What do you call 12 Antifa radicals in body armor?



Since the 1990s, federal agencies and the media have fed Americans a steady diet of panic about shadowy “right-wing militias” — usually ex-military guys obsessed with guns and ready to wage war against the government at a moment’s notice.

The panic went into overdrive after January 6, 2021. But now, in a staggering act of projection, the threat they’ve spent decades warning about has arrived — only it’s coming from the radical left. And still, the feds insist on looking the wrong way.

Antifa cells are evolving. They’re abandoning mass protest tactics for small-cell terror and direct action.

Despite years of breathless rhetoric, the supposed wave of “right-wing terrorism” never materialized. Jan. 6 was a chaotic security failure, not an insurrection. Most of the defendants were unarmed. Many walked through open rope lines. And yet the regime has used that day to smear millions of Americans and justify years of political prosecutions.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently called Jan. 6 “the culmination of a sustained effort to undermine our democracy.” But what sustained effort? Four years later, no mass violence, no uprisings. Nothing at all.

Now, compare that to what we’re seeing from the radical left.

Ambush in Alvarado

After months of threatening Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, Antifa terrorists launched a coordinated attack on an ICE facility in Alvarado, Texas. This wasn’t a protest gone wrong. This was a planned ambush.

At least 11 people, dressed in black tactical gear, carried out the assault. First, they fired fireworks at the building, vandalized security cameras, and sprayed graffiti, including “ICE pig,” “traitor,” and other profanities on vehicles. The goal was to draw agents outside.

When two unarmed officers responded, one assailant opened fire from nearby woods, shooting a police officer in the neck. Another attacker, wearing a green mask, sprayed 20 to 30 rounds at the agents.

Authorities arrested 11 suspects. Ten were charged with attempted murder of a federal officer and firearms charges. One was charged with obstruction of justice. Police recovered AR-style rifles (one jammed), body armor, Kevlar vests, helmets, tactical gloves, radios, and Faraday bags to block phone signals.

Andy Ngo linked the attackers to an Antifa cell in Dallas-Fort Worth. It’s a miracle they failed. But what should alarm us is their level of funding, coordination, and willingness to kill.

Just the beginning

On Thursday, during a raid in Camarillo, California, ICE agents again came under fire. There's a pattern forming, and it isn’t isolated.

The same ideology — radical leftism, anti-Americanism, Marxism, anti-Zionism — is fueling a wave of political violence that dwarfs anything seen on the right. Consider the past eight months:

  • Assassination of United Healthcare CEO (Dec. 4): Luigi Mangione allegedly gunned down Brian Thompson in midtown Manhattan. His manifesto raged against the health care industry. Left-wing voices lionized him. Some disturbing polling shows young Democrats were more likely to condone the killing.
  • Double murder of Israeli embassy staff (May 21): Elias Rodriguez allegedly killed two staffers in D.C., shouting “Free Palestine.” He left a manifesto called “Escalate for Gaza: Bring the War Home.” He had ties to the China-linked Party for Socialism and Liberation.
  • Molotov attack at a pro-Israel rally in Colorado (June 1): Mohamed Soliman, an Egyptian national in the U.S. illegally, allegedly attacked demonstrators with a homemade flamethrower and Molotov cocktails. One victim later died. Soliman had reportedly planned the assault for a year.
  • Firebombing of Gov. Josh Shapiro’s home (D-Pa.) (April 13): Cody Balmer allegedly launched a Molotov cocktail into the Pennsylvania governor’s house during Passover. Shapiro, a rare pro-Israel Democrat, was targeted for his stance on Israel. His family was inside.
  • Attack on Atlanta police facility (March 6): A left-wing mob assaulted the Public Safety Training Center with rocks, bricks, and firebombs. Some were charged with domestic terrorism.
  • ICE facility attack in Portland (June 18): Rioters used fireworks and pushed dumpsters toward the facility. ICE responded with nonlethal force. Over 20 were arrested. Many were tied to the same Chinese-linked PSL network.
  • Shooting at No Kings protest in Salt Lake City (June 14): In a murky incident of left-on-left violence, Antifa-style “safety volunteers” shot and killed a bystander after reportedly misidentifying an armed protester.
  • Bomb-maker arrested in West Chester, Pennsylvania (June 14): Kevin Krebs was allegedly found with 13 pipe bombs, 3D-printed gun parts, 21 handguns, tactical gear, and an AR-15. He was arrested at a No Kings protest. He remains held without bail.
  • Attacks on Tesla and GOP offices (January-April, 2025): As Musk joined the Trump administration, Tesla sites nationwide were firebombed and vandalized. One self-described “queer” activist torched both a dealership and a Republican Party office in Albuquerque.

What we’re really dealing with

Not all these incidents were organized by the same groups. But together, they show a dangerous trend: increasing sophistication, coordination, and lethality among left-wing militants.

This isn’t just protest culture gone too far. It’s a movement gearing up for war. They’re training. They’re arming. They’re radicalizing online and in activist spaces. And while conservatives have long viewed themselves as the only side armed, that’s no longer true.

RELATED: ‘White, well-educated’ Democrats are demanding lawmakers 'get shot' to prove they're anti-Trump as deadly violence rises

  Photo by David McNew/Getty Images

Groups like the Socialist Rifle Association and the John Brown Gun Club are producing radicals like Benjamin Song, a former Marine and the suspected ringleader of the July 4 ICE ambush.

Antifa cells are evolving. They’re abandoning mass protest tactics for small-cell terror and direct action.

What needs to happen now

Step one: Designate Antifa and its associated groups as domestic terrorist organizations. Trace their funding. Investigate every affiliated cell, especially those connected to the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

Step two: Ramp up law enforcement. Federal agents need to respond to ICE attacks with overwhelming force. Nonlethal crowd control won’t cut it.

Step three: Empower states. Legislatures should pass laws imposing serious penalties on those who interfere with immigration enforcement. If the feds won’t punish them, the states must.

Step four: Citizens must get serious. Stay armed. Stay trained. Sheriffs should follow the lead of Pinal County’s Mark Lamb and form citizen posses. It’s past time for more robust local defense.

The projection is over

For years, the corporate media and activist left warned you about “armed insurrectionists.” They told you the militia movement was coming. They said America would face domestic political terror.

Well, they were right.

But it wasn’t coming from where they said. It was coming from them.

Deep-staters threaten to use color revolution tactics against Trump admin: Report



Despite delays in mass layoffs ordered by a Clinton judge, the Trump administration has already managed some significant housecleaning at the U.S. State Department.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has, for instance, fired scores of contractors who supposedly worked abroad building up civil society and democratic practices, and shuttered the rebrand of both the censorious Global Engagement Center and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

These actions, coupled with Rubio's plan to can thousands of State Department employees, have enraged all the right people — including the Democratic lawmakers in Congress who claimed in a June 27 letter that large-scale reductions in force of America's diplomatic workforce would "leave the U.S. with limited tools to engage as a leader on the world stage during this critical juncture."

It appears that the changes have angered bad actors besides those in Congress — some of whom intend to respond with something more serious than sternly written letters.

'They've done a very foolish thing.'

A number of anonymous former USAID and State Department officials recently told the Allbritton Journalism Institute's publication NOTUS about their plans to undermine the Trump administration.

While it largely sounds like a revival of the "resistance" that undermined the first Trump administration, this group of would-be saboteurs appears keen on using nation-destabilizing tactics practiced abroad on their own government.

RELATED: 'Nothing to be proud of': State Department spits on USAID's grave following Bono, Obama eulogies

 Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

According to NOTUS, some jilted establishmentarians who were previously "stationed across the globe actively supporting opposition movements in autocratic nations" are now building a network of federal workers who are "willing to engage in even minor acts of rebellion in the office" — what BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre and other critics have alternatively characterized as "treason."

"They were so quick to disband AID, the group that supposedly instigates color revolutions," a currently employed federal official told NOTUS. "But they've done a very foolish thing. You just released a bunch of well-trained individuals into your population. If you kept our offices going and had us play solitaire in the office, it might have been safer to keep your regime."

Color revolutions — such as the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia, the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and the 2005 Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan — are political upheavals aimed at toppling supposedly illegitimate or abusive regimes and replacing them with supposedly liberal democratic regimes.

Blaze News previously highlighted that in many cases, color revolutionaries were afforded help and direction by state actors and/or by nongovernmental organizations.

The Washington Post's David Ignatius described such efforts plainly in a 1991 column about successful efforts undertaken at the time in Russia, noting that instead of engaging in Cold War-style covert operations, overt operatives "have been doing in public what the CIA used to do in private — providing money and moral support for pro-democracy groups, training resistance fighters, working to subvert communist rule."

Although the current Republican administration was given a clear mandate by the American people to rule, it may have repeated the error made by other sovereign governments targeted by color revolutions: Its agenda is not aligned with that of a clique of unelected bureaucrats in the District of Columbia.

RELATED: Flipping cars for ‘justice’ — then back to poli-sci class

 oxinoxi/Getty Images

Those now plotting against the American government were once paid by the federal government to push Latin American militants to overthrow supposed dictators and to support African secessionist movements. They also apparently helped kick off "an ultimately successful uprising in the Middle East," according to the NOTUS report.

It's unclear whether that "successful" Middle Eastern uprising is the same one that resulted in both a civil war that claimed the lives of over 600,000 people and Islamic terrorists running Syria.

'Today it starts with four, but tomorrow it's 10.'

Former State Department officials told NOTUS that they are holding "noncooperation" training sessions, attempting to set the stage for a nationwide general strike, and circulating copies of the CIA's Simple Sabotage Field Manual, which notes that "acts of simple sabotage, multiplied by thousands of citizen-saboteurs, can be an effective weapon against the enemy" and will "demoralize enemy administrators."

The manual provides tips for interfering with organizations and productions, such as bringing up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible; haggling over the precise wordings of communications, minutes, and resolutions; advocating caution and generally slowing down processes by any means; demanding written orders; deliberately misunderstanding orders; waiting until current stocks of necessary materials are exhausted before ordering new materials; giving incomplete or misleading instructions to new workers; and holding "conferences when there is more critical work to be done."

Rosarie Tucci, the former deputy assistant administrator of the now extinct USAID Bureau for Conflict Prevention and Stabilization, is apparently operating "in this space," co-leading a group called DemocracyAID with fellow USAID alumna Denielle Reiff. Their group is reportedly running workshops with those still employed by the federal government.

"The whole point of it is to start off slow," Tucci told NOTUS. "You're building up that muscle and that bravery, and you're building up your numbers. Today it starts with four, but tomorrow it's 10. We're helping them understand that is the organizing, and that is the process to get to a massive strike."

Blaze News has reached out to the State Department for comment.

White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said in a statement to Blaze News, "It is inherently undemocratic for unelected bureaucrats to undermine the duly elected President of the United States and the agenda he was given a mandate to implement."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The crown laughed at our Declaration — but America got the last word



John Adams believed America’s independence should be marked with “pomp, shews, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations.” He got his wish. Within a year of the Declaration’s signing on July 4, 1776, celebrations had become a colonies-wide tradition.

The reaction across the Atlantic, however, struck a very different tone.

This wasn’t just about taxes or trade policy. It was about the belief that free men could govern themselves.

The British response was not stunned disbelief or deep introspection. It was mockery — and, ultimately, a grave miscalculation.

The war didn’t begin with the Declaration. A year earlier, in August 1775, King George III had already issued a Proclamation of Rebellion. The crown had stopped viewing the dispute as a matter of political redress. It now saw open revolt.

But the Declaration shifted the terms. What landed in London by mid-August 1776 wasn’t a petition or compromise. It was a bold, philosophical argument for national divorce. In British eyes, it was treason.

A declaration dismissed

British newspapers published the Declaration widely. The London Chronicle printed it, along with other major papers. But few took it seriously. To them, it was just another provocation from unruly colonials.

The elite mocked Thomas Jefferson’s talk of “unalienable rights.” Gen. William Howe, sent to crush the rebellion, called the Declaration “extravagant and inadmissible.” The British state responded accordingly.

RELATED: July 4 exclusive: What we love about America

  LeoPatrizi via iStock/Getty Images

Within weeks, more than 32,000 British troops — including 8,000 German mercenaries — sailed into New York Harbor. It was the largest overseas force Britain had ever fielded. Howe aimed to stamp out the uprising before year’s end.

The campaign nearly succeeded.

George Washington’s army suffered defeat after defeat, narrowly escaping destruction on Long Island. By autumn, the American position looked hopeless.

France’s revenge

But while Britain saw a dying rebellion, France saw a chance to strike.

Even before 1776, French agents had begun quietly arming the colonists. The Declaration gave them a pretext to go farther. Though Louis XVI had no love for democracy, he did have a long memory — and Britain’s victory in the Seven Years’ War had come at France’s expense.

With the Declaration in hand, France could cloak strategic revenge in the language of liberty.

Formal recognition wouldn’t come until 1778, but the shift had begun. French arms, cash, and eventually troops transformed the conflict. What began as a colonial revolt became an international war.

Back in London, the American cause began to attract sympathy in Parliament.

In 1777, future British Prime Minister William Pitt took to the House of Lords to warn his colleagues: “You cannot conquer" America.

He was right.

Not just a rebellion — a revolution

What Britain failed to grasp was that America hadn’t simply declared independence. It had declared a new theory of government: one grounded in consent, not inheritance.

The crown mistook revolutionary conviction for rhetorical flourish. Britain's government believed the colonists would fold in the face of overwhelming force. But this wasn’t just about taxes or trade policy. It was about the belief that free men could govern themselves.

Ideas like that can stand up to empires — even the most powerful in the world.

Oversight Project over target: Dems seethe as facade of autopen presidency comes crashing down



Democratic lawmakers walked out of a Senate hearing Wednesday on former President Joe Biden's cognitive decline, its cover-up, and its alleged exploitation behind the scenes.

The Republican lawmakers who remained at their posts were rewarded with troubling insights into the fallout of both the cover-up and America's apparent governance in recent years by an unelected cabal of ideologues.

One of the more troubling revelations to come out of the hearing was that in addition to the executive orders, commutations, and pardons issued with Biden's name affixed in recent years, many of the laws passed by Congress may similarly be illegitimate.

The Oversight Project, a government watchdog, revealed in early March that Biden's signature on numerous pardons, commutations, executive orders, and other documents of national consequence was machine-generated.

Biden was not the first president to employ the autopen; however, there is cause to suspect that unelected individuals in Biden's orbit abused the autopen throughout his presidency, particularly toward the end, to advance their radical agendas.

In effect, there appears to have been a shadow presidency — what President Donald Trump suggested to Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck in October was a "committee" of unnamed bureaucrats — whose impact has yet to fully be understood.

RELATED: Ed Martin floats names of 'gatekeepers' in Biden autopen controversy; Trump accuses exploiters of 'TREASON'

 Photo by Evan Vucci-Pool/Getty Images

Multiple investigations have been launched into the alleged autopen abuse in the wake of the Oversight Project's damning discoveries and amid mounting evidence of staffers, family members, and other "gatekeepers" having made decisions on Biden's behalf.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on "how the Biden cover-up endangered America and undermined the Constitution," seeking greater clarity both on how Democrats and the media did their best to conceal Biden's cognitive decline from the public and on how his decline was exploited behind the scenes.

Democratic lawmakers on the committee, some of whom helped gaslight the nation about Biden's mental acuity in recent years, refused to hear testimony from former deputy assistant to President Donald Trump and former Idaho Solicitor General Theodore Wold, former White House press secretary Sean Spicer, and University of Virginia law professor John Harrison — and boycotted the hearing.

'They lied to us for four years, and we know they lied. They know they lied.'

Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Peter Welch (Vt.) did, however, show up at the outset to protest their colleagues' closer look into the apparent conspiracy to keep Biden in office and his autopen signature viable.

Before leaving the room, Welch complained that Congress could instead be discussing climate change, health care, the possible war with Iran, and America's debt. He stressed, "What we're doing right now won't help."

Durbin noted on X, "This partisan farce of a hearing is a waste of our time and resources."

RELATED: Who was president these last four years? We deserve an answer

 Photo by ALEX WROBLEWSKI/AFP via Getty Images

Contrary to the Democrats' suggestion that the hearing was a useless exercise, Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, suggested to Blaze News that it is critically important now, even though Biden is no longer president, to seek accountability and answers.

"The autopen administration brought great shame on the United States and was an international embarrassment," said Howell. "The United States must live by the most basic contours of its own Constitution if it is to project power and credibility. If we, as a nation, can't tell the world who was running the White House for four years, then we have more than a 'threat to democracy.'"

After highlighting Democratic denial of Biden's decline over the course of his presidency, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley (R) pointed to Democratic senators' empty seats and asked, "Where are they now? They don't want to answer for any of those quotes now. They lied to us for four years, and we know they lied. They know they lied. It's why they're not here."

Wold, a board member of the Oversight Project, noted in his testimony that the "U.S. Constitution vests the executive power in a single person: the president" and underscored that despite the overgrowth of the executive branch since the nation's founding, the president remains "the single source of democratic legitimacy."

'Over half — 32 in total — were signed with an autopen.'

"The president takes positive actions and authenticates those actions through his signature. His signature is required for the most significant actions he may undertake: to sign an executive order, to take any action vested in him by the Constitution, as in granting a pardon, and to take the most important action of all: to sign a bill into law," said Wold. "In all these cases, the president's signature is itself the protection of democratic principles. When the president signs, he communicates his assent and endorsement of the action he takes."

Wold suggested that the risk of divorcing the president's signature from his legitimate assent and endorsement was realized during the Biden years, particularly when clemency warrants and executive orders were signed during his physical and apparent mental absences.

"In June 2022, the Biden White House began deploying the autopen to sign clemency warrants, and executive orders in July of 2022. Autopen use skyrocketed from there," said Wold. "We found that of the 51 clemency warrants issued during the Biden presidency, over half — 32 in total — were signed with an autopen."

RELATED: Justice is coming for Biden's 'autopen' pardons — and Trump's DOJ just put everyone on notice

 Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

The former Idaho solicitor general noted that among the more controversial acts of possibly illegitimate clemency were the pardons for members of the Biden family, Anthony Fauci, and General Mark Milley.

'We need to get those documents.'

Wold later emphasized that the "president actually has to make the decision — that cannot be delegated to a staffer or an adviser," but there was no indication "that anyone other than staff were making these decisions."

— (@)  
 

While much has been made of the questionable legitimacy of Biden's more controversial pardons, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) cut deeper, asking Wold whether legislation that passed both chambers of Congress but then was signed by a presidential staffer without the president's authorization is law.

"No," said Wold.

— (@)  
 

Hawley noted, "For every time that Biden authorized the autopen, there should be a record of that."

Wold confirmed that "in the policy paper flow to the Oval Office, there should be a record of what documents are presented to the president, when, and when he gave his assent to the actions that are listed in those documents, whether it's a judicial nomination or it's a statutory response to Congress."

"We need to get those documents," responded Hawley.

'Those who received autopen pardons should be charged for the crimes they were pardoned for.'

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) — who concluded Biden's was the "autopen presidency, a government run by committee rather than a leader chosen by the American people" — indicated that he will be "pursuing a Special Access Request to obtain Biden's staff secretary's autopen memo and records tracking Biden's authorization of several autopenned documents."

Howell told Blaze News that the Oversight Project has "produced lists of which documents were signed by the autopen. As to 'who' is behind them, we have been communicating our findings to the governmental investigative bodies."

When asked about the Oversight Project's next steps where the autopen saga is concerned, Howell told Blaze News, "We have no steps planned. We have gallops planned. Stay tuned."

In terms of what accountability looks like at this stage — especially after President Donald Trump declared last month on Truth Social that those who exploited Biden's cognitive impairment and allegedly "took over the Autopen" were guilty of "TREASON at the Highest Level" — Wold told Blaze News, "Those who received autopen pardons should be charged for the crimes they were pardoned for. Those who operated the autopen without the direction of the president should be charged with potential crimes ranging from impersonation of an official to forgery."

Wold noted further that when congressional lawmakers meet later this month to discuss the matter further, they should consider "whether the 25th Amendment needs to be updated given the unexpected event of those responsible for invoking it deciding that they preferred an incapacitated president."

Blaze News reached out to the White House for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

Mike Howell is a contributor to Blaze News.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Who ran the White House? Ask Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson under oath



The growing autopen scandal didn’t just reveal bureaucratic dysfunction — it exposed the collapse of constitutional order during Joe Biden’s presidency. For years, critics raised questions about Biden’s competence. But recent investigative findings paint a far darker picture. The debate is no longer about whether Biden was merely tired, was gaffe-prone, or had merely “lost his fastball.” The real question is much simpler: Who was actually running the White House?

The answer isn’t complicated.

Regret isn’t enough. Full transparency is overdue — and it should no longer be optional.

Our system, a constitutional republic, vests executive authority in one person: the president. Regardless of how Biden became president — an election I still view as a sham — the nation still required a functioning commander in chief. Instead, evidence suggests a collection of unelected individuals and committees assumed presidential authority. That arrangement shattered the illusion that America operates as a rules-based constitutional republic. It exposed a government that no longer plays by the rules it demands others follow.

And the rot didn’t end with staffers and shadow advisers. The media helped enable the fraud — and now looks to profit from revealing it. No one personifies that corruption more clearly than CNN’s Jake Tapper and Axios’ Alex Thompson.

These two aren’t reporting a story. They’re selling one.

Tapper and Thompson have launched a media campaign to sell books filled with information they sat on for years. Their book tour isn’t journalism — it’s content monetization, no different from a Netflix docudrama. They brag about interviewing hundreds of anonymous sources, including senior White House officials and members of Congress. But instead of naming names or holding anyone accountable, they offer sanitized narratives, tailored for profit.

This isn’t a game. It’s not entertainment. The past four years weren’t just marked by incompetence — they revealed a criminal breakdown at the heart of the executive branch. Tapper and Thompson claim to know who ran the country. They must now be treated not as pundits, but as witnesses.

Some will instinctively object: “The First Amendment protects journalists from revealing their sources!” That argument doesn’t hold up.

The Supreme Court settled this in Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), ruling that reporters can be compelled to testify before a grand jury. “Reporter’s privilege,” as it’s known, doesn’t shield journalists from legal accountability — especially in criminal cases. And in this case, I don’t believe Tapper or Thompson even qualify as reporters. They wrote and published the book as private authors. Axios White House reporter Marc Caputo publicly stated the outlet has no financial interest in the book. Tapper and Thompson acted as media personalities, not journalists.

RELATED: The Great Biden Book War has finally begun

 Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

At worst, they’re no different from O.J. Simpson writing “If I Did It” — a confessional dressed up as a hypothetical, designed to sell books, not reveal truth.

Even if they claim journalist status, they should still face subpoenas. No one has a constitutional right to document a criminal conspiracy, repackage it as nonfiction, and profit from it while hiding the facts under a fake privilege. Tapper and Thompson have declared themselves central to the story. It’s time that the government treats them as such.

What crimes might be involved? For starters: false personation of a federal officer, forgery, deprivation of civil rights, conspiracy to exercise presidential power without authority, and quite possibly treason.

And that doesn’t include crimes tied to autopenned pardons — some of which President Trump has declared void. Plenty of potential charges exist.

Tapper and Thompson claim to hold the road map. Both have expressed hollow regrets over how the press handled Biden’s presidency. Regret isn’t enough. Full transparency is overdue — and it should no longer be optional. If federal investigators do their jobs, both men should face questioning under oath.

Whether the Department of Justice or FBI steps up remains an open question. President Trump has called for accountability since his inauguration. These agencies have failed to act. But the window for delay is closing. Public patience is running out — and may already have expired.

Bringing the truth to light will require aggressive legal action. Prosecutors must bring charges. Biden staffers must face subpoenas. Executive privilege must be pierced. But the starting point couldn’t be clearer: Call in Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson. Let them testify. They say they know what happened. Let’s put that claim to the test.

Ed Martin floats names of 'gatekeepers' in Biden autopen controversy; Trump accuses exploiters of 'TREASON'



Ed Martin, the incoming Department of Justice pardon attorney and director of the DOJ's Weaponization Working Group, announced last week that he was looking into the questionable "autopen" pardons issued in the final days of the Biden White House. It turns out, however, that he began digging into the matter while still the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

Martin revealed on Tuesday that his investigation into the use of the autopen has actually been underway for weeks; that he has reached out to members of the Biden family; that some persons of interest have "lawyered up"; and that a whistleblower has already come forward with some troubling allegations.

"I had a whistleblower in my office 10 day ago — senior, senior Democrat — saying, 'Look, it was these three people that controlled access, and they were making money off of it,'" Martin told journalist Mark Halperin on the "2WAY Tonight" show. "I don't know if I believe it yet, but the point is, I think, we have to get to the bottom of it for the American people and to protect the process, and that's what we're doing."

Martin indicated that the whistleblower was involved with the 2020 Biden campaign at the highest levels.

'There's no question that Ed Martin is on the case.'

When pressed on the identity of the three alleged exploiters of the presidential autopen, Martin noted he had to answer carefully. Rather than explicitly identify potential abusers of the autopen, Martin provided Halperin with the names of "gatekeepers" who were "dominant characters in the White House."

Martin identified the following three "gatekeepers": Ron Klain, Biden's White House chief of staff from 2021 to 2023 who returned to the fold last year amid Biden's debate preparation; former senior Biden adviser Anita Dunn; and Barack Obama's former personal attorney Robert Bauer.

The DOJ's pardon attorney subsequently threw two more names into the mix — Steve Ricchetti, former counselor to Biden who previously served as chairman of his 2020 presidential campaign, and "obviously Jill [Biden]."

Martin told Halperin that he asked the whistleblower about the involvement of Susan Rice or others, but "they said, 'No, these were the ones.'"

RELATED: Justice is coming for Biden's 'autopen' pardons — and Trump's DOJ just put everyone on notice

 Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

The Oversight Project revealed in early March that Biden's signature on numerous pardons, executive orders, and other documents of national consequence was likely machine-generated.

The watchdog group later confirmed that "the same exact Biden autopen signature" was used on the pardons for Anthony Fauci, retired Gen. Mark Milley, members of the Biden clan, and former members of the House Jan. 6 select committee.

These revelations — in conjunction with reports of staffers and family members making decisions on Biden's behalf; evidence that Biden's signature appeared on documents while he was on vacation; Biden's alleged admission to having no recollection of a consequential January 2024 order to pause decisions on exports of liquefied natural gas; and a former Biden aide's claim that a key Biden staffer was suspected of unilaterally making decisions to sign documents as the former president's mental faculties declined — kicked off the firestorm that ultimately prompted the Trump administration to take a closer look.

Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, told Blaze News, "There's no question that Ed Martin is on the case. As both the pardon attorney and President Trump's weaponization czar, he is uniquely positioned to answer the question everyone is asking, 'Who was the president during the Biden years?'"

"We are thrilled that the president and Martin are taking up our autopen investigation with such zeal," added Howell.

'They stole the Presidency of the United States, and put us in Great Danger.'

Blaze News reached out to the DOJ for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

Just hours before Martin shed additional light on the investigation underway, President Donald Trump declared on Truth Social that those who exploited former President Joe Biden's cognitive impairment and allegedly "took over the Autopen" were guilty of "TREASON at the Highest Level."

"Joe Biden was not for Open Borders, he never talked about Open Borders, where criminals of all kinds, shapes, and sizes, can flow into our Country at will," wrote the president. "It wasn't his idea to Open the Border, and almost destroy our Country, and cost us Hundreds of Billions of Dollars to get criminals out of our Country, and go through the process we are going through now. It was the people that knew he was cognitively impaired, and that took over the Autopen. They stole the Presidency of the United States, and put us in Great Danger."

'This is the biggest scandal in American history.'

Trump added, "Something very severe should happen to these Treasonous Thugs that wanted to destroy our Country, but couldn't, because I came along."

RELATED: Joe Biden was a puppet, not a president. So who signed the pardons?

 Photo by Emily Elconin/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) told Newsmax Tuesday that the House Oversight Committee will also look into autopen use in the Biden White House, stating, "We don't believe Joe Biden knew what was going on."

"We're going to try to get to the bottom of this because this is the biggest scandal in American history," said Comer. "Not only do you have a president whose family was on the take from our adversaries around the world, you also have a situation where some of those family members were possibly, and I would go even further and say, probably running the country."

Lindy Li, a former Democratic strategist and fundraiser who served as a surrogate for failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris and worked for the 2020 Biden campaign, identified a potential usurper earlier this year whose name Martin's whistleblower appears to have omitted: Hunter Biden.

Li told the eponymous host of the "Shawn Ryan Show" podcast in February that after Joe Biden's humiliating debate with Trump, Hunter Biden, Jill Biden, and a handful of other unelected senior advisers were effectively serving as a combined shadow president.

Li's suspicions echoed those expressed by Trump to Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck in October, namely that Joe Biden was effectively little more than a figurehead for a "committee" of unnamed bureaucrats.

Comer noted further Tuesday, "We don't believe that autopen was authorized by Joe Biden."

"We don't believe that using the autopen makes these executive orders and even these pardons legal," continued Comer. "We're going to do this investigation. Hopefully, it will benefit Trump in court as he tries to do what the American people want done. And that's drain the swamp."

  

Editor's note: Mike Howell is a contributor to Blaze News.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The forgotten man who told the truth about the end of World War II



Eighty years ago this week, the world changed — but the truth about it was nearly buried.

May 8 marked Victory in Europe Day, or VE Day — the formal end of World War II on the European front. But the war actually ended a day earlier. On May 7, 1945, Germany signed an unconditional surrender. Peace had come to Europe. The guns fell silent. But hardly anyone knew it — because Stalin didn’t like the terms.

For a brief moment on May 7, we had peace — real peace. And one man had the courage to say so.

The Soviets hadn’t been present at the signing, and Stalin insisted on a second ceremony, one in which his representatives could take part. That would come a day later. Until then, everyone was ordered to stay silent — including the press.

Edward L. Kennedy, an Associated Press reporter few Americans remember, stood in the room when the Germans signed the treaty ending World War II. He witnessed history and immediately called his editors in New York: “It’s over. Peace is here.” The story hit the wires before he even hung up.

Then the U.S. government intervened. Officials cut the line and ordered him to hold the story. The reason? Stalin wasn’t ready. The message was clear: Suppress the truth for Soviet theater.

Kennedy pushed back. AP policy allowed withholding news only when lives were at risk — and this wasn’t that. The war had ended. The killing had stopped. But politics overruled principle. U.S. censors suppressed his initial dispatch.

Kennedy refused to stay silent. After warning his AP colleagues in the States, he contacted the AP office in London. The story broke anyway and spread around the world.

But retribution was swift. Kennedy was immediately fired, stripped of his credentials, and labeled a traitor. This once-renowned war correspondent was blackballed, pushed to the margins of journalism. His story was erased, his name forgotten — all because he told the truth 24 hours too early.

Years later, the Associated Press admitted it was wrong. The AP acknowledged Kennedy’s integrity. But by then, he was dead — killed in a car crash in 1963. He never lived to see his name restored.

A small town in California eventually erected a statue in his honor. The inscription reads simply: “The man who gave the world 24 hours of peace.”

A timely lesson

Truth-tellers get smeared as traitors. Dissenters are exiled. And one day — whether in seven years or 30 — the same people doing the canceling and condemning will quietly say: “We were wrong. That was a troubled time. We didn’t know what we were doing.”

Then, just like they did with that brave reporter, they’ll try to rewrite the record, once the consequences no longer fall on them.

VE Day matters because it marks the defeat of one totalitarian regime — and the dawn of another. We toppled fascism only to step straight into a Cold War with communism.

But for a fleeting moment on May 7, the world had peace. And one man dared to tell the truth.

It’s also why Donald Trump is right: America should call this Victory Day. Europe already does. Europeans still thank us every year. But we, in the land that made victory possible, have largely forgotten.

We shouldn’t. Because the fight against tyranny never really ends. Whether it’s fascism in the 1940s or the ideological authoritarianism of today, we are always one generation away from losing our freedom.

Take up the torch

We live in a time when cities proudly fly new ideological flags every week, when illegal gang members are shielded from deportation under the guise of “equity,” and when the truth is sacrificed at the altar of political power.

But take heart: The truth always prevails.

Eventually, the pendulum swings. Eventually, sanity returns. And when it does, the people who stood for what’s right — no matter the cost — will be vindicated.

Edward Kennedy didn’t tell the world about peace to become a hero. He didn’t do it for the statue. He did it because it was right. That’s why we do what we do — why we speak out, why we keep telling the truth. We must, for our children, our families, and our future.

So this week, as we celebrate VE Day, remember the victory. Remember the cost. And remember the man who gave the world 24 hours of peace.

Because someday, they’ll try to rewrite the story again, and it’s our job to make sure they don’t.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

'I think he's guilty of treason': Trump orders investigation into former deep-stater, 'Anonymous' official



President Donald Trump signed a pair of executive orders on Wednesday directing his administration to suspend security clearances for a pair of antagonistic officials who served in his first administration.

In addition to severing Miles Taylor and Christopher Krebs from the fount of insider federal knowledge, Trump has directed the relevant authorities in his administration to "take all appropriate action to review" the duo's activities while still government employees.

Trump characterized Krebs, the former head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, in his order as a "significant bad-faith actor who weaponized and abused his Government" and engaged in "abusive conduct."

"Krebs' misconduct involved the censorship of disfavored speech implicating the 2020 election and COVID-19 pandemic," wrote Trump. "CISA, under Krebs' leadership, suppressed conservative viewpoints under the guise of combatting supposed disinformation, and recruited and coerced major social media platforms to further its partisan mission. CISA covertly worked to blind the American public to the controversy surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop."

The president suggested further that while running the show at CISA, Krebs — a former Microsoft executive who has made no secret of his contempt for Trump and served as a key witness for the Democratic Jan. 6 select committee — promoted the suppression of information about "risks associated with certain voting practices" and "baselessly denied that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen."

Trump announced Krebs' termination via tweet on Nov. 17, 2020, days after CISA distributed a statement asserting both that "the November 3rd election was the most secure in American history" and that "there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised."

Krebs was portrayed in heroic terms and as a tragic figure by Democrats and other leftists. California Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D), for instance, lauded Krebs for supposedly "speaking truth to power and rejecting Trump's constant campaign of election falsehoods."

'Identify any instances where Krebs' conduct appears to have been contrary to suitability standards for Federal employees.'

Krebs, who went on to call the president a "wannabe tyrant," responded to his termination on X, writing, "We did it right."

Trump has tasked Attorney General Pam Bondi and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem with determining whether Krebs in fact "did it right," directing them to "identify any instances where Krebs' conduct appears to have been contrary to suitability standards for Federal employees, involved the unauthorized dissemination of classified information, or contrary to the purposes and policies identified in Executive Order 14149 of January 20, 2025 (Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship)."

While Trump painted Krebs as a censorious hack potentially guilty of misonduct, he told reporters in the Oval Office Thursday that Taylor might be "guilty of treason" — a potential death-penalty offense.

Taylor served in the Trump DHS from 2017 to 2019. During that time, the former DHS chief of staff worked to undermine the democratically elected president and to "thwart parts of his agenda." Taylor admitted doing so in an anonymous piece in the New York Times titled "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration."

In the article, Taylor suggested that he and others undermining the administration from within were the "steady state" and were committed to "steer[ing] the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it's over."

After leaving the Trump administration, Taylor penned a book — again hiding behind the cloak of anonymity — attacking Trump. At the time, the Trump White House called the book, which is replete with disputed claims, "a work of fiction" written by a "coward."

Prior to the 2020 election, Taylor finally revealed his identity, then endorsed Joe Biden for president.

"I barely remember him. Somebody that went out and wrote a book and said all sorts of terrible things that were all lies," Trump told reporters Wednesday.

'Taylor abandoned his sacred oath.'

"He wrote a book, '[A Warning:] Anonymous,' and I always thought it was terrible," said Trump. "Now we have a chance to find out whether or not it was terrible. But it was a work of fiction."

"I think we have to do something about it," Trump added. "If that happens to other presidents, it wouldn't be sustainable for other presidents. I seem to be able to sustain, but if that happened to other presidents, it's just unfair."

— (@)  
 

In his executive order, Trump noted, "Miles Taylor was entrusted with the solemn responsibility of Federal service, but instead prioritized his own ambition, personal notoriety, and monetary gain over fidelity to his constitutional oath."

"He illegally published classified conversations to sell his book under the pseudonym 'Anonymous,' which is full of falsehoods and fabricated stories," continued Trump. "In so doing, Taylor abandoned his sacred oath and commitment to public service by disclosing sensitive information obtained through unauthorized methods and betrayed the confidence of those with whom he served."

Trump noted further that the improper disclosure of sensitive information for the "purposes of personal enrichment and undermining our foreign policy, national security, and Government effectiveness" could "properly be characterized as treasonous and as possibly violating the Espionage Act."

Taylor tweeted Wednesday, "Dissent isn't unlawful. It certainly isn't treasonous. America is headed down a dark path."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Dead or alive': Feds investigating Boston University employee who allegedly threatened DOGE team, Musk hints at retribution



A Boston University employee allegedly threatened members of the Department of Government Efficiency. The alleged threat was apparently serious enough that an investigation has been launched to determine if a crime had been committed.

On Monday, screenshots emerged online of an alleged post made on the Bluesky social media platform appearing to threaten the DOGE team.

'We are in contact with the FBl and other law-enforcement partners to proceed rapidly.'

The individual who reportedly made the post was identified as Jared May — an assistant media technician at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business.

The post listed all of the names of the individuals working for DOGE — a new agency headed by Elon Musk to streamline the U.S. government and cut wasteful spending.

The poster accused DOGE employees of "carrying out Musk's coup."

The post included photos of DOGE members with a caption that read: "WANTED FOR TREASON, DEAD OR ALIVE."

A Boston University spokesperson told Boston.com, "We are aware of a post made by an employee on his personal social media account. ... We do not comment on personnel matters. The views expressed do not reflect the values of Questrom School of Business."

May's staff webpage on the Boston University website appears to have been removed.

Musk said of the suspect, "He has committed a crime."

On Wednesday, Massachusetts U.S. Attorney Leah B. Foley stated, "We take those threats seriously, and if it turns out that anybody violated federal law, then we will investigate."

The Libs of TikTok account on the X social media platform noted that Boston University receives federal funding from a multitude of government agencies.

"Someone at DOGE should seriously look into the millions of funding that Boston University gets from nearly 2 dozen federal agencies," the Libs of TikTok account wrote.

According to the Boston University website, the school receives funding from at least 19 federal agencies, including:

  • Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
  • Department of Defense (DOD)
  • Department of Education (ED)
  • Department of Energy (DOE)
  • Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
  • Department of Justice (DOJ)
  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
  • National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
  • National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH)
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
  • National Science Foundation (NSF)
  • Office of Naval Research (ONR)
  • United States Army Research Laboratory
  • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
  • United States Geological Survey (USGS)

Musk seemingly hinted that there could possibly be some sort of retribution if Boston University does not properly handle the situation with its employee accused of making threats against federal workers.

Musk replied to the Libs of TikTok's post about federal funds going to Boston University by stating: "Noted."

There have reportedly been several alarming threats made against the employees of the Department of Government Efficiency.

On the subreddit "r/whitepeopletwitter" on Reddit, online users made concerning threats against Musk and DOGE members, such as: "I'll say it. This Nazi stooge needs to be shot."

Musk stated of the alleged threats, "They have broken the law."

Former Minnesota Democratic House candidate Will Stancil reportedly made threats to Musk.

Stancil said, "Musk should get the wall," a saying that alludes to a person being executed by a firing squad.

Edward Martin Jr. – the acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia – vowed to investigate the eye-raising threats.

"Our initial review of the evidence presented to us indicates that certain individuals and/or groups have committed acts that appear to violate the law in targeting DOGE employees," Martin said in a statement. "We are in contact with the FBl and other law-enforcement partners to proceed rapidly. We also have our prosecutors preparing."

Martin wrote in a letter to Musk on Monday that read, "I recognize that some of the staff at DOGE has been targeted publicly. At this time, I ask that you utilize me and my staff to assist in protecting DOGE work and the DOGE workers. Any threats, confrontations, or other actions in any way that impact their work may break numerous laws."

Martin continued, "Let me assure you of this: We will pursue any and all legal action against anyone who impedes your work or threatens your people."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Hegseth revokes Mark Milley's security detail and clearance, possibly giving him a demotion: 'Woke train wreck'



Just hours before leaving the Oval Office, former President Joe Biden issued a pre-emptive pardon for retired Gen. Mark Milley, citing the possibility that President Donald Trump might seek "revenge" on the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It turns out the pardon was not enough to spare Milley from professional consequence over his past actions and subversion.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth revoked Milley's security detail and security clearance on Tuesday and has also ordered the Pentagon's inspector general to launch a probe into the retired general's actions, Pentagon spokesperson John Ullyot confirmed this week to multiple publications.

Ullyot noted that Hegseth will determine whether Milley should receive a demotion after considering the findings of the inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding his conduct. Officials told Fox News that the four-star general could ultimately lose a star based on his efforts to "undermine the chain of command" during Trump's first term.

While previously serving as Trump's most senior uniformed adviser, Milley telephoned his communist Chinese counterpart, communist Gen. Li Zuocheng, on two occasions — four days before the 2020 election and on Jan. 8, 2021 — to reassure Zuocheng that he would provide him with actionable warnings should his commander in chief decide to attack.

When testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in September 2021, Milley defended his apparent vow to neutralize the strategic advantage of a possible American surprise attack for the benefit of an adversarial nation that he had elsewhere admitted was "the greatest geopolitical challenge to the United States." In his remarks, Milley characterized his circumvention of presidential authority as an effort to "manage crisis and prevent war between great powers armed with nuclear weapons."

In a 2023 Truth Social post that primarily focused on Milley's central role in the Biden administration's botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, Trump noted:

This guy turned out to be a Woke train wreck who, if the Fake News reporting is correct, was actually dealing with China to give them a heads up on the thinking of the President of the United States. This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH! A war between China and the United States could have been the result of this treasonous act.

"Undermining the chain of command is corrosive to our national security, and restoring accountability is a priority for the Defense Department under President Trump’s leadership," Joe Kasper, Hegseth's chief of staff, said in a statement Tuesday.

Mollie Halpern, a spokeswoman for the acting DOD inspector general, told the New York Times, "We have received the [inquiry] request and we are reviewing it."

Although Milley enraged Trump and other elements of the new administration by privately communicating with adversaries,downplaying communist spy aircraft over the U.S., and overseeing the deadly Afghanistan withdrawal, he certainly did himself no favors with his various personal attacks on the 47th president.

Milley, whose new chairman portrait was removed from the Pentagon last week and whose Army chief of staff portrait may soon be taken down, previously called Trump a "wannabe dictator"; is quoted in Bob Woodward's book "War" as calling Trump "fascist to the core" and the "most dangerous person to this country"; and reportedly told his staff that instead of submitting a sanctimonious resignation letter in June 2020, he would "just fight him."

"The ghost of General Milley shouldn't haunt the Pentagon any more, nor should it haunt the armed forces," a senior defense official told the Washington Post. "This is all about accountability for General Milley."

The Post indicated that Milley could not be reached for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!