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!

Just since last Friday night, 72 hours ago, several of America's most accomplished academic institutions – including Harvard, Columbia, and NYU – saw increasingly aggressive attempts to punish, fire and silence, not students, but academics and professors, for the crime of opposing Israel: all as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly celebrates his control over the discourse on American campuses. 

We are – according to the Trump administration itself – only at the beginning, nowhere near the end, of the systemic assault on free thought in American academia: the place free thought is supposed to thrive most robustly. What's most amazing of all is that this free speech attack is not being waged in defense of Americans or American values, but instead in defense of a foreign country often cheered most by those who call themselves part of the America First movement, a staggering irony among many. 

Deportations of students who denounced or protested the Israeli war in Gaza continue to gather steam. Another student at the University of Minnesota, in the country legally, was really disappeared by ICE agents yesterday. I use that verb, disappeared, quite deliberately – nobody knows where she is, including the university. Another student, earlier this last week, at Tufts, is now detained and imprisoned by ICE in Louisiana because she wrote an op-ed in her school paper advocating for university divestment of Israel until the blockade of Gaza and the occupation of the West Bank ends. An op-ed. 

The U.S. government is not grabbing these names out of a hat. They are being fed to them by two extremely sketchy and shadowy groups with deep ties to the Israeli State – the Canary Project and Betar. We'll tell you what we know about these groups and how they select people to go on their McCarthyite blacklist that is now allowing a foreign country to dictate the limits of free speech in the United States, including in academic institutions. 

I try hard to avoid hyperbole in my journalism, my reporting, my analysis, or my commentary. I think it just is very discrediting. It's also a kind of softball just to leap to the most dramatic rhetoric possible the minute you want to make a point about something. Therefore, I say this with all due deliberation, with all consideration, I really do believe the United States is currently engaged in confronting one of the worst free speech crises we've confronted in many years. And I say that as somebody who is extremely vocal and relentless in denouncing the Biden administration's various ways to censor political speech from coercing Big Tech platforms to remove dissent, to imposing all kinds of orthodoxies, to endorsing and financing a disinformation industry deciding to censure. What we're having now is a full-frontal attack on the core rights of free speech, free discourse and academic freedom. That is an incredibly important American value: academic freedom. 

Our country was built on the principles of the Enlightenment. One of the things that Enlightenment thinkers most stood for was the idea that in society generally, but especially in academic institutions, you'd need to have full freedom to question and prod at, and dissect, and deny, and call into question the most cherished orthodoxies. It was crucial to have at least one place in society that was not just tolerant of but encouraging of the most sacred and valued priorities to be questioned and denied. That's what academia is for. That's what academic freedom is about. And all of that is being very rapidly subverted by a Trump administration that came in promising to end censorship and restore the values of free speech in the United States. 

They're doing so for the very obvious reason that they want to prevent American academia and American college campuses, but people in general, from feeling free to criticize the state of Israel or question the U.S. financing of Israel and the relationship with Israel, where we give them billions of dollars and arm them. They want to create a climate where people are afraid of what the consequences will be if they speak negatively or critically about Israel and it's already having major repercussions. 

Sometimes the Trump administration and officials are directly punishing people or demanding censorship. Other times the threat that they have hovering over them is causing self-censorship, which often is one of the most pernicious forms of censorship – people and institutions start anticipating what the punishment might be if they exercise free speech so they voluntarily renounce it to keep the government pleased and happy and at bay. 

Here is the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as Trump's former ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, who just yesterday appeared in public to openly boast about it and celebrate the fact that the Trump administration is supposedly waging a war against bigotry on campuses – just like the liberal left said they were doing – and is curbing speech in the name of stopping hate speech and racism, just like the liberal left was doing. But at least the American liberal left was doing so in the name of protecting people in the country, protecting Americans, protecting America, that was their ostensible goal. This now is a censorship regime really being engineered by a foreign government and its loyalists inside the United States. And they're more than happy to tell you that: 

Video. Benjamin Netanyahu, David Friedman, GPO. March 30, 2025.

So, remember the conservative critique of the censorship regime that came from on college campuses? Liberals would constantly depict whatever speech they disliked as inciting violence against minorities, being racist, transphobic, xenophobic, whatever, and then would say, “No, this isn't speech. This is violence, this is incitement, this is bigotry” and not only would they do that, but a lot of the censorship, including banning President Trump from Facebook and Twitter while he was still in office, were based on the argument that, “No, this isn't speech that he is uttering and spreading, it's incitement to insurrection.” And there's a big difference, they said, between speech and hate speech, or free speech and bigotry, or free speech and incitement. These are all the arguments now being marshaled, not by our leaders, but by a leader of a foreign country who's proudly patting us on the head for engaging in the kind of censorship that he loves and telling other countries they better do the same. Why does this little country that we finance, and it depends on the American taxpayer, have any say in what people can say at college campuses and how we can protest? 

