Hidden In Safes: Pentagon Uncovers Classified Documents On 5th Anniversary Of Abbey Gate Massacre

Five years ago today, 13 American service members were killed at Abbey Gate in Kabul, Afghanistan. Now, the investigation into what really happened — and who tried to bury the truth — may finally be blowing open.

Sean Parnell, Chairman of the Afghanistan Withdrawal Special Review Panel and Senior Advisor to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, dropped a bombshell on the fifth anniversary of the August 26, 2021 attack. His team has uncovered classified documents that had been deliberately hidden — “stashed and hidden away in safes where they would not be found.” After reviewing them, Parnell said it “became clear why someone tried to hide them” — but he declined to release the contents publicly until the investigation is complete.

The 13 Americans killed at Abbey Gate gave everything. Sgt. Johanny Rosario Pichardo. Sgt. Nicole L. Gee. Staff Sgt. Darin T. Hoover. Cpl. Hunter Lopez. Cpl. Daegan W. Page. Lance Cpl. Humberto A. Sanchez. Lance Cpl. David L. Espinoza. Lance Cpl. Jared M. Schmitz. Lance Cpl. Rylee J. McCollum. Lance Cpl. Dylan R. Merola. Lance Cpl. Kareem M. Nikoui. Hospital Corpsman Maxton Soviak. Staff Sgt. Ryan C. Knauss. Their families have waited five years for answers.

Parnell made clear his panel is not interested in giving Americans a “convenient version of the truth.” The panel has already reviewed more than nine million documents — compared to roughly 3,000 documents examined under the Biden-era review. This administration is not looking the other way.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth participated in a Pentagon ceremony today to upgrade valor awards for service members who defended Abbey Gate, correcting what Parnell described as the “inappropriate downgrading” of those honors under the previous administration. These were Americans who ran toward the bomb and saved lives. They deserved better recognition then, and they are getting it now.

One of the most consequential and least-scrutinized decisions of the entire debacle was the U.S. military’s reliance on the Taliban — including the Haqqani Network — to provide perimeter security at the airport during the evacuation. The previous investigation concluded the attack “could not have been prevented at the tactical level.” The new panel is not accepting that answer on faith.

Washington made the decisions in Afghanistan. Americans carried the consequences. What is in those safes may finally tell the families — and the country — what their government chose to hide.

Keep reading

Was An Obama Energy Secretary A CCP Plant?

Before Steven Chu oversaw America’s national laboratories and nuclear-weapons complex, a group inside what U.S. officials describe as the CCP’s “political warfare” apparatus listed him as an “overseas honorary president.” He later launched landmark research and technology partnerships with Beijing from inside the Department of Energy.

The organization was not simply “China-linked.” Its own records say it was led by the CCP Central Secretariat and administered by the Central United Front Work Department—the sprawling Party organ the U.S. government says works to co-opt elites, neutralize opposition and manipulate foreign institutions in service of Beijing.

Buried inside a non-searchable image on the official website of the Western Returned Scholars Association, or WRSA, is Chu’s Chinese name: 朱棣文.

The page identifies the organization’s Fourth Council as serving from 1999 to 2003. In the official roster image, under the heading 海外名誉会长—“overseas honorary presidents”—WRSA lists ten additional prestige scientists.

The Chinese Academy of Sciences explicitly identifies 朱棣文 as “Steven Chu,” the Stanford physicist and 1997 Nobel laureate. WRSA itself later used the same Chinese name for the “former U.S. Energy Secretary and physicist” Steven Chu. The surrounding names—some of the most famous overseas Chinese scientists of the era—make the match effectively certain.

Keep reading

Undersecretary of War Says Whoever Wins AI Race Will Dominate Economically, Militarily

Undersecretary of War for Research and Engineering Emil Michael said Tuesday at Breitbart News’s latest policy event that whoever wins the AI Race, the United States or China, will dominate economically and militarily.

