Commentary Culture Investigations

Screenshot via Fox News/Snapstream

On Saturday afternoon, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) posted a bombshell series of revelations from Dr. Anthony Fauci’s personal diary ahead of Wednesday’s blockbuster Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing, which showed he not only believed the origins of COVID-19 likely emanated from the Communist Chinese lab in Wuhan, but reveled in the spotlight with liberal, elite media and expressed skepticism toward policies he demanded be enacted to shutter the country. Between Saturday night and Monday morning, ABC, CBS, and NBC made the decision to ignore the infuriating revelations on their flagship morning, evening, and Sunday political talk shows, hoping to further preserve the saintly image they helped Fauci concoct. On Monday morning, all three had time for plenty of fluff, including full reports about LeBron James signing with the Philadelphia 76ers, which happened back on Friday morning.The diary entries and the upcoming hearing fetched multiple mentions on the Fox News Channel, Newsmax, Newsmax2, and NewsNation.A Media Research Center search of SnapStream closed captioning found the first mention on Sunday’s Fox & Friends: Weekend.“Well, Dr. Anthony Fauci will be back in front of lawmakers this week when he testifies before Senator Rand Paul’s committee again on the origins of COVID-19…Fauci denies all wrongdoing, including claims he directed NIH employees to destroy federal records,” co-host Griff Jenkins began ahead of an interview with COVID whistleblower Jamie Metzl. 

ABC, CBS, and NBC have completely ignored the bombshell revelations from @SenRandPaul about Dr. Anthony Fauci’s diary entries about Everything from the lab leak to fawning over his newfound fame in 2020.Here was the first mention on TV — Sunday’s ‘Fox & Friends: Weekend’ pic.twitter.com/WIKa5XqxmF— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 27, 2026

 Since then (as of this post), Fox News has had it multiple times, starting on Monday’s Fox & Friends, America’s Newsroom, Outnumbered, and America Reports.Our friends at Newsmax and Newsmax2 also had multiple segments, beginning with Sunday morning’s Sunday Report: 

Our friends at Newsmax and Newsmax2 also had multiple segments, beginning with Sunday morning’s ‘Sunday Report’By Monday afternoon, it was on ‘National Report,’ ‘First Edition,’ and ‘John Bachman Now.’ pic.twitter.com/lbeab7lscj— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 27, 2026

 By Monday afternoon, it appeared on other shows such as National Report, First Edition, and John Bachman Now.NewsNation also covered the diary dumps, but dedicated only two news briefs to the issue thus far, both from Sunday.Here was one of them, which aired in the 2:00 p.m. Eastern hour: 

NewsNation has also been on the case, but has dedicated only two news briefs to the issue thus far, both from Sunday.Here was one of them, which aired in the 2pm Eastern hour. pic.twitter.com/d9YjVATfcy— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 27, 2026

 Finally, there was this doozy from Monday’s Squawk Box on CNBC with co-host Joe Kernen repeatedly pressing former Trump FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb about his friend Fauci: 

Finally, there was this doozy from Monday’s ‘Squawk Box’ on CNBC with co-host Joe Kernen repeatedly pressing former Trump FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb about his friend Fauci. pic.twitter.com/kE94uOAzLY— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 27, 2026

 Most notably for NewsBusters, he admitted to dining with CNN’s Jake Tapper, and was close with other CNN hosts: 

“Had dinner at my home with Jake and Jennifer Tapper. Relaxed, good time. Jake clearly believes that Trump is totally nuts” pic.twitter.com/WFPjHwlsyK— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) July 27, 2026

Fauci had been lying to press and claiming he hadn’t talked to Biden team, but after Biden told the truth Tony confirmed it to CNN “in order not to have a contradiction.” pic.twitter.com/nut9CcbcvY— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) July 27, 2026

 Another CNN host was Dana Bash, who now hosts Inside Politics and co-hosts State of the Union. She allegedly told Fauci that Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH) “trips over his own asshole”: 

Which media personalities fare the worse in Fauci’s diary? Some standouts. We can start w/ professional CNN journalist @DanaBashCNN emailing Fauci quotes about how “Jim Jordan trips over his own asshole trying to debate Anthony Fauci.” pic.twitter.com/wz9GkoFxo3— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) July 26, 2026

 Fauci also denounced The Blaze’s Steve Deace and Trump economic adviser Stephen Moore, but was an ally to now-View co-host and faux conservative, Alyssa Farah Griffin: 

Congrats @SteveDeaceShow – you made the diary. pic.twitter.com/RwqrRKIUN3— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) July 27, 2026

Fauci told the White House they “need to shut up @StephenMoore.”Sorry Tony there was no shutting up Steve or @Comm4Prosperity! pic.twitter.com/F6s6cQpkkF— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) July 27, 2026

Alyssa Farah to Fauci: “I am so sorry that fool Scott Atlas keeps attacking you. I’m even more sorry I’m not in a better position of influence to see him out the door. I’m trying to make people see he’s a disaster.” pic.twitter.com/4WfwKrwdrY— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) July 27, 2026

 Here was how the New York Post broke it down on Sunday:Dr. Anthony Fauci became increasingly fixated on his newfound fame as pandemic deaths soared, reveal the former White House COVID adviser’s newly released diary entries.As early as April 2020, when more than 60,000 people had already died of COVID in the United States, the man in charge of America’s response to the pandemic was obsessing about his recent stardom, according to journals released by Kentucky Republican Sen. and long-term Fauci critic Rand Paul.“Press still hot and heavy about me. Multiple stories per day directly or indirectly involving me,” Fauci wrote in an entry dated April 7, 2020, amid intensifying media coverage around the White House Coronavirus Task Force.On May 21, 2020, the top doc wrote that his “national and international fame is explosive and really unimaginable,” adding it was “not hyperbole” to describe his celebrity in terms of global recognition, according to the diary.On COVID’s origins, Paul reported on January 26, 2020 that Fauci believed “the [Wuhan wet] market was not the source,” of COVID, but “the amplifier.” A meeting six days later with 11 other scientists showed Fauci wasn’t alone, as per his notes, 10 of the 12 believed it came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.He also lied about asymptomatic spread, insisting to then-White House official Larry Kudlow on February 12, 2020 this wasn’t possible, even though nine days prior, he had heard it was the case from the head of China’s equivalent of the CDC.—————————————————————– To see the relevant transcripts from July 26 and 27, click here (for Fox & Friends: Weekend), here (for NewsNation), here (for Fox & Friends), and here (CNBC).

