Search This Blog

Tuesday, February 3, 2026

Why Skyrocketing Premiums Were Inevitable With Obamacare's Design

 by Lawrence Wilson via The Epoch Times,

The Affordable Care Act would “bend the cost curve” in health care, “moving the health care system toward higher quality and more efficient care.” So said a White House statement in 2013.

Many people now agree that didn’t happen.

“We pay more than any other country in the world for worse health care,” Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) said while campaigning for office in 2024.

“Families pay more, get less, and we’re left with few choices,” Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) testified in a December 2025 committee hearing.

A combined 70 percent of Americans believe the U.S. health care system is either in crisis or has major problems, according to a 2025 Gallup poll.

Health insurance premiums have more than doubled since Obamacare began in 2014, rising twice as fast as inflation. And satisfaction with the cost of health care registered a record low in 2025, at 16 percent.

How did that happen?

Many consumers believe insurance companies are responsible. Insurers shift the blame to hospitals and pharmaceutical companies. Pharmaceutical companies say pharmacy benefit managers are at fault. Political parties blame each other.

Some independent observers agree that the rise in premiums, especially recently, is largely driven by external forces, including the increased use of expensive medications, rising labor costs, and inflation, which reached a 40-year high in 2022.

Others see a more basic cause, one with roots in the Affordable Care Act, the federal law that created Obamacare. Some of the same policies that make Obamacare popular with consumers are actually cracks in its foundation, these observers say. Those policies all but guaranteed premium increases, especially in the program’s early years.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) speaks to reporters as he leaves the House chamber at the U.S. Capitol on Dec. 17, 2025. On Jan. 8, 2026, seventeen House Republicans joined Democrats to pass a three-year extension of the expired Affordable Care Act premium tax credits. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Here are the key provisions of Obamacare, which some experts say undermined its success.

Foundations of Obamacare

The Affordable Care Act made profound changes in the health insurance industry. One of the changes required insurance companies to issue health insurance in the individual and small-group markets to any applicant, regardless of pre-existing illness.

Americans generally like that idea. More than two-thirds of the public says that provision is very important, according to polling by health care research group KFF. That includes 54 percent of Republicans, 66 percent of independents, and 79 percent of Democrats.

Known as guaranteed issue, this was one of four foundational provisions built into Obamacare to make health insurance available to more Americans.

The second foundation was community rating, which required insurers to rate, or price, their plans based on the demographic profile of a community, with only limited increases based on age and tobacco use. According to this provision, premiums for people of the same age group in the same geographic area are pretty much the same.

The third foundation was the requirement that certain essential health benefits be included in every plan, except for catastrophic health plans. This ensured that consumers would get real value for their money and not be surprised to find that services such as emergency room visits or maternity care were not covered.

The Department of Health and Human Services eventually decided on 10 essential health benefits.

The final foundation was the individual mandate. This required most adults to either buy health insurance or pay a fine. The point was to keep overall costs down by ensuring that young, healthy people, who would likely incur fewer charges, would stay in the market. The fine was $95 per adult in 2014 and rose to $695 by 2016.

Informational pamphlets are displayed during a health care enrollment fair in Richmond, Calif., on March 31, 2014. Health insurance premiums have more than doubled since Obamacare began in 2014, rising twice as fast as inflation. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Though some of these provisions were popular with consumers, they increased both cost and risk for health insurers. And though the new rules made insurance premiums lower for some customers, prices went up for some others.

And the new rules applied to all new plans for individual and small-group insurance sold in the United States, guaranteeing a shift in the entire market, not just the Obamacare exchanges.

Higher Cost, Increased Risk

As the Affordable Care Act was being considered and implemented, stakeholders warned that these sweeping changes could make insurance more expensive. At a minimum, they said, the requirement that plans cover a suite of essential health benefits could raise premiums.

The Board of Health Care Services at the National Academies warned that including too many essential health benefits could make insurance unaffordable for individuals and small businesses.

