ALL SMALL BUSINESSES ARE CRIMINALS ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT!

Get this, our nasty Senators and Congressmen have now activated a LAW that considers all businesses with less than $5 million in revenue and 20 employees or less to be FIRST considered as financial criminals.

The law now mandates reporting of the BENEFICIAL OWNERS of ALL companies and businesses operating in the USA FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK (FInCEN) or face fines and JAIL!

AS SMALL BUSINESS YOU ARE ALL SUSPECTED CRIMINALS1

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a final rule implementing the bipartisan Corporate Transparency Act’s (CTA) beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting provisions. The rule will enhance the ability of FinCEN and other agencies to protect U.S. national security and the U.S. financial system from illicit use and provide essential information to national security, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies; state, local, and Tribal officials; and financial institutions to help prevent drug traffickers, fraudsters, corrupt actors such as oligarchs, and proliferators from laundering or hiding money and other assets in the United States.

Illicit actors frequently use corporate structures such as shell and front companies to obfuscate their identities and launder their ill-gotten gains through the United States. Not only do such acts undermine U.S. national security, they also threaten U.S. economic prosperity: shell and front companies can shield beneficial owners’ identities and allow criminals to illegally access and transact in the U.S. economy, while disadvantaging small U.S. businesses who are playing by the rules. This rule will strengthen the integrity of the U.S. financial system by making it harder for illicit actors to use shell companies to launder their money or hide assets.

Recent geopolitical events have reinforced the point that abuse of corporate entities, including shell or front companies, by illicit actors and corrupt officials presents a direct threat to the U.S. national security and the U.S. and international financial systems. For example, Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 further underscored that Russian elites, state-owned enterprises, and organized crime, as well as Russian government proxies have attempted to use U.S. and non-U.S. shell companies to evade sanctions imposed on Russia. This rule will enhance U.S national security by making it more difficult for criminals to exploit opaque legal structures to launder money, traffic humans and drugs, and commit serious tax fraud and other crimes that harm the American taxpayer.

At the same time, the rule aims to minimize burdens on small businesses and other reporting companies. Millions of businesses are formed in the United States each year. These businesses play an essential and important economic role. In particular, small businesses are a backbone of the U.S. economy, accounting for a large share of U.S. economic activity and driving U.S. innovation and competitiveness. U.S. small businesses also generate millions of jobs, and in 2021, created jobs at the highest rate on record. It is anticipated that it will cost reporting companies with simple management and ownership structures—which FinCEN expects to be the majority of reporting companies—approximately $85 apiece to prepare and submit an initial BOI report. In comparison, the state formation fee for creating a limited liability company (LLC) can cost between $40 and $500, depending on the state.

Beyond the direct benefits to law enforcement and other authorized users, the collection of BOI will help to shed light on criminals who evade taxes, hide their illicit wealth, and defraud employees and customers and hurt honest U.S. businesses through their misuse of shell companies.

The rule describes who must file a BOI report, what information must be reported, and when a report is due. Specifically, the rule requires reporting companies to file reports with FinCEN that identify two categories of individuals: (1) the beneficial owners of the entity; and (2) the company applicants of the entity.

The final rule reflects FinCEN’s careful consideration of detailed public comments received in response to its December 8, 2021 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the same topic, and extensive interagency consultations. FinCEN received comments from a broad array of individuals and organizations, including Members of Congress, government officials, groups representing small business interests, corporate transparency advocacy groups, the financial industry and trade associations representing its members, law enforcement representatives, and other interested groups and individuals.

Balancing both benefits and burden, the following are the key elements of the BOI reporting rule:

Reporting Companies

The rule identifies two types of reporting companies: domestic and foreign. A domestic reporting company is a corporation, limited liability company (LLC), or any entity created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office under the law of a state or Indian tribe. A foreign reporting company is a corporation, LLC, or other entity formed under the law of a foreign country that is registered to do business in any state or tribal jurisdiction by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office. Under the rule, and in keeping with the CTA, twenty-three types of entities are exempt from the definition of “reporting company.”
FinCEN expects that these definitions mean that reporting companies will include (subject to the applicability of specific exemptions) limited liability partnerships, limited liability limited partnerships, business trusts, and most limited partnerships, in addition to corporations and LLCs, because such entities are generally created by a filing with a secretary of state or similar office.
Other types of legal entities, including certain trusts, are excluded from the definitions to the extent that they are not created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or similar office. FinCEN recognizes that in many states the creation of most trusts typically does not involve the filing of such a formation document.

Beneficial Owners

Under the rule, a beneficial owner includes any individual who, directly or indirectly, either (1) exercises substantial control over a reporting company, or (2) owns or controls at least 25 percent of the ownership interests of a reporting company. The rule defines the terms “substantial control” and “ownership interest.” In keeping with the CTA, the rule exempts five types of individuals from the definition of “beneficial owner.”
In defining the contours of who has substantial control, the rule sets forth a range of activities that could constitute substantial control of a reporting company. This list captures anyone who is able to make important decisions on behalf of the entity. FinCEN’s approach is designed to close loopholes that allow corporate structuring that obscures owners or decision-makers. This is crucial to unmasking anonymous shell companies.
The rule provides standards and mechanisms for determining whether an individual owns or controls 25 percent of the ownership interests of a reporting company. Among other things, these standards and mechanisms address how a reporting company should handle a situation in which ownership interests are held in trust.
These definitions have been drafted to account for the various ownership or control structures reporting companies may adopt. However, for reporting companies that have simple organizational structures it should be a straightforward process to identify and report their beneficial owners. FinCEN expects the majority of reporting companies will have simple ownership structures.

Company Applicants

The rule defines a company applicant to be only two persons:
1. the individual who directly files the document that creates the entity, or in the case of a foreign reporting company, the document that first registers the entity to do business in the United States.
2. the individual who is primarily responsible for directing or controlling the filing of the relevant document by another.
The rule, however, does not require reporting companies existing or registered at the time of the effective date of the rule to identify and report on their company applicants. In addition, reporting companies formed or registered after the effective date of the rule also do not need to update company applicant information.

Beneficial Ownership Information Reports

When filing BOI reports with FinCEN, the rule requires a reporting company to identify itself and report four pieces of information about each of its beneficial owners: name, birthdate, address, and a unique identifying number and issuing jurisdiction from an acceptable identification document (and the image of such document). Additionally, the rule requires that reporting companies created after January 1, 2024, provide the four pieces of information and document image for company applicants.
If an individual provides their four pieces of information to FinCEN directly, the individual may obtain a “FinCEN identifier,” which can then be provided to FinCEN on a BOI report in lieu of the required information about the individual.

Timing

The effective date for the rule is January 1, 2024.
Reporting companies created or registered before January 1, 2024 will have one year (until January 1, 2025) to file their initial reports, while reporting companies created or registered after January 1, 2024, will have 30 days after receiving notice of their creation or registration to file their initial reports.
Reporting companies have 30 days to report changes to the information in their previously filed reports and must correct inaccurate information in previously filed reports within 30 days of when the reporting company becomes aware or has reason to know of the inaccuracy of information in earlier reports.

