Guest post by Garland Favorito

EO14399 Background

On March 31, 2026, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14399 entitled Ensuring Citizenship and Integrity in Federal Elections. The EO orders the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) United States Postal Service (USPS) and the Attorney General (AG) to take steps within their power to secure mail-in balloting and ensure all voters in federal elections are U.S. citizens.

Section 2 orders the DHS Secretary to transmit to each State a list of confirmed U.S. citizens who will be above the age of 18 at the time of an upcoming Federal election. It requires the list to be updated and transmitted to State election officials no fewer than 60 days before each regularly scheduled Federal election, or promptly upon request by a State for such an election. It provides for individuals to access their records and update or correct them and for States to routinely supplement or provide suggested modifications through a designated DHS contact.

Section 3 ordered the Postmaster General to initiate proposed rulemaking provisions specifying that all outbound ballot mail must be mailed in an envelope that:

• is marked as Official Election Mail;
• contains tracking technology such as a unique Intelligent Mail barcode;
• has undergone a mail envelope design review by the USPS to ensure compliance with USPS mailing standards.

The rulemaking provision order further specifies that:

• no fewer than 90 days prior to a Federal election, any State may choose to notify the USPS if it intends to allow for absentee ballots to be transmitted by the USPS.
• any notifying State should further indicate whether it intends to submit to the USPS, no fewer than 60 days before the election, a list of state voters eligible to vote in a Federal Election to whom the State intends to provide an absentee ballot to be transmitted via the USPS;
• the USPS shall not transmit absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list;
• the USPS shall provide each State with a list of individuals who are enrolled with the USPS, for absentee ballots provided by the State, along with unique ballot envelope identifiers for their absentee ballots;
• the USPS shall enable each State to routinely supplement and provide suggested modifications to the State’s Absentee Participation List in advance of any Federal election, consistent with applicable State law.

Section 4 orders the Attorney General to enforce compliance with the applicable Federal statutes and prioritize the investigation and potential prosecution of State and local officials or others who issue Federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a Federal election as per Section 2.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

While the U.S. Constitution allocates the conduct of elections to the states, it provides overriding legislative authority to Congress:

• “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing [sp.] Senators” I Sec. IV

The Constitution provides the President undisputed authority to enforce all laws made by Congress or the states:

• “…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” II Sec. III:

Federal law clearly prohibits non-citizens from voting:

• “(a)It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives …” 18 U.S. Code § 611
• “(f)Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is a citizen of the United States in order to register to vote or to vote in any Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum)— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” 18 U.S. Code § 1015

Federal law also prohibits mail fraud:

• “Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, … or attempting to do so, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned…” 18 U.S. Code § 1341
• “Whoever steals, takes, or abstracts, or by fraud or deception obtains, or attempts so to obtain, from or out of any mail, post office, or station thereof, letter box, mail receptacle, or any mail route or other authorized depository for mail matter… Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned…” 18 U.S. Code § 1708

There are also a variety of other laws the President has a duty to enforce such as:

• 18 U.S. Code § 2 – Principal offenders against the U.S.
• 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against U.S. citizen rights
• 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the U.S.
• 18 U.S. Code § 1001 – Falsifications against the U.S.
• 18 U.S. Code § 10307 – Prohibited Election Acts
• 52 U.S. Code § 20511 – Criminal Penalties

LEGAL CHALLENGES

Although EO14399 is constitutionally sound as explained above, several legal challenges were filed by Democrat aligned state AGs, Senators and civic groups seeking temporary and permanent injunctions against the order. The most prominent lawsuit is California v. Trump which 23 Democrat AGs filed in Massachusetts where they correctly believed would offer favorable rulings.

Cal. v. Trump Plaintiffs allege that Section 2 of the EO transgresses State Constitutional power to determine the manner of elections by creating a federal State Citizenship List that conflicts with state voter rolls. They contend that States are only authorized to issue a ballot to individuals not on the list. They also allege that Section 3 of the EO transgresses State Constitutional power to determine manner of elections by creating new limitations on voters using mail-in voting.

But there are basic fallacies in these claims:

• A federal state citizenship list is not a voter roll;
• States may still issue ballots for state elections to individuals not on the list;
• There is no new burden imposed on voters. States simply notify the USPS of any individuals for which the state wants to use the USPS for federal ballot delivery.

