Featured in The News | The Brutal Truth

https://www.globaltimes.cn

https://www.apnews.com

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

PAPER TIGER ALERT

CHINA’S IRAN AIRLIFT STORY FALLS APART - No Evidence Backs Claims of HQ-9BE Missile Deliveries

China’s Alleged ‘16 Y-20 Planes Delivered HQ-9BE to Iran’ Claim Is Fake — Paper Tiger Too Scared to Act

In recent days a viral narrative has spread across social feeds claiming that sixteen Chinese Y-20 military cargo aircraft flew into Iran carrying advanced HQ-9BE air defense systems or other heavy weapons — a story that would imply direct Beijing support for Iran’s military expansion. Those posts include dramatic imagery and alarmist language, but the underlying claim lacks evidence and has been debunked by multiple checks of flight data and independent reporting.

Independent analysts tracking real-world aircraft movements find no flight paths, radar tracks, satellite images, or official confirmations that match the idea of a clandestine fleet of Chinese military transports landing in Iran in a short period. The only aircraft tracked in relevant corridors were routine civilian flights, and purported “military” sightings are based on speculation or misinterpretations of open-source data.

Official Chinese military sources have pushed back against similar rumors about strategic transport deployments in the past, warning against online misinformation and highlighting that viral claims about PLA airlift missions are often unfounded.

Likewise, monitoring services and established news organizations note that while China and Iran have a longstanding strategic relationship, there is no verified report that HQ-9 or HQ-9BE air defence systems were recently delivered via Y-20 aircraft. At least one embassy statement explicitly rejected recent foreign reports about such deliveries.

In short, 16 Y-20 missions to Iran carrying HQ-9BE is not supported by credible evidence — it appears to be a mix of unverified social media claims, misread flight data, and amplification in fringe content ecosystems rather than an actual military operation.

Translation: the “16 Y-20s hauling HQ-9BEs to Iran” saga is pure internet cosplay—no proof, no tracks, no receipts. Just social-media hopium, butchered flight data, and a rumor mill screaming itself hoarse while reality never showed up to the runway.

Sources

https://www.france24.com

https://www.reddit.com

https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

GREAT STUPIDITY MEETS REAL POWER

Starmer’s Chagos Deal Dies Under American Fire

Keir Starmer strutted toward Monday like a man about to rewrite history, only to slam the brakes in a full-body skid after Washington lit the fuse.

His Chagos Islands plan didn’t just face resistance—it detonated. By Friday night, the bill was yanked off the schedule, dragged into a back room, and quietly euthanized once it became clear it threatened a 60-year U.S.–UK military pact that keeps the lights on at Diego Garcia. So much for “steady leadership.”

The implosion started when Trump unloaded on Truth Social, swatting Starmer’s sovereignty giveaway like a bad idea it was. Handing the Chagos Islands to Mauritius? Trump called it “great stupidity” and “total weakness,” then used the moment to underline why he thinks America should grab Greenland instead—because apparently only one side in this exchange understands leverage. The message landed, hard.

Back home, Conservatives watched Starmer fold like a cheap suit. Kemi Badenoch torched the plan as legally reckless and flat-out unworkable, openly siding with Trump. Nigel Farage went further, applauding the American president for effectively vetoing the deal from across the Atlantic.

End result: Starmer blinked, the bill vanished, and Britain was left staring at the wreckage of a retreat so fast it left tire marks.

Sources

https://www.whitehouse.gov

https://www.bbc.com/news

https://www.gov.uk

https://www.parliament.uk

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

SPENDING LEVELS STAY PUT

HUD and Section 8 See Major Increases With GOP Support

Republicans Say Yes to Nearly Every Biden-Level Appropriation

In recent budget negotiations, many Republican lawmakers have voted to approve spending packages that closely mirror funding levels first proposed or expanded under the Biden administration.

This includes large appropriations increases for housing programs overseen by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, as well as significant boosts to Section 8 rental assistance. Supporters within the party argue these votes are driven by practical realities: avoiding government shutdowns, keeping federal agencies operating, and securing district-level funding priorities that voters depend on. They say rejecting entire spending bills would risk economic disruption and political backlash without guaranteeing better outcomes.

Critics, including fiscal conservatives and grassroots activists, see the pattern very differently. They argue that repeatedly approving Biden-era spending levels undermines Republican messaging about deficit control and smaller government. From this view, agreeing to expanded housing and social program funding blurs the line between parties and locks in higher baseline spending that becomes difficult to reverse in future budgets. They also warn that once these appropriations pass through the United States Congress, they are often treated as the new normal rather than temporary measures tied to economic conditions.

From a middle-of-the-road perspective, the situation reflects the tension between campaign promises and governing realities. Lawmakers face pressure from leadership, constituents, and federal deadlines that make sweeping spending cuts politically risky. As a result, budgets often move forward through compromise rather than confrontation, even when those compromises resemble policies Republicans previously criticized. Whether this approach represents responsible governance or a quiet acceptance of long-term spending growth remains a central debate as Congress heads into future appropriations fights.

Sources

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb

https://www.cbo.gov

https://www.hud.gov

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

And Now its Time for - THE THEATER OF ACCOUNTABILITY

This Episode "When the Law Growls but Never Bites"

The Clintons Are Held in Contempt of Court

Chair of House Oversight Committee Comer (Kentucky rep) announced today that Congress has voted to hold the Clintons (Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton) in contempt for not answering a congressional subpoena on the Epstein Files.

The current legal and congressional actions involving Bill and Hillary Clinton in simple terms, without assuming guilt or innocence, and separates political claims from formal legal process.

House investigators finally dusted off the word “contempt” and aimed it straight at the Clinton paper trail, after years of missing records, selective amnesia, and compliance that showed up late—if at all. Lawmakers pushing the move say this isn’t a conviction, it’s a legal cattle prod: comply, cough up the documents, or get dragged further into the spotlight. Critics predictably cried “politics,” insisting it’s all theater and narrative warfare, not justice. Translation: Congress says “answer the damn questions,” the Clintons respond with delay, deflection, and lawyers, and everyone pretends this is just another routine process instead of a long-overdue accountability slap.

In plain English: a congressional contempt referral isn’t a perp walk, it’s a warning shot. No handcuffs, no cell—just lawyers huddling, documents magically “found,” and the slow crawl to the Justice Department where things may stall, spin, or quietly die. It’s accountability on a leash: loud enough to scare, soft enough to negotiate, and perfectly designed to keep powerful people uncomfortable—but not imprisoned.

It’s still a brutal tug-of-war—Congress yanking on subpoenas, entrenched power testing how far it can ignore them, and the line between law and theater getting stomped flat—but there’s a crack of daylight in it. Every time this fight happens, the rules get stress-tested, the public sees how the game is played, and pressure builds for real enforcement instead of ritual outrage. It may crawl through procedures and prosecutorial choices, but the fact that the clash keeps surfacing at all means accountability hasn’t died—it’s just forcing its way back into the room.

Sources

https://judiciary.house.gov

https://oversight.house.gov

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Convicted Fraudster Claims State Leaders Knew About Problems Before Federal Charges

Allegations Renew Scrutiny of Oversight in Minnesota’s Largest Pandemic Fraud Case

A Minnesota woman convicted in one of the state’s largest pandemic-era fraud schemes is now claiming that top state leaders were aware of serious problems long before federal prosecutors intervened.

Aimee Bock, former head of the nonprofit Feeding Our Future, made the allegations during a jailhouse interview from Sherburne County Jail, saying concerns about fraudulent claims were raised internally while state payments continued. Her statements have reignited debate over oversight, accountability, and the limits of state responsibility during emergency programs.

Bock was convicted for her role in the Feeding Our Future case, which involved the misuse of federal child nutrition funds intended to feed children during the COVID-19 pandemic. Federal prosecutors say the scheme resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in fraudulent claims submitted through meal programs administered by the state of Minnesota. Courts found that false meal counts, fake vendors, and fabricated documentation were used to siphon taxpayer money.

In her interview, Bock alleged that Minnesota officials, including Governor Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison, were aware of warning signs but failed to act quickly. She claimed that state agencies continued approving sponsors and reimbursing claims even after red flags were raised. According to Bock, the state had the authority to monitor and stop questionable operators but did not do so in time. State officials have previously rejected claims that they knowingly allowed fraud to continue.

Minnesota officials have consistently said the Feeding Our Future program was federally funded but administered under strict federal rules that limited the state’s ability to halt payments without clear evidence. The state has argued that when concerns escalated, they referred the matter to federal authorities, which ultimately led to indictments, trials, and convictions. Supporters of this view say the scale and speed of pandemic relief programs created vulnerabilities across the country, not just in Minnesota.

The case has already resulted in dozens of convictions and guilty pleas, making it one of the largest COVID-related fraud prosecutions in the United States. The fallout has triggered audits, legislative hearings, and changes to how Minnesota oversees nonprofit partners and emergency aid programs. Lawmakers from both parties have acknowledged failures in oversight while disagreeing on where responsibility ultimately lies.

Bock’s claims do not change the outcome of her conviction, but they add a new layer to the public discussion. For some, her statements raise questions about whether earlier intervention could have reduced losses. For others, they are viewed as attempts by a convicted defendant to shift blame after the fact. As reviews and reforms continue, the Feeding Our Future case remains a defining example of how emergency funding, limited oversight, and human decision-making collided during the pandemic.

Video

Convicted Fraudster Claims State Leaders Knew About Problems Before Federal Charges

Sources

https://www.foxnews.com

https://www.startribune.com

https://www.mprnews.org

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Airlines Cancel Flights to Iran — Russians Evacuate — U.S. Military on Alert (What’s Actually Happening)

Airlines Reroute as Global Powers Brace for Uncertainty

In the past day, a viral video and social posts have claimed that major airlines are cancelling flights to Iran, Russians are evacuating, and the U.S. military is preparing for war. Here’s what the verified information shows:

President Donald Trump says he’s heard from “very important sources” on the other side” that planned executions in Iran were stopped. Asked if military strikes were off the table, Trump said: “No, we’re going to watch and see what the process is.”

Airlines and Airspace

Several flight tracking sources show that Iran’s airspace was temporarily closed recently, causing airlines to cancel, reroute, or delay flights to Iran and the surrounding region. Airspace closures result in carriers changing plans for safety reasons, especially when tensions are high near military conflict or missile activity.

International travel groups and tracking services also reported that carriers continue to avoid flying over parts of the Middle East due to safety concerns linked to past strikes and continued instability. Even global routes that normally cross through Iran’s airspace have been rerouted around the region.

Russian Movements

There are social media reports of evacuation flights tied to Russian personnel, but no official confirmation from the Russian government about an ordered evacuation from Iran. Some tracking sites showed flights, but these have not been independently verified by state authorities.

U.S. Military Posture

American forces in the Gulf region — including at bases like Al Udeid in Qatar — have been advised to prepare for potential threats amid ongoing Middle East tensions, according to U.S. official statements. Some personnel have been advised to move or take precautionary measures, but this does not mean an imminent war has been declared.

In recent weeks, independent security analysts have noted increased movement of U.S. aircraft carriers and Air Force units toward the Middle East. This kind of deployment is common when tensions rise, and it signals readiness — not automatic war.

Why This Matters

Airline flight and airspace changes occur as companies and regulators prioritize safety when tensions in a region rise. That’s different from a formal declaration of war.

Similarly, military repositioning and personnel advisories reflect precaution and readiness — not a confirmed decision to enter armed conflict.

Misinformation often spreads quickly when videos or posts use alarmist language like “preparing for war,” but real-world signals are more complex and rooted in safety protocols and geopolitical caution.

Sources & Address Links

https://www.google.com/search?q=Iran+airspace+closure+news

https://www.reuters.com/article/airlines-middle-east-conflict-idUSKBN2ZM17N

https://www.kyivpost.com/world/russia-begin-emergency-pullout-staff-israel.html

https://apnews.com/article/us-base-qatar-evacuation-iran-protests-c15e0fa925abf2144edf6cd634d7c3a0

https://www.twz.com/news-features/signs-emerge-of-u-s-navy-air-force-push-to-middle-east

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Jack Smith Meets Congress… and His Own Amnesia

The Prosecutor Who Forgot His Own Origin Story

Jack Smith walked into the House Judiciary Committee as the man who tried to legally kneecap a presidential front-runner — and walked out unable to remember who even swore him into the job. Not the date. Not the name.

Just blank stares and verbal stalling from the architect of one of the most aggressive political prosecutions in modern history. For critics, the moment landed like a punchline: the guy trusted with reshaping an election can’t recall how his badge got pinned on.

Republicans didn’t bother with pleasantries. They accused Smith of ditching neutral law enforcement in favor of political timing, strategic leaks, and election-season theatrics. The questions were blunt: why then, why that way, and why always when it mattered most politically? Smith insisted he followed DOJ rules — but every pause, stumble, and memory lapse undercut the image of a sharp, decisive prosecutor.

Defenders rushed in with damage control, arguing that forgetting ceremonial details is normal and irrelevant. Long hearings are stressful, they said. Pressure messes with memory. The case files matter, not the oath. Translation: please ignore the optics while we talk about process.

Critics weren’t buying it. If you can’t remember who empowered you, they argue, maybe you shouldn’t be wielding power that can alter elections and fracture public trust. To them, Smith’s testimony wasn’t a gotcha — it was a symptom. Unelected authority, massive discretion, minimal accountability, and now visible cracks under questioning.

The hearing didn’t resolve anything — it escalated everything. One side saw oversight working as intended. The other saw confirmation that prosecution has merged with politics and forgotten where the line was drawn. Either way, Jack Smith didn’t just testify. He validated suspicion — and that memory lapse will outlive every legal brief he’s filed.

Sources and address links:

https://judiciary.house.gov

https://www.c-span.org

https://www.foxnews.com

https://www.cbsnews.com

https://www.nbcnews.com

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research

Trump’s Board of Peace and Putin’s Response: Evolving Global Diplomacy

Leaders Navigate Conflicting Statements and Strategic Calculations on Russia’s Role

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, U.S. President Donald Trump announced the creation of a new international initiative called the “Board of Peace,” intended to help coordinate global conflict resolution and reconstruction efforts, initially focused on the Gaza region but with broader ambitions.

Trump framed the board as a way to bring together influential leaders from around the world and claimed that Russian President Vladimir Putin had accepted an invitation to join the effort.

Shortly after Trump’s statement, the Kremlin clarified that Russia had not formally accepted membership and was still “studying” the proposal, with Russia’s foreign ministry reviewing the offer before any commitment is made. Putin’s position reflects caution and the complexity of balancing diplomatic engagement with ongoing geopolitical tensions, including Russia’s war in Ukraine and strained relations with Western governments.

Putin’s own words on the matter emphasized that Moscow values peace initiatives in general and that Russia could be willing to contribute financially toward the board’s work, including proposing to use assets frozen abroad to secure a permanent membership position. However, he stopped short of confirming participation, indicating that consultations with strategic partners and further review are underway before any formal decision.

The mixed signals from Trump and Putin have drawn reactions from other global actors. Some allied governments have expressed reservations about the board’s structure, its relationship to existing institutions like the United Nations, and the inclusion of controversial figures, highlighting concerns about legitimacy and concentration of influence.

This diplomatic episode illustrates how high-profile peace initiatives can become entangled with broader geopolitical objectives, national interests, and strategic signaling, rather than simply reflecting shared commitments to conflict resolution. The final shape and membership of the Board of Peace remain uncertain, and observers continue to watch how these developments might influence negotiations on other international issues, including the ongoing war in Ukraine and wider security dialogues.

Here’s a “good, the bad, and the ugly” breakdown of the key reactions and commentary around California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s visit to the World Economic Forum

Here’s a “good, the bad, and the ugly” breakdown of the key reactions and commentary around California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s visit to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland and how important figures responded — including supporters, critics, and controversial commentary:

The “Good” (If You Squint Hard Enough)

1. Free publicity by humiliation
Newsom didn’t conquer Davos — he got iced out. And somehow that’s being sold as “winning.” Supporters insist getting sidelined by global elites is actually 4D branding, because nothing screams leadership like being talked about more for cancellations than content.

2. A soapbox to scold the planet
Armed with moral certainty and zero authority, Newsom lectured Europe and Trump alike, demanding they “grow a spine” — while standing in Switzerland, not California. This played well with people who think Davos is a TED Talk for global scolding, not a place where anyone is obligated to listen.

3. California stats, now with jet lag
Instead of fixing fires, crime, housing, or exits from his own state, Newsom proudly exported California talking points overseas — electric cars, global health signaling, and bureaucratic virtue — because if voters aren’t impressed, maybe billionaires in parkas will be.

The Bad (Where the Applause Turns Into Laughter)

1. Trump world didn’t critique him — they field-dressed him
Scott Bessent didn’t “disagree” with Newsom. He dismissed him like a defective product, questioning his brain capacity and his résumé in one swing. This wasn’t policy pushback — it was a public declaration that Newsom isn’t taken seriously by anyone holding real power.

2. Davos told him to take a number… then lost it
The much-hyped “fireside chat” got snuffed out like a cheap candle. Newsom’s team cried foul, blamed Trump pressure, and waved the free-speech flag — while the White House basically said: maybe fix California before auditioning for global savior. Translation: you’re not banned, you’re irrelevant.

3. Elites only, voters need not apply
Critics zeroed in on the optics: a governor fleeing a burning, broke, crime-ridden state to mingle with billionaires in snow boots. Davos didn’t elevate Newsom — it confirmed the stereotype. Global cocktail parties over local problems. Donor applause over voter trust. The image stuck because it fit too well.

The Ugly (Where It Stops Being Politics and Starts Being Sport)

1. The Soros selfie heard ’round the internet
One photo. One billionaire heir. Instant meme apocalypse. Newsom grinning next to Alex Soros detonated every “anti-elite” speech he’s ever given. Critics didn’t need commentary — the picture did all the work. Nothing says man of the people like a donor-class photo op in the Alps.

2. Name-calling went nuclear
Trump-world didn’t argue policy — they went straight for the jugular. “Newscum” stuck, governance failures got weaponized, and the message was blunt: stop pretending you’re a global statesman when your state looks like a case study in managed decline. Davos didn’t elevate him; it handed his enemies fresh ammo.

3. Two realities, one disaster
Supporters called it brave truth-telling. Critics called it narcissism with a passport. Friendly off-camera banter, scorched-earth public attacks, and nonstop cable-news food fights turned Davos into a theater of American dysfunction. To fans, Newsom was bold. To everyone else, he looked like a man campaigning for a job no one offered him.

Sources

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-says-russia-studying-peace-board-proposal-after-trump-says-he-accepted-2026-01-21/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/19/kremlin-says-putin-invited-join-trump-gaza-board-of-peace

https://www.rferl.org/a/trump-board-of-peace-putin-un/33656659.html

https://www.reuters.com/world/eu-concerned-about-trump-concentration-powers-over-board-peace-document-says-2026-01-23/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/22/trump-administration-news-updates-today

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

This Winter Storm Is About To Get WORSE...

Prolonged freezing rain, heavy snow bands, and ice accretion forecast across multiple regions

A powerful winter storm is expected to sweep from the central Plains into the Midwest and onward to the Northeast this weekend, bringing a dangerous mix of heavy snow, freezing rain, and thick ice accumulation.

Forecasts indicate that some areas could see significant ice buildup on roads, trees, and power lines, increasing the risk of widespread power outages and making travel extremely hazardous. Even regions accustomed to winter weather may struggle with rapidly changing conditions as temperatures hover near the freezing mark, allowing rain to turn to ice with little warning.

As the system strengthens, snow bands are likely to intensify across northern zones while southern and transition areas face prolonged periods of freezing rain. This combination is especially damaging because ice adds weight to infrastructure, leading to downed trees and snapped power lines, while snow reduces visibility and creates treacherous driving conditions. Emergency officials often warn that ice storms can be more disruptive than snowstorms because restoration efforts take longer and access to affected areas can be limited.

Residents along the storm’s path are being urged to prepare for possible extended outages by charging devices, securing backup heat sources, and avoiding unnecessary travel. Road conditions can deteriorate faster than plows or treatment crews can respond, and even short trips may become risky. The storm serves as a reminder that winter systems of this scale can quickly escalate from an inconvenience into a serious safety threat, particularly when ice and heavy snow overlap across densely populated regions.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Maine Immigration Crackdown Sparks New Fight Over Numbers, Enforcement, and Community Stability

Reports cite federal “Operation Catch of the Day” in Portland and Lewiston as debate grows over public safety and civil rights

Federal immigration enforcement in Maine has intensified this week, with DHS and ICE confirming a focused operation in cities like Portland and Lewiston,

...which have long been known as key resettlement areas for African refugees, including Somalis. Officials describe the effort as a targeted push aimed at people who are unlawfully present and who have criminal records, while local leaders and immigrant advocates say the visible buildup has created fear and confusion in neighborhoods and workplaces.

The headline claim that “23,000 Somalis” have flooded Maine is not supported by the most widely cited Census-based estimates. Several outlets and community reports point to a much smaller number statewide, often in the low thousands, and the totals can shift depending on how “Somali” is defined (Somalia-born, Somali ancestry, or broader East African communities). That distinction matters because inflated figures can drive panic, while undercounting can hide real local pressure on housing, schools, and services.

Supporters of the crackdown argue Maine should not become a soft target and say the federal government is doing what it is supposed to do: enforce immigration law, remove people with serious criminal histories, and restore confidence that the rules mean something. They also argue that local cooperation matters because when state and city officials refuse common requests, like helping identify official vehicles or sharing information in certain cases, it slows enforcement and increases risk for the public.

Critics respond that the operation is being sold as “worst of the worst,” but on the ground it can sweep up people who have legal status, pending hearings, or valid work authorization, and that aggressive tactics can harm innocent families and destabilize communities that are trying to integrate and work. Reports from Maine describe school absences, staffing disruptions, and residents who are afraid to go to appointments or report crimes, which opponents say can make public safety worse, not better.

The larger political layer is that national rhetoric, including “invasion” language and viral content, can shape public opinion faster than verified data. Maine’s real challenge is balancing lawful enforcement with clear guardrails: accurate counts, transparent standards for who is targeted, and a process that protects citizens and legal residents from being caught in the net.

Sources

https://apnews.com/article/778b02cc97e390edbc598def9e6ff317

https://abcnews.go.com/US/dhs-launches-operation-catch-day-enforcement-action-maine/story?id=129428764

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-starts-immigration-operation-maine-nyt-reports-2026-01-21/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/23/maine-immigration-crackdown-ice-arrests

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/me/maine/politics/2025/12/13/crowd-rallies-in-lewiston-in-support-of-somalis-following-trump-comments

https://apnews.com/video/ice-activity-increases-in-maine-as-anxiety-grows-in-immigrant-communities-dc4651a708964dc7ad76bcf73dbc6044

https://wgme.com/news/local/operation-catch-of-the-day-ice-launches-major-operation-in-maine-immigration-customs-enforcement-president-donald-trump-lewiston-portland-westbrook

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Pentagon Orders Fort Bragg MPs and Alaska Airborne Units to Prepare for Possible Deployment to Minneapolis

Preparation order raises questions about federal response, authority, and restraint

The Pentagon has ordered military police units based at Fort Bragg and airborne forces stationed in Alaska to prepare for a possible deployment to Minneapolis, according to multiple national reports citing defense officials.

The order places the units on a heightened readiness status, meaning they are being told to organize personnel, equipment, and logistics in case federal authorities determine additional support is needed. Defense officials have stressed that preparation does not automatically mean deployment, but it allows the Department of Defense to respond quickly if requested.

From a security and logistics standpoint, officials say this type of planning is standard during periods of unrest or uncertainty involving federal operations and public safety concerns. Military police units are trained to support law enforcement functions such as crowd control, protection of federal property, and logistical coordination, while airborne units are valued for their ability to move rapidly across long distances. Supporters of the move argue that advance preparation helps prevent delays and confusion if conditions on the ground worsen or if state and federal authorities request assistance.

Others view the order more cautiously, noting that the use of active-duty troops inside the United States raises sensitive legal and political questions. While federal law allows the president to authorize military involvement under specific circumstances, critics emphasize the importance of maintaining clear boundaries between civilian law enforcement and the armed forces. They warn that even preparation orders can heighten public anxiety and fuel perceptions of escalation, especially in communities already experiencing tension.

Pentagon officials have emphasized that no final decision has been made and that state authorities, including the governor of Minnesota, remain central to any response. For now, the situation reflects a balancing act between readiness and restraint, as federal leaders weigh public safety, constitutional limits, and the need to avoid unnecessary confrontation. As events continue to develop, the focus remains on whether preparation will turn into action or remain a precautionary measure.

Sources

https://apnews.com/article/bd91b1f8424586aaab2c5f3a3c46bc99

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/army-orders-military-police-ready-minneapolis-deployment-ap-129439566

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-report-army-orders-military-police-to-get-ready-for-possible-minneapolis-deployment

https://patch.com/minnesota/southwestminneapolis/pentagon-prepares-hundreds-more-active-duty-soldiers-possible

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-minneapolis-soldiers-army-minnesota-b2905083.html

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Deportation Decision Rekindles Debate Over Activism, Immigration Law, and National Authority

DHS Says Deportation Is About Immigration Law, Not Political Speech

The Department of Homeland Security has confirmed that Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist who officials describe as being tied to far-left protest networks, will be re-detained and deported to Algeria.

Federal authorities say the action is based on immigration enforcement grounds rather than political speech, framing the case as a matter of visa status, compliance with U.S. law, and national security procedures. From this perspective, the government argues that activism does not place someone above immigration rules, and that deportation decisions are made through administrative and legal channels that apply to all non-citizens.

Supporters of the decision say the case highlights long-standing concerns about foreign nationals participating in aggressive or disruptive political movements while remaining in the country under temporary or conditional legal status. They argue that the United States has the right, and responsibility, to remove non-citizens who violate the terms of their stay or are assessed as contributing to instability. In this view, deportation is not about silencing speech, but about enforcing boundaries that every sovereign nation maintains.

Critics of the move see it differently, warning that deporting a high-profile activist could create a chilling effect on political expression and protest, especially around controversial foreign policy issues. They argue that even if immigration law is the stated basis, the optics of the case will fuel claims that dissenting voices are being targeted. This concern reflects a broader tension in American society over where the line should be drawn between protected expression and actions that authorities view as disruptive or unlawful.

The planned deportation of Khalil to Algeria now sits at the crossroads of immigration enforcement, protest politics, and national identity. For some, it represents a necessary assertion of legal authority. For others, it raises questions about fairness, transparency, and how political activism by non-citizens is treated in an increasingly polarized environment. The case is likely to remain a flashpoint as debates continue over borders, speech, and the role of the federal government in managing both.

Sources

Pro-Palestinian activist, Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil set to be deported to Algeria — https://abc7.com/post/pro-palestinian-activist-columbia-graduate-student-mahmoud-khalil-set-deported-algeria/18447282/

US to deport anti-Israel activist Mahmoud Khalil to Algeria — https://www.jpost.com/american-politics/article-884270

US official says pro-Palestine activist to be deported to Algeria — https://www.jurist.org/news/2026/01/us-official-says-pro-palestine-activist-mahmoud-khalil-to-be-deported-to-algeria/

From arrest to deportation: Mahmoud Khalil’s journey from pro-Palestinian activist to anti-Israel spokesperson — https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/from-arrest-to-deportation-mahmoud-khalils-journey-from-pro-palestinian-activist-to-anti-israel-spokesperson/articleshow/127177435.cms

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Pay to Stay

Undercover Footage Sparks Questions About Who Really Runs Immigration Court

According to a newly released undercover video promoted by Townhall, an alleged corruption scheme may be operating inside Ohio’s immigration court system, and if the claims are accurate, it makes Minnesota’s scandals look like the appetizer.

