Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Saudi–Israeli normalization ‘delusion’

By Stasa Salacanin | The Cradle | February 5, 2025

On 4 February, when asked if the Saudis demand the establishment of a Palestinian state as a condition for recognizing Israel, US President Donald Trump, sitting alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office, swiftly replied: “No, they’re not.”

The Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs was also quick to respond, stating that its stance on the establishment of a Palestinian state remains “firm and unwavering,” insisting that Riyadh would make no deal with Tel Aviv otherwise:

“His Royal Highness (Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman – or MbS) emphasized that Saudi Arabia will continue its relentless efforts to establish an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and will not establish diplomatic relations with Israel without that.”

The statement further stressed that the Saudi position on this is “non-negotiable and not subject to compromises.”

Despite the fervent optimism of Trump’s newly appointed foreign policy team, the much-touted Saudi–Israeli normalization agreement remains an elusive goal, just as it was for his predecessor, Joe Biden. While Washington insists that such a deal is potentially around the corner, a more sober analysis suggests the pathway to a deal remains rife with obstacles. 

Spanner in the works 

The Abraham Accords, brokered under Trump’s first term, were hailed in Washington as a historic breakthrough in West Asian diplomacy, bringing the occupation state into official relations with the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. Yet, the glaring absence of Saudi Arabia – the most influential Arab state – was the missing piece that the US and Israel craved most.

Biden’s tenure, rather than advancing Trump’s initiative, has arguably undermined it. His administration’s unyielding support for Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and its brutal military campaign in Lebanon has alienated many Arab and Muslim states, further diminishing the likelihood of new normalization deals. 

Meanwhile, China has capitalized on Washington’s waning credibility, scoring a major diplomatic coup in 2023 by brokering a historic rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran – a relationship that, against the odds, remains intact.

Despite the changed reality on the ground, this US administration still believes that the deal between the world’s largest oil exporter and Israel is still attainable on its terms. Mike Waltz, the Trump administration’s new national security advisor, has stated that reaching a peace agreement between Riyadh and Tel Aviv is a “huge priority” for the new administration. 

Saudis caution: A deal on whose terms? 

While the Saudis drew a clear line and maintained it for a very long time by linking normalization with Israel to the establishment of a Palestinian state, neither Israel nor the new Trump administration have shown any willingness to accommodate Saudi intentions. 

Many of Trump’s supporters and major donors, such as Miriam Adelson, as well as the Israeli government, not only oppose any form of a Palestinian state, but are openly talking about annexing the entire occupied West Bank. Therefore, it is still unclear how Trump intends to reconcile two vastly opposing views and expectations and expand the Abraham Accords.

According to Giuseppe Dentice, an analyst at the Mediterranean Observatory (OSMED) of the Italian Institute for Political Studies “San Pio V,” Trump will likely fall back on his tried-and-tested approach – leaning on the Abraham Accords as a framework while resurrecting elements of his so-called “deal of the century.”

Dentice explains to The Cradle that the ultimate goal of such efforts is to sideline the Palestinian cause entirely, pushing it to the periphery of both regional and global agendas.

Moreover, many believe that the Trump administration will launch a crusade against the “global intifada” and those who dare to criticize Israel or insist on prosecuting Israeli war crimes.

This approach, Dentice contends, essentially forces a single option in the negotiations: Take it or leave it. 

“Trump’s aggressive approach to Riyadh could backfire for the US and its interests in the Middle East (West Asia), especially if the Al-Saud kingdom continues to reject these terms, risking closer alignment with the agendas of other international actors (such as China or Russia, if only in strategic or instrumental terms).”

Saudi investments in the US: Buying leverage or time?

Some observers speculate that Saudi Arabia’s recent announcement that Riyadh plans to invest $600 billion in the US over the next four years could be understood as a certain early bribe to Trump in return for easing his zealous pressure regarding the Saudi–Israeli normalization agreement and other geopolitical issues as well. 

While it is true that convincing the Saudis will be a tough nut to crack, Dentice, for one, does not believe that even such a significant economic commitment could distract or dissuade the new government from its goals. 

He believes that beyond the issue of normalization agreements with Israel, Riyadh wants to strengthen its understanding and cooperation with Washington, especially with this government. Nonetheless, it remains true that key figures associated with this administration, such as Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, could undermine Saudi processes and intentions through their own business relationships.

For Dr Paul Rogers, Emeritus Professor of Peace Studies in the Department of Peace Studies and International Relations at the College of Bradford, President Trump is far too unpredictable for anyone to conclude on the chances of a deal with Saudi Arabia, but his recent comments on the option of expelling the Palestinians from Gaza indicate a very close relationship with far-right Israeli political factions. 

Dr Rogers tells The Cradle that he suspects “that the Saudis will stay away from any kind of agreement, no matter what offer they make.”

Arab public opinion: A hard sell

Beyond geopolitical calculations, public sentiment in the Arab world remains a major obstacle to normalization. The rejection of a Palestinian state, coupled with an aggressive push for Saudi–Israeli ties, is widely viewed as an attempt to erase the Palestinian cause altogether – an agenda that lacks legitimacy among Arab and Muslim populations.

Furthermore, many observers believe that Israel’s war crimes and the genocide in Gaza have made it very difficult and uncomfortable for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) to continue peace talks. 

But West Asian views against normalization precede even the brutal 15-month war. According to the Arab Opinion Index from 2022, for example, an average of 84 percent of citizens in 14 countries rejected diplomatic relations with Israel. These figures show that the Arab enforcers of the Abraham Accords ultimately failed to reach or sway wider Arab public opinion. 

The war in Gaza has only cemented anti-Israeli views in Saudi Arabia, and an unconditional normalization agreement with Israel would only increase the risk of destabilizing the crown prince’s image in the kingdom and abroad. It would also humiliate MbS, who has publicly condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza, recognizing them as a “genocide.”

A mirage in the desert 

Palestinian statehood is by no means a simple issue, even if an Israeli government supported the initiative, which the current one resolutely rejects. 

Palestinian national aspirations can lose momentum due to internal divisions, the lack of an organized leadership capable of addressing current and future challenges, and the faltering support of traditional Arab sponsors – notably the loss of Syria following the ousting of former president Bashar al-Assad by Al-Qaeda-linked extremists – Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) – who now form the new government

For all the speculation surrounding a Saudi–Israeli deal, the reality is that no proposal for Palestinian statehood has made meaningful progress in the past three decades. As a result, ad hoc unilateral initiatives have increasingly taken center stage, often yielding disastrous consequences. 

