Minnesota ICE Watch, the organization that Renee Good and her wife were members of, distributed a document known as the “De-Arrest Primer,” which instructs activists on how to physically interfere with law enforcement officers during arrests. The manual provides detailed guidance on pulling detainees from officers’ grips, pushing and pulling officers, breaking holds, and opening law enforcement vehicles to free suspects.

The manual also teaches the use of coordinated chanting to create confusion and overwhelm officers during active arrests, as well as surrounding officers until they release detainees.

The guide openly acknowledges that these actions may constitute criminal offenses but argues that the risk is justified. Each successful interference is described as a “micro-intifada,” framed as a tactic meant to spread, replicate, and inspire wider disruption. The manual claims these methods originated in pro-Palestinian campus protests and presents them as a model for broader resistance activity.

While no single formal publisher is identified, the manual appears to originate from broader activist and radical networks that promote direct physical interference with law enforcement. It has circulated widely through Instagram and other activist communication channels and has been used in training individuals described as “constitutional observers” or “ICE watchers.”

Minnesota ICE Watch reposted the manual in June, prior to the 2026 surge in anti-ICE activity, and linked it to training sessions focused on disrupting arrests.

Mainstream media coverage has frequently described ICE Watch activity as “nonviolent observation,” omitting the physical interference tactics detailed in the manual. The document, however, is clear evidence of organized agitation and deliberate instruction in confronting law enforcement.

Numerous anti-ICE training handbooks and manuals are being produced and circulated in the United States. Some are linked to specific anti-ICE resistance groups that also provide training, organize protests, and conduct patrols. These include organizations such as COPAL MN (Comunidades Organizando El Poder y la Acción Latina), the Immigrant Defense Network (IDN), and related groups.

Much of the training, organizing, and distribution of anti-ICE resistance has taken place at schools receiving public funds, raising questions about whether groups instigating actions against the government should be allowed to receive taxpayer money. Furthermore, mainstream media have attempted to present the anti-ICE resistance training at schools as a reaction to the Renee Good shooting. However, many of these groups were already active at schools prior to the January 7, 2026 shooting.

Because of the deployment of nearly 3,000 ICE agents to the area in late 2025, several parent-teacher groups at the school attended by Renee Good’s son had already formed volunteer “safety committees.”

These committees held meetings, some on school grounds and others at nearby community centers, to discuss how to handle encounters with federal agents. The training included the use of “red cards,” commonly referred to as Know Your Rights materials, as well as coordinating neighborhood watch schedules.

These groups were effectively training parents to stalk and harass federal agents.

There are also reports that Know Your Rights handbooks and anti-ICE materials were distributed through school channels or by volunteers stationed at school gates. Wallet-sized “red cards” and booklets explaining how to refuse consent for searches were widely distributed to parents during drop-off and pick-up.

While the school district maintains that it does not distribute “propaganda,” critics point to the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers, which was vocal in its anti-ICE stance, and to reports that teachers helped distribute these materials to families they deemed “at risk.”

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and federal spokespeople later alleged that Good had been stalking and impeding ICE agents throughout the morning and linked her actions directly to the anti-ICE training she reportedly received through community networks centered around her son’s school. They pointed to the use of whistles, walkie-talkies, and blocking maneuvers practiced by these groups in the weeks leading up to January 7 as evidence of organized resistance.

Neighbors said Renee Good regularly attended ICE Watch meetings and received training from the group prior to her death during an ICE-related confrontation. The manual portrays arrest as inherently harmful and asserts that compliance or passivity leads to greater damage than resistance. It encourages escalation to undermine what it describes as an oppressive ruling system.

Renee Nicole Good’s six-year-old son attends a small “social justice” charter school in Minneapolis that explicitly promotes political and social activism. The school teaches students about topics such as George Floyd, racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, and what it describes as “aboriginal issues.” A former teacher said many parents are activists, and that the curriculum emphasizes critical thinking tied to activism and encourages children to engage with social causes.

According to the former staff member, when ICE agents were stationed several blocks from the school during heightened protests, administrators instructed teachers to report any ICE presence on school property.

Good was later killed during an ICE operation after allegedly striking an agent with her SUV, prompting the agent to fire in self-defense. Newly surfaced video showed Good’s wife urging her to accelerate toward the agent moments before the shooting. The school was described as an active participant in organizing resistance, distributing materials, and hosting training before the shooting occurred.

Defending Education launched a searchable national database identifying K–12 school districts that have adopted policies limiting cooperation with ICE and other federal immigration authorities.

The database covers more than 700 districts across 33 states and Washington, D.C., and includes districts that have declared themselves “sanctuary” or “safe haven” schools, passed formal resolutions, or issued written guidance directing staff on how to respond if immigration agents seek access to school campuses. Parents can search by state and district and review the actual policy language rather than relying on summaries or public statements.

Defending Education argues that school districts restricting cooperation with federal law enforcement are placing themselves in direct conflict with federal authority and risking public safety. The group warns that such policies may unintentionally shield individuals who should be subject to deportation and that schools are increasingly acting as political actors in immigration disputes rather than focusing solely on education.

Since the Renee Good shooting, there have been calls from conservative parents to shut down or defund the school because they see the anti-ICE training as contrary to government policy and believe schools receiving any government funding should not be teaching anti-government resistance.

Conservative groups like Defending Education have specifically publicized that Minneapolis schools were facilitating walkout guides and “Day of Action” strategies. They argue that by allowing these materials to be distributed via school channels, the district effectively endorsed a “culture of resistance” against federal law.

The post Anti-ICE Resistance Manuals and Training Discovered at Minnesota Schools Receiving Federal Funding appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

China Daily, a Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece, recently wrote, “China has all along been a staunch builder of world peace, contributor to global development, defender of the international order, and provider of public goods.”

Just a few weeks earlier, Global Times, another CCP outlet, ran an article titled China’s Contributions to World Peace, Development Bolster Its International Image, which said, “In an increasingly polarized and fragmented international landscape, China’s sense of responsibility and conduct as a major power have helped… prompting a global reassessment of what it means to be a major power.”

These articles are consistent with China’s attempts over the past five years to present itself as a “responsible power” promoting a multipolar world free from U.S.

Building on this narrative, the portrayal of China as a “responsible power” is central to its 2025 National Security White Paper, titled China’s National Security in the New Era, which outlines how the Chinese Communist Party seeks to position itself as a stabilizing force in global affairs.

Beijing cites its criticism of U.S. military actions, its signing of the 2024 International Health Regulations (IHR) Amendments, its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, and its promotion of green energy as evidence of its claimed global leadership.

But China’s actions undermine this narrative. While accusing the United States of warmongering and interfering in other nations’ affairs, particularly over Taiwan, Beijing continues to finance both Russia and the Myanmar junta, fueling the two largest wars on the planet.

It condemns U.S. missile strikes on Iran and the Iran-backed Houthis, yet has negotiated separate deals with the Houthis to spare Chinese ships from attacks in the Red Sea.

Though China claims that its support for global health is altruistic, it stands to benefit from the IHR Amendments, which expand WHO authority and normalize Beijing’s centralized lockdown model.

During the pandemic, China profited heavily from vaccine sales, often presenting them as “aid” when they were, in fact, commercial transactions.

