The DOJ is flaunting the law on the Epstein Files. Why isn’t Pam Bondi in handcuffs?
By Alan Mosley |The Libertarian Institute | December 30, 2025
Congress’s newly minted Epstein Files Transparency Act—a bipartisan law co‑authored by Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna—was supposed to leave no room for discretion. It required Attorney General Pam Bondi, who serves President Donald Trump, to release all unclassified Justice Department records related to Jeffrey Epstein within thirty days. Trump signed the bill, but his Justice Department blew the deadline and produced only a small fraction of the documents, many of which were blacked out. The co‑authors have responded by drafting impeachment articles and exploring inherent contempt. Their outrage raises a broader question: why can the executive branch ignore the law with impunity, and why does this seem to happen over and over again?
The impetus for the transparency law lies in the horrific pattern of abuse that Epstein orchestrated for decades and the government’s failure to stop it. Even after survivor Maria Farmer told the FBI in September 1996 that Epstein was involved in child sex abuse, officials did nothing. The latest document release confirms that the bureau was tipped off a decade before his first arrest. Many of the new documents show that Epstein’s scheme went far beyond one man; the files include photographs of former presidents, rock stars, and royalty, and testimony from victims as young as fourteen. Campaigners say the heavy redactions and missing files—at least sixteen documents disappeared from the Justice Department website, including a photo of Donald Trump—betray the law’s intent. The omissions have fueled suspicions that the department is selectively protecting powerful clients rather than victims.
A law that leaves little wiggle room
In addition to the redactions, entire files vanished after the department’s release. Al Jazeera reported that at least sixteen documents disappeared from the Justice Department website soon after they were posted, including a photograph of Trump. Survivors expressed frustration: Maria Farmer said she feels redeemed by the disclosure yet weeps for victims the FBI failed to protect, and critics argue the department is still shielding influential individuals. The missing files underscore that Bondi’s partial compliance is not just tardy but potentially dishonest; the law obligates her to release names of government officials and corporate entities tied to Epstein, and removing those names is itself a violation.
The statute instructs the attorney general to release all unclassified Justice Department records about Epstein within thirty days. This covers everything from flight logs, travel records, names of individuals and corporate entities linked to his trafficking network, to internal communications about prosecutorial decisions and any destruction of evidence. It prohibits withholding information to avoid embarrassment, and allows redactions only to protect victims’ privacy, to exclude child sexual abuse imagery, or to safeguard truly classified national security information. Even then, the attorney general must declassify as much as possible and justify each redaction to Congress. These provisions make the statute stricter than a typical subpoena and leave little room for discretion.
Pam Bondi’s dodgy compliance
By December 19 the department had released tens of thousands of pages but withheld the bulk of the material. Observers noted that many records were heavily blacked out and that the department offered no written justifications for redactions. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche acknowledged that more documents would be released later, effectively moving the deadline. Massie and Khanna argued that this flouts the statute and have drafted impeachment articles and are weighing inherent contempt. Bondi’s department claims it can withhold materials under common‑law privileges, such as deliberative-process and attorney‑client privilege, even though the statute expressly demands release of “internal DOJ communications” and other decision‑making records. Critics argue that by invoking judge‑made privileges to avoid a law that overrides them, Bondi—who reports directly to Donald Trump—puts the president’s political interests ahead of statutory obligations.
Congress’ options, and why they seldom work
Congress has three enforcement tools: criminal contempt referrals, civil lawsuits, and inherent contempt arrests. The first two depend on the Justice Department, which is unlikely to prosecute its own leaders. Inherent contempt—a forgotten power to arrest defiant officials—has not been used since 1935, but Khanna says it is on the table. Past episodes illustrate why penalties are rare. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied to Congress about mass surveillance and faced no charges. CIA officials destroyed videotapes documenting torture, yet prosecutors declined to prosecute. FBI agents misused warrantless surveillance authorities, but no one has been held accountable. The pattern is clear: when officials break the rules, investigations are slow, referrals go nowhere, and political leaders quietly move on. As whistleblower attorney Jesselyn Radack noted, there is a double standard: government officials can lie to Congress with impunity while those who tell the truth are indicted. This inversion of accountability encourages lawlessness within the executive branch and chills those who might expose wrongdoing.
Legal experts note that Congress could also sue to compel disclosure or hold Bondi in criminal contempt, but because the Justice Department prosecutes contempt and is headed by the same officials refusing to comply, those routes are circular. The only truly independent remedy—directing the House sergeant at arms to arrest Bondi and hold her until she obeys—has not been used in nearly a century and would provoke a constitutional crisis. This institutional timidity emboldens agencies to treat congressional mandates as advisory and ensures that accountability remains elusive.
What accountability looks like
Khanna and Massie have urged Congress to impeach Bondi or her deputy, use inherent contempt to detain them, and refer the matter for prosecution. Those remedies would test whether Congress is willing to use dormant constitutional powers. Citizens who value liberty should demand action. The same government that lied about weapons of mass destruction, destroyed evidence of torture, and spied on millions now tells us that blacked‑out pages constitute transparency. Without accountability, the executive branch will continue to flout the law. Bondi may work for Trump, but the buck stops with the president who appointed her. If Congress and voters do nothing, future transparency laws will be meaningless, and the war state will remain healthy at our expense.
Accountability requires more than rhetoric. Congress must be willing to reclaim its constitutional prerogatives—by using inherent contempt, cutting funding, or refusing to confirm officials who flout the law. Voters should demand that elected representatives of both parties stop hiding behind national security and confront a Justice Department that acts as if it is above the law. The stakes extend beyond Epstein; they touch on foreign policy, civil liberties, and the very idea of self‑government. When a cabinet official appointed by the president can ignore a clear statutory mandate and the president remains silent, it signals that the executive branch believes itself sovereign. If we shrug, we will continue down the path where laws are for the governed, not the governors.
Citizens who value liberty and limited government should pay attention. When laws are ignored without consequence, the effect is to normalize lawlessness. The Massie–Khanna legislation was not meant to be a suggestion; it was a mandate that passed the House 427-1 and the Senate unanimously. If Congress does not enforce it, future transparency laws will be toothless, and the bureaucracy will continue to protect its own at the expense of truth. In the long run, a free society cannot survive if the government decides which laws apply to its friends and which apply to everyone else. Accountability is not partisan, it is a principle. Without it, injustice will remain healthy and unchallenged, and the rest of us will continue to pay the price.
