Last Thursday Vice President JD Vance joined a White House press briefing to discuss initiatives the Trump administration is taking to investigate the pervasive welfare fraud that has been discovered in Minnesota. He was inevitably asked questions about the death of Renee Good after she attempted to drive her SUV over an ICE agent in Minneapolis. Vance described the media coverage of the death as “disgraceful,” and followed up with this question: “You guys are meant to report the truth. How have you let yourselves become agents of propaganda?” The collective response of the “reporters” was to disregard the question, but the answer is vital to the future of the republic. The ICE officer was not only hit by Good’s SUV, he was briefly hospitalized due his injuries. There is no way an objective viewer can watch this video and conclude otherwise. In a letter to the British philosopher Richard Price, Thomas Jefferson observed that “wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government.” Jefferson was, of course, an ardent advocate of a free press whose function was to provide voters with accurate information about the government’s actions in order to assess the competence of their elected leaders. By that standard, it’s unlikely that he would dignify the corporate media with the appellation, “free press.” This term implies that, in addition to being free of government coercion, the press must be untrammeled by ideological prejudices which render it impossible to report facts objectively. Today’s corporate media fail that test spectacularly. Consequently, it’s impossible to be “well informed” if you are among the millions of people who rely on the corporate media for news. This may be one of the reasons Renee Good was foolish enough to use her SUV to interfere with a law enforcement operation, ignore multiple commands by federal agents to exit the vehicle, and finally try to escape by ramming an ICE officer. That, despite the fictitious reports widely circulated by the corporate “news” media, is precisely what happened. This video, taken by the ICE officer she struck, clearly shows Good accelerating toward him before he fired on the SUV while trying in vain avoid being hit. This was just the latest of a rapidly rising number of vehicular attacks on ICE officers per DHS: Today, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released new statistics on assaults against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) law enforcement … During the first year of the Trump administration, from January 20 – December 31, 2025, DHS officials reported 275 assaults as compared to the 19 reported assaults during the same period in 2024. This is a horrific 1,347% increase in assaults against ICE officers … From January 21, 2025 – January 7, 2026, ICE law enforcement officers experienced 66 vehicular attacks against them, compared to only 2 during the same time period the previous year. This is a 3,200% increase in vehicular attacks. Yet the corporate media continues to canonize Good as a mere observer brutally murdered by ICE storm troopers. NPR, for example, gave Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison a platform to perpetuate this myth: “She was a compassionate neighbor trying to be a legal observer on behalf of her immigrant neighbors.” Oddly, there has been very little corporate media coverage of her anti-ICE activism. As National Review reports, “Renee Nicole Good, the Minnesota woman who was fatally shot by an ICE officer, belonged to a Minneapolis-based “ICE Watch” group that actively tracked immigration enforcement operations and trained activists to interfere with agents, including by blocking law enforcement vehicles.” Instead of reporting such inconvenient facts, publications like the Washington Post gave us encomiums from her loved ones: “Good’s family and friends describe her as a devoted mother to her three children, an artist with a prizewinning talent for poetry who had weathered personal difficulties, including the death of her second husband, a military veteran who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.” We are also informed that Good’s “wife” was deeply fond of her: “In her statement Friday, Rebecca Good recalled how Renee “sparkled.” When the Post finally gets to its “analysis” of the various videos that show her fatal encounter with the ICE officers, they are remarkably reluctant to concede that Good’s actions put them in danger: A recording released Friday by Alpha News appears to show the moments immediately before the shooting from the perspective of the ICE officer who shot Good … Other videos from witnesses that day show Good’s maroon Honda Pilot parked in the road as ICE vehicles approach. ICE officers then confront her, demanding that she get out of her car. A frame-by-frame analysis by The Post of the bystander footage, however, raises questions about administration officials’ accounts of the shooting. The SUV did move toward an ICE officer as he stood in front of it. But the officer was able to move out of the way and fire at least two of three shots from the side of the vehicle. This last claim is preposterous. The ICE officer was not only hit by Good’s SUV, he was briefly hospitalized due his injuries. There is no way an objective viewer can watch this video and conclude otherwise. Nonetheless, the Washington Post is not the only legacy outlet clinging to that fiction. The New York Times also reached the same conclusion: “On Thursday, after our interview with the president, a Times analysis of footage from three camera angles showed the motorist was driving away from — not toward — a federal officer when he opened fire.” This is utterly absurd. Even the Post admitted that the SUV “moved toward” the ICE officer. The only mystery here is why President Trump keeps giving the Gray Lady interviews. This brings us back to the purpose of the free press — to keep the electorate well-informed in order to make intelligent political decisions. Does anyone believe the corporate media are doing their job? Brandon Straka summed up the cause of Renee Good’s death: “This woman lost her life because she was fully gripped by years of media indoctrination that told her that she’s living in 1930s Germany and interfering with ICE is akin to fighting Hitler’s Nazis.” That is the price of corporate media corruption. It is far more dangerous than most people know — and the people who are charged with telling us the truth have long since sold their souls. READ MORE from David Catron: Yes, Trump’s Action Against Maduro Was Legal The Fulton County 2020 Election Bombshell The Democrats Decide to Lose

