Trump administration ordered to restore funding to US propaganda outlet
RT | July 20, 2025
A federal judge has ordered the administration of US President Donald Trump to restore funding for state-run Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), ruling that the decision to stop the support was “unprecedented” and lacked any basis.
RFE/RL was a key tool for spreading Western propaganda in the Soviet bloc during the Cold War and was funded by the CIA. The outlet currently receives nearly all of its funding from Congress.
The Trump administration has sought to cut funding for RFE/RL and several other state-linked outlets. It has denounced the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM), the body that oversees state-funded media, saying it is “not salvageable,” while indulging in “obscene overspending.” The administration also claimed it is crawling with “spies and terrorist sympathizers.”
Consequently, the USAGM essentially froze funding for RFE/RL and refused to enter into a new contract with the outlet after the previous agreement expired in March. This led to staff furloughs and programming cuts, though the EU stepped in to fill the budgetary gap.
On Friday, Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Trump administration lacks the legal authority to refuse Congress-approved funding of more than $70 million, arguing that they provided no clear basis for the move.
”It is unprecedented for an agency to demand that entirely new terms govern its decades-old working relationship with a grantee entity,” he wrote. He went on to rebuke the USAGM for a lack of responses to RFE/RL to negotiate a new agreement, describing it as “stonewalling” and adding that the agency went dark for days or even weeks.
The “USAGM’s flagrant disregard for its funding responsibilities” caused RFE/RL to suffer “mass furloughs, cancelation of programming, and inevitable damage to the global influence that RFE/RL has built over decades,” the ruling said.
RFE/RL President and CEO Stephen Capus welcomed the court’s decision. “This victory provides our journalists with the momentum necessary to continue reaching the nearly 47 million people each week… With this ruling, RFE/RL can continue to advance US national security interests.”
FDA stalls decision on petition to suspend mRNA injections, citing ‘other priorities’
US regulator quietly delays action despite evidence of regulatory failure, DNA contamination, and a surge in cancers among young people.
By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | July 19, 2025
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has delayed its response to a formal petition demanding the suspension of the mRNA Covid-19 injections, citing “the existence of other FDA priorities.”
In a letter dated 17 July 2025, Dr Vinay Prasad—recently appointed Director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)—acknowledged that the agency had “not yet reached resolution of the issues raised” in the petition.
Filed on 20 January 2025, the petition alleges that Pfizer’s Comirnaty and Moderna’s Spikevax were “unlawfully approved” in violation of federal regulatory requirements.
It calls for an immediate halt to the injections, independent testing of retained vials, and a full investigation into the approval process.
Fatal flaws in licensing mRNA products
Submitted by lawyer Katie Ashby-Koppens of PJ O’Brien & Associates, and spearheaded by former barrister Julian Gillespie, the petition argues that the mRNA injections were misclassified from the outset.
Although the products meet the FDA’s own definition of gene therapy, they were not regulated as such—sidestepping the heightened oversight normally required for gene-based interventions.
Under U.S. law, gene therapies must undergo ‘Environmental Assessments,’ be reviewed by specialised advisory committees, and face a more rigorous public transparency process.
But by labelling the mRNA injections as conventional ‘vaccines,’ regulators were able to fast-track their approval through a separate, less stringent pathway—bypassing critical safeguards.
The petition also raises alarm over synthetic DNA fragments found in the final products. Independent testing by multiple laboratories—including the FDA’s own facility—revealed DNA contamination far exceeding the safety limits.
Because the DNA is encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles, it can bypass normal immune defences, enter human cells, and in some cases integrate into the genome. The potential consequences, the petition warns, include genomic instability, cancer, and heritable genetic damage.
One of the most serious findings is the presence of SV40 promoter sequences in Pfizer’s injection—elements known to interfere with tumour-suppressing pathways such as p53.
The petition accuses Pfizer of withholding this information from the FDA in breach of disclosure laws.
Interim letter, no timeline
Under federal law, the FDA was required to respond to the petition within 180 days.
Just before the deadline, it issued a standard interim letter—acknowledging the petitioners’ main concerns but offering no timeline for a final decision.
Nor did the agency indicate that any investigation had begun. “We will respond to your petition as soon as we have reached a decision on your request,” wrote Prasad.
The agency’s delay is not uncommon—but critics say it reflects a deeper reluctance to confront the scientific and regulatory implications head-on.
Fully addressing the petition would require a sweeping and uncomfortable re-evaluation of how mRNA technologies were developed, approved, and marketed under the guise of conventional ‘vaccines.’
If the products were unlawfully licensed—mislabelled as vaccines to circumvent gene therapy regulations—the fallout would be unprecedented.
The admission alone could expose governments to extraordinary legal and financial liability—including product withdrawals, class actions, long-term health monitoring, injury compensation, and potential criminal investigations.
Petitioners speak out
Gillespie said the FDA is caught “between a rock and a hard place”—but that doesn’t excuse inaction. He believes the recent surge in cancers among young people demands urgent scrutiny.
“There’s been a tremendous and continuing rise in cancers across the United States commensurate with the rollout of these products,” he said. “Government officials have seen the data… and are refusing to address the elephant in the room.”
Analysis by Ethical Skeptic shows young cancers are up by 44%
Dr Jessica Rose, a computational biologist and co-author of the petition, said the public was never given accurate information about the nature of the products.
“The public was not told what they were being injected with,” she said. “And still to this day, they are not.”
She described the failure to distinguish gene-based therapies from traditional vaccines as “an existential crisis,” warning that “more and more people—including children and infants—are being exposed to the harms of foreign DNA.”
Dr David Speicher, a virologist and co-signatory on the petition, said the FDA’s letter amounts to bureaucratic minimisation.
“The number of vaccine-injured people continues to grow, and we do not all know the long-term harms caused by these genetic products,” he said. “Yet the FDA states that ‘other priorities’ are more important.”
He called for “an independent scientific team to examine the regulatory process, as well as to provide funding to researchers to explore biological mechanisms such as genomic integration.”
Pharmacy consultant and petitioner Maria Gutschi said the mRNA products represent a new therapeutic category “with no previous knowledge to leverage in assessing safety and efficacy.”
She argued that, given the novelty and risks, “the bar to suspend and/or mandate ‘black box’ warnings must be higher than for any previous therapeutic agent.” Gutschi urged the FDA to treat this as “THE priority” going forward.
A tale of two gene therapies
Critics say the FDA’s handling of mRNA harms stands in stark contrast to its swift response to safety concerns involving other gene therapies.
Yesterday, the agency announced a halt to clinical trials for Sarepta Therapeutics’ investigational gene therapy after the company reported another patient death—bringing the total to three deaths across two separate gene therapy products.
The treatment, developed for limb girdle muscular dystrophy, prompted immediate regulatory action.
“Today, we’ve shown that this FDA takes swift action when patient safety is at risk,” said FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, declaring the agency is “not afraid to take immediate action when a serious safety signal emerges.”
In contrast, the FDA has remained inert on mRNA injections—which also deliver genetic material into human cells but were classified as “vaccines”—despite thousands of reported deaths and serious adverse events following administration.
According to the petitioners, the public was led to believe they were receiving a conventional vaccine—when in fact, they were being administered gene therapy.
By failing to recognise and regulate the products accordingly, the FDA violated public trust—bypassing transparency laws, concealing critical risks, and depriving individuals of the opportunity to make informed medical decisions.
Next steps
People don’t want agencies to stall. They don’t want bureaucratic evasions. They want answers—and they want accountability.
The FDA’s next move won’t simply test regulatory process.
It will test courage—whether anyone inside the system is willing to confront the fallout in what may be the most consequential medical misclassification in modern history.