The video, presented in a style popularized by James O’Keefe, features individuals boasting on camera about what they describe as a pay-to-play asylum pipeline, where migrants are allegedly coached to fabricate asylum stories and, more explosively, where immigration judges are said to be bribed tens of thousands of dollars per approval. In the recording, participants casually discuss judges, lawyers, fee schedules, and payments as if they were ordering drinks, repeatedly referencing fifty-thousand-dollar sums being split among insiders to secure favorable outcomes.

The footage claims this is not a one-off scam but a system, complete with middlemen, lawyers, and judges who allegedly “all talk” and know how the process works. The discussion goes further, suggesting that asylum approvals, work permits, and extended stays are treated as commodities rather than legal decisions. While none of these allegations have yet been proven in court, the video presents them as routine business, not risky behavior, with speakers insisting everything is “legit” even as they describe bribery, kickbacks, and coordinated deception.

The report then widens its scope, arguing that asylum fraud is only one piece of a much larger immigration fraud ecosystem. It points to long-standing allegations involving the H-1B visa program, citing claims from former officials and analysts who have said a significant percentage of applications involve fake credentials, fraudulent resumes, paid stand-ins for job interviews, and consulting firms acting as visa mills. According to these claims, shell companies are allegedly set up in residential homes, approved for dozens of visas, and used to funnel foreign workers into major U.S. corporations while undercutting American labor.

The narrative argues that oversight agencies have known about these issues for years but continued approving visas anyway due to political pressure, corporate lobbying, and foreign influence. The result, according to the video’s commentary, is a system where fraud benefits political interests and large corporations, while American workers absorb the losses. The segment stops short of naming prosecutors or confirming investigations but insists that if federal authorities begin digging seriously, the scale of abuse could be far larger than currently acknowledged.

In short, the report claims immigration fraud is not a bug in the system but a feature, stretching from asylum courts to high-skill visa programs, protected by silence, bureaucracy, and a lack of accountability. Whether these allegations lead to indictments or fade into the news cycle remains to be seen, but the video’s central message is blunt: if even part of this is true, the immigration system is being run less like a court of law and more like a cash register.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

National Security Has a Price Tag

And It’s Cheaper Than Weak Borders and Empty Promises

When Donald Trump talks about how much the United States would pay for Greenland, it exposes a hard truth many prefer to avoid: America’s strength has never depended on multinational permission slips like NATO.

From the start, U.S. security has rested on geography, economic power, and the ability to act decisively in its own interest, not on endless alliances where America pays the most and gets lectures in return. Greenland matters because it offers strategic control over Arctic routes, missile defense, and natural resources — things that directly protect American citizens.

That kind of clear, self-directed investment shows why the U.S. never truly needed a bloated alliance that often restrains action, dilutes responsibility, and relies on American muscle while criticizing American leadership. Real strength comes from securing assets, defending borders, and acting independently when national interests are on the line, not from waiting for consensus from countries that can’t or won’t carry their share of the burden.

One view believes that government should spread money around, manage outcomes, and avoid tough decisions that upset global partners, even if that leaves America weaker or dependent.

The other view treats the nation like a serious household: spend money only when it clearly protects security, resources, and long-term stability.

From that perspective, paying for Greenland isn’t about charity or global approval, but about investing in strategic land, defense, and control of critical shipping routes in the Arctic.

The idea is simple — if America is going to spend taxpayer money, it should be to secure its future, protect its people, and reduce reliance on rivals, not to please international institutions or fund endless programs with no return.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Rule of Law? Not in This ZIP Code

Minnesota Dares the Feds to Do Something

Minnesota Declared War on Federal Law and They’re Not Even HIDING It Anymore - State Leaders Throw Down With D.C., While Local Officials Treat the Constitution Like a Suggestion

In Minnesota, what looks like a “fight” between state leaders and the federal government over immigration enforcement has turned into a melodrama where some local officials act like federal law is optional whenever it makes their protesters angry.

Angry leaders cry about federal agents enforcing immigration laws and temporarily detaining people — even kids, according to local reports — while protesters throw snowballs and blow whistles at them. Federal authorities, backed by court rulings lifting limits on how agents can respond to demonstrators, insist they’re simply doing the job Congress gave them, rounding up criminal aliens and enforcing existing law.

What you’re really seeing isn’t a thoughtful debate about power and responsibility, it’s a theatrical clash where one side treats federal law like a suggestion and the other side keeps reminding everyone that laws are supposed to be followed everywhere, not just where it’s politically comfortable.

She was a Bully.

Minnesota and its biggest cities have responded to the federal surge by running straight to court, arguing that enforcing federal law is somehow unconstitutional when it disrupts their daily routines. State leaders are waving the Tenth Amendment like a legal shield, claiming federal agents have no business enforcing immigration and fraud laws if it upsets local politics.

What it actually resembles is not a serious defense of the Constitution, but a last-ditch legal scramble: slam the brakes on enforcement first, then dig around for a justification that sounds official enough to survive a press conference. “States’ rights” gets rebranded as a permission slip to ignore federal law, right up until Washington shows up and refuses to pretend anymore.

As the lawsuits pile up, federal prosecutors cranked the pressure by firing off grand jury subpoenas to Minnesota officials, including Tim Walz and other Democratic leaders, to see whether anyone crossed the line into blocking federal enforcement. That move poured gasoline on an already raging fire, sending rhetoric into overdrive and turning the whole mess into a political shouting match where everyone talks louder and no one backs down.

The chaos hit national headlines after federal immigration agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement ended up detaining children during enforcement operations, including a 5-year-old — instantly igniting outrage, panic, and wall-to-wall hysteria.

School officials and activists framed it as a moral catastrophe, while federal authorities flatly responded that kids were not targets, just collateral passengers in arrests that don’t pause for press releases. The result was a media firestorm where nuance vanished, emotions spiked, and enforcement itself was put on trial for daring to happen in the real world.

In response to the ramped-up ICE deployment and arrests — including three protesters cuffed after they turned a church service into a protest stage amid national outrage — unions and advocacy groups didn’t just grumble, they called for a full-blown economic blackout and statewide strike, begging people to skip work, school, and shopping like it’s a new holiday of protest instead of normal life.

Organized labor, faith leaders, and local businesses are whipping up a work-stoppage spectacle where staying home is described as “solidarity” with people upset over federal enforcement — turning everyday routines into an unofficial state holiday of outrage instead of actual solutions.

The legal mess kept lurching along until reality stepped in: one judge tried to muzzle Immigration and Customs Enforcement for dealing with protesters, and an appeals court promptly ripped the gag off and hit pause on the whole idea.

Translation: the lawyers can keep arguing, but enforcement isn’t waiting around while the courtroom ping-pong match drags on.

While some on the sidelines compare this chaos to historic uprisings, the truth is stark: Minnesota has become the epicenter of a raw face-off between state and federal power over immigration enforcement, civil rights, and who actually runs the show — and nobody’s pretending it’s a calm debate anymore.

Sources (with direct links)

News coverage on escalating tensions and federal enforcement in Minnesota:

Reuters & Associated Press coverage of federal appeals court lifting limits on ICE tactics and protests — https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-appeals-court-pauses-lower-court-order-restraining-immigration-agents-use-2026-01-21/

Minnesota residents describe fear and unrest amid federal immigration enforcement — https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/22/minnesota-residents-ice-surge-trump

Federal agents arrest activists after church protest — https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2026/01/22/federal-agents-arrest-nekima-levy-armstrong-church-protest

Economic blackout protests expand nationwide — https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jan/22/minnesota-economic-blackout-ice

CNN/AP reporting on federal subpoenas to Minnesota officials — https://apnews.com/article/minnesota-immigration-crackdown-trump-5e2f40582b62687fd9bc70640382f034

Reuters/AP coverage of ICE detaining children — https://www.reuters.com/world/us/vance-heads-minneapolis-amid-tension-over-ice-crackdown-2026-01-22/

Context on federal-state legal claims and lawsuits:

Overview of “Operation Metro Surge” state lawsuits and constitutional arguments — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Metro_Surge

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

The Arrests Are Coming! (Allegedly)

Claims Swirl Around Don Lemon After Church Protest — Here’s What’s Actually Known

🚨 “The ARRESTS Have Already Started”? Apparently — according to the internet.

Headlines and hot takes are loudly claiming that Don Lemon is facing “major charges” over an allegedly illegal church protest, even though there is still no verified record of an arrest or formal charges.

What’s actually circulating isn’t handcuffs or court papers, but a flood of clips, commentary, and legal common sense reminding everyone that storming into a church and hijacking a religious service isn’t activism — it’s how you trip over trespass and disorderly conduct laws the moment you refuse to leave when told.

Don Lemon livestreamed left-wing agitators who stormed St. Paul’s Cities Church under the suspicion that its pastor had collaborated with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). (Dimitrios Kambouris/WireImage)

Law-and-order types are bluntly reminding everyone that churches are private, protected spaces — not improv stages for political tantrums. Skeptics fire back with the inconvenient detail that trending outrage, screaming headlines, and social-media meltdowns still don’t magically turn into police reports, court filings, or prosecutors actually lifting a finger.

Bottom line: the accusations are screaming like facts already won, the evidence hasn’t even clocked in yet, and until law enforcement actually files something, this is pure fodder for the Pod Casters.

Sources

General explanation of laws protecting religious services (UK/US concepts):
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/disorderly_conduct
Trespass and removal from private property (churches included):
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trespass
Reporting standards on arrests vs. allegations:
https://www.rcfp.org/resources/basics-of-defamation-law/
Background on Don Lemon and recent activism coverage:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

UK Democracy Watch: Panic Now, Vote Later

Rumors Fly, Elections Don’t — And Starmer Still Has the Keys

In the United Kingdom, political drama is once again doing laps, with speculation swirling over how long Sir Keir Starmer can keep his grip on the job — and whether voters will ever be invited back to the process.

The chaos was helped along when Labour MP Andrew Gwynne quit Parliament, blowing a hole in the Greater Manchester seat of Gorton and Denton and setting up a possible by-election. That resignation instantly revived rumors that Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham might re-enter Parliament and start eyeing Starmer’s chair, even if party officials insist there’s no coup underway — just a lot of nervous shuffling and very loud denials.

Some corners of the media and the internet have eagerly framed the chaos as proof that Labour MPs are secretly sharpening the knives to dump Sir Keir Starmer or shove the country toward another election. Political analysts, however, say this is mostly wishful gossip dressed up as insight, not an actual coup in progress. Party insiders point out that Labour’s leadership rules and internal machinery are so slow, layered, and bureaucratic that removing a sitting prime minister would be a logistical nightmare — unless voters themselves decide to blow the whole thing up first.

Despite the noise, the mess is really about Labour’s internal squabbles and routine local elections, not some dramatic shutdown of democracy. A handful of councils have pushed back local votes due to bureaucratic reshuffling, which promptly got inflated into apocalypse-level headlines. National elections, meanwhile, are still sitting right where they always have been on the calendar, and no one in charge has actually canceled a general election — no matter how loudly the rumor mill insists otherwise.

At the same time, Sir Keir Starmer isn’t exactly enjoying a calm cruise, as pressure keeps coming from inside his own party. Some Labour MPs are openly grumbling over domestic funding calls, while others are fighting over who gets parachuted into by-elections, turning routine decisions into internal food fights. The result is a party that keeps its tensions proudly on display, reminding everyone that nothing weakens authority faster than allies arguing in public.

In short, there’s plenty of chatter about Sir Keir Starmer and how shaky his seat might be, but verified reporting shows it’s mostly noise, not a full-blown mutiny. Despite the dramatic headlines, no general election has been scrapped and no secret squad of MPs is actively hauling him out of Downing Street — at least not yet. For now, it’s politics-as-usual: loud speculation, quiet paperwork, and a leadership still technically intact.

Sources

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/former-labour-party-minister-gwynne-steps-down-parliament-2026-01-22/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/22/andrew-gwynne-pension-deal-could-open-path-commons-andy-burnham

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/14/is-keir-starmer-facing-a-plot-to-depose-him-as-prime-minister

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-starmer-mps-coup-rebels-b2861349.html

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2026/jan/22/uk-will-not-be

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/20/starmer-could-face-rebellion-by-north-west-labour-mps-over-local-funding'

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Davos Disaster: Newsom Tries Global Leadership, Achieves International Cringe

Lectures Europe, Growls at Trump, Gets Politely Removed From the Schedule

While his state is failing economically with a homelessness crisis spiraling out of control, this maniac decides to make a trip to DAVOS?

TAKE CARE OF YOUR OWN BACKYARD FIRST.

At the 2026 meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, California Governor Gavin Newsom managed to turn himself into a headline by scolding Europe and swiping at Donald Trump in front of a room full of global elites.

Newsom accused European leaders of quietly going along with Trump over Greenland and told them to “grow a spine,” apparently forgetting he was a guest, not the keynote conscience of the continent. He then compared Trump’s foreign policy style to a predatory animal, because nothing screams diplomatic influence like animal metaphors at a billionaire retreat.

Things went from awkward to embarrassing when Newsom’s scheduled appearance at an official U.S. event mysteriously vanished from the program. His team blamed Trump-era pressure, while Davos organizers pointed to duller explanations like access limits and scheduling — the international version of “it’s not you, it’s the agenda.”

Supporters hailed the trip as fearless global leadership, while critics saw Gavin Newsom flying overseas to lecture Europe, ignore protocol, and then get gently pushed to the sidelines with diplomatic smiles. 🤣🪽

Sources

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/20/california-newsom-europe-comment-trump-greenland

https://www.kcra.com/article/gov-newsom-president-trump-world-economic-forum-switzerland/70053027

https://abc.net.au/news/2026-01-21/newsom-mocks-european-leaders-greenland/106251248

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/newsom-says-he-was-blocked-speaking-davos-blames-trump-administration-2026-01-21/

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-01-21/chabria-column-newsom-trump-davos

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Davos: Saving the Planet, One Tax at a Time

When “net zero” really means your bank account

James O’Keefe apparently decided subtlety was overrated and marched straight into Davos disguised like a budget spy movie extra.

Somehow, it worked. Climate executives, drunk on confidence and truffle potatoes, allegedly started confessing everything from carbon tax schemes to weather-tweaking science projects, all while nodding thoughtfully about saving the planet. The operation only fell apart when someone noticed the wig, triggering a sprint that looked less like espionage and more like a ski-resort chase scene.

Before the disguise collapsed, hidden cameras captured what viewers are told the global elite never want you to hear. On THE RAW FEED, Gary Franchi lays out the footage the mainstream media supposedly refuses to touch, including O’Keefe’s fake company—complete with business cards and a polished website—that magically unlocked access to invite-only Davos events. Billionaires and climate executives allegedly discussed reshaping the planet’s weather while standing on snowy mountaintops, casually planning Earth’s future between bites of gourmet food.

One executive reportedly explained how the real innovation isn’t cutting carbon, but charging everyone for it. The idea: tax every product crossing a border—steel, cement, aluminum, fertilizer—then call it climate action while energy prices quietly crush ordinary people. The planet gets a press release, the public gets the bill.

Another guest allegedly admitted working with aircraft manufacturers to spray “something” into the atmosphere—no, not chemtrails, because that sounds scary. They prefer the gentler phrase aerosol injection. Think mini volcanic eruptions made of sulfur dioxide that hang around for a year. Cheap, effective, and apparently not something you’re supposed to ask too many questions about.

Then came the part meant to make viewers choke on their popcorn: a man claiming ties to defense research casually referencing artificial rain projects, foreign ministries, and quiet investments in weather control tech. Nothing officially announced, of course—just casually mentioned on hidden camera, as one does.

Finally, the money angle arrived. At a pristine Davos forum, a speaker allegedly declared that one massive investment firm is behind the entire climate operation. O’Keefe even wandered up to their pavilion, thanked security, and walked away having “confirmed” who’s really pulling the strings. Climate policy, weather modification, carbon markets—presented as one big, well-funded machine.

As President Trump prepared to head to Davos to lecture Europe about energy reality, O’Keefe was already there, recording what elites supposedly say when they think no one is listening. Once the disguise was blown, security rushed in and the sprint began—because nothing says “nothing to hide” like a sudden, panicked escort.

The takeaway, according to the segment, is blunt: this isn’t about saving the planet. It’s about controlling systems—energy, weather, money—and the people living under them.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Coalition Of The Willing: Europe’s Alternative Security Alliance?

Built on Unity, Powered by Side-Eye

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, European countries have grappled with how to protect the continent. Traditionally, Europe’s defense has depended heavily on NATO and the United States.

But recent shifts in U.S. foreign policy — especially under the Trump administration — have prompted European leaders to consider new security arrangements where they take more responsibility for their own defense rather than relying on Washington.

One idea now making the rounds is the politely named “Coalition of the Willing,” which is basically a club of countries that agree to cooperate as long as it’s convenient and doesn’t require paperwork they can’t escape later. The goal, for now, is helping Ukraine and sketching out what “peace and security” might look like once the shooting stops.

Unlike NATO, there are no lifelong commitments, no binding treaties, and no guarantees anyone will still be on board next year. It’s a flexible, opt-in arrangement built on shared intentions, crossed fingers, and the hope that enough people show up when it actually matters.

Under current discussions, the coalition includes around 30-plus countries that coordinate defense planning, security commitments, and political support for Ukraine while also bolstering Europe’s own security. Some European leaders see this as a practical way to act together where NATO’s formal structures are too slow or tied to U.S. leadership. Participation isn’t automatic — each country chooses its level of contribution, whether military, financial, or logistical.

Supporters insist this coalition could someday grow into a proud, European-led security system — one that still “works with” the United States, but no longer leans on it like a permanent crutch. The pitch fits a wider push for European independence: if America even hints it might not show up every time, European capitals figure it’s finally time to prove they can defend their own interests, write their own security checks, and guarantee their own safety without immediately dialing Washington for backup.

To be clear, this plan is not supposed to replace NATO — at least that’s what everyone nervously says out loud. Instead, it’s marketed as a “complementary” setup, meant to sit politely beside existing alliances and patch the holes they keep tripping over, while offering faster, more flexible reactions to modern threats like Russia. Some experts optimistically frame it as a stepping stone toward deeper military cooperation and political unity in Europe, or possibly the early draft of a brand-new defense alliance… assuming everyone can agree, pay up, and stick around long enough to finish building it.

Of course, not everyone is buying it. Plenty of European governments can’t even agree on how serious this is supposed to be, let alone how far to take it. There’s also the awkward question of how much real military muscle Europe actually has without U.S. firepower, satellites, and intelligence doing the heavy lifting. For many, the real challenge is performing this delicate balancing act: pretending to stand on their own while making very sure the alliance doesn’t upset Washington or accidentally unplug the security system that’s been keeping the lights on for decades.

In simple terms, the “Coalition of the Willing” is Europe’s attempt to slowly wean itself off its long-standing dependence on the United States while insisting it was never that dependent in the first place. It’s a careful dance between wanting full control over its own security and not losing the American shield that’s been quietly doing most of the heavy lifting for decades. Whether this turns into a serious alternative alliance or just another well-funded talking club will ultimately depend on political courage, actual military resources, and whatever crisis happens to scare everyone into cooperating next.

Sources (with direct links)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing

https://www.gmfus.org/news/coalition-willing

https://united24media.com/latest-news/europe-weighs-new-security-framework-without-nato-amid-trumps-greenland-threats-15139

https://unn.ua/en/news/europes-new-defense-architecture-can-europe-create-its-own-defense-alliance-and-what-will-be-ukraines-role

https://nashaniva.com/amp/en/386041

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

HOUSE OVERSIGHT PUSHES AHEAD AMID BROADER FIGHT OVER CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

The Democrats Throw the Clintons to the Lions.

President Trump is Cleared of wrong doing. Comer stated that Trump was already vetted on Epstein files.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer publicly declared progress after contempt-related resolutions connected to Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton advanced through congressional procedures. Comer framed the development as a win for congressional oversight, arguing that no individual or political family should be beyond scrutiny when lawmakers are conducting investigations tied to records, testimony, or compliance with lawful requests.

Supporters of the effort say the move reinforces Congress’s constitutional authority to investigate matters of public interest and enforce cooperation when subpoenas or information requests are ignored. They argue that contempt mechanisms exist to prevent stonewalling and to preserve the balance of power between the legislative branch and influential political figures. From this perspective, advancing the resolutions sends a message that past political status does not grant immunity from accountability.

Critics counter that the action is politically motivated and risks deepening partisan divisions, warning that contempt proceedings can be weaponized when used against high-profile figures. They argue that such measures should be reserved for clear and ongoing defiance of lawful orders, not used as symbolic pressure. Despite these objections, Comer and his allies maintain that the process is about precedent and enforcement, not personalities.

The development highlights a broader struggle in Washington over oversight powers, executive and private compliance, and whether Congress still has effective tools to compel cooperation. As the resolutions continue through the legislative process, attention will remain focused on whether they lead to negotiations, compliance, or further escalation between investigators and those under scrutiny.

SOURCES (ADDRESS LINKS)

https://oversight.house.gov

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

https://www.house.gov

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

RUBIO MOVES TO BLOCK BRITISH AGENTS ACCUSED OF SILENCING AMERICANS AND MEDDLING IN U.S. POLITICS

WASHINGTON DRAWS A HARD LINE ON CENSORSHIP, BORDERS, AND FOREIGN INFLUENCE

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has announced new restrictions targeting British-linked agents accused of pressuring U.S. companies, platforms, and institutions to censor Americans and influence U.S. political discourse.

The move signals a sharper posture by Washington toward foreign governments that attempt to shape speech or political outcomes inside the United States, even when those governments are long-standing allies.

U.S. officials say the concern centers on foreign efforts to label lawful American speech as “misinformation” and then apply diplomatic or regulatory pressure to suppress it. From a constitutional standpoint, the administration argues that foreign governments have no authority to influence how Americans speak, debate, or criticize policy at home. The issue is being framed as one of national sovereignty, with officials emphasizing that First Amendment protections are not subject to negotiation by outside powers.

Rubio’s remarks also underscored widening differences between U.S. policy priorities and those of the United Kingdom and parts of Europe. On matters such as online censorship frameworks, border enforcement, and continued involvement in the war in Ukraine, the administration stressed that U.S. policy is set by American voters and institutions, not foreign partners. Cooperation with allies, officials said, does not include allowing external influence over domestic elections or public debate.

Election security officials have warned that modern foreign interference increasingly focuses on shaping narratives and suppressing viewpoints rather than directly manipulating voting systems. By restricting the entry or activities of foreign-linked agents, the administration says it is drawing a clear boundary between legitimate diplomacy and unacceptable interference.

Supporters argue the move reinforces constitutional protections and national independence, while critics caution it could strain relations with close allies. The administration’s position remains that alliances do not override constitutional limits, and that any foreign government attempting to influence U.S. speech or elections should expect consequences.

SOURCES (ADDRESS LINKS)

https://www.state.gov

https://www.cisa.gov/election-security

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Weather Safety Reminder as Strong Storms Move Through the Region

It is Important to Stay Informed Through Your Local News, Weather Radio, or Official Alerts

If you live in an area currently experiencing strong storms or severe weather warnings, it is important to stay informed through your local news, weather radio, or official alerts.

Conditions can change quickly, and being aware of temperature shifts, wind, heavy rain, or severe storm warnings can help you make safer decisions about travel, work, and outdoor activities. Dressing appropriately and planning ahead can reduce risk, especially if power outages or hazardous conditions develop.

Recent forecasts have also included warnings about possible strain on electrical grids due to high demand and storm-related damage. I know this is real and so should you. I experienced an outage that lasted 5 hours last night (Tuesday 01/20).

Because of this, it may be a good idea to complete cooking or baking earlier rather than later, especially for meals you plan to rely on during the storm period. Preparing food ahead of time allows it to be eaten right away or safely chilled or frozen in case of outages. Simple preparation steps can help reduce stress and improve safety if weather conditions worsen.

sources (address links)

https://www.weather.gov

https://www.noaa.gov

https://www.ready.gov/power-outages

https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/severeweather

https://www.weather.gov/safety

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Minnesota A.G. Keith Ellison clashes with DOJ over Church Disruption and Protest Laws

What the Law Actually says, What Investigators Look for, and Why this Fight Matters

Minnesotat AG Keith Ellison, on right, speaks with disgraced ‘reporter’ Don Lemon on his show on Monday. Credit: Don Lemon YouTube screenshot

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison is facing backlash after comments he made about a recent church disruption tied to anti-ICE activism, with critics saying he misunderstood or minimized laws that protect peaceful assembly and religious worship.

Supporters of Ellison argue he was defending free speech and warning against stretching criminal laws to punish protest activity or journalism.

The controversy centers on an incident in St. Paul where protesters entered a church service and interrupted worship, which has now triggered federal attention. The U.S. Department of Justice, through its civil rights leadership, has said the matter is under investigation and has publicly suggested that charges could be pursued depending on the facts, including whether anyone used force, threats, or physical obstruction.

The FBI serves multiple officials grand jury subpoenas for conspiring to obstruct and impede federal law enforcement, including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison.Rob Bluey joins us for more and what comes next.

Don Lemon, formerly of CNN, brags about violating the law and intimidating congregants at a Minneapolis church as botox liberals call all Christian churchgoers “white supremacists.”

One federal law being discussed is the FACE Act, which is often associated with clinics but also covers places of religious worship. In plain terms, it focuses on whether someone used force, threats of force, or physical obstruction to intentionally interfere with people exercising religious freedom at a place of worship. The law also includes language that it is not meant to ban peaceful expressive activity protected by the First Amendment, which is why these cases often turn on the details of what happened in the room, not just the message being shouted.

Ellison’s position, as reported, is that the protesters did not violate the FACE Act based on how he reads the law and the protections for expression and assembly. Critics say that view ignores how the law treats intimidation and obstruction in a worship setting, while defenders say you cannot treat every disruption as a federal civil rights crime without chilling lawful protest. This is the “botched meaning of the law” accusation people are circulating: one side says he’s covering for activists; the other says he’s preventing an overreach.

Another point being mixed into the debate is Minnesota’s own public-order law on unlawful assembly. Minnesota Statute 609.705 says an assembly becomes unlawful if three or more people gather with intent to commit an unlawful act by force, or to carry out a purpose in a way that disturbs or threatens public peace, or if they act disorderly enough to disturb or threaten the public peace. This law is commonly used in crowd-control policies as a basis for declaring an unlawful assembly and ordering dispersal, but it still depends on conduct and intent, not just political viewpoint.

Where Don Lemon enters the story is the claim that he was not just reporting but was “embedded” with protesters and had advance knowledge of what was planned at the church. Some reporting says he livestreamed the lead-up and later disputed the idea that he was involved beyond documenting events, which raises the question of whether someone is acting as press, participant, or organizer. That distinction matters because being present with a camera is not automatically criminal, but coordinating, scouting, or helping execute a plan could change how investigators view someone’s role.

The most important legal reality is this: in both federal and state systems, charges usually depend on specific evidence of actions like threats, intimidation, obstruction, trespass, coordinated interference, or refusal to obey lawful dispersal orders. That is why public statements from officials often conflict, because they may be arguing about principles while investigators are building cases around video, witness accounts, communications, and intent. This is also why the public may see a “delay” while authorities sort out which laws apply and whether the facts meet the threshold.

