Are Governments Returning to Gold?

American Thinker 

The German Bundesbank hoards the second-largest gold reserves among central banks. The precious metal serves as an insurance policy for both states and private individuals. Its massive price surge shows that the dice have already been cast: governments will attempt to inflate their debts.

Anyone acquiring precious metals in these weeks simultaneously casts a verdict on their currency. This may be a conscious portfolio decision or simply an undefined desire to have a monetary insurance policy at hand. One never knows what the future holds.

Gold jewelry or collectible silver coins are aesthetically appealing and trigger our instinct to collect. What private purchases and the massive hoarding of gold by central banks share is their monetary-policy background.

In honest moments, looking at the soaring global sovereign debts and escalating geopolitical conflicts, we know that our monetary system is heading for severe turbulence. In many places, the fiscal Rubicon has long been crossed. With debt-to-GDP ratios well above 100 percent -- in the U.S., China, and numerous European countries -- only a massive expansion of the money supply can ensure the public sector’s ability to pay.

Bundesbank Holds Massive Gold Reserves

This occurs at the expense of those trusting in cash. In this context, it is noteworthy that the German Bundesbank hoards the second-largest gold reserves among global central banks.

3,350 tons of gold, with a market value of roughly half a trillion euros, are split between the Bundesbank’s vaults in Frankfurt (50 percent), the New York Federal Reserve (37 percent), and a storage facility in the City of London (13 percent). It is an inheritance from the old Bretton Woods system, when gold was stored near major global trade hubs.

The time is drawing closer to bringing the reserves stored abroad back home. In a fragile monetary system, precaution is not alarmism -- it is pure self-protection.

Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni must have thought the same. She is working under intense pressure to formally transfer the Italian central bank’s gold reserves to the state -- a step equivalent to an open vote of no confidence against the European Central Bank. 

Italy holds 2,452 tons of gold, ranking third internationally behind the U.S. and Germany, giving it, like Germany, a bargaining chip to restart its own currency should a severe euro crisis ever occur.

From the Frankfurt ECB Tower, these developments are viewed with the utmost concern. Nothing corrodes a monetary system faster and more effectively than a loss of confidence in creditworthiness. The banking system, as well as pension funds and retirement insurance, rely on the stability of government bonds recorded on their balance sheets.

Once it became clear that states could no longer consolidate fiscally, the bond market corrected sharply. Billions in losses are on the books, only not written off due to special valuation rules granted by lawmakers.

From the ECB’s perspective, the hoarding of national gold reveals dangerous secession tendencies. It still holds around 500 tons of gold from the early days of the monetary union, when member states contributed gold reserves proportionally to their GDP to support the euro. This is far from sufficient to provide the euro with a stable, metal-backed anchor after decades of money growth.

The repeated desire of ECB president Christine Lagarde to centralize national gold reserves at the ECB vault is almost universally rejected by eurozone members. So much for the repeatedly touted integration of the euro system.

Gold as a Global Trust Anchor

Elsewhere, gold has also become central to stabilizing trust. The BRICS nations have for years worked on creating a payment system independent of SWIFT but have failed so far because no one trusts the Asian hegemon, China.

The solution -- the pegging of mutual transfers to gold -- was adopted by China during the global financial crisis more than fifteen years ago, when it became the largest buyer in the precious metals market. With roughly 2,300 tons, China now holds the fourth-largest gold reserves in the world.

Besides China, Russia, Turkey, India, and Poland, as well as countries like Egypt and Thailand, have significantly increased their gold holdings since 2008. The price increase is therefore justified and likely to continue in the long term, albeit with growing volatility. 

A positive side effect of this reevaluation is a kind of balance-sheet repair. The deep gaps created by the bond market crisis are closed by the appreciation of gold for those who recognized the approaching sovereign debt danger early.

In Germany’s Bundesbank, gold now represents roughly 80 percent of the entire balance sheet. There is thus motivation in many places to continue boosting the gold price. It is an elegant way to stabilize the monetary system while simultaneously repairing past damages across different institutional levels through a simple repricing.

