Post

More from @DD_Geopolitics

DD Geopolitics

@DD_Geopolitics

Sep 1

🇺🇸 PRESIDENT TRUMP: ISRAEL HAD THE STRONGEST LOBBY

In a new Oval Office interview with the Daily Caller, Trump made a stunning admission:

“Israel had the strongest lobby in Congress of anything… or of any company or corporation or state that I’ve ever seen. Israel was the strongest. Today, it doesn’t have that strong a lobby. It’s amazing.”

WHAT?!?

🧵👇

🇺🇸 TRUMP: AIPAC HAD TOTAL CONTROL OVER CONGRESS NOW THEY DON'T

In the same Daily Caller interview, Trump claims that Israel’s grip on U.S. politics has weakened and blames “AOC plus three” and unnamed “lunatics” for the shift.

“Israel was the strongest lobby I’ve ever seen. They had total control over Congress, and now they don’t. I’m a little surprised to see that.”

NOW they don't?!?!?

He adds: “People forgot about October 7th… It was a truly horrible day. I’ve seen the pictures.”

🇺🇸 TRUMP: OCTOBER 7 AND THE HOLOCAUST?

In the same Daily Caller interview, Trump compared October 7 to the Holocaust:

“You have people that deny it ever happened… They’re gonna have to get that war over with. It is hurting Israel… They may be winning the war, but they’re not winning public relations.”

Then again:

“Israel was the strongest lobby 15 years ago that there has ever been. And now it’s been hurt, especially in Congress.”

Let’s be clear:
🔹 Israel still receives billions in U.S. aid
🔹 The lobby dominates tech, arms, and media
🔹 Congress shields Israel from accountability
🔹 Dissent is still criminalized as “antisemitism”

So what is Trump doing?

He’s not wrong that support is slipping, especially among young Republicans. But he’s spinning it.

Read 4 tweets

DD Geopolitics

@DD_Geopolitics

Aug 31

🇵🇸💸 Welcome to “The GREAT Trust” — Gaza’s future as imagined by U.S. planners, Israeli strategists, and Gulf investors. A corporate utopia, built on ruins and wrapped in Abraham Accords buzzwords. But under the branding lies a brutal truth: Gaza is to be recolonized, monetized, and erased.

This is not a reconstruction plan. This is a capitalist cleansing operation.

A leaked document titled “The GREAT Trust”—short for Gaza Reconstitution, Economic Acceleration, and Transformation—lays out the blueprint. It envisions Gaza as a “thriving trade hub” at the heart of the new Abrahamic regional order. But that vision only begins after Gaza is destroyed, Hamas is dismantled, and U.S. control is imposed through a “multilateral trusteeship.”

This is how they describe it:

“A U.S.-led custodianship… can start as a U.S.–Israel bilateral agreement taking control from Israel to the U.S. (once Hamas is disarmed), and evolve into a formal multilateral trusteeship.”

The real goal? Transfer Gaza from Israeli occupation to U.S.-Arab corporate control.

📉 Gaza’s value under Hamas is described as “$0.” The West Bank, they note approvingly, has “modest growth” under Israeli control. The conclusion? Hamas must be dismantled, Gaza must be opened to foreign capital, and “voluntary relocation” must begin.

📈 What follows is a $70–100B investment scheme to kickstart tokenized land ownership, 10 “mega construction” projects, a “top-tier security force,” and massive returns for U.S.-aligned investors:
$385B projected ROI over 10 years
$324B in asset value
$37B in tax revenue (for foreign countries)
$24B in direct revenue
Annual trust income exceeding $4.5B by Year 10

Gaza, they claim, will become a “$300B asset” up from “zero.” A digital-physical economic zone at the center of the IMEC corridor, exporting labor and goods through tokenized land and tightly controlled trade routes.

But this wealth will not belong to Palestinians.

The plan mentions “generous voluntary relocation packages” and “permanent housing,” but offers no political autonomy, no elections, no justice. Just corporate trusteeship, strategic mineral access, and a chance to erase Gaza’s revolutionary spirit forever.

🧵This is the vision. This is The GREAT Trust.
A capitalist dystopia over the bones of children.

2. The plan to “rebuild Gaza” is a corporate-military annexation wrapped in buzzwords like resilience, integration, and smart cities.

