In a clip now circulating widely, Nicolas Kenn De Balinthazy — better known to his audience as SNEAKO — declared that “if everybody was Muslim, the way it should be, we would have world peace,” blaming human “ego” for the “chaos” he predicts “for years to come.” The 26-year-old streamer, who commands more than two million followers across platforms despite being permanently banned from Twitch for “extreme hateful conduct” and removed from YouTube and Kick, has spent the past year transforming a content brand built on shock-value commentary into an explicit religious-supremacist platform.

The remark arrives just weeks after Australia’s federal government imposed a lifetime entry ban on him, and only months after he was filmed in a Miami nightclub singing along to a song that samples a speech by Adolf Hitler. SNEAKO’s trajectory matters because his reach is not fringe — it includes a sitting big-city mayor who hosted him for an hour-long interview at the official mayoral residence.

Share

The Quote in Context

SNEAKO’s “everybody should be Muslim” statement is not an isolated theological musing. It follows an extended sit-down with Dr. Zakir Naik — the Indian Islamic televangelist barred from the United Kingdom, Canada, and Bangladesh over hate-speech concerns — and months of SNEAKO framing Islam as the singular cure for what he describes as Western moral collapse. On the podcast circuit, he has told audiences that his pre-conversion life was “destroyed” — in his telling, for the better — by his new faith, while warning that those who reject it are responsible for the world’s disorder.

A Documented Pattern of Extremist Rhetoric

SNEAKO’s religious-supremacist turn did not emerge in a vacuum. His public statements have been catalogued such as him wishing Adolf Hitler a “happy birthday” on multiple occasions and hosting a video series asking whether contemporary leaders are “worse than Hitler.” His commentary regularly traffics in totalizing claims — that “every conspiracy theory from the last century” can be reduced to a single villain, that “every politician” is owned by hidden forces, that “the West will inevitably fall.”

That rhetorical pattern — collapsing complex global events into a single enemy and a single solution — is the through-line connecting his earlier output to his current call for universal religious conversion.

The Miami Nightclub Incident, Platform Bans, and Mainstream Access

In January 2026, SNEAKO was filmed at Vendôme nightclub in Miami Beach alongside Nick Fuentes, Andrew and Tristan Tate, Myron Gaines, and Clavicular, singing along to Kanye West’s track “Heil Hitler” — a song that samples an actual Hitler speech and is banned from most U.S. streaming platforms.

SNEAKO has been permanently banned from Twitch under the platform’s “extreme hateful conduct” policy, removed from YouTube for what the company described as repeated policy violations, and barred from Kick. None of that prevented New York City Mayor Eric Adams from hosting him for an hour-long, cigar-smoking interview on the porch of Gracie Mansion on June 14, 2025 — an event Adams later claimed he did not know was happening and that the streamer had not been vetted.

Australia’s Lifetime Ban

On May 6, 2026, Australian Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke cancelled SNEAKO’s visa and imposed a lifetime entry ban — the first high-profile invocation of provisions amended by Australia’s Parliament earlier this year. “We will use every power available to us” to stop “people coming to this country to spread hatred,” Burke told Sky News. Shadow home affairs minister Jonathon Duniam, in agreement, described SNEAKO as a “misogynist” who “praises Hitler.” SNEAKO responded on X with “Thanks for having me Australia.”

The “everybody should be Muslim” clip is the natural endpoint of a content arc that began with shock-jock provocation and has hardened, on camera, into an explicit demand for religious uniformity as the price of “world peace.” That demand is being delivered to a multi-million-strong audience of young men — by a creator who has been banned by every major streaming platform that hosted him, banned by an entire country, and welcomed at Gracie Mansion. The question is no longer what SNEAKO believes. It is who is still willing to give him a microphone.

Federal prosecutors charged 15 defendants on May 21 in alleged Medicaid fraud schemes totaling more than $90 million in intended losses, marking Minnesota’s two largest Medicaid fraud cases ever. The indictments targeted alleged fraud in autism services, housing support, and child-care programs — the latest wave in a state already designated a federal fraud “ground zero” by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who announced in January that his department is investigating whether Minnesota welfare money was diverted to al-Shabaab, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization operating in Somalia.

The May 21 indictments came hours before a federal judge sentenced Aimee Bock to nearly 42 years in prison for leading the $250 million Feeding Our Future fraud scheme — the nation’s largest pandemic fraud case — in which stolen child-nutrition funds flowed overseas to Kenya and other countries.

Share

Why Treasury Is Investigating Al-Shabaab Links

The terror-financing question looms over Minnesota’s fraud crisis because documented money trails from earlier prosecutions show millions in stolen public funds flowing to East Africa, and because Minnesota has a proven track record of al-Shabaab material support: federal prosecutors previously convicted two Minnesota women for raising money in Somali communities under false charitable pretenses and sending funds through remittance companies to al-Shabaab members in Somalia from 2008 to 2009.

Law enforcement sources have told investigators that welfare fraud proceeds are flowing through informal money-transfer networks called hawalas — clan-based systems that move money without banks or documentation — and reaching regions in Somalia where al-Shabaab operates. According to City Journal, which conducted an investigation into the Minnesota-Somalia money corridor, a retired Seattle Police detective who spent 14 years on a federal Joint Terrorism Task Force tracked a hawala network that sent $20 million abroad in a single year, with records showing that “all these Somalis sending out money are on DHS benefits.”

A former Minneapolis JTTF official told City Journal that “every scrap of economic activity” sent from Minnesota back to Somalia “benefits Al-Shabaab in some way” because the group taxes or controls commerce in regions where it operates. “For every dollar that is transferred from the Twin Cities back to Somalia, Al-Shabaab is taking a cut of it,” the former official said.

The public record does not yet show criminal charges proving that fraud defendants intended to fund al-Shabaab — a key legal distinction, since terror-financing prosecutions require evidence of intent, not just money flowing into regions where terror groups operate.

The $90 Million Takedown

The May 21 charges include two cases the Justice Department described as the largest Medicaid fraud prosecutions ever brought in Minnesota. The biggest single case alleges that Shamso Ahmed Hassan and Hanaan Mursal Yusuf defrauded Minnesota’s Early Intensive Developmental and Behavioral Intervention program — which pays for autism services — of $46.6 million by paying parents to enroll children regardless of need and billing for services never provided.

Eight defendants were charged with defrauding Housing Stabilization Services, a program meant to help homeless individuals, of approximately $15.7 million. That program grew from $3.3 million in 2020 to $108.8 million by 2024 before Governor Tim Walz shut it down last fall because of rampant fraud.

One defendant, Ahmed Othman Kadar, was charged with defrauding Integrated Community Supports, a disability-services program, after a man who was supposed to be receiving around-the-clock care died unattended in the care of Kadar’s company, Ultimate Home Health.

The Overseas Money Trail From Earlier Cases

The strongest documented link between Minnesota fraud and East Africa comes from the Feeding Our Future prosecution — the same case that culminated in Aimee Bock's 42-year sentence on May 21. In that scheme, convicted defendant Abdiaziz Farah sent millions in stolen child-nutrition funds overseas and bought Kenyan real estate through sham entities, according to federal prosecutors. Farah also purchased land in Mandera, a Kenyan town near the Somalia border, and federal prosecutors charged his brother, Kenyan national Ahmednaji Sheikh, with helping him launder and hide the fraud proceeds abroad.

Money sent to regions where al-Shabaab operates can be taxed, extorted, or controlled by the group even if the sender claims a lawful purpose — but proving a criminal link requires transaction-level evidence connecting fraud proceeds to the terror network.

Bessent’s Investigation and FinCEN Enforcement

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced in January that FinCEN — Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network — issued four notices of investigation to money-services businesses in Minnesota and imposed a Geographic Targeting Order requiring banks and money transmitters in Hennepin and Ramsey counties to report outbound foreign transfers of $3,000 or more.

Bessent told reporters that Treasury is “thoroughly investigating the fraud, including funds sent to Somalia through money service businesses” and that “these funds could have potentially been diverted to the terrorist organization al-Shabaab.”

Minnesota’s Proven Al-Shabaab Material-Support History

The al-Shabaab risk is not theoretical. Federal prosecutors secured convictions in 2011 against Amina Farah Ali and Hawo Mohamed Hassan, two Rochester, Minnesota women who raised money in Somali neighborhoods by soliciting funds door-to-door under false pretenses — claiming it was to help the poor — and then transferred funds to al-Shabaab through remittance companies using false recipient names.

Ali hosted a 2008 fundraising teleconference during which a speaker told listeners to support “the mujahidin” rather than help the poor, and in 2009 she told participants to “forget about the other charities” and focus on “the jihad.” Ali directed at least 12 money transfers to al-Shabaab and was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison.

That case proved Minnesota’s role as a fundraising corridor for al-Shabaab more than a decade ago. The investigative question today is whether the state’s current fraud schemes — which dwarf the earlier material-support cases in scale — are feeding into the same remittance corridors.

In October 2025, retired Blanco, Texas mayor Mike Arnold — invited by the Nigerian government itself to refute genocide allegations against Christians — reached the opposite conclusion. After five years of investigation, Arnold formally concluded that the killing of Christians in northern and middle-belt Nigeria "does indeed constitute a calculated, current and long-running genocide…without any reasonable doubt."

His broader investigation goes further: foreign fighters arriving from across the Islamic world, the world's #2 ISIS commander operating openly inside Nigeria until a May 16, 2026 U.S. strike killed him, Iran's three-million-member Khomeinist proxy expanding in 35 of Nigeria's 36 states, and Turkey's Erdoğan-aligned military contractor — whose founder publicly stated his mission is "paving the way for the long-awaited Mahdi" — now training Nigerian forces under a January 2026 bilateral agreement.

According to ACLED, over two-thirds of all Islamic State activity globally is now concentrated on the African continent in the first half of 2025, with Nigeria at its operational heart. InterSociety has documented 7,087 Christians killed in just the first 220 days of 2025.

Share

The Country at the Center of the Map

Nigeria is Africa’s largest economy, its most populous nation, and on track to become the third-largest country on earth by 2050, with a projected population north of 400 million. Roughly half of those citizens are Muslim. Twelve of Nigeria’s 36 northern states have already implemented Sharia law. Sitting atop the institutional religious structure of northern Nigeria is the Sultan of Sokoto, the hereditary spiritual head of more than 100 million Sunni Muslims across West Africa.

The Sokoto throne is not a colonial-era invention. It is the surviving institution of the Sokoto Caliphate, founded in 1804 by the Fulani scholar Usman dan Fodio. The British never conquered it. Through “indirect rule,” they preserved the Caliphate’s authority and rebranded it externally as a Sultanate. The institution — and the bloodline — has remained intact for 222 years.

ISIS’s Center of Gravity Has Moved

The Islamic State has not formally rescinded its 2014 caliphate declaration in Mosul, but its operational center has unambiguously shifted. The Soufan Center and West Point’s Modern War Institute have both documented that financial flows, propaganda output, and senior leadership presence have increasingly moved to African affiliates.

UN monitoring teams have identified the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) — a 2016 Boko Haram splinter — as one of ISIS’s most prolific propaganda producers globally. ISIS’s official weekly al-Naba has reframed African territory as the new tamkin — the divinely empowered ground for caliphate consolidation. ISWAP earns an estimated $191 million annually in taxation revenue from territory it controls in northeastern Nigeria.

Iran’s Three-Million-Member Proxy

Operating on the same Nigerian geography but from the opposite sectarian flank is the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN), founded by Sheikh Ibrahim Zakzaky after the 1979 Iranian Revolution. West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center has documented IMN as Iran’s flagship Khomeinist project in sub-Saharan Africa. The movement has branches in 35 of Nigeria’s 36 states, an armed wing, documented weapons caches, and a history of clashes with Nigerian security forces.

On October 14, 2024, Zakzaky met personally with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran. According to Khamenei’s own readout, Iran’s Supreme Leader told Zakzaky: “The Islamic Movement is expanding in Africa, Europe and North America.” Iran’s institutional ideology — Mahdism, the doctrine that the Islamic Republic exists to hasten the return of the Hidden Imam — explicitly frames foreign Shia movements as platforms for that mission.

Turkey Enters the Equation

Three weeks after Trump’s Christmas Day strike on Sokoto, Nigerian President Bola Tinubu flew to Ankara and signed nine agreements with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan — including a Military Cooperation Protocol and the launch of Turkish Islamic schools across Nigeria. Turkey pledged deeper counterterrorism cooperation and the establishment of a joint military training center.

Mike Arnold’s investigation identifies SADAT — Erdoğan’s affiliated private military contractor — as the likely staffing pool for these training operations. SADAT is a private military contractor founded by Adnan Tanrıverdi, a former chief military advisor to Erdoğan. At a 2019 Islamic Union Congress, Tanrıverdi publicly stated that his organization was working “to pave the way for the long-awaited Mahdi.” The statement was reported by MEMRI and confirmed by multiple Turkish opposition outlets.

