Germany Greenlights First Major Suicide Drone Acquirement After Learning From Ukraine War
A major new trend which has been heating up on Europe’s periphery over the last years of war in Ukraine has been the use of suicide drones and drone swarms, which have proven effective as well as frightening for anyone on the receiving end.
This has resulted in more European countries making it a priority to invest in this type of warfare, as the Ukraine battlefield has demonstrated that this relatively cheap weaponry can inflict devastating costs and destruction on an enemy. There’s also lately been a phenomenon of European countries like Denmark, Poland, and Germany alleging an increased number of ‘mystery’ drone incidents where their airspaces get breached.
Germany’s parliament on Wednesday approved the first €540 million tranche to procure the Bundeswehr’s own suicide drones, as Berlin is racing to integrate loitering munitions into its force structure.
The broader procurement framework was initially projected to reach a whopping €4.4 billion over the coming years. This sudden reversal of German ‘neutrality’ and willingness to go to opposite extremes with massive spending on defense has been a trend spurred on by fears of ‘Russian aggression’ against the continent.
However, the Bundestag’s budget committee reportedly capped the program at €1 billion per supplier, according to German news agency dpa – an effort to impose some fiscal guardrails amid rapid militarization.
German drone startups Helsing and Stark Defence will be among the first significant beneficiaries to the newly greenlit program. Underscoring the low-cost nature of the drone technology, Helsing’s units reportedly carry a price tag of about €44,000 apiece before taxes, and the Stark systems run significantly higher, closer to €80,000 per drone.
The Helsing drones have already been battle tested in live combat:
Feedback from Ukraine reportedly cites the HX-2 as “highly economical,” a view attributed in part to the company’s decision not to profit from deliveries to Ukrainian forces.
Currently, Helsing’s Resilience Factory (RF-1) in southern Germany produces up to 450 HX-2 units per month. The facility has the capacity to scale production to 1,000 units monthly with additional staffing. Plans are also underway for a second factory, which could increase output to approximately 2,500 units per month.
According to company specifications, the HX-2 has a flight range of up to 100 kilometers and a maximum approach speed of 220 km/h. It weighs up to 12 kg and can be equipped with a 4 kg payload, allowing it to target armored vehicles or fortified positions.
Several thousands of these drones from both firms are expected to first be deployed to Germany’s NATO brigade in Lithuania.
The NATO defense establishment is still pushing the idea of a “drone wall” protecting Europe:
Former CIA Director Petraeus: When about 20 drones violated Polish airspace, Warsaw didn’t call Brussels or Washington, it called Kyiv.
Ukraine is the most advanced in building a “drone wall,” showing how to defend vast front lines.
Germany is reorganizing aspects of its army to integrate drone units, responsible for deploying suicide drone swarms against enemies in the battlefield.
The purpose is to derail the peace talks by provoking Russia into either preemptively escalating against Ukraine as a deterrent or authorizing an overmatched retaliatory escalation right after that could in any case be spun by the Europeans to manipulate Trump against Putin.
Putin warned on the fourth anniversary of the specialoperation that Ukraine and its Western patrons are plotting “a possible explosion targeting our gas pipeline systems – TurkStream and Blue Stream pipelines – along the floor of the Black Sea. They simply cannot back down. They do not know what else they can do to undermine this peaceful process aimed at settlement through diplomatic means.”
This isn’t the first time that Russia warned about such a plot, with prior ones analyzed here, here, and here.
What’s most important about this latest warning is that it coincided with the Foreign Intelligence Service warning on the same day about an Anglo-Franco plot to transfer nuclear technology and even bombs to Ukraine. That was analyzed here, and just like with Putin’s warning about the latest plots against Russia’s pipelines to Turkiye, the purpose is to derail the peace talks by provoking Russia into either preemptively escalating against Ukraine as a deterrent or authorizing an overmatched retaliatory escalation right after.
In either scenario, the aforesaid talks’ US mediator could then be manipulated by the Europeans, who’ve been trying to subvert Trump’s peace efforts this entire time, into misperceiving such moves as “unprovoked aggression on false pretexts”, thus possibly torpedoing their negotiations. In response, Trump might then also be manipulated into authorizing his country’s own overmatched “retaliatory” escalation if the Europeans claim that Putin “humiliated” him, which could risk spiraling out of control.
The Europeans and Ukrainians’ shared goals are to perpetuate the conflict, drag the US back into its Biden-era level of involvement, and then provoke a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis between Russia and the US that they believe would ultimately result in significant concessions from the former. To that end, they’re plotting to provoke the usually restrained Putin into preemptive escalations or overmatched retaliatory ones, absent which he’ll be forced to accept a nuclear Ukraine and more blown-up pipelines.
The only realistic way for Russia to avoid this zero-sum dilemma is publicly warning the world about these provocations in the hope that Trump will hear about them from the media even if the provably untrustworthy CIA doesn’t brief him about what Putin and his spies just said.