Tulsi Gabbard releases ‘overwhelming evidence’ of Obama coup plot against Trump
RT | July 18, 2025
Former President Barack Obama’s administration deliberately manipulated intelligence to frame Russia for interfering in the 2016 presidential election, according to newly declassified documents released on Friday by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
Gabbard unveiled more than 100 pages of emails, memos, and internal communications, which she described as “overwhelming evidence” of a coordinated effort by senior Obama-era officials to politicize intelligence and launch the multi-year Trump–Russia collusion investigation. She dubbed it “a treasonous conspiracy to subvert the will of the American people.”
The scandal severely damaged relations between Moscow and Washington, leading to sanctions, asset seizures, and a breakdown in normal diplomacy.
”This intelligence was weaponized,” Gabbard said. “It was used as a justification for endless smears, for sanctions from Congress, and for covert investigations.” She added: “When key internal assessments found that Russia ‘did not impact recent U.S. election results,’ those findings were suppressed.”
“For months before the 2016 election, the Intelligence Community maintained that Russia lacked both the intent and capability to hack U.S. elections,” Gabbard noted. “But once President Trump won, everything changed.”
One document — a draft President’s Daily Brief dated December 8, 2016 — stated Russia “did not impact recent U.S. election results” through cyberattacks. The report, prepared by the CIA, NSA, FBI, DHS, and other agencies, found no evidence of voting interference.
Yet Fox News reported on Friday that the document was pulled — “based on new guidance,” according to internal emails. Hours later, a high-level Situation Room meeting took place, attended by officials including DNI James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
According to declassified notes, attendees agreed to produce a new intelligence assessment at President Obama’s request. That report, released on January 6, 2017, claimed Russia had intervened in the election to help Donald Trump — directly contradicting earlier assessments.
Gabbard claims the revised assessment leaned on the discredited Steele Dossier — compiled by a former British spy — while sidelining dissenting views within the intelligence apparatus. “This was not intelligence gathering,” Gabbard stated. “It was narrative building.”
Confirmed as DNI earlier this year — after a contentious process — Gabbard says she has forwarded the documents to the Department of Justice. She has urged investigations into former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey, who are reportedly facing criminal inquiries. “No matter how powerful, every person involved must be brought to justice,” she stressed. “Our nation’s integrity depends on accountability.”
“The integrity of our democratic republic depends on full accountability,” Gabbard concluded. “Nothing less will restore the public’s trust — and ensure nothing like this ever happens again.”
No, CBS Boston, Climate Isn’t Making “Extreme Heat the New Normal”
By Anthony Watts | Climate Realism | July 9, 2025
In the CBS Boston (CBS-B) article titled “Is extreme heat the new normal in Boston? What hitting 102 degrees tells us about climate change,” Jacob Wycoff claims that Boston’s recent heat wave is a symptom of climate change and the “new normal.” This is misleading. In fact, long-term temperature records do not support the notion that heat waves are becoming more intense or more frequent in Boston or across the United States. Historical weather data shows that extreme heat events in Boston are neither unprecedented nor evidence of a climate emergency. The notion that a few hot days in June are proof of a systemic climate shift is simply not supported by the broader climate record.
“What used to be ‘unusual’ is fast becoming our new normal,” Wycoff writes. “And if we don’t act to slow warming, this kind of heat won’t be the exception, it’ll be the expectation.
“If greenhouse gas emissions remain unchecked, Boston’s average summer highs could rise by 9 degrees by 2100,” says Wycoff.
Wycoff’s story, as is usually the case in mainstream media stories about climate change, promotes speculative model projections, while ignoring real world data and trends to the contrary.
It’s a familiar tactic: choose the most aggressive, worst-case emissions scenario and present it as destiny. Climate Central, the source for much of the CBS-B story, uses computer model projections based on RCP 8.5, for example. Yet as noted on Climate Realism, even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stepped back from emphasizing RCP 8.5 as a likely pathway, recognizing that is implausible if not impossible.
This climate alarmist framing glosses over essential context: heat waves like the one Boston just experienced have happened before, well before recent increases in carbon dioxide emissions, and are often the result of local urbanization effects—not global climate trends.
Let’s start with the basic fact that the recent heat in Boston, while certainly hot, is far from unprecedented. According to the National Weather Service data, Boston hit a record high of 102 degrees for June on June 24, 2025. But historical data shows that Boston has experienced significantly high temperatures long before modern climate anxieties took hold. Boston’s previous record June temperature of 100℉ was June 6. 1925, 100 years of global warming ago. The highest all time ever recorded temperature in Boston was 104°F in July 1911, followed by 103°F in July 1926. The city also saw 102°F temperatures in 1911, 1975, and 1977. You can see these highs in the graph below with the most recent one on the far right in the figure below.
Figure: Hottest annual temperatures recorded in Boston, Massachusetts for each year between 1893 and 2025.
So, if recently increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is responsible for this “new normal” as Wycoff claims, how did these even hotter events happen in the past when carbon dioxide levels were lower? His narrative falls apart in this context.
So, no—extreme heat is not the new normal in Boston. It’s part of a long-standing, intermittent pattern of hot weather events. In fact, the heat experienced in June 2025 didn’t even break Boston’s all-time record. It was simply the hottest June day since 1872, not the hottest day ever.
Nor are extended heatwaves new to Boston. In June 1872, Boston experienced eight days of temperatures above 90°F. Boston also had a multi-day stretch of 100-degree temperatures in July 1911, a heat wave that was deadlier and more extreme than what the city experienced in June 2025. That 1911 event resulted in numerous fatalities across the Northeast, a fact documented well before climate change became the default explanation for every summer hot spell.
The CBS-B article cites Climate Central’s claim that Boston’s overnight summer temperatures have increased by 2 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 50 years. But this trend is almost certainly influenced by the well-known Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, which causes cities to retain more heat, especially overnight, due to heat-absorbing infrastructure like asphalt, concrete, and buildings. This is not a climate crisis; this is local urbanization.
The UHI effect is well-documented and accounts for much of the localized warming in urban centers. In fact, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) acknowledges that “cities tend to be warmer than rural areas, particularly at night, because buildings, roads, and other infrastructure absorb heat during the day and release it slowly after the sun goes down.”
Boston, like most major metropolitan areas, has undergone significant growth over the last century. The city’s population has grown substantially over the past 70 years. With more people bringing with them the development of more houses, buildings, streets, bridges, concrete, blacktop, machinery, and denser development, all of which contribute to warmer temperatures. The temperature increase isn’t a global phenomenon playing out on a Boston street corner—it’s a localized, urbanized one.
Furthermore, the idea that climate change is singularly responsible for making hot days “six times more common” in Boston is based on computer model forecasting, not measured trends. CBS-B leans heavily on Climate Central’s Climate Shift Index, which is a modeled estimate—not direct measurement—of climate influence. These types of attributions rely on climate models that, as Climate Realism has repeatedly shown, consistently overstate future warming compared to observed reality. Research by Roy Spencer Ph.D., has demonstrated that most climate models overestimate warming by up to 50 percent compared to satellite data.
What CBS-B also fails to mention is that heat-related deaths in the U.S. have been declining, not increasing. Thanks to modern air conditioning, improved healthcare, and public awareness, society is far more resilient to heat than it was a century ago. According to a 2022 study published in The Lancet, cold weather still kills significantly more people than heat does.
The CBS-B story is a prime example of lazy climate reporting. It cherry-picks recent temperatures, ignores over a century of weather history, and repeats activist talking points without challenge. CBS-B’s failure to carry out basic fact checking resulted in a story that was alarmingly misleading. The story is an example of the type of “journalism” that is eroding the public’s trust in journalists and mainstream media outlets they report for.