With the U.S. opting out of the amendments, China positions itself as cooperative and benevolent by contrast.

Environmental policy is another area where China attempts to portray itself as a responsible global actor while engaging in contradictory and damaging behavior.

Although Beijing has pledged to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 and now holds 39% of global wind energy capacity, 36% of solar, and ten of the world’s sixteen million new energy vehicles, these achievements are tied to commercial interests.

China profits heavily from exporting green technologies, while the production of batteries, turbines, and solar panels relies on rare earth mining, one of the most environmentally destructive industries.

Much of this pollution has been outsourced to less developed countries like Burma, where Chinese-backed mining operations fuel contamination and deforestation.

Despite accounting for 32% of global CO₂ emissions and seeing emissions increase from 2020 to 2023, China promotes itself as a leader in climate diplomacy.

It created the $3.1 billion South-South Cooperation Fund and claimed 2023 as the “greenest” year in its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), with 56% of energy investments going to renewables.

Yet, the BRI’s green push often means either exporting Chinese-made clean technology, for a profit, or relocating environmental costs to partner countries that mine raw materials and bear the pollution.

In a 2020 diplomatic exchange, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs released two reports condemning the United States’ environmental record under President Trump, criticizing U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and failures to meet climate funding commitments.

These attacks came shortly after Washington had published its own fact sheet on China’s environmental abuses.

China’s self-promotion as a global climate leader contrasts sharply with its ongoing environmental damage, both at home and abroad. In fact, last year marked the first time China’s CO₂ emissions declined.

The reduction was a modest 1% below its peak, implying that any short-term increase could push emissions to a new record. Furthermore, China’s emissions have fluctuated by much larger margins in previous years due to economic cycles.

China’s use of global crises to bolster its image, through vaccine diplomacy, green energy exports, climate criticism of the U.S., and selective treaty participation, aligns with Beijing’s 2025 National Security White Paper, released in May.

The document outlines how China frames itself as a stabilizing force while portraying the U.S. as a reckless hegemon, even as it evades sanctions by supporting Russia’s war in Ukraine, purchasing Iranian oil, and backing Tehran militarily.

The white paper presents China’s Global Security Initiative (GSI) as a counter to Western-led security frameworks, emphasizing sovereignty, non-interference, and a reformed international order centered on the interests of developing nations.

It criticizes “certain countries” for interfering in China’s internal affairs, specifically citing Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Xinjiang, while asserting the right to take “all necessary measures” to defend its territorial claims.

These issues are framed as strictly domestic, with any foreign scrutiny dismissed as illegitimate interference.

At the same time, China is involved in at least 15 territorial disputes across Asia. Over the past five years, it has engaged in two minor military skirmishes with India in the Himalayas, while the People’s Liberation Army regularly violates the sovereign sea and airspace of Japan and Southeast Asian nations.

China’s navy and coast guard frequently harass and at times launch non-lethal attacks against Philippine and Vietnamese vessels.

Beijing also advocates for greater representation of Asia, Africa, and Latin America in global governance, portraying itself as a voice for the Global South, while simultaneously rejecting universal human rights norms, shielding authoritarian partners from criticism, engaging in predatory lending and lopsided resource extraction deals in developing countries, and at times violating the territorial sovereignty and environmental health of the very countries whose interests it claims to represent.

The white paper advances Xi Jinping’s “holistic security” doctrine, which links domestic authoritarian control to international stability.

Every crisis, from climate chang to global health to war, is used to argue that only the Chinese Communist Party’s “absolute leadership” can manage global complexity. The underlying message is that peace-seeking nations should reject U.S. influence and align with China.

The post Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Promoting China as a Responsible World Power appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Dishonest media reports have led the public to believe that during Trump’s second term, U.S. citizens have been deported by ICE, yet those making the claim cannot name a single case or provide one verified example. Much like viral videos of conservatives asking liberals to define what a woman is before engaging in discussions about transgender issues, no one has been able to demonstrate that U.S. citizens have been deported under Trump.

When an attempt is made to prove the claim, the article cited almost always falls into one of three categories.

First, the person in the story is not a U.S. citizen, but the media uses misleading language such as “a Maryland man” or “he feels like he is an American.” In some cases, the individual is a U.S. military veteran who served as a noncitizen. Military service does not automatically confer citizenship. However, media headlines often lead with phrases like “U.S. military veteran deported,” causing readers to assume the person was a citizen.

Second, citizen children who left the United States with their parents at the parents’ request. This is not a deportation. The child is legally allowed to stay in the United States, leave with their parents, or return later.

Third, a very small number of complicated cases involving derivative citizenship. If a parent naturalizes before a child turns 18, the child automatically becomes a citizen. However, the child must still apply for and receive citizenship documentation.

In some cases, individuals are deported years later while claiming citizenship but lacking paperwork. In every case I have examined, there were additional complications, such as the parent naturalizing after the child turned 18. In a few instances, a child was born overseas on a U.S. military base to a noncitizen parent and assumed citizenship applied. U.S. military bases abroad are not considered U.S. soil for birthright citizenship. Only children born to at least one U.S. citizen parent qualify in those circumstances.

If a child is born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen father and a noncitizen mother abroad, the father must legally acknowledge the child before the child turns 18. If the father naturalizes and lives with the child but never signs an acknowledgment of paternity or marries the mother before the child turns 18, the child never becomes a citizen. Several men in their 40s have been deported under Trump because their parents were not married and their fathers never completed the required documentation decades earlier.

The next major lie is the claim that U.S. citizens have been arrested by ICE. This claim hinges on a deliberate confusion between the definitions of detained and arrested. Media reports frequently cite 2025–2026 data claiming that more than 170 U.S. citizens were detained due to database errors or lack of immediate documentation. ICE arrests noncitizens for immigration violations. ICE does not have the legal authority to arrest U.S. citizens for immigration violations, though ICE agents may arrest U.S. citizens for criminal acts unrelated to immigration.

ICE does detain individuals suspected of being illegal aliens. A detention can last as little as a minute or two while a person provides proof of identity and citizenship, or it can extend for hours or days, particularly if the individual does not cooperate. There have been numerous cases in which U.S. citizens were temporarily detained by ICE, asked for documentation, and then either refused to provide documents or refused to communicate. Once citizenship was verified, they were released. Despite this distinction, media coverage has led readers to believe that U.S. citizens are being arrested by ICE.

Under the Fourth Amendment, ICE must have reasonable suspicion to stop an individual and probable cause to make an arrest. However, if a person matches a profile associated with an enforcement operation, such as being present at a targeted worksite, and refuses to answer questions or provide identification, agents often use that refusal as a basis to prolong detention for status verification.

The Department of Homeland Security has defended these practices by issuing fact sheets, including those released in October 2025, stating that most U.S. citizens appearing in detention statistics were not held for immigration violations. Instead, they were detained or arrested for obstruction or interference. DHS maintains that once a person identifies themselves and databases confirm citizenship, the individual is released.