A Texas Mayor in Abuja

Retired Blanco, Texas mayor Mike Arnold spent five years investigating the killing of Christians in Nigeria. In October 2025, ironically invited by the Nigerian government itself to refute genocide allegations, Arnold’s fact-finding delegation reached the opposite conclusion. His formal statement on October 14, 2025 concluded: “The campaign of violence and displacement in northern and middle belt Nigeria does indeed constitute a calculated, current and long-running genocide against Christian communities and other religious minorities without any reasonable doubt.” Arnold’s investigation was conducted with the knowledge of Senator Ted Cruz, Congressman Chip Roy, the State Department, and the Acting U.S. Ambassador.

In a longer analytical essay published in May 2026, Arnold argues that Sunni and Shia militant movements are pursuing competing versions of the same Mahdist end-times framework, with Nigeria as a convergence point. Academic specialists differ on how central eschatology is as a driver versus political grievance, state collapse, and resource competition. But the operational facts — ISIS leadership in Nigeria, Iran’s expanding proxy, Turkey’s Mahdi-invoking military partner, and the documented killing of Christians — are not in dispute.

Washington Begins to Name It

The Trump administration’s 2026 Counterterrorism Strategy, released in May, formally identifies Islamism and Jihadism by name and lists the protection of Christians from jihadi violence in Africa as a core U.S. objective. Senator Ted Cruz has introduced the Nigeria Religious Freedom Accountability Act of 2025. Representative Riley Moore has urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to designate Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern.

The InterSociety data is grim: 125,000+ Christians killed since 2009, 19,100 churches destroyed, 12 million Christians displaced from ancestral lands. The same report names 22 separate Islamic terror groups now operating on Nigerian soil.

The Big Picture

The question is no longer whether something serious is happening in Nigeria. The world’s #2 ISIS commander does not relocate to a country by accident. Iran’s Supreme Leader does not personally receive the leader of a foreign movement representing three million followers without reason. Turkey does not sign a military training agreement and launch Islamic schools across a country of 220 million on a whim. And InterSociety’s daily count of slaughtered Christians is not, as Al Jazeera has long framed it, a climate-driven dispute over grazing land.

What is happening in Nigeria is the operational convergence of multiple Islamist projects — Sunni jihadi, Shia Khomeinist, Turkish neo-Ottoman, and Wahhabi-Salafi — on a single piece of African geography that combines a 222-year-old institutional caliphate, a hereditary throne, a collapsing security environment, and a Christian population whose annihilation is well underway. The pattern does not require accepting any one theological framing to be alarming. It requires only counting the bodies, reading the agreements, and watching where the senior commanders die.

On April 19, 2026, two U.S. citizens — Lyle Prijoles, 40, of the San Francisco Bay Area, and Kai Dana-Rene Sorem, 26, of Steilacoom, Washington — were killed in Barangay Salamanca, in the Negros Occidental town of Toboso, during a twelve-hour series of firefights between the Philippine Army’s 79th Infantry Battalion and the Northern Negros Front of the New People’s Army (NPA).

The NPA and its parent body, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), have been designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations by the U.S. State Department since 2002. Prijoles and Sorem were not tourists who wandered into a war zone. Both had been groomed over years inside a network of diaspora organizations that recruit on American campuses and ferry their cadres into the Philippine countryside on “exposure trips.” The shock is not that two Americans died. It is that the pipeline that placed them in the line of fire of a U.S.-designated terror group operates openly in the United States, unregistered under federal foreign-agent law.

The Toboso encounter

The Philippine Army reports that troops recovered roughly two dozen firearms at the site and killed Roger Fabillar, the Northern Negros Front commander on whom a one-million-peso bounty had stood for four years.

The CPP itself acknowledges ten of the nineteen dead as its own armed revolutionaries; it disputes the status of the rest, including Prijoles and Sorem, whom its U.S. affiliates call “civilians” doing community immersion. The Philippine Commission on Human Rights has opened an investigation, and the forensic pathologist Raquel Fortun has raised procedural questions worth taking seriously. The narrower facts of that morning are properly contested. The wider facts are not.

From SFSU and Central Washington to Negros

Prijoles chaired the San Francisco State University chapter of the League of Filipino Students (LFS) and, in 2012, was elected founding Solidarity Officer of Anakbayan-USA at its founding congress in Chicago. He later served on the U.S. council of the International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines.

Sorem’s own organization recounts that she was radicalized in 2020 as a music student at Central Washington University, came to “see a future for her people in the National Democratic movement,” co-founded Anakbayan South Seattle, joined the Anakbayan-USA “Exposure Trip” in 2025, and returned in 2026 to live among “peasant farming communities.” This is not gossip; it is the network’s own promotional language.

A documented front network

The structure these two moved through is not a mystery. A 2025 report by Kyle Shideler at the Center for Security Policy, drawing on CPP defector testimony compiled in the Philippine government study Unmasking the Myth of Communism in the Philippines, documents that Bayan-USA (founded 1994) and its student wing Anakbayan are controlled by the CPP’s National United Front Commission through the Leninist discipline of democratic centralism.

Above them sits the International League of Peoples’ Struggle (ILPS), founded in 2001 by CPP chairman Jose María Sison and overseen by the CPP’s International Department; it claims more than 350 member organizations in 40 countries. A declassified CIA study catalogued the same front structure decades ago. None of these U.S. affiliates is registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

The American blind spot

The Philippine government has now formally warned of “terror-grooming” of overseas Filipinos, and NTF-ELCAC executive director Ernesto Torres Jr. stated that recruitment “has expanded beyond Philippine borders, exposing individuals from the diaspora to the dangers of armed confrontation.” American institutions, by contrast, treat the U.S. nodes of this network as ordinary ethnic advocacy. Faculty at San Francisco State, Cal State Los Angeles, the University of Washington, and Vassar publicly advertise affiliations with Bayan-USA, Anakbayan, or ILPS on their official pages.

A May Day rally by the Georgia Revolutionary Student Union featured an NPA flag and a burning American flag; Center for Security Policy analyst Kyle Shideler observed the obvious — that a comparable display for ISIS or al-Qaeda would have generated immediate federal interest.

What the deaths actually expose

Whether Prijoles and Sorem personally fired rifles on the morning of April 19 will be litigated by the Philippine human-rights commission. What is not in dispute is that they had been formed inside organizations that publicly venerate the founder of a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization, that travel back and forth to its operational areas, and that face no scrutiny under American counterintelligence law.

The pipeline did not end at Toboso; the pipeline runs through American classrooms. Two coffins are coming home from Negros. The networks that filled them remain on the syllabus.

This Memorial Day weekend, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and Muslim American Society (MAS) will host their 51st annual convention at the Baltimore Convention Center, expected to draw more than 25,000 attendees to one of the largest Muslim gatherings in North America. The three-day event, running May 23-25, 2026, will feature over 100 speakers—including individuals with alleged ties to terrorism and extremism—alongside sponsors currently under federal investigation for terror financing.

The convention’s reach extends from main-stage programming to targeted youth initiatives, creating what critics describe as a comprehensive ecosystem linking Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations, speakers who have called for violence, and charities designated as terrorist entities by foreign governments. As Baltimore promotes the convention’s economic impact, federal investigators and watchdog organizations have raised alarm about the networks convening under the guise of a community gathering.

Share

The Organizers and Their Alleged Muslim Brotherhood Links

ICNA, founded in 1968 as a “domestic affiliate” of Jamaat-e-Islami, explicitly states its goal is “to achieve the pleasure of Allah through the establishment of the Islamic system in this land.” The organization’s ideological foundation traces to Jamaat-e-Islami founder Maulana Syed Abdul A’la Maududi, who preached that followers “must strive to change the wrong basis of government, and seize all powers.”

Co-organizing the event is the Muslim American Society (MAS), which the Investigative Project on Terrorism describes as an organization with “strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.” In 2019, the MAS Philadelphia chapter uploaded a video to Facebook showing children at an event held in their building singing about “chopping off heads” and violence, prompting an investigation and public condemnation from MAS leadership.

The Speakers: A Roster of Extremism

The convention’s speaker lineup reads like a catalog of individuals who have alongside sponsors and partner organizations that have faced official scrutiny, state-level designations, or allegations concerning terrorism-linked networks

Mehdi Hasan, the British-American journalist and former MSNBC host who has made remarks in which he compared non-Muslims to “cattle” and “animals,” and disparaged LGBTQ individuals, calling homosexuals “pedophiles” and “sexual deviants.”

Siraj Wahhaj Federal prosecutors named Wahhaj as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing investigation, and he served as a character witness for Omar Abdel-Rahman—the “Blind Sheikh” who masterminded the attack that killed six people. Wahhaj has stated that “if only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate,” and expressed support for implementation of Sharia law including stoning for adultery and hand amputation for theft.

In a separate 2018 New Mexico case, his son Siraj Ibn Wahhaj was convicted of terrorism-related charges after prosecutors alleged firearms and tactical training to prepare for attacks against the government. Wahhaj’s brother-in-law was also convicted of terrorism charges, while Wahhaj’s sisters were convicted on kidnapping charges.

Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), is another listed speaker whose record has drawn scrutiny from watchdog groups. The Anti-Defamation League has reported that Awad met with Muslim Brotherhood members as recently as 2022 and, in 2024, eulogized Sheikh Abdul-Majid al-Zindani, whom the U.S. Treasury designated in 2004 as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist for his support to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, including alleged recruiting for al-Qaeda training camps

The Money: Sponsors Under Federal Scrutiny

The convention’s funding sources reveal a network of organizations facing scrutiny from U.S. and international authorities. Several major sponsors are not independent charities but divisions of ICNA itself—an organizational structure that allows the parent organization to fund its own convention while maintaining the appearance of broad-based support.

According to ICNA’s own organizational chart, multiple convention sponsors are in-house divisions: ICNA Relief (Diamond sponsor), Young Muslims (youth wing), ICNA Dawah (outreach), Islamic Learning Foundation, ICNA Council for Social Justice, and MCNA (Muslim Children of North America). Additionally, Helping Hand for Relief and Development (HHRD)—also a Diamond sponsor—appears on ICNA’s organizational chart as part of the broader network.

Silver sponsor Islamic Relief USA is part of the broader Islamic Relief network, which has faced terrorism-financing allegations and foreign terror designations. In 2016, the FBI opened a criminal investigation into Islamic Relief, with the Office of Personnel Management confirming the case “could reasonably be expected to interfere with ongoing enforcement proceedings.”

HHRD, listed both as a Diamond sponsor and as part of ICNA’s organizational structure, is currently under investigation by USAID after the Middle East Forum reported the organization’s Islamist ties. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul demanded answers about a “$110K grant to terrorist-linked nonprofit.”

CAIR, listed as a Silver sponsor, was designated by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in 2025 as a foreign terrorist organization and transnational criminal organization under state authority. Separately, H.R. 4097 was introduced in Congress to direct the Secretary of State to review whether CAIR meets federal FTO criteria

The Youth Pipeline

The convention features extensive youth programming, including the 31st Annual Young Muslims Conference, Muslim Youth Debate Tournament, and separate tracks for children through Muslim Children of North America (MCNA)—both of which appear as ICNA divisions on the organization’s chart.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism has documented concerns about ICNA’s youth initiatives in a report titled “ICNA’s Radicalization Continues,” which examines the organization’s pro-Sharia public relations campaigns targeting young people.

Big Picture

As Baltimore promotes the convention’s economic benefits from 30,000 visitors filling hotels and restaurants, federal investigators continue examining the financial networks connecting the event’s sponsors. The convergence of speakers with documented extremism ties, charities that have been under federal scrutiny for terror financing, and Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizers raises questions about the oversight of large-scale gatherings that blend community programming with speakers and sponsors linked to violent extremism.

The revelation that multiple “sponsors” are actually ICNA’s own divisions further illustrates how the organization has constructed a self-reinforcing ecosystem where funding, ideology, and recruitment flow through interconnected entities. The convention represents not merely an annual religious gathering, but a nexus where ideology, funding, and recruitment intersect under the protection of First Amendment freedoms—while taxpayer dollars and charitable donations flow to organizations that multiple governments have connected to terrorist networks.

On May 19, 2026—Malcolm X's birthday—an Iran-based organization calling itself the "Malcolm X Foundation" or "Path of Malcolm" is organizing events across four U.S. cities and Tehran, in coordination with American activist organizations, media companies, and Iranian cultural producers. All of the May 19 events are being promoted with the tagline "From Iran to the stolen lands of America," positioning American territory through a delegitimization framework aligned with Iranian regime rhetoric.

The coordinated messaging frames the Islamic Republic of Iran as a natural ally of American Black communities in opposition to U.S. interests, establishing false kinship between the Iranian regime and marginalized American populations.

