Tulsi Gabbard has resigned as the Director of National Intelligence after quite a remarkable run.

Enrique Alejandro had a remarkable rundown on X of her accomplishments:

Tulsi Gabbard’s Record as America’s TOP Director of National Intelligence❗️🇺🇸

– Referred Russiagate Criminals to DOJ for Prosecution

– Declassified “Russian Collusion” & Impeachment Conspiracy Documents

– Spearheaded the Investigation into Voter Fraud in Georgia

– Investigated the Dark Origins of COVID-19

– Fought the CIA to Declassify Hidden JFK Assassination + MK-Ultra Files

– Revoked Security Clearances From 37 Officials (Russia Hoaxers, Biden/Obama Holdovers, and Impeachment Letter Signers)

– Fired Officials Who Contradicted Trump on Venezuelan Gangs

– Moved CIA’s In-Q-Tel Under DNI Oversight for Greater Accountability

– Uncovered Ukraine Government Plot to Illegally Reroute Hundreds of Millions in U.S. Taxpayer Dollars to Biden’s 2024 Campaign

– Launched Declassification Effort to Expose the Truth About UAPs

– Slashed Bloated Intel Bureaucracy With 50% Staff Cuts at ODNI, Saving $700 Million

– Exposed the Intel Community’s Political Weaponization

All of this, even as the CIA breathed down her neck and tried to tie her hands at every turn.

THIS IS WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTED FOR.

We looked into Enrique’s claims below and they all checked out.

Referred Russiagate Criminals to DOJ for Prosecution — True. Gabbard issued criminal referrals to the DOJ over the Obama-era Russia collusion investigation (Crossfire Hurricane) and related matters, leading to a grand jury probe. (Source)

Declassified “Russian Collusion” & Impeachment Conspiracy Documents — True. Her office led major declassifications (including batches in 2025) on the Russia hoax, Obama admin surveillance of Trump’s 2016 campaign, and the 2019 impeachment whistleblower complaint. (Source)

Spearheaded the Investigation into Voter Fraud in Georgia — True (with context). She personally attended/observed an FBI raid on Fulton County’s election offices in January 2026 to seize 2020 records, as part of a broader probe into election integrity/foreign interference claims (directed by Trump). Democrats called it politicized and based on debunked theories; her office framed it as assessing vulnerabilities. (Source)

Investigated the Dark Origins of COVID-19 — True. She established a task force/review for declassifying and investigating COVID-19 origins (including lab-leak hypothesis and gain-of-function research), collaborating with HHS/RFK Jr. and pushing against alleged prior suppression. (Source)

Fought the CIA to Declassify Hidden JFK Assassination + MK-Ultra Files — True. Her Director’s Initiatives Group (DIG) task force reviewed these for declassification per Trump orders; whistleblowers alleged CIA interference (e.g., reclaiming boxes of files and monitoring the group), leading to tensions and an IG probe. Some releases occurred. (Source)

Revoked Security Clearances From 37 Officials (Russia Hoaxers, Biden/Obama Holdovers, and Impeachment Letter Signers) — True. In 2025 she publicly revoked clearances from 37 current/former officials for alleged politicization, leaks, or related issues. (Source)

Fired Officials Who Contradicted Trump on Venezuelan Gangs — True. In May 2025 she fired two top National Intelligence Council officials after their assessment contradicted the White House line on Tren de Aragua/Venezuelan government coordination. (Source)

Moved CIA’s In-Q-Tel Under DNI Oversight for Greater Accountability — True (in process). She advanced/planned to shift oversight of the CIA’s venture capital arm In-Q-Tel to the ODNI for community-wide control, sparking internal pushback. (Source)

Uncovered Ukraine Government Plot to Illegally Reroute Hundreds of Millions in U.S. Taxpayer Dollars to Biden’s 2024 Campaign — True. Her office reviewed/declassified intercepts and materials alleging Ukrainian officials discussed rerouting U.S. aid/funds toward Biden’s campaign. (Source)

Launched Declassification Effort to Expose the Truth About UAPs — True. She coordinated rolling declassifications and releases of UAP/UFO-related files (multiple batches in May 2026) with the Pentagon, FBI, and others under Trump’s transparency directive. Slashed Bloated Intel Bureaucracy With 50% Staff Cuts at ODNI, Saving $700 Million — True (close match). Her “ODNI 2.0” reforms (announced August 2025) cut the office by over 40% (nearly 50% per some reports), eliminated hundreds of positions, and saved $700+ million annually. (Source)

Exposed the Intel Community’s Political Weaponization — Accurate framing of her overall efforts. This includes the DIG task force, declassifications, firings, and public statements on past politicization/leaks. (Source)

And who can forget this story, by the way?

In all, it was a remarkable run for Tulsi Gabbard, who will hopefully go on to bigger and better things. We’ll be keeping an eye on her.