Over there at the site of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library is a reminder of the Gipper’s wisdom in dealing with foreign adversaries.
The reminder is headlined: “Peace Through Strength.”
And it opens with this Reagan reminder delivered when accepting the 1980 GOP presidential nomination in Detroit on July 17. Said the freshly nominated Reagan: “We know only too well that war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong, but when they are weak. It is then that tyrants are tempted.”
The Library goes on with a lengthy reminder of Reagan’s words that night. My younger self was there in person listening to the man who would, down the road, be my boss in his second White House term. And there was no mistaking his meaning that night in 1980.
Today the Reagan Library records this:
“The foundation of Reagan’s foreign policy, known as the Reagan Doctrine, was the support of freedom for all people around the world. His commitment to the idea of ‘peace through strength’ led to the modernization of our military forces. During Reagan’s administration, the size of the U.S. Army grew by two active divisions and saw the development of new weapons systems. The Strategic Defense Initiative, or “Star Wars,” was announced as a defense against a nuclear attack. It was President Reagan’s hope that his new military initiatives would not only contain communism but defeat it.”
That was indeed Reagan’s hope. And while all manner of supposed foreign policy wise men from the Washington Establishment insisted Reagan was getting things dangerously wrong, the new president was convinced he was right.
In fact, the staff of the day was told that Reagan had been asked by a staff member what his view of dealing with the Soviet Union in the Cold War was, and the president responded simply: “We win, they lose.”
This was a point of view that came close to terrifying the Washington and foreign policy establishment. After all, since the end of World War II and the beginning of what became known as the “Cold War,” the accepted “wisdom” of the foreign policy wizards was that peaceful “co-existence” was the fact of life in the new Cold War. Anything other than that was seriously dangerous and likely to provoke a World War III.
And while all manner of so-called “wise men” in the Establishment of the day insisted Reagan was wrong, in fact he was decidedly right on the money. He raised the budget of military spending and made clear that Soviet interventions in places like Central America and Europe were not to be tolerated.
And surprise, surprise, Reagan was right on the money. Shortly after he left office eight years later — an eight-year period where Reagan built up the U.S. military in massive fashion — the Soviet Union would in fact collapse, bringing to an end decades of Communist interventions around the globe. Not to mention the collapse of the Soviet Union itself.
Among much else, there was enthusiastic support from the people of Berlin when Reagan visited and encouraged the people of Berlin to heed Reagan’s call to “tear down this wall.”
And amazingly enough, that is exactly what happened.
What does this history have to do with President Trump?
In short, everything.
In today’s world, it is President Trump who is standing up with visible support of the “peace through strength” doctrine. This time an American president is dealing not with the adversary that was the Soviet Union — although Russia’s Vladimir Putin lurks in the shadows.  This time the out-front adversary is Iran, a country that has cast itself in an adversarial role with the United States since the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran way back there in 1979.
But while the U.S. adversaries may be different then and now, the hard fact is that dealing with both revolved and revolves around the same principle of peace through strength that Reagan relied on.
Is this easy to do? Decidedly not. In Reagan’s day, there was all manner of open opposition to his policies. Among other things, there were protests with thousands in different spots around the globe and America itself taking to the streets to protest Reagan’s policies.
As just one sample was this headline from The New York Times in June of 1984: “Thousands in London Protest U.S.A.-Arms Policy.”
The story reported this:
According to the organizers, more than 150,000 people took part in the march, including such well-known figures as Michael Foot, the former leader of the Labor party, and Susannah York, the actress. About 200 of the marchers carried irises as a symbol of peace. At the head of the line of march was an 18-foot-long cardboard model of a United States cruise missile and placards saying, ”Return to sender.” Britain to Get 160 Missiles
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament advocates the removal of all nuclear arms from this country, including the cruise missiles that were installed near London in December. Britain is ultimately to receive 160 of the 572 cruise missiles in Europe.
The point is crystal clear. As President Trump now deals with the serious adversary that is Iran, he is employing “peace through strength” as the key of his policy.
Which is to say, the president is using the time-tested principles of dealing with an adversary employed by American presidents whether the presidents were named Reagan, Nixon, Kennedy, Roosevelt or, going way back, Lincoln.
In short, President Trump gets it.
And America and the world are safer exactly because he does.
READ MORE from Jeffrey Lord:
Sally Quinn and the Establishment Blues
Arrest New York Mayor Mamdani If He Arrests Netanyahu?
Secretary Rubio Gets It

Less than two years ago, President Donald Trump ran largely on a platform of mass deportations. Tariffs, tax breaks, affordability, crime control, election integrity, and a noninterventionist foreign policy also all featured, but immigration issues dominated Trump’s 2024 campaign, with the president pledging over and over to conduct the largest mass deportation program in the nation’s history. The gravity of delivering on that promise cannot be overstated.
During his campaign, Trump highlighted the brutal murders committed by illegal aliens ushered into the nation by then-President Joe Biden’s open-border policies. Twenty-two-year-old nursing student Laken Riley “would be alive today if Joe Biden had not willfully and maliciously eviscerated the borders,” Trump pointed out in a campaign speech. Instead, Laken was accosted by Venezuelan national José Ibarra, who attempted to rape her and, failing that, beat her to death with a stone, crushing her skull. Mother-of-five Rachel Morin was walking a family-favorite trail in Maryland when Salvadoran national Victor Antonio Martinez-Hernandez dragged her into a tunnel, raped her, and beat her to death. Mexican national Brandon Ortiz Vite shot and killed his girlfriend, 25-year-old Ruby Garcia, on the side of a highway in Michigan. Venezuelan nationals Johan José Martínez-Rangel and Franklin José Peña Ramos were encountered by U.S. Border Patrol agents and paroled into the U.S. in the first half of 2024. Weeks later, the two strangled, tied up, and sexually assaulted 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray, later dumping her body in a ditch.
These crimes, and many others like them, outraged the American people, whose anger propelled President Trump back to the White House in a historic election, signaling an end to this era of lawlessness. But it will take more than a signal to restore safety, security, and sovereignty to the American people. Enacting mass deportations is not a pleasant task: it requires the mass arrest of millions of people and shipping them back to countries that many Americans would never even consider for a vacation, let alone a mission trip, in addition to resisting the emotional blackmail and propaganda of the leftist machine. But this must be done.
This article is from The American Spectator’s summer 2026 print magazine. Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive the magazine.
In March of this year, more than a year after President Trump’s return to the White House, Honduran national Samuel Antonio Maldonado-Erazo beat a 3-year-old child to death in Florida. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, first responders found that the 3-year-old “had extensive bruising across his body, several burn marks, several broken ribs — one of which was detached from the backbone — a broken collarbone, and a transected pancreas, which raised concerns of possible sexual abuse.”
Mexican national Conrrado Ahuexoteco Atrisco sexually assaulted a 14-year-old high school girl in Utah. Honduran nationals Franquin Inestroza-Martinez and Gerzon Jose Chirinos-Munguia shot and killed the 24-year-old mother of Chirinos-Munguia’s son in California. Honduran national Bairon Posada-Hernandez shoved 83-year-old U.S. Air Force veteran Richard Williams onto the New York City subway tracks, killing him. Mexican national Ernesto Lopez-Gomez killed a 62-year-old man in a hit-and-run in North Carolina. Illegal alien Francisco Mendez-Martin murdered his wife of one month, 20-year-old Karla Rangel, in Texas. Guatemalan national Carlos Aguilar Reynoso raped a 5-year-old girl, who required surgery to repair the damage he did to her genitals. Illegal alien Misael Lopez Gomez murdered his 3-month-old daughter, whom he regularly abused, via what the Fairfax County chief medical examiner determined to be “blunt force trauma.” All of these incidents occurred in March 2026. The Federation for American Immigration Reform has tracked over one hundred serious crimes committed by illegal aliens since President Trump’s return to office.
Venezuelan national Jose Medina-Medina also shot and killed 18-year-old Loyola University Chicago freshman Sheridan Gorman in March. The Catholic college girl was out for a walk with friends when Medina-Medina, who had no prior criminal record, shot and killed Sheridan as she tried to run from him. In April, Nigerian national Olaolukitan Adon Abel shot and killed a 31-year-old woman and a 48-year-old man in two separate incidents in Atlanta before shooting and stabbing 40-year-old Lauren Bullis, who was out walking her dog. 
Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive our summer 2026 print magazine.
There is a point to going into such gory detail when recounting all of these murders, rapes, and assaults: mass immigration (in particular, illegal immigration) poses an existential threat to the life of the nation. That isn’t a novel concept, it’s the very sentiment that propelled President Trump to a second term in the White House, even after Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media spent nearly a decade slandering him as Adolf Hitler reincarnate and hunting down and prosecuting his deputies and supporters.
That fiery sentiment is still alive and well. Millions of Americans have spent years watching their daughters, sons, sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, girlfriends, boyfriends, grandchildren, classmates, roommates, coworkers, and friends be raped, stabbed to death, beheaded, set on fire, run over, and killed in countless other barbaric manners, knowing that the barbaric killers should have never been in the U.S.
Right now, the federal government has the opportunity to restore American safety, security, and sovereignty by expelling the foreign invaders who have transformed the nation into a violent, treacherous jungle, thus giving Americans back their home, the home that their ancestors founded, built, beautified, and preserved, always at the price of sweat and tears and often at the price of blood. Right now, this can be done in a humane manner. Despite the wailing and lamentations of unhinged left-wing activists, mass deportations are a kindness; they constitute returning those in the nation unlawfully to their places of origin — or even to safe third countries when their places of origin are inhospitable or dangerous. This is a sensible, feasible, and even respectful means of addressing the existential threat to the American nation and her people.
The window of opportunity, however, is rapidly closing. The kindest response would be shipping illegal aliens out of the country. The murders, rapes, sexual assaults, and horrors heaped upon the American people by mass immigration (again, especially illegal immigration) cannot continue, will not continue. 
Already, mass deportations are no easy matter. Leftist activists whine and cry, and media outlets incessantly post videos and pictures of weeping abuelas and little boys in Cookie Monster hats on the verge of tears. Legal and judicial activists are working overtime to halt the deportation of murderers, rapists, human traffickers, and drug dealers. That’s tough, but it’s far easier to deal with than whatever the situation will be in five years’ or 10 years’ time, if this matter is left unaddressed. At that point, even the cry-baby leftist activists will ask for mass deportations, but it will be too late.
Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive our summer 2026 print magazine. 
READ MORE from S.A. McCarthy:
Martyrdom in the Modern Day
The Death of a Woman of Principle
Tradition Without Obedience Is Not Tradition