By 2035, Gaza is envisioned not as a Palestinian homeland but as:
• A bridge between India and Europe for the IMEC trade route
• A rare-earth processing hub feeding Gulf tech and Israeli defense
• A walled free-trade zone ruled by digital ID and AI systems

The U.S. and Israel would direct a 10-part mega-project campaign:
1. UXO/demolition clearing
2. “Abraham Gateway” logistics node in Rafah
3. UAE/KSA-funded railways, ports, and pipelines
4. An “Elon Musk Smart Manufacturing Zone” for EVs
5. U.S. datacenters governed by AI laws
6. A Trump-branded island resort
7. Smart ID-governed cities designed for surveillance
8. Israeli-border industry zones powered by Gaza’s own gas
9. A regional water hub (Sinai-based desalination)
10. A highway grid to link all of it to Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and the Gulf

Like Haussmann’s redesign of Paris to crush rebellion, Gaza’s new layout is engineered to prevent uprisings before they begin.

All economy, services, and movement would run through AI-managed ID systems. The cities are shaped like pie slices, surrounded by golf courses and tourist zones, with trams, highways, and surveillance nodes connecting every edge.

This is late-stage capitalism on meth and ketamine....

3. The core of the “GREAT Trust” plan is this: Gaza is not to be rebuilt for Palestinians but for investors.

At its heart is a $300B+ Land Trust, funded by turning Gaza’s land into digital tokens, tradable on a blockchain, managed like a corporate asset:
• Public land (~30%) leased for up to 99 years
• Private landowners offered “permanent housing” in exchange for digital tokens
• All transactions tracked via smart contracts
• Land aggregated, securitized, and sold — piece by piece

This is disaster capitalism on the bones of a genocide:
1. Tokenize the rubble.
2. Sell off the land.
3. Use the proceeds to fund a surveillance dystopia and call it “Palestinian Wealth.”

Governance? Not democratic, but custodial:
• Phase 1: Israeli-led “humanitarian zones” (no Hamas)
• Phase 2: A multilateral Trust governed by U.S. and “friendly” Arab states
• Phase 3: A deradicalized “Palestinian polity” takes over…but only if it signs the Abraham Accords.

Security? It begins with Western PMCs, transitions to Trust-trained Gazans, but always under permanent Israeli “oversight rights.”

This is worse than occupation, monetized, digitized, and whitewashed through humanitarian theater.

And in the end, it forces Palestine into a Zionist normalization pact as the price of survival.

Read 12 tweets

DD Geopolitics

@DD_Geopolitics

Jul 31

🇵🇸🚨 New from DD Geopolitics:

What do child trafficking, Gaza aid, private contractors, and Christian exorcists have in common?

In our latest investigation, we expose how a network of evangelical veterans, intelligence cutouts, and spiritual warriors turned Gaza into a battlefield, not just of bombs, but of ideology.

From biometric checkpoints to Bible-backed psyops, humanitarian aid is being weaponized in ways you’re not supposed to see.

Read the full exposé ⬇️

READ: open.substack.com/pub/ddgeopolit…

https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1950904336076148941

THE GHF MUST BE DISMANTLED

https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1950904336076148941

Read 5 tweets

DD Geopolitics

@DD_Geopolitics

Jul 11

🇺🇸 UNMASKING CANDACE OWENS: A THREAD 🧵

We have received a MAJOR SCOOP from a former Turning Point USA insider that Candace Owens was introduced to her husband George Farmer by Allie Hadley, wife of William Lee Hadley, who was a longtime friend of CIA Director Porter Goss!

In 2018, while working at Turning Point, Owens met Parler CEO and Turning Point UK Chairman George Farmer, the son of House of Lords life peer Michael Farmer, who proposed to her in a very strange way, over Facetime 17 days after being introduced to each other by Allie Hanley.

Allie Hanley is the husband of William Lee Hanley, who was the chair of the State Department Propaganda outlet The Corporation for Public Broadcasting under Reagan. Hanley was very close friends with former CIA Director Porter Goss and donated to him during the Bush campaign.

Read 20 tweets

DD Geopolitics

@DD_Geopolitics

Apr 17

🇸🇻🧵 Erik Prince’s Offshoring Plan for U.S. Immigration Detention

Prince’s Proposal: A U.S.-Run “Mega-Prison” in El Salvador

Former Blackwater CEO Erik Prince has spearheaded a plan to privatize and offshore U.S. immigration detention by using El Salvador’s new mega-prison complex. The proposal obtained by POLITICO, calls for transporting up to 100,000 detainees from U.S. custody to El Salvador. Under the plan, Prince’s new entity (called “2USV”) would partner with El Salvador to round up “100,000 of the worst criminal offenders” currently in U.S. prisons, hold them initially at a 10,000-bed camp for processing, and then fly them to a Salvadoran prison for long-term incarceration. The targeted population is described as “criminal illegal aliens,” meaning non-citizens with criminal convictions, though Prince has also pitched involving U.S. citizens in some scenarios.