In this context, the push for a Saudi–Israeli accord seems less like a diplomatic breakthrough and more like a mirage conjured by Washington and Tel Aviv. 

Dentice believes that in such a context, and with the prospect of a possible Saudi–Israeli agreement, the Palestinians will have even less political relevance in the future. This will give space for radical and armed groups to gain ground and further exacerbate tensions on the Palestinian and Arab streets.

Trump’s aggressive tactics may succeed in strong-arming some leaders, but they are unlikely to change deep-seated regional attitudes. If anything, the pursuit of an agreement without major concessions for Palestinians could inflame tensions further, pushing the region into even greater instability. 

For now, the notion of a Saudi–Israeli deal may be more fantasy than fact – an illusion sustained by wishful thinking rather than political reality.

February 5, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s call for US ‘takeover’ of Gaza sparks international backlash

The Cradle | February 5, 2025

US President Donald Trump’s declaration that Washington will “own” the Gaza Strip and expel its residents has sparked widespread backlash and condemnation.

Hamas said in a statement on 5 February that it condemns “in the strongest terms and reject[s] the statements of US President Trump aimed at the United States of America occupying the Gaza Strip and displacing our Palestinian people from it.”

“We confirm that these statements are hostile to our people and our cause, will not serve stability in the region, and will only add fuel to the fire,” the statement added. “We … will not allow any country in the world to occupy our land or impose guardianship over our great Palestinian people.”

“We call on the US administration and President Trump to retract these irresponsible statements that contradict international laws and the natural rights of our Palestinian people in their land,” Hamas went on to say, calling on the Arab League, Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and the UN to hold urgent meetings to address Trump’s statements.

Secretary-General of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and top adviser to Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas said: “The Palestinian leadership … confirms its rejection of all calls for the displacement of the Palestinian people from their homeland. This is where we were born, this is where we lived, and this is where we will remain. We appreciate the Arab position committed to these constants.”

Several regional countries have also expressed their opposition to Trump’s statements.

“Trump’s statements regarding Gaza are unacceptable. Expelling (the Palestinians) from Gaza is an unacceptable issue neither on our part nor on the part of the countries of the region. There is no need to even discuss it,” said Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan.

Saudi Arabia said in a statement that it rejects any attempt to displace Palestinians from their land, adding that Riyadh will not normalize ties with Israel until a Palestinian state is established – in response to the US president’s claim that the kingdom is not demanding statehood in exchange for normalization as it has been publicly calling for.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdel Aati and Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa jointly rejected “the exodus” of the Palestinian people and called for “accelerated” entry of aid and recovery programs.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jiang responded to Trump, telling reporters Beijing “has always believed that Palestinians governing Palestine is the fundamental principle for postwar governance in Gaza.”

“We oppose the forced displacement and relocation of the population in Gaza,” he added.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov referred to Trump’s remarks as a manifestation “of Western cancel culture.”

The French Foreign Ministry said the future of Gaza must be based on a “future Palestinian state” and not controlled by “a third state.”

UK Environment Secretary Steve Reed said that “it is the view of the [British] Government that Palestinians should be able to return to their homes and rebuild their shattered lives.”

Members of the US Democratic and Republican parties also responded. Democratic senator Chris Murphy said Trump has “totally lost it.”

“A US invasion of Gaza would lead to the slaughter of thousands of US troops and decades of war in the Middle East. It’s like a bad, sick joke,” Murphy said.

Democratic representative Jake Auchincloss called the Trump plan “reckless and unreasonable.”

Former Republican member of the US Congress, Justin Amash, said: “If the United States deploys troops to forcibly remove Muslims and Christians … from Gaza, then not only will the US be mired in another reckless occupation but it will also be guilty of the crime of ethnic cleansing. No American of good conscience should stand for this.”

Dan Shapiro, former US ambassador to Israel during Barack Obama’s presidency, said it “was not a serious proposal” and “would require a huge cost in American money and troops, without the support of key partners in the region.”

Trump’s controversial remarks came during a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on 5 February and during separate statements made during the Israeli premier’s visit.

“The US will take over the Gaza Strip … I see it as a long-term ownership position,” Trump said.

“I have a feeling that the king in Jordan and that … the general president [of Egypt], but the general and Egypt will open their hearts and will give us the kind of land that we need to get this done,” Trump said.

Trump has been insisting that over a million Palestinians in Gaza be expelled and that Jordan and Egypt take them in – which both Cairo and Amman have rejected.

He called Gaza “a symbol of death and destruction” and said that its residents only want to go back there because they have nowhere else to go.

February 5, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump plans withdrawal from Syria – media

RT | February 5, 2025

The Pentagon is drafting plans for a full withdrawal of US troops from Syria, NBC News has reported, citing two anonymous defense officials. This comes shortly after President Donald Trump suggested that America’s military involvement in the country serves no useful purpose.

US troops entered Syria in 2014 on the pretext of fighting Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS), and have maintained a presence in the country ever since, despite never being invited by Damascus.

According to NBC’s report on Tuesday, US defense officials have begun preparing withdrawal plans, with timelines ranging from 30 to 90 days. Sources told the network that Trump’s new national security adviser, Mike Waltz, met with senior military commanders at the headquarters of US Central Command in Tampa, Florida on Friday. He was reportedly briefed on the situation in the Middle East.

Commenting on media reports suggesting that he had informed Israel of the imminent pullout, Trump said last week: “We’ll make a determination on that. We’re not getting, we’re not involved in Syria.”

“Syria is its own mess. They got enough messes over there. They don’t need us involved,” he added.

The Israeli public broadcaster Kan made the claim regarding the supposed withdrawal plans late last month, which presumably caused concern among Israeli officials.

In December 2018, during his first term, Trump announced plans to withdraw US troops from Syria. The decision faced significant pushback from Defense Secretary James Mattis, who ultimately resigned in protest. While some personnel were withdrawn, many were later redeployed

Shortly after the overthrow of Bashar Assad’s government in December 2024 by a loose coalition of armed opposition groups, the Pentagon acknowledged that the number of US troops in the country was in fact 2,000, as opposed to the previously reported 900. Several media outlets claimed later that month that several large US military convoys carrying weaponry and equipment had crossed into Syria from Iraq, further reinforcing the US contingent.

Assad and Moscow have repeatedly denounced the US military presence as an illegal occupation, stressing that Washington was never granted permission to station troops in Syria. The former government in Damascus also accused Washington of stealing the country’s natural resources, given that the US bases are located in the oil-rich northeastern parts of Syria.