Next Steps

The BOI reporting rule is one of three rulemakings planned to implement the CTA. FinCEN will engage in additional rulemakings to (1) establish rules for who may access BOI, for what purposes, and what safeguards will be required to ensure that the information is secured and protected; and (2) revise FinCEN’s customer due diligence rule following the promulgation of the BOI reporting final rule.
In addition, FinCEN continues to develop the infrastructure to administer these requirements in accordance with the strict security and confidentiality requirements of the CTA, including the information technology system that will be used to store beneficial ownership information: the Beneficial Ownership Secure System (BOSS).
Consistent with its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act, FinCEN will publish in the Federal Register for public comment the reporting forms that persons will use to comply with their obligations under the BOI reporting rule. FinCEN will publish these forms well in advance of the effective date of the BOI reporting rule.
FinCEN will develop compliance and guidance documents to assist reporting companies in complying with this rule. Some of these materials will be aimed directly at, and made available to, reporting companies themselves. FinCEN will issue a Small Entity Compliance Guide, pursuant to section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, in order to inform small entities about their responsibilities under the rule. Other materials will be aimed at a wide range of stakeholders that are likely to receive questions about the rule, such as secretaries of state and similar offices. FinCEN also intends to conduct extensive outreach to all stakeholders, including industry associations as well as secretaries of state and similar offices to ensure the effective implementation of the rule.
THIS RULE HAS BEEN STAYED FOR NOW:

jansen@sterlingcooper.us sent you this article.

Comment:

Benficial owmersip rul

Monday, January 13, 2025

The law aims to curtail the use of anonymous shells and track illicit money.

Ownership-Reporting Law’s Return Sought

Supreme Court is asked to stay an injunction pausing its implementation

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on the national injunction issued by a lower court that paused the implementation of the Corporate Transparency Act, a law requiring companies to disclose their true ownership.

The Justice Department, on behalf of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, in an application filed on New Year’s Eve asked the Supreme Court to stay the injunction issued by a Texas district judge in early December.

The attorneys representing FinCEN said the government is likely to succeed in defending the constitutionality of the law and that the district court’s injunction was “vastly overbroad,” according to the filing.

The lawyers said the Supreme Court, at a minimum, should narrow the injunction to the plaintiffs in the case.

STACEY ABRAMS, DEMOCRATIC TAXPAYER FUNDS ABUSER, LAUNCHED NON-PROFITS FROM HER HOME!

Here’s the Insanely Long List of Nonprofits and LLCs That Stacey Abrams Has Launched

As a Democratic election loser DEI politician, civil-rights activist, tax attorney and abuser of taxpayer funds for her “non-profits”, Stacey Abrams has founded or co-founded a dizzying array of nonprofits and LLCs, some of which co-mingle funds.

Records show many of her start-ups have no office or staff and are based out of Abrams’ home in Atlanta. A number of them have failed, dissolved or have fallen into debt and had tax liens attached, and some are under state or federal investigation. A list:

Fair Fight Inc.
Fair Fight Action
Fair Fight PAC
Fair Fight Georgia
Fair Count
New Georgia Project
New Georgia Action Fund
Southern Economic Advancement Project (SEAP)
American Pride Rises APR Network
Sage Works LLC
Sage Works Productions Inc.
NOWaccount Corp.
NOWaccount Network Corp.
NOW Corp. USA
Nourish Inc.
Insomnia Consulting
Insomnia Group
Third Sector Development Inc.
Voter Access Institute
Myrina Strategies
The Family Room Inc.
SELA Technologies Inc.
Abrams Legal Services LLC
Davis Hall LLC
Hall Davis LLC
Brockington Hall LLC

Where is the DOJ to investigate this DEI fraudster?

PRIVATE EQUITY BUYING MOBILE HOME PARKS…CAPTIVE AUDIENCE AND FOREVER INCOME!

Why Is Private Equity Targeting Manufactured Home Parks?

Real estate has always been a safe investment, 2009 economic crisis notwithstanding. But it has generally been the middle class, upper class, and commercial real estate that has appealed the most to private equity firms.

Today, things have changed. Affordable and low-end housing, especially the manufactured home park markets, have been increasingly targeted by institutional investors and private equity firms. They’re buying them like crazy at a time when the industry itself is expanding.

Absolutely insane. Wall Street private equity firms are now buying up American mobile home parks and skyrocketing rents up to 60% on people.

“These communities have become the target of a new kind of landlord, private equity. Private equity firms are increasingly getting involved. Some of the biggest investors in America have moved into this industry. People living at a local mobile home park outraged over the sharp increase in lot rents. Rents were raised by nearly 60%.”

Resident: “I worked for 45 years. There is no American dream anymore. All it is survival.”

“Homes of America has gone on a buying spree spending nearly $300 million to acquire 138 parks across 17 states. They’ve raised rents and aggressively evicted residents.” and that’s just ONE FIRM buying, there are many more.

Resident says “I don’t know what I’m gonna do. Hope that I don’t wake up tomorrow. Death crossed my mind.” She can only afford one more month of rent

How much more will the American People continue to take?

It’s the captive-audience-nature that appeals the most. The investment may require a long time to turn a major profit, but time is on the side of the investors who want to continue making profits for years or even decades.

RAMPANT FRAUD IN UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIM PAYMENTS IN DEMOCRAT HELLHOLE STATES, AND IT CONTINUES!

DOGE Review Finds Three Dem States Account For Most Unemployment Fraud Since 2020

“California accounted for 68% of the unemployment benefits paid to parolees identified by CBP on the terrorist watchlist or with criminal records.”

The DC Department of Employment Services, which handles unemployment claims for DC residents, is seen in Washington, DC, July 16, 2020. (Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)

Three Democratic-led states accounted for the vast majority of unemployment fraud since 2020, according to an initial survey of such fraud by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

California, New York, and Massachusetts tallied nearly 80% of improper unemployment insurance benefits handed out since 2020. An initial review of claims by DOGE found $382 million in fraudulent payments.

The DOGE audit found that “24.5k people over 115 years old claimed $59M in benefits,” “28k people between 1 and 5 years old claimed $254M in benefits,” and “9.7k people with birth dates over 15 years in the future claimed $69M in benefits.”

“In one case, someone with a birthday in 2154 claimed $41k,” DOGE added in a post on X.

Of those flagged claims, California, New York, and Massachusetts accounted for over $300 million.

“California, New York, and Massachusetts accounted for most of these improper claims, totaling $305M in unemployment benefits,” said DOGE. “Additionally, California accounted for 68% of the unemployment benefits paid to parolees identified by CBP on the terrorist watchlist or with criminal records.”

California, New York, and Massachusetts accounted for most of these improper claims, totaling $305M in unemployment benefits.

Additionally, California accounted for 68% of the unemployment benefits paid to parolees identified by CBP on the terrorist watchlist or with criminal… https://t.co/6jYGfxW7Fr

— Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE) April 10, 2025

White House spokesman Harrison Fields said the revelation is an example of the kind of governance that pushed people to move from deep blue states such as California and New York to Republican-led states such as Texas and Florida.

“There’s a reason for the mass exodus from Democrat-run states that have mismanaged their economies and driven residents to the nearest Republican-led state,” Fields told Fox News. “High taxes, poor stewardship of taxpayer dollars and progressive policies continue to yield negative results, which is why Americans overwhelmingly support the work of DOGE.”

California, New York, and Massachusetts are under solid Democratic control. Democrats control the governor’s office, the state House, and the Senate in each state, while also having the offices of secretary of state and attorney general as well.

DOGE is spearheading the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government. DOGE analysts have been working with government departments to identify potential wasteful spending and spending that does not align with President Donald Trump’s priorities.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced $5.1 billion in cuts to Pentagon spending on Thursday that were identified by DOGE.

“This one is, as they say, a big one,” said Hegseth in a video posted to social media. “We’re signing a memo right now directing the termination of $5.1 billion in DOD contracts – not million, that’s with a B – $5.1 billion in DOD contracts.”

FEDERAL WORKERS BEING FIRED WILL NOT MAKE THE SKY FALL!

The Sky Will Not Fall and America Won’t Grind to a Halt Because Some Federal Employees Are Losing Their Jobs Due to DOGE

Federal employees rally in support of their jobs outside of the Kluczynski Federal Building on March 19, 2025, in Chicago. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Fear is a strong motivator—especially when it’s given a political megaphone. And Democrat officials, public employee unions, and their minions in the media have no qualms about trying to terrify the public with ridiculous claims in an attempt to counter President Donald Trump’s swamp-cleansing initiatives through the work of the Department of Government Efficiency.

