Images show the Skydio X10 drone igniting and the burned airframe left on the pavement during an August public safety demonstration in Snohomish County, Washington. Photos obtained by The Zero Lux.

This article has been updated to include newly obtained documentation from South County Fire regarding the August Skydio X10 incident.

The Zero Lux has confirmed that a Skydio X10 drone operating during a regional Drone First Responder trial in Snohomish County crashed and caught fire in August. Photos obtained by The Zero Lux show the airframe engulfed in flames and the burned remains on the pavement after extinguishment. Multiple public-safety sources initially raised concerns about the incident, and those accounts can now be compared with the agency’s newly released documentation.

An executive summary published by South County Fire describes the crash as taking place on August 12 during a week-long RTIC and DFR pilot program involving Skydio, Flock, Axon, and nearly every local law enforcement agency. According to the document, the X10 “impacted a tree branch” before losing control, crashing in the street, and catching fire.

The summary states that “full telemetry data [was] not available” and characterizes the cause as preliminary, citing sun glare, dense tree cover, high-speed flight, and a possible battery puncture on impact. The agency notes that Skydio recommended parachute-deployment systems to reduce the severity of ground impacts and improve safety in future operations.

This official account aligns with certain details visible in the photographs but leaves unanswered questions that several operators raised privately. One veteran public-safety drone operator told The Zero Lux that newer X10 battery units sourced outside China have shown more instability in the field, describing them as “seeming to explode a lot.” That claim has not been independently verified, and the executive summary attributes ignition solely to crash forces rather than a spontaneous battery failure. Still, the lack of recovered telemetry and the precise sequence of events remain unclear, making it difficult to confirm the extent to which environmental conditions, system behavior, or battery resilience contributed to the fire.

The report also notes that Skydio drones flew the overwhelming majority of missions during the pilot week. Out of 230 total flights, 182 were conducted by Skydio. Flock’s system withdrew after the second day due to infrastructure and connectivity limitations, leaving Skydio responsible for nearly all DFR deployments. That concentrated operational load increases the likelihood of documenting both best case performance and failure points, though the agency does not explicitly address whether the X10’s autonomous avoidance system responded as intended before the tree strike.

No public NTSB docket currently lists a Skydio-related incident in Snohomish County for the relevant period. This absence does not confirm whether a report was filed. Drone-related cases often take months to appear in the public database, and recent federal disruptions have slowed the release of aviation records. South County Fire’s summary also makes no reference to federal reporting, leaving the status of any notification unknown. The release of the executive summary provides the first official explanation of the August X10 fire, but it leaves open a set of questions that operators and agencies will need to confront as DFR programs expand. High-speed autonomous flight near trees, the reliability of newer battery assemblies, the availability of telemetry during crash investigations, and the procedures around federal reporting are all central to evaluating the safety of these systems in real-world conditions.

If you have direct knowledge of this incident or others like it, you may contact The Zero Lux securely contact@thezerolux.com or seanmcampbell@proton.me 

On July 7, 2025, a Texas Army National Guard UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter struck a Texas Department of Public Safety drone during flood-response operations along the Guadalupe River near Kerrville. The helicopter landed safely. Early speculation in the community and on social media focused on the idea of a rogue civilian drone operator flying recklessly during an emergency. Some of DJI's biggest critics and U.S. Drone manufacturers ran with the narrative. The 241 page investigative incident report obtained by The Zero Lux after a final Attorney General ruling, confirmed that the drone belonged to Texas DPS, was flying an authorized mission, lost GPS and command link shortly after launch, and was no longer within visual line of sight when the collision occurred.

According to DroneSense telemetry included in the report, Trooper Kendall Gray launched a DJI Mavic 3T labeled THPPP42 at approximately 3:56 p.m. from a roadside area on Lazy Creek Road. The drone climbed to roughly 211 feet, consistent with a 200-foot operational altitude used for flood-mapping assignments. The DroneSense record shows the aircraft began moving east along the river, but within about two minutes of launch it lost GPS, then lost its control link. DroneSense telemetry shows the aircraft traveled roughly half a mile downriver from the launch point before the collision, a distance that could not have been maintained under visual line of sight. At that distance, the drone would not have been visible to an operator standing at the launch point, especially at low altitude along a tree lined river. Gray attempted to activate return to home (RTH), but the connection was not restored. In a recorded interview summarized by Texas Ranger Alan Rackley, Gray acknowledged that he did not maintain visual line of sight as the drone continued downriver after the signal loss.

At roughly the same time, an Army National Guard UH-60 crewed by CW2 Carmichael was flying westbound along the same river corridor at approximately 250 feet. According to the Ranger’s summary, the helicopter crew reported that the Joint Air Ground Coordination Team (JAGCT) had told them drones operating in the area would be flying at or below 150 feet. This altitude guidance was incorrect. DPS drones in the region were operating around 200 feet, and the DroneSense data shows the Mavic 3T at about 211 feet shortly before impact. The Ranger report also documents that the helicopter crew announced their position on CTAF 123.025 as they flew the river.

The DPS drone team told investigators that they were monitoring radio traffic but heard no helicopter calls. The packet clarifies what happened: Gray was listening to 122.7, while his partner, Trooper Bustamante, monitored 123.025. The helicopter broadcast on 123.025. This frequency split meant the pilot in command of the drone was not listening to the same air-to-air channel as the helicopter crew. The Ranger report does not assign intent or fault regarding frequency selection, but the sequence is clear: the aircraft were on different channels, and no one heard the other’s transmissions.

The helicopter crew reported seeing the drone at approximately eye level and initiated a descent to avoid it. During that maneuver, the drone struck the helicopter’s tail rotor, damaging two blades. The UH-60 made a precautionary landing in a nearby clearing. Maintenance personnel inspected and rebalanced the rotor before the crew flew the aircraft back to Kerrville Airport. Ranger Rackley documented the debris field, photographed the recovered pieces, and collected evidence including the drone’s arm, motor, and cabling. His findings matched the DroneSense logs: the drone did not stall, did not rapidly climb above its assignment, and was on its programmed flood-survey path when it lost GPS and link.

The internal DPS report includes an early summary that mistakenly listed the drone as a Mavic 2, reflecting confusion in the immediate aftermath. Later records, photographs, and the physical debris all confirm the aircraft was a Mavic 3T. Internal communication also shows that Gray did not know at the time of the flight that his aircraft had struck the helicopter; he learned about the mid-air collision from a DPS UAS group chat. The Human Factors section of DPS’s risk assessment lists “PoorCommunication” as a contributing element in the incident.

DPS grounded all drone operations in the region the following day. A multi-agency directive was later issued formalizing deconfliction procedures, including altitude separation rules and explicit requirements for radio coordination between UAS operators and crewed aircraft. The directive also established a new protocol requiring pilots to announce “UAS flyaway, UAS flyaway, UAS flyaway” on airband frequencies in the event of link loss. The investigative packet shows this call was not made on July 7, and no alert was broadcast on the Joint Air Ground Coordination Team channel during the loss of GPS and link.

In the days following the collision, DPS Aviation personnel documented the drone’s maintenance history and submitted the information to the FAA. Inspector Garry Mitcham noted that DPS maintained a thorough and active maintenance program, and no mechanical issues were identified with the drone prior to the flight. FAA Safety Team Manager Ryan Newman wrote in an email to DPS that the collision fit into a pattern of helicopter-UAS conflicts nationally and would likely be recorded as “helicopter/UAS collision number 18” in the FAA’s internal safety case files. In the same correspondence, FAA Supervisor Emma Morales stated that the agency did not intend to initiate any administrative or enforcement action and would use the information for safety outreach and training.

Public understanding of the event developed differently. Because no technical details were released immediately, early assumptions filled the void. When The Zero Lux first contacted the City of Kerrville for clarification on July 22, the city said it had no information and that DPS held the investigation. On July 23, during a legislative hearing on the Hill Country floods, state officials briefly stated the drone was authorized but also commented that it had “flown too high and stalled.” That phrasing does not appear in any of the DPS, FAA, or NTSB records. Multirotor drones do not stall in the aerodynamic sense, and the investigative materials contain no reference to altitude deviation or stall behavior.

On July 30, the City of Kerrville posted a clarification acknowledging that the drone involved in the collision was an authorized DPS aircraft. The same post repeated the “flew too high and stalled” language. Comments were disabled. When contacted the following day, the city’s public information officer said he had first learned of the corrected information by reading a news article and had not received the technical findings from DPS. The 241 page incident report released months later contains no evidence supporting either claim from the city’s statement.

During the July 15 congressional hearing and the July 23 state legislative hearing, industry representatives cited the Kerrville collision as an example of the risks posed by unauthorized civilian drones. Both DroneUp and AUVSI later acknowledged their testimony was based on incorrect early information, but neither organization has issued a public correction or clarified the record in the forums where their initial statements were made. The investigative records do not support any of the claims made during those hearings.

The investigative incident report provided to The Zero Lux were released only after the Texas Attorney General issued ruling OR2025-037720 on October 20 and instructed DPS on which materials must be disclosed. The report includes DroneSense logs, evidence-collection forms, photographs, internal emails, Ranger summaries, FAA and NTSB correspondence, and the post incident deconfliction directive. All technical information matches the flight data and debris photographed on July 7.

The sequence described across DPS, FAA, NTSB, and Ranger documentation is consistent. The drone was launched for an assigned mission, lost GPS shortly after launch, lost command link, continued downriver beyond visual line of sight, and entered the flight path of a National Guard helicopter operating at a nearby altitude. The helicopter crew relied on altitude guidance from JAGCT that did not match the altitudes DPS drones were actually using. The drone pilot in command monitored a different radio frequency than the helicopter. The two aircraft did not hear each other. The helicopter descended to avoid the drone, and the drone struck the tail rotor.

The early public narrative did not match the technical record. The incident report shows no evidence of a rogue civilian drone, no evidence of a stall, and no evidence that the aircraft exceeded its assigned altitude in any meaningful way. The cause rests with signal loss, a lack of visual line of sight, misaligned radio monitoring, and mismatched altitude expectations during concurrent emergency operations.

The FAA described the Kerrville collision as a learning case, writing that the goal was understanding and to see what lessons can be learned, and noting that it was ‘NOT an enforcement investigation.’

Raising a question: would the FAA have responded the same way if the aircraft had actually been a rogue civilian drone, as was falsely reported? In recent years, the FAA has issued substantial penalties in cases where civilian drone pilots endangered crewed aircraft, including fines for near misses with helicopters and certificate suspensions for flying beyond visual line of sight or entering restricted airspace. In the Kerrville case, FAA correspondence shows the agency classified the event as a safety case, not an enforcement investigation, and focused on what lessons could be learned from the incident.

The Zero Lux will be releasing the full incident report when we finish retracting sensitive materials. Tensions are high, there are non-public phone numbers and emails to law enforcement and aviation experts in this report.

DJI has appealed a Washington, D.C. court decision that allows the U.S. Department of Defense to keep the drone maker on its list of “Chinese military companies.” The appeal, filed this week with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, follows a District Court ruling that upheld the Pentagon’s classification on limited grounds while rejecting several of the government’s broader allegations.

In September, the District Court declined to endorse claims that DJI is owned or controlled by the Chinese Communist Party or tied to China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. The judge instead found that the company contributes to what the Court described as the “Chinese defense industrial base.” Though narrower than the Pentagon’s original rationale, that finding was enough to sustain the designation under Section 1260H of the National Defense Authorization Act.

The designation is symbolic but significant. Being listed as a Chinese military company does not directly impose trade sanctions on the company itself. Yet, it restricts federal investment, complicates procurement, and signals to regulators and contractors that the firm poses a potential national-security risk. DJI has appeared on the Defense Department’s list since 2022 and already faces export-control barriers under the Commerce Department’s Entity List, which limits access to U.S. components and technology.

DJI disputes both the legal and factual basis of the ruling. In a press release issued on October 14, the company said:

“We respect the Court’s process but are disappointed that the designation remains in place despite findings that reject the core of the DoD’s allegations. We will continue to defend the integrity of our company as the findings reaffirm what we have maintained all along — that DJI operates independently, has no government or military affiliation, and is committed to the responsible development of drone technology.” - DJI PR Team

The company’s statement frames the decision as a procedural rather than a substantive one. It argues that the Court found “no basis” for claims of Communist Party ownership or direct state control, and describes the remaining findings—its National Enterprise Technology Center certification and the dual-use nature of drones—as ordinary traits of commercial innovation, not signs of military collaboration.

The Court, however, placed more weight on dual-use implications than DJI acknowledges. The judge noted that DJI’s products serve both civilian and military purposes, a condition Congress considers sufficient for inclusion on the 1260H list. While the ruling confirmed that no evidence ties DJI’s corporate structure to China’s armed forces, it concluded that the company’s technology still supports capabilities applicable to that defense sector.

The decision drew a clear line between ownership and contribution. The Court rejected claims that the Chinese Communist Party indirectly owns or controls DJI but found enough evidence to suggest the company contributes to China’s defense industrial base. The ruling also recognized the commercial impact of that designation. According to DJI, some clients have cut ties, and U.S. Customs officials have delayed imports following separate allegations of forced labor — allegations the company denies.

Sign up for THE ZERO LUX

We See In Total Darkness

Subscribe

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

The appeal arrives amid intensifying U.S. scrutiny of Chinese hardware across critical sectors. Under a law passed last December, federal agencies must complete a national security review of Chinese-made drones by the end of 2025 or face an automatic ban on their import and operation within the United States. DJI said in July that it has received no notice of such a review. The outcome of that process, together with the appeal, will determine whether the company’s commercial drones remain available to American consumers and enterprise users.

The dispute centers on how broadly the U.S. government defines “military company.” The Pentagon’s interpretation extends beyond ownership or direct collaboration to encompass firms whose technology possesses measurable defense value, even if it originated in civilian markets. DJI argues that this reasoning penalizes innovation shared across borders and industries. It points out that its National Enterprise Technology Center designation—a Chinese government certification for advanced research—is also held by companies in the food processing and apparel industries, none of which face military accusations.

