When a government selectively enforces laws only against those who comply with legal requirements while ignoring those who do not, it violates the constitutional principle of equal protection under the law. In South Africa's TV licence system, 85% of households do not pay, yet debt collectors pursue only the 15% who registered and attempted to comply, while the government itself owes 73% of outstanding debts. This creates a system where honesty and compliance become liabilities, and the law functions as a targeting mechanism rather than a universal obligation.
Deep Dive
Voraussetzung
- Keine Daten verfügbar.
Nächste Schritte
- Keine Daten verfügbar.
Deep Dive
The Great South African TV Licence Scam — Government Punishes The Honest And Rewards The LawbreakersHinzugefügt:
If you have ever received a threatening SMS from the SABC telling you that debt collectors are coming for you — while your neighbour who bought his television cash from a shop in town has never received a single message — then what you are about to hear will not just make you angry.
It will make you understand, perhaps for the first time with absolute clarity, that you have been living inside one of the most breathtaking displays of governmental hypocrisy, constitutional violation, and institutional cowardice this country has ever produced. And unlike loadshedding, unlike potholes, unlike the never-ending saga of state capture — this one hits you directly in your home, on your phone, through your letterbox, and it arrives with legal threats attached.
This is the story of South Africa's TV licence system. And it is not just a story about R265 a year. It is a story about who this government chooses to pursue, who it chooses to ignore, what that choice reveals about the true nature of power in this country, and why — if you are one of the few honest South Africans still paying — you are essentially being punished for your own integrity.
Fasten your seatbelt. Because this report is going to take you somewhere most commentators are too polite, too cautious, or too politically nervous to go.
The Numbers That Should Disgrace a Government.
Let us begin with facts so stark that they deserve to be said slowly and repeated out loud.
According to Statistics South Africa's General Household Survey released in May 2025 — the most current official data available — 77.5% of South African households own a television set. With approximately 18.5 million households in this country, that translates to roughly 14.3 million households that are legally required — under the Broadcasting Act of 1999 — to hold a valid TV licence. Every. Single. One.
The SABC has a database of approximately 10.8 million registered TV licence holders. Of those, as of the 2024/25 financial year, only 15% paid their TV licence fees. Only 15%. That means approximately 1.6 million South Africans out of 14.3 million who legally should be paying, actually are. The non-compliance rate has officially reached 85%.
Avoidance has climbed sharply from 69% in 2019 to 85% in 2025.
The SABC billed R4.936 billion in TV licence fees in 2024/25. It collected R758 million. That means R4.2 billion — four point two billion rand — walked out the door, uncollected, uncontested, and largely unpursued. The total outstanding TV licence debt in this country now exceeds R4.8 billion and continues to grow every single day.
Now pause. Breathe. And ask yourself one question: If 85% of South Africans are not paying, and the government knows this, and the SABC knows this, and Parliament knows this — then whom exactly is the government pursuing with its army of debt collectors and its flood of threatening SMS messages?
The answer will not surprise you. But it should enrage you.
They Are Coming For You — Because You Were Stupid Enough to Register.
Here is the grotesque irony at the black heart of this entire system. The people receiving "FINAL NOTICE" SMS messages. The people getting letters from debt collection agencies. The people being warned of impending legal action. The people watching penalties accumulate at 10% per month up to a maximum of 100% per year — those people are not the worst offenders. They are, in almost every case, the most compliant ones.
They are the people who, at some point in their lives, did the right thing.
They walked into a Makro or a Hi-Fi Corp or a Game store and they bought a television set through formal channels. Their details were captured at point of sale. Their name, their address, their ID number — all entered into the SABC database. They may have even voluntarily registered for a TV licence because they believed in obeying the law. And for that extraordinary act of civic responsibility and legal obedience, they are now being chased by debt collectors.
Meanwhile, right now, at this very moment, tens of thousands of television sets are being sold across South Africa without a single licence check taking place.
In the electronics markets of Grey Street in Durban. In the informal shops of downtown Johannesburg. In the second-hand stores of Cape Town. On Gumtree. On Facebook Marketplace. Cash deals. No receipts. No names. No IDs. No SABC database entry.
No debt collector calls. No threatening SMS messages. Nothing. Silence. Freedom.
Those buyers — and there are millions of them — are equally breaking the law.
Identically. The Broadcasting Act of 1999 makes no distinction between the television purchased at Makro and the television purchased from a guy at a taxi rank. The legal obligation is identical. But the SABC's enforcement capacity? That stops at the boundary of its own database. Outside that database, the law does not exist.
