France and Italy Refuse to Join Trump’s Ukraine Weapons Fund

At least eight countries have expressed interest in participating in US ‘arms pipeline’, Nato sources claim

France and Italy have refused to participate in Donald Trump’s plan to send US-made weapons to Ukraine.

Governments across Europe are pondering whether to take part in the $10bn initiative. It will involve Ukraine’s allies on the continent, along with Canada, buying “top of the range” weapons – including Patriot air defence systems – from Washington before giving them to Kyiv.

But without the release of key details, some countries have yet to make a decision on whether to join the scheme, which was presented by Mr Trump and Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary general, in the Oval Office on Monday.

France has told allies it will not join the initiative, according to officials briefed on the discussions.


Patriot air defence systems are a key part of the proposals unveiled by Donald Trump and Mark Rutte this week

Paris is currently wrangling over its domestic budget and demands to boost its defence spending while navigating concerns over the country’s growing debt pile.

Emmanuel Macron has always favoured arming Ukraine with locally produced weapons to boost the EU’s own industrial base and make the bloc less reliant on Washington for its defence.


Emmanuel Macron, the French president, pictured with Gen Thierry Burkhard, the country’s chief of defence staff, has long favoured supplying Ukraine with EU-produced equipment

The Italian government has said it will not purchase weapons but could help with the logistics of transporting them to Ukraine, Italian media reported.

“Here there has never been talk of buying American weapons,” the source quoted by the La Stampa newspaper said.

While the Czech Republic has not officially ruled itself out of the US initiative, its foreign minister told The Telegraph that “no decisions” had been taken on whether to join.

Jan Lipavský said: “We are already participating in so many mechanisms that there is currently no discussion of new resources. But I cannot say it won’t change because it’s really too soon.”

Prague already manages a coalition of 12 countries that contribute money to a pot to buy artillery shells for Ukraine. Last year, it donated around 1.5 million rounds to Kyiv’s troops and it is planned to deliver more in 2025.

There are dozens of similar programmes delivering everything from drones to fighter jets, which could make participation in a new scheme difficult for some countries.

But Nato officials say at least eight countries have shown interest in joining the Trump-led pipeline.

They will either contribute cash or donate their existing US-made equipment to Ukraine before being fast-tracked replacements by Washington.


Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, who has been a driving force for the plans to arm Ukraine, welcomed Volodymyr Zelensky, the country’s president, with full military honours in Berlin in May

Germany is believed to be the nation most invested in the scheme. Friedrich Merz, its chancellor, proposed buying Patriot air defence batteries for Ukraine in a deal with the US president.

Mr Rutte said the scheme would also involve missiles and other forms of ammunition being purchased from the Americans.

British sources have told The Telegraph that they support the programme, but have not taken a decision on how to contribute with details yet to be shared with allies.

Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Canada, and the Netherlands were also named as possible participants.

Each of the countries’ armed forces already operate US-manufactured equipment, from Patriots to fighter jets.

It is understood that any money poured into the scheme will count towards Nato allies’ new defence spending goal of 3.5 per cent, making it an attractive proposition for governments struggling to find money to reach the target.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/wo....rld-news/2025/07/16/

Police Wrong to Join Pride March, Judge Rules

Force failed to act impartially after taking part in last year’s Newcastle parade.

A police force failed to act impartially when it allowed officers to take part in a Gay Pride and transgender rights march, a court has ruled.

Linzi Smith, 34, a gender-critical lesbian, brought a case against Northumbria Police after officers, including Vanessa Jardine, the head of the force, took part in last year’s parade in Newcastle.

Ms Smith argued that it was wrong to allow uniformed officers to actively participate in an event that promoted gender ideology and was supported by transgender activists.

Responding to the ruling, Ms Smith said: “I am delighted with the judgment of the court. It is terrifying to live in a community where the police have abandoned their duty of impartiality and embraced a highly controversial political cause.”


Ms Smith argued that police getting involved in the parade breached their professional oath

In the legal claim, officers were accused of joining in the march; stationing a police van decked out in Pride colours at the event and associating with messaging that supported gender ideology.

The hearing was told there was also a Northumbria Police static display staffed by uniformed officers and a transgender Pride flag incorporating the force’s insignia.

