Did Ghislaine Maxwell's Israeli Spy Father Fake His Death to Launder the Family Fortune?

A documented hypothesis from the Epstein files and beyond.

Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez for THE PUGILIST

Apr 29, 2026

Last year, I had almost no idea who Ghislaine Maxwell was, and I’d certainly never given a moment’s thought to her father, Robert Maxwell. Now, I think about these people more than is probably good for me. If you’re new here, and are lucky enough to heretofore have not heard of these two, allow me to ruin your life by summarizing. (Feel free to dissociate through the next paragraph, as I sure as hell did, if you already know their basic biographical information.)

Ghislaine Maxwell is a convicted child sex trafficker. She worked with Jeffrey Epstein to lure, groom, exploit and rape minors, and traffick them to famous and powerful men, and filmed them raping the kids so they could blackmail them later. He’s dead. She’s in prison. And our bloated bloviating president might pardon her soon.

Among the places Jeff and Ghislaine raped kids and filmed others raping kids for kompromat was my beloved home state of New Mexico. In 1993, Ghislaine has said, she convinced Jeffrey to buy a 7,600-acre property that he (or someone) dubbed Zorro Ranch. Most people know this now.

What most people still do NOT know, however, is this: Ghislaine’s dad, Robert Maxwell, a British publishing tycoon who also worked as a spy for Israeli military intelligence, was in New Mexico in 1983-1984, selling backdoored, bugged software to Sandia National Laboratories and Los Alamos National Laboratories, the two biggest nuclear weapons labs in the United States. The software was bugged by Israel, to allow it to spy on anyone using it.

It appears Jeffrey and Ghislaine were not merely buying an isolated ranch to rape kids at. They were raping kids with a purpose. And that purpose was to contribute to Israel’s espionage efforts at the nuclear weapons labs in New Mexico, work Ghislaine’s dad had begun.

Gah. Hang on. I have to shake it off. THEM. The heavy grease of them in my mind. So tired of them. Tired of them living in my brain. Monsters I wish had stayed under the bed. Anyway. Deep breath. Onward.

Okay. So Robert. Robert Maxwell. Born in what’s now Ukraine. Flees Hitler, ends up in England. Speaks like eight languages. Serves in the M16 intelligence operation for England. Bosses say he’s next to useless after the war because his only loyalty is to Israel. Yet he stays in England, working for intelligence. Probably more than one country’s intelligence. Makes a boatload in his publishing front, whilst also being a spy. Publishes scientific journals. Gets access to scientists. Including nuclear physicists. Comes to New Mexico. Does the thing with the labs. Whistleblowers tell the FBI. Ed Meese, president Ronald Reagan’s head of the Dept. of Justice, drops the investigation. Then, around 1991, the story gets weird. Like everything else about these people.

And by weird, what I mean to say is that in 1991, Robert Maxwell died in a rather weird way. He is said to have had a heart attack on or near his yacht, named The Lady Ghislaine (because of course it is), and then he drowns in the inky blue sea near the Canary Islands. It gets weirder. Because, yeah.

British media reports from the time say medical examiners can’t agree on either the cause of death OR that the obese waterlogged corpse is even Robert Maxwell at all. His wife says its him, though. And that’s good enough for everyone else. Then it gets weirder.

Upon Robert Maxwell’s death, it comes to light that he has somehow managed to move hundreds of millions of pounds out of the pension accounts for his publishing empire employees, and that money has simply vanished. It’s a scandal, naturally, as so many things are in jolly old England.

But it is not a scandal in Israel.

Robert Maxwell was buried on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem five days after his death, in what his own wife Betty described as “a hero’s send-off and what amounted to a state funeral.” Israeli President Chaim Herzog delivered the eulogy. Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir attended. So did at least six serving and former heads of Israeli intelligence. Shamir said Maxwell had “done more for Israel than can today be said.”

Than can today be said. Read that again.

