Freddie Ponton
21st Century Wire

On the African side of the Strait of Gibraltar, a narrow border separates Morocco from a piece of Spain. On the night of July 29, that border gave way. Tens of thousands of young men surged into Ceuta by land and sea, following online claims that the crossing had been opened. By morning, bodies were being pulled from the water and collected from the fence.

It looked like chaos, but it did not come without warning. For years, Israeli and American political figures had threatened Spain over Gaza, questioned its sovereignty in North Africa and presented Ceuta as a pressure point. Months before the crossing, a former Pentagon adviser published the method almost exactly as it later unfolded, calling on Morocco to send an unarmed mass march into the city while NATO stood aside.

This investigation follows the trail that preceded the crowd, through Israeli threats, Washington pressure, Moroccan lobbying, military agreements and a digital mobilisation that delivered tens of thousands of people to one of Spain’s most exposed borders. The fence gave way only after powerful interests had spent years explaining exactly what Spain’s loss of control over Ceuta could achieve.

On the night of July 29, 2026, an estimated 70,000 people, mostly young men, crossed from Morocco into the Spanish city of Ceuta in under forty-eight hours. At least 88 people died at the border fence, and in the water; a toll Spanish authorities and news organisations repeatedly revised upwards in the days that followed. Morocco’s Interior Ministry put the figure at 11, while the Moroccan Association for Human Rights (AMDH) estimated that nearly 130 people had died. More than a thousand required medical treatment, yet days later there was still no agreed account of how many lives the crossing had taken.

Moroccan police were present along the route in visible numbers. Videos circulating within hours showed officers watching the crowds pass and, in some cases, appearing to direct people towards crossing points rather than stopping them. By the weekend, testimony published by international news organisations had made those images harder to dismiss. Several people who reached Ceuta said Moroccan officers had told them, “Go that way” or “Come to Spain.” The force capable of stopping the movement was not absent. It was there, along the route, as tens of thousands advanced towards the border. That shifts the investigation away from how Morocco lost control of the crossing and towards the evidence that, for the crucial hours in which it gathered momentum, control was deliberately withheld.

Within a day, Spain’s government said the situation had almost entirely reversed, with most of the crowd returning voluntarily to Morocco. According to Spanish Government Delegate in Ceuta Miguel Ángel Pérez Triano on 3 August 2026, approximately 2,500 irregular migrants remained in the city,  a number that, based on Interior Ministry data, exceeded Ceuta’s capacity to care for them.

The Spanish Interior Ministry credited Moroccan authorities with cooperating “faithfully and permanently” and with preventing the arrival of even larger numbers. Morocco’s embassy in Madrid called the cooperation “exemplary.” Unnamed Moroccan diplomatic sources told Euronews the same week that the assistance on the ground had actually been “limited and insufficient to contain the pressure.” Both accounts referred to the same forty-eight hours, but they point in different directions.

Washington did not direct its criticism at Rabat. Statements from American officials and allied commentators in the days that followed focused instead on Madrid, particularly Pedro Sánchez’s positions on Gaza, Spain’s refusal to allow the United States to use its air bases during the Iran campaign, and the government’s broader posture towards Israel. The US State Department raised its travel advisory for Ceuta, while American commentary presented the crisis as the consequence of Spain’s failure to secure its borders. Morocco, whose government controlled the frontier through which the crowds passed, faced no equivalent public criticism from Washington. Nor did it face any from Jerusalem. Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, used the crisis to describe Ceuta and Melilla as “colonial enclaves” that Spain should explain before lecturing anyone else. Spain’s transport minister, Óscar Puente, replied: “Well, things are starting to get pretty clear.”

The response did more than spare Morocco scrutiny. It redirected responsibility towards Spain and placed the crisis inside arguments Washington and Jerusalem had already been making against Sánchez for months. The crossing had lasted less than forty-eight hours, but the political case used to explain it had been assembled long before the first crowds reached Ceuta.

A border settled by treaty, not by conquest

Ceuta’s status is not ambiguous. Portugal took the city in 1415, and Spain acquired sovereignty under the Treaty of Lisbon in 1668. In 1860, the Moroccan Sultanate signed the Treaty of Wad-Ras, fixing Ceuta’s modern boundaries and formally recognising Spanish sovereignty over the territory. The independent Kingdom of Morocco did not emerge until 1956, nearly a century after the Sultanate had signed that recognition and more than five hundred years after Ceuta first passed into European hands.

The present Moroccan claim therefore does not arise from an unresolved act of decolonisation. It asks that a sovereignty recognised by Morocco’s own predecessor state be treated as though that recognition never occurred. Calling Ceuta a “colonial enclave” therefore does not resolve that contradiction. In fact, it conceals it

A threat made seven years in advance

On May 25, 2019, Yair Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister’s son, posted a map of Spain’s North African holdings, Ceuta, Melilla, and the Alborán Sea islands, captioned: “Dear Arabs and Muslims. Want to free occupied Arab Islamic lands? Here’s a good start.”

When Spanish users responded, he made the trade explicit, suggesting that Israel would stop funding NGOs calling for Spain to relinquish Ceuta and Melilla if Spain stopped funding NGOs calling for Israel to relinquish Judea and Samaria. The Times of Israel later described the exchange as a direct linkage between Palestinian advocacy, NGO funding and the transfer of Ceuta and Melilla to Morocco. That exchange took place seven years before Moroccans crossed into Ceuta by the tens of thousands.

The same argument later came from someone who did hold office. In September 2025, after Spain barred Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich from entering the country over their positions on Gaza, Ben Gvir publicly told Spain to “give the people from Gaza free entry.” Ten months later, as tens of thousands were crossing into Ceuta, he posted in Spanish to congratulate Sánchez on his “deep commitment to welcoming immigration and human diversity.” He then made the demand explicit: “As someone who shows great concern for Hamas and the residents of Gaza, I call on you to translate words into actions: open the doors of Spain and grant refuge to the residents of Gaza.”

By then, migration was no longer being invoked as a hypothetical answer to Spanish policy. Ben Gvir was using a real mass crossing into Spanish territory to repeat a punishment he had prescribed ten months earlier. Ceuta had become the setting in which years of Israeli rhetoric linking Spain’s territorial integrity, its support for Palestine and the movement of displaced people were brought together in a single political message.

Nine days after Rubin’s second op-ed, a Moroccan journalist writing in the Israeli outlet Ynet, Amine Ayoub, argued that Israel should reward Morocco for the Abraham Accords and punish Spain for its position on Palestine, using Ceuta and Melilla as the mechanism. The piece leaned directly on Rubin’s framing.

The campaign that came before the crowd

On March 12, 2026, Michael Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Middle East Forum, published an op-ed arguing that Ceuta and Melilla were occupied Moroccan territory and that Spain, as a colonial power, had no standing to criticise Israel. Four days later, on March 16, Rubin published a second piece proposing that Morocco organise a new Green March, invoking the name of its 1975 mass civilian crossing into Western Sahara. This time, the proposal was specific. Unarmed Moroccan civilians would advance on Ceuta and Melilla with bulldozers, breach the border fences and raise the Moroccan flag. Rubin argued that NATO’s mutual-defence clause would not apply because the enclaves lie outside Europe and North America.

In four days, the argument had moved from stripping Spain of legitimacy to setting out a method for breaking its border. The proposed instrument was not the Moroccan military, but a mass civilian movement directed at the fences under the assumption that Spain would be left to confront it alone. Four months later, tens of thousands of civilians moved towards Ceuta, Moroccan security controls gave way, and Spain faced precisely the dilemma Rubin’s proposal had anticipated.

Spanish newspapers picked up the articles within days and placed them within a broader Washington current favourable to Morocco, identifying the Middle East Forum, the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute and the Moroccan American Center for Policy. The latter is funded by the Kingdom of Morocco, and Spanish reporting described it as financing reports, events and opinion pieces that reinforced Rabat’s case against Spain.

On April 3, three weeks after Rubin’s second article, Representative Mario Díaz-Balart, then chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee overseeing State Department funding, told El Español that Ceuta and Melilla “are not in the geographic territory of Spain” but “in the territory of Morocco,” and that their status should be negotiated between allies. On April 30, his subcommittee filed its formal report on the 2027 State Department appropriations bill. Under the heading “Morocco,” it states that “the Spanish-administered cities of Ceuta and Melilla are located in Moroccan territory” and encourages the Secretary of State to promote diplomatic engagement between Morocco and Spain over their future status. The language does not appear in H.R. 8595, the bill passed by the House, and the committee report carries no legal force. Its significance lies elsewhere.

Within seven weeks of Rubin calling Ceuta and Melilla occupied Moroccan territory, the same territorial premise had travelled from Washington commentary into an official congressional document. Morocco’s claim had not become US law, but it had acquired a foothold inside the machinery that shapes US foreign policy.

Díaz-Balart’s connection to this machinery extended into his own family. His brother, former congressman Lincoln Díaz-Balart, ran Western Hemisphere Strategies (WHS), which received roughly $1.2 million between 2012 and 2017 from the Moroccan American Centre for Policy (MACP) to “positively affect relations between Morocco and the United States.” The firm was retained at $20,000 a month to advise and advocate before Congress and the executive branch in support of stronger US–Moroccan relations. Its contract expressly prohibited WHS from lobbying Representative Mario Díaz-Balart or his staff, acknowledging in writing the conflict that the restriction was intended to contain.

Mario Díaz-Balart’s office has denied that any lobbying contact with his brother took place, and his support for Morocco’s territorial positions dates back to at least 2011, before the contract. What the filing establishes is that a Moroccan-funded advocacy organisation paid his brother’s firm to influence US policy while formally placing Díaz-Balart’s congressional office behind a contractual firewall. Years later, it was Díaz-Balart’s subcommittee that inserted Morocco’s claim over Ceuta and Melilla into an official congressional report.

The House passed the broader appropriations bill on July 15, eleven weeks after the report language was filed. The mass crossing into Ceuta began fifteen days later. On July 31, Al Jazeera’s opinion desk asked whether Spain was being punished, noting that pro-Israel voices had “conspicuously raised the issue of the enclave” in the months before the crossing and citing Rubin’s articles directly. Spanish, English and Arabic-language outlets subsequently reconstructed the same chronology, from Yair Netanyahu’s 2019 map and Ben Gvir’s migration rhetoric to Rubin’s March 2026 articles, Díaz-Balart’s report language and the Israel–Morocco defence relationship already in place.

