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://apnews.com/article/6ae64be5a0d6a718b658a938fb56e567 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

✔ 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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Videos circulating online show fires, damaged buildings, and clashes between crowds and security forces

 

Trump’s name being used inside Iran matters because it can raise tensions and shape how each side talks

 

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.justice.gov/crt/staff-profile/assistant-attorney-general 

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.

 

I guarantee there’s much much more to this story

 

 

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.aclu.org 

https://www.dhs.gov 

https://www.ice.gov 

https://www.fox9.com 

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.

 

 

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.

 

The officer fired because he believed he was in immediate danger from the vehicle

 

 

The French Revolution is Here... Led by France's Farmers

 

 

Donald Trump is banning BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and Blackstone from buying up our single family homes and renting them back to us

 

 

There will be attempts to turn this woman into a martyr. She is not one. Her actions were dangerous, irresponsible and Unheroic

 

 

China’s lending to Venezuela has grown over many years under “loans-for-oil” arrangements

 

 

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.

 

U.S. Demands Venezuela Sever Ties With Russia, China, Iran, Cuba for Oil Market Access

 

 

They're Getting Ready...

 

 

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.congress.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 

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.

 

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

https://www.justice.gov 

https://www.dhs.gov/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.

 

Fraud that was hidden for years and protected by political systems

 

In recent days, online segments and social media commentary have revived attention on alleged large-scale daycare and nonprofit fraud, particularly pointing to Minnesota, California, and Illinois.

These reports claim fake childcare centers, shell nonprofits, and inflated meal counts were used to drain taxpayer funds, with federal investigators now closing in. Some commentators cite surveillance, whistleblowers, and undercover visits as proof that the fraud was hidden for years and protected by political systems.

What is verified is that Minnesota has already been the site of one of the largest proven pandemic-era fraud cases in U.S. history. The U.S. Department of Justice confirmed that the “Feeding Our Future” scheme involved hundreds of millions of dollars in fraudulent federal child-nutrition claims, not billions. Dozens of defendants have been charged or convicted after investigators found fake meal counts, nonexistent children, and nonprofits that existed mainly on paper. Court records show some locations claimed to serve thousands of meals a day while having little or no legitimate activity.

The more explosive figures now circulating—claims of $19 billion confirmed stolen or $50 billion possibly missing, coordinated across multiple states—have not been verified by federal court filings, DOJ statements, or audited government reports as of now. Likewise, there is no public FBI confirmation that six-week surveillance of a specific Minneapolis restaurant produced the exact numbers being claimed online. Those details remain allegations, not established findings.

President Donald Trump has recently spoken about widespread fraud in federal aid programs and named several states as high-risk areas, but official documentation released so far supports hundreds of millions, not tens of billions, in proven losses tied to childcare or meal programs. Investigations in California and Illinois are ongoing, but prosecutors have not announced figures approaching those claimed in commentary shows.

Independent citizen journalism, including work by Nick Shirley, has drawn attention to suspicious facilities and helped spark public pressure. However, while such reporting can raise red flags, criminal conclusions still depend on audits, indictments, and court evidence. Federal agencies have repeatedly warned that pandemic-era relief programs were vulnerable to fraud, and more cases are expected—but verified totals come only through prosecutions and official accounting.

In short, large-scale fraud in childcare and meal programs is real and proven, especially in Minnesota. What remains unproven are the sweeping claims of tens of billions stolen nationwide, direct political office phone routing, or coordinated FBI surveillance details described in recent online segments. As investigations continue, the line between documented cases and dramatic claims matters—because facts, not headlines, are what ultimately determine accountability.

 

Documented Fraud Cases & Official Records

Documented Fraud Cases & Official Records

Federal charges related to Feeding Our Future fraud scheme

Multiple defendants indicted for wire fraud, federal programs bribery, and money laundering tied to fraudulent meal claims.

U.S. Department of Justice

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/pr/77th-defendant-charged-feeding-our-future-fraud-scheme 

Earlier DOJ announcement of major fraud indictments

Initial federal charges against 47 defendants in Minnesota in what prosecutors described as one of the largest COVID-19–era fraud schemes.

