🚨ABOLISH THE IRS 🚨
Report on the Funding and Amplification of Youth Indoctrination Through Fiscal Sponsorships: Origins, IRS Interpretations, and Connections to Activism in Oregon and Antifa
This report examines the mechanisms through which fiscal sponsorships, enabled by Internal Revenue Service (IRS) interpretations of tax laws, have facilitated the flow of funds to organizations and initiatives promoting ideologies related to LGBTQ+, transgender, and furry communities. These funds, often channeled through foundations like the Tides Foundation and Open Society Foundations (OSF) founded by George Soros, as well as government grants, have amplified activism that critics argue constitutes indoctrination of American youth. The report traces the origins of these communities, highlights their non-organic growth through targeted funding, and details intersections with Antifa in hubs like Portland, Oregon. Key findings include:
• The IRS’s Revenue Ruling 68-489 (1968) created fiscal sponsorship without congressional approval, allowing tax-deductible donations to support advocacy that skirts political activity restrictions.
• Major funding from OSF (over $2.7 million to trans-specific work between 2007-2010) and Tides (over $707,500 to trans groups in the same period) has scaled youth programs, protests, and education initiatives perceived as ideological indoctrination.
• Government grants from agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have supported LGBTQ+ and trans youth programs, raising concerns about federal endorsement of controversial curricula in schools.
• The furry fandom, with strong LGBTQ+ and trans overlaps (furries are 7x more likely to identify as trans), originated organically in the 1970s but has been amplified through funded activism, intersecting with Antifa in progressive hubs.
• Portland, Oregon, serves as a case study, where Antifa’s history of militant anti-fascism (dating to the 1980s) blends with funded LGBTQ+ activism, leading to protests and events that influence youth.
Recommendations include congressional oversight to reform IRS rulings, audits of fiscal sponsors, and restrictions on federal funding for programs promoting gender ideology in youth settings. This report underscores that such developments have occurred without direct voter consent, potentially weaponizing social issues in the political climate.
Report on the Funding and Amplification of Youth Indoctrination Through Fiscal Sponsorships: Origins, IRS Interpretations, and Connections to Activism in Oregon and Antifa
This report examines the mechanisms through which fiscal sponsorships, enabled by Internal Revenue Service (IRS) interpretations of tax laws, have facilitated the flow of funds to organizations and initiatives promoting ideologies related to LGBTQ+, transgender, and furry communities. These funds, often channeled through foundations like the Tides Foundation and Open Society Foundations (OSF) founded by George Soros, as well as government grants, have amplified activism that critics argue constitutes indoctrination of American youth. The report traces the origins of these communities, highlights their non-organic growth through targeted funding, and details intersections with Antifa in hubs like Portland, Oregon. Key findings include:
• The IRS’s Revenue Ruling 68-489 (1968) created fiscal sponsorship without congressional approval, allowing tax-deductible donations to support advocacy that skirts political activity restrictions.
• Major funding from OSF (over $2.7 million to trans-specific work between 2007-2010) and Tides (over $707,500 to trans groups in the same period) has scaled youth programs, protests, and education initiatives perceived as ideological indoctrination.
• Government grants from agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have supported LGBTQ+ and trans youth programs, raising concerns about federal endorsement of controversial curricula in schools.
• The furry fandom, with strong LGBTQ+ and trans overlaps (furries are 7x more likely to identify as trans), originated organically in the 1970s but has been amplified through funded activism, intersecting with Antifa in progressive hubs.
• Portland, Oregon, serves as a case study, where Antifa’s history of militant anti-fascism (dating to the 1980s) blends with funded LGBTQ+ activism, leading to protests and events that influence youth.
Recommendations include congressional oversight to reform IRS rulings, audits of fiscal sponsors, and restrictions on federal funding for programs promoting gender ideology in youth settings. This report underscores that such developments have occurred without direct voter consent, potentially weaponizing social issues in the political climate.
The American people have historically voted for policies emphasizing traditional values, family structures, and educational neutrality. However, over the past several decades, a confluence of interpretive tax rulings, philanthropic funding, and government grants has enabled the amplification of ideologies related to LGBTQ+, transgender, and furry communities. These efforts, often framed as human rights advocacy, have been criticized as indoctrination of youth, introducing concepts of gender fluidity and non-traditional identities into schools, online spaces, and public discourse without broad democratic approval.
This report investigates how fiscal sponsorships—rooted in IRS Revenue Ruling 68-489—have served as a conduit for funds from entities like the Open Society Foundations and Tides Foundation, supporting programs that intersect with Antifa activism. It traces the origins of these communities, their growth through funding, and their role in Oregon as a hub for radical activism. The analysis draws on historical records, funding disclosures, and recent events, including the 2025 designation of Antifa as a terrorist organization by President Trump, to illustrate how these mechanisms have contributed to a polarized political climate.
This report investigates how fiscal sponsorships—rooted in IRS Revenue Ruling 68-489—have served as a conduit for funds from entities like the Open Society Foundations and Tides Foundation, supporting programs that intersect with Antifa activism. It traces the origins of these communities, their growth through funding, and their role in Oregon as a hub for radical activism. The analysis draws on historical records, funding disclosures, and recent events, including the 2025 designation of Antifa as a terrorist organization by President Trump, to illustrate how these mechanisms have contributed to a polarized political climate.
The IRS’s Role in Enabling Fiscal Sponsorships
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has played a pivotal role in shaping the nonprofit landscape through administrative rulings that interpret existing tax laws, often without direct congressional input or presidential approval. Fiscal sponsorship, a practice allowing emerging projects to operate under the tax-exempt umbrella of established 501(c)(3) organizations, exemplifies this authority. This mechanism has enabled the flow of tax-deductible donations to causes that, while ostensibly charitable, have been used to amplify ideological activism, including programs targeting youth with gender-related education and advocacy.
Origins of Fiscal Sponsorship: Revenue Ruling 68-489
In 1968, the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 68-489, which permitted 501(c)(3) organizations to distribute funds to non-exempt entities without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status, provided the sponsor retains “discretion and control” over the funds to ensure they are used for charitable purposes. This ruling effectively legalized fiscal sponsorship, allowing projects—many of which lack their own tax-exempt status due to their nascent or advocacy-oriented nature—to receive tax-deductible contributions through a sponsor. The ruling was an interpretation of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which requires organizations to operate exclusively for charitable purposes, but it expanded flexibility for fund distribution.