“If this occurs, the principal reason for the [Affordable Care Act]—enabling people to purchase health insurance and thus covering more of the population—will not be met,” the board wrote in 2012.

Insurers were wary too. America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, told regulators in a 2012 letter that the choice of essential health benefits would have “far-reaching implications” on the affordability of health insurance.

Increased risk was also a concern.

Insurers speculated on the legality of the individual mandate and warned that Obamacare wouldn’t be viable without it.

“The insurance market reforms cannot function as Congress intended without the mandate and therefore should be struck down if the mandate is held to be unconstitutional,” the insurance trade group argued in a brief filed with the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.

The old risk management strategy of medical underwriting—pricing premiums based on the underlying health risks of an individual or members of a small group—was no longer an option.

Community pricing would reduce premiums for people with pre-existing conditions or other health risks. But premiums would increase for younger and healthier people. Some observers feared that younger people might stay out of the market, then buy health insurance only when they became ill.

If that happened, it would throw off the risk predictions insurers had made, leaving them with an older, sicker population to cover. In the insurance business, this situation is known as adverse selection.

Timothy Jost of Washington and Lee University School of Law, in a 2010 report for The Commonwealth Fund, called that possibility “the greatest threat facing exchanges.”

Michael F. Cannon, a health policy expert at the Cato Institute, in 2010 saw the potential for an “adverse-selection death spiral.”

Risk Mitigation

The Affordable Care Act acknowledged the increased risk for insurers and included three provisions to keep premium prices stable.

First, the law included a risk adjustment. This was meant to protect health plans that wound up ensuring an exceptionally high-risk group of people. Plans that wound up with a lower-than-average risk group would make a payment to plans having a higher-than-average risk group.

Second, the law included a reinsurance program. This was to help plans deal with unexpectedly high medical costs for an individual enrollee. All insurers paid into a reinsurance pool. At the end of the year, each could submit a claim for individual enrollee costs that exceeded a certain threshold. This program, which was intended to be temporary, ran from 2014 through 2016.

Third, the law created risk corridors. This was to help health plans whose total claim payments exceeded the predicted amount. Plans that had lower-than-expected claim totals would pay into a fund. The fund would make payments to plans with claim costs higher than their target amount. This program was also intended to be temporary and ran from 2014 through 2016.

A customer meets with a Sunshine Life and Health Advisors agent while waiting for the Affordable Care Act website to come back online to purchase a health insurance plan in Miami on March 31, 2014. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The Spiral Begins

The first several years of Obamacare saw lower-than-expected enrollment, higher-than-anticipated costs, and diminishing choice in the marketplace.

Enrollment was significantly lower than expected in the early years, which observers had warned could be a sign of adverse selection.

After a shaky start due to glitches in the online marketplaces, enrollment in 2014 actually exceeded the modest Congressional Budget Office forecast.

Yet the overall market grew by just 4.2 million that year, as many of the 8 million Obamacare enrollees were people who had moved over from the commercial market, according to a report by Amanda E. Kowalski of Yale University.

By 2018, Obamacare enrollment stood at 11.8 million, nearly 1 million less than in 2016 and less than half of the 25 million predicted by that date.

Data suggest that many of the missing enrollees were young adults.

Obamacare needed an enrollment mix that included 38 percent young adults to avoid a “death spiral,” Cato Institute reported in early 2014.

At the close of its first enrollment period in 2014, Obamacare had an enrollment pool that was just 28 percent young adults aged 18–34. A Commonwealth Fund report indicated that people whose premiums increased had been slightly less likely to buy insurance in 2014. Young adults would have been among those whose rates went up.

The individual mandate, which aimed to offset this factor, faced court challenges beginning in 2010. Though it was not ultimately ruled unconstitutional, Congress set the penalty for noncompliance at $0 in 2017, effectively ending the federal mandate.

