After two “terrible” coupon auctions earlier this week, moments ago the Treasury concluded the week’s final auction when it sold $44 billion in 7 Year paper. It may not have been quite as terrible as the previous two, but it wasn’t much stronger either.

Starting at the top, the auction stopped with a high yield of 4.255%, up sharply from 3.790% in February and the highest since Jan 2025. It also tailed the When Issued 4.247% by 0.8bps, the biggest tail since August 2024.

The bid to cover was 2.432, down from 2.498 last month and the lowest since Sept 2025.

Internals were also ugly as Indirects were awarded just 62.56%, down from 63.57% and the lowest since December 2025. And with Directs dipping (but not as much as the 2Y auction earlier this week which saw a collapse) from 26.01% to 25.03%, Dealers rose to 12.41%, the highest since last November.

Overall, this was another very ugly auction and while foreign demand wasn’t catastrophic it certainly was on the light side, suggesting that in addition to liquidating other hard assets, foreign buyers are becoming cautious with putting more money to funding the US deficit.

Authored by Jonathan Turley via jonathanturley.org,

Google once had a motto: “Don’t be evil.”

In its reorganization in 2015, the motto was changed to “Do the right thing.”

According to a California jury this week, neither motto stuck.

In a historic verdict against both Google and Meta, a jury found that the companies maliciously designed their social media products to addict children, including the plaintiff, who was known only as Kaley or KGM.

The jury heard testimony of efforts to “target” young users and feed an addiction to social media and YouTube. The jury awarded Kaley $3 million in compensatory damages divided between Meta (70%) and Google (30%). It then awarded another $3 million in punitive damages.

Those damages are nothing to companies worth billions. However, the verdict was like a dinner gong for plaintiffs lawyers. There are already thousands of cases filed against social media companies. That wave is about to become a tsunami. That is particularly the case after companies like TikTok and Snap settled before trial.

In addition to this civil verdict, the New Mexico Attorney General secured a $375 million verdict the same week against Meta under the state’s consumer protection laws.

But it will be a very long time before these companies cut a check. The California case is rife with compelling appellate issues that will take years to work out.

Indeed, what makes this case so intriguing — and even more tempting for plaintiffs’ lawyers — is that it was actually not the strongest case.

The 17-year-old in California started using social media at age 6. Kaley had a troubled childhood with problems at home and bullying at school. She experienced depression, anxiety, and body dysmorphia that could be linked to other aspects of her life. Her use of social media was extreme: all-consuming and all-day.

Meta argued that it does prohibit users under 13 from using any of its platforms. YouTube offers different platforms for children, like YouTube Kids.

However, Kaley created dozens of accounts to drive her “likes” and increase her virtual interactions.

The trial showed how complex such cases are in isolating what was the most substantial factor in Kaley’s harmful childhood. The case stretched the concepts of factual and legal causation to the breaking point.

I have taught torts for over 30 years and, in my view, the causation in this case is dubious. Even with tobacco, there was protracted litigation over other sources of cancer. However, that litigation was relatively straightforward in comparison to cases seeking to assign liability for depression, anxiety, or body dysmorphia. Children are bombarded with social and media imagery and messages from myriad sources. At the same time, many (like Kaley) come from homes with troubling or abusive elements.

The companies have previously asserted immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. These lawyers found a creative way to evade that immunity by claiming they are challenging the design of “the product” of social media companies, not suing over the specific content that appears on their sites.

That may prove too clever by half for some judges. Product liability law has previously been used to circumvent constitutional or legal barriers, as in the unsuccessful product liability and nuisance cases against gun manufacturers. Section 230 is designed to protect internet companies that serve as platforms for third-party postings. Here, the lawyers are arguing that you have immunity for what is posted, but your system itself is a product that is subject to a lawsuit.

