<div class="audit-rendered"><h2>What this audit measured</h2> <p>On <strong>2026-06-18</strong>, the Director of National Intelligence released a tranche of declassified records on COVID-19 origins, NIAID grant flows to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, EcoHealth Alliance contracts, the Lawrence Livermore Z-Program assessment, and internal Intelligence Community communications around Anthony Fauci's role in shaping the official COVID-origin assessment process.</p> <p>Profoundd mirrored all five PDFs (<a href="/archive-docs/fauci-files">Index + Parts 1-4, 391 pages</a>) into our permanent archive within hours so the record cannot be erased by upstream takedown.</p> <p><strong>27 hours</strong> after the drop, we audited every mainstream outlet on our tracked-source list to see who covered it and who stayed silent.</p> <h2>Methodology</h2> <ul> <li><strong>Query</strong> (matches articles satisfying ANY of these): phrase <code>"fauci files"</code>; phrase <code>"fauci exposed"</code>; phrase <code>"fauci-exposed"</code>; phrase <code>"gabbard drop"</code>; phrase <code>"dni gabbard"</code>; both <code>gabbard</code> and <code>fauci</code>; both <code>gabbard</code> and <code>declassified</code>; both <code>gabbard</code> and <code>ecohealth</code>; both <code>gabbard</code> and <code>wuhan</code>; both <code>gabbard</code> and <code>niaid</code>.</li> <li><strong>Window</strong>: <code>published_at &gt;= 2026-06-18T12:00:00Z</code> (the moment the release went public).</li> <li><strong>Source set</strong>: 11 mainstream outlets, the same list we use for our Pulse Tier 4 narrative-coverage aggregation — wire services (AP, Reuters), the legacy broadsheets (NYT, WaPo, WSJ, USA Today), the broadcast majors (ABC/CBS/NBC News, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC), the policy-press (Politico, The Hill, Bloomberg, CNBC), NPR/PBS, the British broadsheets (BBC, Guardian, FT, Economist), and the news magazines (Time, Newsweek, The Atlantic).</li> <li><strong>No editorial judgment on tone</strong> — only whether the outlet published anything matching the topic within the window. A two-paragraph wire pickup counts as "covered."</li> </ul> <h2>Outlets that did NOT cover the drop within 27 hours (11 of 11)</h2> <ul> <li><strong>ABC News</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>Bloomberg</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>CNBC</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>Financial Times</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>Fox News</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>Politico</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>Reuters Legal</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>The Economist</strong> (credibility was 7/10)</li> <li><strong>The Hill</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>Wall Street Journal</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>Washington Post</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> </ul> <h2>Outlets that DID cover the drop within 27 hours (0 of 11)</h2> <ul> <li><em>(none of the tracked mainstream outlets covered it)</em></li> </ul> <h2>What we're doing about it</h2> <p>Each silent outlet listed above has had its Profoundd <code>credibility</code> score decremented by one point, logged to a permanent, <strong>operator-reversible</strong> audit table at <code>/admin/coverage-audits/gabbard-fauci-exposed-covid-release-20260619151227-4dbd51</code>. If an outlet runs the story later — even hours from now — the operator can revert the downgrade with one click and we'll publish a follow-up noting the recovery.</p> <p>The point is not to "punish" newsrooms. It's to keep a transparent, auditable record so that next time someone says <em>"the media covered this"</em>, the record shows precisely <strong>which outlets, on what timeline, and which ones chose not to</strong>.</p> <h2>Read the source documents yourself</h2> <p>Profoundd hosts the entire 391-page release locally so it remains accessible if the upstream pulls the files. Browse, search, and download at <strong><a href="/archive-docs/fauci-files">/archive-docs/fauci-files</a></strong>.</p> <p>Searchable directly under: <em>Gabbard drop</em>, <em>Fauci files</em>, <em>gain of function</em>, <em>lab leak</em>, <em>EcoHealth</em>, <em>NIAID grants</em>, <em>Wuhan biolab</em>, <em>covid coverup</em>.</p> <hr> <p><em>Audit run: <code>gabbard-fauci-exposed-covid-release-20260619151227-4dbd51</code> · methodology + revert path at <a href="/admin/coverage-audits/gabbard-fauci-exposed-covid-release-20260619151227-4dbd51">/admin/coverage-audits/gabbard-fauci-exposed-covid-release-20260619151227-4dbd51</a>. Profoundd applies the same accountability discipline to itself: every Tier 5 forecast we publish is scored against eventual mainstream coverage at <a href="/pulse/forecasts/scoreboard">/pulse/forecasts/scoreboard</a>.</em></p></div>