Under the proposal, private contractors would handle nearly every step of the operation. Prince’s team (comprised of military and defense contractors) seeks a lucrative government contract to locate, capture, detain, and deport these individuals on behalf of the U.S. To do this, 2USV asked for access to federal law enforcement and immigration databases to help identify deportable inmates across U.S. prisons. The contractors even want a role in immigration court proceedings: If a detainee lacks a final deportation order, 2USV would “facilitate a hearing before an immigration judge” to resolve any asylum claims. They also propose negotiating plea deals with U.S. prosecutors – offering prisoners reduced sentences if they agree not to fight deportation and accept removal orders. In effect, Prince’s group aims to replace or augment parts of ICE and immigration courts with a privately run enforcement arm, expediting removals outside the normal system.

2. Designating Salvadoran Soil as “U.S. Territory” – The Treaty of Cession

A centerpiece of the plan is a legal maneuver to circumvent U.S. legal constraints on deportation. Prince’s proposal includes sample language for a “Treaty of Cession” that would turn part of El Salvador’s prison complex into U.S. sovereign territory. In practical terms, El Salvador would cede a portion of the mega-prison to U.S. ownership, which the U.S. would then lease back to El Salvador to operate. Prince’s document argues that if this enclave is legally U.S. soil, then transferring prisoners there “would not be an extradition nor a deportation.” In other words, the inmates could be physically removed to El Salvador without legally classifying it as a removal to a foreign country. This attempt to exploit a jurisdictional loophole aims to avoid the legal hurdles that normally apply when deporting or extraditing individuals. By declaring the facility U.S. territory, Prince contends the transfer would be akin to moving a prisoner between domestic prisons – sidestepping requirements of extradition treaties or immigration removal proceedings.

Critically, the proposal urges the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to “suspend the ICE detention standards” for this facility. This indicates an intent to bypass U.S. regulations on the treatment of detainees once they are in El Salvador. If the enclave is U.S. territory but run by El Salvador, detainees might fall into a grey zone: U.S. custody in name, but without the usual oversight on conditions that ICE-run centers require. Indeed, the plan explicitly seeks to avoid “questions about detention standards” set by ICE and the Bureau of Prisons, presumably allowing far harsher conditions under the Salvadoran prison regime. Such an arrangement is unprecedented – effectively creating an offshore extraterritorial detention camp under U.S. jurisdiction but outsourced management.

Prince’s team and Salvadoran officials have already taken steps toward this plan. In August 2024, Prince toured El Salvador’s new Counter-Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) mega-prison and met with President Nayib Bukele. By March 2025, El Salvador’s Minister of Justice and Public Security, Gustavo Villatoro, signed a letter treating Prince’s group as an official “trade agent” for negotiating use of Salvadoran prisons to hold “foreign criminals.” . That letter touted the prison complex’s capacity to hold 40,000 prisoners immediately, with expansion up to 100,000 “criminal aliens” in the near future. In early 2025, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio (under a new Trump administration) visited El Salvador and confirmed Bukele’s “extraordinary gesture” – offering to accept deportees of any nationality, even violent U.S. citizens, into Salvadoran prisons. (The administration later insisted there is “no current plan” to deport U.S. citizens, which would plainly be illegal.) President Trump himself remarked he would “love” to send U.S. citizens to El Salvador’s prison if it saves money. These developments show significant political will – at least among certain U.S. officials – to use El Salvador’s prisons as an arm of U.S. immigration enforcement.

Bypassing Legal Constraints: Wartime Powers and “Not Deportation”

The driving motive behind the treaty-of-cession gambit is to exploit gaps in immigration and international law that normally protect detainees. Under standard practice, deporting someone from U.S. soil requires due process and a removal order. Extraditing a prisoner for punishment abroad requires a formal treaty and judicial process. Prince’s plan attempts to avoid both. By asserting the detainees haven’t technically left U.S. territory, officials could argue that court orders permitting removal from the U.S. aren’t needed at the point of transfer. In Prince’s own words, “transferring a prisoner to such a facility would not be an Extradition nor a Deportation” – it becomes a mere “relocation” of a U.S. held prisoner. This is meant to prevent detainees (and their lawyers) from invoking protections that would normally apply if the government tried to send them to a foreign country.