During Breitbart News’s “AI is Here: What to Fear, What to Embrace,” Breitbart News Washington Bureau Chief Matthew Boyle asked Michael what would happen if the United States loses the AI race to China, and what the stakes would be for Western civilization as a whole. Michael said that whoever emerges as the victor in the AI race will lead economically.

“If you think about the 20th century, the way I’ve described this is we had military power leading up through World War II, and that created sort of… peace besides the Cold War, and then that led to our technological dominance. The internet started here. The internet economy started here. The iPhone, the app economy started here, and… that led to our sort of economic dominance… military technology economy,” he said. “Now, in the 21st century, I think technological dominance will determine whether we are economically dominant and militarily dominant. It stems from the tech dominance.” 

“If AI is the central, newest, and most important new technology, if we’re not dominant in that, it threatens our military and economic dominance, and it’s just a different flow in the 21st century,” he added. “And whoever wins that technological race, I think, is going to be [sic] economically, and that means the dollar is the reserve currency. That means priceable are priced in dollars. That means American bonds are the kind of thing that people invest in for safety. That means we have much more control of the financial system and… can ensure that it’s used for good.”

“So I think,” Michael asked, “do you want the Chinese model or the American model in the 21st century? And that starts for who’s going to be dominant in technology.”

Taylor Budowich, the founder of Innovation Council Action Inc. and former White House deputy chief of staff, told Boyle in an earlier conversation at the event that allowing China to win the AI race is “not an option.”

Keep reading

Iran Says Persian-Language Media Outlets ‘Funded By CIA’ Are Military Targets

One key tool Washington has long utilized for influence operations and covert regime change plotting abroad has long been the establishment of foreign media for political messaging.

The idea is that a foreign language satellite news channel gets presented as ‘independent’ while in reality it beams propaganda onto a unsuspecting population within a so-called ‘rogue’ state being targeted by the US.

For example, WikiLeaks previously revealed that US intelligence invested heavily in such projects to bolster anti-Assad forces and sentiment in the context of last decade’s proxy war in Syria.

Currently, Iran says it is fully aware of several Persian-language media outlets which are subversive, given they have the backing of the US, UK, or Israeli governments, or others like Saudi Arabia.

The AFP in a Wednesday report has said Iranian state media has newly called out the following as hostile propaganda media fronts:

  • BBC Persian
  • Iran International
  • Radio Farda

An Iranian military spokesman has said these have been added to the armed forces’ “military target bank” – putting the outlets on notice that their offices and infrastructure could come under attack.

“These hostile media outlets are the soldiers of Zionism and America and are included in our military target bank,” military spokesman Abolfazl Shekarchi announced.

He charged that they are “directly connected to Mossad, CIA and enemy intelligence organizations.” He emphasized: “The Iranian Armed Forces do not view these news outlets as media.”

And interestingly, per AFP: “Iran has designated Iran International as a terrorist organization since 2022 and has warned that cooperation with the channel is punishable under Iranian law.”

Earlier in the Iran war, we featured analysis which pointed out that Iran International calls itself the “most popular Persian speaking foreign based news channel in Iran”.It employs 700 people and broadcasts into Iran from London via satellite, radio and social media outlets.

Iran International has been accused by critics of promoting “regime change” in Iran and advancing the position of the former shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi, for a return to power. The outlet has long denied links to Israel or Saudi Arabia. The outlet reported heavily on protests that struck Iran at the beginning of this year, sparked by a cost-of-living crisis brought on, in part, by US sanctions.

In January 2025, the news site reported that more than 36,500 people were killed in a crackdown on protests. Those numbers were significantly higher than those estimated by the US and other western-based human rights groups.

US President Donald Trump cited casualty numbers similar to those reported by Iran International days before launching a war on Iran on February 28, but did not disclose where he had gotten the death toll number.