Prior to this ruling, nonprofits were more restricted in supporting non-exempt activities. Revenue Ruling 68-489 changed this by ratifying arrangements where sponsors could act as intermediaries, provided they maintain oversight. This was not a product of congressional legislation or executive action; it stemmed from the IRS’s advisory committee recommendations in the 1960s, reflecting administrative discretion rather than voter-approved policy.
Mechanics and Impact on Nonprofits
Fiscal sponsorship operates in several models, such as Model A (comprehensive sponsorship, where the project is fully integrated into the sponsor) and Model C (pre-approved grant relationship, where funds are disbursed with less oversight). Sponsors like the Tides Center charge fees (typically 7-15% of funds) for administrative services, enabling projects to focus on mission without IRS compliance burdens.
The impact has been profound: Fiscal sponsorship has grown the sector, supporting over 10,000 projects annually and facilitating billions in donations. However, it raises transparency issues, as sponsors can aggregate anonymous donations, potentially shielding donors from scrutiny. In the context of youth indoctrination, this has allowed funds to flow to programs promoting gender ideology (e.g., trans-affirming education), often without public accountability. For instance, sponsors retain control but permit advocacy that borders on political activity, such as lobbying for school curricula changes.
Lack of Democratic Oversight
The ruling’s administrative nature means it bypassed Congress and the President, leading to concerns about unchecked influence. While Congress has reformed tax laws (e.g., the 1969 Tax Reform Act added excise taxes on foundations), fiscal sponsorship remains IRS-regulated, allowing significant funds to support divisive causes without voter input. This has enabled the amplification of activism in areas like LGBTQ+ youth programs, contributing to today’s polarized climate.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has played a pivotal role in shaping the nonprofit landscape through administrative rulings that interpret existing tax laws, often without direct congressional input or presidential approval. Fiscal sponsorship, a practice allowing emerging projects to operate under the tax-exempt umbrella of established 501(c)(3) organizations, exemplifies this authority. This mechanism has enabled the flow of tax-deductible donations to causes that, while ostensibly charitable, have been used to amplify ideological activism, including programs targeting youth with gender-related education and advocacy.
Origins of Fiscal Sponsorship: Revenue Ruling 68-489
In 1968, the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 68-489, which permitted 501(c)(3) organizations to distribute funds to non-exempt entities without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status, provided the sponsor retains “discretion and control” over the funds to ensure they are used for charitable purposes. This ruling effectively legalized fiscal sponsorship, allowing projects—many of which lack their own tax-exempt status due to their nascent or advocacy-oriented nature—to receive tax-deductible contributions through a sponsor. The ruling was an interpretation of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which requires organizations to operate exclusively for charitable purposes, but it expanded flexibility for fund distribution.
Prior to this ruling, nonprofits were more restricted in supporting non-exempt activities. Revenue Ruling 68-489 changed this by ratifying arrangements where sponsors could act as intermediaries, provided they maintain oversight. This was not a product of congressional legislation or executive action; it stemmed from the IRS’s advisory committee recommendations in the 1960s, reflecting administrative discretion rather than voter-approved policy.
Mechanics and Impact on Nonprofits
Fiscal sponsorship operates in several models, such as Model A (comprehensive sponsorship, where the project is fully integrated into the sponsor) and Model C (pre-approved grant relationship, where funds are disbursed with less oversight). Sponsors like the Tides Center charge fees (typically 7-15% of funds) for administrative services, enabling projects to focus on mission without IRS compliance burdens.
The impact has been profound: Fiscal sponsorship has grown the sector, supporting over 10,000 projects annually and facilitating billions in donations. However, it raises transparency issues, as sponsors can aggregate anonymous donations, potentially shielding donors from scrutiny. In the context of youth indoctrination, this has allowed funds to flow to programs promoting gender ideology (e.g., trans-affirming education), often without public accountability. For instance, sponsors retain control but permit advocacy that borders on political activity, such as lobbying for school curricula changes.
Lack of Democratic Oversight
The ruling’s administrative nature means it bypassed Congress and the President, leading to concerns about unchecked influence. While Congress has reformed tax laws (e.g., the 1969 Tax Reform Act added excise taxes on foundations), fiscal sponsorship remains IRS-regulated, allowing significant funds to support divisive causes without voter input. This has enabled the amplification of activism in areas like LGBTQ+ youth programs, contributing to today’s polarized climate.
Major Funding Sources and Their Amplification of Activism
Philanthropic foundations have leveraged fiscal sponsorships to channel funds to LGBTQ+, trans, and intersecting communities, amplifying activism that critics view as youth indoctrination. Key donors like George Soros’s OSF and the Tides Foundation have provided millions, often through sponsored projects, supporting programs in education, mental health, and protests.
Open Society Foundations (OSF) and George Soros
OSF, founded by Soros in 1979, has funded LGBTQ+ and trans initiatives since the early 2000s, with a focus on youth. Between 2007-2010, OSF granted over $2.7 million to trans-specific work, promoting legal gender recognition and activism. The Soros Equality Fellowship (launched 2010s) provides up to $100,000 per fellow for racial justice, including LGBTQ+ youth programs. OSF’s LGBTQI+ program empowers trans-led groups, funding activism against “discrimination” in schools and policy.
This funding amplifies political influence: OSF grantees like HRC organize protests and education campaigns on trans rights, intersecting with Antifa in anti-fascist rallies. Critics argue this indoctrinates youth by promoting gender ideology in curricula, without voter consent.
Tides Foundation and Center
Tides, a fiscal sponsor since 1976, has channeled funds to LGBTQ+ activism, including $707,500 to trans groups (2007-2010). It sponsors TJFP, distributing $2.9 million to trans-led projects since 2013, focusing on youth. Tides manages $875 million in assets, supporting 4,000+ grantees in social justice.
Tides’ sponsorships enable activism: It funds groups like All Out for global LGBTQ+ campaigns, intersecting with Antifa-linked protests. This has amplified youth programs, viewed as indoctrination in conservative critiques.
Philanthropic foundations have leveraged fiscal sponsorships to channel funds to LGBTQ+, trans, and intersecting communities, amplifying activism that critics view as youth indoctrination. Key donors like George Soros’s OSF and the Tides Foundation have provided millions, often through sponsored projects, supporting programs in education, mental health, and protests.