A frequently cited example is George Retes, a U.S. citizen who was held for several days due to a lack of immediate cooperation. Retes was working as a security guard at a marijuana farm in Camarillo, California, during a large multi-agency raid on July 10, 2025. According to DHS reports, he became violent and refused to comply with law enforcement commands during the operation. He did not immediately present identification that agents considered verifiable on-site and was accused of interfering with the raid. As a result, he was held under an interference-related process for three days. His family was unable to locate him during that period because he was being processed under that designation. He was released only after his legal status was confirmed through secondary database checks and his family provided his birth certificate.

Another claim is that ICE is arresting or deporting Native Americans, but in this instance, the story was fabricated. In mid-January 2026, media outlets and tribal leaders sparked national outrage with claims that ICE had illegally detained four Oglala Sioux members, all U.S. citizens, during a raid on a Minneapolis homeless encampment. The narrative further alleged that DHS was holding the men hostage by refusing to release their identities unless the tribe signed an immigration enforcement agreement.

However, by January 16, Oglala Sioux President Frank Star Comes Out was forced to walk back the claims, admitting the tribe could not verify that any members had actually been encountered by ICE. DHS confirmed it had no record of the arrests and that the alleged detainees did not exist in its databases, revealing that the entire controversy stemmed from a single unverified eyewitness report.

Lastly, there are outraged claims that ICE has no right to detain, arrest, or deport a U.S. permanent resident. In reality, permanent residency is not a guarantee of permanent status. Under U.S. law, a lawful permanent resident can lose that status under several circumstances.

A green card holder becomes deportable upon conviction for certain crimes, including Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMTs) and aggravated felonies. In such cases, removal can occur regardless of how long the individual has lived in the United States.

Permanent residency can also be lost through abandonment. If an LPR remains outside the United States for an extended period, typically more than six months without a reentry permit, or establishes a primary residence in another country, the government may determine that the individual has abandoned their status.

Fraud is another basis for revocation. If authorities later discover that a green card was obtained through marriage fraud, false statements on an application, or other material misrepresentations, the status can be rescinded, even decades after it was granted.

The media has found numerous ways to spin the truth about deportations in order to stoke anger and, in some cases, violence against ICE. What is even more dishonest is that this anger is often misplaced. ICE does not make decisions on deportations; immigration judges do. ICE does not decide to cancel a green card. That action is taken by a judge through legal proceedings. ICE’s role is to enforce immigration law, yet it is being portrayed as if it independently determines who stays or goes.

The post Arrested and Deported U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents: How the Media Lies to Vilify ICE appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

President Trump said Iran is seeking a deal with the United States as Washington considers possible strikes while increasing its military presence in the Middle East to pressure Tehran into negotiations.

The United States has recently moved a large naval force, including the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group, into the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf. U.S. officials have identified specific red lines for military intervention, focused on Iran’s domestic crackdown on nationwide protests that began in late 2025 and the potential restart of its nuclear enrichment program following Israeli and U.S. strikes in June 2025.

Trump said both sides have signaled readiness to resume talks but that he has not made a final decision on the use of force, reiterating that he hopes an agreement can be reached.

He has warned of military action while calling on Iran to halt its crackdown on protesters and agree to a deal that excludes nuclear weapons.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei responded that any U.S. attack would lead to a regional war, stating that Iran does not seek conflict but would respond if attacked.

While both sides claim to be open to a “fair deal,” the United States is also applying pressure through measures such as 25 percent tariffs on countries trading with Iran.

Warnings that U.S. strikes could trigger a regional war require clarification.

Israel is likely the only other state actor that would become directly involved, and it would do so in support of the United States.

From a U.S. perspective, this would not constitute escalation in terms of drawing additional hostile state powers into the conflict.

Iran would likely receive no direct military support from other state actors.

Although Iran conducted naval drills with Russia and China in the Sea of Oman in early 2026, experts note that neither Moscow nor Beijing has demonstrated a willingness to provide direct military assistance in the event of war.

The situation is further shaped by Iran’s loss of key regional allies. With the fall of Syria’s Assad regime in late 2024, Iran lost a critical partner that had played multiple roles in its regional strategy.

Syria provided a geographic corridor for Iran to move weapons, supplies, and funds to Hezbollah in Lebanon and served as a forward position in the Levant from which Iran could project power toward the Mediterranean.

This arrangement supported Iran’s ability to threaten Israel’s northern border and allowed for potential retaliation from Syrian and Lebanese territory in the event of U.S. or Israeli strikes.

Syria was also the only sovereign state, rather than a militia or proxy, within Iran’s “Axis of Resistance,” giving the network a degree of international standing that non-state actors could not provide.

As Iran has no state-level actors to rely on for direct support, it would increase its dependence on proxy forces in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen. U.S. strikes on Iran would likely trigger responses across multiple regional theaters through a combination of proxy activity and geographic exposure.

In Iraq, Iranian-aligned militias such as Kataib Hezbollah operate openly and have already threatened “total war.” These groups have a record of attacking U.S. bases in Iraq and Jordan when Iran comes under pressure, creating a risk of internal destabilization.

In Yemen, the Houthis have reactivated their “Soon” campaign, threatening maritime chokepoints in the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz as a means of imposing economic disruption.

While operating independently, they remain closely aligned with Iranian objectives.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah remains Iran’s most capable proxy despite being severely degraded by Israeli strikes in late 2025, and continues to function as a force intended to shift conflict onto Israel’s northern border.

Across the Gulf, U.S. military assets stationed in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain place host countries directly at risk. Iran has warned that any state permitting its territory to be used for U.S. attacks would be considered a legitimate target, prompting Gulf governments to pursue mediation efforts to avoid becoming the site of escalation.

On the other hand, while an attack on Iran would generally activate proxy forces and trigger terrorist attacks, regime change in Iran would cut the lifeline to these groups and could end or at least significantly reduce their capabilities and the threat they pose.

Groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and various Iraqi militias are ideologically and financially tied to Tehran.

Estimates from 2012 to 2020 suggest Iran spent more than $16 billion supporting these groups. By 2026, Iran’s economic crisis, with the rial trading at roughly 1.4 million to the dollar, has fueled domestic protests, with demonstrators chanting, “Not for Gaza, not for Lebanon, my life for Iran.”

Without the IRGC providing training, weapons transfers, and revenue from black market oil sales, these proxy groups would likely lose their ability to operate as regional power brokers.

They would be reduced to localized political or criminal entities and would no longer benefit from the protection and reach provided by Iranian state sponsorship.

This dynamic intersects with broader regional economic priorities. Despite enduring Sunni–Shia and Arab–Persian divides, economic considerations increasingly drive regional decision-making.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are focused on large-scale economic diversification projects, including tourism, technology, and infrastructure.

Iranian proxy activity is viewed as a direct threat to these efforts, as missile or drone attacks from Yemen or Iraq raise insurance costs and deter foreign investment.

Although Saudi–Israeli normalization stalled publicly after 2023, reporting in early 2026 indicates continued indirect engagement.

Despite the numerous potential benefits of regime change in Iran, President Trump is correct to proceed with caution.

Regional governments recognize that reduced Iranian influence would remove a major obstacle to deeper cooperation involving U.S. technology and Israeli security expertise.

At the same time, regional diplomats, particularly in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, remain wary of a sudden regime collapse in Iran.

One concern is the risk of a power vacuum, similar to Syria or Libya, in which the loss of central control leaves advanced weapons systems unsecured and vulnerable to black market distribution.

