Connect with us

International

Trump ‘shocks the deep state,’ sidesteps ‘weaponized’ White House transition process’

Published

3 months ago

8 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Doug Mainwaring

The president-elect is attempting to avoid the mistakes he made during his first term by this time privately funding the transition.

Two viral postings on X describe how President-elect Donald Trump is avoiding D.C.’s entrenched “permanent state” that sought to upend his first presidency before it started, beginning with his January 2017 transition into the Oval Office.

“Having experienced firsthand the malevolence of the so-called ‘permanent government’ during his initial transition in 2016-2017, Trump is under no illusions about the loyalty or intentions of the civil service – particularly the General Services Administration (GSA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Department of Justice (DOJ),” amuse explained on X. “The current transition struggle exemplifies the danger of allowing the permanent bureaucratic state to accrue power unchecked.”

“During his first term, Trump’s transition team – Trump for America, Inc. (TFA) – faced betrayal when the GSA improperly handed over thousands of emails from the transition period to Special Counsel Robert Mueller without proper authorization,” amuse wrote. “An agency ostensibly dedicated to facilitating the transition had instead been co-opted to undermine it.”

Amuse continued:

The FBI, which once served as an institution above the fray of partisan politics, has shown its hand in its dealings with Trump – spying on his 2016 campaign, embedding female honeypots within his transition, and using “national security” briefings as a pretext to disqualify his appointees, like General Michael Flynn. The Justice Department Inspector General found that former FBI agent Peter Strzok even sent another FBI agent to an intelligence briefing with Trump and Flynn as part of an effort to build a Russia collusion case against them.

These actions are not the behavior of a neutral party facilitating a democratic handover; they are the machinations of a bureaucracy desperate to retain control.

As a result, the president-elect has chosen to privately fund his side of the transition from the Biden administration.

Trump’s transition strategy: ‘Annihilating the deep state’s control’

“Trump’s MAGA administration just dropped a nuclear bomb on Washington’s corrupt establishment. By rejecting taxpayer-funded GSA tools and launching a fully private transition, Trump is cutting the deep state out of the equation. This isn’t just a handoff – it’s a full-scale revolution,” Ann Vandersteel wrote on X and Substack.

“In a jaw-dropping move, Trump has signed the Transition Agreement with the outgoing Biden administration — but with one massive twist. There’s no GSA involvement. No government phones. No government buildings. Nothing,” Vandersteel wrote.

“This isn’t about tradition. It’s about annihilating the deep state’s control,” Vandersteel continued. “Washington’s gatekeepers are panicking. Trump’s strategy leaves them powerless, blind, and scrambling in the dark.”

She continued:

The deep state relies on access. They spy. They sabotage. They control. But Trump has cut off their lifeline. His team has gone dark – no leaks, no traps, no surveillance. For the corrupt elite, this is their worst nightmare. They’re awake, sweating bullets, terrified of what’s next.

Trump’s move isn’t just bold; it’s revolutionary.

  • No GSA oversight. The tools used against him in 2016? Gone.
  • No taxpayer dependence. This revolution is fully independent.
  • No interference. The deep state can’t touch what they can’t see.

This is a calculated takedown of a corrupt system. Trump isn’t playing defense —he’s on the offensive.

“Washington’s establishment is in freefall. The deep state relied on GSA tools to spy, infiltrate, and sabotage. Now they’re locked out entirely. They’ve lost their grip, their leverage, and their power,” Vandersteel wrote. “This isn’t a transition; it’s a declaration of war against the corrupt establishment.”

“The storm isn’t coming – it’s already here.”

Corporate media in the nation’s capital is not happy about Trump’s end run around those who are accustomed to playing an integral role in White House transitions.

The Washington Post, Biden regime are losing sleep over the transition

The Washington Post has decided Trump succeeding Biden in January represents a “hostile takeover of the federal government.”

The Post laments:

Since his victory, Trump has ignored many of the rules and practices intended to guide a seamless transfer of power and handover of the oversight of 2.2 million federal employees. Instead, the president-elect, who has pledged to fire thousands of civil servants and slash billions of dollars in spending, has so far almost fully cut out the government agencies his predecessors have relied on to take charge of the federal government.

“His transition teams have yet to set foot inside a single federal office,” Post writers noted two weeks after Trump resoundingly won the 2024 election, as if breaking with standard procedure were a criminal offense against the Washington establishment.

“In calls with foreign heads of state, Trump has cut out the State Department, its secure lines and its official interpreters,” the Post added.

The Post acknowledged that Trump also “bears deep animus against the FBI, according to the people familiar with his transition process. FBI agents searched Mar-a-Lago for classified materials in a case that resulted in federal charges, and he has pledged wholesale changes at the agency and at the Justice Department.”

