The Insider Report from The New American

New Threat Category: “Anti-tech Violent Extremism”

The rapid expansion of artificial intelligence (AI) has triggered a controversial development within U.S. law enforcement: the emergence of a threat category described in internal documents as “anti-tech violent extremism.” Recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) disclosures indicate that federal, state, and local agencies nationwide are increasingly treating hostility toward AI and data-center expansion as a potential security concern.

Independent journalist Maria Zeee recently discussed leaked and FOIA-obtained materials concerning federal monitoring of anti-AI activism and opposition to data centers. Investigative reporting by WIRED revealed the contents of more than 1,000 pages of internal documents from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and other agencies. They believe that opposition to AI and data infrastructure could evolve into “civil unrest and anti-tech violent extremist activity.”

Some reports warned that data centers may become targets for sabotage or protest due to their enormous energy consumption, water usage, land acquisition, and perceived role in accelerating automation-driven job displacement. Other bulletins reported on protests against AI expansion, “Tesla Takedown” demonstrations, and local resistance campaigns against data-center construction projects.

The documents have alarmed civil-liberties advocates because some of the suspicious indicators listed by intelligence agencies (e.g., photography, observation of infrastructure, public opposition meetings) overlap with activities commonly associated with lawful protest. Critics argue that broad definitions risk conflating peaceful dissent with violent extremism.

The U.S. government is hardly an impartial observer. It is partnering with major corporations and investing hundreds of billions of dollars into artificial intelligence infrastructure, semiconductor production, cloud computing, and massive data-center networks. Officials increasingly describe these systems as critical infrastructure tied to economic competitiveness and national security. Congressional hearings in 2026 specifically discussed modernizing DHS protections for communications systems, data centers, and emerging technology infrastructure.

Historically, technological revolutions have often produced social instability and ideological backlash. During the First Industrial Revolution in England, mechanized textile production displaced skilled laborers and traditional tradesmen. This disruption contributed to the rise of the Luddite movement in the early 19th century, in which groups of newly unemployed craftsmen vandalized industrial machinery that took away their livelihoods and communities. In fact, the fruit of the Industrial Revolution as a whole was not only economic growth, but also class conflict, labor radicalism, and political polarization across Europe.

Analysts see parallels between that era and the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution, driven by artificial intelligence, robotics, automation, and digital surveillance systems. Anti-technology violence is a growing concern, but could such isolated cases be carried out by agents provocateurs to demonize all those who espouse legitimate and lawful opposition to the real potential of societal upheaval? Regardless, while critics of data centers base their views on cultural and economic reasoning, modern law enforcement is framing AI opposition as extremism and infrastructure endangerment. — Rebecca Terrell

Billionaire Peter Thiel Relocates to Argentina Amid U.S. Uncertainty

Peter Thiel has become the latest international man to sing the praises of Javier Milei’s Argentina. Thiel, an eccentric tech billionaire professing to be a libertarian, has purchased a mansion in Buenos Aires and enrolled his children in school there. A friend of Milei, Thiel is now looking to obtain Argentine citizenship, partly as a refuge to escape to should World War III break out in the Northern Hemisphere. In addition to entering local chess tournaments, Thiel has been on an all-out charm offensive recently, according to The New York Times:

Over the past two months, Mr. Thiel has met with the country’s president, Javier Milei, and his ministers; purchased a mansion in one of Buenos Aires’ most exclusive neighborhoods; and hosted a dinner with local economists where he discussed the Antichrist, one of his favorite conversation topics, according to Argentine officials and people familiar with Mr. Thiel’s activities.

Like many of the modern ultra-wealthy, Thiel has acquired additional citizenships (New Zealand in 2011, and a Maltese application in process). Besides Argentina, he has also purchased real estate in neighboring Uruguay, another prosperous Southern Cone country.

According to an uncomprehending New York Times, Argentina’s draw for Thiel is primarily ideological:

In Mr. Milei, Mr. Thiel has an ideological ally. The two men share an aversion for taxes, socialism and “wokeness” — a negative label critics use to describe progressive politics.

Since becoming president in 2023, Mr. Milei has sought to overhaul Argentina’s economy, pushing sweeping deregulation and government spending cuts. He has sought to attract foreign investment in the country’s natural resources, including oil, lithium and rare earth minerals….