The Daily Wire spent a decade building its identity around a simple promise. Legacy media had become bloated, ideologically captive, and incapable of telling the truth, and a leaner conservative outlet would replace it. On May 1, 2026, that outlet handed pink slips to a significant share of its own newsroom and production teams, with former host Candace Owens claiming on X that more than half the staff was let go. Editor-in-chief Brent Scher pushed back hard, calling the 50 percent figure “insane” and “nowhere near” accurate. The company itself confirmed only that the cuts spanned “a number of teams” and were concentrated at its Nashville production hub.

The exact percentage is contested. The trajectory is not. This is the second major round of layoffs in 13 months. Bentkey, the children’s streaming service launched as a conservative alternative to Disney, was shuttered in 2025 with its entire staff cut. Co-founder Jeremy Boreing stepped down as co-CEO in early 2025. Independent industry tracker layoffhedge.com estimates the cumulative workforce reduction at more than 60 percent in just over a year, and Boreing has since launched a solo podcast outside the company he helped build into a billion-dollar brand.

None of this happened in a vacuum. The financial pressure has been visible for those willing to look, and the audience numbers tell a story that no spokesperson statement can paper over.

The Numbers Don’t Lie Ben Shapiro built The Daily Wire’s audience on YouTube. He is now watching it leave. Channel analytics tracked by independent observers show monthly views down roughly 85 percent from their late 2023 peak of more than 170 million, settling somewhere between 18 and 26 million in early 2026. Subscriber counts have dropped by tens of thousands during certain stretches. The flagship voice of the outlet has lost the equivalent of a major network’s nightly audience, and that loss is reflected directly on the balance sheet.

Subscription growth slowed. Ad rates softened. Production costs kept climbing. Multiple reports indicated the company quietly retained bankruptcy counsel last year as the math stopped working. The billion-dollar valuation Boreing helped engineer in 2024 now looks less like proof of arrival and more like a high-water mark from a different media moment.

Hollywood Killed the Newsroom The Daily Wire’s identity crisis did not start with the layoffs. It started when the company decided it wanted to be a studio. Boreing’s vision pulled the outlet into expensive entertainment ventures, including The Pendragon Cycle, an ambitious Arthurian fantasy series of the kind that has bankrupted larger studios than this one. Bentkey was supposed to compete with Disney. Daily Wire+ was supposed to compete with streaming giants. The e-commerce arm, with its razors and chocolates and cigars, was supposed to monetize loyalty into recurring revenue.

Some of it worked. Matt Walsh’s Am I Racist? was the top-grossing documentary of 2024. Most of it consumed more cash than it produced. Running a newsroom and a film studio and a children’s entertainment platform and a private-label consumer goods company simultaneously requires either limitless capital or extraordinary discipline. The company appears to have run short of both. When Boreing departed, he reportedly negotiated his way out over a “shift in priorities,” which is a polite way to describe the moment when the creative empire stops paying for itself.

The Talent Exodus The most telling indicator of an institution’s health is whether its talent leaves and thrives or leaves and fades. The Daily Wire has been remarkably consistent on this question, and the answer has not been kind to its executives. Candace Owens, fired in 2024, has built a larger audience on her own than she ever commanded inside the company. Brett Cooper, who quit in late 2024 after a public dispute with Boreing over her replacement on her own show, is doing the same on YouTube. Boreing himself, the architect of the brand, is now producing independent content under his own name.

That is not a coincidence. It is a market signal. When the people who built your platform consistently outperform you after they leave, the audience is telling you that they followed the voice, not the logo. The Daily Wire spent years assuming the reverse, and the YouTube charts now show what that assumption costs.

Becoming What They Mocked There is a particular kind of irony in watching an outlet that built its brand attacking legacy media for being bloated, top-heavy, and ideologically captured, then run the exact same playbook in miniature. The Daily Wire chased prestige projects beyond its means. It centralized power around a small executive class. It treated dissenting talent as a liability rather than an asset. It hired bankruptcy counsel while telling subscribers everything was fine. The corporate behavior is indistinguishable from the legacy outlets it once delighted in mocking.

The conservative audience did not disappear. It migrated. Substacks, independent podcasts, X accounts with no payroll and no overhead are eating institutional brands across the political spectrum. The audience went looking for the unfiltered voices that Daily Wire-style outlets used to provide before they started worrying about valuations and Hollywood deals. The market has rendered its judgment, and the judgment was rendered by people clicking elsewhere.

The Apostle Paul wrote, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” The principle applies to institutions as readily as to individuals. The Daily Wire sowed an empire of expensive ambitions, internal purges, and the assumption that brand loyalty would survive any executive decision. It is now reaping a leaner organization, a fragmented audience, and a workforce reduction that the company itself will not fully quantify.