U.S. Department of Justice

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/us-attorney-announces-federal-charges-against-47-defendants-250-million-feeding-our-future 

Proven convictions and guilty verdicts

Trial results showed Feeding Our Future falsely claimed to serve thousands of meals with fraudulent documentation and received large sums in federal funds.

U.S. Department of Justice

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/pr/federal-jury-finds-feeding-our-future-mastermind-and-co-defendant-guilty-250-million 

Sentencing of fraud participants

Documented case of a defendant sentenced to prison for participating in fraudulent meal claims and money laundering.

U.S. Department of Justice

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/pr/feeding-our-future-defendant-sentenced-10-years-prison 

Wikipedia overview of Feeding Our Future

Independent summary confirming the nonprofit stole hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds while providing few meals.

Wikipedia

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

Wikipedia on 2020s Minnesota fraud scandals

Summarizes extensive fraud investigations in social services, including Feeding Our Future.

Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020s_Minnesota_fraud_scandals 

Related News & Political Context

Minnesota governor focuses on fraud scandal

 

Reuters reports Gov. Tim Walz will not seek re-election, citing focus on widespread welfare fraud investigations.

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/minnesota-governor-walz-will-not-seek-third-term-focus-welfare-fraud-scandal-2026-01-05/ 

CBS News overview of fraud allegations and added charges

Explains the growing scope of fraud investigations in Minnesota programs.

CBS News

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-to-know-minnesota-fraud-scandal-more-charges-filed-trump-walz/ 

Government watchdog coverage highlights fraud evidence

Reports the case has drawn political scrutiny and claims of overwhelming evidence.

WBFF / Fox Baltimore

https://foxbaltimore.com/news/nation-world/government-watchdog-says-evidence-in-minnesota-fraud-cases-overwhelming-feeding-our-future-child-nutrition

 

Important Notes on What Is Not Yet Proven

AP News on federal funding freeze over fraud concerns

Reports the Trump administration froze billions in childcare and family assistance funds citing fraud concerns, while noting specific evidence has not been fully released publicly.

AP News

https://apnews.com/article/a5b5712a99ea20695a85d2ffe3b687d9 

Guardian coverage of childcare funding freeze

Additional reporting on the federal funding freeze and its impacts.

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/06/trump-administration-childcare-freeze 

Washington Post on Minneapolis daycare claims

Reports on claims raised by viral videos and notes criticism that some allegations lacked full evidence.

The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2026/01/01/minnesota-daycare-funding-impacts/ 

FactCheck.org on fraud rhetoric

Notes that some political claims about fraud totals and scope have not been backed by independent evidence.

FactCheck.org

https://www.factcheck.org/2025/12/probing-trumps-verbal-attack-on-somalis/

---

Daycare Fraud Claims Resurface as Real Cases Expand—What Is Proven, What Is Claimed

---

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.

 

 

 

At present, the situation should be viewed as a claim, not an established fact.

 

 

In early January 2026, multiple outlets reported a new wave of street-level intimidation in Caracas, with armed groups and security forces setting up checkpoints and stopping people in public. Several reports say the goal is not just to control movement, but to identify who is supporting protests or the U.S. action by checking phones and looking through social media activity.

 

According to these accounts, pro-government motorcycle groups known as colectivos, along with armed security personnel, were seen patrolling neighborhoods and stopping vehicles. In some cases, people described being ordered to unlock phones so messages and posts could be reviewed on the spot. The reported tactic is simple: if the wrong content is found, the person can be threatened, detained, or marked for later follow-up.

The same reporting cycle described a broader crackdown atmosphere, including detentions involving journalists and media workers, plus a tightening of rules under emergency-style measures. Several witnesses said the fear is not just about police presence, but about irregular armed groups acting like an extension of political power in the streets, where normal due process does not apply.

This is not an entirely new pattern in Venezuela. Human rights reporting over multiple years has described how pro-government groups and state-aligned actors use intimidation, surveillance, and harassment to discourage dissent. More recently, Venezuelan digital rights reporting has documented online harassment and monitoring pressures aimed at opponents, activists, and journalists, which fits the logic of on-the-street phone checks described in Caracas.

