TOP SECRET LEAK? Here are the TOP 7 things you NEED to know about the Pentagon classified documents leak.

April 10, 2023

Anadolu Agency / Contributor, USAF / Handout | Getty Images

The breaking news story over the weekend was the alleged Pentagon leak of classified documents containing "TOP SECRET" U.S. intelligence about Ukraine and other foreign operations. Are the documents genuine? What do they actually contain? As Glenn said on radio Monday, "We don't know." Regardless of whether the documents are fabricated or genuine, there will be major ramifications from the leak.

In the craziness of the news cycle, it can be difficult to stay on top of this particular story. Below, you will find the seven things you NEED to know about the leaked document story, from the content of the documents to why you should care about the leak at all.

How were the classified documents first discovered?

The classified documents were originally published on Discord, an online messaging forum, often used for video gaming.

SOPA Images / Contributor

The classified documents were first published on a Discord channel in March. The posts included pictures of the documents, rather than a PDF of the documents themselves, indicating the publisher obtained physical copies. The posts were public for several weeks before being detected. The New York Times was the first publication to shed light on the documents.

What documents were leaked?

General Milley, is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The leaked documents appear to consist of briefing slides prepared by the U.S. military’s Joint Staff between February and March 2023. This has been confirmed by NBC, NPR, the New York Times, and all other media outlets that received access to the documents. There are only several dozen leaked documents, much less than Edward Snowden's several-thousand-document leak in 2013.

The briefing slides include information gleaned from an array of U.S. intelligence agencies, such as the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office, which oversees U.S. spy satellites. Some of the documents carry the label NOFORN, which prohibits the information from being shared with foreign partners. Many of the documents are labeled as "Top Secret," the highest level of confidentiality.

What's in the documents?

Ukrainian army volunteers pose on Driver Tank Trainers.

Leon Neal / Staff | Getty Images

Some of the documents include details about the war in Ukraine, such as maps of Ukraine, charts on where troops are concentrated, and what kinds of weapons are available to them. One page labeled "Top Secret" is titled "Status of the Conflict as of 1 March" and contains a detailed battlefield summary on that particular day. It's not clear why those particular documents are emerging now more than a month after they were prepared.

The documents also repeatedly reference information based on secret signals intelligence, also called, "electronic eavesdropping," which is a vital pillar of U.S. intelligence-gathering.

The documents also repeatedly reference information based on secret signals intelligence

According to NBC, a former U.S. intelligence official said the now-published documents could cause significant damage to U.S. intelligence if Moscow is now able to cut off the sources used for electronic eavesdropping.

What other intelligence was breached?

Putin greets Turkish President Erdogan. According to the leaked documents, Russia aims to buy weapons from Turkey, a NATO member.

Anadolu Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

Below are key highlights of the "Top Secret" U.S. intelligence referenced in the documents, per NBC, which had access to 50 of the documents:

1. Russia’s private mercenary organization, the Wagner Group, seeks to purchase weapons from NATO member Turkey. The group is also considering recruiting additional convicts to fight against Ukraine.

2. Several documents include satellite imagery of damage to Russian targets from Ukrainian strikes in February, including an “assembly area” which caused “severe damage." The strikes were carried out with the help of U.S. intelligence, according to the document. If true, Russia could interpret the information as a direct act of war by the U.S.

The strikes were carried out with the help of U.S. intelligence.

3. According to multiple intelligence sources, the battle for Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region will likely be “stalemate” through 2023 in order to exhaust Russian units.

4. A document marked “secret” says Ukrainian bombs equipped with U.S. guidance systems, known as Joint Direct Attack Munitions, or JDAMs, have failed recently. They attribute this to bomb fuses failing to arm themselves correctly and GPS signal issues. It also speculates that Russian jamming efforts could be at play.

5. A Feb. 28 document assesses “pathways” for Israel, who is currently neutral in regard to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, to provide “lethal aid” to Ukraine. These "pathways" might be more accurately described as hypothetical scenarios to explore how the U.S. can manipulate international events to pressure Israel into supplying aid to Ukraine.

These "pathways" ... explore how the U.S. can manipulate international events to pressure Israel.

6. More intelligence cited in the documents says South Korea has concerns about providing artillery shells to the U.S. to replenish America’s supplies, which are critically depleted.

7. Finally, the intelligence cited says Israel's Mossad intelligence agency encouraged its staff to take part in anti-government protests that have swept Israel, which Israel has since vehemently denied.

Are the documents genuine?

Ukrainian President Zelensky accuses Russia of being involved with the Pentagon leak.