In finding negligence and a failure to warn, the jury clearly agreed with the complaint that the design of the sites was maliciously intended to create “a compulsion to engage with those products nonstop,” feeding  “harmful and depressive content.” However, it is a difficult line between marketing and targeting.

It is not clear what warning these social media companies should offer beyond what they have previously posted. More importantly, it is unclear whether such warnings would have any impact on users.

If Meta warned that social media can be addictive or harmful, would it have deterred Kaley? Her mother already tried to block her from such usage.

There is no question that social media has a hold on children and adults because they like it. It allows them to create, observe, and communicate with an unprecedented range of people and sites. The question is whether this compulsive conduct reflects an intentional effort to addict minors or a product that is irresistible for many.

The only certainty after these verdicts is that there will be more of them. As soon as this verdict was read, the “likes” from plaintiffs’ lawyers flooded in across social media. Those trials will continue despite great uncertainty about the very foundation of any liability.

For now, it will be left to the courts, not these companies, “to do the right thing” on social media liability.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

Authored by Steve Watson via modernity.news,

Jesse Ventura went full conspiracy mode on Piers Morgan’s show, suggesting President  Trump faked the July 13, 2024, assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, complete with a self-inflicted “blade job” cut to his ear for dramatic effect.

The former Minnesota governor and wrestling personality repeatedly questioned the authenticity of the event that left Trump bloodied but defiant, while downplaying the death of Corey Comperatore, the firefighter who was killed shielding his family.

Morgan highlighted Trump’s immediate response: standing up and pumping his fist with the call “fight, fight, fight.”

“Oh yeah, right, right, right. You ever hear of a blade job?” Ventura replied.

Morgan pressed back: “A blade? What, you think it was fake?”

“I don’t know. Where’s his scar today?” Ventura said.

“Somebody died, literally, sitting behind him,” Morgan countered

Ventura continued: “Come on, Piers. You’re gonna tell me this guy’s a big hero now?”

“I thought that day he was, yeah,” Morgan responded.

“Yeah, well, then he accomplished what he wanted out of you guys,” Ventura shot back.

Morgan held firm: “No, I think you can be heroic on one day, and he can be less heroic on others. But if you ask me, was he heroic when he got shot? Yeah.”

The exchange captured Ventura hedging with repeated “I don’t know” disclaimers even as he pushed the theory that Trump orchestrated the shooting purely for sympathy and electoral gain. 

Ventura, who once hosted a conspiracy theory television series, appeared uncomfortable when basic facts about the real bullet wound and the dead father were raised.

This latest outburst echoes earlier attempts to rewrite the Butler rally. In 2024, a simple photo of Trump’s ear without a bandage triggered leftist conspiracy spirals claiming the injury was exaggerated or nonexistent. 

By 2025, CNN’s Touré was openly framing the event as Trump being only “supposedly” shot in the ear, only to face immediate pushback. 

Ventura’s wrestling-inspired “blade job” claim – where performers secretly cut themselves to draw blood – fits the same pattern of denial.

Later in the same interview, the 74-year-old Ventura pivoted to personal bravado, floating a physical showdown with the president. Discussing Trump’s WWE Hall of Fame induction, Ventura declared: “Let’s both get in the ring. He’s in the Hall of Fame, isn’t he? Even though he’s never, ever had a match.” 

He added that if Trump wanted it, they could settle it there, framing it as a clash between a “Vietnam veteran” and a “draft dodger.”

The suggestion drew swift ridicule online, with many noting the absurdity of a man approaching 80 issuing wrestling challenges to the sitting president. Ventura further hinted at broader plans to travel to Washington and go “on the offense,” claiming Minnesota was now “secure,” though he declined to elaborate on specifics.

Ventura has long thrived on provocative theories, but here he faltered when Morgan simply held him to account for the human cost and the visible reality of that day. Insisting Trump hired or staged gunfire toward a crowd – resulting in death and injury – while performing a self-cut for optics remains a grotesque insult to the victims and to basic evidence.