The billionaire and an associate from his venture capital firm, Founders Fund, also spent time with Mr. Milei last month at the presidential house. In an interview with a streaming channel following that meeting, Mr. Milei said that the meeting was one of two like-minded individuals and that Mr. Thiel asked how he would ensure that libertarianism endures in Argentina beyond his presidency.

“It was an anarcho-capitalist who met another anarcho-capitalist who is bringing things to life,” Mr. Milei said.

Of course, there are limits to Thiel’s compatibility with Milei. The latter, after all, is vocally opposed to the social and moral subversion and perversion championed by the woke Left, whereas Thiel, an open homosexual, is married to another man. This, ironically, might be another reason for Thiel’s love of Buenos Aires, given that city’s reputation as the LGBTQ capital of Latin America, which includes a sprawling network of gay bars, nightclubs, and other establishments. Argentina was the first country to legalize same-sex marriage, and Buenos Aires has long been regarded as a haven for queers. Thiel’s newfound affection for Argentina, therefore, is probably motivated by more than libertarian escapism. — Steve Bonta

Hungary’s Magyar Moves to Surrender National Sovereignty

Hungary’s newly sworn-in prime minister, Péter Magyar, is wasting no time in surrendering his country’s sovereignty to the European Union and other international organizations.

On May 27, the National Assembly (parliament) voted to remain a member of the sovereignty-eroding International Criminal Court. Magyar’s predecessor, Viktor Orbán, previously announced that Hungary would withdraw from the globalist court, an action that had been scheduled to come into effect on June 2.

Additionally, Magyar announced his government’s intent to join the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Orbán’s government had opposed joining the office, viewing it as undermining national sovereignty.

Magyar is expected to continue eroding his country’s sovereignty, having previously expressed his support for adopting the Euro as Hungary’s currency. Additionally, he is threatening to amend Hungary’s constitution to remove President Tamás Sulyok, considered an ally of Orbán. Although certain American Republican politicians, including U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), have suggested that Magyar leans conservative, his record demonstrates the opposite. — Peter Rykowski

Europeans Bristle at EU Digital Control Agenda

In mid-May, two high-profile challenges added growing resistance to the European Union’s expanding digital oversight. Dutch lawyer Meike Terhorst and Polish President Karol Nawrocki delivered strong rebukes against what critics describe as Brussels’ overreach on digital identity and online speech regulation.

Speaking at a European Parliament outreach event for the Europe of Sovereign Nations Group, Terhorst dismantled the legal basis for the EU’s digital identity push. “The digital ID will become a digital twin of you,” she warned. Crucially, she emphasized that the EU lacks authority to impose such a system because “the EU is not a state or a country” and “cannot sit on the chair of the member states.” Member states, she argued, retain the right to reject implementation. For citizens, her advice was direct: if issued a digital ID, “just dump it.”

Terhorst further noted that digital IDs are often issued not by sovereign governments but by a “cartel” of banks and Big Tech firms, placing the system above national legal and political frameworks. She linked implementation to censorship and propaganda through corporate media, urging resistance to both. Her remarks resonated with audiences wary of surveillance infrastructure that could track finances, health, behavior, and movement.

Complementing this legal critique, Poland took concrete action. President Nawrocki vetoed legislation implementing the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) at the national level. The DSA aims to regulate online platforms, including content moderation, “trusted flaggers,” and penalties for alleged disinformation. Nawrocki argued the state should “guarantee freedom, not restrict it,” warning against “administrative censorship” and invoking Orwell’s 1984 “Ministry of Truth.” While the core DSA regulation remains EU law, the veto blocks Poland’s enforcement machinery.

The EU promotes digital tools for “convenience” and safety, but skeptics see a framework for social credit-style control, reduced privacy, and suppressed dissent. Digital IDs could enable exclusion from services for non-compliance, while DSA-style rules risk turning platforms into de facto censors aligned with official narratives on climate, migration, health, or politics.

However, the EU was originally framed as an economic community of sovereign nations, not a superstate dictating code halos, digital twins, and speech codes. (That was the reputed goal. Of course, subverting national sovereignty was the true intent.) As Terhorst and Nawrocki demonstrate, member states and informed citizens can still push back. True sovereignty resides with nations and peoples, not with unelected Big Tech firms that exist beyond the elective control of the people, or bureaucrats who operate on behalf of transnational capital. — Rebecca Terrell

The Uniparty: How You’ve Been Played by Both Sides

The two-party illusion in politics is becoming clearer by the day. Republicans and Democrats campaign on the opposite ends of the spectrum regarding abortion, border security, spending, and foreign policy. At times, it appears the two parties could not be further apart.

