC’s inquiry, which began in 2025, is said to be looking into whether the video giant’s suspension of accounts and removal of content, as well as the way it informs users about these decisions, violates consumer protection laws.

The agency is also reportedly examining whether YouTube broke its own rules when it took down content or reduced its visibility.

Another question the FTC is reportedly trying to answer is if YouTube’s publicly available community guidelines are in line with how content is actually treated on the platform.

In other words, the probe may be looking into the difference between what YouTube says it does, and what it actually does, regarding content policing and censorship.

If the FTC decides to sue Google, it would test whether YouTube’s published rules and its actual enforcement practices diverged in ways that violated consumer-protection law.

But even if the FTC were to find that YouTube had in fact violated consumer-protection laws, the case would not necessarily be about restoring content or accounts that were taken down or giving a particular group of users the right to remain on the platform.

Rather, it would be about making sure that YouTube’s public rules and the way it enforces those rules are in sync. But this could give the government leverage to influence how YouTube does its content policing.

YouTube already has complete control over who can publish on the platform, what content is allowed to stay up, what is made less visible and which creators are allowed to reach their audiences and earn money.

This would not necessarily be good news for free speech on YouTube, as the changes could go either way – the company could be forced to censor more, or less, or censor differently.

The reported YouTube probe is separate from a public inquiry the FTC launched in February 2025. That inquiry asked for information about how social media and video platforms engage in censorship.

This request for information sought public comment on how platforms deny or degrade access to content or users based on speech or affiliations, including through bans, shadow bans, and demonetization, as well as “opaque or unpredictable” procedures, limited notice, and weak appeals.

The public was also asked to comment on whether this type of conduct may violate platforms’ own policies or users’ reasonable expectations, and whether it may constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices, unfair methods of competition, or other forms of consumer harm.

August 31, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Comments Off on YouTube’s Account Enforcement Practices Face Possible FTC Lawsuit

German establishment figures call for ban on country’s most popular party

RT | August 29, 2026

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius and Baden-Wurttemberg Governor Cem Ozdemir have called for the opposition Alternative for Germany (AfD) party to be banned. The two establishment politicians claim that the country’s most popular party poses a threat to Germany’s constitutional order and democracy.

The AfD is the largest opposition force in the Bundestag and enjoys the support of 28% of respondents, according to recent surveys.

The right-wing party advocates tougher immigration controls while also calling for an end to Germany’s green policies. It is also highly critical of Berlin’s support for Ukraine and sanctions against Russia.

In an opinion piece published by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on Friday, Pistorius and Ozdemir drew parallels between the modern-day AfD and Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist party.

“Today, we are once again facing a threat to democracy from the extreme right,” the politicians, who represent the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Green Party, respectively, claimed.

In making their case for outlawing the right-wing party, Pistorius and Ozdemir argued that a powerful faction within the AfD espouses the idea of ‘remigration’, thus calling into question the “inviolability of human dignity” enshrined in the German constitution.

“We cannot confront ethnic nationalist ideology through political debate. That would be naive,” the authors wrote.

“A legal review of the constitutionality of a political party is warranted when it calls into question and threatens the continued existence of our democracy,” Pistorius and Ozdemir stated.

The two also took issue with the AfD’s supposedly “pro-Russian stance,” describing it as a “security risk.” The opposition party’s calls for Germany to withdraw from the European Union, the Eurozone, and NATO are equally “dangerous,” according to the article.

While acknowledging the AfD’s rising popularity, Pistorius and Ozdemir argued that widespread public support for the party is another reason why it should be banned outright.

Voting for the opposition party out of dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs in Germany is no excuse, the authors argued.

“The undeniable radicalization of the AfD makes it impossible to claim ignorance of who one is voting for,” they wrote.

At present, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency classifies the AfD as a ‘suspected right-wing extremist’ entity – a designation that gives the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) powers to surveil the party and its members. In several regions, local AfD chapters have been subjected to even wider monitoring.

Meanwhile, an INSA poll published by Bild earlier this month showed that support for Germany’s governing Christian Democratic CDU/CSU bloc had fallen to 20%, with some 78% of respondents dissatisfied with Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s coalition government, which also includes the Social Democrats.

August 29, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , , | Comments Off on German establishment figures call for ban on country’s most popular party

Federal GRANITE Act Targets Foreign Censorship Orders in US

Foreign censors have discovered that sending threatening emails to US platforms is cheap. Michael Rulli’s bill would make the next step considerably more expensive.

