Matt Walsh raising awareness, there is a National Black Police Association but no White Police Association exists The National Black Police Association is a recognized organization supporting Black and minority ethnic police staff and officers, promoting equality within policing… pic.twitter.com/Dl1p08ZoVS — Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) June 8, 2026
As @robbystarbuck knows, I win elections for a living. Ive NEVER seen one more obviously stolen than this one. These results CANNOT naturally occur. Note how returns for Raman soar on June 4-5th and even surpass Bass and Pratt returns. Thats impossible. pic.twitter.com/5JIfyFx3qi — Andrew Follett (@AndrewCFollett) June 7, 2026
by Sterling Ashworth, Natural News: The U.S. Treasury Department imposed sanctions on Nobitex, Iran’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, accusing it of facilitating transactions for Iran’s military, according to a Treasury statement [1]. The action, conducted by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), blocks all assets held by the exchange under U.S. jurisdiction and prohibits U.S. […]
"A net swing of more than 43,000 votes since Tuesday.." 43,000, huh? Where have I seen that number before…? Probably nothing. 🤷 https://t.co/W2E3k6PHyR pic.twitter.com/ZfzHCy9enb — Spencer Pratt (@spencerpratt) June 8, 2026
from Moonbattery: Like global warmism, LGBTism is a totalitarian ideology and therefore applies to everything imaginable — even dog shows: Where are the animal rights activists when they are needed? No self-respecting dog should be subjected to this. Denver pride hosted their first ever “dog drag show” TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/ Denver pride hosted their […]
by JD Rucker, The Liberty Daily: Editor’s Note: The election has been stolen. There will be spin from legacy media for the next few days that this was “expected” and “normal” but in reality an obscure and unpopular candidate, Nithya Raman, was incapable of dominating the late (manufactured) ballots. Don’t be fooled. Here’s the latest from Zero […]
The Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM), a state-controlled pollster, has reportedly stopped publishing President Vladimir Putin's "open" trust rating after it fell to its lowest level since the start of the full-scale war, the Moscow Times reported on June 8.
Donald Trump spent much of last week railing against California’s recent statewide primaries, baselessly insisting the slow process of tallying ballots must reflect a “rigged” system. This week, the president picked up where he left off.
In the early hours of Monday morning, he used his social media platform to argue there’s “no way” a candidate he liked has fallen behind in response to an updated vote count. Hours later, he emphasized the same point, insisting it’s “not possible” for his preferred candidate in Los Angeles’ mayoral race to lose ground as more ballots are counted.
None of that made logical sense, but it is part of an exasperating effort to undermine public confidence. During his latest “Meet the Press” appearance, the president was even more aggressive on the issue, making all kinds of unfounded allegations. When NBC News’ Kristen Welker asked him to substantiate his claims with evidence, Trump replied, “All I have to do is look.”
When the host explained that that wasn’t evidence, the Republican added, “And I listen to people.” (He didn’t say who, what they were saying or why he found these unnamed people to be more credible than official election results.)
The problem, however, is not just hysterical conspiracy-mongering, all of which is demonstrably incorrect, from a president who has long railed against election results he doesn’t like. Just as important as what Trump is saying is what Team Trump is doing. NBC News reported:
A federal prosecutor in California said Friday that authorities have launched investigations tied to the state’s recent elections following President Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of fraud.
Bill Essayli, first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, said Friday morning on X that his office was pursuing “multiple election fraud investigations” alongside the FBI, without providing details.
To date, no credible fraud allegations have been made, so it’s not at all clear what the federal prosecutors in California intend to investigate.
“There are no details, there is no specifics, there is no specific allegation of any individualized act of voter fraud,” the California Democrat said. “And every count, recount, hand count, court case and audit has shown time and time again — not just in California, but throughout this country — that there is no widespread voter fraud.”
Bonta added that claims of voter fraud are “only a figment of the imagination of Trump and others who follow that conspiracy theory.”
What I’m most curious about, however, is what happens when Essayli and his team look for evidence to bolster Trump’s accusations, only to come up short. Do they tell the truth and admit the election results were legitimate, inviting partisan rage from the right? Or do they bring baseless charges, inviting pushback from the courts?
When the American job market struggled badly during Donald Trump’s first term, the White House not only struggled to come up with an explanation, but it also struggled to come up with anything to say at all.
The reticence was understandable, though embarrassing: The president promised to deliver an economic “boom” immediately after taking office, and he failed spectacularly, delivering the worst job market since the Great Recession (excluding the pandemic).
