Image: Wikimedia Commons (U.S. Department of Defense, February 2025)

Dozens of service members currently serving in the military have offered their thoughts on how to hold accountable those military leaders who violated the law by implementing and enforcing the COVID-19 shot.

A startling report released by The Gateway Pundit recently highlighted the findings of a small, independent survey carried out by J.M. Phelps. Sadly, 89 percent of over sixty respondents stated that they would not advise their children, family members, or friends to join the military.

As previously reported, 80 percent attribute their reason to “the lack of accountability for the implementation and enforcement of the 2021 military shot mandate.”

Out of 66 participants in the fall 2025 survey, 64 respondents, or 97 percent, believe that leaders within the Department of Defense should be held responsible for how the mandate was put into action and enforced in August 2021.

While the survey only represents a small fraction of a much larger population, 63 out of the 66 participants, or 95 percent, expressed that accountability is essential for them to restore their trust in the military. This perspective has been echoed by hundreds of service members and veterans in discussions with the author over the past four years. And as of now, no one has faced consequences.

In the latest findings presented below, individuals actively serving in the various branches of the military also shared their perspectives on what accountability would look like to them. Each emphasized that his or her views to not reflect those of the War Department or their respective branches of the military.

To summarize, here’s what the participants in the survey conveyed about the accountability of military leaders responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the shot:

Subjectively, most survey participants indicated that their violations of the law should be categorized into different levels, including low-level, moderate-level, and severe-level violations. Although these categories would need to be clearly defined, “low-level” infractions would require mandatory training on the unlawful components of the mandate, with no repercussions for the violator’s career.

In the case of what would be considered “moderate” infractions, those who violated the law should encounter negative administrative actions that may affect their career. Lastly, “severe” violations would warrant Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) action, which could lead to the end of their career through courts-martial, dishonorable discharges, and more, including complete forfeiture of rank, benefits, and pension.

Numerous individuals advocated for General Officer Memorandums of Reprimand (GOMOR) to be included in their records. Some even proposed prohibiting federal service and future political appointments. One person even recommended that leaders face treason charges and time in jail.

Participants in the survey also advocated for public apologies to the American people through testimonies presented to Congress that would be included in the congressional record.

One respondent expressed concern that any form of punishment might be perceived as “authoritarian” by those on the Left. This same service member proposed offering “ribbons, medals, or awards [for] the brave few” who opposed the illegal enforcement of the shot mandate.

The loss of careers, the loss of promotions, the strains on marriages, and so much more have left many service members feeling resentful. Given the incredible challenges they faced in opposing an “unlawful as implemented” shot mandate, their anger may be justified.

Is there a middle ground that can be reached between those adversely affected and the Department of War? That’s a decision for War Secretary Pete Hegseth and his department to make.

Here are a few additional points for the Department of War to consider:

Out of 66 participants in the survey, 59—equating to 89 percent—reported knowing someone who has been separated or compelled to leave military service due to the COVID-19 shot mandate. Additionally, 61 individuals, or 92 percent, indicated that they know someone who has suffered physical harm from the shot. Furthermore, eight of the 66 participants reported experiencing physical harm themselves.

Is it any wonder why they may never cease seeking accountability? War Secretary Hegseth, what’s holding you back? That’s the question on everyone’s mind.

The post What Does Accountability Look Like for Service Members Affected by the COVID-19 Shot ? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Will Trump take legal action against the BBC?

The ‘Beeb’ is in the crosshairs of Trump’s legal team for one billion dollars.

A day after the resignation of Director-General Tim Davie and the ousting of Chief News Executive Deborah Turness, the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) is dealing with the fallout of the accusations of institutional biases and the scandal over the deceptive editing of Donal J. Trump’s J6 speech.

Today (10), BBC Chairman Samir Shah has publicly admitted the corporation made what he called an ‘error of judgment’.

Shah admitted that the editing of separate comments by Trump created the manufactured impression that the US President had called for violence on January 6 2021.

Shah made these comments in a written statement to Parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

BBC reported:

“He writes: ‘Since the publication of Mr. Prescott’s memo, this issue has led to over 500 complaints. These are now being dealt with in the normal way. It has also prompted further reflection by the BBC’.