Von der Leyen’s final plan: a false democracy for a false Europe
By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 17, 2025
A change in perception
The perception of the European Union is changing in some sections of public opinion: from a project of cooperation between sovereign states, the EU is increasingly seen as a centralized bureaucratic machine, which is what it really represents, and this view is fueled by the growing control exercised over information spaces, political dynamics, and the very interpretation of democratic principles. If the failure of the euro as a common currency was already telling, even more so were the isolationist policies of sanctions against the Russian Federation, followed by those against China and, in general, against any political entity that was not in the good graces of the UK-US axis.
In this context, the role of the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, is worrying. While proclaiming herself a champion of democratic values, she is contributing to the construction of a system in which truth, dissent, and public debate are suppressed or marginalized. There is no doubt that no one has ever pursued policies as totally anti-democratic, liberticidal, and homicidal as hers (as in the cases of Ukraine and Palestine).
These concerns have been fueled by discussions on a motion of no confidence against von der Leyen. In June 2025, Romanian MEP George Piperea proposed a vote to question her leadership. The necessary signatures were collected from various MEPs to put the issue to a vote in the plenary. The main reason given is the alleged violation of transparency rules during the management of contracts for COVID-19 vaccines in 2020-2021.
Following those agreements, the EU purchased huge quantities of doses, many of which proved to be surplus to requirements, with an estimated 215 million doses, worth close to €4 billion, subsequently being discarded. When citizens and the media asked for clarity on those contracts, the European Commission refused to make the communications public, a decision that the Court of Justice of the European Union later ruled contrary to the rules. According to the Court, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Commission is obliged to prove that such communications do not exist or are not in its possession.
Despite this, the Commission has never provided a clear explanation as to why the messages between von der Leyen and Pfizer’s CEO were not disclosed. It has not been clarified whether the messages were deleted voluntarily or whether they were lost, for example, due to a change of device by the president.
Finally, on July 10, during a plenary session in Strasbourg, the European Parliament rejected the motion of no confidence against Ursula von der Leyen. To pass, it would have required a qualified majority of two-thirds, supported by an absolute majority of MEPs. The result was 360 votes against, 175 in favor, and 18 abstentions.
The motion was supported by right-wing groups such as Patriots for Europe and Europe of Sovereign Nations, numerous members of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, and some members of the radical left. Von der Leyen was not present at the time of the vote. Despite the criticism, the main centrist groups – the European People’s Party (EPP), the Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe and the Greens – rejected the motion, ensuring the political survival of the president. However, if the no-confidence motion had passed, the entire European Commission would have fallen, opening a complicated process for the appointment of 27 new commissioners.
This decision is perhaps more strategic than tactical: keeping a president who has already lost confidence and is therefore politically manageable and has limited room for maneuver is more convenient than having a new president who may be worse than the previous one and has the full confidence of the European Parliament.
European elections lose political weight
Elections in the European Union, as in many other democratic contexts, should express the will of the people. They should, I emphasize. In practice, however, they are increasingly seen as an institutional ritual with no real impact on fundamental political choices and, above all, they are not an expression of the real will of the people, as they lack representation. Many of the key decisions are no longer taken by elected governments or national parliaments, but by EU bodies often guided by a technocratic logic and by interests dominant within the EU system.
The 2024 European elections represented a turning point: conservative, sovereignist, and nationalist parties significantly expanded their representation, establishing themselves in countries such as Italy, Austria, Germany, France, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. These parties have strongly opposed the EU’s migration policies, environmental measures deemed excessive, and its confrontational foreign policy towards Russia. However, instead of encouraging constructive debate and giving space to critical voices – as the European Parliament claims to want to do – these forces have been systematically branded as “anti-democratic” and publicly discredited.
A central role in this strategy has been played by Ursula von der Leyen, in office since 2019, who has repeatedly portrayed right-wing parties as a “threat to European unity,” without ever providing concrete evidence to support this claim, but often referring to alleged Russian interference or generic “threats to sovereignty.”
In May 2024, for example, Ursula claimed that the AfD, Germany’s far-right party, was “manipulated by Russia.” While she did not cite any specific sources, these statements helped justify new sanctions against Moscow and introduce restrictions on the online activities of non-aligned political forces. Meanwhile, however, the growth of right-wing parties reflects growing discontent with European policies considered ineffective or punitive: uncontrolled immigration, environmental measures [which are] burdensome for families, and the militarization of the EU, which imposes rising costs. Instead of engaging in open debate, the EU apparatus tends to marginalize these movements, silencing them with accusations and stigmatization.
Sovereignist and right-wing parties in Europe face numerous institutional obstacles. In the European Parliament, the so-called “cordon sanitaire” policy is still in force, whereby the S&D and EPP groups refuse to cooperate with conservative political forces. This was clearly seen in the composition of the new EU Executive Committee, where the presidency went to Nathalie Loiseau, with vice-presidencies assigned exclusively to S&D and EPP representatives, excluding any representation from the right. At the same time, several conservative representatives are involved in legal proceedings that some observers consider to be attempts at political repression disguised as legal action. This is the case, for example, of Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen, who is being prosecuted for expressing traditional religious views on the family. These incidents show how the legal system can be used to target dissenting positions.
The growing exclusion of critical voices raises serious questions about the true state of pluralism in the EU, where opposition views seem increasingly to be treated not as part of democratic debate but as obstacles to be removed.
Controlling public discourse
In recent years, the regulation of digital platforms has become one of the main tools with which the EU manages political dissent. Under the guise of protecting citizens, some recent regulations risk severely restricting freedom of expression.
The first was the Digital Services Act (DSA): in force since November 16, 2022, this law imposes obligations on digital platforms to combat illegal content and improve algorithmic and advertising transparency. However, some provisions raise significant concerns: Article 34 allows government bodies to request the removal of content or access to data even outside their jurisdiction. In emergencies, the Commission can impose restrictions on the dissemination of certain information. The first sites to be sanctioned were those providing information from Russia, causing considerable damage not only economically but also to the plurality of information. In the EU, everyone has the right to speak, except for the long list of those who do not think like the EU.
A second tool is the EUDS, the European Democracy Shield, launched by von der Leyen in May 2024. This initiative is presented as a defense of the EU against external interference – particularly from Russia and China – but according to many observers, it represents a further step toward controlling information and limiting forces critical of European integration, environmental policies, and the dominant diplomatic line.
Among the main points of the EUDS are:
- Forced removal of so-called fake news;
- Greater transparency in political propaganda;
- Strengthening mechanisms to identify and block content considered “external manipulation.”
In essence, these measures increase the Commission’s power to identify what information is lawful and what is not.
Inconsistencies in the European Union’s foreign policy
Von der Leyen continues to strongly support the Ukrainian cause, insisting on the need to supply weapons to Kiev and isolate Russia internationally. However, this commitment also has obvious inconsistencies.
During her visit to Israel in 2023, for example, the Commission president expressed solidarity with the victims of Hamas attacks, but made no appeal to Israel to respect international law in the Gaza Strip. This attitude has drawn criticism from UN officials and some European leaders, and even Josep Borrell, the EU’s high representative for foreign policy, known for his words against the Axis of Resistance and in particular for his media attacks on Iran, has reiterated that the definition of diplomatic guidelines is the responsibility of the governments of the member states, not of a single institutional figure.
Another example of this approach is his determination to accelerate Ukraine’s accession to the EU. Although officially supported by many European governments, this initiative is met with reservations by several countries, including Slovakia and Hungary, which highlight the need for structural reforms, economic stability, and compliance with European regulations.
