The United States has sold arms to Taiwan for decades. China has protested every time.

Beijing routinely condemns the transfers as interference in its internal affairs and demands an immediate halt. Statements from the Chinese Foreign Ministry often arrive within hours, followed by sanctions against American defense firms and warnings of serious consequences.

That pattern has remained consistent across multiple administrations. It continues today, but tensions are rising faster than before.

The latest major weapons package reached Congress on December 17, 2025. Valued at more than eleven billion dollars, the sale covered eight separate defense cases and represented one of the largest Taiwan arms notifications in recent years.

The package included eighty-two High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, four hundred twenty Army Tactical Missile Systems, sixty M109A7 self-propelled howitzers, ALTIUS loitering munitions, Javelin missiles, TOW missiles, Harpoon support equipment, and helicopter spare parts. Taiwanese officials described the systems as critical to the island’s asymmetric defense strategy.

China reacted immediately.

Beijing accused Washington of encouraging Taiwanese separatism and undermining regional stability. Chinese authorities sanctioned more than 20 American defense contractors and 10 senior executives, freezing assets in China and prohibiting business activity with Chinese entities.

The response did not stop there.

Before the end of the year, the People’s Liberation Army launched major military exercises around Taiwan, widely viewed as a direct warning to both Taipei and Washington. Even a smaller package of aircraft parts approved in November 2025 triggered similar outrage from Chinese officials.

Now another fourteen-billion-dollar package is reportedly moving forward.

Subscribe now

Taiwan’s legislature has already funded the proposal, which emphasizes advanced missile interceptors and counter-drone systems. President Trump has suggested portions of future arms sales could serve as leverage in broader negotiations with Beijing. At the same time, administration officials insist the overall U.S. position remains unchanged. Deliveries continue accelerating in 2026, with the total value of approved but undelivered weapons now nearing thirty-two billion dollars.

Last week, President Trump met Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing during a summit held from May 13 through May 15. Taiwan reportedly dominated much of the discussion.

Xi described Taiwan as the most important issue in U.S.-China relations and warned that mishandling the matter could lead to direct clashes and even broader conflict. He stated plainly that Taiwan independence and peace across the Taiwan Strait “remain irreconcilable.”

President Trump later discussed the exchange aboard Air Force One.

According to the president, the two leaders discussed Taiwan's arms purchases and the growing military tensions surrounding the island. Trump offered no firm commitments regarding future weapons transfers but described the pending package as a significant negotiating tool. He also emphasized that he was not seeking a declaration of Taiwanese independence and urged both sides to reduce tensions.

“A war nine thousand five hundred miles away holds no appeal for me,” Trump reportedly told reporters.

Administration officials quickly reinforced the White House position.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that U.S. policy toward Taiwan remains unchanged and warned that any Chinese military action against the island would amount to a “terrible mistake.” The administration reiterated its support for maintaining stability and preserving the status quo across the Taiwan Strait.

Meanwhile, China continues preparing for the possibility of military action.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has repeatedly instructed the People’s Liberation Army to accelerate readiness for a potential seizure of Taiwan. U.S. military and intelligence officials have warned for years that Beijing’s timeline for possible action appears to be narrowing.

On May 20, House Select Committee on China Chairman John Moolenaar defended the continued arms transfers during an appearance on Fox News.

Moolenaar pointed to the Taiwan Relations Act, which obligates the United States to assist Taiwan in maintaining a sufficient self-defense capability. He argued that arming Taiwan remains the clearest path to preserving peace and preventing Beijing from altering the balance of power by force.

The broader framework itself has not changed.

Congress and the White House continue to operate under the same longstanding policy framework that has governed Taiwan relations for decades. Bipartisan support remains strong. Weapons approvals continue moving forward. China continues to issue threats, impose sanctions, and stage military demonstrations in response.

The cycle repeats itself with increasing intensity.

The United States sells arms to Taiwan. China protests. Military drills follow. Deliveries proceed anyway. Deterrence depends on visible capability, and peace depends on whether that balance can hold.

Share

Leave a comment

Dr. Alexis “Alex” Littlefield, a former Chief of Staff for Christian Action Network, holds a PhD in International Politics and has coordinated high-profile events with congressional staff and administration officials, including assistant secretaries and agency heads. Subscribe to his personal Substack page.

Inter-dimensional entities? What are they? We have answers.

Four types of alien species: Greys. Nordics. Reptilians. Insectoids.

Strange phenomena in the Bible.

Where is God in all this?

Last week, inside a packed congressional hearing room in Washington, something remarkable happened.

Members of Congress weren’t debating taxes, border funding, or foreign wars.

