A senior advisor to President Donald Trump has warned of a 90% chance of military action against Iran in the coming weeks, stating that “the boss is getting fed up.”

The unnamed advisor told Axios that while some around Trump have warned against war with Iran, kinetic action is likely soon.

“The sources noted it would likely be a joint U.S.-Israeli campaign that’s much broader in scope — and more existential for the regime — than the Israeli-led 12-day war last June, which the U.S. eventually joined to take out Iran’s underground nuclear facilities,” the report explains.

The report adds:

The timeline: The Israeli government — which is pushing for a maximalist scenario targeting regime change as well as Iran’s nuclear and missile programs — is preparing for a scenario of war within days, according to two Israeli officials.

Some U.S. sources tell Axios that the U.S. might need more time. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said strikes could still be weeks away. But others say the timeline could be shorter.

“The boss is getting fed up. Some people around him warn him against going to war with Iran, but I think there is 90% chance we see kinetic action in the next few weeks,” one Trump adviser said.

This warning follows three-hour talks in Geneva on February 18 between Trump advisers Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

Both sides described the discussions as making progress, but U.S. officials indicated that wide gaps remain.

Vice President JD Vance stated that the negotiations went well in some aspects but that Trump has set red lines the Iranians are not yet willing to acknowledge. He added that diplomacy could reach its natural end soon.

The U.S. has accelerated military deployments in the Middle East, including two aircraft carriers, dozens of warships, hundreds of fighter jets, and more than 150 cargo flights carrying weapons and ammunition.

In the past 24 hours, an additional 50 fighter jets, including F-35s, F-22s, and F-16s, have been sent to the region.

On Tuesday, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei threatened to sink US warships.

“The Americans constantly say that they’ve sent a warship toward Iran,” Khamenei wrote in a post on X. “Of course, a warship is a dangerous piece of military hardware.”

The Americans constantly say that they’ve sent a warship toward Iran. Of course, a warship is a dangerous piece of military hardware. However, more dangerous than that warship is the weapon that can send that warship to the bottom of the sea.

— Khamenei.ir (@khamenei_ir) February 17, 2026

“However, more dangerous than that warship is the weapon that can send that warship to the bottom of the sea,” Khamenei added.

The post ‘The Boss is Getting Fed Up’: Trump Advisor Warns of 90% Chance of U.S. Strike on Iran Within Weeks appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Antifa killed 23-year-old mathematics student Quentin Deranque in Lyon, France, this week. The nationalist activist was beaten by at least six individuals, suffering fatal skull and brain injuries. Antifa and ISIS are both terrorist organizations that have killed innocent people. President Trump dismantled ISIS, while the Biden administration denied the existence of Antifa and, critics argue, enabled the group.

Today, ISIS is far smaller than it was before President Trump’s first administration, but Antifa is growing and becoming increasingly international.

The Biden administration aided Antifa through what critics describe as political protection, media censorship, and information suppression. The administration’s failure to counter Antifa violence effectively was not merely the result of legal constraints or constitutional limitations. Political protection, mainstream-media censorship, social-media suppression, and outright denial by key political figures created an environment in which Antifa operated with virtual impunity, while those documenting its activities faced systematic silencing.

The term “mostly peaceful protest” became a mantra repeated across mainstream media to describe riots, even when people were killed. Democrats repeatedly claimed that Antifa did not exist, and major media outlets minimized or failed to report the violence and extensive property damage during the summer of George Floyd. News organizations framed the Portland violence as “peaceful protests,” even as federal buildings were under siege and officers were assaulted with improvised weapons.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s description of ICE as a “terrorist force” highlights the challenges federal law enforcement faces when prominent elected officials publicly criticize or condemned  enforcement agencies instead of focusing on acts of violence. In Washington state, an individual linked to Antifa attempted to attack ICE’s Northwest Processing Center. After the incident, Jayapal attributed the broader climate of violence to rhetoric from the political right, a position critics argue shifted attention away from the seriousness of the attempted attack against detainees and facility personnel.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler provided what critics describe as a clear example of political dismissal of Antifa-related violence. When confronted by journalist Austen Fletcher in July 2020 about ongoing unrest in Portland, Nadler responded, “That’s a myth that’s being spread only in Washington, D.C.” His remarks followed weeks of documented violence, including repeated clashes, federal officers reportedly injured by laser attacks, and billions of dollars in property damage nationwide.