Another concern is the possibility that a weakened Iranian regime could retaliate by launching missiles at Gulf energy infrastructure, leading Gulf states such as Qatar, the UAE, and Oman to avoid becoming launch platforms for U.S. strikes.

The post Trump’s Conflict With Iran: How the Islamic Republic’s Proxies Shape the Risk of War appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Former CNN anchor Don Lemon claims that his actions, and those of the leftist protesters who followed him into a church to disrupt Sunday services, were protected under First Amendment press freedom and freedom of speech. Lemon ignores the fact that parishioners also have a right to attend worship without being harassed or disturbed.

Leftist activists have frequently used tactics such as cowbells and horns to drown out conservative speakers, reflecting a belief that their right to make noise supersedes another person’s right to speak. In this case, however, it is especially appalling that they claim a right to protest that overrides people’s right to worship God.

Lemon was arrested on January 30, 2026, and charged with federal crimes related to an anti-ICE protest at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, on January 18, 2026. A federal grand jury indicted Lemon and eight others on charges of conspiracy against the rights of religious freedom at a place of worship and interfering with the exercise of religious freedom at a place of worship.

The charges stem from alleged violations of the FACE Act, which protects the right to exercise religious freedom without injury, intimidation, or interference.

The protest, called Operation Pullup, was organized by activist Nekima Levy Armstrong and targeted Pastor David Easterwood, who also serves as an ICE field office director. Prosecutors allege the demonstration was planned as a coordinated disruption of the church service. According to the indictment, protesters shouted, blew whistles, and interrupted the sermon, intimidating congregants and interfering with worship.

Prosecutors characterize the event as a takeover-style attack and allege Lemon knowingly joined the group, participated in planning elements, and helped obstruct congregants and the pastor during the service.

Lemon was arrested late at night in Los Angeles while covering the Grammy Awards, appeared in federal court on January 31, and was released on his own recognizance without posting bond. Prosecutors had sought a $100,000 bond and travel restrictions, but the judge denied both requests. Lemon has not entered a plea, though his attorneys say he will plead not guilty. His next hearing is scheduled for February 9 in Minneapolis.

The case revives charges that a federal magistrate judge had rejected the previous week for insufficient evidence. Minnesota Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz previously wrote that Lemon and his producer were not protesters and that there was no evidence they engaged in criminal behavior or conspired to do so. Attorney General Pam Bondi later directed federal agents to arrest Lemon following the magistrate judge’s decision.

Civil liberties groups, press freedom organizations, and Democratic officials criticized the arrests as an attempt to chill journalism and dissent. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison called the arrests deeply troubling, while national press organizations warned the case could set a dangerous precedent for First Amendment protections for journalists covering protests.

The FACE Act charges against Lemon carry particular irony given the law’s legislative history. The FACE Act was introduced in 1993 by Democrats Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy to protect abortion clinics from violent anti-abortion protesters. Republicans and religious groups opposed the bill, arguing it was one-sided and targeted only pro-life activists.

Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah proposed an amendment extending the bill’s protections to those exercising their right to pray at a house of worship. Hatch said the amendment would ensure religious liberty received the same protection the bill gave abortion access, arguing that anyone who opposed the amendment valued religious freedom less than abortion.

The amendment made the law content-neutral by protecting access to both medical and spiritual services. Ted Kennedy accepted the amendment without objection, and Democrats agreed to it to secure the votes needed for passage.

The Senate passed the bill 69–30, with 17 Republicans voting in favor, and President Clinton signed it into law on May 26, 1994. Between 1994 and 2024, the Justice Department brought 211 FACE Act cases, 205 of them against pro-life activists. The religious worship provision remained largely dormant for nearly 30 years until the Trump administration began using it in 2025–2026.

The charges against Don Lemon rely on the Republican-led amendment. The Justice Department argues that by participating in a protest that disrupted a church service, Lemon violated the portion of the law that prohibits physical obstruction interfering with any person lawfully exercising the First Amendment right to religious freedom at a place of worship.

The post After Church Invasion, Don Lemon Arrested Under Law Democrats Wrote to Protect Abortion Clinics appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Research and analysis groups investigating the funding behind protest organizations have identified a network of interconnected NGOs. Beyond the Soros and Open Society network, other major funding ecosystems include the Arabella funding network, the Tides funding network, Neville Roy Singham and his foreign-funded network, and other large left-wing donors.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors operate as pass-through entities that allow donors to fund specific causes anonymously. In Minnesota, groups such as the Sunrise Movement, which pivoted toward anti-ICE activity in 2025–2026, have received millions of dollars from the Sixteen Thirty Fund, an Arabella-managed group, as well as from the Tides Foundation.

The Soros and Open Society network remains a primary funding source for organizations such as the Legal Rights Center in Minnesota, which operates the “Know Your Rights MN” project. That project has been linked to bail funds supporting anti-ICE protesters in the Twin Cities.

The Ford and MacArthur foundations, while historically focused on broad social justice initiatives, have also appeared in 2025 grant disclosures as significant financial backers of Sunrise Movement chapters across the Midwest.

Some of these entities and funders are not U.S. citizens, including Hansjörg Wyss of Switzerland. They pour money into this broader ecosystem, which helps fund decentralized crowdfunding platforms that allow Antifa, the John Brown Gun Club of Elm Fork, which has been linked to an attack on an ICE facility, the Socialist Rifle Association, and other groups to receive financial support.

Neville Roy Singham is an American tech billionaire born in 1954 who founded ThoughtWorks, a software company sold for $758 million in 2017. He now resides in Shanghai, China, and has been accused by U.S. lawmakers, media outlets, and investigators of using his wealth to fund a global network of NGOs and activist groups that promote Chinese Communist Party narratives while opposing U.S. policies on foreign affairs, human rights, and immigration.

Singham denies being a CCP agent, stating that he does not take orders from any government, but reports highlight his close ties to Chinese state media and propaganda efforts.

Singham’s funding operates through a web of nonprofits, shell companies, and donor-advised funds, often with minimal transparency, including addresses listed at UPS stores. Key entities include United Community Fund, Justice and Education Fund, and People’s Support Foundation, which act as conduits and are headed by associates such as Jodie Evans, a Code Pink co-founder, or former ThoughtWorks employees.

Funded groups include Code Pink, People’s Forum, Tricontinental Institute, Party for Socialism and Liberation, ANSWER Coalition, International People’s Assembly, BreakThrough News, and others.

These organizations focus on far-left causes, including anti-war, pro-Palestine, and anti-capitalist activism, with messaging that aligns with CCP views, such as defending China on human rights while criticizing U.S. actions. The network has distributed millions of dollars, with People’s Forum admitting it received more than $20 million from Singham, funneled through intermediaries. Reports from The New York Times in 2023 and other outlets describe the system as an elaborate dark money network advancing CCP influence worldwide, including in the United States, India, South Africa, and Brazil.

Singham has been repeatedly linked to funding anti-ICE protests and riots in U.S. cities. These claims stem from congressional investigations, media reports, and public statements, though direct financial trails are often obscured by the network’s structure.