The organization explicitly identifies itself as "The Path Of Malcolm Foundation Based in Iran" on its Instagram profile. The naming convention—"Path of Malcolm" (Rah-e Malcolm)—appears to mirror the linguistic template Iran uses for official entities named after former Supreme Leaders and IRGC generals, such as "Path of Khomeini" and "Path of Soleimani."

Share

U.S. Activist Groups Co-Hosting Iran-Linked Events Across Major Cities

The events are being co-hosted by three primary American activist organizations, each embedded in activist communities and positioned to access specific demographic and geographic audiences.

In Los Angeles, the event is being co-hosted by All Power Books, promoted on social media as "a collaborative event co-hosted with organizers on the ground in Tehran, Iran." Atlanta's event is being co-hosted by Win the Revolution, while the New York gathering is taking place in Harlem under the banner of NYC Anti-Repression Group (NYCARG).

The Los Angeles event features additional participating organizations, including Black Men Build LA and Tehrangeles Antiwar. One Army Media is serving as a promotion partner, providing outreach and event support across multiple cities.

Weaponizing Malcolm X for Regime Propaganda

During Operation Epic Fury—the U.S. military campaign to dismantle Iran's military threat—the Malcolm X Foundation promoted social media content depicting Iranian drones and missiles with images of Malcolm X and hip-hop artist Tupac Shakur superimposed on them.

The posts framed Iranian military strikes as "Iran Avenges Malcolm X" and "2Pac's Revenge Taken by Iran." The imagery explicitly connected Iranian weapons systems to American civil rights and cultural icons through social media posts that deployed regime rhetoric positioning Iranian military strikes as so-called acts of resistance: "From Palestine to the Bronx, from Lebanon to Atlanta—one struggle, one front" and "Now that the world has seen the true face of US imperialism.”

By positioning Iran as defender of Black Americans against U.S. imperialism, the foundation attempts to create a false solidarity that serves Iranian regime interests rather than Black American liberation. The deliberate use of deceased Black activists and cultural figures instrumentalizes their legacies to manufacture consent for Iranian military operations.

The technical questions surrounding these propaganda materials warrant scrutiny. The placement of Malcolm X and Tupac imagery on Iranian military hardware during active combat operations, paired with the Malcolm X Foundation's simultaneous promotion of these images, raises questions about potential coordination between the group and Iranian military-media operations, or the extent to which the group operates in alignment with regime propaganda objectives.

On April 5, 2026, Erfan Nikookalam, a figure affiliated with the Malcolm X Foundation, posted a video on social media standing next to a child wearing military fatigues in front of a banner of deceased African-American activists and hip-hop artists. In the video, Nikookalam stated that Iranians are honoring Black martyrs during the war, while the caption read: "Iran is bringing an end to American hegemony."

Social media footage posted by the Malcolm X Foundation from a pro-regime event in Tehran captured an activist stating: "Now the Iranians are saying it's time to rise up against this one enemy and unite under one god whether you are Christian or Muslim” in reference to the U.S.

The rhetoric demonstrates the foundation's attempt to extend its anti-American messaging beyond Black American communities, positioning the Iranian regime as a unifying force across religious lines and framing opposition to the U.S. as a religious and moral imperative. By invoking Christian symbolism alongside Islamic theology, the foundation seeks to weaponize religious identity as a vehicle for anti-American sentiment across diverse American communities.

Event With Regime Official Who Issued Fatwa on Trump

In May 2025, the Malcolm X Foundation organized a Malcolm X commemoration event in Tehran that featured prominent participation from Iran’s political establishment. The event’s attendance included Manouchehr Mottaki, a member of Iran’s Islamic Consultative Assembly and the country’s former Foreign Minister. Mottaki holds a documented record of making explicit calls for violence, including a previous fatwa calling for the killing of U.S. President Donald Trump.

The event’s speakers included Mani Armaghan who served as secretary of the event, and Divanchi, the foundation’s “Head of International Affairs.”

Armaghan stated at the event that "Malcolm X is a noble figure who did not remain silent in the face of oppression, discrimination, and domination and was martyred," framing Malcolm X's legacy within Iranian regime martyr culture. Divanchi addressed attendees with messaging explicitly designed to target Black Americans: “To our black family in America, your struggle is our struggle.”

Co-Opting Malcolm X's Legacy

The Malcolm X Foundation's May 2026 coordinated events appear designed to instrumentalize American civil rights history for Iranian state propaganda purposes. By co-opting Malcolm X's controversial legacy—a figure of genuine historical significance to Black American political thought—and by establishing apparent ties with American activist organizations, the group appears to work toward creating rhetorical and institutional bridges between Iranian regime interests and American activist communities, particularly those focused on anti-imperialism, Palestinian solidarity, and anti-American rhetoric.

The operation systematically exploits genuine grievances within Black American communities regarding systemic racism and U.S. foreign policy to advance Iranian regime propaganda objectives. By establishing apparent grassroots networks and co-opting civil rights symbolism, Iran seeks to weaponize Black American activism as a force multiplier for regime interests, creating artificial kinship claims that obscure Iran's use of these communities for geopolitical advantage

On May 16, 2026, President Donald Trump announced what has become a pattern in his counter-terrorism record: results.

U.S. and Nigerian forces killed Abu Bilal al-Minuki, a senior commander in Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), in a joint operation targeting terrorist infrastructure in Nigeria’s Lake Chad Basin. Nigerian President Bola Tinubu confirmed Minuki’s death alongside “several of his lieutenants,” describing the operation as disrupting a network responsible for kidnappings, attacks on civilians, and the 2018 Dapchi schoolgirls abduction.

It was another data point in Trump’s consistent approach to Islamic terrorism: find them, target them, eliminate them. From Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to al-Minuki, the administration has demonstrated that jihadist leadership can be hunted down wherever they hide whether in Syrian compounds or African swamplands.

One day after announcing the operation, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared at Rededicate 250, a gathering on the National Mall that brought together Americans in prayer and reflection on the nation’s 250th anniversary. The juxtaposition wasn’t accidental, it reflected something the administration grasps that previous governments avoided: clarity about what the United States defends, and why it matters.

The ISIS Record: Promises Kept

Trump’s first term delivered what his predecessor couldn’t: the destruction of the ISIS caliphate. In October 2019, U.S. special forces killed ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in a Syria raid. By early 2020, the territorial “caliphate” that once controlled populations the size of Britain had been dismantled. These weren’t symbolic victories- they were operational defeats that ended ISIS’s ability to govern territory, collect taxes, and project the image of an ascendant movement.

But ISIS, like all jihadist movements, adapted. Following its collapse in Iraq and Syria, the group reconstituted operations in sub-Saharan Africa, where approximately 90 percent of its attacks now occur. Islamic State West Africa Province emerged as one of the continent’s deadliest factions, controlling swaths of the Lake Chad Basin and terrorizing civilian populations across multiple countries.

Trump’s second-term approach recognizes this reality. Rather than declaring victory and withdrawing, the administration has pursued ISIS into Africa, partnering with regional governments, deploying intelligence assets, and conducting precision strikes. The Christmas Day 2025 operation and the May 2026 Minuki killing demonstrate strategic follow-through. When the president says ISIS will be defeated wherever it operates, he means it.

Naming What We Defend

Critics have questioned the administration’s willingness to describe attacks on Christians as attacks on Christians. On Christmas 2025, Trump announced strikes targeting ISIS militants who had been “viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians.” Hegseth stated plainly: “The killing of innocent Christians in Nigeria (and elsewhere) must end.”

This honesty represents a departure from decades of strategic ambiguity that refused to acknowledge religious dimensions of jihadist violence. ISIS explicitly targets religious minorities — Christians, Yazidis, Shia Muslims — as part of its ideology. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make us more sophisticated; it makes us dishonest.

Are Christians the only victims of ISIS in Nigeria? No. Muslims and tribal groups suffer enormously from jihadist violence as well. But acknowledging that Christians face targeted persecution doesn’t erase Muslim suffering. It simply states a fact that matters to the United States, a nation founded on religious freedom.

When ISIS burns churches, kidnaps Christian schoolgirls, and executes believers for refusing conversion, the United States has both a moral interest and a strategic interest in stopping it. Religious freedom is a cornerstone of Western civilization. Defending it isn’t sectarian warfare, it’s defending the principle that people shouldn’t be murdered for their beliefs.

Moral Clarity, Not Theocracy

The day after announcing the Minuki operation, Hegseth appeared at Rededicate 250, an event organized to mark America’s 250th anniversary through prayer and reflection. The gathering, which brought together religious leaders and citizens, represented something increasingly rare in American public life: an unapologetic articulation of the moral and religious foundations that shaped the nation.

This isn’t theocracy. It’s acknowledgment of inheritance. The American system of ordered liberty, individual rights, and limited government didn’t emerge from nowhere— it grew from specific moral and philosophical soil, much of it Christian. Recognizing that heritage isn’t establishing a state religion. It’s historical honesty.

Hegseth has launched monthly prayer services at the Pentagon, reflecting his understanding that military service involves moral questions that secular bureaucracy can’t answer. Soldiers who risk their lives deserve to know what they’re defending. Telling them it’s merely “international norms” or “rules-based order” is insufficient. They defend something deeper: the civilization that makes freedom possible.

Strategic Seriousness

The Council on Foreign Relations noted that Nigeria operations reflect an “America First approach” focused on protecting U.S. interests. Exactly right. American interests include preventing jihadist networks from establishing safe havens, protecting populations vulnerable to religious persecution, and demonstrating that terrorism has consequences.

Nigerian officials have welcomed U.S. partnership in confronting ISWAP, describing the cooperation as necessary given the scale of the threat. When Trump says the U.S. will work with partners to dismantle terrorist networks, he’s describing coalition-building—not unilateralism.

Some observers worry that acknowledging religious dimensions of the conflict “hands ISIS a propaganda victory.” This is backwards. ISIS already believes it’s fighting a religious war. Our refusal to name that reality doesn’t confuse them—it confuses us. Moral clarity about what we’re defending strengthens resolve. Evasion weakens it.

A Record That Speaks

From the elimination of Baghdadi to the destruction of the caliphate to the ongoing pursuit of ISIS leadership in Africa, Trump has delivered measurable results against Islamic terrorism. The Minuki operation represents the latest in a series of successful strikes that have degraded jihadist networks and protected vulnerable populations.

The administration’s willingness to speak plainly about religious freedom, civilizational defense, and moral purpose doesn’t undermine counter-terrorism—it clarifies it. Americans understand what their military defends because the administration tells them. That honesty, combined with operational effectiveness, is what distinguishes this approach from the strategic drift that preceded it.

ISIS thrives in ambiguity and retreat. Trump offers the opposite: clarity, persistence, and results.

A May 2026 report from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom documents how China enacted three laws in less than one year that together constitute “an escalation in the CCP’s systematic, ongoing, and egregious efforts to make all religion and belief throughout China entirely subservient to CCP ideology.”

The laws—revisions to the Public Security Administration Punishments Law (June 2025), an Online Code of Conduct for Religious Professionals (September 2025), and the Ethnic Unity and Progress Law (March 2026) — create what USCIRF characterizes as a legal architecture enabling “forced ethnoreligious assimilation nationwide by all levels of government — including the military.” The enforcement mechanism is already operational: at 2:00 a.m. on October 12, 2025, Pastor Ezra Jin Mingri and 27 other leaders of Zion Church were arrested across multiple provinces, just 30 days after the internet code took effect.

Share

The USCIRF Finding: Three Laws, One System

The USCIRF report identifies the June 2025 Public Security Administration Law as the first time China included “illegal religious activities” within the scope of administrative punishments. Article 31, effective January 1, 2026, permits detention of 10 to 15 days and fines up to 2,000 RMB for organizing or inciting “illegal religious activities.” USCIRF notes this “in effect targets unregistered religious groups, such as Protestant house churches—thereby placing an additional layer of pressure on them to register and subject themselves to the authorities’ efforts to compel them to promote CCP ideology.”

The September 2025 Online Code restricted online religious activity exclusively to organizations holding government licenses. Article 13 banned livestreams, WeChat groups, and online services for unlicensed groups. Article 8 codified transnational repression, stating that “religious professionals must not collude with foreign forces through the internet.”

The March 2026 Ethnic Unity and Progress Law, adopted March 12 and effective July 1, drew particular alarm from USCIRF for its scope. Eight UN Special Rapporteurs sent a formal letter April 16, 2026, expressing concern that the law violates multiple international treaties. USCIRF highlights Article 46 as explicitly requiring religious groups to “persist in the direction of Sinicization” and Article 63 as codifying extraterritorial pursuit of critics.

Case Study: Pastor Jin and the 30-Day Timeline

USCIRF cites Pastor Ezra Jin’s arrest as direct evidence that “Chinese authorities invoked this new code” for enforcement. On October 10, 2025, police arrested Jin and 27 other Zion Church leaders across Beijing, Shenzhen, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Chengdu, and six other cities for “illegal use of information networks”— one month after the code’s release.