The Cold War did not end in Cuba so much as change patrons, technologies, and uniforms. The enormous Soviet listening station at Lourdes was closed more than two decades ago, but the infrastructure, trained personnel, intelligence culture, and geographic advantages that made the island valuable to Moscow survived under the control of a communist dictatorship that has now placed Cuban territory and technical capabilities at the service of the People’s Republic of China.
The presence of hostile electronic installations in Cuba has taken on new urgency following President Trump’s recent alarms over an upsurge in Chinese electronic espionage and Cuban subversion in the U.S. Fresh U.S. intelligence assessments, commercial satellite imagery and recently intensified American surveillance operations around the island indicate an extensive network of signals intelligence installations, some of which are controlled or operated by China and Russia, using Cuban territory, infrastructure, and intelligence capabilities. (RELATED: Cuba Is Prepared to Be a Second Iran)
Cuba is not merely an island from which China spies. It is a dictatorship that has once again rented its strategic geography to an enemy of the United States.
The relationship between Havana and Beijing is too often treated as an economic partnership between two distant communist governments or as an expression of Cuba’s chronic search for foreign subsidies. That interpretation misses the essential point. Cuba is valuable to China not because of the strength of its ruined economy, the productivity of its paralyzed industries, or the purchasing power of its impoverished population. Cuba is valuable because it lies at the entrance to the Gulf of Mexico, beside vital Caribbean shipping lanes, and approximately 90 miles from the most strategically concentrated region of the southeastern United States. (RELATED: Secretary Rubio Gets It)
According to U.S. intelligence assessments reported by the Wall Street Journal on May 22, 2026, 18 signals intelligence installations have been identified in Cuba. Three are actively operated by China, two by Russia, and the remainder formally operate under the Cuban military. China and Russia have reportedly tripled the number of intelligence personnel assigned to these operations since 2023, while several of the installations have received new and more sophisticated equipment.
The complete list of the 18 sites has not been publicly released. Nor has Washington declassified the identities of the five facilities attributed directly to China and Russia or the intelligence used to reach those conclusions. That secrecy limits the public’s ability to reconstruct every part of the network, but it does not erase the central finding of the assessments. China is not merely advising Cuba, selling it telecommunications equipment, or exchanging intelligence; it operates intelligence facilities on Cuban territory.
Florida, which lies just 90 miles from Cuba, is home to U.S. Southern Command, U.S. Central Command, Naval Air Station Key West, MacDill Air Force Base, Cape Canaveral, major military ports, aerospace facilities, submarine operations, extensive defense and communications infrastructure, and President Donald Trump’s summer White House in Palm Beach.
The Director of the Americas Project at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies, Ryan C. Berg, told the House Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime Security in May 2025 that intelligence installations in Cuba could provide coverage of approximately 20 sensitive bases and facilities in and around Florida, including Cape Canaveral and the headquarters of the U.S. Southern Command.
Signals intelligence, or SIGINT, does not depend only on breaking into the content of a particular conversation. It can collect frequencies, locations, transmission schedules, electronic signatures, communications patterns, and changes in operational behavior. When accumulated and studied over time, that information can reveal military exercises, aircraft and naval movements, changes in alert status, the activation of particular systems, and the technical characteristics of American defenses. Even encrypted communications can expose valuable metadata and operational patterns.
The installations also potentially place sensitive civilian activity within range. Commercial space launches, telecommunications providers, shipping companies, ports, and contractors may not possess the same communications protections as the military. Berg warned Congress that private companies operating near Cape Canaveral could be particularly vulnerable because they conduct strategically important activities while competing directly with China in space. Cuba offers Beijing a vantage point not only over military forces, but also over civilian technologies and logistical networks.
The Cuban regime runs extensive human espionage and subversive networks in the U.S. that complement China’s efforts to manipulate the U.S. political system, denounced by President Trump in his July 23 speech to the nation. Far-left groups with defined communist agendas such as Democratic Socialists of America maintain active ties with Cuba’s regime while receiving financial support from China. DSA activists regularly visit the island and meet with Cuban intelligence officials on trips arranged through the Institute of Friendship with the Peoples, currently under U.S. federal investigation for its financial ties to the Chinese Communist Party. Capabilities to hack into computer systems containing electoral information, eavesdrop on sensitive telephone conversations on unprotected private lines, and monitor internet traffic across the U.S. could crucially aid current efforts by communist groups to gain political power and leverage in the U.S. (RELATED: The Castroist Playbook Comes to America)
Defense analysts note that SIGINT and satellite tracking facilities in Cuba could double as a base for electronic jamming operations that could disrupt military tactical communications, GPS networks, and clandestinely support terrorist operations.
According to Congressional sources, during the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, U.S. intelligence agencies traced attempts to penetrate the signal codes of Air Force One carrying President George Bush back to Washington from Florida, triggering the decision to divert the presidential aircraft to Colorado. It’s strongly suspected that the operation was conducted from SIGINT installations in Cuba that could also now define targets and guide surgical strikes by Shahed drones recently acquired from Iran.
Successive U.S. administrations, both Democrat and Republican, have tended to downplay Cuba as a national security threat, influenced possibly by high-level Cuban moles in the intelligence bureaucracy such as a senior Latin America analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency and a State Department ambassador who served on the National Security Council, and who could be tried and convicted as Cuban spies. But the institutional sedation over Cuba appears to be ending under the Trump administration, which has authorized more than 20 surveillance missions by manned and unmanned aircraft around the island over the past six months.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio addressed the matter directly at Miami-Homestead Airport on May 21, describing the Russian and Chinese intelligence presence in Cuba as a national security problem. The Cuban dictatorship supplies territory, protection, local personnel, decades of intelligence experience, and the cooperation of its military and security agencies. Beijing and Moscow contribute technology, resources, specialists, and access to broader intelligence systems. (RELATED: The Son of Cuba Takes on the Last Communist Neighbor)