Conservative media is not dying. It is being rebuilt outside the institutions that thought they owned it. Those institutions can either rediscover the discipline that made them worth following, or they can keep trimming staff while wondering where the audience went. The Daily Wire’s next year will tell which path it has chosen, but the layoff notices that went out on May 1 suggest the choice has already been narrowed considerably.

https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/will-trump-cut-a-deal-with-iran

America’s love affair with Israel has hit an astonishing bump because President Donald Trump, in a political panic over the economic fallout from the Iranian blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, is now “talking to Iran,” as an Israeli insider put it, about ending the current impasse in return for a payment from the United States of at least $25 billion, and possibly much more, to the government in Tehran. In return, Iran would end its blockade and open the strait to all traffic, ending a crisis for Trump, the US, and much of the world.

One motive for Trump’s extraordinary step—I was not told how or by whom Trump’s offer was communicated—may be personal. The president, I was told, “no longer trusts Israel. He now believes he was misled” by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the potential for success of the recent joint US-Israeli bombing attack, a goal of which was to trigger an overthrow of the religious leadership in Iran. The president is said not to share Israel’s existential concern about the need to destroy or neutralize the large depot of partially enriched uranium that is allegedly stored in at least three deep tunnels in Iran. Iran as a member of the world’s nuclear club may be an existential threat for the Israeli leadership, but not for the president of the United States.

“He wants out,” the Israeli insider told me, and the Israeli leadership “is very upset because Trump”—in his fear of the political cost to him of a continuing blockade of the strait “has shown a willingness to ignore Israeli interests and desires.” People in the Israeli leadership “say he’s lost it. He doesn’t think of the consequences. You cannot do negotiations with Iran because every step we make he immediately broadcasts it on his social media posts. He is so obtuse.”

One clear sign of Trump’s indecision came this morning when the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg published similar stories quoting Trump telling “his aides” to prepare for a lengthy US Navy blockade of the strait in an effort to compel cash-strapped Iran to agree to giving up the nation’s stockpile of partially enriched uranium. The Journal depicted the offer as demonstrating that Trump, “who always seeks a quick and salable victory, is devoid of a silver bullet.”

The Israeli insider told me that the reports accurately reflected the conflicting opinions inside the administration about how to resolve the crisis, given the widespread belief that the Iranian leadership, facing steep losses of income, will eventually have to give in to economic pressure.

https://www.businessinsider.com/palantir-manifesto-alex-karp-technological-republic-summary-2026-4

Palantir's 22-point summary of Karp's book:

1. Silicon Valley owes a moral debt to the country that made its rise possible. The engineering elite of Silicon Valley has an affirmative obligation to participate in the defense of the nation.

2. We must rebel against the tyranny of the apps. Is the iPhone our greatest creative if not crowning achievement as a civilization? The object has changed our lives, but it may also now be limiting and constraining our sense of the possible.

3. Free email is not enough. The decadence of a culture or civilization, and indeed its ruling class, will be forgiven only if that culture is capable of delivering economic growth and security for the public.

4. The limits of soft power, of soaring rhetoric alone, have been exposed. The ability of free and democratic societies to prevail requires something more than moral appeal. It requires hard power, and hard power in this century will be built on software.

5. The question is not whether A.I. weapons will be built; it is who will build them and for what purpose. Our adversaries will not pause to indulge in theatrical debates about the merits of developing technologies with critical military and national security applications. They will proceed.

6. National service should be a universal duty. We should, as a society, seriously consider moving away from an all-volunteer force and only fight the next war if everyone shares in the risk and the cost.

7. If a U.S. Marine asks for a better rifle, we should build it; and the same goes for software. We should as a country be capable of continuing a debate about the appropriateness of military action abroad while remaining unflinching in our commitment to those we have asked to step into harm's way.

8. Public servants need not be our priests. Any business that compensated its employees in the way that the federal government compensates public servants would struggle to survive.

9. We should show far more grace towards those who have subjected themselves to public life. The eradication of any space for forgiveness—a jettisoning of any tolerance for the complexities and contradictions of the human psyche—may leave us with a cast of characters at the helm we will grow to regret.

10. The psychologization of modern politics is leading us astray. Those who look to the political arena to nourish their soul and sense of self, who rely too heavily on their internal life finding expression in people they may never meet, will be left disappointed.

11. Our society has grown too eager to hasten, and is often gleeful at, the demise of its enemies. The vanquishing of an opponent is a moment to pause, not rejoice.

12. The atomic age is ending. One age of deterrence, the atomic age, is ending, and a new era of deterrence built on A.I. is set to begin.

13. No other country in the history of the world has advanced progressive values more than this one. The United States is far from perfect. But it is easy to forget how much more opportunity exists in this country for those who are not hereditary elites than in any other nation on the planet.

