The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

Our guest was Jefferson Morley, who testified today in front of Congress about the significance of the newly released JFK documents, along with others who have long followed the JFK investigation, including director Oliver Stone. We'll have Morley here to talk about his testimony today. 

We'll then break down what the guardians and saviors of Democracy are doing in banishing their most popular opponents from running as opposed to trying to defeat them democratically. Marine Le Pen, Bolsonaro and Calin Georgescu are some of the examples.

The Interview: Jeff Morley

Jefferson Morley is a best-selling author and a veteran Washington journalist known for his investigative books which expose the covert history of American power. His most recent book is “Scorpion's Dance: the President, the Spymaster, and Watergate,” which explores the secret relationship between CIA director Richard Helms and President Richard Nixon. He is, as well, a leading authority, I believe one of the top two or three journalistic authorities on the JFK assassination. He has spent decades prying loose the CIA's deepest secrets and challenging the official narrative. 

He testified earlier today at Congress about what these newly declassified documents from the Trump administration add to our understanding not just of the assassination but the clear cover-up that took place as part of the investigation, as well as the potential CIA role in all of this. We're delighted he took the time to join us. 

G. Greenwald: Jeff, it's great to see you. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk to us. 

Jefferson Morley: Thanks for having me, Glenn. I'm very glad to be here. 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, I'm glad to have you. I recommended the interview that you recently did on Breaking Points, about 30 minutes with Saagar Enjeti and Ryan Grim. I found it one of the most illuminating interviews in recent times, especially on these documents. But I want to explore some other things beyond what's in that interview as well.

You testified earlier today before the House Task Force on Declassification, which is chaired by Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, the Republican of Florida. I know that you and everybody else interested in not just the JFK assassination, but the role that the CIA has played in our politics and our history, were very interested in these documents and more broadly interested in getting to the bottom of this case, whether we ever learned the truth. What was your sense, having testified before the committee, about whether that interest and excitement is shared by most members of Congress? 

Jefferson Morley: Let me talk about chairwoman Luna first because I've gotten to know her over the last couple of weeks when she launched this House Task Force on Declassification and I've been very impressed with her attitude. She's a can-do person. When I said, I said we needed to get these documents from the CIA, she said, “Give me a memo and I'll call Ratcliffe's office today.” So, she's very proactive. I think her leadership has been very strong. We had some partisan politics in the hearing today, which I think was unfortunate because it's not really a partisan issue. I mean, I'm a pretty liberal guy. That's why I wanted to be on your show, you know? And so, I'm hopeful that the task force is going to do serious work. The most encouraging sign is she says we're going to have another hearing on JFK. We're hoping to get some more firsthand witnesses to explicate the new history of JFK's assassination. 

G. Greenwald: So, I want to spend most of my time with you on the substance of these documents and the investigation, but just before I get to that, just along those same lines, I don't want to make it a partisan issue either, but there is a palpable shift in how our political spectrum thinks about the U.S. Security State, the CIA, the nefarious role they've often played. As you said, you're a liberal Democrat and it used to be foundational to American liberal and left-wing politics to distrust and view the CIA and the Security State as quite sinister, as needing reform. It was more typical that conservatives would defend them though. These are patriotic organizations, we need them, we love them. They have to operate in the dark and there's been so much change I mean it was Donald Trump who finally declassified these documents as he promised to do; it’s Chairwoman Luna, a very right-wing member of Congress who's leading the way, as you say, very proactively. 

I just want to show you a clip from today that involves Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett of the Democratic Texas, who has become in a lot of ways one of the leading faces of the Democratic Party, the American liberalism, and here's what she had to say about the JFK documents and the hearing itself and the possibility of the CIA involvement. 

Video. Jasmine Crockett, C-SPAN3 Pronto. April 1, 2025.

There is more of that, but she's essentially saying, “Look, these new documents vindicated the CIA, it had no role to play in any of this. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a conspiracy theorist.” And in any event, it doesn't really even matter. There's no reason for us to know we should focus on a Signal gate or whatever. As somebody who's been aligned with the Democratic Party for a long time, do you think that's become a more common sentiment? 

Jefferson Morley: Absolutely. And it's really unfortunate, I mean, to bring up something totally unrelated about what's going on, with the current controversy. The JFK files are something that there is broad support for across the political spectrum, and there's no need to drag partisan politics into this issue. It's just not an issue. Representative Luna did a good job of leading this, in kind of reflexive – you know, Jasmine Crockett hadn't even read the documents. She didn't even listen to what I said about the false testimony of three top CIA officials, and like, facts don't register anymore, which is a problem universally. But it's especially a problem when we're actually making progress on the JFK story. President Trump's order was a breakthrough, and it's one of the few things I agree with him about, a very positive measure. We obtained, on March 18, a lot of important information and we're getting more as we proceed. 

Remember Glenn, they released 80,000 pages of documents on March 19. I might have seen a thousand pages of those. I've talked to researchers who've seen a few thousand more, but we're just at the beginning of this process of really getting our hands and our minds around these new records. And so, that's the positive thing. Luna's talking about having another hearing. I think that's a good idea to bring more JFK witnesses and educate people about what really happened. 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, I mean I thought it was bizarre, the day that it was released, everybody ran to their social media accounts or their programs to tell everybody what these documents show. We focused only on one document which was the unredacted Schlesinger memo and only to the extent that it revealed things about the CIA in general, not necessarily their role, if any, in the JFK assassination. And I want to get to that memo in a second because I do think it's of profound importance. But before I do, I think some of this is generational. I mean, I didn't live through the JFK assassination, I wasn't born yet. Obviously, Congresswoman Crockett wasn't. She was born, I believe, in the 1980s or even 1990s. So, I understand why some people might say, “Oh, this is kind of old and ancient history that we don't need to go excavating through.” What is your answer to that? Why do you think it matters so much to kind of continue with the investigation? 

Jefferson Morley: Let me explain. My readership at the JFK Facts newsletter is very diverse from MAGA, Christian nationalists on the right, libertarians, anti-imperialists and liberals on the left and we don't have a big culture war on the site. People want to talk about this. People want a real debate. And the idea that people are coming reflexively to the defense of the CIA without even acknowledging or incorporating these records… We're going to talk about the Schlesinger memo in a second. Why should people care? What we're missing right now in American politics is what President Kennedy talked about in 1963. He's talked about how we need a strategy for peace, not peace in our time, peace for all times, not a Pax Americana enforced with America as the world's policeman, but peace for everybody. And that's the vision really that died in Dallas. So, when people say, “Why does it matter now?” You don't hear that voice anymore in American politics, not from Democrats and not from Republicans, and that's what's missing, and that's why it's important to understand what died when President Kennedy died. 

We've lost something very real and I would say, the most aggressive factions in the American security establishment after President Kennedy's assassination, because there was no real accountability, there was no real investigation, that faction has had impunity ever since and that's led to a much more militarized, aggressive interventionist foreign policy, which Kennedy was trying to steer the country away from. That's what's important about the Kennedy assassination. We lost something when we lost President Kennedy. 

G. Greenwald: So, let me dive into these details now and let's start with the Schlesinger memo. For viewers who might have seen it, I think when it was released, I believe two weeks ago, we delved very deeply into what this memo is and what the newly released material demonstrates. 

For those who don't know him, Arthur Schlesinger was a very respected historian, especially among the kind of Kennedy circle, and after the Bay of Pigs debacle and the firing of Alan Dulles, who was sort of the father of the CIA, JFK was very interested in getting a hold of the CIA and asked Arthur Schlesinger to write this memo, and he wrote this long memo detailing all of the abuses and dangers of having this kind of runaway, unaccountable secret agency off on its own, making foreign policy, engineering coups away from the State Department, and also offered a lot of plans for how to rein it in – pretty serious and severe plans. 

So, I want to hear what your thoughts are on the newly released portion of that, but before you get to that, do we have evidence that the CIA was aware of the conversations taking place in the JFK White House about the need to rein in the CIA? 

Jefferson Morley: Absolutely, Dick Helms, Richard Helms, the director of the CIA, said in his memoir that this period after the Bay of Pigs was a stormy… 

G. Greenwald: Sorry. Wasn’t he the director of the CIA, not in the '60s, but later on with Nixon? 

Jefferson Morley: He was deputy director right at the time of the Bay of Pigs and later became director. At the kind of Kennedy’s assassination, he was deputy director and Helms said in his memoir “This was a stormy interregnum for the agency” where they understood that their continued existence was in the balance. Ultimately, Kennedy decided not to do the reorganization – it was just too big a left, I think, for him in terms of politics – but the Schlesinger memo shows that he was talking about it very seriously, and the key thing there was what Schlesinger called the encroachment of the CIA on the president's foreign policymaking authority – and you've talked about the Schlesing memo. You recall some of those details: 47% of State Department officers at the time of Kennedy's assassination were in fact CIA officers. So, the CIA is taking over the political reporting function of the State Department, and of course, that limited the president's ability to make foreign policy. That's what Kennedy was concerned about and that's the problem Schlesinger was trying to solve. 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, I mean, in that memo, he, I think quite famously and quite pointedly and importantly, called it “a state within a state,” which is kind of ironic since now the term deep state has become this source of liberal mockery as though it's some bizarre, unhinged conspiracy theory. And you knew you had Dwight Eisenhower coming out of the '50s, serving two terms as president, warning about the military-industrial complex on his way out and then you have Arthur Schlesinger calling it a state within a state when writing to JFK about it. So, this memo has been out for a while, I think for a few years or even longer, but what we have now thanks to President Trump's declassification order is the full unredacted memo. So, are there things that we have learned that are important in the unredacted parts that we didn't previously know? 

Jefferson Morley: Yeah, I mean, there was a whole page that was redacted. So, like the statistic that I just quoted to you, 47% of State Department officers were actually CIA officers, which was redacted by the CIA for the past 60 years. The fact that the CIA had 128 people in the Paris embassy, was redacted. And when you look at it, that's not national security information, no American would be threatened or harmed by that information. 

It's only the reputation of the CIA and so what you see in these redactions -- these redactions are justified in the name of national security, right? You need to protect us from our enemies. Our enemies aren't fooled the only people that were fooled were the American people and that's why we need this full declassification because we're the only ones that are in the dark about the way the CIA is operating. 

G. Greenwald: About your argument that the reason the CIA or other parts of the government perceive JFK to be threatening, perhaps threatening enough to want to kill him, is that he was talking about this radical transformation of our foreign policy, of finding a way to get out of endless wars and become a nation of peace. There are people very knowledgeable who are also on the left, one of them is Noam Chomsky, who has said over the years that he finds that unpersuasive because – and I guess this is a very Chomsky way of looking at things – although there was a little bit of resistance here and there on the part of JFK and his administration to the military-industrial complex, the intelligence community – obviously they had an argument after the Bay of Pigs, they fired, as I said earlier, Alan Dulles – that essentially JFK was a militarist and was a Cold Warrior. He was the one who oversaw what Chomsky calls the invasion of South Vietnam by the United States and if you were a militarist or a Cold Warrior, you'd have no reason to look at JFK and find him bothersome. What do you think about that? 

Jefferson Morley: I mean none of Kennedy’s enemies on the right ever said that at the time. They said that he was a weakling if not a traitor. The idea that Kennedy was a Cuba hawk or a Vietnam hawk – no Cuba hawk or Vietnam hawk in 1963 ever said that. The problem with Chomsky’s argument is he hasn't really familiarized himself with the debates. 

CIA Director Richard Helms was trying to pressure Kennedy into a more aggressive Cuba policy and four days before the assassination, Richard Helms brought a machine gun into the Oval Office as a way of convincing President Kennedy to take a more aggressive stance. And when you read Kennedy's account of it, it's hard not to believe that he understood that he was being threatened. I mean, think about that. The CIA director or deputy CIA director is demonstrating to the president your security perimeter is not secure, right? That was four days before President Kennedy was killed. So, the idea that there weren't profound conflicts at the top of the U.S. government, I mean, I know Noam Chomsky is a smart guy, but he needs to pay attention to the historical record. There were profound conflicts between Kennedy and the national security establishment in the fall of 1963. Nobody who pays attention, especially to the new records, thinks that wasn't the case. 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, and obviously Chomsky is not here to defend himself, but he's obviously talked many times about this so people interested can go to YouTube and find that. I think he has a propensity against what he calls conspiracy theories and just kind of dismissing them out of hand and nobody's perfect. 

Yeah, but let me ask you this. This is one of the things I learned from your work. I remember growing up in the '70s and '80s and my understanding of the JFK assassination was that Lee Harvey Oswald was just sort of this weird loner who had like a couple of appearances here and there in some public and political sectors, but that by and large he was kind of a nobody, sort of like what they're depicting the person who did the first assassination attempt against President Trump in Pennsylvania, like just a guy, a weirdo, not really connected. And it was only really through following your work and the work of a couple of other people that I actually learned things like, no, the CIA had a lot of interest in Oswald prior to – I thought nobody knew of him before this all happened and in fact, the CIA had a big, long, large surveillance file on him. What interest did the CIA have in Oswald prior to Oswald's alleged role in the JFK assassination? 

