April 10, 2026 Insider Report

Fragile Two-week U.S.-Iran Ceasefire Brokered as Trump Declares “Complete Victory”

On April 7, President Donald Trump announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran, just hours before his self-imposed open-the-Strait-of-Hormuz-or-else deadline expired. The agreement, mediated by Pakistan, pauses direct U.S. and Iranian hostilities that began with coordinated U.S.-Israeli strikes on February 28. Trump hailed the development as a “total and complete victory” for the United States, while Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described it as a “capital V military victory” in which Iran’s missile capabilities and defense industrial base were effectively neutralized.

The conflict erupted after months of escalating tensions over Iran’s nuclear program and regional proxies. U.S. and Israeli forces launched extensive strikes targeting Iranian military sites, nuclear facilities, and leadership, including the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Iran retaliated with missile and drone attacks on U.S. assets and Israel, and closed the Strait of Hormuz — a critical choke point carrying about 20 percent of global oil trade — disrupting shipping and driving up energy prices worldwide.

Trump’s ultimatum on April 7 warned of devastating consequences, including strikes on civilian infrastructure, if Iran failed to reopen the strait. In a Truth Social post, he stated he agreed to suspend attacks for two weeks “subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz.” Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and military leadership played a key role in shuttle diplomacy, urging both sides toward de-escalation. Negotiations are scheduled to begin in Islamabad on April 11.

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council accepted the ceasefire, framing it as a success and agreeing to allow safe passage through the strait during the truce period, subject to coordination with its armed forces and “technical limitations.” However, implementation has been uneven. Vessel traffic remains limited, oil prices initially plunged but have shown volatility, and disputes persist over whether the truce covers Israeli operations in Lebanon. Iran insists Lebanon is included; the United States and Israel maintain it is not, with Israeli strikes continuing there.

The deal includes elements of Iran’s proposed 10-point plan and a U.S. framework, though Trump later called an early version “fraudulent” after discrepancies emerged regarding uranium enrichment. Key issues remain unresolved: the future of Iran’s nuclear program, removal of buried enriched uranium, sanctions relief, and broader regional de-escalation. Both sides claim victory — Trump emphasizing military gains, Iran highlighting its ability to force negotiations while retaining leverage over energy routes.

Critics question whether the pause represents genuine progress or merely temporary breathing room. The ceasefire is widely described as fragile, with reports of continued tensions, potential violations, and warnings from Vice President J.D. Vance of “serious consequences” if Iran fails to comply. U.S. forces remain positioned in the region to enforce terms.

As talks begin, the two-week window will test whether battlefield setbacks can translate into a lasting agreement that advances U.S. interests in denuclearization and secure shipping lanes — or if renewed conflict looms. For now, the pause has eased immediate global economic pressures while stakes of Middle East entanglements remain high. — Rebecca Terrell

Rashida Tlaib: Star of “Legal Bulwark of Communist Party”

Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) is delivering the keynote address to the communist National Lawyers Guild’s 2026 Law 4 the People Convention on Friday, April 8 in Detroit. According to the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) website, the convention will run from April 8-12. Tlaib, who has an abysmal score of 21 percent on The New American’s Freedom Index, will be speaking during the Friday evening program from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. It will be livestreamed and can be viewed here. Tlaib is an NLG member.

The NLG’s “about” page says that it is “the nation’s oldest and largest progressive bar association.” Founded in 1936-1937, this “progressive” organization has been a crucial legal instrument used by communist lawyers to attack and undermine the social, political, economic, and moral foundations of the United States. A 60-page report issued in 1950 by the U.S. House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) declared, “The National Lawyers Guild is the foremost legal bulwark of the Communist Party, its front organizations, and controlled unions.”

The HCUA’s exposé of the NLG, titled “Report on the National Lawyers Guild: Legal Bulwark of the Communist Party,” provides extensive evidence showing the NLG, in Stalinist fashion, slavishly following the party line dictated from Moscow and the Kremlin’s Communist Party USA (CPUSA).