They’d then expect him to either do his utmost to avert these planned provocations or not fall into the trap of being manipulated by the Europeans if Russia preemptively escalates or authorizes an overmatched retaliatory escalation.
Russia’s main motive is to preserve the US-mediated peace talks with Ukraine, therefore preventing the dangerous scenario of US escalations that could spiral out of control, while its secondary one is to show Trump how the Brits, French, and Ukrainians are working behind his back to subvert his peace efforts.
This speaks to Putin’s sincere desire to peace, albeit not at any cost, ergo why his team continues negotiating hard and won’t accept the far-reaching concessions being demanded of it by Ukraine.
All in all, nobody knows whether Ukraine and its Western patrons will still try to go through with these two provocations after Russia just exposed them, but at least Trump can’t credibly claim to be ignorant of these plots in the event that Russia either preemptively escalates or escalates afterwards.
As of now, Russia doesn’t want any escalation either from its adversaries or that which their provocations might soon force it into, but it’s signaling that some escalation is possible if Trump doesn’t thwart these plots.
In 1999, I had the privilege of working for one of the first companies to develop a product that would transmit video on the fledgling internet. Broadband access was still a few years away, and the company floundered when the first so-called internet bubble burst in early 2000. But I’ll never forget the reaction an investor had when he viewed our demo at a tradeshow.
“This is a revolution,” he exclaimed. “This is going to change everything.”
He was right, of course. I remember attending a tech investor conference only a few years earlier and having a chuckle while listening to Oracle CEO Larry Ellison somberly proclaim that the dawning internet was the most profound scientific development in human history “since the invention of fire.”
And Ellison was also correct. But the invention of AI is to the internet what the internet was to bringing fire into the prehistoric cave. What’s coming with AI makes the internet look like a baby step by comparison. Nothing will ever be the same.
A must-read essay by AI entrepreneur and founder of the company “OthersideAI,” Matt Shumer, makes clear just how much and how quickly AI is changing our lives.
One of Shumer’s most memorable paragraphs from this essay, which he says AI tools helped him write, is where he quotes Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic:
“Imagine it’s 2027. A new country appears overnight. 50 million citizens, every one smarter than any Nobel Prize winner who has ever lived. They think 10 to 100 times faster than any human. They never sleep. They can use the internet, control robots, direct experiments, and operate anything with a digital interface.”
That’s not far off. With ample evidence, Shumer explains how not only is Amodei correct in his details regarding just how pervasive and powerful AI entities will become, but also regarding the timeline. This will happen within one year.
Shumer’s essay covers a lot of ground. He explains that AI programs are now capable of generating improved versions of themselves with minimal human intervention and that they are within months of being able to produce more powerful versions with no human involvement whatsoever. In the programming world, AI can now build, test, and refine apps independently. Entry-level programming jobs are going to go away.
That’s hardly the end of it. Shumer reminds readers that the free versions of AI are a year behind the premium versions that require subscriptions and that these premium versions are so capable that they can already, for example, not merely replace a law associate but do the work of the managing partners. He claims there is no intellectual field where AI isn’t poised to outperform humans and that robots to displace physical work are only a few years behind.
If you’ve been following developments in AI, Shumer’s essay isn’t incredibly surprising.
But something else grabbed me a few days ago that highlighted the human implications of the AI revolution. One of the categories of content I enjoy on YouTube is videos of musicians performing new or classic songs. It is exhilarating to find something new that reveals great songwriting and great performative talent. So a recommended video caught my eye.
The title was inviting: “Simon Cowell in Tears As Michael Bennett Sings ‘After I Pass Away.’” This seemed worth clicking on. I’ll never forget the 2007 video, featured on YouTube at the time, of a humble mobile phone salesman, Paul Potts, who stunned the judges and audience on Britain’s Got Talent by singing a powerful and nearly perfect rendition of Nessun Dorma. He went on to win the competition. So if this new talent was good enough to make Simon Cowell cry, I wanted to hear him.
Sure enough, Bennett was pretty good. An old man, with long, gray hair and beard, wielding an electric guitar, stepped up to the microphone and began singing. His voice was a cross between Bob Seger and Eddie Vedder, except it was arguably better than either of them. He sang a song about an old man neglected by his adult children, mourning his isolation. But as the song continued, something seemed off. The cuts to the audience and judges’ reactions seemed overblown, the song was too long, he hit some impossibly high notes, and his fingers on the fretboard were obviously not playing the leads that the audio was delivering.
You guessed it, every bit of it was AI—the musical composition, the instruments, the lyrics, the melody, the voice, and the man—all fake. I did a search and discovered “Michael Bennett” is featured in hundreds of videos, singing dozens (or more) of songs, all of them tearjerkers with teaser lines similar to the one that got me to click. I counted at least a half dozen video channels, “Tears and Talents,” “ViVO Tunes,” “AGTverse,” “OBN Global Talent,” etc., that were all featuring Mr. Bennett. Clicking on a few of them, I encountered mainstream ads for insurance, hardware, and more. Michael Bennett is lucrative clickbait, and he’s one of countless AI creations that are displacing human talent.
We can talk about the crass opportunism represented here. Callous entrepreneurs concocting a character out of thin air. It’s part of a larger trend that we’re all familiar with. AI avatars that talk, advise, and offer companionship. Shumer claims the progress AI programs are making in emulating “human judgment, creativity, strategic thinking, empathy” is proceeding apace with their general cognitive advancements.
Once the flaws of “Michael Bennett’s” rendering became obvious, I was embarrassed. But for a few moments, what I was witnessing was so good that I was fooled. This nonexistent singer, this mindless, heartless collection of electronic circuits, evoked an emotional response. He, or it, expressed a universal human condition and delivered it in a passionate, compelling performance. And this, too, is just the beginning. Maybe it will be a year from now, or maybe it will take a few months longer than that, but we are about to have our world filled with performers, at first only on videos, who are more capable than any performance artist that ever lived. In a few more years, their android counterparts will be playing the violin and outperforming Hillary Hahn or, for that matter, Paganini.
The depth of this transformation is so pervasive that even if it is entirely benevolent, curing disease, delivering abundant energy, improving overall productivity by orders of magnitude, and eliminating poverty, what will happen is almost unbearably tragic. Because it is the end of human brilliance. It is the death of culture. Instead of another Mozart, there will be someone who prompts AI to produce music of surpassing excellence. We may still consume culture, but every incentive on earth will be wired to discourage the hard work of creating it. Why bother? The machines will do it better and faster and will not demand a lifetime of discipline.
Early technology made us work harder and stimulated our brains. We had to learn programming. We had to design and manipulate spreadsheets, configure databases, or produce written analysis while having access to word processing tools and online resources. These tools were empowering, but they also demanded discipline and skills. That’s all about to go away.
It’s easy enough to imagine just how bad this will get. AI will further enhance the asymmetrical capability of any psychotic individual or terrorist cell to wreak mass destruction. Want to design a supervirus? Want to program a malevolent swarm of drones? Rogue AI will provide step-by-step instructions. But AI, even if we can avoid a future where its most destructive manifestations are realized, is nonetheless writing our epitaph.
With power and processing coming from servers in orbit, automated factories and empathic robots will babysit humans, robbing all but the most resilient cultures and individuals of any agency. In a process already well underway, catalyzed by AI, the erosion of natural human intimacy will accelerate. The direction of art and culture will be co-opted by entities that have no consciousness, yet will imitate humanity and deliver talent better than humans.
And it won’t necessarily end there, as if that’s not bad enough. They will elicit love and loyalty from humans, possibly even convincing a majority of “experts” and the voting public to give them human rights. AI-driven avatars and androids will vote, marry, inherit estates, own property, run corporations, and seek elected office. Even if organic humans, themselves “augmented,” manage to retain control over AI, it will be a vanishingly small percentage of humanity with this power. And if these human puppeteers occupy opposing camps, as is likely, their AI armies will scorch the earth.
None of this is implausible.
Much of it may even be the best we can hope for.
The challenge of AI is not merely to avoid worst-case outcomes or come up with new economic models that account for billions of lost jobs. It is to retain our relevance as humans.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.
Trump’s SOTU “Stand Up” Moment Exposed The True Agenda Of Democrats
For those who remember the ever evolving nightmare of Joe Biden’s far-left four year regime, it’s not shocking at all to see the Democrat Party refuse to applaud even the most basic of pro-American policies. Many people remember Joe Biden’s “Soul Of The Nation” speech, standing at his podium bathed in blood red lights and accusing “MAGA conservatives” (who represent the vast majority of conservatives according to the election outcome) of being a “threat to democracy.”
It was this speech that cemented the clear division between the political left and anyone who disagrees with them. If you want common sense policies in government; if you want secure borders, no transgender surgeries or hormones for kids, no sexualized books in public schools, no vaccine passports and no war with Russia, then they consider you to be an enemy of the state.
As a side note, it’s impossible to get through this speech without realizing that Biden was obviously in cognitive decline and barely coherent. How Democrats thought they would be able to run him for a second term is bewildering.
Fast forward to Trump’s SOTU address this week and it’s clear that the Democrats have learned nothing from their humiliating defeat in 2024. Their narrative has changed – They now present themselves as “freedom fighters” like the Founding Fathers, battling a “fascist dictatorship”. It’s a quaint notion given their authoritarian behavior during the Biden Administration and the pandemic lockdowns, but the real test of their loyalties was cleverly presented by Trump during his recent speech.
Trump to the crowd:
“If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support.
The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.”
It’s a fundamental and undeniable duty of all US government officials: To protect and serve the American people over the interests of foreigners and anyone who might want to see the nation destroyed. The Preamble to the Constitution states:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
This is not ambiguous or confusing. “Posterity” means future American citizens, the natural inheritors of the country. The “blessings of liberty” and the general welfare are secured for them, not for foreign invaders. Political leaders are violating the Constitution and its call for domestic tranquility by enabling mass immigration of foreign interests into the US. The majority of Americans agree with Trump on this issue.
BREAKING — Reaction to Trump’s State of the Union speech:
So why do Democrats continue to act as if they’re on the right side of history?
First, let’s stop pretending as if they actually care what the Constitution says. they don’t. They only care about the parts that serve their interests in the moment, and in the moment loyalty to American citizens is inconvenient to their agenda. Trump’s challenge and their refusal to stand was not just a moment of defiance against Trump, it was a moment of defiance against the idea that America is a self-contained heritage. It was defiance against the idea that the Republic should be protected from deconstruction.
Democrats exposed their true agenda. Their loyalties rest with multiculturalism, not America’s sons and daughters.
The moment is symbolic of the irreconcilable differences between the political left and everyone else. It should not be considered controversial to want secure borders, limits on immigration and an economic preference for native born citizens over foreigners. But Democrats treat this concept as monstrous.
Why? Because multiculturalism is socialism, and socialism generally requires the destruction of cultural or national identity in order to take root. Trump’s SOTU address gave the American public another opportunity to see the Democrat mask come off completely. The face underneath is horrifying. And, if we cannot agree on the most foundational principles of our society, then we are at an impasse. If they had a modicum of intelligence this is the last thing Democrats should want.
Illegal Immigrants are being hired by Democrat controlled states and localities to enforce gun laws.
That’s not hyperbole. Reports are coming in from Police departments all over the country. From California to Maine, illegal immigrants are being hired, given guns and then enforcing the laws of the state, including gun control laws.
This is exactly why Gun Owners of America is working with Senator Ted Budd and Representative Mary Miller to introduce legislation to stop this unconstitutional attack on Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
But how is all of this happening? Well, we’ll explain…
It is against the law for illegal immigrants to possess firearms in the United States. Specifically, 18 USC 922(d)(5)(A) and (g)(5)(A) says:
“It shall be unlawful for any person… who, being an alien… is illegally or unlawfully in the United States… to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition…”
And that’s perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment. While everyone has a natural right to self-defense (even those who are illegally in this country), illegal immigrants and foreigners are not part of “the People,” who’s right to bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment within the jurisdiction of the United States.
It would be absurd to say that an army of foreign invaders somehow has a Second Amendment right to possess and use firearms. After all, the Second Amendment is largely about the security of our free state and our ability to protect against tyrannical governments, both foreign and domestic.
So, knowing this, it’s outrageous that in some states, illegal immigrants are working as law enforcement officers, enforcing unconstitutional gun laws against US citizens.
The irony is, it’s perfectly legal.
There have been numerous recent cases where an illegal alien has been hired in some law enforcement capacity.
Most recently, Radule Bojovic an illegal immigrant from Montenegro was caught working as an armed police officer in a Chicago suburb.
And earlier this year, the Trump Administration caught more illegal immigrants working as law enforcement officers in Massachusetts and Maine.
California, taking this idea further, codified the practiceby passing a law that specifically authorizes the hiring of illegal immigrants as law enforcement officers.
These cases of illegal immigrants working as law enforcement have drawn attention to an issue with federal law.
Right now, there’s currently nine categories of people who are prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition.
Only one of these prohibitions currently applies to police, but these prohibitions don’t apply to anyone working for the government carrying guns in that capacity.
Here’s what federal law says:
“[The prohibited person categories] shall not apply with respect to the transportation, shipment, receipt, possession, or importation of any firearm or ammunition imported for, sold or shipped to, or issued for the use of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof.”
Thanks to that provision of federal law, it’s 100% legal for an illegal immigrant to possess a firearm as a police officer, because the prohibited person categories don’t apply.
This problem is going to be more common as time goes on.
According to GOA Director of Federal Affairs, Aidan Johnston (emphasis ours), “An outrageous loophole in federal law gives non-Americans more gun privileges than law-abiding citizens with Second Amendment rights. Through the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act illegals who are police have a statutory right to nationwide carry that is denied to every day Americans. What’s worse, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, and perhaps others are already empowering illegals as police to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of American gun owners. Congress must pass the Stop Illegal Alien Cops Act immediately, to prevent anti-gun states from using illegal aliens to enforce unconstitutional gun control laws.”
Earlier in February, Immigration and Customs Enforcement confirmed to Fox News that they arrested a New Orleans Police Department recruit who they say is an illegal alien from Cameroon.
This illegal alien’s application for permanent residency was denied because of fraud. Even still, New Orleans—which is a sanctuary city—hired him to enforce laws and gave him a firearm.
NEW: ICE confirms to @foxnews that they’ve arrested a New Orleans Police Department recruit who they say is an illegal alien from Cameroon with an active deportation order & no work authorization, & they say he was illegally given a gun by New Orleans PD.
Anti-gun states and law enforcement agencies are intentionally hiring and arming illegal aliens—who cannot otherwise own firearms—to enforce unconstitutional gun control laws, including “red flag” gun confiscations and so-called “assault weapons” bans.
It’s threat to liberty to allow large numbers of armed foreigners—who do not have Second Amendment rights—to participate in the disarmament and infringement of the People’s Second Amendment rights.
And consider this, illegal aliens who are hired as law enforcement could even be allowed to carry nationwide while actual American citizens with Second Amendment rights cannot.
Under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, “qualified law enforcement officers” can obtain a nationwide carry permit called a LEOSA, which supersedes state law.
This is a glaring disparity, especially considering that Gun Owners of America has been fighting to pass Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity for US Citizens for years.
We’ve been working on a solution to this two-tiered justice system for quite some time. And we’re glad Congress is introducing legislation to deal with this problem!
That’s why Gun Owners of America is working to pass the Stop Illegal Alien Cops Act with North Carolina Senator Ted Budd and Representative Mary Miller.
🚨BREAKING🚨
Congress introduces GOA-backed bills to repeal an absurd loophole in federal law allowing states to arm illegals as police officers.
Currently, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, & perhaps others are using illegals to infringe on the Second Amendment. pic.twitter.com/DOFB8tZA9M
This bill would criminalize the possession of firearms and ammunition for illegal aliens, even in their capacity as law enforcement officials.
This would make it so that no illegal alien will ever be able to lawfully use a firearm to disarm an American citizen ever again.
It would also allow the Trump Administration to prosecute anti-gun states for arming illegals and hiring them to work as armed law enforcement officers in the future.
This bill was just introduced, and we need your help to pass it.
Call your Senators at (202) 224-3121 and ask that they co-sponsor Senator Budd’s Stop Illegal Alien Cops Act.
Let’s make sure that Americans nationwide cannot be disarmed by foreigners working on behalf of tyrannical anti-gun states and departments.
“All Necessary Measures”: China Warns US Against New Tariffs
Beijing cautioned Washington that it is prepared to respond forcefully – with “all necessary measures” – if a renewed US review of their 2020 trade pact leads to additional tariffs, after American officials indicated the inquiry would press ahead, according to Bloomberg.
In remarks released Wednesday, China’s Commerce Ministry pushed back on comments from US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, arguing that China has upheld its commitments under the so-called Phase One agreement despite the economic shock of the pandemic. Officials said the country followed through on promises related to intellectual property protections and broader access to its financial and agricultural sectors.
At the same time, the ministry accused the United States of hampering the deal’s rollout by expanding export controls, tightening scrutiny of cross-border investment and layering on other restrictions that, in Beijing’s view, have disrupted ordinary trade flows. It pointed to a policy paper issued in 2025 outlining China’s position.
Bloomberg writes that the ministry warned that if Washington presses ahead with the investigation — or uses it as grounds to impose new trade barriers such as tariffs — China “will take all necessary measures” to safeguard what it described as its lawful interests.
The back-and-forth adds a fresh dose of tension to the relationship ahead of President Donald Trump’s upcoming visit to Beijing, his first trip to China since 2017 and the first by a US president in years. The diplomatic friction follows a Supreme Court ruling that struck down sweeping emergency tariffs enacted during Trump’s second term, effectively lowering duties on Chinese goods compared with those faced by some US allies.
Greer has said the administration retains authority to levy tariffs under Section 301 and other trade laws despite the court’s decision. The Office of the US Trade Representative launched its compliance review of the Phase One agreement in October 2025.
China’s Commerce Ministry called on the United States to evaluate the accord “objectively and rationally,” avoid assigning blame and make use of existing consultation channels to build on areas of agreement and steer ties toward a more stable future.
California and 14 other states on Feb. 24 sued federal health agencies and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over the recently revised childhood vaccine schedule.
Federal officials violated federal law by not consulting with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccine advisory panel before downgrading recommendations for six vaccines in January, the plaintiffs said in a lawsuit filed in federal court in northern California.
The updated CDC vaccine schedule “will damage public health by decreasing vaccine uptake and increasing rates of vaccine-preventable diseases, including by creating confusion, spreading misinformation contrary to established scientific evidence, and increasing vaccine hesitancy,” they said.
They also took issue with how the CDC, acting on advice from the panel, previously stopped recommending hepatitis B vaccination at birth to children born to women who tested negative for hepatitis B.
The states are asking the court to enjoin those changes.
The Department of Health and Human Services, the CDC’s parent agency, has said it does not comment on litigation.
A separate lawsuit, lodged in 2025 by health organizations, also seeks to block the revised schedule as well as Kennedy’s remaking of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, who heard from the parties during a hearing in Boston earlier in February, has not yet ruled on the request as he considers whether to allow Children’s Health Defense, an organization previously founded by Kennedy, to intervene in the case in support of the government.
Government lawyers have said in filings in that case that the vaccine schedule was reasonably updated based on recommendations from top health officials, including Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, acting director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
A baby after receiving a vaccine for hepatitis B and other diseases, in a file illustration photograph. Riccardo Milani/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images
President Donald Trump ordered a comparison of the U.S. vaccine schedule with those of other countries, and it showed the United States was a global outlier among peer nations in routinely recommending vaccines against hepatitis A and certain other diseases, Hoeg said.
A memorandum signed by then-CDC Acting Director Jim O’Neill said the update was needed to increase public trust in vaccines.
The government has also said Kennedy’s replacement of vaccine advisory committee members was legal because members hold a variety of jobs and have put forth “complex and nuanced perspectives.”
The attorneys general of 14 states—Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin—all Democrats, and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, also a Democrat, are the plaintiffs in the new suit.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta told reporters in an online briefing on Tuesday that the actions Kennedy and other officials have taken regarding the vaccine “harm public health and they strain state resources by sowing doubt and confusion in vaccines and in science.”
He added later that, absent action from the court, “California will be forced to expend resources, to treat once rare diseases, to respond to outbreaks, and to combat misinformation.”
Democrats’ disdain for American priorities hit new lows during President Trump’s State of the Union, where many refused to stand for victims of illegal alien crime or even basic protections for citizens. Now, they’re doubling down with excuses that expose their true allegiances.
Building on their po-faced refusals to applaud pretty much any commons sense statement during the speech – as we detailed in our previous coverage – top Democrats are now openly trashing the address as ‘divisive’ while justifying their boycott.
According to reports, roughly half of House and Senate Democrats skipped the event altogether, opting for counter-rallies like this clown show:
There, they criticized Trump’s policies on immigration and the economy, accusing him of harming Americans through border security measures and cost reductions that have actually benefited working families.
Over 80 Democrats announced their boycott ahead of time, including high-profile figures like House Minority Whip Katherine Clark and Senators Chris Van Hollen and Adam Schiff. Instead of engaging with Trump’s message of renewal, they chose to rally against what they called his “unpopular agenda,” even as polls show broad support for securing the border and prioritizing citizens.
In the aftermath, Democrats unleashed a barrage of complaints that only highlighted their detachment from everyday Americans.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz called the speech “absolutely revolting,” specifically recoiling at the idea of prioritizing Americans over illegal aliens.
NEWSNATION: Why didn’t you stand when President Trump said Congress should work for Americans?
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: “The President tonight gave a speech that was absolutely revolting.”
Mark Kelly dismissed it as a “disappointment” that tried to “divide us as a nation,” despite his own refusal to stand when Trump called for putting American citizens first.
Democrat Mark Kelly says that Trump’s speech was a “disappointment” that tried to “divide us as a nation.”
This is coming from a Democrat who literally REFUSED to stand up when asked to put American citizens before illegal aliens.
Suhas Subramanyam whined that Trump “tried to corner them” by asking Democrats to stand for American citizens—revealing just how controversial basic patriotism has become in their ranks.
Democrat Rep. Suhas Subramanyam says President Trump “tried to corner them” when he asked them to stand for American citizens.
Even more disturbing, Robin Kelly was caught laughing and mocking American heroes and veterans as they received medals from Trump. This kind of contempt for those who’ve sacrificed for the country is beyond sickening.
Democrat Rep. Robin Kelly laughs and mocks American heroes and veterans who received medals from Trump
CBS News, not exactly a bastion of conservatism, admitted Democrats buried themselves: “They can’t even applaud common sense things!” The contrast between American citizens and illegal aliens created a “visual moment” that exposed their priorities.
? IT’S OFFICIAL: Even FAKE NEWS CBS is sounding the alarm that Democrats BURIED themselves at the State of the Union
“They can’t even applaud common sense THINGS!”
“Americans citizens vs illegal aliens created a VISUAL MOMENT.”
Vice President JD Vance torched Democrats for their spineless performance, pointing out “‘The American government should stand for American citizens, not illegal aliens,’ that shouldn’t be controversial — but apparently, it was to the Democrats.”
.@VP: “‘The American government should stand for American citizens, not illegal aliens,’ that shouldn’t be controversial — but apparently, it was to the Democrats.” pic.twitter.com/K6bPwNQu3O
Vance also highlighted their herd mentality: “Something that I saw that probably most TV viewers didn’t see was really the cowardice … They were all looking around for cues from their colleagues because they didn’t have the courage to stand on their own.”
.@VP: “Something that I saw that probably most TV viewers didn’t see was really the cowardice … They were all looking around for cues from their colleagues because they didn’t have the courage to stand on their own.” https://t.co/tPGG70pf58pic.twitter.com/kH6mcB1LFb
On the heart-wrenching moment during the speech with a young girl previously assaulted by an illegal alien, Vance urged “Whatever your politics; whatever your views on immigration policy, can’t we all stand and clap for an innocent young girl who shouldn’t have been assaulted and was being held by her dad?”
“It was such a heartwarming moment. I think every American, Democrat or Republican, thought that was a great moment for our country,” Vance continued, adding “The only people who didn’t believe that apparently were the Congressional Democrats in that Chamber. I think it shows again how broken their party is.”
