Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Glenn's Predictions on Politics for 2018

January 09, 2018
Staff

WRITER

Glenn came up with 40 predictions over the holiday and they were pretty wide-ranging, from medicine, tech, culture, politics, war — you name it. Some seemed pretty optimistic, while others were downright catastrophic. But hey, they wouldn't be true Glenn Beck predictions if that wasn't the case, right?

Below are his predictions that were specifically related to "politics."

Which ones do you think will actually come about in 2018? Let Glenn know by upvoting the ones you agree with him on.

VOTE BELOW:

The Freedom Movement will experience somewhat of a renaissance, both in the US and globally.

In the US, this will mostly manifest at the local level and be primarily pushed by Millennial and Generation Z voters who will be completely disenchanted by the two major political parties. We'll see hundreds of new candidates from new political parties running in state, county and local elections.

Both Democrat and Republican parties will be forced to contend with significant weakness in recruiting and retaining younger voters, ultimately forcing them to change platform stances to accommodate Millennial and post-Millennial/Gen-Z ideas and positions.

A new understanding of a kinder and more ethical capitalism will be "rediscovered" by Millennials over socialism in the coming years. A new strain of "non hippie libertarianism" will be formed. We will see the early signs of this movement in 2018. It will be the alternative to a Bernie Sanders-style socialism.

Churches will continue to lose power and influence.

Those who preach politics over principles and power over people in their own communities will lose more and more influence. The more "hell-fire" preached, the bigger the hit. Although, in times of strife and demagoguery, these will flourish for a short time and then collapse.

Traditional institutions that claim to be infallible or those that discourage honest questioning of doctrine will be the hardest hit. Mega-churches that are all show will lose "sheep" to flocks built on principles of quiet, humble faith and simple, charitable actions.

Hillary Clinton and Huma will be charged with crimes.

Just kidding! Bitcoin at a million is more likely.

The press will continue to be discredited by the Whitehouse and will continue to discredit themselves on both sides.

MSNBC, Breitbart and others that play to the rabid core of right or left will prosper over the short term during the run up to the midterms. It will be this same approach that will precipitate a quick downfall in the early 2020s.

The #MeToo movement will continue to grow, and 2018-19 will be the apex.

In 2018, it will be used to discredit Donald Trump and then spread to the midterms. Sadly, it will become a joke in the end.

It will not be effective against Trump. However, it will destroy what positive brand image, if any, the GOP still has with anyone under 35. It will also hurt the actual cries of victims.

In the US, gun rights advocates will finally get their long-sought Concealed Carry Reciprocity bills through Congress.

Already passed by the House in 2017, a compromise bill will get pushed by pro-liberty senators (Lee, Cruz, etc.) who are safe from midterm elections in 2018. While not perfect (certain waiting periods and state discretion on background checks will remain in place), the bill will effectively remove all state-level restrictions on firearms ownership and possession by enabling US citizens to simply get concealed carry permits in those states that are willing to license citizens from other states (e.g. AZ, TN).

The compromise bill will be voted purely along party lines in the Senate, but will represent a major step forward in securing self-defense rights to all US citizens.

Trump will happily sign the bill into law.

The US Supreme Court will finally strike down pro-labor laws that enable unions to take dues from workers involuntarily.

This will be a major blow to unions in the US because it will dramatically reduce their funding and overall power starting in 2018.

The Trump administration will finally begin construction on a true wall between the US and Mexico.

Discretionary funds will be provided from border protection and law enforcement and new infrastructure spending by the Republican-controlled Congress in early 2018.

While there will be a compromise on The Dreamers as well as an agreement to renew NAFTA as a component of securing the funding for part of the wall, we will actually see major construction begin next year. Construction sites themselves will be the sites of significant protests and even operate under the threat of violence from Antifa and other militant leftwing organizations.

The movement to impeach Trump will persist.

Antifa, coupled with OWS and others, will be funded through Soro's-based organizations to stir up the "Impeach-Trump" movement with marches and sit-ins. The movement will rise and fall in significance and will impact the 2018 midterms and 2020 election.