The Epstein Saga: Chapter 4, Good Old Robert
By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 30, 2025
Epstein’s connections with British and Israeli intelligence were facilitated by a key figure known as Robert Maxwell, father of Ghislaine, Jeffrey’s wife.
Robert Maxwell was one of the most controversial media moguls of the 20th century: a Holocaust survivor who enlisted in the British army, he became a publishing tycoon, a Labour MP, and a figure at the center of financial scandals and alleged links to various secret services, including MI6 and Mossad. His biography intertwines his very poor origins, his meteoric rise, his relationships with heads of state, and, after his death at sea in 1991, the discovery of enormous fraud involving his companies’ pension funds.
Born Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch in 1923 in Slatinské Doly (now Solotvyno, Ukraine), then Czechoslovakia, into an Orthodox Yiddish-speaking Jewish family, he emigrated to Great Britain during World War II and fought in the British army.
After the war, he entered scientific publishing and founded Pergamon Press, transforming it into a major publisher of technical and academic texts, the basis of his future media empire.
By the 1980s, he controlled a vast empire: Maxwell Communication Corp, Pergamon, Macmillan, the Daily Mirror tabloid, and other publications in the UK and abroad, in direct competition with Rupert Murdoch.
He died on November 5, 1991, after falling from his yacht Lady Ghislaine off the coast of the Canary Islands. After his death, it emerged that he had diverted hundreds of millions of pounds from the Mirror Group’s pension funds to cover financial shortfalls.
So… He sold textbooks to American schools. He rubbed shoulders with kings, queens, presidents, and popes. And, away from the spotlight, he may have contributed to the activities of one of the world’s most secretive intelligence agencies, engaged in surveilling half the planet. To some, he was a brilliant innovator; to others, an unscrupulous impostor.
For his daughter Ghislaine—whose later life would become intertwined with that of sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein—he was the man who opened the doors to high society and perhaps, unwittingly, to future ruin. Maxwell rose to the top to become a powerful media entrepreneur in the UK, building an empire comparable to that of Rupert Murdoch.
When he founded Pergamon Press, an academic publishing house specializing in history and science textbooks distributed in US schools, often criticized for a pro-Israel stance consistent with Maxwell’s strong Zionism, his competitors would not have expected such success.
In 1984, he bought the Daily Mirror, transforming it into a giant of popular journalism. At the height of his expansion, he controlled Maxwell Communication Corporation, Macmillan, Pergamon, and numerous international newspapers. Ghislaine, his favorite daughter, was educated at Oxford, prepared for the salons of the elite, and often at his side at social events in London and New York. Maxwell was photographed in the company of Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, Princess Diana, Margaret Thatcher, and even Mother Teresa. Other images show him alongside US Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump.
Several sources indicate that the British Foreign Office suspected Maxwell of being a double or triple agent, with links to MI6, the Soviet KGB, and the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad… My source, whom I consulted while writing this text, confirms his membership in the British services, with a key role in relations with companies and other agencies, particularly with regard to activities involving politicians (American but not only).
Maxwell moved with ease between the White House, the Kremlin, Downing Street, and the political leaders of France, Germany, and Israel, something that is not at all easy, nor “comfortable” to maintain.
In the 1960s, he served two terms as a Labour MP for Buckingham, while leading an extremely luxurious lifestyle. At his residence in Headington Hill, near Oxford, he organized lavish parties which, according to persistent rumors, were used as seductive traps to gather compromising information on influential figures.
The most serious allegations link him to the PROMIS software scandal, which we discussed in Chapter 3 of our Saga.
Originally a program of the U.S. Department of Justice, PROMIS was allegedly stolen, modified with an Israeli “back door,” and then distributed to numerous intelligence agencies, armed forces, and companies around the world, allowing Israel to monitor virtually every country that used it. According to various whistleblowers, including former Israeli agent Ari Ben-Menashe, Robert Maxwell allegedly served as the main global promoter of this digital Trojan horse. These allegations are partly corroborated by circumstantial evidence: strong support for Israel, business in sensitive sectors, close ties to Israeli leadership, and a state funeral in Israel in 1991, attended by Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, President Chaim Herzog, and senior intelligence officials, with public praise that Maxwell “did more for Israel than can be said.”
The last years of his life were marked by financial collapse. After his death, investigators discovered a £460 million hole in the Mirror Group’s pension fund. Maxwell had stolen his own employees’ pension savings to support an empire now submerged in debt. His sons Ian and Kevin Maxwell were arrested and charged with fraud (and later acquitted), while the British public exploded with anger at the betrayal of thousands of pensioners.
Overnight, Maxwell went from being a respected tycoon to a hated figure. Protesters renamed him “Robber Bob.”
On November 5, 1991, he disappeared from his 180-foot yacht off the Canary Islands. He was found dead a few hours later, face up in the ocean. The official version spoke of a heart attack followed by accidental drowning. His daughter, however, believed he had been murdered.
The autopsy revealed that Maxwell already suffered from serious heart and lung conditions.
He was given a state funeral in Israel, attended by then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and numerous intelligence officials.
Epstein met Ghislaine Maxwell in the 1990s, and their relationship began as a brief romantic affair before turning into a very intense professional and personal alliance. Ghislaine became Epstein’s chief assistant, managing his properties, organizing his staff, and playing a central role in recruiting victims for sexual abuse.
The ties with his father, Robert, were important from the outset, although perhaps even more so after his death: Epstein was introduced to Mr. Maxwell’s circle thanks to the family’s contacts and networks. A reconstruction reported by the Telegraph in 2022 claims that Epstein may have helped Robert Maxwell hide some of the money stolen from the Mirror Group’s pension funds using offshore channels.
Robert was instrumental in introducing Epstein to the world of Israeli intelligence, where he was also able to make his own way.
The source consulted, who comes from the world of intelligence, revealed to me that Ghislaine is also central to this story: following in her father’s footsteps, she made her way into British and Israeli intelligence, weaving relationships, cover stories, and favors for her beloved Jeffrey.
After all, what could be better than marrying the daughter of a “spy” with the guarantee of inheriting his “legacy”? Without Ghislaine, Epstein would not have had access to many of the VIPs with whom he established regular relationships, and above all, he would not have had the cover necessary to operate undisturbed for many years.