Groups such as the Party for Socialism and Liberation, Code Pink, People’s Forum, and the ANSWER Coalition, all funded by Singham, have organized or supported anti-ICE actions, including the “Shut It Down for Palestine” campaign, which intersects with broader anti-U.S. policy protests and unrest in Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and other cities.

There are also allegations that Singham’s network provided logistical and financial support for “Hands Off Venezuela” and pro-Maduro protests that overlap with anti-deportation efforts. Nationwide, his funding has been tied to pro-Palestine campus protests, anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles in 2025, and current “ICE-Out” actions, often framed as part of a broader information operation against U.S. interests.

Representative Anna Paulina Luna of Florida has publicly stated that Singham is “funding a lot of these anti-ICE riots,” calling him “worse than Soros” and linking him to groups such as the “armed queers of Salt Lake City” and Cuban activist networks.

While direct communist terrorist links are not explicitly listed on IRS forms, as groups would lose their 501(c)(3) status, the ideological and financial lineage is traceable. Several Minnesota groups, including ISAIAH, are associated with the Gamaliel Foundation, which was founded on the community-organizing principles of Saul Alinsky. These methods are designed to rub raw the sores of discontent to force radical structural change. Reports in 2025 indicated that nearly $2 billion in foreign money from the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Switzerland has flowed into U.S. political advocacy groups since 2020.

While many of these entities are labeled climate foundations, the money is frequently diverted into Get Out the Vote efforts and civil society training used during periods of unrest. As of January 2026, the FBI has opened investigations into the funding behind violent anti-ICE protests in Minneapolis, specifically examining evidence of coordinated interference and the theft of government property.

The post Dark Money and Foreign Influence: Global Network Funding Anti-ICE Protests appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

When they sprayed water on someone suspected of fraud, I said nothing, because I was not suspected of fraud…

Liberal accounts on social media are praising Rep. Ilhan Omar’s courage for raising her fist at her attacker after being squirted with a small amount of water. Mainstream media are quick to point out that the syringe did not contain only water but also apple cider vinegar, a non-irritant which, if it hits your face, can cause temporary blindness and a sour taste in your mouth. It is also known to remove stains from clothing.

Unlike President Trump, who missed one day of work after being shot, the courageous Ilhan Omar returned to the podium and defiantly continued her diatribe on why federal law enforcement should be discontinued. Where others might have been concerned that there was a chemical or biological weapon in the syringe, Omar pressed on, almost as if she knew she had been doused with salad dressing.

While recovering from the traumatic ordeal that left droplets of moisture on her blouse, Omar is reportedly under Justice Department investigation over questions surrounding her finances and the rapid growth of her personal wealth since entering Congress.

Critics point to financial disclosures showing her family’s assets grew from a reported negative net worth when she entered Congress in 2019 to 2024 estimates ranging between $6 million and $30 million.

President Trump has been criticized for claiming Omar went from having “NOTHING” in Somalia to being worth over $44 million. He has been attacked by the media, which claim the $44 million figure is an exaggeration, but whether the figure is $30 million or $44 million, it is reasonable to ask how she arrived at such a large sum in just a few years while earning about $175,000 per year.

Based on her own filings, the value of her husband’s stake in Rose Lake Capital jumped from a maximum of $1,000 to a minimum of $5 million in a single year. Despite signing these forms under penalty of perjury, Omar told Business Insider in February 2025 that the claim she is worth millions is “categorically false.” She went on to say that she is “barely worth thousands” and owns neither a house nor stocks. As a result, it appears that in some interviews she has suggested her net worth is less than $1 million, while in others she has attributed the growth in her net worth to prudent investment.

Forensic accountants and the House Oversight Committee are now looking for the “why.” They are investigating whether the 2024 valuation was a typo, a massive success for her husband’s firm, or related to broader federal investigations into billion-dollar fraud within Minnesota state assistance programs and Somali-linked charities, such as the “Feeding Our Future” fraud scandal.

Omar responded by accusing Trump of using conspiracy theories about her to distract from declining political support and policy failures, saying previous investigations found no wrongdoing while calling for federal immigration agents to leave Minneapolis and urging the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

Whether anyone will heed Omar’s calls to end immigration enforcement operations or remove Secretary Noem remains to be seen. However, the investigation into Omar’s finances continues. On Kalshi, a CFTC-regulated prediction market where users trade on real-world outcomes, the odds as of January 30 placed a 49 percent probability on Ilhan Omar being charged with a federal crime this year.

While Omar and her supporters claim the DOJ is being weaponized against her, they fail to recognize that the government is also attempting to assist her by getting to the bottom of the vicious attack she barely survived.

The FBI has assumed control of the investigation into the attack during a town hall event in Minneapolis, according to confirmation from both local police and federal authorities. Minneapolis police charged the suspect, identified as 55-year-old Anthony Kazmierczak, with third-degree assault.

Democrats are blaming President Trump for the attack, saying his rhetoric enables political violence, which is ironic given the widespread violence against ICE agents and Republicans in general, fueled by Democratic lawmakers framing them as Nazis and the Gestapo. They are also criticizing Trump for stating publicly that he believed the attack was a hoax. Media have even linked the incident to negative sentiment caused by investigations into Somali-linked fraud.

Ostensibly, Democrats believe that ICE enforcement should be halted and fraud investigations into Omar and the broader Somali community should be terminated, or these types of spritzing attacks will become commonplace.

The post Water, Vinegar, and Suspicious Millions: Questions Surround Ilhan Omar appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Minnesota’s anti-ICE protests are funded by a number of labor unions including AFSCME Local 3800, SEIU Local 26, and the Minnesota AFL-CIO; faith-based groups including the Council on American-Islamic Relations Minnesota, Faith in Minnesota and ISAIAH, and the Legal Rights Center; and activist organizations such as Indivisible Twin Cities and groups linked to the Headwaters Foundation for Justice.

These organizations provide material support, legal services, bail funds, and organizing infrastructure. Several have received federal or state government funding for operational or program-specific purposes. Government grants are awarded for legitimate, approved uses such as operational costs, including maintaining offices and paying staff; program-specific work, including refugee legal aid, crime-prevention programs, and security upgrades for mosques; and security purposes, such as protecting buildings from hate crimes. Unions may also receive government workforce grants to support apprenticeship and training programs.

The funding is not designated for protest activity. The grants are not labeled as “protest funding” or “activism funding,” and no government agency issues checks explicitly for organizing anti-ICE demonstrations.

Faith and community groups show clear instances of government funding, often tied to civil rights, security, or crime-prevention programs. The Council on American-Islamic Relations Minnesota received state funding through the Minnesota Department of Public Safety’s Community Crime Intervention and Prevention Grant Program. CAIR-MN is listed as a grantee in recent funding cycles, including periods covering 2026–2027.

The organization has also assisted local mosques in securing approximately $3.6 million in federal security grants from DHS and FEMA as of early 2026. Nationally, CAIR affiliates have received federal funds from agencies such as the Small Business Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services for specific programs, including refugee legal aid and COVID-19 relief.

CAIR-MN has helped mosques apply for federal Nonprofit Security Grant Program funds, with individual mosques receiving grants of up to $150,000 in prior years for security enhancements amid threats. The organization has coordinated legal defense efforts during protests and has engaged in advocacy related to federal immigration policy and grant programs.

