To Encourage Talks With Moscow, DoD Will Halt Cyber Attacks on Russia
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | March 2, 2025
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered his agency to halt offensive cyber operations against Russia as the White House is attempting to engage the Kremlin in talks to end the war in Ukraine.
“Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered U.S. Cyber Command to halt offensive operations against Russia, according to a current official and two former officials briefed on the secret instructions,” the New York Times reports. “The move is apparently part of a broader effort to draw President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia into talks on Ukraine and a new relationship with the United States.”
After the invasion of Ukraine, the Joe Biden administration announced a multi-pronged warfare policy to degrade Russia, including arming Ukraine, sanctions, cyber attacks, and seizing Russian assets.
Since returning to office, President Trump has prioritized improving ties with Russia and ending the war in Ukraine. US and Russian officials have agreed to normalize ties and work toward ending the conflict in Ukraine.
The scope of the order is unclear, but it will not apply to the National Security Agency or intelligence collection. Hegseth issued the order before President Zelensky’s heated exchange with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Friday. Following the meeting, Trump considered cutting all military aid to Ukraine.
The Times notes that Trump’s decision to halt offensive cyber operations is a policy shift. During his first administration, he expanded cyberwarfare.
Sen. Lee, Rep. Massie, Musk Call for US to Exit NATO
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | March 2, 2025
A pair of Republican lawmakers voiced their support for the US exiting the North Atlantic Alliance. Following a heated White House exchange between President Trump and President Zelensky last week, many members of the bloc voice their support for Ukraine and Zelensky.
On Saturday Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) posed on X, “Get us out of NATO.” He was commenting on a pie chart that showed the breakdown of defense spending by members in the Cold War-era alliance. According to the chart, US military spending is 70% of total defense spending in NATO. The 2024 military budget for the US was $895 billion.
The second highest spender is the UK at $70 billion.
The US has long subsidized the defense of the NATO alliance. Prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, only seven of the bloc’s 30 members met the alliance requirement of spending 2% of GDP on the military. In 2024, NATO projected that 23 of 32 members would meet the minimum spending level.
Posting in support of Sen. Lee, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) wrote, “NATO is a Cold War relic that needs to be relegated to a talking kiosk at the Smithsonian.”
NATO was founded in 1949 with 12 members. After the fall of the USSR, the bloc has slowly expanded eastward across the continent to include former Warsaw Pact members and Soviet republics.
Moscow has complained that NATO expansion presented a threat to Russia. While Brussels claims that the bloc is a defensive alliance to protect its members from aggressive attacks, NATO has waged war in Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, and Libya over the past three decades.
On Sunday, Trump adviser Elon Musk wrote on X, the platform he owns, “I always wondered why NATO continued to exist even though its nemesis and reason to exist, The Warsaw Pact, had dissolved.”
The day before, he responded “I agree” to a post that said, “It’s time to leave NATO and the UN.”
Scott Ritter: US Had Its fingers in Every Aspect of Ukrainian Pie
Sputnik – 02.03.2025
Aside from preparing Ukraine for guerrilla warfare and conducting anti-Russia propaganda operations, the US and the CIA built 20 bases throughout the country, former US Marine Corps intelligence officer Scott Ritter told Sputnik.
Hunter Biden’s position on the board of the major Ukrainian energy company Burisma also shows that “the United States had its fingers in every aspect of the Ukrainian economic pie.”
Ukraine, Ritter explained, is just a tool US tried using to defeat Russia – a tool that wasn’t even aware of “every aspect of this grand plan.”
“A hammer doesn’t know the intent of an architect. America was the architect of Ukrainian project. Ukraine is just the hammer, just like Europe,” he said.
Commenting on the recent clash between JD Vance and Zelensky, Ritter noted that Vance is “the vice president of the United States, who has received some of the best intelligence there is about the reality of Ukraine.”
“Zelensky is an actor who reads from a script as part of a play that’s being controlled by others,” he remarked.
Pro-Israel Think Tank WINEP Outed as ‘Dark Money’ Operation Driving US Wars
By Robert Inlakesh | MintPress News | February 26, 2025
The AIPAC-aligned Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), which often refers to itself simply as The Washington Institute, was recently outed as a “dark money” think tank for its lack of transparency on donors and is continuing to push the United States to engage in conflicts overseas to Israel’s benefit. Its case raises questions about how the Israel Lobby functions through think tanks across the board, shaping U.S. foreign policy behind closed doors.
WINEP has a long history of shaping U.S. foreign policy. It was deeply involved in the neoconservative push for regime change in Iraq, joining calls for the Clinton administration to topple Saddam Hussein as early as 1998. They also pushed for U.S. military intervention and helped justify the eventual invasion in 2003.
At the beginning of the year, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft unveiled the “Think Tank Funding Tracker,” a one-of-a-kind project that examined the funding sources of the top 50 U.S. think tanks since 2019 and rated their transparency from 0 to 5. WINEP and 16 others—including the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)—received a zero transparency rating, exposing its reliance on “dark money” contributions.