Just look at the recent hysteria from Capitol Hill. Last month, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., likened the dismissal of federal employees to “a bank robber trying to fire the cops and turn off the alarm just before he strolls into the lobby.”

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, pontificated that “firing this many critical employees at once could make it impossible for our government to provide BASIC services.”

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

But the nuttiest scream of all came from yet another congresswoman, Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., who urged supporters of dismissed U.S. Agency for International Development workers to “Shut down the city! We are at war!”

She didn’t want to talk about the bizarre, absurd misuses to which those USAID workers had put the hard-earned dollars of American taxpayers, like funding a “transgender comic book” in Peru. That is certainly something worth “going to war” about. Not!

As usual, mainstream media outlets are seeking to amplify the political Left’s hysteria. But a realistic look at the reduction in federal bureaucracy relative to the bloated size of the federal government shows just how ridiculous these claims are. They are engaging in the worst type of fearmongering hyperbole.

The numbers can’t be exaggerated.

The current proposals for reduction in federal agency personnel add up to just over 238,000 employees. But that number represents less than 8% of the more than 3 million current federal employees, according to the Pew Research Center. That 3 million figure, however, does not include the roughly 1.3 million active-duty military personnel. Pop that number in and out of the total of 4.3 million individuals receiving paychecks from the federal government—paid for by U.S. taxpayers—the Trump administration wants to reduce the size of the executive branch by only 5.5%.

That 4.3 million number of total employees makes the U.S. government the largest single employer in the entire country, larger than private companies like Walmart or Amazon. Moreover, that number is so large that it means the federal government bureaucracy is larger than the total population of half of the states, including places like Utah, Kansas, and Wyoming.

Add in the conglomerate of 109,000 government contractors, according to a 2024 study by the Government Accounting Office, and the dismissal percentage plummets even more. The estimates of the number of individuals employed by those contractors range from almost 4 million to over 5 million. Including those federal contractors drops the percentage of taxpayer-paid staff being laid off even more drastically.

If less than 8% of the civilian workforce has been shaved off, without taking into account contractors, that means over 92% of federal bureaucrats are still staffing the multitude of federal agencies. That’s 2.8 million federal workers still taking care of the business of the federal government. If the critics are correct that this minuscule reduction will cripple America, that says a lot about the inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and incompetence of vast swaths of the government.

Only by ignoring these statistics can critics continue to proclaim that the reductions in force proposed by the Trump administration will lead to a disaster. In fact, fewer government workers means fewer federal bureaucrats trying to overregulate, overtax, and overburden Americans in their personal lives, their businesses, and their professions.

Nor is this the end of the road for laid-off federal employees. Apparently, the critics believe that having to join the rest of us in finding a job in the private sector is a terrible infliction of harm.

Yet over 30% of the federal workforce holds a bachelor’s degree, and over two-thirds of the now-former staff of USAID possess postgraduate degrees. These folks will be just fine in the private sector, although they might have to actually show up at their workplaces to work (horrors—what an inconvenience!).

It’s time for everyone to take a deep breath. And it is time for the American taxpayer to stop being burdened with paying the salaries of federal employees who are so numerous that they dwarf the populations of so many states.

While the pace at which Trump has implemented his plans may be surprising, that is only because Washington usually moves at a glacial pace, when it moves at all. But his actions to constrain and streamline the federal government have been needed for a long time—with no one until now willing to do anything to try to trim the bloated monstrosity that the federal government has become. Most importantly, his moves are improving—not wounding—the government.

Those listening to the shrill cries of the critics should step back and take in the full picture—a picture that shows that trying to get rid of the waste, fraud, and abuse that infests the nation’s capital will benefit the American people and the republic.

DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS DO NOT WANT ONLY CITIZENS TO VOTE, THEY LIKE FRAUD ALLOWING NON-CITIZENS, CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT?

Why 4 Democrats defied their party to protect American elections from illegal aliens

‘Requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote is common sense.’

The House passed a Republican-led bill requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration on Thursday. Despite Democrats’ overwhelming disapproval of the key legislation, four Democratic lawmakers reached across the aisle.

Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy’s SAVE Act was passed in a 220-208 vote almost entirely along party lines, similar to the bill’s narrow passage in the previous Congress.

Just as they did in 2024, Democrats voted to tank Roy’s bill, with just a handful defecting and joining Republicans: Reps. Ed Case of Hawaii, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington.

While this handful of Democrats bucked their party on a key vote, they likely did so just for political survival.

“I voted for the SAVE Act for the simple reason that American elections are for Americans,” Golden said in a statement Thursday. “Requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote is common sense.”

Golden, who has previously defected from his party on other key votes, additionally defended the SAVE Act and even debunked some misconceptions about the bill.

“Some claim that requiring proof of citizenship is too onerous a burden, or that it will ‘disenfranchise’ those whose names have changed for reasons like marriage,” Golden said. “The truth is the SAVE Act ensures name changes will not prevent anyone from registering to vote.”

“The bill allows for several different ways to prove citizenship,” Golden added. “But most importantly, it requires state leaders to establish protocols to allow citizens to register even if there are discrepancies in documents, such as name changes.”

In statements shared with Blaze News, both Cuellar and Case echoed Golden’s position, arguing that the standards put forward by the SAVE Act ensure that the law is enforced properly.

“Noncitizen voting is illegal, and we should all know that noncitizens are not voting,” Case said. “The SAVE Act provides consistent national standards for what documentation is necessary to prove citizenship and the right to vote.”

“It includes various acceptable forms of identification which most voter-eligible citizens should have and those who don’t should be able to obtain,” Case added. “Fears of voter suppression because of these standards are overstated and should not prevent reasonable citizen ID requirements, and voter suppression is in any event illegal.”

“Ultimately, this is about protecting the integrity of our elections while ensuring every eligible American has a fair chance to vote — whether you are a man or a woman, single, married, divorced, or widowed,” Cuellar said. “That’s how we keep trust in our democracy, and that’s something worth standing up for.”

Notably, every Democrat who voted for the SAVE Act, with the exception of Case, resides in a district that President Donald Trump won in 2024. Trump won Golden’s district with 53.8%, Cuellar’s district with 53.1%, and Perez’s district with exactly 50%.

These Democrats also narrowly won re-election in their respective purple districts last election cycle. Golden won with just 50.3% of the vote, Cuellar won with 52.8%, and Perez held on to her seat with 51.7%.

While this handful of Democrats bucked their party on a key vote, they likely did so just for political survival.

COVID 19 LEAKED FROM WUHAN LAB AND WAS COVERED UP BY BIDEN PENTAGON ADMINISTRATION AND FAUCI! LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES

Double whammy: Two new reports point to Biden Pentagon cover-up on COVID-19 origins search

More than half a decade after the pandemic began, key information on COVID-19’s origins continues to dribble out of the U.S. government — almost exclusively pointing to a Wuhan lab leak.

Two new bombshell reports this week pointed to a cover-up by the Biden-era Pentagon related to the search for COVID-19’s origins. New information is spilling out years after the fact and pointing to Wuhan and its coronavirus lab as the origin of the pandemic all along.

First, a newly-released Department of Defense (DoD) report, made public only in recent days by the Trump-led Pentagon, showed that the Defense Department never formally investigated the possibility that U.S. service members may have been infected with COVID-19 during the World Military Games in Wuhan in the fall of 2019.

In addition, a newly-released analysis by a unit of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), made public through the Freedom of Information Act only this week, showed that the DIA’s National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI) believed early on in the pandemic that a Wuhan lab leak was plausible despite efforts by allies of Dr. Anthony Fauci to dismiss the possibility.