The Mueller-led investigation into Russia-election-hacking and any connection to the Trump administration will finally be put to rest.

No significant charges will be leveled against anyone and it will end up having basically zero impact on the Trump administration.

While the special counsel will likely issue a report that is strongly anti-Russia and broadly implies there were attempts by Russia/Russian agents to influence the election (in favor of Trump), the report itself will be very light on evidence or specifics. This sad, biased chapter of American politics will finally, mercifully be put to rest.

However, there will be continuing problems on two fronts:

1) The real trouble of Putin's influence in the US and all Western countries will be largely ignored and will cause concern in 2018 and real trouble in 2020.

2) The Trump family's dealings with foreign banks will take the main stage in 2018.

Stay tuned as we'll be rolling out more of Glenn's predictions throughout the week.

GLENN: Today we posted at GlennBeck.com, we've broken my 2018 predictions down into four different categories, and these, I do not put these into the category -- mulch I do -- of like the caliphate. This is me looking for things that I say, okay, so what's trending? What do I think is going to happen? You know. Some of the predictions that I have made in the past, quite honestly, I don't -- I didn't have to think about those. They just -- they just hit me. So I just want to separate -- these are Glenn predictions, if you will, that I sat down and said, okay, so what are the trends doing.

So I put a few predictions down, and I think some of them are right, but we're asking you to vote and for the next couple of days, they will be broken up in chunks. Today, they're all political, and you can find them at GlennBeck.com.

STU: And the idea is to rank them as to what is the most likely to come true.

GLENN: And some of them are going to be hard. There are some of them that have several predictions in each one. You know what I mean? And so, you know, which one is going to come true? Which one do you think --

STU: You're not backing out of this? Is that what's haggle?

GLENN: No. 40 of them and there's going to be 39 that you're going to be able to beat me with a stick on next year.

Okay.

So here's prediction #1. The freedom movement will experience a bit of a renaissance. Both in the US and globally. In the US, this will mostly manifest at the local level of and be primarily pushed by millennial and Generation Z voters, who will be completely disenchanted by the two major political parties. We'll see hundreds of new candidates from new political parties running in state, county, and local elections, both Democrat and Republican parties will be forced to contend with significant weakness in recruiting and retaining younger voters, ultimately forcing them to change their platform stances to accommodate millennial and postmillennial/Generation Z ideas and positions.

Also, a new understanding of a kinder and more ethical capitalism will be rediscovered by millennials over socialism in the coming years. A new strain of, quote, nonhippie Libertarianism will be formed. We'll see the early signs of this movement in 2018. It will be the alternative to a Bernie Sanders-style socialism. What do you think?

[Buzz].

STU: I'm going with disagree on that one.

GLENN: Really?

STU: Yeah, that's not happening.

GLENN: Really?

STU: Yeah. The American people don't care about that stuff anymore. I honestly do think that, like, there is --

GLENN: This is driven by millennials, though. I think they do care.

STU: I don't care --

GLENN: They don't care about the parties and they don't believe in any of that. But they actually --

STU: I disagree! They're super passionate about the parties. If anything has been taught to us over the past couple of years, I think, is that people really freakin' care about that red versus blue battle. It is the most important thing in politics that they care about. It's that. And look, that summarizes a lot of things. A lot of things that are really material. Real policy differences. There's a lot of in there. I just don't think that's the primary concern of people who are -- the average person who's not listening to 15, 30 hours of talk radio every week. The average person cares only about that red versus blue battle. So the idea that they're going to lock into some third party or out of the system thing, I disagree with that.

GLENN: I just think that millennials, generally speaking, are going to -- they're so disgusted by all of it, they don't believe either side. They believe one side or the other more, but they don't -- they're disgusted by it, and it's going to get worse and worse and worse. And they're just a new -- I think there is a new attitude coming with the leaders of millennials.

Remember, it takes 10% to really change things. 18% is the tipping point. I'm not talking about 18% of millennials doing this.