It's so ironic because a lot of conservatives or Trump supporters justify the deportation of students from college campuses by saying, “Well, they're just foreigners, they're guests in our country. Foreigners have no right to comment on our policies, to denounce anything, to protest against anything.” It’s a strange principle, the idea that you lure foreign students to your universities because that's how you get a lot of brain drain into your country – which both Elon Musk and Trump said was necessary when they defended H-1B visas increasing – and then tell them you can stay for eight years and get degrees, you just have to keep your mouth shut about anything political.

 But here you have Benjamin Netanyahu. Not only did he say this, but last week he mocked, denounced and attacked the American judiciary and the American legal system because he's facing a corruption case and wants Americans to think that the persecution of Donald Trump was similar to his persecution, but then also the president of El Salvador, President Nayib Bukele, went on to Twitter and just mocked a court order that came from our judiciary saying, “Whoopsie ” – mocked our court system, mocked our legal system. and a lot of people keep saying foreigners have no right to comment on our politics. “We're all, oh, thank you. Thank you, Prime Minister Netanyahu. Thank you, President Bukele, for standing up to the American judiciary.” 

There are all those Israelis applauding. The Trump administration is going to go to war against not anti-Black racism, not misogyny, not transphobia, not xenophobia, not Islamophobia. Who cares about any of those types of bigotries? We're going to let those reign free, because any attempt to stop those on campus, that's censorship, that's woke ideology. David Friedman tells everybody the government is going to do a lot to fight bigotry in the United States – is that the government's role now? – including putting people in prison for saying anything antisemitic – not even antisemitic, but antisemitic in their view. They think that any criticism of Israel is antisemitic. 

These people think that antisemitism doesn't mean denying the Holocaust or talking about the inherent degeneracy of Jews like classic antisemitism, they've expanded radically the definition of that term. In fact, the Trump administration is imposing on various administrations and colleges the requirement that they expand what antisemitism means to include a whole range of common credits of Israel. We showed you that many times. The House actually passed a law to implement and formalize that expanded definition of antisemitism, which actually is implemented in the EU, because they have a lot of hate speech codes that JD Vance went to Europe and said this is antithetical to our values – but that censor in the name of hate speech is exactly what the Trump administration is doing. 

Here's what the Trump administration did to Columbia University, from CNN on March 7:

We went over the letter that came from the Trump administration to Columbia. It’s not just that they demanded, not foreign students, but American students who protested Israel and the Israeli war in Gaza and the Biden administration's policy of financing that war. They demanded that American students, including American Jewish students, be severely punished, suspended and/or expelled. That was one of the Trump administration's demands of Columbia, and they have now started to expel citizens of the United States who participated in those protests. 

On top of that, the Trump administration also demanded that the Columbia Middle East Studies program, which has been for decades a target of Israel's strongest loyalists in the United States – Bari Weiss got her start at Columbia, the anti-cancel culture queen, as a 19 and 20-year old agitating for all sorts of Arab professors or Israel critics to be fired. That was her starting point. Then, at some point, she rebranded herself as a free-speech warrior but never gave up those ideas. 

Now, the Middle East studies program that the Bari Weisses of the world have long aided, has to be put under receivership, meaning someone from outside the department, no longer the chair of the department, controls what their curriculum is, obviously to make sure that it's pro-Israel. Our academic institutions and every professor who works there and everything that is taught must be aligned with the view of the Israeli government and supporters. 

On top of that, they're demanding as well that this expanded hate speech definition of antisemitism, the IHRA definition that we've gone over many times before. You're not allowed to say the Jews killed Jesus, you're not allowed to accuse certain Jewish people of having primary loyalty to Israel, even if you think it's true. A whole long list of things. You can't apply “double standards” to Israel meaning you can't criticize them in a certain way unless you make sure you're criticizing every other country the same. You're not allowed to call Israel a racist endeavor, even though you can say that about every other country freely, including the United States. It is actually, an assault to outlaw Israel critics and protests against Israel, including peaceful ones. 