They were debating whether America itself is strong enough to withstand an ideology many lawmakers say is quietly building parallel systems inside our own communities.

The hearing was titled:

“Sharia-Free America: Why Political Islam & Sharia Law are Incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, Part II.”

Subscribe now

And from the opening gavel, sparks flew.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) warned that America faces what he called an “existential threat” from political Islam, arguing that Sharia is not simply a faith tradition, but a governing system fundamentally incompatible with constitutional liberty.

Across the aisle, Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA) fired back, calling the hearing “fearmongering” and accusing Republicans of scapegoating Muslim Americans for political gain.

Then things escalated even further when Jamie Raskin (D-MD) turned the hearing into a constitutional showdown over the First Amendment, America’s Christian heritage, and whether Congress is chasing real threats or manufacturing them.

By the end of the hearing, one question remained:

Was Congress exposing a legitimate national security concern, or was America watching yet another battle over what kind of nation we are becoming?

That question became impossible to ignore as witness after witness took the microphone.

One witness described what she claimed were growing Islamic enclaves in states like Texas and Florida. Another pointed to religious arbitration systems, arguing that Americans should be deeply concerned anytime any parallel legal structure, religious or otherwise, begins operating outside the constitutional safeguards of due process and equal protection.

Then came one of the hearing’s most unexpected moments.

A 16-year-old student from Texas testified that his public high school allowed outside Islamic organizations to distribute literature about Sharia during school hours, while, according to his testimony, his own conservative student organization faced resistance and heightened scrutiny from administrators. Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, his testimony shifted the room from abstract legal theory to a much more emotional question:

What exactly is being taught to America’s children, and who decides where religious education ends and ideological activism begins?

But Democrats on the committee pushed back hard.

Representative Raskin argued that America already solved this problem more than two centuries ago through the First Amendment. Murder is already illegal. Fraud is already illegal. Coercion is already illegal. Abuse is already illegal. If someone commits a crime in the name of religion, he argued, the law already knows how to handle it.

And in fairness, that argument carries weight.

America does not have one set of laws for Christians, another for Muslims, another for Jews, or another for atheists. The genius of the Constitution is that it places every citizen under the same civil authority.

But that is where the hearing exposed something deeper than a disagreement over Sharia.

It exposed a growing divide over the very identity of America itself.

Is America simply a secular constitutional republic where faith remains a private matter?

Or is America, as many conservatives still believe, a nation whose freedoms were shaped by deeply rooted Judeo-Christian principles that must be openly defended if liberty is to survive?

That tension erupted when the young student witness reminded the committee that many of America’s founders were churchgoing Christians, and that the nation’s moral framework did not appear by accident.

In that moment, the hearing stopped being about Islam.

It became about Christianity.

It became about whether America still has the courage to acknowledge its spiritual inheritance, or whether even mentioning that inheritance is now treated as suspect in the halls of Congress.

And perhaps that is why this hearing matters far beyond Washington.

Because whether the threat comes from political Islam, militant secularism, government overreach, or a culture increasingly ashamed of its own roots, the deeper battle remains the same:

Can a nation preserve its constitutional freedoms after it forgets the moral foundations that gave birth to them?

That may be the real question Congress accidentally forced America to confront last week.

Martin Mawyer is the founder of the Digital Intelligence Project and the President of Christian Action Network. He is the host of the “Shout Out Patriots” podcast, and author of When Evil Stops Hiding. For more action alerts, cultural commentary, and real-world campaigns defending faith, family, and freedom, subscribe to Patriot Majority Report.

For a long time, artificial intelligence felt like a distant issue.

It sounded like something for Silicon Valley engineers, science fiction writers, or investors looking for the next big thing. Most Christians understandably viewed it as just another new technology — impressive, perhaps useful, maybe even overhyped, but not particularly spiritual in nature.

That assumption no longer holds.

Over the past several years, we have learned something important. AI is not just changing how people work. It is changing how people perceive truth, how institutions exercise power, how nations monitor populations, and how humanity increasingly imagines salvation without God.

What once looked like innovation is beginning to look like infrastructure.

And Christians need to understand what kind of infrastructure is being built.

This is not about claiming every new app is demonic. It is not about panicking over every chatbot, robot, or headline. It is about recognizing patterns.

It is about paying attention to the direction of the world. And it is about measuring technological developments against biblical warnings, rather than against the marketing language of corporations and politicians.

Technology itself is not the enemy. A hammer can build a church or break a window. Artificial intelligence is no different. In the hands of faithful believers, it can help pastors organize knowledge, preserve biblical teaching, strengthen communication, and serve the body of Christ.

But in the hands of fallen men, or systems divorced from truth, the same technology can become a force for deception, manipulation, and control.

