Canada’s Carney Revives Online Censorship Bill
The bill that died with Trudeau’s election call is back, and so is the advisory panel that wrote it.
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | April 18, 2026
Canada’s Liberal government is preparing to revive legislation that would hand the state new powers over what Canadians can say online, with Prime Minister Mark Carney’s team signaling that a rebooted “online harms” law is coming.
A report submitted to the Senate social affairs committee confirms the direction.
The Department of Industry told senators that Ottawa is working toward a “future online safety regime” aimed at reducing online “harms,” a category the government itself gets to define. To shape the proposal, officials have brought back the Expert Advisory Group on Online Safety, the same body that helped design the previous censorship attempt.
“To advise on this proposal, the government has recently reconvened the Expert Advisory Group on Online Safety, whose members previously contributed to the development of online harms legislation, to engage on new and emerging issues related to online harms,” the department said.
“Any future legislative proposal would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and details will be made public at the appropriate time.”
One of the members back at the table is Bernie Farber of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. The advisory group helps shape what the government will treat as hateful, harmful, or dangerous.
That definition, once written into law, determines which posts get deleted, which accounts get silenced, and which Canadians face fines or house arrest for saying the wrong thing online.
Canadian Culture Minister Marc Miller telegraphed the timing this week, suggesting a new law targeting “online harms” is needed and likely coming soon. With the Liberals now holding a majority after three byelection wins and the defection of five MPs from the Conservatives and NDP, the procedural obstacles that killed previous attempts have largely disappeared. A social media ban for children is also on the table.
The last attempt, Bill C-63, known as the Online Harms Act, was introduced under the familiar justification of protecting children from online exploitation.
The bill died when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the 2025 federal election. Its actual reach went well beyond child safety. It targeted lawful internet content that authorities deemed “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group,” wording broad enough to sweep up political argument, satire, religious commentary, and journalism, depending on who was reading it. Breaking the rule carried fines of up to $70,000 or house arrest.
Before C-63 there was Bill C-36, a 2021 effort to amend the Criminal Code along similar lines. Neither bill made it through. Both kept returning in slightly different forms.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, Canada’s leading constitutional freedom organization, has launched a national campaign urging the Carney government to abandon the project entirely.
The JCCF warned that the Online Harms Act would “dramatically expand government censorship powers, punish lawful expression online, and authorize preemptive restrictions on individual liberty.”
“In doing so, it would represent a fundamental departure from Canada’s long-standing commitment to freedom of expression and due process,” the organization said.
Preemptive restrictions, the legal mechanism the previous bill contained, mean punishing or silencing someone before they have said anything unlawful. Canadian courts have historically treated prior restraint as the most serious form of speech suppression. The revived framework appears to contemplate it as a feature.
The chilling effect is already setting in. Writers, commentators, and small publishers in Canada began adjusting what they posted during the C-63 debate, well before any law took effect. The threat alone was enough to quiet a portion of online political speech.
A reintroduced bill, backed by a majority government and an advisory panel stacked with people who see the internet as a venue that needs controlling, makes that quieting louder.
The Liberal government has said repeatedly that some version of Bill C-63 is coming back. What it has not said, in any substantive form, is who decides what counts as hate, what counts as harm, and what counts as the kind of speech a democracy is supposed to tolerate even when it finds it ugly. Those definitions will sit with the same government promising the law, and the same advisory group promising to help write it.
Villains of Judea: Charles Bronfman
A deep dive into how Charles Bronfman and his family shaped a century of shadow politics
José Niño Unfiltered | April 14, 2026
The Jeffrey Epstein files continue to spill their secrets. With each new document release, each newly unsealed court record, the spotlight inches closer to a network of Jewish billionaires who operated in the shadows long before the convicted sex trafficker became a household name. The names in Epstein’s black book read like a roster of Jewish power. But behind those individual names lies something even more intriguing, a structure, an architecture of influence that Epstein exploited with devastating effectiveness.
At the center of that architecture stands a mysterious organization that most Americans have never heard of. It was founded in 1991 by two men, one of whom would become Epstein’s most consequential patron, granting him sweeping power of attorney over his billion-dollar fortune. The other was a Canadian-American billionaire whose family name once adorned the world’s largest liquor company and whose philanthropic fingerprints can be found on nearly every major Jewish institution in North America.
His name is Charles Bronfman.
The Bronfman Empire
Charles Rosner Bronfman was born on June 27, 1931, into a Jewish family in Montreal, the youngest of four children born to Samuel Bronfman, the founder of Distillers Corporation Limited and later the Seagram Company. The Bronfman family’s origins trace to Bessarabia in the Russian Empire, from which they fled from ethnic tensions in 1889 to settle in the Canadian prairies.
Samuel Bronfman, known simply as “Mr. Sam,” built the Seagram empire partly through the shrewd exploitation of American Prohibition-era demand for Canadian whiskey. A 1927 Canadian inquiry found the family had gone years without paying income taxes. A brother-in-law was murdered at a family liquor warehouse in 1922. In 1934, Samuel and his brothers were charged with evading duties on over $5 million, though the case collapsed when investigators could not obtain the family’s account books. From these controversial origins, the family built what would become the world’s largest distilling firm.
Charles grew up as the self-described quiet one. In his 2017 memoir Distilled: A Memoir of Family, Seagram, Baseball, and Philanthropy, he described himself as less dominated by ego than his brother Edgar. He was educated at elite anglophone institutions before attending McGill University. His family kept a kosher home and provided the children with Jewish religious schooling. He began his philanthropic activity at the age of 17.
In 1951, his father gave him a 33% ownership stake in Cemp Investments, a holding company for him and his three siblings that controlled the family’s corporate empire. After Samuel Bronfman’s death in 1971, Charles and Edgar inherited and co-chaired the Seagram Company Ltd., which at its peak was one of the largest spirits companies in the world.