The appeal may hinge on how the appellate judges balance statutory intent against the deference owed to administrative agencies. If the D.C. Circuit agrees that dual-use potential alone justifies the listing, DJI’s challenge will likely fail. If the panel requires more substantial proof of active contribution or coordination with China’s armed forces, it could narrow or remand the decision to the Defense Department for clarification.

The case highlights the tension between technology policy and national security, where definitions evolve more rapidly than the law can keep pace. DJI’s drones dominate the global civilian market, used by photographers, infrastructure inspectors, and first responders. The same accessibility that fueled the company’s success has also driven fears that its systems could be repurposed for surveillance or combat.

DJI remains on the Defense Department’s list, and the Court continues to treat its products as contributing—however indirectly—to China’s defense base. The company says it has never built military hardware, marketed drones for combat, or approved modifications that enable such use. Since 2022, DJI has enforced policies that bar distributors from selling to customers who intend to weaponize its products and has warned that it will end partnerships with those who violate these rules.

The appeal tests whether DJI’s current policies and practices satisfy the legal standards behind the Defense Department’s designation. Trade restrictions, federal reviews, and evolving definitions of national security continue to shape how the company operates in the United States. The Court will decide where the boundary lies between civilian and military technology.

At Skydio’s Ascend ’25 event in Santa Cruz County, the skies were anything but clear. As the company unveiled its new prototype drones, video footage shows the companies F10 VTOL dismounting from a Tesla Cyber truck with a robotic arm mounted in the rear, and it flies into what would appear to be thick gray clouds. Adam Bry, CEO of Skydio, called it "fog," but experts do not agree with the verbiage used on stage.

Under FAA Part 107, drone operations must remain clear of clouds and within the pilot’s visual line of sight. Meteorologists and aviation experts confirm that fog is, by definition, a cloud at the surface. If fog extends beyond six feet above ground level, as Advisory Circular 00-6B outlines, it is treated the same as a cloud layer. At Ascend ’25, Skydio’s drones were flying well above that threshold.

Video of Skydio F10 from Ascend 25 getting lost in the Clouds

The question that now hangs over the event is did these flights comply with the waivers Skydio had obtained, or did the company violate federal aviation guidelines?

Every waiver issued under Part 107 carries the same baseline restriction: “Operations into clouds is prohibited. The UAS must remain clear of clouds at all times.”

Skydio received two such waivers tied to its Ascend ’25 event: 107W-2025-02540, approved on September 8, and 107W-2025-03342, approved on September 16 — just one day before the Santa Cruz demonstration. Neither document granted authority to fly in obscured conditions or to operate beyond visual line of sight.

The FAA insists that all waivers move through the same pipeline. In an email to The Zero Lux, spokesperson Rick Breitenfeldt said: “All waivers go through the same process… emergency cases can be prioritized.” But when asked whether a product launch could be treated as an emergency, the FAA has yet to provide a response.

In a poll of Part 107 operators, most said routine waivers take 30 to 90 days. One pilot described a BVLOS request that took nearly a year, requiring “multiple rounds with the FAA.” Another, flying under a federal contract, said they received “no favorable treatment, nor did we request it.”

An industry source familiar with waiver processing described the approval cadence as unusually fast: “Waivers are typically approved in order. If you suddenly see one signed the day before a major corporate event, it raises questions about whether the process is as neutral as advertised.”

Together, the timing and language of Skydio’s waivers suggest a tension between how rules are written and how they are applied. The paperwork explicitly prohibits cloud entry, yet the demonstration went forward in conditions the FAA and meteorologists alike would classify as saturated air that are scientifically classified as "clouds."

Advisory Circular 00-6B,Aviation Weather, defines fog as “a visible aggregate of minute water droplets that are based at the Earth’s surface and reduces horizontal visibility to less than 5/8 statute mile.” A cloud is the same thing with its base above the surface. In practice, the difference is altitude, not substance.

Meteorologists confirm the overlap. Matthew Cappucci of MyRadar explained: “Air at saturation is air at saturation, regardless of altitude.” Caitlin Harvey of KETV-7 in Omaha agreed: “Fog are clouds at the ground level… I would say it’s the equivalent of entering a cloud.”

Skydio’s waiver carried an explicit restriction. Section 13(b) states:

“Operations into clouds is prohibited. The UAS must remain clear of clouds at all times.”

An aviation expert who reviewed the waiver noted that once the drone entered the fog layer, it was operating in conditions the FAA itself defines as cloud. By that standard, the demo had crossed directly into an operation section 13(b) forbids.

A 2020 peer-reviewed study in Atmosphere found that 67 percent of helicopter accidents linked to inadvertent flight into instrument conditions were fatal, underscoring how quickly visibility loss leads to operational failure.

Even Skydio’s own chief executive acknowledged the problem in real time. During the demo, Bry told the audience: “the fog might have confused the drone a little bit.”

Within the drone community, Skydio’s demo raised more questions than it answered. Several industry experts who reviewed the waivers told The Zero Lux the timing of approvals was unusual. Under normal circumstances, they said, waivers are processed in the order they arrive. If one appears to skip the line, it suggests special handling.

One expert familiar with FAA waiver processing explained that operators can wait months for even routine requests, with no option to accelerate the review. “You don’t get to jump ahead of the queue just because you have an event,” the source said. The fact that Skydio secured a waiver the day before its Santa Cruz County launch raised eyebrows among pilots still waiting on applications filed weeks or even months earlier.

“Fog is no different than a cloud when you’re flying in it. That’s why the FAA treats it that way," one expert said. The issue wasn’t only about technical definitions but about precedent. If a leading manufacturer appears to operate in ways the FAA’s own language prohibits, smaller operators may feel the rules are flexible when they are not.

Even those generally supportive of drone integration worried about the signal this sent. “The rules don’t change just because a company has a product launch,” one expert said. “If they can do it on stage, why wouldn’t any UAS operator assume they can too?”

FAA guidance defines fog as a cloud layer at the surface. Skydio’s waivers prohibited operations into clouds. Meteorologists confirmed that fog and clouds are the same phenomenon at different base altitudes. During the Santa Cruz event, CEO Adam Bry acknowledged that “the fog might have confused the drone a little bit.”

Aviation professionals who reviewed the waiver conditions told The Zero Lux that by ascending into what Skydio called fog, the aircraft was operating in conditions the FAA itself classifies as cloud — conditions expressly restricted by Section 13(b). The evidence strongly indicates that the flight was outside the limits of its waiver.

The FAA has yet to dispute this interpretation. Unless the agency provides clarification, it would appear Skydio’s demonstration entered conditions federal rules prohibit.

It is fashionable in Silicon Valley to speak about patriotism in the language of venture capital. Where founders once pitched photo-sharing apps, they now speak of “hard problems” and “American dynamism.” The frame is powerful: by investing in domestic makers of drones, these firms claim to be rebuilding American strength, protecting first responders, and insulating critical infrastructure from Chinese risk. But beneath the marketing lies a clearer picture — one of capital flows, policy capture, and a well-oiled lobbying machine that has reshaped U.S. drone procurement to enrich the pockets of those same venture capitalists.

Andreessen Horowitz has been the loudest of the group. Its “American Dynamism” program explicitly promises to back companies that “support the national interest… including public safety.” Skydio, the California drone maker, is showcased as a model investment. When the firm pivoted out of consumer drones in 2023 and repositioned as a supplier to law enforcement and defense, the timing was not accidental. A wave of policy activity — executive orders framed around “unleashing American drone dominance” and “restoring airspace sovereignty” — was already in motion, with Commerce preparing parallel rules under its ICTS authority to cut Chinese drones out of the U.S. market. A national security rationale provided the shell. Venture capital provided the muscle to shape who would be left standing when the bans took hold.

Skydio’s executives leaned hard into the narrative. “Focus on enterprise and public sector,” they declared, as they exited consumer retail. A blog series titled “Drones as Infrastructure” argued that docks and remote operations should be treated as critical public-safety assets, on par with communications towers or water systems. The message was as much for regulators as for customers. By the time Omaha passed Ordinance 44387 authorizing a sole-source deal with Axon for “Axon Air powered by Skydio Systems” — ten Skydio X10 drones and five docking stations, funded by a police foundation grant — the playbook was fully visible. Skydio’s drones were not just products, they were infrastructure, interoperable with Axon’s evidence systems, and backed by the national interest.

Axon’s role in this cannot be overstated. The company boasts its products are used by more than 17,000 law-enforcement agencies worldwide, making it the largest distribution channel in policing. By bundling Skydio systems into Axon contracts under the “Axon Air powered by Skydio” label, city councils and procurement offices could be shepherded into sole-source purchases that bypassed competitive bidding. The Omaha deal was not unique; insiders describe similar line-item add-ons in other jurisdictions. Public dockets and purchase orders are unevenly transparent, but the strategy is unmistakable: tie Skydio to Axon’s existing footprint, and a new domestic drone monopoly emerges without needing to win bids head-to-head against DJI.

The money behind these deals matters just as much as the contracts themselves. In Las Vegas, the Friends for Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department foundation reported $7.4 million in revenue in 2024, a huge pool for technology grants. Nonprofit police foundations like this operate in a gray zone, funneling private donations into public equipment purchases without the scrutiny of normal budget hearings. Venture-backed drone makers have learned to use them. In Omaha, records of who ultimately paid for the new drone program are not yet public, but foundation support has played a role in past acquisitions. When private capital raised on Sand Hill Road is recycled into police foundations and used to underwrite technology buys, the effect looks a lot like a soft-money influence campaign — one that bypasses voters, councils, and open competition.

Jon Beal, president of the Law Enforcement Drone Association (LEDA), made the stakes clear in a recent letter rebutting industry talking points. “There is literally nothing on the market to replace them—at any cost,” he wrote, referring to DJI’s dominance in flight performance. For Beal, the issue was not brand loyalty but operational reality: lives depended on tools that worked.

Michael Robbins, president of the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), framed it differently. His February op-ed warned that foreign drones were a persistent threat, insisting that only domestic suppliers could safeguard American skies. The timing of his argument was no accident; it aligned neatly with Commerce’s ICTS rule-making and the NDAA audit clock.

The tension between these two voices defines the current moment. On one side, trade groups amplify sovereignty narratives that reinforce venture portfolios. On the other, practitioners and safety advocates admit the technology gap is real. Vic Moss, a commercial pilot and co-founder of the Drone Service Providers Alliance, was blunt: “Drones significantly impact policing during a tactical crisis response.” He warned that forcing premature substitutions could jeopardize missions rather than secure them.

Charles Werner, founder of DRONERESPONDERS and a retired fire chief, echoed the same point. His group has documented hundreds of real-world deployments where drones cut response times, located missing persons, and reduced risks to firefighters. In testimony and interviews, Werner stressed that drones were not gadgets but essential infrastructure for public safety. The rhetoric of national security, he cautioned, should not blind policymakers to operational truths on the ground.

John Santry, a former Naval officer now serving as Skydio’s Vice President of Sales, has been one of the clearest voices linking the company’s growth to the broader venture playbook. On social media, he echoed the American Dynamism refrain that “it’s not about one company, it’s about building at scale,” language pulled directly from a16z partners. It shifts the conversation away from whether Skydio’s drones outperform DJI in the field, and toward whether Skydio can be positioned as the anchor of a federally blessed industrial base. In doing so, Santry bridges Skydio’s municipal sales pitch with the national-security narrative crafted by its investors.

Andreessen Horowitz partners were even more explicit. Katherine Boyle wrote that American renewal required “the courage of both founders and investors.” Marc Andreessen argued that rebuilding strength meant trusting capital as much as government. Scott Kupor underscored the personnel side, taking an appointment at the Office of Personnel Management while his firm’s program seeded defense tech firms. Each of them turned a venture thesis into federal doctrine, line by line, hire by hire.

At the federal level, the narrative never drifted. Executive orders with patriotic titles created the scaffolding for a domestic drone strategy. Reuters reported in September 2025 that Commerce was preparing ICTS rules to restrict Chinese drones independently of the NDAA audit. “The rules will apply even if the December audit does not conclude,” the report noted, meaning agencies could lose access to DJI months sooner than expected.

Critics described the maneuver as protectionism disguised as sovereignty. Andreessen Horowitz partners described it as renewal. Katherine Boyle repeated that rebuilding American industry required “the courage of both founders and investors.” Marc Andreessen linked the thesis to governance, participating in discussions about the new Department of Government Efficiency. Scott Kupor’s OPM appointment underscored how personnel choices were part of the same strategy.

The Washington Post reported in January that a prominent venture capitalist was “recruiting and interviewing candidates” across agencies, including the Pentagon and intelligence community, during the administration transition. The New Republic and Semafor described the group-chat ecosystems where investors, founders, and policymakers blurred the line between national service and portfolio strategy. What might look like patriotic networking was, in practice, a conduit for policy capture.

Founders, for their part, were happy to play the role of national champions. BRINC’s Blake Resnick described his company’s mission in explicitly patriotic terms, offering his drones as life-saving tools for law enforcement and disaster response. Skydio’s Adam Bry cast his products as infrastructure essential to public safety. Neither man needed to mention DJI by name; the policy environment ensured that Chinese drones were already cast as suspect. The lobbying ecosystem — populated by trade groups, security hawks, and congressional allies — carried that message. What mattered was appearing as the domestic alternative, ready to inherit the market once foreign suppliers were kneecapped.

The contradictions are glaring. Public agencies facing budget shortfalls are told they must abandon cheaper, proven DJI fleets in favor of expensive U.S. alternatives — often procured through sole-source contracts or subsidized by opaque foundations. Search-and-rescue teams, fire departments, and small police agencies, once able to buy multiple DJI units for the cost of a single U.S. model, now find themselves priced out of drone adoption. The very communities that national security rhetoric claims to protect are forced into fewer tools at higher cost. Meanwhile, the venture firms backing these startups tout their “American Dynamism” funds as patriotic investments, extracting outsized valuations from the market they helped engineer.