The State Department’s 2026 report, Cuba: The Capital of 21st Century Communism, places those installations inside a broader diagnosis of Havana’s function within what the document calls an “Anti-American Internationale.” The report states that China actively operates three of the eighteen known SIGINT installations, notes that certain Russian and Chinese bases appear to be joint operations with Cuban agencies, and describes the Chinese presence as an acute danger to American military operational security. Cuba is presented not as an irrelevant failed state, but as a force multiplier that allows larger adversaries to operate from the strategic approaches to the United States.
The roots of that arrangement can be traced to a February 1999 visit to Cuba by Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Chi Haotian, who met with Raúl Castro, then Cuba’s defense minister.
According to Berg’s congressional testimony, the two governments reached an agreement granting China access to former Soviet listening stations, including Bejucal, located less than 10 miles from Lourdes. The same testimony cited reports that China helped transfer equipment intended to interfere with Radio Martí broadcasts, an early indication that the relationship combined foreign intelligence gathering with the internal and external information war conducted by Havana.
The military relationship continued to deepen. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission reported that Chinese and Cuban military officials held 33 meetings between 2003 and 2016. China assisted Cuba with communications equipment, air-defense modernization, maintenance of Soviet-era aircraft, and improvements to some MiG-21 fighters. The commission also reported a physical Chinese presence at intelligence facilities of Soviet origin at Lourdes, Bejucal, and Santiago de Cuba for the collection of signals intelligence.
Cuba’s importance to Beijing extends beyond the antenna fields. Chinese companies became central providers for the island’s telecommunications infrastructure. Congressional testimony has identified Huawei, ZTE, and TP-Link among the principal suppliers to ETECSA, the state monopoly that controls Cuban communications.
Chinese technology has helped Havana build not merely an internet network, but an architecture capable of surveillance, censorship, and politically motivated shutdowns. During nationwide protests in July 2021, the regime used its control over telecommunications to interrupt communications among demonstrators and obstruct the flow of images to the outside world. Beijing’s contribution to Cuba therefore serves two related purposes: protecting the dictatorship from its own population and expanding the technical infrastructure from which intelligence can be collected on the United States.
The Soviet precedent explains how this collaboration works. Lourdes, near Havana, was once the largest Soviet signals intelligence station outside the USSR. It reportedly housed approximately 1,500 operatives and supplied Moscow with an extraordinary volume of military intelligence concerning the United States. Cuba retained formal sovereignty over the territory, but no serious observer hesitated to call Lourdes a Soviet base because the Soviet Union supplied the personnel, equipment, technology, and operational command while Havana provided the land, political protection, and cooperation.
Vladimir Putin announced the closure of Lourdes in October 2001, and the complex ceased operating as a Russian intelligence station the following year. President George W. Bush welcomed the decision as the dismantling of a Cold War relic. Yet what disappeared was the Soviet operation at Lourdes, not Cuba’s expertise in electronic intelligence. The communist regime retained trained technicians, its own listening sites, relationships with foreign intelligence services, and an institutional culture developed through decades of monitoring the United States.
China gradually filled the vacuum left by the Soviets. In June 2023, the Wall Street Journal reported that China and Cuba had reached a secret agreement to establish an electronic listening facility and that Beijing would provide Havana with several billion dollars.
The Biden administration initially challenged aspects of that report, but U.S. officials ultimately confirmed it, explaining that it was not new. They acknowledged that Beijing had been conducting intelligence operations from the island for years and had upgraded its collection facilities in 2019, the same year in which Chinese electronic espionage against the U.S. surged, according to President Trump’s July 23 speech.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken at the time confirmed that China had modernized its intelligence capabilities in Cuba during that year. Beginning in 2024, the public record moved beyond official declarations and press leaks. Analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies examined commercial satellite imagery and identified four principal locations considered highly likely to support Chinese intelligence collection: Bejucal, Wajay, Calabazar, and El Salao. Three are clustered around Havana. The fourth lies near Santiago de Cuba, close enough to observe activity in the eastern Caribbean and around the U.S. Naval Base in Guantánamo.
The satellite images cannot identify every technician inside a building or disclose the terms of secret agreements. They can show the construction of antenna fields, the movement and reorientation of dishes, protected compounds, technical buildings, possible underground facilities, and the development of specialized systems designed for the interception and geolocation of radio signals. When those images are considered alongside congressional testimony, government assessments, the history of Lourdes, and two decades of records describing Chinese involvement in Cuba, they reveal a coherent strategic progression.
The most consequential evidence is at Bejucal, where a large circularly disposed antenna array containing 32 antennas now appears complete and has begun operating. It is larger and potentially more capable than any previously observed Cuban system of the same type. At the opposite end of the island, El Salao presents a more complicated picture, with a strategically located project that has advanced slowly and may have been delayed or redesigned. Bejucal and El Salao are only two parts of the visible network. Wajay and Calabazar contain different antenna configurations and may perform complementary collection, transmission, or satellite-related functions.
Cuba is not merely an island from which China spies. It is a dictatorship that has once again rented its strategic geography to an enemy of the United States. Washington’s responsibility is to expose that bargain, raise its cost, establish enforceable limits, protect the infrastructure already within range, and ensure that Beijing understands that 90 miles from Florida is not an uncontested frontier for communist expansion.
READ MORE from Martin Arostegui:
Prepare for Trump’s Midterm Surprise
Drones Are Not Enough
Rummaging for Cash in the Ruins of Socialism
Martin Arostegui is a terrorism analyst who has reported from conflict zones around the world for various news organizations, including Voice of America, the Wall Street Journal, the Daily Telegraph, Fox News, CNN, the Washington Times, the London Times, The Sun and Diario las Américas. He is the author of a book on Special Forces called Twilight Warriors (Bloomsbury, St. Martin’s).
Luis Leonel León, executive director of the Cuban Studies Institute, is a Cuban writer, journalist, and documentary filmmaker living in exile in Florida. His work appears in media outlets across the United States, Latin America, and Europe. He has produced films and documentary series for several television networks.

