Politics
Trump’s Victory: What It Means for Big Tech
Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election has significant implications for the tech industry, particularly in terms of regulation and the relationship between Big Tech and the government. This could signal potential shifts for major technology companies as his administration re-enters the White House. Known for his critical stance toward the influence of big tech firms, Trump’s policies may target social media regulation, privacy rights, and cryptocurrency oversight. This article examines what these changes could mean for tech giants, as well as how industry leaders like Elon Musk may navigate the administration’s policy direction.
Trump’s Stance on Big Tech – A New Wave of Scrutiny?
During his previous tenure, Trump’s administration raised concerns over the growing power of major tech firms, often accusing them of bias and unfair practices. His win could mean increased scrutiny for companies like Meta, Alphabet (Google), and X (formerly Twitter). With a history of advocating for transparency and accountability, Trump may push for regulations requiring tech firms to disclose their algorithms and data practices more openly. This stance may introduce significant challenges, forcing companies to rethink their operational transparency, while also appealing to conservative voices concerned with tech influence over political discourse.
Social Media Regulation – Transparency and Content Moderation
A significant focus for Trump’s new term is likely to be the regulation of social media platforms, especially regarding content moderation practices. During his last administration, Trump criticized platforms like Facebook and Twitter for alleged censorship. Now, the debate around free speech versus misinformation has only intensified, and his administration might seek to implement laws ensuring “viewpoint neutrality.” Trump could push for reforms to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which currently shields platforms from liability for user-generated content. Potential reforms could restrict tech companies’ ability to moderate content without consequence, fundamentally reshaping how platforms handle controversial content.
Privacy Rights – Balancing Data Use and Individual Freedoms
Trump’s election could also impact the ongoing conversation around data privacy, with likely implications for companies reliant on user data collection. His administration may support data privacy reforms, pushing for clearer user consent requirements and limiting companies’ use of personal information. Recent years have seen growing public concern over digital privacy, and Trump’s stance could introduce legislation closer to Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). These changes would mean more robust data security measures, transparency on data collection practices, and possibly heavy penalties for privacy violations.
Cryptocurrency Oversight – Toward Greater Regulation?
The cryptocurrency landscape has rapidly evolved since Trump’s last term, with digital currencies now occupying a more significant role in financial markets. Trump’s views on cryptocurrency have historically been cautious, even skeptical, as he once deemed Bitcoin a “scam.” This administration might seek tighter regulations on digital assets, especially as concerns over fraud and financial stability grow. Regulatory action could include enforcing anti-money laundering (AML) compliance and requiring more transparency from decentralized exchanges. For tech giants invested in blockchain or digital assets, like Meta’s Libra project, this could mean adjusting their strategies to meet compliance standards.

Dynamics with Tech Leaders – Collaboration or Conflict?
The Trump administration’s relationship with tech industry figures could be crucial in shaping regulatory approaches. Elon Musk, for instance, has had a complex, often vocal stance on political matters, supporting free speech but also advocating for limited government interference in tech. Trump’s policies around social media and free speech could resonate with Musk, yet there could be friction on regulatory grounds, especially if federal guidelines challenge the open nature of X (formerly Twitter). The administration’s stance toward leaders like Musk and Zuckerberg may range from collaborative to confrontational, depending on how they align with Trump’s regulatory goals.
Conclusion
Trump’s victory could bring a renewed focus on tech regulation, affecting social media, privacy rights, and cryptocurrency oversight. With increasing bipartisan scrutiny on Big Tech, Trump’s administration is expected to drive policies that push tech companies toward greater accountability, transparency, and user protection. How tech leaders respond will shape the future of these industries in a potentially more regulated landscape, where balancing innovation with oversight becomes essential.
Bolanle Media is excited to announce our partnership with The Newbie Film Academy to offer comprehensive courses designed specifically for aspiring screenwriters. Whether you’re just starting out or looking to enhance your skills, our resources will provide you with the tools and knowledge needed to succeed in the competitive world of screenwriting. Join us today to unlock your creative potential and take your first steps toward crafting compelling stories that resonate with audiences. Let’s turn your ideas into impactful scripts together!
News
Iran’s $40 Million Bounty on Trump Explained

The Origins of the Bounty
In July 2025, a shocking campaign emerged from Iran: a $40 million bounty was publicly placed on former U.S. President Donald Trump. This unprecedented move is rooted in escalating tensions following recent U.S. military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities—actions reportedly authorized by Trump. The campaign was organized by a group calling itself Blood Covenant (sometimes referred to as “Blood Pact”), which has direct links to former employees of Iran’s state-run propaganda network.