A pedestrian walks past an insurance agency that offers Affordable Care Act plans, in Miami on Jan. 28, 2021. Following the COVID-19 pandemic and enhanced subsidies approved by Congress in 2021, enrollment more than doubled, reaching a record 24.3 million in 2025. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Enrollee age was not the only indicator of adverse enrollment, Kowalski reported. Her analysis of cost data concluded that marketplaces in at least 16 states experienced adverse enrollment in 2014.

Data indicate the cost of insuring Obamacare enrollees exceeded expected levels in the early years.

The reinsurance program had obligations exceeding income by nearly $10 billion over three years.

The risk corridors program fared no better. Income was insufficient to meet obligations in 2014, so all 2015 income and at least a part of 2016 income was used to pay off the 2014 shortfall.

The increased coverage requirements had the predictable effect of increasing premium prices, according to a 2017 report by the Department of Health and Human Services.

“In most states these regulations increased insurance coverage requirements and would be expected, on average, to increase the price of [Affordable Care Act]-compliant plans relative to pre-[Affordable Care Act] plans all else equal.”

Premiums increased 22 percent in the first year and a total of 84 percent by 2018.

Insurers began to leave the marketplace. In 2015, an average of 8.8 insurers in each state participated in Obamacare, according to KFF. By 2018, that number had dropped more than one-third.

The COVID Years and Beyond

In the middle years of Obamacare, enrollment decreased, then plateaued after reaching a high of 12.7 million in 2016. Premiums decreased somewhat too, dropping about 9 percent over four years from their high point in 2018. And insurer participation ticked up slightly in 2019.

Then came COVID-19 and the enhanced premium subsidies created by Congress in 2021.

A woman wearing a face mask walks past a COVID-19 test site in Manhattan, N.Y., on Nov. 2, 2020. Chung I Ho/The Epoch Times

Those enhanced subsidies, which expired in 2025, provided financial help to Americans with higher incomes and further lowered the cost of Obamacare for low-income people. Enrollment more than doubled, reaching an all-time high of 24.3 million in 2025.

Yet as enrollment spiraled upward, so did premiums. Prices reached a new high in 2025, averaging $497 per month for a 40-year-old enrolled in the most popular plan.

What didn’t change dramatically was the age profile of enrollees. Though some young adults entered the market in the era of enhanced subsidies, their numbers never exceeded the 2014 rate of 28 percent.

And despite a rise in the number of insurers doing business in Obamacare, some of the largest companies say they find it unprofitable.

David Joyner, the CEO of CVS Health, testifying before Congress on Jan. 22,  said its costs exceeded income in the Obamacare marketplaces last year, and Gail Boudreaux, CEO of Elevance Health—the parent company of Anthem—said it did not turn a profit from Obamacare in 2025.

David Cordani of The Cigna Group said, “We lost money in the exchange all but two years since 2014.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/why-skyrocketing-premiums-were-inevitable-obamacares-design

New York Released Almost 7,000 Criminal Illegal Aliens

 On Feb. 2, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a press release about the arrest of Gerardo Miguel-Mora, a criminal illegal alien with an extremely lengthy rap sheet for strangulation, rape, grand larceny, burglary, sexual assault, and drug possession. New York City released Miguel-Mora because city officials refuse to honor ICE detainers, so ICE had to re-arrest him on Jan. 30 of this year. But Miguel-Mora is no exception. He is one of thousands of illegal aliens who benefitted, at least temporarily, from sanctuary policies.

At the end of the release on Miguel-Mora, DHS included two illuminating paragraphs of data covering Jan. 20, 2025, when Donald Trump took office, up to the present time. DHS said that New York, in defying ICE detainers, freed 6,947 criminal illegal aliens.

DHS explained further:

The crimes of these aliens include 29 homicides, 2,509 assaults, 199 burglaries, 305 robberies, 392 dangerous drugs offenses, 300 weapons offenses, and 207 sexual predatory offenses.

There are currently 7,113 aliens in the custody of a New York jurisdiction with an active detainer. The crimes of these aliens include 148 homicides, 717 assaults, 134 burglaries, 106 robberies, 235 dangerous drugs offenses, 152 weapons offenses, and 260 sexual predatory offenses.