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Military analysts say the documents appear genuine. However, there is speculation that the original versions were likely altered in some places, causing suspicion of outside interference.

For example, one chart in the briefing says the Ukrainian death toll is around 71,000, a figure that is considered plausible. However, the same chart also lists the Russian fatalities at 16,000 to 17,500, which is believed to be much higher.

Though neither side has released their overall casualty figures, some suspect that someone has interfered with the original document to minimize the Russian death toll. Ukraine says Russia is involved, aiming to make their death toll appear smaller and, consequently, their war effort to appear stronger than it actually is.

Some suspect that someone has interfered with the original document to minimize the Russian death toll.

Moreover, the chart with the death toll allegedly is printed on a black background, while all other charts on the same slide are printed on a white background, raising more suspicions of interference. It's not yet clear how valuable the information is to the Russian military.

Who published the documents?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

It is not yet known who published the documents and how they acquired them. The two most likely scenarios are that the documents were leaked from the Pentagon or stolen. If they were leaked, it would be one of the most significant intelligence leaks in U.S. history. Though some speculate that Russia is involved, there is no conclusive evidence.

Why does the leak matter?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

This leak has major consequences regardless of whether Russia is involved or not. If the documents are genuine, then that could mean Russia and our enemies have accurate intel on the U.S.'s intelligence acquisition tactics. Moreover, the documents contain damning evidence of the U.S.'s direct involvement in Ukraine's front against Russia, which Russia could interpret as an act of war. Will they retaliate?

If the documents are indeed fabricated by Russia, then that could mean Russia is attempting to frame the U.S. with justifiable cause for Russia to declare war. Moreover, it bolsters the appearance of Russia's war effort and weakens the U.S.'s international standing—both with its allies and its enemies.

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

America is no stranger to natural disasters. But it’s not the fires, floods, or earthquakes that are the most devastating — it’s the repeated failures to learn from them, prevent them, and take responsibility for the damage.

My heart goes out to the families who have lost homes, cherished memories, and livelihoods. But if we’re going to help California rebuild and prevent future disasters, we need to confront some uncomfortable truths about leadership, responsibility, and priorities.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

While Californians continue to face heart-wrenching losses, those who have the power to enact change are mired in bureaucracy, regulation, and ideologies that do nothing to protect lives or preserve the land. The result? A state that keeps burning, year after year.

Where did all the water go?

We all know that water is essential to life. When NASA searches for signs of life on other planets, it looks for water. Yet, California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure. The state hasn’t built a new major reservoir since 1979 — over 40 years ago. Back then, California’s population was roughly half what it is today. Despite massive population growth, the state’s water storage capacity has remained frozen in time, woefully inadequate for current needs.

Moreover, billions of gallons of rainwater flow straight into the ocean every year because no infrastructure exists to capture and store it. Imagine how different things could be if California had built reservoirs, aqueducts, and desalination plants to secure water for its dry seasons.

Water is life, but the state’s failure to prioritize this essential resource has put lives and ecosystems at risk.

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

This neglect of critical infrastructure is part of a larger failure of vision, and in California, the consequences of that failure are on full display.

Consider the progressive leadership in Los Angeles, where the mayor cut the fire department’s budget to fund programs for the homeless, funneling money to NGOs with little oversight. While helping the homeless is a worthy cause, it cannot come at the expense of protecting lives and property from catastrophic fires. Leadership must put safety and well-being over political agendas, and that’s not happening in Los Angeles.

The same misplaced priorities extend to environmental policies. Progressive leaders have blocked sensible forest management practices, prioritizing dead trees over living creatures. They reject controlled burns, forest thinning, and other commonsense measures, bowing to the demands of activists rather than considering real solutions that would protect those they govern.

California’s wildfire crisis is, in many ways, a man-made disaster. Yes, factors like Southern California’s dry climate, strong Santa Ana winds, and little rain play a role, but the biggest contributing factor is poor land management.

The forests are choked with dry brush, dead trees, and vegetation that turn every spark into a potential inferno. The crisis could have been mitigated — if only the state had made forest management and fire prevention a higher priority.

Finland and Sweden, for example, understand the importance of maintaining healthy forests. These countries have perfected the art of clearing underbrush and thinning trees sustainably, turning potential fire fuel into biomass energy. This approach not only reduces the risk of wildfires, but it also creates jobs, boosts the economy, and improves the ecosystem. And yet, California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore these solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

We need to stop pretending that something as devastating as the Palisades and Eaton fires are just “part of life” and hold leaders accountable.

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

California faces another major and often overlooked liability when it comes to natural disasters: insurance.