The new details on the Biden-era Pentagon’s failure to investigate clues pointing to the fall 2019 emergence of COVID-19 in Wuhan were first reported by the Washington Free Beacon, and the revelations about the DIA unit’s analysis pointing to a Wuhan lab leak were first reported by U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public health research group.

The newly-published Defense Department report on the Wuhan Military Games was written in 2022 in response to congressional demands that the Pentagon investigate reports that U.S. military athletes got sick with COVID-19 after they participated in competitions in October 2019 in the city at the heart of the coronavirus outbreak.

The public report — now released after more than two years — concluded that there was no significant uptick at military bases tied to the participating athletes, but also revealed that the Pentagon had not tested the service members for COVID-19 nor for antibodies, admitting that “DoD has not conducted or opened an investigation into connections between the outbreak of COVID-19 and the 2019 World Military Games.”

The DIA NCMI’s newly public analysis — dated June 25, 2020 — concluded that “the molecular biology capabilities of [the Wuhan lab] and genome assessment are consistent with the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 was a lab-engineered virus.” The NCMI analysis, which took nearly five years to be made public, said the available evidence even early on was consistent with COVID-19 emerging via lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). WIV was led by so-called “bat woman” Shi Zheng-li, with the U.S. medical defense scientists stating SARS-CoV-2 could have been “part of a bank of chimeric viruses in Zhen-Li Shi’s lab at WIV that escaped containment.”

The Defense Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Just the News.

“It has been clear for some time that all informed scientists — without exception — believed by early 2020 that COVID likely started with a lab incident in Wuhan, but that most chose to lie for five years,” Richard Ebright, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University, told Just the News. “Over the last two months, it has become clear that U.S., UK, and German intelligence agencies — without exception — also knew by early 2020 that COVID-19 likely started with a lab incident in Wuhan, and also chose to lie for five years.”

The Wuhan Military Games

The Defense Department report, put together by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and submitted to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees in December 2022, cost only $4,070 to compile — perhaps unsurprising given that the DoD admitted it had not conducted any formal investigation of links between the U.S. service members and the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic in Wuhan. The report, including the cover page, is three pages long.

House Foreign Affairs Republicans concluded in August 2021 that the military games in Wuhan were “one of the earliest super spreader events” during the pandemic, with their report contending COVID-19 escaped from a Wuhan lab in late August or early September 2019 — with China then covering it up for months.

Robert Redfield, Trump’s former director of the Centers for Disease Control, had said in March 2021 that COVID-19 “most likely” originated at the Wuhan lab and that it spread in the Chinese city in September or October 2019.

The 2022 DoD report added that “DoD has not engaged in any discussions with allied or partner militaries about illness associated with participation in the 2019 World Military Games” either.

The report did show that the U.S. military’s delegation to Wuhan consisted of 173 athletes and 90 coaches and staff — with a total of 219 being military personnel — and that “7 Service members who attended the games exhibited COVID-19-like signs and/or symptoms during the timeframe of October 18, 2019 through January 21, 2020.” The report noted that “the COVID-19-like symptoms could have been caused by other respiratory infections” and stated that “all 7 Service members’ symptoms resolved within 6 days.”

Participating service members not tested

The DoD report said that “the military facilities supporting Service members from the 2019 World Military Games reported no outbreaks of COVID-19-like signs and/or symptoms shortly upon returning” but that “Service members were not tested for COVID-19 or antibodies due to their participation in the 2019 World Military Games, as testing was not available at this early stage of the pandemic.” The DoD provided no clarity on whether the U.S. military members were ever tested.

“Data surveillance reports from military treatment facilities indicate no statistically significant difference in COVID-19-like symptoms cases at installations with participating athletes when compared to installations without them,” the report stated. “In addition, no significant increase in COVID-19-like signs and/or symptoms was documented for the dates of October 2019 through March 2020 as a result of U.S. Army separate surveillance testing.”

This newly-public report was quietly released on the Military One Source website — which is designed as a “Support for Military Personnel & Their Families” — years after Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2022, which told the Defense Department, then led by Secretary Lloyd Austin, that the report “shall be submitted in unclassified form and made publicly available on an internet website in a searchable format.”

While it was submitted to a House and a Senate committee in late December 2022, the report wasn’t uploaded to be viewed by the public until sometime in late March of this year after Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had taken the reins.

GOP: Wuhan Games were a “super-spreader”

The GOP-led House Foreign Affairs Committee report was completed more than a year before the DoD finally made their report public. Then-Chairman Michael McCaul said at the time: “Satellite images show a significant uptick in the number of people at hospitals around the WIV with symptoms similar to COVID-19. At the same time, athletes at the Military World Games became sick with symptoms similar to COVID-19. Some of them carried the virus back to their home countries — creating one of the earliest super-spreader events in the world, and explaining how countries who participated in the games had reported cases as early as November 2019.”

The Republican report said its lab leak evidence included “athletes at the Military World Games held in Wuhan in October 2019 who became sick with symptoms similar to COVID-19 both while in Wuhan and also shortly after.”

The GOP report zeroed in on the city of Wuhan, which was picked to host the 7th International Military Sports Council Military World Games in October 2019, during which “more than 9,000 military personnel from over 100 countries stayed in Wuhan in accommodations at an athletes village built specifically for the games.”

The Chinese state-run China Internet Information Center said in October 2019 there were athletes from 109 countries. China’s Organizing Committee of the 7th International Military Sports Council proclaimed that “the charm of sports will put Wuhan in global spotlight [sic].”

The Republican report noted that “four countries who sent delegations” to the Wuhan games “have now confirmed the presence of SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 cases within their borders in November and December 2019” — Italy, Brazil, Sweden, and France — with some of the athletes complaining of COVID-like symptoms in Wuhan.

The World Health Organization’s joint report with China in early 2021 said the Chinese Epidemiology Group, which provided information on the Wuhan games, allegedly found that “no appreciable signals of clusters of fever or severe respiratory disease requiring hospitalization were identified.” But the report added that “the joint team recommends that consideration be given to further joint review of the data on respiratory illness from the on-site clinics at the Military Games in October 2019.”

The report’s meeting minutes from discussions between Wuhan lab scientists and the WHO-China team also revealed that lab leak concerns were dismissed as “rumors,” “myths,” and “conspiracy theories.”

Chinese disinformation points to U.S. military base

The Chinese government for years has continued to deflect from the Wuhan lab leak possibility by pushing a conspiracy theory that COVID-19 originated from a U.S. military base. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian and others pushed the baseless claims about the U.S. military, including Maryland’s Fort Detrick, starting in early 2020.

Zhao shared an article in March 2020 from Global Research, tweeting: “COVID-19: Further Evidence that the Virus Originated in the U.S.” The Chinese official also tweeted that month: “When did patient zero begin in U.S.? How many people are infected? What are the names of the hospitals? It might be U.S. army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan. Be transparent! Make public your data! U.S. owe us an explanation!” Global Research has been described by the U.S. State Department as “deeply enmeshed in Russia’s broader disinformation and propaganda ecosystem.”

Then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper said in March 2020 that China’s claims were “completely absurd.” And the Pentagon’s “Coronavirus: Rumor Control” website said early in the pandemic that it was a “myth” that “U.S. service members visiting China were the source of the coronavirus outbreak.”

Then-Rep. Mike Gallagher also wrote Lloyd Austin a letter seeking answers in June 2021, saying, “Aware that the cluster of illnesses associated with the World Military Games casts doubt upon the Chinese Communist Party’s official timeline, Chinese government officials such as Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Zhao Lijian have sought to deflect blame onto the U.S.”

The GOP report from August 2021 emphasized, “If the CCP realized an investigation would show an uptick in visits of patients with symptoms similar to COVID-19 in September, October, and November of 2019, this would likely be the actions they would take to cover up the source of those illnesses.”