 

And since Commie Mamdani is now mayor of New York City, expect such numbers to grow even more out-of-control.

Since the DHS used Miguel-Mora as an example, I will too. Between July and August of 2011 — more than a decade ago — authorities charged Miguel-Mora with various crimes including strangulation and rape. The New York State Supreme Court convicted the illegal alien of burglary in 2012, and sentenced him to 42 months in jail, plus 10 years of post-release supervision.

In 2023, Miguel-Mora was still in the United States for some insane reason, and the New York Police Department arrested and charged him with false personation and grand larceny. NYPD subsequently arrested and charged the criminal illegal alien with crimes twice in 2024, releasing him the very day after the arrest both times to avoid ICE detainers. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a criminal warrant for Miguel-Mora for illegal reentry as an aggravated felon in 2025.

In January of this year, NYPD arrested Miguel-Mora twice, but released him both times despite the federal arrest warrant and ICE detainer. So ICE finally had to arrest Miguel-Mora themselves.

Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin emphasized, “These are the types of public safety threats New York Governor Hochul and Mayor Mamdani are releasing from their jails onto the streets to perpetrate more crimes and create more victims. We need local law enforcement to cooperate with us to get these heinous criminals out of our neighborhoods. 7 of the 10 safest cities in the United States cooperate with ICE. We are once again calling on Governor Hochul to commit to turning the more than 7,000 heinous criminals in New York’s custody over to ICE.”

If only Democrats cared about the safety of their citizens.

https://pjmedia.com/catherinesalgado/2026/02/02/new-york-released-almost-7k-criminal-illegal-aliens-n4949034

Inside Minneapolis’s ICE Watch Network

 In less than a month, two “ICE watchers” have been shot and killed by immigration enforcement agents in Minneapolis. On January 24, a federal agent shot and killed 37-year-old Alex Pretti, a Veterans Affairs ICU nurse. His death follows that of Renée Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, who was killed on January 7.

Both Pretti and Good participated in “ICE watching,” an anti-immigration-enforcement tactic that can involve tracking ICE agents, filming arrests, and alerting other activists of enforcement actions. While participants frame ICE watching as a “community safety” measure, these tactics often place untrained civilians in direct, high-stakes confrontation with armed federal agents.

In Minneapolis, one key organizer of these activities is “Defend the 612.” The group, the membership of which apparently included Renee Good, oversees a massive network of Signal chats dedicated to monitoring and protesting ICE activity. It has become the beating heart of the city’s resistance to federal immigration enforcement. (The group’s name refers to the Minneapolis area code.)

City Journal reviewed Defend the 612’s trainings, entered its Signal network, and traced its organizational support. Our reporting reveals that members and related officials have encouraged protesters to impede law enforcement; pushed civilians toward legally and physically risky confrontations; and helped mobilize a counterprotest that turned violent.

The group’s growth threatens to stoke the city’s already-raging fire.

Defend the 612 lists ICE-watch trainings on its website, sometimes many per week. These trainings instruct attendees how to identify, document, and alert others to immigration enforcement, and to relay information through neighborhood-based Signal networks.

Some sessions are led by Defend the 612 organizers, while others are taught by outside groups such as States at the Core (STAC) and Project RP. None of these groups responded to City Journal’s request for comment.

STAC was co-founded in 2024 by organizer Jill Garvey. The group trains community members to amplify local disputes into national stories. In rural Tennessee, for example, STAC helped residents spin a real estate project into an international story about “white nationalists.” STAC operates within the largest funding networks in progressive politics. It is fiscally sponsored by the Hopewell Fund, part of the Arabella Advisors “dark money” network.

Garvey previously worked with Protect RP (Rogers Park), a Chicago-based group that developed an early and widely emulated ICE-watching template in 2017. She has turned that operational blueprint into a national strategy; STAC claims to have helped activists implement ICE-watch frameworks in 20 states since early 2025.