I'm telling you, right now, so far, the deportations have been confined to people who are green card holders. You're married to an American citizen, your wife is eight months pregnant, your American wife, she's about to give birth, and you get deported because you participated in a protest against Israel, even though you're a permanent resident here. But I'll tell you what is next. I promise you, what is next is that they're going to take American citizens who are naturalized American citizens, like Elon Musk or Melania Trump, people not born in the United States but who came to the United States and became naturalized, they're going to strip them of their citizenship and, because they're no longer citizens, they can be immediately deported, and they're going to deport them for the crime of criticizing Israel. 

As I said, it's already affecting the free speech rights of Americans when you're imposing constraints on academic freedom at colleges. You're obviously affecting not just foreign students if you don't care about that, but also everyone on the campus, including American students, including Jewish students, sacred Jewish students who you want so badly to defend and protect and keep safe. You want to hold them close and hug them. You're also causing an erosion of the free speech rights of substantial minorities of Jewish students and Jews in general, who opposed the Israeli War in Gaza. 

Since October 7, four different Ivy League American presidents have been forced out of their jobs all over the same issue, Israel, and allowing bigotry on campus to thrive – antisemitism. Two of them at Columbia, one at Harvard and one at the University of Pennsylvania. The latest Columbia president was just forced out on Friday, even though she agreed to all the Trump administration's terms. Someone claimed, The Free Press claimed, Bari Weiss's pro-Israel thing claimed, that she had said privately, “Yes, I'm agreeing to these, but I'm going to slow them off. We're not going to just rush and do this.” 

The Trump administration and Israel supporters went ballistic and forced the second university president of Columbia out in a year and replaced her with somebody who actually has appeared on the stage of AIPAC to vow bipartisan loyalty to Israel to talk about the need to keep bipartisan support and financing of Israel. She's a Jewish woman who has appeared at AIPAC, and still, there's already a move to get rid of her, too, because she's insufficiently pro-Israel. You can be a Jewish woman who goes to AIPAC, gets up on the stage, and talks about the importance of keeping bipartisan support for Israel, and still be insufficiently pro-Isreal to the point where the government won't allow you to assume the presidency of Columbia. 

Here from The Wall Street Journal, on Friday:

In America, the government isn't supposed to dictate the curriculum, the administration, the teaching, or what can be done at our lead colleges. That's supposed to be left up to academics and professors. That is what academic freedom means: the ability to teach and to express yourself how you want, free of government coercion and control. This would be like if the Biden administration came to universities and said, “We're going to take away all your funding unless you fire every last conservative. You still have a few conservatives on the campus, they oppose affirmative action, they oppose DEI. We think that's racist. You have to get rid of them.”  Or who says that there are only two genders and that's transphobic and incites violence against trans people, you have to get rid of them. Do you think conservatives would be supporting that and saying, “Oh yeah, that's the role of the government, that is totally fine”? Of course not, they would be screaming that Joe Biden was a tyrant, they should be doing the same now that Trump is doing, which is just in defense of a different group. 

Is this going on a crusade to purge bigotry from American campuses, using a combination of government coercion and control and expanded hate speech codes, what conservatives wanted? Because I had always understood that conservatives were deeply offended by those sorts of things and the reason I thought that was because they'd been screaming that for as long as I can remember. 

One of the weird things, really weird things, is that there are a lot of members of the Republican Party in Congress who are not Jewish but who are more fanatical about Israel than almost every Jewish member of Congress. They love to speak for all Jewish people, they've irrigated to themselves the right to speak for Jewish people. 

Here is Congressman Mike Lawler, of New York, who is not Jewish, despite how much he loves to purport to speak to Jewish people everywhere, kind of the white savior hero who comes down and protects all Jews. So grateful to him, so, so grateful. Kind of like a Robin D'Angelo type, but for Jews. And the new president of Columbia, the third one, is Claire Shipman, who, as I said, is a Jewish woman who has actually been at AIPAC. She's married to Obama's former press secretary, Jay Carney, who's served for the last decade as the spokesperson for Amazon. These are not actually far-left radicals. These are like corporatist types. Claire Shipman is very much pro-Israel. 

But here is Mike Lawler on Friday saying she has to go because she's not Jewish enough. He quotes the tweet of the New York Post. 

She's the third president. She barely is in office like six seconds and he's saying, “You're offensive to all Jewish people. Step down.” Who is Michael Lawler to speak for all Jewish students? Huge numbers of Jewish students participated in those protests, we had them on our show. In fact, so many Jewish students were participating in the protest that they had a Shabbat dinner every Friday night inside the protest encampment. 