The arrest violated Article 17 of the code itself, which stipulates violators should receive warnings before penalties. USCIRF notes that “authorities gave no such warning to Pastor Jin or other members of the Zion Church before their detention.” Eighteen remain formally arrested under Criminal Law Article 287-1, facing potential sentences up to three years.

Zion Church had survived previous persecution. In 2018, the church refused government demands to install 23 facial recognition cameras. Police seized the building on September 9, 2018. The church adapted through hybrid online-offline meetings, eventually reaching 5,000 members in 40 cities. The September 2025 code eliminated that survival strategy. Grace Jin Drexel testified before USCIRF in January 2026 that detainees are forced to sleep on floor mats, subjected to sleep deprivation, and denied adequate medical care despite serious health conditions.

From Regional Atrocities to National Policy

USCIRF emphasizes that the Ethnic Unity Law “marks a clear departure from past pretenses to provide for regional ‘autonomy’” by nationalizing practices previously confined to borderlands. Tibet enacted ethnic unity regulations in 2020; Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia followed in 2021. Carl Minzner at the Council on Foreign Relations describes this trajectory as originating with the 2014 Central Ethnic Work Conference.

Article 15 mandates Mandarin from preschool forward. USCIRF reports that “long prior to this law, the CCP had overseen the removal of millions of Tibetan Buddhist and Uyghur children from their homes to place them in boarding schools.” UN experts warned in February 2023 that approximately one million Tibetan children were affected by forced assimilation through residential schools. In Xinjiang, boarding enrollment increased by 382,000 between 2017 and 2019.

Article 20 prohibits parents from instilling ideas “not conducive to improving ethnic unity” in minors. USCIRF observes this “denies them the right to foster religious upbringing in their own homes and impart traditions to their own children.” Article 48 potentially legitimizes “Chinese military operations against ethnoreligious groups and religious organizations that are not in full compliance with CCP ideology.”

The Vulnerable Population

China has 44 million Christians registered in state-approved churches. “Tens of millions” more are estimated to worship in illegal house churches. The three-law system creates escalating enforcement: administrative punishment (10-15 days detention), criminal prosecution (up to 3 years), and systematic pressure to register and submit to state ideology.

Transnational Reach

Article 63 permits pursuing “legal responsibility” against individuals “outside the mainland territory” who “undermine ethnic unity.” USCIRF notes this “codifies and further entrenches the Chinese government’s already extensive engagement in transnational repression.”

Freedom House describes China as conducting “the most sophisticated, global, and comprehensive campaign of transnational repression in the world.” Safeguard Defenders documented Operation Fox Hunt in more than 50 countries. The Department of Justice convicted a Fox Hunt leader in March 2025. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists interviewed more than 100 victims in 23 countries in 2025. What was covert is now explicit statutory authority.

What happened to Uyghurs and Tibetans is now the codified framework for 1.4 billion people. Pastor Jin’s arrest 30 days after the internet code demonstrates operational readiness. The question is no longer whether China will enforce these laws. The question is whether the international community will respond before the Xinjiang model becomes the China model — for everyone.

Pope Leo XIV awarded the Vatican’s highest diplomatic honor to Iran’s ambassador to the Holy See earlier this week — the same year Iranian courts sentenced 73 Christians to a combined 280 years in prison for owning Bibles, attending house churches, and celebrating Christmas. The honor, bestowed the same week President Donald Trump declared the U.S.-Iran ceasefire “on life support,” has drawn sharp criticism from religious freedom advocates and exposed a widening rift between the Vatican’s diplomatic posture and the persecution unfolding inside Iran.

Share

A Regime Ideologue at the Vatican

Mohammad Hossein Mokhtari, Iran’s envoy to the Vatican since December 2023, received the Knight of the Grand Cross of the Pontifical Order of Pius IX on May 8, according to a certificate signed by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s Secretary of State. The Order of Pius IX, established in 1847, is the Holy See’s most senior active papal order, typically conferred on resident ambassadors for “strengthening diplomatic ties and serving the cause of peace and dialogue,” according to Iranian state media’s characterization of the award.

But Mokhtari’s record undermines that framing. The Hojjatoleslam — a mid-ranking Shi’a cleric — spent his career embedded in Iran’s religious and ideological apparatus. He served on the scientific committee of the Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute, an institution led by by hardline cleric Ayatollah Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah Yazdi, and led the University for Islamic Denominations, a regime-backed institution that signed cooperation agreements with universities in Assad-era Syria.

Demanding the Pope Defend Khamenei

In his role as ambassador, Mokhtari urged the Pope publicly defend Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei against “insults and assassination threats” from the United States, describing Khamenei as not merely a political figure but “a sacred religious authority for Shi’a Muslims” whose dignity was being violated. He authored an op-ed accusing American policymakers of “cloaking inhumane and irrational decisions in religious rhetoric” and personally delivered a plaque of Khamenei’s speeches about Jesus to Pope Francis in 2024.

Following the launch of Operation Epic Fury, Mokhtari condemned the strikes as “aggression” and a “blatant violation of territorial integrity,” invoking Iran’s “legal and legitimate right to respond.” He told the Pope it was his “moral duty” to condemn the strikes — a request the Vatican did not answer.

Awarded Mid-War, as Ceasefire Collapsed

The timing of the Vatican honor was particularly striking. The certificate awarding Mokhtari the Grand Cross was dated May 8, 2026 — just three days before Trump called Iran’s latest peace proposal “garbage” and declared the ceasefire “on life support.”

The U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, had begun February 28, 2026, with nearly 900 strikes in the first 12 hours targeting Iranian missiles, air defenses, and military infrastructure. After more than five weeks of fighting that left thousands dead in Iran and Lebanon, a ceasefire was brokered April 7–8 by Pakistan. But by May, negotiations had stalled over Iranian demands for compensation, an end to the U.S. naval blockade, and sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran had shut down shipping traffic carrying one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas supply.

Iranian state media framed the Vatican honor as closely linked to Pope Leo XIV’s condemnation of U.S.-Israeli actions and to the Iranian embassy’s efforts to “promote messages of peace, justice, and opposition to warmongering.” Yet the regime Mokhtari represents was simultaneously overseeing a dramatic escalation in the persecution of Christians.

280 Years in Prison, One Year

In 2025, Iranian courts sentenced 73 Christians to more than 280 cumulative years in prison, according to a joint report by Middle East Concern, Open Doors, Article 18, and Christian Solidarity Worldwide. That figure represents a six-fold increase in imprisonment compared to 2023, when 22 Christians received a combined 43.5 years. At least 254 Christians were arrested in 2025 on charges related to their faith — nearly double the prior year’s total.

The charges used against Christians include “propaganda activity contrary to Islamic law,” “acting against national security,” and violations of Article 500 of Iran’s Islamic Penal Code, which criminalizes “any deviant educational or proselytizing activity that contradicts or interferes with the sacred law of Islam.” Iranian authorities increasingly characterize Christian converts as promoting “Zionist Christianity” — a deliberate effort to link evangelicals with foreign adversaries.

Pregnant Women, Spinal Fractures, and Spies

Among those sentenced in 2025: Narges Nasri, a Christian convert who was pregnant when she received a 16-year prison term for “propaganda activity contrary to Islamic law” and “membership in opposition groups.” Aida Najaflou, sentenced to 17 years for evangelism, prayer, and celebrating Christmas, suffered a spinal fracture in prison; authorities initially denied her surgery and returned her to her cell on a stretcher. At least 11 Christians received sentences of 10 years or more in 2025.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom documented denial of medical treatment for detained Christians, psychological torture, threats against families, and charges of espionage. In the aftermath of the Iran-Israel war, at least 54 Christians were arrested in a coordinated sweep across 21 cities, with state media publicly branding them as spies linked to “foreign intelligence services.”

Death Penalty for Leaving Islam

Iran’s Constitution recognizes only ethnic Armenian and Assyrian Christians as protected minorities — excluding Persian-speaking converts, who face the death penalty for apostasy under Shari’a-based rulings. Although apostasy is not codified in the Islamic Penal Code, judges apply religious law to impose capital sentences.

Pastor Hossein Soodmand, a convert from Islam, is an Iranian Christian officially executed for apostasy since the 1979 revolution — hanged in December 1990 and buried in an unmarked grave that the regime demolished in 2019. Three senior Protestant pastors were murdered in 1994, with a TIME magazine investigation concluding that “decisions to assassinate opponents at home or abroad are made at the highest level of the Iranian government,” including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

The Unanswered Christmas Plea

On Christmas Eve 2025, Iran’s exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi wrote to Pope Leo XIV, urging him to use diplomatic channels to speak publicly for Christians imprisoned, flogged, and threatened with execution by the Iranian regime. Pahlavi noted that in 2024 alone, Christian converts in Iran received 263 combined years in prison and 37 years in internal exile — a six-fold increase in sentencing compared to 2023.

The Vatican did not respond. Two months later, the Pope awarded the regime’s envoy the Holy See’s highest diplomatic decoration.

Grand Prairie, Texas canceled a June 1 Eid celebration at its city-owned Epic Waters Indoor Waterpark after Governor Greg Abbott threatened to withhold $530,000 in state funding. The event, organized by Aminah Knight to celebrate the Islamic holy day of Eid al-Adha, was initially advertised as “Muslim only” in promotional materials before being revised to emphasize modest dress requirements.

Abbott cited the early version of the flyer, arguing that reserving a taxpayer-funded facility for a single religious group violated constitutional principles. The city canceled the event hours after the governor’s deadline, raising questions about how religious accommodation operates at publicly owned facilities.

The “Muslim Only” Language

A flyer for the “Epic Eid” event initially described the celebration as “Muslim only” in two places. After the language generated controversy, organizer Aminah Knight changed the flyer to emphasize modest dress requirements instead. Knight told KERA News that the event’s goal was “to promote modesty and was never about excluding other faiths.”

The revised flyer specified that men must wear swim trunks and shirts, and women must wear “burkinis”, a full-body Islamic swimwear designed to meet religious modesty standards. Knight said she was “curating a space where people who value modesty can come together.”

Whatever Knight’s intent, the disconnect between the original promotional language and her later explanations reveals the tension at the center of the controversy. The flyer didn’t say “modesty required”, instead, it said “Muslim only.” When promotional materials for a public facility’s use communicate exclusion on the basis of religious identity, the language matters.

Public Ownership Creates Different Obligations

Epic Waters is a city-owned water park funded by taxpayers, though operated by a third-party company. Knight had rented the facility as a private event and paid associated fees. But private rental doesn’t eliminate the obligations that come with public ownership.

The governor’s office argued that Grand Prairie’s acceptance of state grants created compliance obligations with civil rights and nondiscrimination laws. Abbott’s letter warned that violating these rules could result in grant cancellation, repayment demands, and loss of future funding.

In his letter to Mayor Ron Jensen, the governor’s office drew a direct analogy:

“An event at a city-owned pool that was publicly and indiscriminately advertised as ‘Whites only’ would surely violate the Constitution... The same must be true here.”

Abbott posted on X: “Facilities funded by ALL taxpayers are not just for a subset of Texans.”

The comparison is legally instructive. Equal protection principles operate regardless of which group seeks preferential access to public resources.

How Accommodation Can Function as Exclusion

The event’s revised framing emphasized modesty rather than religion, but the practical effect merits examination. Burkinis are not standard American swimwear. They are religiously specific attire designed to meet Islamic modesty standards. Requiring them, along with swim shirts for men, creates what functions as a religious filter, even if technically open to anyone willing to comply.

Knight held a similar event in 2024 without incident. She told WCNC that she was “sad that something that was being done with such good intention, just for joy, has been turned into something that it’s not.” She called conservative pushback hypocritical, noting that “most Muslims are conservative” and that modest dress codes are “pretty conservative.”

The Line Between Liberty and Exclusion

Governor Abbott referenced a Texas law banning “Sharia Law” when addressing the celebration, and has previously targeted Muslim-related projects, including threatening funding for a Muslim-centric housing development.

But the core principle that public facilities funded by all cannot be reserved for some, operates independently of who enforces it or against whom. When cities accept state money, they accept the constraints that come with it, including nondiscrimination requirements in public accommodations.

The city issued a statement after Abbott’s ultimatum: “After further review and in the best interest of the City of Grand Prairie, the June 1 Eid event at Epic Waters Indoor Waterpark has been canceled.” The decision came hours after the deadline, ending what would have been a private rental that tested the boundaries of religious accommodation at taxpayer-funded facilities.

On May 10, 2026, the X analyst MaxNordau asked a sharp question: “Can someone explain what the hell Daniel Haqiqatjou and Hassan Shibly have to do with putting America First? Because this looks an awful lot like an Islamic supremacist scheme.”

