On Monday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced a major change designed to reduce the asylum backlog. The Trump administration issued an interim final regulation formally titled “Affirmative Asylum Referrals Without Interview” (DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0199 / RIN 1615-AD18).

Affirmative asylum applications are filed by people already present in the United States who are not in removal proceedings. The goal is to cut the massive backlog of asylum cases. By the end of fiscal year 2025, USCIS had more than 1.4 million affirmative applications still pending.

Under the new regulation, asylum officers can refer certain affirmative applications directly to immigration judges without first interviewing the applicant. This ends the lengthy process in which USCIS interviewed the person, reviewed the file, and only then decided whether to grant asylum, deny the claim, or refer the case.

Previously, a referral required a second full hearing in immigration court, delaying cases. Now USCIS can refer applicants based only on the written record if they appear barred, ineligible, or undeserving of asylum, eliminating the redundant interview and double examination.

Interviews will still be required before USCIS grants or denies asylum, and in any case where the law or a court settlement demands one. Even if someone is referred without an interview, they can still present their full case, including testimony, before an immigration judge.

Officers can still review the application materials and request additional evidence before making a referral. The regulation also removes language that suggested applicants had a general “right” to an interview before being referred.

Administration officials described the change as a way to curb abuse and waste. USCIS Director Joseph Edlow was blunt: the asylum process “has been exploited for purposes of delay and work authorization, not legitimate claims of protection.” He stressed that priority must go to people with genuine persecution claims, not those gaming the system.

DHS General Counsel James Percival pointed to deliberate stalling by applicants and their lawyers as a major obstacle to enforcement, adding that the change advances the president’s push for a tighter, more efficient system.

DHS projects the change could affect about 132,000 future affirmative applicants each year by speeding up the process for both asylum officers and immigration judges and by eliminating overlapping reviews.

As Edlow put it, “America’s asylum system exists to protect individuals who genuinely fear persecution and this rule will help ensure that resources are directed to the timely adjudication of those claims instead of to those seeking to use the system as a loophole.” Percival added that the change fulfills the president’s mandate for greater efficiency.

If Zohran Mamdani wishes to honor September 11, he should begin by acknowledging the profound pain his own conduct has caused.

The 25th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks is not a political rally, a campaign opportunity, or a stage upon which ambitious public officials can rehabilitate their reputations. It is a sacred day of remembrance dedicated to the nearly 3,000 innocent Americans murdered by Islamic terrorists, the first responders who ran toward the flames while others fled, the military men and women who answered the nation’s call in the wars that followed, and the families whose lives were forever shattered. It belongs to them. It does not belong to politicians whose public record demonstrates repeated sympathy for those connected to the very ideology that produced the deadliest terrorist attack in American history.

Yesterday Mayor Zohran Mamdani stood firm at a press conference and announced he would attend the official commemorations. That decision is an act of extreme cruelty toward the city he governs and toward every family still carrying the weight of that clear September morning. Even entertaining the idea of his presence at the Memorial or among the survivors and the bereaved shows a complete absence of basic human decency. The growing petition urging organizers to exclude him from the 25th anniversary ceremony is not motivated by religious prejudice, political partisanship, or personal animosity. It reflects something far more profound. Survivors of the attacks, relatives of those who never came home, retired police officers, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and ordinary New Yorkers understand that September 11 is about remembering those who suffered unimaginable loss. It is not compatible with elevating a public official whose own record repeatedly displays astonishing indifference toward that suffering while extending understanding, admiration, or political solidarity toward those associated with radical causes.

Perhaps the clearest illustration of Mamdani’s moral blindness comes from his own public recollections of September 11. When discussing the attacks, he has focused not on the thousands who were murdered, the firefighters climbing burning stairwells, the police officers searching the collapsing towers, the office workers trapped above the impact zones, or the children who would grow up without parents. Instead, the principal story he has publicly chosen to emphasize concerns an extended female family member who, because she wore a hijab, reportedly received uncomfortable looks from strangers in New York following the attacks. No decent person condones harassment or discrimination against innocent people because of their religion or appearance. Americans rightly rejected such conduct after September 11, just as they reject it today. But the extraordinary imbalance in Mamdani’s public emphasis speaks volumes. Faced with reflecting upon the worst terrorist attack in American history, his first instinct was not to mourn nearly 3,000 murdered Americans or celebrate the extraordinary heroism displayed that day. His central concern became the social discomfort experienced by a member of his extended family. That inversion of priorities has become a defining feature of Mamdani’s public life.