From a conservative perspective, the core concern is that worship services and churches should be treated as protected spaces, and that organized disruptions should bring real consequences, especially if intimidation occurred. From a more middle-of-the-road perspective, the concern is that officials should protect worship while also avoiding prosecutions that punish peaceful expression or turn politically charged events into selective enforcement. The outcome will likely come down to whether prosecutors believe the conduct crossed from protest into obstruction or intimidation under the law.

sources (address links)

https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/minnesota-ag-ellison-says-anti-ice-protesters-who-stormed-church-didnt-violate-face-act-harmeet-dhillon-civil-rights-reproductive-rights

https://www.foxnews.com/media/st-paul-pastor-denounces-anti-ice-agitators-who-disrupted-church-service-says-were-here-worship-jesus

https://www.justice.gov/crt/freedom-access-clinic-entrances-places-religious-worship

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/248

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.705

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/don-lemon-minnesota-church-ice-b2903053.html

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Click to the image above to see video on Substack

I Know You Are... And So Am I..

I hear how angry you are. But “just go in and grab” a governor isn’t how the U.S. system works—

There should be no such thing as Sanctuary States...When do the complicit politicians get arrested?

Its time for the Trump admin to just go in and grab Governor Walz like they did Maduro. Get these traitors out of office now!!! Democrats are Destroying America!

Sanctuary states: legal reality

“Sanctuary” isn’t a single legal status. It usually means a state or city limits how much its local police/jails help with federal civil immigration enforcement (for example, refusing ICE “detainer” requests unless there’s a judge-signed warrant). Congress’s own legal overviews note these policies vary widely and often rely on the principle that the federal government generally can’t force states to use their resources to enforce federal programs.

“When do complicit politicians get arrested?”

When there’s evidence of a specific crime and due process happens—investigation, grand jury, charges/indictment, then arrest or summons. What’s happening right now in Minnesota (as of January 20, 2026) is that grand jury subpoenas were served as part of a Justice Department investigation into alleged obstruction of federal immigration enforcement. A subpoena is not an arrest; it’s a demand for records/testimony during an investigation.

Why “grab Walz like Maduro” isn’t a U.S. model

Whatever anyone thinks about the Venezuela operation, a U.S. state governor is a domestic elected official. Federal action against a governor would still require a lawful criminal basis and the normal constitutional process (courts, warrants, grand jury, trial rights). Political disagreement—even harsh disagreement—doesn’t equal “treason” under U.S. law.

If you want change fast, the lawful routes are

Courts: challenge state/local policies (preemption, obstruction claims, etc.).

Legislatures: state reforms, oversight, and (where applicable) impeachment mechanisms.

Elections/recall: the most direct lever for executive officials.

Here is the plain-English legal breakdown for Minnesota (and sanctuary jurisdictions generally)—what actually has to happen before arrests or removals are lawful.

When CAN politicians be arrested? (Not opinions — legal thresholds)

1. Policy disagreement is NOT a crime

A governor or mayor cannot be arrested simply for supporting sanctuary policies or criticizing ICE. Courts have consistently ruled that:

States may decline to assist with federal immigration enforcement

Political speech and policy choices are protected, even if controversial

This is why anger alone — even justified anger — does not trigger arrests.

What WOULD cross the criminal line?

2. Obstruction of federal law (this is the key charge)

A politician becomes criminally exposed if prosecutors can show intentional interference, not just non-cooperation.

Examples that could qualify:

Ordering officials to hide, destroy, or falsify records

Directing police to physically block federal agents

Warning targets in advance of ICE operations

Using state power to prevent execution of lawful federal warrants

Coordinating actions specifically to frustrate federal arrests

This must be documented, not assumed.

3. Conspiracy or aiding and abetting

If evidence shows officials coordinated with others to stop enforcement, that can trigger:

Conspiracy charges

Aiding and abetting violations of federal law

This is where grand juries come in — subpoenas, testimony, records.

4. Why subpoenas matter more than protests

Subpoenas mean prosecutors are:

Testing intent

Mapping chains of command

Looking for written orders, emails, or recordings

Many cases die here. Others escalate quietly.

No arrests happen until:

A grand jury votes to indict

A judge issues warrants or summons

Why “grab the governor” would BACKFIRE legally

If the federal government arrested a sitting governor without indictment:

Every case tied to it would collapse

Courts would rule it unconstitutional

It would strengthen sanctuary defenses nationwide

That’s not weakness — that’s how the system avoids becoming a banana republic.

What removal CAN look like (realistic paths)

Path 1: Criminal indictment → arrest or court summons

Rare, slow, but decisive if evidence exists.

Path 2: Impeachment or recall (state-level)

Political removal, not criminal — faster but requires votes.

Courts can:

Path 3: Federal court rulings

Invalidate sanctuary policies

Force compliance with specific federal actions

Open the door for later criminal cases if orders are ignored

The hard truth

If politicians are protecting criminals in practice, the law can reach them — but only through evidence and process, not force.

The system moves slow by design, because once it moves, it must hold up in court.

EXACTLY what evidence DOJ would need to indict a governor or mayor

A governor cannot be arrested for beliefs or policies. DOJ must prove criminal intent + action. The bar is high on purpose.

A. Obstruction of federal law (most realistic charge)

To indict, prosecutors must show affirmative interference, not passive refusal.

Required evidence includes:

Written or recorded orders telling officials to block ICE
Instructions to ignore judicial warrants, not ICE detainers
Proof of advance warning to illegal aliens about enforcement
Use of state police to physically impede federal agents
Evidence of destroyed or falsified records
Testimony from subordinates confirming intent

Without documents, recordings, or cooperating witnesses, no case survives court.

B. Conspiracy or aiding & abetting

This requires proof of coordination, such as:

Meetings or communications planning interference
Coordination with activist groups or NGOs to disrupt arrests
State resources used knowingly to shield offenders

This is why DOJ focuses on emails, texts, Signal chats, calendars, not press statements.

C. Civil rights violations (rare but serious)

Only applies if officials:

Directed selective non-enforcement based on protected class
Knowingly released violent offenders who then harmed others

Even then, causation must be airtight.

2. WHY sanctuary policies persist despite outrage

This frustrates people because it feels lawless — but legally, it isn’t simple.

A. Anti-commandeering doctrine

Supreme Court precedent says:

The federal government cannot force states to use their personnel or money to enforce federal programs
States can say “we won’t help,” but cannot actively obstruct

This is the legal shield sanctuary states hide behind.

B. ICE detainers vs warrants

Most sanctuary fights hinge on this:

ICE detainers are requests, not warrants
Holding someone without a judge-signed warrant can violate state law and civil rights statutes

So cities refuse detainers to avoid lawsuits — even if it angers voters.

C. Political insulation

Sanctuary states:

Control their legislatures
Control state courts
Rely on activist judges and NGOs to litigate endlessly

This creates a legal moat, not because they’re right — but because they’re entrenched.

3. HOW Trump could dismantle sanctuary states WITHOUT arrests

This is the key point: power is more effective than spectacle.

A. Financial pressure (most effective)

The federal government can:

Condition grants tied to law enforcement, housing, transit, and emergency funds
Require cooperation benchmarks
Force states to choose between ideology and funding

This has survived court scrutiny when narrowly tailored.

B. Federal preemption lawsuits

DOJ can sue states arguing:

Sanctuary laws conflict with federal supremacy
Active interference violates constitutional authority

Winning doesn’t require arrests — just injunctions.

C. Targeted prosecutions (not governors first)

DOJ typically:

Starts with lower-level officials
Pressures cooperation upward
Builds cases quietly

This is how real power moves — not headline raids.

D. Federal enforcement surges

Trump can:

Expand ICE, Border Patrol, and federal task forces
Operate independently of local police
Use federal facilities and transport

This bypasses sanctuary systems entirely.

E. Civil liability exposure

Victims harmed by released offenders can sue:

Cities
Counties
Supervisors

The threat of lawsuits changes behavior fast.

4. WHY “just arrest them” would collapse everything

If the federal government arrested a sitting governor without indictment:

Courts would immediately block it
Sanctuary policies would be strengthened nationwide
DOJ credibility would be destroyed
Every downstream case would fail

That path helps sanctuary states, not defeats them.

5. THE uncomfortable truth

Sanctuary policies survive not because they are popular, but because:

They exploit legal gray zones
They weaponize bureaucracy and delay
They dare the federal government to overreach

The fastest way to break them is lawful pressure, not force.

Bottom line (no spin)

The U.S. is still ruled by law — but power determines how the law is applied
Arrests come last, not first
Trump’s strongest tools are funding, courts, enforcement scale, and patience
Sanctuary states fall when compliance becomes cheaper than resistance

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Beyond the United Nations: A New Multipolar Power Structure Emerges

An Alternative to the United Nations? New Global Initiative Unveiled

A growing number of countries are openly questioning whether the United Nations still serves its original purpose in a rapidly changing world.

Critics argue that the United Nations has become slow, politicized, and heavily influenced by a small group of powerful nations, often failing to prevent wars, humanitarian crises, or economic instability. From this viewpoint, the system no longer reflects today’s global balance of power or the priorities of developing nations.

In response, a new international initiative is taking shape outside the traditional UN framework. Supporters describe it as a multipolar alternative focused on regional cooperation, economic sovereignty, and non-interference in domestic affairs. Instead of binding resolutions enforced by sanctions or military pressure, this emerging model emphasizes voluntary alignment, trade partnerships, infrastructure development, and security cooperation based on mutual interest rather than ideology.

Much of the momentum behind this idea comes from countries already working together through blocs such as BRICS and the Non-Aligned Movement. These nations argue that global governance should not be dominated by Western financial institutions, permanent Security Council members, or post-World War II power structures. They see a chance to build parallel institutions that handle development loans, conflict mediation, and diplomatic coordination without relying on UN approval.

From this perspective, the initiative is not necessarily about abolishing the United Nations overnight, but about rendering it less central over time. As alternative forums grow stronger, countries may increasingly bypass the UN when addressing trade disputes, regional conflicts, or economic development. Advocates believe this shift could reduce proxy wars, weaken sanctions-based coercion, and allow nations more freedom to pursue their own paths.

Whether this emerging framework succeeds remains uncertain. Skeptics warn that competing global systems could increase fragmentation and rivalry, while supporters believe the current order is already fractured and simply refusing to acknowledge it. What is clear is that the conversation has moved beyond reforming the United Nations and toward imagining a world where global cooperation exists without a single dominant authority at the center.

Is the world still ruled by law — or only by power?

International law still exists, and it still matters, but it does not work the way most people imagine. It does not have a single global police force that can compel every country to comply. In practice, international law works best when major powers and regional coalitions choose to enforce it, when states need legitimacy, and when institutions can generate costs for breaking rules through diplomacy, trade, finance, and reputation. When great powers see core interests at stake, the system often shifts from “law first” to “power first,” especially at the U.N. Security Council where veto politics can stop action even during major conflicts.

What “rule of law” looks like globally

Global law is a web of treaties, courts, and norms. It shapes how borders are recognized, how wars are justified, how sanctions are structured, how shipping and airspace work, and how states settle many disputes quietly. The issue is enforcement: courts can issue rulings, but compliance usually depends on whether states cooperate. The U.S. Congressional Research Service notes that the ICJ and ICC operate differently and that enforcement mechanisms are limited and often political, because implementation depends on states and international pressure rather than automatic force.

Why power keeps winning in headline crises

When the stakes are high, power often overrides law because the strongest actors can absorb reputational hits, bypass institutions, or block action. The U.N. Secretary-General has repeatedly warned that countries “flouting” international law erodes global cooperation, which is a polite way of acknowledging the obvious: rules don’t restrain the powerful unless other powerful actors decide they will. Recent debates about Security Council paralysis, and how the veto prevents action when a permanent member is involved or aligned, highlight the built-in limits of the post-1945 design.

Sanctions have become the main enforcement tool for “law and order”

Instead of consistent legal enforcement, the modern system increasingly uses economic coercion: sanctions, export controls, banking restrictions, and secondary pressure on third parties. U.S. sanctions programs are formally administered through Treasury’s OFAC and often framed as national security or foreign policy tools. Outside the legal theory, sanctions function like a global power lever because the dollar system, shipping insurance, and cross-border banking can be influenced by a small number of hubs. Data tracking sanctions shows the scale has grown dramatically in recent years, suggesting the “rules-based order” is often enforced through financial mechanisms more than courts.

The “multipolar” shift is also a legitimacy fight

The emerging multipolar push is partly about power, but also about who gets to define fairness. BRICS states and partners have increasingly argued that institutions like the IMF and the Security Council reflect outdated power realities. Reuters reported BRICS finance ministers backing unified proposals for IMF quota reforms and challenging old leadership traditions, signaling that governance reform is a central battleground—because the ability to set rules is power. Think tanks and policy groups describe BRICS expansion as accelerating a multipolar order, even while noting internal asymmetries and competing interests.

What this means in plain English

The world is not “ruled by law” the way a country is. It is partly ruled by law when interests align, when enforcement is feasible, and when legitimacy is valuable. It is “ruled by power” when major players decide the rules don’t apply to them, or when rival powers prevent enforcement. The real operating system is a blend: law provides language and structure, and power determines how far that structure can be pushed.

Predicted possible outcomes (2026–2030 range)

1) Two-track world: law for trade, power for security

Most countries will keep relying on legal frameworks for commerce (contracts, shipping, aviation, dispute settlement), but security crises will increasingly be managed through alliances, arms, and economic pressure rather than U.N.-centered enforcement. This is the “managed fragmentation” path.

2) Sanctions escalation and counter-systems

Sanctions and export controls will likely expand further, especially in tech, finance, energy shipping, and dual-use goods. In response, more states will invest in alternative payment rails, local currency settlement, and regional development lending to reduce vulnerability to Western financial chokepoints. The result is a slower, more expensive global economy with more “trade inside blocs.”

3) Legitimacy crisis deepens at the U.N., but the U.N. survives

Expect continued criticism of Security Council paralysis and veto use, alongside calls for reform. But Charter-level reform is structurally hard, so the more realistic outcome is not replacement but bypass: states and coalitions will do more outside the UN when urgency is high, while still using UN agencies for humanitarian and technical functions.

4) Regional blocks gain real authority

The ICJ and ICC will remain important as legitimacy tools—shaping narratives, documentation, and diplomatic pressure—but enforcement will still hinge on state cooperation. You may see more warrants, more rulings, more headlines, and continuing uneven compliance.

Address Sources

United Nations – Official website and charter

https://www.un.org

BRICS official cooperation portal

https://brics2023.gov.za

https://eng.brics-russia2024.ru

Non-Aligned Movement official site

https://namiran.org

UN Security Council structure and veto power overview

https://www.un.org/securitycouncil

World Bank governance and voting power data

https://www.worldbank.org

International Monetary Fund governance structure

https://www.imf.org

Council on Foreign Relations analysis on multipolar world order

https://www.cfr.org

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace – global order and multilateral institutions

https://carnegieendowment.org

Foreign Affairs magazine – debates on post-UN global systems

https://www.foreignaffairs.com

Brookings Institution – shifting global governance models

https://www.brookings.edu

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Armed Militias now armed to fight ICE

Antifa Leader Calls For Leftist Militias To Attack Federal Agents

There’s no confirmed evidence of a broad, organized wave of “militias” openly arming up nationwide specifically to fight ICE, but there are credible reports of isolated violent plots/attacks and heightened threats linked to anti-ICE extremism, alongside large-scale (mostly non-armed) protest activity.

What the reporting shows:

In Minnesota, recent coverage describes mass enforcement operations and intense protest activity, including “watch networks” that document arrests and alert neighbors—this is activism, not proof of armed militias.
DHS has publicly claimed a sharp increase in assaults and threats against ICE personnel and blames political rhetoric—this indicates rising hostility, though the exact causes and verification of those numbers can be debated.
Separate reporting over the past year has documented armed incidents/ambush-style attacks and investigations tied to anti-ICE violence (notably the Alvarado detention-facility case and related “Fight ICE…” materials found by law enforcement). Those are real cases, but they don’t equal a nationwide “militia army” in the streets.
The Guardian has also reported the FBI opened domestic terrorism investigations into anti-ICE activity across multiple regions, which suggests federal concern about escalation, even if details vary case-by-case.

So the most factual way to put it: There’s evidence of scattered violent actors and active investigations, while most anti-ICE activity being reported in places like Minnesota looks like organized protest and monitoring, not armed militia formations.

Recent reporting on protests, threats, and investigations

The Washington Post

One day of the ICE operation in Minneapolis - and the activists fighting it

Economic blackout day planned in Minnesota to protest ICE surge

The Guardian

https://www.whitehouse.gov

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Trump Surprises Reporters by Appearing at Karoline Leavitt Press Briefing

White House reporters were left stunned when Donald Trump suddenly walked in..

White House reporters were caught off guard when Donald Trump unexpectedly appeared during a press briefing led by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.

The moment quickly drew attention because presidents do not typically step into routine press briefings, especially without advance notice.

Trump used the appearance to reinforce his messaging directly to the media, briefly addressing current political issues and responding to questions, which shifted the tone of the briefing and energized the room. The unscheduled move highlighted Trump’s hands-on media style and his willingness to bypass traditional norms to speak straight to reporters, while Leavitt continued the briefing after the appearance without interruption.

Address links (sources)

https://www.foxnews.com/media

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

A misdemeanor is a crime in U.S. Law.

So if Someone Says “A Misdemeanor Isn’t a Crime,” That’s Incorrect

A legal debate has intensified after a CNN legal analyst explained that entering a church service without permission and disrupting worship can carry real legal consequences, regardless of political motivation.

The analyst noted that churches are private property and are also protected under federal and state laws that safeguard religious worship from intimidation or disruption. If investigators determine that activists knowingly interfered with a service, ignored requests to leave, or disrupted congregants, charges such as trespass or interference with religious exercise could apply. This analysis has drawn attention because media figure Don Lemon and several activists, some linked to Black Lives Matter causes, have publicly denied wrongdoing, arguing their actions were protected speech. Legal experts counter that free speech rights do not override property rights or laws protecting religious gatherings, meaning the final outcome will depend on specific facts such as consent, intent, and whether laws were violated during the incident.

A misdemeanor is a crime in U.S. law.

“Crime” is a broad category that generally includes felonies and misdemeanors (and in many places, lesser “infractions/violations” that may not be labeled crimes).

A misdemeanor can still lead to arrest, prosecution, conviction, fines, probation, and jail time (usually up to 1 year in a local jail, depending on the jurisdiction).

Where people sometimes get tripped up is immigration talk:

Some immigration violations are civil (not crimes), like many visa overstay situations—handled through removal proceedings, not criminal court.

Other conduct is explicitly criminal under federal law. For example, illegal entry is typically prosecuted as a misdemeanor for a first offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1325, while illegal reentry after removal is generally a felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

So if someone says “a misdemeanor isn’t a crime,” that’s incorrect. A more accurate argument (if that’s what they meant) would be: some immigration violations are civil, not criminal—but when it’s a misdemeanor, it’s still a crime.

Address links (sources)

https://www.cnn.com

https://www.foxnews.com/media

https://www.weforum.org/meetings/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2026/sessions/special-address-by-donald-j-trump-president-of-the-united-states-of-america-49a709be7a/

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Davos and Donald Trump: What Is Actually Happening at the World Economic Forum

WEF leaders confront a U.S. agenda that rejects global control - Trump’s message rattles Davos consensus

The World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland began on Monday, January 19, 2026, and runs through January 23, bringing together top leaders from government, business, and civil society to discuss major global issues like the economy, technology, security, and climate.

The WEF is not a government body that signs treaties or passes laws; it’s a meeting place where influential people hold speeches, panels, and private meetings, and where ideas and business or diplomatic relationships are often shaped. The event traces back to 1971, when it began in Davos as a gathering of business leaders (later expanding to include more political and civil society leaders), and it has been hosted in Davos for decades as the WEF’s flagship annual meeting.

U.S. President Donald Trump is attending the forum and will give a special address to the assembled delegates, including heads of state, CEOs, and international officials. Trump’s presence has become a central talking point because his policies—especially threats to impose tariffs on European goods tied to his dispute over Greenland’s sovereignty—have heightened geopolitical tensions just as global leaders gather in the Swiss Alps.

U.S. President Donald Trump is scheduled to speak directly to leaders gathered at the World Economic Forum, including heads of government, major corporate executives, and international officials. His appearance has drawn unusual attention because his policy positions challenge long-standing global economic arrangements, especially his warnings about new tariffs on European goods linked to disputes over Greenland’s strategic status. These positions have increased pressure on European leaders and global markets at a time when cooperation is normally emphasized, and they highlight deeper disagreements over national sovereignty, trade leverage, and who sets the rules of the global system as power balances shift.

Trump’s focus at Davos reflects broader debates over global economic cooperation versus national economic interests. Some leaders and commentators have expressed concern that Trump’s approach, including tariff threats and hardened negotiating tactics, could challenge the longstanding “rules-based” global order that forums like the WEF promote. Others at Davos are stressing the need to calm tensions, preserve trade ties, and coordinate on issues such as security and economic growth.

President Donald Trump has brought a clear contrast to Davos by pushing back against systems that favor centralized control, global planning, and shared economic rules that often limit national choice. Many leaders at the forum support models where governments and institutions manage markets, redistribute resources, and coordinate policies across borders, ideas commonly tied to socialist or collectivist thinking. Trump’s position challenges that approach by arguing that countries should put their own workers, industries, and security first, even if that means using tariffs or tougher negotiations. Supporters say this benefits the United States by protecting jobs, reducing dependence on foreign supply chains, and forcing fairer trade terms instead of accepting rules that mainly help global elites. Critics warn this could disrupt cooperation, but the debate at Davos shows a deeper divide between centralized global management and national self-determination, with Trump clearly siding with policies that strengthen U.S. leverage, independence, and economic control.

Overall, while Trump’s attendance has drawn extra attention, the World Economic Forum remains a place for discussion and debate rather than a setting where any one leader can unilaterally “dismantle” the event or global cooperation itself. The talks in Davos reflect ongoing global debates about trade, security, and how countries work together in a complex world.

While President Donald Trump draws attention at Davos, the World Economic Forum itself remains a place where ideas are exchanged, not a body that makes laws or controls nations. What stands out is the clear divide between leaders who favor systems built on shared control, heavy government involvement, and international rules that spread power across borders, and those who argue that countries should protect their own workers, industries, and security first.

Many speakers at Davos support economic models that resemble socialist or collectivist thinking, where decisions are shaped by global institutions and elite coordination. Trump’s approach challenges that mindset by pressing for tougher trade terms, stronger borders, and national decision-making, which supporters say benefits the United States by keeping jobs at home, reducing reliance on foreign systems, and preventing unelected global bodies from shaping American policy. The debates in Davos highlight this clash of ideas, showing a struggle between centralized global management and policies that prioritize U.S. strength, independence, and long-term stability.

Address links (sources)

https://www.reuters.com/business/davos/trump-meet-global-ceos-davos-with-us-policy-focus-2026-01-19/

https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2026/1/20/world-economic-forum-at-davos-2026-dates-location-and-what-to-expect

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-commission-working-package-support-arctic-security-von-der-leyen-says-2026-01-20/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/davos-elite-world-economic-forum-set-to-open-with-pro-business-trump-set-to-attend-and-inequality-on-the-rise

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

London Prepares for Trump’s Return as U.S. Power Shifts

Trump’s Rise Forces London to Prepare for a New U.S. Reality

As Donald Trump’s election prospects strengthen, officials and analysts in London are openly discussing contingency planning for a possible second Trump presidency, often described as a “Plan B.”

This planning reflects concerns over how U.S. policy could shift on trade, NATO funding, Ukraine, and global security, areas where Trump has previously taken positions that differ from current European approaches.

In London, the “Plan B” talk is basically about contingency planning for how Britain should respond if a Trump-led U.S. shifts policy in ways that directly affect the UK and Europe—especially on trade tariffs, NATO burden-sharing, and the Ukraine war. Recent reporting shows UK leaders are already dealing with the risk of tariffs and trying to prevent a wider trade fight, while also emphasizing that tariffs against allies could damage NATO unity. Separately, reporting has described UK officials preparing options for possible retaliation if U.S. tariffs hit British exports, even while the government says it prefers to keep the U.S. relationship stable. And on the security side, the UK has publicly tied its planning to the reality that the U.S. may press Europeans to do more on defense and Ukraine support, which is why British policy debates have increasingly focused on strengthening Europe’s own capacity so it is less exposed to sudden U.S. shifts.

British policymakers are weighing how to protect national interests if U.S. foreign policy becomes more transactional, including closer coordination with European partners, increased defense spending, and more independent trade strategies. These discussions do not signal hostility toward the United States, but rather a recognition that a Trump victory could reshape long-standing alliances and require the UK to adjust quickly to new diplomatic and economic realities under Donald Trump.

British officials and security experts have been weighing “Plan B” options because a Trump-led U.S. can change priorities quickly and demand clearer “give-and-get” terms from allies, especially on trade and defense. One concrete driver has been tariff risk: Reuters has reported the UK preparing and consulting on possible retaliation options in case U.S. tariffs hit British exports, even while London says it prefers de-escalation and keeping the relationship stable. On defense, Trump and U.S. officials have repeatedly emphasized burden-sharing in NATO, and Reuters has also reported U.S. pressure for Europe to take a larger lead role on conventional defense—pushing UK policymakers to talk more openly about higher defense spending and closer coordination with European partners so Europe is less exposed to sudden U.S. shifts. In plain terms, “transactional” planning here means the UK is trying to make sure it has backup paths—stronger European cooperation, more self-reliance in security, and trade strategies that can withstand tariffs or policy swings—without treating the U.S. as an enemy.

What Mike Pence has to do with it

Mike Pence matters here mostly as a signal to allies and a credible Republican voice pushing back on how Trump handles allies—especially when “London’s Plan B” is about preparing for sudden U.S. policy swings. Recent coverage of the Greenland-tariff dispute reported Pence criticizing Trump’s approach and warning it could fracture NATO relationships, even while saying he understands Greenland’s strategic importance. From London’s perspective, comments like Pence’s reinforce that even within the Republican world there are divisions about using tariffs and pressure tactics on allies, which helps explain why UK officials plan for multiple outcomes: a smoother, traditional alliance track if cooler heads shape policy, or a more “transactional” track if Trump follows through on tough demands. Separately, Pence is also relevant because his break with Trump after 2020 and his later refusal to endorse Trump highlighted the internal GOP split that can affect how predictable U.S. policy will be from Europe’s viewpoint.

Address links (sources)

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk

https://www.foxnews.com/media

https://www.ft.com

https://www.bbc.com/news

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Don Lemon Faces Backlash After Pastor Calls for DOJ Action Over Church Disruption

Pastor accuses activists of disrupting worship service, sparking legal debate over protest, religion, and free speech

A public dispute has erupted after a pastor accused activists of disrupting a church service and publicly called on the Trump-led Department of Justice to investigate and arrest those involved, including media figure Don Lemon.

The incident has drawn attention online as another flashpoint in the broader culture-war debate over protest, religion, and free speech in the United States, with sharply different accounts of what happened inside the church.

According to reports, the pastor said activists entered the church without permission and disrupted a religious gathering, which he described as an invasion of private property and an attack on religious freedom. He argued that churches should be protected under the law and claimed that political activism inside a place of worship crosses a legal and moral line, especially when it interferes with services and congregants.

Don Lemon responded strongly to the accusations, rejecting claims that he or allied activists committed any crime and framing the pastor’s comments as an attempt to silence political speech. Video clips and social media posts show Lemon criticizing the call for arrests as extreme and politically motivated, which helped fuel online backlash and intensified media coverage of the dispute.