To me, it sounds like a knowing wink from a sitting prime minister to a crowd full of intelligence chiefs who all understood exactly what had just happened and why. You don’t invoke secrecy at a funeral unless there is something to keep secret.

For me, it’s the next moves of Robert’s youngest daughter, that make me feel like the death might have been faked.

In Britain, the press coverage was all about the pitiable widow and her poor defrauded seven living children (two others had died by then) — and especially it was about the heartbroken, stunning youngest daughter, Ghislaine, a fixture in high society and the posh social scene.

Poor Ghislaine, the media said, consoled herself by moving to Manhattan and hooking up with a rich hottie named Jeffrey Epstein, whom she would later tell current US Attorney General Todd Blanche her father had “never met.”

It was lie, though. Like almost everything that slips easily from Ghislaine’s mouth. Epstein had, in fact, met Robert Maxwell long before he met the man’s youngest daughter.

According to former Mossad intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe, Jeffrey Epstein met Robert Maxwell first, because both Jeff and Rob were working for Israeli military intelligence in the early 1980s. Ben-Menashe, who claims to have run both of them, says Epstein was already squirreling away millions of pounds for Robert Maxwell in the early 1980s, in offshore bank accounts.

Which means one of two things, to me. Either:

1. Ghislaine Maxwell knew to go to Epstein in the event of her father’s death, to get the hidden money, and covered her own ass by allowing it to seem as though Epstein — who, let’s be honest, never met a person over 14 he wanted to date — was “supporting” her; or

2. Robert Maxwell, with the help of the Mossad, began making arrangements a decade before he faked his death, so that his youngest daughter, his favorite daughter, the daughter he took everywhere with him (to learn the trade, I presume?) could take over his spy operations and the family fortune, without having to take on the faltering publishing empire.

I am leaning towards the latter, and here’s why. The scandal about the missing pensions was heartbreaking to anyone who cares about hardworking people who dedicate their lives to a company and retire to find creep who employed them has absconded with their retirement savings. And in class-conscious Britain, it was possibly even more enraging. Armed with the public outcry and pity, big banks swooped in to save the day. So did the British government, which bailed out half of the missing funds. The pensioners got their retirement money after all.

If I’m right, Ghislaine, through Jeffrey, got the missing money. And gave it to Jeffrey — it was the other half billion he needed to become an actual billionaire, with the first half billion having come from Mega Group Zionist rich guy, Les Wexner.

Think about it. It’s almost too perfect. The official story, repeated by the med to this day, is that poor little Ghislaine, who was little more than a randy, raunchy, charming but oversexed party girl, was so heartbroken over the death of her domineering bombastic father, and so destroyed by the disgrace he brought to her family, that all she could do was flee to New York City to rebuild her life again — which is what all newly destitute people do, naturally, go to the most expensive city in the United States, to flit about at cocktail parties and fashion shows.

It’s all so obvious in hindsight. Especially as new interviews and documents come to light demonstrating that Jeffrey Epstein was not the genius financier he was painted out to be. He was, rather, a real, living, fictional creation — a pretend financier, funded by and propped up by Israeli intelligence and their three-letter ally organizations in the United States. US attorney for the Souther District of Florida, Alex Acosta, said as much when he confessed to having been forced to give Epstein a much lighter sentence than the norm, because, he was told, Epstein was “one of ours,” meaning intelligence.

If this is all true, if my intuition is correct, then the money Jeffrey Epstein used to buy Zorro Ranch — purchased from the then-sitting governor of New Mexico, whose purchase was handled on Jeffrey’s behalf by attorney John J. Kelly, Epstein’s local personal power of attorney who would eight months later be named the US Attorney for the District of New Mexico, a job in which he would not once investigate any of the allegations of abuse against Jeffrey or Zorro Ranch — was money the Maxwell family stole from pensioners in Britain, laundered through big banks and the British government itself.