The latest claims about the potential withdrawal from Syria came as Trump announced on Tuesday a proposal that includes a plan to “take over” Gaza. He did not rule out deploying US troops to the Palestinian enclave, vowing to “do what is necessary.”

February 5, 2025 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , , | Leave a comment

How the CIA Spawned Google

By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 05.02.2025

American tech giant Google has faced regulatory scrutiny on numerous occasions amid accusations of antitrust violations. Google’s relationship with the CIA, ranging from early financial support to collaborative efforts have been decried as undermining privacy rights and free speech in the digital landscape.

Google’s creation played a crucial role in the US intelligence community’s scheme to attain global dominance by controlling information.

How it Started

  • The Pentagon founded its private sector project the Highlands Forum during the Clinton administration in 1994, according to the INSURGE INTELLIGENCE project.
  • Together with defense contractors, the group hammered out a strategy for “network-centric warfare.”
  • The 9/11 terrorist attacks were seized upon by US spy agencies to justify not only military invasions across the Muslim world, but also mass surveillance of civilian populations.

CIA Steps In

  • The CIA’s Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS) program, which originated in the 1990s, was designed to enhance query techniques and track users’ digital footprints.
  • To better serve its goals, in 1999, the CIA established its own venture capital firm, In-Q-Tel, to invest in potentially useful technologies.
  • Ph.D. students at Stanford University, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, were working on precisely such a tech start-up.
  • The design of the search engine and algorithms that ultimately evolved into Google was funded by CIA grants through a program aimed at enhancing mass surveillance capabilities.

PRISM

  • Whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed in 2013 that the NSA had direct access to Google’s systems through its secret PRISM program, enabling the agency to harvest vast amounts of data on American citizens, Washington’s allies, and foreign nationals.
  • Ex-CIA spooks are employed in almost every department at Google, according to a 2022 report based on the analysis of employment websites.
  • Google has been slapped with multiple lawsuits stemming from its history of data misuse and privacy violations.

February 5, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

Did Trump’s Ukraine Peace Plan Just Leak?

By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | February 4, 2025

A leaked document has given us a first glimpse at President Donald Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine. According to the Ukrainian online newspaper Strana, U.S. officials handed the plan to European diplomats who then passed it on to Ukraine.

The existence of the plan has not been verified, and Andriy Yermak, head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, has said “no ‘100-day peace plan’ as reported by the media exists in reality.”

If the plan is real, and if it is being put on the table by the Trump administration as a finished product that, if rejected, will lead to more sanctions on Russia and more weapons for Ukraine (as Trump has threatened), then the war will go on, and Trump’s promise to quickly end the war will vanish in a puff of delusion. But if the plan is real, and if it is put on the table as a starting point for negotiations, then there is hope. And there is suggestion that it is a starting point.

Here is an item by item analysis of what each side may consider acceptable in the supposed plan and what each side may insist on negotiating further.

The process begins with an immediate phone call between Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin followed by discussions between Washington and Kiev. That the plan may be intended as a starting point for negotiations is suggested by the fork in the schedule that negotiations will continue if common ground is found or pause if it is not. Further negotiations would lead to an Easter truce along the front line, an end of April peace conference, and a May 9 declaration of an agreement.

Russia has said that the Istanbul agreement could still be “the basis for starting negotiations.” In June 2024, Vladimir Putin set out a peace proposal based on the Istanbul agreement, but adjusted for current territorial realities. Putin’s proposal had four points: Ukraine must abandon plans to join NATO, they must withdraw from the four annexed territories, they must agree to limits on the size of their armed forces, and they must ensure the rights of ethnic Russians in Ukraine.

The alleged Trump plan can be evaluated by comparison to Putin’s proposal and to recent statements made by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

  1. Ukrainian troops must withdraw from Kursk at the time of the April Truce. This would be acceptable to Russia, who would insist on Ukrainian troops leaving its territory. But for Ukraine, this would be a difficult concession; not because of the withdrawal but because of the timing. Aside from the strategically catastrophic hope that the Kursk invasion would divert Russian troops away from the Donbas, the point of taking Russian territory was to use it to barter for the return of Ukrainian territory. Giving up the bargaining chip before the negotiations begin would nullify Ukraine’s hope of using it to force the return of more of its land.
  2. Ukraine must end martial law and hold presidential elections by the end of August and parliamentary elections by the end of October. This could be a bitter pill for Zelensky. Recent polling has shown that he could well lose that election. Elections would be welcomed by Russia, who see Zelensky’s government as intransigently hostile and anti-Russia. This would legally transfer hope for regime change to Ukrainians.
  3. Ukraine must declare neutrality and promise not to join NATO; NATO must promise not to expand into Ukraine. Ukraine was willing to abandon its NATO hopes in Istanbul. Though accepted by Kiev as inevitable, it would now be a painful concession. In the absence of NATO membership. It would be a hard sell to Ukrainians that the war after the Istanbul talks was worth the devastation. For Russia, this point is key, and there can be no negotiations without it. It would be the key accomplishment to get the two-sided promise that Ukraine will not ask for membership and NATO will not offer it.
  4. Ukraine will become a member of the European Union by 2030. This item is acceptable to both. EU membership will be necessary for Zelensky to present to Ukrainians as something that was worth fighting for. Ukraine is now free to pursue its ambitions to turn west and join Europe. Though Russia had concerns in 2014 with the EU’s Association Agreement with Ukraine because of its implied integration of Ukraine into the European security and military architecture, Putin has long left EU membership on the table for a postwar Ukraine, and that was specifically agreed to in the Istanbul agreement.
  5. Ukraine will not reduce the size of its armed forces and the United States will continue modernizing the Ukrainian military. While Ukraine will welcome this, it may not be enough. Russia will have a hard time with this one. This is like “the Israeli model” that then-Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett says Putin and Zelensky were both open to in the early days of the war. But, in the absence of NATO, Zelensky has been adamant about American supported security guarantees. And, already by Istanbul, Russia was demanding limits on Ukraine’s armed forces. At the very least, modernized Ukrainian weaponry would have to be defensive and with a cap on firing into Russian territory.
  6. Ukraine refuses military and diplomatic attempts to return the occupied territories, but does not officially recognize Russian sovereignty. This item does not go far enough for Russia and too far for Ukraine. Zelensky has accepted that “De facto, these territories are now controlled by the Russians. We don’t have the strength to bring them back.” So, he will accept not attempting to return the occupied territories militarily. He has also insisted that Ukraine would never officially recognize Russian sovereignty over those lands. But the added clause, that he will not attempt to return them diplomatically, may be going further than Zelensky has been willing to go. In the case of Crimea, he has reserved the right to try to bring territory back diplomatically. For Russia, the de facto recognition of the territory it occupies will likely be enough. In his proposal, Putin insisted on the complete withdrawal from the territories while saying nothing about Ukraine officially recognizing Russian sovereignty over them. However, though Russia may be willing to negotiate over Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, they are less likely to accept only the lands east of the current front without it including all of the Donbas.
  7. Some sanctions on Russia will be lifted, including European Union bans on Russian oil. This item will likely be acceptable to Ukraine, especially since temporary duty on sales of oil will be used to restore Ukraine. It will likely be acceptable, at least as a starting point, for Russia.
  8. Parties that support Russian language and peaceful relations with Russia can participate in Ukraine’s elections. State actions against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and Russian language must cease. Though difficult for Zelensky and some forces in Ukraine to accept, protection of language, religious and cultural rights is the second key Russian demand along with NATO.
  9. The idea of a European peacekeeping force is to be discussed separately. The recognition that security guarantees are both key and difficult for both parties is realistic. Neither side will agree to a European security force: Russia because it goes too far, Ukraine because it goes not far enough.