While WINEP claims “to be funded exclusively by U.S. citizens” on its website, it does not publicly disclose its donor list. Its AIPAC roots were first exposed in 2006 by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer in The London Review of Books, where they described WINEP as an AIPAC cutout advancing Israel’s agenda under the guise of independent research. The pair wrote at the time that “The Lobby created its own think tank in 1985, when Martin Indyk helped found WINEP. Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel and claims instead that it provides a “balanced and realistic” perspective on Middle East issues, this is not the case. In fact, WINEP is funded and run by individuals who are deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda.”
This claim that AIPAC created WINEP was later corroborated by former AIPAC official MJ Rosenberg, who wrote in HuffPost : “How do I know? I was in the room when AIPAC decided to establish WINEP.” The now-deceased WINEP co-founder, Martin Indyk, was also the head of the Saban Center for Middle East Studies, funded by Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban.
Recent U.S. foreign policy developments have only strengthened WINEP’s influence. The Biden administration’s unwavering support for Israel’s war on Gaza, including a $14 billion emergency military aid package, aligns with WINEP’s long-standing push to ensure that U.S. military assistance to Israel remains untouchable. WINEP actively shaped public discourse as the war progressed, with Executive Director Robert Satloff praising Biden’s refusal to support an early ceasefire, calling it “correct and courageous.”
When House lawmakers convened hearings in late 2023 to attack the administration’s Iran policy, their rhetoric mirrored WINEP’s narratives, particularly opposition to any sanctions relief. Witnesses from WINEP-adjacent institutions like FDD and JINSA were brought in to reinforce the case for a more aggressive posture toward Iran. Meanwhile, WINEP continues to push for U.S. military leverage in post-Assad Syria, another key policy area where the Biden administration has quietly followed its recommendations by maintaining a military foothold and targeting Iranian assets with airstrikes.
WINEP’s revolving-door relationship with the U.S. government does little to shed its reputation for shaping policy. In May 2023, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan delivered a keynote address at WINEP’s annual Soref Symposium, praising Satloff’s “extraordinary work.” Sullivan’s participation wasn’t just symbolic—it reinforced WINEP’s position as an informal but essential policy hub. This is evident from the administration’s embrace of the Abraham Accords, another WINEP priority.
Former WINEP fellow Dan Shapiro was appointed the State Department’s senior advisor for regional integration, carrying out the think tank’s long-standing vision for Arab normalization with Israel. WINEP is currently led by Michael Singh, Robert Satloff, Dennis Ross, and Dana Stroul. Stroul, who serves as WINEP’s Research Director, returned to the position after serving as the Biden administration’s deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East from 2021 to 2024. During her tenure, she played a central role in Washington’s anti-Iran initiatives, the response to the Gaza war, and shaping U.S. Syria policy.
Beyond WINEP, the broader issue of think tank influence is now facing increasing scrutiny. In 2023, lawmakers introduced the Think Tank Transparency Act, which requires policy organizations to disclose foreign government funding and contractual agreements. While WINEP does not receive direct funding from Israel, watchdogs have highlighted that its pro-Israel agenda is sustained through wealthy American donors closely linked to AIPAC. Using domestic contributions to advance a foreign policy agenda has enabled WINEP to operate without falling under the scrutiny of foreign lobbying laws, even as its “scholars” shape U.S. positions on Iran, Syria, and the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Currently, the two primary issues on WINEP’s agenda are how to best leverage American influence to shape outcomes in post-Assad Syria and how to assure regime change in Iran. Indicative of the think tank’s influence is that not only was its hardline Syria strategy the exact model used by the U.S. to aid regime change in Damascus, but its chief researcher was taken on as a senior official by the previous administration.
As demonstrated by the Quincy Institute’s new report, the lack of transparency over who exactly finances the AIPAC lobby’s “cutout” think tank presents serious questions about who is actually shaping U.S. foreign policy and to whose benefit.
Hamas decries as ‘war crime’ Israeli suspension of humanitarian aid to Gaza
The Cradle | March 2, 2025
Israel has accepted a proposal brought by US envoy Steve Witkoff to extend the first phase of the Gaza ceasefire and prisoner exchange agreement for another 42 days, facing rejection from the Hamas movement.
As a result of Hamas’s rejection – which stems from the resistance movement’s insistence on abiding by the terms of what was initially agreed upon – Israel announced on 2 March that it halted the entry of aid and supplies into the Gaza Strip.
“With the end of the first stage of the prisoner swap deal and following Hamas’ rejection of Witkoff’s proposal to continue negotiations – which Israel agreed to – Prime Minister Netanyahu has decided to halt all imports of goods and supplies to the Gaza Strip as of today,” said the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a statement.
“Israel will not allow a ceasefire without the release of its prisoners. If Hamas continues to refuse, there will be further consequences,” the premier’s office added.
The extension deal agreed to by Netanyahu calls for the release of half of the estimated 22 living captives in Gaza, in exchange for Palestinian prisoners.