Keep reading

How the Media Sells Genocide

The Western media manufactures consent for genocide. It normalizes Israel’s decades-long military occupation and apartheid. It erases Israel’s flagrant violations of international law. It perpetuates the fallacy of Israeli victimhood. It betrays, discredits and demonizes the work of Palestinian journalists and media workers in Gaza, at least 220 of whom have been killed by Israel between Oct. 7, 2023, and August 2025. It supinely accepts draconian Israeli censorship. It acquiesces with tepid letters of protest at Israel’s refusal to allow foreign reporters in Gaza — an effort by Israel to mask its war crimes. It amplifies Israeli lies, from beheaded babies to widespread sexual assault of Israeli women on Oct. 7, to obfuscate the truth.

When writing about Gaza, verbs are in the passive tense. There is no subject. No one is accountable. Genocide, it seems, is an act of God. No different from an earthquake or tsunami. Clichés and opaque adjectives such as the “cycle of violence” or “clashes” distort and falsify reality.

“If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought,” George Orwell warned.

Terms such as “genocide,” “atrocity,” “ethnic cleansing” and “occupied territories” magically disappear from media reports on Palestinians, whose resistance is routinely described as “savage” and “barbaric.” New York Times reporters are instructed by editors to avoid terms such as “Palestine,” “genocide,” “carnage,” “refugee camp,” “slaughter” and “massacre,” when referencing Palestinians.

The media slavishly regurgitates what Israel feeds it. Saturation bombing becomes “surgical air strikes.” Israel’s weaponization of famine becomes a “food shortage.” The killing of unarmed civilians — including children — becomes “clashes.” The hilltop fortress-like compounds of Jewish colonists becomes “neighborhoods.” Extrajudicial assassination of a journalist or a doctor becomes “died.”

Genocide, referred to as the “Israel-Hamas war” is justified as “self-defense,” part of the mantra of Israel’s “right to defend itself.” When schools, hospitals, clinics, ambulances, mosques, churches and other civilian targets are obliterated, they are labeled “Hamas command centers” or targeted because Hamas is “using civilians as human shields” — something Israel does routinely, when the army binds detained Palestinians and forces them to enter potentially booby-trapped buildings and tunnels ahead of Israeli troops.

When Israelis are held by Hamas, they are “hostages,” even if they serve in the military. When Palestinians — including children — are held without charges or trial and disappeared into Israeli detention centers, where torture is “widespread” and “systematic,” they are “prisoners.”

Missile attacks on tent cities or hospitals are blamed on Palestinian armed groups firing errant rockets. If Israel acknowledges the attacks — which very rarely happens — they are described as a “tragic mistake.”

Civil institutions in Gaza are characterized as “Hamas-run” to cast doubt on the veracity of what they report. The New York Times routinely qualifies announcements from the Gaza Health Ministry by noting it “does not distinguish between civilians and combatants,” masking the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians.

The result is some of the most convoluted writing in the history of journalism, including the Nov. 5, 2023 New York Times headline that reads: “Explosions Gazans Say Was Airstrike Leaves Many Casualties in Dense Neighborhood.”

“When Middle East Eye journalists Mohamed Salama and Ahmed Abu Aziz, along with Reuters photojournalist Hussam al-Masri, and freelancers Moaz Abu Taha, and Mariam Dagga — who had worked with several media outlets, including the Associated Press — were killed in a “double tap” strike — designed to kill first responders arriving to treat casualties from initial strikes — at Nasser Medical Complex, how did Western news agencies respond?” I asked in my column The Betrayal of Palestinian Journalists.

“Israeli military says strikes on Gaza hospital targeted what it says was a Hamas camera,” the Associated Press reported.

“IDF claims hospital strike was aimed at Hamas camera,” announced CNN.

The camera belonged to Reuters, which said Israel was “fully aware” the news agency was filming from the hospital.

“When Al Jazeera correspondent Anas Al Sharif and three other journalists were killed on Aug. 10 in their media tent near Al Shifa Hospital, how was it reported in the Western press?” I asked.

“Israel Kills Al Jazeera Journalist It Says Was Hamas Leader,” Reuters titled its story, despite the fact al-Sharif was part of a Reuters team that won a 2024 Pulitzer Prize.