The Republican report added: “To further drive this narrative, CCP-controlled media outlets accused Maatje Benassi, a member of the U.S. Army Reserve, as being ‘patient zero.’ Benassi competed at the Military World Games without becoming ill … Two weeks after Zhao tweeted that the U.S. army brought the virus to Wuhan, the Global Times amplified the narrative.” Global Times is not considered state-run media, but has been criticized for publishing “Pro-Chinese government propaganda”

After then-FBI Director Christopher Wray confirmed in early 2023 that the FBI had long assessed that a lab leak was the most likely origin for COVID-19, the Chinese government returned to its efforts to shift blame to the U.S. military.

“At present, more and more clues from the international science community are pointing the origins of virus to sources around the world. Many have raised questions and concerns about US bio-military bases at Fort Detrick and around the world,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said in March 2023.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry also responded to the CIA’s new assessment earlier this year that the U.S. spy agency had “low confidence” leaning toward a lab leak hypothesis by arguing that “the U.S. needs to stop politicizing and weaponizing origins-tracing at once, and stop scapegoating others” and attempting to point the finger at “relevant U.S. biological labs.”

Pentagon leadership: “No knowledge”

In April 2020, when Trump’s then-defense secretary, Mark Esper, was asked about COVID-19 and the Wuhan military games in April 2020, he replied, “I’m not aware of what you’re talking about.” The then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, also said, “Yeah, I’m not.”

It was also reported by The Prospect in June 2020 that, in response to questions about the Wuhan games, a Pentagon spokesperson “issued a terse email response to the question, saying there was no screening because the event” held in October 2019 “was prior to the reported outbreak.” The outlet said the Pentagon spokesperson “cited December 31, 2019, as the critical outbreak day and that no testing was deemed necessary for any possible exposure prior to February 1, 2020.”

Then-Pentagon press secretary John Kirby also reportedly told The Washington Post in June 2021 that “the Defense Department has no knowledge of Covid-19 infections among U.S. troops participating in the 2019 World Military Games,” with the outlet adding that Kirby “said that there’s no evidence U.S. military personnel were infected before travel restrictions the U.S. government implemented in early 2020.”

But as the newly-released Defense Department report revealed, the Biden Pentagon never formally investigated this saga.

Scientists within DIA pointed to a Wuhan lab leak

The second bombshell related to a never before seen June 2020 analysis by scientists within the DIA’s National Center for Medical Intelligence. The dozens of pages of slides — titled “SARS-COV-2 Genome Analysis” and dated June 25, 2020 — were only released after FOIA litigation this week.

“The molecular biology capabilities of [Wuhan lab] & genome assessment are consistent with the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 was a lab-engineered virus that was part of a bank of chimeric viruses in Zhen-Li Shi’s lab at WIV that escaped containment,” the medical intelligence scientists assessed.

U.S. Right to Know, which filed the Freedom of Information requests, said that the authors of the military analysis are not listed, but that they obtained the slides in response to FOIA requests seeking assessments authored by scientists Robert Greg Cutlip, John Hardham, and Jean-Paul Chretien — all of whom had worked for the DIA’s NCMI.

Cutlip was employed by the DIA from 2010 to 2021 and also worked for the Institute for Defence Analyses. He is currently listed as the Director of Cybersecurity and Data Analytics Programs at Fairmont State University. Hardham’s LinkedIn page says that he is now a research director at the Center for Transboundary and Emerging Diseases at Zoetis.

Chretien’s LinkedIn page states that he was the chief of pandemic warning at the Defense Department from August 2017 to August 2020, was at DoD’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency from August 2020 to January 2025, and has been at Renaissance Philanthropy since then. He wrote on LinkedIn last year that he was “leading DIA’s Pandemic Warning Team when COVID came to light.”

In the material released, the scientists noted that there were “a large bank of Bat Coronaviruses” at the Wuhan lab. And the analysis also noted that the Wuhan lab conducted experiments at lower “biosafety level 2” conditions, and said this “would make an accidental release” of an infectious bat coronavirus such as COVID-19 “more likely.” The analysis pointed out that “Chinese labs have had a history of virus escapes from BSL-2 laboratories.”

The analysis also cited statements that “bat lady” Shi Zheng-Li had made in the past about the low biosafety conditions in which she conducted her risky experiments.

“Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2”

The influential scientific Proximal Origin paper was published just over five years ago, scoffing at the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis in the early days of the coronavirus pandemic. Emails show Dr. Anthony Fauci, the now-former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, “prompted” the writing of that influential article.

Scientists who consulted with the U.S. government early in the pandemic in 2020 believed it was possible or even likely that COVID-19 originated from a lab in Wuhan, yet emails indicate Fauci and Collins worked to shut the hypothesis down.

The Proximal Origin article was written by five scientists: Kristian Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward C. Holmes, and Robert Garry. Andersen, a Scripps Research professor, wrote to Nature magazine in February 2020 that he and other scientists had been “prompted” to do so by Fauci, Collins and Farrar.

The widely cited article published in Nature magazine in March 2020 was titled “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” and contended that SARS-CoV-2 likely emerged through “natural selection” and not through a lab leak, casting doubt on the possibility that COVID-19 originated at a Wuhan lab.

The scientists wrote that “our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus” and that “it is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus.” Multiple scientists who signed onto the letter had received millions of dollars in NIH funding.

Professor Richard Ebright told Just the News that the Proximal Origin paper was “a product of scientific misconduct, up to and including fraud.” Ebright assessed that the paper “played a crucial role in establishing the false narrative that science rules out a lab origin of COVID” and noted that “formal requests for retraction of the paper have been submitted.”

The military scientists shoot down Fauci-prompted “Proximal Origin”

NCMI experts Robert Greg Cutlip and Navy Cmdr. Jean-Paul Chretien also wrote a working paper — published May 26, 2020 — which poked holes in the claims made by the Fauci-allied scientists. It, too, was not made public until years later.

The bombshell paper was titled “Critical Analysis of Anderson et al. The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” and was only released when GOP Rep. Brad Wenstrup, the chairman of the Select Committee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, made it public in 2023.

The military scientists argued: “We highlight the features of SARS-CoV-2, noted by Anderson et al, are consistent with longstanding and ongoing laboratory experiments; the evidence Anderson et al. present does not lessen the plausibility of laboratory origin.”

“We consider the evidence they [Andersen et al] present and find that it does not prove that the virus arose naturally,” the NCMI report stated. “In fact, the features of SARS-CoV-2 noted by Anderson et al. are consistent with another scenario: that SARS-CoV-2 was developed in a laboratory, by methods that leading coronavirus researchers commonly use to investigate how the viruses infect cells and cause disease, assess the potential for animal coronaviruses to jump to humans, and develop drugs and vaccines.”

DIA and ODNI leadership kept reports under wraps

Multiple reports have also emerged that the NCMI analysis pointing to a possible Wuhan lab leak was not allowed to be shared outside of the DIA medical unit and was not included in broader analyses by the U.S. intelligence community.

It was reported by The Australian in 2023 that the 2020 papers by the NCMI scientists “pointing to a lab leak were blocked from wide dissemination.” The outlet said that the DIA paper critiquing the paper authored by Fauci-allied scientists “wasn’t allowed to be released to the American public.”

The report added: “A source said DIA scientists, the Lawrence Livermore National Lab, CIA, FBI’s WMD unit, and the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases all agreed COVID-19 was not a natural virus. But in 2021, NCMI was blocked by DIA leadership from sharing info with the FBI.” A director at NCMI reportedly told the scientists in July 2021: “You may not speak with the FBI WMD anymore. They are off the reservation on this.”

