What specific predictions has Julie Green made and how have they held up to factual review?
Executive summary
Julie Green has issued a mix of specific and vague prophecies—ranging from claims that “the real Joe Biden is dead” and Nancy Pelosi “drinks children’s blood” to predictions of financial collapse at CNN and that Prince Charles would murder the Queen—and many of the most specific, verifiable claims have not withstood factual review or are contradicted by available evidence [1] [2] [3]. Other pronouncements are so vague or symbolic that they cannot be reliably tested, and critics point to demonstrable factual errors and political entanglements that complicate her credibility [1] [3] [2].
1. The catalogue: what she actually predicted
Julie Green’s published and recorded prophecies include high-specificity allegations—assertions that President Joe Biden is “no longer alive” and being portrayed by an actor, that Speaker Nancy Pelosi consumes children’s blood, that Chief Justice John Roberts conspired with Jeffrey Epstein, that CNN will “have nothing left,” and a claim that Prince Charles would murder the Queen—alongside more ambiguous items such as geopolitical hints about “Nicaragua” appearing in the news and internal personnel shakeups in leadership [1] [2] [4].
2. Failed or unproven high-impact claims
Major, testable claims have not been substantiated: reporting found “no evidence whatever” that Chief Justice John Roberts consorted with Jeffrey Epstein [1], and the more lurid allegations about Pelosi drinking children’s blood align with QAnon-derived conspiracies and lack credible evidence [2]. The Biden-dead/actor claim and predictions of imminent political executions have not come to pass and are presented by critics as false or demonstrably unfounded [1] [2].
3. The borderline and the vague: unfalsifiable pronouncements
Some prophecies are framed so broadly or allegorically—“Nicaragua: I say this name again will be in your news,” or “someone is being replaced” and “one will say they are stepping down when, in fact, they are being forced out”—that they evade clear falsification; such statements can be retrofitted to many events and therefore resist straightforward factual review [4] [1].
4. Track record and critiques from religious and journalistic observers
Religious commentators and watchdogs have noted mistakes in Green’s predictions and argue that she does not meet stringent scriptural tests for prophetic accuracy; MarketFaith concludes she “has made mistakes in her prophetic predictions” and thus fails to meet a 100% accuracy standard some traditions require [3]. Journalistic outlets such as Rolling Stone and Media Matters emphasize that Green’s pronouncements are often unverified, politically aligned, and in some cases recycled conspiracy material rather than empirically grounded forecasting [1] [2].
5. Political ties and possible incentives shaping predictions
Green’s public profile includes speaking at political events and association with right-wing figures—Doug Mastriano promoted her at a campaign event—and she participates in networks with conspiracy-friendly organizers like Clay Clark, suggesting an audience and incentive structure that may favor politically useful or sensational claims that drive donations and engagement [1] [2]. Media Matters and Rolling Stone flag fundraising and partisan promotion as relevant context for assessing motive and reach [1] [2].
6. How to weigh the evidence: verdict and limits
On specific, testable claims—claims about living or dead public figures, criminal collusion, or crimes like murder—available reporting finds no credible evidence to support Green’s assertions and documents errors and failed prophecies [1] [2] [3]. For vague or symbolic predictions, factual review is inconclusive: such statements cannot be robustly confirmed or falsified from the public record [4] [1]. Reporting limitations include a lack of an exhaustive list of every prediction and independent tracking of outcomes; therefore conclusions are based on prominent, verifiable examples covered by the sources provided [4] [3] [1] [2].