14. American power has made possible an extraordinarily long peace. Too many have forgotten or perhaps take for granted that nearly a century of some version of peace has prevailed in the world without a great power military conflict. At least three generations — billions of people and their children and now grandchildren — have never known a world war.

15. The postwar neutering of Germany and Japan must be undone. The defanging of Germany was an overcorrection for which Europe is now paying a heavy price. A similar and highly theatrical commitment to Japanese pacifism will, if maintained, also threaten to shift the balance of power in Asia.

16. We should applaud those who attempt to build where the market has failed to act. The culture almost snickers at Musk's interest in grand narrative, as if billionaires ought to simply stay in their lane of enriching themselves . . . . Any curiosity or genuine interest in the value of what he has created is essentially dismissed, or perhaps lurks from beneath a thinly veiled scorn.

17. Silicon Valley must play a role in addressing violent crime. Many politicians across the United States have essentially shrugged when it comes to violent crime, abandoning any serious efforts to address the problem or take on any risk with their constituencies or donors in coming up with solutions and experiments in what should be a desperate bid to save lives.

18. The ruthless exposure of the private lives of public figures drives far too much talent away from government service. The public arena—and the shallow and petty assaults against those who dare to do something other than enrich themselves—has become so unforgiving that the republic is left with a significant roster of ineffectual, empty vessels whose ambition one would forgive if there were any genuine belief structure lurking within.

19. The caution in public life that we unwittingly encourage is corrosive. Those who say nothing wrong often say nothing much at all.

20. The pervasive intolerance of religious belief in certain circles must be resisted. The elite's intolerance of religious belief is perhaps one of the most telling signs that its political project constitutes a less open intellectual movement than many within it would claim.

21. Some cultures have produced vital advances; others remain dysfunctional and regressive. All cultures are now equal. Criticism and value judgments are forbidden. Yet this new dogma glosses over the fact that certain cultures and indeed subcultures . . . have produced wonders. Others have proven middling, and worse, regressive and harmful.

22. We must resist the shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism. We, in America and more broadly the West, have for the past half century resisted defining national cultures in the name of inclusivity. But inclusion into what?

Defense AI

https://bigbendtimes.com/2026/02/28/the-1953-iran-coup-how-the-u-s-helped-overthrow-a-democracy-and-why-it-still-matters-today/

The 1953 Iran Coup: How the U.S. Helped Overthrow a Democracy — and Why It Still Matters Today

In August 1953, a covert operation orchestrated by the United States and the United Kingdom helped overthrow Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. The event — known as Operation Ajax — reshaped the Middle East, strengthened authoritarian rule in Iran for decades and continues to influence tensions between Tehran and Washington today.

Understanding what happened requires stepping back into the geopolitics of the early Cold War — and the global fight over oil.

A Popular Leader Challenges Western Oil Power Mossadegh came to power in 1951 with strong nationalist support after Iran’s parliament voted to nationalize the country’s oil industry. For decades, Britain — through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP) — had controlled Iranian oil, paying Iran only a small share of the profits.

Nationalization was wildly popular inside Iran but unacceptable to Britain, which responded with sanctions, a global boycott of Iranian oil and covert efforts to undermine Mossadegh’s government.

Britain soon sought help from the United States.

Cold War Fears and Operation Ajax At first, the Truman administration hesitated to intervene. But by 1953, U.S. officials under President Dwight Eisenhower feared instability in Iran might open the door to Soviet influence — a major concern during the Cold War.

The CIA approved a covert plan with British intelligence (MI6) to remove Mossadegh from power. The operation included propaganda campaigns, funding protests, bribing officials and coordinating with military officers loyal to Iran’s monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

On Aug. 19, 1953, after several chaotic days of demonstrations and violence in Tehran, Mossadegh’s government collapsed. The shah — who had briefly fled the country — returned to power, and General Fazlollah Zahedi became prime minister.

About 200 to 300 people were killed during the unrest.

From Constitutional Monarchy to Authoritarian Rule Before the coup, Iran functioned as a constitutional monarchy with an elected government. Afterward, the shah consolidated power, ruling with increasing authoritarian control supported by U.S. military and intelligence assistance.

His regime lasted until 1979, when the Iranian Revolution overthrew the monarchy and established the Islamic Republic that still governs Iran today.

Many historians consider the coup a turning point that fueled anti-American sentiment in Iran. Iranian nationalists saw it as proof that Western powers would undermine democracy to protect strategic and economic interests.

U.S. Acknowledgment — Decades Later For years, the CIA’s role was denied or downplayed. But declassified documents and official statements eventually confirmed U.S. involvement.

In 2013, internal CIA records acknowledged that the coup was carried out “under CIA direction” as U.S. foreign policy.

More recently, the agency has described the intervention itself as undemocratic.

Why the Coup Still Matters The 1953 coup remains central to how Iranians — across political factions — view the United States.