The outlet also contended that Biden’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence — led by Avril Haines — whitewashed or ignored evidence from DIA scientists when putting together the summary of what the U.S. intel community allegedly believed about COVID-19 origins. “They said the information was too technical to include in the ODNI assessment,” an unnamed source told the outlet. “When the scientists saw the final document, they wondered were did all their edits go?”

It was then reported by The Wall Street Journal in December of last year that the NCMI analysis “was at odds with the assessment of their parent agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and wasn’t incorporated in the report presented to Biden.” The WSJ said that NCMI scientists — Hardham, Cutlip and Chretien — wrote the May 2020 lab leak paper but “weren’t allowed to circulate it outside of the medical intelligence center.” The outlet also reported that NCMI scientists “were instructed by a superior at the medical intelligence center not to continue sharing their work with the FBI.” The WSJ also reported that “the DIA Inspector General’s office opened an inquiry in the spring into whether the scientists’ assessment was mishandled or suppressed.”

Army Lt. Gen. Scott Berrier, who has since left his position as director of the DIA, spoke to the Senate in May 2022 about COVID-19’s origins, making no mention of the lab leak analyses within the DIA’s medical unit.

“Limited and fragmentary data has led the Intelligence Community (IC) to maintain multiple theories on the origin of COVID-19,” Berrier testified. “Four elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the virus likely emerged from a natural interaction between an animal infected with the virus and a human; one IC element assesses with moderate confidence a laboratory origin is more likely and three 38 other IC elements are unable to arrive at either conclusion without additional information. All agencies agree the virus was not developed as a biological weapon and most agree that it was not genetically engineered.” Berrier joined Booz Allen as the senior vice president in the company’s national security business in June 2024. He did not respond to a request for comment that Just the News made through his company.

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., sent a December 2024 letter to the DIA’s watchdog, telling him that “I am interested in the findings of the OIG’s inquiry as to whether the NCMI’s findings were appropriately included in briefings to President Biden and senior policy makers.” The DIA inspector general did not respond to a request for comment from Just the News.

By most accounts, the Biden Administration largely failed or refused to shed further light on the origins of COVID-19. Then-President Biden signed into law the “COVID-19 Origin Act of 2023” and claimed that “my administration will declassify and share as much of that information as possible.” Little key information was released during his presidency, and more and more reports are saying that important findings were suppressed.

Then-DNI Avril Haines released an assessment in August 2021 stating that at least one U.S. agency — revealed later to be the FBI — had “moderate confidence” that COVID-19 came from the lab, while four U.S. spy agencies and the National Intelligence Council believed with “low confidence” that COVID-19 most likely had a natural origin.

Then-FBI Director Christopher Wray later confirmed that the FBI has long believed COVID-19 originated at a Chinese government lab. ODNI released in October 2021 a declassified version of the FBI’s arguments in a section titled “The Case for the Laboratory-Associated Incident Hypothesis.”

It was also revealed in 2023 that the Energy Department — home to advanced research facilities such as the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories — also believed with “low confidence” that the coronavirus started at a Wuhan lab.

EcoHealth Alliance calls lab origin a “conspiracy theory”

Peter Daszak, the leader of the EcoHealth Alliance, steered large sums of U.S. taxpayer dollars from NIH funding to the Wuhan lab for bat virus research, a Government Accountability Office study showed. Science magazine noted that Daszak was a longtime collaborator with the Wuhan lab and its leader Shi Zhengli.

Daszak helped organize a February 2020 letter in The Lancet which praised China’s response and called the lab leak a conspiracy theory: “The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin … Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear.”

Despite this, Fauci tried to argue to the BBC in 2022 that Daszak’s letter did not dismiss the lab leak hypothesis.

EcoHealth Alliance had proposed the creation at the Wuhan lab of a virus with features — such as a furin cleavage site — strikingly similar to those found in SARS-CoV-2. It was revealed by The Intercept that EcoHealth had sought funding from the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency for this project in 2018, but when the funding was rejected it appears the Wuhan lab moved forward anyway, just a year ahead of the first emergence of COVID-19.

Gabbard: “Bipartisan frustration”

A host of U.S. intelligence agencies still remain on the sidelines in the coronavirus origins debate.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said during her Senate confirmation in January that many senators had “expressed bipartisan frustration about recent intelligence failures and the lack of responsiveness to your requests for information” including related to “failures to identify the source of the COVID.” Gabbard announced on Tuesday the creation of the Director’s Initiatives Group which has been “reviewing documents for potential declassification — including information related to COVID-19 origins.”

“The DNI is dedicated to declassifying COVID-19 origins documents from across the IC,” a spokesperson for Gabbard told Just the News. “Her new Director’s Initiative’s Group will lead the charge. More coming soon.”

The CIA, now under Director John Ratcliffe, is walking a fine line. CBS News reported that the “CIA now says COVID most likely originated from a lab leak but has ‘low confidence’ in its assessment.” He revealed in January that “CIA assesses with low confidence that a research-related origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is more likely than a natural origin” and at the same time, “that CIA continues to assess that both research-related and natural origin scenarios of the COVID-19 pandemic remain plausible.”

Ratcliffe had testified to Congress in 2023 that the CIA and other spy agencies had enough evidence to get off the fence and to join the FBI and Energy Department in concluding that SARS-CoV-2 most likely originated at the Wuhan lab, and hinted that the U.S. intelligence community was holding back because of the significant ramifications such public conclusions would have for the U.S.-China relationship. Ratcliffe argued at the time that “a lab leak is the only explanation credibly supported by our intelligence, by science, and by common sense.”

The German Federal Intelligence Service, known as the BND, reportedly also concluded that it was very likely that the pandemic emerged as an accidental lab release from the Wuhan lab, according to German news reports last month, but the BND was blocked from sharing their conclusions with the world.

“The current Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, the CIA Director John Ratcliffe, FBI Director Kash Patel, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth all promised before confirmation to declassify and release intelligence on the origin of COVID-19, as required by the COVID-19 Origin Act of 2023, but they have not yet done so. They need to move rapidly to do so,” Professor Ebright told Just the News. “And Avril Haines needs to be prosecuted — criminally prosecuted — for violating the law.”

GREAT ADS…THE PENALTY OF LEADERSHIP…

Marketing 101: Lessons from Cadillac and “The Penalty of Leadership”

“If the leader truly leads, he remains — the leader. Master-poet, master-painter, master-workman, each in his turn is assailed, and each holds his laurels through the ages. That which is good or great makes itself known, no matter how loud the clamor of denial. That which deserves to live — lives.”

— Theodore J. McManus, Author of “The Penalty of Leadership”

In a competitive world where “emulation and envy are ever at work,” many companies find it hard to use advertising as a space to break free from the rigid rules of business. However, those that invest in creative and inclusive styles of marketing often find the most success. Why? Because when a consumer purchases an item, a service, or an experience, they are looking to buy much more than the physical product. They are looking to buy an identity.

“The Penalty of Leadership,” written by Theodore F. MacManus for Cadillac in 1915, is a shining example of this. The ad is almost an exact replica of a character statement from an omnipresent perspective. It allows its readers to develop an affinity for the morality of the manufacturer and not the quality of the product. “The real suggestion to convey is that the man manufacturing the product is an honest man, and that the product is an honest product, to be preferred above all others,” said MacManus when asked about the objective behind this marketing style.

“The Penalty of Leadership” was a radical departure from previous Cadillac advertisements, but what it lacked in glamor and extravagance it made up for its ingenious style. (Source: Entrepreneur)

Cadillac was widely recognized as a luxury automobile company but in the early 1900s faced rivalries with Ford and Packard Motors. Ford presented their cars as reliable and affordable at the cost of only $400, while Packard Motors produced high end vehicles like Cadillac for about $2,000. Starting in 1905, the highest-end Cadillac models featured an incredibly dependable four-cylinder engine. However, a few years later Packard Motors came out with a six-cylinder engine on their new luxury models. Cadillac immediately felt pressured to respond, and they came out with a high speed V-8 engine that was later described as “skittery at first, prone to short circuits and fires.” Many began to think the company was at the start of its downfall until “The Penalty of Leadership” was written.