STU: I think 4 of them doing anything would be a --

GLENN: Don't count those guys out.

STU: I'm not counting them out, but I do think that we're seeing now, in my opinion, is more of an association of, yeah, you're right. They're sick of it. They're sick of the way things are going. But what that -- how they crystallize that in their own lives is, attacking the other side. They're sick of that -- those people. Not themselves.

GLENN: So in this, both Republican and Democratic parties will be forced to contend with significant weaknesses in recruiting and retaining younger voters.

What that includes in there is the Democrats are going to move to more socialist ideas. They are going to -- the Bernie Sanders thing, and I don't know if it will be with Bernie Sanders, but the Bernie Sanders thing, socialism is going to become very, very popular. But at the same time, a new understanding of freedom, one that actually -- one that is -- that actually believes in diversity, that actually says, yeah, I don't care if you get married or not. The government shouldn't be involved. I don't care what you -- if you go to church or you don't go to church. The government shouldn't be involved. Are you a decent person? Are you hurting people? Are you, like, stealing money? Are you trying to take people's stuff? Are you trying to kill people? It's going to be boiled down to a much simpler, more Constitutional Bill of Rights kind of freedom on the other side.

STU: I feel like we're both looking outside and seeing really dark clouds, and I'm predicting rain, and you're predicting suntan time. You're predicting laying out by the pool. And it's 40 degrees, and for some reason, you're thinking it's all going to clear and go to 80 later on in the search if we get your bathing suits on.

GLENN: I cannot believe how much we've flipped places.

STU: You are way more optimistic on this. I have no hope on these things.

GLENN: You used to be the guy saying the exact opposite to me.

STU: Yeah, that's true. And I've been proven wrong! Clearly.

(Laughter.)

GLENN: Okay. Next prediction. Churches will continue to lose power and influence through 2018. Those who preach politics over principles and power over people in their own communities will lose more and more influence. The more hell fire that is preached, the bigger the hit. Although in times of strife and demagoguery, these flourish for a short time. But they will collapse.

Traditional institutions that claim to be infallible and that discourage thought and honest questions on their own doctrine will be hardest hit.

At the same time, megachurches that are more show will suffer and shed sheep to flocks who embody through quiet and humble action a simple, happy, and charitable life.

STU: That's interesting. I mean, because you were talking about millennials. What is it, now, a third of millennials think that church does more damage to society than good for society.

I mean, I think you're right. The one place you should be able to chase principle with no pragmatism at all is church. You should never make a church-based decision, when you're talking about faith-based things that's related to pragmatism. I want to go into church and then to tell me the thing that seems most obvious is the thing you shouldn't do, because of this guiding principle from this book that's really old, and we've been talking about for a long time.

GLENN: Right.

STU: And I think a lot of churches have gone -- and we've certainly seen on the left, and I think increasingly on the right, that have looked at the world and have formed their message based on the world and how it's moved, rather than a -- you know, a stone tablet, right? The place where it lives all the time and never changes.

GLENN: Yes, but it's also -- I think there's a difference now coming on -- on action. I do not want to just go sit in a church. I want to -- I want something that changes my life. I want something that goes out and does good. I want to be involved in doing things and helping people, and show it to me. Don't talk to me about it. Let's do it.

STU: And feel it, right?

GLENN: Yeah. I think that's what's coming. I think the pomp and circumstance, the traditional ways that we have connected religiously are falling away, and the churches that figure out that a church is just a place, it's a building. Real church, you should be in all the time. And it's everywhere. It's everywhere you go. And it's how you live your life I think those will prosper. We'll see. More in a second.

STU: GlennBeck.com is the place to go and see all of his predictions on politics. You can also sign up for the newsletter and get them all at once.

GLENN: And vote for them.

STU: And vote to see which one you think is most likely to happen and which one you think has no freakin' chance, you're going to have lots of opportunities on that.

Labor Day began as a political payoff to Socialist agitators

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Hunter laptop, Steele dossier—Same players, same playbook?