And when Ghislaine brought Jeffrey to New Mexico to, as she puts it, help him find a nice ranch property, they just happened to settle upon one that was already owned by the governor, that also sat next door to a ranch owned by a former U.S. intelligence operative turned weapons engineer and founder of Teledyne, a huge defense contracting company. And when Ghislaine helped Jeffrey build the massive 33,000-square-foot house of horrors there, the construction contractor they hired was Bradbury Stamm, which specializes in massive industrial, government and top security military and nuclear weapons laboratory builds, not private residences.

A later governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, would party at Zorro Ranch with Epstein, and not just there, but also in New York, and at Epstein’s island, Little St. James. Richardson flew on Epstein’s plane and helicopter both, and denied all of this, just as he denied Virginia Giuffre’s allegations that Jeffrey made her “massage” Richardson. But the release of the files last year and this year proved his denials were lies. As were the similar denials of Bruce King’s son Gary King, who Epstein supported financially in his winning bid to become New Mexico’s attorney general, and as attorney general King never investigated Epstein. In fact, he continued to meet privately with Epstein even after his conviction in Florida, and took more campaign donations from him in his losing bid for governor, working with Epstein’s lawyers to create a shell company so no one would know the donations came from the most famous pedophile and child sex trafficker of all time, which might have hurt Gary’s campaign as that campaign hinged on ending child sex trafficking in our state.

So.

What do you think? Did Robert Maxwell really drown and embezzle so many hundreds of millions of pounds that he left his family destitute?

My best guess — and I want to be clear this is a guess, an educated one, but a guess — is that Robert Maxwell lived past 1991, quietly, somewhere outside public view, under the protection of the intelligence service he served for decades. Mossad has extracted assets before. They had every reason to extract this one. A living Robert Maxwell facing criminal trial in Britain was a catastrophic intelligence liability. A dead Robert Maxwell was a managed exit. The math isn’t complicated.

You just hand the family business to the kids and retire, like a good old chap.

Sources

Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon, Robert Maxwell, Israel’s Superspy: The Life and Murder of a Media Mogul (Carroll & Graf, 2002). Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy (Random House, 1991). Bill Hamilton, President of INSLAW Inc., public statements on PROMIS theft. Congressional records on DOJ obstruction of PROMIS investigations during Edwin Meese’s tenure as Attorney General. Elisabeth Maxwell, A Mind of My Own: My Life with Robert Maxwell (HarperCollins, 1994), source of “hero’s send-off” quote. Inquest records, December 1991, Las Palmas. Shamir eulogy, Mount of Olives, Jerusalem, November 10, 1991. BBC documentary series, House of Maxwell (2022), source for Epstein offshore account relationship with Robert Maxwell. Ari Ben-Menashe, former Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate officer, interview with journalist Zev Shalev; Ben-Menashe’s claims are disputed and have not been independently verified, though they have not been formally refuted. Ghislaine Maxwell interview with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, July 2025, conducted under grant of immunity. Gavin de Becker, interview on Diary of a CEO podcast with Steven Bartlett, March 2026. Alex Acosta, reported statement to Trump transition team, 2016, first reported by the Daily Beast based on sources present at the meeting; Acosta did not make this statement on the record. Federal court filings and FBI records documenting Les Wexner’s transfer of power of attorney to Epstein. Santa Fe County property records confirming Epstein’s 1993 purchase of Zorro Ranch from Governor Bruce King. DOJ records confirming John J. Kelly’s appointment as US Attorney for the District of New Mexico. DOJ Epstein files, released 2024–2026, source for Bill Richardson flight logs, Virginia Giuffre deposition, and Gary King campaign finance and shell company documentation. New Mexico campaign finance records. Bradbury Stamm contractor records. Alisa Valdes, “Why Is No One Talking About the Fact That Ghislaine Maxwell’s Eldest Sisters Built Tech Surveillance Infrastructure for U.S. and Israeli Intelligence?” THE PUGILIST, 2026. Christine Maxwell corporate records, Chiliad Inc. Business Wire, 2008, on Chiliad FBI counterterrorism database deployment.