The FBI would normally have begun vetting a president-elect’s transition team before Election Day, as well as his choices for Cabinet positions and other top staff jobs. Thus far, Trump has left the job of vetting candidates to Stanley Woodward, a D.C. lawyer on his campaign who has represented several January 6 rioters and Trump associates caught up in the classified documents case.

“I happen to know the Biden regime has been losing sleep over the transition,” amuse added in a subsequent X post. “Nothing is going to plan.”

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
International / 5 hours ago

Is Russia at War With Ukraine, or With the West?

National / 6 hours ago

No enthusiasm, no movement—just media spin trying to sell a Liberal comeback that doesn’t exist

Business / 8 hours ago

We’re paying the bills, why shouldn’t we have a say?

International

Is Russia at War With Ukraine, or With the West?

Published on March 10, 2025

By

A guest post by

Matt Taibbi and Racket Staff

Subscribe

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock this week, on entering a “new era of nefariousness”:

I say clearly and across the Atlantic, what is right and what is wrong shall never be irrelevant to us. No one wants and no one needs peace more than the Ukrainians and Ukraine. The diplomatic efforts of the U.S. are of course important here. But such a peace must be just and lasting and not just a pause until the next attack… We will never accept a perpetrator-victim reversal. A perpetrator-victim reversal would be… the end of security for the vast majority of countries. And it would be fatal for the future of the United States.

Baerbock’s declaration that a “perpetrator-victim reversal” (a Täteropferumkehr, I’m reliably informed) would be “fatal” to the U.S. was historic. It was accompanied by a promise that “as transatlantacists,” Europeans must “stand up for our own interests, our own values, and our own security.” Although new leaders are ready to take the reins in Germany, she said, there can be no waiting for the transfer of power. Immediately, “Germany must take the lead at this historic milestone.”

A few years ago Baerbock pleaded for patience with a British conservative who demanded to know why Germany wasn’t providing Leopard tanks to Ukraine.

Now, with Donald Trump cutting off weapons deliveries and shutting down access to ATACMS missiles, Baerbock’s speech is an expression of more enthusiastic European support for continued fighting.

The war in Ukraine is often called a proxy conflict between Russia and the West or Russia and the U.S., but it increasingly looks more like a fight between Baerbock’s “transatlanticists” and those who believe in “spheres of influence.” In preparing Racket’s accompanying “Timeline: The War in Ukraine,” I found both sides articulated this idea repeatedly.

In January, 2017, as he was preparing to relinquish his seat to Mike Pence, Joe Biden alluded to the recent election of Donald Trump in a speech at Davos. Describing the “dangerous willingness to revert to political small-mindedness” of “popular movements on both the left and right,” Biden explained:

We hear these voices in the West—but the greatest threats on this front spring from the distinct illiberalism of external actors who equate their success with a fracturing of the liberal international order. We see this in Asia and the Middle East… But I will not mince words. This movement is principally led by Russia.

Biden even then lumped Trump and Putin together, as enemies of the “liberal international order.” Russian counterparts like Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, meanwhile, spoke of a “post-West world order” where diplomatic relations would be based on “sovereignty” and the “national interests of partners.” These are two fundamentally irreconcilable worldviews. Was conflict inevitable, or could peace have held if Russia didn’t strike in 2022?

There’s no question who invaded whom. Hostilities began in February, 2022 with an angry speech by Vladimir Putin and bombs that landed minutes later in Ukraine. Little discussion of the “why” of the war took place in the West, however.

Phrases like “unprovoked aggression” became almost mandatory in Western coverage. Politico interviewed a range of experts and concluded that what Putin wanted was “a revanchist imperialist remaking of the globe to take control of the entire former Soviet space.” This diagnosis of Putin’s invasion as part of a Hitlerian quest for Lebensraum and a broader return to national glory might have merit, but it was also conspicuously uncontested. A differing article by University of Chicago professor John Mearshimer declaring the crisis “the West’s fault” made him, as The New Statesman just put it, “the world’s most hated thinker.” Few went there after.

Russians and Ukrainians don’t have the typical profiles of ancient warring tribes. They have a deeply intertwined history, with citizens of both countries retaining many of the same customs, jokes, and home remedies, while living in the same crumbling Soviet buildings, with fondness for the same cabbage soup and moonshine. There are huge numbers of mixed/bilingual families and many famous cultural figures (including my hero Nikolai Gogol) are claimed by both countries. They’ve fought before, but what jumped out reviewing this “Timeline” is how much it seemed that these old Slavic neighbors mostly fall out now over attitudes toward the West.

It’s hard looking back not to be struck by the superior tone of bodies like the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), whose “reviews” of Ukrainian and Russian elections often read like zoological descriptions of inferior species. Same with a tsk-tsking report by a mission of visiting IMF economists in 2013, who were appalled by Ukrainian energy subsidies that were among of the few popular remnants of Soviet life.