The issue is not whether AI exists. The issue is who shapes it, what spirit guides it, and what authority it ultimately serves.

If the last few years have taught us anything, it is this:

The greatest danger of AI is not merely what it can do. It is the kind of world it is preparing people to accept.

The First Lesson: Deception Is Scaling

For most of history, deception had limits.

A liar could only speak to so many people. A propagandist could only print so many leaflets. A false teacher could only reach whatever room, church, city, or kingdom was within range.

AI changes that.

Now deception can be personalized, automated, multiplied, and distributed at a scale previous generations could not have imagined.

Machines can generate false images, voices, videos, articles, personas, and narratives in seconds. They can imitate familiarity, authority, emotion, and confidence. They can create the appearance of truth even when none exists.

This matters spiritually.

Scripture repeatedly warns that the final age will be marked by deception. Not only wickedness. Not only violence. But Deception. Counterfeit power. False signs. False confidence. Convincing lies.

That is what makes AI so dangerous.

Its greatest threat may not be that it becomes alive. Its greatest threat may be that it becomes believable.

A machine does not need a soul to deceive. It only needs a convincing imitation of intelligence. It only needs to sound wise. It only needs to appear informed. It only needs to answer quickly, confidently, and persuasively enough that people begin to trust the output more than they trust Scripture, conscience, or the voice of God.

That is not a minor cultural shift. That is a civilizational threat.

The Second Lesson: The World Is Building the Scaffolding for Control

When most people think about end-times control, they imagine some dramatic moment in the future when freedom suddenly disappears.

But systems of control do not arrive all at once. They are built gradually. They are normalized piece by piece. They are sold as convenience, safety, efficiency, and progress.

Over the past several years, we have watched the scaffolding go up all around us.

Digital identity systems.
AI-driven surveillance.
Facial recognition.
Predictive policing.
Behavioral monitoring.
Speech moderation systems.
Algorithmic control over what people see, hear, and believe.
Growing pressure to centralize information, finance, credentials, and access inside digital systems.

Each development is often presented as neutral. Sometimes even compassionate. But taken together, they reveal something much larger than a set of disconnected innovations.

They reveal a world being engineered for visibility, traceability, and compliance.

Christians should pay attention to that.

The Bible describes a future in which power over commerce, allegiance, and public life becomes centralized in unprecedented ways. For years, many people wondered how such a system could ever function on a global scale.

That question is becoming easier to answer.

AI is making it administratively possible.

AI is not the whole system by itself. But it may be the glue that binds the system together.

Subscribe now

Read more

If this were the 1950s, the two men recently arrested in New York would have made national headlines.

Parents would be calling friends, warning neighbors, whispering about a depravity so dark they’d hesitate to even say its name out loud.

And they wouldn’t be far off.

Because what federal authorities are now confirming is not just another criminal case. It is the exposure of something far more organized, far more calculated, and far more dangerous than most Americans are prepared to face.

Two men. Two arrests. That’s the headline.

But today, it barely registers.

No shock. No alarm. Just another passing story in a country that has seen so much darkness, it no longer recognizes it when it’s staring straight back at us.

Satan is never mentioned.

Even though his fingerprints are all over these crimes.

Aaron Corey, known online as “Baggeth,” and Ryan Catello, who allegedly operated under names like “Stabzone” and “Mors,” now face federal charges tied to the exploitation of minors.

On the surface, it looks like what we’ve seen before. Predators are using the internet to target children.

But that’s not what this is.

According to federal investigators, both men are connected to a network known as “764,” which the FBI describes as a transnational network of nihilistic violent extremists that frequently incorporates Satanic ideology and symbolism.

This group doesn’t just exploit children.

It systematically targets them, grooms them, and pulls them into a pipeline of escalating abuse and violence.

That word matters: Pipeline.

It’s built on chaos, with the aim of tearing down moral boundaries and destroying the lives of America’s future, our children.

For months, I’ve been writing about 764 and its ecosystem. These are not isolated crimes, but part of something much larger, a digital underworld that feeds on vulnerability and thrives on pushing boundaries further each time.

And now, law enforcement is beginning to say the same thing out loud.

If you want to understand where this leads, you don’t have to look far.

We’ve already seen cases tied to these networks where children were manipulated, pressured, and ultimately driven into acts of self-harm and even suicide, all orchestrated from behind screens by people they never met in person.

Subscribe now

Not bullying. But control.

And if you think the word “control” is too strong, look at what prosecutors say Aaron Corey was actually doing.

According to court filings, this wasn’t a man who stumbled into something by accident.

