Politics

America First or Last? The Conservative Case for Re-Evaluating Foreign Aid

Published

1 month ago

December 4, 2025

VORNews

America First or Last? The Conservative Case

As America stares at a national debt above $35 trillion and families struggle with inflation that eats into paychecks and savings, a sharp fight has broken out over one of Washington’s largest recent spending commitments: foreign aid to Ukraine.

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, the U.S. has pledged roughly $175 billion in emergency support for Ukraine, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. That headline number includes military gear, economic support, and humanitarian relief.

For many conservatives, this raises a basic question. Does this ongoing river of money actually serve American interests, or is “America First” just a slogan while our leaders keep funding another distant conflict?

The “America First” slogan, central to former President Donald Trump’s foreign policy, promised a reset of how the U.S. engages abroad. It stressed domestic security, a strong economy, and spending restraint instead of open-ended missions overseas. Yet three years into the war, billions still move toward Kyiv with no clear end in sight.

With Trump back in the White House in January 2025 and signaling a shift toward reduced foreign entanglements, conservatives are taking a harder look at Ukraine aid. Supporters call it a shield against Russian aggression. Critics, including experts at the Heritage Foundation and figures like Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), see a costly project that drains money from urgent needs at home.

This piece walks through the numbers, the strategy, and a conservative argument for dialing back U.S. support for Ukraine in the name of a real “America First” agenda.

The True Price Tag of Ukraine Aid

Headline Costs vs. Actual Spending

At first glance, $175 billion sounds enormous. It rivals the yearly budgets of several federal departments combined. A closer look at the data, though, shows a complex mix of appropriations, pledges, and partial spending that still raises serious concern.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) reports that, as of late 2024, Congress has set aside about $182.8 billion for Ukraine since 2022. USAFacts data shows that only $83.4 billion of that has actually gone out the door. Roughly $140.5 billion sits as committed but not yet spent, while about $2.7 billion in funds expired before use.

Military support makes up a large share. The State Department counts more than $66.9 billion in security aid, including Javelin missiles, HIMARS rocket systems, and Patriot air defenses. Much of this equipment comes from U.S. stockpiles under the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA), which lets the president transfer weapons quickly in a crisis.

Opportunity Costs for Taxpayers

Conservatives who care about fiscal responsibility see a steep tradeoff. Supporters of Ukraine aid describe it as an investment in global stability. Critics respond that it deepens the country’s financial strain at a time when the national balance sheet is already in crisis.

The national debt now translates into more than $100,000 in obligations per citizen. The Congressional Budget Office projects that interest payments on this debt could reach $1 trillion per year by 2026.

In that light, even a portion of what Washington sends abroad could make a real difference at home. It could strengthen border security, a core “America First” promise, or help stabilize Social Security and other programs key to aging veterans and working families.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) summed up this frustration on the House floor in 2024, arguing that the U.S. is “borrowing from China to buy drones for Ukraine while our southern border bleeds red ink.”

Hidden and Indirect Costs

Direct appropriations tell only part of the story. The Kiel Institute for the World Economy estimates total U.S. bilateral aid to Ukraine at about €114.2 billion ($119.5 billion) through mid-2025, including roughly $67 billion for military support.

That figure does not reflect related costs that come with a large overseas commitment. The U.S. has boosted troop deployments to Europe since 2022, at a cost of about $45 billion. Sanctions enforcement against Russia has also affected supply chains and raised compliance costs for U.S. businesses.

Oversight has become another flash point. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that the Pentagon misvalued about $6.2 billion in equipment sent to Ukraine in 2022 and 2023. For fiscal conservatives, that mistake raises alarms about waste in a conflict zone that already faces corruption concerns.

People who remember the roughly $2 trillion spent over two decades in Afghanistan see echoes of an old pattern. Many heard Trump’s promise to end “forever wars” and now view Ukraine spending as a repeat of the same costly approach, dressed up in new language.

Strategy Under the Microscope: Victory, Stalemate, or Something Else?