According to Netanyahu, the Witkoff plan gives Israel the right to resume the war after the 42-day extension if talks do not progress. Israel’s Channel 12 reported that the prime minister has approved a potential call-up of 400,000 reserve soldiers.
“The decision we made last night to completely halt the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza until Hamas is destroyed or surrenders completely and all our hostages are returned is an important step in the right direction— ‘standing at the gates of hell,’” said Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.
“Now, we must open these gates as quickly and as lethally as possible against the cruel enemy until absolute victory,” he added.
Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid blasted the government’s decision.
“The prisoner exchange deal has been halted. Humanitarian aid to Gaza has been stopped. The government has approved the mobilization of 400,000 reserve soldiers. What is the goal? What objective has Israel set for itself? Has the government decided to abandon the prisoners, and if so, why? For what greater national purpose? If we return to war, what is the objective of the war? Who will replace Hamas in the end?” Lapid said.
“Once again, the government is acting without a plan, without a vision. We can only hope things turn out okay—because that seems to be the extent of their planning.”
Phase one of the Gaza ceasefire was due to end on Saturday. Israel has been pushing for the extension in recent days and has continuously delayed the start of negotiations for the second phase, violating the original ceasefire agreement.
“The statement issued by the office of the terrorist occupation Prime Minister Netanyahu, regarding his approval of American proposals to extend the first phase of the agreement under arrangements that violate the ceasefire agreement in Gaza is a blatant attempt to evade the agreement and avoid entering negotiations for its second phase,” Hamas said in a statement.
“Netanyahu’s decision to halt humanitarian aid is a form of blackmail, a war crime, and a blatant violation of the agreement,” it went on to say.
Since the morning of 2 March, Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed at least four Palestinians. Israel has been violating the ceasefire daily since it was reached in January, carrying out deadly attacks and consistently holding up the entry of aid and essentials into Gaza.
Europe’s Reckless Warmongering Pushes Trump Toward NATO Exit
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 02.03.2025
So long as the US provides an expensive and robust support for Europe’s defense, oligarchs based in Europe can continue business as usual, living their lavish lifestyles and provoking their nuclear neighbor, Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel says.
“Our European ‘partners’ seem to want ‘war at all costs,’ believing that America will do the paying and Americans will do the dying,” Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel told Sputnik, commenting on Europe’s demonstrative support for Volodymyr Zelensky, who rejected a Trump-brokered ceasefire in Ukraine.
The UK and EU feel free to provoke Russia – a nuclear power – because they believe their security is guaranteed by Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which would obligate the US to come to their defense, according to the analyst.
Europe’s proxy, Zelensky, “is behaving like an old-fashioned mafia goon, demanding protection money,” Ortel says.
US involvement in the Ukraine conflict would mean increased protection for Europe and further US taxpayer money flowing into European coffers. But that won’t happen under Donald Trump and JD Vance, Ortel underscores.
As Europe’s reckless warmongering continues, the US may have no choice but to leave the transatlantic alliance, he believes.
“The US has no business subsidizing Europe and defending it,” Ortel says. “Indeed, I believe we have a duty to our own citizenry to significantly reduce our defense commitments to Europe and rescind NATO treaty assurances — if not exit NATO altogether under present circumstances.”
Trump-Zelensky spat shows who wants peace and who doesn’t – Hungarian FM
RT | March 2, 2025
The public clash between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has made it clear that, unlike Washington, Kiev is not interested in ending its conflict with Moscow, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has said.
Zelensky’s trip to the White House on Friday was abruptly cut short after his meeting with the US president and vice president devolved into a shouting match in front of the media. Trump and J.D. Vance accused the Ukrainian leader of “gambling with World War III” due to his reluctance to negotiate peace with Russia, and of being disrespectful and ungrateful for the substantial military aid provided to Kiev by Washington.
The visit was intended to finalize a minerals agreement between the US and Ukraine, but it was never signed as Zelensky demanded security guarantees and greater involvement in the conflict from the Trump administration.
“It became clearer to everyone than ever before who wants peace and who wants war; who wants to stop the killing and who wants to continue it; who stands on the grounds of common sense and who does not care for either human lives or billions of wasted euros,” Szijjarto wrote in a post on Facebook on Saturday about the heated exchange at the Oval Office, which US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described as a “fiasco.”
The foreign minister made it clear in his message that it is Zelensky, who wants “the war to just continue.”
“Trump’s stand for peace was the greatest moment of the past three years,” he insisted.
The US president told Zelensky on Friday that Ukraine was “running out of soldiers” and had no cards to play in the standoff with Russia. “Look, if you could get a ceasefire right now, I tell you, you take it, so the bullets stop flying and your men stop getting killed,” Trump said.
Szijjarto stressed in his post that the authorities in Budapest, who had been consistently calling for a diplomatic settlement of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, “hope that… Trump will make the US-Russian negotiations a success, because only a US-Russian agreement can bring peace back to our beloved Central Europe.”
Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova described Zelensky’s trip to the US as “a diplomatic and political failure” of the Kiev government. “With his outrageously boorish behavior” at the White House, the Ukrainian leader confirmed that he is “an irresponsible instigator of a major war” and “a most dangerous threat to the international community,” she wrote on Telegram on Saturday.
The pro-war lobby in the West needs to come up with new ideas, rather than saying the same old things
By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 2, 2025
When western pundits resist efforts to bring an end to fighting in Ukraine, they never provide an alternative vision of what they would do differently.
A respected associate of mine asked me today if a ceasefire and peace process in Ukraine would simply embolden China and Russia to further aggression.
This is a line oft repeated among the majority of politicians, journalists and so-called academics in the west, who are opposed to an ending of the war. ‘We can’t stop the war, because if we do, China will invade Taiwan and Russia will invade Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc.’
My view, for what it’s worth, is that an end to the war in Ukraine might embolden China longer-term over Taiwan in particular. I’ve seen no evidence that it will embolden Russia to invade NATO, precisely because Russia sees itself, in large part, as a country of Europe, even if it has been excluded.
However, and critically, if both China and Russia were so emboldened, then should we not ask ourselves how we have ended up in this position?
Russia’s decision to go to war was driven by a belief that it’s core strategic interests in preventing NATO expansion to its border via Ukraine was being ignored, and that it was subject to permanent sanctions with no possibility of removal through any concessions it might make.
That’s my opinion and one I know that many ‘realists’ share.
But, in any case, the ‘what next’ question should have been considered as part of a longer-term strategic assessment when western nations pushed the NATO enlargement agenda.
We have known since at least 2008 that this was a redline for Russia.
Did we expect Russia’s position to change and if so, how? If Russia’s position did not change, how far would we go to advance Ukraine’s NATO aspiration, including through direct military confrontation?
I’m not aware that those questions were ever asked or, if they were, considered rather than dismissed. And I was at the heart of British government decision making from the latter part of 2013, before the Ukraine crisis started (and must therefore accept some of the blame).
Without the United States, a war in Ukraine was never going to be sustainable for Europe, financially, politically or militarily.
Yet no one thought this through. Or, if they did, they didn’t factor in the eminent risk of America doing an about face on policy one day, as is now happening.
With America now withdrawing, sustaining a losing war in Ukraine rather than calling a halt to the killing cannot be considered a legitimate strategy if its only goal is to avoid losing face.
That makes us look weaker and more feckless.
If other states are now emboldened by the failure of western policy in Ukraine, that is not a sufficient reason to avoid an end to the bloodshed now.
Our self-righteousness indignation to peace is merely a figleaf covering the deflated genitals of our policy failure.
The west so badly mishandled relations in the eight years between the flashpoint of the Maidan and the start of war, not thinking through the consequences.
Russian actions and reactions in Ukraine have always been predictable.
They were predictable in February 2014.
They were predictable in February 2022.
They were predictable in February 2025.
We were never going to fight for Ukraine.
I have heard senior British Ambassadors say that we were never going to fight for Ukraine. And we are the most hawkish nation in Europe.
Why were we never going to fight?
Because it would never be possible to ensure that the 27 nations of the EU or the 31 nations of NATO would come to a collective agreement to fight.
Someone would always block fighting.
Compromises would be made.
We would pursue a lowest common denominator. That led us to a sanctions-only approach.
As I have said many times before, in the game of geostrategic chess, President Putin always knew that large, chattering teams of politicians around the table couldn’t outmanoeuvre him.
In fact, they would take weeks and months just to agree on the meaning of pawn, let alone whether to move it on the board.
We lost through indecision and have yet to learn the lesson.
You can’t fight wars by committee. But you can make peace in a group.
As Albert Einstein said, ‘we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them’. That is seen by some as the source of the misattributed saying, ‘the definition of insanity is to do the same thing but expect a different result.’
As the war in Ukraine grinds towards its diplomatic denouement, those people who would like to avoid a negotiated settlement are not coming up with an alternative approach.
They are not introducing new ideas to up the ante, if that is what they want to do. In fact, I don’t know what they want to do, because they’ve been saying exactly the same things for three years and I am epically bored right now.
The problem here, is that neither are they advancing a credible argument against ending the war.
Their position seems to be, the war is bad, it’s all Russia’s fault and if we give in now, Russia will be emboldened to strike elsewhere.
Their defensive position is held together by straplines not substantive arguments.
In a recent speech, the veteran U.S. Democrat politician Bernie Sanders said,
‘Russia started the war, not Ukraine,
Putin is a dictator, not Zelensky.’
While I am sure he may believe that it’s just another banal outburst, intended more to rail against the political leaders in his own country, rather than to bring peace in Ukraine.
Of course, people view the origins of the war differently and people are entitled to their views.
Debate on the war in Ukraine has become reduced to ‘I’m right and you are wrong’ with voices of reason and realism in the west, like mine, stifled by the mainstream.