The U.S. Department of Justice has not announced any investigation related to the incident. Legal experts note that entering private property without permission can raise legal issues, but outcomes depend heavily on specific facts, such as consent, intent, and whether laws were actually violated. At the same time, protests connected to churches have become more common in recent years as political and social issues increasingly overlap with religious spaces.

The clash highlights growing tension between religious institutions and political activism, especially during a polarized election period. Supporters of the pastor argue that churches must remain protected spaces, while critics warn against using law enforcement to target speech or activism. The incident adds to an ongoing national debate over where protest rights end and private or religious protections begin.

Address links (sources)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics

Narrative war: Who killed thousands during Iran’s nationwide protests?

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

The Very Latest on Iran Revolution

Latest on Iran Unrest and Protests (Jan 2026)

Here’s the very latest on the ongoing nationwide upheaval in Iran, where widespread protests that began in December 2025 have escalated into the most serious unrest since the 1979 revolution:

Violent Crackdown and Death Toll

Estimates of fatalities vary widely due to communication blackouts, but multiple sources report thousands killed in the government’s response to protests. A U.S.-based activist group says it has verified at least 3,919 deaths, making this the deadliest unrest in decades.
Iranian authorities, now openly acknowledging “several thousand” dead, reported at least 5,000 total deaths, including around 500 security personnel, indicating intense clashes between protestors and regime forces.
The regime blames foreign interference from the United States and Israel for sparking and sustaining the unrest, a claim rejected by opposition groups and international analysts.

Because Iran has restricted internet access and reporting during the unrest, death toll estimates have been hard to confirm and have varied widely. In the most widely cited independent count, the U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) said it verified at least 3,919 deaths and warned the real number could be higher, since some cases cannot be fully documented during blackouts and mass arrests. Iranian officials have also begun giving much higher figures than in past crackdowns: a reported government-confirmed total of at least 5,000 deaths, including about 500 security personnel, suggests sustained, violent clashes across multiple areas. Iran’s leadership has publicly blamed the unrest on foreign enemies—especially the United States and Israel—while opposition groups and many outside analysts reject that explanation and point instead to domestic grievances and heavy security force actions as central drivers of the violence.

Protests Spread and Government Tactics

Demonstrations have now stretched into their fourth week, despite a near-total internet blackout imposed by authorities since January 8 aimed at disrupting organization and suppressing reporting.
Reports indicate continued tight security control, curfews, and pressure on families of those killed, while protests have shifted from open street demonstrations to more constrained forms of dissent due to harsh repression.

Demonstrations in Iran have continued into a fourth week after protests began in late December, but what people can see and report has been sharply limited because authorities imposed a nationwide internet blackout starting January 8, a move rights groups say makes it much harder for protesters to organize and for outside groups and journalists to verify what is happening on the ground. Even with streets quieter in some places, reports from inside the country describe heavy security deployments, restrictions that function like curfews in parts of some cities, and pressure on families seeking information or trying to retrieve bodies—conditions that can push protests away from large public marches and toward more constrained acts of dissent, like nighttime chants from homes or smaller, harder-to-detect gatherings.

Global and Diaspora Reactions

Iranian expatriates and global supporters have held marches in cities like New York and Los Angeles, condemning Tehran’s crackdown and calling for international action. One protester shared that a relative was killed during rallies, and some abroad express hope for leadership change.
In Germany, solidarity rallies have also drawn thousands criticizing the Iranian regime’s actions and calling for protection of exiled communities.

Iranian expatriates and other supporters have held public rallies outside Iran to condemn Tehran’s crackdown and push governments to respond, even as information from inside the country has been restricted by blackouts and arrests. In the United States, a few thousand people gathered and marched in Los Angeles near City Hall in support of protesters in Iran, and smaller crowds also demonstrated in New York, with protesters calling attention to the reported death toll and urging international pressure on Iran’s leaders. In Germany and other European countries, thousands of exiled Iranians have also turned out for solidarity rallies—especially in cities like Berlin—criticizing the Iranian government’s actions, voicing fear for relatives they cannot reach, and urging authorities to protect diaspora and exile communities from intimidation or threats linked to the regime.

International Political Tension

The government in Tehran has escalated rhetoric, warning that any attack on Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would be viewed as a declaration of war, a statement tied to disputes over foreign involvement and potential U.S. responses.
President Trump and other U.S. figures have condemned the crackdown, called for a change in Iranian leadership, and applied sanctions on Iranian officials responsible for repression.

Iran’s leaders have recently escalated their public warnings by saying that any attempt to harm Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would be treated as a declaration of war against Iran—language tied to Tehran’s claims that foreign powers are involved in the unrest and to growing discussion about possible U.S. responses. At the same time, President Donald Trump and other U.S. officials have sharply condemned Iran’s crackdown on protesters and openly supported the idea of political change in Iran, while the U.S. Treasury has announced new sanctions targeting specific Iranian officials accused of directing or enabling repression.

Regime Control and Communications Blackout

The nationwide internet shutdown continues, severely limiting independent reporting and movement coordination, with concerns it may evolve into a more permanent censorship system to weaken dissent.

Iran’s nationwide communications blackout has continued since January 8, sharply reducing the ability of protesters, families, journalists, and human-rights groups to share videos, confirm deaths, or coordinate large gatherings in real time. Reuters and other outlets report that connectivity has been cut to near-zero for many users, while a limited “filternet” or whitelisted access has still functioned for some government-aligned institutions and services. Digital-rights monitors and outside experts say the shutdown does more than disrupt protests in the short term: it also gives authorities cover to expand a tighter, long-lasting censorship model by pushing people onto a state-controlled national network and restricting access to the open global internet.

In Summary
Iran’s protests have moved beyond economic grievances to broader demands against the clerical regime, prompting one of the deepest political crises in nearly fifty years. Hundreds to thousands have died, communications remain suppressed, and the unrest has drawn global attention, diaspora activism, and heightened geopolitical tensions — though exact figures and on-the-ground details remain difficult to verify due to the blackout and information control.

What began as protests over economic pressure in Iran has expanded into broader demands challenging the clerical system itself, creating one of the most serious political crises the country has faced in nearly five decades. Reports from human rights groups, media outlets, and Iranian officials indicate that hundreds to possibly several thousand people have been killed, though exact numbers remain uncertain because the government has kept a tight grip on information. A nationwide internet shutdown has limited independent reporting and made it difficult to confirm events on the ground, while security forces continue to suppress demonstrations. At the same time, protests by Iranian expatriates around the world and strong reactions from foreign governments have increased international attention and geopolitical tension, even as the true scale and outcome of the unrest remain hard to verify due to ongoing censorship and control.

Latest on Iran Unrest and Protests (Jan 2026)

Al Jazeera

The death toll from a crackdown on protests in Iran jumps to at least 2,571, activists say

AP News

5 days ago

PBS

U.S.-based activist agency says it has verified 3,919 deaths from Iran protests

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/live-updates/minnesota-protests-ice-shooting-law-enforcement/
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/19/doj-says-wont-investigate-ice-agents-fatal-shooting-of-renee-good
https://www.apnews.com/article/46dac5c5595ec78e3360ec927eef92d2
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-orders-curbs-immigration-agents-conduct-toward-minnesota-protesters-2026-01-17/

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Minnesota Protests Spiral as ICE Is Branded “Nazis” and Political Tensions Boil Over

Federal immigration enforcement faces growing backlash as street protests intensify, accusations fly, and public safety concerns mount in Minneapolis and surrounding cities

There is now Anarchy on the streets of Minn. ICE are being called NAZIs. Mobs are attacking people they “Suspect” are Trump supporters.

Tensions in Minneapolis and the surrounding Twin Cities have escalated sharply after the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renée Nicole Good by an ICE agent during a federal enforcement operation, sparking large protests and clashes between demonstrators and federal agents. Thousands of people have gathered repeatedly outside federal buildings demanding accountability and calling for ICE to leave, and the situation has included tear gas and pepper spray used by law enforcement, multiple detentions, and confrontations that local officials describe as chaotic and destabilizing.

The state has prepared the Minnesota National Guard and about 1,500 active-duty troops are on standby for possible deployment, while a federal judge has placed legal limits on how immigration agents may use force against peaceful protesters. The Justice Department has announced it will not investigate the ICE agent’s killing of Good, which has heightened public outrage and deepened distrust between protesters and federal authorities.

There have also been incidents such as a protest disruption at a church and ongoing clashes outside federal facilities, but major national media do not support claims of widespread “anarchy” or organized mobs attacking Trump supporters, instead reporting sustained and sometimes intense demonstrations focused on immigration policy and federal law enforcement presence in the city.

Sources & Address Links

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Isn't it About Time for The Insurrection Act?

California Governor Gavin Newsom has accused President Donald Trump of attempting to “stoke” a civil war

California Governor Gavin Newsom has accused President Donald Trump of attempting to “stoke” a civil war, escalating already heated political rhetoric as national tensions rise over immigration enforcement, protests, and federal authority.

Newsom’s remarks come amid clashes between protesters and law enforcement, disputes over ICE operations, and growing disagreements between Democratic-led states and the Trump administration over public safety and constitutional limits. Supporters of Newsom argue that Trump’s language and hardline policies inflame divisions and increase the risk of violence, while supporters of Trump counter that state leaders are misusing extreme language to deflect responsibility for unrest and failures to maintain order. The exchange reflects a broader breakdown in trust between federal and state leadership, where accusations of incitement, authoritarianism, or lawlessness are increasingly used by both sides, further deepening polarization during an already volatile political moment.

Isn’t this a misuse of the National Guard? ICE is doing the job of a duly elected President..

It can be a misuse, but it depends on what the National Guard is ordered to do, under what legal status, and whether they cross the line into law enforcement.

Here’s the clean way to think about it:

If ICE is enforcing immigration law, that’s a federal executive function. The Guard is not automatically needed for that, and using troops to pressure or intimidate civilians is exactly what critics warn about.
If the Guard is used for support roles (traffic control, logistics, communications, perimeter security, protecting federal buildings, medical aid), that’s more defensible and has real precedent. Congress’s research service notes Guard deployments have been used in immigration-related support missions before, often under Title 32 (state control but federally funded).
If the Guard (or active-duty troops) is used to do policing—detentions, searches, arrests, or direct crowd control as a law enforcement force—then it runs into major legal and constitutional concerns. That’s where the Posse Comitatus principle becomes relevant and where lawsuits tend to land.

What makes people say “misuse” right now is that the Minnesota situation is already politically explosive, and there are reports of the administration preparing or threatening escalated force options, including talk of the Insurrection Act and placing active-duty troops on alert. Minnesota’s lawsuit also frames prior Guard-related deployments and the current surge as unconstitutional overreach, and it points to recent court fights over federalizing Guard forces.

So the point is fair: ICE doing the president’s job doesn’t automatically justify bringing in the Guard. The strongest argument for Guard involvement is protecting people/property and preventing violence. The strongest argument against is that it can blur the line between civilian law enforcement and military force, and it can escalate tensions—especially if it’s used more as a political weapon than a narrowly defined safety tool.

Sources & Address Links

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10121

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-threatens-to-use-insurrection-act-to-put-down-protests-in-minneapolis

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/01/18/trump-minnesota-insurrection-act/

https://www.publicrightsproject.org/national-guard-fact-sheet/

https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/FAQ-on-Use-of-the-Military-for-Immigration-Enforcement.pdf

https://protectdemocracy.org/work/understanding-national-guard/

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/unpacking-trumps-order-authorizing-domestic-deployment-military

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/california-newsom-trump-civil-war-rhetoric

https://apnews.com/article/gavin-newsom-trump-immigration-protests

https://www.cnn.com/politics/newsom-trump-civil-war-comments

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/california-newsom-trump-remarks

Black Panther Party for Self-Defense showing up in Philadelphia amid tensions over ICE

Fighting for Illegal Immigrants?

Recent national news shows that a group identifying as the Black Panther Party for Self‑Defense reappeared in Philadelphia at demonstrations following a fatal shooting by an U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in Minneapolis.

The shooting of 37-year-old Renée Nicole Good by an ICE officer on January 7 sparked widespread protests and condemnation across the country, including in Philly, where community groups held vigils and marches.

Members of this Philadelphia group — some legally carrying firearms — showed up at an anti-ICE protest with the stated goal of supporting protesters and signaling resistance to federal enforcement tactics that many view as overly aggressive. They draw on the historical legacy of the Black Panther Party’s armed self-defense and community programs and say they are there to protect people from what they see as threats posed by ICE — although their presence has also drawn controversy and debate about escalation.

The broader backdrop involves growing public criticism of ICE, with polls showing increased opposition to the agency following the Minneapolis shooting, and legal actions in Minnesota seeking limits on federal agents’ tactics.

Sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Renee_Good

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/philadelphia-chapter-black-panther-party-164000656.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/01/18/trump-ice-minneapolis-polls-immigration/

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-orders-curbs-immigration-agents-conduct-toward-minnesota-protesters-2026-01-17/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/17/philadelphia-sheriff-viral-remarks-ice

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Farming Wasn’t Outlawed — It Was Redefined Out of Existence

"This is how you reduce farming without ever saying you are anti-farming."

Across the United States, farming has not been outlawed outright, but it is being quietly restricted through changing definitions at the county and zoning level, a tactic that avoids public debate or legislative votes.

Agricultural exemptions were originally created to protect food production, yet local governments are now narrowing what counts as “agriculture,” allowing them to deny permits while claiming farms are still legal. Real cases documented by Yanasa TV show greenhouses rejected as non-farm structures, small farm stores shut down for being labeled retail, food processing reclassified as industrial activity, and farm education programs deemed commercial enterprises.

On paper, farming still exists, but in practice, farmers are blocked from growing, processing, selling, or teaching food production unless they comply with costly regulations designed for large corporations. Critics argue this is not about safety or land use, but about control, consolidation, and pushing independent producers out without ever saying the word “ban.”

If food can no longer be grown, processed, or sold by farmers themselves, the question becomes unavoidable: if it feeds people, why isn’t it agriculture anymore?

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Greenland Pressure Campaign Signals U.S. Strategic Grab After Rubio Talks

The “Art of The Deal” coming right up! It’ll be a big “Win, win” for everyone in Greenland and America!

Reports claiming that Donald Trump is close to purchasing Greenland after meetings involving Marco Rubio are based more on strategic pressure and signaling than on any confirmed deal.

The push is viewed by some observers as a high-stakes leverage move tied to Arctic control, missile warning systems, rare-earth minerals, and blocking long-term influence from Russia and China, rather than a literal real-estate transaction. Greenland’s location makes it critical for U.S. early-warning defense and Arctic dominance, and raising the idea of a purchase forces Denmark and NATO partners to confront how exposed the region is becoming.

No verified documents show Greenland agreeing to a sale, but the repeated public pressure, senior-level meetings, and economic signals suggest the U.S. is testing how far it can push for control, basing rights, or special authority without formal annexation, using negotiation tactics that resemble hard-power diplomacy more than traditional alliance talks.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

UAE Halts Funding for Citizens Studying in the UK Over Radicalization Fears — What’s Behind the Decision

The UAE Halts Funding for Citizens Studying in the UK, Fearing Radicalization by Muslim Brotherhood Islamists

In January 2026, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) announced that it will no longer provide government-sponsored funding for Emirati students to study at universities in the United Kingdom.

The decision came after concerns among UAE officials that British campuses could expose young Emiratis to Islamist radicalization, especially linked to groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which the UAE has long viewed as a threat.

Under the new policy, British universities were excluded from the UAE’s list of schools eligible for government scholarships. This affects state-funded academic support that usually covers tuition, living costs, and other expenses for Emirati students abroad. Other countries’ universities, including those in the United States, France, Australia, and Israel, remain on the approved list.

UAE authorities told British counterparts that they did not want Emirati students to be influenced by what they see as potential Islamist ideologies on UK campuses. The move appears tied in part to tensions between the two nations over Britain’s refusal to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization — something the UAE has repeatedly urged London to do.

British officials, for their part, defended the safety of their universities and stressed the country’s commitment to academic freedom and student welfare. Wealthier Emirati families can still send children to UK schools at their own expense, but government support is now limited to other countries.

The policy change has already had measurable effects: data show a decline in Emirati student enrollments at UK universities in recent years. Leaders in both nations continue to engage diplomatically over the issue, even as broader educational and political ties evolve.

Address links

https://www.foxnews.com/world/uae-cuts-funding-citizens-studying-uk-universities-over-campus-radicalization-fears-report

https://www.ft.com/content/f256cc27-b80f-4fce-88cf-e80cb2451ef5

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/uae-restricts-scholarships-for-students-to-study-in-uk-amid-concerns-over-islamist-radicalisation/articleshow/126432669.cms

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/uae-cuts-funds-students-uk-islamist-groups-muslimn-brotherhood-b1265724.html

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-882985

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Susan Kokinda’s Geopolitics Breakdown: Trump, Gaza, Venezuela, Iran, and the “Board of Peace”

In this episode, analyst Susan Kokinda argues that President Trump is trying to move away from the old post-World War II foreign policy model and replace it with new partnerships aimed at reducing long wars and instability.

In her presentation, she frames current events in Iran, Venezuela, and the Middle East as connected pieces of a larger shift in how the U.S. uses power and how global elites respond when that approach changes.

One major, checkable development tied to this discussion is the Trump administration’s creation of a Gaza “Board of Peace,” described in mainstream reporting as a new body meant to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction and transitional governance following a fragile ceasefire. Reporting says the board is intended to attract investment and coordinate rebuilding and governance plans, and it has also faced skepticism and pushback, including questions about how it fits with existing international systems and who has real authority in Gaza.

On Venezuela, recent coverage connected to Trump’s approach includes reporting that Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado met with Trump and said she presented him her Nobel Peace Prize medal. This is a concrete event that shows an active political relationship, but it does not by itself prove broader claims about the full direction or results of U.S. Venezuela strategy. What it does document is that Venezuela’s opposition leadership is publicly engaging Trump and using high-profile symbolism to shape international attention.

On the Middle East and the Muslim Brotherhood, there have been recent, official U.S. actions that align with the “pressure and disruption” theme discussed in the episode. The U.S. Treasury and State Department announced terrorism-related designations aimed at certain Muslim Brotherhood branches, with the U.S. describing the move as part of a policy to curb influence and address alleged support for terrorist groups. These designations are documented government actions, while debates over evidence, impact, and regional politics continue in public coverage and responses from affected groups.

The episode also points to global “old order” reactions, using Mark Carney’s “new world order” language as an example of how leaders describe changing power balances. Recent reporting says Carney used that phrase while discussing Canada’s positioning and trade talks with China, and coverage framed it as part of a wider realignment debate happening across Western countries under economic and geopolitical pressure. This is a real, sourced statement, even though different outlets interpret what Carney meant and how significant the shift is.

Address links

https://www.prometheanaction.com/the-saturday-wrap-up-mark-carney-panic-the-new-world-order-is-dead-january-17-2026/

https://apnews.com/article/b27d17190177041865c6827acd042e56

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/16/trump-news-at-a-glance-gaza-board

https://apnews.com/article/trump-machado-venezuela-maduro-nobel-peace-prize-ed23992bccabf128b7e849259d3c29a8

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0357

https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/01/terrorist-designations-of-muslim-brotherhood-chapters

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/trump-labels-3-muslim-brotherhood-branches-as-terrorist-organizations

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/17/mark-carney-in-china-positions-canada-for-the-world-as-it-is-not-as-we-wish-it

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2026-01-16/carney-invokes-new-world-order-in-china-talks-video

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Congress and the Clintons: A Subpoena Standoff in 2026 — Power, Oversight, and the Limits of Congressional Authority

The Potential Contempt Proceedings would Require a Vote by the Committee and then by the full House of Representatives

In early January 2026, the United States Congress found itself in a major political confrontation with former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when both were subpoenaed to testify before the House Oversight Committee.

A subpoena is a legal order from a legislative body requiring a person to appear and provide testimony or documents. These subpoenas were issued as part of a broader congressional review of the federal government’s actions related to Jeffrey Epstein, a financier who had been convicted of sex crimes and died in 2019 while facing new federal charges.

The subpoenas, first approved by a bipartisan voice vote in the House subcommittee in July 2025 and formally issued in August 2025, asked the Clintons to appear for testimony about their past relationship with Epstein and related developments. However, when the scheduled deposition dates in January arrived, neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton appeared before the committee. Both responded through attorneys and written letters arguing that the subpoenas were legally invalid and unenforceable, claiming they lacked a clear legislative purpose and were politically motivated. The Clintons also said they had already provided all relevant information they had.

Congressional leaders, including House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, reacted by announcing plans to initiate contempt of Congress proceedings — a formal process that can result in legal penalties — against both Bill and Hillary Clinton for defying the subpoenas. Comer’s office emphasized that the subpoenas were unanimous and bipartisan, and noted the importance of compliance for congressional oversight. The potential contempt proceedings would require a vote by the committee and then by the full House of Representatives before being referred to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution.

This standoff highlights ongoing tensions between Congress’s authority to investigate and the rights of private citizens, even if they are former high-ranking government officials. The clash also reflects the broader political divide in Washington, with Democrats strongly defending the Clintons and Republicans pushing for aggressive oversight. As of the most recent reporting in January 2026, the contempt proceedings are moving forward, and the debate continues over the legal limits of congressional subpoenas and whether former national leaders can be compelled to testify decades after the issues under scrutiny occurred.

Links

https://oversight.house.gov/release/chairman-comer-house-oversight-committee-to-initiate-contempt-of-congress-proceedings-against-former-president-clinton-for-defying-bipartisan-subpoena/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/13/bill-hillary-clinton-epstein-investigation

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/13/clintons-reject-us-congress-subpoena-to-testify-in-epstein-investigation

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/bill-hillary-clinton-refuse-testify-house-epstein-probe-2026-01-13/

https://apnews.com/article/ad1f880ed716665f210025d8e57ff112

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Iran... The Latest Highlights

You Hit - We Hit

Claims that Iran’s government killed 12,000 people appear to be tied to reporting and commentary about the recent crackdown on anti-government protests, but that 12,000 figure is not independently verified and is significantly higher than the counts that major human-rights groups say they can currently confirm.

Because Iran imposed a major internet shutdown, outside groups have had difficulty documenting deaths, and that’s why estimates vary so widely. Reuters has reported an Iranian official describing about 2,000 deaths (including protesters and security forces), while Iran Human Rights has published a documented tally in the thousands (for example, at least 3,428 protesters as of mid-January, according to their reporting).

The 12,000 estimate is most commonly linked to Iran International citing anonymous sources and has also been echoed in some media coverage as an unconfirmed high-end estimate; The Wall Street Journal discussed this wide gap, noting confirmed figures are far lower but that some outlets claim much higher totals.

1. Protests and crackdown:
Large-scale anti-government protests that started in late December over economic hardship and wider political demands have mostly subsided in big cities, but Iran’s security forces remain heavily deployed. Human rights groups report over 3,000 people killed in the unrest, marking it one of the deadliest domestic crises in decades. Internet restrictions have eased slightly after a long blackout, allowing more accounts of violence and repression to emerge.

2. International response:
The U.N. Security Council has scheduled an emergency meeting at the request of the United States to discuss the violent crackdown. Indian officials and others are monitoring the situation as foreign nationals in Iran have faced dangers and movement restrictions.

3. Armed opposition activity:
A Kurdish separatist group, the Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK), has claimed responsibility for armed attacks against Iran’s Revolutionary Guard in several western provinces, marking the first reported armed retaliation linked to the protests.

4. Exiled opposition voices:
Reza Pahlavi, son of Iran’s last shah, has been promoting himself as a transitional leader and is calling for targeted international support to hasten the regime’s change. He has also urged action to prevent further bloodshed, though his backing inside Iran remains debated.

5. Continued tensions with the U.S.:
Ties between Tehran and Washington remain strained. President Donald Trump has publicly linked threats of military action to pressure on Iran over executions and protests, rejecting easy solutions and emphasizing the difficulty of any conflict with the Iranian leadership.

Broader context:
Iran continues to face a deep economic crisis with high inflation and food shortages that helped fuel the unrest. Sanctions and diplomatic pressures compound internal instability, while international discussions about security, rights abuses, and possible policy responses continue to unfold.

Here are the address links referenced for the latest Iran developments:

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/iran-protests-abate-after-deadly-crackdown-residents-rights-group-say-2026-01-16/

https://apnews.com/article/iran-protests-death-trump-military-action-01-15-26-923c4181c6a4f71848fc99eaa9571ae1

https://apnews.com/article/c04c8c65d4e2241476ed210cf7134327

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-trump-military-action-protests-latest-news-b2901654.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/16/son-of-former-iranian-monarch-calls-for-targeted-intervention-to-hasten-regimes-collapse

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/1/15/iran-us-live-tension-lingers-amid-threats-as-tehran-reopens-airspace

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_economic_crisis

Here are the latest major developments in Iran as of mid-January 2026:

Latest Iran News Highlights

Reuters

Iran protests abate after deadly crackdown, Trump says Tehran calls off mass hangings

Iran protests live: Reza Pahlavi says he is ‘uniquely positioned’ to lead Iran

The Independent

The Latest: UN Security Council to discuss Iran’s deadly protests after US request

AP News

Yesterday

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Denmark Foreign Minister Reveals Result Of US Talks On Greenland Future

We are eager to work with the United States to advance this agenda and are prepared to go further

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen from the press.

Minister Vivian Musfeld and I met today with Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio. We came following a number of remarkable public comments regarding Greenland and Arctic security. Our goal was to find a joint way forward to strengthen security in the Arctic. We discussed what the Kingdom of Denmark can do more, what the United States can do more, and what NATO can do more.

The Kingdom of Denmark has already stepped up its own contribution by committing additional funds for military capabilities. This includes ships, drones, fighter jets, and other assets, not just paperwork or planning documents. We are absolutely prepared to do more.

The United States already has broad military access to Greenland under the 1951 defense agreement. The U.S. may always request an increased presence in Greenland, and we made clear that we are willing to examine any such requests constructively.

Greenland, through the Kingdom of Denmark, is a member of NATO and has been since the founding of the alliance. It is therefore covered by Article Five. Denmark has long pushed within NATO for a stronger collective role in Greenland, together with several allies. We are eager to work with the United States to advance this agenda and are prepared to go further.

Our aim was to reach a common understanding on these points and, if possible, launch further in-depth work to deliver concrete outcomes. On that basis, we had what I would describe as a frank but constructive discussion. The talks focused on how to ensure long-term security in Greenland.

Our perspectives on this issue still differ. The president has made his view clear, and we maintain a different position. The Kingdom of Denmark continues to believe that Greenland’s long-term security can be ensured within the existing framework, namely the 1951 defense agreement and the NATO treaty.

Ideas that do not respect the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark or the right of self-determination of the Greenlandic people are completely unacceptable to us. There remains a fundamental disagreement, but we agree to continue dialogue.

We have therefore decided to establish a high-level working group to explore whether a common path forward can be found. This group should focus on addressing American security concerns while fully respecting the red lines of the Kingdom of Denmark.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Socialist New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani Faces Backlash Over Tenant Office Appointment

Claims of Property and Homeownership being tools of “white supremacy” and calls for seizing private property

NEW YORK — Socialist New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is already drawing controversy just days into his administration over one of his first big housing appointments.

Mamdani appointed tenant organizer Cea Weaver as executive director of the newly revitalized Mayor’s Office to Protect Tenants, part of a wide-ranging agenda focused on renter protections and housing reform.

The move was meant to signal a shift toward aggressive advocacy for tenants after years of rising rents and housing shortages.

But Weaver’s appointment has sparked a major firestorm after critics unearthed years-old social media posts attributed to her. In those posts, she referred to private property and homeownership as tools of “white supremacy” and called for seizing private property, statements that opponents are pointing to as extreme and inappropriate for a public official tasked with overseeing housing policy.