However, once elections are over, campaign promises are often left unfulfilled, and the Deep State establishment plows forward, regardless of who wins.

This façade of choice is by design, explain The New American’s Paul Dragu and Alex Newman on Behind the Deep State, and it must be stopped.

Dragu, who authored the article “The Two-party Illusion” in The New American’s Conspiracy for Global Control special edition, articulates the problem and offers real solutions.

Thankfully, not all is lost. By using the Constitution and tools such as The New American’s Freedom Index — which scores legislators based on their constitutional voting record — we can defeat the Uniparty’s stranglehold on our government.

But the first step in taking down the Uniparty is education. Don’t miss this insightful analysis. — Editors

Dead People, Bots, and Phantom Registrants Are Taking Out Student Loans

U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon highlighted a major initiative by the Trump administration to combat widespread fraud in federal student-aid programs. Though she did not address the core issue that federal student aid is unconstitutional, McMahon revealed that the Department of Education uncovered systemic vulnerabilities allowing bots, fabricated “ghost students,” and even identities of deceased individuals to receive billions in taxpayer-funded loans and grants.

The findings centered on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) process. Prior to recent reforms, identity verification was minimal, creating opportunities for exploitation. Fraudsters used automated bots, stolen identities, and synthetic profiles to submit applications, enroll in institutions (often without actual attendance), and trigger disbursements of Pell Grants and federal student loans.

On a Fox Business interview, McMahon described the findings: “There were bots, ghost students, dead people getting these loans. We enforced and tweaked the entire system so we have real-time fraud identity now.” She emphasized the simplicity of the fix: requiring applicants to prove they are real people, often via government-issued ID verification. This fraud-detection program began April 27.

Already the administration reports preventing more than $1 billion in fraudulent disbursements. In one period, roughly $90 million in aid was identified as fraudulent, including more than $30 million to deceased individuals and more than $40 million linked to bot-operated schemes. In the first two weeks of enhanced measures, officials claimed around $60 million saved in some reports, with ongoing savings projected in the billions. States such as California and others saw tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in blocked fraud.

Examples include “ghost student” operations, such as those investigated in Minnesota, where fabricated enrollments siphoned off millions of dollars. Criminal networks, sometimes international, exploited the system using AI tools and stolen personal data sold cheaply online.

Student-loan debt is big business, and is in fact one of the largest assets listed by the Treasury that the American government holds. The U.S. federal government has on its balance sheet nearly $1.7 trillion in outstanding federal student loans. This portfolio effectively positions the Department of Education (now transitioning management aspects to Treasury) as comparable in scale to a major bank. The asset generates revenue for the government, which can sell this debt on the secondary markets to private equity firms and hedge funds.

This large asset creates perverse incentives: Federal policy and funding mechanisms encourage broad college enrollment to sustain or expand the loan portfolio, including through guidance counselors who steer students toward postsecondary paths as a default. Scandals related to “ghost students” and dead people signing up for loans may run deeper than mere mismanagement or government inefficiency. But, thus far, a wider investigation (beyond mere criminal cartels) into the broader economic incentives that gave rise to systemic misappropriations has eluded regulators. — Rebecca Terrell

Border Patrol Arrests Six Camouflaged Chinese “Special Interest Aliens,” Highlighting Weaponized Mass Migration

On May 26, U.S. Border Patrol, working with Texas border authorities, arrested six Chinese nationals dressed in camouflage who were seeking to enter the United States illegally.

In a post on X the following day, Chris Olivarez, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Public Safety, announced that “U.S. Border Patrol agents apprehended 12 illegal immigrants on a private ranch in Maverick County, including six Special Interest Aliens (SIAs) from China, all dressed in camouflage.”

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security officially defines an SIA as a “foreign national originating from a country (determined by individual Components) identified as having possible or established links to terrorism.”

Andrew R. Arthur of the Center for Immigration Studies noted that Maverick County, Texas, is “an area that saw relatively few Chinese entries even when it was a smuggling highway for migrants from less ‘sensitive’ countries.” “The biggest question,” he wrote, “is why [the Chinese nationals] were there, and how they arrived.”