Here is Claire Shipman, the new president, who Michael Lawler and many others think is insufficiently pro-Israel to lead Columbia. Here she was on the stage at AIPAC with the Democratic Senator Chris Coons, a virulent supporter of Israel, obviously very bipartisan, and they talked about the need to maintain bipartisan support for AIPAC. 

Here's just a little snippet. 

Video. Claire Shipman, Chris Coons, AIPAC. March 6, 2018.

This is Columbia Spectator, on March 30

She was married to Jay Carney, who served as the White House press secretary under former president Barack Obama. It's a little background on her. This is not some far-left pro-Hamas radical or whatever they're trying to imply she is to force out the third Columbia president in the last seven months over this one foreign country. 

Here is Minouche Shafik, who was testifying before the House and listening to what he had to say about Columbia's administration. 

Video. Minouche Shafik, C-SPAN. April 17, 2024.

I am somebody who has spent eight years, denouncing what I regarded as baseless or excessive attacks on Donald Trump, attempts to malign him and fabrications of scandal. I don't just go around or flexibly criticize the Trump administration. But when I see, as somebody who really does believe in the Constitution, who really does believe in the value of free speech and academic freedom and free discourse and free protest and due process speaking of other issues as well, I'm not going to sit by and watch college campuses have their free speech rights destroyed in service of a foreign government and not say anything. 

The same thing is now spreading to Harvard. This is from today, March 31.

The Trump administration is not threatening to withdraw federal funding for all universities, just the ones that they think are allowing too much anti-Israel speech. 

Let me just read you this quote pretending this is coming from the Biden administration.

This administration [the Biden administration] has proven that we will take swift action to hold institutions accountable if they allow racism against black people, transphobia, or xenophobia to fester. 

[…] [a senior official at the General Services Administration] added. “We will not hesitate to act if Harvard fails to do so.”

Alan M. Garber, Harvard’s president, was not immediately available for comment. […] (The New York Times. March 31, 2025.)

I should add that Harvard's current president is Jewish – and I think it's like six out of the last seven, have been Jewish. Many of their major donors are Jewish, their faculty is filled with people who are Jewish, who hold all kinds of views about Israel, some vehemently pro-Israel like Alan Dershowitz was all those decades he was at Harvard, some critical of Israel mildly but still supportive of Israel, some vocally – it's a diversity of opinion which is what we're supposed to have. 

But he has previously emphasized the importance of federal money to the university’s operation.

[…] “We could not carry out our mission the way we do now without substantial federal research support, nor could we provide the benefits to the nation that we do now without that support,” Dr. Garber said in a December interview with The Harvard Crimson, the campus newspaper. (The New York Times. March 31, 2025.)

Again, this is not studying undergraduate programs. This is funding the most sophisticated medical centers and hospitals and scientific research into cures. This is why we have these kinds of government funding. 

Marc Andreessen, who was one of the people credited correctly with developing the modern internet, in the late 1990s – credited with developing the browser Netscape that was then sold to Microsoft – has now become a very vocal Trump supporter. His firm, Andreessen Horowitz, has people placed all around the Trump administration. He spent time at Mar-a-Lago, a lot of time, in the transition. He's a Trump supporter.

He gave an interview to the New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, on January 17, just a few days before the administration was to take office, the Trump Administration. The title was: “How Democrats Drove Silicon Valley Into Trump’s Arms” - Marc Andreessen explains the newest faction of conservatism. (The New York Times. January 17, 2025.)

But one of the things Marc Andreessen pointed out in this interview was that the reason the United States developed the internet, the reason the United States became a leader of the internet, the reason Silicon Valley exists and that drove so much American wealth is because the U.S. government-funded so many academic research institutions to do research into the internet, into browsing, into all of that. That's why we fund American academic institutions because it produces innovation that benefits the entire country. The U.S. government is not forced to fund research institutes at universities but it would cripple innovation in the United States if you did that. 

But that's not even what's happening here. The Trump administration is not defunding American academic institutions. They're using that funding as leverage to force them to be less permissive about criticism of Israel on their campus. And they're all complying because as the President of Harvard said, we wouldn't be the leading academic institute that we were if we lost federal funding. It's not the classroom that makes us the leading Institute. It is that we can attract the leaders of each field, knowing that they'll have the opportunity to engage in research that leads to cures and to innovations, that then benefit the entire country. The Trump administration is not defunding universities. They're just using it as leverage to suppress speech they dislike. 