The White House was in a far better mood late last week, however, when the public learned that the economy gained 172,000 jobs in May, extending a three-month winning streak and getting closer to the kind of robust growth Americans saw during Joe Biden’s presidency.
But as the political and financial sectors digest the latest data, there’s a trend that’s worth dwelling on.
In the first four months of Trump’s second term, as 2025 was just getting underway, job growth slowly improved, and over the three months leading up to the unveiling of the White House’s trade tariffs agenda, the economy averaged monthly job growth of roughly 72,000.
Then the White House-imposed “Liberation Day” arrived, launching an avoidable and unnecessary trade war. In the 10 months that followed, the U.S. job market, on average, lost 4,900 jobs per month. That’s not a typo: For the first time in several years, the economy actually started losing jobs in a sustained way.
In February, to the hysterical outrage of the president, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down his tariffs agenda. In the three months that followed, the economy added a combined 565,000 jobs — more than quadruple the total for the entirety of 2025 — for an average of more than 188,000 jobs per month.
Maybe that’s a coincidence, but I rather doubt it. To recap:
Average monthly job growth in the immediate run-up to Trump’s tariffs: 72,000
Average monthly job growth during Trump’s tariffs: -4,900
Average monthly job growth in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s tariffs: 188,000
What this suggests is that if Trump wanted an economic success story, all he had to do was nothing. He inherited an economy firing on all cylinders, which was the envy of the world. If he had spent every day golfing, the job market almost certainly would have continued to hum along quite nicely.
But Trump couldn’t leave well enough alone, choosing instead to ignore literally everything we know about Economics 101 and imposing illegal tariffs that did economic, political and diplomatic harm to his own country.
Trump has repeatedly railed against the justices who ruled against him in the tariffs case, including two he appointed to the high court. The latest job numbers, however, suggest he owes them a fruit basket, not condemnation.
It’s something to keep in mind as the White House eyes new efforts to impose a fresh round of trade tariffs.
All Donald Trump had to do was nothing. A group of lawmakers, hoping to extend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, crafted a bipartisan solution that appeared likely to advance ahead of Friday’s deadline. If the president simply let the process play out, the White House’s position was on track to succeed.
But Trump wasn’t content to do nothing. Instead, with time running out, he announced last week that Bill Pulte, his highly controversial director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, would serve as the acting director of national intelligence, sending shockwaves through political and intelligence circles.
Pulte has literally no background in intelligence or national security, failing to meet the statutory qualifications for the office, and he’s earned a reputation as a hyperpartisan hatchet man who has routinely abused his office to target the White House’s perceived political foes. Complicating matters, MS NOW reported last fall that a federal grand jury investigated whether Pulte illegally shared sensitive information with unauthorized people.
Democrats let Republicans know the president’s move imperiled the FISA extension, at which point Trump made matters worse, telling reporters he expected his unqualified loyalist to “find out some things about the rigged elections.”
President Trump said he wants Bill Pulte, his incoming acting director of national intelligence, to begin firing a large number of employees as part of a shake-up of the U.S. intelligence community. […]
Trump, in the interview, argued that Pulte’s acting status is an asset. “You’re less shackled,” he said. “It sort of gives you more power, you know, for a somewhat limited period of time.”
So from the president’s perspective, his acting DNI, who apparently didn’t have the security clearance needed to do the job, should quickly start firing U.S. intelligence professionals without having to worry too much about the “shackles” that come with congressional oversight or accountability.
This did not go unnoticed on Capitol Hill.
Politico reported that several Democrats who had been inclined to help Republicans pass a long-term FISA extension are now saying they are not interested in cooperating until Pulte is removed.
Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told Politico, “You just couldn’t have thrown an uglier wrench into the process,” adding that Democrats are now running away from the bipartisan deal.
Soon after, the Connecticut Democrat appeared on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” telling host Margaret Brennan, “The president needs to sober up and realize that this appointment is arguably, in the basket of awful appointments he has made, this is probably the worst and most dangerous.”
Four days remain before the FISA deadline. Watch this space.
"For the time being, I think this issue has been solved at the working level," the EU's Enlargement Chief Marta Kos said in a meeting with journalists in Kyiv on June 8, referring to Poland's objection.
