The Insider Report from The New American

What Closure of the Strait of Hormuz Means for U.S.

The ongoing Israel-Iran war has escalated dramatically with U.S. and Israeli strikes under Operation Epic Fury targeting Iranian military and nuclear sites. Iran has retaliated with missile and drone attacks on Israeli and Gulf targets. A critical development is the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman through which approximately 20 percent of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies pass daily.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has broadcast warnings via VHF radio declaring “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz.” While Tehran has not issued a formal blockade declaration, the threats, combined with reported attacks on vessels (including the tanker Skylight), GPS jamming, and Houthi-related disruptions, have caused commercial shipping to collapse. Data from MarineTraffic and Kpler confirm a 70 percent plunge in traffic. Major operators such as Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk, and several oil majors have suspended transits. Tankers are anchoring or diverting, turning the chokepoint into a de facto war zone. Oil prices have surged, with Brent crude jumping more than 10 percent to approach $82 per barrel. Shipping has ground to a near-halt, insurance premiums have skyrocketed, and even partial passages carry extreme risk.

The immediate global fallout includes energy price spikes that threaten inflation worldwide. Europe, Asia, and emerging markets reliant on Gulf exports face supply shocks. Yet some analysts argue the probable real target extends beyond Iran to China. Beijing imports roughly 10 million barrels of oil per day, with a significant portion routed through Hormuz. The disruption directly squeezes China’s energy security at a time of heightened U.S.-China trade tensions.

Naturally, the pressure affects commodity markets. Chinese traders have bet big on metals futures, including industrial and precious metals tied to manufacturing and electronics. China dominates global rare earth metals processing (controlling over 80 percent of supply), a strategic asset it has previously weaponized in trade disputes. Now, skyrocketing energy and shipping costs erode its profit margins, forcing premature cash settlements to cover volatility and margin calls. In the midst of the ongoing U.S.-China trade war, the Hormuz crisis puts Beijing at a disadvantage. Disrupted cash flows and forced liquidations in metals trades could weaken China’s ability to sustain export advantages or retaliate in critical mineral markets.

Russia has warned of “significant disbalances” in global oil markets, while selective (but unverified) social media claims suggest Iran may allow limited Chinese and Russian shipping. Regardless, the net effect is a strategic squeeze on Beijing’s supply lines. The Israel-Iran war, while rooted in regional security and nuclear concerns, thus delivers collateral damage that aligns with broader U.S. objectives of containing China’s economic ascent.

Whether the strait reopens quickly depends on de-escalation or U.S. naval intervention. Meanwhile, energy prices climb and trade-war fault lines deepen. — Rebecca Terrell

Was the United States Right to Go to War in Iran? And Should One Man Have Made the Decision?

The very day the U.S. military launched its attack on Iran, President Trump told the American people, “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.” The following day, he said on Truth Social, “Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term!” And then, two days later he said in another post, “It was my great honor to Destroy All Nuclear facilities & capability, and then, STOP THE WAR!”

Say, what?! Isn’t the war still ongoing?

Of course, the above three statements by Trump were made last year, on June 21, June 22, and June 24, respectively, after he ordered the U.S. military to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Then, as now, the president made the decision to go to war without first going to Congress for approval. And then, as now, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson supported Trump’s decision to bypass Congress. In June 2025, Johnson opined, “The President made the right call, and did what he needed to do. Leaders in Congress were aware of the urgency of this situation and the Commander-in-Chief evaluated that the imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act. The world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, which chants ‘Death to America,’ simply could not be allowed the opportunity to obtain and use nuclear weapons.”

But how “imminent” was the danger that “outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act”? According to the Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community dated March 2025, just three months prior to Trump’s executive action: “We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that [Iranian leader] Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” (Emphasis in original.)

But regardless of how consequential or inconsequential Iran’s nuclear threat may have been in 2025, it was supposedly eliminated by the U.S. military strike of June 21. In fact, on June 25 the White House published a compilation of quotes at whitehouse.gov “from those who actually know” under the headline, “Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated — and Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News.”

So how about today? Could Iran have gotten its nuclear program up and running to the point that it posed an imminent danger in less than a year? And was this new threat so imminent that Trump, once again, did not have time to ask for congressional action? Of course, Trump did not put it that way. But when he made his February 28 announcement the day the current war began, he said, “Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people.” (Emphasis added.) Later in the same announcement, he added, “they rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions, and we can’t take it anymore.” And the next day, he said in another statement from the White House, “These actions are right and they are necessary to ensure that Americans will never have to face a radical blood-thirsty terrorist regime armed with nuclear weapons and lots of threats.”

Iran under the authoritarian rule of the ayatollahs has indeed been a “radical blood-thirsty terrorist regime.” But were Trump’s actions to go to war without congressional approval “right” and “necessary”? Considering that he has not made a good case that the United States faced “imminent threats,” should we trust him? In fact, should we trust any one man to be the decider as to when to go to war, regardless of whether he is a Republican or a Democrat, or a conservative or a liberal?

As this is being written, most congressional Republicans support Trump’s unilateral action — and one wonders if many of these same Republicans would be less trustful of the president if he were a leftist Democrat instead of a Republican. (On the other hand, it is reasonable to consider how many Democrats who now oppose Trump’s unilateral action would instead support it if the president were a Democrat.)

One Republican who is opposed to Trump’s launching a war without congressional approval is Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who introduced a resolution (H. Con. Res. 38) that directs the president “to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran.” That is, if Congress wants to continue our military intervention in Iran, it should vote to do so.

In remarks on House floor on March 4, Massie stated,

This administration can’t even give us a straight answer as to why we launched this pre-emptive war. The president says we had to strike first because an Iranian threat was imminent. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense conceded there was no evidence of an imminent Iranian strike. Some told us this war was about nuclear weapons, but six months ago we were assured our last strike on Iran decimated their nuclear program. So which is it? I think the most candid answer came from the secretary of state, who told the press that Israel forced our hand and dragged us into this war — again.

Massie continued: “And that truth is the very reason why it is Congress that must decide war. If American lives are to be risked and American blood is to be shed, that decision must be debated and voted on by the representatives of the American people.”

Other possible explanations for going to war have also been suggested, including diverting attention from the Epstein files. (Remember Shakespeare’s famous line “Busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels”?). But regardless of what the casus belli could be, and there could be multiple reasons that caused Trump to act without congressional approval, there is no question that Massie’s insistence that Congress debate and vote on the matter is in accord with the Constitution. As James Madison explained in a letter to Thomas Jefferson in 1798, “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Govts. demonstrates, that the Ex. [Executive] is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legisl. [Legislature].”

Unfortunately, many Republican congressmen may be fine with President Trump making the hard decisions about war, so that, no matter what happens, they can shirk the responsibility. On March 4, the Senate rejected a resolution similar to Massie’s (S. J. Res. 104) by a vote of 47 to 53. All Republican senators except Rand Paul of Kentucky voted against it, and all Democratic senators except John Fetterman of Pennsylvania voted for it. The following day, the House rejected Massie’s resolution by a vote of 212 to 219. Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio was the only Republican to join Massie in voting for the resolution.

Yet Congress needs to take seriously the awesome war powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and the American people must insist that Congress do so. — Gary Benoit

Trump Ousts Kristi Noem from DHS, Appoints Senator Markwayne Mullin

On March 5 President Donald Trump announced that he is replacing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem with Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, effective March 31. The move comes amid mounting criticism of Noem’s leadership, particularly after her contentious congressional testimony earlier in the week. Trump praised Mullin as a “MAGA warrior” and the only Native American in the Senate, highlighting his background as a former professional MMA fighter and advocate for tribal communities.

Noem, the former South Dakota governor, will transition to a new role as special envoy for “The Shield of the Americas,” a Western Hemisphere security initiative set to be unveiled on March 7 in Doral, Florida. Trump commended her service, noting “numerous and spectacular results, especially on the Border,” but the announcement followed reports of his frustration with her handling of key issues.

During hearings on March 3 and 4 before the House Judiciary and Senate Homeland Security Committees, Noem faced bipartisan scrutiny over the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) immigration enforcement tactics, including fatal shootings of U.S. citizens by federal officers in Minneapolis, and operational challenges during recent government shutdown threats.

One of the publicly adduced points of contention was a $220 million taxpayer-funded ad campaign featuring Noem in prominent roles, such as riding a horse at Mount Rushmore, training with Coast Guard teams in San Diego, conducting firefighting simulations in Alaska, as well as other elaborate and exotic scenes. Noem testified that Trump had approved the campaign, but the president denied any knowledge, stating, “I never knew anything about it.” Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) corroborated this, noting a discrepancy in recollections after speaking with Trump.

Sources close to the White House described Trump as “furious” over what he viewed as Noem lying to Congress.

However, insiders suggest the real driver for Noem’s dismissal was her role overseeing immigration enforcement, which drew ire from progressive Democrats and activists who have long opposed Trump’s deportation agenda, framing it as overly aggressive and unconstitutional. For instance, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other Democrats had threatened impeachment proceedings against Noem if she wasn’t removed, citing fatal incidents and what they characterized as draconian enforcement tactics.

Trump, likely reacting to the full-scale media blitz against immigration enforcement, rolled out his own softening stance on immigration, as evidenced in a March 5 Fox News briefing where he urged leniency for non-criminal illegal immigrants, saying, “You’ve got to lighten up on this…. We have a lot of heart for people [who] came in illegally, but they’re good people and they’re working now on farms … in luncheonettes and hotels.” He emphasized focusing deportations on criminals, murderers, and the mentally ill, signaling a pivot from the hardline promises that defined his campaign and Noem’s tenure.

Reactions have been mixed. Supporters such as Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond hailed Mullin as an “inspired and excellent pick,” emphasizing his potential to strengthen national security.

Critics welcomed Noem’s departure, citing her “disastrous” congressional performance and broader DHS controversies.

On social media, users expressed surprise, with some questioning why other appointees such as Attorney General Pam Bondi remain in place amid their own criticisms.

Mullin, surprised by the call from Trump, called the nomination “pretty humbling” and expressed excitement to “get started.” He’ll have to wait for Senate confirmation, but does the move signal a shift in Trump’s border policies in reaction to debates over DHS funding? — Rebecca Terrell

Iceland to Hold Referendum on Joining EU

Iceland’s government has announced that it will hold a national referendum on joining the European Union as soon as August amid growing efforts to strengthen the supranational bloc at the expense of national sovereignty.

On February 25, during a press conference in Warsaw with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Icelandic Prime Minister Kristrún Frostadóttir announced that her country would hold the referendum “in the coming months.” If passed, the country would restart formal negotiations on joining the EU.

The referendum could happen as soon as August. Politico reports:

Iceland is weighing a vote on restarting EU membership talks as early as August, according to two people familiar with the country’s accession preparations….

The Icelandic parliament is expected to announce the date of the ballot within the next few weeks, according to the two people who were granted anonymity to speak freely. The move comes after a flurry of visits by EU politicians to Iceland and by Icelandic politicians to Brussels. If Icelanders vote yes, they could join the EU before any other candidate country, one of the people said.

This isn’t the first time Iceland has sought EU membership. A member of the European Economic Area since its creation in 1994, the country applied to formally join the EU itself in 2009. However, it froze negotiations in 2013 after a government more skeptical of EU membership assumed power.

Iceland’s current pro-EU government, elected in 2024 and led by the left-wing Social Democratic Alliance, had previously promised to hold a referendum by 2027.

Opinion polls indicate that Iceland’s population is roughly split on joining the bloc. However, momentum for joining has increased due to “a rise in the cost of living and the war in Ukraine,” as well as public disapproval of U.S. policies under President Donald Trump.

Iceland appears to be the latest example of the establishment using geopolitical events to promote internationalism at the expense of national sovereignty. For example, Finland and Sweden joined NATO in 2023 and 2024, respectively, in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Sweden and Denmark have both faced calls to join the Euro currency.