Inside that database, the law arrives with a debt collector's phone number attached.
The South African government has, through sheer administrative laziness and institutional incompetence, created a system in which honesty is the one behaviour that guarantees you will be punished. If you never registered, you owe nothing on paper. If you registered and then fell behind, you owe escalating penalties with interest. The lesson this system teaches every South African is simple and devastating: never voluntarily comply with anything, because the moment your name is in a government database, that database becomes a weapon pointed at you.
The Retailer Law That Nobody Enforces — And Nobody Talks About.
Now here is a part of this story that almost never makes the news. And it should be front page every single day.The Broadcasting Act of 1999 does not only place obligations on TV owners. It places enormous obligations on retailers. Before selling a television set, every retailer in South Africa is legally required to verify that the prospective buyer holds a valid, paid-up TV licence.
The penalty for selling a television to an unlicensed buyer is between R3,000 and R10,000 per set sold. Furthermore, every retailer is required to submit a written monthly sales register to the SABC reflecting every television set sold in the previous month, and an annual audited statement reflecting all sets sold during the year.
These are not suggested guidelines. These are legal requirements, enshrined in statute, backed by criminal penalties.
When last did you hear of a retailer being prosecuted for selling televisions to unlicensed buyers? When last was an informal trader raided for operating without a dealer's licence and selling TVs without checking a single buyer's licence status? When last did the SABC dispatch inspectors to Grey Street, to Rissik Street, to the flea markets of Soweto, to the second-hand shops of Mitchell's Plain, to verify compliance?
You already know the answer. Never. Or so rarely that it is effectively never.
The SABC has a toll-free Retailer Validation Call Centre — 0800 00 9704 — that retailers are supposed to call before every television sale. A small electronics shop doing thirty television transactions on a Saturday would need to make thirty calls to the SABC. The absurdity of this requirement in practice is matched only by the absolute silence with which its non-compliance is met by the authorities.
And so the pipeline of unregistered television owners grows daily, legally invisible, financially untouchable, sleeping soundly every night while the registered minority faces escalating debt and threatening correspondence. The government built a law and then only enforced the part of it that required the least effort — pursuing people already in a database — while ignoring the part that required actual work, actual inspections, actual accountability. That is not enforcement. That is harvesting. And you are the crop.
The SABC Has No Inspectors. Listen to That Again.
Perhaps the most extraordinary admission in this entire scandal — one that was buried in a media statement and deserves to be projected on every billboard in South Africa — came in January 2026, when the SABC was forced to issue a public warning about criminals posing as TV licence inspectors in order to gain entry to homes and rob residents.
The SABC's official response? The broadcaster stated publicly: "The SABC wishes to remind the public that it has not appointed any inspectors or officials to conduct physical inspections of television sets in households.
Door-to-door inspections are not part of the SABC's TV licence enforcement processes."
Take a moment to process what this means. The Broadcasting Act grants authorised TV licence inspectors the power to enter any premises to carry out inspections. The law says inspectors can come to your door, demand to see your TV, demand your licence, demand your ID. The law creates this enforcement mechanism and grants it extraordinary power.
But the SABC has no inspectors doing this. Not one. They don't exist. The law says they can knock on your door. The SABC has publicly admitted they never will. So we have a broadcaster that can legally inspect your home but doesn't. That can legally prosecute retailers but hasn't. That can legally pursue the unregistered millions but can't because it has no idea who they are.
And yet this same broadcaster is deploying debt collection agencies against the 10.8 million people whose details it already has on file — sending 108 million SMS messages in a single financial year, flooding letterboxes with threatening notices, and creating genuine fear and distress among pensioners, working families, and professionals who happened to do the right thing at the wrong time.
One hundred and eight million SMS messages. To chase the same pool of registered people. Round and round. Over and over. While millions of completely unregistered television owners continue their television viewing in perfect, blissful peace.
If this is not harassment — targeted, systematic, database-driven harassment of the compliant — then the word has no meaning.
The Government That Pursues You While Owing Millions Itself.
Now we arrive at the section of this story that crosses from absurdity into something approaching genuine national scandal. Something that should trigger parliamentary hearings, ministerial resignations, and the kind of public outrage that brings people into the streets.
According to the Auditor-General of South Africa's Report on National and Provincial Government for the 2024/25 fiscal year — a document produced by the government's own oversight body — 73% of unpaid SABC TV licences are owed by government entities and officials.