California’s ongoing disasters make the state an uninsurable risk. Insurance companies are pulling out because the odds of widespread devastation are just too high. This creates a vicious cycle: With private insurers gone, the government steps in to subsidize high-risk areas. This enables people to rebuild in fire-prone zones, perpetuating the destruction. The solution isn’t more government intervention; it’s better decision-making.

This doesn’t mean abandoning people to their fate, but we must address the root of the problem: California’s inadequate disaster preparedness and poor land management. If the state continues to resist commonsense solutions like forest thinning, controlled burns, and better zoning laws, no amount of insurance or government assistance will ever be enough to mitigate the losses. The cycle will repeat until the costs — financial and human — become unbearable. It’s time to stop pretending the risk isn’t real and start making decisions that reflect the reality of California’s landscape.

What’s the solution? California’s government needs to put its people over harmful political agendas that put its residents at risk. Start by managing your forests. Implement controlled burns, remove dead trees, and clear underbrush.

But how you vote matters. California’s progressive policies have focused on political correctness and ideology instead of practical, lifesaving solutions. Until voters hold leaders accountable, the cycle of destruction will persist.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

WADE VANDERVORT / Contributor | Getty Images

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

A chilling story has emerged: A whistleblower, claiming to possess knowledge of advanced military technologies and covert operations, took his own life in a shocking explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. He left behind a manifesto filled with claims so extraordinary they sound like science fiction. Yet if even a fraction of them prove true, the implications are staggering and demand immediate attention.

This whistleblower alleges that the United States and China developed “gravitic propulsion systems,” technologies that manipulate gravity itself to enable silent, undetectable flight at unimaginable speeds. According to his claims, these systems are not theoretical — they are operational, deployed both in the United States and China. If true, this would render conventional defense systems obsolete, fundamentally altering the global balance of power.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

Imagine aircraft that defy radar, heat signatures, and missile defense systems. They carry massive payloads, conduct surveillance, and operate without a sound. If such technologies exist, they pose a national security threat unlike any we’ve faced.

But why haven’t we been told? If these claims are false, they must be debunked transparently. If true, the public has a right to know how such technologies are being used and safeguarded.

The whistleblower’s manifesto goes farther, claiming that with this technology, the United States and China developed and deployed the infamous drones that were seen across the United States starting late last year. He alleged that China launched them from submarines along the U.S. East Coast, calling them “the most dangerous threat to national security” because of their stealth, ability to evade detection, and unlimited payload capacity. He ties this advanced technology to other surveillance systems, creating a network so advanced it makes our current intelligence capabilities look primitive.

These claims may sound far-fetched, but they highlight a deeper issue: the cost of government secrecy. Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation. Without transparency, these incidents dangerously erode public confidence in our leaders and institutions.

The cost of secrecy

Beyond technology, the manifesto also alleges moral failures, including war crimes and deliberate cover-ups during U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one particularly harrowing claim, the whistleblower describes attacks in Afghanistan’s Nimroz Province in 2019. He alleges that 125 buildings were targeted, with 65 struck, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in a single day. Even after civilians were spotted, he claims, the strikes continued knowingly and deliberately.

The United Nations investigated similar incidents and confirmed civilian casualties during these operations. However, the whistleblower’s accusations go farther, implicating high-ranking officials, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even top military generals in a broader pattern of deceit, eroding the moral integrity of our military and government.

Whether these specific claims hold up, they underscore a larger issue: Secrecy breeds corruption. When people in power hide their actions and evade accountability, they break trust — and everyone pays the price, not just those at the top but also the citizens and soldiers they serve.

Transparency is an imperative

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the Capitol riot on January 6 to the potential misuse of advanced technologies, the American people have been kept in the dark for too long.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and sunlight is coming. Transparency must become our rallying cry. As we look to the future, we must demand accountability — not just from those we oppose politically but from all leaders entrusted with power. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving our nation from self-destruction.

As we enter a new chapter in our nation’s history, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether it’s uncovering the truth about advanced technology, holding perpetrators of corruption accountable, or seeking justice for war crimes, we must act. This isn’t just a call to action — it’s a moral imperative.

Our strength lies in our unity and our resolve. The powerful fear an informed and vocal citizenry. Let’s prove them right. By demanding transparency and accountability, we can restore trust and ensure that the government serves the people — not the other way around.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement to lift content moderation policies across all of Meta's platforms and end the company's reliance on third-party fact-checkers, at first glance, is an incredible left turn given the platform's long-term participation in online censorship. However, does their shift signal a genuine change of heart, or are there more selfish motivations at play?

