“Biden Inflation Up!” – Stocks Slump With Rate-Cut Hopes As CPI Soars In January
Tl;dr: Headline CPI accelerated for the 7th straight month as the Biden admin BLS is gone but the surge in money-supply they left behind is still in play:
CPI Highlights:
The index for shelter rose 0.4 percent in January, accounting for nearly 30 percent of the monthly all items increase.
The energy index rose 1.1 percent over the month, as the gasoline index increased 1.8 percent.
The index for food also increased in January, rising 0.4 percent as the index for food at home rose 0.5 percent and the index for food away from home increased 0.2 percent.
The food at home index rose 0.5 percent over the month. The index for meats, poultry, fish, and eggs rose 1.9 percent over the month, as the index for eggs increased 15.2 percent. This was the largest increase in the eggs index since June 2015 and it accounted for about two thirds of the total monthly food at home increase
The food away from home index rose 0.2 percent in January. The index for limited service meals rose 0.3 percent over the month and the index for full service meals rose 0.1 percent
The index for nonalcoholic beverages increased 2.2 percent over the same period, while the index for other food at home rose 0.8 percent and the index for dairy and related products increased 1.2 percent
The energy index increased 1.1 percent in January. The gasoline index increased 1.8 percent over the month.
The index for natural gas rose 1.8 percent over the month while the index for electricity was unchanged in January
Core CPI Details:
Indexes that increased over the month include motor vehicle insurance, recreation, used cars and trucks, medical care, communication, and airline fares. The indexes for apparel, personal care, and household furnishings and operations were among the few major indexes that decreased in January.
The shelter index increased 0.4 percent over the month.
The index for owners’ equivalent rent rose 0.3 percent in January, as did the index for rent.
The lodging away from home index increased 1.4 percent in January.
The medical care index increased 0.2 percent over the month. The index for prescription drugs increased 2.5 percent in January and the index for hospital services rose 0.9 percent over the month.
The physicians’ services index increased 0.1 percent in January.
The motor vehicle insurance index rose 2.0 percent in January.
The index for recreation rose 1.0 percent over the month and the index for used cars and trucks increased 2.2 percent.
Other indexes that increased in January include communication, airline fares, and education.
In contrast, the index for apparel fell 1.4 percent in January.
The indexes for personal care and household furnishings and operations also declined over the month. The new vehicles index was unchanged in January.
President Trump clarifies who is to blame for this…
The other partner in crime is also obvious… Fed Chair Powell and his pals pumping markets in desperation into the election…
Repeating the mistakes of the past…
* * *
As we highlighted in our preview, the CPI matters a lot, again!
After last month’s CPI report came in cooler than expected, with Core CPI missing expectations both sequentially and YoY, analysts expect core to accelerate sequentially, but bear in mind we have the annual revisions malarkey to wade through first, so who knows what the ‘expectation’ will be comparable to.
Seasonality screams big beat today, as Deutsche Bank’s Jim Reid points out, surprises to CPI over the last 25-plus years have been more likely to be biased to the upside in H1 than in H2. January’s release (which we will see today) has seen the largest number of beats (50%) and the lowest number of downside misses (15%).
And sure enough, both headline and core CPI rose more than expected in January. Headline CPI jumped 0.5% MoM (+0.3% exp) dragging the price series up 3.0% YoY (+2.9% exp). That is the seventh straight month of accelerating MoM CPI prints…
Source: Bloomberg
Core Services costs are accelerating rapidly…
Source: Bloomberg
Core CPI – more watched – jumped 0.4% MoM (more than the 0.3% rise expected) and that dragged core consumer prices up 3.3% YoY (3.2% exp)…
Source: Bloomberg
Core Goods prices have shifted away from YoY deflation…
Source: Bloomberg
The so-called ‘SuperCore CPI’ exploded 0.7% MoM higher in January, leaving the YoY rise in prices ‘sticky’ above 4%…
Source: Bloomberg
Transportation Services costs soared…
Source: Bloomberg
Shelter inflation has flatlined, rising in Jan to 5.06% YoY from 4.99% in Dec, while rent inflation continues to drop, now at 4.60% from 4.72% in Dec, and the lowest since March 2022
Breakfast just got a lot more expensive…
Wow! My Bacon, Egg & Cheese (With a Cup of Coffee) Price Index just saw its largest-ever monthly price jump in January, surging 6.1% (+18 cents)! Here are the details:
And before everyone blames Trump, this was baked in the cake from the last year of money supply pumping by Bidenomics…
Source: Bloomberg
Finally, what will stocks do with this new information?
It’s certainly been a wild ride on Payrolls and CPI days, but as Goldman’s Lee Coppersmith notes, a hit CPI liked this suggests considerable downside for the S&P today…
And in the pre-market, futures are heading that way…
Perhaps more notably, the market is now pricing in just one rate cut this year (pushing expectations from Sept to Dec)…
…but is it different this time under Trump?
Do you see what happens Larry, when Biden’s BLS is no longer around to pretend “inflation is contained” pic.twitter.com/bZ2Dcbdmja
An Obama-era monument to green delusions finally faces extinction.
Longtime readers may recall a 2014 Journal editorial about California’s “bird-fryer” solar plant, a taxpayer-backed venture that was hell on local animals. Turns out it was also hell on electricity ratepayers. But as with so many politically favored green ventures, waiting for official acknowledgment of failure can feel like an eternity.
Now finally here in 2025 it seems the reckoning has begun. The Las Vegas Review-Journal notes in an editorial that “a major California utility — Pacific Gas & Electric — announced that it will no longer buy power from the Ivanpah solar plant off Interstate 15 near the Nevada-California border. As a result, two of the plant’s three towers will shut down next year — and the third will probably follow.”
The plant might have functioned merely as the world’s most expensive backyard bug zapper. But it was just too lethal. The Review-Journal’s Emerson Drewes reported last month:
Federal wildlife officials said Ivanpah might act as a “mega-trap” for wildlife, with the bright light of the plant attracting insects, which in turn attract insect-eating birds that fly to their deaths in the intensely focused light rays.
So many birds have been victims of the plant’s concentrated sun rays that workers referred to them as “streamers,” for the smoke plume that comes from birds that ignite in midair. When federal wildlife investigators visited the plant around 10 years ago, they reported an average of one “streamer” every two minutes.
Performance has proven so poor that PG&E has exercised its right to terminate the contract, about which negotiations have been completed; there is no doubt that towers 1 and 3 will cease operations within roughly a year. And it appears to be the case that Edison too wants out: “the utility is in ‘ongoing discussions’ with the project’s owners and the federal government over ending the utility’s contract.”
Calculating the Number of Dead Birds
There are 525,600 minutes in a year.
At one fried bird every two minutes, assuming sunshine 50 percent of the time (more in summer and less in winter), that’s 525,600 / 4 or roughly 131,400 dear birds per year.
Over 10 years that would be 1.31 million dead birds. Ouch!