TALWANI’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL INJUNCTION

But on June 25, 2026, Massachusetts federal Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee who should have recused herself for donating to Democrat Presidential and Senatorial candidates, agreed with the Plaintiffs’ arguments in Cal. v. Trump and went much further.

She claimed: “Therefore, because the States determine who is eligible to vote for their state legislators, the Constitution indirectly grants the States authority to determine who is eligible to vote for federal legislators.” That is like claiming a bank will determine who can access your bank account.

After admitting she has no statutory authority to judicially review Plaintiffs’ claims, she authorized herself to do it anyway: “a claim alleging that the President acted in excess of his statutory authority is judicially reviewable even absent an applicable statutory review provision.” Talwani also admitted that: “the EO explicitly requires that its directives comply with the law.” but then Talwani refuses to accept it and “…considers whether the President has the authority to issue the EO regardless of the qualifying language.”

The EO does not address voter eligibility, but Talwani concluded: “The Constitution provides that only the States determine voter eligibility requirements…” even though there is no such Constitutional clause.

Although 18 U.S.C. §§ 611, 1015 explicitly mandate that only citizens can vote, Talwani ignored those laws and only considered the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) saying: “Notably, nowhere in HAVA does Congress prescribe who should be included on State voter lists.”  She further rationalized that: “Accordingly, …the President lacks any authority to compile voter lists for each State” even though a federal ballot mail list is not a voter list. She also noted: “However, no law enacted by Congress delegates authority to control mail-in voting to USPS” despite the reality that establishing federal ballot mail criteria in no way attempts to control the entire state mail-in voting process.

To contend claims were ripe for her to adjudicate, she speculated without citations that: “It is clear that the federal agencies charged with compiling Confirmed Citizen Lists lack the ability to create complete and accurate lists of the U.S. citizens residing in every State.”

She further speculated that: “The Lists are being used as an enforcement mechanism that … will chill local election officials from complying with legal obligations to ensure that all eligible citizens may vote.”

Remarkably, the 1^st Circuit Court of Appeals in Massachusetts upheld Talwani’s speculative claims adding its own speculation on top of hers: “…were the (executive order) to take effect for the elections…in November, it would sow confusion and threaten disenfranchisement of many eligible voters”

U.S. SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS TALWANI

But the U.S. Supreme Court admonished Talwan’s bizarre arguments and reversed both her and the Appeals Court.

In regards to preparing citizenship lists in Section 2(a), the U.S. Supreme Court concluded:

• “This provision is an internal directive from the President to a subordinate. It imposes no obligation on the States so they suffer no concrete harm…”;
• “This internal directive does not regulate the States’ voter registration processes. Nor does it impinge on the States’ authority to create and enforce a legal code for elections.”

In regards to instructions for the AG the Supreme Court added: “The States lack standing to challenge §2(b) for much the same reason: It does nothing to them” and “Setting prosecutorial priorities lies within the President’s Article II power.”

They further concluded that: “Section 3 orders the Postal Service to initiate the process of proposing a rule that might bind the States in the future… And it imposes no legal requirements on the States (or, for that matter, on anyone outside the Executive Branch).”

The U.S. Supreme Court quoted precedents to explain the procedural fallacy of Talwani’s injunction:

• “Standing requires an injury that is concrete, particularized and imminent rather than conjectural or hypothetical.”
• “Ripeness forbids federal courts to adjudicate disputes that are dependent on contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.”
• “But the States cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.”

The U.S. Supreme court issued an even more pointed series of comments for how Talwani speculated claims in attempting to give herself authority to adjudicate them:

• “At the time this suit was filed—the time when standing is measured—the District Court had to engage in a string of speculations to find this suit justiciable.”
• “It first had to speculate about whether the Postal Service would propose a rule.”
• “Then it had to speculate about how the agency would weigh the comments it received.”
• “Then it had to speculate about whether the agency would issue a final rule.”
• “Then it had to speculate about what the final rule would say.”
• “Finally, after all that, the District Court still had to speculate about whether the text of a hypothetical final rule would harm the States.”