Project RP, which cohosts trainings with STAC, has used a template centered on direct interference with enforcement. A Project RP organizer, Gabe Gonzalez, explained in 2017 that the group’s activities were “about interfering with [immigration enforcement], confusing them, slowing them down so they can’t take more people, and doing it so well that they never want to come back.” Last November, he reiterated the group’s objective to make immigration enforcement “uncomfortable and inefficient.”

A version of this model reached Minneapolis in December 2025. On January 8, Garvey joined “ICE Watch Welcome and Orientation,” a training event hosted by Defend the 612 organizer and longtime activist Andrew Fahlstrom. On the call, Garvey said that she had worked with “organizers in Minneapolis over the last five weeks,” suggesting she may have been working with Defend the 612, which was founded on December 1, 2025.

While Defend the 612’s trainings are less explicitly supportive of enforcement interference than Project RP’s, they nevertheless encourage protesters to disrupt officers. At the same training, for example, Lex Horan, an instructor, encouraged participants to make ICE’s work “too expensive,” “too difficult,” and “too annoying” to continue. Horan recounted having blown a whistle at a protest, which, she claimed, allowed the person ICE was questioning to “g[e]t away.”

Later at the same meeting, Minneapolis City Council Member Dan Engelhart (who did not respond to a comment request), removed all doubt about the group’s mission. Defend the 612’s goal, he said, is to “slow [law enforcement actions] down and cost them money.”

Defend the 612 uses Signal, an end-to-end encrypted messaging platform, to bring these tactics from the classroom to the streets. The group operates an extensive network of neighborhood- and task-based Signal chats, where members monitor ICE activity, train fellow activists, and coordinate protests.

Until recent publicity prompted the group to change tactics, new members faced a straightforward onboarding process. Prospective members signed up through Defend the 612’s website and received an email directing them to join one of the “Neighborhood Networks”—large Signal chats that direct participants to a list of more than 150 neighborhood- and task-based groups across Minnesota.

After joining a neighborhood’s listed chat, administrators contact participants and ask them to choose from a menu of additional, unlisted role-based chats specific to that neighborhood, such as the “Non-Cooperation Team” (which “build[s] a larger strategy to resist ICE and authoritarianism”) and “Patrol Team” (which “[c]reates systems of safety” around “ICE hotspots”). Depending on the role, these chats are either vetted—meaning Defend the 612 administrators screen prospective group members—or unvetted. In unvetted chats, administrators and others encourage participants to use nicknames and avoid discussing illegal activity.

The most active unvetted chats are dedicated to “rapid response” at the neighborhood level. In these discussions, participants track suspected ICE agents—by car and on foot—and post suspected officers’ locations, photos, and license plate numbers. Alongside the text chat, a dispatcher hosts a live group phone call, employing paramilitary jargon—such as “copy,” “roger,” “eyes on,” and “keep the air clear”—to coordinate surveillance of ICE agents.

Each group’s Signal description contains reference links that help Defend the 612 members better surveil federal immigration enforcement. Some chats link to instruction documents that train members how, for example, to follow suspected ICE officers’ vehicles. Others link to crowdsourced logs, which include a running database of more than 4,800 license plates of confirmed and suspected ICE vehicles; a log of deportation-related travel; and a list of nearly 70 hotels where ICE agents have been known to stay.

Many neighborhoods have a “vetted” chat for members involved in “mutual aid”: coordinating grocery delivery, transportation, and rental assistance for immigrants. (Advocates generally used euphemisms, such as “vulnerable neighbors,” to avoid referring to immigrants’ legal status in communications.) In some cases, these members discussed how to bring supplies to immigrants’ homes to reduce the risk of detection. Members have discussed the tactic of writing down immigrants’ addresses on paper, not their phones, and eating the paper if confronted by law enforcement.

Another vetted chat, “Communications,” is dedicated to crafting an “external narrative-shaping strategy” for the ICE-watch movement. Members characterized their media work as “propaganda” and insisted on the need to “maintain control of your narratives.” To that end, participants discussed the need to condition their speech to journalists on retaining editorial control over how stories are written.

