What Can Be Done About U.S. Government Weaponization and COVID Secrets?

Link copied What Can Be Done About U.S. Government Weaponization and COVID Secrets? News headlines a few weeks ago focused on U.S. government secrecy and potential COVID falsifications, but the mainstream media missed some significant points.

Robert L. Kinney, Pharm.D., M.A. | October 10, 2026

News headlines a few weeks ago focused on U.S. government secrecy and potential COVID falsifications, but the mainstream media missed some significant points.

Two major issues deserve a closer look. First is Congress questioning Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former federal COVID vaccine official.

Second is the growing concern that the U.S. government is being used as a secret weapon against its own citizens.

First, there does not seem to be much discussion of the fact that prior to the so-called COVID pandemic, a U.S. Democratic congressman apparently suggested falsifying a pandemic to push vaccination.

It should be emphasized that a U.S. congressman was one suggesting the possibility. If the U.S. government actually carried out the plan to secretly falsify a pandemic as a covert national and international exercise to “make a concerted effort to see how many people we could vaccinate in the shortest period of time,” then it is likely that more current or former politicians would know, too.

Public congressional hearings on Dr. Fauci might not reveal what the government actually did in secret. Perhaps this is just the beginning of congressional efforts to defend Americans from government secrecy. Or, perhaps, like many other publicized events, it is more theater. Either way, the above-mentioned article should be kept in mind as a plausible explanation for some of the inexplicable occurrences surrounding the COVID pandemic and forced vaccination schemes.

The second issue needing more commenting is the continued discussion that the U.S. government has been weaponized against American citizens. Specifically, a few months ago Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche (who was recently confirmed) suggested the following:

The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again.

However, it is almost impossible for the average American to determine if or how the technologies and methods (“machinery”) of the government were used against them. The U.S. government aggressively keeps law enforcement and intelligence community methods and technologies secret.

But there is a significant point that has been overlooked for many years regarding the U.S. government’s demand for secrecy about law enforcement and intelligence community methods and technologies. The U.S. government demands secrecy because they say that publicizing methods and technologies would result in Americans being able to develop ways to protect themselves (“countermeasures”) from those technologies and weapons.

The government’s practice of keeping the existence of certain methods and technologies secret could, however, suggest that some of those technologies have invisible or remote-controlled capabilities that the public does not already know about. High-tech radar and radio frequency or other invisible technologies are among the likely secret technologies, but there could be others.

Think about it for a moment: Americans already know about intelligence community methods and technologies, many of which are visible and could theoretically have countermeasures made against them. Americans know of firearms, GPS trackers, microphones, hidden cameras, knives, tasers, nightsticks, and so on. Yet, for the most part, everyday citizens cannot easily develop countermeasures against some of those anyway.

What, then, is the real reason the U.S. government guards its secret methods and technologies so aggressively? Is it really to protect “national security,” or is it instead because revealing certain technologies and methods might expose unlawful actions by government officials?  Does the secrecy imply that the U.S. government is hiding remote and invisible methods and technologies from Americans? Are there neuroweapons or neurosurveillance technologies that are available or in use?

This relates to Attorney General Blanche’s statement that Americans have apparently been secretly harmed by government machinery. A similar argument was made by current FBI Director Kash Patel in his book, Government Gangsters. Although the book was written before Patel’s appointment as FBI Director, he argued that a “Deep State” exists within the federal government and uses secret power to harm American citizens. Patel has continued to support the book’s main claims that the federal government has been weaponized against the public.

In other words, you could have been significantly harmed secretly and without even knowing the cause of the harm, and apparently not even the most powerful people in America could help.

This type of harm can occur in several different ways. For example, consider financial harm: law enforcement could weaponize investigations by simply approaching a current or potential employer, leading to immediate termination. From there, long-term unemployment becomes a plausible outcome due to the gossip and rumors which spread quickly within professional organizations or cities when authorities take an interest in an individual.

Or could what appears to be a sudden medical event actually be the result of secret, remotely operated technologies? Scientific and medical experts at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have concluded that remotely operated and invisible directed-energy weapons (such as radio frequency (RF) or microwave devices) are technically plausible. The report specifically examined whether directed RF energy, including pulsed or modulated RF energy, could produce potentially serious biological effects invisibly and from a different location. This is not simply making something up out of thin air.

The government’s aggressive demand for secrecy regarding intelligence and law enforcement methods might suggest they possess capabilities far beyond what the public is permitted to know. There are not many remaining technologies in the science-fiction realm which have not been publicly described as being achieved.

First, what if COVID was actually just a common seasonal cold that was exaggerated and lied about to look like a dangerous pandemic? To find out, Congress should pass a law offering lifetime financial support and protection to government whistleblowers. (Debates about whether COVID came from a lab in China miss the bigger issue: whether the government lied about a mostly harmless cold to make it look like a deadly virus.)