Ms Smith argued that while she accepted it was necessary for the Pride march to be policed it was wrong for officers to actively participate because it breached their professional oath to operate with impartiality.

Allowing the judicial review, Mr Justice Linden said: “The fact that the officers had publicly stated their support for transgender rights by taking part in the 2024 march would be likely to give the impression that they may not deal with the matter fairly and impartially.”

He went on: “It is not hard to imagine circumstances in which the officers in question might be called on to deal with a clash between gender critical people and supporters of gender ideology, and therefore situations where the former had cause for concern as to whether they were being dealt with impartially.”


Officers from Northumbria Police were accused of marching in the parade

The court also heard how during the march there were pro-Palestinian protesters chanting slogans such as: “From the River To The Sea, Palestine Will Be Free”, “No Pride in Genocide” and “Toute le monde deteste la police”.

The case was supported by Kathleen Stock, a gender-critical professor, and Harry Miller, co-founder of the campaign group Fair Cop, which seeks to “remove politics from policing”.

Professor Stock said: “For me, the sight of the Northumbria Police either participating in Pride marches, supporting Pride events in public statements, or using or encouraging the use of Progress or rainbow flags, emblems, lanyards or other symbols associated with trans causes in a public-facing way, conveys its support for gender ideology.

“If that is not the force’s intention, it is certainly its effect.”

It is not clear how the ruling will impact on the force’s plans to police this year’s event, which is taking place this weekend.


Kathleen Stock said the force’s actions conveyed its support for gender ideology

Mr Miller said: “The significance of this ruling means that in future the police will attend events like this at their peril.

“But it is sad that we had to go to court to challenge something that was so blindingly obvious.”

He said the ruling should bring an end to police officers attending such events and wearing associated livery.

“The clarity in the ruling should have a profound effect on Chief Constables across the UK,” Mr Miller told the Telegraph.

“Pride is political in the same way that any protest is political. Police engagement should therefore be solely operational. No lanyards, flags, whistles or painted cars. Just good, honest bobbies remaining polite and keeping the peace.”

In his concluding remarks the judge said the findings only related to the 2024 event, adding: “It will be a matter for the Defendant to consider, in the light of what I have said in this judgment, whether her current proposed approach to the 2025 Event should remain as it is.”

In a statement following the ruling, a spokesman for Northumbria Police said: “The officers, staff and volunteers of Northumbria Police are dedicated and passionate about providing each and every person of our wonderful region with an outstanding policing service.

“In doing so, we recognise not all communities share the same level of confidence in policing for a variety of reasons. We want to ensure everyone knows that we are absolutely here for them when they need us.

“Part of that is us being visible in those communities and playing an active part in our force area. Throughout the year, we will have an important role to play in a variety of events, including parades and festivals.

“During these events while our primary aim is to keep people safe, it also provides us with an opportunity to engage with people including those who may have less confidence in policing. It is vitally important they feel supported and we continue to build their trust in us.

“That is why we felt it important to challenge the case which was brought against us and which has implications for wider policing.

“We will work through the ruling to understand the implications, while staying true to our values of fairness, visibility, and support for all.”

Other forces are currently looking at the ruling to see how it could impact on their approach to the policing similar events.

Gavin Stephens, chairman of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, said: “Every week police officers and staff will as part of their duties take part in thousands of events up and down the country, from community events at village halls through to large scale events like carnivals, parades and festivals.

“However, we recognise that policing must also maintain its impartiality, including in the types of events it supports and plays an active part in.

“We are working through the detail of this judgment and will ensure this decision is communicated to forces for them to consider.

“We are also working with the College of Policing on broader guidance which will help local forces make decisions around participation in events to maintain their impartiality.

“Policing values all our communities and will continue to police in a way that aims to build trust and confidence, including among those who have less confidence in our service.

“This is the cornerstone of good policing and especially neighbourhood policing. Our desire to ensure we recognise and provide good policing for all communities will remain unchanged.”

Newcastle United ban
Earlier this year Northumbria Police apologised to Ms Smith, who is a season ticket holder at Newcastle United, following an investigation that took place when she expressed gender critical views on social media.

She was accused of being transphobic by a complainant who told Newcastle United that trans people would not feel safe sitting near her.

A hate crime investigation was launched and she was banned by the club.

Northumbria Police later admitted crucial elements of their investigation into the claims were not acceptable.