None of this emerged after the crossing. Before the first crowds reached Ceuta, Spain’s sovereignty had been challenged, a civilian march against its border had been proposed and Morocco’s territorial claim had entered an official congressional report. When the crossing came, Washington and Jerusalem turned their criticism on Madrid while leaving Rabat largely untouched. The pressure was already there. The crossing gave it force.

The pressure campaign was never just two men

The proposal to replace Spain with Morocco as Washington’s military partner was already in circulation. In June 2025, retired General Robert Greenway, a former Trump national security adviser and head of the Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center, wrote on X that it was “time to relocate NAS Rota and Morón Air Base… to Morocco.” By April 2026, the argument had moved closer to government. After Spain refused to support the Iran campaign, the late Senator Lindsey Graham called for the removal of American bases from Spain to a country willing to permit their use. José Lev Álvarez, a Middle East Forum writer and former Israeli army officer, argued that the Israel–Morocco security relationship had created “a new reality” that the White House could use as leverage against Madrid. On April 24, Reuters reported that an internal Pentagon email had listed possible measures against allies that resisted the Iran campaign, including suspending Spain from NATO.

This was no longer pressure on Sánchez alone. Spain was being told that its bases could be moved, its place in NATO reconsidered and its strategic role handed to Morocco. At the same time that Washington figures were giving Rabat’s claim over Ceuta a foothold in Congress, they were laying out how Spain itself could be displaced on the other side of the Strait.

No direct Moroccan payment to Rubin, the Middle East Forum or the American Enterprise Institute appears in the public records examined for this investigation. Their available tax filings do not identify the Moroccan government or the Moroccan American Center for Policy among their disclosed sources of funding. Rubin’s articles cannot therefore be traced to a commission from Rabat. They emerged from a pro-Israel political platform that had already found its own reason to advance Morocco’s claim against Spain.

Morocco was, however, paying for representation elsewhere in Washington. Its previous arrangement with Brownstein Hyatt had gone dormant in October 2025, and a new $780,000 contract took effect on March 13, 2026, within days of Rubin’s articles. Brownstein was retained at $65,000 a month to provide government-relations and public-affairs services connecting the Moroccan embassy with the US government. The next filing covering its work during the months leading to the crossing had not been published when this investigation was completed. Rubin, meanwhile, continued writing after the crossing, again calling on Washington to recognise Moroccan sovereignty over Ceuta and Melilla and punish Spain for its positions on Gaza and Iran.

The political use of Morocco’s claim was already being proposed openly in Israeli media. Citing an analysis published by Ynet, Diario Socialista reported in late April that Israel could use its influence in Washington to help Morocco press its claims over Ceuta and Melilla. The proposed return was explicit. Morocco would be rewarded for its alignment with Israel, while Spain would be punished for its positions on Iran, Palestine and NATO. The argument relied in part on Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty, whose geographical language does not expressly place Ceuta and Melilla under the alliance’s collective-defence guarantee.

This was the same bargain taking shape elsewhere. Díaz-Balart was introducing Morocco’s territorial premise into Congress, Israel and Morocco had signed a joint military work plan, and Washington commentators were presenting Rabat as the partner through which Spain could be pressured or replaced. In each case, Ceuta offered the same thing—a way to put pressure on Spain without confronting it directly.

Nine days after Díaz-Balart’s April 3 interview with El Espanõl, on April 9, Netanyahu’s government expelled Spain’s access to the Kiryat Gat facility, in the U.S.-led Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC), and said Spain would “pay an immediate price” for its Gaza positions. But Sánchez did not retreat one inch, and in May, he called for the European Union to terminate its Association Agreement with Israel entirely.

The architecture that already existed

Morocco entered 2026 with an established military relationship with Israel. In 2021, Israeli defence minister Benny Gantz and his Moroccan counterpart, Abdellatif Loudiyi, signed a memorandum of understanding covering intelligence cooperation, military procurement, training and joint exercises. In January 2026, the two countries held the third meeting of their Joint Military Committee in Tel Aviv and signed an annual work plan.

By early 2026, that relationship had produced operational military infrastructure on Moroccan soil. Israel Aerospace Industries’ Barak MX air-defence system, acquired under a deal worth approximately $500 million, had entered service. Defence reporting based on satellite imagery, including Raksha Anirveda and Infodefensa, placed the system at a newly constructed base near Sidi Yahya el Gharb in northwestern Morocco. Deliveries had begun in 2023, and by 2026 the system formed part of a layered Moroccan air-defence network.

Morocco was equally embedded in Washington’s regional security system. The United States designated it a major non-NATO ally in 2004, provides military financing and maintains extensive arms and training programmes with Rabat. Morocco also hosts the annual US-led African Lion, the largest military exercise in Africa.

When Moroccan controls on the route to Ceuta gave way on July 29, the military and intelligence channels linking Rabat with Tel Aviv and Washington were already active. The next part of the investigation is whether those channels carried anything beyond routine defence cooperation in the days before the crossing.

The ruling that opened a door, and the campaign that walked through it

Spain’s Supreme Court gave the crossing its mechanism. In Judgment 814/2026, published July 8, it ruled that summary “hot returns” could not be used against migrants intercepted swimming toward Ceuta or Melilla, only against those caught scaling the fence. Spain’s Interior Ministry said smugglers and rumor networks exploited that sea-land distinction directly, and most coverage has treated the ruling as the proximate trigger.

Translation from Spanish to English: “IV. Accordingly, the question raised in the order admitting the appeal must be answered as follows: the Tenth Additional Provision of the Immigration Law cannot be applied to persons intercepted at sea while attempting to swim into the cities of Ceuta and Melilla; consequently, such persons must not be subjected to the border-rejection procedure, but rather to the return procedure.”

The ruling explains how a crossing on this scale became possible, but not why the border was opened at that particular moment. By then, a coordinated social media campaign was already in place, Morocco had recalled its ambassador, and six months of pressure had drawn Ceuta’s sovereignty into Spain’s positions on Iran, Gaza and NATO.

The crowd that gathered online

The people who crossed were overwhelmingly young men, rather than the mixed population of families typically associated with migration crises. Many had responded to false social-media and WhatsApp claims that Spain had opened the border, amplified through public Facebook groups including Hraga Ceuta and Haraga_ceuta. The mobilisation began online, not at the border. Meta subsequently shut down five Facebook groups with more than 230,000 members between them, where users exchanged routes, equipment information, telephone numbers and other logistical details. Before the mass crossing, CeutaTV documented Hraga Ceuta, then numbering more than 20,000 members, sharing Google Maps measurements around the Tarajal breakwater, advertisements for diving fins, information about sea conditions and requests for companions with whom to attempt the crossing. Brussels Signal independently documented the same material, including swimming distances, wetsuits, diving fins, taxi routes to the frontier and the false claim that the border had opened.

By the time the first swimmers reached the water, the rumour had already done its work. Thousands had been given the same message, shown the same routes and told what equipment they would need. What followed at the border had been gathering for days in plain sight online. The question is no longer simply how the crossing spread, but why the conditions described online coincided so closely with those encountered at the border.

At least 2 viral videos showing crowds at the border were confirmed to predate the actual crossing by several weeks, with two separate detection tools rating it 81 to 87 percent likely AI-generated; Yahoo and Firstpost both reported that verification.

Independent observers moved in the same direction. Riccardo Fabiani of the International Crisis Group said the evidence pointed to some form of Moroccan official role meant to send a message, and did not exclude an effort to curry favor with the United States after weeks of pressure from pro-Israel and American right-wing voices over Ceuta. That is not proof of outside operational control, but it is an external judgment that the crossing looked political, not merely chaotic.

This was not the first time Rabat had used migration pressure as diplomatic leverage. During a May 2021 dispute triggered by Spain’s decision to admit Polisario Front leader Brahim Ghali for medical treatment, Moroccan authorities appeared to relax border controls, allowing roughly 8,000 people to enter Ceuta over two days. After the crossing began and Madrid summoned Morocco’s ambassador to protest, Rabat recalled Ambassador Karima Benyaich for consultations. Al Jazeera’s 2026 analysis invoked that episode as the precedent for interpreting the July 2026 crossing as another possible attempt to pressure Spain. That episode echoed May 2021, when Reuters and others reported that Moroccan authorities had previously eased controls during a diplomatic rupture, widely read as retaliation over Spain’s decision to let the Western Sahara independence movement’s ailing leader receive hospital treatment on Spanish soil.

Both Le Monde and The Guardian raised the possibility that Rabat loosened its controls to register displeasure at Sánchez’s visit to Algeria, Morocco’s principal regional rival. The visit restored high-level political ties and sought additional Algerian gas through Medgaz, the direct undersea pipeline to Spain that bypasses Morocco. The grievance, then, was not lost transit revenue but Madrid’s renewed strategic partnership with Algiers

VIDEO: RTVE documented the May 2021 crossing at Tarajal.(Source: RTVE Noticias)

Moroccan lawmaker Lahcen Haddad denied that Rabat had engineered the Ceuta crossing, but she is totally missing the point. Direct orchestration was not necessary, as Morocco could exert pressure simply by suspending the border controls it normally enforced. Spain’s renewed ties with Algeria certainly added to the political grievances behind that pressure, even though Algerian gas reached Spain through a pipeline that totally bypassed Morocco, making her argument very narrow.

To resume, we have identified two border openings, five years apart, followed by Spanish decisions Rabat opposed, and in both cases, Morocco withheld the enforcement it routinely used to stop departures, turning migration into an instrument of state pressure against Madrid.

Israel publicly maintained its distance from Morocco’s territorial claims. In late April, its ambassador in Madrid, Dana Erlich, said that her government was “not thinking about” supporting Rabat’s claims to Ceuta and Melilla, calling the issue irrelevant to Israel’s immediate priorities. The denial was narrowly framed around the government’s position at that moment and did not address the wider political and military alignment between Israel and Morocco. When Danny Danon subsequently described the cities as “colonial enclaves,” Israel could portray his intervention as the personal position of a politician with a long record of challenging Netanyahu. Netanyahu fired Danon as deputy defence minister in 2014 after he publicly criticized the government’s Gaza strategy, and Danon challenged Netanyahu for the Likud leadership in 2007 and 2014.

Yet distancing the government from Danon’s wording does not answer the central issue raised by this investigation. His intervention amplified a campaign already being advanced by Morocco’s advocates in Washington and unfolded alongside deepening Israeli–Moroccan military cooperation, allowing Israel to deny a formal policy while one of its most prominent diplomats reinforced the same pressure on Spain

The strait nobody wanted to talk about

Ceuta sits beside the Strait of Gibraltar, a corridor Washington has treated as a strategic artery for decades. A declassified State Department record called Gibraltar “the most important strait in the world” and warned that Spanish resistance to free transit threatened the strategic mobility underpinning Western defence. A Justice Department-filed account of US–Gibraltar relations documents Gibraltar’s use by American ships during Desert Shield and Desert Storm, by reserve vessels refuelling en route to the Middle East, and by US attack submarines during the 2011 intervention in Libya.