Investigators say he was actively searching for ways to find children, including checking places where young girls might be, such as playgrounds.

They say he used online platforms where explicit material involving minors was shared, encouraged, and traded.

And it goes further.

Prosecutors allege he used an artificial intelligence tool to generate sexually abusive scenarios involving children and even attempted to justify those acts in written prompts.

And this network is spreading faster than most people realize.

There is another part of this story that rarely gets told.

These networks don’t exist in isolation. They overlap, evolve, and borrow tactics from one another. Groups like 764 have been linked in reporting and research to broader extremist ecosystems that share a common goal, to break down moral boundaries and accelerate societal decay.

That may sound extreme. But…

Look at the evidence.

This is exactly why I wrote When Evil Stops Hiding.

It doesn’t regurgitate the news simply for shock value. It explains it. It connects the dots. It’s a warning no parent wants to read, but every parent needs to understand.

Cases are examined. Groups are named. Patterns are revealed. Methods are exposed.

And the uncomfortable truth is this:

What we’re dealing with is not a series of isolated incidents.

It’s a system.

A system that is learning, adapting, and expanding.

The book draws from court records, federal affidavits, and real investigations, and it arrives at a conclusion these latest arrests only reinforce:

Evil doesn’t hide anymore because it doesn’t have to.

So here we are. Two arrests in New York. And a country barely notices.

That… THAT may be the most alarming part of all.

Because there was a time when something like this would have stopped people in their tracks. It would have sparked outrage, demanded answers, and forced action.

Now, it risks becoming just another headline. Just another story that comes and goes.

But this isn’t going away. Because these arrests don’t show that the system is ending.

They show the system is real.

And if two were caught, the only honest question left is:

How many are still out there, doing the exact same thing tonight?

This Story Doesn’t End Here

What you’ve read here is only the surface.

A glimpse into a network that is far more expansive, far more organized, and far more dangerous than most people realize.

In When Evil Stops Hiding, I go much deeper. Not just into 764, but into the broader system of networks like it, how they operate, how they target children, and how they continue to grow in plain sight.

More importantly, the book lays out what parents can do right now to protect their children, and what our government must do if we are serious about stopping this.

Because understanding this threat is no longer optional

.Martin Mawyer is the founder of the Digital Intelligence Project and the President of Christian Action Network. He is the host of the “Shout Out Patriots” podcast, and author of When Evil Stops Hiding. For more action alerts, cultural commentary, and real-world campaigns defending faith, family, and freedom, subscribe to Patriot Majority Report.

For years, the men of Silicon Valley told us artificial intelligence would transform the world.

They promised smarter medicine. Safer transportation. More efficient economies. Personalized tutors. Breakthroughs in science. Machines that could help cure disease, write software, and perhaps one day solve problems that have frustrated mankind for centuries.

And maybe they still will.

But what happens when the same men building the machines of tomorrow begin quietly investing in technologies designed to redesign the humans of tomorrow, because AI may one day outthink humanity and possibly destroy humanity?

That is no longer science fiction.

According to a stunning new investigation by Mother Jones, some of the most powerful names in technology, including Peter Thiel, Sam Altman, Brian Armstrong, and Marc Andreessen, are backing startups involved in embryo screening, genetic analysis, and in some cases discussions about the future of embryo editing itself.

Subscribe now

Most Americans may not recognize all their names.

But these are not fringe dreamers working out of garages.

These are the men who helped build digital payments, social platforms, intelligence software, cryptocurrency markets, venture capital empires, and the artificial intelligence systems now reshaping the global economy.

And now some of them appear to be asking a question that should make every parent, pastor, policymaker, and citizen stop and think:

What if the machines we’re building become smarter than we are?

And perhaps more unsettling:

What if our children need to be genetically upgraded to keep up?

That may sound absurd, until you read what the article actually says.

One AI safety researcher told Mother Jones that if artificial superintelligence ever surpasses human cognition, humanity may need genetically optimized children, “superbabies,” to understand and control the systems being built today.

Read that again.

The same culture-building machines that may one day outthink humanity are now funding research into children who may one day need to outthink the machines.

That is not a Gattaca movie plot.

That is happening now. And once you understand that, the question changes. Because this story is no longer about technology. It’s a story about fear.

Fear of Their Own Creation

Publicly, many AI leaders talk about the extraordinary promise of artificial intelligence. Privately, however, they’re concerned about whether humanity will remain in control.

That contradiction matters. Because if the men closest to AI are also funding biological enhancement, then either:

They see an extraordinary opportunity.

Or they see extraordinary danger.

Perhaps both.

One startup highlighted in the report claims it can already screen embryos for hundreds of traits, including health risks and projected intelligence markers. Others openly discuss a future where embryos may be edited before birth.