Trump survived through instinct and timing amid clear Secret Service shortcomings that were later scrutinized. His unscripted courage became an iconic moment that resonated with millions and underscored the very real threats from political violence. Attempts to dismiss it as theater, whether from fringe voices or established media skeptics, only highlight the desperation to undermine his presidency.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

*  *  * Top Supplements

Brain Rescue

Mushroom 10x

Ultimate Omega 3

The New York Times really buried the lede in a fresh report entitled “Iran’s Attacks Force US Troops to Work Remotely.” With the report noting that before the Iran war started the Pentagon had some 40,000 troops in the region, we are told that many have been widely dispersed due to the Iranian retaliatory bombing campaign on the Gulf, even as far as Europe, and must ‘work remotely’.

Somehow readers expect they are about to read a story mainly about how troops are now confined to hotels and office spaces throughout the region: “So now much of the land-based military is, in essence, fighting the war while working remotely, with the exception of fighter pilots and crews operating and maintaining warplanes and conducting strikes,” NY Times writes.

But then several paragraphs in comes a huge confirmation of what many analysts suspected was the case over the course of the last weeks of expanding war: “Many of the 13 military bases in the region used by American troops are all but uninhabitable, with the ones in Kuwait, which is next door to Iran, suffering perhaps the most damage.” This is based on statements by unnamed US defense officials who admit they’ve had to scramble to find ‘alternative’ housing and office solutions for personnel.

Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar, on March 1, 2026. Image via New York Times/Airbus DS)

The revelation comes on the heels of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) having earlier warned that if American troops are ‘stationed’ in hotels or civilian office complexes, then those hotels and locations effectively become targets.

“We are forced to identify and target the Americans,” the IRGC intelligence arm earlier stated, according to state Tasnim. “Therefore, it is better not to shelter them in hotels and to stay away from their locations,” the ominous message added, while calling on local Muslims to report on the American “hiding places”.

The Times report meanwhile suggests that the US saw earlier fatalities and casualties (CENTCOM figures say 13 dead and some 300 injuries thus far) in part due to lack of preparedness for such a robust Iranian ballistic missile retaliation on US regional bases.

The report goes so far as to say the situation is already worse than that of prior Iraq and Afghan wars in terms of danger to ‘front line’ bases and exposure to enemy fire:

While Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, for example, were often targeted in suicide bombings and other attacks, neither the Taliban nor Iraqi militias possessed the kind of ballistic missile capability that Iran has.

During the war in Iraq in particular, the United States built up its bases there and in Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Now, the war in Iran has made all of those bases vulnerable — to the point where service members can’t really live or work there for extended periods, military officials said.

As for why this information wasn’t disclosed within the first three weeks of war, there have been reports that the Pentagon and Trump administration is downplaying negative developments while boosting only positive stories of battlefield successes.

The public was blocked from an accurate assessment also due to open source satellite image firms agreeing to censor their own data and imaging.

This WaPo story takes on new meaning now that we know 13 U.S. bases “uninhabitable” per NYT.

Satellite imaging firms Planet and Vantor delayed imagery access about 2 weeks ago, so Iran couldn’t do BDAs to improve targeting.

But it also meant U.S. public couldn’t see damage to…

— Rosemary Kelanic (@RKelanic) March 26, 2026

As for running a war over Iran while many CENTCOM units have been forced to relocate, the NYT report cites Pentagon officials who bluntly admit that “The result, according to current and former military officials, is a war that is much harder to prosecute.”

This of course is another big hurdle in terms of US grand strategy (assuming there is one in the first place), given already Iran has some major advantages of geography related to long term leverage, which has been obvious given the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Tonight at 7pm ET, wealth manager Peter Schiff will debate bitcoin investor Mark Moss on the future of hard assets and the global monetary system. 

Since the start of the war in Iran, Bitcoin and gold have reversed roles. While BTC used to trade like a leveraged tech stock, tanking on any shaky geopolitical news, it surged since Trump started bombing. Gold meanwhile, briefly dropped into a technical bear market.

