Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

International

Nigeria better stop killing Christians — or America’s coming “guns-a-blazing”

Published

2 minute read

MXM logo MxM News

President Trump on Saturday warned that the United States military “may very well” launch an armed intervention in Nigeria if the government continues allowing the slaughter of Christians by radical Islamist groups — a stark escalation following his recent designation of the African nation as a “Country of Particular Concern.”

In a post on Truth Social, Trump directed the Department of War to “prepare for possible action,” warning Nigerian officials that Washington’s patience had run out. “If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria and may very well go into that now disgraced country, guns-a-blazing, to completely wipe out the Islamic terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities,” Trump wrote. He added that any American strike “will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our cherished Christians.”

The warning follows Trump’s declaration Friday that “Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria,” where thousands have been massacred by Islamist militants. He said the numbers were staggering — citing roughly 3,100 Christian deaths in Nigeria compared with about 4,476 worldwide — and ordered Rep. Riley Moore (R-W.Va.) and House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole (R-OK) to immediately investigate and report their findings. “Something must be done,” Trump wrote, calling the situation “a mass slaughter” and urging swift action.

Trump’s call to action has drawn praise from prominent voices. Rap mogul Nicki Minaj reposted Trump’s earlier remarks and said his attention to the plight of Nigerian Christians gave her a “deep sense of gratitude.” “We live in a country where we can freely worship God,” she wrote on X. “No group should ever be persecuted for practicing their religion.”

Trump’s increasingly forceful stance on Nigeria marks one of the clearest demonstrations yet of his promise to defend persecuted Christians worldwide — and to use America’s power, if necessary, to make that protection real.

Crime

Public Execution of Anti-Cartel Mayor in Michoacán Prompts U.S. Offer to Intervene Against Cartels

Published on

Sam Cooper's avatar Sam Cooper

“I don’t want to be just another mayor on the list of those executed”

On the first night of November, during Day of the Dead celebrations, the independent, anti-cartel mayor of Uruapan in Michoacán, Carlos Manzo, was assassinated in the heart of his city during a public festival. His bloody murder has underscored the deadly risks faced by local officials who may lack adequate protection from a state that critics say is corroded by corruption and penetrated by powerful cartel networks that, in some regions, have supplanted government authority. The killing intensifies urgent questions about political and police corruption, cartel impunity, and the scope of U.S.–Mexico security cooperation — with a response from the U.S. State Department today offering to “deepen security cooperation with Mexico.”

Manzo, a fiercely outspoken anti-cartel mayor who took office in 2024 as Uruapan’s first independent leader, was gunned down as he stood before crowds at the annual Day of the Dead candlelight celebration. Witnesses said gunfire erupted shortly after Manzo appeared onstage, holding his young son moments before the attack. The festival, known locally as the Festival de las Velas, drew hundreds of families to Uruapan’s central plaza — now transformed into the scene of Mexico’s latest high-profile political assassination, and a catalyst for nationwide outrage, as online protests surged and citizens called for demonstrations against cartel violence.

According to early reports, at least two suspects have been detained and one attacker was killed on site. Authorities asserted — despite the success of the attack — that Manzo had been under National Guard protection since December 2024, with additional reinforcements added in May 2025 following credible threats to his life.

In Washington today, the killing drew political reaction. “My thoughts are with the family and friends of Carlos Manzo, mayor of Uruapan, Michoacán, Mexico, who was assassinated at a public Day of the Dead celebration last night. The United States stands ready to deepen security cooperation with Mexico to wipe out organized crime on both sides of the border,” Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, the former U.S. ambassador to Mexico, said in a statement shared online.

Federal Security Minister Omar García Harfuch said the gunmen “took advantage of the vulnerability of a public event” to carry out the attack, despite a standing security perimeter.

President Claudia Sheinbaum condemned the killing as a “vile” assault on democracy and vowed there would be “zero impunity.” Her administration convened an emergency security meeting and pledged that the investigation would reach the “intellectual authors” of the crime. Yet the murder has already ignited outrage across Mexico over the government’s failure to protect local officials in cartel-dominated states such as Michoacán, where extortion, assassinations, and territorial disputes continue to erode basic governance.

Manzo had publicly warned of his fate. “I don’t want to be just another mayor on the list of those executed,” he said earlier this year, as he pressed the federal government for better coordination between municipal and military authorities. For years, Uruapan — an agricultural and trade hub in western Mexico — has been the site of deadly clashes between the Jalisco New Generation Cartel and remnants of the Knights Templar Organization, both vying to control lucrative extortion and drug routes.

The killing of Manzo fits a dark and familiar pattern. In 2025 alone, several mayors in Michoacán, Guerrero, and Tamaulipas have been killed in attacks widely attributed to organized-crime groups. In June, the mayors of Tepalcatepec and Tacámbaro were ambushed and slain while traveling in official convoys. More than 90 local officials have been murdered since 2018 — a rate that analysts say reflects how cartels target municipal governments to ensure political control over territories tied to narcotics, mining, and agriculture. Uruapan, at the heart of Mexico’s avocado belt, is a strategic prize for the cartels that tax every shipment leaving the region.

The mayor’s death also recalls earlier tragedies that scarred the nation. In 2012, Dr. María Santos Gorrostieta Salazar, the former mayor of Tiquicheo, was abducted and murdered after surviving two assassination attempts and defying cartel threats. Her death became emblematic of the dangers faced by reformers who refuse to cooperate with criminal groups. More than a decade later, Manzo’s murder illustrates that little has changed — except the brazenness of the attackers, now willing to strike in front of cameras and families celebrating one of Mexico’s most sacred holidays.