 

Project 2025 and Project Esther, I spent a lot of time and energy trying to understand just who the Heritage Foundation was. They are the reason that those two very damning projects even existed.

The sad truth is we really didn't know who was truly running the show. This will shed light on who and what they are. Most people have heard the name before but few know what it really is or what it's really doing. I'll fix that for you right now.

First, who or what is the Heritage Foundation?

The Heritage Foundation is a right-wing think tank based in Washington, D.C., and was founded in 1973. It was founded by two Congressional aides, Edwin Feulner and Paul Weyrich, and provides research and policy recommendations to presidential administrations, Congress, news media, and academic communities.

Their stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." That's per the Heritage Foundation site. That sounds reasonable on paper, right? Well, let's take a look at what it means in practice.

My first thought was exactly where are they getting money from? Who funds them? Joseph Coors, of the Coors beer empire, seeded the organization with an initial $250,000.

Billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife followed, donating tens of millions through his family trust over the next two decades as Heritage's primary donor.

The foundation's trustees have historically included individuals affiliated with Chase Manhattan Bank, Dow Chemical, General Motors, Mobil, and Pfizer. The Heritage Foundation has also received funding from organizations connected to the Koch brothers, at least $4.8 million between 1998 and 2012, and has accepted donations from Altria, the parent company of Marlboro cigarettes.

But get this, Heritage has taken positions favorable to the tobacco industry, including opposition to raising tobacco taxes and regulations on vaping, and as recently as 2004 worked with Altria to encourage journalists to question the science of secondhand smoke.

According to OpenSecrets, Heritage spent $780,000 on lobbying in 2024 alone.

I say, follow the money, people. Always follow the money.

Heritage claims to speak for everyday Americans. But their policy record tells a very different story.

An analysis by the Center for American Progress found that Project 2025's proposals, Heritage's blueprint for the Trump administration, would increase taxes for a median family of four making $110,000 a year by $3,000 annually, while the 45,000 households making over $10 million a year would enjoy up to $2.4 million in tax cuts.This is one of the reasons that wealthy folks support this administration. The plan also calls for cutting the corporate tax rate, which amounts to a $24 billion tax break for Fortune 100 companies.

That's not populism. That's a wealth transfer disguised as patriotism. Prove me wrong. I could be wrong if I'm looking through a lens that's not true.

Exactly who are they hurting though. Somebody is getting hurt if the wealthier folks are getting help, right?

Project 2025, Heritage's 900-page governing blueprint, would cut federal premium tax credits that help people afford health insurance, especially Black people, Hispanic people, and people with low incomes who have seen marked increases in coverage under the ACA and that's according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Project 2025 proposes the complete elimination of the Head Start program, which serves more than 833,000 children living in poverty.

The plan would impose lifetime caps on Medicaid benefits, literally a matter of life or death for millions of Americans and would time-limit housing benefits, potentially throwing families into homelessness.

Black people represent less than fourteen percent of the general population but account for thirty-seven percent of people experiencing homelessness. Project 2025's drastic cuts to subsidized housing and voucher programs would make that even worse, not better.

The Project 2025 authors have also endorsed raising the Social Security retirement age from 67 to 69, which would cut benefits for nearly three-quarters of Americans, hitting low- and moderate-income workers, particularly women, the hardest.

And unions? Project 2025 aims to eliminate card check, which is a key method workers use to form unions, and seeks to diminish the authority of the National Labor Relations Board, making it more difficult for unions to be established and recognized.

Now it should be even more clear who is running this country. The Heritage Foundation gives the ideas that the Washington powers that be implement, but making it appear that Washington political players came up with the idea.