If I could write books as fast as I get ideas for one, I would be the next J.K. Rowling. But being contracted to two more Mark Slade detective thrillers by next year, and the Great Hollywood Novel after that, I have to put off my new bestseller brainstorm until 2029 — when I hope it won’t be too late for it, or for America. Unless a sage, prescient publisher, or producer, makes me a lucrative offer I can’t refuse for an earlier appearance of The Harpy Syndrome. Put simply, The Harpy Bug is the far scarier 21st century antithesis to The Stepford Wives. But what’s making these women so insane in the first place?…. What can make them risk their liberty and lives for criminal scum that would rape them or beat them without a second of regret? Ira Levin’s 1972 feminist horror classic follows a progressive New York married couple, Joanna and Walter, who relocate to Stepford, Connecticut, where all the women are gorgeous trad housewives catering to their husbands’ every behavioral and sexual preference. They dress provocatively, showcasing physical attributes that invite the Male Gaze. Of course, the initially liberal Walter starts unfavorably comparing Joanna to her more physically and domestically attractive sisters, and ultimately assents to her transformation into a Stepford Wife. Naturally, when Hollywood got hold of the story for a 1975 production, they blew it as usual. The late, great screenwriter William Goldman (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, All the President’s Men, The Princess Bride) had happily signed on to adapt Levin’s book, fascinated by the concept of husbands turning their spouses into subservient, sexy trophy wives. His contentment was short lived once British director Bryan Forbes discarded the wives’ skimpy outfits in favor of absurd long frilly sundresses and, worse, wide ugly hats. Goldman, a purist artist, knew that men would realistically show off their enhanced wives in enticing wear. At the time, the 70s, this meant hot pants, mini-skirts, tennis shorts, and the like. Which in Goldman’s view worked visually and thematically to highlight the horror of liberated women mutated into obedient sex kittens. But when Forbes changed their dresses to ridiculous body-hiding things, he tried to take his name off the script, as he wrote in his requisite book, Adventures in the Screen Trade: A Personal View of Hollywood and Screenwriting.  “More than anything else, it was the costumes in the movie that set my teeth on edge,” Goldman wrote. “At a lawn party on a summer afternoon, the men are in jackets and ties, the women in floor-length dresses. In Stepford? … The women, bringing the beer, would wear hot pants and low-cut blouses. Or maybe wet T-shirts. But Forbes had two bad reasons for his credibility-killing change. First, he feared the reaction of his liberal peers to overt stimulative eroticism even if intellectually salient — such as poster images of the Stepford Wives resembling Russ Meyer-type Supervixens (1975). Second, Forbes cast his wife, Nanette Newman, as one of the main Wives. Then in her early 40s, Newman couldn’t compete with Hollywood pulchritude — including the film’s star, Katharine Ross — or rise to the aesthetic vision of Levin and Goldman. Nevertheless, in the mid-Seventies, feminism was culturally ascendant, and Hollywood was all in on the movement on both screens. Almost every film featured a lead starlet who could never make the beauty grade as a Stepford Wife “finding herself” by discarding “oppressive” men — Ellen Burstyn in Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, Jill Clayburgh in An Unmarried Woman, Meryl Streep in Kramer vs. Kramer, Sally Field in Norma Rae, etc. Television was even worse, offering a plethora of homely shrewish “protagonists” — Bea Arthur in Maude, Bonnie Franklin in One Day at a Time, Linda Lavin in Alice. Even an established sitcom, M*A*S*H, stopped being funny when a sexy main character, Hot Lips, became annoying no-nonsense Margaret. Fortunately, three later 70s TV shows brought back female sex appeal and interrupted humorless feminism — Charlie’s Angels, Three’s Company, Wonder Woman. It took a bit longer for the big screen to catch up, with the antifeminist monster hit, Animal House. But for the rest of the last century and a decade into the next, appealing sexy women dominated multiple genres — comedy (Porky’s, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, American Pie, There’s Something About Mary), erotic thriller (Body Heat, Basic Instinct, 9-1/2 Weeks), children’s animation (The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin) and especially romantic comedy. Then, around 2010, suddenly and decisively, it all ended, It’s not that women took over the arts and almost the government, it’s that batty dysfunctional leftist women did. Because the normal reasonable women have more important contributions to make to society — like raising the next hopefully great generation, with the help not hindrance of the heads of their husbands. Weak men gave crazy females the power, as George Lucas gave Kathleen Kennedy (see my article, Exit the Hollywood Women, Part 2 — Kathleen Kennedy) and Barack Obama tried to give Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden did Kamala Harris. But what’s making these women so insane in the first place? That even those blessed with children — though not real men husbands — would drop off their kids at a school then go with their “wives” or beta male companions in freezing, snowy weather to interfere with law-enforcement agents doing their dangerous legal duty. (“Show your face, big boy!” Renee Nicole Good’s “wife” taunted an ICE officer.) What can make them risk their liberty and lives for criminal scum that would rape them or beat them without a second of regret? It would have to be something mind-blowingly, abnormally evil. Read The Harpy Syndrome, coming to a bookstore near you in 2028. READ MORE from Lou Aguilar: Exit the Hollywood Women, Part 2 — Kathleen Kennedy Exit, the Hollywood Women Heroes and Zeroes of 2025