States Strive for a Gold Monopoly

It is almost a historical irony. When U.S. president Richard Nixon terminated the dollar’s convertibility into gold in 1971 amid soaring debt and massive inflation of liabilities, the so-called fiat credit money system was set in motion. Debts exploded, and states could borrow nearly without limit.

Unbacked credit, combined with ever-lowering reserve requirements, created a perfect Ponzi system, which has now entered its crisis stage.

German policymakers tried to escape this debt spiral by enshrining the so-called debt brake a few years ago. Yet the corrosive erosion of this fiscal constraint began immediately afterward and was ultimately buried last year by Chancellor Friedrich Merz and his high-stakes special fund gamble.

With this policy of unlimited state credit, citizens are driven toward safe havens such as precious metals, accelerating the decline of the fiat credit money system.

The relationship of states to gold remains ambivalent. Aside from committed fiat regimes like Canada, which holds no gold at all, it is becoming increasingly clear that gold can either extend the Ponzi scheme or initiate a new monetary system.

However, citizens fleeing into the safe haven of precious metals become potentially dangerous antagonists, prompting an immediate political counterreaction. Gold purchases are recorded, limited, and legislated in ways clearly designed to capture future portfolio gains.

The Netherlands, for example, is expected to begin taxing unrealized capital gains in 2028 -- a clear warning.

A general, sharp appreciation of precious metals could create tens of thousands of capital-strong, independent families, particularly in Europe. It is precisely this independence that vexes the etatists in Brussels and EU capitals. The fiscal effect of harvesting book gains in the private sector also plays a role, given runaway sovereign debt.

The ambivalence of gold -- and this applies to precious metals as well as other assets without counterparty risk, such as Bitcoin -- inevitably provokes massive repression in political regimes focused on citizen control.

Expect other European states soon to follow the Netherlands’ example. The fight for sovereignty has begun.

Podcast thread for Feb 27

 

Soooo weary of all this silence regarding what the next NCIS episodes will be about!!!

Bill Clinton Tells Epstein Committee It Depends On What The Definition Of ‘Child Trafficking’ Is

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Former president and saxophone player Bill Clinton testified to members of Congress today that his answer to their questions depended on what the definition of "child trafficking" is.

"What is…'is?' And furthermore, what really IS 'child trafficking?'" Clinton reportedly told members of the committee. "I would like to ask you all, what does this term mean, and how can I get out of any culpability related to these accusations, rhetorically speaking?"

Clinton was grilled on his associations with the infamous deceased billionaire Jeffrey Epstein and what his relationship with the women who worked for Epstein entailed. During the questioning, Clinton repeatedly stated that his actions depend on what the working definitions of terms actually are.

"What is ‘sexual predator?' What is ‘a depraved pervert?' What is ‘massive scumbag?'" Clinton asked. "I'm afraid it depends on your definitions of these words. I cannot give an answer if we don't agree on any solid definitions. Also, is it lunch time? Who else could go for a Big Mac?"

Democrats called the accusations against Clinton ridiculous and asked how a man with his character and spotless track record of upstanding behavior could be dragged into something so unseemly. Clinton responded by saying that it would depend on what any given person's definition of "unseemly" was.

At publishing time, President Clinton was last seen trying to hit on Nancy Mace.

https://babylonbee.com/news/bill-clinton-tells-epstein-committee-it-depends-on-what-the-definition-of-child-trafficking-is

Teachers Unions and 'ICE Out' Day

American Thinker 

Across the country, teachers’ unions are increasingly urging educators to take public political positions -- even during the school day. This trend is deeply troubling for families who expect classrooms to remain politically neutral and focus on core school subjects such as reading, writing, and math. Encouraging political advocacy in the classroom undermines trust, erodes educational integrity and places students in the middle of ideological battles.

A recent example from Minnesota shows how far this pressure can go. The Wayzata teachers’ union sent an email encouraging teachers to participate in “ICE Out Day,” a political protest aimed at opposing federal immigration enforcement. The message urged teachers to show solidarity by wearing specific colors and taking visible political stances at school. For many parents, this was a startling reminder that unions are not merely representing teachers on workplace issues; they are actively pushing political activism into classrooms.

