An Israeli role in the Trump-Epstein files controversy?
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | January 2, 2026
Given the gravity of the newly emerging evidence about US President Donald Trump’s connections to the infamous Jeffrey Epstein, many questions are now being posed about the implications of this case on the American leader’s conduct. Of specific concern is whether the Israelis have any hand in influencing Washington in this matter.
Although the recent groundbreaking revelations, proving Jeffrey Epstein’s dealings with the Israeli regime, have been completely ignored by the Western corporate media, the facts are the facts. Long branded nothing more than “conspiracy theories”, leaked documents, first obtained by the Handala hacker group, prove that amongst other affiliations, the infamous child sex trafficker and financer had made efforts to help former Israeli Premier, Ehud Barak, to overthrow the then Syrian government.
These documents, reported upon only in the independent media, should raise alarm bells about just how far the Israeli rabbit hole goes. It is clear by now that Epstein himself was a staunch supporter of the Israeli regime, maintained close ties to it and its officials, even going as far as helping to draft op-eds for a former Israeli Prime Minister.
On the other hand, as more information emerges about Donald Trump’s relationship with the infamous pedophile financier, the potential implications for his role grow increasingly serious. Trump, for his part, has throughout this year decided to shrug off the Epstein Files issue, arguing that it is a “hoax” and snapping at reporters when the issue is brought up. The American President has also claimed that it is mainly Democrats who were guilty in this case, an allegation he makes when he isn’t labelling it a “Democrat hoax”.
Trump’s usual antics of pivoting to blame “the Democrats” aren’t paying off for him in this instance however, as his base quarrel with the facts that continue to emerge. For example, back in 2024, Trump had claimed that “I was never on Epstein’s plane”, only for this to be disproven later. More recently, it was revealed that he had been on board the child sex trafficker’s plane far more times than previously believed.
Evidently, there is not enough evidence to deem the US President actually guilty and lock him in jail, but the documents do indeed beg further questions to say the least. For example, a letter was recently released, handwritten by Epstein and addressed to convicted child molester Larry Nassar, in which he wrote of Trump that he ‘shares our love for young, nubile girls’.
There was even a document alleging that Trump and Epstein had raped a girl. Although the Department Of Justice (DOJ) has downplayed the claim, said to date back decades, the allegation is made more disturbing by reports that the alleged victim was later found dead. While there is no way to substantiate this accusation, it doesn’t exactly look good for the President.
There are currently countless theories being spread about the Trump-Epstein case, one of the most popular is that the US President was caught up in a blackmail scheme. For this specific allegation, there is no documented evidence. Yet, it is certainly a natural conclusion to come to.
At the very least, it would certainly suit Israeli interests to leverage the negative press surrounding the Epstein Files to push the President into conceding to further demands, or even use the issue as media coverage for their own aggressive actions.
Although this theory is currently unproven, if the Israeli intelligence or even US intelligence, had any knowledge of the Epstein Files, or had managed to collect incriminating material from the pro-Israeli child sex trafficker, they could certainly be willing to use that information to their benefit. The worst-case scenario here would be that the theories regarding Epstein being a Mossad agent, used to secure blackmail on power people, is true, then that would certainly mean that the US is in for a world of trouble.
Unproven theories aside, the evidence is certainly shocking and it is clear that Epstein did indeed have ties to Israelis, while Trump’s campaign was bankrolled by a who’s who of Zionist Billionaire’s, including the infamous Miriam Adelson. In less than a year, Trump had already bombed Iran, fought a small war against Yemen, cracked down on his own people’s First Amendment rights, while implementing a vision for Gaza that makes him the de facto dictator there and uses US forces to do the dirty work of the Israelis.
If anything, Donald Trump has shown himself to be an extremely weak President, one that is easily bullied into submission, so even without the Epstein Files, he has been willing to toss the American Constitution and International Law in the bin. All of this does beg the question as to whether the Israelis will be able to effectively weaponize the Epstein debacle to their favor and extract their demands.
Decrypted Data From UAV Shot Down in Novgorod Region Handed Over to US Side
Sputnik | January 1, 2026
Russian intelligence services were able to retrieve a flight mission file from one of the Ukrainian drones that attacked Putin’s residence.
Decrypted data from one of the Ukrainian drones that attacked Russian President Vladimir Putin’s residence have been handed over to the US mission in Moscow, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Thursday.
On Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that overnight from December 28 to 29, Kiev had launched an attack on the Russian presidential residence in Russia’s Novgorod Region using 91 drones.
“Materials containing decrypted routing data and the flight controller of the Ukrainian drone that was shot down by Russian air defense systems on the night of December 29, 2025, over the Novgorod Region during a terrorist attack on the Russian presidential residence were handed over to a representative of the military attache’s office at the US Embassy in Moscow,” the ministry said in a statement.
The obtained data unequivocally confirm that the drones were on their way to attack Putin’s residence, the head of the Russian General Staff’s Main Intelligence Directorate, Igor Kostyukov, who delivered the files to the US Embassy, said.
“We believe that this step will remove all questions and will contribute to establishing the truth,” Kostyukov added.
Russia treating latest drone attack on the Putin residence as more sinister than just another terrorist attack
By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR | January 1, 2026
… this is not the first time that Ukraine tried to hit Putin with a drone attack… Remember the May 2023 attack on the Kremlin? Here is the list of the most prominent Ukrainian-sponsored terrorist attacks since 2022:
- Assassination of Darya Dugina (August 20, 2022) A car bomb in Moscow killed journalist and activist Darya Dugina (daughter of ultranationalist Alexander Dugin). Russia’s FSB accused Ukraine’s special services of orchestrating it, claiming a Ukrainian woman carried it out. Although Ukraine denied involvement US intelligence later assessed that elements within the Ukrainian government authorized it.
- Crimean Bridge Explosion (October 8, 2022) A truck bomb damaged the Kerch Bridge linking Russia to occupied Crimea, killing several civilians. Putin called it a “terrorist act” by Ukrainian services. Ukraine initially denied but later acknowledged responsibility for the attack, claiming the bridge as a legitimate military target.
- Nord Stream Pipelines Sabotage (September 26, 2022) Underwater explosions damaged the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea. Russia accused Ukraine (or Western proxies) of terrorism to disrupt energy supplies. Investigations pointed to sabotage, with later reports (including German warrants) suspecting a Ukrainian team; Ukraine denied state involvement.