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

The Durham annex and ODNI report documents expose a vast network of funders and fixers — from Soros’ Open Society Foundations to the Pentagon.

In a column earlier this month, I argued the deep state is no longer deniable, thanks to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I outlined the structural design of the deep state as revealed by two recent declassifications: Gabbard’s ODNI report and the Durham annex released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

These documents expose a transnational apparatus of intelligence agencies, media platforms, think tanks, and NGOs operating as a parallel government.

The deep state is funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

But institutions are only part of the story. This web of influence is made possible by people — and by money. This follow-up to the first piece traces the key operatives and financial networks fueling the deep state’s most consequential manipulations, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Architects and operatives

At the top of the intelligence pyramid sits John Brennan, President Obama’s CIA director and one of the principal architects of the manipulated 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence, signed off on that same ICA and later joined 50 other former officials in concluding the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” ahead of the 2020 election. The timing, once again, served a political objective.

James Comey, then FBI director, presided over Crossfire Hurricane. According to the Durham annex, he also allowed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server to collapse after it became entangled with “sensitive intelligence” revealing her plan to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

That plan, as documented in the annex, originated with Hillary Clinton herself and was personally pushed by President Obama. Her campaign, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-debunked Steele dossier — a document used to justify surveillance warrants on Trump associates.

Several individuals orbiting the Clinton operation have remained influential. Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security adviser, was a foreign policy aide to Clinton during her 2016 campaign. He was named in 2021 as a figure involved in circulating the collusion narrative, and his presence in successive Democratic administrations suggests institutional continuity.

Andrew McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, approved the use of FISA warrants derived from unverified sources. His connection to the internal “insurance policy” discussion — described in a 2016 text by FBI official Peter Strzok to colleague Lisa Page — underscores the Bureau’s political posture during that election cycle.

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, as a former representative from California, chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time and publicly promoted the collusion narrative while having access to intelligence that contradicted it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both members of the “Gang of Eight” with oversight of intelligence operations, advanced the same narrative despite receiving classified briefings.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, exchanged encrypted text messages with a Russian lobbyist in efforts to speak with Christopher Steele.

These were not passive recipients of flawed intelligence. They were participants in its amplification.

The funding networks behind the machine

The deep state’s operations are not possible without financing — much of it indirect, routed through a nexus of private foundations, quasi-governmental entities, and federal agencies.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations appear throughout the Durham annex. In one instance, Open Society Foundations documents were intercepted by foreign intelligence and used to track coordination between NGOs and the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump strategy.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

Soros has also been a principal funder of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which ran a project during the Trump administration called the Moscow Project, dedicated to promoting the Russia collusion narrative.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors both specialize in “dark money” donor-advised funds that obscure the source and destination of political funding. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest donor to the Arabella Advisors by far, which routed $127 million through Arabella’s network in 2020 alone and nearly $500 million in total.

The MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation also financed many of the think tanks named in the Durham annex, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Federal funding pipelines

Parallel to the private networks are government-funded influence operations, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or counter-disinformation initiatives.

USAID directed $270 million to Soros-affiliated organizations for overseas “democracy” programs, a significant portion of which has reverberated back into domestic influence campaigns.

The State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization with a $315 million annual budget and ties to narrative engineering projects.

The Department of Homeland Security underwrote entities involved in online censorship programs targeting American citizens.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon, from 2020 to 2024, awarded over $2.4 trillion to private contractors — many with domestic intelligence capabilities. It also directed $1.4 billion to select think tanks since 2019.

According to public records compiled by DataRepublican, these tax-funded flows often support the very actors shaping U.S. political discourse and global perception campaigns.

Not just domestic — but global

What these disclosures confirm is that the deep state is not a theory. It is a documented structure — funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control. It launders narratives, neutralizes opposition, and overrides democratic will by leveraging the very institutions meant to protect it.

With the Durham annex and the ODNI report, we now see the network's architecture and its actors — names, agencies, funding trails — all laid bare. What remains is the task of dismantling it before its next iteration takes shape.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.