This incident highlights Communist China’s weaponization of mass migration against the United States. For example, as the Federation for American Immigration Reform has reported, China has taken advantage of America’s porous borders to smuggle drugs — including fentanyl — criminals, and spies into the country. And because of China’s lack of full cooperation with the United States, it is difficult to deport illegally present Chinese nationals back to their home country.

The number of Chinese SIAs apprehended by Border Patrol has declined significantly from the Biden era. According to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, 37,833 Chinese nationals were apprehended by Border Patrol along the southern border in fiscal 2024 — in addition to thousands of people from other high-risk countries — but only 336 were apprehended in the first seven months of fiscal 2026. This data, however, does not include individuals who avoided apprehension or entered undetected.

The Trump-era drop in mass migration is allowing Border Patrol agents to more effectively monitor U.S. borders. Breitbart Texas, citing a CBP source, noted that “reduced illegal crossings along the southwest border and the end of ‘catch and release’ have freed up Border Patrol agents to saturate areas that once lacked routine patrols. The existing partnership with the Texas Department of Public Safety adds to the agency’s ability to reduce the likelihood that a group of illegal border crossers will be able to escape.”

Additionally, the Trump administration has shifted U.S. immigration courts to take a strongly pro-enforcement stance, and is hiring additional immigration judges, steps that will allow the federal government to more quickly deport a greater number of illegal aliens.

Nonetheless, with more than 1.5 million illegal aliens estimated to have entered the United States without being caught during the Biden administration — and with continued evasions during the Trump administration — the question remains how many spies and other foreign agents are currently in the country because of our porous borders. And China is far from the only country to weaponize migration against the United States.

Ultimately, Congress must enact stronger immigration laws — undoing the many vaguely written statutes that explicitly delegate congressional power to the president in violation of Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution — and vigilantly guard against the threat posed by Communist China, including via mass migration. — Peter Rykowski

Foreign Governments Are Ripping Us Apart: Rep. Luna Pushes FARA Enforcement

Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) is preparing for an onslaught of attacks. On Friday, she announced that she’s working to restore enforcement by the office of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). While technically open, the FARA unit, part of the Justice Department, has been largely dormant.

“Foreign governments have been intentionally ripping this country apart for their own benefit and it needs to stop. The American people expect their elected leaders to protect them and this effort is apart [sic] of that,” Luna posted Friday on her X account. “As we work to reopen the FARA office and push for disclosures for influencers taking foreign money (from any country), I am prepared for coordinated attacks and targeted social media disinformation campaigns on this platform, with increased bot activity, etc.” She then asked people to “stay vigilant and think critically about the information you see online.”

The issue of foreign interference in American politics has become a major topic of public conversation, thanks largely to right-wing influencers and a small number of Republican legislators (or former legislators).

A lot of the finger-pointing has been directed toward pro-Israel lobbies, with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, serving as the primary target.

AIPAC openly bragged about playing a role in ousting Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) in the May 19 primary race. Massie, as it happens, helped paint a bullseye on AIPAC when he laid out the lobby’s influence and power during an interview with Tucker Carlson that aired in June 2024. Interestingly, AIPAC is not even considered a foreign agent. But Massie is trying to change that. Just days before losing his reelection race this year, he introduced a bill to amend FARA in a way that would likely require AIPAC to register as a foreign agent. As we recently reported:

[FARA] already requires certain agents of foreign principals to register with the Justice Department (DOJ) and disclose their work. Massie’s proposal targets what he calls a loophole for U.S.-based organizations that do not directly receive foreign-government money or instructions, yet lobby in ways that principally benefit a foreign nation.

Massie appears to be among the very few — if not the only Republican — who have refused AIPAC money.

President Donald Trump has taken a pile of money from pro-Israel elements. The online project Track AIPAC says he has taken $230 million since 2020, with Miriam Adelson’s Preserve America PAC alone slapping down a whopping $215 million into his 2020 and 2024 re-election campaigns.

Even Luna herself is a recipient of AIPAC money. According to the AIPAC tracker, the pro-Israeli lobby group has given her $27,289. Many social-media users pointed this out in comments responding to Luna’s FARA announcement.

The list of Democrats who don’t receive AIPAC money appears longer. It includes radical members of “the Squad” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), among others.