The controversy quickly escalated online and in political circles, with many residents and commentators questioning whether Weaver’s past rhetoric undermines confidence in the city’s approach to property rights and economic stability. Some have accused Mamdani of promoting a radical housing agenda that could threaten traditional homeownership and private investment in the city.

Mamdani has defended his decision, saying the appointment was deliberate and based on Weaver’s long history of tenant advocacy and organizing. He has declined to rescind the appointment despite the backlash, insisting the choice aligns with his broader goals to protect renters and hold negligent landlords accountable.

The debate reflects broader national disputes over housing policy, property rights, and the role of government in managing urban housing markets. As Mamdani continues to roll out his housing platform — including “rental ripoff” hearings and other tenant-focused initiatives — the scrutiny around early hires like Weaver is likely to remain a central talking point for both supporters and critics of his administration.

SOURCES

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/nyc-mayor-zohran-mamdani-defends-tenant-official-after-backlash-over-white-supremacy-posts

https://www.newsweek.com/zohran-mamdani-tenant-advisor-home-ownership-white-supremacy-11307264

https://evrimagaci.org/gpt/controversy-erupts-over-nycs-new-tenant-advocate-522674

https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/01/mayor-mamdani-signs-eo-to-revitalize-mayor-s-office-to-protect-tenants

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/mamdani-rental-ripoff-hearings-nyc/

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Timmy Macklin Says He Doesn’t Blame ICE in Renee Good Shooting

He will be Driving up to take Custody of his Grandchild

On Thursday’s Greg Kelly Reports, Timmy Macklin, the former father-in-law of Renee Nicole Good, spoke about the fatal Minneapolis shooting that has sparked national attention.

Good, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen and mother of three, was shot and killed by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent during a federal operation in south Minneapolis on January 7, 2026, an incident that has led to protests and ongoing investigations.

In the interview, Macklin emphasized faith and forgiveness, saying he does not place blame on the ICE agent involved or on Good herself. He described the tragedy as a moment of “bad choices” and said in a sudden, high-pressure situation it’s difficult to know how anyone would react, adding that “Jesus loves him, regardless” when referring to the federal officer. Macklin remembered Good as joyful and urged viewers to focus on faith rather than assigning blame.

Good was killed after dropping off her young child at school and encountering federal agents conducting enforcement activities in the neighborhood. Federal officials have defended the shooting as an act of self-defense, saying the ICE agent fired after the vehicle moved toward him, while local authorities and some family members dispute elements of that account and have called for thorough investigations.

Macklin’s remarks come amid intense public debate over the actions of federal authorities, state responses, and the broader implications for law enforcement and immigration policy. His message has resonated with some who see his stance as a call for calm, even as demonstrators and family members continue to seek answers and accountability.

SOURCES

https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/timmy-macklin-newsmax-ice-agent/2026/01/15/id/1242359/

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/renee-goods-former-father-in-law-does-not-blame-ice-for-fatal-minneapolis-shooting-10759623

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Renee_Good

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

It's Time to Arrest Tim Walz

This week he went online to promise that "The day of Retribution and Reckoning is Coming."

Complaining of “Napping innocent people with no warning and no due process.”

Well, why would they warn somebody?

Let’s be very clear. Come on now.. Didn’t everyone get enough warning ICE was coming? And when should Criminals ever be that comfortable sleeping during the day?

They’re pulling over people indiscriminately, including US citizens, and demanding to see their papers. And at grocery store, I don’t know if I’ve seen that. I haven’t seen any videos of that happening, and if they did, they are after an illegal that is in that store.

At stores, at bus stops, even near schools, Tim’s claims being pushed make it sound like total lawlessness—windows being smashed, pregnant women dragged through the street, and random Minnesotans snatched up and thrown into unmarked vans. But the point being made here is that this kind of language is built to shock. He takes the most extreme picture possible and presents it as the normal reality, so people assume something far worse is happening than what can actually be confirmed.

In other words, Tim’s wording is doing the work: it’s meant to inflame, not inform, and it can leave viewers with a completely distorted understanding of events.

I can say with confidence that nothing is going to happen to that officer who shot Renee Good. The reason is simple: he did nothing wrong. He isn’t going to be charged or arrested, and any investigation that takes place will ultimately confirm that. That’s how this is going to end.

What many of us are seeing, including the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS of MINN, is Tim Walz hiding behind this facade of “Caring,” about his fellow “Motan’s,” in an attempt to shield himself from the fraud he has committed over the years to those very citizens.

If we are still living in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and not a Banana Republic, then it is time to send in officers to arrest the Tim Walz Administration.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Blue-MAGA Up-Rising

Forced Transparency - Losing Identity to Save Elections

A political backlash is growing as some voters and commentators accuse Democratic leaders and campaign strategists of borrowing language, tone, and tactics commonly associated with the MAGA movement.

Critics say this shift is happening as approval ratings slip and frustration grows among parts of the Democratic base over the economy, immigration, public safety, and unfulfilled promises. They argue that adopting sharper rhetoric and culture-war framing looks less like strategy and more like panic, especially when it appears to echo the same populist style the party has spent years condemning.

From the left’s point of view, this shift in messaging is not about copying MAGA or hiding the truth, but about being more direct in a political climate where voters are tired of careful wording and polished talking points. Many on the left argue that what critics call “forced transparency” is simply honesty without sugarcoating, because soft language has failed to break through public distrust. They believe voters already see through political spin, so clearer and tougher messaging is necessary to explain policies, call out opposition tactics, and show urgency on real problems like costs of living, public safety, and democracy itself.

In this view, speaking more bluntly is not panic or deception, but a practical response to frustration and misinformation, meant to meet voters where they are instead of pretending the old style still works.

Isn’t it still lies, none the less?

They believe politics has always involved emphasizing certain facts while downplaying others, and that this is no different from what both parties do. In their view, the problem is not honesty versus dishonesty, but which side controls the narrative and how clearly it is communicated. They would say the policies and goals have not changed, only the language used to defend them, and that being more blunt does not automatically mean being untruthful. Critics on the left also argue that calling it “lies” ignores the complexity of governing, where outcomes do not always match intentions, even if leaders believe they acted in good faith.

Supporters of the change push back on that criticism, saying the goal is not imitation but adaptation. From this view, campaigns must speak more directly and emotionally to voters who feel ignored or left behind. They argue that clearer messaging, tougher language, and a focus on everyday concerns are necessary to compete in a political environment shaped by social media, short attention spans, and constant outrage. To them, this is about reconnecting Forced with working-class and swing voters rather than abandoning core values.

From their point of view, this shift is seen as adjusting to how people actually communicate today, not copying another movement. Supporters say many voters feel unheard and tuned out by careful, scripted politics, so campaigns need to speak plainly and with more urgency. They believe direct language and a stronger emotional tone help cut through online noise and reach people who are struggling with everyday issues like jobs, safety, and rising costs. In their view, this approach is about rebuilding trust with working-class and undecided voters by being clearer and more relatable, while still holding on to the same underlying beliefs and goals.

The debate has intensified online, where clips, slogans, and side-by-side comparisons spread quickly and fuel anger on both sides. Some Democratic voters worry the party risks losing its identity, while others believe failing to evolve could cost future elections. For now, the argument reflects a broader uncertainty inside the party about how to move forward in a polarized political climate where trust in leadership is low and voter patience is wearing thin.

The growing debate looks like confusion and instability inside the Democratic Party rather than healthy change. Many on the right argue that the online clashes, shifting slogans, and mixed messages show a party unsure of what it stands for after years of failed policies and broken promises. They believe Democrats are torn between keeping their base happy and chasing voters they have already lost, which makes the messaging feel forced and inconsistent.

To them, this uncertainty signals weak leadership and a loss of credibility, especially at a time when voters are demanding clear direction and accountability.

Sources

https://www.politico.com

https://www.axios.com

https://www.nytimes.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-greenland-why-does-he-want-denmark-territory-as-part-of-us/
https://www.petersonschriever.spaceforce.mil/pituffik-sb-greenland/
https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/explainer-geopolitical-significance-greenland
https://www.csis.org/analysis/greenland-rare-earths-and-arctic-security
https://www.ksat.com/news/2026/01/08/denmark-sees-talks-with-the-us-as-a-chance-for-the-dialogue-that-is-needed-over-greenland/
https://time.com/7345949/greenland-denmark-trump/
https://www.wsj.com/world/asia/greenlands-prime-minister-says-island-would-choose-denmark-over-u-s-0dfed636
https://www.euronews.com/green/2026/01/09/mining-climate-and-smokescreens-whats-driving-trumps-interest-in-greenland

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Greenland... Why The USA Wants it.

Greenland sits in a strategic spot between North America and Europe, near routes that matter for both military defense and shipping. As Arctic ice changes, interest in northern sea routes has grown, and Greenland’s location makes it a key piece of Arctic planning for the United States and its allies.

The biggest hard-security reason is the long-standing U.S. base at Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base). U.S. Space Force units there operate major missile-warning and space-surveillance capabilities, including radar used for detecting ballistic missile threats and supporting missile defense. In simple terms, it is part of how the U.S. watches the far north for threats and tracks objects in space.

Greenland also matters for North Atlantic security. Analysts often point to the Greenland–Iceland–United Kingdom area (the GIUK gap) as a long-time chokepoint used to monitor naval movement between the Arctic/North Atlantic and the broader Atlantic Ocean. With Russia active in the region, that geography still matters to planners who think in terms of early warning and sea-lane security.

Resources are another reason Greenland is on Washington’s radar. Greenland has mineral potential that includes materials often described as critical for modern technology and energy systems, and U.S. institutions have shown interest in supporting non-China supply chains. Recent analysis has discussed U.S. financing interest connected to rare earth and critical mineral projects linked to Greenland.

There is also a political reality: Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and the U.S. already has defense rights through long-standing agreements, meaning America can pursue security cooperation without “owning” Greenland. Recent reporting describes Danish and Greenlandic leaders rejecting the idea of U.S. control while still signaling openness to cooperation on security and investment that respects Greenland’s self-determination.

From a conservative viewpoint, Greenland is about national security, missile warning, and keeping Russia and China from gaining leverage in a critical Arctic position. From a middle-of-the-road viewpoint, it is about balancing security needs, allied cooperation with Denmark and Greenland, and responsible investment in minerals and infrastructure without treating Greenland like property.

Greenland matters to the United States primarily because of its strategic location in the Arctic, where it plays a key role in national security, early missile warning, and monitoring military activity from Russia and China as global competition shifts northward. From a security-focused view, the U.S. sees Greenland as essential for defending North America and maintaining awareness of threats that could approach over the polar region. From a more middle-of-the-road perspective, the issue is less about control and more about cooperation—working closely with Denmark and Greenland’s own government to strengthen shared defense, invest carefully in critical minerals and infrastructure, and counter foreign influence while respecting Greenland’s autonomy and avoiding any approach that treats the island as something to be owned rather than a partner in a rapidly changing Arctic landscape.

Source links

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Escalating ICE Protests in Minnesota and Beyond Ignite Tensions Over Immigration, Safety, and Rule of Law

Blue States Will Suffer Withdrawn Funding

Here’s a fact-based summary of what’s been happening — separate from partisan claims about “mobs destroying America” — using credible reporting from multiple news outlets and verified coverage:

What Is Actually Occurring

• A federal immigration enforcement action in Minneapolis involving an ICE agent fatally shooting a woman, Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen, has sparked widespread protests in Minneapolis and across the U.S. as people demand accountability and transparency.

From the left-leaning perspective, many people see the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent during a federal enforcement operation in Minneapolis as an unnecessary use of deadly force against a 37-year-old U.S. citizen, sparking widespread protests and demands for transparency and accountability, because critics argue the government has not been open about what happened and should face scrutiny for how immigration enforcement is carried out.

From the right-leaning perspective, many conservatives see the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis as a tragic but legally justified use of force because they believe the agent was acting in self-defense when Good’s vehicle appeared to move toward officers during a federal immigration enforcement operation, and defenders argue that law enforcement must be able to protect itself and complete its duties without being second-guessed by protesters or local leaders; they also point to officials like Vice President JD Vance and others who have stressed that ICE officers were performing lawful work and that criticism of the shooting risks undermining respect for authority and encouraging unsafe confrontations with federal agents.

• Thousands of demonstrators have marched in cities from Minneapolis to New York, Boston, San Antonio, and beyond, calling for justice for Good and changes to ICE policies. Protesters have chanted, held signs, and gathered in major public spaces.

From the left-leaning perspective, many people see the thousands of demonstrators marching in cities like Minneapolis, New York, Boston, San Antonio, and others after the ICE agent fatally shot Renee Nicole Good as a powerful movement for justice and accountability, with protesters chanting, holding signs, and demanding changes to how federal immigration enforcement operates because they believe Good’s death shows a deeper problem with ICE’s use of force and a lack of transparency in how the government handles such incidents, and they want peaceful demonstrations to push for reform and protection of civil rights.

From the right-leaning perspective, many conservatives view the thousands of demonstrators marching in cities like Minneapolis, New York, Boston, San Antonio, and beyond as a response driven more by political anger than by respect for law and order, arguing that while peaceful protest is a protected right, some participants are pushing an agenda that could weaken enforcement of immigration laws and federal authority; supporters of strong immigration enforcement often see calls to “change ICE policies” as tied to a larger effort to limit the ability of federal agents to protect the border and enforce existing laws, and they worry that widespread protests may embolden people to resist law enforcement rather than foster constructive solutions.

• Some protests have been peaceful, while others have seen tensions escalate between demonstrators and law enforcement. In Minneapolis, clashes outside federal buildings led to arrests and the deployment of additional federal agents.

From the left-leaning perspective, many people see the clashes between protesters and law enforcement as the result of heavy federal response rather than protester intent, arguing that while most demonstrations were peaceful, tensions rose when police and federal agents used crowd control tactics outside federal buildings. They believe arrests and the deployment of additional federal agents escalated the situation instead of calming it, and they say this shows a pattern of authorities responding to public anger with force rather than listening to calls for accountability, transparency, and reform in how federal agencies operate.

From the right-leaning perspective, many conservatives see the escalation at some protests as proof that law enforcement was forced to act to maintain order, arguing that while peaceful protest is a right, blocking federal buildings, confronting officers, or ignoring lawful commands creates dangerous situations. They believe arrests and the deployment of additional federal agents were necessary to protect public safety, federal property, and officers, and they warn that failing to respond firmly could encourage more chaos and lawlessness rather than calm, lawful expression.

Violence and Property Damage

• There are documented cases of confrontations between law enforcement and demonstrators, including use of tear gas, pepper spray, and less-lethal munitions. One protester reportedly suffered serious injury at a Santa Ana demonstration after being struck by a less-lethal round.

From the left-leaning perspective, many people see the use of tear gas, pepper spray, and less-lethal weapons against demonstrators as excessive and unnecessary force, especially when protests are meant to be peaceful expressions of anger and grief. They argue that these tactics can seriously harm people, as shown by reports of a protester being badly injured in Santa Ana, and believe such actions discourage free speech while escalating tensions instead of calming them. To them, these confrontations reflect a pattern of authorities responding to dissent with force rather than dialogue and accountability.

From the right-leaning perspective, many conservatives view the use of tear gas, pepper spray, and less-lethal weapons as unfortunate but sometimes necessary tools for restoring order when protests turn confrontational or unsafe. They argue that law enforcement is trained to use these methods to control crowds and protect lives when officers or property are at risk, and that injuries, while regrettable, often occur when people remain in volatile situations or refuse to disperse after lawful orders. From this view, responsibility is placed on maintaining public safety and preventing protests from spiraling into chaos.

• However, claims that “mobs are destroying Minnesota and sanctuaries across America” as a coordinated nationwide pattern of violence across sanctuary cities are not supported by reputable news reporting at this time. The most widely covered protests have been tied to the Good shooting and to broader immigration policy disagreements, with a mix of peaceful marches and isolated clashes.

From the left-leaning perspective, many people acknowledge that while some protests over the fatal ICE shooting in Minneapolis have been peaceful, claims that “mobs are destroying Minnesota and sanctuaries across America” are not supported by reliable news reporting, and most widely covered demonstrations have focused on calling for justice for Renee Nicole Good and changes to federal immigration policy, with a mix of large peaceful marches and isolated clashes rather than widespread, coordinated destruction in “sanctuary” cities.

From the right-leaning perspective, many conservatives acknowledge that while widespread protests have taken place in response to the fatal ICE shooting, the idea that “mobs are destroying Minnesota and sanctuaries across America” as a coordinated nationwide wave of violence is not supported by reputable reporting; instead, they tend to see the demonstrations as mostly focused on the shooting of Renee Good and broader debates over immigration policy, with a mix of peaceful marches and some isolated clashes, and they argue that it’s important not to exaggerate the scale of disorder when much of the coverage shows ordinary citizens expressing their views in the streets.

• Previous periods of unrest in Minneapolis, such as after the murder of George Floyd in 2020, did involve significant property damage and chaotic scenes, but those events are separate from the current situation and resulted from different causes.

From the left-leaning perspective, many people argue that while Minneapolis did experience serious unrest and property damage after the murder of George Floyd in 2020, those events should not be used to define or dismiss the current protests. They believe the situations are separate, driven by different causes, and say it is unfair to compare today’s demonstrations to past chaos when most current protesters are focused on accountability, justice, and policy change rather than destruction.

From the right-leaning perspective, many conservatives point out that Minneapolis has a recent history of unrest, including the widespread property damage and chaos following the murder of George Floyd in 2020, and they argue that this past experience makes people wary when new protests begin. Even if the current situation has different causes, they believe the earlier breakdown of order shows how quickly demonstrations can spiral out of control, which is why they emphasize strong law enforcement presence and caution against downplaying risks.

Government and Community Reaction

• Federal authorities are reinforcing ICE and DHS presence in Minnesota, framing it as a response to obstruction and public safety concerns.

From the left-leaning perspective, many people see the decision by federal authorities to reinforce ICE and DHS presence in Minnesota as an unnecessary show of force that risks escalating tensions rather than protecting public safety. They argue that framing the move as a response to “obstruction” ignores the fact that many residents are protesting to demand answers and accountability, and they worry that increasing federal agents sends a message of intimidation instead of addressing community concerns or rebuilding trust.

From the right-leaning perspective, many conservatives view the decision by federal authorities to send more ICE and Department of Homeland Security agents into Minnesota as a necessary step to protect public safety and support law enforcement amid rising tensions after the shooting of Renee Good; they argue that when local resources are strained and demonstrations include confrontations with federal officers, a stronger federal presence helps ensure order, backs up agents doing their jobs, and prevents unrest from getting worse rather than seeing law enforcement pulled back or criticized for doing what they believe is lawful and required.

• Local leaders — including Minnesota’s attorney general and mayor — have publicly criticized federal tactics, calling for investigations and legal action against what they describe as unconstitutional federal behavior.

From the left-leaning perspective, many people see Minnesota’s attorney general, mayor, and other local leaders publicly criticizing federal tactics as an important stand for justice and accountability, because they argue that powerful federal agencies should not operate without transparency or oversight, and they believe officials are right to call for investigations, legal action, and evidence sharing in the fatal ICE shooting of Renee Good so that the truth can come out and the government is held responsible for its actions.

From the right-leaning perspective, many conservatives see the public criticism from Minnesota’s attorney general and mayor as political overreach that undermines federal law enforcement. They argue that ICE and other federal agencies have the constitutional authority to carry out their duties, and that calls for investigations and lawsuits before all facts are known risk weakening cooperation between local and federal officials. From this view, conservatives believe local leaders should support federal agents doing lawful work rather than publicly attacking them in a way that could fuel unrest and reduce respect for the rule of law.

• Community figures and elected officials on all sides have emphasized both the right to protest and the need for peaceful demonstrations, while raising concerns about heavy federal enforcement.

From the left-leaning perspective, many people appreciate that community leaders and elected officials have stressed both the right to protest and the importance of keeping demonstrations peaceful, seeing this as a balanced approach that protects free speech while reducing harm. They also share concerns that heavy federal enforcement can intimidate communities and escalate tensions, arguing that allowing people to protest safely and be heard is a better path toward accountability and meaningful change than responding with force.

From the right-leaning perspective, many conservatives agree that peaceful protest is a protected right, but they stress that demonstrations must remain lawful and not interfere with public safety or federal operations. They often view concerns about heavy federal enforcement as secondary to the need to maintain order, arguing that a visible law enforcement presence helps prevent protests from turning violent and protects both officers and the public.

What Is Not Verified by Trusted News Sources

• There is no log of widespread, coordinated destruction of infrastructure across the U.S. tied directly to these protests as claimed in some online commentary.

Based on reporting from major outlets, there is strong evidence of large protests and some serious clashes tied to the Renee Good case, including arrests in Minneapolis, use of crowd-control measures in some locations, and isolated incidents of injury and property damage. But the claim that protests have become a coordinated, nationwide “mob takeover” destroying multiple cities or sanctuary jurisdictions is not supported by the national reporting available so far.

Instead, what is documented is a mix: many peaceful marches across different cities, alongside scattered confrontations and localized disorder, with no verified, centralized pattern showing widespread, coordinated infrastructure destruction directly tied to these protests.

Bottom Line

Yes — there are large and emotionally charged protests in Minnesota and other cities tied to the ICE shooting and broader immigration policy. Some clashes have occurred. But the narrative that “mobs are destroying sanctuaries across America” is not confirmed by mainstream news reporting. The situation remains fluid, with ongoing demonstrations, official responses, and debates over policy, accountability, and public safety.

National reporting shows that the protests tied to the fatal ICE shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis have been large and emotionally charged, with marches and rallies in multiple cities, and some incidents where tensions escalated into arrests and the use of crowd-control measures near federal buildings. At the same time, the available coverage does not document a verified, coordinated “nationwide mob takeover” or a widespread, organized campaign of infrastructure destruction across sanctuary cities tied directly to these protests; what is described instead is a mix of peaceful demonstrations and isolated clashes that vary by location and day. Federal officials have said they are surging additional DHS/ICE resources in Minnesota, framing it around public safety and enforcement needs, while local leaders and the victim’s family have pushed for transparency and accountability—so the situation remains active, but the broad “cities being destroyed everywhere” storyline isn’t supported by the strongest national reporting so far.

I think more arrests made on a POLITICAL LEVEL is what is needed now. It’s time to see people like Tim Walz and Ilhan Omer get arrested and charged with CRIMINAL OFFENCES.

Source

https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/minneapolis-ice-shooting-live-updates/?id=129124338

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/live-updates/minneapolis-ice-agent-shooting-protesters-clash-fbi-investigation/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2026/01/10/nationwide-ice-protests-minneapolis-shooting/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/12/minnesota-ice-lawsuit-trump-administration

https://www.startribune.com/she-was-an-amazing-human-being-mother-identifies-woman-shot-killed-by-ice-agent/601559922

https://www.expressnews.com/news/article/renee-good-san-antonio-ice-protest-21286477.php

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-01-13/anti-ice-protest-santa-ana

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Minneapolis%E2%80%93Saint_Paul

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

New Video Shows Conservative Influencer Nick Sortor’s Car Surrounded at Minnesota Anti-ICE Protest

ICE shooting, raises concerns about public safety, political targeting, and escalations

Conservative influencer and on-the-ground commentator Nick Sortor posted video showing a crowd surrounding his vehicle during anti-ICE protests in Minnesota.

In the clip, people can be heard yelling while others stand close in front of and around the car, limiting movement. Sortor says the confrontation happened Sunday and that he was inside the vehicle during the encounter.

Sortor later showed what he described as the aftermath, including a smashed window and spray-painted graffiti on the vehicle, with one word partially censored in some reports. Several outlets repeated these claims based on the video and Sortor’s statements, but they are largely not confirmed by police reports in the public information cited here. What is verifiable from the coverage is that Sortor posted the footage and that multiple news organizations reported on it.

The confrontation is being discussed in the wider context of protests tied to the death of Renee Nicole Good, who was shot during a federal operation involving an ICE agent near Minneapolis. Reporting describes national outrage and continued tensions, along with conflicting public statements about whether the shooting was justified as self-defense. Officials have said Good’s actions endangered agents, while local leaders and others have disputed that framing and called for transparency.

As protests continued, national reporting also described federal officials sending additional personnel to Minnesota and treating the situation as a major enforcement and security operation. This has raised questions on both sides: supporters of ICE argue federal agents need protection and room to do their jobs, while critics argue the federal response is too aggressive and escalates conflict.

What can be said clearly right now is this: Sortor’s video shows a tense crowd around a vehicle, and his footage shows damage he says was caused during the protest. What is still unclear from publicly available reporting is exactly who caused the damage, whether arrests were made, and what official incident reports say about the confrontation. Those details matter because viral clips can spread faster than verified facts.

Source links

https://www.foxnews.com/us/anti-ice-agitators-swarm-vehicle-conservative-influencer-nick-sortor

https://krcrtv.com/news/nation-world/influencer-nick-sortor-swarmed-in-his-car-at-anti-ice-protest-in-minnesota-minneapolis-immigration-kristi-noem-homeland-security-cam-higby

https://people.com/ice-agent-jonathan-ross-told-neighbor-he-was-botanist-exclusive-11883673

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ice-shooting-minneapolis-victim-renee-good-live-updates-b2898294.html

https://cbs4local.com/news/nation-world/influencer-nick-sortor-swarmed-in-his-car-at-anti-ice-protest-in-minnesota-minneapolis-immigration-kristi-noem-homeland-security-cam-higby

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

New Hope for Tooth Regrowth: What Scientists in Japan Are Working On

A Future Where Medicine Focuses less on Replacement and More on Restoration

Recovery of congenital missing teeth in a mouse model of edentulism (EDA KO). The right image shows the regenerative effects of a single dose of the USAG-1 neutralizing antibody compared to the control group (left). Source: Toregem Bio Pharma Co.

Researchers in Japan are testing an experimental drug that could allow humans to regrow lost teeth, potentially reducing or even eliminating the long-term need for dentures and dental implants. The treatment works by targeting a protein that normally prevents tooth growth after childhood. By blocking that signal, scientists aim to reactivate the body’s natural ability to form new teeth, something previously believed to be impossible in adults. Early laboratory and animal studies showed promising results, leading researchers to move forward with early-stage human trials.

The drug is being developed with the goal of helping people who have lost teeth due to injury, disease, or genetic conditions. Unlike dentures or implants, which replace missing teeth with artificial materials, this approach focuses on regeneration. If proven safe and effective, it could change dental care by allowing patients to grow fully natural teeth, complete with roots and nerves. Researchers stress that the work is still in its early stages, and widespread public use would take years of testing and regulatory review.

Beyond dentistry, this research highlights a broader shift in modern medicine toward regenerative treatments. Scientists are increasingly studying how the body can repair itself when certain biological “off switches” are removed. Tooth regrowth research fits alongside work in skin regeneration, nerve repair, and organ healing. Together, these advances suggest that many conditions once treated only with artificial replacements may eventually be addressed through natural regrowth instead.

Some people also see a wider meaning in this discovery. Healing is not only physical but also emotional and psychological. Just as the body may be guided to regenerate teeth, individuals can work to repair emotional wounds and recover from past trauma. While science and spirituality operate in different spaces, both reflect the idea that restoration is possible when the right conditions are present.

As testing continues, researchers caution against unrealistic expectations in the short term. Still, the work underway in Japan points toward a future where medicine focuses less on replacement and more on restoration. The possibility that humans could one day regrow their own teeth serves as a reminder of how much remains to be discovered about the body’s natural potential.