New Yorkers have every right to demand an explanation for his disturbing and unmistakable pattern of embracing convicted supporters of terrorism and publicly celebrating figures whose records have long troubled victims of Islamist extremism. This is no longer about one reckless lyric recorded during his career as an obscure rapper. It is about a public official who has repeatedly chosen to praise, honor, and associate himself with individuals connected to some of the darkest chapters in New York City’s history.

In his 2017 song “Salaam” Mamdani declared, “My love to the Holy Land Five. You better look ’em up.” Americans who haven’t already done so should do exactly that. The Holy Land Five were senior officials of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development which federal prosecutors described as a financial support operation for Hamas. A federal jury convicted the defendants in 2008 of offenses related to providing material support to Hamas, an organization legally designated by the United States as a foreign terrorist organization. Two of the defendants received 65 year federal prison sentences, while the others received terms ranging from 15 to 20 years. Mamdani did not simply question the prosecution or argue about legal procedure. He voluntarily sent them his “love.” That statement may enjoy constitutional protection, but the Constitution certainly does not require New Yorkers to ignore what it reveals about the political instincts and moral judgment of the man who now governs America’s largest city.

His record did not end there. Mamdani also publicly embraced Imam Siraj Wahhaj, posing proudly beside him and praising him as one of America’s leading Muslim figures. Wahhaj was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted coconspirator during the investigation into the 1993 World Trade Center terrorist bombing. He was never charged and has denied wrongdoing. Nevertheless, his long history of defending convicted extremists and criticizing American counterterrorism efforts was widely known long before Mamdani sought his endorsement. Mamdani wanted New Yorkers to see that photograph. He distributed it himself. Only after public outrage erupted did his supporters attempt to dismiss it as routine community outreach.

Survivors of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing immediately understood what Mamdani apparently did not care to acknowledge. On February 26, 1993 terrorists detonated a massive truck bomb on the B2 level of the World Trade Center garage beneath the North Tower, murdering seven people, including an expectant mother named Monica Rodriguez Smith and her unborn child while injuring more than a thousand others. Their objective was to topple one tower into the other and slaughter tens of thousands. Although that attempt failed, the bombing was a terrible warning of the jihadist threat that would return eight years later with almost unimaginable consequences. A candidate seeking to govern New York City should have understood the sensitivity of embracing a figure whom prosecutors had named in connection with that investigation. Mamdani either knew Wahhaj’s history and did not care, or he failed to conduct the most elementary examination of a prominent supporter he publicly celebrated. Neither explanation is acceptable.

These episodes cannot be dismissed in isolation. Viewed together, they reveal a consistent pattern. Mamdani has repeatedly extended sympathy toward convicted Hamas supporters, embraced controversial figures closely associated with the ideological defense of Islamist extremism, associated himself with terror supporters who chant “From the River to the Sea” and regularly condemns the institutions responsible for defending the United States and its allies while showing remarkably little urgency in condemning those who deliberately target innocent civilians. He has promoted sanctuary policies designed to impede federal immigration enforcement and has repeatedly aligned himself with a radical political movement that reserves its greatest hostility not for terrorists, murderers, or hostage takers, but for Israel, law enforcement, and the United States government. His ridiculous claim that he was going to arrest Prime Minister Netanyahu during The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) was just another recent example of his hateful behavior towards America and Israel.

Mamdani is no longer an obscure performer hiding behind the stage names Young Cardamom or Mr. Cardamom. He is the 112th mayor of New York City, responsible for a municipal government of enormous size and consequence. He receives sensitive intelligence and public safety briefings, influences the leadership and priorities of the New York City Police Department (NYPD), and governs a city that remains an international symbol and a premier target for terrorist organizations. New Yorkers are therefore entitled to judge his associations according to the responsibilities of his office.