The NLG’s “about” page further admits that it is a member of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), one of the Soviet Union’s most important worldwide communist fronts. In fact, the IADL was launched by the Soviets in the 1940s and financed by the Kremlin for decades. Like the NLG, the IADL continues to push communist causes. Abraham Lincoln is famous for his “with malice toward none, with charity for all” quote; JFK for his “ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country”; but Rashida Tlaib is infamous for many profane and pro-terrorist, anti-American quotes. Right out of the starting gate, as a new member of Congress, she delivered one of her most shameful rants. During a video recorded at a reception for supporters hosted by the left-wing group MoveOn.org in January 2019, she can be seen in her full ignominy spewing out her hatred for President Donald Trump. She told the wildly cheering crowd, “We’re gonna go in there and we’re going to impeach the motherf***er.” Even worse, she said that is precisely what she told her young son. Unfortunately, President Trump has likewise taken to f-bombing in his speeches and his Truth Social posts, while also real-bombing around the world unilaterally, without any declaration of war by Congress, as required under our Constitution. — William F. Jasper

Will Republicans Pass a Second Reconciliation Bill?

Congressional Republicans are floating a second reconciliation bill to fund immigration enforcement and enact other priorities.

On April 1, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) announced they would seek to fund U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol via a reconciliation bill — bypassing the need to gain Democratic support to fund those agencies. This announcement came after Representative Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who lead key committees, announced support for passing a reconciliation bill that would also potentially include additional military spending and portions of the SAVE America Act.

As we previously reported in the “Insider Report,” congressional Republicans have been considering for months whether to pass a second or even a third reconciliation bill. However, the latest proposal appears significantly slimmed down compared to initial conceptions.

Johnson’s and Thune’s proposals already appear to be running into roadblocks. For example, the House Freedom Caucus issued a statement calling on Congress to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security via reconciliation, arguing, “We cannot leave ICE and CBP hanging with nothing but hopes and prayers that reconciliation 2.0 comes together.”

Furthermore, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s negotiation indicates that Congress lacks the will to meaningfully cut federal spending and regulations, and enact pro-Constitution reforms. Will Congress squander another opportunity to enact reforms or fail to enact a bill altogether? Time will tell. — Peter Rykowski

Reports: China and Russia Are Helping Iran

Emerging reports suggest the war in Iran has already turned into a proxy conflict between the United States and Israel on one side, and Iran, with help from China and Russia, on the other. If these reports are accurate, they align with a years-long history of cooperation between these Eastern nations, including in Ukraine.

Western media is reporting that China is helping Iran rebuild its missile systems and giving Iran location data on American military assets in the Middle East. This comes just weeks after news broke that Russia had been providing Iran with similar intelligence on U.S. asset locations. And just this week, Israeli media reported that Russia is providing Iran with intelligence for targeting energy infrastructure in Israel.

The cooperation between Iran, Russia, and China goes back years. The three nations have signed several cooperation agreements within the last few years, some of them in the area of defense. They also already have a track record of cooperating in military campaigns. In the summer of 2024, the Council on Foreign Relations’ magazine, Foreign Affairs, published an article detailing how Iran, China, and North Korea were helping Russia in Ukraine. The authors wrote, in an article titled “The Axis of Upheaval: How America’s Adversaries Are Uniting to Overturn the Global Order,” that the Russians had recently carried out an attack “with weapons fitted with technology from China, missiles from North Korea, and drones from Iran.”

The British outlet The Telegraph reported on Friday that it reviewed shipping data suggesting China has sent four vessels full of sodium perchlorate, used to produce missile propellant, to Iranian ports since the conflict began. The Telegraph’s analysis, reviewed by experts, suggests that the vessels could have “transported enough sodium perchlorate to produce hundreds of ballistic missiles.”

The neoconservative Washington, D.C.-based think tank Institute for the Study of War (ISW) endorsed this report.

The U.S. Defense Department said, via the front website Indo-Pacific Defense FORUM, that it’s looking into whether Iranian missiles that have landed in Israel have a “Made in China” sticker. “U.S. experts are determining whether fragments from Iranian missiles recently launched at Israel and toward several Gulf states indicate that the weapons were manufactured with Chinese technology and components,” the FORUM reported.

On Saturday, The Washington Post reported that Chinese tech firms — “some with links to the People’s Liberation Army” — are publicly marketing and selling detailed intelligence online, including data concerning “equipment at U.S. bases, positions and movements of American carrier strike groups, granular breakdowns of how U.S. aircraft (including B-2 stealth bombers) are assembling for strikes on Tehran, and other real-time insights into U.S. operations.” According to the article, this commercial activity provides Iran with “valuable battlefield awareness of U.S. forces.”