Jefferson Morley: They were interested, first of all, in recruiting him as a possible source or contact behind the Iron Curtain. And that was one of the key documents that emerged on March 18, a document where Angleton talked exactly about who he targeted for that type of recruiting. The second thing that they were interested in was his pro-Cuba activities. That was something that the CIA denied at the time. They pretended they didn't know anything about this. When you talk about a big surveillance file – this is what I showed to Representative Luna today – they had 198 pages on him on November 15 when President Kennedy was getting ready to go to Dallas. 

So, Lee Harvey Oswald was not a lone nut in the eyes of the CIA. He was a known quantity who top CIA officials, top counterintelligence officials, knew everything about him, as President Kennedy was preparing to go to Dallas. Of course, there are suspicions, and people say, “Oh, well, that's incompetence” or “They didn't know,” or “Oswald didn't present a threat.” Wait a second, part of the reason you have a counterintelligence staff is to protect you against assassinations, and that clearly didn't happen. Angleton failed to do his job. But nobody knew anything about this. The CIA imposed a cover story, the lone gunman, and Angleton, instead of losing his job, he kept it for another decade. 

G. Greenwald: Well, I know you have to go in just a few minutes, so I want to just respect your time. I just have a couple more questions briefly. 

This is one of the things that I think that you grow up and you're kind of bombarded to believe the established narrative about everything. I mean, that's why it's the established narrative because they have control of the institutions that shape your thinking and the more you kind of look into these things, the more basis you have for skepticism, including the fact that Alan Dulles, who led the CIA, gave birth to the CIA, directed the CIA, was controlling almost everything in there until Kennedy fired him and then Kennedy fired him and he was put onto the Warren Commission where naturally as being Alan Dulles, he had immense weight on conducting the official investigation. I've always said it's kind of like putting Ben Shapiro in charge of an investigation to find out who's at fault in Gaza. You know what kind of outcome you're going to get if you put Alan Dulles on the Warren Commission. You're putting, like, a chief suspect on there. What are the best reasons we have to distrust both the process and the conclusions of the Warren Commission? 

Jefferson Morley: I mean the fact that Allen Dulles was on it, the fact that the Warren Commission was deceived about the surveillance of Oswald – they had no idea that the CIA had 198 pages of material on Oswald. The Warren Commission was told that they had only minimal information about Oswald so the Warren Commission was fed a false story about Oswald. Glenn, I'm going to have to go soon. 

G. Greenwald: Okay, I know, all right, I have one more question, but I'm going to let you go. One more question. Okay, well, I'll just ask you briefly. James Angleton, who was this senior CIA official, has been central to your work. You said today in your testimony that he was one of three senior CIA officials to have lied to the Warren Commission about the investigation, that that was sort of a tipping point for you. What did Angleton lie about, and how did he deceive the commission? 

Jefferson Morley: Well, actually what we learned last month was that Angleton lied to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, in 1978. He never had to testify to the Warren Commission. In 1978, he testified, and he was asked, “Was Oswald ever the subject of a CIA project?” and the answer was “Yes.” Angleton had personally put Oswald under mail surveillance. They were intercepting his letters to his mother from the Soviet Union. He was under mail surveillance from 1959 to 1962. When Angleton was asked by the HSCA, “Was Oswald ever part of a CIA project?” he said “No,” and what we know now is that that was a lie and that he was lying under oath about what he knew about Oswald before the assassination. So, that was the tipping point for me, because until March 18, we never knew that. 

G. Greenwald: All right, Jeff, thank you for your great work. We're going to definitely have you back on as you work your way through these documents. Really appreciate the time. I know you're busy tonight after your testimony, so we're going to let you go, but thanks once again. 

Jefferson Morley: Thanks a million for having me, Glenn. 

G. Greenwald: All right, talk to you soon. 

One of the ironies, I think, in Western politics, or throughout the democratic world over the last, let's say, decade or so, has been, that there is a group of people, a very powerful faction, you could say the kind of establishment faction that's composed of both the center-left and the center-right in most Western democracies that have engaged in all sorts of highly classically anti-democratic measures in the name of saving democracy. 

The reality of politics in the democratic world over the last decade has been that of a variety of factors. In the U.S. you can go back to the War on Terror and the lies of the Iraq War, but more recently the 2008 financial crisis, whose repercussions are expressing themselves to this very day, jeopardizing people's financial security, the policies of free trade and deindustrialization. 

And then all the deceit and crackdowns around COVID have turned huge portions of the population into vehement anti-establishment warriors. These people hate these establishments. They hate whoever they perceive as defenders of the status quo. It started to express itself in 2016 with things like the British people voting to leave the EU out of hatred and contempt for EU bureaucrats in Brussels, and then obviously followed a few months later by what was, for most people, the shocking victory of Donald Trump over the ultimate establishment maven, Hillary Clinton. And ever since then, it's been one after the next. 

Historically, when establishments feel threatened by some new event or some shift in political sentiment, their tendency, being the establishment, is not to assuage it, not to persuade it but to crush it. The establishment today, unlike, say, 400 or 500 years ago are not monarchs in name, they're not churches in name, with some sort of absolute say the way the Catholic Church had over a lot of countries. They have to pretend to be Democrats, people who believe in democracy, that's how they pitch themselves and so they have been just openly doing things like censoring their political opponents, creating an industry designed to decree truth and falsity that nobody can deviate from with this disinformation industry. 

More disturbingly, and I think more desperately, showing how desperate they really are because, in so many countries, the establishment is in deep trouble, typically because of an emerging right-wing populist movement, occasionally because of left-wing populism as well, both of which manifest as anti-establishment movements. Their solution has just been to basically bar democracy, limit democracy, prevent the most popular opponents of the establishment, typically right-wing populists, from even running on the ballot, just saying you're banished from the election – the thing we're told is what Putin does when he has fraudulent elections because his opponents can't run. These are just theatrical elections that are very stage-managed.

 That's exactly what has been happening throughout the democratic world in multiple different countries over at least the last decade. A lot of people are noting that even more now because of what happened in France. 

Here from The New York Times yesterday:

Marine Le Pen Barred From French Presidential Run After Embezzlement Ruling

The verdict effectively barred the current front-runner in the 2027 presidential election […] (The New York Times. March 31, 2025.)

[…] from participating in it, an extraordinary step but one the presiding judge said was necessary because nobody is entitled to “immunity in violation of the rule of law.”

Jordan Bardella, Ms. Le Pen’s protégé and a likely presidential candidate in her absence, said on social media, “Not only has Marine Le Pen been unjustly convicted; French democracy has been executed.”

The verdict infuriated Ms. Le Pen, an anti-immigrant, nationalist politician who has already mounted three failed presidential bids. (The New York Times. March 31, 2025.)

Notice I have not uttered a syllable about what I think of Marine Le Pen or her politics or anything like that because it's completely irrelevant. 

If you actually believe in democracy as the premier way to select our leaders, which I do, it should be disturbing if it has actually become a weapon to exploit the judicial system or use lawfare to defeat your political opponents, not at the ballot box, not by giving the people in the country the choice to vote for, but by prohibiting them from becoming on the ballot. If it were just one case, then you'd have to spend a lot of time debating Marine Le Pen's case. 

We're going to have somebody on this week who has been following Marine Le Pen's case closely and understands the intricacies of French law in a way that I don't, so I'm not sitting here propounding on the validity or otherwise of her conviction, just the fact that it has now become part of an obvious trend where politicians like her, especially when they become too popular, are being banned. 

[…]

In the United States, of course even if you're convicted of a crime, then it doesn't mean that you can't run. The socialist leader, Eugene Debs, ran for president as a third-party candidate, during the Wilson administration, from prison. Had the Democrats succeeded in convicting and imprisoning Trump before the election as they were desperately trying to do, that would not have resulted in his being banned from the ballot. He could have run even as a convicted felon. In fact, they did convict him of a felony charge or multiple repetitive felony charges in New York and he still was permitted to run and the American people decided. We know he was convicted, we don't trust that conviction, we think it's politically motivated and in any event, we want him to be our president. That's what democracy means. 

The Democrats tried other ways to get him banned from the ballot, as we'll get to, and they almost succeeded. That was clearly their goal. But in the United States, at least, it's left to the people to decide and that's what a lot of French politicians across the political spectrum are saying. 

Here is the most recent polling data on the French presidential election from the International Market Research Group, on March 31:

INTENTIONS TO VOTE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Two years before the next presidential election, a [I.F.O.P.] poll for the Journal du Dimanche reveals the voting intentions of the French for the next presidential election. In the most favorable scenario, the National Rally candidate would collect 37% of voting intentions, nearly 14 points more than her score in the first round in 2022.

Edouard Philippe appears to be the best-placed candidate to qualify for the second round against Marine Le Pen. His score ranges between 20 and 25%, depending on the different configurations tested. (International Market Research Group. March 31, 2025.)

So, she's not just leading in the polls, she's leading the polls by far. Not enough to avoid a runoff, she's made the runoff twice now and lost to Macron. But the question is not, “Is Marine Le Pen going to be in the second round?” She for sure will be. The question is: who can get just enough to make it with her? And unlike in the past, in France, where that party was considered toxic and off limits, where everybody would unite to prevent it from gaining any power, that's not really the case anymore. I mean, you did see that in the subsequent parliamentary elections in France that Macron called after Marine Le Pen's party won the EU parliamentary elections, and he called new elections for the parliament. So, the parliament called new elections and the left-wing coalition came in first, Macron's party came in second, and Le Pen’s party came third, but it was very closely disputed. 

So, there's the possibility that there could be a coalition to defeat her. We're likely never to find out because the French establishment is too afraid to let her run for the ballot for fear that she might win. As I said, if that were an isolated case, we could just sort of say, “Well, is Marine Le Pen guilty?” That's the French law, but it's by far not an isolated case. It has become a common scenario. 

Here the BBC, on March 26, is reporting on the case of Brazil and the ex-Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro, the right-wing populist who actually shocked the country, shocked Brazil when he won the presidency in 2018 over the Workers’ Party of Lula da Silva, which had dominated Brazilian politics, had occupied the presidency from 2002 when Lula first won until 2016 when his successor, Dilma Rousseff, was impeached and her vice president took over. But he didn't even bother running again. He was widely hated. So, in 2018, that was the first election that the Workers' Party didn't win since 2002, 16 years earlier. They dominated Brazilian politics. 

Ironically, in 2018, Lula was intending to run again and he was leading in polls early on and he ended up being imprisoned, convicted and imprisoned on corruption charges and so he was not allowed to run on the ballot and that opened the path for Bolsonaro. What actually happened there was the center-right has always wanted to dominate Brazilian politics, they're the party of the Brazilian media, the big media conglomerates, kind of like a Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell type party, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney-like, classic center-right figures, even right-wing figures, but who are very pro-establishment and hate the way those figures hate Donald Trump. The center-right in Brazil despises Bolsonaro, but they thought that impeaching Dilma and then imprisoning Lula, would be an easy path to victory because they were always the party second to Lula, kind of like Marine Le Pen and Macron. They just couldn't ever beat the Workers' Party. 

So, they thought once they got rid of Lula and impeached Dilma, they had a clear path to power instead. Nobody wanted them, nobody ever liked them. So, once they got rid of Lula, instead of winning, they got Bolsonaro, who they hated more than Lula. Bolsonaro won by a sizable margin against the Workers' Party in 2018 in the runoff. And then in 2022, everyone knew that there was only one person who could beat Bolsonaro, and that was Lula, who was in prison. So, the Supreme Court of Brazil invalidated his conviction. After upholding it many times, they actually used the excuse of the reporting that I did with my colleagues there that showed prosecutors and judges had cheated. But that was just their pretext. They wouldn't have let him out, no matter what we reported, had they not wanted to. They only allowed him out because they knew that only he had a chance to beat Bolsonaro. But even with everything that happened to Bolsonaro, the entire establishment against him, COVID, ruining the Brazilian economy, shutting down the economy, all of those scandals about vaccines and masks and lockdowns and countless corruption charges, and running against what had been the most popular politician in Brazil, Lula da Silva, that election was extremely close, decided by about one point. 

All night Bolsonaro was leading, kind of at the last minute, Lula overtook him, but it was an extremely close election. Now Lula's popularity is plummeting, his presidency has unraveled, he's about to be 80 years old. Bolsonaro's not young himself. He's about four or three years younger. But the country is not happy at all with Lula, and people are very afraid of his chances to be re-elected. There's a high likelihood he's going to lose, especially if he runs against Jair Bolsonaro. Fortunately for the Brazilian establishment, Bolsonaro can't run because two years ago, he was declared ineligible, and now they're about to convict him before the Supreme Court on charges that he engineered a coup or tried to engineer a coup, which probably sounds familiar to the American ear since that was a charge against Trump as well. 

[…]

Now, let me just be clear there. He is now criminally charged with planning and plotting a violent coup once Lula won, that would reinstall Bolsonaro. 

We haven't had the trial yet. All we have are media leaks and now the police report under the control of Lula's government and Moraes. I don't find the evidence particularly persuasive, but that will be decided as it should be in a trial. Unfortunately, he's unlikely to get a fair trial, but that isn't why he's banned from running. He was already banned from running, completely independent of these allegations of a violent coup. And that's due to the fact that before the election happened in 2022, and then after he lost, he alleged that there was voting machine fraud. And for that and that alone, the Supreme Court decided he's now ineligible to run that that was an abuse of power, an attack on democracy. 