The ayatollahs’ regime in Iran appears to be failing apart but they are still very dangerous. They have always had all of the morality of a cornered rat but now that the regime seems to be unraveling — and it may or may not — the more desperate they are, the more dangerous they will become. Today marks a day of more than two weeks of demonstrations and riots. But the ayatollahs are not known for their sanity. As their regime grows weaker they will lose control over their military as well as their nation. On Thursday Iran’s “supreme leader” Ayatollan Khameini blamed President Trump for the unrest in Iran. We should hope that the ayatollah is correct. On his first day in office, Trump should have tasked the CIA — in a secret presidential determination — to overthrow the Iranian regime. We don’t — and shouldn’t — know if Trump actually did. The two weeks of riots and demonstrations have included increasing deaths on both sides. The regime cut off internet service across Iran on Thursday. It seems to be cutting off any access to outside information including news coverage which should surprise no one. Lebanon indicated that it was disarming the Iranian terror proxy force, Hizballah, last week, but whether that is true is problematic. Mr. Trump has threatened that we would intervene if Iran kept killing the demonstrators and rioters. In response, one of Iran’s military chiefs, Major General Amir Hatami, threatened military action against the United States. The questions are what form that action could take and how likely it is is that Iran would take it. The only threats that Iran could mount against us are either in terrorist acts or a missile attack. The former is possible but the latter is very unlikely. The Iranian proxy Hizballah has been operating in Venezuela for at least a decade without disturbance. Hizballah probably has, among the people former president Biden’s open borders let in, a number of people who could take terrorist action against the U.S. But that is probably not at all likely if we are analyzing any act of terrorism that could kill thousands of Americans. They could — and almost certainly would if the ayatollahs order it — mount an attack that could kill dozens or hundreds. Nevertheless, we have to have some faith in the FBI and NSA in that they could prevent such an attack. The other question is whether Iranian missiles, which have been developing greater and greater ranges — could be launched to attack the U.S. Most or all of our significant missile defense systems have been deployed in Alaska and California. Our east coast, against which any Iranian missile attack would fly, is basically undefended. Moreover, any Iranian ship could launch a drone attack that could cause many deaths. Regarding Iran’s missile capabilities our intelligence agencies apparently believe that Iran’s missiles cannot reach the U.S. but could reach Israel and Europe. We are left to worry if our intelligence agencies are right. They failed to warn of every major attack from Pearl Harbor to 9-11. How right are they now? It also is apparent that the Israeli intelligence agencies are similarly concluding that Iran’s missiles are not capable of reaching the U.S. It’s more of a safe bet that they are correct. Five years ago, Iran shot down — the Iranians claimed it was brought down by a cyber attack — a U.S. Air Force stealthy drone, an RQ-170 Sentinel.  Whether they have learned from it — and possibly reverse-engineered it — remains to be seen. Our Coast Guard and the Navy are keeping watch for Iranian ships — or any of the supposed “shadow fleet” of false-flagged ships — coming toward the U.S. But how close they can come before launching a drone attack is up to the engineering of the drones themselves. If Iran managed to attack us, the regime’s ego would require it to brag to the international media. If they did, how would we respond? Trump would probably attack the regime, bombing whichever of the ayatollahs and probably their presidential palace and their parliament. The Iranians know this and that would serve as a deterrent to all but the craziest of people. But the ayatollahs are not known for their sanity. As their regime grows weaker they will lose control over their military as well as their nation. We should, as I have written elsewhere, do everything we can to help the demonstrators cum revolutionaries in Iran. We have been called their “Great Satan” for long enough to push us to prove it. READ MORE from Jed Babbin: In 2026, All Bets Are Off A Trump-Worthy Year for the Military ISIS Isn’t Defeated — and Syria Proves It          

Many, many years ago, having come to the United States after the Communists took over Cuba, as a young man I would go to small events where American intellectuals would declare that China’s Cultural Revolution, or Castro’s takeover of Cuba were wonderful. Being naive (embarrassingly so), I actually thought their salivating admiration was due to ignorance of what Communism really was. But what is so striking now, as it was many years ago for me, was how deep their lack of self-awareness runs. So, I would present them with facts about the censorship, indoctrination, and political repression. Nothing made any impression on them. Facts, logic, reasoning slid off their faces like they were coated with Teflon. Even more bizarre, they, who were Americans and not Cubans, and who had no knowledge of Cuban history, culture, or geography, and did not speak one word of Spanish, were arguing with me, who was Cuban. They believed they were speaking on behalf of the Cuban people. The same pattern is being presently replayed regarding the recent events in Venezuela. That country was the richest country in South America because of its vast oil deposits. After Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro incrementally implemented Communism, the economy became moribund and censorship and repression became permanent. Criminal gangs loyal to the regime further terrorized the citizenry, and hunger was widespread. As happened before with other Communist regimes, millions fled the country. Like Cuba. Last year, Maduro was also about to invade neighboring Guyana — it too, has vast oil deposits — but Trump warned Maduro against doing so and the dictator backed down. Maduro’s regime also became involved in narcotrafficking, and forming close ties with America’s enemies. Now that Trump removed Maduro from power, Venezuelans worldwide have become delirious with happiness, celebrating like it was New Year’s Day in 2020. You can see images of these celebrations in Spain, Chile, Florida, Argentina, Australia, Perú. Venezuelan