Christopher F. Rufo and Hannah Grossman

Intelligence officials maintained a chatroom to discuss polyamory and transgender surgeries, internal documents reveal.

The “intelligence community” is one of the most powerful parts of the American national security apparatus. In theory, it works tirelessly to keep the nation safe. But according to internal documents that we obtained, some intelligence agency employees have another on-the-job priority: sex chats.

We have cultivated sources within the National Security Agency—one current employee and one former employee—who have provided chat logs from the NSA’s Intelink messaging program. According to an NSA press official, “All NSA employees sign agreements stating that publishing non-mission related material on Intelink is a usage violation and will result in disciplinary action.” Nonetheless, these logs, dating back two years, are lurid, featuring wide-ranging discussions of sex, kink, polyamory, and castration.

One popular chat topic was male-to-female transgender surgery, which involves surgically removing the penis and turning it into an artificial vagina. “[M]ine is everything,” said one male who claimed to have had gender reconstruction surgery. “[I]’ve found that i like being penetrated (never liked it before GRS), but all the rest is just as important as well.” Another intelligence official boasted that genital surgery allowed him “to wear leggings or bikinis without having to wear a gaff under it.”

These employees discussed hair removal, estrogen injections, and the experience of sexual pleasure post-castration. “[G]etting my butthole zapped by a laser was . . . shocking,” said one transgender-identifying intel employee who spent thousands on hair removal. “Look, I just enjoy helping other people experience boobs,” said another about estrogen treatments. “[O]ne of the weirdest things that gives me euphoria is when i pee, i don’t have to push anything down to make sure it aims right,” a Defense Intelligence Agency employee added.

These revelations come at a moment of heightened scrutiny for the intelligence community. President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have each made the case that the intelligence agencies have gone “woke,” prioritizing left-wing activism over national security. These chat logs confirm their suspicions and raise fundamental questions about competence and professionalism.

According to our sources, the sex chats were legitimized as part of the NSA’s commitment to “diversity, equity and inclusion.” Activists within the agency used LGBTQ+ “employee resource groups” to turn their kinks and pathologies into official work duties. According to the current NSA employee, these groups “spent all day” recruiting activists and holding meetings with titles such as “Privilege,” “Ally Awareness,” “Pride,” and “Transgender Community Inclusion.” And they did so with the full support of NSA leadership, which declared that DEI was “not only mission critical, but mission imperative.”

In this case, “diversity” was not a byword for racialism, but rather a euphemism for sex talk. Last January, chatroom members discussed their practice of polyamory, or “ethical non-monogamy.” “[A] polycule is a polyamorous group,” one employee explained. “A is my [girlfriend], and B-G are her partners. . . . then B&C are dating but not C&D, nor E, F, or G with any of the others, though there are several MWB (metas-with-benefits) connections.” Another employee claimed to be part of a nine-member “polycule,” adding that “some of our friends are practically poly-mers, with all the connected compounds.”

At other times, the conversations became explicit. The active source at the NSA claimed to have witnessed hundreds of sexually provocative discussions, which, he added, occurred mostly on taxpayer time. The former NSA source who was familiar with the chats recalled being “disgusted” by a particularly shocking thread discussing weekend “gangbangs.”

The NSA sources also raised the question of some staffers’ mental fitness for the job. In one chat, an NSA employee insists on using “it” pronouns in lieu of the human “he” or “she” pronouns. “[I]t/its user here. While I understand we can make some people uncomfortable, keep in mind that the dehumanizing aspect either a) doesn’t apply or b) is a positive effect when we’re requesting it.” A commenter who disagreed was quickly dismissed by employees of the NSA and CIA, who claimed that refusing to use “it/its” pronouns amounted to “erasing” a transgender identity.

“These are folks with top secret clearances believing they are an IT!” said the NSA source.

With the Trump administration taking over, we may see changes. The NSA source said that staffers involved in employee resource groups fear the end of DEI. “[T]here are legal restrictions in place, but this admin has shown they don’t give a f**k about legality,” a staffer in space intelligence remarked about DEI staffers being placed on leave. Others have expressed opposition to Trump’s cabinet nominees.

A conflict is coming. These NSA chat logs suggest the presence of at least hundreds of gender activists within the intelligence services who cannot distinguish between male and female, and who believe that discussing castration, polyamory, and “gangbangs” is an appropriate use of public resources. For psychological and ideological reasons, these kinds of people will not be easily sidelined. The Trump administration should not only dismantle the structure of DEI but also terminate the employees who use it to advance gender activism at the expense of national security.

From Hamas Blunders to French Fumbles, the Globalist Golden Boy Crumbles on Stage

We had the French-language Liberal leadership debate last night, and let me tell you, folks—it was a sight to behold. Picture a stage in Montreal, packed with career politicians and establishment darlings, all vying to replace Justin Trudeau. The stakes? Enormous. The Liberal Party is on the verge of collapse, Donald Trump is looming over the border with trade war threats, and Canada’s economy is circling the drain. So, naturally, this was their big moment—a chance to prove they have what it takes to lead the country.

And then there was Mark Carney. The globalist golden boy. The guy the elites have been grooming for years. Former Bank of Canada boss, UN climate czar, best friends with every billionaire and bureaucrat from Davos to Brussels. If there’s anyone who should be able to handle a debate, it’s this guy. And yet?