Her insistence on a rapid transition to electric vehicles, including the decision to ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars from 2035, has also been adopted despite strong concerns from the automotive industry and part of the population, as well as calls for compromise from countries such as Germany.
Ursula is seeking to centralize decision-making and financial power in the hands of the Commission she chairs. This is a political method, not a “hiccup.”
Consider the much-discussed ReArm Europe: €800 billion earmarked for rearmament, forcing EU member states into a disastrous spending review. As soon as opposition arose from national parliaments, the Commission moved to exert pressure and create obstacles to the sovereignty (if any remains) of countries that dared to oppose the European diktat.
Many European citizens are expressing growing concern about the president’s top-down style. Sanctions packages against Moscow, climate initiatives, defense projects, and even official statements are often developed without involving member states. In numerous cases, von der Leyen has taken a position on behalf of the entire Union without consulting the European Council or the External Action Service.
If a single leader is able to block institutional activities without transparency or coordination, this signals a dangerous personalization of power and a lack of shared governance mechanisms.
The European Union has always claimed to be democratic and multilateral, at least formally; but the truth is that, especially in recent years, this European Union – which is something different from Europe – is dismantling the last vestiges of sovereign power and freedom, compressing everything into a few bureaucratic, indeed technocratic, structures that are in the hands of a very few people who report to the President of the Commission. There is no transparency, no pluralism, no real democracy. Just chatter, words, slogans, advertising campaigns, and internships for young students lobotomized by European political drugs. And while discussions multiply about the impact of these transformations on fundamental rights – including freedom of speech, democratic participation, and the right to criticize – European leaders reiterate that these measures are being taken in the interest of the collective good and the stability of the Union. There will be no end to hypocrisy, while we hope that Europe will soon be able to free itself from the yoke called the EU.
Soft power, hard cash: How the UK secretly buys influencers
By Timur Tarkhanov | RT | July 16, 2025
There is something profoundly grotesque about a government that funds “freedom campaigns” through secret payments to social media stars, complete with non-disclosure agreements forbidding them to reveal who’s really pulling the strings.
Yet that’s precisely what Britain’s Foreign Office has been caught doing. A recent investigation by Declassified UK revealed that the UK government covertly paid dozens of foreign YouTube influencers to promote messages aligned with British foreign policy – under the familiar, pious banners of “democracy support” and “combating disinformation.”
Of course, those slogans sound wholesome enough. Who wouldn’t be in favour of democracy or against lies online? But this framing is the point: it launders raw geopolitical interests into the comforting language of values. In reality, this is simply propaganda. Slick, decentralised, modernised – but propaganda nonetheless.
This covert campaign didn’t happen in a vacuum. It’s merely the latest incarnation of Britain’s longstanding approach to managing inconvenient narratives abroad. During the Cold War, the UK ran the notorious Information Research Department (IRD) from the bowels of the Foreign Office, quietly subsidising global news wires, encouraging friendly academics, even feeding scripts to George Orwell himself. Back then, it was about containing Soviet influence. Today, the rhetorical targets have shifted – “Russian disinformation,” “violent extremism,” “authoritarian propaganda” – but the machinery is strikingly similar.
Only now, it’s all camouflaged beneath glossy behavioural science reports and “evidence-based interventions.” Enter Zinc Network and a clutch of similar contractors. These are the new psy-ops specialists, rebranded for the digital age. Zinc, in particular, has become a darling of the UK Foreign Office, winning multi-million-pound tenders to craft campaigns in Russia’s near abroad, the Balkans, Myanmar and beyond. Their operational blueprint is remarkably consistent: conduct meticulous audience research to understand local grievances, find or build trusted social media voices, funnel them resources and content, and ensure they sign binding agreements not to disclose their British backers.
A few years ago, leaked FCDO documents exposed exactly this approach in the Baltics. There, the British government paid for contractors to develop Russian-language media platforms that would counter Moscow’s narratives – all under the pretext of strengthening independent journalism. They weren’t setting up local BBC World Service equivalents, proudly branded and transparent. They were building subtle, local-looking channels designed to mask their sponsorship. The goal was not to encourage robust pluralistic debate, but to ensure the debate didn’t wander into critiques of NATO or London’s chosen regional allies.
This is the moral sleight-of-hand at the core of such projects: democracy is not the intrinsic end, it’s the vehicle for achieving Western policy objectives. When the UK says it’s “building resilience against disinformation,” it means reinforcing narratives that advance British strategic interests, whether that’s undermining Moscow, insulating Kiev, or keeping critical questions off the table in Tbilisi. Meanwhile, any rival framing is instantly demonised as dangerous foreign meddling – because only some meddling counts, apparently.
It is deeply revealing that the YouTubers enlisted by the Foreign Office were compelled to sign NDAs preventing them from disclosing the ultimate source of their funding. If this were truly about open civic engagement, wouldn’t the UK proudly brand these campaigns? Wouldn’t London stand behind the principles it professes to teach? Instead, it resorts to precisely the covert playbook it decries when wielded by adversaries.
In truth, “disinformation” has become an incredibly convenient term for Western governments. It carries an aura of technical objectivity — as if there’s a universal ledger of truth to consult, rather than a constantly contested arena of competing narratives and interests. Once something is labelled disinformation, it can be suppressed, countered, or ridiculed with minimal scrutiny. It is the modern equivalent of calling ideas subversive or communist in the 1950s.
Likewise, “freedom” in these projects means nothing more than the freedom to align with Britain’s worldview. This is a freedom to be curated, not genuinely chosen. And so local influencers are groomed to shape perceptions, not to foster independent judgment. The fact that these influencers look indigenous to their societies is the whole point – it’s what gives the campaigns a deceptive organic legitimacy. This is why Zinc’s approach hinges on meticulous audience segmentation and iterative testing to find precisely which messages will most effectively shift attitudes. The aim is to secure agreement without debate, to achieve consent without the messy business of authentic local deliberation.
This should worry us. When liberal democracies resort to covert influence, they hollow out their own moral authority. They also undermine public trust at home and abroad. If London can so easily rationalise deception in Tallinn or Tashkent, why not someday in Manchester or Birmingham? Already, parts of the behavioural “nudge” industry that grew out of these foreign adventures have found eager domestic clients in public health and law enforcement.
The biggest casualty in all of this is genuine democratic discourse – the thing that such operations claim to protect. Because what these programmes actually protect is a carefully policed marketplace of ideas, where uncomfortable questions are outflanked by well-funded, astroturfed consensus. And so long as Britain continues to cloak its strategic propaganda efforts in the soft language of freedom and resilience, citizens everywhere will remain less informed, less empowered, and more easily manipulated.
If that’s what modern democracy promotion looks like, maybe we should be honest and call it what it is: camouflage propaganda, draped in the rhetoric of liberty, but designed to ensure populations think exactly what Whitehall wants them to think.
Tucker Carlson at Turning Point USA: Epstein Was a Mossad Agent and IDF Soldiers Should Lose U.S. Citizenship
By Kevin MacDonald | The Occidental Observer | July 15, 2025
Things are looking up for being able to be honest about Jewish issues in mainstream forums. I couldn’t be happier that this is coming out from a mainstream conservative at a major mainstream conservative conference. It’s been a long time coming, and we are still not there. But there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Carlson is much hated by the ADL which oddly has not commented on this latest faux pas. But they have lots to say about Turker’s endorsement of the great replacement “conspiracy theory.”
Carlson claimed that Epstein had “connections to a foreign government”:
“It’s extremely obvious to anyone who watches that this guy had direct connections to a foreign government.” “Now no one’s allowed to say that that foreign government is Israel because we have been somehow cowed into thinking that’s naughty.”
