PULSECAST: Your one-stop shop for 2024 presidential polling

Feeling overwhelmed by the endless stream of presidential polls? We've got you covered.

Stu and his team of fellow political wizzes created the Pulsecast in tandem with the Glenn Beck Program, a comprehensive view of national sentiment towards Donald Trump and Kamala Harris heading into November. They gather data from all major election polls so that you don't have to sift through individual polls to get the big picture of what's going on.

The Pulsecast doesn't cherry-pick unfavorable numbers for either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. They're giving you the big picture, saving you a bunch of time, and effort. Think of it as your one-stop source for a complete polling picture, without the hassle of multiple clicks or biased sources.

Be sure to tune in to the Glenn Beck Program to catch Glenn and Stu's rundown of the daily Pulsecast, and check back in here for the most up-to-date Pulsecast on this page.

November 05, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

November 04, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

November 01, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

October 31, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

October 30, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

October 29, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

The presidential race has taken on four distinct phases since Kamala Harris entered the field. Initially, Harris experienced a surge in popularity, driven by the excitement of her campaign launch and early media enthusiasm. This "joy period" characterized August, with Harris emerging as a prominent figure in the polls, buoyed by positive coverage and events like her convention. However, as September began, the excitement started to fade, and reality set in. Voters began questioning whether Harris could truly handle the responsibilities of the presidency. By mid-September, her initial "joy bump" had faded, leaving her polling at a more level position.

Following the first debate, Harris regained momentum in late September, climbing to her highest point in the polls and capturing a slight lead. But as October progressed, the dynamic shifted yet again. Donald Trump began to surge, gradually moving from around 43% to approximately 54% in the polls, ultimately overtaking Harris. While this does not indicate a landslide in Trump’s favor, the momentum and gains he has made over October signal a notable shift in the race’s trajectory, making him a slight favorite over Harris as the month comes to a close.

October 28, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

October 25, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

October 24, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

October 23, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

October 22, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

October 21, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

In the arc of this presidential campaign, Kamala Harris initially saw a rise in polling numbers, peaking at around 55% after her announcement. Despite a brief lead for Donald Trump just before the debate, Harris bounced back, maintaining a favorable position through late September. However, in the past three weeks, Trump’s numbers have surged, completely erasing Harris' lead. As of now, Trump holds a 52.21percent chance of winning, compared to Harris’ 47.5 percent. This shift is significant because polling typically moves slowly and doesn’t often see such rapid changes.

Historically, polling has underestimated Donald Trump, both in 2016 and 2020. Despite his current lead, this remains a tight race, with recent polling giving him a slight edge. In both previous elections, particularly in key swing states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, the polls underestimated Trump’s support, raising the possibility that 2024 could follow a similar pattern. However, as it stands, the race is still considered a toss-up.

October 18, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

October 17, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

October 16, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

October 15, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

October 14, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

October 11, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.


October 10, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

Kamala Harris initially received a surge in media attention and positive coverage following her nomination, which boosted her polling numbers. However, this "boomlet" of support quickly faded as Donald Trump regained momentum, even overtaking Harris just before their first debate. Although the debate seemed to temporarily help Harris, lifting her numbers again, the impact was short-lived, and her advantage has since eroded. Polls now show a near-tie between the two candidates, with Trump once again gaining ground.

This shift in polling may also coincide with other significant events, including a hurricane response that has drawn criticism toward the Biden administration. If voters increasingly associate Harris with the perceived failures of the administration, this could further affect her standing. While it’s difficult to pinpoint one specific cause for these polling shifts, the fading of Harris's post-debate bump suggests her momentum may be weakening as Trump's numbers stabilize. Both candidates are now neck-and-neck, setting the stage for an unpredictable finish.

October 9, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

October 8, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

The 2024 presidential election continues to be a true toss-up. Just a couple of weeks ago, Kamala supporters could have pointed to a slight edge in her favor, but the race has since tightened significantly, with Trump holding nearly a 46% chance of winning and Harris at roughly 54 percent, according to our latest estimates. This slim margin shows just how close the race has become, essentially a coin flip.