The Legal Rights Center received nearly $5.7 million in government grants from the state of Minnesota between 2021 and 2024, accounting for roughly two-thirds of its revenue. The organization provides bail assistance and legal aid, criminal defense, restorative justice services, and advocacy, often for communities affected by policing and immigration issues. As a major hub for “Know Your Rights” training and legal observer coordination, it received funding that included sub-grants from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety.

The Legal Rights Center is effectively a state-funded organization that actively trains individuals to impede federal ICE operations. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison led the organization for five years before taking office, and the same group now receives millions in state grants while training against federal immigration enforcement.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz publicly urged residents to resist ICE in 2026, using rhetoric that closely mirrored the “Know Your Rights” materials produced by nonprofits his administration helps fund.

While most activist groups rely on private donations, several larger community and labor organizations have historically received or currently manage public funds for service-related programs. Faith in Minnesota and ISAIAH are primarily funded through private donations, including grants linked to George Soros and MacKenzie Scott, and they run voter engagement and policy campaigns aligned with liberal priorities.

Their joint “Kids Count on Us” initiative has been linked to state childcare stabilization grants proposed under the Walz–Flanagan administration, and financial records from 2023 to 2025 show government funding tied to community engagement and public policy research.

Ayada Leads is also primarily funded by private foundations, including Headwaters and the Bush Prize, but it participates in capacity-building initiatives connected to state-funded educational programs focused on family engagement within K–12 school systems.

Unions are funded primarily through member dues rather than direct government grants for operations. However, a circular funding relationship exists. AFSCME Local 3800 and SEIU Local 26 represent public-sector or service workers whose salaries are paid by taxpayer funds.

A portion of those wages is then paid to unions as dues, which can be used to support protest activity and organizing. The AFL-CIO and Teamsters do not receive federal funding to operate but may receive federal grants for workforce training and apprenticeship programs through the Department of Labor.

Some organizations supporting the protests are funded exclusively through large globalist donors, such as George Soros, while others receive funding from both government grants and private donations.

Taxpayer grants routed through the Department of Public Safety fund groups that train observers to block law enforcement. Politicians such as Keith Ellison and Tim Walz provide political cover, while nonprofits like the Sixteen Thirty Fund supply anonymous dark money to scale these operations.

The Sixteen Thirty Fund is a 501(c)(4) dark-money organization that is not required to disclose its donors and has funneled millions into liberal causes in Minnesota. While it has not been publicly identified as a primary funder of the Legal Rights Center, it finances the broader ecosystem of advocacy groups that coordinate with it.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations has a long history of funding criminal justice reform efforts in Minnesota. In 2021, OSF contributed $500,000 to the “Vote Yes 4 Minneapolis” campaign, which sought to dismantle the city’s police department. OSF grant disclosures and reporting show funding to multiple organizations within Minnesota’s activist ecosystem.

These include the Sunrise Movement’s Twin Cities chapter, which organizes action trainings and noise demonstrations targeting hotels housing federal ICE agents, and ISAIAH and Faith in Minnesota, which have received long-term support from OSF and the Soros-backed Democracy Alliance.

The Headwaters Foundation for Justice redistributes funding to frontline activist groups such as Unidos MN and Defend the 612, which play central roles in anti-ICE protests. Indivisible’s Twin Cities chapter relies on nationally funded infrastructure and training for local mobilization, while the ACLU of Minnesota provides legal support, including litigation against federal enforcement actions.

The post Taxpayer Funding for Activists: How Government Grants Support Minnesota’s Anti-ICE Riots appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Margaret Thatcher once characterized socialism by saying, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” The experience of Zohran Mamdani’s quixotic attempt to transform New York City into a socialist paradise, an oxymoron, demonstrates that Thatcher’s observation requires an addition: you also need the permission of the people paying for it.

In layman’s terms, like a child asking his mother for ice cream money, Mamdani asked Governor Hochul for permission, and she said “no.”

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s campaign promises face structural barriers that make implementation impossible. Under New York State Constitution Article XVI, NYC mayors cannot raise taxes independently. Only the state legislature can authorize local tax increases, requiring approval from both chambers and Governor Kathy Hochul.

During a PIX11 interview in early January 2026, Hochul stated that increasing taxes on wealthy New Yorkers is “completely off the table.” She pointed out that 1.5% of New Yorkers pay one-third of the state’s entire budget. She refuses to risk driving them out with higher taxes.

Mamdani proposed a 2-percentage-point increase on NYC income tax for those earning over $1 million, raising the rate from 3.9% to 5.9%, plus increasing corporate tax rates from 7.25% to 11.5%. His campaign estimated this would generate $4 billion annually. Without this revenue, his agenda collapses.

Hochul’s January 2026 $260 billion state budget includes no income tax increases and extends the 7.25% corporate tax rate for three more years, rejecting Mamdani’s proposed increase. While State Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie and Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins have expressed openness to tax increases, Hochul faces her own 2026 re-election campaign and a primary challenge from Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado.

Even if both legislative chambers pass tax increases, Hochul can veto the legislation. With her own election approaching, it is unlikely that she would take a radical decision that would alienate her wealthy donor base. Overriding a gubernatorial veto requires a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers, which Mamdani’s allies cannot achieve.

NYC Comptroller Mark Levine announced in mid-January 2026 that the city faces a $2.2 billion deficit for fiscal year 2026 and a $10.4 billion deficit for fiscal year 2027, totaling a cumulative gap of $12.6 billion. Levine blamed chronic underbudgeting by the Adams administration for rental assistance, overtime, shelter costs, public assistance, DOE due process cases, and MTA contributions, totaling $3.8 billion in unbudgeted expenses for FY2026 alone. He stated that the deficit was not caused by a bad economy but by budgeting decisions from the previous administration.

This is the first time since the Great Recession that the city faces a budget shortfall of this magnitude this late in the fiscal year. Mamdani’s first deputy mayor Dean Fuleihan stated the administration would only include new tax revenue if it were included in Hochul’s budget, which it was not.

With a severe revenue shortfall, Mamdani’s plans for free programs are unlikely to materialize. He has promised fare-free buses by eliminating the $2.90 fare on all MTA buses citywide, universal childcare, and state-funded “baby baskets” for every newborn containing formula, diapers, and postpartum supplies.

His platform also includes replacing police with free, civilian-led mental health response teams for all 911 mental health calls, creating publicly funded “at-cost” social housing for 200,000 households to remove profit from rent, and establishing city-run grocery stores that would sell food at cost in underserved neighborhoods. In addition, he has pledged expanded, year-round free access to youth clinics and recreational centers, along with universal free breakfast, lunch, and dinner for all K–12 students.

The MTA is a state agency controlled by the governor, not the mayor. Mamdani cannot unilaterally make buses free. Cost estimates for free buses vary: Mamdani’s campaign projected $700 million annually, MTA Chair Janno Lieber estimated closer to $1 billion annually, the Independent Budget Office calculated a minimum of $652 million, and full analysis including MTA Bus reached $1.38 billion in 2025 dollars. Lieber stated that any change must be studied extensively and expressed skepticism.