This kind of pressure shifts the role of the teacher from educator to indoctrinator. Students, especially younger ones, are uniquely impressionable. They often assume that whatever a teacher says or displays carries the weight of authority. When political viewpoints are presented through classroom messaging, attire or teacher-led demonstrations, students feel pressured to adopt positions they do not understand.

Many assume this kind of politicization happens only in liberal states like Minnesota, but a recent incident in conservative South Carolina shows the problem is far more widespread. Although South Carolina is a right‑to‑work state, trade associations often function much like unions. The South Carolina Education Association, for example, is partnering with the Greenville Immigrant Community Hotline to host a workshop for educators and administrators titled “I.C.E. Response & Know Your Rights.” This raises the same concern: organizations that influence teachers are increasingly encouraging political activism within the school environment.

Families have the God‑appointed responsibility to frame news and civic issues for their children according to their own beliefs. That responsibility does not belong to unions, political movements, or even well‑intentioned educators. When unions encourage teachers to inject political messaging into the school environment, they bypass parents entirely. This not only violates the trust families place in government schools but also deepens the divide between schools and the communities they serve. Parents are entrusted with shaping their children’s moral and political understanding, and schools should support, not override, that sacred role.

Teachers themselves are also placed in a difficult position. Many enter the profession because they love their subject, care about children and want to make a difference -- not because they want to be political operatives. When unions pressure educators to participate in political demonstrations like “ICE Out Day,” they risk alienating teachers who simply want to teach. No educator should feel compelled to promote a political ideology to remain in good standing with their professional association.

There is also the matter of fairness. Classrooms include students from diverse backgrounds and families with a wide range of beliefs. Encouraging teachers to promote political viewpoints risks marginalizing students who disagree or who come from homes with different perspectives. A healthy learning environment requires that all students feel respected and free to think for themselves. Political advocacy from the front of the classroom undermines that freedom.

None of this means that teachers must avoid discussing current events or civic issues. These topics are essential to a well‑rounded education. But they must be taught with balance, accuracy and respect for differing viewpoints. The goal should be to equip students with critical thinking skills -- not to steer them toward a predetermined political conclusion.

Teachers’ unions have every right to advocate for their members on matters such as pay, working conditions and professional development. But urging teachers to take political positions in the classroom crosses a line. It compromises educational neutrality, strains relationships with parents and places students at the center of ideological conflicts they are not prepared to navigate.

If unions truly want to support educators, they should champion professionalism, academic excellence and respect for families -- not political activism in the classroom. America’s students deserve an education that empowers them to think independently, while families retain the rightful authority to guide their children’s understanding of the world.

Parents need to recognize that government school systems, including teachers’ associations, do not have the best interests of their children as their focus. Parents should get their kids out of government schools, away from this harmful political indoctrination.

Why Iranians Have Unified Around Reza Pahlavi Are Iranians done with clerical rule?

Why Iranians Have Unified Around Reza Pahlavi Are Iranians done with clerical rule?

Kambiz Fattahi for American Spectator

Are Iranians done with clerical rule?

On the morning of Oct. 31, 1978, Iran’s 19-year-old crown prince, Reza Pahlavi, stood beside President Jimmy Carter in the Oval Office. Officially, he was the heir to one of America’s closest allies in the Middle East. Unofficially, the Carter administration was already preparing for his father’s possible downfall.

Thousands of miles away, Iran was unraveling. Protesters flooded the streets, chanting “Death to the Shah!” Nationwide strikes shut down factories, schools, and oil fields, threatening vital Western interests. Before the cameras, Carter projected calm and reaffirmed the U.S.–Iran alliance. Behind the scenes, the White House was quietly planning for the collapse of the Pahlavi monarchy.