The family’s fortunes were severely damaged in the late 1990s when Edgar Bronfman Jr., Charles’s nephew, led a disastrous pivot into entertainment, culminating in the 2000 sale of Seagram to the French media conglomerate Vivendi. Charles had strongly opposed this move, calling it “a disaster, it is a disaster, it will be a disaster” and “a family tragedy.” The family’s paper losses on the deal exceeded $3 billion as Vivendi’s stock plummeted.
The Founding of the Mega Group
In 1991, Charles Bronfman and Leslie Wexner, founder of The Limited and Victoria’s Secret, co-founded what they called the “Study Group.” The innocuous name concealed something far more significant. This was an invitation-only club of approximately 20 of the wealthiest and most influential Jewish businesspeople in America, a number that would eventually swell to nearly 50 by 2001.
The group became publicly known as the Mega Group after a Wall Street Journal investigative report in May 1998, headlined “Titans of Industry Join Forces To Work for Jewish Philanthropy,” pulled back the curtain on its existence. Annual dues reportedly ran approximately $30,000. Members met twice a year for two-day seminars on philanthropy and Jewish identity. But the guest list alone suggested this was no ordinary study circle.
Members included Les Wexner, Charles Bronfman, Edgar Bronfman Sr., Max Fisher, Michael Steinhardt, Leonard Abramson, Harvey Meyerhoff, Laurence Tisch, Charles Schusterman, Lester Crown, Ronald Lauder, Marvin Lender, and Hollywood director Steven Spielberg. These were men who controlled billions in personal wealth and sat on the boards of the most powerful Jewish organizations in America.
Bronfman’s 1998 Wall Street Journal comment, “From the beginning, we didn’t want to be seen as a threat to anybody… We don’t want to be seen as the Sanhedrin,” functioned as a classic tactical admission. By explicitly citing the ancient Jewish governing body as the image he sought to avoid, he inadvertently confirmed that such a structure of Jewish influence was indeed the functional reality he managed.
Yet critics and investigative journalists described the Mega Group as something far more consequential than a philanthropic book club. It was an informal political machine, a network through which billions in charitable funds could be directed to shape U.S. policy on Israel. Executive Intelligence Review and other outlets reported that the group had contacts with Israeli intelligence and served as a base for influence operations in the United States.
The Wexner Affair
The connection between the Mega Group and Jeffrey Epstein runs directly through Leslie Wexner, Charles Bronfman’s partner in founding the organization. Wexner was Epstein’s most consequential patron. He granted Epstein power of attorney over his personal finances in July 1991, giving Epstein, in Wexner’s own words, “wide latitude to act on my behalf” — effectively making Epstein his personal money manager for years. Epstein exploited Wexner’s network to establish relationships with influential political, business, and philanthropic figures across the globe.
Epstein also used his status as a purported model scout for Wexner’s Victoria’s Secret brand to lure young women into his sex trafficking enterprise. Because Bronfman co-founded the Mega Group with Wexner, and owing to how the group’s membership overlapped extensively with Epstein’s social and financial network, Bronfman’s name appears regularly in analyses of the Epstein web. The connection has raised uncomfortable questions about what the members of this secretive group knew, when they knew it, and what they chose not to see.
A more direct Bronfman family connection runs through Edgar Bronfman Jr., Charles’s nephew, whose name and contact details appear in Epstein’s notorious “little black book,” the private directory of contacts that became public through court disclosures. Edgar Bronfman Sr., Charles’s older brother, is identified in some accounts as one of Epstein’s clients during his years at Bear Stearns in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when Epstein advised wealthy clients on tax mitigation strategies.
Epstein victim Maria Farmer has publicly connected Epstein’s network to the Mega Group and to Leslie Wexner specifically. In a phone interview with journalist Whitney Webb, Farmer described the group as connected through Wexner, whom she called “the head of the snake.”
Perhaps most striking is an observation made by Jeffrey Solomon, the longtime president of the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies. In a 2019 interview with Inside Philanthropy, Solomon noted that “successful people don’t want to be the ones who have to deal with uncomfortable situations” and drew an explicit parallel between his own role at ACBP and Epstein’s role with Wexner — both served as the person who absorbs uncomfortable decisions so the principal does not have to. “It was very much part of our job to say no so that they don’t have to,” Solomon told Inside Philanthropy.
The Philanthropic Empire
Charles Bronfman extended his influence far beyond business into the institutional architecture of global Jewry. In December 1986, he founded the CRB Foundation, whose twin founding principles were “to enhance Canadianism” and to promote “unity of the Jewish people whose soul is in Jerusalem.” The CRB Foundation was the cornerstone of what became the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies. Over its 30-year life, ACBP distributed more than $340 million to approximately 1,820 grantees.
The signature achievement of Bronfman’s philanthropic career is Taglit-Birthright Israel, which he co-founded in 1999 alongside Michael Steinhardt, another Mega Group member, in partnership with the Israeli government. The program offers free 10-day educational trips to Israel for young Jewish adults, explicitly designed to strengthen their Jewish identity and connection to the Jewish state. Since its founding, it has sent more than 900,000 young Jews to Israel, making it the world’s largest educational tourism organization.
From 1999 to 2001, Bronfman served as the first chairman of the United Jewish Communities, the merged organization comprising the United Jewish Appeal, the Council of Jewish Federations, and United Israel Appeal. According to Executive Intelligence Review, when his term expired, he was succeeded by a son of Laurence Tisch, another Mega Group charter member.
The philanthropic initiatives born from the Mega Group are substantial. The Partnership for Excellence in Jewish Education, Birthright Israel, and the renewal of Hillel International all emerged from the group’s deliberations. In 2003, the Mega Group hired Republican political consultant Frank Luntz to help members mobilize public support for Israel.