The Epstein Saga: Chapter 3, Those friends in the Secret Service
Someone has to do the dirty work
By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 28, 2025
One piece of information that emerged from the declassified material is seemingly marginal, but nonetheless colorful: a T-shirt from Mossad, one of Israel’s secret services. The press immediately began to label dear Jeffrey a secret agent, without further exploring the reasons for a T-shirt in the closet. While waiting for the next documents to be made public, we will now outline some interpretations regarding that ambiguous T-shirt.
Let’s start with some historical context. The idea that Epstein was connected to Mossad first arose in the 2000s in investigative and alternative circles, but it gained strength after his arrest in 2019 and, above all, after his death in prison, when the public struggled to explain how he had been able to operate almost undisturbed for decades. Commentators and journalists note that, historically, Israeli intelligence has used economic and political networks of influence, creating a context in which Epstein—rich, with access to global elites and involved in sexual blackmail—appears plausible as an “asset.”
Towards the end of 2025, several investigations based on the analysis of leaked or recently released documents—including House Oversight Committee materials and email archives—were revisited and discussed as evidence of repeated contacts between Epstein and Israeli circles, as well as travel patterns and financial flows considered atypical. CNN reported that journalists sifted through more than 23,000 pages of documents and thousands of email threads as part of this broader examination. According to commentators and newspapers that have republished these materials, they reveal “extensive collaboration with Israeli intelligence” or, at the very least, frequent interactions with figures linked to intelligence circles.
Numerous articles refer to personal and financial ties—meetings, communications, and alleged references to money transfers—between Epstein and high-level Israeli figures, particularly former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, as well as entries in diaries and emails that investigators say warrant attention. Common Dreams and some investigative series have highlighted recurring patterns of interaction between Epstein and Barak and have claimed that Israeli operatives or collaborators were long-time visitors to Epstein’s properties; however, the exact origin and interpretation of these documents remain disputed.
Proponents of the Mossad connection hypothesis describe Epstein as a recruited asset or honey trap operative tasked with gathering compromising material for leverage. This narrative, long present in various articles, has been further amplified by partisan commentators and media outlets. Some websites and opinion makers explicitly claim a connection to Mossad, arguing that Epstein’s network of relationships and the alleged presence of Israeli operatives in his residences are typical of intelligence practices.
Prominent Israeli figures have strongly rejected these claims. Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett—who has stated that he had the Mossad under his direct command during his term—has called the idea that Epstein “worked for Israel or the Mossad” “categorically and totally false.” Mainstream publications such as Newsweek and Times of Israel have highlighted the lack of conclusive evidence indicating that Epstein was a formal Mossad agent and have warned against conspiracy theories, which are sometimes intertwined with anti-Semitic stereotypes.
The resonance of the issue has been uneven and often linked to different political orientations: some progressive investigative outlets have insisted on pursuing the story, while conservative figures and commentators have sometimes exploited the accusation for political purposes. Critics warn that this encourages conspiracy theories or anti-Semitic narratives to be used opportunistically. It should also be noted that Israeli politicians, including Benjamin Netanyahu, have on some occasions emphasized media coverage of Epstein’s ties to Israel for domestic political messages, making it more difficult to analyze the motivations.
But that’s not all.
Funds for all
On September 2, 2025, Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna shook public opinion with explosive statements made after meeting with some of Jeffrey Epstein’s survivors during a press conference in Congress: “After speaking with Epstein’s victims today, it is clear that this story is much bigger than anyone could have imagined: rich and powerful people must go to prison. It is possible that Epstein was an asset of a foreign intelligence service.” Her words, captured on video, sparked a media storm: Was Epstein just a predator or something more? Was he perhaps an agent of the Israeli Mossad, tasked with ensnaring global elites for Zionist political purposes? The clues are disturbing and form a picture too coherent to be ignored. In 2025, amid leaks, transcripts, and denials, the time has come to address the issue openly.
The apparatus built by Epstein may still exercise influence on the upper echelons of power today. Steven Hoffenberg, his partner in the Towers Financial Ponzi scheme, went even further. Before his death in 2022, he told reporters that Epstein had confided in him about direct links to Mossad, attributing his wealth and access to high society circles to these contacts. Hoffenberg, who ended up in prison while Epstein remained free, had nothing to gain by lying, if anything, a score to settle.
Then there is the testimony of Maria Farmer, one of Epstein’s first victims (identified as Jane Doe 200 in court documents). Farmer described Epstein’s network as a “Jewish supremacist” blackmail scheme linked to the Mega Group, a private circle of pro-Israel billionaires. She also recounted episodes of racial abuse, pointing to Les Wexner as a central figure. Three independent voices—Ben-Menashe, Hoffenberg, and Farmer—all converge on the Mossad. Coincidence or hidden agenda?
The source of Epstein’s fortune remains unclear. How can a former college student become a billionaire with only one known client? Following the financial flows, the connection to Israel appears clear. Les Wexner, magnate of Victoria’s Secret and co-founder of the Mega Group, gave Epstein a $77 million New York mansion — equipped with a sophisticated surveillance system — as well as large sums of money. The Mega Group, created by Wexner and Charles Bronfman, is known for financing pro-Israel causes. Epstein’s financial career began in 1976 at Bear Stearns, thanks to Alan Greenberg, also a member of the Mega Group, despite Epstein having no credentials other than a background as a physics teacher. We are talking about $77 million.
Court documents indicate that Epstein received over 7,000 wire transfers, some linked to arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, who in turn was associated with Mossad networks. Ben-Menashe claims that Epstein was involved in Israeli arms trafficking. A 2025 private investigation, conducted by hedge funds linked to the Epstein case, speculates that a substantial portion of his wealth came from Israeli funding. Not charity, but the financing of an intelligence operation.
Epstein’s circle looks like a list of intelligence targets. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak visited Epstein’s residence dozens of times between 2013 and 2017, as records and photographs show. The two were also involved in founding Carbyne, a technology company with numerous former members of Israeli intelligence. Leaked emails show Epstein connecting Barak with Russian and Israeli figures. In 2004, Barak received $2 million from the Wexner Foundation for unspecified “research” activities. Barak denies any wrongdoing but admits that it was Shimon Peres who introduced him to Epstein.
Epstein possessed multiple passports—a typical feature of clandestine operations—and took refuge in Israel after the 2008 charges, before obtaining an extremely favorable plea bargain. In 2025, Tucker Carlson, during a very harsh speech, openly accused him of being a Mossad agent. Why would so many Israeli officials associate with a sex offender if he were not a strategic asset?