Operators on the ground noticed the difference. A fire battalion chief in California described the irony of having to replace reliable DJI units with American models that were twice the cost and half the endurance. Search-and-rescue volunteers complained that Skydio drones could not match the range needed for mountain rescues. “You can ban DJI, but you can’t ban physics,” one said. The national security frame insisted that domestic supply was paramount. But when lives were on the line, performance mattered more than compliance. Agencies that could afford parallel fleets often kept DJI units hidden in the trunk, flying them unofficially when the American alternatives fell short. The contradiction was stark: federal rules framed DJI as unsafe, yet local responders trusted them when outcomes mattered.

Meanwhile, lobbying pressure intensified. The Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), under the leadership of Michael Robbins, became the amplifier of talking points. Hill briefings promised American leadership. Missing from these narratives was the disclosure that many of the domestic firms positioned to benefit were backed by the same venture investors shaping the rhetoric. Critics inside the drone industry described it as a shell game: investors pushed bans on competitors while presenting their own portfolio companies as patriotic saviors. The policy community, eager to show toughness on China, rarely asked who profited when the rules shifted.

Money was flowing in other ways too. Police foundations became the quiet financiers of drone adoption. In Las Vegas, more than seven million dollars in a single year was routed into the Metropolitan Police Department through donor channels. In Omaha, private contributions underwrote Skydio deployments. In other cities, equipment arrived as “gifts” from nonprofit intermediaries. These structures insulated elected officials from scrutiny. Taxpayers did not see line items for new drones in city budgets. Instead, they saw ribbon-cuttings and press releases celebrating innovation funded by “partners.” The result was public agencies acquiring expensive new technologies without the checks that normally accompany procurement. The donors remained invisible. The investors reaped the returns.

Even in cities without large foundations, the Axon partnership provided a backdoor. Contracts for body cameras and evidence software were already locked in, often on multi-year sole-source terms. By embedding drones as add-ons to those agreements, Skydio entered agencies without having to compete. Omaha’s ordinance spelled it out: ten drones and five docking stations, justified entirely on interoperability with Axon Evidence. No request for proposals. No competing bids. No debate about cost or performance. The narrative of national security and the promise of seamless integration were enough. Multiply that pattern across dozens of cities and you see how quickly a domestic monopoly can be built.

BRINC’s path was different but equally revealing. The company branded itself around tactical response, promising life-saving tools for SWAT and hostage scenarios. Its founder was celebrated as a prodigy, a teenager who built a drone after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting. By 2025, BRINC was appearing at training events with demonstrations of repeater technology it claimed would guarantee connectivity. Operators walked away unconvinced. Some said the system simply did not work. Yet procurement interest grew anyway, fueled by the company’s NDAA-compliance marketing and the drumbeat of coming bans on Chinese systems. Credibility was less important than positioning. Like Skydio, BRINC had attached itself to the right narrative at the right time.

The revolving door made sure of it. Venture capitalists advising agencies one month were investing in firms the next. Government staffers drafting executive orders were in group chats with investors discussing portfolio strategy. Trade groups testified in hearings with language that mirrored blog posts from American Dynamism partners. At every layer, the firewall between public interest and private return thinned. The beneficiaries were not random startups. They were the companies selected years earlier when venture firms branded national security as an investment category.

To understand the scale, you only need to look at Skydio’s capital rounds. Series C and D funding propelled the company into unicorn territory, with valuations climbing alongside each policy milestone. By the time Commerce prepared ICTS rules to sideline DJI, Skydio had already become the face of the domestic alternative. Each executive order, each procurement shift, and each foundation grant validated the company’s pitch to investors: that it was not just a drone maker but a national security asset. The public never voted on that designation. It was conferred through the convergence of capital and access.

What makes this moment so consequential is not simply that American drones are being promoted. It is how they are being promoted. The traditional path — build superior products, win open competitions, convince customers on merit — has been supplemented by another path: shape policy to eliminate rivals, embed distribution through monopolistic partners, and channel private money into public agencies to grease adoption. It is a model that rewards influence over performance. It is also a model that can be replicated across other sectors. Drones are only the test case.

Look at the rest of the a16z portfolio and the logic is identical. Nuclear startups promising new reactors. Hypersonic ventures promising deterrence. Autonomy firms promising naval superiority. Each positioned as patriotic, each carrying the implicit message that foreign competition is dangerous, and each reliant on the same investors who now walk the halls of Washington. The playbook is not subtle. Declare a national crisis. Cast foreign suppliers as threats. Push executive orders to close markets. Then present portfolio companies as the solution. When it works, venture returns masquerade as sovereignty.

For the first responders and local agencies caught in the middle, the reality is less lofty. They face higher costs, limited options, and equipment that sometimes fails in the field. They rely on foundations that make them dependent on donor goodwill. They operate under mandates written not for their needs but for investor theses. And they are left explaining to their communities why the drones that once saved lives must now be replaced by models that cannot fly as far, as long, or as reliably. In theory, American Dynamism is about strength. In practice, it is about substitution — trading one form of dependence for another.

Donors to police foundations often remain in the shadows, even as their money helps underwrite equipment purchases that look like public spending. Agencies in several states have quietly kept DJI drones in service despite bans, citing cost and performance. Policy advisors who once held venture or lobbying ties have had a hand in drafting the very orders reshaping the market. What emerges is not the image of open, deliberative government, but one where national security arguments are used to justify outcomes that align neatly with venture portfolios.

What can’t be denied is that the pattern is working. DJI is losing its grip on government contracts. Investors are cashing in. And American Dynamism is no longer just a buzzphrase—it’s embedded in federal policy via executive orders that steer procurement toward domestic suppliers. It isn’t the final nail in the coffin, but it’s close enough that pulling it back out would take rare political courage. Washington shows little appetite for that. Waving the flag of sovereignty is easier, even if what looks like patriotism also looks a lot like opportunism.

What has been sold to the public as sovereignty is, in practice, a narrowing of choice. The United States has not built a flourishing drone ecosystem where dozens of domestic suppliers compete on cost, endurance, and features. It has built a funnel where a handful of firms, chosen early by venture capital, are positioned as the only legitimate options. Federal orders mandate their inclusion. Local ordinances are written to accommodate their contracts. Foundations underwrite the purchases. The result is a system that looks competitive on paper but behaves like a monopoly in the field. Agencies that want alternatives find the door closing fast.

Departments still have choices today, but the biggest money and political tailwinds are concentrating around a small circle of domestic vendors. Public-safety leaders keep saying the quiet part out loud: cost and capability still favor DJI, which is why many agencies continue to buy or keep DJI in service despite state-level restrictions and federal pressure. Florida’s experience is the cautionary case—lawmakers moved first, funding lagged far behind, and agencies were left staring at an estimated $200 million replacement bill just to swap police fleets—because U.S. models “still can’t compete… in quality, price, or production volume,” as one industry roundup put it.

On the ground, performance and budgets decide outcomes. Police trade coverage notes that U.S. manufacturers (Skydio, BRINC, others) are gaining ground, especially in DFR and tactical niches, but also acknowledges what chiefs and pilots report: DJI remains cheaper and often more capable per dollar, which is why bans without funding provoke blow back and why many agencies stage purchases or run mixed fleets.

The pattern is clear. Venture capital has built a closed loop where early backers of the “sovereignty” thesis enjoy privileged access, and those outside the circle are shut out. Even international partners with proven technology find the market closed — not by merit, but by design.

That club extends beyond drones. The investors driving this shift are explicit about their ambition to remake American industry across multiple fronts. Defense technology is no longer a niche; it is the new frontier of Silicon Valley ambition. Nuclear power, hypersonics, AI-enabled autonomy, all are being rebranded as venture categories under the same patriotic umbrella. Drones are only the most visible “because the Chinese competition didn’t just symbolize an advantage, it demonstrated it. If it sticks here, it’ll spread fast—security as the excuse, handpicked winners as the rule, and no room for rivals.

In Washington, few question the arrangement. To stand against American Dynamism is to risk being painted as soft on China or indifferent to national security. For lawmakers, the incentives are obvious: back the domestic firms, cite sovereignty, and collect the credit for protecting jobs. For regulators, the path of least resistance is to adopt the framing provided by venture-backed lobbyists. The apparatus of national security becomes a delivery vehicle for private investment theses. The line between patriotic duty and portfolio enrichment vanishes. What remains is a new orthodoxy where venture capital defines the national interest and government ratifies it.

For first responders, the reality continues to diverge from the rhetoric. Firefighters report that American drones cannot yet withstand the heat and wind conditions that DJI units managed. Police officers complain about endurance and range. SAR volunteers improvise workarounds to make under performing equipment usable. The gap between the executive orders signed in Washington and the flights conducted in the field is measured not in ideology but in performance. The White House can declare dominance. On a mountaintop in Colorado or a floodplain in Texas, the difference is counted in minutes of flight time and kilometers of range. That is where lives are won or lost. And that is where the failure of the substitution strategy is most visible.

This momentum doesn’t stop on its own—it keeps moving because it works for too many people. Investors get their returns. Politicians get their soundbites. Agencies get new toys without the budget fights. Trade groups get to look important. What’s missing is an honest look at the cost: fewer tools for the same money, more dependence on a handful of suppliers, and a system where innovation takes a back seat to politics. The public is told that national security requires sacrifice. What they’re not told is who profits from that sacrifice, and how little anyone is watching the process.

The most telling detail may be how openly the language has migrated. What began as blog posts on Andreessen Horowitz’s site now echoes in White House fact sheets. The line that a16z “invests in founders who support the national interest, including public safety” appears in spirit if not in exact words in executive orders and press releases. The Skydio tagline about “AI driving a new era of public safety” is repeated in council meetings. Axon’s claim of serving 17,000 agencies is recited in procurement justifications. The rhetorical pipeline is direct: from investor decks to federal doctrine to local ordinances. By the time drones arrive in police stations, the narrative has been laundered through so many stages of officialdom that its origins are invisible. But they are there, and they point back to venture capital.

The unanswered questions will determine how durable this model becomes. Will agencies rebel against performance gaps once DJI is gone from their fleets? Will foundations continue to funnel millions without transparency? Will journalists and watchdogs pierce the group-chat curtain to reveal how policy was drafted? Or will the momentum carry forward, normalizing a system where private investors dictate public procurement? These questions are not peripheral. They decide whether American Dynamism is a genuine national project or simply a marketing slogan that captured the state.

What is certain is that the pattern has consequences beyond drones. Already, sectors like energy and defense are being mapped onto the same playbook. If drones can be recast as infrastructure, so can nuclear micro-reactors. If Axon can provide distribution channels for Skydio, so can defense primes provide channels for other startups. If foundations can subsidize law enforcement purchases, so can philanthropic arms underwrite adoption in other agencies. The machinery of influence is modular. Once built, it can be reapplied endlessly. And it has been built with remarkable efficiency.

It’s not just about whether American drones make it. It’s about the way the game is being played. Rules and directives have steered the field, and the biggest prizes keep landing in the same places. This isn’t really a story of scrappy founders clawing their way to the top. It’s about investors dressing up their bets as national destiny. And in a country that swears by free markets, seeing outcomes nudged from the top down instead of earned out in the open should make us stop and think.

In the end, it won’t matter what the press releases say or how high the valuations go. What matters is what happens in the field. If a drone fails during a rescue, no amount of patriotic branding will make up for it. If budgets are stretched thinner, it’s communities that will feel the delay when every minute counts. And if foundations and investors start holding more sway than voters and city councils, accountability slips away. That’s the real cost hiding under all the talk of sovereignty. And it forces a tougher question: when national security gets blurred with venture capital, whose security are we really protecting?

"Good men must die, but death can’t kill their names." - Charlie Kirk

Tyler Robinson, 22, climbed to a rooftop at Utah Valley University with a scoped rifle and bullets etched in mockery. As Charlie Kirk spoke on stage below, the shooter fired a single round. In the seconds that followed, a man who built his career on confrontation through words was silenced by violence. The suspect did not walk back through the stairwell. He leapt down, left palm and footwear impressions, and fled into a wooded neighborhood. He had changed clothes mid-flight. He wrapped the rifle in a towel and stashed it in the bushes, a tactic that echoed planning notes investigators later recovered. Surveillance cameras pieced together his path, and that footage would lead to his father coming to the realization that his son was the suspect of the manhunt for Kirk's killer.

Less than two days later, the suspect confessed at home and threatened to kill himself. His father brought him to a youth pastor employed by the Washington County Sheriff’s Office, who immediately alerted authorities. Utah’s governor confirmed what court documents later showed: a family friend told police the suspect had “confessed to them or implied he had committed the incident.” Within hours, law enforcement moved in and made the arrest.

Among the evidence were engraved shell casings mixing taunts, memes, and overt anti-fascist references. One read “Hey, fascist! Catch!” with the arrow sequence ↑ → ↓ ↓ ↓—the exact Helldivers II input for the Eagle 500kg Bomb. Another carried “Bella ciao,” the Italian anti-fascist song linked to the Resistance and now used globally at anti-fascist and protest events; it has also circulated in recent pop culture. To casual eyes the engravings looked like nonsense. To those steeped in these subcultures, they read as signals—digital in-jokes and movement symbols repurposed as marks of violence.

The path to that moment was marked by signs of growing obsession. Friends described him as the “only leftist” in a conservative family, someone who by high school had grown combative, ranting endlessly about politics. Authorities allege the shooter discussed on Discord, detailed plans for rifle drops, outfit changes, and the very engravings investigators would later find at the scene. Scrawled among them was the phrase, “If you read this, you are gay, LMAO”—mockery wrapped around premeditation. A sign to many that this young man may have been radicalized by the algorithms that claim to protect us.

This is not the first time Discord has been accused of serving as a staging ground for violence. After the 2022 Buffalo massacre, investigators revealed the shooter had maintained a private diary on the platform, outlining his plans in detail before sharing access to others shortly before the attack. Discord confirmed the account’s existence and said it cooperated with law enforcement, but sidestepped questions about whether it could have detected the writings sooner. In the Robinson case, officials pointed to Discord activity as evidence of planning. The company, however, pushed back, saying the disputed messages were not written by Robinson himself but came from a roommate’s notes.

