International
DOJ orders grand jury investigation into Russiagate

Quick Hit:
Attorney General Pam Bondi has ordered a grand jury to investigate the Obama-era origins of the Trump-Russia collusion narrative following a criminal referral from DNI Tulsi Gabbard.
Key Details:
- Bondi personally instructed a federal prosecutor to present DOJ findings to a grand jury, according to a letter reviewed by Fox News Digital.
- The DOJ received Gabbard’s referral two weeks ago, which included a memo alleging intelligence was suppressed showing Russian cyberattacks did not impact the 2016 election.
- No indictments have been issued yet, and it’s unclear whether the probe will result in charges, as statutes of limitations may have expired for some of the conduct.
.@JonathanTurley on the Russiagate grand jury: "This is the first necessary step to finding out about the *real* Russian conspiracy. There never was a Russian collusion conspiracy; that was hatched by the Clinton campaign… It's amazing how much the public still doesn't know." pic.twitter.com/ukrCIPhFsn
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) August 4, 2025
Diving Deeper:
Attorney General Pam Bondi is directing the Department of Justice to move forward with a grand jury investigation into the origins of the Russia collusion narrative that dogged President Donald Trump’s first term. The action comes in response to a criminal referral submitted by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
According to a letter from Bondi reviewed by Fox News, the attorney general has ordered a federal prosecutor—whose name has not been made public—to begin grand jury proceedings and present relevant DOJ evidence. A spokesperson for the department declined to confirm the specific details but said Bondi is taking Gabbard’s referral “very seriously,” citing “clear cause for deep concern.”
The referral, sent to the DOJ two weeks ago, included a detailed memorandum titled “Intelligence Community suppression of intelligence showing ‘Russian and criminal actors did not impact’ the 2016 presidential election via cyber-attacks on infrastructure.” Gabbard requested that the department formally investigate what she described as an orchestrated campaign to falsely link Trump to Russia during and after the 2016 election.
Gabbard’s push gained traction after she declassified a set of intelligence records in July, pointing to what she says was a deliberate effort by the Obama administration to fabricate a narrative that Russia aided Trump’s rise to power. “Former President Barack Obama and his intelligence officials promoted a contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump win, selling it to the American people as though it were true. It wasn’t,” Gabbard said during a press briefing last month.
Among the newly declassified materials was a record of a December 2016 meeting in which Obama reportedly asked his deputies to compile an intelligence assessment identifying Russian “tools” and “actions” used to influence the election. While that assessment stated Russian activity did not affect the vote’s outcome, it emphasized that Russia aimed to sow distrust in the U.S. electoral process.
Gabbard contends this was the beginning of a broader disinformation strategy used to damage Trump and falsely justify subsequent investigations, including the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane probe and the special counsel investigations that followed.
It remains unclear who, if anyone, may face charges as a result of the grand jury probe. Much of the alleged misconduct occurred nearly a decade ago, raising questions about whether statutes of limitations may limit legal exposure for key players. Still, former Obama intelligence leaders like John Brennan, James Clapper, and James Comey have long faced scrutiny from Trump-aligned officials for their roles in shaping the original intelligence narrative.
This marks a significant turn as the DOJ appears to be taking steps to reexamine how the government’s most powerful agencies were used in the lead-up to and aftermath of the 2016 election.
espionage
Beijing’s Secret Biowar: National Security Experts Probe Fentanyl and Expanding Viral Bioweapons Program After COVID-19 Lab Leak

A new book argues that Beijing transformed a pandemic lab leak into a global field test — and is now accelerating bioweapons development and fentanyl production from Pakistan to Wuhan.
In 2022, synthetic opioids killed more than 75,000 Americans. But according to the authors of China’s Total War Strategy: Next-Generation Weapons of Mass Destruction, these fentanyl deaths were not simply the result of regulatory failures or a national addiction crisis. They were casualties in a covert biochemical war — one that Western governments remain unwilling to confront. This war, the authors argue, is not waged by rogue actors, but directed by the strategic command of the Chinese Communist Party, wielding an arsenal that includes fentanyl, cognitive warfare, genetically engineered viruses — including the bat coronavirus they say leaked accidentally from Wuhan and was later weaponized through statecraft — and a global criminal underworld mobilized as an instrument of policy.