- Assassination Attempts on Pro-Russian Figures and Journalists Russia has labeled multiple killings or attempts (e.g., Vladlen Tatarsky in April 2023 café bombing; other bloggers/war correspondents) as Ukrainian terrorism.
- Drone and Sabotage Attacks on Infrastructure Russia routinely calls Ukrainian drone strikes on oil depots, refineries, airbases, and Moscow buildings “terrorist acts” (hundreds since 2022). Notable: May 2023 Kremlin drone incident (Russia claimed attempt on Putin).
- Border Incursions/Raids (e.g., Belgorod/Bryansk, 2023–2024) Cross-border raids by anti-Putin Russian partisans (e.g., Russian Volunteer Corps, operating from Ukraine) were branded terrorism by Russia, with claims of Ukrainian backing.
- Crocus City Hall Concert Attack (March 22, 2024) Gunmen killed 145+ in Moscow suburb. ISIS-K claimed full responsibility (verified by U.S./Western intelligence).
- Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov (December 17, 2024): Head of Russia’s Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Protection Troops. Killed with his assistant by a bomb hidden in an electric scooter outside his Moscow apartment. Ukraine’s SBU claimed responsibility, calling him a “legitimate target” for alleged chemical weapons use. Russia classified it as terrorism.
- Lieutenant General Yaroslav Moskalik (April 25, 2025): Deputy head of the General Staff’s main operational department. Killed by a car bomb near Moscow. Russia blamed Ukrainian services.
- In Bryansk Oblast (May 31, 2025) (near Vygonichi): A highway/road bridge exploded and collapsed onto railway tracks just as a passenger train (Klimovo–Moscow route, carrying ~388 passengers) was passing underneath. The debris crushed parts of the train, killing at least 7 people (including the driver) and injuring 66–113 others (reports vary, including children).
- Lieutenant General Fanil Sarvarov (December 22, 2025): Head of the General Staff’s army operational training directorate. Killed by a bomb under his car in southern Moscow. R
So why has this latest attack by Ukraine sparked such fury on the part of the Russians? This is something more than orchestrated outrage. I think it is a combination of factors, starting with the fact that the attack began while Ukraine’s Zelensky was meeting with Donald Trump for the ostensible purpose of trying to craft a peace proposal for Russia. Whether Zelensky was witting of the plan is not relevant. This was an attack planned and executed with the assistance of Western intelligence, possibly including the CIA, and the timing and the intended target removed any doubt on the part of the Russians that the West could be trusted to negotiate an honest deal.
We still do not know if President Putin was at the residence… If he was, then it is not out of the question for the Russians to conclude that this was a deliberate attempt to kill Putin using the peace talks as a ruse. We will soon find out how pissed off the Russians are when they carry out their promise to retaliate. … Full article
Trump tells India to stop purchasing Iran oil, buy Venezuelan instead
Press TV – February 1, 2026
US President Donald Trump has told India to stop purchasing oil from Iran and instead supply its energy demands by buying crude from Venezuela.
“India is coming in, and they’re going to be buying Venezuelan oil as opposed to buying it from Iran. So, we’ve already made that deal, the concept of the deal,” Trump told reporters on board Air Force One on Saturday.
Earlier, Trump had threatened to slap fresh tariffs on India if New Delhi did not halt its purchase of oil from US adversaries.
However, New Delhi had resisted the threat, reminding the US president that Washington had no authority to determine the trading relations of other nations.
Trump is openly saying that he has taken full control of Venezuela’s oil industry following the US forces’ kidnapping of the South American country’s president, Nicolas Maduro.
Under the pretext of leading a cartel of drug and gun traffickers, Maduro was abducted from the presidential palace in Caracas last month and transferred to a prison facility in New York pending trial.
In the meantime, Trump has announced that the United States is controlling the proceeds of Venezuela’s oil sales. The Latin American country is among the top oil producers with the biggest proven reserves in the world.
“This Oil will be sold at its market price, and that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social earlier last month.
Legal experts say Trump’s claim to Venezuela’s oil reserves is unlawful. There is expert consensus that Venezuela’s oil proceeds belong solely to its people.
Did Netanyahu just ask Trump for another war — and get it?
By Trita Parsi – Responsible Statecraft – December 30, 2025
During a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Trump said that he will allow Israel to attack Iran once again to strike its ballistic missiles.
But what exactly does that mean? Will the U.S. be involved in the actual strikes? Will it “limit” its involvement to shooting down Iran’s retaliatory missiles?
If the former, Trump is not just “allowing” Israel to strike; the U.S. will actually be at war with Iran. This would be a betrayal of his promise to his base to keep America out of wars (he has, of course, violated that already).
Moreover, unlike the nuclear program, which incorporates a small number of known facilities, the missile program is spread throughout the country in a large number of hidden facilities, many of them probably unknown to the U.S./Israel.
Thus, Trump will likely not be able to frame this as mere “military action” rather than war. Nor will he likely be able to negotiate with Tehran a limited Iranian response since the missiles are Iran’s last line of defense — the last leg of its deterrence.
Tehran has gone to great lengths to avoid a military confrontation with Washington, but just because it has shown restraint in the past does not mean that it can afford to do so in this scenario. Indeed, given that Iran will be totally exposed without its missiles, it will likely reckon that it has no choice but to strike directly at U.S. targets.
Even if Trump opts to “only” support Israel defensively in yet another Israeli choice of war — which is the position Biden took — it nevertheless incentivizes Israel to restart war, as the U.S. is lessening the cost for Israel to do so.
The cost to the United States is great even in this scenario. Washington depleted 25% of its THAAD interceptors in the course of 12 days this past summer — for Israel’s war of choice, in a region four American Presidents have declared no longer is vital to U.S. national security.
As I wrote last week, every time Trump caves to Netanyahu and agrees to another war, it only prompts Israel to come back to Trump after a few months with another war plan for Americans to give their blood and tax dollars to.
This will go on endlessly until Trump decides to end it.
Trita Parsi is an Iranian-born Swedish writer and activist, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, and founder and former president of the National Iranian American Council
The Bari Weiss Playbook: How a Zionist Operative Conquered American Media

By Jose Alberto Nino | The Occidental Observer | December 31, 2025
Long before she ran a newsroom, Bari Weiss was already running a campaign. The target was anyone she perceived as a threat to Israel. In the mid-2000s, at Columbia University, she helped found a student effort that marketed itself as a defense of Jewish students and Zionist speech in an environment she portrayed as hostile.