On the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and Stu looked at both perspectives. On the one hand, Zuckerberg's announcement, adding UFC President and avid Trump supporter Dana White to Meta's board of directors indicates major progress in America's pushback against online censorship. However, Glenn also posited that Zuckerberg's intentions are chiefly to win the good graces of the incoming Trump administration in order to maintain Meta's controversial work in virtual and augmented reality technologies (VR/AR).

There is evidence for both perspectives, and we lay it all out for you below:

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Zuckerberg’s bombshell announcement, at face value, suggests that Meta recognizes the greater demand for free speech on online platforms and growing discontent against content moderation that has censored non-mainstream political opinions, including Glenn and Blaze Media. Zuckerberg described this shift as an authentic attempt to return to the company’s roots of promoting free expression, acknowledging past mistakes in suppressing voices and content deemed politically controversial. Moreover, Meta's new adoption of community-driven content flags similar to X positions itself as a platform that values user input rather than the biased perspective of any single third-party "fact-checker."

Additionally, Zuckerberg’s evolving views on Donald Trump strengthen the argument that his "change of heart" is genuine. Before the 2024 election, Zuckerberg expressed admiration for Trump, even calling him a "badass" after the first assassination attempt, noting how the event changed his perspective on the then-presidential candidate. Moreover, his embrace of new board members, such as UFC President Dana White, a staunch Trump supporter, further suggests that Meta may be diversifying its leadership and welcoming a more inclusive approach to varied political opinions. In this context, Meta’s move away from fact-checking can be interpreted as a commitment to fostering an environment where free speech and diverse political perspectives are genuinely valued.

Or is it about self-preservation?

DREW ANGERER / Contributor | Getty Images

While it is tempting to view Meta’s policy change as a sincere commitment to free speech, there is also a compelling argument that the company’s motivations are rooted in self-preservation. Glenn suggested Meta’s financial interests, particularly in virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies, indicate its pivot may be less about principle and more about ensuring continued government contracts and capital flow. Zuckerberg’s significant investments in VR/AR technology, which has already cost the company billions, may be driving his need to align Meta’s policies with the political climate to safeguard future funding from both the government and private sectors.

Moreover, the company’s financial projections for the coming years show a sharp increase in advertising revenue, driven primarily by Facebook’s dominance in social media. This revenue helps sustain Meta’s ambitions in the VR/AR space, where it faces significant losses. The government’s involvement in funding military and tech projects tied to VR/AR underscores the importance of maintaining favorable political relationships. For these reasons, many view Zuckerberg's policy change as an attempt to position Meta for maximum political and financial benefit.

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Apu Gomes / Stringer | Getty Images

As wildfires sweep across California and threaten to swallow up entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles, one question is on everyone's mind: What went wrong?

So far over 45 square miles of the city have been scorched, while the intense smoke is choking out the rest of L.A. Thousands of structures, including many family homes, have been destroyed, and many more are at risk as firefighters battle the flames. Many on the left, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have been quick to point to climate change as the cause of the devastating fires, citing the chronic lack of rain in L.A.

Others, including Glenn, have pointed out another potential cause: the severe mismanagement of the forests and water supply of Los Angeles and California in general. Unlike many other states and most other forested countries, California does not clear out the dead trees and dry vegetation that builds up on the forest floor and acts as kindling, fueling the fire as it whips through the trees.

On top of this, California has neglected its water supply for decades despite its crucial role in combating fires. The state of California has not built a new major water reservoir to store and capture water since the 1970s, leading to repeat water shortages in Southern California. To top it off, Gavin Newsom personally derailed a 2020 Trump order to divert water from areas of the state with excess water to parched Southern California. Why? To save an already functionally extinct fish. Now firefighters in L.A. are running out of water as the city is engulfed in flames. At least the fish are okay...

But what do you think? Are the wildfires a product of years of mismanagement? Or a symptom of a changing climate? Let us know in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep

TOP SECRET LEAK? Here are the TOP 7 things you NEED to know about the Pentagon classified documents leak.

How were the classified documents first discovered?

What documents were leaked?

What's in the documents?

The documents also repeatedly reference information based on secret signals intelligence

What other intelligence was breached?

The strikes were carried out with the help of U.S. intelligence.

These "pathways" ... explore how the U.S. can manipulate international events to pressure Israel.

Are the documents genuine?

Some suspect that someone has interfered with the original document to minimize the Russian death toll.

Who published the documents?

Why does the leak matter?

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

Where did all the water go?

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

The cost of secrecy

Transparency is an imperative

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

Or is it about self-preservation?

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Is climate change responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Are the L.A. fires a product of years of mismanagement?

Do you think controlled burns are an effective way to prevent wildfires?