Underground Dispatch: Trans Death Cult, Vance vs. WSJ, and an Activist Judge

A trans extremist death cult, WSJ’s smear job on Vance, and an activist judge blocking Trump’s policies.

Feb 14, 2025

The Underground Dispatch is back. I originally launched this newsletter in January, but I underestimated how much time a new Trump administration and a growing podcast would demand.

My goal is to publish at least two editions per month, but quality comes first. I’m not here to flood your inbox with unnecessary noise. If I’m sending you something, it’s because I believe the story is underreported and critical to understanding what’s really happening in the world.

If you’re a news junkie like me, you can also follow me on Instagram for breaking news updates. And don’t forget to check out my podcast, Rivera and Reeves, which I co-host with Rachel Reeves.

We break down the top news stories every Tuesday and Thursday, exposing media narratives and setting the record straight. Plus, once a month, we drop an exclusive UNFiltered episode for our paid supporters.

Now, let’s get into the news.

A Radical Cult, a Murdered Border Agent, and a Story the Media Won’t Touch

Remember the U.S. Border Patrol agent killed at the northern border shortly after Trump’s inauguration? It was a story that quickly and seeminly disappeared—turns out it was the work of a violent, trans extremist cult called the Zizians.

Agent David Maland was gunned down on January 20, 2025, in Vermont by Teresa “Milo” Youngblut, a 21-year-old trans-identifying college student linked to the group. Her accomplice, Felix “Ophelia” Bauckholt, a German national, was killed when agents returned fire. But that’s just the beginning.

Independent journalist Andy Ngo has exposed the Zizians as a cult-like movement of highly educated, militant trans and vegan extremists with direct ties to multiple murders across the country.

A California landlord was fatally stabbed—allegedly by another Zizian member, Maximilian Snyder.
An 82-year-old man was executed in what authorities believe was a hit to silence a witness in an ongoing attempted murder trial involving other cult members.
A double homicide in Pennsylvania is now being investigated for links to the group.

At the center of it all is Jack “Ziz” LaSota, a trans-identifying former computer engineer accused of pushing his followers toward violent extremism. Some claim he died in 2022, but investigators believe that was a deception to avoid law enforcement.

Despite its clear pattern of deadly attacks, media coverage of the Zizians has been strangely limited. If a right-wing cult had murdered a federal officer and multiple civilians, it would be the top story in every major outlet. Instead, there’s an eerie silence.

If you want the full details on this underreported but highly disturbing case, read Andy Ngo’s report in the NY Post and follow his updates on his website.

WSJ’s Hit Piece on Vance: Twisting Words to Undermine Trump’s Foreign Policy

If there’s one thing the mainstream media does well, it’s misrepresenting statements to create conflict where there is none—and the Wall Street Journal just served up a textbook example.

Their latest spin job? Claiming that Vice President JD Vance threatened Russia with military action if Putin doesn’t agree to a U.S.-brokered peace deal in Ukraine. The problem? That’s not at all what Vance said.

What Vance Actually Said

The WSJ took one sentence out of context and turned it into a false narrative. Here’s the exact quote they used:

“There are economic tools of leverage, there are of course military tools of leverage” the U.S. could use against Putin, Vance said. “There’s a whole host of things that we could do. But fundamentally, I think the president wants to have a productive negotiation, both with Putin and with Zelensky.”

Now, any honest journalist would recognize that Vance is clearly outlining the range of diplomatic leverage the U.S. has at its disposal. He does not threaten military action. Instead, he explicitly says Trump’s goal is a productive negotiation.

Yet somehow, WSJ twisted this into: “Vance threatens Russia with military action.”

This is the same media that spent years promoting the Russia-Trump collusion hoax and pushing for endless wars in the Middle East. Now, they’re manufacturing fake divisions in the Trump administration to undermine his diplomatic strategy.

Manufacturing a Cabinet Rift?

To make matters worse, WSJ attempted to pit Vance against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, suggesting that Vance’s comments took a far “tougher” stance than Hegseth’s remarks at a NATO meeting the day before.

