We obtained new docs from the Brennan-Clapper DHS intel group revealing the Biden admin developed a classified plan to expand monitoring of political dissent.
#DeepStateDiaries PART 5:
/2 Today, we are releasing the fifth tranche of internal files from the “Homeland Intelligence Experts Group,” obtained exclusively through our litigation with @RichardGrenell against the Biden DHS:
/3 From the day President Biden took power, he has mobilized the national security state to support its censorship program…
/4 In June 2021, the Biden Administration’s National Security Council published its first-ever “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism,” a 32-page plan that outlined their whole-of-government effort to work with Big Tech, state and local governments, non-profits, and others to censor political speech and surveil political dissent.
/5 AFL has been investigating the Administration’s implementation of this “Domestic Surveillance Strategy” since 2021, including filing a lawsuit against DHS to compel the release of records relating to how DHS uses its intelligence capabilities to target conservative Americans.
/7 Today, AFL’s litigation against the DHS Intelligence Experts Group has obtained never before released documents exposing that the Biden Administration published a classified implementation plan to accompany their public-facing 2021 Domestic Surveillance Strategy.
/8 This classified plan has not been reported publicly until today.
No one in the general public knows what’s in it, what it directs departments and agencies to do, or the scope of agencies involved with it.
/9 This is not the first time AFL has discovered the Biden Administration using classified systems to target political dissent. In January 2023, AFL’s lawsuit against the CDC uncovered that the CDC partnered with the State Department, USAID, the Census Bureau, and others on an NSC classified call to discuss censoring so-called “disinformation.”
🚨NEW — AFL is demanding @CabCoSchools REPEAL its unlawful policy allowing biological males to use girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms.
Enough is enough.
Last week, AFL sent a letter on behalf of its clients to Cabarrus County Schools (CCS) in North Carolina, challenging its policy of allowing biological males to access female-designated restrooms, locker rooms, and changing areas.
AFL’s letter follows its earlier complaint with the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, requesting a federal investigation into CCS for potential violations of Title IX.
On June 1, 2026, the ED announced that it had launched an investigation in response to AFL’s complaint.
🚨EXPOSED — New Biden-era DOJ records obtained by AFL reveal former Acting Associate AG Matthew Colangelo’s involvement in lawfare targeting President Trump before joining Alvin Bragg’s prosecution.
The records contradict claims by officials and the media that he was uninvolved.
Matthew Colangelo served as Acting Associate Attorney General and Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General — the third-highest ranking official at DOJ — from January 2021 through November 2022.
Colangelo then resigned to help Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg “jump-start” his investigation of President Trump.
Colangelo personally delivered the prosecution’s opening statement.
🚨EXPOSED — Illegal aliens have had free rein in Fairfax, Virginia.
AFL has uncovered documents showing that Fairfax has refused to honor HUNDREDS of ICE detainers on criminal illegal aliens over the past year and a half.
Releasing lawbreakers has consequences.
Below are some of the horrible crimes allegedly committed by illegal aliens in Fairfax who should have never been in the country — and who could have been deported if localities worked with ICE.
đź§µ
Abdul Jalloh:
➡️ From Sierra Leone
➡️ Entered the United States illegally in 2012 under Obama
➡️ Charged with stabbing 41-year-old Stephanie Minter to death on February 23, 2026, at a bus stop
➡️ Previously arrested more than 30 times without being deported
🏛️VICTORY: This week, SCOTUS issued its landmark decision in Trump v. Slaughter:
Officials who exercise the President’s executive power must be removable by him at will.
Statutory restrictions on the President’s removal of such officers VIOLATE the separation of powers.
AFL, alongside co-counsel Mitchell Law PLLC, filed an amicus brief in Slaughter, urging the Court to restore constitutional order by overruling Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (Humphrey’s Executor).
By overruling Humphrey’s Executor, the Court:
➡️Reaffirms the separation of powers
➡️Ends Congress’s unconstitutional interference in executive functions
➡️Returns accountability to the American people
AFL and @KenPaxtonTX just secured a federal court order PERMANENTLY ENDING an illegal Biden-era backdoor amnesty program that allowed immigration judges to indefinitely freeze removal proceedings against illegal aliens.
Today, AFL and @TXAG filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas challenging the Biden Department of Justice’s “Administrative Closure Rule,” which allowed immigration judges to indefinitely pause immigration court cases against illegal aliens.
@TXAG The same day the lawsuit was filed, the parties reached a settlement, and the court entered a final consent judgment vacating the rule and permanently enjoining its enforcement.
An illegal rule that allowed illegal aliens to remain in the United States indefinitely is now dead.
America First Legal and @SchaerrJaffeLlp just secured a huge win for parental rights — vindicating the rights of families fighting against California’s radical attempt to hide children’s “gender transitions” from parents.
2/ In City of Huntington Beach v. Newsom, the Ninth Circuit entered a preliminary injunction blocking key provisions of AB 1955.
This law forced schools to keep parents in the dark about their child’s sexual orientation, “gender identity,” or gender expression — unless the child consented. California tried to insert the State between parents and their kids.
3/ The court, reconsidering in light of the Supreme Court’s landmark Mirabelli v. Bonta decision, held that Plaintiff-Parents “very likely have standing” and that parents — not the State — have primary authority over the upbringing and education of their children.