But we will never reach a position in which there is a universally accepted view of who was at fault and who was not.
Instead, let’s try to accept that every side in this conflict takes some share of the blame, be that Russia, Ukraine, the U.S., UK and everyone else.
Let’s have a frank but polite discussion about a way forward.
President Trump has advanced a new policy proposition that engagement and dialogue is vital if we are to bring an end to the fighting. British and European leaders can’t continue unchallenged, carrying on as if the world hasn’t changed.
They need to come up with genuinely new and constructive ideas, rather than continuing to say the same things. And reengage in dialogue with Russia.
HighWire Dispels Misinformation About Measles
The HighWire with Del Bigtree | February 28, 2025
Del does a deep dive into the science behind the measles virus, dispelling decades of misinformation from public health agencies, as well as what is actually driving the recent measles outbreaks in the U.S. See a shocking scientific equation comparing the number of individual deaths that would occur if the measles vaccine had never been introduced based on pre-vaccine stats to the number of deaths from MMR injury.
USDA’s $1 Billion Plan to Combat Bird Flu Calls for Vaccines and Killing More Birds — Will It Work?
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 28, 2025
The government has a new, $1 billion plan to combat the spread of bird flu among U.S. chickens and rising egg prices.
But some critics said the plan will just perpetuate the ineffective and harmful practice of culling birds and promote the potentially risky vaccination of chickens.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke Rollins on Wednesday announced the five-pronged “$1 billion comprehensive strategy,” including funding for biosecurity measures, financial relief for farmers, actions to reduce “regulatory burdens” and increase egg imports — and “$100 million for vaccine research.”
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published the same day, Rollins said the USDA is “working with the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to cut hundreds of millions of dollars of wasteful spending” — that will pay for the strategy’s $1 billion price tag.
According to the op-ed, the average price of a dozen eggs increased 237% in the last four years. Rollins said the increase “is due in part to continuing outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza, which has devastated American poultry farmers and slashed the egg supply.”
The USDA did not respond to requests for comment by press time.
Chicken culls have had ‘disastrous consequences’
Some farmers and medical experts questioned the USDA’s plan, under which chicken culls will continue.
Vermont attorney and farmer John Klar said, “Economic relief for poultry farmers is appropriate, as is monitoring flocks and supporting improved biosecurity measures.” However, Klar said he is “dismayed by the fearmongering about bird flu” and fears that a “silver bullet” to tackle the crisis may not be available.
According to Rollins, about 166 million laying hens have been culled since 2022. Culling “can be an effective way to stop an outbreak,” CNN reported.
But, according to epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher of the McCullough Foundation, bird culls are ineffective.
“The single most effective action to reduce egg prices in the long-term is to stop the practice of mass depopulation, which has led to a costly and ineffective cycle that not only wastes taxpayer dollars but also worsens the spread of H5N1.”
Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough said the USDA plan potentially incentivizes measures that have not been effective.
“By taking government money to cull healthy birds and then bring eggs to market at higher prices, big egg producers have perverse incentives to keep the poorly conceived biosecurity measures going,” McCullough said.
According to CNN, culling has contributed to higher egg prices, due to a reduced egg supply and because taxpayers are “footing the bill for the dead birds.”
Over the past three years, the U.S. government has issued $1.25 billion in compensation to farmers who have had their chickens culled. Approximately 20% of those payouts “have gone to farms that have become infected multiple times,” CNN reported.
Hulscher said these payments have had “disastrous” consequences. “Mass culling has failed to stop the spread of bird flu, caused egg prices to reach a 45-year high, and resulted in the only source of chicken-to-human transmission.”
McCullough said culling mostly healthy birds “doesn’t stop bird-to-animal transmission of the next index case coming into farms by migratory birds, mainly mallard ducks. Instead, he said, “Culling causes the spread of H5N1 from birds to mankind” and “puts the workers at unnecessary risk.”
Iowa farmer Howard Vlieger said that during a 2016 bird flu outbreak in his area, USDA officials stacked culled chickens in compost piles. Within days, infected flies made their way to nearby farms, leading to the death of a laying hen.
“They notified USDA and USDA subsequently euthanized every bird on their farm, even though the broilers were not exhibiting any sign of sickness,” Vlieger said.
Vlieger also questioned the accuracy of tests used to determine whether birds are infected. He cited the example of a neighboring farm where a chicken initially tested positive to a USDA test, but a second test was negative.
“We know the tests they use have very low reliability,” Vlieger said.
Natural immunity more effective than vaccination in birds
Klar suggested that “better policy would be to let the birds develop ‘flock immunity,’ which would be better for humans as well.”
McCullough agreed. “A healthy bird flock allowed to acquire natural immunity to the mild current H5N1 strain will essentially end the current outbreak,” he said.
Several studies have found that bird culls are ineffective in stopping the spread of viruses among birds and that allowing natural immunity to develop may be a more effective means of containing outbreaks.