American strategic writing has likewise identified Gibraltar as a vital Mediterranean port for US nuclear-powered submarines, arguing that British control protects Washington’s access from the political restrictions Spanish sovereignty could impose. Ceuta lies on the opposite shore of that same passage.

Its sovereignty is therefore not a peripheral dispute at Europe’s southern edge, but part of the political geography surrounding a corridor central to American military movement between the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Pressure on Ceuta cannot be separated from the strategic waterway beside it, or from the interests of the powers that depend on keeping it open.

That warning became reality in March 2026, when Spain denied Washington the use of Rota and Morón for operations against Iran and later closed its airspace to participating US aircraft, forcing them to bypass Spanish territory. On April 16, more than three months before the Ceuta crossing, US ambassador Mike Waltz told the United Nations that Gibraltar, Hormuz, the Bering Strait and Malacca were international waterways “too vital to be choked, to be mined, to be weaponized and held hostage.” By mid-July, Iran had asked the Houthis to prepare to close Bab el-Mandeb, where missiles and drones had already been deployed, while traffic through Hormuz remained severely restricted. Gibraltar had therefore become more valuable at precisely the moment Madrid demonstrated that American access through Spain could no longer be taken for granted.

A border that belongs to more than Spain

If Ceuta were threatened militarily, Spain would defend it as sovereign territory. The legal and strategic reality, however, is more complicated. NATO’s founding treaty limits Article 5’s geographical scope to member territories in Europe and North America, Turkey and qualifying North Atlantic islands, leaving Ceuta and Melilla outside its explicit collective-defence guarantee. Any allied response would therefore depend on a political decision reached by consensus rather than an unambiguous treaty obligation. Rubin, Díaz-Balart, Ayoub and others built their arguments around that vulnerability opportunistically.

Consequently, Ceuta  offered a way to challenge Spanish sovereignty, strain Madrid’s military resources and expose divisions inside NATO without directly confronting continental Spain, whose collective defence was clearly guaranteed.

What the record shows

By July 30, the conditions for pressuring Spain over Gaza and Iran had been assembled for years, in public and by name. Yair Netanyahu proposed the trade in 2019. Ben Gvir rehearsed the use of migration as punishment in 2025 and repeated it during the crossing itself. Rubin then described the method that appeared on the ground, calling for an unarmed mass movement into Ceuta under the protection of NATO’s territorial ambiguity. Six weeks later, Díaz-Balart placed Morocco’s claim inside an official congressional report, while Lindsey Graham, Robert Greenway and a leaked Pentagon planning document carried the campaign from the think-tank circuit into the machinery of American power. Netanyahu’s government warned that Spain would pay an “immediate price,” as Israel and Morocco entered 2026 with a signed military work plan and an Israeli Barak MX air-defence battery deployed at Sidi Yahya, roughly 200 kilometres southwest of Ceuta.

Then the border opened, and Morocco controlled the gate, while Washington and Jerusalem had the surveillance capacity to see the crowd gathering, the strategic relationships to understand what Rabat was doing and every reason to recognise the pressure it placed on Madrid. Yet neither condemned Morocco. Their anger remained fixed on Spain, while Israeli officials used the crossing to repeat the same arguments about migration, Gaza and Moroccan sovereignty that had preceded it. The event followed the script too closely to be dismissed as an unrelated border failure. Spain had been threatened, the method published, and Morocco already possessed the lever and security architecture when the promised pressure arrived at the precise point where Spanish territory was most exposed.

Coordination does not always leave behind a signed order; in fact, States working through convergent interests rarely need one. What they need is a shared target, compatible motives, an available instrument and confidence that the others will not interfere. By July 2026, Washington, Jerusalem and Rabat had all four.

The crowd that entered Ceuta carried more than the momentum of the crossing. It was the physical expression of a pressure campaign that had already been written, promoted and carried into official policy before the first person reached the fence.

READ MORE EU NEWS AT: 21st CENTURY WIRE EU FILES

SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV

VISIT OUR TELEGRAM CHANNEL

The post THE CEUTA CROSSING: Anatomy of a Manufactured Crisis appeared first on Activist Post.

Study Findings on Sauna Health Benefits

Frequent sauna use is associated with reductions in all-cause mortality, stroke risk and dementia risk, according to multiple epidemiologic studies. Research published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Neurology and Age and Ageing has reported that men who used a sauna four to seven times per week had a 37% lower risk of all-cause mortality, a 61% lower risk of stroke and a 66% lower risk of dementia compared with those who used a sauna once per week, according to reports.

Dr. Jari Laukkanen, a Finnish cardiologist and researcher, told the Epoch Times that sauna bathing may trigger adaptive responses that improve cardiovascular, nervous, and immune system function. Sauna use has been linked to reductions in respiratory disease as well. One study cited in a book by James DiNicolantonio and Siim Land found that Finnish men who took two to three sauna sessions per week had a 27% lower incidence of respiratory infections, and those with four or more sessions per week had a 41% lower incidence ^[1].

Longevity and Cardiovascular Mechanisms

The cardiovascular effects of sauna use appear to mimic some of the benefits of moderate exercise. According to a review published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, frequent sauna bathing is associated with lower blood pressure and improved left ventricular function. A single session can raise heart rate to approximately 150 beats per minute and increase cardiac output by 60% to 70% – similar to the effect of moderate-intensity physical activity, as noted in reports by Mercola.com ^[2].

Laukkanen said that improved vascular function and reduced systemic inflammation may contribute to lower cardiovascular risk. He explained that heat exposure acts as a mild stressor that triggers adaptive responses, including widening of blood vessels, increased circulation, and activation of anti-inflammatory cascades. These hormonal effects are detailed in the book “The Immunity Fix,” which notes that fluctuating temperatures, such as those encountered in sauna bathing, can facilitate improvements in immune function and stress resilience ^[1].

Brain Health and Depression Outcomes

Regular sauna use may also protect brain health. A study published in Age and Ageing found that men who used a sauna four to seven times weekly had a 66% lower risk of Alzheimer’s disease, according to reports.

Researchers suggest that heat shock proteins, which are activated by elevated body temperature, may help repair misfolded proteins associated with neurodegenerative diseases. Kayla Barnes-Lentz, a health optimization advocate, told the Epoch Times that she uses daily sauna sessions partly because of research showing potential dementia prevention, noting that two-thirds of Alzheimer’s diagnoses occur in women.

Heat therapy has also been linked to reductions in depression symptoms. A meta-analysis in the Journal of Affective Disorders Reports indicated that heat therapies, including saunas, were correlated with improvements in depression scores, likely due to pain reduction, improved sleep and enhanced stress resilience, according to the report. General wellness resources highlight that saunas may support mental health through improved circulation and relaxation ^[3].

Metabolic Effects and Detoxification Claims

Some research suggests that heat exposure can improve metabolic markers. A small study in Acta Physiologica found that after 10 days of mild prolonged heat exposure, participants showed better blood sugar regulation by the liver and reduced cholesterol levels, possibly due to decreased liver fat. The authors speculated that the liver shifted to burning fat as fuel, according to the report.

The concept of sweating out toxins is widely promoted, but the evidence remains limited. Studies have found that sweat after sauna use contains heavy metals and chemicals such as bisphenol-A (BPA), though it is unclear whether this meaningfully reduces total body burden, according to reports.

Barnes-Lentz reported that after three months without sauna, her measured environmental toxin levels rose, although she acknowledged the evidence is not definitive. Sauna use has been employed for detoxification in many cultures, with far-infrared saunas sometimes used to eliminate toxins ^[4].

Caveats and Expert Guidance

Experts caution that sauna use is not a cure-all and should be approached with proper precautions. Laukkanen said that benefits come from repeated, tolerable, controlled exposure rather than extreme heat, and emphasized that sauna is not a replacement for exercise or a healthy lifestyle.

The strongest evidence comes from Finnish sauna use, with temperatures of 158 F to 212 F for 10 to 20 minutes per session, four to seven times per week, according to the report. Adequate hydration and cooling are essential.

Individuals with unstable cardiovascular disease or acute illness should consult a physician before starting heat therapy, Laukkanen said. While sauna use can simulate some effects of exercise, it does not provide the mechanical loading on muscles and bones that physical activity does. As noted in the book “The Immunity Fix,” the stress of temperature fluctuations can be beneficial in controlled doses, but excessive exposure may be harmful ^[1].

References

1. James DiNicolantonio and Siim Land. “The Immunity Fix-Strengthen Your Immune System”.
2. Mercola.com. “Cuts Your Stroke Risk by 61 a Blood Pressur”. Mercola.com. February 23, 2023.
3. Laura Harris. “9 Science backed benefits of sauna”. NaturalNews.com. February 23, 2026.
4. Mercola.com. “Some Like It Hot The Many Health Benefits o”. Mercola.com. September 09, 2016.
5. Dr. Mercola. “Spending Time in a Sauna Can Reduce Your Risk for a Stroke”. Mercola.com. May 18, 2018.

Explainer Infographic

The post Frequent Sauna Use Linked to Lower Mortality, Stroke and Dementia Risk, Studies Find appeared first on Activist Post.

An executive order and a $100 billion Kentucky data center project mark the latest steps in the Trump administration’s plan to accelerate the construction of AI infrastructure by opening federal land and shortening permitting timelines. Environmental groups have already launched legal challenges.

The Trump administration signaled plans to aggressively accelerate construction of artificial intelligence (AI) data centers by opening federal lands to massive technology campuses and fast-tracking environmental approvals.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) last week announced it will convert the former Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky into a $100 billion AI data center campus powered by 2 gigawatts of natural gas generation and 2.6 gigawatts of battery storage.

The project is the third former Cold War nuclear site the administration has targeted for AI development this year.

“The U.S. government is leveraging its assets — like our federal lands — to add power generation, create jobs, and ensure the United States wins the AI race,” U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said in announcing the Kentucky project.

In July 2025, President Donald Trump issued a sweeping executive order to dramatically accelerate federal permitting for AI data centers and the energy infrastructure needed to support them.

According to the fact sheet released with the order, the U.S. must remove regulatory barriers if it wants to remain globally competitive in the AI race and protect U.S. economic and national security.

Environmental groups launch legal challenges

This is the second executive order promoting AI Trump has signed. The first was in 2019.