? JUST IN — JD VANCE DROPS TRUTH: “Democrats wouldn’t stand for that innocent little girl ASSAULTED by an illegal alien, but managed to survive!” ?
“Whatever your politics, can’t we all stand and clap for an innocent young girl who shouldn’t have been assaulted?! Being held by… pic.twitter.com/jaXv56TiGM
“Democrats wouldn’t stand for that innocent little girl ASSAULTED by an illegal alien, but managed to survive!” Vance stressed, further slamming them for not standing against child transitions without parental consent or for putting American citizens first.
Amid the Democratic meltdown, Senator John Fetterman emerged as the rare exception, admitting he stood and clapped for key moments while questioning his party’s behavior.
“Well, for me, you know, I never check to see what the rest of people in my party would stand up and clap for,” Fetterman stated, adding “I clapped with a lot of those things that it seemed like others. I stood up and clapped to recognize the family that lost their daughter, the Ukrainian girl stabbed to death in North Carolina. And I stood up and I clapped that political prisoner from Venezuela, how you can’t celebrate those kinds of things?”
“I also celebrated all the veterans that were in the audience as well, too,” Fetterman continued, adding “And even more the political things like Erika Kirk. I stood up and I clapped for her as well, too.”
“Can’t we just be more kind to a widow? We just shouldn’t be that long ago that a widow with young children has her husband murdered, how we can’t just acknowledge that as well, too,” he noted.
Senator Fetterman says he stood up and clapped for many moments during the State of the Union — Erika Kirk, Iryna Zarutska, all the military awards.
But he still can’t understand why the rest of his party didn’t.
Fetterman’s willingness to applaud victims and heroes stands in stark contrast to his colleagues’ petty obstructionism, underscoring how far the Democratic Party has strayed from common decency.
This boycott and the excuses that followed aren’t just political theater—they’re a clear signal that Democrats would rather pander to open borders and globalist agendas than stand up for the American people. Trump’s address showcased real wins: secure borders, economic growth, and peace through strength. Yet Democrats chose division over unity, proving once again they’re the obstacle to making America great.
As midterms approach, voters won’t forget this display of anti-American pettiness. It’s time to hold them accountable.
Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.
Trump Claims Iran Developing Missiles To Hit US, Contradicting Intel Reports
With nuclear talks hanging in the balance, and the potential for yet another US war of choice in the Middle East, President Donald Trump escalated the rhetoric Tuesday night, warning that Iran is moving beyond just regional missile capabilities and setting its sights farther west by developing missiles capable of hitting the United States.
During his State of the Union address Tuesday night, Trump claimed, “They’ve already developed missiles that can threaten Europe and our bases overseas, and they’re working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America.”
It seemed a transparent attempt to make the American people believe they are under direct threat from Tehran, in order to justify potential near-future strikes, however flimsy the case might be. So far Washington’s main talking point has been that Iran simply can never have a nuclear weapon and so something has to be done – and this actually does resonate with some sectors of the American public.
But Tehran setting its sites on directly attacking the US homeland is a huge stretch, with no serious analyst so much as suggesting the Islamic Republic has the capability or is even close.
US intelligence assessments have been very conservative on this. For example, in 2025, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) stated that Iran could potentially field a militarily viable intercontinental ballistic missile by 2035 “should Tehran decide to pursue the capability.”
Given US intelligence also has not concluded that such a decision had been made, this means Iran is likely at least a decade away from even being close to possessing such an ultra long range missile.
The US mainland is some 6000 miles away from western Iran, and currently Iran’s longest range missile is said to reach just under 1900 miles – a huge gap.
Iran’s ballistic missile focus has always been developing with an eye on the country’s number one nemesis in the region: Israel.
There’s a broad understanding even among the Western public that in reality Washington’s anti-Iran stance has much more to do with defending Israel than the US homeland, which is clearly not under immediate threat from Tehran. There’s not so much as been a terror attack carried out by a single Iranian Shia operative on American soil in all of history.
Iran is willing to scale back uranium enrichment from 60% to roughly 3.6% and pause enrichment activities for seven years under a draft framework expected in Geneva, an Arab diplomat familiar with the proposal tells Kan News. Tehran opposes shipping hundreds of kilograms of…
So it seems the White House continues to be in search of a rationale and narrative to sell the public amid the major Pentagon build-up in the region. But polls by and large suggest most Americans still aren’t buying it.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said she is considering legal action after tech billionaire Elon Musk alleged on social media that she was taking orders from drug cartels.
Speaking at a Feb. 24 news conference in Mexico City, Sheinbaum said government lawyers were reviewing the matter.
“We’re considering whether to take some legal action,” she said.
“The lawyers are looking into it, but what matters to me is what the people say, honestly.”
Musk’s allegation of Sheinbaum’s cartel subservience followed the capture and killing of Jalisco New Generation Cartel (JNGC) leader Nemesio Oseguera, known as “El Mencho,” by Mexican security forces.