As people online argued over what the shooter’s words meant and who should be held accountable, the reality on the ground was different. The grieving had already begun. Friends, staff, and strangers were left trying to put into words what had been lost.

Turning Point USA released a video tribute interlacing Kirk’s campus confrontations with private family moments. His widow Erika reminded supporters of the side few ever saw: “I know a lot of you have seen his videos on TikTok and all the stuff he does on campus, but no one gets to see him from my angle, except for myself and our children.” The reminder was piercing — behind the stage lights and political fights was a father, a husband, and a man who came home every night to a family that adored him.

Staffers described him as more than a boss — a brother who believed in them when they didn’t believe in themselves. A photographer wrote, “I didn’t know I would be mic’ing you up for the last time today. You made a profound impact in millions of lives.” The Daily Wire recirculated his words as epitaphs: “Jesus defeated death so you can live.” “God, family, country. In that order.” “Good men must die, but death can’t kill their names.”

Turning Point USA shared a video tribute mixing fiery campus debates with quiet family moments. His widow Erika offered a voice of aching intimacy: “I know a lot of you have seen his videos on TikTok and all the stuff he does on campus, but no one gets to see him from my angle, except for myself and our children.” The reminder struck hard — beyond the spotlight, he was husband and father, loved at home before he was ever known on stage.

The grief spilled past American borders. In London, supporters draped Union flags across statues and lit candles beneath them. In Berlin, students gathered on the steps of Humboldt University with signs quoting his words. In Nairobi, a small chapel filled with hymns sung for a man few had met but many had followed. In São Paulo, a banner stretched across a plaza read simply: “God. Family. Country.” In South Africa, mourners raised their national flag beside his image, calling him a martyr for freedom.

At home, flowers piled outside TPUSA headquarters, candles flickered on campuses, and flags dropped to half-staff. The grief was raw and unfiltered, carried from Phoenix to Pretoria, London to Lagos. In those vigils and prayers came the painful realization: the man who taught them to argue — fiercely, relentlessly, unapologetically — was gone, not by words but by a bullet.

And then came his wife’s voice. Erika Kirk spoke for the first time since the shooting, thanking law enforcement and first responders, the Turning Point staff, and the millions of supporters who poured out love from Phoenix to cities across the world. She remembered her husband as a man of faith and family, who asked her every day how he could be a better husband and father. She spoke of his joy in raising their children, his love for America, and his unshakable belief in God’s mercy.

But her words carried more than grief. They carried defiance. “If you thought that my husband’s mission was powerful before, you have no idea what you have unleashed,” she told the audience. “The cries of this widow will echo around the world like a battlecry. No one will ever forget my husband’s name.” She vowed that the tours would continue, the show would go on, and the movement he built would not die.

Kirk built his reputation on walking into hostile crowds on college campuses, insisting that ideas must be tested against opposition. His purpose was never consensus but confrontation — without violence. That a man committed to dialogue was silenced by a rifle says less about him than it does about the culture that allowed it. Utah’s governor, Spencer Cox, stood before cameras and admitted he had never been so angry or so heartbroken. But he reached for Kirk’s own words to steady himself, telling young people across the country: “When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence.” Cox reminded them of Kirk’s warnings that “internet fury is not real life” and that forgiveness, even of enemies, is the only antidote to rage. “You are inheriting a country where politics feels like rage,” Cox said. “But through those words, we have a reminder that we can choose a different path.”

The suspect didn’t leave behind a manifesto. He left pieces — memes, taunts, and irony sharpened into weapons. He turned disagreement into spectacle. What remains is not a coherent ideology but fragments of mockery, and a community mourning the principle he targeted. What he struck was not just Charlie Kirk, but the fragile belief that in America, arguments should still be settled with words, not bullets.

Kirk’s own words survive him. “When things are moving very fast and people are losing their minds, it’s important to stay grounded. Turn off your phone, read scripture, spend time with friends, and remember internet fury is not real life. It’s going to be ok.”

A man who stood for free debate is gone, and many on the internet have celebrated his death. If bullets become our answer to words, we are not debating anymore—we are dismantling the very foundation of what our nation stands for. Disagreement is survivable. Debate is survivable. Violence is not.

To celebrate his murder is to celebrate the death of discourse itself. And if open discourse fails, democracy itself fails.

In The Free Press editorial Je Suis Charlie Kirk, editors wrote that Kirk was not just a conservative firebrand, but a flesh-and-blood embodiment of free expression — the very foundation of this experiment called America. He stood on college stages to invite debate, not to ignite violence, and in his death, the republic lost more than a man—it lost a reminder of democracy’s promise.

As The Free Press put it:

“He was murdered while practicing the very act that gave birth to this nation—and the only thing that will ensure its survival.”

That is the final reckoning. Not a political tragedy, but a civic one. He stood for speech. And in the moment that silence fell, America has to decide: will we choose dialogue, or will we stop talking?

Congressman Henry Cuellar has proposed creating a drone task force to counter cartel surveillance and smuggling operations. In laying out the idea, Cuellar said it would bring together Border Patrol, the military, and Laredo College to build a unified response that can move “faster and more agile” than the bureaucracy in Washington.

He met with Border Patrol leadership in Laredo to discuss the details, thanking the agency’s chief for his leadership and the military for its expertise. Cuellar said the conversations were sparked by recent reports of cartel drones flying over U.S. agents, tracking their movements, and radioing smugglers to move in the opposite direction. As KGNS reported, Cuellar emphasized that while cartels can acquire and deploy drones without restriction, U.S. agencies are slowed by procurement rules and red tape—a gap he says the task force must close.

The scale of the problem has already been documented in Washington. “In the last six months of 2024, over 27,000 drones were detected within 500 meters of the southern border,” testified Steven Willoughby, Director of DHS’s Counter-UAS Program Management Office. He added that “CBP drone detections also led to the arrests of over 1,500 subjects along the southwest border.” What Cuellar warned about to KGNS was echoed by federal officials under oath: hostile drones are now a daily fact of life. “Nearly every day, transnational criminal organizations use drones to convey illicit narcotics and contraband across U.S. borders and conduct hostile surveillance of law enforcement,” Willoughby said.

The escalation is just as stark. “Since early August 2024, warring Sinaloa Cartel factions have increasingly attacked one another using drone-delivered improvised explosive devices and it is only a matter of time before Americans or law enforcement are targeted in the border region,” Willoughby told the Senate Judiciary Committee. That warning has already materialized in the Mexican interior. In Michoacán, cartels have deployed drones to drop grenades and larger improvised bombs, burn vehicles, and terrorize entire towns. The Zero Lux has reported on how operators adapted agricultural drones into weapons platforms with endurance measured in hours and ranges of more than 100 kilometers. Independent researchers have confirmed hundreds of such attacks, with 260 recorded in 2023 alone. The tactics exist, the weapons are in circulation, and the precedent is set.

Other officials admitted the law has not caught up. “Weaponization of drones is generally treated as a civil offense. We believe it should be a felony,” said Christopher Hardee of the Department of Justice. He explained that even flying a drone over a sensitive Defense Department facility is only a misdemeanor. The mismatch between the threat and the penalty mirrors Cuellar’s point about bureaucracy lagging behind. Cartels adapt quickly, the law grinds slowly.

The FBI added another layer. “Our counter-UAS program is not a national rapid response force… with more than 90,000 special events annually, we must adopt a whole-of-government approach that includes expanding authority to enable state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement partners,” testified Supervisory Special Agent Michael Torphy. The call for state and local empowerment sounded almost identical to Cuellar’s vision of fusing Border Patrol, the military, and local institutions like Laredo College into a single framework. It was confirmation that the agility gap isn’t just perception—it is embedded in how the federal program operates.

A 2024 report by the Hague Centre for Strategic Studies warned that “surveillance emerges as the most complex to counter and the one in which drones might catalyse an exponential increase of criminal activity.” The study urged law enforcement to build detection networks, share data across agencies, and train specialized counter-UAS units. The recommendations were indistinguishable from the functions Cuellar had outlined for his task force.

Senator John Cornyn was blunt at the Judiciary hearing. “We are not prepared for this technology… a determined adversary has all the tools they need using drone technology to accomplish their goal and we’re not prepared to deal with that.” His assessment matched Cuellar’s: the cartels are innovating faster than Washington can respond.

Sign up for THE ZERO LUX

We See In Total Darkness

Subscribe

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

At the same hearing, Senator Ted Cruz erupted over the imbalance. “Cartels have more drones than America,” he said. Cruz has since introduced the SkyFoundry Act of 2025 to create a drone manufacturing facility at Texarkana’s Red River Army Depot, arguing that the United States must expand its own capacity to meet the threat. His answer is industrial—building the hardware base to compete. Cuellar’s answer is operational—building a Laredo-based task force that can fuse detection, training, and enforcement. Both are rooted in the same recognition: the United States is outpaced, and Texas is on the front line.

“It’s important that we show the U.S. is responding to what the Mexican cartels are doing,” Cuellar told KGNS. What he called for in Laredo was not a theoretical exercise but a mirror of what DHS, DOJ, and FBI officials have already said is necessary: faster action, stronger laws, and coordination across agencies. The cartels do not have to wait for implementing guidance, committee markups, or appropriations.

POWER RESTS ON PEOPLE AND ON WHETHER THEY BELIEVE THEIR FUTURE IS BIGGER THAN THEIR PAST.

For two decades, China has projected confidence: record growth, gleaming cities, and an aura of inevitability about its rise. Yet beneath the façade, the foundation is crumbling. Demographic collapse, gender imbalance, and a youth culture suffocated by censorship are eroding China’s future. On the other side of the Pacific, the United States — fractured, noisy, yet free — is channeling billions into drones, artificial intelligence, and the rebuilding of its industrial base. The comparison reveals a stark contrast: one society is closing off its next generation, the other is clearing paths for them.

For decades, economists used the phrase as a warning. Today, it reads like a verdict. China’s one-child policy, enforced from 1980 to 2015, reshaped its population with brutal efficiency. Families favored sons, producing skewed gender ratios that left tens of millions of men without marriage prospects. By 2020, the census recorded population shrinkage for the first time in 60 years. By 2023, births fell to their lowest since the famine years of the early 1960s.

The shortage of women has fueled trafficking. Investigations document women smuggled from Myanmar, Laos, and North Korea, sold into forced marriages across rural provinces. The UN links this directly to China’s gender imbalance, warning it fosters abuse, crime, and regional instability. Psychologists studying the so-called “bare branches” — unmarried men without prospects — warn of a social time bomb. Loneliness and lack of purpose are not private struggles but collective fractures. A society with too many men, one expert wrote, becomes brittle. It produces both violence and apathy.

ONE CHILD MEANT ONE FUTURE. IT MAY NOW MEAN NO FUTURE.

China’s one-child policy was meant to conserve resources and propel modernization. It created instead the conditions for demographic free fall. By the time Beijing abandoned the rule in 2015, the damage was embedded. Fertility did not rebound; it collapsed further. Families had grown accustomed to smaller households, and the cost of raising children — education, housing, health care — made expansion unthinkable. In 2022, births sank to 9.56 million. A year later, the figure fell again to 9 million — the lowest in modern Chinese history. Demographers project the population could halve by 2100.

The ripple effects are uneven. Rural areas are hardest hit. Villages in Henan and Anhui are filled with aging men, sometimes three brothers to one roof, all unmarried. Sociologists tracking these communities note rising alcohol abuse, depression, and what they call “involution”: men competing fruitlessly for vanishing women. The Chinese phrase for these men is guāng gùn — “bare branches” on the family tree.

In response, a shadow industry arose. Traffickers target women in poorer neighboring states, luring them with promises of jobs in China, only to sell them into rural marriages. Reports from Yunnan, Guangxi, and Heilongjiang detail cases of Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Myanmar women locked in homes, denied documents, and pressed into childbirth. In 2021, Chinese police launched what they called “Operation Liberation,” but UN experts reported the practice was spreading, not shrinking. The state criminalizes the traffickers but says little about the demand that drives them.

The paradox is cruel: a state that prides itself on planning the future cannot provide the most basic raw material for one — women.

Chinese youth culture cycles through slogans the way democracies cycle through election slogans. The difference is that these aren’t campaign promises; they’re survival codes. Tang ping — “lie flat” — surfaced in 2021 as a rejection of 996 culture: nine-to-nine workdays, six days a week. Then came bai lan — “let it rot.” It was darker, more resigned. If lying flat was passive resistance, letting it rot was open abandonment.

Behind the jokes lies despair. Youth unemployment in China officially hit 21.3% in mid-2023, before the National Bureau of Statistics stopped reporting the number altogether. Analysts believe the real figure was higher. College graduates, once assured of jobs in state enterprises or tech firms, now face hiring freezes and “internships” that pay in housing stipends. Young women report facing “marriage pressure” from families and discrimination from employers who fear maternity leave.

Sociologists call this “the great disillusionment.” In interviews, students describe wanting only to “avoid trouble.” They memorize Xi Jinping Thought for mandatory coursework, delete old WeChat posts, and keep quiet in public. A Beijing student told one researcher: “I smile when they tell me to. I protest with my VPN.”

The VPN is both portal and risk. Technically banned, it is widely used. Through it, Chinese youth consume TikTok and Instagram videos filled with feminism, LGBTQ rights, labor activism — causes that resonate with their own frustrations. A 2023 survey by the University of Hong Kong found nearly half of Chinese respondents aged 18–29 had accessed banned content in the previous year. But they spoke of it in whispers, aware that police sometimes trace usage through metadata. This “dual consciousness” is corrosive. Outwardly, they chant slogans. Inwardly, they scroll dissent. That double life cannot last forever without consequence.

HONG KONG WAS THE WARNING SHOT.

If mainland youth wanted proof of what happens when idealism leaves the screen and enters the street, they found it in Hong Kong. The Umbrella Movement of 2014 began with students occupying central thoroughfares. The 2019 protests swelled to nearly two million — a quarter of the city’s population. They waved U.S. flags, held signs invoking democracy, and formed human chains that circled entire districts. Beijing answered with the National Security Law. Within months, organizers were arrested, newspapers shuttered, libraries purged of dissenting titles. High-profile activists like Joshua Wong disappeared into prison. What had felt to students like a hopeful revolution became a cautionary tale.