When more than 100 Congressional Democrats — and a solitary Republican crossing the aisle — voted last week to strip military aid from Israel, it revealed a growing cultural undercurrent in which Israel, and increasingly, Jews themselves, are becoming the preferred scapegoats for a generation’s economic and moral anxieties.
Recent polling reveals that 29 percent of Americans aged 18-44 now view Jews as a “threat to the unity of American society.” Among Gen Z, the numbers are even more concerning, as only 52 percent believe Israel has a right to exist. A new Yale Youth Poll found that 27 percent of 18-to 22-year-olds say Jews have “too much power.” Another 21 percent support boycotting Jewish-owned businesses, and 18 percent of 18-to 22-year-olds said Jews have a negative impact on the United States. Among voters overall, 35 percent agreed with ending all foreign aid to Israel. That share rises to 55 percent of voters aged 18-22 and 52 percent of voters aged 23-29. (RELATED: Post-Identity Antisemitism: The New Obsession With Israel)
These numbers signal a growing hostility in which Jews are becoming the proxy for a generation’s financial fears and cultural chaos. There has been a growing temptation to locate a single group to blame as today’s pressures are pushing many younger Americans to channel their anger toward Jews, especially Jews associated with Israel. (RELATED: Democrats at the Crossroads)
René Girard — the French theorist who argued that societies under stress instinctively look for someone to blame — believed that scapegoats appear when social pressures reach a breaking point. His work on mimetic theory showed that communities often redirect their frustration toward a group that seems both visible and vulnerable. That dynamic is now resurfacing in the hostility toward Israel and the Jewish people. Scapegoating is beginning to thrive as young people feel both morally burdened and mimetically inflamed. Similar dynamics unfolded in the Weimar Republic when economic instability and cultural fragmentation created fertile ground for the identification of Jews as the obstacle to national harmony and societal progress. Once a society’s younger members start viewing a minority as uniquely powerful and responsible for its problems, the cycle of rivalry and blame intensifies.
When shared meaning collapses, scapegoats fill the void.
Today’s Gen Z — raised in an algorithmic environment that amplifies outrage and competitive victimhood online — has inherited a cultural script in which Israel is increasingly portrayed as the central impediment to global justice. It is precisely the kind of move Girard warned against — one that reduces a complex conflict to a single group to blame — something that Girard called the “surrogate-victim-mechanism.” This shift is not simply political. It is sociological, as the collapse of shared norms, the fading trust in institutions like the family, the church, and — most visibly — the government, combined with the rise of performative online outrage and virtue signaling, has created the kind of environment where younger Americans feel normless and overwhelmed.
In my book, Politics of Envy, I argued that envy-driven scapegoating rarely stays symbolic for long. Once a society begins funneling its frustrations onto a single group, the pressure to move from metaphor to action grows. We are seeing early signs of that pattern now. A generation raised amid economic uncertainty and cultural fragmentation is searching for clarity. In that search, Jews are increasingly cast as the obstacle to the world they believe they were promised. When shared meaning collapses, scapegoats fill the void.
What we are witnessing now is a breakdown in the shared cultural framework that once kept social tensions in check. As common norms erode and institutions lose credibility, people begin searching for meaning in more proactive ways — sometimes through violence. Social media accelerates that collapse by rewarding outrage and identifying the villains. Scapegoating becomes a kind of social shortcut — a way to make sense of chaos by locating a single group to absorb the blame. The move from online to real-world consequences can happen quickly, especially when a generation feels economically squeezed and convinced that someone must be standing in the way of the future they felt they were promised. (RELATED: The New Brownshirts?)
The antisemitism that permeated the culture of Germany in the decade before the Holocaust did not spontaneously originate with racist ideology or religious animosity. Rather, a growing number of scholars, including German historian Gotz Aly in his book, Why the Germans? Why the Jews?, suggested that the virulent hatred toward the Jews in Germany in the 1930s and 40s was rooted in envy of the advantages enjoyed by the Jews. The fact is that the National Socialist Party itself — the Nazi Party — was itself propelled by envy, and today’s Democratic Socialist movement similarly uses envy as the engine of its appeal. New York City’s Mayor Zohran Mamdani has tapped into that same dynamic, using envy as the emotional fuel for his brand of Democratic Socialism — and antisemitism — in New York City. Mamdani has consistently referred to Israel’s retaliatory actions in Gaza as a “genocide” — a word he had used to describe previous Israeli military conflicts, long before October 7. He has also said that the United States, through its support of Israel, is “subsidizing a genocide.” (RELATED: Mamdani Peddles the Myths Fueling Democrats’ Antisemitism)
Gotz Aly pointed out that sociologist Werner Sombart documented the cultural milieu that reigned throughout the decades before the Holocaust. In a sociological analysis of academia during the pre-Holocaust period in Germany, Sombart found that on average, “Jews are quite a lot more clever and industrious than we are,” and he used that insight to justify prohibiting Jews from holding academic chairs in universities. Regretting that it was “regrettable” that most of the time, if there were two candidates, “the stupider one, not the Jew was chosen.” Aly pointed out that Sombart was “not a racist” even though the logic of racial antisemitism drove his arguments. Still, Sombart — like many German intellectuals — later embraced virulent antisemitic ideas. In his 1934 book, German Socialism, he deemed the Nazi regime a legal form of state, recommending that Jews be stripped of their rights. He warned that “In order to liberate us from the Jewish intellect, which should be a main task of the German people and above all of socialism, it is not enough to shut out all the Jews … the entire institutional culture should be reconfigured so that it can no longer serve as a bulwark of the Jewish intellect.”
Aly documents dozens of instances of antisemitic writings by envious Gentile professors during the decades prior to the Holocaust. He recalls that the economist Gustav Schmoller warned that “despite their obvious intellectual superiority,” he found it proper to admit only small numbers of Jews to the higher ranks of the military or civil service. As a result, dozens of brilliant Jewish scholars were excluded from academia just because they were Jewish.
University of Berlin historian Dietrich Schafer wrote a scathing evaluation aimed at preventing Georg Simmel, one of the founders of modern sociology, from being given an academic chair at the University of Heidelberg. The son of Jewish converts, Simmel, whose work is still studied and respected by sociologists, was denigrated by Schafer as “an Israelite through and through, in his external appearance, his demeanor and the character of his intellect.” Envious and resentful descriptions of Simmel’s talents were woven through Schafer’s evaluation of the popular lecturer, who was accused of possessing a “pseudo-intellectual manner that is greatly valued by certain circles of listeners in Berlin.” Schafer even mocked Simmel’s students who “flooded to and settled in Berlin from the eastern countries semester after semester … There’s not a lot that’s positive to be gleaned from his lectures, but people do get a momentary prick of excitement and intellectual enjoyment.” Obviously, Simmel was not hired at the University of Heidelberg.
Despite the discrimination, their intellectual advantage contributed to the growing envy toward what became known as the “Jewish advantage.” As Aly pointed out, the economic rise of entrepreneurial Jews was the main reason that hatred for Jews became part of the culture of the broad masses. Tax records reveal that in Frankfurt in the early 20th century, the average Jew paid four times as much in taxes as the average Protestant and eight times as much as the average Catholic. In Berlin, Jews accounted for 30 percent of city tax revenues, even though they constituted only 15 percent of the tax-paying population, and only 5 percent of the total population. In 1934, sociologist Jakob Lestschinsky noted that German Jews had more advantages than comparable classes in the non-Jewish population. Prior to World War I, German Jews earned five times the income of the average Christian.
History has shown that the kind of hostility directed toward the Jews in the past does not remain symbolic; it hardens into policy, exclusion, and eventually violence. That is the danger when Mayor Zohran Mamdani-style calls for envy become a political tool for mobilization. Once a society convinces itself that one group’s success is the source of everyone else’s frustration, scapegoating stops being symbolic and begins shaping real behavior. The lesson for us is not that history repeats itself, but that envy — when weaponized — can move quickly from resentment to action. It is a warning worth remembering.
READ MORE from Anne Hendershott:
The Borrowed Life of Gavin Newsom
Keeping Up With the Congresswoman
The Spirit of Boss Tweed Returns as Public Spending Spirals