As last week got underway, Donald Trump used his social media platform to take swipe at, of all people, communists. “Communists always do well with the Voters or, as they would say, THE PEOPLE, in the Early Years!” the president wrote for reasons that were unclear. “But, in the end, the Country, State, or City, GOES TO HELL!”
With this rhetorical question still rattling around the algorithm, it was rather ironic to see the Republican end the week calling for a government stake in yet another private industry. The New York Times reported:
President Trump told reporters on Friday that he would soon meet with artificial intelligence companies to discuss partnerships that would give the United States government a stake in the burgeoning industry.
“There’s so much money and it’s so big,” Trump said, according to a pool report from his flight to Wisconsin on Air Force One. Trump added that in the deals he envisions “the American public essentially becomes a partner” in the growth of A.I.
Asked which private AI companies he was eyeing, the president replied, “All of them. All the big ones.”
The comment came just days after independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a self-described socialist, wrote an opinion piece for the Times touting a congressional proposal he had introduced that would “give the public a direct ownership stake in the largest A.I. companies in our country.” The proposal was predictably panned soon after by the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal as “the road to AI state socialism.”
It was around this same time that Trump not only endorsed the same idea, he also told reporters that there was some overlap between his economic vision and the Vermont socialist’s.
Trump: Bernie Sanders lost, you know that I got many of his people — they voted for me. Because, as far as economics is concerned, we have certain things that are not that far apart pic.twitter.com/ZMaks3WS2Z
The debate can and should continue about the merits of such a policy, but it’s hard not to notice the familiarity of the circumstances. On the one hand, Trump seems to like condemning those who disagree with him as communists. On the other hand, he also seems oddly interested in having the government taking ownership of parts of a variety of private industries.
In fact, late last year, after the government became the largest shareholder in a company developing extreme ultraviolet lithography tools that are seen as key to the development of semiconductors, my MS NOW colleague Ja’han Jones noted that this extended the Republican administration’s “socialist — if not blatantly authoritarian — trend of making the government a stakeholder in supposed ‘free market’ enterprises.”
Indeed, Jones added, “This trend stands in clear contrast with an administration that publicly decries socialism and a conservative movement that has labeled things like free buses and government-owned grocery stores as anathema to private industry and the American way of life.”
There’s no reason to assume the list won’t keep growing. The president, by his own admission, isn’t eyeing stakes only in AI companies, he and his team have also raised the prospect of seeking ownership stakes in oil companies, pharmaceutical companies and, in one recent instance, the rare-earth metals industry.
This is the same Republican president who’s also spoken publicly about limiting private companies’ profits, dictating private industries’ prices and cutting salaries for some private sector executives.
The Wall Street Journal’s Greg Ip published a provocative analysis on this last summer, noting that Trump’s vision doesn’t quite constitute “socialism,” because it more closely resembles “state capitalism, a hybrid between socialism and capitalism in which the state guides the decisions of nominally private enterprises.”
During the 2024 race, when many business leaders lined up behind the GOP ticket, they likely thought Republican rule would mean corporate tax breaks and fewer regulations. And while those assumptions have proved correct — the White House has delivered corporate tax breaks and freed polluters from regulatory burdens — those same business leaders have also ended up with more than they probably bargained for.
Donald Trump promised Americans they would get tired of winning.
If this is what winning looks like, America can’t afford much more of it.
We are losing ground economically. We are losing credibility abroad. We are losing tourists, workers, stability, trust, constitutional guardrails, and whatever remained of the illusion that the government answers to “we the people.”
The tourism economy is taking a hit, with international visitors increasingly reluctant to come to the United States. Even migration—the lifeblood of America’s economic growth, innovation, labor force and national renewal—is now moving in the wrong direction. Fewer people are coming in, more Americans are leaving, and by some estimates the country has already crossed into negative net migration.
That is not the mark of a nation “winning.” It is the mark of a nation people are increasingly choosing to escape.
That is what happens when a nation treats visitors, immigrants and dissenters as threats first and human beings second: people stop coming, businesses suffer, and fear becomes official policy.
The economy, despite the administration’s relentless victory laps, is flashing warning signs: downgraded growth, strained consumers, rising costs, depleted savings, and policy chaos that leaves families, small businesses and entire industries guessing what fresh disruption tomorrow will bring.
We are being worn down by the losses.
Meanwhile, the man who promised to end wars has presided over their continuation and expansion. The man who promised to bring prices down has helped drive uncertainty up. The man who promised to drain the swamp has turned government into a spoils system for loyalists, cronies, contractors, oligarchs and power brokers. The man who promised law and order has treated the law as something to be weaponized against enemies and waived for friends.