In early 2001, Mega Group members Leonard Abramson, Edgar Bronfman Sr., and Michael Steinhardt launched “Emet,” Hebrew for “truth,” described by its founders as a pro-Israel think tank aimed at improving Israeli public relations in North America. The $7 million initiative — with an additional $1 million pledged from Israel’s Foreign Ministry — drew scrutiny both from Israeli diplomats who felt American Jews were encroaching on their turf and from commentators who questioned whether it would promote a hard-line approach to the peace process.
The Scandals
Bronfman’s career has not been without direct controversy. The most serious and well-documented centers on illegal campaign financing in Israel. In the 1999 Israeli election, Bronfman, along with Jonathan Kolber, the CEO of Koor Industries, allegedly channeled funds through an Israeli non-profit organization called ROVAD to support the campaign of Labor candidate Ehud Barak. A special investigation by Israel’s Registrar of Non-Profit Organizations found that ROVAD was used as a financial pipeline for Barak’s election campaign rather than fulfilling its stated social purpose.
In September 2001, Israeli police opened a formal investigation against Bronfman and Kolber under the Party Financing Law and Non-Profit Organizations Law. Barak’s One Israel party was ultimately fined more than $3 million after the revelation that large amounts of foreign money had been funneled through nonprofits.
This was not an isolated incident. ABC News reported that as early as the 1988 Israeli election, Bronfman had given $1.6 million to Shimon Peres’s campaign, donations that were legal at the time but contributed to the policy environment that eventually led Israel to reform its campaign finance laws to ban foreign contributions to Israeli parties.
Bronfman’s chairmanship of Koor Industries, one of Israel’s largest investment holding companies, ended in significant financial loss. His approximately $500 million investment lost around 70% of its value as the company’s aggressive tech pivot was devastated by the global tech bust. In 1989, Bronfman also joined British press magnate Robert Maxwell in a joint bid to buy a controlling stake in The Jerusalem Post from Koor, which was selling its shares. Maxwell, who would later be widely reported as having ties to Israeli intelligence, described the venture with Bronfman as aimed at “developing The Jerusalem Post and expanding its influence among world Jewry.”
In 2017, the Paradise Papers implicated Stephen Bronfman, Charles’s son and chief Liberal Party fundraiser for Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Documents showed that Stephen’s investment firm Claridge had close business ties to a Cayman Islands trust linked to the Kolber family, raising questions about unpaid taxes. Stephen Bronfman denied any impropriety, stating he and his family “have always conducted themselves in accordance with the highest legal and ethical standards.”
The extended Bronfman family faced its own scandal when Charles’s nieces Clare and Sara Bronfman, daughters of his brother Edgar Sr., became deeply enmeshed in NXIVM. Founded in 1998 by Keith Raniere and Nancy Salzman, NXIVM operated as an ostensible self-improvement organization that prosecutors proved was in reality a criminal enterprise involving sex trafficking, racketeering, and a secret society in which women were branded with Raniere’s initials. Clare spent more than $100 million funding the organization and was sentenced to six years and nine months in federal prison in September 2020 for conspiracy to conceal illegal immigrants and fraudulent use of identification.
The Last Known Meeting
The Mega Group held what is believed to be its last documented meeting on May 3 and 4, 2001, at Edgar Bronfman’s Manhattan mansion. The group operated entirely behind closed doors and received minimal mainstream press attention until its connection to Wexner, and through Wexner to Jeffrey Epstein, brought renewed scrutiny beginning in 2019.
Investigative journalist Whitney Webb and others have reported that Epstein’s connections to suspected Mossad asset Robert Maxwell, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and the Mega Group network have raised persistent questions about whether Epstein was working for Israeli intelligence. These questions remain unanswered, and the full truth may never be known.
What is known is that Charles Bronfman, now in his 90s with an estimated net worth of $2.5 billion, remains one of the most consequential figures in the institutional architecture of global Jewry.
In the final accounting, Charles Bronfman is not merely a man of wealth, but a pillar of a shadow-governance structure that has rendered the traditional legislative bodies obsolete. Our elected officials have been reduced to mere stage actors, reciting lines written by an unelected inner circle of organized Jewish interests that treat sovereign nations like proprietary assets. As the Epstein files continue to strip away the veneer of legitimacy from the elite, we are forced to confront an undeniable reality: the levers of state have been seized by a cohesive Jewish network whose loyalties reside solely within their tribe. Recognizing this hostile architecture is the prerequisite for the struggle ahead—a definitive political confrontation, Gentile versus Jew, that is the only path to reclaiming our country.
Alberta Bill Would Fine Political Deepfakes $10,000 Without Satire Exemptions
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | April 7, 2026
Alberta’s government wants the power to fine people $10,000 for creating a political deepfake. The bill makes no distinction between a fake video designed to suppress votes and a satirical meme poking fun at the premier.
Justice Minister Mickey Amery tabled Bill 23, the Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, on March 30.
The legislation would prohibit individuals and entities from creating or distributing deepfakes that are likely to mislead voters about the conduct or statements of a party leader, minister, leadership or nomination contestant, MLA candidate, the chief electoral officer, the election commissioner, Elections Alberta employees or election officers.
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
The ban’s reach is notable for what it doesn’t say. There is no carve-out for satire, no exemption for parody, no protection for political memes. A deepfake clearly labelled as humor could still be prosecuted if someone, somewhere, decided it was “likely to mislead voters” about a politician’s statements. Who decides what’s likely to mislead? The election commissioner, the same office empowered by the bill to issue directions to stop the creation, distribution, or publication of content it deems in violation.
Officials said the prohibition would apply at all times, not only during the election cycle. The ban operates year-round, every year, regardless of whether Albertans are anywhere near a ballot box. It applies to content about sitting politicians even when no one is voting.