And I should also say that during that 2022 campaign, when Biden was president in Brazil, that 2022 to campaign, Biden dispatched the CIA, he dispatched Jake Sullivan, his national security advisor and other top officials to go to Brazil and interfere in that election by essentially saying that Bolsonaro's claims of voting fraud are completely invalid, threatening Brazil with punishments or consequences, warning Bolsonaro not to raise the issue of election fraud. At the same time, USAID was funding the censorship groups, the disinformation groups that were systematically censoring Bolsonaro supporters in countless ways that we've reported on many times before. 

So, his banning from the ballot, similar to the way Marine Le Pen was banned happened not because of these criminal allegations of a coup, but because of those allegations that he made of voting machine fraud. 

Here from the Brazilian outlet UOL on March 29, the headline is:

It's a 15-point lead that Bolsonaro has among the people of Brazil who should decide who they want as their president. 

Here from CNN Brazil, yes, Brazil has a CNN, is contaminated and infected with CNN, the Brazilian version, a separate poll shows this:

So even Bolsonaro's wife, who's never been elected to public office, was the first lady of the country, has a 9-point lead over Lula. But obviously, they'd much rather run against her than run against Jair Bolsonaro, who has already proven that he can become, can win a national election.

Here's why the establishment is so scared of him. They threw everything at him during his first term. And remember, I'm not commenting on my views of Bolsonaro. As I said, I did the reporting that ended up being the pretext for the Supreme Court to allow Lula out of prison to invalidate his convictions. And when I did, Bolsonaro threatened me several times, explicitly, with prison. I ended up criminally indicted for that reporting, although the Supreme Court had a press freedom ruling that required the dismissal of those charges.

 I've had a lot of acrimonious history with Bolsonaro, but just like Marine Le Pen, that has nothing to do with any of this. Again, I actually believe in democracy. I think the president should be determined by who wins. 

So, like in France, the Bolsonaro problem is solved. Who cares if he's leading in the polls? Who cares if a majority of Brazilians want him as president? Nope, banned from the ballot in the name of saving democracy. 

Obviously, everybody remembers that Trump faced four felony indictments in four different jurisdictions, two state and two federal, and that was the Democratic strategy, to imprison Trump before the election. They never were able to do that, but they tried. But beyond that, they also just wanted him banned from the ballot independently of criminal convictions by claiming that the constitutional provision banning people who led an insurrection from running for high office should apply to ban Trump, even though he had never been convicted of insurrection, actually never even charged with it. Congress hadn't declared him ineligible, but the Democrats got a four to three majority on the Colorado Supreme Court for democratic judges to say that Trump is ineligible to run again. 

And then in Romania, I think we might even have actually the most flagrant and glaring case because there, they actually had an election. The first round was won by a previously obscure right-wing populist, with the EU and the U.S. The Romanians invalidated the election: let's just have another election. They saw that that candidate was likely to win again, they were, like, “This time we're going to ban him so he can't win.” 

Here from Politico EU in November 2025, this is December 2024, I think:

Georgescu won with 22.94 percent of the vote. He was followed by liberal reformist candidate Elena Lasconi on 19.18 percent in second place, after she edged ahead of center-left Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu on 19.15 percent — a difference of just over 2,700 votes.

An early exit poll suggested that Ciolacu and Lasconi were set to qualify for the presidential runoff but Georgescu surged into the lead as vote counting continued Sunday night, heralding a result that is set to upend Romanian politics. (Politico EU. November 24, 2024.)

So, they have this populist right-wing candidate, hostile to the EU, opposed to the war in Ukraine, not wanting to adopt the European view that Europe is at war with Russia and candidates like that have won throughout the EU. Even in Slovakia, which had long been an ardent opponent of Russia because of the history of the Cold War, Robert Fico, a former prime minister, ran on a platform, in late 2023, of stopping aid to Ukraine, and he won. He was then almost killed in an assassination attempt, but he's still running the country. He miraculously survived that. So here's another right-wing populist in Europe, hostile to the EU, opposed to the war in Ukraine, that the establishment hates, who shocked the establishment because they had two candidates they were happy with when he came in first in the first round of voting. 

As a result, because they didn't get the outcome they wanted, here's what happened from Politico EU, December 6, 2024:

Now, look at what they did there. They basically concocted their own Russiagate. They said, “Yes, this candidate that we hate won the election fair and square, came in first. But there were some ads on TikTok that helped him that we think came from Russia. So, our election is invalid, the Russians interfered.” Just like they tried to do in 2016, like, “Hey, we found some Facebook pages and some Twitter bots that seem like they came from Russia” and that makes Trump an illegitimate president. That's the theory that they used. 

Leaving aside the fact that the so-called interference by Russia – quite small in the context of millions of people going to vote – does anyone believe that the U.S. and the EU don't interfere at least as much in these elections to ensure the outcome that they want? You think it's only Russia interfering in the Romanian election and not the EU and the U.S. despite how strategically important Romania is to them, despite the fact that the EU and the U.S. took the position that the election should be nullified, that that candidate should be banned. EU and the U.S. have their fingerprints all over these countries, manipulating and funding opposition groups and demanding certain outcomes. 

And then Russia puts some TikTok videos, supposedly, in support of the candidate they want to win and the whole election has to get validated. “We didn't get the candidate that we wanted. In the name of democracy, we have to cancel that election because the candidate we hate won.” 

[…]

The view of the guardians of democracy, the safeguards of democracy, the people fighting anti-democratic forces is that you can have all the elections you want, just keep voting as long as the candidates most likely to win that they fear and hate most are barred from the ballot so that you cannot vote for them. That's what the democratic world now means, that’s what democracy in Europe, the United States and parts of South America, that's what it means. 

And that is to say nothing of the censorship regime that they impose to accomplish it. EU officials are also very upfront about the fact that they need this censorship regime, under these laws, they passed the Digital Services Act, in the EU, the Online Safety Act, in the U.K. and various laws in Canada and Brazil. They claim they need those because with elections imminent, they have to prevent the spread of disinformation, meaning they have to censor views that they are most afraid of, that they think will help sink them in the election. 

These center-left, center-right, neoliberal establishment orders are justifiably hated by their populations – hated, despised. Even when, on a rare occasion, one of them wins, it's a total fluke, like what happened in the U.K. where the Labor Party under Sir Keir Starmer won. They won with a small percentage of the vote, 34%. It was largely a backlash against the corrupt leadership of the Conservative Party, of the Tories under Boris Johnson and people like that. And they were never popular, this center-left party. As soon as they win, Kier Starmer is hated across Britain. 

So even when they win, it's only a very kind of fluke election. In general, they're so despised, even in the U.K. where they won they're despised, but usually they're so despised now, they know they're despised and in a free and fair election, they cannot win. They cannot win with free speech permitted. And they're cracking down on all of the defining core ingredients of what democracy means and telling you in the most Orwellian way possible that they're doing it because they're the ones who have to save democracy, by which they mean they have to stay in power at all costs. 

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

I've always thought that the ability or the obligation of a journalist to interact with their readers or their viewers is one of the most positive developments of internet-based journalism. It used to be that journalists would just speak from the hill and pass down their articles as though they were scrolls handed down from God to Moses and nobody could ever respond. 

The internet has enabled a much different means of interacting with your readers where you get questions, challenges, critiques and all sorts of things like that. So, we're happy that we've chosen Friday nights to institute this Q&A where we get questions from our Locals members. We have an excellent sampling today, as we typically do. 

The first question is from Kevin Kotwas and he wrote this:

I think one of the problems in talking about DOGE is that, on the one hand, there has not been a lot of transparency in terms of what they've been doing. They've tried to provide some transparency, but some of the information ended up unreliable or inaccurate which is I guess to be expected when a brand new government agency starts doing work that has never really been done before then, on the other hand, you have enormous amounts of hysteria and histrionics about what they are doing as well and that has not been balanced by DOGE explaining or defending itself. 

Last night Elon Musk and key members of the DOGE team went on to Fox News. About eight of them spent 30 to 35 minutes being questioned by Fox anchor Bret Baier about exactly what their work is. I think it's worth watching for those of you who haven't seen it. It gives a different impression in terms of, at least, their mindset, their methods and their objectives than have been presented by the media. But I still think it is a brand-new project that deserves a lot of scrutiny and not just blind applause because people have Elon Musk or the Trump administration and want to cheer for whatever they're doing. 

I do think there's also a critique that you can want to cut excess spending and excess bureaucracy, which the U.S. government undoubtedly has, but at the same time, if you do it recklessly, you can produce a lot of negative outcomes. I think Elon felt like he's had success doing that with Twitter, and he did. He went in and cut something like 80% of the workforce. I remember very well that a bunch of tech experts and media people were saying, “Oh, Twitter's just gonna stop working. Within two months, it's gonna be unstable, and then it's just going to stop working,” and it works as well as it ever has, there's really no operational disruption to it, and I'm sure he's done that in other companies before. 

As for the broader critique that the question raises, let's call it the ideology of Silicon Valley, which I do think is aptly described as being transhumanist, having really kind of a quasi-religious view. There was just an interview with Bill Gates where he was asked whether he thinks that humans are going to become obsolete in terms of the work that humanity does and the work the planet needs. He basically said, “Yeah, I think most of this work that we need done and do now will be done by a combination of AI and also robots” and humans were almost talked about by him as though they were extraneous, kind of unnecessary almost, besides the point, just beings that will lay around and, I don't know, consume things and maybe have leisure time, but be liberated from work because we're not really competent to do work as well as the technology that Silicon Valley has been developing. 

And then when Mark Zuckerberg was on Joe Rogan – I had a two-hour root canal and I listened to the entire thing and I'm not sure which was worse – Mark Zuckerberg’s view was very much that not necessarily that human beings are going to be eliminated, but that we're gonna start merging with the technology that they're developing. Instead of having a phone that we hold in our hand, we will have vision goggles implanted in our eyes, eventually, there'll be ways of technologically drilling into our brain to connect this kind of technology so that our brains just automatically have it. You don't need a device anymore. He talked about experiments they're already doing for medical purposes to cure paralysis or to try and obviously achieve noble goals that involve understanding the brain – how to manipulate the brain, how to use technology to merge it into the brain – so that neurological functions can be enhanced. 

Those kinds of things are promising, but you can very quickly see the dystopian vision that might lead to – and I do think there has been this kind of techno-feudal or transhumanist as the question I think aptly described it, an ideology that has become pervasive in Silicon Valley. 

I just don't know if I would attribute all that to DOGE. I'm not sure it's DOGE that is responsible for that or even after two months of being guided by that kind of vision. I think they're more about just kind of tearing out parts of the government which has been a long-time dream of the American right. 

Ronald Reagan talked about things like closing the Department of Education massively and he just could never get it done. Whatever else you want to say about the Trump administration they did come in with very clear plans, very clear ideas of how they wanted to do the things they went and said about doing. 

So, this is always the case anytime you have a revolution, and I'm using this term loosely, you can hate the government and believe the government is deeply corrupt and therefore support revolutionary sentiments, and just uprooting a corrupt government or a repressive government is in and of itself worthwhile because without a revolution you know it will continue indefinitely. But there's always the risk that the revolution replaces the horrific status quo with something worse. That's always a danger. And that kind of creates a human inertia: let me just stick with what I know. And I do think that part of the sentiment that makes people fear Trump is that he is, and they perceive him as being, a radical deviation from how things are being done. Even people dissatisfied with the status quo are afraid of change. I think human beings instinctively and in general are afraid of change. We always prefer bad things that we're familiar with to the unknown, which promises to be better or worse but just the fact that it's unknown makes us fear it more. And this is always how I've seen Donald Trump – and several questions are coming about Trump and what he's done and how it aligns or doesn't align with my expectations – but I've cited this quote from Seymour Hersh many times before that says that Trump basically acts as a “circuit breaker.” 

 So, if you look at the way Washington works, controlled by massive corporations, by corporatist interests, by the military-industrial complex, by the intelligence community, by the posture of endless war, it already has hollowed out the country, put our country in trillions of dollars’ worth of debt, has made the United States be perceived with great hostility in most places around the world, made us rely on constant military force and wars and bombing campaigns as a way to advance our national interest, has been overwhelmingly oriented toward serving the interest of large corporate interest at the expense of pretty much everybody else in the country. I mean, this is part of the MAGA critique. 

So, if you believe that – and I do – and if you believe that that status quo has been extremely destructive and corrupt, as I do, to say nothing of all these relationships with global institutions and the like, and the destruction of the credibility of most of our institutions, from science to media to politics, and essentially everything in between. It's hard to say, “Oh, I oppose something that will go and just kind of smash it all to pieces,” even if I don't know what's gonna be rebuilt in its place, and it's possible that what's rebuilt in its plate might actually make those bad attributes worse. But breaking things at least creates an opportunity. There's opportunity in chaos, there's opportunity in change. And so, the floor might be lower, but the ceiling is much, much higher. 