Who are these "players" that have been playing chess with politicians and politics since 1973? Well, I'll start with Kevin Roberts, current President of the Heritage Foundation. In January 2024, Roberts told a journalist that he sees Heritage's role as "institutionalizing Trumpism." Yea, you read that right. On July 2, 2024, Roberts created controversy by saying, "We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be." Feel free to fact check this. It's on Wikipedia. Roberts also stated he did not believe Joe Biden won the 2020 election, despite no evidence of material election fraud being found.

Roberts triggered further outrage after defending Tucker Carlson for interviewing a Holocaust denier and extremist who blamed "organized Jewry" for challenging American cohesion. The fallout caused more than a dozen Heritage staff members to resign in late 2025.

Then there's Paul Weyrich who is the co-founder. A founding architect of the modern Religious Right movement.

Edwin Feulner, co-founder and long-time president. According to CharityWatch, Feulner received $2,702,687 in compensation in 2013 alone, while Heritage pushed cuts to programs serving the poor.

Roger Severino, vice president of Domestic Policy at Heritage and one of the primary authors of the Mandate for Leadership.

Project 2025 is a political initiative published in April 2023 by the Heritage Foundation with the goal of reshaping the U.S. federal government by consolidating executive power. Its policy document calls for the replacement of federal civil service workers by people loyal to "the next conservative president" and for taking partisan control of the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Department of Commerce, and the Federal Trade Commission. And yes, it is really happening.

Four days into Trump's second term, analysis by Time found that nearly two-thirds of his executive actions "mirror or partially mirror" proposals from Project 2025.

This wasn't a simple wish list. It was a real and dangerous blueprint. And it's being executed right now.

The Heritage Foundation has every right to advocate for its vision. This is America. And YOU have every right, and responsibility, to know exactly what that vision is and who pays for it. You clearly see who is paying the heaviest cost right now.

This is not about party. This is about people. Working people. Poor people. Sick people. Children.

It's a fact that when policy is written by billionaires for billionaires, the rest of us foot the bill.

I always say, do your own research. Stay informed. Stay engaged. Stay aware (woke).

Sources:

*Britannica.com — Heritage Foundation profile

*Wikipedia — The Heritage Foundation / Project 2025

*Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP.org)

*Center for American Progress (AmericanProgress.org)

*OpenSecrets.org — Heritage Foundation financial profile

*SourceWatch.org — Heritage Foundation

*Washington Monthly

*Newsweek — "The Heritage Foundation is imploding" (Dec. 2025)

*Thurgood Marshall Institute at LDF

*First Focus on Children

*Heritage.org (their own website and mission statement)

 

 

A former U.S. official has made shocking claims that the government constructed a $21 trillion underground city, built to house elites and ensure their survival in case of a global extinction event. This extraordinary statement has raised eyebrows and ignited widespread speculation about the existence of hidden, government-funded projects that cater to the powerful, leaving the rest of the population in the dark. If true, it paints a picture of a deeply divided world where the rich and powerful prepare for a future catastrophe, while the rest of humanity faces uncertainty.

The revelation of such a project raises questions about government transparency and accountability, especially when such vast sums of money are allegedly involved. $21 trillion is an astronomical amount, and the idea that it has been allocated to build a secret underground city for the few, at the potential expense of the many, is deeply unsettling. It forces us to question the priorities of those in power, and whether resources meant to protect all of society are being diverted into secretive ventures.

This alleged underground city, if it exists, would serve as a stark reminder of the growing disparity between the elite and the general population. It also raises fundamental questions about the future of human civilization: Who will be protected in the event of a global crisis, and who will be left behind? While the truth of the claim is still unknown, it’s an important reminder of the need for transparency and equity in times of global uncertainty.

As we reflect on this potential revelation, we are forced to confront the ethical implications of such a secretive initiative. What does it say about the values of those in power? And how should we, as a society, respond to the growing divide between the wealthy few and the rest of the world? This is a question we will likely grapple with for years to come.