From a conservative and middle-of-the-road view, the core issue is basic: when armed groups can demand your phone and police can treat political speech as suspicious, a society shifts from law enforcement to political enforcement. Even people who favor order and stability tend to draw a hard line at political loyalty tests in public spaces, because it replaces neutral policing with fear-based control. If these reports are accurate, they point to a government trying to regain control by targeting information, not just crime.

 

Sources and links (verified)

• The Guardian reporting on colectivos, checkpoints, and phone checks in Caracas (Jan 2026). The Guardian

• The Washington Post reporting on repression and intimidation after Maduro’s capture (Jan 2026). The Washington Post

• Reuters syndicated reporting on detentions and social media checks (republished via AOL/Yahoo) (Jan 2026). AOL+1

• Miami Herald reporting on checkpoints and patrols (Jan 2026). Miami Herald

• U.S. State Department human rights reporting on Venezuela (context on intimidation/harassment patterns). State Department

• VEsinFiltro report on digital repression and surveillance pressures in Venezuela (context). Ves en Filtro

 

---

Armed Checkpoints and Phone Searches: Reports of Social Media Screening Spread Across Caracas

---

 

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 what about Cuba and Columbia?

 

While much of the mainstream media focuses on regime change in Venezuela, a separate narrative argues that former President Donald Trump was engaged in a wider financial confrontation that went beyond traditional geopolitics.

President Trump makes surprise appearance in White House briefing room This was Trump’s first time at the podium in the briefing room.

According to commentary by Susan Kokinda of Promethean Action, Trump’s pressure campaign targeted what she describes as the financial infrastructure linking narcotics trafficking, terrorism financing, and offshore banking systems. This view presents Venezuela not as the main objective, but as one node in a much larger global network tied to illicit money flows.

Supporters of this interpretation point to Trump-era sanctions, indictments, and financial restrictions as evidence that the focus was on disrupting money pipelines rather than simply changing governments. They argue that by tightening controls on oil revenue, shipping, and dollar access, the administration aimed to expose how criminal organizations and hostile actors move money through international banks. From this perspective, the conflict was less about ideology and more about financial leverage and law enforcement pressure applied on a global scale.

This analysis also highlights the role of Canada, which is described as an important financial crossroads due to its banking system and international reach. Critics argue that Canada’s regulatory environment has sometimes made it attractive for complex financial transactions, both legal and illegal. In this framework, attention to Canada is not about blame, but about understanding how global finance routes money through stable democracies, making enforcement more difficult.

The discussion becomes more controversial when it touches on British intelligence and long-standing offshore financial centers connected to the United Kingdom. Analysts sympathetic to this view claim that disrupting entrenched financial systems would naturally draw concern from established intelligence and security circles. They also note that figures such as John Bolton acknowledged that the Venezuela strategy represented a significant shift, even if they disagreed on its execution or scope.

For American audiences, the importance of this argument lies in how power is exercised in the modern world. Wars are no longer fought only with troops and weapons, but through banking rules, sanctions, and financial surveillance. Whether one agrees with Kokinda’s conclusions or not, the debate raises a larger issue: protecting national security today increasingly means understanding and controlling financial systems that operate beyond borders. A nation that can defend its laws, its currency, and its institutions from criminal abuse is better positioned to protect its people and its sovereignty.

 

Sources and Links

Promethean Action – https://www.prometheanaction.com/ 

U.S. Department of Justice – https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr 

FINTRAC Canada – https://www.fintrac-canafe.gc.ca/ 

BBC World News – https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada 

Reuters World Coverage – https://www.reuters.com/world/

 

 

 

Cuba and Colombia: Two Key Pieces of the Venezuela, Drugs, and Money Network

Cuba matters because it is not just a neighbor of Venezuela; it is a close partner that benefits from Venezuela’s support and has political and security ties that shape the region. Cuba has been at the center of U.S. policy fights over terrorism and sanctions, including the U.S. decision to keep or restore Cuba’s State Sponsor of Terrorism designation in 2025, which directly affects banking, trade, and enforcement pressure. In plain terms, when Cuba is tied into Venezuela’s survival system, it changes how money, fuel, personnel, and influence can move across borders, and that affects U.S. leverage and U.S. security planning.