“We know that deepfake technology is going to continue to improve, and the distinction between what is reality and what is fake is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish,” Amery said.
Alberta’s bill takes a different approach. Rather than relying on existing fraud and election interference laws to prosecute genuine bad actors, it creates a broad new category of banned speech and gives a government appointee the power to enforce it.
“Bill 23 ensures that our elections will remain fair and honest,” Amery said. “This is why Bill 23 will prohibit the creation and distribution of deepfakes that are likely to mislead voters about the statements or conduct of a candidate. Public confidence is essential to a healthy democracy.”
The phrase “likely to mislead” is where the real power sits. A deepfake of a premier singing a ridiculous song, obviously fake to any viewer, could technically be argued to mislead someone about the premier’s “conduct.” A satirical clip of a justice minister saying something absurd could be classified as a misleading depiction of their “statements.” The legislation provides no guidance on how to distinguish a genuine attempt at voter suppression from a political joke that happens to use AI-generated media.
Those who violate the rules face fines of up to $10,000, and entities up to $100,000. Additional fines could be imposed for each day of non-compliance. Those are serious penalties for speech that may well be constitutionally protected under the Canadian Charter. The chilling effect is predictable. An Alberta resident thinking about making a satirical AI video about their MLA now has a strong incentive to not bother. The government doesn’t need to prosecute anyone for the law to work exactly as a speech restriction always works, by making people think twice before they speak.
The bill also happens to be buried inside a much larger piece of legislation that quietly reshapes how Albertans can challenge their own government. Bill 23 would create a 12-month blackout period before and after provincial elections for starting or continuing a citizen initiative petition. It would also repeal deadlines for the government to call a referendum for any future successful policy or constitutional petition. A citizen petition that gathers enough signatures no longer comes with any deadline for the government to actually act on it. A petition delayed long enough is a petition that never matters.
Alberta already has laws against fraud and election interference. The question is whether a province needs a new law that bans a broad category of political expression, with vague definitions and no protections for satire or parody, enforced by fines that would bankrupt most individuals.
Opposition parties have indicated tentative support for the bill, which is unsurprising.
The deepfake provisions will probably pass. They’ll sit on the books alongside the citizen petition restrictions, the removed referendum deadlines, and the expanded government oversight of the signature verification process. Bill 23 gives the Alberta government more tools to control what citizens say about their politicians and fewer obligations to respond when citizens try to hold those politicians accountable.
Pro-Palestinian French member of European Parliament denied entry to Canada
MEMO | March 29, 2026
Rima Hassan, a French member of the European Parliament of Palestinian origin, said late Saturday she was denied entry to Canada hours before her scheduled flight, Anadolu reports.
“I was prevented from traveling to Canada: a troubling obstruction to parliamentary work and freedom of expression,” Hassan wrote on X.
Hassan is affiliated with France’s left-wing party La France Insoumise (LFI).
The party said Hassan had been invited to speak at two conferences in Montreal and that her initial electronic travel authorization had been approved by Canadian authorities.
However, she was informed by email late Friday, on the eve of her departure, that her application was under review, the party said.
Hassan said Canadian authorities requested extensive personal records just hours before her flight to reassess her travel authorization, describing the move as a “disproportionate request” unrelated to the stated grounds.
According to LFI, the review cited an alleged failure to disclose a prior visa refusal or denial of entry to another country, as well as an alleged failure to report a criminal offense, arrest, formal investigation or conviction.
The party said these issues relate to matters “directly linked to her political engagement in support of the Palestinian people.”
It added that the concerns stem from a 2025 denial of entry to Israel involving an EU delegation that included Hassan, as well as complaints for “apology for terrorism” that did not result in charges.
LFI also claimed that pro-Israel lobbying organizations had been working in recent weeks to prevent Hassan’s visit to Canada.
“The revocation of her travel authorization is part of a concerning trend of restricting the freedom of expression and movement of political representatives, as well as part of a broader pattern of censorship targeting democratic debate,” the party said.
The statement added that representatives of LFI and Canada’s New Democratic Party strongly condemned the decision, calling it “a serious infringement on the exercise of a parliamentary mandate and on freedom of expression.”
Canada, the U.S., and NATO: the inescapable trap
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 25, 2026
The recent decision by the Canadian government to significantly expand its military presence in the Arctic reveals far more than a simple concern with territorial sovereignty. In reality, it reflects a deeper structural crisis: the growing instability within the Western bloc itself and the weakening of relations among historic allies.
Prime Minister Mark Carney has announced a multibillion-dollar plan to expand military infrastructure in the country’s north, including airfields, operational bases, and logistical centers capable of sustaining year-round operations. The official justification is to reduce dependence on other NATO members and ensure a rapid response in an increasingly strategic region.
However, this narrative does not withstand more critical scrutiny. Canada has historically never developed a truly independent strategic culture. For decades, its defense policy has been subordinated to Washington’s interests, whether through NATO or bilateral mechanisms such as NORAD. Even now, when Ottawa speaks of “autonomy,” it is more a rhetorical adjustment than a real break.
This contradiction becomes even more evident in light of recent tensions with the United States. Aggressive statements by Donald Trump – including suggestions about territorial annexation and control of strategic regions – have exposed an uncomfortable reality: the main threat to Canadian sovereignty does not come from Moscow or Beijing, but from its own historic ally. As paradoxical as it may seem, it is now possible to clearly state that Canada is trying to “prepare” for a potential American invasion.
Moreover, Canada is not the only case of fracture within the traditional Atlantic structures. The situation involving Greenland is particularly illustrative. Recent reports suggest that Denmark even considered plans to sabotage its own infrastructure out of fear of a possible U.S. military intervention. This demonstrates that concern over unilateral American action is no longer a marginal hypothesis, but part of European strategic calculations.