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | August 29, 2026

It’s not every day that the US Congress is moved to act by the UK’s speech regulators – but there’s a first time for everything, and that time is now. And that regulator is Ofcom.

But Ofcom – or rather, its overreach – has managed to bring about the introduction of a new bill, the first of its kind at the federal level, even if not the first attempt to produce legislation that would deal with this problem.

The bill is called GRANITE, and the full name is even more interesting: Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion Act. The man behind it is Republican Rep. Michael Rulli of Ohio, who introduced it on August 27, 2026, as H.R. 10174.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Rulli explained the effort as a way to stop “foreign bureaucrats” from deciding what Americans can and can’t say. “My bill makes clear that if a foreign government tries to punish an American for speech protected by the First Amendment, that judgment is dead on arrival in our courts,” Rulli is quoted as saying.

“The constitution protects our right to speak freely. It does not bend to Brussels or London,” he added. Rulli has the support of senior White House figures.

The background to all this is the UK’s Online Safety Act, and Ofcom’s attempts to use it to go after American online services. Ofcom, for some reason, believes its censorship powers extend to the US.

Preston Byrne, who represents 4chan and helped draft the GRANITE proposals, and supports Rulli’s bill, says that between February 2025 and April 2026, Ofcom sent at least 197 notices to US companies – and only four were publicly refused, all by his clients.

4chan sued Ofcom in a federal court in Washington, invoking the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments – and Ofcom tried to get the case dismissed, citing the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

But in doing that, Ofcom also invoked British law as applicable on US soil, while at the same time claiming immunity from the US lawsuit because it is a foreign state. And Ofcom’s demands arrived in emails marked CONFIDENTIAL and threatened fines and prison.

In the best of worlds, that would be that. But there’s a good chance the foreign order will be obeyed anyway, because big platforms and internet services are generally risk-averse and may not want to pick a fight with a foreign government. That’s where the law comes in.

First, the shield: Proposed section 4106(a) says: “Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law, a domestic court shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment, or a fine, order, or demand issued by a foreign court or a foreign state, enforcing a foreign censorship law.” The shield reaches judgments, fines, orders and demands, not merely court judgments; that matters because regulators often act administratively without judicial supervision.

Now, the sword: Proposed section 4106(b) lets a United States person served or purportedly served with a covered measure seek declaratory relief in federal district court that it is unenforceable: “A United States person against whom a foreign judgment described in subsection (a) is entered, or upon whom a judgment, fine, order, or demand described in subsection (a) is served or purportedly served, may bring an action in an appropriate district court of the United States seeking declaratory relief that such judgment, fine, order, or demand is unenforceable under subsection (a).”

The remedy is declaratory only: the federal proposal does not award damages or authorize seizure of foreign assets.

Finally, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act amendment adds an exception for cases “under section 4106;” those are the entire three words of the new paragraph. This is intended to prevent a foreign regulator from ending the suit at the outset by claiming sovereign immunity.

Byrne, Wyoming Deputy Secretary of State Colin Crossman and Wyoming Rep. Daniel Singh developed Wyoming HB 70, introduced in early 2026. The bill passed the state House 46-12 on February 23 but stalled in the Senate during the short budget session; it did not become law.

Wyoming’s proposal combined a shield with a private right of action and proposed statutory damages equal to at least $1 million or the maximum threatened fine. It also proposed blocking state enforcement and cooperation, including assistance with investigations, extradition requests and data demands tied to First Amendment-protected speech.

West Virginia introduced a sword-and-shield version in its short 2026 session, but it did not advance. On July 24, 2026, ALEC adopted shield provisions as national model policy, and a New Hampshire proposal following that model is expected for the 2027 session. Byrne says that by August 28, at least five public versions of the GRANITE blueprint existed.

Rulli’s federal bill is narrower than Wyoming HB 70 because it offers declaratory relief but no damages; on the other hand, its federal authority lets it directly amend sovereign-immunity law.

But even without the proposed bill, the First Amendment already gives strong grounds against enforcement of a foreign censorship order, Preston Byrne writes. The rules, however, are “judge-made” – and a first-instance court could misapply them.

Congress enacted the SPEECH Act in 2010 to block enforcement of foreign defamation judgments that are inconsistent with American free speech standards. The proposed GRANITE language would sit beside it in chapter 181 of title 28.

But the threat works even before enforcement. A service can comply, restrict content globally, add age assurance and data collection, leave a market, or fund a fight. A large platform with staff, assets or infrastructure abroad still faces action there even if an American court refuses to help.