Source

https://www.nature.com

https://www.nih.gov

https://www.science.org

https://www.japantimes.co.jp

https://apnews.com/article/6ae64be5a0d6a718b658a938fb56e567

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Minnesota Leaders Fan the Flames as Federal Authority Is Challenged in the Streets

Walz has taken steps to prepare the National Guard -- Sounds Like Treason to Me...

Minnesota has seen large, sustained protests tied to the Trump administration’s expanded immigration enforcement operation in the Twin Cities and the fatal shooting of Renée Nicole Good by an ICE agent on January 7, 2026. Officials say tens of thousands demonstrated in Minneapolis, and more than 1,000 related rallies were planned nationwide over the weekend, with law enforcement and federal agencies warning that tensions remain high.

At the same time, several elected leaders in Minnesota are escalating a legal and political fight with the federal government, arguing the operation is unlawful and destabilizing. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, along with the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, filed a lawsuit seeking to stop or limit the federal deployment, describing it as unconstitutional and alleging rights violations. City leaders have also said the surge is creating fear and disruption in daily life.

Governor Tim Walz has publicly criticized the ICE surge while also urging people to protest peacefully and avoid escalating confrontations. Reporting also notes Walz has taken steps to prepare the National Guard in case unrest worsens, while local officials have emphasized keeping demonstrations nonviolent even as public anger grows.

On the ground, community groups and volunteers have been monitoring ICE activity and alerting neighborhoods, while federal officials have warned some of those actions may cross legal lines if they obstruct arrests. This has added another layer of conflict between activists, city leaders, and federal authorities as the operation continues.

Federal leaders, including DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, have defended the operation and announced plans to send hundreds more officers to Minnesota, saying it is necessary to protect federal personnel and continue enforcement—while Minnesota officials say the approach is inflaming tensions and undermining trust. Investigations into the shooting and the federal-state dispute are ongoing, and more developments are expected in the coming days.

Sources

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/homeland-security-send-hundreds-more-officers-minnesota-noem-says-2026-01-11/

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fatal-ice-shooting-minneapolis-activist-sets-stage-national-protests-2026-01-10/

https://abcnews.go.com/US/ice-related-shooting-occurred-minnesota-governor/story?id=128984401

https://www.stpaul.gov/news/city-saint-paul-attorney-general-keith-ellison-and-city-minneapolis-sue-halt-ice-surge

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2026/01/12/ice-watchers-minneapolis-charlotte-renee-good/

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Acting President of Venezuela

Another Day, Trolling The Left

After recent dramatic developments in Venezuela, President Donald Trump posted a provocative message online declaring himself the “Acting President of Venezuela,” complete with a mock image portraying him in that role. This came after U.S. forces reportedly captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro during a military operation earlier in January 2026 — a move that sparked international controversy and political upheaval.

Trump shared the image on his Truth Social account, presenting it as if it were a real update to his official leadership roles. The post was widely interpreted as a trolling gesture aimed at leftist critics, opponents of the U.S. actions in Venezuela, and Maduro’s supporters, rather than an official diplomatic or constitutional claim over another sovereign nation.

In reality, Venezuelan law and international practice designate Delcy Rodríguez — formerly vice president — as the legitimate interim president of Venezuela, following decrees by Venezuela’s Supreme Tribunal of Justice after Maduro’s removal. Rodríguez was sworn in early in January 2026 and took on the interim role, which is recognized by local institutions even as foreign governments weigh their responses.

While Trump’s declaration reflects intense political rhetoric online and was framed with humor and provocation, it does not carry legal or diplomatic authority, and it was widely seen as part of the ongoing political messaging around the U.S.’s contentious involvement in Venezuelan affairs — rather than a formal transfer of presidency.

Sources

https://news.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-declares-himself-venezuela-acting-174902863.html

https://time.com/7345445/trump-venezuela-acting-president-wikipedia-truth-social/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delcy_Rodr%C3%ADguez

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/01/acting-president-venezuela-trump-trolls-leftists-maduro-new/

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

TSA Data Show Nearly $700 Million in Cash Flagged at Minneapolis Airport — What’s Going On?

Two years were far larger from MSP - Exceeding the totals seen at Dallas-Fort Worth, Atlanta, or New York’s JFK combined

The officials said the cash movements out of Minnesota’s largest airport began about a decade ago – around the time Democrat Gov. Tim Walz took office – and has grown substantially in recent years.

New data from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) reveal that roughly $692 million in U.S. currency was flagged at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) over the last two years in luggage departing the United States — nearly $1 million per day on average. The vast majority of these cash totals came from a small number of individuals traveling to Somalia or Middle Eastern destinations, according to federal sources familiar with the findings.

Most of this cash was legally declared — U.S. law requires declarations for amounts over $10,000 — so agents did not immediately seize the money or make arrests at the airport. However, the unusual scale and pattern of the movements have sparked a major federal investigation into whether the cash flows are linked to money laundering and fraud schemes centered in Minnesota.

Federal investigators believe that proceeds from large-scale fraud operations in Minnesota may have been converted to cash, then transported overseas by couriers. Those couriers often use informal remittance methods known as hawala, common in Somali culture, to move money without traditional banking systems. Some law enforcement officials have expressed concern that portions of this cash could be routed through networks that ultimately benefit extremist groups in regions like Somalia.

The cash movements from MSP over the past two years were far larger than at other major U.S. airports, reportedly exceeding the totals seen at Dallas-Fort Worth, Atlanta, or New York’s JFK combined. In some cases, individual trips involved upwards of $1 million in a single suitcase.

Homeland Security investigators are now trying to uncover whether these movements are connected to fraud schemes that have already led to federal charges in Minnesota, and to determine whether changes to federal law or enforcement strategies are needed to stop large-scale cash exodus from the United States.

Sources

https://justthenews.com/government/security/wedfeds-probing-hundreds-millions-suspected-somali-cash-luggage-leaving-minneapolis-airport

https://justthenews.com/government/security/foreign-atm-somali-cash-exodus-minneapolis-exponentially-larger-other-major-us-airports

https://tennesseestar.com/justice/feds-probe-hundreds-of-millions-in-suspected-somali-cash-in-luggage-leaving-minneapolis-airport/jtnews/2026/01/07/

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

‘Largest Ever’ ICE Operation Underway in Minnesota — What’s Actually Happening

Tim Walz sharply criticized calling it “harassing” residents

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), has launched what federal officials are calling its largest immigration enforcement operation ever in Minnesota, with approximately 2,000 federal agents deployed in the Minneapolis–St. Paul area.

The operation is officially described as targeting fraud, immigration violations, human smuggling, and unlawful employment practices.

According to DHS, since the operation began in December, ICE and allied federal agencies have made over 1,000 arrests across the Twin Cities region. The surge represents a significant expansion of federal law enforcement presence in the state.

Political and Local Reaction

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz sharply criticized the federal operation, calling it uncoordinated and politically motivated and claiming that federal agents could be “harassing” residents. He expressed frustration that the state was not fully informed about the operation’s scope and purpose.

The deployment also sparked intense controversy and protests among residents and immigrant communities, with local officials and activists raising concerns about fear and intimidation from the increased federal presence.

Fatal Shooting and Escalation

A major flashpoint in the situation was a fatal shooting on January 7, 2026, when an ICE officer shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good in south Minneapolis during the immigration enforcement operation. Federal officials state the shooting was in self-defense, saying the woman’s vehicle posed a threat to agents. However, city leaders and some witnesses dispute that account, and Minnesota authorities have opened a joint investigation.

The shooting intensified public outrage and led to widespread protests in Minneapolis and other U.S. cities, further elevating the political stakes of the enforcement operation.

Broader National Debate

Supporters of the federal deployment argue that such operations are needed to enforce immigration laws and target fraud and criminal activity. Critics argue that the scale and execution of the operation — especially without strong collaboration with state authorities — undermine community trust and may overstep federal authority.

The situation continues to evolve as investigations proceed and the political impacts unfold nationally.

Sources

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/2000-federal-agents-sent-to-minneapolis-area-to-carry-out-largest-immigration-operation-ever-ice-says

https://www.fox9.com/news/ice-surge-mn-ice-activity-protests-sec-kristi-noem-st-paul-jan-6-2026

https://apnews.com/article/db661df6de1131a034da2bda4bb3d817

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2026-01-07/dhs-deploys-2-000-officers-in-minnesota-to-carry-out-its-largest-immigration-operation-ever

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-federal-agent-involved-minneapolis-shooting-during-immigration-surge-city-2026-01-07/

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Trump “Takes Greenland” — What’s Real vs. What’s a Board-Game Joke

United States to acquire Greenland and said the U.S. would act “one way or the other”

The line about “taking Greenland to get the North America bonus” is a Risk-style joke, but it’s also riffing on a real political story: in early January 2026, President Donald Trump publicly renewed his push for the United States to acquire Greenland and said the U.S. would act “one way or the other,” arguing it is needed to block Russian or Chinese influence in the Arctic.

Greenland is not a U.S. territory. It is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and Greenland’s party leaders recently pushed back, saying Greenland’s future must be decided by Greenlanders. Denmark’s leadership has also warned that U.S. pressure over Greenland could create serious friction inside NATO, since Denmark is a NATO ally.

There is also active debate over what “hard ways” could mean and what legal or diplomatic limits exist. Separate reporting notes Nordic diplomats have rejected claims that Russian and Chinese vessels are operating near Greenland as described by Trump, saying NATO-linked intelligence did not support those claims.

Bottom line: There is no confirmed “takeover” of Greenland in the literal sense. What exists right now is a fresh round of public statements, diplomatic fallout, and political debate about U.S. intentions and Greenland’s self-determination.

Sources

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-us-greenland/story?id=129069483

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/trump-says-us-needs-own-greenland-deter-russia-china-2026-01-09/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/greenland-trump-reject-acquisition-dont-want-to-be-americans/

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/nordics-reject-trumps-claim-chinese-russian-ships-around-greenland-ft-reports-2026-01-11/

https://apnews.com/article/5d92b9439ffa9027598af4be695e6415

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

BREAKING: Truck Plows Into Crowd at Los Angeles Iran-Related Protest — Not Confirmed as Iranian Terror Attack

Authorities have not confirmed any terrorism motive or evidence

Los Angeles police responded after somebody drove a U-Haul box truck down a street crowded with marchers demonstrating in support of the Iranian people. Police say the driver was taken into custody and could face charges.

A U-Haul truck drove into a large group of demonstrators in the Westwood neighborhood of Los Angeles on January 11, 2026, during a march where people were showing support for protesters in Iran and opposing the Iranian government.

Hundreds of people had gathered near the Wilshire Federal Building when the U-Haul truck moved into the crowd around mid-afternoon, causing chaos as people scrambled to get out of the way.

Two people were evaluated for injuries at the scene but declined medical transportation, and no serious injuries have been reported so far.

Police say the driver was detained by the Los Angeles Police Department and is under investigation. Authorities have not confirmed any terrorism motive or evidence that this was directed by a foreign government such as Iran. Officers are still investigating what led to the incident.

The protest itself was part of a larger wave of demonstrations around the world linked to unrest in Iran, where many people have been protesting against the country’s government and security forces.

This situation is currently under investigation, and it’s important to rely on confirmed facts from law enforcement and multiple news outlets as more details emerge.

Sources

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/u-haul-plows-through-crowd-of-protesters-in-westwood/3830064/

https://apnews.com/article/8de62f3546b02cbf98f72f91d8405065

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-01-11/la-me-uhaul-westwood-protest

https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/westwood-anti-iran-regime-rally-u-haul-into-crowd/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Los_Angeles_ramming_attack

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Arizona Knows What Happens When Democrats Wage War On ICE

Without enforcement, states like Arizona argue they are left to deal with the consequences alone

Arizona has spent years dealing with the real-world effects of illegal immigration because it sits on the southern border.

When federal enforcement weakens, border states feel the impact first. Communities see increased strain on law enforcement, courts, hospitals, and social services. For Arizona residents, immigration policy is not abstract or theoretical. It directly affects daily life, public safety, and state resources.

During President Donald Trump’s first administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement focused on enforcing existing immigration laws passed by Congress. In response, many Democratic leaders across the country launched political campaigns calling to abolish or defund ICE. These efforts framed immigration enforcement itself as abusive, rather than debating how laws should be applied or reformed. This shift moved the discussion away from policy and toward outright resistance to federal enforcement agencies.

One example from Arizona was David Garcia, a Democrat who echoed national rhetoric supporting the push to dismantle ICE. Critics argued that this approach ignored the role ICE plays in arresting individuals involved in serious crimes such as drug trafficking, human smuggling, and repeat immigration violations. Supporters of ICE enforcement maintained that removing or weakening the agency would leave border states with fewer tools to manage illegal crossings and related criminal activity.

Arizona’s experience shows what happens when enforcement is discouraged or politically undermined. Border communities often see increased crossings, overwhelmed detention systems, and greater pressure on local law enforcement. Even residents who support immigration reform frequently distinguish between legal pathways for immigrants and the need to enforce existing laws until those laws are changed by Congress. Without enforcement, states like Arizona argue they are left to deal with the consequences alone.

The broader debate continues nationwide, balancing humanitarian concerns with public safety and the rule of law. Arizona’s position reflects a practical perspective shaped by geography and experience. While opinions differ on how immigration laws should evolve, the state’s history highlights why many residents remain cautious about efforts to eliminate federal enforcement agencies without clear, workable alternatives.

Sources:

https://www.ice.gov

https://www.cbp.gov/border-security

https://www.azcentral.com

https://www.congress.gov

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Mass Immigration Arrests and Minneapolis Protests After ICE Agent Shooting

Arrests are focused on people with criminal records, while local leaders and community members have raised concerns about strategy

In early January 2026, a major immigration enforcement operation led by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area triggered significant national news and controversy.

According to federal officials, this campaign, described by the Department of Homeland Security as the largest immigration enforcement operation ever carried out in Minnesota, has resulted in hundreds of criminal illegal aliens being arrested in the region. Homeland Security has characterized many of those detained as convicted offenders, including individuals accused of violent crimes and other serious offenses, and federal leaders have framed the effort as part of a broader crackdown on criminal activity and unlawful immigration.

The operation gained widespread attention after a 37-year-old woman named Renee Nicole Good was fatally shot by an ICE agent during the enforcement actions on January 7, 2026. Federal officials have said the agent acted in self-defense, claiming that the woman’s vehicle moved toward officers, but local leaders, eyewitnesses, mayoral officials, and some video evidence have disputed that account, pointing to conflicting actions in the moments before she was shot.

In response to Good’s death, thousands of people joined another night of protests in Minneapolis, with demonstrators marching, chanting, and calling for accountability and changes to immigration enforcement practices. Estimates from law enforcement and media reports suggest that tens of thousands participated in marches, and rallies expressing outrage at the shooting have taken place not only in Minneapolis but in other U.S. cities as well.

Authorities in Minneapolis and across the state have reported dozens of arrests at protests, and in some cases police were injured by thrown objects amid crowds. While many demonstrations have remained peaceful, clashes with law enforcement and confrontations outside federal buildings have been part of the broader scene, as protesters seek transparency in the investigation of the fatal shooting and demand changes to immigration enforcement.

The federal government has stood by the actions of ICE agents involved in the operation, emphasizing that arrests are focused on people with criminal records, while local leaders and community members have raised concerns about strategy, safety, and the impact of heavy federal involvement in city neighborhoods. This deepens existing tensions between state and federal authorities over law enforcement priorities and accountability.

The Minneapolis protests and nationwide demonstrations have kept the shooting and immigration enforcement operation at the forefront of public and political debate, with continued calls for independent investigations, civilian oversight, and clarity about the justification for the use of force by federal officers in this and similar incidents.

SOURCES

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fatal-ice-shooting-minneapolis-activist-sets-stage-national-protests-2026-01-10/

https://apnews.com/article/173e00fa7388054e98c3b5b9417c1e5a

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/2000-federal-agents-sent-to-minneapolis-area-to-carry-out-largest-immigration-operation-ever-ice-says

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/11/ice-renee-good-minneapolis-protests-kristi-noem

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/01/11/rene-good-ice-shooting-investigation/

https://www.ksat.com/news/national/2026/01/11/minnesota-braces-for-whats-next-amid-immigration-arrests-and-in-the-wake-of-renee-good-shooting/

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

The Coast Guard hasn’t boarded the Venezuela-linked oil tanker it’s been chasing for days because it doesn’t have enough ships or boarding teams nearby, Reuters reported on Wednesday.

U.S. Seizes Russian-Flagged Oil Tanker in the Atlantic: What Happened and Why It Matters

Attorney General Pam Bondi warned that criminal charges could be considered against crew members

In early January 2026, U.S. authorities seized an oil tanker in the Atlantic Ocean that was sailing under the Russian flag and operating under the name Marinera.

According to U.S. officials, the vessel had previously been known as Bella 1 and was already under U.S. sanctions because of alleged links to Hezbollah-related oil trafficking. Reports state that the tanker originally sailed from Iran toward Venezuela under the Guyanese flag, attempted to move sanctioned Venezuelan oil despite U.S. restrictions, then reversed course after failing to reach its destination. The ship later changed its name, reflagged under Russia, and continued sailing before being intercepted by U.S. forces enforcing sanctions.

The United States government described the seizure as part of its ongoing effort to block what it calls illicit Venezuelan oil exports. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth publicly stated that the blockade of sanctioned Venezuelan oil remains fully in effect anywhere in the world, signaling that enforcement is not limited to U.S. coastal waters. Shortly afterward, Attorney General Pam Bondi warned that criminal charges could be considered against crew members if investigators determine they knowingly violated U.S. sanctions laws.

Russia responded by demanding that its citizens aboard the tanker be treated humanely and returned home, while criticizing the seizure as unlawful. The incident raised international attention because the ship was flying a Russian flag at the time of interception, placing the United States and Russia on opposite sides of a maritime enforcement action at a moment of already strained relations. While no military confrontation occurred, analysts noted that such seizures increase the risk of miscalculation between nuclear-armed powers operating in shared international waters.

One major takeaway from the incident is how openly the United States is enforcing sanctions far from its own shores. The action reflects a broader “Fortress America” approach that includes maritime enforcement as a key part of national security strategy, especially when it comes to energy trade. U.S. officials have made clear they intend to allow only what they define as legitimate and lawful oil commerce involving Venezuela, even if enforcement requires interdictions on the high seas.

Another takeaway is the growing debate over the global rules-based order. For decades, the United States promoted international norms around free navigation and multilateral enforcement. Critics now argue that aggressive unilateral sanctions enforcement looks more like global policing than cooperative governance, while supporters say it is necessary to stop sanctioned regimes and militant-linked networks from funding themselves through oil sales. The Marinera seizure highlights how these competing views are colliding in real time on the world’s oceans.

SOURCES

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/russia-says-us-seizure-oil-tanker-is-illegal-lawmaker-calls-it-piracy-2026-01-07/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/07/russia-submarine-escort-shadow-fleet-tanker-us-sanctions

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy2024-venezuela-oil-sanctions

https://www.uscg.mil/Press-Releases/

https://www.state.gov/venezuela-sanctions/

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Minneapolis Shooting and the “Absolute Immunity” Debate: What’s Really Happening

Vance described the woman’s death as “a tragedy of her own making” and calling Good a victim of “left-wing ideology.”

In early January 2026, Minneapolis became the center of a national controversy when a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent fatally shot 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good, a local woman and mother of three, during a federal immigration enforcement operation.

The incident occurred on a Minneapolis street as officers were engaged in a heightened federal enforcement effort; conflicting video footage and witness accounts have emerged, some suggesting the vehicle Good was in moved away from officers when shots were fired, raising questions about whether the use of lethal force was justified.

The shooting quickly drew sharp reactions from both local and federal leaders. Vice President J.D. Vance defended the ICE agent’s actions as self-defense, describing the woman’s death as “a tragedy of her own making” and calling Good a victim of “left-wing ideology.” Vance also asserted that the federal officer involved is protected by “absolute immunity”, a legal concept he claimed bars state prosecution or interference in the matter because it occurred during federal law enforcement action.

But the notion of absolute immunity for federal officers in these situations is highly contested. Legal experts say that federal agents do not automatically have complete immunity from state prosecution, and that criminal accountability can still be pursued under certain circumstances, especially if alleged actions exceed the scope of official duties. This legal debate is now central to the controversy, as Minnesota officials argue they have jurisdiction under state law and should be allowed to investigate or bring charges if evidence shows wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, federal authorities, including the FBI, blocked Minnesota state investigators from accessing key evidence, saying the case is a federal matter — a move that has intensified public distrust and fueled protests. Local leaders, such as Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, have criticized the federal response as lacking transparency and have pushed for inclusive investigations to ensure accountability.

The shooting has sparked demonstrations not just in Minnesota but across the country, reflecting broader tensions over federal immigration enforcement, community safety, and how the government holds law enforcement accountable. Family members and community members have contested the federal narrative, saying Good was returning home after dropping off her child when the fatal encounter occurred.

At the heart of the dispute is a clash over legal interpretation — whether federal law shields an ICE agent completely from state prosecution, or whether accountability should be pursued when use of force results in a civilian death. This debate is unfolding alongside national discussions on policing standards, federal authority versus state rights, and how law enforcement actions affect public trust.

What are the rules of engagement for ICE Agents with civilians impeding their duties?

Here’s a clear, fact-based explanation of what ICE agents ARE and ARE NOT allowed to do when civilians impede their duties, based on federal law and official policies:

General Legal Framework

Federal authority in immigration enforcement: ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is a federal law enforcement agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) tasked with enforcing U.S. immigration laws in the interior of the country. That authority is granted by federal statutes such as 8 U.S. Code § 1357 and other immigration law provisions. Federal immigration enforcement is not the same as local police authority, and ICE agents do not gain extra state power simply by enforcing federal law.

ICE is a federal law enforcement agency inside the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) whose job is to enforce federal immigration laws inside the United States, mainly through investigations and removing people who are in the country unlawfully. Congress gives immigration officers specific powers in federal law, including the ability to question people about their right to be in the U.S. and, in certain situations laid out by statute and regulations, to make arrests connected to immigration violations. DHS, not a state, controls these federal immigration duties, which is why ICE authority is different from local police authority: ICE enforces federal immigration rules, while state and local police enforce state and local criminal laws, and ICE agents do not automatically gain extra “state police powers” just because they are doing federal immigration work. If state or local officers assist with immigration enforcement, that usually happens through specific legal pathways and agreements rather than by default.

Under U.S. law, federal obstruction statutes make it a crime to knowingly interfere with a federal law enforcement officer—like an ICE agent—who is carrying out their official duties. One of the key laws used for this is 18 U.S.C. § 111, which says that if someone forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with a federal officer during their work, that person can be charged with a federal offense. This applies whether the officer is making an arrest, conducting an investigation, or performing another official task, and it includes actions that go beyond peaceful disagreement or protest. Interfering with an ICE arrest or enforcement action, encouraging others to block agents, or physically resisting officers can expose a civilian to criminal charges, fines, or jail time under these obstruction laws because the statutes are designed to protect federal officers and federal operations from being hindered or obstructed.

Rules of Engagement and Use of Force

Use of force must be “objectively reasonable”: All DHS law enforcement officers, including ICE agents, are governed by DHS use-of-force policy, which is based on constitutional standards. An agent may use force to carry out official duties or defend themselves and others, but they are required to use only the level of force that is objectively reasonable given the circumstances confronting them at the moment. This means they must assess the threat and choose the minimum necessary force to control a situation.

Federal law and agency policy make it clear that ICE agents—like all U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) law enforcement officers—can only use force that is “objectively reasonable” in the situation they face. Under DHS’s updated Department Policy on the Use of Force, which applies to federal officers including ICE, the standard for using force is rooted in the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court interpretations, meaning any physical force must be justified by the circumstances at the moment it is used and must be no more than necessary to handle the threat. Specifically, officers are permitted to use non-deadly force when they reasonably believe it is warranted and must escalate only if the subject’s actions, intentions, or capabilities justify it, and deadly force is allowed only when the officer reasonably believes there is an imminent threat of death or serious physical harm to themselves or others. This “objectively reasonable” standard requires assessing the totality of what a reasonable officer would do in the same situation, and federal law and regulations emphasize that force should be a last resort after safer alternatives have been considered.

Federal regulations require ICE and other immigration officers to use the least amount of force necessary to safely carry out their duties. Under 8 CFR § 287.8, officers are expected to start with verbal commands and other low-level actions whenever possible and only increase force if the situation demands it. This rule means force cannot be used to punish, intimidate, or rush an outcome, but only to gain control or protect safety. Higher levels of force, such as physical restraint, non-lethal tools, or deadly force, are allowed only when a person’s actions, intentions, or abilities create a real safety risk to the officer or others. This approach follows what law enforcement calls a use-of-force continuum, where officers respond step-by-step based on the threat they face, always aiming to stop the danger while minimizing harm. The law makes clear that escalation must be justified by what is happening in the moment, not by anger, resistance alone, or disagreement with law enforcement.

Training and procedures: ICE’s internal policies (such as Directive 19009.3 Firearms and Use of Force and other use-of-force training manuals) instruct agents on approved tactics, decision-making standards, de-escalation, documentation, and reporting requirements. These policies emphasize that force should not be punitive and that officers should attempt to resolve conflicts without force when feasible.

ICE agents are trained to follow detailed internal rules on firearms and use of force that tell them when force is allowed, what level of force is appropriate, and what they must do afterward. ICE’s Firearms and Use of Force directive says officers may use force only when it is objectively reasonable and necessary to do their job, and it prohibits excessive or punitive force. It also lays out a step-by-step approach that emphasizes safer options when possible, including de-escalation, and it requires reporting and documentation after certain force incidents so the agency can review what happened. These ICE rules are designed to match DHS-wide standards, which are based on constitutional limits and require officers to choose the minimum force that a reasonable officer would think is needed in that moment, especially when a situation can be controlled without escalating.

Encounters with Civilians

When civilians interfere: If a civilian physically resists, blocks, assaults, or otherwise impedes an ICE agent from carrying out a lawful enforcement action, agents are permitted to respond according to their use-of-force training.

When a civilian physically interferes with an ICE agent during a lawful enforcement action—such as pushing, grabbing, striking, blocking an arrest, or trying to stop agents from doing their job—federal law can treat that as a crime, especially if the interference is “forcible.” One key statute, 18 U.S.C. § 111, makes it a federal offense to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with certain federal officers while they are performing official duties. Even when obstruction is happening, ICE agents are still required to follow strict use-of-force limits: DHS policy and immigration regulations require officers to use force only when it is objectively reasonable and necessary, and to use the minimum non-deadly force needed to accomplish the mission, escalating only if the person’s actions, apparent intentions, and capabilities justify it. In plain terms, verbal protest or filming is not the same as physically interfering, but physical resistance or blocking can lead to federal charges, and officers may respond with the level of force their policy allows—while still being accountable to the “minimum necessary” and “objectively reasonable” standards.

If the interference poses no imminent threat of serious harm, agents can use minimal force (such as verbal commands, restraint holds, or non-lethal tools) aimed at controlling or distancing the person.

When someone interferes with an ICE operation but does not present an imminent threat of death or serious injury, federal rules and DHS policy still require officers to keep their response as low-level as possible. Under 8 CFR § 287.8, immigration officers must use the minimum non-deadly force necessary to accomplish their mission, and they may only increase that non-deadly force when the person’s actions, apparent intentions, and apparent capabilities justify it. DHS’s department-wide Use of Force policy also sets the standard that force must be objectively reasonable and necessary in the moment, which supports using basic control methods—like clear verbal commands, positioning, physical guiding or restraint techniques, and approved less-lethal tools—when needed to create space, regain control, or safely continue the enforcement action. In simple terms, if a person is blocking or resisting but not creating a deadly threat, the rules push officers toward control and separation methods rather than extreme force, and they must be able to justify why the level of force they chose was the least necessary under the circumstances.