The 2008 plea bargain, which secured Epstein a lenient sentence, is perhaps the most revealing element. Former prosecutor Alexander Acosta later stated, “I was told that Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and that I should drop it.” The agreement also protected accomplices in several states, safeguarding a network that victims, such as Virginia Giuffre, have described as a kompromat factory, with hidden cameras ready to record politicians and powerful figures in compromising situations. This practice is reminiscent of techniques attributed to Mossad, as in the Robert Maxwell operations (which we will discuss in the next “chapter” of our Epstein Saga).
Epstein’s death in 2019, officially classified as suicide, appears to many to be a cover-up, with speculation of unofficial involvement by Israeli intelligence services. In 2025, the DOJ and FBI’s statement on the absence of a “client list” under the Trump administration — which had promised revelations that never came — only reinforced suspicions.
The pieces fit together: Epstein, introduced through Zionist networks, built a blackmail system aimed at influencing political and media decision-makers in a pro-Israel direction. Alleged links to PROMIS software (according to some sources modified by the NSA and Mossad for monitoring) and Palantir, an advanced surveillance company, add further layers of unease. Journalist Whitney Webb speaks openly of a “joint CIA-Mossad operation.” Ian Carroll goes even further, linking this network to events such as the Kennedy assassination and 9/11, identifying a common thread in the Israeli services.
It is true: Epstein’s network also involved Russia and Saudi Arabia. However, the Israeli connections—Wexner, Barak, Maxwell, Mega Group—appear predominant. Is there a lack of definitive evidence? Perhaps. But the smoke is so thick that it is difficult to ignore the fire.
Epstein’s survivors have just announced their intention to publish their own list of names: “We know who abused us. We saw who came and went. This list will be led by survivors, for survivors.”
The state hesitated. The victims did not.
Of course, Israeli authorities reject all accusations. Alan Dershowitz, Epstein’s lawyer and a well-known supporter of Zionism, claims that Epstein would have laughed off the espionage allegations, arguing that he would have used such connections to get an even better deal. But these denials appear fragile in the face of testimony, financial flows, and political connections that all lead to the same conclusion: the Epstein operation has the flavor of an intelligence operation, and the trail leads straight to Tel Aviv.
The most damning evidence comes from those who knew Epstein from the inside, people who risked everything to speak out. Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Israeli intelligence officer, claims that Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell ran a Mossad “honey trap” aimed at blackmailing the world’s elite. He claims to have met them in the 1980s while they were working in arms trafficking under the supervision of Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine’s father and a known Mossad collaborator who died in mysterious circumstances in 1991. Several Israeli prime ministers attended his funeral, with Shimon Peres delivering the eulogy. A mere coincidence? Hard to believe.
HHS/CDC Fund Online Game ‘Bad Vaxx’ to ‘Psychologically Inoculate’ Vaccine Resistance
Ironically, the game uses the very techniques it claims to train users to detect.
By Jon Fleetwood | December 27, 2025
U.S. taxpayer funds are being used by federal health agencies to develop and test online psychological games designed to condition how people—especially younger audiences—interpret and respond to vaccine skepticism.
An August Nature Scientific Reports study reveals that the project was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through a CDC award administered by the American Psychological Association.
The paper states that the funding totaled “$2,000,000 with 100% funded by CDC/HHS.”
The grant supporting the project is titled “COVID—INOCULATING AGAINST VACCINE MISINFORMATION,” award number 6NU87PS004366-03–02.
That award has already handed out over $4.3 million in taxpayer funds since its activation in 2018.
The project language mirrors the study’s conceptual framework: dissent is treated as exposure to a pathogen, and resistance to dissent is treated as immunity.
The government-funded study centers on the creation and evaluation of an online game called Bad Vaxx.
According to the authors, the purpose of the game is not to examine disputed vaccine claims or to compare competing evidence, but to reduce what they define as “vaccine misinformation” by shaping how players cognitively process vaccine-critical content.
This is despite the CDC’s own VAERS data confirming over 2.7 million injuries, hospitalizations, and deaths linked to vaccines since 1990.
The study authors explain their premise at the outset:
“Vaccine misinformation endangers public health by contributing to reduced vaccine uptake.”
From this premise, the study moves directly to intervention design.
“We developed a short online game to reduce people’s susceptibility to vaccine misinformation.”
The paper frames this approach as a form of psychological prevention, borrowing language from immunology rather than education or debate.
“Psychological inoculation posits that exposure to a weakened form of a deceptive attack… protects against future exposure to persuasive misinformation.”
The Bad Vaxx game operationalizes this concept by training players to recognize four specific “manipulation techniques”: what it refers to as emotional storytelling, fake expertise, the naturalistic fallacy, and conspiracy theories.
These techniques are treated as characteristic of vaccine misinformation as a category.
“The game trains people to spot four manipulation techniques, which previous studies have identified as being commonly used in the area of vaccine misinformation.”
The study does not include a corresponding examination of whether similar persuasive techniques may be used in vaccine-promoting messaging, government communications, or pharmaceutical advertising.
Ironically, the Bad Vaxx project itself relies on the same persuasive architecture it claims to neutralize—emotional framing, authority cues, and repetition—embedded in a gamified format designed to shape intuition rather than invite scrutiny.
The classification of “vaccine misinformation” is established in advance and applied only to information critical of injectable pharmaceutical products.
Throughout the paper, vaccine skepticism is framed as a behavioral and social risk rather than as a possible response to uncertainty, evolving evidence, or institutional error.
The taxpayer-funded authors write:
“Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 predicts lower compliance with public health regulations and lower willingness to get vaccinated.”
The choice of a game as the delivery mechanism is emphasized as a strength of the intervention.
The authors repeatedly describe the format as “entertaining,” “immers[ive],” and scalable, highlighting its ability to shape intuition rather than deliberation.
“A practical, entertaining intervention in the form of an online game can induce broad-scale resilience against manipulation techniques commonly used to spread false and misleading information about vaccines.”
Games function by rewarding correct pattern recognition, reinforcing desired responses, and reducing analytical friction.
The study’s outcome measures reflect this design: discernment scores, confidence ratings, and willingness to share content, rather than independent evaluation of claims or evidence comparison.
The researchers also emphasize the potential reach of such interventions.
“The Bad Vaxx game has the potential for adoption at scale.”
This matters because the funding source is not an academic foundation with no policy stake.
The CDC is the primary federal agency responsible for vaccine schedules, promotion, and uptake.
Yet the study does not address how this institutional role shapes the definition of misinformation used in the intervention, nor does it acknowledge the conflict inherent in a public health authority funding psychological tools aimed at managing disagreement with its own policies.