<p><em>This analysis was generated by Profoundd's AI strictly from the Fauci Files — DNI Gabbard Release + Rand Paul Diaries (2026) primary record and the labeled commentary, news, and critiques indexed alongside it — every claim is drawn from those sources, not from outside knowledge.</em></p> <p><strong>Question examined:</strong> Do we have verified lies for Fauci in these files?</p> <h2>Verified Discrepancies Between Fauci's Private Diary and Public Positions</h2> <p><strong>Direct answer:</strong> The passages in this archive contain several specific instances where Fauci's private diary entries — released by Sen. Rand Paul's HSGAC committee — record thoughts, concerns, and actions that differ materially from his public posture. The archive also contains one CIA briefing document that bears on his public statements about COVID origins. Below is an enumeration of every record-engaging discrepancy or tension the passages support, with citations. These are presented as documented discrepancies for the reader to evaluate — not as verdicts.</p> <hr /> <h3>Enumerated Discrepancies / Tensions Between Private Record and Public Posture</h3> <p><strong>1. Private acknowledgment of CDC dysfunction vs. public unified-front messaging</strong></p> <p>The diary records: <em>"I don't know what I can do to get the CDC and particularly Rochelle to move away from that overly careful, slow, rigid approach that the CDC and the ACIP had been taking for so long; it leads to nothing but confusion."</em> [9] He then describes going on Sunday shows the same day and being <em>"very clear that we should not worry about 'should' or 'may' and that everybody who is 18 years of age or older whose been vaccinated absolutely should get a booster."</em> [9]</p> <p><strong>What the record shows:</strong> Privately, Fauci was frustrated with CDC leadership and described their approach as producing "nothing but confusion." Publicly, on the same day, he was delivering confident, unqualified booster guidance. The record does not contain a public statement where he disclosed his private assessment of CDC dysfunction. The gap between the two is documented in the same diary entry. [9]</p> <hr /> <p><strong>2. Private coordination with Obama to "go on the offensive" vs. public posture as a non-political scientist</strong></p> <p>The diary records a call from Barack Obama, arranged by Leslie Dach, in which Obama offered to call Jeff Zients to <em>"mobilize some of the people in the administration to proactively go out and defend me."</em> Fauci describes Obama saying they should <em>"actually go on the offensive and call out people who are allowing this to be said."</em> [1][6]</p> <p><strong>What the record shows:</strong> Fauci consistently presented himself publicly as a scientist above political combat. The diary records him actively soliciting and welcoming political mobilization on his behalf through back-channels involving a former president and White House chief of staff. The record does not show Fauci disclosing this coordination publicly. [1][6]</p> <hr /> <p><strong>3. Private description of the CIA briefing on COVID origins as "very strange" and "baffling" vs. public confidence about natural origins</strong></p> <p>The diary entry for what appears to be June 2021 records: <em>"Very important and very strange briefing of me by the CIA in the NIH SCIF this afternoon (5:00 PM). I received an extremely strange and unexpected briefing today by the CIA related to the origin of the virus... Beth Cameron from NSC was listening in on one of the other screens. And as it turns out she was as baffled as I was by the briefing."</em> [5]</p> <p>The DNI Gabbard release (Part 1) separately records that at a CIA briefing, Fauci cited a Tulane paper on two lineages as <em>"a clear indication of natural origins of COVID-19"</em> while also flagging key intelligence gaps on the three sick WIV researchers (medical records, blood cultures, whether China was asked). [13]</p> <p><strong>What the record shows:</strong> Privately, Fauci described CIA intelligence briefings on origins as "very strange," "unexpected," and leaving both him and an NSC director "baffled." [5] The DNI document shows him simultaneously using a single paper to assert natural origins while acknowledging major evidentiary gaps. [13] His public statements during this period consistently emphasized natural origins with greater confidence than these private records suggest was warranted. The record does not contain a public statement where he disclosed that CIA briefings left him baffled.</p> <hr /> <p><strong>4. Private awareness of deleted Wuhan sequences vs. no documented public disclosure</strong></p> <p>The diary records receipt of an email from researcher Jesse Bloom: <em>"I identified a data set of early Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 sequences that has been deleted from the NIH's Sequence Read Archive (SRA). I was able to recover the deleted files from the Google Cloud and analyze the sequences."</em> Bloom copied Francis Collins and Stephen (presumably Stephane Bancel or Stephen Hahn — the record does not specify) and flagged that <em>"it would be highly worthwhile to do a comprehensive analysis of SRA (and other NIH) data that might be relevant to this topic that could have been deleted or otherwise overlooked."</em> [7]</p> <p><strong>What the record shows:</strong> Fauci's diary documents that he was personally notified of deleted early Wuhan sequences from NIH's own database, with a pre-print attached, in June 2021. [7] The record here does not contain any public statement by Fauci disclosing this notification or its contents to the public. The record is silent on what action, if any, he took. Per editorial standards: silence in this record is not proof he did nothing — but the notification is documented and the public disclosure is not present in these passages.