That may be the high side, perhaps even low side. However, it’s clear that hundreds of thousands of birds were killed in this boondoggle that was never profitable even with subsidies.
New Jersey Reaps the Wind, Again
It’s not just solar. Also note that Shell just backed out of a wind-energy project despite huge subsidies.
Another offshore wind development stalled this week off the Jersey shore, making it the latest of three such projects to fail despite generous terms from the state. Energy giant Shell wrote off its 50% stake in Atlantic Shores, choosing to take a $1 billion impairment instead of complete the 2,800 megawatt wind farm. New Jersey’s Board of Public Utilities canceled its request for a wind-energy provider, leaving the unfinished project with no prospective customer.
Ratepayers can rejoice. Atlantic Shores would have charged about three times the market price for the power it generated, according to a review by Whitestrand Consulting. That would have raised electricity rates by 11% for residents and 13% to 15% for businesses, forcing them to overpay by $48 billion over the wind farm’s lifetime.
Gov. Murphy has treated renewable energy as a sacred cause no matter the costs since 2018. That includes a bill he signed to let Ørsted pocket federal credits it had promised to pass on to customers, though he clawed money back when the projects died.
Mr. Murphy says he approves of the utility bureau’s decision not to seek a new wind provider, but he still hasn’t given up his green dreams, calling offshore wind a “once-in-a-generation opportunity.” A once-in-a-generation failure is more accurate.
This story is from July 2024, but it contains pertinent details.
A massive wind turbine blade shattered offshore Massachusetts causing extensive debris, which shut down beaches on Nantucket Island and caused serious concern to fishermen, who worried that the debris could damage their boats. The failure of the massive blade and the resulting debris caused the federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to suspend operations at Vineyard Wind until it could be determined whether the “blade failure” impacts other turbine blades on the development of the offshore wind farm. Power production has been suspended and installation of new wind turbine construction is on hold. And as more green energy trash washes ashore the local town is considering litigation. The facility’s massive wind turbines began sending electricity to the grid this past winter.
A GE Vernova turbine blade failed at the U.K.’s massive Dogger Bank offshore wind installation this spring, and another broke several blades in Germany last fall, which brought the number of broken GE blades at the Alfstedt-Ebersdorf wind farm in Lower Saxony to three. The first blade had broken off the previous year at one of the wind farm’s eight GE 5.3-158 turbines.
On June 28, America Electric Power (AEP) filed suit against GE Vernova in New York court over quality and warranty concerns, claiming widespread issues with the turbines it has deployed at three wind projects in Oklahoma. It is alleging that “within only two to three years of commercial operation, the GE wind turbine generators have exhibited numerous material defects on major components and experienced several complete failures, at least one turbine blade liberation event, and other deficiencies.”
The American Bird Conservancy estimates approximately 538,000 wind turbine-caused bird deaths occur in the U.S. each year.
Raptors like Golden Eagles and nighttime migratory songbirds are particularly vulnerable.
That estimate is from 2021. So double or triple it. But skeptics point out cats kill 2.4 billion birds a year. And 200 million birds are allegedly killed by automobiles each year.
Have cats killed any golden eagles?
Economic Reality
Let’s return to economic reality.
None of these projects are profitable, even with subsidies. That’s why they fail.
Meanwhile, consumers face monstrous hikes in energy bills to pay for these boondoggles as mounds of unrecyclable garbage piles up in massive wind graveyards.
Electrical companies imposed rolling blackouts for the first time since 2001. Inability to meet the surge in demand is due to a shift from natural gas.
Since Trump’s inauguration, the U.S. dollar has been highly sensitive to tariff announcements given its role in global trade and economic confidence.
The dollar strengthened after tariff threats against China, Mexico, and Canada, it later fell once they were suspended in January.
While trade policy remains uncertain, some predict the dollar will strengthen over the next few years, but then pullpack amid swelling U.S. debt accelerated by Trump’s tax cuts.
Below, we show trends in the U.S. Dollar Index (DXY) across each president since Richard Nixon.
The DXY measures the value of the dollar against six major currencies as a way to track its relative performance or weakness. When the U.S. economy is strong relative to global economies, the value of the DXY often rises, given higher demand for the safe haven asset.
In 1985, the DXY ascended to record highs during Ronald Reagan’s presidency when the federal funds rate reached 18%.
These high rates made holding U.S. dollars more attractive, and America’s relative economic strength played a role in driving investor sentiment.
At the time, the sharp appreciation of the dollar contributed to a substantial trade deficit as American goods became increasingly expensive while imports were cheap. To curb the dollar’s rise, global leaders struck a deal in 1985 called the Plaza Accord, which contributed to its 40% decline over the next two years.
By contrast, the dollar hit all-time lows in 2008 during the global financial crisis under George W. Bush. At the end of 2008, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates to near-zero amid deteriorating labor market conditions. Amid concerns of a slow economic recovery, investors looked to gold and other higher-yielding currencies.
Will the U.S. Dollar Index Continue Rising?
Over 2024, the dollar’s uptrend was underscored by America’s economic dynamism while Europe and China faced muted GDP growth.
This trend could continue if Trump follows through on tariffs for a number of reasons. First, tariffs could rekindle inflation, leading the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates elevated, which could cause the dollar to strengthen. Secondly, tariffs could cause economic weakness in other countries, improving America’s relative strength, creating higher demand for the currency.
While Trump’s position on the dollar is contradictory—he wants it to maintain its dominance but advocates for competitive weakening to boost U.S. exports—all eyes will be watching if tariffs serve as bargain chips or materialize into new sweeping policies.
To learn more about this topic from a global perspective, check out this graphic on the performance of the U.S. dollar against major currencies in 2024.
The European Commission is essentially manipulating NGOs to achieve its own goals in exchange for financial support. A Dutch newspaper has exposed part of this process, writes Magyar Nemzet, which then shows how Brussels does this and who the biggest domestic beneficiaries are.
On Jan. 22, De Telegraaf reported on secret contracts that the European Commission had signed with green NGOs to conduct alleged covert lobbying activities. According to the newspaper, the lobbying organizations, commissioned by Brussels with EU money, were tasked with persuading MEPs and member states to support the commission’s ambitious green policy initiatives.
For example, the European Environment Bureau (EEB), an umbrella organization for green groups, was tasked with providing at least 16 examples of how the European Parliament had tightened green legislation thanks to its lobbying. According to documents reviewed by the newspaper, the EEB was also tasked with supporting the controversial nature restoration bill initiated by former Commissioner Frans Timmermans.
In addition, they could use around €700,000 in support to steer the debate on agricultural activity in a more environmentally friendly direction.
In Hungary, the EU provides funding to certain organizations, which then use their activities to serve Brussels’ political goals. Here are some examples.
The Hungarian Helsinki Committee is heavily dependent on international funding. According to their latest available financial report for 2023, more than 61 percent of their annual income came from private foundations, including George Soros’s organization. They received a total of 48.85 million forints from the European Commission, which accounted for 6.1 percent of their income. Helsinki has received funding for various projects serving legal protection purposes, typically for several years.
In recent years, the organization has often criticized the Hungarian government’s immigration policy, especially the measures related to border closures and the operation of transit zones, and has also undertaken the legal representation of migrants, for example, at the European Court of Human Rights.
One of the “results” of Helsinki’s operation is that in June 2024, the European Court of Justice imposed a migration fine of €200 million on Hungary and ordered our country to pay an additional €1 million per day until we change the relevant regulations.
Helsinki has actively contributed to the European Commission’s 2023 Rule of Law Report, which contains a number of criticisms of Hungary, including problems and recommendations in the areas of justice, the fight against corruption, and institutional checks and balances. The Helsinki Committee, together with other NGOs, including Transparency International Hungary, has submitted a nearly 100-page submission to the European Commission, which is withholding billions of euros from Hungary.
Transparency International Hungary (TI Hungary) has regularly attacked the Hungarian government in recent years, primarily on issues related to corruption, lack of transparency, and the management of public funds.
The organization also receives significant foreign funding, including funds from Soros’ Open Society Foundations, but their supporters also include the European Commission, from which they received a total of 13.7 million forints in revenue, according to their 2023 report.
Transparency International produces its Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) every year, which is used to calculate which countries are the most and least corrupt in the world. Tamás Lánczi, president of the Office for the Protection of Sovereignty, has already held the organization accountable for the bias experienced in determining the CPI.
All of this is significant because the index serves as a reference point for the withholding of EU funds due to Hungary.
The 2023 report from Amnesty International Hungary shows that the organization is significantly dependent on foreign sources.
Their revenues from the European Union budget, as well as other states and international organizations, exceeded 170 million forints, which represented 42 percent of their total revenue in that year.
They received almost 53 million forints in funding from the European Commission in 2023, which is almost 13 percent of their total annual income. They received the money as the winner of a call for proposals under the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Value (CERV) program to promote gender equality. Amnesty has been working against Hungary’s interests on several fronts, as shown below.
The organization reports that it prepared its analysis related to the European Commission’s annual rule of law assessment, which examined, among other things, the Hungarian justice system, corruption, the press, civil society organizations, and the legislature. It says: “The success of our work, which has been carried out for four years, together with our civil society friends, is also demonstrated by the fact that many of our recommendations are reflected in the report published in July.”
In other words, they are explicitly proud of having put Hungary at a disadvantage.
The annual report also mentions that in March 2023, in addition to the European Parliament, 15 EU member states joined the European Commission v. Hungary lawsuit filed on the side of the commission over the child protection law adopted in 2021. Amnesty boasts that the actions of many member states are due to their work.
The Hungarian Digital Media Observatory (Lakmusz–HDMO) was established in January 2023 as the Hungarian center of the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), established by the European Commission in 2020. Six organizations work together within the framework of the project: Political Capital, Mérték Médiaelemző Műhely, AFP news agency, Lakmusz, Idea Foundation and Epresspack. According to their own admission, their activities include fact-checking and related research and analysis, and they also provide training for journalists and teachers on the topic of fact-checking and conscious media consumption.
The HDMO Project is being implemented with the partial support of the European Commission, and the consortium forming the HDMO was selected by the Commission through an open tender. Lakmusz, which participated in the project, has also previously attacked the Hungarian government. For example, they have tried to discredit the institution of the national consultation on several occasions. Political Capital, Mérték, and Lakmusz can also be directly or indirectly linked to the foundations of George Soros.
Supporters applauded him for giving attention to what they consider to be the long-ignored issue of black-on-white racially discriminatory policies while opponents believe that it’s a racist move promulgated on false pretexts.
Before proceeding, readers might want to review some of RT’s reports about the Afrikaner farmer (Boer) issue, South Africa’s ruling African National Congress (ANC), and the country’s economic challenges:
To oversimplify, the brutal murder of some Boers on their farms led to some Afrikaners suspecting that the ANC turns a blind eye to this and even encourages it, while the ANC believes that the Afrikaners’ outsized control over national wealth is an injustice that must be rectified via redistribution. The Expropriation Act’s recent passing came amidst the country’s continued economic challenges, ergo why some of the Afrikaners consider it a distraction while the ANC insists that it’s a long-overdue solution.
Regardless of one’s personal views on this subject, it’s arguably the case that this is just a pretext for Trump to pressure South Africa for reasons beyond those stated in his Executive Order. While some speculate that his motives are as crude as a favor to South African-born Elon Musk amidst his public feud with President Cyril Ramaphosa over this issue and/or revenge for South Africa’s ICJ ruling against Israel, and these could have indeed played a role, his team might have broader strategic interests in mind.
ANC-led South Africa has presented itself as a rising multipolar pole in Africa amidst the global systemic transition, to which end it’s sought to increase its role in BRICS alongside participating in multilateral naval drills with China and Russia, thus reinforcing the aforesaid international reputation. The US disapproved of South Africa flexing its sovereignty in such a symbolic way, especially given the ongoing NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine, hence why the Biden Administration began pressuring it.
Here are some background briefings about their campaign against it over the past few years:
This is the basis upon which Trump is now waging his own pressure campaign against South Africa.
His predecessor succeeded in coercing South Africa into complying with the ICC’s arrest warrant for Putin and therefore forcing him to participate in that year’s BRICS Summit by video instead. For as symbolic of a concession that that was to the US, it didn’t change anything tangible with regard to South Africa’s foreign policy, which is what Trump is aiming to do. His team might have identified South Africa as one of the weak links in BRICS and correspondingly concluded that a pressure campaign could break it.
It’s debatable whether Trump truly believes that BRICS is conspiring to create a new currency or backing the yuan as a rival to the dollar, or if this is just a pretext for him to individually pressure its members, but his recently repeated threat to impose 100% tariffs against them preceded his Executive Order. Therefore, the possibility exists that cutting off aid to South Africa in response to its Expropriation Act is just an excuse to coerce it into tangible foreign policy changes, most immediately with regard to BRICS.
In practice, this could hypothetically take the form of South Africa obstructing progress on the BRICS Bridge, BRICS Clear, and BRICS Pay initiatives that were discussed during last October’s Kazan Summit. It might also lead to South Africa militarily distancing itself from Russia and especially China together with exporting more precious minerals to the US in the long term in exchange for pressure relief. To be clear, just because Trump might want this doesn’t mean that it’ll happen, but it should still be taken seriously.
The relevance that all of this has to the Expropriation Act is that the aforesaid represents both a populist distraction from South Africa’s continued economic challenges as well as a potential solution from the ANC’s perspective despite some warning that it risks leading to a Zimbabwean-like disaster. In the far-fetched scenario that the same lawmakers who voted for this act are coerced by the US into voting to rescind it, then this would deal a deathblow to the ANC, which might then be replaced by the EFF.
The Economic Freedom Fighters are led by radical leftist-populist Julius Malema, who’s infamous for leading chants of “Kill the Boer”, which he and his supporters claim is just metaphorical and not literal. He fashions himself as a revolutionary that’s been very outspoken against the US and in favor of multipolarity. More South Africans might flock to Malema and his EFF for patriotic-nationalist reasons if Ramaphosa and his ANC ultimately capitulate to what he just described as Trump’s “bullying”.
In order to preemptively avoid any misunderstanding, talking about this scenario doesn’t mean that it’s likely, only that it’s possible and should thus be considered just in case. Ramaphosa knows that he and his party would be doomed if they give in to Trump so they’re not expected to budge, at least for now, unless the US drastically ramps up its pressure campaign. Even then, however, they might try to co-opt Malema’s leftist-populist and nationalist rhetoric in order to rally the population at large behind them.
Observers should also be aware that new Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared late last week that he won’t attend this November’s G20 Summit in Johannesburg in protest of the Expropriation Act and what he said are South Africa’s other “anti-American” policies. Knowing that this act likely won’t be rescinded, it could very well be that Trump’s team planned to exploit this pretext for the purpose of weakening the world’s most influential economic-financial multilateral platform by boycotting its annual event.
He’s already taken a wrecking ball to economic globalization in recent weeks by threatening tariffs against Colombia, Panama, Canada, and Mexico before they gave in to his pressure, all while imposing 10% tariffs on China and threatening to do something similar against the EU too. If this trend continues, then the G20 might no longer wield anywhere near the influence that it did just one year ago, thus dooming November’s summit to failure regardless of whether or not the US ends up attending.
It’s South Africa’s bad fortune that it was already in the US’ crosshairs during the Biden Administration for its multipolar foreign policy, that there’s genuine concern about the treatment of some of its white minority, and its plans to host the next G20 Summit later this year. These factors converged to incentivize Trump into launching a pressure campaign against it in order to coerce tangible changes to its foreign policy, particularly vis-à-vis BRICS, so as to fully subordinate South Africa it to the West.
The ANC’s long track record of political mistakes and policy failures is finally catching up to it precisely at the moment when the party finally started prioritizing South Africa’s participation in global processes, thus creating the pretext for the US to meddle in this BRICS member’s affairs. The outcome of Trump’s pressure campaign against it will indicate he continues picking off this group’s countries one-by-one or decides to reconsider this strategy, therefore making it immensely important.
An explosive new study conducted within the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) own laboratory has revealed excessively high levels of DNA contamination in Pfizer’s mRNA Covid-19 vaccine.
Tests conducted at the FDA’s White Oak Campus in Maryland found that residual DNA levels exceeded regulatory safety limits by 6 to 470 times.
The study was undertaken by student researchers under the supervision of FDA scientists. The vaccine vials were sourced from BEI Resources, a trusted supplier affiliated with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), previously headed by Anthony Fauci.
Recently published in the Journal of High School Science, the peer-reviewed study challenges years of dismissals by regulatory authorities, who had previously labelled concerns about excessive DNA contamination as baseless.
The FDA is expected to comment on the findings this week. However, the agency has yet to issue a public alert, recall the affected batches, or explain how vials exceeding safety standards were allowed to reach the market.
The Methods
The student researchers employed two primary analytical methods:
NanoDrop Analysis – This technique uses UV spectrometry to measure the combined levels of DNA and RNA in the vaccine. While it provides an initial assessment, it tends to overestimate DNA concentrations due to interference from RNA, even when RNA-removal kits are utilised.
Qubit Analysis – For more precise measurements, the researchers relied on the Qubit system, which quantifies double-stranded DNA using fluorometric dye.
Both methods confirmed the presence of DNA contamination far above permissible thresholds. These findings align with earlier reports from independent laboratories in the United States, Canada, Australia, Germany, and France.
Expert Reaction
Kevin McKernan, a former director of the Human Genome Project, described the findings as a “bombshell,” criticising the FDA for its lack of transparency.
“These findings are significant not just for what they reveal but for what they suggest has been concealed from public scrutiny. Why has the FDA kept these data under wraps?” McKernan questioned.
CSO and Founder of Medicinal Genomics
While commending the students’ work, he also noted limitations in the study’s methods, which may have underestimated contamination levels.
“The Qubit analysis can under-detect DNA by up to 70% when enzymes are used during sample preparation,” McKernan explained. “Additionally, the Plasmid Prep kit used in the study does not efficiently capture small DNA fragments, further contributing to underestimation.”
In addition to genome integration, McKernan highlighted another potential cancer-causing mechanism of DNA contamination in the vaccines.
He explained that plasmid DNA fragments entering the cell’s cytoplasm with the help of lipid nanoparticles could overstimulate the cGAS-STING pathway, a crucial component of the innate immune response.
“Chronic activation of the cGAS-STING pathway could paradoxically fuel cancer growth,” McKernan warned. “Repeated exposure to foreign DNA through COVID-19 boosters may amplify this risk over time, creating conditions conducive to cancer development.”
Adding to the controversy, traces of the SV40 promoter were detected among the DNA fragments. While the authors concluded that these fragments were “non-replication-competent” meaning they cannot replicate in humans, McKernan disagreed.
“To assert that the DNA fragments are non-functional, they would need to transfect mammalian cells and perform sequencing, which wasn’t done here,” McKernan stated.
“Moreover, the methods used in this study don’t effectively capture the full length of DNA fragments. A more rigorous sequencing analysis could reveal SV40 fragments several thousand base pairs long, which would likely be functional,” he added.
Regulatory Oversight under Scrutiny
Nikolai Petrovsky, a Professor of Immunology and director of Vaxine Pty Ltd, described the findings as a “smoking gun.”
“It clearly shows the FDA was aware of these data. Given that these studies were conducted in their own labs under the supervision of their own scientists, it would be hard to argue they were unaware,” he said.
Nikolai Petrovsky, Professor of Immunology and Infectious Disease at the Australian Respiratory and Sleep Medicine Institute in Adelaide
Prof Petrovsky praised the quality of work carried out by the students at the FDA labs.
“The irony is striking,” he remarked. “These students performed essential work that the regulators failed to do. It’s not overly complicated—we shouldn’t have had to rely on students to conduct tests that were the regulators’ responsibility in the first place.”
The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which has consistently defended the safety of the mRNA vaccines, released its own batch testing results, claiming they met regulatory standards. However, Prof Petrovsky criticised the TGA’s testing methods.
“The TGA’s method was not fit for purpose,” he argued. “It didn’t assess all the DNA in the vials. It only looked for a small fragment, which would severely underestimate the total amount of DNA detected.”
Implications for Manufacturers and Regulators
Now that DNA contamination of the mRNA vaccines has been verified in the laboratory of an official agency and published in a peer-reviewed journal, it becomes difficult to ignore.
It also places vaccine manufacturers and regulators in a precarious position.
Addressing the contamination issue would likely require revising manufacturing processes to remove residual DNA, which Prof Petrovsky explained would be impractical.
“The only practical solution is for regulators to require manufacturers to demonstrate that the plasmid DNA levels in the vaccines are safe,” Prof Petrovsky stated.
“Otherwise, efforts to remove the residual DNA would result in an entirely new vaccine, requiring new trials and effectively restarting the process with an untested product.”
Now the onus is on regulators to provide clarity and take decisive action to restore confidence in their oversight. Anything less risks deepening the scepticism of the public.
Both the US and Australian drug regulators have been approached for comment.
Busted Fentanyl Super Lab In Canada Makes “Breaking Bad Look Minor League”: Former Trump Official
Canada’s last-minute decision to cooperate with President Trump on border security and efforts to curb fentanyl trafficking was a key factor behind the president’s 25% tariff threat. While Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has pledged to strengthen border security, a former US official who led an anti-fentanyl task force under President Trump’s first term has argued that laws in Canada hinder a proper crackdown on the flow of drugs in the US.
“Well, several months ago, you had the biggest lab in the history of the world taken over by (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) in Vancouver… It made Breaking Bad look like minor league,” former State Department official David Asher told Canada’s state-funded CBC News’ chief political correspondent, Rosemary Barton, in an interview last weekend.
Asher claimed that the fentanyl super lab was “definitely” connected to Chinese organized crime and also pointed to possible connections with Iran and even rogue biker gangs.
“Definitely there was ties to Chinese organized crime, possibly Iran as well,” he said, adding, “The facts haven’t been released by your government…I think they know they’re sitting on a big scandal here.”
Asher continued, “The fact this thing emerged and it’s tied to these biker gangs, who’ve been hired to go down to the United States, in some cases, and assassinate people like my former boss Secretary (of State) Mike Pompeo, President Trump, and others. You know, this is another whole level of scandal.”
Watch this whole interview segment with David Asher of the Hudson Institute as he schools Rosie
“Well, several months ago, you had the biggest lab in the history of the world taken over by (RCMP) in Vancouver… It made Breaking Bad look like minor league”
“But the key thing to focus on is that someone was making over 100 million doses of deadly fentanyl – right under your noses – so how many other labs do you think you have in your country?” the former State Department official questioned.
He explained that Canada has “very little border enforcement … most of the drugs are going from Mexico to Canada and then being brought south into the northwest United States on ships. You have almost no port enforcement with police. So we have no idea – except for our sources – what is actually going on. And we hear some bad things.”
Asher stated that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canadian Security Intelligence Service are top-notch organizations, “but your problem is your laws: It’s the Stinchcombe law. Basically, every time we try to go up on a phone number in Canada, almost all the money laundering networks are tied to China, which is about 90% of all the money laundering in the US. So when we’re targeting those numbers – the police have to inform that individual that the US is targeting their number. That’s crazy – how can we run an undercover police operation in the country?”
Latest headlines on the US-Canada border situation:
Let’s rewind to April 2024, when we covered the House Select Committee on China that revealed the Chinese Communist Party used tax rebates to subsidize the manufacturing and exporting of fentanyl chemicals to North America.
The report stated, “Through subsidies, grants, and other incentives, the PRC harms Americans while enriching PRC companies.”
Recall this report in August: Chinese Narcos In Toronto Run “Command & Control” Fentanyl Laundering Network Used In TD Bank Case: US Investigator.
Chinese Narcos In Toronto Run “Command & Control” Fentanyl Laundering Network Used In TD Bank Case: US Investigator https://t.co/X82NgBTohs
The United States seized 43 pounds of Fentanyl at the Canadian border last year alone. That’s enough Fentanyl to KILL 9,700,000 Americans…and that’s what we caught. Imagine what got through…and Trudeau is upset about tariffs? Mexico and Canada KNOW DAMN WELL what to do. pic.twitter.com/msShpAuiEN
A coordinated North American strategy is emerging and essential to stop the drug death crisis in America, killing 100,000 folks (many working-age or military-age men and women) per year. This is hybrid warfare by Beijing – and folks have to start asking why the Biden-Harris regime fueled the crisis with open-border policies. It doesn’t seem like ‘America First’ – more like ‘China First’.
The Chinese communist regime remained a major perpetrator of transnational repression in 2024, according to the latest data released by the U.S. human rights organization Freedom House.
The Washington-based nonprofit organization recorded 23 governments and regimes perpetrating 160 incidents of physical transnational repression across 34 countries in 2024, the organization said in a Feb. 6 statement. Methods used by authorities in these countries included assassinations, abductions, assaults, detentions, and unlawful deportations.
The Chinese regime was one of the leading perpetrators along with Uganda, Cambodia, Russia, and Iran in 2024, the organization said. The transnational repression targeted exiled political activists, journalists, former regime insiders, and members of ethnic or religious minorities, according to the Freedom House report.
The report recorded 1,219 incidents of direct, physical transnational repression between 2014 and 2024. The Chinese regime “remains the most prolific perpetrator, committing 272 incidents, or 22 percent, of recorded cases” in the past decade, according to Freedom House researchers.
“Transnational repression continues to threaten democracy, freedom, and security globally,” Yana Gorokhovskaia, research director for strategy and design at Freedom House, said in a statement.
Lai Rongwei, CEO of the pro-democracy nonprofit Taiwan Inspirational Association, told The Epoch Times on Feb. 8 that “the Freedom House report feels very real and credible” to him.
“Because Taiwan is at the forefront of China’s threats, China’s various means of infiltration against Taiwan are currently taking place in Taiwan and becoming more and more severe,” he said.
Lai said that since 2019 and 2020, after the Chinese regime’s violent suppression of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy “anti-extradition law” movement, many Hong Kong people have gone to Taiwan to escape the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) surveillance and persecution.
“During events held by some Hong Kong associations in Taiwan and events commemorating the June 4th Tiananmen massacre in Taiwan, you can see many of the CCP-supported and pro-China groups come to the scene to cause trouble,” he said.
Lai said that his organization has long observed the CCP’s transnational repression and that the regime employs both formal and informal methods to carry out overseas repression.
“The formal [methods use] diplomatic and economic means, such as economic sanctions, trade sanctions, and economic aid, to force the governments of other countries to follow China’s position,” he said.
The Chinese regime also uses technological means to target overseas dissidents, such as monitoring their online activities and hacking their phones, Lai said.
The CCP also dispatches China’s national security agents to track down their so-called enemies overseas, according to Lai.
“They also use local agents in some pro-China groups in the local societies of various countries, including spies and informants that they’ve developed. The local agents may also be some pro-China people in society who have been bribed by the CCP for a long time,” Lai said. “These people are there to help increase the CCP’s influence locally. And they go to various occasions and events to harass and counter those who they think are unfriendly to China. Many people, from politicians to civilians, have been harassed by them.”
In 2022, it was revealed that the CCP had set up secret police stations in Western locations, including New York City, to carry out transnational repression against dissidents, human rights activists, and religious minorities.
There are also reports that CCP agents have sent threats, including bomb threats, to theaters worldwide to intimidate them into not hosting Shen Yun, a performing arts show that showcases traditional Chinese culture before communism. The show is performed by a New York-based performing arts company.
“A large number of Chinese people have fled China. Some are economic criminals escaping with large sums of money; some are political dissidents; and some come abroad because they know state secrets or technological secrets,” Yeau-Tran Lee, an adjunct professor at the National Chengchi University in Taiwan, said of various people that have left China in recent years.
“In order to implement its long-arm repression, China has resorted to every possible means, including using national security and intelligence agencies, to target these people,” Lee told The Epoch Times on Feb. 8.
Every system within the CCP needs political achievements to make money and expand, Lee said.
“The CCP has so many intelligence and security agents. After Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement was put out in 2019, a large number of the CCP’s agents were transferred overseas, which has increased the CCP’s transnational repression in other countries,” he said.
In terms of the effect of the CCP’s transnational repression, Yao-Yuan Yeh, professor of political science and international studies at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, said that “it makes people feel that China’s spies are not only in China but also abroad everywhere.”
“This can produce a chain effect, silencing those who may be dissatisfied with the Chinese regime abroad, whether they are Chinese or foreigners today, and preventing them from speaking out on the internet. This creates self-censorship through the terrorizing actions [of transnational repression],” Yeh told The Epoch Times on Feb. 9.
As for the countermeasures against the CCP’s transnational repression, Yeh said that “each country needs to consciously prevent or reject the CCP’s transnational repression in their country.”
On an international scale, Yeh said that the United Nations and other international organizations should strongly condemn transnational repression.
“In international relations, when there’s [a] human rights violation, the most important thing to do is to speak out to expose it, telling all other countries how many evil things this country has done,” he said.
Prosecutors acted with “unrelenting integrity,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said, as the Justice Department pursued cases against 1,583 people for events on Jan. 6, 2021—a date etched into the American psyche with unforgettable images of vandalism and violence at the U.S. Capitol.
President Donald Trump, who had attracted a massive crowd to Washington that day amid a dispute over his 2020 election loss, decried these cases as “political persecutions.” He tossed out the prosecutions upon his return for a second presidential term on Jan. 20.
Saying he was ending “a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people over the last four years,” Trump commuted sentences for 14 serious Jan. 6 offenders and issued full pardons to all remaining defendants—1,569 people, based on federal data.
Trump showed mercy even to those convicted of assaulting officers—a controversial move. He previously stated that only peaceful, nonviolent offenders deserved consideration.
But he justified that decision by pointing out that the convicted Jan. 6 defendants had already been locked up for years, often in “inhumane” conditions. They were targeted for political reasons and were punished more harshly than many people who committed worse offenses, including killings, he said.
A half-dozen of the former Jan. 6 prisoners told The Epoch Times their side. The publication also reviewed Justice Department statements about each interviewee and dozens of other resources for this story.
The interviewees, ranging from a 25-year-old entrepreneur to a 55-year-old former New York police officer, say much information has been suppressed and distorted.
They, like many Americans, continue to question why security in and around the Capitol was clearly insufficient on Jan. 6.
They also suspect a government setup—and a coverup.
Although officials have rejected such claims, a government watchdog’s recent report reignited questions over the actions of “confidential human sources.” Twenty-six of these informants were present on Jan. 6, the Inspector General’s report said.
Four of the informants entered the Capitol; 13 others entered restricted areas on the grounds—without FBI permission. The FBI didn’t authorize the informants to encourage violence, either. But the report left it unclear whether informants obeyed that order.
Setting the Record Straight
The interviewed Jan. 6 defendants say many Americans still incorrectly believe that police officers were killed in the melee; 140 officers were hurt, none fatally, despite initial reports.
It’s unclear how many civilians were injured, but Trump supporters were the only people who died that day. Police fatally shot Ashli Babbitt, 35, and beat Roseanne Boyland, 34, who was knocked unconscious in a stampede; her cause of death remains in dispute. Investigators cleared officers of wrongdoing in both cases.
The Jan. 6 interviewees agreed that, as more videos surfaced, the American public has begun to see a wider, clearer picture of the day’s events.
Before violence broke out, many thousands of people listened to Trump’s speech at The Ellipse, a park about 2 miles from the Capitol, where Congress was preparing to certify the 2020 election results.
Trump said the group should march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically.” But before his speech ended, protesters—possibly mingled with provocateurs—had already clashed with police at the Capitol.
Videos show some people walking into the building through already-open doors—past police who made no attempt to halt them. Some of those nonviolent people faced criminal trespassing charges.
Others violently tangled with police, smashed windows, and forcibly entered the building. Nearly 200 people pleaded guilty to assaulting officers. Officials set property damage at $1.5 million.
Common Themes Emerge
Several Jan. 6 interviewees say they regretted reacting badly amid the mayhem as police fired munitions and chemicals.
Some people accused police of excessive, unprovoked force. Those accusers include a retired New York police officer. However, a Capitol Police report found all 293 reported uses of force were justified—and a survey found some officers complained they were discouraged from using sufficient force to repel aggressors.
Two of the six interviewees were convicted of assaulting officers—the offense that sparked much criticism of the Trump pardons. Both of those defendants’ alleged assaults were tied to retaliating against police with pepper spray or pushing against barricades.
All six interviewees allege they were subject to constitutional rights violations, harassment, and other maltreatment because of their status as Jan. 6 defendants.
None of those interviewees was convicted of seditious conspiracy; one was acquitted.
They consistently stated that it was preposterous to call them “insurrectionists” and rejected prosecutors’ assertions that they tried to halt the peaceful transfer of power from Trump to President-elect Joe Biden.
At most, the interviewees said they expected Congress to pause the election certification to allow further exploration of election irregularities in a half-dozen states. Some said they didn’t even intend to protest; they just wanted to hear Trump speak and show support for him.
All expressed gratitude to Trump for acting on their behalf.
And all are hopeful that a new congressional probe will “uncover the full truth that is owed to the American people,” as House Speaker Mike Johnson ((R-La.) stated on Jan. 22.
Several Jan. 6 defendants said that now that they have regained their freedom, revealing the truth about Jan. 6 is their most fervent wish.
Alexander Sheppard recalls that, as a schoolboy in Worthington, a historic central Ohio community of 15,000 people, he learned about Americans’ constitutionally guaranteed rights.
But he says being prosecuted for Jan. 6 shattered his “naïve” notions about exercising his rights to free speech and protest.
Just before Jan. 6, Sheppard was a 21-year-old marketing entrepreneur. He made a last-minute decision to make a six-hour drive from Ohio to Washington for Trump’s “Save America” or “Stop the Steal” rally.
He arrived at 6 a.m., early enough to score a close spot at the Ellipse. He stood in a massive crowd, about a half-dozen rows away from the stage, as Trump delivered his speech that afternoon.