Many were understandably disturbed when Mamdani was sworn into oath office on the Quran. And while The Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office, and an American’s choice of scripture does not establish sympathy for terrorism, the decision was revealing and the evidence is Mamdani’s own public commentary and conduct. By focusing on his religion rather than his record, careless critics provide him with a convenient opportunity to evade responsibility and portray every legitimate objection as anti-Muslim prejudice. The case against Mamdani does not require speculation about his private faith because his own words and associations are sufficiently damning. Millions of patriotic Muslim Americans love this country, serve in uniform, wear police badges, work as firefighters, and honor the victims of September 11 alongside every other American. They deserve respect and gratitude. The issue is not Mamdani’s faith. The issue is Mamdani’s own words, associations, and repeated political choices.

The establishment media has worked relentlessly to isolate each episode and drain it of significance. The Holy Land Five lyric is portrayed as artistic expression from his youth. The Wahhaj photograph is dismissed as ordinary community outreach. His hostility toward Israel is characterized as principled human rights advocacy, while his resistance to federal enforcement is presented as compassion for immigrants. Each excuse is carefully constructed to prevent the public from examining the cumulative record. Yet when these episodes are viewed together, they demonstrate a consistent willingness to legitimize extremists, excuse their defenders, and reserve his condemnation for the institutions that confront them.

New York City has paid an incalculable price for political leaders who refuse to recognize threats until bodies are being removed from the rubble. The families of those victims should not now be lectured about tolerance by politicians who extend affection toward convicted Hamas supporters and embrace controversial figures connected to the earlier attack on the World Trade Center. Mamdani has demonstrated a chronic inability and unwillingness to draw the most basic moral distinction between those who defend the United States against terrorism and those convicted of assisting terrorist organizations. He treats the supporters and defenders of extremists and terrorists as members of a persecuted political community deserving admiration, while regularly portraying American and Israeli authorities as the true aggressors.

September 11 commemorations are not intended to sanitize or erase that record. For the families who lost husbands, wives, parents, children, brothers, sisters, friends, and colleagues, these ceremonies represent one of the few days each year when the nation pauses to remember the people stolen from them.

Survivors still carry the physical scars, the respiratory illnesses, the emotional trauma, and the memories of that horrific morning. Firefighters and police officers still remember recovering human remains from the smoking ruins. Those families should not be forced to stand beside a mayor whose public conduct has repeatedly demonstrated greater concern for those who defend or rationalize extremists than for those who were murdered by them.

A mayor who truly understands what September 11 means would instinctively center the victims. He would speak first about the murdered office workers, the firefighters climbing into the inferno, the police officers who never returned home, the passengers aboard Flight 93 who sacrificed themselves to save others, and the generations of children forced to grow up without parents. He would leave no ambiguity whatsoever about the evil of Hamas, al-Qaeda, and every organization that glorifies or finances terrorism. Instead, Mamdani has spent years creating ambiguity where none should exist.

The only person Mamdani has ever publicly expressed any concern for in connection with the aftermath of the attacks was that extended female family member who received some odd looks because of her hijab. That is the sum total of his public empathy. Not the nearly 3,000 murdered, those now suffering from various illnesses as a result of the rescue and recovery efforts, those whose lives were lost during The Global War on Terror (GWOT). Not the firefighters, police officers, and first responders who ran toward the burning towers. Not the widows, the orphans, the parents who never recovered the remains of their children. An extended relative who got stares for her headscarf. This is who he worries about. Not the victims.

His “From the River to the Sea” terrorist pals who celebrate Hamas attacks and treat October 7 as resistance rather than massacre, along with his regular and reflexive condemnation of American values, should be more than enough to keep him away.

September 11 is about memory. It is about truth. It is about honoring courage and condemning evil without qualification or hesitation. Those who have repeatedly blurred those moral lines should not expect to occupy a place of honor at ceremonies dedicated to the innocent dead.

The 25 anniversary belongs to the victims, the survivors, the rescue workers, and the families who continue to carry unimaginable grief. Their voices deserve far greater respect than the political ambitions of a mayor whose own record has convinced so many New Yorkers that he simply does not understand what that day means.

If Zohran Mamdani wishes to honor September 11, he should begin by acknowledging the profound pain his own conduct has caused. Until then, the most respectful place for him on that solemn anniversary is somewhere other than the official memorial ceremony. He should stay away this year and every year.

It is time for localities and states to ban these cameras immediately before society becomes a powder keg.