“My Administration has inaugurated a golden age for American manufacturing and technological dominance,” Trump said in the order, which includes substantial reductions in environmental regulations and makes federal land and resources available for data center construction.

But the administration’s approach is already facing legal challenges from environmental organizations and local governments. They argue that federal agencies are bypassing environmental review and limiting opportunities for public input.

A lawsuit over a proposed AI data center on public land near Boulder City, Nevada, is expected to become a test of how far the administration can go in accelerating AI development without violating longstanding environmental laws, Newsweek reported.

A recent Gallup poll found that 7 in 10 Americans oppose constructing AI data centers in their local area and nearly half would “strongly oppose” a new data center in their neighborhood. Noise, pollution, energy and water usage, and higher costs of living top their list of concerns.

In the first quarter of 2026, at least 75 data center projects worth about $130 billion were delayed or shot down by local opposition — “the largest single-quarter concentration” of disrupted projects — according to Data Center Watch, a project by the AI research firm 10a Labs.

Trump administration repurposing DOE land for data centers

Rather than approve privately owned developments, the Trump administration is increasingly repurposing DOE-owned federal properties with existing electrical infrastructure into AI campuses capable of supporting the enormous computing demands of artificial intelligence.

Last year’s executive order also calls for the creation of an interagency initiative to identify federal lands suitable for data center development and supporting energy infrastructure. Federal agencies are instructed to identify sites that could accommodate large-scale AI facilities.

Placing data centers on DOE land may be a workaround for growing resistance to the facilities because, historically, military bases have been exempted from many environmental regulations under the legal doctrine of “sovereign immunity,” Mother Jones reported.

The DOE has identified 16 possible sites that have existing energy infrastructure and the ability to fast-track permitting for new energy, including nuclear energy.

The Kentucky Paducah campus will be built on portions of a retired uranium enrichment facility that ceased operations in 2013 and has been undergoing environmental cleanup.

According to the DOE, the project will be privately financed through a partnership involving NextEra Energy, Brookfield and regional utilities, with construction expected to be completed in 2031.

The Kentucky development follows two similar federal initiatives announced earlier this year.

The DOE previously unveiled plans to convert portions of the former Portsmouth uranium enrichment complex in Piketon, Ohio, into a proposed 10-gigawatt AI campus, while the National Nuclear Security Administration is exploring a 1-gigawatt data center at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.

One gigawatt of gas provides enough power for approximately 750,000 homes, according to Reuters.

Trump orders federal agencies to streamline, accelerate environmental reviews

Last year’s executive order directed federal agencies to streamline environmental reviews and prioritize permits for qualifying data center projects and associated infrastructure, which includes electric transmission lines, substations, natural gas pipelines, water systems and telecommunications facilities.

The White House said the initiative is intended to reduce construction delays for large-scale computing facilities needed for AI development.

Agencies were instructed to coordinate reviews and identify ways to accelerate approvals while remaining consistent with existing law.

Under the directive, the White House Council on Environmental Quality must work with agencies to identify or create categorical exclusions under the country’s foundational environmental protection legislation, the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, for certain data center-related activities.

A categorical exclusion occurs when the government decides that a project that would typically be subject to NEPA review won’t have significant environmental impacts and therefore doesn’t need to be reviewed.

Agencies were also instructed to make greater use of existing expedited permitting authorities and establish a coordinated federal process for qualifying projects.

The administration said that lengthy permitting timelines have become a major obstacle to investment and innovation.

The executive order didn’t eliminate environmental review requirements or amend federal environmental laws. Instead, it directed agencies to use existing legal authorities more aggressively, improve coordination and identify opportunities to shorten review timelines while remaining within statutory requirements.

That would likely involve using strategies already flagged by environmental advocates that allow projects to streamline water pollution permits and exploit air pollution permitting loopholes.

For example, rather than having site-specific reviews, many data centers can now apply for a “nationwide permit” for projects regulated by the Clean Water Act. These types of permits are typically awarded to projects anticipated to have “minimal” impacts on waterways.

The Trump administration opened AI data centers to this type of permitting earlier this year.

A Politico investigation found at least 26 data centers in the U.S. using streamlined water pollution permits for projects being built in sensitive streams and wetlands.

Dozens of others have been exempted from regulation because of changes the U.S. Supreme Court made limiting the Clean Water Act in 2023.

A separate investigation by Floodlight News found that data centers in Texas are exploiting loopholes in air pollution laws to avoid having to undergo the extensive environmental review required for permits for large-scale building.

These strategies also exempt the developers from the public consultation process required by the more stringent environmental regulations they are avoiding.

Related articles in The Defender

• Cheating the System: How AI Data Centers Bypass Water and Air Pollution Laws and Permits
• Watch: AI Data Centers ‘Spreading Like an Aggressive Cancer’
• Survey: Rural America More Concerned About Data Centers Than People Who Live in Cities or Suburbia
• ‘The New Enemy’: Noise Pollution From AI Data Centers Causing Nausea, Insomnia
• Will Maine Become First State to Block Data Centers?
• Noise, Heat, Depleted Water Reserves — How to Protect Your Town From Unwanted AI Data Centers

The post Trump Calls for Rapid Expansion of AI Data Centers, Including on Federal Lands appeared first on Activist Post.

Story at-a-glance

• Google-owned Debug has proposed releasing 32 million Wolbachia-infected male mosquitoes in California and Florida to suppress populations of Aedes aegypti, the invasive mosquito that spreads dengue fever, yellow fever, and Zika virus
• The released males don’t bite humans and are designed to mate with wild females whose eggs then fail to hatch, preventing more than 100 offspring from being produced from a single mating
• Public concern centers on the possibility of unintended environmental consequences, the difficulty of reversing large-scale biological releases and questions about the role of private corporations in ecosystem management
• Researchers reviewing Wolbachia-based mosquito-control programs found that they can reduce disease transmission, but success depends heavily on local conditions and often requires ongoing releases, specialized infrastructure and long-term monitoring
• Regardless of whether the proposal moves forward, you can reduce your exposure to mosquito-borne diseases by eliminating standing water around your home, using physical barriers such as screens and reducing mosquito breeding sites in your community

Releasing millions of laboratory-raised insects into populated neighborhoods, on purpose, sounds like the premise of a science-fiction film. It is instead a real proposal from a company owned by Google, now sitting before federal regulators, and the response it has drawn says as much about public trust as about public health.

The target is Aedes aegypti, the mosquito that spreads dengue fever, yellow fever, and Zika virus. Dengue alone can cause high fever, severe headaches, muscle and joint pain, nausea, and, in its most severe form, life-threatening bleeding and shock. As these diseases reach regions that once rarely encountered them, the tactics used to fight them have grown more aggressive and more contested.

What sets this plan apart is that it sidesteps the chemical spraying many people associate with mosquito control. Instead, it enlists a quiet ally already found in nature, turning the insects’ own biology against them. To some, that represents an elegant alternative to dousing whole communities in insecticide. To others, it raises an uneasy question about handing a private corporation the power to alter a local ecosystem at all.

That tension sits at the heart of the debate. To understand why the proposal has stirred both enthusiasm and alarm, it helps to look closely at how the strategy actually works, what researchers expect it to accomplish, and where it could fall short.

Why Google’s Mosquito Plan Faces Resistance

Google-owned Debug is seeking approval to release 32 million Wolbachia-infected male mosquitoes across parts of California and Florida as part of an effort to suppress populations of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. The company plans to release millions of male mosquitoes infected with a bacterium called Wolbachia.

These males mate with wild female Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, but the eggs don’t hatch because the Wolbachia bacteria create reproductive incompatibility between infected males and uninfected females.

Because female mosquitoes typically mate only once in their lives, a single mating with one of Debug’s males means the more than 100 eggs she would otherwise lay never hatch. Because only males are released, the program doesn’t increase the number of biting mosquitoes. The goal is to shrink the invasive Aedes aegypti population generation after generation by preventing new mosquitoes from being born rather than killing existing ones with insecticides.¹

However, a June 2026 report published by Futurism highlighted the growing public backlash surrounding the idea of a technology company carrying out a large-scale environmental intervention.² Many residents expressed concern about allowing a private corporation to release millions of insects into open ecosystems, especially when the long-term consequences remain uncertain.

•Public concern extends beyond mosquitoes themselves — One of the strongest themes in the report involved questions about corporate influence. Futurism highlighted comments submitted during the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) public review process, where citizens questioned who ultimately benefits from the project. One commenter asked, “Ask yourself who is to benefit most from this, and why is it being done?” while another argued that “we are not experimental rats.”

These responses reveal a deeper concern that goes far beyond insect control. For many people, the issue is trust. If you live in an area targeted for release, you’re not simply evaluating a mosquito-control program; you’re evaluating whether you feel comfortable with a private company making changes to your local environment.

•The biggest fear involves unintended consequences — Futurism pointed to a separate mosquito-control project conducted in Brazil in 2019 that produced unexpected results. In that case, genetically modified mosquitoes introduced laboratory DNA into wild mosquito populations after some reproduction still occurred.³ Debug’s approach is different because it relies on Wolbachia rather than genetic modification.

Even so, the Brazil experience serves as a reminder that biological interventions don’t always unfold exactly as planned. Once millions of insects are released into the wild, reversing course becomes difficult or impossible. That reality helps explain why many residents remain cautious despite the stated public-health goals.

•Technical obstacles remain significant — Success depends on releasing enormous numbers of male mosquitoes while preventing females from entering the release population. That sounds simple until you look at the scale involved.

Researchers cited in the article explained that mosquito migration from surrounding untreated areas can quickly undermine suppression efforts. As a result, programs often require continuous weekly releases to maintain results. For communities affected by the project, that means mosquito control becomes an ongoing operation rather than a one-time fix.

•Even small mistakes could weaken the strategy — Researchers warned that accidental release of Wolbachia-infected females could reduce the effectiveness of the suppression program. To address this challenge, Debug reportedly uses artificial intelligence and computer-vision systems to separate males from females before release. However, the technology remains relatively new.

The World Health Organization’s Vector Control Advisory Group had not endorsed a specific mosquito-sorting system as of 2024, and standard sorting methods still produced female contamination rates as high as 0.3%. That percentage sounds tiny, but when millions of mosquitoes are involved, even a fraction of a percent represents thousands of insects.

•The debate ultimately centers on risk versus uncertainty — Futurism acknowledged that Wolbachia-based mosquito control has produced encouraging results in disease-control efforts. At the same time, environmental interventions are difficult to predict with complete certainty.

The discussion is no longer about whether scientists have found a way to suppress mosquito populations. The real question is whether the benefits outweigh the environmental, technical, and societal risks associated with releasing tens of millions of laboratory-raised insects into the wild.