The law might be based, in part, on the statement mentioned in the above article: that in the past, a member of Congress apparently suggested potentially falsifying a virus “to see how many people we [the government] could vaccinate in the shortest period of time.” As the article mentions, that statement does not allow for many interpretations other than falsifying a virus’ deadliness as a type of fear-causing and panic-causing mechanism to support government-forced, school-forced, and employer-forced vaccinations.

Americans deserve to know the truth. If no one exaggerated the severity of a common-cold coronavirus, whether it was newly circulating or had already been circulating for years, in order to push a vaccine, then no whistleblowers would have a reason to come forward, and nothing would change. But if such a thing did happen, the public would likely support rewarding those who expose it, including past and present intelligence officials with access to relevant information.

The persistence of President Trump and other high-ranking officials in raising concerns about possible harm to Americans by law enforcement and the intelligence community suggests that there is much for Americans to discover, and solutions are necessary. One of those potential solutions is to require government law enforcement, intelligence community, and other covert methods and technologies to be declassified and publicized.

Other countries developed a type of “no-touch torture” in which a person is targeted by continuous falsified events, nearly every place they go. The method utilizes coordination by law enforcement and/or intelligence community entities and covert government employees, informants, and confidential human sources to cause the targeted person to experience extreme distress, much like what occurs with “gaslighting.”

Similar things are actually reported in America. While it might be an effort to discredit others, some describe this as being “targeted” through “group stalking.” Such people are often labeled as crazy and delusional. It might, however, not be as crazy as it sounds. While some reports may have explanations unrelated to government activity, it would also be inappropriate to assume in every case that the person is simply imagining what happened. There might be a reasonable explanation for what at least some of those people are observing: they might be victims of a weaponized government.

These “targeted individuals” might actually be subjects of covert operations. When a person is in physical custody for questioning by law enforcement at the police station or elsewhere, law enforcement might use psychological tricks like leading questions, non-verbal (throat clearing, “cough-cough,” noises, etc.) and verbal hints and suggestions, and other provocations intended to influence a person’s responses or encourage self-incriminating statements. Researchers use phrases like “induced incriminating statements,” “suggestibility,” “confirmation bias,” and “government-compelled statements” to describe such phenomena.

If those same psychological tactics used in police interrogations were ever applied out in public, they might look much like what “targeted individuals” describe: perceptions of manipulation, suggestion, attempts to provoke responses, and so on. This is very plausible.

In other words, what some people describe as being a “targeted individual” or a victim of “coordinated stalking,” “gang stalking,” or “group stalking,” might be continuous weaponization of the government under the guise of what law enforcement describes as surveillance, undercover operations, informant activity, target monitoring, and investigative contacts.

Either way, such methods could easily be used as weapons against Americans.

The solution again might involve declassifying information for Americans to be able to know more about the methods and technologies of law enforcement and the intelligence community. Americans should have the right to know if they are being targeted by surveillance or informants, and how long those activities have lasted. This is particularly important when there are allegations of violations under color of law.

How about using artificial intelligence to continually monitor government employees? If it is programmed correctly, and if those programmers are rewarded for discovering government being used as a weapon against Americans, then AI could do useful work here. In fact, theoretically, AI could continually observe government employees for potential weaponization without ever exposing “classified information.” Since the AI is not human, it could continually monitor government employees – even the covert law enforcement and intelligence community employees – for potential weaponization.

This concept is not much different from the almost universally supported “body-worn cameras.” The suggestion should not be very controversial; it simply provides additional security for Americans against covert law enforcement and intelligence community employees rather than uniformed officers. This could also apply to government lawyers, prosecutors, and other officials or private individuals acting in coordination with them, as a way to detect violations under color of law.

Similarly, if covert or plain-clothed government employees, informants, and confidential human sources are not doing unlawful things, then properly programmed and continually observed AI should be supported to be used to determine the possibility of government being used for the phenomenon known as “coordinated stalking.” If the reported activity is not the result of government action, an AI system reviewing relevant government records should not find evidence of government involvement. This is, again, much like police body-worn cameras.

America was founded on the principle that the government serves the public, not the other way around.  

Citizens have a right to know what those officials are doing while they are carrying out their jobs. If programmed correctly and independently overseen, artificial intelligence could help detect illegal government harassment, surveillance, the use of neuroweapons or other secret weapons, and protect constitutional rights. No government official who is faithfully serving the public should oppose laws that protect Americans from unlawful government actions or systems that help make sure those laws are followed. Americans should not have to simply trust that government power is being used lawfully while being denied the information necessary to determine what government officials have actually done.

Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong. Thank you.