The White House is apparently reporting directly to Moscow.

A staffer from TASS, a Russian outlet that often promotes glorified coverage of Russian leader Vladimir Putin, was briefly in the room for President Donald Trump’s bilateral meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. American media mainstays Reuters and the Associated Press were not granted access.

For a reporter from TASS (a Russian state media outlet known to have close ties to the Kremlin) to gain access to the Oval Office during a sensitive meeting with the Ukrainian president suggests a serious security lapse was deliberate.

Trump recently has taken direct control over which journalists are granted access the Oval Office. His centralization of media access, under strict Goebbels-like control, creates a system where honest news outlets can be excluded while dangerous ones (in this case, foreign state media) are sold entry.

In related news, Russia now is an insider threat:

…analysts at [the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency] were verbally informed that they were not to follow or report on Russian threats, even though this had previously been a main focus for the agency. “People are saying Russia is winning. Putin is on the inside now.”

A very cynical twist to this great replacement strategy, moving Russian assets inside the federal government to replace citizens that Trump tries to outrage, is the trap being set.

…mass firings could offer a rich recruitment opportunity for foreign intelligence services that might seek to exploit financially vulnerable or resentful former employees.

Here’s the story: restrict American information flow, remove American focus on Russian threats, and create the most toxic environment possible to push disgruntled former employees into Russian recruitment.

Taken together, these systematic changes compromise national security interests in ways that benefit Russia, as well as other adversaries. This pattern isn’t novel, as it parallels several historical precedents where governments became compromised by foreign influence:

• The Vichy regime in France during WWII represents one of the most stark examples. After France fell to Nazi Germany, the Vichy government under Marshal Pétain actively collaborated with German authorities, restricting press freedom, purging civil servants deemed disloyal, and essentially functioning as a proxy administration that served foreign interests while maintaining a façade of independence.
• The situation in Czechoslovakia before and during the 1948 Communist coup offers another parallel. Soviet-aligned officials gradually gained control of key ministries, particularly interior and information ministries, allowing them to control security forces and media access. This culminated in the complete communist takeover, with opposition voices silenced and government functions increasingly serving Soviet rather than Czech interests.
• In more recent history, Viktor Yanukovych’s administration in Ukraine (2010-2014) showed similar patterns. His government increasingly aligned with Russian interests, restricted press freedom, and made policy decisions that benefited Moscow while undermining Ukraine’s relationship with Western democracies – ultimately leading to the Euromaidan protests and his ousting.

Is Trump the new Yanukovych?

What makes these historical examples particularly troubling is how they began with seemingly isolated incidents such as changes to press access, selective enforcement of security protocols, and personnel changes in key positions, before evolving into comprehensive systems of foreign compromise and control.