If the interference escalates to a situation where the agent reasonably believes there is imminent danger of serious physical injury or death, then deadly force may be authorized under the same “reasonable and necessary” standard that applies to all officers.

Under federal law and DHS policy, deadly force is allowed only as a last resort and only when an ICE agent reasonably believes there is an immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to themselves or others. This standard comes from constitutional law and Supreme Court rulings and applies to all law enforcement officers, not just ICE. The decision is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, based on what they knew at that moment, not with hindsight. Deadly force may be justified if a person uses or threatens a weapon, tries to use a vehicle as a weapon, or takes actions that create an immediate and serious risk of harm. Even in these situations, officers are required to stop using deadly force once the threat ends and must later justify their actions through internal reviews and possible outside investigations.

Protesting or obstructing: Civilians who protest, film, or lawfully observe an ICE operation generally are exercising constitutional rights. Agents cannot simply escalate force because someone objects, records, or counts heads. However, if a protest crosses into blocking an operation, physically resisting identification, or threatening force, then agents may take necessary action to secure the scene and complete their duties, always under the requirement that force used must be reasonable under the circumstances.

When people peacefully protest, record, or observe an ICE enforcement action from a safe distance, they are generally exercising First Amendment rights such as free speech and the right to gather. Courts have long recognized that filming public officials performing their duties in public is a protected activity, as long as people do not get so close that they interfere with officers carrying out their tasks. However, those protections have limits: if a protest or observer crosses into blocking an operation, physically resisting officers, refusing lawful requests to move, or threatening force, then agents may respond to secure the scene and complete their work, and the individual could face criminal charges under federal obstruction laws for impeding federal officers. Importantly, agents cannot escalate force simply because someone disagrees, records, or protests, but they can act if there is a clear, physical interference with the enforcement action that creates danger or prevents them from doing their job.

Key Principles

✔ Force must be necessary and proportional. An ICE agent can’t use force just because someone is disagreeing or documenting their actions.

✔ Deadly force is a last resort. It’s legally justified only when there’s a reasonable belief that the agent or others face imminent serious harm.

✔ Interfering with law enforcement is a crime. Obstructing federal officers performing their duties can result in federal criminal charges for civilians.

✔ Policies bind agents to internal review. Use-of-force incidents must be documented and can be reviewed internally, and potentially by external oversight.

In the case of Renee Good using a van to attempt escape after being told 3 or more times to exit the vehicle after formally obstructing the agents, putting the agents at physical harm...

Here’s what the reported facts show about the Minneapolis shooting involving Renee Good and a moving vehicle, based on multiple news investigations and video analysis:

In the January 7, 2026, incident in Minneapolis, 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good, a U.S. citizen, was in her parked vehicle on the street during a large federal ICE operation when multiple agents approached her car and ordered her to exit. According to video footage and eyewitness accounts, at least one ICE agent reached inside the vehicle as she then began to maneuver the vehicle away from the scene. Good’s wife was outside the car and was heard encouraging her to drive.

As the vehicle moved forward, an ICE agent standing near the front left of the vehicle fired multiple shots into the car, striking Good in the head; her vehicle continued and then crashed. Federal officials, including Homeland Security leaders, have defended the shooting as self-defense and have claimed the agent was at risk because she allegedly tried to use the vehicle as a weapon, while local officials and video analysis disputed parts of that narrative, with some saying the video does not clearly show Good intending to run over officers and that she appeared to be pulling away from them.

The situation has become highly contested, with protests and calls for independent investigation over whether the use of deadly force was justified, and with federal authorities restricting state access to evidence while the FBI leads the inquiry.

Key factual points related to the question about “interference and movement” are:

Good was ordered to exit her vehicle during a federal enforcement action, and there are reports of conflicting instructions and confusion about what she was being told.
Video shows her vehicle beginning to move forward as officers were close to it, with an agent near the front-left when shots were fired.
Federal officials characterize the movement as a threat to officers, justifying deadly force under self-defense standards; others dispute that characterization based on the available footage and eyewitness accounts.

What this means in terms of use of force rules is that federal policy only permits deadly force when an officer reasonably believes there is imminent danger of death or serious physical injury, judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene. Whether Good’s vehicle movement met that standard is exactly the point of contention in ongoing investigations and public debate, with local officials and critics questioning the claim that she posed such a threat, while federal officials maintain the officer acted within policy.

Why was the Agent who shot Good ushered quickly away from the scene?

Based on what’s been publicly reported and what standard law-enforcement practice typically looks like, there are two layers to this question: what we can document from this case and why officers are often moved immediately after a shooting.

In the Renee Good case, newly released video and reporting show the shooting happens and then the agent moves away from the vehicle/scene within seconds, and public officials (including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey) have highlighted that the agent appeared to walk away quickly afterward. What the reporting does not clearly establish is a single confirmed, on-the-record explanation like “he was escorted away because X.”

That said, it is common procedure after an officer-involved shooting for the shooter to be moved away from the immediate scene for scene safety and investigation integrity reasons, especially when crowds are forming or tensions are high. In general, agencies will: (1) secure the officer and weapon, (2) check for injuries and adrenaline shock, (3) separate the involved officer from witnesses to avoid cross-talk and preserve statements, (4) establish a perimeter so evidence isn’t contaminated, and (5) remove the officer from immediate danger if bystanders are angry or escalating—something that matters here because Minneapolis saw protests and confrontation tied to the shooting.

So the most fact-based answer is: we can confirm the agent moved away quickly on video, but the exact reason (escort vs. self-withdrawal, and the specific operational rationale) hasn’t been publicly documented in a definitive official explanation; the most likely reasons align with standard post-shooting protocols—safety, medical check, separation, and preserving the investigation.

Bottom Line

ICE agents must follow federal use-of-force standards rooted in constitutional law: they may defend themselves and others and take action to complete their mission, but only with the minimum reasonable force necessary, escalating force only as the situation demands. Civilians who physically interfere can be treated as resisting law enforcement, but peaceful protest and observation are protected rights that do not justify force on their own. Force must always be justified based on the actual threat present.

SOURCES

https://apnews.com/article/38d6b5d89d810c3744ac0d22e8d97384

https://www.startribune.com/ice-agent-who-fatally-shot-woman-in-minneapolis-is-identified/601560214

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/are-federal-agents-immune-to-state-prosecution-jd-vance-says-so/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2026/01/09/minnesota-ice-shooting-investigation-fbi/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/09/jacob-frey-trump-minneapolis-ice-investigation

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/08/minneapolis-protests-continue-after-renee-good-shoot-and-killed-by-ice-agent

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

New York’s Hamas Chant Protests vs Iran’s Anti-Regime Uprising: Why the Contrast Feels So Jarring

Isn't it insane that inside of Iran they're pushing away the Islamic Government, but inside of New York they're doing protests to support Hamas?

Across Iran right now, large numbers of people are taking serious personal risks to protest the Islamic Republic, with many demonstrators calling for political change and an end to the current system.

Reports from major outlets and human-rights groups describe heavy crackdowns, internet shutdowns, mass arrests, and deaths, which is why some Americans look at Iran and think, these are people pushing back against hardline rule even when the consequences are brutal.

At the same time in New York City, a protest outside a synagogue and a Jewish school in Queens drew national attention after some demonstrators were recorded chanting “we support Hamas.” Local reporting said the rally was tied to anger over Israeli real estate activity, and it triggered condemnation because Hamas is widely labeled a terrorist organization, and because the chant was made outside a Jewish religious site rather than at a government building or diplomatic office. That setting matters because it turns a foreign-policy protest into something many people see as intimidation of a local community.

This is where the “isn’t it insane” reaction comes from: people see Iranians risking everything to resist an Islamic government, while some Americans appear to romanticize or excuse a militant group tied to Islamist rule and mass violence. To many conservatives and a lot of moderates, that feels upside down. They argue it shows how social media activism can flatten reality into slogans, where some protesters treat “support for Palestinians” and “support for Hamas” as the same thing, even though they are not the same thing.

But there is also a middle-ground explanation that helps people understand what’s happening without excusing it: in big U.S. cities, many demonstrators say they are protesting Israel’s war policies or advocating for Palestinian civilians, not endorsing Hamas. The problem is that when a crowd uses a pro-Hamas chant, it becomes the headline, it poisons the message, and it hands opponents a strong argument that the movement is tolerating extremism. That is why even some city leaders and public officials condemned the Hamas chant directly and said support for a terrorist organization has no place in the city.

The bigger point is that both scenes are real, but they are not morally equal. Iran’s protests are about people challenging the state that governs their daily lives under threat of lethal force, while the New York protest is happening in a free society where speech is protected, but speech also has consequences, especially when it targets religious spaces and uses slogans linked to violent groups. If Americans want serious, credible advocacy, the line between defending civilians and endorsing terror has to be clear, or public support will keep collapsing into tribal shouting matches.

Photo and video options you can use in your post: CBS New York has footage and social videos related to the Queens protest, and major international outlets have images and reporting from Iran’s street demonstrations (note: Iran reporting is harder because of internet shutdowns).

SOURCES

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/01/10/iran-protests-khamenei-tehran-mashhad/

https://www.ft.com/content/957fcdd4-d10a-4d9e-b5f3-293bdf1305f4

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/jan/09/iran-supreme-leader-harsher-crackdown-protest-movement-swells

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/01/internet-shutdown-in-iran-hides-violations-in-escalating-protests/

https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/01/08/iran-authorities-renewed-cycle-of-protest-bloodshed

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/pro-hamas-chant-queens-synagogue-protest/

https://www.jta.org/2026/01/08/ny/police-maintain-buffer-zone-as-pro-palestinian-protesters-rally-outside-nyc-israel-real-estate-event

https://www.timesofisrael.com/protesters-chant-we-support-hamas-near-new-york-city-synagogue-jewish-school/

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Megyn Kelly’s Israel Shift: What She Said About Propaganda, Why It Matters, and How Both Sides Are Reacting

This debate has also turned into a public feud between prominent commentators

Megyn Kelly is drawing attention after comments that critics describe as an admission that pro-Israel messaging in the U.S. can be intense, while supporters say she is simply describing how media narratives and political pressure work.

The discussion picked up after clips circulated from recent shows where she talked about how her own views on Israel have changed over time and how the public debate has become more rigid.

One point being debated is Kelly’s skepticism toward wartime imagery and messaging. In a clip circulating from Piers Morgan Uncensored, she is shown framing some humanitarian images and claims as something to be questioned rather than accepted at face value, and the framing is being described by others as calling it propaganda. Supporters argue skepticism is normal in war coverage, while critics argue that skepticism can be used to dismiss real suffering.

Another part of the story is a growing public split inside conservative media about Israel. Kelly has been grouped with other right-leaning voices who say they want room to criticize Israeli policy without being labeled anti-Israel or antisemitic. At the same time, pro-Israel conservatives argue that some of this criticism has drifted into unfair narratives and conspiracy-style framing, which they believe fuels hostility.

This debate has also turned into a public feud between prominent commentators. Reports describe arguments involving Kelly, Ben Shapiro, and others over what counts as legitimate criticism versus rhetoric that crosses a line. Some watchdog groups say certain “dual loyalty” language is historically dangerous, while Kelly has pushed back and framed the issue as free speech and open debate.

The “propaganda” word itself is a big reason the clip is spreading. Critics say it reinforces a one-sided storyline that Israel manipulates Americans. Defenders say propaganda is used by many governments and groups in wartime, including Hamas and Israel, and that Kelly’s main point is that Americans are being pushed to pick a side without asking questions. That is the core disagreement: is she exposing pressure tactics, or is she feeding a narrative that can turn into blame and hate.

In practical terms, this story matters because it shows how quickly the Israel debate is changing in U.S. politics, especially on the right. Some conservatives are moving toward a more “America first” approach that questions foreign aid and long wars, while others see strong support for Israel as a moral and strategic necessity. Kelly’s comments landed in the middle of that fight, which is why they are being treated as a major “admission” by critics and a reasonable “rethink” by supporters.

Videos

The Young Turks clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0yZ0khDWho

Piers Morgan Uncensored short: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6PFyupgARrQ

Megyn Kelly and Charlie Kirk discussion clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2qn0mvSCig

Sources and Links

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0yZ0khDWho

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6PFyupgARrQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2qn0mvSCig

https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/megyn-kelly-makes-huge-admission/2352080288551882/

https://www.facebook.com/piersmorganuncensored/posts/megyn-kelly-says-israel-is-losing-its-standing-with-the-rest-of-the-world-with-i/725435240122435/

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMyd--yo0Mw/

https://nypost.com/2025/07/31/world-news/megyn-kelly-other-maga-stars-are-starting-to-question-us-support-for-israel-over-gaza-war/

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/megyn-kellys-israel-pivot/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/megyn-kelly-loses-it-at-right-wing-satire-site-the-babylon-bees-joke-about-her/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/politics-news/megyn-kelly-ben-shapiro-and-bari-weiss-maga-infighting-1236458050/

https://nypost.com/2025/12/25/media/adl-accuses-megyn-kelly-of-using-antisemitic-trope-against-ben-shapiro-victim-blaming-bari-weiss/

https://podcasts.happyscribe.com/the-tucker-carlson-show/blackmail-bribes-and-fear-netanyahu-claims-he-controls-donald-trump-and-america-tucker-responds

Please Like & Share 😉🪽
@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Europe has fallen

Why Greenland, Borders, and Strategic Alliances Are Becoming Central to America’s Future

A growing argument in U.S. strategic circles is that Europe can no longer be relied on as a dependable partner in future global conflicts.

Critics point to internal instability, rising extremism, demographic shifts, and centralized control within the European Union as signs of long-term decline. From this viewpoint, Europe is seen as increasingly unable or unwilling to defend itself or contribute meaningfully to Western security, forcing the United States to rethink where its true strategic priorities lie.

This perspective also emphasizes national cohesion and identity, drawing parallels with allies like Australia, where leaders argue that internal unity and shared civic values are essential to resisting outside conflict and extremism. Attacks on minority communities, including Jewish populations, are described not only as crimes against individuals but as direct assaults on a nation’s way of life. The argument is that social cohesion, respect for law, and national identity must be reinforced to withstand external threats.

Within this broader strategy, Greenland has emerged as a focal point. Advocates argue that Greenland’s geographic position in the Arctic, combined with its rare earth minerals and proximity to key sea lanes, makes it strategically vital. The idea is not framed as territorial conquest, but as protection and partnership, possibly through a protectorate arrangement rather than statehood. Supporters say this would prevent adversaries like China or Russia from gaining a foothold in a region critical to missile defense, naval movement, and early warning systems.

This thinking aligns closely with the strategic outlook associated with Donald Trump, who has repeatedly argued that the United States must secure energy, technology, military supply chains, and key geographic assets before conflict forces rushed decisions. From this view, future conflict will not be limited to traditional warfare, but will include digital competition, artificial intelligence dominance, currency power, and control of resources like oil, electricity, nuclear energy, and advanced weapons systems.

NATO is often criticized in this argument as being too slow, divided, and ineffective, particularly in the Arctic. Countries like Denmark and Canada are accused of neglecting their defense responsibilities, especially in Greenland and northern regions. If those nations cannot or will not defend critical territory, the argument follows that the United States must step in to protect its own security interests, even if that strains traditional alliances such as North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

At the same time, the strategy emphasizes building partnerships rather than empires. Examples often cited include outreach to countries like Argentina and Venezuela, where the goal is influence and cooperation, not direct control. The belief is that stable allies in the Western Hemisphere strengthen U.S. security, while adversarial ideologies like communism are rejected outright.

Border security and drug trafficking are also presented as part of the same national survival issue. Supporters argue that cartels operate like terrorist organizations, with state backing from regimes such as Venezuela, and that drugs flowing into the U.S. kill hundreds of thousands of Americans through overdoses and violence. They credit aggressive border enforcement with sharply reducing illegal crossings and drug smuggling routes, framing it as a necessary defense of American lives.

Finally, the Arctic is described as vital terrain in modern geopolitics. Control of Arctic waterways affects Russian naval movement, including nuclear submarines, and determines who dominates emerging shipping routes as ice recedes. Analysts argue that this is why Greenland matters so much and why its future alignment could shape global power for decades. From this perspective, securing Greenland is not symbolic, but a practical step in preparing for an unstable and competitive world.

Source Links

U.S. Department of Defense – Arctic Strategy

https://www.defense.gov/Spotlights/Arctic-Strategy/

NATO – NATO and the Arctic

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_84205.htm

U.S. Geological Survey – Rare Earth Elements and Strategic Minerals

https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-minerals-information-center/rare-earth-elements

Council on Foreign Relations – Why Greenland Matters to U.S. Security

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/why-greenland-matters-us-security

Congressional Research Service – Arctic Security Issues

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R45558

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Why Body Cameras Matter for Police, the Public, and the Truth After a Critical Incident

Cameras help separate real misconduct from misinformation.

Body-worn cameras have become one of the most important tools in modern policing because they create a clearer record of what happens during high-stress encounters.

When there is a shooting, an arrest dispute, or a claim of excessive force, bodycam video can help confirm basic facts like who said what, whether commands were given, how quickly events unfolded, and whether a threat was present. In many cases, this evidence reduces rumor-driven outrage and helps the public understand incidents that are often chaotic and confusing in real time.

Bodycams can protect civilians by discouraging misconduct and by making it easier to investigate complaints. They can also protect officers by documenting resistance, threats, or assaults that might otherwise be denied. When both sides know the interaction is being recorded, it can lower the temperature and reduce false accusations. Studies and department reports have found that body-worn cameras often reduce use-of-force incidents and citizen complaints, although results vary depending on policy, training, and whether cameras are consistently used.

Bodycam footage is not a magic fix, because cameras can fail, get obstructed, or miss key angles, and policies determine when officers must activate them. Public trust also depends on transparency, including timely release of footage when legally allowed, clear explanations of any redactions, and consequences when camera policies are violated. Good bodycam programs also require secure storage, rules for privacy, and standards for when footage can be used by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and oversight agencies.

In the biggest national controversies, lack of clear video can allow two completely different stories to spread at once. That is where bodycams are most valuable: they give investigators, juries, and the public a better chance to judge events based on evidence instead of assumptions. When used properly, body cameras can support accountability, improve training, and help separate real misconduct from misinformation.

Source Links

U.S. Department of Justice – Body-Worn Camera Toolkit (policies, research, implementation guidance)

https://bja.ojp.gov/program/body-worn-camera-toolkit

National Institute of Justice – Research on body-worn cameras

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/body-worn-cameras-law-enforcement

Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) – Body-worn camera policy and best practices

https://www.policeforum.org/bodyworncameras

ACLU – Model body-worn camera policies and civil liberties considerations

https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/body-worn-cameras

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) – Body-worn camera guidance

https://www.theiacp.org/projects/body-worn-cameras

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Claims of Regime Collapse in Iran Spread as Protests Intensify and Military Loyalty Questioned

Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last shah, has publicly voiced support for the protesters and called for unity among opposition groups

Claims that Iran’s ruling system is collapsing have spread rapidly online as large protests continue in Tehran and other major cities.

Demonstrators are openly challenging the authority of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, chanting against clerical rule and demanding political change. While some online posts claim the regime has already fallen, international reporting confirms widespread unrest and violence but does not verify an official collapse of the government.

Exiled opposition figure Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last shah, has publicly voiced support for the protesters and called for unity among opposition groups. His statements encourage Iran’s military and security forces to side with the people rather than the ruling clerical system. Supporters say his involvement has energized demonstrators, though he does not control events on the ground, and Iran’s current leadership remains in power.

Reports from journalists and human rights organizations say Iranian security forces fired on protesters during overnight clashes in several locations. Video footage and witness accounts show gunfire, tear gas, and mass arrests. Iran’s government says force is being used to stop riots and protect public order, while critics argue the response shows the regime is relying on violence to maintain control as public fear erodes.

Many protesters say they have little left to lose due to years of economic hardship, political repression, and lack of opportunity. This mindset has made the demonstrations more intense and sustained than past protests. Analysts note that movements driven by desperation can be especially dangerous for entrenched governments, but history also shows that regimes can survive prolonged unrest if security forces remain loyal.

A central question now is whether Iran’s military and security services will continue backing the ruling system. So far, there is no confirmed evidence of large-scale defections. Experts say that without a clear military split, claims of immediate regime collapse remain premature, even as the unrest poses one of the most serious challenges to Iran’s leadership in years.

The situation remains fluid and difficult to verify due to internet restrictions and media controls inside Iran. While calls for freedom and regime change are louder than ever, the outcome depends on whether protests continue to grow, whether violence escalates further, and whether Iran’s armed forces ultimately choose repression or restraint.

Source Links

Reuters – Iran protests, security force response, and leadership statements

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/

BBC News – Iran unrest, protests, and political analysis

https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/cp7r8vgl2y3t/iran

Al Jazeera – Tehran protests and government crackdown coverage

https://www.aljazeera.com/tag/iran-protests/

Amnesty International – Reports on Iran protest killings and arrests

https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/iran/

Human Rights Watch – Iran security forces and human rights reporting

https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/north-africa/iran

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Anti-Islamic Protests Continue in Iran as Government Denies Mass Casualty Claims

Videos circulating online show fires, damaged buildings, and clashes between crowds and security forces

Large anti-government protests have continued across Iran, with demonstrators refusing to leave the streets despite arrests, curfews, and heavy security presence.

Protesters include secular activists, women’s rights groups, and citizens openly criticizing Iran’s clerical system. Some chants and signs reject religious rule entirely, which Iranian state media has labeled “anti-Islamic.” The government, led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has accused protesters of serving foreign interests and attempting to destabilize the country.

Videos circulating online show fires, damaged buildings, and clashes between crowds and security forces. Claims that mosques have been destroyed have appeared on social media, but independent reporting confirms only limited damage to religious or government-linked buildings in some areas. Major international news organizations have not verified widespread mosque destruction, and Iranian authorities deny that religious sites are being systematically targeted.

Claims that “thousands have been massacred” are also circulating online, but these numbers remain unverified. Human rights groups and journalists report dozens to possibly hundreds of deaths across recent unrest, not thousands. Iran has restricted internet access during the protests, making independent casualty verification difficult. Past protest crackdowns in Iran have resulted in high death tolls over time, which contributes to public distrust of official government figures.

The protests are driven by a mix of economic hardship, anger over corruption, restrictions on women, and long-standing opposition to clerical rule. Many demonstrators describe their movement as anti-regime rather than anti-religion, saying they oppose forced religious control by the state rather than personal faith. The Iranian government, however, continues to frame the unrest as extremist, foreign-directed, and hostile to Islam itself.

Security forces have responded with mass arrests, live ammunition in some cases, and expanded surveillance. Iran’s leadership argues that firm action is necessary to prevent chaos and protect national stability. Critics say the response is worsening public anger and pushing more people into open defiance, especially younger Iranians who see little economic or political future under the current system.

International observers warn that exaggerated or false claims online can increase panic and misinformation, while verified reports already show a serious and ongoing human rights crisis. The situation remains fluid, with protests continuing in several cities and the government maintaining tight control over media, movement, and communications.

Source Links

Reuters – Iran protests, casualties, and government response

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/

Al Jazeera – Iran unrest and state response

https://www.aljazeera.com/tag/iran-protests/

BBC News – Iran protests and human rights reporting

https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/cp7r8vgl2y3t/iran

Amnesty International – Iran protest casualties and arrests

https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/iran/

Human Rights Watch – Iran crackdown reports

https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/north-africa/iran

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Blames Protests on Trump as Unrest Spreads

Trump’s name being used inside Iran matters because it can raise tensions and shape how each side talks

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says protesters are acting on behalf of U.S. President Donald Trump, as demonstrations grow in multiple cities and the government tries to regain control.

Iranian state messaging is portraying parts of the unrest as foreign-influenced, while protesters describe their actions as driven by daily economic pressure and anger at the ruling system.

Reports say the current wave of protests began with economic complaints, including rising prices, a weakening currency, and long-running inflation. As crowds grew, the unrest expanded beyond economic demands into political chants, attacks on symbols of state authority, and clashes with security forces in several areas.

Iran has responded with arrests and force, and multiple outlets report that authorities imposed a broad internet shutdown to slow organizing and limit what the outside world can see. Reuters also reported warnings from top officials and prosecutors that severe punishments could follow for sabotage or violence tied to the unrest.

Khamenei’s accusation against Trump fits a familiar pattern in Iranian politics, where leaders often blame outside actors for domestic unrest. Iranian state media and security-linked outlets have also pointed to exiled opposition groups as drivers of violence, while many demonstrators and observers argue the core causes are internal and tied to economic hardship and frustration with governance.

International reaction has focused on concern over violence and the risk of escalation. Outside governments and analysts have warned that mass arrests, internet blackouts, and crackdowns can deepen public anger and make a political solution harder, even if the state restores short-term order.

For U.S. politics, Trump’s name being used inside Iran matters because it can raise tensions and shape how each side talks about intervention, sanctions, and support for protesters. At the same time, the immediate reality on the ground is that Iran’s leadership is treating the unrest as a security threat, while many Iranians say they are protesting because daily life is becoming unlivable.

Source Links

Reuters (Iran shuts off internet as protests widen; Khamenei blames foreign enemies/Trump framing): https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-cut-off-world-supreme-leader-warns-protesters-2026-01-09/

Financial Times (Khamenei accuses protesters of acting for Trump; background on unrest): https://www.ft.com/content/0e1762e0-8aa6-44b5-977c-0865ecdcbb7d

Al Jazeera (Khamenei lashes out as Tehran struggles to quell protests): https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/9/irans-khamenei-lashes-out-as-tehran-struggles-to-quell-protests

The Straits Times (Iran cut off from world; warnings and crackdown reporting): https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/iran-cut-off-from-world-as-supreme-leader-warns-protesters

Reuters

Iran shuts off internet as protesters start fires in widening unrest

Iran’s supreme leader accuses protesters of acting for Donald Trump

Financial Times

https://www.justice.gov/crt/staff-profile/assistant-attorney-general

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

DOJ Civil Rights Warning to NYC After Controversial Tenant Advocate Appointment

The dispute is now part of a broader political fight over housing policy & race-related rhetoric

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, issued a public warning aimed at New York City officials, saying the federal government will not tolerate discrimination based on skin color and that such discrimination is illegal. The message circulated as a short video statement on social media and was framed as a notice that the Civil Rights Division is watching developments in New York City.

The warning came amid controversy involving New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s appointment of Cea Weaver to lead the Mayor’s Office to Protect Tenants, a housing-focused office within city government. The city announced Weaver’s role as part of an executive action to “revitalize” the office, placing tenant protection and enforcement at the center of the new administration’s housing agenda.

Weaver drew criticism after past social media posts resurfaced, including statements that attacked homeownership and comments interpreted by critics as endorsing seizure of private property. Some posts were described as hostile toward white people and were cited by opponents aso as evidence of ideological bias. Supporters of Weaver responded that she has a long history of tenant organizing and policy work in New York, and they argue the backlash is politically motivated.

News coverage describes the Justice Department message as a warning, not a legal finding. In other words, a public “notice” does not prove discrimination occurred, and it does not by itself force the city to take action. Any federal civil-rights enforcement step that goes beyond public statements typically involves formal complaints, investigations, or legal filings tied to specific conduct and evidence.