If this possible plan is a final draft whose rejection means negotiations end, then the war will not end. But if Donald Trump’s plan is intended as a starting point to negotiations—the most difficult of which may be the security guarantees — then there is hope.

February 5, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Leave a comment

Pulling the Money Chain: The NGO Network in Ukraine and the Global War on Terror

By Matt Wolfson | The Libertarian Institute | February 5, 2025

Detritus from Joe Biden’s administration doesn’t just amount to the obvious—inflation and deficit spending, regulations and wars. There’s also been a more subtle shift off of these failures, affecting who has power in our country and how they’ll use it in the future.

Nowhere is the shift less noticed or more definite than in the world of humanitarianism, which has been enriched these past three years by the previous administration’s proxy wars. Since 2022—when the Biden White House responded to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by neither escalating nor defusing but prolonging—a network of humanitarian non-profits has grown up around the conflict. This network has fed off the deaths of Ukrainians and the piling on of debt for future Americans through its operators’ deep contacts with the United States government and its outgrowths.

This network is worth investigating on its own. But with the advent of the second Trump Administration which is looking to wind down the war, its players appear to be pivoting from Ukraine to the Middle East: from ginning up funds for an endless proxy war to ginning them up for a repeat of the Global War on Terror.

The most obvious entry point into this network is Ukraine NGO Coordination Network (UNCN), which has a small staff but a wide reach: forty-two organizations are members. Many of them are some version of globalist: “Cross Border Civilians,” “Aviation without Borders,” “Global Outreach Doctors,” “Medical Teams Worldwide.” And many of these have the institutional links one might expect. Cross Border Civilians recruits from the World Economic Forum while Global Outreach Doctors traffics in Black Lives Matter. But even UNCN non-profits with close connections to Ukraine are much more tied into Washington DC-backed institutions than they first appear.

Listed first of all these organizations is Razom, a Ukrainian-American non-profit active since 2014. Its president, Dora Chomiak, is a Princeton and Columbia graduate who served in the 1990s as a Director of Regional Media Programs for George Soros’ newly-founded Open Society Institute. Under Chomiak’s leadership, Razom has a spot at the World Economic Forum, a regular Soros haunt. It also has a strong presence at Bard College, a major accepter of Ukrainian refugees which recently received a $500 million endowment pledge from Soros, whose second wife directs the Bard Graduate Center.

Razom also has government and university contacts. Samantha Power, the outgoing director of USAID, the government agency responsible for foreign aid, has been a featured speaker at Razom-hosted events, and so has the U.S. State Department’s Special Representative for Ukraine’s Economic Recovery, Penny Pritzker. Columbia University, which has received extensive donations from Soros as well as tax exemptions from Washington, hosts regular pro-Ukrainian events at its Harriman Institute, where Chomiak serves on the board.

Another prominent member of UNCN’s network is Help Ukraine, founded by Brian Mefford, who also founded Wooden Horse Strategies, which by its own description is “a Kyiv-based consulting firm focusing on USAID and EU project development and evaluation, risk analysis, due diligence, political strategy and strategic communications” that “provides clients with both Ukraine and regional insight that achieves results for their projects, businesses and policy objectives.” In 2023, Wooden Horse Strategies was listed by Russian officials as under contract with Ukraine’s Science and Technology Center to help carry out “the United States’ military biological programs in Ukraine.”

This claim isn’t verifiable, but it is verifiable that Ukraine’s Science and Technology Center contracted with Wooden Horse Strategies to combat “disinformation” about the Ukrainian war effort. Mefford was also reliably identified as an attendee at a 2022 Washington summit on the conduct of the war sponsored by “private sector cyber security and intelligence operators and CIA venture capital firm In-Q-Tel,” which, according to its CEO, has seen over thirty of its portfolio companies “deplo[y]” their technologies “as part of Western efforts to support Ukraine.

These players, in other words, are not the Salvation Army. They’re highly plugged into government-funded universities and intelligence agencies as well as the U.S. Department of State. This positions them to be indirect or direct recipients not just of defense and university grants but of staggering amounts of formal humanitarian aid. “Since February 2022,” according to a Congressional Research report released on January 6, 2025, “Congress has appropriated more than $46 billion in emergency funds for accounts solely or partially managed by USAID to address the war in Ukraine” including for “humanitarian assistance.” This is on top of $65.9 billion in direct military assistance in the same period.

It’s not clear, as this report notes, where funds raised and spent this fast actually went. But almost surely some of them percolated directly or indirectly to the organizations which help make up the UNCN. Now, with the Trump administration opposed to further involvement in Ukraine, at least one of UNCN’s players appear to be mobilizing to get funding for a different foreign cause.

This player is Sarah Adams, Chief of Operations for UNCN from January 2022 to January 2024 and an institutional operator par excellence. At the start of her career, Adams worked for a pharmaceutical company with links to Pfizer and in the 2010s she was a CIA analyst abroad, including in Libya. She serves as a Program Analyst for the United States Department of the Air Force in Tampa.