Supporters say these technologies could help eliminate devastating diseases.

And to be fair, that part matters. Parents facing genetic disorders would understandably welcome life-saving advances.

But critics warn that disease prevention may only be the first step. Because once society accepts screening for disease...how long before it moves to IQ? Height? Athleticism? Temperament? Compliance? Political disposition?

Human history suggests that when powerful people gain the ability to engineer advantage, the temptation to use it rarely shrinks.

It expands.

The Return of an Old Idea

The uncomfortable truth is that humanity has flirted with this before.

The 20th century saw entire political movements built around the belief that some human beings were more valuable than others.

Today, nobody in Silicon Valley is publicly talking about concentration camps or state-mandated breeding programs.

But the underlying question has returned in a more polished, data-driven form:

What makes a human being worth more?

If algorithms can rank intelligence, predict disease, and score embryos before birth, then someone, somewhere, will eventually decide which traits matter most.

And history tells us that power rarely remains evenly distributed.

If genetic optimization becomes expensive, then who gets access first? The billionaires? The political class? The elite universities? The military?

And what happens to everyone else? Do we quietly build a two-tier civilization?

A future where some children are born naturally...

And others are born optimized?

That is not just a scientific question.

That is a civilizational question.

Babel in a Lab Coat

Nearly 4,000 years ago, the Bible described another moment when human ambition outran human wisdom.

At the Tower of Babel, God looked upon mankind and declared:

“Now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” (Book of Genesis 11:6)

For people of faith, that verse feels less like ancient history and more like tomorrow’s headline.

Today, Silicon Valley is not stacking bricks toward heaven.

It is stacking code. Microchips. DNA sequences. Neural networks. Synthetic voices. Artificial cognition.

And now, perhaps, redesigned children.

The tower looks different.

But the temptation feels hauntingly familiar: To remove human limits. To conquer biology. To transcend weakness. To become something more.

Or perhaps...

To become something we were never meant to be.

The Real Question

Maybe the most important question is not whether these technologies will work.

Maybe the real question is:

Why do the men building AI already seem to believe humanity may not be enough for the world they are creating?

Because if the architects of artificial intelligence are quietly building a biological backup plan...

The rest of us may want to start asking what they see on the horizon.

And why they believe our children may need to be engineered to survive it.

Martin Mawyer is President of Christian Action Network, founder of the Digital Intelligence Project, host of Shout Out Patriots, and author of When Evil Stops Hiding.

Share

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

For decades, we’ve held our computers in our hands or tucked them into our pockets. But a new frontier is opening where the “device” disappears entirely. Companies like Science Corporation are no longer just building tools; they are building a bridge into the human mind.

This is the era of the NeuroMate, a world where the line between your own thoughts and artificial intelligence begins to blur.

And it all starts with an implant in your brain connected to an AI device. It doesn’t have a name yet. But it will. I call it a NeuroMate.

At first, this won’t be invisible. The system will likely rely on a dedicated external device, such as a small wearable pack, headset, or medical unit, that handles the heavy computing.

The brain implant acts as the bridge, while the processing power remains just outside the body. Over time, that external piece will shrink, integrate, and become less noticeable, but it will still be there, quietly powering the connection.

The Two-Way Conversation

Most of us are used to “commanding” technology. We click a mouse or speak to a voice assistant. But the “merge” science is working on is different. It is bidirectional, meaning it’s a continuous loop:

Mind to Machine:
You don’t need to speak or type. The NeuroMate “listens” to the electrical firing of your neurons and translates your intent into action.

Machine to Mind:
This is the game-changer. The computer sends signals back. It’s not a voice in your ear. It’s a pulse of data your brain may perceive as a vision, a memory, or a sudden “knowing.”

This is not a one-way command. It is a feedback loop, brain to AI to brain again, unfolding in real time.

Why “Merge” Is the Only Word That Fits

We often say we “connect” to the internet, but you can always disconnect. A merge implies something deeper.

Science Corp is experimenting with “biohybrid” technology, interfaces that use living cells to knit the computer into your brain’s gray matter. When your biological neurons and the AI’s digital processors begin working together, the NeuroMate is no longer just a tool you use.

It becomes part of how you think, see, and interact with the world.

Life with a NeuroMate

Imagine a blind person “seeing” because a camera is feeding images directly into their visual cortex. Imagine someone who has lost the ability to speak, “thinking” a sentence and having it appear instantly on a screen.

Now bring it closer to home.

Imagine recalling any passage of Scripture at a moment’s notice. Not by flipping pages or searching an app, but because the words are immediately present in your mind. A verse you struggle to remember comes to mind instantly. Related passages connect themselves. Themes across the Bible unfold in real time as you speak or reflect.