Here from the Jewish News Syndicate on March 31, 2025, this happened on Friday night as well:

Head of Harvard’s Middle East studies center told to step down by end of year

Rabbi David Wolpe, a former member of Harvard’s Antisemitism Advisory Group, said that the change in leadership was “good news.” (Jewish News Syndicate. March 31, 2025.)

Just like they're changing the control of Columbia's Middle East study program, they're doing the same at Harvard now, so that people like Rabbi David Wolpe can step in, just like Benjamin Netanyahu was celebrating and like David Friedman was threatening, to outlaw criticism of Israel. They've always been very concerned that American academic institutions were the epicenter of protests against Israel. And this is not the first time, by the way, that disruptive protests have happened across American college campuses. It was one of the things that helped stop the Vietnam War. Protests were often violent and disruptive at colleges across the United States in the '60s against the Vietnam War in favor of the civil rights movement, far more so than these protests were. 

One of the things that scares Israel and its supporters so much is that the epicenter of activism against the apartheid regime in South Africa that helped to bring it down was a protest movement throughout American campuses demanding that their schools divest from South Africa to bring down the apartheid regime. And that's why Israel wants to make it illegal. In many places in Europe, they've done so and have started to do so in the United States, too, to advocate a boycott of Israel.

 So, Israel looks at the United States and they're like, where do we need to go to stop this growing sentiment against our country? Oh, well, TikTok. They allow a lot of Israel criticism. We need to ban that. The EDL said ban that, and that's what caused enough votes from the Democratic Party to finally ban TikTok – not in fear of China, but a fear that after October 7, TikTok was allowing too much pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel speech. So, they got rid of TikTok, or at least, at some point, they're going to force a sale or ban it. And then college campuses are the other place, and that's what their target is. It's a foreign country targeting the civil liberties, free speech rights and academic freedom of our country, which have long been crucial to our country's prosperity. 

If all that wasn't enough, here at NYU, as reported by the Canadian outlet CTV News on March 30, the headline: “Climate of Fear’: Montreal Doctor Says NYU Cancelled Her Presentation”

Dr. Joanne Liu, the former international president of Doctors Without Borders said the abrupt cancellation speaks to the “climate of fear” universities in the U.S. are now living under in which they preemptively “self-censor” themselves to avoid retaliation. (CTV News. March 30, 2025.)

Doctors Without Borders is an organization that goes around to the most deprived and repressed places, usually in war zones, and they have volunteer doctors from around the world who go and work on the people who are facing starvation or need surgery because of bombs. It's like one of the most noble things you could do, become a doctor and then join Doctors Without Borders. 

She was going to change her speech to appease NYU and, particularly, the Trump administration. She wasn't going to criticize the cuts to USAID quite harshly. She would tone down her rhetoric about how many people were killed in Gaza. I don't know if she was going to dilute the numbers to please the government. But even after she offered to edit the slides in her speech, she said the university apologized and said they had to cancel.

We have covered the individual cases of students who are legally in the United States who in secret, the State Department and Marco Rubio revoked their green card or their visa, meaning they weren't given notice to come and contest it or prove they didn't do anything wrong – they were just canceled summarily – and they instantly become illegal in the country and then they send ICE agents to accost them in their apartments or on the street, detain them and grab them, put them in a detention facility, and then ship them to Louisiana. Even though they have no connection with Louisiana: the government's hoping that Louisiana has more conservative judges who will defer to the Trump administration and deport people even if it's for their free speech rights. 

The government is not collecting its own lists. They're relying on pro-Israel activist groups. Two in particular. 

So, here's The New York Times on what happened. There you see the headline:

Federal Government Detains International Student at Tufts

The university was told that the student’s visa had been terminated, its president said in a late-night email to students and faculty members.

The student, Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish citizen, had a valid student visa as a doctoral student at Tufts, according to a statement from her lawyer, Mahsa Khanbabai. Ms. Ozturk, who is Muslim, was heading out to break her Ramadan fast with friends Tuesday night when she was detained by agents from the Department of Homeland Security near her apartment in Somerville, Mass., Ms. Khanbabai said.

“We are unaware of her whereabouts and have not been able to contact her,” the lawyer said. “No charges have been filed against Rumeysa to date that we are aware of.”

A statement attributed to a senior spokesman for Homeland Security claimed on Wednesday that Ms. Ozturk had “engaged in activities in support of” Hamas considered “grounds for visa issuance to be terminated.” (The New York Times. March 26, 2025.)