Seventy-three percent. Of the approximately one million outstanding TV licence accounts currently being pursued, roughly 730,000 belong to government departments, municipalities, provincial governments, and state officials.
The government — the very entity that created the TV licence law, the very institution that mandates its enforcement, the very authority that empowers debt collectors to pursue ordinary citizens — is itself the single largest TV licence defaulter in the country.
National departments owe the SABC. Provincial governments owe the SABC. Municipalities owe the SABC. State-owned companies owe the SABC. And perhaps most spectacularly of all, Parliament's own Portfolio Committee on Communications and Digital Technologies — the committee responsible for oversight of the SABC — had its chairperson, Khusela Diko, publicly confirmed to also owe outstanding TV licence fees. The committee chair tasked with holding the SABC accountable personally owes the organisation money.
This is not irony. This is not even hypocrisy. This is something so brazen, so nakedly self-serving, so perfectly encapsulating of the dysfunction at the heart of South African governance, that it almost demands its own word. The state makes the law. The state ignores the law. The state then sends debt collectors after the citizens who tried to follow the law. And somewhere in Pretoria, in a government building with multiple television sets, not one of which has a paid licence — a civil servant is drafting your next "FINAL NOTICE."
The Constitutional Violation Nobody Is Naming.
Let us now go somewhere that lawyers whisper about but very few journalists have the courage to say loudly and clearly: what is happening with the TV licence system may be unconstitutional. Not just unfair. Not just inefficient. Potentially in violation of the most fundamental guarantee in South Africa's Bill of Rights.
Section 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa states with absolute clarity: "Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law." The State may not unfairly discriminate, directly or indirectly, against anyone.Now apply that provision to the TV licence enforcement regime.
Person A registered their licence and is now being pursued by debt collectors, receiving threatening SMS messages, accumulating penalties at 10% per month, and facing the theoretical prospect of criminal prosecution. Person B owns an identical television set, watches an identical amount of television, but bought their set through informal channels, never registered, and has never received a single piece of correspondence from the SABC or any debt collector. Ever.
Both are in exactly the same legal position under the Broadcasting Act. Both own televisions. Both are required by the identical provision of the identical law to hold a valid TV licence.
Yet the State pursues only one of them. The difference between Person A and Person B is not their guilt or innocence under the law. The difference is purely whether their details happen to appear in an administrative database.
The State is, in practice, selectively enforcing a law based on whether it conveniently already has your information.
It is creating two classes of citizens under the same law — the traced and the untraced — and applying the full coercive power of that law only to the traced class. This is not equal protection before the law. This is the opposite of equal protection before the law. And the fact that the people most likely to be "traced" — formally employed, formally banked, purchasing through registered retailers, living at traceable addresses — happen to disproportionately be higher-income, predominantly formally-integrated South Africans, adds an additional dimension to this constitutional question that nobody in government wants to discuss openly.
The Minority Who Carry the Entire Country — And Now This Too.
South Africa's tax architecture sits on a foundation so narrow it should terrify every person who depends on public services. According to the 2025 Budget Review, just 978,140 South Africans — 1.5% of the total population — pay 60.9% of all personal income tax. A mere 235,542 individuals, 0.4% of the population, contribute 33% of all personal income tax. SARS has 26.2 million registered individual taxpayers but only 9.15 million are active and submitting returns — representing just 14.5% of the total population.
Meanwhile, the country has four times as many social grant recipients as personal income taxpayers.
The result is a compounding burden that falls, again and again and again, on the same exhausted shoulders. The formally employed. The formally banked. The formally registered. The people who bought their television from a registered retailer because that is how law-abiding citizens are expected to behave. These people already pay personal income tax at rates that fund social grants for 28 million people.
They pay VAT on every purchase. They pay property rates on formally titled homes.
They pay medical aid because the public healthcare system has been hollowed out.
They pay private school fees because public education has been defunded.
And now, as the cherry on top of this avalanche of fiscal obligation, they receive "FINAL NOTICE" SMS messages demanding payment of a TV licence that millions of their fellow citizens — equally obligated by the same law — will never be asked to pay. This is not a tax system. This is a squeeze machine with a very specific target demographic.
The Streaming Generation Has Already Voted With Their Remote Controls.
The SABC and its political guardians can issue all the debt collection notices they want. They cannot change the fundamental economic and technological reality that has already rendered the TV licence model obsolete beyond any possibility of revival.