These imperious Western assessments of childlike Slavs, and the panic and shame of some local officials before such foreign judgments, recall familiar satires in Russian literature (The Government Inspector comes to mind). Nationalists in both countries balked at this “advice,” and by the late nineties some came to the conclusion that the cost of cooperation with the West was greater than the benefit. These dynamics accelerated after the Orange Revolution in 2004 and the Maidan events of 2013-2014, which Russians still see as a West-backed coup and the beginning of the current war. Russians will say “first blood” was drawn in military operations against Donbass protesters around the same time. Those in the West will point at the 2014 annexation of Crimea as the beginning of territorial war.

The idea of Germany “taking the lead” in a war to secure the primacy of “transatlanticists” worries me more than trying to pronounce Täteropferumkehr. However, whether or not you think Baerbock is right, and a peace deal now would be a worthless “pause,” depends a lot on how you read this history. What do you think, and why?

Subscribe to Racket News. 

For the full experience, become a paying subscriber.

Share

Continue Reading

Business

Report: $128 million in federal grants spent on gender ideology

Published on March 9, 2025

By

From The Center Square

By Bethany Blankley

More than $128 million of federal taxpayer money was spent on at least 341 grants to fund gender ideology initiatives under the Biden administration, according to an analysis of federal data by the American Principles Project.

In, “Funding Insanity: Federal Spending on Gender Ideology under Biden-Harris,” APP says it “found how the federal government has been spending hundreds of millions of YOUR MONEY on the Gender Industrial Complex!”

APP says it identified the grants by searching the USA Spending database. The data, which is available for free, is categorized by federal agency; notable grants are highlighted.

The U.S. Health and Human Services Department awarded the greatest amount of funding totaling nearly $84 million through 60 grants.

The Department of State awarded the greatest number of grants, 209, totaling more than $14 million, according to the data.

Other agencies awarding taxpayer-funded gender ideology grants include:

  • U.S. Agency for International Development, nearly $18 million through 8 grants;
  • National Endowment for the Humanities, more than $2.6 million through 20 grants;
  • Department of Justice, $1.9 million through three grants;
  • Institute of Museum and Library Services, $1.87 million through 13 grants;
  • Department of Education, $1.67 million through two grants;
  • Department of Agriculture, $1.6 million through five grants;
  • Department of the Interior, more than 1,000,000 awarded through two grants;
  • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, more than $548,000 through 4 grants;
  • Inter-American Foundation, more than $490,000 through two grants;
  • National Endowment for the Arts, $262,000 through 13 grants.

APP also identified 63 federal agency contracts totaling more than $46 million that promote gender ideology. They include total obligated amounts and the number of contracts per agency.

The majority, $31 million, was awarded through USAID. The next greatest amount of $4.4 million was awarded through the Department of Defense.

The Trump administration has taken several approaches to gut USAID, which has been met with litigation. The Department of Defense and other agencies are also under pressure to cut funding and reduce redundancies.

Notable grants include:

  • $3.9 million to Key Populations Consortium Uganda for promoting “the safety, agency, well-being and the livelihoods of LGBTQI+ in Uganda;”
  • $3.5 million to Outright International for “the Alliance for Global Equality and its mission to promote LGBTQI+ people in priority countries around the world;”
  • $2.4 million to the International Rescue Committee for “inclusive consideration of sexual orientation, gender identity, and sexual characteristics in humanitarian assistance;”
  • $1.9 million to the American Bar Association to “shield the LGBTQI+ population in the Western Balkans;”
  • $1.4 million for “economic empowerment of and opportunity for LGBTQI+ people in Serbia;”
  • $1.49 million to Equality for All Foundation, Jamaica to “Strengthen community support structures to upscale LGBT rights advocacy;”
  • More than $1 million to Bandhu Social Welfare Society to support gender diverse people in Bangladesh.

One of the grants identified by APP, which has since been cancelled, was $600,000 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to Southern University Agricultural & Mechanical College in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to study menstruation and menopause, including in biological men.

According to a description of the grant summary, funding would support research, extension, and teaching to address “growing concerns and issues surrounding menstruation, including the potential health risks posed to users of synthetic feminine hygiene products (FHP);” advancing research in the development of FHP that use natural materials and providing menstrual hygiene management; producing sustainable feminine hygiene sanitary products using natural fibers; providing a local fiber processing center for fiber growers in Louisiana, among others.

It states that menstruation begins in girls at roughly age 12 and ends with menopause at roughly age 51. “A woman will have a monthly menstrual cycle for about 40 years of her life averaging to about 450 periods over the course of her lifetime,” but adds: “It is also important to recognize that transgender men and people with masculine gender identities, intersex and non-binary persons may also menstruate.”

All federal funding was allocated to state agencies through the approval of Congress when it voted to pass continuing resolutions to fund the federal government and approved agency budgets.

Continue Reading

Trending

X