Open Society Foundations (OSF) and George Soros
OSF, founded by Soros in 1979, has funded LGBTQ+ and trans initiatives since the early 2000s, with a focus on youth. Between 2007-2010, OSF granted over $2.7 million to trans-specific work, promoting legal gender recognition and activism. The Soros Equality Fellowship (launched 2010s) provides up to $100,000 per fellow for racial justice, including LGBTQ+ youth programs. OSF’s LGBTQI+ program empowers trans-led groups, funding activism against “discrimination” in schools and policy.
This funding amplifies political influence: OSF grantees like HRC organize protests and education campaigns on trans rights, intersecting with Antifa in anti-fascist rallies. Critics argue this indoctrinates youth by promoting gender ideology in curricula, without voter consent.
Tides Foundation and Center
Tides, a fiscal sponsor since 1976, has channeled funds to LGBTQ+ activism, including $707,500 to trans groups (2007-2010). It sponsors TJFP, distributing $2.9 million to trans-led projects since 2013, focusing on youth. Tides manages $875 million in assets, supporting 4,000+ grantees in social justice.
Tides’ sponsorships enable activism: It funds groups like All Out for global LGBTQ+ campaigns, intersecting with Antifa-linked protests. This has amplified youth programs, viewed as indoctrination in conservative critiques.
Government Grants and Claims of Youth Indoctrination
Federal grants have played a significant role in supporting LGBTQ+ and trans youth programs, raising substantial claims from critics that these initiatives constitute indoctrination by promoting gender ideology in educational settings, mental health services, and public policy without broad public consensus. This funding, administered through agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has evolved over administrations, with early integration during the Obama era setting the stage for expanded efforts under Biden. While these programs are defended as essential for addressing health disparities and discrimination, opponents argue they introduce controversial concepts of gender fluidity and identity exploration to vulnerable youth, potentially influencing school curricula, online communities, and activist networks that intersect with furry and trans subcultures. Trump’s actions in 2025 have sought to reverse some of these trends, but the foundational structures remain embedded in federal policy.
Early Integration Under the Obama Administration
The Obama administration marked the initial systematic integration of LGBTQ+ and trans youth issues into federal grant programs, framing them as public health and civil rights priorities. This began in earnest around 2011-2012, when HHS launched targeted initiatives to address the unique challenges faced by LGBTQ+ youth, including higher rates of homelessness, mental health issues, and discrimination. For instance, in 2011, HHS awarded a $4.4 million grant through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to support LGBTQ+ youth suicide prevention and mental health programs, emphasizing culturally competent care that included gender-affirming approaches. This funding was part of a broader $30 million global allocation from the Open Society Foundations (influenced by Soros) to civil society organizations, but domestically, it amplified HHS efforts to incorporate LGBTQ+ sensitivity training in youth-serving agencies.
By 2012, the administration endorsed the Student Non-Discrimination Act, which aimed to provide explicit federal protections for LGBTQ+ students, including trans youth, against bullying and harassment in schools. This laid the groundwork for integrating gender identity discussions into educational grants. In 2013, HHS funded a $1.3 million project for LGBTQ+ youth in foster care, focusing on preventing discrimination based on gender identity, which critics argue introduced trans-affirming policies into child welfare systems without sufficient oversight. The 2016 Title IX guidance from the Departments of Education and Justice explicitly required schools to allow transgender students access to facilities aligned with their gender identity, supported by federal education grants that conditioned funding on compliance. This integration extended to the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), which began including questions on sexual orientation and gender identity in 2015 to inform health programs, effectively embedding data collection on trans youth into federally funded surveillance systems.
These early grants, totaling tens of millions across HHS and Education, were justified as addressing disparities (e.g., 41-45% suicide consideration rates among trans youth), but detractors contend they normalized gender ideology in public institutions, influencing curricula and safe spaces that overlap with furry communities’ online explorations of identity. This set a precedent for viewing trans youth issues through a rights-based lens, paving the way for amplification without explicit congressional mandates.
Amplification Under the Biden Administration
Continued….
Federal grants have played a significant role in supporting LGBTQ+ and trans youth programs, raising substantial claims from critics that these initiatives constitute indoctrination by promoting gender ideology in educational settings, mental health services, and public policy without broad public consensus. This funding, administered through agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has evolved over administrations, with early integration during the Obama era setting the stage for expanded efforts under Biden. While these programs are defended as essential for addressing health disparities and discrimination, opponents argue they introduce controversial concepts of gender fluidity and identity exploration to vulnerable youth, potentially influencing school curricula, online communities, and activist networks that intersect with furry and trans subcultures. Trump’s actions in 2025 have sought to reverse some of these trends, but the foundational structures remain embedded in federal policy.
Early Integration Under the Obama Administration
The Obama administration marked the initial systematic integration of LGBTQ+ and trans youth issues into federal grant programs, framing them as public health and civil rights priorities. This began in earnest around 2011-2012, when HHS launched targeted initiatives to address the unique challenges faced by LGBTQ+ youth, including higher rates of homelessness, mental health issues, and discrimination. For instance, in 2011, HHS awarded a $4.4 million grant through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to support LGBTQ+ youth suicide prevention and mental health programs, emphasizing culturally competent care that included gender-affirming approaches. This funding was part of a broader $30 million global allocation from the Open Society Foundations (influenced by Soros) to civil society organizations, but domestically, it amplified HHS efforts to incorporate LGBTQ+ sensitivity training in youth-serving agencies.
By 2012, the administration endorsed the Student Non-Discrimination Act, which aimed to provide explicit federal protections for LGBTQ+ students, including trans youth, against bullying and harassment in schools. This laid the groundwork for integrating gender identity discussions into educational grants. In 2013, HHS funded a $1.3 million project for LGBTQ+ youth in foster care, focusing on preventing discrimination based on gender identity, which critics argue introduced trans-affirming policies into child welfare systems without sufficient oversight. The 2016 Title IX guidance from the Departments of Education and Justice explicitly required schools to allow transgender students access to facilities aligned with their gender identity, supported by federal education grants that conditioned funding on compliance. This integration extended to the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), which began including questions on sexual orientation and gender identity in 2015 to inform health programs, effectively embedding data collection on trans youth into federally funded surveillance systems.
These early grants, totaling tens of millions across HHS and Education, were justified as addressing disparities (e.g., 41-45% suicide consideration rates among trans youth), but detractors contend they normalized gender ideology in public institutions, influencing curricula and safe spaces that overlap with furry communities’ online explorations of identity. This set a precedent for viewing trans youth issues through a rights-based lens, paving the way for amplification without explicit congressional mandates.
Amplification Under the Biden Administration
Continued….