Researchers Warn the Risks Extend Beyond Mosquito Control

Beyond the public’s concerns, the peer-reviewed literature raises its own cautions. A review published in Acta Tropica examined Wolbachia-based mosquito-control programs deployed around the world and compared them with other mosquito-control strategies.⁴

While the researchers found evidence that these programs can reduce disease transmission, they also emphasized that large-scale mosquito releases introduce environmental and logistical uncertainties that are difficult to fully predict in advance. The review identified concerns ranging from the possibility of unintended genetic effects in the environment to the substantial resources and long-term oversight required to keep such programs functioning as intended.

•Success depends heavily on local conditions — Results from one city or country don’t automatically translate to another. According to the researchers, disease transmission depends on factors such as climate, rainfall, temperature, human movement patterns, and mosquito behavior. If you hear that a mosquito-control program worked in one region, that doesn’t guarantee identical results where you live.

The researchers emphasized that dengue outbreaks fluctuate dramatically from year to year because environmental conditions constantly change.

•These programs require a long-term commitment — Conventional mosquito-control campaigns often focus on immediate population reduction through spraying or other rapid interventions. In contrast, the Acta Tropica review found that Wolbachia-based suppression programs frequently require repeated releases and continuous maintenance.

The researchers described them as “much more complex and cost-intensive operations” that demand substantial infrastructure, trained personnel, coordination between agencies, and strong community participation. For taxpayers and local communities, that means success depends on sustained effort rather than a quick fix.

•Researchers identified environmental questions that deserve attention — Researchers noted evidence that Wolbachia genetic material appears to move between species more often than previously believed. As a result, they concluded that releases carry a “moderate potential risk of spreading potentially dangerous genes in the environment.” The review didn’t describe this outcome as inevitable, but it did identify it as an issue that requires continued monitoring as programs expand.

•The biological effects extend beyond reproduction — The review also examined a separate Wolbachia strategy, population replacement, in which infected females are released so the bacterium spreads through the population. This approach works through a different mechanism: Wolbachia interferes with viruses inside the mosquito itself.

According to the researchers, the bacterium disrupts the internal structures viruses use to reproduce. It also alters fat metabolism inside mosquito cells, making important materials less available for viral replication. The mosquito becomes a less efficient carrier of disease. Researchers also reported that Wolbachia stimulates parts of the mosquito’s natural immune defenses, creating additional barriers that limit viral growth.

Take Control of Mosquito Exposure Where You Live

The debate over Google’s mosquito-release proposal highlights a larger issue that affects you regardless of whether the project moves forward: mosquito-borne disease continues to expand into new areas, and reducing your exposure starts at home. While large-scale mosquito-control programs attract headlines, the most reliable protection begins with practical steps that address mosquito breeding and human exposure directly.

1.Eliminate standing water around your property — Mosquitoes depend on standing water to reproduce. Walk around your home once a week and empty buckets, flowerpot saucers, birdbaths, clogged gutters, children’s toys, and any other containers that collect water. Even a small amount of water provides a breeding site. Think of this as a simple weekly challenge: find and eliminate every source of stagnant water before mosquitoes find it first.

2.Create physical barriers between yourself and mosquitoes — Window screens, door screens, and outdoor fans reduce mosquito contact without introducing chemicals into your environment. If you spend time outdoors during peak mosquito activity, wear long sleeves and pants when practical. Every mosquito bite you prevent lowers your exposure to the viruses these insects spread.

3.Support local source-reduction efforts — The Acta Tropica review identified source reduction — removing mosquito breeding sites — as one of the most effective mosquito-control strategies. Pay attention to neglected areas in your neighborhood where water accumulates. Community participation often produces better long-term results than relying entirely on government agencies or corporate programs to solve the problem.

4.Reduce dependence on broad-spectrum insecticides whenever possible — Many insecticides kill beneficial insects along with mosquitoes. Pollinators, aquatic organisms, and other wildlife often pay the price. Whenever practical, focus first on habitat management, breeding-site elimination, and targeted mosquito control methods rather than chemical spraying. Addressing the source of the problem produces longer-lasting results.

5.Pay attention to environmental changes in your area — The researchers found that temperature, rainfall, humidity, and human movement strongly influence disease transmission. After periods of heavy rain, flooding, or unusually warm weather, increase your natural mosquito-prevention efforts. If you treat mosquito control as a seasonal habit rather than a one-time task, you stay one step ahead of the conditions that allow mosquito populations to explode.

6.Stay informed and participate in local decision-making — Whether the issue involves Wolbachia mosquitoes, genetically modified insects, insecticide spraying, or another mosquito-control program, your community benefits when residents understand both the benefits and the risks. Read public notices, attend local meetings, and submit comments when agencies request public input. The choices made today shape the environment where you and your family live tomorrow.

FAQs About Google’s Sterilized Mosquitoes

Q: What is Google’s mosquito-release program trying to accomplish?

A: Google-owned Debug wants to release millions of male Aedes aegypti mosquitoes infected with the Wolbachia bacterium. When these males mate with wild females, the eggs don’t hatch, reducing the mosquito population over time. The goal is to lower the spread of diseases such as dengue fever, yellow fever, and Zika without relying primarily on chemical insecticides.

Q: Why are some people concerned about the proposal?

A: Many critics are less concerned about mosquitoes themselves and more concerned about the long-term environmental consequences of releasing millions of laboratory-raised insects into the wild. Others question whether a private corporation should play such a large role in altering local ecosystems and managing public-health interventions.

Q: Has this type of mosquito-control approach worked before?

A: Research reviewed in Acta Tropica found that Wolbachia-based mosquito-control programs have successfully reduced disease transmission in multiple locations around the world.⁵ However, researchers also noted that results vary depending on local climate, mosquito populations, human movement patterns, and other environmental factors.

Q: What risks have researchers identified?

A: Scientists highlighted several concerns, including the need for continuous releases, the possibility of mosquitoes migrating from untreated areas, and evidence suggesting that Wolbachia-related genetic material may move between species more often than previously believed. Researchers concluded that ongoing monitoring is necessary as these programs expand.

Q: What can I do to reduce my own risk from mosquito-borne diseases?

A: The most effective steps begin at home. Remove standing water where mosquitoes breed, maintain window and door screens, wear protective clothing when mosquito activity is high, support community mosquito-control efforts, and stay alert after periods of heavy rain or unusually warm weather, which often increase mosquito populations.

The post Google Wants to Release 32 Million Sterilized Mosquitoes in California and Florida appeared first on Activist Post.

The United States has resumed its bombing of Iran after a “surprise attack” on American forces. US President Donald Trump had warned earlier on Wednesday that Iran was about to face a harsh response, reportedly telling Fox News: “We’re going to beat the f***ing s**t out of them.”

The renewed strikes marked the first US attacks inside Iran since Trump paused the bombing campaign Friday. The halting of attacks came after 13 consecutive nights to allow diplomacy another chance; however, Iran continued to say that negotiations were not underway.

Trump: US And Iran Engaged In “Very Friendly” Talks

During the pause in fighting, reports started to surface saying that the US was low on missile defense systems and other weapons it would need to finish off this war it started with Iran. The ruling class allegedly halted weapons shipments to Ukraine, as its own military stockpile plummeted.

US Halting Some Weapons Shipments To Ukraine As Own Military Stockpiles Plummet

Iran’s missile launch was said to be the reason that a brief pause was ended and both countries have now returned to fighting, with direct exchanges occurring between Washington and Tehran.

CENTCOM described Tuesday’s missile launch against the US as an attempted “surprise attack,” claiming that all the incoming projectiles had been intercepted. The command did not initially mention Jordan, saying only that the missiles had targeted US forces “based in the Middle East.”

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps later claimed responsibility for the attack. The IRGC said it was responding to “aggressive actions” by the US military and warned that its operations would continue as long as Washington persisted with what it called “illegal and malicious actions” against Iranian interests. -RT

Speaking later at the White House, Trump confirmed that Iran had fired five missiles at American forces and credited US Patriot air-defense systems with intercepting all of them. “We’re going to be hitting them very hard because it’s our turn to hit them,” he added.

America Has Lost the War: We’re Now in a Fighting Retreat — Here’s Why It Matters

The post Quick Return To WAR: US Responds To Iran’s “Surprise Attack” With Bombings appeared first on Activist Post.

A small clinical trial presented at the American Society for Nutrition’s NUTRITION 2026 meeting suggests that limiting daily food intake to an eight- to nine-hour window may modestly improve cognitive function in older women with overweight or obesity, beyond effects from weight loss alone.

The pilot study – presented July 26 in National Harbor, Maryland – followed 47 women aged 50 to 79 over six months. Lead researcher Dr. Sue Shapses, a professor at Rutgers University and Rutgers-RWJ Medical Center, reported that participants who ate within a restricted daily window showed greater improvement on tests of spatial planning and problem-solving skills compared to those who ate over a longer period.

Trial Design and Methods

All participants received guidance to cut 500 calories per day. Twenty-six women were assigned to a time-restricted eating group, consuming all food within an average of 8.2 hours per day, typically between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. The remaining 21 women served as a control group, eating across an average of 12.3 hours per day.

Both groups lost an average of about 15 pounds over six months, with no significant difference in total weight loss. According to Shapses, the trial was designed to isolate the cognitive effects of meal timing independent of the amount of weight lost.

The study adds to a growing body of research on intermittent fasting, which prior work has linked to improved metabolic health and cellular repair. Research by Satchidananda Panda, Ph.D., suggests that 90% of people eat for more than 12 hours a day, a habit that may contribute to metabolic dysfunction ^[1].

Cognitive Performance Outcomes

Women in the time-restricted group showed significantly greater improvement on tests measuring spatial planning and problem-solving compared to the control group. The restricted-eating group also made fewer errors on memory and learning tests, though that difference did not reach statistical significance. No significant differences were found between groups on tests of reaction time or multitasking.

Shapses stated: “There was a modest effect of time-restricted eating to improve spatial planning and problem-solving and on reducing errors related to memory and learning.” She added that “these outcomes suggest a better ability to remember information during everyday tasks and reducing mistakes related to memory, attention and problem-solving.” Prior research in animal models indicates that intermittent fasting can enhance neuroplasticity and protect brain cells ^[2].

Potential Mechanisms and Caveats

Researchers suggested that meal timing may interact with circadian rhythms, inflammation and metabolic pathways to influence brain function. The authors noted that the pilot trial was small and that results should be considered preliminary; larger studies are needed for confirmation. The findings were presented at a scientific conference and have not undergone full peer review for publication.