Nobel Prize laureate, Maria Corina Machado publicly thanked Trump. Predictably, American liberals, including Democrat politicians, automatically became outraged and instantly formed demonstrations in San Antonio, New York, DC, Denver and Chicago with their premade signs demanding the dictator be returned to power, denigrating America, condemning Trump, and claiming that removing the dictator was really about taking over Venezuela’s oil. And, of course, their incurable parroting of slogans. Oh, and they also claimed to be representing the Venezuelan people. The fact that Venezuelans were thanking Trump and flying the American flag must have choked some American leftists. But what is so striking now, as it was many years ago for me, was how deep their lack of self-awareness runs. They don’t realize how ridiculous, how bizarre their support for a dictator is. It is very much like their shrieks in support for illegal immigrant felons facing deportation, and it speaks volumes about them. In all these many years, they have not changed. What has changed, though, is now we have Instagram and X, and Venezuelans are using these platforms to roast American supporters of the dictator. READ MORE from Armando Simón: The Nobel Peace Prize Hits Rock Bottom Reminder: Voter Fraud Needs Our Attention Trump’s 180-Degree Turn on Putin  

“I have a message for ICE. To ICE, get the f*** out of Minneapolis.” That line was delivered publicly and deliberately by Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. The language was bleeped. The message was not. When politics becomes performance and outrage replaces responsibility, people die. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz followed with a statement insisting that federal involvement was unnecessary and that Minnesota would not allow itself to be used as “a prop in a national political fight.” Whether enforcement is treated as legitimate or condemned as provocation now appears to depend entirely on who is doing the enforcing — and who is being inconvenienced by it. That selective outrage isn’t just hypocrisy. It’s dangerous. In the aftermath of a recent enforcement incident, Rep. Jasmine Crockett labeled the action a “state-sanctioned execution” — a charge untethered from law, training, and long-established use-of-force standards. Language like that doesn’t clarify the truth. It distorts it — and it puts lives at risk. Here’s the reality politicians too often ignore: ICE agents are federal law-enforcement officers. They are not vigilantes. They are not political props. They enforce laws passed by Congress, signed by presidents of both parties, and upheld by the courts. You don’t get to applaud enforcement when it aligns with your ideology and demonize it when it doesn’t. Understand this: a vehicle is a deadly weapon. When someone drives a vehicle toward a law-enforcement officer — local, state, or federal — that vehicle becomes an imminent threat. Officers are trained to stop that threat immediately because hesitation gets people killed. This is where the armchair experts reliably appear. “Why didn’t they just shoot out the tires?” Because that is not how police are trained. Shooting a moving tire is extraordinarily difficult and rarely neutralizes a threat. Miss, and the vehicle continues forward. Hit, and the car can still veer out of control, striking bystanders or other officers. “Why didn’t they just shoot the person in the knee?” Again — not how police are trained. A knee shot does not reliably incapacitate a threat. A wounded suspect can still stand, still act, still kill. Officers are trained to aim center mass because it is the only method proven to immediately stop a lethal threat. This isn’t politics. It’s survival. I say this not as a slogan, but as someone who understands the stakes. I am the daughter of a United States Army veteran who served in World War II. My father was a sharpshooter — not in mythology, but in reality. He was trained to make split-second decisions because hesitation in moments of danger doesn’t lead to debate or do-overs. It leads to death. He was a hero — my hero — and one of millions who understood that duty sometimes demands action, not delay. The same principle applies to law enforcement today. When I earned my master’s degree in criminal justice, many of my classmates were police officers. There was a saying they all understood — one the public often mocks but officers live by: I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by six. Once you’re in a pine box, there are no more arguments. No press conferences. No outrage cycles. There is only silence — broken briefly by bagpipes, the measured steps of officers escorting a fallen colleague, and the quiet grief of families whose lives will never be the same. Dead is dead. And yet political rhetoric increasingly treats lethal force as if it exists in a vacuum — divorced from context, training, and the split-second realities officers face. Labeling lawful enforcement actions as “executions” may earn applause online, but it actively undermines public safety. It encourages resistance. It escalates encounters. And it places officers and civilians in greater danger. Here is a truth adults understand: when a law-enforcement officer gives a lawful order, compliance matters. When you don’t comply, consequences follow. Accountability is not violence. Enforcement is not oppression. ICE agents are doing the job politicians refuse to do. They enforce the law so communities don’t collapse under fentanyl trafficking, violent crime, and chaos. Demonizing them isn’t moral courage. It’s cowardice. When politics becomes performance and outrage replaces responsibility, people die. A society that demands law enforcement while vilifying those who enforce the law is a society at war with itself. Accountability is not brutality. Enforcement is not oppression. And officers should never be forced to choose between doing their job and becoming political collateral. America doesn’t need more outrage. It needs courage — and leaders willing to stand behind the rule of law. READ MORE: The Terrorists’ New Weapon — Doxxing LEOs DOJ Files Charges Against Antifa Utilizing AI to Disrupt Criminal Networks Kelly Rae Robertson is a former criminal-justice investigator with a master’s degree in criminal justice and a licensed mental-health professional. She writes on public safety, law enforcement, and accountability.    