Recent polls illustrate the unpredictable nature of the election. A New York Times poll has Harris leading by three points nationally, yet in the same poll, Trump is up by 13 points in Florida. It’s hard to reconcile such contradictory results, but they reflect the complexity and uncertainty of this race. Meanwhile, Harris's rhetoric doesn’t seem to be bridging the divide. Her recent comments comparing Trump supporters to the "basket of deplorables" narrative may further alienate a significant portion of the electorate. As we move deeper into the election season, it’s clear that anything can happen.

October 7, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

Donald Trump has seen some improvement in recent polling. His chances have risen slightly, with current estimates giving him a 45.41 percentchance of winning—an increase from the previous week. Trump is also gaining favor in prediction markets, where bettors are giving him a 6-7 percent higher chance of victory compared to traditional polling averages and election models built by experts.

This discrepancy may be explained by the belief that Trump often outperforms his polling numbers, a pattern seen in both 2016 and 2020. While "shy Trump voters" were a significant factor in previous elections, there seems to be less of that effect this time around, with voters now more open about their support. It's also important to note that Trump is in a stronger position now than he was at similar points in his 2016 and 2020 campaigns, making the 2024 race particularly intense as polling models continue to evolve. If polling errors similar to 2020 occur, Trump could easily secure a win.

October 6, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

No summary during the weekend.

October 5, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

No summary during the weekend.

October 4, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

Donald Trump currently holds a 44.03 percent chance of winning the 2024 election, a slight increase from yesterday. Despite the uptick, the race has remained fairly stable for over two weeks, with little movement on either side. While at first glance, it may seem like Kamala Harris has a more comfortable lead at 56 percent, the reality is that the margin between the two candidates is razor-thin.

This is essentially a toss-up. One could argue that Harris has a slight edge, but even that is debatable. The mainstream media might present this as her having the advantage, but in truth, the race is incredibly close. As it stands, this election could go either way.

October 03, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

Right now, Donald Trump has a 43.84 percent chance of winning the election, with Kamala Harris at 56.16 percent. These numbers have been pretty stable for about two weeks. It might seem like Harris has a significant lead, but that’s not the case. This is essentially a toss-up, and the numbers aren’t predicting that Trump will lose by 13 points. They’re just saying there’s a slightly higher chance for Harris at this moment.

We’ll see if any major events like Hurricane Helene end up influencing the election and affecting the prospects of the candidates.

October 02, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

The latest update before the presidential debate shows Donald Trump with a 44.09 percent chance of winning the election. This is a slight increase from the day before, but the race remains incredibly tight. In seven key swing states, Kamala Harris leads in Nevada by just 2.2 points, Wisconsin by 1.7, and Pennsylvania and Michigan by a razor-thin margin of 0.6. On the flip side, Trump leads in Arizona by 0.8, Georgia by 0.5, and North Carolina by a mere 0.2 points.

With margins this close, this election is shaping up to be one of the tightest races in modern history.

October 01, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

No Pulsecast summary today.

September 30, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

Recent polling data shows promising trends for Donald Trump in key battleground states like Pennsylvania and Arizona. However, Kamala Harris has gained ground in national polls, continuing the trend of Trump performing well in state-level polls while Harris leads nationally. According to current projections, Trump currently holds a 43.49 percent chance of winning the election, positioning him as a slight underdog, but it is still anyone's game in this razor-thin election.

The real surprise comes from a major shift in union support. In 1992, Bill Clinton led with union voters by 30 points, a margin that dropped to 19 points for Biden in 2020. Now, Kamala Harris holds only a 9-point lead in this group. Meanwhile, Trump has made major gains among trade school voters, moving from a 7-point deficit in 1992 to a staggering 31-point lead in 2024. This dramatic realignment reflects broader shifts in voter demographics and priorities heading into the next election.

September 29, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

No summary during the weekend.

September 28, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

No summary during the weekend.

September 27, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

Donald Trump currently holds a 43.93 percent chance of winning the election, which is just a slight dip from the previous day. This minor drop seems to be driven by a single poll showing Kamala Harris with a seven-point lead—the best polling result for her entire campaign so far. However, it’s likely that this poll is an outlier, and we’ll see how it plays out in the coming days.

September 26, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

As of today, Donald Trump has a 44.52 percent chance of winning the election. This is just a tick-down from yesterday at 45.05 percent.