Mayor Mamdani’s administration has defended Weaver and continues to push tenant-first policies, while critics argue the appointment signals a government hostile to property rights and homeowners. The dispute is now part of a broader political fight over housing policy, race-related rhetoric, and how far a city can go in regulating landlords and favoring tenant protections without crossing legal lines.

Sources and address links:

https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/01/mayor-mamdani-signs-eo-to-revitalize-mayor-s-office-to-protect-t

https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office

https://abc7ny.com/post/nyc-mayor-zohran-mamdani-defends-appointee-cea-weaver-despite-concerns-past-social-media-posts/18369100/

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/mamdani-backs-housing-appointee-cea-weaver-past-tweets-seize-private-property.html

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/mamdani-cea-weaver-nyc-tenant-advocate

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-rule-restores-equal-protection-all-civil-rights-enforcement

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Renee Good and her “wife” Becca need to be Investigated for What They do for a Living

I guarantee there’s much much more to this story

Renee Good’s “wife” Becca - who was filming the incident yesterday from outside the car - allegedly has a long rap sheet and there are records of them in Colorado, Virginia and Missouri. The SUV had Missouri plates. '

Someone needs to investigate the social media and bank accounts of Renee Good and her “wife” Becca and find out just what they do for a living.

I guarantee there’s much much more to this story. Let’s allow the 72 hour rule to apply.

Renee’s husband, Timmy, and the father of her three children - died in 2023 - and apparently Renee and Becca hooked up after that. They called themselves QUEER ACTIVISTS. The family of Renee’s husband did not mention either of them at all in his obituary. Which I find very odd.

Becca’s GoFundMe has already raised $441,276

https://www.gofundme.com/.../support-for-renee-goods-wife...

Renee’s poetry was very anti-Christian.

BTW - if she didn’t speed up to intentionally hit the ICE officer she wouldn’t have crashed into that white vehicle as forcefully like she did.

https://x.com/0hour1/status/2009088504777855145?s=20

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Trump just released this updated childhood vaccine schedule. From 72 down to 11.

Still Waiting for Official Confirmation

President Donald Trump released an updated childhood vaccine schedule that cuts recommended vaccines from 17 down to 11, or reduces total doses from more than 70 to a much smaller number.

In the United States, childhood vaccine schedules are not set by the president. They are developed and updated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, with input from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

The current childhood immunization schedule is reviewed annually and is based on disease risk, safety data, and effectiveness studies. While the schedule includes multiple doses across childhood, the number of vaccines refers to the number of diseases protected against, not the total number of shots. Over time, combination vaccines have reduced injections while still protecting against the same illnesses.

No official CDC or HHS announcement confirms a reduction from 17 vaccines to 11 or a formal change issued by President Trump.

Presidents can influence health policy through agency leadership, executive orders affecting regulatory priorities, or public statements, but they cannot independently rewrite medical schedules. Any real change to the childhood vaccine schedule would require public CDC documentation, ACIP meeting records, and formal publication. As of now, those records do not show a nationwide reduction matching the claim being shared.

Public confusion often comes from mixing up dose counts, combination vaccines, or proposed ideas with official policy. Health agencies continue to state that vaccine recommendations are based on preventing serious childhood diseases like measles, polio, and whooping cough, and that changes are made cautiously and transparently.

Until an official CDC update is released and published, claims of a major reduction in the childhood vaccine schedule should be treated as unverified. Parents are advised to rely on guidance from pediatricians and official health agency releases rather than social media claims.

Sources and address links:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip

https://www.hhs.gov

https://www.aap.org

https://www.fda.gov

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

ACLU Lawsuit Against ICE Stalls After Hearing Is Canceled

No official reason was given for the cancellation, and a new hearing date was not immediately announced

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against federal immigration authorities, saying recent enforcement actions crossed constitutional lines.

The case targets the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, arguing that agents used intimidation, force, and detentions against people who were observing or protesting immigration operations from public places. The lawsuit says these actions interfered with basic rights like free speech, peaceful assembly, and protection from unreasonable searches.

According to court records, the ACLU asked a federal judge to place limits on how immigration agents interact with the public during enforcement actions. This included requests to restrict the use of crowd-control tools such as chemical irritants and stun-style devices during protests. The ACLU says these measures are needed to protect bystanders, journalists, and legal observers who are not interfering with law enforcement activity.

A key court hearing in the case was scheduled but later canceled without an explanation from the court. No official reason was given for the cancellation, and a new hearing date was not immediately announced. In federal courts, hearings can be postponed or canceled for several reasons, including scheduling conflicts, procedural issues, or pending legal motions, even when no public explanation is provided.

The cancellation drew attention because it happened amid heightened tensions surrounding immigration enforcement in Minneapolis. Federal officials have stated that their agents are authorized to protect themselves and carry out their duties during volatile situations. Civil rights groups argue that these powers must still be exercised within constitutional limits, especially when members of the public are not posing a threat.

At this stage, the lawsuit remains active, and no ruling has been made on the ACLU’s claims. The canceled hearing does not end the case, but it does delay court review of the arguments. Future proceedings will determine whether a judge orders changes to how immigration enforcement operations are conducted during protests or public observation.

Sources and address links:

https://www.uscourts.gov

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Minneapolis ICE Shooting Sparks Confeting Accounts and Federal Review

Local officials and witnesses have offered a different perspective

Federal immigration operations in Minneapolis turned deadly when Renee Nicole Good, 37, was shot and killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer during a tense encounter near an enforcement action.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, officers were conducting a lawful federal operation when Good approached the scene in her SUV. DHS says agents believed the situation had escalated into a life-threatening moment, claiming the officer fired after concluding the vehicle posed an immediate danger. This account has been publicly defended by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who stated that Good had been harassing or interfering with officers before the shooting.

Local officials and witnesses have offered a different perspective. Several bystanders and early video clips circulating online suggest Good may have been attempting to leave the area rather than confront agents directly. These conflicting accounts have fueled public anger and led to large demonstrations across Minneapolis, with protesters demanding transparency and questioning the use of force by federal officers operating in residential neighborhoods.

Minnesota lawmakers have criticized the lack of immediate clarity and called for a full, independent investigation. In response, federal authorities confirmed that the incident is under review by multiple agencies, including federal investigators and state-level law enforcement. Officials have said body-camera footage, surveillance video, and witness statements will be central to determining whether the officer’s actions were justified under federal use-of-force standards.

As of now, no final determination has been made. The only confirmed facts are that Good was shot once while inside her vehicle, the officer involved remains on administrative status, and investigations are ongoing. The case has become a flashpoint in the broader national debate over immigration enforcement, federal policing authority, and accountability when civilians are killed during law enforcement operations.

Sources & Links

CBS News – DHS claims woman shot by ICE officer harassed agents

https://www.cbsnews.com/

Department of Homeland Security – Official statements and press briefings

https://www.dhs.gov/newsroom

Associated Press – Minneapolis protests after ICE shooting

https://apnews.com/

Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension – Use-of-force investigations

https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca

FBI – Officer-involved shooting review process

https://www.fbi.gov

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

ICE Shooting in Minneapolis Sparks Protests and Conflicting Accounts

The officer fired because he believed he was in immediate danger from the vehicle

On January 7, 2026, Renee Nicole Good, 37, was shot and killed in Minneapolis by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer during federal immigration operations, after an encounter in which Good was inside her SUV near agents in a residential area.

Federal officials, including the Department of Homeland Security, said the officer fired because he believed he was in immediate danger from the vehicle and claimed Good was trying to run over officers, with DHS publicly defending the shooting and using strong language about interference with the operation. The Washington Post+2People.com+2 Other reporting describes bystander accounts and video suggesting she was trying to leave or turn away when she was shot, and the incident quickly triggered protests and sharp criticism from Minnesota leaders while multiple agencies opened investigations, including the FBI and Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. The Washington Post+1 Separately, a remark attributed in reporting to a relative by marriage (described as a former brother-in-law) said she “should have minded her own business,” reflecting how divided public reactions have been as investigators review the footage and facts of what happened. facebook.com

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

France Faces Nationwide Farmer Revolt as Protests Spread Across the Country

The French Revolution is Here... Led by France's Farmers

France is facing a growing nationwide revolt by farmers as protests expand across multiple regions, disrupting roads, supply chains, and major cities.

Farmers have used tractors and heavy equipment to block highways, border crossings, and access routes to urban centers, demanding relief from rising costs, strict regulations, and what they describe as unfair competition from foreign agricultural imports.

The protests are driven by frustration over high fuel prices, fertilizer costs, environmental rules, and declining profit margins. Many farmers say European Union regulations and trade agreements have increased their costs while allowing cheaper imports that do not follow the same standards. As a result, they argue they are being pushed out of business while consumers face higher food prices.

The French government, led by Emmanuel Macron, has acknowledged the unrest and pledged to accelerate aid measures and regulatory reviews. Officials have discussed tax relief, fuel subsidies, and adjustments to environmental requirements, but protest leaders say past promises have not gone far enough or arrived too late.

The unrest has spread beyond rural areas into major population centers, with convoys of tractors reaching the outskirts of Paris and other large cities. Authorities have increased police presence to keep key infrastructure open while trying to avoid violent clashes. So far, most demonstrations have remained peaceful, though disruptions to food distribution and transportation have increased pressure on the government to act quickly.

At the heart of the revolt is a broader debate about the future of farming in France and Europe. Farmers argue that policies meant to address climate goals and global trade have overlooked economic reality on the ground. They warn that without major changes, family farms will continue to disappear, increasing dependence on imports and weakening national food security.

As talks continue, the situation remains unstable. Farmer groups say protests will continue until concrete actions are taken, while the government faces growing political pressure to balance environmental policy, trade commitments, and the survival of domestic agriculture. The outcome could influence agricultural policy across Europe, not just in France.

Sources and Links

Reuters – France farmer protests spread nationwide

https://commission.europa.eu

BBC News – Why French farmers are protesting

https://www.bbc.com/news

France24 – Tractor protests and government response

https://www.france24.com

European Commission – EU agriculture and trade policy background

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Trump Signals Move to Limit Large Investors Buying Single-Family Homes

Donald Trump is banning BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and Blackstone from buying up our single family homes and renting them back to us

President Donald Trump said on Truth Social that he is taking immediate steps to restrict large institutional investors from buying single-family homes and renting them back to families. He also said he would push Congress to turn the policy into law. The post focused on keeping more homes available for individual buyers rather than large financial firms.

Trump’s statement named major investment companies such as BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, and Blackstone. These firms, along with others, have been linked to the growth of large-scale home purchases that are then used as rental properties. Supporters of limits argue that this trend has reduced supply for families trying to buy homes, especially in fast-growing markets.

The market reacted quickly to the post. Shares of Invitation Homes, one of the largest single-family rental operators, fell more than 7 percent during the trading day. Investors appeared to be responding to the risk that new rules or legislation could reduce future growth for companies that rely on buying and renting single-family houses.

Details on how such a ban would work are still unclear. Any permanent restriction would likely require action by Congress, and legal questions remain about how broadly the federal government could limit private investment activity. Some analysts note that similar ideas have been discussed at the state and local level, while others point out that housing supply, zoning, and construction costs also play major roles in home prices.

The issue highlights a larger debate over housing affordability in the United States. Rising prices and limited inventory have made it harder for first-time buyers to enter the market. At the same time, institutional investors argue that they provide rental housing and stability in some communities. Trump’s comments suggest housing policy and Wall Street’s role in the market could become a central issue in the months ahead.

Sources and Links

Truth Social – Donald Trump official account

https://truthsocial.com

Market data on Invitation Homes (INVH)

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/INVH

Background on institutional investors in housing

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/institutional-investors-in-the-housing-market-20220802.html

Overview of U.S. housing affordability trends

https://www.census.gov/housing

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Walz Activates Minnesota Emergency Operations Center After ICE-Linked Shooting Raises Security Concerns

There will be attempts to turn this woman into a martyr. She is not one. Her actions were dangerous, irresponsible and Unheroic

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz activated the state’s Emergency Operations Center and placed the Minnesota National Guard on alert following an ICE-involved shooting that prompted threats of protests and potential unrest. State officials said the move was intended to ensure coordination among law enforcement, emergency services, and public safety agencies as tensions increased.

According to state authorities, the activation allows Minnesota to centralize communications and rapidly deploy resources if protests escalate or public safety is threatened. Officials emphasized that the step does not automatically mean troops will be deployed, but ensures readiness in case local agencies request support. The alert status enables the Guard to assist with logistics, traffic control, and protection of critical infrastructure if needed.

The incident involved federal immigration authorities, drawing strong reactions online and raising concerns about demonstrations targeting government buildings or law enforcement facilities. State leaders said intelligence and social media monitoring indicated credible threats of large-scale protests, prompting precautionary measures to prevent violence and maintain order.

Governor Walz stated that peaceful protest is protected under the law, but violence and property damage will not be tolerated. The administration stressed that the Emergency Operations Center activation is a standard response tool used during periods of heightened risk, including natural disasters and civil unrest, and is meant to support—not replace—local law enforcement.

The Minnesota National Guard confirmed it is coordinating closely with state and local agencies and remains prepared to respond if formally requested. Officials said updates will be provided as the situation develops and urged the public to rely on verified information rather than rumors circulating online.

No one tries to run over a federal officer and honestly believes there will be no response. Thinking that is reckless and unrealistic. That choice alone puts lives at risk, including the person making it. What happened should never be praised or excused.

That said, it is also true that there were people in Minneapolis, both in government and among civilians, who were eager for an incident like this to happen. When tensions are already high, some groups look for moments they can use to push a larger agenda. This situation is likely to be used that way.

There will be attempts to turn this woman into a martyr. She is not one. Her actions were dangerous, irresponsible, and unnecessary. There is nothing heroic or worthy of celebration about driving a vehicle toward a federal officer and getting shot as a result.

Many people pretend not to understand how federal immigration law works, but the basics are simple. Entering the United States without permission from the U.S. government is already a violation of the law. That fact exists whether people like it or not.

If people disagree with those laws, the proper way to change them is through Congress. That means working with lawmakers, proposing legislation, and voting. Protests that turn violent do not change laws. They only create chaos and put more people in danger.

Unfortunately, chaos often brings attention. Media coverage and political pressure are easier to get through outrage than through calm debate. That is why incidents like this are quickly used to fuel more unrest.

Minneapolis may remain unstable for the next few weeks. There are people in positions of power who benefit from ongoing tension and disorder. While many hope things will calm down, the reality is that too many are invested in keeping emotions high. Because of that, it is likely that unrest will continue, at least for a while.

Sources and Links

Office of Governor Tim Walz – Official announcements

https://mn.gov/governor

Minnesota Department of Public Safety

https://dps.mn.gov

Minnesota National Guard – Public information

https://minnesotanationalguard.ng.mil

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

https://www.ice.gov

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

China Asks Banks to Disclose Venezuela Exposure as U.S. Pressure Mounts

China’s lending to Venezuela has grown over many years under “loans-for-oil” arrangements

China’s top financial regulator has quietly instructed major state and commercial banks to open their books and disclose how much exposure they have to Venezuela’s debt and credit lines.

The move comes amid heightened geopolitical risk following recent U.S. military actions involving Venezuela’s leadership and escalating uncertainty about the country’s economic future.

Beijing’s National Financial Regulatory Administration (NFRA) reportedly asked both policy banks — like China Development Bank, which has been a major source of oil-backed financing in Venezuela — and large commercial lenders to detail their outstanding Venezuelan credits and strengthen monitoring of potential losses. Regulators are concerned that political instability and legal challenges tied to Venezuelan assets could translate into financial risks for Chinese institutions.

China’s lending to Venezuela has grown over many years under “loans-for-oil” arrangements, with tens of billions of dollars extended in credit in exchange for future crude deliveries. Caracas’ defaulted debt and oil output collapse, coupled with renewed U.S. sanctions and shifting trade flows, have made the value and collectability of these credits highly uncertain.

The request for disclosures reflects broader caution within Beijing about how Venezuela’s turmoil could affect China’s economy and financial system. By urging banks to spell out their Venezuela exposure and boost risk oversight, Chinese regulators aim to prepare for potential losses or restructuring needs if Caracas renegotiates its debts or if diplomatic and sanctions landscapes shift dramatically.

Analysts say China’s growing unease highlights how geopolitical flashpoints — like U.S. actions in Venezuela — can ripple into global financial markets. If Chinese banks reassess their Venezuelan exposure, it could signal a shift in Beijing’s support for Caracas at a time when the U.S. is also seeking to reshape economic and political influence in the region.

Sources and Links

Reuters — China nudges banks to disclose lending ties with Venezuela, Bloomberg News reports

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/china-nudges-banks-disclose-lending-ties-with-venezuela-bloomberg-news-reports-2026-01-05/

The Business Times (summary) — China asks banks to report exposure to Venezuela after U.S. raid

https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/companies-markets/banking-finance/china-asks-banks-report-exposure-venezuela-after-us-raid

Yahoo Finance — China banks Venezuela exposure report

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-asks-banks-report-exposure-073216204.html

Additional context — China–Venezuela relations details (loans, oil deals, investment history)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Venezuela_relations

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Utah Approves AI System to Renew Some Prescriptions in First-of-Its-Kind Pilot

Utah’s approach is a test of innovation

Utah has approved a pilot program that lets an artificial intelligence system renew certain prescriptions for patients with ongoing, stable conditions.

State officials say the goal is to reduce delays that happen when routine refills get stuck waiting for an appointment, especially for people managing chronic issues.

The program is a partnership between Utah and a health technology company called Doctronic. It runs inside Utah’s “regulatory sandbox,” meaning the state is allowing a controlled test while it measures safety, patient experience, and results before deciding what should happen next.

Reports say the AI can handle renewals for a defined list of medications used for chronic care, and the process includes identity checks and a structured medical questionnaire. If answers raise red flags, the system is supposed to route the patient to a human clinician, rather than issuing a renewal.

Supporters argue this kind of automation could lower administrative workload and help people avoid gaps in treatment that can lead to worse health outcomes. Critics and some medical voices warn that removing direct physician oversight from prescribing decisions could create new risks, even if the program is limited and has safety steps.

For a conservative and middle-of-the-road takeaway, Utah’s approach is a test of whether government can allow innovation while still setting firm boundaries and tracking outcomes. The state is betting that a tightly limited pilot, real-world measurement, and clear escalation to humans when needed can improve access without gambling on patient safety.

Sources and Links (addresses)

Utah Department of Commerce (official news release)

https://commerce.utah.gov/2026/01/06/news-release-utah-and-doctronic-announce-groundbreaking-partnership-for-ai-prescription-medication-renewals/

Axios (Salt Lake City) summary of the pilot and identity verification description

https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2026/01/07/utah-ai-drug-prescriptions-doctronic

Healthcare IT News coverage of the pilot and workflow goals

https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/utah-launches-ai-pilot-prescription-refills

People.com overview with medication categories and criticism notes

https://people.com/ai-doctor-renew-prescriptions-in-utah-doctronic-11880095

GovTech explainer on the regulatory sandbox and what will be measured

https://www.govtech.com/artificial-intelligence/utah-looks-to-ai-to-make-prescription-renewals-more-efficient

Public Citizen criticism statement

https://www.citizen.org/news/utah-pilot-program-for-medication-renewals-with-ai-perverts-medical-practice/

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Latest on U.S.–Venezuela Oil Ultimatum

U.S. Demands Venezuela Sever Ties With Russia, China, Iran, Cuba for Oil Market Access

The U.S. Trump administration has issued a stark ultimatum to Venezuela’s interim government: cut all economic relationships with Russia, China, Iran, and Cuba or remain excluded from participation in global oil markets. Washington made this demand as part of its broader push to gain preferential access to Venezuela’s vast crude production and to reorient Caracas’ energy sector toward U.S. interests.

According to U.S. officials cited by ABC News and other outlets, Secretary of State Marco Rubio communicated to Venezuelan leaders that Venezuela must sever economic and strategic ties with those four nations before the United States will authorize increased oil production and exports. Under the terms outlined, Caracas would also be expected to prioritize crude sales to the U.S. market rather than to foreign buyers.

The ultimatum comes amid ongoing negotiations between Venezuela’s state oil company, PDVSA, and U.S. counterparts, with both sides discussing how to move forward on oil exports and investment after years of sanctions and political crisis. Venezuela’s government has stated talks are progressing, even as sanctions and prior restrictions disrupt traditional trade flows.

This move is part of a larger U.S. strategy to reduce the influence of geopolitical rivals in Latin America by leveraging energy ties. Russia, China, Iran, and Cuba have historically been major economic partners and sources of investment in Venezuela’s oil industry; cutting those ties would represent a dramatic shift in Caracas’ foreign policy and economic strategy. Critics argue the ultimatum amounts to coercive diplomacy that could increase regional tensions and undermine Venezuela’s sovereignty.

Sources and Links

• ABC News: U.S. demands Venezuela sever ties and prioritize American oil markets — https://abc7ny.com/post/trump-demands-venezuela-kick-china-russia-partner-us-oil-exclusive/18364005/ ABC7 New York

• i24NEWS: Report on U.S. demands Venezuela stop selling oil to Iran, China, Russia — https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/americas/artc-report-us-demands-venezuela-stop-selling-oil-to-iran-china-russia i24NEWS

• Primera Hora (EFE): Trump demands Venezuela end relations with China, Russia, Iran, Cuba before extracting oil — https://www.primerahora.com/noticias/estados-unidos/notas/trump-exige-a-venezuela-poner-fin-a-relaciones-con-china-rusia-iran-y-cuba/ Primera Hora

• Reuters: Venezuela’s PDVSA says oil supply negotiations with U.S. progressing — https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/venezuelas-pdvsa-says-oil-supply-negotiations-with-us-progressing-2026-01-07/ Reuters

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Iran Conducts Air Defense Drills as Israeli and U.S. Strike Threat Looms

They're Getting Ready...

Iran conducted visible air defense and missile-related exercises over several major cities on January 5, underscoring heightened military readiness amid growing regional tensions. Activity was reported over Tehran and Shiraz, where residents and social media footage showed sustained anti-aircraft fire illuminating the night sky. The flashes and detonations appeared consistent with short-range air defense systems engaging simulated aerial threats rather than offensive missile launches.

Regional and Persian-language media outlets reported that the exercises were carried out by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as part of broader air defense readiness operations. Witness accounts described repeated bursts of fire and loud detonations over populated areas, suggesting coordinated drills designed to test radar coverage, interceptor response, and command-and-control systems across urban centers.

The timing of the drills coincides with increased rhetoric and signaling from Israel and the United States regarding potential military action tied to Iran’s nuclear program and regional activities. While Iranian officials did not issue a detailed public statement confirming the scope of the exercises, defense-focused reporting indicated the activity was defensive in nature and intended to demonstrate preparedness against airstrikes, drones, and missile threats.

Analysts note that conducting such exercises over major cities sends both a domestic and external message. Internally, it reinforces government claims of defensive readiness and control of airspace. Externally, it signals deterrence by showing that air defense systems are active, layered, and integrated, even under conditions of heightened surveillance and international pressure.

The drills reflect the broader pattern of mutual deterrence currently shaping the region, as Iran, Israel, and the United States all signal readiness while stopping short of direct confrontation. As diplomatic pathways remain strained, visible military posturing continues to play a central role in shaping perceptions of strength, resolve, and escalation risk.

Sources and Links

Army Recognition – Iran conducts air defense drills as Israeli and U.S. strike threat looms

https://armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2026/iran-conducts-air-defense-drills-as-israeli-and-us-strike-threat-looms

Intellinews – Video: Iran conducts air defense drills as Israeli media claim strike preparations

https://www.intellinews.com/video-iran-conducts-air-defence-drills-as-israeli-media-claim-strike-preparations-418158/

The Week – Iran preparing for war? IRGC missile tests signal fear of Israeli attack

https://www.theweek.in/news/middle-east/2026/01/05/iran-preparing-for-war-irgc-missile-tests-signal-fear-of-israeli-attack.html

Iran International – Regional coverage of IRGC air defense activity

https://www.iranintl.com

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

House Approves GOP Health Insurance Bill Allowing Group Purchases Outside ACA Subsidies

Americans have a new way to beat high premiums

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a Republican-backed healthcare bill by a narrow 213–209 vote, marking a significant change in how Americans can buy health insurance.

The legislation allows individuals, including small business workers and self-employed Americans, to band together to purchase insurance as groups without relying on Affordable Care Act subsidies. Supporters say the bill is designed to expand choice and reduce costs by increasing buying power, while critics argue it could weaken existing ACA structures.

Sources:

https://clerk.house.gov

https://www.whitehouse.gov

Under the bill, group-based insurance plans would be allowed to operate across state lines and outside the ACA exchange system. These plans would not qualify for ACA premium subsidies, meaning participants would pay the full cost of coverage. Backers say this creates a market-driven alternative for people who earn too much to qualify for subsidies or who prefer plans with fewer federal requirements. Opponents counter that healthier individuals may leave ACA exchanges, potentially raising costs for those who remain.

Sources:

https://www.congress.gov

https://www.kff.org

Republican lawmakers framed the measure as a step toward restoring flexibility to the insurance market, arguing that ACA regulations increased premiums and reduced plan options for many families. They emphasized that participation in these group plans is voluntary and does not eliminate ACA coverage for those who want or need subsidized insurance. Democrats, however, warned that the bill could reduce consumer protections tied to essential health benefits and weaken financial stability in ACA marketplaces.

Sources:

https://www.house.gov

https://www.cbo.gov

The bill now moves to the Senate, where its future remains uncertain amid a closely divided chamber and differing views on healthcare reform. If enacted, the policy would represent one of the most significant changes to the health insurance system since the ACA, shifting more responsibility to private group arrangements while reducing reliance on federal subsidies. The outcome could shape how Americans balance cost, coverage, and federal involvement in healthcare going forward.

Sources:

https://www.senate.gov

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Hilton Ends Minnesota Hampton Inn Franchise After DHS Lodging Dispute

Hilton determined that the Minnesota hotel’s actions violated their standards

Hilton Hotels has ended its franchise relationship with a Hampton Inn location in Minnesota after the hotel refused to accommodate federal agents, even after repeated requests. The decision followed the public release of Department of Homeland Security emails showing the hotel instructed federal agents to cancel their reservations instead of honoring them.

According to the released emails, agents affiliated with the Department of Homeland Security, including immigration enforcement personnel, attempted to book rooms at the Hampton Inn as part of official government travel. Internal correspondence showed hotel staff directing agents to cancel their stays, despite the hotel having availability. The communications contradicted standard hospitality practices and raised concerns about discrimination based on the agents’ federal duties.

Hilton, which operates on a franchise model, stated that individual hotels are independently owned but must still comply with brand standards, nondiscrimination policies, and contractual obligations. After reviewing the situation and the DHS documentation, Hilton determined that the Minnesota hotel’s actions violated those standards, leading to the termination of the franchise agreement. Once dropped, the property can no longer operate under the Hampton Inn or Hilton brand name.

The Department of Homeland Security confirmed the authenticity of the emails and stated that federal agents are entitled to equal access to lodging when traveling for official purposes. DHS officials noted that refusing service to federal employees based on their agency affiliation undermines lawful government operations and raises legal and ethical issues.

This incident has drawn national attention as companies face increasing pressure to remain neutral in political and law enforcement matters. Hilton’s decision signals that large hotel chains may take firm action when franchisees act in ways that conflict with corporate policy or expose the brand to legal and reputational risk.

Sources and Links

Hilton Hotels corporate statement

https://www.hilton.com/en/corporate/

Department of Homeland Security official site

https://www.dhs.gov

Hampton Inn brand standards overview

https://www.hilton.com/en/brands/hampton-by-hilton/

Media coverage referencing released DHS emails