“This is strategic activity that is driven by hostile state intent,” the authors write, referring to opioid trafficking networks that fuse China’s state-backed chemical supply chains with the industrial-scale production infrastructure of Mexican cartels.
They describe the fentanyl epidemic as “biochemical warfare against a highly clustered group of Western countries” — with the Five Eyes nations as primary targets — and argue that synthetic narcotics can no longer be viewed solely through the lens of organized crime. Instead, they should be understood as instruments in a state-enabled campaign of mass disruption orchestrated by Beijing.
Within the book’s evidentiary framework, China’s alleged fentanyl campaign — paired with the global consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic — emerges as the most consequential demonstration to date of what the authors describe as Beijing’s increasingly effective total war doctrine.
The thesis is unflinchingly dark, confrontational — and, to many readers, will seem conspiratorial. Yet the authors, a team of American national security and military intelligence veterans, construct their case with layers of evidence and the methods of intelligence tradecraft. They connect the Chinese Party-state’s export of fentanyl precursor chemicals and chemical engineering expertise to Mexican cartels, its cognitive warfare operations on Western social media platforms, and its role in the COVID-19 pandemic — forging these seemingly disparate elements into a predictive model of how the Chinese Communist Party is reengineering modern warfare.
This doctrine of clandestine total war, rooted in Chinese military texts, assumes that Beijing — which has signaled intentions to invade Taiwan as early as 2027 — cannot prevail in a conventional conflict against a coalition that may include the United States, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. Instead, the strategy prioritizes asymmetric, non-kinetic warfare designed to degrade an adversary’s societal resilience, probe its critical systems, and map its crisis response — all before open conflict begins.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Cognitive War and Elite Capture
The unfolding shadow war — and the development of next-generation clandestine weapons — is, the authors argue, being waged behind the smokescreen of foreign interference and influence operations. Total War Strategy outlines a multi-track offensive: some elements are deniable yet increasingly brazen and visible, while others remain deeply concealed and poorly understood.
The visible front includes familiar forms of state aggression — industrial espionage, economic coercion, transnational repression, intellectual property theft, election interference, and the covert financing of protest movements. The second, more insidious track, is cognitive warfare: the manipulation of information systems, digital platforms, and social media networks to fracture democratic cohesion and weaken public trust from within. China’s influence operations, according to the authors, serve not merely to shape narratives but to provide cover for far more dangerous strategic objectives.
They cite a pattern of “targeted influence campaigns to undermine, corrupt, persuade and destabilize regimes such as Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Panama, some European Union states and many Sub-Saharan African nations.” These efforts are complemented by sustained economic coercion, intimidation of diaspora communities, trafficking in weapons and narcotics, and the exploitation of academic and technological partnerships — all deployed as tools of indirect warfare.
“Such non-lethal efforts in unsuspecting societies and regimes often succeed,” the authors write, “because feckless leaders are too naive to grasp the insidious assassin’s mace approach.”
In this argument, fentanyl is a primary weapon — and states like Canada remain in denial about their institutional role in enabling the shift of Chinese production and trafficking routes.
Seen through the lens of North America’s fentanyl crisis — in which hundreds of thousands have died while policymakers continue to treat the emergency as a public health or law enforcement issue — the authors argue the Chinese Communist Party is already attacking Western defenses via transnational crime proxies.
“These hostile state extensions are engaged in biochemical warfare against a tightly clustered group of Western countries,” they write. “The effects have been devastating but are fragile and reversible once the massive information asymmetries regarding network structure are rebalanced. The successful collapse of these syndicates in the Five Eyes nations will reduce the likelihood of spread to other countries. The inverse is also true.”
The fentanyl trade, they argue, defies the logic of conventional criminal markets. Unlike heroin or cocaine, synthetic opioids annihilate their own user base. “Fentanyl-laced heroin does not generate a stable population of consumers,” they note, “given the high fatality rates of users.” In a rational market, a drug enterprise seeks to cultivate long-term demand. Fentanyl destroys it. And yet, production and distribution continue to scale exponentially.
Unlike traditional cartels, which can be disrupted through leadership arrests or financial seizures, a state-backed trafficking network is more resilient, adaptive, and strategically dangerous. The CCP’s role — supplying precursor chemicals, trafficking infrastructure, and, in some cases, managerial oversight — elevates the threat from criminal to geopolitical.