Currently, though, on conservative podcasts like Shawn Ryan’s and Tudor Dixon’s on which she appears, Adams presents herself as a former CIA agent and whistleblower cut from MAGA’s mold: an ex-soldier sounding the alert on jihadi infiltrations. She makes the case for a unified global movement of pre-planned Al Qaeda “wave” attacks which represent a clear and present danger to the United States. Not surprisingly, in the wake of the January 1 terrorist attack in New Orleans, Adams’s supporters claimed validation for her—despite the fact that the attacker was an American-born resident of Texas and a Deloitte employee radicalized online.

Adams claims to be going up against Pentagon pushback when she makes her warnings, despite the fact that she’s employed by the Air Force, which is run from the Pentagon. But the Pentagon’s history of firing employees who dissent, among them decorated Space Force Colonel Matthew Lohmeier, renders this claim extremely dubious. Journalist Max Blumenthal has pointed out other inconsistencies as well. Not only are “Adams’ sources [for her claims] unnamed,” they’re also uncited outside of her constant references to “we.” In only the first fifteen minutes of her appearance on The Shawn Ryan Show, Adams cites “open source” information, i.e. information from publicly available sources or that she got “on the ground”; doesn’t link to those sources (outside of a terrorist training video); and then makes broad claims. One is that Al Qaeda activities in Europe are a planned operation for revenge against America for its interfering in the Middle East. Another is connecting threatened Al Qaeda attacks on America to the October 7 attack against Israel, implying that combating one means combating the other.

The way Adams phrases her warnings reinforces the confusion. She sounds either like she’s not confident in her own material, or that she’s patronizing her audience by talking down. “But it’s just, um, al Qaeda has all these waves of attacks planned, okay” is her way of describing a clear and present threat to Americans. About terrorist trainees: “Remember their life is they train all the time so if that’s all you’re doing all day long, I mean, you’re gonna get really competent at it and then they have different emotions behind it too and, you know, different beliefs, and the religion behind it too, which makes you more devout.” She calls a Pentagon communication to her a “nastygram.” She says (jokingly? not?) that Shawn Ryan’s head of production looks like a terrorist and that she “could have [his address] by the end of the day if I really wanted it.” This doesn’t sound like an experienced veteran delivering a serious warning. It sounds like a self-promoter with a strange side.

When it comes to questions about her analysis or sources, Adams is not tolerant. When I pushed back on X with “total respect” about whether the issue of the Taliban targeting a French Afghani in France was relevant, as Adams claimed, to “all of us,” she responded before blocking me:

One reason Adams may take this attitude is that engaging with American conservatives isn’t really what she wants to be doing; it’s a means to an end. One of her supporters explained to me on X: “Sarah’s focusing on raising attention with ‘the right’ (even though they typically lack nuance) because they’re still national security focused, while Left leaning westerners tend not to [be].” This ally, James Griffin, runs a website titled “Analytica Camillus.” It pairs broad sloganeering (“Morality in Ruthlessness”; “You may not be interested in war but war is interested in you”) with intricately plotted maps of counteroffensives in Ukraine.

All of this raises a question: if Muslim terror tactics have been such clear threats and created such humanitarian calamities, why did self-identified experts in war and humanitarianism like Adams and Griffin spend years focusing on Ukraine and only pivot to Islamism as a new Donald Trump presidency loomed? One answer is that these pivots—from the Russia threat to Muslim terror, from Kosovo to Iraq—have been happening for three decades, executed by the same connected institutional operators in the name of the same general principles applied to different situations based on which administration is in the White House.

These general principles are security and humanitarianism, a double rhetorical punch that has justified the foreign interventions that have created unprecedented non-and-for-profit boondoggles since the 1990s. Tellingly, Adams describes herself as 10% warlord, 90% humanitarian, or a warrior in the name of humanitarian ideals, and neither her pairing of war and human rights nor the profits that accrue from that pairing are new. An early beneficiary was George Soros, whose Open Society Foundations picked up in the Balkans where NATO left off, and who has been heavily invested in Ukrainian companies. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were also a boondoggle for non-profits as well as for business ventures to “build up” the region America had decimated by players like the Pritzker Family; one of whose members, Thomas Pritzker, set up North America Western Asia Holdings in partnership with a former undersecretary of Defense in the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administration to pursue those opportunities in 2011.

A humanitarian-crusader thru-line also runs through the careers of government officials responsible for these crusades. Biden USAID director Samantha Power made her name in the 1990s with a Pulitzer Prize winning book urging American intervention in the name of human rights and later stage-managed the intervention in Libya, where Sarah Adams served as a CIA analyst. Biden’s Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, a key backer of humanitarianism up to his last days in the State Department, had a father, another humanitarian, who was a key supporter of the NATO expansion off of our 1990s Balkans interventions which began our long cool down with Russia. Both Power and Blinken also  advanced their career off of or in support of the Iraq War. This was the ultimate in humanitarian-security politics gone wrong. It was justified by links between Muslims (Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda) that later proved conflationary and that are uncomfortably similar to the links Sarah Adams is currently making between different Muslim groups.

In between stints in government, both Power and Blinken subsisted off Ivy League research perches with links to nonprofits and security contractors. Almost surely, both will lend their support to policies already being bandied around in Washington, and reinforced by testimony from people like Sarah Adams that empower those institutions. These policies include re-authorizing government surveillance on American citizens and expanding the power of the Department of Homeland Security in the name of combating Muslim terror.

Other prominent supporters of these policies like Aayan Hirsi Ali, operating out of non-profits inside government-funded universities, want Americans to take the same broad-brush approach to national security as Sarah Adams does. But they expand the threats even further, broadcasting a new humanitarian and security crusade against Marxism, Islamism, the Chinese Communist Party, and Vladimir Putin. Tellingly, Hirsi’s husband, Niall Ferguson, an institutionally-connected booster of American interventionism and humanitarianism since a dozen years before the Iraq War, has recently become a Trump supporter, self-professedly dancing at Mar-a-Lago not too long ago.

He, along with longtime interventionist Bret Stephens and Stephens’ protégé, Free Press founder Bari Weiss, have increasingly identified with conservatives while pushing very different focuses. As of January 28, The Free Press’ last twenty international stories have included five on the Western hemisphere or China; the other fifteen have been on Europe and the Middle East. And this doesn’t even mention The Free Press’ separate section on Israel and antisemitism. Whatever one’s views of these issues, these players’ focus is far away from the focus of constitutional conservatives or the Trump White House.