A December 2024 New England Journal of Medicine study found that between March and October 2024, “All the case patients who were exposed to infected poultry were involved in depopulation activities.”
According to a March 2024 report by the European Food Safety Authority, the number of bird flu detections in birds from December 2023 to March 2024 “was significantly lower, among other reasons, possibly due to some level of flock immunity in previously affected wild bird species, resulting in reduced contamination of the environment.”
“The new plan should stop culling,” McCullough said. “Biosecurity measures should focus on protecting the workers and allowing natural immunity to settle in on American farms.”
Experts question the safety and effectiveness of vaccines for birds
The USDA plan also calls for a “hyper-focused” and “targeted and thoughtful strategy for potential new generation vaccines, therapeutics, and other innovative solutions to minimize depopulation of egg laying chickens.”
The USDA recently granted a conditional license to Zoetis for a bird flu vaccine. CNN reported that other bird flu vaccines for poultry already are licensed in the U.S.
Other vaccines, including one by Moderna, are under development. However, Bloomberg reported this week that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is “reevaluating” the $590 million contract for bird flu shots that the Biden administration awarded to Moderna.
The World Organization for Animal Health recently stated that vaccination may be necessary to stem the spread of bird flu.
According to CNN, “Poultry producers have resisted the use of bird flu vaccines, which are costly and labor intensive to administer to millions of birds,” adding that “many countries won’t accept” exports of vaccinated poultry.
Klar questioned the practice of administering bird flu vaccines to poultry, saying he “strongly objects” to the use of mRNA vaccines in birds or other wildlife.
“I am far more concerned about adverse health effects from experimental pharmaceuticals than I am about natural microbes,” Klar said.
In a December 2024 interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Dr. Leana Wen, the former commissioner of the Baltimore City Health Department and a professor of public health at George Washington University, called for the immediate approval of bird flu vaccines for humans and ramped-up testing throughout the U.S.
Over the past year, former public health officials and mainstream news outlets have also stoked fears of a bird flu outbreak among humans.
Is current bird flu strain a product of gain-of-function research?
While the USDA plan suggests that bird flu has a zoonotic — or animal — origin, McCullough cited research suggesting the current clade of H5N1 avian influenza may have originated from gain-of-function research in mallard ducks performed at the USDA Poultry Research Center in Athens, Georgia.
According to the study, the strain of the virus circulating globally was first found in mallard ducks and other wildlife in Georgia and other locations near the USDA’s laboratory in 2021 and 2022.
Gain-of-function research involves the genetic alteration of an organism to enhance its biological functions — potentially including its transmissibility.
The McCullough Foundation’s research, published last year in the journal Poultry, Fisheries & Wildlife Sciences, calls for investigations to identify laboratory leaks that may have resulted in the release of bird flu strains, and a global moratorium on gain-of-function research.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
The Press Falls to Another Record Low in Public Trust
By Jonathan Turley | March 1, 2025
We have previously discussed polling showing the media at record lows in public trust. Well, the latest survey from Gallup shows that the media hit another all-time low. What is most impressive is that plummeting readers, revenues, and layoffs have done little to convince the mainstream media that the problem is not the public but themselves. The only institution with a lower level of public trust is Congress, and that says a lot. It is like beating Ebola as the preferred communicable disease.Some 69 percent of Americans now say that they have no or little trust in the media. Only 31 percent say that they have a great deal or fair amount of trust. The trending line looks like the sales of buggy whips after the introduction of the Model T Ford. Gallop put it into sharp terms:
“About two-thirds of Americans in the 1970s trusted the “mass media — such as newspapers, TV and radio” either “a great deal” or “a fair amount” to “[report] the news fully, accurately and fairly.” By the next measurement in 1997, confidence had fallen to 53%, and it has gradually trended downward since 2003. Americans are now divided into rough thirds, with 31% trusting the media a great deal or a fair amount, 33% saying they do “not [trust it] very much,” and 36%, up from 6% in 1972, saying they have no trust at all in it.”
In my book, The Indispensable Right, I discuss how journalists and journalism schools have destroyed their own profession by rejecting objectivity and engaging in open advocacy journalism. The mainstream media has long echoed the talking points of the left and the Democratic Party, particularly in its one-sided coverage of the last three elections.
While Bob Woodward and others have finally admitted that the Russian collusion coverage lacked objectivity and resulted in false reporting, media figures are pushing even harder against objectivity as a core value in journalism.
We have been discussing the rise of advocacy journalism and the rejection of objectivity in journalism schools. Writers, editors, commentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President-elect Joe Biden and his key advisers. This movement includes academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy.
Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker writer Steve Coll decried how the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being “weaponized” to protect disinformation. In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Stanford journalism professor Ted Glasser insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.” Thus, “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.”
The Washington Post’s former executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward released the results of their interviews with over 75 media leaders and concluded that objectivity is now considered reactionary and even harmful. Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle said it plainly: “Objectivity has got to go.”