Now, I think it's important to note here that just like you'll be called antisemitic if you criticize Israel too much, you'll also be called pro-terrorist or pro-Hamas if you oppose the Israeli war in Gaza, or question American funding and financing of Israel, or why the American taxpayer has to pay for Israel's wars. You'll immediately be called pro-terrorist or pro-Hamas. And this is a tactic from the war on terror that Bush and Cheney used all the time. If you said, hey, you're imprisoning people in Guantánamo and elsewhere indefinitely with no due process, and a lot of the people you're accusing have turned out to be innocent, shouldn't you give them a hearing? They would say, “You are pro-terrorist. Why are you defending terrorists?” 

I get called pro-Hamas every day, even though I've never uttered a single peep of praise or support for Hamas, just like I haven’t for Putin. I'm called pro-Putin all the time. It's the tactic. I was called pro-terrorist when I was opposing the War on Terror and the civil liberties abuses. 

When they say pro-Hamas, they don't mean someone praises Hamas or justifies Hamas, all you have to do is criticize Israel, and that's enough to be called pro-Hamas. 

Here is the Washington Post, and this video circulated everywhere, showing how chilling this detention was. Remember, this is a person legally inside the United States who just gets accosted. Notice how her phone is taken while she's using it, which will enable Homeland Security then to look in her phone and find out who she's talking to, find out everything about her with no warrants. Watch what happens. 

Video. The Washington Post, Tufts University. March 27, 2025.

You see an unmarked car that pulls up and just plainclothes officers, not even identified, get out. You wouldn't have any idea they were plain close. Ironically, they're wearing masks, even though the Trump administration is demanding that protesters get banned from wearing masks, and now they're costing her. She has her phone, and they just grab her. She has no idea who these people are. They could be anybody. She's a Ph.D. student. They grabbed her phone, forcibly grabbed her phone, and then they surrounded her and they detained her. She says, “Can I just speak to the cops?” And they say, “We are the police.” She had no idea that she was being detained by the police because they were in plain clothes, they have unmarked cars, Ozturk co-authored an op-ed in the student paper criticizing university leaders for their stance on the war in Gaza. That's her crime. 

I mean, this looks like the most dystopian, repressive country you can think of, where you write an op-ed, you're a law-abiding citizen, you're a PhD student, you've never been charged with a crime in your life, and then a bunch of Homeland Security agents descend upon you, grab your phone, and then grab you, and put you in a prison, and ship you to Louisiana, a state you've never been to, have no connection with because they don't like an op-ed that you wrote? Not even the government doesn't even bother to claim that she did anything other than write the op-ed. 

Here is the Assistant Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin, on March 26:

First of all, she has never, in her life, there's zero evidence, uttered a peep of support for Hamas. We don't even know that she participated in any protests. All we know is that she wrote an op-ed that is the only basis for her detention that anybody has cited, and there's nothing remotely in this op-bed that could be construed as supporting Hamas.

Notice this slimy rhetoric that Hamas is a foreign terrorist organization that relishes the killing of Americans. That is an absolute lie. Hamas is an organization devoted to one cause and purpose only, which is defending Gaza and Palestinians from what they perceive as aggression by Israel. They've never engaged in terrorism in the United States or targeted American citizens. This is one of the things that the Israeli supporters try to say about why the United States should go fight Israel's wars, that, oh, one of the remaining hostages, one of the only living remaining hostage, he was American, is still in Hamas custody. 

Do you know why he ended up in Hamas custody, this American citizen? Because he left the United States to go to Israel, and he joined a foreign army, the IDF, and he was in uniform, in a tank, when Hamas took him. Usually, we'd call that a prisoner of war. He's an active-duty soldier. But the idea that if you're an American citizen and you go join some foreign army and as part of your fighting in that army, you get captured, now the United States has a responsibility to wage war to rescue you. 

Obviously, if they join the American military and that happens, of course, the United States has a responsibility, but not when you go fight in a foreign army. They're using this, they're exploiting this to say, “Oh look, they are targeting Americans too.” They had a bunch of Thai citizens there. Do you think they're targeting Thailand? These are people who are in Israel. 

Here's Marco Rubio when being asked about what the justification is for having deported this Turkish PhD student: 

Video. Marco Rubio, C-SPAN. March 27, 2025.

She didn't do any of that. This is a completely deceitful statement designed to mask what they're actually doing. They promised mass deportations of people in the country illegally. They're not giving that to you. Joe Biden deported more people in these two months of last year than Donald Trump did. Obama deported way more. The immigration group's called Obama the Deporter-in-Chief because of how many people he deported. 