Unfortunately, once countries have surrendered their sovereignty to the EU or another international organization, it’s rare for them to reclaim it — the United Kingdom’s “Brexit” vote in 2016 and subsequent withdrawal in 2020 was a rare exception.

Since Iceland’s government appears intent on shackling its country to the EU, it now appears up to voters to protect national sovereignty. — Peter Rykowski

Leaked Bohemian Grove Membership List Ignites Online Backlash

A leaked membership list from the secretive Bohemian Grove has stirred public interest. It originated from independent journalist Daniel Boguslaw, who obtained a 2023 attendance roster through persistent outreach to a Bay Area club member. Published on his Substack on February 25, the list includes more than 2,200 names and has been confirmed as authentic by a club insider, according to the San Francisco Standard. Boguslaw’s post included a downloadable PDF, sparking widespread media coverage, including a New York Post article highlighting the “who’s who of celebrity elite.” Notable figures on the list include comedian Conan O’Brien, musician Jimmy Buffett (deceased), billionaire Michael Bloomberg, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, venture capitalist Paul Pelosi (husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi), industrialist Charles Koch, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, actor Clint Eastwood, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III.

Some enthusiasts shared a detailed breakdown categorizing names by politics, business, and technology, emphasizing alleged ties to power structures. One researcher built a searchable online database at thebohemiangrove.info, compiling the leaked names with open-source intelligence drawn from SEC filings, OpenSecrets, and LinkedIn. The database includes members’ employers, titles, political donations, and NGO affiliations.

Bohemian Grove is a private retreat founded by members of the Bohemian Club, which began in San Francisco in 1872. Intended as a haven for artists, writers, and journalists, one of its founding members was famed author Ambrose Bierce. Mark Twain was an early associate, as was Jack London. The Grove is a rustic campground covering 2,700 acres in Monte Rio, California, owned by the Bohemian Club since 1878. Over the years, the club evolved to include influential figures from politics, business, and technology. Each July, it hosts a two-week event featuring theatrical performances, lectures, and informal gatherings, drawing around 2,500 attendees divided into themed “camps” like “Lost Angels” or “Mandalay.” The event’s signature ritual, the “Cremation of Care,” involves a dramatic ceremony before a 40-foot concrete owl statue, symbolizing the shedding of worldly concerns — often depicted in leaked footage as hooded figures around a bonfire.

Some view the Grove as a harmless networking spot, while others fuel darker narratives. Past infiltrators, such as Alex Jones and his 2000 footage, have long portrayed it as a site of quasi-occult rituals and policy-shaping discussions. The Bohemian Club declined comment about this recent leak. — Rebecca Terrell

Eurocrats Propose “One Market Act,” Digital Euro

European Union leaders are proposing new measures to deepen regional integration on the road to becoming a full-fledged federal state.

On February 11, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen announced the “One Europe, One Market” initiative, which aims to impose full market integration in all economic sectors. At the EU leaders’ summit, held the following day in Belgium, Eurocrats endorsed implementing this initiative by the end of 2027, and Von der Leyen is expected to unveil an “EU-wide, single legal framework” on March 18.

This proposal has been years in the making. For example, former Italian prime ministers Mario Draghi and Enrico Letta, at the request of the European Commission, published reports in 2024 calling for deeper EU integration.

As we reported in the October 31, 2025 “Insider Report,” Draghi, a Bilderberg Group member who also served as president of the European Central Bank, has called for “a new pragmatic federalism” — consistent with his previous calls for a full-fledged federal European superstate — that would require EU member states to give up their veto power.

Meanwhile, Letta is advocating for the EU to pass the “One Market Act,” which would implement Von der Leyen’s “One Europe, One Market” proposal. In an op-ed published in Politico on February 26, Letta argued:

In a world reshaped by Trump and by the accelerating logic of geopolitical competition, Europe needs an answer that is both realistic and ambitious. The strongest response the EU can offer is to complete the single market….

In the areas that matter most, we still do not have one market. We have the sum of 27 national markets.

This fragmentation is not a technical flaw. It is a political and strategic weakness….

This is why we need a bold political commitment to strengthen and complete the single market. We need an agreement that creates a fast track for the steps required to complete it, endorsed by the presidents of the EU institutions. It should have a name that matches its ambition: the One Market Act.

In 1992, Europe moved from a common market to a single market. Now we need the next step: one market.

Multiple EU member states openly support Draghi’s and Letta’s proposals, As we reported in the February 6 “Insider Report,” European national leaders are working on their own initiatives to promote and implement the same goals.

Meanwhile, the European Central Bank is proposing the creation of a “digital Euro,” which Eurocrats are framing as a way to ensure financial stability and reduce reliance on the United States. Euronews reports:

Europe is pursuing a two-track strategy: a public initiative, the digital euro, a central bank digital currency issued by the European Central Bank (ECB), and a private initiative, account-to-account payment networks such as Wero, supported by major European banks.

The ECB plans to issue digital cash that is a direct claim on the central bank, rather than on a commercial bank. It will not fluctuate like Bitcoin, will not be processed through the US like a debit card, and will be legal tender, unlike stablecoins.

The Eurosystem will invite European payment service providers to express interest in 2026 for participation in a digital euro pilot scheduled for the second half of 2027. This initiative follows the European Central Bank Governing Council’s decision to move the project forward, with the final decision on issuing a digital euro pending adoption of relevant EU legislation. The 12-month pilot will assess technical and operational readiness through controlled transactions that mirror the design but will not have legal tender status.

None of these developments should surprise us. The EU — originally established in 1952 as an economic union called the European Coal and Steel Community — was intended from the start to eventually become a full-fledged federal state. Furthermore, as a regional union, the EU serves as a steppingstone toward a one-world government.

These developments in the EU demonstrate the need for Americans to educate their fellow citizens about the dangers of regional unions and prevent a similar regional bloc from being imposed over North America. — Peter Rykowski

Qatar/Israel Influence Wars on College Campuses

U.S. campuses have become a battleground in a covert propaganda and influence war between Qatar and Israel. Qatar, through its massive sovereign wealth fund, has poured between $6 and 7 billion into American universities since the early 2000s, targeting institutions such as Cornell, Georgetown, Carnegie Mellon, and Northwestern. This funding correlates with a 300-percent rise in antisemitic incidents at recipient schools, according to the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP). Critics argue these investments promote anti-Israel propaganda, amplified by Qatar’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, fostering environments where pro-Palestinian activism borders on antisemitism. A federal lawsuit against Carnegie Mellon alleges that more than $1 billion in Qatari funds influenced handling of anti-Jewish discrimination complaints, prioritizing donor agendas over student safety.

On the Israeli side, former Mossad officer Victor Ostrovsky has described how Israel counters such influences through “sayanim” — volunteer Jewish helpers in diaspora communities who provide logistical support such as safe houses, cars, and funds, enabling Mossad’s global reach despite its small size of about 1,200 personnel. In a resurfaced interview, Ostrovsky explained: “We approach a Jewish doctor in London… ‘We need your help to save Jews elsewhere.’ Seventy percent turned them down, but nobody will ever turn them in.” This system, detailed in his 1990 book By Way of Deception, allows Israel to mobilize networks for intelligence and advocacy.

This Qatar-Israel clash exemplifies a wider trend where, as America becomes more diverse, foreign nations weaponize diasporas within the United States, financing them with their respective sovereign wealth funds. Qatar’s Investment Authority ($500+ billion) mirrors OPEC funds such as Saudi Arabia’s Private Investment Fund (PIF), using opaque investments to sway academia and media.