This is not winning.
This is the slow-motion defeat of a constitutional republic by spectacle, grievance, greed and brute force.
The losses are piling up.
Americans were told they would get prosperity. What they got was an economy in which corporate profits and stock market gains mask the fact that ordinary households are stretched thin, savings are shrinking, debt is mounting, and the cost of basic necessities keeps eating away at wages.
They were told tariffs would punish foreign governments and bring jobs home. What they got were higher costs passed down to consumers, retaliation, supply disruptions, and a trade policy built less on strategy than on political theater. Even the courts have begun treating the tariff agenda as what it is: economic policy by executive improvisation, with judges striking down or narrowing tariff maneuvers while the administration keeps looking for new legal workarounds.
They were told immigration crackdowns would make America stronger. What they got was a nation frightening away the workers, students, tourists, entrepreneurs and families who have long helped power its economy.
They were told America would be respected again. What they got was a country increasingly viewed as unstable, hostile, unpredictable and unsafe—not merely by adversaries, but by allies, visitors, investors and would-be partners.
They were told the wars would end. What they got was more war talk, more military escalation, more blank checks for the war machine, and more excuses for expanding executive power in the name of national security.
Listen carefully when any ruler says something like that.
That is not constitutionalism. That is the language of kings, dictators and strongmen who believe their intentions place them above the law.
The Constitution was written precisely to prevent that kind of thinking from taking root in America.
The problem with Trump’s brand of winning is that it requires Americans to lose.
For the police state to win, the Fourth Amendment must lose.
For the surveillance state to win, privacy must lose.
For the war machine to win, peace must lose.
For the executive branch to win, the separation of powers must lose.
For the oligarchs to win, working families must lose.
For the propaganda machine to win, truth must lose.
For a strongman to win, the Constitution must lose.
Trump’s “winning” is simply the latest branding campaign for an old con: convince the people they are winning while stripping them of the power to govern themselves.
Call it what you will—national security, border security, economic nationalism, law and order, anti-corruption, emergency authority, America First—but when the end result is more government power and less individual freedom, we should know by now who is really winning.
The winners are the same as always: the defense contractors, data brokers, private prison operators, surveillance companies, lobbyists, political insiders, Wall Street speculators, government contractors, partisan enforcers, donors with access, loyalists seeking payouts, and bureaucratic power centers that thrive on fear, crisis and control.
The losers are “we the people.”
This is the hard truth Americans must face: a government that promises to make you “win” by taking power away from someone else will eventually take power away from you, too.
Rights are not partisan. Due process is not partisan. Free speech is not partisan. Privacy is not partisan. Limits on executive power are not partisan. The Constitution is not supposed to be a campaign prop, a legal technicality or a speed bump on the road to political victory.
The Constitution is the contract that binds the government down.
Without it, all we have are rulers and subjects.
That is why the real measure of any administration is not how loudly it boasts, how many enemies it punishes, how many executive orders it signs, how many troops it deploys, how many agencies it purges, or how many headlines it dominates.
The real measure is whether the people are freer, safer in their rights, more secure in their property, more protected from government abuse, and more capable of holding power accountable.
By that measure, we are not winning.
We are losing in all the ways that matter.
A president can call it winning. A party can call it winning. The media can package it as winning. The crowds can chant along.
Israel will benefit enormously and Americans will bear the burden
There is near certainty that Section 224 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2027 will pass through the House of Representatives to become law this coming week after a failed attempt last Thursday in the House Armed Services Committee to pass an amendment to delete it led by Democratic Party Congressman Ro Khanna and Republican Thomas Massie. The NDAA will now be awaiting only the fully expected signature of Israel’s servant President Donald Trump on the Act to become part of the nation’s legislative package that will set the rules and regulations that the nation’s defense will operate under. It will, unfortunately, also set up through Section 224 a “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative” that integrates “US-Israeli military research and development, co-production of weapons systems, licensing agreements, AI, directed energy, data integration, and missile defense.” It also creates the framework for “bilateral research and development, co-production of weapons, joint ventures, licensing agreements, and seemingly every manner of US-Israeli military-industrial complex cooperation.” The Director of the “Initiative” will be responsible for the coordination of the work and it is already being suggested that he will be an Israeli. And the funding will come 100% from the US Treasury by way of the budgeted allocation of $1.5 trillion that has been requested for the US military in 2027.