That threat, they note, is not evenly distributed. The most devastating effects of synthetic narcotics are concentrated in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance: the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Europe, despite its liberalized approach to drug markets, has seen no comparable surge in fentanyl fatalities — yet.
COVID-19: Accident Evolves into ‘Field Test’
The authors’ thesis is stark: China’s covert bioweapons program did not merely survive the COVID-19 pandemic — it accelerated, diversified, and deepened in its aftermath.
While much of the world remains fixated on the Wuhan Institute of Virology as the plausible origin point of the COVID-19 crisis, the authors caution that Wuhan was only one node in a vast and opaque network.
Drawing on open-source intelligence, forensic research, and a review of Chinese scientific literature, the authors contend that the Chinese Communist Party has dramatically expanded its clandestine biological weapons program across multiple pathogen types and geographic locations — including, notably, a military-linked facility in Islamabad, Pakistan. Their analysis synthesizes pre- and post-pandemic data, Chinese-language publications, patent filings, and sensitive research documents — some of which disappeared from public access shortly after surfacing.
To build their case, the authors first established a pre-COVID baseline of biological research activity in China, then overlaid post-pandemic developments. What emerges, they argue, is a sprawling, dual-use biological weapons network spanning labs in Wuhan, Harbin, and Beijing — embedded within China’s vast research infrastructure and operated under both civilian and military auspices. Their findings surpass what has been publicly disclosed by Western governments, though they align with intelligence assessments from the United Kingdom, Germany, the FBI, and now the CIA.
According to the authors, the original SARS-CoV-2 outbreak was the result of an accidental lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in late 2019. They tie the incident to a long-documented pattern of high-risk bat coronavirus gain-of-function experiments conducted at the institute — many of which, they argue, fall within the broader scope of the People’s Liberation Army’s biological warfare program. That program, they assert, enjoys top-level political and military protection from Major General Chen Wei — a senior figure in the CCP’s elite scientific apparatus — whose subordinates have collaborated freely with researchers in Canada and the United States under the guise of pandemic preparedness.
This claim aligns with intelligence findings from CSIS, Canada’s national security agency, and several of its Five Eyes counterparts. But the authors go further: they assert that rather than responding transparently to the accidental lab leak in Wuhan, the Chinese regime quickly adapted — transforming a domestic crisis into a global strategic opportunity.
According to their analysis, CCP-linked intelligence services closely monitored how other nations — including the United States and its allies — responded to the pandemic across public health, economic, and defense sectors. This real-time surveillance, the authors suggest, turned COVID-19 into a de facto field test: a live demonstration of how resilient the West would be in the face of sudden, high-impact biological disruption — and how such disruption could be exploited.
Crucially, they stress that China’s bioweapons research is not limited to coronaviruses. On the far more dangerous end of the threat spectrum, they say, the CCP is pursuing weaponization of high-fatality pathogens such as Nipah virus and African swine fever. Even within the SARS-CoV-2 family, the work continues. One January 2024 study, cited by the authors, describes a new synthetic variant engineered at the Beijing University of Chemical Technology — work they suggest poses even greater risks than the original pandemic strain.
Perhaps most alarming is the convergence they document between genetic engineering and delivery technologies. The CCP, the authors assert, is pairing its pathogen research with advanced nanotechnology platforms — opening the door to next-generation weapons that are more targeted, more concealable, and far more difficult to defend against. Supporting evidence includes experimental data and patent filings that demonstrate efforts to bind engineered viruses with nanoparticles designed for precise delivery.
Even if only portions of the authors’ findings and predictions prove accurate, the book’s well-supported claims suggest that governments — from Washington to Taipei, Berlin, Ottawa, and Canberra — should be urgently educating their populations about the realities of hybrid warfare campaigns waged by Beijing and other hostile states. At a minimum, they should be intensifying preparations for the plausible — if nightmarish — scenarios that Total War Strategy outlines.
With millions already dead since 2020 from the bat coronavirus pandemic and the fentanyl epidemic — both of which, even the most cautious experts acknowledge, trace back to Chinese sources, whether intentionally produced or not — anything less than a serious, studied response to the theory and evidence presented in Total War Strategy would constitute a dangerous dereliction of duty.