‘The conclusion of that deliberation is that we accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action. The BBC would like to apologize for that error of judgement’.”

‘They are seeking to regain trust amongst audiences.’

GB News National Reporter Will Godley speaks live from Broadcasting House, as the BBC’s Chair apologizes for an ‘error of judgement’ over the Trump edit. pic.twitter.com/GaBMNXs297

— GB News (@GBNEWS) November 10, 2025

A spokesman for failing Prime Minister Keir Starmer says that he ‘does not believe the BBC is institutionally biased’.

“He added: ‘It is important the BBC acts to maintain trust and corrects mistake quickly when they occur… for any public service broadcaster – accountability is vital’.”

AI image by Grok: BBC in complete meltdown.

This comes as BBC News has reported that Trump has sent a letter to the BBC threatening legal action.

JUST IN: President Trump has sent a legal letter THREATENING the BBC with a lawsuit over the outlet’s deceptive cut of his Jan. 6th speech

Cut: “Cheer on congressmen and women”
Replaced with: “Fight like HELL!”

HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE! pic.twitter.com/noIeLIEqNi

The BBC could…

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 10, 2025

‘There could be serious ramifications for the special relationship.’

GB News Political Commentator Olivia Utley reports on Donald Trump threatening the BBC with legal action, and the potential political impact of it. pic.twitter.com/HKViiKlmqG

— GB News (@GBNEWS) November 10, 2025

‘There could be serious ramifications for the special relationship.’

GB News Political Commentator Olivia Utley reports on Donald Trump threatening the BBC with legal action, and the potential political impact of it. pic.twitter.com/HKViiKlmqG

— GB News (@GBNEWS) November 10, 2025

‘His litigation lawyers are never having a quiet day…’

As Trump threatens legal action against the BBC, @maitlis and @jonsopel give @ShelaghFogarty their instant reactions. pic.twitter.com/0jtCNItIZI

— LBC (@LBC) November 10, 2025

UPDATE: Trump’s legal team demands a retraction from the BBC, threatening to sue for $1 Billion if the Broadcaster does not respond by Friday (14).

Read more:

JUST IN – Embattled BBC Head Tim Davie Resigns Over Trump Deceptive Documentary Edit and Widespread Bias – Chief News Executive Deborah Turness Also Out – UPDATE: Trump Reacts

The post Embattled BBC Apologizes to the Public for Misleading Edit of Trump J6 Speech, as US President Demands Retraction, Threatens Legal Action Seeking $1 Billion in Damages appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Images taken from screenshots of Iranian sources, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force, courtesy of MEMRI, a media which opposes the Iranian regime.

Hardliners and conservative commentators in Iran celebrated Zohran Mamdani’s election as New York’s first Muslim mayor as a symbolic victory for Islam over the West and a sign of America’s decline.

State-affiliated outlets such as the conservative daily Hamshahri and Nour News framed the win as “America Against America,” interpreting it as proof of deep divisions within the U.S. establishment and the “collapse of the old order” marking the beginning of the end of “Trumpism.”

Conservative and state-run media emphasized that Mamdani’s win reflected both a moral and political defeat for America and Israel, with Asr-e Iran describing the election as a “crossing of the mental barriers” created after 9/11 and the erosion of the “Jewish lobby’s” power over U.S. politics.

The IRGC Qods Force Telegram channel called it “the defeat of Trump and Zionism” and “a joyful event” marking America’s changing identity.

In Iran’s parliament, lawmaker Abolghasem Jarareh declared that Mamdani’s victory “shows the strength of the slogan ‘Death to Israel,'” prompting fellow MPs to chant it on the floor.

Tehran mayor’s spokesman Abdolmotahhar Mohammadi praised the result as evidence that “the people of New York reject the influence of a genocidal regime in U.S. governance,” calling it a boost to pro-Palestinian and anti-racist movements worldwide.

Tehran University ideologue Foad Izadi described Mamdani’s rise as “the arrival of the message of 13 Aban in New York,” invoking the anniversary of the 1979 U.S. embassy takeover, a cornerstone of Iran’s revolutionary hostility toward Washington.