I'm not willing to say yet that DOGE, specifically, or the Trump movement in general, is accelerating our path to techno-feudalism or transhumanism. I think that's a path we've been on because of how influential Silicon Valley has become but I also will say that one of the things I do think has gotten overlooked because MAGA and Trump have so hyped this idea that they're opposed to the military-industrial complex, the intelligence community, is we kind of have a changing of the guard of the military-industrial complex, so, maybe like Boeing is out, and Raytheon is out, and Lockheed Martin is out – although I haven't seen much of that but maybe they're coming out – but then you have just these newer versions, like Palantir which is inextricably linked to the intelligence community and has become a critical, essential part of the Trump administration. They are the leaders in things like mass surveillance and launching wars, just go listen to Alex Karp and go read an article he's written or an interview where he conducted, or go watch one, and you'll see what that agenda is and people like him are extremely embedded into the Trump administration and I do think that's a serious danger. 

I just think that after two months of hitting the panic button or drawing very widespread wide-ranging conclusions, I think is premature, despite the fact that I think those dangers are real but I think the potential is real as well. 

All right; the next question is from the Mill Man who asked:

I think it's a very interesting point and I would say that question describes the approach that I have been trying to take, in my own journalism, and kind of the areas that I have focused on are kind of common ground between populist left and populist right, anti-establishment left and anti-establishment right, which includes not only opposition to the U.S. financing and arming the Israeli destruction of Gaza, but also the U.S. financing and fueling the war in Ukraine and just the general militaristic war, endless war posture that the United States is on that I think does know Americans any good, except for a tiny sliver of elites who run these industries that profit so much at everybody else's expense. 

I do think that had these protests been more generalized against the U.S. war machine and heightened Ukraine as an example as well, it may have attracted a broader base of support. But let me just say a couple of things about that because I'm not entirely sure in this case if that's true. I understand it in theory, I think it has potential but I think it's so important not to underestimate the enormous hold that Israel has on large swaths of our political spectrum. Not just our political spectrum, but American conservatism and even large parts of MAGA. 

In fact, it is often the case, I really do believe, that a lot of these sentiments in defense of Israel are even stronger than the sentiments in defense of the United States. If you go back and read “The Israel Lobby” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, from 2007, it details a lot of that, but I think one of the things that has happened is – I'll just explain in Brazil. 

Brazil used to be an overwhelmingly Catholic country, the largest Catholic country in the world, and it still is very Catholic, at least in the sense of who identifies as a Catholic, but Catholics tend not to be particularly devout or driven by religion, it's just kind of a religion of Brazil like Christianity is the religion of the United States. Some people are very devout, but by and large, it would be a secular society with kind of Christian-informed values or Catholic-informed values. 

But over the last three or four decades, there's been the emergence of a very passionate and intense evangelical movement. There have always been evangelicals around, but it's only quite recently that evangelicals have been convinced that one of their highest religious duties is to politically support Israel and support everything it does and want to fund it with great enthusiasm. So, if you go to a protest or a march or demonstration organized by the Brazilian right, you'll see at least as many Israel flags as you will Brazilian flags because Israel plays such a defining central role in how right-wing evangelical politics are expressed. 

There's this – just as a side note – it’s an interesting anecdote where this drug gang that kind of rules the favelas, they constantly fight for expansion and the head of this gang is devoutly evangelical, demands that everybody in communities that he runs be evangelical. He united a bunch of the communities that he gained power over, and he called it the Complex of Israel. All over the place, there are stars of David and Israeli flags, they use the uniforms of the IDF. That is how central Israel has become in the evangelical mindset. 

And so, if you look at a major part of the U.S. Congress, obviously, you have American Jews who are inculcated from birth to revere Israel and then you have national security hawks who just see Israel as an important instrument or extension of American power. But you also have huge parts of the MAGA movement that are composed of evangelicals who will tell you outright they don't want to give money to any other country in the world, they don't want to defend any other countries in the world except for Israel and that's because God has mandated that they defend Israel. Some of them believe that Israel has to be unified under the control of the Jews for the Messiah to return at which time he will consign all Jews because they don't accept the divinity of Jesus to eternal damnation but Jews are happy to accept that support because they don't actually believe that will happen. But others just have a more generalized view of the book of Exodus and some of the chapters of what we call the Old Testament, that God promised Israel to the Jews and said that whoever defends and supports and blesses the Jewish people in Israel will themselves be blessed. 

So, we're in a genuine religious conviction, on the part of evangelicals, or a deeply embedded, extremely indoctrinated identification with Israel among American Jews, then it isn't so easy to just say, “Oh yeah, they're going to start being okay with these protests against the Israeli destruction of Gaza as long as we just throw Ukraine in as well.” I mean, I see the emotion, I see emotion in people when you talk about this issue. It's unlike almost any other. For a lot of people, this is the red line, the single greatest issue. And not a small number of people. A large number of people. 

Obviously there are a lot of Jews who are highly critical of Israel, they participated and led the protests. Obviously, this show hosted by myself is highly critical of Israel, and I was taught all the same things about Israel that other American Jews were, from birth, and there are evangelicals who don't mix their religion with their politics, but I'm saying in general, it is such a dominant issue. 

You can pretty much, in these factions, take any position at all, and they'll be fine with it. You can disagree with them about almost anything, you disagree with them about this, and they will write you off because this, this foreign country, is the highest and most sacred duty. 

And it's so ironic that there are so many people who identify as America First for whom this is true. Obviously, huge parts of MAGA and America First don't see Israel this way, but many, many of them do. 

The other problem is that there are a lot of people on the left, broadly speaking – by the left I kind of mean the left-wing of the Democratic Party; I don't mean like the hardcore leftists who would never support the Democratic party. I mean like mainstream people who are called left, like the Bernie Sanders, AOC, even a little inward toward the mainstream who get called the left. They unanimously almost overwhelmingly support Ukraine and support the NATO war in Ukraine and want the United States to continue to fund it. 

So, if you were to introduce a Ukraine element into these protests, it would alienate a huge number of people who don't support that at all. These should combine. I absolutely agree that opposing the U.S. financing, and funding, and arming, and diplomatic protection of Israel should lead you to the conclusion that the U.S. should stop doing the same thing concerning Ukraine. Obviously, people would say, “They're totally different, Israel is the aggressor, and Ukraine is a victim of aggression, so we should defend the victims of aggression, which is Ukraine.” People have different views on that as well, but it's just a difficult group of views to mix because it would alienate so many people one way or the other, and I'm not sure if the focus was on Israel or room was a major part, it would become tolerable for all those people for whom Israel plays such a vital role. 

And then I guess the last thing I would say about this is that I don't think you compare the war in Ukraine to the war in Gaza. They're not even remotely comparable in terms of civilians killed, in terms of the destruction that it's ushering in, in terms of the humanitarian crimes and the atrocities and the war criminality. 

I think that what the Israelis are doing in Gaza, especially with the resumption now of this bombing campaign when there was barely anything left to bomb, just the absolute indiscriminate slaughter and killing, the complete destruction of civilian life in Gaza, blowing up every hospital, every university – and I know all the argument is Hamas was there, etc. – but I think that what we're witnessing in Gaza is by far the worst atrocity, certainly, of the century. I could make a case in my lifetime. 

There's been a lot of massacres and slaughters in the last several decades but I would certainly say that about this century because there are just zero constraints of any kind that are observed. Zero regard for human life among Palestinians, zero. And it's been so sustained, the Gazans are basically helpless, they don't have an army, they don't have NATO behind them, they don't have aircraft being shipped to them, they have very primitive weapons that make them able sort of to fight a guerrilla campaign, but not to guard against it. It's basically a sitting duck population, a helpless population. 

So, I understand why people felt a particular need to go out and protest that, especially because our government is who is paying for it, who is arming it, who is diplomatically shielding it. 

So, it's a complicated question, but I do wish that people would be more open to the idea that there really is huge common ground among left-wing populists and right-wing populists and the problem is that people on the right, including right-wing populists, are taught to hate anything on the left and left-wing populists are taught to hate everything on the right. That was why my attempt to examine and foster this common ground on issues like trade and war and intelligence community and military-industrial complex and corporatism alienated so many people on the left. The idea that there could be anybody on the right who has views that they could connect to or that they can work with is so anathema to how people have been indoctrinated to think, they just stay over here in their separate corners. And so yes, I wish there was a lot more thinking along these lines, but unfortunately, we're pretty far away from that. 

All right, next question, Bently 2:

All that is way too sweeping, I think, with respect to being able to just say yes or no to. I understand the sentiment. I guess I would acknowledge that some of the methods and tactics that the Trump administration has resorted to almost immediately have surprised me, just in terms of how extreme they are, like deporting green card holders who are married to American citizens or PhD students because they wrote an op-ed against Israel, creating this framework that anybody should be afraid of criticizing Israel because the U.S. government is showing that they will punish you. And it's not just foreign citizens either, by the way. It's also Americans as well. The Trump administration, when they submitted their demands to Columbia, demanded as a condition to even talking about receiving the funding that was frozen, they required Columbia to severely suspend or expel everybody who participated anyway in the protest against the Israeli war in Gaza. And as a result, Americans – American-born Americans – have been expelled because the government demanded it.

 The government has also demanded the implementation of a radically expanded definition of antisemitism that puts you in violation of campus rules when you criticize Israel in any way prohibited by this radical definition promulgated by Israel and adopted by the EU. So, it's not just foreign students who are being deported, it's also American institutions, American academia, American students who are being punished by this attempt to outlaw and criminalize and intimidate people out of criticizing Israel. 

So, that is one thing that I did not expect them to do but at the same time, you can look at other things that they're doing that are shocking to me, like invoking the Alien Enemies Act to try to proclaim that the U.S. is at war with a small violent group of thugs and gang members from Venezuela. We're at war like we were in World War I or World War II, or the War of 1812. You can now invoke wartime powers enacted in the late 18th century that have barely been enacted throughout American history and even when it was, the people who they wanted to deport got hearings to be able to demonstrate that they weren't Nazi sympathizers, weren't actual threats to the national security. 

The Trump administration is not just deporting people with no hearing of any kind. They're not deporting them at all. Deporting means sending them back to their home. They're “deporting” by throwing them into a uniquely repressive, abusive prison in El Salvador, paying for them to be in prison and being kept there indefinitely to the point where El Salvador is saying they may stay here for life all without a shred of due process, some process to make sure that we're not imprisoning for life people who are totally innocent. 

I do think I will acknowledge that the speed of this stuff and the aggression with which it's carried out did surprise me, I probably would have said I don't think the Trump administration would do that at all, or certainly not as quickly as they've done. At the same time, Trump said repeatedly on the campaign trail that he would do this. You can watch speeches where he says, “I'm going to invoke the Alien Enemies Act and mass deport people, and we're going to go after foreign students and revoke their visas who participated in a protest against Israel. 

So, I think these things are anti-democratic, I think they're a violation of the Bill of Rights. I expect or at least hope, and I would say expect, at least in some cases, that our federal courts, including the Supreme Court, will rule that some of these things are a violation of the Constitution. 

What I have a problem with is this binary assessment that Trump is a severe threat to democracy because you can look at the Biden administration and I do think many things that they did, including their systemic campaign to have the CIA, Homeland Security and the NIH bully, pressure and coerce Big Tech to ban dissent from their pronouncements on things like COVID in Ukraine, was as unconstitutional and as severe of a threat to our Bill of Rights as anything the Trump administration is doing. I don't think you can say one is worse than the next. 

So, we're two months into the administration, two months, just a little over, and I don't think I've been coy about the serious alarm that I have about many of the things the Trump administration has been doing – re-initiating the war in Gaza, restarting and then escalating the bombing campaign in Yemen using rules of engagement that assign almost zero value to civilian life in Yemen, to say nothing of these deportations, these attacks on American institutions. I think the attempt to force law firms to restructure their pro-bono program to promise hundreds of millions of dollars of free work in defense of the Trump administration, demanding that they do pro-bono work on antisemitism specifically, like a DEI program – just today, earlier today, Skadden, Arps, one of the biggest, most powerful firms on the planet that wasn't even targeted yet with an executive order by Trump but preemptively reached an agreement with the White House that was chilling and creepy, where they're promising not to do certain kinds of pro-bono work, promising to do other types in a way that aligns with Trump's political agenda, forcing major law firms to submit to and promise to work for free for Trump's political vision. 

I do think a lot of these things are creepy and threatening and anti-democratic. But I also did shows before the election, several, on how many people on the right, many in the Trump circle who proclaim to believe in free speech actually have a gigantic Israel exception. I did an entire show on what the likely influence of Miriam Adelson's $100 million of the Trump campaign would be. I highlighted how Trump officials and people around him were vowing to deport students for the crime of criticizing Israel and protesting Israel. 

So, it's not like my vision of Trump pre-election was this kind of anti-war pacifist, fully devoted defender of free speech and civil liberties. There are obvious dangers to Trump. I just think that the rhetoric of depicting Biden, or George W. Bush, or Obama as these kinds of beacons of nobility and devotees of American democracy in contrast to Trump, who's just this anti-democratic monster, unlike thing we've ever seen before, I think that is what has been wildly overblown. And I still think that. Despite the fact that I'm certainly willing to admit that presidents stand up all the time or candidates stand up all the times and vow to do things on the campaign trail and then don't do them, as I said, I'm willing to admit that it has surprised me, not just the velocity, but the intensity, the extremism, the aggression with which they're carrying out what I regard as obvious assaults on the Bill of Rights. 

