The Religious Split Breaking Trump World
PDS Published 04/09/2026
-
Trump has issued another ultimatum—not to Iran but to NATO—reportedly telling members of the alliance they must commit warships or other military assets to secure the Strait of Hormuz or they’ll be punished.
Right, because even though the ceasefire he announced is supposed to mean the Strait is already open, there has been almost no traffic through the waterway.
And Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanon are threatening to blow up whatever fragile peace somehow seems to be holding.
But let’s start with NATO—and what I think is some important context.
Article 5 of the NATO treaty—the one that says an “attack on one is an attack on all”? It has only been invoked once.
By the US after 9/11—and more than 1,100 non-US troops were killed in the subsequent war in Afghanistan.
But Trump? Long before today he has cast doubt on whether he would defend NATO allies if they invoked Article 5.
He has also insulted them, tariffed them, threatened their territory, threatened their territory using tariffs, and let’s say complicated efforts to deal with the Russian war of aggression on their doorstep.
And he is now also campaigning for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who is seeking reelection this weekend, and who has also threatened allied unity while actively working against Ukraine—reportedly literally telling Putin in a phone call last year:
“I am at your service.”
And, of course, on top of everything, the war Trump is complaining NATO allies won’t help with? It’s a war he started by choice, with no real self-defense rationale, and without consulting them.
And despite that you had White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt yesterday sharing what she said was a direct quote from the president on NATO:
“They were tested and they failed.” (22:01-22:04)
She also accused members of the alliance of “turning their backs on the American people” and said Trump was looking forward to “having a very frank and candid conversation” with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte (ROO-tuh).
Who was arriving to address Trump’s “concerns” about NATO’s refusal to get involved in the war.
And he’s been called the “Trump whisperer” for his ability to deal with the president— an ability seemingly derived from his willingness to shamelessly kiss Trump’s ass in public and in private.
But, whatever the case may be, his approach has been increasingly criticized by some NATO members—especially for his decision to support the Iran war.
Except this time time it didn’t seem to work—with Trump writing on social media after the meeting:
“NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON’T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN.”
“REMEMBER GREENLAND, THAT BIG, POORLY RUN, PIECE OF ICE!!!”
But Rutte didn’t let that stop him—telling CNN he “can see Trump’s point”; that he really admires Trump’s leadership; and that the world is “absolutely” safer thanks to Trump (BROLL).
He has also argued that overall NATO allies ended up providing significant support to the US for the war in Iran in terms of logistics, basing, and other measures—which does seem to be true (BROLL).
And in addition to that you had him noting that NATO countries are “looking for what they can do to contribute” to keeping the Strait of Hormuz open—with assets including warships as well as minesweepers, and radar technology
But that’s what he said publicly.
And according to a major German newspaper he privately told European leaders that Trump was expecting those concrete commitments within the next few days.
With several European diplomats reportedly saying Trump’s demand amounted to an ultimatum—although it’s not exactly clear what the consequence will be. []
Right, he has already threatened to withdraw the US from NATO, but that’s not technically something he can just do.
And you had the Wall Street Journal reporting that the White House is considering a plan to punish NATO members that Trump thinks have been unhelpful.
This could apparently involve pulling American troops out of those countries—or even closing down bases.
Although, notably, countries seen as supportive of the White House? If this happened, they could apparently end up getting more troops.
Which is notable because we’d mostly be talking about countries on Europe’s eastern flank—like Romania and Poland—and so Russia probably wouldn’t be too happy about that
Although, to be clear, the fallout from the Iran war largely seems to have benefited Putin—serving as a distraction from the war in Ukraine and driving up oil prices.
With Reuters reporting today that Russia’s main oil revenue will double to $9 billion this month thanks to the oil and gas crisis triggered by the US and Israeli attack on Iran.
And then, of course, any potential upside for NATO countries isn’t offset by the damage Trump may be doing to the alliance overall.
That said, it’s not known exactly which countries Trump has it out for—but there are some strong contenders.
Spain would probably be at the top of the list.
It’s the only country that hasn’t agreed to spending five percent of its GDP on defense;
it’s denied the use of its bases and airspace for plans involved in the war,
and its prime minister has been particularly outspoken in his criticism of the conflict
With him saying in a post after the ceasefire began:
“...this momentary relief cannot make us forget the chaos, the destruction, and the lives lost.”
“The Government of Spain will not applaud those who set the world on fire just because they show up with a bucket.”
And, today, you also had him calling for the EU to suspend its association agreement with Israel—saying Netannyahu’s “contempt for life and international law is intolerable.”
And since then several European officials—including from Spain but also the UK, France, Italy, and the EU—have slammed Israel for its continued assault on Lebanon.
With Italy’s foreign ministerdescribing the attacks on Lebanon as “unjustified and unacceptable”—adding:
“We want to avoid there being a second Gaza.”
But, of course, as we’ve talked about, the US and Israel have argued the ceasefire doesn’t cover Lebanon.
Even though Pakistan’s Prime Minister, who mediated the talks, said in his post announcing the truce that it applied to “everywhere including Lebanon and elsewhere.”
And this is just one of the ways the ceasefire kind of seems to be hanging on despite the two sides not even agreeing on what they agreed to—at least in public.
Right, because when Trump announced the deal he claimed that the US had “received a 10 point proposal from Iran” that provided “a workable basis on which to negotiate.”
This sparked some confusion because he had previously said that a 10-point plan received from Iran wasn’t good enough.
And when Iran released what it said were the ten points serving as a framework for talks they included not only an end to the war in Lebanon but demands that the US would seemingly never accept.
Including the withdrawal of American troops from the region, continued Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, and the acknowledgment of Iran’s “right” to nuclear enrichment.
And with that, the White House denied that the 10-point plan released by Iran was the one Trump had been referring to.
With White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt calling the proposal Iran presented publicly "fundamentally unserious and completely unacceptable”—and adding:
"It was literally thrown in the garbage by President Trump and his negotiating team." (6:21-6:25)
She also claimed that Iran had indicated a willingness to give up uranium as part of an agreement.
Trump, for his part, followed up with a characteristic late night post on social media—saying:
“The Failing New York Times and Fake News CNN each reported a totally FAKE TEN POINT PLAN …”
“All ten points were a made up HOAX - EVIL LOSERS!!!”
And you had Vice President JD Vance telling reporters in Budapest that there were actually three 10-point proposals going around:
one “probably written by ChatGPT” that went straight in garbage;
a second one that that “was much more reasonable” —which he said was the one Trump had been referencing;
and a third one “that’s even more maximalist than the first one that’s been floating around various social media channels.”
He also said Israel has offered to “check themselves a little bit in Lebanon because they want to make sure that our negotiation is successful” — adding:
“I think that's the Israelis trying to set us up for success."
Which seems like a hot take considering the Israeli military reportedly killed more than 200 people in Lebanon yesterday—making yesterday the deadliest day of the war for the country yet.
And Iran has said that those attacks must stop—saying Lebanon was included in the ceasefire and standing by the version of the 10-point plan the Trump administration says is fake.
With the country’s speaker of parliament accusing the US and Israel of violating the ceasefire with not only the attacks on Lebanon—but also by violating its airspace and denying Iran’s right to enrichment.
And you actually had him following up in a statement today focused on Lebanon—saying:
“Lebanon and the entire Resistance Axis, as Iran’s allies, form an inseparable part of the ceasefire.”
With Iran’s president writing in another post:
“Such actions signal deception and non-compliance, rendering negotiations meaningless.”
And a spokesperson adding that peace talks the US says are planned in Pakistan will only happen if the Lebanon issue is resolved.
And with all that, reportedly under pressure from Trump, Netanyahu said today that he had ordered the Israeli government to start direct negotiations with Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah—saying in a statement that the talks would take place “as soon as possible.”
But Israeli officials have not given any indication that negotiations would lead them to stop their attacks in Lebanon—so it’s not clear how much this will help diffuse tensions.
With this coming as you have outlets like Reuters reporting that Israel is digging in for a “forever war” in the middle east.
Citing Israeli military officials who say the “buffer zones” created in Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza put the country in a semi-permanent state of war.
And in the meantime, Trump? He has said the US is ready to get back to fighting if necessary.
WIth another one of his recent social media posts saying:
“All U.S. Ships, Aircraft, and Military Personnel, with additional Ammunition, Weaponry, and anything else that is appropriate and necessary for the lethal prosecution and destruction of an already substantially degraded Enemy, will remain in place in, and around, Iran, until such time as the REAL AGREEMENT reached is fully complied with.”
“If for any reason it is not, which is highly unlikely, then the ‘Shootin’ Starts,’ bigger, and better, and stronger than anyone has ever seen before.”
“It was agreed, a long time ago, and despite all of the fake rhetoric to the contrary - NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS and, the Strait of Hormuz WILL BE OPEN & SAFE.”
“In the meantime our great Military is Loading Up and Resting, looking forward, actually, to its next Conquest.”
Kickstart your passion project with a free trial today: Squarespace & enter offer code “Phil” to get 10% off your first purchase!
-
But of all the threats and bluster Trump’s throwing around, this thing with the Catholic Church has got to be one of the craziest.
With his people allegedly saying, we’ve got the biggest military on Earth, we can do whatever we want, and you better side with us … or else.
Now for context here, the new Pope Leo the fourteenth has been very critical of the Trump administration over the past year, first condemning its immigration policy, then its foreign policy.
With the Pope delivering his first State of the World Address a few days after the invasion of Venezuela. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 11:43 - 11:54] Caption: “A diplomacy that promotes dialogue and seeks consensus among all parties is being replaced by a diplomacy based on force.”
Well, apparently Trump’s people didn’t like that, so they decided to give the Holy See a piece of their mind.
With the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, a close ally of JD Vance who was nominated by Trump, inviting the Vatican’s then envoy to the U.S., Cardinal Christophe Pierre, to the Pentagon for a meeting. [Image and image]
Then, according to The Free Press, Vatican officials claim that War Department brass “picked apart” the Pope’s speech, taking issue with what they understood to be a challenge to Trump’s so-called Donroe Doctrine. [Quote]
With the sources describing it as a “bitter lecture” which warned them that the United States has the military power to do whatever it wants—and that the Church had better take its side. [Quote]
In fact, the report claims that at one point, a military official even invoked the Avignon Papacy [Pronounce 00:44], a period in the fourteenth century when the French monarchy dominated the Church. [Quote, find “Papacy”]
Right, literally, King Philip the fourth accused the Pope of heresy, blasphemy, sodomy and sorcery, then sent his henchmen to kidnap him.
Now a Pentagon official confirmed that this meeting did take place, but stated:
“The Free Press’s characterization of the meeting is highly exaggerated and distorted. The meeting between Pentagon and Vatican officials was a respectful and reasonable discussion. We have nothing but the highest regard and welcome continued dialogue with the Holy See.” [Quote]
And then when someone asked JD Vance about it during his trip to Hungary, all he said was …
[Clip, 00:40 - 00:55] Caption: “I’ve never seen this reporting. I’d like to actually talk to Cardinal Christophe Pierre and frankly to our people to figure out what actually happened. I think it’s always a bad idea to offer opinions on stories that are unconfirmed and uncorroborated, so I’m not gonna do that.”
But whatever happened in that meeting, one thing’s for sure: this government and this Church do not get along.
Right, reportedly some inside the Vatican, including Pope Leo himself, have Benn startled by the Trump administration’s depictions of a warlike God who picks sides. [Quote, find “startled”]
Whether it’s Trump claiming to speak for God himself, as if he spoke to him on the phone just the other night … [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 02:49 - 03:04] Caption: [Reporter:] “Do you believe that God supports the United States’ actions in this war?” [Donald Trump:] “I do Because God is good, because God is good, and God wants to see people taken care of. God doesn’t like what’s happening. I don’t like what’s happening. Everyone says I enjoy it. I don’t enjoy this.”
… or the Evangelical pastor Franklin Graham saying this crazy shit during a Pentagon prayer service for Christmas …
[Clip, 19:37 - 19:48] Caption: “We know that God loves, but did you know that God also hates? Do you know that God also is a God of war?”
… Or Trump’s spiritual advisor Paula White comparing Trump to Jesus Christ himself …
[Clip, 01:55 - 02:07, 02:32 - 02:42] Caption: “You were betrayed, and arrested, and falsely accused. It’s a familiar pattern that our lord and savior showed us. … And I believe that the lord said to tell you this. Because of his victory, you will be victorious in all you put your hand to.”
… Or just yesterday, Pete Hegseth thanking divine intervention for the brief ceasefire …
[Clip, 09:33 - 09:53, 09:58 - 10:01] Caption: “Our troops, our American warriors, deserve the credit for this day. But God deserves all the glory. Tens of thousands of sorties, refuelings, and strikes carried out under the protection of divine providence, a massive effort with miraculous protection. … God is good.”
Meanwhile, over in Rome, Pope Leo has consistently delivered the exact opposite message, saying on Palm Sunday …
[Clip, 00:08 - 00:31] Caption: “Brothers and sisters, this is our God, Jesus, king of peace, who rejects war, who no one can use to justify war. He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war but rejects them, saying, ‘Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood.’”
… Then on Easter Sunday …
[Clip, 00:47 - 00:56] Caption: “‘let those who have weapons lay them down,’ he said. ‘Let those who have the power to unleash wars choose peace.’”
… Then, after Trump’s “a whole civilization will die tonight” post … [Post]
[Clip, 00:00 - 00:08] Caption: “Today, as we all know, there has also been this threat against the entire people of Iran. And this is truly unacceptable.”
… And most recently, he even called for political opposition.
[Clip, 01:20 - 01:36] Caption: “I would invite the citizens of all the countries involved to contact the authorities, political leaders, Congressmen, to ask them, tell them to work for peace and to reject war.”
Now even with all that, the Pope has very notably refrained from singling out Trump directly.
With one senior Vatican official telling The Washington Post that Leo’s generally opposed to any and all who would seek to instrumentalize God for war. [Quote, find “instrument”]
But at the same time, the Free Press reports that when the White House invited him to America’s 250th birthday this summer, the Pope declined. [Quote, find “declined”]
This reportedly over a “mix of foreign policy disagreements, the increasingly vocal opposition of U.S. bishops to Trump’s immigration policy, and a reluctance to become a political bargaining chip in the 2026 midterms.” [Quote same link]
So instead, the Pope will spend July 4 on the Mediterranean island of Lampedusa, a waypoint for African refugees reaching Europe.
In fact, one Vatican official told The Free Press, “The Pope may well never visit the United States under this administration.” [Quote]
Which is about as clear a message as you can get, though still these more direct criticisms tend to come from bishops and others underneath the Pope rather than Leo himself.
And recently we’ve seen some right-wing Christians totally tearing off the kid gloves.
With Candice Owens outright claiming and Tucker Carlson strongly implying that Trump and his administration are Satanic.
Speaking of which, Owens said in response to the Free Press report about the Pentagon meeting:
“Assuming this is true, we need to know who specifically in the White House threatened the Vatican envoy. The actual names of the individuals involved should be known to the public.” [Post]
So it seems now like the political opposition to Trump, even from those within his own party, is increasingly becoming a religious opposition.
But it’s still too early to judge what that might mean for his electoral prospects this year and in 2028.
-
Then getting back to the news, Pam Bondi is trying to wiggle out of her subpoena over the Epstein files!
Right, after Bondi got the boot from her position as attorney general, it looked like she was still going to appear before the House Oversight Committee next week as expected.
With the committee’s ranking member Robert Garcia saying at the time,
“She will not escape accountability. She must answer for her mishandling of the Epstein files and the special treatment she has given Ghislaine Maxwell.” []
But it seems that may not be happening after all - with reports coming out saying despite the subpoena requiring her presence, the DOJ is trying to get her out of it. []
With the Assistant Attorney General Patrick Davis writing a letter to the committee’s chairman James Comer, arguing that Bondi isn’t the attorney general anymore so she shouldn’t be expected to appear.
“Ms. Bondi no longer holds that office. As a result, because Ms. Bondi no longer can testify in her official capacity as Attorney General, the Department’s position is that the subpoena no longer obligates her to appear on April 14. We kindly ask that you confirm that the subpoena is withdrawn.” []
But it doesn’t look like she’s getting off the hook - with a spokesperson for the committee saying they will, quote, “contact Pam Bondi’s personal counsel to discuss next steps regarding scheduling her deposition.” []
And you’ve got both Democrats and Republicans insisting she needs to answer to them regardless.
With Nancy Mace saying on X that the subpoena was, quote “for Bondi by name, not by title” - adding,
“The American people deserve answers, and we expect her to appear as soon as a new date is set.” []
With her and Ro Khanna sending their own letter to Comer saying,
“The removal of Pam Bondi as Attorney General does not diminish the Committee’s legitimate oversight interests in seeking her sworn testimony or the need for accountability and information about files withheld from the public by the DOJ. On the contrary, it makes her sworn testimony even more important.” []
And Garcia agreed, accusing Bondi of “trying to get out of her legal obligation to testify" - and saying,
“If she defies the subpoena, we will begin contempt charges in the Congress. The survivors deserve justice.” []
Now, in order for contempt charges to stick, he would need the support of at least 3 Republicans on the committee and a vote by the full House. []
But considering that Bondi doesn’t seem to have many supporters at the moment, that may be easier to make happen then you’d expect.
For his part, chairman James Comer has said he isn’t sure how to proceed - saying he wants to talk to Republicans over the weekend before making a decision.
Though at the moment, he says he plans on moving forward with the subpoena. []
And a spokesperson for the DOJ has said the agency, quote, “remains committed to working cooperatively with the Committee.” []
And we haven’t gotten any sort of response from Bondi herself.
So we’ll really just have to wait and see how this shakes out from here.
Right, whether Bondi will make her appearance next week or later or not at all.
But while this committee is squaring up to Pam Bondi, Republicans in Virginia are trying a new approach to keeping their seats in Congress.
Use code “PHIL10” for 10% OFF your first SeatGeekorder & returning buyers use code “DEFRANCO” for $10 off AND your chance at weekly $500 prizes! SeatGeek
-
Right, specifically, they’re gearing up for a referendum that will make-or-break Democrats in the state.
And a few weeks ahead of the vote, Republican PACs began using Klan imagery in what many are calling a blatant attempt to confuse Black voters at the polls. []
Now, Democrats are scrambling to explain what’s really at stake with little time and resources left.
Meanwhile, government officials are pointing fingers, leaving voters wondering whether their voice will even count after this.
The referendum on April 21st decides if Virginia will redraw district maps in Democrats’ favor. []
It would allow Virginia to create 10 districts whose voters favored Kamala Harris in 2024 and one that favored Trump. []
This would also mean their two Black representatives would keep their seats.
And bipartisan maps would be redrawn in 2030.
Republicans have sued, pushing claims that the new maps would disenfranchise rural voters by tying them to liberal districts. []
And last month, “Democracy and Justice,” a Republican-aligned political action committee, sent out mailers essentially trying to align Democrats with the KKK, taking things to a whole new level. [] []
The mailers say, “Our ancestors fought to represent us. Now, Richmond politicians are trying to take our districts away. Just like Jim Crow, they want to silence your voice.”
They also use old statements from Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger and Barack Obama to suggest that they’re against this new referendum. [] []
“It tells you that they’re desperate. They’re desperate to try to confuse individuals. All the deceitful laws and propaganda that they’re publishing – I know President Obama cannot be pleased about this.” (:57-1:14)
Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones said, “These ads deliberately exploit the history of Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement to mislead Black voters and suppress participation.”
Now, Democracy and Justice is led by former state delegate A.C. Cordoza (Core-doza-ah pronunciation 1:40).
He said, “If [Democrats] don’t like what the mailer represents, they should not be doing the actions that the mailer represents, period. They’re having a hard time dealing with it because it reflects upon them, and they’re not used to being held accountable.”
Jeff Ryer (Rye-er pronunciation :04), chairman of the Virginia Republican Party, denied seeing the mailers or having any involvement with Democracy and Justice.
But he defended them using quotes from Obama and Spanberger, saying, “They were against gerrymandering before they were for it.”
And he then pointed the finger back at Democrats for running a deceptive campaign because the referendum reportedly only asks voters if they want to draw new maps to “restore fairness.” []
The truth is that this redistricting effort has been tossed around by both sides.
“If you look at what’s going on with redistricting, the Democrats have done it way before we started.” (1:09-1:18)
But, to be clear, Democrats have no choice but to use redistricting and gerrymandering to their advantage, as Republicans in other states started this gerrymandering war.
Take North Carolina, Missouri, and Texas, for example.
Virginia’s referendum is responding to map changes in those states. []
As far as this being deceptive, polls show that 79 percent of Black voters and 72 percent of voters overall understand that the redistricting would benefit Democrats. []
So people seem clear on what’s happening here.
However, only 52 percent of voters overall support it.
And with a margin that narrow, Democrats fear these mailers could tip the scales.
Rep. Robert C. Scott said, “The problem with misinformation is, if you don’t respond to it, people will believe it. So we gotta’ spend time responding to this nonsense when we should be out campaigning.”
For example, it was only after Trump’snewredistrictingpush that people like Obama started to support it in blue states.
So, now, officials are asking the former president to visit Virginia to make his position clear. []
Spanberger also spoke out.
“I have made it very clear that I support a ‘yes’ vote. There are seven-figure ad buys with my face, direct to camera, encouraging people to vote yes. And I think Virginians should vote yes.” (:51-1:08)
So all of this requires time and money to iron out.
However, Democrats haven’t lost hope, raising nearly $50 million for their efforts.
Although Republicans have started to see more cash flow on their side as well.
So, while things are unclear right now, what we do know is that Republicans wouldn’t be making moves like this if they weren’t worried about upcoming elections.
“They’re so blatant in admitting that they’re likely to lose the congressional elections next year unless they can rig the districts.” (2:00-2:05)
Meanwhile, Trump seems to think these new maps are owed to him.
“It’s funny because I won Indiana all three times by a landslide. And I wasn’t working on it very hard. It would’ve been nice. I think we would’ve picked up two seats if we did that.” (:19-:29)
And he’s made it clear that, for him, it all comes down to congressional seats.
“I won Texas. I got the highest vote in the history of Texas, and we are entitled to five more seats.” (:28-:35)
As for my thoughts, I think it’s low to strike such a visceral fear in an electorate, especially when Republicans have been so openly working to take their political power away.
I also think this shows the dire need for some type of political literacy across the country to help people understand how this type of propaganda works, so they aren’t literally voting their voices away.
The NAACP held a town hall in Virginia to help voters understand misinformation in political ads, with more outreach coming as the vote approaches.
So I wonder what that would look like on a national scale for upcoming elections.
But for now, as early voting is already underway, things are still up in the air.
And whatever happens will make a big difference as we move forward.
-
And then, for the in the last bit of news we need to talk about today, a former Army employee who detailed the sexual harassment and gender discrimination she experienced at Fort Bragg was just arrested by the FBI for leaking classified information.
In a press release, the DOJ identified her as 40-year-old Courtney Williams, who worked for a Special Military Unit from 2010 to 2016. []
As part of her job, she had top secret security clearance, and was trained in how to handle and store sensitive information.
But the DOJ alleges that she mishandled information between 2022 and 2025 when she communicated with a journalist about her experiences.
She is accused of speaking with the reporter for over 10 hours on the phone and exchanging over 180 messages for a book and article he was working on.
And while the DOJ did not name the reporter or book in question, Williams is a source in “The Fort Bragg Cartel,” an investigative book about unsolved murders, drug trafficking, and other crimes at the base. []
An excerpt including Williams’ accounts was also published in Politico, with Williams discussing her job overseeing valid but fictitious passports, identity documents, and financial tools for people working under cover.
And the book includes some of the details of her job, as well as accounts of harassment she faced while working.
Operators would allegedly routinely come to her office to proposition her for sex, discuss her breasts, and drunkenly propose to her.
A commander also once told her she was only “hired for [her] assets” while gesturing at the chest level.
And in another instance, she said she had to undergo a dress code check where she was told to bend over to determine if her white pants were transparent enough to see her underwear,
A check she believes was only conducted to humiliate her.
And the report claims that faced retaliation once she filed a formal complaint, with her saying:
“my life became a living hell.”
Though, according to the report, she did eventually agree to a settlement.
And now that she has been arrested, Seth Harp, the journalist and author who wrote the book, is condemning the FBI for going after his source.[]
Calling her:
“a courageous whistleblower who exposed rampant gender discrimination and sexual harassment in the US Army's Delta Force.”
And also adding:
“Unlike many of my sources, she was adamant that she be quoted by name and made no attempt to conceal her identity because her actions were entirely above-board, legitimate, and admirable.”
He also claimed that the DOJ’s indictment is ridden with factual errors and lacks specifics about what confidential information she actually revealed.
Arguing that Williams was arrested:
“not to protect such information from disclosure but to retaliate against a woman who only sought to improve workplace conditions for female soldiers and civilian employees of the military. Ironically, while the FBI was monitoring my phone and investigating Courtney on vague and weak charges, the perpetrators of half a dozen murders involving Fort Bragg soldiers involved in the drug trade have gone entirely unsolved. A real police agency would go after real criminals instead of engaging in this sort of penny-ante political theater.”
But the DOJ maintains it has a case.
In its release it alleges that Williams herself sent messages expressing concern over the amount of classified information being disclosed, fearing she could face serious consequences. []
In one message to a different third party, she allegedly wrote that she was “probably going to jail for life.”
And so you had Kash Patel writing that this case should:[]
“serve as a message to any would-be leakers: we’re working these cases, and we’re making arrests. This FBI will not tolerate those who seek to betray our country and put Americans in harm’s way.”
With this coming as Trump has been making threats about arresting reporters who leak classified military information.
Specifically, he slammed reports detailing the status of the pilots of the jet that was shot down in Iran.
“We have to find that leaker because that’s a sick person. Probably didn’t realize the extent of how bad it was, I can’t imagine that person did. But we are going to find out, it’s national security, and the person that did the story will go to jail if he doesn’t say.” (2:46-3:04)
“We think we’ll be able to find it out because we’re going to go to the media company that released it and say, ‘national security, give it up or go to jail.’” (1:25-1:36)
And those comments from Trump faced a ton of criticism, with the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute saying:[]
"President Trump’s threat should be understood as an effort to intimidate the press and to prevent journalists from doing work the public needs them to do.”
And so as always, I would love to know your thoughts on this one.
![[]](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/FODECMQRNGQRV6FOLJF3ETYDG4_size-normalized.jpg&w=1440&impolicy=high_res){kind=link}
![[]](https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/4683318021664349298-2048x1351.jpg){kind=link}
![[]](https://rvamag.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Jim-Crow-Mailers_RVA-Magazine-2026-2-1536x1015.jpg){kind=link}