As MAGA Republicans watch American cities decay under decades of Democrat governance—rising crime, open disorder, failed soft-on-crime policies—Flock cameras are being floated as a plausible solution. These automated license-plate readers have proliferated by the tens of thousands across the country, often installed with little public notice or debate. What began as a quiet expansion has now triggered a widespread and growing backlash. That backlash is far from irrational. It is the natural response of free people who recognize a fundamental threat to their privacy rights when they see one.

Reports of vandalism against Flock cameras have multiplied in recent months. In Rio Rancho, New Mexico, a man was charged after damaging multiple units and leaving homemade flags as a calling card afterward. In Houston, cameras were cut down and spray-painted, one with an American flag stuck in it. Dallas police reported a surge of 25 intentional damage incidents since March. In Grand Junction, Colorado, a man shot three cameras with a rifle. Similar attacks have occurred in Oakland, Oregon, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, and elsewhere—poles sawed through, solar panels destroyed, cameras paint-bombed or simply ripped out.

These acts are illegal and should not be excused. Destroying property solves nothing and should result in prosecution. However, free people will only be pushed so far. Technology is transforming society at breakneck speed, generating disruption and profound angst as a result. When unmistakable symbols of a rising surveillance grid appear on every major road that can track your every movement, the pressure builds quickly. Left unchecked, that pressure risks escalating into something violent or deadly. Flock cameras have become a prolific, everyday reminder of the Orwellian agenda advancing in plain sight.

MAGA Republicans must reject the excuses offered by the surveillance state and its corporate stooges. Consider the words of Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley. He has referred to transparency activists who simply map the locations of these publicly visible cameras as a “terroristic organization,” later issuing a tepid apology only after widespread backlash. Langley has dismissed concerns about how the data is used for immigration enforcement by saying the company has “no opinion” and that authorities will enforce the law “no matter what Flock does.” He has framed opposition as people merely angry at the federal administration or seeking to “normalize lawlessness.” These are not the statements of a man who cares one iota about the liberties that our founding-era revolutionaries fought, killed and died for. This is a technocrat who wants to line his pockets even if it means destroying the Constitution and replacing it with a China-style police state.

In actuality, Flock cameras are not a force multiplier for traditional law enforcement. They are a quiet technological substitute for it. They represent a sneaky end-run around the demand to fund and support community police. Instead of putting more officers on the street, more detectives on cases, and more resources into the necessary, human work of policing, the system offers a dystopian surveillance grid that watches vehicle movements at scale. The authority shifts from local beat cops who understand their neighborhoods to a networked database controlled by distant administrators and private vendors. This is not strengthening law enforcement. It is defunding it by other means—replacing judgment, presence, and accountability with automated observation.

We need more resources flowing into actual police work, not less. Flock cameras pull resources in the opposite direction. Orwellian tyranny is being substituted for the local officer who walks a beat, builds relationships, and deters crime through their presence. That substitution is terrifying, and it makes us less safe in the long run. A government without restraint is more dangerous than any street criminal. The Founding Fathers understood this with absolute clarity. They designed a system of limited powers and enumerated rights precisely because they had seen what unchecked authority does. They did not trust benevolent intentions. They trusted structure, accountability, and the people’s retained rights.

Yes, a dense network of cameras can help solve some crimes after the fact by placing a vehicle at a location. That is not in dispute. But the cost is catastrophic. There is no longer any meaningful presumption of privacy on the roads of America. Because the cameras are everywhere, the expectation becomes that every movement will be logged. This is the functional end of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. Continuous tracking of the public’s movements changes human behavior. People self-censor, alter routes, avoid certain destinations, and live under the knowledge that their patterns are being recorded and can be queried. We become lab rats in an experiment run by technocratic elites who insist it is all for our own good. That is un-American and abominable.

Consider what these systems would enable during the next COVID-style emergency. With the flick of a switch, vehicle tracking could enforce quarantine zones, monitor “non-essential” travel, and identify those who failed to comply with whatever mandate the moment demanded. Personal liberty would immediately become a lost vestige of the past. The same infrastructure lends itself to other nightmare scenarios that should alarm every patriot nationwide. Imagine systematic tracking of citizens traveling to gun stores, ranges, or Second Amendment events, feeding databases that later justify “red flag” actions or selective enforcement.