Lots of Jewish angst about this — and about Carlson’s statement that Jews who served in the IDF should lose their U.S. citizenship. Common sense, but since when has common sense been relevant to anything related to Jewish power. Any accusation of dual loyalty is considered anti-Semitism according to the official definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, so I guess Carlson is now officially an anti-Semite, along with Charlie Kirk and a whole lot of people who attended the conference.
From the Forward:
Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host and a leader in the Republican Party’s isolationist wing, said that Americans who previously served in the Israeli Defense Forces should have their U.S. citizenship revoked over concerns of dual loyalty. At the same time, he also criticized the Trump administration for trying to deport pro-Palestinian students who engaged in anti-Israel activity on campus.are a lot of Americans who’ve served in the IDF — they should lose their citizenship,” Carlson said in a 45-minute speech on Saturday at the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit in Tampa, Florida. “You can’t fight for another country and remain an American, period.”
Carlson, who has promoted antisemitic tropes [simply for saying Zelenskyy is a dictator who has suppressed Christianity] and has been associated with white nationalists [i.e., Darryl Cooper!!], explained that his position is an “obvious recognition of the truth” and applies to all countries. He mocked his critics — “they just write you off as some sort of internet freak, hater, Nazi” — and said it is “fair to demand that the people running my country love it every bit as much as I do.”
The founder of the organization Carlson spoke to is Charlie Kirk, a conservative podcaster who has accused Jews of financing “anti-white causes.” Several Trump cabinet members and Republican officials attended and spoke at the three-day conference.
And of course, Jews in high places deny Epstein had any connections to Mossad.
From the JTA comment on Naftali Bennet’s tweet:
Carlson has long faced allegations of antisemitism, including over his promotion of white supremacist ideas while on Fox News and his hosting of a Holocaust denier on his X stream last year.
More recently, he has been at the vanguard of a different divide within the MAGA movement over foreign policy, centering on Israel. Carlson and others heavily criticized Trump’s decision to join Israel’s military offensive against Iran’s nuclear program, with Carlson accusing Trump of being “complicit” in Israel’s “act of war.”
Carlson sends out a daily email to subscribers. This is from the July 14th email and basically summarizes his points at his talk. Notice he highlights Jewish activist Ben Shapiro as wanting to move on.
It seems likely that Jeffrey Epstein worked on behalf of an intelligence service. Probably not an American one.
So which country was it? The fact that so few reporters have bothered to dig into that question could prove to be this century’s most egregious example of journalistic malpractice. How did the notorious pedophile go from being a high school math teacher with no college degree to having a private island and one of the most luxurious residences in Manhattan? Doesn’t that seem weird? What was the source of his money? Why has nobody ever really looked into it?
To anyone paying attention, the obvious conclusion is that Epstein had direct connections to a foreign government. To the Israeli government. That is true even though saying it out loud is forbidden in mainstream political discourse, but there’s nothing wrong with having the gall to do just that. It doesn’t matter what screeching shills like Mark Levin say. Telling the truth is not hateful, nor is it anti-Semitic or even anti-Israel.
Criticizing the behavior of a government agency, any government agency, does not make you a bigot. It makes you a free person. You are allowed to hold them to account because you’re not a slave; you are a citizen. That means you have the right to expect your government to act in your interest and to demand that foreign governments that suck up your tax dollars do the same. Israel using America’s most famous serial sex criminal as an intelligence asset would not fit that description.
So did it happen? A few people have asked the Israeli government that question, but they’ve received no real answers. That is unacceptable. As long as America keeps cutting generous checks to that foreign power, it should have to report to us. If it refuses, no more payments. The rules are simple.
In the meantime, we can’t help but notice a strange new talking point emerging on the Right.
“The Epstein story doesn’t even matter!” the Ben Shapiros of the world now claim. “So shut up about it already!”
That is obvious nonsense. The truth behind Epstein, his death, his connections, and how he got so rich matters a lot. The pedophile wasn’t killed during a walk down the street or even in his own home. He died in a high-security prison in the heart of America’s largest city. It was supposed to be among the most secure places in the world. That means whatever force is responsible for Epstein’s demise orchestrated the killing in among the most difficult conditions possible, and they did it while hardly breaking a sweat. Whoever pulled that off really runs our country. If they could do it to him, they could definitely do it to you, too.
Why would the Shapiro caucus not want to get to the bottom of that? You know the answer. It’s because they have something to hide
The refrain on the right is that Epstein matters because he is a window into who rules the U.S. And one would be forgiven for thinking that the reason for the cover-up is to hide the involvement of Mossad in an elaborate blackmail scheme. We also deserve to know what the deep state is hiding about the JFK assassination—another phenomenally important event in which there is good reason to think that Israel and the CIA were involved, and another incident where Trump said he would be completely transparent.
US pundit challenges ex-Israeli PM over Epstein files
Press TV – July 15, 2025
US commentator Tucker Carlson has called out former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett, urging him to address claims linking disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein to the Israeli regime in a formal interview, rather than dismissing them as conspiracy theories.
In a post on X on Thursday, Carlson invited Bennett to discuss Epstein’s ties to Israel, promising to contact his office to arrange the interview.
This followed Bennett’s Monday statement on X, where he denied accusations, including from Carlson, that Epstein was an intelligence asset for Israel’s Mossad.
“As a former Israeli Prime Minister, with the Mossad having reported directly to me, I say to you with 100% certainty: The accusation that Jeffrey Epstein somehow worked for Israel or the Mossad running a blackmail ring is categorically and totally false,” Bennett wrote, addressing persistent reports that Epstein worked for the Israeli regime.
Epstein’s 2020 death in US federal custody, recently ruled a suicide by the Trump administration, has reignited speculation of a cover-up.
Reports have long suggested Epstein, a wealthy New York socialite, operated a blackmail ring targeting influential figures and was murdered in jail, with many saying he acted on Israel’s behalf.
Bennett dismissed these claims, stating, “Epstein’s criminal and despicable actions had no connection to the Mossad or Israel.”
He accused high-profile figures like Carlson of spreading falsehoods, adding, “There’s a vicious wave of slander against [Israel], and we won’t stand for it.”
Carlson fired back on X, challenging Bennett’s response: “Instead of issuing threats on social media, why not sit for a rational interview about Epstein’s ties to the Israeli government? We’ll reach out to your office today.”
On Friday, speaking at the Turning Point USA conference, Carlson doubled down, asserting it was “obvious” Epstein had ties to a foreign regime, implying Israel.
His remarks were met with enthusiasm from the pro-Trump audience.
Google helped Israel spread war propaganda to 45 million Europeans
By Alan MACLEOD | MintPress News | July 10, 2025
While it continues its conflict with its neighbors, Israel is fighting another war just as intensely, spending gigantic amounts of money bombarding Europe with messaging justifying their actions, and scaremongering Europeans that Iranian nuclear missiles will soon be turning their cities into rubble.
A MintPress study has found that, since it struck Iran on June 13, the Israeli Government Advertising Agency has paid for tens of millions of advertisements on YouTube alone. In clear breach of Google’s policies, these ads justify and lionize the attack as a necessary defense of Western civilization, and claim that Israel is carrying out “one of the largest humanitarian missions in the world” in Gaza.
The countries most targeted by this campaign include the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany, and Greece.
Information War
“A fanatical regime firing missiles at civilians, while racing towards nuclear weapons. While Iran deliberately targets cities, Israel acts with precision to dismantle this threat.” Thus starts one Israeli government ad that hundreds of thousands of YouTube viewers in Europe have been compelled to watch.