 

A Bay Area city has made headlines by becoming the first to ban new data centers, citing growing concerns over electricity demand and water consumption. As the backbone of our digital world, data centers power everything from cloud storage to streaming services and artificial intelligence. But behind that convenience lies a massive environmental cost—these facilities require enormous amounts of energy to operate servers and cooling systems, along with millions of gallons of water to prevent overheating.

City officials argue that prioritizing residential needs, sustainability goals, and long-term resource management is more important than expanding tech infrastructure at any cost. Supporters of the ban see it as a bold, necessary step toward protecting local resources and setting limits on unchecked tech growth. Critics, however, warn that restricting data centers in innovation hubs could slow economic development, reduce job opportunities, and push infrastructure to less regulated areas.

This decision has ignited a broader debate across the tech industry and beyond. As demand for digital services continues to surge globally, communities are being forced to confront a difficult question: how do we balance technological advancement with environmental responsibility? The move may inspire other cities to reevaluate their own policies, potentially reshaping where and how future digital infrastructure is built.

Ultimately, this isn’t just about one city—it’s about the future of sustainable tech. As the world becomes more connected, the pressure to innovate responsibly has never been greater. The conversation is just beginning, and its impact could redefine the relationship between technology, resources, and the communities that host them.

#TechDebate #Sustainability #DataCenters #FutureOfTech

 

On April 19, 2026, an image circulated of an Israeli soldier standing before a statue of Jesus Christ in Debel, a Maronite Christian village in southern Lebanon, bringing a hammer down upon the sacred face while another soldier recorded him. The image spread within hours because it seemed to compress a moral education into one gesture.

Tucker Carlson was furious. So was a segment of the American right that has, for years, supplied the political and theological conditions that produced this soldier. That is the story the image tells, if you are willing to read it past the shock.

Since October 7, 2023, Israeli soldiers have assembled one of the most extensive self-incriminating records in the history of modern warfare. They posted thousands of videos to Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook under their own names—soldiers posing with Palestinian women's underwear in the ruins of their homes, filming the humiliation of detainees, torching food supplies, demolishing houses while comrades cheered. The Israel Defense Forces chief of staff eventually issued a communiqué instructing troops to stop filming what he called "revenge videos." That such an instruction had to be issued is the revelation.

A soldier films his contempt after the contempt has been sanctioned. He brings a hammer to the face of Christ in a Lebanese Christian village after spending long enough in a world where the sacred things of subjugated people are available for whatever use he finds amusing. The camera reveals how comfortable the contempt has already become.

That comfort has been built over decades, through laws and habits that operate below the threshold of outrage. Palestinian life under Israeli rule is managed through permits withheld without explanation, military courts where the accused often faces a sealed file in place of evidence, and detention orders renewed in six-month increments until time joins the punishment. At Sde Teiman, a desert detention facility established after October 7, five soldiers were charged in February 2025 with beating a Palestinian prisoner, breaking his ribs, puncturing a lung, and causing a perforated rectum. When the soldiers were arrested, far-right members of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition stormed military facilities in protest. The defense minister called the prosecution a blood libel. In March 2026, Israel's top military lawyer dropped all charges. Netanyahu declared that Israel must spare its "heroic fighters."

The United Nations special rapporteur found in March 2026 that torture had become a structural feature of the ongoing genocide, extending from prisons into bombardment, starvation, forced displacement, and the terror of soldiers and settlers. B'Tselem has described Israel's prison system as a network of torture camps for Palestinians.

The same contempt moves through sacred space. Gaza's only Catholic church was struck by Israeli fire in July 2025, killing three people. In February 2026, during Ramadan, Israeli settlers vandalized and set fire to a mosque near Nablus, spray-painting insults against the Prophet Muhammad. The Palestinian Ministry of Religious Affairs said settlers had attacked 45 mosques in the West Bank in the previous year. Israeli authorities condemned the incident and promised a search—which is how impunity often speaks when it wishes to sound like law.