How the Biden Strategy Has Shifted

The Biden administration’s early approach to Ukraine focused on quick, emergency shipments of weapons and aid. Over time, this moved toward a longer-term posture built around making Ukraine’s forces more compatible with NATO and preparing for reconstruction.

The FY2024 Ukraine Security Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 118-50) set aside about $61 billion for Ukraine and related efforts. That package included roughly $23.4 billion to refill U.S. weapons stocks and $4.65 billion in loans, structured as forgivable, for Ukraine’s government budget.

Institutions such as the Atlantic Council describe this as a “strategic investment” that weakens Russia’s military at a far lower cost than direct U.S. or NATO combat. A 2025 study from the American Enterprise Institute estimated that if Russia wins and pushes further, NATO could face about $808 billion in extra defense costs over five years.

Conservative Concerns About Open-Ended Goals

Many conservatives see this logic as a new form of the same “nation-building” mindset that failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ukraine’s much-hyped counteroffensive in 2023 stalled. Russian forces adjusted tactics and pulled in weapons from partners like Iran and North Korea, as highlighted in CSIS wargames and analysis.

The Kiel Institute projects total Western commitments to Ukraine reaching about €366 billion ($383 billion) through 2025. Europe’s share, about €165.7 billion, slightly exceeds America’s $130.6 billion in comparable commitments. On paper, that suggests U.S. allies are carrying a significant load.

Even so, reports from sources like the BBC still describe Washington as the “indispensable” donor. Many in Europe rely on U.S. leadership and money, which feeds long-standing complaints from Trump and others about NATO “free-riding.”

Pros for Hawks, Cons for “America First” Skeptics

Supporters of Ukraine aid point to clear benefits. Research from the Wilson Center estimates that the war has cost Russia roughly $167 billion so far, draining its resources and limiting its ability to threaten NATO countries.

At home, defense contractors in 38 states have received about $33.6 billion in related contracts. Pentagon planners also see value in testing U.S. weapons systems and tactics in real combat against a major power’s military, which they believe prepares the U.S. for future conflict with China.

For many “America First” conservatives, those arguments do not outweigh the risks. Nuclear threats from Vladimir Putin keep the danger of escalation in the background. Ukraine’s economy now sits at about 78 percent of its prewar size and faces a projected reconstruction bill of about $486 billion.

CSIS warns that if U.S. support drops sharply, Ukraine’s military capability could fall by as much as 80 percent by summer 2026. That outcome would leave the country vulnerable and slowly push it toward defeat or forced concessions.

Critics argue that Washington is funding a stalemate. In their view, that means Ukraine can survive for now but not win clear, lasting security. They question whether tying the U.S. to an indefinite slog in Eastern Europe really counts as a sound conservative strategy.

The Missing Exit Strategy

Even some strong backers of Ukraine aid admit that the current approach needs guardrails. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of the loudest GOP voices in favor of Ukraine, said in 2024 that future packages must connect to changes on the U.S. southern border.

That idea, pairing foreign aid with domestic priorities, reflects growing pressure inside the party. It also exposes the biggest weakness in the current plan. There is no obvious endpoint, no clear description of what “victory” looks like, and no timeline for reducing U.S. involvement.

Trump’s “Principled Realism,” laid out in his 2017 speech at the United Nations and archived by the White House, stressed real-world outcomes over ideology. For many conservatives, Ukraine has not delivered those results. Instead, it has locked America into a grinding war with no clear payoff.

Conservative Voices Demanding an America First Reset

A Party Split on Foreign Aid

The Republican debate over Ukraine mirrors a wider split on foreign policy. Old-guard hawks such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) argue that standing firm in Ukraine is key to deterring authoritarian rivals. They warn that a Russian win in Europe could embolden China to move on Taiwan.

The populist “MAGA” wing, with Trump at its center, sees the conflict very differently. To them, large aid bills for Ukraine reflect the priorities of global institutions and foreign elites, not the needs of American workers.