Last week, the Department of Homeland Security issued a year-end announcement meant to close the book on immigration in 2025. According to DHS, more than 2.5 million illegal aliens have left the United States since January, including roughly 600,000 formal deportations and about 1.9 million voluntary departures, driven by the return of enforcement consequences. The department described the figure as historic, evidence that control has been restored after years of drift. And until the United States builds the capacity to see it clearly, risk at this scale will remain the country’s most dangerous unknown. The timing matters. This announcement followed the most permissive period of illegal migration in modern U.S. history. Between January 2021 and December 2024, the full span of the Biden administration, approximately 11 million illegal border encounters were recorded, according to Customs and Border Protection data compiled and visualized by NBC News. That surge did more than strain capacity. It altered the demographic and security profile of illegal migration into the United States. Deportation totals tell us how many have left. They tell us far less about who entered, from where, and what risk remains inside the country as a result of the surge that preceded them. The defining feature of the Biden-era intake was not volume alone. It was origin. For decades, illegal migration into the United States was largely regional. That model collapsed during the Biden years. Migrants arrived from more than 160 countries, and by fiscal year 2023, more than half of all illegal encounters involved migrants from outside Mexico and Central America, a structural shift documented by CBP and widely reported. This was not a temporary spike. It was a reorientation of the border itself, with implications deportation tallies cannot resolve. The origin data is where the concern sharpens. During the surge years, encounters from Special Interest Alien countries, nations flagged by U.S. authorities for terrorism, intelligence, or security concerns, rose markedly. CBP nationality data cited in congressional correspondence through October 2023, combined with elevated flows through fiscal year 2024, shows tens of thousands of illegal entrants from adversarial regimes, failed states, Islamist conflict zones, Africa, Eurasia, and Central Asia across the Biden era. Turkey alone accounted for more than 30,800 encounters by October 2023, and continued crossings through 2024 place conservative full-era estimates well above 40,000. Turkey occupies a complex position in the security landscape: a NATO member that has also served as a transit hub for smugglers and foreign fighters moving through Syria and Iraq. Vetting at this scale, from this environment, cannot be resolved in a brief border screening. From Central Asia, the figures were also striking. Uzbekistan recorded 13,624 encounters by late 2023, with continued migration through 2024 placing full-era figures in the high-teens to low-20,000s. Afghan nationals, arriving largely after the Taliban takeover, likely totaled between 8,000 and 10,000 across the Biden years, while Pakistani nationals exceeded 2,200 and likely approached 2,500 across the full term. From the Middle East, the numbers were smaller but significant in context. Iranian nationals, from a designated state sponsor of terrorism with no meaningful intelligence cooperation with the United States, were encountered in the high hundreds to roughly 1,000 across the four-year period. Syrian nationals, arriving from a collapsed state fragmented by ISIS remnants, al-Qaeda affiliates, and Iranian-backed militias, reached the high hundreds to low thousands once fiscal year 2024 is included. Iraqi nationals, originating from a militia-dominated post-war environment with incomplete civil records, similarly reached several hundred to over a thousand encounters across the term. Across North Africa and the Arab world, the pattern persisted. Egyptian nationals exceeded 4,000 encounters during the Biden era. Libya, fractured by warlords, arms trafficking, and jihadist corridors, contributed several hundred encounters, each largely unverifiable beyond self-reported data. From the Arabian Peninsula, Yemeni nationals, originating from a war-torn country dominated by armed factions aligned with designated terrorist groups, reached several hundred encounters across the administration. From Sub-Saharan Africa, the figures grew more pronounced. Somalia, synonymous with state failure and extremist infiltration, accounted for thousands of encounters across the Biden era, arriving from a country where civil records are unreliable and diaspora networks have been exploited by jihadist groups for decades. Mauritania alone exceeded 15,000 encounters by late 2023, with continued flow through 2024, one of the most significant Sahelian migration surges on record. The surge also extended deep into Eurasia and South Asia, further underscoring how globalized and difficult to vet the intake became. Russia accounted for approximately 3,000 to 4,000 encounters across the Biden years, with numbers rising after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Even North Korea, one of the world’s most closed regimes, registered roughly 40 to 70 encounters, insignificant in volume but notable given the absence of documentation and intelligence cooperation. From South Asia, the numbers were larger. India emerged as one of the single largest non-Western Hemisphere source countries, with between 65,000 and 75,000 encounters across fiscal years 2021 to 2024. Bangladesh accounted for approximately 7,000 to 9,000 encounters, Nepal for roughly 6,000 to 8,000, and Sri Lanka for about 1,000 to 2,000 across the four years. Layered on top of all of this was the most under-examined alarm bell of the period: China. In fiscal year 2023 alone, U.S. border authorities encountered roughly 33,000 to 37,000 Chinese nationals crossing illegally at the southern border, a single-year surge confirmed by CBP and reported by NBC News that exceeded the combined totals from multiple prior years. Earlier years saw smaller numbers, and fiscal year 2024 added several thousand more, placing total Chinese encounters across the Biden era well into the 45,000 to 50,000 range. China is not a failed state. It is a strategic adversary with sophisticated intelligence services and leverage over citizens abroad. At this scale, illegal entry outside the visa system creates unavoidable counterintelligence exposure, not because intent can be assumed, but because