He was reacting to a four-day cascade in which Nick Fuentes accused congressional candidate Dan Bilzerian of asking him how to assassinate Israeli ministers; Bilzerian called Fuentes a federal informant; ex-CAIR-Florida director Hassan Shibly intervened to defend Bilzerian and confirmed joint travel through France, Romania, and Dubai; and Visegrád 24 published video of Bilzerian on the ground in Doha wrapped in a khaffiyeh.

The question MaxNordau raised is the right one. The answer requires a fourth name — Daniel Haqiqatjou, the Harvard-educated polemicist behind The Muslim Skeptic — and an honest reading of why the entire network turned on Fuentes the same week.

What happened

The sequence began on May 7, 2026, when Fuentes announced on X that he was “switching sides and voting Democrat in 2026 to punish” the GOP, citing what he called the Trump administration’s broken promises on Iran and Israel. Bilzerian responded within hours, posting that “Nick Fuentes is a fed” and accusing him of “constant division, endless infighting, defending Epstein, then attacking a Christian man only to endorse a Jewish Democrat woman.”

On May 8, Fuentes counter-attacked, claiming that during their first meeting Bilzerian had ordered guests to put their phones in another room and asked him “how difficult it would be to assassinate Israeli government ministers.” Fuentes added that Bilzerian then invited him to Dubai and Qatar in late 2024, that he declined, and that Bilzerian was “ambushed by the FBI” on the way. Lucas Gage, a separate influencer, made a similar allegation, saying Bilzerian had asked him about killing Ben Shapiro under comparable conditions.

Bilzerian denied the assassination claim but conceded — under direct pressure from Fuentes — that he had been served a federal subpoena on the tarmac, that the trip included Corsica, Dubai, and Qatar, and that the destination involved discussions of “golden visa” status with Gulf governments while his father, convicted securities fraudster Paul Bilzerian, faced renewed federal scrutiny.

On May 9, two things happened. Hassan Shibly, ex-director of CAIR-Florida, posted a video from inside Bilzerian’s home, declaring Fuentes’ allegations “utter and complete lies,” and confirmed that he had personally traveled with Bilzerian and MMA fighter Jake Shields through France, Romania, and Dubai — the same itinerary Fuentes described as Bilzerian’s “flight.” Hours later, Visegrád 24 published a 23-second video of Bilzerian on the ground in Doha, Qatar, viewed 1.4 million times within hours and corroborating the destination both men had been arguing about.

By May 10, the network around Bilzerian had visibly closed ranks against Fuentes — Shibly, Shields, and Daniel Haqiqatjou’s Muslim Skeptic audience all moving in the same direction within seventy-two hours of Fuentes’ Democrat announcement. That synchronicity is what triggered MaxNordau’s question, and it is the actual story.

The Architect

Haqiqatjou is not a fringe cleric. He is a Harvard physics graduate with a Tufts philosophy master’s whose intellectual lineage, as he himself lists it, runs through Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, Ruhollah Khomeini, and Ali Khamenei.

He praised the October 7 massacre as a “religious obligation,” denied the Nova Festival rapes, calls Judaism “as hostile to Christianity and Islam” as any religion on earth, and frames Israel and the Mossad as the hidden hand behind 9/11, ISIS, and Jeffrey Epstein. His audience is not Muslim only: his Haqiqat Show has hosted Bilzerian and hosted Jake Shields — Bilzerian’s Romania-Dubai travel companion alongside Shibly.

The Bridge Thesis — The Islamists and the Far-Right

Haqiqatjou’s strategic argument, repeated across his platform, is that traditional Muslims and traditionalist Western dissidents share one adversary: liberal modernity, feminism, LGBT rights, secular governance, and what he calls “Zionist” influence.

Shibly operationalizes the same argument inside U.S. civil-rights infrastructure, appearing on Russia Today to claim “extremist Jewish Zionist funders and billionaires have bought out the U.S. government” and casting detained British activist Sami Hamdi as a victim of opposing “America First” values. Shields and Bilzerian provide reach: Shields hosts joint streams with Shibly, and Bilzerian’s 30 million Instagram followers carry the message into the masculinity-influencer ecosystem.

Bilzerian Runs for Office

Bilzerian filed in April 2026 to challenge AIPAC-backed Rep. Randy Fine in Florida’s 6th District, calling him “the fat jew Randy Fine.” His campaign treasurer previously ran Kanye West’s presidential committee. Shibly endorsed the bid. The FL-6 race is the network’s first electoral test — and it depends entirely on Republican primary mechanics.

Why the purge of Fuentes

Whatever the merits of Fuentes’ complaints about Iran policy, his vote-Democrat move made him useless to a coalition whose entire vehicle is a Republican primary in Florida. Bilzerian needs GOP voters; Shibly needs an anti-Fine outcome; Haqiqatjou needs the coalition coherent. The “fed” smear is the cover; strategic excommunication is the substance. Fuentes’ assassination allegation against Bilzerian is the counterpunch — credible-enough-to-hurt, unverifiable enough to deny, and conveniently corroborated by the Doha footage and the federal subpoena Bilzerian himself confirms was served on the tarmac.

“America-First” Aligns with the Islamists

The American post-liberal right has long flirted with the idea that “the enemy of my enemy” is a coalition partner. Haqiqatjou has been building exactly that coalition — explicitly, on camera — for years. His intellectual lineage is Brotherhood and Khomeinist; his strategic frame is shared adversary; his tactical tools are influencer reach, civil-rights legalism, and now a congressional candidacy.

The figures involved are not hiding any of it. They are documenting it themselves on YouTube, X, and Instagram, in real time. The question is no longer whether the convergence is real. The question is whether anyone on the American right is willing to see it before FL-6 votes.

On May 2, 2026, approximately 200 attendees gathered in Columbus, Ohio for the debut of America First United, a self-described “bipartisan movement” opposing endless wars, and government corruption. The event livestreamed on Rumble and featured over two dozen speakers including political candidates running in 2026 midterm races. The conference branded itself as a defense of American principles. Its speakers told a different story.

Domain registration records show the organization was created on March 31, 2026 — just five weeks before the conference. The organization has no registered corporate entity in public databases, no LinkedIn company page, and no visible Federal Election Commission filings despite hosting multiple political candidates. The domain registration is privacy-protected, obscuring the actual registrant. A technical look into the website infrastructure yielded few additional findings, but the absence of basic legal and financial transparency for a movement hosting candidates remains striking.

The event was organized by Amy Dangerfield, an Australian former Valuetainment host, alongside Jake Shields, the former MMA fighter whose podcast platforms KKK leaders and white nationalists. The speaker roster reveals a coalition whose stated love of country sits uncomfortably alongside their stated positions.

“Christianity Is a Feminized Religion”

Pastor Joel Webbon, founder of Right Response Ministries in Austin, emerged as a central figure at the conference. In late 2025, Webbon declared: “Christians are gay. Fake and gay, to be more precise. Christianity is a feminized religion.” The statement appeared in promotional material for a Christian nationalism documentary and became a rallying cry among his followers who reject mainstream evangelicalism as insufficiently authoritarian. The question worth asking: what kind of pastor calls American Christians “fake and gay” while claiming to lead them?

The framing reflects Webbon’s broader project. He co-authored “The Statement on Christian Nationalism & the Gospel,” declaring civil authorities must “acknowledge the Lordship of Christ” in all laws and “recapture our national sovereignty from godless, global entities.” According to People For the American Way, Webbon believes non-Christians should not hold public office and women should not vote.

His positions extend further. Webbon claimed slavery was a “blessing” for Black people, arguing that living in America “should be your reparations.” He has advocated repealing the 19th Amendment, arguing women’s suffrage has caused more damage than benefit. He has interviewed Nick Fuentes, the white nationalist “Groyper” leader who attended the January 6 Capitol march as a VIP.

For a movement claiming to defend America, the speaker calls for stripping voting rights from half the population and barring religious minorities from public office.

Resentment Politics and Anti-Western Coalition

Jake Shields serves as both organizer and ideological anchor for America First United. His podcast features former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, Patriot Front leader Thomas Rousseau, and a parade of figures whose unifying conviction is that American institutions are illegitimate. The framing throughout — that meritocracy is fake, that the country’s institutions are corrupt beyond reform, that Western civilization deserves contempt rather than defense — animates the entire conference.

Sam Parker’s presence illustrates the radicalization pipeline. In 2018, Parker ran as a Tea Party Republican challenging Mitt Romney in Utah’s Senate primary while serving as Utah State Director for Convention of States. Parker describes his radicalization as taking “about six months” on Voat, a white nationalist Reddit clone. His political evolution traces a familiar arc: legitimate frustrations with American institutions transformed into wholesale rejection of America as a project. The country didn’t fail him alone — he came to believe America itself was the failure.

The pattern repeats across the speaker list. Figures whose published views describe America as oppressive, illegitimate, or fundamentally compromised gather under a banner declaring they put America first.

The Muslim Activist and the Strange Coalition

Sameerah Munshi, the only Muslim woman formerly on Trump’s White House Religious Liberty Commission, spoke at the event and posted afterward: “Christians and Muslims can get along. The left and the right can get along. The only people we can’t stand are Zionists.” Munshi had resigned from the commission in March 2026 to protest what she called its “Zionist political agenda” and the removal of commissioner Carrie Prejean Boller, who had criticized Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Munshi appeared on a CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) podcast shortly before the conference. Her alliance with Christian nationalists who believe non-Christians shouldn’t hold public office reveals the strange coalitions resentment politics produces. The shared enemy — American institutions, Western foreign policy, the existing order — papers over irreconcilable visions of what should replace it.

Who Built This in Five Weeks?

The rapid emergence demands explanation. Securing a Columbus venue for 200 attendees, coordinating travel for over two dozen speakers, building professional infrastructure, and establishing Rumble livestreaming requires significant resources. Yet Federal Election Commission databases contain no filings for “America First United” as a political action committee, despite the website’s references to “PAC” status. Ohio Secretary of State business records show no registered entity under this name.

Amy Dangerfield, listed as the event host, is an Australian commentator who previously worked for Valuetainment before going independent. How a former Valuetainment host assembled this speaker roster — including nationally known extremist figures — in five weeks remains unexplained. The absence of basic corporate transparency for an organization hosting political candidates is itself a story.

Electoral Trojan Horse

Several speakers are running in 2026 midterm elections, attempting to leverage anti-establishment sentiment. The event showcased Ohio gubernatorial candidate Casey Putsch, whose campaign has collapsed to 12% polling; Dennis Feitosa running for Congress in Louisiana; and various other congressional candidates. Dan Bilzerian, running for Congress in Florida despite holding dual U.S.-Armenian citizenship, received movement endorsements — an apparent contradiction for a conference opposing “dual loyalties.”

The Evangelical Dark Web analyzed the candidate slate and found “none of the candidates America First United have endorsed are serious or even viable contenders.”

What “America First” Means at America First United

The conference branded itself as a defense of American principles against foreign influence and corrupt institutions. But the speakers gathered in Columbus published positions on the record before they ever took the stage. A pastor who calls American Christians “fake and gay” and a “feminized religion” while believing non-Christians shouldn’t hold office. An MMA fighter whose podcast hosts KKK leaders and rejects the legitimacy of American institutions. A failed Senate candidate who describes his own radicalization on a white nationalist forum. A coalition whose unifying complaint is that America, as currently constituted, is the problem.

The five-week timeline from domain registration to major conference suggests pre-existing networks simply waiting for a new vehicle. The corporate opacity, rapid mobilization, and absence of basic legal transparency indicate either well-funded backing with undisclosed donors, a rebranding of existing organizations, or coordination by experienced operators with established relationships in these movements.

The question isn’t whether this represents an organic grassroots movement. The question is who funded it, who organized it, and what readers should make of a coalition assembled this quickly, this opaquely, and with this speaker roster — packaged as American patriotism.

Qatar Charity, the Doha-funded NGO at the center of two leaked European document troves, has channeled roughly €2 million into at least six Islamic projects in Poland — including the flagship Warsaw mosque run by the Muslim League in the Republic of Poland (Liga Muzułmańska), an organization Wikipedia describes as a “branch of a worldwide Muslim Brotherhood organization.”

The disclosure, amplified this week by Visegrád 24 and grounded in the 2020 ICSR study and the Qatar Papers investigation by French journalists Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot, lands as Strasbourg’s Qatar-supported “mega-mosque” rises beside the European Parliament. The shock is not the size of the Polish sums but the strategy behind them: Doha is pre-positioning Brotherhood-linked infrastructure inside a Catholic, historically homogeneous country before its Muslim population grows large enough to defend itself politically. Poland, in other words, is being treated as the next European frontier, not the last European holdout.