CNN This Morning on SnapStream

The influx of far-left radicals into the Democratic Party has quickly poisoned it from the inside out. Nowadays, if you don’t support transing the kids or abortion up to the moment of birth, you’re a bigot and a MAGA cultist. On Monday’s CNN This Morning, Erica Hill and her guest panelists refused to denounce the new, ultra-radical Democrats dragging the party even farther to the left. However, they seemed to be politely sounding the alarm that American moderates could be turned off.To the delight of many Republicans, Democrats are engaged in a very public civil war. Moderates, who support liberal economic policies or aren’t fond of President Donald Trump, are being pulled underwater by radicals, who shriek about gay oppression while defending sharia law. On one side are well-established Democrats like former politician Rahm Emanuel, and on the other are ‘anti-system’ leftists like Bernie Sanders or Zohran Mamdani.   Hill began the segment covering Sanders and Emanuel smacking each other in the press, each accusing the other of dragging the Democrats the wrong way. Sanders promoted his slew of far-left socialist candidates, saying that “People are sick and tired of the Rahm Emanuels and the Democratic establishment and the Republican establishment.”Axios reporter Marc Caputo mentioned that Republicans would see DSA-supported candidates “as a possible advantage because they think, ‘well, we’ve always accused Democrats of being communists. Now they’re actually picking communists’ . . . I’m not sure how fully accurate it is, but that’s going to be the battle line that the Republicans are going to be drawing with the Democrats.”Notably, Caputo refused to clarify if the DSA candidates were actually communists.USA Today’s Francesca Chambers echoed Caputo’s thoughts without taking a stand herself:But listen, the administration, as Marc was saying, is sitting back and saying that this is going to be their midterm message at this point. Right? You’ve seen the President, you’ve seen House Speaker Mike Johnson, a number of other Republicans saying that ‘they’re Marxists, they’re communists, you know, they’re socialists that they’re going to, you know, you’re going to be living in squalor’ . . . I mean, that is exactly what the midterm message is right now coming from Republicans. Sara Fischer, Axios correspondent and CNN media analyst, said she wants the Democrats to have it both ways: The Democrats got to figure out a way to get back to that narrative of, ‘no, no, no, we’re the big tent party, right? We can bring on a Mamdani and that works for New York City, but it’s not going to work in a place like Virginia, which is a purple state.’ But Democrats clearly can’t have it both ways. Eventually, every place they control will fall into the radicals’ hands. Virginia Democrats aren’t governing in “purple.”As the conversation progressed, most of them seemed to agree that their party’s abrupt leftward lurch might be a turn-off to moderate Americans. They even noted that the far-left was pushing things even outside the tolerances for Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who poses as a moderate:HILL: I mean, how much of a concern for Democrats, right, to your point about big tent, is that this is going so far to the left that they’re actually looking at Democrats, moderate Democrats as more of an enemy than Republicans?(…)LAURA DAVISON: But you know, there’s a prime example in AOC who was sort of the — at the vanguard of this whole Progressive movement of, you know, unseating a long standing incumbent. She is now facing questions of ‘is she Progressive enough? Is she doing enough for the party?'(…)CAPUTO: But the future of the party might be AOC. I mean, I know you don’t want to talk about 2028, but the idea that, well, the idea that the Democratic socialists now think she’s not socialist-y enough, sort of puts her in the middle to a degree, and that’s not a bad spot for AOC to be as a 2028 cycle dawns after 2026.So, as CNN waffles back and forth over the DSA, the only thing they’re willing to stand for, at least for now, is sucking up to a far-left Congresswoman just because she might be the 2028 nominee.The transcript is below. Click “expand” to read: CNN This Morning7/27/266:54:58(…)ERICA HILL: Also want to talk to you about what we are seeing in terms of Democrats. Senator Bernie Sanders standing by his coalition of candidates, even as some Democrats worry that the so-called ‘Bernie bros’ could tank the midterms. Obama’s former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel making that argument in a Wall Street Journal op-ed over the weekend, blaming the Bernie bros. Adding – for the division – adding, “If the Bernie bros were serious about growing jobs and wages, they would support candidates touting substantive ways to help families.” Senator Sanders firing back:[Cut to video]SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): You have an establishment like Rahm Emanuel, who are dependent on billionaire campaign contributors and want to maintain the status quo. And then you have a progressive movement, which, by the way, what is getting these guys nervous is we are winning all over this country. It’s not only Mamdani in New York City. It is in New Jersey, it’s in Ohio, it’s in Colorado. People are sick and tired of the Rahm Emanuel’s and the Democratic establishment and the Republican establishment. They are asking simple questions.[Cut back to live]HILL: How do you see this playing out?MARC CAPUTO: I see it as a sort of a – the Democrats catching up to where Republicans were in 2010. I mean, it’s been written about and said about a little is that this is sort of the Democratic Party’s Tea Party movement. And I mean, obviously their version of it, this, to a degree, is perceived in the Trump White House as a possible advantage because they think, ‘well, we’ve always accused Democrats of being communists. Now they’re actually picking communists. Chevalier is the example in New York.’I’m not sure how fully accurate it is, but that’s going to be the battle line that the Republicans are going to be drawing with the Democrats.SARA FISCHER: I just want to remind people, though, in November, what we were talking about was this becoming the big tent party, right? Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey, Abigail Spanfeller [Spanberger] in Virginia. This was not just about bringing in Democrats that were super-far-left. These are women with military track records. And so I think that the Democrats got to figure out a way to get back to that narrative of, ‘no, no, no, we’re the big tent party, right? We can bring on a Mamdani and that works for New York City, but it’s not going to work in a place like Virginia, which is a purple state.’HILL: Right. And that that’s okay. I thought it was fascinating, too, there was some reporting in the New York Times talking about the rise of Democratic socialists, specifically in the state of New York, right, and their influence. And in talking to the chair of the Democratic Party in the state, right, he, Jay Jacobs, who raised the concern, saying, ‘look, I like some of what they’re doing.’ But the issue here and I’m quoting him, he said, “Too often they look at moderate Democrats as the greater enemy than Republicans. They don’t appeal to people in the middle. Most Americans are moderate.” I mean, how much of a concern for Democrats, right, to your point about big tent, is that this is going so far to the left that they’re actually looking at Democrats, moderate Democrats as more of an enemy than Republicans?LAURA DAVISON: That’s a huge problem. I mean, if you’re done with the midterms and just want to focus on 2028, just watch this debate. This is what is going to be, sort of, the central theme, you know, after we get through these November elections. But you know, there’s a prime example in AOC who was sort of the – at the vanguard of this whole progressive movement of, you know, unseating a long standing incumbent. She is now facing questions of ‘is she Progressive enough? Is she doing enough for the party?’You know, this is, you know, a cyclical thing we see in politics all the time. But if you have someone like AOC getting questions, if her bona fides are true, if she’s really committed to the DSA mission, that’s a problem for the party.HILL: And meanwhile, you have the, you know, administration and likely most Republicans across the country just sitting back and popping popcorn.FRANCESCA CHAMBERS: I was laughing. You said ‘if you’re done with ’26 and just to talk about 2028,’ because you guys–HILL: I know you wanted to talk to–CHAMBERS: –I knew you wanted me to talk about 2028 this morning–HILL: –that’s going to be your next question–CHAMBERS: I know, I know–HILL: –don’t worry.CHAMBERS: –and next time, or next time. But listen, the administration, as Marc was saying, is sitting back and saying that this is going to be their midterm message at this point. Right? You’ve seen the President, you’ve seen House Speaker Mike Johnson, a number of other Republicans saying that ‘they’re Marxists, they’re communists, you know, they’re socialists that they’re going to, you know, you’re going to be living in squalor.’ I think is what the President said, ‘two years from now, they’re saying it’s free, but it won’t be free.’ I mean, that is exactly what the midterm message is right now coming from Republicans. As far as Democrats go, though, I mean, there is this intraparty debate about the future of the Democratic Party right now and what they want it to look like. And even if Hakeem Jeffries does take over of the House, I mean, he’s going to have a similar problem to Mike Johnson on his hands, where he could only have a margin of a couple. And he’s going to have to, you know, barter with them to get things done. If he’s the leader, because they won’t even commit to making him the leader.CAPUTO: But the future of the party might be AOC. I mean, I know you don’t want to talk about 2028, but the idea that–HILL: Francesca very much wants to talk about 2028 actually–CAPUTO: Right, well, the idea that the Democratic socialists now think she’s not socialist-y enough, sort of, puts her in the middle to a degree, and that’s not a bad spot for AOC to be as a 2028 cycle dawns after 2026.