Pay TV subscriptions in South Africa have grown from 29.2% of households in 2012 to 58.6% of households in 2024. The majority of South African television-owning households are already paying for content — voluntarily, without threats, without debt collectors — because that content delivers value they actually want, on demand, without being interrupted by the same three advertisements every seven minutes. Netflix. Showmax. DStv. Apple TV.
YouTube Premium. The consumer has spoken clearly and repeatedly: they will pay for what they value, and what they value is not a broadcaster that shows twenty-year-old American sitcoms between news programmes read by anchors in suits that have not been updated since 2003.
The SABC itself has admitted that there is no new market for TV licences. No young South African moving into their first apartment, setting up their Netflix account, connecting their smart TV to their fibre router, is walking into a post office to register for a TV licence. The concept does not register in their minds as a real obligation. It is a relic. A ghost tax. A demand from an institution that occupies roughly the same cultural space in their lives as a VCR instruction manual.
The SABC's own board chair, Khathutshelo Ramukumba, publicly acknowledged in November 2025 that relying on TV licence fees is no longer viable. SABC CEO Nomsa Chabeli described the current system as "outdated and ill-suited to the current media environment." The Communications Minister himself stated flatly: "TV licences have all but collapsed." Even the people running the system, even the people whose institutional survival depends on the system, have publicly conceded that the system is dead.
And yet — and this is the part that reveals everything about how this government operates — even as they publicly acknowledge the system is broken, they are simultaneously deploying more debt collectors, sending more threatening SMS messages, and pursuing the same trapped pool of registered account holders for the same debt they have been pursuing for years. They know it is broken. They say it is broken. And they continue enforcing only the broken parts that are easy to enforce, against only the people who are easy to find.
The Bureaucratic Kafkaesque Nightmare of Trying to Leave the System.
And if you think the injustice ends at being pursued despite the system's acknowledged failure, consider what happens when you try to do the right thing and formally exit the system.
Selling your television? Moving abroad? Finally getting rid of that ancient CRT set gathering dust in the spare bedroom? Simple enough, you would think. You stop watching television, you stop the licence.
Wrong. South Africa does not do simple.
To formally cancel a TV licence, the SABC requires written applications, notarised affidavits, physical inspection by an SABC agent, a R300 inspection fee paid upfront, documentary proof of disposal — and if you are emigrating, the SABC has reportedly asked people for shipping manifests, furniture removal company documentation, flight tickets, work contracts, and in at least one documented case, an "exit permit" — an apartheid-era document that has not existed as a legal requirement since the country became a democracy in 1994.
They asked someone for a piece of apartheid bureaucracy that has been dead for thirty years.
Expats who left South Africa years ago and believed they had properly cancelled their licences are being hunted down by debt collection agencies demanding payment for years of absence.
One person who moved to the UK for a period and then returned found the SABC immediately demanding three years of back payments — despite their goods having been in storage for the entire period. Their attempt to resume compliance upon return was met not with gratitude but with a bill for their years of absence.
The cruel paradox of this system: the person who never registered faces no bill. The person who registered, tried to cancel, submitted the paperwork, and thought they were free — they face the bill. And the person who dutifully paid for thirty years before falling on hard times and missing a few payments? They face the bill plus 10% penalties per month, accumulating silently, until the total owed doubles and a debt collector arrives at their door.
The only rational lesson is the one this government keeps accidentally teaching: do not register. Do not comply. Do not engage. Become invisible. Because in South Africa, visibility is a liability and invisibility is a privilege.
What Real Enforcement Would Actually Look Like.
Let us be completely honest about what universal, constitutionally consistent enforcement of the TV licence law would actually require — because the government certainly never talks about it.
It would require inspectors to visit every informal electronics market in every major city in South Africa on a rotating basis, checking dealer licences and sales registers.
It would require the SABC to audit every retailer's monthly sales register — a document retailers are already legally required to submit — and cross-reference those sales against licence registrations to identify buyers who purchased televisions but never registered.
It would require the cooperation of the South African Police Service to prosecute retailers selling to unlicensed buyers. It would require household inspections conducted systematically across all communities, not merely targeted at addresses that conveniently already appear in an administrative database. It would require pursuing the government departments that owe R56 million with the same aggression applied to private citizens.
It would require the Portfolio Committee chair who owes outstanding fees to be subjected to exactly the same debt collection process as the pensioner in Tembisa who missed two payments.