The dystopian nature of the project emerges from the structure itself: state funding, psychological conditioning, asymmetric definitions, and a delivery system designed to bypass debate in favor of intuition.
What the paper documents, in concrete terms, is the use of taxpayer funds to develop and validate a behavioral intervention—delivered through a medium optimized for psychological conditioning—that trains users to reflexively distrust a predefined category of speech, while exempting vaccine-promoting institutions from equivalent scrutiny.
Moscow accuses Bloomberg of spreading ‘fake news’
RT || December 26, 2025
Bloomberg is spreading “fake news” by claiming to have inside access to Kremlin information, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Thursday.
The senior diplomat criticized the news agency after it relayed what it claimed to be Moscow’s attitude toward a 20-point peace proposal presented this week by Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky. The story cited an anonymous source described as “a person close to the Kremlin.”
“This purported news outlet has no reliable sources close to the Kremlin. Only unreliable ones. And the wording ‘close to the Kremlin’ serves only as a cover up for fake news,” Zakharova said on Telegram.
Kiev’s proposal, which Zelensky claimed was discussed with US officials as part of President Donald Trump’s efforts to resolve the ongoing conflict, envisions an 800,000-strong Ukrainian army backed by NATO members and an immediate ceasefire with the current front line frozen.
Moscow has declined to make its position public, saying sensitive diplomacy must be conducted privately. Publicizing one’s negotiation stance is “inadvisable” under the circumstances, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.
Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian presidential envoy involved in normalization talks with the US, suggested a “US/UK/EU deep-state-aligned fake media machine” is waging a pressure campaign to undermine Trump’s agenda, including on Ukraine.
Previously, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard accused Reuters of peddling “propaganda” about Russia after the agency alleged that a US intelligence assessment had reported that Moscow sought to “capture all of Ukraine and reclaim parts of Europe that belonged to the former Soviet empire.” Russia said the claim was false regardless of whether or not such a US document exists.
Bill Gates, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla Ordered to Testify in Dutch COVID Vaccine Injury Lawsuit
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | December 23, 2025
Bill Gates and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla will have to appear in person in the Netherlands to testify at a hearing in a COVID-19 vaccine injury lawsuit, a Dutch court ruled late last month.
The court order relates to a lawsuit filed in 2023 by seven people injured by COVID-19 vaccines. One of the victims has since died.
The lawsuit centers around the question “of whether the COVID-19 injections are a bioweapon,” Dutch newspaper De Andere Krant reported. In addition to Gates and Bourla, the suit names 15 other defendants, including former Dutch prime minister and current NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the Dutch state, and several Dutch public health officials and journalists.
De Andere Krant said last month’s ruling “is a significant setback for the defendants, who are accused of misleading victims about the ‘safety and effectiveness’ of the vaccines.” However, it “remains to be seen” whether the defendants will comply with the court’s order and appear at next year’s hearing.
The defendants may face additional legal challenges in Dutch courts in the new year. A second lawsuit, filed in March by three COVID-19 vaccine injury victims in the Netherlands, presents a similar set of allegations and names the same defendants.
At a press conference last week, Dutch attorney Peter Stassen, who represents the vaccine-injured plaintiffs in both cases, earlier this month petitioned the courts in both cases to hear in-person testimony by five expert witnesses regarding the safety and efficacy of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
According to Stassen, oral hearings will be held in both cases next year, but hearing dates have not yet been scheduled. Stassen seeks to consolidate the cases.
The expert witnesses include:
- Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and publisher of the Solari Report and former assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
- Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical research and development executive.
- Joseph Sansone, Ph.D., a psychotherapist who is litigating to prohibit mRNA vaccines in Florida.
- Katherine Watt, a researcher and paralegal.
- Mike Yeadon, Ph.D., a pharmacologist and former vice president of Pfizer’s allergy and respiratory research unit.
Earlier this month, Stassen and the expert witnesses released a series of YouTube videos presenting their evidence and proposed testimony.
Plaintiffs ‘victims of people who unjustly suppress the truth’
Both lawsuits have taken a circuitous path in the Dutch court system.
In October 2024, the District Court of Leeuwarden rejected Gates’ motion to dismiss the case, ruling that it has jurisdiction over Gates and ordering Gates to pay the defendants’ legal fees.
In June 2025, the plaintiffs increased their claims against the defendants and petitioned the court to accept the expert witnesses’ testimony.
On Dec. 7, Stassen submitted written statements and the recorded video statements by the expert witnesses to the District Court of Leeuwarden.
The second lawsuit kicked off in March with an application for preliminary evidence proceedings. In August, the District Court of Leeuwarden denied the application, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek a preliminary hearing while attempting to join the 2023 lawsuit.
In September, Stassen filed an appeal, alleging that the court did not afford the plaintiffs a fair trial, in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, and calling upon the court to allow the expert witnesses to testify in court.
During last week’s press conference, Stassen said the plaintiffs — and the broader public — “are victims of people who unjustly suppress the truth.”
“By suppressing the truth, my clients were misled. Had they not been misled, they would not have gotten the COVID-19 shot, a shot that the suppressors of the truth still tout as a safe and effective vaccine to this day,” Stassen said.
Expert witnesses: COVID shots ‘indistinguishable from bioweapons’
During the press conference, Stassen also noted his efforts to have the Dutch courts accept his expert witnesses’ in-person testimony. He said the witnesses intend to present evidence showing that the COVID-19 shots:
- Are “indistinguishable from bioweapons.”
- Offer “no health benefits whatsoever.”
- Are “neither safe nor effective.”
- Were released in the U.S. under emergency use authorization, “a legal status that removes the enforcement of the pharmaceutical law and consumer safeguards by the FDA,” or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
- Are “by design, intended to cause the damage described in the package insert and reports as ‘side effects’” — including, “sudden death, heart failure, cancer, and the most horrific diseases.”
- Are a “key component” of the “Great Reset,” “a military project in which NATO plays a significant role.”
In their video statements, the experts questioned the safety of the COVID-19 shots and the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sansone told The Defender that he and the other expert witnesses are advocating to testify in court, as this “can be more influential” than written testimony.
Sansone said he intends to provide evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines are bioweapons that violate the Biological Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 — the latter authored by late University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle, Ph.D., an expert witness in the original lawsuit who died in January.
“Governments, healthcare facilities and the media deliberately concealed this information from the public, showing clear criminal intent,” Sansone said in his video.