Hegseth, speaking in Brussels, outlined key realities of the negotiation process:

Ukraine’s borders are unlikely to return to their 2014 status.
Ukraine is not joining NATO under the Trump administration.
European nations, not the U.S., must take the lead on security guarantees.

Was Hegseth exposing too much? Possibly. Trump is a strategist—he wouldn’t lay all his cards on the table before negotiations even begin. But despite this, the WSJ is pushing the narrative that there’s division within Trump’s cabinet on Ukraine policy.

This is either a deliberate attempt to create friction inside Trump’s foreign policy team or bias reporting showing it’s hand.

The Reality: A United Strategy

Both Vance and Hegseth are aligned with Trump’s approach—negotiation first, leverage on the table, no unnecessary U.S. troop deployments. The goal is a peace deal that guarantees Ukraine’s independence while avoiding further entanglement.

Meanwhile, WSJ—which has spent years cheerleading for endless wars and pushing for more American interventionism—wants to paint Trump’s team as disorganized or contradictory when in reality, they’re executing a clear plan to take a different approach from the past administration in and effort to end a war instead of feed one.

Vance’s Munich Speech: The Actual Story

While the WSJ tried to stir up division, Vance took the stage in Munich with a powerful message—one that European leaders weren’t thrilled to hear. He called out censorship, mass migration, and European elites ignoring their own people.

He didn’t just talk about Ukraine. He warned that Europe’s biggest problem isn’t Russian social media ads or threats from outside their borders—it’s their own governments refusing to listen to their citizens.

Vance’s real speech was a wake-up call to Europe’s ruling class—but you wouldn’t know that if you relied on the WSJ.

The Bottom Line

WSJ cherry-picked a quote from Vance to falsely claim he threatened Russia with military action.
They attempted to fabricate a policy rift between Vance and Hegseth.
Trump’s actual policy remains clear: negotiate a peace deal, leverage U.S. power strategically, and avoid unnecessary U.S. troop involvement.

The WSJ can keep playing word games, but Trump’s team is focused on delivering results, not media narratives.

Time will tell if Trump can use his skills and the art of the deal to bring and end to this war.

Activist Judge or Impartial Jurist? Judge McConnell’s Own Words Tell the Story

A newly uncovered video by Natalie Winters from 2021 reveals that Judge John McConnell Jr., the same judge who recently blocked President Trump’s spending freeze, has a long history of left-wing activism. In the footage, McConnell openly suggests Trump is a “tyrant,” insists that racism is a “white people problem,” and argues that transgender individuals need special sentencing considerations in court.

McConnell, who was a major donor to Democrat campaigns, served on a Hillary Clinton finance committee, and sat on the board of Planned Parenthood, makes it clear that his personal beliefs influence his judicial decisions. In his own words, “I have opinions about a lot of things,” implying that those opinions shape his rulings.

Among other eyebrow-raising admissions, McConnell:

Compared Trump’s presidency to the Civil War and Jim Crow era
Said courts should apply the law differently based on race, gender, and transgender status
Established a “Diversity, Inclusion, and Racial Justice Committee” to address what he sees as systemic bias
Admitted to hiring people based solely on race to “diversify” his court
Insisted that all white people have racism inside them and must “do the hard work” to fix it
Criticized Trump for not appointing enough racially diverse judges

Winters argues that McConnell is an activist in a robe, not an impartial judge, and his actions confirm that he views the courtroom as a tool for social justice rather than a place for neutral application of the law.

Given his direct involvement in progressive politics, his latest ruling against Trump raises serious questions about whether the decision was based on legal merit—or political bias.

Update: The Fight Over Trump’s Funding Freeze Continues

Lt’s recap what is happening with Judge John McConnell Jr. and his decision to block President Trump’s federal funding freeze. As of February 14, 2025, here’s where things stand:

McConnell’s Power Play

On January 31, Judge McConnell issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing the Trump administration from freezing federal funds. This move came after 22 Democrat states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit, claiming the funding pause—issued via an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directive—was unlawful.