The result is to completely connect the functionality of the US military with that of the Israeli military in what has been described as an equal partnership that will include the government of Israel and its Israeli Defense Force as full participants. There will be full intelligence sharing and a planning process that will determine many aspects of how the American Department of War (sic) procures its weapons and equipment and establishes its strategic goals. This is plausibly the hidden story behind why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been slyly suggesting that Israel might in future forego the $3.8 billion in annual automatic “aid” (which some refer to as “tribute”) from the US Treasury, a process begun by President Barack Obama. Netanyahu, working through his accomplices in the White House and the US Congress, clearly would have known in advance that a much larger slice of the pie was on its way via Section 224.
Those politicians who have sponsored and promoted 224 inevitably cite how the Jewish state is a major “ally and best friend” even though it is neither, but they ignore the dark side fact that it is also a genocidal state whose leaders have been condemned by international courts for multiple war crimes that is hated by most of the world. And this hatred has rubbed off on the United States, which is Israel’s principal source of arms, money and political cover. The slaughter in Gaza and now in Lebanon would not occur without the support of Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
And there’s more, coming from the Senatewhich is doing something similar via the FY27 Intel Authorization bill which will make US intelligence sharing with Israel mandatory. The bill in question is S-4615, introduced on May 20th by leading Israel Firster Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas. The full text is here. S-4615 includes Section 622, entitled “US-Israel intelligence sharing enhancement.” This new section would establish as law (where it would apply forever, unless repealed by Congress) new US national security-related obligations with respect to Israel. It includes a Statement of Policy: “(1) To maintain and strengthen the strategic security partnership with Israel as a means of advancing the national defense of the United States… (2) To enhance intelligence collaboration through robust intelligence sharing and analytic partnership with Israel… (4) To ensure that security assistance and defense cooperation are structured to help Israel maintain its qualitative military edge…”
When the Intel Authorization Bill comes up for a vote in the Senate it will no doubt pass due to the Republican Majority supplemented by the usual Israel Firsters among the Democrats. And to complete the takeover by Israel there is a bill moving through Congress that will give US military benefits to American citizens, often Israeli dual nationals, who serve in the Israeli military, to include educational and medical benefits unavailable to other Americans who have not served in the US armed forces. Ironically, Israel’s new status as America’s partner in national security and warfare coming from both parts of Congress is not shared with any of Washington’s actual allies in NATO, making the relationship with Israel both unique and, in the opinion of many, uniquely dangerous as an empowered Israel will inevitably work to advance its security perceptions and Middle East “Eretz Israel” ambitions at the expense of genuine concerns that the United States might have intrinsic to its much broader worldwide exposure to global threats. In other words, pandering to Israeli concerns will actually make the United States much weaker and more vulnerable.
Astonishingly, the danger that Israel poses to US national security through its insertion as something like an equal into the planning process has been little remarked in the mainstream US media, possibly due to increased federal and state government pursuit of “antisemites” which includes criminalization of criticism of Israel. And it is certainly once again suggesting the power of the Israel Lobby, its “bought” media and its stable of supporting Jewish billionaires. But there has been considerable concern being expressed across much of the alternative media, some of which has even reached the front pages, suggesting that there is some leakage going on to feed official reservations about 224. The New York Times, which sometimes serves as a go-to leaked resource for the intelligence and defense communities had an interesting article on Israeli spying on the United States sourced to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) which appeared just after 224 was being debated in Congress.
The Times article is entitled “Pentagon Sees Growing Espionage Threat From Israel” and is summarized as “The Defense Department has increased the counterintelligence threat assessment to its highest level, and Israel is believed to have eavesdropped on American negotiations with Iran.” The story details how “Israel is now at the Pentagon’s highest counterintelligence threat level.” It includes how American officers working with their Israeli counterparts both in the US and overseas have had their phones and other messaging systems tapped through the insertion of surreptitious listening devices by the Israelis. Negotiations to end the Iran War have also been particularly targeted, both through phones being used by the negotiators as well as from the Washington end where the calls and messages are received.
The reality is, of course, that Israel has been a major source of spying and even worse against the United States since the 1950s, always ranking in FBI and Department of Defense assessments as one of the top three foreign espionage offenders, frequently as number one. And Israeli clandestine covert actions and false flag attacks have not hesitated to kill Americans as part of their efforts to cover-up their more disreputable activities. Notably, the Israeli false flag attack on the US Navy’s USS Liberty in international waters on June 8th 1967 in which 34 crewmen were killed stands out, particularly due to the subsequent cover-up conveniently arranged by Presidents Lyndon B Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara.
