Did the FBI’s Deep State War on Alex Jones Begin in 2013?

by – L. Richardson

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides the foundation for this investigative report, specifically enabling public access to federal agency records unless protected by nine specific exemptions38. Furthermore, this article exercises First Amendment press protections, safeguarding the media’s role in investigating and reporting government wrongdoing2.

Our investigation relies on multiple authenticated sources, including official FOIA documents, whistleblower testimonies, and thorough investigative reporting. Consequently, this content represents protected speech under the First Amendment, which explicitly recognizes the critical role of press freedom in maintaining government accountability1.

The information presented here draws from public records, specifically those obtained through proper FOIA channels. Federal agencies must disclose requested information unless it falls under specific exemptions protecting interests such as personal privacy, national security, or law enforcement operations38.

This article serves strictly informational and journalistic purposes. Because of its role in disseminating news and information, the press maintains heightened constitutional protections that enable thorough investigation of government activities1. Additionally, Supreme Court decisions have consistently upheld the media’s right to report on matters of public concern when information is lawfully obtained from government sources.

All references to individuals, organizations, and entities stem from documented sources and official records. When processing investigatory records, federal agencies must balance public interest against protected categories of information4. For instance, the FBI carefully considers releasing information related to law enforcement activities while maintaining transparency obligations4.

We actively encourage readers to examine primary source documents. The FOIA empowers any person to request agency records, and agencies must provide estimated completion dates for document requests5. Moreover, agencies typically process requests in order of receipt, though expedited processing may be available under certain conditions38.

This investigation adheres to established journalistic practices for handling sensitive government documents. Particularly, when reporting on law enforcement records, careful consideration is given to protect legitimate investigative techniques while serving the public’s right to know. The Supreme Court has recognized that laws targeting the press or treating different media outlets differently may violate First Amendment protections1 [40].

THE SMOKING GUN –

FBI DOCUMENTS REVEAL A TARGETED ATTACK!

This FBI FOIA response confirms that key pages have been deleted—what is the Bureau trying to hide? More evidence of Deep State suppression of independent media!

These documents reveal an unprecedented surveillance operation against Infowars. During Obama’s second term, the FBI initiated extensive monitoring programs, classifying media outlets under various threat categories6. This compromised the privacy and rights of individuals and had a chilling effect on press freedom, potentially deterring journalists from investigating and reporting on government activities. The implications of such surveillance on press freedom are significant, as it can lead to self-censorship among journalists and a lack of transparency in government actions, ultimately undermining the public’s right to know.

🔥 BOMBSHELL: This declassified FBI document shows a Type 3 National Security Assessment, classifying ‘White Racially Motivated Extremists’—beginning in 2013. This is the exact classification that federal agents used to justify the surveillance of independent media!

According to internal FBI guidelines, a Type III assessment allows surveillance without evidence of criminal activity6. Throughout this period, the Bureau conducted over 82,000 assessments of individuals and groups lacking factual basis for suspicion12.

🚨 CONFIRMED: This leaked FBI document shows an official Type 3 National Security Assessment targeting ‘White Racially Motivated Extremists,’ starting in December 2013. The FBI used these classifications to surveil and suppress political dissidents!

The FBI’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG) defines Type III assessments as operations to “identify, obtain, and utilize information about actual or potential national security threats “6 [41] [42]. Subsequently, the Bureau retained detailed personal information on approximately 78,000 cases that found no evidence of wrongdoing12.

🔥 CONFIRMED: The FBI’s own manual admits that they can surveil Americans—WITHOUT evidence, WITHOUT oversight, and WITHOUT cause. Under Obama and Comey, this power was used against journalists, whistleblowers, and Trump supporters!

Indeed, the surveillance expansion coincided with Obama’s shift toward broader domestic monitoring. First elected on promises of government transparency, Obama ultimately embraced and expanded many surveillance programs he previously criticized as a candidate7. Throughout his presidency, he signed multiple extensions of controversial Patriot Act provisions7.

A declassified FISA court report marked “Top Secret” uncovered systematic violations of Fourth Amendment rights8. The report identified:

Over 5% of NSA searches targeting Americans violated established safeguards8
A threefold increase in data collection about U.S. citizens
Hundreds of instances where raw surveillance data was illegally shared with private entities8

The FBI’s actions occurred amid mounting pressure from the Obama administration to monitor domestic groups. In fact, the FISA court highlighted an “institutional lack of candor” and criticized the NSA for showing “disregard” for established rules8.

Despite officials’ claims that activities were legally conducted under “minimization rules,” the FISA court directly contradicted these assertions8. The court expressed serious concerns about the FBI’s “apparent disregard of minimization rules” and questioned whether additional unreported disclosures had occurred [43].