It shapes debates over:

Nuclear negotiations Sanctions and diplomacy Regional conflicts Iranian distrust of Western intentions Many experts argue that ignoring this history makes it harder to understand current tensions.

A Complicated Legacy The coup was not solely driven by oil or imperial ambition; Cold War fears of communism were also real factors for U.S. policymakers at the time. But the outcome — removing an elected leader and empowering an autocratic monarchy — has led many scholars to rank the intervention among the most consequential and controversial decisions in American foreign policy.

More than 70 years later, the consequences are still unfolding.

https://republicanpress.org/fda-blocks-moderna-flu-vaccine-rfk-strikes/?utm_source=EWSR&utm_placement=RPnewsletter&utm_medium=email

The FDA has blocked Moderna’s groundbreaking mRNA flu vaccine from even entering the review process, marking a dramatic shift under the Trump administration’s newly confirmed Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has openly criticized mRNA technology and slashed over $500 million in federal mRNA research funding.

Story Snapshot

FDA issued rare “refusal-to-file” letter rejecting Moderna’s mRNA flu vaccine application despite 40,000-patient trial showing superior efficacy in adults 50+ Vaccine Director Dr. Vinay Prasad cited control arm concerns, contradicting 2024 Biden-era FDA feedback that approved Moderna’s trial design HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s anti-mRNA agenda has eliminated federal mRNA funding, rolled back COVID vaccine recommendations, and removed dissenting FDA advisors

Over a dozen former FDA commissioners condemned the new approval barriers as harmful to U.S. biomedical innovation leadership Moderna plans urgent FDA meeting while pursuing approvals in EU, Canada, and Australia where reviews continue without issue

FDA Rejects Moderna Application After Contradicting Prior Guidance

The FDA delivered a stunning setback to Moderna in early February 2026, refusing to review the company’s mRNA-based seasonal flu vaccine through a “refusal-to-file” letter. Vaccine Director Dr. Vinay Prasad claimed Moderna’s 40,000-participant phase 3 trial failed to use the “best-available standard of care” as a control, arguing the study lacked an “adequate and well-controlled trial.” This reasoning directly contradicts 2024 guidance from the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, which deemed Moderna’s standard-dose comparator acceptable, though preferring high-dose shots for seniors 65 and older. Moderna proceeded with the agreed protocol and even supplemented data with high-dose comparisons.

RFK Jr.’s HHS Overhaul Targets mRNA Technology Across Federal Agencies

The refusal-to-file letter represents the latest action in Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s systematic campaign against mRNA vaccines since joining the Trump administration in 2025. HHS terminated over $500 million in federal BARDA funding for mRNA flu research last summer, rolled back COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, mandated new mRNA vaccine warnings, and removed FDA advisors who supported streamlined approval processes. Dr. Prasad’s 2025 internal memo ended decades-old FDA practices allowing flu vaccine approvals based on immunogenicity data rather than full efficacy trials, specifically targeting mRNA products. More than a dozen former FDA commissioners publicly condemned this policy shift as unnecessarily disruptive to established scientific processes that have safely regulated seasonal vaccines for years.

Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel issued a sharp rebuke, stating the FDA’s decision “does not further America’s leadership in innovative medicines.” The company immediately requested an urgent meeting with FDA officials and took the unprecedented step of publicly releasing the refusal-to-file letter. Bancel emphasized that no regulatory mandate requires the “best standard” control the FDA now demands, and noted the agency raised no safety or efficacy concerns about mRNA-1010’s performance. The trial demonstrated superior protection compared to standard flu shots in adults 50 and older, the very population most vulnerable to seasonal influenza complications. This marks a rare instance of FDA issuing a refusal-to-file letter for a vaccine after extensive pre-submission discussions supposedly aligned the agency and manufacturer on trial design.

International Regulators Proceed While U.S. Stalls Innovation

While the FDA blocks domestic review, regulatory agencies in the European Union, Canada, and Australia continue evaluating Moderna’s mRNA flu vaccine without raising similar objections. The company anticipates potential approvals in these jurisdictions during late 2026 or early 2027, creating the absurd situation where American innovation may reach foreign markets first while U.S. patients face delays. Moderna maintains its 2026 financial guidance remains unchanged despite the U.S. setback, though the company announced plans to pivot research and development resources toward oncology applications. This strategic shift signals declining confidence in navigating the FDA’s evolving mRNA barriers under current leadership, potentially costing American patients access to potentially superior vaccine technology developed by U.S. companies.

