Connect with us

espionage

Calling It: America Just Suffered the First Terror Attack by a Border-Crossing Illegal Alien

Published

9 minute read

From the Center for Immigration Studies

By Todd Bensman

Go ahead Biden and friends, prove me wrong

By refusing repeated chances to simply rule out a terrorism motive for a May 3 truck-breaching attack on the Quantico Marine Corps base, the Biden administration and all involved agencies have essentially confirmed one of America’s worst — and most politically consequential — nightmares related to the ongoing border crisis. A terror attack emanating from an illegal Southwest Border crossing just happened, and since that precedent is now established, more are likely on the way.

In my reasoned opinion, a Jordanian immigrant who illegally crossed the Southwest Border from Mexico finally staged the first known terrorism attack on U.S. soil on May 3 after having accessed the target from the Mexican border.

To date, the government will only confirm the border-crossing Jordanian joined with another illegally present Jordanian, who overstayed a student visa, and together posed as Amazon deliverymen in a large box truck, then tried to plow it through the gates of Quantico, which houses the FBI training academy, military officer training schools, and military criminal investigations and intelligence commands.

Quick-thinking military police thwarted the attack and charged the men with trespassing before turning them over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The government didn’t offer a word about this incident until Potomac Local News’ Kelly Sienkowski initially broke the story and provided the politically explosive elements that one of the Jordanians had crossed the southern border first and that one was on the FBI terrorism watch list.

After I amplified the Potomac Local News story in a May 13 New York Post column demanding to know more, some scattered conservative media outlets, broadcasters, and law-makers joined in the quest for an answer to the main question: Was this a terror attack by a border-crossing extremist? But the administration’s coordinated refusal to address the terrorism aspects led me — and should lead everyone else — to the conclusion that it most definitely was a terror attack by a border-crossing “special interest alien”.

I base my reasoned conclusion that a border-crossing terrorist did finally strike — a fear that has gone unconsummated and often ridiculed since 9/11 — in part on repeated refusals by the White House, the Department of Defense, the FBI, and ICE to address terrorism as the motive.

Consider that since the 9/11 attacks federal authorities and the American people have enjoyed a kind of public compact that now stands broken. It is that the government almost always clarifies to the American public whether its top counterterrorism professionals regard initially ambiguous attacks as motivated by international or domestic terrorism — or not — and often a thumbs up or down as to whether the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force was investigating.

But the Biden administration will not engage in this one rare case, a startling break with post-9/11 tradition.

I believe the reason Biden’s people won’t acknowledge the first-ever border-crossing terror attack attempts to serve political aims, at the expense of public safety. They know that acknowledging a terror attack from the border crisis would further damage a Biden re-election campaign that is already suffering dearly from it.

Much recent polling shows the border crisis and its attendant national security fears constitute a major political vulnerability for the Biden re-election campaign for which voters already plan to punish Biden and reward Donald Trump. The border crisis could swing the election already, and now come credible reports that at least one Jordanian border-crosser just tried to ram a huge truck through an important military and law enforcement installation.

Any official acknowledgement that it was done for the global jihad delivers a giant new sledgehammer at the doorstep of Trump’s campaign headquarters.

But more logic undergirds my conclusion that a border-crossing terrorist just struck for the first time due to the border crisis.

It’s that the Biden administration will not rule it out even though doing so would quickly end the political threat to Biden’s reelection. A rule-out would quickly send packing people like me and assure the story can never grow into a Trump sledgehammer. With a simple rule-out, we all just disappear, and columns like this never get written.

I believe the Biden administration won’t rule out terrorism because they know the May 3 attempted truck ramming was a terrorism attack, and officials are not willing to risk impugning themselves by publicly saying otherwise.

In lockstep, the DOD, FBI, and ICE have all refused to rule out terrorism as a motive.

“ICE confirms attack on Quantico; Ignores questions on terrorist threat”, reads the headline on one of Sienkowski’s  follow-up report a full 14 days after the terror attack. Fox News’ Doug Doocy got the same response when he asked the ICE commissioner the question. An FBI spokesperson in the northern Virginia field office refused to confirm or deny investigative interest in the matter, Sienkowski told me in a phone interview.

Not even the White House would reap the advantage of an official “terrorism-ruled-out” when Fox News’s Doocy  pressed White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre if the White House would characterize what happened as a “failed terror attack”.