Former culture minister Mohammad Hosseini credited Mamdani’s campaign to inspiration from Imam Hossein and the spirit of Ashura.

For Iran’s hardliners, Mamdani’s Shiite background and anti-Israel rhetoric validated their long-standing belief that America is collapsing under its own hypocrisy and moral decay.

They celebrated the rise of a Shia Muslim to power in what they view as the center of Western capitalism, framing it as proof that Islam is advancing within the heart of the enemy’s political system.

Pro-regime commentators portrayed his win as both a political and spiritual triumph over the forces of “arrogance,” arguing that Mamdani’s faith, class-based rhetoric, and pro-Palestinian stance echo the Islamic Revolution’s principles of justice, resistance, and opposition to Zionism.

His victory was cast not merely as a local event but as a divine sign that the West’s liberal order is faltering and that the narrative of Islamic resistance is spreading inside the enemy’s own institutions.

According to The Tehran Times, Iranian commentators framed Mamdani’s election as proof that the American capitalist system is collapsing under its own contradictions.

The paper described his socialist platform, free childcare, rent freezes, public transit reform, and higher taxes on the wealthy, as a direct challenge to U.S. capitalism and evidence of growing anger among ordinary Americans toward an economic order that enriches elites while impoverishing workers.

It characterized the United States as a nation where “billionaires live next to people who can barely pay rent,” portraying Mamdani’s rise as evidence that Americans are rejecting inequality and searching for a fairer alternative to the capitalist model.

Founded in 1979 after the Islamic Revolution, The Tehran Times framed his election as part of a global political shift led by the oppressed and working classes against the “bullies and thugs in the White House.”

His criticism of Israel and defense of Palestinian rights were highlighted as marks of moral courage and proof that the Western narrative on Gaza is weakening.

Asr-e Iran presented the result as a sign of shifting attitudes toward Israel, particularly among younger Americans, and as evidence of the “Zionist lobby’s decline” in New York, home to the world’s second-largest Jewish population.

Mamdani’s pro-Palestinian stance was celebrated as a triumph for the “Axis of Resistance” and proof that revolutionary ideals are spreading into the heart of the United States.

By aligning his socialist and anti-Israel message with Iran’s own revolutionary rhetoric, The Tehran Times cast Mamdani’s victory not merely as a domestic American development but as a symbolic win for the oppressed, confirming that history is tilting toward Islam’s eventual victory over Western hegemony.

According to a report by the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs titled “Tehran Celebrates Mamdani: ‘A Political Earthquake, A Crack in the Pro-Israeli Hegemony,’” Iranian discourse now frames the Islamic Republic as a “demanding side” rather than a reactive one toward Washington.

Supreme Leader Khamenei’s remarks on the “Day of Struggle Against Global Arrogance” reaffirmed that the battle between America and Islam is ideological.

Mamdani’s victory is also expected to embolden the political left in America and across the West.

The Cleveland Jewish News reported that the win is being hailed as a watershed moment for the emerging “Red-Green” alliance between the radical left and Islamist movements, a coalition gaining traction in both Europe and the United States.

Fiamma Nirenstein, Italian-Israeli journalist, author and former politician, described Mamdani as the embodiment of this new ideological partnership: a politician who built his campaign on pro-Palestinian rhetoric, anti-Israel activism, and the rejection of Western democratic norms that once anchored New York’s Jewish and pluralistic identity.

Mamdani’s victory symbolizes how anti-Zionism has become a socially acceptable form of antisemitism, even in America’s most Jewish city.

His promises to cut ties with Israeli institutions, boycott city–Israel partnerships, and divest from Israeli funds are seen as steps toward normalizing hostility to the Jewish state under the banner of social justice.

Nirenstein warns that while Mamdani’s policies may or may not benefit ordinary New Yorkers, the greater cost will be moral and cultural, signaling a West drifting toward moral relativism, hostility to Israel, and the loss of its Judeo-Christian democratic foundations.

The post “America Against America”: Iran Hardliners Emboldened by Mamdani’s Election Win appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.