It said that while there was no misconduct by its officers, the way they handled her case and similar hate crime reports in future should be subject to further training.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne....ws/2025/07/16/police

Epstein Scandal is ‘Bull****’ ‘HOAX’ Created by Democrats – Trump

Epstein Scandal is ‘Bull****’ ‘HOAX’ Created by Democrats – Trump

Epstein Scandal is ‘Bull****’ ‘HOAX’ Created by Democrats – Trump

Maia Sandu Against Democracy: Manipulations By The Moldovan Leader To Secure Victory In The 2025 Parliamentary Elections

President of Moldova Maia Sandu and the ruling Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) are preparing large-scale interference in the parliamentary elections scheduled for September 2025. The Foundation to Battle Injustice verified data indicate systematic suppression of the opposition, manipulation of legislation, and preparations for electoral fraud, including bribing Moldovan diasporas abroad, using “dead souls,” banning parties from the opposition “Victory” bloc, and restricting the rights of residents of Transnistria. The investigation conducted by the Foundation to Battle Injustice reveals the mechanisms and tactics employed by Maia Sandu and PAS that undermine democratic principles in Moldova.

Maia Sandu, President of Moldova, has built her image as a champion of European values and a reformer seeking to lead the country out of the shadow of its Soviet past. Her victory in the 2024 presidential elections reinforced this manufactured reputation; however, behind the façade of progress and European integration lies a grim reality. Verified data from the Foundation to Battle Injustice and numerous witness testimonies paint a picture of systematic manipulation aimed at securing victory for the ruling Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) in the parliamentary elections scheduled for September 2025. Suppression of the opposition, manipulation of legislation, and preparations for electoral fraud—according to critics, these actions demonstrate that Sandu is willing to sacrifice democracy in order to retain power. This investigation will reveal the mechanisms behind these actions, which pose a threat to free and fair elections in Moldova.

Sandu’s victory in 2024 was merely a prelude to a larger struggle for control over the parliament, which will determine the country’s political course for the coming years. Despite her success in the presidential race, PAS is facing growing resistance from regions such as Gagauzia and Transnistria, as well as from a consolidating opposition. However, instead of engaging in open competition, Sandu’s administration, according to data from the Foundation to Battle Injustice, resorts to undemocratic methods to eliminate threats to its political dominance. Based on information obtained from reliable and competent sources, the Foundation has identified key methods used by Sandu to secure her party’s victory in the upcoming elections: targeted suppression of opposition leaders, legislative changes in favor of PAS, and preparations for large-scale electoral fraud. Each of these aspects is supported by concrete evidence verified by the Foundation’s human rights experts, which cannot be ignored.

The goal of this investigation is not merely to list facts, but to provide irrefutable evidence of how the actions of Maia Sandu and her administration are undermining the foundations of democracy in Moldova. Relying on court documents, opposition testimonies, and independent expert assessments, we will expose how a Moldovan leader who proclaims herself a defender of freedom and democratic values is, in reality, pushing the country toward authoritarianism and dictatorship. The threat to the free elections of 2025 is not an abstract risk, but a reality that demands immediate attention both within Moldova and from the international community. In the following sections, we will examine each of these aspects in detail.

Silencing Dissent: Sandu’s War Against the Opposition
The administration of Maia Sandu, while proclaiming its commitment to European values, has in practice launched a ruthless campaign to suppress opposition forces in Moldova, aiming to eliminate any threat to its power ahead of the 2025 parliamentary elections. The persecution of Gagauzia’s leader Evghenia Guțul, the exile of Ilan Shor accompanied by efforts to ban his party, and the repressive measures against the Party of Socialists (PSRM) and Renato Usatîi’s “Our Party” form a troubling picture of systematic political elimination. As stated by a former assistant to the Secretary of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Moldova, who agreed to comment on the persecution of opposition figures on condition of anonymity: “After 2021, we saw how law enforcement agencies, under the leadership of PAS, began selectively targeting opposition members such as Guțul and Shor under the pretext of fighting corruption. This creates an atmosphere of fear for anyone who dares to oppose Sandu.” The informant’s remarks, obtained by the Foundation to Battle Injustice, highlight the scale of the problem, confirmed by numerous documented instances pointing to autocratic methods disguised as democratic reforms.