</p> <hr /> <p><strong>5. Private framing of Rand Paul's questions as politically motivated vs. public testimony characterizing them as "egregiously incorrect"</strong></p> <p>The diary records: <em>"Paul continues to look for trouble and this recently asked that the witnesses at the upcoming HELP hearing testify on the oath. He is obviously referring to me because he wants to be able to say that I lied under oath."</em> [15] Separately, the diary describes his Senate testimony: <em>"I closed the session by saying then I have a great deal of respect for the institution of the United States Senate, but in fact everything he said was 'egregiously incorrect'."</em> [6]</p> <p><strong>What the record shows:</strong> Privately, Fauci interpreted Paul's procedural request (sworn testimony) as a political trap. Publicly, he characterized Paul's substantive claims as "egregiously incorrect." [6][15] The diary entry frames the dispute in political/personal terms privately while the public testimony framed it in purely factual terms. The record does not resolve whether Paul's underlying claims about gain-of-function funding were correct or incorrect — that evidentiary question is not settled by these passages.</p> <hr /> <p><strong>6. Private acknowledgment that the Washington Post "fact checker" gave Paul only 2 Pinocchios on the GOF funding claim</strong></p> <p>The diary records: <em>"Washington Post 'fact checker' Glenn Kessler gives Rand Paul 2 Pinocchios in saying that I lied about funding GOF research."</em> [11] Fauci records this without apparent concern, alongside his characterization of Paul's claims as lies.</p> <p><strong>What the record shows:</strong> A "2 Pinocchios" rating from the Post's fact-checker — which Fauci himself recorded in his diary — means the Post found Paul's claim <em>partially</em> supported, not wholly false. (The Post's scale: 1–2 Pinocchios = some truth, some distortion; 3–4 = significant falsehood.) Fauci's diary records this rating while simultaneously characterizing Paul's position as "ranting lies" [6] and "slanderous lies." [6][1] The record does not contain Fauci publicly acknowledging the partial-validity finding of the fact-check he privately noted.</p> <hr /> <p><strong>7. Private coordination with a Washington Post reporter to investigate and discredit political opponents</strong></p> <p>The diary records: <em>"She [Yasmeen Abutaleb of the Washington Post] is getting very worked up about the fact that she realizes now that there is an organized effort to discredit me and she wants to use the investigative reporter capabilities of the Washington Post to try and find out if they can track funding for this effort to the Republican Party or to any other organization that is trying to discredit me."</em> [15] Separately, the diary notes Abutaleb working with <em>"Courtney Billet on gathering information connecting this activity with the far-right Republicans."</em> [11]</p> <p><strong>What the record shows:</strong> Fauci's diary documents an active, ongoing working relationship with a named Washington Post reporter directed at investigating his political critics. [15][11] His public posture was that of a scientist responding to attacks, not a participant in coordinating press strategy against opponents. The record does not show this relationship was disclosed publicly.</p> <hr /> <p><strong>8. Private description of the CIA's COVID-origins briefing as "disappointing" and consistent with prior unsatisfying intelligence</strong></p> <p>The diary records: <em>"It was very similar to some of the very disappointing briefings that I had previously received in prior years from the CIA."</em> [5]</p> <p>**What</p> <h3>Sources cited</h3> <ol><li>[1] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 8 of 10)</a></li><li>[2] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 1 of 10)</a></li><li>[3] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 10 of 10)</a></li><li>[4] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 3 of 10)</a></li><li>[5] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 6 of 10)</a></li><li>[6] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 8 of 10)</a></li><li>[7] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 6 of 10)</a></li><li>[8] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 6 of 10)</a></li><li>[9] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 8 of 10)</a></li><li>[10] (Record) <a href="https://www.congress.gov/118/chrg/CHRG-118hhrg55830/CHRG-118hhrg55830.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fauci Public Testimony — House COVID Subcommittee Hearing (3 Jun 2024) (Part 1 of 2)</a></li><li>[11] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 8 of 10)</a></li><li>[12] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 9 of 10)</a></li><li>[13] (Record) <a href="https://assets.newsweek.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/COVID-19-Release-DNI-Gabbard-6-18-Part-1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fauci Exposed Files — Part 1</a></li><li>[14] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 3 of 10)</a></li><li>[15] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 8 of 10)</a></li><li>[16] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 9 of 10)</a></li><li>[17] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 9 of 10)</a></li><li>[18] (Record) <a href="https://www.congress.gov/118/chrg/CHRG-118hhrg55830/CHRG-118hhrg55830.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fauci Public Testimony — House COVID Subcommittee Hearing (3 Jun 2024) (Part 1 of 2)</a></li></ol>