The Biden administration significantly expanded these efforts, allocating billions in federal funding to LGBTQ+ and trans youth programs, often through executive actions and agency rules that critics label as aggressive indoctrination. Starting with Executive Order 13988 (January 2021) on preventing discrimination based on gender identity, Biden directed agencies to review and revise policies, leading to increased grants for trans-affirming care and education. HHS, under Biden, restored and amplified funding, including a 2022 rule prohibiting discrimination in health programs and awarding millions for gender-affirming mental health services. For example, in 2024, the National Institutes of Health (NIH, under HHS) granted nearly $700,000 to Seattle Children’s Hospital for a transgender sex education program targeting youth, which included modules on gender identity and sexual health tailored to LGBTQ+ adolescents.
The CDC’s role was amplified through expanded YRBS surveys, incorporating detailed questions on gender identity and sexual orientation to inform school-based programs, with funding reaching $10 million in the FY23 budget proposal for adding such data to the Census and health initiatives. HHS also launched a $10 million initiative in 2022 for researching LGBTQ+ youth health, banning conversion therapy and bolstering access to gender-affirming treatment, which extended to school health centers. By 2025, HHS had finalized rules offering protections against discrimination in health care, including for trans youth, with grants supporting organizations like the Trevor Project for suicide prevention tailored to gender identity issues.
This amplification has intersected with furry/trans communities by funding safe spaces and online programs that explore identity, often viewed as indoctrination. For instance, federal grants support school equity programs that include gender-neutral policies, potentially exposing youth to concepts critics argue promote confusion and activism over traditional education.
Trump’s 2025 Actions and Ongoing Concerns
In 2025, President Trump has taken steps to reverse these trends through executive orders targeting DEI and LGBTQ+ funding, including an order to eliminate gender identity recognition in federal health policy and restrict affirming care grants. The FY2026 budget proposes cuts to “woke” programs, terminating DEI initiatives in education and HHS. States like Oregon, with trans-inclusive sex ed funded federally, face threats of defunding. Despite these reversals, the entrenched structures from prior administrations continue to raise indoctrination claims, as funding amplifies activism intersecting with furry/trans communities through safe spaces and protests.
The CDC’s role was amplified through expanded YRBS surveys, incorporating detailed questions on gender identity and sexual orientation to inform school-based programs, with funding reaching $10 million in the FY23 budget proposal for adding such data to the Census and health initiatives. HHS also launched a $10 million initiative in 2022 for researching LGBTQ+ youth health, banning conversion therapy and bolstering access to gender-affirming treatment, which extended to school health centers. By 2025, HHS had finalized rules offering protections against discrimination in health care, including for trans youth, with grants supporting organizations like the Trevor Project for suicide prevention tailored to gender identity issues.
This amplification has intersected with furry/trans communities by funding safe spaces and online programs that explore identity, often viewed as indoctrination. For instance, federal grants support school equity programs that include gender-neutral policies, potentially exposing youth to concepts critics argue promote confusion and activism over traditional education.
Trump’s 2025 Actions and Ongoing Concerns
In 2025, President Trump has taken steps to reverse these trends through executive orders targeting DEI and LGBTQ+ funding, including an order to eliminate gender identity recognition in federal health policy and restrict affirming care grants. The FY2026 budget proposes cuts to “woke” programs, terminating DEI initiatives in education and HHS. States like Oregon, with trans-inclusive sex ed funded federally, face threats of defunding. Despite these reversals, the entrenched structures from prior administrations continue to raise indoctrination claims, as funding amplifies activism intersecting with furry/trans communities through safe spaces and protests.
Origins and Funded Growth of Furry, LGBTQ+, and Trans Communities
The furry fandom, characterized by enthusiasm for anthropomorphic animal characters and often serving as a platform for identity exploration, originated in the late 1970s within grassroots science fiction and fantasy communities in Minnesota and California. While its early development was largely organic—driven by fan-led amateur publications, conventions, and online role-playing—the integration of LGBTQ+ and transgender elements emerged naturally in the 1980s and 1990s, as the fandom’s emphasis on customizable “fursonas” (animal personas) provided a safe space for individuals to experiment with gender and sexual identities amid societal stigma. Surveys indicate that 25-52% of furries identify as non-heterosexual (e.g., gay, bisexual, or pansexual), and 2-10% as transgender or non-binary, with furries being 7 times more likely to identify as trans than the general population. This overlap has been amplified post-1990s through targeted funding from philanthropic foundations, government grants, and fiscal sponsorships, which have scaled conventions, online platforms, educational programs, and activism. Critics argue this funding has transformed a niche subculture into a vehicle for youth indoctrination, promoting gender fluidity and non-traditional identities in schools, media, and protests, often without parental or voter consent. The growth has been particularly evident in states with progressive policies, where funded initiatives have contributed to spikes in transgender identification and gender dysphoria diagnoses among youth, intersecting with furry communities through shared online spaces like Discord servers and conventions that blend entertainment with advocacy.
Historical Origins: Grassroots Beginnings in Minnesota and California
The furry fandom’s roots trace back to 1976 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, with the founding of Vootie, an Amateur Press Association (APA) by artists Ken Fletcher and Reed Waller. This self-published network focused on “funny animal” art—anthropomorphic characters from comics, cartoons, and literature like Richard Adams’ “Watership Down” (1972)—and was entirely fan-funded through member dues and mailing costs, without external sponsorship. By the early 1980s, the term “furry” gained traction in California at science fiction conventions like Westercon or Worldcon, where fans discussed works such as Steve Gallacci’s “Albedo Anthropomorphics” (1983). Informal meetups were attendee-funded, emphasizing role-playing and art that allowed for fluid identity expression. LGBTQ+ and trans overlaps emerged organically here, as founders like Mark Merlino (a queer artist) organized events that became refuges for marginalized individuals exploring non-human avatars to navigate gender dysphoria or sexual orientation in a pre-digital era. The first dedicated furry convention, Confurence 0 (1989, Costa Mesa, California), attracted 65 attendees and was bootstrapped via ticket sales (~$20-30 each), marking the shift from side-events to standalone gatherings.
In the 1990s, growth accelerated with the internet: Usenet groups like alt.fan.furry (1990) and virtual worlds like FurryMUCK (1990) enabled anonymous identity experimentation, fostering higher LGBTQ+ participation (e.g., 14-25% gay, 37-52% bisexual by early surveys). Internal debates, such as the “Burned Furs” controversy (1998-2001) over adult content, highlighted the fandom’s queer-inclusive nature but remained community-driven, without major external funding.