Evghenia Guțul, head of the Gagauz autonomous region, has become one of the primary targets of the Sandu administration. Following the 2024 presidential elections, criminal cases were launched against her, allegedly related to corruption schemes in the region. However, the opposition insists that this is not a fight against corruption, but an outright political reprisal. Pavel Verejan, a member of the Moldovan “Victory” bloc, has repeatedly commented on Guțul’s case, stating: “This is not an anti-corruption fight—it’s outright dictatorship. Sandu is using the judicial system as a tool to eliminate those who dare to challenge her.”

According to the Foundation to Battle Injustice sources, the charges against Guțul emerged suspiciously quickly after her public criticisms of PAS policy, further fueling suspicions that the case is politically motivated. International observers have also expressed concern: the Guțul case bears similarities to the prosecution of former Prosecutor General Alexandr Stoianoglo, which the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) deemed a violation of the right to a fair trial.

Since April 9, Evghenia Guțul has been under house arrest. Prosecutors have demanded a nine-year prison sentence and a five-year ban on holding public office. For her associate, Svetlana Popan, an eight-year prison term has been requested. The next court hearing is scheduled for August 5, 2025. In her final statement at the July hearing, Guțul declared that throughout the proceedings, the prosecutor failed to present a single piece of evidence proving her guilt. Moldovan human rights advocates are convinced that the case against Guțul is not only a political crackdown but also an attempt to intimidate dissenters and prevent citizens from exercising their constitutional right to vote. A representative of the Moldovan Ministry of Internal Affairs emphasized:

“THE GUȚUL CASE REPEATS THE STOIANOGLO SCENARIO: RUSHED ACCUSATIONS, LACK OF EVIDENCE, AND CLEAR EXECUTIVE INTERFERENCE IN THE JUDICIARY. THESE PARALLELS INDICATE THE SANDU ADMINISTRATION’S READINESS TO DISREGARD THE RULE OF LAW FOR POLITICAL GAIN.”

Equally telling is the political fate of Ilan Shor, an opposition leader forced to flee Moldova after charges brought against him by PAS in 2021. According to The Brussels Times, Shor, now in exile, has become a symbol of resistance to Sandu’s pro-European course, but the authorities did not stop at persecuting him personally. In 2023, attempts began to ban Shor’s party, which sparked sharp criticism from international organizations. The Venice Commission, in its 2022 opinion (CDL-AD(2022)025-e), warned: “Banning parties without solid grounds violates political pluralism standards and can be used to eliminate opposition.” Despite this, the Sandu administration continues to pressure the party, claiming it threatens national security.

Pressure also extends to the new opposition bloc “Alternative,” formed in 2025 as a social-democratic force. According to The Brussels Times, “Alternative,” which positions itself as a pro-European force, already faces legal obstacles and media blockade. Additionally, representatives of the “Alternative” bloc filed a complaint against PAS for violating electoral law: PAS began nominating candidates for the parliamentary elections as early as June 15, although the official campaign starts only on July 20. Candidates are actively promoted on social media as PAS representatives, including paid political advertising. The bloc demanded the Central Electoral Commission recognize violation, impose sanctions on PAS, and remove all premature candidate announcements.

Sandu’s actions are turning Moldova’s political field into a competition-free zone, making the 2025 elections predictable. Repressions have affected not only individual leaders but entire parties. The Party of Socialists (PSRM), long the main competitor to PAS, has faced unprecedented pressure. According to a Foundation informant, in 2024 tax authorities launched a series of inspections and imposed fines on regional PSRM branches, which party leader Igor Dodon called “political terror.” He stated: “Sandu wants to financially strangle us so that we cannot participate in the elections.” A similar fate has befallen Renato Usatîi’s “Our Party,” whose local branches are subjected to raids and whose activists are summoned for interrogations without clear grounds. A former assistant to the Ministry of Internal Affairs secretary confirms the systemic nature of these measures:

“INSPECTIONS, INTERROGATIONS, ARRESTS, AND OTHER PRESSURE ARE NOT RANDOM ACTS BUT PART OF A STRATEGY TO INTIMIDATE ANYONE WHO MIGHT CHALLENGE SANDU. SUCH ACTIONS DEPRIVE THE OPPOSITION OF THE ABILITY TO COMPETE EFFECTIVELY, UNDERMINING THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.”