But McConnell wasn’t done yet. On February 10, after claiming that Trump’s team wasn’t complying with his initial order, the judge upped the ante by issuing an enforcement order. He accused the administration of ignoring the court and demanded the immediate restoration of funding to programs tied to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Inflation Reduction Act, and other federal initiatives.

What is the Status of The Freeze?

The White House wasted no time, filing an appeal on February 10 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. The administration is challenging both McConnell’s original ruling and his enforcement order, making it clear they won’t back down without a fight.

What’s Next?

The next major showdown is set for February 21, when a hearing in Providence will determine whether McConnell’s restraining order becomes a preliminary injunction. If that happens, the funding freeze could be blocked indefinitely until the case is fully decided in court.

The Bigger Picture

This case has sparked a firestorm online, with critics questioning McConnell’s political biases and conflicts of interest—especially in light of his Democrat donor history, connections to Hillary Clinton, and activist court policies (as highlighted in Natalie Winters' report). Social media is buzzing with debate over the constitutional implications of a judge wielding this level of control over executive policy.

At its core, this battle isn’t just about money—it’s about the limits of judicial power and whether a federal judge can override a sitting president’s authority to control spending. With the legal fight still unfolding, the fate of Trump’s funding freeze—and the broader implications for executive authority—remains uncertain.

Stay tuned. The next few weeks could determine whether the courts or the White House will have the final say.

USAID and the Awlaki Scandal: A Story Washington Hoped You’d Forget

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is under fire once again as past scandals resurface in light of new scrutiny. Investigative journalists Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne first uncovered back in 2010 that USAID had fully funded the college tuition of Anwar Al-Awlaki, a man who would go on to become one of al-Qaeda’s most influential terrorists. Now, with USAID facing intensified oversight for its history of waste and abuse, the report has gained renewed attention—and for good reason.

A Terrorist, Paid for by U.S. Taxpayers

Awlaki wasn’t just another extremist. He personally mentored the 9/11 hijackers, recruited homegrown terrorists, and was eventually killed by a CIA drone strike in 2011—becoming the first American targeted for elimination due to terrorist activities. Yet, despite his radical leanings, USAID paid for his education at Colorado State University in the 1990s after he falsely claimed he was a Yemeni citizen.

The documents, first reported by Herridge and Browne, revealed:

USAID provided “full funding” for Awlaki’s studies as part of an exchange program meant for foreign students.
He lied about his place of birth, claiming Yemeni citizenship, when he was actually born in Las Cruces, New Mexico.
The FBI discovered his deception just eight weeks after 9/11—yet this information was not widely acted upon.
Despite his known ties to terrorists, Awlaki was invited to a Pentagon lunch in 2002 as part of an outreach effort to “moderate” Muslim leaders.

USAID’s Record of Waste and Abuse

The resurfacing of this report comes as USAID is under intense scrutiny following revelations of its long history of mismanagement, fraud, and politically motivated spending. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has been digging into USAID’s finances, exposing questionable programs such as:

Funding foreign transgender activism in countries like Guatemala.
Pouring millions into left-wing NGOs with little oversight.
Spending taxpayer dollars on frivolous projects like an Iraqi version of Sesame Street.

Even Elon Musk has weighed in, calling USAID a “slush fund” that operates with little transparency or accountability.

A Pattern of Negligence

The Awlaki case is just one example in a long list of USAID failures. The fact that federal officials knew of his fraud weeks after 9/11 but failed to act speaks to the larger culture of waste, negligence, and incompetence that has plagued the agency for decades.

Now, as Trump’s administration pushes for drastic cuts and reform, USAID officials and Democrats are scrambling to defend their track record. But with stories like this coming back to haunt them, yet the Democrats have chosen to defend the bureaucracy instead of reining in USAID’s unchecked spending.

Now, I want to hear from you. What do you think about these stories?

Does the Wall Street Journal’s spin on Vance seem like an intentional hit job, or just bad reporting?
Should activist judges like McConnell have this much power over federal spending?
And how is a violent trans extremist cult linked to multiple murders not front-page news?

Drop a comment and let me know your thoughts. I read them all.

Until next time… see you sometime.