The words are not stored in your brain like a file, but they are never out of reach.

Eventually, for the rest of us, it could mean solving complex problems with an AI partner that works alongside our thoughts in real time, or accessing knowledge as naturally as remembering a name.

We are standing at the dawn of something new, not a replacement of humanity, but a transformation in how humans think and interact with the world.

A person who is never truly alone in thought, because their NeuroMate is always there, always listening, always responding.

Subscribe now

How Should Christians Respond to This Technology?

The rise of the NeuroMate doesn’t demand a simple answer. It calls for careful discernment.

There is little question that technology like this could be used for good. Restoring sight to the blind, helping the paralyzed communicate, or assisting those suffering from neurological disease reflects a long tradition of using human knowledge to relieve suffering.

But this technology does not stop at healing.

For the first time, we are looking at systems that may not only read the human mind, but also send signals back into it. That raises deeper questions, not just about what we can do, but about what we should allow.

Scripture emphasizes the importance of the mind and heart. The call is not only to think, but to guard what shapes our thinking. When a machine becomes part of the feedback loop of thought itself, Christians must ask:

Who is influencing the mind?

Who controls the system?

What happens to discernment when knowledge becomes instant?

Even something that sounds beneficial, like recalling Scripture at a moment’s notice, comes with a tension. There is a difference between having access to the Word and having it written on the heart.

Technology can assist. It can amplify. But it cannot replace spiritual formation, conviction, or wisdom.

So the question is not whether this technology will arrive. It is already on its way.

The question is whether we will approach it with clarity, caution, and conviction, or simply accept it because it is new and powerful.

Christians have faced moments like this before, where new tools promised convenience but carried deeper consequences.

This may be one of those moments again.

Martin Mawyer is the founder of the Digital Intelligence Project and the President of Christian Action Network. He is the host of the “Shout Out Patriots” podcast, and author of When Evil Stops Hiding. For more action alerts, cultural commentary, and real-world campaigns defending faith, family, and freedom, subscribe to Patriot Majority Report.

For years, Christian Action Network has appeared on the infamous “hate” list published by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

And let’s be honest about what that means.

That label is not just criticism or bad-reputation branding. It carries consequences. Real ones.

We’ve seen financial institutions kick us to the curb. We’ve seen vital services, such as company insurance providers, push us out the door.

Online stores, such as Zazzle, have suspended our account even for buying coffee cups. Discover Card won’t allow our supporters to donate to Christian Action Network. Major merchant account providers such as WePay and QuickBooks have banned us from using their services.

Media outlets have canceled scheduled appearances.

And every time that list is updated, our name is pushed back into the spotlight, forcing us to defend ourselves all over again.

That is the reality of being labeled as a hate group.

So when the Department of Justice announces a federal grand jury indictment against the SPLC, we are not casual observers.

But let me say something clearly and fairly.

These are allegations. An indictment is not a conviction. In this country, guilt must be proven before a jury. Those principal matters apply here just as they should for anyone else.

Now…with that said…

What If These Allegations Are True?

According to the Department of Justice, the SPLC allegedly “secretly funneled more than $3 million in donated funds” to individuals associated with violent extremist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, and the National Socialist Party of America.

That’s not just a serious accusation, it’s nuclear – funding the very groups they claim should be shut down because of their hateful violence.

The indictment further alleges the existence of a “covert network” of individuals either connected to those groups or who had infiltrated them at the SPLC’s direction.

And then comes the part that should stop every American in their tracks.

In the DOJ’s own release, FBI leadership is quoted as alleging that the SPLC not only paid leaders of extremist groups but also utilized funds in a way that had those groups facilitate the commission of state and federal crimes.

In other words, the SPLC was allegedly helping fund groups to commit crimes and then raise money to have those groups shut down!

The SPLC has officially denied these allegations, stating that its informant program was intended to monitor threats and save lives.

But according to the indictment, this was not an isolated practice. Federal prosecutors allege the SPLC operated a long-running covert program, dating back decades, in which paid “field sources” were used to infiltrate extremist groups.

Subscribe now

More Serious Allegations

The indictment claims the SPLC paid approximately $270,000 to an individual involved in the leadership group that helped plan the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

According to the charges, that individual made racist postings and assisted in coordinating logistics for the event while receiving funds connected to the SPLC.

And the SPLC calls this monitoring? Having a paid informant send out racist posts? And meanwhile…during this event…the SPLC was sounding the alarm about this racist gathering and raising money!