The Fatwa and Religious Backing
The bounty is more than just a financial reward. It is underpinned by a fatwa—a religious edict—issued by several prominent Iranian clerics. These clerics labeled Trump an “enemy of Allah” and declared that his killing would be a religious duty for Muslims. The campaign’s website, thaar.ir, displays Quranic verses and promises not only the cash reward but also spiritual benefits, such as entry to paradise and the title of “defender of Islam,” to anyone who carries out the act.
How the Fundraising Works
- Crowdfunding Platform: The campaign is run through an Iranian website, thaar.ir, which claims to have raised over $40 million for the bounty. The site features images of Trump in crosshairs and calls for “retribution against those who mock and threaten the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei”.
- Religious Messaging: The platform invokes religious language, urging believers to “strive with your wealth and your lives in the cause of Allah,” making the campaign a call to jihad.
- Broad Support: Analysts note that this campaign reflects a wide consensus among Iranian religious and governmental authorities, with the message amplified across Iranian media and society.
Key Figures and Organizations
- Hossein Abbasifar: Investigations have identified Hossein Abbasifar, a former employee of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), as a key figure behind the campaign. Metadata from the website links him to the project, potentially exposing him to international sanctions.
- Blood Covenant: The group organizing the campaign operates “under the aegis of the Iranian regime,” according to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), suggesting at least tacit approval from powerful factions within Iran.

Government Response and Denials
While the campaign has been widely promoted in Iranian media and by clerics, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian has publicly distanced his government from the bounty and the fatwas, stating that such religious decrees have “nothing to do with the Iranian government or the Supreme Leader.” However, state-affiliated media and hardline clerics continue to endorse the campaign, emphasizing the religious justification for targeting Trump.
U.S. and International Reaction
- Security Concerns: U.S. authorities remain on high alert, given Iran’s history of plotting attacks on American leaders. The State Department has indicated it is using all available tools, including sanctions, to hold those responsible accountable4.
- Trump’s Response: Trump himself has publicly downplayed the threats, responding with characteristic humor when asked about warnings that he could be targeted by a drone while at his Mar-a-Lago estate89.
The Bigger Picture
The $40 million bounty on Trump is a stark reminder of the enduring animosity between the U.S. and Iran, especially in the wake of military escalations and the 2020 killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. The campaign is notable for:
- Its scale and publicity, leveraging modern crowdfunding techniques.
- The fusion of religious and political motives, making the threat both ideological and material.
- The potential for escalation, as hardline elements within Iran continue to push for retribution.
Conclusion
Iran’s $40 million bounty on Donald Trump is a chilling development at the intersection of geopolitics, religion, and digital mobilization. While the actual funds raised remain difficult to independently verify, the campaign’s existence—and the broad support it appears to enjoy among certain Iranian factions—underscores the volatility of U.S.-Iran relations and the enduring risks faced by high-profile political figures.
Politics
Tucker Carlson: “Epstein Was a Mossad Spy”

This article is an exploration of Tucker Carlson’s opinions and arguments. The views expressed are his alone and do not reflect those of Bolanle Media or its editorial team.
The Power of the Unanswered Question
There’s a certain electricity in the air whenever the name Jeffrey Epstein comes up. The story has become a kind of cultural Rorschach test: a scandal, a mystery, a symbol of everything people feel is broken about power in America. But what happens when someone insists on asking the questions everyone else wants to sweep under the rug?

Tucker Carlson, never one to shy from controversy, has taken the Epstein discourse to a new level. In his view, the real scandal isn’t just Epstein’s crimes—it’s the refusal of those in power to answer the most basic questions about them. For Carlson, the heart of the matter is this: Why did Epstein have so much money, so many connections, and so much apparent immunity? And, most explosively, on whose behalf was he operating?
The Mossad Theory: Carlson’s Central Claim
Carlson’s position is unambiguous: he believes that Jeffrey Epstein was not simply a lone predator, but was working for foreign intelligence—specifically, Israel’s Mossad. He frames this not as a wild conspiracy, but as a logical question stemming from the facts as he sees them:
- Epstein’s meteoric rise: How does a former math teacher with no college degree end up with private jets, a private island, and the largest residence in Manhattan?
- Foreign connections: Why did Epstein have such close ties to high-ranking Israeli officials and other foreign actors?
- Lack of transparency: Why, after years of investigations and media coverage, do basic questions about Epstein’s finances and operations remain unanswered?
Carlson is adamant: asking these questions is not an act of hate or bigotry. It is, in his view, the duty of a free citizen.
The Right to Ask—and the Pushback
A central theme in Carlson’s argument is the right to ask uncomfortable questions—and the dangers of a culture that tries to silence them. He rails against what he sees as a new orthodoxy: if you question official narratives, you’re dismissed as a conspiracy theorist or worse. If you ask about foreign influence, you’re labeled a bigot.
“When you ask a direct question to someone in charge, you are due. That person is morally bound to give you an answer. He’s not bound to agree with you, but he’s bound to stop and answer your question.”
For Carlson, the refusal to answer—or even to allow the question—signals something deeper: a system that no longer respects its citizens, a leadership class that feels unaccountable, and a media that polices the boundaries of acceptable discourse.