On the mainland, state media replayed images of “rioters” and “terrorists.” University professors were instructed to reinforce “correct” narratives about the chaos of Western-style freedom. Parents warned children not to even mention Hong Kong in school. The intended lesson was clear: public dissent is suicide. For young people in Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Chengdu, the result was a chilling of political imagination. Better to focus on exams and job hunts. Better to laugh at memes than march in streets.

The United States faces low fertility too, but the arc is different. Immigration fills the gap. Census Bureau and Brookings projections show America’s labor force stabilizing and even expanding modestly through 2050. By contrast, China’s workforce is already shrinking, with fewer young people entering each year. This demographic advantage translates into talent. International students continue to stay and work in the U.S., feeding the innovation pipeline. America’s messy pluralism remains a magnet: the freedom to build companies, criticize leaders, and reinvent industries without state permission. It’s the throughput of freedom.

FOR YEARS, SILICON VALLEY RECOILED FROM DEFENSE. THAT ERA IS OVER.

Across California and Austin’s “Silicon Hills,” startups are rebranding national security as a frontier. Anduril builds autonomous towers and swarms. Palantir sells battlefield software. Shield AI flight-tests AI pilots. Skydio shifted from consumer drones to defense contracts. The government is backing it with cash. Congress approved more than $33 billion for drones and autonomy: $13.5 billion for small uncrewed systems, $9 billion for collaborative combat aircraft, nearly $3 billion for advanced surveillance. The Pentagon’s FY2026 budget requests another $13.4 billion for autonomy and $3.1 billion for counter-drone systems. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth signed an executive order titled “Unleashing American Drone Dominance”, granting commanders direct authority to buy and test drones — cutting through years of bureaucracy.

REVIVAL IS NOT ONLY DIGITAL

AI is surging in parallel. In June 2025, OpenAI signed a $200 million Pentagon contract to develop AI systems for logistics, cyber defense, and health. The Department of Defense invested another $800 million across frontier firms: OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Elon Musk’s xAI. Smaller players like BigBear.ai and Scale AI are embedded in classified networks. What was once taboo is now aspirational. A venture capitalist told the Washington Post: “For years, Silicon Valley recoiled from military AI; now, there’s a palpable shift from ‘no way we’re defending America’ to ‘let’s get in the fight.’”

Revival is not only digital. Washington is rebuilding the physical spine of power: rare earths, magnets, batteries, minerals. For decades, China cornered these markets. U.S. manufacturers believe they can and will catch up.

The Pentagon has poured $400 million into MP Materials, even taking equity stakes and guaranteeing purchases. Apple signed a $500 million deal with the company to secure domestic rare earth magnets for its devices. Plants are being built in Arizona, South Carolina, and Texas. In Mesa, Arizona, a helium and critical-minerals facility is set to open, reinforcing U.S. independence in key inputs.

The Department of Energy has deployed $3 billion across 25 projects to construct end-to-end battery infrastructure. Another $1 billion is earmarked for critical minerals, funding mining, refining, recycling, and alloying. Together with subsidies, tax credits, and private-sector commitments, the picture is unmistakable: the United States is reindustrializing at scale. Even recycling is industrial strategy now. Canadian firm Cyclic Materials announced a facility in Mesa to turn discarded electric motors into fresh rare earth feed stock. The circular economy has finally been militarized. The policy is blunt: subsidize what the market abandoned, guarantee demand, and shrink dependence on Beijing.

IF CHINA WEAPONIZED DEPENDENCE, AMERICA IS WEAPONIZING INDEPENDENCE.

For decades, globalization was sold as an inevitability. Cheap goods, cheaper parts, just-in-time logistics. When Beijing throttled exports or tightened inspections, markets trembled. The pandemic revealed how fragile the chain was. Sanctions against Russia revealed how quickly authoritarian regimes reach for resource leverage.

Now, Washington is writing industrial independence into law. The CHIPS and Science Act is plowing tens of billions into semiconductor fabs. Defense appropriations carve out special pools for critical minerals. Governors of red and blue states alike boast of new factories in ribbon-cutting ceremonies.

The cultural tone has shifted too. What once sounded like nostalgia — “made in America” — now reads like strategy. Young engineers who a decade ago would have chased jobs at Google are now applying to fabs in Arizona, battery startups in Nevada, or defense AI labs in Austin. The narrative is powerful: your work keeps the lights on, your code flies drones, your designs reduce dependence on Beijing.

THE FUTURE WILL NOT BE WON BY HEADCOUNTS, BUT BY AMERICAN EFFICIENCY

This is the quiet hinge of the century. China’s population is shrinking, aging, and unevenly male. Its youth are skeptical, tired, and censored. Its innovation system is shifting from open exchange to defensive self-reliance.

America’s population is still growing — slower, but supported by immigration. Its young are free to argue, dissent, and build. Its innovation system is once again plugged into defense, backed by budgets that match rhetoric. Factories are coming home. Resources are being secured. The test is generational. Will China’s “bare branches” and bai lan memes harden into malaise? Or will the Party’s propaganda succeed in directing their energy into nationalism? Will America’s noisy pluralism keep turning friction into reinvention, or will polarization smother ambition?

TECHNOLOGY IS DOWNSTREAM OF TRUST IN GOVERNMENTS

The decisive variable is not which side codes the best AI or builds the most drones. It is whether the next generation believes their system gives them something worth building for. On that measure, China faces a legitimacy problem hidden beneath its slogans. America faces division, but it also holds a card China cannot print: permission. The permission to dissent, to fail, to try again. That permission feeds startups, swarms, and factories.

China’s leaders can command allegiance, but they cannot manufacture conviction. Their push for self-reliance has produced slogans and surveillance, but also disillusioned youth who see a path forward to explore beyond the Great Firewall. America’s divisions are real, yet its revival in AI, drones, and advanced manufacturing rests on something Beijing cannot copy: permission. Permission to dissent, to question, to fail, and to build again. That permission feeds startups, innovation, and ever advancing technology. And after years of drift, Washington’s industrial revival suggests the country may be waking up to that fact. In the long arc of history, it is not headcounts or slogans that decide the century—it is whether the next generation believes their system is worth building for.

In this interview, Randall Warnas, CEO of Anzu Robotics, traces his path from U.S. intelligence work into more than a decade in the drone industry. Warnas helped launch DJI Enterprise, guided FLIR’s pioneering thermal imaging partnerships, and briefly led Autel before founding Anzu.

He explains how Anzu Robotics was built as a U.S.-based company using licensed DJI technology—combining proven, affordable drones with American ownership, AWS-based servers, and domestic accountability. Warnas positions Anzu as a bridge: keeping reliable drones in the hands of public safety and commercial operators while the U.S. works to build more domestic manufacturing capacity.

The conversation dives into geopolitics, supply chain challenges, and the risks of banning Chinese-made drones without a replacement. Warnas also reflects on competition, innovation, and what it takes to scale drone production. The discussion closes with his perspective on Parrot and the broader landscape of drone makers.

The fight on the floor of Mexico’s Congress in late August was chaotic. Alejandro “Alito” Moreno, the national leader of the PRI, clashed with Senate president Gerardo Fernández Noroña after accusing him of cutting off the PRI’s allotted speaking time. Cameras from NMás captured the confrontation. Quadratín photographs placed PRI coordinator Rubén Moreira in the same frame, standing at Moreno’s side. A Yandex reverse image search matched his face against prior press shots, and Quadratín’s own caption confirmed it.

The Moreira brothers have long defended their finances. When Humberto was detained in Spain in 2016, his lawyers presented invoices from two companies: Unipolares y Espectaculares del Norte and Negocios, Asesoría y Publicidad Integral Nuevo Milenio. Both were registered at the same Saltillo address. Animal Político reported, “Both companies, Unipolares y Espectaculares del Norte and Negocios Asesoría y Publicidad Integral Nuevo Milenio, are registered at the same address in Saltillo. Their invoices show them billing each other, an irregular pattern consistent with simulated operations.” Vanguardia added, “At the listed address there is no advertising company. Neighbors said they had never seen such an office operating there.”

For months, we’ve published hard reporting for free—stories that took weeks of digging, government requests, and late-night calls with sources. The truth is: free doesn’t keep independent journalism alive.

Starting next week, we’re rolling out paid content. But before you decide, you get 14 days free to see what The Zero Lux really offers: deeper investigations, sharper analysis, podcasts with industry professionals, and being different when it would be easy to be like those who play by legacy media rules.

Why support monthly? Because journalism that challenges power isn’t subsidized by ad-tech or lobbyists—it survives on readers who believe the work matters. Every subscription helps fund the reporting that others ignore, delete, or bury.

Take the trial. Read the work. And if it’s worth your time, stay with us.

Support Independent Journalism

Spanish proceedings could not resolve the question. In December 2017 Judge Santiago Pedraz traveled with Spanish prosecutors to San Antonio, Texas, to hear protected witnesses. He personally attended one of the sessions and attempted to record it, but later acknowledged he did not have that audio recording when he returned to Spain. In 2020 the Audiencia Nacional archived the case again, noting that the declarations had not been preserved, that the evidence was insufficient, and that the court lacked jurisdiction over events that took place in Mexico and the United States. In 2018, before the final closure, the same court had described an “estructura societaria sin actividad real, con testaferros” and pointed to links with Juan Manuel “El Mono” Muñoz, identified in Spain as an ally of Los Zetas.

The United States did pursue cases tied to the same circle. In a 2016 San Antonio trial, former Zetas financial operator Rodrigo Humberto Uribe Tapia testified, “The Zetas paid millions of pesos to the governor of Coahuila in exchange for protection. The money was delivered through Vicente Chaires, Moreira’s personal secretary.” In 2014 federal prosecutors indicted Coahuila’s treasurer Héctor Javier Villarreal Hernández for laundering “proceeds of embezzlement, bribery, and drug trafficking” through Texas accounts and real estate. ICE announced, “This investigation has uncovered the laundering of millions of dollars through accounts and real estate in the United States — proceeds of bribery, embezzlement, and drug trafficking in Coahuila, Mexico.” In 2020 former interim governor Jorge Torres López admitted his role. U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick stated, “Former governor Torres admitted to conspiring to launder bribes he received in exchange for contracts with the state of Coahuila through U.S. financial institutions.”

Testimony cited by international human rights groups adds to the record. In filings to the International Criminal Court, the International Federation for Human Rights reported that U.S. court witnesses described Humberto Moreira receiving millions from the Zetas in cash-stuffed suitcases and vehicles, routed through aides like Vicente Chaires. The same report concluded that under Humberto’s administration, Coahuila authorities colluded systematically with the cartel, enabling massacres such as Allende in 2011 and allowing the Piedras Negras prison to function as an extermination site. When Rubén Moreira succeeded his brother, the pattern did not end. According to the same report, his government created special police units—GATE, GATEM, GROM—that carried out enforced disappearances, torture, and extrajudicial killings directly. Between 2006 and 2016 more than 1,800 people were reported disappeared in Coahuila, with no senior officials held accountable.

The artifacts of this period are still visible in Saltillo. Rubén Moreira’s asset declarations list more than twenty thousand square meters of property, including eight large lots. Infobae reported that many were acquired in cash, including one purchase in April 2010 valued at 10.2 million pesos covering more than two thousand square meters. In satellite views of the Lomas de Lourdes enclave, the parcel identified with that purchase stands behind concrete walls and a black gate, its interior vacant. Other nearby holdings show façades that have been updated, but the land inside remains closed off and undeveloped. Together they illustrate a pattern: properties accumulated and fenced, more valuable as parked capital than as active homes or businesses.

The same pattern appears in the firms that were cited abroad to explain the money. Unipolares y Espectaculares del Norte and Negocios, Asesoría y Publicidad Integral Nuevo Milenio issued invoices to one another and to a handful of clients, but their supposed offices could not be located. As Animal Político reported, both companies shared the same Saltillo address, and “their invoices show them billing each other, an irregular pattern consistent with simulated operations.” Vanguardia noted, “At the listed address there is no advertising company. Neighbors said they had never seen such an office operating there.” On paper they generated millions. On the ground, they did not appear to exist.

The pattern of contradiction—public cooperation, private collusion—was already visible before Spain and the United States intervened. In June 2009, months after the kidnapping of U.S. security consultant Félix Batista in Saltillo, Governor Humberto Moreira met with U.S. consulate officials in Monterrey. A leaked diplomatic cable shows he arrived with Attorney General Jesús Torres Charles, Chief of Staff Vicente Chaires, and senior military officers. At the table with DEA, FBI, ICE, and ATF, they acknowledged that kidnappings were rising and that municipal police in La Laguna were compromised. Moreira promised cooperation and intelligence sharing. Years later, U.S. testimony placed Chaires as the courier for Zetas bribes, and Torres Charles was accused of tolerating Zetas control of state prisons. The Batista case was never solved.

Sign up for THE ZERO LUX

We See In Total Darkness

Subscribe

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Academic work reinforces the same conclusion. A 2020 study from Leiden University argued that Coahuila under the PRI was a textbook case of “subnational authoritarianism.” The Moreira administrations maintained power through patronage networks and collusion, while local courts shielded perpetrators in scandals like the forged-debt Moreirazo. The study found that stability in Coahuila was sustained not through democratic institutions but through authoritarian pacts with organized crime. Humberto’s alliances with union leaders and business elites insulated him despite scandals, while Rubén carried the system forward under a new guise.

The network functioned not only through property and shell companies but also through media. Official registries show firms such as Super Medios de Coahuila, S.A. de C.V. and Radio Comunicación de Saltillo, S.A. de C.V. holding broadcast concessions, while state transparency logs document large advertising outlays routed to them between 2011 and 2016. Coahuila provider lists include RCG Espectaculares, S.A. de C.V., another favored outlet. Reported links connect Vicente Chaires, the same aide named in bribe testimony, to Super Medios and to cross-border companies in Texas. Together they illustrate a cycle in which public advertising budgets under PRI governments flowed through friendly media firms, recycling state money while ensuring favorable coverage.