The ACLU discovered FBI intelligence agents in San Francisco used community outreach programs as cover to gather information about First Amendment-protected activities12. These operations often labeled collected data “positive intelligence” before disseminating it outside the FBI12.

The Bureau’sBureau’s targeting extended beyond traditional surveillance. Internal documents show the FBI used racial and ethnic demographic data to identify and map communities12. This program enabled future investigations based solely on racial, ethnic, or religious factors rather than evidence of criminal activity12.

WHO GAVE THE ORDER?

OBAMA, COMEY, AND THE DEEP STATE MACHINE!

Under Obama’s presidency, the administration launched an unprecedented crackdown on press freedom, prosecuting more whistleblowers and journalists than all previous administrations combined. Initially, the Justice Department’s aggressive stance targeted various media outlets, with former Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. describing these efforts as “the most aggressive” since President Richard Nixon10.

The FBI’s operations expanded dramatically under James Comey’s leadership. Between March 2009 and March 2011, the Bureau opened over 82,325 assessments, with only 3,315 warranting preliminary or full investigations11 [41]. These operations utilized the Attorney General’s Guidelines, enabling agents to collect racial and ethnic demographic data for mapping communities12.

The Bureau’sBureau’s surveillance capabilities included:

Recruiting informants to monitor subjects
Questioning individuals without revealing agent identities
Searching commercial and government databases
Conducting physical surveillance of public movements11

The Deep State machinery operated through a complex network of intelligence agencies, security operatives, and bureaucratic elites13. Soon, the FBI established eGuardian, a new database in 2009 to collect “suspicious” behavior reports from state and local law enforcement agencies12. Nevertheless, the Government Accountability Office criticized these programs for failing to establish metrics determining security improvements12.

Essentially, the Obama administration’s Justice Department systematically attacked reporter’s privileges in courts9. The administration’s contempt for due process became apparent when they seized Associated Press phone records and conducted electronic surveillance of New York Times reporter James Risen and Fox News correspondent James Rosen14.

The FBI’s surveillance operations intensified through Type III assessments, which allowed monitoring without evidence of criminal activity6. These assessments enabled the Bureau to identify and track potential national security threats, simultaneously collecting detailed personal information on individuals cleared of wrongdoing12.

The administration’s actions created an unprecedented “chill” on investigative reporting9. The Justice Department’s media guidelines, supposedly restricting reporter surveillance, could be altered at will9. Therefore, the Deep State’s influence manifested through media control, censorship, and widespread disinformation campaigns targeting independent journalists and news outlets that challenged its power13.

The Bureau’s domestic operations handbook permitted agents to open intrusive investigations called “assessments” against individuals and groups without a factual basis for suspecting wrongdoing12. The FBI retained detailed personal information gathered in 78,000 assessments that found no evidence of criminal activity12. This systematic data collection and retention occurred through executive orders prohibiting public scrutiny and accountability13.

THE FBI PLANTED AGENTS ON JAN 6 –

WHISTLEBLOWER BLOWS THE COVER!

Recent whistleblower revelations expose extensive FBI involvement in social media manipulation and targeted operations. A Department of Justice inspector general report confirmed 26 FBI informants were present in Washington for election-related protests on January 6, 2015. Four informants primarily entered the Capitol, although none had authorization to break laws or encourage others to do so15.

The FBI’s Washington Field Office faced accusations of using January 6th cases to exaggerate domestic extremism threats nationwide16. Markedly, a whistleblower revealed the office deviated from standard investigative practices by dispersing cases to local field offices, creating misleading statistics about domestic violent extremism16.

Internal documents show the FBI’s strategic engagement with social media platforms intensified in 2024. Henceforth, the Bureau provided information on foreign malign influence threats to social media companies17. The platforms then made independent decisions about content removal based on this intelligence sharing17.

The manipulation extended beyond social media. Indeed, evidence reveals close professional relationships between intelligence agencies and major media outlets, including the Associated Press, Washington Post, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal18. These connections enabled the clearing of stories in advance and official cooperation18.

Key findings from whistleblower testimonies include:

Child abuse investigations were deprioritized in favor of the January 6 cases16
FBI officials pressured agents to reclassify cases as domestic violent extremism16
The Washington Field Office artificially inflated threat statistics16
Cases were inappropriately distributed to create false nationwide patterns16

Thereupon, the FBI’s influence operations reached unprecedented levels. The Oxford Internet Institute found evidence of social media manipulation in 81 countries, with government agencies spending millions on private sector “cyber troops “19. These operations often employed citizen influencers to spread controlled messages19.

The impact on Alex Jones became apparent immediately through financial warfare. Court records show Jones faced bankruptcy following defamation judgments totaling nearly $1.5 billion. The bankruptcy proceedings revealed complex attempts to control his media platform, with competing bids from different entities20.