During House floor debates, Nadler referred to Antifa as “imaginary,” dismissing Republican concerns about left-wing extremism as “errant nonsense, off-topic, dealing with imaginary things like Antifa.” As chairman of the committee responsible for oversight of federal law enforcement, critics argue that his remarks contributed to a political climate in which confronting Antifa-related violence became increasingly contentious.

Most recently, Democrats opposed President Trump’s designation of Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. However, Antifa’s existence and its pattern of violence have been widely documented by law-enforcement agencies and media reports.

Some political figures not only provided rhetorical cover for Antifa but also supported organizations that assisted individuals arrested during unrest. Then–Vice President Kamala Harris publicly promoted bail funds, including the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which posted bail for individuals arrested during the 2020 riots.

The fund helped secure the release of people facing charges ranging from assault to arson, and some individuals released on bail were later accused of committing additional offenses while awaiting trial.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez publicly defended confrontational protest tactics, stating, “The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable.” She argued that activists had tried “playing the ‘polite language’ policy game” but gained traction only after making people uncomfortable. Critics contend that such remarks provided ideological justification for more aggressive protest tactics.

The most visible example of organized activist activity during the summer of 2020 was the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest, also known as the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, in Seattle. For 23 days, activists controlled six city blocks, established informal governance structures, and excluded police from the area. The zone experienced multiple shootings, including the deaths of 19-year-old Horace Anderson and a 16-year-old boy, both of whom were Black.

When police attempted to respond to emergency calls inside the zone, protesters physically blocked their entry. The human and financial costs were substantial. Seattle ultimately paid $12 million in legal settlements related to CHOP, including $3.6 million for property-damage claims from residents and business owners who were denied access to their properties. The city also faced criticism for deleting tens of thousands of text messages related to its handling of CHOP.

During the 2020 unrest, independent journalists such as Andy Ngo and Tim Pool reported extensively on Antifa-related violence that they said contradicted mainstream media narratives. Their reporting documented sustained attacks on federal buildings in Portland for more than 100 consecutive nights, the use of high-powered lasers aimed at federal officers, arson attacks on police stations and government buildings, and property damage nationwide that exceeded $2 billion.

On June 29, 2019, Ngo was assaulted in Portland by individuals associated with Rose City Antifa, suffering a subarachnoid hemorrhage after being struck and beaten. In August 2023, an Oregon judge awarded Ngo $300,000 in damages against three defendants for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He has argued that his reporting exposed a systematic pattern of attacks against journalists, business owners, and others perceived as political opponents.

Under the Biden administration, conservative accounts and independent journalists reported that their social-media profiles were suspended or restricted after sharing eyewitness accounts and cellphone videos of unrest. Critics said this created a gap between events documented on the ground and how they were portrayed in mainstream media coverage.

Conservative users and independent reporters said their posts were restricted, shadowbanned, or removed for sharing footage of Antifa-related activity. Research found that conservative accounts were suspended at significantly higher rates than liberal accounts during this period, including for content documenting left-wing violence. Twitter suspended accounts that shared footage of attacks on federal buildings in Portland, labeled certain videos of property destruction as “manipulated media,” and limited the reach of posts related to violence in CHOP and CHAZ.

Facebook implemented similar moderation measures. Internal company documents later showed that the platform communicated with federal agencies about content flagged as problematic. Mark Zuckerberg later stated that the company faced pressure from the Biden administration to moderate or remove certain content, including material that challenged official narratives about the protests.

Law enforcement agencies faced operational challenges along with political criticism from elected officials. Federal agents deployed to protect courthouses in Portland were described by some Democratic officials as “secret police” and “stormtroopers.” In several cities, local prosecutors adopted policies that limited prosecution of certain protest-related arrests, creating a revolving-door effect that critics argue encouraged continued unrest.

The Biden administration’s Justice Department placed significant emphasis on investigating and prosecuting individuals involved in the January 6 events. This focus coincided with comparatively less public attention and fewer visible resources directed toward left-wing extremism. Although FBI data reflected a range of domestic-terrorism cases involving different ideological motivations, official messaging and resource allocation concentrated more heavily on right-wing threats while, according to critics, downplaying Antifa-related activity.

Biden’s FBI Director, Christopher Wray, acknowledged in September 2020 testimony that while Antifa is “an ideology, not an organization,” it represents “a real thing” that requires serious law-enforcement attention.

When asked whether Antifa activities matched the federal definition of domestic terrorism, Wray stated, “It certainly matches the activity of some of the individuals we’re investigating and have pursued other kinds of charges against.”