Stu suspects that this slight downturn is largely due to one poll that had Kamala Harris up by seven, which has been the best poll of the entire campaign for her. He suspects that this will be an outlier

September 25, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

Donald Trump had another strong day with his chances to win rising from 43.82 percent to 45.03 percent. This shift has effectively erased the negative decline in his polling this past month. The race is still a tossup with Kamala Harris's polling at 54.97 percent.

Trump continues to lead significantly on key issues, such as immigration, where he’s up by 21 points. This lead, coupled with the financial strain Americans are facing—like skyrocketing utility bills, food and gas prices, and inflation—begs the question: Why is the race still this close? Glenn and Stu suspect that many voters still don't believe Harris bears responsibility for the failures of the Biden presidency. One poll indicates that 19 percent of voters who say Biden's presidency was a failure are still voting for Harris.

September 24, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

Donald Trump's chances to win have improved slightly, rising from 43 percent to 43.82 percent, marking a nearly full-point gain. While that may seem small, it's significant for these kinds of prediction models, which are designed to move slowly and reflect longer-term trends. This gain comes after Trump had initially dropped by 4.3 percent following the last debate, but his deficit has now been cut to just 2.9 percent. The New York Times/Sienna poll, a highly influential source, played a key role in this shift, showing positive results for Trump in key states like Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina.

Looking at the state-level breakdown, Trump's leading by up to five points in some, with North Carolina showing a two-point lead. Winning North Carolina in particular is critical, as it’s considered a must-win state. To secure a win overall, Trump will need to hold on to Georgia, North Carolina, and possibly Arizona, while also flipping one of the blue-wall states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Michigan.

September 23, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

Today's Pollcast has Donald Trump’s chances of winning at 43.2 percent, according to aggregated polling data. This figure indicates a decline of 4.3 percent from last week and a drop of approximately 4.6 percent over a longer period. Despite this dip, many pollsters are still optimistic for Donald Trump.

These prediction models often weigh the results of higher-rated pollsters more heavily in their calculations. For example, New York Times/Siena polling is among the most reputable, and its state-level data paints a positive picture for Trump. In key battleground states like Arizona, Trump holds a 5-point lead (50 percent to 45 percent). In Georgia, Trump's ahead by 4 points (49 percent to 45 percent). In North Carolina, Trump is up by 2 points (49 percent to 47 percent). This most recent data mark a reversal from the past two to four weeks, during which polls were favoring Kamala Harris in those swing states.

Moreover, national polling has been more favorable to Trump than Harris in recent weeks. If this trend continues and Trump can sustain both national and state polling advantages, his overall outlook could significantly improve.

However, it’s crucial to note that winning Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina alone isn't enough for Trump to secure the presidency. He would still need victories in other key states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Michigan. While his performance in these battleground states is essential, his path to victory requires success beyond just these three.

September 22, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

As of today, Donald Trump’s chances of winning stand at 44 percent, while Kamala Harris leads with 55.8 percent, reflecting a close race. Though Harris has the advantage, this nearly 55-45 split still indicates a highly competitive contest. Such a margin is akin to a coin flip, underscoring the uncertainty of the election outcome. Despite recent polling challenges for Trump, this is far from a decisive lead for Harris, as both candidates remain within striking distance of each other.

The current polling divergence between Trump and Harris has widened over the past week, but it’s important to remember that Trump is not in a dire position. Political analysts emphasize that a race this tight makes forecasting difficult, leaving room for significant shifts as new data comes in.

September 21, 2024

REMINDER: The PULSECAST attempts to put a finger on the pulse of what mainstream pollsters and data nerds are saying. It is not Glenn or Stu’s election prediction. Read more detail here.

Donald Trump experienced a slight uptick in his chances yesterday, moving him to 44.3 percent to 44.77 percent. While it may seem minor, such daily fluctuations can be important when viewing polling trends over time.

One possible factor contributing to this uptick could be the fallout from the recent assassination attempt. Although it’s difficult to pinpoint a single cause, polling released yesterday was generally favorable to Trump on a national level. However, it’s worth noting that Kamala Harris still performed well in key swing states.

On today's episode of the Glenn Beck Program, Stu compared polling to weight loss: progress isn't always visible in the short term. With Harris enjoying strong polling recently, it's important to take a longer view to assess the direction of the race. This uptick for Trump may signal a shift, but it will take more time to see how the numbers stabilize over the coming days.

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.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.