“It was an atmosphere of love and patriotism and love for our country,” Sheppard said.
But after marching to the Capitol, he saw officers firing tear gas into the crowd. At times, he and others got “riled up” over police “using unnecessary force on people.”
Amid the chaos, “I made the dumb decision to go inside the building,” he said. “I didn’t think I was breaking any laws. Like I said, I thought we had a First Amendment right to protest.”
Upon entering the Capitol, he and others were mesmerized by its grandeur. He took many videos and pictures that were later used against him.
“If I thought I were committing a crime, I wouldn’t have recorded so much of it,” he said, adding that he remained nonviolent and committed no vandalism.
Fatefully, Sheppard was nearby when Babbitt was shot; he drew his hands to his head in disbelief as she fell to the floor. His proximity to that much-scrutinized event probably made him more high-profile, he said. The officers escorted him and others out of the area.
Nearly two months later, just after Sheppard set foot inside the airport in Columbus, Ohio, for a business trip, about 10 federal agents swooped in.
He was stunned to be arrested. He was even more shocked to be facing a felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding, plus five misdemeanors for being disorderly and protesting inside the Capitol.
Sheppard was released to await trial. Two years later, in January 2023, jurors convicted him of five charges. His sole acquittal: a misdemeanor for entering a room where he photographed a portrait of America’s first president, George Washington.
A judge sentenced Sheppard to 19 months in prison, half the time prosecutors had sought.
In prison, Sheppard learned he was labeled a “terrorist,” which disqualified him from certain privileges.
He asks, “How could I be labeled a ‘terrorist’ when I was charged with nothing violent?”
Even before the Supreme Court issued its June ruling, a judge agreed with Sheppard’s attorney’s contention that the Fischer case raised a “substantial question” about the validity of his sole felony conviction.
Sheppard’s lawyer claimed “that question will not be decided until after he has served more time in prison than is warranted by his misdemeanor convictions,” a judge wrote in January 2024. “Accordingly, he asks the Court to release him from prison at the end of his likely misdemeanor sentence.”
The judge cut Sheppard’s prison term to six months; he was released in May 2024.
He said he still benefited “in a big way” from Trump’s pardon. It wiped his criminal convictions—but not charges—from his record. And it lifted his post-release requirements, such as obtaining permission to travel outside of southern Ohio, submitting to urinalysis, and reporting to a court official.
Now 25, Sheppard has been doing menial labor but hopes to land a better job; he mourns the loss of his solid reputation and unblemished record.
But he sees public and media perceptions shifting.
“When I was facing more than 20 years in prison, I was a ‘January 6 Insurrectionist.’ Later on, I was referred to as a ‘Capitol Rioter.’ Now that I WON in the Supreme Court, was PARDONED by the President, and will have ALL charges dismissed, I am called a ‘January 6 Participant,’ he wrote in a Jan. 29 social media post.
He wants people to know: “We were all denied constitutional due process, and that is why it made sense for President Trump to pardon basically everyone.”
“This pardon, it really gives to all of us a new lease on life,” he said. “We get to start fresh.”
Rachel Powell says she went to Washington on Jan. 6 to protect America’s future for her eight children and seven grandchildren—but ended up being separated from them for many months because of it.
Now 44, Powell said she had harbored concerns—which grew after the 2020 election—about election integrity in her home state of Pennsylvania. She wanted her children to inherit “a fair and free vote.”
“Everything in America depends on that,” she said.
But Powell admits regretting some of her actions on Jan. 6. Outrage over officers’ seemingly unprovoked use of force hijacked her better judgment, she said.
Accused of pushing barricades, Powell said that was a misperception. “The police were moving the barricades towards us,” she said.
“And people like me, I wasn’t going to move,” Powell said. “I was going to stand there and hold the line—because I had the right to.”
She entered several locations in and around the Capitol. People were jammed into the West Terrace tunnel and falling on top of each other.
“I could hear a woman screaming for help at the bottom of that pile,” near the tunnel entrance, Powell said.
Powell helped other people to pull fallen protesters out of the way. “By [the] time we got to the bottom of that pile … there was Roseanne Boyland, clearly dead at my feet,” she said.
Horrified and fearful for her safety, Powell retreated to the other side of the building.
In an act she now sees as irrational, she decided to break a window. Powell thought that creating a new ingress point for protesters would prevent other deaths. “And I know that that sounds crazy, but that’s what it was,” she said.
Powell said people in the crowd passed implements to her, which she used to strike the window frame, including an object that prosecutors called “an ice axe.”
“And from using that tool for probably 60 seconds, they gave me a deadly weapons charge,” she said, adding that the axe “disappeared back into the crowd” and she “never saw it again.”
Shortly after that, police fired exploding canisters of noxious gas, and she couldn’t see or breathe. “It’s like, all of a sudden, it just snapped me out of it. And I was like, ‘What are you doing?’” she said.
Powell struggled her way out and left.
In a little more than a week, the FBI circulated a “wanted” poster showing pictures of her in a pink knit hat and sunglasses.
On Feb. 4, 2021, police raided her home in Mercer County, Pennsylvania; they broke through the door as a helicopter hovered overhead. Powell, who wasn’t home then, turned herself in. She was freed under strict home confinement rules.
Afterward, a court ordered Powell’s minor children to remain in the custody of another relative. The separation was particularly gut-wrenching because Powell enjoyed more togetherness with her children than many moms. She became a single mother after her 17-year marriage disintegrated and was also a homeschooler and homesteader.
Her case finally went to a bench trial in mid-2023. She denied leading any organized effort to overtake the Capitol despite using a bullhorn to direct other protesters. Powell told The Epoch Times that she borrowed the bullhorn from another protester, and she was relaying information about the Capitol’s layout based solely on her observations that day—her first visit to the Capitol.
“I did not know the layout of the whole Capitol,” she said, alleging that prosecutors “tried to paint me as a ringleader.”
In late 2023, a judge convicted Powell of nine charges, including obstruction of an official proceeding, destruction of government property, civil disorder, and “physical violence … with a deadly or dangerous weapon.”
In early 2024, she began serving a prison term of 57 months—nearly five years—with no credit for three years of house arrest.
“I don’t understand how that’s happening in America, that American citizens can be detained in their homes for undetermined amounts of time,” she said, calling that practice an injustice that should end.
Powell’s experiences at a West Virginia prison caused her even more concern.
She was housed at the Federal Correctional Complex Hazelton—a facility where whistleblowers alleged “a rampant culture of abuse and misconduct,” several senators wrote in September 2023.
They called on the Attorney General and Bureau of Prisons to investigate. The Epoch Times was unable to determine the results of that probe by publication time.
Powell alleges she witnessed deplorable conditions and medical neglect of inmates, echoing the whistleblowers’ complaints.
Now, Powell said she is on a mission to reform conditions at that prison “because once you see it, you can’t unsee it, and it would be wrong not to do something about it and to leave those women in there, suffering.”