The way in which Trump supporters are willing to basically say or do anything to justify anything that the administration does, I mean, it took them eight weeks, it took MAGA eight weeks to go from what they had been saying for years. “No more Middle East wars, F* the military-industrial complex, no more endless wars, keep that money here at home for our own citizens” and then Trump restarts Biden's bombing campaign of Yemen, even though in 2024, Trump said he opposed Biden's bombings of Yemen. And that was when the Houthis were actually attacking U.S. ships. They're not attacking U.S. ships now. Trump greenlit the massive escalation and bombing of them, killing lots of civilians and suddenly MAGA's like, “Yeah, take them down.” 

Like to do such about-face of the things that you say you believe in! Have some integrity and have some duty as a citizen. Even if you support your leader still, even if you love him, even if you want him to be straightened, stand up and say when you think he's doing something against what you said your values are. 

Same with the censorship thing. I can't tell you how many times a day I hear Trump's supporters saying only American citizens have rights under the Constitution. No matter how much you show them that the Supreme Court has said for 150 years or more that everybody under U.S. government control, including even illegal aliens, but certainly people illegally in the United States, have the protections of the Bill of Rights. They'll never stop saying it because they need to say it to defend what Trump is doing, going from, “We love free speech, free speech is the most important thing” to “Yeah, get these Israel critics out of our country, punish the colleges and universities that allow too much Israel criticism, punish American citizens who are students if they protest against Israel.” 

You just turn on a dime and they're like, yeah censorship, that kind of censorship that's really good. It goes back to what I was saying before about the primacy of Israel, but also the willingness not of all Trump supporters or not of all MAGA supporters and not even all Democrats to justify everything their party and their president is doing, but this is typically how our politics works. 

We're very tribal by nature, we develop tribalistically, we think tribalistically, but part of the challenge of being a human being with some degree of critical thought and intellectual independence and integrity is doing your best to avoid succumbing to tribalism and reason for yourself and think for yourself about what your government is doing. 

All right. The next question is from Milagro who says:

This goes back to a couple of the other questions about Trump. Let's remember that it was Joe Biden who for 15 months, Biden and Harris administration that unconditionally supported everything Israel did. Occasionally, they gave a few nods to the fact that maybe they should be a little more careful with civilian casualties when they blew up aid workers, they would say like, “Yeah, we think they need to be more careful.” But we funded the entire war, Joe Biden flew to Tel Aviv and met with Netanyahu on October 10 and said, “The United States will stand behind you and whatever you think you need to do; we'll fund you, we promised our unabashed and unlimited commitment” and that's exactly how Biden and Harris proceeded to do and they would often say, “We're working tirelessly on a cease-fire”, but never got one. 

There was one early on for about, I think, six weeks, not even that, where there was some exchange of hostages and people held in Israeli dungeons with no due process and then it resumed and that was always the case. But they never got near a cease-fire and then Trump came in with Steve Witkoff, who very aggressively demanded that the Israelis stop and there was a cease-fire that the Palestinians celebrated. So, that's the sort of thing that I do think Trump still has in him. 

The problem is that on almost every issue the Trump administration is filled with people with very differing views and very differing ideologies on how to confront China or Ukraine, on domestic policy but there are almost no people in the Trump administration, certainly not anybody who is high level, that he listens to, that he cares about, who is not an ardent Israel loyalist, not one. 

I think this is such an important point to realize too: let's remember that Donald Trump wasn't only running for president, he was running to stay out of prison for life. Had Donald Trump lost the election in 2024, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Democrats would have put him in prison. They had four different felony cases against him, one of which they already got a guilty verdict in Manhattan and three others that would have allowed them to convict him under espionage. 

They wanted to put Donald Trump in prison for a very long time, certainly for life and Trump was desperate to win. He was willing to do what he had to win, so when Miriam Adelson comes to him and says, “Yeah, I'll give you all the money you need as long as you promise A, B, C, D, and E for Israel,” Trump's going to say, “Okay.”

These pro-Israel fanatics, by the way, originally aligned with Ron DeSantis, who is a far more true believer in Israel than Trump is. Go look at all the loudest AIPAC voices and the Israel loyalists, and you'll see that almost without exception, they supported Ron DeSantis and his candidacy, and it was only once it became apparent that Ron DeSantis had no political charisma, that there was no way he could beat Trump, couldn't even get close, did they all migrate to Trump to try to influence his royal court.

That was when huge numbers of those people started to get close to Trump, and then had Miriam Adelson and other people too, not just her, but long-time Israel supporters, given tens of millions of dollars as well. Trump is captive to them and he's going to do what they want. Remember as well that Trump's daughter, his favorite child by all accounts, Ivanka Trump herself is Jewish. She converted because she's married to Jared Kushner, who's an Orthodox Jew, whose family has given massive amounts of money to Israel, not just to Israel but to the most extremist parts, to projects to expand settlements in the West Bank. 

So, he's surrounded by this view everywhere he turns and so the idea that he's going to resist it I think is very difficult to imagine but, again, the Democrats are also completely captive to the Israel lobby and Israel as well. I think you saw in Trump with that cease-fire, the capacity to deviate but I'm not sure how much Americans so far care about what's being done in Gaza. 

I do think it's interesting that you're seeing a massive change in public opinion in the United States, especially among young people, but not only, migrating away from supporting Israel. If the Trump administration persists in telling people they can't criticize Israel, that they have to pay for Israel's wars, constantly talking about Israel, not only do I think that could be a political problem for Trump and the Republicans, but I actually think that it could risk seriously increasing antisemitism. 

At some point, as I've talked about before, people are going to say, “Wait a minute, why are we not allowed to talk about this country? Why are people being deported who are law-abiding, productive members of society, PhDs, Fulbright scholars, physicians and specialists in kidney transplants, why are we deporting those kinds of people because they criticize not our own country, but this foreign country? Why are we sending billions and billions and billions all the time to Israel?” I think there is a danger of that. 

Yesterday in the Senate, a lawyer named Kenneth Stern, who has worked his whole life in Jewish organizations, like the American Jewish Congress and wrote books on combating antisemitism, he believes that antisemitism is being exploited to prevent people from criticizing Israel. He was making that point in Josh Hawley, who does not have a history of being a Jewish scholar of antisemitism, to put it mildly, he started screaming over him, saying he didn't care about Jews, he doesn't want to protect Jews on campus. This is the guy who has worked his whole life in Jewish organizations who's being screamed at by Josh Hawley for saying, “Wait a minute, I don't think we should be censoring protests” – and his argument was “That is what increases antisemitism.” It feeds into what had been longstanding antisemitic tropes as we call them, that Jews have secret control over countries, and they dictate to these countries what they should do. And the more you feed into that, the more antisemitism you're going to increase, he said. 

I certainly agree with that also and I think people who are going way overboard with trying to shield Israel by attacking the free speech rights and civil liberties rights of the United States, by insisting the United States keep giving more and more to Israel, are playing a very dangerous game and risking the exact results that they claim they're so petrified of, which is the spread of antisemitism. 

Stephen Sanford asked:

That's always been a hard question to answer in the United States because the reality of our elections is that the people who really control elections are large donors, billionaires, oligarchs and bulk parties. There's a new book out about what happened in 2024 inside the Democratic Party with Biden and Harris and it describes what finally forced Joe Biden out were the donors. They demanded it. They said, “We're not gonna fund your campaign, we're not going to give you the hundreds of billions of dollars you need to run a campaign because we don't think you have any chance to win.” Biden tried to convince them. “You may be right, but I can promise you, my dropping out is gonna result in Kamala Harris becoming the nominee, whether we anoint her or whether we pretend to have a mini-convention, and she has less chance than I do.” But the donors insisted. That's who got Biden out. Not the people rising up or whatever. 

But protest movements do work. They have toppled governments all around the world, they have changed the course of American history, obviously during the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights movement and the like. It's just that protesting can be difficult. You need the time, most people work and support their families and want to be with their families and barely have enough time to breathe, let alone participate in political protests. That's why it's typically an activity mostly for the young, for youth. That's why college campuses have been, iconically, a venue of protest, but I think that, ultimately, that's the only thing that really lets the voice of the people be heard, is when the government starts fearing the population, rather than having the population fear the government. 

All right, the last question comes from Doc Fab, who says:

All right, let me just say here, just because that was very, very filled with praise, that I didn’t choose these questions. I rely on my colleagues to do so, in part because I wanna make sure that I'm not just picking up the things that I want to talk about, but things that maybe push me out of my comfort zone. So, if there's a question that's heaping a lot of praise on me, it's not because I chose it, it's because someone here thought that it raises some important issues. 

I do glance at the questions just to make sure that it's worth speaking about, but I don't really read them. I want the first time that I'm really concentrating on them to be live on camera so that my answer is more natural and less planned. I think that's the point of a Q&A, as opposed to a show where you're sort of committed to an idea ahead of time about what you want to say.

But this is probably the type of comment that I appreciate the most because I want to just be honest for a second about independent media. I'm a big fan of independent media; I think independent media has become an important alternative to and check against corporate media. It’s provided people with emancipation, not to be captive to corporate media, to get their information from other sources. It's why I came to Rumble because Rumble, I believe, is one of the very, very, very few companies that has a genuine commitment to free speech, not just branding themselves as such. 

The problem with independent media is that you don't have funding sources by definition. You don't work for a gigantic media corporation like CNN or ABC News or Fox. Typically, you don't have big corporate advertisers – Aetna or Boeing or any major company, Pfizer – advertising on our show or anywhere on Rumble. 

And so, people who want to be able to be independent journalists and make a living out of it have to rely upon the support of their viewers. By far the easiest way to do that, the way that's most likely to succeed, and not just succeed, but potentially make you quite wealthy, is if you plant your flag in a party, or a political movement, or an ideology, and your viewers know that that's their ideology, that's their party, that's their movement, and they're gonna come to rally around the flag, whatever that flag is, and you're never gonna tell them anything that upsets them or alienates them, you're never going to criticize that flag and the movement that the flag represents. 

There is a lot of independent media like that. I mean, it's by far the easiest thing to do. You say I'm on the left, I am a Democrat, I’m a Never Trump conservative, I am a MAGA person and then just everything you say and do is aligned with whatever you need to align yourself with to advance and defend and justify whatever that particular faction is doing. And it is tempting. You look around and you see how many people are succeeding in a very lucrative way by doing that. 

I mean, I guess it's tempting to some people. It just isn't for me because I think what's so important is I didn't enter journalism because that was my career goal. I didn’t enter it with any career ideas at all. I entered it because I wanted to say things that weren't being said, I wanted them to be heard. As I recounted, I never wanted to attach myself to a party, I never wanted to attach to myself and be imprisoned by an ideology, I most definitely didn't want to have to remain loyal to a particular politician or a set of politicians – that sounds so dreary and awful and anti-intellectual and just drained of all of its integrity. I'd have no passion for doing that whatsoever. 

And so, I know that by criticizing Democrats, but then also criticizing conservatives in the Trump movement and never just feeding people all the time what they want to hear, that does cost you viewers and supporters; it costs you followers on social media, it costs everything. 

But I think one of the things that is important to me is that, and I'm quite grateful for and aware of, is that I am at a point in my career, where I have enough of a platform that I've built up over many years, that I don't really have to worry about losing a part of my audience in a way that would make it no longer feasible for me to do this work. I'd much rather lose 10% to 15% of our audience – as we did almost immediately after October 7 – in order to be able to pursue the truth as I see it to present facts that I think need to be presented, to critique people who I think are not telling the truth and feel good about the work. But I realize that not everybody has that luxury. 

Some people can't lose that and continue to do the work, so I'm not necessarily judging them. I'm just saying what I feel like I have is a platform that enables me to avoid being captive to those kinds of pressures, that kind of audience capture, or the need to just validate everybody's thoughts, and sometimes I think, like, if I don't do it, who's going to do that? 

I mean, there are obviously very big podcasts that don't have an allegiance to a political faction, Joe Rogan being the most obvious example, but Joe Rogan didn't really start as a political podcast, and he's not really even now a political podcaster. Most of what he does is not about politics. Politics is secondary to what he does. And he's gained enough credibility with his audience so that he can more or less free range on what he thinks. I think he has become more loyal to and more supportive of Trump and the MAGA movement than he had previously been supportive of any one particular factor but still, he's very capable of heterodoxy. But he's the exception because it's not a political podcast. 

This is a show about journalism and politics. That's obviously what I do, pretty much exclusively. I don't do a lot of cultural commentary. And so, the easiest way to do that is to just plant your flag and then validate people's views. But when I hear a comment like that: hey, my son is over here and I'm over here and we have a very difficult time bridging the gap but your show enables us to do that because we can count on you to kind of be reliable and telling us the things that you really think and it's a window into having a more rational conversation than otherwise we might, in terms of being super polarized – that's the kind of compliment of my work that I feel very grateful for and appreciative of and that I really value because it'd be much easier – much, much easier – in my life and in every other way to just feed a group of people exactly what they want to hear. It's not hard to do that, that's very easy. You can just put yourself on autopilot and do it. 