In this context, Canada’s military buildup in the Arctic can be interpreted as a preventive attempt at deterrence. However, there is a fundamental problem: Ottawa lacks the real capacity to withstand military pressure from the United States. Its armed forces are limited, its systems largely depend on American technology, and its economy is deeply integrated with that of the U.S. In practical terms, this is an unavoidable asymmetry.
Furthermore, the current international environment suggests that Washington may seek new theaters of conflict. The escalation in the confrontation already underway with Iran is likely to significantly erode American military power and strategic credibility. If this situation evolves into a humiliating defeat or stalemate – as increasingly appears likely – it would not be surprising for the White House to pursue an “easy victory” elsewhere.
This is where Canada – and Greenland – enter the picture. Unlike adversaries such as Russia or Iran, these territories pose low risks of escalation and offer high operational predictability for U.S. forces. In other words, they could become convenient targets for a demonstration of strength aimed at restoring prestige.
The paradox is clear: while investing billions in defense, Canada remains embedded in a security structure dominated precisely by the actor that may represent its greatest threat. This contradiction exposes the fragility of NATO as an alliance. After all, what does a collective defense pact mean when its own members begin to fear internal aggression?
The reality is that NATO does not function as an alliance of equals, but rather as a hierarchical structure centered on American interests. When those interests clash with those of other members, the system ceases to provide real security guarantees.
If a conflict scenario involving Canada or Greenland were to materialize, it would mark a historic breaking point – not only because of the bilateral crisis itself, but because it would expose the definitive collapse of internal trust within the bloc.
Seven US allies endorse Hormuz ‘coalition,’ offer ‘no commitment’ for military action
The Cradle | March 20, 2026
The UK, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, and Canada issued a joint statement on 20 March in support of a potential “coalition” to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, while specifying “no commitment” to a concrete military role.
“We express our readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the strait,” the close US allies announced.
The joint statement did not, however, touch on any military involvement or the commitment of any forces to the initiative.
One political reporter writing for Axios said the statement was “largely a gesture to placate [US] President [Donald] Trump, who has railed against allies for declining to help secure the strait and warned that a failure to do so could undermine the future of NATO.”
The allies condemned attacks on commercial vessels and energy infrastructure, citing “the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iranian forces,” and called on Tehran to “cease immediately its threats, laying of mines, drone and missile attacks and other attempts to block the strait.”
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said no state is considering “a military mission to forcibly break the Iranian blockade,” adding the EU favors “diplomacy and de-escalation.”
She clarified that any contribution would apply to a “post-conflict phase” and require agreement among all parties.
Other governments echoed this position, with Germany confirming “no military participation,” while France said its deployments remain strictly defensive.
The UK ruled out a NATO mission, focusing instead on negotiations, though it has sent planners to coordinate options.
Despite the political backing and global panic over soaring energy prices , maritime data shows the strait is only partially restricted, as roughly 90 vessels crossed in early March.
Iran has established a controlled “safe” shipping corridor through its territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz, allowing only approved vessels – mainly from countries like India, Pakistan, China, Iraq, and Malaysia – to transit after IRGC vetting, while ships linked to the US or Israel are effectively excluded.
Access is currently negotiated on a case-by-case basis but is moving toward a formal system requiring detailed disclosures of ownership and cargo, often coordinated through intermediaries and, in at least one case, involving a reported $2-million payment.
So far, at least nine vessels have used the route, which passes near Larak Island for inspection, but traffic remains minimal.
The US remains largely the only country carrying out direct military operations, deploying forces and striking Iranian positions along the strait, as well as conducting offensive strikes inside Iran.
Earlier US-led efforts to secure regional shipping routes followed a similar trajectory, with coalitions struggling to gain meaningful participation as several allies refused or limited involvement, leaving only a small number of naval deployments.
Efforts to secure maritime routes during the Israeli genocide on Gaza in 2024 faced the same constraints, as US and EU resources proved insufficient to deter Yemeni strikes across the Red Sea.
Officials had warned that strikes on Yemen were “not contributing to the solution,” while Yemeni attacks on vessels continued, raising pressure on global trade routes.
Yemeni forces maintained their stance as a support front for Gaza, persisting with attacks until Washington ended its campaign under an Omani-brokered truce, with President Trump claiming Yemeni forces “don’t want to fight anymore.”
Ukraine Given $43Bln in Proceeds From Russian Assets Frozen by G7 Since 2024 – Estimates
Sputnik – 27.02.2026
The G7 nations have issued $3.8 billion in loans to Ukraine in 2026 using proceeds generated by frozen Russian state assets, bringing the total amount of loans given to Kiev since 2024 to almost $43 billion, according to calculations by Sputnik based on data from the Ukrainian Finance Ministry and national agencies.
In 2024, the G7 countries approved a $50-billion loan to Ukraine, funded by revenues from frozen Russian assets. By late February 2026, the countries had allocated $42.7 billion to Ukraine under this scheme.
The first billion was transferred to Ukraine by the United States in late 2024. Since then, Washington has not provided any new funding to Kiev from Russian asset proceeds. The other members of the G7 gave Ukraine $37.9 billion in 2025 and $3.8 billion in 2026.
Overall, the European Union has contributed $32 billion in funding to Ukraine as part of the loan secured by Russian assets. Canada has contributed $3.6 billion, while Japan and the United Kingdom have each contributed approximately $3 billion.
Project Artichoke: 70 Years Ago, CIA Discussed Hiding Mind-Control Drugs in Vaccines
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 24, 2026
In the 1950s, the CIA brainstormed ways to secretly perform mind control on humans — including concealing drugs in vaccines and widely consumed food products, a newly unearthed CIA document revealed. The Daily Mail first reported the story on Monday.
The seven-page document, “Special Research for Artichoke,” is dated April 23, 1952. It describes a series of ideas for how to develop chemicals designed to alter human behavior and thought.