“These data suggest that there may be additional benefits if you stop eating 4 hours prior to going to sleep and reduce food intake to 8-9 hours per day, compared to the usual eating window of 12 hours per day,” Shapses said. Previous work has shown that time-restricted eating can help reduce inflammation and improve metabolic markers, which may in turn support brain health ^[3].

Implications for Aging and Dementia Prevention

With Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias becoming more common as the population ages – and with women and those with overweight or obesity at elevated risk – lifestyle interventions such as time-restricted eating are of increasing interest. According to Shapses, “losing weight alone will ward off some of the aging-related cognitive decline,” but the trial data suggest that restricting the eating window may provide additional benefits beyond weight loss.

Emerging evidence indicates that meal timing may influence long-term cognitive health by affecting sleep quality and metabolic processes. Experts now recommend that adults finish their last meal at least two to three hours before bedtime ^[4]. The study adds to a growing body of evidence on intermittent fasting and brain health, though definitive conclusions await further research.

References

1. Mercola.com. “Delay Aging and Disease With Science Backed.” Mercola.com. August 9, 2019.
2. Dr. Joseph Mercola. “KetoFast.”
3. Mercola.com. “Best Time to Eat Your Last Meal of the Day.” Mercola.com. December 16, 2022.
4. NaturalNews.com. “Evening meals and brain health: Why dinner timing matters more than you think.” June 25, 2026.

Explainer Infographic

The post Study: Time-Restricted Eating Linked to Cognitive Benefits in Older Women appeared first on Activist Post.

Trump Warns of Spain-Style Migrant Influx

President Donald Trump warned Friday, July 31, that the migrant surge in Spain is an example of what the United States could face if Democrats regain power, according to a report.

In a Truth Social post, Trump wrote: “What’s happening with Spain, with tens of thousands of Illegal Immigrants invading it, happened in the United States during the Sleepy Joe Biden Administration, and it will happen again, only worse, if the Dumocrats ever again gain power.” The president urged Americans to vote Republican in the November midterm elections, the report stated.

The remarks came as Trump faces slipping approval ratings ahead of the midterm elections. A recent poll cited in the report found that most U.S. adults believe Trump has not focused enough on the everyday concerns of ordinary Americans, that his economic policies worsened conditions and that his military decisions in Iran harmed the United States. Earlier polling by the Public Religion Research Institute found 57% of Americans believed migrants had imposed undue burdens on their local communities [1].

Trump has repeatedly attacked his political opponents over immigration, blaming his predecessor Joe Biden for illegal border crossings. According to a NaturalNews report citing the National Pulse, illegal migration under Biden was approaching the total of all legal migration processed at Ellis Island from 1892 to 1954, with an influx of at least 9.4 million people [2].

Ceuta Migrant Surge

Earlier in the week, an estimated 50,000 migrants, mostly young men, swam from Morocco and crossed into the Spanish exclave of Ceuta, according to the report. The Spanish Ministry of the Interior said around 48,000 had voluntarily returned by Friday evening, the report stated. Other reports described the influx as a “weaponized migration” of military-aged men, with riots erupting in Ceuta after tens of thousands crossed without supplies [3].

France and Italy tightened border controls in response, and Italy suspended the Schengen arrangement with Spain, according to the BBC [4][5]. Spain’s interior minister, Fernando Grande-Marlaska, said the death toll had risen to 67 [5]. The U.S. Embassy in Spain issued a security alert, warning that the arrival of thousands of migrants from Morocco to Ceuta and hundreds to Melilla “may lead to unpredictable and dangerous situations” [6].

White House Response and Midterm Politics

White House principal deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said on Friday that Trump “has long warned Europe what would happen if they continue to implement far-left, globalist policies, including enabling mass migration,” according to the report. White House immigration adviser Stephen Miller also issued a warning, saying Democrats had pursued similar policies in the United States before Trump returned to office, according to a report [7].

The president’s Truth Social post included the phrases “Sleepy Joe Biden Administration” and “Dumocrats.” The report said Trump has repeatedly attacked opponents over immigration and used the Spanish crisis to frame the midterm election as a choice between enforcement and open borders.

Trump Administration Immigration Record and Spain Ties

Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump has launched a sweeping enforcement campaign involving mass deportations and expanded detention, pledging to carry out the largest migrant removal operation in U.S. history, according to the report. A May 2026 report said voluntary departures had surged as illegal migrants abandoned asylum claims under the enforcement crackdown [8].

Trump’s latest remarks came amid strained ties with Madrid. The two countries clashed during the recent conflict with Iran after Spain refused to allow the U.S. to use its bases for strikes, while Trump has criticized Spain over defense spending, according to the report. A U.S. National Security Strategy document also raised concerns that European North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies could become “majority non-European” and less reliable partners because of migration [9].

EU Migration Debate and Spanish Policy

Migration has remained one of the EU’s defining political issues since the 2015 refugee crisis. Author Sonia Shah wrote in “The Next Great Migration” that the flow of migrants from Syria into Europe, joined by a second flow through Libya, soon turned into an international spectacle dominating headlines [10]. Brussels recently agreed on a sweeping overhaul of its migration system aimed at speeding up deportations, while many member states tightened national immigration laws, according to the report.

Madrid has taken a different approach. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has argued immigration is essential to address labor shortages and demographic decline, while his government has expanded pathways for undocumented migrants to obtain legal status and work permits, according to the report.

Critics of such policies have described the movements as intentional. David Icke’s The Answer states that wars and economic destabilization are manipulated to create conditions in which large numbers of people flee toward Europe and the United States [11].

Outlook

The report presents Trump’s warning and the Spanish influx without endorsing either side. U.S. and Spanish officials quoted in the report attributed the crisis to border policy decisions, while European governments responded with tightened controls and mutual criticism [4][5]. The Spanish government deployed its military, and the U.S. embassy warned of unpredictable conditions [6].

Most of those who entered Ceuta had returned by Friday evening, according to the report [4]. No further details about upcoming midterm campaigning or migration policy were provided in the report.

References

1. NaturalNews.com. “POLL Americans are becoming increasingly pessimistic about the migrant crisis”. NaturalNews.com. November 6, 2024.
2. NaturalNews.com. “ILLEGAL MIGRATION under Biden nears aggregate total of LEGAL MIGRATION processed at Ellis Island in New York for…”. NaturalNews.com. April 11, 2024.
3. Zero Hedge. “Weaponized Migration? 50,000 Military-Aged Men Invade Spanish Enclave Without Supplies As Chaos And Riots Erupt”. July 31, 2026.
4. The Times of Israel. “France and Italy tighten border controls amid Spanish migrant crisis”. August 1, 2026.
5. BBC News. “Spain attacks ‘selfish’ response of some EU countries to Ceuta migrant crossings”. August 1, 2026.
6. The Epoch Times. “US Embassy Issues Security Alert After Thousands of Illegal Immigrants Cross Into Spain”. July 31, 2026.
7. 100percentfedup.com. “Stephen Miller Issues Stark Warning For America As Illegal Immigrants Swarm Into Spain”. July 31, 2026.
8. NaturalNews.com. “Voluntary departures surge as illegal migrants abandon asylum claims under Trump enforcement crackdown”. May 12, 2026.
9. The National Pulse. “Trump Admin Fears NATO Allies Will Become Disloyal Partners as Mass Migration Turns Them ‘Majority Non-European.’”. December 5, 2025.
10. Sonia Shah. “The Next Great Migration”.
11. David Icke. “The Answer”.

The post Trump Warns: U.S. Faces Spain-Style Migrant Influx if Democrats Return appeared first on Activist Post.

Today, the UK’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) announces the launch of seven refined research opportunities aimed at hacking humans, nature, and the climate. 

ARIA has been busy refining its approach to research opportuntities by consolidating 14 spaces into seven.

Secure brain-to-brain communications and memory sharing, flying suits programmed from living systems, sensors that can smell like dogs, cloud brightening for weather manipulation, and a whole lot more are all on ARIA’s agenda.

“We are announcing seven new opportunity spaces that represent a bringing together of the previous 14 opportunity spaces that we had before. We have identified patterns that were running through those opportunity spaces and we are consolidating those into seven opportunity spaces that we think represent really key long-term investments for the UK and the world”Kathleen Fisher, ARIA, August 2026

The seven research opportunity spaces now include:

• Programmable Physiology
• Scalable Neural Interfaces
• Trust Everything, Everywhere
• Nature-Inspired Computation
• Adaptive Machines
• Resilient Climate and Ecosystems
• Abundant Manufacturing

ARIA CEO Kathleen Fisher, who took over the role from Ilan Gur in February, said that if these research opportunities were to come to fruition they “would represent really transformative changes for society.” 

Fisher is a former program manager at the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) where she developed and led the High-Assurance Cyber Military Systems (HACMS) program that ran from 2012 to 2017.

During a demonstration of the HACMS program’s capabilities in 2017, the Pentagon staged a cyberattack on an unmanned Boeing helicopter called Little Bird, and the software developed at DARPA was able to successfully stop the hackers in mid-air.

For Fisher, ARIA’s Trust Everything, Everywhere opportunity sits near-and-dear to her heart.

“If I were coming in as a program director, I would situate a program in the ‘Trust Everything, Everywhere’ opportunity space because that is my personal area of expertise,” she said.

And with that, let’s take a look at the seven refined opportunity spaces, starting with Fisher’s favorite.

Trust Everything, Everywhere

Trust Everything, Everywhere consolidates three previous research spaces: Mathematics for Safe AI, Collective Flourishing, and another that shares the same name of the current space.

Now, the Trust Everything, Everywhere opportunity sees humans working with AI in ways that would allow for a diversity of ideas in safe and trusted environments. 

BiologicalSciences

For example, ARIA program managers “seek to build the structures and tools that let a plurality of minds coexist and thrive, and resist the slide toward monoculture, centralised control or conflict.”

Some structures and tools that ARIA is exploring involve “verifiable neuro-privacy” such as “secure brain to brain” communications” and “one-time memory sharing,” along with a type of “verifiable CRISPR” that would take  bio samples for authentication.

According to the Trust Everything, Everywhere description, “Many of today’s hard trade-offs – security vs. freedom, speed vs. accountability, openness vs. control – are caused by constraints in our technological and institutional stack → the right building blocks can solve these tensions and increase our options.”

Now let’s go from programming machines to programming human  biology with the next opportunity space. 

BiologicalSciences

Programmable Physiology

The Programmable Physiology research space combines two previous opportunities: Scultping Innate Immunity and Bioenergetic Engineering.