One of the things that I'm particularly appreciative of in life is that the work I've always done has been work that I am passionate about. And if I were to do that, I wouldn't be passionate about it, I wouldn’t feel like I had any integrity in it. I'm not perfect in it, I'm sure there are sometimes subconsciously when I avoid something or say something because of that incentive. We're all human, we all have these incentives. But again, it's sort of like the tribalism I was talking about before. It's something that I think you have to work as hard as you can to avoid

All right. Those were an excellent set of questions. If you want to submit your questions, you can do so by joining our Locals community, which is the community on which we rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

As a result of Mike Waltz’s refusal to admit error and move on, we have been drowned in a series of utterly ridiculous claims from the administration, as well as from Goldberg and other Trump enemies that deserve scrutiny simply because this is one of the most important jobs of a journalist: to sort through claims coming from government and corporate media to discern what is true and what is not. 

Then, in the second segment: EU leaders seem to delight in embracing all sorts of tough guy, warmongering rhetoric about how they intend to become a major military power without the U.S. We'll show you the sad and darkly hilarious reality of Europe and the Grand-Canyon-wide gap between their swaggering rhetoric and their impotent reality. 

And then finally: Today, that 3-judge Appellate Court issued its ruling and by a 2-1 decision, ordered that the injunction on these deportations to El Salvador remain in place. Even the dissenting judge acknowledged that before you can deport even an illegal alien to El Salvador, they are required to have due process. We'll tell you all about it. 

If I'm completely honest – and why wouldn't I be? – I wish I didn't have to talk about this whole Signal-Atlantic-Yemen-war chat scandal. I actually don't think it's particularly significant in and of itself. I think what happened here is very obvious. The Trump administration, particularly Mike Waltz and Pete Hegseth – particularly Mike Waltz – was negligent, careless and reckless. I think all of those terms apply when using an unreliable app to talk about extremely sensitive war plans or a bombing campaign that they were about to initiate before its initiation. Mike Waltz accidentally went to include somebody who worked for the government in that group, and by accident chose a reporter, a highly unscrupulous and aggressively anti-Trump reporter named Jeffrey Goldberg, editor in chief of the Atlantic. He accidentally chose his number; his contact was saved in his phone and he put him into the group. 

Had Mike Waltz just admitted that had he just said, “Look, […] when I created this group, I thought I was choosing somebody in the Trump administration, instead, I accidentally put Jeffrey Goldberg in the group. It was definitely a mistake. It was a bad mistake. I'm sorry I committed it. I'll be more careful in the future. No harm was done. The operation was a success.” – had he just said the obvious truth, then there'd be nothing else to talk about in this story. 

Unfortunately, that's not what Mike Waltz did, therefore, the Trump administration in defending him had to issue a series of statements that are blatantly, almost insultingly, untrue, and a lot of the journalists, including Jeffrey Goldberg, have been making false claims as well. 

The whole thing is a tsunami of false claims we do feel compelled now to sort through. When the government issues highly implausible or questionable statements, it's the job of a journalist to question those, to scrutinize those and to point out what we know and what is true. 

There's also in the chats that have now been released, including new chats that were released by The Atlantic today, insights into what exactly this bombing campaign in Yemen is entailing, the strategies being used to bomb, who to kill, how many civilians can be killed, and that is at least worth examining probably more so. 

Just to remind anybody who has not heard of this story – who's fortunate enough not to have heard of it – it all started yesterday when Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic – again, I think one of the most unscrupulous operatives in all of D.C. media – published this article after the Trump bombing campaign in Yemen resumed. 

He revealed and showed screenshots of the chat in which he had been included by Mike Waltz, in an extremely sensitive conversation that, for some reason, took place over the commercial app Signal that everybody uses for free. Even though the government spends billions of dollars developing highly secure encrypted communication for national security discussions, they decided to use Signal – and they accidentally put Jeffrey Goldberg into their planning about how they were going to bomb Yemen, which is obviously a secret: what aircraft they were going to use to bomb Yemen, what time the bombing was going to start, and that's what Jeffrey Goldberg revealed. 

This is clearly classified information, highly sensitive, secret information – the government planning a bombing campaign. It's actually illegal to provide that information to someone who's not authorized to receive classified information, which is Jeffrey Goldberg, and yet they did. They did it by accident, presumably, and they should have just said that. 

Instead of that, the Trump administration, once Waltz came out and denied that he ever talked to Jeffrey Goldberg, began denying that there was anything sensitive about debating and then planning when to start a bombing campaign in Yemen. 

I just want you to think for a second about what would have happened had Jeffrey Goldberg published the entire chat with all of these operational details, before the U.S. going and bombed Yemen. Do you really believe that a single person in the Trump administration would have said, “Oh, that's no big deal that Jeffrey Goldberg published these detailed war plans about when we were going to send our service members in harm's way, what aircraft they would use, what time they would start bombing”? 

They would probably charge Jeffrey Goldberg under the Espionage Act and arrest him immediately. At the very least, they would have described this as an incredibly reckless, disloyal, unpatriotic, treasonous thing to do by a reporter because, of course, this information is sensitive. It was only once they realized that Jeffrey Goldberg had it because they gave him access to it that they started to insult your intelligence by trying to tell you there's nothing at all sensitive or classified about any of this information. 

Here's Pete Hegseth speaking on Fox News about all this. 

Video. Pete Hegseth, Hawaii, Fox News. March 24, 2025.

“Nobody was texting war plans,” he said and this has been the line from the Trump administration: “No, there was nothing in there that's sensitive. No big deal that we shared it with the journalists.” 

In fact, I agree with everything Pete Hegseth said about Jeffrey Goldberg. I think he's one of the most fraudulent, if not the most fraudulent operatives in the media. In addition to all the sins Pete Hegseth mentioned, as we've shown you before, it was Jeffrey Goldberg single-handedly, who invented the lie that Saddam Hussein had a close alliance with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to convince Americans of what they needed to be convinced of to support the war in Iraq, which was that Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in the planning of the 9/11 attack and that's why we had to go in and take him out. Without that lie that Jeffrey Goldberg spread all over the New Yorker and NPR and all the shows that he was asked to come on, he was showered with journalism awards. Without that lie, it would have been much more difficult to convince the Americans to support the war on Iraq. 

Needless to say, none of this has affected Jeffrey Goldberg's standing in corporate media because, as I've said before, it's not just tolerated, it is required if you want to advance in corporate media, that you lie on behalf of the U.S. Security State. Nobody does that as eerily or as casually as Jeffrey Goldberg. 

Given that I agree with everything Pete Hegseth has said about him, that provokes the question Why is it that Jeffrey Goldberg was included in this very small, 16, 17-people, top national security officials? Why was he included in his group and therefore made aware of the war planning? 

It's true that not all of the details of the bombing operation in Yemen were included but a lot of it was. 

Here is The Atlantic, which actually was almost forced to reveal more text because Jeffrey Goldberg had said there were details about the operation. The Trump administration vehemently denied it, as you just heard Pete Hegseth do, as others have done, and because the Trump administration said there was nothing classified in there, Jeffrey Goldberg had no excuse to withhold it. Once you call the reporter a liar and claim that what he's claiming is in there really isn't and that there's nothing classified about it, you have no excuse not to publish it. You're basically duty-bound to do so. And he did, under this headline:

At 11:44 a.m. Eastern time, Hegseth posted in the chat, in all caps, “TEAM UPDATE:”

The text beneath this began,

 “TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.” Centcom, or Central Command, is the military’s combatant command for the Middle East. 

The Hegseth text continues:

“1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)”

“1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)”

The Hegseth text then continued:

“1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)”

“1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets)”

“1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched.”

“MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)”

“We are currently clean on OPSEC”—that is, operational security. (The Atlantic. March 26, 2025.)

I'm sorry, but nobody in good faith, nobody trying to be minimally honest, nobody who is anything other than a complete partisan hack would claim that there was nothing sensitive, nothing classified in what Pete Hegseth posted to the Signal group that included Jeffrey Goldberg. I'm talking about detailed times of an operation that has not yet begun. The targets of the operation, the aircraft they intend to use and the sequence of events that the attack plan entails. The U.S. government classifies everything, pretty much. 

I've talked before about how I read through the Snowden archive for two years plus: hundreds of thousands, if not more, top secret and classified documents. They classify everything, including the most banal, ridiculous and routine documents. Here's how you request a vacation and here's how you get a parking credential, top secret or classified. 

The idea, the very idea that detailed war plans to secretly bomb a country is not information that ought to be closely held, that it's fine to share it with whoever is just an insult to your intelligence and it is a byproduct of the fact that Mike Waltz decided he won't tell the truth and couldn't tell the truth for reasons we'll get into. So, the administration lined up behind him to defend him and in doing so had to issue some claims that didn't even pass the lab test. 

 I'm not pretending, and I won't pretend that I'm sitting here worried about whether the government effectively or efficiently protects its secrets. That is not my job. I'm a journalist. If anything, my job is to unearth those secrets, not help the government better hide them. I wouldn't even be talking about this if not for the fact that it's ongoing because the truth just wasn't admitted. Instead, we're getting an avalanche of preposterous claims not just from the government, but from Jeffrey Goldberg as well. 

Here is a tweet from Karoline Levitt, the White House Press Secretary, and she essentially followed up with the same sort of denials that Pete Hegseth had that's clearly part of the strategy. She says:

Come on! And they're trying to claim that Jeffrey Goldberg one day said there were war plans and then in The Atlantic was treated as “attack plans.” There's no difference between those. It's just not true that “No ‘war plans’ were discussed” in the Signal chat.” 

How is this information not classified? 

3. The White House Counsel’s Office has provided guidance on several different platforms for President Trump’s top officials to communicate as safely and efficiently as possible.

As the National Security Council stated, the White House is looking into how Goldberg’s number was inadvertently added to the thread. 

Thanks to the strong and decisive leadership of President Trump, and everyone in the group, the Houthi strikes were successful and effective. Terrorists were killed and that’s what matters most to President Trump. (Karoline Leavitt, X. March 25, 2025.)

Trump administration officials for the last two months have been issuing very flamboyant and aggressive statements about the evils of leaking classified information, saying they’ll have zero tolerance and they'll punish anybody who is responsible for it. Suddenly, because of Mike Waltz's careless mistake at best, they shared secret war plans, secret attack and bombing plans with one of the most hostile anti-Trump media operatives on the planet and now they resort to, “Oh, We don't care that much about leaking classified information, we just care that the operation was a success.” It was successful because Jeffrey Goldberg opted not to publish what he had learned before the bombing campaign. But they had no way of guaranteeing that when they let him into that group. 

Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA Director, John Ratcliffe, were testifying before Congress yesterday and both of them took similar positions. 

Video. Martin Heinrich, Tulsi Gabbard, John Ratcliffe. March 25, 2025.

Did you hear that? I mean, whatever you think of the Yemen bombing campaign, however much you love President Trump, here's the CIA director testifying before the Senate. It's not even an effective lie because of course these chats were going to come out. He was asked: Was there anything about timing or weapons packages transmitted in this chat? Obviously, John Ratcliffe, the CIA Director, read the chat. It's right on his phone before going to testify. He knew what was in there and yet he still said, “Not to my knowledge”? I just read you exactly that, the weapons packages that were going to be used and the timing of the attacks in detail. 

What is the justification for lying about that? Why would you even do that? That's what I mean: this began as a very trivial matter and it became something more significant because of the refusal to tell the truth and just dig in, in defense of Mike Waltz. 

Maybe there is some kind of a semantic game to try to justify those answers, but they are misleading at best. They should have just said, ‘Yes, as we were talking about the operation, we did talk about timing. It was a mistake to include a journalist and period. End of the story. It was a mistake, it was careless, we have to take steps to make sure it won’t happen again.’ 

Mike Waltz went on Laura Ingraham last night, and I just want to give you this sense of how preposterous this has now become, and how insulting so many of these explanations are. 

Laura Ingraham, to her credit, wanted to know how Jeffrey Goldberg's phone number ended up saved in Mike Waltz's phone and why that happened. 

Now, I don't know how many of you have used Signal before, but when you open the Signal app, the only people with whom you can start communicating are people who are saved on your phone. You can't just type a random number in. And then, if you create a new Signal group that permits you to speak with multiple Signal users at once, you have to add people to your group and the only options that you have are people whose contacts are saved in your phone. 

I understand why Mike Waltz doesn't want to admit that he had Jeffrey Goldberg's number saved in his phone because Jeffrey Goldberg is one of the most dishonest and one of most vehemently anti-Trump media people in all of Washington and Trump, Mike Waltz's boss, harbors a severe hatred for Jeffrey Goldberg. As you saw with Pete Hegseth, Trump has said some more things. They hate Jeffrey Goldberg. So, instead of just admitting that this is what happened, he was too scared to admit that he had Jeffrey Goldberg's phone number saved in his phone. 

To Laura Ingraham's credit – and I'm not surprised at all that she did it, she's done it many times before – she quite persistently and adversely questioned Mike Waltz on this very question, I want you to listen to the utter babbling, the preposterous defense, the attempts to justify how this could have happened that came out of Mike Waltz's mouth. 