The proposals contained in the document were part of the CIA’s top-secret Project Artichoke, which ran from 1951 to 1956, according to the Daily Mail.
The document, declassified in 1983, recently circulated on social media. However, it was not published in the CIA’s online reading room until last year.
“Some of the suggestions are controversial,” the document states. The proposals included administering drugs in secret as part of a “long-range approach to subjects.”
According to the document:
“This study should include chemicals or drugs that can effectively be concealed in common items such as food, water, coca cola, beer, liquor, cigarettes, etc.
“This type of drug should also be capable of use in standard medical treatments such as vaccinations, shots, etc.”
CIA experimented on humans as part of Project Artichoke
The document also included a special field of research for “bacteria, plant cultures, fungi, poisons of various types, etc.,” that are “capable of producing illnesses which in turn would produce high fevers, delirium, etc.”
This included “species of the mushroom” that “produce a certain type of intoxication and mental derangement.”
Also among the proposals was a suggestion to research “diet” or “dietary deficiencies” on prisoners and on people undergoing interrogation, including using “specially canned foods having elements removed.”
The document included proposals for both short-term and long-term use on humans. Drugs deemed most suitable for long-term use would be designed to produce an “agitating effect (producing anxiety, nervousness, tension, etc.) or a depressing effect (creating a feeling of despondency, hopelessness, lethargy, etc.).”
According to The Daily Mail, the CIA experimented on humans as part of Project Artichoke. The experiments often involved “vulnerable subjects, including prisoners, military personnel and psychiatric patients.” The experiments were usually performed “without informed consent.”
According to Ben Tapper, a Nebraska chiropractor who was included in the “Disinformation Dozen” list in 2021 for questioning vaccine safety, the document exposes “a disturbing reality that government agencies have historically explored ways to manipulate human behavior through chemical and biological means, including concepts involving food and medical interventions.”
“This is not speculation or conspiracy, and it should deeply concern every American who values bodily autonomy and informed consent,” Tapper said.
Precursor to the CIA’s MK-Ultra mind control experiments?
The Daily Mail cited CIA documents suggesting that U.S. intelligence agencies were concerned that enemy nations had developed their own mind and behavioral control techniques. This led the agency to prioritize the development of its own methods.
Project Artichoke “served as a precursor” to the MK-Ultra program, which the CIA launched in 1953. That program “broadened mind-altering experiments on a larger scale,” the Daily Mail reported.
Many of the documents related to this type of experimentation were destroyed in 1973, “leaving the full extent of the research and how far it progressed unknown.”
Naomi Wolf, Ph.D., CEO of Daily Clout and author of “The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity,” told The Defender that the documents further confirm a long history of intelligence agency research targeting human thought and behavior.
“Sadly, it’s long been established that our intelligence agencies, and those of our enemies, have sought to alter human consciousness and behavior, often without the subjects’ consent. The existence of MK-Ultra, the clandestine project into which Project Artichoke evolved, is well documented,” Wolf said.
John Leake, vice president of the McCullough Foundation and author of the forthcoming book, “Mind Viruses: America’s Irrational Obsessions,” said, “Researchers have long suspected that the Church Committee’s revelation of the CIA’s notorious MK-Ultra mind control experiments, mostly using LSD, had the effect of obscuring the agency’s much larger Project Artichoke.”
Leake cited evidence suggesting that a 1951 mass poisoning in Pont-Saint-Esprit, France, in which 250 residents experienced severe hallucinations and seven people died, was a Project Artichoke experiment. The outbreak was officially attributed to contaminated bread from a local bakery.
Leake said the 1952 document is “consistent with the suspicion that the CIA was seeking to discover mind control methods for even large populations.”
In 2024, a Reuters investigation revealed that the CIA operated a secret propaganda campaign involving vaccines in the Philippines. The campaign attacked what the agency perceived as China’s “growing influence” in the country by targeting the Chinese-made Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine through the use of phony online accounts spreading “anti-vax” messaging.
Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D., author of “The Great Reset and the Struggle for Liberty: Unraveling the Global Agenda,” said the Project Artichoke revelations “make it clear that the CIA has posed an enormous threat to U.S. citizens, in addition to the horrors it unleashes on non-U.S. target governments and populations.”
Project Artichoke wanted to enlist help from Army’s Chemical Warfare Service
The 1952 Project Artichoke document also included a recommendation to involve the U.S. Army Chemical Warfare Service in the project’s efforts, citing its experience with “exhaustive studies along these lines.”
This proposal bears a resemblance to recent suggestions that COVID-19 — and the response to the pandemic — were coordinated at high levels of government, military and intelligence agencies.
Last year, former pharmaceutical research and development executive Sasha Latypova and retired science writer Debbie Lerman released the “Covid Dossier,” presenting evidence of the “military/intelligence coordination of the Covid biodefense response in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy.”
According to Latypova and Lerman, “Covid was not a public health event” but “a global operation, coordinated through public-private intelligence and military alliances and invoking laws designed for CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) weapons attacks.”
Leake said “it is far from clear” that the Church Committee hearings of 1975 “put a complete end to CIA covert programs.” He cited the possible laboratory development of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as an example.
“The laboratory creation of SARS-CoV-2 with gain-of-function techniques developed at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, and the U.S. military’s involvement in developing and distributing of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, should … be regarded as possible outgrowths or even continuations of Project Artichoke,” Leake said.
Experts question similarities between Project Artichoke, COVID vaccines
In a Substack post today, epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher drew a potential connection between Project Artichoke and the development of COVID-19 vaccines. Hulscher cited recent peer-reviewed studies that identified the vaccines’ adverse impact on neurological health and “surging rates of cognitive decline.”