The German newspaper Bild, published a front page story headlined: “Terrorist disguised as a journalist killed in Gaza.”

Keep reading

Israeli PM Netanyahu claims Iran tried to assassinate his son

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accused Iran of trying to assassinate one of his sons.

“This is an unbelievable case. Iran targeted one of my sons. Iran tried to murder him, tried to murder one of my sons,” Netanyahu told Israel’s Channel 14 on Monday, according to the Jerusalem Post.

“Iran tried to murder one of my sons. And this is why this promise [I am making] is more than a luxury – without it, they could succeed [in killing my son]. People need to show some restraint, especially during an election campaign,” Netanyahu said.

The prime minister stated that he had spoken to David Zini, director of the Israeli Security Agency Shin Bet, asking him to increase security for any prime ministerial candidate.

Netanyahu did not clarify during the phone interview which of his sons—35-year-old Yair Netanyahu or 31-year-old Avner Netanyahu—was targeted by the alleged plot, nor did he provide specific details of how Israeli intelligence was made aware of it.

Shin Bet previously extended protective services to Netanyahu’s sons and his wife, Sara Netanyahu, in July.

Netanyahu’s announcement comes after Israel revealed a large store of weapons — including rockets, grenades, drones, sniper rifles, automated weapons, anti-tank rocket launchers, mortars and other military firepower — it has confiscated from Hezbollah and Hamas in recent months. Both Iranian-backed groups have been linked to widespread regional violence and historical attacks that have claimed the lives of hundreds of American and international citizens.

Keep reading

CIA Director Held Covert Moscow Talks With Russian Intel Chiefs As Relations Sink Deeper Into “Crisis”

CIA Director John Ratcliffe traveled to Moscow on a US Air Force C-17 transport jet on Tuesday morning for meetings with Russian intelligence officials, according to CBS News.

The outlet cited Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, who confirmed Wednesday that Ratcliffe met with senior Russian intelligence officials but not President Vladimir Putin.

Putin was later briefed on the talks, according to Peskov, who cautioned that it was too early to determine whether the meeting could help pull bilateral US-Russian relations out of their “deep crisis.”

The visit marks Ratcliffe’s first known trip to Russia since becoming CIA director, though he has maintained contact with Russian intelligence counterparts, CBS noted.

CBS continued:

Ahead of his trip, the US told Ukrainian officials that a senior delegation would be traveling to Moscow and asked Kyiv to suspend strikes until the delegation’s departure from Russia, according to a senior Ukrainian official.

The secretive trip comes as US-mediated peace talks remain stalled and Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian energy infrastructure have stoked a refined-products crisis that is spreading worldwide in the form of diesel shortages. We must note the energy crisis has been compounded by tanker transit disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz. 

Keep reading

Famed Ukrainian Military Analyst Says Russian Forces are Just 7 Miles from Kramatorsk and Slavyansk, Predicts Assault of the ‘Fortress Belt’ To Begin as Soon as December

The Kramatorsk-Slavyansk Fortress belt is the last major military objective in Donetsk Oblast for the Russian forces.

For a while now, it’s become clear that the Ukrainian news outlets and analysts have become much more adept at reporting the facts than the Globalist MSM.

The legacy news ‘brands’ have usually shrunk to mere Globalist, pro-Kiev propaganda.

That’s why we will use a reputable Ukrainian source to talk about the impending battle for Kramatorsk and Slavyansk.

We have been reporting here on TGP about how the fortifications of the Slavyansk-Kramatorsk agglomeration are the last major military objective for the Russian advances in Donetsk region, the cradle of the war.

And now, the endgame approaches, according to Ukrainian military analyst Oleksandr Kovalenko.

Keep reading

Report: Trump Admin Requests Ukraine Refrain From Striking Russia During Meetings

The Trump administration reportedly requested that Ukraine refrain from striking parts of Russia with missiles while the United States engaged in meetings with Russian officials.