Are traders anticipating a swift end to the war or has there been a structural shift in the assets?

Regime shift really kicking in: gold -13% since start of the Iran war, bitcoin +6% https://t.co/H6AMd039bF pic.twitter.com/5E5C97Cr30

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 20, 2026

Still, zooming out, gold had an incredible surge last year and still sits comfortably at around +50% year over year. Bitcoin meanwhile is around -18% yoy at the time of writing.

Monthly trading swings aside, the important question for an investor is which is the superior asset, or even currency. Could either replace the dollar as the global reserve currency? Being backed by gold is arguably what allowed for the U.S. dollar’s global adoption.

Is Bitcoin an improvement on gold given its ease of transaction or is it worthless numbers on a computer?

When you stop measuring Bitcoin in fiat and price it in Gold, the picture clarifies instantly

Every 4 years, BTC revisits the 200 WMA against gold.

Traders wait on the sidelines waiting for confirmation, but for me… a long-term accumulator with a goal of “more bitcoin,” it… pic.twitter.com/2Me7cRP0Hd

— Mark Moss (@1MarkMoss) January 25, 2026

Trump has been the most “pro crypto” President thus far, appointing tech billionaire David Sacks as the crypto (and AI) czar. Bitcoin’s institutional adoption has undeniably surged with numerous approved ETFs on the market with reportedly close to $100B AUM allocated. But is mass appeal the same as underlying utility and value?

The biggest mistake I made with Bitcoin when I first learned about it was overestimating the ability of others to understand why it wouldn’t work. The very people foolish enough to buy it thinking it would work will be foolish enough not to sell it as the market proves me right.

— Peter Schiff (@PeterSchiff) November 29, 2025

Tune in tonight at 7pm ET at the top of the ZeroHedge homepage, X feed, or YouTube as the hard money camps duke it out over the future of money. The debate will be hosted by Real Vision’s Ash Bennington, an S-tier moderator and friend of zh.
 

Authored by Jonathan Turley via jonathanturley.org,

The University of Southern California (USC) is under fire after canceling the California gubernatorial debate with less than 24 hours’ notice.  The reason? None of the polling candidates are people of color. It was a crushingly revealing moment in a state where universities have long defied voters who demanded an end to affirmative action in admissions.

USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future and ABC/KABC Los Angeles were scheduled to co-host the debate at Bovard Auditorium on Tuesday evening. Then it was canceled on Monday.

Former Biden Health and Human Services Secretary and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra had sent a letter to President Beong-Soo Kim, alleging “election rigging” and objecting “you disqualified all of the candidates of color from participating.”

For many,  USC succeeded in beclowning itself by first defending USC Professor Christian Grose’s “data-driven” selection process and then abruptly canceling the debate lineup selected through that process. If that seems incomprehensible, welcome to American higher education.

The cancellation is only the latest unexpected turn in the election, where the two top vote-getters will face each other in a runoff election.

California Democrats are in a panic as two Republicans currently top the polling: Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and commentator Steve Hilton.

At the same time, the leading Democrats include controversial candidates such as Rep. Katie Porter and Rep. Eric Swalwell. Porter is best known nationally for spewing profanity and abuse at staff members. Last year, Swalwell was outvoted by Rep. Raul Grijalva, who died in March 2025. However, they are still doing markedly better than Becerra with voters.

USC insisted that it “vigorously defends the independence, objectivity, and integrity of USC Professor Christian Grose, whose data-driven candidate viability formula is based on extensive research and enjoys broad academic support.”

That “data-driven system” produced a lineup of Bianco and Hilton as well as Democrats Tom Steyer, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, former Rep. Katie Porter, and Rep. Eric Swalwell.