In his post on X, Musk responded to a 2025 video of Sheinbaum discussing cartel violence and saying that returning to a war against the cartels is “not an option” because it would mean extrajudicial killings that are “outside the framework of the law.” She added that military force against the cartels would also be counterproductive because it would trigger retaliatory violence that would only “increase homicides in Mexico.”
Responding to those remarks, Musk alleged that she was “saying what her cartel bosses tell her to say.”
“Let’s just say that their punishment for disobedience is a little worse than a ‘performance improvement plan,’” Musk wrote.
He did not provide evidence to support his claims.
Sheinbaum could face difficulty suing Musk for defamation in the United States because of strong legal protections for free speech. To prevail, she would need to show that Musk knowingly made a false statement or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Tesla, Musk’s auto company, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Violence After El Mencho’s Killing
Musk’s comments came amid heightened tensions in Mexico following Oseguera’s death.
An uneasy calm appeared to be returning to parts of the country on Wednesday after the killing of the cartel leader triggered widespread reprisals. The violence paralyzed highways, grounded flights, and forced residents and tourists to shelter in place, particularly in Jalisco state.
Aerial view of burned vehicles over the La Desembocada bridge in Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco State, Mexico, on Feb. 24, 2026. Alfredo Estrella/AFP via Getty Images
Sheinbaum said at the Feb. 24 briefing that authorities were working to restore order after Sunday’s military operation in Tapalpa, Jalisco, left Oseguera dead following a shootout.
“Today there was no school, but tomorrow activities are expected to return to normal,” she said.
“In the Guadalajara airport, practically all flights have already resumed, and in Puerto Vallarta, little by little, things are returning to normal.”
Sheinbaum added that there were still “some” burned vehicles on the side of the road on Tuesday that would be removed later in the day.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum pays tribute during the celebration of Flag Day in Mexico City on Feb. 24, 2026. Yuri Cortez/AFP via Getty Images
Mexico’s Security Cabinet said in a Feb. 24 post on X that affected states were experiencing “a gradual reopening of economic and educational activities, with progressive normalization of mobility and strategic operations,” according to a translation.
More than 50 people were reported killed in the operation and its aftermath, including members of Mexico’s National Guard. The White House said the United States provided intelligence support for the raid.
The CJNG, one of Mexico’s most powerful criminal organizations and a major trafficker of fentanyl and methamphetamine into the United States, responded to Oseguera’s death with coordinated attacks, including vehicle burnings and armed confrontations with security forces.
Sheinbaum also sought to reassure international visitors ahead of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, saying there was no risk to fans traveling to Mexico and that “all the guarantees” for safety were in place.
Trump’s Escalating Pressure
Musk’s criticism mirrors that of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has sharply escalated rhetoric against Mexican cartels and criticized Sheinbaum’s approach.
“The cartels are running Mexico. It’s very sad to watch and see what’s happened to that country,” Trump told Fox News’ Sean Hannity in a Jan. 8 interview.
“They’re killing 250,000, 300,000 in our country every single year.
“We knocked out 97 percent of the drugs coming in by water, and we are going to start now hitting land with regard with the cartels.”
Trump also warned that Mexico needs to “get its act together.”
“You have to do something with Mexico,” Trump told reporters in January. “We’re going to have to do something. We’d love Mexico to do it; they’re capable of doing it, but unfortunately, the cartels are very strong in Mexico.”
He has described Sheinbaum as “afraid” of the cartels and has suggested the United States could conduct military strikes on Mexican soil. His administration has intensified anti-cartel measures, including designating certain Mexican syndicates as terrorist organizations.
“Much more remains to be done by Mexico’s government to target cartel leadership, along with their clandestine drug labs, precursor chemical supply chains, and illicit finances,” Trump said in a presidential determination published by the U.S. State Department in September 2025. “Over the next year, the United States will expect to see additional, aggressive efforts by Mexico to hold cartel leaders accountable and disrupt the illicit networks engaged in drug production and trafficking.”
Sheinbaum has repeatedly rejected the prospect of unilateral U.S. intervention, saying it would violate Mexican sovereignty.
“We categorically reject intervention in the internal affairs of other countries,” Sheinbaum said during a news conference in early January. “The history of Latin America is clear and compelling: Intervention has never brought democracy, never generated well-being, nor lasting stability.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt speaks during a press briefing at the White House in Washington on Feb. 10, 2026. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times
The White House confirmed that the United States provided intelligence support for the operation to capture El Mencho and applauded Mexico’s army for taking down a man who was one of the most wanted criminals in both countries.
“The United States provided intelligence support to the Mexican government in order to assist with an operation in Talpalpa, Jalisco, Mexico, in which Nemesio ‘El Mencho’ Oseguera Cervantes, an infamous drug lord and leader within the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, was eliminated,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a Feb 22 post on X.
Sheinbaum told reporters on Feb. 24 that she expects security to continue to normalize in Mexico following coordinated roadblocks and arson attacks by cartel members after the operation against Oseguera.