The controversy reached its zenith with the release of Columbia Unbecoming, a documentary created in collaboration with The David Project, which leveled accusations against Middle East Studies faculty for their alleged intimidation of students who expressed pro-Israel views. The film circulated online as video testimony that Jewish students were allegedly under threat on campus.
The counterattack naturally came quickly. Civil liberties advocates warned that encouraging students to monitor faculty for ideological infractions would chill speech and collapse academic freedom into factional policing. An online critique from the Columbia ecosystem framed the campaign as overreach and a template for future pressure tactics. Such concerns proved to be prescient, as Jewish students would keep tabs on Columbia professors and report them for anti-Zionist and antisemitic conduct after October 7, 2023.
That early fight showcased Weiss’s primordial instinct to go to the mat for her tribe. This did not come out of the blue. Weiss grew up in a politically engaged Jewish household in Pittsburgh, where her father Lou Weiss served on the National Council for AIPAC and frequently organized missions to Israel, profoundly shaping her early Zionist identity.
With unwavering devotion to Zionist principles, Weiss navigated the political landscape with a singular focus, her commitment to advancing Jewish interests remaining unshaken by the petty squabbles and transient allegiances of partisan politics. By the time she rose inside legacy media, she carried a worldview that opportunistically fused free speech rhetoric with strong stances on Israel and antisemitism.
Weiss’s ascent mirrored the classic trajectory of the modern mandarin class, ascending the rungs of the opinion-making apparatus that manufactures public consent. Her journey began in the trenches of reporting, leading to an editorial position at The Wall Street Journal. In that capacity, she gained the skills of gatekeeping and narrative framing, which she would continue to employ as she climbed up the media ladder.
In 2017, she landed at the New York Times opinion section after she believed that the WSJ took too hard of a pro-Trump stance. She described herself “as center left on most issues”, but the issue of Israel was non-negotiable for her, when push came to shove. Ultimately, her position at the Times did not hold. In July 2020, she announced her exit with a resignation letter that accused the institution of enforcing ideological conformity, tolerating internal bullying, and letting social media pressure shape editorial decisions.
While the letter publicly signaled her break with legacy liberalism, it was fundamentally an act of strategic repositioning. A deeper, more calculating motive propelled this departure: the dawning realization that the very media establishments she inhabited were losing their effectiveness as guardians of Jewish interests. Her subsequent career trajectory into new media ventures confirms this was not an ideological conversion, but a pragmatic pivot to more reliable channels of influence.
In 2021 she took matters into her own hands by launching a Substack newsletter called Common Sense, then rebranded it into The Free Press, positioning it as a supposed bastion for free speech. The Free Press outwardly curated a portfolio of anti-woke commentary on issues like gender ideology and campus radicalism. However, these topics served as a popular façade for the publication’s central, animating purpose: the advancement of Zionism. Weiss meticulously assembled a stable of contributors—including prominent voices like Douglas Murray, Niall Ferguson, Konstantin Kisin, and Eli Lake—whose primary alignment was a staunch defense of Israeli policy, making the outlet’s broader ideological commitment unmistakable.
Israel was the unwavering constant, serving not as a footnote but as the central organizing principle of her moral worldview. She treated anti-Zionism as a mask for antisemitism and made that position central to her public identity, a framework reflected in discussion around her book and its reception. Her 2019 book How to Fight Anti Semitism became the manifesto version of the same argument.
The 2018 mass shooting at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue, in which Robert Bowers murdered eleven Jewish congregants, threw Weiss’s propensity for targeting the hard Right into stark relief. The atrocity held profound personal significance for her, as the synagogue was the site of her Bat Mitzvah ceremony. Weiss pinpointed Bowers’ motive: his belief in organized Jewry’s outsized promotion of mass migration. She conceded this factual premise during an NPR interview, highlighting HIAS’s active role in facilitating refugee settlement, although it was much more than just HIAS—the entire organized Jewish community.
Weiss offered a trenchant analysis of the anti-Zionist left, warning that the climate of intolerance fostered by cancel culture posed a clear and present danger to American Jews—a concern that crystallized for her following the violence in Pittsburgh. She developed this argument while headlining a virtual event on June 6th dedicated to exploring the phenomenon of cancel culture through a specifically Jewish framework.
“I have felt more of a sense of alarm over the past few weeks now than I did in the aftermath of the attack on my synagogue,” said Weiss, referring to the 2021 Israel-Palestine confrontation. “Anti-Semitism,” she said, “has moved from the lunatic fringe firmly into the mainstream of American cultural life and into the halls of Congress.”
Weiss went mask off In October 2023, during the Israel-Hamas war, when her ethno-religious activism was on full display. Refaat Alareer, a professor and poet from Gaza, provoked outrage with a since-deleted tweet in which he jested about unverified claims that Hamas fighters had incinerated a Jewish baby in an oven, sarcastically asking, “with or without baking powder.” Weiss immediately pounced and quote-tweeted this post, highlighting it as an example of moral depravity. Alareer reported receiving death threats following Weiss’s post to her large following. He posted, “If I get killed by Israeli bombs or my family is harmed, I blame Bari Weiss and her likes,” arguing that her platforming of his tweet marked him as a target. The Israeli military would then kill Alareer, along with multiple members of his family, in a single, targeted airstrike on December 6. 2023.
The allegation from Alareer’s supporters was unequivocal: Weiss had committed stochastic terrorism. They argued she deliberately employed her massive reach to channel hostility and, by inevitable extension, the attention of military and intelligence agencies toward Alareer, a process that ended with his assassination.
Weiss’ fanatic commitment to her tribe was recognized by the likes of David Ellison—CEO of Skydance Media and the son of billionaire Oracle founder Larry Ellison. The younger Ellison had been considering how to revitalize CBS News even before the Paramount acquisition closed. Both David and Larry Ellison are described as “extremely fervent supporters of Israel,” with Larry being a “known Trump supporter” and David “at least suspected to be” pro-Trump as well.
Throughout summer 2025, as Skydance awaited regulatory approval for the Paramount merger, Ellison held discussions with Weiss about integrating The Free Press‘s editorial vision into CBS News. Democracy Now! reported that “Ellison has gotten very close with Bari Weiss”. CNN added that Ellison was “interested in infusing Weiss’s editorial perspective into CBS News.” The deal was eventually finalized in early October, Paramount officially announced the acquisition of The Free Press in a deal valued at approximately $150 million in cash and Paramount shares, to be disbursed gradually and potentially varying based on Paramount’s stock performance. Further, Weiss was appointed editor-in-chief of CBS News—a newly created position.