A Documented European Pattern

The Chesnot–Malbrunot investigation, drawing on leaked Qatar Charity ledgers, identified roughly 140 mosque, school, and Islamic-centre projects bankrolled across Europe. The follow-on report by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalization (ICSR) at King’s College London counted at least 138 such projects, “many related to Muslim Brotherhood associated organizations.” The two French journalists argue that the goal is “to strengthen Islamic identity and help spread and entrench political Islam in Muslim communities throughout Europe.” Qatar Charity formally denies any Brotherhood affiliation.

The Polish Node: Liga Muzułmańska

The principal Qatari counterparty in Poland is the Muslim League, a body distinct from the centuries-old Lipka Tatar community that has historically represented Polish Sunni Islam. The League was founded in 2004 by Arab-immigrant doctors and led by the Kuwait-trained pediatrician Samir Ismail. Rzeczpospolita reported in 2009 that Ismail sat on a committee of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE) — the federation a U.S.-based research foundation characterised as a “cover-up” that “unites the members of Muslim Brotherhood in Europe.”

The same investigation documented that Ismail’s named FIOE colleague, Walid Abu Shewarib, was simultaneously under inquiry by the Munich prosecutor’s office for “supporting the organizations listed on the EU list of terroristic organizations” via the Belgian branch of the al-Aqsa foundation. Polish authorities, Rzeczpospolita established, did not actually verify the foreign sources financing the Warsaw mosque — the Interior Ministry “does not possess or gather any data” on them.

Strasbourg as the Template

The pattern Doha is exporting eastward is most visible in Strasbourg. The Eyyub Sultan Mosque — a 2,500-capacity complex administered by the Turkish-nationalist Milli Görüş confederation — has been under construction since 2017 at a cost Wikipedia puts at €25 million.

Reporting by the Middle East Forum notes that the project drew a €2.5 million subsidy from Strasbourg’s Green-led city council alongside contributions from Qatar, Morocco, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia — even as the same council dimmed the cathedral’s lights to “save energy.” Then–Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin publicly opposed the subsidy.

Why Poland, Why Now

Qatar’s Polish outlay is modest because Poland’s Muslim population still is. But Doha appears to be following the European script in advance: cultivate a Brotherhood-aligned national federation, fund a flagship cultural centre, secure a foothold in education and youth programming, then scale as demographics shift.

Poland issued more than 94,000 work permits in 2024 to citizens of six Muslim-majority countries — a meaningful inflection for a society that until recently had almost no immigrant Muslim presence outside the Tatar community. The infrastructure is being laid before the population arrives.

The Faultline

The danger to Polish civic life is not the existence of mosques, nor the presence of practicing Muslims. It is the slow capture of religious representation by a foreign-funded, ideologically distinct stratum that bypasses the established Tatar community and answers — financially and institutionally — to networks documented by French, German and British investigators.

Strasbourg’s cathedral did not go dark by accident; the city’s Green council made a choice, one subsidy and one switch at a time. Poland, for now, still has the option to refuse the same trade. Whether it does will depend on whether Warsaw treats foreign religious financing as the strategic question it is — or, as in 2009, simply admits it has no idea who is paying.

From May 26-29, Russia will host the first International Security Forum under the auspices of its Security Council — an event that transcends typical defense exhibitions to establish a comprehensive worldview casting the West as an existential threat. With delegations from over 180 countries and 26 international organizations invited, the forum represents Moscow’s most ambitious attempt yet to formalize an anti-Western ideological framework and export it to partners across Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

The forum’s program reveals a striking inversion of Western security narratives. Where Washington and Brussels emphasize democratic resilience and counter-disinformation, Moscow positions itself as defender of sovereignty against covert interference. A panel titled “Disinformation and Manipulation as Tools of the West’s Hybrid War against the Global Majority for Maintaining Hegemony” frames information warfare as a Western weapon, while another session on “Countering Neocolonialism as a Priority for Ensuring Security of the Global Majority Countries” elevates anti-colonial rhetoric to national security priority. The term “Global Majority,” appearing throughout the program, signals deliberate ideological alignment with the Global South against what Russia characterizes as Western hegemony.

Civil Society as Security Threat

A dedicated round table titled “NGOs as a Tool for Undermining National Security” reframes civil society, a cornerstone of Western foreign policy, as an instrument of subversion. This session sits alongside discussions of terrorism, hybrid warfare, and weapons systems, effectively placing humanitarian organizations, watchdog groups, and development actors in the same conceptual category as security threats. The message to partners in Africa and Asia is unmistakable: sovereignty requires insulation from independent actors of any kind.

The investigative collective All Eyes on Wagner has documented how Russia’s SVR-controlled organization Africa Politology has lobbied for foreign-agent laws in the Sahel and Central African Republic, with playbooks that include suppression of media and civil society voices. In the CAR, Wagner Group operatives have arrested staff from humanitarian organizations, subjecting them to hostile campaigns.

Ukraine and the Neo-Nazi Narrative

The forum places Ukraine at the center of its ideological architecture. Two sessions explicitly address “Terrorist Methods of the Kyiv regime on the Background of the Spread of neo-Nazism in Ukraine” and “War Crimes of the Kyiv regime: Recording and Systematization.” These panels are framed not as debatable interpretations but as established facts, reinforced by exhibitions featuring films from Russia Today’s documentary section and photographs from conflict zones. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs will present an exhibition specifically on “War Crimes of the Kyiv regime,” suggesting the forum aims less at dialogue than at codifying a singular interpretation for international allies.

This narrative has echoed in Russian diplomatic statements, with Foreign Ministry declarations describing the “Kiev regime” as demonstrating “human-hating neo-Nazi nature” following terrorist attacks. By presenting these characterizations alongside legitimate security discussions, the forum seeks to normalize and internationalize Moscow’s framing of the conflict.

The Russian Apparatus on Display

The forum brings together a comprehensive array of Russian state agencies rarely assembled in one venue. Participating organizations include the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Defense, Federal Security Service (FSB), Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ministry of Justice, EMERCOM (Emergency Situations Ministry), and Rossotrudnichestvo—the cultural agency that opens Russian cultural centers abroad and operates as a soft power arm of Russian influence.

State corporations Rostec, Rosatom, and Roscosmos will showcase defense technologies, while Rosoboronexport—Russia’s state arms export agency—will present “Russian products for the protection of the population, installations, and land.” The Patriot Park will host exhibitions of “advanced Russian weapon systems and captured equipment,” turning portions of the forum into a weapons showcase for potential buyers.

Global South Outreach

The forum explicitly targets countries outside the traditional Western alliance. Invitations have been extended to “150+ countries of the Global South and East, the CIS, CSTO, EAEU, SCO,” with bilateral and multilateral meetings planned including Russia-Central Asia sessions and Russia-ASEAN events. The forum will operate in eight languages — Russian, Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, Serbian, English, French, and Spanish — with simultaneous translation, signaling serious investment in accessibility for diverse delegations.

Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu, who chairs the forum, has indicated that topics were chosen “focusing on the opinions shared by countries of the Global South,” suggesting Moscow has tailored the agenda to resonate with grievances about Western intervention and neo-colonial practices. TV BRICS International Media Network—a Russia-backed media organization with partners including state-affiliated outlets CGTN, Xinhua, and China Radio International, serves as the forum’s international media partner.

The speaker and guest lists for the event have not yet been made public.

On Monday afternoon, President Trump greeted King Charles III on the South Lawn of the White House with the usual pomp: military band, 21-gun salute, ceremonial inspection of troops. The troops, however, were unusual. Standing at attention in full Continental Army regalia; tricorn hats, blue coats with buff facings, muskets at their shoulders, were Revolutionary War reenactors. The soldiers who fought Charles’ great-great-great-great-grandfather George III were now serving as the honor guard for his descendant’s state visit.

The White House billed the visit as commemorating the 250th anniversary of American independence, which explains the historical costuming. Still, there’s something undeniably pointed about the specific choice. Other symbols were available — the current military, the flag, the Constitution under glass. Trump chose the guys in the same Revolutionary dress who beat the British Empire.

The Revolutionary War soldiers weren’t there by accident. They represented the beginning of something genuinely remarkable: the first successful implementation of Enlightenment political philosophy at the scale of an entire nation. What the philosophers of the 18th century imagined, government by consent, natural rights, separation of powers, the American revolutionaries actually built.

The achievement starts with the improbability of the military victory itself. When the Continental Army formed in 1775, it consisted primarily of farmers, merchants, and artisans with no professional military training. They faced the most powerful navy in the world and a battle-tested professional army. The colonies had no capacity to manufacture arms in quantity, no financial resources, no unified command structure. The British controlled the seas and could land troops wherever they chose.

Standard strategic analysis predicted certain American defeat. Colonial militia had never defeated British regulars in pitched battle. The resources were laughably mismatched. Yet these farmers and merchants, wearing whatever uniforms they could assemble, fought an eight-year war and won.

Then came the harder part- turning military victory into lasting government. The revolutionaries didn’t just declare independence; they created an entirely new form of political organization. Federalism divided power between states and national government. Separation of powers prevented any single branch from dominating. A written constitution, ratified by the people themselves, established the rules everyone would follow. These weren’t just innovations; they were the operating system for the first large-scale republic in modern times.

And it worked. The Constitution ratified in 1788 remains the operational framework of American government 238 years later. The same document, with amendments. The political system bent under pressure, survived a civil war, adapted to massive territorial expansion and demographic change, and kept functioning. The peaceful transfer of power between parties, John Adams to Thomas Jefferson in 1801, set a precedent that has held through 46 presidencies.

The intellectual architecture matters as much as the military victory. The Founders took abstract Enlightenment principles, natural rights, popular sovereignty, limited government, and translated them into concrete institutional design. The Bill of Rights protected individual freedoms from government overreach. Federalism allowed both local autonomy and national coherence. The separation of powers created friction by design, making tyranny difficult even when attempted.

These frameworks became the template that shaped modern democracy worldwide. When other nations wrote constitutions, they studied the American model. When revolutionaries articulated their goals, they echoed the Declaration of Independence. The specific mechanisms, bicameral legislatures, judicial review, enumerated powers, spread because they proved functional at scale.

The 250-year anniversary commemorates not just independence but endurance. A quarter-millennium is substantial for any political system. The American republic has outlasted monarchies, empires, and ideological experiments that rose and fell in that span. It survived industrialization, urbanization, multiple wars, economic collapses, and profound social transformations while maintaining constitutional continuity.

This makes the Revolutionary War categorically different from a typical colonial uprising. Independence alone isn’t exceptional — many colonies achieved it. What distinguishes America is what came after: building institutions that actually worked, protecting rights that actually mattered, creating a system that could adapt without collapsing. The revolutionaries didn’t just reject British rule. They constructed something better and made it last.

When Charles addressed Congress later that day, he invoked shared heritage and “checks and balances” on executive power. Gracious words from a constitutional monarch visiting a republic that rejected monarchy as its founding principle. The moment captured something worth celebrating: two nations that went to war 250 years ago now maintain one of the world’s most important alliances, united by principles the American revolutionaries pioneered.

The Continental Army won a war everyone expected them to lose, then built a republic everyone expected to fail. Two hundred fifty years later, that republic hosted the heir to the British throne for a state dinner celebrating the anniversary of rebellion against his ancestor. The sheer improbability of that outcome, not just independence, but success, stability, and global influence, makes the Revolutionary War worth commemorating with a bit of theatrical flair. The guys in tricorn hats earned their place on the South Lawn.

The Islamic Shura Council of Southern California is planning to honor a man whose name appears on a government list of individuals who fundraised for Hamas. The June 6, 2026 banquet will present its lifetime achievement award to Jamal Badawi, an Egyptian-Canadian scholar who federal prosecutors identified as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, the largest terrorism-financing prosecution in U.S. history, which resulted in convictions for funneling $12.4 million to Hamas.

Court documents released during the trial indicate Badawi was a member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s leadership structure. The event’s speaker lineup reads like a who’s-who of organizations currently under federal scrutiny: one faces an IRS investigation for allegedly misusing millions in taxpayer funds, another chairs a council that appeared on the Muslim Brotherhood’s own strategic documents, and a third recently boasted that her organization bankrolled a New York mayoral candidate’s campaign.

Badawi’s name appears as number 20 on the prosecution’s Attachment A list under “individuals who participated in fund-raising activities on behalf of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.” The Holy Land Foundation funneled $12.4 million to Hamas through a network of charities in the Palestinian territories, resulting in convictions for all defendants in what prosecutors called a “complex criminal enterprise designed to support Hamas.”

Brotherhood Connections Run Deep

The award recipient isn’t just any Islamic scholar. Badawi sits on the executive boards of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Fiqh Council of North America, and the Muslim American Society (MAS), all three of which appeared on the infamous 1991 Muslim Brotherhood “Explanatory Memorandum” listing “our organizations and the organizations of our friends” in North America.