Continued…..
The furry fandom, characterized by enthusiasm for anthropomorphic animal characters and often serving as a platform for identity exploration, originated in the late 1970s within grassroots science fiction and fantasy communities in Minnesota and California. While its early development was largely organic—driven by fan-led amateur publications, conventions, and online role-playing—the integration of LGBTQ+ and transgender elements emerged naturally in the 1980s and 1990s, as the fandom’s emphasis on customizable “fursonas” (animal personas) provided a safe space for individuals to experiment with gender and sexual identities amid societal stigma. Surveys indicate that 25-52% of furries identify as non-heterosexual (e.g., gay, bisexual, or pansexual), and 2-10% as transgender or non-binary, with furries being 7 times more likely to identify as trans than the general population. This overlap has been amplified post-1990s through targeted funding from philanthropic foundations, government grants, and fiscal sponsorships, which have scaled conventions, online platforms, educational programs, and activism. Critics argue this funding has transformed a niche subculture into a vehicle for youth indoctrination, promoting gender fluidity and non-traditional identities in schools, media, and protests, often without parental or voter consent. The growth has been particularly evident in states with progressive policies, where funded initiatives have contributed to spikes in transgender identification and gender dysphoria diagnoses among youth, intersecting with furry communities through shared online spaces like Discord servers and conventions that blend entertainment with advocacy.
Historical Origins: Grassroots Beginnings in Minnesota and California
The furry fandom’s roots trace back to 1976 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, with the founding of Vootie, an Amateur Press Association (APA) by artists Ken Fletcher and Reed Waller. This self-published network focused on “funny animal” art—anthropomorphic characters from comics, cartoons, and literature like Richard Adams’ “Watership Down” (1972)—and was entirely fan-funded through member dues and mailing costs, without external sponsorship. By the early 1980s, the term “furry” gained traction in California at science fiction conventions like Westercon or Worldcon, where fans discussed works such as Steve Gallacci’s “Albedo Anthropomorphics” (1983). Informal meetups were attendee-funded, emphasizing role-playing and art that allowed for fluid identity expression. LGBTQ+ and trans overlaps emerged organically here, as founders like Mark Merlino (a queer artist) organized events that became refuges for marginalized individuals exploring non-human avatars to navigate gender dysphoria or sexual orientation in a pre-digital era. The first dedicated furry convention, Confurence 0 (1989, Costa Mesa, California), attracted 65 attendees and was bootstrapped via ticket sales (~$20-30 each), marking the shift from side-events to standalone gatherings.
In the 1990s, growth accelerated with the internet: Usenet groups like alt.fan.furry (1990) and virtual worlds like FurryMUCK (1990) enabled anonymous identity experimentation, fostering higher LGBTQ+ participation (e.g., 14-25% gay, 37-52% bisexual by early surveys). Internal debates, such as the “Burned Furs” controversy (1998-2001) over adult content, highlighted the fandom’s queer-inclusive nature but remained community-driven, without major external funding.
Continued…..
Post-1990s Amplification Through Funding: From Niche to Political Tool
While origins were organic, the post-1990s influx of funding from foundations like Open Society Foundations (OSF) and Tides, along with government grants, transformed these communities by scaling outreach, education, and activism. This amplification has been detailed as non-organic by critics, who argue it promotes gender ideology to youth, leading to spikes in identification rates and diagnoses, often through programs intersecting with furry spaces (e.g., conventions as “safe havens” for trans exploration). Funding has enabled larger conventions, online platforms, and youth programs, viewed as indoctrination by introducing concepts like gender fluidity in schools and media.
• Role of OSF and Soros: Starting in the early 2000s, OSF provided over $2.7 million to trans-specific initiatives (2007-2010), focusing on youth empowerment and legal advocacy. This funded organizations like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which received $100,000+ grants for youth networks, amplifying events where furry/trans activism blends (e.g., Pride marches with furry contingents promoting identity exploration). By 2023, OSF pledged $50 million to youth groups, including those addressing trans mental health, scaling online communities like Discord servers where furry role-playing intersects with trans support, contributing to a 1260% increase in young adult trans/non-conforming identification (2014-2023 nationally).
• Tides Foundation/Center Contributions: As a fiscal sponsor, Tides disbursed $707,500 to trans groups (2007-2010), sponsoring the Trans Justice Funding Project (TJFP), which has distributed $2.9 million to 428 trans-led initiatives since 2013, including youth-focused activism. This has scaled furry-adjacent events (e.g., conventions with LGBTQ+ panels) and online safe spaces, amplifying growth in states with high trans rates.
• Government Grants: Post-1990s federal funding, integrated under Obama (e.g., $4.4 million HHS grants for LGBTQ+ youth mental health in 2011), amplified under Biden ($10 million for trans health in 2022), has supported programs informing school curricula, intersecting with furry/trans communities through identity-affirming initiatives. This has led to a threefold increase in gender dysphoria diagnoses (2017-2021 nationally), viewed as indoctrination.
Funding has driven growth by:
• Scaling conventions (e.g., Anthrocon attendance from 65 in 1989 to 15,000+ in 2025, with sponsored LGBTQ+ tracks).
• Expanding online platforms (e.g., Discord servers funded via youth grants for mental health, where furry role-play aids trans exploration).
• Supporting activism (e.g., protests against anti-trans laws, blending with Antifa in hubs like Oregon).
• Youth programs (e.g., school equity grants promoting gender-neutral policies, intersecting with furry’s identity themes).
State-Specific Growth: Percentages and Amplification
Funding has disproportionately amplified growth in progressive states with high LGBTQ+ support, leading to elevated trans youth identification rates (3.3% nationally for ages 13-17, ~724,000 youth) and diagnosis spikes. Below are key states with percentages (identification from Williams Institute 2025, diagnosis spikes from 2018-2022 reports), showing funded amplification through grants targeting health/education.
Continued…….
While origins were organic, the post-1990s influx of funding from foundations like Open Society Foundations (OSF) and Tides, along with government grants, transformed these communities by scaling outreach, education, and activism. This amplification has been detailed as non-organic by critics, who argue it promotes gender ideology to youth, leading to spikes in identification rates and diagnoses, often through programs intersecting with furry spaces (e.g., conventions as “safe havens” for trans exploration). Funding has enabled larger conventions, online platforms, and youth programs, viewed as indoctrination by introducing concepts like gender fluidity in schools and media.