“It’s the right thing to do,” she said—the same phrase she used to describe her motivation for participating in the Jan. 6 protest.
But if she could do it over again, Powell said she would have just sat down in protest, “and I would have never left that public sidewalk—ever.”
After being pardoned, Powell sees a bright future—for America and her family.
“I love our president. I think he’s a good man. I think the next four years are going to be fantastic … and I think that the time is ripe for these changes,” she said.
Being away from her loved ones made her value them more.
“We’re all gonna be stronger because of this, and we’re all more loving … we want more unity in our family,” she said.
“It’s like a phoenix rising from the ashes … I really think it’s going to be beautiful.”
Pre-Dawn Tactical Team Arrests Husband-to-Be
Barry Ramey, then a 38-year-old aircraft mechanic, was living a good life in sunny Florida and was engaged to be married.
But around 5:30 a.m. on April 21, 2022, as he left his apartment to go to work, a tactical team rushed him in the parking lot, “flashbangs thrown at me, and guns pointed at me,” Ramey said. That was nearly 16 months after Jan. 6, 2021—and two months before his planned wedding date.
Afterward, Ramey said he accepted responsibility for his actions, which included discharging pepper spray at police on Jan. 6. But he said the accusations and punishment he faced as a result were “over-the-top.”
“I know I committed a criminal act, but I’m not a criminal … I don’t live a life of crime,” Ramey, now 41, told The Epoch Times after Trump pardoned him. He had no prior criminal history, court records confirm.
As Ramey awaited word on a possible pardon, “it was definitely a nail-biting situation,” he said. Ramey thought that he might only get his sentence commuted because his assault conviction classified him as a violent offender.
He also was connected to the Proud Boys, one of the most controversial groups of Jan. 6 defendants.
On Jan. 6, Ramey gathered with the Proud Boys group, although he did not know who they were at that time, his attorney said in a court record. Since then, Ramey said he and other Jan. 6 defendants started a Proud Boys chapter “to look out for one another in very dangerous situations” while incarcerated.
Five Proud Boys were among the 14 offenders whose sentences Trump commuted; they were freed from prison, but their convictions remain in their records.
Ramey received a “full and unconditional” pardon.
“It feels good to know I don’t have to live my life as a convicted felon,” he said. “I can go back to being a productive member of society and trying to leave the world a better place than I found it.”
In March 2023, Ramey was sentenced to five years in prison for felony charges of civil disorder and “assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers,” a Justice Department statement noted, along with misdemeanors for disorderly conduct and “physical violence” on the Capitol grounds; he did not enter the building, his attorney said.
Prosecutors argued he deserved a harsher prison term because he attacked police with a “deadly and dangerous weapon”—the pepper spray.
Ramey countered: “The police use it all the time. They even get pepper-sprayed in their training. So [if] it wasn’t deadly and dangerous then, is it deadly and dangerous now?”
X user DataRepublican claims to have identified seven NGOs, partially funded by American taxpayers, that appear to be key players within the so-called Deep State Uniparty. According to their analysis, these organizations have shaped public discourse over the past decade through radical propaganda, portraying Donald Trump as a “threat to democracy,” but in actuality, it’s not democracy itself but rather the challenge that Trump and the MAGA movement pose to their political regime.
Here is more color on DataRepublican’s report titled THE UNIPARTY UNMASKED – They Believe They Are “Democracy”:
The seven NGOs in the chart below, in my view, represent the Uniparty. Each of these organizations receives substantial financial support from USAID or the Department of State.
Around 2019, the phrase “democracy in danger” began to dominate public discourse, amplified by the media. This was odd—after all, the U.S. is a democracy (or more precisely, a constitutional republic). But as I traced the influence of these NGOs, a pattern emerged: they are controlled by establishment politicians, they play a major role in shaping political narratives worldwide, and their core mission is always framed as “protecting democracy.”
Originally, these NGOs were created to support U.S. democratic efforts abroad—many of them emerging during the Cold War to combat the spread of communism. But with the fall of the Soviet Union, their original purpose faded. Instead of dissolving, they redefined their mission. Now, they have positioned themselves as the guardians of democracy itself.
This shift explains why Trump’s re-election was framed as a “threat to democracy.” To these NGOs, “democracy” means themselves. Their survival depends on maintaining that role, and any challenge to their authority is perceived as a direct attack on democracy itself.
“Note what they all have in common? They are all dedicated to advocating democracy. And they have redefined “democracy” to mean themselves,” DataRepublican said.
If the Uniparty has redefined “democracy” to represent itself, then it’s no surprise that it has spent the past decade waging an informational war against Trump. Across corporate media, the Uniparty unleashed the cannons of propaganda and relentlessly labeled him—and his MAGA supporters—as a “threat to democracy.”
DataRepublican breaks down each of the seven NGOs… They all have one thing in common.
DataRepublican then summarized the entire thread (which can be viewed here via Thread Reader):
After thinking it over last night, here’s how I would summarize it: These seven NGOs (eight if you count the off-the-chart Solidarity Center) together function as an “off-the-books” shadow U.S. government.
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was created to unify the U.S. against communism. Its four core organizations reflect a neat ideological symmetry of America’s two-party system:
CIPE pushes free-market policies, Solidarity Center represents labor and unions.
IRI serves Republican interests, and NDI aligns with the Democrats.
CEPPS is another umbrella group that includes IRI and NDI but also brings in IFES under the guise of fortifying election integrity.
And to make sure the narrative sticks, Internews Network spreads these viewpoints through global media.
Most of these NGOs were born during the Reagan years. While not all USAID and State Department funding flows through them, they control the purse strings for much of America’s global financial influence.
DEI initiatives created a system of unaccountability and dependency, which ended up injecting more money into them and further entrenches their power.
They see any challenge to their authority as a threat to democracy itself. But their greatest enemy is still the same one they’ve had since the Cold War—Russia. They’ve never lost the “Cold War” boomer mindset.
In their minds, they’re the superheroes keeping America from crumbling. And that entitles them to their travel perks, cushy post-election gigs, and all the other benefits that come with running an unacknowledged empire.
In recent weeks, Trump sent Elon Musk’s DOGE into federal agencies as a wrecking ball to the Uniparty, halting their grift and use of NGOs to siphon taxpayer funds in an unlimited slush fund via USAID.
The Uniparty’s next propaganda blitz has already appeared in the news headlines, indicating Trump and Musk are setting off a “constitutional crisis.”
The problem this time is that the Uniparty’s media reach and propaganda efforts have been neutered, with Musk now controlling X and trust in mainstream media at record lows. As the Uniparty grows more panicked, the Deep State will likely become even more desperate.
‘BRING YOUR A–!’: Democrats lash out at @elonmusk and DOGE as millions spent on “woke” programs are slashed from the federal budget. Liberal lawmakers threatened “to see” the billionaire “in the streets” as they vowed to “fight back.” pic.twitter.com/FRnAS13oa3