The U.S. Supreme Court continued with more admonishments: “When a federal court improperly intrudes on a coordinate branch in this way, interim relief is justified. Such harm exists here because the injunction meddles in the workings of the Executive Branch, preventing it from even trying to lawfully implement the Order.”

The Supreme Court explained: “The Executive Order makes no demand of the States, so staying the District Court’s injunction will not concretely harm them. That is why this suit was not justiciable in the first place.”

The Supreme Court reiterated: “But the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it.” Finally, the Supreme Court removed the injunction citing: “And for the reasons discussed, that injunction is likely to irreparably harm the Government if it remains in place while the appellate process runs its course.”

CIRCUMVENTING THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

Although Talwani was forced to rescind her previous injunctions against President Trump’s federal election integrity EO, the Supreme Court remand did not stop her. The very next day, August 27, Talwani issued a temporary restraining order with the same flaws the Supreme Court disallowed. That order was issued in a new complaint, Cal v. USPS, filed by the same AGs against the new USPS mail-in ballot rule that establishes secure criteria for federal ballot mail. Talwani’s new order did not mention the new complaint and USPS rule had only been published a day earlier. Contrast that to those of us who have waited years to have federal election cases heard.

Talwani’s new injunction concludes: “Now that the USPS has published the Final Rule, Plaintiffs’ challenges are ripe.” But she cites only a new round of speculative claims that the Supreme Court banned based on conditions of what may likely happen after the Rule is implemented:

• “The Final Rule’s mandatory requirements necessitating immediate action of Plaintiff States likely constitute concrete injury-in-fact…”
• “Similarly, Plaintiff Organizations are likely to have standing…”
• “Plaintiff Organizations are also likely to have standing based on the significant risk …”
• “If Plaintiff States are unable to comply with the Final Rule, … they will violate their obligations…”
• “Through the Final Rule, the USPS is refusing to send mail ballots to eligible voters unless States or local election officials submit their mail ballot envelopes and return envelopes…”

Although the USPS regulates all mail, Talwani finds: “the court is unaware of, and no party has proffered, any delegation Congress has made that would permit the USPS to regulate election mail.” Despite decades of  all types of ballot fraud dating at least to Lyndon Johnson’s 1948 U.S. Senate Election, Talwani claims: “The record continues to lack any evidence regarding fraudulent absentee or mail-in voting”.

She then uses her new speculations to again attempt to usurp the authority of the Executive Branch by issuing an injunction against USPS preparatory steps to mandate:

• Federal Ballot Mail Envelope standards
• Return Federal Ballot Mail Envelope standards
• Federal Ballot Mail Portal registration
• Federal Ballot Mail Portal voter enrollment
• USPS verification that Outbound Federal Ballot Mail meets enrollment standards

THE NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT

In summary, Judge Indira Talwani:

• made speculative, unconstitutional and dangerous rulings that were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court;
• jeopardized 2026 elections by actively fighting to delay implementation of mail-in ballot security and U.S. Citizenship verification provisions for months
• used false arguments to side with State AGs of her political party on issues that facilitate election cheating over the interests and protection of American voters;
• demonstrated a clear political agenda in attempting to falsely rule on the Cal v. USPS case the day after it was filed;
• ignored explicit instructions from the U.S. Supreme Court to limit her Constitutional overreach and conform with basic judicial procedures that determine harm;
• betrayed American voters by placing the most radical demands of her political party over the clear authority of all three branches of the federal government.

These actions pose a clear national security threat for all American voters. They even treasonously aid China, given recently declassified intelligence showing China’s massive interference campaigns in U.S. elections including potential absentee ballot fraud. Americans demand accountability and Congress must muster courage for impeachments especially for such a postal child case of judicial corruption in our elections.

The post Judge Indira Talwani Becomes New National Security Threat appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

World No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka was in no mood for another ridiculous media narrative Wednesday night following her dominant second-round victory at the US Open.

The two-time defending champion demolished Russian qualifier Polina Iatcenko 6-1, 6-1 in just 53 minutes at Arthur Ashe Stadium, extending her US Open winning streak to 16 matches.

But instead of asking Sabalenka about her commanding performance, Matthew Futterman, a sportswriter for the New York Times-owned outlet The Athletic, decided to focus on her sponsorship appearances ahead of the tournament.