This arrangement runs counter to standard newsroom best practice. But chat participants claimed that the Minnesota Reformer—“an independent, nonprofit news” outlet whose parent organization was funded by the Arabella Advisors–managed Hopewell Fund—made an exception. In one exchange in the Communications chat, an account that appeared to belong to activist Elle Neubauer described allowing a Minnesota Reformer reporter to accompany him as he followed ICE agents in his vehicle, for a story published January 13. Neubauer claimed the reporter had agreed in advance to give activists final say over the article, which he said was read aloud to them line by line, revised at their request, and would have been pulled entirely on request. Members later debated whether the piece amounted to “good propaganda or bad propaganda,” warning that “propaganda will win or lose the fight and support for it.”

“We stand by our story. We absolutely dispute the characterization,” Reformer Editor-in-Chief J. Patrick Coolican told City Journal. “We offered to call and read their quotes and the context prior to publication to check for accuracy and their personal safety, which is standard practice on a story like this. We assured the sources their participation was entirely up to them. We explicitly told them we would not send them a draft of the story.” Neubauer did not respond to a request for comment.

In other Signal groups, members discuss how best to disrupt federal immigration enforcement. Members encouraged other participants to memorize the hotline of the National Lawyers Guild—“the nation’s oldest and largest progressive bar association”—for free legal services. One participant described getting arrested as a tool to divert agents from “vulnerable community members,” and encouraged other participants “to be super annoying and waste” law enforcement’s “time and resources.”

Members repeatedly referenced the “Simple Sabotage Field Manual,” an activist handbook that members used to generate ways to impede ICE. Members discussed throwing urine at agents, praising one such incident as “mvp” behavior. A daily update account called “The Report Card” encouraged participants to “annoy” agents with constant noise. They view “noise making and interrupting their meals and bathroom breaks” as essential, noting these tactics “serve a critical role in draining their morale.”

These Signal networks have also functioned as an organizing hub for an aggressive counterprotest. In the days leading up to a demonstration by right-wing influencer Jake Lang in Minneapolis earlier this month, members in Defend the 612’s “Phillips and Powderhorn” chat circulated a post about a “defensive counteraction.” They posted an image of a hanging Klansman and tactical guidelines instructing members to mask up, wear goggles, and not film attendees. One accompanying graphic marked as “false” the statement, “Nonviolence is the only strategy.”

(City Journal’s pseudonymous account made the suggestion that the demonstrators take a nonviolent approach. An administrator removed our account from the group.)

Other members defended the inclusion of militant advocates by citing “St. Paul’s Principles”—a framework that forbids the denunciation of fellow activists’ tactics. Following a violent clash that Saturday, group members circulated videos of Lang being dragged into a mob and struck over the head, gloating over the images as evidence that their counterprotest had been effective.

Such aggressive protest tactics can have lethal consequences. Defend the 612 members witnessed as much when Renee Good—whose name and likeness appeared on a profile in one of its Signal chats—was killed by an ICE officer after driving her car in his vicinity and refusing to heed his instructions.

For Defend the 612 organizers, Good’s death was a recruiting opportunity. The evening Good died, Defend the 612 held an “emergency vigil,” during which flyers were distributed directing attendees to join the group. At Defend the 612’s training session the following day, Fahlstrom reported about 1,000 new signups.

At that training, organizers described federal immigration enforcement in charged terms, characterizing the legal detentions of illegal immigrants as “kidnappings” and “abductions,” and portraying Minneapolis as being under federal “occupation” and facing “[r]ising authoritarianism.”

In another training on Defend the 612’s website, Garvey insisted that federal immigration enforcement has nothing to do with crime or “an invasion.” Instead, she suggested, the White House was simply “scapegoat[ing] vulnerable people” as part of an “escalation of authoritarianism.” This framing effectively provides a rationale for ignoring officers’ commands during field encounters.

