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.

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

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.

Durham annex EXPOSES Soros, Pentagon ties to Deep State machine

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.