Imagine monitoring attendance at political rallies, church services, school board meetings, or protests against progressive policies, with patterns used to identify and pressure dissenters. These actions have already happened under previous Democrat administrations and would be turbocharged under Flock camera surveillance, and it could easily be taken to another, scarier level. Imagine the network integrated with digital identification or future central-bank digital currencies so that movement itself becomes a conditional privilege. Imagine climate or “equity” lockdowns that restrict travel by vehicle type, destination, or political reliability. Each of these is a natural extension of a system that already maps the daily movements of millions without individualized suspicion. It is the next step on the road to the inescapable reality of Big Brother.

We cannot build a panopticon simply because we are frightened. The panopticon, conceived by Jeremy Bentham as a prison design in which inmates never know whether they are being watched and therefore police themselves, was later diagnosed by historian Michel Foucault as the model for modern disciplinary societies. Its hellish nature lies in the permanent possibility of observation. Freedom does not survive under the knowledge that every trip is potentially logged, queried, and retained for later use by whatever authority holds the keys. Fear of crime is real and legitimate. Capitulation to total surveillance is not the answer.

Give police the tools, staffing, training, and political backing they need to be effective against actual criminals. Crack down hard on violent offenders, repeat predators, illegal aliens, and the chaos that has been tolerated for too long. Do it the way free societies have done it for generations—through officers, investigation, prosecution, and punishment—without destroying the core constitutional rights that make America distinct. That model once worked. Americans were safer when the government remained limited and rights remained primary. We can return to that past glory. We cannot do so by accepting false dichotomies that force a choice between safety and liberty. Those who demand we surrender privacy in exchange for the promise of security are selling a devious lie. It is time for localities and states to ban these cameras immediately before society becomes a powder keg.

President Donald Trump is demanding answers about America’s childhood vaccine schedule and the sharp rise in autism diagnoses—questions the political and medical establishment too often dismissed at the behest of Big Pharma instead of investigating openly. 

According to the Wall Street Journal, President Trump has repeatedly pressed Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to examine whether the number or timing of childhood vaccinations deserves greater scrutiny. President Trump has also urged officials to make reducing autism rates a priority.

The concern is understandable. Federal data cited in the report show autism diagnoses rising from roughly one in 150 children in 2000 to about one in 31 eight-year-olds in 2022. Better detection may explain part of that increase, but parents deserve rigorous research—not ridicule, censorship, or automatic appeals to authority.

The White House says families worried about soaring autism rates have long been ignored or mocked and promises to pursue “gold-standard science.” HHS similarly says it will investigate the root causes of autism and other chronic childhood illnesses using evidence-based research.

Mainstream studies have not established that vaccines cause autism, but there has been a great deal of suppression on the issue with Big Pharma standing to lose billions if the truth was uncovered. A promulgated scientific consensus should never shut down legitimate questions about dosage, scheduling, side effects, or conflicts of interest. President Trump’s position is not that Americans should abandon medicine.

It is that public-health officials must earn trust through transparency, independent research, and honest debate. The Trump administration is finally restoring that after decades of decay. Skepticism of the Big Pharma-driven status quo is far from reckless. It is responsible leadership.

Another elderly donor has come forward disputing a massive volume of ActBlue contributions made in her name, the latest in a long-running pattern of disputed high-volume donations.

Now the same discrepancy has surfaced again, this time in Michigan. Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Charlie LeDuff of Michigan Enjoyer published a report with an on-camera interview with 88-year-old Elizabeth Waffle of Milan.

According to the FEC records LeDuff presented, nearly 15,000 separate donations totaling more than $150,000 had been made in her name through ActBlue over the previous five years, roughly eight contributions every day.

Waffle, who lives in a trailer on a dirt road after her house burned down two years ago, owns no computer and has only limited internet access.

When presented with the paperwork, she rejected the totals. “One hundred and fifty thousand?” she said. “Hell no. I don’t have that kind of money.” 

She acknowledged making some small donations, including to Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, but called the overall volume “very abnormal” and said she believed “there’s something in there that’s off.”

The Center Square followed with its own review of the same FEC data and obtained a response from ActBlue. Its analysis found $100,295 in contributions processed through ActBlue under Waffle’s name across recent election cycles, still thousands of individual transactions.

ActBlue stated that:

• They reviewed the relevant contribution data.
• Their customer service team had already reached out to the donor.
• It is standard operating procedure to take corrective action (including blocking accounts and reporting potential fraud) when a noncompliant donation is identified.
• They pointed to their “tandem fundraising” feature, which can turn a single form submission into multiple reported contributions.