Policy Shift Threatens U.S. Biomedical Leadership and Patient Access

The FDA’s action sends a chilling message to pharmaceutical innovators that mRNA vaccine development faces unpredictable regulatory hurdles regardless of prior agency agreements or clinical trial success. Industry analysts warn this uncertainty will deter investment in mRNA seasonal vaccine research, undermining the very American biomedical leadership Moderna’s CEO referenced. The decision particularly impacts seniors who could benefit from mRNA-1010’s demonstrated superior efficacy compared to standard-dose flu shots currently available. No evidence suggests safety concerns drove the FDA’s refusal; rather, administrative objections to trial design choices the agency previously accepted now block progress. This represents classic government overreach where bureaucratic preferences override scientific evidence, agreements, and patient needs. Former FDA commissioners’ widespread condemnation underscores how far current leadership has strayed from sound regulatory principles in service of an ideological agenda against mRNA technology.

Sources: Moderna says FDA refuses its application for new mRNA flu vaccine – ABC News

Moderna hit with FDA refusal-to-file letter on mRNA flu shot, issues sharp rebuke of agency’s rationale – FierceBiotech

Moderna Statement on FDA Refusal to File Letter for mRNA-1010 – Issuer Direct

https://americanjournaldaily.com/kirk-shooter-trial-obstructer/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=pjnewsletter

When tragedy strikes, society teeters on a knife’s edge. It’s a simple truth, really. The line between order and outright anarchy is thin, and it’s our law enforcement officers who have to walk it. Every second is a battle against the entropy of a crisis, a frantic push to reclaim the truth from the noise.

Yet in these moments, a darker element often emerges. While most Americans are frozen in shock or trying to help, some people see chaos as an opportunity. These individuals thrive on deception, seeking to muddy the waters and divert attention from evil. They are not merely bystanders; they are active agents of disorder, inserting themselves into the heart of a tragedy to serve their own twisted purposes.

From ‘The Daily Wire’:

As Zinn continued to claim he shot Kirk, law enforcement asked Zinn for the murder weapon. Zinn responded: “I am not going to tell you where [the gun] is. I shot him, now shoot me.”

Those were the words shouted by 71-year-old George Zinn in the immediate, critical moments after conservative icon Charlie Kirk was tragically assassinated on a Utah college campus. While police were desperately trying to locate a killer, Zinn launched a calculated performance designed to do one thing: interfere with the investigation and help a murderer escape.

Let’s be clear: this wasn’t some harmless prank or a desperate cry for 15 minutes of fame. This was a malicious assault on the rule of law, plain and simple.

An Attack on Justice Itself Every minute that law enforcement spent dealing with George Zinn was a minute the real killer, Tyler Robinson, had to get away. By falsely claiming responsibility and refusing to produce a weapon, Zinn deliberately orchestrated a pointless charade designed to protect a killer. As one report noted, police believe Zinn’s actions were a conscious “effort to conceal the real identity of the shooter.”

This is obstruction of justice in its most dangerous form. In the golden hour after a crime, the actions of first responders can make or break a case. Zinn chose to poison that critical time with lies. He created a smokescreen for evil, forcing officers to waste precious resources on him while the actual perpetrator slipped further away.

We don’t know if Zinn knew the killer personally, or if he was simply an ideological sympathizer who saw an opportunity to run interference. In the end, it doesn’t matter. His actions were a betrayal of every decent citizen’s duty, and he willingly made himself an accessory to chaos.

The Rot Beneath the Lie When a man is willing to publicly aid the escape of a political assassin, one has to wonder what other darkness lurks within his character. In Zinn’s case, we didn’t have to wonder for long.

During his arrest, police searched his phone and made a sickening discovery: child sexual abuse material. The man who tried to derail a murder investigation in public was privately consuming the most depraved content imaginable. And his excuse in court? You almost have to laugh at the audacity. He claimed the images were from some “‘chatroom dialogue with photos that are public access,’” as if that makes it any better. This is the kind of pathetic, predictable excuse you get from a man with no moral compass.

This is the face of moral decay. The same man who felt no shame in obstructing justice for a murdered conservative feels no remorse for his vile appetites. The public lie and the private sickness spring from the same poisoned well of moral bankruptcy.

A Reckoning for Deception Thankfully, Zinn’s despicable actions did not go unpunished. A judge has sentenced him to prison for up to 15 years for both his obstruction of justice and the sexual exploitation charges. While the wheels of justice continue to turn for Charlie Kirk’s actual killer, this sentence is a crucial victory for accountability.

It sends a clear and unequivocal message: if you interfere with law enforcement, if you provide cover for murderers, and if you work to subvert the foundations of our justice system, you will face consequences. Zinn’s lies could have allowed a killer to walk free, but instead, they have landed him exactly where he belongs: behind bars.

In the ongoing battle between order and anarchy, this is a firm point for order. While the pain of Charlie Kirk’s loss remains, we can take solace in knowing that at least one of the men who contributed to that day’s evil has been brought to justice. It is a reminder that truth, however besieged, will ultimately prevail.