The firms’ private status supposedly provides China with “plausible deniability as to any official involvement.” But in China, there is no such thing as a wholly private company, and the U.S. government knows that. All tech firms are under the control of the Chinese Communist Party because the fascist-style model of quasi-private ownership in the country puts everything under state control.

The Chinese government has not issued a direct public response, denial, or rebuttal to reports that it’s helping Iran reconstitute its ballistic-missile program. But it has called the war illegal under international law and said it opposes attacks on civilian infrastructure.

As for Russia, news broke in early March that the Kremlin was providing Iran intelligence to target American assets in the Middle East. Officials told The Washington Post that Russia gave Iran the “locations of U.S. military assets, including warships and aircraft.”

When reporters asked Trump what he thought about this, the president admitted Russian President Vladimir Putin “might be helping” Iran “a little bit.” He also downplayed it, admitting that it’s similar to the intel the United States has provided Ukraine in its war with Russia.

Speaking of Ukraine, its intelligence apparatus is now ginning up the narrative that Russia has given Iran a list of 55 critical energy infrastructure targets within Israel. The Jerusalem Post reported this on Monday. It’s obviously in Ukraine’s best interest to stir up U.S. animosity toward Russia, and it’s not beyond Israel to push the United States into wars, so this report should be taken with a grain of salt. But it is not without merit. Iranian leadership recently responded to Trump’s threats that the United States will destroy Iranian energy infrastructure by saying they will retaliate with strikes on Israeli energy infrastructure, as well as regional oil infrastructure and power plants associated with the United States and its allies.

As noted above, Iran, Russia, and China are allies. They are invested in each other technologically, economically, and militarily. It’s probable that China and Russia are helping Iran. These nations have signed several agreements over the years, including the 2021 Iran-China 25-year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, the 2025 Iran-Russia 20-year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty (which includes a defense component), the 2026 Iran-China-Russia Trilateral Strategic Pact, and of course, all three are BRICS members.

Read the rest of this article by Paul Dragu at TheNewAmerican.com.

France Repatriates Last Gold Reserves From New York Fed, Booking €13 Billion Profit

France has fully withdrawn its gold reserves from the United States. Observers highlighted the Banque de France (BdF) moving its entire 2,437-tonne stockpile — the world’s fourth-largest — to Paris vaults, framing it as a loss of trust in American custodianship amid geopolitical tensions.

The reality is more nuanced, but still significant. Between July 2025 and January 2026, the BdF sold 129 tonnes (about five percent of its total reserves) of older, non-standard gold bars stored at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Rather than physically shipping the bars across the Atlantic, it sold them at record-high gold prices and used the proceeds to purchase an equivalent volume of modern, higher-purity bars traded on European markets. Those new bars were delivered directly to the BdF’s underground vault in La Souterraine, near Paris. The transaction generated a one-time capital gain of approximately €13 billion ($15 billion), turning a prior-year loss into an €8.1 billion profit for 2025.

BdF Governor François Villeroy de Galhau explicitly described the move as “not politically motivated.” It stemmed from a 2024 internal audit recommending an upgrade to bars meeting current international standards for weight and purity. The operation involved 26 staggered market transactions and left France’s total gold holdings unchanged at 2,437 tonnes, all stored domestically for the first time since the late 1920s.

But are profits and purity the only motivation? In the 1960s, President Charles de Gaulle famously became concerned over the massive welfare program in the United States, as well as the expensive Vietnam War. Skeptical as to how the United States could be financing both “guns and butter,” de Gaulle repatriated French gold from New York, contributing to pressure that led U.S. President Richard Nixon to end dollar-gold convertibility in 1971. Today, pundits are drawing parallels, wondering if gold movements might be signaling a larger financial-system overhaul (possibly entailing a new digital currency system). Central banks worldwide have been quietly repatriating gold in recent years, citing sovereignty, security, and diversification away from the dollar-dominated system. France’s clever arbitrage — selling high in New York and buying compliant bars in Europe — achieved the goal without diplomatic friction or transport risks. Critics on social media speculated the New York Fed lacked physical bars and settled in cash or “paper gold,” but official accounts and market reporting confirm a straightforward sale-and-repurchase at prevailing spot prices.

Notably, nations are increasingly showing preference for physical control of their monetary bedrock. With gold prices elevated and trust in the United States as traditional custodian under scrutiny, it will be interesting to see if more central banks follow suit. — Rebecca Terrell

States Propose Reining In Direct Democracy

Multiple states are proposing and enacting measures that would rein in direct democracy via “citizen initiatives,” a small step toward restoring a republican form of government, which the Founding Fathers favored.

The New York Times recently reported on these state efforts:

In North Dakota, Utah and South Dakota, legislatures are sponsoring measures on the November ballot that would raise the threshold for approving citizen amendments to 60 percent, not a simple majority.

In Missouri, the legislature placed a measure on the ballot that would set an even higher bar: Citizen-sponsored amendments to the state constitution would have to win in each of the state’s eight U.S. House districts. An initiative that wins 95 percent of the vote statewide could lose if it fails in a single district.

And in Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill imposing a raft of new requirements, fees and criminal penalties around collecting signatures on petitions for ballot measures. The result: All 22 initiatives proposed by citizens this year failed to qualify for the ballot….

Twenty-four states give citizens the constitutional right to sponsor initiatives. Last year, legislatures in those states passed 51 bills restricting citizen ballot measures, according to the Fairness Project, which supports progressive initiatives. Between 2018 and 2023 they had passed, on average, 34 restrictive bills a year.

This year, with legislatures still in session, the Fairness Project says it is tracking 76 potential restrictions, including proposals to require 60-percent supermajorities to approve initiatives in Arizona and Oklahoma.

Because many proposals to restrict “citizen initiatives,” including those requiring a supermajority or concurrent majority for approval, require a state constitutional amendment, they ironically require approval by voters, in addition to state legislators, to go into effect.

Previous efforts have had mixed results. For example, although Florida voters approved a 2006 measure to raise the threshold for approving constitutional amendments from a simple majority to 60 percent, voters have rejected more-recent measures in Arkansas, Ohio, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

The fact that direct democracy — with or without state legislative initiation — has been embedded in nearly every state constitution illustrates how modern state constitutions largely do not reflect America’s founding principles.

In our article “Restore State Government,” published in the October 14, 2024 issue of The New American and available as a reprint, we noted why direct democracy is incompatible with America’s founding principles:

What is wrong with allowing citizens to vote directly on laws? While it may sound appealing, direct democracy is incompatible with the American form of government, enables mob rule, and makes it easier for governments to violate God-given rights. Although modern-day politicians, academics, and media personalities regularly label the United States a “democracy,” the Founding Fathers established it as a constitutional republic. Unlike democracies, which are governed by the ever-changing whims and passions of the majority — or demagogues who manipulate it — republics operate under the rule of law and protect unalienable, God-given rights. In his 1961 speech Republics and Democracies, John Birch Society founder Robert Welch noted that the Founding Fathers created a system in which “laws … could not be changed without laborious and deliberate changes in the very structure of that government.” However, under direct democracy, it is easy to enact radical and poorly thought-out laws and constitutional amendments…

A major problem with direct democracy is that it empowers demagogues and special interests rather than ordinary citizens…. Indeed, an analysis of state ballot measures in recent years affirms this statement. In particular, leftist groups and donors have used direct democracy to enact radical policies, including legalized abortion, ranked-choice voting, Medicaid expansion, and raising the minimum wage. These measures have often passed in conservative-leaning states whose legislatures would have rejected such proposals…. And, regardless of how it is used, direct democracy inherently contradicts the limited-government principles of the Founding Fathers.

Thankfully, state legislators appear to be recognizing the problems with democracy. The New York Times article quoted Utah Senate President Stuart Adams, who noted in a 2025 speech that “we live in a republic” and “will not let initiatives driven by out-of-state money turn Utah into California.”

Ultimately, every state should return to America’s founding principles by modeling its government structure after what the Founding Fathers prescribed via the federal Constitution, and limiting its own constitution to outlining that basic structure and protecting God-given rights. This includes eliminating all forms of democracy and technocracy.

Restoring those principles starts with us — educating our fellow citizens about constitutional state government and putting pressure on our elected officials to boldly reapply the Founding Fathers’ blueprint for government. By vigilantly taking action, we can reawaken our country to the principles that made it great. — Peter Rykowski

Explosives Near Serbian Gas Pipeline Echo a Century-old Pattern of Sabotage and Great-power Rivalry

On April 5, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić announced that Serbian army and police units discovered two backpacks containing “two large packages of explosives with detonators” near the town of Kanjiza in northern Serbia, just a few hundred meters from the Balkan Stream (a.k.a., TurkStream extension) pipeline carrying Russian natural gas to Hungary. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a close ally of Vučić, immediately convened an emergency defense council meeting. No suspects have been named, and Ukraine has categorically denied involvement. The discovery comes days before Hungary’s April 12 parliamentary elections, with opposition figures raising questions about timing and possible “false flag” motives. The pipeline is critical infrastructure supplying Russian gas to Central Europe amid current tensions over energy sources.

This incident is more than a local security scare. It fits a grim historical pattern of great-power sabotage targeting land-based energy corridors that threaten naval dominance. In his 1992 book A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, F. William Engdahl details how Britain, facing Germany as its rising economic rival before World War I, viewed the Berlin-Baghdad railway as an existential threat. The German project aimed to create a direct overland route from Europe to the Persian Gulf, bypassing British-controlled sea lanes that monopolized oil transport and trade to India and the East. As Engdahl recounts, a senior British military advisor attached to the Serbian army, R.G.D. Laffan, explicitly described Serbia as the “little strip” blocking the chain from Berlin to Baghdad: “Serbia stood small but defiant between Germany and the great ports of Constantinople and Salonika.” British strategy, per Engdahl, involved fostering unrest and supporting Serbian nationalist groups to sabotage the railway route through the Balkans. The resulting tensions helped ignite the chain of events leading to the 1914 assassination in Sarajevo and the outbreak of the First World War.

A century later, a parallel dynamic unfolds with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Beijing’s massive land-and-sea infrastructure project seeks to connect Eurasia through railways, ports, and pipelines — precisely the type of overland energy and trade routes that could diminish reliance on vulnerable maritime choke points long dominated by Atlanticist naval powers. As in the pre-WWI era, the rising power (China) challenges the established hegemon (the United States) in what Harvard scholar Graham Allison has termed “Thucydides’ Trap.” In his 2017 book Destined for War, Allison warns that when a declining power confronts a rising one, structural stress often leads to conflict unless deliberately managed. The pattern repeats: Efforts to isolate and strangle alternative energy flows — such as U.S. sanctions on Venezuelan oil and the ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz during the Iran conflict — are widely seen as aimed at denying China affordable energy imports and disrupting BRI supply lines.

The explosives found near the Serbian-Hungarian pipeline thus carry an eerie historical echo. Whether the work of state actors, proxies, or opportunists, such incidents highlight how energy infrastructure remains a prime target in great-power competition. As Engdahl and Allison both illustrate, the temptation to manipulate smaller nations and sabotage land routes has repeatedly risked wider conflagrations. In 1914, the result was a world war. Today, with BRI advancing and energy choke points under pressure, the stakes are no less grave. Policymakers in Washington and Beijing would do well to heed the lessons of a century ago before another spark ignites a global chain reaction. — Rebecca Terrell

“Far-right” French Mayors Remove EU Flag From Government Buildings

Multiple conservative-leaning French mayors have removed the European Union flag from their government buildings, following local elections in which conservative and populist parties gained control of multiple municipalities.

Although conservative and populist parties in Europe have largely watered down their opposition to EU membership and European integration, the removal of the EU flag is an encouraging development.

Politico reports:

Several newly elected mayors from the anti-immigration, EU-skeptic National Rally party have taken down EU flags from government buildings in recent days following last week’s municipal elections, in which the far right won 55 new municipal mandates….

In Carcassonne in southern France, National Rally Mayor Christophe Barthès on Sunday filmed himself removing the EU flag from the balcony of the town hall and posted it on his X account. “Out with European flags at town hall! In with French flags,” he wrote.

Bryan Masson, the newly elected mayor of Cagnes-sur-Mer, also in southern France, posted a photo of his office displaying a dozen French flags but no EU flag. And Carla Muti, mayor of Canohès, also posted a video of herself taking down an EU flag.