Authors Dr. Ryan Clarke, LJ Eads, Dr. Robert McCreight, and Dr. Xiaoxu Lin are national security experts with diverse government and professional backgrounds, and co-founders of the CCP BioThreats Initiative.
Daily Caller
Big Tech Cover-Up: Google distorts search results to protect Obama

Quick Hit:
Google is under fire after a new study revealed it buried Tulsi Gabbard’s bombshell claims that Barack Obama fabricated Trump-Russia intel—flooding search results with leftist attacks and downplaying the story to protect the former president.
Key Details:
- DNI Tulsi Gabbard accused Obama of fabricating intelligence to bolster the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.
- Google News allegedly buried Gabbard’s exposé by promoting stories attacking her instead of covering her claims.
- MRC found that 90% of Google’s promoted coverage came from left-leaning outlets, leaving just 10% for right-leaning perspectives—almost exclusively Fox News.
Diving Deeper:
During a July 23 press briefing, Tulsi Gabbard revealed explosive allegations against the Obama administration, accusing the former president of overriding intelligence assessments that found no Russian interference favoring Donald Trump in 2016. According to Gabbard, Obama “manipulated” the intelligence community to promote a “contrived narrative,” aimed at undermining Trump and, by extension, the will of American voters.
But rather than spotlighting the story’s significance, Google appeared to move swiftly to suppress it. As the MRC study shows, Google’s News tab was flooded with coverage designed to discredit Gabbard—many articles outright calling her a liar or suggesting she was distracting from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. One article from The Atlantic branded Trump’s public support for her findings as “desperate,” while others derided her evidence as “thin gruel” or claimed she was trying to “rewrite history.”
A closer look at Google’s search results between July 24 and July 29 paints a troubling picture. The MRC analyzed the first page of results for the term “Tulsi Gabbard” and found that out of 42 articles, 33 were from outlets classified by AllSides as “Lean Left” or “Left.” Only four were from right-leaning sources—and all four came from a single outlet: Fox News. Three of those Fox articles focused not on Gabbard’s claims, but on attacks against her, often echoing Democratic Party criticism.
MRC highlighted how even these rare conservative pieces offered little defense of Gabbard’s findings. One article simply quoted Rep. Adam Schiff dismissing the accusations as “dishonest.” Others featured video clips of NBC’s Kristen Welker pressing GOP figures like Sen. Lindsey Graham about the credibility of Gabbard’s claims. Only one article directly addressed the substance of her evidence.
Meanwhile, prominent left-leaning outlets featured in Google’s curated feed pushed narratives designed to ridicule or minimize the allegations. MSNBC dismissed her claims as “absurd,” while Politico suggested Gabbard had become a “weapon” for President Trump. CNN accused her of attempting to “rewrite history,” and FactCheck.org labeled her statements “misleading.”
The implications go beyond this single controversy. A 2021 Pew Research Center study found that two-thirds of Americans rely on search engines like Google for their news. This means most Americans are receiving information that has been filtered through what critics argue is an increasingly leftist editorial algorithm.
By not allowing a diversity of viewpoints on such a critical national security issue—especially one involving a former president—Google’s conduct raises serious concerns about media bias and the integrity of information distribution. While it is unsurprising to see The New York Times or CNN toe the DNC line, the monopoly Google holds over digital search amplifies this bias into something far more powerful and dangerous.
The episode underscores a growing divide in how news is curated and presented online. For conservative Americans, it also reinforces a longstanding suspicion: Big Tech is not just biased—it’s actively working to sanitize narratives unfavorable to the Democratic Party.
In this case, shielding Obama and undermining a sitting Trump administration official.
-
Economy23 hours ago
Canada’s Lost Energy Decade!
-
Alberta9 hours ago
Alberta health system accused of pressuring women to abort babies with Down syndrome
-
Business1 day ago
Canada’s housing density dilemma
-
Daily Caller10 hours ago
Big Tech Cover-Up: Google distorts search results to protect Obama
-
Business1 day ago
Carney can rescue health care by loosening restrictions of the Canada Health Act
-
Business1 day ago
Carney’s Move to Strip Religious Charities Undermines Canada’s Foundations, Liberal Elder Warns
-
Economy20 hours ago
Roadmap to Canadian energy superpowerdom
-
Daily Caller10 hours ago
DOJ Charges Foreign Nationals With Providing Key Tech To CCP