Israeli spies, which might have included Netanyahu himself when he resided in the US, arranged the illegal removal of enriched uranium from a Zionist-Jewish-owned metallurgical company in Pennsylvania and also obtained the special triggers in California that enabled Tel Aviv to create a nuclear arsenal. When President John F Kennedy sought to stop that development he was assassinated, quite possibly with help from Mossad. And then there was the most damaging spy in the history of the US, Jonathan Pollard, who stole for Israel the most sensitive intelligence ever obtained by a foreign power. He is now running for the Knesset in Israel and is speaking of the next two likely targets for the Israeli army once the Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians are disposed of, neighbors Egypt and Turkey!
The appearance of the Times article is suspicious and it might have been a shot across the Israeli-Israel Firster bow from the intelligence community coming as it apparently did from what was once called the Department of Defense. But Israel appears to have won this round and will be entering into a new relationship with the United States national security, intelligence and defense systems. Given the utter ruthlessness of Israel and the willingness of its sponsors in Washington to let it get away with mass murder, literally, this is a disaster for the United States and will only produce excruciatingly bad results.
Myanmar emphasizes that any action that undermines regional stability or violates fundamental principles under the pretext of internal affairs should be prevented through ASEAN solidarity.
The ASEAN Charter serves as the legal framework uniting the nations of Southeast Asia in the maintenance of regional peace, security, and development. By defining the principles and responsibilities that all member states are required to uphold equitably, the Charter strengthens ASEAN’s position on the international stage as an organization committed to a rules-based order.
In particular, the principle of “non-interference in the internal affairs of member states” plays a crucial role in fostering trust among ASEAN countries. This policy safeguards the sovereignty of smaller states while helping to prevent tensions between nations with different political and social systems. Preserving this balance remains essential for regional stability.
Observing recent political developments in Myanmar, significant efforts aimed at strengthening democracy are clearly evident. Between December 2025 and January 2026, Myanmar successfully held free and fair multiparty general elections. Of approximately 24.22 million eligible voters, more than 13.14 million citizens—equivalent to 54.22% of the electorate—participated freely and responsibly. Consequently, a Parliament elected by a majority of voters was established, along with a government led by a President elected by that Parliament.
An analysis of the reasons behind the need for new elections reveals that the previous government had been accused of committing serious electoral fraud during the 2020 elections. Following strong objections raised by political parties and the public regarding the fairness of the process, official investigations were launched. Reportedly, these investigations uncovered over 11.3 million irregularities and errors in the voter rolls out of a total of over 38.2 million eligible voters. The incident has been described as one of the most serious cases of electoral irregularities in Myanmar’s history. Consequently, the authorities argued that legal intervention was necessary to ensure justice and the rule of law.
Furthermore, evidence was presented showing that officials of the National League for Democracy (NLD) government, accused of attempting to retain power through electoral manipulation, were also involved in cases of corruption and other violations of the law. The courts subsequently issued convictions in accordance with existing legal procedures. Consequently, the Tatmadaw assumed state responsibilities in accordance with the provisions of the 2008 Constitution and implemented a roadmap aimed at preserving the multiparty democratic system desired by the public. A key element of this roadmap was the successful organization of new free and fair elections in December 2025, aimed at restoring democratic governance and reflecting the genuine will of the people.
Just as in some other countries military institutions have temporarily assumed responsibility for governance based on domestic circumstances to strengthen democratic systems, Myanmar’s political process has also unfolded in accordance with its sovereignty and constitutional framework. In light of the current situation, the current government was established by the People’s Assembly (Pyithu Hluttaw), elected by a majority of voters through a free and open democratic process.
Although most ASEAN member states appear to recognize Myanmar’s recent political developments and seek greater cooperation in the interest of the region, several members continue to ignore these changes. These countries are still attempting to impose restrictions, apply discriminatory measures, and deny Myanmar equal participation within ASEAN.
Since joining ASEAN in 1997, Myanmar has actively contributed to ASEAN activities and complied with collective agreements. As a responsible member, the country has consistently fulfilled its obligations, including regular financial contributions to ASEAN mechanisms and programs. Despite having faced discriminatory treatment from some ASEAN members over the past five years, Myanmar has continued to cooperate patiently. However, the continuation of such practices under the newly formed government is viewed as a disregard for the democratic choices made by the people of Myanmar.