They have closed the border almost entirely. It's down 94%. Sometimes the deportation count comes from deporting people when they're detained at the border. But there's nothing even remotely like mass deportations taking place of people in the United States illegally. Their priority is not even people in the United States illegally. Their priority is people who are in the United States who committed the ultimate crime of criticizing Israel and they're lying to justify it. 

Everybody knows she didn't vandalize anything. No one suggests that she did anything illegal, anything aggressive, anything violent. The only reason she ended up on these lists of pro-Israel groups that are dictating to the U.S. government who can and cannot stay in the United States is because she wrote this op-ed. 

I want to show you that op-ed in a second, just to let you decide if you think it's anything radical, let alone remotely pro-Hamas or glorifying terrorism, other than unless you think that criticizing Israel or opposing Israel is inherently pro-terrorist, which is what a lot of people think. They just don't usually admit it. 

Rubio’s claims are all false claims. False claims. Some of the leading protesters at Columbia who occupied Hamilton Hall were American Jewish students who are now expelled because the Trump administration required it. So, congratulations on protecting American Jews by getting them expelled from college for protesting. Fantastic. Jews all over are very grateful.

 Their priority is to protect Israel from criticism and activism and none of the people who have been removed, certainly not the ones who have become controversial, did anything remotely like vandalize building. This is all Marco Rubio's fabrications. 

Here is the criminal op-ed that this student wrote, along with three other students, at Tufts. And the headline is:

Try again, President Kumar: Renewing calls for Tufts to adopt March 4 TCU Senate resolutions (The Tufts Daily. March 26, 2025.)

On March 4, the Tufts Community Union Senate passed 3 out of 4 resolutions demanding that the University acknowledge the Palestinian genocide, apologize for University President Sunil Kumar’s statements, disclose its investments and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel. These resolutions were the product of meaningful debate by the Senate and represent a sincere effort to hold Israel accountable for clear violations of international law.

Unfortunately, the University’s response to the Senate resolutions has been wholly inadequate and dismissive of the Senate, the collective voice of the student body. … Although graduate students were not allowed by the University into the Senate meeting, which lasted for almost eight hours, our presence on campus and financial entanglement with the University via tuition payments and the graduate work that we do on grants and research makes us direct stakeholders in the University’s stance.

We reject any attempt by the University or the Office of the President to summarily dismiss the role of the Senate and mischaracterize its resolution as divisive. … We, as graduate students, affirm the equal dignity and humanity of all people and reject the University’s mischaracterization of the Senate’s efforts.

We urge President Kumar and the Tufts administration to meaningfully engage with and actualize the resolutions passed by the Senate. (The Tufts Daily. March 26, 2025.)

Is that like terrorist greed? Is that something that should result in your deportation, that you express views as a graduate student in a Tufts newspaper? A community in which you've been invited to participate, not just to study and keep your mouth shut. There's no free country in the world where that's the rule for entering the country. 

Again, the government, Marco Rubio, is not finding these people. Homeland Security is not finding them, ICE is not finding them. ICE isn't even looking for them, they're here legally. They only become illegal when Marco Rubio secretly revokes their green card or their visa because they criticize Israel. So, how do they know where to find these people? 

There are two incredibly shady pro-Israel groups connected to Israel. Typically, their funding is completely anonymous. There's been reporting on where they get funding. Who they are even is anonymous. One of them is the Canary Mission, and they have been around now for a decade. If a student expresses in a classroom criticism of Israel, they take the student's name and put them on a website that has been highly funded so that it's the first Google result. If you enter that student's name when they go apply for work, it'll be, here's a list of all the anti-Semites on American campuses, while they're doxing students and professors and putting their name on the internet, these cowards will not say or identify themselves, who's behind this Canary mission. They have been quite boastful of the fact that their list is the one Homeland Security and the State Department is using to determine who gets removed from the country. 

In other words, pro-Israel fanatics are dictating to the U.S. government who can and cannot stay in this country based on whether they love Israel or not, that is the literal truth of what is happening. I just don't understand how anybody who claimed to believe in free speech or the values of free discourse or academic freedom cannot be anything but enraged by this. Here's the Canary mission on March 27, boasting of their work to have her deported.

They’re claiming credit. And then here is what they have to say about her. There you see:

This is the kind of thing they do. They put the person's picture, their name, and they pay a lot of money to promote the website to make sure that it becomes the first Google search. So obviously, it's a blacklist, like a McCarthyite list, and they label someone a terrorist and pro-Hamas simply because they oppose Israel. 