Badawi’s name appeared on page one of a 1992 telephone directory of Muslim Brotherhood members entered into evidence during the Holy Land Foundation trial. A 2004 Chicago Tribune investigation identified MAS as the Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. arm. Abdurrahman Alamoudi, who once wielded enormous influence in Muslim American political circles before his terrorism-related conviction, testified under oath: “Everyone knows that MAS is the Muslim Brotherhood.”

That 1991 memorandum described the Brotherhood’s mission in America as “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

CEO of CAIR-CA, Allegedly Under Federal Investigation

One of the banquet’s featured speaker, Hussam Ayloush, leads CAIR California, an organization now facing potential loss of its tax-exempt status. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith referred CAIR-CA to the IRS on January 13, 2026, citing “serious concerns about misuse of taxpayer dollars, possible violations of federal law, and activity incompatible with its tax-exempt status.”

The referral detailed evidence that CAIR-CA received over $7 million in federal refugee legal-aid funding but assisted fewer than 10 percent of proposed Afghan refugees. Instead, the organization allegedly routed approximately $3.7 million through unregistered affiliates operating under CAIR-CA’s own tax identification number what Smith characterized as “a façade to merely obscure the trace of taxpayer funds.”

A report by the Network Contagion Research Institute and Intelligent Advocacy Network found that CAIR-CA spent over $3.8 million on lobbying expenses between 2013 and 2023 while reporting only $672,537 to the IRS leaving $3.13 million undisclosed. Federal law prohibits using federal funds for lobbying.

From Brotherhood Documents to Texas Mega-Project

Yasir Qadhi, another of the banquet’s keynote speakers, chairs the Fiqh Council of North America—an organization that appeared as number 17 on the 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum under its previous name, ISNA Fiqh Committee. The memorandum listed it among “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.”

Qadhi serves as resident scholar at East Plano Islamic Center, which is developing EPIC City, a controversial 402-acre Muslim-centered development that drew investigations from both the Department of Justice and Texas officials over allegations of discrimination and Sharia law implementation. The DOJ probe closed without charges.

Sarsour: Farrakhan Defender and Women’s March Scandal

Linda Sarsour, billed as the event’s “motivational speaker,” carries significant controversy. She co-founded the Women’s March but stepped down from its board in 2019 amid allegations of antisemitism and her refusal to distance herself from Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, whom the Anti-Defamation League considers “virtually synonymous with anti-Semitism.”

During the controversy, Sarsour and fellow Women’s March leaders declined for nearly a year to condemn Farrakhan’s statements, including his 2018 Saviours’ Day speech where he denounced “Satanic Jews” and proclaimed “your time is up” to Jews. The Women’s March eventually issued a mild statement calling Farrakhan’s remarks “not aligned” with its principles, but only after sustained public pressure.

More recently, Sarsour made headlines at CAIR’s 2025 Leadership & Policy Conference when she revealed that CAIR controlled the Unity and Justice Fund political action committee and was the largest institutional donor to New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s campaign. “Over 80% of Zohran Mamdani’s campaign funding came from Muslim American donors through CAIR,” Sarsour stated.

CAIR itself was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, appearing on the government’s list of “individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations.”

A Network Operating in Plain Sight

The Islamic Shura Council describes itself as an umbrella organization representing 75 member organizations serving over 750,000 Muslims in Southern California. The organization has operated as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit since 1995, hosting annual banquets that regularly feature speakers from organizations with documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood network.

The June 6 event at an undisclosed Southern California location runs from 5 PM to 10 PM. Tickets are available through the Shura Council’s website. Badawi, now in his late 80s, recently appeared at the Canadian Council of Imams’ 2025 National Retreat, where attendees described meeting him as “a surreal moment.”

The banquet will also present a Service Award to Imam Abu Ishaq Abdul Hafiz, a former Federal Bureau of Prisons Muslim chaplain.

Palantir Technologies posted a 22-point manifesto to X this week, excerpted from CEO Alex Karp’s book The Technological Republic. It wasn’t a product launch or an earnings call. It was a philosophical defense of building AI weapons systems, complete with arguments about cultural decline, elite intolerance of religion, and why “some cultures have produced vital advances; others remain dysfunctional and regressive.”

The document states flatly that Silicon Valley engineers have a “moral debt” to build military software. That free societies need “hard power” to survive, and “hard power in this century will be built on software.” That adversaries won’t pause for “theatrical debates” about AI ethics while racing to deploy autonomous weapons.

Five years ago, this would have been corporate suicide. Today, it’s a #1 New York Times bestseller.

The Google Walkout Is Ancient History

In 2018, thousands of Google employees staged walkouts protesting Project Maven, a Pentagon contract using AI to analyze drone footage. The backlash was so intense that Google didn’t renew the deal and published AI ethics principles committing not to develop weapons systems.

That same year, Palantir was essentially a pariah. The company worked with ICE, built surveillance tools for intelligence agencies, and cheerfully took the defense contracts other companies rejected. Former employees told NPR they signed non-disparagement agreements to avoid retaliation for criticizing the company’s work after leaving.

The cultural shift since then has been dramatic. In the past six months alone: OpenAI signed major Pentagon contracts (then faced backlash and added “more guardrails than any previous agreement”). Anthropic landed a $200 million defense deal, then terminated it after internal conflicts. Defense Secretary Hegseth publicly warned Anthropic to “let the military use company’s AI tech as it sees fit.” Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Oracle now share a $9 billion military cloud computing contract.

The debate isn’t whether tech companies should work with the military anymore. It’s which ones will, how much they’ll charge, and whether they’ll admit it publicly.

What Changed

Two things happened simultaneously: the technology became militarily decisive, and the geopolitical situation stopped feeling theoretical.

Ukraine demonstrated what happens when one side has better software. Drones coordinated through AI systems, real-time battlefield intelligence, encrypted communications- the country’s survival has depended partly on which tech companies were willing to provide tools and which weren’t. It’s hard to maintain that military contracts are morally suspect when you’ve watched them keep a democracy alive on live television for three years.

Meanwhile, the race with China went from abstract concern to concrete competition. When the Pentagon started warning that AI superiority would determine the next century’s balance of power, it became difficult for engineers to claim their work had nothing to do with national security. Palantir’s manifesto hammers this point relentlessly: “Our adversaries will not pause to indulge in theatrical debates about the merits of developing technologies with critical military and national security applications. They will proceed.”

The framing is deliberate- it treats the question as already settled. Not should AI weapons be built, but who will build them and for whom. Democratic societies or authoritarian ones. That’s not an argument designed to convince skeptics; it’s one designed to make skepticism look naive.

The Manifesto’s Actual Claims

Beyond the headline-grabbing stuff about moral debts and cultural superiority, the document makes several specific arguments worth examining:

• On deterrence: “The atomic age is ending. One age of deterrence, the atomic age, is ending, and a new era of deterrence built on A.I. is set to begin.” This treats AI weapons as the logical successor to nuclear arsenals, tools that prevent wars by making them unthinkable.

• On peace: “American power has made possible an extraordinarily long peace. Too many have forgotten or perhaps take for granted that nearly a century of some version of peace has prevailed in the world without a great power military conflict.” The claim is that three generations have avoided World War III because of American military dominance, and maintaining that requires staying ahead technologically.

• On duty: “If a U.S. Marine asks for a better rifle, we should build it; and the same goes for software.” This reframes military contracts as supporting troops rather than enabling war- a subtle but significant shift in how the work is justified.

• On Germany and Japan: “The postwar neutering of Germany and Japan must be undone. The defanging of Germany was an overcorrection for which Europe is now paying a heavy price.” This isn’t just about AI, it’s arguing that decades of enforced pacifism in former Axis powers has created security vacuums that adversaries are exploiting.

The document also includes genuinely odd inclusions: criticism of iPhone culture (”Is the iPhone our greatest creative if not crowning achievement as a civilization?”), complaints about public servants’ compensation, arguments for universal national service, and defenses of religious belief against elite intolerance. It reads less like a corporate mission statement and more like a comprehensive diagnosis of Western civilizational decline.

Who This Is Actually For

The manifesto isn’t aimed at activists who already think Palantir is evil. Those replies; calling it fascist, Straussian manipulation, techno-authoritarianism—were written before the document posted. The audience is engineers who feel uncomfortable with Silicon Valley’s traditional pacifism but haven’t had sophisticated language for that discomfort.

By wrapping defense contracts in the language of duty, historical precedent, and democratic survival, it offers what amounts to a permission structure. It tells talented engineers that building military software isn’t a betrayal of progressive values but their fullest expression because American power underwrites the long peace that makes those values possible.

Whether that argument works depends entirely on what happens next geopolitically. If AI-driven military competition intensifies and democracies find themselves desperate for technical talent, Palantir’s manifesto will look prescient. If the conflicts don’t materialize, it’ll read like expensive justification for surveillance capitalism with better branding.

What’s undeniable is that the ground has shifted. When a defense contractor can publish a bestselling book arguing that elite culture is too secular, too pluralistic, and too pacifist and the controversy is muted compared to what it would have been in 2018- something fundamental has changed about which arguments are sayable in public and which institutions get to say them.

The real question isn’t whether Palantir is right. It’s whether the speed of this shift suggests clarity finally emerging, or whether we’re moving too fast to notice what we’re leaving behind.

In 1994, sitting in a room with journalist Dan Baum, John Ehrlichman said something he’d been holding for decades. Nixon’s former domestic policy chief explained that the 1970 drug war, the legal architecture that classified LSD, psilocybin, and eventually ibogaine as Schedule I substances with “no currently accepted medical use,” had nothing to do with science. “We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black,” Ehrlichman admitted, “but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.”

Last weekend, President Trump signed an executive order directing the FDA to fast-track those same Schedule I psychedelics for medical approval. The mechanism was strikingly informal: podcast host Joe Rogan texted Trump about ibogaine after learning about it from a guest. Trump replied within hours, ”Sounds great. Do you want FDA approval? Let’s do it.”

What’s happening isn’t a vindication of evidence-based drug policy over political manipulation. It’s a reminder that drug scheduling has always operated through political channels, regardless of the direction of travel. The difference now is we can see the machinery in real time, stripped of the bureaucratic facade that once made it look like science.

Share

The Research That Never Stopped Being Promising

In the 1950s and early 1960s, psychedelic research was the most exciting frontier in psychiatry. Researchers at Spring Grove State Hospital, Harvard, and institutions across Canada were studying LSD for alcoholism, depression, and end-of-life anxiety. The Saskatchewan studies on LSD for alcoholism showed significant improvement in outcomes. Spring Grove’s work on terminal cancer patients found that a single LSD session, combined with therapy, could reduce death anxiety that had resisted every other intervention.

Then the drugs escaped the lab. By the mid-1960s, LSD was synonymous with Timothy Leary, campus protests, and the counterculture Nixon was determined to suppress. Research didn’t stop because the science failed, it stopped because the politics changed. The 1970 Controlled Substances Act placed psychedelics in Schedule I, ostensibly because they had “high potential for abuse” and “no currently accepted medical use.” But as Ehrlichman’s confession makes clear, those criteria were applied through a political filter that had little to do with pharmacology.

For decades, the evidence base remained frozen in the 1960s: tantalizing but incomplete. Then, starting in the early 2000s, researchers at Johns Hopkins made what the institution’s own staff called a “risky” decision to resurrect psychedelic research. Their 2006 study showing that psilocybin produced meaningful, lasting positive experiences in healthy participants is often credited with launching the “psychedelic renaissance.” Stanford, Harvard, and UCSF followed, all studying compounds that were still, technically, classified as having no medical value.

The VA has been quietly running psychedelic trials for years, particularly for veterans with treatment-resistant PTSD. The results have been striking enough that researchers keep using words like “dramatic” and “life-changing” in ways that academic caution usually forbids.

What Works for Veterans With PTSD

For special operations veterans, the numbers tell a story that conventional treatments struggle to address. Before the recent Stanford ibogaine study, participating veterans averaged a disability rating of 30.2 on the WHO scale, equivalent to moderate disability affecting daily functioning. One month after ibogaine treatment combined with magnesium, that rating dropped to 5.1, indicating essentially no disability. PTSD symptoms decreased by 88%, depression by 87%, anxiety by 81%.

These aren’t marginal improvements. “Before the treatment, I was living life in a blizzard with zero visibility and a cold, hopeless, listless feeling,” one Arizona veteran with six combat deployments told researchers. “After ibogaine, the storm lifted.”

The therapeutic mechanisms appear tied to neuroplasticity, quite literally rewiring how the brain processes trauma. Stanford researchers found that veterans who improved in executive function after ibogaine treatment showed increases in theta brain waves, associated with learning and cognitive flexibility. Those with reduced PTSD symptoms showed decreased complexity in cortical activity, suggesting a quieting of the heightened stress response that characterizes post-traumatic stress.