“Terror architects behind the elimination of Israel plan: eliminated. Israel targets only military and terror sites, not civilians. But the threat remains,” the voiceover continues, over ominous music and high-tech graphics. “We will finish the mission for our people, for humanity. Israel does what must be done,” it concludes.
“Iran’s ballistic missile program isn’t just a threat to Israel, it is a threat to Europe and the Western world,” another, seen by 1.5 million viewers in just three weeks, claims. “Iran is developing missiles with ranges of approximately 4000 km. That places Europe within the regime’s striking distance,” it adds, as graphics show virtually the entire continent turning blood red, signifying a nuclear attack. “This isn’t tomorrow’s threat. It is today’s reality. The threat posed by the Iranian regime must be stopped. Israel does what must be done.”
Ominous messages like these, translated into multiple languages, have reached tens of millions of people across Europe. Other Israeli government ads take a different tack, attempting to present Israel as a virtuous victim and an unwilling participant in war. As one commercial notes:
Imagine this: you are holding your newborn in a hospital room. Then the air raid sirens go off. Iran fires ballistic missiles at hospitals, at innocent Israelis. Patients, doctors, newborn babies: deliberately targeted. While Iran aims at families and children, Israel responds with precision, striking military sites. This is not a war of choice. Those who target civilians and hospitals become the target.”
The claims made in such videos are often highly questionable. For example, around 935 Iranians were killed in Israeli strikes, compared to just 28 Israelis, suggesting Israel is far less careful to avoid civilian deaths than its opponent. Indeed, since October 2023, Israel has repeatedly and deliberately targeted hospitals. The World Health Organization has documented at least 697 Israeli strikes on medical facilities.
Ninety-four percent of Gaza’s hospitals have been destroyed or damaged, and more than 1,400 medical personnel have been killed. This includes Dr. Adnan al-Bursh, head of orthopedics at al-Shifa Hospital, who was reportedly raped to death by Israeli prison guards. According to UNICEF, Israel has killed or injured over 50,000 Palestinian children. An American nurse who worked in Gaza told MintPress News that IDF soldiers regularly shoot boys in the genitals to prevent them from reproducing.
Despite this, Israeli advertising presents the country as the savior of the Palestinian people. One Ministry of Foreign Affairs video, set to epic, inspiring music, describes Israel as undertaking “One of the largest humanitarian operations in the world right now.” “This is what real aid looks like. Smiles don’t lie. Hamas does,” it concludes.
Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, called the commercial “scandalous” and directly challenged YouTube: “How can this be allowed?” The video has been translated into Italian, French, German, and Greek, and has been viewed by nearly seven million people on YouTube alone.
Transparently Inorganic
All referenced videos appear in the Google Ads Transparency Center as paid content from the Israeli Government Advertising Agency, and there is strong evidence that few, if any, of their millions of views are organic. The five versions of the “Gaza Humanitarian Aid” video, for example, collectively have only a few thousand “likes”—barely 1% of what would be generally expected of videos with this amount of views—and only two comments in total.
The difference between organic and paid content is clearer in videos that Israel has not promoted. Other videos on Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs YouTube channel receive only tens of views per day, not millions, which strongly suggests that close to 100% of their traffic is paid advertising.
The scale of this public relations operation is difficult to overstate. Even as the Israeli government hikes taxes and slashes domestic spending, its foreign PR budget has grown by more than 2,000%, the Foreign Ministry receiving $150 million more for public diplomacy.
Much of that money is evidently being spent on ads. In the past month, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has uploaded videos that have topped 45 million views on YouTube alone. The countries most targeted include the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany, and Greece.
Greece is a particularly noteworthy case. Over the past 12 months, the Israeli government advertising agency has funded 65 separate YouTube ad campaigns targeting the country.
The Greek version of a recent ad—titled “An efficient system is in place, delivering aid where it’s needed”—presents Israel as a benevolent bringer of life to Gaza and has garnered over 1 million views in just four days, equivalent to nearly 10% of Greece’s entire population. The video currently has no comments and fewer than 3,000 likes.
The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs uploads its videos in English, French, German, Italian, and Greek. Countries that do not speak these languages—such as Slovakia, Denmark, and the Netherlands—are still targeted, though users there generally receive the English version.
Israel has avoided targeting nations whose governments have formally condemned its actions, such as Ireland or Spain, spending nothing to reach those populations. The Netanyahu administration, evidently, has decided to attempt to shore up support in allied countries, even as their populations increasingly turn against Israel.
While many of these figures might shock readers, this investigation only examined the advertising campaign of a single organization, the Israeli Government Advertising Agency, and on a single platform, YouTube. It does not include other Israeli government and non-governmental groups, nor the myriad organizations collectively comprising the pro-Israel lobby in the West.
Israel has also attempted to influence the debate on other platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter. What is presented here is merely the thinnest slice of a much broader operation.
Israel and Silicon Valley
Some videos the Israeli government has released attempt to portray Israel in a positive light, but instead perpetuate racist stereotypes about Western civilization and its supposed superiority. In one ad, Benjamin Netanyahu states (emphasis added):
I want to assure the civilized world, we will not let the world’s most dangerous regime get the world’s most dangerous weapons. The increasing range of Iran’s ballistic missiles would bring that nuclear nightmare to the cities of Europe and eventually to America.”
Thus, the Israeli prime minister implies that Iran’s threat matters only if it endangers the so-called “civilized world,” that is, Europe and North America. “Never again is now. Today, Israel has shown that we have learned the lessons of history,” Netanyahu continues, directly comparing the 12-Day War (which Israel started) to the Holocaust. “When enemies vow to destroy you, believe them. When enemies build weapons of mass death, stop them. As the Bible teaches us, when someone comes to kill you, rise and act first.”
Google’s advertising rules explicitly prohibit commercials that “display shocking content or promote hatred, intolerance, discrimination, or violence.” Yet many of the ads described here explicitly justify Israeli aggression.
MintPress News contacted Google to ask how much the Israeli government’s advertising agency spent on ads, how many impressions those ads generated, whether the company had a response to Albanese’s comments, and whether the videos violated its policies.
Google did not answer the first three questions and reiterated that it has “strict ad policies that govern the types of ads we allow on our platform.” “These policies are publicly available, and we enforce them consistently and without bias. If we find ads that violate those policies, we swiftly remove them,” the company added, implying that it does not consider the ads a violation of its standards.
Few who have studied Google’s connections to the Israeli government will be surprised that the Silicon Valley giant grants enormous leeway to the Netanyahu administration. Former CEO Eric Schmidt is known as one of Israel’s most vocal supporters. Google has been financially invested in Israel since at least 2006, when it opened its first offices in Tel Aviv. In 2012, at a meeting with Netanyahu himself, Schmidt declared that “the decision to invest in Israel was one of the best that Google has ever made.”
Company co-founder Sergey Brin has also come to the defense of Israel, denouncing the United Nations as “transparently anti-Semitic” and telling Google staff that using the word “genocide” to describe Israeli actions in Gaza is “deeply offensive to many Jewish people who have suffered actual genocides.”
Earlier this year, with the Israeli economy in dire straits following its 18-month campaign against its neighbors, Schmidt’s company came to the rescue, injecting billions into Israel in a record-setting acquisition. Google purchased local cybersecurity firm Wiz for $32 billion. The monumental sum paid—equivalent to 65 times Wiz’s annual revenue and boosting the Israeli economy by 0.6%—left some analysts wondering if the deal had more to do with underwriting the Israeli economy than making a shrewd business investment.
It also raises questions about the safety of Google users’ most sensitive personal data, given that Wiz was founded and continues to be staffed by former Israeli spies from the intelligence group, Unit 8200.