In her position, Weiss reports directly to David Ellison, the CEO of Paramount Skydance, not through the normal CBS News chain of command. The Free Press maintains independent operations as a separate brand within Paramount. Weiss will collaborate with Tom Cibrowski, president of CBS News, though they occupy parallel rather than hierarchical positions.
A lifetime of dedicated advocacy for Zionist causes has yielded its intended dividends for Bari Weiss. Her trajectory demonstrates a remarkable consistency, guided unerringly by the twin lodestars of perceived Jewish safety and the legitimization of the Zionist endeavor. In the end, Bari Weiss’s career trajectory reveals a fundamental truth: she is not a journalist in any meaningful sense, but a zealous agent for Jewish tribal power, making her a conscious and effective enemy of the gentile civilization whose institutions she has so skillfully subverted.
Stanislav Krapivnik: Massive Escalation – Attack on Putin’s Residence
Glenn Diesen | December 30, 2026
Stanislav Krapivnik is a former US Army officer, supply chain exec and military-political expert, now based in Russia. He was born in Lugansk during the Soviet times, migrated to the US as a child and served in the US army. Krapivnik discusses the attack on Putin’s residence.
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen
Patreon: / glenndiesen
Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:
PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenn…
Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f
Dayton At 30: US Betrayal Old And New
By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | December 30, 2025
December 12th marked the 30th anniversary of the Dayton Accords’ signing, which ended the Bosnian civil war after three-and-a-half years of brutal fighting. While consistently hailed in the mainstream as a US diplomatic triumph, the agreement imposed a discriminatory and unlawful constitution upon Sarajevo enshrining division between the country’s three main ethnicities – Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs – and a Byzantine political system, while carving the country into two separate ‘entities’. Bosnia has constantly teetered on collapse ever-after, sustained purely by prolonged NATO and UN occupation.
Moreover, the Dayton Accords represented a rank betrayal of Washington’s Bosniak allies. In the conflict’s leadup, the US consistently encouraged them – led by President Alija Izetbegobic – to reject peace talks. After the war’s eruption, he was emboldened to keep fighting and spurn negotiations, strung along with effusive public support from US officials, and covert military assistance. Come Dayton, the Bosniaks were forced to accept a far worse settlement than any previously proffered. Parallels with the Ukraine proxy war are ineluctable.
The Bosnian conflict’s greatest tragedy is it could’ve been avoided not only without a shot being fired, but no territorial carve-up or ethnic partition of any kind. In the years before its April 1992 outbreak, numerous attempts were made to reach an equitable settlement negating any prospect of war. In summer 1991, as Yugoslavia was beginning to rapidly disintegrate, representatives of Izetbegovic met with Bosnian Serb leaders in Belgrade, to discuss the then-republic’s future.
The two sides hammered out a simple but ingenious plan. Bosnia would be a sovereign, autonomous, undivided state, in confederation with Serbia and Montenegro. Bosniak-majority territory within Serbia would also be ceded to Sarajevo’s administration. The agreement emphasised the necessity of the republic’s diverse population “living together in freedom and full equality.” Bosnia would remain part of Yugoslavia, albeit under a revised federal system, in which the country’s constituent parts were essentially independent, and “completely equal”.
Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic not only agreed to the plan, but further proposed Izetbegovic be the new Yugoslavia’s first federal President for a five year term, invested with the power to appoint military leaders and diplomats, and serve as the country’s head of state. Izetbegovic’s representatives signed off on the agreement, before returning to Sarajevo. Initially, the Bosniak leader was on board. However, according to numerous sources, Izetbegovic withheld his formal endorsement pending a planned trip to the US.
Upon his return, Izetbegovic rejected the deal. This was neither the first nor last blatant example of Stateside officials torpedoing fruitful peace efforts before, and during, the war. The conflict itself was triggered by the personal interventions of Warren Zimmermann, US ambassador to Yugoslavia. Echoes of Boris Johnson’s April 2022 sabotage of peace talks between Russia and Ukraine are palpable. In early 1992, in a desperate final bid to prevent conflict, the EU drew up the “Lisbon Agreement”.
Under its terms, Bosnia would be an independent country completely separate from Yugoslavia, divided into “cantons” dominated by whichever ethnic/religious community was most populous locally. Bosniaks and Serbs were allocated 43% of the state’s territory each, and Croats the remainder. The three were to share power nationally, with a weak central government. It was signed by leaders of the republic’s ethnic groups in March that year.
However, Izetbegovic was concerned the plan partitioned Bosnia into distinct entities, with the prospect its Croat and Serb components could secede thereafter. He voiced these concerns to Zimmerman, who told him, “if he didn’t like it, why sign it?” With that blessing – and prospect of US recognition of an independent Bosnia, and economic and military support – Izetbegovic withdrew his signature, sparking war. Zimmermann later reflected, “the Lisbon Agreement wasn’t bad at all.” Indeed, it was considerably better than the future Dayton Accords, for all concerned.
‘Military Situation’
Bill Clinton made the Bosnian conflict a core plank of his 1992 Presidential election campaign. Attacking incumbent George H. W. Bush for inaction on the crisis, Clinton proposed a variety of aggressive policies, including arming the Bosniaks to the teeth, and outright US military intervention in the form of airstrikes. Expectation was high Washington’s approach to Bosnia would become considerably more belligerent immediately upon Clinton’s inauguration, if he won the vote.
Clinton’s rhetoric shocked the Bush administration, which branded his warlike pledges “reckless”. Little did the public know, this perspective was entirely in line with US intelligence thinking. A vast trove of declassified files related to the Bosnian war show the CIA and other spying agencies were steadfastly opposed to greater US involvement from the conflict’s earliest stages. After Clinton’s victory, the US National Intelligence Council produced a comprehensive explainer guide for his transition team on the civil war.
The document laid out all manner of issues associated with different strategies Clinton had mulled on the campaign trail. For example, US intelligence assessed how, “even with additional weapons,” Bosnian government forces “could not substantially alter the military situation.” Increasing arms deliveries would produce “greater casualties but no resolution of the conflict,” and “attempting to reclaim all of the territory the Bosnian Serbs now occupy would require massive Western military intervention,” including a ground invasion.