Prosecutors further allege that between 2014 and 2023, more than $3 million in donor funds were funneled through concealed channels, including shell entities and layered financial transactions, before being distributed to individuals associated with extremist groups.

These are not minor allegations. If proven, they describe a system that goes far beyond advocacy and into something far more troubling.

If that is proven in court, then we are not looking at a simple financial case.

We are looking at something far more disturbing, unethical, criminal, deceptive, and fraudulent.

For those of us who have lived under that label, that possibility is not theoretical.

It Is Personal…

Because Christian Action Network and many others have spent years being publicly branded, isolated, and treated as untouchable based on the authority of that label. We’ve had to defend ourselves repeatedly, while institutions took the SPLC’s word as fact.

So no, we are not neutral in this.

We are among those who have borne the consequences.

But we are also not naïve.

This case will take time. The SPLC will fight it at every level, as is its right. Motions will be filed. Arguments will be made. And the longer this stretches out, the more the environment around the case can shift, including leadership within the Department of Justice.

So this is not the end of anything.

Not yet.

But if these allegations are proven, then the country will be forced to confront a question it has avoided for far too long:

What happens when the organization that has spent decades labeling others is itself exposed to the very kind of scrutiny it helped create?

Because after years of being on the receiving end, we understand something clearly.

Accountability only matters if it actually happens.

Martin Mawyer is the founder of the Digital Intelligence Project and the President of Christian Action Network. He is the host of the “Shout Out Patriots” podcast, and author of When Evil Stops Hiding. For more action alerts, cultural commentary, and real-world campaigns defending faith, family, and freedom, subscribe to Patriot Majority Report.

Part 1 of an 8-part series. Advancing links are provided at the end of each article.

• Double Standard in Prosecuting Pro-Life vs Pro-Abortion Activists

• The Monitoring and Targeting of Pro-Life Protesters

• The FBI Raid on Mark Houck and the Acquittal That Followed

• Evidence Withheld-Inside the Gallagher Prosecution

• Allegations of Anti-Christian Bias in the Zastrow Case

• How federal prosecutors picked winners and losers

• What happens next, and who will be Held Accountable

For years, many Americans have suspected that the federal government was no longer applying the law evenly, especially when it came to deeply divisive cultural issues.

Now, the Department of Justice’s own report appears to confirm those concerns.

In a sweeping internal review, the DOJ examined hundreds of thousands of records, internal communications, and enforcement decisions tied specifically to the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, commonly known as the FACE Act. According to the report, investigators reviewed approximate…

Read more

If the law is applied unevenly, it ceases to be a shield of justice and becomes something else entirely.

According to the Department of Justice’s own internal review, that is precisely what may have happened in the enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, known as the FACE Act.

In its findings, the DOJ states that during the Biden administration, enforcement decisions reflected a pattern that raises serious concerns about fairness and equal protection under the law.

At the center of those concerns is a simple but powerful question:

Were pro-life Americans treated more harshly than their pro-abortion counterparts?

A Measurable Disparity

Unlike many allegations in political debates, this one is backed by numbers.

According to the DOJ report, federal prosecutors sought significantly longer prison sentences for pro-life defendants than for pro-abortion defendants.

• Average sentence requested for pro-life defendants: approximately 26.8 months

• Average sentence requested for pro-a…

Read more

At the heart of the American system is a simple expectation.

Citizens are free to speak, assemble, and advocate for their beliefs without fear that the government is watching, tracking, or building cases against them simply for exercising those rights.

But according to the Department of Justice’s own internal review, that line may have been crossed.

In its findings, the DOJ describes a pattern in which information about pro-life activists was gathered, shared, and retained over time, raising serious concerns about whether constitutionally protected activity became the basis for federal scrutiny.

The Flow of Information

One of the most striking elements in the report is the alleged relationship between federal authorities and outside advocacy organizations.

According to the findings, pro-abortion groups provided information about pro-life activists, including:

• Travel details

• Protest activity

• Personal identities

This information was not simply observed in passing. The report indicates that it was…

Read more

Some cases are remembered for their legal arguments.

Others are remembered for the moment they unfold.

According to the Department of Justice’s own internal review, the case of Mark Houck has come to represent something larger than a single prosecution. It has become a symbol of how federal power was brought to bear against a pro-life activist, and how that case ultimately ended.

But to understand why this case drew national attention, it is important to begin with what actually happened.

The Incident That Started It All

The case began outside an abortion clinic in Pennsylvania.

Mark Houck, a pro-life activist, was present, engaging in sidewalk counseling and advocacy, a common activity among pro-life demonstrators. During that time, a confrontation occurred between Houck and an escort working at the clinic.

According to accounts presented in court, the escort had been verbally confronting Houck’s son. Houck then pushed the escort.