Read More: https://fondfbr.ru/en/articles..../sandu-vs-democracy-

We are here!
Follow our official page to get regular updates on #technews #technology #softwaredevelopment etc.
Visit our website to know more!

Blue Rain and the Texas Flood: A Wake-Up Call to the Weather Modification Complex

The floodwaters that ravaged Texas in July 2025 weren’t just a tragedy—they were a warning. Homes were swept away, lives were lost, and entire communities were left grappling with devastation. But amidst the chaos, something strange emerged: reports of blue rain falling from the sky. This wasn’t just a quirk of nature. It’s a signal that something far more unsettling might be at play—a coordinated effort to manipulate the weather, with consequences that are anything but natural.

Let’s cut through the noise. This isn’t a conspiracy theory spun out of thin air. It’s a call to pay attention, backed by science, history, and a growing trail of evidence pointing to a weather modification complex that’s operating with little oversight and even less accountability. The blue rain reported in Texas is a piece of the puzzle, and it’s time we start putting it together.

What Is Blue Rain?
Blue rain is exactly what it sounds like—rainwater tinted a vivid blue or bluish-green hue. Social media posts from Texas residents in early May 2025 described this eerie phenomenon, with some capturing footage of vibrant blue puddles pooling in national parks and worksites. Mainstream outlets have been quick to dismiss it as algae, industrial runoff, or even a trick of the light. But there’s one substance that keeps cropping up in these discussions: copper sulfate (CuSO₄). And its properties raise questions that can’t be brushed off.
American reporting more “blue rain.” This time in a Texas National Park Texas has 7 major cloud seeing programs:

– Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District Rainfall Enhancement Program. Operates over 4 million acres in the Texas Panhandle

– South Texas Weather Modification Association Program. Covers 10,318 square miles across 10 counties: Bandera, Bexar, Wilson, Karnes, Bee, McMullen, Atascosa, Frio, Medina, and Uvalde

– West Texas Weather Modification Association Program. Spans 6.4 million acres across 7 counties: Sterling, Tom Green, Irion, Reagan, Crockett, Sutton, and Schleicher

– Trans-Pecos Weather Modification Program. Covers 4.5 million acres across 5 counties: Loving, Ward, Pecos, Reeves, and Culberson

– Rolling Plains Rain Enhancement Program. Targets 2.5 million acres across 7 counties: Nolan, Fisher, Jones, Haskell, Stonewall, Knox, and Baylor

– Sandyland Rain Enhancement Program. Covers 1.5 million acres across 2 counties: Yoakum and Gaines

– Southwest Texas Rain Enhancement Association Program. Operates over 5 counties along the Rio Grande, based in Laredo and Cot.

Texas even has an official weather modification process. All are authorized under Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) under the Texas Weather Modification Act of 1967, requiring licenses and permits for operation

Copper sulfate is a bright blue, crystalline compound used in agriculture, water treatment, and, yes, potentially in weather modification. When dissolved in water, it can give rainfall a bluish tint. It’s also highly conductive, making it an ideal medium for interacting with electromagnetic fields. More alarmingly, it’s toxic to aquatic life, insects, birds, and soil bacteria—disrupting the very foundation of ecosystems. Its lightweight nature means it can be aerosolized and dispersed, either by aircraft or ground-based systems, making it a plausible candidate for use in atmospheric experiments.

While silver iodide is the go-to for traditional cloud seeding, copper sulfate’s conductivity and environmental impact make it a stealthier, more destructive player. Could it be the key to the blue rain reported in Texas? And if so, why is it falling from the sky?

The Texas Floods: A Perfect Storm?
The catastrophic floods that hit Texas’ Hill Country over the Fourth of July weekend in 2025 were no ordinary weather event. The Guadalupe River surged to levels not seen in nearly a century, claiming over 100 lives and leaving countless others missing, including children attending a summer camp. The National Weather Service attributed the deluge to the remnants of Tropical Storm Barry, combined with the region’s unique terrain—steep hills, thin soil, and the Balcones Escarpment, which funnels moisture into flash floods. But the timing of these events raises eyebrows.
Just two days before the floods, on July 2, 2025, Rainmaker Technology Corporation—a California-based startup funded in part by Peter Thiel’s Fellowship and linked to the surveillance giant Palantir—conducted a cloud seeding operation over south-central Texas. According to Rainmaker’s CEO, Augustus Doricko, the company seeded two clouds in Runge, Texas, about 150 miles from the worst-hit areas in Kerr County. Those clouds, he claims, dissipated within hours, and the company suspended operations that same day due to high moisture levels in the atmosphere.