“How are you finding your mood now that the tournament has started?” Futterman asked. “Obviously last week it’s lots of parties and fun and stuff like that.”

Big mistake.

Sabalenka immediately called out the insulting implication that she had been partying instead of preparing for one of the biggest tournaments of the year.

“You guys are, like, a joke. Parties, fun. Why would you even say that? Why would you even think about that?” Sabalenka fired back.

She then asked why the reporter assumed that posting photos from sponsor events meant she had been “partying” rather than training.

“Just because I posted, like, some activities with brands, and you think that I’ve been partying, not training?”

Futterman quickly attempted to walk back his own words, claiming he was merely referring to the large number of events and appearances surrounding the tournament.

“I’m not suggesting you were partying… I’m saying there are a lot of events and things like that. I’m not saying you go to the parties.”

“You literally said that,” Sabalenka responded before demanding the next question.

When he tried again to lecture the room that he was not “suggesting that Aryna is having fun at these parties,” she cut him off: “OK. Move on.”

He still wouldn’t drop it and then asked whether Sabalenka had become more “serious and combative” now that the tournament was underway.

“Oh yeah, I wasn’t serious before that,” Sabalenka shot back sarcastically. “Next question. Think before you say stuff.”

Ouch.

WATCH:

The post World No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka DESTROYS New York Times-Owned Athletic Reporter Over Absurd Question — “You Guys Are Like a Joke… Think Before You Say Stuff” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The German right-wing party Alternative for Germany is set to win the local state elections in Saxony-Anhalt on Sunday with their popular young candidate for governor, Ulrich Siegmund. As the leftist parties fear losing control, attacks on AfD candidates mount, and Antifa cells threaten mob violence in the case of an AfD victory.

If the AfD wins the governor’s office in the East German State on Sunday, an Antifa manifesto revealed by Apollo News threatens to “attack the functions of the German state”, declaring the state “part of a fascist government and thus a legitimate target: Prisons, government offices, employment centers, police stations, Army bases, migrant offices…” The screed published on Antifa websites Indymedia and Kontrapolis declares that “fascism is here” and calls for a “Week of Action Sept. 7.-13.”

German authorities take the threat seriously, Apollo News reports, citing a letter from the German train service warning staff to “avoid confrontation” and “report suspicious occurrences.”

A hand grenade attack occurred outside a jeweler’s store near Augsburg train station early Wednesday morning, which could be tied to organized crime, according to press reports. Several other security-related events have unsettled Germany in recent weeks, including presumably left-wing attacks on electrical infrastructure and a mysterious explosives-laden drone at Leipzig airport found near a Ukrainian cargo plane.

Nine people were injured at an AfD campaign stand in the Rhineland-Palatinate town of Bad Kreuznach on Wednesday, reports AfD Bundestag delegate Nicole Höchst, after concentrated chlorine disinfectant was sprayed at them from a window. “Seven people had to be treated by medics. Bad Kreuznach firefighters then cleaned the square and secured the liquid.”

PRESSEMITTEILUNG:
Feiger Angriff auf AfD-Infostand in Bad Kreuznach
Bad Kreuznach, 2. September 2026
Am heutigen Nachmittag gegen 17 Uhr wurde der Infostand der AfD in Bad Kreuznach das Ziel eines feigen Angriffs. Aus einem Labor an der Roßstraße Ecke Mannheimer Straße wurde… pic.twitter.com/gq0EKvhaSS

— Nicole Höchst, MdB (@Nicole_Hoechst) September 2, 2026

A letter with a mysterious white powder was found at AfD party headquarters in Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, on Monday. Police ruled out immediate danger and are investigating.

Police in the state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern have been investigating threats against AfD politicians, including Saxony-Anhalt front-runner Ulrich Siegmund and Bundestag delegate Martin Reichardt, since August 10, Die Welt reports: “The letter read: “We know absolutely everything about you: your addresses, your contacts, your weaknesses. We know where your children go to school […] We will erase you from the political face of Germany. We will cleanse this country of a disgrace like the AfD […] You will be crushed. None of you will escape responsibility.”