Cuba also comes up in the Colombia conflict because U.S. and Colombian government reporting has pointed to Cuba hosting leaders from Colombia’s ELN guerrilla group and refusing extradition requests tied to peace-talk protocols, which is one reason cited in U.S. government terrorism reporting. To critics, this looks like providing safe haven and political cover; to defenders, it is framed as honoring negotiation rules. Either way, for the United States, the concern is simple: when armed groups and international politics overlap, it can protect networks that later feed organized crime and regional instability that eventually hits the U.S. through drugs, migration pressure, and security threats.

Colombia matters for a different reason: it has long been a major source zone in the cocaine supply chain, and the U.S. drug-threat reporting continues to describe how transnational networks move product and money from South America toward U.S. markets. Colombia’s government also emphasizes that it is working with the U.S. against drug labs and criminal organizations, including near the Venezuela border, and it has highlighted major seizure numbers during 2025. The key point for Americans is that Colombia is both part of the problem (production routes criminals exploit) and part of the solution (law enforcement cooperation), so U.S. policy often mixes pressure with partnership.

One more important detail is your wording: it is Colombia, not Columbia, and that matters because misinformation spreads fast in this space. When people argue the Venezuela story is really about breaking criminal finance and offshore structures, Colombia usually shows up as the upstream drug engine, and Cuba shows up as the political shield and regional logistics partner that helps hostile systems survive pressure. Whether someone frames it as “global order” or “national sovereignty,” the U.S. interest stays the same: stop criminal money from moving through international channels, stop mass narcotics flow into American communities, and keep U.S. policy focused on measurable security results instead of slogans.

 

Sources and Links

Reuters on Cuba designation reversal (Jan 21, 2025): https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/trump-revokes-biden-removal-cuba-us-state-sponsors-terrorism-list-2025-01-21/ 

CBS News/AP on reinstating Cuba SST (Jan 21, 2025): https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/trump-reinstates-cuba-as-state-sponsor-of-terrorism-reversing-bidens-decision/ 

U.S. State Department terrorism report on Cuba and ELN: https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2020/cuba/ 

DEA press release (NDTA 2025): https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2025/05/15/dea-releases-2025-national-drug-threat-assessment 

DEA PDF (NDTA 2025): https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/2025NationalDrugThreatAssessment.pdf 

Reuters on Colombia-U.S. cooperation (Jan 5, 2026): https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/colombia-continue-work-with-us-drug-trafficking-government-says-2026-01-05/ 

U.S. Treasury on Maduro-linked corruption/narco-trafficking network sanctions (Dec 11, 2025): https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0332 

CRS overview of U.S. sanctions policy on Venezuela (Dec 5, 2025): https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10715 

---

Beyond Venezuela: A Broader Financial Power Struggle

---

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.

 

Other strange developments involved long-dormant springs suddenly returning to life.

 

 

When Anti-Power Protests Defend Absolute Power

 

 

Here’s the cleanest way to answer this without exaggeration: these are the major categories of criminal conduct that U.S. authorities, courts, and sanctions programs have tied to Venezuelan state officials, state entities, or Venezuela-based networks over roughly the last 20 years (2006–2026)—with examples that have real paper behind them.

 

1) Cocaine trafficking conspiracies tied to senior Venezuelan officials

U.S. prosecutors have alleged a long-running, state-protected cocaine trafficking conspiracy involving top Venezuelan leaders and partners such as FARC/ELN elements and major cartels, aimed at moving large volumes of cocaine toward/into the United States.

2) “Narco-terrorism” and weapons offenses alleged in U.S. indictments

In the same federal case framework, U.S. filings allege narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, and weapons-related offenses linked to protecting/advancing trafficking operations.

3) Money laundering and major corruption schemes touching the U.S. financial system

U.S. authorities have repeatedly described PdVSA-related corruption and large-scale money laundering schemes (including bribes/fraud and laundering proceeds through international channels that often run through dollar clearing and U.S.-linked finance). Treasury press releases have cited guilty pleas and specific laundering schemes tied to PdVSA.

4) Sanctions evasion and illicit trade networks tied to sanctioned Venezuelan actors

Once sanctions ramped up, U.S. policy reporting and enforcement have focused on Venezuela-related sanctions violations and evasion networks (oil trade, intermediaries, shell structures). The CRS overview lays out the sanctions architecture and the kinds of conduct it targets.

