By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A cornerstone of U.S. national security policy for decades has been the prevention of scenarios like Iran closing a vital strait, a principle some former officials find baffling given recent events. White House officials reportedly conceded to Congress that planning for such Iranian retaliation was absent, underestimating Iran’s resolve despite past U.S. actions. Now, with Iran’s supreme leader vowing to keep the strait closed as a “tool of pressure,” coupled with successful attacks on U.S. missile defenses and depleting American stockpiles, the administration’s lack of foresight poses significant risks to international markets, the U.S. economy, and the safety of American troops and interests.
Read the original article here
It seems there’s a narrative emerging, and it’s quite a striking one, suggesting that former President Trump might be monetizing details from national security briefings for his supporters. This idea comes to light through fundraising efforts where access to what’s being termed “private national security briefings” is offered in exchange for financial contributions. The messaging itself, often framed as coming directly from Trump, promises “unfiltered updates on the threats facing America,” delving into topics like border security, foreign adversaries, and perceived “deep state sabotage.”
The mechanism for this appears to be through affiliated super PACs, specifically a fundraising subsidiary that emerged from his 2024 campaign. The communication directs interested parties to Trump’s merchandising website, implying a broader business model at play where political access and information are being packaged and sold. The language used in these appeals emphasizes exclusivity, reserving these “final spots” for “strongest supporters” and calling it “no ordinary membership.”
This approach raises eyebrows, especially when contrasted with the efforts of formal government bodies to control access to information, such as during times of international conflict. The idea that one might have to pay for what were once considered standard government briefings, or for information that should be accessible to the public, is a significant departure from conventional practices. It paints a picture of information itself being a commodity, with potential profit being extracted from those seeking it.
One can’t help but wonder about the implications of such an arrangement. If national security information is being shared in a context where money is exchanged, it raises questions about who ultimately has access and how that information might be disseminated. The very idea of “private” briefings on sensitive matters, especially when tied to financial contributions, seems to blur the lines between genuine security updates and what could be perceived as propaganda or marketing for a political agenda.
The sheer audacity of offering what are essentially national security briefings for sale is, for many, quite baffling. It prompts immediate comparisons to other forms of commodification, with some even joking about more extreme scenarios. The notion that classified documents were potentially taken and could be sold to the highest bidder, including those hostile to the nation, is a recurring concern that seems to find a new manifestation in this type of fundraising.
The structure of these offers, with different levels of access and potentially tiered pricing, mirrors many consumer-driven models. You might spend a certain amount to get a basic level of “insider” information, and then have to spend more for a deeper understanding or exclusive content. This gamified approach to national security information is, to say the least, unconventional and has led to a sense of disbelief and concern among observers.
Furthermore, the idea that individuals or entities could subscribe to these “briefings” raises significant security concerns. If access is granted based on payment, what prevents foreign governments or hostile actors from subscribing and gaining insights into national security matters? This inherent vulnerability in the proposed system is a point of considerable alarm.
The disconnect between the seriousness of national security and the marketing tactics employed is stark. It feels as though the very concept of what is sacred and protected is being eroded for financial gain. This situation leads many to feel a sense of disorientation, as if the normal rules and expectations of governance and security are being disregarded.
The legal and ethical ramifications are also significant. If information is proprietary to the government, then selling it, even indirectly through fundraising, could be seen as fraud or even something more serious. The idea that the campaign is profiting from information it does not own is a complex legal question that is bound to be scrutinized.
In essence, the overarching sentiment is one of concern that a former president might be leveraging his past position and the mystique of national security to enrich himself and his political operations, potentially at the expense of actual national security. The “secret decoder ring” analogy, while perhaps humorous, captures the essence of this concern: a system of increasingly expensive access that promises special knowledge but may ultimately be a shell game. The entire concept feels, to many, like a betrayal of public trust and a dangerous precedent.