• Role of OSF and Soros: Starting in the early 2000s, OSF provided over $2.7 million to trans-specific initiatives (2007-2010), focusing on youth empowerment and legal advocacy. This funded organizations like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which received $100,000+ grants for youth networks, amplifying events where furry/trans activism blends (e.g., Pride marches with furry contingents promoting identity exploration). By 2023, OSF pledged $50 million to youth groups, including those addressing trans mental health, scaling online communities like Discord servers where furry role-playing intersects with trans support, contributing to a 1260% increase in young adult trans/non-conforming identification (2014-2023 nationally).
• Tides Foundation/Center Contributions: As a fiscal sponsor, Tides disbursed $707,500 to trans groups (2007-2010), sponsoring the Trans Justice Funding Project (TJFP), which has distributed $2.9 million to 428 trans-led initiatives since 2013, including youth-focused activism. This has scaled furry-adjacent events (e.g., conventions with LGBTQ+ panels) and online safe spaces, amplifying growth in states with high trans rates.
• Government Grants: Post-1990s federal funding, integrated under Obama (e.g., $4.4 million HHS grants for LGBTQ+ youth mental health in 2011), amplified under Biden ($10 million for trans health in 2022), has supported programs informing school curricula, intersecting with furry/trans communities through identity-affirming initiatives. This has led to a threefold increase in gender dysphoria diagnoses (2017-2021 nationally), viewed as indoctrination.
Funding has driven growth by:
• Scaling conventions (e.g., Anthrocon attendance from 65 in 1989 to 15,000+ in 2025, with sponsored LGBTQ+ tracks).
• Expanding online platforms (e.g., Discord servers funded via youth grants for mental health, where furry role-play aids trans exploration).
• Supporting activism (e.g., protests against anti-trans laws, blending with Antifa in hubs like Oregon).
• Youth programs (e.g., school equity grants promoting gender-neutral policies, intersecting with furry’s identity themes).
State-Specific Growth: Percentages and Amplification
Funding has disproportionately amplified growth in progressive states with high LGBTQ+ support, leading to elevated trans youth identification rates (3.3% nationally for ages 13-17, ~724,000 youth) and diagnosis spikes. Below are key states with percentages (identification from Williams Institute 2025, diagnosis spikes from 2018-2022 reports), showing funded amplification through grants targeting health/education.
Continued…….
California: 3.15% identification (84,600 youth); 102% diagnosis spike. OSF/Tides grants to HRC scaled conventions like Califur, amplifying furry/trans activism in sci-fi hubs.
• Washington: 3.39% (16,900); 145% spike. HHS grants for youth mental health boosted Seattle’s furry scene, intersecting with Antifa protests.
• Oregon: 3.32% (9,000); 90% spike. Tides-funded TJFP supported Portland’s Furlandia and trans activism, blending with Antifa in queer events.
• Utah: 3.43% (9,800); 193% spike. Despite conservative lean, federal grants amplified youth programs, intersecting with Armed Queers SLC activism post-Kirk assassination.
• Minnesota: 3.43% (13,400); 100% spike. Origins in Vootie amplified by OSF youth grants, supporting furry conventions with trans overlaps.
• Hawaii: 3.57% (3,100); no spike data, but high rate amplified by CDC surveys informing local programs.
• Colorado: 3.40% (13,100); no specific spike, but growth via Tides grants to trans justice.
• Maine: 3.55% (2,900); 135% spike, funded through OSF advocacy.
• Kentucky: 3.54% (10,600); growth despite bans, via emergency funds.
• Texas: 3.07% (71,200); lower rate but large numbers, amplified by resistance to bans via Tides-sponsored projects.
National growth: 1260% increase in young adult trans identification (2014-2023), threefold diagnoses (2017-2021), attributed to funded visibility. This funding, critics argue, has indoctrinated youth by normalizing non-traditional identities through scaled safe spaces.
• Washington: 3.39% (16,900); 145% spike. HHS grants for youth mental health boosted Seattle’s furry scene, intersecting with Antifa protests.
• Oregon: 3.32% (9,000); 90% spike. Tides-funded TJFP supported Portland’s Furlandia and trans activism, blending with Antifa in queer events.
• Utah: 3.43% (9,800); 193% spike. Despite conservative lean, federal grants amplified youth programs, intersecting with Armed Queers SLC activism post-Kirk assassination.
• Minnesota: 3.43% (13,400); 100% spike. Origins in Vootie amplified by OSF youth grants, supporting furry conventions with trans overlaps.
• Hawaii: 3.57% (3,100); no spike data, but high rate amplified by CDC surveys informing local programs.
• Colorado: 3.40% (13,100); no specific spike, but growth via Tides grants to trans justice.
• Maine: 3.55% (2,900); 135% spike, funded through OSF advocacy.
• Kentucky: 3.54% (10,600); growth despite bans, via emergency funds.
• Texas: 3.07% (71,200); lower rate but large numbers, amplified by resistance to bans via Tides-sponsored projects.
National growth: 1260% increase in young adult trans identification (2014-2023), threefold diagnoses (2017-2021), attributed to funded visibility. This funding, critics argue, has indoctrinated youth by normalizing non-traditional identities through scaled safe spaces.
Oregon as a Hub: Antifa History and Overlaps with Funded Activism
Oregon, particularly Portland, has emerged as a central hub for Antifa activities, where the movement’s decentralized structure facilitates intersections with funded LGBTQ+, furry, and transgender activism. This convergence has amplified political tensions, with critics arguing that it promotes ideological indoctrination among youth through protected events, online coordination, and shared networks that blend entertainment, identity exploration, and militant resistance. Portland’s progressive environment—bolstered by high transgender youth identification rates (~1.3% for ages 13-17) and funded programs addressing mental health barriers (50-58% access issues)—provides fertile ground for these overlaps, often manifesting in protests against perceived fascist threats. Tides Foundation and Open Society Foundations (OSF) grants have supported organizations that organize queer events, which in turn rely on Antifa for security, creating a symbiotic relationship that extends to furry/trans communities through shared Discord servers and conventions. This section details Antifa’s history, structure, and specific intersections, highlighting how funding has enabled growth without direct voter oversight.