Latypova told The Defender the lawsuits are the only ones worldwide alleging that “COVID was not a public health event but a government ‘project’ that resulted in mass casualty that can be characterized as ‘genocide,’ or more broadly, ‘democide’ of the population.”
In her statement, Latypova alleged that “military governance and contracting were used to develop, procure, deliver, distribute these shots all over the world” — and to bypass standard regulatory oversight procedures for pharmaceutical products.
“There is substantial evidence of non-compliance with good manufacturing practices, which is the law that governs pharmaceutical purity and honesty in labeling all over the world,” Latypova said.
Watt said the vaccines were a component of a broader effort by political, military and pharmaceutical actors to deceive the public, using the pandemic as a pretext.
“Communicable disease and pandemic threats are political fabrications based on widespread use of intentionally deceptive diagnostic testing devices for the purposes of instilling public fear and justifying vaccination and biodefense programs,” she said.
According to Fitts, global central banks and financial institutions were involved in these efforts. She said the pandemic represented an “egregious misuse of healthcare policies to implement economic and political agendas” with the goal of engineering a “Great Reset” of the global financial system.
Yeadon said that since 2020, he has attempted to warn the public that the COVID-19 vaccines are designed to “lower the fertility [rate] and [people’s health] and reduce population.”
He said that even though he was censored on social media for making such comments, “this is what I have watched happen all around me for five years.”
Pfizer CEO sought to block expert witnesses, dismiss lawsuits
Stassen said that several of the defendants, including Bourla, Rutte and the Dutch state, sought to block the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses. Gates was the only defendant who “deferred to the court’s judgment on this point,” Stassen said.
In September, Gates and Bourla submitted written statements of defense.
In his statement, Gates said he does not have any connection to or influence over the policies of international bodies such as the World Health Organization, either personally or through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Bourla said the court “has been sufficiently informed and can dismiss the claims without the need to order an oral hearing.”
In a previous statement submitted to the District Court of Leeuwarden last year, Bourla denied that he was liable for the injuries and damages the plaintiffs sustained and maintained that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is “safe and effective.”
In June, another attorney for the plaintiffs, Arno van Kessel, was arrested “with considerable force,” as part of a nationwide sweep by Dutch police against alleged members of a “sovereign citizen” movement with a “potential intent to use violence” against the Dutch state. He remains confined in a high-security prison.
De Andere Krant reported that earlier this month, van Kessel’s pre-trial detention was extended until February, despite “a complete lack of convincing evidence.”
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.
The Epstein Saga: Chapter 1, Mr. Clinton
By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 24, 2025
A necessary introduction
I don’t usually write about these topics, but this time the matter is becoming interesting. The Epstein case is a Pandora’s box that reveals many power intrigues and the workings of certain geopolitical mechanisms currently in operation. For this reason, I will devote a series of articles – the Epstein Saga – to exploring some relevant aspects of this complicated affair.
First of all, it should be noted that the sources have been flawed, at least in part, from the outset. The files officially released by the US Department of Justice are mostly insignificant photographs, a large amount of .pdf files of what was found in Epstein’s residence; most of the files are obscured, with black stripes or squares concealing the identities and significant details of the material. This makes it very difficult to interpret the available material correctly and comprehensively.
The intent, however, is not to provide an exhaustive report on the entire affair—a task we gladly leave to investigative journalists—but rather to provoke reflection on the short- and long-term strategy behind this case.
The release of these files is part of a plan whose importance we still do not understand. It is a transformation taking place throughout the West, a transition from an old world of politics to a new one, through the fall of many masks.
The biggest problem, however, remains what will come next.
The context: what is happening these days
The most recent documents published on the Epstein case, in December 2025, include thousands of new records, photos, and investigative files from the Department of Justice and the House Oversight Committee. These documents contain images of prominent figures linked to Epstein, details of his travels and properties, grand jury transcripts, and investigative reports, including a 1996 FBI complaint about alleged child pornography and harassment. Many of the files have been heavily redacted to protect victims, but some pages have been completely blacked out, drawing criticism from both Democrats and Republicans for the lack of transparency.
Among the new revelations are photos of Epstein’s Little St. James Island, emails from his estate referring to high-profile figures, and a previously missing minute of video from his cell block before his death. The release also includes a transcript and audio recording of an interview with Ghislaine Maxwell, as well as additional court documents and flight logs. The Department of Justice has stated that several hundred thousand documents will be released in batches, with more expected in the coming weeks.
Some documents, including a photo associated with President Trump, were reportedly removed from the initial release, sparking further controversy and calls for full transparency. The latest batch of documents continues to fuel public and political debate about the responsibility and scope of Epstein’s network.
Hey, Bill!
The first person worth mentioning is former US President Bill Clinton.
In one photograph, he is sitting on a private jet, smiling relaxed and his face slightly flushed, while a young blonde woman is reclining on the armrest of his chair. In another shot, he appears reclining, shirtless, in a hot tub, his hands clasped behind his head; the face of the person next to him is covered by a black box. In other images, he is seen smiling next to Mick Jagger, wearing a shirt and elegant jacket. In yet another, he is swimming in a luxurious marble-lined indoor pool with Ghislaine Maxwell, a key figure in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking organization. And then, smiling again, he is wearing a decorated silk shirt and standing side by side with Epstein himself.
The powerful American Democratic leader is undoubtedly one of the most mentioned VIPs in the Epstein documents. In the quarter-century since leaving office, Clinton has worked carefully to put the personal scandals that marked his presidency behind him. Today, at 79, he leads the typical life of a former statesman: traveling the world for conferences and commemorations, writing memoirs and political novels, and continuing the work of his philanthropic foundation. But that is not enough to escape the serious allegations that Epstein’s files quietly reveal, namely less institutional aspects of Clinton’s personality, such as his penchant for extramarital affairs, rash decisions, and a certain impulsiveness.
Already in 2017, Clinton had been at the center of numerous allegations, from sexual harassment to non-consensual exhibitionism to rape, allegations that Clinton has always denied. But what about now, with the files of the Epstein case?
In his memoir published in 2024, Clinton wrote that he had only two “brief encounters” with Epstein: one in his Harlem office and one at the financier’s New York residence. Between 2002 and 2003, Clinton admitted to flying several times on Epstein’s jet with his staff and Secret Service escort to support his foundation’s activities. In exchange for the flight, he explained, he devoted “an hour or two” to conversations about politics and economics.