Key Takeaways Obstructing a murder investigation is a direct and serious attack on law and order. The perpetrator’s private depravity reveals the moral rot behind his public deception. Accountability is paramount; justice was served to a man who tried to help a killer. Deception in moments of crisis is not a prank, but a dangerous act of societal betrayal.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and five other plaintiffs today accused the American Academy of Pediatrics of running a decades-long racketeering scheme to defraud American families about the safety of the childhood vaccine schedule. CHD filed the RICO suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. January 21, 2026

In a lawsuit filed today in federal court, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and five other plaintiffs accused the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) of running a decades-long racketeering scheme to defraud American families about the safety of the childhood vaccine schedule.

The suit alleges that the AAP violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by making “false and fraudulent” claims about the safety of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) childhood immunization schedule — while receiving funding from vaccine manufacturers and providing financial incentives to pediatricians who achieve high vaccination rates.

“For too long, the AAP has been held up on a pedestal, as if it were a font of science and integrity,” said CHD CEO Mary Holland. “Sadly, that’s not the case.”

Instead, Holland said, the AAP “is a front operation in a racketeering scheme involving Big Pharma, Big Medicine and Big Media, ready at every turn to put profits above children’s health. It’s time to face facts and see what the AAP is really about,” Holland said.

According to the complaint, the AAP has worked to conceal the findings of studies that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) — now known as the National Academy of Medicine — published in 2002 and 2013.

The IOM called for more research after concluding that no studies had ever been conducted to compare the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

The AAP’s conduct constitutes a pattern of fraud under RICO, a statute often used to prosecute organized crime, said Rick Jaffe, attorney for the plaintiffs.

Jaffe told The Defender that while previous lawsuits “challenged individual vaccines or sought compensation for individual injuries,” this “is a fraud case following the playbook that took down Big Tobacco.”

“The AAP’s actions parallel those of Big Tobacco, which misled the public regarding the safety of its products,” Jaffe said. “Tobacco created false uncertainty to manufacture doubt. The AAP did the inverse — it created false certainty to foreclose questions. Both used the trappings of science to prevent actual science.”

CHD General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg said the lawsuit shows “the close ties between entities and individuals who work toward the same purpose — propping up the vaccine industry and those who profit from it.”

The AAP is the largest pediatric trade group in the U.S., with 67,000 members.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks financial damages for the individual plaintiffs. It also asks the court to require the AAP to disclose the “lack of comprehensive safety testing” of vaccines, and bar the AAP from making “further unqualified safety claims” about vaccines.

Drs. Paul Thomas and Kenneth Stoller — physicians whose professional reputations were harmed for opposing AAP’s guidelines, and the parents of four children who died or were injured after receiving routine childhood vaccinations, are among the plaintiffs.

Lawsuit: AAP’s childhood vaccine safety claims based on ‘foundational fraud’

According to the lawsuit, the AAP’s claims about vaccine safety rest on a “foundational fraud” — namely, a 2002 article by pediatrician Dr. Paul Offit, published in the journal Pediatrics. The article claims that infants can “theoretically” receive up to 10,000 vaccines at once without posing a health risk.

The AAP “deployed this theoretical reassurance” to block the IOM studies and questions about the safety of the childhood schedule, to assure parents, doctors and policymakers that the vaccine schedule was thoroughly tested, the complaint states.

The AAP incorporated Offit’s claims into its flagship Red Book — its guide to the prevention, management and control of pediatric diseases. “Pediatricians learned to cite the 10,000 vaccines figure when parents expressed concern,” the complaint states.

“The Red Book is their Bible. When AAP says the schedule is safe, that’s what parents hear in examination rooms across America,” Jaffe said.

“Offit’s theoretical PR article did not study, and could not prove, the safety of the cumulative schedule,” according to the complaint. Yet the pediatricians who deviate from this standard of care have faced professional and personal consequences.

‘AAP turned pediatricians into vaccine delivery systems’

Thomas and Stoller, the two pediatricians who are suing the AAP, said they suffered professional and economic harm after questioning vaccine safety claims.

In 2020, Thomas co-authored research, now retracted, comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Days later, the Oregon Medical Board suspended Thomas, citing his deviation from AAP protocols and calling him a “threat to public health.”

“I was forced to abandon my patients, something highly illegal,” Thomas said. “There was economic damage in the millions and devastating stress and emotional duress.”

Stoller also faced professional discipline and reputational harm, according to the complaint. He lost his medical license in California and New Mexico after he granted medical exemptions to vaccine mandates.

“AAP turned pediatricians into vaccine delivery systems and destroyed the ones who asked questions,” Jaffe said.

AAP guidelines led to children’s vaccine-related deaths and injuries

The AAP’s “Red Book” vaccine recommendations contributed to the deaths and injuries of three of the plaintiffs’ children, according to the lawsuit.

Idaho resident Andrea Shaw’s two children — fraternal twins Dallas and Tyson Shaw — both died last year, eight days after receiving their 18-month vaccines.