Antifa’s Historical Development in Portland
Portland’s Antifa history dates back to the 1980s, rooted in anti-racist actions against neo-Nazi skinheads and white supremacist groups that plagued the Pacific Northwest. Oregon’s founding as a white-only territory in the 19th century left a legacy of racial exclusion, which fueled radical resistance. In 1987, a group called the Baldies formed in Minneapolis but inspired similar efforts in Portland to directly confront neo-Nazis through street-level tactics. A pivotal incident was the 1988 murder of Ethiopian immigrant Mulugeta Seraw by three members of East Side White Pride, affiliated with White Aryan Resistance (WAR), in Portland. This killing galvanized local activists, leading to the formation of coalitions like Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice (SHARP) and early Anti-Racist Action (ARA) chapters. These groups employed direct action—physical confrontations, doxxing, and disruption of far-right gatherings—to combat hate groups like the Aryan Nations, which aimed to establish an all-white ethno-state in the region.
By the 1990s, Portland’s eco-anarchist movements (e.g., protests against logging) merged with anti-racist efforts, setting the stage for modern Antifa. The city’s first national ARA conference in 1991 formalized this resistance, emphasizing solidarity against fascism. In 2007, Rose City Antifa (RCA)—the oldest active Antifa group in the U.S.—was founded in Portland by former ARA members as a direct response to a neo-Nazi skinhead festival called Hammerfest organized by Volksfront. RCA’s formation marked a shift to explicitly “antifa” branding, focusing on intelligence gathering, education, and direct action to oppose bigotry. This history evolved Portland into a hub for clashes with far-right groups since 2017, when Donald Trump’s election galvanized both sides, leading to frequent street brawls with Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer. The 2020 George Floyd protests intensified this, with over 100 nights of unrest, including arson and occupations, resulting in at least 25 deaths linked to broader violence. Post-2025, following the Charlie Kirk assassination on September 11, 2025, Portland has seen renewed scrutiny, with threats against figures like journalist Andy Ngo and increased harassment of trans/furry activists perceived as Antifa-linked.
Continued……
Oregon, particularly Portland, has emerged as a central hub for Antifa activities, where the movement’s decentralized structure facilitates intersections with funded LGBTQ+, furry, and transgender activism. This convergence has amplified political tensions, with critics arguing that it promotes ideological indoctrination among youth through protected events, online coordination, and shared networks that blend entertainment, identity exploration, and militant resistance. Portland’s progressive environment—bolstered by high transgender youth identification rates (~1.3% for ages 13-17) and funded programs addressing mental health barriers (50-58% access issues)—provides fertile ground for these overlaps, often manifesting in protests against perceived fascist threats. Tides Foundation and Open Society Foundations (OSF) grants have supported organizations that organize queer events, which in turn rely on Antifa for security, creating a symbiotic relationship that extends to furry/trans communities through shared Discord servers and conventions. This section details Antifa’s history, structure, and specific intersections, highlighting how funding has enabled growth without direct voter oversight.
Antifa’s Historical Development in Portland
Portland’s Antifa history dates back to the 1980s, rooted in anti-racist actions against neo-Nazi skinheads and white supremacist groups that plagued the Pacific Northwest. Oregon’s founding as a white-only territory in the 19th century left a legacy of racial exclusion, which fueled radical resistance. In 1987, a group called the Baldies formed in Minneapolis but inspired similar efforts in Portland to directly confront neo-Nazis through street-level tactics. A pivotal incident was the 1988 murder of Ethiopian immigrant Mulugeta Seraw by three members of East Side White Pride, affiliated with White Aryan Resistance (WAR), in Portland. This killing galvanized local activists, leading to the formation of coalitions like Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice (SHARP) and early Anti-Racist Action (ARA) chapters. These groups employed direct action—physical confrontations, doxxing, and disruption of far-right gatherings—to combat hate groups like the Aryan Nations, which aimed to establish an all-white ethno-state in the region.
By the 1990s, Portland’s eco-anarchist movements (e.g., protests against logging) merged with anti-racist efforts, setting the stage for modern Antifa. The city’s first national ARA conference in 1991 formalized this resistance, emphasizing solidarity against fascism. In 2007, Rose City Antifa (RCA)—the oldest active Antifa group in the U.S.—was founded in Portland by former ARA members as a direct response to a neo-Nazi skinhead festival called Hammerfest organized by Volksfront. RCA’s formation marked a shift to explicitly “antifa” branding, focusing on intelligence gathering, education, and direct action to oppose bigotry. This history evolved Portland into a hub for clashes with far-right groups since 2017, when Donald Trump’s election galvanized both sides, leading to frequent street brawls with Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer. The 2020 George Floyd protests intensified this, with over 100 nights of unrest, including arson and occupations, resulting in at least 25 deaths linked to broader violence. Post-2025, following the Charlie Kirk assassination on September 11, 2025, Portland has seen renewed scrutiny, with threats against figures like journalist Andy Ngo and increased harassment of trans/furry activists perceived as Antifa-linked.
Continued……
Structure of Antifa: Decentralized and Elusive
Antifa’s structure is intentionally decentralized, lacking formal leadership, headquarters, or membership rolls, which makes it resilient to infiltration but also challenging to regulate. It operates as a network of autonomous cells or affinity groups, coordinated loosely through online platforms like Discord, Telegram, and Signal for planning actions. In Portland, RCA exemplifies this: Founded in 2007, it functions as an anonymous collective emphasizing “direct action, education, and solidarity with leftist spaces,” without a central command. Members adhere to anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, anti-racist, and anti-state ideologies, often subscribing to anarchist or communist principles. Tactics include “black bloc” attire (all-black clothing and masks for anonymity), doxxing opponents, and physical disruptions of far-right events. Funding is informal—crowdsourced via online campaigns or mutual aid—but intersects with funded activism through alliances with sponsored groups. This structure allows rapid mobilization but has led to criticisms of unaccountability, as seen in the 2019 assault on journalist Andy Ngo, where RCA was sued and ordered to pay $300,000 for injuries.
Antifa’s lack of hierarchy enables fluid collaborations, including with armed affiliates like Redneck Revolt and John Brown Gun Club (JBGC), which provide security at events. In Portland, this has blended with eco-anarchism and anti-ICE actions, such as the 2018 occupation of an ICE facility, escalating to violence in 2021-2024 drag show standoffs. The movement’s pro-LGBTQ+ and pro-immigration views further facilitate intersections with funded communities.