With Programmable Physiology, ARIA is looking to “revolutionize medicine by developing technologies that allow us to read, model, and modulate human biology at systems scale, spanning molecular networks, cell states, tissues, and whole-body physiology.”

The idea here is to not just throw a drug at one particular part of the body, but rather to consistently monitor what’s happening inside the body across all  biological functions in order to intervene when there is a disruption or imbalance. 

As the program description puts it, “Modern medicine has largely learned to drug individual targets, not steer systems → programmable physiology requires matching the sophistication of our interventions to the complexity of human biology, moving from single-node perturbations to combinatorial, state-shifting control.”

In this way, ARIA is looking at states of being — taking complex disease states and turning them into healthy ones.

Next up on the refined opportunities spaces is all about brain-computer interfaces.

Scalable Neural Interfaces

Scalable Neural Interfaces is one of ARIA’s original opportunity spaces and still bears the same name.

This program looks to treat neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders by using minimally invasive technologies, such as brain modulation through electrical and acoustic fields.

These are non-invasive technologies that don’t require brain implants or surgery.

For this space, the belief is that “Targeted interaction with the human nervous system can improve the human condition across an incredibly wide range of disease states and cognitive domains.”

“To fully understand and treat disorders of the brain,” according to the opportunity, “we’ll need neural technologies that simultaneously offer chemical, temporal, and spatial specificity → this is achievable only by connecting the frontiers of engineered hardware with the frontiers of engineered biology.“ 

Now, let’s move on to the next opportunity space that looks to nature for inspiration.

Nature-Inspired Computation

ARIA’s Nature-Inspired Computation space is pretty self-explanatory, and it consolidates two previous opportunities: Nature Computes Better, and Extending our Perception.

Nature is extremely efficient in just about every sense of the word — it can sense, organize, self-replicate, heal, compute, store data, conserve energy, and transform light into food, just to name a few examples.

According to the ARIA description, “Living systems have co-evolved sensing and intelligence – they compress a rich, high-dimensional world into efficient, compact representations from multimodal inputs that capture physical, chemical, acoustic, magnetic and thermal properties today’s computers miss.”

Imagine being able to harness the olfactory systems of dogs that can “smell” seizures before they happen, or using reptile genes to be able to see in infrared.

With this space, ARIA believes that understanding nature “could open up entirely new frontiers of engineered biology, computation, and algorithms.” 

From there, “engineered systems could perceive and infer far beyond human range, as well as adapt, generalise and gain enormous efficiencies in data, compute and energy use.“

Moving from hacking humans, machines, and nature, the next controversial thing to hack is the climate.

Resilient Climate and Ecosystems

ARIA’s Resilient Climate and Ecosystems space is a consolidation of three others: Future Proofing Our Climate and Weather, Scoping our Planet, and Engineering Ecosystem Resilience.

The belief behind this opportunity is that “Living systems and a stable climate underpin our food, health, materials, and security, and both are under growing strain.”

The idea is to monitor and analyze everything that affects the weather, and then once that’s understood, to intervene and control the weather directly.

In December 2023, ARIA published an opportunity space document entitled, “Managing our climate and weather through responsible engineering,” which was authored by ARIA program director Mark Symes. 

Under the “core beliefs” section, Symes wrote:

“Through carefully-considered engineering solutions it may eventually be possible to actively and responsibly control the climate and weather at regional and global scale.”

As far as methods into controlling the weather go, Symes cited studies involving:

• Blocking the sun as a potential means to cool global land temperatures.
• Solar Radiation Management (SRM) techniques, which “reflect a small percentage of the sun’s light and heat back into space.”
• “Cirrus Cloud Thinning,” which theoretically would “allow more longwave radiation to escape to space.”

Next up on the newly revised opportunity spaces involves programming matter like software for manufacturing.

Abundant Manufacturing

ARIA’s Abundant Manufacturing space combines its previous Programmable Plants and Manufacturing Abundance opportunities.

Programmable plants was exploring how to make edible vaccines, as well as designing plants that could create a rain-proof shelter from a single seed.

With Abundant Manufacturing, ARIA envisions a future “where anyone, anywhere, at any time can program matter like software to assemble what we need, ranging from molecules to skyscrapers.”  

Suits that can make you fly, trees that become living lamposts, and living architectures that can harvest and store energy while self-regulating temperature are all on the table.

These ideas, in part, stem from the belief that living systems “represent an ideal platform to realize a future of sustainable abundance as our food and material systems struggle with unsustainable supply and a volatile climate.” 

And to round off the seventh refined research opportunity space announced today, we have machines that can sense, think, and act in any given environment.

Adaptive Machines

ARIA’s Adaptive Machines opportunity consolidates the Smarter Robot Bodies and Scoping Our Planet spaces.

For this space, ARIA is working under the assumption that “intelligent machines that adapt to unpredictable environments can help humanity thrive.”

Therefore, “We need adaptable machines designed with a systems approach that can sense, think, and act seamlessly in the physical world.“

Adaptive Machines is another nature-inspired approach to technology that goes beyond the computional side and into the hardware and robotics realm.

One example given is designing a machine that can operate just like an insect or even surpass its natural abilities.

Inspired by DARPA and launched in 2023, ARIA is a non-departmental public body, sponsored by the UK Department for  Science, Innovation and Technology. 

Image source: AI generated with ChatGPT

The post UK ARIA announces 7 research opportunities to hack humans, nature & climate appeared first on Activist Post.

The Genetic Kill Switch Introduction

We are living through the final act of a planned global genocide. According to my research findings, Donald Trump and Anthony Fauci are not adversaries — they are tag-team partners in a depopulation agenda that uses a binary weapon to trigger a genetic meltdown of the human race. (I’ll explain more below…)

The first component of this weapon is the spike protein contamination from mRNA injections, which Fauci orchestrated through gain-of-function bioweapons research at the Wuhan lab and laundered into so-called vaccines via Operation Warp Speed (pushed by Trump).

The second component is nuclear war, which Trump is likely to invoke to “finish the job” in Iran. The fallout of radioisotopes causes double-strand DNA breaks in human cells, and the spike protein has already suppressed DNA repair by 85–90%. Together, they form a kill switch that will melt down the genetic integrity of billions of humans and end humanity as we know it.

Here is how this unspeakable plan was set in motion, why the government lies about radiation risks, and what you can do to survive.

The Spike Protein Bio-Weapon: Fauci’s Contribution to Mass Genetic Contamination

Let’s trace the chain of command. Fauci, through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to the Wuhan Institute of Virology via Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance. Newly released documents show Fauci actively protected Daszak from federal scrutiny while suppressing evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was a lab leak ^[1]. The result was a gain-of-function spike protein toxin.

As I have previously reported, the spike protein’s modified cleavage site was engineered into the mRNA, and that same synthetic spike is now being produced inside billions of human bodies via the so-called vaccines ^[2].

The genetic damage from these mRNA injections is catastrophic. A ground-breaking Swedish-Chinese study showed that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein impairs DNA damage repair and inhibits the BRCA1 and 53BP1 pathways ^[3]. In plain English, this means the spike protein suppresses the cell’s ability to fix broken DNA by 85 to 90 percent.

The result is turbo cancers, immune failure, and accelerated aging. On top of that, the mRNA shots are contaminated with bacterial DNA plasmids that can integrate into the human genome and trigger cancer ^[4][5]. This is not a vaccine, in other words — it’s a genetic bioweapon designed to contaminate the entire population and prepare every injected person for the nuclear “genetic meltdown” kill switch.

Trump’s Complicity: From Operation Warp Speed to Nuclear War

Trump cannot pretend to be innocent. He authorized emergency use of the mRNA injections, bragged about Operation Warp Speed, and repeatedly protected Fauci from prosecution. Emails have now revealed that Fauci and then-NIH director Francis Collins agreed to suppress the lab-leak theory for political reasons, and Trump’s administration did nothing to stop it ^[6]. In fact, Trump’s own FDA commissioner, Marty Makary, recently stated that Fauci was “100% involved” in a “massive” COVID origins cover-up ^[7]. Yet Trump never held Fauci accountable. Why?

Because they are co-conspirators. They answer to the same boss.

Now Trump is set to launch nuclear weapons in his desperate escalation of war with Iran or Russia. As of early 2026, Trump has escalated rhetoric against Russia, shortening a “50-day” warning to “10 to 12 days” and threatening strikes deep into Russian territory. This is a deliberate provocation designed to trigger a nuclear response that could kill up to 200 million Americans from the initial strikes alone.

The radiation from those bombs will circulate globally and cause double-strand DNA breaks, but the spike protein has already disabled the body’s repair machinery in billions of people. That means billions of human beings will die from genetic damage that could have otherwise been self-repaired if not for the presence of the spike protein, an engineered toxic and part of a binary weapon system targeting human genetic integrity.

The Government’s Radiation Lies: Why You Cannot Trust the ICRP Model

After a nuclear detonation, the government will parrot the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) model to claim that low-dose radiation is safe. Do not believe a word of it. The ICRP model deliberately ignores the effects of internal alpha emitters like plutonium and uranium. When you inhale a single hot particle, that particle lodges in your lung tissue and delivers a concentrated dose of radiation to a tiny cluster of cells, causing catastrophic DNA damage that the spike-suppressed repair system cannot fix. The same government that locked you inside during COVID will now tell you to go outside and breathe the poisoned air. Do not obey, or you will likely die.

The truth is that the ICRP model was designed by the nuclear industry to minimize liability, not to protect human health. As I have documented in my reporting, the establishment has lied about radiation risks for decades ^[8][9]. They know that alpha emitters inside the body are far more dangerous than external gamma exposure, but they hide this fact to greenlight nuclear war while pushing expensive pharma treatments. The endgame is to finish what the mRNA jabs started: complete genetic destruction of the human race.

Defending Yourself: Knowledge, Clean Living, and Natural Remedies

Survival requires action. You must detox the spike protein from your body using nutritional therapies and proper detox protocols. You must support DNA repair with nutrients that enhance homologous recombination and non-homologous end joining, including zinc, magnesium, resveratrol, and turmeric. I have discussed these protocols at length in my special reports on reversing mRNA damage ^[10]. Equally critical: eliminate toxic personal care products, stop consuming processed foods laced with MSG and glyphosate, and switch to clean, organic whole foods.

My upcoming free genetic survival course will detail specific foods, molecules, and practices to repair double-strand breaks, mismatched base pairs, and other genetic lesions. Clean blood, clean (fertility) eggs, and clean sperm will be the new gold in a world filled with DNA mutations and widespread infertility. Those who are informed and prepared will be the remnant that rebuilds humanity. The time to start preparing for genetic survival is now — before the bombs fall and the radiation clouds spread.