Even if the donations were spread across five years, the numbers remain extreme:

• Roughly 12,900–14,700 separate transactions
• Averaging around 7–8 donations per day, every day, for years
• Totaling $100,000–$150,000+

This is not a new story. In multiple documented cases, elderly Americans have appeared as prolific donors, sometimes with thousands of contributions totaling well over $100,000, only to later dispute those records. 

Analysts and investigators have flagged these patterns in states including Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, raising ongoing questions about identity verification and the possibility of unauthorized or structured contributions.

In 2023, O’Keefe Media Group reported on senior citizens in Maryland and elsewhere whose names appeared on $170,000 to $230,000.00 plus in ActBlue donations they flatly denied making. One Arizona resident in her 80s was listed for more than 18,000 individual contributions totaling over $170,000. Maryland seniors interviewed on camera said they had given only small amounts here and there, not the thousands of micro-donations recorded in their names.

In Connecticut, analysis by Dominic Rapini, reported in 2025, identified multiple residents over 70 whose FEC records showed extraordinary volume. One 88-year-old retired Yale professor was listed for 7,539 donations totaling $213,163. He signed an affidavit disputing the record, stating it did not reflect his actual donation frequency or the dollars he had given. Several others in the same group of elderly Connecticut residents signed similar affidavits.

Similar high-volume patterns involving elderly donors have been flagged in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The evidence leaves little doubt. Something is off here.

These recurring cases, documented by separate independent journalists across multiple states, continue to prompt investigations. House Administration, Judiciary, and Oversight committees have been examining ActBlue’s fraud controls and foreign-donation safeguards for years, aided by internal documents and whistleblower accounts, including allegations of retaliation against employees who raised concerns. That inquiry intensified after platform leadership, including CEO Regina Wallace-Jones, invoked the Fifth Amendment when questioned under oath about the organization’s verification practices and prior statements to Congress.

Bannon can never be trusted. His reputation is beyond rehabilitation.

Last week, Chinese billionaire and phony anti-CCP crusader Guo Wengui, better known by his aliases Miles Guo or Miles Kwok, received a 30-year federal prison sentence in Manhattan. Prosecutors and the judge described a massive fraud that stole over $1 billion from thousands of investors and supporters, many of them Chinese immigrants drawn in by promises of fighting the Communist regime through media ventures, stock offerings, cryptocurrency, and exclusive clubs. Guo lived large on the proceeds—yachts, penthouses, supercars—while delivering nothing of value to victims.

Bannon was no peripheral figure in Guo’s criminal enterprise. He co-founded GTV Media Group with Guo, stood on stages promoting the fraudulent investments, maintained an office inside Guo’s operations, and received a $1 million consulting contract explicitly to leverage his “notoriety and fame” for Guo’s benefit. Even more damning, bankruptcy filings and court records trace roughly $57.6 million flowing from entities tied to Guo’s financial architect, William Je (also known as Kin Ming Je), into Bannon-linked operations: $35.5 to 56.6 million to GETTR USA Inc. (the social media platform chaired by Bannon), $270,000 directly to War Room Broadcasting, $250,000 to Bannon Strategic Advisors Inc., and another $500,000 to a central payment hub for his media empire. Multiple additional $500,000 checks from Saraca Media Group (an indicted entity central to hundreds of millions in fraud) landed with Bannon starting in 2018. Guo even provided a house in New Canaan, Connecticut, for Bannon’s girlfriend.

William Je, the indicted money launderer who remains a fugitive, moved funds through over 500 bank accounts, shell companies in the U.S., Bahamas, UAE, Cayman Islands, and elsewhere. Bannon had at least 132 documented contacts with Je, placing the majority of voice calls between them. Bannon continued promoting the schemes even after an FBI raid on Guo’s operations in 2019. Guo was convicted in 2024 on nine felony counts including racketeering, wire fraud, securities fraud, and money laundering. Je faces similar charges but fled. As for Bannon, he was never charged in the Guo case and remains broadcasting daily on his podcast as if nothing happened.