Fahlstrom described Good’s death as an “assassination.” Another organizer noted that Good was on “driving patrol” at the time she died. Footage from various angles shows Good in her car blocking traffic and honking her horn. Her partner, Becca Good, was outside the vehicle filming and speaking with ICE agent Jonathan Ross. In the footage, Renee appears to be smiling and ignoring orders from approaching agents. She then attempted to drive the vehicle before she was shot. Afterwards, Becca—who told Renee to drive—can be heard screaming, “Why did you have real bullets?”

Defense lawyer Kira Kelley spoke during the Defend the 612 training and downplayed the danger associated with “driving patrols.” “We saw with Renee’s tragic assassination that driving patrols do carry some physical risk,” she said, but “The biggest risk of all is to do nothing.”

Kelley, who did not respond to a comment request, advised participants to roll up their windows, remain silent, and refuse to open doors if agents approach. She did not clearly explain, however, that refusal to comply with lawful commands during an enforcement action can constitute interference. Rather than telling participants to refrain from all illegal activity, she advised them not to discuss illegal activity in Signal chats.

Absent from the Defend the 612 training was any instruction to put one’s personal safety first. Instead, Lex Horan asked volunteers to “stretch” their willingness to take risks.

Such risk-taking contributed to Good’s death. Had she complied with officers’ commands—regardless of their merits—she would almost certainly still be alive.

The death of Alex Pretti last weekend is only the latest tragedy to emerge from a model that places untrained civilians in the middle of high-stakes federal operations. While official accounts and bystander videos of the Saturday shooting at 26th Street and Nicollet Avenue offer conflicting narratives about the split-second escalation, the outcome highlights the extreme physical risk of inserting oneself into the immediate perimeter of armed agents.

Following the shooting, the Defend the 612 network has not slowed down. Instead, organizers are leveraging the fatality to fuel a new wave of activity, urging more people to enter the same dangerous settings that claimed Pretti’s life.

Rather than pausing to reassess the safety of these tactics, Defend the 612 launched a series of 90-minute trainings. On Sunday, less than 24 hours after the shooting, an organizer sent an emergency message to the group’s Signal chats. “The only way these senseless murders, detentions and acts of violence will stop,” the message read, “is if tens and thousands [sic] of us are on the streets protecting each other.”

This cycle reveals the core strategy of Defend the 612’s leadership: using casualties as a catalyst for further escalation. Organizers continue to push volunteers into unpredictable scenes, ensuring continued confrontations between residents and federal agents, while the professional architects of the chaos remain shielded from the consequences.

Leaked Iran ‘playbook’ says Tehran long planned bloodbath on protesters: resistance group

 Iran’s ruling clerics knew a nationwide revolt was coming — and plotted a brutal, premeditated crackdown months in advance, according to explosive new audio recordings and secret regime documents released Tuesday by the most prominent Iranian opposition group in the US.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose intelligence first identified Iran’s nuclear program in 2002, said the Tehran regime coldly mapped out a mass slaughter of protesters — including orders to cut off the internet, unleash live fire on crowds, embed undercover agents in demonstrations and manipulate protest chants to weaken the uprising.

“This was not panic. This was a plan,” NCRI US Deputy Director Alireza Jafarzadeh told reporters at a briefing in Washington. “They anticipated a national uprising — and prepared to crush it.”

The National Council of Resistance of Iran released proof on Tuesday that the Tehran regime coldly mapped out its mass slaughter of protesters last month.AP

Protests erupted in more than 400 cities across all 31 provinces, sweeping in students, workers, women, ethnic minorities and entire families — a scale NCRI called “unprecedented” under the Islamic Republic.

Crowds chanted “Death to Khamenei” and “Death to the dictator,” directly challenging Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in scenes that, Jafarzadeh said, “terrified the regime.” Even Khamenei recently admitted the unrest threatened the regime’s survival, calling it an attempted coup.

“This uprising caught the mullahs by surprise,” Jafarzadeh said. “It shook the foundations of their rule.”