“It’s well known that Germany has a huge problem with violent left-wing extremism. Even more astonishing is the complete silence of the federal government, the press, and the legacy parties regarding these blatant calls for terror that have been circulating for months on left-wing extremist portals for the period after the election in Saxony-Anhalt,” said AfD Saxony-Anhalt chair Martin Reichardt, member of the German Bundestag.

I spoke to Ben Harnwell on The War Room about the importance of the upcoming German state elections in Saxony-Anhalt, Berlin, and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern yesterday:

Also read:

Gestapo Tactics: German State Starts Banning AfD Candidates from Running for Office Because They Might Win

The Nazis are Back in Germany: Soros-Funded NGO Pressures Procter & Gamble, ALDI, AXA and Others: “Don’t Advertise with Right-Wingers”

The post Germany: Antifa Threatens ANARCHY as Attacks on AfD Mount before Sunday Election appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Google received another public flogging in federal court on Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, ordered Google to stop the conduct that has been strangling revenue from web publishers for years — the latest blow in the government’s antitrust case against the tech giant’s advertising empire.

This follows Brinkema’s ruling last year that Google violated US antitrust laws by unlawfully maintaining monopoly power in open web display advertising. It was the SECOND time a federal judge ruled that Google held an illegal monopoly in part of its business, after Judge Amit Mehta found the same thing in online search.

Google is a monopolist. The courts confirmed this again.

The Department of Justice announced its victory in their case in April 2025:

“This is a landmark victory in the ongoing fight to stop Google from monopolizing the digital public square,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “This Department of Justice will continue taking bold legal action to protect the American people from encroachments on free speech and free markets by tech companies.”

Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater went even further in the same DOJ statement:

“The Court’s ruling is clear: Google is a monopolist and has abused its monopoly power. Google’s unlawful dominance allows them to censor and even deplatform American voices. And at the same time, Google destroyed and hid information that exposed its illegal conduct. Today’s opinion confirms Google’s controlling hand over online advertising and, increasingly, the internet itself.”

Google censors and deplatforms American voices. The DOJ said it clear and out loud.

Here’s what the case was about… Google controlled BOTH sides of the online advertising market. It owned the platforms publishers use to sell ad space, the platforms advertisers use to buy it, AND the AdX exchange where the transactions happen — while pocketing a 20 percent fee.

Government lawyers even recounted how a senior Google executive once compared the setup to Goldman Sachs owning the New York Stock Exchange.

Historically, Google has taken a cut of over 30 cents on the dollar for every advert that passes through the system.

On Wednesday, Judge Brinkema, in a two-page order, declined to force Google to sell off the AdX exchange. But she ordered “behavioral remedies” — a set of rules governing how Google must operate — and will publish the full details in 14 days. She indicated she accepted “most of the parties’ proposed behavioral remedies.”

The Daily Mail reported on the testimony from publishers who were bled dry by Google’s scheme:

“Google suppressing prices for publishers ultimately reduces publisher revenue which, in turn, means we do not invest in journalism in a way that we potentially otherwise could,” Matthew Wheatland, the Daily Mail’s Chief Digital Officer, told the court at the time.

The DOJ said it was “pleased that the court ordered substantial relief” and added: “We are one step closer to restoring competition and bringing relief for the American people in online advertising markets. The Department is evaluating appropriate next steps.”

Google, of course, spun the ruling as a win because the court didn’t break the company apart, and it says it will appeal.

But Google’s troubles are far from over. Last year, the European Commission fined the company €2.95 billion ($3.5 billion) over its ad tech practices in an EU shakedown. A trial in Texas over its digital advertising practices was paused pending the outcome in Virginia.

And publishers and competitors are moving ahead with their own lawsuits seeking financial damages.

Two federal judges. Two illegal monopolies. And Big Tech’s grip on the digital public square is finally being pried loose — one ruling at a time.

As a reminder… Google de-monetized The Gateway Pundit in 2021.

Years ago, the Center for Countering Digital Hate, led by British far-left activist Imran Ahmed, put The Gateway Pundit high on their list to persecute, smear, and put out of business.

Imran said this during testimony before the UK Parliament in September 2021, when he bragged about working for over a year to push Google to demonetize The Gateway Pundit.

