This week revealed three fronts of the same globalist pattern—power never relinquishes control, it only shifts tactics. HHS cut $500 million from mRNA projects but kept the funding within the same central pipelines. The White House expanded military authority against “threats” in a way that could later be turned inward. Meanwhile, a federal court blocked California’s deepfake law even as AI speech regulations accelerate. Each headline confirms what our books documented years ago: government adapts its tools to the moment but never truly abandons control.
mRNA Retreat or Rebrand? The $500M Pivot at HHS
RFK Jr. halts $500M in BARDA mRNA projects - AP News
RFK Jr. orders halt to US mRNA vaccine projects – The Guardian
HHS to prioritize safer vaccine alternatives - Fox News
HHS announced it will wind down 22 BARDA-funded mRNA vaccine projects—almost $500 million in contracts—while directing its venture arm to stop mRNA equity investments. The official explanation cites safety concerns and a shift to “safer, broader platforms” like whole-virus vaccines and other “novel” technologies. However, NIH mRNA research continues unchanged, and late-stage BARDA contracts will still be completed.
What’s not being disclosed is where that $500 million actually goes. It’s not being returned to taxpayers—it stays within the HHS/BARDA system, simply redirected to other centralized programs. In bureaucratic terms, this is a budget reallocation, not a retreat. That funding could just as easily be used for AI-driven health surveillance, “predictive outbreak” modeling, or other Agenda 2030-aligned projects under the banner of “vaccine platform modernization.”
RFK Jr.’s reasoning—highlighting safety signals, natural immunity benefits, and transparency issues—mirrors findings we recorded in COVID19: SHORT PATH TO “YOU'LL OWN NOTHING. AND YOU’LL BE HAPPY.”
- Declining protection: Evidence of waning immunity within months, necessitating constant boosting.
- Adverse events: Spike protein biodistribution, myocarditis, and immune system dysregulation concerns flagged in peer-reviewed literature.
- Data opacity: Selective release of trial and booster safety data, and shifting goalposts for efficacy endpoints.
While the announcement might seem like a political win for vaccine skeptics, THE FALLACIOUS BELIEF IN GOVERNMENT reminds us that centralized systems don't just lose power—they reshape it. The same bureaucratic network that pushed widespread mRNA adoption will now redirect its funding, regulatory influence, and media narratives toward new platforms. That could include recombinant protein, viral vector, or DNA-based vaccines, each bringing its own safety concerns and supply chain issues.
The main concern is that this “pivot” could also accelerate AI-supported bio-governance—linking vaccine compliance to health passports, wearable biosensors, and real-time behavioral analytics. If that happens, we will see a shift from biological mandates to digital enforcement, where AI systems monitor and flag noncompliance long before a human enforcer intervenes.
In short, this is less about dismantling mRNA dominance and more about rebranding the compliance infrastructure with a new story of safety and innovation. The centralized control mechanisms remain—only the appearance changes.
Cartels, Military Force & A Dangerous Precedent
Trump expands military authority to target cartels - New York Times
Pentagon given green light to strike cartels abroad - Newsweek
Directive allows military to confront cartels in multiple regions - The Hill
President Trump signed a directive authorizing the Pentagon to use overt or covert military force against drug cartels operating in Mexico, Venezuela, international waters, and undefined “gray zones.” Cartels are now officially classified as terrorist organizations, unlocking the legal and operational tools developed over the last two decades of the War on Terror. This shift effectively combines counterterrorism strategies with counter-narcotics policies, broadening the scope of military action against non-state actors well beyond traditional battlefields.
At first glance, the move focuses on transnational organized crime. But history demonstrates that once a threat category becomes normalized, its use can—and will—be expanded. We’ve seen this happen before.
- The AUMF of 2001, originally passed to fight al-Qaeda, was later used to justify strikes in countries that had no connection to 9/11.
- Domestic protests have been reframed as “extremist threats” to national security, paving the way for surveillance and militarized policing.