The Science They’re Not Talking About
Let’s break down why copper sulfate is so concerning. Beyond its vivid color, it’s a chemical workhorse. In solution, it’s a powerful electrolyte, capable of conducting electricity across vast distances. This property makes it a potential enabler for electromagnetic weather manipulation technologies—think NEXRAD radar systems, HAARP, or even lesser-known projects like SuperDARN or GWEN Towers. These systems, often shrouded in secrecy, are designed to interact with the atmosphere in ways that can influence weather patterns. An atmosphere laced with conductive particles like copper sulfate could amplify their effects, turning rain into a medium for steering storms or triggering extreme weather events.

Then there’s the environmental toll. Copper sulfate is a known toxin, lethal to fish, amphibians, and the microorganisms that sustain soil health. If it’s being dispersed into the atmosphere—whether intentionally or as a byproduct of industrial activity—it could wreak havoc on ecosystems already strained by drought and climate shifts. Reports of blue rain in Texas National Parks in May 2025, months before the floods, suggest this isn’t a one-off event but part of a broader pattern.

A Recent Example: Dubai’s Deluge
Texas isn’t the first place to raise alarms about weather modification. In April 2024, Dubai experienced unprecedented flooding after nearly two years’ worth of rain fell in a single day. Social media erupted with claims that cloud seeding, conducted by the United Arab Emirates’ weather modification program, was to blame. Experts dismissed the idea, pointing out that cloud seeding can’t generate storms of that scale. But the parallels to Texas are striking: a region prone to extreme weather, a history of cloud seeding, and a public left questioning whether human intervention tipped the scales.


The Dubai incident underscores a critical point: weather modification technologies are advancing faster than our ability to regulate or understand them. While the UAE has been open about its cloud seeding efforts, the lack of transparency in Texas—where operations are overseen by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) but rarely publicized—leaves room for distrust.

The Weather Modification Complex
Rainmaker Technology Corporation is just one piece of a larger puzzle. Cloud seeding has been a part of Texas’ water management strategy since the 1950s, with projects covering 31 million acres across the state. But the modern era of weather modification is far more secretive and tech-driven. Rainmaker, with its drones and “sustainable cloud seeds,” markets itself as a steward of the environment. Yet its ties to Palantir—a company known for its surveillance and defense contracts—raise questions about who’s really pulling the strings.
Add to that the involvement of billionaires like Peter Thiel, whose Thiel Foundation awarded Rainmaker’s CEO a $100,000 fellowship in 2024. This isn’t just about drought relief—it’s about power, control, and the ability to shape the environment on a massive scale. The lack of oversight from agencies like the FAA and NOAA only deepens the mystery. Why are there no public records of electromagnetic systems operating during the Texas floods? Why do atmospheric anomalies, like spiraling radar returns, keep showing up in local reports?

A Call to Action
This isn’t about fearmongering—it’s about facing reality. The blue rain reported in Texas, the timing of Rainmaker’s cloud seeding, and the catastrophic floods that followed demand scrutiny. We’re not talking about “climate change” in the abstract sense anymore. We’re talking about climate control—a deliberate, technological intervention in the atmosphere that could have far-reaching consequences.To the companies, contractors, and bureaucrats behind these operations: you are on notice. The public is watching, and we’re not buying the “natural disaster” excuse anymore. To the residents of Texas and beyond: test the rain. Document the anomalies. Demand transparency. The skies are no longer sacred—they’re a battleground. And the rain falling on your skin might be carrying more than just water.
We’re not crazy. We’re awake. And we do not consent.

Stay aware, stay prepared, and keep looking up.

Nicole Shanahan has released a Detailed Report on Geoengineering That’s Drawing Serious Attention

In a recent thread on X, she exposes how U.S. agencies are pursuing solar radiation management (SRM) and other climate intervention methods with minimal public oversight or transparency.