Advocates then went into full rage, calling the process racist and rigged. Becerra declared:

“USC goes to great lengths to justify its exclusionary candidate formula. But you can’t escape the detestable outcome: you disqualified all of the candidates of color from participating while you invited a white candidate who has NEVER polled higher than some of the candidates of color, including me.”

However, the methodology considered both polling percentage and fundraising with the polling given greater weight.

Becerra has been shown at 3 percent, notably within the statistical margin of error for most polls.  In other words, he could be closer to zero. (He is shown as tied with Mahan, who Becerra appears to be referencing in his letter as lacking higher polling).

USC then yielded after trying to expand the number of participants to appease objectors. In a statement, USC stated:

“We recognize that concerns about the selection criteria for tomorrow’s gubernatorial debate have created a significant distraction from the issues that matter to voters. Unfortunately, USC and [debate co-sponsor] KABC have not been able to reach an agreement on expanding the number of candidates at tomorrow’s debate. As a result, USC has made the difficult decision to cancel tomorrow’s debate and will look for other opportunities to educate voters on the candidates and issues.”

Becerra took a victory lap: “We fought. We won! … Thank you to everyone who stood up, raised hell and demanded justice. Never give up when you’re fighting for fairness!”

At least Becerra’s position is comprehensible. He has long defended affirmative action in California. Indeed, despite statewide votes against the practice, California universities continue to be accused of applying racial criteria in admissions. Becerra is effectively demanding such action for himself as a “candidate of color.”

USC was left stumbling in search of a place to hide. USC scholars defended the process that USC affectively scuttled:

“All of us expect and welcome critical engagement from inside and outside the academy. What Professor Grose has faced, however, is not substantive or methodological debate. Attacks and insinuations from members of the political classes include completely baseless allegations of election-rigging, inconsistency, bias and data manipulation. These are harmful character assassinations, not substantive debate. They are of a piece with other attempts to strong-arm or malign scholars that have become all too common in America.

Whatever their intent, the effect of these attacks is to diminish academic freedom and chill scholarly willingness to add their voices to the public square. It is imperative that universities defend their faculties’ integrity when it is unfairly attacked.”

That is a powerful statement if one does not then consider that the university caved, cancelled the debate, and meekly said that it will “look for other opportunities to educate voters on the candidates and issues.” The “strong-arming” succeeded.

What is particularly disappointing is that I just spoke at USC and was impressed with the members of the USC community seeking to restore a diversity of viewpoints. The event was sponsored by The Center for the Political Future, which was the sponsor of the debate. It was also organized by the USC Open Dialogue Project and the USC chapter of the Heterodox Academy. Both have written in defense of this process.

Professor Morris Levy with Heterodox wrote: “[USC’s] message is unmistakable: USC was allowing “concerns” and a public “distraction” to override its own institutional conviction that the selection formula was data-driven and backed by research.”

So Heterodox, The Center for the Political Future, and ABC7  issued statements indicating that they were prepared to go forward and also defended the process of selection. That left only USC.

In this controversy, USC succeeded in finding the least defensible ground to make its stand. It denounced the cancel campaign but then effectively yielded to it.

The alternative is to stand by your race-blind, data-driven process and hold the debate for all invited candidates willing to attend.

Where USC was criticized recently for its fake punt in the game with Northwestern, it actually punted in this play and left the field.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

By Eric Kulisch of FreightWaves,

The U.S. Postal Service is seeking permission to impose a fuel surcharge on parcel products for the first time ever to cover soaring transportation costs for gasoline and diesel fuel, which have jumped more than 30% since the invasion of Iran by the United States and Israel nearly a month ago.

Parcel shipments would be charged an 8% fee, on top of their regular transportation charge, if the fee is approved.

The quasi-private agency on Wednesday sought permission from the Postal Regulatory Commission for a time-limited price adjustment on parcel shipments because of rapidly changing market prices for fuel. It would be the first time in its history that the Postal Service has applied a fuel fee, a common practice with private carriers like DHL, FedEx and UPS. 