For example, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that even under wartime powers (discussed below), noncitizens must be given “an opportunity to challenge their deportations before removing them from the country.” If detainees are whisked to El Salvador, the administration might argue they have not yet been “removed from the country,” because they remain on a legal patch of “U.S. soil.” This hair-splitting could be used to delay or complicate judicial oversight – effectively creating a legal black hole like past U.S. extraterritorial detention sites. Human rights observers have noted that the Venezuelan migrants already sent to CECOT are in “legal limbo” – the U.S. claims they are no longer in its custody, yet El Salvador hasn’t charged them with any crime, leaving them with no clear legal jurisdiction to appeal to. As Noah Bullock of the NGO Cristosal describes it, “they’re in a judicial black hole.” This is precisely the kind of outcome the plan is designed to achieve for a much larger population.

Prince’s proposal also invokes extraordinary executive powers to justify mass transfers. It explicitly references President Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a centuries-old wartime law giving the president authority to detain or deport nationals of hostile countries during armed conflict. In late 2024 and early 2025, the Trump administration tried to repurpose this Act to rapidly expel groups of migrants (for instance, labeling hundreds of Venezuelans as members of a criminal gang aligned with a “foreign enemy”) . Prince’s team argued that the El Salvador scheme would help the administration “get around potential legal hurdles” with using the Alien Enemies Act in peacetime. Shipping detainees to CECOT was seen as a way to alleviate logistical and legal challenges that arose when trying to house them at Guantánamo Bay or remove them to countries that refused to accept them. Notably, Guantánamo was already being readied to hold up to 30,000 migrants under separate Trump plans, but a federal judge blocked at least one transfer of Venezuelan detainees to Guantánamo, forcing their deportation back to Venezuela instead. El Salvador’s prisons thus became Plan B for a transnational detention system. Prince’s document claims “this contract will solve the legal issues pertaining to removing criminal aliens” while enhancing the government’s capacity to locate and deport them.

Despite these maneuvers, serious legal challenges are expected. The proposal itself acknowledges it is “highly likely that this effort will be tested judicially. Constitutional and international law experts have already raised red flags. For instance, deporting U.S. citizens to a foreign prison would be flatly unlawful, effectively a form of banishment or exile, which is barred by the U.S. Constitution. Even President Trump and Secretary Rubio have conceded there are “legalities” and “We have a constitution” that prevent simply expelling Americans. The U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff urged the administration to reject Bukele’s offer outright, warning that “even entertaining this offer”abandons core legal principles. Furthermore, U.S. law (the First Step Act of 2018) requires federal inmates to be held in facilities “as close as practicable” to their home, generally within 500 miles. Sending U.S. prisoners to El Salvador, thousands of miles away, would violate this law meant to preserve inmates’ access to family and counsel. Finally, the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment would almost certainly be invoked if Americans were forced to serve sentences in the notoriously harsh conditions of Salvadoran prisons. In short, while the plan tries to exploit jurisdictional loopholes, it faces a gauntlet of legal barriers, from constitutional rights to statutory mandates, that courts and advocates are already preparing to enforce.

Read 5 tweets

DD Geopolitics

@DD_Geopolitics

Feb 6

Columbia Jounralism Review is worried about "independent" journalism abroad.... These funds are typically channeled through USAID’s Media Assistance Programs, Democracy and Governance Grants, and civil society initiatives.

Let's take a dive into some of these media outlets now worried about where their next paycheck will come from.....

OCCRP (Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project)

💰 Funding:
• $5.5M+ from USAID & NED since 2016
• Direct funding from Open Society Foundations (George Soros)
• Partnered with U.S. State Department, UK Foreign Office, and EU-backed institutions

What they do:
OCCRP claims to investigate corruption worldwide, but their targets are overwhelmingly U.S. geopolitical rivals—while corruption in pro-NATO and U.S.-backed regimes is ignored.

🔎 Major Examples:

1. Targeting Serbia – 2020 Smear Campaign
• Ahead of Serbia’s 2020 elections, OCCRP ran a series of “investigations” into President Aleksandar Vučić, accusing him of corruption and ties to organized crime.
• Meanwhile, OCCRP ignored massive corruption in U.S.-allied Kosovo, where PM Albin Kurti was cracking down on opposition media.