Byrne estimates that Ofcom spent about 2,800 staff-hours on the 4chan matter, and obtained zero compliance, one federal lawsuit, and four emails featuring hamsters from 4chan’s counsel.

“An e-mailed demand costs a foreign regulator nothing to send today and is frequently cloaked in secrecy,” he wrote. The bill would make a covered demand capable of triggering public, expensive litigation in America. It has only been introduced.

And so the email sent by a regulator abroad that was once essentially free to send, and was ignored, or replied to with pictures of hamsters – might in the future return to them in the form of a US court date.

August 29, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Comments Off on Federal GRANITE Act Targets Foreign Censorship Orders in US

New York Social Media Law Survives X Lawsuit

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | August 29, 2026

A New York law that opponents say was designed to strong-arm social media companies into censoring speech (under the guise of “transparency”) has survived a First Amendment challenge.

US District Judge John Cronan on Aug 26, 2026, dismissed X’s lawsuit against the “Stop Hiding Hate Act.”

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

The law, which applies to companies operating in New York with more than $100 million in annual gross revenue, requires them to submit reports to the New York Attorney General twice a year.

Those reports must include the company’s current terms of service, changes since the previous report, and whether the terms define “hate speech or racism,” “extremism or radicalization,” “disinformation or misinformation,” “harassment,” and “foreign political interference.”

In addition, the reports must describe how these categories are enforced, including through automated systems and human review, responses to user reports, and actions taken against content or users, including removal, banning, demonetization, and deprioritization.

New York can seek up to $15,000 per violation per day for a missing, incomplete, or misleading report, after giving the company 30 days to “cure” the problem.

The Attorney General’s office will also be able to share the information it receives with other state, local, or federal agencies “for the purpose of enforcing any law,” and use it in legal proceedings. Those filing the reports must certify that they are true and accurate, and false statements may be punishable under state law.

X argued that forcing platforms to discuss the state’s contested speech categories and explain their moderation practices burdens protected speech. But Judge Cronan ruled that the First Amendment does not prevent New York from requiring companies to disclose whether and how their terms of service define the listed categories or how those policies are enforced.

The law does not directly command the removal of a particular post, the judge said, treating the act as a disclosure requirement rather than a direct moderation mandate.

New York State describes the act as “promoting transparency in social media” and says that companies must report how they handle “hate speech, racism, misinformation, and other types of content.”

But X and other critics object that the categories are often politically charged and sometimes include constitutionally protected speech, and that the Attorney General is using this to exert pressure on companies to censor speech.

The consequence of the ruling is that New York can continue to collect and audit information about how major platforms classify speech and enforce those classifications. The state can’t directly order X to remove a specific post, but it can penalize the company for missing, incomplete, or misleading accounts of its moderation system.

August 29, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Comments Off on New York Social Media Law Survives X Lawsuit

Trump’s push to deport Pro-Palestinian activists faces court defeat

Al Mayadeen | August 29, 2026

A federal judge on Friday ruled that laws used by US President Donald Trump’s administration to revoke visas and pursue deportation proceedings against noncitizen college students over their pro-Palestinian advocacy and criticism of “Israel” are unconstitutional.

US District Judge Noel Wise in San Jose, California, sharply criticized the US State Department and US Department of Homeland Security for using provisions of federal immigration law to pursue deportation against noncitizens for expressing views the government sought to suppress.

The State Department and DHS did not immediately respond to requests for comment, according to Reuters.

Wise says free speech is central to democracy

Wise, an appointee of former Democratic President Joe Biden, said free speech in the United States, including the right to criticize the government and its leaders, demonstrated the strength of the country’s democracy.

“That strength is diminished when members ⁠of our society – citizens and noncitizens alike – must self-censor and ‘behave’ or suffer the government’s retaliation,” she said.

Case centered on campus pro-Palestinian advocacy

Wise’s ruling examined the Trump administration’s actions beginning in March 2025, when it started revoking visas and detaining noncitizens involved in pro-Palestinian advocacy on college campuses. The effort began with the arrest of Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, who is fighting separately to avoid deportation.

The arrests prompted a lawsuit filed in August 2025 by Stanford University’s student newspaper, The Stanford Daily. The newspaper reported that some of its writers who held student visas had stopped covering pro-Palestinian student demonstrations and issues connected to the wars in  West Asia because of the administration’s policies.

The newspaper’s attorneys argued that two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act used by the administration to revoke student visas and begin deportation proceedings violated the First and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution when applied to constitutionally protected speech.