The Postal Service also said that the temporary surcharge would help it transition to a permanent mechanism for imposing surcharges on competitive products to support its universal service obligation in a more financially sustainable way.

Last fiscal year, the USPS lost $9 billion, with an operating loss of about $2.7 billion.

The 8% planned price change, which was approved by the Governors of the Postal Service on Tuesday, would affect base postage prices Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, USPS Ground Advantage, and Parcel Select. The price change is scheduled to go into effect on April 26 and remain in place through Jan. 17, 2027. At that time, the Postal Service can determine if a different long-term approach is needed. 

Nearly all USPS delivery vans run on gasoline, which has jumped about $1 in price to nearly $4 per gallon in less than a month. The organization also uses diesel fuel for large trucks that move mail and packages long distances to distribution centers. 

The big parcel carriers have standard fuel surcharge mechanisms that automatically update each week as the price of fuel changes. Instead of constantly adjusting base transportation rates, the carriers use fuel surcharges as a flexible pricing mechanism tied to external fuel indexes. Their fuel surcharges currently range from about 21% to 34% of the base transportation rate, depending on mode and import/export status. 

UPS on March 9 imposed another 1% increase to its fuel surcharge table for domestic shipping. It is the carrier’s third fuel surcharge increase this year.  UPS and FedEx have also introduced temporary fees for shipments between the U.S. and Middle East.

The Postal Service said its fee is less than one-third of what its competitors charge for fuel alone.

“So even with this change, the Postal Service continues to offer great value in shipping with some of the lowest rates in the industrialized world,” the USPS said in a news release. 

The Postal Regulatory Commission will review the proposed price change before it is scheduled to take effect. 

Authored by Troy Myers via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Justice (DOJ) and retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, a former national security adviser in President Donald Trump’s first term, reached an undisclosed financial settlement Wednesday, according to court documents.

Flynn sought a $50 million payout from the government for what he claimed were politically motivated actions against him. The settlement brings an end to a years-long dispute that stemmed from false claims of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Once Flynn has confirmed receipt of the settlement funds, he and the DOJ will file a joint dismissal of the case with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and fees, the agreement shows.

Flynn’s lawyer provided an emailed statement to The Epoch Times, including a statement from the former Trump adviser as well.

Although the case has reached a settlement, Flynn said, “Nothing can fully compensate for the hell that my family and I have endured over these many years.”

“There should never again be such a brazen attempt to weaponize federal law enforcement against political opponents or innocent citizens,” Flynn said.

“It is not this Department of Justice that created this crisis of politicized justice, but they are doing right by truly pursuing justice now.”

The settlement, while imperfect, Flynn continued, brings an end to a chapter of partisan, ruinous injustice.

Flynn’s lawyer, Jesse Binnall, called him an American hero in the emailed statement.

“In this agreement, the Justice Department is doing more than simply cutting a check, they are admitting that General Flynn was seriously wronged,” Binnall said.

A DOJ spokesperson also provided an emailed statement to The Epoch Times, stating that Wednesday’s settlement is an important step in redressing a “historic injustice,” referring to the allegations of Russia collusion in 2016 and the prosecution of Flynn that resulted.

“Those who instigated the Russia Collusion Hoax and Crossfire Hurricane abused their power to mislead the American people and tarnish the reputations of President Trump and his supporters,” the DOJ’s statement said.

Crossfire Hurricane was the codename of the FBI investigation into the later-discredited claims of ties between Trump and Russia to influence the 2016 election.

Flynn, a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) under the Obama administration, was investigated by the FBI beginning in August 2016 over alleged ties to Russia. In January 2017, he was interviewed by two FBI agents and asked about a conversation with a Russian official. At first, he denied the conversation, which was not the truth, then said he didn’t remember. Intelligence officials and others later concluded that the conversation did not involve collusion or illegality.