A 2025 report from Reuters described plans by the incoming Trump administration to redirect around $1.8 billion in foreign aid toward projects branded as “America First” goals. These include potential investments in places like Greenland and efforts to counter left-wing governments in Latin America, according to a congressional memo.

Rising Skepticism in the GOP Base

Trump’s running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance, has been one of the sharpest critics of continued Ukraine funding. In an op-ed for The New York Times, he argued that the $61 billion aid package passed in April 2024 could not deliver victory because the U.S. lacks the manufacturing base to supply Ukraine with what it needs.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has been even more blunt on social media. She calls Ukraine aid “America last” spending and points to problems like homelessness among veterans and rising fentanyl deaths as more urgent priorities.

Polling supports the idea that the Republican base is moving toward a more skeptical view. A YouGov survey from November 2025 found GOP opposition to Ukraine aid at about 22 percent, up from lower levels in 2024. Only 18 percent of Republicans wanted to increase support.

Research from Brookings shows a sharp shift since 2022. About 44 percent of Republican voters now say the U.S. is giving Ukraine “too much” aid, roughly three times the share who felt that way early in the war.

Fiscal Watchdogs Weigh In

Groups focused on spending discipline add another layer of criticism. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that direct transfers of U.S. military gear to Ukraine total about $53.7 billion. They argue that even if that number looks small compared with the full federal budget, the money could address real shortages and needs at home.

The new Trump administration has already sent signals of a broader change in foreign aid policy. A January 2025 State Department release described an overhaul of USAID that would freeze around $80 billion in grants. The message is clear: aid should be more selective and more tightly tied to U.S. interests.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in a December 2025 cabinet briefing, laid out the standard for future spending in simple terms. Every dollar, he said, must answer a basic test: “Does it make America safer, stronger, or more prosperous?” Many conservatives now look at Ukraine and say the answer is no.

Rethinking Endless Spending Abroad

The Case for a Reset, Not a Retreat

Calls for a re-examination of Ukraine aid grow louder each month. Even supporters of Kyiv’s fight admit that U.S. help has shifted from emergency relief to something that looks more like a blank check.

Economists for Ukraine estimate that U.S. aid equals about 0.25 percent of the federal budget per year. That might sound small. Still, Ukraine spent roughly $12 billion just to service its debt in 2024, part of a web of financial ties that could leave the U.S. on the hook for years.

Conservatives who believe in limited government and hard choices want clear conditions, stronger audits, and more pressure on European allies to step up. They also want a real diplomatic track that rewards serious peace talks instead of feeding a war with no endpoint.

Trump’s “America First” record, which includes leaving the Paris climate agreement and the INF arms control treaty (as summarized on Wikipedia and other sources), reflected his discomfort with large multilateral agreements that tie U.S. hands. Many of his supporters see long-term Ukraine commitments in the same light.

A phased drawdown, with any future funding tied to real negotiations similar to the old Minsk format, could push Moscow toward a settlement without requiring full Ukrainian surrender. It would also give U.S. voters a sense that there is a plan to reduce costs over time.

Weighing the Risk of Ukrainian Collapse

Think tanks such as CSIS warn that if U.S. support drops off sharply, Ukraine’s military strength could fall to about 20 percent of its current level by 2026. That scenario would expose Ukraine to major losses and potential territorial grabs by Russia.

Advocates of continued funding argue that such an outcome would harm U.S. interests and send a dangerous signal to other aggressors. Opponents respond that war without a clear end harms everyone involved, including Ukrainian soldiers and civilians, and leaves American taxpayers footing the bill for a conflict their leaders never fully explained.

Rebecca Heinrichs of the Hudson Institute has pointed to lapses in oversight and worries about aid going off course as key problems. The Stimson Center has called for better tracking systems to prevent weapons from slipping into black markets, a risk that often grows in long and chaotic wars.

What “America First” Should Mean

In the end, “America First” does not have to mean turning our back on the world. It can mean setting sharper priorities and focusing resources where they matter most for U.S. security and prosperity.