5) Venezuela-based transnational organized crime affecting U.S. communities

The U.S. has highlighted violent and narcotics-linked criminal activity by Venezuela-based organizations, including Tren de Aragua, and has pursued nationwide enforcement actions while describing major harms in U.S. communities. Treasury also sanctioned Tren de Aragua as a transnational criminal organization.

6) Wrongful detention / hostage-style leverage involving U.S. citizens

In recent years especially, U.S. media and advocacy reporting has described Americans detained in Venezuela, with some cases characterized as wrongful detention. (Exact legal status varies case-by-case, but the pattern is widely reported.)

7) Human rights abuses by state security services (not “crimes against the U.S.”, but crimes by the state that drive U.S. action)

U.S. State Department reporting documents serious allegations like arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance, and extrajudicial abuses by Venezuelan state actors. These aren’t “against the USA” in the narrow sense, but they’re part of the legal and policy record that drives sanctions and prosecutions.

8) Diplomatic retaliation and hostile state conduct toward the U.S. presence

Venezuela’s repeated expulsions and breakdowns in formal diplomatic relations aren’t criminal charges, but they are a long-running hostile conduct pattern in the bilateral record.

Important note (so this stays accurate)

Some items above are allegations in indictments or sanctions justifications, not courtroom-proven findings against “Venezuela” as a whole. The strongest “crime” documentation is where you see U.S. indictments, guilty pleas, and Treasury/DOJ filings.

---

Featured in The News | The Brutal Truth

---

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.

 

Elites in technology, media, and government are increasingly discussing limits on online speech

 

Elites in technology, media, and government are increasingly discussing limits on online speech, and that debate came into clearer focus after comments made by Shlomo Kramer during a recent appearance on CNBC. Kramer, a billionaire cybersecurity executive, argued that the open nature of the internet may no longer work in an age dominated by artificial intelligence, anonymous accounts, and foreign information campaigns.

He suggested that governments may need to verify online identities and rank users to determine how widely their speech can be shared. Supporters of free speech see this as a warning sign that long-standing protections are being questioned by powerful institutions.

Kramer framed his remarks as a security issue rather than a political one. He argued that anonymous speech online allows bad actors to spread false information at scale, especially when paired with AI tools that can generate convincing but misleading content. From his perspective, governments and platforms are falling behind technology and must adapt quickly to prevent chaos, election interference, and social instability. Critics respond that these arguments closely resemble past justifications for censorship, where public safety concerns were used to expand state or corporate control over speech.

A central concern raised by commentators is how these ideas intersect with the First Amendment, which was designed to protect speech from government interference. Requiring government-verified identities online could fundamentally change how speech is treated, especially for whistleblowers, dissidents, and ordinary citizens who rely on anonymity for safety. Civil liberties advocates argue that once speech is ranked or filtered based on identity or trust scores, the principle of equal protection under the law begins to erode, even if the policy is presented as neutral or technical.

Kramer also pointed to China as an example of a nation that tightly controls online narratives through centralized systems. He suggested that Western democracies may need new tools to compete with state-driven information models. Critics counter that adopting similar controls risks abandoning the very freedoms that distinguish open societies from authoritarian ones. They argue that competing with censorship by copying it could weaken democratic culture rather than strengthen it.

The broader issue extends beyond one interview. Governments across Europe and North America are exploring online safety laws, misinformation task forces, and platform regulations that give officials more influence over what can be said or amplified online. Conservatives often view these efforts as a direct threat to free expression and political dissent, while more centrist voices worry about unintended consequences, such as overreach and selective enforcement. The debate reflects a deeper tension between managing new technologies and preserving constitutional limits on power.

 

Sources and Links

CNBC – https://www.cnbc.com/

ACLU Free Speech Overview – https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech

Brookings Institution on China’s Internet Controls – https://www.brookings.edu/articles/chinas-internet-control/

Reuters Coverage on Speech and Regulation – https://www.reuters.com/world/

 

 

 

Right now, this looks more like a media-driven idea than a formal U.S. bill, but it overlaps with real policy fights already happening around digital ID, age/identity verification, and anonymous speech online. In other words, there are already people “on our side” who are actively fighting the same direction of policy Kramer described.