visibility is lost when volume overwhelms screening. What unites these figures is not suspicion about migrants themselves, but uncertainty. In many cases, we do not know who these individuals truly are beyond what they claimed at entry, why they came when they did, or who they may now be affiliated with. Many arrived from environments where identity documents are incomplete or controlled by militias, where criminal and intelligence records are inaccessible, and where affiliations can change after arrival. A one-time screening at the border cannot resolve that, and once released into the interior, there is no scalable mechanism to revisit those questions over time. ICE’s stepped-up enforcement in 2025 addresses part of the picture. Arrests increased. Detention reached record levels, with more than 68,000 individuals held at one point, the highest number ever recorded, a figure documented by The Guardian. But deportations, however necessary, do not retroactively solve the visibility gap created by the Biden-era intake. The danger left behind by the surge is not hypothetical. It is present, embedded, and largely unquantified. After 11 million illegal entries, the United States is no longer confronting only a border problem, but an interior intelligence problem, one defined by the unknown. We do not reliably know who a significant portion of this population is beyond initial claims, why they came when they did, or how their affiliations, beliefs, or vulnerabilities may have evolved since arrival. What makes this moment dangerous is scale. Risk at the margins can be managed. Risk measured in the millions cannot, not with episodic enforcement, not with static screening, and not with systems built for a different era. Threat develops quietly, often long after entry, through ideology, networks, and influence. This is not an argument against enforcement. It is an argument for matching enforcement with intelligence at scale. ICE can remove violators. Border Patrol can interdict flows. But neither can answer the central question left behind by the surge: what risks are already here, unobserved and unmeasured. The most permissive period in modern border history did not just change who came in. It changed where the risk now resides. It is no longer only at the border. It is within. And until the United States builds the capacity to see it clearly, risk at this scale will remain the country’s most dangerous unknown. READ MORE from Kevin Cohen: Britain’s Boat Crisis Comes Into Focus Age Fraud and the Collapse of Child-Only Safeguards Hollow Sanctuaries: When Churches Become Mosques    

Protests have been raging in Iran for over two weeks now. While there has been unrest against the theocratic Islamic Republic before, this time feels different. According to Fox News, more than 50 demonstrators have been killed by the forces of Ayatollah Khamenei. As the protests have spread, the regime has also placed the country under an internet blackout.  When he called for people to take to the streets on Thursday, they listened. Pahlavi definitely seems to have some personal purchase with the Iranian populace. Taken as a whole, it certainly seems like Khamenei and his government are worried about their own survival. Many international observers have considered: if the Islamic Republic goes down, what comes next? It’s a thorny question, but Reza Pahlavi seems like a straightforward answer. Pahlavi, one of the most notable faces of the opposition movement, is the eldest son of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Iranian shah who was overthrown by the Iranian revolution in 1979. While his father’s deep unpopularity helped usher in the Ayatollahs to begin with, economic woes and the repression of the Iranian regime have ushered in a nostalgia for the old monarchy in recent years. The prince is indisputably the heir to the Persian throne and has been Westernized by his time in exile. But, that doesn’t mean he’s a shoo-in. Notably, The Washington Post referred to Pahlavi as a leader of the Iranian democratic opposition, not the leader. President Donald Trump appears to feel similarly, saying that it would not be “appropriate” to meet with Pahlavi. He further explained that “I think that we should let everybody go out there and we see who emerges.” Despite this, Pahlavi himself praised Trump in an op-ed for The Washington Post, lauding his “clear and firm support for the Iranian people.” The administration has certainly kept a supportive attitude towards the anti-regime protesters. On January 10th, Secretary of State, Acting National Security Adviser, Acting USAID Administrator, and Acting Archivist of the National Archives Marco Rubio posted on X that “The United States supports the brave people of Iran.” Trump himself made a post on Truth Social saying that “Iran is looking for FREEDOM, perhaps like never before. The USA stands ready to help!!!” Trump previously threatened to intervene if the Iranian regime killed protesters.  So, what’s going on here really? It’s certainly clear that Trump and his administration want the Ayatollah and his Islamic regime gone. Notwithstanding their hostility to U.S. interests, there were several serious Iranian threats against Trump during the 2024 presidential election, including an attempted assassination plot. But at the same time, Trump likely doesn’t want to pick a preferred alternative in haste. This accords with his administration’s policy in Venezuela. After the capture of the country’s dictator, Nicholas Maduro, by U.S. forces, there was some talk among Republican lawmakers about recognizing opposition leader Maria Corina Machado as the country’s next president. But Trump declined to do so, stating that she didn’t have enough “support” or “respect” within the country. Reportedly, the administration was concerned that Machado lacked the on-the-ground support she purported to have. Instead, the administration has been working with Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodriguez. The overriding policy of the Trump administration, then, should be understood to be realism. Recognizing Machado as the rightful leader of Venezuela might be the “right” thing to do in some idealistic sort of way, but if that policy would destabilize Venezuela and make it harder to enact change, the only logical move is not to do so. The starry-eyed, naive attempts to nation-build Western-style democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq by neoconservatives and the Bush administration haven’t been forgotten. Is Pahalvi in danger of being sidelined like Machado? It can’t be ruled out. Author Arash Azizi told CNN that “Pahlavi personally doesn’t have qualities that appeal to Trump. He is rather bookish and lacks the kind of personal charisma that could appeal to someone like Trump…. He will have a hard time winning over Trump.” But there is plenty of cause to think Pahlavi could be different. Iranians have responded en masse to his calls for protests against the Ayatollah’s regime. When he called for people to take to the streets on Thursday, they listened. Pahlavi definitely seems to have some personal purchase with the Iranian populace, which is more than Machado or any other Iranian opposition figure can say. Whether that will be enough for him to reclaim his father’s Peacock Throne, only time will tell. READ MORE from Stephan Kapustka: The Running Man Is a Hicklib’s Fantasy Come to Life Poll: New Jersey Governor’s Race Too Close to Call Charlie Kirk and My Friend From Boy Scouts