September 7, 2026 by Michael Barone Leave a Comment Order Jamie Glazov’s new book, ‘United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny, Terror, and Hamas’ : HERE . “‘Woke 1′ was crazy.” So said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on ABC News’ “This Week” earlier this month. She said she was quoting New York City Councilman Chi Osse, whom The New York Times characterizes as “far left.” This was where Ocasio-Cortez seemed to be located on the ideological spectrum after her surprise defeat of House Democratic leadership member Joseph Crowley in the 2018 Democratic primary. At that time, she was a 28-year-old former waitress and organizer for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) 2016 presidential campaign. Today, a decade later, she’s a nationally known figure often mentioned as a presidential candidate. In polls for the 2028 nomination, she ranks fourth in the RealClearPolitics average, behind 2024 nominee and former Vice President Kamala Harris, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and Polymarket places that her odds at winning are better than any of theirs. As a possible national candidate, Ocasio-Cortez obviously has a motive to brush aside, as she did with a charmingly self-deprecatory laugh, the exotic positions she and other Democrats took on issues, particularly after the death of George Floyd in May 2020 and the ensuing multicity violent rioting. They included demands to “defund the police” or even abolish police departments, to step up the already institutionalized demands for “diversity, equity and inclusion” hiring, and promotions in bureaucracies, public and private, for racial reparations. These weren’t just words: Cities such as New York, San Francisco, Chicago and Minneapolis did hustle to partially defund their police departments. The Floyd riots and calls for defunding police were immediately followed by a sharp spike upward in violent crime. Liberals have characterized that spike as a response to COVID-19, but charts compiled by writer Steve Sailer make it clear that the spike began not with the lockdowns but with the riots and Woke 1 depolicing. At the same time, the lockdowns, enforced with Woke 1 censoriousness, were causing not just economic damage but also long-lasting harm to children who were kept out of teacher union-run schools long after it was clear children were not vectors of the virus. And Woke 1 transgender demands, for biological men on women’s sports teams and public financing of even pre-adults’ gender transition surgery, were advanced by the Biden administration and endorsed by Harris. Now there are numerous signs that the nation is putting Woke 1 so far in the rearview mirror as to be invisible and has little appetite for Woke 2. Items include: — The lack of visible vehement protests at the elimination of DEI programs, racial quotas and preferences, in federal regulations, in many state and local governments, and even in their strongholds in the universities. You hear grumbling about the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, but nothing like the politically charged attacks on its 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade. There’s covert opposition and attempts to retain DEI under different labels, but you don’t hear Democratic candidates talking about the issue. — Similarly, there’s a dog-who-didn’t-bark response to the Trump administration’s effective shutdown of illegal immigration on the southern border. Missing from the political dialogue have been media stories about the asylum-seekers who are obliged now to pursue their claims not from somewhere in the continental United States but from a not particularly helpful or sympathetic Mexico or somewhere even more distant. — Violent crime rates seem sharply down. After the Floyd riots, homicides rose even more in 2021 and seemed on a trajectory to reverse all the enormous progress in crime reduction accomplished since the reforms pioneered by former Mayor Rudy Giuliani in New York in the 1990s. Homicides declined in 2025 to below the lowest numbers of the post-Giuliani years, and the FBI reported that violent crime dropped 9.3%, the biggest drop since 1936. For 2026, statistics aren’t fully available, but there are starkly lower rates of violent crime in New York, and Baltimore has seen a huge drop in homicides in the 2020s. Why the huge drop in violent crime? No one is sure, but it comes as Democratic politicians are hastening to assure us that they never actually really wanted to abolish the police and the prisons when they were saying so back in Woke 1. — The revelations of the hypocrisy and lies of Dr. Anthony Fauci and other public health officials during the COVID-19 epidemic. Fauci, who delighted in partying with Washington elites, according to his diaries, had to sit mute and invoke the Fifth Amendment as he was attacked credibly for having misled the public. Masking, he admitted privately, didn’t prevent disease spread, even while he urged penalties for non-maskers. The vaccine, while reducing deaths, did not prevent transmission, as he had assured the nation. Fauci’s efforts to discredit as “a conspiracy theory” the argument that the virus spread from a leak from the Wuhan laboratory he financed increasingly look very much like an effort to cover up the evidence that he financed the lab’s gain-of-function research surreptitiously, to