Bannon was Guo’s partner, promoter, and financial beneficiary in one of the largest fraud operations targeting anti-Communist supporters in American history. This begs the question: Why does Teflon Steve walk free while his co-conspirator rots in prison for decades? The long pattern of Bannon skirting consequences makes his high-level connections abundantly clear.

‘We Build the Wall’: Bannon’s Template for Grifting Patriots

The ‘We Build the Wall’ grift followed the same playbook and overlapped in time with the Guo operation. Launched in late 2018, the campaign raised approximately $25 million from patriotic donors who were promised that 100 percent of funds would build border wall sections with zero salaries or personal enrichment for organizers. In reality, funds were diverted through shell companies and fake invoices for luxury spending—boats, cars, jewelry, home renovations. Bannon personally routed and benefited from over $1 million. Only a few miles of crummy, rust-encased “wall” were ever constructed.

Federal charges for wire fraud and money laundering conspiracy hit in August 2020. Bannon was dramatically arrested aboard Guo’s superyacht Lady May off Connecticut in a raid involving the Coast Guard. Co-defendants Brian Kolfage, Andrew Badolato, and Timothy Shea faced serious consequences—prison sentences of years. Bannon received a presidential pardon from Trump on his last day in office in January 2021, wiping the federal case. In the remaining New York state case, he pleaded guilty in February 2025 to a single count of scheme to defraud (a low-level felony) and walked with a three-year conditional discharge—no prison time, only a ban on leading New York charities. Co-defendants went to prison, but Bannon emerged largely unscathed.

The minimal, performative consequences fit the script of an asset of the deep state. A brief (or token) brush with consequences builds “street cred” as a persecuted outsider so the subversion can persist and grow more malignant. Bannon emerged from the episode with his populist branding enhanced rather than destroyed. The contrast with his partners’ fates is stark and intentional.

Around the same period, Bannon provided key testimony in the federal trial against myself. Bannon told jurors that I was viewed as the Trump campaign’s “access point” to WikiLeaks and had boasted about connections to Julian Assange and upcoming damaging emails. I would be convicted on charges including lying to Congress and witness tampering based on Bannon’s false testimony. A year earlier, Bannon told the House Intelligence Committee that he never discussed WikiLeaks or its boss Julian Assange with me at any time. Despite offering two contradictory stories in sworn statements, no perjury charges ever went Bannon’s way.

Bannon, the supposed hardline loyalist, delivered damaging statements that aided the Mueller-era prosecution against me. This was not isolated. It occurred amid Bannon’s own legal pressures and fits a pattern of giving the deep state its “pound of flesh” against inconvenient figures while positioning himself as untouchable. Whether this cemented a working relationship between Bannon and the alphabet agencies waging open war against MAGA or was evidence of an existing relationship remains in question. What is not in question is Bannon’s nefarious connections and his path of wreckage that has carved fissures among conservatives throughout the Trump presidency.

The Epstein Files Expose an Unholy Alliance

The Epstein connection is even more radioactive and revealing. After his August 2017 ouster from the Trump White House—widely attributed to leaking and conniving—Bannon quickly entered a calculated partnership with notorious child sex predator Jeffrey Epstein. From mid-2018 through Epstein’s July 2019 arrest, the two cretins exchanged hundreds to thousands of texts and emails. Bannon coached Epstein on media rehabilitation in the wake of the Miami Herald’s damning “Perversion of Justice” series. Bannon conducted or oversaw more than 15 hours of filmed mock interviews and sessions at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse, with anti-Trump author Michael Wolff present for some. Bannon advised Epstein on how to appear “engaging,” “friendly,” “sympathetic,” and “not at all creepy”—explicitly aiming to “humanize the monster,” push back on the “pedo/trafficking narrative,” and rebuild him as a philanthropist under the guise of creating a documentary to expose him.

Planning documents detail arrangements for a May 2019 trip to St. Thomas with Bannon slated to stay on Little St. James, Epstein’s notorious pedo island. Final texts on the day of Epstein’s arrest discussed filming on the island and in-person meetings. Epstein offered private jets, accommodations, and introductions. Photos from released files show Bannon at Epstein’s properties in social settings. A luxury Hermès Apple Watch was gifted to Bannon. Epstein called Bannon an “amazing assistant” and acted as a fixer for his European travels.