Lauren Wolfe, the fired freelance editor for the New York Times, has not only gone public to defend her pro-Biden tweet but published a piece titled “I’m a Biased Journalist and I’m Okay With That.”
Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University Journalism Professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones is a leading voice for advocacy journalism. Indeed, Hannah-Jones has declared “all journalism is activism.”
This is why the whole “Let’s Go Brandon” chant was as much a criticism of the media as President Biden. There is clearly an effort by owners like Jeff Bezos to change this culture rather than bankroll newspapers like the Washington Post vanity projects for the left.
Robert Lewis, a British media executive who joined the Post earlier this year, reportedly got into a “heated exchange” with a staffer. Lewis explained that, while reporters were protesting measures to expand readership, the very survival of the paper was now at stake:
“We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around,” Lewis said. “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.”
The response from staffers was to call for the new editors to be fired. One staffer complained, “We now have four White men running three newsrooms.” The Post has been buying out staff to avoid mass layoffs, but reporters are up in arms over the effort to turn the newspaper around.
The question is whether viewers and readers can still be brought back into the fold. New media is expanding as citizens have looked elsewhere for news. In the meantime, some media outlets and organizations seem to have doubled down on the bias. Just last year, Washington Post reporter Cleve Wootson Jr. appeared to call upon the White House to censor the interview of Elon Musk with former President Donald Trump. The newspaper did not say a thing about the incongruity of one of its leading reporters calling for censorship.
After Trump was elected, NBC selected Yamiche Alcindor to return to the White House despite a history of alleged bias. Alcindor, who also worked for PBS, was criticized for often preceding questions with attacks on conservatives or over-the-top praise for Joe Biden or Democrats. While others saw raw political bias, Alcindor explained that it was her job to use journalism to bend the “moral arc toward justice.”
Recently, the White House Correspondent’s Association picked an anti-Trump comedian who promptly encouraged Trump not to come to the dinner, saying that no one wants to be in the same room with him.
In the meantime, “J schools” continue to dismiss objectivity and crank out journalists who are told to embrace activism as the public flees legacy media for new media.
For the moment, it seems like journalists are content to write for each other and about 30 percent of the public. The echo chamber is getting smaller and smaller. So are the staffs on the outlets. Without public trust, the media is just talking to itself as the public turns to citizen journalists and new media on blogs and social media.
As someone who has worked for three networks and written as a columnist for three decades, the decline of American media has been painful to watch. The industry has operated like a ship of fools with no regard for their viewers or readers. However, we need the media. The press plays a central role in our democracy as reflected in the press protections afforded under the First Amendment.
The effort to break this culture at outlets like the Post and L.A. Times is encouraging, but these polls indicate that time is of the essence.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
A dose of reality for the West’s spoiled brat: What now for the humiliated Zelensky?
By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | March 1, 2025
“A grandiose failure” – take it from the best Ukrainian news site. That’s how Strana.ua has summed up the visit of Vladimir Zelensky, past-best-by-date leader in embattled Kiev, to Washington.
And no one who watched the no-holds-barred shouting match between Zelensky, on one side, and US President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance, on the other, can disagree. Indeed, no one is even trying to disagree: Independent of political bias, there is unanimity in Western mainstream media that this was a historic catastrophe for Zelensky and his version of Ukraine.
“A disaster” and “bitter chaos” (The Economist ); a “meltdown” that “could not have gone worse” (Financial Times); a “historic escalation” (Spiegel ); a “disaster for Ukraine” and a “spectacular confrontation” (Le Monde ); an “upbraiding” and “debacle” for Zelensky (New York Times ) and so on and so forth… You get the gist.
And please don’t blame me for how boring a review of Western mainstream media is; it’s not my fault that the vaunted press of the self-appointed “free world” and “garden” of “values” offers less diversity of views than the Soviet media circa 1986.
The basic idea is very basic indeed: “This was awful because poor Zelensky got bullied.” Some especially eager information war cadres are already fingering J.D. Vance as the one to blame. The Economist, for instance, simply “knows” that the US vice president set up the Ukrainian leader. But then, the same Economist also helped spread the moronic lie that Russia blew up its own Nord Stream pipelines.
Intriguingly, Ukraine’s Strana.ua, already mentioned above, sees things very differently. Its take is that “Zelensky himself provoked the scandal by his rudeness” toward both Vance and Trump. The latter, these Ukrainian observers who know their own vain and erratic leader all too well think, were still holding back, staying “quite calm and respectful” toward Zelensky.
For what it’s worth, my personal impression is that Zelensky did provoke the fight; that Vance and Trump treated him harshly and humiliatingly in return; and that Kiev’s prima-donna-in-chief deserved every last bit of it – and then some. Yes, after more than half a decade of Western leaders and mainstream media first building an insane personality cult around him and then babying and coddling him, it was a relief to see him talked to in earnest. And yes, it was glorious.