Imran Ahmed: Another problem with the Bill is that it does not deal with the advertising market. Google has two parts to its advertising business. The first part is a display network and websites.

Google has about a third of all additional ad revenue, but 95% of the sites that you ever see that have ads on them have ads placed there by Google.

Google has chosen breadth over expense. They have an enormous display network and they gobble up sites and put them in there, including Gateway Pundit, which was spreading election misinformation—“The Big Lie”—Covid disinformation, and all sorts of malignant and anti-black narratives (what?), really horrific racist nonsense.

We found that, thanks to Google ads monetisation—Google takes advertising revenue from everywhere; I think we found Democratic Party adverts placed on Gateway Pundit, a viciously far right site, which just goes to show that, even for the advertiser, it is a terrible waste of money, and most of them are utterly frustrated when they find out about it—Google has become a primary funder of malignant, violent, racist, anti-Semitic, and Covid disinformation content on the internet.

I can give you an example of a site I first heard about through the Home Office’s counterterrorism office and which we targeted last year. It was covered in adverts for household brands.

We contacted each of those brands and got all their adverts taken off, and the site shut down after the ads disappeared. It just goes to show you that the advertising revenue from Google is vital to the proselytisation of hatred in our society.

Counterterrorism told us that they were concerned about it. Gateway Pundit raised millions of dollars of revenue from Google ads—$1.1 million in just seven months.

I am very proud to tell you that after our campaign Stop Funding Misinformation, that story was featured in Forbes magazine in the USA.

I think it was last weekend when Google took them off their display network after a year of campaigning by CCDH, and they are now demonetised, which means that they will not be able to spread their nonsense any further or at the scale and speed at which they were able to before. That is another thing that I am very proud of my team for.

There is even video of this Imran Ahmed’s testimony before the UK Parliament about how glad he was to push Google to demonetize The Gateway Pundit after a year of campaigning Google to do so.

Here is the Imran testimony—via Bad Kitty:

But that’s not all.

America First Legal revealed in March 2024 that Joe Biden was paying radical foreign operatives to target American websites like The Gateway Pundit.

America First Legal discovered that the Biden regime was funding Imran Ahmed and his UK-based censorship group, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).

Imran Ahmed’s group targeted American independent news organizations like The Gateway Pundit, Zero Hedge, Breitbart, The Federalist and several others.

From the day it took power, the Biden Administration mobilized the national security state to support its censorship program. On June 15, 2021, Biden’s National Security Council published its first-ever National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism.

To justify censorship, Biden’s strategy asserted that “Internet-based communications platforms” make Americans “vulnerab[le] to domestic terrorist recruitment and other harmful content.” Effectively, the Biden Administration turned to the national security state and its allied technology companies to censor political opponents. In Orwellian fashion, it said: “All told, a better, more holistic, and coordinated understanding of and information sharing on today’s threat will allow a more effective and comprehensive response. That response will address not just current and imminent incarnations of the domestic terrorism threat but also its contributing factors before they can generate still more violence in the future.”

Google then banned The Gateway Pundit and several conservative sites for non-aligned thinking.
Maybe some day they will face consequences for actively denying their online ad catalogue to conservative websites.

A few more court wins may do the trick.

The post Another Google Court Loss: Federal Judge Orders Tech Giant to Change Its Ad Practices After Ruling It Ran Illegal Monopoly appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Note: The information provided here or in any related communications is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as financial advice. We do not provide personalized investment, financial, or legal advice. Gateway Pundit benefits from purchases made through our sponsors.

by Aaron Gentzler

The first time I saw the words, I scrolled right past them.

Most people did.

It was January 2026, and President Trump had posted a message on his own website in capital letters.

Six words:

“I WILL INSTITUTE THE INSURRECTION ACT.”

I assumed it was Trump being Trump.

A warning to protesters. A shot across the bow at Democratic governors. Something designed to dominate the news for twenty-four hours before the country moved on to the next outrage.

But one guy I heard about—a former advisor to four U.S. Presidents—did something that sounded extreme.

He quietly began moving more than $1 million of his own money.

That got my attention.

Rickards has spent nearly four decades in Washington.

He has advised the CIA, the Pentagon, the U.S. Treasury and four American presidents.