These moves received vocal opposition from the French government. For example, Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot condemned the removals as “a betrayal of who we are.” In a separate post, the French foreign ministry mocked the flag removals.

Currently, French law does not require municipalities to fly the French flag. Although the National Assembly (lower house) passed a bill to do so in 2023, it has stalled in the Senate (upper house). Schools and universities, however, are currently required to fly the EU flag.

Currently, 17 EU member states — Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain — have formally expressed their “allegiance” to the EU flag. Furthermore, multiple member states and subnational governments have incorporated the EU flag into their laws. For example, Italy requires government offices to fly it — a law that Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has so far not moved to repeal.

Flying the EU flag — whether voluntary or required by law — represents a symbolic surrender of national sovereignty to globalism. More importantly, however, France and other European countries have already given up much of their independence on substantive issues — including on immigration, national borders, currencies, trade policy, finances, and much more. In fact, it is already misleading to describe EU member states as independent nations.

Although it is encouraging to see local French officials take down the EU flag, the only way France can restore its independence is by fully withdrawing from the EU — and Americans must take heed and prevent the formation of an EU-style organization at home. — Peter Rykowski

Trump DOJ Drops 23,000 Criminal Investigations to Prioritize Immigration Enforcement

In the first six months of President Donald Trump’s second term, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi quietly declined more than 23,000 criminal cases, according to a ProPublica analysis of two decades of DOJ data. The agency abandoned hundreds of investigations into terrorism, white-collar crime, drug trafficking, and other offenses while ramping up immigration prosecutions to roughly 32,000 new cases — nearly triple the pace under the Biden administration and 15 percent higher than Trump’s first term. Officials described the shift as a necessary reallocation of resources to address court congestion caused by record border encounters and deportation proceedings.

This is not the first time immigration has been leveraged for broader political and fiscal ends. In the decades before the Civil War, mass migration was used as a political tool of the North. The United States nearly doubled in population between 1820 and 1850, with the vast majority of immigrants flowing toward Northern states. Because the constitutional apportionment of House seats (and thus Electoral College votes) counted all persons — including non-citizens — the North gained disproportionate representation. That political edge enabled the North to pass legislation that resulted in looting the South with oppressive taxation. (Taxes were levied against Southern states that were not levied against Northern states, with the result that, right before the Civil War, 80 percent of the funds in the U.S. Treasury had been siphoned out of the South.) Historians note this revenue imbalance exacerbated sectional tensions leading to secession.

Today, the mechanism echoes in census-driven apportionment. The 14th Amendment requires counting the “whole number of persons” in each state. Non-citizens, including those present illegally, are included, redistributing House seats toward states with large immigrant populations — often Democratic strongholds such as California and New York. Analyses by the Center for Immigration Studies estimate immigration (legal and illegal) shifted as many as 17 seats and Electoral College votes in the 2020 census, with a net gain for blue states in some models. Republican-led efforts to exclude non-citizens from apportionment have repeatedly failed in Congress.

The current DOJ policy fits this longer pattern. By citing docket-overload from migration surges, the administration justifies shelving thousands of non-immigration probes. Supporters call it pragmatic prioritization of border security. Critics counter that it functions as a de facto corruption shield: Federal resources appear devoted to enforcement, satisfying the political base, while overall deportation metrics in certain categories (formal interior removals of Mexicans, for example) lag peak Biden-era figures in 2023 and 2024. Independent tallies show the Trump administration on pace for roughly 540,000 deportations in 2025 versus higher annual totals under Biden in prior years when including returns and expulsions.

Whether viewed as strategic resource management or a strategy to justify not arresting anyone in the Epstein files (and other white-collar criminals), the situation illustrates immigration’s enduring role as a tool for reallocating power and shielding institutional misconduct. With the 2030 census approaching, debates over who counts — and who pays — remain central to American federalism. — Rebecca Terrell

The War on God: A History

The Deep State effort to undermine liberty and build a totalitarian system of global governance has always been a diabolical spiritual movement at its core, explains The New American’s Alex Newman in this episode of Behind The Deep State.

From Lucifer’s rebellion seeking to overthrow God, to humanity’s defiance in building the Tower of Babel, to the Mithraic cults of Rome, to the Illuminati and the French Revolution, to the countless secretive societies and movements that plague humanity today, this has always been a war on the Creator and His moral order.