Overall, US intelligence believed “the most optimistic possible outcome” was preserving a “fragmented Muslim-majority state following a partition of Bosnia.” This was the exact substance of a peace plan then-under consideration, drawn up by European Community and UN negotiators David Owen and Cyrus Vance. Records of a secret February 1993 meeting between senior US government, intelligence and military officials show attendees were determined to covertly wreck the Vance-Owen plan – which granted Bosnian Serbs 43% of the country – while remaining ostensibly committed to its implementation.

One means by which Washington ensured Vance-Owen failed was by consistently refusing to publicly rule out military action, while secretly funnelling vast arms shipments – in breach of a UN embargo – and foreign fighters to Sarajevo. US intelligence repeatedly warned the White House such actions steeply increased the Bosnian government’s expectations of subsequent Western military intervention on their side. This meant Sarajevo would be resistant to consider let alone accept peace agreements, even when badly losing the conflict.
US military intervention finally did come, in the form of NATO’s Operation Deliberate Force, an 11-day saturation bombing of Bosnian Serb territory conducted over August/September 1995. This finally set the stage for the Dayton talks, which commenced November 1st that year, after all sides agreed to “basic principles” underpinning negotiations. Bosniak representatives had every reason to expect the US to unflinchingly fight their corner – but they were in for a nasty surprise.
‘Moral Position’
From the Dayton talks’ inception, it was clear Washington harboured little favouritism towards the Bosniaks. After two weeks, no progress had been made, despite Serb delegate Slobodan Milosevic being eager to make significant concessions. The US also offered Sarajevo numerous inducements, including a controversial program to arm and train Bosniak forces over subsequent years. Central to Izetbegovic’s intransigence was the US-endorsed peace agreement splitting Bosnia into two ‘entities’, with a Serb-majority internal republic – Republika Srpska – governing 49% of the country.

In other words, Dayton handed the Bosnian Serbs more territory than any prior proposed peace settlement, while effectively entrenching the very partition that influenced Izetbegovic’s resistance to the Lisbon Agreement, and produced all-out war. His opposition to the Accords was nonetheless battered down by the blunt-force threat of all-out US betrayal if he refused to acquiesce. On November 15th, a series of “talking points” were provided to Clinton’s National Security Advisor Tony Lake, in advance of a personal meeting with Izetbegovic.
Lake was instructed to spell out dire “consequences” the Bosniaks would suffer, if they failed to sign off on the US-dictated peace plan. He would relay how Clinton understood Izetbegovic was in an “extremely difficult” position, but the US President was “disappointed… Dayton has failed to produce agreement” after so much talk. “If we are successful at Dayton, the President will help you make [the] case that peace achieved at Dayton was just,” Lake was directed to say. He would add:
“Territorial proposals are not perfect, but…likely best deal possible. More fighting will be costly with no guaranteed results. Time for peace…Many in [the] US could use failure in Dayton as [an] excuse to disengage from peace process and abandon [the] moral position we have defended to this point.”
If Izetbegovic’s government was “unwilling to complete [a] peace agreement that Serbs can accept” endorsed by Washington, Lake would threaten there would be “no US forces on the ground, NATO implementation, and economic aid and reconstruction package.” Furthermore, US Congress would not approve, and the Clinton administration would not request, the “equip and train” program for Bosniak forces. UN peacekeepers would also “withdraw” from the country, meaning “Bosnia could find itself without any form of military support from the West.”

“Much at stake for you [and] Bosnia,” Lake’s talking points for Izetbegovic concluded. “Encourage you to think carefully about Dayton… a very good result is within reach; do not let it slip away.” Successfully coerced, Izetbegovic and his team signed the Accords. Dayton’s terms have been a sore source of contention for Bosniaks ever since. Veteran Bosnian politician Haris Silajdzic, a key Izetbegovic acolyte and Bosniak President 2006 – 2010, has dedicated much of his political career to invalidating them.
In a secret March 2007 discussion with the US embassy in Sarajevo, Silajdzic ranted, “we had to sign Dayton with a gun at our heads.” Fast forward to today, and Kiev stares down a similar barrel. Washington pressures Volodymyr Zelensky to accept peace at all costs. This could include major territorial concessions, among other hitherto unthinkable compromises. If only Kiev had implemented the Minsk Accords – and learned the obvious lessons of the Bosnian war – this invidious position could’ve been avoided entirely.
Trump Says Hamas Will Be Given a ‘Short Period of Time’ to Disarm
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | December 30, 2025
President Donald Trump said that Hamas will be given a short period of time to disarm, threatening to be “hell to pay” if the Palestinian group refuses.
During a Press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump was asked about demilitarizing Hamas. “They will be given a very short period of time to disarm. If they don’t disarm, as they agreed to do, there will be hell to pay,” he said. If Hamas does not disarm, “it will be horrible for them, horrible. It’s going to be really, really bad for them.”
Trump suggested that Hamas would be disarmed by Middle Eastern countries, rather than the US or Israel, which are willing to commit forces to demilitarize Gaza.
However, Hamas did not agree to disarm under the October agreement. At the time, a US official told Fox News that the Israel and Hamas ceasefire agreement was negotiated at “lightning speed” and did not address several key issues. Two outstanding questions are what group will secure Gaza and whether Hamas will disarm.
Hamas has maintained that it will only disarm if it is in the process of creating an independent Palestinian state.
Since the signing of the truce earlier this year, Tel Aviv has taken several steps to block the creation of a Palestinian state, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeated his long-standing position against the two-state solution.
Is Israel About to Return to Genocide? Three Scenarios for What Comes Next
By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | December 30, 2025
With Tel Aviv openly rejecting withdrawal and insisting on disarmament, the “ceasefire” risks sliding into either renewed mass killing or a slow-motion attempt to impose control and displacement.
Debate rages on over what Phase Two of the Gaza Ceasefire will look like, as US President Donald Trump demands the disarmament of the Palestinian resistance. Meanwhile, Gaza refuses to hand over its weapons. Most analyses are, however, missing the mark when it comes to reading Tel Aviv’s calculations.
The so-called Gaza Ceasefire has proven itself to be little more than an extended pause in the mass slaughter of civilians. While it is still described as a ceasefire, there were three major changes to the predicament on the ground that took hold during “Phase One,” as the war continued to rage on.