Arguably, these humanitarian-military crusades—the ones which fund people like Sarah Adams, Brian Mefford, and Dora Chomiak, and which open investment opportunities for the Pritzkers and George Soros—are the most durable beneficiaries of America’s post-Cold War deep state apparatus. Quietly since 1995 and loudly since 2001, there has literally not been a year when we weren’t engaged in one of these missions, empowering contractors and non-profits abroad while encouraging surveillance at home.

Today’s latest sales pitch for a new crusade by Ukraine War pushers is something believers in small government and individual liberties should push back against. Profits in the name of war-linked humanitarianism are suspect to begin with. But when they threaten our liberties and our finances, they’re anathema to American interests.

February 5, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Moscow welcomes Trump’s stance on Kiev’s NATO bid

RT | February 5, 2025

Russia welcomes the statements made by US President Donald Trump regarding Ukraine’s NATO membership ambitions, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. Trump is the first Western leader to admit that it was wrong to support Kiev’s plans to join the military bloc, the diplomat said on Wednesday.

Trump stated last month that he understands the Russian stance that Ukraine should not be part of NATO. Speaking to reporters in Florida, the US president said Moscow’s position had long been “written in stone,” but that his predecessor, Joe Biden, had ignored it, which contributed to the current conflict.

“Somewhere along the line, Biden said, ‘[Ukraine], they should be able to join NATO.’ Well, then Russia has somebody right on their doorstep, and I can understand their feelings about that,” Trump added.

Speaking at an ambassadors’ roundtable on Ukraine, Lavrov said Trump’s comments suggest Washington may finally be ready to address issues linked to Ukraine’s NATO bid and the bloc’s eastward expansion.

“President Trump bluntly said that one of the main mistakes was drawing Ukraine into NATO, and that if he had been in power the past four years, the conflict would not have happened,” Lavrov noted.

“For the first time, a Western leader… the leader of the entire Western world, uttered these words, which we welcome because for the first time the problem of NATO was identified as something that the US is ready to discuss seriously,” he added. Lavrov reiterated Moscow’s stance that Ukraine’s NATO aspirations were a root cause of the current conflict, saying that warnings not to encourage these aspirations either fell on deaf ears or were met with “duplicity” and “hypocrisy” by Western politicians.

“The root cause is the conscious, long-term desire and… practical steps of the West to create direct military threats to Russia on our borders, on the territory of Ukraine, and drawing it into NATO. We have raised this issue repeatedly, demanding NATO honor its pledge not to expand eastward, but all was in vain,” Lavrov said. He suggested Trump’s remarks could signal a shift in US policy, which he called crucial as “Washington is the one who will ultimately make the decisions” regarding Ukraine’s NATO membership.

Moscow has long opposed Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, insisting any settlement of the ongoing conflict must include Kiev’s neutrality and demilitarization. Ukraine, however, considers its membership a strategic foreign and security policy objective, and has recently claimed that it sees its admission to the US-led military bloc as a security guarantee to agree to a ceasefire with Moscow. While NATO last year declared that Ukraine was on an “irreversible” path to joining the bloc, its members warned that Kiev would have to meet certain conditions first, such as resolving the conflict with Moscow.

February 5, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

US pulls out of UN human rights council, cancels funding to UNRWA

Press TV – February 4, 2025

US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order withdrawing Washington from the UN Human Rights Council and UNRWA, the refugee agency that works primarily with the Palestinians being oppressed by the Israeli regime.

Trump signed the order in the Oval Office of the White House on Tuesday ahead of his meeting with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu who had carried out a 15-month genocidal war against the people of Palestine in Gaza in which more than 47,300 people were killed, mostly women and children.

The ceasefire between the Palestinian resistance group Hamas and Israel was reached after the regime failed to realize any of its wartime objectives, including freeing the captives, “eliminating” the Gazan resistance, and causing forced displacement of Gaza’s entire population to neighboring Egypt.

Hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians began returning to the northern part of the Gaza Strip.

Trump’s aide introduced the measures, saying, “Next up, in light of numerous actions taken by a number of bodies of the United Nations which exhibited deep anti-American bias, we have an executive order prepared for your attention that would withdraw the United States from the U.N. Human Rights Council.”

“I would withdraw the United States from the UNRWA, which is a refugee organization, and would also review American involvement in UNESCO, which also exhibited anti-American bias,” he added.

“More generally, the executive order calls for a review of American involvement and funding in the UN in light of the wild disparities in levels of funding among different countries that, as you’ve expressed previously, is deeply unfair to the United States,” the aide concluded before giving the order to Trump to sign.

Following the signing of the executive order, Trump said, “So I’ve always felt that the UN has tremendous potential. It’s not living up to that potential right now. It really isn’t and has been for a long time. It has– there are great hopes for it, but it’s not being well run, to be honest, and not doing the job. A lot of these conflicts that we’re working on should be settled, or at least we should have some help in settling them.”

“But we never seem to get help. That should be the primary purpose of the UN and the United Nations. And again, it’s got great potential. And based on the potential, we’ll continue to go along with it. But they’ve got to get their act together,” he added.

“What would they need to do to get their act together?” a reporter asked Trump.

“Well, they’ve got to be fair to countries that deserve fairness. They have some countries, as you know, that are outliers that are very bad, and they’re being almost preferred as countries to those that do their job and are doing a good job. And they have to really they’re going to end up losing a lot of countries and end up losing their credibility like other organizations,” Trump replied.

Trump also said Palestinians would “love” to leave their embattled homeland in Gaza and live elsewhere if given an option.

They would “love to leave Gaza,” he told reporters at the White House. “I would think that they would be thrilled.”

Last week, Trump suggested cleaning out the Palestinian land and relocating the war-stricken people there to neighboring Arab countries, namely Egypt and Jordan.

“You’re talking about probably a million and half people … I’d like Egypt to take people. And I’d like Jordan to take people,” he said. “[W]e just clean out that whole thing,” he said.

In the meantime, the Palestinian leaders and people in Gaza condemned any attempt to relocate them, saying such a move is reminiscent of a dark page in Palestine’s modern history known as the “Nakba” or catastrophe – when millions of Palestinians were forcibly displaced to create room for Israel’s illegal creation.

Member of Hamas’s political bureau, Bassem Naim, said that Palestinians would “foil such projects” as they have done to similar plans “for displacement and alternative homelands over the decades.”

February 5, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

RFK Jr. Wins Crucial Vote, Moves One Step Closer to Top HHS Post

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 4, 2025

The Senate Finance Committee today narrowly advanced Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to the full Senate for a confirmation vote.