Sunday night’s security cabinet meeting in Jerusalem moved to an undisclosed location in anticipation of an impending Iranian attack amid the uncertain direction of the U.S.-Iran war. But the regional Iranian conflict took a different turn over the weekend with a brief respite, and the Israeli cabinet ministers focused instead on the surging violence between Palestinians and Jewish residents in the West Bank.
Ahead of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington on Monday, July 27, officials in Jerusalem vowed to expand military operations against Palestinian “terrorist strongholds” in the West Bank following clashes over the weekend that left two Israelis and four Palestinians dead. New military operations and escalating tensions in the Palestinian territories, however, could overburden an already strained Israeli military still operating deep inside the Gaza Strip and southern Lebanon.
The recent clashes broke out on Friday, July 24, when several dozen Israelis gathered for a morning hike in the northern Samaria region of the West Bank, and passed south of Nablus near the Palestinian village of Tell. Nablus and its surrounding villages are designated as Area A under the 1993 Oslo Accords and fall under the Palestinian Authority civil and security administration. Israelis are prohibited from entering Area A, and the hikers failed to follow protocol of alerting security officials when in proximity to these areas.
A conflict broke out on the outskirts of Tell when the hikers encountered Palestinians near a mosque. Members of the nearby Havat Gilad civilian security guard soon arrived on the scene with a small Israeli Defense Force (IDF) dispatch, which only further antagonized the rising tensions. As reported in the Israeli news, a Palestinian snatched the M16 rifle from the Havat Gilad security member Benayahu Mellet and opened fire, killing Mellet and IDF Maj. Yuval Ezra. In the ensuing conflict, four Palestinians, including the gunman, were also shot and killed.
First-responder medical teams from Israel’s Magen David Adom arrived in bulletproof intensive-care vehicles to treat numerous gunshot wounds and evacuate the casualties via military helicopter to a hospital.
The clashes near Tell were the third violent incident in the area in 24 hours. The previous day, the Israeli agricultural worker Itamar Cohen was stabbed and killed while attempting to extinguish a brush fire. Hours later, another stabbing attack was reported in the northern West Bank.
By late Friday afternoon, the IDF and Shin Bet (Israel’s internal security agency) were conducting widespread raids in the area around Nablus in search of the perpetrators involved in the Tell shootout. One resident of the nearby Jewish town of Kedumim told me that the Shabbat opened on Friday night with the sounds of helicopters, armored vehicles, and distant gunfire.
IDF troops deployed throughout the northern West Bank detained over seventy suspects over the weekend. According to Ghassan Barkat, director of Nablus Specialty Hospital, “more than fifty armed [IDF] soldiers and officers stormed the hospital” to arrest the wounded Ali Hussein Ali Ramadan, who had picked up the stolen M16 rifle after the first assailant was shot dead and continued firing at the Israelis.
The Friday shootout sparked outrage in both Israeli and Palestinian communities and ignited violent retaliatory responses.
Dr. Jihad Ramadan, secretary-general of the Palestinian National Commission for Education, Culture, and Science, and a resident of Tell, rejected claims that the Palestinians initiated the violence against the Israeli hikers. Ramadan reported that the hikers raided the village from several directions, committed arson, and “carried out a real massacre in front of cameras and the media.” “People here are neither silent nor afraid. The barrier of fear has completely collapsed,” he said.
Ramadan, like the Israeli far left, blames the current political landscape for inciting violence in the West Bank. “This is the internal election campaign of Bibi [Netanyahu], [Finance Minister] Smotrich and [National Security Minister] Ben-Gvir,” he said. “They are trying to improve their electoral position at the expense of Palestinian blood.”
Although Friday’s shootout paled in comparison to the events of October 7, it was a chilling reminder that civilian rapid-response security is ultimately the first line of defense against perpetual hostile neighbors.
Israelis living in the West Bank — commonly called “settlers” — also blame the current government for the deaths of the two Israelis on Friday by imposing policies that handicap or restrict civilian residents from defending themselves. Israel gained control of the West Bank after reclaiming it from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War. Since then, the area is deemed by much of the international community as an Israeli occupation of land designated for a Palestinian state. Clashes between Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank are often framed as Israeli settler occupation violence against harmless Palestinians, thus generating a worldview narrative of Palestinian victimhood in the West Bank. The Biden administration even went as far as imposing sanctions on select Israeli settler families.
To save face from the international narrative of Israeli perpetrators and Palestinian victims, Netanyahu’s government has urged Israeli settlers not to take defensive matters into their own hands but to rely on the military for defense and security. The government has even imprisoned civilian Israelis for defending themselves in the West Bank with lethal force against Palestinian violence. It was these same restrictive policies, curtailing civilian self-defense, West Bank Israelis argue, that allowed Hamas to commit its massacre on October 7, 2023.
Although Friday’s shootout paled in comparison to the events of October 7, it was a chilling reminder that civilian rapid-response security is ultimately the first line of defense against perpetual hostile neighbors.
Residents of the Jewish town of Havat Gilad (named after Gilad Zar, a regional security officer killed in a Palestinian shooting attack in 2001) said that they endured a week of violence before the clash on Friday. “Sixteen family homes and another eight businesses were burned here… We are living through terrorism. It feels like a war zone, and what we hear is ‘settler violence’ and ‘Jewish terrorism.’ It simply makes me angry,” said Itay Zar, brother of Gilad Zar.
While the IDF and Shin Bet conducted raids and arrests over Friday night in the identified Palestinian-terrorist hubs of Tubas, Nablus, Jenin, Qalqilya and Tulkarm, civilian Israelis also went on a revenge spree for the deaths of Benayahu Mellet and Yuval Ezra.
The official Palestinian media outlet WAFA reported that Jewish settlers raided the village of Qusra, south of Nablus, on Saturday and set fire to an under-construction mosque and several homes and vehicles. The Hebrew words “Benayahu’s Revenge” were graffitied on the mosque, together with a Star of David, before the arson. Another mosque near Tulkarm was also set on fire with graffiti “Jewish blood is not free.”
On Sunday, the IDF sealed off the homes of the two Palestinians involved in the deadly Friday shooting in preparation for demolition — the one who first snatched Mellet’s gun and opened fire, and Ali Hussein Ali Ramadan, abducted from the Nablus hospital, who continued shooting. As is Israel’s longstanding yet controversial policy, the home of any Palestinian who commits terrorism against an Israeli is demolished.
Jerusalem’s expanded security operations in the West Bank are paramount in thwarting large-scale October 7-style attacks on nearby Israeli cities, but perhaps do little to curb the tit-for-tat clashes as seen on Friday or the hit-and-run, lone-wolf attacks that are commonly carried out by Palestinian terrorists. In the long run, any sustained IDF presence in the West Bank will drain the manpower and resources needed to carry out the ongoing operations in Gaza and southern Lebanon.
READ MORE from Bennett Tucker:
Rubio’s Israel-Lebanon Agreement Cuts Iran Out of the Peace Process
Israel’s War Objectives Challenged by US-Iran Negotiations
Missiles Fired at Northern Israel Break the Iranian Ceasefire
Image licensed under Creative Commons Public Domain Mark.