In the weeks that followed, contingency planning gave way to quiet disengagement. Carter urged the Shah toward exile while opening secret channels to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, hoping to reach an accommodation with the exiled cleric. The double game backfired. The United States lost Iran, endured the longest hostage crisis in its history, and would go on to spend trillions of dollars fighting wars across the Middle East to protect oil routes and strategic interests. (RELATED: Jimmy Carter’s Iran)

As Iranians unwittingly traded progress for a brutal theocracy, Crown Prince Reza faded from view, seemingly consigned to history. (RELATED: The Prince and the Protests)

But now, to the frustration of the Islamic Republic, Pahlavi has reemerged as the most prominent opposition figure in exile. Regime mouthpieces in the West continue to criticize him, but developments inside the country tell a different story. (RELATED: Time to Stand With the People of Iran)

Reza Pahlavi’s name is being chanted across Iran, alongside the names and images of his father and grandfather, and other pre-Islamic Iranian symbols, including the Pahlavi-era flag. They are spray-painted on walls, raised at protests, and even tattooed onto bodies. Protesters chant “Javid Shah” (long live the Shah) and “This is the final battle, Pahlavi will return.” No other individual or faction commands a comparable level of visible support. (RELATED: It’s Now or Never in Iran)

Portions of the Western policy establishment have yet to catch up, or prefer not to. Some commentators criticize him, urging engagement with regime insiders instead. Such prescriptions, often framed as realism, reveal more about Western assumptions than about Iran’s political reality.

Yet again, the picture is clearer inside the country. Iranians are not only fed up with the Islamic Republic. They are increasingly explicit about what they want instead, and whom they are rallying behind. The reemergence of monarchist slogans, unthinkable just a few years ago, reflects not simple nostalgia, but hope after nearly half a century of clerical rule.

That collapse is economic, social, and political. People are battered by repression, corruption, and runaway inflation. In the resulting vacuum, many are searching for a unifying national figure: a secular modernizer with the stature to dismantle the theocratic system. For now, no name carries that weight like Pahlavi’s. (RELATED: The Objective Should Be a Secular and Moderate Iran)

His grandfather, Reza Shah, is remembered as the architect of modern Iran. When he came to power in 1921, the country was near disintegration. Over two decades, he built the foundations of a centralized state: the first public schools, the first university, a standing national army, a modern judiciary, and sharp curbs on clerical power. He abolished hereditary titles once auctioned by the Qajar kings, mandated surnames, and adopted the name “Pahlavi” in a deliberate nod to Iran’s pre-Islamic past. His social reforms included the emancipation of women and expanded access to higher education.

Forced from power after the joint Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941, Reza Shah chose not to resist militarily. Instead, he abdicated in favor of his son and went into exile, seeking to preserve the state he had built.

Because of that sacrifice, Iranians today remember Reza Shah as a nation-builder. In protest after protest, his name has returned to the streets: “Reza Shah, roh-at shad” (may your soul be at peace).

His successor, Mohammad Reza Shah, inherited a country of roughly 16 million people, where more than two-thirds of the population lived in rural areas under a feudal-esque system little changed for centuries, and over 85 percent of Iranians remained illiterate.

It took him some two decades to consolidate power and create a truly centralized modern state, but when he did, he resumed his father’s modernization project. Beginning in the 1960s, sweeping reforms dismantled feudal landholding, expanded women’s rights, and fueled the growth of a substantial middle class. By the 1970s, Iran had entered the ranks of the world’s top 20 economies.

“A tireless worker,” a U.S. ambassador observed, “the Shah invested virtually every waking moment in his country’s economic progress and security.” When, a decade later, in 1973, Iran’s oil revenues quadrupled in under three months, from $5 billion to nearly $20 billion, his immediate priority was education. He made schooling free through the eighth grade and extended free higher education to those entering public service.

In a private conversation with U.S. Ambassador William Sullivan in November 1978, the Shah addressed critics who questioned his resolve. He wanted them to know, he said, that he had “guts,” but also “a heart and a brain.” He would not “murder the youth of his nation in order to rule it.”

When the final crisis came in 1978–79, the Shah chose restraint. He liberalized, eased repression, and refused to unleash mass violence. It satisfied no one. He soon left the country.