Remember: this is the national security advisor, the person closest to the president on matters of national security, somebody responsible for possessing, analyzing and safeguarding the most sensitive secrets that our government possesses. 

Here's his attempt to explain how he had Jeffrey Goldberg's number on his phone. 

Video. Mike Waltz, Laura Ingraham, Fox News. March 25, 2025.

Oh, we have to convene all of the greatest technological minds and scientists, the computer experts and security experts from all around the world to investigate how possibly could be the case that Jeffrey Goldberg's contact information and phone number were stored in Mike Waltz's phone, sufficiently to allow Mike Waltz's to put him into the Signal group. And when Laura Ingraham still said, like, okay, given that's the case, Jeffrey Goldberg's phone number and contact information ended up in your phone and it was identified as Jeffrey Goldberg. The graphic in the Signal chat said “JG,” which is Jeffrey Goldberg's initials. And he said, “Oh yeah, yeah, what happens is, like, when this happens, the number gets sucked in. It gets sucked. It's totally what happens like the iPhone, like, oh, yeah. So many times. There are these people who I don't want to talk to, who I'm not supposed to talk to, but my iPhone just sucks in their contact information and their name, and I'm like, oh my God, how did they get in my contacts? How did that happen? How do I have their phone number and their name in my, oh, yeah, the phone sucked it in.” Sucked it from where?” 

It's laughable, it's ridiculous, it's insulting that they would continue this preposterous charade. 

Here's another image that The Atlantic released today. Jeffrey Goldberg in his original story said that he got an invitation and was added to the chat group by Mike Waltz. Once you hit ‘accept,’ you become part of the group and  Signal messages to the entire group.

So, here you see, this is the “Houthi PC small group” and it says:  Michael Waltz added you to the group. 

This is Jeffrey Goldberg's phone. There were only 19 members. It was intended to be a small group talking about the Houthi operation. And there is the first message where Mike Waltz says:

Team-establishing a principles group for coordination on Houthis, particularly over the next 72 hours. My deputy Alex Wong is pulling together a tiger team at deputies/agency Chief of Staff level following up from the meeting. (March 11, 2025.)

I heard a lot of Trump supporters trying to pin the blame on his assistant or his staffer, Alex Wong. Mike Waltz is willing to say anything to defend himself, you just saw that, but he's not willing to falsely blame Alex Wong. Why anyway, if you're the National Security Advisor, would you be handing out your phone, your personal telephone to staffers and they have access to it? That's not something a national security adviser should be doing. If that were the explanation, that might even be worse, more reckless. But that's not what happened. It says right here: “Mike Waltz added Jeffrey Goldberg to the group” and, again, the only way you could do that is if you have Jeffrey Goldberg's number saved in your phone. 

Mike Waltz has been insisting from the beginning, “I don't know Jeffrey Goldberg, I've never met him, I've ever talked to him.” Here is a photo from October 2021 that people dug up. It's from the French philosopher and warmonger, Bernard-Henri Lévy. On October 29, 2021, he tweeted:

I don't know, maybe you stood next to somebody on a stage before, and even though you work in the same area – Jeffrey Goldberg is a National Security Reporter, Mike Waltz is a member of Congress, who works in national security and is very well known in D.C, he has been around forever. There you see the two of them and up close. Maybe actually just didn't talk to him. He never remembered this. It's a total coincidence that the person whose contact and number are saved in your phone is somebody that you were about three inches from in a small group meeting on a stage. But the other side of it is it important to realize who Jeffrey Goldberg is. 

The New York Post published a headline saying “Trump team accidentally added lefty editor to secret text group planning Yemen raids. OPERATION OVERSHARE” (New York Post. March 25, 2025.)

The idea that Jeffrey Goldberg is a “lefty” is so funny. Jeffrey Goldberg is an American who left college to join a foreign military – you'll never guess which country, never! Take one guess. Yeah, exactly: he went and joined the IDF. He worked as a prison guard in an Israeli IDF prison that detained Palestinians with no due process during the first Intifada. It's notorious for being abusive. He talked about abuses that he saw and helped cover up, he wrote a book about his experience. So, he joined the IDF and then he became one of the loudest advocates of War in Iraq, He was at the New Yorker in the run-up to the Iraq war in 2002. 

Video. Jeffrey Goldberg, C-SPAN. October 22, 2002.

That would mean that Saddam Hussein probably played a role in 9/11 but unfortunately, it was a complete lie. 

There was a time, for those of you who don't remember or were too young to have lived through it, that they were constantly leaking, that Muhammad Adda, one of the lead hijackers for the 9/11 attack, met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague – very similar to what Russiagate was. They just make up lies based on whatever the needs are. 

Remember they had all kinds of claims from the Steele dossier about close Trump associates going and meeting with the Russians in Prague. Same kind of modus operandi, same kind of lie. 

In any reasonably healthy society, this would have destroyed Jeffrey Goldberg's career. That he lied the country into a devastating war that took the lives of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands, if not more, Iraqis. That even Tony Blair, an advocate of this war, says is what gave rise to ISIS because of the instability in the vacuum that we created. This was a major destruction of American credibility, of American lives, of American treasure. 

Americans wanted to support wars against the people who did 9/11. This was a year after 9/11. That's what they wanted. Jeffrey Goldberg happily stepped forward and provided that false link, was showered with a journalism award for this incredible investigation and it didn't impede his career at all. It helped his career. 

So, it's not a surprise that Jeffrey Goldberg, himself, on the other side of the story is also lying. He went on The Bulwark, the Never Trump website, which is where he belongs, and spoke to lifelong GOP operative turned Democratic cheerleader Tim Miller. Yesterday, Tim Miller was pressuring him: “You need to release this and show that it's actually in there.” Jeff Goldberg was very reluctant to do so. Listen to him explaining why he didn't think he could or should. 

Video. Jeffrey Goldberg, Tim Miller, The Bulwark. March 25, 2025.

That is a complete lie. The person who works for John Ratcliffe and manages his team is not an undercover agent. An undercover agent is someone deployed in a field, say, Lebanon or Syria, pretending to be a store clerk or a weapons dealer, who, in reality, is someone who works for the CIA. And if you identify them as a CIA agent, you blow their cover and that puts them in danger. It would be incredibly irresponsible for John Ratcliffe to have put the name of a CIA undercover operative in this chat. Even among 17 people doing that is reckless; that's the thing you guard the most. Jeffrey Goldberg, however, to try to justify why this is so grave and why he cannot release any more information, just fabricated on the spot that there was a CIA undercover operative who was named in the chat. 

The Atlantic itself admits that that's not true:

A CIA spokesperson asked us to withhold the name of John Ratcliffe's chief of staff, which Ratcliffe had shared in the Signal chain, because CIA intelligence officers are traditionally not publicly identified. Ratcliffe had testified earlier yesterday that the officer is not undercover and said it was "completely appropriate" to share their name in the Signal conversation. We will continue to withhold the name of the officer. Otherwise, the messages are unredacted. (The Atlantic. March 26, 2025.)

Now, about the war itself. We had gone over some of these excerpts on Monday, and when talking about whether they should bomb Yemen, JD Vance was the only person in the chat who raised objections to it. He called it, “a mistake.” He said, “Look, if this is what your decision is, I won't object publicly” but he noted that there was very little American interest in the Suez Canal. Maybe 3% of the trade in the Suez Canal is American, whereas 30% to 40%, he says, is European, if anything, this matters to Europe and Egypt, but not to the U.S. Obviously, it benefits Israel as well as Tom Cotton said, because the Houthis have been bombing Israel and threatening to seize their ships and so, JD Vance said, “We're supposed to be America First foreign policy. Why are we going to bombing campaigns and wars again to salvage the interest of other people?” 

But he wasn't the only one who said that. The other person who talked about some hesitation was the former congressional candidate, the Green Beret, whose wife was killed working for the CIA in Syria in the battle with ISIS, Joe Kent, whom Tulsi Gabbard has now chosen as her chief of staff or her deputy. He said: “There is nothing time-sensitive driving the timeline. We’ll have the exact same options in a month. […] (The Atlantic. March 26, 2025.) So, there was an added voice of caution or at least pushback and hesitation on this Yemen bombing plan and that was Tulsi Gabbard's Chief of Staff, Joe Kent. 

There was a segment of these chats that were about the bombing campaign itself that happened not before the bombing campaign, but as the first strikes happened. And it started with Mike Waltz saying, 

At 1:48 p.m., Waltz sent the following text, containing real-time intelligence about conditions at an attack site, apparently in Sanaa: “VP. Building collapsed. Had multiple positive ID. Pete, Kurilla, the IC, amazing job.” 

Waltz was referring here to Hegseth; General Michael E. Kurilla, the commander of Central Command; and the intelligence community, or IC. […] (The Atlantic. March 26, 2025.)

But JD Vance didn't understand the message from Waltz. It was just written in a very incoherent way. So, JD Vance said, “What?” and then Mike Waltz responded this way:

At 2 p.m., Waltz [wrote]: “Typing too fast. The first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed.”

Vance responded a minute later: “Excellent.” 

Thirty-five minutes after that, Ratcliffe, the CIA director, wrote, “A good start,” which Waltz followed with a text containing a fist emoji, an American flag emoji, and a fire emoji. (The Atlantic. March 26, 2025.)

I just want to highlight this, that this is what the Yemin bombing campaign entailed to start. They identified someone that they claimed was a top-missile person for the Houthis. They didn't kill him in his car, they didn't kill him on a battlefield. They waited for him to enter a residential building filled with civilians, including his girlfriend and the way they killed him was by collapsing the entire building. 

On that first day, there were many claims of civilian deaths – unsurprisingly, given that these were the rules of engagement. 

Is that something that you think is a legitimate military strategy to find somebody that is in your view a legitimate target and just blow up whatever building they're in regardless of how many civilians you kill? If during the Iraq War, the Iraqis had identified where a military commander lived, and he lived in some 47-floor high-rise apartment in Chicago, would the Iraqis have had the right to just blow up the entire building and say “Well, there was one guy in there who was a legitimate target”? 

You blow up an apartment and you kill 37 American civilians along with one member of the military but, of course, when we do it, it's not terrorism. Somehow it becomes legitimate. But if that's what this bombing campaign is, collapsing residential buildings to take out some mid-level missile person – or their top missile person even – who will just get replaced very easily as happened throughout the entire War on Terror – “Hey, we got Number 3 of al-Qaeda again because they just kept getting replenished.” That's how the War on Terror went on and on – this is the kind of endless war posture that Trump said he wanted to avoid. 

Not only is Trump doing exactly what Joe Biden did, bombing Yemen, and what Barack Obama did as well, when he worked with the Saudis for a full-on war with Houthi, just endless war in the Middle East, but he's loosened the rules of engagement so that the military is free to blow up entire residential apartment buildings as long as one person that they want to kill is in there, not caring in the slightest about how many civilians or children or whoever happens to be, unfortunately, have the misfortune of being in that apartment building when it's “collapsed”. 

So, a lot is going on in this story, most of it is quite ugly and unnecessary, eroding our credibility for absolutely no reason. The most significant part by far is the fact that we now have another war in the Middle East that is not going to stop. 

Just to remind you, the Houthis were attacking U.S. ships when Biden was bombing them and when Trump said that the bombing campaign was unnecessary. Once there was a cease-fire in Gaza that Trump and his envoy were able to facilitate, the Houthis stopped attacking ships. They only restarted attacking ships once in their view and everyone in the international community agrees that this happened once the Israelis started blocking the humanitarian aid that the cease-fire called for – food, medicine, water – into Gaza. They said because Israel is not abiding by the cease-fire agreement, we're only going to attack Israel-flagged or Israel-owned ships. 

So, they're not even attacking American ships anymore, just Israel's and that is what prompted Trump after saying last year that he opposed restarting Biden's war and escalating it and clearly killing a ton of civilians as usual. 

Then, at some point, we'll be attacked and everybody will walk around saying, “Oh my god what did we do? Why did they hate us?” And I think that has to be the focus once this question of how Jeffrey Goldberg got into the chat is resolved and we can move on from that. This is what our focus ought to be. 

One of the most bizarre things to watch over the last several years ever since the Russian invasion, in February 2022, in Ukraine, is watching Europeans, European officials in Brussels and bureaucrats start acting like they're refighting World War II or fighting World War III against Russia. You have German leaders talking about sending tanks for the third time in the last 100 years eastward toward Russia, which they ultimately did. You have German leaders in outdoor rallies saying, “We must defeat Russia, we must take them down.” You have all these tiny little countries and their tiny little prime ministers turn out like with a million people in the entire country acting like they're Winston Churchill. 

Ever since the pronouncements by Donald Trump – about his intentions to say, “We're not going to keep paying for your defense, Europe. Why would we pay for your defense? You offer this very ample welfare state to your people and they love it and that's understandable. They get a lot of benefits, but why are our workers paying for your defense? You're not impoverished. You're perfectly capable of doing it yourself.” – they've gone completely insane, acting like, “OK, now we're going to become this military superpower we were always meant to be, without the United States.” 