“One way or another” — that was the way Donald Trump spoke of his intention to acquire Greenland as he addressed a joint session of Congress last March. In recent days, Trump, fresh from overseeing a U.S. military operation that removed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power, has repeated that he wants to gain control of Greenland from NATO ally Denmark. The White House said he’s discussing his options, including potential use of the U.S. military. Helping Greenland — financially and politically — acquire its independence from the Danes effectively puts America on the side … of self-determination and freedom. The route of least resistance is to support their independence from the Danes and do a lease. I wrote about this for the Hill last February. Trump’s critics are decrying imperialism, and the King of Demark once more thinks “there is something rotten” about the U.S. entrenching itself in the Atlantic colony of the Danes. But, let’s be clear-headed here, America (a NATO ally of Denmark), is not going to invade Greenland. And annexing or buying Greenland is probably the wrong approach for multiple reasons. America doesn’t need sovereignty over roughly one and a quarter million square miles of basically — ice and rock. What it does need is dictated by America’s national security interests— long-term access to the Arctic: military and space bases, infrastructure, and a durable agreement for harvesting strategic minerals. Greenland sits astride the Arctic approaches that connect the Atlantic and the far North, for military purposes. Pituffik Space Base (formerly known as the Thule Air Base) already provides critical missile-warning and space-tracking capabilities. Beneath Greenland’s permafrost are significant mineral deposits, including rare-earths — elements that are the heart of everything from consumer electronics to advanced defense systems. China is currently dominant in these scarce strategic resources. Political costs Yet, there are reasons why an outright acquisition — either by conquest or purchase — is a suboptimal way to secure access to the strategic and economic interests in Greenland. Greenland’s people have to consent to any arrangement between America and the Danes. A deal that treats Greenland as an object rather than a participant is reminiscent of the treatment of the Czechs before WWII — “about me but without me.” Ceding territory precipitates nationalist backlash and disrupts alliances. A purchase would drag America into a constitutional and political firestorm. If the U.S. “owns” Greenland, the pressure to clarify political status begins immediately. The U.S. doesn’t need to govern Greenlandic domestic or even foreign affairs. It needs long-duration basing and infrastructure rights, a stable legal framework for strategic minerals, and the ability to monitor and secure the Arctic approaches. Those aims are achievable without the baggage of sovereignty. Financial Costs “Something in the trillions looks about right,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, a center-right think tank, in an interview. The value of Greenland’s known critical mineral and energy resources alone totaled more than $4.4 trillion, according to a study published in January 2025. That figure falls to $2.7 trillion when excluding oil and natural gas, which Greenland stopped issuing exploration licenses for in 2021, citing environmental concerns. But as of today’s technology, only a small fraction can currently be extracted economically. An estimate based on that fraction is $186 billion. On the other hand, considering its strategic geographic location, this lifts the value to $2.76 trillion. A better approach is to focus on “needs-based rights” — rather than a “deed of trust.” Support Greenland’s Independence From Denmark “It’s not a question of whether we should be Danish citizens or American citizens,” said Aaja Chemnitz, one of two Greenlandic lawmakers who represents the 836,000-square-mile island’s 57,000 inhabitants in Denmark’s Folketing, its Parliament. “It’s a question of how can we be Greenlanders and have a good Greenlandic future.” Polls over the past few decades have consistently shown the majority of Greenlanders want independence from Denmark for reasons connected to its dark colonial past and persistent discrimination, though there is division over the timing of it and concern over what it could mean for living conditions. Greenland’s “history and current conditions,” he said “have shown that our cooperation with the Kingdom of Denmark has not succeeded in creating full equality. It is now time for our country to take the next step.” The Next Step Given Greenland’s preference for independence from the Danes, America should forego any efforts at acquisition and negotiate a long-term lease guarantee with Greenland predicated upon their independence from Denmark. A century-long lease offers the simplest way to secure Arctic access without the political liabilities of ownership. A lease upon independence offers sovereignty to Greenland, while transferring defined rights for a defined term. Denmark gets political cover, Greenland receives permanent internal self-government, and the U.S. secures the access and capabilities that matter in the Arctic theater. Moreover, a lease is much less costly for the U.S. — financially and politically. Here is one financing scenario based on realistic assumptions. Greenland currently receives significant financial support from Denmark, amounting to approximately $623.5 million annually through a block grant, along with an additional $145 million