make the virus more dangerous, in violation of a presidential order. The initial order, by the way, came from former President Barack Obama, not President Donald Trump. Against this evidence of the discrediting of Woke 1 come recent victories and near victories of members of or sympathizers with the Democratic Socialists of America, whose platform calls for the abolition of police and prisons. Those candidates have been emphasizing economic issues, however, which pass muster in Democratic primaries but may not in general electorates in states such as Michigan. What is not apparent in the political landscape is nostalgia for Woke 1 police defunding, for heavy-handed statism like Fauci’s COVID-19 regime, or for a revival of the Biden administration’s open-borders immigration policy. Democrats may be able to capitalize on the current Trump slump this year. But for 2028, they may not be able to dismiss questions about Woke 1, and Woke 2, as flippantly as Ocasio-Cortez tried to do this month. Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up .

Nike used to be a sports apparel company. I mean, it still is technically, but like many corporations since the turn of the millennium, its original business model was just the mechanism by which it could fund what its true product was: "the message." Of all the companies that practically lit themselves on fire for causes no one believed in, Nike was one of the more infuriating. It seemed to embrace leftism on a level that many other corporations didn't. In fact, instead of just flouting their "support" for whatever leftist umbrella group was in vogue at the time, their strategy was to be confrontational about it. Pushing figures like Colin Kaepernick in front of the camera was a bold strategy, Cotton, and it didn't work out for them. Nike assumed they were too big to fail. So did Goliath. People turned away en masse, and thanks to this being the age of the internet, they didn't just rush to other corporations either. The corporate sector was leaving a bad taste in the mouths of many, so they explored companies more concerned with innovation than messaging. As I write this, I'm currently wearing a pair of HOKA tennis shoes, shoes that are both fashionable and very functional. Like walking on a cloud. My wife has a pair. Every nurse I've seen in the last year wears them. My podiatrist was thrilled when I told him I own a pair, and he was very adamant that I wear them as much as possible. The only time I hear Nike come up anymore is either in reference to their failure as a company or when a piece of entertainment brings up Jordans. Nike's insistence on giving everyone the middle finger in defiance of normalcy took it from being a sports apparel giant with no equal to an afterthought for many. Don't get me wrong, it still brings in quite a bit of money and has deals with almost every major sport, but it feels like an empire that's slowly collapsing. The numbers are there to confirm that. As reported by Bull Theory, Nike is being removed from the S&P 500 after half a decade of stock decline. BREAKING: Nike is getting removed from the S&P 100 after 18 years as the stock crashes 79% in the last 5 years. pic.twitter.com/3Wem6PphHO Nike forgot what it was and tried to be something that the number crunchers thought would make it successful in the "modern age." So much of that strategy was pretending to be on the side of whatever the left labeled as "the oppressed," at least at that time. Hilariously, that didn't work out for anybody. Nike's momentum as the leader in sports apparel just let it hang onto its reputation a tad longer than the others. What has to be acknowledged, however, is that it gained that solid reputation through truly connecting with people. For instance, it was one of the first sports companies to truly embrace women in sports , and it did so very well. Stop and think, for one moment, if you can remember a Nike commercial aimed at women. I mean a truly memorable one. You probably can't, because you're looking in the wrong place in your memory, but it's there if you saw the film "What Women Want," a rom-com movie starring prime Mel Gibson and Helen Hunt working at an ad agency which, during the course of the film, was creating an ad for Nike. It was a really good ad , too, and the reason it was so good is that Nike's marketing team actually made it. The tagline still stuck with me for years and years, and the funny part is that it wasn't even aimed at me. "No games. Just sports." This singular scene was proof that Nike actually understood itself. It was a for-women placed in a very successful rom-com, voiced by the smooth tones of a very popular and well-liked actor, and it encouraged women to make sports and exercise personal to them. Something that's theirs. Compare that to the new Nike, which wants women to see them glazing a man who thinks he's a woman for social credit. The insubstantiality of that is wildly obvious when you watch the scene above. Back then, they were trying to speak to women, and now they just want to speak at women. In fact, I'd go so far as to say Nike is trying to talk down to them by shoving something in their faces that's insulting to them, even if they agree with it outwardly. To get punny, Nike took their eye off the ball, and independent companies on the internet snatched it. Wall Street is just now getting around to admitting it happened, but the lesson here should be plain. Get woke , go broke.