The 14-13 vote along party lines came after Kennedy secured the vote of Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that oversees HHS. Cassidy was the lone Republican considered to be a possible hold-out.

The Senate is expected to vote on Kennedy’s confirmation later this week or early next week, ABC News reported. The nomination “is likely to succeed absent any last-minute vote switches,” The Associated Press reported.

Kennedy, founder and former chairman of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), can be confirmed even if up to three Republican senators and all Democrats vote against him in the full Senate.

If confirmed, Kennedy will oversee a $1.7 trillion budget and 90,000 employees. HHS oversees 13 public health agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

During today’s committee meeting, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said, “It is time to put a disruptor” like Kennedy at the helm of the HHS. “I hope he goes wild,” Tillis said.

Shares of vaccine manufacturers and packaged food companies, including Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, Novavax, Kraft Heinz, General Mills, Mondelez and Hershey, dropped after today’s vote, Reuters reported.

CHD CEO Mary Holland welcomed today’s outcome. She said:

“CHD is delighted that the Finance Committee is sending RFK Jr.’s nomination to the full Senate. Given the 2024 presidential results, this seems only fitting. ‘Make America Healthy Again’ has become a worldwide rallying cry, and CHD is proud to be a foundational part of this movement.”

In a statement, Dr. Joseph Varon, president and chief medical officer of the Independent Medical Alliance, also welcomed today’s vote. He said:

“Americans demand a frank conversation about the state of our government healthcare agencies, and we’re very grateful for the Senators who responded by voting to move RFK Jr.’s nomination to the full Senate.

“RFK Jr. has been asking the tough questions, and he’s been unmoved in the face of big-corporate money campaigns against him.”

In a statement before the vote, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), chair of the committee, said that if confirmed, Kennedy “will have the opportunity to deliver much-needed change to our nation’s healthcare system.”

Cassidy, Kennedy agree to ‘unprecedently close collaborative relationship’

During last week’s hearing in the Senate Finance Committee, Cassidy said he was “struggling” with some of Kennedy’s positions regarding vaccines.

“I’ve had very intense conversations with Bobby and the White House over the weekend and even this morning,” Cassidy posted on X earlier today. “I want to thank VP JD [Vance] specifically for his honest counsel. With the serious commitments I’ve received from the administration and the opportunity to make progress on the issues we agree on like healthy foods and a pro-American agenda, I will vote yes.”

Following today’s vote, Cassidy delivered remarks on the Senate floor, revealing the content of those discussions and the agreement he made with Kennedy to secure his vote.

He said Kennedy committed to a strong public health role for Congress and to meeting or speaking with Cassidy multiple times per month. They also agreed that Cassidy will participate in the hiring process for HHS and the public health agencies it oversees.

“He and I will have an unprecedently close collaborative relationship,” Cassidy said, noting that the hiring decisions that will follow “will allow us to represent all sides of those folks who have contacted me over this past weekend.”

Kennedy also agreed to maintain statements on the CDC website that vaccines do not cause autism and to maintain the recommendations of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

Cassidy said he would also reject any attempt to remove the public’s access to “life-saving vaccines” without “iron-clad, causational scientific evidence” indicating otherwise. He also said he would carefully monitor any attempt to “wrongfully sow public confusion” about vaccines.

Cassidy conceded that “many mothers do need reassurance that the vaccine their child is receiving is necessary, effective, and most of all, safe” and expressed his support for Kennedy’s positions on toxic foods and reforming the NIH.

“These commitments, and my expectation that we can have a great working relationship to Make America Healthy Again, is the basis of my support,” Cassidy said, noting that institutions like NIH and FDA require “reform.”

During last week’s confirmation hearings, Kennedy emphasized his “Make America Healthy Again” agenda and said he would work to tackle the chronic disease epidemic in the U.S.

Kennedy also said he would implement “radical transparency” in HHS. He also voiced support for vaccines — if backed by “good science.”

Related articles in The Defender

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

February 4, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump says US will ‘take over’ Gaza Strip

RT | February 5, 2025

US President Donald Trump has announced that the United States will assume control over the Gaza Strip, vowing to rebuild the war-torn enclave and create economic opportunities for its future residents. When asked whether US troops would be deployed to Gaza, Trump vowed to “do what is necessary.”

Trump made the remarks on Tuesday following his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. The US president reiterated his view that Palestinians should be permanently resettled elsewhere, adding that the US would “take over” Gaza and lead efforts to clear the destruction left by 15 months of war between Israel and Hamas.

“The US will take over the Gaza Strip. And we will do a job with it, too. We’ll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site,” Trump said, promising to “level the site and get rid of the destroyed buildings.”

Asked to clarify what exactly he meant by a “takeover,” the US leader said he envisions a “long-term ownership position” that would supposedly bring “great stability” to the entire Middle East. “Everybody I’ve spoken to loves the idea of the United States owning that piece of land, developing it, and creating thousands of jobs,” Trump claimed.

Trump also said he is not ruling out deploying US troops to support his Gaza development plan. “We’ll do what is necessary. If it’s necessary, we’ll do that. We’re going to take over that place,” he said.

Approximately 92% of homes in the Gaza Strip have been destroyed or severely damaged, and around 1.9 million people – more than 90% of Gaza’s population – have been displaced since the war broke out in October 2023, according to the UN. Trump, a former real estate mogul, has repeatedly referred to Gaza as a “demolition site” in recent weeks.

When asked who would populate Gaza once the US “takes over” and redevelops it, and whether the Palestinian people would be able to return, Trump responded:

“I envision… the world’s people living there. I think the potential in the Gaza Strip is unbelievable. And I think the entire world, representatives from all over the world, will be there and they’ll live there… Palestinians also,” he said. “I don’t want to be a wise guy. But the Riviera of the Middle East – this could be so magnificent.”

February 4, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump approves $1 billion in new bombs, armored bulldozers for Israel

The Cradle | February 4, 2025

US President Donald Trump has asked Congress to approve transferring $1 billion worth of additional bombs and other military equipment to Israel, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on 4 February.

The planned weapons transfer includes 4,700 bombs that weigh 1,000 lbs each, worth more than $700 million, as well as armored bulldozers built by Caterpillar, worth more than $300 million, the White House officials said.

The 4,700 bombs consist of 4,500 BLU-110s and 200 Mk-83s, which the Pentagon refers to as “general purpose bombs.”