“That was the content of our conversations,” he wrote. “Although those trips allowed me to visit foundation projects, getting on Epstein’s plane was not worth the years of questions that followed.”
The section closes with a sentence that is perhaps more revealing than the images themselves:
“I wish I had never met him.”
The Department of Justice has announced that additional documents will be made public in the coming weeks. The political aims of the first tranche of disclosures, however, appear clear: to shift attention away from Trump’s possible involvement in the scandal and focus the spotlight on Clinton instead.
The release of the images is unlikely to end Clinton’s political difficulties related to her relationship with Epstein. For months, the Clintons have tried to avoid appearing directly before the House Oversight Committee as part of the Epstein investigation. Such a hearing would be exceptional: no former president has testified before Congress since 1983, when Gerald Ford did so during the bicentennial celebrations of the Constitution.
The publication of the photos could increase public pressure for the couple to participate openly in the investigation and reignite questions about Clinton’s version of events, according to which he was unaware of Epstein’s crimes and severed all ties after the first reports of the investigation emerged in 2005.
On several occasions, not only the allegations but also the accusers themselves have been brought to the forefront of the political scene: in 2016, less than two hours before the second presidential debate, Trump and his campaign manager, Stephen K. Bannon, organized an impromptu press conference with three women who claimed to have been discredited or ignored by the Clintons after reporting sexual harassment. In 2019, a few hours after Epstein’s death in his cell, Trump relaunched an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory on social media linking Clinton to the financier’s death. Since then, Trump has continued to claim that Clinton spent a lot of time on Epstein’s private island, an accusation that the former president has always denied and that has also been refuted by Susie Wiles, White House chief of staff, and Ghislaine Maxwell herself.
Bill Clinton’s presidency was marked by several high-profile scandals, the most notable of which was the Monica Lewinsky affair. In the late 1990s, Clinton, then president of the United States, was accused of having an inappropriate relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. After months of denials, Clinton finally admitted to having had “inappropriate intimate contact” with Lewinsky, calling it a personal failure and an error in judgment. His initial denials under oath led to accusations of perjury and obstruction of justice, culminating in his impeachment by the House of Representatives in 1998. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate but remained deeply compromised by the scandal.
In addition to the Lewinsky affair, Clinton faced other controversies. The Whitewater scandal involved allegations of financial impropriety related to a failed real estate venture in Arkansas in which Clinton and his wife Hillary were investors. Although the investigation did not lead to criminal charges against the Clintons, it consumed much of Clinton’s second term and contributed to a climate of suspicion surrounding his administration.
Among Clinton’s accusers was Paula Jones, who filed a lawsuit against him in 1994 for sexual harassment. The former president settled the case out of court for $850,000 without admitting guilt. Other women, such as Kathleen Willey, have made similar allegations, although Clinton has always denied any wrongdoing.
However, it is not only Republicans who consider the allegations of sexual assault and harassment to be a political burden for Clinton. Even within the Democratic Party, although there has been no dramatic distancing, there has been a gradual attempt to relegate the former president to the background. His presence in election campaigns has been reduced compared to the past, with some candidates preferring to avoid him altogether. At the 2020 Democratic convention, Clinton appeared for less than five minutes in a pre-recorded speech broadcast before prime time. Four years later, he returned to the stage, speaking for 27 minutes, far exceeding the allotted time.
With the recent publication of the photographs, Clinton’s critics seem to have found a new foothold to reopen a chapter that the former president has long tried to close. And this is only the beginning of the uncovering of the rot present in the American Democratic world… as well as in the Republican one.
Bill Clinton is in the frame again, but this time it’s Trump who put him there
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 24, 2025
“The photos depict a web of unsavoury relationships and associations that complicate both Democratic efforts to keep the focus on Trump and the incumbent president’s desire to move on from the issue entirely,” reported the AP when the first major tranche of photos from the so-called Epstein files was released in mid-December.
Bill Clinton’s prominent appearance in the photos at least sheds some light on why Democrats, when in power, refused to lift the lid on the stinking Epstein affair—doing so would have been akin to shooting themselves in the foot, and Joe Biden obviously didn’t want to drop the Clintons in it.
Many might argue we shouldn’t be shocked to see Bill feature in this tawdry affair, given his reputation for an inability to control his carnal needs. The list of women he has been accused of assaulting is extensive, as are the lengths to which Hillary has gone to protect him.
Two things emerge from this latest batch of photos, which show Bill Clinton in close proximity to very young girls while spending time with Epstein. First, the Trump administration has decided that if the scandal is going to erupt, they might as well land the first political blow—and so they have reached for the lowest-hanging fruit: Bill. Second, the Clintons themselves will likely make a mockery of the entire corrupt U.S. political system by bypassing its legal institutions. They have already started this by ignoring congressional committee requests to appear and testify.
But in any case, the gloves are off. This is now outright war between Republicans and Democrats—and the latter will do everything in its power, using its deep contacts within institutions like the FBI, to get its hands on the Trump photos, which have, of course, been removed from the official release.
However, it is fair to say Clinton appears to have been even closer to Epstein than Trump was.
When Clinton was president, records show Epstein visited the White House multiple times. Later, after Clinton left office, Epstein assisted with some of the former president’s philanthropic efforts. Clinton flew multiple times on Epstein’s private jet, nicknamed the “Lolita Express,” including on a humanitarian trip to Africa in 2002 with disgraced actor Kevin Spacey and comedian Chris Tucker.
Even Democratic-leaning journalists in the U.S. note that Clinton’s personal weaknesses have always clashed with his public moralizing—and his association with Epstein serves as a stark reminder of that. This goes far beyond receiving oral sex from an intern in the Oval Office. It stretches back decades.
His 1992 campaign was rocked by rumours of an affair with Gennifer Flowers, which he denied at the time. His presidency was hit even harder when he was impeached in 1998 for lying under oath and obstructing justice after denying any sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He ultimately acknowledged an “inappropriate” affair with her.
Currently, it seems the pressure from Democrats to release the files—whether genuine or not—has backfired, as the trove of photos reveals numerous images of Clinton and Epstein together. In fact, these pictures of the two hanging out as old friends are arguably more damaging than the ones in which a young girl’s face has been pixelated—supposedly a DOJ initiative to “protect minors or victims.” That framing alone is a clean shot designed to hit its target, and for now, it is Clinton in the frame, facing media wrath even from traditionally Democratic-leaning outlets like CNN. Recently, conservative CNN commentator Scott Jennings suggested the files should be renamed the “Clinton Files.”