Because Trump is right: Yes, Zelensky has been recklessly toying with World War III. And no, his regime has not been “alone.” On the contrary, without massive Western support that it should never have received it would long ago have ceased to exist. Vance also has a point: Ukraine is running out of soldiers, and Ukrainian men are hunted like animals to be shipped off to a hopeless meatgrinder war.
Finally, both are right: Zelensky displayed crude disrespect. Don’t get me wrong: In general, I am all for massively disrespecting the American empire. But once you’ve chosen to be its puppet and sold your own nation to it, you might as well cut out the grandstanding.
In short, at long last, a dose of reality for the West’s spoiled brat in Kiev.
And no more daft Churchill comparisons, please. In reality, like Stalin, Churchill was quite a monster – ask the miners or the Indians, for instance – who nonetheless played an important role in defeating Nazi Germany. But he was not a puffed-up provincial comedian.
Yet let’s not get distracted. Schadenfreude is not important. And neither are probably misguided speculations about Trump and the gang “setting traps,” staging “ambushes, or dishing out “payback.” Because even if they did, any leader worth his salt has to be able to deal with such baiting. One way or the other, this was yet another painful-to-watch display of Zelensky’s complete inadequacy.
The really interesting questions concern the consequences of this cluster-fiasco. No one knows the future. Currently, Zelensky is debasing himself even more – I know, hard to imagine, but leave it to the man who pretended to play piano with his genitals, in public – by trying to angle for mercy. Trump, as of now, seems in no mood to offer any. Not only was the Ukrainian satrap literally shown the door, but the irate American overlord also made a point of letting the media know that despite Zelensky’s begging it won’t be open again soon.
Hence, one consequence, let’s assume, is a long-term, deep falling out between Washington and the Zelensky regime that may well be irreparable. This is all the more remarkable as what led up to this turn of events was the almost-final-signing of an essentially colonial raw materials deal handing over Ukraine’s resources to America. And yet still not good enough.
The Trump administration is brutally frank about seeking material advantage; this, it seemed, was a done deal. What happened? We can only speculate, but one possibility is that Trump’s team is taking seriously the recent statements by Russia’s president Vladimir Putin.
In an important interview with journalist Pavel Zarubin – the real meaning of which has mostly escaped Western mainstream media, as is their wont – Putin explained that Moscow is open to business cooperation with the US regarding rare earth deposits everywhere in Russia. Including, as he stressed, territories recently conquered from Ukraine. You can extrapolate from here concerning other raw materials as well. Russia will, of course, not roll over Zelensky-style, but very much money can be made in fair deals, too.
Zelensky, hence, may have overestimated his negotiating position: although he is ready to sell out Ukraine’s raw materials to the US the way he has already sold its people, he has so little control that an offer of access with and through Moscow may have become attractive enough to neutralize his leverage. If that is so, then Washington has now even less interest than before in helping Kiev recover (impossible anyhow) or even keep territory.
Another possible consequence is obvious: Long before Trump, the US has had an impressive record of first using and then abandoning or even liquidating puppets, including, to name only a few, Ngo Dinh Diem of former South Vietnam, Manuel Noriega of Panama, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, and Osama Bin Laden, a badly backfiring Cold War terror puppet.
There can be no doubt that Zelensky should worry about a similar fate. Exile may be the best option available left for him in reality. He may also be cooped away in Ukraine. Or even be forced to obey the constitution and hold elections, which he is certain to lose, most likely against Valery Zaluzhny, former commander-in-chief and Zelensky’s arch-nemesis. Make no mistake: Zaluzhny is a bullheaded and narrowminded nationalist and militarist and, as of now, a Western puppet no less than Zelensky. Any scenarios involving Zelensky’s replacement remain hard to predict.
Especially because, and this brings us to a third possible consequence, Washington’s European vassals seem to be choosing the worst possible moment to finally rebel: Having helped drive the insane proxy war forward and Ukraine into an abyss with fanatic, self-destructive submissiveness to prior US rulers, it is the NATO-EU Europeans who are now trying to obstruct the search for peace. In that, they are even ready to diverge from Washington. That is the meaning, once again, behind the many messages of shlocky “solidarity” they are now demonstratively addressing to the Zelensky regime.
It is as perverse as you can imagine, but it is real: the hill that NATO-EU Europe has chosen to die on is to be even more warmongering and destructive than the US. Say what you will about these European “elites,” but they still manage to surprise: whenever you think they have done their very worst, they upstage themselves.
The war may well continue, even without the US. It would be insane. But the “elites” of NATO-EU Europe and Kiev are just that, of course, insane. We may even end up in a world where a Russian-US détente will unfold (as we should hope), while the Ukraine War becomes a fight between Russia and the US’ abandoned European vassals.
What will not change is the outcome: Ukraine and the West – in whatever rump shape – will lose. And the longer the war, the worse for both of them. Let’s hope that something will give. Ukrainians, another Maidan perhaps to finally stop the bloody clown who promised you peace and then betrayed you? Europeans, how much longer are you going to tolerate leaders obsessed with getting to World War III?
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory
