“If you kill Americans, if you threaten Americans anywhere on Earth, we will hunt you down without apology and without hesitation and we will kill you.”— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

Having burned through billions of dollars and depleted critical munitions stockpiles, the Pentagon is running out of money.

Our money.

According to the Washington Post, the Pentagon is facing an urgent budget shortfall caused largely by the Iran war, with some critical funding accounts expected to run dry within weeks. Training, maintenance and other military priorities are reportedly being squeezed as the government struggles to sustain Trump’s escalating conflict.

Once again, the government is looking to the American people for a taxpayer-funded bailout—this time to the tune of $67 billion.

Nor is the $67 billion emergency infusion the end of it.

Trump’s fiscal year 2027 budget calls for an unprecedented $1.5 trillion in national-defense spending—a staggering increase that would pour still more money into a military apparatus that cannot account honestly for the costs of its current war, maintain its existing priorities, or keep from returning to taxpayers for another bailout.

The problem is not simply how much the war machine consumes. It is how little accountability accompanies that spending.

The government can launch a war, exhaust military resources, conceal its full costs, and return to Congress for billions more without anyone responsible being required to admit error, change course, or answer for the lives lost.

That is becoming a familiar pattern under Donald Trump.

He makes the decisions—others absorb the consequences.

He launches the war—the troops make the sacrifices, and taxpayers inherit the bill.

The Iran war is not merely another example of government waste, although the cost is already staggering. The war has already cost an estimated $80 to $100 billion, not counting its long-term economic impact, future veteran expenses, or the cost of repairing damaged military bases. Analysts estimate that the broader toll on American households could eventually reach as much as $1,000 per household.

Yet the true cost cannot be measured in dollars alone.

American service members are dying in a war Trump started without meaningful congressional authorization, without a credible plan for ending it, and without an honest accounting of what it will cost.

The Pentagon is draining resources from training, maintenance and weapons programs to keep the conflict going. Congress is being asked to supply billions more. And the American people—already struggling under the weight of debt, inflation and economic uncertainty—are expected to pay without question.

This is government without accountability.

It is also the Trump business model applied to government: take the risks, claim the credit, transfer the losses and leave someone else to clean up the wreckage.

Trump has spent a lifetime marketing himself as a brilliant businessman, yet his record is littered with bankruptcies, defaults, failed ventures and losses shifted onto others.

In private business, a failed venture can be abandoned and its consequences transferred.

A president’s failures are not so easily contained, yet Trump continues to govern as though America were merely another disposable business venture.

And when Trump’s own decisions cost American lives, deplete military stockpiles and burn through billions of taxpayer dollars, the bill never finds its way to him.

It finds its way to us.

Yet the contrast between those who make these decisions and those forced to live with them could hardly be more stark.

While American service members are being returned home in flag-draped coffins, Trump moves from golf courses to galas to grand spectacles.

While the Pentagon scrambles to find the money and munitions, Trump lavishes attention on the trappings of power, from gilded alterations to the people’s house to extravagant ceremonial projects.

While ordinary Americans struggle with inflation, instability and the cascading costs of his policies, Trump presides over the pageantry of the presidency seemingly untouched by the consequences.

And while the American people are told to sacrifice, Trump’s family continues converting access to presidential power into extraordinary private wealth.

Trump reported more than $1.4 billion in income from his family’s cryptocurrency ventures in 2025, while Reuters calculated that the family added at least $2.3 billion to its fortune through its principal crypto businesses after Trump returned to the presidency.

The problem is not merely one of appearances.

It is that Trump remains conspicuously insulated from the human and financial consequences of his own decisions.

That insulation from consequence is matched by a swaggering display of bluster and bravado that passes for leadership within the Trump administration.

Take Pete Hegseth, the self-styled “Secretary of War,” who speaks less like a civilian entrusted with the grave responsibility of war and peace than a character delivering an action-movie threat.

“If you kill Americans, we will hunt you down,” Hegseth warned.

The Trump administration has embraced that threat as a statement of national resolve: anyone who kills an American will be hunted down and made to pay.

Unless, of course, the Americans are killed by their own government.

Unless they are service members sent to die in a preemptive war the president started without constitutional authority and cannot seem to end.

Unless they are shot by immigration agents or police officers conditioned to treat fear, resistance and the mere presence of a weapon as a license to kill.

Unless they die in government custody.

Unless they become casualties of public-health safeguards weakened by mass firings, budget cuts, political interference and administrative incompetence.

In those cases, no one is hunted down, no one in power is made to pay, and no one is held responsible.

This is the double standard that passes for justice in the American Police State.

Yet this culture of official impunity did not begin with Donald Trump.

For decades, presidents of both parties have expanded executive power, surrendered constitutional checks, protected government agents from meaningful accountability and conditioned the public to accept official violence as the unavoidable price of security.

Trump inherited that machinery.

He has also embraced its deadliest powers, accelerated its abuses and made the elimination of accountability a governing principle.

The Iran war is merely the latest—and most visible—example.

American service members are dying in a war that is not making America safer, no matter what Trump insists to the contrary.

Seventeen American service members have reportedly been killed in the war, while more than 400 have been injured. Rather than treating those deaths as evidence of the terrible costs and strategic failures of his war, Trump has used them to justify further escalation, warning that Iran will “pay many times over” for every American life lost.

This is how endless wars become unending.

Every American death becomes a reason to continue the war that caused it. Every retaliation generates another retaliation. Every escalation becomes the excuse for another escalation. Every failure is rebranded as a reason to stay the course.

The president starts the war. The military carries it out. American service members die in it. And the public is told that questioning the wisdom or legality of the conflict is tantamount to betraying the troops.

This is not a strategy for peace.

It is a self-perpetuating cycle of death, vengeance and political evasion.

Trump’s response to the mounting casualties has not been restraint, transparency or a serious accounting of how the country became trapped in another Middle Eastern war.

It has been more threats, more bombs, more chest-beating and more demands that the American people fall in line—and not even a glimmer of ownership for the mistakes that landed us here.

Meanwhile, the dead become justification for still more death.

The failures become justification for still more money.

And those who made the decisions remain insulated from the consequences.

Yet the Iran war is only one front in the government’s longstanding war on accountability.

The same culture of impunity that shields presidents from responsibility for unconstitutional wars also protects government agents from meaningful scrutiny when raids, detentions and uses of force result in injury or death.

Nowhere is that more visible than in the Trump administration’s increasingly militarized approach to immigration enforcement.

Federal immigration agents carry out raids in masks, tactical gear and unmarked vehicles. They detain people at homes, workplaces, traffic stops and routine immigration appointments. Record numbers of people are being arrested and warehoused in detention centers, many of them with no criminal history.

The Trump administration calls this law enforcement.

But law enforcement without transparency, restraint or accountability quickly becomes something far more dangerous.

In recent weeks, ICE agents have fatally shot men in Texas and Maine, prompting senators to demand body cameras, visible identification, clearer use-of-force rules and greater transparency about who is being entrusted with the power to kill.

Both men were reportedly shot in their vehicles. Neither was the intended target of the enforcement action. Neither encounter was captured on an officer’s body camera.

A temporary pause in ICE traffic stops reportedly lasted only one day before the White House intervened and ordered the operations resumed.

That is the Trump administration’s idea of accountability: pause briefly, manage the fallout, and then allow the machinery to continue operating as before.

There is no meaningful independent review.

There is no public accounting of what went wrong.

There is no assurance that deadly force will be treated as a last resort rather than an acceptable consequence of aggressive enforcement.

Instead, the government investigates itself, controls the evidence, shapes the official narrative, and moves on.

The government kills. The government investigates. The government absolves itself.

This is not unique to immigration enforcement.

The same pattern has defined policing in America for decades.

Police officers are trained to perceive threats everywhere and to treat their subjective fear as more important than the objective constitutional rights of the people they serve.

Reach for your wallet and you may be shot. Hold a cellphone and you may be shot. Fail to obey confusing or contradictory commands quickly enough and you may be shot.

Possess a firearm—even lawfully—and the government may argue that the exercise of your Second Amendment rights made you sufficiently dangerous to kill. Then the legal system steps in to prevent a jury from ever weighing what happened.

Qualified immunity, judicial deference and doctrines that elevate “officer safety” above almost every competing constitutional consideration have helped create a system in which government agents can use deadly force and avoid meaningful scrutiny afterward.

Trump did not create this system.

Police militarization, qualified immunity, aggressive federal enforcement and institutional self-protection were firmly entrenched long before he returned to office.

What Trump has done is intensify those tendencies, remove restraints, reward aggression and treat demands for accountability as attacks on law enforcement itself.

The result is a system in which the greater the government’s power, the smaller the consequences for its abuse.

The police state does not have to pull a trigger to put lives at risk.

It can also endanger the public by weakening the safeguards designed to prevent avoidable harm.

Public-health agencies, food inspectors, disease-surveillance programs, medical researchers and drug-safety personnel exist because failures in these areas can have deadly consequences.

When those protections are weakened, risks increase. When expertise is driven out, warnings are missed. When oversight disappears, preventable crises become more likely.

The Trump administration’s mass firings, funding cuts and political interference have hollowed out critical public-health and food-safety agencies.

The Food and Drug Administration reportedly lost thousands of employees in 2025 and hundreds more in 2026. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food Safety and Inspection Service and other agencies responsible for protecting the public have also undergone substantial staffing reductions. Foreign food-facility inspections have fallen to historic lows following layoffs and budget cuts, even as the American food supply becomes more global, complex and difficult to monitor. Programs that track and respond to emerging disease threats have also been scaled back.

These are not abstract bureaucratic changes.

They determine whether contaminated food and unsafe drugs are identified before people are harmed, whether emerging diseases are contained before they spread, and whether qualified experts are available before a manageable threat becomes a national crisis.

No government can eliminate every danger or prevent every death, but when an administration knowingly strips away safeguards, disregards expert warnings and replaces competence with loyalty, it cannot pretend that the resulting harm has nothing to do with its decisions.

Accountability requires recognizing that policy choices have foreseeable consequences—and asking who ordered the cuts, ignored the warnings, benefited from dismantling oversight and will answer when the public is harmed.

Yet when those consequences arrive, no one in power accepts responsibility. The victims and their families are left to absorb the consequences, while the officials who made the decisions retreat behind bureaucracy, immunity and plausible deniability.

The same machinery of official impunity operates across administrations and agencies.

What distinguishes Trump is the speed with which his administration has dismantled remaining safeguards, dismissed expertise and treated accountability as an obstacle to power.

The pattern is the same whether the harm occurs on a battlefield, during an immigration raid, in a police encounter or through the failure of an institution charged with protecting the public.

Those with power make the decisions. Those without power bear the consequences.

This is how official impunity becomes a system of government.

Presidents claim immunity. Congress surrenders its constitutional responsibilities. Military officials classify their mistakes. Federal agencies investigate themselves. Police officers invoke qualified immunity. Prosecutors protect government agents. Courts keep juries from weighing the evidence. Corporations profit from government contracts. Officials leave public service for lucrative private-sector positions with the very industries they once oversaw.

Taxpayers pay every settlement, bailout, reconstruction cost and replenishment bill.

The names and political parties change. The machinery of impunity remains.

What distinguishes Trump is not that he created this machinery but the brazenness with which he uses it. He treats oversight as obstruction, criticism as disloyalty, constitutional restraints as inconveniences, and public office as a vehicle for private power and profit.

Under Trump, the buck stops nowhere.

Every consequence is transferred to someone else.

No one in power pays a personal price. No one admits fault. No one resigns. No one is prosecuted. No one is held accountable.

Instead, the public is told to move on. The policies continue. The machinery rolls forward.

This is how temporary abuses become permanent powers.

It is how republics become empires. It is how elected public servants become rulers who answer to no one. And it is how a government learns that it can inflict enormous harm without ever being required to pay a price.

Trump and Hegseth insist that anyone who kills an American will be hunted down and made to pay.

Yet who demands accountability when the decisions that cost American lives originate in the White House?

Who answers for the service members sent to die in an unconstitutional war launched without meaningful public debate or congressional authorization? Who answers for those who die during immigration raids, police encounters or government detention? Who answers when those in power enrich themselves while everyone else is left to bear the danger, instability and cost?

In the American Police State, the answer is almost always the same: Those in power are protected. Those without power bear the consequences.

The government operates above the law. Those who wield power become untouchable. Those who suffer are treated as disposable. Justice becomes whatever the government says it is.

And the machinery of government moves on without accountability.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, that is how the American Police State gets away with murder.

WC: 2605

The post Getting Away with Murder: Under Trump, the Buck Stops Nowhere appeared first on Activist Post.

In a letter to the drugmaker, the FDA said the agency approved Beyfortus, an RSV monoclonal antibody, as a defense against RSV lower respiratory tract disease — but that Sanofi has been claiming it protects broadly against RSV disease, which occurs in the lower and upper tracts. Beyfortus has come under scrutiny following reports of at least two infant deaths during clinical trials for the drug.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is accusing Sanofi of making false or misleading promotional claims about Beyfortus, a preventative treatment for RSV, Fierce Pharma reported.

In a letter to the drugmaker, the FDA said it approved Beyfortus specifically as a defense against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) lower respiratory tract disease — but that Sanofi has been claiming it protects broadly against RSV disease, which occurs in the lower and upper tracts.

The company has sent providers emails urging them to give the shot to “help prevent RSV disease in infants.”

The promotional materials included other similar statements, including, “Beyfortus is a monoclonal antibody that helps prevent RSV disease starting from Day 1 after injection,” and “Your efforts in immunizing infants against RSV disease can impact the population health burden in your community.”

The FDA said that language creates the “misleading impression” that the drug prevents RSV disease generally.

FDA asks Sanofi to take immediate action to stop misbranding RSV shot

Beyfortus, a monoclonal antibody manufactured by Sanofi and AstraZeneca, was approved by the FDA in 2023. Unlike a vaccine, monoclonal antibodies provide passive immunity by delivering laboratory-produced antibodies designed to protect infants against severe RSV disease.

The FDA emphasized that Beyfortus is specifically approved for the prevention of RSV lower respiratory tract disease — not RSV infection or upper respiratory tract illness generally.

The agency noted that while the promotional emails later referred to protecting infants from “RSV-LRTI,” lower respiratory tract infection,  that clarification did not adequately correct the overall impression created by the broader claims appearing earlier in the communications.

“By failing to adequately communicate the indication for Beyfortus, the emails create a misleading impression about the drug’s FDA-approved indication,” the letter states.

The agency concluded that the promotional materials “misbrand Beyfortus” under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).

The FDA requested that Sanofi take immediate action to stop disseminating the promotional communications or other materials containing similar representations.

The agency also instructed the company to submit a written response within 15 working days detailing all Beyfortus promotional communications containing comparable claims, along with its plan to discontinue or correct them.

If Sanofi believes its promotional materials do not violate federal law, FDA said the company may provide its reasoning and supporting evidence as part of its response.

Untitled Letter asks for voluntary compliance 

The letter was an Untitled Letter issued by the FDA’s Office of Prescription Drug Promotion, which monitors prescription drug advertising and marketing to ensure promotional claims are truthful, balanced, and consistent with approved labeling.

An Untitled Letter is one of the agency’s primary enforcement tools for promotional violations. However, the letter only notifies a company that FDA believes its promotional practices violate the FD&C Act and requests voluntary corrective action.

It does not carry the legal weight of a Warning Letter, which demands corrective action. Failure to adequately respond to a Warning Letter can lead to enforcement actions such as seizures or injunctions.

The agency noted that the concerns described in the letter “do not necessarily constitute an exhaustive list of potential violations,” and reminded Sanofi that it is responsible for ensuring all promotional materials comply with applicable federal law.

Concerns with Sanofi’s products for infants

Last year, the FDA launched a safety review of the RSV shots, including Beyfortus and Merck’s Enflonsia, given to infants to protect against the virus.

Safety questions first surfaced during the summer, when Tracy Beth Høeg, Ph.D., then a senior adviser to the FDA, raised concerns, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon told Reuters.

Advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in August 2023 recommended that newborns get the Beyfortus shot. The FDA approved the shots for babies and toddlers in July 2023.

Members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices made the recommendation despite concerns raised by critics at the time that there were several deaths, along with other adverse events, among infants who received the drug during the clinical trials.

In one clinical trial for the drug, there were higher instances of infant deaths among babies who received Beyfortus. In another, immunized babies admitted to the hospital for RSV-related illness stayed longer than non-immunized babies with the same condition, raising concerns that the shot may have worsened their illness.

In October 2024, Sanofi shut down its clinical trial for an RSV vaccine for infants and toddlers, saying that it did not produce the efficacy they were hoping for. A Defender report published last week revealed that, according to documents obtained via a Freedom of Information request, one child died during the trial.

Another Defender report revealed in 2024 that at least two infant deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) as occurring after the babies mistakenly received Pfizer’s adult RSV vaccine were likely caused instead by Beyfortus.

Related articles in The Defender

• A Baby Died, and Sanofi Quietly Ended RSV Vaccine Trial. The Company Says Death Was Unrelated to the Vaccine
• FDA to Probe Safety of RSV Shot for Infants, Citing Deaths Reported in Clinical Trials
• ‘Should Not Be Used in Any Infants’: Higher Death Risk in Beyfortus RSV Shot Clinical Trials
• Exclusive: Two Infants Died Within Hours of Receiving RSV Shots, CDC Internal Emails Show

The post Sanofi Made False Claims About RSV Shot for Infants, FDA Says appeared first on Activist Post.

Countries With the Most Government Debt in 2026

See visuals like this from many other data creators on our Voronoi app. Download it for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.

Key Takeaways

• The U.S. is projected to hold $40.7 trillion in government debt in 2026, the highest total worldwide.
• Japan has the world’s highest government debt relative to the size of its economy, at 204% of GDP.
• Several European economies rank among the world’s most indebted by GDP despite carrying much smaller total debt than the U.S. or China.

The countries with the largest government debt totals are not necessarily those carrying the heaviest debt burdens. The picture changes considerably depending on whether debt is measured in dollar terms or relative to the size of a country’s economy.

This graphic uses 2026 projections from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to compare the world’s 30 most indebted governments using both measures.

The U.S. Has the World’s Largest Government Debt

At $40.7 trillion, the U.S. is projected to hold by far the world’s largest stock of government debt in 2026. That figure exceeds the combined debt of China, Japan, the United Kingdom, and France, highlighting the extraordinary scale of U.S. borrowing.

The table below ranks the 30 countries with the highest government debt by total value in 2026.

Rank	Country	Value of debt (billions $)
1	United States	40,739
2	China	22,290
3	Japan	8,951
4	United Kingdom	4,418
5	France	4,258
6	Italy	3,790
7	Germany	3,523
8	India	3,464
9	Canada	2,776
10	Brazil	2,544
11	Spain	2,054
12	Mexico	1,330
13	Singapore	1,134
14	Australia	1,075
15	South Korea	1,050

16	Belgium	848
17	Poland	745
18	Netherlands	639
19	Indonesia	639
20	Austria	512
21	Russia	507
22	Israel	502
23	Argentina	485
24	Saudi Arabia	446
25	Switzerland	442
26	Greece	421
27	Türkiye	418
28	Thailand	387
29	South Africa	379
30	Egypt	374

Measured against the size of its economy, however, the picture changes considerably. At roughly 126% of GDP, the U.S. national debt ranks behind countries including Japan, Singapore, Italy, and Greece.

The U.S. also benefits from issuing the world’s primary reserve currency, which helps sustain global demand for dollar-denominated assets. U.S. Treasury securities are widely regarded as among the world’s safest investments.

Countries With the Highest Debt-to-GDP Ratios

Japan remains a clear outlier, with government debt projected to exceed 204% of GDP in 2026. While a ratio this high would raise concerns in many countries, Japan’s large domestic investor base and broader financial system help shape how markets assess its debt sustainability.

Rank	Country	2026 Government debt as a share of GDP (%)
1	Japan	204.4%
2	Singapore	171.9%
3	Sudan	169.1%
4	Bahrain	152.4%
5	Italy	138.4%
6	Greece	136.9%
7	Senegal	132.3%
8	Maldives	129.4%
9	United States	125.8%
10	Ukraine	122.6%
11	Bhutan	120.3%
12	Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	120.1%
13	France	118.4%
14	Canada	110.7%
15	Belgium	109.2%

16	China	106.9%
17	Mozambique	106.1%
18	United Kingdom	103.6%
19	Bolivia	102.7%
20	Dominica	98.3%
21	Spain	98.2%
22	Brazil	96.5%
23	Cabo Verde	95.9%
24	Finland	93.1%
25	Republic of the Congo	91.3%
26	Barbados	89.5%
27	Suriname	87.1%
28	Egypt	87.0%
29	Mauritius	86.5%
30	Gabon	86.1%

Japan is followed by Singapore, Sudan at 169%, and Bahrain at 152%. However, debt-to-GDP ratios alone do not indicate how much trust global financial markets place in a government.

Investors also consider factors such as a government’s fiscal record, credit rating, political stability, and access to financing. Countries such as Bolivia, at 103% of GDP, or Mozambique, at 106%, may face greater borrowing challenges than more established economies such as Singapore, despite Singapore’s higher debt ratio.

How Government Debt Compares Across Europe

Several major European economies are carrying sizable fiscal deficits and elevated government debt.

Greece and Italy both have debt exceeding 135% of their respective GDPs. However, Italy’s $3.8 trillion in government debt remains lower than the totals held by France and the UK, whose debt-to-GDP ratios stand at 118% and 104%, respectively.

Spain’s government debt is projected at $2.1 trillion in 2026, equal to roughly 98% of GDP. This places its relative debt burden below those of several other major European economies.

Germany, meanwhile, has used a constitutional “debt brake” to limit structural deficits. Europe’s largest economy is projected to hold $3.5 trillion in government debt in 2026, less than France, Italy, and the UK.

The post Ranked: Countries With the Most Government Debt in 2026 appeared first on Activist Post.

Former Navy officer Matt Bracken has warned that the U.S. could face an abrupt societal collapse – triggered by coordinated attacks on global energy chokepoints – during a recent appearance on the “Health Ranger Report” with the Health Ranger Mike Adams and Michael Yon.

Bracken, as reported by Adams, coined the term “World War E” to describe the global conflict over energy resources that now extends across multiple theaters simultaneously – linking events in Europe, the Middle East and Asia ^[1]. The conflict involves Houthi forces in Yemen announcing interdiction of Saudi exports through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and Iranian responses that close the Strait of Hormuz ^[2].

This coordinated assault on energy infrastructure, according to Bracken, will hit food and fuel supplies suddenly. Chris Martenson, writing for Peak Prosperity, noted in 2019 that collapse is not a Hollywood-style event but a process already underway.

Martenson also noted that many people expect they will recognize the danger signs in time – but they will not ^[3]. Economist Steve Keen has also warned that billions are at risk of famine due to supply chain vulnerabilities and fertilizer dependencies ^[4].

Public Awareness and the Information Gap

Most Americans will fail to understand the methodical nature of the collapse until it is too late, according to Martenson. In his article “Collapse Is Already Here,” he stated that individuals imagine collapse will be obvious with clear warnings, but in reality it is a gradual process that many miss ^[3].

Historical examples illustrate this pattern. During the 1973 Wollo famine in Ethiopia, according to researcher Stephen Devereux as cited by Alex de Waal in “Mass Starvation,” rural communities were so isolated that they had poor information and fragmented food supplies, preventing timely awareness of the crisis ^[5].

Adams has stated that many people will never recognize their own gullibility, continuing to promote conventional narratives even as the system unravels ^[6]. During the broadcast, the Health Ranger emphasized that a lack of situational awareness keeps most residents unprepared for abrupt disruptions. The inability to perceive early indicators, according to Martenson, mirrors the pattern seen in historical famines where isolated populations remained oblivious until starvation was widespread.

Survival Strategy: Evacuate Cities and Prepare

Bracken, in his interview with Adams, advised Americans to leave major metropolitan areas – particularly what he termed “big blue cities” – and relocate to regions where food is grown, because disruptions will hit coastal lowlands hardest ^[7]. He emphasized that without diesel fuel, farms may produce only 20% of normal food output, but human labor could sustain smaller communities.

This transition mirrors the experience of Cuba during the Special Period following the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. According to Tina Lynn Evans in “Occupy education learning and living sustainability,” Cuba lost 85% of its international trade and 80% of its fertilizer and feed imports, forcing a rapid conversion to localized, low-input agriculture ^[8].

Adams nevertheless admitted that no matter how much one prepares for the impending collapse, it is likely not enough ^[6]. He recommended establishing food and water supplies, noting that urban water systems are fragile and dependent on electricity.

Bracken reiterated that being in a big city when the shift occurs is unwise because local food output cannot support distant populations. Preppers should focus on self-reliant communities near agricultural areas, according to the discussion.

Conclusion: The Brutal Transition

Adams expressed doubt that the United States can revert to pre-industrial farming methods quickly enough to prevent widespread suffering. In a video titled “THE OIL MAY NEVER RECOVER,” he warned that if nations revert to pre-industrial trade models, global standards of living will plummet by a century, and the world cannot sustain eight billion people under such conditions ^[9].

The natural limitation of food supply will ultimately determine population size, as Adams illustrated using a deer-herd analogy. When artificial feeding stops, the herd collapses back to what the land can support ^[10].

The interview concluded with Bracken’s warning to move to self-reliant areas before the “tsunami” arrives. The decision to remain in a city, he said, is a gamble that most will lose. As Martenson summarized, collapse is already here, but many refuse to see it ^[3].

References

1. NaturalNews.com. “Health Ranger Report: World War E and the Coordinated Campaign to Create Scarcity.” July 23, 2026.
2. NaturalNews.com. “World War E: Why the Energy Crisis Is an Engineered Collapse.” July 23, 2026.
3. Chris Martenson. “Collapse Is Already Here.” PeakProsperity.com. March 10, 2019.
4. NaturalNews.com. “A Top Economist Quietly Confirms My Famine Warning.” July 23, 2026.
5. Alex de Waal. “Mass Starvation.”
6. Mike Adams. “Health Ranger Report – We are probably not prepared enough.” Brighteon.com. May 12, 2023.
7. Mike Adams. “Bright Videos News – Interview with Matt Bracken PART 2 transcript.” BrightVideos.com. April 28, 2026.
8. Tina Lynn Evans. “Occupy education learning and living sustainability.”
9. Mike Adams. “Bright Videos News – THE OIL MAY NEVER RECOVER transcript.” BrightVideos.com. April 28, 2026.
10. NaturalNews.com. “The Population Will Shrink to Match the Available Food Supply.” July 17, 2026.

Explainer Infographic

The post Health Ranger Report: The Collapse Is Already Here and Americans Are Unaware Of It, Bracken Warns appeared first on Activist Post.

Story at-a-glance

• Cell-cultivated meat has already moved beyond the experimental stage, with five products completing federal review — though clearing review, as you’ll see, turns out to be very different from reaching your plate
• The FDA and USDA share oversight of cell-cultivated meat, creating a multi-step approval process that includes safety reviews, facility inspections, and labeling evaluations before products reach the marketplace
• States have adopted sharply different approaches, with some banning cell-cultivated meat outright, others requiring special labeling and many still deciding how they will regulate the technology
• Court challenges are already being decided: in March 2026, a federal appeals court ruled that Florida’s ban does not conflict with federal law, dealing the industry’s central legal argument an early defeat — even as other claims continue
• Understanding how foods are produced, regulated, and labeled helps you make more informed decisions, while choosing minimally processed foods from regenerative and grass fed farming systems offers a straightforward alternative to highly engineered food products

A type of meat produced without raising or harvesting a single animal has already passed federal review and reached a handful of high-end American menus. Grown from animal cells in controlled facilities, cell-cultivated meat crossed the line from scientific concept to regulated food category, vetted and cleared by federal agencies before any portion was served.

Demand for animal protein is projected to climb sharply in the coming decades, and a growing number of companies are betting this technology will help meet it. But how many products have actually cleared that process, and what does the process even involve? The answers are more surprising than the headlines suggest.

The science, it turns out, was the easier part. After cultivated chicken made its brief debut on a few tasting menus, the rollout stalled, not because the technology faltered, but because a second battle opened far from any laboratory. In state capitols across the U.S., some lawmakers moved to block these products outright, others demanded specific labeling, and still others stayed silent.

Lawsuits followed over a single question: who gets to decide what reaches your plate — federal regulators or individual states? For now, the fight has shifted from the kitchen to the courtroom. Before you can understand why lawmakers, regulators, and food companies continue to clash over this emerging technology, it helps to examine how the federal approval process works, and why regulators built an entirely new system for food made from animal cells.

The Cultured-Meat Battle Shifted from Food Safety to Consumer Access

For an analysis published in Trends in Food Science & Technology, researchers examined how federal and state governments regulate cell-cultivated meat and seafood in the U.S. and cataloged legislative actions through October 2025.¹

Rather than studying health outcomes or consumer behavior, the paper focused on the rules that determine whether these products reach consumers at all. The researchers found that regulatory decisions now play a major role in shaping the future of the industry, affecting everything from product development to labeling and interstate commerce.

•No single agency oversees the entire process — Instead, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) share responsibility. Researchers explained that the FDA oversees the early stages, including cell collection, storage, growth and development, while the USDA takes over after harvest and supervises processing, inspection, and labeling. This layered system exists because cultivated products combine elements of food production and biotechnology.

•Only a handful of products have completed review — As of October 2025, five cell-cultivated products had successfully completed the U.S. regulatory process. These included products developed by UPSIDE Foods, GOOD Meat, Mission Barns, Wildtype, and Believer Meats. Four received both FDA and USDA clearance, while Wildtype salmon required FDA oversight alone because seafood falls under a different regulatory structure.

But clearing review guaranteed nothing. Believer Meats — one of the five — shut down in December 2025, only months after completing the process and finishing what it billed as the world’s largest cultivated-meat facility.²

•The approval process involves multiple checkpoints — Researchers noted that companies first participate in FDA premarket consultations, where they submit data demonstrating that their products are safe for human consumption. After receiving a “no questions” letter from the FDA, facilities undergo additional oversight and inspections.

For livestock and poultry products, the USDA then evaluates harvesting procedures, processing operations, sanitation programs, and labeling before products enter commerce.

•Labeling remains one of the biggest unresolved issues — The analysis found that federal agencies still have not finalized comprehensive labeling standards specific to cell-cultivated products. As a result, approved products currently receive label evaluations on a case-by-case basis.

Researchers reported that products approved so far have used terms such as “cell-cultivated chicken,” while broader federal guidance remains under development. For consumers trying to understand what they’re buying, this lack of standardization creates uncertainty and fuels public debate.

•The biggest battle now centers on regulation rather than technology — Researchers concluded that the science behind producing cultivated meat is only part of the story. Regulatory decisions increasingly determine how quickly products reach the marketplace, how they’re labeled, and whether consumers have access to them across state lines.

The paper warned that differing state laws could “inhibit interstate and international commerce, confuse consumers, and restrict consumer access” once these products become more widely available. If you want to understand where cell-cultivated meat goes next, the rules surrounding it matter just as much as the technology itself.

The Fight Over Cultured Meat Reached State Capitols

According to a report from Penn State Dickinson Law’s Center for Agricultural and Shale Law, the biggest story is no longer how cell-cultured meat is produced or how federal agencies review it.³ Instead, the focus has shifted to state-level restrictions, legal challenges, and questions about whether consumers will be allowed to buy these products in certain parts of the U.S. The report specifically examined federal oversight, recent state bans, and the lawsuits emerging in response to those bans.

•States are splitting into three distinct camps — Some states prohibit the sale or production of cell-cultured meat entirely. Others allow products but require special disclosures or labeling requirements. The remaining states have not taken legislative action.

According to the report, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Montana, Indiana, Nebraska, and Texas have enacted bans or prohibitions, while states such as Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah, South Dakota (which has since moved to an outright ban — see below), and Iowa have focused on regulatory requirements instead.

•The strongest resistance is emerging in major livestock-producing regions — Four of the five leading beef-producing states have adopted restrictions of some kind. Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Colorado have all enacted measures addressing cell-cultured meat, while Kansas remains the exception. This suggests that opposition is often strongest in areas where conventional livestock production plays a major economic role.

•Legal challenges are beginning to test state authority, and the first major ruling has landed — A central development involves Upside Foods’ lawsuit against Florida’s ban. The company argues that federal clearance already exists for its cultivated chicken, and that a state can’t write conflicting rules to block a product the federal government has approved. It also argues that the ban illegally favors local agricultural interests over out-of-state competitors.

On March 23, 2026, a federal appeals court — the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — handed the company a significant setback, ruling that federal poultry law does not override Florida’s ban.⁴ The court’s reasoning was narrow but consequential: a law that bans a product outright is legally different from one that dictates how a federally inspected facility operates, so federal law does not displace it. Federal permission to sell a product does not force any state to allow it onto store shelves.

The case isn’t over, though. The appeals court rejected only the argument that federal law overrides the state ban. Upside’s separate claim — that Florida’s law is unconstitutional protectionism designed to shield in-state ranchers from outside competition — remains alive in the lower court, where the burden now shifts to Florida to prove its ban serves a legitimate local purpose that couldn’t be achieved by less discriminatory means.

For now, the early scoreboard favors the states: a product can satisfy every federal requirement and still be illegal to sell across much of the U.S.

•The Midwest has become a major battleground — Additional data cited by the Council of State Governments (CSG) Midwest show that Midwestern legislatures continued introducing new restrictions throughout 2025 and 2026.⁵ Some states adopted temporary moratoriums, meaning a government-imposed pause on sales or manufacturing.

Others prohibited public funding, restricted purchases by schools and universities, or required special labeling. South Dakota, for example, moved from labeling requirements in 2025 to a five-year prohibition on the manufacture, sale, and distribution of cell-cultured protein beginning in 2026. These actions show how quickly state policies are evolving.

•The future now depends on courts and lawmakers as much as technology — New legislation continues to emerge, existing laws face legal scrutiny, and court decisions could determine whether state restrictions survive constitutional challenges.

If you’re trying to understand where this industry goes next, the answer depends less on scientific breakthroughs and more on how judges, governors, and state legislatures resolve the growing conflict between federal approval pathways and state-level restrictions.

Choose Real Food Over Engineered Alternatives

The biggest takeaway from the research is that the debate over cell-cultivated meat is no longer centered on whether the technology exists. It already does. What’s far less certain is whether the business does. Federal clearance hasn’t translated into a single product you can reliably buy — one of the five approved companies has already folded, and as of spring 2026, cultivated meat wasn’t being sold anywhere in the U.S.

I believe your strongest position comes from understanding more than the marketing claims. Pay attention to how products are regulated, how they’re labeled, what ingredients they contain, and who is shaping the rules behind the scenes. Knowledge gives you choices. Confusion takes them away.

That matters because many plant-based alternative meat products fall into the category of ultraprocessed foods, built from refined ingredients, industrial additives, and seed oils. Cultivated meat is a different category — grown from animal cells rather than assembled from plant ingredients — and its long-term nutritional profile simply isn’t known yet. The farther a food moves from its natural form, the more difficult it becomes to evaluate what you’re actually eating.

1.Choose real food over heavily processed substitutes — Whenever possible, focus on foods that remain close to their natural form. Many alternative meat products are ultraprocessed foods that contain industrial additives, refined ingredients, and seed oils such as soybean, corn, sunflower, and canola oil.

These oils are rich in linoleic acid (LA), which accumulates in your tissues and disrupts efficient cellular energy production. The health concerns surrounding these products extend beyond the manufacturing process itself and include the additives, processing byproducts, and ingredient combinations commonly used to create them.

2.Support farmers who produce food, not food products — Every purchase sends a signal about the kind of food system you want to support. If you value foods raised through natural biological processes, direct more of your food budget toward local farmers, regenerative ranchers, and producers committed to transparent growing and raising practices.

When consumers support these operations, they help strengthen a food system built around nutrient-dense foods rather than increasingly complex manufactured alternatives.

If you are fortunate enough to have access to local producers, visit farmers markets, join a community-supported agriculture program, or buy directly from nearby farms. Look for Demeter biodynamic and American Grassfed Association certifications when available. The more demand there is for real meat, dairy, and produce produced under high-quality standards, the stronger those food networks become.

Instead of waiting for large corporations or regulators to shape the future of food, you can influence it every time you decide where your food dollars go.

3.Read labels carefully instead of relying on headlines — If you encounter a cell-cultivated product in the future, look beyond the front-of-package marketing. Focus on the ingredient list and how the product was made. On a cell-cultured product specifically, the words to look for are “cell-cultivated,” “cultivated,” or “cultured” — the terms regulators have permitted on the handful of products cleared so far.

Keep in mind that federal labeling standards for these foods still aren’t finalized, so every label you see has been approved case by case rather than measured against a fixed national standard. That means the wording can shift from one product to the next, and a reassuring-sounding term hasn’t necessarily been held to any consistent definition.

Many consumers assume that terms such as “cultivated,” “sustainable,” or “animal-free” automatically mean healthier, but those descriptions tell you very little about the quality of the food itself. Your goal is simple: understand exactly what you’re buying and how far it has been altered from its natural form before it reaches your shopping cart.

4.Understand the difference between regulation and nutrition — Government approval doesn’t automatically make a food healthy. Regulatory agencies evaluate specific safety standards, but that’s very different from determining whether a food supports long-term metabolic health. I recommend paying just as much attention to ingredient quality and degree of processing as you do to regulatory status.

The more you understand about how products are reviewed, marketed, and brought to market, the less likely you are to mistake approval for a stamp of nutritional excellence.

5.Follow the policies that shape your food supply — State-level laws influence far more than product availability. They shape research funding, school purchasing decisions, labeling standards, and the direction of future food production. Understanding these policies helps you become a more informed consumer rather than a passive recipient of whatever food system emerges.

The more you learn about who is writing the rules and whose interests those rules serve, the easier it becomes to protect your health, support the types of farming you value, and make food choices that align with your long-term goals.

Two public resources make this easy to check yourself. Penn State Dickinson Law maintains a Cell-Cultured Food Regulations Issue Tracker,⁶ and CSG keeps a running map and legislative tracker for the Midwest.⁷ Before you assume these products are either available or off-limits where you live, spend a few minutes seeing what your own state has actually done; the map is redrawn almost month to month, with new bans, moratoriums, and labeling rules still moving through legislatures in 2026.

FAQs About Cell-Cultured Meat Regulations

Q: What is cell-cultivated meat?

A: Cell-cultivated meat is produced by growing animal cells in controlled facilities rather than raising and slaughtering animals. The products are made from real animal cells, but the production process differs from conventional livestock farming.

Q: How many cell-cultivated meat products have been approved in the U.S.?

A: As of October 2025, five cell-cultivated meat and seafood products had completed the federal review process. Those approvals involved oversight from the FDA, the USDA, or both agencies, depending on the type of product.

Q: Why are some states banning or restricting cell-cultivated meat?

A: States have taken different approaches based on concerns about consumer transparency, agricultural economics, and food policy. Some states have enacted outright bans, while others require special labeling or have imposed restrictions on public funding, school purchases, or product sales.

Q: Does government approval mean a product is healthy?

A: No. Regulatory approval focuses on safety standards and compliance with federal laws. It does not determine whether a food supports long-term metabolic health. Ingredient quality, degree of processing, and overall nutritional value remain important considerations when evaluating any food product.

Q: What is the most practical takeaway from the debate over cell-cultivated meat?

A: Understanding how foods are produced, regulated, and labeled puts you in a stronger position to make informed choices. Focusing on minimally processed foods and supporting transparent, regenerative food production systems offers a straightforward way to avoid confusion and maintain control over what ends up on your plate.

The post The Status of Cell-Cultured Meat Regulations appeared first on Activist Post.

The wave of violence committed by ICE officers only continues to increase, while the agency implements new changes against transparency and accountability, and top officials blatantly threaten more bloodshed on American streets.

Here at The Free Thought Project, since January of 2025 we have been tracking the progression of abuses committed by agents of the Immigration and Custom Enforcement across the United States amid the agency’s weaponization by the Trump administration.

Part one of this series documented how Trump’s immigration crackdown served to empower the police state, using immigration enforcement as a false pretext advancing a campaign to target and intimidate ethnic communities, erode domestic civil liberties, constitutional protections, and erect a biometric surveillance panopticon under the guise of border security.

Our follow up piece in October, ICE: The Rogue Agency Terrorizing America’s Streets illlustrated several instances of brutality and rights violations committed by ICE officials, including raids on civilian apartment blocks utilizing Black Hawk helicopters, the brutalization of citizens, and the deployment of chemical agents on nonviolent civilian observers.

In ICE: The Rogue Agency’s Wave of Terror Continues, we subsequently exemplified a slew of even more abuses that took place in the months following the previous report, including the summary execution of an American citizen, Renee Nicole Good, as well as various other attacks against schoolchildren, teenagers, and the elderly as the agents would deliberately target vulnerable populations.

The escalations of brutality would only continue, and not long after Good’s murder another American citizen, 37-year-old Alex Pretti, would be executed in the streets of Minneapolis after attempting to protect a female peaceful protester being assaulted by ICE officers.

The deaths of Good, Pretti, and countless others constitute a new normal taking shape in Trump’s America, one where these hyperviolent agents of the state are given carte blanche to brutalize with impunity, and the Department of Homeland Security will retroactively rewrite the narrative to place blame on the deceased.

Meanwhile, more recent reporting from TFTP has also documented the scope of abuse and human rights violations taking place within ICE detention facilities across the country, most of which have a predominant inmate population with no criminal record. Specifically, investigations found high rates of inmate abuse, excessive force, cruel and inhumane treatment, and a skyrocketing suicide rate among detainees primarily driven by mistreatment and neglect.

On June 15th, Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a new set of guidelines rolling back standards for their detention facilities that empowers even further exploitation by the private prison industry behind the recent expansion of ICE camps.

Dishearteningly, the bloodshed has not stopped, and the agency only appears to be brazenly emboldened to continue their vicious rampage throughout American communities.

In recent weeks, two more individuals have been senselessly killed only days apart from one another.

On July 7th, ICE agents in Houston, Texas, fatally shot Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a 52 year old father of three who had been living in the United States for 35 years with no criminal record, after conducting a traffic stop following an increased surge of street opperations prompted by the Trump administration’s demand for a higher quota of arrests.

The agents claim that upon the stop Salgado Araujo attempted to use his vehicle as a deadly weapon and ram into them. One of the officers fired through his passenger side window, hitting him in the torso. They would then drag the wounded man from his vehicle, placing him in handcuffs as he lay dying and bleeding out in the street.

Three other men who were passengers in the van at the time of the killing were also taken into custody and are now being held in a detention facility awaiting deportation proceedings.

According to the Texas Tribune, witness statements from two of the three passengers dispute DHS’s claim that Araujo attempted to ram the agents with his vehicle. In fact, all witness statements indicate that there were no agents in front or behind the van at the time of the killing, instead the officers fired into the passenger side window after it had been put in park. There was never any risk to the agent’s safety.

DHS has a documented history of lying and fabricating details following shootings by ICE agents.

Only days later on July 13th in Biddeford, Maine, ICE agents shot and killed 26 year old Joan Sebastian Guerrero. After initially claiming that Guerrero attempted to weaponize his vehicle against agents who then fired in self defense, DHS has since shifted the narrative, drastically changing the story to instead claim Guerrero was attempting to flee and agents fired into the vehicle “fearing for public safety”.

One may be forgiven for logically assuming that discharging a firearm on a public street at a moving vehicle in and of itself constitutes a threat to public safety.

Reports have confirmed that neither Lorenzo Salgado Araujo or Joan Sebastian Guerrero were the intended targets of ICE operations, making their murders at the hands of ICE officials that much more damning.

What’s more, an exclusive investigation by The Associated Press found that the agent identified as the gunman responsible for the death of Guerrero, David Brouillette, has a lifelong history of violent behavior that should have disqualified him from employment with the agency.

According to court documents and statements from relatives, Brouillette, a 37 year old Army veteran, has a history of psychiatric issues accompanied with multiple instances of physical violence and abuse, including against his two ex wives and teenage daughter. Another family member confirmed that Brouillette was diagnosed with bipolar disorder as a child, describing him as “extremely mentally ill”.

Brouillette served in the United States Army deployed to Afghanistan from May 2012 to February 2013 as a Human Intelligence Collector, an MOS commonly associated with acts of torture and mistreatment of detainees.

Speaking to the AP, Brouillette’s relative stated:

“Afghanistan destroyed him — trained him to be a killing monster, a machine. They took someone who was extremely mentally ill and turned him into a killing machine.”

These recent incidents following a rapid surge of hirings at ICE raise legitimate concerns of just how many of these trigger happy lunatics have been recruited into the agency.

But rather than simply being an issue of poorly vetted gunmen on the streets, recent statements from agency officials demonstrate that ICE’s violent nature is systemic to the highest reaches of the institution.

Following increased criticisms, “Border Czar” Tom Homan would take it upon himself to make what some could characterize as terroristic threats against the American public, and marginalized communities specifically.

Speaking with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, Homan would brazenly declare that unless critics of ICE’s tactics “shut their mouths” there would be more bloodshed.

While Holman’s comments can be seen as deflecting blame for the actions of his agents to the constitutionally protected speech of those who criticize their heavy handed tactics, the implied threat is clear: Either submit to these armed agents terrorizing your community, or even more will die.

It is not the place for enforcers of the state to act as judge, jury, and executioner. It is worth reminding that even in the event that an individual targeted by these agents is in the country illegally, being undocumented is a civil misdemeanor, not a capital crime worthy of a death sentence.

Homan’s threat and the continued escalations of violence by ICE on America’s streets is only further compounded by an increasing lack of transparency and accountability, as reports allege that a new guidance issued to Immigration and Customs Enforcement claims the FBI will no longer investigate confrontations involving ICE agents. While DHS and the DOJ released a joint statement claiming that the change would not take place, it begs the question why then the guidance was issued at all?

This comes amid a new report from the ACLU documenting over 1200 instances of actions by ICE that demonstrate a large scale of civil rights violations committed by ICE officers and the police forces it has deputized, ranging from racial profiling to school lockdowns.

Naureen Shah, one of the authors of the report, commented saying that these killings were part of a “much, much bigger pattern, where ICE agents and the agents who are working with them have threatened to use force and used force in a way we’ve never seen from these agencies, in their history.”

The report concluded that the use of violence and force has now become the new default tool for ICE officers.

When armed agents of the state act with reckless impunity, using violence as a tool of intimidation and repression against peaceful communities, there is only one word to describe such actions. Terrorism.

The post ICE: From A Rogue Agency To A Murderous Terrorist Organization appeared first on Activist Post.

Crypto home invasions rose to 20 in H1 2026 from one a year earlier, while France accounted for 33 of 52 verified wrench attacks, according to CertiK.

Home invasions became the most common form of crypto wrench attacks during the first half of 2026, rising to 20 publicly reported incidents from just one a year earlier, according to blockchain security firm CertiK. 

On Thursday, CertiK said it verified 52 wrench attacks worldwide in the first half of 2026, up 33.3% from 39 incidents during the same period in 2025. Kidnappings rose to 16 from 12, while robberies declined from five incidents to one. 

CertiK said the recorded financial exposure linked to the attacks reached about $124.1 million, up from $10.5 million a year earlier. The figure is not limited to confirmed thefts and may include ransom demands, victim transfers, frozen or recovered assets and failed ransom demands. 

The increase in home invasions suggests criminals are increasingly bypassing digital safeguards by physically coercing crypto holders and their families.

France remains center of crypto wrench attacks 

Europe accounted for 39 of the 52 verified incidents, while France alone accounted for 33, or nearly two-thirds of the global total. CertiK said it used a narrower methodology than French authorities, counting only publicly reported incidents it could independently verify. 

On July 2, French Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez said authorities had recorded 77 crypto-linked kidnappings, extortion cases or attempted extortion cases during the first half of 2026, up from 45 in the entire year of 2025.

CertiK said the concentration may reflect France’s more visible crypto ecosystem, with data breaches and information connecting identities and home addresses with perceived crypto wealth.

Related: US seeks forfeiture of $25M in crypto tied to romance, investment scams

In response, French authorities launched a dedicated prevention platform and a rapid-alert system for crypto holders and professionals. Nuñez said that emergency measures have resulted in 200 arrests. 

CertiK said the rise in physical coercion challenges conventional self-custody advice. The company recommended multisignature or multiparty computation arrangements, withdrawal delays, spending limits and geographically separated signers so one threatened person cannot immediately release all available assets.

Magazine: Inside the ‘fake police raid’ that forced a $1M Bitcoin transfer

The post Home invasions became most common crypto wrench attack in H1 2026: CertiK appeared first on Activist Post.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Email | RSS

Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, an in-depth investigatory show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant independent news, as we see it, from the last 24 hours (7/20/26).

As always, take the information discussed in the video below and research it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Anyone telling you what the truth is, or claiming they have the answer, is likely leading you astray, for one reason or another. Stay Vigilant.

Source Links (In Chronological Order):

(9) Barchart on X: “U.S. Debt now exceeds 100% of GDP for the first time since World War 2 https://t.co/gKQZoJH1Sa” / X

(9) The Kobeissi Letter on X: “The richest Americans have never controlled this much wealth: The wealth of the top 0.00001% of Americans is up to a record ~12% of US national income. National income measures the total income earned across the economy, including wages, business profits, and investment income. https://t.co/QwRV6Jkn7X” / X

(9) davey on X: “You joined December 2025 and have already posted 59k times, you have a profile picture that’s clearly AI and all of your tweets are some stupid assortment of buzzwords. All MAGA has left are bots. MAGA is dead.” / X

(9) The Last American Vagabond on X: “It did a long time ago.” / X

New Tab

(9) Jesus Freakin Congress on X: “This video is terrifying. And it’s another example of how ICE is making everyone less safe. At Las Vegas International Airport, two people, in plain clothes, are seen trying to handcuff a man. The man is screaming for help. When the person filming asks a TSA agent what is https://t.co/5AH7BKlQNj” / X

Viral video shows federal agents abandoning arrest attempt at Harry Reid International Airport – Las Vegas Sun News

(16) ICE Los Angeles on X: “ICE Los Angeles arrested Phu Nguyen, 57, of Vietnam, at LAX, July 14. Nguyen overstayed his visa and, despite attempts by agitators to help him evade ICE officers at Las Vegas airport, was taken into custody as soon as he landed in Los Angeles. https://t.co/UQ9lR0hEcK” / X

(16) Aaron Reichlin-Melnick on X: “Okay and that justifies shoving a gun inside a moving vehicle and opening fire, huh?” / X

(16) LongTimeFirstTime on X: “ICE detain mother of U.S. Navy veteran—deport her within hours. Agents threaten to “make her disappear”—if she didnt sign papers. “I saw on the news that they just killed a person,” she said. Agent stole $240 cash from her pocket—so she had nothing to live on after deported. https://t.co/bE33rE7glv” / X

Southern District of Texas | U.S. Attorney Aaron Reitz statement on the shooting and death of Lorenzo Salgado | United States Department of Justice

ICE killed Lorenzo Salgado Araujo before he could get ‘legal status’ | Opinion

Madre de militar es deportada de Salt Lake City a México pese a no tener antecedentes penales | Video | Univision Salt Lake City KUTH | Univision

(16) Joe Walsh on X: “ICE smashed the window of a disabled Iraq War veteran, on his way to work, pepper-sprayed him, dragged him out at gunpoint, and locked him up for three days without charges. This is fascism. https://t.co/un07Hb5V1V confirms that George Retes is a citizen, a disabled U.S. Army https://t.co/EsdXvJDTnf” / X

(16) Clarence Thomas the Tank Engine on X: “”Show me your papers, please.”” / X

(17) Purrs on X: “cops are easily the most scared, panicky, and frightful creatures that can’t keep their composure and terrorize anyone around them into complying or dying. You can easily see how the cops erratic behavior here could have easily escalated. https://t.co/D0UxahzhFC” / X

Iowa mother sues drug testing lab over ‘false positive’ result

(7) DocumentingLibs on X: “These child “protection” agencies are a disgrace and a menace. Iowa mom gives birth. Umbilical cord comes back positive for cocaine. She has never touched the drug. Multiple independent hair tests covering her entire pregnancy come back clean. House is clean. Zero evidence of https://t.co/RxqYAbZokR” / X

(7) Jenin Younes on X: “We @adc just filed a lawsuit on behalf of journalist @MaxBlumenthal against the Secretary of DHS. Last week, upon his return to the US from a trip to Iran to cover the Ayatollah’s funeral, CBP seized his smartphones, saying they intended to extract data from him. This occurred https://t.co/WoUJSvzMk4” / X

(7) Ron Filipkowski on X: “He’s just another low-IQ thug in a Trump suit who can barely speak coherently presiding over an agency that murders people routinely while he covers it up. This is an utterly lawless regime of gangsters. https://t.co/Aa1A6PRWK2” / X

(7) Mehdi Hasan on X: “It gets grimmer and grimmer everyday. No due process, just total authoritarian and unprecedented anti-migrant acts. On days like today I feel nothing but contempt for people who insisted to me in 2024 that Trump wouldn’t be so bad or that both parties are ‘the same.’” / X

Person in custody after starting a fire outside NY federal building | AP News

(9) Judd Legum on X: “Consumer brands bankrolling the biggest ICE supporters in Congress (2025-2026): @SpaceX — $589,000 @HomeDepot — $536,500 @GetSpectrum — $407,000 @UPS — $353,500 @Chevron — $352,500 @Walmart — $308,000 @ValeroEnergy — $297,500 @NewYorkLife — $295,500 @AltriaNews — $279,000 @Aflac” / X

New Tab

(9) The Last American Vagabond on X: “Every. Single. Time. #SmithMundtModernizationAct” / X

New Tab

(1) The Last American Vagabond on X: “We recently reported on the Israeli Intelligence packed company, Leonardo, and its product, SignalTrace, which can be placed on a Flock camera to go far beyond license plate reading. I argued they were already in use. If genuine, that is what this shows. https://t.co/YQynCFH4kG” / X

You Are A Terrorist If You Resist Data Centers & Israel’s Infiltration Of Flock and AI Surveillance

Data Centers CHOOSE To Use Fresh Water, Trump’s Bumbling Iran War & The Impending Israeli False Flag

(7) Jason Bassler on X: “Flock isn’t the only concern. Ever heard of the ‘Axon Lightpost?’ It’s a networked surveillance node with microphones, cameras, and real‑time feeds. Flock tracks plates, Axon LP tracks everything around them. 2 companies, 1 goal… The normalization of total surveillance. https://t.co/e7Hh3kZml8” / X

(7) The Last American Vagabond on X: “Looks like another of our concerns is coming to pass.” / X

Axon’s Ethics Board Resigned Over Taser-Armed Drones. Then the Company Bought a Military Drone Maker | WIRED

Public safety giant Axon acquires Carbyne for $625 million in cash | Ctech

(14) Whitney Webb on X: “I’ve warned about the pre-crime push to “stop mass shootings before they happen” for years, especially during the first Trump administration. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this happens just as the full extent of the Epstein-Thiel-Carbyne911 relationship is being” / X

Trump bought Axon stock before ICE sought $220 million Taser deal

Douglas County switching from Flock to Axon cameras

Council cautiously OKs new Axon contract – Evanston Now

Since ‘de-Flocking,’ Bend Officials Circle a New Vendor for Surveillance Cameras, With No Plans for Public Input – The Source – Bend, Oregon

Ferndale exits Flock for Axon — Michigan Flock Surveillance Contract | WTPN

Glenwood Springs approves Axon public safety technology contract | PostIndependent.com

Grand Chute drops Flock cameras for new vendor

Douglas County ditches Flock over privacy concerns – YouTube

Syracuse lawmakers approve contract for Axon license plate readers, plan to block Flock Safety from city streets

Fort Collins residents react as city shuts down Flock Safety cameras

Oshkosh looking into new license plate-reading cameras after ending Flock contract

Denver City Council narrowly approves Axon contract to replace Flock cameras

Public records request concerning the City of Plantation’s procurement and deployment of Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) technology from Axon Enterprise, Inc. • MuckRock

Troy NY mayor declares emergency to keep Flock AI cameras watching residents – syracuse.com

Fort Collins ends Flock Safety data collection. Here’s what’s next

Cities Are Ditching Flock Safety Cameras – Then Hiring Axon to Do the Same Job – Gadget Review

Axon Announces New Country Manager in Israel

US public safety firm buys Israel’s AI emergency response startup Carbyne for $625m | The Times of Israel

“It started with a robbery”: Carbyne’s CEO on the $625M Axon exit | Ctech

The Prince and The Spy – The Last American Vagabond

New Tab

(4) tinfoilhatgirl82 on X: “Skydio is an in q tel and Israeli company…..just an fyi” / X

Skydio autonomous drones for DFR, inspection, national security | Skydio

The Advanced Drone Solution for Israel’s Security and Civilian Needs | Israel Defense

Eyal H. | LinkedIn

Skydio X10D Drone | DefenSync

Partners | DefenSync

(7) The Last American Vagabond on X: “So why does he lie about who he works for? Funny how quick his rights become important when he claims he’s being “illegally surveilled” while the company he does not want to admit he works for (Flock) continues to illegally surveil all of us.” / X

(9) Orwell Day on X: “Cleveland Council Discovers Side-Door Access Within Flock Safety Architecture “This is why nobody trusts Flock..” https://t.co/aD8o03G7K3″ / X

New Tab

8 Ways To Take Down Flock Without A Sawzall – The Last American Vagabond

(6) Being Libertarian on X: “https://t.co/3uJpvejEUu” / X

(7) The Last American Vagabond on X: “It’s always so brave to come out in favor of the establishment narrative. Funny how many of these influencers have been just discovering this opinion lately.” / X

(7) Hard Pass on X: “I won’t be surprised if we later find out Flock paid a bunch of “influencers” for these posts. https://t.co/Oy5zkzUWPf” / X

(7) Jinxed Reality on X: “If Flock was JUST a license plate scanner, it would not be as bad. However, Flock collects the MAC address of your phone for device-to-vehicle matching, which would appear to be a 4th amendment violation. https://t.co/sdnWtT5eVh” / X

(7) Nick’s Dank Memes on X: “Wonder why indeed… https://t.co/HX5C2EbSGw” / X

(7) Sal the Agorist on X: “Guys,we’re more than halfway to the goal. This American patriot is accused of deflocking his town. Contribute to his defense here…or let the parasites win. https://t.co/R4XJZO2Gzr” / X

(9) Bret Weinstein on X: “We, the governed, did not consent to mass surveillance. Civil disobedience is morally justified. The technocratic authoritarians can flock right off with their “license plate readers.” We know this isn’t about our safety. It’s about control. We see you.” / X

New Tab

US Construction Spending on Data Centers Eclipses $50 Billion – Bloomberg

(9) The Free Thought Project 2.0 on X: “Firebrand and @solari_the breaks down why the U.S. is hell‑bent on massive data‑center expansion… and no, it’s not about “beating China.” It’s about the tidal wave of surveillance tech barreling straight at us. https://t.co/nBcUDQcIdH” / X

(16) The Last American Vagabond on X: “”We’re becoming a police state. We’ve got to stop it.” #Flock #Axon https://t.co/NHkVaxw4Jf” / X

Israel Blurs the Line Between Defense Apparatus and Local Cybersecurity Hub – CTech

Bitcoin Donations Are Appreciated:
www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/bitcoin-donation
(3FSozj9gQ1UniHvEiRmkPnXzHSVMc68U9f)

The post ICE Has Gone Full-Blown Secret Police & The Axon/Flock Bait-and-Switch appeared first on Activist Post.

Every few years, the same cycle quietly repeats itself. A research paper appears in a respected scientific journal, a handful of headlines promise that humanity has moved one step closer to cloning itself, politicians issue carefully rehearsed statements about ethics, and within days the story disappears beneath the weight of newer controversies. The science never actually vanishes. It simply retreats back into laboratories where progress is measured in microscopic changes instead of dramatic breakthroughs. For nearly three decades, human cloning has occupied this strange space between documented biology and public imagination, becoming one of the few scientific subjects capable of generating endless speculation despite producing remarkably little verified evidence that reproductive cloning has ever crossed the threshold from theory into reality.

Most public discussions begin with the wrong question. They ask whether scientists can clone a human being, as though biology operates like engineering, where enough funding and enough time inevitably solve every technical obstacle. Developmental biology has repeatedly demonstrated the opposite. The closer researchers have examined the earliest stages of embryonic development, the more fragile the entire process has appeared. DNA may contain the genetic blueprint, but a blueprint does not construct the building. Countless biochemical instructions unfold in a sequence so precise that even slight disturbances can redirect development long before an embryo becomes recognizable as anything resembling life. That complexity explains why the scientific conversation surrounding cloning has remained cautious even as other fields of biotechnology have advanced at extraordinary speed.

Long before conspiracy theories attached themselves to the subject, laboratories around the world had already accumulated an uncomfortable collection of failed experiments. These failures were never hidden from the scientific community. They appeared in journals, conference presentations and technical reports, often buried beneath statistical tables that rarely reached newspaper headlines. Success attracted cameras. Failure remained locked inside supplementary data that few people outside molecular biology ever bothered to read. Yet those overlooked pages reveal a far more sobering story than popular culture has ever portrayed. Cloning has never been a sequence of spectacular victories. It has been a relentless lesson in how astonishingly difficult it is to persuade living cells to forget what they have already become.

Before moving deeper into the evidence, four observations deserve attention because they continue shaping almost every serious scientific discussion surrounding human cloning today.

• Reproductive human cloning has never been publicly verified. Despite decades of speculation, no independently confirmed scientific evidence demonstrates that a cloned human has ever been successfully brought to birth.
• Animal cloning proved that nuclear transfer is biologically possible, but also exceptionally inefficient. Across multiple mammalian species, researchers documented extremely high embryonic loss rates, developmental abnormalities and pregnancy complications before refining laboratory techniques.
• Modern biotechnology has progressed far beyond cloning alone. Stem-cell engineering, genome editing, synthetic embryos and cellular reprogramming now intersect with cloning research in ways that often confuse public understanding because they solve entirely different biological problems.
• Scientific secrecy and scientific confidentiality are not the same phenomenon. Laboratories routinely protect unpublished research, patentable discoveries and sensitive biomedical data without implying the existence of hidden breakthroughs or classified human cloning programs.

The experiment that permanently changed this conversation began with an animal that looked remarkably ordinary. Dolly the sheep did not emerge from futuristic technology or secret military research. She was produced through somatic cell nuclear transfer at the Roslin Institute in Scotland after researchers spent years refining a technique that many scientists believed would never succeed in mammals. What transformed Dolly into an international symbol was not simply that she existed, but that she demonstrated something previously considered almost impossible: an adult cell could, under extremely controlled laboratory conditions, be reprogrammed to generate an entirely new organism sharing essentially the same nuclear DNA as its donor.

The celebration surrounding Dolly’s birth concealed an equally important detail that received only a fraction of the public attention. She represented a single successful outcome following hundreds of reconstructed embryos that never completed development. Depending on how success was measured, well over two hundred attempts failed before one viable pregnancy ultimately produced a healthy lamb. Scientists themselves emphasized this point repeatedly because it illustrated the central obstacle facing cloning research. The achievement proved possibility, not practicality. Biological systems were not refusing to cooperate because researchers lacked sophisticated equipment. They were resisting because embryonic development depends upon molecular events whose precision remains difficult to reproduce even under ideal laboratory conditions.

Subsequent research involving cattle, pigs, horses, goats, mice, rabbits, cats and dogs painted a remarkably consistent picture. Cloning could occasionally produce healthy offspring, but every apparent success was surrounded by pregnancies ending prematurely, embryos that stopped developing without obvious explanation, placental abnormalities and newborn animals suffering from severe physiological complications. Developmental biologists gradually realized that copying DNA represented only the beginning of the problem. Adult cells carry epigenetic instructions—chemical modifications controlling gene activity—that must be almost completely erased before embryonic development can begin again. Achieving that reset with perfect accuracy remains one of the greatest technical challenges in modern biology.

What made these findings particularly unsettling was their consistency. Different laboratories working in different countries repeatedly encountered variations of the same biological barriers despite using increasingly advanced equipment and refined protocols. Scientific progress certainly improved efficiency over time, yet improvements remained incremental rather than revolutionary. Every publication that announced higher success rates also documented persistent developmental losses occurring during the earliest stages of life. There was no dramatic moment when cloning suddenly became routine. Instead, decades of research produced a growing appreciation for how many invisible molecular processes operate long before organs, tissues or even recognizable embryos begin to form.

This distinction is frequently overlooked because cloning is often imagined as little more than copying DNA. In reality, identical genetic information does not guarantee identical biological outcomes. Identical twins illustrate this principle naturally. Although they originate from the same fertilized egg and share nearly identical genomes, differences emerge throughout their lives due to epigenetic regulation, environmental exposure, random developmental events and cellular aging. Cloning introduces even greater complexity because the genome being transferred has already existed within a mature organism. It carries a biological history that embryonic cells were never meant to possess, forcing researchers to reverse developmental processes that evolution designed to move in only one direction.

By the late 2000s, many experts had begun describing cloning less as a technological challenge and more as an exercise in developmental reprogramming. The focus shifted away from copying organisms toward understanding how cells establish identity in the first place. Researchers discovered that a skin cell remembers it is skin, a liver cell remembers it is liver, and a neuron remembers it is a neuron through extraordinarily complex biochemical networks extending far beyond DNA sequence alone. Rewriting those memories became one of the defining objectives of regenerative medicine, ultimately contributing to breakthroughs in induced pluripotent stem cells and tissue engineering. Ironically, these discoveries reinforced rather than weakened the conclusion that producing a cloned human safely remained vastly more complicated than early optimism had suggested.

Yet outside scientific circles, the public narrative evolved in an entirely different direction. Every authentic advance in cellular biology seemed to generate a fresh wave of speculation suggesting that laboratories had quietly solved problems they openly admitted were still under investigation. The gap between published science and popular interpretation widened year after year, fed by sensational headlines, misunderstood terminology and a growing appetite for hidden explanations whenever biotechnology advanced faster than ordinary people could comfortably follow. It was inside that widening gap—not inside laboratory freezers or classified government facilities—that the modern mythology surrounding human cloning truly began to take shape.

Beneath the Laboratory Floor: Where Biology Ends and Uncertainty Begins

The scientific community has never treated reproductive cloning as an isolated discipline. It has always existed at the intersection of embryology, genetics, developmental biology and bioethics, which partly explains why public discussions often drift away from the actual evidence. A breakthrough announced in one branch of biotechnology can easily appear revolutionary when removed from its original context, even though it may have little relevance to producing a viable cloned organism. This gradual blending of unrelated discoveries has shaped public perception for years, leaving many people with the impression that cloning research progresses in silence while only fragments of the story ever become visible.

One of the least appreciated aspects of cloning research is the extraordinary amount of information contained in failed experiments. Scientific journals often devote far more space to describing unsuccessful developmental outcomes than successful ones because understanding failure is essential for identifying the biological mechanisms involved. Embryos that stop dividing after only a few cellular divisions, pregnancies interrupted by placental abnormalities, or newborn animals displaying unexpected physiological defects have collectively become an enormous source of knowledge rather than merely discarded results. Ironically, the failures that rarely appear in mainstream headlines have contributed more to modern developmental biology than many of the celebrated successes.

Researchers eventually realized that an embryo is not simply reading genetic instructions from beginning to end like software executing code. Instead, countless molecular signals appear, disappear and interact according to a remarkably delicate sequence. Certain genes remain active for only a matter of hours before permanently switching off, while others activate only if dozens of preceding biochemical conditions have been satisfied with astonishing precision. Even minor disturbances occurring during these earliest developmental stages can alter the entire trajectory of an organism without changing a single letter of its DNA sequence. The deeper scientists investigated these processes, the more obvious it became that life depends as much upon timing as upon genetics.

This complexity also explains why cloning continues attracting attention despite producing relatively modest practical achievements. Unlike many scientific fields where progress follows a visible upward curve, cloning has advanced through repeated cycles of optimism followed by biological reality. Every technical improvement has undoubtedly expanded scientific understanding, yet each improvement has also exposed another layer of developmental complexity that researchers had not previously anticipated. In many respects, the science has become increasingly sophisticated while simultaneously revealing how incomplete our understanding still remains.

During the last two decades, advances in genome sequencing have dramatically changed the landscape surrounding cloning without directly solving its central challenge. Scientists can now identify inherited mutations with extraordinary precision, modify specific DNA sequences using gene-editing technologies, and generate patient-derived stem cells capable of developing into multiple tissue types. These accomplishments represent genuine milestones in biomedical research, but they address different biological questions. Editing a gene is fundamentally different from recreating the intricate choreography required to transform a single adult cell into an entirely new human organism capable of developing normally from conception to birth.

That distinction rarely survives the journey from laboratory publication to social media. Scientific terminology is often compressed into simplified headlines that unintentionally erase crucial differences between cloning, genetic engineering, stem-cell research and synthetic embryo models. Within days, discussions that originally concerned cellular reprogramming may evolve into claims suggesting that scientists have quietly crossed ethical boundaries they never actually approached. The result is not necessarily deliberate misinformation but a gradual accumulation of misconceptions that become increasingly difficult to separate from legitimate scientific progress.

Institutional confidentiality has contributed to this confusion in ways that deserve careful examination. Biomedical research involving commercially valuable discoveries is frequently protected by intellectual property agreements, patent applications and competitive funding arrangements. Universities, pharmaceutical companies and private laboratories routinely postpone public disclosure until studies have completed peer review or legal protections have been secured. These practices are entirely ordinary within modern science, yet they can appear suspicious to outside observers unfamiliar with how research is conducted. In an environment already saturated with speculation, ordinary confidentiality is sometimes interpreted as evidence that something much larger remains deliberately hidden.

Perhaps the most unsettling aspect of the entire subject is not what scientists claim to know, but what they openly acknowledge they still do not understand. Developmental biology has answered thousands of questions over the past three decades while simultaneously uncovering thousands more. Every layer removed from the earliest stages of human development reveals additional regulatory systems operating with extraordinary precision. Far from making the field simpler, progress has repeatedly demonstrated that life emerges through an interconnected network of molecular events whose complexity exceeds many earlier assumptions. It is precisely within those unanswered questions that imagination begins to thrive, especially when genuine scientific uncertainty leaves enough space for darker interpretations to take root.

By the time cloning entered popular culture, it had already become something larger than a laboratory technique. It had evolved into a symbol—one representing humanity’s growing ability to interfere with the foundations of life itself. Once a scientific subject reaches that point, evidence alone rarely controls the conversation anymore. Fear, expectation, misunderstanding and fascination begin competing with documented research, each filling the silence left behind by questions that biology has not yet answered. That silence would eventually become one of the most powerful forces shaping everything that followed.

The silence surrounding cloning research has never been completely empty. It has been filled instead with regulatory reports, ethics committee recommendations, unpublished doctoral work, laboratory notebooks, patent applications and thousands of scientific papers that rarely receive attention outside academic circles. Most of these documents tell an ordinary story of incremental progress, failed hypotheses and methodological refinement. Yet when viewed collectively, they reveal something far more significant than any individual experiment ever could: humanity has spent decades learning how to manipulate the earliest stages of life without ever fully understanding why those stages remain so remarkably resistant to manipulation.

By the early 2010s, another transformation quietly reshaped the conversation. The focus shifted away from cloning entire organisms toward mastering the biological language that allows cells to change identity. Researchers discovered increasingly sophisticated methods for converting ordinary adult cells into pluripotent stem cells capable of developing into almost any tissue within the human body. Unlike reproductive cloning, these techniques offered immediate medical applications, ranging from disease modeling to regenerative therapies. The scientific community celebrated these achievements because they opened realistic therapeutic possibilities without requiring the creation of cloned human beings, yet they also demonstrated something profoundly important. Cellular identity was not as permanent as biology had once assumed.

As laboratories expanded their ability to influence cellular behavior, a parallel industry emerged almost unnoticed by the broader public. Around the world, private biobanks began storing millions of biological samples ranging from blood and skin tissue to stem cells preserved immediately after childbirth. Their stated objectives were straightforward: future medical treatments, personalized regenerative medicine and long-term biological preservation. None of these services involved reproductive cloning, nor did they claim to. Nevertheless, the existence of enormous repositories containing living human cells introduced an unsettling realization. Never before in history had so much genetic material been deliberately archived, catalogued and preserved for decades under carefully controlled conditions.

The growth of these repositories reflected genuine scientific optimism rather than hidden agendas. Physicians increasingly recognized that preserving genetically healthy cells during youth could one day support therapies impossible with aged tissues. Parents chose to store umbilical cord stem cells in the hope that future medicine might treat diseases currently considered irreversible. Wealthy individuals funded personalized cell banking programs as a form of biological insurance against illnesses that science had yet to solve. Viewed independently, each decision appeared rational. Viewed collectively, they represented something unprecedented: humanity had begun preserving pieces of itself on an industrial scale.

At the same time, advances in artificial intelligence quietly entered developmental biology with almost no public attention. Machine learning systems became capable of analyzing microscopic embryonic development frame by frame, identifying patterns too subtle for human observers to recognize consistently. Fertility clinics adopted algorithms capable of estimating embryo viability based upon thousands of morphological variables invisible to the naked eye. These systems did not create embryos. They simply interpreted biological information with increasing precision. Yet their emergence highlighted a broader trend that extended well beyond reproductive medicine. Biology itself was gradually becoming a field dominated not only by microscopes and laboratory benches, but also by computational models capable of detecting relationships previously hidden within enormous datasets.

For developmental biologists, this represented extraordinary progress. For everyone else, it subtly altered the psychological landscape surrounding cloning. Questions that once sounded impossible slowly transformed into questions that appeared merely premature. If computers could predict embryonic development with increasing accuracy, if adult cells could regain embryonic characteristics, if damaged tissues could be regenerated from a patient’s own cells, then the boundary separating accepted science from speculative possibility inevitably seemed narrower than it had a generation earlier. The facts themselves remained unchanged. Public perception did not.

History repeatedly demonstrates that technological revolutions rarely announce themselves with dramatic moments recognizable in real time. Electricity, aviation, computing and the internet each emerged through decades of gradual refinement rather than singular discoveries. Biotechnology appears to be following the same pattern. Individual breakthroughs often seem modest until viewed retrospectively as interconnected pieces of a much larger transformation. Cloning research occupies a peculiar place within that transformation because it sits adjacent to nearly every major advance without necessarily driving them. It remains both central and peripheral, influential without becoming commonplace, scientifically invaluable while remaining politically radioactive.

This unusual position has produced an unintended consequence. Every genuine discovery occurring nearby tends to cast a shadow over cloning itself. A paper describing synthetic embryo models becomes evidence, in some corners of the internet, that scientists have already abandoned conventional reproduction. A breakthrough in organoid development becomes proof that complete artificial organisms must exist somewhere beyond public scrutiny. Improvements in gene editing become interpreted as the missing ingredient required for successful human cloning. None of these conclusions follow from the published evidence, yet each reflects a broader pattern in which fragmented scientific knowledge becomes reorganized into narratives far more dramatic than the underlying research supports.

That transformation is not driven solely by sensationalism. It also reflects a growing unease surrounding the relationship between scientific capability and institutional transparency. Modern biomedical research increasingly involves multinational collaborations, private investment funds, biotechnology corporations and government agencies operating across legal jurisdictions that differ substantially in regulatory oversight. What remains prohibited in one country may become permissible elsewhere under entirely different legal frameworks. Ethical consensus exists in principle, but implementation varies considerably depending upon political priorities, cultural values and economic incentives. The result is a scientific landscape that appears increasingly fragmented to outside observers, encouraging the perception that meaningful developments could occur beyond the reach of international scrutiny even when no evidence suggests they have.

Perhaps the most enduring misconception surrounding cloning is the belief that it represents the ultimate objective of biotechnology. In reality, cloning has gradually become something closer to a by-product of a much larger scientific revolution. The real objective has always been understanding how life organizes itself at the cellular level, how damaged tissues regenerate, how genetic diseases develop and how aging might eventually be slowed or partially reversed. Cloning contributed enormously to those questions, not because it promised armies of genetically identical humans, but because every failed embryo revealed another fragment of biology’s operating manual. The scientific value lay less in creating copies than in exposing the astonishing complexity required to create even one unique individual.

Yet complexity has never prevented speculation from flourishing. If anything, it has encouraged it. The more intricate the science becomes, the fewer people possess the expertise necessary to distinguish documented evidence from persuasive fiction. Into that gap flows everything from honest misunderstanding to elaborate narratives that transform ordinary laboratory procedures into symbols of concealed ambition. By now, the mythology surrounding cloning has grown so extensive that separating cultural imagination from biological reality has become almost as challenging as the science itself.

And perhaps that is the most uncomfortable observation of all. Technologies do not acquire reputations independently. They inherit them from the societies that create them. Cloning became frightening long before it became technically plausible because it touched something deeper than genetics. It challenged the assumption that birth is an event beyond deliberate design. Once that psychological boundary had been crossed, every subsequent discovery—no matter how unrelated—began accumulating within the same collective memory. The laboratory continued producing data. The public continued producing stories. Somewhere between those two worlds, the idea of human cloning evolved into something that no microscope could ever fully examine: a symbol powerful enough to reshape perception even in the absence of proof. The final chapter of that transformation would no longer be driven by biology alone, but by the far more unpredictable forces of economics, geopolitics and the growing realization that the most valuable resource of the twenty-first century may not be oil, data or artificial intelligence—but human biology itself.

The post Behind Closed Laboratory Doors the Search for a Genetic Copy Never Truly Ended appeared first on Activist Post.

The FBI intervened to prevent U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents from questioning “virus hunter” Peter Daszak, Ph.D., on a return trip from Wuhan, China, according to documents released this week by Sen. Rand Paul. Three days before Daszak was scheduled to arrive in New York, a CBP Joint Terrorism Task Force liaison wrote, “Please be advised FBI New York requested we do not stop the subject.”

The FBI intervened to prevent U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents from questioning “virus hunter” Peter Daszak, Ph.D., on a return trip from Wuhan, China, according to documents released this week by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

The documents show that in February 2021, Daszak, a key ally to Dr. Anthony Fauci and then-president of the EcoHealth Alliance, traveled to Wuhan as part of a World Health Organization (WHO) investigation into the origins of COVID-19.

CBP planned to stop and question Daszak on his return to the U.S. that month. But in an email dated Feb. 2, 2021 — three days before Daszak was scheduled to arrive in New York — a CBP Joint Terrorism Task Force liaison wrote, “Please be advised FBI New York requested we do not stop the subject.”

The CBP Tactical Terrorism Response Team was prepared to question Daszak about the business he conducted in China, his contacts at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and whether he collected or was carrying any samples of viruses or other pathogens.

One document states that CBP viewed Daszak as “an extremely high person of interest” due to his longstanding ties with the Wuhan laboratory.

A Jan. 11, 2021, CBP email flagged Daszak’s participation in the WHO’s team investigating the pandemic’s origins in Wuhan as a potential “conflict of interest.”

A Feb. 2, 2021, email noted that much of the funding Daszak was receiving was “put toward gain of function research.”

Notably, a U.S. Department of Homeland Security email contained within the documents, which provided background information on Daszak’s research activity, referenced an article The Defender published in January 2021.

Paul released the documents as part of his ongoing congressional investigation into the origins of COVID-19. In a post on X earlier this week, he said the documents challenge the narrative that a lab leak was implausible.

“The American people can finally judge the evidence for themselves,” Paul wrote.

Speaking to The National Desk on Tuesday, Paul said the documents showed that figures in the federal government “wanted to protect” the narrative that COVID-19 originated in, and escaped from, a lab, so they “used whatever means necessary to do it.”

“It’s no surprise that they would use the law enforcement enterprise to achieve that,” Paul said.

Jeffrey Tucker, president and founder of the Brownstone Institute, said the documents confirm the “worst versions of what we’ve suspected” and provide “more empirical evidence than ever” of a concerted effort by figures in the federal government to conceal a lab leak in Wuhan.

“There was a high-level plan to protect the virus creators as part of a longer-term
scheme to deploy both pathogens and countermeasures, likely for the purpose of political manipulation, as incredible as that sounds,” Tucker said.

NIH asked Daszak to bring SARS-CoV-2 specimen to the U.S.

The documents contained evidence that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) asked Daszak to obtain the original type specimen of SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, and bring it to the U.S.

According to those who believe COVID-19 leaked from a lab, the virus was likely produced through gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab, and later escaped.

Gain-of-function research increases the virulence or transmissibility of viruses and is often used in vaccine development.

Fox News reported that Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance had collaborated with the Wuhan lab for over 15 years, including with the lab’s lead researcher, Shi Zhengli, Ph.D., widely known as the “bat lady.”

Daszak was also principal investigator on NIH grants that funded bat coronavirus research at the Wuhan lab.

The documents were released just days before Fauci is set to testify before the U.S. Congress on July 29, as part of Paul’s investigation.

The document release also came a month after two NIH researchers with ties to Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance were arrested and charged with smuggling mpox samples into the U.S.

Documents Paul released last month revealed that Fauci received a U.S. intelligence report in August 2021 suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 was developed in Chinese and U.S. labs as a bat vaccine, that it later leaked from the Wuhan lab and that it contained characteristics that would make it resistant to mRNA vaccines.

In May, a CIA whistleblower testified before Congress that Fauci led a multi-agency cover-up of COVID-19’s origins and that “Dr. Fauci’s role in the cover-up was intentional.”

In 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) suspended all funding for EcoHealth Alliance after finding the organization failed to monitor risky coronavirus experiments.

Last year, Daszak became president of Nature.Health.Global — a nonprofit organization that performs research on public health and pandemic prevention. The group employs Dr. David Morens, a former top aide to Fauci.

In April, a federal grand jury indicted Morens on charges related to conspiracy to hide federal records on COVID-19’s origins.

Related articles in The Defender

• Rand Paul Issues Subpoena Forcing Fauci to Testify Under Oath
• Virologist Linked to Fauci Under FBI Investigation for Smuggling Dangerous Pathogens Into U.S.
• Smoking Gun? Documents Suggest Fauci Knew COVID Was Created in Wuhan Lab, and mRNA Vaccines Wouldn’t Work
• CIA Whistleblower: Fauci Led Multi-Agency Cover-Up of COVID Lab Leak Evidence
• ‘Profound Abuse of Trust’: Former Fauci Aide Indicted for Conspiracy to Hide Government Records on COVID Origins
• ‘For Safety of Citizens Worldwide’: HHS Suspends Government Funding for EcoHealth Alliance

The post FBI Pressured U.S. Customs to Ditch Plan to Question Key Fauci Ally on Return Trip From Wuhan appeared first on Activist Post.