Judge finds viewpoint discrimination

The provisions permitted Secretary of State Marco Rubio to deem a noncitizen deportable if he personally concluded that the person’s actions “compromises a compelling foreign policy interest” and also gave him discretion to revoke a person’s visa.

Wise sided with the newspaper, finding that when a noncitizen’s speech is the basis for a visa revocation and deportation decision, “the government is singling out that speech for disfavored treatment based on its viewpoint or ⁠content.”

Conor Fitzpatrick, whose group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression represented The Stanford Daily, said in a statement that the ruling “proves that free speech isn’t a privilege, but the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.”

Ruling follows earlier decision against administration

The decision echoes a ruling last year by Boston-based US District Judge William Young, who likewise determined that the administration had violated the Constitution by pursuing a policy of revoking visas, arresting, detaining and deporting foreign students and faculty involved in pro-Palestinian advocacy.

Wise also warned that the administration appeared to be expanding its focus to people expressing other views it considered objectionable. She said that eventually the “targets may ⁠include anyone in the United States who exercises their freedom of speech to simply express opinions the government does not like.”

“This downward spiral is antithetical to our Constitution that recognizes our right to speak freely,” she wrote. “Here you can simultaneously hate the content of a person’s speech and love the country that cherishes the freedom to allow it.”

What do you need to know?

The ruling comes amid a sweeping Trump administration crackdown on pro-Palestinian advocacy and campus demonstrations at US universities, including threats to cut federal funding from institutions that permit what the administration termed “illegal protests,” investigations into dozens of universities over alleged failures to address antisemitism, and major funding withdrawals targeting schools such as Columbia University and Harvard.

The administration has also pursued international students and scholars involved in pro-Palestinian activism through visa revocations and deportation proceedings, including high-profile cases.

August 29, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Comments Off on Trump’s push to deport Pro-Palestinian activists faces court defeat

Is Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s using measles scare to push Covid-era public health regulations?

By Jefferey Jaxen | August 27, 2026

On August 8, as measles cases climbed across Pennsylvania and schools prepared to reopen, Gov. Josh Shapiro’s Department of Health published a sweeping rewrite of the state’s communicable-disease rules.

17 days later national headlines now report of two measles-associated deaths whose status is current unresolved with several clear anomalies that has the public, politicians and Kennedy himself asking serious questions about their validity.

Regulation 10-242, filed with the Independent Regulatory Review Commission as IRRC No. 3490, runs hundreds of pages and would remake 28 Pa. Code Chapter 27 — the same chapter that governed isolation, reporting, and outbreak control long before Covid. Public comment closes September 21. Shapiro’s gubernatorial election vote happens on November 3 the stakes are high.

The political context is harder to ignore.

The rule update would erode parent consent in a child’s health care, create a mandatory vaccine tracking database, and give the Department of Health access to children’s medical records without parental consent.

Specifically regarding measles, the newly proposed rule would create a category called § 27.160 isolation plus outbreak quarantine of “presumed susceptibles.”

The rule would pair isolation with outbreak quarantine of those presumed ‘susceptibles’ and keep them out of a setting until they prove they are not susceptible, take a measles vaccine, or no cases occur there for 21 days.

In an outbreak concentrated in communities with religious or philosophical exemptions, that is not a technical tweak. It is a lever.

The proposed rule would do far more than update a measles protocol. Under the draft, the department or a local health authority “may enter an apartment, building, health care facility, school, college or university, or other location” during an investigation if the official shows agency credentials. No warrant is required. People may not “interfere.” In schools, officials would get “reasonable and timely access” to students for contact tracing or partner services and could “meet and speak with a student or other person in private.” The text does not require parental notice, parental presence, or parental consent before that interview.

Reportable diseases, infections, and conditions would expand from about 52 to 125, including COVID-19 and an open-ended “emerging disease or condition”

House Republican Leader Jesse Topper called the package “oppressive COVID-era policies” and demanded it be withdrawn.

“Submitting these regulations seems to be devoid of any understanding of our recent history of dangerous government overreach…”

Shapiro’s office and the legacy media have treated the outbreak and, still unconfirmed, measles deaths as proof of leadership and treated Kennedy as the face of “anti-science.”

The regulation tells a different story. It is a bid to restore, by rule-making, authorization the failed pandemic response taught many Pennsylvanians to fear and reject. While a contested measles emergency still dominates the news the rule’s public comment file is open. The election is not far behind.

August 27, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Comments Off on Is Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s using measles scare to push Covid-era public health regulations?

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »