Authored by Wolfgang Munchau via UnHerd.com,

The 28-point plan the White House negotiated with the Kremlin is not a done deal. It’s not even close. It is a blueprint, no more, no less. In any case, Trump is an unpredictable player — he could back out at any moment. But this time, I don’t think he will.

The plan, first circulated on a Telegram channel, is clearly not a great one for Ukraine. But, equally, it isn’t a “capitulation” and those who have described it as such don’t really want a deal. Ukraine will be able to improve on it. But, admittedly, not by much. “You don’t have the cards,” Trump once told Zelensky. Unfortunately, after the recent corruption scandal, his hand is weaker than ever.

Over the past three years, US officials have repeatedly told me that Ukraine has no chance of winning the war. And after America withdrew support earlier this year, it was clear that they had a point: Europe was in no position to plug the gap. Europeans might be the self-righteous defenders of the fast-collapsing multilateral world order, but history will record that when push came to shove, they weren’t ready to put their money where their mouth was. On average, the total support for Ukraine was around €4 billion per month during the first half of the year. In July and August, it collapsed to under €1 billion per month, according to the Kiel Institute. No major European country has been willing to cut spending or raise taxes to fund Ukraine meaningfully. The Europeans’ strategy, such as it was beyond photo-ops with Zelensky, was to keep the Russians fighting until they got tired.

Unfortunately, America tired first. And Europe had no Plan B.

Now Europe is out of money and out of ideas. And Trump does have a plan. He has been playing the long game. His tough talk against Vladimir Putin was merely tactical, intended to mask a long-term strategy to force an end to the war. As Phillips O’Brien has suggested, in his “Long Con” analysis, even Trump’s secondary oil sanctions were part of this gambit. These were supposed to take effect on 21 November. And yet nothing happened. India and China can continue buy Russian oil with impunity. The sanctions were never serious.

Trump has a singular priority — to end the war, whatever it takes. And he has two major advantages in this bid. One is Ukraine and Europe’s military dependence on the US. The other is America’s unique status as the only influential Western power with direct diplomatic channels with Moscow. The Europeans committed a huge strategic blunder when they simultaneously ended their conversations with Vladimir Putin.

And so Trump’s 28-point plan was negotiated by Steve Witkoff with his counterpart in Russia, Kirill Dmitriev. Admittedly, it does have the feel of a work in progress: the leaked version was written in Russian and, when translated into English, is clumsy. It is detailed, but by no means a formally agreed text.

There are, though, some non-negotiable elements. One is the territorial agreement which would give Russia a part of Ukraine it does not yet occupy. Russia already holds almost 90% of the entire Donbas region — all of Luhansk, and roughly three quarters of Donetsk. Trump’s peace plan would hand Russia the remaining territory of Donetsk, along with the 200,000 Ukrainians who are still resident in the Ukrainian-controlled parts of the oblast. Under the plan, the territory would be demilitarised and become part of a buffer zone.

Trump’s team accepted this because they concluded, correctly, in my view, that without it there would be no deal. Putin would have continued to fight and eventually captured more territory. Russia has been making advances: it recently managed to occupy the vital frontline town of Pokrovsk. It could take another year for Russia to capture the remainder of Donetsk, before it went for the big prize: Zaporizhzhia, a city with approximately 700,000 inhabitants, and the capital of the region that bears the same name. At that point, Ukraine’s future independence could could no longer be assured.

This peace deal, though, is not as one-sided as its critics say. It formally recognises the sovereignty of Ukraine, and its right to join the EU. It also allows Ukraine to maintain an army, capped at a reasonable 600,000 troops. Nor does restrict Nato countries from providing further assistance, except for certain weapon categories like long-range missiles.

But there are some real curveballs. I almost fell off my chair when I read Point 14, which suggests the investing of $100bn of Russia’s frozen assets in the reconstruction of Ukraine — with the US taking half of the profits. This is classic Trump: playing commercial games which are beyond the imagination of our European diplomats. In addition, Europe would be obliged to pay $100bn of assistance from their own pockets. There will be a US-Russian investment fund to finance joint American–Russian projects, with profits shared.

But most importantly, the deal forces Europe to unfreeze the $200 billion in Russian assets currently held in European accounts, mostly in Belgium. This is a bitter pill; Europe had hoped it could use the Russian money as collateral for Ukraine loans. Trump has no authority to force Europe to release the funds — Friedrich Merz already said No to this demand — but he could make life difficult if it refuses.

Europe’s only semi-coherent strategy regarding Ukraine had been to withhold these assets as leverage for future reparations  — a plan built on the fiction that Ukraine would win this war.

But if Russia and Ukraine end up agreeing a deal, this scheme would be rendered unworkable, since would be a tool with which the Europeans could sabotage the deal.

Another red-line in the peace deal is the gradual lifting of sanctions. Readmitting Russia to the Group of Seven advanced industrial nations — making it the G8 again — would be painful for the Europeans. Russia was expelled in 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea. A revived G8 would effectively be ruled by Trump and Putin.

No surprise, then, that EU leaders at the G20 summit in South Africa this weekend issued a statement to say that they wanted to make a counterproposal, designed primarily to frustrate Trump’s plan. They insisted on a ceasefire — a non-starter. And after senior US and European officials met in Geneva on Sunday, they said they had made some progress but gave no details.

Ukraine, by contrast, made some positive noises about a new version of the deal. The Kyiv Independent quoted a senior US official saying that the plan had been drawn up with Rustem Umerov, the secretary of the National and Security Council of Ukraine, and one of Zelensky’s closest aides. Umerov reportedly agreed to the majority of the deal, after making several modifications, which he then showed to Zelensky.

Domestic attitudes in Ukraine are also shifting. I noted a post from Iuliia Mendel, Zelensky’s former press secretary and staunch defender of Ukraine. Over the weekend she tweeted: “My country is bleeding out. Many who reflexively oppose every peace proposal believe they are defending Ukraine. With all respect, that is the clearest proof they have no idea what is actually happening on the front lines and inside the country right now.” She is absolutely right in her observation that the loudest supporters of Ukraine in Europe are those with no understanding whatsoever of the military reality on the ground.

So will the Europeans encourage Zelensky to keep on fighting? I am sure they will try. But I am not sure they will succeed. Ultimately, they will back down.

Because if Ukraine were to reject the deal, Trump would formally disconnect his remaining military aid and intelligence support to Ukraine. The country relies on this as its early warning system for any incoming attacks as well as guiding its own strikes on Russian infrastructure.

Trump could go even further and renounce US responsibility for Europe’s security, on the grounds that the continent is taking unacceptable risks. The Europeans know this, of course. While outwardly, they may give an impression of defiance, their actions suggest otherwise. After Trump imposed tariffs on European imports this summer, the EU folded and agreed to a big increase in military spending. If Europe really wanted independence from the US, it would have created a defence procurement union, with a “Buy European” mandate and started to reorganise its militaries. None of this is happening. Nor will it. This is the problem with the multilateral crowd. They care too much about procedures.

We can expect a good deal of huffing and puffing coming from European capitals over the next few days. Leaders will insist that they are retain sovereign decision-making. Legally, this is true. The US has no rights to decide the fate of Russian assets held in Europe.

But this is not a legal dispute, it is a political one. Europe never had a viable strategy for the war — and now it’s becoming clear it has no strategy for peace either. The Europeans have no choice but to make a deal: they have no cards left to play either.

By UncoverAlpha

As I find the topic of Google TPUs extremely important, I am publishing a comprehensive deep dive, not just a technical overview, but also strategic and financial coverage of the Google TPU.

Topics covered:

• The history of the TPU and why it all even started?
• The difference between a TPU and a GPU?
• Performance numbers TPU vs GPU?
• Where are the problems for the wider adoption of TPUs
• Google’s TPU is the biggest competitive advantage of its cloud business for the next 10 years
• How many TPUs does Google produce today, and how big can that get?
• Gemini 3 and the aftermath of Gemini 3 on the whole chip industry

Let’s dive into it.

The history of the TPU and why it all even started?

The story of the Google Tensor Processing Unit (TPU) begins not with a breakthrough in chip manufacturing, but with a realization about math and logistics. Around 2013, Google’s leadership—specifically Jeff Dean, Jonathan Ross (the CEO of Groq), and the Google Brain team—ran a projection that alarmed them. They calculated that if every Android user utilized Google’s new voice search feature for just three minutes a day, the company would need to double its global data center capacity just to handle the compute load.

At the time, Google was relying on standard CPUs and GPUs for these tasks. While powerful, these general-purpose chips were inefficient for the specific heavy lifting required by Deep Learning: massive matrix multiplications. Scaling up with existing hardware would have been a financial and logistical nightmare.

This sparked a new project. Google decided to do something rare for a software company: build its own custom silicon. The goal was to create an ASIC (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit) designed for one job only: running TensorFlow neural networks.

Key Historical Milestones:

• 2013-2014: The project moved really fast as Google both hired a very capable team and, to be honest, had some luck in their first steps. The team went from design concept to deploying silicon in data centers in just 15 months—a very short cycle for hardware engineering.

• 2015: Before the world knew they existed, TPUs were already powering Google’s most popular products. They were silently accelerating Google Maps navigation, Google Photos, and Google Translate.

• 2016: Google officially unveiled the TPU at Google I/O 2016.

This urgency to solve the “data center doubling” problem is why the TPU exists. It wasn’t built to sell to gamers or render video; it was built to save Google from its own AI success. With that in mind, Google has been thinking about the »costly« AI inference problems for over a decade now. This is also one of the main reasons why the TPU is so good today compared to other ASIC projects.

The difference between a TPU and a GPU?

To understand the difference, it helps to look at what each chip was originally built to do. A GPU is a “general-purpose” parallel processor, while a TPU is a “domain-specific” architecture.

The GPUs were designed for graphics. They excel at parallel processing (doing many things at once), which is great for AI. However, because they are designed to handle everything from video game textures to scientific simulations, they carry “architectural baggage.” They spend significant energy and chip area on complex tasks like caching, branch prediction, and managing independent threads.

A TPU, on the other hand, strips away all that baggage. It has no hardware for rasterization or texture mapping. Instead, it uses a unique architecture called a Systolic Array.

The “Systolic Array” is the key differentiator. In a standard CPU or GPU, the chip moves data back and forth between the memory and the computing units for every calculation. This constant shuffling creates a bottleneck (the Von Neumann bottleneck).

In a TPU’s systolic array, data flows through the chip like blood through a heart (hence “systolic”).

1. It loads data (weights) once.
2. It passes inputs through a massive grid of multipliers.
3. The data is passed directly to the next unit in the array without writing back to memory.

What this means, in essence, is that a TPU, because of its systolic array, drastically reduces the number of memory reads and writes required from HBM. As a result, the TPU can spend its cycles computing rather than waiting for data.

Google’s new TPU design, also called Ironwood also addressed some of the key areas where a TPU was lacking:

• They enhanced the SparseCore for efficiently handling large embeddings (good for recommendation systems and LLMs)

• It increased HBM capacity and bandwidth (up to 192 GB per chip). For a better understanding, Nvidia’s Blackwell B200 has 192GB per chip, while Blackwell Ultra, also known as the B300, has 288 GB per chip.

• Improved the Inter-Chip Interconnect (ICI) for linking thousands of chips into massive clusters, also called TPU Pods (needed for AI training as well as some time test compute inference workloads). When it comes to ICI, it is important to note that it is very performant with a Peak Bandwidth of 1.2 TB/s vs Blackwell NVLink 5 at 1.8 TB/s. But Google’s ICI, together with its specialized compiler and software stack, still delivers superior performance on some specific AI tasks.

The key thing to understand is that because the TPU doesn’t need to decode complex instructions or constantly access memory, it can deliver significantly higher Operations Per Joule.

For scale-out, Google uses Optical Circuit Switch (OCS) and its 3D torus network, which compete with Nvidia’s InfiniBand and Spectrum-X Ethernet. The main difference is that OCS is extremely cost-effective and power-efficient as it eliminates electrical switches and O-E-O conversions, but because of this, it is not as flexible as the other two. So again, the Google stack is extremely specialized for the task at hand and doesn’t offer the flexibility that GPUs do.

Performance numbers TPU vs GPU?

As we defined the differences, let’s look at real numbers showing how the TPU performs compared to the GPU. Since Google isn’t revealing these numbers, it is really hard to get details on performance. I studied many articles and alternative data sources, including interviews with industry insiders, and here are some of the key takeaways.

The first important thing is that there is very limited information on Google’s newest TPUv7 (Ironwood), as Google introduced it in April 2025 and is just now starting to become available to external clients (internally, it is said that Google has already been using Ironwood since April, possibly even for Gemini 3.0.). And why is this important if we, for example, compare TPUv7 with an older but still widely used version of TPUv5p based on Semianalysis data:

• TPUv7 produces 4,614 TFLOPS(BF16) vs 459 TFLOPS for TPUv5p

• TPUv7 has 192GB of memory capacity vs TPUv5p 96GB

• TPUv7 memory Bandwidth is 7,370 GB/s vs 2,765 for v5p

We can see that the performance leaps between v5 and v7 are very significant. To put that in context, most of the comments that we will look at are more focused on TPUv6 or TPUv5 than v7.

Based on analyzing a ton of interviews with Former Google employees, customers, and competitors (people from AMD, NVDA & others), the summary of the results is as follows.

Most agree that TPUs are more cost-effective compared to Nvidia GPUs, and most agree that the performance per watt for TPUs is better. This view is not applicable across all use cases tho.

A Former Google Cloud employee:

“If it is the right application, then they can deliver much better performance per dollar compared to GPUs. They also require much lesser energy and produces less heat compared to GPUs. They’re also more energy efficient and have a smaller environmental footprint, which is what makes them a desired outcome.

The use cases are slightly limited to a GPU, they’re not as generic, but for a specific application, they can offer as much as 1.4X better performance per dollar, which is pretty significant saving for a customer that might be trying to use GPU versus TPUs.” – source: AlphaSense

Similarly, a very insightful comment from a Former Unit Head at Google around TPUs materially lowering AI-search cost per query vs GPUs:

“TPU v6 is 60-65% more efficient than GPUs, prior generations 40-45%”

This interview was in November 2024, so the expert is probably comparing the v6 TPU with the Nvidia Hopper. Today, we already have Blackwell vs V7.

Many experts also mention the speed benefit that TPUs offer, with a Former Google Head saying that TPUs are 5x faster than GPUs for training dynamic models (like search-like workloads).

There was also a very eye-opening interview with a client who used both Nvidia GPUs and Google TPUs as he describes the economics in great detail:

“If I were to use eight H100s versus using one v5e pod, I would spend a lot less money on one v5e pod. In terms of price point money, performance per dollar, you will get more bang for TPU. If I already have a code, because of Google’s help or because of our own work, if I know it already is going to work on a TPU, then at that point it is beneficial for me to just stick with the TPU usage.

In the long run, if I am thinking I need to write a new code base, I need to do a lot more work, then it depends on how long I’m going to train. I would say there is still some, for example, of the workload we have already done on TPUs that in the future because as Google will add newer generation of TPU, they make older ones much cheaper.

For example, when they came out with v4, I remember the price of v2 came down so low that it was practically free to use compared to any NVIDIA GPUs.

Google has got a good promise so they keep supporting older TPUs and they’re making it a lot cheaper. If you don’t really need your model trained right away, if you’re willing to say, “I can wait one week,” even though the training is only three days, then you can reduce your cost 1/5.” – source: AlphaSense

Another valuable interview was with a current AMD employee, acknowledging the benefits of ASICs:

“I would expect that an AI accelerator could do about probably typically what we see in the industry. I’m using my experience at FPGAs. I could see a 30% reduction in size and maybe a 50% reduction in power vs a GPU.”

We also got some numbers from a Former Google employee who worked in the chip segment:

“When I look at the published numbers, they (TPUs) are anywhere from 25%-30% better to close to 2x better, depending on the use cases compared to Nvidia. Essentially, there’s a difference between a very custom design built to do one task perfectly versus a more general purpose design.”

What is also known is that the real edge of TPUs lies not in the hardware but in the software and in the way Google has optimized its ecosystem for the TPU.

A lot of people mention the problem that every Nvidia “competitor” like the TPU faces, which is the fast development of Nvidia and the constant “catching up” to Nvidia problem. This month a former Google Cloud employee addressed that concern head-on as he believes the rate at which TPUs are improving is faster than the rate at Nvidia:

“The amount of performance per dollar that a TPU can generate from a new generation versus the old generation is a much significant jump than Nvidia”

In addition, the recent data from Google’s presentation at the Hot Chips 2025 event backs that up, as Google stated that the TPUv7 is 100% better in performance per watt than their TPUv6e (Trillium).

Even for hard Nvidia advocates, TPUs are not to be shrugged off easily, as even Jensen thinks very highly of Google’s TPUs. In a podcast with Brad Gerstner, he mentioned that when it comes to ASICs, Google with TPUs is a “special case”. A few months ago, we also got an article from the WSJ saying that after the news publication The Information published a report that stated that OpenAI had begun renting Google TPUs for ChatGPT, Jensen called Altman, asking him if it was true, and signaled that he was open to getting the talks back on track (investment talks). Also worth noting was that Nvidia’s official X account posted a screenshot of an article in which OpenAI denied plans to use Google’s in-house chips. To say the least, Nvidia is watching TPUs very closely.

Ok, but after looking at some of these numbers, one might think, why aren’t more clients using TPUs?

Where are the problems for the wider adoption of TPUs

The main problem for TPUs adoption is the ecosystem. Nvidia’s CUDA is engraved in the minds of most AI engineers, as they have been learning CUDA in universities. Google has developed its ecosystem internally but not externally, as it has used TPUs only for its internal workloads until now. TPUs use a combination of JAX and TensorFlow, while the industry skews to CUDA and PyTorch (although TPUs also support PyTorch now). While Google is working hard to make its ecosystem more supportive and convertible with other stacks, it is also a matter of libraries and ecosystem formation that takes years to develop.

It is also important to note that, until recently, the GenAI industry’s focus has largely been on training workloads. In training workloads, CUDA is very important, but when it comes to inference, even reasoning inference, CUDA is not that important, so the chances of expanding the TPU footprint in inference are much higher than those in training (although TPUs do really well in training as well – Gemini 3 the prime example).

The fact that most clients are multi-cloud also poses a challenge for TPU adoption, as AI workloads are closely tied to data and its location (cloud data transfer is costly). Nvidia is accessible via all three hyperscalers, while TPUs are available only at GCP so far. A client who uses TPUs and Nvidia GPUs explains it well:

“Right now, the one biggest advantage of NVIDIA, and this has been true for past three companies I worked on is because AWS, Google Cloud and Microsoft Azure, these are the three major cloud companies.

Every company, every corporate, every customer we have will have data in one of these three. All these three clouds have NVIDIA GPUs. Sometimes the data is so big and in a different cloud that it is a lot cheaper to run our workload in whatever cloud the customer has data in.

I don’t know if you know about the egress cost that is moving data out of one cloud is one of the bigger cost. In that case, if you have NVIDIA workload, if you have a CUDA workload, we can just go to Microsoft Azure, get a VM that has NVIDIA GPU, same GPU in fact, no code change is required and just run it there.

With TPUs, once you are all relied on TPU and Google says, “You know what? Now you have to pay 10X more,” then we would be screwed, because then we’ll have to go back and rewrite everything. That’s why. That’s the only reason people are afraid of committing too much on TPUs. The same reason is for Amazon’s Trainium and Inferentia.” – source: AlphaSense

These problems are well known at Google, so it is no surprise that internally, the debate over keeping TPUs inside Google or starting to sell them externally is a constant topic. When keeping them internally, it enhances the GCP moat, but at the same time, many former Google employees believe that at some point, Google will start offering TPUs externally as well, maybe through some neoclouds, not necessarily with the biggest two competitors, Microsoft and Amazon. Opening up the ecosystem, providing support, etc., and making it more widely usable are the first steps toward making that possible.

A former Google employee also mentioned that Google last year formed a more sales-oriented team to push and sell TPUs, so it’s not like they have been pushing hard to sell TPUs for years; it is a fairly new dynamic in the organization.

Google’s TPU is the biggest competitive advantage of its cloud business for the next 10 years

The most valuable thing for me about TPUs is their impact on GCP. As we witness the transformation of cloud businesses from the pre-AI era to the AI era, the biggest takeaway is that the industry has gone from an oligopoly of AWS, Azure, and GCP to a more commoditized landscape, with Oracle, Coreweave, and many other neoclouds competing for AI workloads. The problem with AI workloads is the competition and Nvidia’s 75% gross margin, which also results in low margins for AI workloads. The cloud industry is moving from a 50-70% gross margin industry to a 20-35% gross margin industry. For cloud investors, this should be concerning, as the future profile of some of these companies is more like that of a utility than an attractive, high-margin business. But there is a solution to avoiding that future and returning to a normal margin: the ASIC.

The cloud providers who can control the hardware and are not beholden to Nvidia and its 75% gross margin will be able to return to the world of 50% gross margins. And there is no surprise that all three AWS, Azure, and GCP are developing their own ASICs. The most mature by far is Google’s TPU, followed by Amazon’s Trainum, and lastly Microsoft’s MAIA (although Microsoft owns the full IP of OpenAI’s custom ASICs, which could help them in the future).

While even with ASICs you are not 100% independent, as you still have to work with someone like Broadcom or Marvell, whose margins are lower than Nvidia’s but still not negligible, Google is again in a very good position. Over the years of developing TPUs, Google has managed to control much of the chip design process in-house. According to a current AMD employee, Broadcom no longer knows everything about the chip. At this point, Google is the front-end designer (the actual RTL of the design) while Broadcom is only the backend physical design partner. Google, on top of that, also, of course, owns the entire software optimization stack for the chip, which makes it as performant as it is. According to the AMD employee, based on this work split, he thinks Broadcom is lucky if it gets a 50-point gross margin on its part.

Without having to pay Nvidia for the accelerator, a cloud provider can either price its compute similarly to others and maintain a better margin profile or lower costs and gain market share. Of course, all of this depends on having a very capable ASIC that can compete with Nvidia. Unfortunately, it looks like Google is the only one that has achieved that, as the number one-performing model is Gemini 3 trained on TPUs. According to some former Google employees, internally, Google is also using TPUs for inference across its entire AI stack, including Gemini and models like Veo. Google buys Nvidia GPUs for GCP, as clients want them because they are familiar with them and the ecosystem, but internally, Google is full-on with TPUs.

As the complexity of each generation of ASICs increases, similar to the complexity and pace of Nvidia, I predict that not all ASIC programs will make it. I believe outside of TPUs, the only real hyperscaler shot right now is AWS Trainium, but even that faces much bigger uncertainties than the TPU. With that in mind, Google and its cloud business can come out of this AI era as a major beneficiary and market-share gainer.

Recently, we even got comments from the SemiAnalysis team praising the TPU:

“Google’s silicon supremacy among hyperscalers is unmatched, with their TPU 7th Gen arguably on par with Nvidia Blackwell. TPU powers the Gemini family of models which are improving in capability and sit close to the pareto frontier of $ per intelligence in some tasks” – source: SemiAnalysis

How many TPUs does Google produce today, and how big can that get?

Here are the numbers that I researched… 

Continue reading at uncoveralpha.com

Authored by Sonia Elijah via The Brownstone Institute,

“Big Brother is watching you.”

These chilling words from George Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece, 1984, no longer read as fiction but are becoming a bleak reality in the UK and Canada—where digital dystopian measures are unravelling the fabric of freedom in two of the West’s oldest democracies.

Under the guise of safety and innovation, the UK and Canada are deploying invasive tools that undermine privacy, stifle free expression, and foster a culture of self-censorship. Both nations are exporting their digital control frameworks through the Five Eyes alliance, a covert intelligence-sharing network uniting the UK, Canada, US, Australia, and New Zealand, established during the Cold War.

Simultaneously, their alignment with the United Nations’ Agenda 2030, particularly Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16.9—which mandates universal legal identity by 2030—supports a global policy for digital IDs, such as the UK’s proposed Brit Card and Canada’s Digital Identity Program, which funnel personal data into centralized systems under the pretext of “efficiency and inclusion.” By championing expansive digital regulations, such as the UK’s Online Safety Act and Canada’s pending Bill C-8, which prioritize state-defined “safety” over individual liberties, both nations are not just embracing digital authoritarianism—they’re accelerating the West’s descent into it.

The UK’s Digital Dragnet

The United Kingdom has long positioned itself as a global leader in surveillance. The British spy agency, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), runs the formerly secret mass surveillance programme, code-named Tempora, operational since 2011, which intercepts and stores vast amounts of global internet and phone traffic by tapping into transatlantic fibre-optic cables. Knowledge of its existence only came about in 2013, thanks to the bombshell documents leaked by the former National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence contractor and whistleblower, Edward Snowden. “It’s not just a US problem. The UK has a huge dog in this fight,” Snowden told the Guardian in a June 2013 report. “They [GCHQ] are worse than the US.”

Following that is the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) 2016, also dubbed the “Snooper’s Charter,” which mandates that internet service providers store users’ browsing histories, emails, texts, and phone calls for up to a year. Government agencies, including police and intelligence services (like MI5, MI6, and GCHQ) can access this data without a warrant in many cases, enabling bulk collection of communications metadata. This has been criticized for enabling mass surveillance on a scale that invades everyday privacy.

Recent expansions under the Online Safety Act (OSA) further empower authorities to demand backdoors to encrypted apps like WhatsApp, potentially scanning private messages for vaguely defined “harmful” content—a move critics like Big Brother Watch, a privacy advocacy group, decry as a gateway to mass surveillance. The OSA, which received Royal Assent on October 26, 2023, represents a sprawling piece of legislation by the UK government to regulate online content and “protect” users, particularly children, from “illegal and harmful material.”

Implemented in phases by Ofcom, the UK’s communications watchdog, it imposes duties on a vast array of internet services, including social media, search engines, messaging apps, gaming platforms, and sites with user-generated content, forcing compliance through risk assessments and hefty fines. By July 2025, the OSA was considered “fully in force” for most major provisions. This sweeping regime, aligned with global surveillance trends via Agenda 2030’s push for digital control, threatens to entrench a state-sanctioned digital dragnet, prioritizing “safety” over fundamental freedoms.

Elon Musk’s platform X has warned that the act risks “seriously infringing” on free speech, with the threat of fines up to £18 million or 10% of global annual turnover for non-compliance, encouraging platforms to censor legitimate content to avoid punishment. Musk took to X to express his personal view on the act’s true purpose: “suppression of the people.”

In late September, Imgur (an image-hosting platform popular for memes and shared media) made the decision to block UK users rather than comply with the OSA’s stringent regulations. This underscores the chilling effect such laws can have on digital freedom. 

The act’s stated purpose is to make the UK “the safest place in the world to be online.” However, critics argue that it’s a brazen power grab by the UK government to increase censorship and surveillance, all the while masquerading as a noble crusade to “protect” users. 

Another pivotal development is the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA), which received Royal Assent in June. This wide-ranging legislation streamlines data protection rules to boost economic growth and public services but at the cost of privacy safeguards. It allows broader data sharing among government agencies and private entities, including for AI-driven analytics. For instance, it enables “smart data schemes” where personal information from banking, energy, and telecom sectors can be accessed more easily, seemingly for consumer benefits like personalized services—but raising fears of unchecked profiling.

Cybersecurity enhancements further expand the UK’s pervasive surveillance measures. The forthcoming Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, announced in the July 2024 King’s Speech and slated for introduction by year’s end, expands the Network and Information Systems (NIS) Regulations to critical infrastructure, mandating real-time threat reporting and government access to systems. This builds on existing tools like facial recognition technology, deployed extensively in public spaces. In 2025, trials in cities like London have integrated AI cameras that scan crowds in real time, linking to national databases for instant identification—evoking a biometric police state.

Source: BBC News

The New York Times reported: “British authorities have also recently expanded oversight of online speech, tried weakening encryption, and experimented with artificial intelligence to review asylum claims. The actions, which have accelerated under Prime Minister Keir Starmer with the goal of addressing societal problems, add up to one of the most sweeping embraces of digital surveillance and internet regulation by a Western democracy.”

Compounding this, UK police arrest over 30 people a day for “offensive” tweets and online messages, per The Times, often under vague laws, fuelling justifiable fears of Orwell’s thought police. 

Yet, of all the UK’s digital dystopian measures, none has ignited greater fury than Prime Minister Starmer’s mandatory “Brit Card” digital ID—a smartphone-based system effectively turning every citizen into a tracked entity. 

First announced on September 4, as a tool to “tackle illegal immigration and strengthen border security,” but rapidly the Brit Card’s scope ballooned through function-creep to envelop everyday essentials like welfare, banking, and public access. These IDs, stored on smartphones containing sensitive data like photos, names, dates of birth, nationalities, and residency status, are sold “as the front door to all kinds of everyday tasks,” a vision championed by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change—and echoed by Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall MP in her October 13 parliamentary speech.

🚨🇬🇧 DIGITAL ID: THE END OF PRIVACY DISGUISED AS “CONVENIENCE”

In Parliament yesterday, MPs pushed the Digital ID scheme, selling it as “modern” and “efficient.”
But behind the polished language lies a darker truth – total state control.

🔴 Every job, school record, medical… pic.twitter.com/Rb2DoBJxze

— British Intel (@TheBritishIntel) October 14, 2025

Source: TheBritishIntel

This digital shackles system has sparked fierce resistance across the UK. A scathing letter, led by independent MP Rupert Lowe and endorsed by nearly 40 MPs from diverse parties, denounces the government’s proposed mandatory “Brit Card” digital ID as “dangerous, intrusive, and profoundly un-British.” Conservative MP David Davis issued a stark warning, declaring that such systems “are profoundly dangerous to the privacy and fundamental freedoms of the British people.”

On X, Davis amplified his critique, citing a £14m fine imposed on Capita after hackers breached pension savers’ personal data, writing: “This is another perfect example of why the government’s digital ID cards are a terrible idea.” By early October, a petition opposing the proposal had garnered over 2.8 million signatures, reflecting widespread public outcry. The government, however, dismissed these objections, stating, “We will introduce a digital ID within this Parliament to address illegal migration, streamline access to government services, and improve efficiency. We will consult on details soon.”

Canada’s Surveillance Surge

Across the Atlantic, Canada’s surveillance surge under Prime Minister Mark Carney—former Bank of England head and World Economic Forum board member—mirrors the UK’s dystopian trajectory. Carney, with his globalist agenda, has overseen a slew of bills that prioritize “security” over sovereignty. Take Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Customs Act, introduced June 17, 2025, which enables warrantless data access at borders and sharing with US authorities via CLOUD Act (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act) pacts—essentially handing Canadian citizens’ digital lives to foreign powers. Despite public backlash prompting proposed amendments in October, its core—enhanced monitoring of transactions and exports—remains ripe for abuse.

Complementing this, Bill C-8, first introduced June 18, 2025, amends the Telecommunications Act to impose cybersecurity mandates on critical sectors like telecoms and finance. It empowers the government to issue secret orders compelling companies to install backdoors or weaken encryption, potentially compromising user security. These orders can mandate the cutoff of internet and telephone services to specified individuals without the need for a warrant or judicial oversight, under the vague premise of securing the system against “any threat.”

Opposition to this bill has been fierce. In a parliamentary speech, Canada’s Conservative MP Matt Strauss decried the bill’s sections 15.1 and 15.2 as granting “unprecedented, incredible power” to the government. He warned of a future where individuals could be digitally exiled—cut off from email, banking, and work—without explanation or recourse, likening it to a “digital gulag.”

‼️ MUST WATCH: CANADA HAS GONE 100% COMMUNIST ‼️ Introduced on October 1, Bill C-8 will effectively end people’s lives on demand. If you say the ‘wrong thing’, the government will be able to immediately cut your internet and telephone. pic.twitter.com/HeOHg3CSLE

— Andrew Bridgen (@ABridgen) October 6, 2025

Source: Video shared by Andrew Bridgen

The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) and privacy advocates have echoed these concerns, arguing that the bill’s ambiguous language and lack of due process violate fundamental Charter rights, including freedom of expression, liberty, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Bill C-8 complements the Online Harms Act (Bill C-63), first introduced in February 2024, which demanded platforms purge content like child exploitation and hate speech within 24 hours, risking censorship with vague “harmful” definitions. Inspired by the UK’s OSA and the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), C-63 collapsed amid fierce backlash for its potential to enable censorship, infringe on free speech, and lack of due process. The CCF and Pierre Poilievre, calling it “woke authoritarianism,” led a 2024 petition with 100,000 signatures. It died during Parliament’s January 2025 prorogation after Justin Trudeau’s resignation.

These bills build on an alarming precedent: during the Covid era, Canada’s Public Health Agency admitted to tracking 33 million devices during lockdown—nearly the entire population—under the pretext of public health, a blatant violation exposed only through persistent scrutiny. The Communications Security Establishment (CSE), empowered by the longstanding Bill C-59, continues bulk metadata collection, often without adequate oversight. These measures are not isolated; they stem from a deeper rot, where pandemic-era controls have been normalized into everyday policy. 

Canada’s Digital Identity Program, touted as a “convenient” tool for seamless access to government services, emulates the UK’s Brit Card and aligns with UN Agenda 2030’s SDG 16.9. It remains in active development and piloting phases, with full national rollout projected for 2027–2028. 

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” Orwell’s 1984 warns we must urgently resist this descent into digital authoritarianism—through petitions, protests, and demands for transparency—before a Western Great Firewall is erected, replicating China’s stranglehold that polices every keystroke and thought.

Republished from the author’s Substack

JPMorgan Chase abruptly closed Strike CEO Jack Mallers’ personal accounts last month, giving him no warning and offering only a cryptic explanation, according to Yahoo Finance.

Mallers posted on X that “Last month, J.P. Morgan Chase threw me out of the bank,” noting how odd it was given that “My dad has been a private client there for 30+ years.” When he asked why, the bank told him only: “We aren’t allowed to tell you.”

Yahoo writes that he even framed the closure letter, which accused him of unspecified “concerning activity” and warned the bank “may not be able to open new accounts for you in the future.”

The incident reignited concerns that the alleged Biden-era “Operation Chokepoint 2.0” is still lurking in the background, despite Trump’s new executive order aimed at penalizing firms that debank crypto businesses. Critics online immediately connected the dots, suggesting regulators and banks are still quietly squeezing crypto-aligned companies and founders.

JPMorgan’s move sparked a broader backlash from Bitcoin advocates like Grant Cardone, Max Keiser, and others who are already furious over the bank’s perceived hostility toward Bitcoin and its recent push to delist companies with heavy BTC exposure. Many publicly closed their JPMorgan accounts, accusing the bank of targeting the crypto sector while having no trouble maintaining far more questionable clients in the past. (Apparently “concerning activity” was never a problem back when they were happily banking Epstein.)

Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino replied to Mallers that the whole ordeal is “for the best,” later adding that organizations trying to undermine Bitcoin “will fail and become dust.” Meanwhile, JPMorgan insists it’s just protecting the “security and integrity of the financial system”—a claim that might land better if the bank’s compliance radar didn’t seem to activate only when the customer is a crypto CEO rather than, say, a notorious sex-trafficking financier.

Recall just days ago we wrote that the bank is now under fire from Florida officials over its cooperation with the Biden DOJ’s anti-Trump investigation known as “Arctic Frost,” – providing sensitive banking information to Biden prosecutor Jack Smith. 

Also we noted US regulators are examining whether JPMorgan Chase has denied customers fair access to banking, as pressure grows over debanking decisions that were made against conservative figures, according to reporting from Financial Times and the company’s 10-Q filing.

In its quarterly filing, the bank noted it was “responding to requests from government authorities and other external parties regarding, among other things, the firm’s policies and processes and the provision of services to customers and potential customers”.

JPMorgan linked the scrutiny to an August executive order from Donald Trump directing regulators to review possible “politicised or unlawful debanking”. The bank said related inquiries include “reviews, investigations and legal proceedings,” without identifying the agencies involved.

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Google is denying viral claims that private Gmail emails are being used to train its AI models.

The announcement follows multiple reports this past week that the company has rolled out such features.

In a post issued on Nov. 21, Gmail said that it wanted to “set the record straight on recent misleading reports.” It listed several points, saying, “We have not changed anyone’s settings,” Gmail’s “smart features” have existed for years, and, “We do not use your Gmail content to train our Gemini AI model.”

“We are always transparent and clear if we make changes to our terms [and] policies,” Google said.

The claims about Google included a post from cybersecurity company MalwareBytes, about which the company later issued a correction. Separately, a post on X from a YouTube content creator received around 150,000 likes. It contained similar claims that users were automatically opted into allowing Google to use Gmail emails to train its AI models.

“We’ve updated this article after realizing we contributed to a perfect storm of misunderstanding around a recent change in the wording and placement of Gmail’s smart features,” MalwareBytes said in its correction.

“The settings themselves aren’t new, but the way Google recently rewrote and surfaced them led a lot of people (including us) to believe Gmail content might be used to train Google’s AI models, and that users were being opted in automatically.”

The company noted that “after taking a closer look at Google’s documentation and reviewing other reporting, that doesn’t appear to be the case.”

Google has maintained on several of its blogs that it would protect user privacy regarding its Gemini AI models.

“Your data stays in Workspace,” says a company policy page. “We do not use your Workspace data to train or improve the underlying generative AI and large language models that power Gemini, Search, and other systems outside of Workspace without permission.”

It adds that for some features, including “accepting or rejecting spelling suggestions, or reporting spam,” suggestions are rendered anonymous or aggregated and could be used in “new features we are currently developing, like improved prompt suggestions that help Workspace users get the best results from Gemini features.”

“These features are developed with strict privacy protections that keep users in control,” the company  says.

The smart features program for Gmail allows automated email filtering or categorization, automated composition of text in email, or suggests quick replies to emails, according to the company.

To determine whether the features are turned on or off, users can open Gmail on a desktop or mobile app and click on the gear icon before proceeding to See All Settings on desktop or Settings on mobile.

Then they can go to a section called smart features in Gmail, Chat, and Meet. To turn the features on or off, users can check or uncheck the box that says “Turn on smart features in Gmail, Chat, and Meet.”

Authored by Makai Allbert via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

We’ve all experienced intuition in some form or another. The hunch of knowing without understanding why; the sense that something is right—or terribly wrong—before conscious thought catches up. Or a simple instinct that something is off about a stranger.

Intuition goes beyond superstition, serving as a sophisticated form of intelligence operating largely beneath conscious awareness.

The phenomenon raises a question that has intrigued scientists, philosophers, and everyday decision makers: Where do gut feelings really come from?

Knowing Without Knowing How

Studies have found that when chess grandmasters are given just five seconds to evaluate a position, they can make accurate predictions despite lacking time for conscious analysis.

Due to the thousands of hours of experience under their belts, their brains can make rapid decisions through pattern recognition, without requiring deliberate thought. This experience, similarly reflected among experts across many fields—doctors, military personnel, and firefighters—points to the possibility that intuition may emerge from a rich substrate of prior experience.

Emma Seppälä, psychologist and science director at Stanford University’s Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education, told The Epoch Times that in these instances, intuition is “a fast, instinctive form of intelligence that operates separately from our conscious thoughts.”

Yet, this kind of intuitive, rapid processing isn’t limited to professional skills. Going with your gut may be especially true in complex situations in your own life. Research shows that when people face complex decisions, such as selecting a home or making major life choices, those who focus on their feelings rather than painstakingly analyzing every detail often make better decisions and, perhaps even more importantly, are more satisfied with the outcome.

Kamila Malewska, who studies intuition in managerial decision-making at Poznań University of Economics and Business, believes intuition is invaluable in situations with multiple alternatives, no clear criteria, insufficient information, and unique problems without precedent.

The Biology of Gut Feelings

We often say we have a “gut feeling,” and research now shows the phrase carries both a metaphorical and biological truth.

The gut has what scientists refer to as a “second brain,” comprising more than 200 million neurons. These neurons send signals back and forth with the brain through the vagus nerve, forming the gut-brain axis. This system creates a feedback loop that affects how we feel physically and emotionally.

Moreover, the health of the gut microbiota, which comprises approximately 38 trillion bacteria, can affect feelings of urgency, emotions, and even memory, as it produces chemicals that affect the brain. In mouse experiments, tweaking the gut microbiota balance can alter brain neurochemistry, making mice more bold or anxious. Notably, in humans, approximately 90 percent of serotonin, a key neurotransmitter that influences mood and decision-making, is produced in the gut. This indicates that emotional states and intuitive feelings may be influenced by the gut-brain axis.

This connection isn’t new. The vagus nerve may have helped our predecessors find food and avoid danger through gut-based intuitive signals. Today, the gut-brain system still functions, albeit in a different manner. When you feel butterflies in your stomach before a big decision, or a sinking feeling when something seems wrong, you may be experiencing this ancient communication system at work.

Unconscious Gestalt

Besides the gut-brain axis, neuroscientists have found other brain processes that may explain intuition.

One way to understand intuition is to examine how memories form.

Don Tucker, a neuroscientist who studies consciousness and memory, explained that memory occurs before you are aware of it.

“Memory is organized from an implicit level where general meaning is not fully articulated into conscious access, but is still very powerful in providing a sense of the gist of the information,” Tucker told The Epoch Times.

In other words, before we consciously remember or notice something, our brains, especially our limbic system, rapidly sort out experiences, picking up the important bits and giving a holistic level of understanding.

This process relates to another psychological concept called gestalt: the brain’s tendency to perceive patterns rather than individual parts, and to create closure to make sense of incomplete information.

Consider a manager interviewing a seemingly perfect candidate. Their resume seems impeccable, their answers are satisfactory, but something still feels wrong. Only later does the manager realize subtle inconsistencies in the candidate’s story, a shift in eye contact during discussions of previous employment, and a mismatch between verbal and nonverbal expressions. The cues may not have been noticed in the moment, but the brain assembled them into an intuitive warning—into an unconscious gestalt.

Neuroscience supports these ideas. The right hemisphere of the brain is good at spotting patterns and noticing things that don’t fit, even if we’re not aware of it. The hippocampus compares what we see now with past experiences, while the orbitofrontal cortex integrates emotional memories with present sensory input. The result appears as a feeling rather than a thought.

The process of unconscious becoming conscious is driven by what is called predictive processing.

Rather than passively receiving stimuli and then reacting, predictive processing theory suggests that the brain actively generates predictions about what it should perceive based on its experience. When these predictions detect a mismatch—something that does not fit the expected pattern—the result manifests as intuitive unease or “knowing.”

According to Tucker, consciousness develops from this primitive, intuitive level through a process of articulation. A vague feeling—a sense of “no, I shouldn’t do that”—gradually becomes more conscious and explicit as the brain works to understand why the feeling arose.

Could intuition also come from somewhere else?

Perhaps, instead of merely reacting to the present, intuition offers us a glimpse of the future.

Memories From the Future

In the mid-1990s, Dean Radin at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, designed an experiment to test whether awareness could transcend time. He had participants connected to an EEG machine and placed in front of a computer screen. The computer randomly selected and displayed pleasant or disturbing images after a brief pause.