Zachary Svajda had Cruz Hewitt on the ropes during most of their match on Sunday, but it’s never over till it’s over in tennis, as in many other human endeavors.
The 23-year-old California native took the first set in scarcely half an hour by keeping the Australian prodigy — he is 17 and just arrived here from the Wimbledon Boys’ junior final — off his game, which he did by a shrewd combination of change-of-pace, well-timed aces, and some superb shot placement.
Keeping you off your game is merely another term for the one invented, or at least popularized, by Bill Tilden, America’s first tennis superstar, a hundred years ago. Tilden said that since at the level the sport was practiced by players in his class, everyone is about as good as can be, the way to win a match is to “disrupt” the opponent’s game.
Taking the first set 6-1, the Californian’s tactics were working almost to perfection. The side spin he was putting on his forehand groundstrokes was playing tricks with his opponent’s racquet, whose exasperation looked like it might boil over as he kept sending balls long and out of bounds. And the second set went according to plan — the other fellow’s plan. Serving at 3-5, the thought may have crossed his mind — or his father’s, who accompanies him — that his classy groundstrokes simply were not clicking well enough to prevent another — and final — break of serve.
Banish the thought!
Young Cruz — the reader will have guessed he is the son of Lleyton Hewitt, the great Australian champion of the early aughts — plays with righteous power from either wing on the baseline, but he also is speedy and nimble, and he can chase almost anything down and find the right place to aim for when sending it back across the net. And what happened in that ninth game of the second set confirmed the old adage that you do not know what you can do until you do it. It may or may not surprise you, but you sure know it when it happens.
For sure, Svajda was finding it difficult to sustain the pressure and maintain the energy needed to set up winners or, no less key to his success so far in the match, set up the other’s losers, or faults as they are more politely called.
Whether this was due to heat or a bug or a strain, the fact is he blew a chance to break that game, then failed to hold when serving for match at 5-4, then again could not break, then managed to hold for 6-6, and then very nearly got wiped out in the tiebreak. At a set each, the match was not over, but Svajda retired after two games, which suggests he was ill.
Mishaps happen; they cannot take away the fact that there is a winner and a loser. And this is a lesson for life. Because Zach Svajda will nurse his disappointment or will put it behind him immediately, but in any case he will stand up and move on.
He can take some comfort in the fact that in the match at the grand old FitzGerald Stadium (over seven thousand seats) directly after his game, his younger brother Trevor, who is 20 (Zach is 23), beat the excellent McKenzie MacDonald, year in and year out one of the top Americans since winning the NCAA Division I singles title 10 years ago. Trevor could meet Cruz in the quarters in the middle of the week.
The qualification rounds for the main draws, women and men, which concluded with the matches on Sunday, brought out spectators in large numbers. Even if the old tournament, presently called the Mubadala D.C. Open, has become a chic event and many fans, apparently, come to see one another as much as to watch the matches, surely there are a few people who will take home the right notion of what it — losing and coming back aiming to win — is all about. For life is a ball game, being played each day/ Life is a ball game, everybody can play.
More to come, folks, but if you happen to be visiting Washington, D.C. this week, this may be a good time to ride the bus up 16th Street to Kennedy Street, get off; the show is on your left. It’s an easy trip after coming out of the National Archives building on Pennsylvania Avenue (enter on Constitution Ave.), where surely — in this time and place — you will have spent the morning reading an early copy of the Declaration. And tickets are still available, or so I’m told.
READ MORE from Roger Kaplan:
Glory Days at the All-England Club
New Winners in France
Paris Tennis Thrills

On July 26, Milwaukee Bucks forward Kyle Kuzma made headlines for discussing politics — rather par for the course in the oft-politicized NBA. Shock of shocks, however, Kuzma’s comments were directed against, rather than in support of, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
Kuzma responded on X to a theatrical July 22 video in which Mamdani continued calling for the federal government to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should he visit New York. Mamdani had previously directed the city’s legal department to examine whether it could enforce the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant. 
As a mayor with solely local jurisdiction at his disposal, Mamdani obviously has no legal authority to arrest visiting foreign leaders. The video was a blatant attempt to preserve the performance after a little thing called reality spoiled Mamdani’s show.
Kuzma rather accurately called a spade a spade. He mocked Mamdani as “a mayor playing president” and said, “We’re raising a generation that is learning the reward isn’t in doing the thing, it’s in looking like you did the thing. The clip is the career.” 
As anyone who has followed the NBA in the last decade could tell you, political expression has become a routine part of the NBA’s schtick. The consensus among those who do speak politically — and who are, of course, political gurus — is overwhelmingly progressive. 
From BLM messaging on courts and jerseys in 2020, the formation of the National Basketball Social Justice Coalition, and player campaigns for Democratic candidates, left-wing advocacy has been a legitimate and league-approved feature of the NBA. It is embraced by the league, not just grudgingly allowed.
Kuzma expressing the “wrong” politics is what generated the headlines on July 26, not that he chimed in with all his expertise from the three-point line.
Athletes are celebrated and lifted up as public paragons for “using their platforms” when the message conforms to the narrow ideological range of leftist talking points implicitly approved by the league: gun control, BLM, police brutality, “systemic racism,” and LGBT advocacy all come to mind. 
The case of Jonathan Isaac, a player for the Orlando Magic, is a natural example of what happens when athletes stray from the party line of the NBA. In 2020, Isaac refused both to kneel during the national anthem and to wear a Black Lives Matter shirt. Isaac said that supporting black lives did not require kneeling or wearing the shirt, and grounded his position in the Gospel. In a league covered in BLM slogans, one player quietly standing became a controversial political spectacle for media outlets and armchair analysts to snipe at.
Kuzma in no way delivered a sweeping conservative manifesto grounded in Edmund Burke and William F. Buckley. Nor was his criticism particularly profound. He criticized a progressive, Democratic socialist mayor for being self-important and too big for his britches. The fact that an NBA player making a comment modestly critiquing a Democrat can generate dozens of headlines across sports, political, and general news outlets says far more about the ideological uniformity of professional basketball than it does about Kuzma.
READ MORE from Henry Zavalick:
No Social Media Without Papers?
Women’s International Sports Return to Biological Reality
India’s ‘Cockroaches’ March on Parliament

“Diary of Anthony Fauci” editorial cartoon by Tom Stiglich for The American Spectator on Jul. 27, 2026.