Iran’s current ruler, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has shown no such restraint. In early January 2026, he presided over the deadliest crackdown on dissent the world has seen in the 21st century, intensifying a fury toward the clerical class that may ultimately consume not only the ruling elite, but the place of Islam itself in Iran’s public life.

Reza Pahlavi may never sit on the Peacock Throne, as he has said he does not seek it, but he has inherited something more durable: a name that, for tens of millions of Iranians, still signifies order, dignity, and the hope of a better future.

History, it seems, is not yet finished with the House of Pahlavi.

Trump Trade Rep Says Priority Is Re-shoring US Manufacturing Through Tariffs as USMCA Review Looms

 

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer speaks during a joint media conference during the EU Trade Ministers meeting at the European Council building in Brussels on Nov. 24, 2025. AP Photo/Omar Havana

A senior trade official from the Trump administration says Canada is unlikely to avoid tariffs as the United States pushes to rebuild its industrial base, even as both countries prepare to review their free trade agreement later this year.

U.S Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said there could be discussions with Canada if it agrees to participate in the re-shoring efforts the U.S. administration is pursuing.

Greer made the comments to CBC News on Feb. 24 on the sidelines of U.S. President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address in Washington, D.C.

Trump touted his tariff agenda during the speech, saying it has made the country stronger economically as well as more secure, and expressed disappointment in the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down his use of emergency legislation to impose broad tariffs.

The court’s decision last week had limited economic impact on Canada because goods covered by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) trade deal are already exempt from Trump’s 35 percent tariff. The president used a separate authority to impose a new broad tariff of 10 percent on trading partners, but the USMCA exemption remains.

The other U.S. tariffs imposed by Trump on national security grounds, which were not being reviewed by the top court, have had a more severe impact on Canada. The steel, aluminum, and automotive sectors, which are closely linked with the United States, have been hit hard.

Greer said the Canadian side has expressed an interest in having “some kind of alternative deal right now,” while adding that the Trump administration is “quite focused on re-shoring supply chains related to automotive, steel, aluminum.”

The “alternative deal” is a reference to unsuccessful efforts by Ottawa to obtain tariff relief on impacted industries.

Ottawa and Washington had been inching closer to reaching a deal on steel, aluminum, and energy in the fall. The talks were cancelled by Trump after the province of Ontario ran an anti-tariff TV ad in the United States.

Greer said the U.S. tariff plan has helped increase steel production and exports, noting how the United States overtook Japan in production in 2025 for the first time in years. The United States became the third-largest steel producer (82 million tonnes) behind India (164.9 million tonnes), and China (960.8 million tonnes).

“If Canada wants to come in and participate in this type of re-shoring we’re trying to do, we’re happy to have those discussions,” said Greer, who was then asked to clarify what this means.

“If Canada wants to agree that we can have some level of higher tariff on them while they open up their markets to us, in things like dairy and other things, that’s a helpful conversation,” Greer answered, while adding he doesn’t want to negotiate through media.

Different U.S. administrations have identified Canada’s supply management system for dairy and poultry products as a trade irritant, and Trump has specifically criticized high tariffs imposed on U.S. dairy farmers through the tariff-rate quota system.

Meanwhile, Ottawa has pledged to safeguard supply management, with Parliament passing legislation last year to ensure the system is protected in trade agreements.”

The point of contention is likely to be discussed in the upcoming USMCA review slated for July. All sides have been getting ready for the planned review. Prime Minister Mark Carney appointed former Clerk of the Privy Council Janice Charette earlier this month to lead negotiations.

Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne reacted to Greer’s comments on Feb. 25 when speaking to reporters in Ottawa, saying it’s no longer a surprise that there’s a price to access the U.S. market and that the United States is seeking to re-shore manufacturing.

Champagne noted that Canada in general faces a low average U.S. tariff rate, while at the same time his government is trying to diversify trade “at the speed that we have not done before.”

Re-Shoring Not ‘Fast Enough’

Trump scrapped the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during his first term and lauded its replacement with the USMCA, but he has since soured on the deal.