Witness testimony from U.S. proceedings goes further. Accounts gathered by researchers at the University of Texas Human Rights Center include statements that bribes were not limited to Humberto. One cooperating witness described delivering cash directly to Rubén Moreira during his political career. These accounts have never been tested in Mexican courts, but they extend the line of allegation beyond one brother to both.

Documents later published by El Universal show how Mexico’s own prosecutors moved quickly to shelve the issue. In 2016, the PGR received financial intelligence reports citing “operaciones inusuales y relevantes,” suspicious transfers linked to Moreira. The same file contained bank statements from the CNBV and information provided by the U.S. Department of Justice about Texas entities tied to the Villarreal case, including Barcelona at Stone Oak LLC, Peninsula South Padre I LLC, and Villa Premio Gas LLC. Within 33 days, the case was closed. In Texas, however, real estate connected to the same network of companies faced forfeiture proceedings.

From the forged debt that ballooned under Humberto’s administration, to the invoice firms cited in Spain, to testimony and guilty pleas in Texas courts, to the ICC filing that documented crimes against humanity, to academic studies that frame Coahuila as a model of authoritarian collusion, the record has accumulated piece by piece. Associates have been convicted. Witnesses have testified under oath. Prosecutors in Spain described companies without activity fronted by intermediaries. International NGOs catalogued massacres, extermination camps, and more than 1,800 disappeared. U.S. proceedings named bribes delivered to both Humberto and Rubén. Mexico’s own prosecutors shut down inquiries in little more than a month.

Through it all, the Moreira brothers deny wrongdoing. In 2025, Rubén Moreira remains in Congress, leading the PRI bench, standing at the center of a televised brawl. The shell firms are absent from commerce, but the walled lots in Saltillo remain. The media outlets continue to hold their concessions. And the unanswered questions about a political dynasty’s relationship to organized crime, public money, and violence remain unresolved.

On the afternoon of August 20, 2025, at the Eagle Pass–Piedras Negras bridge, U.S. authorities revoked the tourist visas of Sonia Villarreal Pérez and her husband, Jorge Miguel Barajas Hernández. Villarreal, who serves as Subsecretary of Government for Coahuila’s northern region and is a former mayor of Piedras Negras, told Proceso she believed the action was due to her pregnancy. “I suppose it’s because of my pregnancy,” she said, explaining she had planned to cross to Texas for a gynecological visit. But visa cancellations in the United States do not work like parking tickets. They are rarely closed cases. More often, they are the mark of an ongoing investigation.

It is true that under current U.S. policy, including President Trump’s January 2025 order against “birth tourism,” women arriving late in pregnancy may be scrutinized or denied entry. Villarreal’s account is not impossible. But her explanation skirts the fact that she was not traveling alone. Her husband, Jorge Miguel Barajas Hernández, was once known by another name: “El Hummer.” His career in law enforcement, stretching back to the Grupo de Armas y Tácticas Especiales (GATE), has been haunted for more than a decade by allegations of terrorism, cartel collusion, and human rights abuses.

The record begins in 2012, when two car bombs detonated in Nuevo Laredo, one outside the Public Security building in April, another at City Hall that June, killing one and injuring six. The following year, the Fourth District Court of Coahuila issued arrest warrants in criminal process 78/2013-IV, naming Barajas, then a GATE officer, along with Héctor Flores Rodríguez, alias “El Jaguar.” Federal prosecutors alleged that the bombs had been prepared by GATE and escorted by its members to the Tamaulipas border, where cartel operatives detonated them remotely. Two men arrested in connection with the attacks, Carlos Fernando Araujo Garza and Roberto Sánchez Anaya, testified before the Federal Public Ministry that they belonged to a Gulf Cartel cell under Rolando “El Rolys” Velázquez Caballero. In their sworn declarations, they described meeting with GATE commanders in Saltillo and stated: “It was GATE officers who prepared the cars with explosives,” naming Flores and Barajas. They further testified that the bombs were then escorted across Coahuila “so that no one would interfere” before being delivered into Nuevo Laredo, where they were detonated remotely. Those statements became the basis for the terrorism charges.

Almost none of that remains visible in the public record. The articles that once put “El Hummer” alongside the car bombs of 2012 have slipped out of sight, surviving only in forum reposts, PDF captures, and archived versions of newspapers that were later threatened into silence. For most readers, the story has been erased in practice, if not in fact.

Sign up for THE ZERO LUX

We See In Total Darkness

Subscribe

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

The coverage did not disappear by accident. Local outlets that pursued the car-bomb angle became targets themselves. El Mañana de Nuevo Laredo, which had reported aggressively on organized crime and state complicity, was attacked repeatedly—shot at, bombed, hacked—and by 2012 publicly announced it would stop covering drug violence after its newsroom was riddled with bullets. What survives of its reporting on the car bombs and the police escorts exists now only in the archives.

And yet, Barajas’ career continued without interruption. By 2015 and 2016, regional papers were still referring to his name in connection with those warrants, even as he appeared at ceremonies during the unveiling of Fuerza Coahuila, the new police brand meant to replace the discredited GATE. A column in El Demócrata put it in blunt terms: “the same mattress, with new sheets.”

In photographs from the 2016 Fuerza Coahuila launch, Barajas sits in the front row as a “guest of honor,” shoulder to shoulder with the inner circle of Government Secretary Víctor Zamora and loyalists of Armando Luna Canales. The image underscored what human-rights observers argued at the time — that the rebranding exercise was superficial, recycling the same operators who had already been accused of abuses under GATES.

2016 Fuerza Coahuila launch event. Jorge Miguel Barajas Hernández (“El Hummer”) sits in the front row as a guest of honor, alongside figures aligned with Government Secretary Víctor Zamora and collaborators of Armando Luna Canales. The image illustrates how GATES commanders were retained under the new Fuerza Coahuila banner.

In 2018, narcomantas appeared in Piedras Negras, accusing a local commander of being “protected by Miguel Hernández Barajas ‘El Hummer.’” The banners claimed protection networks, extortion rackets, and trafficking. They were anonymous allegations, not judicial findings, but they extended the shadow that had hung over his name since the bombs.

Barajas's past resurfaced in politics in 2023. At a gubernatorial debate in Coahuila, candidate Ricardo Mejía Berdeja stood on stage and held up Barajas’ photo, alongside Héctor Flores “El Jaguar” and another commander known as “El Bóxer.” Mejía accused them of being behind the state’s crystal meth trade and of carrying out years of human rights abuses under the Fuerza Coahuila banner. “They are the unspeakable ones,” Mejía told the audience, lifting the photos high so the cameras could capture them. “Behind them are the crystal sales, the invasions, the abuse of our young people.” For viewers watching at home, the message was unmistakable: these weren’t ghosts from the archives, but names and faces still central to Coahuila’s present.

Coahuila gubernatorial debate 2021. Candidate Ricardo Mejía (PT) holds up printed photos of Jorge Miguel Barajas Hernández, alias “El Hummer,” and another alleged figure while accusing rivals of ties to compromised security officials. Opponent from Morena looks on at the adjacent podium.

And now, in 2025, they are names in U.S. custody files. Villarreal may believe she was singled out because of her pregnancy. The policy context makes her claim possible. But the paper trail that has followed her husband for more than a decade makes another explanation unavoidable. Despite sworn testimony, arrest warrants, public denunciations, and years of press reporting, he rose to command regional police in Coahuila. Mexican institutions allowed it. The United States did not. At Eagle Pass, the visas were pulled. No reasons were given, only the confirmation that the case was not closed. Not for him. Not anymore.

A multi-page OSINT dossier on Jorge Miguel Barajas Hernández, alias “El Hummer,” compiling his career trajectory, ties to Coahuila’s controversial GATES/Fuerza Coahuila unit, unresolved allegations in the 2012 Nuevo Laredo car-bomb case, human-rights reports, and his 2025 U.S. visa revocation. Includes a detailed timeline, press citations, and archival sources from El Mañana, Proceso, Vanguardia, and Estado Mayor.

jorgemiguelbarajas_elhummer_dossier

OSINT dossier on Jorge Miguel Barajas “El Hummer”

jorgemiguelbarajas_elhummer_dossier.pdf

6 MB

The question of whether Mexico is a narcoestado has stalked the country for decades. Under President Claudia Sheinbaum, it has stopped being an abstraction and become the defining accusation of her first year in office. Opposition senators call her compromised. Narcomantas carrying her name have appeared in cartel strongholds. U.S. officials describe joint operations, while she insists no special DEA deal exists. And still, journalists are murdered for exposing cartels and the politicians who shield them.

“Mexicans are afraid of the alliance between the Mexican government and the cartels.”
“Most Mexicans would welcome U.S. help. The only ones who don’t are the narco-politicians, including President Sheinbaum.” — Senator Lilly Téllez, Fox Noticias interview, August 2025

Mexican Sen. Lilly Tellez discusses the alleged infiltration of cartels in the Mexican government and President Donald Trump’s potential role in solving the conflict on ‘Fox & Friends Weekend.’

Sheinbaum insists she stands for cero impunidad. But the record — and the allegations — tell another story: governors flagged but never charged, a murdered party financier whose shadow still looms, and cartel propaganda that speaks to the presidency directly.

“Los mensajes no necesariamente dicen la verdad.”
“The messages do not necessarily tell the truth.” — Claudia Sheinbaum, on narcomantas naming her

In January, banners appeared across bridges in Sinaloa and Baja California Sur with the president’s name scrawled across them, some attributed to La Chapiza, the faction run by El Chapo’s sons. Sheinbaum dismissed them with one line: “The messages do not necessarily tell the truth.”

The mantas prove nothing about her, but their very existence signals how emboldened cartels feel to treat the presidency itself as a faction in their war.

Sign up for THE ZERO LUX

We See In Total Darkness

Subscribe

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Sheinbaum has promised “zero impunity.” But when reports surfaced in early 2025 that intelligence had flagged Rubén Rocha Moya, the Morena governor of Sinaloa, for alleged favoritism toward traffickers, she defended him. She has said repeatedly that there is no evidence against Rocha and no open investigation.

In Tamaulipas, Governor Américo Villarreal has faced longstanding whispers about Gulf Cartel ties. Villarreal rejects the claims, and no new legal action has emerged.

And in the background is Sergio Carmona, the “rey del huachicol,” assassinated in 2021. Investigations at the time described how he funneled money from fuel theft into politics. Morena’s Mario Delgado denied wrongdoing. Sheinbaum has not commented.

“La campaña de Claudia Sheinbaum recibió dinero del Cártel de Sinaloa.”
“Claudia Sheinbaum’s campaign received money from the Sinaloa Cartel.” — Anabel Hernández, investigative journalist

In late 2024, journalist Anabel Hernández alleged that Sheinbaum’s presidential campaign received money from the Sinaloa Cartel. The president denied it. No court has opened a case, and no evidence has been tested.

The claim remains unproven. But its amplification by opposition figures, combined with narcomantas naming the president, has kept the allegation alive in public discourse.

Sheinbaum has cast her presidency as a defense of sovereignty. In August 2025, she denied knowledge of a reported DEA program dubbed “Project Portero.” She said no such DEA agreement exists. At the same time, she has acknowledged that U.S. surveillance drones have long operated in Mexico under bilateral arrangements.

Extraditions tell the other half of the story. In February 2025, Mexico extradited 29 suspects to the U.S. In August, another 26 followed. These transfers required U.S. assurances that the death penalty would not be sought. For Sheinbaum, they serve as proof of cooperation on her terms.

By the numbers, her government touts a roughly 25% drop in intentional homicides since late 2024 and drug seizures totaling nearly 180 tonnes by mid-2025. Critics say statistics cannot erase perception: that violence remains localized but acute, journalists continue to die, and cartel propaganda remains unchallenged.

Then came the case no one could spin away. On August 25, Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada — the co-founder and longest-surviving leader of the Sinaloa Cartel — stood in a U.S. courtroom and pleaded guilty. For decades, Zambada had evaded both Mexican and American authorities. He never spent a day in a Mexican prison. His first conviction came not in Mexico City but in Brooklyn.

Appearing before Judge Brian M. Cogan in federal court, the 75-year-old Zambada listened through a Spanish interpreter and admitted what he had spent half a century denying.

“Empecé a involucrarme con las drogas ilegales en 1969, cuando tenía 19 años, y sembré marihuana por primera vez.”
“I started getting involved with illegal drugs in 1969, when I was 19 years old, and I planted marijuana for the first time.” — Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada, courtroom statement

“Reconozco el gran daño que las drogas ilegales han hecho al pueblo de Estados Unidos, de México y de otros lugares.”
“I recognize the great harm that illegal drugs have done to the people of the United States, of Mexico, and elsewhere.” — Zambada, in court

“Asumo la responsabilidad de mi papel en todo esto y pido disculpas a todos los que han sufrido o han sido afectados por mis acciones.”
“I take responsibility for my role in all of it and I apologize to everyone who has suffered or been affected by my actions.” — Zambada, in court

The guilty plea capped a saga as bizarre as it was bloody. In 2024, Zambada was kidnapped by Joaquín Guzmán López, the son of El Chapo, and lured onto a Beechcraft King Air. When the plane landed outside El Paso, U.S. agents arrested them both.

The fallout plunged Sinaloa into chaos. A war erupted between factions loyal to El Mayo — Los Mayos — and those aligned with El Chapo’s sons, Los Chapitos. Businesses shuttered, the state’s economy stalled, and gunfire echoed through Culiacán. Under heavy pressure from Washington, Sheinbaum ordered thousands of troops into Sinaloa to contain the violence.

From the courtroom, Zambada acknowledged not only the trafficking but also the corruption that allowed it to thrive:

“La organización que dirigí promovió la corrupción en mi país natal pagando a policías, comandantes militares y políticos que nos permitieran operar libremente.”
“The organization I led promoted corruption in my home country by paying police, military commanders and politicians that would allow us to operate freely.” — Zambada, in court

His lawyer, Frank Perez, echoed the contrition:

“Acepta plena responsabilidad por lo que hizo mal.”
“He has accepted full responsibility for what he did wrong.” — Frank Perez, defense lawyer

And to the people of Sinaloa, Perez issued an appeal:

“Nada se gana con el derramamiento de sangre; sólo profundiza las heridas y prolonga el sufrimiento.”
“Nothing is gained by bloodshed; it only deepens the wounds and prolongs suffering.” — Frank Perez, addressing Sinaloa residents

For Mexico, the symbolism was devastating. The man who co-founded the Sinaloa Cartel, who built an empire through murder and bribery, was never tried at home. His confession came in New York, under American law.