So, on their dossier that they say is what caused her deportation, they're admitting the primary offense or primary transgression is publishing that op-ed in the Tufts student newspaper that they disliked because it was critical of Israel. And now the government is obeying these pro-Israel groups on who to deport, not based on crimes they committed or property they destroyed or people they harassed or attacked, but based on their ideas about one foreign country, published in a very professional, very moderately stated op-ed. 

Here's another one of the groups that is taking credit for it as well: Betar Worldwide. It is a radical pro-Israel group, considered radical even in Israel. And they too took credit:

That's where the government's getting these names from, from these very sketchy Israel-connected groups of people they want out of the country for criticizing Israel. 

Here's Tammy Bruce, the Department of State spokesperson being asked about all of this and here's what she said. 

Video. Tammy Bruce, US Department of State. March 31, 2025.

So, these groups are out there taking credit. These groups, by the way, only have one cause, one mission: devotion to Israel. The United States and Americans are not part of the agenda, just this foreign country of Israel. And they're boasting about the fact that they're the ones who are telling Homeland Security and the State Department who to deport. When asked about it, the State Department won't deny that, they won't even confirm. They won't say how they're getting these names. Tammy Bruce refused to say whether Betar and the Canary Mission, as we know they are because they say so, are giving these lists to the U.S. government – Betar basically gave a thumbs up to her, said “Good job,” a little pat on the head again from an Israeli group so many people in Washington crave and will do anything for. 

Here is the Jewish newspaper Forward, on March 10, doing a little profile:

Jewish groups targeted Columbia grad Mahmoud Khalil — then ICE arrested him

Documenting Jew Hatred on Campus called to #DeportMahmoudKhalil days before immigration agents detained him

Ross Glick, a pro-Israel activist who previously shared a list of campus protesters with federal immigration authorities, said that he was in Washington, D.C., for meetings with members of Congress during the Barnard library demonstration and discussed Khalil with aides to Sens. Ted Cruz and John Fetterman who promised to “escalate” the issue. He said that some members of Columbia’s board had also reported Khalil to officials.

Glick, the activist who discussed the Khalil case with Senate staffers, was until recently connected to a far-right Jewish group called Betar, which began compiling a list last fall of international students involved in the protests and shared the database with the Trump administration. (Forward. March 10, 2025.)

Here is one of the things that Betar sayd in their Twitter account, on February 20, 2025. You see there is a tweet from Laila Al-Arian, who's been on our show before and they comment:

You can blame Hamas, which I'm sure some of you do but any decent person by definition would lament the loss of this huge number of babies who didn't reach their first birthday and had their lives extinguished in this war. Not Betar who dictates to the U.S. government who can and cannot stay, they said on top of this list: “It's not enough, not enough. We demand blood in Gaza.” They looked at this endless list, these degenerates, these morally burdened creeps – you have to be a complete moral degenerate to look at a list of infants killed in a war, a long, long list, and say “It's not enough, we want more, we want more blood in Gaza.” That's who's in charge of deciding who loves Israel enough or not to stay in the United States. 

 These are the very noble people who are determining our immigration policy, not for illegal immigrants, for legal immigrants, whose crime is criticizing the foreign country that, for whatever reason, has an immense amount of influence in our own. Even though we pay for their wars and subsidize their society, it probably should be the other way around, we have a lot of influence on their country, but that's not how it works. 

And then the New York Attorney General issued this statement on March 13 of this year:

Re: Betar US — a/k/a Betar Zionist Organization

Dear Ali Abunimah,

I am writing in response to your correspondence to the Attorney General's Charities Bureau concerning Betar US - Betar Zionist Organization.

… [We] have contacted Betar US — Betar Zionist Organization Inc. to notify them of the requirement to register with the Charities Bureau. (Office of the Attorney General, NY. March 13, 2025.)

Everything about them is just very sketchy. They will not say where their funding comes from, they will not say who they are, while they drag everybody else's name into the spotlight and now have control over the U.S. government's deportation policies. 

[…]

 That's where we're headed. I know that there are a lot of people who are fine with it because they prioritize and revere Israel. And it's very, very difficult to get yourself to care about free speech when the views that you most hate are being targeted as opposed to the views that you agree with or feel an affinity with. But if you don't step up and defend free speech when it's those views that you most hate that are being silenced and punished and constrained and targeted, you don't actually believe in free speech at all. 

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.