“Given that it is an active law enforcement matter, I would have to refer you to ICE,” she replied. “I just can’t dive into that, again, because there is a law enforcement matter.”

That dodge is, in my view, as good as confirmation, considering all the circumstances.

Finally, I know this was a terror attack — the first ever by an extremist border-crosser from the Middle East — because Karine Jean-Pierre and all these agencies are in lockstep on the messaging and strategy of neither confirming nor denying or ruling out terrorism. That means a whole lot of high-level talking and coordination went on because … they know it was a terror attack and that great electoral danger resides in that reality.

This rare government refusal to say “terrorism” also suggests top Biden administration and campaign brass devised a strategy to hope against hope that legacy media won’t pick up this story. That it will all be forgotten. And that Trump will never realize he has in hand a sledgehammer for the first televised debate.

But those who care about the national security threat that Biden’s open-borders policy has created are not going away until his administration publicly goes on record ruling out a terrorism motive. Certainly not Texas Rep. Chip Roy and the dozen congressmen who just sent a letter demanding answers about the attack. Not me. And not Potomac Local News’ Kelly Sienkowski, she tells me.

The American people have a right and need to know that a border-crosser has just conducted the first terror attack on U.S. soil, just like those who have fretted about such a thing for three years worried would happen.

Government failure to acknowledge, willingly publicize, and fix that problem — in favor of selfish political gain — will only aid and abet new attacks, some of which U.S. Marines may not be able to thwart.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Crime

Canadian Sovereignty at Stake: Stunning Testimony at Security Hearing in Ottawa from Sam Cooper

Published on

Canada’s Border Vulnerabilities: Confronting Transnational Crime and Legal Failures

The Bureau has chosen to publish the full opening statement of founder Sam Cooper before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, during the session titled “Canada–United States Border Management,” held on Tuesday, October 7, 2025, and webcast live at https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/Meetings  (Opening statement from Sam Cooper begins at 11:11:23)

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/Meetings?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

OTTAWA Thank you for inviting a journalist to address lawmakers on a subject of extraordinary national importance. Tens of thousands of lives, our livelihoods, and our sovereignty are at stake.

I offer these remarks and recommendations with humility. I’m still learning every day. I speak regularly with numerous law-enforcement and security professionals in both the United States and Canada. For over a decade, I’ve focused professionally on the threats that transnational crime poses to Canada’s borders, institutions, and people, alongside deep reporting on our financial and legal vulnerabilities to threat networks that often include ties to hostile state activity. Canada’s recent terror designation of the India-based Bishnoi gang is important. But that particular action recognizes only one facet of the many-sided transnational fentanyl, human-trafficking, Chinese-supplied chemical precursor, weapons-trafficking, terror and extremism threats that I will discuss today.

Across hundreds of interviews with Canadian and U.S. experts, I have come to a conclusion: many Canadians — including citizens, lawmakers, and judges — do not yet fully understand the scope and nature of the problem, and also seem defensive in engaging it. And if we don’t understand it, we cannot solve it.

In these politically divisive times, I hope I can add value by relaying, clearly and fairly, what professionals on both sides of the border are saying about the cultural, legal, and political differences that impede cooperation between the United States and Canada. My reporting has emphasized Canadian enforcement challenges — not to be unduly critical of my homeland, but because I think we should focus first on the levers we control, and reforms we should have already tackled decades ago.

This isn’t my opinion only. As you know, Canadian Association Police Chiefs president Thomas Carrique recently warned that police are being asked to confront a new wave of transnational threats with “outdated and inadequate” laws “never designed to address today’s criminal landscape.” He added that Canada would have been far better positioned to “disrupt” organized crime had Ottawa acted on reforms first recommended in the early 2000s.

As RCMP Assistant Commissioner David Teboul said this year after the discovery of major fentanyl labs in British Columbia — notable for their commercial-grade chemistry equipment and scientific expertise — “There’s a need for legislative reform around how such equipment and precursor chemicals can be obtained.” More border regulations could help, but will not be sufficient absent foundational legal change.

It has long been my experience in discussions with senior U.S. enforcement experts that American and Australian police can collaborate effectively because the two nations are able to authorize wiretaps on dangerous transnational suspects within days. In Canada, that speed is impossible, and it has become a major obstacle.