The opposition group unveiled a 129-page “Comprehensive Tehran Security Plan,” drafted by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Sarallah Garrison in fall 2024 — months before the protests erupted.

The plan, parts of which The Post has reviewed, details identifying “high-risk” citizens and families likely to protest, at what point to deploy IRGC forces, when to impose internet blackouts and isolate protesters and how to escalate the crackdown from police control to military suppression.

It also laid out the main reason behind civilians’ distaste for the radical Islamist regime, indicating Khamenei knew well in advance that his people disapproved of his leadership bringing on sanctions for his pursuit of nuclear weapons and support of proxy terrorist groups — and why.

“What currently causes the greatest public dissatisfaction is people’s concern and frustration over the repeated fluctuations in the exchange rate, and consequently the disruption of prices in the market, which has affected other areas such as cultural, social, political, sports and so forth,” the document said.

Another top-secret Interior Ministry directive outlined a four-stage crisis response, including pre-authorized orders to slow or completely shut down internet access once unrest reached a critical stage to isolate protesters and prevent the world from observing the scenes.

Protesters called for the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who leads Tehran’s radical Islamist government.Iranian Supreme Leader'S Office via ZUMA Press / SplashNews.com

“By order of the IRGC commander-in-chief, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology is olbligated to impose internet restrictions (cutting or slowing connectivity, etc.) in the areas experiencing unrest,” the document said.

Jafarzadeh said the document “proves the internet shutdown was not spontaneous.”

“It was written into their playbook,” he said.

NCRI also released an audio recording from an April 2025 high-level security meeting, attended by Iran’s intelligence minister and senior provincial officials.

In the tape played for reporters on Tuesday, officials bragged that they had neutralized all potential threats and believed another uprising was impossible.

“Just months later, their worst nightmare became reality,” Jafarzadeh said.

Iranian forces firing indiscriminately on crowds of protesters, blinding demonstrators with rubber bullets, storming hospitals, killing wounded protesters, hiding bodies — and even forcing grieving families to pay for the bullets the regime used to kill their loved ones, according to NCRI.

“This was not crowd control,” Jafarzadeh said. “This was a crime against humanity.”

NCRI has identified roughly 2,257 people killed during the January crackdown — with more names still being verified. The total death toll is likely far higher — with some international estimates as high as 30,000 — as some families decline to report their loved ones’ deaths for fear of reprisal of the regime.

The dead included at least 150 children and 245 women, with tens of thosands wounded and more than 50,000 protesters arrested, according to NCRI’s findings.

The NCRI has identified more than 2,250 protesters slaughtered by the IRHC last month during Tehran’s crackdown.MEK/The Media Express/SIPA/Shutterstock

“These are martyrs of a national uprising,” Jafarzadeh said. “Their courage and sacrifice have been unprecedented.”

The resistance group also said the regime planted plainclothes operatives inside demonstrations to disrupt anti-Khamenei momentum.

When crowds began chanting “Death to Khamenei,” agents allegedly redirected chants toward pro-Shah slogans — an effort to fracture the movement and confuse the public, according to NCRI.

“They tried to dilute the uprising and divert attention from the real target: Khamenei,” Jafarzadeh said.

The protests reached major cities including Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan and Kermanshah, as well as smaller towns across Iran’s Kurdish, Baluchi and Azeri regions.

In some areas, demonstrators even temporarily seized control of neighborhoods — forcing security forces to retreat for hours before the IRGC stormed back in.

Jafarzadeh also highlighted cases of young activists killed in the crackdown, including university students and resistance members, describing them as symbols of a generation “willing to risk everything” to topple the regime.

Despite the bloodshed, Jafarzadeh argued the crackdown failed to crush the movement — and instead deepened public rage.

“This massacre did not intimidate the people,” Jafarzadeh said. “It convinced millions that there is only one solution — to end the rule of the clerics.”

https://nypost.com/2026/02/03/world-news/leaked-files-reveal-iran-had-long-planned-its-bloodbath-on-protesters-resistance-group-says/