In 1998, when a collapsing hedge fund threatened to bring down Wall Street, Rickards helped negotiate the $4 billion rescue.

Before the 2008 crisis, he warned John McCain’s presidential campaign that a financial meltdown could strike before Election Day.

They laughed him off the phone.

Weeks later, Lehman Brothers collapsed.

Nearly $8 trillion vanished from American retirement accounts and stock portfolios.

In January 2020, Rickards warned his readers about a coming “contagion.”

Three weeks later, the fastest stock market crash in history began.

So when someone with that background takes six words from the President seriously enough to move his family’s money, I want to know what he sees.

I began with the law itself.

The Insurrection Act was passed in 1807 and signed by Thomas Jefferson.

It gives the president extraordinary authority to deploy American troops inside the United States.

That much I knew.

What I didn’t know was what happened twenty years later.

In 1827, a case called Martin v. Mott reached the Supreme Court.

The question before the Court was simple:

Who decides when the conditions for military intervention have been met?

Congress?

The courts?

The governors?

The Supreme Court ruled that this authority belongs “exclusively to the President.”

His decision, the Court said, is “conclusive.”

That ruling has never been overturned.

I read that sentence three times.

Then I started reading about the moments when presidents had actually used the law.

In 1871, a hooded society was terrorizing entire counties in the South.

Its members had allies inside local courts and sheriffs’ offices.

Men who wore hoods at night sat in judgment during the day.

President Grant sent federal forces into those counties and broke their power.

In 1957, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus used the National Guard to prevent nine Black students from entering Central High School.

An angry mob gathered outside.

President Eisenhower placed the Arkansas National Guard under federal control.

Then he sent roughly 1,000 soldiers from the 101st Airborne into Little Rock.

The same “Screaming Eagles” who had parachuted behind enemy lines on D-Day were suddenly walking American children into an American school.

The last invocation came in 1992.

Los Angeles was burning.

Stores were being looted. Buildings were on fire. Local authorities had lost control.

Federal troops moved through an American city while families watched it happen on television.

That was thirty-four years ago.

No president has invoked the law since.

Yet now the President of the United States had named it himself.

“I WILL INSTITUTE THE INSURRECTION ACT.”

Why?

Rickards believes he knows.

And it begins with a confrontation already taking shape between Washington and a group of defiant states.

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia are refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

You may agree with those states.

You may agree with Trump.

But here’s my question: What happens when neither side backs down?

The Supreme Court established nearly two centuries ago that federal law is supreme.

The same Court said the president’s decision to invoke the Insurrection Act belongs to him alone.

And Trump has already told the country what he is prepared to do.

I went back and looked at his original post again.

This time it hit different.

And Rickards apparently agrees.

He now says America is spiraling toward a major confrontation between now and November 3, 2026.

What happens next?

Darned if I know…

But he says a wave of criminal prosecutions could strike the political establishment.

A confrontation between the White House and defiant state governments could spill into the streets.

A rapidly expanding war overseas could hit oil, gold and the value of the dollar.

And an overlooked fourteen-word passage in the Constitution could open a path for Trump to remain in power beyond 2028.

Any one of those events could shake the markets.

Rickards believes all four may collide around the midterm elections.

If you think that sounds extreme,

I did too.

Then something happened that made his warning much harder to dismiss.

On July 27, at 1:27 in the morning, President Trump shared Rickards’s presentation on Truth Social.

The President didn’t explain why.

He didn’t say which part he agreed with.

He simply posted three words and a link:

“The Midterm Meltdown.”

Then nothing.

For twenty-eight days, the post sat there.

And then, just after midnight on August 24, Trump shared the presentation again.

I won’t pretend to know what the President meant.

Neither will Rickards.

But Trump has now returned—twice—to a presentation predicting that his next moves could trigger one of the most dangerous periods in recent American history.

The second time, there were only seventy-one days left before November 3.

So here’s the question…

What does the President see in this warning that made him come back to it?

Rickards has recorded a complete briefing laying out his answer.

He explains why the Insurrection Act may be far more than political rhetoric.

He identifies the four forces he believes are converging on November 3.

He reveals the fourteen words that could become the center of the next constitutional crisis.