Hulscher wrote:
“Disturbingly, since 2021, over 70% of humanity received a neurotoxic agent masquerading as a ‘vaccine.’ The same goals outlined in the CIA document (vaccines/drugs capable of covertly inducing anxiety, depression, and lethargy) are now being observed in COVID-19 vaccinated populations. …
“… If the CIA was secretly discussing covert methods to alter human behavior in the 1950s, it would be no surprise if similar classified projects emerged in the decades that followed.”
A 2024 paper published in the journal Molecular Psychiatry investigated psychiatric adverse events among over 2 million people in South Korea. The study found that “COVID-19 vaccination increased the risks of depression, anxiety, dissociative, stress-related, and somatoform disorders, and sleep disorders while reducing the risk of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.”
A 2025 study published in the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science found “alarming safety signals regarding neuropsychiatric conditions following COVID-19 vaccination, compared to the influenza vaccinations and to all other vaccinations combined.”
This included increases in schizophrenia, depression, cognitive decline, delusions, violent behavior, suicidal thoughts and homicidal ideation.
“The fact that mRNA vaccines were designed to cross the blood-brain barrier and inflame the brain — or at least, they were known to do so, during their manufacture and distribution — should give us pause in light of this news,” Wolf said.
Wolf said the latest revelations, “while shocking, provide all the more reason for us to be critical of opaque, coercive or untested vaccination programs, additives in food and water, and toxic or opaque geoengineering programs.”
Tapper said the revelations reinforce “the urgent need to protect individual liberty, medical freedom, and ethical boundaries in science and public health.”
“The lesson here is simple: vigilance is necessary when governments claim authority over the human body and mind,” Tapper said.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Populations in key NATO nations balk at sacrifices for military spending – poll
RT | February 13, 2026
People in key NATO nations are reluctant to tighten their belts to fund increased defense spending, despite believing that the world is “heading toward global war,” according to a Politico poll published on Friday.
The poll, which surveyed at least 2,000 people from the US, Canada, the UK, France, and Germany each, found that majorities in four of the five countries think “the world is becoming more dangerous” and expect World War III to break out within five years.
Nearly half of Americans (46%) consider a new world war ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ by 2031, up from 38% last year. In the UK, 43% share this belief, up from 30% in March 2025.
French respondents matched British levels at 43%, and 40% of Canadians expect war within five years. Only Germans remain skeptical, with a majority believing that a global conflict is unlikely in the near term.
The survey suggested a stark disconnect, however, between the growing alarm and willingness to pay for a defense buildup. While respondents support increased military spending in principle, support fell dramatically when specific trade-offs were mentioned.
In France, support dropped from 40% to 28% when those being surveyed were told about the potential financial and fiscal consequences. In Germany, it fell from 37% to 24%, with defense spending ranking as one of the least popular uses of money.
The survey also suggested significant skepticism about creating an EU army under a central command, with support at 22% in Germany and 17% in France.
While the poll suggests that Russia is perceived as the ‘biggest threat’ to Europe, Canadians view the administration of US President Donald Trump as the greatest danger to their security. Respondents in France, Germany, and the UK rank the US as the second-biggest threat – cited far more often than China.
The findings come after NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte urged members states in December to embrace a “wartime mindset” amid the stand-off with Russia. This also comes amid Western media speculation that Russia could attack European NATO members within several years. Moscow has dismissed the claims as “nonsense,” while accusing EU countries of manufacturing anti-Russia hysteria to justify reckless militarization.
Is Canada Really Warming?
By Tom Harris | American Thinker | January 30, 2026
Is Canada really warming at double the global average rate, as the Canadian government says it is? A new report says no, because the data Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) uses are apparently corrupted by fundamental mistakes, mistakes so severe that when corrected, all the supposed warming of the past six or seven decades vanishes.
Given that Canada represents a large fraction of global land surface area, one naturally wonders if the world is warming at anything like we are told it is.
This discovery should have generated mainstream media headlines across Canada. After all, the mistakes in the Canadian temperature data were discovered over four years ago by Dr. Joseph Hickey, a highly qualified Canadian data scientist, and the group I lead, the International Climate Science Coalition – Canada, has been publicizing the story for the past month.
But don’t expect mainstream media in the Great White North to say anything about this. Most of Canada’s press are heavily subsidized by the federal and provincial governments, which would probably not appreciate the story being covered. Dr. Dave Snow, Associate professor in political science at the University of Guelph, writes:
“Canada has created a bevy of policies, ranging from subsidies to tax breaks to mandated contributions from foreign tech companies, that undoubtedly constitute a major portion of news outlets’ revenue and journalists’ salaries — potentially upwards of 50 percent.”
Publicly questioning government narratives on something as significant as climate change is a risky proposition for any editor when doing so leaves their paymasters with egg on their faces.
Here’s what governments in Canada — and the media outlets reliant on their largess — would rather you never heard. On December 23, the report “Artificial stepwise increases in homogenized surface air temperature data invalidate published climate warming claims for Canada” was released by Dr. Joseph Hickey, a data scientist with a PhD in Physics. The report was published by CORRELATION Research in the Public Interest regarding a significant error in Canada’s temperature data.
Using the data from ECCC for hundreds of stations across the country, scientists had previously calculated that the surface air temperature has increased 1-2 degrees Celsius over the past six to seven decades in Canada. Yet in 1998, the exact year in which 72 Canadian reference climatological stations were first added to the Global Climate Observing System, a sudden stepwise increase of approximately 1 degree Celsius occurred at most stations across the country.
Numerous studies in scientific literature assert that sudden temperature jumps like this are not due to real climactic change but instead are caused by temperature measurement artifacts corrupting the data. They contend that this data should therefore be removed from the record. Even though one of the studies explaining this was authored by Dr. Lucie A. Vincent, the senior Environment Canada Research Climatologist, the temperature jump was left in ECCC’s data and is still there to this day. Hickey concludes, “The reported climate warming of Canada appears to be entirely from a temperature measurement artifact.”