Civil liberties and digital-rights groups are the main organized opposition. These groups consistently argue that forcing government-verified identity online chills speech, increases surveillance, and harms people who rely on anonymity for safety (whistleblowers, domestic abuse victims, dissidents, controversial speakers, and ordinary citizens who fear retaliation). They also point out that anonymous speech has long-standing First Amendment protection and is not some modern loophole.

 

Here are some of the clearest “on our side” organizations in the U.S. that fight identity-mandate style policies and defend anonymous speech:

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). EFF has a long track record defending the right to speak anonymously online and opposing systems that push broad identity checks that can deter lawful speech.

ACLU. The ACLU has repeatedly warned that digital identity systems can become surveillance infrastructure and that a “digital ID” future can shrink the space for anonymous speech. They have also organized and signed broader coalitions against invasive digital ID features.

FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression). FIRE regularly defends First Amendment protections and argues that anonymous speech is deeply American and constitutionally protected, not a bug to be removed.

Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT). CDT has opposed laws that require identity or age verification for broad categories of users, arguing these mandates burden speech and create constitutional and privacy problems.

Some elected officials and public commentators are also clearly pushing back, especially on the “limit the First Amendment” framing. For example, Senator Mike Lee publicly rejected the idea after the clip circulated. You’ll also see strong pushback from conservative legal voices and free-speech commentators who view speech “ranking” as a social credit system for expression.

Who is likely to be on the other side (supporting parts of it, even if not Kramer’s exact wording) is a mix of online “safety” advocates, some policymakers focused on misinformation/AI harms, and parts of the identity-verification industry that promote verification as a trust and security solution. You’ll often see this show up as “verify users to reduce bots/misinformation,” “age-gate the internet,” or “digital ID for safety,” even when it is not described as limiting speech.

 

Sources and Links

Fox Business summary of the comments: https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/israeli-tech-ceo-calls-us-govt-limit-first-amendment-take-control-social-media-prevent-lies 

EFF on anonymity: https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity 

ACLU on digital ID and speech/privacy risks: https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/the-internet-lockdown 

ACLU coalition warning on invasive digital ID features: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/digital-identity-leaders-and-privacy-experts-sound-the-alarm-on-invasive-id-systems 

FIRE on anonymous speech: https://www.thefire.org/news/anonymous-speech-american-apple-pie 

CDT legal opposition to verification-style mandates: https://cdt.org/insights/cdt-joins-two-amicus-briefs-opposing-laws-requiring-parental-consent-to-access-social-media/ 

Report on backlash and Sen. Mike Lee response: https://nypost.com/2026/01/02/business/israeli-tech-billionaire-urges-americans-to-limit-the-first-amendment/ 

---

Featured in The News | The Brutal Truth

---

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.

 

Damaging Information About US Senators Accepting Venezuela Kickbacks

 

 

BREAKING: Venezuela’s former Chief of National Intelligence Hugo Carvajal has OFFICIALLY RELEASED every U.S. Senator who is on THE VENEZUELA LIST of politicians who have been receiving MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN KICKBACKS from the Maduro regime and Venezuelan drug trafficking organizations that make up his government in exchange for using their government positions and influence to undermine President Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s ongoing war with these narco-terrorists.

Every one of these Senators is guilty of providing aid and comfort to THE ENEMY during a time of war and has the blood of their fellow American citizens.

(HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of whom die of drug overdoses every year at the hands of these criminal drug trafficking organizations that bring deadly drugs into our country) on their hands.

May each and every one of them be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and may their names forever live in shame for their treason.

 

Below is EVERY U.S. SENATOR ON THE VENEZUELA LIST:

Lisa Murkowski - R - Alaska

Mark Kelly - D - Arizona

Ruben Gallego - D - Arizona

Alex Padilla - D - California

Adam Schiff - D - California

Michael Bennet - D - Colorado

John Hickenlooper - D - Colorado

Richard Blumenthal - D - Connecticut

Chris Murphy - D - Connecticut

Chris Coons - D - Delaware

Jon Ossoff - D - Georgia

Raphael Warnock - D - Georgia

Brian Schatz - D - Hawaii

Mazie Hirono - D - Hawaii

Dick Durbin - D - Illinois

Tammy Duckworth - D - Illinois

Chuck Grassley - R - Iowa

Joni Ernst - R - Iowa

Mitch McConnell - R - Kentucky

Rand Paul - R - Kentucky

Bill Cassidy - R - Louisiana

Susan Collins - R - Maine

Angus King - I - Maine

Chris Van Hollen - D - Maryland

Angela Alsobrooks - D - Maryland

Elizabeth Warren - D - Massachusetts

Ed Markey - D - Massachusetts

Gary Peters - D - Michigan

Elissa Slotkin - D - Michigan

Amy Klobuchar - D - Minnesota

Tina Smith - D - Minnesota

Roger Wicker - R - Mississippi

Deb Fischer - R - Nebraska

Jacky Rosen - D - Nevada

Catherine Cortez Masto - D - Nevada

Jeanne Shaheen - D - New Hampshire

Maggie Hassan - D - New Hampshire

Cory Booker - D - New Jersey

Andy Kim - D - New Jersey

Martin Heinrich - D - New Mexico

Ben Ray Lujan - D - New Mexico

Chuck Schumer - D - New York

Kirsten Gillibrand - D - New York

Thom Tillis - R - North Carolina

James Lankford - R - Oklahoma

Ron Wyden - D - Oregon

Jeff Merkley - D - Oregon

Dave McCormick - R - Pennsylvania

Jack Reed - D - Rhode Island

Sheldon Whitehouse - D - Rhode Island

John Thune - R - South Dakota

John Cornyn - R - Texas

Bernie Sanders - I - Vermont

Peter Welch - D - Vermont

Mark Warner - D - Virginia

Tim Kaine - D - Virginia

Patty Murray - D - Washington

Maria Cantwell - D - Washington

Jim Justice - R - West Virginia

Tammy Baldwin - D - Wisconsin

 

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.

 

Yes — that incident is real, and it was widely reported in early December 2025.

 

 

Here’s the most accurate, up-to-date picture about Maduro’s capture or Venezuela being “bombed for hours.”

 

Confirmed situation (Jan. 3, 2026)

Multiple major news outlets report that the Venezuelan government is claiming its capital Caracas and other parts of the country were hit by explosions and what Caracas describes as military strikes early Saturday morning. Venezuelan officials say explosions and aircraft were seen and heard around the city, and President Nicolás Maduro declared a national emergency, condemning the incident as “military aggression” by the United States. Venezuelan authorities say this affected several states, including Miranda, Aragua and La Guaira.

Reports emerging from Venezuela describe a sudden and coordinated series of explosions and aerial activity over Caracas and surrounding regions, which the government claims were deliberate military strikes. Officials say residents heard aircraft overhead and multiple blasts across the capital and nearby states, including Miranda, Aragua, and La Guaira. President Nicolás Maduro responded by declaring a national emergency and publicly accusing the United States of direct military aggression. Observers note that the speed of the declaration and the scope of the affected areas suggest more than an isolated incident, raising questions about whether this marks a new phase of escalation rather than a limited or symbolic action.

Panic has gripped Venezuela’s capital after at least seven massive explosions and low-flying fighter jets were reported at 2 a.m. local time, causing blackouts near major military bases. President Nicolás Maduro accused the United States of carrying out military attacks against Venezuela in a statement released by the country’s communications ministry. Venezuela “rejects, repudiates, and denounces” U.S. military aggression in the capital of Caracas and the states of Miranda, Aragua, and La Guaira, the statement said. Fox News has since reported that U.S. strikes were carried out, citing a White House source. Neighboring Colombia is calling for an emergency UN meeting, as fears of a direct escalation spike following recent U.S. “narco-terrorism” threats.

There are no independent confirmations from the United States government or any neutral international bodies that Maduro has been captured or removed from Venezuela. The reports of his capture and extradition to the U.S. come from a single live blog post attributed to a news outlet, repeating claims made by the U.S. president, but these claims have not yet been verified by independent international reporting or global news agencies.

At this time, there is no verified confirmation from the U.S. government or from independent international organizations that Nicolás Maduro has been captured or removed from power. The claims circulating about his arrest and transfer to the United States trace back to a single real-time media post that repeated statements attributed to the U.S. president. No major global news agencies or neutral observers have confirmed these claims, raising concerns about information being released before facts are fully established and highlighting the uncertainty surrounding rapidly unfolding events.