He even shows you where he moved more than $1 million of his own money before it happens.

And no, he isn’t telling you to hide in a bunker.

He believes the same political shock that could devastate unprepared investors may create a rare financial windfall for people who understand it early—much like what happened in 2008.

Back then, most Americans didn’t react until the collapse was on every television screen.

By then, it was too late.

Rickards saw it coming weeks earlier.

Now he has issued another warning.

And this time, something extraordinary has happened:

The President of the United States has shared it twice.

You can watch Rickards’s full presentation free of charge.

Click the link below and decide for yourself why the President keeps returning to “The Midterm Meltdown.”

The post Trump Uttered Six Words – Then This 4-time Presidential Advisor Moved $1 Million appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Is anyone actually surprised at this point?

Tucker Carlson appeared to all but endorse far-left Democrat Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan’s critical U.S. Senate race while launching a blistering attack against President Trump’s endorsed Republican candidate, Mike Rogers.

During an interview with “Breaking Points” co-host Saagar Enjeti, Carlson declared that he would not vote for Rogers “at gunpoint,” accused the former House Intelligence Committee chairman of being a “tool of Israel and the intelligence agencies,” and praised El-Sayed’s newly repackaged campaign as “literally Trumpian.”

“I wouldn’t vote for Mike Rogers at gunpoint,” Carlson said bluntly.

Enjeti noted that Rogers lost Michigan’s 2024 Senate race to Democrat Elissa Slotkin even as President Trump carried the state.

“And so that’s the candidate,” Enjeti said. “The guy, a literal loser who lost when Donald Trump won the state, just to show you how much of a headwind he had at his back.”

Carlson then unloaded on Rogers.

“He’s basically a tool of Israel and the intelligence agencies,” Carlson said. “How would you run someone like that? I don’t even—it doesn’t even make sense.”

Carlson and Enjeti then turned their attention to El-Sayed, a Bernie Sanders-backed progressive who has supported radical left-wing policies, including defunding the police.

Enjeti openly acknowledged that El-Sayed is a “full-blown leftist” who previously embraced the “woke” agenda.

“He doesn’t call himself DSA. He’s a full-blown leftist,” Enjeti said.

“I’ve watched his ideological evolution, who you could easily call, as AOC said, was, quote, ‘woke one,’ right? Woke one where he said defund the police on a podcast. He said all kinds of silly things about football and masculinity. Standard leftist sh*t.”

Carlson added, “Hates Mackinac Island. He’s for vaccine mandates.”

But instead of warning voters about El-Sayed’s radical record, the pair praised the radical socialist’s campaign for allegedly adopting “America First-style messaging.”

“I watch his campaign now. It’s America First,” Enjeti said.

“He stands in front of a giant American flag. It’s almost Trumpian,” he continued.

Tucker didn’t even hesitate to take the bait, interrupting to gush: “Well, it’s literally Trumpian.”

In other words, El-Sayed appears to have discovered that wrapping socialism in the American flag and borrowing President Trump’s populist language may be the easiest way to fool Michigan voters.

Despite acknowledging El-Sayed’s far-left history, Enjeti predicted that the Democrat would defeat Rogers in November.

“If I had to bet, which I don’t, I would probably bet that he’ll win,” Enjeti said.

“I would think so,” Carlson responded.

El-Sayed did not suddenly become an America First conservative. He merely learned how to dress up his socialist agenda in populist language.

The Democrat’s official platform still calls for Medicare for All, taxing billionaire wealth, abolishing the filibuster, making voting easier, and promoting left-wing “LGBTQ+” policies.

Carlson then delivered another extraordinary attack against the Republican nominee.

“There’s no one who should be farther from a position of power than Mike Rogers,” Carlson said. “How did he get the Republican nomination for Senate?”

Carlson later called Rogers “the AIPAC candidate,” while Enjeti praised El-Sayed’s ability to “go up against AIPAC and to win.”

WATCH:

The post Turncoat Tucker Carlson All But Endorses Far-Left Democrat Abdul El-Sayed — Says He Wouldn’t Vote for Trump-Backed Mike Rogers “at Gunpoint” and Calls El-Sayed’s Campaign “Literally Trumpian” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.