The MTA declared a 2023-2024 pilot program for free buses on five routes a failure because bus speeds did not improve, only 12% of riders were new to transit, only 11% of new riders switched from cars, and 45% of new riders would have walked or skipped the trip. When asked if free buses would appear in her State of the State address in January 2026, Hochul said “not at this time” and has not budgeted state funds for the program.

Instead of implementing free buses, the MTA announced plans to hire fare enforcement officers with handheld devices to combat the $900 million annual loss from fare evasion.

Mamdani promised free universal childcare for children aged 6 weeks to 5 years at an estimated cost of $6 billion annually. In her January 2026 State of the State address, Hochul announced she would fund the first two years of free pre-K for 2,000 2-year-olds annually in NYC. This allows her to take credit for the childcare initiative, control the scope and funding, avoid raising taxes to pay for it, and undercut Mamdani’s signature issue. Political observers note Hochul is using state money to deliver a scaled-down version of Mamdani’s promise while running for re-election in 2026, positioning herself to take credit without empowering Mamdani’s broader agenda.

NYC’s Rent Guidelines Board sets rates for rent-stabilized apartments. While the mayor appoints board members, implementing a complete rent freeze would likely require state legislative approval and face legal challenges from landlords. Housing experts warn that freezing rents without providing financial resources for small landlords will lead to apartments falling into disrepair and worsen the housing crisis. The Real Estate Board of New York has signaled opposition.

Implementing city-run grocery stores in all five boroughs requires City Council approval. Political analyst J.C. Polanco stated the odds of City Council support are minimal because council members have dozens of bodegas and supermarkets in their districts. These businesses are part of the fabric of the community, and city councilmembers would have to vote for government-run stores that compete with their constituents’ businesses.

Mamdani’s movement ended before it began. He legally cannot raise taxes because only the state can and Hochul refuses. He does not control the buses because the MTA does and they oppose free fares. He inherited a $12.6 billion deficit over two years. The City Council will resist city-owned grocery stores. Hochul is co-opting his agenda by implementing scaled-down versions on her terms without raising taxes. NYC mayors govern at the pleasure of Albany, and Albany said “no.”

The post Mamdani’s NYC Socialist Experiment Ended Before It Began appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Having graduated from a military university, I can say that the Minnesota protests are following a “color revolution” playbook rather than representing organic civil unrest. The term refers to non-violent or semi-violent uprisings often backed by external actors to overthrow governments, as seen in Ukraine or Georgia.

One odd twist is that usually a color revolution is kicked off by a significant government scandal, which is the last straw for the people who then revolt against the government. But in Minnesota, the scandal is that the Minnesota government is accused of being complicit in billions of stolen taxpayer dollars, and the revolution is against the federal government, which wants to investigate the fraud.

The rioters are extremely useful in helping a handful of guilty people maintain power and get rich. Two of them have given their lives for this cause now, and many have been injured, but somehow they still believe that ICE deportations are so important to them that they have to continue to riot.

Another aspect of a color revolution is the propaganda, generally emanating from outside of the country where the unrest is taking place. In this case, anti-ICE and anti-Trump social media, along with mainstream media, have convinced much of the population that the federal government is wrong for wanting to enforce immigration law and to investigate fraud.

Whether by design, collusion, or some explainable feedback loop, mainstream media is amplifying the same messages and wording as anti-ICE and anti-Trump social media. They are also intentionally distorting media stories, putting out a bad narrative, which is then picked up by social media, fueling the protests. Media told us a five-year-old boy was kidnapped by ICE and used as bait; they said Renee Good and Nurse Pretti were minding their own business when ICE attacked them.

The media told us that Abrigo Garcia was a Maryland man; they claimed that ICE broke into a man’s house and dragged him out in his underwear; and they have even claimed that citizens have been deported. Each of these narratives and the associated stories was either a gross distortion of the facts or, in some cases, an outright lie. The outrage these false stories spurred has already contributed to this ongoing chaos and violence as well as two deaths.

The typical pattern begins by provoking chaos, deploying legal observers as shields, and laundering radical activism through nonprofit organizations. The term “legal observer” has suddenly entered the vocabulary of the Minnesota protests, with Renee Good and Nurse Pretti being referred to as legal observers, a label that ignores the fact that they were actively interfering with ICE operations. While liberals claim that these and other activists were merely exercising First Amendment rights and the right to film, it is clear from the videos that in both instances the so-called legal observers were participants, not observers.

Zero Hedge referenced alleged involvement by CCP-linked billionaire Neville Roy Singham’s NGO network in funding anti-ICE protests nationwide. George Soros linked organziatonas have also provided funding. So, the international connection is there.

Consistent with other aspects of a color revolution, the protests were organized by labor unions including National Nurses United, SEIU Local 26, AFSCME Council 5, and the AFL-CIO, along with community organizations and faith leaders.

Leaked Signal chats revealed organized efforts to track ICE agents through “ICE Watch” coordination, with accusations of systematic organization behind riots now under FBI investigation. And while the leaked evidence is helpful, many of the anti-ICE organizations have websites in which they provide details about the types of training they provide and how anti-ICE groups can organize at the community level.

Anti-ICE training handbooks and manuals have also been published and are readily available online. In connection with the Minnesota unrest, the most prominently mentioned one matching this description is the “De-Arrest Primer,” also referred to as a “de-arresting manual” or “de-arrest primer manual.” It was published in spring 2024, according to the front cover noted in reports, and was shared and reposted by MN ICE Watch, the network Renee Good was part of.

Additionally, groups such as COPAL MN (Comunidades Organizando El Poder y la Acción Latina), the Immigrant Defense Network (IDN), and related organizations have conducted trainings for “constitutional observers” or “ICE watchers.”

The Handbook for Constitutional Observers, published by COPAL and the Immigrant Defense Network, has been used in trainings across Minnesota, including a session in Mankato in January 2026. It focuses on safe observation, documenting ICE actions, constitutional rights, whistle use for alerts, and reporting sightings. While it emphasizes non-interference, it also includes rapid response activation.

A Constitutional Observer Booklet has also been provided during IDN and STAC (States at the Core) trainings and is available online through their websites. It covers monitoring raids, the use of vests and whistles, and community alert systems, including “La Migra” warnings.

Designing, writing, and producing these books is expensive. Running free training programs is also costly, which brings us back to the central question: who is funding these programs, and who is behind the funding for the entire “almost–color revolution”?

Anti-ICE training programs are generally held in public or semi-public spaces. Some of these venues are obtained for free, while others, such as hotel conference rooms and ballrooms, are expensive.

Schools and universities are common locations. Student unions and campus chapels are frequently used. Organizations such as Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) or local “immigrant rights” clubs often host these events on campus to take advantage of university-funded room rentals.

Libraries and community centers are also used. These spaces provide a “neutral” ground that is difficult for ICE to enter without significant political blowback.

Private and institutional spaces are also common. Churches are frequently used, as many anti-ICE movements operate under the “sanctuary” umbrella. Churches, including locations such as Cities Church or Lutheran Social Services hubs in Minnesota, often host trainings because they are considered “sensitive locations” under DHS policy, making agents hesitant to enter.

Union halls are another venue. Teacher unions, such as the Oregon Education Association or New York City’s United Federation of Teachers, frequently host trainings for their members and the public to “de-escalate” ICE encounters.