2. Ukraine – Covering for Zelensky While Attacking Russia
• OCCRP played a key role in pushing anti-Russian narratives after 2014, linking Russian officials to financial scandals while shielding Ukraine’s U.S.-backed government.
• Exposed Russia’s “Laundromat” financial networks but failed to investigate how Western banks helped Ukraine launder billions in aid money.
• Panama Papers (2016): OCCRP highlighted Putin’s alleged offshore ties but covered up Ukrainian President Poroshenko’s involvement, despite clear evidence.

3. Russia & Navalny – Coordinated Attacks
• Collaborated with Alexei Navalny’s team to produce the “Putin’s Palace” documentary, which was later debunked.
• Received direct funding from USAID & NED during this period.
• OCCRP ignored U.S.-linked oligarchs in Ukraine and London, who were laundering billions through Western banks.

4. Azerbaijan & Georgia – Selective Corruption Investigations
• OCCRP exposed financial corruption in Azerbaijan, aligning with U.S. interests to weaken Baku’s ties to Russia.
• In Georgia, OCCRP’s reports always focus on attacking the ruling Georgian Dream party (which resists NATO membership) while ignoring corruption in the U.S.-backed opposition.

5. Latin America – Defending U.S. Interests
• OCCRP’s investigations in Venezuela focused solely on corruption linked to the Maduro government while ignoring opposition figures stealing U.S. “humanitarian aid.”
• No deep investigations into how CIA-backed Juan Guaidó stole $40M+ in foreign aid and funneled it to his cronies.

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL)

💰 $129M+ annually from the U.S. government (via USAID & NED).
• In 2019, USAID gave $6M specifically to counter “Russian disinformation” in Central Asia.
• Receives funding via the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which is directly controlled by the U.S. government.

What they do: RFE/RL operates in former Soviet states, Iran, and China to push anti-government narratives under the guise of “independent journalism.” Its purpose is not journalism but to undermine governments opposed to U.S. foreign policy while ignoring corruption in pro-Western states.

🔎 Major Examples:

1. RFE/RL in Belarus (2020) – Supporting Regime Change
• Actively promoted opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya and framed the 2020 protests as a “democratic revolution.”
• Published over 1,200 articles and videos covering anti-Lukashenko protests while censoring any mention of foreign involvement.
• USAID-backed RFE journalists openly coordinated with Belarusian opposition Telegram channels like NEXTA, which helped organize protests.

2. RFE/RL in Russia
• Heavily promoted Alexei Navalny for years, presenting him as a legitimate opposition leader while ignoring his Western funding ties.
• Funded reports linking Putin to the so-called “Panama Papers” in 2016—despite U.S. allies like Ukraine’s Poroshenko appearing in the leaks.
• In 2021, RFE/RL refused to register as a “foreign agent” in Russia, despite being a U.S. government-funded entity.

3. RFE/RL in Iran
• Operates under Radio Farda, which spreads pro-Western content and amplifies anti-Iranian protests while ignoring U.S. sanctions’ impact.
• In 2019, RFE/RL repeatedly ran false reports claiming Iran was “collapsing under protests” while downplaying U.S. interference.
• Heavily promotes the exiled MKO (MEK) terrorist group, which is funded by the U.S. and wants regime change in Iran.

4. RFE/RL in Ukraine – Running NATO Talking Points
• Since 2014, it has been a major player in anti-Russian propaganda, helping justify U.S. intervention.
• Spread the Snake Island hoax in 2022, claiming Ukrainian soldiers had “heroically died” (later proven false when they surrendered).
• Regularly publishes articles blaming Russia for every Ukrainian failure, while whitewashing Ukrainian government corruption.

5. RFE/RL in Kazakhstan
• During the 2022 unrest in Kazakhstan, RFE/RL provided round-the-clock coverage, portraying the protests as a “popular uprising” rather than a foreign-backed coup attempt.
• After Kazakhstan cracked down on USAID-backed NGOs, RFE/RL framed it as an attack on press freedom rather than exposing foreign influence.

Read 14 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

DD Geopolitics

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @DD_Geopolitics

DD Geopolitics

DD Geopolitics

DD Geopolitics

DD Geopolitics

DD Geopolitics

DD Geopolitics

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!