Situation Report
In Tuesday’s WarRoom, a conversation between Steve Bannon and Eric Prince aimed at non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the two men agreed that these groups are part of a “mass invasion” scheme along the U.S. border to usurp the US government. According to Prince, these organizations, under the guise of humanitarian aid, are effectively working to undermine national security by facilitating illegal immigration. He believes they are pushing government policies that lack sufficient oversight, and he argues that they should face legal consequences for their actions.
Bannon and Prince talked about a recent Prince social media post on matter:
As Team Trump is cleaning out the swamp it's great to know going after commie NGOs is constitutionally valid! pic.twitter.com/dzxMDWSdbq
— ErikDPrince (@realErikDPrince) November 11, 2024
“NGOs should be prosecuted for conspiring to lead an invasion of our country,” Prince stated. He argued that these groups, traditionally focused on social or charitable missions, are now deeply embedded in political issues, particularly immigration. Prince cited the 1996 expansion of the RICO Act as a basis for legal action. This law, initially intended to target organized crime, makes it illegal to encourage or employ undocumented immigrants. Prince believes it offers grounds for prosecuting NGOs he says are "systematically organizing mass illegal entry.”
The Influence of NGOs on Public Policy
While NGOs often present themselves as advocates for the vulnerable, Prince and Bannon argue they are increasingly pushing political agendas, especially in areas like immigration. NGOs play an influential role in shaping policies and mobilizing public opinion around divisive issues. Though they are independent of government oversight, Prince and Bannon argue that these organizations act as vehicles for implementing policies that would otherwise lack public support.
“Their primary mission might be education or charity,” said Bannon, “but many of these nonprofits are navigating deep political waters, advocating legislation, or driving community action on contentious issues like immigration. The public needs to know who is really shaping policy here.”
Existing Laws for Accountability
Prince pointed to the Immigration and Neutrality Act (INA) and the Communist Control Act of 1954, claiming these laws could help hold NGOs accountable. According to Prince, the INA could target groups encouraging or supporting illegal immigration. The Communist Control Act, which limits certain organizations’ legal rights, could apply to nonprofits he describes as aligned with "super-socialist” ideologies.
“This isn’t about new laws,” he noted. “These laws have been there since 1996. They just haven’t been enforced against NGOs.” Prince sees enforcement of these laws as a way for a future administration to curb what he calls an "industrialized crime” approach, which he claims the NGOs are orchestrating at the southern border.
Mike Davis Backs the Plan
Mike Davis, a legal commentator joining the conversation, agreed with Prince, saying, "There should absolutely be a criminal investigation of this.” He argued that recent administrations allowed for "mass parole” and an influx of immigrants from global hotspots, adding to domestic safety risks. Davis proposed that a future president should instruct the Attorney General to investigate these groups on day one, signaling his belief in executive power to direct probes and enforce national security.
For more of our coverage of Prince:
A Radical Vision for Change
Prince finishes his remarks with a bold suggestion: "The president can and should order the DHS and military to act on this if necessary.” His recommendation goes beyond prosecution, suggesting that the administration could use direct force to secure borders if NGOs are found to be encouraging illegal crossings.
For more context watch Tuesday’s WarRoom segment:
