George Soros’ Network Bankrolling ‘No Kings’ Protests: Repo
WASHINGTON, D.C. — As tens of thousands of demonstrators prepare to descend on the nation's capital and cities across the country this Saturday, new disclosures have revealed that the "No Kings" protest movement is being heavily bankrolled by the extensive network of billionaire investor George Soros. Financial records and grant data show that Soros-linked organizations are providing millions of dollars to the groups organizing the rallies, sparking intense scrutiny from the Trump administration and congressional Republicans.
The protests, which Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and other top Democrats plan to join, are being managed on the ground by Indivisible, a progressive organization that has received over $7.6 million from Soros’ network since its inception in 2017.
The Paper Trail: $3 Million in "Social Welfare"
Public filings and recent reports have shed light on the massive influx of cash fueling the "No Kings" movement. According to IRS records and archived grant data:
The 2023 Grant: Soros’ Open Society Action Fund issued a two-year, $3 million grant to Indivisible specifically to support "social welfare activities."
Historical Funding: Since 2017, the Open Society Foundations (OSF) have provided Indivisible with more than $7.6 million.
The Tides Connection: In 2017, Indivisible also received $350,000 from Tides Advocacy, an arm of the Tides Network which has been criticized for funding campus unrest and anti-Israel demonstrations.
“There’s considerable evidence that George Soros and his network are behind funding these rallies, which may well be riots,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) warned in a recent interview. Cruz has introduced the STOP FUNDERs Act, which aims to authorize the DOJ to use RICO statutes to prosecute organizations that fund violent protests.
Deepening Organizational Ties
The relationship between the Soros network and the "No Kings" organizers goes beyond simple grants. Investigators have pointed to "revolving door" leadership between the two entities:
Leah Greenberg: The executive co-director of Indivisible previously served as policy director for Tom Perriello, who later became the executive director of the Open Society Foundations from 2018 to 2023.
Global Influence: Soros’ foundations report having distributed over $32 billion globally to advance "open societies"—a mission critics call a front for radical left-wing agitation.
A spokesperson for the Open Society Foundations defended the grants to Fox News Digital, stating that they support "independent organizations that work to deepen civic engagement" and that the foundations do not "dictate or manage" how recipients operate.
“This politicized march is being organized by Soros operatives and funded by Soros money,” Sen. Cruz stated. “The Trump administration and the Republican Congress are committed to countering this network of left-wing violence.”
May you like
"TRAITOR": Top DHS Official Arrested for Leaking Sensitive Border Intel!
OMAR'S HUSBAND EXPOSED: Secret Wine Industry Stakes Linked to Foreign Cash?
Why the 2026 Midterms Could Be the End of the "Squad" Forever.
A Call for Investigation
The funding reveal has triggered immediate action from GOP lawmakers. Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA) sent a formal letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, urging an immediate investigation into Soros-backed groups. Carter cited reports that Soros’ foundations distributed more than $80 million to organizations accused of endorsing domestic extremism.
While Indivisible’s protest guide emphasizes "peaceful" assembly, Republican leaders remain concerned about the potential for violence as the "No Kings" rallies fill the streets this weekend. For the Trump administration, the focus remains on "Law and Order" and ensuring that billionaires cannot use their wealth to incite political instability in 2026.
Former President Joe Biden Autopen Author Finally Revealed After New Emails LEAK
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In what President Donald Trump is calling one of the "single biggest political scandals in American history," a devastating new leak of internal White House emails has confirmed that former Chief of Staff Jeff Zients—not Joe Biden—authorized the robotic execution of thousands of pardons in the final hours of the previous administration. The bombshell emails prove that the autopen, an automated signature machine, was used to shield radical allies and unelected bureaucrats from facing justice under the current administration.
The documents reveal that at 10:31 p.m. on January 19, 2025, just hours before President Trump’s historic inauguration, Zients issued a final order for the robotic pen to stamp the president's name on a massive list of clemency acts. "I approve the use of the autopen for the execution of all of the following pardons," Zients wrote, effectively bypassing the physical involvement of the Commander-in-Chief.
The Protection Racket: Shielding Fauci and Milley
The primary beneficiaries of this "robotic mercy" were controversial figures the Trump administration had vowed to hold accountable. Internal logs show that the autopen finalized preemptive pardons for Dr. Anthony Fauci and General Mark Milley, both of whom have faced intense scrutiny for their roles in pandemic mandates and the catastrophic 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal.
Fauci's Immunity: The pardon ensures the "architect of mandates" escapes federal prosecution for his role in pandemic-era policies.
-
Milley's Shelter: The general, accused of undermining civilian control of the military, was protected from accountability for the 13 lives lost in Kabul.
Mass Clemency Surge: According to the Pew Research Center, the Biden administration issued 4,245 acts of clemency. Shockingly, 96% of these were granted between October 2024 and January 20, as the administration scrambled to protect its own before losing power.
“I guarantee you he knew nothing about what he was signing,” President Trump told reporters. “This was a protection racket orchestrated by a political machine that lied to the public for years.”
Bondi Drops the Hammer: A Federal Inquiry
Attorney General Pam Bondi has officially launched a full-scale federal inquiry into the use of the autopen, focusing on whether it was utilized to conceal Joe Biden’s severe mental and cognitive incapacity. The DOJ is investigating the potential unconstitutional abuse of Article II authority, arguing that the power of the presidency cannot be delegated to a machine or a Chief of Staff.
The probe will examine:
The Approval Process: Whether Biden personally reviewed any of the 4,245 clemency acts.
Cognitive Concealment: If the autopen was used specifically to maintain the illusion of a functioning president while unelected handlers made the decisions.
The 10:31 p.m. Mandate: The legal standing of Zients’ final authorization on the eve of the inauguration.
“The era of the Deep State hiding behind a robotic pen is officially over,” a White House spokesperson stated. “The American people were shielded from the truth, but true justice is finally returning.”
"""My husband brought his mistress to our daughter’s wedding—and then asked me to give her my seat beside him.
"""My husband brought his mistress to our daughter’s wedding—and then asked me to give her my seat beside him. For a few seconds, I honestly thought I was looking at the wrong table, because my name card had vanished and Melissa’s was sitting exactly where mine had been on every seating chart. She wore a pale blue silk dress, lifted her champagne as if she belonged there, and avoided my eyes when I stopped beside the chair. David stood up, pointed to an empty seat at the next table, and quietly said, “For tonight, why don’t you sit over there?”
I had spent fourteen months helping our daughter, Emily, plan that wedding, from dress fittings and florist meetings to late-night calls over napkins and seating charts. That morning, while I fastened the pearl buttons on her gown, she made me promise I would enjoy the day and not let anything between her father and me touch it. I meant that promise, because whatever was left of my marriage, I would not make my daughter’s wedding the battlefield where it died. But David had apparently made a different plan, and he expected me to cooperate with it in silence.
When I asked what Melissa was doing there, David’s face showed guilt for only a second before he hid it behind irritation. He acted as though I were creating the problem simply by noticing that his mistress was seated at the family table in the place reserved for the bride’s mother. Then Melissa looked at me and said, “Honey, today really isn’t the day to make Emily uncomfortable.” I almost laughed, because the woman who had been sleeping with my husband for nearly a year was now warning me not to embarrass my own daughter.
I could feel people settling into nearby seats, laughing and talking, unaware that my marriage was being quietly rearranged in front of them. David kept his voice low and told me we should not “do this here,” as if the humiliation belonged to me because I refused to disappear politely. I looked at the empty chair he had chosen for me between a cousin and someone from the groom’s side, and I realized something colder than anger. This was not spontaneous; he had thought about where Melissa would sit, and he had assumed I would move.
For twenty-eight years, I had been the woman who adjusted, explained, forgave, and made excuses when David forgot anniversaries, missed dinners, or put work ahead of family. When he became distant, I learned to expect less instead of asking for more, and somewhere along the way he mistook that patience for permission. Even now, part of me considered taking the other chair, smiling for photographs, swallowing the humiliation, and telling myself it was all for Emily. I actually reached for the chair because protecting my daughter still mattered more to me than winning a public fight.
Then I heard one word behind me: “Mom?” Emily was walking toward us in her wedding dress, still glowing from the ceremony, and at first she looked confused rather than angry. Her eyes moved from me, to the empty chair, to Melissa, then back to the family table where she had personally placed me months ago. David quickly stepped in and announced that he had “rearranged a few things,” as if changing the bride’s seating chart without permission were no more serious than moving a centerpiece.
Emily asked why I was not sitting in my seat, and David casually pointed to the neighboring table and said I would be sitting “right there.” Her smile disappeared, and her eyes dropped to the place card in front of Melissa. I watched my daughter’s expression go completely still as she picked up that card and turned it over in her hand. In that instant, I understood the worst part: Emily had not approved this, and David had brought his mistress into our daughter’s wedding believing he could force everyone to accept what he wanted once it was already done.
What Emily did not know was that six months earlier, I had discovered David’s affair through a message that appeared on his phone while he was in the shower. Melissa had written, “I hate pretending I don’t miss you when she’s around,” followed by another message asking whether Friday was still theirs. When I confronted him, David spent eleven minutes calling me paranoid, insecure, dramatic, suspicious, and unfair before I repeated Melissa’s words exactly. The silence that followed ended our marriage long before either of us ever said the word divorce.
We had kept the details quiet because Emily was planning her wedding, and I refused to turn her happiest season into a crisis about us. David told me he was “confused,” that what he had with Melissa was “more complicated than an affair,” and that he needed time before making decisions. I agreed only that Emily’s wedding came first, so we slept in separate rooms, spoke carefully, and tried to appear functional while our marriage quietly collapsed. I believed David understood that one day required restraint, but he had apparently used that silence to prepare something else.
Three weeks before the wedding, he had casually asked whether Emily had finalized the family table and whether every seat had been assigned. At the time, I thought it was harmless conversation, but standing there with Melissa’s card in my daughter’s hand, I finally understood why he had asked. He had been checking whether there would be room, and when there was not, he simply removed me. Emily looked up at her father and asked, very quietly, “Where is Mom’s place card?”—and for the first time that night, David had no easy answer.
…FULL STORY IN THE COMMENT 👇👇👇"" "