Many conservatives believe that the Indo-Pacific region, and China in particular, represents a far greater long-term challenge than Russia in Ukraine. Shifting attention and resources toward that theater would match the scale of the threat.

Europe is not helpless. According to Statista, EU institutions have already committed about €39 billion in support for Ukraine. European countries as a whole have pledged more aid than the United States. A measured U.S. pullback would force European leaders to take fuller responsibility for security on their own continent.

Trump captured this sentiment at CPAC in 2025 when he told supporters, “We’re done subsidizing the world.” For conservatives, rethinking Ukraine aid does not have to signal weakness. It can signal a course correction that aligns foreign policy with the needs and interests of American citizens.

Where Conservatives Go From Here

The debate over Ukraine aid will shape the broader Republican vision for foreign policy. Should the U.S. keep acting as the main funder of a distant war, or should it demand tighter limits, stronger oversight, and a clear off-ramp?

For “America First” conservatives, the answer is becoming clearer. They want a foreign policy that protects American borders, defends American jobs, and keeps faith with American taxpayers.

That means re-examining every large foreign aid program through a simple lens. Does it genuinely make the United States safer, richer, or more secure in the long run?

Right now, more and more conservatives look at Ukraine aid, the ballooning debt, and the strain on domestic priorities and say it is time to rethink the deal.

Politics

Tim Walz Exposed For Faking Financial Records In State Audit

Published

3 days ago

January 11, 2026

VORNews

MINNESOTA – A new report from Minnesota’s nonpartisan Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA) is putting Governor Tim Walz’s administration under fresh pressure. The audit, released earlier this month, reviewed the Department of Human Services (DHS) Behavioral Health Administration (BHA) and found that state staff created and backdated documents during the audit process.

Auditors say the records appear to have been made to cover for weak oversight and questionable grant payments tied to more than $425 million in taxpayer funds.

The report adds to a growing list of concerns around fraud and waste in Minnesota social services. Walz announced on January 5, 2026, that he will not run for re-election. Many critics link that decision to the string of scandals and investigations that have followed his administration.

Major Problems With Grant Oversight

The OLA report runs about 70 pages and focuses on behavioral health grants paid out from July 2022 through December 2024. Auditors listed 13 key findings, including several problems flagged in earlier reviews. The report described repeated breakdowns, such as:

Missing required progress reports from grantees
Payments were approved even when the paperwork was late or incomplete
Weak monitoring, including site visits that were not done or not documented
Heavy use of non-competitive single-source grants without clear support for the decision

Over the period reviewed, BHA awarded more than $425 million to about 830 organizations, mostly outside government. The money was meant to support mental health care and substance use disorder services. Auditors said BHA lacked basic internal controls to track performance and confirm proper use of funds, which increased the risk of fraud and misuse.

One example in the audit drew sharp criticism. A grant manager approved a payment of nearly $680,000 to a single grantee for one month of work, and the file did not show proof that the services were delivered. The employee left state service days later and took a consulting job with the same organization. That sequence raised serious conflict-of-interest concerns.

Audit Says Walz Staff Fabricated and Backdated Documents

The most serious finding involved the audit itself. Legislative Auditor Judy Randall said the office saw signs of a “systemic effort” to alter the record, something she described as unheard of during her 27 years with OLA.

Auditors found cases where records were created after the audit began and then dated to look older. In one example, documents claimed monitoring visits happened in May 2024, October 2024, and January 2025. Auditors concluded those records were actually created in February 2025, after the audit was already underway and information requests were out.

Randall called the practice unacceptable and said it damaged trust in the review process. The report suggests the altered paperwork was used to make long-running oversight problems look fixed after the fact, instead of addressing them in real time.

Part of a Larger Wave of Fraud Claims

The DHS audit lands during a broader crackdown on alleged fraud in Minnesota’s public programs. Federal and state investigators have been looking into suspected wrongdoing that could add up to billions of dollars across Medicaid, child care, housing stabilization, and nutrition assistance programs. More than 1,000 current and former workers have come forward as whistleblowers, alleging retaliation, deleted data, and pressure to stay quiet about fraud reports.

