Meet Imran Ahmed, the man who's CENSORING you

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

You probably have never heard of Imran Ahmed, but you have likely been impacted by him. A figure whose identity is nearly as obscure and shrouded as George Soros, his influence has reached the deepest caverns of our government, from the heart of the White House to state-level officials. People like Ahmed and Soros tend to dwell in the shadows so that the rest of us can only see their effects rather than the person behind the curtain.

It’s high time we brought Imran Ahmed into the light.

Ahmed is the founder of the London-based Center for Countering Digital Hate. Prior to founding the CCDH in 2017, Ahmed was an adviser to Labour Party members of British Parliament. According to an in-depth report by Paul Thacker for Tablet magazine, Ahmed is persistently suspected of working for British intelligence. It is public information, however, that the CCDH has multiple connections to the British government. Past and present board members include the strategy director in the office of former U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the former British ambassador to Israel, the chief of staff for former U.K. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, and the campaign director for the Labour Party.

The CCDH came on my radar recently after the group released a report detailing how Google is profiting from “climate misinformation” videos on YouTube. The report also mentions me — an apparent “conservative firebrand” — and BlazeTV as purveyors of climate change denial. What crime exactly have we committed?

The CCDH report sounds the alarm regarding a “new denial” about climate change. In the old days, “climate denial” meant that you straight-up didn’t believe that climate change is real. But the CCDH says old-timey denial is being replaced by a new wave of nefarious denial. What exactly constitutes this new “nefarious” denial? According to the CCDH, you fall into this category if you have ever said any of the following:

The impacts of global warming are beneficial or harmless.

[That] climate solutions won’t work.

[And that] climate science and the climate movement are unreliable.

How convenient that they can broaden the definition of “climate change denial” to encompass any opinion contrary to the climate overlords’ solutions. In America, we used to call that basic policy debate.

Now you can’t even question the climate science or whether the climate movement at large can be trusted. I thought asking questions was the whole basis of science, but then again, I was in school a very long time ago, so maybe science changed.

From Westminster to the White House

This is the most recent example of the CCDH’s absurd attempt to manipulate public perception of terms to benefit the leftist agenda. Yet the underlying mission of this group is insidious. It is equating perspectives other than the approved globalist narrative with “hate,” and it is using its network of political and Big Tech elites to censor those of us who don’t conform to their Orwellian Newspeak.

In 2020, the CCDH convinced Google to ban the website Zero Hedge from its ad platform. Ahmed’s group alleged that some of the comment sections on Zero Hedge contained racist statements related to the Black Lives Matter protests. The CCDH convinced Google to issue a warning to the Federalist for alleged racism in its comment sections related to George Floyd.

In 2021, Ahmed expanded the CCDH’s influence in American politics by opening a branch in Washington, D.C., as a 501(c)3 nonprofit. The CCDH has apparently received funding through the Schwab Charitable Fund, which allows donors to remain anonymous.

If that doesn’t strike you as suspicious, according to the CCDH’s 2021 tax return, Ahmed is listed as the only full-time employee, and he’s listed as clocking 80 hours a week. Either it must require a lot of hours to track down digital hate, or something else is going on behind the curtain that they don’t want you to see.

Also listed on the tax return as the CCDH’s board chairman is Simon Clark, a former senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. The Center for American Progress was started by John Podesta, who went on to run Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016. The Biden administration hired more than 60 people who were either working or had worked for the CAP to fill various White House and executive agency posts. Podesta himself is now Joe Biden’s senior adviser for clean energy. Perhaps it was through those Center for American Progress connections that Ahmed and the CCDH got plugged directly into the heart of the Biden White House.

Disinformation and defamation

The same year Ahmed opened the D.C. office of his anti-hate campaign, the CCDH released a report on what it termed the “Disinformation Dozen,” a group of 12 individuals who the organization claimed were most responsible for spreading what the org — and later, the White House — deemed “disinformation” about COVID and vaccines. Jen Psaki used the exact same numbers from the CCDH report when she was still White House press secretary in July 2021. Someone was able to get that report directly into White House hands.

In late August, U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) subpoenaed the CCDH for records related to its alleged interaction with the Biden White House. When the CCDH finally complied with the subpoena, the group admitted to having direct communication with the White House about the “Disinformation Dozen” report.

The CCDH’s reach doesn’t end at the White House. As Matt Taibbi reported in the Twitter Files, 12 state attorneys general also cited the CCDH’s “Disinformation Dozen” report in their campaign to convince Twitter to penalize accounts that spread what they deemed as COVID “disinformation.”

The CCDH is also actively courting advertisers to step away from X. Elon Musk is now in a legal battle with the CCDH in a defamation case for falsely claiming that hate speech rose on the platform after Musk bought Twitter in October 2022.

The prodigious rise of the Center for Countering Digital Hate is more than a little suspicious. As Paul Thacker put it in his report:

For a tiny, unknown, nonprofit to gain so much attention in D.C.’s crowded, competitive policy space is akin to a pudgy, amateur athlete catching the winning touchdown in the Super Bowl, while setting a new world record in the marathon, all in one week.

So what’s going on? Why does it appear that the Biden White House is working with shadowy nonprofits — and in the CCDH’s case, essentially one man — to suppress and censor viewpoints that clash with its agenda? What do these foreign nationals have on our government officials to have so much influence over the approved speech of American citizens?

These questions need answers, and it’s high time we bring Imran Ahmed out from the shadows to answer them.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.