Greer said the initial belief was that USMCA would help restore critical supply chains to the United States, whereas it led to more vehicles being produced in Mexico.

“There’s a lot of good in the deal, but there are a lot of things where re-shoring didn’t happen fast enough,” he said.

The senior trade official said USMCA needs to be reinforced to have stricter rules to guarantee more U.S. content in produced goods, and to prevent other countries from using Canada and Mexico as transshipment hubs.

“We don’t want a situation where countries like Vietnam or China can send a bunch of stuff to Canada, do a screwdriver operation, and send it across the border to the United States duty free, right?” he said.

“And we know that Canada has talked about having closer ties, economic ties, with China. I don’t want a situation where Canada is being used as a back door for China’s goods.”

Ottawa’s pursuit of closer ties with Beijing was criticized by Trump and his officials following Carney’s trip to China in mid-January. Carney’s deal to drop the 100 percent tariff to 6.1 percent on up to 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) was also decried.

“Canada is systematically destroying itself. The China deal is a disaster for them. Will go down as one of the worst deals, of any kind, in history,” Trump said on Jan. 25.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told a U.S. Senate committee earlier this month that the United States would not drop its tariffs on Canada to zero if Canada did the same, saying Chinese EVs cannot be allowed to come across the northern border.

Canada had slapped 100 percent tariffs on Chinese EVs in late 2024, following in the footsteps of the United States. China retaliated against Canada in March 2025. China has since agreed to remove or reduce tariffs on some Canadian agricultural and seafood products in exchange for allowing Chinese EVs into Canada.

USMCA Review

Greer will play a central role in the USMCA review and he has previously floated the idea that the trade deal could be scrapped and replaced by bilateral agreements.

These comments had been met with skepticism by the Canadian side. Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc said this is not what he’s hearing from discussions with the Trump administration.

Nonetheless, Ottawa has pursued closer ties with Mexico, and LeBlanc led a large trade mission to the country last week.

LeBlanc met with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and said there’s alignment with the Mexican side on wanting to review the USMCA and not renegotiate it.

“One country has some particular issues with Mexico and Canada. We can work through those, we believe, and preserve the important trilateral framework,” LeBlanc told the Canadian Senate on Feb. 24.

LeBlanc also said he views the fact that Washington has kept the USMCA exemption on Trump’s new tariffs as a sign U.S. officials “see value in the agreement.”

Editor’s note: the article was updated with comment from Finance Minister Champagne.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/trump-trade-rep-says-priority-is-re-shoring-us-manufacturing-through-tariffs-as-usmca-review-looms-5990690?&utm_source=MB_article_paid_c&utm_campaign=MB_article_2026-02-26-ca&utm_medium=email&est=Zjgg5oFEU0BEW4Qh0K%2FXNnEvnG5VYddQCCYoD%2FBHj1YR%2FRlfcmAgxrYHVHaw9fApIzXV&utm_content=highlight-news-2

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

The Real Rate Of Transgender Violence Is Much Worse Than The Media Wants To Admit

If we want serious solutions to mass public violence, we must first confront the facts honestly and debate them openly.

The Federalist

We’re repeatedly told that transgender-identifying individuals are not prone to commit gun violence. Major outlets — including the The New York Times, AP, CNN, and The Washington Post — publish articles arguing that transgender attacks are extremely rare and run headlines calling out conservative bias: “The right exploits Nashville shooting to escalate anti-trans rhetoric” and “Conservatives use Minneapolis shooting in anti-transgender campaigns.”

In the wake of the attacks in Canada and Pawtucket, Rhode Island, over the past couple of weeks, public debate has once again focused on transgender murderers. But the AP, CNN, ABC News, NBC News, MS Now, and the New York Times never mentioned the Rhode Island shooter identified as transgender. AP never mentioned the Canadian mass murderer was transgender. Other transgender-identifying people recently also posed serious threats even though they never got a chance to fire a shot. For example, Nicholas Roske, who now identifies as transgender, attempted to murder Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and took concrete steps toward carrying out the attack before authorities stopped him.