The problem is Europe is a joke militarily. They're an absolute joke. France and the U.K. have a small nuclear arsenal, so that makes them serious on that level, but in terms of conventional military fighting, they're laughable. In fact, in that Signal chat group that we just went over, because JD Vance was saying, Mike Waltz said:

[From Mike Waltz] Whether we pull the plug or not today European navies do not have the capability to defend against the types of sophisticated, antiship, cruise missiles, and drones the Houthis are now using. So whether it’s now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes. Per the president’s request we are working with DOD and State to determine how to compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans. (The Atlantic. March 26, 2025.)

So, according to Mike Waltz, the National Security Advisor, Europe doesn't even have the military capability to fight the Houthis. Their navy is insufficient. The Houthis have more sophisticated weaponry and more fighting capability than the Europeans, who nonetheless have been walking around beating their chest, “We're Europe, we're going to build our own military, we are going to fight Russia, we're going to defeat them, consign them to the ash heap of history, we don't need the United States.” 

All of that rhetoric is about three weeks old and already Europe is confronting the reality that they're Europe and that none of that tough talk is possible. Even The New York Times is mocking them now: 

Most of the European countries are struggling greatly with their economy. Their populations hate them. There's massive anti-establishment sentiment throughout Western Europe and even in Central Europe. It's the reason why people in the U.K. voted to leave the EU with Brexit because they didn't want to be governed by these kinds of people in Brussels. It's a reason why right-wing populist parties that countries never thought would succeed – in France, the Netherlands, Italy, and many more places – are gaining in popularity because they're channeling this anti-establishment sentiment. And none of these Europeans want to give up the massive state benefits that they get, which is a crucial part of being European: one-month vacation and tons of time off for paternity and maternity leave, retiring early, working four days, not working a 40-hour workweek. These are all things essential to the Europeans and they’re not going to give that up to build a massive military and go into massive debt for it, especially when a lot of these countries like France are already in enormous amounts of debt. 

Yet, here is Ursula von der Leyen, a warmonger and a German who nobody elected to become the president of the EU other than the members of the European Parliament, on March 4, talking tough about her rearmament plan. 

Video. Ursula von der Leyen, European Commission. March 4, 2025.

She said Europe is ready to rearm and build its defense. They're not. One of the ironies of all of this is that the most strident warmongers in Europe are women politicians who are on the center-left, the center of European politics. The reason I say it's ironic is that the most belligerent, aggressive, and warmongering party of Europe when it comes to Ukraine and Russia, Israel and a variety of other potential wars, is the German Green Party, whose figurehead is Annalena Baerbock, who is the foreign minister of Germany. 

The German Greens ran on a platform that elevated her and the Greens to the parliament. They ran on the platform with what they called a feminist foreign policy. They said, “Our party is dominated by women, we're going to have female officials in the most important offices, and because women are more inclined to resolve disputes through diplomacy and conciliation and not with war and aggression, a feminist foreign policy is less antagonistic, less belligerent.” That's the campaign they ran on. 

I personally find this kind of essentializing – men are more aggressive and inclined to war; women are more conciliatory – to be extremely reductive. And obviously you can use that same reasoning, not to elevate women, but to demean them: “Oh, women are more emotional, men are more rational, women don't belong in possession of power, etc.” That's the same exact kind of thinking. But for whatever reason, the most unhinged voices who practically think they're at war with Russia and are ready to build up this military are women politicians in Europe, on the center and center-left. 

One of them, Kaja Kallas, the former prime minister of the crucial state of Estonia, all one million people who live there, has become so deranged that she's even starting to genuinely disturb a lot of European officials, including many who are for the war in Ukraine, but are very alarmed by the way she's speaking. 

Here's Politico EU today:

Imagine the Prime Minister of Estonia saying, “We're now the leaders of the free world, not the United States. 

Most countries don’t want to inflame things with the United States,” said a sixth diplomat. “Saying the free world needs a new leader just isn’t what most leaders wanted to put out there.” (Politico EU. March 26, 2025.) 

Just to give you the kind of rhetoric this person uses, this Kaja Kallas person, here she is at the annual conference at the European Defense Agency in January, addressing the fact that there are EU members like Hungary that don't support this foreign policy, that don’t want to confront Russia, that want to try to put an end diplomatically to the war in Ukraine. And here's the kind of language she used against them: 

Video. Kaja Kallas, EU Council. March 6, 2025.

Believing that Ukraine can win the war, meaning, expelling all Russian troops from every inch of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, requires madness at this point. But what does she care? She's from a tiny little country that will contribute nothing. She's demanding that workers in Italy, Spain, France and Germany pay for the glories of this war that she wants. I get why Estonians don't like Russians. I understand the history of Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, but she has to face reality and she wants to be this glamorous, strong, Churchillian war leader, but the EU doesn't have anywhere near the capability to back up those words. 

Here is Kaja Kallas in May of last year at a different conference. 

Video. Kaja Kallas, Lennart Meri Conference. May 18, 2024.

She's talking about regime change in Russia, changing the government of Russia and then breaking Russia up into a bunch of little different pieces. That's the foreign minister of the EU engaging in utterly deranged, fairytale thinking. 

Here is the prime minister of Finland, Mette Frederiksen. And here's how she's speaking. 

Video. Mette Frederiksen, DR News. March 5, 2025.

The reason these people live in a fantasy world is because they've had the United States financing, arming and fighting their wars for them for so many decades. So, they've gotten to simultaneously talk tough as though they're fighting wars because they contribute some troops, while at the same time not having to spend any of their people's money on it and giving them a welfare state that you could afford to give if you're not spending massive amounts in the military the way the United States has been doing. 

But now, they're having to face the reality that the United States is not going to continue to pay the military-industrial complex to defend Europe and fight its wars for it. Why should the United States do so? And so, they still want to talk this tough talk, but the reality is they don't have the political will nor the resources nor anything resembling a serious military to back it up. I mean, as I said, Michael Waltz said in that Signal group from a couple of days ago, “They can't even fight the Houthis. They don't have the military sophistication or the navies to battle Yemen.”

 And we're seeing now that there's just zero willingness to back up any of this rhetoric. It was like when the British Prime Minister wanted to be all Churchillian, the British are obsessed with being Churchill, Sir Keir Starmer, and he said, “We're going to go and send our troops to Ukraine to keep the peace there and prevent Russia from advancing.” And then the next day, he had to come out and admit, “Actually, we can't do anything without U.S. air cover. So, we're just saying that if the U.S. is willing to go to war in Ukraine against Russia, then we will, but we can't do it without the U.S.” And that's the reality of what and who Europe is, including the U.K. 

I just want to show you one bizarre article that came out today that gives you a sense of just how far gone the Europeans are in terms of the unreality in which they're living. It's from the Financial Times: 

EU calls for households to stockpile 72 hours of food amid war risks

 “New realities require a new level of preparedness in Europe,” said commission president Ursula von der Leyen. “Our citizens, our member states and our businesses need the right tools to act both to prevent crises and to react swiftly when a disaster hits.” (Financial Times. March 26, 2025.)

So, even as every country around her tells this unelected person that they can't fund this massive military rearmament that she envisions – they won't go into greater debt for it; their populations won't tolerate it – she's basically now telling European citizens, you're in a war. You have to stock up and make sure you have 72 hours' worth of food because she envisions that Europe is at war with Russia. 

This is how they think and while I'm very critical of things the Trump administration has done in the first two months of the presidency, one of which we're about to get to, others of which involve censorship, the resumption of the war in Ukraine, the continuation of the destruction of Gaza, Trump is making progress in facilitating a peace deal with Russia and Ukraine. And on some level, you can make the argument that in terms of world security and given the utter insanity of how the Europeans are thinking and speaking, there may be nothing more important than putting an end to this war diplomatically, which Trump ran on a promise of doing, the American people want, and Trump has now made significant strives in achieving. 

We reported previously last week on the controversy surrounding the fact that the Trump administration during the campaign promised to mass deport people in the United States illegally. Deportation typically means, in fact always means, picking people up who are in your country illegally and sending them back to their country of origin. They get a very quick hearing in a, basically quasi-court, a deportation court inside the Justice Department, and as long as the government can show they don't have the legal papers to be in the United States, and the person can't show they have the illegal documents, the deportation is approved, and they get sent back to their home country. 

The Trump administration is doing some of that, not nearly at the level promised, but they're doing some of it. However, they're doing something much, much different, which is that they're picking people up, primarily Venezuelans, up until now, and they're not sending them back to Venezuela. They're sending them to a third country that these people have nothing to do with, that they're not citizens of, that in most if not all cases, they've never visited, which is El Salvador. 

The United States government is paying the government of El Salvador not to accept them, but to incarcerate them in one of the most horrific prisons that exist in the world, to film them being humiliated and dehumanized, all based on the accusation that the Trump administration refuses to prove that these people are members of a violent gang, Tren de Aragua, based on invocation of war powers that has only been used three times previously, in actual wars, the war of 1812, World War I, World War II, but even then, the people who were ordered under the Alien Enemies Act to be deported got a hearing. 

The Trump administration is sending these people, including people who have obviously compelling cases that they're not part of this gang, that they've been mistaken for gang members, just like the U.S. told us during Guantánamo, the War on Terror, that only the worst of the worst was there and it turned out many of the people there had nothing to do with terrorism. They were innocent, they were a part of a mistaken identity, any number of reasons why. That's what happens when you don't give people due process, you imprison people unjustly. 

A federal district court judge ordered this to stop and no detainees to be delivered to El Salvador without first getting a hearing. The Trump administration rushed to move them there, brought 237 of them there, refused to turn the plane around and a lot of Trump supporters have been complaining, “Oh, this is just a single federal judge. Who is he to order the president to stop some policy based on his belief that it's unconstitutional or illegal?” – even though as we showed you on Monday night that's how our system works. 

Conservatives have often got injunctions from single district court judges to stop Biden policy, to stop Obama policy, to stop Clinton policy. But the DOJ appealed that injunction. So, it's not before just a single district judge now. It's before the U.S. Court of Appeals, which is the highest appellate court in the country, which is right below the Supreme Court in terms of prestige. They held an oral argument on Monday, and we played a lot of that for you or some of it in which we showed you how antagonistic, how adversarial, how aggressive the judges on the panel were being toward the Trump Justice Department's arguments about why they have the legal authority to do this, making it quite clear that it's extremely likely that the appellate court would uphold that injunction, so that now it's not just a single federal court judge, it's the most prestigious appellant court in the country, right below the Supreme Court, that's doing so. 

The three judges were an Obama appointee, a George H.W. Bush appointee and a Trump appointee and the decision that they issued today was a 2-1 decision that upheld this injunction that the federal district court issued for the Trump administration not to deport anyone else back to El Salvador, at least not without hearings. 

Even the judge in dissent, the Trump judge, emphasizes that every single illegal alien, people inside the United States illegally that the Trump administration proposes to send to a prison in a foreign country, has a right to a habeas corpus hearing, to an opportunity to prove that he's being unjustly accused. The only reason he dissented was he said that the case should have been brought where they were detained and not in Washington. But on the substance of whether they have a due process rate, the dissenting judge agreed that it was essentially 3-0 on that question. 

You can see the ruling here. 

[…]

What's interesting is the Trump-appointed judge, Judge Walker, did dissent but as I said, he dissented mostly on the grounds of where the case was brought. He said it shouldn't have been brought in Washington, but in Texas, you have to bring it where the people are detained, not where the government officials are. In his dissent, he said this:

[WALKER DISSENT]

The two sides of this case agree on very little. But what is

at this point uncontested is that “individuals identified as alien

enemies . . . may challenge that status in a habeas petition.” (US Court of Appeals. March 26, 2025.)

If the Trump administration wants to do mass deportation – they convinced Americans to vote for that and polls show people favor that – if they were deporting people back to their home country, none of this would be an issue. But when you change that to something far more radical, sending people, based on interpretations of their tattoos or the flimsiest evidence that you haven't even presented to a court, and you accuse people of being violent criminals and send them to a prison designed to be one of the worst and most destructive and humiliating and dehumanizing prisons in the entire world – the El Salvadorian government has said they may never leave, they may be here for life – not just basic human rights, but our Constitution, our laws, our precedents, as all three judges agreed, including the Trump-appointed judge, require that they be given an opportunity to contest the charges against them – this should not even be controversial. 

It has become such because if you sufficiently dehumanize people, and this is what we saw in the world War on Terror, if the government just labels them terrorists without proving it, even if it's wrong, enough people will say, “Oh, these people are animals; they're not even humans, they deserve no rights; kill them, torture them, kidnap them, put them in prison for life. They don't need a trial.” That is always what the founders feared most: that the government would raise the fear level sufficiently so that people would give away their own liberties. 

Remember, Benjamin Franklin and this is not apocryphal, this is documented, when he left the constitutional convention, he was asked by a woman, “What is it that you did in there?” And he said, “We created a republic if you can keep it”, knowing that the biggest danger to the Bill of Rights would be that citizens, the population, would be manipulated or fearmongered into giving up those rights. And that's what typically happens. We see this all the time, and that's why it's happening now. 

Now, the appellate court, it's not just one judge, it's a three-judge appellant court, has ruled that doing this without a hearing, or even invoking the law to justify it, is likely to fail on the merits, and therefore these deportations are still enjoined, not by one judge, but by a three-judge panel.