This war is manifested in attacks on divinely ordained institutions such as marriage, family, church, and property. And it is clearly seen in the effort to overturn God’s divine laws, as revealed throughout the Bible. In fact, the Scriptures themselves speak clearly on these topics.

Don’t miss this important episode striking at the heart of the Deep State’s diabolical agenda.

Tennessee Bill Would Allow Imprisonment of Foster Children in Juvenile Detention Without Criminal Charges

A bill advancing through the Tennessee General Assembly would let courts lock certain foster children in secure juvenile detention facilities, even if they have never been charged with a crime or formally adjudicated delinquent. Senate Bill 1868 (House companion HB 2526), sponsored by Senator Jack Johnson (R-Franklin) and backed by the Department of Children’s Services (DCS), creates a new legal category called “child in need of heightened supervision.” Under the measure, a court could order detention based on probable cause that the child has “exhibited or threatened violent behavior” matching offenses such as aggravated assault, robbery, or weapons violations listed in state code, regardless of whether a delinquency petition was ever filed.

The legislation amends Title 37 of the Tennessee Code to expand pre-hearing detention grounds and explicitly allows placement in facilities normally reserved for delinquent youth, complete with locked cells and heightened security. It also extends custody restrictions: If a child in DCS care is found after a disciplinary hearing to have assaulted staff at a residential placement, his commitment cannot be discharged and he cannot be placed on home supervision for an additional six months. The bill takes effect July 1, 2026, with a projected first-year cost of roughly $10.7 million for added detention beds.

DCS officials defend the proposal as a necessary safety measure. Legislative Director Jim Layman has pointed to children entering custody as dependent and neglected whose “behaviors don’t match what you think are an abused or abandoned or neglected child.” Commissioner Margie Quin has argued that a lack of accountability for violent acts fuels more aggression. The agency faces chronic placement shortages: Hundreds of foster youth have slept in DCS offices, hotels, or temporary shelters because suitable homes or therapeutic programs are unavailable. Some of these children, traumatized by prior abuse, have lashed out at staff or peers.

Critics, however, warn the bill creates a “shadow juvenile justice system” that strips vulnerable children of basic protections. Vanderbilt Law Professor Cara Suvall called it “shocking,” noting no other state handles the issue this way and highlighting the absence of the clarity, specificity, and due-process safeguards that accompany criminal charges. Foster-care advocate and former ward of the state Ella Bat-Ami testified that the measure “functionally criminalizes being a child, just because these kids are in foster care.” She argued it lets DCS dodge accountability for its own placement failures: Traumatized youth naturally act out when housed in offices with limited showers or structure, yet the state responds by labeling them dangerous rather than fixing the system.

Child-welfare advocates from the Youth Law Center and others echo these concerns, arguing the bill risks indefinite detention under the pretext of “safety,” while in reality it’s due to an overcrowded system (and is being done for the convenience of administrators). Opponents say resources would be better spent expanding family preservation programs, therapeutic group homes, and mental-health services instead of expanding the state’s power to warehouse already-victimized kids alongside juvenile offenders.

As SB 1868 moves toward a calendar vote, the State is normalizing the notion of “pre-crime” in an increasingly emergent technocratic system that erodes due process, without the constitutional guardrails that protect even accused criminals. Lawmakers face a choice between genuine reform and further entrenching a failing bureaucracy’s coercive tools. — Rebecca Terrell

Canadian Conservative Party Defections Boost Mark Carney

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is on the cusp of securing a majority government after a fourth Conservative Party member of parliament defected and joined Carney’s Liberal Party.

Politico reports:

Marilyn Gladu’s surprise defection Wednesday puts Carney on the path to securing a majority government next week after votes are tallied Monday in three special elections….

Her decision to join Carney boosts the Liberals’ seat count up to 171 — one shy of the threshold needed for a majority government, which is almost certain to be achieved next week.

That’s when three by-elections, two in Toronto Liberal strongholds, will help Carney get his majority without having to call another federal election until 2029.

In addition to Gladu’s defection, three other Conservative Party MPs and one MP for the far-left New Democratic Party have defected. Among other takeaways, these defections demonstrate how members of “conservative parties” often lack a real commitment to conservative, limited-government principles. — Peter Rykowski