The media, however, continues to make basic statistical mistakes in claiming transgender-identifying people aren’t disproportionately violent. Transgender-identifying shooters commit mass public shootings and active shootings at rates far above their share of the population. In 2024, for example, transgender-identifying individuals accounted for a share of active shooter attacks that was at least 12 times larger than their share of the population. 

Statistical Errors and Broad Definitions

Outlets ranging from PolitiFact to AP make a key error when they report only the transgender share of attacks without adjusting for the group’s small share of the overall population. That is an obvious statistical mistake. If a group makes up just 1 percent of the population but commits 10 percent of the attacks, no one would dismiss that disparity simply because the group accounts for “only” 10 percent of active shooting incidents.

Publications such as AP and Snopes also rely on overly broad definitions of shootings. They include incidents that differ fundamentally from the types of attacks committed by transgender-identifying individuals. For example, the Gun Violence Archive classifies as “mass shootings” many incidents that primarily involve gang fights over drug turf and, to a lesser extent, crimes such as robberies. While researchers may reasonably study those incidents, they differ sharply from cases in which an individual enters a public location with the explicit goal of murdering and injuring as many people as possible to generate publicity.

Mass public shooters repeatedly state their intent to kill more people in order to attract greater attention. Gang members and robbers, by contrast, pursue entirely different motives. By lumping together gang fights and robberies with targeted mass public shootings, analysts make attacks by transgender-identifying people appear rarer than they actually are. Researchers should compare transgender-identifying attackers to perpetrators of similar types of attacks. Few would argue that gang turf wars share the same motivations — or require the same solutions — as mass public shootings.

Accurate Analysis

The FBI’s active shooting reports focus on shootings that occur in public and explicitly exclude other underlying crimes such as gang disputes or robberies. Traditionally, the FBI has classified a “mass” killing as the murder of four or more people, and academic studies have adopted similar definitions. I use that same definition (with additional details available here) and analyze both mass public shootings — defined as active shootings involving four or more victims murdered — and active shootings more broadly.

From 2018 to 2023, estimates from the CDC, Gallup, and the census place the transgender share of the population at an average of about 0.73 percent. An August 2025 study by the Williams Institute estimates that about 1 percent of individuals age 13 and older identified as transgender in 2024 and 2025. Another Williams Institute survey reports a similar 1 percent figure for those age 13 and over in 2024–25.

Because transgender-identifying shooters tend to be younger than active shooters overall, age adjustments may be appropriate. If researchers adjust the Williams Institute’s 1 percent estimate to reflect the population under age 36 — the age range more comparable to active shooters — the relevant percentage falls to approximately 0.76 percent.

The transgender share of mass public shootings over the 2018 to 2025 period make up only 5 percent of attacks, but that is six times their share of the population. The Nashville Covenant School shooter in 2023 and the Club Q murderer who identified as nonbinary and used the pronouns they and them in 2022 were transgender-identifying individuals.

For the FBI’s active shooting cases, if one uses the Williams Institute estimate that transgender-identifying people are 1 percent of the population and ignore how young they are, their share of active shooting attacks in 2024 is 12 times their share of the population. However, despite Genesse Ivonne Moreno, the Lakewood Church shooter, going by male names, her case is debatable, but even excluding that case still leaves statistically significant results.

These results aren’t particularly surprising given that mass public shooters in particular are overwhelmingly suicidal and expect to die in the attacks. Given the high rates of suicide by transgender-identifying individuals, it isn’t too surprising that they may be overrepresented among mass public shooters. A 2019 report by the Williams Institute found that about 10–12 percent of transgender-identifying individuals had attempted suicide in the past year. Compare that with the general U.S. adult population rate of 0.6 percent reporting a suicide attempt. The suicide rate is thus at least 16 times greater for transgender-identifying people.

The media needs to stop dismissing these patterns and start reporting the data accurately and in proper context. It isn’t rocket science for journalists to understand that they must adjust for population share, use comparable definitions, and distinguish mass public shootings from other crimes rather than blur critical differences. If we want serious solutions to mass public violence, we must first confront the facts honestly and debate them openly.