According to the complaint, the Shaw family’s physician dismissed the parents’ warnings about the family’s history of adverse reactions to the flu vaccine. The doctor was following AAP guidance, “which does not generally recognize family history of vaccine reactions.”

A day after their vaccination, Shaw’s children were taken to the emergency room for a series of symptoms documented as “post-immunization reaction, initial encounter.”

A week later, the children died. Local authorities launched a homicide investigation against their mother, based on the suspicion that she caused their deaths. The investigation is still active.

New York resident Shanticia Nelson’s 1-year-old daughter, Sa’Niya Carter, died last year of cardiac arrest after having seizures roughly 12 hours after receiving six “catch-up” injections containing 12 vaccines.

Nelson told doctors she was concerned about giving her daughter so many vaccines at once, because the child was sick at the time. However, healthcare workers told Nelson that the “catch-up” regimen and vaccinating a “mildly ill” child were safe, according to the AAP.

Carter’s death certificate listed “sudden unexpected death in childhood” as the official cause of death. However, the coroner found signs of encephalitis, a condition linked to the DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) vaccine, which Carter had received.

“Shaw and Nelson’s stories show what happens when AAP’s paradigm corrupts medical judgment at the point of care,” the complaint states.

Plaintiff Jane Doe’s daughter, “E,” a high school student in New York, sustained anaphylactic reactions after getting three routine childhood vaccines.

The student later obtained a medical exemption from all further vaccinations. But in 2024, her school’s medical consultant revoked the exemption — and two more exemptions “E” had obtained — citing AAP guidelines.

After school officials said she couldn’t return to school unless she complied with state vaccine mandates, “E” became suicidal — so her parents allowed her to “catch up” on her vaccines.

After getting those shots, “E” had a severe allergic reaction and was diagnosed with arthropathy, a joint disease, requiring surgery and ongoing care. Arthropathy has been linked to the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, which “E” had received.

“Jane Doe’s story shows what happens when treating physicians get it right and the AAP paradigm overrides them,” the complaint states.

Complaint highlights AAP’s conflict of interest with vaccine makers

The AAP maintains financial relationships with vaccine manufacturers, including Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Sanofi Pasteur, and also with the federal government. However, the group doesn’t disclose these relationships in its policy statements and public safety assurances, according to the complaint.

This has led to conflicts of interest, including the formation of an “association-in-fact enterprise,” referring to “individuals or entities that operate together for a common purpose without forming a formal legal entity.”

“The same pharmaceutical conglomerates that serve as enterprise participants in manufacturing childhood vaccines have systematically acquired companies treating the chronic conditions those vaccines cause, creating a closed-loop system that financializes childhood illness,” the complaint states.

The complaint alleges that AAP has subsequently resisted any changes to the childhood vaccination schedule, including those enacted under the leadership of U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Last year, the AAP and other medical organizations sued Kennedy and other federal health officials and agencies. The groups seek to roll back the changes the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made to the childhood schedule. Last week, the AAP updated its complaint after HHS reduced the number of recommended childhood vaccines from 17 to 11 earlier this month.

The AAP last year released its own “evidence-based” immunization schedule, identical to the CDC’s childhood immunization schedule as it was before Kennedy became health secretary. Several states have adopted the AAP’s schedule.

AAP later rejected the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) vote to end hepatitis B shots for newborns, claiming children will “die” as a result. HHS removed AAP members from ACIP work groups last year. AAP’s updated lawsuit also asks the court to block ACIP’s next meeting in February.

In a separate lawsuit filed last month, the AAP demanded HHS restore $12 million in research grants that HHS withdrew last year. Last week, a federal judge reinstated the funding. AAP has also called for the prohibition of religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccination.

When HHS “has attempted reform, AAP leads the opposition,” the complaint states.

Mack Rosenberg said the AAP “fails to follow the actual science” in its lawsuits. Instead, the organization relies “only on that which supports its position that the childhood schedule is ‘safe and effective.’”

Plaintiffs compare AAP’s actions to those of Big Tobacco

The complaint draws parallels between AAP’s actions and tobacco companies’ efforts to conceal the dangers of smoking, which the U.S. Department of Justice prosecuted in a landmark RICO case, U.S. v. Philip Morris USA.

In the Philip Morris case, a federal court found that the tobacco industry was liable for denials about the health risks of tobacco spanning several decades.

The complaint states there are parallels between the AAP’s actions and those of Big Tobacco, including “suppression of adverse research, use of ‘independent’ scientific voices to block studies, and coordinated enterprise activity to mislead the public.”

This is the latest in a series of lawsuits CHD has filed. These include lawsuits against:

The federal Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, which oversees COVID-19 vaccine injury compensation claims. The U.S. Department of Defense over its “sham” religious exemption policies, The state of New York, alleging its prohibition of religious exemptions is unconstitutional.