In startling contrast to the colorful ads of its era, “The Penalty of Leadership” was printed subtly in black and white ink. Cars, cylinders, nor the automotive industry are mentioned. Only a small logo placed in the top right corner of the decorative border and another embedded in the center below binding the ad to Cadillac. This revolutionary approach defined the brand’s dominance and set the standard for a level of originality directly tied to genius within the company’s work. Its closing sentences —“That which is good or great makes itself known, no matter how loud the clamor of denial. That which deserves to live– lives”— leave readers inspired individually and collectively as buyers of this upstanding brand. These statements also uniquely foreshadow Cadillac’s success over the next century and the close of Packard Motors in 1958.

However, they also serve as a motivational outline of how to harness the entrepreneurial spirit into a fortune of success. Both Cadillac and the agency MacManus, John & Adams reportedly received requests for a copy of “The Penalty of Leadership” almost every week for 30+ years after it was written. Elvis Presley kept a copy of it framed in his home at Graceland and says it heavily influenced his work. To this day, it is recognized as one of the most influential and timeless ads.

PENALTY OF LEADERSHIP

STEALTH BOMBERS READY TO DESTROY THE IRAN NUCLEAR THREAT, ALL THE TALK IS OVER IF THE NUCLEAR POTENTIAL IS NOT ENDED

Pentagon Prepares for IRAN DETERRENT STRIKE

Unprecedented number of B-2 bombers amassed for Iran strike

In the largest single deployment of stealth bombers in U.S. history, the Pentagon has sent six B-2 “Spirit” aircraft to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

The long-range bombers, which are uniquely suited to evade Iranian air defenses and can carry America’s most potent bunker busting weapons, flew in from Missouri last week in a little noticed operation.

The B-2s carry not just bombs, but a message for Iran: “do you see our sword?,” as one retired general told Newsmax this week.

President Donald Trump hasn’t been shy in threatening Iran, saying that if Tehran doesn’t close the door on a nuclear capability they will experience “bombing the likes of which they haven’t seen.”

“Hell” will “rain down” on the country, Trump has also said. Just today, amidst the stock market meltdown Trump again reiterated his threat, saying that “doing a deal would be preferable to doing the obvious” — which to the president is undertaking a massive strike.

Blatant as the threat is, the U.S. government has not otherwise publicly acknowledged the bomber buildup. Though B-2 bombers were used to carry out strikes on underground Houthi facilities in Yemen (both under the Biden and Trump administration), the forward deployment of the bombers to the island of Diego Garcia was only reported when commercial satellite images of the airbase there revealed the six on the runway.

Satellite image of six B-2s in Diego Garcia | Planet Labs Inc.

“To my knowledge, this is the largest B-2 deployment to a forward location,” Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists told me. Kristensen is the world’s leading tracker of nuclear comings and goings.

“All the bombers, they’re not in hangers, they’re underneath satellites where they can be photographed and seen; and the idea is, do you see our sword?” retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Blaine Holt, who served as Deputy U.S. Military Representative to NATO, said in an interview with Newsmax last week. Holt also said that the B-2 deployment “gives the president a military option that he can actually use these weapons against Iran if needed.”

This is a highly visible threat to Tehran, but at least one party isn’t supposed to notice: the American people.

The Pentagon refuses to acknowledge that the deployment is even happening. Trump’s new Pentagon Press Secretary Sean Parnell has only vaguely alluded to “other air assets” being deployed it has announced that two aircraft carriers will stay in the region, the result of a delay in sending one home after its current deployment.

According to Google Trends, searches for terms like “B-2” and “war with Iran” have only modestly increased, indicating that public curiosity has been suppressed despite Donald Trump’s many threats to attack his enemies.

Google searches for “B-2” (blue) and “War with Iran” (red) | Google Trends

Why B-2s?

The B-2 was first designed during the Cold War to penetrate deep into Russian territory for a nuclear attack. The aircraft’s stealth features (making it all but “invisible” to conventional radar) allow it to evade even the most sophisticated air defenses. Subsequent to its deployment, the bomber was modified so that it could take on unique conventional roles as well, especially in attacking underground facilities.

Though the U.S. has a variety of long-range fighters in the region — F-16s, F/A-18s, F-15Es, and F-35s — deployed on aircraft carriers and based in countries like Jordan and the UAE, the B-2s also allow the Trump administration to carry out unilateral strikes. That is, without the permission or involvement of any other Middle East countries. (Diego Garcia continues to be militarily controlled by the U.K.)

Affording a unilateral option, the bombers also fulfill one of the priorities of the Pentagon and the administration in undertaking any use of force: making sure that the risk to U.S. personnel is minimal. Though they are much more expensive to operate and even deploy, the risk of one of the B-2s getting shot down is lower than that of fighters.

As I’ve already written, the Pentagon has been developing a new Iran war plan in recent months. That even includes options for the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, which I’ve also written about.

Assuming the B-2 bombers are directly connected to a full-fledged war decision would be a mistake. They are tools much better suited to a single demonstration strike. Note that from Diego Garcia, a round trip flight to Tehran exceeds 6,000 miles (more than 10 hours of flying), thus limiting how many of the bombers could be used in a sustained operation.

Assessing the likelihood of war with Iran requires understanding three distinct parts:

Intelligence assessments;
Public muscle flexing (of which the B-2 bombers are part); and
War planning.

Each of these three elements exists in separate stovepipes and each proceeds along their own timelines and separate approaches to the problem. It is when the three are in sync that the moment of maximum danger emerges. We’re not yet there, but let’s take a look at each of the three.

Intelligence

Intelligence assessments fall into two categories, the big picture and the day-to-day. I recently wrote about the intelligence community’s latest long view of Iran; that is, its assessment of Iran’s overall condition and Tehran’s worldview. That intelligence assessment does not scream war, but again, that’s the intelligence community’s view, not that of the White House.

Day-to-day (or crisis) intelligence — an assessment that Iranian forces are on the move, that Iran is readying an attack, that a terrorist strike is imminent — doesn’t necessarily have to jive with the long-term prognosis as seen by the eggheads in Washington. Crisis intelligence is more of an operational matter.

Though mostly operational in nature, crisis intelligence is also the kind of “intelligence” that leaders at the top have to monitor. Think of it as cable news or some viral social media frenzy. It sucks all of the oxygen out of the brain and there is a tendency to lose touch with the big picture. A contributing factor of crisis intelligence in Trump’s mind is also what’s on Fox or Newsmax — which is to say that’s what this president sees.

Flexing

Which brings us to public muscle flexing of the B-2 deployments. I say flexing because what follows isn’t “war,” not full scale war as people think of war. It is more the preamble of the government or the military taking action to “defend” itself, or an occasion by which the Pentagon expresses anger or frustration, or wants to send a signal, even by bombing.

This is the realm where Donald Trump’s stream of consciousness or Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s need to stick one of his tattoos in someone’s face plays an outsize role. What the boss says in this world is crucially important, even if it is ridiculous, because the war machine has to know at what speed to operate and what thing it should produce. And it needs to know right now, tonight, which is why the B-2s are there in the region in such large numbers.

When Trump spews, even his tone influences the military “posture,” as those who are out “in the field” seek to gauge what the White House is planning so that they can anticipate what’s coming. (It is hardly ever organized or clear under any administration.) Thus Trump’s bombast and his body language influences U.S. moves, which influence how the Iranians see the dangers, which can provoke Tehran to flex its own muscles, which then triggers the crisis intelligence alerts, which makes Trump and company speak more loudly which pushes the U.S. military to make moves to get ready, which the Iranians see, which we see and which starts a never-ending cycle.