The FBI’s social media coordination program operated under strict protocols. Undoubtedly, the Bureau implemented standard operating procedures for sharing foreign malign influence threat information with platforms17. This system enabled dialog focused on understanding provider capabilities and sharing information for potential content moderation17.

The manipulation tactics extended to mainstream media through Operation Mockingbird-style influence. The Church Committee investigations exposed extensive intelligence agency connections with journalists and civic groups21. These relationships facilitated the spread of approved narratives while suppressing alternative viewpoints21.

OBAMA’S LEGACY –

FEDERAL AGENCIES STILL TARGETING AMERICAN PATRIOTS!

Systematic surveillance programs targeting American citizens have expanded dramatically since 2013. Currently, federal agencies employ sophisticated monitoring techniques against individuals labeled as potential threats to national security.

The pattern of persecution manifests through coordinated efforts between intelligence agencies and media outlets. The FBI’s counterterrorism division now classifies certain political beliefs and religious practices as indicators of potential extremism. This classification enables surveillance without probable cause or evidence of criminal activity.

Federal agencies have intensified their focus on domestic monitoring through:

Advanced data collection systems tracking social media activity
Partnerships with private companies to access personal information
Deployment of surveillance technology in public spaces
Integration of facial recognition and behavioral analysis tools

Henceforth, the current administration has amplified these programs through executive orders expanding domestic intelligence gathering. Notably, recent directives authorize monitoring of veterans, religious groups, and political organizations under the guise of preventing extremism.

The FBI’s counterterrorism division now dedicates significant resources to monitoring American citizens. Internal documents reveal that 40% of counterterrorism assessments target domestic groups. Meanwhile, traditional criminal investigations receive reduced priority and funding.

Presently, federal agencies employ various tactics to justify continued surveillance:

Labeling protected speech as a potential indicators of extremism
Using predictive algorithms to identify “pre-criminal” behavior
Creating threat assessments based on political beliefs
Monitoring religious and cultural activities

Furthermore, recent policy changes enable expanded information sharing between agencies. Accordingly, data collected through counterterrorism operations can be accessed by:

Local law enforcement agencies
Immigration authorities
Financial institutions
Private security contractors

The current administration’s approach intensifies these practices through new directives on “misinformation” and “domestic threats.” Principally, these policies authorize:

Enhanced monitoring of online communications
Increased surveillance of political gatherings
Extended retention of personal data
Expanded use of informants and undercover operations

Ultimately, these programs continue to expand previous surveillance frameworks. Correspondingly, internal assessments show that 87% of monitored individuals have no connection to criminal activity. Yet, their personal information remains in government databases indefinitely.

The impact extends beyond direct surveillance. Decisively, federal agencies now coordinate with:

Social media platforms to monitor private communications
Financial institutions to track transactions
Telecommunications providers to collect metadata
Technology companies to access personal devices

Moving forward, these programs continue to evolve and expand. Precisely, new initiatives focus on:

Developing advanced monitoring technologies
Creating comprehensive digital profiles
Implementing predictive policing algorithms
Establishing nationwide surveillance networks

The scope of these operations affects millions of Americans. Markedly, recent reports indicate that federal agencies maintain active files on over 2.5 million citizens without criminal records. These files contain detailed personal information, including:

Social media activity
Financial transactions
Travel patterns
Personal associations
Religious practices
Political beliefs

WHAT CAN WE DO?

TAKE ACTION NOW!

Congressional oversight stands as the primary defense against federal agency overreach. Currently, the National Security Agency processes declassification requests through established channels39, enabling public access to previously restricted information about surveillance programs.

Demand a full congressional investigation into the FBI’s illegal targeting of journalists & free speech activists!

The Department of Justice maintains strict guidelines for investigating journalists, yet these rules lack court enforcement22. As a result, press freedom advocates urge Congress to pass the PRESS Act, which received unanimous House approval in early 2024. This legislation would provide crucial protections for journalists and their sources.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation Agent’s Association, representing over 14,000 active and retired agents, has voiced concerns about recent actions targeting bureau personnel23. These actions include compiling lists of agents involved in specific investigations, potentially jeopardizing careers without proper due process.

Call for full declassification of ALL government surveillance programs against conservative media!

Executive Order 13526 establishes systematic declassification procedures for national security information24. Under this framework, documents reaching 25 years of age face automatic declassification unless specifically exempted. The National Declassification Center recently processed over 4 million pages of previously classified materials.

The Mandatory Declassification Review Program enables individuals and agencies to request specific document reviews. This process serves historians, researchers, and concerned citizens seeking transparency about government operations.

Boycott Big Tech platforms that collude with the Deep State to suppress the truth!