Radin noticed that people’s brains became more active just before seeing disturbing images, but not before positive ones. It was as if the brain could sense something bad was coming, even seconds before it happened. This effect was called “presentiment.”

The results were statistically significant, and other researchers, such as Daryl Bem at Cornell University, found similar effects in their own experiments.

A 2012 meta-analysis of 26 studies spanning three decades found that experiments like Radin’s and Bem’s suggest that human physiology can distinguish between randomly delivered emotional and neutral stimuli occurring one to 10 seconds in the future.​

This isn’t precognition in the traditional sense—a psychic power of seeing future events—participants aren’t consciously predicting them. Instead, their autonomic nervous systems—heart rate, skin conductance, and brain activity—show measurable arousal before encountering emotionally significant stimuli. According to the 2012 meta-analysis, the effect size may be small. Still, it’s statistically significant across multiple laboratories and researchers, with the probability of the effect being a coincidence estimated at one in a trillion. That’s the equivalent of flipping a coin and getting heads 40 times in a row.

Julia Mossbridge at Northwestern University, who led the meta-analysis, said when the study was released: “The phenomenon is anomalous, some scientists argue, because we can’t explain it using present-day understanding about how biology works.”

Read the rest here…

On Monday the Zelensky government laid out its red lines concerning the US-proposed peace plan with Russia, which demands that Kiev agree to territorial concessions in the eastern Donbas region. 

Ukraine’s senior political leaders and lawmakers, including President Volodymyr Zelensky, set firm non-negotiable conditions for any future peace agreement with Russia, coupled with a warning that Moscow is attempting to force the international community to accept its territorial seizures, according to Ukrainian media. 

Kyiv Post cited parliament speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk as making clear that Ukraine will not accept “any form of legal recognition of Russia’s occupation,” nor will accept that restrictions be placed on its armed forces, given the US 28-point plan calls for just that. The statement is said to also express with will of the presidential office.

Most importantly, the Zelensky government has said it will reject outside attempts to control its future alliances, which is a reference to the US plan’s call for a commitment that Ukraine never join NATO.

Additionally, frozen Russian assets should serve as the “cost of aggression” – speaker Stefanchuk made clear. The current US draft plan envisions that merely some – possibly about one-third of what’s been frozen in European banks – would be used for war reparations. 

The so-called European counter-plan currently being floated in leaked draft format is actually more consistent with these demands of Kiev. President Putin has said that Trump’s plan could form the basis of a future peace, but the Kremlin is unlikely to see anything workable in the European plan.

Meanwhile President Zelensky is still trying to walk a fine line between pleasing Trump while showing willingness to work toward an end to the conflict, and sticking to a firm ‘pro-Ukraine’ wartime stance.

In a Sunday Truth Social post Trump had blasted Zelensky and the Ukrainians for showing “zero gratitude” for the US efforts.

But in follow-up, Zelensky is trying to make nice, pledging in his own response post that Ukraine would “never be an obstacle to peace” – but also emphasized the importance of his country remaining independent and sovereign. 

Zelenskyy responded to Trump’s latest post about “zero gratitude” from Ukrainian leadership. pic.twitter.com/IdQ1j1qkeY

— Kate from Kharkiv (@BohuslavskaKate) November 23, 2025

“Everyone is offering support, giving advice, providing information — and I am grateful to each and every person who is giving this help to us, to Ukraine. It is important to ensure that the steps to end the war are effective, and that everything is doable,” Zelensky explained. “Ukraine has never wanted war, and we will never be an obstacle to peace.”

Update (2010ET):

A little more than one day after Just The News published John Solomon’s exclusive interview in which President Trump confirmed plans to designate the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO), the White House formally announced on Monday evening that the president has initiated the process to classify specific chapters and subdivisions of MB as FTOs. 

🚨 America will NOT tolerate those who fund & fuel radical terrorism.

Today, President Trump took decisive action to secure America from terrorist threats by initiating the process to designate certain Muslim Brotherhood entities as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. pic.twitter.com/Ec4qGbPLkm

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) November 24, 2025

Trump’s order cites MB’s violent activities and support for militant factions, including participation in attacks on Israeli civilians and military targets after October 7, 2023, as well as calls for violence against U.S. allies. These actions, the order says, threaten American citizens and destabilize the Middle East.

Here’s what Trump ordered:

Within 30 days:

• The Secretaries of State and Treasury must deliver a joint report to the President, recommending which Muslim Brotherhood chapters should be designated under FTO and SDGT authorities.

Within 45 days after the report:

• The Secretary of State or the Treasury must take appropriate legal steps to finalize those designations.

On X, Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Counterterrorism at the White House, announced, “History has been made.”

“Just moments ago, in the presence of my NSC colleague who helped author the Executive Order, President Trump designated multiple chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood, including the Egyptian branch which is the progenitor of all modern Jihadists, al Qaeda, ISIS and Hamas included,” Gorka said, adding, “As we left the Oval, President Trump explicitly instructed us to inform the World of his tectonic act.”

History has been made.

Just moments ago, in the presence of my NSC colleague who helped author the Executive Order, President @realDonaldTrump designated multiple chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood, including the Egyptian branch which is the progenitor of all modern Jihadists,… pic.twitter.com/Ql9CcLhJtF

— Sebastian Gorka DrG (@SebGorka) November 24, 2025

Seems like these folks do not want to assimilate… 

Muslim brotherhood says they hope to have 50 members of Congress in the next 6 years.

He suggests that’s how they dismantle America.

WAKE THE HECK UP. pic.twitter.com/kcqQYeGF7E

— Derrick Evans (@DerrickEvans4WV) November 24, 2025

Let’s not forget that former CIA targeting officer Sarah Adams has warned that the Biden-Harris regime’s open southern border allowed an estimated “10,000 foreign Islamist terrorists” to enter the country.

*   *   * 

John Solomon’s Just The News reports, in an exclusive interview with President Trump on Sunday morning, that the president will formally designate the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) as a foreign terrorist organization.

Trump explained that the MB’s FTO designation will be imminent and drafted “in the strongest and most powerful terms,” adding, “Final documents are being drawn.”

MB was founded in Egypt nearly a century ago with branches across the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and the U.S. The org has been outlawed or labeled a terrorist group by several governments, including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain. 

Trump has weighed the FTO designation since his first term, and his comments come days after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton designated the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as an FTO and transnational criminal organization.

This tells you everything you need to know about the true allegiance of CAIR.

“Connected via the Turkey App Store.”@CAIRAction pic.twitter.com/cnu4F5nS1G

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) November 23, 2025

Abbott’s proclamation authorized “heightened penalties” against CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood and prohibited both entities from acquiring land in Texas, alleging that CAIR had “repeatedly employed, affiliated with, and supported individuals promoting terrorism-related activities.”

GOP officials, including Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), have requested that the Treasury Department probe CAIR’s financial networks.

In August, Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that the FTO designation was being prepared, though the process is complex because of MB’s sprawling network of affiliates.

We introduced the Muslim Brotherhood Is a T*rrorist Organization Act because it’s time to call it what it is, a jihadist network fueling t*rrorism.

While radicals like Zohran Mamdani cozy up to extremists tied to Islamic t*rrorists and Hamas, we’re putting AMERICA FIRST and… pic.twitter.com/5atqKgRqkX

— Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) October 27, 2025

Bipartisan lawmakers in both chambers have urged Rubio and the State Department to move forward with the FTO designations. Sen. Ted Cruz has warned that MB supports terrorist orgs such as Hamas.