Congress has also taken an interest. The U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, led by Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), has expanded its review of Minnesota’s handling of these programs. Comer has publicly blamed Walz for ignoring warning signs and has called on Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison to testify in February 2026. He has also pushed for cooperation with document requests.

Minnesota Republicans, including Rep. Kristin Robbins, say the state ignored auditor warnings and whistleblower complaints for years, with some concerns dating back to 2009.

DHS Response and Growing Calls for Accountability

Acting DHS Commissioner Shireen Gandhi said she was alarmed by the findings about backdated records and promised a full internal review. She also said DHS plans to tighten training, supervision, and internal controls.

Critics say those steps should have happened long ago. House Speaker DeMuth described the report as proof of a culture marked by fraud, negligence, and deception, and called for immediate reforms and possible prosecutions. Some federal lawmakers have warned that funding could be at risk if the state cannot show stronger accountability.

Walz has defended his administration in past disputes by pointing to third-party audits, paused payments in higher-risk areas, and new anti-fraud efforts. Still, the latest audit raises hard issues about who knew what, who allowed weak controls to continue, and whether anyone will face criminal charges for falsifying public records.

What This Means for Public Trust

This audit is not just about paperwork problems. It goes to public trust in the state government. The grants were meant to help Minnesotans dealing with mental illness and addiction. Auditors say the funds went out without strong safeguards, and when oversight finally arrived, staff allegedly tried to recreate a paper trail to show compliance.

With investigations still active at the state and federal levels, the fallout could shape the final chapter of Walz’s time as governor. For many Minnesotans, the biggest issue is simple: they want clear answers, real consequences, and proof that taxpayer dollars will be protected going forward.

Related News:

JD Vance Exposes Walz’s Fraud and CNN’s Lies in White House Presser

Politics

Sen. Joni Ernst Targets Minnesota Nonprofit Amid Fraud Scandal

Published

5 days ago

January 9, 2026

VORNews

Sen. Joni Ernst Targets Minnesota Nonprofit

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa, is moving to stop more than $1 million in federal funding set aside for a Minnesota addiction recovery nonprofit. She says the earmark raises red flags tied to Minnesota’s widening nonprofit fraud scandals.

The group, Generation Hope MN, is Somali-led and has drawn attention for listing the same address as a Somali restaurant and for links to well-known Democratic lawmakers.

Ernst plans to offer a Senate amendment that would shift the money away from the nonprofit and send it to fraud detection and enforcement instead. Her move adds to a growing GOP push for tighter controls on federal spending, especially in Minnesota, where investigators say major social service programs have been exploited for large sums.

Ernst Moves to Re-route the Money

“The amount of fraud coming out of Minnesota is shocking, and I’m worried we’re only seeing part of it,” Ernst said in a statement. “Congress should fix the problem, not keep feeding the same system that let it happen.”

The funding totals $1,031,000 for Generation Hope’s “Justice Empowerment Initiative.” The program is described as offering substance use recovery support, mental health services, job training, and educational help for East African residents in the Twin Cities. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) requested the earmark, and Minnesota Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith backed it in the Senate.

Generation Hope MN started in 2019 as a 501(c)(3). On its website, it says its mission is to build “a better, safer, and more connected community” for people dealing with addiction within the broader East African community.

Recent reports, though, have raised concerns about its setup. Those reports point to the nonprofit’s registered address above a Minneapolis Somali restaurant and claim that several leaders share the same home address.

No charges have been filed against Generation Hope. Still, Ernst and other critics say the group’s profile looks similar to patterns seen in Minnesota’s fraud cases, where some nonprofits have been accused of abusing federal and state programs.

Political Connections Add More Attention

Omar, Klobuchar, and Smith have supported programs tailored to immigrant communities across Minnesota, including the state’s large Somali-American population. Omar’s office has promoted the earmark as part of efforts to address opioid addiction in her district.