The context for these developments includes a months-long escalation of U.S. pressure on the Maduro government, including sanctions, seizures of Venezuelan oil tankers, and military buildups in the Caribbean. The U.S. has also conducted strikes on vessels linked to drug trafficking and labeled Maduro’s regime as connected to narcotics organizations, which the U.S. characterizes as security threats.

The situation is unfolding against a backdrop of steadily increasing pressure from the United States on Venezuela’s leadership over recent months. This pressure has included expanded economic sanctions, the interception and seizure of Venezuelan oil shipments, and a visible buildup of U.S. military assets in the Caribbean region. U.S. officials have also carried out operations targeting vessels accused of involvement in drug trafficking and have publicly described Maduro’s government as tied to narcotics networks. Together, these actions suggest a coordinated strategy that goes beyond diplomacy, raising questions about whether enforcement measures are evolving into a broader security campaign.

On the Venezuelan side, Maduro’s government and supporters strongly deny any intention to cede power or negotiate regime change. Venezuelan officials characterize the reported U.S. actions as unlawful attacks on their sovereignty and have mobilized national defense and emergency plans in response.

Venezuelan leaders and government supporters have firmly rejected any suggestion that they plan to step aside or accept a change in leadership. Officials describe the reported actions by the United States as illegal violations of national sovereignty and an attempt to intimidate the country into submission. In response, authorities say they have activated national defense measures and emergency protocols, signaling that the government views the situation as a direct threat and is preparing for further escalation rather than negotiation.

Bottom line right now:

• Explosions and military action have been reported in Venezuela’s capital and other areas. Bloomberg

   

• Venezuela says it was attacked by the United States and has declared a national emergency. Reuters

   

• There is no independent confirmation that Nicolás Maduro and his wife have been captured and flown to the U.S. — that claim remains unverified at this time. The Guardian

The situation is ongoing and developing, and further updates from multiple verified news sources should be checked as the story evolves. If you want, I can summarize each side’s official statements — U.S. government vs. Venezuelan government — in simple terms.

New information is emerging as events continue to unfold. Conflicting claims and limited confirmations mean early reports may change as more facts are verified. Observers are urged to watch multiple established news sources rather than relying on a single narrative, especially given the speed and sensitivity of developments. As official statements from both the United States and Venezuelan governments continue to be released, comparing those positions side by side can help clarify what is confirmed, what is disputed, and what remains uncertain.

 

Unverified Reports Swirl After Explosions in Venezuela as Claims of Maduro’s Capture Spread Online

 

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.

 

In an abandoned subway station... His hand on the Quran. First Muslim leader of America’s largest city...

 

Reports circulating online claim that democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani was sworn in just after midnight as the 112th mayor of New York City, allegedly in an abandoned subway station beneath City Hall.

According to these claims, Mamdani placed his hand on the Quran during the ceremony, which would make him the first Muslim leader of America’s largest city.

As of this writing, no official confirmation from the City of New York, the Mayor’s Office, or the New York City Board of Elections supports this account. Public records and established government sources continue to list the sitting mayor as unchanged, and Zohran Mamdani is currently known in public office as a New York State Assembly member representing Queens. No formal announcement, certification, or legally required transition process has been documented to substantiate the reported swearing-in.

The setting described in the claims—an abandoned subway station beneath City Hall—has fueled speculation and confusion online. While New York City does have unused or restricted transit infrastructure dating back more than a century, mayoral inaugurations are traditionally conducted in public, well-documented venues with media access and legal witnesses present. Any deviation from that process would normally trigger immediate official clarification.

The reports also emphasize the symbolic nature of the alleged ceremony, highlighting Mamdani’s Islamic faith and framing the event as a historic milestone. While religious texts have been used in various U.S. oath-taking ceremonies at different levels of government, such details are typically disclosed openly and recorded as part of the public record.

At present, the claim appears to be unverified and conflicts with available official information. Readers are advised to distinguish between circulating narratives and confirmed governmental actions, especially when reports describe extraordinary circumstances without corroboration from primary civic institutions or credible news outlets.

---

Claims Circulate Online Alleging Zohran Mamdani Sworn In as NYC Mayor in Unusual Ceremony

---

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.