Hold onto your masks, folks—declassified intelligence just dropped a bombshell about the Biden administration’s view on COVID-19 dissenters.
Newsmax reported that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard unveiled records on Friday that paint a chilling picture of government overreach, labeling those who opposed vaccine and mask mandates as "domestic violent extremists" (DVEs).
This story boils down to a December 2021 report from the Biden administration, co-authored by the FBI, DHS, and NCTC, which branded anti-mandate individuals as potential threats while vaguely justifying investigations and possible censorship.
The saga began when these intelligence records, first obtained by Public, were declassified by Gabbard on Friday.
They reveal a calculated move by the Biden team to categorize everyday Americans—those skeptical of forced vaccinations or masking—as DVEs. It’s not just a label; it’s a loaded term that opens doors to scrutiny most would rather keep shut.
The report in question, titled "DVEs and Foreign Analogues May React Violently to COVID-19 Mitigation Mandates," spans seven pages of eyebrow-raising content.
Published in December 2021, it was a joint effort by heavy hitters like the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and National Counterterrorism Center. If that doesn’t scream "we’re watching you," I’m not sure what does.
What qualifies someone as a DVE, you ask? The report vaguely points to triggers like believing in "QAnon" conspiracies or rejecting mRNA therapies, as if holding an opinion is a gateway to violence. It’s a slippery slope when dissent gets painted with such a broad, dangerous brush.
Delving deeper, the document flags narratives that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe—particularly for kids—or part of a shadowy government plot to strip away freedoms. It even suggests these beliefs could herald a new social or political order. Well, call me old-fashioned, but isn’t questioning authority a cornerstone of democracy, not a crime?
Here’s where it gets murkier: one section admits that while some anti-mandate actions might be criminal, others are protected by the U.S. Constitution.
It concedes that mere political advocacy, strong rhetoric, or even philosophical support for violence doesn’t equate to extremism. So why the witch hunt for folks just speaking their minds?
The same section notes that activism and political positions are often constitutionally safeguarded. Yet, the report’s ambiguity seems tailor-made to chill free speech, as other probes like the Twitter Files have hinted. Turns out, vague guidelines can be a handy tool for suppression.
Former FBI agent Steve Friend told Public, "It's a way they could go to social media companies and say, 'You don't want to propagate domestic terrorism, so you should take down this content.'" Talk about a backdoor to censorship. If that’s not a nudge to Big Tech to silence dissent, I don’t know what is.
Gabbard didn’t hold back when she spoke to Fox News on Friday about these revelations. She pointed to the Biden administration’s strategic plan to designate potential DVEs based on flimsy grounds. It’s almost as if questioning policy is now a litmus test for extremism.
Gabbard said, "It really talks about people who may likely turn out to be domestic violent extremists or those who may turn to violence because of these specific 'ideologies' that they hold." She’s hitting the nail on the head—labeling ideologies as dangerous feels like a direct jab at First Amendment rights.
She added, "These ideologies that they are characterizing as potentially turning into potentially violent activities happen to be people who were using their First Amendment rights to oppose certain policies of the Biden Administration." It’s hard to argue with that logic when the Constitution is supposed to be the ultimate shield, not a target.
Gabbard also highlighted specific examples, noting, "Some of the examples that are focused on here have to do with those who oppose the COVID vaccine mandates, those who oppose the mask mandates." She zeroed in on parents worried about forced vaccinations for their children without consent. That’s not extremism; that’s just parenting with a pulse.
Opposing mandates or worrying about your kids’ health shouldn’t land anyone on a government list. The Biden administration’s approach risks alienating millions who simply want a say in their own lives. When did skepticism become synonymous with subversion?