Critics say the request lands at a sensitive time. Minnesota remains under heavy scrutiny after major federal investigations into nonprofit fraud. The best-known case involves Feeding Our Future, a now-closed organization accused of taking $250 million from a federal child nutrition program during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prosecutors have charged more than 70 people in that case. They say the losses reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Other probes have focused on Medicaid-funded autism services, housing stabilization programs, and childcare-related spending. Together, alleged misuse across programs could exceed $1 billion. Many defendants in these cases are Somali, though prosecutors say the schemes involve people from many backgrounds.

Ernst’s staff says they found the Generation Hope earmark while reviewing a broader spending package. She argues that putting the money into Department of Justice enforcement work would do more for taxpayers than sending it to an organization now facing questions.

ACLJ Files FOIA Requests for Records

The dispute escalated after conservative attorney Jay Sekulow said the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) filed several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests tied to Minnesota grant programs.

On his radio show and social media, Sekulow called it a “major FOIA” push to “gather intel” on what he described as large-scale fraud being uncovered in the state. The requests went to agencies that include the Department of Health and Human Services, the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, and the Governor’s Office. They seek documents tied to grant oversight and investigations, including alleged fraud connected to daycare and other social service programs.

The filings reflect a wider demand from conservative groups for more public records and clearer oversight. Sekulow has criticized what he calls weak guardrails, saying, “That’s not compassion. That’s corruption,” in recent broadcasts.

What This Means for Minnesota Nonprofits

The fraud cases have put Minnesota in the national spotlight. They have also led to congressional hearings and pauses on some federal payments. The Small Business Administration has opened probes into Somali-linked organizations, and Senate Republicans, led by Ernst, have asked for detailed reports on which programs were hit.

Supporters of community-based funding say these programs serve people who often struggle to access help, including immigrants facing language and cultural barriers. Generation Hope has not been named in any active prosecution. Offices for Omar, Klobuchar, and Smith have not responded to requests for comment on Ernst’s amendment.

As Congress works through the spending bill, Ernst’s proposal could slow the larger package and force a fight over earmarks and oversight. With fraud estimates rising and politics heating up ahead of the midterms, the battle over Generation Hope’s funding has become part of a bigger debate about how federal dollars should flow to nonprofits.

For taxpayers, the focus remains on whether new safeguards will stop future abuse or whether more cases are still waiting to surface.

Politics

Iran’s Exiled Crown Prince Urges Khamenei’s Removal

Published

6 days ago

January 8, 2026

Jeffrey Thomas

Iran's Exiled Crown Prince Urges Khamenei’s Removal

TEHRAN, Iran – A new wave of nationwide protests is putting heavy pressure on the Islamic Republic, in what many describe as the biggest challenge since the 2022 Mahsa Amini demonstrations.

Crowds in cities across Iran have marched for 11 straight days, chanting against Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and calling out the name of exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi as a sign of change. The unrest has reached more than 21 provinces, fueled by a sharp economic crisis and growing public anger.

The current protests began on December 28, 2025. They first centered on rising prices, a falling rial, and shortages of everyday goods. Early scenes from Tehran’s Grand Bazaar showed people rallying over the cost of living. Within days, many demonstrations shifted into direct demands to end the current system of rule.

Human rights groups that have reviewed and verified videos say chants have been heard in cities including Isfahan, Mashhad, and Ilam. Protesters have shouted “Death to the dictator,” aimed at the 86-year-old Khamenei, along with “Reza Shah, bless your soul,” a slogan that recalls the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty.

In Tehran, clashes have been intense. Riot police on motorcycles have pursued demonstrators through city streets, using tear gas and live ammunition, according to reports and video shared by monitors. On Tuesday, confrontations near the main market reportedly left several people wounded as shopkeepers joined in. Western Iran and smaller towns have also seen strong turnout, with security forces struggling to slow the pace of protests.

Rights groups, including Iran-based monitors, say at least 36 people have been killed since the unrest began. Hundreds more have been injured, and thousands have been arrested. Khamenei has publicly acknowledged economic complaints, but he has also described the demonstrations as “riots” pushed by foreign enemies.