The first major change, perhaps the most notable, was that the Israelis committed to no longer killing an average of around 100 civilians on a daily basis. The second was that more aid entered Gaza, although nowhere near the amount required or agreed to. The third was a mutual prisoner exchange.
Assessing the strength and direction of the ceasefire in its first phase is important to reading what the second phase may have in store, if it is even reached.
To the Israelis, the benefits of the partial implementation of Phase One were numerous. To begin with, the least consequential element, they relieved themselves of the burden of releasing their captives. This was important for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in that he managed to clear the topic of returning the captives, especially as he heads into a new election cycle.
Then we have the other benefits for the Israelis. Gaza exited the international headlines, as daily killings appeared too low to even register as a major issue in the biased Western press. Meanwhile, Israeli soldiers were able to continue doing the exact same work inside Gaza that has constituted the majority of its military operations throughout the genocide: building demolition work.
These demolition missions, for which a privatized Israeli workforce has been employed to operate alongside the occupation army’s engineering units, have constituted the vast majority of the military’s efforts on the ground. Face-to-face combat on the ground has never been a notable feature of the Israeli genocide; they simply refused to actually fight the Palestinian resistance groups.
One thing that troubled the Israelis was that this demolition work, which sometimes included destroying entrances to tunnels, came with a high risk of running into armed ambushes. The Palestinian fighters would prepare traps and set up ambush operations for their forces, especially when Israel would invade or reinvade any new area they had not retained a permanent presence in.
Phase One of the Gaza Ceasefire agreement, therefore, guaranteed that soldiers were not going to be subjected to the same dangers as before, as the Palestinian resistance groups would halt all operations against the invading army.
It is important that this reality is established when analyzing Israel’s decision-making, because what is being done to Gaza is a genocide, not a conventional war. Israel’s intent is to wipe out Gaza, ensuring that it becomes totally uninhabitable, with the intention of mass expulsion in mind. This is also why they rarely targeted the armed wings of the Palestinian factions, focusing on maximum damage to the civilian population instead.
Any other way of framing this issue is misleading and whitewashes what the Israeli regime has committed since October 7, 2023. It also robs any analyst of his or her ability to assess Israel’s calculations critically.
With this in mind, consider that the Israelis have now had over two months where their armed forces have still been working, but have had a break from any fighting or the fear of being ambushed. Israeli tanks, armored personnel carriers, and other equipment were also being repaired, as the decision-makers in Tel Aviv and Washington designed new plans for their fronts against Iran, Yemen, and Lebanon.
They also needed fewer soldiers for security reasons, as a so-called Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) took over in monitoring the situation and helping shape the realities imposed on the ground. Every country involved in the CMCC was therefore made complicit in the genocide.
This phase came with the additional benefit for the Israelis that they now had the space to experiment with new approaches, conjure up more conspiracies, and seek to find a way to ensure the ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip occurs. As Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has explicitly stated, his army has no intention of withdrawing from the besieged coastal territory.
Phase Two and What It Will Show Us
If we establish the fact that the Israelis are adamant on achieving ethnic cleansing, that their military operations have always sought to achieve this goal, and that they are continuing to conspire to achieve this, then we have arrived at the starting point from which to assess the implementation of a so-called Phase Two.
During the first phase, the groundwork was laid for a new set of conspiracies against the people of Gaza. The population was subjected to countless pressures, which the criminal CMCC oversaw, including the deprivation of sustainable living conditions, with only a handful of its nongovernmental organizations even raising issues about it.
Despite the best efforts of the Hamas-affiliated government security forces to restore order, they were dealing with an impossible situation. Over a million people live in tents that are unstable or susceptible to dire weather conditions, a lack of adequate medical supplies, sanitary supplies, and many food items are even restricted. Amid this, most people don’t have jobs, few have adequate salaries coming in, and even for those in a better economic standing, they remain traumatized and unable to return to their homes. Inevitably, this leads to social issues that no regular security force can fully repel.
Meanwhile, the Israelis expand the so-called Yellow Line, behind which they were supposed to remain, instead using this line to execute anyone who comes within a few hundred meters of it, thus deterring them from returning to their own homes or land, where they could possibly plant small crops. Behind this ever-expanding occupying line, the Israeli military and private contractors destroy more and more infrastructure. All of this is monitored by the US-Israeli-led CMCC.
The plan is rather overt in its goals, but still vague in its precise stages of implementation. Both US and Israeli officials have made it crystal clear that they seek reconstruction only inside the Israeli-controlled portion of the Gaza Strip, where five ISIS-linked death squads are being strengthened by Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
The UN’s most shameful Resolution 2803, passed by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in November, makes it apparent that the goal is to implement a “Board of Peace” (BoP) and International Stabilization Force (ISF). The BoP makes Donald Trump the de facto ruler of Gaza, and the ISF is set to be a multinational invasion force tasked with fighting the Palestinian resistance factions.
This Monday, the new spokesperson for the Qassam Brigades of Hamas, who has also taken on the alias Abu Obeida, announced a staunch opposition to disarmament, instead calling on the Israelis to disarm, as they are the ones responsible for committing a genocide. All the Palestinian factions, with the exception of the mainstream branch of Fatah, which controls the Palestinian Authority (PA), are united on this issue.
The PA is in favor of Donald Trump’s plan for him to rule the Gaza Strip and disarm the resistance by force, but it is irrelevant in terms of representing Palestinians. This authority only continues to exist because it is propped up by the Israelis, Americans, Saudis, and Europeans, and its popularity, beyond its base of employees, is in the single digits among the Palestinian people. It does not even represent the sentiments of the majority of Fatah supporters anymore.
All of this is to say that if any Phase Two is going to be implemented, neither side is going to be in agreement about it. Netanyahu’s government demands disarmament, while the Palestinian factions demand Gaza’s self-governance and will only disarm by handing over their weapons to a newly established Palestinian state. Hamas is clear that it would allow a technocratic administration to take over Gaza and is not demanding that it remain as the government of Gaza.
Considering that neither side can agree upon the basis on which a Phase Two can begin, keeping in mind that Israel and the US are the sides with military dominance, there are three ways that this will unfold:
The US and Israel will proceed with aggressively implementing their plan, as laid out in the shameful UNSC Resolution 2803. They will begin deploying a regime change force and attempt to implement a number of schemes to start a slow ethnic cleansing of the territory amid this.
Israel will restart its full-scale genocide.
