Unearthed 2015 Ben Carson Clip: “Psyops,” Nathan Hale, and the New Erika Kirk “Asset” Push

Jan 14, 2026

Somebody dusted off a 2015-era political interview clip and tossed it into the January 2026 content grinder with a fresh label: “PSYOPS / manipulation / CIA connections deepen.” The X account Project Constitution is pointing at Erika Frantzve (now Erika Kirk) interviewing Dr. Ben Carson, then doing the classic connect-the-dots montage—elite access, history talk, “America’s first spy,” and boom: “deep state embedded?”

Let’s break down what’s actually in the receipt… versus what’s being implied.

The X post + the “unearthed” clip (what it’s selling)

The post frames the interview as a tell: Erika brings up cultural softening, manipulation, and then the conversation shifts into Nathan Hale—which the post portrays as “the OG intelligence asset,” a “precursor to the CIA,” and proof we’re watching an intelligence-adjacent narrative being normalized.

It also stacks other circulating claims (INSA references, Romania ties, trafficking allegations, military/intel proximity) into a single storyline: “This is not a normal person’s network.”

The boring part they don’t want you to notice: this was a legit media interview

Whatever you think about the modern lore, there’s a straightforward public breadcrumb: The DM Zone published a page describing Ben Carson being interviewed by Dianemarie Collins and Erika Frantzve for the launch of the Wake Up America network.

That page also highlights a quote that fits the “manipulation” theme perfectly—Carson describing how anger can be used as a control lever.

So yes: Erika interviewing Ben Carson in that era is a real, documented thing—not a Photoshop fever dream.

“Psyops” or just… politics?

Here’s where Conspiracy Unearthed puts the flashlight under the chin:

Talking about manipulation is not tradecraft. It’s a normal political-media trope. Every movement believes “the other side” manipulates people.
Nathan Hale coming up in an interview doesn’t magically transform a TV segment into a CIA recruitment ad. It can be used as symbolism in a narrative—sure. But symbolism isn’t proof.
“Elite access” can mean: PR, media booking, pageant/media circles, political networking, or simply being in the right place at the right time.

So the post isn’t giving you a document that says “CIA.” It’s giving you a vibe collage.

The “trafficking / Romania” claim: this one got hit with a reality check

Since the post gestures toward past allegations, it’s worth noting: PolitiFact reviewed a viral claim that Erika Kirk was “banned from Romania” and linked to trafficking and rated it false, describing the lack of evidence supporting the accusation as circulated online.

That doesn’t automatically debunk every rumor people attach to her name. But it does knock out one of the loudest “headline” claims that keeps getting recycled.

So what is this, in plain English?

This is what the internet does best:

Find an old clip.
Highlight a spicy keyword (“psyops”).
Attach it to a current storyline (the “Kirk probe era” narrative).
Use “elite access” as the bridge from media → intelligence.

And to be fair: political media does shape perception. That’s not a conspiracy. That’s the business model.

The real question is whether anyone can produce primary-source evidence (documents, verified affiliations with clear roles, court records, authenticated communications) that moves this from suggestive to substantiated.

Links to include (X post + video)

X post (Project Constitution):