The killing has also reignited long-standing U.S. frustration over Mexico’s inability to stem cartel violence, even as the Trump administration has expanded counter-narcotics operations at the border. Under Trump’s renewed directives, the U.S. has classified several Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and empowered the Pentagon to develop strike options against high-value targets abroad. A September 2025 joint statement between Washington and Mexico City pledged deeper intelligence sharing and cross-border enforcement initiatives, including efforts to halt arms trafficking southward.

However, Mexico’s government remains deeply wary of any U.S. military involvement on its soil. President Sheinbaum has warned that “Mexico will not stand for an invasion in the name of counter-cartel operations,” rebuffing Republican calls for unilateral action. Her position lays bare a long-standing tension between Mexico’s need for U.S. support and its insistence on sovereignty — a fault line that Manzo’s killing has reignited.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

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

 

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Senate Grills Meta and Google Over Biden Administration’s Role in COVID-Era Content Censorship

Published on

logo

By

Lawmakers pressed Meta and Google to explain how far White House outreach went in shaping their censorship decisions.

A Senate hearing this week discussed government influence on online speech, as senior executives from Meta and Google faced questions about the Biden administration’s communications with their companies during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The session, titled “Part II of Shut Your App: How Uncle Sam Jawboned Big Tech Into Silencing Americans,” highlighted the growing concern in Washington over what lawmakers describe as government-driven pressure to suppress lawful expression.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who led the hearing, began by declaring that “the right to speak out is the foundation of a free society” and warning that “censorship around the world is growing.”
He accused the Biden administration of pushing technology companies to restrict Americans’ speech during the pandemic, and he faulted both the companies and Democrats for failing to resist that pressure.
“Today, we pick off where the story left off,” Cruz said, pointing to Meta and Google as examples of firms that “were pressured by the Biden administration to censor the American people.”
He pledged to introduce the Jawbone Act, which he said would “provide a robust right to redress when Americans are targeted by their own government.”
Markham Erickson, Google’s Vice President of Government Affairs and Public Policy, defended the company’s approach, emphasizing that its moderation decisions are guided by long-standing internal policies, not by government direction.
“While we are a company dedicated to the goal of making the world’s information universally accessible, that doesn’t mean that we don’t have certain rules,” Erickson said, citing restrictions on “terrorist content, child sexual abuse material, hate speech, and other harmful content.”
He acknowledged that officials in the Biden administration had contacted Google during the pandemic to urge the removal of certain COVID-19 content from YouTube.
But Erickson maintained that the company “develop[ed] and enforce[d] our policies independently” and “rejected suggestions that did not align with those policies.”
Erickson also alleged that Google has a record of resisting censorship demands from foreign governments, citing its refusal to remove politically sensitive videos in Russia despite threats of imprisonment against employees and fines “that exceed more than the world’s GDP.”
Neil Potts, Meta’s Vice President of Public Policy, took a more reflective stance.
He reiterated that Meta has a “foundational commitment to free expression” and acknowledged that the company had yielded to “repeated pressure” from the Biden White House to restrict COVID-related posts, including satire and humor.
“We believe that government pressure was wrong and wish we had been more outspoken about it,” Potts said. He added that Meta “should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any administration in either direction.”
Potts pointed to policy changes the company has made since then, such as ending its third-party fact-checking program, reducing restrictions on political topics, and adopting what he described as “a more personalized approach to political content.”
These steps, he said, were intended to “return to our ideals about free expression” and “allow for more speech.”
Senator Cruz pressed both executives on whether their companies regretted complying with government demands.
Potts responded that Meta “do[es] regret our actions for not speaking out more forcefully.”
Erickson, however, declined to use similar language, saying Google regularly receives “outreach from a lot of actors” and evaluates flagged material independently.
The exchange grew more pointed as Cruz questioned Google’s removal of a YouTube video that compiled election-fraud claims made by both major parties. Erickson conceded, “Yes, that is news,” when Cruz asked whether statements by presidential candidates about election integrity should be considered newsworthy.
But Erickson defended YouTube’s policies during the 2020 election, saying that after states had certified results, the company acted against “claims of widespread fraud” due to potential “real-world harm.”
Cruz accused Google of ideological bias and suggested the company was “unwilling to express regret for anything at all.”
He contrasted that with Meta’s statement of remorse and concluded that Google’s position reflected “a level of contempt for free speech that does not reflect well.”
Where Erickson had insisted that Google “continued to develop and enforce our policies independently,” the company’s letter to Congress acknowledged that “Senior Biden Administration officials, including White House officials, conducted repeated and sustained outreach” urging the removal of COVID-19 content that did not violate platform rules.
This was somewhat of a departure from the defensive posture Google maintained before the Senate.
You read Reclaim The Net because you believe in something deeper than headlines; you believe in the enduring values of free speech, individual liberty, and the right to privacy.
Every issue we publish is part of a larger fight: preserving the principles that built this country and protecting them from erosion in the digital age.
With your help, we can do more than simply hold the line: we can push back. We can shine a light on censorship, expose growing surveillance overreach, and give a voice to those being silenced.
If you’ve found any value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support helps us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this work.
Thank you for your support.
Continue Reading

Trending

X