The Caterpillar D9 armored bulldozers are used by the Israeli army to demolish Palestinians’ homes in the occupied West Bank and Gaza.

Funds for the weapons and equipment will come from the billions of dollars in US military aid provided to Israel annually at the expense of US taxpayers.

US-supplied bombs have significantly contributed to Israel’s killing of over 62,000 Palestinians in Gaza, the majority women and children, since the start of the war on 7 October 2023.

The report of the new weapons transfer comes as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Israeli officials are in Washington to meet with President Trump.

Netanyahu is expected to pressure Trump to approve additional arms transfers that were initially requested by former president Joe Biden, the WSJ added. These additional arms requests include $8 billion in new bombs, missiles, and artillery rounds.

Before Israel’s ground invasion of the city of Rafah in southern Gaza last spring, the US suspended just one shipment of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel.

President Trump lifted the suspension last week, saying he released the bombs because “they paid for them, and they have been waiting for them for a long time.”

Netanyahu later thanked Trump in a video message.

While a temporary ceasefire is currently in place in Gaza, Israel is escalating its war on Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, including through the use of airstrikes.

On 1 February, three Israeli airstrikes killed five Palestinians and injured three others in Jenin in the northern occupied West Bank. Among the victims was a 14-year-old.

During the recent Israeli army campaign in Jenin, dozens of houses have been demolished, and roads in the refugee camp there have been dug up by armored Israeli bulldozers, driving thousands of people from their homes.

Since the beginning of Israel’s war on Gaza in October 2023, Israeli forces and settlers have killed more than 900 Palestinians across the occupied West Bank.

As the war began, former national security minister Itamar Ben Gvir initiated a campaign to arm Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank with thousands of additional high-caliber rifles. He also intensified calls for Israel to annex the occupied Palestinian territory.

When asked about the possibility of annexation on Tuesday, Trump did not answer the question but stressed Israel’s small size.

“It’s a pretty small piece of land,” Trump said. “It’s amazing what they’ve been able to do when you think about it – a lot of good, smart brain power.”

February 4, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

‘This is NPR’: America’s Public Media Faces Reckoning on What it is

By Jonathan Turley | February 2, 2025

“This is NPR.” That tagline has long been used for National Public Radio, but what it is remains remarkably in doubt. NPR remains something of a curiosity. It is a state-subsidized media outlet in a country that rejects state media. It is a site that routinely pitches for its sponsors while insisting that it does not have commercials. That confusion may be on the way to a final resolution after the election. NPR is about to have a reckoning with precisely what it is and what it represents.

While I once appeared regularly on NPR, I grew more critical of the outlet as it became overtly political in its coverage and intolerant of opposing views.

Even after a respected editor, Uri Berliner, wrote a scathing account of the political bias at NPR, the outlet has doubled down on its one-sided coverage and commentary. Indeed, while tacking aggressively to the left and openly supporting narratives (including some false stories) from Democratic sources, NPR has dismissed the criticism. When many of us called on NPR to pick a more politically neutral CEO, it instead picked NPR CEO Katherine Maher, who was previously criticized for her strident political views.

Some have long questioned the federal government’s subsidization of a media organization. NPR itself continues to maintain that “federal funding is essential” to its work. However, this country has long rejected state media models as undermining democratic values.

This funding is likely more important given NPR’s cratering audience and revenueNPR’s audience has been declining for years. As a result, NPR has been forced to make deep staff cuts.

Ironically, NPR has one of the least diverse audiences. Its audience is overwhelmingly white, liberal, and more affluent than the rest of the country. Yet, while serving fewer and fewer people, it still expects most of the country to subsidize its programming.

Many of us have argued that NPR should compete with other radio companies in the free market. Notably, some Democratic members pushed to get Fox News dropped by cable carriers despite not being subsidized and ranking as the most-watched cable news network. (For full disclosure, I am a legal analyst at Fox.)

NPR and PBS are facing calls to remove the subsidy at long last. However, at the same time, pressure is coming from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). FCC Chair Brendan Carr is inquiring about NPR’s claim that it does not do commercial advertising.

Many of us have noticed that NPR has ramped up its sponsor statements with taglines about the products or firm’s clientele. Carr wrote, “I am concerned that NPR and PBS broadcasts could be violating federal law by airing commercials. In particular, it is possible that NPR and PBS member stations are broadcasting underwriting announcements that cross the line into prohibited commercial advertisements.”

The support for noncommercial radio and television stations fell under different regulations. It is hard to see the sponsor acknowledgments not as commercial advertising. It is common for for-profit outlets to have hosts read commercial sponsors.

Noncommercial educational broadcast stations-or NCEs are prohibited under Section399B of the Communications Act from airing commercials or other promotional announcements on behalf of for-profit entities.

What is interesting is that NPR stresses that the “NPR way” is actually better to reach consumers:

Across platforms, NPR sponsor messages are governed by slightly different regulations, but the guiding spirit is the same: guidelines are less about what’s ‘allowed’ and more about the approach that works best for brands to craft sponsor recognition messages that connect with people in ‘the NPR way.

It is common for law firms or companies to have hosts herald their work in given areas. It is also common to have product references.

The thrust of NPR’s pitch to advertisers is that this is a different type of pitch to attract more customers.  However, the federal government long ignored the obvious commercial advertisement.

There is little discernible difference between NPR and competitors beyond pretense when it comes to bias or promotions. What is striking is how NPR’s shrinking audience righteously opposes any effort to withdraw public subsidies. While dismissing the values or views of half the country, they expect those citizens to support its programming. What would the reaction be if Congress ordered the same subsidy for more popular competitors like Fox Radio?

I would oppose a subsidy for Fox as I do NPR. Each outlet should depend on its viewership for support. Notably, many liberal outlets continue to maintain their biased coverage despite falling ratings and revenues. The Washington Post has had to again lay off employees and has lost roughly half of its readership.

After being called in to right the ship, Washington Post publisher and CEO William Lewis delivered a truth bomb in the middle of the newsroom by telling the staff, “Let’s not sugarcoat it… We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right? I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”

Nevertheless, writers at the LA Times and other outlets continue to argue against balanced coverage. They would rather lose readers and revenue than their bias. So be it. These outlets have every right to offer their own slanted viewpoints or coverage. They do not have a right to a federal subsidy to insulate them from the response of consumers.

It is time to establish a bright-line rule against government subsidies for favored media outlets. “This is NPR” but it is not who we should be as a nation.

February 4, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite | , , | Leave a comment