The deeper scandal lies in the moral conditioning of recognition. A violated Muslim sanctity can be treated as a security matter, a disputed incident, another complication in a place supposedly fated to brutality. Then a soldier raises a hammer against Christ, and men who had tolerated the pulverizing of Gaza discover that their theology has been disturbed. Here is Islamophobia in one of its oldest disguises: Muslim injury must first pass through a Christian icon before Christian power agrees to see a wound.

Tucker Carlson weeps for the statue in a world his own political allies helped construct. Mike Huckabee, the United States ambassador to Israel, told a television audience in February 2026 that it would be "fine" if Israel took over the entire Middle East. He had already stated that there is "really no such thing as a Palestinian." He is a Christian who calls on the Bible. The president he serves stood beside Netanyahu in February 2025 and announced that the United States would "take over" Gaza and that its 2 million inhabitants should "go to other countries." The United Nations said this constituted ethnic cleansing.

The United States has been a co-author of this order—replenishing the arsenal, shielding Israel at the Security Council, resisting the jurisdiction of international courts, treating Palestinian death as a cost to be managed after the weapons have done their work. In March 2026, the administration bypassed congressional review to approve a $650 million bomb sale to Israel, invoking emergency authority while Palestinians were still living under ruins made by earlier emergencies.

Christian Zionist theology has blessed this map from the beginning: a map in which Palestinian land, Lebanese land, and Syrian land can be folded into sacred entitlement. That theology sanctifies the conditions, the army carries them out, and supremacist politics rewards the result. The soldier with the hammer grew inside that order. He filmed himself because he believed the record would survive as proof of victory.

What struck the statue was already striking everything else. The violence became visible to a new audience. A conscience that required the face of Christ as its activation point had been choosing all along.

---

Yahia Lababidi is an Arab-American poet and aphorist of Palestinian-Lebanese heritage, and the author of 16 books, including Palestine Wail and the forthcoming If You Cannot Say GENOCIDE: Essays on Conscience and Witness from New Village Press. His work has appeared in Liberties, Salmagundi, The New Statesman, The Threepenny Review, and World Literature Today, among others, and has been translated into more than a dozen languages.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

 

I won’t be buying any new cars from 2026 onward….

Federal Law Forces Invasive Driver Surveillance Systems into Every New U.S. Car by 2027

Congress enacted Section 24220 of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, directing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to mandate advanced impaired driving prevention technology in all new passenger vehicles.

This federal requirement locks in for model year 2027, with rollout accelerating toward late 2026.

Infrared cameras, AI-powered algorithms, and biometric sensors will embed directly into vehicle dashboards nationwide.

These systems will relentlessly scan eye movements, head position, pupil changes, breathing rhythms, steering behavior, and other vital signs in real time.

Detection of suspected impairment, whether accurate or triggered by a false positive, triggers automatic intervention: the car refuses to start or abruptly limits speed, stranding drivers without appeal.

NHTSA’s own February 2026 report to Congress admits current technology falls far short of required accuracy, warning that even high detection thresholds could generate millions of erroneous shutdowns annually.

Yet the statutory mandate presses forward unchanged. Congressional efforts to repeal or defund it (including amendments backed by Rep. Thomas Massie) collapsed in January 2026, sealing the timeline.

Every new vehicle will carry an extra several hundred dollars in hidden costs.

The law creates a vast, uncharted biometric data ecosystem inside private cars, with no ironclad protections against hacking, insurer access, or warrantless government queries.

Sensitive personal information—your gaze, fatigue levels, potential medical signals—will flow through systems ripe for abuse as surveillance capabilities expand.

This marks a chilling federal takeover of personal mobility.

Americans will sit under constant algorithmic judgment every time they enter a new vehicle, with machines empowered to override human decisions on the open road.

I do not consent to this government-mandated surveillance embedded in my car.

Do you?

Copied from Kari Bundy