None of this is happening. None of it has ever happened at any meaningful scale. Because real enforcement costs money, requires political will, demands accountability from politically connected institutions, and might upset informal traders whose cooperation is needed during election season. So instead, what we get is database mining dressed up as law enforcement. We get 108 million SMS messages sent to the same captured group. We get "FINAL NOTICE" letters in letterboxes of people who registered in good faith two decades ago.
We get debt collectors funded with R67 million of the SABC's rapidly dwindling revenue — and after all that investment, the net gain from debt collection in the reported financial year was approximately R133 million. They spent R67 million to collect R200 million from people who already had the SABC's attention. The tens of millions of unregistered television owners contributed precisely nothing to those figures and cost the system precisely nothing to ignore. This is the economics of a failed state trying to sustain a failing institution by squeezing the only people it can conveniently see.
The Law Cannot Be Selectively Applied — That Is Not Law, That Is Targeting.
There is a principle in constitutional jurisprudence so fundamental that it predates constitutions themselves: a law that is selectively enforced is not law.
It is a mechanism of control. It is a tool of targeting. And when the selection criterion for enforcement turns out to be — functionally if not explicitly — wealth, formality, and race-correlated economic integration, the constitutional questions multiply rapidly.
Section 9 of the South African Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law to every person in this country. Not every registered person. Not every traceable person. Not every person whose address happens to be in a database.
Every person. When the government pursues only the registered minority with debt collectors while the unregistered majority enjoys complete practical immunity under the same law, that is not equal protection. That is its precise opposite. That is using the law as a precision instrument against a selected group while granting de facto exemption to everyone else.
No court has yet directly ruled on this specific dimension of the TV licence enforcement regime.
But the constitutional argument is available to any registered licence holder receiving debt collection notices: you are being subjected to a legal obligation that, in practice, only applies to you. Your neighbour with an identical television, identical legal obligation, and no SABC registration faces no such pursuit.
The enforcement criterion is not guilt under the law. The enforcement criterion is visibility in a database. That is not equal protection. That is administrative targeting of the compliant.
The government should hear this clearly: you cannot create a law, fail to enforce it universally, then target only those whose information you conveniently already possess, and call that law enforcement. That is harassment. It is constitutionally indefensible. And the fact that it disproportionately impacts South Africans who are already carrying the heaviest share of this country's tax burden makes it not merely legally questionable, but morally inexcusable.
The Replacement Will Be Worse — If They Get Their Way.
Now let us talk about where this is all heading. Because the government's proposed solutions to the TV licence crisis deserve their own scrutiny — and they reveal, yet again, who this government considers an acceptable target for extraction.
The proposals on the table include replacing the TV licence with a universal household levy collected by SARS. On the surface, this sounds more equitable — everyone pays, regardless of whether they own a television. But examine it for a moment. A household levy collected by SARS means it would be added to the tax burden of formally employed, formally registered South Africans — exactly the same people already carrying 90% of personal income tax, exactly the same people already paying TV licences, exactly the same people being pursued by debt collectors right now. The informal sector — where millions live, work, buy televisions, and consume SABC content entirely for free — would again escape by virtue of their invisibility to the formal fiscal system.
There was also the proposal to bundle TV licence fees into vehicle licence renewals — an idea that generated such immediate and furious public backlash that it was rapidly distanced from as "just one of many options." The idea was that since vehicle registrations are captured on the eNatis system, TV licence obligations could be attached to vehicle licence renewals. Meaning you cannot renew your car licence until you prove your TV licence is paid. Meaning the people with formally registered vehicles — which correlates strongly with income and formality — would again face an obligation the informally mobile population never encounters.
The man driving an unregistered taxi in Soweto would owe nothing.
The professional driving a formally registered sedan to work would be blocked at licence renewal until the SABC's books are cleared.
The pattern is consistent, persistent, and perfectly revealing of where power sits and where it points. In every iteration of this system — past, present, and proposed future — the target is the same: the formally integrated, the traceable, the compliant, the documented. The people who did what citizens in a functioning state are supposed to do. And they are being made to pay, again and again, for everyone who chose not to.
What Must Actually Happen — A Demand, Not a Suggestion.
Enough analysis. Here is what the situation demands.
The government must immediately and unconditionally cease all debt collection activities against registered TV licence holders until and unless it can demonstrate that it is simultaneously pursuing unregistered television owners through a genuinely universal enforcement programme. It cannot, in good conscience, chase the few it knows about while consciously ignoring the many it doesn't. That is not law enforcement. That is targeted harassment. And it must stop.