The shaky ceasefire will continue, but remain in limbo. This will mean periodic spats of violence, as the Israelis and the US attempt to slowly and partially implement the ISF-BoP agenda. This will be a process during which the people of Gaza will be subjected to more pressure, but not enough to collapse the agreement altogether.
An Aggressive Phase Two?
The first means of implementing the next phase of the Gaza Ceasefire initiative would likely buckle under the immense pressures destined to befall it. If we look at the ISF alone, it is a recipe for total disaster.
Forcing the “International Stabilization Force” aggressively on the people of Gaza means that it will start going after Palestinian resistance factions. Two major issues will immediately pop up. The resistance will certainly kill some of these foreign soldiers, who will return to their home nations in body bags and cause domestic chaos. A heavy-handed approach here would also likely result in civilians being killed, another major debacle in its own right.
The Israelis are adamant that Türkiye, Qatar, and other Muslim-majority nations they take issue with cannot deploy their armed forces in Gaza. Whether they get their way or not, consider that this armed force would mean gathering a few hundred soldiers from one country, a few thousand from another, and so on.
If this kind of ISF was sent into Gaza aggressively, considering that so far there has been no agreement concerning how to implement this invasion initiative or which countries will participate, it will be thrust into a complex urban warfare environment. They all speak different languages, work off different military doctrines, are ill-prepared, likely ill-equipped for their tasks, and, according to reports, will only number in the tens of thousands.
Donald Trump recently boasted that the nations which, he says, are participating in his so-called “peace plan” will work to destroy Hamas if it refuses to disarm, even bragging that Israel would not be required to act and that foreign invading forces would do all the work for them.
In order to conduct a regime change operation of this nature, the ISF would have to be at least 250,000 men strong. Bear in mind that mobilizing a multinational invasion force of this kind would take many months, an enormous amount of funding, and the key feature would be that it actually fights, unlike the Israeli army, which refused to go after the Palestinian resistance factions on the ground.
If an ISF that numbers only in the tens of thousands is going to try and defeat the Palestinian resistance, it will suffer heavier casualties than the Israeli military did. Any Arab or Muslim-majority nation deploying forces could experience mass protests or rebellions against their role in the genocide. Without going into the fine details, it makes no sense and if it is tried, it will quickly fail. Even the Egyptians, who along with Israel will be the guarantors of the strategy, have been advocating for a force equivalent to Lebanon’s UNIFIL to enter Gaza, which is not what UNSC Resolution 2803 approved.
Israel Collapses the Ceasefire
The next way this can go is that Benjamin Netanyahu decides to collapse the ceasefire altogether. Some argue this wouldn’t happen because the US is committed to its “peace plan.” This is not a serious argument. Donald Trump has demonstrated that he will go along with whatever the Israelis choose. He isn’t a strong leader on this question and clearly possesses a level of knowledge about the region that you would expect of a public high school student who took history and didn’t really bother to listen.
There are only two circumstances under which the Israelis will collapse the ceasefire in its entirety. They no longer believe that any of the schemes they sought to implement under the so-called ceasefire will work, and there is some kind of political benefit to returning to all-out combat. The second reason is that they are scared that the Palestinian resistance may launch some kind of offensive while the Israeli army is also battling Hezbollah and Iran.
Collapsing the ceasefire demonstrates that the Israelis are without any direction and lack a coherent plan to actually end the fighting on the Gaza front. It means that they are simply reverting to all-out genocide, with the hope that eventually an opportunity arises which will allow a mass ethnic cleansing event, or a slow process of ethnic cleansing as they exterminate tens of thousands more civilians.
Stuck Between Phase One and Phase Two
Another option is for the Israelis and Americans to stall the collapse of the ceasefire. It would mean placing the situation in limbo, not allowing its total collapse, but undergoing a process of trial and error, whereby it slowly attempts to force elements of “Phase Two” into reality.
This is a very likely outcome, designed to keep the Gaza front closed while focusing more on Iran, Lebanon, and perhaps even Yemen. We could therefore expect to see the ISF deployed in a less meaningful capacity than is currently envisaged in Washington, disastrous plots implemented involving private military contractors and aid distribution, and attempts to ethnically cleanse the population slowly here and there. All of these schemes will fall flat on their faces, but not without inflicting suffering on the civilian population of Gaza.
In the meantime, the US-Israeli alliance will have Tehran in its sights. The thinking behind this would be to squeeze the civilian population of Gaza, while prioritizing Iran and Hezbollah as their major strategic threats.
Israel’s Failure Hedges against Iran and Hezbollah
The conspiracies of Washington and Tel Aviv against Gaza can be defeated, but this hinges upon Hezbollah and Iran for the most part. If Iran and Hezbollah manage to deal enormous blows to the Israelis, refusing to play their game of fighting short defensive conflicts, then Israel will be dragged into deep waters.
All that is required of Hezbollah and Iran is that they don’t stop firing, no matter the degree of carnage exacted against their people. If Hezbollah drags the Israeli military into Lebanese lands and refuses the calls for a ceasefire, instead forcing the Israelis into a war that it intends to fight for many months, and Iran does the same, the Israelis will be in a major crisis.
The details of such conflicts are a topic for different pieces and many outcomes could occur, yet it suffices to say that major moves from Lebanon and Iran could put the Israelis in a very weak position, one that even enables major action from Gaza also.
If Iran and Hezbollah are either defeated or taken out of the picture for an even longer period after agreeing to meaningless ceasefires, after short rounds of fighting, also suffering the assassinations of major figures, this is the most favorable outcome for Benjamin Netanyahu. Victories in these arenas will open the door to ethnically cleansing the Gaza Strip, even if slowly rather than in a stampede into the Sinai Peninsula. This is, of course, assuming there are no other major fronts which suddenly open to preoccupy them.
As things stand, the Israelis are in a very weak position, having failed to defeat any of their enemies. The only exception is the fall of the previous Syrian regime, which was not directly fighting Israel, but was a major land bridge for the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance. For now, Syria can be considered a victim of Israel, but poses no immediate threat.
Ultimately, Israel has fought for over two years and failed to defeat the Palestinian resistance, Hezbollah, Ansarallah, Iran, or any of its other adversaries, even after dealing varying degrees of blows against each of them. Netanyahu’s long-sought-after “total victory” does not appear likely, yet he still continues to double down on attempting to achieve this goal. The primary reason for this is the refusal of the people of Gaza, and also Lebanon, to give up.
Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.