Hotels are used for large-scale summits or mobilization weekends. These events are often held in mid-range hotels, such as Hilton or Marriott properties, in major cities. They are usually closed-door events paid for by national NGOs. While the training is “free” to participants, the cost of the venue, trainer salaries, and printed materials is substantial.

The funding typically follows a three-tier model.

Tier 1: The megafoundations.
The largest source of capital comes from multi-billion-dollar philanthropic organizations. These groups generally do not fund protests directly. Instead, they fund civil-rights advocacy or legal-defense grants. Examples include the Tides Foundation, which operates as a donor-advised fund allowing wealthy donors to remain anonymous while funneling money to radical causes; Open Society Foundations, historically a major funder of civil-society organizations conducting “know your rights” trainings; and the Ford and Kellogg Foundations, which provide general operating support to nonprofits running these programs.

Tier 2: National pass-through NGOs.
These organizations receive large grants and distribute them to local chapters. The National Lawyers Guild trains the legal observers referenced earlier and is funded through member dues as well as grants from the NLG Foundation for mass-defense programs. The Immigrant Legal Resource Center serves as a major hub for developing the curriculum used in anti-ICE trainings nationwide.

Tier 3: Local activist hubs.
In Minnesota, organizations such as Unidos MN and the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota act as local administrators. They receive a mix of state and local grants, bail-fund support, and crowdfunding. In sanctuary cities and states, taxpayer money is sometimes diverted into immigrant-defense funds that pay for these trainings. After the 2020 unrest, millions of dollars in small-donor contributions, often routed through platforms such as ActBlue, were redirected into rapid-response funds.

I am not a lawyer and have no formal legal training, but my instincts and basic logic tell me something is deeply wrong here. The use of public money to fund anti-government activity feels like it should violate a core principle of law. Likewise, when a state government finances training designed to help citizens resist federal authority, it begins to resemble something close to insurrection.

Compounding the issue, these activities are shielded by tax-exempt nonprofit status, allowing political interference to be laundered as education or legal aid. A children’s cancer charity and a group teaching “de-arresting” and “swarming” techniques to be used against ICE in order to protect illegal immigrants are treated the same under the tax code. This fits the definition of laundering activism through nonprofits.

Commentators including Joe Rogan and Erik Prince described the events as a coordinated effort to cause chaos rather than organic protests, suggesting potential foreign or communist influences. Right-leaning outlets pointed to figures like Maria Stephan, linked to the National Endowment for Democracy and regime-change strategies, as evidence of a playbook being used against the Trump administration. Some analysts argue that Governor Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison are the actual revolutionaries using street protests to justify breaking from federal oversight.

The post Minneapolis Riots, a Color Revolution with a Twist, Coordinated but Mostly Domestic appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

China announced investigations on January 24–25, 2026, into two of the highest-ranking military leaders in the country: General Zhang Youxia, vice chairman of the Central Military Commission and the highest-ranking uniformed officer below Xi Jinping, and General Liu Zhenli, chief of the CMC’s Joint Staff Department. In China, once a cadre is placed under investigation, guilt is almost inevitable, with punishments ranging from lengthy imprisonment to life sentences or execution in severe cases.

The move reduced the Central Military Commission, the Chinese Communist Party’s supreme military leadership body, from its usual seven members to just Xi and General Zhang Shengmin. This represents the highest proportion of vacancies on the CMC since the Mao period.

Zhang Youxia, 75, was widely regarded as politically untouchable. A longtime confidant of Xi with family ties dating back to the revolutionary era, he was also one of the few senior People’s Liberation Army (PLA) commanders with real combat experience from China’s 1979 war with Vietnam.

Previous purges, including those carried out by Xi earlier in his career, typically targeted cadres loyal to rival factions or to former leaders and were formally framed as corruption cases. Charges usually involved bribery, embezzlement, or “serious violations of discipline and law,” the CCP’s standard euphemism for corruption.

In some cases, financial misconduct overlapped with politics through accusations of building patronage networks or independent power bases, but the public justification remained rooted in economic wrongdoing.

This case is different. Zhang Youxia is the highest-ranking figure purged so far and was widely viewed as personally loyal to Xi. The current wave targets Xi’s own appointees, figures long regarded as politically untouchable. Unlike earlier purges, there have been no direct public accusations of financial corruption. Instead, state media and PLA Daily editorials accuse Zhang of political betrayal and of undermining Xi’s authority over the armed forces.

Xi Jinping’s rise to power has been closely tied to his anti-corruption campaign. Xi assumed the post of General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and Chairman of the Central Military Commission on November 15, 2012, at the 18th Party Congress, and was elected President of the People’s Republic of China on March 14, 2013. He succeeded Hu Jintao, who warned at the same Party Congress that systemic corruption could lead to the downfall of both the CCP and the Chinese state.

Xi launched the anti-corruption campaign immediately after taking office. In one of his first speeches as Party General Secretary on November 15, 2012, he described corruption as an existential threat to Party rule. Within days, he pledged to crack down on both “tigers and flies,” referring to senior officials and low-level cadres alike, stating that the Party must pursue violations of discipline and law by leading officials as well as corruption that directly harmed the people’s interests.

The campaign became the most extensive and systematic anti-corruption effort in the history of CCP governance. Between 2013 and the present, the Central Discipline Inspection Commission and its successor, the National Supervisory Commission, have punished more than 6.27 million Party members and approximately 2.3 million government officials. Those punished include 65 high-ranking officials classified as “tigers” and nearly a dozen vice-ministerial-level officials.

The campaign also extended deeply into the People’s Liberation Army. More than 200,000 military personnel, including at least 17 generals, have been investigated, with nearly all cases resulting in guilty findings and severe punishment. The purge has reached the very top of the military establishment, with three consecutive defense ministers removed or placed under investigation: General Wei Fenghe, expelled in June 2024; General Li Shangfu, expelled in June 2024 after serving only seven months; and the current defense minister, General Dong Jun, who has recently been placed under investigation.

According to official statements, Zhang is accused of having “seriously trampled on and undermined the system of ultimate responsibility resting with the CMC chairman,” language that directly references Xi’s personal authority. Additional accusations claim that his actions “severely fueled political and corruption problems that threaten the Communist Party’s absolute leadership over the armed forces and undermine the Party’s governance foundation,” and that he “gravely betrayed the trust placed in them by the CPC Central Committee and the CMC.”

Further statements allege that Zhang “severely damaged the political and ideological foundation of unity and progress among all military personnel” and “inflicted grave harm on efforts to strengthen political loyalty in the military.”

The political rhetoric used to justify these purges suggests two possibilities. Either Xi Jinping fears an internal challenge and is preemptively eliminating potential rivals, or he has become so powerful that he can remove anyone without fear of reprisal. What remains unclear is whether Xi will appoint replacements in the near term or wait until 2027, when a new Communist Party Central Committee is scheduled to be selected.

Some analysts argue there is no immediate pressure to fill the vacant positions and that the Central Military Commission can continue operating under Xi’s direct control for the foreseeable future. Regardless of timing, the removal of top military leaders has consolidated Xi’s authority by reducing layers of command between himself and the officers responsible for launching missiles or deploying ships.

The post China Arrests Top General, Why This Purge Is Different appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.