for judiciary and defense expenses, bringing total annual support to around $768.5 million. This accounts for about 60 percent of Greenland’s government budget. The present value of how much Denmark will save by no longer having to subsidize Greenland over the next century can be determined by using (as the discount rate) the coupon rate on Denmark’s 10-year government bond (2.8 percent) — essentially Denmark’s price for acquiring long-term money. Denmark’s roughly $768.5 million annual support, discounted over 100 years at 2.8 percent, has a present value of about $25 billion. That’s the present value of the fiscal burden Denmark no longer assumes — in effect — compensation. Negotiations will determine any additional compensation accruing to the interest of Denmark. The lease arrangement with Greenland could begin with negotiating how the payment comparable to Denmark’s present-value discount over 100 years ($25 billion) is to be made, followed by additional annual payments to cover the durable rights accorded the U.S. for the financing of any future real estate development, the implementation of military infrastructure changes (ports, docks, airports, etc.), drilling and mining rights and percentage participation in revenues generated from these efforts. Compared with the political and financial “price tag” of an outright purchase, a 100-year lease with Greenland upon their independence delivers the same strategic ends at far lower costs — and without the sovereignty complications that make acquisition politically untenable. Helping Greenland — financially and politically — acquire its independence from the Danes effectively puts America on the side of people wanting the right to self-determination and freedom. It would put Denmark in the awkward position of having to argue against that. READ MORE from F. Andrew Wolf Jr.: Trump’s First 12 Months: The Economy, Venezuela, and the American Electorate Britain’s New Economic Policy: Get Used to Being Worse Off Trump’s Economy Grows 4.3 Percent, Dashing Economists’ Lower Expectations

Over the holiday season a federal judge canceled California’s parental exclusion policies. That gift to parents was not the only story that failed to get the attention it deserved. Gov. Newsom’s executive orders have not included an independent investigation of government fraud in the Golden State. “Several San Francisco neighborhoods were impacted by a massive power outage on Saturday that left nearly a third of the city without electricity,” reported CBS news on December 20. The massive power outage shut down two Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) stations and affected commuter trains and traffic lights. Mayor Daniel Lurie told people to “please stay off the roads and stay inside,” with good reason. “Dozens of autonomous vehicles stalled at intersections, some with passengers inside,” Planetizen reported. Waymo, which bills itself as “the world’s most experienced driver,” said it was “focused on rapidly integrating the lessons learned from this event, and are committed to earning and maintaining the trust of the communities we serve every day.” This was not the first energy event to affect California drivers. In the summer of 2022, California called on drivers not to charge their electric cars from 4-9 p.m., the after-work time when 80 percent of EV drivers do in fact plug in. California’s frequent blackouts add to the threat for all drivers. In 2020 Gov. Newsom issued an executive order mandating that “100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks will be zero-emission by 2035.” Last year the incoming Trump administration canceled that rule, so in June Gov. Newsom signed a new executive order to “reaffirm commitment to accelerate the deployment of zero-emission technologies” as directed in the 2020 order, reinforced by state bureaucracies. In 2022, the California Air Resources Board announced a plan to ban new sales of natural gas water heaters and furnaces by 2030. In blackouts like the one in San Francisco last December, that could leave residents gasping for gas in the darkness, with no internet, no microwave oven, no garage door openers and such. The Teslas and other EVs would not be charging, and it’s possible that Waymo vehicles would be stranded with passengers on the streets of San Francisco and other cities. Gov. Newsom and CARB are shrink-wrapped in climate-change dogma and ignore the need for trade-offs and the dynamics of the market.  Californians, not politicians or government bureaucrats, should select the cars they drive and the appliances they believe best meet the needs of their families. The recent blackout in San Francisco confirms that the state’s electric grid is far from flawless. As Californians will recall, in 2019 Gov. Newsom picked his former cabinet secretary, Ana Matosantos, as state “energy czar.” The Puerto Rico native, with degrees in political science and feminist studies, was hailed as a woman of “unrivaled professional accomplishment,” but blackouts and energy shortfalls continued. In 2022, the state urged drivers not to charge their EVs during peak hours. In late 2025 a blackout left self-driving cars stranded on the streets of San Francisco, and shut down electric appliances. Gov. Newsom’s executive orders have not included an independent investigation of government fraud in the Golden State. Such a probe could target the $32 billion in unemployment fraud under Julie Su, Newsom’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency boss. Su became Biden’s “acting” labor secretary, without Senate confirmation, and is now “deputy mayor for economic justice,” in New York City under socialist mayor Zohran Mamdani. As Megan Barth of the California Globe reports, President Trump has created a new Department of Justice division to combat fraud nationwide. Gov. Newsom’s administration has presided over “tens of billions in unemployment fraud, $37 billion squandered on homelessness with exploding encampments, and a high-speed rail boondoggle ballooning to over $130 billion with little to show but empty promises.” If Californians thought such an investigation was long overdue it would be hard to blame them. As the president likes to say, we’ll have to see what happens. READ MORE from Lloyd Billingsley: Is Minnesota or California the Fraud Capital of America? Christmas for California Parents Gavin’s Angels: From Masks to Mandates to Millions Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif.

from Bannons War Room: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/