He crashed. Hard. Because what we saw at the French-language Liberal leadership debate was nothing short of a political car crash—one that Mark Carney, the globalist golden boy, drove straight into a ditch. You’d think the guy who ran the Bank of Canada, played footsie with the UN, and spent years circling the elite cocktail party circuit would be able to handle a few tough questions. But no. Instead, we got a masterclass in stammering, dodging, and faceplanting in real-time.

Let’s start with the Hamas gaffe—because, oh boy, this was a doozy. They’re debating Canada’s stance on Israel and Palestine, and Carney, struggling through his Google Translate French, blurts out: “We all agree on Hamas on a two state.” Wait—what? Did he just say the Liberals agree with Hamas? Even Karina Gould, Trudeau’s handpicked heir-in-waiting, had to jump in and clean up his mess: “No, we don’t agree with the solution. We’re against Hamas.” Folks, this is a guy who’s spent decades rubbing elbows with world leaders, and he just accidentally aligned himself with a terrorist organization on live TV. The guy’s supposed to be an economic genius, but apparently, he can’t even manage basic sentence structure. And in Quebec? Where fluency in French actually matters? This wasn’t just a gaffe—it was an open admission that he’s an outsider with a script, and he can’t even read it right.

Then there’s the Quebec constitution debacle. Simple question: Will you recognize a Quebec constitution and Bill 96? You know, the law that cracks down on English like it’s a public health crisis? Carney’s answer? “I’m not a lawyer. I’m not a constitutional expert either. I’m a progressive.” Oh, that’s just rich. He’s not a lawyer, folks—just the guy who ran Canada’s central bank and negotiated international finance deals. But suddenly, when he’s asked to take a stand, he’s just a humble progressive. Meanwhile, Frank Baylis, the only candidate with a spine, calls Bill 96 “discriminatory” right to the camera, while Freeland and Gould trot out their usual Charter of Rights shtick. Carney? He pivots to attacking Pierre Poilievre for cutting CBC funding. Absolutely pathetic. In Montreal, dodging this question isn’t just cowardly—it’s political malpractice.

And what about the carbon tax? This is supposed to be Carney’s big moment. He’s the UN Climate Envoy, the guy who lectures entire countries about going green. So what does he say? “I’ll be canceling it on consumers and small businesses… replacing it with a system where big polluters pay.” Oh, wonderful. Except—what system? No details, no numbers, no real plan. Just a vague promise to make “big polluters” foot the bill. Sounds nice, but where have we heard this before? Oh right—every failed Liberal climate promise since 2015. Meanwhile, Gould is throwing out “15% emissions cuts” like it’s gospel, and Freeland is hammering home how Trudeau’s carbon tax saved Canada from climate doom. But Carney? Mr. Green Energy himself? He whiffs it.

And let’s not forget Energy East. With Trump ramping up tariffs and economic pressure, they ask the big question: Should Canada revive an east-west pipeline through Quebec? Carney’s answer? “It’s possible… if it’s in the interests of the whole country.” What does that even mean? “Possible”? “If”? Baylis, to his credit, comes out swinging—promising two gas pipelines and arguing they’d be good for both the economy and the environment. Freeland and Gould talk about “resilience” and “indigenous consultation” while sidestepping specifics. But Carney? He just flails around, dropping vague one-liners about being “masters in our own house.” Quebecers hate pipelines—we all know that—but if he had a real stance, he’d say it. Instead, he hedges like a man waiting for a pollster to whisper in his ear.

Then there’s his closing statement—his last shot to sell himself as Canada’s next leader. What does he deliver? “I’m not a career politician. I’m a pragmatist… Canada’s given me everything, I’m ready to give my all.”

Oh, give me a break. This has got to be the most insulting, hollow, out-of-touch line of the night. Carney is literally running to be prime minister, and somehow, he expects us to believe he’s not a politician? That’s like a guy auditioning for American Idol and claiming he’s not a singer. No, Mark—you’re a politician now. You’re begging for votes. You’re standing on stage, pandering like the rest of them. Own it.

And beyond the blatant dishonesty, let’s talk about how flat it all was. Baylis is out there promising the “best health system in the world” and pledging his loyalty to Quebec. Gould is hyping up “innovators and dreamers,” painting some grand Liberal utopia. Freeland? She’s going full war cry—rallying 400,000 Liberals against Trump like she’s leading a resistance movement. But Carney? He sounds like an AI-generated LinkedIn post. No passion, no fire, no vision. Just another soulless technocrat, hoping to win by default.

Look, I get it—Carney is the establishment’s dream. The global elites adore him. He’s got the right credentials, the right connections, and the charisma of a soggy paper towel. The guy spent decades shuffling between central banks and UN climate panels, never breaking a sweat, never making a tough call. But last night? Thrown into an actual political fight? He flopped harder than a beached fish.

If he can’t even hold his own in a controlled Liberal debate—against his own party, in front of a friendly audience—how on earth is he going to stand up to Donald Trump? Seriously. The guy panicked over a Quebec language question and somehow accidentally implied the Liberals support Hamas. Hamas! You think this man is ready to stare down the White House? To negotiate trade deals? To lead a country in crisis? Please.

If the Liberals are looking for a leader with real backbone, they’d better think twice before crowning this guy. Because if this performance was any indication—Carney’s not the future. This wasn’t a leader. This was a clipboard-carrying bureaucrat trying to convince us he’s Winston Churchill.

And if this is what the Liberals want to put up against Trump, Poilievre, or even a toaster with a personality, they’re in for a brutal, humiliating, can’t-look-away kind of reality check.