The Broader Frustration
Carlson’s Epstein argument is not just about one man or one scandal. It’s about the frustration of ordinary people watching the powerful evade accountability—whether it’s billionaires, bureaucrats, or foreign governments. He draws a direct line from the Epstein case to broader issues of economic inequality, political corruption, and the erosion of trust in American institutions.
He argues that the “Epstein problem” is a microcosm for a larger crisis: a system where the rules don’t seem to apply to the elite, and where ordinary people are told to stop asking questions and accept whatever they’re told.
Why This Matters
For Carlson, the stakes are nothing less than the health of American democracy. He insists that citizens have a right—and a duty—to demand answers from those in power, no matter how uncomfortable those questions may be. He warns that silencing dissent and policing inquiry do not make problems go away; they only drive resentment underground.
“Criticizing the behavior of a government agency does not make you a hater. It makes you a free person. It makes you a citizen.”
Final Thoughts
Whether or not one agrees with Tucker Carlson’s conclusions, his insistence on the right to ask is a reminder of something fundamental: A free society depends on the ability to question, to doubt, and to demand answers from those who wield power. The Epstein saga, in Carlson’s telling, is not just about one man’s crimes—it’s about who gets to ask questions, who gets to decide what’s important, and who gets to be heard.
In the end, Carlson’s argument is less about proving a particular theory and more about defending the principle that no question—especially about those in power—should ever be off-limits.
Politics
Trump Backs Bondi Amid DOJ Fallout

By Bolanle Media | July 13, 2025
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The political storm surrounding Attorney General Pam Bondi deepened over the weekend as President Trump moved to defend her amid sharp criticism from within his own MAGA base. The controversy centers on a wave of reported firings at the Justice Department and growing outrage over the continued secrecy of the so-called “Epstein files.”

Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl described the situation as “murky,” highlighting the internal divide among Trump loyalists.
“This is a huge controversy that has pitted the MAGA movement—some of Trump’s loudest and most prominent supporters—against Pam Bondi and others in the Trump administration,” Karl explained. “At the core of this is the failure to release the Epstein investigative records.”
The files in question pertain to the late Jeffrey Epstein, a financier and convicted sex trafficker who died in jail in 2019. Many MAGA-aligned activists had anticipated their release under Bondi’s leadership, but the Justice Department has remained tight-lipped—prompting backlash.
That frustration was on full display during a Turning Point USA event in Tampa, where speaker after speaker blasted Bondi for what they see as a broken promise. The Epstein files have become a rallying cry for some of Trump’s most vocal online communities, who accuse the administration of protecting high-profile individuals named in the records.
However, in a lengthy post on Truth Social, President Trump came to Bondi’s defense, expressing “complete confidence” in the Attorney General.
“What is going on with my ‘boys’—and in some cases, gals?” Trump wrote. “They’re all going after Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is doing a fantastic job.”
Despite his remarks, the backlash within Trump’s movement shows no sign of cooling. Analysts say the episode reflects a growing divide between the political establishment aligned with Trump and the activist base that helped fuel his rise.

New Trump Tariffs Set to Hit U.S. Allies August 1
Further complicating matters for the administration are newly announced tariffs on key U.S. trading partners. Beginning August 1, the Trump administration will impose:
- 30% tariffs on goods from Mexico and the European Union
- 35% tariffs on Canadian imports
Karl reported that the move comes as a 90-day negotiation pause, previously announced by the White House, expires without any new trade agreements in place. The tariffs arrive during fragile talks with America’s closest allies and are already drawing sharp criticism abroad.
“These are significant tariffs,” Karl noted. “They are coming just as countries were trying to finalize trade deals with the United States. Now, the president is following through on his threat.”
For continuing coverage of this story and more national updates, stay with Bolanle Media.
Press inquiries: hello@bolanlemedia.com
- Business2 weeks ago
Pros and Cons of the Big Beautiful Bill
- Advice3 weeks ago
What SXSW 2025 Filmmakers Want Every New Director to Know
- Film Industry4 weeks ago
Filming Yourself and Look Cinematic
- News2 weeks ago
Father Leaps Overboard to Save Daughter on Disney Dream Cruise
- Health2 weeks ago
McCullough Alleges Government Hid COVID Vaccine Side Effects
- Advice3 weeks ago
Why 20% of Us Are Always Late
- Advice3 weeks ago
How to Find Your Voice as a Filmmaker
- Entertainment2 weeks ago
Juror 25’s Behavior Sparks Debate Over Fairness in High-Profile Diddy Trial