Among them is Gavriel Goidel, head of strategy and operations for Google Research. Goidel joined Google in 2022 after a six-year career in military intelligence, during which he rose to become Head of Learning at Unit 8200. There, he led a large team of operatives who sifted through intelligence data to “understand patterns of hostile activists,” according to his own account.
The Turning Tide
Google is far from the only tech giant recruiting Israeli spies to run their most politically sensitive departments. The same study found that hundreds of former Unit 8200 intelligence agents are employed at companies such as Meta (formerly Facebook), Microsoft, and Amazon. And a significant amount of what America reads about the Middle East is also written by ex-Israeli spies.
A MintPress investigation from earlier this year uncovered a network of Unit 8200 alums working in top newsrooms across America.
Wikipedia is another key theater of war for the Israeli state. A project overseen by future Prime Minister Naftali Bennett deployed thousands of young Israelis to monitor and edit the online encyclopedia, removing troublesome facts and framing articles more favorably in Israel’s favor. Those who made the most edits would receive rewards, including free hot air balloon rides.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has also launched a campaign to harass and intimidate American students, establishing a “task force” to carry out psychological operations aimed at, in its own words, “inflicting economic and employment consequences” against pro-Palestine protestors. While Foreign Minister Eli Cohen heads the task force, it stresses that its actions “should not have the signature of the State of Israel on it.”
Amid mounting criticism, the Israeli government has sought to turn the tide by inviting influencers for direct talks with Netanyahu. In April, the Israeli prime minister met face-to-face with conservative internet personalities, including Tim Pool; Dave Rubin; Sean Spicer; Bethany Mandel; David Harris Jr.; Jessica Krause; Seth Mandel; and Mollie Hemingway, where they discussed how best to sell war with Iran to Western publics, and how to counter anti-Zionist sentiment online.
Other social media personalities report having been offered large sums of money in exchange for a few words of support for Israel.
In terms of turning the tide of European public opinion, Israel has its work cut out for it. A recent YouGov survey found the country was widely reviled across the continent. More than 20 times as many Italians, for instance, hold “very unfavorable” (43%) views of Israel than “very favorable” ones (2%).
Even in Germany, where popular support for Israel is highest, only 21% said they hold favorable opinions of the state (including only 4% highly favorable), with 65% displaying open opposition (including 32% who strongly dislike it).
A massive plurality of Britons, meanwhile, agreed with the statement: “Israel treats the Palestinians like the Nazis treated the Jews.” Forty-eight percent answered in the affirmative, as opposed to just 13% who disagreed. This is despite European governments offering full-throated support to Israel, and even criminalizing pro-Palestine protests and persecuting journalists who oppose Western support for Tel Aviv.
The government of Israel is spending millions of dollars daily on gigantic advertising campaigns aimed at turning the tide of public opinion. To that end, it is developing a PR network as sophisticated as the advanced weapons systems it uses on its neighbors. On YouTube alone, its paid advertising, translated into five languages, has reached at least 45 million people in the past month. Whether this strategy will ultimately prove effective remains unclear. After all, it is difficult to convince the public to support a genocide.
Ukraine Refuses to Pay Compensation to Families of Fallen Soldiers – Underground Network
Sputnik – 13.07.2025
The Kiev authorities are refusing to pay compensation to the families of Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) soldiers whose bodies were returned to Ukraine by Russia, using various pretexts, a source in the anti-fascist underground told Sputnik.
“Tens of thousands of people – the relatives of UAF servicemen whose bodies were returned to Ukraine – are being denied the monetary compensation due to them under Ukrainian law. For example, when a relative of a soldier whose body Russia returned from the Kursk region requested compensation, the Kiev authorities replied they would not pay anything because they lacked verified information, such as eyewitness testimony, that the serviceman died in combat in the line of duty,” the underground representative told Sputnik.
The source explained that the soldier in question had multiple shrapnel wounds on his body, which could only have been caused by artillery fire.
“This refusal is far from an isolated incident. It is systemic and widespread. People understand that someone has already profited, stolen, or saved money off the deaths of their relatives – and no one intends to give anything back to them,” the representative emphasized.
Earlier, Russian presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky, who led the Russian delegation in talks with Ukraine in Istanbul, stated that Russia had returned the bodies of 6,060 deceased Ukrainian officers and soldiers. In exchange, Russia received the remains of 78 fallen Russian servicemen.
Epstein Justice: What’s Next? with Nick Bryant
Corbett | July 12, 2025
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
So, the verdict is in from Trump’s Department of Justice: Epstein killed himself and no perpetrators need to be charged. Joining us today to discuss this sadly unsurprising cover-up and what people can do about it is author and activist Nick Bryant of EpsteinJustice.com.
WATCH ON: 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
or DOWNLOAD THE MP4
SHOW NOTES
Nick Bryant on The Corbett Report
Are You STILL Talking About Epstein? (NWNW #596)
“I’ve Seen ALL the EPSTEIN DOCUMENTS” | Alan Dershowitz
Epstein Justice petition to release Epstein files
Epstein Justice live webinar pressure campaign training sessions
Another Week in Washington to Remember
Or perhaps to forget
By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • July 12, 2025
If one thinks that arming Ukraine against Russia or having Israeli soldiers and also American contractors slaughter Gazan civilians are not supportive of any United States actual interests, last week could easily be written off as yet another descent into Hell on the part of the United States. Americans and others should have the right to criticize how the Israelis wage war without being denounced and criminalized by governments that have been corrupted from the inside, most often by money, but that is exactly what is going on in the US and in select countries in Europe. Watching children being targeted for killing and complaining about it does not make one an anti-Semite even though the Israeli government exploits that issue precisely as a tool to avoid any consequences for its horrific behavior. Here in America, it’s past time for the White House and Congress to rid themselves of their obscene and unseemly obsession with judging overseas developments using the optics of Israel loyalty tests. There is an appreciable difference between hating Israel reflexively based on its religion and acting like a member of a cheering gallery on steroids every time Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu comes to town.
There were three major developments during the week. The first was the passage through Congress and the signing by President Donald Trump of the “big, beautiful budget bill” which establishes by law the national government’s spending projections for 2026. The fiscal year begins on October 1st. The government has long exploited alleged foreign threats to national security to boost spending to enhance America’s military power. This tendency has been largely unchallenged since 9/11, when President George W Bush announced that he and the US now represented “a new sheriff in town” and would be waging war against terrorists worldwide. In 2025 Pentagon costs were budgeted at the $895 billion level. Now, however, President Donald Trump has topped even that with his bill, adding $150 billion to the military budget for 2026, which will exceed in theory for the first time more than $1 trillion.
Interestingly, however, the reality is that the US has for some time exceeded $1 trillion due to the way the government handles its war costs through unfunded material transfers and extra expenses that are approved outside the budget process itself, combined with the fact that the Pentagon’s several components and poor money management make it impossible to be successfully audited. Based on the $895 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), US national security spending for 2025 is, for example, expected to actually reach about $1.77 trillion. The difference partly derives from military-related spending from other government agencies not funded by the NDAA, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security as well as from the national security share of the interest accrued on the US debt.
In September 2024 the Government Accounting Office reported that the Defense Department “remains the only major federal agency that has never been able to achieve a clean audit opinion.” And the numbers are astonishing. In fiscal year 2024, which ran from October 1st, 2023 to September 30th, 2024, the Pentagon could not account for at least 44% of its assets, nor for at least 68% of the money allocated by Congress.