Similar patterns emerged in MDMA trials before the FDA’s 2024 rejection: in phase 3 studies, participants receiving MDMA-assisted therapy were twice as likely to lose their PTSD diagnosis compared to placebo groups, with effect sizes (Cohen’s d = 0.91 in the first trial) that would be considered exceptional for any psychiatric treatment. For veterans whose suicide rates have exceeded 6,000 annually for over twenty years—more than twice the rate of non-veterans—treatments that can produce this degree of change this rapidly aren’t just promising. They’re answering a question about survivability.

The VA’s observational study of 86 special operations veterans who received ibogaine followed by 5-MeO-DMT found sustained improvements in PTSD, depression, and anxiety lasting six months after treatment. Importantly, participants also reported significant reductions in suicidal ideation—the outcome that matters most when baseline suicide rates are catastrophic.

The Political Coalition Has Shifted; The Evidence Hasn’t Changed Much

Here’s what makes the current moment historically revealing: the scientific evidence around psychedelics hasn’t fundamentally transformed in the past five years. What’s changed is the political coalition backing them.

Peter Thiel has invested heavily in psychedelic pharmaceutical companies—Compass Pathways working on psilocybin, AtaiBeckley on various hallucinogens. When Trump’s executive order was announced, both companies’ stocks spiked. Texas committed $50 million to ibogaine clinical trials in March 2026. The Mercer Family Foundation, instrumental in Trump’s 2016 election, has donated over $1 million toward psychedelic PTSD treatment for veterans. Former Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell, whose memoir became the film Lone Survivor, stood behind Trump at the signing ceremony alongside the CEO of Americans for Ibogaine.

This is a different coalition than the one that created Schedule I—but it’s still a coalition defined by political relationships and financial interests rather than by FDA advisory panels systematically reviewing Phase 3 trial data. The scientific review process still exists, but it’s increasingly beside the point. The FDA rejected MDMA for PTSD in August 2024 despite phase 3 trials showing strong efficacy, citing concerns about masking effects and study design. Four months later, an executive order directs the agency to fast-track ibogaine, which hasn’t completed Phase 1 safety trials and faces FDA resistance due to cardiac toxicity concerns.

The pattern here isn’t “politics corrupting science” in one direction and “science correcting politics” in the other. It’s that drug policy has always been shaped by which political coalition controls the levers, with scientific evidence serving as post-hoc justification for decisions made on other grounds.

Why the Official Pathway Wasn’t Enough

The uncomfortable question this raises: If the VA’s psychedelic trials were producing such dramatic results, why did policy change require Joe Rogan’s text message rather than those clinical findings?

The answer suggests something about how institutions actually process evidence versus how we imagine they do. The FDA’s priority review voucher program, designed to accelerate promising treatments, theoretically could have fast-tracked psychedelics years ago based on the mounting clinical data. There were reports that Compass Pathways’ synthetic psilocybin was on the initial voucher list in February, but the White House removed it. The new executive order now explicitly directs the FDA to provide these vouchers for psychedelics with breakthrough therapy designation, sending a signal that the prior resistance was political, not scientific.

This isn’t unique to psychedelics. The history of drug policy is filled with substances whose legal status bore little relationship to their actual pharmacological risk profile. Cannabis remained Schedule I for decades while demonstrably more dangerous substances sat in lower schedules. The rescheduling of marijuana is happening now not because new research revealed it was safe, that research existed for years, but because the political coalition supporting legalization finally gained enough power.

The current psychedelic push follows the same pattern in reverse: a political coalition with access to executive power can move policy faster than any amount of clinical evidence flowing through official channels. Rogan’s podcast reaches millions; his text reached the president. That’s a more efficient pathway than publishing in Nature Medicine, however rigorous the methodology.

A September 2025 trip by American, British, and Canadian conservative influencers to Moldova and Moscow was absorbed into a Russian information operation targeting Moldova’s parliamentary elections, according to an investigation published this week by Alliance4Europe and VSquare.

The delegation — led by Charles Bausman, founder of the pro-Kremlin outlet Russia Insider — visited Moldova from September 14-16, then traveled to Moscow through September 23. Within days, their statements appeared in “Salt and Light,” a newspaper distributed across Moldova that authorities later identified as part of “Operation Matushka,” a persistent Russian disinformation campaign.

The report does not claim the influencers knowingly participated in election interference. But the timing and amplification pattern raise questions about how religious ultra-conservatives can be instrumentalized, wittingly or not, in foreign influence operations.

The mechanics of amplification

Moldovan police raided an unauthorized printing facility on September 23, confiscating over 200,000 copies of newspapers including Salt and Light’s Romanian and Russian editions. The publications contained “propagandistic content” designed to “destabilize the information space and incite on religious grounds,” according to the Chișinău Police Department’s investigation officer.

Salt and Light newspapers included QR codes linking to Telegram and Facebook accounts that initially shared religious content such as parish activities, quizzes and then shifted toward election messaging. One post described how the foreign bloggers were “shocked by certain reports of violations of believers’ rights and plan to bring them to the attention of a broad international audience.”

The Russian Orthodox Church acknowledged facilitating the Moscow segment through its Department for External Church Relations. A press release on the church’s website confirmed the delegation met with “representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church, state authorities, and public associations” and visited religious sites including the Trinity Lavra of St Sergius.

Who made the trip

The delegation included John-Henry Westen, CEO of LifeSiteNews, which joined the Pentagon press corps in October 2025 after major outlets withdrew over new access restrictions. Westen has appeared on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast and attended a “Catholic Prayer for Trump” gala at Mar-a-Lago in 2025.

James Delingpole, former editor of Breitbart London and columnist for The Telegraph and The Spectator, also participated. Conrad Franz, co-host of the World War Now podcast who previously worked for religious-right podcaster Steve Turley, discussed the trip on the Counterflow podcast, stating: “The Orthodox Church in Moldova, which is canonically under the Moscow patriarchate, they are being heavily persecuted by the state there.”

Bausman himself fled to Russia after attending the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot, leaving behind nearly $1 million in U.S. property, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. He has since appeared as a commentator on Tsargrad TV, owned by sanctioned Russian oligarch Konstantin Malofeev.

The sanctions connection

The investigation identified multiple links between delegation members and sanctioned Russian figures. Westen served on the CitizenGo Board of Trustees alongside Alexey Komov, a close associate of Malofeev who represents the World Congress of Families in Russia. Leaked emails suggest Bausman sought funding for Russia Insider from Malofeev through Komov, though Malofeev has denied financial connections.

Westen’s name appeared on a 2014 list of foreign participants in the Moscow Large Families Forum co-sponsored by Malofeev. According to leaked documents, his trip was partially funded by the Andrew the First-Called Foundation, led by sanctioned Russian oligarch Vladimir Yakunin.

The European Commission’s 2024 report on Moldova found that “religious freedom is generally respected” and identified no evidence of violations—contradicting the delegation’s central claim.

What came next

Moldova’s September 28 elections delivered the pro-European Party of Action and Solidarity a single-party majority with 50.2% of the vote. But the election occurred amid extensive interference: Moldovan authorities reported that tens of millions of dollars flowed from Russian bank Promsvyazbank to approximately 138,000 individuals — roughly 10% of the active electorate.

Operation Matushka, identified by EU DisinfoLab as connected to the larger Doppelgänger campaign run by sanctioned Russian companies Struktura and Social Design Agency, specializes in creating fake content that impersonates trusted sources. The operation has targeted 80 organizations across 10 countries and 10 languages, with activity intensifying around European elections.

After the Moscow visit, LifeSiteNews published an article describing Russia as “the leader of an ideological revolution” while “the West is sinking deeper into a spiritual crisis.” Westen gave an interview to SPAS TV, a Russian Orthodox Church-owned station sanctioned for spreading pro-Kremlin propaganda, which LifeSiteNews TV later promoted.

The pattern underneath

The case illustrates a recurring vulnerability: how genuine religious conviction can be channeled into geopolitical messaging without explicit coordination. The delegation members appear to have sincerely believed they were documenting religious persecution. The Russian Orthodox Church provided logistical support and amplification. Local networks then weaponized the resulting content in a coordinated information campaign.

None of the delegation members responded to requests for comment from investigators.

The Foreign Policy Research Institute notes that the Russian Orthodox Church “has become a central pillar of the Kremlin’s political and informational warfare strategy, shaping narratives by fusing spirituality with nationalism.” The Moldova operation demonstrates how this fusion operates across borders—turning American conservative media figures into inadvertent amplifiers of Kremlin messaging, whether or not they understand their role in the mechanism.

Tucker Carlson Network posted a claim this week that has circulated widely among commentators seeking interfaith common ground: “The people in charge don’t want you to know this, but Muslims love Jesus.”

The statement is technically true yet profoundly misleading. Islamic eschatology does revere Jesus (Isa in Arabic) as a “major prophet and messenger.” But the Jesus whom Muslims expect to return is not a savior. He is an enforcer: a figure who will abolish Christianity, subordinate himself to a different leader, and establish Islamic law as the sole legitimate religion.

This is not a semantic difference. It is a collision between two eschatologies that cannot be reconciled.

What Islamic Tradition Actually Says About Jesus’s Return

The belief in Jesus’s second coming is rooted in both the Quran and the hadith literature- collections of sayings attributed to Muhammad. According to Islamic teaching, Jesus was not crucified (Quran 4:157-158); God raised him to heaven later, and he will return to earth before the Day of Judgment.

But the mission he returns to complete is not the one Christians anticipate.

A widely cited hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari—one of Sunni Islam’s most authoritative collections states:

“The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax.”

The phrase “break the cross” is not metaphorical. Islamic scholars interpret it as Jesus actively invalidating Christianity by destroying its central symbol. According to a fatwa from IslamWeb, “He will allow breaking the crosses and prohibit owning them as a way of invalidating the Christian religion.”

The killing of pigs, animals forbidden in Islam, is understood similarly: a ritualistic repudiation of Christian practices. Together, these acts signal that Jesus’s return will mark the end of Christianity as a recognized faith- establishing Islam as the one true relgion.

Jesus Will Pray Behind the Mahdi—Not Rule

In Islamic eschatology, Jesus does not return as king. He returns as a deputy.

When Jesus descends, according to hadith narrated in Sunan Ibn Majah, he will arrive in Damascus at the time of morning prayer. The Muslims’ leader, a figure known as the Mahdi, will offer to let Jesus lead the prayer. But Jesus will refuse.

The hadith describes the exchange: Jesus will place his hand on the Mahdi’s shoulder and say, “Go forward and pray, for the Iqamah was given for you.”

This moment is theologically critical. Islamic scholars explain that Jesus prays behind the Mahdi to demonstrate that he is not bringing a new religious law (Sharia). His role is subordinate. He comes to enforce the Sharia of Muhammad- not his own.

“Jesus will be like the minister for Imam Mahdi,” one Shi’a theological source explains, “and his main mission will be to correct the dogma of Trinity and to clarify his humane personality and servitude to God.” Jesus will place the Madhi on the throne and serve him.

In Christian eschatology, Christ returns to reign from his throne in Jerusalem. In Islamic eschatology, he returns to serve- and to correct the error of Christendom.

The Core Theological Incompatibility

Islamic teaching is unambiguous: Jesus was never divine. The Quran explicitly rejects the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the claim that Jesus is the Son of God. When he returns, according to Islamic belief, one of his central tasks will be to deny those claims himself.

He will proclaim that he was never crucified, never resurrected in the Christian sense, and never divine. He will affirm that Muhammad, not himself, was the final and authoritative prophet.

Christians believe Jesus will return to establish His kingdom. Muslims believe he will return to dismantle the religion built in his name.

What About the Dajjal and Violence?

Islamic eschatology also teaches that Jesus will confront and kill the Dajjal—a false messiah figure often compared to the Antichrist. After defeating the Dajjal, hadith literature describes a period in which “Allah will defeat the Jews,” and trees and stones will call out to Muslims, saying, “O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”

Some Islamic scholars have contextualized these passages as referring to a specific eschatological battle rather than a blanket command. But the texts remain canonical, and their language is explicit.

Christians who convert to Islam during this period will be accepted. Those who do not will face a world in which, according to the hadith, the jizya tax, paid by non-Muslims living under Islamic rule, will be abolished because “there will be no excuse” for non-Muslims to remain outside Islam. Meaning convert or perish,

A Love That Demands Conversion

So yes: Muslims revere Jesus. They honor him as a prophet, believe in his miraculous birth, and await his return.

But the Jesus they await is a figure who will validate Islam, not Christianity. He will destroy the cross and teach salvation was never through him. He will enforce Islamic law, not establish a throne in Jerusalem. He will subordinate himself to the Mahdi, not reign as Lord.

To say “Muslims love Jesus” without clarifying what they believe about him is not interfaith dialogue. It is theological equivocation. And it obscures a fundamental truth: the Jesus of Islamic eschatology is not the Christ of Christianity. He is a different figure entirely- one whose return would mark not the fulfillment of Christian hope, but its definitive refutation.