The Jan. 2026 release of files under the Epstein Files Transparency Act laid bare the extent of Bannon’s collaborative efforts. There were extensive communications, video footage of Bannon fawning over and casually questioning Epstein about his predator status (which Epstein downplayed to “tier one”), and plans to crush the narrative against him. Bannon has adamantly refused to release the full 15+ hours of footage he controls.

Publicly, Bannon positioned himself as a champion of Epstein file transparency and deep state exposure. Privately, the files show something darker. Texts reveal Bannon and Epstein mocking Trump. Bannon agreed with Epstein that Trump was “beyond borderline” unfit and the pair even entertained removing Trump with the 25th Amendment. Bannon met with anti-Trump author Michael Wolff and Epstein shortly after his White House firing. He cooperated with Mueller’s investigation and leaked damaging material. This was not the behavior of a loyal America First warrior. It was the behavior of a desperate, money-grubbing weasel hedging his bets and serving any master desperate enough to fund his booze-and-pill binges.

Why has Bannon taken no serious, lasting reputational hit from cozying up to a notorious pedophile and blackmail artist in his final days? Who is shielding Bannon? The same forces that benefit from his faux-populist War Room programming—content that exists to stoke confusion within the MAGA coalition, elevating distractions and steering energy away from the most important targets in the administrative state responsible for institutional capture. After all, a controlled opposition figure is far more insidious than an open opponent.

Bannon Keeps the Fraud Train Moving with Crypto Scams

The pattern repeats with the Let’s Go Brandon Coin ($FJB, later rebranded Patriot Pay). In December 2021, Bannon and Boris Epshteyn secretly acquired full ownership and control of the coin—including administrative keys that let them freeze investor assets and exempt their own massive holdings (2 billion coins) from fees. They promoted it aggressively on Bannon’s podcast and elsewhere as decentralized, uncancellable, and tied to veterans’ causes. The coin’s value briefly surged on the announcement then collapsed. Investors were locked out, funds allegedly were mishandled or went missing (millions unrecovered in marketing/charity wallets despite claims of big donations), and the project ultimately froze accounts and shut down. A federal class-action lawsuit filed in 2026 alleged fraud and misrepresentation. Yet again, no criminal charges have been levied against Bannon.

Investigations by Artvoice explicitly connect the dots across We Build the Wall, the Guo empire, and the crypto scheme: identical structure of political branding to lure donors/investors, shell companies and obscured flows to Bannon at the back end, partners and co-conspirators taking the fall while Bannon receives minimal or no consequences and continues operating. Bannon’s Wall Street background at Goldman Sachs gave him the experience to structure these layered transactions. He used his corporate crook training to repeatedly engineer financial schemes that kept ownership and flows hidden.

Bannon is the MAGA Judas Goat

Bannon’s ouster from the Trump administration in 2017 for leaking sensitive information proved to be instructive about his character. Instead of fading into oblivion like a man with an ounce of shame would have or doubling down on loyalty due to legitimate contrition, Bannon entered alliances with Epstein for image rehab of a predator and with Guo for promotion of billion-dollar frauds. He gave damaging testimony against me to add fuel to the deep state’s war on MAGA. Bannon privately mocked the president he claimed to serve while publicly cultivating the populist brand. He extracted millions from multiple schemes while his associates faced prison or fled. He pushes “transparency” on Epstein files he is personally compromised by. And through it all, he faces token or no real accountability.

This is not the profile of a genuine America First leader. This is the profile of a classic Judas goat—leading the flock toward the slaughterhouse while protected by the very interests he pretends to oppose. His podcast platform serves the purpose of controlled narrative management, fueling endless infighting, and creating a continuous distraction from the real centers of power. The deep state does not need to silence every critic; it needs reliable ones who can be trusted to stay within the establishment parameters and never target the right enemies too effectively.

Bannon can never be trusted. His reputation is beyond rehabilitation. The talents he brings to the table will always be used for treachery. As he continues masquerading as the beacon of populism, it must be shouted from the mountaintops without apology or hesitation that Bannon is a double agent unmatched in his mendacity. His consistent deep state protection is evidence of his utility to the opposition. Every new scheme, every new alliance exposed, every partner left holding the bag while he walks free, confirms it. The pattern is too perfect, the protection is too obvious, and the betrayal too repeated to ignore any longer. Putting America First demands for Bannon to be exposed loudly, relentlessly, and without apology until the cancer is fully removed.