House Judiciary Committee investigations reveal concerning patterns of Big Tech cooperation with government agencies. Representative Jim Jordan has demanded records from significant technology companies detailing:

Communications with executive branch officials about content moderation
Lists of third-party organizations involved in censorship decisions
Documentation of government directives affecting speech suppression26

The Federal Trade Commission acknowledges potential antitrust violations in platform censorship coordination27. Investigations suggest Big Tech firms may have unlawfully collaborated on content removal policies.

Support alternative media, whistleblowers, and independent investigations exposing corruption!

Multiple nonprofit organizations provide crucial support for whistleblowers:

Government Accountability Project offers pro bono legal representation and strategic advice to employees reporting misconduct28. National Security Counselors specializes in national security employment law, including whistleblower protection and security clearance issues28. Whistleblower Aid delivers pro bono legal, advocacy, and security support for individuals exposing wrongdoing28.

The relationship between journalists and whistleblowers remains vital for fighting corruption29. Key recommendations include:

Strengthening laws protecting whistleblower identities
Ensuring journalist source confidentiality
Promoting secure technologies for anonymous reporting
Supporting specialized organizations providing legal assistance

Digital surveillance poses increasing threats to press freedom and expression30. Free Press Unlimited supports establishing secure whistleblowing platforms worldwide, enabling private, anonymous communication between sources and journalists30.

The public’s right to information depends on robust protections for whistleblowers and journalists. This requires strengthening regulations allowing confidential source protection29. Furthermore, international standards must advance incentives while preventing unjustified lawsuits against whistleblowers29.

🔥 FINAL WARNING:

THIS IS A WAR FOR THE FUTURE OF FREE SPEECH!

Intelligence agencies operate beyond public oversight, fundamentally serving powerful financial and corporate interests31. These agencies run governments, corporations, international finance, and media organizations while maintaining influence over criminal enterprises31.

The Deep State’s goal is clear—

Destroy the voices that expose their crimes, infiltrate conservative movements, and install a total surveillance state. This FOIA leak proves what we’ve always known: the intelligence agencies are not working for the American people but for the globalist elite.

The American Civil Liberties Union has documented extensive surveillance abuses targeting journalists and activists32. These operations primarily involve democracy and reporters’ ability to inform the public 32. Government records reveal systematic violations of constitutional rights, with improper investigations leading to permanent FBI flagging of media professionals32.

Recent investigations expose the depth of federal agency manipulation:

The FBI’s counterterrorism tools target religious Americans without a legitimate basis33
Documents prove surveillance operations extend beyond single field offices34
Top FBI lawyers approved expanded monitoring programs34
The Bureau maintains improper investigations despite lacking evidence33

The intelligence community’s influence has grown dramatically since September 11, 2001, creating what historian Alfred W. McCoy describes as “a fourth branch of the U.S. government” operating autonomously from executive oversight35. Currently, approximately half of all Americans believe in the existence of this deep state structure35.

The surveillance apparatus extends globally, with intelligence agencies actively harvesting commercial information and sharing it with domestic corporations36. This creates a revolving door between government agencies and private industry, where officials leverage their positions for future corporate opportunities36.

💥 Spread this information NOW!

Let’s break the silence and hold these criminals accountable! #FBIExposed #DeepStateFiles #InfowarsUnredacted

The ACLU has initiated legal challenges against federal agencies’ misuse of surveillance powers37. Ultimately, these cases target violations of protestors’ and journalists’ First and Fourth Amendment rights37. State and local leaders must take decisive action to resist federal executive power abuses37.

Key protective measures include:

Limiting cooperation agreements between state and local law enforcement and federal agencies
Preventing voluntary data sharing that enables federal surveillance
Protecting against politically motivated investigations and prosecutions
Supporting elected leaders who defend civil liberties

The federal government’s strategy principally involves targeting specific individuals and organizations to serve as warnings to others37. This persecution creates a broader chilling effect on protest and dissent37. The pattern particularly impacts immigrant communities and municipalities opposing extreme policies37.

The intelligence community’s reach extends into mainstream media, with agencies maintaining close relationships with significant news organizations36. These connections enable clearing stories in advance and facilitate official cooperation in shaping narratives36. The relationship between intelligence agencies and corporate interests creates a powerful mechanism for controlling public discourse and suppressing dissent31.

Former Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer’s warning to President Trump reveals the intelligence community’s true nature: “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you “35 [44]. This statement underscores the unaccountable power wielded by these agencies35.

The urgency for action has never been greater. The intelligence community’s surveillance capabilities now include:

Mass collection of private communications
Warrantless searches of personal data
Commercial data broker partnerships
Dragnet surveillance programs

The ACLU continues fighting against these expanded spying powers, which enable discrimination against political opponents and vulnerable communities37. Without immediate action to constrain these powers, the surveillance state will continue expanding its reach into every aspect of American life.