By Al Jazeera Staff and Reuters Published On 6 Sep 2026 6 Sep 2026 Niger’s military government has accused France of orchestrating a failed mutiny that rocked the capital, Niamey, last week. France denied any involvement in the events in its former colony, but the accusation indicates that tensions between them remain high. Recommended Stories list of 3 items list 1 of 3 Niger displays arsenal seized after failed military mutiny list 2 of 3 Niger accuses France of orchestrating failed military mutiny list 3 of 3 France denies Niger’s accusation it orchestrated failed military mutiny end of list Here’s what you should know: What happened last week? Shortly after midnight on August 29, renegade soldiers targeted Base 101, a major military facility inside Niamey’s international airport complex. Authorities said the mutineers detained some of their comrades and opened fire at “certain sensitive sites” in the capital. Fighting spread to the presidential palace and temporarily knocked the state broadcaster off air, with explosions and gunfire echoing around Niamey for hours until Niger’s army, helped by Russian paramilitary fighters known as the Africa Corps , contained the mutiny. State media said hundreds of soldiers took part, with dozens killed or arrested. The mutiny happened three years after Abdourahamane Tchiani seized power in a coup that overthrew President Mohamed Bazoum, saying the elected government had failed to contain armed groups. However, violent unrest has persisted, while governance grievances and economic challenges remain. What has Niger’s military government said? As with previous rounds of unrest, Niger’s military authorities blamed France and other West African countries. “This operation, with its international ramifications, was instigated and sustained by a vast network of collusion headed by the French regime of Mr [Emmanuel] Macron,” said Soumana Boubacar, Niger’s government spokesperson, in a statement read out on TV on Friday. Advertisement “Traitorous and renegade elements, to whom promises of great things were made, were tasked with carrying out unfulfilled ambitions of Macron and his cronies in our country,” he said, adding that such “undermining manoeuvres will always fail”. The Niger Council of Ministers, which functions as the cabinet since the 2023 coup, said a “substantial body of evidence has been compiled regarding this attack and Niger reserves the right to ⁠⁠bring the matter before international courts”. Details were not provided. Niger also accused a number of regional countries of being involved, including the regional economic bloc ECOWAS. Benin’s government, one of the countries accused, rejected the accusations. In contrast, Niger thanked Russia, Algeria and allies in the Sahel region – Burkina Faso and Mali – for their support. What has been the French response? France dismissed the allegations as “pure fantasy”. “There never was any intention, nor means that France would have mobilised,” French Foreign Minister, Jean-Noel Barrot, told the French radio station, RFI. “All of this is, as usual, a way of wrongly blaming France for something it is simply not responsible for.” Tensions between the two countries have increased following the 2023 coup. Niger has since ordered the withdrawal of about 1,500 French troops, expelled the French ambassador, revoked a number of bilateral military agreements and suspended French state-funded stations, such as France 24 and RFI, from broadcasting there. Is Niger’s security situation worsening? Henri Nsaibia, West Africa senior analyst at Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED), said the Nigerien armed forces’ fight against armed groups linked to ISIL and al-Qaeda could be weakened following the mutiny. “The regime will likely divert resources from fighting jihadist groups to monitor internal threats,” he said. Niger’s security situation is facing several challenges. Since the 2023 coup, nearly 6,000 people have been killed in more than 1,400 violent incidents, according to ACLED. The casualties represent a sharp increase compared to the three years before Tchiani was in power, when nearly 3,200 people were killed in more than 1,300 violent incidents. “Niger still experiences less intense violence than neighbouring Mali and Burkina Faso, but faces a wider range of armed threats,” said Nsaibia. What’s the history of French colonialism in Niger? France’s influence has dropped dramatically throughout its former colonies in West Africa in recent years in the wake of failed military interventions and allegations of interference. Advertisement The rise in anti-French sentiment has helped coup leaders in a number of countries claim legitimacy, including in Niger, where France has a long history of brutality. France’s 1899 military campaign in Niger is still remembered for its intense violence, mass executions and destruction of towns and villages. Niger became part of France’s colonial empire the following year and gained independenc...