Of course, simply being photographed next to Epstein is not a crime and could, in certain cases, reflect innocent proximity. A number of famous faces appear in the first batch of files—alongside Clinton and Prince Andrew, there are also shots of musicians Mick Jagger and Michael Jackson.
What’s important to note is that Bill Clinton is known to share the same sexual compulsions as Prince Andrew, whom a royal biographer recently remarked on a podcast “needed to have sex three times a day.” Epstein reportedly referred to Andrew as the only person as depraved as he was when it came to young women. Clinton, like Andrew, has a history that can’t be airbrushed away—and the photos of him with young girls are a genie that cannot be put back into the bottle. It stinks.
Naturally, that won’t stop Democrats from calling this stunt what it is: a well-timed smear ahead of the midterms, where Trump is expected to likely lose both houses of Congress. Failing quick-fix policies on the economy and foreign policy—which are having a doubly damaging effect—will hit Trump hard at the ballot box, potentially rendering him impotent in the second half of his term. How long he can maintain the farce that the Epstein story is empirically linked to the Democrats is uncertain, though it is worrying that a war in the Middle East against Iran looks increasingly likely to be used as a tool to deflect blame from his lacklustre performance as a populist leader—one struggling to help blue-collar Americans and restore the country’s former global hegemony.
EU country seizes gold and luxury watches from ex-Ukrainian prosecutor general – media
RT | December 23, 2025
The French authorities have seized gold bars, expensive watches, and other valuables from a former Ukrainian prosecutor general living in the country, according to local media.
A villa near Nice owned by Svyatoslav Piskun, who served as Ukraine’s top prosecutor in the 2000s, was reportedly raided in a joint Ukrainian-French operation last week. Details were reported on Monday by Ukraine’s Dzerkalo Tizhna (Weekly Mirror), citing a source familiar with the probe.
According to the outlet, Piskun failed to explain how he acquired 3kg of gold, roughly €90,000 ($106,000) in cash, and 18 luxury wristwatches valued at over $1 million. French authorities suspect him of money laundering, the outlet claimed.
Kiev’s State Investigation Bureau (DBR), which operates under the president’s office, reportedly requested and participated in the raid. Previous Ukrainian press reports suggest the action in France is linked to a case against oligarch Igor Kolomoysky, who has been held in pre-trial detention for over two years on multiple charges, including allegedly ordering a murder in 2003.
The oligarch, who played a key role in Vladimir Zelensky’s rise to power, as recently detailed in a special RT investigation, made widely-covered comments in November on a high-profile corruption scandal. He said Zelensky’s longtime associate, Timur Mindich, who was charged with running an extortion scheme, did not have the aptitude to be a criminal mastermind and was a patsy for the real perpetrators.
Earlier this month, Kolomoysky teased more remarks on the scandal during a court appearance, which was subsequently postponed twice. When proceedings occurred two weeks ago, he claimed Mindich was targeted by assassins in Israel – a claim Israeli authorities have not confirmed – with the hitman allegedly supplied with a weapon at the Ukrainian Embassy.
His lawyer announced that Kolomoysky would make statements on Tuesday – this time regarding the “approaches and methods” of the Western-backed Ukrainian agencies investigating Mindich and his alleged accomplices in the Ukrainian government.
RT published Part 2 of its Kolomoysky special last Thursday. You can read it here.
Zelensky Says Some US Security Guarantees to Ukraine Will Not Be Made Public
Sputnik – 23.12.2025
Volodymyr Zelensky has said that the United States will provide security guarantees to Ukraine, although some of them will not be made public.
“There are security guarantees between us, the Europeans, and the US – a framework agreement. There is a separate document between us and the US – bilateral security guarantees. These, as we see it, should be considered by the US Congress, with some classified details and additions,” Zelensky said during a press conference on Monday.
Last week, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that the European Union and the US had agreed to provide security guarantees for Ukraine, similar to NATO’s Article 5. At the same time, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow and Washington had reached an understanding that Ukraine must return to the non-aligned, neutral, and non-nuclear foundations of its statehood.
Since mid-November, the US has been promoting a new peace plan for Ukraine. On December 2, Russian President Vladimir Putin received US special presidential envoy Steve Witkoff and US president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, at the Kremlin. The US representatives’ visit to Russia was related to the discussion of the US peace plan for Ukraine. The Kremlin stated that Russia remained open to negotiations and committed to the Anchorage discussions.
Venezuela’s Drug-running Hobbyists

By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | December 22, 2025
The absurdities keep piling up to justify increasing United States aggression against Venezuela in the name of fighting the war on drugs.
An organization that the US government’s own intelligence reporting says is not a drug cartel controlled by the Venezuela government has been relentlessly propagandized as directed by Venezuela’s president to send fentanyl and cocaine to America despite those substances actually primarily coming from other countries.
Plus, the US military has been since early September blowing up small boats and killing all the occupants, claiming the boats are transporting drugs as part of Venezuela’s “narco-terrorism” threat. No proof is ever offered about the boats and their crews. And the destructive force employed eliminates any evidence. “Just trust us” seems to be the motto of the enormous US military force pursuing a macabre hunt at sea.
Saturday, after US military forces boarded and seized a second oil tanker that had left Venezuela, came a new ridiculous drug war rooted argument for the continuing ramping up of aggression. Why was the tanker seized? US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem provided this explanation at Twitter: The seizure was part of the US government’s fight against the “illicit movement of sanctioned oil that is used to fund narco terrorism in the region.”
Got that? Noem is saying that these Venezuelan narco-terrorists, the combating of whom has become a primary focus of the massive US military, cannot even make ends meet through their drug enterprise. Instead, the drug running is all just a hobby funded by other activities typically pursued by ordinary businesses such as using tankers to transport oil.
We are supposed to be afraid of these guys? Drug cartels are known for members being able to buy fancy homes and cars with the proceeds of their drug activities. By contrast, the Venezuelan drug threat that supposedly calls for the US military to go all out in threatening the nation of Venezuela apparently can’t even operate in the black. Oil shipping is a needed activity for members to pay their rent and stop repo men from towing away their Kia Fortes.
Its involvement in shipping oil, Noem indicates, funds the purportedly uniquely menacing Venezuela drug cartel’s hobby of participating in the global illicit drug trade. Enough already with the drug war propaganda that keeps ascending further into goofiness. Withdraw the US military force deployed to threaten Venezuela and call it a day.
