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.

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.

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.”

With diplomatic tensions rising and internal divisions deepening, the Trump administration enters a critical period that could shape its economic and political agenda for the rest of the year.

For continuing coverage of this story and more national updates, stay with Bolanle Media.
Press inquiries: hello@bolanlemedia.com