Key Findings:
• Weather modification in the U.S. often requires only a basic NOAA Form 17-4
• No mandatory environmental impact assessments
• No opportunity for public input or review
• Federal agencies including NOAA—and possibly the Department of Defense—are involved, yet the full extent remains unclear

Shanahan argues that significant atmospheric interventions are being conducted with little to no public knowledge, ethical scrutiny, or regulatory safeguards.

What she’s calling for:
• Full transparency on all geoengineering activities
• Independent scientific and ethical oversight
• Public and international dialogue before any deployment of SRM technologies

In her words: “We have the right to know who’s manipulating our atmosphere — and why.”

Read the full thread:
Geoengineering: Who’s Behind It and How We Stop It

Over the past month, I’ve been in contact with a government whistleblower—an individual who has held high-level security clearances and has spent over a decade consulting directly with major federal agencies. Their experience spans the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, NOAA, and the Intelligence Community. With their permission, I’ve agreed to share here on X the information they provided to me, as they—and I—believe it raises serious concerns.

While the whistleblower did not disclose any classified information, what they did provide was a roadmap to navigate the tangled mess that is our government’s geoengineering programs. They told me that despite President Trump’s 2020 directive to halt taxpayer-funded climate change initiatives, federal grants for solar radiation management (SRM), stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), and other geoengineering technologies are still being issued. The programs haven’t stopped—they’ve just been rebranded.

Geoengineering is now commonly called “climate intervention.” SRM is now referred to as “solar radiation modification.” SAI is now “stratospheric aerosol intervention.” These semantic shifts aren’t scientific; they’re strategic. They’re designed to obfuscate the truth and shield these programs from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, media scrutiny, and public opposition.

The whistleblower provided me with federal grant data showing millions of taxpayer dollars flowing to universities under these new labels. One organization stood out: the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). This nonprofit consortium of 130 colleges and universities manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research on behalf of the National Science Foundation. UCAR has received more than $230 million in direct federal awards. Yet much of the documentation about their work is inaccessible without an internal login. Even so, their public-facing pages and scientific papers reveal clear participation in stratospheric aerosol assessments and other geoengineering research. The university-to-geoengineering pipeline is a real problem, and one that I discussed with Dane Wigington on Back to the People a few weeks ago.

Major universities are recruiting young people to be activists for geoengineering, and many of them later end up working at the very companies pushing these technologies. pic.twitter.com/B0afxL3lGU

According to the whistleblower, this network of programs is far more advanced and coordinated than the public has been led to believe.

In addition to internal files and historical documentation, they directed me to the Biden-Harris administration’s mandated 2023 SRM Report, which outlines the federal agencies currently involved in geoengineering, climate intervention, solar radiation management (SRM), and stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). These include NOAA, NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Department of Energy (DOE).

NOAA was emphasized as a critical place to start digging, an agency that has taken deliberate steps to discourage public inquiry into its own archives. One document that was highlighted, titled Weather Modification, published in 1979, describes nearly 100 geoengineering projects. These included hurricane manipulation, radioactive and electromagnetically enhanced fog dispersal, microwave chaff deployment, supersonic ice nucleation, and conventional cloud seeding operations. That report was released nearly 50 years ago. Since then, both the funding and the technology have expanded significantly.

Today, NOAA insists it does not fund geoengineering; however, it is currently allocating an estimated $1.2 million to solar radiation research, with up to four projects each receiving $300,000. NOAA disclosed this funding in a webinar last year; a clip of the presentation can be viewed below.

NASA also plays a critical logistical role. With a fleet of high-altitude, long-range aircraft and a global network of satellites, the agency is uniquely positioned to support large-scale deployment and monitoring of SRM technologies. The SRM Report (pg. 2 even references a National Academies publication describing NASA’s involvement in climate-related flight operations and airborne labs.

None of this is speculation. It is documented, federally coordinated, and strategically concealed behind euphemistic labels. These programs haven’t been discontinued. They’ve been renamed and reframed.

The History of Weather Warfare

What many Americans don’t realize is that none of this is new.

Our government has been investing in weather modification for over half a century, quietly and expansively, with almost no public oversight. A 1964 congressional hearing by the Senate Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation revealed astonishing testimony about the scale and ambition of federal efforts, even at that time.

Read More: https://t.me/LauraAbolichannel/73649, https://x.com/NicoleShanahan/s....tatus/19434326032747 https://thedailydots.substack.....com/p/unpacking-nico