The DOJ is flaunting the law on the Epstein Files. Why isn’t Pam Bondi in handcuffs?
By Alan Mosley |The Libertarian Institute | December 30, 2025
Congress’s newly minted Epstein Files Transparency Act—a bipartisan law co‑authored by Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna—was supposed to leave no room for discretion. It required Attorney General Pam Bondi, who serves President Donald Trump, to release all unclassified Justice Department records related to Jeffrey Epstein within thirty days. Trump signed the bill, but his Justice Department blew the deadline and produced only a small fraction of the documents, many of which were blacked out. The co‑authors have responded by drafting impeachment articles and exploring inherent contempt. Their outrage raises a broader question: why can the executive branch ignore the law with impunity, and why does this seem to happen over and over again?
The impetus for the transparency law lies in the horrific pattern of abuse that Epstein orchestrated for decades and the government’s failure to stop it. Even after survivor Maria Farmer told the FBI in September 1996 that Epstein was involved in child sex abuse, officials did nothing. The latest document release confirms that the bureau was tipped off a decade before his first arrest. Many of the new documents show that Epstein’s scheme went far beyond one man; the files include photographs of former presidents, rock stars, and royalty, and testimony from victims as young as fourteen. Campaigners say the heavy redactions and missing files—at least sixteen documents disappeared from the Justice Department website, including a photo of Donald Trump—betray the law’s intent. The omissions have fueled suspicions that the department is selectively protecting powerful clients rather than victims.
A law that leaves little wiggle room
In addition to the redactions, entire files vanished after the department’s release. Al Jazeera reported that at least sixteen documents disappeared from the Justice Department website soon after they were posted, including a photograph of Trump. Survivors expressed frustration: Maria Farmer said she feels redeemed by the disclosure yet weeps for victims the FBI failed to protect, and critics argue the department is still shielding influential individuals. The missing files underscore that Bondi’s partial compliance is not just tardy but potentially dishonest; the law obligates her to release names of government officials and corporate entities tied to Epstein, and removing those names is itself a violation.
The statute instructs the attorney general to release all unclassified Justice Department records about Epstein within thirty days. This covers everything from flight logs, travel records, names of individuals and corporate entities linked to his trafficking network, to internal communications about prosecutorial decisions and any destruction of evidence. It prohibits withholding information to avoid embarrassment, and allows redactions only to protect victims’ privacy, to exclude child sexual abuse imagery, or to safeguard truly classified national security information. Even then, the attorney general must declassify as much as possible and justify each redaction to Congress. These provisions make the statute stricter than a typical subpoena and leave little room for discretion.
Pam Bondi’s dodgy compliance
By December 19 the department had released tens of thousands of pages but withheld the bulk of the material. Observers noted that many records were heavily blacked out and that the department offered no written justifications for redactions. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche acknowledged that more documents would be released later, effectively moving the deadline. Massie and Khanna argued that this flouts the statute and have drafted impeachment articles and are weighing inherent contempt. Bondi’s department claims it can withhold materials under common‑law privileges, such as deliberative-process and attorney‑client privilege, even though the statute expressly demands release of “internal DOJ communications” and other decision‑making records. Critics argue that by invoking judge‑made privileges to avoid a law that overrides them, Bondi—who reports directly to Donald Trump—puts the president’s political interests ahead of statutory obligations.
Congress’ options, and why they seldom work
Congress has three enforcement tools: criminal contempt referrals, civil lawsuits, and inherent contempt arrests. The first two depend on the Justice Department, which is unlikely to prosecute its own leaders. Inherent contempt—a forgotten power to arrest defiant officials—has not been used since 1935, but Khanna says it is on the table. Past episodes illustrate why penalties are rare. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied to Congress about mass surveillance and faced no charges. CIA officials destroyed videotapes documenting torture, yet prosecutors declined to prosecute. FBI agents misused warrantless surveillance authorities, but no one has been held accountable. The pattern is clear: when officials break the rules, investigations are slow, referrals go nowhere, and political leaders quietly move on. As whistleblower attorney Jesselyn Radack noted, there is a double standard: government officials can lie to Congress with impunity while those who tell the truth are indicted. This inversion of accountability encourages lawlessness within the executive branch and chills those who might expose wrongdoing.
Legal experts note that Congress could also sue to compel disclosure or hold Bondi in criminal contempt, but because the Justice Department prosecutes contempt and is headed by the same officials refusing to comply, those routes are circular. The only truly independent remedy—directing the House sergeant at arms to arrest Bondi and hold her until she obeys—has not been used in nearly a century and would provoke a constitutional crisis. This institutional timidity emboldens agencies to treat congressional mandates as advisory and ensures that accountability remains elusive.
What accountability looks like
Khanna and Massie have urged Congress to impeach Bondi or her deputy, use inherent contempt to detain them, and refer the matter for prosecution. Those remedies would test whether Congress is willing to use dormant constitutional powers. Citizens who value liberty should demand action. The same government that lied about weapons of mass destruction, destroyed evidence of torture, and spied on millions now tells us that blacked‑out pages constitute transparency. Without accountability, the executive branch will continue to flout the law. Bondi may work for Trump, but the buck stops with the president who appointed her. If Congress and voters do nothing, future transparency laws will be meaningless, and the war state will remain healthy at our expense.
Accountability requires more than rhetoric. Congress must be willing to reclaim its constitutional prerogatives—by using inherent contempt, cutting funding, or refusing to confirm officials who flout the law. Voters should demand that elected representatives of both parties stop hiding behind national security and confront a Justice Department that acts as if it is above the law. The stakes extend beyond Epstein; they touch on foreign policy, civil liberties, and the very idea of self‑government. When a cabinet official appointed by the president can ignore a clear statutory mandate and the president remains silent, it signals that the executive branch believes itself sovereign. If we shrug, we will continue down the path where laws are for the governed, not the governors.
Citizens who value liberty and limited government should pay attention. When laws are ignored without consequence, the effect is to normalize lawlessness. The Massie–Khanna legislation was not meant to be a suggestion; it was a mandate that passed the House 427-1 and the Senate unanimously. If Congress does not enforce it, future transparency laws will be toothless, and the bureaucracy will continue to protect its own at the expense of truth. In the long run, a free society cannot survive if the government decides which laws apply to its friends and which apply to everyone else. Accountability is not partisan, it is a principle. Without it, injustice will remain healthy and unchallenged, and the rest of us will continue to pay the price.