Beyond the Middle East, China leverages its diaspora via the United Front Work Department, recruiting for espionage and propaganda, as seen in cases such as Christine Fang’s infiltration of U.S. politicians. Moreover, they influenced academia and spread Chinese Communist Party propaganda via branches of the Confucius Institute on college campuses. Turkey mobilizes its diaspora communities to spy on critics and promote its policies, often through cultural organizations. According to whistleblower Sibel Edmonds in 2005, Turkey was also blackmailing disgraced Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (who later went to prison). Pakistan uses diaspora lobbying to influence U.S. views on Kashmir, while India employs groups such as the Overseas Friends of BJP and firms such as APCO Worldwide to advance trade and tech agendas.

These tactics erode U.S. sovereignty, reducing America from an independent country to a geopolitical chess board where other nations move their pieces in a high-stakes game of influence, blackmail, and propaganda. — Rebecca Terrell

Trump Administration Continues Fight Against Global Carbon Tax

The Trump administration is continuing to advocate against the International Maritime Organization’s proposed global carbon tax on shipping, which the bloc’s members voted last year to postpone.

Politico reports:

The Trump administration is drafting a diplomatic memo that would warn countries against adopting a carbon tax on shipping pollution and other climate measures, escalating its high-profile efforts to subvert international action on global warming.

The State Department cable, reviewed by POLITICO’s E&E News, says the U.S. is “strongly opposed” to a fee on ships’ climate pollution, and “will not tolerate” the creation of a fund that uses carbon revenue for programs aimed at lowering the industry’s emissions….

The vote was delayed for a year, after which two of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet secretaries described the attempt to block the tax as an “all hands on deck” effort. Now administration officials are trying to kill the measure permanently. They’re also taking aim at other initiatives that are linked to the tax in a package called the Net-Zero Framework, or NZF.

“The most appropriate path forward is to end consideration of the NZF prior to moving to a new discussion,” says the draft cable, which was written by the State Department in coordination with the Department of Energy and other agencies, according to a person who was granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. It’s expected to be sent to member nations of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee before its next meeting April 27.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is pressuring Vanuatu “to withdraw a United Nations draft resolution supporting strong action to prevent climate change, including reparations for damage caused by any nation that fails to take action,” The Associated Press reports.

These actions mark the latest steps by the United States to counter the UN’s climate regime, following the U.S. announcement in January to withdraw from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Contact your U.S. representative and senators, and urge them to support these actions, with the ultimate goal of withdrawing the United States from the UN entirely. — Peter Rykowski

The Latest Epstein File Casualties

The Jeffrey Epstein scandal continues as unsealed documents reveal his extensive network of influence among powerful figures. One prominent casualty is former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, who announced his resignation from Harvard University on February 25. Summers, a former Harvard president and influential economist, will step down from his academic and faculty roles at the end of the academic year. He has been on leave since November 2025, following the release of Epstein files showing a closer relationship than previously acknowledged, including ongoing correspondence. Harvard’s review of these documents prompted the move, with spokesman Jason Newton stating it was “in connection with the ongoing review.” Summers expressed regret for his “misguided decision” to communicate with Epstein but denied wrongdoing.

In Norway, former Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland faces charges of aggravated corruption tied to Epstein documents. The 75-year-old, who also chaired the Nobel Committee and led the Council of Europe, was hospitalized on February 17, following what reports described as a suicide attempt amid the probe’s stress. His lawyer denied it was a suicide attempt, citing severe health risks from the investigation, but confirmed his critical condition.

Not surprisingly, the ripple effects extend to globalist organizations. On February 26, Børge Brende, president of the World Economic Forum (WEF), resigned after the forum initiated an independent investigation into his Epstein connections.

Meanwhile, Democrats are pointing fingers at Donald Trump, renaming Operation Epic Fury as Operation Epstein Files, one of many distraction techniques to draw attention away from the president. “Why are Republicans so interested in Bill and Hillary Clinton?” asked California Democrat Ted Lieu during a recent press conference. “They are trying to distract from the fact that Donald Trump is in the Epstein files thousands and thousands of times.” Without providing specifics, Lieu claimed that the files reference “highly disturbing allegations” of Trump raping and threatening minors. Though the president is mentioned more than 3,000 times in the redacted files, Trump has denied any wrongdoing regarding his relationship with Epstein. — Rebecca Terrell