As former RCMP investigator Calvin Chrustie testified before British Columbia’s Cullen Commission several years ago, due to judicial blockages arising from Charter of Rights rulings, it had become practically impossible to obtain timely wiretaps on Sinaloa Cartel targets in Vancouver. In recent years, such delays in sensitive investigations have undermined cooperation between the RCMP and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in major cases of fentanyl trafficking and drug money laundering. In 2017, I was personally alerted to these longstanding concerns about the breakdown in RCMP–DEA cooperation by a U.S. State Department official.

These impeded investigations have involved the upper echelons of Chinese Triads, which maintain deep global leadership in Canada and align with Chinese state-interference networks, as well as senior Iranian and Hezbollah-linked networks operating here. Both networks are engaged in fentanyl trafficking and money laundering in collaboration with Mexican cartels active in Canada.

Canada must urgently reform what it can fix on our side.

My first recommendation is this — there is no “low-hanging fruit.” I have not spoken to a single knowledgeable Canadian officer — current or former — who believes that simply spending more on personnel, equipment, training, or border staffing will solve this. What I hear is that, from ten to twenty years ago, before the evolution of Charter-driven disclosure and delay jurisprudence in Canada, our nations enjoyed a much closer enforcement relationship. Experts point above all to two Supreme Court rulings — Stinchcombe and Jordan — as the core legal obstacles. Our Stinchcombe disclosure standards and Jordan time restrictions, as applied, disincentivize complex, multi-jurisdictional cases and deter U.S. partners from sharing sensitive intelligence that could be exposed in open court. Veterans describe enterprise files stalling for lack of approvals or because specialized techniques are denied. When police and prosecutors anticipate disclosure fights they cannot resource — and trial deadlines they cannot meet — the rational choice is to avoid the fight altogether.

I can explain in greater detail, but without question these rulings have devastated Canada’s ability to prosecute sophisticated organized crime. The result is a vicious circle of non-prosecution and impunity. To deny the need for deep legal reform is to deny the depth of the problem.

To sum up, my reporting at The Bureau has highlighted interlocking failures — legal, political, and bureaucratic — that have turned Canada into a permissive platform for synthetic narcotics and criminal finance, badly misaligning us with our Five Eyes law-enforcement and intelligence partners, and bringing us to the brink of a rupture with the United States.

Thanks for your attention, Chairman and Members.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

espionage

Canada’s federal election in April saw ‘small scale’ foreign meddling: gov’t watchdog

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

A new exposé by investigative journalist Sam Cooper claims there is compelling evidence that Prime Minister Mark Carney and former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau are strongly influenced by an “elite network” of foreign actors, including those with ties to communist China and the World Economic Forum.

A report from a federal watchdog confirmed that foreign meddling did occur in Canada’s April 2025 federal election on a “small scale.”

Canada’s Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections Task Force (SITE TF) said in a recent note that the “small-scale” interference that happened was hard to attribute to one particular state actor.

The task force does have the power to warn of any threats during an election. It did not do so this year despite warnings from opposition Conservatives that meddling at the hands of Communist China is a reality.

“Over the course of the election period, the SITE TF observed instances of foreign interference such as transnational repression, inauthentic and coordinated amplification of online content, and online threats such as scams and disinformation,” the report’s conclusion reads.

“These activities were observed at a small scale and often remain difficult to attribute to a foreign actor.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, election interference from China’s Communist Chinese Party (CCP) government has been a real issue in Canada in recent years.

In March, the SITE TF warned that the CCP government would most likely try to interfere in Canada’s federal election.

When it comes to the integrity of elections in Canada, there have been reported issues of meddling at the hands of foreign powers.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, a new exposé by investigative journalist Sam Cooper claims there is compelling evidence that Prime Minister Mark Carney and former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau are strongly influenced by an “elite network” of foreign actors, including those with ties to communist China and the World Economic Forum.

The commission was formed after Trudeau’s special rapporteur, former Governor General David Johnston, failed in an investigation into CCP allegations after much delay. That inquiry was not done in public and was headed by Johnston, who is a “family friend” of Trudeau.

Johnston quit as “special rapporteur” after a public outcry following his conclusion that there should not be a public inquiry into the matter. Conservative MPs demanded Johnston be replaced over his ties to China and the Trudeau family.

Continue Reading

Trending

X