Neither Democrats nor the press accused Wray of lying about Antifa’s existence or its violence. However, critics argue that his testimony was effectively ignored by the Biden administration and that the press continues to claim Republicans exaggerate the threat posed by Antifa.

Recent events suggest the Antifa threat is evolving rather than diminishing. The coordinated nature of the Alvarado attack, combined with ongoing violence in Portland and other cities, indicates planning and execution capabilities despite the movement’s decentralized structure.

The targeting of federal immigration-enforcement facilities appears to reflect a strategic focus, with incidents occurring across multiple states within a compressed timeframe. This pattern suggests either improved coordination among local cells or influence from shared ideological messaging.

Rising attacks in Europe also suggest the possibility of transnational coordination. Given that Democrats oppose President Trump’s effort to designate Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization, he could instead pursue designation as a transnational terrorist organization. If that were done, perhaps the politicians and other supporting them could be held responsible.

The post Antifa Murder in Europe Underscores Biden’s Failure at Home appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Freemason cops brought out into the light.

A UK High Court Judge has ruled in favor of the London Met Police policy of forcing its staff to declare present or past membership of Freemasonry Lodges or similar organizations.

The attempt by the United Grand Lodge of England and other organizations was dismissed despite claims that the Met rule breached human rights.

A legal challenge against the Met Police over its decision to force staff to declare whether they are or have been Freemasons has been thrown out by a High Court judge.

Mr Justice Chamberlain said on Tuesday that the Met’s decision “serves a legitimate aim, maintaining and… pic.twitter.com/rxfiLLy73A

— BettyBoo (@BettyBoochichi2) February 17, 2026

BBC reported:

“Mr. Justice Chamberlain said the policy was a lawful and proportionate way for Scotland Yard to maintain and enhance public trust in policing.

[…] The attempted legal challenge came after the Met announced in December that officers and police staff would be required to declare internally if they were part of an organization that had a ‘confidential membership, hierarchical structures and requires members to support and protect each other’.”

The full judgment and press summary in United Grand Lodge of England and others -v- Metropolitan Police can now be read on the judicial website: https://t.co/G27kiUJr4D

— Judicial Office (@JudiciaryUK) February 17, 2026

“The new policy was immediately applied to membership of the Freemasons – and most of the 397 declarations so far have been from members of the organization.

‘It is plausible that membership of organizations such as the Freemasons between two officers, or between an officer and a member of the public they are dealing with, may give rise to a conflict of loyalties or otherwise be relevant to independence, equality, transparency and trust in police’, Commander Simon Messinger told the court in a witness statement.”

We have released a statement regarding today’s High Court ruling regarding our litigation against the Metropolitan Police.

View our full statement: https://t.co/KtYIWuDEdU#Freemasons pic.twitter.com/CW9ONkdcCJ

— United Grand Lodge of England (@UGLE_GrandLodge) February 17, 2026

The Guardian reported:

“In a 17-page ruling on Tuesday, Chamberlain said the grounds of the proposed legal challenge were not ‘reasonably arguable’.

He said: ‘The purpose of such action, and therefore the purpose of the requirement to disclose the information, is the dual one of eliminating the potential for actual bias, where officers discharge their functions improperly, and perceived bias, where there is a perception or suspicion that officers are discharging their functions improperly’.

‘In both cases, the requirement is, in my judgment, designed to secure the proper exercise of the functions of a constable. The contrary is not reasonably arguable’.”

Read more:

U.K. Metropolitan Police to Require Officers to Declare Freemason Membership

The post UK Judge Upholds London’s Met Police Rule Forcing Members To Declare Membership in Freemasonry appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Britain’s ongoing mass immigration crisis has reached a critical tipping point, and for the first time in generations, a bold patriotic, national-conservative movement has stepped forward with a no-nonsense, fully fleshed-out strategy to reclaim control of the nation’s demography and secure its future as a sovereign homeland for the British people.

Restore Britain, a right-wing, anti-globalist initiative launched in 2025 by Independent MP Rupert Lowe (formerly of Reform UK), has released its landmark policy paper, Mass Deportations: Legitimacy, Legality, and Logistics, authored by Harrison Pitt. This comprehensive blueprint lays out a clear, lawful, and practical path to remove every illegal migrant from British soil—potentially within two to three years—while rejecting the weak compromises and moral posturing that have allowed the crisis to fester under successive globalist governments.