Reza Pahlavi’s Message From Exile Gains Traction

Reza Pahlavi, 65, the son of Iran’s last shah, has become a key figure for many protesters. Speaking from the United States, he released a video message in Farsi this week that spread widely online. He urged people inside Iran to unite around disciplined, large-scale action. He also called for coordinated chants at set times and said change should not depend on foreign military involvement.

“I am more ready than ever to return to Iran and lead the transition to democracy,” Pahlavi said, while stressing that any shift must be driven by Iranians themselves.

In several cities, pro-monarchy chants have returned, including “Javid Shah” (Long live the king) and “This is the final battle; Pahlavi will return.” The slogans have been heard from Arak to Rasht, pointing to renewed interest among some groups in secular and nationalist options against clerical rule.

Pahlavi has spoken positively about recent U.S. actions abroad while continuing to frame change in Iran as an internal effort. His comments have also boosted activity among the Iranian diaspora, with rallies reported in cities such as London and Paris, as international leaders watch events unfold.

Security Crackdown Intensifies as the Death Toll Rises

Iranian security forces, including the Basij militia and the Revolutionary Guards, have responded with harsher tactics. Verified footage shared by activists shows officers beating protesters and firing into crowds. There have also been reports of night raids and internet blackouts in provinces such as Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari and Ilam, steps that appear aimed at disrupting coordination.

Activists have documented at least 36 deaths, while warning that the real figure could be higher. In one reported incident, a police colonel was killed during clashes in Tehran. Kurdish and Baloch opposition groups have issued threats of retaliation, with one coalition claiming responsibility for targeting a law enforcement officer.

In his first comments last week, Khamenei promised to “put rioters in their place.” He also signaled limited openness to discussing economic problems, similar to his approach during the 2022 unrest. That has not eased the anger. Judiciary officials have also warned that there will be no leniency for people accused of “helping the enemy.”

Iran’s crisis has gained extra attention because of major news out of Venezuela. On January 4, U.S. forces under President Donald Trump captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in an operation that led to his detention in New York on drug charges, according to reports. Trump has publicly praised the move, saying he plans to “run” Venezuela’s oil resources and warning other authoritarian governments.

Some protesters in Iran have responded by calling on Trump directly. Videos show crowds chanting pleas such as “Don’t let them kill us,” and some clips show streets being renamed after Trump. Signs have also appeared with messages like, “Trump, help us like you helped Venezuela,” reflecting fear of a violent crackdown and hope for outside backing.

Trump said last week that if Tehran “violently kills peaceful protesters,” the U.S. “will come to their rescue.” Iranian officials have condemned the Venezuela operation as a breach of sovereignty, and the comments have increased anxiety inside the regime about foreign action.

Reports Claim Khamenei Has a Backup Plan to Flee to Russia

As protests continue, Western media outlets have cited intelligence reports claiming Khamenei has a fallback plan to leave Iran for Moscow if security forces lose control. The plan reportedly includes travel with up to 20 relatives and aides, with support from Russia. If true, it highlights how much Tehran depends on close ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

There have also been unverified claims that Iraqi militias could enter Iran to help with a crackdown. Similar rumors have circulated during past protest waves. At the same time, internet disruptions and heavy security deployments in Tehran point to a government under strain and trying to regain control.

In Tehran today, the mood remains tense and unsettled. Demonstrations have continued despite large security deployments, with 19 protests in the capital reported since Monday. At night, chants of “Don’t be afraid, we are all together” have echoed from neighborhoods, while bazaar merchants and students keep pushing back against pressure to stay home.

Kurdish political groups have backed calls for a nationwide general strike on Thursday, which could raise the stakes even more. With inflation climbing and water shortages looming in some areas, many people say daily life is becoming harder by the week.

No one can say for sure whether this movement will force real change or face another brutal crackdown. But for many Iranians taking the risk to protest, the message is direct: they don’t want decades more of unchecked theocratic rule.