Christopher Miller, the Chief Ukraine Correspondent for the Financial Times, shared in a post on X that officials in the Trump administration had “requested that Kyiv not strike Moscow, St. Petersburg, and northern regions of Russia with its long range missiles and drones on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday when the U.S. would send a plane carrying a senior-level official to the Russian capital,” citing “people familiar with the request.”

“Ukraine agreed, they said,” Miller added. “Today we see that a U.S. Air Force C-17 plane has landed in Moscow.”

Breitbart News’s Oliver JJ Lane reported that a U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III was reported to have flown “from the capital of NATO-member Latvia to an airport near Moscow, Russia on Tuesday morning”:

A U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III flew from the capital of NATO-member Latvia to an airport near Moscow, Russia on Tuesday morning. The military jet first flew on Sunday from Andrews Air Force Base near Washington, D.C., reports France’s Le Figaro, citing the open source transponder data which is collected by hobbyist ground-based receivers and aggregated through services such as the Flight Radar app.

Military flights are not obliged to keep their transponders on, but it is best practice to do so for the sake of other flights in the area and air traffic control for the sake of safety. The decision to keep the transponders broadcasting over Russian airspace betrays a desire to make the flight as visible and easily identifiable as possible.

CBS News’s Senior White House reporter Jennifer Jacobs reported in a post on X that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Ratcliffe was reported to have “traveled to Russia aboard a C-17 for meetings in Moscow today.”

Keep reading

Why Iran Ruffles the Feathers of the United States

Strip away the diplomatic briefings, Congressional hearings and the endless cable news loops about centrifuges, regional proxies and cyber attacks, and you hit a raw unvarnished nerve.

What truly disturbs the United States about the Islamic Republic is not its policies, its rhetoric or even its nuclear ambitions.  It is Iran’s audacity to exist completely outside the American orbit; and make it work.

When diplomatic pretenses are scrapped, we see that a major power does not spend billions of dollars, conduct regional wars and upend global markets out of pure legalistic devotion to global rules or nonproliferation treaties.

The conflict with the United States, is not about what Iran has in its centrifuges.  Rather, it is about what Tehran represents to a hegemon that refuses to accept  “no” and cannot tolerate a world not under its control.

If the mere possession of enriched uranium or atomic warheads was the ultimate redline, the outline of America’s animosities would look entirely different.

The “crossing the nuclear threshold” explanation collapses under the weight of obvious global contradictions.  Washington, for example, has found ways to coexist, cooperate or outright partner with other nuclear-armed nations; from historical accommodations with Pakistan and India, to winking at Israel’s undeclared arsenal, and managing a pragmatic, albeit tense, approach to China and North Korea.

In the vocabulary of global superpowers, compliance is currency.  Washington tolerates fierce enemies if they eventually capitulate; and it accommodates brutal allies if they submit to American domination.  What empire dreads most is an uncooperative self-reliant country that refuses to bend the knee, yet stubbornly survives after decades of total economic siege.

The real reason Iran gets under the skin of the American foreign policy establishment, and why it has become its main target, has little to do with atoms, and everything to do with sovereignty, geography and the architecture of U.S. hegemony.

For decades, the unwritten rule of the post-Cold War order was simple: align with the U.S.-led global order, or be excluded and isolated.  Most nations that initially balked had little choice but to integrate, bound by the weight of a dollar-dominated global economy.   Difficult states were either absorbed or efforts were made to bring them into client-state relationships, or they are heavily monitored.

In 1979, Iran did the unforgivable.  It rebelled and institutionalized a successful, unapologetic ideological revolution that expressly rejected U.S.-Israeli hegemony, and built an enduring political structure explicitly rooted in anti-imperialism and anti-Zionism. It proudly declared that a Middle Eastern state could chart its own destiny outside the Western framework.

Since then, generations of U.S. policymakers have convinced themselves that crushing economic sanctions, diplomatic excommunication, assassinations and covert sabotage would inevitably lead to a popular implosion or “regime” collapse.

Washington’s frustration has only deepened because its strategy has not worked.

Keep reading