Founded by Lowe, the MP for Great Yarmouth, Restore Britain initially operated as a cross-party patriotic coalition before announcing just days ago that it would transition into a traditional political party. It seeks to rally disillusioned voters who have watched in frustration as unchecked mass replacement migration—both legal and illegal—has eroded British identity, strained public services, depressed wages, and destroyed national cohesion as well as social trust.

Restore Britain membership is booming over the last hour.

Join the party.https://t.co/ThjMPgca5I pic.twitter.com/guSl90a0Km

— Restore Britain (@RestoreBritain_) February 17, 2026

The movement’s core mission is to restore parliamentary sovereignty, protect the English nation from engineered demographic change, and end the unauthorized experiment in population replacement that no electorate ever endorsed.

The 100-page policy paper directly confronts the harsh realities now facing Britain. Restore Britain estimates 1.8 to 2 million illegal migrants are currently in the country—a number far exceeding official figures and much larger than Britain’s armed forces.

This number isn’t representative of a mere administrative glitch, the document argues, but a profound attack on the legitimacy of the British state itself. A nation whose government fails to—or simply refuses to—enforce its borders has, in effect, ceased to function as a sovereign state and forfeited meaningful self-determination.

Rejecting the liberal elite’s view that border enforcement and demographic conservation are somehow inhumane, Restore Britain correctly presents mass deportation as the essential duty of any self-respecting government. The plan begins with dismantling the legal barriers that have prevented and paralyzed action for decades.

Key proposals include repealing or overhauling restrictive laws such as the Immigration and Asylum Act, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, and—most controversially—the Equality Act 2010, which the paper describes as a tool weaponized against nationality-based policies through vague “indirect discrimination” clauses.

At the heart of the legal overhaul is Britain’s entanglement with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act. Overly expansive interpretations of Articles 3 and 8 have repeatedly blocked deportations by invoking “family life” rights or hypothetical risks in home countries—even for repeat violent criminals and overstayers.

Restore Britain advocates full withdrawal from the ECHR, acknowledging short-term diplomatic challenges (including Northern Ireland implications) but insisting that restoring true sovereignty requires it. As an interim or complementary measure, the paper proposes the innovative Great Clarification Act, which would empower Parliament to override judicial decisions by a simple majority when vital national interests are at stake—reversing Britain’s long drift toward judicial supremacy over elected lawmakers, a trend that has proven deeply damaging.

Turning to the practical, realworld implementation of policy, the paper outlines a multi-pronged enforcement strategy designed for efficiency and scale rather than symbolism, optics, or political marketing. It emphasizes a revitalized “hostile environment” policy: mandatory e-visas for legal status verification, strict Right-to-Work and Right-to-Rent checks with severe penalties for non-compliant employers and landlords, biometric banking requirements, and the closure of loopholes like “safe surgeries” in the NHS that subsidize illegal residence.

Voluntary returns form the strategy’s backbone, with incentives aligned to encourage self-deportation—drawing lessons from effective US models under President Trump. The authors project that voluntary departures could outnumber forced removals by a ratio of three to one, enabling the entire illegal population to be cleared in a relatively short timeframe.

For those who refuse to leave, forced removals would ramp up through expanded Immigration Enforcement teams (recruiting former military and police), increased detention capacity at repurposed RAF bases and secure sites, and a fleet of charter flights, commercial seats, and military transports. Countries that refuse to accept the return of their nationals would face visa restrictions, reductions in aid, remittance taxes, and trade penalties.

The plan also demands retrospective measures, including revocation of improperly granted asylum statuses, and rules out any future amnesties that would only encourage more abuse. Costs are acknowledged as substantial in the short term but seen as a vital investment: long-term savings in welfare, housing, healthcare, and policing would more than offset the expense, delivering a net gain for British taxpayers and communities.

Public backing is overwhelming, the paper notes. Polls show majority support across every region—including London—for deporting all illegal migrants, with more than half of voters saying they would back MPs who champion such policies. This reflects deep public frustration with a political class that has long ignored the will of the people on this existential issue.

Far from an isolated immigration proposal, Mass Deportations stands as a broader manifesto for Britain’s national renewal. It rejects discredited liberal universalism, activist courts, and the fatalistic acceptance of demographic decline in favor of unapologetic defense of British continuity, democratic self-rule, and national integrity.

The post Restore Britain Party Unveils Blueprint for Mass Deportations and National Renewal appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.