Since 2000, more than 160 journalists have been murdered in Mexico. Over a hundred of those killings occurred under Peña Nieto and López Obrador. Between October 2024 and July 2025, eight more reporters were murdered. In Guerrero, José Carlos González covered municipal corruption in Chilpancingo, while Ronald Paz wrote about the Tlacos and Ardillos. In Michoacán, Guillermo Alcaraz investigated CJNG extortion schemes, and Juan Martínez examined political corruption in Zamora. In Tabasco, Julio de la Cruz wrote about narco-linked officials. In Baja California Sur, Patricia Aguilar tracked smuggling routes around La Paz. In Zacatecas, Sergio Rueda reported on cartel incursions into mining towns. In Sonora, Gabriela Rojas documented the conflict between the Sinaloa and Caborca cartels.

Two of those reporters were enrolled in the federal protection mechanism. Both were murdered anyway.

The narcoestado label remains more rhetorical than legal. Mexico’s institutions continue to function, but each manta, each journalist’s death, each contradiction between sovereignty and cooperation narrows the distance. And when Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada pleaded guilty in Brooklyn after never facing trial in Mexico, the symbolism was undeniable.

Sheinbaum promises cero impunidad (zero impunity). The question for her presidency is whether anyone still believes it.

On August 22, 2025, Skydio circulated a safety bulletin to law enforcement and federal partners acknowledging that handheld radios could disable its X10 and X10D controllers. The company listed possible outcomes including loss of communication with the aircraft, degraded video feed quality, automatic return-to-home activations triggered by link loss, and in some cases charging failures or complete power loss. That last outcome was tied directly to radios transmitting in the 450 to 500 megahertz range. Skydio’s guidance was to maintain a twelve-inch separation between radios and controllers, confirm return-to-home and lost-link settings before flight, and contact support if problems persisted. The company said shielding would be introduced in future controllers and that software would be developed to notify pilots if interference was detected, but confirmed that the current hardware remained vulnerable.

The bulletin arrives as cities across the United States are expanding Drone as First Responder programs built on Skydio hardware. Huntington Beach, California, has committed to a three-dock deployment promising sub-two-minute response times. Sunny Isles Beach, Florida, announced what it called the state’s first fully operational Skydio and Axon DFR program. Miami Beach used Skydio X10 drones during its spring break operations, while Cleveland, Ohio, launched flights this summer under a new unmanned systems policy. Cincinnati, Oklahoma City, Redmond, Amarillo, Minnetonka, and Pasco County have each confirmed Skydio deployments.

The police departments in those cities largely operate on 700 or 800 megahertz P25 trunked systems. For them, Skydio’s bulletin translates into a practical rule: radios cannot be left on the same table as a drone controller without risking disruption. The risk becomes greater in multi-agency incidents. Fire, EMS, and search-and-rescue teams often rely on UHF channels inside the danger range Skydio described. National interop frequencies known as UCALL and UTAC are allocated at 453 to 458 megahertz. Ambulance-to-hospital MED channels operate at 462 and 467 megahertz. CERT volunteers and private EMS also transmit in those ranges on FRS and GMRS radios. Federal frequency guides confirm these allocations as nationwide standards.

The hazard is continuous in large metro systems. The New York Police Department and the Fire Department of New York continue to operate on UHF T-Band channels between 470 and 512 megahertz, including 485 megahertz. The Los Angeles Police Department uses the same band. Skydio has acknowledged that transmissions in this range are capable of disabling controller charging and even causing shutdown. In those jurisdictions, the limitation is present every time a controller is powered on. Some with direct knowledge of Skydio’s earlier deployments say the interference problem was already observed during the X2 era, long before the August 22 bulletin. Internal agency communications reviewed by The Zero Lux indicate that memos were circulated to federal and local partners acknowledging interference risks during X2 deployments. If accurate, it would mean the company and its government customers were aware of the vulnerability years before it was publicly disclosed.

Engineers familiar with Skydio hardware note that the X2 and X10 both use the same Microhard radio module. This raises the possibility that UHF transmissions are overwhelming the 2.4 GHz front end through out-of-band coupling, consistent with the company’s admission that radios in the 450 to 500 MHz range can cause controller failures. One engineer noted that RF vulnerability has been observed across multiple drones tested for government use, including platforms such as the Teal 2 and Parrot Anafi USA Gov, which also rely on Microhard radios. Other systems, like the Spirit Ascent and Freefly Astro, have used Doodle Labs radios instead.

Public documentation from that period shows the issue was at least under discussion. In 2023, the Department of Homeland Security’s National Urban Security Technology Laboratory tested the Skydio X2. The evaluation noted lag and pixelation in the video feed but did not attribute those issues to radio interference. Separate Skydio release notes from the X2 era describe radio sensitivity adjustments, indicating that the company was tuning its control links in response to interference. Neither the DHS report nor Skydio’s public notices, however, made reference to handheld UHF portables transmitting near controllers.

Sign up for THE ZERO LUX

We See In Total Darkness

Subscribe

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Communications reliability is already a defined safety requirement in unmanned aviation. The National Wildfire Coordinating Group’s UAS operations guide requires pilots to “confirm/test communications (AM/FM/cell/satellite)” before flight, to consider “GCS link to aircraft (terrain/vegetation)” during site surveys, and to “ensure communication can be maintained on assigned frequencies.” The guide also lists a “frequency guide” as part of the standard kit. The National SAR Committee’s UAS addendum was written to provide “guidance on how to employ UAS for SAR,” and national interoperability guides designate 155.160 MHz as “the de facto SAR interoperability channel.” These standards recognize that radios of every band will be present at command posts where drones are deployed.

The FAA has long required operators to anticipate and mitigate link loss. Advisory Circular 107-2A states that “if the remote PIC loses the control link… the aircraft would continue to fly the programmed mission/return home to land,” and further instructs that “if connection cannot be reestablished, start procedures for loss of control link.” NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System includes lost links and equipment issues among the reportable hazards. By Skydio’s own account, handheld radios within a foot of the controller now belong in that category.

The operational consequences are foreseeable. A Skydio controller deployed at a wildfire could be knocked offline when a firefighter places a UHF portable on the same table. During a stadium evacuation, a medic transmitting on a MED channel could trigger a return-to-home, sending the aircraft back over a crowd instead of holding station. In New York or Los Angeles, where every patrol officer’s radio transmits in the affected band, the risk of controller shutdown exists during every routine deployment.

Regulation under Part 107.15 makes clear that no person may operate a small unmanned aircraft unless it is in a condition for safe operation. That standard places responsibility on operators. Agencies adopting Skydio systems must now demonstrate how they will meet that requirement, whether through training, procedural safeguards, or equipment replacement.

Skydio’s August 22 bulletin does not ground the X10. It does, however, formally acknowledge a vulnerability that appears to have allegedly been known internally since the X2. For cities that have already committed millions of dollars to Drone as First Responder programs, the guidance adds a radio buffer zone to every controller. For fire and SAR agencies, it intersects with long-standing federal doctrine that requires proven communications before flight. And for major cities like New York and Los Angeles, it means the radios carried by every officer and firefighter operate inside the range Skydio says can disable its controllers.

The promise of Drone as First Responder programs is faster situational awareness and quicker response to emergencies. The reality, now confirmed by Skydio and reinforced by internal government memoranda, is that America’s newest drone controllers remain susceptible to interference from the very radios public safety depends on.

Yuri Bezmenov, a Soviet defector who once served as a KGB propagandist, described the method as plainly as anyone could: “Demoralize a society by erasing its history. Destabilize its institutions until no one knows who to trust. Exploit a crisis and push the public into chaos. Then normalize a new reality where lies feel as ordinary as the air we breathe.”

This was not metaphor. It was the doctrine of “active measures,” a long-term campaign to undermine enemies without firing a shot. The stages—demoralization, destabilization, crisis, normalization—were not theory. They were practice. Declassified archives and the Mitrokhin files show how the Kremlin exported forged documents, supported front organizations, and trained militants in the Middle East and Europe.

“The record shows this wasn’t abstract theory.”

In 1975, the Soviets pushed United Nations Resolution 3379 through the General Assembly, declaring that Zionism was racism. Though repealed in 1991, the propaganda victory was achieved: Israel’s existence was equated with apartheid on the world stage. At the same time, the KGB funneled resources to the Palestine Liberation Organization, printing pamphlets in Prague and Moscow that framed Israel as a colonial aggressor. The Mitrokhin Archive describes Soviet support for European radicals like the Red Brigades, who echoed anti-Israel and anti-U.S. slogans.

The strategy worked. By the 1980s, antisemitic tropes—Jews as media and finance manipulators, Zionism as colonialism—were embedded in Western academia and activism. What began as Soviet agitation outlasted the USSR itself.

“Those same mechanics are visible today—only faster, sharper, and amplified by platforms designed to reward outrage.”

Iran and Russia have inherited the skeleton and given it new flesh. Microsoft’s Threat Analysis Center reported that both states ran coordinated influence operations during and after Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack, seeding disinformation across X, TikTok, and Telegram. The viral “All Eyes on Rafah” poster—AI-generated and shared hundreds of millions of times—embodied the demoralization stage, collapsing complexity into outrage.

Sign up for THE ZERO LUX

We See In Total Darkness

Subscribe

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

The measurable results are stark. The Anti-Defamation League’s 2024 audit recorded 9,354 antisemitic incidents in the United States—the highest ever. Fifty-eight percent were tied directly to opposition to Israel or Zionism. The playbook is not academic theory; it lives in hate-crime statistics.

“The playbook doesn’t need the truth to win—it only needs to dominate the first 24 hours.”

On October 17, 2023, an explosion at Gaza’s Al-Ahli Hospital was immediately blamed on Israel. Within hours, headlines declared it a massacre of hundreds. Protests flared across the world. Social media feeds swelled with posts branding Israel a child-killer. But subsequent forensic analysis—including by Human Rights Watch—found the blast was most likely caused by a misfired Palestinian rocket. The correction arrived too late. The damage was permanent.

This was the crisis stage in practice: seize a flashpoint, flood the narrative, and let the correction drown in the tide.

“Look closer at who drives these frames.”

Jackson Hinkle has become the most prominent of the new digital agitators. At just 24, the former California activist reinvented himself on X, climbing to over 3.5 million followers. He has interviewed Hamas officials in Doha, praised Vladimir Putin, and referred to Gaza as a genocide backed by Western complicity. He has raveled to Moscow and appeared at events alongside Russian officials, fueling suspicions of direct Kremlin ties. His monetization on Rumble and X premium programs shows how outrage is converted into income. Hinkle embodies the destabilization stage: targeting U.S. and allied consensus on Israel by reframing the conflict through Kremlin and Tehran talking points.

Sameera Khan plays a different role. A former RT America correspondent, she has a history of defending Stalin’s gulags and posting pro-Soviet memes before rebranding herself as a pro-Palestinian voice. Today she mocks nonviolent activists like CodePink as “LARPing” and praises armed resistance as the only effective solution . With over 230,000 followers, Khan contributes to demoralization by eroding confidence in peaceful protest and presenting militant resistance as both legitimate and necessary. Her amplification of Iranian and Russian narratives—criticizing the IAEA as an Israeli tool, praising multipolar alliances—ties her to a broader state-aligned agenda.

Maram Susli, better known as “Syrian Girl,” is an older but no less effective node. A Syrian-Australian chemist turned YouTuber, she has long defended Bashar al-Assad and dismissed reports of his chemical weapons use as Western propaganda. Her appearances on RT and PressTV (Iranian state media) cement her as a conduit for state narratives. During the Gaza war she blended her Assad advocacy with anti-Israel messaging, portraying the conflict as another “NATO-Zionist” conspiracy. Susli personifies normalization—saturating digital spaces with anti-Western frames until they appear natural, not ideological.

Sulaiman Ahmed, a UK-based commentator with over 700,000 followers, operates at the crisis level. His posts often feature graphic videos of dead or injured children, framed with captions accusing Israel of genocide. He repackages breaking events with certainty long before investigations are complete, as with the Al-Ahli hospital blast, where he amplified early claims of Israeli responsibility. By flooding the information space at moments of chaos, Ahmed helps lock in outrage before facts emerge. His monetization on X prior to losing his blue check in late 2024 shows the business model behind the crisis pillar.

Plestia Alaqad represents a more complicated figure. A Gaza-born photojournalist, she gained millions of Instagram and TikTok followers documenting life under bombardment. Before that, she worked in HR at StepUp Agency, a Gaza marketing firm with an opaque UK registration that dissolved in 2025. Alaqad’s footage is authentic, and her book The Eyes of Gaza captured worldwide attention, but her training with Press House Palestine—an NGO partially funded by Western governments but long accused of Hamas sympathies—positions her within a pipeline of narrative-shaping media. Alaqad functions in the demoralization stage: humanizing Palestinian suffering while subtly reinforcing frames of Israeli illegitimacy, which are then amplified by RT-aligned outlets.

SUPPORT THE ZERO LUX

Together, these figures form an ecosystem. Hinkle destabilizes consensus with overt pro-Kremlin narratives. Khan demoralizes by discrediting nonviolence and legitimizing militancy. Susli normalizes Assadist and anti-Israel propaganda until it feels ambient. Ahmed exploits crises in real time, monetizing outrage. And Alaqad provides the emotive imagery that primes audiences for all of it. None of them act alone. Each fits into a structure that mirrors the four pillars Bezmenov described.

“They are not outliers. They are the modern agents of influence, witting or not.”