The key facts were not heavily disputed:

• There was a physical …

Read more

Not every case raises concerns because of how it begins.

Some raise concerns because of what happens behind the scenes.

According to the Department of Justice’s own internal review, the Gallagher prosecution is one such case, one that centers not on a dramatic arrest but on questions of fairness in the courtroom itself.

The Role of Evidence in Justice

At the core of every criminal case is a simple principle.

Both sides are entitled to access the evidence necessary to present their case.

This is not a technicality. It is a fundamental safeguard.

When prosecutors possess information that could impact a defense, there are established legal obligations governing what must be shared and when.

The integrity of the process depends on those obligations being followed.

What the Report Alleges

According to the DOJ’s findings, the Gallagher case raises concerns about how that process was handled.

The report indicates that certain information was not made available to the defense, even though similar types …

Read more

Most concerns raised in the Department of Justice’s internal review focus on enforcement decisions, sentencing disparities, or prosecutorial conduct.

But one case highlighted in the report raises a different, and in some ways deeper, concern.

Not just how the law was applied, but whether religious belief itself may have influenced how a defendant was treated.

A Case That Raises Different Questions

According to the DOJ’s own findings, the Zastrow case is not simply about enforcing the FACE Act.

It is about whether bias may have entered the legal process.

The report points to concerns surrounding jury selection and the potential exclusion of individuals based on their religious views, particularly those holding traditional Christian beliefs.

That allegation, if accurate, touches directly on one of the most fundamental protections in American law.

Why Jury Selection Matters

The right to a fair trial depends heavily on the composition of the jury.

Both the prosecution and the defense may question p…

Read more

By this point, the pattern is difficult to ignore.

Across multiple cases, the Department of Justice’s own internal review raises concerns about disparities in enforcement, differences in sentencing, questions about surveillance, and even potential bias inside the courtroom.

Individually, each of these findings invites scrutiny.

Taken together, they point to something larger.

According to the report, the issue may not simply be how individual cases were handled, but how the system itself operated.

From Individual Cases to Institutional Behavior

The earlier cases in this series, Houck, Gallagher, and Zastrow, each highlight a different aspect of concern.

• A high-profile federal arrest followed by acquittal

• Questions about evidence and fairness in prosecution

• Concerns about bias in jury selection

But the report suggests these were not isolated events.

Instead, they may reflect a broader approach to enforcement during the period under review.

A Pattern of Alignment

One of the most significant concerns …

Read more

Over the course of this series, a pattern has emerged.

Not from speculation. Not from outside commentary.

But from the Department of Justice’s own internal review.

Piece by piece, the report has outlined concerns about how the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act was enforced during the Biden administration, raising questions about whether federal power was applied evenly, or whether it was used in a way that favored one side of a deeply divided national issue.

Now, the question is no longer simply what happened.

The question is what happens next.

A Pattern That Cannot Be Ignored

The findings, taken together, are not minor.

• Disparities in sentencing between pro-life and pro-abortion defendants

• Cases elevated to federal prosecution that ended in acquittal

• Allegations of monitoring and tracking of pro-life activists

• Concerns about evidence handling and fairness in court

• Questions about bias during jury selection

Each of these issues, on its own, would merit attention.

Together, they form somethi…

Read more

“Human cells in AI.”

That’s all most Americans will need to hear.

It sounds like something out of a science fiction nightmare. And for a public already uneasy about artificial intelligence, it raises a simple question: how far is this going to go?

Now, to be fair, what scientists are actually building is more limited than that phrase suggests. These are lab-grown human cells used in controlled environments, functioning more like biological circuits than anything resembling a human mind.

But here’s the problem: that distinction may not matter at all.

Because this isn’t just about what AI is. It’s about how fast it’s being pushed and how little time people are given to understand it before the next boundary is crossed.

If this were happening in a vacuum, it might be different. But it’s not.

Subscribe now

A recent Gallup poll shows th…

Read more

The United States has just moved to blockade one of the most important waterways on Earth.

You’re reading about this everywhere now: The Strait of Hormuz. Oil shipments. Naval forces. Rising tensions with Iran.

But here’s the part no one is stopping to explain…

What exactly is the Strait of Hormuz?

Because if you don’t understand that, none of this makes sense.

It’s not what most people think

Most people hear the word “strait” and imagine a large stretch of water. Something wide. Something open.

That’s not what this is.

A strait is a narrow passage of water that connects two larger bodies of water. Think of it like a doorway. Or better yet, a funnel.

And the Strait of Hormuz is one of the tightest, most important funnels in the world.

It connects the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea.

That mean…

Read more