The government must enforce the retailer compliance provisions of the Broadcasting Act with the same energy it applies to registered individual account holders.
It must audit retailer sales registers. It must inspect informal markets. It must prosecute retailers selling televisions to unlicensed buyers. It must close the pipeline of new unregistered television owners at the point of sale, or it must accept that the pipeline will continue producing the very non-compliance it claims to be fighting.
You cannot address a leaking dam by charging the people downstream for getting wet.
The government must, as a matter of constitutional obligation, pursue its own departments and officials for their outstanding TV licence debts with exactly the same aggression it directs at private citizens. The Auditor-General has confirmed that 730,000 of the outstanding accounts belong to government entities and officials. Those accounts must be collected with the same "FINAL NOTICE" SMS messages, the same debt collection agencies, the same escalating penalties, that private citizens receive. Anything less is a public admission that laws are for ordinary people and not for the state and its representatives.
And if the government cannot do any of these things — if it lacks the capacity, the will, the resources, or the political courage to enforce this law universally — then it must have the integrity to acknowledge openly that the system has failed, immediately suspend all penalty accumulation and debt collection actions, and replace the TV licence regime without using the replacement as yet another mechanism to squeeze the same small pool of traceable, formal-sector South Africans who have already reached the absolute limits of their fiscal endurance.
South Africa is a country of extraordinary people carrying an extraordinary burden, being asked — more accurately, being demanded — to carry more. The TV licence system in its current form is not a funding mechanism. It is not a broadcasting support structure. It is a relic of a 1999 law operating in a 2026 world, enforced only against those too honest, too traceable, or too formally integrated to escape its reach — while the majority it ostensibly applies to live in complete practical immunity from its consequences.
The government made the law. The government is responsible for enforcing the law equally, universally, and without favour. When it fails to do that — when it instead sends debt collectors only to the doors of the registered, the formal, and the compliant — it is not enforcing a law. It is operating a targeting system. And it is doing so while its own departments, municipalities, and committee chairs quietly default on the very obligation they demand from you.
This is the South Africa they built. A country where your honesty is the thing that makes you a target. Where your formality is the thing that makes you visible. Where your compliance is the thing that makes you pay — not just your fair share, but the share of everyone who looked at this system and quietly, rationally, chose not to play along.
The real scandal of the South African TV licence crisis is not that 85% of people are not paying.
The real scandal is that the 15% who are paying have any legitimate reason to continue.
If this report has opened your eyes, if it has given you language for a frustration you have felt but struggled to articulate, if it has helped you understand not just what is happening but why and to whom — then do not keep it to yourself.
Share this report on every WhatsApp group you are in. Your family groups. Your work groups. Your neighbourhood groups. Your school groups. Your church groups. Your street groups. Your political groups. Your sports groups. Every single one. Because the government counts on public ignorance and private frustration. It counts on people suffering alone, assuming they are the only ones receiving those threatening SMS messages, assuming there must be something wrong with them specifically.
There is nothing wrong with you. There is something profoundly, demonstrably, constitutionally wrong with a system that pursues the honest and ignores the invisible. And the only thing more powerful than a government with a database is a public that knows what that database is being used for.
Share this. Talk about this. Demand better. Because in a democracy, the government works for you — not the other way around. And it is far past time this particular government remembered exactly that.
Ähnliche Videos
Guess Which Country Trump Is Threatening To Bomb Next! w/ Chris Hedges
thejimmydoreshow
5K views•2026-05-30
Why Was There No Mention of Israel or Gaza in The DNC's Autopsy Report
wearefindout
227 views•2026-05-29
Trump Just Got HUMILIATED... And It's Going VIRAL
harryjsisson
46K views•2026-05-29
Potential Iran deal is 'a big defeat' for US: John Bolton | Elizabeth Vargas Reports
NewsNation
1K views•2026-05-29
Russia Clashes With Romania, U.S. And EU At Security Council Meeting | DWS News | AC1F
dwsofficial
344 views•2026-06-02
Independence Calendar (Episode #25) - With Cory Morgan & Keith Wilson
JohnBoltonAB
3K views•2026-05-31
BREAKING: TRUMP ADMITS HE LIED ON CIA
DarrenMonroePolitics
10K views•2026-06-01
Why Reynosa Is Burning Now: The Truth Explained
THEFACTFACTORYF
560 views•2026-05-30