Comparatively speaking, Luna has taken less money from AIPAC than every other federal lawmaker out of Florida. As expected, Republican Randy Fine is among those who’ve taken a substantially larger sum; he’s taken about half a million dollars — $496,299 to be exact. But several others have received significantly more AIPAC money than Fine, including Democrat Lois Frankel ($820,719), Republican Brian Mast ($881,227), Republican Mario Diaz-Balart ($1,025,451), and Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose office has raked in $1,456,782. Schultz is also a former chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

According to OpenSecrets, pro-Israel lobby groups spent nearly $20 million just in 2025. That’s less than the $50 million they spent in 2018, but more than they spent in 2024.

Read the conclusion of this article by Paul Dragu at TheNewAmerican.com.

Congress Seeks Deeper Integration of the Israeli Military Into the U.S. Military

A provision in the House version of the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has sparked significant online debate over the extent of U.S.-Israel defense cooperation. Section 224, titled the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative,” was included in the Chairman’s Mark released by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) and Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-Wash.).

According to the text and analyses, the section directs the secretary of defense to designate an executive agent to coordinate and expand bilateral efforts in defense technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration, and industrial cooperation. It builds on existing partnerships — particularly in missile defense — by encompassing areas such as artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, autonomous systems, directed energy, cybersecurity, and biotechnology. The provision also references “network integration” and “data fusion,” raising questions about the depth of operational and data-sharing ties.

Proponents claim that this is a natural evolution of a long-standing strategic alliance that enhances interoperability, technological innovation, and mutual security interests against shared threats, as Israel has long been a major recipient of U.S. military assistance (more than $200 billion inflation-adjusted since 1948). They say that formalizing industrial cooperation could strengthen supply chains, co-production (as seen in existing facilities in states such as Mississippi and Arkansas), and joint R&D without authorizing new funding in this section. Annual reports to Congress through 2030 are required.

Analysts at Responsible Statecraft argue the measure represents an unprecedented level of military-industrial integration that goes beyond traditional aid. They contend it could reduce transparency — shifting support from visible annual appropriations to opaque defense procurement and joint ventures — while increasing Israeli influence through U.S.-based jobs and technology sharing. Some online commentators have even labeled it a “hostile takeover” and a “fusion” of forces.

The NDAA is an annual must-pass bill authorizing Pentagon programs and policies. Section 224 remains subject to amendments, full House and Senate consideration, and reconciliation. The House Armed Services Committee is scheduled to mark up the bill this month. The final scope of any integration will depend on the enacted legislation and implementation. As with past NDAAs, there will likely be vigorous debate over alliance commitments versus America First priorities in defense spending and policy. U.S. Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has vowed to strip section 224 from the bill should it reach the full House. — Rebecca Terrell

EU Moves to Outlaw Conservative-leaning Political Party

An agency of the European Union is moving to ban the EU-wide political party Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN), frequently labeled by the media as “far-right,” for allegedly violating the globalist bloc’s “values.”

Politico reports:

The watchdog — the Authority for European Political Parties and Foundations — said it had found evidence that “cast doubt on the compliance” of the ESN party with EU values, the director of the authority, Pascal Schonard, wrote in a letter. The missive was addressed to the Council of the EU — comprising representatives of national governments — and was seen by POLITICO on Wednesday. The watchdog’s process was launched on Friday.

The watchdog monitors whether political parties and foundations comply with the EU rules that govern them. Those rules require parties to uphold the Union’s core values — including “respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights, including the rights of minorities” — as enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union.

Among other examples, Schonard cited opposition to migration and the LGBT agenda as evidence of ESN members failing to uphold EU “values.”

As an EU-level party, the ESN is an alliance of national-level parties that competes in elections for the EU Parliament. EU parties receive subsidies from the bloc.

The process to ban the ESN could take months, and involves multiple steps. Regardless of whether it is ultimately implemented, it demonstrates the EU’s support for censorship of opposing viewpoints. It also follows debate among Germany’s government over whether to ban the country’s conservative Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which is also an ESN member. Most European countries already criminalize “hate speech,” making it illegal for ordinary citizens to speak their minds on certain issues.

The erosion of liberty in Europe should serve as a wake-up call to Americans. As our 250th Independence Day approaches, we must boldly defend the God-given rights that our Founding Fathers fought to secure. — Peter Rykowski

UN on Verge of Bankruptcy as U.S. Withholds $4 Billion in Fees

The United States is withholding more than $4 billion in unpaid dues to the United Nations, whose leaders are warning that the globalist organization is on the verge of collapse. Ending the UN would be among the greatest contributions to Americans — nay, to the world — by the Donald Trump administration.

