The leftist identitarian organization Black Lives Matter has long been attractive to bad actors keen to manufacture outrage and cash in on liberal guilt. While some BLM activists have already been exposed as criminals, it appears the rot goes far deeper.

The Justice Department announced on Thursday that a federal grand jury has indicted the executive director of Black Lives Matter Oklahoma City, Tashella Sheri Amore Dickerson, on charges of wire fraud and money laundering.

‘It is not about me at all.’

Dickerson, a 52-year-old pro-abortion and pro-Palestinian activist, is accused of embezzling millions of dollars and blowing various funds on recreational travel, shopping, real estate, and even a new vehicle.

Although not itself a registered tax-exempt organization, BLMOKC was apparently able to accept charitable donations through its affiliation with the Open Society Foundations-supported leftist organization Alliance for Global Justice — its fiscal sponsor — on the conditions that it use its funds only as permitted by Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and account for the disbursement of all funds received upon request.

The indictment alleges that the BLMOKC under Dickerson began hitting people and organizations up for cash in a big way around the time of the deadly 2020 BLM riots, ultimately raking in over $5.6 million.

Dickerson told the Oklahoman in July 2020, “It is very humbling to be able to serve my community and help people in this manner. But I also understand it is not about me at all. That it is all about being community.”

The DOJ indicated that BLMOKC was supposed to use grant money from national bail funds to post pretrial bail for race rioters, though it was sometimes permitted to keep some or all of the bail money when returned for the purposes of establishing a revolving bail fund or in service of its supposed “social justice mission.”

It turns out Dickerson had other ideas.

RELATED: University of Minnesota faces backlash over project that seeks to cure the ‘Whiteness Pandemic’

Photo by Ira L. Black/Corbis via Getty Images

According to the indictment, from June 2020 through at least October 2025, Dickerson allegedly embezzled funds from the BLM chapter’s coffers, depositing at least $3.15 million in returned bail checks into her personal accounts.

Rather than use the funds for so-called social justice or to spring thugs from jail, Dickerson allegedly blew the money on trips to Jamaica and the Dominican Republic; on costly retail shopping sprees; on a personal vehicle registered in her name; and on six real estate properties either deeded in her name or in the name of an entity she alone controlled.

Dickerson, who apparently had access to the group’s bank, Paypal, and CashApp accounts since its inception in 2016, also allegedly spent at least $50,000 on food deliveries for herself and her kids.

The indictment alleged further that Dickerson, adding insult to injury, repeatedly submitted false annual reports to Alliance for Global Justice, claiming that she had used the BLM chapter’s funds only for tax-exempt purposes.

“We seek to combat and counter acts of violence, create space for black sustainability and creativity, advocate for non-racist, non-oppressive policies, demand justice, and develop black power,” states the website for Dickerson’s BLM chapter.

The website’s donation page was still up at the time of publication.

Dickerson has been charged with 20 counts of wire fraud and five counts of money laundering. For each wire fraud charge, the BLM activist faces up to 20 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000. For each of the money laundering charges, she faces up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

Dickerson indicated in a Facebook video on Thursday she was not in custody and that she was “fine.” While she suggested she could not make an “official comment” about the indictment, she said, “A lot of times when people come at you with these types of things … it’s evidence that you are doing the work. That is what I’m standing on.”

The indictment in Oklahoma comes just months after Massachusetts-based BLM activist Monica Cannon-Grant pleaded guilty to three counts of wire fraud conspiracy, 10 counts of wire fraud, one count of mail fraud, and two counts each of filing false tax returns and failing to file tax returns.

The race hustler, whose Violence in Boston organization partnered with BLM, duped people into thinking she was helping reduce violence and promoting social awareness, when in fact, she was using their donations to enrich herself. She also defrauded the Boston COVID-19 relief fund, the Boston Office of Housing Stability, and other institutions.

Last year, BLM activist Tyree Conyers-Page of Ohio was convicted of wire fraud and money laundering. Prosecutors indicated that Conyers-Page defrauded donors of more than $450,000 that they collectively gave to his “Black Lives Matter of Greater Atlanta” organization, which he falsely claimed was a nonprofit.

WPDE-TV reported in May 2023 that federal tax filings from 2020 to 2022 revealed only $30 million of the $90 million BLM raised went to other charitable organizations; $22 million went to expenses; $1.6 million went to BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors’ father for security service; and $2.1 million went to BLM board member Shalomyah Bowers for consulting.

While activists sued the organization in the wake of reports that BLM co-founders Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Melina Abdullah treated themselves to a $6 million mansion in Southern California with donation money, their suit was dismissed in June 2023 by a judge who concluded their “complaint fails to sufficiently allege the how, when, where, to whom, and by what means” misrepresentations were tendered.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Black lives matter, Blm, Grifter, Race, Racist, Identitarian, Cullors, Tashella sjheri amore dickerson, Fraud, Wire fraud, Laundering, Embezzlement, Department of justice, Oklahoma, Blm okc, Politics 

The Trump administration is challenging bureaucracy and freeing up the tech industry from burdensome regulations as the AI race speeds on. This week saw Trump’s most recent efforts to keep the United States on the leading edge.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday that will challenge state AI regulations and work toward “a minimally burdensome national standard — not 50 discordant state ones.”

‘You can’t expect a company to get 50 Approvals every time they want to do something.’

“It is the policy of the United States to sustain and enhance the United States’ global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI,” the executive order reads.

The executive order commands the creation of the AI Litigation Task Force, “whose sole responsibility shall be to challenge state AI laws inconsistent with the policy set forth in … this order.”

RELATED: ‘America’s next Manifest Destiny’: Department of War unleashes new AI capabilities for military

Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP via Getty Images

The order provided more reasons for a national standard as well.

For example, it cited a new Colorado law banning “algorithmic discrimination,” which, the order argued, may force AI models to produce false results in order to comply with that stipulation. It also argued that state laws are responsible for much of the ideological bias in AI models and that state laws “sometimes impermissibly regulate beyond state borders, impinging on interstate commerce.”

On Monday, Trump hinted that he would sign an executive order this week that would challenge cumbersome AI regulations at the state level.

Trump said in a Truth Social post on Monday, “There must be only One Rulebook if we are going to continue to lead in AI.”

“We are beating ALL COUNTRIES at this point in the race, but that won’t last long if we are going to have 50 States, many of them bad actors, involved in RULES and the APPROVAL PROCESS,” Trump continued. “THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT THIS! AI WILL BE DESTROYED IN ITS INFANCY! I will be doing a ONE RULE Executive Order this week. You can’t expect a company to get 50 Approvals every time they want to do something.”

The order is framed as a provisional measure until Congress is able to establish a national standard to replace the “patchwork of 50 regulatory regimes” that is slowly rising out of the states.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Politics, Tech, Ai, Artificial intelligence, Executive order, Ai revolution, President trump, Trump, Ai litigation task force, Truth social, National standard for ai 

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

RELATED: Judges break the law to stop Trump from enforcing it

Photo by Jim WATSON / AFP via Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

​Opinion & analysis, Trump v. slaughter, Supreme court, Neil gorsuch, Administrative state, Permanent bureaucracy, Donald trump, Rebecca slaughter, Lawsuit, Constitution, Fourth branch, Presidency, Article ii, Experts, Debt, Covid-19 tyranny, Self-government