Hickey first discovered this in 2021 when he was as an analyst for the Bank of Canada and so was barred from sharing his findings with the public. After leaving the bank, he secured his communications with Environment Canada via an access to information, which is why we know what happened next.
In that year Hickey alerted Environment Canada to the problem and explained in detail to Vincent that the sharpness of the temperature increase, and its magnitude, indicate that it is not due to real climactic change. He also laid out a thorough analysis of potential sources of the artifact, which could include land use changes and instrumentation changes. Both of these could easily cause a one-degree shift in the temperature data. Moreover, he explained, “there are no other similar large and geographically widespread discontinuities in the AHCCD dataset [Environment Canada’s flagship temperature dataset] at other years.” This increase could be responsible for almost all the claimed warming calculated for Canada over the past six or seven decades.
Vincent essentially brushed him off, did not provide an explanation for the step increase, and said that the shift “is probably due to climate variability only.”
So, Canada is spending hundreds of billions of dollars to fight climate change largely based on data that the government scientist most involved in its generation can only say is “probably” indicative of warming.
Hickey was not the only Bank of Canada employee to find fault with ECCC’s temperature data. In his December report, he writes:
“On December 7, 2020, Bank of Canada Economist Julien McDonald-Guimond sent an email to Environment Canada researchers with an inquiry about the … daily temperature records, noting he had found some cases in which the daily minimum temperature was greater than the daily maximum temperature for the same day and for the same AHCCD station.”
In fact, there were more than 10,000 instances of days for which the daily minimum temperature was greater than the daily maximum temperature.
Environment Canada Climate Data Analyst Megan Hartwell replied to McDonald-Guimon, saying that “We were quite surprised by the frequency of the issue you reported, and have taken some time to go through the data carefully.”
That ECCC were surprised by McDonald-Guimond’s finding is cause enough to worry. But the fact that they now “have taken some time to go through the data carefully” begs the question: didn’t they go through the data carefully before releasing it the first time?
Environment and Climate Change Canada have yet to respond to Hickey’s December report. They have some explaining to do.
Tom Harris is Executive Director of International Climate Science Coalition – Canada.
‘Israel’ bulldozes part of Gaza war cemetery holding allied graves
Al Mayadeen | February 5, 2026
Israeli occupation forces have bulldozed sections of the Gaza War Cemetery in Gaza City’s al-Tuffah neighborhood, damaging graves of British, Australian, and other allied soldiers from the First and Second World Wars, according to an investigation by The Guardian.
Satellite imagery shows systematic earthworks in the cemetery’s southern corner, including removed gravestones, churned soil, and a large earth berm indicating the use of heavy machinery. The damage was not visible in images from March last year but appeared clearly in satellite photos taken in August and December.
Essam Jaradah, the cemetery’s former caretaker, told The Guardian that Israeli bulldozers first cleared land around the cemetery walls before later entering the graveyard itself, flattening nearly one dunum of land that included graves of Australian soldiers.
“The bulldozing covered the area from the bench where foreign visitors used to sit up to the memorial monument,” Jaradah said, adding that the operations took place after Israeli occupation forces withdrew from the area in late April or early May.
Israeli army cites combat operations
Responding to questions from The Guardian, the Israeli military command said the area was an “active combat zone” at the time and claimed its actions were taken for defensive reasons.
“At the relevant time, the area in question was an active combat zone,” a military spokesperson said, alleging the presence of underground “terrorist infrastructure” within and around the cemetery.
The Royal British Legion said it was “saddened” by reports that allied war graves had been damaged, stressing that such sites “deserve to be treated with the utmost respect”.
Featured Video
Trump Announces Operation To Escort Ships – Fmr. CIA Analyst Larry Johnson
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Israel’s recurring use of terror on civilians
By Bob Finch | January 26, 2009
Insanely disproportionate use of violence against unarmed civilians… continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- 1977 Influenza Pandemic Sequence Shows Signs of Laboratory Creation: Journal ‘Cell’
- China issues first prohibition order to safeguard international trade order under rule of law
- Iran rejects Trump’s ‘Project Freedom,’ warns US over Hormuz role
- TRUMP ANNOUNCES OPERATION TO ESCORT SHIPS – Fmr. CIA Analyst Larry Johnson
- A few observations on Iran’s latest proposal to Trump
- ‘I urged that our objective be regime change… so did Netanyahu’ – ex-Trump adviser on Iran
- “STAGED”: Conspiracy Theories Are Everywhere!
- NATO courts screenwriters to embed alliance messaging in film, TV
- Iran replaces UAE ports with Pakistan corridor to break US blockade
- Iran sets one-month deadline for end to US-Israeli war, blockade: Report
- If Americans Knew
- As Palestinians die, Ben-Gvir celebrates birthday with golden noose cake – Daily Update
- Israel’s New Ambassador to the ‘Christian World’ Served as Envoy to Azerbaijan During the Ethnic Cleansing of Christians from Nagorno-Karabakh
- US set to sell $1B “Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System” to Israel – Daily Update
- Israeli Strikes Kill at Least 32 Across S Lebanon, Including Children – Amid “Ceasefire”
- Israel to pour $730m into propaganda arm amid reputational crisis
- Real Cost of Iran War Likely Double the $25 Billion Figure the Pentagon Gave to Congress
- Israel conducts farthest-ever strike in long history of attacks on Gaza humanitarian aid flotillas
- In Gaza, Israel commits 10+ ceasefire violations a day – Daily Update
- US ships 6,500 tons of munitions, equipment to Israel in 24 hours
- A New Library in Gaza Rises From the Ashes of Destruction
- No Tricks Zone
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
Aletho News 