Domestic precedent creep is the real danger. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, federal troops generally cannot perform domestic law enforcement, but the Insurrection Act is a significant loophole—so broad that it permits deployment against “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combinations, or conspiracies” if believed to obstruct federal law. This is not hypothetical. Trump already pushed the limits of this authority when deploying active-duty troops during immigration-related unrest and protests connected to ICE operations.
In THE FALLACIOUS BELIEF IN GOVERNMENT, it argues that defining threats is the key for the government to maintain permanent power. Once any group can be labeled as an existential danger, the moral and legal basis is established for extraordinary measures. These measures then become routine. Today, it’s cartels in foreign territory. Today, it’s cartels in foreign territory. Tomorrow, it will grow.
The founders understood this risk. George Mason warned in 1788 that once a standing army exists, “the people lose their liberty.” Thomas Jefferson likewise cautioned that the natural course of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. Yet America has now built a permanent war machine—complete with the legal framework, intelligence networks, and kinetic capabilities—to turn that warning into policy.
This directive doesn’t just authorize action; it normalizes the idea that the executive can define a category of enemy and direct military power at it anywhere in the world, with or without formal war. In an age of blurred borders between domestic and international policing, that logic will inevitably drift home.
California’s Deepfake Law Struck Down—But AI Speech Control Marches On
Federal judge strikes down California deepfake law - Politico
Court rules law unconstitutional under Section 230, First Amendment - ZeroHedge
Jim Acosta under fire for AI “interview” with Parkland victim - The Guardian
Former CNN anchor criticized over AI-generated interview - Daily Mail
Generative AI adoption accelerating in enterprise - AI News
A federal court delivered a setback to California’s “Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act,” with Judge John Mendez ruling that it is preempted by Section 230 and violates the First Amendment by requiring political speakers to label their content. The decision affirms the long-standing rule that the government cannot compel speech as a condition for speaking—especially in the political sphere. For X Corp., The Babylon Bee, and other plaintiffs, the ruling is a victory against censorship disguised as “election integrity.”
Yet, as THE FALLACIOUS BELIEF IN GOVERNMENT warns, isolated legal wins do not dismantle the machinery of control—they just slow it down. AI speech regulation is progressing through other channels.
- Platform policies increasingly mirror legislative aims, as governments “recommend” or “coordinate” moderation standards with private companies.
- Regulatory patchwork is emerging internationally, with the EU’s AI Act and other frameworks pushing labeling, watermarking, and content authentication requirements that could become de facto global norms.
- Funding incentives and federal contracts encourage platforms to adopt “harm detection” AI, making compliance a matter of business survival.
The same week as the ruling, Jim Acosta faced national outrage for broadcasting an AI-generated “interview” with a deceased Parkland shooting victim—highlighting why authenticity, consent, and manipulation are sensitive issues. Critics called it ghoulish exploitation; supporters argued it was a provocative showcase of AI’s capabilities. Either way, the incident will be used to push for stricter oversight, providing a strong reason for renewed legislative efforts.
Meanwhile, businesses are rapidly adopting generative AI at scale, integrating large language models into content moderation, real-time speech analysis, and “integrity” enforcement systems. This is precisely the public–private partnership we’ve warned about: the government doesn’t need new laws if it can take control of the infrastructure that manages our speech.
The risk isn’t just direct censorship—it’s the preemptive shaping of discourse. If algorithms trained to spot “deepfakes” also flag satire, dissent, or unapproved narratives as “harmful,” it creates a self-reinforcing filter where acceptable speech gradually diminishes.
The California decision is a helpful precedent, but without removing the AI-driven moderation systems integrated into both corporate policies and government contracts, it’s only a temporary break. The real battle is over who owns the filters—and whether we’ll ever be able to speak freely without passing through them.
Same Playbook, New Chapters
Whether it’s a $500M reallocation in vaccine policy, expanded military powers abroad, or a free speech court win, none of these events dismantles the core power structures. The technologies, authorities, and funding streams stay in place—often enhanced. The answer isn’t better managers of centralized systems but dismantling the coercive frameworks themselves. Without that, we’re just watching the operating system install its latest update.
Listen to this week's news in verse for a quick recap!