Conclusion: The Remnant Will Survive

Fauci and Trump are, in my opinion, agents of a satanic death cult intent on the genetic destruction of humanity. Fauci unleashed the spike protein bioweapon; Trump enabled it and is now provoking nuclear war to finish the job.

But we can stop them by refusing to comply and by arming ourselves with knowledge. Genetic integrity will become the most valuable asset on a ruined planet. Stay tuned to my work for the free survival course that will teach you how to protect yourself and your family. The human race can survive this if we reject the lies and stand for truth, health, and freedom. I will not stop exposing these criminals until the final whistle is blown.

Prepare your body, your mind, and your soul. The remnant will prevail.

References

1. Fauci Protected Key U.S. Collaborator With Wuhan Lab From Federal Scrutiny – Children’s Health Defense. Emily Kopp.
2. Mike Adams interview with Dr Michael Nehls – February 29 2024.
3. SARS-CoV-2 spike impairs DNA damage repair and inhibits the BRCA1 and 53BP1 pathways – Brighteon Broadcast News. Mike Adams.
4. Probably the Most Important Topic of Our Time: DNA Contaminants in COVID Shots Can Trigger Cancer, Alter Human Genome – Children’s Health Defense. Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. January 21, 2024.
5. Probably the Most Important Topic of Our Time – Children’s Health Defense. Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. January 21, 2024.
6. Did Fauci, Collins Suppress Evidence of COVID Lab Leak for Political Reasons? – Children’s Health Defense.
7. FDA Chief: Fauci ‘100% Involved” In “Massive” COVID-19 Origins Cover-Up – Infowars.
8. Geoengineered Transhumanism – Elana Freeland.
9. Brighteon Broadcast News – Mike Adams – Brighteon.com.
10. Special Report on Reversing mRNA Vaccine Damage – Health Ranger Report. Mike Adams.
11. Twelve undeniable signs globalists are engineering the end of humanity – NaturalNews.com. July 30, 2023.
12. The Indoctrinated Brain How to Successfully Fend Off the Global Attack on Your Mental Freedom – Michael Nehls MD.

Explainer Infographic

The post Trump and Fauci: The Nefarious Tag Team Executing the Genetic Kill Switch on Humanity appeared first on Activist Post.

School-based routine or universal mental health screening “often functions as an entry point into a therapeutic culture that pathologizes normal childhood distress, erodes resilience and funnels children toward psychiatric labels, therapy, and medication,” according to Gretchen Watson, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist and researcher.

An increasing number of children are likely to face mental health screening when they return to school this fall. But experts warned those screenings pose more risk than benefit — and urged parents to opt out their child.

“While early identification sounds responsible, in practice it risks doing more harm than good,” Gretchen Watson, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist and researcher, told The Defender.

School-based routine or universal mental health screening “often functions as an entry point into a therapeutic culture that pathologizes normal childhood distress, erodes resilience and funnels children toward psychiatric labels, therapy, and medication,” Watson said.

Nearly one-third of U.S. schools now conduct some form of mental health screening — and that number is likely to increase, as more states work to pass mental health screening mandates.

Last year, Illinois became the first state to require students in grades three through 12 to undergo a mental health screening each year.

In January, lawmakers in South Carolina proposed a bill that would create a statewide mental health screening program for students in grades six through 12. The bill is in committee.

It’s a trend that has experts like Watson worried.

Watson is one of the foremost authorities in the U.S. on the overmedicalization of children with psychiatric drugs. She is also the author of the forthcoming book, “The Prescription Affliction: Why We Overmedicate Young Minds with Psychiatric Drugs ― and How to Stop It.”

Mental health screening tools flag many false positives, Watson said. For example, a child grieving the loss of a grandparent, or who is simply more intense or imaginative than the average student, can easily be flagged as needing further evaluation.

“That evaluation can start a cascade: a label, a treatment plan and, in many cases, medication,” she said.

Parents need to be on the lookout for consent forms as they send their kids back to school, Watson said.

The forms may be buried in back-to-school packets. And they may portray mental health screening using language crafted to make parents who decline the screening seem uncooperative, she said.

Beware passive consent forms, experts warn

Some schools may use a passive consent system that presumes consent unless the parent actively opts out, said Jan Eastgate, president of Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), a mental health industry watchdog.

That’s why CCHR created a printable parent’s exemption form that parents can proactively give to their school leaders. The form states that school staff may not subject the child to any form of mental health, psychological, social service, or counseling screening or tests without the parent’s written consent.

Watson — who said she is not affiliated with CCHR, the Church of Scientology, which founded CCHR, or any of its activities — and Eastgate are far from alone in criticizing school-based mental health screening.

In a January 2026 report for the Manhattan Institute, policy analyst Carolyn D. Gorman concluded such screenings were both ineffective and harmful.

U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon argued in a September 2025 Washington Post op-ed that schools should avoid subjecting kids to yearly mental screening.

Instead, “schools should engage and rely on parents to raise their children with nutritious family meals and family interaction, outdoor play and role-modeling,” Kennedy and McMahon wrote.

Power of suggestion: Could screenings cause depression and anxiety?

A key criticism of mental health screenings is that they may paradoxically cause harm by using confusing and suggestive language.

Watson pointed out that pediatric depression and anxiety questionnaires commonly include leading questions, including:

1. In the past few weeks, have you wished you were dead?
2. Have you felt that you or your family would be better off if you were dead?
3. Have you been having thoughts about killing yourself?
4. Have you ever tried to kill yourself?
5. Are you having thoughts of killing yourself right now?
6. How often have you felt overwhelmed in the past month?
7. Are you sad much of the time?

Some screening tools even ask children how often they have felt that they have something important to contribute to society, and what strategies they have found helpful in managing their mental health.

Watson said:

“Now, I ask, how would you have answered those questions at 8? At 13? As a K-12 student, I was definitely not thinking about my contribution to society or managing my mental health. Were you?

“Is it even healthy to encourage children to think about such matters? Worse, could these questions plant confusing ideas in the minds of our youth?”

These types of questions can convince healthy children they are “troubled,” Eastgate said.

Watson agreed, noting that a child who is repeatedly asked if they are depressed might just decide they are.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), all children, toddlers and babies as young as 6 months old should undergo regular mental health and developmental issue screenings.

In an August 2025 clinical report, the AAP claimed that rates of mental, emotional and behavioral problems in the U.S. are rising, and early detection will lead to intervention.

However, an August 2022 study in Preventive Medicine concluded that screening adolescents for depression does not reduce their treatment for suicidal behaviors.

And a 2017 systematic review found no evidence that screening children improves mental health outcomes, but instead raises the risk of potential harm and wasted resources.

‘Labels often erode self-efficacy and create self-fulfilling prophecies’

Screenings also carry privacy and stigma risks, Eastgate said.

Watson urged parents to ask lots of questions, including what instrument will be used, what happens to the data, who sees the results, and what follow-up looks like if a child is flagged.

A child who is inaccurately flagged as having a mental health issue can end up with a psychiatric label that follows the child for years, Watson said.

“These labels often erode self-efficacy and create self-fulfilling prophecies: peers may exclude or stigmatize diagnosed children as ‘different,’ while adults lower their expectations for them.”

Who really profits from school-based mental health screenings?

Watson said good intentions may partly explain the push toward school-based mental health screenings.

After the 1999 Columbine school shooting and subsequent school shootings, many school administrators and parents have sought ways to prevent school violence perpetrated by mentally unwell students.

But there is no track record showing that mental health screenings prevent school shootings, Watson said.

She explained:

“The characteristics most often associated with school shooters — such as loneliness, social isolation and emotional distress — are extremely common among children and adolescents. While nearly all school shooters have struggled with these issues, the vast majority of lonely, isolated or emotionally distressed youth will never commit an act of violence.

“Because these risk factors are so widespread and school shootings are so rare, universal screening has very poor predictive value for identifying who will actually become a shooter.”

In other words, mental health screenings produce many false positives, while failing to identify truly high-risk individuals.

But that hasn’t stopped companies from profiting off the trend toward school-based mental health screenings.

Maro, a mental health screening digital platform for K-12 schools and districts, touts itself as “the single most efficient tool for screening youth (ages 7-17) at school for depression, anxiety, suicide and/or ADHD [attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder] & getting families to matched care.”

Eastgate said she has yet to find any independent evidence to back up Maro’s claim. Even if the claim were true, efficiency is not the same as benefit, Watson said. “Making a flawed process more efficient does not make the process sound.”

Pharma behind some school mental health screening tools

Parents aren’t warned about pharmaceutical companies’ conflicts of interest in mental health screenings, Eastgate said.

For example, Pfizer — which sells the anxiety and depression drug Zoloft — funded the development of a widely used youth depression screening tool, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9).

In 2023, STAT published an investigative report on the PHQ-9’s origins under the headline, “How a depression test devised by a Zoloft marketer became a crutch for a failing mental health system.”

“In addition, many of the screening tools used are explicitly aligned with the DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders] diagnostic criteria. This means the tools are designed to look for the same symptom clusters used to assign psychiatric diagnoses,” Watson said.

A 2024 special report in The BMJ revealed that 55 of the U.S. doctors who helped decide what diagnoses and treatments were included in the DSM, now in its fifth edition, DSM-5-TR, received more than $14 million in undisclosed industry funding.

Often referred to as the “bible” of psychiatric disorders, the DSM is the American Psychiatric Association’s main diagnostic manual, ABC News reported.

The BMJ found that the doctors who received the most money — often in the form of food, beverages, travel and consulting reimbursements — were those working in diagnostic areas, such as depressive disorders, neurocognitive disorders and drug-induced movement disorders, “where drug interventions are often the standard treatment.”

Maro did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Related articles in The Defender

• Exclusive: How ADHD Became ‘Gateway Diagnosis’ That Led to Drug Cocktails for Millions of Children
• ‘Nobody Told Me’: Former Mental Health Patient Calls Out Dangerous Side Effects of Psychiatric Drugs
• ‘Medically Reckless’: AAP Pushes Mental Health Screenings for Kids as Young as 6 Months Old
• Hidden Epidemic’: She Was 7 When Doctors Prescribed Ritalin — By Age 20, She’d Taken 14 Different Psychotropic Drugs
• 55 U.S. Doctors Behind Psychiatric Diagnosis Manual Took $14M From Drug Companies
• Big Money for Pharma, Big Risk for Kids: When Doctors Prescribe Antipsychotics and SSRIs for Children With Autism

The post Schools Are Pushing Mental Health Screening. Research Shows It Does More Harm Than Good appeared first on Activist Post.