To its credit, the second Trump administration has caused more problems for the UN than any other before it. But red-pilled patriots should remain sober and avoid becoming overly hopeful. This type of wailing from UN leaders is the same script we heard back in January, just days before Trump signed a government spending bill that included $3.1 billion for the UN.

As of now, it appears that only a small portion of that money was sent to Brussels, just $160 million. According to The Wall Street Journal, “The U.S. says it is conditioning future financial support on deeper savings, with more job cuts, less business-class travel and greater use of machine translators.”

But the UN has made “historically large spending cuts and embarked on an efficiency drive,” the Journal tells us. It has closed offices and eliminated 3,000 secretarial positions. It has implemented troop drawdowns in the Congo. The UN has even “powered down escalators and ignored loose cladding on its 75-year-old headquarters in New York,” we are told.

The UN is made up of 193 member states that fund 40,000 programs and employ (as of December 2025) nearly 173,000 employees.

The United States has historically provided up to 30 percent of all UN funding. In 2022, Americans doled out $18 billion to the UN. The following year, in 2023, it was $13 billion. In the late 1940s, just after the UN was created, the United States paid 40 percent of the UN’s regular budget. All this money, we should remember, is being sent out while the national debt grows to heights that threaten to catapult the country off a financial cliff.

A lot has changed since 2023. A UN budget report from May breaks down who’s paying their dues, who’s not, and how much the delinquent countries owe. At the top of the delinquent list is the United States. America owes more than $2 billion to the UN’s regular budget. A distant second is China, which owes $429 million. Japan is a distant third with $152 million in unpaid dues. As for the peacekeeping budget, the United States owes another $2.2 billion, with China behind in dues by $870 million. The United States also owes $44 million in tribunal fees.

In total, the UN is facing a $6.4 billion budget hole, with the United States owing a majority of that. China’s delays aren’t helping.

Read the rest of this article by Paul Dragu at TheNewAmerican.com.

Lawsuit Exposes Private Killing for Hire Using U.S. Mercenaries

A lawsuit unsealed in San Diego federal court reveals details about a U.S.-based private military company allegedly hired by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to carry out targeted assassinations in Yemen. Yemeni parliamentarian Anssaf Ali Mayo accuses Abraham Golan, Isaac Gilmore, and Dale Comstock — key figures linked to Spear Operations Group — of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and attempted extrajudicial killing.

Spear Operations Group, incorporated in Delaware in 2015 and dissolved in 2018, was founded by Abraham Golan, an Israeli-Hungarian dual citizen with a background in private security. The company recruited former U.S. special operations personnel, including Gilmore (a former Navy SEAL who served as chief operating officer) and Comstock (a former U.S. Army Special Forces member). According to the complaint and prior reporting, the UAE paid Spear approximately $1.5 million per month, plus bonuses for successful kills, to target political opponents during the Yemen civil war.

The centerpiece of the allegations is a December 29, 2015, operation in Aden. Spear operatives allegedly planted explosives at the headquarters of Yemen’s Al-Islah political party, targeting Mayo, a local leader. Mayo escaped minutes before the blast. Drone footage and participant accounts later corroborated the attempt. Mayo fled Yemen and has lived in exile since.

This was not an isolated incident. Golan openly admitted in a 2018 BuzzFeed News interview: “There was a targeted assassination program in Yemen. I was running it. We did it. It was sanctioned by the UAE within the coalition.” The team reportedly worked from U.S. locations, including meetings in the San Diego area, before deploying to Yemen. They received Emirati military ranks and support.

Many Spear recruits were U.S.-trained veterans whose skills, funded by American taxpayers, were marketed to foreign clients. The UAE intervened in Yemen’s conflict as part of a Saudi-led coalition, framing operations as counterterrorism against groups such as Al-Islah (which it links to the Muslim Brotherhood). Critics argue this setup blurred lines between legitimate warfare and political assassination.

No U.S. criminal prosecutions of the individuals have resulted from these events. The current lawsuit, filed under the Alien Tort Statute by the Center for Justice & Accountability (CJA), seeks civil accountability. Defendants have previously acknowledged roles in the program. Golan has defended the work as counterterrorism, while acknowledging its moral gray areas. Questions remain about U.S. government awareness, given close ties with the UAE and the use of American veterans. Legal experts note ambiguities in U.S. laws regulating mercenaries and combat services to foreign powers. — Rebecca Terrell