The biggest addition to actual defense spending is the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, with a new front recently opened in Iran, that the US is supporting off-budget, meaning that they are being paid for “out of pocket” and the money is printed up by the Federal Reserve and is added to the government debt, where it increases through the accumulation of interest to bill and bond holders. The Federal debt is now $37 trillion and Trump’s bill is expected to add at least $3 trillion more to it. Foreign nations that have invested in the debt by buying Treasury Bills might soon figure out that it is a bad investment and will stop doing so and the dollar will plummet.
And then there is the visit to Washington, the third by Benjamin Netanyahu since Trump became president six months ago, which was memorable in its own way. Netanyahu was in America again due to the fact that he wanted something. The larger issue is to get US direct support to renew an attack on Iran and the second objective being to speed up the resupply of weapons as Israel had de facto lost the conflict with the Iranians having run through its defensive weapons. What arrangements have been made vis-à-vis Iran have not yet been completely revealed, but it has been reported that multiple transport plane loads have been making their way filled with weapons drawn from US reserve stocks that are on their way to Tel Aviv as a gift from the US to Israel. And then there was the comedy routine provided by Netanyahu proposing Trump as recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, possibly the first time when a head of a state that is openly carrying out a genocide plus mass deportations and is about to create concentration camps endorses the country leader who enables the mass murder taking place. While in Washington Netanyahu also carried out the usual sucking up to Congress and vice versa as well as the closed-door meeting with the Jewish billionaires that have so effectively corrupted the US government.
The third performance of comic opera took place over Ukraine. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth apparently halted the shipment of new weapons to Kiev as a means of disengaging from the conflict with Russia. While it is clear that the US has no interest to be fighting a proxy war with Moscow, Trump had proven unable to end the fighting on his first day in office, which he had promised pre-election. To everyone’s actual surprise, Trump did not appear to know about the decision and reversed it, exhibiting some actual confusion during a press conference over what had happened. It was reminiscent of last week’s bizarre development over the disappearance of Israeli spy Jeffrey Epstein’s “client list” possibly to avoid embarrassing Israel and also, it has been suggested, to eliminate any speculation regarding Donald Trump’s relationship with Epstein in Florida back prior to 2019. It might be reasonable to assume that the whole episode amounts to one more big lie and cover-up coming out of the clownish ensemble that constitutes the Trump cabinet.
Finally, there is one other story that I consider a pure product of the ignorance and downright stupidity that characterizes the Trump regime. The United Nations Human Rights Council has what they refer to as a Special Rapporteur and investigator over developments in Israel and Palestine, to include the Israeli occupied territories on the West Bank. Francesca Albanese, an Italian, is an experienced bureaucrat of demonstrated integrity who has focused on human rights issues. She has been under intense pressure from both the United States and Israel to forego on reporting Israel’s atrocities, particularly in Gaza, but those who have actually interacted with her claim that she has recorded developments honestly and accurately. This past week, coinciding with the Netanyahu visit, Washington decided to move against her with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announcing sanctions against her.
This is how Rubio described the case to be made to justify the sanctions: “Today I am imposing sanctions on UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese for her illegitimate and shameful efforts to prompt [International Criminal Court] action against US and Israeli officials, companies, and executives… Albanese’s campaign of political and economic warfare against the United States and Israel will no longer be tolerated. We will always stand by our partners in their right to self-defense.”
One begins to wonder if Rubio is as totally ignorant and stupid as his boss. The US has previously called on the UN to replace Albanese and a week before the sanctions were issued a warning from Washington suggested that something was coming. “The United States once again expressed its grave concerns to UN Secretary-General António Guterres about the continued activities of Francesca Albanese … and again called upon the Secretary-General to condemn her activities and call for her removal,” the US UN mission said in a statement on July 1. The US has characteristically accused Albanese of “virulent antisemitism” for her criticism of Israel, a smear on Albanese also made by President Joe Biden’s administration after she last year produced a report accusing Israel of genocide. One might observe that in February the US also used the sanctions tool against the justices of the International Criminal Court (and their families) after the court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and the Israel’s former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on charges of genocide.
Wish that were all, but there is one more story about what a fine place “America’s best friend and closest ally” Israel actually is. A twenty-year old Palestinian American from Tampa Florida, Seif al-Din Muslat, was visiting family in the town of Sinjil, north of Ramallah, on Friday. In town, he was confronted and beaten to death by rampaging Israeli settlers. Another Palestinian teen Mohammad Shalabi was shot dead in the same incident. The US Embassy apparently was informed of the killing by the boy’s family but as usual it will take no action and will defer to the so-called Israeli justice system to investigate. That means that the scum Settlers, largely expat Americans from places like Brooklyn, will in no way be punished and will walk free to kill more Palestinian children. There have been an increasing number of instances where Israeli settlers in the West Bank ransack Palestinian neighborhoods and towns, burning homes and vehicles and destroying crops and businesses in attacks. And they feel free to kill any Palestinian who crosses their paths or who tries to intervene. Thank you Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump for your loyalty to murderous Jews. It does you proud, or at least it demonstrates what you are made of!
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
Featured Video
Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s position on US-Iran ceasefire
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Dirty Little Secret behind the “Global Terrorism Index”
The Omission of Israeli Terrorism in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
By Karin Brothers | Global Research | December 6, 2014
… The Israeli settlements — all of which are illegal – have been identified as a major impediment to peace. The refusal of a major “global” terrorism report to name the Israeli settlers as one of the groups most responsible for terrorism not only misrepresents a major source of regional violence but exposes the Global Terrorism Index as a propaganda tool that supports a U.S. agenda.
In recent years, governments have been attempting to thwart terrorism by blocking supportive fund-raising. When it comes to Israeli settlements, however, the US and Canada actually encourage fund-raising by giving organizations (such as Christian Friends of Israeli Communities (CFOIC) and the Jewish National Fund) financial support in the form of donor tax-deductions.
Charities which provide funds for the Israeli settlements should be regarded as terror-financing organizations. They should not only lose their tax-deductible status, but they should be banned because they support the violation of international humanitarian law. The terror-financing laws that are being strictly enforced for Muslim charities should be applied to Christian and Jewish charities as well. … Read full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The ‘Opposition Party’ Has Done Nothing to Stop the Iran War and Much to Goad Trump Into Continuing It
- Moscow backs Tehran on status of Lebanon in US-Iran deal
- How UK Regulator Ofcom Quietly Bypassed International Law to Police American Speech
- The Black Cube Files: How Former Mossad Operatives Flipped a Nation
- Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s position on US-Iran ceasefire: What you’re not being told
- Israel’s priority lies in destroying chances of peace between Iran, US: Ex-UN nuclear chief
- Ceasefire for all or for none: Iran shuts Hormuz over Lebanon attacks
- Strait of Hormuz is Iran’s ‘nuclear weapon’ that forced US retreat: Medvedev
- Energy crisis will last for months – Kremlin envoy
- Europe’s quiet role in the war on Iran
- If Americans Knew
- This is ceasefire? Israel’s biggest massacre yet in Lebanon, another journalist killed in Gaza – Daily Update
- Tucker Carlson on Israel: This Is the Behavior of an Ally? Really?
- Gazans face a triple crisis: severe shortages of water and bread, healthcare in tatters
- NY Times reports how Netanyahu took the US into Iran War
- A sigh of relief over Iran, but Gaza and Lebanon in dire straits – Daily Update
- Thousands dead and neighborhoods razed to the ground: Aid agencies fear southern Lebanon is becoming the new Gaza
- The war the US is fighting for Israel could cost trillions
- ‘Cigarette Burns, Nail Wounds’: Toddler Tortured in Gaza to Coerce Father
- Trump Says US Sent ‘a Lot of Guns’ to Protesters in Iran
- Israeli forces destroy 17 UN peacekeeper cameras in south Lebanon
- No Tricks Zone
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
Aletho News 