You get the idea.

War Planning

Behind all of this is war “planning.”

A common misconception is that the Pentagon has contingency plans for everything, a belief that overlooks how time consuming and irregularly they are produced. War planning is the realm of what’s possible, not just what the president says.

Moving B-2s to Diego Garcia or increasing the number of aircraft carriers in the region, or bringing in more squadrons of aircraft — all of these are muscle flexing actions. Sustained military action with national objectives (e.g. defeat the Iranian military, achieve regime change, eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities), are a whole other dimension. This is the world of placing and sustaining troops, not just airplanes, and making sure that they have sufficient supplies, everything from ammunition to meals to medical care.

In the world of war planning, when Trump says “I want X,” the order goes down the chain of command through a mind-boggling number of levels, broadening in scope the further the order goes down the chain until someone (and many someones) say ‘We can’t do it.’ That someone could be anyone, but for simplicity’s sake, think of the ultimate someone as “the Pentagon.” The Pentagon says this and the Pentagon says that.

If the Pentagon wants to do X, they can move mountains to get it done. And that takes time, and lots of resources.

If the Pentagon doesn’t really want to do X, because it thinks the risks are too high or because it thinks the order ill-considered, it has an arsenal of passive aggressive ways of gumming up the works to make sure it doesn’t happen except as it wants. ‘What do you actually mean, Mr. President, sir, that you want to end Tehran?’ the Pentagon asks. ‘Nukes?’ ‘Covert action?’ ‘World War III?’ ‘That looks a lot like Ukraine, or worse, sir. Are you sure?’

You can think of this as calmer heads prevailing, but it is also a game that the Pentagon plays, either to shift responsibility for the outcome to the politicians or as to guide the president’s order so that it ends up looking like it’s asking for what the Pentagon wants, what the Pentagon thinks is possible and will allow it — that is, the Pentagon, not America — to declare victory.

Over the past 24 years, the Pentagon has perfected this game of executing the play it wants to run, not what the coach wants. That’s why the U.S. has become very good at bombing targets and conducting aerial assassinations, and in keeping the ball in play.

The military has grown highly proficient at executing a strike (or defending against one). To those sitting at their desks in Washington, the risk factors of sending off the B-2s to rain down hell seem minor: no American (and even relatively few Iranian civilians) are going to die, world markets aren’t going to be roiled by an oil crisis, and the public isn’t going to much notice. Trump can thus push the button and activate those who are pulling the triggers with relative ease. That’s why these days we see so many instances of one-off bomb strikes. Donald Trump doesn’t seem capable of changing any of this.

But he can yell louder and be more offensive and threaten more. When it comes to Iran, he is revving himself up. It’s not war that the B-2s are threatening. It’s worse than that. This is preparation for reckless action that, from the Pentagon’s perspective, carries little risk. That’s dangerous and is also why the public must to involve itself. But it can’t do that when the Pentagon refuses to publicly acknowledge what it’s doing.

That’s why I do these stories.

I’ve written over a dozen articles over the past year about war with Iran, trying to make the point that it is already here; that the endless tit-for-tat strikes we’ve seen is “war.” We might get to the point where all three elements of the war-making process sync together and ground troops get involved, but in the interim, we are just one or two steps below maximum danger.

TAXPAYER FUNDED “INSTITUTE OF PEACE” WASTES $55 MILLION IN TAXPAYER DOLLARS ON SALARIES AND BENEFITS AND PRODUCES NO PEACE

DOGE Executes Mass Firings at U.S. Institute of Peace: ‘Failed to Deliver Peace’

SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

Mass firings took place at the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) on Friday, several sources familiar with the matter told CBS News.

The employees were terminated effective immediately as part of the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) whole-of-government effort to slash wasteful spending. USIP employees told The Washington Post that between 200 and 300 people had been fired, which is nearly all of the institute’s headquarters staff.

The reported firings come after President Donald Trump signed an executive order in February aimed at dismantling the USIP, which is a congressionally funded organization. The Trump administration has been working to freeze the organization’s funding and replace its board.

USIP was created by Congress in 1984 under former President Ronald Reagan and was formally established as “an independent, nonprofit corporation,” according to CBS News. The USIP has a $55 million budget and a purported mission to promote conflict resolution and prevent conflict across the globe.

“Taxpayers don’t want to spend $50 million per year on a publicly-funded ‘research institute’ that has failed to deliver peace,” White House press deputy secretary Anna Kelly told the outlet on Saturday.

“President Trump ended the era of forever wars and established peace in his first term, and he is carrying out his mandate to eliminate bloat and save taxpayer dollars,” Kelly continued.

Fired employees were notified of their termination by email for a USIP email address, according to the report.

“Dear [Employee], this letter is to inform you of a change in your employment status with United State Institute of Peace (sic),” a copy of an email obtained by the outlet reads. “Effective March 28, 2025, your employment with us will conclude.”

The firings come after a federal judge earlier this month declined to grant a temporary restraining order to block DOGE from accessing USIP. The USIP had asked the judge to keep DOGE from “completing the unlawful dismantling of the institute.”

The firings took place the same day the Trump administration worked to formally close the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

DIEGO GARCIA, AN ISLAND IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INDIAN OCEAN WHICH HOUSES OUR BOMBERS

Satellite Imagery Confirms Stealth Bomber Buildup At America’s “Unsinkable Carrier”

At the start of the week, multiple open-source intelligence accounts on X reported that U.S. stealth bombers were deployed to a strategic island in the Indian Ocean—often referred to as Washington’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier“—located between Africa and Indonesia, about 1,000 miles south of India.

Fast forward to Wednesday: new Planet Labs satellite imagery, posted on X by the Indo-Pacific Watch Center (IPWC), shows “3 (or possibly 7) B-2 bombers and 9 KC-135s” at the U.S. military base on Diego Garcia—strongly suggesting a force buildup aimed at projecting power in the region and keeping Tehran in check.

“Hardened shelters are essential for the security of US MIL assets. Strategic power display can work to deter enemies, but we must have adequate shelters, especially hardened shelters at Diego, Kadena, Andersen, etc,” IPWC said, adding, “Our nation’s enemies have ISR, so stop using “show/conceal” as the excuse to not protect aircraft from sun/rain/inbound PLARF warheads when the game begins. Start building now. Hey Anduril – can you pour concrete?”

Diego Garcia, March 25 2025. 3 (or possibly 7) B-2 Bombers & 9 KC-135. Hardened shelters are essential for the security of US MIL assets. Strategic power display can work to deter enemies, but we must have adequate shelters, especially hardened shelters at Diego, Kadena,… pic.twitter.com/TccJxVXq2r

— IPWC (@IndoPacWatch) March 26, 2025

Most Americans have never heard of the tiny 38-mile-long island, nor has any journalist been allowed access in over three decades. The island features a runway long enough to accommodate B-52, B-1, and B-2 bombers and massive C-5M, C-17, and C-130 military cargo planes. The U.S. hosts upwards of 5,000 military personnel and civilian contractors on the secretive island, which is considered a lynchpin of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and across the Indo-Pacific.

Counterpunch’s Conn Hallinan noted in 2019: “Diego Garcia is central to the U.S. war in Somalia, its air attacks in Iraq and Syria, and its control of the Persian Gulf, and would be essential in any conflict with Iran.”

Meanwhile, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz recently confirmed that the Trump Administration demanded the “full dismantlement” of Iran’s nuclear program, including its capacity to enrich uranium for civilian use. Russia issued a statement rejecting U.S. demands, saying Tehran has the right to a peaceful nuclear program.

Tehran is starting to understand that multiple U.S. stealth bombers are now within striking distance.