Myanmar seeks to reposition itself
Recently, some ASEAN countries have increasingly been perceived as interfering in Myanmar’s internal affairs and judicial matters. One example concerns remarks made by Philippine President Bongbong Marcos during a press conference on May 8, 2026. During the conference, President Marcos called for the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and respect for her rights, arguing that, if recognized as a leader, she should be granted authority consistent with that status. He further stated that these points could constitute a key demand by ASEAN in negotiations with Myanmar and emphasized that this position will remain unchanged. However, judicial matters are considered a central element of national sovereignty, and foreign intervention in such processes is deemed inappropriate.
Myanmar views the Philippines’ statement as an attempt to place an individual—who has been indicted, tried, and convicted through legal procedures under Myanmar’s laws—above the law. Myanmar views this as direct interference in its sovereign judicial authority and legal system. Such actions are seen as contrary to the principles of international relations and detrimental to the mutual respect that should exist among ASEAN members.
Furthermore, Myanmar maintains that such behavior violates ASEAN’s principle of “non-interference,” as outlined in Chapter 1, Article 2, Sections 2(a) and 2(e) of the ASEAN Charter, which emphasizes respect for sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of member states.
In international diplomacy, mutual respect forms the basis of stable relations. Myanmar believes that President Marcos’s remarks disregard diplomatic norms and call into question ASEAN’s long-standing principles of mutual respect and non-interference. At the same time, Myanmar notes that on March 11, 2025, the Marcos administration allowed the arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte at Ninoy Aquino International Airport based on a warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC), an action that drew criticism both domestically and internationally.
Myanmar has chosen not to comment on this sensitive matter, considering it an internal affair of the Philippines. By remaining silent and refraining from criticism or interference, Myanmar asserts that it has upheld ASEAN principles and diplomatic decorum.
Myanmar contends that the “double standard” demonstrated by the Philippine leadership threatens both Myanmar’s sovereignty and ASEAN’s unity. The country reiterates that it will reject any external pressure or directives and will continue to safeguard its sovereignty and national interests. Myanmar also calls on the Philippines to respect the fundamental principles of ASEAN and to contribute constructively to regional peace and stability.
Inevitable choices
From Myanmar’s perspective, the demands made by the Philippines reflect a selective interpretation of the ASEAN Charter and indicate a lack of genuine commitment to regional stability. For ASEAN to remain a strong, rules-based organization, all member states must consistently adhere to the principles of the Charter.
Ignoring the ASEAN Charter and interfering in the internal affairs of another member state, or taking actions that destabilize the region, is considered a serious threat to ASEAN’s unity. Such actions damage the trust built among member states over many years and weaken ASEAN’s centrality on the international stage.
Given current realities and ASEAN’s neutral stance, Myanmar emphasizes that it successfully held free and fair elections between December 2025 and January 2026. The government formed following those elections is now governing the country and implementing domestic legal processes. Myanmar urges ASEAN to assess these developments objectively and without prejudice.
Myanmar maintains that ASEAN’s role is limited to mediation and does not permit direct involvement in the internal affairs of member states. Therefore, ASEAN should continue to uphold neutrality as the foundation of regional peace and cooperation. Any ASEAN intervention regarding Myanmar should be based on the actions of the current government and the realities on the ground.
Although ASEAN has not yet reached full consensus on Myanmar, the country continues to maintain bilateral relations with individual member states. Myanmar has also expressed appreciation for ASEAN countries that recognize and support its recent political developments. Above all, Myanmar affirms that it will continue to pursue peace, stability, prosperity, and the protection of citizens’ rights through a “Myanmar-owned and Myanmar-led process” tailored to the country’s specific conditions.
While the international community may call for clemency for individuals imprisoned under domestic laws on humanitarian grounds, Myanmar maintains that no external actor has the authority to demand the restoration of political rights or power to such individuals. ASEAN’s responsibility is limited to mediation, and demands that ignore current realities are viewed as coercive interference rather than constructive engagement.
Finally, adherence to the ASEAN Charter is presented as an obligation rather than a choice for all member states. Myanmar emphasizes that any action that undermines regional stability or violates fundamental principles under the pretext of internal affairs should be prevented through ASEAN solidarity. Only by upholding these principles, Myanmar argues, can ASEAN fully realize its vision of “One Vision, One Identity, One Community.”
Login