They are backed by a chorus of activist groups. CodePink organizes ceasefire marches and campaigns for boycotts. Students for Justice in Palestine create “Popular Universities for Gaza” on American campuses. The Communist Party USA frames the war as imperialism and defends Russia and Iran. None of these groups are proven foreign agents, but their outcomes mirror the aims of active measures: fracture Western support for Israel and make hostility to Zionism an ordinary position in civic life.

“This is not conspiracy. It is continuity.”

Opaque business fronts appear as well. StepUp Agency, a marketing firm with a fleeting UK registration and Gaza base, exemplifies the shell structure familiar from Cold War playbooks. Its UK entity dissolved within months, while Gaza-based influencer Plestia Alaqad—listed as an HR specialist—rose to global prominence with millions of followers and a bestselling book. Her footage from Gaza was real, but its amplification often ran through the same networks aligned with Russian and Iranian narratives.

“The calls for scrutiny are bipartisan and international.”

In 2025, members of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee urged the FBI and DOJ to investigate Hinkle and others under foreign-agent laws. The Justice Department has already indicted RT employees for funneling $10 million to U.S. influencers spreading Kremlin disinformation. In Britain, MPs called on MI5 and Ofcom to investigate Ahmed. Amnesty International flagged Susli’s potential Assad-linked funding. Elon Musk’s X revoked Ahmed’s blue check amid misinformation crackdowns.

“Outrage becomes currency. Clicks become income.”

As civilians in Gaza and Israel endure bombardment and displacement, their suffering becomes the backdrop for monetized outrage. Influencers with no military or journalistic experience brand themselves as analysts. Outrage is commodified. Narratives seeded in Soviet propaganda shops now generate ad revenue on Silicon Valley platforms.

“‘No one is able to come to sensible conclusions despite abundance of information.’”

Yuri Bezmenov said the point of subversion wasn’t to win an argument — it was to drown judgment. He sketched four stages that, if they took, would make truth feel remote: demoralization, destabilization, crisis, normalization. In his 1984 lectures he put rough clocks on them — 15–20 years to rot values and memory; 2–5 years to unsettle institutions; weeks or months to seize a flashpoint; and an indefinite “new normal” once people accepted the fog as air. 

“Demoralize a society by erasing its history.”

Bezmenov meant schooling, media, culture — the places where identity is formed. Our own research traced how the KGB fed this stage with simple, repeatable frames: Zionism = racism; Jews as controllers of media and finance; Israel as a colonial outpost. Those lines weren’t invented on campus; they were planted globally, then laundered back through Western discourse. The UN’s 1975 Resolution 3379, branding Zionism “a form of racism,” is the canonical example — passed with Soviet/Arab bloc muscle, repealed in 1991, but rhetorically evergreen.

“Destabilize its institutions until no one knows who to trust.”

Here the playbook targets policy, law, security, economics — the working gears. Soviet active measures pushed PLO outreach to Western radicals; distributed pamphlets from Prague and Moscow; yoked Israel to South Africa and Rhodesia in a readymade anti‑colonial crate; and coached European militants who folded anti‑Israel slogans into their canon. Our notes map this to Bezmenov’s second stage: agitation that fractures bipartisan consensus and bleeds into NGOs and faculty lounges through the 1980s–2000s. Contemporary scholars and government archives describe the same toolkit: the U.S. Active Measures Working Group chronicled forgeries and front media in its 1988 report, and Thomas Rid’s history of disinformation situates those operations as standard Soviet statecraft, not conspiracy. 

“The playbook doesn’t need the truth to win — only the first 24 hours.”

Crisis, for Bezmenov, is a window: grab a shocking event, flood the narrative, and let the correction die in the undertow. The Al‑Ahli hospital blast on October 17, 2023, is the classroom example. Within hours, platforms framed Israel as a child‑killer; protests followed. Subsequent forensic work — including Human Rights Watch — concluded the likely cause was a misfired Palestinian rocket, but by then the meme had set. Our files flagged this as a “classic example of how misinformation becomes entrenched.”

“Normalization is a cynical expression borrowed from Soviet propaganda.”

Bezmenov’s own warning was that, after crisis, a new status quo can congeal — not necessarily a junta, but a mental climate in which the frames you’ve seeded become default. “It may last indefinitely,” he said. In 2024, the ADL recorded record U.S. antisemitic incidents (9,354), with a majority explicitly linked to Israel/Zionism; that’s not proof of a singular puppet‑master, but it is evidence of narrative capture spilling offline. (For a concrete slice, ADL’s New York audit shows ~58% of incidents tied to Israel/Zionism in 2024.) 

“Academics will argue the details — the pattern is the point.”

Serious scholars caution against overhyping any one defector’s taxonomy. Rid, for example, urges sobriety: disinformation is chronic, often clumsy, and its effects are easiest to see when we measure long arcs rather than single stunts. But those same scholars also show continuity: the Soviet doctrine of active measures migrated into the present via Russian and Iranian information ops, now scaled by platforms and AI. RAND’s “firehose of falsehood” captures the physics: volume and velocity beat veracity, and refutations arrive too late to matter. 

“This is not conspiracy. It is continuity.”

Our primary materials lay the Cold War trail — UN 3379 and its repeal; Mitrokhin‑era accounts of forgeries, fronts, and militant coaching; the Working Group’s catalog of Soviet ops — and then pick up the modern thread: Microsoft’s MTAC documents Iranian and Russian influence operations exploiting the Israel‑Hamas war; AI‑generated imagery like “All Eyes on Rafah” goes hyper‑viral precisely because it compresses pain into shareable certainty. That is demoralization by design — a saturation that makes nuance feel like betrayal.  

“Who carries the water? Influencers, photojournalists, online personalities.”

We’ve already detailed the principal amplifiers: Hinkle (destabilization — importing Kremlin and Tehran frames, monetizing outrage), Khan (demoralization — scorning nonviolence, laundering RT‑era narratives), Susli (normalization — Assadist and anti‑Israel lines till they feel ambient), Ahmed (crisis — first‑strike claims in breaking news that harden before facts), and Alaqad (demoralization — emotive imagery that primes audiences for all of the above). The method maps cleanly to the pillars; the ecosystem does the rest. 

That is the hinge of the close: Bezmenov’s stages were a theory of change for hostile states with patience. The KGB’s operational vocabulary — fronts, forgeries, agents of influence — is now native to platforms that reward outrage. RAND explains why the corrections fail; Microsoft shows who’s exploiting the gap; our own record shows how the gap fills with antisemitism and delegitimization in the real world. 

Bezmenov’s pillars are not relics. They are visible in record antisemitism, in viral misinformation, in the normalization of slogans older than the activists chanting them. They are visible in unqualified influencers elevated as experts, in NGOs that launder narratives, and in shell companies that mirror Cold War fronts. 

Demoralization. Destabilization. Crisis. Normalization. Four stages written in Moscow decades ago, now running on U.S. servers. They do not need to be flawless to succeed. They only need to erode trust, destabilize consensus, weaponize crises, and normalize a new reality. By every measurable outcome — from the streets to the campuses to the feeds — they already have. 

I had this concept while researching these accounts in 2023. As time went on theory became a question I was consumed with. Even if Yuri couldn't predict the future, like so many before him. What if this theory was being used across the west to destabilize and distract?

You be the judge.

Sign up for THE ZERO LUX

We See In Total Darkness

Subscribe

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

They’re not hiding. They’re governing. That’s how one U.S. counterterrorism official described Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wa al-Muslimeen (JNIM), the West African al-Qaeda affiliate that has quietly built one of the most adaptable, well-resourced, and locally embedded jihadist insurgencies in the world. While international media fixates on Gaza, Ukraine, and Latin America, a silent revolution is unfolding across the Sahel—a war of influence, taxation, propaganda, and yes, drones.

The rise of JNIM in West Africa: recruitment, governance, and military evolution all visible to those willing to look. The group’s propaganda outlet, Az-Zallaqa Media Foundation, never stopped transmitting. Despite geo-blocking and Western platform takedowns, their battlefield updates, martyrdom eulogies, and drone footage continued to circulate across X, Telegram, dark web forums, and invite-only sites.

JNIM’s origin story began not just with guns, but with grievance. In Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, the group capitalized on deep local resentments—corrupt governments, abusive militaries, ethnic fractures. Their messaging, much like the Taliban or HTS in Syria, promised protection, justice, and the restoration of dignity. And for many communities abandoned by their own governments, they delivered. “JNIM is attempting to portray itself as a legitimate governance structure,” said Dr. Levi West in an interview with The Cipher Brief. “In a way that mirrors what we saw with the Taliban or HTS.”

By 2023, JNIM was no longer just a terrorist group. It had become an insurgency. In some towns, it operated courts. In others, it taxed agricultural production. And in many cases, its fighters were more familiar—and more trusted—than the distant state.

But behind the governance was blood. Images showed the aftermath of summary executions—bodies lined in ditches, some bound, others burned. Civilians accused of spying. Men targeted for refusing allegiance. In one sequence, a child’s lifeless body lay crumpled near a village well, caught in the crossfire of a so-called liberation. These weren't isolated incidents; they were framed, documented, and distributed through Az-Zallaqa as proof of control.

The media wing didn’t just glorify martyrdom or battlefield success—it memorialized terror. Fighters posed with weapons, circled captured towns, and filmed the wreckage of ambushed convoys. In one clip, a man identified as a local farmer was shot execution-style after a “trial” before masked jihadists. Another showed children marching through a village square, raising the black flag above a government school.

To those tracking the feed, the message was clear: this was not just about insurgency—it was about erasure and replacement. State by state, checkpoint by checkpoint, flag by flag.

AFRICOM Commander Gen. Michael Langley warned, “We’re seeing an arc of instability stretch across the Sahel. In some places, these groups have more influence than state governments.”

Weapons arrived not through one pipeline but many. According to multiple sources and field reports, JNIM fighters acquired arms through black market channels, looting military bases, regional smuggling, and corruption at border crossings. Experts from the Policy Center for the New South noted a persistent flow of weapons from Libya, Nigeria, and gold mining corridors. These included Kalashnikovs, anti-tank rockets, loitering munitions, and increasingly—commercial drones modified for attack.

The drone evolution came slowly, then all at once. At first, JNIM deployed commercial drones purely for reconnaissance: spotting Burkinabe and Malian patrols, surveying base layouts. But as early as 2023, battlefield imagery began to show crude modifications. Aerial grenades. Plastic bottles repurposed as drop devices. A series of failed attacks drew little attention outside the region. But internally, they were treated as prototypes. A learning curve.

JNIM-operated drones show a clear shift toward modular, non-OEM construction. One unit features a modified arm lacking any manufacturer branding, with mismatched screws and black housing not found on commercial models. Another displays a drop bracket secured with red cloth — a technique seen in homemade grenade delivery attempts. Several components appear to be sourced from commercial marketplaces like Alibaba and AliExpress, where unbranded drone parts, imitation Autel-style arms, and payload accessories are readily available. While some configurations may still rely on DJI-style airframes, others show signs of hybrid assembly and low-cost cloning — a practical adaptation to sanctions, surveillance, and battlefield losses.

Some of the drones bore no visible branding. No DJI or Autel markings. No RTK modules. Their arms were blank — likely cloned in Shenzhen or sourced from the global grey market. And yet, they flew. One video circulating in jihadist channels appears to show a drone deploying a munition with precision onto a Burkinabe military checkpoint. The moment was captured from both the air and the ground — a sign of confidence not just in outcome, but in propaganda value.

“The most dangerous thing about JNIM is that they’re patient,” said a regional counterinsurgency advisor. “They’re not wasting resources. They test. They iterate. They adapt. And they’ve got nothing but time.” A tactical assessment published by Grey Dynamics in 2025 echoed that view: JNIM isn’t trying to win overnight. It’s trying to outlast and out-govern.

The financing for this insurgency? Increasingly international. According to a July report from the Atlantic Council, drug trafficking routes across the Sahel have become a core funding source for militant actors. Cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin move through West Africa en route to Europe—and some shipments reportedly originate in Latin America. That alone raises a troubling possibility: JNIM may be in quiet contact with Latin American cartels or Hezbollah facilitators. “There’s no other way for that kind of logistical coordination to function,” said one former DEA field agent familiar with West African trafficking corridors. “Those are handshake deals. There’s intent behind them.”

And the fighters? They’re not just local. While JNIM’s ranks are heavily Tuareg and Fulani, intelligence assessments suggest that training camps have drawn foreign nationals—from Mauritania, Libya, and even the Middle East. Captured smartphones in the Mopti region have revealed Arabic-language material from external trainers. Others show GPS coordinates tied to desert locations near the Mali-Algeria border, long known to host jihadist safe havens and weapons caches.

Propaganda, meanwhile, never stopped. Despite Western efforts to block and remove Az-Zallaqa Media, JNIM's media wing has evolved. They’ve embraced redundancy: backups on Russian servers, videos encoded to bypass upload filters, and ZIP archives passed hand-to-hand or via burner Telegram channels. The message is simple: “We are here. We are growing. We are inevitable.”

One U.S. intelligence briefing from early 2025 even flagged the possibility that some JNIM propaganda was being translated for external distribution. English subtitles. French voiceovers. The group is not just fighting—it’s recruiting. And it knows the West is watching.

The most recent ACLED data shows a dramatic uptick in JNIM-claimed operations in the second quarter of 2025. Attacks on military outposts in northern Burkina Faso have increased in both frequency and lethality. Drone-assisted strikes are now reported in three distinct regions, with verified images showing explosive payloads and target area destruction.

In some cases, the group has even outmaneuvered Russian paramilitary units. The shadowy Africa Corps, a successor to Wagner Group, has faced repeated ambushes and IED attacks in areas where JNIM enjoys terrain dominance and local support. A recent Le Monde report noted: “Despite Russian air support and armored columns, the jihadists remain mobile, informed, and deeply embedded.”

The international community’s silence on this front is deafening. As the world focuses elsewhere, the Sahel edges closer to full-blown state failure in multiple zones.

“What distinguishes JNIM is its hybrid nature—an al-Qaeda-aligned movement that embeds within local grievances and tribal fault lines,” Cipher Brief analysts wrote. “It isn’t just a jihadist insurgency. It’s a parallel order.”