As we’ve previously reported:

• The Shadow Of Terror: Zohran Mamdani’s Radical Islam Problem

• Report Warns “Woke Army” & Dark-Money Funded NGOs Could Take Iran’s War “To America’s Streets”

“To this day, the IRS hasn’t stripped Muslim Brotherhood 501 (c) (3) s of their tax-deductible status. Jihadi is getting a tax deduction on U.S. soil,” Laura Loomer wrote on X while responding to Solomon’s exclusive interview earlier today.

Oh boy… 

According to Linda Sarsour, the MAJORITY of Zohran Mamdani’s campaign money came from CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. AKA the unindicted co-conspirator named in the FBI’s 2007 terrorism finance case. ‘Turn the volume up’ on THIS. pic.twitter.com/lE8U4NEAxk

— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) November 5, 2025

Things are about to get very interesting. 

Muslim Brotherhood Leader Says They Will Push Sharia Law in America “By Ballot or Bullet.”

The organization openly states they will change U.S. law by elections or violence.

Elections or violence. Their words.
We either take this seriously, or we regret it later. pic.twitter.com/fxRqKCT2vL

— David J Harris Jr (@DavidJHarrisJr) November 5, 2025

Muslim Brotherhood Leader: Will Push Sharia Law in America “By Ballot or Bullet” … 

Following the surprise announcement by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) that she’s retiring from Congress in 42 days – claiming that President Trump and House Republicans have abandoned America First priorities, it appears that others within the GOP are looking for the exit as well. 

According to Punchbowl News, they received several messages over the weekend from disaffected Republicans who may follow MTG’s lead. 

One particularly pissed Republican told Punchbowl: 

“This entire White House team has treated ALL members like garbage. ALL. And Mike Johnson has let it happen because he wanted it to happen. That is the sentiment of nearly all — appropriators, authorizers, hawks, doves, rank and file. The arrogance of this White House team is off putting to members who are run roughshod and threatened. They don’t even allow little wins like announcing small grants or even responding from agencies. Not even the high profile, the regular rank and file random members are more upset than ever. Members know they are going into the minority after the midterms.

“More explosive early resignations are coming. It’s a tinder box. Morale has never been lower. Mike Johnson will be stripped of his gavel and they will lose the majority before this term is out.”

The outlet does note that MTG has “never been representative of the House Republican Conference writ large,” and “clearly has a bone to pick with Trump and the leadership.”

While she denied rumors that her early retirement means she’s running for president in the next election, some have suggested that she may be running for Georgia governor. 

Johnson, meanwhile, points out that they have “impossibly small margins” and say they’re doing the best they can with “the hand they were dealt.” 

If Republicans lose another House member to death, retirement or illness, the GOP could even end up in the minority in 2026. 

Punchbowl does the math:

Republicans have 219 seats and Democrats have 213. There’s a special election in Tennessee on Dec. 2 to fill former Rep. Mark Green’s (R-Tenn.) seat. Democrats and Republicans are pouring piles of money into that district, which Trump won by more than 20 points.

If Republicans win, their margin will remain the same after MTG’s retirement.

But Democrats will gain a seat in Houston at the end of January when voters choose the late Rep. Sylvester Turner’s (D-Texas) replacement. And on April 16, New Jersey voters will choose Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill’s replacement. That’s a seat that former Vice President Kamala Harris won by nine percentage points in 2024.

Let’s say Democrats are able to steal the Tennessee seat based on subpar GOP turnout — unlikely but possible — Johnson would have 218 members to Democrats’ 214. Texas and New Jersey would bring Democrats to 216. If any members retire or fall ill, Johnson would be sunk.

House retirements and resignations are common after holidays. How appealing is it to return to the Capitol when the House spends most of its time voting on censure resolutions or meaningless messaging bills?

Meanwhile, government funding runs out again Jan. 30, and House lawmakers are privately acknowledging that there will be another battle with the Senate. And with so many pissed off Republicans in the House, Johnson is facing a slew of discharge petitions on health care, Russia sanctions, and a likely DP to ban stock trading in Congress. Discharge petitions are notably how the rank and file lodge their complaints with leadership – and it’s so bad that Johnson has floated the idea of changing House Rules to make it harder to file them.  

The plot has again thickened, and got a bit weirder, in the arrest and trial saga of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who was sentenced to 27 years in prison in September for an alleged coup attempt related to not accepting the results of the last presidential election.

We detailed Saturday that federal police rushed to his residence Saturday to take him out of house arrest, and initiated what’s being called a ‘preventative arrest’ – and he was whisked away to police headquarters in Brasilia. The arrest order issued from the country’s top court came hours after his ankle monitor was shown to be violated at 12:08am on Saturday. From there, authorities considered Bolsonaro a flight risk, explaining he is in close proximity to foreign embassies where he might try and gain asylum.

Bolsonaro was in court Monday for a full day of trial, part of what’s likely to be a lengthy appeals process, where he surprisingly confirmed that he did indeed tamper with the ankle monitor. His explanation got strange, telling the court that he suffered a nervous breakdown and hallucinations caused by a change in his medication, after which was fearful of the device as it might be ‘wiretapped’.

Assistant judge Luciana Sorrentino said following a meeting with Bolsonaro where she inquired of the incident, “he had ‘hallucinations’ that there was some wire tap in the ankle monitoring, so he tried to uncover it.” Sorrentino described further of the conversation that Bolsonaro told her he “did not remember having a breakdown of this magnitude in another occasion” and that it could be linked to a change in medication, but he insisted there was no intention of trying to escape.

The former Brazilian leader “said he was with his daughter, his elder brother and an aide at his house and none of them saw what he was doing to the ankle monitoring,” according to a court document which has been made public. “He said he started to touch it late at night and stopped around midnight.”

Photos released by the court show the ankle monitor’s cap heavily damaged, after he reportedly at one point took a soldering iron to it. According to The New York Times:

At first, Mr. Bolsonaro told the police that he had banged his ankle monitor causing it to malfunction, according to a report from the capital region’s prison authority.

But when an agent on the scene asked about the burn marks on the device, Mr. Bolsonaro admitted using a soldering iron to try to melt it. In a video of the exchange released by the authorities, Mr. Bolsonaro can be heard apparently telling the agent that he had started torching the monitor hours earlier.

His legal team has since claimed that “Bolsonaro would have no way of escaping” as he is “an elderly man who suffers from serious health problems.

However, Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who has long been a political enemy (the US has even sanctioned him personally) as well as chief overseer of the case, described over the weekend, “He is located about 13 kilometers (8 miles) away from where the United States of America embassy lies, in a distance that can be covered in a 15-minute drive.”

Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro told a judge that medicine-induced paranoia and hallucination caused him to tamper with an electronic ankle monitor, court records showed, a day after police took him into custody out of fear he might flee https://t.co/UDE85hVyXg pic.twitter.com/cmCan0ehnS

— Reuters (@Reuters) November 24, 2025

There’s also the fear that the Embassy of Argentina would be open to helping him find safe-haven. But his legal team has said that he must serve his prison sentence at home as his severe health problems “makes his safe stay in a prison environment impossible.” President Trump has long decried the case as a ‘witch hunt’ while the Lula government has condemned Washington’s ‘interference’ in the internal affair.