Intersections with LGBTQ+, Furry, and Trans Communities
Funded LGBTQ+ activism overlaps extensively with Antifa in Portland, with trans and furry members actively participating in protests, creating a nexus that critics view as radicalizing youth. The term “Trantifa” (trans + Antifa) emerged in 2023 to describe this far-left trans movement, where transgender activists adopt Antifa tactics to counter “fascist” threats, such as anti-trans legislation or far-right rallies. Trans individuals are disproportionately represented in Antifa actions, with arrests revealing identities like Isabel Rosa Araujo (trans Antifa member charged with assaults) and Charles Landeros (trans Antifa militant killed in a 2019 school shooting attempt in Eugene, Oregon). Furry overlaps occur through shared subcultures: Furries (7x more likely trans) use Discord for identity exploration, which doubles as planning for Antifa-linked protests. In 2025, post-Kirk assassination, messages on suspect Tyler Robinson’s bullets linked to furry/gaming subcultures fueled claims of radicalization.
These intersections manifest in protected events: Antifa/JBGC provide armed security at queer drag shows, furry conventions (e.g., Furlandia), and Pride rallies, defending against Proud Boys. Tides/OSF grants support orgs like Pride Foundation (Portland-based, funding queer events) and HRC, which organize protests blending with Antifa. In 2025, Antifa disrupted Turning Point USA events targeting trans issues, with trans/furry activists involved. This has radicalized youth, with funded programs (e.g., OSF’s $50M youth pledge) promoting safe spaces that evolve into activist hubs.
Antifa’s structure is intentionally decentralized, lacking formal leadership, headquarters, or membership rolls, which makes it resilient to infiltration but also challenging to regulate. It operates as a network of autonomous cells or affinity groups, coordinated loosely through online platforms like Discord, Telegram, and Signal for planning actions. In Portland, RCA exemplifies this: Founded in 2007, it functions as an anonymous collective emphasizing “direct action, education, and solidarity with leftist spaces,” without a central command. Members adhere to anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, anti-racist, and anti-state ideologies, often subscribing to anarchist or communist principles. Tactics include “black bloc” attire (all-black clothing and masks for anonymity), doxxing opponents, and physical disruptions of far-right events. Funding is informal—crowdsourced via online campaigns or mutual aid—but intersects with funded activism through alliances with sponsored groups. This structure allows rapid mobilization but has led to criticisms of unaccountability, as seen in the 2019 assault on journalist Andy Ngo, where RCA was sued and ordered to pay $300,000 for injuries.
Antifa’s lack of hierarchy enables fluid collaborations, including with armed affiliates like Redneck Revolt and John Brown Gun Club (JBGC), which provide security at events. In Portland, this has blended with eco-anarchism and anti-ICE actions, such as the 2018 occupation of an ICE facility, escalating to violence in 2021-2024 drag show standoffs. The movement’s pro-LGBTQ+ and pro-immigration views further facilitate intersections with funded communities.
Intersections with LGBTQ+, Furry, and Trans Communities
Funded LGBTQ+ activism overlaps extensively with Antifa in Portland, with trans and furry members actively participating in protests, creating a nexus that critics view as radicalizing youth. The term “Trantifa” (trans + Antifa) emerged in 2023 to describe this far-left trans movement, where transgender activists adopt Antifa tactics to counter “fascist” threats, such as anti-trans legislation or far-right rallies. Trans individuals are disproportionately represented in Antifa actions, with arrests revealing identities like Isabel Rosa Araujo (trans Antifa member charged with assaults) and Charles Landeros (trans Antifa militant killed in a 2019 school shooting attempt in Eugene, Oregon). Furry overlaps occur through shared subcultures: Furries (7x more likely trans) use Discord for identity exploration, which doubles as planning for Antifa-linked protests. In 2025, post-Kirk assassination, messages on suspect Tyler Robinson’s bullets linked to furry/gaming subcultures fueled claims of radicalization.
These intersections manifest in protected events: Antifa/JBGC provide armed security at queer drag shows, furry conventions (e.g., Furlandia), and Pride rallies, defending against Proud Boys. Tides/OSF grants support orgs like Pride Foundation (Portland-based, funding queer events) and HRC, which organize protests blending with Antifa. In 2025, Antifa disrupted Turning Point USA events targeting trans issues, with trans/furry activists involved. This has radicalized youth, with funded programs (e.g., OSF’s $50M youth pledge) promoting safe spaces that evolve into activist hubs.
My next report will be explosive.
I’ll reveal how psychological operations have been weaponized globally—using cultural manipulation, funding networks, and disinformation to influence societies. From Soros-backed programs abroad to similar tactics here in the U.S., the patterns are clear—and the stakes are high.
I’ll reveal how psychological operations have been weaponized globally—using cultural manipulation, funding networks, and disinformation to influence societies. From Soros-backed programs abroad to similar tactics here in the U.S., the patterns are clear—and the stakes are high.
@POTUS
@VP
@SenHawleyPress
@SenTomCotton
@MarshaSays
@SenRonJohnson
@ChuckGrassley
@LindseyGrahamSC
@SenRandPaul
@Jim_Jordan
@JamesComer
@SpeakerJohnson
@FmrRepMattGaetz
@RepMTG
@laurenboebert
@RepDonaldsPress
@DHSgov
@HHSGov
@FBIDirectorKash
@FBIDDBongino
@AGPamBondi
@TulsiGabbard
@EdMartinDOJ
@TPUSA
@charliekirk11
@JackPosobiec
@bennyjohnson
@nicksortor
@glennbeck
@GenFlynn
@TuckerCarlson
@VP
@SenHawleyPress
@SenTomCotton
@MarshaSays
@SenRonJohnson
@ChuckGrassley
@LindseyGrahamSC
@SenRandPaul
@Jim_Jordan
@JamesComer
@SpeakerJohnson
@FmrRepMattGaetz
@RepMTG
@laurenboebert
@RepDonaldsPress
@DHSgov
@HHSGov
@FBIDirectorKash
@FBIDDBongino
@AGPamBondi
@TulsiGabbard
@EdMartinDOJ
@TPUSA
@charliekirk11
@JackPosobiec
@bennyjohnson
@nicksortor
@glennbeck
@GenFlynn
@TuckerCarlson
@POTUS @VP @SenHawleyPress @SenTomCotton @MarshaSays @SenRonJohnson @ChuckGrassley @LindseyGrahamSC @SenRandPaul @Jim_Jordan @JamesComer @SpeakerJohnson @FmrRepMattGaetz @RepMTG @laurenboebert @RepDonaldsPress @DHSgov @HHSGov @FBIDirectorKash @FBIDDBongino @AGPamBondi Adding for relevance 🫡🙏❤️🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
https://twitter.com/ansgar_3/status/1932153172270739937
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