Nevertheless, that exchange became the core of the charge of lying to the FBI brought against Flynn by the late special counsel Robert Mueller, who took over the case in May 2017.

Flynn initially pleaded guilty but then withdrew that plea, claiming he did not intentionally lie and was misled by his attorneys to enter the guilty plea because prosecutors threatened legal action against his son.

Internal emails from Flynn’s first legal team showed this was true—prosecutors informed his legal team that Flynn’s son would be left alone if he signed the guilty plea.

In 2020, then-head of the District of Columbia U.S. Attorney’s Office Timothy Shea concluded that it seemed the FBI’s purpose for interviewing Flynn was to “elicit … false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn.”

The DOJ eventually dropped the charge, but the judge overseeing Flynn’s case refused to dismiss it. Trump ultimately pardoned him in 2020.

In 2023, Flynn filed a lawsuit against the DOJ and FBI, accusing prosecutors from Mueller’s office of investigating and prosecuting him for political reasons.

“General Flynn—who already had a reputation as a hands-on disruptor at DIA, who had publicly excoriated the politicization of the intelligence community, and who had made clear his desire to overhaul the national security structure and the ‘interagency process’—was a direct threat, not only to the self-interest of entrenched intelligence bureaucracies and the federal officials involved, but to exposing their prior and ongoing efforts to derail and discredit President Trump,” the suit stated.

Aside from accusations of a malicious, politically motivated prosecution, Flynn’s suit also accused the government of abusing the legal process by coercing him into the guilty plea with threats of prosecution against his son.

“He was falsely branded as a traitor to his country,” according to the lawsuit.

The suit against the government, which included as defendants the FBI, DOJ, Executive Office of the President, Office of Special Counsel, former FBI Director James Comey, Mueller, and others, further claimed Flynn lost tens of millions of dollars as a result of the prosecution.

“[Trump’s] Department of Justice will continue to pursue accountability at all levels for this wrongdoing,” the DOJ’s emailed statement said. “Such weaponization of the federal government must never be allowed to happen again.”

Iran has recently bolstered its defenses around Kharg Island, anticipating a possible US move to seize the key oil export hub, CNN reported this week. The island is vital to Iran’s economy, handling roughly 90% of its crude shipments, and has become a focal point in escalating tensions.

The Trump administration has explored the option of sending US forces to take control of the island as leverage to pressure Iran into reopening the Strait of Hormuz. But military officials caution that such an operation would carry serious risks. Iran has reinforced the island with additional air defense systems, including portable missiles, and has planted mines along likely landing zones.

There is also growing skepticism among US allies and policymakers about whether capturing the island would achieve its broader objective. Even if successful, it may not resolve the wider dispute over energy flows and could instead intensify the conflict. An Israeli source warned that US troops could face attacks from drones and shoulder-fired missiles if they attempt a landing.

“I would be very worried about this,” said retired Adm. James Stavridis. “Iranians are clever and ruthless. They will do everything they can to inflict maximum casualties on US forces both on the ships at sea, and especially once ground troops are anywhere in their sovereign territory.”

CNN writes that Iran has responded with its own warnings. Parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said any attempt to occupy Iranian territory would prompt retaliation against critical infrastructure in the region, adding that US troop movements are under close watch.

Despite its relatively small size—about one-third of Manhattan—Kharg Island would require a substantial military operation to capture. US forces in the region include Marine units trained for amphibious assaults, along with airborne troops preparing to deploy. Surveillance has shown newly fortified positions and defensive preparations on the island.

Although earlier US strikes weakened parts of Iran’s defenses, American forces would still face significant threats from missiles and drones launched from the nearby mainland. This has led to internal debate in Washington over whether the potential benefits justify the risks.

Regional allies are urging restraint, warning that a ground assault could result in heavy casualties and trigger wider retaliation across the Gulf. Some analysts suggest that targeting Iran’s oil exports through a naval blockade could be a less risky alternative to putting troops on the ground.